Lost my faith, might find it again...but might not

[lonelybird]

Incorrect. Hitler was not an atheist. Not remotely. He was Catholic, in fact.

Himmler, on the other hand, was into the occult and paganism, and Hess was into astrology.

Thanks, Moai, you just showed us how people can manipulate things and beliefs:D , so people, please don't believe anyone who kill and murder IN GOD'S NAME. If you doubt, please check Bible by yourself.

[lonelybird]

It is not all about you LB

I know

 

Nobody hates you and as you say God is love which also means accepting of other people even if they are not Christians.

Yes, I agree

 

Which brings me to say why are you struggling with someone not believing as you believe, there are people globally that think differently, born in different places with different upbringings and backrounds, why do they have to believe exactly what you believe exactly the time that you believe it

Because that is the only way to soul salvation. I sure hope the more people can get it

[burning 4 revenge]

yea, and america basically is artifically keeping Israel as a going concern.

Cute post-script Osama

[ruby_gloom]

This thread is awesome. I've read more valuable things in this thread than I have in all of my past Christian years.

 

All of the insights here are amazing.

 

(Psst, Story, I really loved your posts in this thread. )

 

I might just become a neophyte for god.

[Storyrider]

This thread is awesome. I've read more valuable things in this thread than I have in all of my past Christian years.

 

All of the insights here are amazing.

 

(Psst, Story, I really loved your posts in this thread. )

 

I might just become a neophyte for god.

 

Thanks Ruby. I sometimes forget anyone might be reading, as silly as that sounds.

[lonelybird]

Read some interesting stuff.

 

 

This is the purpose for Christ coming to earth - to reveal God to man and to break down the barriers between God and men.

 

No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (John 1:18).

 

Notice the identity of the two persons who are here mentioned. First there is God who has never been seen by man. He is also called the Father.

But there is also "the only begotten God." This is God who was born in human flesh. This is Jesus.

Do you see the implications? Both the Father and the Son are described as God. This is an indication of the plurality which exists within the One God.

 

4. A Triune Baptismal Formula.

Matthew records some of the last words of Jesus before He was caught up into heaven. As He spoke to His disciples on the slopes of the Mount of Olives, He gave still another indication of the plurality which exists within God. It is found in the words of the Great Commission.

 

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 28:19).

 

Notice that the disciples were not told to baptize in the NAMES of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Rather, it is in the NAME of these three persons. Do you see what has happened? We have one NAME, but three PERSONS.

 

A similar formula is to be found in the apostolic benediction in Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians.

 

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. (2 Corinthians 13:14).

 

5. God deals with God.

There are several passage of the Bible which relate God having dealings with God.

 

Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever;

A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy kingdom.

Thou hast loved righteousness and hated wickedness;

Therefore God, Thy God, ha anointed Thee. (Psalm 45:6-7).

 

This is a case where God is seen anointing God. This is not mere reflexive language. It is not a case of God anointing Himself. It is one member of the Triune Godhead anointing another member. Less there be any mistake on this, the writer to the Hebrews quotes this passage and informs us that the Father is speaking of Jesus (Hebrews 1:8).

 

This same type of language is used in Psalm 110. It is a Psalm of David. King David is the speaker in this Psalm.

 

The Lord says to my Lord:

"Sit at My right hand,

Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet." (Psalm 110:1).

 

Once again, the Hebrew text helps us to more fully understand the flow of thought in this passage.

 

JEHOVAH says to my ADONAI:

"Sit at My right hand,

Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet."

 

Remember that it is David speaking. He is the King of Israel. He is the highest human authority in the land. There is no other person in the land whom he can address as "lord." He is the lord of the land. And yet, he DOES have a lord. His Master is God. He pictures a heavenly conversation when he pictures Jehovah speaking to HIS Lord.

