Christians: For believers and non-believers alike - Page 5

On June 10 2012 01:27 PassiveAce wrote:
Seems pretty contradictory to me to have a god that is simultaneously all loving but also sends people to eternal torture if they dont do what he says is "good".
I have met very few Christians in my life who are willing/able to accept the existence of hell as truth. To me, that concept is utter baloney. I think that any institution (religious or otherwise) that says "Do/believe this or suffer" is just trying to control people for whatever reason.

On June 10 2012 00:13 bre1010 wrote:


What I don't understand is that if people actually believe this, why aren't Christians nicer to people and why do they have so much money?

On June 10 2012 01:27 PassiveAce wrote:
Seems pretty contradictory to me to have a god that is simultaneously all loving but also sends people to eternal torture if they dont do what he says is "good".
I have met very few Christians in my life who are willing/able to accept the existence of hell as truth. To me, that concept is utter baloney. I think that any institution (religious or otherwise) that says "Do/believe this or suffer" is just trying to control people for whatever reason.

On June 10 2012 10:07 UdderChaos wrote:

In this post you seem to cover almost all of the failing of understanding by a almost of atheists/agnostics. I mean it's alright people like Omnipresent calming "We already understand you" but so many have completely warped views and ideas on theology, based upon silly anecdotes that are made from other nonbelievers, distorted media shock stories or from some, much rarer than made out to me, personal experiences of very "fundamentalist" Christians.

Firstly you say eternal torture, where is this written in scripture? Again this is just "baloney" as you say, completely ignorant statement about something that virtually no one believes. Then you say that this false outcome happens to you if you don't do what god says, and then you say what he says as "good", with the " to show that you don't agree with his morality. The issue with this is that it again is false. Even if we ignore hell for a second and talk about heaven, the bible never says that to get to heaven you have to do even one good thing in your life, this is a total fallacy lots of non Christian's believe again. It never says this. Clearly the emphasis in the bible is on jesus, and that salvation is through him. Next non Christians will jump to "well why do i need to believe in this fictitious guy who lived 2000 years ago" and again they've got it wrong. Read the darn book your criticizing. It talks about salvation through jesus but never actually explicitly states that "through jesus" means believing in his existence. This is why there are so many variations of Christianity, they are all interpretations of the bible. Which leads on to my next issues with some people, which is to criticize the bible for being so vague and that you may as well believe nothing. This is nonsense, it isn't vague in a traditional sense, it clearly states the importance of what it is trying to say, but trying to work out what exactly it is saying in each part is hard. Just because something is hard to understand and can be understood in more than one way doesn't mean it's vague and has no meaning.

You can't really complain about Christians always trying to tell people about what they believe and that they should be quiet because everyone already knows, yet on the other hand clearly not understanding what at all they do believe, it's very frustrating for a believer that other people won't listen to them not because they don't care, but because they think they already know what they believe before they even speak to you, yet they actually don't understand you. There is nothing more frustrating than someone thinking they know what you believe and so refusing to listen to you but actually have it totally wrong, yet still judging you based upon things you don't really adhere too. Try and actually understand our positions. Also many people who don't believe assume we are all products of out parents, quite a lot of us were atheists, and then found religion, try to keep that in mind before you project even more wrong assumptions on us.

On June 10 2012 11:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
imagine that you come home to your parent's house one day, and find your siblings and family driven out, your father insulted, and the house itself full of thieves and prostitutes. imagine that there is a bull-whip sitting right next to the door when you walk in and see what's become of your parent's house. i imagine that we would all do what Jesus did, and we'd start using that whip, and we would be right in doing it.

now, the world is our Father's house, just as much as any temple is, and the human body is also a house of the Lord. and to a certain degree, those of us who do not live and believe as we should are thieves and prostitutes desecrating a house that does not belong to us. and yet we are tolerated. this changes the situation. this would be as if you brought the thieves into your father's home and then tried to take them out. he might take the whip out of your hand and tell you to join the guests that you've chosen.

in that sense, i think that we are called to put down our whip, and let the one who owns the house deal with the thieves. a Christian is a former thief, who has now been adopted into the family by the mercy of the Father. the true heir to the house was sent down to us to change us from thieves to children, from prostitutes to priests. he did drive the thieves out of the temple, and he was very open about his contempt for the reasons and excuses that his opponents gave him. he didn't hesitate to call someone a fool, or a liar, or even a demon. but we were not told to do those things. we were told to serve, to put ourselves below the fool and the liar and even the demon. to wipe the dust off our feet when we are insulted or attacked. to love the thief and the murderer as God loved us when we were thieves and murderers.

its a hard burden to carry, so it's good that we don't have to carry it. i think the number one problem is that Christians don't get that its not our responsibility to save people. we are only here to serve people.

