If christianity is true than god is a hyprocrit

[Moose]

That is exactly my point. There has to be a conscious decision made NOT to apply critical thinking to your beliefs, otherwise they would crumble. I personally value critical thinking more than I value ancient scripture.

Nonsense. What could be MORE critical than your beliefs?

 

I make a conscience effort TO apply critical thinking. It's every Christian's duty to do so.

[quankanne]

That is exactly my point. There has to be a conscious decision made NOT to apply critical thinking to your beliefs, otherwise they would crumble. I personally value critical thinking more than I value ancient scripture.

 

and you're 100 percent sure that all believers consciously decide to not employ critical thinking skills because they embrace a spiritual path?

 

again, you're being pompous when you have no person insight into any given person's spiritual journey. Of the people I've interviewed about their faith, I'd say approximately about 3-4 percent – and that's a generous estimate – have admitted that they've never questioned their faith or thought about it. Most of us have considered our beliefs, our faith – even questioned it – when faced with strife or rough patches, and it's that simple act of belief that helps keep our perspective when our little worlds have gone to shxt.

 

Scripture is an excellent means of finding inspiration from people who've documented their faith journey, but when it comes down to base, faith tends to be a very conscious personal decision from the point of awareness to deciding what vehicle of faith (i.e., religion) best expresses your belief. And then there's the whole matter of what tenets of faith you accept.

 

take Catholicism: Most outsiders think it's just a bunch of hokey traditions and that we pretend that a wafer and wine represented Christ, but at some point these believers have to think through and determine whether they accept that this truly isChrist in the here and now. And that's just one of the issues we're asked to consider. I've gone back and forth with "reason" and "logic" to come to my own conclusions, which I find are supported by what the Church teaches. So please don't insult me by telling me that because I choose to believe, I disengage my brain from thinking.

 

if anything, a believer is hard-pressed to explain to himself what and why he believes, and why it's valid to his life, and spends the rest of his life maintaining that belief.

[quankanne]

BHKS – yes, Jesus is Jewish. And according to the New Testament, he came to fulfill the old law of the Old Testament of the Bible.

 

he's also the guy who boiled down the Ten Commandments to these two: Love God, and love one another.

 

I think a lot of people (including followers) lose sight of what Christianity is about (to love one another as God loves you) because they get so bogged down in the nitty-gritty of believing.

[Phateless]

That is exactly my point. There has to be a conscious decision made NOT to apply critical thinking to your beliefs, otherwise they would crumble. I personally value critical thinking more than I value ancient scripture.

 

and you're 100 percent sure that all believers consciously decide to not employ critical thinking skills because they embrace a spiritual path?

 

again, you're being pompous when you have no person insight into any given person's spiritual journey. Of the people I've interviewed about their faith, I'd say approximately about 3-4 percent – and that's a generous estimate – have admitted that they've never questioned their faith or thought about it. Most of us have considered our beliefs, our faith – even questioned it – when faced with strife or rough patches, and it's that simple act of belief that helps keep our perspective when our little worlds have gone to shxt.

 

Scripture is an excellent means of finding inspiration from people who've documented their faith journey, but when it comes down to base, faith tends to be a very conscious personal decision from the point of awareness to deciding what vehicle of faith (i.e., religion) best expresses your belief. And then there's the whole matter of what tenets of faith you accept.

 

take Catholicism: Most outsiders think it's just a bunch of hokey traditions and that we pretend that a wafer and wine represented Christ, but at some point these believers have to think through and determine whether they accept that this truly isChrist in the here and now. And that's just one of the issues we're asked to consider. I've gone back and forth with "reason" and "logic" to come to my own conclusions, which I find are supported by what the Church teaches. So please don't insult me by telling me that because I choose to believe, I disengage my brain from thinking.

 

if anything, a believer is hard-pressed to explain to himself what and why he believes, and why it's valid to his life, and spends the rest of his life maintaining that belief.

 

Yes I am being pompous. I'm not saying that religious people lack critical thinking skills, only that they choose not to apply them TO THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Religion is a handy substitute when you don't have an answer for why things are the way they are.

[Moose]

only that they choose not to apply them TO THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

This is an extreme generalization. One in which you're not qualified to assert.

Religion is a handy substitute when you don't have an answer for why things are the way they are.

On the contrary....scripture is very clear in explaining the reason(s) why things are/were past, present and future.

 

It may not be in the form of scientific studys, analysis', or formuli.....but ultimately, the further we advance, the closer we'll realize everything is from God.

