Thread: Questions about christianity, I have answers.

Take the time to answer all of my questions. It's the long post back there.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Ugh my religion seems so shitty. If you are going to defend Christianity do it with logic.

1. Especially when idiots define it.

2. It's not easy to defend something illogical with logic.

Originally Posted by StephenT

How do you explain, neglect, or nullify the inherent contradictions throughout the Bible and Christianity's Theology.

A few examples:

God being omniscient/omnipotent, yet we have free will.

Jesus being part of God, yet the he and the disciples clearly distinguish themselves from God.

God being omnibenevolent, yet sending people to Hell.

God being omnibenevolent, yet creates the possibility of evil and sin.

Etc.


Also, how does Christianity justify or neglect fear tactics that are used as conversion? Christianity claims to be peaceful and just, yet:

9 Crusades, along with a plethora of other crusades which I don't know the names for.

Fire and brimstone preaching to incite fear among listeners.

The use of Hell as a reason to become Christian. (Join or you'll burn in Hell)


How do you explain the ignorance and uncertainty of representation and interpretations of the Bible and preachings? Such as, some people take the Bible as metaphoric, and some preach that it must be taken completely literally. Whichever way, some passages clearly state out things that must be done, that can not possibly be interpreted as a metaphor. Such as instructing that if a woman has sex before marriage, she must be stoned on her father's doorstep and the approval of slavery.


Can you explain why the Church condones science, without making Christianity seem fake? Science disproves fundamental concepts and beliefs of Christianity and the Church. (The Church says that the Earth is flat, evolutionary evidence, cloning and stem cell research, carbon-dating, etc.) I think that this will be hard, because the obvious answer is to keep the Church in power by neglecting the followers of knowledge that contradicts Christian Theology.


Will I go to Hell for being Agnostic and anti-religious? (I would like both your answer, and the prevalent answer of the Church and Christian community as a whole.)


Will a Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Taoist, or any other person of a religious descent aside from Christianity go to Hell? (Same)


Can morals exist outside of God's command, and is God's word the only source of morality and standard for creation of civilized law?


Did dinosaurs co-exist with humans? If the died because of the flood, why didn't Noah get baby dinosaurs onto the Ark?


Do homosexuals go to Hell?


And finally, Why are you Christian? No bullshit answers.

I have to get oof for a bit but I just wanted to let you know that I got your question and that I will answer it, these are important questions and I don't want you to think that I'm ignoring you, as for your final question I am a christian becuase I did alot of reasearch took a look at my feelings and felt that christianity was what made the most sense to me considering all things. I also may have talked myself into it a bit.

Originally Posted by StephenT

1. Especially when idiots define it.

2. It's not easy to defend something illogical with logic.

Hey go easy, you took the easy route and chose atheism. Your belief system has mounds of evidence to support it. Christianity has mounds of evidence but it is evidence that is a little bit more complicated and subtle.

What do Christians believe happened to those Before the coming of Jesus? Did everyone go to hell during that time period?

Many Christians disagree about certain interpretations and how they apply to modern day scenarios. It also seems Christianity is growing softer, claiming God does not punish as much as he used to, basically they are becoming more accepting. For my first question, do you believe God has become more accepting, i believe your not supposed to speak for the Lord and yet many seem to say " Oh the Lord will forgive" etc, for something such as homosexuality, which clearly he states he will not in the Bible.

Also why does God not send another messenger to give us an "updated" Holy book? Many people are confused and troubled because they are not sure how to apply the Bible to modern day life and key issues( stem cell research for example), surely it would help the entire human race if God helped settle confusing teachings? Obviously we would not take the word of one man anymore, however if he really did the miracles Jesus did( water to wine, walk to water, heal sick by touching, even raise the dead etc) i think people would listen. I certainly would if i saw such things, visual proof would be oh so useful.

Finally i assume you agree God would like as many of us to go to Heaven as possible, he feels for those in Hell surely? So, let's take me or someone not of the Christian faith as an example. If God actually came to us and explained we were on the wrong( or none) religious path, we would apologize for it and accept him as our God. So why does he not do this, i understand he wants us to make our own decisions. But i have a more scientific mind and after looking at human social dynamics, i believe religions aren't right. However i would obviously be willing to change my ind if i saw a event which to ME, was clear. God knows me from birth and so knows this, to save me from Hell he could help me on to the right path, does he have no power over mankind's thoughts or does he take pleasure in the fact i will suffer after death?

i would really like answers. especially to the final one, but all would be great.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

Hey go easy, you took the easy route and chose atheism. Your belief system has mounds of evidence to support it. Christianity has mounds of evidence but it is evidence that is a little bit more complicated and subtle.

I'm sorry but that is ridiculous.

I mean that's like:

Person 1: 2 + 2 is equal to 1.

Person 2: Um, what? No it isn't. 2 + 2 = 4.

Person 1: Nu - uh!

Person 2: Are you serious? Just look! *raises hands, two fingers each*

*First counting one - two on the first, then the second hand*

Person 2: Now I have two in this hand and two in this. I take the two values *he then puts hands next to each other and counts out four fingers*

Person 1: You're an idiot. Two plus two equals one!

Person 2: But I just showed you evidence!

Person 1: Well... Well you just took the easy route with evidence. I had faith. ...And evidence, too! But mine is more subtle.

Person 2: Good grief... *Face-palms*

Oh and by the way, you do not take the bible literally. I don't even have to know you and I can tell you that you do not really take it literally.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

I have to get oof for a bit but I just wanted to let you know that I got your question and that I will answer it, these are important questions and I don't want you to think that I'm ignoring you, as for your final question I am a christian becuase I did alot of reasearch took a look at my feelings and felt that christianity was what made the most sense to me considering all things. I also may have talked myself into it a bit.

