FORUMS > Spirituality Forum Rules

Hardly anyone post here. so here i go..

for those of you who consider yourself christian, the questions is

What is your attitude toward Bible; "word for word", "pick and choose" or , "what is bible"

I have a hard time dealing with my own faith and being gay, i'm sure there must be people like me. so i'd like to heard your view on this. And please, dont' give me that being good and do good things is all there is as christian. i'd change to buddhism and set myself free from this struggle. I"m christian not because of tradition, things i did when i was young, or what i brought up to be. I am because i choose to be and that i see truth in it. yet the bible bothers me. that's all

[shrugs] I'm a "word for word" Christian. Then again, I'm also an Episcopalian , so maybe it's easier for me to find acceptance within my faith.

I was an agnostic for the longest time, 'til I decided to take the plunge and choose to believe. At the time I think I mostly did it for my mom's faith, but I've come around to believing because of her faith (read: witness) so that's why I'm a Christian now.

But in my opinion, the Bible is the only thing we have to go on. We have all these teachings by people ordained by the church, and by people who think they're experts on morals, esp. ones provided by Christianity, and they're all terribly off, hypocritical, and misinformed, if you actually read the Bible. The Bible is supposed to be divinely inspired, whereas these 'experts' are just average Americans with a lower IQ than me and more studying in what they want to believe, so I'm going to go with trusting the Bible as basically the only source I have to Christian enlightenment.

Just my two cents.

I'm not Christian, I'm jewish by heritage, and technically agnostic now I suppose.

But it's always been my understanding that NO SIN IS WORSE THAN ANY OTHER SIN (I believe it actually says that in the bible, though in more expansive words). That is to say you are no more going to hell for being gay than eating shellfish or drinking alcohol or committing any other of the numerous sins laid out in the bible. Jesus forgives those who accept his forgiveness... and if you're gay, then you're gay.. it's probably not your choice. I'm sure Jesus understands that, and from what you've said you're a Christian meaning you accept Jesus, and that's all he really asks of you.

In my opinion - and this is strictly opinion, I don't mean to offend - the churches shunning and condemning of homosexuality is a multitude of things on many levels, ranging from sociological reasons, money, spread of the church, and power.

But the basis of it I believe is genuinely good in nature. And how can a truly loving God hate and damn his children because of something they have no control over?

I'm Gay AND Roman Catholic, and I totally know what you're talking about. A lot of people find it impossible to believe in a faith where the general consensus is 'Being gay is being a sinner so it's pointless'.

The way I figure it, The Bible is a book, written by humans and not God. It's the best guide we have to faith, but because it was made by man, it isn't perfect. I still believe it just as much as any other catholic though.

There are many things in the Bible that don't make sense or are just completely outlandish. From what I've seen, according to the Bible, you can figure that a woman is only worth seven year's of a man's salary. It's up to you whether you choose to believe them or not. No one follows the Bible 100%, mostly because they don't know theyre doing something 'wrong'.

i'm a baptized catholic raised in several jesus worshipping family's adopted by lesbians living as an agnostic and now edging towards a form of paganism with gaia as my chief goddess. And Samhain is tommorow. I'm dressing as a conservative female professor and my 4' 8" friend's mother. He's going as a pilot he's 28. lol

Born and raised as a southern baptist and when asked still identify myself as a baptist. Does my denomination accept me? No. But being a Christian doesn't mean that I am constrain by what people here think of me but my relationship with the Creator. I can do Bible battle with the best of them about what is literal and what is allegorical. I'm not going to go too deep here--it is a Real Jock forum after all--but, yeah, Christian, gay and doing okay.

I was born and raised in a Roman Catholic/Episcopal family, and have been an active member of the Episcopal Church for many years.

The problem with the Bible is one of license and interpretation. Many, if not most, people who have translated the sacred scriptures have done it with their own bias and agenda.

I think you will find this site extremely interesting and useful... The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance http://www.religioustolerance.org/

I have very rarely found their site to be in factual error when it comes to scholarly discussion or interpretation. When they have been challenged, they have posted the rebuttles on their site (something almost no one else is willing to do), and their committee has responded carefully and with great forethought.

They have quickly become one of the great unbiased resources on all major religions and on religious tolerance.

Their discussion of homosexuality is fascinating and incredibly erudite.

I highly recommend them as an excellent secondary source for religious information, and especially on differing interpretations of the Bible.

Feel free to write me directly at any time if you wish to continue this discussion.

Rob

Ex-christian here. Well, not really ex-christian, but, I try hard to put those feelings out of my mind. I believe that my christianity can be prayed away.

I'm sure if you look you will find a church that is accepting of you regardless of sexual orientation.

Fairly devout Christian here (Episcopalian). That's a tough admission to make in some gay circles, mostly because lots of other self-described "Christians" have made the term a dirty word. Sometimes it's easier to come out as gay amongst true Christians than it is to come out as Christian amongst gays.

I follow the teachings of Jesus, not the admonitions and threats of the discarded (by Christ himself) Old Testament. As for whatever Paul might have said, he was a self-loathing closet case that hated women, so I take his letters with a grain of salt...

I think of myself as a gay Christian rather than a Christian gay. God is not so concerned with our sexual orientation as he is with his credibility in our eyes. If we are a young Christian, we will always approach the interpretation of the scripture with our natural minds which are dominated by the knowledge of good and evil. The new covenant in Christ is not about "good and evil", right and wrong; it s about spiritual growth into truth that has its foundation in God's love. When the scripture is interpreted by the knowledge of good and evil, we always come up short (that is, we see ourselves as evil because we are not living up to our minds standard of "good"). We must approach God with our hearts, not our minds. We must believe that Christ's work on the Cross at Calvary is a finished work; that we, along with all others who have turned to Christ and received his sacrifice for our lives, are washed clean and forgiven from all sin. We are acceptable to God and able to draw near to him; to have a personal relationship with him. If we believe that God is for us, we will begin to make ourselves available to him through prayer and bible reading. We will begin to sense his presence in our lives and experience a difference in our outlook in life. If it wasn't for the reality of God's presence in my own heart, I could never just follow a dry creed, ceremony or starchy, lifeless lists of religious doctrine (no more than I could get excited about watching a tree grow). When we try to understand God with our minds, we will be disappointed. Our mind is the playground of Satanic deception leaving us accused, condemned and guilt-laden; and disallusioned. It is the reason why I left organized religion and why I am involved in a non-denominational group. "Religion", for the most part, misses the wonderful inner-heart reality of the love of God, being deceived to follow their own versions of "good and evil" do's and don'ts. Unfortunately, this is what most people see as the standard of Christian reality. In fact, it falls far short of God's intention as evidenced by the state of the "religious" church today. Generally, it does not represent the heart of God toward man. Truth is not the result of learning religous facts or doctrine and then trying to imitate God's behavior in order to please God. Truth is about knowing who God is in our hearts through our fellowship with him as he reveals his love to us in our day-to-day journey. If we have not touched the heart of God, we are left with a religion that is stale and unfulfilling. This is why so many are discouraged and disappointed in their Christian experience. It is heartbreaking. I know that many here have a bad taste in their mouths about Christianity because of the hurt and pain caused them by "religious" Christians. I just want to say that these immature do-gooders do not represent true Christianity. Don't write God off because "religion" has failed you. Believe that God must be more than that and seek God himself. After all, he gave his own Son to die in our place to restore us to his heart. Don't let man's religious imaginations prevent you from seeking and finding the real thing.

