A United Christian Church Future

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Randle:
Acad tsunami, looks like you has an obsession with the old testament and "the law". Christ pushed that aside and replaced it with God's grace.

Remember that God kills us all in the end...

Andrew

Nonesense. Jesus took his 'legitimacy' as The Messiah by 'allegedly' fulfilling old testament prophesy.

So Jesus replaced God's vindictive murdering ways with God'd grace then? Are you saying he reformed and rehabilitated God or he said that the OT was wrong? Looking forward to your reply.

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:
Wot, no Acad? (chad smilie)

I'll talk to you later James!


It's all a bit grim isn't it: Kill your daughters, kill your neighbours, kill the whole town, kill anyone wearing Levi's....I'm amazed that anyone is left! We must all have the dullest ancestors.
It is an amazing leap from the fire & brimstone of the Old Testament to the forgiveness of the New Testament, and tragic that the brutality of the OT continues now in our current circumstances against us and in our name.
America is a strange and varied place. I think that people should be free to believe what they want provided that they remember and respect that others have different beliefs.
When my first child was born I went to meet the local C of E vicar who I got on really well with. I explained to him that I liked some things about Christianity but personally didn't buy the stories of the Gospels. I didn't need stories of miracles which I believe to be metaphorical in order to appreciate the message of love and compassion. He was a good guy and understood what I was saying, but brought me to a place where he concluded: “This is Christianity and it’s based on the Bible. You can’t pick and choose what you want and don’t want. That isn’t in the offer”.
It wasn’t what I wanted to hear of course, but I think he was right. I remain a spiritual hobo. If America believes the Bible literally, then I guess that is a requirement of being a Christian. It's best not to judge or remark on it, but just to accept that we don't agree. I know that's boring, but it's respectful... hopefully.

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:
Nonesense. Jesus took his 'legitimacy' as The Messiah by 'allegedly' fulfilling old testament prophesy.

I don't think Jesus did at all. He wasn't around. If he was around I doubt that he would allowed it to happen that way. I think that many many years later when the gospels were written, the facts were manipulated to legitimise under OT prophesy. I believe this is the point where politics buggered the whole thing up, as usual.
You mix up the spiritual (Jesus & God) with the PR management (Religion). Think of Elvis and Col. Tom Parker & you'd be nearer the mark.

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Randle:
Acad tsunami, looks like you has an obsession with the old testament and "the law". Christ pushed that aside and replaced it with God's grace.

Remember that God kills us all in the end...

Andrew

Nonesense. Jesus took his 'legitimacy' as The Messiah by 'allegedly' fulfilling old testament prophesy.

So Jesus replaced God's vindictive murdering ways with God'd grace then? Are you saying he reformed and rehabilitated God or he said that the OT was wrong? Looking forward to your reply.

Actually you are "missing a trick" here. Jesus, by definition, is God and therefore just as responsible for the process of what happened in the Old Testament.

Having said this, God set about choosing a set of people (the Jews) to be a shining example of good to the world. He released them from slavery and death, and had to keep order and a strict set of rules if they were to reach the promised land safely. Desparate situations often require desparate measures.

GOing back to God's right to kill. I don't mind if God kills me or not. He made me and give me opportunity to live in the first place, therefore it is his right to. In the end it's quite likely that that will eventually happen anyway through old age.

Andrew

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:
Nonesense. Jesus took his 'legitimacy' as The Messiah by 'allegedly' fulfilling old testament prophesy.

I don't think Jesus did at all. He wasn't around. If he was around I doubt that he would allowed it to happen that way. I think that many many years later when the gospels were written, the facts were manipulated to legitimise under OT prophesy. I believe this is the point where politics buggered the whole thing up, as usual.
You mix up the spiritual (Jesus & God) with the PR management (Religion). Think of Elvis and Col. Tom Parker & you'd be nearer the mark.

I'm happy to go along with this. In provoking some debate I was not, am not, necessarily giving my personal belief here.

