Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[travelli]

You'd better talk to your "Christian brothers" because it seems they don't agree with you either on Genesis 4 and Acts 17:26.

All very amusing. Doesn't fill me with confidence that you actually know what you're talking about. In fact it appears you don't.

You'd better get onto answersingenesis.com to get your story straight.

But keep going. I need a few more laughs.

You do understand that people can have different interpretations of the same passages and still be Christian?

But stick with your literalist path if it makes you more comfortable.

 

[Gough]

You do understand that people can have different interpretations of the same passages and still be Christian?

But stick with your literalist path if it makes you more comfortable.

Man who lies with another must be stoned. I practise that whenever I can.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I don't understand what the problem might be if Christian biblical stories are similar to other cultures.

Suggests common experiences across cultures and their relationship to God.

That’s fine but many Christians insist their book is unique and the “word of god” and they claim other religions, including the ones Christianity has borrowed from, are schitte.

It’s these claims to exceptionalism that are so unsustainable.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

You do understand that people can have different interpretations of the same passages and still be Christian?

Didn’t stop immense bloodshed through history between Catholics and Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox, did it?

All Christians, apparently, and all willing to slaughter other Christians for not being their version of Christian.

 

[Roylion]

You do understand that people can have different interpretations of the same passages and still be Christian?

But stick with your literalist path if it makes you more comfortable.

Why don't you go back to the context of the discussion before you make comment? The comment was made TP that the Bible states quite clearly that Adam's family were the only humans on the planet to which our current resident Christian went on a rant about how all his "Christian brothers" would know that Genesis 4 doesn't say this all. To which it was pointed out that some of his "Christian brothers" say exactly that. That Adam's family were the only humans on the planet. answersingenesis.com

So in fact it was being pointed out to rosscoe - exactly that - that there are different interpretations of the same passages by Christians and that his claim to 'truth' are not supported by all his 'Christian brothers' as he implied.

 

[Gethelred]

I don't understand what the problem might be if Christian biblical stories are similar to other cultures.

Suggests common experiences across cultures and their relationship to God.

Christian biblical stories being similar across cultures is due to ideological contamination to greater facilitate the integration into the Roman empire, at least at the beginning. If you're going to give your new Roman citizens (not Romans, just citizens) a new cultural identity, the easiest way to do so is to give them a frame of reference; hence, the decision to have Christmas during the middle of the Winter Solstice, and Easter in the Autumn Equinox. In doing this, they essentially made pacifying the native tribes around Rome much, much easier; they relied on Rome for their religion, and their languages turned to the language of their religion, Latin.

This is something of a pattern in christianity's history. When Spain went to America, they brought Catholicism with them; when Britain and France began to colonise north America, they brought the Church of England and Catholicism, and when they started enslaving native populations or importing slaves from Africa, they pacified those populations with Jesus. When England, the Dutch and France began to divide up Micro and Polynesia, they sent missionaries out first before colonising the native populations; this enabled them to supplant the pre-existing cultures in those places to allow for greater integration of them as an underclass for the colonists. This happened wholesale in Africa, when the European powers divided it up for their own plunder. It was attempted in China and India, to mixed success; China had the Tanping Rebellion, in which a man called Hong Xiuquan declared himself to be Jesus' brother and tried to instigate a Christian splinter state within China under his rule, before being brutally repressed and the religion something of a faux pas in China.

The reason why this is necessary to assert has several directions one can approach it from. From a christian's perspective, the religion is and has been so diluted over the centuries that how can they be certain what was provincialism and what is the word of God? From a historian's perspective, it is unsettling how simply christianity wedded to the pacification of whole populations during imperialism, and how swiftly rulers and priests discarded their original rites and celebrations in order to cater to the new converts; it implies that the whole thing was nothing more than a power grab. From an atheistic perspective, it means that a christian's faith comes secondary to their wealth and position, and how often christianity has throughout history sought to exploit the poor and the powerless in the interests of the wealthy and the powerful.

The problem isn't that these stories are found across multiple cultures, but how they came to be within a Christian context, who put them there, and what had to change to make it so. And if these things have been changed, what was the point of each significant event once moved?

Makes it all seem akin to the revisionism in the book/play Phantom of the Opera, which has gone through hundreds of different versions in order to appeal to the widest possible audience.

 

[Roylion]

I don't understand what the problem might be if Christian biblical stories are similar to other cultures.

They are in many cases derived and adapted from older stories that do not acknowledge the existence of the 'one true God'.

