Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9

Author Topic: Serious question about Christianity  (Read 10748 times)

Cthulhu

  • Bay Watcher
  • A squid
    • View Profile
Re: Serious question about Christianity
« Reply #15 on: October 29, 2012, 09:14:34 am »

I'm honestly not sure it's that bad even in America.  I think it's just an internet thing.  America has a very small and very loud group of Christian dominionists.  You can find that group in every country with a decent Christian population, it's just that they get a bigger soapbox in America.

The problem of evil can get a bad rap because a lot of chuds who don't know what they're talking about and just want a good story to post on reddit break it out, but it's a serious problem for Christianity.  Free will doesn't really negate it, seeing as there's ways to destroy free will.  If I use drugs and torture to break a person's will, does that mean God values my free will more than that guy's?  I've heard a lot of explanations and some of them are decent, but none of them straight up answer the question of why the Earth is so fucked up.  Personally I don't believe in God.  I don't identify as an atheist because when I say atheist people conflate it with all kinds of tangential shit.

The point of Jesus:  In Judaism, justification is through following the Law of Moses.  The Law of Moses, being divine, is impossible for a human to uphold, and thus regular sacrifices are needed to appease God.  Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice, that's why they call him the lamb.  Justification through works is impossible, a human cannot live up to God's standards.  Only Jesus can get you into heaven.

The idea of God creating the Earth recently and setting it up to look old is called the Omphalos hypothesis, and has one major problem.  If God could make the universe 6000 years ago and make it look 14 billion years old, he could also have made the universe five seconds ago, or last Thursday, or a hundred billion years ago+.  It's unfalsifiable and completely useless as a hypothesis.
Logged
Shoes...

Starver

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Serious question about Christianity
« Reply #16 on: October 29, 2012, 09:18:38 am »

It's often stated that doing good in order to go to Heaven won't help your for example.
Responding to this in isolation to the meaning behind it, I often say that Pascal's Wager is completely wrong and about-face.  Best to be just a good person, rather than one 'faking' worship of any given god[1].  Any deity worth his pillar-of-salt should appreciate the former far more than the latter.  Any that doesn't is a fickle and/or picky god who you probably don't even have a snowball's chance in hell of not being that self-same snowball.

Thus, believe in the God (or gods) you wish to believe in and do what you think is good.  CS Lewis had something to say about this, but I'm not sure everyone agrees with his particular Christian allegories. ;)


That's of course my opinion.  Doubtless learn'ed theologians have decent counter-arguments, but so far I've heard nothing of the sort.




[1] Even ignoring the whole "But what if it's Odin?  Or Zeus?" arguments against the Wager.
Logged

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: Serious question about Christianity
« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2012, 09:20:20 am »

The reason that believing in Jesus specifically is the only route to salvation is due to not accepting his sacrifice and therefore being stuck with original sin, while believing in him and accepting that sacrifice gives you another chance.
Original sin's kind of an interesting thing, mostly because it's not necessarily biblically supported; there's room in the text for the interpretation, iirc, but nothing particularly explicit. You can blame most of its dogmatic existence on Catholicism in general and Augustine in particular.

As I understand it, insofar as original sin goes, even if you do accept its original existence (and there's plenty of ground not to), at this point it's utterly irrelevant regardless as to if you're a believer or not. It's one of the reasons Jesus was supposed to be as awesome as he's considered to be and his sacrifice as important; when he did his thing, he absolved pretty much all sins of that sort, for everyone, period. Christ was by and large (though, as in all cases with a body of text of the nature of the Bible, there's exceptions) a pretty decent fellow.

