Can anyone explain to me why christianity and the christian god make any sense?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

When "Judgment" is used for the world it's Greek work literally means "crisis",. . .

The Greek word is Krisis, but it does not mean literally crisis. There is a reason why translators will choose a word like Judgment when putting it into English. They use the best word that fits the meaning for what someone else had written.

And just as people are appointed to die once, and then to face judgment,. . .

I don't see a differentiation here. It just says, people, not bad people, or good people.

By this love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment, because just as Jesus is, so also are we in this world.

Sounds like people of the church, but they go to the Krisis. So, I don't know where you are getting all this happy-talk from.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Frira

 

Maybe you do not know the term "Bible Thumpers?" Where I am from, the term is idiomatic for a Christian whose means of proselytizing is to threaten non-believers with damnation. It is not a Biblical reference.

No,. no, no. We aren't going to move the goalposts at halftime. You said "Bible Thumpers" believe this:

hey mean by "sin" anything you do that they don't like is evil and you will burn in Hell for it.

Isn't it past your bedtime, child; 'cause I know I'm tired? The goal posts didn't move-- you were at the baseball ballpark-- way out in left field. The goal posts are right where I left them.

"Sin" has absolutely nothing to do with what we "like" or don't like. That's a "straw man". No Christian teaches this rhetoric nor does the bible. That's why I asked you for a Biblical reference which you've refused to provide.

Good for you! I don't believe that rhetoric either-- that was part of my point. I am the one, in that very post, who said sin means "missing the mark"! So hate the false teaching with me, but don't deny its existence! Why are you behaving as if what I wrote applies personally to you-- as if I am accusing you of believing in that way? For that matter, Why are you accusing me as you have done?

But if you think no Christian teaches or believes that their desires reflect the damnation to come upon others, then you are living a very sheltered life and are also unaware of much of the history of theological development-- particularly in certain Protestant theology.

It is past my bedtime for sure, but insomnia has me up reading-- intended for fun, but you kind of suck the fun right out sharing thoughts. So, I trot off to the kitchen and grab a bottle of beer to relax. Now my Christian cousins believes because her pastor told her so, that I am going to Hell because I drink beer (in moderation). I debate them, try to reason, play the sword drill game, and they come back telling me their pastor says they are right.

I sat at table with a very popular pastor up in Dallas years back at his huge and prestigious church. He told me he tells his flock that they will know the fires of Hell if they drink alcohol. I asked him where in Scripture he got it-- ready to do sword-drill battles with him. Instead, he admitted that the doctrine held by his denomination in that regard is not Scriptural. He gave me his understanding of how it came to be, and offered that he thought it did best serve the needs of his congregation. I respectfully disagreed. That man, my dear, is what we call a Bible Thumper.

That I am-- and have stated explicitly-- referring to modern teachings which do not accurately represent all of Christianity makes a Scriptural reference an absurd expectation. Protestants, Orthodox and Catholic all exists-- all have some doctrines which are in opposition, but are not mentioned in Scripture. Each uses Scripture to defend their varied doctrinal positions, but that become a matter of interpretation, hierarchy and historical development. What came after the Canon of Scripture cannot, logically, be contained in Scripture. Why is that hard to understand?

And you characterize that as my "refusal" to quote the scripture? Of a doctrine I don't agree with?

In my prior post, I wrote, "I don't do straw men." to which you responded:

Okay, I'll grant you that, perhaps your just incredibly ignorant to what Christians actually believe and what the Bible actually says about "sin". Al least now you know your previous idea is tripe.

So you digress to personal attacks, again. Pity. An Internet Troll with a Cross for her avatar.

Maybe you need a hobby? Maybe you need a beer? You definitely need to take a break, because you're just really enjoying how nasty you can be when you have no one in your face to confront as a real live human-- and I am one. We have a word for that down here in Texas.

Because I am disciplined, I'd call you Ma'am despite your histrionics. You'd call me "Sir" because you would see my eyes and realize I am one of those real live humans-- people always do-- even bullies like you.

reply to post by Hydroman


Yes he knows everything and the Future.

However , if he wasnt going to create it how could he know the future because the future wouldnt exist if he didnt give the future an oppurtunity.

He knew the decisions man would make , but there is no future , no free will without him giving you the ability to to be wrong or right.

He knew we would be screw ups , however there would be no future with screw ups without him giving us a Chance.

So he created a future , even though he knew it , by simply giving you the ability to choose ,regardless if you chose him or not , he wanted to give you the ability to choose regardless.

