By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[ElishaElijah]

Jesus Christ came to the Jew first and then to the Gentiles, Paul didn’t change the message.

”Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law, he took him up in his arms and blessed God and said, “Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word; that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel.”“
‭‭Luke‬ ‭2‬:‭25‬-‭29‬, ‭31‬-‭32‬ ‭ESV‬‬
”For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.“
‭‭Romans‬ ‭1‬:‭16‬ ‭ESV‬‬

 

[F1fan]

I’m not God, but I know Him, He adopted me into His family so I’m a son now and He is my Father.

This is an absurd claim that has no basis in reality. Correct, you aren't a god. You are a fallible human who ended up adopting some rather fantastic ideas. You fail to explain how any rational mind agrees with you.

Dream Centers (multiple locations)
Teen Challenge
Compassion International
Samaritan Purse
Feed the Hungry...

The list is endless

I'm not sure what your list is supposed to explain. Charity is part of any human society. Even non-religious organizations exist that help those in need. And let's not ignore the Christian extremists who are damaging society, like creationists, the anti-abortion crusade that is leading to serious problems for pregnant women who need emergency care, evangelicals who support Trump, which is ironic itself given Trump is a corrupt, lying cheater. Like I said, Christianity as a whole is a superficial religion. Fortunately it has many good people in its ranks that make it look good. But then so does Islam, Hindus, Shinto, and any other religious group.

That my sins were forgiven. (My wife accepted at the same time)

This is why Christianity is superficial. It's all about the believer and what the believer gets. Where is your commitment to the weak and suffering? Where is your commitment to what is true and honorable? Christianity sells itself by telling believers they are no good scumbag sinners and they need to commit to the dogma in order to get their *** saved from hell. Heck, even those Catholics and Lutherans who committed the Holocaust are in heaven because they believed Jesus saved their souls from damnation. How does that make sense? If a religion can't advocate for the life of all humans then it is superficial and self-serving.

"It's all about me" says the Christian, and then they can go whip their slaves, rape them, take their chikldren and sell them. The saved Christian can celebrate Christmas with the family and then go to work the next day and kill Jews and burn their bodies. The Christian can lie to children about science and claim the earth is 6000 years old. The Christian can stand in the way of a pregnant women getting emergency healthcare putting her life in jeopardy because they have rigid beliefs about fetuses being sacred, but as soon as its born they don't have access to healthcare. The Christian can stand by as migrants are caged without sanitation and food, and as their children are taken away and given to other families, without records so they can be rescued by a lawful administration.

And you think all that gets ignored because there are some Christians who happen to be good people and dedicated to others despite the toxic influence of bad Christians?

Interestingly enough, within 24 hours our marriage was turned around. Saved our marriage

Lee Strobel has a similar story. His fiance basically blackmailed him to become a Christian otherwise she wouldn't marry him.

So you think God saved your marriage, and you can't take ay credit? Or did you just use religion as an excuse to work things out yourself?

Before you answer realize that if you insist that God saved your marriage why did God lket children die of cancer? Is your marriage more important than all the children dying of cancer and other fatal diseases? If you never ask yourself these questions it further illustrates the superficial nature of your belief.

A great treatise on unbelief. Doesn’t change the message, though.

What Christians take from the message of Jesus is greedy, selfish, and self-centered. Someone asked me if I was a Christian once, and I said "I'm not a Christian, but I live like one." I realized that is what most Christians miss, how to live like a Christian. They have adopted a dogma that gives them an identity and superficial label, but the religion doesn't challenge it's members to seek beyond belief, and explore morality in a real and broad sense. This is why we have so many divided sects in Christianity that caters to the existing character of the believer. That means bad people have toxic forms of Christianity, and good people have tolerant forms of Christianity. All forms of Christianity are dying except evangelicals, the most intolerant and dogmatic form of Christianity. That indicates a decline.

Well yeah and don’t have a problem with any of the comments, seems you read too much into mine as far as motive. I was asking questions to understand the skeptic motive for trying to turn this thread into something other than answering the question.

You clearly hold a superfical nd idealistic framework. Someone needs to examine your beliefs since it isn't you. Belief is easy, critical thinking is a difficult skill. If you don't like criticism perhaps you would be more comfortable in an area that only reinforces each others beliefs. As I noted, this is open debate, and open to former Christians who learned disturbing things about this religion. You might pay attention.

