Christians are all-consumed with the “worship” factor. Seems to me the god they are serving is self absorbed to need that much attention.
As for the difference between the old and new testaments, why didn’t “god” just do the new testament approach in the first place? Wouldn’t you say that was somewhat an oversight?
Edit:
And maybe I do know a little about what is on the “other side”. I used to have views that firmly gave life “sides”. “Sides” lead to conflict. Not only between people, but personally. We have “sides” of the political isle. We have “sides” on right-to-life. We have “sides” on gun control. We have “sides” on same sex marriage.
In fact, even religions have “sides” against each other. The Baptists don’t agree with the Methodists. The Methodists don’t agree with the 7th Day Adventists. The 7th Day Adventists don’t agree with the Lutherans. The Lutherans don’t agree with The Church Of God. The Church of God doesn’t agree with the Assemblies of God. The Assemblies of God DEFINITELY do not agree with the Pentecostals. They all look down their noses at the Mormons, when if you study Mormonism, it is not far removed from the things most evangelical Christian churches. How does one divine truth amongst all the beliefs derived from one book?
Interpretation is everything to each of the many divisions of Christianity. How are they so diverse? And Why? Religion is a microcosm of human relations. It amazes me the lengths people will go to to be “right”. And wanting to be “right” happens when there are sides.
I choose not to live life in the boundaries of “sides”.
Unless of course you are a democrat. Then you’re just flat out wrong…
I agree with that. I’ve wondered that too. I haven’t studied any about that. But taking a guess. Id say it has to do with prophecies being fulfilled and timing. The questions lead on. Why does he need that? Maybe as a “proof” or some evidence he exists so we can have this argument here. It’s not empirical but maybe it’s a little bump for faith.
I think it’s very closed minded to say “there isn’t a god” when there’s isnt proof either way. I don’t necessarily believe Christianity. I think things are relative and I like noetic theory and science so maybe we created God lol. Would that still make him a God?
When I see things like math (my fave subject) and how ordered it is and how it’s found in everything. Hard to argue that there isn’t a design or structure to the universe. For me anyway.
The Bible was written by man. Even if it was inspired by a supernatural force it is likely to not even be able to comprehend what it’s being told.
Therefore, the Bible is subject to err.
There is distinct cultural differences in the writings of various works within the Bible.
Had the Bible been written today, it would be an entirely different book.
Simply because it’s an ancient manuscript doesn’t provide any mysterious value to it. Our present day will one day be ancient, and the fart I had today will stink all the same throughout time.
Its a win win for people who can afford it… You pay with freedom, money, time and effort… But yes, catholics have the larger risk:reward ratio system ever created.
However not everybody have born to become a sheep… Others prefer to think for themselves, no matter how painfully this can be
It always brings a smile to my face when someone uses this argument against Christianity. Correct, the Bible is written by man, but it is inspired by God. I’m not sure why you have offered the possibility that it may have been written by a supernatural force.
This argument of whether the Bible is historically accurate and inspired by God has been debated and proven to be true. I’m not going to repeat such a debate (for the sake of not writing 10000 word long posts), but instead refer you to an article which I feel adequately covers the subject:
I’m not sure how you have arrived at such a generalisation. I personally worship God because of his loving nature and because of all He has done for me. I do not worship him under some command to do so. I’m intrigued by non-believers’ consistent comparison of God to humans and our human nature, when God is by definition a higher power, perfect and omniscient. If anyone in existence did have a right to be selfish with regards to the attention of humans, it would be God.
As for the difference between the old and new testaments, why didn’t “god” just do the new testament approach in the first place? Wouldn’t you say that was somewhat an oversight?
Edit:
And maybe I do know a little about what is on the “other side”. I used to have views that firmly gave life “sides”. “Sides” lead to conflict. Not only between people, but personally. We have “sides” of the political isle. We have “sides” on right-to-life. We have “sides” on gun control. We have “sides” on same sex marriage.