Sounds good, thanks for not ignoring.

As for that answer, it leads me to the conclusion that either you were indoctrinated, or can't think much for yourself or logically. I could be wrong, however, but that's how it seems.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

Hey go easy, you took the easy route and chose atheism. Your belief system has mounds of evidence to support it. Christianity has mounds of evidence but it is evidence that is a little bit more complicated and subtle.

Atheism is an easy route? First, I'm Agnostic, which means that I don't claim to know whether or not God exists. Many classify this as weak-Atheism, however.

Science isn't my belief system. My beliefs are that religion is enshrouded in lies, hatred, and fear; and that I don't know whether or not God exists, but if he does, he will judge based on morality and logical wisdom rather than blindly following what you had been indoctrinated to believe forever.

I didn't choose Agnosticism or Atheism because it was easy, I chose it because it is logical, and doesn't require me to hinder myself from knowledge and open mindedness. If anything, blindly following a religion is much easier than researching religion and Theology, philosophy and psychology, debating over religion many times, and finally concluding anything. Along with being a minority among a world of 33% Christianity, and 85% religious, and a nation of 90% Christianity and 95% religious. When so many people disagree with you on such personal beliefs, they can be hostile, ignorant, and condoning towards you.

Sure, I took the easy cop out, while you are taking the hard, diligent road. Not many are able to do what you do. (Only 90% of people)

Evidence does not make anything easy, and faith does not make anything hard. It just makes the person with more faith than evidence look very stupid.

Originally Posted by skysaw

If someone says that God spoke to them and told them to write another book that is supposed to be included in the bible, how will we know whether or not he is delusional? Is there a reliable test we can use? And if so, can we apply that test retroactively to the existing books of the bible?

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

I don't think that their is really a test, and no matter what some would find them delusional. I think that the person claiming these things and writing the book would have to have other proof, even then it would just be most likely that a new sect would be formed, similar to the way mormonism was created.

So why don't you find all of the existing texts suspect? Shouldn't all of their authors be held up to the same scrutiny? Is there a reason they are more believable than any new person who might come along?

I've heard often that "Jews burn in hell" or some variation of this.. Is that actually said in the New Testament?

well the Jews don't believe in Jesus as their Savior... But a lot of Christians like to think that their religion doesn't say that because well... Because the Jews came first.

Jeez Lucid_Boy your getting owned. Reclaim your glory!

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Well while we wait for his response I'll share mine. None. None of it can be proven literally. Sure there may be some parts that have actually happened, but thats defeats the purpose of bible. Its not a history book, but a book of wisdom.

Sorry, but it IS very much a history book. One of the primary reasons that literal interpretation is off the table is because it is full of narrative history, as well as many other things. The Bible has told of many many historical events that were thought of as myth until modern archaeologists uncovered proof.

However, I do agree that it is also a book of wisdom and to me, this is central.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

well the Jews don't believe in Jesus as their Savior... But a lot of Christians like to think that their religion doesn't say that because well... Because the Jews came first.

So if you don't believe in Jesus Christ you'll burn in Hell?

So that's most of the world, right?

A lot of it, yes.

Originally Posted by avalonandon

Sorry, but it IS very much a history book. One of the primary reasons that literal interpretation is off the table is because it is full of narrative history, as well as many other things. The Bible has told of many many historical events that were thought of as myth until modern archaeologists uncovered proof.

However, I do agree that it is also a book of wisdom and to me, this is central.

Actually, that's bullshit.

Ask any historian you want-- they'll all tell you the same thing:

That the bible is a literature work, and not a history book.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Actually, that's bullshit.

Ask any historian you want-- they'll all tell you the same thing:

That the bible is a literature work, and not a history book.

I second.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Actually, that's bullshit.

Ask any historian you want-- they'll all tell you the same thing:

That the bible is a literature work, and not a history book.

The Bible is both. And I have indeed asked MANY historians because I have sat in their classes for hundreds of hours and studied my ass off on many sides of the issue. I have had 4 semesters of in depth Old and New Testament studies as well as 3 classes in Greek, 2 in Latin, 2 in theology, a major in philosophy and a minor in history. Have you yourself read the bible? 90 percent of the Old Testament is the history of the Jewish people.

Have you yourself payed attention to ANY of my posts? Of course I have.

And the OT is STILL more Theology and law then history. Have YOU read it?

Originally Posted by avalonandon

The Bible is both. And I have indeed asked MANY historians because I have sat in their classes for hundreds of hours and studied my ass off on many sides of the issue. I have had 4 semesters of in depth Old and New Testament studies as well as 3 classes in Greek, 2 in Latin, 2 in theology, a major in philosophy and a minor in history. Have you yourself read the bible? 90 percent of the Old Testament is the history of the Jewish people.

Yes but it is not meant to tell history. the history supports the wisdom.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Have you yourself payed attention to ANY of my posts? Of course I have.

And the OT is STILL more Theology and law then history. Have YOU read it?

Of course I have read it!! And no!! it is not mostly theology!! It is story after story after story of events, the trials and tribulations, glories and successes of the Jewish people. If you had read it yourself we would not be having this discussion. period.

Then you are either a total moron or have not actually read the Tanakh if you think that it is more history than what is is meant to be:

A lawbook
A theological explanation for existence
A source of answers based on the base theologies

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Yes but it is not meant to tell history. the history supports the wisdom.

It is both dreamworld, absolutely both. The wisdom comes from the history but the books were written as historical narrative, as inspiration for the Jewish people themselves. However, like you, I see the wisdom as primary.

Why is Jesus portrayed as a white man with long flowing hair when the bible says that his hair was like that of a lambs and from Nazareth, which is northern Israel?

How was Jesus born in bethlehem, raised in Eqypt, but from Nazareth, the question remains