logo Sign In

Religion — Page 72

Author
Time

thejediknighthusezni said:

This centuries-long argument between ‘saved by grace’ and ‘faith needs good works’ is like watching the blind-folded men and the elephant.

Paul was warning against imagining that works will save. There are too many improper motivations for works. Fear of punishment, lust for rewards, thirst for honor among men… You can quickly take your eyes off the bouncing ball. It is devotion that results from the realization of the free gifts for salvation that comes first. Remember Jesus and the sisters. You shouldn’t be so concerned with being a proper host/hostess that you completely lose sight of the purpose of the gathering.

James was concerned with the causal link between faith and works. Simply believing that the Deity will do this or has done that, without it affecting the world in some positive way, is a dead faith. It has no activity. It probably has no Grace attached to it. James was exhorting the faithful to let works affirm and reinforce their faith.

Actually this post makes good sense, don’t dismiss it just by it’s author.

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

Really?

Forgive my ignorance (not being sarcastic here) but what is the basis for getting into Heaven?

Repentance. Believing that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, who died, was buried, and was resurrected. In theory, if Mother Theresa didn’t believe that, but my lazy ass did, I’d go to heaven and she’d go to hell.

If this was the only brand of Christianity around, I’d probably be anti-Christian.

Thank God there’s moderate, progressive, and liberal Christianity, though.

Also known as unbiblical Christianity.

With these three options to choose from:

  1. Take the Bible at 100% face value and worship a vengeful, manipulative, bipolar, murderous God.
  2. Take the Bible at 100% face value and reject God altogether
  3. Recognize the Bible as a flawed product of man, separate the wheat from the chaff, and worship a fair, merciful, loving God

I’ll go with #3 every time.

Maybe, I just don’t see the value of a religious text (I’m not religious by the way; I just read it like a book, I find it interesting) that is flawed. How do you know which parts are the inspired ones?

Since most Christians say that their faith is based on Christ, I suggest Christians do exactly that. Take the four canonical gospels, glean the central spiritual and moral teachings of Christ from them, and then evaluate the rest of the Bible – the Old Testament and the remaining portions of the New Testament both – through that lens. Where the Bible is compatible with Christ’s teachings, accept it; where the Bible is incompatible with Christ’s teachings, regard it as inconsequential and don’t follow it; where the Bible is neutral in regard to Christ’s teachings, use your discretion to come to a conclusion.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Possessed said:

thejediknighthusezni said:

This centuries-long argument between ‘saved by grace’ and ‘faith needs good works’ is like watching the blind-folded men and the elephant.

Paul was warning against imagining that works will save. There are too many improper motivations for works. Fear of punishment, lust for rewards, thirst for honor among men… You can quickly take your eyes off the bouncing ball. It is devotion that results from the realization of the free gifts for salvation that comes first. Remember Jesus and the sisters. You shouldn’t be so concerned with being a proper host/hostess that you completely lose sight of the purpose of the gathering.

James was concerned with the causal link between faith and works. Simply believing that the Deity will do this or has done that, without it affecting the world in some positive way, is a dead faith. It has no activity. It probably has no Grace attached to it. James was exhorting the faithful to let works affirm and reinforce their faith.

Actually this post makes good sense, don’t dismiss it just by it’s author.

I’ll leave it up to others to tackle husezni’s posts with reasoned arguments. Until the ignore feature comes back, ridicule and vitriol are all he’s gonna receive from me, 'cause I’m no longer capable of responding to him with anything else.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

Really?

Forgive my ignorance (not being sarcastic here) but what is the basis for getting into Heaven?

Repentance. Believing that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, who died, was buried, and was resurrected. In theory, if Mother Theresa didn’t believe that, but my lazy ass did, I’d go to heaven and she’d go to hell.

If this was the only brand of Christianity around, I’d probably be anti-Christian.

Thank God there’s moderate, progressive, and liberal Christianity, though.

Also known as unbiblical Christianity.

With these three options to choose from:

  1. Take the Bible at 100% face value and worship a vengeful, manipulative, bipolar, murderous God.
  2. Take the Bible at 100% face value and reject God altogether
  3. Recognize the Bible as a flawed product of man, separate the wheat from the chaff, and worship a fair, merciful, loving God

I’ll go with #3 every time.

Maybe, I just don’t see the value of a religious text (I’m not religious by the way; I just read it like a book, I find it interesting) that is flawed. How do you know which parts are the inspired ones?

Since most Christians say that their faith is based on Christ, I suggest Christians do exactly that. Take the four canonical gospels, glean the central spiritual and moral teachings of Christ from them, and then evaluate the rest of the Bible – the Old Testament and the remaining portions of the New Testament both – through that lens. Where the Bible is compatible with Christ’s teachings, accept it; where the Bible is incompatible with Christ’s teachings, regard it as inconsequential and don’t follow it; where the Bible is neutral in regard to Christ’s teachings, use your discretion to come to a conclusion.

