My Problem With Christianity

[Rageaholic]

(this mostly applies to conservative Christianity, but can apply to Liberals too)


My problem with Christianity, as I pointed out in the afterlife thread, is that when it comes down to it, it's follow god or be punished. The more conservative and literal interpration of the bible claims that we are all sinners, thus making us unworthy of god and deserving of horrific eternal punishment by default. That has been discussed in this thread. (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=5753) While the more liberal of Christians downplay that trope, claiming hell isn't literal (just "seperation from God"), and that god doesn't literally send anyone there, the implication is still there.

Now I know what a lot of Christians would say, Jesus died for us so that's no longer a problem. But it still is. For one, non believers will still face punishment. More importantly, why would anyone need to be punished in our place anyway? God can't just forgive? I hear this bullshit about god being "just". SERIOUSLY? Someone has to be punished eternally simply for a lifetime of bad deeds? And let's not forget that the more conservative views state that one little sin is enough to deserve this fate. That could be anything from thought crimes to not praying.

And when you get down to it, that defeats the entire purpose of free will. You have a choice, but if you don't do it gods way, you'll pay dearly for it. Even with the whole sacrifice of Jesus, it still comes down to being a Christian or burning in hell. As I said in the afterlife thread, can't god at least let you cease to exist? I can't believe any human, let alone everyone who was ever born, deserves such a horrific fate. I've heard that god didn't want robots so he gave humans free will, yet when they excercise that will differently, he punishes them forever? WTF? God can't have it both ways. If he didn't want robots, he should have expected that some would have gone a different way.

To wrap it up, I think it's a pretty depressing world view and actually makes atheism look more appealing. While I know not all Christians take it to that extreme, the implication is still there. Of course part of the problem is also that I'm naturally skeptical and can't understand the supernatural. However, since that might damn me according to Christian dogma, I'm going to take issue with it.

[HYHYBT]

And when you get down to it, that defeats the entire purpose of free will. You have a choice, but if you don't do it gods way, you'll pay dearly for it.Absolutely not.

Is it a violation of your free will that if you choose to jump off a cliff then you will go splat at the bottom? Is it a violation of free will that if you smoke five packs a day you'll have lung problems? I think it's the other way around: the only way free will can have significance is if our choices have consequences. One effect of that will of course be that sometimes the consequences are unpleasant. (See: "but thou must!")

[bunnyboy]

Absolutely not.

Is it a violation of your free will that if you choose to jump off a cliff then you will go splat at the bottom? Is it a violation of free will that if you smoke five packs a day you'll have lung problems? I think it's the other way around: the only way free will can have significance is if our choices have consequences. One effect of that will of course be that sometimes the consequences are unpleasant. (See: "but thou must!")

No that's called being stupid because we KNOW gravity, exists, and we know smoking is dangerous. However we don't know god exists.

Of course there's the whole dang thing about what actually qualifies and is almost literally from church to church, with only the older branches having something of a semi-unified view.

Most other afterlives are either consequences (good and bad) for the extremes, and usually only after some judgement day, until then it's the grave. The others tend towards nothingness, or very close to it.

[Kheldarson]

One, your hyperlink is kinda kinky. It's giving me an error.

Two, I think Pascal's Wager covers it. You are making a choice, and yeah, you might be making the wrong choice, or I might be making the wrong choice, but it's still a personal choice.

And all choices have consequences, good, bad, indifferent.

So having a consequence doesn't violate free will but instead validates it. What happens if you make a choice and nothing happens? You know, a big choice that should technically make a major change in your life. You feel cheated to an extent right? Same thing here.

Now, most Christians would tell you that, yeah, our idea of heaven is pretty much theory, and honestly, what theologians actually have said about heaven is pretty scary to an extent (basically, we become one with God and lose our individuality. I'm not too keen on that philosophy.)

But does that stop me from believing in God? No, because I find reason to believe from faith, my background, and experience. What happens after death is after death. When I stand before God, I know that there are things that I have done wrong and things I have done right and all I can say is "I lived my life the best I could." And that's all anybody should do.

Because honestly? I think God gives us what we deserve...and if your life led you to want to be left alone then He'll do that. But if it's just away from Him but with family and friends and you were a good person...I don't think He'd deny you that either.

[smileyeagle1021]

Because honestly? I think God gives us what we deserve....

I assume you are talking about in the sense of when it comes to final judgement, not that you are getting what you deserve on an ongoing basis, even in this life time, because if that were the case, then a whole new can of worms has been opened on why children in Africa deserve to starve, or why Jews in 1940s Germany deserved to be murdered in mass, or... well, you get the idea.

[draco664]

Two, I think Pascal's Wager covers it.

Pascal's wager is flawed. At least if you are using it to try and convince someone to believe in God.

It assumes the 'believe in God' choice is the only possible correct choice if God exists. What if you choose to believe in the Abrahamic God, but the 'real' God is Odin, or Ra, or Krishna, or any of a bajillion others? Presumably, believing in one over the correct one would be insulting to the real God, and thus send you to whatever hell that God reserves for those ungodly disbelievers.

Without proof that the God you believe in is real, then Pascal's wager suggests that disbelief is the most logical choice.

[Mytical]

I have a few issues with any religion...though I believe that what a person believes is between them and whatever deity they believe in..and not for me to judge.

My first issue is that nobody can explain to me how their deity is better/more real then any of the others..even ones now called 'myths' like Zeus/etc.

My second issue is that all religious text is made by man..and thus subject to being changed/altered/faulty/etc because man is not perfect...yet the religious text is 'perfect'. Perfection can not come from something that is flawed.

[Kheldarson]

I assume you are talking about in the sense of when it comes to final judgement, not that you are getting what you deserve on an ongoing basis, even in this life time, because if that were the case, then a whole new can of worms has been opened on why children in Africa deserve to starve, or why Jews in 1940s Germany deserved to be murdered in mass, or... well, you get the idea.

I was discussing heaven and final judgement seeing as that was the argument presented in the OP. I'm not getting into the other discussion because nobody'll be happy by the end of that one.

Pascal's wager is flawed. At least if you are using it to try and convince someone to believe in God.


I wasn't really using it to convince someone to believe in God. It's a flawed argument for proof of God, but a good argument for why there's benefits to believing in God whether or not he exists. But mostly it does show why free will is not violated by having either extreme consequence involved.

Honestly, looking back at my argument, I was obviously crashing harder from being off from work than I thought. See if I can't reorganize my thoughts later.

[HYHYBT]

Well, it depends... one thing I like to keep in mind is that God must forgive honest mistakes, or else we're ALL screwed.

[Rageaholic]

Absolutely not.

Is it a violation of your free will that if you choose to jump off a cliff then you will go splat at the bottom? Is it a violation of free will that if you smoke five packs a day you'll have lung problems? I think it's the other way around: the only way free will can have significance is if our choices have consequences. One effect of that will of course be that sometimes the consequences are unpleasant. (See: "but thou must!")

Bunnyboy covered it. In those cases, the consequences are not only obvious, but self inflicted. In god's case, he's going to punish people for excercising their free will. That's not exactly self inflicted. It's the same way it's a choice as it would be if a dictator would give you the choice between following his demands or going to jail for life.

Frankly, I don't know why god would even demand punishment simply for living a different life or making some bad choices.

[Kheldarson]

My question is: how is it punishment?

Let's put it this way (ignoring the other argument of whether God exists or not for a moment). You meet God and he says he's got a really sweet place and wants to show it to you. All you have to do is hang out with him for a while. You decline saying you have other things at the moment. He says "All right" and moves on, but let's you know that you can always get in touch. Now time goes on and you never get in touch with him. Then you get evicted from your place. Should God just let you in his house when you never met the initial condition of getting to know him first? And add in the fact that you pretty much ignored his offer until you absolutely needed it? If anybody of our acquaintance tried to move in with us under these conditions, we'd refuse. Why can't God? Especially when it was our choice to tell him "no"? He's just respecting our choice.

[Ree]

I am getting kind of tired of this recurring theme in the threads on here because it's all just a rehashing of the same old stuff as I see it.

