When you say things like, 'do the right rituals' and give 'lip service' it makes it difficult to understand how you can say you grew up Christian. Also -your comment about being told not to question what you don't understand or disagree with does not at all sound like the Christianity I am familiar with since we are told to question everything.

I'm not sure what in the Bible you are questioning but I really am not familiar with denominations that want you to only accept the 'warm fuzzy' parts of the Bible as you call them and reject the rest. There is much to the Gospel that is not warm and fuzzy. Sin and its consequences never is.

There is a wide variety of Christian beliefs and denominations. One person's experience does not define the whole of Christianity or any other religion.

... as you continue to promote your apologetic agenda.

Your experiences don't define or negate the experiences of others.

Timothy



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2012 09:00PM by Timothy.

And neither do yours which is the point.

I know you are, but what am I?

C'mon, bona dea.

How childish can you be?

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2012 09:11PM by Timothy.

>>When you say things like, 'do the right rituals' and give 'lip service' it makes it difficult to understand how you can say you grew up Christian.

Likewise your comments show a limited view of the variety of Christian experience many have shared here.

>>Also -your comment about being told not to question what you don't understand or disagree with does not at all sound like the Christianity I am familiar with since we are told to question everything.

Mormons say the same thing. If you question, the most standard Christian response is that faith is required. There are no answers, and Christianity is making them up just like everyone else. The mechanism of using "faith" is the first indication that there are no facts behind the questions.

>>I'm not sure what in the Bible you are questioning but I really am not familiar with denominations that want you to only accept the 'warm fuzzy' parts of the Bible as you call them and reject the rest. There is much to the Gospel that is not warm and fuzzy. Sin and its consequences never is.

You seriously have not met Christians who talk about love and grace instead of the vindictive and schizophrenic nature of God in the Bible? Do they really talk about how God is the most sinful of us all and yet there is no consequence for His actions? No. They apologize for God, giveing Him all the credit and none of the blame for his bizarre little experiment.

You sound like you bought into the routine rhetoric. Although you won't see it, you sound exactly like a Mormon who doesn't see the same issues in his own religion. We can spot apologetics a mile away.

Like bona dea says, not all Christians believe the same things and there is diversity in how they view the Gospels. However to deny the vindictiveness of a god who only gives everlasting life to those who believe is admitting that you do not agree with John 3:16. Not that anyone cares that various Christians pick and choose, and decide for themselves what they believe is literal, but at least admit it is being done. Serena is spot on.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>When you say things like, 'do the right rituals'
> and give 'lip service' it makes it difficult to
> understand how you can say you grew up Christian.
>
>
> Likewise your comments show a limited view of the
> variety of Christian experience many have shared
> here.


The Bible and Christian doctrine clearly teach that our salvation and the essence of our faith does not come from either ritual OR "lip service".
>
> >>Also -your comment about being told not to
> question what you don't understand or disagree
> with does not at all sound like the Christianity I
> am familiar with since we are told to question
> everything.
>
> Mormons say the same thing. If you question, the
> most standard Christian response is that faith is
> required. There are no answers, and Christianity
> is making them up just like everyone else. The
> mechanism of using "faith" is the first indication
> that there are no facts behind the questions.

Really? that is NOT the most standard Christian response (how much time have you spent studying with Christians?) Are you saying you have no faith at all? Faith is not meant to be a blind leap into a dark chasm but belief based on fact. We can't put God in a box and know everything but that does not mean he does not exist nor does it mean that faith should not be able to endure scrutiny.
>
> >>I'm not sure what in the Bible you are
> questioning but I really am not familiar with
> denominations that want you to only accept the
> 'warm fuzzy' parts of the Bible as you call them
> and reject the rest. There is much to the Gospel
> that is not warm and fuzzy. Sin and its
> consequences never is.
>
> You seriously have not met Christians who talk
> about love and grace instead of the vindictive and
> schizophrenic nature of God in the Bible? Do they
> really talk about how God is the most sinful of us
> all and yet there is no consequence for His
> actions? No. They apologize for God, giveing Him
> all the credit and none of the blame for his
> bizarre little experiment.

