Christian ... or Not?

[sakurasuka]

[quote name='Kamuro][SIZE=1']Thats the point I was trying to make before. You personally don't judge people who aren't Christian. You don't say we're going to Hell, but your religion does lol. Your religion is what you believe in isn't it? So you do believe that if you don't have faith in God then you'll go to hell? So even without blatantly saying "hey, you're going to hell," it's what you think will happen? So how is someone like me, someone who holds a different opinion then your own, supposed to respect a belief that condemns me and expects me to suffer eternally for not believing in the same things that you do? Which leads to the generalization of Christians. You're different, each Christian is different then the next, yet you all hold dear the same religious beliefs, the belief that I'll go to Hell and pay the price for believing in something different.[/SIZE][/quote]

[CENTER][SIZE=1]My religion states that you'll end up... Well, in hell. Lol.

I don't really think it's all set in stone that way, though. Even though my Bible tells me that's the way it is, I don't really have my own beliefs on all that yet. Am I a bad Christain? Maybe. Do I have doubts sometimes? Who DOESN'T? I am human, and I can't explain (Nor do I wish to know) how everything works.

I think heaven and hell exist, but not how we... Make them out to be. I think that most of what we take hell to be is just our human explainations for things that aren't... Human. I don't expect you to think the same as me or anything, I'm just letting you know my view on the subject.[/SIZE][/CENTER]

[quote name='Kamuro][SIZE=1']Same as the points I made above, you're seperating yourself from others that follow the same religion. You havn't personally pressured your faith on me, but others have. Many many others lol. Most people I know find it hard to accept that I don't believe in God, some have even shunned me for it. And they were Christian, so I apolgize if my opinion seems biased, but how can it not? We've both been given things to base our opinions on, and I have to work with what I've been given. Analyze the Christians I know and the belief itself. And the conclusion I come to is far from a Christian like yourself lol.[/SIZE][/quote]

[CENTER][SIZE=1]It's in the Christian religion to try and pull people to it. Let more people know the truth. If you don't want to, that's totally up to you, but anyone's welcome to come to church with me as my guest. I've invited more people than you'll ever know... But I don't force them to come! I just invite them to visit if they'd like.

And if people have shunned you because of your faith (Or lack of sharing THIER faith), they aren't Christains, my friend.[/SIZE][/CENTER]

[quote=Retribution]What are you talking about? I mean, "true Christians" aren't forcing ideas down your throat, or forcing you go to go church against your will. A "true Christian" lets people make the choice, which is why I'm at a complete loss at understanding why you said Christians 'impose one's will on others.' They suggest that you convert, but they don't impose it upon you. I'm taking a stab in the dark and staying your view on what a true Christian actually is, is skewed.

Facists? Again, I have zero clue what you mean. It's a free-will thing. I don't feel like reiterating it for the trillionth time here.

As for the whole "if Christianity is right, all others are wrong," we will never know for sure. Again, you're basing this assumption off what is written in the Bible -- a historical document written by men. While I believe they were inspired to write, their message contains a 'human taint' if you will, carrying bias of the times. It was written in a time where there was very little to no tolerance, and of course this will carry over.[/quote]

[CENTER][SIZE=1]*Points* Someone I agree with![/SIZE][/CENTER]

[Sandy]

[QUOTE=sakurasuka][CENTER][SIZE=1]Even though my Bible tells me that's the way it is, I don't really have my own beliefs on all that yet. Am I a bad Christain? Maybe. Do I have doubts sometimes? Who DOESN'T? I am human, and I can't explain (Nor do I wish to know) how everything works.
[/SIZE][/CENTER][/QUOTE]

I don't know how the priests at your country preach, but at least here, where the Evangelic Lutheran Church is in power, the ministers practically [I]urge[/I] people to ponder and doubt on religious things! Probably because people here don't think about religion much, or just take it for granted, but also because many things said in the Bible don't apply to our days.

I think the church here is quite mellow and pacifistic compared to some other countries, where it has taken extreme forms and caused much suffering to those who don't want to bend to it's morals.

Here, religion is quite a private thing, it's not pushed to your face much if you don't want (except Jehovas, but because of that nobody takes them seriously), and I wish it would stay that way.

So what if somebody doesn't believe in God or Jesus or afterlife? It's their own business, and they surely are very aware of their decision.

And on the other hand, so what if somebody does believe in God and Jesus and afterlife? It's their own business, nobody should have anything to say about it!

I see that the only problem in this picture is the whole "spread the word and make all nations my subjects" (free translation from the Finnish version) -thing that some Christians have taken literally. Throughout history that one verse has ended millions of lives and caused endless misery. I truly hope that modern Christians see the true consequences of "hitting people with the Bible"...

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed]
If I left my house, and my house belonged to me, was filled with my stuff, had my name on the Deed, than yes I'd be mighty pissed if they wouldn't leave. But the thing is that the Caananites (Oh, and by the way, the only cultur that Isreal was promised to was the Bedouin) had lived there for a few centuries. They had built their own cities and grown their own crops. The Isrealites themselves were just intruders in somone elses home, the Bedouin people were the only natives to the area, the Isrealites calling it their Promised Land is the equivilent of North Americans saying they are the natives of North America.
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[SIZE=1]The Bedouins were nomads. Therefore they had no native land.