I have been reading, but I haven't joined in any of the debates or discussions because, quite frankly, it seems like a waste of valuable time and energy.

It's just a whole lot of :deadhorse::deadhorse::banghead::banghead:back and forth with the same points being made by the same people in every thread.

It's a losing battle for either side because it's not as if those who are into Christianity will suddenly go, "Holy crap. They're right. I can't prove there is a God so why have I wasted all my life believing in one?" and it's not as if the atheists or non-Christians will suddenly go, "Holy crap. You have a point there. Tell me more about this God of yours."

If you feel that way about Christianity, then don't become a Christian.
That's your right.
Nobody has a gun to your head telling you that you must believe in Christ or else.

Why does it bother the non-Christians and atheists so much that Christians have the beliefs that they do, and why does it bother the Christians that others choose not to take the same path?

I just don't get why it has become such a major issue that the theme has to dominate at least 3 threads in the past month. :shrug:

[smileyeagle1021]

My question is: how is it punishment?

Let's put it this way (ignoring the other argument of whether God exists or not for a moment). You meet God and he says he's got a really sweet place and wants to show it to you. All you have to do is hang out with him for a while. .

The problem is, even if we accept God exists, that's not what he is doing.
He is providing us a book that assures us that such a place exists and asking us to trust him.
And he is asking for you to more than hang out with him, he is asking you to follow his rules, all of them, even the ones that contradict each other.


Nobody has a gun to your head telling you that you must believe in Christ or else.

Why does it bother the non-Christians and atheists so much that Christians have the beliefs that they do,


You're right, at least in North America, no Christian has put a gun to anyone's head (in recent history) to force them to convert, but that leads to the second point.
It bothers non-Christians what Christians believe because Christians have such a bad habit of forcing their beliefs on others, especially through the legislative process (blue laws, the attempts to outlaw homosexuality, attempting to force prayer in schools, etc).
Non-believes just want to be left the fuck alone, but that is too much for Christians to allow.

[Kheldarson]

Why does it bother the non-Christians and atheists so much that Christians have the beliefs that they do, and why does it bother the Christians that others choose not to take the same path?


I just get involved mostly because there seems to be some misunderstanding on the atheist side involving what Christians believe. We don't all believe the same things so why do they assign us all the same beliefs? I just get involved to provide extra definition.

The problem is, even if we accept God exists, that's not what he is doing.
He is providing us a book that assures us that such a place exists and asking us to trust him.
And he is asking for you to more than hang out with him, he is asking you to follow his rules, all of them, even the ones that contradict each other.

Except that that book of rules was written through human minds so therefor may be biased. Hence why most Christian denominations do not take everything in that book at face value. If you boil the book down into its basic message you get "Don't be a douche." So God's invitation is still to come get to know him and be a good person because he doesn't hang out with jerks.



It bothers non-Christians what Christians believe because Christians have such a bad habit of forcing their beliefs on others, especially through the legislative process (blue laws, the attempts to outlaw homosexuality, attempting to force prayer in schools, etc).
Non-believes just want to be left the fuck alone, but that is too much for Christians to allow.

And here's where I think we're taking a jump from just an issue to religion to an issue with politics. We're a nation based on democracy. Democracy is simply majority rules. Now, yes, we shouldn't completely override minority groups, which is why we're established as a republic. HOWEVER, overall, we still go back to the basics of majority rule. When that gets overridden for whatever reason (race, creed, sex, etc.), there'd better be a damn good reason.

And frankly, all of your examples are things that should be determined by the state. Which is why the phrase "vote with your feet" comes up.

[Gravekeeper]

And frankly, all of your examples are things that should be determined by the state. Which is why the phrase "vote with your feet" comes up.

Seperation of church and state would like a word with you. Several words really. Democracy is not a mechanism by which you get to oppress others.

[Ree]

I just get involved mostly because there seems to be some misunderstanding on the atheist side involving what Christians believe. We don't all believe the same things so why do they assign us all the same beliefs? I just get involved to provide extra definition.I totally get that, but from what I'm seeing, nothing is going to change their minds.

There are people posting on the board who have known me for many years now.
I am a Christian - Roman Catholic, actually.

I have read so many hateful comments from these people on here and on their Facebook pages directed at the Catholic Church, and Christianity as a whole, tarring all of us with the same brush.

I had truly hoped by my actions over the years and by my words of reassurance that I do not hate them nor wish them dead, that they would realize just how wrong they are and how flawed their thinking is to make the claims they do, but as I said it's just no-win.

If you think you're going to change their minds, then more power to you, I guess, but I can't see that happening.

[Kheldarson]

@ Gravekeeper: No, it's not, but nor should it be ignored. My issue is that we have a backlash hitting that seems to be punishing majority groups simply for being a majority. That's not right either.

It's things like the discussion about the displays in Santa Monica, or the fact we even debate Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas. I've got no problem with separation of church and state, I've got no issue with a state defining what it believes to be proper rulings. I do take issue with federal government stepping in to tell me what the nation should be doing when it's the state's job, and I do take issue when I'm told that my rights are being overridden because a minority group takes umbrage to it.

[Kheldarson]

If you think you're going to change their minds, then more power to you, I guess, but I can't see that happening.

Also Roman Catholic, and I actually don't think I'll change minds. I kinda like the debate overall. Tells me what to go look at when I'm grabbing new theology books.:D

[smileyeagle1021]

And frankly, all of your examples are things that should be determined by the state. Which is why the phrase "vote with your feet" comes up.

So, discrimination is okay as long as someone has the ability to move?
I think Dr. King Jr. would like a few words with you on that one, I believe his exact words were along the lines of "discrimination anywhere is discrimination everywhere".

And Ree, believe it or not, but a lot of us want to have our minds changed. I would like nothing more than to one day be able to say, hey Christians aren't the hateful bigots I've made them out to be, I'd love to live in a world where I didn't wake up every day knowing I'm surrounded by people that hate me. Then I turn on the news, or read a newspaper, or walk out the front door, and nope, my previous assumptions are all proved right, Christians fighting against my rights as a citizen, Christians spreading lies about me based on my orientation, Christians being mean spirited and bigoted, and all of it backed up by their God and His book. You have no idea how much I'd like to wake up some day and that not be the case, sadly, that hasn't happened yet, and each day that goes by I find it even less likely to happen.

[Gravekeeper]

I do take issue with federal government stepping in to tell me what the nation should be doing when it's the state's job, and I do take issue when I'm told that my rights are being overridden because a minority group takes umbrage to it.

To quote you:

And frankly, all of your examples are things that should be determined by the state. Which is why the phrase "vote with your feet" comes up.


To quote smiley's examples:

(blue laws, the attempts to outlaw homosexuality, attempting to force prayer in schools, etc)

If those are the examples you are referring too, no, those should not be up to the state. Those should not even be up for consideration by the majority.

[Andara Bledin]

I had truly hoped by my actions over the years and by my words of reassurance that I do not hate them nor wish them dead, that they would realize just how wrong they are and how flawed their thinking is to make the claims they do, but as I said it's just no-win.
You would think that after years of them seeing you be a good person, they'd view you first as a good person instead of just another theist out to oppress them. :rolleyes:

I would like nothing more than to one day be able to say, hey Christians aren't the hateful bigots I've made them out to be, I'd love to live in a world where I didn't wake up every day knowing I'm surrounded by people that hate me.
You're surrounded by hateful bigots who happen to be Christian, not hateful bigots because they are Christian.

The sooner you and others figure out that being theistic, religious, or atheistic is not the root cause of someone's being an asshole, the sooner the decent among us can get to figuring out the real reasons and actually stamping them out.

^-.-^

[Sleepwalker]

I have read so many hateful comments from these people on here and on their Facebook pages directed at the Catholic Church, and Christianity as a whole, tarring all of us with the same brush.

You support a church, the catholic church at that which has a very clear hierarchy, and then complain when people judge you based on your organization? /facepalm

Perhaps someday you will see some moral connection between your actions as an individual member of a group and the actions of said group. I'm not holding ym breath, either.