On June 10 2012 10:45 Omnipresent wrote:

This is precisely what I was trying to warn you against. You're not just stuck looking at this through your own perspective as a "Christian," you're only able to see it as a very specific kind of Christian. You hear people talking about concepts which you personally reject, and assume that means they don't understand Christianity as a whole.

The truth is, you've just argued a minority position. Almost no one believes in hell and eternal torture? You might want to ask some people outside your immediate family, friends, and church about that. Where is it in scripture? Well it's right here.

Want to know how to get into heaven? Well the bible is really unclear. Catholics listen to Paul, and emphasize the importance of good works. Most Protestants prefer gospel accounts, and fall into two categories: 1) salvation by grace alone, grace by faith alone (aka, you gotta believe in Jesus) or 2) Predestination (for all you Calvinists and Jehovah' Witnesses). The idea that "No one comes to the Father except through Me," means anything else is pretty out there.

The Bible really is vague, but it's not just that. It's inherently contradictory. That's why there are so many sects of Christianity, not the reason you gave. Even among groups that agree on almost everything (say Methodists and Baptists), there are always a handful of minor, irreconcilable, mutually exclusive differences in belief, all of which have solid biblical and theological backing. I'm sorry to tell you. It's not like there are a bunch of different interpretations and you happened to get the right one. It's not like there are a few things that the bible says definitievely, and the rest is up for grabs. You disagree with the vast majority of Christians on a lot of issues, including areas in which they have stronger scriptural backing for their beliefs.


No one is trying to judge you. But you don't get special treatment just because you happen to believe something. If it doesn't make sense, people are going to point out the flaws. This whole hell issue is a perfect example. You want to say eternal damnation doesn't exist, and that's awesome. I agree, but for a completely different set of reasons. If you want to hold that position while simultaneously supporting other aspects of the Bible, you have to explain the difference. What makes some parts of scripture true and others not? How can you tell the difference? Which parts are literal and which are alegorical? How can you tell the difference? And if you're feeling lucky, why do other Christians disagree with you?

I mean it sincerely. I'm not just being a dick. I want to know. Think it over and get back to me. If the answer is "well it's my belief," or "god told me," or "you just have to have faith," I'm not really interested.

P.S. I read the Bible, and I know a lot more non-believers who have than believers. On average atheists know more about the bible than Christians. It's not always true and may not matter to you, but take it for what it's worth.

On June 10 2012 10:45 Omnipresent wrote:
This is precisely what I was trying to warn you against. You're not just stuck looking at this through your own perspective as a "Christian," you're only able to see it as a very specific kind of Christian. You hear people talking about concepts which you personally reject, and assume that means they don't understand Christianity as a whole.

The truth is, you've just argued a minority position. Almost no one believes in hell and eternal torture? You might want to ask some people outside your immediate family, friends, and church about that. Where is it in scripture? Well it's right here.

On June 10 2012 10:45 Omnipresent wrote:
The Bible really is vague, but it's not just that. It's inherently contradictory. That's why there are so many sects of Christianity, not the reason you gave.

On June 10 2012 10:45 Omnipresent wrote:
No one is trying to judge you. But you don't get special treatment just because you happen to believe something. If it doesn't make sense, people are going to point out the flaws.

On June 10 2012 19:55 UdderChaos wrote:

Well First you say im stuck at only looking through my own specific beliefs and say that i am unable to see that my views are a minority? I think this is something you choose to believe rather than being the truth. The fact of the matter is that many Christians do have different views, and a lot of non Christians choose to pick the very worst obscure views on every issues and assume that Christians universaly believe each and every one of those.

Then you say "You hear people talking about concepts which you personally reject, and assume that means they don't understand Christianity as a whole." well yes, its a good assumption to make. I'm a Christian, i have Christian beliefs, they are saying i have beliefs that i don't, therefore they don't understand Christianity. Not the hardest logic to follow. Yes Christians differ from person to person on beliefs so the statement isn't wholly true, but by a large that logic does hold at least on some level.