There are 2 important facts that in Christians forget about our own religion and what it says about homosexuality:

1 - Jesus died to save us from our sins and as part of that the "old law" or Old Testament no longer apply to us.

2 - There is not one single admonishment for "consensual" homosexuality in the New Testament. You need to re-read those New Testament bible verses dealing with homosexuality in the KJV and you will note that they all have to deal with homosexual orgies, heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts, sexual acts with young boys (catamites), prostituting of men/boys, and homosexual acts in pagan temples, and men raping angels. Not one New Testament verse have I ever come across deals with a consensual homosexual relationship.

All the Christians I talk to that say homosexuality is wrong can only point to Old Testament bible verses on the topic. The shut up very quickly when I remind them that they are just a guilty as I am if we were judged under that law for the shrimp they ate last week and the pig that they ate this morning. When I ask them to show me a similar verse in the NT, that stands up to an accurate translation, they can't.

I was raised a Catholic and got rid of all that nonsense years ago. Thank GOD!

thank you guys for the common. Great that most of you are doing good with no issue. True, if i find hard enough, there's a church for just about anything. I'm the bible believing type, and I wish there are more of us.

I consider myself Christian. As far as organized religion, I'm not to sure how much of it I believe. I feel it breeds more hate than the love it's supposed. Sounds rather hippy-ish I know, but that just my theory. As far as The Bible goes, The Bible is man's interpretation of God's word. I feel there are areas where it is misinterpreted, so that creates a problem. It can be good for guiding, but I believe in faith and prayer more. Just my opinion, but I come from a religious family.

i'm an episcopalian now. Raised nazarene. I am Christian in name because i follow the teachings of the Christ, but orthodox christianity left me long ago.

wow, so many fellow brothers in Christ. Great to meet you all.

Agnostic 100%, my parents took me to church when I was young but I kept falling asleep. My partner is a practicing Catholic so that is one area of our relationship which we do not share. In terms of my behaviour though and how I treat people I am probably closer to being a Christian then most Christians I have met!

I was raised Roman Catholic, by STRICT Mexican Granparents. As I got older I realized the many flaws in Catholocism. I have mentioned this to my Mom and family members and they were not so surprisingly understanding, that I did not want to be a Catholic anymore. So now, I consider myself a Christian, I pray, I believe Christ died on the cross for us, etc. but as far as going to church, I cannot find a protestant group that is for me. So I guess you can call me a VERY unorthodox Christian.

As for the Bible Question, I think I am more "pick and choose." But when I say that, I don't mean verses I mean whole Books or stories.

At the age of five, I said, "this is all such non-sense" and I haven't looked back.

The brainwashing starts early, and studies have shown, time and again, that roughly 35% of all humans are "weak-minded". That is, they'll believe whatever you tell them, no matter how untrue, if you say it enough times consistently. It's a well known fact in the psychological community.

While I do believe some things are not virtuous, organized religion is, beyond any doubt, a huge bane on society. It's beyond any doubt a poison to many a young mind.

That being said, it's important that folks be taught critical thinking skills (I give my parents credit for that), and understand that mythology is just that, with no basis in fact.

Of course, the Religious Right, Hitler, and even Bush, count on that weak-minded 35%. Tragic, but, true.

yeah! And I didn't like carrots when I was five! Man, we were precocious! I mean, simply because we made a value judgment at a young age when our cognitive skills were nearly non-existent and we were in the rudiments of understanding morality means it MUST be a good value judgment.

For me, I rejected most of it in the last decade or so. It's too hard to fathom that there are a few major religions in the world, each encompassing billions of people and each knowing the others are wrong and that any god of any of them would condem the followers of another religion to eternal damnation or some such crap. Almost nobody chooses their religion, most people get it from their parents. Most people don't bother to investigate other religions, they just know theirs is right because they were born with it. Like their noses. The world of humanity would not have made it this far without religion, but, hopefully, humanity will grow the fuck up and shrug it off. The time has come.

I'm a Christian, gay sex addict. Bummer.

Rest assured, I've re-affirmed my position a number of times since I was five. I am schooled in logic (computer science).

Sure, I hate hate hate hate hate hate evangelical Christianity, fundamentalist islam, fascists buddhists (i'm sure they exist somewhere) and mormons. But I also don't like the assertion that religion poisons everything. I also don't think people realize how all encompassing Judaism was to begin with.

There is no such thing as an atheist, just someone who doesn't understand empiricism.

And I am trained in logic too. I'm a geneticist. But I see the beauty in the myths of all faiths. And I often think that the myths help us comprehend reality better than knowing how cytokines work.

I do think people need to throw off the pat answers offered by headnodding sycophantic fascist faith-groups, but I also think we need to realize how those things are a part of us. And the stories themselves can contain great truths (lower-case "t").

sickothesameThere is no such thing as an atheist, just someone who doesn't understand empiricism

Can't help myself but this depends on your use of the word. Empiricism in the scientific view is the weight of the evidence. Evidence being something we lack as far as faith goes. All we have is subjective opinion without fact.

I understand science well enough for not being a student in the field. Which is why I know for certain faith is just a myth.

kinda off the topic, but what is the foundation of an atheist, science or whatelse? cause there are a lot of myths in science itself; the lack of fossil evidence for macro evolution, and various earth age theory along are already humors. It require equal, if not more, amount of "faith" for science as for religion.

You know someone's gone wrong when they equate "science" with a particular set of beliefs about evolution or the age of the earth. Science, rather, is an activity, a method, an approach to finding things out. Science is self-correcting, because it provides a way of improving our understanding of the world when new facts come to light. Faith isn't self-correcting -- it merely shuts its eyes to reality when reality doesn't match the faith (see the Bush Administration's approach to science and scientists).

An atheist is someone who lacks any belief in the thiest ideas of the supernatural as it relates to all sorts of aspects of life and science.

I guess I have a hard time understanding how anyone could pick and choose what parts of a religious book to believe. Its madness how someone could choose to believe in one passage then ignore another.

Squarejaw! What an interesting, delightful, piece, of critical thinking.

I'm going to have to memorize your dissertation!

Spread the word, brother.

Hey ebl333 - thanks for good topic.

I've gone through the workings of "Christianity" - Sunday School, confirmation, actively being involved in our local very charismatic Methodist church during my student years and then having to deal with my homosexuality and Christianity and ultimately dealing with a fanatical, fundamentalist uber religious mother.

For some of you, this may be familiar - coming out was NOT the hardest part of being gay - being "Christian & gay" was by far the hardest thing I ever had to deal with in my life - all around my 25th birthday. What REALLY galled me was the incredible hypocrisy I witnessed from other Christians and it really saddened me when one day I realized for what it was worth, that it was God who really loved me unconditionally and not these "loving Christians around" me. That was good enough for me at the time.