Jesus promised over and over and over that the unrelenting would be cast into burning fire for eternity, He fashioned whips and thrashed the moneychangers, He commanded Christians to sell their garments and walk about half-naked rather than go without weapons to carve the guts out of those who would harm them or their brothers and sisters…

The NT isn’t nearly as incompatible with the OT as you seem to think.

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

Really?

Forgive my ignorance (not being sarcastic here) but what is the basis for getting into Heaven?

Repentance. Believing that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, who died, was buried, and was resurrected. In theory, if Mother Theresa didn’t believe that, but my lazy ass did, I’d go to heaven and she’d go to hell.

If this was the only brand of Christianity around, I’d probably be anti-Christian.

Thank God there’s moderate, progressive, and liberal Christianity, though.

Also known as unbiblical Christianity.

With these three options to choose from:

  1. Take the Bible at 100% face value and worship a vengeful, manipulative, bipolar, murderous God.
  2. Take the Bible at 100% face value and reject God altogether
  3. Recognize the Bible as a flawed product of man, separate the wheat from the chaff, and worship a fair, merciful, loving God

I’ll go with #3 every time.

Maybe, I just don’t see the value of a religious text (I’m not religious by the way; I just read it like a book, I find it interesting) that is flawed. How do you know which parts are the inspired ones?

Since most Christians say that their faith is based on Christ, I suggest Christians do exactly that. Take the four canonical gospels, glean the central spiritual and moral teachings of Christ from them, and then evaluate the rest of the Bible – the Old Testament and the remaining portions of the New Testament both – through that lens. Where the Bible is compatible with Christ’s teachings, accept it; where the Bible is incompatible with Christ’s teachings, regard it as inconsequential and don’t follow it; where the Bible is neutral in regard to Christ’s teachings, use your discretion to come to a conclusion.

How do you know that the gospels are legitimate if the other 62 books are not?

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

Really?

Forgive my ignorance (not being sarcastic here) but what is the basis for getting into Heaven?

Repentance. Believing that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, who died, was buried, and was resurrected. In theory, if Mother Theresa didn’t believe that, but my lazy ass did, I’d go to heaven and she’d go to hell.

If this was the only brand of Christianity around, I’d probably be anti-Christian.

Thank God there’s moderate, progressive, and liberal Christianity, though.

Also known as unbiblical Christianity.

With these three options to choose from:

  1. Take the Bible at 100% face value and worship a vengeful, manipulative, bipolar, murderous God.
  2. Take the Bible at 100% face value and reject God altogether
  3. Recognize the Bible as a flawed product of man, separate the wheat from the chaff, and worship a fair, merciful, loving God

I’ll go with #3 every time.

Maybe, I just don’t see the value of a religious text (I’m not religious by the way; I just read it like a book, I find it interesting) that is flawed. How do you know which parts are the inspired ones?

Since most Christians say that their faith is based on Christ, I suggest Christians do exactly that. Take the four canonical gospels, glean the central spiritual and moral teachings of Christ from them, and then evaluate the rest of the Bible – the Old Testament and the remaining portions of the New Testament both – through that lens. Where the Bible is compatible with Christ’s teachings, accept it; where the Bible is incompatible with Christ’s teachings, regard it as inconsequential and don’t follow it; where the Bible is neutral in regard to Christ’s teachings, use your discretion to come to a conclusion.

How do you know that the gospels are legitimate if the other 62 books are not?

I wouldn’t use the word “legitimate”; that implies they’re 100% factual records of Jesus’ life and ministry, without any inaccuracies/embellishments/etc. I don’t think the gospels are that at all. However, in lieu of travelling back in time to c. 27-36 AD and getting the word straight from the horse’s mouth, I think they’re the best source we have available on the man and his teachings.

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

Really?

Forgive my ignorance (not being sarcastic here) but what is the basis for getting into Heaven?

Repentance. Believing that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, who died, was buried, and was resurrected. In theory, if Mother Theresa didn’t believe that, but my lazy ass did, I’d go to heaven and she’d go to hell.

If this was the only brand of Christianity around, I’d probably be anti-Christian.

Thank God there’s moderate, progressive, and liberal Christianity, though.

Also known as unbiblical Christianity.

With these three options to choose from:

  1. Take the Bible at 100% face value and worship a vengeful, manipulative, bipolar, murderous God.
  2. Take the Bible at 100% face value and reject God altogether
  3. Recognize the Bible as a flawed product of man, separate the wheat from the chaff, and worship a fair, merciful, loving God

I’ll go with #3 every time.

Maybe, I just don’t see the value of a religious text (I’m not religious by the way; I just read it like a book, I find it interesting) that is flawed. How do you know which parts are the inspired ones?

Since most Christians say that their faith is based on Christ, I suggest Christians do exactly that. Take the four canonical gospels, glean the central spiritual and moral teachings of Christ from them, and then evaluate the rest of the Bible – the Old Testament and the remaining portions of the New Testament both – through that lens. Where the Bible is compatible with Christ’s teachings, accept it; where the Bible is incompatible with Christ’s teachings, regard it as inconsequential and don’t follow it; where the Bible is neutral in regard to Christ’s teachings, use your discretion to come to a conclusion.