 

[daniologist]

Zucchini for me. Actually, in truth, I said tomato but then I remembered a tomato is a fruit so zucchini was my second option.

So sorry but must point out respectfully that zucchini is in fact also a fruit in the botanical sense.

Didn’t stop immense bloodshed through history between Catholics and Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox, did it?

All Christians, apparently, and all willing to slaughter other Christians for not being their version of Christian.

This is actually the whole entire problem with religions like christianity.

"My god is the only real one, yours is bollocks so I'm going to kill you all to prove my point because my god is the only real one so winning will prove that my god is the only real one and yours is wrong. I know my god is the right one because it says so in this book all about my god. Also I can do whatever I want to you because you're a sinner/unbeliever/infidel/otherwise bad guy so you don't count."

And so on and so forth, to varying degrees. Of course the killing and war bit is the worst thing, but it's basically immoral and disingenuous that any kind of judgement should be made by a human about another human based on their belief, or lack thereof. If I follow the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (R'Amen!), and I don't buy a cake from a shop owned by someone who hasn't been Blessed by Quob's Noodly Appendage, even though they're great cakes, then I'm a pretty poor excuse for a human.

 

[travelli]

Christian biblical stories being similar across cultures is due to ideological contamination to greater facilitate the integration into the Roman empire, at least at the beginning. If you're going to give your new Roman citizens (not Romans, just citizens) a new cultural identity, the easiest way to do so is to give them a frame of reference; hence, the decision to have Christmas during the middle of the Winter Solstice, and Easter in the Autumn Equinox. In doing this, they essentially made pacifying the native tribes around Rome much, much easier; they relied on Rome for their religion, and their languages turned to the language of their religion, Latin.

This is something of a pattern in christianity's history. When Spain went to America, they brought Catholicism with them; when Britain and France began to colonise north America, they brought the Church of England and Catholicism, and when they started enslaving native populations or importing slaves from Africa, they pacified those populations with Jesus. When England, the Dutch and France began to divide up Micro and Polynesia, they sent missionaries out first before colonising the native populations; this enabled them to supplant the pre-existing cultures in those places to allow for greater integration of them as an underclass for the colonists. This happened wholesale in Africa, when the European powers divided it up for their own plunder. It was attempted in China and India, to mixed success; China had the Tanping Rebellion, in which a man called Hong Xiuquan declared himself to be Jesus' brother and tried to instigate a Christian splinter state within China under his rule, before being brutally repressed and the religion something of a faux pas in China.

The reason why this is necessary to assert has several directions one can approach it from. From a christian's perspective, the religion is and has been so diluted over the centuries that how can they be certain what was provincialism and what is the word of God? From a historian's perspective, it is unsettling how simply christianity wedded to the pacification of whole populations during imperialism, and how swiftly rulers and priests discarded their original rites and celebrations in order to cater to the new converts; it implies that the whole thing was nothing more than a power grab. From an atheistic perspective, it means that a christian's faith comes secondary to their wealth and position, and how often christianity has throughout history sought to exploit the poor and the powerless in the interests of the wealthy and the powerful.

The problem isn't that these stories are found across multiple cultures, but how they came to be within a Christian context, who put them there, and what had to change to make it so. And if these things have been changed, what was the point of each significant event once moved?

Makes it all seem akin to the revisionism in the book/play Phantom of the Opera, which has gone through hundreds of different versions in order to appeal to the widest possible audience.

I think first and foremost, Christianity is trying to layout the pathway to God, so if they use local stories to help demonstrate that pathway, then that is consistent with the Christian & Jesus mission.

On this, I heard a Christian take on the Acknowledgement of Country the other day - incorporating respect for First Nation lands, culture, spirituality and with a little bit of Jesus thrown in. They are still at it.

 

[Gethelred]

I think first and foremost, Christianity is trying to layout the pathway to God, so if they use local stories to help demonstrate that pathway, then that is consistent with the Christian & Jesus mission.

The way I see it - biased as it is by my perspective - is that they are doing their utmost to con people, chameleon like in their desire to infiltrate, work out the routes to power and wealth - the latter, if both is not possible - and to entrench themselves within the new society/culture as quickly and completely as possible.

Do I think that all Christians think that way? Absolutely not. Do I think that they have the best wishes for whatever culture they're infiltrating at heart? Mostly. But the monolith needs money and converts, and their religion will only bend so far; rites and holidays don't matter so much as long as the accumulated baggage (persecution of other religions, homophobia, overt and public displays of faith and a desire to pivot the entirety of society in their image) is promoted.