Andrew,

So Jesus is God and God murdered countless in the OT but your Jesus 'pushed aside that' in order to implement a new era of 'grace'?

Clear as mud methinks.

Perhaps Acad's a Buddhist. Don't they recognize all religions.



Sanch

Richard Dawkins

Letter to his 10 year old daughter



Dear Juliet,

Now that you are ten, I want to write to you about something that is important to me. Have you ever wondered how we know the things that we know? How do we know, for instance, that the stars, which look like tiny pinpricks in the sky, are really huge balls of fire like the sun and are very far away? And how do we know that Earth is a smaller ball whirling round one of those stars, the sun?

The answer to these questions is "evidence." Sometimes evidence means actually seeing ( or hearing, feeling, smelling..... ) that something is true. Astronauts have travelled far enough from earth to see with their own eyes that it is round. Sometimes our eyes need help. The "evening star" looks like a bright twinkle in the sky, but with a telescope, you can see that it is a beautiful ball - the planet we call Venus. Something that you learn by direct seeing ( or hearing or feeling..... ) is called an observation.

Often, evidence isn't just an observation on its own, but observation always lies at the back of it. If there's been a murder, often nobody (except the murderer and the victim!) actually observed it. But detectives can gather together lots or other observations which may all point toward a particular suspect. If a person's fingerprints match those found on a dagger, this is evidence that he touched it. It doesn't prove that he did the murder, but it can help when it's joined up with lots of other evidence. Sometimes a detective can think about a whole lot of observations and suddenly realise that they fall into place and make sense if so-and-so did the murder.

Scientists - the specialists in discovering what is true about the world and the universe - often work like detectives. They make a guess ( called a hypothesis ) about what might be true. They then say to themselves: If that were really true, we ought to see so-and-so. This is called a prediction. For example, if the world is really round, we can predict that a traveller, going on and on in the same direction, should eventually find himself back where he started.When a doctor says that you have the measles, he doesn't take one look at you and see measles. His first look gives him a hypothesis that you may have measles. Then he says to himself: If she has measles I ought to see...... Then he runs through the list of predictions and tests them with his eyes ( have you got spots? ); hands ( is your forehead hot? ); and ears ( does your chest wheeze in a measly way? ). Only then does he make his decision and say, " I diagnose that the child has measles. " Sometimes doctors need to do other tests like blood tests or X-Rays, which help their eyes, hands, and ears to make observations.

The way scientists use evidence to learn about the world is much cleverer and more complicated than I can say in a short letter. But now I want to move on from evidence, which is a good reason for believing something , and warn you against three bad reasons for believing anything. They are called "tradition," "authority," and "revelation."

First, tradition. A few months ago, I went on television to have a discussion with about fifty children. These children were invited because they had been brought up in lots of different religions. Some had been brought up as Christians, others as Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or Sikhs. The man with the microphone went from child to child, asking them what they believed. What they said shows up exactly what I mean by "tradition." Their beliefs turned out to have no connection with evidence. They just trotted out the beliefs of their parents and grandparents which, in turn, were not based upon evidence either. They said things like: "We Hindus believe so and so"; "We Muslims believe such and such"; "We Christians believe something else."

Of course, since they all believed different things, they couldn't all be right. The man with the microphone seemed to think this quite right and proper, and he didn't even try to get them to argue out their differences with each other. But that isn't the point I want to make for the moment. I simply want to ask where their beliefs come from. They came from tradition. Tradition means beliefs handed down from grandparent to parent to child, and so on. Or from books handed down through the centuries. Traditional beliefs often start from almost nothing; perhaps somebody just makes them up originally, like the stories about Thor and Zeus. But after they've been handed down over some centuries, the mere fact that they are so old makes them seem special. People believe things simply because people have believed the same thing over the centuries. That's tradition.

The trouble with tradition is that, no matter how long ago a story was made up, it is still exactly as true or untrue as the original story was. If you make up a story that isn't true, handing it down over a number of centuries doesn't make it any truer!