16 years later I am older, wiser and more experienced. I am a scientist at heart, but still a believer, but perhaps not in what many refer to in this forum as "orthodox" Christianity...I have believed less and less in the Bible as a "word to live by every day of your life" since there are too many "gloss overs/cover ups/inconsistencies and personal drama"...

I often dwell between agnosticism and deism. I've read so many alternative explanations to "religion" and the meaning of religion that ultimately I am actually LESS confused and worried about religion and more focussed on spirituality and what that entails (to me), including re-incarnation/past lives etc. It's made me less tolerant of fanatical fundamentalists - no matter if they are Christian/Islamic/Jewish - we're far better off without them.

No, I no longer attend church, but most every day I give thanks for what I have in my life, who I have in my life and for the wonderful environment of the San Francisco Bay Area that I live in. I don't read the Bible, but I treat people like Jesus would.

Spirituality is very enlightening and wonderful - it is what you make of it - I know I sound very "new agey" - perhaps yes, perhaps no, but I think the problem we as gay men have with religion is that we try to fit into it....why not let spirituality fit US!

Peace

daWeatherMan

The natural mind can never understand God nor was it intended by God. The natural mind is great for navigating our earthy lives, but not for knowing God.

The knowledge of God comes by faith, antithesis to the reason and logic of intellect. The knowledge of God comes by way of the heart, not the mind. This same approach by Christians who "learn" about God rather than experiencing his love is the reason they feel justified in trashing the gay community. They reason with their minds that they are justified in doing so and that God is on their side. Their approach to spiritual knowledge is the same as their approach to natural knowledge. They can only relate to the "letter of the word" and know nothing of the "spirit of the word" from which God's love flows to humanity.

There are no winners when minds attempt to figure out God, His will and intent. It only brings discord and division. Why do you think there are so many denominations when scripture teaches oneness and unity of God? Whoever attempts to approach the things of God with the intellect end up in the same pot of debate, anger, accusation, etc. It only brings division. One is no farther ahead than the other.

Man must approach God as He intended, and not according to his own invention and imagination. The knowledge of God is not learning about God; the knowledge of God is experiencing the love of God. Actually, we do not choose God, He chooses us.

It is usless to attempt to persuade people to believe in God. It is a fruitless activity unless God has prepared the heart to see their need for Him, unless he or she is drawn by God's Spirit.

I do know from my own experience that once the love of God is experienced in the heart, all the questions are answered. One could explain what an apple tastes like for weeks without imparting the real knowledge of its taste. But let the one who has never tasted an apple bite into one, and that person enters into another language that is higher than words - and he gets it; he then knows what an apple tastes like in a perfect and complete way.

The spiritual language of God is like that. Words can never persuade man of God's love; it must be experienced. Otherwise, it is foolishness to the intellectual mind that can only weigh and reason and compare to his inventory of natural things which are not really relevant when it comes to spritual things.

Yes, religion has missed it in the past and continues to do so. There is great deception in all religions; the best they can ever hope for is some system of good and evil that is used to judge one's outward behavior. There is little real godly love in religion, only do's and don'ts. Religion has given God a bad reputation. But to allow religion to rob us of the truth that is God and miss out on perfect love is the greater scam and loss. But again, to each his own. It is sad that so many are duped by religion and then blame God for the evil of its deception and foolishly trash the glory of God's love.

Squarejaw

hm.. religion doesn't self correcting? how about scientologist? there are many people branches off to sub religion due to social and view change. there r christians who believe that men were evolved. most now allow divorce. there are gay christians too....

if science is self-correction, which means it has yet to provide full or final answer. at best, it provide but an "observance" for now. hence does it not require "faith" to rely on such shifting foundation for one's world view?



and you are right that science "self-correct" itself. or should i say, contradict and confuse itself.

i mentioned earth age calculation. 4.5 billion yr, right? it's taught "religiously" in all text book.

consider ocean salt: using oceans' accumulated salt from erosion calculation, earth is only 100 million yr old. 4.5 billion would product far more salt in ocean, but where's the salt.

consider erosion: forces of erosion such as wind and rain can produce one inch of top soil in one thousand years. so 4.5 billion yr = 710 mile thick of top soil. with earth crust at only 30 mile thick, we'd have no mountain left. yet typical top soil is 2-8 inch. and ocean floor has .5 mile only. so where's the rest?

consider moon: the moon is receding from Earth at about 3.8 centimeters per year. that means only 10 million yrs ago, earth and moon touches. but science says dinosaur roaming the earth 200 millions yrs ago?

consider earth magnatic field: it is decaying at 5% over the last 150 years. currently its about 50 microTeslas. it's bad for human at 1,600 microTeslas. u'd wonder anything survive just 10 thousands yrs ago.

consider moon dust: the surface of moon exposed by extreme heat and xray, the surface layers is being reduce to dust at the rate of a few ten-thousandths of an inch per year. In 5 to 10 billion years, 3 or 4/10,OOOths of an inch per year would produce 20-60 miles [32 to 96.5 km) of dust on the moon. yet it's only 2, 3 inch. why?

seem like to follow science is not to expect a solid answer. and it takes blind faith to embrass science in order to mock all religions.

my problem with "Christian apologists" who try and use science to "prove" how God MUST exist because so many things are perfect is that it is a complete fallacy. You can NEVER prove God exists or does not exist. Even to the point where God would come down and talk to someone. The skeptics like Hume would say it just shows your mental instability ;)

But anyway, I think your definition is lacking Trance. An atheist doesn't believe in supreme beings or god, really whatever you want to call it. Unfortunately, people like yourself say "the evidence shows there is no god." but the problem is that the leap you take is one of great faith. It is poor philosophy and poor science. You can never disprove god's existence.

I do understand science as a student of it. Believe it or not there isn't a single hypothesis that involves god. Sure maybe a lot of graduate student prayers are involved in science, but no hypothesis ends with definitive proof of god's existence/non-existence. (By the way, scientists never prove anything).

Squarejaw is right, science is "self"correcting. But so is good theology. Paul Tillich says it needs to be able to speak to individual cultures at their needs in changing social contexts, so there needs to be constant reevaluation of what theology is. And it NEVER is science or empiricism (unless you are a mystic).

Ebl333: all the answers to your questions are out there. In fact some of the answers are implicit in the question or based on faulty assumptions.

Again, i'm an agnostic and a non-theist. There surely is no god on a throne wanting to punish people in my opinion, but faith is important to many people. It is the arrogance and ignorance of people who set up a false dichotomy between religion and science that drive me crazy. Be honest about your roots! Science and religion tackle different things. and if you try and say "look how intricate this all is, God MUST exist!" you do yourself a disservice. And if you say "DNA replicates on its own, God must not exist!" I think you do yourself a disservice and miss the beauty and truth in every molecule of dna. And speaking of someone who knows the Bible pretty well, if you just toss the whole thing out, you totally miss the dynamic of people wrestling with their own existence and trying to figure out what it means to live. The myths are beautiful, and i do not deny that they are myths, but only someone trapped in their own conceit would say that they encapsulate reality more.

sickothesame: "You can NEVER prove God exists or does not exist. ... scientists never prove anything."