[QUOTE][COLOR=DarkRed]
So, what, is God some immature 5-year-old? Can't stand a little free will? In other words God is nothing but a Tyrant, if you don't do what he wants to kills you, correct? [/COLOR][/QUOTE]
Oh! Yeah! Of course that's correct! Go outside and shoot someone, I promise you that God will not smite you. God can stand a little free will... it has to do with before and after Jesus was crucified. If you want to learn more about how His crucifixion, death, and ressurrection affected things (or what I believe happened, at least), then read up on it. It's too lengthy/complicated to get into detail here.

Really, I don't understand the accusation -- you know this isn't true, so I don't see why you'd bring it up. If God wanted to kill people for doing immoral things, I'm betting alot of people would drop dead instantly after they did them. That's not the case.

[QUOTE][COLOR=DarkRed]
I've said this once before, I think, but I'll say it again. What gives you the right to judge who is a Christian and who isn't? As far as most people are concerned, Christianity is defined by the belif that God is almighty and Jesus is his son, or somthing along those lines. The Inquisitioners were Christian in their mind without a doubt. The Cursaders, well, they were just trying to take back Jerusalem and the Holy Land because they couldn't hold it from the Islamic Warriors. What about the exile of all Jews from England by the mouth of the Archbishop of Canterbury? What about the fact that Jews were treated as second-class-citizens all across Christendom during the Middle Ages? The hardships of the Jews and the hands of the Christians goes back much further than Hitler. And even then, Hitler was Christian beyond a shadow of a doubt. Read Mien Kompf or listen to his speeches, he may not be your vision of the Perfect Christian but he was most certainly a Christain. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]
You know what? You missed my point. Perhaps I was wrong in judging who was Christian or not. I'll tell you this, which was the meat of my paragraph: God wasn't commanding people to go start the Crusades or the Inqusition -- that was human free will. You should know this better than most -- you're atheist, so to you, there's no possible way any 'God' told anyone to do anything, because 'God' is imaginary.

[QUOTE][COLOR=DarkRed]
And I think your blind, immature, and ludicrous for thinking that you have the right to judge who's a Christian and who isn't.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
Again, a good point here. But Jesus said that (I'm paraphrasing here) if you don't walk the path He laid down, no matter what you believe, you're still not a 'true Christian.' I sure hope the Son of God's word is a bit more legit than mine to you.[/SIZE]

[Lafleur]

[/QUOTE]
The Bedouins were nomads. Therefore they had no native land.
[QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
Yes, the Bedouin were nomadic. That's my point. They more or less inhabited the entire Middle East, through Nomadic Wanderings, long before the Isrealites or the Cannenites came into existence. The only thing that may predate them are the Egyptian and Sumerian cultures.[/COLOR]


[QUOTE]
You know what? You missed my point. Perhaps I was wrong in judging who was Christian or not. I'll tell you this, which was the meat of my paragraph: God wasn't commanding people to go start the Crusades or the Inqusition -- that was human free will. You should know this better than most -- you're atheist, so to you, there's no possible way any 'God' told anyone to do anything, because 'God' is imaginary.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
No, they read the Bible and the interpreted it as do this or do that or whatever. I don't remember who said it, but it was said that most Christians try to spread the word of God in order to save people correct? The Inquisitioners were doing the same thing; on a completely different level, but it was the same thing. The Crusaders aswell were trying to save the Muslims from Hell. Besides, if the Archbishop of Canterbury isn't a proper Christian... Who is?
And I may not believe in God, but I find the best way to poke holes in Religion is from behind enemy lines, so to speak. I use your logic that there IS a God and than question him that way. Much more effective, or at least more fun.
[/COLOR]

[QUOTE]
Again, a good point here. But Jesus said that (I'm paraphrasing here) if you don't walk the path He laid down, no matter what you believe, you're still not a 'true Christian.' I sure hope the Son of God's word is a bit more legit than mine to you.[/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkRed]

To the people doing what they were doing, they were following the path of Jesus Christ on a extreme level. Jesus tried to spread the word of Christianity, so to did the Inquisitioners and the Cursaders. Why did the Archbishop of Canterbury exile all the Jews from England for a time? **** if I know. Christians never really made sense to me anyway.[/COLOR]

[John]

*Tried to post before, but it got destroyed by evil vBulletin*

[quote name='Ilium][color=darkred']So? Dinos aren't exactly mentioned in Creation, do you deny their existence as well?[/quote][color=black] I wasn't denying any animal's existence, lol. And even so, dinosaurs are covered in the "beasts of the land" part of the creation. [/color][/color][color=black]And to settle the whole evolution argument, between me and you at least, I went back and re-read the beginning of Genesis. Here's what I found:[/color]

[quote name='Genesis 1:20-26][size=2]20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. [color=black]21[/color] And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [color=black]22[/color] And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. [color=black]23[/color] And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. [color=black]24[/color] And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. [color=black]25[/color] And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [color=black]26[/color'] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.[/quote] Now, this obviously came as a surprise to me, because I thought I had read it differently last time. However, it appears that the order of creation was Sea creatures > Land creatures > Birds > Man, which just so happens to be roughly the order of evoluion (of course, Evolutionary theory says that man came from monkeys, but I just assume that that happened after birds had come about). In addition, all of life was described as being brought forth from the seas, in accordance with Evolution. So it appears that I had misread something at one point or another, and apparently it [i]is[/i] possible (and most likely probable) that God formed Man by way of Evolution. Case closed, huzzah. ^_^[/size]

