?

It is clear that Jesus gave his life on His own accord and the He and the Father are one.

Mark 12:28-30
28One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?”29Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;30AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.’

John 6:37–40


37 zAll that athe Father gives me will come to me, and bwhoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For cI have come down from heaven, not to do dmy own will but dthe will of him ewho sent me. 39 And fthis is the will of him who sent me, gthat I should lose nothing of hall that he has given me, but iraise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who jlooks on the Son and kbelieves in him lshould have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

 

Are you offering this as evidence?

 

not complete evidence but partial evidence. I gotta go to sleep...i have work in 5 hours...

 

I just read that in Tennessee they want to make it a LAW, that if a teacher finds out if one of the students is Gay or Lesbian, then that teacher HAS to inform that student's parents BY LAW of their child's sexuality.

WTF.

I'm willing to bet all the money that I own, that this law is being pushed by Christian right wing.

 

I am not contesting that.

 

It has no chance of being passed. Is this how you demonstrate that Christianity is equivalent to Islam?

 

niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice

 

Isn't this thin ice? I thought the whole idea was not to use evidence but to have faith.

If you look at the evidence then you have on the one hand something somebody wrote, and on the other the world the way it is - with a hundred different religions all saying what you're saying but a bit different.

 

​

 

No, that is what you infer. Don't make that mistake again.

 

Approach things as a child, and all things shall seem childish to you. And if the point be not clear enough, allow me to enlighten with an example:

Let's talk about evolution for a minute.

Something explodes in the sky.

A bunch of gas comes out of nothing, even though it's nothing.

Some ooze gets struck by lightning.

A fish swims out of the ooze.

A man swims out of the fish -- or there-about.

Now, while I recoil at such a puerile description of the theory(as any thinking man should), it would go a long way in convincing someone who was not acclimated with the theory, that it was indeed a bogus theory. Even, perhaps, a comedic theory. "They actually believe that?" And, of course, if would give me the secondary pleasure, if I were a non-believer, of reminding myself of exactly how absurd the theory was. The trick being that what I described was the furthest thing from a proper portrayal of the evolutionary process. And so it is with you.

Whether or not you agree with Christianity is entirely beside the point. If you are going to argue on a subject, approach the subject openly and honestly. Describe it's theology as a theologian does, not as child would. Only fools and cowards paint with such broad and badly aimed strokes. Which are you?

 

This is a fair point. Sometimes atheists get so carried away with their derisive ridicule that they don't even bother to make a sensible argument. I remember seeing Bill Maher go on a rant one time where he pointedly asked, "What kind of a moron believes in a talking snake?" Well sure, I think that a strict literal interpretation of the Bible is irrational and silly, but I don't think that's what most Christians really believe (though some undeniably do). The Garden of Eden is part of an ancient creation myth that tells a story about the human condition. One may disagree with its underlying message but to dismiss it at face value is just as simplistic as accepting it as literal truth.

 

What have I misrepresented ?

 

That maybe how some (perhaps even most) people understand Christianity today. However, that came about from centuries of enlightenment from philosophers, scientists and rational thinkers in open discussion. The literal interpretation has been the foundation of the religion since its beginning. It is only in the last couple of centuries, through proper investigation into the natural world that has made it impossible for rational people to believe these fairy tales, forcing people to interpret the stories in their own way.

However the core premise of Christianity is Jesus dying for your sins (more importantly Adam's sin.), thus accepting Jesus Christ as your lord to avoid eternal damnation. If anyone does not believe that a child is born in filth, with guilt and sin until they accept Jesus, then I will argue that they are not a Christian.

PS I haven't called anyone a moron or stupid etc.

 

I think that all religious traditions are just different ways of coming to grips with the mysteries of existence: Where did we come from? Why are we here? You could almost view it as an early stab at philosophy, though it relies less on strict reason and logic. Looking back over the course of centuries, some of these early conceptions appear primitive and as you suggest, there has been an evolution in our understanding as our knowledge has grown. This is apparent even between the Old and New Testaments, which underscore the shift from an angry, vengeful God over to a more loving, compassionate one.

I still think you're oversimplifying a bit in your view of Christianity there, though I imagine that many might view it that way. The whole idea of original sin is complicated and sometimes misunderstood. For me at least, Adam's sin, eating from the Tree of Knowledge, refers to the emergence of human self consciousness, the thing that sets us apart from the animals. It's what makes us special, but it can also make us miserable, set apart from creation (whereas animals are just able to exist fully in the moment without being aware of their mortality). Jesus teaches us that the kingdom of heaven is here right now for those that can surrender fully to God's love.

