Why nothing is ever resolved

[khalou]

Well I think speaking as a Christian we should clear up misconceptions about the faith itself. Also we should clear up issues which are not part of the faith, but possibly only a tradition. I would agree on that.

But Christianity will never be proved by the evidence based on human logic, at the center of our faith, the very center and reason for the faith is the fact of a human corpse which rose from the grave. Not a spiritual corpse, not a spiritual or conceptual mythology, but a real human who existed in history who witnesses claimed rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.

We just can't get around that very illogical fact that contradicts most of modern science, and a fact that if taken away from Christianity, then Christianity is worth nothing, and essentially useless. If one is looking for a clear moral code, then we could find a more thought out and much clearer moral code than exists within our Christian scriptures.

I do think we should treat non-believers with respect and understanding and not denigration however.

First, let's deal with your assertion that human logic will never disprove Christianity. Of course it won't. I agree.

But what I find interesting in your post is that you believe that the evidence of some sort of human corpse rising from the dead. On what do you base this evidence? I am unaware of any such thing.

Secondly, how is it that you suppose that Christianity offers any kind of moral code? The definition of Christian morality differs from person to person, and never achieves the basic definition that it transcend that of human rationalization.

If a God exists, and His morality is transcendental to human intellect, then there should be things that don't make sense in His morality. We are sinful creatures, and have no idea how to live justly. How is it, then, that every Christian who speaks about morality is willing to allow those who wear cotton-polyether blends also condemn homosexuality? Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible in the OT in the same place that wearing two different threads in clothing is condemned. If Christians were willing to be consistent and condemn polyether blends along with homosexuality, then I might be convinced that Christian morality transcends my own ability to determine what is right and wrong.

But, things being as they are, I have a problem deciding how some Christians will allow homosexuality, and others won't.

What is your shirt made of?

k

What you speak of comes from the Old Testament. Does it make sense to you to lump what a shirt is made of along with homosexuality? Do they seem equal to you? They don't seem of equal importance to me but obviously 2000 years they must thought that they were equal. Does that mean that we have to believe they are equal? I don't think so. We have to use our brain to see beyond 2000 years ago and now and make a reasonable conclusion. I personally conclude that it doesn't matter what my shirt is made of. And I personally conclude that homosexuality does matter but in this, people are concerned, not cloth, so we need to come to a resonable conlusion. I personally conclude that a person is more important than homosexuality.

So I guess I personally rank in order of importance, most important first......person first, second in importance, homosexuality, third in importance cloth(also last in importance).

My understanding of what khalou is saying is we Christians seem to rank sin in different catagories which is in itself a sin. Sin is sin, no matter how trivial it is in our eyes it is all sin in God's eyes. There is no measurement to sin it all leads to death and destruction! Am I wrong or right khalou?

Yes.

k

[Prodigalson123]

Well I think speaking as a Christian we should clear up misconceptions about the faith itself. Also we should clear up issues which are not part of the faith, but possibly only a tradition. I would agree on that.

But Christianity will never be proved by the evidence based on human logic, at the center of our faith, the very center and reason for the faith is the fact of a human corpse which rose from the grave. Not a spiritual corpse, not a spiritual or conceptual mythology, but a real human who existed in history who witnesses claimed rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.

We just can't get around that very illogical fact that contradicts most of modern science, and a fact that if taken away from Christianity, then Christianity is worth nothing, and essentially useless. If one is looking for a clear moral code, then we could find a more thought out and much clearer moral code than exists within our Christian scriptures.

I do think we should treat non-believers with respect and understanding and not denigration however.

First, let's deal with your assertion that human logic will never disprove Christianity. Of course it won't. I agree.

But what I find interesting in your post is that you believe that the evidence of some sort of human corpse rising from the dead. On what do you base this evidence? I am unaware of any such thing.

His appearance to 500 witnesses after His death? that isn't evidence? I'm not interested in physical science, but legal protocol, and jurisprudence I am interested in. If it takes a few witnesses to convict someone of a crime, how many does it take to substantiate an event? I think 500 is more then enough, and that doesn't include the 2 women who originally saw Him, and the 12 apostles. BTW the fact wasn't disputed by the Jewish historian Josephus, the leading man of his day in that role. And the Jews did have sufficient motive to look for the charade if it were present

Secondly, how is it that you suppose that Christianity offers any kind of moral code? The definition of Christian morality differs from person to person, and never achieves the basic definition that it transcend that of human rationalization.See, now that is just a ridiculous statement. Look at the history of the time, and Christianity (Judaism which Christianity is based on) was distinct in numerous ways. Look at the admonitions of the age, they are usually accompanied with "Thou shalt not ____ as the (insert name of group of people here)" Thus not just coming up with a prescribed course of action, but also contrasting it with an example that the people of the day would be able to associate

If a God exists, and His morality is transcendental to human intellect, then there should be things that don't make sense in His morality.I think the whole concept of God sending His son to die for sinners doesn't seem to make sense to a great number of people. Circular reasoning here. We are sinful creatures, and have no idea how to live justly. How is it, then, that every Christian who speaks about morality is willing to allow those who wear cotton-polyether blends also condemn homosexuality? Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible in the OT in the same place that wearing two different threads in clothing is condemned. If Christians were willing to be consistent and condemn polyether blends along with homosexuality, then I might be convinced that Christian morality transcends my own ability to determine what is right and wrong.