[size=2][quote name='Ilium][color=#8b0000']No, they read the Bible and the interpreted it as do this or do that or whatever. I don't remember who said it, but it was said that most Christians try to spread the word of God in order to save people correct? The Inquisitioners were doing the same thing; on a completely different level, but it was the same thing. The Crusaders aswell were trying to save the Muslims from Hell. Besides, if the Archbishop of Canterbury isn't a proper Christian... Who is?[/quote] [color=black]I'm not lying or exaggerating when I say that this is definitely the worst argument you've made yet, and perhaps one of the worst in this thread. Yes, Christians try to spread God's word because we happen to give a damn where you spend eternity, as mind-boggling as that may seem to you. The Inquisitioners and the Crusaders, however, [b]were not doing that[/b], and I believe you realize this in full. You're just running out of arguments, so you're making **** up.[/color][/color][/size]
[size=2][color=#8b0000][color=black]The Crusaders, as you said, interpreted the Bible to say that they should go start a vanity war (they didn't even claim to try to save the Muslims, by the way. Their self-proclaimed reason was to take back the Holy Land). The Inquisitioners interpreted it to start a genocide. The part you missed, though (or didn't feel like mentioning), is that these people were only using religion as a front. Religion had absolutely zero things to do with these acts. ZERO. They bent the Bible to fit their needs, and they are by no means anywhere near a proper example of a Christian. This [/color][/color][/size][size=2][color=#8b0000][color=black]should be obvious to you.[/color][/color][/size]
[size=2][color=#8b0000][color=#000000][/color][/color][/size]
[size=2][color=#8b0000][color=#000000]And are you really being serious when you say, "if the Archbishop of Canterbury isn't a Christian, who is?" Because I'm almost inclined to think you're not, just for the sheer ignorance of it.[/color][/color][/size]
[size=2][color=#8b0000][color=#000000][/color][/color][/size]
[size=2][color=#8b0000][color=#000000]Someone's position in an overly corrupt and overzealous system such as fifteenth-century Roman Catholicism doesn't justify them as being a great Christian. In fact, in those times it almost justifies the opposite. Again, I can't help but believe that this is something you realize already.[/color]

[quote name='Ilium']And I may not believe in God, but I find the best way to poke holes in Religion is from behind enemy lines, so to speak. I use your logic that there IS a God and than question him that way. Much more effective, or at least more fun.[/quote] [/color][color=black]Frankly, it isn't working for you. Almost nothing you've said this entire time has been, lol. I don't mean to be harsh, but you really, really, [i]really[/i] don't know anywhere [i]near[/i] what you'd like to think you do about Christianity.[/color]


EDIT: Oh yeah, and one more thing about what you said about the Archbishop and his Christianity:

[quote name='Ilium][color=#8b0000']And I think your blind, immature, and ludicrous for thinking that you have the right to judge who's a Christian and who isn't.[/quote][/color][/size]

[Lafleur]

[QUOTE]
I wasn't denying any animal's existence, lol. And even so, dinosaurs are covered in the "beasts of the land" part of the creation. And to settle the whole evolution argument, between me and you at least, I went back and re-read the beginning of Genesis. Here's what I found:[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
I was just saying that because somthing is or is not mentioned in the Bible does not mean it doesn't exist. It isn't, in fact, covered in 'Beasts of the Land' because, as I recall, the Bible says the world was created than and there, 6,000 years ago. Fossils are without a doubt Millions of years old.

[/COLOR]

[QUOTE] I'm not lying or exaggerating when I say that this is definitely the worst argument you've made yet, and perhaps one of the worst in this thread. Yes, Christians try to spread God's word because we happen to give a damn where you spend eternity, as mind-boggling as that may seem to you. The Inquisitioners and the Crusaders, however, were not doing that, and I believe you realize this in full. You're just running out of arguments, so you're making **** up.
The Crusaders, as you said, interpreted the Bible to say that they should go start a vanity war (they didn't even claim to try to save the Muslims, by the way. Their self-proclaimed reason was to take back the Holy Land). The Inquisitioners interpreted it to start a genocide. The part you missed, though (or didn't feel like mentioning), is that these people were only using religion as a front. Religion had absolutely zero things to do with these acts. ZERO. They bent the Bible to fit their needs, and they are by no means anywhere near a proper example of a Christian. This should be obvious to you.
[/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkRed]

The Inqusition was, by all means, a way of spreading Christianity. They were torturing people and forcing them to become Christian or they would basically burn them to death (Or some other form of torture) so yes it was a way for them to spread Christianity.

The Crusades may have been faught over the Holy Land, but they were also faught to spread Christianity to the Muslim World. They had no intention of stopping after they took Jerusalem, they were going to convert or kill anyone who was not Christian. Don't froget, one of the Crusades was nothing but a Peasent Rabel of brainwashed fools spread the word of their God to the rest of the world. The other, more orginised, Crusades filed suite.

Trust me, the peasents in the first Crusade, they sure as hell didn't have any sinister plot; they were dumb as ****. The Knights Crusade? Again, despite the name, made up mostly of peasents. The only Crusade that might have had sinister motives you speak of was the Kings Crusade, lead by Richard the Lionheart and a few other kings. [/COLOR]

[QUOTE]
And are you really being serious when you say, "if the Archbishop of Canterbury isn't a Christian, who is?" Because I'm almost inclined to think you're not, just for the sheer ignorance of it.

