|
Post by mikael on Nov 11, 2006 22:18:35 GMT -5
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Christianity is a religion, by definition.
And by yours, too. You are doing things so that God accepts you into Heaven, correct? That forgiveness you work for is the only way he won't condemn you for the original sin.
|
|
Wilderness Writer
Wolf Sokka
Zutarian Propaganda Writer
~Weaver of Words~
Posts: 2,802
|
Post by Wilderness Writer on Nov 11, 2006 23:26:09 GMT -5
It is very frustrating to me when people keep using the 'religion has killed more people' thing and tacking it to Christianity as if they were the only offenders.
There have been times when Christians killed each other and even others in the name of their beliefs (something not at all condoned or supported by the Bible) but they are not the *only* offenders. The Nazi's killed the Jews over religion, the communists killed and are still killing Christians daily because of their beliefs, the Arabs and the Israelites are in heavy battle right now, terrorists blow up people in the name of their gods, and Asia's past is rife with bloody battles that often had to do with their beliefs in differing gods.
I would also like you to give me a credible reference for your statement that religion has killed more than any other reason. That statement is thrown around a lot, but I've never seen a study or a reference to back it up.
Christianity is not about forcing other people to believe, or about killing to get your way. If you take the time to read the Bible (And I strongly suggest you do. This book has helped change and shape our world perhaps more than any other, whether you believe its teachings or not.) You will see that it is a book of love. Not wishy-washy, do what feels good love that most people want to hear, but the kind of love that a parent will have for a child. It is a warning to stay away from things that could harm you, and a comfort in hard times, and a way of life that promises hope and peace and a beautiful future.
No where does the Bible say to kill other people in the name of Christianity. In the mass killings you're probably thinking of, the ones that took place a few hundred years ago, were fueled by human greed and lust for power. Yes, people are flawed, but Christianity doesn't make them that way. The Bible warns *against* doing things to harm others, and it is only when we let our corrupt human natures take control of us that harm is done.
|
|
|
Post by mikael on Nov 11, 2006 23:35:45 GMT -5
I said religion was the number one killer, not Christianity. You misread what i said if you think otherwise.
The Holocaust, countless killings in Africa in the 1700s and 1800s, the complete eradication of most of the Native Americans, the Middle East now, the Muslims being forced out of Europe entirely; All due to religion. There's more, but I'd have to go look them up; I actually found a list of these.
As for what the Bible says to do, what argument do you think those who killed in the name of it used? "That's how we interpreted it." So in the end, it comes right back down to our debate topic.
And at base, Christianity is flawed, for one simple reason; You shouldn't need a reason, excuse, or otherwise to do what it says you should do. You should do it throughout your life, at all times, regardless of what a religion, government, person, organization, or deity tells you to.
|
|
Wilderness Writer
Wolf Sokka
Zutarian Propaganda Writer
~Weaver of Words~
Posts: 2,802
|
Post by Wilderness Writer on Nov 11, 2006 23:58:20 GMT -5
How do we know what to do? What determines morality? What code of conduct do we go by?
Some people think it's okay to steal just a little bit.
Hitler thought it was okay to kill millions.
Some people think violence is okay when dealing with interpersonal problems.
What determines good? What code do we go by? It is obvious that not everyone will hold the same personal code of morality. Some will even abandon it completely.
Christians do not follow the Bible's rules regarding morality in order to get to heaven. The Bible says "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9) So you see, it is not the objective to earn our way to heaven through good works. It just won't work that way. The Bible teaches that salvation is through belief in Jesus Christ and accepting Him as personal savior. Then we develop a relationship with him through prayer and Bible reading as often as possible. Through making him the role model and guide for our lives, we desire to follow in his footsteps, practicing the same morality, peacefulness, and love He demonstrated.
Yes, everyone *should* live a moral and good life, doing good works out of the simple goodness of their hearts, but the truth is that we need a moral compass to give us a 'right' and 'wrong'. Without a code of morality, 'good' and 'right' can be defined however the definer wants to define it. A shoplifter can say it's okay to shoplift because they had it coming to them for all the bad karma they had over the last year. And a little discount can't hurt, can it?
Hitler can send millions to people to their deaths because they don't look the way he says they should look, or do the things he says they should do. Who says murder is wrong?
My boyfriend can hit me when he gets mad. Who's to say hitting me is wrong? He needs to relieve some stress, right?