 

Jesus once quoted this passage to the Jewish teachings in the Temple. The subject of their conversation was the identity of the Messiah. He first asked them who the Messiah was supposed to be. They replied that the Messiah would be the son of David. This was a correct answer. But it raised a problem. The problem was that Psalm 110 has David calling the Messiah by the term ADONAI - "Lord." A father does not refer to his son as "lord." It is the other way around. In what way is Jesus both the son of David and the Lord of David? He is both humanly descended from David, but He is also the Son of God. He is the God-man.

[lonelybird]

Do you still feel that you are better than the average sinner, and that God will allow you into heaven on a curve?" Relative goodness is evil when compared with the true and perfect goodness of God. Also, all of our obedience is poisoned, like an omelette with 5 good eggs & one bad egg. Every deed we do, every thought we think, is mixed with varying degrees of evil. We cannot measure our goodness on our own terms. (for example: Hilter :mad: )

 

There are several terms to check out if you are a "good man"

 

1. Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven.

 

 

2. (*)"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'

5:28 But now I tell you: anyone who looks at a woman and wants to possess her is guilty of committing adultery with her in his heart.

 

 

3. 5:43 (*)"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your friends, hate your enemies.'

5:44 But now I tell you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

5:45 (*)so that you may become the children of your Father in heaven.

 

 

5:38 (*)"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.'

5:39 But now I tell you: do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too.

 

oh, love your neightbor as love yourself

 

so? who is "good man"? I am curious.....

[Moai]

"A volkic political doctrine based on racial principles"

 

That's not Chrisitianity as I know it. That sounds like atheism to me. So he called it Christian and used Chrisitan symbols. So what? It wasn't Christian in any way, but simply a hijacking of the title.

 

The essence of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

 

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Press and Journal and seeing an article about how the ‘Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again’. Hamish is shocked and declares that “No Scotsman would do such a thing”. The next day he sits down to read his Press and Journal again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, “No true Scotsman would do such a thing”.

 

Hitler was baptized as a youth and was never excommunicated. The Church never condemned him, although there were Catholic bishops in Germany who did. Many Nazis were aided by the Vatican in escaping capture at war's end.

 

The concept of the "volk" is a complex one, but as most cultures do, they adapt and morph their cultural beliefs into their Christian beliefs. The Jews had been persecuted in Europe long before Hitler came along, he was just the one who developed a national plan of action.

 

Martin Luther was also a vehement anti-Semite. The KKK hold Christianity as one of their central tenets.

 

Whether these people are twisting scripture for their own ends is an open question, but the fact is that people do this. All the time. There are about 1500 different versions of Christianity, and most Christians look at the others and say, "well, they aren't TRUE Christians." I know believers personally who do not think that Catholics are Christians. And on and on.

[Moai]

Thanks, Moai, you just showed us how people can manipulate things and beliefs:D , so people, please don't believe anyone who kill and murder IN GOD'S NAME. If you doubt, please check Bible by yourself.

 

You're welcome. And I agree, I think everyone should check out the Bible for themselves.

[serial muse]

Hey Storyrider, my friend, I just got in from work. Christ, I'm exhausted.

 

As far as Hitler goes he was an atheist. The closest thing to religion he came to was a perverted belief in Nietzcheism. And a twisted interpretation of Darwinism. Both atheists.

 

Not to sidetrack this fascinating discussion too much, but I just wanted to add that Darwin was actually not an atheist at all - in his diaries, he struggles quite a lot with religion, and with how to reconcile natural selection with a belief in God. He wasn't fundamentalist but had a very strong personal faith that was challenged by his own theories, but he himself never went so far as to say he didn't believe in God. He was actually really stung by those who called him atheist in his lifetime, I think. Ultimately, he kind of choked on the issue and was unwilling to come down hard on one side or the other.

 

His words - from his diaries - are ironically evocative of a kind of proto-Intelligent Design idea (which, to me, does sound like an uneasy mashing-together of two opposing ideas):

 

"Another source of conviction in the existance of God connected with the reason and not the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look at a first cause having an intelliegent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a theist."