 

[travelli]

The way I see it - biased as it is by my perspective - is that they are doing their utmost to con people, chameleon like in their desire to infiltrate, work out the routes to power and wealth - the latter, if both is not possible - and to entrench themselves within the new society/culture as quickly and completely as possible.

Do I think that all Christians think that way? Absolutely not. Do I think that they have the best wishes for whatever culture they're infiltrating at heart? Mostly. But the monolith needs money and converts, and their religion will only bend so far; rites and holidays don't matter so much as long as the accumulated baggage (persecution of other religions, homophobia, overt and public displays of faith and a desire to pivot the entirety of society in their image) is promoted.

I can definitely see how people might think that way. The only bit I took issue with was the "utmost to con people" line. In my experience the vast majority of the people in the Catholic hierarchy honestly believe in the mission.

 

[Gethelred]

I can definitely see how people might think that way. The only bit I took issue with was the "utmost to con people" line. In my experience the vast majority of the people in the Catholic hierarchy honestly believe in the mission.

I suppose the key difference between convincing and conning is a combination of motive and method. If your methods of convincing someone to agree with you/become faithful are disingenuous or are designed purely to get them to overlook the flaws, I would consider that conning someone. But someone else's definition would require said convincing to be done for bad purpose to be considered a con.

I absolutely agree that the vast majority of christians honestly believe that they are doing the right thing. That is part of what makes them so dangerous. But while their hearts are (supposedly) in the right place, their methods and methodology I take leave to question, especially as it pertains to the use of religion to subdue an underclass or pacify a population without rights.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I think first and foremost, Christianity is trying to layout the pathway to God, so if they use local stories to help demonstrate that pathway, then that is consistent with the Christian & Jesus mission.

On this, I heard a Christian take on the Acknowledgement of Country the other day - incorporating respect for First Nation lands, culture, spirituality and with a little bit of Jesus thrown in. They are still at it.

That’s great but in my experience most Christians are a lot more absolutist.

A proselytising religion, post-the Enlightenment? They tie themselves up in so many knots I’m going to take up osteopathy and set up shop outside St Peter’s Cathedral.

 

[Rosscoe]

LOL i have read it, why don't you point me to line exactly where it states other people existed alongside Adam? this is not what Christians believe at all, other Christians have told you the same in this thread too.

You have turned lack of information in the Bible into other people. Yep It's true Bible doesn't mention whom Cain married, but it doesn't mention anyone else which you are assuming.

And even if they had other human beings there, that would make God's creation so petty, original sin etc,all central Christian concepts are down the gutter. Yeah you sound like a Mormon to me.

So explain this to me, Women was formed from Adam's ribs, before Adam there was no women. So how did 'others' get there outside of Adams family? they cou;dn't be there before Adam, how did they get there after Adam? you are making sh*t up as you go, yeah as i said, you don't sound Christian at all.

Did God create other people in addition to Adam and Eve? | GotQuestions.org

Did God create other people in addition to Adam and Eve? Could all of humanity have really originated from two people?

www.gotquestions.org

There is no indication anywhere in the Bible that God created any humans other than Adam and Eve.

Notice that the passage says, “There He placed the man whom He had formed.” Not the “men,” just the one “man.” And this man was alone (v. 18) so God made a woman out of his rib to be his companion. All other human beings have descended from these two original people. The two main reasons why this question usually comes up are (1) Cain’s wife, and (2) the origin of the different races. If the only people on the earth were children of Adam and Eve, whom did Cain marry and how did we get all the different races of people with their different skin colors from just two people? For answers to these issues, please read "Who was Cain’s wife?" and "What is the origin of the different races?"


THERE WERE NO OTHER PEOPLE, IT WAS INCEST, you assumed stuff. You will struggle to find a Christian who will agree with you.

Other Humans Before Adam & Eve?

Simon Turpin of AiG–UK responds to biblical scholars who argue that Genesis 1 & 2 allow for pre-Adamite beings on earth prior to Adam and Eve.

answersingenesis.org

There is no hint whatsoever in Genesis 2 of a group of pre-existing people from whom God elects the first couple, Adam and Eve. Rather it talks about the supernatural formation of the first man (Adam) and the supernatural “building” of the first woman (Eve). The Bible makes it clear: all mankind came from the first man that God created (cf. Acts 17:26).




You don't even know about your own religion, let alone science. Why are you in this thread even? It's clear you are not a Christian.