 

[ElishaElijah]

You clearly hold a superfical nd idealistic framework. Someone needs to examine your beliefs since it isn't you. Belief is easy, critical thinking is a difficult skill. If you don't like criticism perhaps you would be more comfortable in an area that only reinforces each others beliefs. As I noted, this is open debate, and open to former Christians who learned disturbing things about this religion. You might pay attention.

I’m perfectly confident and comfortable talking to skeptics and unbelievers, critical thinking isn’t a problem but faith sure is for alot of people. When God says step out and I will be there, I step out and He is there, that’s not easy to walk by faith and not by sight.
It takes no faith to say walk by what you can see or obtain by your own means. Easy to go to the store and buy food with the money you have in hand, work out all the details before you even go out of the house. Well, maybe take some faith to do that in some cities

 

[F1fan]

I’m perfectly confident and comfortable talking to skeptics and unbelievers, critical thinking isn’t a problem but faith sure is for alot of people.

Yet you don't support former Christians, or those who resisted being indoctrinated as Christians, posting their experiences in a discussion that questions what being a Christian is. Why should it be closed and/or limited to only believers? Let's note believers don't agree on what being a Christian means.

When God says step out and I will be there, I step out and He is there, that’s not easy to walk by faith and not by sight.

There is no confirmed God saying anything. You are citing a character of God in one of many books that include this character. If you want to say you believe these stories are true then say that. Your posts assume a the stories are true and not everyone makes this assumption, so you will be challenged on your assumptions, beliefs, and claims.

It takes no faith to say walk by what you can see or obtain by your own means.

Well there are claims and arguments that even what we see, hear, touch, smell, and feel is faith. Some, like @blü 2 has axioms that he states as an aware being that state essential assumptions. These axioms differ from the non-essential assumptions theists make.

Easy to go to the store and buy food with the money you have in hand, work out all the details before you even go out of the house.

Well, you are making progress as a human being. Good for you.

Well, maybe take some faith to do that in some cities

And here you go making a right wing judgment that even the right wing has no solutions for.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Yet you don't support former Christians, or those who resisted being indoctrinated as Christians, posting their experiences in a discussion that questions what being a Christian is. Why should it be closed and/or limited to only believers? Let's note believers don't agree on what being a Christian means.

Haven’t heard anything you considered true and the Bible is clear on what being a Christian means.
A lot of claims about reading and understanding of the Bible is made on hear but not seeing the fruit.
What do you believe the Bible teaches on what it means to be a Christian?

 

[F1fan]

Haven’t heard anything you considered true and the Bible is clear on what being a Christian means.

The Bible is so clear that Catholics and protestants not only disagree, they have waged war against each other. There are some 41,000 sects of Christianity that offer different interpretations. Christianity includes very liberal Unitarians, to moderates like Methodists, to conservatives like evangelicals, to extremists like the Baptists, many of whom are anti-gay and racist.

Where exactly is this clarity you refer to?

A lot of claims about reading and understanding of the Bible is made on hear but not seeing the fruit.

What do you think the "fruit" is? Do you think only certain Christians have access to it? Explain.

What do you believe the Bible teaches on what it means to be a Christian?

The Bible itself is a broad collection of stories, and is very inconsistent. That's why so many different sects can focus on different bits and claim to be moral. The Baptists of the Confederate States of America used the Bible to justify slavery. Cherry-picked quotes are used by Christians to advocate for any kind of attitude, whether loving or brutal. This is why churches and sects have formed with various interpretations, and they teach these interpretations. The Bible teaches nothing.

To my mind an ideal Christian would be a person who follows the basic moral attitudes of Jesus, and drops the institutional dogmas and rituals. The Catholics are an example of a tradition that is very archaic. And it has used its power and influence to amass a huge fortune, and even cover up child abuse. The sect is proliferated through families and communities, but it has turned off a lot of younger people.

The Bible teaches nothing about being a Christian. Nowhere is there a list of qualities and attitudes. In my experience with many types of Christians the most authentic Christians were the women of my grandmother's church. My grandmother would take me to help with their food kitchen. They fed about 200 people, mostly families, twice a week. That was all they could afford. They fed anyone and never was there a prayer, or forced the people to listen to a sermon. These women did a civic duty because they were good people. The church was a building that gave them the opportunity to serve the needy.