Next you use one link on the issue of eternal hell as a defining proof that im a minority in beliefs. The link itself is a website that is created by 4 people, only one of which is a Christian, meaning that it most defiantly will reflect that Christians view with a nice dose of skepticism on top, with no proof there isn't an agenda, and interpretations of certain verses that clearly have been cherry picked to support a particular view.

Then you go on to talk about salvation through works issue, yes the Catholics do have a different take on it, the protestant views you don't seem to understand at all, seem to just get this from a website perhaps? I don't see what point your making anyways, if it's still in line with the "your in a minority, you don't believe in what most Christians do", then your point is mute. I never stated what i believed about faith by works in the first place.

Then you talk some stuff about Christians having different beliefs, and i agree with that, its part of the point i was actually making. Then finally you say "You disagree with the vast majority of Christians on a lot of issues, including areas in which they have stronger scriptural backing for their beliefs." I can't really comment on that statement unless you actually back it up, you've made a statement about my belles from 2 paragraphs on the Internet and then claim these beliefs you don't know are different to most Christians, without stating any proof of what most Christians believe, or where this conclusion that they have stronger backing for their beliefs actually has any basis?

Then you claim im asking for special treatment, don't know where this comes from, seems like some sort of emotional response to people who differ from your opinion. Then you state that people will point out flaws, again i don't see how this is necessary, i didn't make any point against this being a healthy thing for people to do. And then you quote another random untrusted website, a study that has no statement about how it was conducted and by who, and use this as an authority. Maybe bring me a yougov pole and i might start to listen.

Then you basically ask for a full theological backing for my belief. Well i hardly want to derail a blog with thousands of pages of my theological backing for every one of my beliefs, not to mention this would be incredibly time consuming, and would probably not change your viewpoint in the slightest even if your were completely stratified with every aspect of it. It would just be a case of me validating my beliefs to a stranger on the Internet, which im not really interested in doing. The rest of the points i think are worth discussing but asking for the reasoning behind my beliefs is impractical do you not agree? it would take far to long to even discuss one little point.

On June 10 2012 22:28 Kukaracha wrote:


I don't see the problem in his position. He can only speak of like-minded people, while defendind the acceptable claim that the understanding of many is corrupted by ignorance.

It is when looked at through simplistic eyes, but in reality it is not contradictory, it is metaphorical.

Well, let a fellow atheist point out that A) you haven't understood a single thing about the Bible because of your biggotry and B) you don't get a special treatment for being an atheist neither. To be honest, atheists are in my eyes just as ignorant as everyone else, and just as annoying as religious people.

On June 11 2012 02:37 Omnipresent wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

I'm not asking for special treatment. I'm prepared to justify any and every belief I hold, especially my lack of religious belief. If you really want to know, ask. Here's what not helpful, though. If UdderChaos tells me what he believes (God is real, some business about Jesus, other points on theology), and I shoot back with what I believe (there's no evidence for the existance of God. In the absence of that evidence, we should reject all positive claims for his existance), we're essentially just talking past one another. He's has shared an opinion. I am interrogating it, and attempting to use his own standards (where I know them) to do so. My goal isn't conversion, but understanding. I don't want to be aggressive, but I do want to be serious. I'm really not sure why either of you seem upset about it.

I specifically said I wasn't trying to be a dick.

On June 11 2012 02:16 Omnipresent wrote:

Saying that someone doesn't understand Christianity because they didn't point to your unique and highly specific type of christianity is ridiculous. You even admitted that you own stance isn't "wholly true," which is a nice way of saying it isn't true. I'm also curious about this matter of personal choice. You get to choose your beliefs? Some Christians choose to believe the worst party? In what sense can someone actually choose a belief? Don't you care what's true? Can you convince yourself to believe something that you don't think is true? Wouldn't that be required in order to "choose" beliefs?

I linked you to a page of Bible quotes. Read them. Check them against your own Bible. See if they make sense to you. I Don't expect you to trust someone else's opinion. You asked for scriptural evidence, I pointed you towards it.

I'm really really surprised you don't understand the bit about protestant theology on getting to heaved. That stuff is Reformation 101. I mean it. It's really basic this-is-why-we're-leaving-Catholicism-and-plunging-Europe-into-centuries-of-war kind of stuff. Those have been the main threads of Protestant thought on the matter ever since (Anglican's don't count. They're not protestant. They're Catholic-lite.). You don't have to fall into one of those two groups of protestants, but you should know that your interpretation is pretty new.