If you're trying to take the high road with things (it's fair to note that many, often especially those claiming Christian belief, don't.), "Jesus as the only route to salvation" is closer to Buddhist practice than anything -- a practical rule and action set for obtaining happiness in this life and the next. The path to salvation is to walk as Jesus; to act as he acted, to love as he loved, etc., so forth, so on. This is a thing guaranteed, the belief system says, to bring goodness (happiness, an improved situation for yourself and those around you, a reduction of harmful acts by yourself and those you interact with, etc.) into your life. The metaphysical beliefs inherent to that are (or were; it's incredibly important to know that the people who wrote the bible had a wildly different perception of reality and metaphysics), so far as I can tell, supposed to be necessary consequences of doing so.

Personally, I think a lot of people nowadays strongly overstate the belief aspect ([cynic]often, it seems, as a method to cover their own asses and believe themselves to be achieving salvation despite not actually doing shit to achieve it [/cynic]) of Christian theology. I've been fairly well convinced for a while now that if Jesus came across an atheist, or an agnostic, or someone of wildly different theological precepts, so long as those people were working the good works and generally being awesome to one another, Jesus would distribute righteous brofists and probably chip in with whatever was going down.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

Itnetlolor

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • Steam ID
Re: Serious question about Christianity
« Reply #18 on: October 29, 2012, 09:49:16 am »

Being a Catholic, I have been taught differently than most common beliefs; in regards to my own religion, quite a stark difference, from what I've been hearing lately, to the point I feel rather unique in my faith, even amongst my peers. Picking up a Catechism book can give you better insight to how I've been taught, and what has often been left out these days; which ironically, doesn't seem like how most other, at least perceived, Catholics operate (a real shame). Oddly enough, there's even a divide within our own structure of operation to the point where true Catholics can pinpoint the BS-Catholics (you know, the kind that are in it for the uniforms, so to speak; or only go to church exclusively on holidays, but not weekly). What makes how I've been taught much more different than others that are the same religion, by name only, is that true Catholics are surprisingly rather tolerant on many levels, even adapting as society evolves. We don't care as much about other people's faith as you'd be led to believe; just as long as you're doing what's right is what matters.

As for God's existence, and using His son as a justifier for tons of unspeakable things; or a weapon in most cases according to observing the extremists, like the Westboro Baptist Church people (even we don't like their conduct), that's not cool. We've been taught that Christ is more of a reassurance that as long as we followed his word, then salvation and immortality (of spirit, rather than body) is more easily obtained, and the additional commandments he also preached, often left out of most educations were: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul; and the other one: Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you. Where the first 10 commandments were restrictive to what we do as humans, the other two, which operate more like summaries of the 10 commandments, are more liberal with their application, and are more like instructions to be more responsible with one's own faith, but still follow in the Word that has been taught (more like guidelines to an enlightened life; in essence, to make life much less crappy and that you have reins over it).

Naturally, such an open-minded education of faith is frowned upon by the public, and are often instead covered in more controversy to further obstruct the message that faith in one's own religion should never be used as a weapon or a justification for corrupt activities of ANY sort. We're just as pissed off at the pedo-priests as everyone else, to the point that we agree that they ought to be ex-communicated as a start. I think I even recall the Pope finally losing it after hearing enough about that controversy.