Someone's position in an overly corrupt and overzealous system such as fifteenth-century Roman Catholicism doesn't justify them as being a great Christian. In fact, in those times it almost justifies the opposite. Again, I can't help but believe that this is something you realize already.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
Explain to me what justification, other than religion, could the Archbishop of had to exile the Jews? I, frankly, don't see one. They were second-class citizens as it was, they posed no threat to him or anyone else, I don't see any other explanation for their suffering.[/COLOR

[QUOTE]Frankly, it isn't working for you. Almost nothing you've said this entire time has been, lol. I don't mean to be harsh, but you really, really, really don't know anywhere near what you'd like to think you do about Christianity.
[/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkRed]

I think it's working just fine. The debate is going well, I'm finding it fun, it's, by internet standards, a victory for me.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE]
EDIT: Oh yeah, and one more thing about what you said about the Archbishop and his Christianity:
[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
That statment is irrelevent. It was said in response to somone saying that somone was not a Christian based on what they did, because they ordered the death of 60,000 Million Jews or whathaveyou. The response is different because the person was saying that even though the person believed in God and that Jesus was his son, because he killed all those people he was not a real Christian. It's irrellevent to the current situation.[/COLOR]

[Juke Box Hero]

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed]
And I think your blind, immature, and ludicrous for thinking that you have the right to judge who's a Christian and who isn't.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Being a Christian is defined as follows, and this definition is easily backed up by the Bible: A sinner saved by the grace of God through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, God's son. By initiating a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, one becomes Christian. This is done through a prayer that outlines the following perspectives/beliefs- yes I am a sinner, yes you (the person of Jesus Christ), have died and rose again to pay for those sins, I am sorry for those sins and asked to be washed clean in your blood.

Baptism is an outward sign of belief, a proclamation of having accepted Christ in your life. Baptism is nothing more than a symbol.

Because the status "Christian" is definable, and defendable, then it doesn't boil down to rights and priveleges in determining who is and who isn't. The facts stand as they are, and cannot be changed through the coloured glasses of perspective.

[John]

[QUOTE=Ilium][color=DarkRed]
I was just saying that because somthing is or is not mentioned in the Bible does not mean it doesn't exist. It isn't, in fact, covered in 'Beasts of the Land' because, as I recall, the Bible says the world was created than and there, 6,000 years ago. Fossils are without a doubt Millions of years old.[/QUOTE] [color=black]Once more, you need to know what you're talking about before you say it. The 6,000 years thing is nowhere in the Bible. That was some study done by a priest who took the "seven days of creation" literally. It's really a pretty safe bet to say that it isn't, so yeah, that guy was off by probably several hundred million years.[/color]

[/color][color=DarkRed][QUOTE=Ilium]The Inqusition was, by all means, a way of spreading Christianity. They were torturing people and forcing them to become Christian or they would basically burn them to death (Or some other form of torture) so yes it was a way for them to spread Christianity.

The Crusades may have been faught over the Holy Land, but they were also faught to spread Christianity to the Muslim World. They had no intention of stopping after they took Jerusalem, they were going to convert or kill anyone who was not Christian. Don't froget, one of the Crusades was nothing but a Peasent Rabel of brainwashed fools spread the word of their God to the rest of the world. The other, more orginised, Crusades filed suite.

Trust me, the peasents in the first Crusade, they sure as hell didn't have any sinister plot; they were dumb as ****. The Knights Crusade? Again, despite the name, made up mostly of peasents. The only Crusade that might have had sinister motives you speak of was the Kings Crusade, lead by Richard the Lionheart and a few other kings.[/QUOTE] [color=black]I said nothing about a sinister plot, only that they were waging war because they were vain bigots. And my entire point with both of those instances was that they're horrible examples of Christianity.[/color][/color]

[color=DarkRed][quote name='Ilium']Explain to me what justification, other than religion, could the Archbishop of had to exile the Jews? I, frankly, don't see one. They were second-class citizens as it was, they posed no threat to him or anyone else, I don't see any other explanation for their suffering.[/COLOR[/quote] [color=black]First of all, he didn't even have to have justification other than religion. My point, as with the Inquisition and Crusades, was that he's a horrible example of a Christian. Whatever his justification was, he was wrong to do that. That's all I was trying to say.

And anyway, racism would easily take for a different justification.
[/color]
[quote name='Ilium']I think it's working just fine. The debate is going well, I'm finding it fun, it's, by internet standards, a victory for me.[/quote] [color=black]o_0

Well, if that's your grounds for victory then I'm all for it.[/color][/color]
[color=DarkRed]
[quote name='Ilium']That statment is irrelevent. It was said in response to somone saying that somone was not a Christian based on what they did, because they ordered the death of 60,000 Million Jews or whathaveyou. The response is different because the person was saying that even though the person believed in God and that Jesus was his son, because he killed all those people he was not a real Christian. It's irrellevent to the current situation.[/color][/quote] Actually, that's exactly what I was talking about when I posted that, lol. So yes, it has everything to do with the current situation.