That was my whole point, and it relates to the questions I asked later in my post. I mean to ask you how you know what you believe is true. You don't have to run out and justify God's existance, or even inerrancy of the Bible. I'll give you both of those concessions for the purpose of this discussion. You're saying people don't understand Christianity because they don't understand your brand of it. I'm saying you don't understand Christianity because you don't know where you fit in the bigger picture of believers. You can't justify why your opinions (which you imply are choices) are better than theirs.

I purposefuly linked you to a Christian website so you wouldn't be upset about it. The study was from Pew, which is a respected polling agency. There's a link to their site in the first line of the article, but it is broken. If you want to find the study, which includes a large section about it's methods, it shouldn't be too difficult. In any event, this was meant to be a side note - a little food for thought. I have no real point associated with it and I don't think it has any real impact on this discussion. That's why it was down at the bottom after the letters "P.S."

Finally, I don't want complete theological backing for your beliefs. That would be a pain in the ass and, in the end, almost completely useless. I have no doubt that you can find backing for your beliefs. I'm sure it's there. I just want to know why you've chosen them. There are a lot of definitive statements in the Bible, and you appear to have rejected most of them (along with the 2k years or so of tradition and theology they spawned).

I know you said I didn't point any out, but I did. Most Christians believe in hell, as defined by eternal damnation, suffering, absence of god, etc. Most Christians believe in a specific path to heaven (listed in my last post). You, by all indications, do not (or at least have chosen a differen't, unspecified method for reaching heaven from mainline Catholics and Protestants).

Agan, I don't want a full report on your theology. I just want to know why you've chosen those positions over other. I want to know what makes your interpretation better. I really only want a couple solid rules for interpreting the Bible so that I can know which beliefs you hold and which you discard - which parts of the Bible are true and which are metaphorical - and why. I suspect you've chosen the beliefs that you like best, without regard for any serious analysis, and then attempted to justify them to yourself through scripture (which is easy, given the variability of claims in the Bible).

I really only want a couple solid rules for interpreting the Bible so that I can know which beliefs you hold and which you discard - which parts of the Bible are true and which are metaphorical - and why.

On June 11 2012 07:41 UdderChaos wrote:

My point was that i don't have a "highly specific type of Christianity", only that what i believe differs just as much as it does any Christian from one to the next. I did say my stance wasn't wholly true, i said the statement that just because i am Christan my beliefs are the same as others is wholly true, but it is by a large. As for caring what's true, yes i care a lot about what is true, one of the reasons i study math is because i love logic(studying this in particular) and understanding truth as appose to fallacies. As for choosing beliefs, i do believe that people chose to believe certain ideas because it makes them feel better or is the "safer" option than the truth, surely you would understand this as it is a criticism and an explanation all in one often for religion by the non religious. As for requiring to convince yourself of something that is untrue is not as simple, truths and ideas can exist in the subconscious, which in turn can protect us from things we know to be true subconsciously but consciously reject, and a stress or drastic change in mental state (ie loosing a loved one ect) can often trigger these beliefs to the surface, or push them to the subconscious allowing for a a "chosen" belief instead. For example some may say, although i wouldn't agree, that to deal with a loss of a loved one, one might decide that they now believe in god, not because they know that in their heart of hearts its true, but because it makes their grief able to be delt with, and whether their conscious is aware of this is not as binary as yes or no, can often be a shade of grey.

Next you again basically say my views are very different from most Christians, kind of already addressed this. Then you ask how do i know what i believe is true, this is kind of a silly question, i wouldn't believe something unless it was true, unless i had convinced myself something that isn't true, in which case i would either be able to spot it, which i actively true and do, or i am oblivious to it, hence i can't really explain why (mindfuck territory). As for your next point, im not saying that people don't understand my brand, im saying they don't understand most Christian's brand of theology, of which i am quite similar to. And then you ask if i can justify why i differ from others, well first i refute that i differ as much as you claim, but even where i do differ, i can justify it, as i often do when i debate other Christians, in fact i did just today and have had 4 pretty deep debates with other Christians this week on our differences.