Most people in England have been baptised into the Church of England, but this is only one of the branches of the Christian religion. There are other branches such as Russian Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, and the Methodist churches. They all believe different things. The Jewish religion and the Muslim religion are a bit more different still; and there are different kinds of Jews and of Muslims. People who believe even slightly different things from each other go to war over their disagreements. So you might think that they must have some pretty good reasons - evidence - for believing what they believe. But actually, their different beliefs are entirely due to different traditions.

Let's talk about one particular tradition. Roman Catholics believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was so special that she didn't die but was lifted bodily in to Heaven. Other Christian traditions disagree, saying that Mary did die like anybody else. These other religions don't talk about much and, unlike Roman Catholics, they don't call her the "Queen of Heaven." The tradition that Mary's body was lifted into Heaven is not an old one. The bible says nothing on how she died; in fact, the poor woman is scarcely mentioned in the Bible at all. The belief that her body was lifted into Heaven wasn't invented until about six centuries after Jesus' time. At first, it was just made up, in the same way as any story like "Snow White" was made up. But, over the centuries, it grew into a tradition and people started to take it seriously simply because the story had been handed down over so many generations. The older the tradition became, the more people took it seriously. It finally was written down as and official Roman Catholic belief only very recently, in 1950, when I was the age you are now. But the story was no more true in 1950 than it was when it was first invented six hundred years after Mary's death.

I'll come back to tradition at the end of my letter, and look at it in another way. But first, I must deal with the two other bad reasons for believing in anything: authority and revelation.

Authority, as a reason for believing something, means believing in it because you are told to believe it by somebody important. In the Roman Catholic Church, the pope is the most important person, and people believe he must be right just because he is the pope. In one branch of the Muslim religion, the important people are the old men with beards called ayatollahs. Lots of Muslims in this country are prepared to commit murder, purely because the ayatollahs in a faraway country tell them to.

When I say that it was only in 1950 that Roman Catholics were finally told that they had to believe that Mary's body shot off to Heaven, what I mean is that in 1950, the pope told people that they had to believe it. That was it. The pope said it was true, so it had to be true! Now, probably some of the things that that pope said in his life were true and some were not true. There is no good reason why, just because he was the pope, you should believe everything he said any more than you believe everything that other people say. The present pope ( 1995 ) has ordered his followers not to limit the number of babies they have. If people follow this authority as slavishly as he would wish, the results could be terrible famines, diseases, and wars, caused by overcrowding.

Of course, even in science, sometimes we haven't seen the evidence ourselves and we have to take somebody else's word for it. I haven't, with my own eyes, seen the evidence that light travels at a speed of 186,000 miles per second. Instead, I believe books that tell me the speed of light. This looks like "authority." But actually, it is much better than authority, because the people who wrote the books have seen the evidence and anyone is free to look carefully at the evidence whenever they want. That is very comforting. But not even the priests claim that there is any evidence for their story about Mary's body zooming off to Heaven.

The third kind of bad reason for believing anything is called "revelation." If you had asked the pope in 1950 how he knew that Mary's body disappeared into Heaven, he would probably have said that it had been "revealed" to him. He shut himself in his room and prayed for guidance. He thought and thought, all by himself, and he became more and more sure inside himself. When religious people just have a feeling inside themselves that something must be true, even though there is no evidence that it is true, they call their feeling "revelation." It isn't only popes who claim to have revelations. Lots of religious people do. It is one of their main reasons for believing the things that they do believe. But is it a good reason?

Suppose I told you that your dog was dead. You'd be very upset, and you'd probably say, "Are you sure? How do you know? How did it happen?" Now suppose I answered: "I don't actually know that Pepe is dead. I have no evidence. I just have a funny feeling deep inside me that he is dead." You'd be pretty cross with me for scaring you, because you'd know that an inside "feeling" on its own is not a good reason for believing that a whippet is dead. You need evidence. We all have inside feelings from time to time, sometimes they turn out to be right and sometimes they don't. Anyway, different people have opposite feelings, so how are we to decide whose feeling is right? The only way to be sure that a dog is dead is to see him dead, or hear that his heart has stopped; or be told by somebody who has seen or heard some real evidence that he is dead.