You know it's wrong to steal and kill and hurt others. So do I. So do a lot of people. Because we have been raised with at least a semblance of a moral guide. Without it, there is chaos.
|
|
|
Post by mikael on Nov 12, 2006 0:02:33 GMT -5
But my moral guide was never Jesus; my moral guide was my father. We shouldn't need a huge religion, organization, or government to define our morals for us (The way they try to do this in schools is sickening). Our parents should teach us the right way to behave. And the best way for that to start is to start with yourself.
My main point is this: We shouldn't need religion to do this. And if people do, they better start making it work, because apparently it hasn't done much yet (I mean the majority of people are still very immoral).
|
|
Wilderness Writer
Wolf Sokka
Zutarian Propaganda Writer
~Weaver of Words~
Posts: 2,802
|
Post by Wilderness Writer on Nov 12, 2006 0:13:08 GMT -5
But who taught your father his morals? Probably from his father, right? And who taught him?
The laws in this country were originally founded on the laws of the Bible. Without law, there is chaos, because most humans will interpret what is 'right' and 'wrong' according to what best suits their desires. Anything can be rationalized without a set law and code of ethics. What is 'right' and 'wrong' and 'good' and 'bad' become relative, determined only by the whim of the individual.
There will be the few who will strive to do what is fair and right, but without law and ethics, it becomes a world dominated by 'he who has the gold makes the rules' or 'he would has the strength makes the rules'.
|
|
|
Post by mikael on Nov 12, 2006 0:20:27 GMT -5
My father taught himself just about everything he got out of life, actually. He came out of a horrible family (I'll spare you the story) with no college education, and somehow worked his way to getting paid as much if not more than a college grad w/ a master's degree, and has three children, and is amazing to talk to, is well liked, and thought of as a great person by a lot of people. I won't say that the Bible isn't a good system of morals to follow, because it is. But people should be able to figure out what is good and just without that type of aid. I dunno, maybe my father is a rare case in being able to figure that out himself. I'd like to give the human species more credit than that. EDIT: This is a link to my father's website, which is where he's put up a rather meager portion of his poetry for the world to view: home.comcast.net/~dpnewkirk/st/contente.htm
|
|
Wilderness Writer
Wolf Sokka
Zutarian Propaganda Writer
~Weaver of Words~
Posts: 2,802
|
Post by Wilderness Writer on Nov 12, 2006 0:34:23 GMT -5
I would too. I would love to think that we as humans are capable and willing to make good moral choices without a government or written moral code. And, like your father, some of us are. I grew up reading books like "I have lived a thousand years", "Number the stars" and "Which way freedom" and maybe because of that upbringing, I feel in my heart that humanity needs a code to live by, and be kept to that code, lest it decay into the gross atrocities that it has in times past (and even today).
Of course, I feel the Bible is more than just a moral guide. I feel it is also a love letter from God, given to whoever would like to accept. But I would not force that belief on anyone, and understand that others have differing opinions.
It has been very fun and challenging debating with you, Oln. You've presented your arguments in a very intellegent way, and I've really enjoyed this, even if we don't agree about everything in the end.
|
|
|
Post by thedudeishere on Nov 12, 2006 0:45:17 GMT -5
My entire issue with the Bible is that it has led people to believe (KEY WORD) that there are supernatural forces, and that there is somehow a better life after this one. Isn't this one enough? Can't you do good for the sake of doing good and not eternal reward? To be honest, the conception of Christian salvation has nothing to do with doing works, and the Bible does say that "God loves a cheerful giver" and commands the doing of works. In other words, the Bible does command the doing of good works for the sake of being good. The Bible says that it is worse to give with a heavy and regretful heart than to not give at all, and it commands us to give. Yet, there are no assurances made about salvation from these works. Our salvation is by faith (see Habbakuk 2:2 and Romans 1:27). Furthermore, the Bible says that true faith reveals the righteousness of God. We are saved by faith, and that faith produces character (even if it takes time for it to do so, as I am a prime example of how slow positive change can be, since I'm still going through the positive change . The Book of James puts a massive emphasis on works, especially in chapter four of his work. Christianity is the religion of giving, and our motivation does not come from eternal salvation, but from pleasing God and helping others by nourishing his creation with the love of God. The Bible says that God is love, and my absolute favorite chapter in the Bible is I Corinthians 13, which is all about love (my signature is an excerpt from that chapter . Being a Christian is about being loving towards others. That is what I love about my faith. My faith has inspired me to be loving even when I don't want to, and most of the time I fall miserably short, but my aspiration to be like God and to emulate his principles has slowly made me more loving, despite the fact that I'm still oftentimes bitter and callous. I'm so imperfect, and I will never be perfect in this lifetime, and I can look back through the past several months and see how I've changed. I'm not Mr. SuperChristian, and many non-Christians are far more loving and caring than I am, but God is doing his work in me (God's doing it, not me, so I have nothing to boast about for anything , and that's all that matters. Sorry that post got out on so many tangents.