The God I know is not as you described. And the God I know is perfectly Just and sinless.
>
> You sound like you bought into the routine
> rhetoric. Although you won't see it, you sound
> exactly like a Mormon who doesn't see the same
> issues in his own religion. We can spot
> apologetics a mile away.

And you sound like someone who has bought into the routine rhetoric of those who knows nothing of the God of the Bible.
>
> Like bona dea says, not all Christians believe the
> same things and there is diversity in how they
> view the Gospels.

However to deny the vindictiveness of a god who only gives everlasting
> life to those who believe is admitting that you do
> not agree with John 3:16.

Your reasoning on this point is not clear; can you explain? You think because I won't say that God is vindictive, by your definition, that I don't agree with John 3:16? God has provided us with a way to escape the torments of Hell. It is through his Son that we are able to do this. It is man's sin that makes them fit for Hell. Sin sends men to Hell.

I understand that you don't believe this. That is your choice. The consequences will also be yours to suffer for rejecting God's Son.

Not that anyone cares
> that various Christians pick and choose, and
> decide for themselves what they believe is
> literal, but at least admit it is being done.
> Serena is spot on.

That's a rather horrible thing to do, wouldn't you say? I don't think this is the action of a benevolent, all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful deity, but a monstrous, vengeful one. None of it "washes", but it was all explained away as just an allegory in the liberal church I grew up with (still taught to children in sunday school - how inappropriate) and the "bible-believing" churches believe it really, actually happened just that way, which is even worse.

There is so much that is indefensible in the bible; the old testament is full of stupid and terrible things that their god supposedly ordered, from cutting off foreskins, imagining menstruation is somehow dirty, giving birth is really dirty, and giving birth to a girl is twice as dirty as a to a boy, ordering raping, killing, infanticide, all that stuff... The misogyny in the new testament, while not as horrible as the old, is pretty bad. Many churches gloss over it, but it's still there. "Ask and you shall receive" - uh, no, not really. There is so much that I just don't accept, beginning with it being "god's word" - and the proof of that is??? Because the bible says it is. If you want to be christian, fine, but don't expect accolades for it.

Notmo, until 2005, I was a member of an ELCA (Lutheran) church, but was gradually growing away from the faith, questioning, wondering, feeling uncomfortable. From something the pastor said just before distributing communion, I felt it necessary to explain that I did not, in fact, believe that communion was meant to be anything beyond symbolic. That was not his or the ELCA's stance (consubstantiation). He said I was still allowed to take it, but I said I didn't understand how that made any sense. He said sometimes we need to just trust and believe even if we don't understand. I was dumbfounded. I have had conversations like this before, this was just the most recent.

Leaving christianity was not easy for me, and a very gradual process, painful oftentimes, and sad, but I could not pretend anymore. The more I looked, the worse it looked.

You don't need anyone's permission to continue in all happiness with your religion, but nor do I need to respect it and applaud you for it. But don't assume I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm no wet-behind-the-ears kid. I am very well versed in Christianity in its many forms.

Bona dea, I am not sure what you're getting at. I speak for myself, and no one else. Care to expound?

Bona dea is well known and widely regarded for not explaining her position.

You just have to accept her at her word ... or else!

Timothy

Well you should know for one, that we don't accept the Bible as God's Word merely because 'it's says it is'. It is comments like that which indicate that your Christian education is sorely lacking.

accolades for being a Christian on this board? This board is rife with atheists. Very very few Christians post here.

Simply that your experience is yours and my experience is mine.Many churches believe the things that you object to in the Bible are myths. You have a right to your feelings and beliefs and the same is true for everyone else.If you are speaking for you and only you, I have no problem. If you had been speaking for others in different traditions then I would have a problem.

We all have our unique set of experiences wÍth religion. Taking peoples experiences and concerns about Christianity seriously would have to be the starting point for any sort of productive dialogue.