But again, this is just my personal interpretation. (I'm not a big believer in the afterlife--I think heaven and hell exist in our own heads.) I have big problems with the fundamentalist viewpoint that's so prevalent in the U.S., the "one true faith" club that seeks to impose their beliefs on everyone else, so I can also understand a lot of your skepticism.

 

I don't think the God of the new testament is more compassionate than that of the old testament. The god of the Old Testament does not condemn people to eternity in hell, at least in terms of the connotations we associate with the word. However, the all loving reformed new testament god, will dish out infinite punishment for finite offences.

Although most Christians now avoid literal teachings of the bible, I think the majority still believe in the absurd notion of an afterlife, and concepts such as immortality in heaven and hell.

 

​

 

I'm afraid you are entirely, though not surprisingly, mistaken. A literal interpretation of the bible as containing all knowledge, as well as being entirely historical, is a new age teaching, followed only by a few fundamentalist sects. The church fathers, such as Cyril, Aquinas, and Augustine, all had non-literal interpretations of Genesis and other portions of the bible. Not only are you wrong. You are entirely upside down. "A literal interpretation of the bible has been its foundation since the beginning"? Either you are a shameless liar, or simply ignorant on the subject itself. But as a typical atheist, you drool over the zestiest and insist that any progress made is due only to modern, "enlightened" scientists and their revelations. In point of fact, it is only in these brilliant, modern times that literal interpretations of the bible have become their own religion, while those in the past had a much more subtle and philosophical view of things.

I wish I could say your ignorance came as a surprise -- it does not. Like most atheists, you no doubt read Hitchens, Dawkins, and watch Maher. That is to say, you are a man of one road, one book, one perspective. You attack Christianity again and again, but you do so only with knowledge given to you by those with whom you agree. You always know only half of the story. Never do you approach your enemy on the ground of your enemy. And so you remain ignorant of it. I have read Hitchens and Dawkins. I have listened to Maher, Dennet and Harris. Yet, unlike you and your brethren, I have also read Aquinas, Augustine, Spitzer, and Craig.

Until you take interest in both sides of the story, you will continue to embarass yourself with an absolute lack of knowledge. Muttering on about the Church's hatred of knowledge, the evil of the crusades, the horror of the inquisition, and how every terrible thing in the world can be placed at the feet of religion. That is to say, you will continue to sound like a frightened child who has found his bogeyman. I suppose the vapid nature of modern atheists is what keeps me an agnostic.

 

Despite somewhat secular parents, I went to a Christian school as it was the only available school for my post code. I was forced to read the bible, sing hymns and engage in prayer. I wouldn't go as far as saying we were told deliberate lies in science class, but the importance of science was downplayed. And the credibility of evolution was not directly trashed, but we were taught that there is major controversy within the scientific community over its validity, meanwhile in religious studies class, there was a strong emphasis on the biblical creation story.

The first thing I learned about Newton was not optics, it was not gravity, it was not the laws of motion, I didn't learn any of that stuff, It was the fact that he was a devout Christian, a loner but still a great mathematician. The library lacked any book that questioned Christianity, and beliefs were never discussed at home. All my friends were religious, and I was made fun of for questioning whether or not there was a god. I'm well accustomed to religion, I had my experience of it and I became an atheist before I had even heard of the word, or knew what the word meant.

Literal understandings were the norm, most people in history couldn't read or write, and they got their religion directly from the church. The same church that the Inquisition, found Galileo Galilei (who was a Christian) "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced him to recant, and spend the rest of his life under house arrest for expressing views that didn't fit with the biblical understanding of the Earth's place in the universe.

How rich that you wont call yourself an atheist because of modern atheists that speak out. People speak out proudly because there are people that don't have that liberty. Not only places like Saudi Arabia where people are executed for apostasy, but there are people in some parts of the USA where they cannot admit to being an atheist because they could lose their job, or even their family.

Besides Agnostic is a term that deals with knowledge, it has nothing to do with whether or not a person believes in god. Agnosticism deals with whether the existence of a god can be known or not. Not believing, or not knowing if you believe in god, are both positions of atheists and agnostics. Atheism and Agnosticism are positions that answer different questions.

I'm agnostic, because I don't believe it can be known if a god exists. However I'm also an atheist. I don't believe in god. Belief is active. Many of the writers that cause you to label yourself as an agnostic, are agnostic themselves, including Dawkins.