[Phateless]

This is an extreme generalization. One in which you're not qualified to assert.On the contrary....scripture is very clear in explaining the reason(s) why things are/were past, present and future.

 

It may not be in the form of scientific studys, analysis', or formuli.....but ultimately, the further we advance, the closer we'll realize everything is from God.

 

Scientific studies, analyses and formulas are all based on logic and critical thinking. Religion is not. Religion is based on faith - belief without proof.

[Moose]

Scientific studies, analyses and formulas are all based on logic and critical thinking. Religion is not. Religion is based on faith - belief without proof.

AH.....that ole' arguement huh?

 

So, you think that science doesn't require faith? No faith whatsoever? (Careful, this is a trick question)

[Moai]

The position that god doesn't send people to hell is untenable.

 

God created hell, and the rules regarding who goes to hell and who doesn't. God is the arbiter of these rules.

 

To say that we have free will (which is god is omnisceisnt we don't) does not get god off the hook.

 

To continue the child analogy, you may ground your child, but you don't kill him/her, do you? It isn't as if god sends people to hell for a few years as a punishment, he sends people there FOREVER. Eternity is a long, long time.

 

It cannot be considered remotely just to punish someone forever for something they did while on Earth for 70-odd years. Not only that, the main reason for being sent to Hell is not behavior, but thought-crime.

 

Christians say over and over that they aren't perfect, they still sin, they are just forgiven. Why? Because they accept the correct god, and will be rewarded for it.

 

Jeffery Dahmer repented and became born-again before he died. So he is in Heaven. Is there a greater "wolf" (to use lonelybird's analogy) you can think of? But he is in because he thought the right way at the last minute.

 

How can that possibly be described as just? What that suggests is that I CAN do whatever I want, and at the last second repent and I am in like Flynn. Of course, I might die suddenly and not be able to repent, but isn't it worth the risk?

 

Let's also look at the fact that I had no choice as to whether or not I would be held to these rules. It is a dictatorship not of my making.

[Moai]

AH.....that ole' arguement huh?

 

So, you think that science doesn't require faith? No faith whatsoever? (Careful, this is a trick question)

 

It doesn't require faith in the way religion does. To suggest so is equivocating.

 

For example, I have faith that when I buy 2% milk, it will be what the label says it is. I have faith that when my girlfriend says she'll call, she will.

 

Every time I have bought 2% milk it has been, and every time my girlfriend says she'll call she does, so I have faith based on prior evidence.

 

Faith in science is the same. I have faith in science because it has demonstrated time and again that it is a system that provides answers and explains phenomena. It works, so I have faith in it.

 

This is quite different from having religious faith, which exists in spite of evidence--nor does it require any. If there was evidence, we would not have thousands upon thousands of religions, extinct religions, and new ones popping up.

 

As you can see, while using the same word, it has at least two meanings, and when you seek to interchange the meanings to suit your point you are equivocating, which is fallacious.

[quankanne]

welcome back Moai

 

now, to pick up where we last left off: It cannot be considered remotely just to punish someone forever for something they did while on Earth for 70-odd years.

 

if it's acceptable to give a man a life sentence in prison because he knocked over a 7-11 and killed the owner in a drug-induced haze – if we can call that a legally just sentence based on the laws of this country – why must it be different in a spiritual realm? Why should the feckless sinner be exempt from a "sentence" of hell when he continually chooses to sin (i.e., live in a manner that keeps him separated from God by his choice in actions)? Using Phateless's standards of logic, it would seem a "fair" thing.

 

as for the folks who slip in under the wire: Frankly, I don't get that, but if I'm to accept that God is a forgiving God, and that he gives us every last opportunity to make amends for the things they've done, then I must accept that even killers like Jeff Dahmer are subject to the grace of God. I may not understand it, but then again, it's between him and his Maker, and has nada to do with me.

 

Religion is a handy substitute when you don't have an answer for why things are the way they are.

 

possibly, yes, but it also helps a person to accept or understand something beyond their comprehension. And it's not limited to the realm of religion or spirituality, but includes good old concrete science. Chicken Little ran around screaming "The sky is falling!" because she didn't trust that it wouldn't, and everybody knows that the sky can't fall because of what we've learned through science. We have every bit of faith in what we're taught in science class, even though we've never personally put those theories of matter or gravity or what-have-you into practice!

[Moose]

The position that god doesn't send people to hell is untenable.

 

God created hell, and the rules regarding who goes to hell and who doesn't. God is the arbiter of these rules.

 

To say that we have free will (which is god is omnisceisnt we don't) does not get god off the hook.