In fact, even religions have “sides” against each other. The Baptists don’t agree with the Methodists. The Methodists don’t agree with the 7th Day Adventists. The 7th Day Adventists don’t agree with the Lutherans. The Lutherans don’t agree with The Church Of God. The Church of God doesn’t agree with the Assemblies of God. The Assemblies of God DEFINITELY do not agree with the Pentecostals. They all look down their noses at the Mormons, when if you study Mormonism, it is not far removed from the things most evangelical Christian churches. How does one divine truth amongst all the beliefs derived from one book?
Interpretation is everything to each of the many divisions of Christianity. How are they so diverse? And Why? Religion is a microcosm of human relations. It amazes me the lengths people will go to to be “right”. And wanting to be “right” happens when there are sides.
I choose not to live life in the boundaries of “sides”.
Unless of course you are a democrat. Then you’re just flat out wrong…
Come on MT, did you bother to read my post about the Old and New testaments? There is no different “approach” applied in each, God is precisely the same God throughout the Bible and throughout time. He did not do a “rethink” about his approach and then change his mind. The OT has it’s purposes (which I have already laid out), one of which is to prophesy the coming of Christ. God had one approach - sending Jesus to die for our sin. There is no other approach. If you could perhaps elaborate? If you remove the OT entirely, the NT makes little sense.
Regarding the various denominations within Christianity, this is a concept developed and inspired by man. There is no mention of denominations in the Bible, thus it was clearly established by man adding his own spin on the Bible. Jesus teaches us unity as a church and as Christians, he is not in favour of divisions within the church. Here’s what Paul said about it: 1 Corinthians 1:10 - “I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.”
Some Christians may argue that each denomination is correct in its beliefs, but the various man-made spins which have been pinned onto what the Bible teaches are invariably incorrect and in conflict with the words of Jesus. This is why it is so painful to hear atheists and other non-believers specifically referring to Catholics in particular when they mention Christians. In the mind of an atheist, Christianity = Catholicism. They don’t see further than that, and thanks to movies in particular, I can understand why!
Catholicism is the worst spin-off from Christianity because of the multitude of man-made religious practices which they have added onto the words of the Bible.
The reality of the situation is that as Christians we are set free from sin. I personally cannot tell you what the consequence of denominational faiths will be, only God knows that. But I do know that anyone who teaches something contrary to the Bible is wrong. Galations 1:6 - “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!”.
Thankfully, we are redeemed of sin by Jesus. Thus, I am sure that these Christians of various faiths will ultimately receive eternal life. As for the consequence of following man’s own creations - like I said, I have no idea what it would mean to be “under God’s curse”, but this certainly does not mean that they will burn in hell.
I am part of a non-denominational church (perhaps you have not heard of these). We only believe what the Bible tells us. No bells and whistles added.
Here’s a prime example of the Hollywood-inspired “Christianity = Catholicism” belief. It seems that you are as much of a “sheep” as us Christians supposedly are good sir.
What has god done for you that would not have happened without him supposedly being involved in your life? I’m not being argumentative, I just don’t believe that there is anything that a “god” does, that isn’t self realization in the first place.
Call it what you want, positive thinking works. But there doesn’t have to be an all supreme being attached to a good attitude.
Yes. And I do not agree. It was not the same approach, nor was the god of the old testament benevolent. He was vindictive, and territorial. Ask Moses who didn’t get to see the promised land because he “struck” the stone instead of speaking to it to bring water to the people. Not a very forgiving god. And when the Israelites finally did get to the promised land, they took no prisoners. Jericho. The Phillistines. The Caananites… A ton of them. They killed everyone in their way. Men, women, and children. Quite a warlike attitude for someone that later told his followers to go forth into all nations and preach love.
What about the terrors put onto Job? God and Satan arguing over the devoutness of a believer, and god says go ahead. Screw with him. Do your worst, you just can’t kill him. He’ll still love me.