But, things being as they are, I have a problem deciding how some Christians will allow homosexuality, and others won't.

What is your shirt made of?This is a perfect example of trying to muddy the waters instead of speaking to issues. If you don't like the fact that the OT (and btw the NT also without some obscure reference to clothing in Romans, Galatians) established that God abhors homosexuality, calling it an abomination, then speak to that. God made specific standards for Israel to keep because they were His chosen people. The Levites had different regulations then the tribe of Judah because their role was different, but there are regulations that transcend to all God's people. Christians who don't agree with the basics of the faith, I contend, are not the examples that should be used to answer whether the doctrine is right, appropriate and/or just. A Democrat that doesn't believe in the platform of the party is a poor example to argue about the validity of the ethos. It's a dishonest endeavor. Ask someone who is consistent with the doctrine of Christianity about it and then make your judgements. Homosexuality is banned by the Bible, the laws and regulations that are outlined in the tradition of the faith, we believe, came from God Himself. If someone doesn't agree with the tenants of the faith, they are free to do so. But they will have to answer to God eventually. When there is no command then the believer is free to do as their conscience dictates. There are 3 circumstances to make a stance on. Commanded, positional or conditional. If something is commanded to do, or forbidden to not do, then that is the standard we are to keep.

Romans 1:20-32

20. Since the beginning of the world, the unseen qualities of God--His unseen power and His divinity--could be clearly seen and understood from what God made. They have no excuse.

21. Because, even though they knew God, they didn't give God the glory that He should have. They weren't thankful, either. Instead, their thinking became nonsense and their foolish hearts became dark.

22. They acted as if they were wise, but they became fools.

23. They exchanged the glory of an undying God for something else--idols that look like men, birds, animals with four feet, or reptiles. All these die.

24. So, God handed them over to the sinful desires of their hearts. They became sexually unclean, degrading their own bodies with one another.

25. They exchanged God's truth for a lie. Instead of worshiping God, the Maker, they worshiped and served something which was made. (God is praised forever. Amen.)

26. This is why God handed them over to immoral, unnatural drives. Even their females exchanged their natural sexual drives for unnatural ones.

27. In the same way, males stopped feeling natural sexual drives for females and burned up in their lust for one another-- males with males. They do what is shameful, but they must receive in themselves the consequences for this error.

28. Also, since they didn't want to allow God to stay within their circle of knowledge, God handed them over to worthless thinking, to do things they should never do.

29. They are filled with all kinds of wrong, with evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of jealousy, murder, fighting, tricks, malice, gossiping,

30. slander, hatred for God, insults, pride, boasting, and new ways to do evil. They don't obey their parents.

31. They always break promises. They are stupid and heartless. They show no pity for others.

32. They know that what God said is right-- that people who practice such things deserve death--but they do them anyway. And they even encourage others who are practicing the same things.

If there is no commandment against the act, or there has been a decree of freedom from a former law, then we are free to do as we see fit. But...if the believer feels that to do something is wrong, then to go through with it is a sin(positional)

Romans 14:1-3

1. Accept the who is weak in faith, but don't argue about opinions.

2. One person believes that he is allowed to eat anything. But the weaker eats nothing but vegetables.

3. The one who eats must not look down on the one who does not eat. And, the one who does not eat must not condemn the one who eats, because God accepts him, too.

Don't do something that you are free to do if it will cause a problem for a fellow believer. If someone has a problem with alcohol, I won't be serving wine at the dinner table to tempt them (conditional).

Romans 14:20-23

20. Don't destroy God's work for the sake of food. Everything is pure. But, it is wrong for a person to eat anything that might trip someone else.

21. It is better if you don't eat meat, drink wine, or do anything that might trip your brother.

22. You have your own faith. Keep it between yourself and God! The person who doesn't feel condemned is happy. He what he is doing.

23. But the person who has doubts feels condemned, if he goes ahead and eats, because he is not sure. A person must be sure that everything he does is right, or else it is sin.

So, if someone who claims to be a Christian doesn't have the same standards as another, then the reason might be conditional or positional, but if they don't agree with a commanded behavior, they are wrong and in sin, and why would you use them to judge the whole group, unless they happen to fall conveniently into what you are looking to disprove?

k

Edited October 23, 2006 by Prodigalson123