People sometimes say that you must believe in feelings deep inside, otherwise, you' d never be confident of things like "My wife loves me." But this is a bad argument. There can be plenty of evidence that somebody loves you. All through the day when you are with somebody who loves you, you see and hear lots of little titbits of evidence, and they all add up. It isn't a purely inside feeling, like the feeling that priests call revelation. There are outside things to back up the inside feeling: looks in the eye, tender notes in the voice, little favors and kindnesses; this is all real evidence.

Sometimes people have a strong inside feeling that somebody loves them when it is not based upon any evidence, and then they are likely to be completely wrong. There are people with a strong inside feeling that a famous film star loves them, when really the film star hasn't even met them. People like that are ill in their minds. Inside feelings must be backed up by evidence, otherwise you just can't trust them.

Inside feelings are valuable in science, too, but only for giving you ideas that you later test by looking for evidence. A scientist can have a "hunch'" about an idea that just "feels" right. In itself, this is not a good reason for believing something. But it can be a good reason for spending some time doing a particular experiment, or looking in a particular way for evidence. Scientists use inside feelings all the time to get ideas. But they are not worth anything until they are supported by evidence.

I promised that I'd come back to tradition, and look at it in another way. I want to try to explain why tradition is so important to us. All animals are built (by the process called evolution) to survive in the normal place in which their kind live. Lions are built to be good at surviving on the plains of Africa. Crayfish to be good at surviving in fresh, water, while lobsters are built to be good at surviving in the salt sea. People are animals, too, and we are built to be good at surviving in a world full of ..... other people. Most of us don't hunt for our own food like lions or lobsters; we buy it from other people who have bought it from yet other people. We ''swim'' through a "sea of people." Just as a fish needs gills to survive in water, people need brains that make them able to deal with other people. Just as the sea is full of salt water, the sea of people is full of difficult things to learn. Like language.

You speak English, but your friend Ann-Kathrin speaks German. You each speak the language that fits you to '`swim about" in your own separate "people sea." Language is passed down by tradition. There is no other way . In England, Pepe is a dog. In Germany he is ein Hund. Neither of these words is more correct, or more true than the other. Both are simply handed down. In order to be good at "swimming about in their people sea," children have to learn the language of their own country, and lots of other things about their own people; and this means that they have to absorb, like blotting paper, an enormous amount of traditional information. (Remember that traditional information just means things that are handed down from grandparents to parents to children.) The child's brain has to be a sucker for traditional information. And the child can't be expected to sort out good and useful traditional information, like the words of a language, from bad or silly traditional information, like believing in witches and devils and ever-living virgins.

It's a pity, but it can't help being the case, that because children have to be suckers for traditional information, they are likely to believe anything the grown-ups tell them, whether true or false, right or wrong. Lots of what the grown-ups tell them is true and based on evidence, or at least sensible. But if some of it is false, silly, or even wicked, there is nothing to stop the children believing that, too. Now, when the children grow up, what do they do? Well, of course, they tell it to the next generation of children. So, once something gets itself strongly believed - even if it is completely untrue and there never was any reason to believe it in the first place - it can go on forever.

Could this be what has happened with religions ? Belief that there is a god or gods, belief in Heaven, belief that Mary never died, belief that Jesus never had a human father, belief that prayers are answered, belief that wine turns into blood - not one of these beliefs is backed up by any good evidence. Yet millions of people believe them. Perhaps this because they were told to believe them when they were told to believe them when they were young enough to believe anything.

Millions of other people believe quite different things, because they were told different things when they were children. Muslim children are told different things from Christian children, and both grow up utterly convinced that they are right and the others are wrong. Even within Christians, Roman Catholics believe different things from Church of England people or Episcopalians, Shakers or Quakers , Mormons or Holy Rollers, and are all utterly covinced that they are right and the others are wrong. They believe different things for exactly the same kind of reason as you speak English and Ann-Kathrin speaks German. Both languages are, in their own country, the right language to speak. But it can't be true that different religions are right in their own countries, because different religions claim that opposite things are true. Mary can't be alive in Catholic Southern Ireland but dead in Protestant Northern Ireland.