 

But then he wavers some more, and ultimately doesn't decide:

 

"This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt -- can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as the possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such a grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.

 

I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."

 

 

Just thought it was interesting - sorry for the sidetrack.

[Storyrider]

The essence of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

 

 

Hitler was baptized as a youth and was never excommunicated. The Church never condemned him, although there were Catholic bishops in Germany who did. Many Nazis were aided by the Vatican in escaping capture at war's end.

 

The concept of the "volk" is a complex one, but as most cultures do, they adapt and morph their cultural beliefs into their Christian beliefs. The Jews had been persecuted in Europe long before Hitler came along, he was just the one who developed a national plan of action.

 

Martin Luther was also a vehement anti-Semite. The KKK hold Christianity as one of their central tenets.

 

Of course one can be a true Christian and an anitsemite. In that case, one is simply not living up to the tenants of the faith in that regard. It is a sin, like any other.

 

Whether these people are twisting scripture for their own ends is an open question, but the fact is that people do this. All the time.

 

If it goes a step further, and the act is perpetrated in the name of Christianity (as with slavery) then it is a bigger sin. There is a theory I agree with, that this is what was prohibited by the commandment not to take the Lord's name in vain--using God's name for a bad cause.

 

There are about 1500 different versions of Christianity, and most Christians look at the others and say, "well, they aren't TRUE Christians." I know believers personally who do not think that Catholics are Christians. And on and on.

 

Catholicism has a creed that defines the basics of what one must believe. I practically have it memorized from going to Mass with my H. In a nutshell, you have to believe in the divinity of all three persons of the trinity, and that Christ died for your sins.

 

So there is an objective definition of what it means to be a Catholic Christian. And since I do believe in an objective truth it doesn't matter to me whether Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe Catholics are true Christians. They are wrong.

[Storyrider]

Quite frankly, the Scotsman story doesn't do anything for me. One would define a Scotsman by the objective rules set up according to Scotland. In the US, one is still a citizen even if a murderer. If someone argued it was not the case, he would simply be wrong. He could argue that the law should be changed, but his belief alone would not change the citizenship status of the murderer.

[burning 4 revenge]

Being a Scotsman doesn't require one to believe and act a certain way. Being a Christian does. They aren't analogous.

 

And as I've stated before, I'm an atheist like you Moai, but I think this discussion has become an argument over whether Chrisitianity made the world a better place and if that's the argument then I'm definitely on the defensive side of Christianity and it's predecessor Judaism.

[Topper]

It is my believe that education and Knowledge made the world a better place. All religions stress a set of morals. Buddhist, Islam, Hindus Jew and Christians all have a set of moral codes. Each has their books and doctrines that stress how to live a good and moral life. It was only when people were able to start reading these books on their own and able to make up their own mind what it mean to be a good Christian or a good Muslim that we see these codes take on new meaning. For 2000 years Christians used the Book of John to Justify Jewish persecution. The Bible was also used to justify Slavery and racism against Blacks. Blacks were said to have the mark of Cain.

It was the Printing Press and Education that freed Europe from ignorance and virtual slavery under the rule of The Christian Chruch and Christian Kingdoms. In the dark ages science was the enemy of the Chruch. In some respects it still is seen as the enemy by fundamentalist christians. The printing press was seen also as a tool of the Devil. Presses were burned and destroyed in the name of Christ. After a 1000 years or more of repression of thought, science and education by the Christian Chruch Europe dug it's self out of the Dark ages despite Christianity. It is only when people started to read and comprehend that what they were thought was not necessarily true that is when The Nature of Christianity started to change.

[Moai]

Quite frankly, the Scotsman story doesn't do anything for me. One would define a Scotsman by the objective rules set up according to Scotland. In the US, one is still a citizen even if a murderer. If someone argued it was not the case, he would simply be wrong. He could argue that the law should be changed, but his belief alone would not change the citizenship status of the murderer.