In regards to Christ dying for our sins, it's more that he opened up the gates of Heaven for us (which locked during the Old Testament; simply put, he made the gateway a hell of alot more forgiving,and less restrictive for everyone, regardless of faith. He knows a shortcut in, and would also serve as our lawyer (with God as the judge) upon passing through if we have some baggage with us upon crossing), and that through Him, we can gain access to Heaven through redemption and communion of body, mind, and spirit (or in layman's terms, would we accept ourselves through the gates of Heaven? He's lending us a hand through our faith to make our final decision. Do we deserve it? Individually speaking, of course). We're all sinners through and through; however, there are sacraments to our faith that makes it easier to earn our everlasting peace and salvation over time; it's a mark of honor as a Catholic, so to speak. Through baptism washing away our Original Sin, confessing our sins, and acquiring penance (varies according to how much, and how bad the sins were; they're even classified by 2 different types: Venial/Minor sins, like missing a Sunday of church intentionally, or disobeying/not honoring your parents, or generally being a dick. These sins are like cuts and bruises to the soul, and don't wear down your spirit all that much; and major sins, also known as Mortal Sins, are the kinds of sins that can wreck your soul, causing all kinds of psychological problems and such, if not treated properly. Like killing someone, or through breaking any of the commandments, ruining another person's life inside and out, and etc. If you have a conscience, you can feel the impact of your actions in your soul, and everyone can observe the results. That needs to be taken care of ASAP, and penance with that is not easy to get over, but is possible to achieve, and redeem oneself; but such redemption can only be obtained if you really mean it. You can't simply wash such a thing away, except with the blood of Christ (communion; the bread and wine at church; think of it like a spiritual recharge. Consider Christ's blood the ultimate solvent that can remove even the most stubborn darkness infecting the most complex soul out there; provided the will of the person containing the darkness permits it to take effect (can they forgive themselves for their own actions that put them there, and humble themselves to accept God's help (through Christ's blood as proxy) in this manner?), and with a fresh mind, obtain Communion, as described earlier, during Sunday mass.

It's not as much that Christ is the ONLY route to Heaven, but he does make himself an obvious, and simpler path to it, via his teachings, especially for those of us that can't figure it out on our own. Where we send ourselves to Hell, rather than God, sounds just about right. It seems to make more sense; after all, what would then be the point of all the redemption and such as pointed out above, if not to protect ourselves from ourselves, especially in the afterlife when we have to make a choice where we are supposed to go? At least, in regards to Catholic teachings, we believe there's a border between Heaven and Hell called purgatory, which is basically like, as I would like to interpret it, like being stuck on an endless beach, walking for countless miles, reflecting on all that you've experienced, and deciding upon your final fate of whether you really do deserve where you were, where you are at the moment, and where you belong. Some decide Heaven for the view, and Hell for the company. By personal perspective, much like a saying, a fool's paradise is a wise man's Hell. Oddly enough, going against some doctrine, I think Heaven and Hell really is more of a perceptive reality, in which where we place ourselves is dependent on what we truly believe in ourselves. Some people are just so attached to this world, they end up wandering it for eternity, usually in regret, trapped in what is essentially mental breakdown as a spirit; explaining most haunting spirits, and some possessive spirits. They're ones who put themselves in their own Hell, by staying on Earth, rather than moving on and ascending. Kinda where priests operate as exorcists serving as both a guide for lost souls, and a police force for those that corrupted themselves into demonic spirits of oppression.

That's just about all I can really recall for now. I hope this helps. My faith is ever evolving (I question God quite often, almost regularly to the point I seem like I shouldn't continue following my faith (as perceived), and I felt more enlightened through my questioning. What kind of selfish, egotistical god would not permit anyone to question them to gain a better understanding of something that initially doesn't make sense? If God made us in His image, should we be as much God ourselves, as God was once human like us? Christ would be that Human God, and logically, we have right to understand more, and use His power to do what we feel is right. In a sense, that was what Christ was teaching us all along. I would like to think of him like the Kamina of milennia ago that was teaching us to do the impossible, because we are capable of doing so (even going as far as defying physics by sheer force of will (like walking on water, or bringing people back from death), as doctrine dictates).), as every other actual one in my faith; and on political fronts, or anything of the sort, in case you're curious, we're quite tolerant, I don't care about your religion, or if you're Agnostic or Atheist; much like your view on us, as long as you don't shove your beliefs down our throats, or act like a complete asshole with your belief/faith, then we're cool. Gay/straight-/bi-/trans-, doesn't matter; ditto the sentence before; the marriage front is more of an individual, by person, matter; due to to the volatility of that topic, let's keep silent on it, some of us are split about that within as well.