[Retribution]

[quote name='Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed']The Inqusition was, by all means, a way of spreading Christianity. They were torturing people and forcing them to become Christian or they would basically burn them to death (Or some other form of torture) so yes it was a way for them to spread Christianity.[/quote]
[SIZE=1]Yes and no. I know for a fact that the Spanish Inquisition was done for a slew of reasons, alot of which were political. I will not deny that there were religious reasons behind it as well, but one of the main reasons the Spanish Inquisition started was to expell the Muslims from Spain. It was called the Reconquista, which was more of a political war, rather than religious war. The Muslims had controlled the country for a few centuries, and slowly, the Christians pushed them out through alot of bloody war. I'm sure you can see this wasn't done to convert them. Once Spain was controlled by predominantly Christians, Queen Isabella did indeed kill or expell a huge number of Jews. She did indeed claim that it was "because Christ demanded it." But you must see, that she did not represent Christianity in a just light. I'm not sure how many times I need to say it -- people like her use the religion as a means of mass-justification. It was a way to unite the majority of her country, and she was fanatical in doing so -- expelling the Jews crippled the Spanish economy.

[QUOTE]The Crusades may have been faught over the Holy Land, but they were also faught to spread Christianity to the Muslim World. They had no intention of stopping after they took Jerusalem, they were going to convert or kill anyone who was not Christian. Don't froget, one of the Crusades was nothing but a Peasent Rabel of brainwashed fools spread the word of their God to the rest of the world. The other, more orginised, Crusades filed suite.

Trust me, the peasents in the first Crusade, they sure as hell didn't have any sinister plot; they were dumb as ****. The Knights Crusade? Again, despite the name, made up mostly of peasents. The only Crusade that might have had sinister motives you speak of was the Kings Crusade, lead by Richard the Lionheart and a few other kings.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to lump this all together, as it's the same answer, no matter how many examples of Christian cruelty. The people who tortured and killed in the name of Jesus Christ were completely wrong in doing so -- Christ would not want it that way, and I hope that's abundantly clear through reading what He taught. The people who did such cruel things used religion as a means of justification, and were not following the 'true message.' Juke Box Hero's explaination is pretty good in this case.[/SIZE]

[Lafleur]

[QUOTE]I said nothing about a sinister plot, only that they were waging war because they were vain bigots. And my entire point with both of those instances was that they're horrible examples of Christianity.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
Nay, they are horrible examples of Humanity. They are perfect examples of what a sickness Religion can become in the wrong hands; and there is nothing preventing it from falling into the wrong ones, as Catholisism (Pre-Reform, at least.) and Islam can attest. The Inqusitioners vain bigots in the name of Christianity. I know that post-reform Catholisism has significantly improved in this area (Though I would still like to see them be a little more librel on a few wee things, like condoms and homosexuality) but that's not my point. As for the Crusaders, trust me, the Peasents Crusade and the Knights Crusade were both faught to take back the holy land and convert or kill all of Muslimdom. The Muslims were just lucky that The Peasent Crusade, The Knights Crusade, and the Kings Crusade were all terribly planned, formed of mostly untrained rabbel of zealous idiots, and that the Bubonic Plauge was thinning their numbers. It was a war faught in the name of Conversion of the Muslimdon. [/COLOR]

[QUOTE]
And anyway, racism would easily take for a different justification.[/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkRed]

Anti-Semitism draws it's heart not from race but from Religion. Be it Christians or Muslims the Jews have faced some terrible crap over the centuries...[/COLOR]

[QUOTE]

Well, if that's your grounds for victory then I'm all for it.
[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
Comon, neither one of us expects to convert the other. It's just fun to try, and I prefer to try with my opponents own logic. If I didn't, it would just be "But God did X" "No, God Doesn't Exist" "Yes he does" "No he doesn't" and so on and so forth.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE] Actually, that's exactly what I was talking about when I posted that, lol. So yes, it has everything to do with the current situation.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
No, it doesn't. When it was posted, it was because somone said that the persons actions don't make him a Christian; in my case, I was pointing out a Christian who was doing somthing wrong. I have no more right than you: I do, however, have the right to say that a Christian is a Christian. [/COLOR]

[QUOTE]

Being a Christian is defined as follows, and this definition is easily backed up by the Bible: A sinner saved by the grace of God through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, God's son. By initiating a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, one becomes Christian. This is done through a prayer that outlines the following perspectives/beliefs- yes I am a sinner, yes you (the person of Jesus Christ), have died and rose again to pay for those sins, I am sorry for those sins and asked to be washed clean in your blood.

Baptism is an outward sign of belief, a proclamation of having accepted Christ in your life. Baptism is nothing more than a symbol.

Because the status "Christian" is definable, and defendable, then it doesn't boil down to rights and priveleges in determining who is and who isn't. The facts stand as they are, and cannot be changed through the coloured glasses of perspective.[/QUOTE
[COLOR=DarkRed]
Ahuh, this goes on to prove my point that just because somone Sins (No matter how horribly or routinely) he/she is still a Christian. Hitler was a Christain. A good Christian? Nope. The person who expelled the Jews, a Christian? Yes. A good one? Well, depending on who you ask, yes and no. [/COLOR]

[John]

[quote name='Ilium][color=DarkRed']Nay, they are horrible examples of Humanity. They are perfect examples of what a sickness Religion can become in the wrong hands;[/quote][color=black] Anything can become a sickness in the wrong hands. Anything can be warped and twisted for selfish reasons. Religion just happens to be very popular, so it's very commonly been the victim of such things.[/color]

[color=Black][quote name='Ilium][/color']The Inquisitioners vain bigots in the name of Christianity.[/quote] [color=Black]Really, you're still not understanding that what I'm saying is that [b]they were wrong to do those things in the name of Christianity[/b][/color][b]. [color=Black]They were very, very bad examples of Christians.[/color][/b]