Because those that chose / choose right ..... get his gift , the others do not. So why would he punish everything for the sins of others? There are those that follow him.


God also keeps many things from Man. We will learn in heaven , you dont go to heaven and know everything instantly. You will go to heaven and be learn.


By the way , God is eternally merciful. If Hitler repented for killed those millions upon millions of people. He would be forgiven and saved if he asked. God is more than any human , he may have killed all those people , but his blood is more than 100 trillion human beings or 100 100 trillion human beings. they are all covered.

God forgives no matter what because his love is eternal and more than the love you think you know

(No proof reading done , its late)

reply to post by milkyway12

. . .if he wasnt going to create it how could he know the future because the future wouldnt exist. . .

I had to laugh because it seems so obvious, of course after reading that.
I normally think of God knowing the future by doing very complex probability calculations.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I dont know how God works , we will find out sooner than we i think i believe sorta feel it ,but could be all the preachers saying the time is near , however the bible does say this Generation shall not pass away that sees Isreal return which is 1967 when Jerusalem was conqured .... and that Generation ends 2019 (52 years is estimated to be a Generation in bibilical terms)

The math about what a generation is goes like this

1. Matthew 1:17 “Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.” Because of the written genealogy in the bible and the years listed we know that from Abram to Christ is 2160 years

2. If you divide this by the 42 generations (mentioned in Matt 1:17), it is 52 years (51.42)

3. added to 1967 (Jews take Jerusalem, possible budding of the fig tree) 1967+52= 2019

4. and minus 7 (The great tribulation or Daniels 70th week)= 2012 around Dec 21

This coincides with the 12-21-2012 prophicies of the mayan also the hopi indian 12-21-2012 prophecy of the end of the age. There are a many others as well. (Just Google 12-21-2012) Since I believe the bible is the only sure place for prophecy it’s interesting to see that the date mentioned in so many prophecies worldwide has a possible biblical tie


Thats the math , but i dont think we will be able to speak to God directly when we get to heaven? Unsure on how GOD will work when we get there , i know we can speak with Jesus , but God i dont know.

reply to post by milkyway12

. . .sees Isreal return which is 1967 when Jerusalem was conqured ....

Could you show me an example of how this concept was being talked about in Christian publications prior to the twentieth century?
I look at this interpretation as a way of explaining something after the fact, for the sake of the zionists who were not religious people but were communist secular Jews, and in my opinion, not the original Jews descended from Abraham, but Caucasian people from an area now within the borders of modern-day Turkey, who converted to Judaism in the face of the influx of the Muslim Turks who were taking over the region.
"70 weeks are the determining period for your people" is my translation of the prophecy that would be relevant to the history we should be focused on, and that would have been from when the band of former Babylonian captives returned to Jerusalem, up to when they eventually sealed their fate by murdering Christ.
Any kind of warfare over Jerusalem after that, in the name of restoring Zion would, in my opinion, be fulfilling Jesus' prophecy of taking the kingdom by force, so not the work of God, but the work of Satan.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by Seed76

 

And what exactly is ridiculous? His/Her beliefs? How come his/her beliefs are ridiculous and yours not??

Because i admit i don't know. Make extraordinary claims; expect to be asked to provide extraordinary evidence. Christianity daringly fails to provide even ordinary evidence for it's extraordinary supernatural claims.

Burden of proof isn't on me; and i didn't claim a deity DOESN'T exist; i just would like to see the "working out" from the people or books that claim a deity DOES exist.

Saint Thomas Aquinas' first ten (or so) "questions," in his Summa Theologica which concerns the Creation using the philosophical concept of the "Prime Mover" or "First Mover" comes to mind.

And the Bible also says many other things friend, and they contradict your above passage:-

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned.

John 12:40
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Leviticus 21:16-23
Handicapped people cannot approach the altar of God. They would "profane" it.

If that is your opinion i respect that, but i ought to say that you are wrong here. (See above.)

Then why preach Hellfire? Why call homosexuality an abomination? Are you acknowledging these apparent contradictions in the bible?

This is what i was talking about regarding Judgement day; Judge Jury and Executioner; there can be no appeal, you can have no lawyers; and you burn for eternity if you're found guilty.

While you may not like this; this is what is written in scripture; and it's how the churched gained the power it has now.

The apparent contradictions are all very valid points, and all are reasonable concerns.