 

Of course. However, such things go beyond a set of criteria for citizenship. I have a US passport. I am a citizen of the US. But, what does it mean to be, as is put here, a "real" American? Such definitions are meaningless, but they mean something to some people, and in such cases it is fallacious.

 

I agree that those who say that Catholics are not Christians are wrong. There is no changing their mind, it seems.

 

If someone professes belief that Jesus is the Son of God, that makes the person a Christian. To argue that, "True Christians do/say/believe 'x'" beyond that is meaningless. You'll get 1500 different answers.

 

The Catholic Church has a long history of anti-Semitism. There are certainly those who know more than I about that, but even a casual reading of the evidence such a conclusion is undeniable. Where those priests, popes, and lay-members sinning? Maybe, maybe not.

 

Slavery was justified for centuries using the Bible. Does that make slavery right? No, it doesn't. There are sermons upon sermons written justifying it. Eventually, the correct view that slavery is wrong won out--in spite of the religious position--and now I don't think you'd ever hear a pro-slavery sermon again in a Western country.

 

I am sure that the same will be true of homosexuality. Eventually it will no longer be seen as immoral, and everyone will see how silly the hatred of homosexuals is, and it will go away. the book will remain unchanged, however. The same happened with women voting, speaking in church, praying with their heads covered, and on and on. COmmon sense rules out, even over scripture.

[Storyrider]

The Catholic Church has a long history of anti-Semitism. There are certainly those who know more than I about that, but even a casual reading of the evidence such a conclusion is undeniable. Where those priests, popes, and lay-members sinning? Maybe, maybe not.

 

Of course they were sinning according to the rules of their own religion. Do you think Jesus would have condoned the murderous pogroms that took place in Europe after the passion plays? Were the popes who fathered countless children by different women sinning in the eyes of the Church? Of course, even if no one held them accountable at the time.

 

Slavery was justified for centuries using the Bible. Does that make slavery right? No, it doesn't. There are sermons upon sermons written justifying it. Eventually, the correct view that slavery is wrong won out--in spite of the religious position--and now I don't think you'd ever hear a pro-slavery sermon again in a Western country.

 

Yes, and the forces that drove abolition were Christian as well. And MLK based many of his sermons on the Exodus story, which is very pro freedom.

[Moai]

Of course they were sinning according to the rules of their own religion. Do you think Jesus would have condoned the murderous pogroms that took place in Europe after the passion plays? Were the popes who fathered countless children by different women sinning in the eyes of the Church? Of course, even if no one held them accountable at the time.

 

Everyone sins according to the tenets of their own religion. Jesus was clear in several passages that in order to be a follower of his, you must sell all your possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. How many converts actually do this?

 

Jesus also said that to be a follower of his, you must follow all his father's commandments. How many Christians work on Saturday--or Sunday? How many eat pork? How many stone their children for bad behavior?

 

Jesus hated divorce more than Jehovah, his father did. If you get divorced and remarry, that is adultery according to Jesus. How many Christians get remarried?

 

Do Christians even agree on whether these tenets should be followed or not? The Catholic Church feels that contraception is a sin. how many Catholics use birth control anyway?

 

I have no idea if Jesus would have condoned that behavior or not. Sometimes Jesus advocates violence, other times not.

 

Yes, and the forces that drove abolition were Christian as well. And MLK based many of his sermons on the Exodus story, which is very pro freedom.

 

Pro-freedom for Jews. The Bible has no problem with Jews enslaving others. And yes, there were certainly sermons given denouncing slavery. I have a two sermons that are diametrically opposed to one another, both written by Methodists on either side of the Mason-Dixon line. The man on the side of the North happened to be on the correct moral side.

 

There is not one place in the Bible where god, or Jesus for that matter, say that slavery is wrong.

