Thread: Christianity

As an evangelical Christian, plenty of my time is spent thinking and exploring the nature of my faith. Thus, I have both a moderate knowledge of it and an interest to attain more. So, does anyone want to talk about it? I don't want to get into whether it is true, but rather what happens when you get in-depth about it.

Likewise, I don't want to argue about the merits and values of different beliefs. Rather, I want to explore Christianity and its modern concepts that have become a staple for the Christian faith.

And yes, I argue by using the bible. It is the Word of God; fallible human theories and argument can do little against it. It requires interpretation, but it cannot be ignored or twisted to our own ends.

One point of speculation for me is the number of Christian peoples there are: Baptists, Evangelicals, Anglicans, Catholics... the list goes on. We all share the same name, but if you look deep into it, we have very different beliefs, about life, God, and most importantly, Salvation. On such a matter I am exclusive because the bible is exclusive. To quote Ephesians...

'For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.'

How anyone can believe good works can save them is beyond me, but then again, that is why I am opening this thread.

Let's begin by exploring the foundations of your Christian beliefs, so that we can have a better idea of the parameters of the nonargumentative exploratory discourse you wish to pursue.

What is your specific Christian sect/denomination:

What is the foundation of your religious beliefs (The Bible alone, the teachings of religious scholars, etc - my church, for example, relies on scripture, tradition and reason):

Do you believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God:

Do you believe that there is only one correct interpretation of the Bible:

What, do you believe, is the purpose of the Bible:

Do you believe that your particular sect/denomination has divined the true meaning of the Bible and that its interpretations are authoritative:

Do you believe that you have divined the true meaning of the Bible and that your interpretations are authoritative:

Do you believe that not all sects/denominations which call themselves Christian are actually Christian:
If so, which ones:
Why:

What is your position on the Enlightenment:

That ought to do for a start.

Originally Posted by Cadence

Catholics (debatably)

Debatably?

I'm a Christian -- and I was thinking that it might be nice to have a reasonable discussion about it. But you immediately lost me with this comment -- especially after you said "I don't want to argue about the merits and values of different beliefs."

Later.

I knew a man who was an atheist. One could search Rose Bowl Stadium the day the big game was played and not find a person more honorable. All the religious and non-religious mean nothing. What makes the person shine is the charity, compassion, and love he or she has in the heart.

Religion is a tool of war & enslavement.

Judaism came about to bring together a wide extended family, and to forge them into a community against their neighbors.
Catholicism came about to subject people to their hierarchy.
Islam came about as a direct tool of war.
Then you have the pedophiliac God-cults (see Waco - and some more 'accepted' one God faiths).


And we see religion formed as a control measure outside of these three-in-one faiths.

We have the Nordic religions fighting with stories on their 'Gods'. The god Tyr has is hand bitten off in a propaganda war between Tyr & Odin followers. It was of course the last great propaganda act between those two camps, for Tyr quickly became a minor god, and Odin's status ascended through former Tyr follower regions.


On the bible, the books of Saul/Paul are inconsistent with Jesus and his example as preached in the first books of the new testament. So to call yourself a Christian, by all rights you have to refute half of the new testament. Failure to do so makes you a Paulian, not a Christian.

Not all religious people seek war. Your statement is foolish.


Especially from one who apparently thrives on common sense.

It is the Word of God; fallible human theories and argument can do little against it.

The only theory and argument I have against it is that it is a loose collection of spiritual works written by separate human authors over a vast span of time. I know your religion generally (cleverly) says that proof is a bad thing, but that just sounds like a scam to me. Unless I have clear proof suggesting to me that the Bible is infallible and written by a god (which seems laughable at the moment), I will continue to treat it as I do: an amazing text detailing the culture and belief of the times and telling some great stories that provide some excellent thinking material. Much on the same lines as the Qur'an, the works of Milton, the works of Shakespeare, and several others.

You call me fallible, I'll call you fallible, it'll go back and forth for a while. This is a debate forum on the internet after all -- what else can be expected?