Despite some of our quarrels with other faiths within our belief zone, we tend to butt heads with the Protestants quite often as well as Baptists, Christians and "Christians/Catholics" (you know those types; the Hollywood-Religious types that have a really twisted view on how Christianity actually works, and makes it look extremely lame (they give me a headache; I nickname them Corporate-Christians; only by name, not by faith; Even God Himself would call bullshit on them)), a good thing to take note is that our aim is not to convert anyone; we just want to make sure they know what they're believing in, and actually mean it and understand it. It's a mix of orange and blue morality meets grey and white morality. Basically, we don't like when people only take up a religion by namesake only, or for personal reasons (like trying to get laid), rather than to help everyone else out through compromise and sacrifice for the greater good. It makes the rest of us look bad. Unfortunately, these kinds of people are the vocal minority ruining it for the rest of us, and to tell the truth, even we are sick of it. I understand why people are turned away from religion these days, but it's not entirely our fault, from my observation; some people have been devoting themselves to destroying religion overall (regardless your religion) for eons. Most likely for personal gain; predictably.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 10:00:56 am by Itnetlolor »
Logged

LordBucket

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Serious question about Christianity
« Reply #19 on: October 29, 2012, 09:51:25 am »

Christians

<-- Not a Christian


First, a clarfication: I assume by "Christian" you mean Protestant. Christianity properly would include a number of other groups besides Protestants. Catholics, for example. Arguably, Mormons. A few others.

Quote
what does Jesus dying have to do with people sinning?

The premise here is that the blood of Jesus replaces the Jewish blood atonement practice described in the Old Testament. Jesus, as God, "died for our sins." And therefore (payment/punishment/etc) has already been made, and therefore humanity has been "saved" from the wages of their sins by Jesus having made that sacrifice. But individuals have to accept that sacrifice and accept him as their savior for it to be applicable to them individually.



In general I find that Christianity makes a lot more sense when viewed from the perspective of a non-Christian.

It seems to me that this whole question of sin and original sin and atonement as so forth...the basic idea being described here is karma from the point of view of a unified human consciousness. All humans are part of the collective human consciousness. If one human performs an action, the entire collective may feel the consequences of that action. For example, if you punch someone with your hand, your entire body might be arrested and stand trial. You wouldn't reasonably expect to say that only your hand committed assault and therefore the rest of you is blameless. Similarly, if "humans commit sin" you yourself may be held accountable for that sin even if you personally had no part in it.

This view completely reconciles a number of apparent logical inconsistencies with Christianity, but in my experience Christians themselves will generally reject it, because it's a "pagan" belief.

Quote
The reason that believing in Jesus specifically is the only route to salvation is due to not accepting his sacrifice and therefore being stuck with original sin, while believing in him and accepting that sacrifice gives you another chance.

There are alternate views on this:

1) "All humans" are tainted by orginal sin, and are therefore imperfect. Therefore salvation through Jesus is the only option. This view, however appears to contradict Exodus 34:7, which specifies that sin is "visited upon the third and fourth generations." So, if you engage in sin, your grandchildren's children may be held culpable for it. Original sin having been committed by Adam and Eve...many more than four generations ago...it would be reasonable to think that we today would no longer be liable for it.

2) All that is required to "get into heaven" is perfection. However, as humans it's impractical to completely avoid sinning. If you could live a completely sinless life, then you as an individual would not need salvation at all.

This second view does nicely answer questions like "what happens if a baby is killed? Do they go to Hell for having not found Jesus?" Because, presumably, they've not had the chance to commit sin, and therefore "salvation" was not necessary.

-- Important side note: it is generally acknowledged that prior to Jesus there were alternate methods of redemption aside from Jesus. If you look through the Old testament you'll find a lot of discussion of animal sacrifice. The premise here is that blood was necessary for atonement (for reasons that Christians prefer to avoid thinking about.) However, when Jesus came along the "rule were changed" and the blood of Jesus, being as he was divine, was "sufficient" to atone for all sin, ever. Consequently, animal sacrifice is no longer necessary.