|
|
Growly
DOBS Katara
The Jester of Multishipping
The Mod behind the Myth
Posts: 6,059
|
Post by Growly on Nov 12, 2006 0:49:41 GMT -5
I personally think that good deads should come from the person without expectation of reward and without the goad of religion. Also, I see a certain flaw in the logic that someone who might live an unselfish life and do nothing but good for everyone around them could be condemned to d***nation just because they believe in a different religion. Tell me, what's the justice in that?
|
|
|
Post by thedudeishere on Nov 12, 2006 1:03:13 GMT -5
I said religion was the number one killer, not Christianity. You misread what i said if you think otherwise. Since Christianity holds that all other religions are false, then your contention doesn't really mean all that much. Christianity didn't cause that so much as exploitation of highly specific parts of the Christian Bible taken out of context (trust me, you can make anything say anything you want if you take it out of context; just get into the field of debating and you'll see what I mean). Which was caused by greed and racism and not religion. Caused by American expansionalist and racist fervor, not by Christianity. Which doesn't really matter, for reasons that I've stated earlier. Bad arguments taken out of social context. Some interpretations are more informed than others...just look at my example about the Universal Unitarians and how they don't believe in the deity of Jesus, despite holding the NT to be the absolute word of God. [/quote] Wait, you shouldn't need a "reason" to do things? I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. Further, you are assuming that there is some sort of absolute measure that you can define morality by, and since all morals assume a rational being behind them, your argument is implicitly assuming a higher mind that is governing morality by which we need to live up to. Further, your argument doesn't really make logical sense, at least, as far as I can see. It basically breaks down to this: 1). Christianity makes it so that people have a personal reason to do good. 2). One should not have a personal reason to do good, one should just do it for the sake of being good. 3). Therefore, Christinianity is flawed. While this idea does make some emotional sense, it doesn't really work because the reasons for which one should perform morality isn't really a pursuable topic unless one assumes an objective mind from which morality emanates, and further, Christianity does not emphasize doing works for personal kickback, but for the purpose of doing good, so the first premise is flawed. Anyway, we do things because God tells us to and because what he says will always add up to the right thing because of His infinite foresight. So it's not so much that God's saying it as that He sees farther than us, and his powers of logic are infinitely above ours, so by obeying Him we are going to the right future that God has ordained for us that we can't see because of how limited we are in our perception. So it's about making sure that the best possible thing will be the outcome and not so much for the sake of the the fact that God is telling us. Thanks for taking the time to express your opinions, uln. They are quite appreciated. It's nice to have someone as articulate in their positions as you.
|
|
Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Nov 12, 2006 1:18:04 GMT -5
Since Christianity holds that all other religions are false, then your contention doesn't really mean all that much. They're still religions.But who is to say whose interpritation is correct? You have to decide for yourself. There is no universally accepted Bible translation. Actaully, "divine right" was part of the reasoning used for that. Exclusive Christian morals are useless. They only serve to differentiate between believers and non-believers therefore creating a divide between the two groups. The Bible even admits this ("Let them know you are a Christian by the way you act." I can't remember the verse though ^_^;; ) Not killing, not stealing and other "morals" are actually just common controls and regulations that have existed long before Christianity. Since humans are a social animal, they exist to help us exist in communities. Christianity's reservations about premarital sex, homosexuality, and others are just those differentiating morals that seperate humanity.