Is Paul talking about Adam or Jesus?
Did Paul go to Athens to speak about Adam?
Was Adam raised from the dead?

Acts 17:22-34

22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’[b] As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’[c]

29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

32 When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” 33 At that, Paul left the Council. 34 Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

answer the questions to continue.

 

[Rosscoe]

We’re participating in the incredible story that is life on earth.

Where your thinking comes unstuck is you understand the awesomeness of life on this planet but you erroneously then jump to deciding that that awesomeness has to have “meaning”. Classic human ego. (Albeit, understandable, because we humans have evolved so far it’s natural to think we MUST be special. We’re not. We’re incredible, but we’re just bit players in this huge pageant called life.)

Please describe this awesomeness of life you speak about.

I have been in lockdown for what feels like 2 years now and could do with the positivity on my Friday.

 

[indoistriku]

Why would an omniscient being create humans with the potential to live as immortal beings knowing they would fail his criteria for success?

The game is rigged.

Imagine a man who loved a woman with all his heart. He constantly pursued that woman with genuine love and affection. He cherished this woman deeply. He kept her safe, he protected her and he gave her many gifts. But she was uninterested. For whatever reason, she rejected his love. What would be the appropriate response from the man, who loves this woman? Would he compel her to feign love back? Would he say 'No! I won't allow you to reject me. It's in your best interest to accept my love and let me help you'. Would he force himself on this woman, for her to marry him and force her to let him enter her sexually? Of course not. The loving man would say: 'Ok. As you desire. Your desire is my priority. It hurts me deeply, but I love you too much to compel you in any such way. I want your willingly given, cheerful love. Not a fake, compelled love given out of compulsion'.

God does not force us to love him or follow His law. Let's imagine the Christian God is real for a second. If so, we experience love in a fraction of the capacity which He does. If we, in our corrupted state, can sense and be dissatisfied with fake, feigned love, how much more would the Pure God of the universe Who is Love Himself know and be dissatisfied with a compelled, robotic love? God already created angels to shower Him with love and praise. Humans are not just carbon copies of angels. Adam and Eve had free will spiritually - which entailed the choice of sin.

 

[indoistriku]

And I'll add another one: if God is all knowing and all powerful, how is free will possible?

Why would that mean free will is not possible? Just because God is all-powerful, that doesn't mean He always exercises that power. Look at Jesus hanging on the cross and dying at hands of men, as the perfect example of God in a state of willful humiliation.

 

[Gough]

Why would that mean free will is not possible? Just because God is all-powerful, that doesn't mean He always exercises that power. Look at Jesus hanging on the cross and dying at hands of men, as the perfect example of God in a state of willful humiliation.

How do you know god is a he, let alone capitalising it?

 

[Rosscoe]

A simple Google search yields this

Bible Inconsistencies - Bible Contradictions? » Internet Infidels

In the author's opinion, these verses represent inconsistencies which would not be characteristic of inspiration by a perfect "God." Note: The author makes a subtle distinction between the terms "inconsistency" and "contradiction"; please see his explanation in the disclaimer at the top of this...

infidels.org

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

Genesis 1:1-3
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Genesis 1:14-19
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

SIR ISAAC NEWTON



The Melbourne Sky

 

[indoistriku]

"My god is the only real one, yours is bollocks so I'm going to kill you all to prove my point because my god is the only real one so winning will prove that my god is the only real one and yours is wrong. I know my god is the right one because it says so in this book all about my god. Also I can do whatever I want to you because you're a sinner/unbeliever/infidel/otherwise bad guy so you don't count."

Said no one ever. What a ridiculous strawman. Oh, and let me guess. The systematic murder of Christians at the hand of an atheistic government doesn't count, right? If only everyone were atheists! Oh, these silly wars would stop!

it's basically immoral and disingenuous that any kind of judgement should be made by a human about another human based on their belief, or lack thereof.

Any kind? So, you'll agree that its immoral to judge me as being an ideological idiot because I'm a YEC? Are you listening Total Power? Don't judge me or my intelligence based on my beliefs. It's 'immoral', whatever that means.

Hahahaha, flying spaghetti monster. Ahaha, now THAT's funny.

 

[indoistriku]

How do you know god is a he, let alone capitalising it?

I believe that God is a He because the Bible describes God using capitalised masculine pronouns. And Jesus was a male human and Jesus is the God I worship.

 

[Rosscoe]

So sorry but must point out respectfully that zucchini is in fact also a fruit in the botanical sense.