What can we do about all this ? It is not easy for you to do anything, because you are only ten. But you could try this. Next time somebody tells you something that sounds important, think to yourself: "Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence? Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition, authority, or revelation?" And, next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: "What kind of evidence is there for that?" And if they can't give you a good answer, I hope you'll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.

Your loving

Daddy

Blimey !!, my post got sandwiched between two mountains. Acad, you be the man.

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:
So Jesus is God and God murdered countless in the OT but your Jesus 'pushed aside that' in order to implement a new era of 'grace'?

Yes, I have a problem with the "Jesus is really God in trousers" theory too.

quote:

For me and many other Christians, the Catholic Church is too unfocussed. Way too much doctrine that goes outside the intent of the Bible.

How do you know what the 'intent' of the bible is?

quote:

The use of icons/idols, over-veneration of Mary (when Jesus should be the focus), and the often lack of spirit-filled worship mean that they are often missing the point.

What is wrong with the 'use of' icons/idols? What is spirit-filled worship? Why do Catholics feel they are not 'over-venerating Mary? Any ideas?

quote:

In effect, all Churches are in unity when there is heartfelt gratitude that God is willing to "meet us halfway" and forgive us of our imperfections. In the end we are all united under the leadership of Christ.

If we are created by a perfect creator then why should we be less than perfect ourselves? I agree the churches would be united IF they could agree on something (or indeed anything at all) but they don't do they? Why is this? My view is the church (any church) is as full of ambitious egoists as any institution and they can't all get to the top so they create schisms and then split, creating (in their image)a new church where they can be top dog and get rich in the process.

Acad,

Could you try to get your point of view accros a bit more succinctly ? In fact, just stating your point of view wouldn't go amis.

You used to delight in extensive web links.

Now chunks of bible reading.

Whatever next?

Cheers

Don

quote:

If we are created by a perfect creator then why should we be less than perfect ourselves? I agree the churches would be united IF they could agree on something (or indeed anything at all) but they don't do they? Why is this? My view is the church (any church) is as full of ambitious egoists as any institution and they can't all get to the top so they create schisms and then split, creating (in their image)a new church where they can be top dog and get rich in the process.

Thank goodness for that!! A point of view that is readable.

You must have been reading my mind.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by sancho p:
Perhaps Acad's a Buddhist. Don't they recognize all religions.



Sanch

My personal view is that ALL religions FUNCTION according to one's faith and according to one's effort and ability/dispostition and this means they should all be tolerated if not personally respected, however I do not think that any religion can 'save' from mere baptism/initiation. No God can do it for you (there is no God), no 'I can do it all for you' Buddha either, you have take your own responsibility and do your own spiritual work (under guidance if necessarily)but no one can do it for you. People in general are lazy and impatient and not too bright, if someone promises them a quick fix they grab the offer (usually for a fee)but they have been sold a lie in my view. They get the promise, they generate faith, they get some results and then compute it must be true and therefore everyone else is wrong and then they become divisive. In fact Andrew and his ilk can point to no experience unique to them - devotees of all religions show a remarkable consistency in experience. They forget this.

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:

quote:

For me and many other Christians, the Catholic Church is too unfocussed. Way too much doctrine that goes outside the intent of the Bible.

How do you know what the 'intent' of the bible is?

By reading it. The intent of the Bible is eternal salvation, and getting people back in touch with God.

quote:

quote:

The use of icons/idols, over-veneration of Mary (when Jesus should be the focus), and the often lack of spirit-filled worship mean that they are often missing the point.

What is wrong with the 'use of' icons/idols? What is spirit-filled worship? Why do Catholics feel they are not 'over-venerating Mary? Any ideas?