And then your conclusion that i have rejected most "definitive statements in the Bible" seems like your jumping the gun again, ive actually been very careful to state as few of my beliefs as possible in our discussion, so how you can know more than but a few of the points of my theology is beyond me, and then to make the statement that these beliefs i have, which by a large you can't know yet because i haven't told you, contradict with the bible, is a bit audacious. And i do believe in hell and in a specific path to heaven, just not your definitions of these two things.

I think offense is the wrong word but i do feel strongly when people tell me that have "chosen the beliefs that you like best", as often there have been beliefs in my Christianity that i haven't changed because i think they are theologically sound have been very destructive in a secular sense to my life, and have caused me a lot of self conflict, wanting whole hartly to do the opposite of what it is written in scripture, and on a few occasion i know for sure that in a non religious sense my current life would be a lot better had i have chosen choices that conflict with my Christianity, choices that other Christians with different theology (mainly liberal ones) would have chosen. And lots of chosen that i will forever think "what if" i had chosen to do what i want, rather than what God wants me to do, yet i sound like it but i don't actually regret these lack of actions.

On June 11 2012 09:18 TechniQ.UK wrote:
I'm also a Christian, and not to blow my own trumpet or anything but I study Christian theology and ministry at university and I'm sort of training to be a Christian minister. Just wanted to chip in some of my views and hopefully give a different perspective. I doubt I'll enter into much debate since I don't find it particularly constructive though.

a) There is no such thing as objective, especially not when it comes to the bible. Ultimately when it comes right down to it I just live at peace with the uncertainty about my own interpretation and try to see the value in each Christian traditions differing interpretation of the bible whether it be anglican, evangelical, catholic or otherwise.

b) Most Christian churches are horrible at listening to the beliefs and opinions of those outside of their tradition, or those outside of any tradition (agnostic/atheist) and it's pretty sinful and wrong in my opinion.

c) Why do Christians believe what they do? Basically it comes down to what everything ultimately comes down to, experience and the resonance of certain stories/personas and traditions within the human heart that produces life transformation. Again this is unnerving in its subjectivity but there is nothing else, so I live with it.

d) I totally affirm and believe God created homosexuality (as at any given time 10% of the animal or human population is homosexual) and it's scientifically proven to be just as natural and genetically programmed as being straight ...and since the genesis allegory tells us that God created all things good, then who am I to say that it's wrong?

Also it's important to note homosexuality as we know it today is never mentioned in the bible (i.e. in the context of monogamous, loving and respectful relationships). In the bible the words used for homosexuality or the passages in Leviticus and Romans are probably referring to the act of male clients sleeping with male temple prostitutes or in some cases young boys in pagan fertility temples(this practice was a big problem and as you can imagine known to be violent and degrading in many cases). All documents must be taken in context and the problem has been that we have read a 1st century book with our 21st century minds in this case.

e) Yes belief comes into it, but belief is better translated "trust" in the new testament rather than mental assent to doctrine. I think anyone who trusts Christ enough to follow him as best they can will experience spiritual life, transformation and forgiveness as a free gift through his death and resurrection which payed the penalty for our guilt before God fully on our behalf.

On June 11 2012 12:21 superbarnie wrote:
@ TechniQ.UK
What the hell kind of "Christian theologist" are you? Regardless of your or my beliefs about homos, the Bible clearly states that gayness is wrong. And what do you mean by "live at peace with the uncertainty about my own interpretation"? You realize that if you continue and finish theology school and become a pastor, then you would be teaching something that you are "uncertain" about? And when it has to do with people's eternity, is it acceptable to be "uncertain" ?

@radscorpion
Are you saying that Christianity is a mental retardant? If you are correct, then wouldn't all Christians at school be incredibly "retarded"?

On June 11 2012 20:51 Chocolate wrote:

The bible clearly states that eating shellfish, wearing clothes of several materials, and consuming pork is wrong, but I am sure you have done all of those in the past year. You can still teach about something you are uncertain of.
Christianity is not truly a mental retardant but some people take the bible literally which is not that great. Christianity also promotes not questioning beliefs (blessed is he who has not seen but believed).

For you, why do you believe that everything in the bible is true? What about it makes it special?

On June 11 2012 12:21 superbarnie wrote:
@ TechniQ.UK
And what do you mean by "live at peace with the uncertainty about my own interpretation"? You realize that if you continue and finish theology school and become a pastor, then you would be teaching something that you are "uncertain" about? And when it has to do with people's eternity, is it acceptable to be "uncertain" ?