[Ree]

You support a church, the catholic church at that which has a very clear hierarchy, and then complain when people judge you based on your organization?Yes I do.
I am about more than just my religion.

It's only a small part of who I am, and regardless of what you or others feel about my church, I do feel it has helped shape me into a caring, charitable person, capable of forgiving others, as I have been taught that God will forgive me for my transgressions.

I have friends who are pagan and I have friends who are atheist.
I do not judge them for what they believe, so I find it very offensive when I am judged for what I believe.

You can bash my Church all you want, and it will not change my mind.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that it hurts me when I am lumped in as a narrow-minded, hateful bigot just because some people who also belong to the same religion have shown themselves to be that way.

[Peppergirl]

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that it hurts me when I am lumped in as a narrow-minded, hateful bigot just because some people who also belong to the same religion have shown themselves to be that way.

I feel similarly, except that it makes me very angry rather than hurt. I am so sick of being lumped in with these idiots simply because I believe in God and call myself a Christian.

You'd think I'd be used to it by now, because it's the same old shit over and over. I am tired of defending my faith to the same people who can't get it through their heads that being a Christian does not make me a hate-mongering jackass.

Like Ree said, being a Christian does not define who I am or what I believe in. Case in point: I am pro-choice. I guess because most Christian churches are against abortion, I should stop believing in God, right?

Or how about this one? I support gay marriage. Oh, but no. Many so-called Christians are against gay marriage and are disgusting, vile and vocal in their opinions toward it. I guess I have to stop believing in God because of them too, right? I mean, I can't *possibly* believe in God and support gay marriage or a womans right to choose. :rolleyes:

[Peppergirl]

You're surrounded by hateful bigots who happen to be Christian, not hateful bigots because they are Christian.




This sums it up perfectly. Thank you.

[smileyeagle1021]

You're surrounded by hateful bigots who happen to be Christian, not hateful bigots because they are Christian.

The sooner you and others figure out that being theistic, religious, or atheistic is not the root cause of someone's being an asshole, the sooner the decent among us can get to figuring out the real reasons and actually stamping them out.

^-.-^

I've known several people who prior to becoming active in churches , and they go from being open minded and supportive of equality, to refusing to even acknowledge my existence because they can't bring themselves to admit that they know any vile homosexuals... only change, they went from being non religious to being a regular church attender.
The sad reality is that there are some people who are bigots because they are Christian, not just bigots who happen to be Christian.


I am about more than just my religion.



I understand how you feel, believe me I do.
If every person realized that sentence applied also to orientation, then this debate likely would have been settled in our favor a long time ago.

[Ree]

I understand how you feel, believe me I do.
If every person realized that sentence applied also to orientation, then this debate likely would have been settled in our favor a long time ago.Well, perhaps if people didn't make their orientation the focus in areas where it's not relevant.
When I introduce myself, I don't say, "Hi, My name is Ree and I'm heterosexual," yet many times, that is exactly what I hear from a gay person. "Hi there. I'm gay." WTF? I don't fucking care.

Personally, I couldn't give a damn what sex a person chooses to sleep with, and find it totally irrelevant, so it's not as if I judge anyone based on their orientation.
The thing is, you can have a whole room full of people, or a message board full of people, and most of the time, one knows who in the group is homosexual because they will almost always draw attention to that fact. Then, if they meet with any type of resistance, they will claim, "It's because I'm gay," and shout discrimination, and then claim that they are about more than their sexual orientation.

The fact of the matter is, I either do not like the idea put forward, or my personality doesn't mesh with that person. Their sexual orientation and my Christianity (or Catholicism) has nothing to do with my not accepting their idea. I also do not go around announcing, "I'm Ree and I'm Christian."

I know that there are many out there who do discriminate, and I know that there is an irrational hatred for homosexuality. I also know that many Christian religions are of the belief that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination, and there is hypocrisy when they spread hatred against gay people. According to the doctrines of most Christian churches, homosexuality is considered a sin. The church also says that sin is supposed to be met with the attitude of "hate the sin but love the sinner" and yet, many forget that fact, and they, themselves, enter into a state of sin in their actions of outrage and violence against gay people.

However, I am not one of those people, and, as I said, I resent the hell out of being generalized into that category.

[blas87]

I am with Ree and Pepper, and thank you Andara for your kind words. It's wonderful to see at least a few can see the difference between believer in God and "bigot".

I have pretty much given up on defending myself on these threads. They are all the same Christian bashing, calling us all bigots. Like Pepper, I am pro-choice and pro-gay rights. I guess I better quit believing in God then, right?

[Rageaholic]

Maybe these defensive posts weren't directed at me, but where did I criticize all Christians? I criticized aspects of what they believe, but I never said all Christians are nasty bigots. I didn't even criticize all Christian beliefs, just the idea that if we don't follow god in this life, we'll pay in the afterlife. I even posted a disclaimer that it was mostly directed at the more Conservative Christians.

I don't think any of the Christians on here fall under the fundamentalist bigot category. Most of you are pretty open minded and realize it's all based on faith (as opposed to those who assume it's the truth and provide no reasons). I just think that certain beliefs need to be questioned if they don't add up.

[Kheldarson]

I just think that certain beliefs need to be questioned if they don't add up.

Which beliefs? Problem is that what you might think is irrational, might still have a basis which is logical from a different view. Like abortion tends to be a big one.

Caveat: Not wanting to debate abortion. Just showing a logic thread.

So premise one is that God exists and created life. Therefore life is sacred. Premise Two is that life begins and ends with a soul. Premise three is that a soul is present at conception. So logically, to do anything to prevent that soul/life from developing as God wills is murder and wrong.

Now, the standard argument against it as at premise three. Is a soul present? If yes, then murder. If no, then not. Can't prove it either way really, so you say a pro-lifer needs to question their belief, but to their position, they're justified.

And that tends to be a major problem between non-theists and theists. The theist position starts with God, and the non-theists doesn't. So a justification of a belief from either side on a religious topic doesn't sound quite right to the other.

[guywithashovel]

Something I think some people should remember is that "Christian" is more than just a label. In order to accurately call yourself a Christian, there are certain beliefs you need to accept, and if you don't accept those beliefs, it probably isn't going to make much sense to call yourself a Christian.

If you are identifying with a religion, it is fair to assume that you believe in the tenents of that religion. You may say that you are a Christian despite the fact that you support gay rights, think premarital sex is okay, are okay with other religions, etc., but you are going against your religion on all of those things. And while we're at it, it's probably a stretch to support abortion rights and while labeling yourself a Christian, too. Yes, I know there is no Bible verse that flat out says "Thou shalt not have an abortion," but I there is a verse somewhere that says or implies that life begins at conception. I've seen it quoted before.

Bottom line, if Christianity doesn't define what you believe, or if you have to constantly say "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe "this," "this," "that," or whatever," then "Christian" may not be the right label for you.

[Andara Bledin]

Why do people so adamantly cling to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy when it's shown that their prejudices are examples of bigotry?

^-.-^

[Sleepwalker]

Ahhh, here we are. You do not support the tenets of the organization, yet are a member.

This reminds me of the liberal republicans. They support marriage equality, secularism, peace and social justice... yet vote republican because of gun laws or somesuch.

Yes, I will judge them based on what their affiliated group does. You give money, time, labor, even allowing your name on their membership roster is a vote, and what they do with what you give them comes down to you. If you believe a certain way, have your actions back you up.

Right now, your actions are supporting a corrupt and oppressive organization, and your words are to whine about how it isn't really support since you think what they are doing is wrong.

They are still doing it, and youa re still supporting them.

[Andara Bledin]

What organization, pray tell, am I supporting?

This would be fascinating news to me.

^-.-^

[Peppergirl]

Bottom line, if Christianity doesn't define what you believe, or if you have to constantly say "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe "this," "this," "that," or whatever," then "Christian" may not be the right label for you.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Are you saying I am not allowed to identify as a Christian if I don't believe/follow some of the things they believe in?