What's better to worship, a clay statue or our creator, another human or our creator? What can be better than giving our creator the thanks he deserves?

quote:

quote:

In effect, all Churches are in unity when there is heartfelt gratitude that God is willing to "meet us halfway" and forgive us of our imperfections. In the end we are all united under the leadership of Christ.

If we are created by a perfect creator then why should we be less than perfect ourselves? I agree the churches would be united IF they could agree on something (or indeed anything at all) but they don't do they? Why is this? My view is the church (any church) is as full of ambitious egoists as any institution and they can't all get to the top so they create schisms and then split, creating (in their image)a new church where they can be top dog and get rich in the process.

[/QUOTE]

The perfect creator gave us free will, such is his generosity. The Bible documents a time when spiritual mutiny took place and changed the world into one that tends towards pride, egotism, self-interest and jealousy - effectively through turning away from God and probably thinking they can be better than God.

In terms of unity, all Churches are united under Jesus, the resurrection and notion that God can accept us if we are grateful for what he's done for us.

You say "My view is the church (any church) is as full of ambitious egoists as any institution" - that's probably because of these imperfect selfish and egotistical humans that attend ;-) it happens EVERYWHERE, but at least in the good ones it does something about it by changing hearts. Compare in the Bible the Church in Ephesus (Book of Ephesians) and the Church in Corrinth (Book 1 & 2 of Corrinthians) - one a shining example and another a bad example. However if a Church stays true to God, the Bible and is lead by the Holy Spirit - it's then that we see a glimmer of perfection that can be awesome and change hearts to ones that serve God rather than themselves.

Andrew

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:
My personal view is that ALL religions FUNCTION according to one's faith and according to one's effort and ability/dispostition and this means they should all be tolerated if not personally respected, however I do not think that any religion can 'save' from mere baptism/initiation. No God can do it for you (there is no God), no 'I can do it all for you' Buddha either, you have take your own responsibility and do your own spiritual work (under guidance if necessarily)but no one can do it for you. People in general are lazy and impatient and not too bright, if someone promises them a quick fix they grab the offer (usually for a fee)but they have been sold a lie in my view. They get the promise, they generate faith, they get some results and then compute it must be true and therefore everyone else is wrong and then they become divisive. In fact Andrew and his ilk can point to no experience unique to them - devotees of all religions show a remarkable consistency in experience. They forget this.

Everyone's experience is unique to them. My own experiences of the Holy Spirit is different from my own experiences of Chi. One is not the other, and both are different.

All religions are different. Whereas many religions say you can get to Heaven by good deeds, Christianity says that you can only get to Heaven through living the perfect life or having it lived for you (in Jesus).

Andrew

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:
Wot, no Acad? (chad smilie)

I'll talk to you later James!

I would contribute to this thread, Rasher, but I really can't be arsed.

James

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:
So Jesus is God and God murdered countless in the OT but your Jesus 'pushed aside that' in order to implement a new era of 'grace'?

Yes, I have a problem with the "Jesus is really God in trousers" theory too.

Heh heh. If I remember correctly from a previous post you said you respect Jesus because in his lifetime he was a "Good Man".

I'll let Jesus answer that one for you:

Mark 10:18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone."

So, either Jesus really wasn't really good in his lifetime, or he is God. Which is it to be?

Andrew

I'm really awfully close to you on this one Acad, apart from a couple of points;

quote:

People who believe even slightly different things from each other go to war over their disagreements. So you might think that they must have some pretty good reasons - evidence - for believing what they believe. But actually, their different beliefs are entirely due to different traditions.