Along this line there is some disagreement whether Jesus is the only path to redemption now, or whether other methods do exist. For example, is animal sacrifice still a suitable means of atonement now, after Jesus' sacrifice? Was that method invalidated? Or is it simply a bit silly to make use of it, because a suitable sacrifice has already been made, through Jesus?

There appears to not be unanimous agreement on these points, and generally when I've discussed them with Christians they tend to simply fall back on some variation of "You can be definitely saved through Jesus, so why not focus on that rather turning the whole thing into an esoteric intellectual discussion?"

Quote
accepting that sacrifice gives you another chance.

It's probably important to note that the ide here is not that ccepting Jesus gives you "another chance" but rather, it "redeems you." If you're saved, you're saved. Christianity/Protestantism is disimiilar from Christianity/Ctholicism on this point. In Catholicism, there's a constant struggle of sinning and then going into to church to confess, apologize and atone for it. Whereas in Protestantism, once saved by Jesus you're still saved even if you commit sin again at a later date.

Quote
would anyone here (Christean or otherwise, though obviously the former would be able to provide more useful input) be able to say whether my interpretation is in any way similar to the typical Christian view of things?

Again, there's not a huge amount of agreement on the finer details. Forgiv my cynicism, but my observation has been that probably the "typical Christian" lacks enough understanding of his own religion to be able to have strong opinions on some of these topics. They generally learn that "Jesus Christ is our lord and savior" and they sometimes don't go into great detail beyond that.



Nadaka

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nadaka.us
Re: Serious question about Christianity
« Reply #20 on: October 29, 2012, 09:58:59 am »

edit: apparently reality is flame bait.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 10:07:42 am by Nadaka »
Logged
Take me out to the black, tell them I ain't comin' back...
I don't care cause I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me...

I turned myself into a monster, to fight against the monsters of the world.

Criptfeind

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Serious question about Christianity
« Reply #21 on: October 29, 2012, 10:01:51 am »

Yes monkeys! Yes! Start flinging that shit!

But seriously, is the flame bait really needed Nadaka. Really?

I was kinda enjoying watching this conversation, why do you need to try to ruin it?
Logged

Nadaka

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nadaka.us
Re: Serious question about Christianity
« Reply #22 on: October 29, 2012, 10:10:56 am »

Yes monkeys! Yes! Start flinging that shit!

But seriously, is the flame bait really needed Nadaka. Really?

I was kinda enjoying watching this conversation, why do you need to try to ruin it?

Deleted it. But I have a really fucking hard time pretending that religion is all butterflies and buttercups.
Logged
Take me out to the black, tell them I ain't comin' back...
I don't care cause I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me...

I turned myself into a monster, to fight against the monsters of the world.

Itnetlolor

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • Steam ID
Re: Serious question about Christianity
« Reply #23 on: October 29, 2012, 10:11:14 am »

The moral question regarding Christianity is not "if god is benevolent and all powerful, how can evil exist?" The moral question is "How can you worship a horrific monster like the thing described in your bible, and seek to emulate it and still consider yourself a good person?"
Think of evil and bad things happening like tempering a sword or axe or firing some clay into something more sturdy to carry something or cut through.

You need fire to improve something, so evil is a necessity; just as darkness is required to cast a shadow to show dimension more clearly. However, weaponizing that evil is more evil than the natural evil that existed in the first place, or "natural evil" as I would like to call it. Like when an animal kills another for sustenance. It's a necessary/natural evil for that life to eat life in order to continue it's own life. But committing a genocide for personal reasons, that is a manufactured/weaponized evil that is far worse than the natural evil for survival reasons. That's just plain cruel.