[quote name='Ilium']As for the Crusaders, trust me[/quote] [color=Black]No.[/color]


[quote name='Ilium']the Peasents Crusade and the Knights Crusade were both faught to take back the holy land and convert or kill all of Muslimdom. The Muslims were just lucky that The Peasent Crusade, The Knights Crusade, and the Kings Crusade were all terribly planned, formed of mostly untrained rabbel of zealous idiots, and that the Bubonic Plauge was thinning their numbers. It was a war faught in the name of Conversion of the Muslimdon.[/quote] [color=Black]See my above comments.[/color][/color]
[color=DarkRed]
[quote name='Ilium']Comon, neither one of us expects to convert the other. It's just fun to try, and I prefer to try with my opponents own logic. If I didn't, it would just be "But God did X" "No, God Doesn't Exist" "Yes he does" "No he doesn't" and so on and so forth.[/quote] [color=Black]Of course. I was just saying that you're not winning. XD[/color][/color]


[color=DarkRed]
[quote name='Ilium']I do, however, have the right to say that a Christian is a Christian.[/quote] [color=Black]You think that because you're viewing Christianity as simply a system of theological beliefs, when it's really more than that, as Juke Box Hero tried to convey.[/color][/color]

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed]
Nay, they are horrible examples of Humanity. They are perfect examples of what a sickness Religion can become in the wrong hands; and there is nothing preventing it from falling into the wrong ones, as Catholisism (Pre-Reform, at least.) and Islam can attest. The Inqusitioners vain bigots in the name of Christianity. I know that post-reform Catholisism has significantly improved in this area (Though I would still like to see them be a little more librel on a few wee things, like condoms and homosexuality) but that's not my point. As for the Crusaders, trust me, the Peasents Crusade and the Knights Crusade were both faught to take back the holy land and convert or kill all of Muslimdom. The Muslims were just lucky that The Peasent Crusade, The Knights Crusade, and the Kings Crusade were all terribly planned, formed of mostly untrained rabbel of zealous idiots, and that the Bubonic Plauge was thinning their numbers. It was a war faught in the name of Conversion of the Muslimdon. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[SIZE=1]Alright... so religion can be a very dangerous weapon. That doesn't prove [i]at all[/i] that God is not real, or that His intentions are evil, or that He ordered massive slaughter in His name.

[QUOTE][COLOR=DarkRed]
Ahuh, this goes on to prove my point that just because somone Sins (No matter how horribly or routinely) he/she is still a Christian. Hitler was a Christain. A good Christian? Nope. The person who expelled the Jews, a Christian? Yes. A good one? Well, depending on who you ask, yes and no. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]
And? So Hitler was a Christian. That doesn't make him right. These wicked people are Christians in name alone -- they do not carry out what Jesus wanted for them to do. However, I'm willing to argue that they were not Christians.

[quote name='Juke Box Hero']By initiating a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, one becomes Christian. This is done through a prayer that outlines the following perspectives/beliefs- yes I am a sinner, yes you (the person of Jesus Christ), have died and rose again to pay for those sins, I am sorry for those sins and asked to be washed clean in your blood.[/quote]
These sinners did not initiate a personal relationship with God -- Hitler surely did not beg for repentance, and I have serious doubts about any sincere confessions from Inquistors. If we're running with JBH's definition, that would mean Hitler was not a Christian. He called himself one, but only for the purpose of uniting his country.[/SIZE]

[Lafleur]

[QUOTE]Of course. I was just saying that you're not winning. XD[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkRed]Ya well, your not winning so :P[/COLOR]

[QUOTE] Anything can become a sickness in the wrong hands. Anything can be warped and twisted for selfish reasons. Religion just happens to be very popular, so it's very commonly been the victim of such things.[/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkRed]

It's not commonly twisted because it's popular; it's commonly twisted because with religion when somone questions your actions you can just say 'Silence heretict, or I shall excommunicate thee!' whereas with other things, like Politics etc, they have substance to question. Questioning religion is like punching a ghost. When you question somthing of-this-world there is at least some way to fight, even if it might have ended up with your head on a pike. [/COLOR]

[QUOTE] Anything can become a sickness in the wrong hands. Anything can be warped and twisted for selfish reasons. Religion just happens to be very popular, so it's very commonly been the victim of such things.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
No, but it in a way (Stay with me here) does on a certain level. If God was all-knowing, than he should know that giving human beings religion would just give us a reason to butt our heads. Why would God give Humans religion if he knew this? The argument could be made that being a God without worshippers is like being a Narcissist in a world without mirrored surfaces, but in that case God is not the perfect being he is made out to be. Than the argument can be made that, if the God is flawed, than the religion is flawed. Hey, just a thought, but who knows.