Going back to the discussion I began concerning the meaning of sin-- what it really means (missing the mark) being far softer than how it is often used (going to burn in Hell)-- it is other parts of Scripture which lead some--NOT ALL-- Christians to take a very legalistic approach to even the New Testament and leave insufficient room for grace and mercy. And even those scriptures about what is required for Salvation seem to contradict one another.

For example, many Christians accept that the time of choice for a soul to accept salvation is limited to the point of death, but there is much room for debate on that point. Matthew 25 (since you have demonstrated a familiarity with Christian Scripture) about judgment (sheep and goats) strongly supports that how one treats others and not ones declaration of faith matters.

That is but one example.

As for the contradictions, if you go back to sin as missing the mark-- as not being perfect-- then "issues" such as homosexuality, or ritual uncleanliness (e.g., the lame not to approach the Altar in the OT) have to do with symbols, not substance.

You mentioned above the problems of proof essentially being a metaphysical problem which therefore cannot be proved. Well said. However, that does not leave us only with "blind faith" as an option. Human experience, collectively and personal also support, but do not prove.

I would, and could, wax metaphysical here, but will attempt to give a thumbnail sketch: The Holy of Holies in the Hebrew Tabernacle is to be understood as a symbol-- a metaphysical representation of the Throne of God in Heaven. It is both really God's throne on Earth but on Earth all things are real to a lesser degree than they are in Heaven. (CS Lewis, The Great Divorce, comes to mind). Likewise, in the NT, marriage between a man and a woman -- the two becoming one flesh-- is described as a mystery having to do with God and the Church.

In each instance, the symbol becomes less clear if the soul approaching the throne of God hobbles or crawls rather than walks in grace; and the symbol of the potent joining of God and man looses the potency part of the symbol if the union is between two men or two women. In that regard, the handicapped and homosexual intercourse "miss the mark" as symbols representing mysteries-- representing the metaphysical Reality.

In what appears to be a failure to conceive of mystery in general and metaphysical speculation, some, maybe even many, fail to find grace, compassion and mercy in teachings regarding homosexuals, or the handicapped (or the Gentiles, or the pagans, or persons who have been unfaithful in marriage, or persons who drink alcohol, and so on and so on) which is results in such things as blame, accusations, certainty of the damnation of another and self-righteousness.

The person who embraces mystery (also known as "apparent contradiction) and says-- there is more than I can comprehend-- such a person is more open to an inward pondering of truth and their own state than to be quite so busy with the failures, imperfections and sins of others. And the Church, in general terms, but not always in the specific, has always said so, always believed so-- always stressed compassion, grace and mercy as trumping a legalistic interpretation.

The Church also knows that it is very difficult, and that all who try will fail to some degree to embrace the mysteries of God, of life, and of salvation. Sigh-- I am not making my point well, am I? How about this: Christianity is extremely complex and mystical. Therefore a legalistic reading of Holy Scripture misses the point. We are not merely subjects of Law-- not even mainly that. We are spiritual beings and it requires stories-- analogues-- to hold up the mysteries of the spiritual Reality for us to see, of the soul of man, of the power and nature of God, and of what is truly sublime.

A compassionate Church will not only be patient with the disbelief of others but beg those others to be patient and compassionate with themselves. The Church fails at that very often-- but not always.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

 

When our case comes up for review in the final judgment,
there is a person who could be an advocate for us.
Notice the words could be.
We don't stand in a position where we can compel him to step forward.
He does so as he sees fit, and has a preference for those he knows.
How would he know us?
From all the times we have sought after him in the spirit realm
to search after the ability to be a better person.
The lackadaisical, he will not recognize and will remain
where he was before your name was called.

edit on 25-6-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Yes. Your thoughts cause me to recall a prayer which I like, which includes the words, "...that we may find, and be found by God." We are not in a position to demand His appearance-- so we spend much time seeking God. To our delight when it happens, sometimes, it is God who finds us-- even when we were not looking for Him.

I would hope, and so am compelled to believe, that the compassion of God extends to those who are lackadaisical-- especially if that is symptomatic of despair, or lost hope due to the failure of others to offer a hand up.

While our relationship with God is often deeply personal, our relation and responsibility toward one another is also an essential consideration-- in terms of the spiritual life, in terms of salvation, and therefore, even in terms of judgment. If I fail to adequately express the faith I hold, and so it is rejected by another who had hoped to accept it as their own-- that is judgement against me, is it not? Yet again, compassion enters-- and grace and mercy-- I tried my best under the circumstance with limited understanding with which to share-- Does my Lord embrace me for trying or does he destroy me for my failure?

