TempestTossed

In order to determine whether or not your belong to a religion, ask yourself these questions: 1) Do you adhere to the will of a spiritual entity? 2) Are you part of a community of people who meet regularly and mutually reinforce a centralized spiritual belief system? 3) Do you make decisions and shape your life around this belief system? If your answers are "yes," then you are part of a religion by the common definition. Consult your favorite English dictionary. You go to church, you pray, you tithe, you worship, you listen to a religious authority, you read a religious text, you believe religious doctrines, you evangelize, and you live by a religious moral code. Christianity may be true or have some things that other religions don't have, but that does not make Christianity dodge the definition of "religion." Religions are NOT defined by: A doctrine of salvation by works Harshly-enforced moral strictures Arrogance Hierarchies Impersonal uncaring Gods These are merely the things we don't like about religions. If your religion doesn't have those, then great, but it is still a religion. There may be some negative connotations to the word "religion" that Christianity does not have, but that does not justify living in denial about it. If you want to be true to yourself, go to a mirror, look yourself in the eyes, and say, "I am part of a religion."

I was asked to start a new thread to answer some questions in an old thread that was hijacked by a swarthy band of suicide apologists. I said that Jesus' one day of torture and three days of "death" doesn't add up as a sufficient substitute for sin that would otherwise be paid for by an eternity in Hell. In response, bgoalie said, 1. It has always been my understanding of Christian doctrine that Jesus is the same omniscient omnipresent omnipotent God as God the Father, except in a human outfit. It is conceivable, I suppose, that Jesus was kept in the dark about his own future. Anything is possible in a story like this. I would like to examine those passages that say that Jesus didn't know the future, and we can compare them to all the times Jesus made prophecies about the future--about his own second coming--and we will see which doctrine makes more sense. Supposing Jesus was kept in the dark, why does that matter? Because of the extra agony at the thought, "I'm a goner!"? 2. If someone takes the punishment for someone else, is it supposed to matter how blameless the substitute is? I mean, shoot, if a thing like that is supposed to matter, then maybe Jesus could have gotten away with a thump on the nose. That would have been more than he deserved. Here is the difficulty for Christianity: if you are going to insist on the truth of a highly unlikely story (and the Jesus story can't get any more impossible), then at least the evidence has got to be darn-tootin' good. For fantastic claims of miracles, the evidence should not be just a set of conundrums that are only answered either through miracles or through natural explanations that haven't yet crossed our minds. We don't yet know how it is the pyramids of Egypt were built with the technology of the time. That isn't smoking-gun evidence for the power of the Egyptian gods. 1. I don't know why women were said to be the first ones to observe the resurrection of Jesus. I also don't see much of a problem with it. As far as I know, they never had the obligation to be legal witnesses. The eleven disciples, as the story goes, were to be the witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus throughout the world. 2. I don't know for sure why the specifics of the ressurection are not mentioned, nor do I see much of a problem with that. My guess is that nobody would believe the specifics of an account that nobody could have witnessed. Nobody alive could be inside a closed tomb. 3. People do sometimes die for what they know is a lie. Take Jim Jones and David Koresh. But that may not be relevant since myth may have mangled the truths about the apostles as much as the truth about Jesus. 4. Since Jesus made himself a central pillar to his own religion, and he got publicly killed, the only way for his religion to live on was a resurrection. I don't know how embarassing a resurrection would be if at all (it seems badass to me). But the religion lived on with a resurrection as its main theme regardless.

Tempest, these things are not easilly or immediately arrived at. Why not give Nik the benefit of your doubt? It is curiosity that leads me to ask my questions, not doubt. He asked for questions, and so I have them. Then why not give him time to figure things out a little first? If he needs time, I will accept that. Not every adult makes the decision to change their entire belief system before they know what they are getting into. That is true only for the born-again types that convert at revival meetings and whatnot.

Tempest, these things are not easilly or immediately arrived at. Why not give Nik the benefit of your doubt? It is curiosity that leads me to ask my questions, not doubt. He asked for questions, and so I have them.

I have questions. What series of events led you to your decision? What sort of Christian would you say you are? What sort of Biblical interpretation and belief system do you adhere to?

It is from Edgar Allen Poe's famous poem, "The Raven." One part of it reads, "Prophet!" said I, "Thing of evil! Prophet still if bird or devil, Whether tempter sent or whether tempest tossed thee from the shore."It is descriptive of my character to say that I am tempest tossed rather than tempter sent. I deliver bad news, but not for any evil purpose.

Mr&Mrs Mike Irish, I do not agree with what you say, but I have nothing to argue about, so the best to you both.