I think some of your comments have been unfair to unbelievers. Intellectually serious atheists don't claim to have definitive, deductive proof, but rather simple inductive inference that nature is entirely self-contained. To quote Stephen Hawking, "What place, then, for a creator?" You're holding such inferences to a higher standard of proof than you do other empirical knowledge, at least assuming e.g. that you believe, in spite of the quoted statement, that scientific knowledge exists.


ebl333, your questions all erroneously assume that rates of change remain invariant over time.

sick and ebt- (long post warning!)

God doesn't exist without proof. Do you believe in unicorns? or Garden faries? Are you going to tell me they can exist too? Why should we believe in god any more than thousands of other fantasy's out there.

Other reasons from another forum: (we'll attack the judeo-chrisitan god for now)

-There are dozens of pre-Christian gods and messiahs that were born on December 25th (Or real date, yes christ wasn't born on the 25th...), of a virgin, who had 12 disciples, performed miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water, crucified and resurrected three days later, and are known, by their inventors and followers, as such things like the Lamb of God and the King of Kings. Jesus is the most recent of a long list of plagiarized gods and holds no credibility. In fact, the entire Christian myth is taken directly from Egyptian myth. For instance, the 10 commandments are from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. The founders of Christianity acknowledged this but offered that Satan crafted the Pagan world to discredit Jesus. This explanation is still held by many religious leaders today.

-Out of the 40 historians or so that lived during or soon after the supposed life of Jesus, none of them document any Jesus figure. It is ludicrous to think that a man who did all of the things ascribed to Jesus in the Bible would go completely undocumented by the many historians of the time. The Bible itself was written decades after the supposed life of Jesus.

-No Christian has been able to sensibly defend why the means of enlightenment, the story of Jesus, is so poor of a method of conversion that the room for conflict is not only vast, but invited. A test of faith is not an acceptable answer. There is no test of faith worth the infinite damnation of billions.

-Perhaps the biggest reasons is the bible contradicts itself:
Bible says god is omnipotent (all powerful)
Bible says god can do anything god chooses to do
Bible says god MUST destroy evil

Bible also says satan exists in hell
Bible says god created man yet evil exists in the world

So does this mean god isn't really all powerful? If he is why doesn';t he destroy satan, and make sure his created world has no evil in it?

The answer is god is either false, or not powerful in which case the bible lies so why should anyone put any amount of effort into reading it.

isnt' science the study of all things "observable" ? cause many were asking to bring God down to be observed. hence all my questions started with "observed" and "measured" number. Even for the benefit of doubt to waterdown and add huge factor to the measured number. and even do it with natural logarithms for the sake of changing rate, u'd think one finding would match another.

I can easily add a differential rate change to each of my questions, but to make them all match, one has to determine which one they all should match? if the rate of change is not observable, and exist only to make the initial "assumption" work. is that science to begin with? at best, it's a scientific "guess".

The point is, go look at every books from primary school to college. all text books spread this "truth" of scientific finding as doctrine. this is just one area, I have yet to start with other so call "finding". But millions use such findings to mock religious believe. unbeknown to themselves they are exercise the same amount of faith as a religious person would.

I have no problem to define atheist is a deny of existence of a deity. if you deny god, then deny it. but dont' hide behind science and think science is on your side. Science is no excuse for holier then thou attitude.

(Mine's longer ;))

Of course people can SAY they induce god doesn't exist, but induction has been attacked by a few respected philosophers (David Hume was one). People can call themselves atheists all they want, and it is fine with me, but if you do, you cannot call yourself an empiricist. At that point, you make the same leap that Christians make when they think there must be a God. Again, I have no problem with people calling themselves atheists, I just wish people were honest about it.

Trance, come on. I know all that stuff. I said it before: I think the Bible is an interesting and powerful book because of social arguments (a la nehemiah v. jonah, paul v. peter v. james), the powerful mythos and the social philosophy of Jesus. The arguments you use on evangelicals don't work on me. Here, I can give you more ammo:

The first two chapters are two different creation stories with 2 different names for God who act in completely different ways.

When the Hebrews were wandering, they adopted the names of many different other gods in the area and absorbed them into the name for their god (like all those El Shaddai, El Olam etc.) so he is an amalgamation of polytheistic traditions.

Hebrews may have never been in egypt at all, and if they were, their exodus probably hardly mattered. (Or else the pharaoh described was the wrong one).

Many of the people Joshua supposedly killed appeared later to bother the Judges.

No devil or hell in the OT

4 gospels with VERY different things happening.

Mark didn't have a resurrection story until added much later.

Nothing in the bible implies a trinity.

Really, I could go on and on, I just kind of jumped to the new testament to put a few things. Don't forget, a literal interpretation is a recent "development."

I really do enjoy talking about this stuff. Like i said before, i know it's myths.

Trance23 & sickothesame
since i'm no authority in theology, I think they are fair questions and hope you find the answer one day.
Its great to have questions regarding the bible. I mean, if we can understand all thing, then call us gods, right?.

We don't believe in science because of faith. We believe in science because it works. Science is responsible for the computer you're typing on. The building you're sitting in. The medication you take.

And if the building collapses, or the medication doesn't work, science gives us a way of figuring where we went wrong. Buildings are stronger than they used to be, and medicine is more powerful. Because of science.

Science figured out how to have man-to-man sex without transmitting the AIDS virus. Faith did not.

Science provides objective, observable evidence for itself in nearly every moment of your life. No one's asking you to take it on faith.

well science isn't objective, it is just observable (it can't be both)

I don't think I said science is faith, but I do think the leap to atheism requires as much faith as Christians take liberty in.

tbl, I'm not looking for answers to my questions, I already have them. The Bible is a book written by people that shows the evolution of the story of god through time amongst a group of people.

i understand what you have said, squarejaw. We believe in science because it works. if situation got desperate, we are prone to take more aggressive faith, such as experimental medication. and spiritually speaking, there are also period a man has to face so desperate that make him leap for faith in God too. just haven't happy to you. weather work or not, initiated on that first leap.

my point is that science and religion are dealing with very different topics in totally different realms, yet require very similar application to our life. as for it work or not, is really subjective. a disservice would be to imply individual experience as a final answer for all men.

I am a devout Christian. I believe (and know) that God created us, Jesus saved us, and through Jesus we get into Heaven. After that, I do not know what else there is really.

I do not know any of you well enough to go in to explanations, but I have seen things and have experienced things that have proved the existence of God, Angels, Demons, and Satan. They have strengthened, redefined, changed, and enhanced my faith. One man's proof is another man's story so I do not know how well it would go off if I told any of you. But what I can and will say is that there is So Much more to life than what meets the eyes.