What about birth control? The catholic church is 'against' that, yet nearly every Catholic I know has used birth control in one form or another. Are they no longer Catholics? Hell, my own MOTHER practiced birth control and supports gay rights. Is she not a Catholic now? I'm sure she'd be interested to know this as she traipes off to church every week and volunteers at church functions, etc.

[guywithashovel]

Why do people so adamantly cling to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy when it's shown that their prejudices are examples of bigotry?

^-.-^

I have no prejudices or bigotry against anyone, so I'm not sure where that ad hominem came from. I just don't think it makes sense to align yourself with an ideological group if you don't agree with a good portion of their ideology.

My statements don't constitute a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, either. As I've tried to illustrate, Christianity is not an ethnic group or some group that people arbitrarily get tossed into. It's a religion that people choose to belong to because they agree with the beliefs and philosophy that it contains. If someone is claiming to be a Christian, yet expressing disagreement with a hefty portion of those beliefs and philosophies, then it's reasonable to question why they're even bothering to associate with the religion in the first place.

Let's consider it from another angle. Assume I was calling myself a Conservative Republican even though I was pro-choice, supported same-sex marriage, thought universal healthcare was a good idea, and thought strict gun control laws should be implemented. Surely any reasonable person would question why I was labeling myself a Conservative Republican in the first place.

To put a spin on the name of the aforementioned fallacy, sometimes it DOES make sense to say "No true Scotsman would do this."

[Andara Bledin]

Another thing to note that is very sloppy of the "anti-theist" crowd:

Religion and Church are not interchangeable.

Plus, when you're speaking of Christians, which sect are you referring to? At last glance, there were tens of thousands of differing interpretations of the Bible.

You'd have to have an incredible amount of time spent studying each one, plus an amazing amount of time devoted to researching the Bible to find the most accurate translations and then determine what the authors were trying to communicate when they wrote their bits.

Sufficed to say that anyone who claims to know what it takes to be a "real Christian" is pretty much displaying a high level of hubris and ignorance.

[edit to add]
Comparing being Christian to being Republican looks great on the surface, but fails as soon as you really take a look at it. I don't have time to deconstruct it at this time, but will delve into it further later, when I have more time.

^-.-^

[Kheldarson]

Christian = belief in Christ as your Savior. That's it. That's the whole definition.

Beyond that, it's mostly fair game.

[Rageaholic]

I can understand guywithashovel's point. Whenever you attack an aspect of Christianity, you'll always get those who say they don't believe in that. That's good and all, but why act defensive? Even if someone made a broad generalization, claiming that they dislikes Christians because they oppose such and such, it's obvious they aren't talking about all Christians. Sometimes generalizations are justified, particularly with topics such as religion and politics.

With that said, I disagree with the "no true scottsman" fallacy in this case. Christianity is split into many denominations and groups so their beliefs vary. Some view god as wrathful and vengeful while others see him more mercifully and accepting. Two totally different views on god in the same faith so I disagree with the idea that Christians should act a certain way. In fact, that same arguement has been used by fundamentalists to distance themselves from the "luke warm" Christians.

[Peppergirl]

Even if someone made a broad generalization, claiming that they dislikes Christians because they oppose such and such, it's obvious they aren't talking about all Christians. .


Um, no.

If you do a bit of research, it's actually been said on this very board that if you're a Christian, you're automatically a bigot and a homophobe and that the only way to truly support the oppressed is to renounce our faith.

A member stated upthread that he will judge anyone who claims to be a Christian yet are against some of the things that Christians are for. Or a republican who doesn't believe in every single that the republican party stands for.

There are no shades of grey to some people, so no - unfortunately you're not correct. Sure, most people (even when making a sweeping generalization) realize that you can be a Christian and not a crazy bigot. But there are very clear cut cases on this board where people think otherwise and have clearly stated so.

[KabeRinnaul]

Yes, I know there is no Bible verse that flat out says "Thou shalt not have an abortion," but I there is a verse somewhere that says or implies that life begins at conception. I've seen it quoted before.

There really isn't much. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html) The primary religious arguments for pro-life are (a) "Thou shalt not kill." and (b) if there is a soul, it must join with the body at some point (Kheldarson summed this one up on page 3). However, the latter point is primarily a matter of tradition and philosophy.

I have no prejudices or bigotry against anyone, so I'm not sure where that ad hominem came from.

And this is the only thing I can think of now. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RovF1zsDoeM)

Plus, when you're speaking of Christians, which sect are you referring to? At last glance, there were tens of thousands of differing interpretations of the Bible.

Except now I'm thinking of this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDtdQ8bTvRc)

There's Catholic, Orthodox, Calvins and Lutherans, and two dozen sub-churches each; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations)
Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Congregation, Miaphysite, and the Church of the East;
Amish or Mennonite, Hutterite and Millerite, then Free Evangelical;
Methodist and Baptist, Brethren and Pietist, Apostolic and Pentecostal.

There's Charismatic, Quaker, Adventist, and Church of Christ.
Davidian, Mormon, Witnesses, and Christian Scientist.
Unitarian, Universalist, Oneness, and Gay Apostolic.
Revival, Fellowship, Grace, and Jewish Messianic.

[smileyeagle1021]

When I introduce myself, I don't say, "Hi, My name is Ree and I'm heterosexual," yet many times, that is exactly what I hear from a gay person. "Hi there. I'm gay." WTF? I don't fucking care.



Of course you wouldn't say "I'm Ree and I'm heterosexual", because until someone says otherwise, it is assumed that a person is heterosexual. And how exactly, when relationships are one of the biggest areas of discussions it is very hard NOT to have to clarify that point.
You would never have someone say "so, how is your wife doing" and have to correct them "oh, no, I'm heterosexual, I have a husband". And for a lot of gay people, the sooner that is clarified, the less awkward it is when it finally comes up. Is it fair? Absolutely not, but that's the reality of the world we live in.

Eta1- it's not that much different than for you as a Christian moving to a primarily Muslim country, religion is a big topic of discussion, and you know it is only a matter of time before someone asks why you are not joining in the prayers facing Mecca, so it gets easier to just clear that up at the first opportunity rather than keep track of who knows and understands and who doesn't yet.

Eta1.5- when you live somewhere where the majority are hostile to your orientation (or beliefs in the case of you moving to certain arabic countries), it makes life easier to just say it up front and guage people's reactions, rather than getting hurt later on when they do find out and potentially turn on you after you think they are your friend. Personally, I'd rather alienate and never speak to again 10 people today rather than have one person turn on me in a month, it is much safer,, both emotionally and potentaiily physically depending on how angry they are at feeling you've lied to them because you didn't tell them you were gay up front. Yes, if we don't tell some people up front, they think we've lied to them.
try walking in the shoes of an invisible minority for a while before criticizing us for how we handle it.

[guywithashovel]

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Are you saying I am not allowed to identify as a Christian if I don't believe/follow some of the things they believe in?

What about birth control? The catholic church is 'against' that, yet nearly every Catholic I know has used birth control in one form or another. Are they no longer Catholics? Hell, my own MOTHER practiced birth control and supports gay rights. Is she not a Catholic now? I'm sure she'd be interested to know this as she traipes off to church every week and volunteers at church functions, etc.

You and your mom can call yourselves whatever you want. I was just pointing out that by doing certain things, you really are going against the religion. I realize that there are Catholics who use birth control (most of them, actually), but it doesn't change the fact that they are going against their religion.

Likewise, a person can still call himself a Christian if he supports gay rights, but he's still going against his religion by doing that. The Bible, the accepted Holy Book for Christianity, is against it. Now, I realize that there are some sects that have used some mental gymnastics and clever wordplay to get around that, but it doesn't change the fact that there are verses in there that condemn homosexuality.

[Peppergirl]

Okay then, I am a Christian/Catholic who disagrees with and goes against certain parts of my religion that I do not agree with.

I can live with that. As can probably the 98 percent of catholics who practice birth control. It's naive to think that everyone that identifies themselves as a certain sect of Christianity is going to agree with and practice every single aspect and policy that the religion ascribes itself to.