This is actually the whole entire problem with religions like christianity.

"My god is the only real one, yours is bollocks so I'm going to kill you all to prove my point because my god is the only real one so winning will prove that my god is the only real one and yours is wrong. I know my god is the right one because it says so in this book all about my god. Also I can do whatever I want to you because you're a sinner/unbeliever/infidel/otherwise bad guy so you don't count."

And so on and so forth, to varying degrees. Of course the killing and war bit is the worst thing, but it's basically immoral and disingenuous that any kind of judgement should be made by a human about another human based on their belief, or lack thereof. If I follow the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (R'Amen!), and I don't buy a cake from a shop owned by someone who hasn't been Blessed by Quob's Noodly Appendage, even though they're great cakes, then I'm a pretty poor excuse for a human.

propaganda comes in a lot of forms religion being one of them.

 

[Gethelred]

Why would that mean free will is not possible? Just because God is all-powerful, that doesn't mean He always exercises that power. Look at Jesus hanging on the cross and dying at hands of men, as the perfect example of God in a state of willful humiliation.

Note your use of the word 'willful'; he did that to himself. That was his will being done. If God does not exercise his power, does that not imply that this, this precise version of events, is exactly how he wants it to go?

For the sake of argument, he has unlimited power. He could've made a completely different universe, one with different rules, physics; you name it, he could've done it differently. Life and death are constructs of his design, suffering, disease and torture his creation. The question you need to provide the answer to from here is, why did he create this universe this way? If God is omnipotent, his will is done; where we choose and he chooses the opposite, our will is overruled and his is done because he is omnipotent.

How would we even know if an extra-existential spirit imposed its will over this existence, if it has the power to create it and the power to destroy it? Where would we even begin to start? How do we know he hasn't hardened or softened each of our hearts, as he did to the Pharaoh of Exodus or King Herrod?

Either he is not omnipotent, or we have no free will.

 

[Evolved1]

Imagine a man who loved a woman with all his heart. He constantly pursued that woman with genuine love and affection. He cherished this woman deeply. He kept her safe, he protected her and he gave her many gifts. But she was uninterested. For whatever reason, she rejected his love. What would be the appropriate response from the man, who loves this woman?

Pretty simple to me. Move on and look for the next fish in the sea. Anything beyond that is creepy.

Would he compel her to feign love back? Would he say 'No! I won't allow you to reject me. It's in your best interest to accept my love and let me help you'. Would he force himself on this woman, for her to marry him and force her to let him enter her sexually? Of course not. The loving man would say: 'Ok. As you desire. Your desire is my priority. It hurts me deeply, but I love you too much to compel you in any such way. I want your willingly given, cheerful love. Not a fake, compelled love given out of compulsion'.

Nah, there's no point in going to that extent. She's made her point clear so move on. That's what normal men do. The loving man seems rather verbose to me. What is he trying to achieve?

God does not force us to love him or follow His law. Let's imagine the Christian God is real for a second. If so, we experience love in a fraction of the capacity which He does. If we, in our corrupted state, can sense and be dissatisfied with fake, feigned love, how much more would the Pure God of the universe Who is Love Himself know and be dissatisfied with a compelled, robotic love? God already created angels to shower Him with love and praise. Humans are not just carbon copies of angels. Adam and Eve had free will spiritually - which entailed the choice of sin.

God seems like one of those creepy 'nice guys'. Women hate that s**t.

Even in my sinful, corrupted state, I wouldn't drown my wife if she rejected me. I wouldn't want her to be tortured for eternity to satiate my need for justice. I'm a simple man, and I like to think that stronger love leads to more loving outcomes. Drowning 99.9% of all animals and torturing people in a lake of fire aren't things I would do. I can't accept that a perfectly loving god would do that.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Please describe this awesomeness of life you speak about.

I have been in lockdown for what feels like 2 years now and could do with the positivity on my Friday.

Well I don't know where you live of course, but where I live, it's been a beautiful early spring day. There are incredible blossoms just bursting out almost aggressively wherever I look. (Stravinsky said that at the end of the terrible Russian winter, the very ground almost tears open with the violence of the new life of spring.)

It's nearly sunset and the sky is alive with birds making their final calls before settling for the night. The sky is streaked with shafts of gold and there is a hint of pink tingeing the clouds. From the other end of the house I can hear the sound of my kids focussed on some task that we grownups may well find highly amusing and quaint, but to their young minds is of vital importance. The world is schitte but there is also boundless beauty and joy. Have a great weekend mate.