That would make all of us merely pre-programmed robots that are forced, (by God) to love God. (why wouldn't He, after all He is God). We know that this isn't true, you're living proof.

To continue the child analogy, you may ground your child, but you don't kill him/her, do you?

As much as I want to sometimes......no.

 

But I can seperate them from something they enjoy for life. (At least while they're under my roof), and I can certainly dis-own them. Same difference.

It cannot be considered remotely just to punish someone forever for something they did while on Earth for 70-odd years.

Why not? If you told your child, "don't touch that stove, it'll burn you".....and the next nano-second, they touch it, and are scarred for life......what's the diff?

Not only that, the main reason for being sent to Hell is not behavior, but thought-crime.

More, "heart"-crime my friend.

Jeffery Dahmer repented and became born-again before he died. So he is in Heaven. Is there a greater "wolf" (to use lonelybird's analogy) you can think of?

If Dahmer had a contrite heart when he accepted Christ, then yes, I believe he'd be in heaven. Only God knows a man's heart. IF.....I say IF.....Dahmer's heart was in the right place, he was changed in an instant and isn't the same man he was moments prior to his salvation. (no longer a, "wolf")

Let's also look at the fact that I had no choice as to whether or not I would be held to these rules. It is a dictatorship not of my making.

Not true. You've chosen NOT to be held to these, "rules".....

[Cobra_X30]

I hear about how people should forgive, and God forgives good poeple.

 

But why did he throw Adam and Eve out of Eden? He should have forgiven them right? I argue that the christian god is a hyprocrit. Fricken clown.

 

Forgiveness does not provide you immunity from consequences.

 

You should know that by now! Hmmm... Who's the clown?

[blind_otter]

To continue the child analogy, you may ground your child, but you don't kill him/her, do you? It isn't as if god sends people to hell for a few years as a punishment, he sends people there FOREVER. Eternity is a long, long time.

 

I can actually answer this one because my parents turned away from me while I chose to behave in a self-destructive way. My choice, not theirs, but they didn't have to continually forgive me to love me unconditionally. When I decided to stop hurting myself they welcomed me back with open arms. Same with God.

 

Why? Because they accept the correct god, and will be rewarded for it.

 

No -- because they continually keep choosing to go back on the righteous path.

 

And it's not thought crime -- your actions from the heart are the ground on which you stand.

[Phateless]

AH.....that ole' arguement huh?

 

So, you think that science doesn't require faith? No faith whatsoever? (Careful, this is a trick question)

 

Science can be broken down into empirical evidence. The same cannot be said for religion. I have heard your argument before, and he told me that the big bang theory takes more faith to believe than creation theory... i'm not so sure about that one.

[reboot]

I'm not a Christian. I'm not religious. I'm Agnostic at best I suppose. But I've always found Atheists and their ilk much more pompous, bull headed, and harder to have an intelligent conversation with than any of the Christians I know.

 

I can have a decent argument with a Christian, but I've never been able to have one with an Atheist. They always resort to calling you names, and insisting that only they have any intelligence. They're just RIGHT, no matter what. There's no fun in that.

[Phateless]

Religion is a handy substitute when you don't have an answer for why things are the way they are.

 

possibly, yes, but it also helps a person to accept or understand something beyond their comprehension. And it's not limited to the realm of religion or spirituality, but includes good old concrete science. Chicken Little ran around screaming "The sky is falling!" because she didn't trust that it wouldn't, and everybody knows that the sky can't fall because of what we've learned through science. We have every bit of faith in what we're taught in science class, even though we've never personally put those theories of matter or gravity or what-have-you into practice!

 

This is true, but all these things have been tested and documented. The average person can, if they wish, research the methods and experiments used to prove things and recreate them for themselves. Scientists are constantly doing that to re-confirm what we already know. That is not the case for religion. No matter how much you pick apart the minutae of the differences between religion and science, you still end up saying things that strengthen my case and weaken yours.

 

You said it yourself, religion helps people to understand or ACCEPT things beyond their comprehension. The difference is that science can boil these things down to an explanation that holds true despite tests. Religion, on the other hand, cannot. There is no proof, evidence, credibility, or anything of the sort.

[Phateless]

I'm not a Christian. I'm not religious. I'm Agnostic at best I suppose. But I've always found Atheists and their ilk much more pompous, bull headed, and harder to have an intelligent conversation with than any of the Christians I know.

 

I can have a decent argument with a Christian, but I've never been able to have one with an Atheist. They always resort to calling you names, and insisting that only they have any intelligence. They're just RIGHT, no matter what. There's no fun in that.