[ExRetailDrone]

Bottom line, if Christianity doesn't define what you believe, or if you have to constantly say "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe "this," "this," "that," or whatever," then "Christian" may not be the right label for you.

I usually don't get involved in religion debates on here, but...meh, why not?

I cannot understand this line of thinking, personally. All that someone identifying as Christian says to me is that they believe and follow the teaching of Jesus Christ. That's it! Sure, there are some nutcases out there who use the label to promote their own bigotry and asshattedness, but I don't think that all Christians are like that.

I have some wonderful friends who identify as Christian. One of them in particular--she hates church, she thinks organized religion is a joke, she thinks the Bible is nothing more than mythology for the most part, she is pro-choice and pro-women's-rights and pro-gay-marriage (and she also comes from a country that is more oppressive in many ways than the U.S. is about some of those things), yet she identifies as Christian. Why? Because she believes in Jesus, and at the heart of it, that's really all it comes down to.

The Christian organization is against those things, but the heads of that organization are made up of men with their own intolerance and bigotries that have nothing to do with their religion (as much as they may try to claim they do). So why should someone listen to them as the be-all-end-all of how they personally believe? Some people follow along without putting in any thought of their own, and those people I have no respect for. But, all of the Christians I have read posts from on this board seem very down-to-earth and have really thought about what they believe, and their beliefs work for them. There is nothing wrong with that! They are not hurting anyone with how they believe, because they are not pushing any religious agenda through political means or trying to change everyone based on what they believe. In fact, most (if not all) of them believe solidly in the separation of church and state. It is beyond unfair to lump them into the Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich camp because of a label they identify with.

Now, I am not Christian. I am also not an atheist, because I believe there is more out there, I just don't know what. But the idea of a deity doesn't mesh with me. Can I completely understand the mindset of a Christian? No, I can't. But that doesn't mean I can't respect it, as long as they are not forcing their beliefs on anyone else.

The way I see it, a lot of Christians on this board seem more along the spiritual side of it rather than the religious side, and there is a huge difference in my eyes. Religion has become this organized monstrosity that is more like a corporation than anything else. The leaders try to say what the members of their faith can and cannot believe, and personally I find that disgusting. So, because of religious corruption and power mongering, everyone who identifies as that label is automatically assigned certain characteristics because of a few dickheads at the top. However, spirituality is a very personal thing where people find things that work for them and discard others that don't. Being a Christian and being religious do not necessarily go hand-in-hand in my opinion. My friend is not religious, but she is Christian and very spiritual. She communes with God and Jesus in her own way, which to me makes her a Christian, but she doesn't need anyone else for her to have that connection.

I guess what it comes down to with all of this rambling is...

Spiritual Christians and religious Christians are not the same thing. Some religious Christians are giving spiritual Christians a bad rap. You don't have to believe in the Bible or go to church to be a 'true Christian', you just need to believe and follow Jesus' teachings. Anything else you might believe in (pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, etc) has no bearing on what your spirituality is unless you choose to make it relate, and vice versa.

So, are people hypocrites because they call themselves Christian when they don't believe in the Bible or don't follow the organized church's opinions on things? Hell no! The real hypocrites are those who call themselves Christian yet have no idea how to treat their fellow man in a decent, human way. Instead, they choose to let some bigoted idiots tell them what to think, or give in to their own bigotries and hide behind a label that is too good for them.

[Gravekeeper]

Likewise, a person can still call himself a Christian if he supports gay rights, but he's still going against his religion by doing that. The Bible, the accepted Holy Book for Christianity, is against it. Now, I realize that there are some sects that have used some mental gymnastics and clever wordplay to get around that, but it doesn't change the fact that there are verses in there that condemn homosexuality.

Objection. There is no undisputed blanket condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible. Only wishful interpretations and translations of a handful of passages ( Seriously, there's like 4 total in the entire book that can possibly be interpreted as having anything to do with homosexuality. None of said passages are God talking either. ). Supporting gay rights is not going against Christianity. Only against assholes.

If The Gay(tm) was such a problem it'd be up front somewhere and it requires some hella mental gymnastics to try and bring up homosexuality whilst avoiding all the rape, incest, orgies, etc elsewhere in the Bible that were apparently totally okay by God. -.-

[blas87]

I still stand a little insulted here. Apparently, I'm all wrong. I can't be religious, and I also can't be conservative if I even hold one or two liberal beliefs?

I'm going to have to tell my mother, who has been to ministry school and is able to substitute as a pastor and marry people and baptize, that she's "wrong" because she also believes in gay rights and is also pro choice.

Although I'm of Protestant religion, not Catholic, but I still don't like the blanket judgements a few members here make.

It's almost not worth sitting around listening and trying to help the cries and troubles of people, if I'm not "supposed" to want to believe in you and help you because I believe in God.

[Sleepwalker]

Your mom can believe in what she likes, if she is giving her money and labor to the catholic church, it is going towards bigotry. If someone votes republican while personally being for gay rights, they are supporting bigotry. I don't give religious affiliations a pass on this just because they are religions, people are still 'voting' by belonging to a particular church.

[Andara Bledin]

What about those of use who don't belong to churches at all?

How are we "voting?"

^-.-^

[bunnyboy]

Objection. There is no undisputed blanket condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible. Only wishful interpretations and translations of a handful of passages ( Seriously, there's like 4 total in the entire book that can possibly be interpreted as having anything to do with homosexuality. None of said passages are God talking either. ). Supporting gay rights is not going against Christianity. Only against assholes.

even then there's quite a bit of debate. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality (there's a verse in Ezekiel about it, to reiterate the point that Abraham and his brother couldn't find ten righteous (read decent human beings) in a month.) The proscriptions about it in Leviticus are possibly a blanket condemnation of something very popular in Levantine Semitic religions known as temple prostitution. To explain that you had sex with a member of the priesthood (most were fertility deities) in order to commune with the god for good farming. The area that the Hebrews were entering had Baal, a male fertility deity. So it's a reiteration of no other gods.

And Paul's whole "screed" from what we've found from older sources than the usual codex was against being so rich that you start going down a hedonistic lifestyle.

And to put to bed the whole, don't believe X = not a Christian bit.

If you want to get technical, according to a literal interpretation, ANY sex is unrighteous, and you shouldn't do it.

Therefore nobody but asexual virgin Christians are Christian, according to this line of thinking.

[Gravekeeper]

What is the criteria for being Christian? This has been going back and forth with everyone having their own cherry picked idea of what being Christian means. So what, exactly, is the universal qualifier for being a Christian? I'm honestly curious now.

Its not following Christ's teachings. Because frankly, not many Christians actually follow Christ's teachings and most of the bullshit that comes from the religious right is because God apparently said so. Not Jesus.


even then there's quite a bit of debate. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality (there's a verse in Ezekiel about it, to reiterate the point that Abraham and his brother couldn't find ten righteous (read decent human beings) in a month.)


Technically, the actual sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was simply being under the flight path of an asteroid. >.>

[Andara Bledin]

Technically, the most basic criteria for being Christian is a belief that Christ's death had more meaning than just another guy sentenced to death by crucifixion, and a belief in one god above all others.

After that, there are a couple dozen or more different things that various denominations claim, some of which are directly contradictory.

^-.-^

[Mytical]

Posted same time as the above, which explains it a bit better.

Well..depends on which sect of christian you want to know about. Some you have to be 'baptized'..others you just have to have gone to the alter to pray for your sins, others you just have to believe you are saved..then there are some that praying can count....

In other words..there are as many ways to become christian as there are interpretations of the bible..meaning A LOT. A lot of people also just give lip service. Say they are..just because it is 'fashionable'. Then there are those who try to live as best they can..even taking some of the commandments to heart, but are not christian.

Personally my favorite is the Golden Rule....do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

[Gravekeeper]

Technically, the most basic criteria for being Christian is a belief that Christ's death had more meaning than just another guy sentenced to death by crucifixion, and a belief in one god above all others.