|
|
|
Post by thedudeishere on Nov 12, 2006 1:20:55 GMT -5
I personally think that good deads should come from the person without expectation of reward and without the goad of religion. Also, I see a certain flaw in the logic that someone who might live an unselfish life and do nothing but good for everyone around them could be condemned to d***nation just because they believe in a different religion. Tell me, what's the justice in that? This is quite an easy misperception to make of Christianity's doctrine. But the concept basically goes down to this: 1). All have sinned against God. 2). Because God is the standard for morality (and there is logical reason for this), sinning against God requires a punishment. If one researches the ancient world, one will find that sin was deemed as an honor offense against God in the Bible. God can not have sin in his presence, so the only solution for him is for us to not be in his presence. 3). Our punishment for our sins is therefore that we be received with shame, for that is the opposite of honor (if you think this is stupid, honor was a HUGE part of the ancient world; the Biblical world is literally an honor-shame society, and the concept of honor was as implicit to them as morality is to us (which was also implicit to them)) 4). Christ received our shame when he was put on the cross. Christ, being God, had the highest form of honor, yet he was shamed in our place. One might think that the main purpose of crucifixion was pain, but it was actually shame. The pinioning of the arms to either side of the person, for instance, symbolized the release of power. The crown of thorns on Jesus' head, while not a part of crucifixion, was a mockery to his former claims to being a king, for instance. 5). Christ now has a new offer to us. He has accepted the shame of sin for us. All we have to do is accept it. Imagine a scenario where you have been convicted of a crime. Let's just say that this crime requires a fine of a million dollars. The judge asks you if you have the million dollars, and you respond by saying no. Because of this, you will be put in jail, but right before court is about to close, a man runs into the room and offers to give you a suitcase with a million dollars in it. That's a rough analogy to what Jesus did for us. He payed our debt for us on the cross. 6). Now there is only one thing that we can do. We can turn over our lives to God, which is how we accept God's offer, or we can refuse it. So, that's what the reason that a man who has supposedly lived all his life selflessly could go to hell and receive shame (not pain, as the mainstream of Christianity tends to think). Because they have not accepted the offering for the sins that they commited and have refused the one thing that would take away the sins that he does have. If you steal money from a bank and give it to charity, you're still going to be prosecuted for stealing the money in the first place; good works do not cover over sins. There is one thing though. If I, a man who is full of sin (trust me on that one) did not accept Christ's offering, I would get a large amount of shame. However, a man who only sinned once would receive a much smaller amount of shame. The amount of shame that we receive in hell is porportional to how much we have offended the honor of God. Anyway, there is a very good resource that can be found that explains Christ's atonement for us in terms of honor and shame. That piece can be found hereI hope this helps. May God bless you in the next coming days.
|
|
Growly
DOBS Katara
The Jester of Multishipping
The Mod behind the Myth
Posts: 6,059
|
Post by Growly on Nov 12, 2006 1:33:19 GMT -5
I don't believe in forgiveness or the removal of shame from myself. My belief is that I am , at the core, only the sum total of my actions. I also believe that if I commit some crime, I should d*** well pay the price for it. If I did something so bad it required a million dollars to get me off the hook, then I guess they'd better throw me in jail. That million could be best spent on someone else - maybe a lot of someone elses considering how much poverty and pain exist in the world today.
|
|
|
Post by thedudeishere on Nov 12, 2006 1:35:30 GMT -5
Since Christianity holds that all other religions are false, then your contention doesn't really mean all that much. They're still religions.1). Beliefs are the biggest cause of murder in human history. 2). Atheism has resulted in people's deaths, and it is a belief. 3). Therefore, I can assault atheism by pointing out deaths caused by beliefs in general. That's the sort of fallacy that one is committing when one says that religions are the biggest cause of murder in human history and uses it to attack Christianity: Christianity is only one religion, just as atheism is only one belief. What other beliefs or religions have committed is irrelevant to both debates. One can still accurately reconstruct the original text, and the Bible translations agree by 99% and there are no major doctrines that are differentiated in any possible translations that you will be able to find, with the exception of probably the Jehovah's Witness translation. True. But that divine right was not derived from Christianity, but inserted into it. If they had only evolution, they would have just said that the Natives were an inferior species to satisfy their racism. The racism was there, and they just needed to find some belief that they could twist to express it. The fact that they chose to twist Christianity is irrelevant to whether or not Christianity should be trusted in the same way that the way Hitler twisted evolution should not be considered a reason to discount evolution. What exactly is objectionable Christians being called to higher standard of love by God? Correct. Those are intrinsic morals that have their origin in God (and yes, I do have an explanation for why those morals would also be necessary for survival if they came from God, but that's kind of complicated ) Furthermore, evolution, while it can explain these basic morals, does not provide a reason for obeying them other than 'you'll get hurt by the social structure in which you live'. Basically, under evolution, morals are not morals, but just...how things "panned out" to be. Furthermore, humans would have evolved, ultimately, from animals that were not social animals if you go far enough, so the development of these morals would have had 0 survival value for them. Meaning that they must have had ultimately a different source. Or maybe they're God's insight and reasoning given to us. The problem I see in this debate is that I am not trying to say that these things about morals are how things actually are (though I do believe that) as much as I'm just saying what they are in the paradigm of Christianity. You're essentially doing the same thing, in that you're also assuming a non-theistic view. (which is not an attack on you as much as it is an observation as to how this debate has played out God bless you Grandi, and thanks for taking the time to share your views.
|
|