How do you know that the gospels are legitimate if the other 62 books are not?

I wouldn’t use the word “legitimate”; that implies they’re 100% factual records of Jesus’ life and ministry, without any inaccuracies/embellishments/etc. I don’t think the gospels are that at all. However, in lieu of travelling back in time to c. 27-36 AD and getting the word straight from the horse’s mouth, I think they’re the best source we have available on the man and his teachings.

If you think that the miracles/claims to be God are embellishments then that is at least 85-90% of the gospels.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

I think it’s possible they may be embellishments, but I’m not anti-miracle, so I don’t automatically regard them as such.

Author
Time

My point is that you would have way of determining which are embellishments. People who take it all as truth have a sturdier worldview.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

It may be a sturdier worldview, but it’s one I consider built on a shaky foundation. The worldview I propose may be filled with uncertainties, but no one has to ignore vast amounts of science, history, and their own conscience to make it work.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TV’s Frink said:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/way-more-americans-may-be-atheists-than-we-thought/

That’s interesting. In spite of the Protestant idea that everyone discovers their own religion, it usually passes down through families, and so religion usually has an ethnicity component. Denying religion can mean, in part, denying your ancestry.

I know lots of people who don’t believe in God. But, if asked, what religion are they? Catholic. Jewish. Southern Baptist. One’s even a minister. Because, to them, religion is more than just a belief in God. It’s an identity, it’s a community. And it’s a set of values and beliefs that are perhaps surprisingly unrelated to the existence of any deity. They see no reason to abandon all that just because they don’t believe in God. And, if they did, which community would they be trading their friends and family for? Dawkins? Yeah, thanks but no thanks.

I can see why the phrasing and format of the questionnaire could lead to wildly different conclusions.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

I am happy being agnostic. It doesn’t require that I worship in a specific place or that I must or only do this thing for me to be saved or destroyed.

Author
Time

I am happy being a Christian omnist. It doesn’t require that I worship in a specific place or that I must or only do this thing for me to be saved or destroyed.

FTFM

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I am happy being an omnist. It doesn’t require that I worship in a specific place or that I must or only do this thing for me to be saved or destroyed.

Fixed it for you. I don’t worship any deity but if I did I don’t think it should be necessary to do it in a particular place especially if said being is supposed to be everywhere.

😉

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Nope, you didn’t fix it for me. I believe there is truth in most (if not all) religions and they are worthy of admiration and respect, but my religious background was Christian and the teachings of Jesus still resonate particularly strongly for me.

Author
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

I am happy being an omnist. It doesn’t require that I worship in a specific place or that I must or only do this thing for me to be saved or destroyed.

Fixed it for you. I don’t worship any deity but if I did I don’t think it should be necessary to do it in a particular place especially if said being is supposed to be everywhere.

😉

One can worship God anywhere at anytime. In Mark 12:33 the scribe said to Jesus that to love one’s neighbor and treat them as he or she would want to be treated themselves, is worth more than any act of sacrifice or worship; to which Jesus replied in the affirmative.

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

Nope, you didn’t fix it for me. I believe there is truth in most (if not all) religions and they are worthy of admiration and respect, but my religious background was Christian and the teachings of Jesus still resonate particularly strongly for me.

I was raised in a Catholic family … my Nana was like the Polish Family Mafia Leader, LOL, but she was awesome!!!

Author
Time

Alderaan said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I am happy being an omnist. It doesn’t require that I worship in a specific place or that I must or only do this thing for me to be saved or destroyed.

Fixed it for you. I don’t worship any deity but if I did I don’t think it should be necessary to do it in a particular place especially if said being is supposed to be everywhere.

😉

One can worship God anywhere at anytime. In Mark 12:33 the scribe said to Jesus that to love one’s neighbor and treat them as he or she would want to be treated themselves, is worth more than any act of sacrifice or worship; to which Jesus replied in the affirmative.

Jesus was in the military?

😉

Author
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Nope, you didn’t fix it for me. I believe there is truth in most (if not all) religions and they are worthy of admiration and respect, but my religious background was Christian and the teachings of Jesus still resonate particularly strongly for me.

I was raised in a Catholic family … my Nana was like the Polish Family Mafia Leader, LOL, but she was awesome!!!

Sounds like a legit Polish Babcia. Did she ever tell you ‘Bądz cicho!’?

Author
Time

one69chev said:

Jetrell Fo said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Nope, you didn’t fix it for me. I believe there is truth in most (if not all) religions and they are worthy of admiration and respect, but my religious background was Christian and the teachings of Jesus still resonate particularly strongly for me.

I was raised in a Catholic family … my Nana was like the Polish Family Mafia Leader, LOL, but she was awesome!!!

Sounds like a legit Polish Babcia. Did she ever tell you ‘Bądz cicho!’?

She didn’t have to, she kept an aluminum bottle opener that was the size of a salad spoon hanging on the wall by the stove. It was placed there so it would catch the sunlight and would be immediately visible to anyone walking in to the house. She was cool.