[/COLOR]

[QUOTE]
These sinners did not initiate a personal relationship with God -- Hitler surely did not beg for repentance, and I have serious doubts about any sincere confessions from Inquistors. If we're running with JBH's definition, that would mean Hitler was not a Christian. He called himself one, but only for the purpose of uniting his country.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
Hitler may well have; no one was in the bunker with him when he shot himself, and he is reported to have spent many of his last days in deep prayer. As for the Inqusitioners, well, I don't know who has the right to judge if a confession is sincere or not, but it's certainly not you and it's certainly not me. For all we know many of the Inquisitioners did and many did not: it's one of the fickler aspects of religion.[/COLOR]

[John]

[quote name='Ilium][color=DarkRed']It's not commonly twisted because it's popular; it's commonly twisted because with religion when somone questions your actions you can just say 'Silence heretict, or I shall excommunicate thee!' whereas with other things, like Politics etc, they have substance to question. Questioning religion is like punching a ghost. When you question somthing of-this-world there is at least some way to fight, even if it might have ended up with your head on a pike.[/quote] [color=black]The people who would react like you described (there is no measure to how tired I am of explaining this) [b]are the same people who are not good Christians.[/b] [/color][/color]


[color=DarkRed]
[color=black][quote name='Ilium][/color']No, but it in a way (Stay with me here) does on a certain level. If God was all-knowing, than he should know that giving human beings religion would just give us a reason to butt our heads. Why would God give Humans religion if he knew this? The argument could be made that being a God without worshippers is like being a Narcissist in a world without mirrored surfaces, but in that case God is not the perfect being he is made out to be. Than the argument can be made that, if the God is flawed, than the religion is flawed. Hey, just a thought, but who knows.[color=black][/quote] Now you're just making no sense, lol. God didn't "invent" religion. When He created Man, religion, being the worship or adoration of a deity, was obviously set in place. And He told Man to worship him not because He's narcissistic, but because He created man, and everything else in the Universe. In fact, it isn't within the realm of possibility for him to be narcissistic, lol. He [i]is[/i] a trillion times better than anything that ever is or could be. He only has a very well-adjusted view of things, a view which doesn't occur to most humans, because in their realm, [i]they're[/i] the greatest things in existence.

And humans will butt our heads on anything, anyway. That's the free will that we have, and if we didn't have it we wouldn't be human.
[/color][/color]

[Lafleur]

[QUOTE] Now you're just making no sense, lol. God didn't "invent" religion. When He created Man, religion, being the worship or adoration of a deity, was obviously set in place. And He told Man to worship him not because He's narcissistic, but because He created man, and everything else in the Universe. In fact, it isn't within the realm of possibility for him to be narcissistic, lol. He is a trillion times better than anything that ever is or could be. He only has a very well-adjusted view of things, a view which doesn't occur to most humans, because in their realm, they're the greatest things in existence.
[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
Ok, than man Created religion. See what I'm trying to make you figure out? That means that Religion is a creation of the Human imagination. Get it now? By the by, I didn't mean that 'God' is a narcissist, it was an analogy to point out that either, A, God is flawed or, B, he was created by man.[/COLOR]

[Break]

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed]
Ok, than man Created religion. See what I'm trying to make you figure out? That means that Religion is a creation of the Human imagination. Get it now? By the by, I didn't mean that 'God' is a narcissist, it was an analogy to point out that either, A, God is flawed or, B, he was created by man.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

People need something to believe in, people without answers look to the church; it's quite simple really. It's hope, really, to believe that there is salvation for the most lost soul. Keeps the masses happy.

Myself? I wasn't baptised or christened or anything like that. I'm interested in religion, particularly Christianity... the principles seem good, but I think some people take everything very literally, the immaculate conception and all that. There are metaphors abound in the bible.

[Retribution]

[quote name='Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed']Ok, than man Created religion. See what I'm trying to make you figure out? That means that Religion is a creation of the Human imagination. Get it now? By the by, I didn't mean that 'God' is a narcissist, it was an analogy to point out that either, A, God is flawed or, B, he was created by man.[/COLOR][/quote]
[SIZE=1]Is it in the realm of possibility that neither are correct? What if God created the universe, and we created religion to worship him? I don't understand why you have to rule out that possibility.[/SIZE]

[Sara]

[color=#6699cc]As far as I can glean, you are equating extreme religious claims of "God wants this" or "God is cool with this" with God himself.

[b]God=!religion.[/b]

To me, being a Christian is having a personal relationship with God, and accepting Jesus Christ as your savior. It has nothing to do with what "religion" or denomination you consider yourself to be. It has nothing to do with what any of the church leaders proclaim, nor anything to do with what other people have erroneously done in God's name.

It has to do with accepting Christ. Do you know [i]why[/i] you can do that? Because God, as of Jesus' death and ressurection, is forgiving.

And aplogies about this spiel, because I know it seems out of place in the current line of conversation. But it's relevent, due to what I just said: [i]The New-Testament God is forgiving.[/i]

He doesn't smite people anymore. Jesus took care of everything, being-smited-wise. So any A.D. claim that someone needs to wipe someone else out, or that God wants us to convert people [i]on pain of death[/i] is coming from A.) a politicker, or B.) a complete whackjob.

On another note, I was going to say that God didn't "invent" religion, or even set religion in place. Id' be wrong if I said it, though, on these grounds: Religion, in my mind, is a set of rules and practices which one follows in order to A.) Worship God, and B.) gain salvation.

In the Old Testament, God most certainly set things up. Anyone remotely familiar with Exodus, etc. is aware of this. Rules about food, drink, relationships, sacrifice, worship, [i]the judicial system[/i]?it's all there. So, yeah, definitely. God invented religion.

However, Christ's actions abolished the need for such Old Testament rules. The author of Hebrews writes emphasizing that Jesus has fulfilled those rules once and for all. (They no longer need a high priest, since Jesus is the ultimate high priest.) By hanging on to old practices, rules, and traditions, they were minimalising what Christ had done.