If you are interested in discussing different values and faiths, I'll admit that my belief is in flux somewhere between atheist, agnostic, deist, and quaker. I'll also happily discuss my quaker beliefs with you and talk about how they differ from your evangelical beliefs. Any questions? My main questions is how you could possibly consider the Bible infallible. How do you know that it is the word of god?

To quote a song about George Fox (an important quaker guy) "Will you swear on the Bible?" "I will not," said he, "for the truth is more holy than a book to me."

Originally Posted by Rustgold

Religion is a tool of war & enslavement.

That's true and makes for a semi-compelling statement at first blush. Christianity was used in the past as a tool -- as means of controlling the populace and as a justification for war.

The operative word is “used” – meaning used as means to an end that really didn’t have anything to do with Christianity at all. That’s not the case today in most developed nations. People are free to believe or not believe, worship or not worship. In the U.S., even laws that are based somewhat on Christian beliefs and morality are falling by the wayside.

So my response to your comment, as it applies to Christianity is – so what?

Guys, guys. We're writers, right? That means we ought to also have a beyond basic reading comprehension.

If a poster starts a thread and says that he wants to discuss cherry pies, and doesn't want to talk about other pies, or cakes or anything else, why would you immediately post that the goodness of a dessert doesn't depend upon whether it includes cherry pie (robinjazz), that cherry pie is unhealthy and tastes bad (rustgold), or that you like don't like cherry pie, but are starting to like apple pie and are happy to compare the two (j.w.olson).

Come on, really?

On the other hand, "How do you make a cherry pie and do you think that is the only way to make one" (me) and "If you say maraschino cherries aren't cherries, I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion" (JoeB) are legitimate and fit within the parameters of the requested discussion.

Basic courtesy and reading comprehension. Let's try a bit harder, folks.

Originally Posted by alanmt

Guys, guys. We're writers, right? That means we ought to also have a beyond basic reading comprehension.

If a poster starts a thread and says that he wants to discuss cherry pies, and doesn't want to talk about other pies, or cakes or anything else, why would you immediately post that the goodness of a dessert doesn't depend upon whether it includes cherry pie (robinjazz), that cherry pie is unhealthy and tastes bad (rustgold), or that you like don't like cherry pie, but are starting to like apple pie and are happy to compare the two (j.w.olson).

Come on, really?

He started a somewhat riling thread on a debate forum and then said he didn't want to hear different points of view or dissenters, in fact he didn't want any debate, he just wanted to discuss how right he was. I realize he didn't use those words, but that's how it came across to me.

The initial reply that I tried to write was a bit more off topic -- in the end, the post that I did give answered his question (how people can believe in things, such as the importance of good works, without the support of the Bible) and it answers the general topic of the post (did he not say he wanted to talk about beliefs within Christianity?). Quakerism is a form of Christianity. Unless we're debating the merits of different beliefs and casting it to the wayside along with Catholicism.

I believe questioning one of his main premises (the Bible as infallible word of god) also provides a good opportunity for him to talk about his beliefs, as he said he wanted to. I am sincerely interested in having this answered.

Originally Posted by alanmt

Basic courtesy and reading comprehension. Let's try a bit harder, folks.

Agreed, let's. Sorry for any unintentional derailing of this thread.

As a practical moral code and a sensible way to live among other people, benign Christianity is a good way to live, the problem is that religion gets in the way.

Alan, right you are, my friend -- and my bad for taking a slice off the stale pie rustgold was serving.

Like others, I would possibly have been interested in a discussion - but then the obvious bias against Catholics reared its ugly head in the OP, so... thanks, but no thanks.

The fact that the OP believes it's better to be a 'faithful' person than a 'good' person did it for me.

When the OP in a debate board includes the line, 'I don't want to debate - merely specualte', then I'm confused. Along with alanmt my thoughts are that some basic questions need to be answered before proceeding, and I agree with alanmt that the questions he has posed are a good start.

Some of my best friends are Christians. Thus, though I have considerable knowledge of and strong opinions regarding the subject, prefer that the ground rules be fully explained before I risk offering any speculation.