Again, I am compelled to believe I will be embraced for my trying, despite my many failures.

reply to post by Frira

. . .believe I will be embraced for my trying,. . .

What I meant when I wrote "lacadzical" was the people who never tried because they didn't want to be bothered, so they went to hear people who told them they didn't have to.
Anyway, my little attempt to put across some important concepts and I have to say I get a little annoyed by people who can't accept it for what it is and have to find fault in it by nit-picking.
I am impressed by the depth of thought behind your response to my posting and you do get your point across and if there were only more people like you, the world would be a better place.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Im not sure what you mean by that paragraph.

A Jew is a religion and not just a people , any one can convert to a Jew and move to Jerusalem and become a full fledged citizen as long as a Rabi in the states vouches that you are a Jew (Converted) , but of course if you are a blood line Jew , then you can move to Jerusalem without converting.

According to their tradition, the Jewish people originated from the Israelites of the Southern Levant, who had several independent states before being overtaken first by the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and later the Roman Empire, with a large portion of the population being scattered throughout the world. According to the Hebrew Bible, all Israelites were descended from Abraham, who was born in the Sumerian city of Ur, and migrated to Canaan (commonly known as the Land of Israel) with his family. Genetic studies on Jews show that most Jews worldwide do indeed bear a common genetic heritage which originates in the Middle East, and that they bear their strongest resemblance to the peoples of the Fertile Crescent, with only minor contribution from their host populations[13] (historically due to the taboo on intermarriage in Jewish tradition, the low number of converts to Judaism, as well as the general isolations and persecutions of Jews throughout history). According to some Biblical archaeologists, however, Israelite culture did not overtake the region, but rather grew out of Canaanite culture.

Not sure if i answered your question on my behalf or not.

reply to post by milkyway12

Genetic studies on Jews show that most Jews worldwide do indeed bear a common genetic heritage. . .

According to the studies funded by Zionists
Other studies say the opposite and the closest descendants from the original Jews are Muslims living in southern Lebanon.

reply to post by Frira

but "sin" defined as "missing the mark" is rather obviously true. It says nothing more than "no man is perfect.

Indeed, Christianity clearly setting the "mark" and i'm sure most of us are willing to admit that no man is infallable.

You won't hear that from the Bible-thumpers-- they mean by "sin" anything you do that they don't like is evil and you will burn in Hell for it.

If the word of God dictates what is considered as hitting "the mark" whether it be mixed fabrics, whether it be about pork being unholy, or homosexuality; if people believe it is the word of God; it will cause prejudice. Because it's rooted in a doctrine that makes extraordinary claims regarding the supernatural; or even afterlife.

But that is what they were taught the word means-- yet it is not the meaning.

Well i'm quite sure many Bishops and possibly a Pope would disagree. Of course, with a lot of sinister dogma; many of it is open to interpetation; or people will interpret it in accordance with current social adherences (homosexuality, women's rights) Whereas other dogma is very direct; and there's no escaping the sinister message (and thus the abhorrent morality) behind them.

Honestly, I have answer to the question posed in the OP. The answer is Yes. I can explain; but I have spent decades learning Christianity and more over, learning about God and I certainly do not have all the answers. I dedicated my life to it, not out of some zeal or fervor, but it simply is who and what I am-- I don't know why. No question was more important to me and I went about my search quietly.

I would disagree with your answer but I would never criticise anyone for believing what they wish; and if it makes them feel "happy" or gets them through life; then who am i to critise that? But i certainly consider Bernard Shaw's words reasonable:-

“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one”

Obviously you have a degree of faith in regards to the dogma of a specific religion; and perhaps you take comfort in it, or you feel that assists you on your journey of truth.....

I fear that being a mystic based on an ancient doctrine can only lead to Pathological methodology of science; if you have faith in the answers of doctrine; you will only seek the answers that seem relevant to the narrow-minded context of the bible and it's metaphysical claims.

At the moment; i'm not quite sure if you are a Deist or a vague believer of the Christian faith; I saw you quote CS Lewis; Perhaps you relate to the bible in a metaphorical sense, or even a Pathological sense. This is what i like to call "vague faith".

To claim the truth to the existence of a deity is one claim (Deism); to claim to know and understand the deity's mind is separate claim (Theism) and in my opinion, no less extraordinary; but both positions daringly fail to provide even ordinary evidence for their extraordinary supernatural claims.

I have no concerns with a person being a mystic; there's nothing to stop an atheist being spiritual; or being curious of the unknown or the trancendant.