So, one thing that was only ascribed special meaning after Jesus's death to make it more marketable. Which he himself would have disagreed with frankly. Plus has no special historical significance at all as his crucifiction was for essentially being a shit disturber in Rome. Also important to note that Judaism rejects Jesus as being a messiah at all and Islam denies he was even crucified. Oh, and there are sects of Christianity that reject it too. So no, thats not universal either.

Then the other thing that is really little more than "My god is better than your god" and is thus littered with a multitude of philosophical problems in the modern world which I believe I covered in the other thread at length. >.>

Anything else? -.-



In other words..there are as many ways to become christian as there are interpretations of the bible..meaning A LOT.

That was precisely my point though. Everyone has their own idea of what being Christian is suppose to be and none of them really agree. Which begs the question why does every group still consider itself Christian.

[Duelist925]

That was precisely my point though. Everyone has their own idea of what being Christian is suppose to be and none of them really agree. Which begs the question why does every group still consider itself Christian.

I think for much the same reason semi sweet chocolate, bakers chocolate, unsweetened chocolate, Dark chocolate,milk chocolate, the various percentages, and even white chocolate can all just be called "chocolate". Different flavors of the same base source, even though the end result can be wildly different depending on the ingredients introduced, and, well, marketing. Start with cocoan beans, end up with a fuckton varieties of chocolate.

[KabeRinnaul]

Objection. There is no undisputed blanket condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible.
You are correct, and in fact only six passages say anything about it at all, and all six are debatable. Just wanted to throw in some further reading on the topic. (http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html)

What is the criteria for being Christian? This has been going back and forth with everyone having their own cherry picked idea of what being Christian means. So what, exactly, is the universal qualifier for being a Christian? I'm honestly curious now.

According to Mark and Luke, it's being a miracle worker. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/christians.html)

That was precisely my point though. Everyone has their own idea of what being Christian is suppose to be and none of them really agree. Which begs the question why does every group still consider itself Christian.

Obviously because they think they're the ones who have it right and that everyone else is doing it wrong. Denominational differences seem to produce more or less the same clashes as religious differences. That being said, there are plenty of vague and contradictory points to argue about. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/by_book.html)

[Andara Bledin]

Also important to note that Judaism rejects Jesus as being a messiah at all and Islam denies he was even crucified. Oh, and there are sects of Christianity that reject it too. So no, thats not universal either.
There is some consensus that the act of attempting to follow his teachings is all that is necessary, with the whole crucifixion and rebirth being optional.

That was precisely my point though. Everyone has their own idea of what being Christian is suppose to be and none of them really agree. Which begs the question why does every group still consider itself Christian.
You could say that about pretty much everything that has more than a few hundred followers and isn't about strict control.

There are different schools of Buddhism. Is only one of those "real" Buddhism and should all the rest step down or conform?

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

There is some consensus that the act of attempting to follow his teachings is all that is necessary, with the whole crucifixion and rebirth being optional.


Yet many universally fail at even that. But still call themselves Christian.


You could say that about pretty much everything that has more than a few hundred followers and isn't about strict control.

If there was concensus as to what that everything was sure. But there is not in Christianity.



There are different schools of Buddhism. Is only one of those "real" Buddhism and should all the rest step down or conform?


That analogy doesn't work. The different schools of Buddhism are not in conflict. They also all follow Buddha's teachings. They do not argue about the translations or interpretations of said teachings. The different schools simply focus on different
areas of Buddha's teachings.

If every sect of Christianity followed Jesus's teachings without conflict that analogy would work. But they do not. -.-


Start with cocoan beans, end up with a fuckton varieties of chocolate.

I'd say its more like start with beans, but everyone is convinced they're different kinds of beans. Some think they're cocoa beans, some think they're red beans, some think they're coffee beans and thus everyone is convinced they know what recipes are appropriate for said beans. While they look at each other going "WTF, you can't make chocolate with coffee beans!" and arguing over what's the right way to prepare the beans.

The beans, meanwhile, are content to never reveal what sort of beans they are.


Obviously because they think they're the ones who have it right and that everyone else is doing it wrong. Denominational differences seem to produce more or less the same clashes as religious differences.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner. This is core problem. When you look at Christianity as a whole, it is essentially a competition both between itself and other religions. With every team involved convinced they're the ones that have figured out the Caramilk secret and everyone else is wrong. Essentially, they all claim the title of Christian and are in an elaborate underground martial arts tournament to decide who gets its.

[Duelist925]

Essentially, they all claim the title of Christian and are in an elaborate underground martial arts tournament to decide who gets its.


I am now imagining a huge winner take all All religions involved tournament.

Buddha just bodyslammed Kali, while Christ use's his cross like a Bo, while facing off against Thor and his hammer.

And it is glorious.

[Gravekeeper]

I am now imagining a huge winner take all All religions involved tournament.


You mean like this? (http://www.molleindustria.org/faith-fighter) ;p

[Andara Bledin]

Yet many universally fail at even that. But still call themselves Christian.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see what relevance what other people do regarding their actions and the Christian religion have to do with me being Christian.

Is there some sort of point you forgot to make?

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see what relevance what other people do regarding their actions and the Christian religion have to do with me being Christian.


I'm sorry, I don't recall ever saying this has anything to do with you specifically.

I was unaware you had elected yourself Christianity's sole spokesperson here.

-.-

[Andara Bledin]

I'm sorry, I don't recall ever saying this has anything to do with you specifically.
I'm not sure what it has to do with anyone or anything in this thread, then, and will cease wasting time on the matter.

It still comes down to the fact that guywithashovel's contention that those who are not anti-gay bigots can't really be Christians is a classic example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

I'm not sure what it has to do with anyone or anything in this thread, then, and will cease wasting time on the matter.


I was musing as I was honestly curious because of all of this wrangling around about what is and isn't Christian and this running theme of "I'm Christian except for that part". I couldn't really think of any particular universal qualifier myself as there's inevitably a sect or denomination that disagrees with anything put forth.

The barest qualifier is a belief in a specific God, but there isn't even an agreement on who and what that God is. In fact who and what God is seems to be the single most contencious point amongst Christians.



It still comes down to the fact that guywithashovel's contention that those who are not anti-gay bigots can't really be Christians is a classic example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.


I believe I already stated what I think of that particular silliness. -.-

[Mytical]

Actually there is one major factor to be called a christian. Sitting down? Good. I mean it is going to come as a major shock..you sure you are ready??

You have to believe that christ was more then a man. That really is it in a nut shell. You might believe he is god in human form, or god's son..but to be a Christian you have to believe Christ..the guy the religion is named after, has a divine origin. Everything else is just the local flavoring. So your bean thing is not correct. It does start with a single foundation, with the rest just being seasoning.

Just like I can call myself a 'enlightened being', people can call themselves christian..doesn't mean they are. I can call myself Gravekeeper's Boss..doesn't make it so. However, it is not for us to judge if they are or not. Regardless if they claim to do something in the name of religion or not there is one undeniable truth. If they are right about Christ's father being the one true god, but wrong about what god wants..they will get theirs in the end.

[Gravekeeper]

You have to believe that christ was more then a man.


Jefferson Bible says no. So does my mom. -.-

[Iseeyouthere]

So... he was "better" than the rest of us? *cough* Yeah, right... Till you prove that he was "more than a man", I fail to see what makes him so speacil.

I am against Christianity when it affects advancement of culture, social values, freedoms and basic rights with nothing to back up their claims other than 'the bibble says so" or "Its what Jeebus wants" or "Sky fairy... I mean... 'god's will'."

Because the bible has several upon several contradictions in it, so I can't accept it as evidence. You can't cherry pick the damn thing, choosing one passage and ignoring another. Thats the same as me following one law but breaking another.

You can't claim it's the words of Jeezbus, because I doubt you know what he said. And he sure isn't around to comfirm it is what he wanted. So that is in the bin. Thats like me saying Elvis wanted everyone to dye their hair purple and sing the Nyan Cat song daily.

And of course.. we got Flying Spagetti Monster's brother in law 'god'. If it is 'his/her/it/whatever''s will... then I doubt 'god' would allow it to happen and interfer... But it hasn't... so the only interference I am seeing are those with loud voices screaming 'goddidit'.