 

Arrogant people exist in all forms. Funny, because I have found the opposite to be true from your experience. People resort to that when they are ill-equipped to deliver an intelligent rebuttal. Re-read my posts in this thread and tell me if I am guilty of any of what you described.

 

There are people in Berkeley who fall into the trap of thinking "we are soooo open-minded and liberal and forward-thinking that we refuse to consider any other viewpoint." Those people irritate me just as much as the religious folk who won't acknowledge that their beliefs defy logic.

[Enema]

I can have a decent argument with a Christian, but I've never been able to have one with an Atheist. They always resort to calling you names, and insisting that only they have any intelligence. They're just RIGHT, no matter what. There's no fun in that.

 

I agree, it's no fun arguing with those atheists. They always throw facts and evidence in the mix.

 

How can you have a fun argument when one side doesn't have a shred of proof? They're just RIGHT, no matter what!

 

 

All joking aside, RE the OP, I echo the sentiments of others in the thread:

 

An infinite punishment for a finite life, wherein an omniscient god knows the path you're going to choose only serves to paint him as an immoral, malevolent assface.

[Phateless]

I agree, it's no fun arguing with those atheists. They always throw facts and evidence in the mix.

 

How can you have a fun argument when one side doesn't have a shred of proof? They're just RIGHT, no matter what!

 

 

All joking aside, RE the OP, I echo the sentiments of others in the thread:

 

An infinite punishment for a finite life, wherein an omniscient god knows the path you're going to choose only serves to paint him as an immoral, malevolent assface.

 

It's funny, you know what this whole thread is about? The OP is stating that religion does not make sense to him. He (or she) is asking the question and thinking critically, and is now starting to reject the beliefs. The bible contradicts itself, and when you apply logic... what do you have left? That god is a hypocrite???? The very first post of this thread proves everything I have said. (smug)

[disgracian]

That would make all of us merely pre-programmed robots that are forced, (by God) to love God.

Huh? What have robots to do with anything?

But I can seperate them from something they enjoy for life. (At least while they're under my roof), and I can certainly dis-own them. Same difference.

Except for the bit about setting them on fire forever. You can't rationalise and you're not even really trying. Disownment or grounding is hardly comparable to the heartless sadism of eternal torture without reprive for a choice that most people weren't even aware they were making. A god that punishes for thought-crime (or "heart" crime if you insist on calling it that) is a disgusting tyrant and nothing else.

Why not? If you told your child, "don't touch that stove, it'll burn you".....and the next nano-second, they touch it, and are scarred for life......what's the diff?

The difference is that being punished by your god doesn't even require any physical action. You just have to think the wrong thing without even being aware of the fact that it's wrong.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Rooster_DAR]

It's funny, you know what this whole thread is about? The OP is stating that religion does not make sense to him. He (or she) is asking the question and thinking critically, and is now starting to reject the beliefs. The bible contradicts itself, and when you apply logic... what do you have left? That god is a hypocrite???? The very first post of this thread proves everything I have said. (smug)

 

Could not have said it better myself.

 

I came to the same conclusion over 20 years ago, and to this day all I see is contradictions and hypocrisy when it come to religious beliefs. Not to be confused with being an atheist, I would consider myself agnostic as I cannot prove god does not exist. To me it can best be explained by understanding how/why our ancestors matured socially and tried to understand just who they were. If we look back at ancient civilizations we see many manifestations of supreme beings, deities, demigods and the list goes on. This appears to happen in all walks of life, leading me to believe that there is a natural propensity to seek something higher that ourselves.

 

We know by dated evidence this propensity existed long before Christianity and all other forms of religion. Looking objectively at this, one can easily deduce that god(s) were created over the epochs by humans to fill an daunting need to feel connected to/with something. During the middle ages the Catholic church directly attacked (sometimes executed) anyone who did not agree with their visions of god. To me, this is just added evidence that the bible was conjured up by some very clever story tellers.

 

My disbelief in religion also compounded by the lack of evidence, contradictions, and pseudo scientific events that occur in the scriptures. They simply don't add up. I would consider myself a fair, loving, and respectful person, and simply that I don't believe in something I cannot see should not condemn me to hell. What kind of god would do something as morbid as this? Are we some kind of puppets in his twisted monopoly game? I think the more rational answer would simply be there is no god (principle of parsimony). When religion can bring forth good evidence that god created the universe as well as we, I will be glad to recant everything I've written and believed.

 

Once Christian made one comment I can certainly agree with, we will surely know when we die.