I am Christian, but I think that I am my own form. I can not say that it matters what label you give yourself in what you believe. I think that it is more important that you do believe. God asks for your love and He does not force it. He just hopes that you do because no matter what you say or do, He loves you. Yeah sure the Bible says gay=sin, but those words came from human beings. Humans make mistakes, they misinterpret, they do not have all knowing omnipotent powers. Who is to say that those passages were not just the writer's own words that he wanted to force upon the world?

Bottom line, God made us and He loves us. He would not have taken the time to specifically create us "sinners" if He did not want us and love us.

TiggerHeight,
sound like a good suggestion for another discussion. i'd love to hear what your experience is.

Great topic!
Almost makes up for the eye liner discussion

Christian here; named after John Mark in the Bible.

My biggest disappointment since coming out this year has been the contempt directed at me as a Christian from my gay brothers.

I'm accustomed to hate from some in the church, but I was totally not expecting this response from a group seeking acceptance & tolerance from others.

I don't feel the need to defend my beliefs in a forum on RealJock; that debate has been ongoing for over 2000 years and won't be resolved here. I am puzzled that so many seem offended; even threatened by my Faith and seek to demean it and save me from my ignorance.

By definition, Faith defies human logic (and pseudo-intellectualism).
I chose to believe and if you do not, then I'm totally fine with that.

Love more and judge less.

Peace.
John Mark -- Christian

Sickothesame: “Of course people can SAY they induce god doesn't exist, but induction has been attacked by a few respected philosophers (David Hume was one). People can call themselves atheists all they want, and it is fine with me, but if you do, you cannot call yourself an empiricist.”

Again, it is perfectly possible to infer properly that nature is self-contained. You seem to think that the inference is on the unobservable deity itself, when in fact the inference is on the nature of the universe only. I’d be perfectly willing to concede that any number of other existences may exist apart from our reality’s existence, where all sorts of beings may reside, but the problem with the supernatural realm is that it supposedly has some ethereal connection to our own – i.e., that the nature we find ourselves in is not self-contained.

As for Hume, he hardly “attacked” induction; rather, he simply observed that a system of induction cannot be deduced from anything, nor can you induce induction from its past predictive success, since that would be circular. In modern terms, induction, and in particular its modern formalization in Bayesian reasoning, has axiomatic mathematical foundations, but that is all it has.

This fact ties into my previous observation that you are holding atheists to a higher standard than scientists. Scientists, who, everyone will acknowledge, are empiricists, use induction to arrive at their conclusions, implicitly relying on the axiomatic Bayesian premises of induction. You reject induction by saying David Hume attacked it, and then apply this rejection to atheism, but you fail to apply your rejection of induction to science itself.

You’re still on my hotlist, btw =)


ebl333: “I can easily add a differential rate change to each of my questions…”

Look, I don’t have a science background. I have a math background. You started by assuming these rates of change (a first derivative), were constant, and now you’re proposing to submerge the constancy in the second derivative. But you presented no reason to believe either of these assumptions, or even that the underlying function is everywhere differentiable (“tipping-point” cusps come to mind). Such an ad hoc approach could not rebut a conclusion (the Earth’s age) drawn on other grounds.

So, I decided to bite the bullet and do a little internet digging. The specific answers to your questions are available here.

It's hard to imagine any useful belief isn't based at least partly on inductive reasoning.

I'm going to pull this quote from Wikipedia (which, of course, is a font of truthiness):

"The classic philosophical treatment of the problem of induction, meaning the search for a justification for inductive reasoning, was by the Scottish philosopher David Hume. Hume highlighted the fact that our everyday reasoning depends on patterns of repeated experience rather than deductively valid arguments. For example, we believe that bread will nourish us because it has done so in the past, but this is not a guarantee that it will always do so. As Hume said, someone who insisted on sound deductive justifications for everything would starve to death.

Instead of approaching everything with unproductive skepticism, Hume advocated a practical skepticism based on common sense, where the inevitability of induction is accepted."

I'll let the philosophy and logic majors assess the accuracy of this summary.

^ Always impressed by your eloquent, thought out posts.

But I would now say I am a "pick and choose" bible believer.

I'm impressed as well!

To answer to sick above science doesn't require faith. Science by definition is testing your assumptions. Science is always open to further findings that can change the answer.

I think square said it best earlier. Science gives us answers but always leaves room for improvement, while religion gives us answers that stay the same through time, requiring people to try and alter the words rather than use sound evidence.

If I've learned anything about zealots over the years, it's that trying to engage them in critical thinking and fact-based logic, is not possible. That is, after all, what led them to the false belief system, in the first place.

I.e., it's a lost cause trying to get people with false belief systems to engage in critical thinking along empirical evidence. By definition, the belief systems are false, as was pointed out in a prior post: they are based on "faith" and not "fact". Fortunately, we don't use that faulty process in many other parts of our lives.

What makes it so dangerous / scary / something that has to be dealt with, is that places like the Middle East have these nuts in control of nuclear arsenals. When you take weak-minded zealots, and give them a nuclear weapon, then, it is, very much indeed, time to be afraid, because these folks don't have critical thinking skills, as is demonstrated by the their zealousy in a false belief system. That makes them EXTREMELY dangerous.

Teaching critical thinking skills at an early age is essential to overcoming the grip that these false systems have on young people and beyond. 9/11 happens because of that very reason. The brainwashing starts early, and it's important, to all of our safety that young people be taught to think in a way that allows them to walk away from these very dangerous beliefs.

Whether it's running planes into the WTC; hatred towards others; intolerance; brainwashing; stoning; chopping the heads off of folks who say the world is reasonably round, these false belief systems represent a clear, present, and ongoing, danger, to modern society. The guys that drove into WTC believed these false belief systems; the folks who do mass suicides; rally against birth control, and so on.

The cure is teaching folks, at a very young age, how to separate fact from fiction, and the ability to just say no to the brainwashing.

If we fail, the very existence of the human race could be in jeopardy. I think it's very, very, very, scary, that people with stone-age belief systems (or even earlier) have nukes. This is very much a clear, and present, danger to all mankind.

Satyricon,

good sir, you are a pleasure to interact with. So don't, by any means, think that I would like to be removed from your hotlist ;)

Your points are very excellent, and I should not have used to word "attacked" simply because it could have been assumed that I meant he was rabidly opposed to it.

I guess my problem is the semantics of ALL of it. A real empiricist is skeptical to the point of needing to experience all things. Scientists are a mix between empiricists and rationalists. Also, I think people are assuming that I am some theistic evangelical because I call truth and beauty and things that bind us and free us from our existential crisis aspects of god. I'm just thoroughly uncomfortable with people saying God does not exist. My boyfriend, an atheist, says he is agnostic about god, unicorns and leprechauns ;) Adorable.

I think you eloquently stated how science works, and I thank you for that. And sadly, I do hold the atheists to a little higher standard. I know if I was testing a chemical on a mouse and saw a negative effect on the mouse, I could not say that it would do the same to humans. I would have to be thoroughly careful of my assertions or else I'd be blackballed as a scientist. But the problem is that man thinks that scientific data proves that, as you said, nature is self contained. It is this inductive leap that I think is dubious at best. I just don't think that it is a reasonable leap.