Blindseeker, I really do hate to disappoint you. It is not that I have heard that same exact take on Christianity once before. It is just that such things have become somewhat meaningless to me. It is exegesis. It may have significant meaning to Christians. But to me, it is bunch of speculation on things that cannot ever be observed and can never be tested. Imagine with me a moment a religion that believes that The Lord of the Rings is a metaphor-filled message from God. It is supposedly filled with perfect moral lessons, history, prophecy, and the key to eternal life. Scholars of this religion examine each word under a microscope to detect hidden shades of meaning. There are dueling factions of interpretation. The proponents of each interpretation make their arguments by over-emphasizing some words and phrases while dismissing others as hyperbole. Nothing is testable. Anything can be considered important. Anything can be considered not quite the literal truth. All words have multiple meanings. It is a maddening exercise in futility. I grew up in the church. I say it is the same-old-same-old because what you have shown me seems to be just more of the same old jargon. Christianity for centuries has occupied its most devoted followers to puzzling over the meaning of its sacred anthology. More coherant interpretations have been favored, insensible interpretations have been abandoned, scientific knowledge has forced reinterpretations over the generations of churches, and, though a plain reading of the Bible still seems to be utter nonsense, many churches have a somewhat coherent belief system. Perhaps some scholars have actually managed to tack together the hodge-podge doctrines of the Bible to form a fully non-contradictory yet sufficiently-explanatory interpretation of the Bible. If so, it doesn't matter to me any more than LotR adherents plugging up all the holes in their religion. It is all a dazzling performance in hypothesis inside a guess wrapped in red ribbons. Here is what affects me: logic and observations of our physical world. Naturally-occuring events, processes, patterns, and systems systems exposable to human sense--things I can see with my own pair of eyes. It doesn't matter to me if Jesus was justified in the Spirit or whatever the hell you mean. It is meaningless jargon to me. The Bible means whatever the hell you want. Justification occurs however the hell you please. Satan and the Holy Spirit operate in whatever way is convenient for explanation. Heaven and hell is any place you think it makes sense that it might be. Love is expressed in any way that you think God operates. God operates in absolutely any manner he sees fit, regardless of whether or not it makes the dryest lick of logical sense. I am telling you this as an explanation for my lack of response. I feel guilty for not studying what you wrote. It just pains me to read it.

This topic creates some entertaining speculation. What sort of animals are in heaven, and what happens to the rest of them? Are all dinosaurs going to be there in heaven? Trylobites? Saber-toothed tigers? What about the microscopic parasites and cuckoo birds? Cuckoos are the birds that lays their eggs one at a time in another bird's nest, and then the young invading hatchling pushes the rest of the chicks out of the nest while feeding from the unsuspecting foster mother. Surely, such birds wouldn't be allowed in heaven. Such behavior is a result of the sin of Adam and Eve, I have been told. Maybe cuckoo birds and all the predatory/parasitic animals go to Hell. If so, the T. Rex would go to heaven. There is growing speculation that he was never a predator at all, but a scavenger.

The letter T does not work efficiently on his keyboard, I presume.

I have not read the whole post. I have only read a portion of it, and, because it so closely resembles what I have heard before throughout my life, I fear that reading it completely may be too wastefully time-consuming. Restrictions on post length cut off the end of your post. For your service, I have sought out your original post, which you ended with: Friend, it is to our shame that it is so hard for us to endure a little hardship and resist a little temptation. Especially when God has promised no temptation would be so great we could not overcome it or be given a way to escape it. WE should esteem the "reproach of Christ [YahShua] greater riches" than all the riches of the world. We should rejoice and count it all joy when we are considered worthy to suffer for His name. But do we? Come on. Let's pick up our crosses and follow Him. Unlike YahShua, we deserve our cross. Without Him our cross would have only been to our shame, but now, today, it can be to His glory! Let's do as He says we can and "overcome the wicked one by the blood of the Lamb" and the word of our testimony. Pick up your cross! "Worthy is the Lamb which was slain to receive glory and honor and power!" AWAKE! MAKE READY! THE BRIDEGROOM IS COMING! Awake, you sleeper! Awake! Arise and make yourself ready! It's time to put aside those childish pursuits and your endless musing with vanities. Awake, I say! Do you not realize the time in which you are privileged to live? Now more than ever can the sound of the bridegroom's coming be heard. Surely He draws near. The need to purify yourself has grown greater, for the time allotted has grown shorter. The dark of night has already conquered the eastern horizon as the sun glow fades in the west. The king had long ago sent out His invitation. He proclaimed to all, "COME!" Yes come. Make haste! Don't you know that if you refuse to comply with the King that His anger will be kindled against you? Yet in His longsuffering He says, "Come! Come to the greatest of all feasts! There are food and wine and much song and dance. Joyful dance to celebrate the wedding of all weddings. Come and attend My wedding." The bridegroom has long been ready, yet He has patiently waited. He has waited for you! Arise therefore you sleeper! So much remains for you to do. TODAY you must prepare. Set aside simplicity and mature! Strive to increase your knowledge and understanding so you may be completely resolved to live your life solely for the King of kings! Rise up and cast out reservation and hesitation, these are foes have hindered and killed countless before you. Arise! Answer His call! It's your only reasonable response, and you know it. "Awake thou that sleepest, arise from the dead, Christ [YahShua] shall give thee light. Awake to righteousness and sin not. For some [of you] have not the [intimate] knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame." (Ephesians 6:14, I Corinthians 15:34) Live For YahShua The King!!