 

Cheers.

[FleshNBones]

What if one was totally ignorant and didn't grow up with the right influences...and they made bad decisions in life. And then they die...and go to hell. What then? Is God going to condemn that soul to an eternity of hell because they didn't know any better?

 

I just don't know how Christians can reconcile the idea of forgiveness with the notion of an eternal hell.

If you care so much, why don't you convert these people? Shouldn't you at least inform some of the ignorant people.

[FleshNBones]

I hear about how people should forgive, and God forgives good poeple.

 

But why did he throw Adam and Eve out of Eden? He should have forgiven them right? I argue that the christian god is a hyprocrit. Fricken clown.

There are three parts to reconciliation. There is the confession, then there is the act of forgiveness, and then there is atonement. In sequence.

 

With Adam and Eve, there was no acknowledgment or apology, only finger pointing. Maybe if they confessed, God might have allowed them to stay.

[quankanne]

The average person can, if they wish, research the methods and experiments used to prove things and recreate them for themselves.

 

true. But the average person doesn't research and experiment to satisfy these questions for himself, he puts his trust in a group of men who are experienced in this area and believes what they tell him is "truth." Why should it be such a far stretch in terms of religion, where people believe in Christ or Yahweh or Allah because a group of wise men who are learned in this area assure them that this is truth? Empirical evidence aside, it's the same dang process! What non-believers have a problem with is that it's a leap of faith into the unknown that believers make when they profess belief in God ...

 

there was a story on the wire about a Jesuit astronomer who spoke with techies and other science types in the Silicon Valley, and realized they didn't have a problem with the existence of God, but had more basic concerns about "Why should I believe, what does it get me?" Because their approach to life was "If I do X, then Y happens and Z is the result."

 

faith is not linear, and it can't be boiled down to a scientific equation. It's visceral, and it's highly personal.

[Moai]

That would make all of us merely pre-programmed robots that are forced, (by God) to love God. (why wouldn't He, after all He is God). We know that this isn't true, you're living proof.

 

Ah, but if you read the account in Genesis, we were created just that way. We had no knowledge of good and evil--therefore no free will. Then, AFTER DISOBEYING (which is a problem in itself) we get the knowledge of good and evil (i.e. free will) and are forced from the Garden of Eden.

 

As much as I want to sometimes......no.

 

 

But I can seperate them from something they enjoy for life. (At least while they're under my roof), and I can certainly dis-own them. Same difference.

 

No, it isn't. As you imply above, your child can leave your roof and live as it wishes eventually. There is nowhere I can go and get away from god, or his "rules." Is that not correct?

 

Why not? If you told your child, "don't touch that stove, it'll burn you".....and the next nano-second, they touch it, and are scarred for life......what's the diff?

 

There are huge differences. First, while the scar may be there as long as your child lives, it isn't there forever--nor does it hurt FOREVER. Also, pain and discomfort is how we learn. Now your child knows not to touch a hot stove. But what do we learn by going to hell? You can't get out, you don't comeback to Earth with knowledge of hell, and it lasts FOREVER. And all because you think the wrong way.

 

To continue your analogy, it would be more correct to say that you ask your child what his favorite color is, and is he answers any color but blue you burn him.

 

More, "heart"-crime my friend.If Dahmer had a contrite heart when he accepted Christ, then yes, I believe he'd be in heaven. Only God knows a man's heart.

 

Call it what you want.

 

IF.....I say IF.....Dahmer's heart was in the right place, he was changed in an instant and isn't the same man he was moments prior to his salvation. (no longer a, "wolf")

 

Yes, he was. Notice, he wasn't let out of prison beyond his conversion. I am sure he still had memories of his crimes. Do you not have memories of everything you did before your conversion?

 

Dahmer's victims, some of them Cambodian, probably didn't convert when they died. So, after being drugged, raped, beaten, and eaten--as well as having parts preserved in a fridge--they had hell to look forward to because their "heart" wasn't in the right place; but because Dahmer had the benefit of our justice system, was Western by birth and so was highly likely to become a Christian if he DID find religion, and had time to reflect before his death is happily in Heaven, enjoying eternal bliss.

 

There is no possible way that can be described as just.

 

Not true. You've chosen NOT to be held to these, "rules".....

 

No, I haven't. I cannot. If I die right now, I go to hell, according to your religion, no? I don't get to opt out and say, "Hey, Jesus, I don't want to play, so when I die send me somewhere other than the two places you have in mind" and that's what'll happen.

 

Thankfully, neither of us live in such a weird Universe as none of it is true.