To my understanding this is what Christianity should be. It should not be the self-serving dogma where believers think they have Truth, and are uniquely saved from damnation only because they believe these ideas are true. These kinds of Christians are anti-hrists because their truth isn't true, not factual, and has no broad, redeeming nature to it. It is a greedy, self-serving, selfish dogma that has nothing to do with what Jesus taught. I see salvation coming to the selfless, to the humble, to those who can accept facts and science, who can reason, and feel sympathy. These are virtues that dwindle in proportion to the degree of conservatism. We can see the more certain, the more rigid, dogmatic, and conservative the Christian the less virtue they have. And they betray what Jesus taught, and are anti-Christs by their own deeds. Such Christians cast themselves in their own hellish state of mind, and can only point to others as "off the mark" because they have isolated themselves from humanity.

 

[ElishaElijah]

The Bible is so clear that Catholics and protestants not only disagree, they have waged war against each other. There are some 41,000 sects of Christianity that offer different interpretations. Christianity includes very liberal Unitarians, to moderates like Methodists, to conservatives like evangelicals, to extremists like the Baptists, many of whom are anti-gay and racist.

Where exactly is this clarity you refer to?

What do you think the "fruit" is? Do you think only certain Christians have access to it? Explain.

The Bible itself is a broad collection of stories, and is very inconsistent. That's why so many different sects can focus on different bits and claim to be moral. The Baptists of the Confederate States of America used the Bible to justify slavery. Cherry-picked quotes are used by Christians to advocate for any kind of attitude, whether loving or brutal. This is why churches and sects have formed with various interpretations, and they teach these interpretations. The Bible teaches nothing.

To my mind an ideal Christian would be a person who follows the basic moral attitudes of Jesus, and drops the institutional dogmas and rituals. The Catholics are an example of a tradition that is very archaic. And it has used its power and influence to amass a huge fortune, and even cover up child abuse. The sect is proliferated through families and communities, but it has turned off a lot of younger people.

The Bible teaches nothing about being a Christian. Nowhere is there a list of qualities and attitudes. In my experience with many types of Christians the most authentic Christians were the women of my grandmother's church. My grandmother would take me to help with their food kitchen. They fed about 200 people, mostly families, twice a week. That was all they could afford. They fed anyone and never was there a prayer, or forced the people to listen to a sermon. These women did a civic duty because they were good people. The church was a building that gave them the opportunity to serve the needy.

To my understanding this is what Christianity should be. It should not be the self-serving dogma where believers think they have Truth, and are uniquely saved from damnation only because they believe these ideas are true. These kinds of Christians are anti-hrists because their truth isn't true, not factual, and has no broad, redeeming nature to it. It is a greedy, self-serving, selfish dogma that has nothing to do with what Jesus taught. I see salvation coming to the selfless, to the humble, to those who can accept facts and science, who can reason, and feel sympathy. These are virtues that dwindle in proportion to the degree of conservatism. We can see the more certain, the more rigid, dogmatic, and conservative the Christian the less virtue they have. And they betray what Jesus taught, and are anti-Christs by their own deeds. Such Christians cast themselves in their own hellish state of mind, and can only point to others as "off the mark" because they have isolated themselves from humanity.

Well, I did ask what you personally believe the Bible teaches on what a Christian is but maybe this will help clarify things:

These are some Scriptures that describe a believer,
Do you agree with these or do you believe the Bible teaches something different?

”For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.“
‭‭John‬ ‭3‬:‭16‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

”and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”“
‭‭Mark‬ ‭1‬:‭15‬ ‭NKJV‬‬


”Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”“
‭‭John‬ ‭3‬:‭3‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

”For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.“
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭5‬:‭17‬, ‭19‬-‭25‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[F1fan]

Well, I did ask what you personally believe the Bible teaches on what a Christian is but maybe this will help clarify things:

These are some Scriptures that describe a believer,
Do you agree with these or do you believe the Bible teaches something different?

”For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.“
‭‭John‬ ‭3‬:‭16‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

This is clearly not a factual saying. It's lore, some sort of symbolism. What it might mean to someone metaphorically can be debated. But nothing in this one sentence in an ancient text helps a person in the 21st century live a more balanced life. I can see how the greedy and selifish Christian is attracted to a literal reading and interpretation of this sentence. It will help justify ego, pride, and other vices.

”and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”“
‭‭Mark‬ ‭1‬:‭15‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Believe in what way? Where does it say these are facts and the Gospels should be taken literally? To beliueve in the Gospel more likely means to believe in some symbolic meaning. Literal interpretation of the Jesus story is absurd.

Anyone can interpret these texts and believe some symbolic meaning that is relevant to themselves as individuals seeking their better angel. The KJ Bible is an English translation that was crafted for the English monarchy, so that is something to be wary about if you try to read literalism into it.

”Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”“
‭‭John‬ ‭3‬:‭3‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

This surely means how a person transforms their vice into virtue. It's funny how the most conservatve Christians brag about being born again, and from is observed this only means they have adopted an implausible and selfish framework. Born again in evangelical terms can mean nutcase in the most extreme cases.

I notice you avoided my question asking you what you think "fruit" means in my prior post. Could it be you have no convincing answer?

”For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.“
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭5‬:‭17‬, ‭19‬-‭25‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

No doubt basic social laws that helped prevent disease in an ancient society that lacked knowledge and modern medicine. It was common for ancient people to build social laws into texts that were backed by a God for enforcement reasons. There has never been any God coming forth, so the enforcement has always been religious leaders acting as proxy for the absent God.

I'd be curious what @Sgt. Pepper thinks of these quotes. And how about you? You are oddly silent on what these quotes mean, and what the factual and rational meanings are. I challenge you to present meanings that are consistent with reality and avoid assumptions like a God existing.

 

[ElishaElijah]

This is clearly not a factual saying. It's lore, some sort of symbolism. What it might mean to someone metaphorically can be debated. But nothing in this one sentence in an ancient text helps a person in the 21st century live a more balanced life. I can see how the greedy and selifish Christian is attracted to a literal reading and interpretation of this sentence. It will help justify ego, pride, and other vices.

Believe in what way? Where does it say these are facts and the Gospels should be taken literally? To beliueve in the Gospel more likely means to believe in some symbolic meaning. Literal interpretation of the Jesus story is absurd.

Anyone can interpret these texts and believe some symbolic meaning that is relevant to themselves as individuals seeking their better angel. The KJ Bible is an English translation that was crafted for the English monarchy, so that is something to be wary about if you try to read literalism into it.

This surely means how a person transforms their vice into virtue. It's funny how the most conservatve Christians brag about being born again, and from is observed this only means they have adopted an implausible and selfish framework. Born again in evangelical terms can mean nutcase in the most extreme cases.

I notice you avoided my question asking you what you think "fruit" means in my prior post. Could it be you have no convincing answer?

No doubt basic social laws that helped prevent disease in an ancient society that lacked knowledge and modern medicine. It was common for ancient people to build social laws into texts that were backed by a God for enforcement reasons. There has never been any God coming forth, so the enforcement has always been religious leaders acting as proxy for the absent God.

I'd be curious what @Sgt. Pepper thinks of these quotes. And how about you? You are oddly silent on what these quotes mean, and what the factual and rational meanings are. I challenge you to present meanings that are consistent with reality and avoid assumptions like a God existing.

So if we both read a book and I asked you some questions about the book and what it was about, why wouldn’t you just tell me what you thought the book was about?

 

[F1fan]

So if we both read a book and I asked you some questions about the book and what it was about, why wouldn’t you just tell me what you thought the book was about?

I take it you have no interest in discourse. I have asked you questions which is an invitation to rebut or agree with what I have already stated.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I take it you have no interest in discourse. I have asked you questions which is an invitation to rebut or agree with what I have already stated.

Yeah you haven’t answered the simple questions about your personal understanding about the Bible so leads me to believe you haven’t read it for yourself.

 

[Kenny]

That is not really testing it then. Pretty much any believed event has those that find it believable. That is not a test for the reality of the event.

No… that isn’t “testing”. I thought we changed subjects.

The height of the mountains is not taken for granted, but rather no reason or evidence that they were any different than they are today has ever been presented. The necessary volume of water that doesn't exist yet is claimed to exist is another. There are so many unbelievable conditions that cannot be substantiated I cannot see how it can be rendered believable unless all that is ignored and waved away. The mere desire to see these things as real is not a test or demonstration they are real.

Yes… different subject.

My faith is not so fragile that it would be scathed by reality or the realization that some claims of the Bible were mythologized lessons. But that fear seems to be one of the driving forces to demand the historicity of an event that has no basis in evidence.

I have no fear. I’m just not convinced it didn’t happen. - Different subject

 

[Kenny]

Exactly my point. We have technology that allows us to follow a massive volume of such news and almost as soon as it is happening. The events were happening before, as history shows, but now we see it faster and wider than anytime in the past.

That and when you have a population that has reached 8 billion, there is going to be more to report among that mass of busy individuals over the same space and time.

It also brings in to alignment the point where it says that every eye will see Jesus when he comes back.

But that is also another subject.

 

[Kenny]

This is why Christianity is superficial. It's all about the believer and what the believer gets. Where is your commitment to the weak and suffering? Where is your commitment to what is true and honorable?

Not superficial at all...