Does that clarify things any bit? Evil is necessary for evolution to take place, physically and spiritually (though many religions will speak otherwise; my own included). Why I also believe that Lucifer isn't as much evil, than is more a total dick, created by God (maybe even a split of His personality, with St. Michael as the polar opposite force) that's also doing his job of ensuring people are true to themselves. If that be the case, then Hell is more like a prison or correction center fixing people from corruption (regardless species or race or religion), Purgatory is like parole, and the ultimate test is living again to make sure you learned your lesson for good. Heaven is not as much an ultimate goal, rather than a privilege you have to earn. It's not so much a gated community, rather than property to earn the rights to, and make your own universe within; so to speak. A true home, if you will.

And yes, over time, I notice even I tend to contradict myself at times. Like I stated, at least from my perspective, my faith evolves and adapts (it's hard to recognize it as the original doctrine these days, at a personal level; but I feel the spirit of the religion itself is still intact). I prefer to look at my religion as one that guides others to peace, rather than ruling with an iron fist over everyone's lives as a moral police force.

EDIT:
Nice avatar change ChairmanPoo. Can you convert buildings too?
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 10:15:04 am by Itnetlolor »
Logged

ChairmanPoo

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Serious question about Christianity
« Reply #24 on: October 29, 2012, 10:12:48 am »

How is this going to get anywhere if only positive-takes are allowed? Maybe it should be rephrased as to make it more of a personal-view-on-the-book, but I think his opinion does have a place here.
@

No offense, but I find it interesting that you scorn "BS-Catholics" for their nonobservance, yet clearly cherry-pick yourself  on regards of what to believe and not-to-believe, not only of the Bible, but of the Catechism as well. Don't you think that attitude is, well, kind of sanctimonious?
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 10:19:04 am by ChairmanPoo »
Logged
I recently became a objectivist, I am reasonably certain that means all my opinions are now universal fact.
Everyone sucks at everything. Until they don't. Not sucking is a product of time invested.

kaijyuu

  • Bay Watcher
  • Hrm...
    • View Profile
Re: Serious question about Christianity
« Reply #25 on: October 29, 2012, 10:15:32 am »

How is this going to get anywhere if only positive-takes are allowed? Maybe it should be rephrased as to make it more of a personal-view-on-the-book, but I think his opinion does have a place here.
Negative takes are fine, but I think we can do without inflammatory stuff.

His opinion is valid (and is part of the reason I lost my faith so long ago), but the way he put it does not lead to constructive discussion.
Logged
Quote from: Chesterton
For, in order that men should resist injustice, something more is necessary than that they should think injustice unpleasant. They must think injustice absurd; above all, they must think it startling. They must retain the violence of a virgin astonishment. When the pessimist looks at any infamy, it is to him, after all, only a repetition of the infamy of existence. But the optimist sees injustice as something discordant and unexpected, and it stings him into action.

LordBucket

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Serious question about Christianity
« Reply #26 on: October 29, 2012, 10:16:17 am »

The moral question regarding Christianity is not "if god is benevolent and all powerful, how can evil exist?" The moral question is
"How can you worship a horrific monster like the thing described in your bible, and seek to emulate it and still consider yourself a good person?"

This is a question that the Jews understand better than Christians. And I respond simply by asking: "What if God is an asshole?"

If you accept the premise of a singular, omniscient and omnipotent being, who created you, me, the entire universe and everything in it...what basis of comparison is there for "morality" apart from "His" ?

You, as a "mere human" attempting to assert your own personal views on morality is like a rat in a maze attempting to assert that it would be more proper for the high school student who made the maze for a science project to simply give him the cheese rather than expecting him to run through the maze. From the rat's point of view, that makes a lot of sense. But from the point of view of the guy who made the maze, he created the entire scenario of the maze and the cheese and bought the rat for the specific purpose of having him run through it.

Itnetlolor

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • Steam ID
Re: Serious question about Christianity
« Reply #27 on: October 29, 2012, 10:18:35 am »

*looks at watch*
let's see... thread involving religion... some people already having minor conflicts...
I wonder how long it'll last?
Not long, as usual of these things. I figured with my post, I might as well toss in some insight from within one to add a bit more content for interpretation. If I started anything with it; especially flame-worthy. Sorry.