Thank you a lot for great interaction on here. I really appreciate it. I tend to just have to repeat things for those who made my argument into a straw man that I said science is faith...I definitely don't think I said that. And if I did, it's nothing I believe so it was a typo.

Can we also not forget the zealots of social darwinism. Something thoroughly feared by social progressives, not evangelicals. The horrors of eugenics and forced sterilizations were based on the zealotry of social darwinists. Science is not free from personality kinks, so don't try and pretend it doesn't lead to dangerous value judgments. thx

sickofthesame, I wasn't saying that you believe science is faith. I was referring to ebl333's comments in that vein.

Trance: "Science gives us answers but always leaves room for improvement, while religion gives us answers that stay the same through time, requiring people to try and alter the words rather than use sound evidence."


Trance
First of all, let me make a distinction that is important: "religious" Christianity and spiritual Christianity are very, very different, like night and day different.

Spiritual truth does not change since by definition truth is singular and exclusive; truth cannot be amended without the obvious realization that it was not the truth to begin with. Truth never changes; it's always the same.

Spiritual truth is not at all about facts and natural phenomenon collected by the mind through natural faculties and cataloged as to what has been perceived, tested, observed, examined and verified to qualify as factual (truth). This defines truth palpable to the intellect, but not spiritual truth.

Spiritual truth is not about facts; it is about the identity of God, the heart of God. He is truth. We can not know God by knowing facts about God; no more than we can know a person's heart by knowing many "things" about them, but never meeting them.

The scripture in the Bible provides facts about God. These facts are interpreted by men's minds and expressed in a myriad of doctrinal truth, most of it conflicting as evidenced by the denominational circus. The Bible itself is not the end of truth, but only the beginning.

Born-again Christians are just that: new creatures in Christ equipped with spiritual faculties that enable them to enter into a spiritual relationship with God as spiritual "infants". The immaturity of Christians is responsible for the mess called "religion". These are those (it was also my experience as a young Christian) who have yet to come to know the heart of God in Christ, but still only know God according to the facts they understand or memorized - the basis of that knowledge is always "good and evil", "right and wrong", etc. It is the basis for judgement after who they imagine God to be in light of the facts they know about him. Yes, this often breeds fanaticism because they adhere to religious ideas that can be quite absurd, often running counter to the very scripture to which they swear their allegiance.

So while it is true that spiritual truth "stays the same" (after all that is what truth is about), "religion" can only offer mindly interpretation of what the answers are because in lacking a personal relationship with God in Christ, they do not know spiritual truth. They are not coming to know the heart of God (only speculative doctrine about Him based on the facts they know from scripture). It's not that they alter the "words" Trance, they simply justify an interpretation of those words to agree with their mindly assumptions about God.

Spiritual truth is progressive because it is organic. In other words, in true Christianity, the heart is changed into the very likeness of God's heart. This is the fullness of spiritual truth - being conformed to the image and likeness of God's heart. It has been God's intent from the beginning.

So the process of growing into spiritual truth is, of course, similar to the "type and shadow" found in natural truth. The exception is that in natural truth, there is a progressive revelation to the mind of truths about things earthy, while in spiritual truth, there is a progressive revelation of God to man's heart that is progressive and which fashions man after the heart of God.

I know what is most often seen today in Christianity resembles little the heart of God, but God's work is not yet completed. The world stage is being set for some significant changes, not only for the world, but for Christianity as well. God has always had a purpose and a plan.

and I was referring to trance ;) when will the confusion end!!!!!

I do want to say that i this has been/is a pleasure, just because I know a lot of people get heated and angry when discussing religion.

Here we are trying to solve the great mysteries of the universe and we can't even figure out who's talking to whom!

I should probably start with a sorry myself. This is one subject I enjoy talking about and can get over zealous abit

I guess I would say I honestly do have a negative view on anyone with religious beliefs. many people trying to argue for the supernatural, that "unknown" out there ideal that we can't touch or measure. I guess I have a problem putting support in an idea we can never measure.

The ultimate answer is a god exists or doesn't exist. The problem is we can prove individual gods false or illogical but we can never solve the "spiritual" type of god. I like to refer to that as the Disney god since its those movies that do it up best portraying spirits or trees and humans without touching on any religious dogma.


One of the basic arguements I like to point out is the simple to complex one:

Everything we know in the world went on a stage from simple to complex in terms of evolution and developement. Life itself can come from just dust. Life doesn't need god to evolve so why bring in the god idea. Adding religion just adds more complexity and an ideal we can't test.

Science really is the simple answer to everything, and simple answers are the best ones, especially when we can prove them. God is a complex answer that is only defined by a persons personal feelings on god.

Science give us answers, religion gives us answers, but with conflict.

sickothesame – Well, it seems we do have some semantic differences, which now that we know them are unimportant. I was just trying to defend myself from the claim that atheism was anti-empirical, but since even scientists fail this “real” empirical definition, I’m fine with it. I would note, the term “empiricism” is not usually formulated so strongly, but like I said that’s not important.

I obviously strongly disagree with you regarding the plausibility of the self-contained theory, and I don’t think it’s a “leap” any more than any other inductive step. But I suspect that’s an irreconcilable difference, so I’ll leave it to the reader =)

as long as we know we are all going to hell, I think we can all be friends.

;)

I wish we all lived closer and could sit at a coffee house and talk about this all and then have a fist fight outside (although we probably would never get to that point, I just think we need a fightclub-esque moment).

Occam's razor does work. But it's kind of boring. And the razor has not worked before.

Thanks for the saturday afternoon fun.

oh, of course, i don't believe in hell, just in case my sarcasm was difficult to see on teh internets.

Trance -
I can relate; it's also a topic I really enjoy talking about - probably on the other side of the spectrum, but passion speaks of genuineness and I respect that in you.

I can understand why you might have a negative view of "religious beliefs". The truth is religious beliefs do not alway rightly reflect truth. Many religious beliefs are merely individual interpretations of factual scripture, not truly representative of spiritual truth as the revelation of the heart of God. Religious beliefs are often not caring and edifying, but judgemental and destructive in people's lives. After a while, who wouldn't develop a negative view of such hypocrisey. I'm a Christian, and I have that same negative view of religious Christians.

But my Christian experience is not one which has its life in "religious" doctrine founded on a system of beliefs based on a knowledge of "good and evil" do's and don'ts. I define "religion" as the natural mind's understanding of spiritual truth. This is not only true of religious Christianity, but of every other "religion". The common thread is the knowledge of good and evil. This knowledge is the basis of most of the destructive behavior common to man. Every person's standard of what is good or what is evil is as varied as there are nations and cultures and religions. I think the biggest evil is not "evil", but that which religious people perceive as being "good". It's incredible what religious people can do to others when they think their position is right and good and just in the eyes of God. It often unleashes horrific evil, great pain and suffering for others. All, I might add, in the name of God which is the greatest evil since it is a false testimony of God's heart and turns many away from God.