So it stands at this: God set religion in place so his people would know how to worship him and atone for their sins. Religion was a mediator, taking a sinful people and temporarily cleansing them so that they could be closer to God.

In the New Testament, Christ abolishes the need for such rules. He was/is our mediator, permanently bringing those who accept him close to God?without the need for any rules, relegated system of worship, etc.

New Testament churches (the book of Acts through today) provide rules and traditions set in place by man. Not God. The are based on interpretations of God's Word, but that is open to each individual to decide for themselves. There's no longer a standard that needs to be maintained in order to attain salvation.

As a result, we have religion today. [/color]

[Break]

[quote name='Retribution][SIZE=1']Is it in the realm of possibility that neither are correct? What if God created the universe, and we created religion to worship him? I don't understand why you have to rule out that possibility.[/SIZE][/quote]

What if God didn't create the universe and we didn't have any decent technology way back when and we needed an explanation and we created religion to account for these mysteries such as rainbows and earthquakes?

[2_D]

I'm not Christian becausee I disagree with so many of their little... rules.And they love discriminating against gays. Everyone at my school is Christian and they love bothering me with, "Why don't you go to church". Then they try to forcce their religion on me. It's kinda funny when they call me a Satanist, but... whatever. Me<~~Not a Satanist. I don't like being part of someone else's classification.

[2_D]

I made a typo as usual...^

[Retribution]

[quote name='Break']What if God didn't create the universe and we didn't have any decent technology way back when and we needed an explanation and we created religion to account for these mysteries such as rainbows and earthquakes?[/quote]
[SIZE=1]That's just as possible as what I suggested. I mean, I believe that what I said was right, but we don't know who is ultimately correct until we die.[/SIZE]

[Lafleur]

[quote name='Retribution][SIZE=1']That's just as possible as what I suggested. I mean, I believe that what I said was right, but we don't know who is ultimately correct until we die.[/SIZE][/quote][COLOR=DarkRed]

No, it's hardly just as possible. Human nature is a predictable thing. When they (We) encounter somthing that they (We) do not understand (i.e Earthquakes, Volcanoes, or Ice) we make up things that give us comfort. They (We) take (took) comfort in knowing what caused the earth to split or what caused their drinking water to freeze. By inventing somthing like God or the Gods they had an explanation for it all. This is why no 'Mircals' have occured, as such, in the last few hundred years, because now we can explain everything or at least study them. The Ancient Greeks had no idea what caused Earthquakes. They were scared. Suddenly somone comes up with the idea that it's the wrath of Posideon and that by sacrificing things to him they can quell it. It's human nature to DO somthing, even if it's futile, and the Ancient Greeks couldn't do anything, so they invented somthing to give them the illusion of doing somthing.

Human Nature created religion. Religion created God. Ifso Facto, God is a creation of man. [/COLOR]

[Xander Harris]

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed]

No, it's hardly just as possible. Human nature is a predictable thing. When they (We) encounter somthing that they (We) do not understand (i.e Earthquakes, Volcanoes, or Ice) we make up things that give us comfort. They (We) take (took) comfort in knowing what caused the earth to split or what caused their drinking water to freeze. By inventing somthing like God or the Gods they had an explanation for it all. This is why no 'Mircals' have occured, as such, in the last few hundred years, because now we can explain everything or at least study them. The Ancient Greeks had no idea what caused Earthquakes. They were scared. Suddenly somone comes up with the idea that it's the wrath of Posideon and that by sacrificing things to him they can quell it. It's human nature to DO somthing, even if it's futile, and the Ancient Greeks couldn't do anything, so they invented somthing to give them the illusion of doing somthing.

Human Nature created religion. Religion created God. Ifso Facto, God is a creation of man. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

The problem with this idea is that the kinds of things reported as miracles in the Bible are still things that would be considered miracles today. They were not natural pheonomena.

People can't walk on water (unless it's frozen water lol) People can't turn water to wine. People can't be suddenly cured of years of blindness by having mud and spit put on their eyes. Pillars of fire do not come out of the sky and lead people around the desert. Seas do not instantaneously part to allow people to walk through them on dry land. People do not rise from the dead. That is why these things are called miracles. Because a miracle is a violation of the natural laws, not a supernatural explanation for a scientific fact.

Unless you think any of the things above are explainable by science, then the idea that Christianity is a belief system designed to explain natural phenomena is ludicrous.

The question is whether or not the miracles occured.

[Lafleur]

[QUOTE=Xander Harris]The problem with this idea is that the kinds of things reported as miracles in the Bible are still things that would be considered miracles today. They were not natural pheonomena.

People can't walk on water (unless it's frozen water lol) People can't turn water to wine. People can't be suddenly cured of years of blindness by having mud and spit put on their eyes. Pillars of fire do not come out of the sky and lead people around the desert. Seas do not instantaneously part to allow people to walk through them on dry land. People do not rise from the dead. That is why these things are called miracles. Because a miracle is a violation of the natural laws, not a supernatural explanation for a scientific fact.

Unless you think any of the things above are explainable by science, then the idea that Christianity is a belief system designed to explain natural phenomena is ludicrous.

The question is whether or not the miracles occured.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
Which leads me to my second point, which is that all these supposed miracles occured during a time they could not be properly recorded. If God wanted everyone to believe all he's have to do is halt Niagra Falls or fill the Gran Canyon. [/COLOR]