Now, while I admire Job’s perseverance, I don’t understand the cavalier approach of a “loving” god in that case. That god sounded rather narcissistic.
Would you do that to your kid?
Peter and Paul practically hated each other. They couldn’t agree on a damned thing.
Catholics were technically the first form of Christianity. They were no spin offs. Look it up…
Define “sin”.
Because I choose not to believe, am I a sinner no matter how congenial and law abiding I may be? It seems to me the whole concept of “sin” is arbitrary based on personal beliefs and sense of morality. And always justification for penance or necessitating repentance of some sort.
Jesus said “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. He didn’t even throw one.
A bible that has been translated, and revised ad nauseum. And even a non-denominational approach still has a core belief system. All the other churches mentioned earlier believe exactly what the same bible tells them too. No bells and whistles added.
There is definitely a correlation between something one does not understand, and deity. As was pointed out earlier in a chart, the less educated a culture is, the more they believe in something greater. I’m not calling believers less educated. I have lots of friends who are Christian. None of them are dullards. They just choose to live life believing.
But if one of us were able to go back in time and visit a far less technologically advanced civilization, even the knowledge that comes with a basic current grade school education of things like space, geology, and geography would practically make someone a god. Especially if they were equipped with something as simple as a Bic lighter, or a flashlight.
You’re basically just guessing/assuming. If it doesn’t happen then that must be a no. It’s open ended. Can’t really use it to pray for something like purple elephants as an argument against it, because the religious person would just respond with: “Well, I guess he just said no to the purple elephant. Darn, and I was going to call him nosey”
I’ve heard the argument as far as christian beliefs go, are mutations. Mutations being faster.
An example being the albino creatures in caves. Like the albino fish. There was a mutation that sparked this characteristic, and because, well, nothing can see in the caves, it didn’t matter the fish were white and stood out.
No predators that could pick off the white fish, the mutation spread.
This is a simplistic view, but I figured I’d throw it out there.
I apologise to Clint and whoever else that looks to this thread for political discussions only. I am only defending attacks on my character and on my beliefs. If it could have been moved to a different thread I would gladly have left this one. Apologies for the hijacking.
Having seen countless individuals healed of sicknesses and other ailments before my very eyes, couples who were told that they will never have children get exactly that, divine protection against criminals etc, the list goes on, I think I’ll keep believing in my God and his provision, thanks. If it’s positive thinking achieving all those things, so be it. In my mind God still exists regardless.
Yes. And I do not agree. It was not the same approach, nor was the god of the old testament benevolent. He was vindictive, and territorial. Ask Moses who didn’t get to see the promised land because he “struck” the stone instead of speaking to it to bring water to the people. Not a very forgiving god. And when the Israelites finally did get to the promised land, they took no prisoners. Quite a warlike attitude for someone that later told his followers to go forth into all nations. Jericho. The Phillistines. The Caananites… A ton of them. They killed everyone in their way. Not to mention the terrors put onto Job. God and Satan arguing over the devoutness of a believer, and god says go ahead. Screw with him. Do your worst, you just can’t kill him. He’ll still love me.
Now, while I admire Job’s perseverance, I don’t understand the cavalier approach of a “loving” god in that case. That god sounded rather narcissistic.
Would you do that to your kid?
You neglect to mention that God showered Job with exponentially more blessings than he did before the entire incident. Nice. I think again you are misunderstanding the entire purpose behind including such a story in the Bible. I think the same thing happens to people even today, I think you could gain a great deal of insight from a Christian who has been through a huge trial only to come out faithfully praising God and trusting in Him. They are generally exceptional people. Point is, trials make us signficantly stronger in our faith. For an unbeliever, a trial is God throwing down punishment on them for some unknown reason. For a Christian, a trial is God authoring and perfecting our faith so that we are lacking in nothing. You’ll be hard pressed to find atheists who are “lacking in nothing” in this same context.