A child is born and it first needs milk. Responsibilities come after it grows up.

You asked about the moment, not about the lifestyle.

 

[Kenny]

There have been Muslim radicals who have willingly died for their religious beliefs, but this doesn't mean that I believe Islam is a true religion any more than I believe Christianity is. The fact is that spiritual abuse and suffering are not uncommon among religious people. It is a sad reality of life that people are being abused or have suffered abuse by others, whether because of their religious beliefs or not. However, this sad reality does not convince me that I should believe in the biblical God, who is said to be loving, merciful, and just. In fact, it's quite the opposite. In my opinion, your reasoning proves nothing.

Doesn’t change the message or the efficacy of the work of the Cross.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Doesn’t change the message or the efficacy of the work of the Cross.

In your opinion, of course.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I'd be curious what @Sgt. Pepper thinks of these quotes.

My opinion of these quotes is similar to yours. As I explained in a prior post here, I don't believe that anyone should ever derive their understanding of morality, love, or justice from the Bible. In addition, I believe that it is riddled with contradictions and that the stories about Jesus are based on hearsay, embellished stories, or various myths copied and adapted from ancient pagan religions that predate the Bible and Christianity. Christianity, in my opinion, is a cheap imitation of other religions and isn't superior to any of them. I don't consider its stories to be any more convincing than those of other religions.

 

[YoursTrue]

While I realize this is classified as a debate forum, and -- I haven't read all of the responses, I have not seen much from those who say they are Christian to delineate which parts of the Bible they DO believe...as real and true -- and not myth.

 

[blü 2]

Haven’t heard anything you considered true and the Bible is clear on what being a Christian means.
A lot of claims about reading and understanding of the Bible is made on hear but not seeing the fruit.
What do you believe the Bible teaches on what it means to be a Christian?

To be a Christian has many meanings, all centered on Jesus, who is a character in the stories of the various writings collected as the "New Testament". He was a human who had earlier pre-existed in heaven with God and had created the material universe (the gnostic demiurge) if you credit the versions of Paul or the author of John; or he was an ordinary Jew until God adopted him as [his] son, as God had earlier adopted David as his son in Psalm 2:7, if you credit the author of Mark; or he was born as the result of God inseminating a virgin, if you credit the authors of Matthew or of Luke. He was descended from David (Paul, John) or his stepfather Joseph was descended from David (Matthew, Luke) or he was not descended from David at all and didn't need to be (Mark).

He was sent by God on a suicide mission, and if he completed it successfully God would forgive the sins of his followers. Why God thought this was necessary or desirable is never explained, and since God is stipulated to be omnipotent I'm at a loss to suggest a reason. Jesus accordingly declined to escape, was provocative towards Pilate, and was crucified in deep despair (Mark, Matthew), or some consternation (Luke) or as the cool MC of the proceedings (John).

Each of the five NT versions of Jesus denies he's God and never claims to be God. Despite this, Christians pressed to elevate Jesus to God status from the second century and in the 3rd invented the triune God, one God in three persons (Father, Jesus, Ghost). each person being 100% of God instead of 300% of God ─ a claim said to be "a mystery in the strict sense" ie a nonsense.

What does it mean to be a Christian? Depends on which of the many many Christian churches you belong to, Catholic, Protestant, Eastern, Coptic, Syrian, not to mention Mormon, Rastafarian and more. Take your pick, or start your own denomination. You're usually promised eternal life if you've toed the party line, though why that would be desirable escapes me altogether.

My own view is that what matters is that I try to do no harm and to treat other people with decency, respect, inclusion and common sense. If being a Christian promotes that, excellent. If being a Hindu, a Buddhist, a follower of the Great Spirit, or the Olympians, or the gods of Valhalla, or the forest, or an unbeliever, promotes that, equally excellent.

 

[F1fan]

My opinion of these quotes is similar to yours. As I explained in a prior post here, I don't believe that anyone should ever derive their understanding of morality, love, or justice from the Bible. In addition, I believe that it is riddled with contradictions and that the stories about Jesus are based on hearsay, embellished stories, or various myths copied and adapted from ancient pagan religions that predate the Bible and Christianity. Christianity, in my opinion, is a cheap imitation of other religions and isn't superior to any of them. I don't consider its stories to be any more convincing than those of other religions.

This is what I find astounding when there are Christians who believe their interpretation is the ONLY way to read the Bible. The thing is they aren't doing the work themselves, they have adopted someone elses interpretation and meaning. No matter what the interpretation is there is plenty of room for questioning.