Peace.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

. . .curious of the unknown or the trancendant.

A philosophical tone.
You don't seem like a lunatic.
Nice to see Frira bringing out some of that from you.
I suppose the fundamentalists set you off a little and me too, at times.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Frira

 

. . .believe I will be embraced for my trying,. . .

What I meant when I wrote "lacadzical" was the people who never tried because they didn't want to be bothered, so they went to hear people who told them they didn't have to.
Anyway, my little attempt to put across some important concepts and I have to say I get a little annoyed by people who can't accept it for what it is and have to find fault in it by nit-picking.
I am impressed by the depth of thought behind your response to my posting and you do get your point across and if there were only more people like you, the world would be a better place.

I suspected that is what you meant by lackadaisical. I enjoy your posts, too. You are far more succinct than I seem to be able to accomplish.

Got rough in here last night, didn't it! Very kind of you to offer what you have offered. Thank you.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

 

When our case comes up for review in the final judgment,
there is a person who could be an advocate for us.
Notice the words could be.
We don't stand in a position where we can compel him to step forward.
He does so as he sees fit, and has a preference for those he knows.
How would he know us?
From all the times we have sought after him in the spirit realm
to search after the ability to be a better person.
The lackadaisical, he will not recognize and will remain
where he was before your name was called.

Could you provide a commentary to this poem, or proverb? Is this your own work?

What about this "advocate"? and if he "does as he sees fit" then surely he isn't much of an advocate?

Perhaps i'm reading it too literally; perhaps it's a metaphor for self-reflection? I'm still not sure; I believe i'm over-interpretting "Spirit realm" and "judgement day"; again perhaps i'm misunderstanding.

Personally, i try to be a good person, not because of a hope for afterlife, not because i feel i'm being judged 24/7 by some Big Brother; but because that's what i want to be; that's how i want to behave; i certainly won't buy into Pascal's Wager.



I find refuge in these words:-

"The eyes of others our prisons; their thoughts our cages."
— Virginia Woolf

A philosophical tone.
You don't seem like a lunatic.
Nice to see Frira bringing out some of that from you.

Thanks (i think)

It's hard to find people on ATS with differing ideologies that can debate with civility; many people get "offended" and like to retaliate rather than report to a mod. Thankfully; there are users like you and Frira which whom i can maintain a respectable level of decorum with.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

Could you provide a commentary to this poem. . .

I just made it up. on the fly, so to speak, as I was reading some posts, including yours.
Pre-canned posts are spam and if I detect it, I ship to the next post, so I do the same courtesy
which is to make an original post even if it is a subject you have brought up over and over.
I had this show on BlogTalk where I was doing two hours a day, seven days a week, going on and on about religion and after four months of that, this is the basic theme I ended up with, this concept I was putting across here. It is a bit fuzzy and you can see how if you try to be more specific, it just opens it up for attack.

A long time ago I was watching TV and a comedian was on late-night and if it was not George Carlin, it was someone working in his style. He was telling a story about how he was working a club in the Bible-belt and he did some jokes with Jesus in it. After the show, he was met by some big dudes who said they were Christians and didn't like what he was saying, and he replied, "So, forgive me."

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

 

I find refuge in these words:-

"The eyes of others our prisons; their thoughts our cages."
— Virginia Woolf

A little off topic; a movie review, I watched a movie some time back that was about Virginia Woolf and I don't want to spoil it but it has her husband basically creating this whole artificial environment for her to live in, thinking it would cure whatever the doctors thought was wrong with her mentally.
I think everyone should watch that and I can't even say why, but trust me. (no spoilers, I hate that, sometimes picking up the box and reading the label is enough to ruin a movie)

Edit: looked it up, Nicole Kidman in The Hours

reply to post by jmdewey60

It is a bit fuzzy and you can see how if you try to be more specific, it just opens it up for attack.

Well i hope you didn't interpret my response as an attack, i'm just curious.

Regarding the comedian; What are your thoughts on the story?

Comedians obviously have their own beliefs too, and often religious sattire provides humour to those who are skepical, if the Christians were offended, are they not at the wrong show?

reply to post by jmdewey60


Interesting; i will certainly check that out. I agree that the label can often be misleading. I certainly reccomend a certain film with Keanu Reeves and Al Pacino.

Thanks for the reference.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare
People don't always know what to expect if they go to a comedy club or something.
The point was that these guys were there to beat him up, and the joke is that it is ironic that they are offended by people poking at their religion when they don't seem to be very interested in actually following that religion.