 

I again mention homosexuality. There are Christian churches who welcome homosexuals, and let them become members of the clergy. There are others who are violently opposed to homosexuality. Both use the Bible to support their positions. Eventually, the anti-homosexual group will lose. that will not make the Bible a pro-homosexual book suddenly. I have read the Bible, and scripture was on the side of both slavery and gay bashing.

[Moai]

Being a Scotsman doesn't require one to believe and act a certain way. Being a Christian does. They aren't analogous.

 

And as I've stated before, I'm an atheist like you Moai, but I think this discussion has become an argument over whether Chrisitianity made the world a better place and if that's the argument then I'm definitely on the defensive side of Christianity and it's predecessor Judaism.

 

Ok, you are concentrating too much on the name of the fallacy and not the fallacy itself.

 

Let me put it this way: James tells me that no Christian would tolerate gay people. I tell him that there are Episcopalian ministers who are gay. Then he tells me that Episcopalians are not "true" Christians.

 

See? The same goes for statements like, "All real Americans support the war in Iraq." It is a common fallacy.

 

And if in fact you think that Christianity and Judaism made the world a better place, I am all for looking at your evidence. I can think of instances where it did improve things, but mush, much more where it made things worse.

 

But the discussion is more than that. Believers maintain that without God or some sort of magical moral outline, humans will become immoral. There is no evidence to suggest that is so--in fact, there is a growing amount of evidence to suggest the opposite is true.

 

The OP mention losing her faith, and not being sure if she would get it back. As I have no faith in god, or religion, I see that as a good thing, and hence this discussion.

[pricillia]

Do you think I should listen to you or listen to my Lord Jesus Christ? I still have much to say whenever the Holy Spirit feel want to. You go astray because you don't get the beacon...

 

One plant the seeds, another water the seeds. Yet it was God who brought forth the fruit for His honor and glory.

 

Your post shows you didn't get to the right road yet, sorry to be blunt.

 

 

When you say the right road, do you mean the Christian Road? LB God works in mysterious ways and there are many different religions out there just because one does not choose your road does not mean it is not the right one.

 

From where I am sitting there are many different roads that lead to the right place, some may take longer then others but there is not just one right road, and for you to think that means that you may be close minded to anothers way of thinking, which could hinder you reaching your goals yourself.

 

I don't expect you to "listen" to me over "listening to God, however there are many different religions out there, Christianity is not the only religion, you should acknowledge this fact.

 

Also spritiuality is a factor in this equasion...

[Storyrider]

Everyone sins according to the tenets of their own religion.

 

I agree with that statement. And Jesus would have as well.

 

Pro-freedom for Jews. The Bible has no problem with Jews enslaving others.

 

But again, the bible set forth rules for the treatment of tenants, the poor, and slaves that were much more fair than anything in the pagan world, like leaving tithes in the fields unharvested (ten percent of the crops) for the poor to collect and eat.

 

There is not one place in the Bible where god, or Jesus for that matter, say that slavery is wrong.

 

Yes, this is open for interpretation I suppose. I don't know enough about it. The Hebrews seem to have had slaves and servants. I am not sure if they were differentiated. But lots of stuff happens in the bible that is not necessarily advocated or approved--the polygamy, for example, that was practiced by many of the patriarchs, and the adultery and worse on the part of King David.

 

I have read the Bible, and scripture was on the side of both slavery and gay bashing.

 

I don't really have a strong opinion on this, except to agree that the Torah comes down hard on male homosexual behavior, calling it an abomination. But interestingly, it doesn't seem to address lesbianism at all. However, I don't think you can make a case that the bible advocates gay bashing, especially the New Testament. Looking at how Jesus handles Mary Magdalene, I'm fairly sure he would not have been a gay basher.

[Moai]

I agree with that statement. And Jesus would have as well.