Reverend Durnan, I am an atheist. Are you on a mission to save atheists, or are you on a mission to protect Christians from atheist rhetoric? I am guessing the latter, since the former cannot be achieved with such ridicule and condemnation. If you are trying to protect Christians from atheist rhetoric, then you are failing because of the condemnation, incoherence, and apparent lack of truth and reason. That may work in tent revival meetings, but it does not seem to be working here. I will respond to your points merely as an exercise in argumentation, and you would best to read it to upgrade your knowledge. You made your first point by alluding to the old cosmological argument, or "first cause" argument--every event must have a cause that precedes it in time, and the only thing that can cause the existence of the universe is God. At least that is what I presume you had in mind when you asked, "But then, pray tell, from whence cometh that seashore?" My response is that the existence of the universe is not necessarily an event. We don't see any particles of matter coming into existence from any discernable cause. From a naturalistic perspective, it is plausible to suspect that the universe always existed and never had a beginning. Some say that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, and it certainly seems to be the beginning of the observable universe, but the whole universe could be much bigger and grander. But, supposing that the Big Bang is the beginning of the whole universe, you might capitalize on that with, "Ah HA! So then, pray tell, from whence came the Big Bang??" The answer would have to be that there was no cause. This is a sort of doctrine that is certainly not foreign to Christianity. Pray tell, from whence cometh God? Your second point is made by saying that atheists don't know everything there is to possibly know in the whole universe, therefore they can't possibly be justified in believing for certain that there is no God. My response is that I need only adequate knowledge about the idea of God to know with conclusive (not absolute) certainty that God does not exist. The belief in God fulfills fundamental human hopes in lives that are otherwise often hopeless--hope for a purpose, hope for love, hope for sustained pleasure, hope for long life, hope for universal justice, hope for importance, hope for simple ways of explaining their environment, and hope for a certain guide to living life. Part of that is why Voltaire said, "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer"--if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Since God so closely resembles a creation of the wishful-believing human mind, and since I have seen no evidence for God, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that God does not exist. But that is all a lengthier alternative to a shorter and equally-effective rebuttal: Do you know absolutely everything in the universe? If not, then why are you so certain that there is no Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer? Your third point is, "Charles Colson states that the heaping ash remains at Auschwitz, the killing fields of S.E. Asia & the Middle east, and the frozen wastes of the Gulags in the world should serve to vividly remind an "atheist" that the City of Man is hardly enuf; we must also seek the City of God. " I have, this time, three points to make in return. 1) Atheists were responsible for the atrocities of the Soviet Union and Southeast Asia, but Nazi Germany was predominantly Christian. It is uncertain what religion Hitler was, but he certainly used Christian propaganda. "Gott Mit Uns" was a popular war slogan meaning, "God With Us." I don't mean that as an argument against the belief in God, but you may want to rethink your own argument and focus instead exclusively on communist atrocites. Also, I am puzzled on what reminder manifests as heaping ash remains in the Middle East. In that region, I am aware only of wars and slayings that went on historically and go on presently between professed Muslims, Christians, and Jews. 2) On the point of communist atrocities, I don't have such an easy rebuttal, because the perpetrators were indeed atheists. But I can still rest easy knowing that the ideology of atheism did not motivate the atrocities. Atheism is not an ideology. It is simply a single belief that there is no God. The communist atrocities were motivated by an ideology of communism and aided by a system of hero-worship totalitarianism. Atheism was a tool to unite the masses under one ideology, but atheism was not the ideology. The Soviet flag had a hammer and sickle, representing the power of the working class. It was not a symbol of atheism. So I would say that atheism remains innocent of motivating great atrocities. The same cannot be said for Christianity. The heaping ash remains of European witch burnings, the dungeons of the Spanish inquisition, and the blood-soaked sands of the Middle Eastern crusades should serve to vividly remind us all. 3) If that previous sentence were an argument against God, it would not hold. The existence of God is independent of the behavior of human beings. That is a third reason that your argument about atheism does not hold. Even if atheism motivates extreme violence, it would not relate to whether or not God exists.

Yes,but what does that prove? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Absolutely nothing relevant.

By this you refer to the many thousands who do take the Bible literally? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> More like many hundreds, I'd say. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would disagree. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You could be right, and if you are, I would still contend that it is a very small percentage even if it is in the thousands.

By this you refer to the many thousands who do take the Bible literally? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> More like many hundreds, I'd say.