Negative stuff is always welcome (see post about evil above. It tempers the topic, and can strengthen our views since we see the other side of the coin); just as long as it doesn't go out of hand, involve ponies eventually, or anything else flame-war worthy, and make it go from tempering embers of coal into an explosive volcano or supernova. Let's keep it civil and constructive. We may need someone to moderate this just in case, to be safe.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 10:20:34 am by Itnetlolor »
Logged

ChairmanPoo

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Serious question about Christianity
« Reply #28 on: October 29, 2012, 10:21:52 am »

@

No offense, but I find it interesting that you scorn "BS-Catholics" for their nonobservance, yet clearly cherry-pick yourself  on regards of what to believe and not-to-believe, not only of the Bible, but of the Catechism as well. It's kind of... sanctimonious. Are you familiar with this parable?
Logged
I recently became a objectivist, I am reasonably certain that means all my opinions are now universal fact.
Everyone sucks at everything. Until they don't. Not sucking is a product of time invested.

Itnetlolor

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • Steam ID
Re: Serious question about Christianity
« Reply #29 on: October 29, 2012, 10:29:13 am »

How is this going to get anywhere if only positive-takes are allowed? Maybe it should be rephrased as to make it more of a personal-view-on-the-book, but I think his opinion does have a place here.
@
No offense, but I find it interesting that you scorn "BS-Catholics" for their nonobservance, yet clearly cherry-pick yourself  on regards of what to believe and not-to-believe, not only of the Bible, but of the Catechism as well. Don't you think that attitude is, well, kind of sanctimonious?
I see your point. What I was meaning, in regards to BS-Catholics was the kind that are in it just to impress someone, or take without giving in return, rather than to enlighten themselves, and help others along the road (basically, pulling off a George Costanza, where he converted so he can be with someone; but doesn't commit to the religion. He had cheat sheets with him FFS.). We should be helping each other out regardless, not obstructing progress. You can BS people, but you can't BS God (I think an omnipresent/omnipotent being is smarter than that).

Like I mentioned before, I tend to contradict myself at times, but that happens with everyone, regardless. I just don't like how people pick things just to 'be on a team' rather than based on their beliefs or moral code. And I know I tend to get flak for this, but although I look like I cherry-pick things, I am still sticking to the word as it has been preached, but keeping an open mind as time goes on. It bothers me how rigid religion and observations of faith and etc. have become as of late. If God was able to change His ways between Testaments, then why can't religions and people?

That's my outlook on it, at least. It may clash with others, but at times, I don't even recognize my own religion anymore with all the crap that's been going on these days. I feel in my spirit, somehow, that I'm going in the right direction, and should just continue going with the flow (like my main message: I seek not to convert; just to provide understanding). As long as I remain true to myself, and am doing the right thing, that's what matters more than my religious label. I may eventually lose my title as a Catholic over time, but I do believe God would still be cool with it, and be a rather forgiving guy. In a sense, I sorta evolved my belief of God into a more context-sensitive being that understands your intents, compared to your actions and the results of them, and judges you accordingly. Kinda like the Father we have been taught Him to be. By context, it makes more sense. It also feels more universal, regardless of religion (if we're all calling to the same God, but with different names) in it's operation.

For what it's worth, even He can pick out those that use religion as a weapon (for just or unjust reasons), and those who use religion for education or helping others (similarly), and give a hell of a verbal beatdown on those that were intentionally doing wrong or evil deeds under His name, or misusing His name (in vain, mind you, is a commandment thou shalt not). Like stated above; you can BS other people, but you can't BS a principality or power greater than all things.

EDIT:
Did I just respond to my own post?

EDIT EDIT:
Nevermind, I think it was a botched quoting on Poo's part. Fixed it; I think.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 11:03:51 am by Itnetlolor »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9