I know that God cannot be proven to the natural mind. He has determined it to be so. The mind is unable to comprehend God. God can only be comprehended by the heart of man. I disagree with you that one cannot know there is a God. Many genuine Christians like myself experience God as more real than what can be seen with the natural eyes. But, can I prove it to you? No, I can't. But you have absolute access to God to find out for yourself if you genuinely seek Him. I'm not trying to persuade you to do so, I'm just saying that every man has equal access to God. It is both an immediate awareness by the revelation of God's Spirit to the heart as well as an ongoing revelation that results in spiritual growth. But to dismiss God just because you haven't experienced what others have experienced of God's reality, and He is unknown to you, is really kind of presumptuous. :-)

There just may be some truth to your "Disney god" as a shadow cast by the Real Thing to give hope for the ideal that each man wants to be true in his heart. It's how we were created by God. Nothing else can truly fulfill us but Himself.

"Science give us answers, religion gives us answers, but with conflict." Your quote

Conflict is not aways a bad thing. Many wonderful things come out of conflict. Sometimes, the conflict we endure is worth the prize. God is worthy of the conflict Trance.

Thanks for your honesty,
John

Squarejaw
Since you brought up the example of bread, then let’s examine that theory. I agree that induction of past experiences determine our next decision. The example describes the “mid” process. But my question is, what’s the 1st time decision based on? Life is full of 1st times. Even scientific finding started with a believe that there is an answer to be found, and believe that induction should be the method, and believe that the answer is suffice.

Scientific finding requires induction, but our everyday decision doesn’t always base on science. We take risk, we prefer excitement, we sacrifice without gain, we experiment for entertainment. Life base on science is predictable and boring. It’s the life outside of science that makes it living. The reason for laughing, situation that cause emotion, determination for a cause, to indulge or sacrifice….. Our survival has a lot of science involved, but the quality of life is very much outside the science. Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. Yet many here suggest it provides a “way of life” as a religion is like saying quality for your life is no difference to someone on life support system.

I gotta be honest... I didn't read all the posts on here, but just wanted to respond to your original post.

You said,
What is your attitude toward Bible; "word for word", "pick and choose" or , "what is bible" ... I have a hard time dealing with my own faith and being gay, i'm sure there must be people like me. so i'd like to heard your view on this."

I'm a Christian as well... a pretty conservative Christian (southern Baptist). I've actually met a lot of other guys like me on here so we aren't as much a minority as we think... we just keep our mouths shut because if we know we'll be rejected by the gay community for being Christian and we'll be rejected by the Christian community for being gay.

Anyway, I've had this topic bookmarked for a while, wanting to respond to it. I believe that the Bible is God's Word. I'm a fundamentalist actually, so I believe it literally (yep, even the Creation, Flood, etc...) I don't think you can pick and choose. If God is God and He gave us a Book to get to know Him, He can make sure that people don't muck it up with mistakes and errors. So do I believe homosexuality is wrong? I believe it's clear in the Bible that sex between men is sin... but so is any kind of lust outside of marriage. I think jerking off is a sin because it's lust. Do I still do it? Yes... Does that make me a hypocrite? Yes... I admit that. I'm not proud of it, but it makes me mad that everyone expects Christians to be these perfect people who never sin and when we sin we are called hypocrites. The reason we are Christians is because we KNOW we are sinners... we need a Savior. That's why we came to Christ in the first place.

So has He done anything for me if I'm still struggling with sin and lust? Yes!! When I'm walking with him in a close relationship, praying and reading my Bible, sin looses it's grip on me. I live a godly life... I've been there and to be honest, I was happier when I was obeying God. But when I stop hanging out with Jesus (like currently in my life I've neglected my prayer and Bible times) then I fall back into my old ways. God gives us a choice. He's not going to force us to obey him. I can choose to sin.

People ask, "If God is good why is there so much evil in the world?" It's because God gives us a choice. You can't have it both ways. Either you have the freedom to choose and accept the evil that comes along with it, or God forces you to do things His way and you have the perfect world with no problems (but then there's no opportunity for a love relationship between man and God because love demands a choice... it can't be forced).

I just want to say this too... I apologize for the way many Christians act towards gay people. It's wrong and it's hurtful. All Christians sin... all Christians have problems with lust... gay lust is no different in God's eyes than straight lust or even food lust (tons of Christians have that problem as well). Christ never told us to condemn the world... he told us to love the world. But we also can't just say, "It's OK to sin." That's not the truth. Christians are perceived as hypocrites because they say sin is wrong... and then they sin themselves. But what non Christians fail to understand is that we actually say sin is wrong in our own lives as well. Just like I've tried to do in this post. I sin... and I know it's wrong. If you sin I'm not going to say it's right. I'm going to say we're both wrong. We both need a Savior. Christ took our wrongs on himself though and was punished by God for our sins when he died on the cross. That's the only reason we say we are going to heaven. We don't believe we are going to heaven because we are better than other people. Not at all. Paul in the Bible even said he was the worst of all sinners. We just trust what God says when he says Christ's death is enough to pay the penalty for our crimes against Him. And ONLY because of that can we enter His holy place.

I could write more, but I think this is probably long enough (too long maybe). If you disagree with me, that's fine. God gives us all a choice and I respect your right to choose what you want to believe... just respect my rights as well. Thanks ebl333 for posting this topic and sharing your struggles. I'm right there struggling with you!

Rarely does one find such a damagingly privative word with such overwhelmingly positive connotations, as faith. All hands point to religious propaganda.

I grew up very strict religious Orthodox Christian family. I always have this problem. It make me want to stop being homosexual and feel guilty. I pray to God all the time. I know God love me, but there is no way I can change to be straight.

1. My religion - "Homosexual is a sin."
2. My Family - My parent is very important to me, I don't like to see them get hurt because I am gay. It is hard for them. They always dream of me having a beautiful wife and kids.

As a former -- put that in caps, FORMER -- Baptist, having dispensed with religion many years ago -- I don't understand why the Bible insists that faith is the ultimate virtue. After all, it has to be, according to fundamentalist Christians -- it's what gets you into heaven (faith in Jesus Christ).

Notwithstanding that I question whether it's a virtue at all, particularly the "blind faith" the Bible espouses -- but more important than Love? Charity? Kindness? Intellectual Curiosity? A thousand others?

Really?

Of course, the real reason that religion edifies faith is that it's the one thing that keeps people from questioning their beliefs.

Every single discussion I've had with born-again Christians -- whether it's about the literal truth of the Bible, evolution vs creationism, the concept of eternal salvation, the existence of hell -- every single discussion -- culminates in an admission that facts, evidence, scientific findings, logic, or common sense don't really matter -- that it's all a question of faith, "either you believe or you don't," and that's that.

This kind of faith is, ultimately, fear-based -- our fear of death, mostly. Accept the fairy tale, and you'll go to heaven. These notions may comfort us at times, but it's a delusion, and IMO, a tragedy.

LittleDudeWithMusclesEvery single discussion I've had with born-again Christians -- whether it's about the literal truth of the Bible, evolution vs creationism, the concept of eternal salvation, the existence of hell -- every single discussion -- culminates in an admission that facts, evidence, scientific findings, logic, or common sense don't really matter -- that it's all a question of faith, "either you believe or you don't," and that's that.