 

But again, the bible set forth rules for the treatment of tenants, the poor, and slaves that were much more fair than anything in the pagan world, like leaving tithes in the fields unharvested (ten percent of the crops) for the poor to collect and eat.

 

I don't know about that. The Greeks treated their slaves pretty well.

 

The question, though, is if Jesus was/is god, why not come out against slavery? I think that slavery being immoral is self-evident. Why didn't Jesus? 2,000 years of cruelty could have been avoided if he had just said something. But he didn't.

 

The same thing with homosexuality. If in fact Jesus has no issues with being gay, why not say so?

 

It's funny, but when Queen Victoria codified Britain's anti-gay laws, she had all reference to lesbianism stricken, as she refused to believe that women would engage in such behavior, so there was no reason to make it illegal. Apparently the men who wrote the Bible felt likewise--or they liked lesbianism. It is an interesting question.

 

Yes, this is open for interpretation I suppose. I don't know enough about it. The Hebrews seem to have had slaves and servants. I am not sure if they were differentiated. But lots of stuff happens in the bible that is not necessarily advocated or approved--the polygamy, for example, that was practiced by many of the patriarchs, and the adultery and worse on the part of King David.

 

The Old Testament describes a great deal of behavior that we now find immoral and reprehensible. I can't think of any of it that God did not insist upon, or directly cause to happen.

 

I don't really have a strong opinion on this, except to agree that the Torah comes down hard on male homosexual behavior, calling it an abomination. But interestingly, it doesn't seem to address lesbianism at all. However, I don't think you can make a case that the bible advocates gay bashing, especially the New Testament. Looking at how Jesus handles Mary Magdalene, I'm fairly sure he would not have been a gay basher.

 

There are several passages in the New Testament that are anti-gay, but all were written by Paul--except one passage by Jude. And the were inspired, so if that is true god wrote it anyway.

[lonelybird]

When you say the right road, do you mean the Christian Road? LB God works in mysterious ways and there are many different religions out there just because one does not choose your road does not mean it is not the right one.

 

From where I am sitting there are many different roads that lead to the right place, some may take longer then others but there is not just one right road, and for you to think that means that you may be close minded to anothers way of thinking, which could hinder you reaching your goals yourself.

 

I don't expect you to "listen" to me over "listening to God, however there are many different religions out there, Christianity is not the only religion, you should acknowledge this fact.

 

Also spritiuality is a factor in this equasion...

That's my point, NOT every religion lead people to God, most of them lead people astray from God.

[lonelybird]

You're welcome. And I agree, I think everyone should check out the Bible for themselves.

You, for one, apparently did not check for yourself, or you choose to miss the good part.....remember the wise man thinking process? the wise man progressed, but you did not, you stopped there:p

[Moai]

You, for one, apparently did not check for yourself, or you choose to miss the good part.....remember the wise man thinking process? the wise man progressed, but you did not, you stopped there:p

 

Or you read it choosing to believe it first, instead of the other way around.

 

I am not making these contradictions up. There are volumes upon volumes of Christian apologetics to try to explain them. Of the few I have read, they fall far short. I blame the material.

 

I used to be e believer, by the way. I felt like I had the Holy Spirit, too. The more I read the Bible, the less it made sense. Why did the Holy Spirit show me something that it is not showing you, or vice versa?

[lonelybird]

Or you read it choosing to believe it first, instead of the other way around.

 

I am not making these contradictions up. There are volumes upon volumes of Christian apologetics to try to explain them. Of the few I have read, they fall far short. I blame the material.

 

I used to be e believer, by the way. I felt like I had the Holy Spirit, too. The more I read the Bible, the less it made sense. Why did the Holy Spirit show me something that it is not showing you, or vice versa?

Humble: When I read Bible, if I don't understand it, I would think I don't understand it at the moment, I believe at the right time God would reveal it to me.

 

Pride: when you read the Bible, you don't understand, and you think it is the Bible is wrong.

 

:p