So since us humans wrote the Bible and edit it frequently (according to many atheists), why don’t we just take out all those parts in the OT? It would help us win arguments against atheists and other non-believers. Seems strange that we don’t “fix” all these things that are “wrong” with the Bible when according to you guys, that’s all that we ever do.
It does not take a genius to see that God was both loving and benevolent in the OT. In any event, I can see that this argument will never go anywhere because no matter what, most atheists will always read the Bible with a completely one-track mind, focused on finding any reason to discredit it. Unfortunately this includes you as well. If I validate one verse of scripture, you move to the next, going on and on and on until the entire Bible has been “demystified”. Talk about moving the goal-posts the whole time…
Peter and Paul practically hated each other. They couldn’t agree on a damned thing.
Can I ask you a question? Why are critics of Christianity so hopelessly awful at reading and understanding the Bible?
Peter and Paul did not hate each other, if you can prove otherwise I’d be happy to agree with you. The dispute between Peter and Paul revolved around one simple issue - Peter was called to preach the gospel of Jesus to the Jews, Paul was called to preach the same gospel to the Gentiles. Peter (for a while) incorrectly believed that the gospel pertained to Jews only (he somehow missed all of Jesus’ teachings to the contrary). Thankfully, he was subsequently corrected not only by Paul, but by God in Acts 11:1 - The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”
Starting from the beginning, Peter told them the whole story: “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was. I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles and birds. Then I heard a voice telling me, ‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’ “I replied, ‘Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth. The voice spoke from heaven a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’ This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.
v18 - When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.”
If you would do yourself a favour and actually read the Bible, you’ll see that Paul and Peter’s teachings are PRECISELY THE SAME. The ONLY difference between them is what I pointed out before, Peter thought it was for Jews only. Where you come up with the idea that these 2 people hated each other is a mystery to perhaps even the most exceptional theologian.
Catholics were technically the first form of Christianity. They were no spin offs. Look it up…
Are you kidding me? It is becoming clear that you too are another one of the “insult the Bible without actually having ever read it” brigade. Was Jesus a Catholic? Were his disciples Roman Catholics? Did they follow the traditions applied by Catholics today (repenting before a priest, appointing a Pope, making virgin Mary into a saint?) - I think not. If I am not mistaken, the very first Christian “church” in the universal sense was founded by none other than Jesus’ disciples. I cannot see a single reference to Catholicism even once throughout the entire Bible. I dare say you should be the one to “look it up”. The Roman Catholic Church was created by Emperor Constantine and Bishop Silvester in the year 314 A.D. Thing is, oh, 2 centuries after Christ?
Define “sin”.
Because I choose not to believe am I a sinner no matter how congenial, and law abiding I may be? It seems to me the whole concept of “sin” is arbitrary based on personal beliefs and sense of morality.
Not sure what you are talking about here. I said Christians are free from sin. Apologies for the ambiguity. Perhaps I should rather have said “Christians are free from the grip of sin on our lives”. Everyone is guilty of sin. As an atheist, you are not concerned with the Bible so of course you can call yourself “sin-less”. That is your prerogative. Whether or not you are actually right, well, I guess only time can tell.
A bible that has been translated, and revised ad nauseum. And even a non-denominational approach still has a core belief system. All the other churches mentioned earlier believe exactly what the same bible tells them too. No bells and whistles added.
Nice. So you’re of exactly the same mind as mastergunner. Can you please provide me with some kind of evidence that the Bible as it stands today is inaccurate and different from earlier versions?
I’m intrigued by your statement that a non-denominational church still has a core belief system. If you are referring to our belief in Christ, then correct. Let’s take an extreme “spin-off” example, a Lesbian and Gay church. Do they accept the Bible in it’s entirety or do they manipulate it to suit their man-made beliefs? Mormons - do they take the Bible as the only word of God? No, they have their own separate “guide” which suits their beliefs. I’m struggling to see any fact in your contention.
