10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer

hollow bottle

This video was not anything new at all. I asked these questions and still do to some extent. Whomever is responsible for this video is not "educated" about Christianity. He assumes that all Christians believe in holy communion. He also assumes that just because one says they are Christian means that they must be Christian. Let's talk about science. The only thing that is to be recoginzed about science is that it continously dissproves itself. For example, we are still trying to figure out gravity and all those pictures of atoms in science tectbooks are simple illustrations to explain things we know very little about. Physiology is all theory. There is no certainty in science. There are only statistics as to effects. Nothing can be explained in pure scientific terms.

Gern Blansten

hollow bottle wrote:

This video was not anything new at all. I asked these questions and still do to some extent. Whomever is responsible for this video is not "educated" about Christianity. He assumes that all Christians believe in holy communion. He also assumes that just because one says they are Christian means that they must be Christian. Let's talk about science. The only thing that is to be recoginzed about science is that it continously dissproves itself. For example, we are still trying to figure out gravity and all those pictures of atoms in science tectbooks are simple illustrations to explain things we know very little about. Physiology is all theory. There is no certainty in science. There are only statistics as to effects. Nothing can be explained in pure scientific terms.

OutOfBreath

EddieLedBetter wrote:

It wasnt created by the early church of rome it was compiled, there is a difference there. They had the best intentions when they "compiled" it. True after they saw the power aspect that arose the roman catholic church began to use that power. They pray to a holy mother mary. This isnt biblical. No one is holy but God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.

They compiled it choosing from a lot of texts. Those that weren't chosen disappeared and many are only now found in various places. Christianity as it was at that time was enormously heterogenous. Everything from esoteric gnostics to Jews awaiting his immediate return as a worldly king of Israel. The church had an enormous influence then to define what they thought Christianity was and should be. Had to make up stuff like the trinity (which isnt found anywhere explicitly in the bible itself) to get there, but having their authoritative interpretation enabled them to crack down with impunity on "heretics" the following centuries.

For me, Jesus lives in His teachings.
This is the best thing that you've said to me. So resurrection aside, if you believe what he taught then you believe that he said you are a sinner and no man could come to know god without confessing that Jesus can forgive your sins with his sacrifice?

I am guessing Cosmo is more into living a just life, turning the other cheek and so forth than that particular dogma. That's how I think about him anyway. Pacifism, community and morality is something we all can relate to after all. The son-of-god stuff is entirely the leap of faith which we mostly refuse to accept. Funny though, to Christians, his biggest contribution was to die innocently, while to un-christians like me his biggest contribution was his overall message of peace and heaven on earth...

Peace
Dan

EddieLedBetter

OutOfBreath wrote:

EddieLedBetter wrote:

It wasnt created by the early church of rome it was compiled, there is a difference there. They had the best intentions when they "compiled" it. True after they saw the power aspect that arose the roman catholic church began to use that power. They pray to a holy mother mary. This isnt biblical. No one is holy but God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.

They compiled it choosing from a lot of texts. Those that weren't chosen disappeared and many are only now found in various places. Christianity as it was at that time was enormously heterogenous. Everything from esoteric gnostics to Jews awaiting his immediate return as a worldly king of Israel. The church had an enormous influence then to define what they thought Christianity was and should be. Had to make up stuff like the trinity (which isnt found anywhere explicitly in the bible itself) to get there, but having their authoritative interpretation enabled them to crack down with impunity on "heretics" the following centuries.

For me, Jesus lives in His teachings.
This is the best thing that you've said to me. So resurrection aside, if you believe what he taught then you believe that he said you are a sinner and no man could come to know god without confessing that Jesus can forgive your sins with his sacrifice?

I am guessing Cosmo is more into living a just life, turning the other cheek and so forth than that particular dogma. That's how I think about him anyway. Pacifism, community and morality is something we all can relate to after all. The son-of-god stuff is entirely the leap of faith which we mostly refuse to accept. Funny though, to Christians, his biggest contribution was to die innocently, while to un-christians like me his biggest contribution was his overall message of peace and heaven on earth...