Scratch those who try and screw around with culture and society... and I'll leave the Christians alone. Let them believe what they wanna believe. Just keep me out of it and stop trying to fuck with my ways... or else I will have every right to fuck with yours.

[Gravekeeper]

So... he was "better" than the rest of us? *cough* Yeah, right... Till you prove that he was "more than a man", I fail to see what makes him so speacil.


The idea of Jesus's divinity was something that came about after his death to make him more marketable so to speak. Without an aspect of divinity, he could be dismissed as just another street preacher. This is reflected in both Judaism and Islam, who I might add have much more direct straight from the mouth unaltered sources for their Holy texts than Christianity does. In Judaism, Jesus is just a teacher but not a messiah in any way. In Islam, Jesus is just a prophet ( One of many ). Only Christianity claims him to be anything more and Christianity has the shakiest and most incomplete source material of the three. As well as a long standing history of political interference and alteration to suit its needs in any given time period.

[Mytical]

No clue about the Jordon Bible, or how it differs..but keep in mind that the vast majority of beliefs is that Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, cast out demons, etc. Not exactly the work of a 'normal' man.

As for Christianity, you don't have to believe what they believe..you do not have to follow their ways. However, there are some very good things to take away from the bible. Yes, you can obsess about the other things..and obsess about what OTHER people are doing and believe..or you can realize it is what you believe that is important..it is how YOU behave that matters.

The most important lessons to take away..is that regardless of how we got here, we all come from the same initial source. Regardless of if it was from an amoeba or created from dirt by a all powerful force. That we should treat each good, should always strive to make ourselves better, and respect others beliefs...:p. Obsess or live your own life. Seems like a simple choice to me :D

[Gravekeeper]

No clue about the Jordon Bible, or how it differs..but keep in mind that the vast majority of beliefs is that Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, cast out demons, etc. Not exactly the work of a 'normal' man.


Jefferson Bible, as in Thomas Jefferson. You may have heard of him? >.>

Its a version of the Bible without any supernatural elements. Also, many of the supposed miracles of Jesus are lifted from Buddha. Who in turn were likely lifted from a previous source. Many elements of the Jesus story generously borrow from Buddha.



The most important lessons to take away..is that regardless of how we got here, we all come from the same initial source. Regardless of if it was from an amoeba or created from dirt by a all powerful force. That we should treat each good, should always strive to make ourselves better, and respect others beliefs...:p.

You realise that none of that is really in the Bible and what similar elements of it are, are contradicted with alarming frequency? -.-

[Iseeyouthere]

The idea of Jesus's divinity was something that came about after his death to make him more marketable so to speak. Without an aspect of divinity, he could be dismissed as just another street preacher. This is reflected in both Judaism and Islam, who I might add have much more direct straight from the mouth unaltered sources for their Holy texts than Christianity does. In Judaism, Jesus is just a teacher but not a messiah in any way. In Islam, Jesus is just a prophet ( One of many ). Only Christianity claims him to be anything more and Christianity has the shakiest and most incomplete source material of the three. As well as a long standing history of political interference and alteration to suit its needs in any given time period.

Just standing opposed to what Mytical is claiming. Seems like a large claim... What I find humourous about that claim however is it is suppost to be "shocking".
I'll be shocked, Mytical, if you can back that claim that Jeebus is more than a man. Burden of proof is on you.

Won't lie. I'm eager for a response.

[smileyeagle1021]

You have to believe that christ was more then a man.

And there is the rub.
Very few people are denying that Christ existed. That a man named Jesus Christ lived about 2000 years ago is not debated, that he had a following is not really debated, that he was a wise man has very little debate. The issue boils down to, was he a wise man or was he a god.

[Iseeyouthere]

The issue boils down to, was he a wise man or was he a god.

It doesn't really boil down to this or that. There are many different ideas of who he may of been.

Acutally, I've got a few hypothesis on who he may of been:
A myth, like the Greek heroes of mythology
A con-man, using mind tricks or primitive drugs to trick the people
A leader, but it is unkown if he were a good leader... or a bad one like Jim Jones.

I got several others, but with-out evidence to prove them, I can't claim that these are true.
But the idea that he was a wise man or a 'god' also fall under the hypothesis list. With-out evidence, it is just a claim of words.

And until evidence comes forward to back the claim, I am afriad that this mystery will never be solved. So there is no point telling people that Jeebus was a great man with nothing to back it up by. For all we know, he could of been a tyrant, forcing his view on people and using terror tactics.
We don't know.

But I'd rather admit "I don't know" than claim something and not back it up.

[KabeRinnaul]

You realise that none of that is really in the Bible and what similar elements of it are, are contradicted with alarming frequency? -.-

The "treat each other well" bit is, at least. And respecting one another. I'd name verses that promote such ideals, but I only got through the Gospel of Luke before deciding the list was too long to post them all. So instead, here's my main reference (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/good/long.html). Just scroll down to the New Testament and look over some of the things Jesus says.

[Gravekeeper]

So instead, here's my main reference (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/good/long.html). Just scroll down to the New Testament and look over some of the things Jesus says.

And I would point you straight back to the exact same website (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/short.html) where it immediately contracts everything good it states, God breaks near every commandment and kills practically everyone for the slightest provocation and Jesus totally backs him up.

[CriminalMindsRocks]

Its not following Christ's teachings. Because frankly, not many Christians actually follow Christ's teachings and most of the bullshit that comes from the religious right is because God apparently said so. Not Jesus.


Ahh, but there's where you're wrong, God & Jesus were one in the same, Jesus was God in the form of man.

Deut chapter 6 verse 4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"

[CriminalMindsRocks]

I am now imagining a huge winner take all All religions involved tournament.

Buddha just bodyslammed Kali, while Christ use's his cross like a Bo, while facing off against Thor and his hammer.

And it is glorious.


:lol: And ya wanna know the best part, I know who wins :D

[Gravekeeper]

Ahh, but there's where you're wrong, God & Jesus were one in the same, Jesus was God in the form of man.


But that would make Jesus a bipolar raging asshole and thus not worth listening too...... -.-

[Mytical]

Just standing opposed to what Mytical is claiming. Seems like a large claim... What I find humourous about that claim however is it is suppost to be "shocking".
I'll be shocked, Mytical, if you can back that claim that Jeebus is more than a man. Burden of proof is on you.

Won't lie. I'm eager for a response.

Why would the burden be on me, somebody who is not a christian? Note, I never once claimed to be a christian, just to respect their beliefs. So why would I try to prove something I am not sure I personally believe? In fact to me, if he was 'just a man' if he did half the things claimed..it would be more impressive..not less.

[CriminalMindsRocks]

But that would make Jesus a bipolar raging asshole and thus not worth listening too...... -.-

err ok & why do you say that? You ever heard the name Godhead Trinity? That what it means, God The Father, God The Son & God The Holy Spirit

John 10:30 "I & My Father are One"

[KabeRinnaul]

And I would point you straight back to the exact same website (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/short.html) where it immediately contracts everything good it states, God breaks near every commandment and kills practically everyone for the slightest provocation and Jesus totally backs him up.

I was just saying it was definitely in the Bible. I never said the book was in any way internally consistent. If it was, we probably wouldn't be having a discussion on what "being Christian" means in the first place.

Though strictly speaking, anyone who accepts that Jesus had the authority to speak for God (so basically anyone who accepts that Jesus is the son of God and follows his teachings) should be defaulting to Christ's teachings when his message and that of his Father (particularly the Old Testament stuff) conflict. That's the whole point of that Last Supper bit (take your pick of Matthew 26, Luke 22, or Mark 14) - that his teachings represent a new way, separate from the old laws and God's covenant with Israel.

Of course, that only covers a specific class of inconsistencies, and there's no guarantee that there would be no contradictions even in that set.

[Iseeyouthere]

snip

Apologies. I thought you were claiming that Jeebus was more than a man.