You see, I'm of the opinion that evidence and fact are pretty unnecessary in all this. Religions are created as a tool for people to address their understanding of the world, their life and their mortality. Whatever the belief system, it isn't necessary for it to be true in fact, but only to provide a philosophy to live by, relating to the individual. So it doesn't matter if it's true and it doesn't matter what other people believe. You don't need to tell anyone, let alone convert others.

quote:

No God can do it for you (there is no God), no 'I can do it all for you' Buddha either, you have take your own responsibility and do your own spiritual work

Quite right, except for the bit about there being no God. Now, I believe in God, but I can't tell you what God is, because it certainly to me isn't a being. I think it may be as simple as being the power of love. It might be that because we do not feel alone, we can carry on. We might not realise we love one another, but we love the fact that we are all here, and because of that we can love our lives and the people who touch us emotionally. I don't pretend to fully understand the extent of the power of love, but it can be, and is, all consuming to the point that we will sacrifice ourselves for the love of another. This is a life and death and creating force, and I think what we call God is actually the emotion and sense of love. It fits for me anyway, and I get frustrated that people talk of God without communicating what they think God is, expecting someone to know that they are, for instance, talking about a being in human form, or a cloudy figure watching over the universe (or maybe just the world?). You can't talk of God without first explaining the term, and you can't talk about religion as a science to explain creation.
I think mankind wants too many answers and lacks acceptance that we will never know all the answers in this life. Accept that fact and we can all go about our lives.
There you go. That's me done.

(bit heavy this, for a Thursday afternoon).

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Randle:
Mark 10:18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone."
So, either Jesus really wasn't really good in his lifetime, or he is God. Which is it to be?

Ahh, as if by magic I seem to have answered that in the above as well.
It isn't the physical being of someone that is good, but the love within them (which is God).

quote:

By reading it. The intent of the Bible is eternal salvation, and getting people back in touch with God.

I see. So Catholics don't read the bible then? Who can blame them?

quote:

What's better to worship, a clay statue or our creator, another human or our creator? What can be better than giving our creator the thanks he deserves?

Well of course they don't worship the clay statue any more than a Buddhist or Hindu worships their statues - they impute divine upon the statue and regard it as the very essence of divinity as you impute divinity upon Jesus or use the concept of God. Its the same thing.

quote:

The perfect creator gave us free will, such is his generosity. The Bible documents a time when spiritual mutiny took place and changed the world into one that tends towards pride, egotism, self-interest and jealousy - effectively through turning away from God and probably thinking they can be better than God.

God can not create anything other than himself as in the beginning all there is is God or he would not be God ergo he also created evil. One can not say that man creates evil if God created man. The bucks stops with the creator methinks.

quote:

In terms of unity, all Churches are united under Jesus, the resurrection and notion that God can accept us if we are grateful for what he's done for us.

He can only accept us IF we are grateful? Not much of a loving God then. His love is conditional and although being all-powerful he is powerless to save us unless we sign up and chuck money in the collection pot.

quote:

You say "My view is the church (any church) is as full of ambitious egoists as any institution" - that's probably because of these imperfect selfish and egotistical humans that attend ;-) it happens EVERYWHERE, but at least in the good ones it does something about it by changing hearts. Compare in the Bible the Church in Ephesus (Book of Ephesians) and the Church in Corrinth (Book 1 & 2 of Corrinthians) - one a shining example and another a bad example. However if a Church stays true to God, the Bible and is lead by the Holy Spirit - it's then that we see a glimmer of perfection that can be awesome and change hearts to ones that serve God rather than themselves.

Yep, and the bad example Church gets destroyed by God and everyone in it innit?

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Randle:
[QUOTE]

[QUOTE] Everyone's experience is unique to them.

But not totally. Without commonality we could not even converse meaningfully.

quote:

All religions are different.

But not totally. If you were too actually explore a few religions with an open mind you might find that a good deal is actually the same and functions the same. Listen to the experiences of the devout Jew, muslim, hindu etc and accept that their experience is as real to them as yours is to you and stop bragging about a USP that simply does not exist.

quote:

Whereas many religions say you can get to Heaven by good deeds, Christianity says that you can only get to Heaven through living the perfect life or having it lived for you (in Jesus).

Herein lies the lie. 'No, no don't do it yourself, I will do it for you' thus you never even try and the only way you will ever TRULY know (experience over mere belief) is when you die and by then its too late to complain that you have been sold a pup.