Peace
Dan

Those compiled text were left out because they were unbiblical when up against the teachings of the old canon/testament and the teachings of Jesus. They didn’t chose or add anything to them. You would ask me how I know this just like I would ask you how you know what you claim. They compiled with the upmost integrity.
The trinity isn’t something they invented. Where did you come up with that? Jesus talked about his father being the same is him just that himself, Jesus had God+a human nature, but also said his father would send "a helper" after he was gone, the holy spirit. Its thought of as a triangle. All the sides are essential to making up the triangle and equally share a part as different, yet they are one.

It doesn’t take a leap of faith to believe we all came from nothing by random chance? I think it requires less faith to believe in the something we came from then from absolute nothingness.

markin ball

EddieLedBetter wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

EddieLedBetter wrote:

It wasnt created by the early church of rome it was compiled, there is a difference there. They had the best intentions when they "compiled" it. True after they saw the power aspect that arose the roman catholic church began to use that power. They pray to a holy mother mary. This isnt biblical. No one is holy but God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.

They compiled it choosing from a lot of texts. Those that weren't chosen disappeared and many are only now found in various places. Christianity as it was at that time was enormously heterogenous. Everything from esoteric gnostics to Jews awaiting his immediate return as a worldly king of Israel. The church had an enormous influence then to define what they thought Christianity was and should be. Had to make up stuff like the trinity (which isnt found anywhere explicitly in the bible itself) to get there, but having their authoritative interpretation enabled them to crack down with impunity on "heretics" the following centuries.

For me, Jesus lives in His teachings.
This is the best thing that you've said to me. So resurrection aside, if you believe what he taught then you believe that he said you are a sinner and no man could come to know god without confessing that Jesus can forgive your sins with his sacrifice?

I am guessing Cosmo is more into living a just life, turning the other cheek and so forth than that particular dogma. That's how I think about him anyway. Pacifism, community and morality is something we all can relate to after all. The son-of-god stuff is entirely the leap of faith which we mostly refuse to accept. Funny though, to Christians, his biggest contribution was to die innocently, while to un-christians like me his biggest contribution was his overall message of peace and heaven on earth...

Peace
Dan

Those compiled text were left out because they were unbiblical when up against the teachings of the old canon/testament and the teachings of Jesus. They didn’t chose or add anything to them. You would ask me how I know this just like I would ask you how you know what you claim. They compiled with the upmost integrity.
The trinity isn’t something they invented. Where did you come up with that? Jesus talked about his father being the same is him just that himself, Jesus had God+a human nature, but also said his father would send "a helper" after he was gone, the holy spirit. Its thought of as a triangle. All the sides are essential to making up the triangle and equally share a part as different, yet they are one.

It doesn’t take a leap of faith to believe we all came from nothing by random chance? I think it requires less faith to believe in the something we came from then from absolute nothingness.

Well I believe in the thing that God came from, no wait, I believe in the thing that the previous thing that created God came from, no wait............I thought we agreed no to try to "logic" this out anymore. :x

OutOfBreath

EddieLedBetter wrote:

Those compiled text were left out because they were unbiblical when up against the teachings of the old canon/testament and the teachings of Jesus. They didn’t chose or add anything to them. You would ask me how I know this just like I would ask you how you know what you claim. They compiled with the upmost integrity.

But that's what I'm saying. It was constructed by the church fathers to fit what they thought and wanted it to be. And they did choose, choosing to leave out the books that didn't fit their version of the story... They didn't need to create any new books, they just had to pick from the multitude of different versions the ones they liked the most. The moment christianity became a consolidated state religion (which was at that time in history), it became an instrument of power, soon going after heretics just as hard as christians themselves had been persecuted. I would not put too much trust in the men that made this happen. And that's where the choice of biblical texts come from.