This kind of faith is, ultimately, fear-based -- our fear of death, mostly. Accept the fairy tale, and you'll go to heaven. These notions may comfort us at times, but it's a delusion, and IMO, a tragedy.

You posed some very important points. I too believe such fear-based faith is really a tragedy. Thanks for sharing. I'd like to share a bit too if I may...

Thus far, it's incredibly unfortunate that the churches have done a very poor job at educating Christians to think rationally and also to articulate the beliefs clearly and logically. It does take a certain level of skill to understand how to articulate one's faith. It does take study, time, and effort. Few are willing, or have that luxury to do so.

This failure of Christians to understand their faith well and to articulate how it relates the world in relevant and significant ways has led to so many misunderstandings over the centuries. It's resulted in vocal fundamentalists who seem to have no sensitivity for those around them. It's also sad that this perpetual lack of personal study has propagated the virtual "dumbing down" of the faith, its message and its relevance, such that people ultimately abandon the faith for something else, or even nothing to believe in. That, to me, is the real tragedy.

However, I have to disagree with the comments that the Christian faith is intrinsically fear-based. Yes, there are elements to that end, but it is not characteristic of the life and person of Jesus Christ.

The faith seems fear-based for those who don't really understand the breadth and depth of the love of God and how to best convey it. It is also unfortunate that some Christian communities use fear as a motivator rather than love. And yet, even this is quite revealing of ourselves because it is our human nature to be driven by fear. We take care of ourselves because we fear decay. We seek out relationships because we fear being alone. Of course, that is not the primary reason, but fear does play a huge part in our lives.

But at the heart of the Christian gospel, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, was never one of fear but of life, hope, peace and joy (but not without the suffering, pain, ridicule and pain as well). If anything, the reality of the Gospel affirms the darkness and difficulties of the human experience, but in all that muck and mess, we CAN find goodness, love, grace, forgiveness, peace, etc -- in fact, God meets us there. The good news is that God lives and dwells in and once dwelt among us. We are not alone. And we will never be alone. Unless we want to be alone. Death, then, becomes the finality of our choice.

Faith in God is not opposed to reason. In fact, reason makes us honest about our faith. Reason makes faith possible. Reason takes us the precipice of understanding the world, God, ourselves and others, and sets us up to LEAP forward toward God in faith. Faith always has an object -- namely, God, and for the Christian... Jesus. Without an object.. it's not faith. It's only wishful thinking.

This is where our culture gets all confused and collapses the ideas. Wishful thinking is not faith. Faith is quite a different matter. It has a clear object, grounded in trust and rationality, in knowing and relating to the object of our belief. It is also very active, not passive.

Thus, Christianity is not opposed to reason. In fact, it would behoove the Christian to investigate the faith and hold it up to critical and rational scrutiny. One will only be humbled by the depth and awe of not only the answers it provides, but the limitations of our human experience.

Christian systematic theology, if one has ever sought to study it, is very philosophical and rational. In fact, one might say, of all the religions in the world, Christianity may be the most rational of them all, offering a measure of coherence that is not found in any other religion. Theological academia is not for the light-hearted. Yet few understand or have even ventured in that direction and have made comments not understanding the whole scope of things.

I recognize that "popular" Christianity, the superficial and commercialized version of it, has been "marketed" to the masses, and that is perhaps how most people recognize Christianity. THAT to me is the most unfortunate. In my opinion, this misrepresentation has caused many to turn from something that is potentially one of the most intellectually stimulating, spiritually fulfilling, and emotional moving and memorable adventures with God one could ever experience. To know and be known. And this is coming from a gay Christian man, who once considered leaving the faith because of the seeming irreconcilability but has since found solace again in Jesus.

If one would like to begin to question the faith honestly and rationally, one good place to start would be an Indian(-Canadian/American?) Christian by the name of Ravi Zacharias. Listen to his free podcasts. People grill him from all over the world about Christianity, all in the hopes for some balance of rationality to this thing we call faith. He offers some good insight. http://rzim.org/radio/archives.php?p=JT&v=current

Well i am Spiritual edging towards wiccan i guess!


As we have said before in a Post That book has been written by man and changed to suit the Times over and over again but the basic 10 commandments are ok i guess?

l don't believe everything that is written because all is written by Man or Woman as the case may be?

[quote][cite]AznAmerGuy said[/cite][quote]
I recognize that "popular" Christianity, the superficial and commercialized version of it, has been "marketed" to the masses, and that is perhaps how most people recognize Christianity. THAT to me is the most unfortunate. In my opinion, this misrepresentation has caused many to turn from something that is potentially one of the most intellectually stimulating, spiritually fulfilling, and emotional moving and memorable adventures with God one could ever experience. To know and be known. And this is coming from a gay Christian man, who once considered leaving the faith because of the seeming irreconcilability but has since found solace again in Jesus.

You're response was outstanding. I think you really hit the nail on the head. This portion of your response really rings home true. It is unfortunate that the vocal Christians fall into this category leaving the true Christian faith misunderstood. We as Christians do a very poor job of learning about our own faith and teaching others.

Thanks for sharing this.

Peace.

I'm religion nonspecific. I choose not to assign or 'limit' myself by the barriers of a religion or single spiritual doctrine will give me. Though, in my own way, I've intergrated the fundamental principles of a lot of religious and spiritual systems. My own path is unique to me. There's a bit of mysticism in my beliefs, but no polytheism or idol worship. In a couple ways you can say I'm sort of Christian, but just as much as I'm Jewish or Muslim.

I'm just going to stop there. Explaining myself would take far too long.

But, I dated guys who concidered themselves Christians. It was interesting, though redundant.

I'm a very conservative Christian. I see no problem with being gay and a Christian and neitehr do my conservative Christian parents. I was raised in the church throughout my life and in a Christian school in South Carolina and I see no problems with it. The verses that are sometimes referred to are always referring to prostitution, lustfull relationships, or to straight people that are giving up what is natural and persuing gay relationships, which was much more common in Roman and Greek times when people were pressured TO be gay insteand of straight because of a totally different perspective on what was masculine and what was not. There is a great book on all of this by John Boswell called, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. It's extremely well written and well researched. It traces attitudes towards gays from the greek city states all the way through to about the 1400s when the Inquisition began. I think you'd be surprised that the church was pretty accepting of homosexuality for about the first 1300 years of its history. So it's not ME that's misreading these verses. The vast majority of church history, and all of the Biblical text supports my position. These so called conservatives in the church are bending scripture and distorting it, and they will have to give an accounting to God for comitting these grievous acts.

A good and interesting summary "findout". Although I consider myself agnostic, my partner is christian (practicing Catholic) it is a great comfort to him. Like you he does not believe Jesus Christ would hate gays, and that a loving God would create gays then hate them.

jbedwards saidA good and interesting summary "findout". Although I consider myself agnostic, my partner is christian (practicing Catholic) it is a great comfort to him. Like you he does not believe Jesus Christ would hate gays, and that a loving God would create gays then hate them.

Well, this is the 64 thousand doll