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Randle:
[QUOTE]


[QUOTE] I'll let Jesus answer that one for you:

Mark 10:18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone."

So, either Jesus really wasn't really good in his lifetime, or he is God. Which is it to be?

Or Jesus didn't have a clue what he was talking about or he never said it or or or or - a closed mind runs out of options awfully quickly. You only see two alternatives - I could think of scores.

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:

quote:

You see, I'm of the opinion that evidence and fact are pretty unnecessary in all this. Religions are created as a tool for people to address their understanding of the world, their life and their mortality. Whatever the belief system, it isn't necessary for it to be true in fact, but only to provide a philosophy to live by, relating to the individual. So it doesn't matter if it's true and it doesn't matter what other people believe. You don't need to tell anyone, let alone convert others.

I actually agree.

quote:

Quite right, except for the bit about there being no God. Now, I believe in God, but I can't tell you what God is, because it certainly to me isn't a being. I think it may be as simple as being the power of love. It might be that because we do not feel alone, we can carry on. We might not realise we love one another, but we love the fact that we are all here, and because of that we can love our lives and the people who touch us emotionally. I don't pretend to fully understand the extent of the power of love, but it can be, and is, all consuming to the point that we will sacrifice ourselves for the love of another. This is a life and death and creating force, and I think what we call God is actually the emotion and sense of love. It fits for me anyway, and I get frustrated that people talk of God without communicating what they think God is, expecting someone to know that they are, for instance, talking about a being in human form, or a cloudy figure watching over the universe (or maybe just the world?). You can't talk of God without first explaining the term, and you can't talk about religion as a science to explain creation.
I think mankind wants too many answers and lacks acceptance that we will never know all the answers in this life. Accept that fact and we can all go about our lives.
There you go. That's me done.

I agree with 99% of that as well. You touch on an important point - what is God? There is virtually no consensus in any of the theistic religions and not even any consensus in Christianity - I suspect the reason why is because as soon as some definition is made it is effortlessly refuted, thus they go round and round in circles. I have no problem with 'God is love' but its awfully vague and as soon as anyone starts to clarify the definition they get into some very deep water indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:

quote:

You see, I'm of the opinion that evidence and fact are pretty unnecessary in all this. Religions are created as a tool for people to address their understanding of the world, their life and their mortality. Whatever the belief system, it isn't necessary for it to be true in fact, but only to provide a philosophy to live by, relating to the individual. So it doesn't matter if it's true and it doesn't matter what other people believe. You don't need to tell anyone, let alone convert others.

I actually agree.

quote:

Quite right, except for the bit about there being no God. Now, I believe in God, but I can't tell you what God is, because it certainly to me isn't a being. I think it may be as simple as being the power of love. It might be that because we do not feel alone, we can carry on. We might not realise we love one another, but we love the fact that we are all here, and because of that we can love our lives and the people who touch us emotionally. I don't pretend to fully understand the extent of the power of love, but it can be, and is, all consuming to the point that we will sacrifice ourselves for the love of another. This is a life and death and creating force, and I think what we call God is actually the emotion and sense of love. It fits for me anyway, and I get frustrated that people talk of God without communicating what they think God is, expecting someone to know that they are, for instance, talking about a being in human form, or a cloudy figure watching over the universe (or maybe just the world?). You can't talk of God without first explaining the term, and you can't talk about religion as a science to explain creation.
I think mankind wants too many answers and lacks acceptance that we will never know all the answers in this life. Accept that fact and we can all go about our lives.
There you go. That's me done.

I agree with 99% of that as well. You touch on an important point - what is God? There is virtually no consensus in any of the theistic religions.

This argument has no force whatsoever! The inability to totally describe God is, by its very essence, entirely intelligible!

quote:

I have no problem with 'God is love'...

...but it's awfully vague and as soon as anyone starts to clarify the definition they get into some very deep water indeed

So if it's so vague, etc, how come you 'have no problem with God is love'?