The trinity isn’t something they invented. Where did you come up with that? Jesus talked about his father being the same is him just that himself, Jesus had God+a human nature, but also said his father would send "a helper" after he was gone, the holy spirit. Its thought of as a triangle. All the sides are essential to making up the triangle and equally share a part as different, yet they are one.

Where does he flat out say it? The god in me stuff could be taken as referring to the divine in every person. The reason the trinity was consolidated as a principle was first and foremost to compromise the wildly different strands of christianity into an institution to be used for power. There are several illogical components to me in the god=man=ghost setup. I can only make sense of it if it really is about uniting christian directions that each for themselves felt either that Jesus WAS God, that he was the son of God (allowing for those with more polytheistic tastes) or that he was embodied by the holy spirit of God that saturates the universe (allowing for intellectual and pantheistic directions). The trinity lets them all agree that Jesus was a swell guy, and move on.

To me, why God jumps through all kinds of hoops to essentially sacrifice himself to himself... I dont get it. (and dont get me started on "blood sacrifice") Especially since he some pages further back in the good book has no qualms about intervening spectacularly when he wants something.

It doesn’t take a leap of faith to believe we all came from nothing by random chance? I think it requires less faith to believe in the something we came from then from absolute nothingness.

You seem to assume there are only two options: Christianity or random chance meaningless atheism. I would like to remind you that there are MANY ways to look at it of which these are only two of them. To the best of our knowledge, we do not know from where we come. All formulas break down at the surmised big bang. What you want to put in front of that is up to personal taste. But putting God in there just begs the question where God came from. Unnecessary in my view, and according to Occam's razor, but to each his own.

To the best of our ability, we know evolution is a mechanism that is working, and we know many of the ways it does. We know the earth is incredibly old, and that there have been myriads of different dominant species before us.

As for what surronds our facts, it's really very open. Meaning is what you make of it. Life can be meaning in itself, the universe's way to experience itself perhaps. Maybe god is everything of which we all are a tiny part. Perhaps there is no ultimate meaning. Life appears, changes, disappears all across the universe without a higher purpose. Meaning is what we make it. It is not hard to find a meaning that more closely aligns with scientific facts than christianity. And christanity do not have the monopoly on god, the divine, meaning or morality. Poking at science does not automatically strengthen Christianity or Deism in general.

I just can't stay away apparently.
Anyways, take it for what it's worth as my opinion and understanding of facts.

Peace
Dan

he still stands

OutOfBreath wrote:

Life can be meaning in itself, the universe's way to experience itself perhaps.

That is a very Taoist view and philosophically I think it is very interesting, primarily because I had sort of a "spiritual epiphany" that your statement is indeed how it works the first time I did lysergic. :shock:

OutOfBreath

he still stands wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

Life can be meaning in itself, the universe's way to experience itself perhaps.

That is a very Taoist view and philosophically I think it is very interesting, primarily because I had sort of a "spiritual epiphany" that your statement is indeed how it works the first time I did lysergic. :shock:

Taoist, eh? Perhaps it is, I wouldn't know as I havent read up on that. My influence stems from Daniel Quinn I think, where I was presented with animist/pantheist possibilities. It is a road I find alot more interesting than several box-office religions though.

Anyways, I get epiphanies sometimes, usually in a setting of nature, or in a tight and large social setting. Which is why I to an extent respect religious views, as I see them as their way to explain what I too experience from time to time. That feeling of connectedness and being a part. I dont need the crutches of religious dogma to try to make sense of it, and dont automatically think within the bounds of the local religion. I am sure that what I, christians, muslims etc are experiencing are of the same root. So I guess I'm sort of agnostic in one way, and somewhat atheist in another. But who said it is supposed to be easy.

Peace
Dan

MOKELE MBEMBE

Ya'll postin' in a troll thread.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

MOKELE MBEMBE wrote:

Ya'll postin' in a troll thread.