[Gravekeeper]

err ok & why do you say that? You ever heard the name Godhead Trinity? That what it means, God The Father, God The Son & God The Holy Spirit


I say that because God is, objectively speaking, a bipolar lunatic in the Bible. Also, yes I'm aware of the Holy Trinity. However, belief in the trinity is not universal to all Christians either.



I was just saying it was definitely in the Bible. I never said the book was in any way internally consistent.

And all I said was that if its in the Bible, its contradicted by the Bible itself.



Though strictly speaking, anyone who accepts that Jesus had the authority to speak for God (so basically anyone who accepts that Jesus is the son of God and follows his teachings) should be defaulting to Christ's teachings when his message and that of his Father (particularly the Old Testament stuff) conflict.

But that's putting Jesus above God and Jesus defers to God constantly while demanding total obedience to God of his followers. Jesus states himself states, several times, that his teachings are not his own, but that they come from God. Plus it opens up the issue of why is God such a dick and why is Jesus morally superior to God. Seeing as God kills everyone for practically everything and calls for unbelievers to be killed. He even calls for killing people that work on Sundays for crying out loud. Was God just having a rough patch in the Old Testament but finished his AA meetings by the New Testament? Plus Jesus gets all vengeful wrathish in latter books of the New Testament and is suppose to return from Heaven to reign utter destruction on everyone that doesn't know God and isn't obeying him.

Fact of the matter is that Jesus did not set out to create Christianity. He set out to reform Judaism. The Bible, in actuality, does not actually cover much about the life of Jesus. Only hitting a couple of the "big moments" and then covering the week up to his crucifixion. It was also compiled some odd 300 years after his death by a commitee and many other documents, including other Gospels ( Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, the Infancy Gospels of Matthew and Thomas, etc etc ) were not included or out right rejected because they didn't fit the "story" they were trying to put together. Revelations was include because it essentially seemed like a good ending. But it was considered very controversial and there was much arguing over its inclusion.

Meanwhile, Islam and Judaism, who both have much more direct from the source Holy text I might add, have a different perspective on Jesus. They both agree Jesus was a teacher and Islam hails him as a prophet just like Mohammad. Both of them reject claims of Christ's divinity. The Quran even goes so far as to say that Jesus rejected these claims himself and will straight up tell you that when he shows up on Judgement Day.

Sura 5:116 - "And behold! God will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of God'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden."

It also rejects stories of his crucifixion:

Surah 4-157 - "That they said in boast, "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no certain knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not"

( Islam teaches that Christ skipped straight to the ascension to Heaven part and was not conquered by the evil of men. )

In Islam, Jesus was a prophet sent to guide the Jews ( and is in fact mentioned more by name than Mohammad in the Quran really ) who was given a Gospel from God to teach. This is why Islam isn't too fond of the Bible. Islam considers the Bible to be tainted by human hands because of how it was composed and edited to fullfill the goals of man instead of God.

So whose right here? The two other religions with whom Jesus is also deeply intwined that say he was a teacher and/or a prophet? Or the one religion that pieced together a shambles of a book 300 years after his death based on what they thought sounded like a good story that would uphold the church? -.-

[CriminalMindsRocks]

Also, yes I'm aware of the Holy Trinity. However, belief in the trinity is not universal to all Christians either.
-.-


You're right there, those Christians who believe in the Trinity (the belief that God is 3 different people) are called Trinitarians, while those who believe God, Jesus & The Holy Spirit are one Lord are called Unitarians

I fall into the second catagory btw

[Rageaholic]

I say that because God is, objectively speaking, a bipolar lunatic in the Bible.

Yeah. When taken literally, the relationship between god and man is abusive. (http://atheism.about.com/od/whatisgod/p/AbuserAbusive.htm) Despite what my opening post my imply, I wasn't raised in a fundamentalist home (Moderate Catholic). But since I was exposed to fundamentalism, I actually went through a phase when I thought that was what Christianity was about. I probably should have paid more attention at church...



But that's putting Jesus above God and Jesus defers to God constantly while demanding total obedience to God of his followers. Jesus states himself states, several times, that his teachings are not his own, but that they come from God. Plus it opens up the issue of why is God such a dick and why is Jesus morally superior to God. Seeing as God kills everyone for practically everything and calls for unbelievers to be killed. He even calls for killing people that work on Sundays for crying out loud. Was God just having a rough patch in the Old Testament but finished his AA meetings by the New Testament? Plus Jesus gets all vengeful wrathish in latter books of the New Testament and is suppose to return from Heaven to reign utter destruction on everyone that doesn't know God and isn't obeying him.

There are so many interpretations of Jesus though. You can take some Bible verses and he's talking about loving your neighbor, but then another one he talking about how not many people will find heaven. Of course, those verses have many interpretations too so it's hard to tell.

But either way, my point still stands, being punished in the afterlife for not following god in this life is a dick move on god's part.

[KabeRinnaul]

And all I said was that if its in the Bible, its contradicted by the Bible itself.

I think that statement might actually work as a general case, too.

Was God just having a rough patch in the Old Testament but finished his AA meetings by the New Testament?

Well, that should be obvious from the fact that the New Testament is about his son. Clearly, he got laid.

Or the one religion that pieced together a shambles of a book 300 years after his death based on what they thought sounded like a good story that would uphold the church? -.-

Well, for the most part the OT is the same as what was in use during the first century, aside from the Apocrypha for Catholics. Then, the Gospels seem to be pretty legitimate for the most part, except for their authorship. They were probably secondhand accounts referencing the primary sources. After that, yeah, the books get pretty shaky.

[Gravekeeper]

There are so many interpretations of Jesus though.


Yes, I'm just pointing out that technically speaking the majority of interpretations of Jesus ironically deny him being the son of God and those interpretations are from unaltered source material.



But either way, my point still stands, being punished in the afterlife for not following god in this life is a dick move on god's part.

No argument here.




Well, for the most part the OT is the same as what was in use during the first century, aside from the Apocrypha for Catholics. Then, the Gospels seem to be pretty legitimate for the most part, except for their authorship. They were probably secondhand accounts referencing the primary sources. After that, yeah, the books get pretty shaky.

The Gospels aren't though. The Gospels contradict each other. The Apostles change Jesus's words to suit themselves. They disagree over who and what Jesus was. They disagree on how the same events took place, where the events took place as well as when they took place. They even disagree on what Jesus taught and why. The Gospels are a total mess.

The Bible is, even as a theological reference, pretty piss poor because it was put together by a commitee trying to market it to an audience. No one thought to hand it to an editor for a check over.

[Mytical]

Now this is just my opinion, I am no expert by any means, but the differences in the old testament and the new actually makes sense. Things were harsh during the times of the old testament. Conditions, life, etc was hard. So tougher rules/laws/etc were needed for survival. It may seem cruel to us now, but we were not there .. and God (assuming he/she exists) knew 'tough love' was the only way that we would make it through.

Still, its not fun being the 'bad guy' all the time (ask any parent that has to constantly be the bad guy to their child, telling them no, etc)..so as time went on and things improved..god finally knew it was time to lighten the rules a little. IE humanity had gotten a bit older..and now needed a curfew past 10pm. Problem was..unlike most parents he couldn't just say "Hey kids..I'm going to try to lighten the rules a bit to see how you handle it" he had to send somebody who could act as an interpreter. Thus Jesus.

He tells Jesus the new rules, jesus passes them on, things get a bit better. The rules are not quite so harsh. Again..this is just an opinion as to why the differnce..and one that makes some sense.

[Gravekeeper]

Now this is just my opinion, I am no expert by any means, but the differences in the old testament and the new actually makes sense. Things were harsh during the times of the old testament. Conditions, life, etc was hard. So tougher rules/laws/etc were needed for survival.


...No, I mean he literally killed people practically at random at the slightest provocation. Had nothing to do with rules. Seriously, its *insanely* dark. In the Old Testament, all of the following was DEATH:

Displeasing God, acting naughty in front of God, being born Egyptian ( wholesale infancide of an entire country ), being a witch, believing in any other God except him, not worshipping him, working on Sundays, calling your mom or dad a bad name, adultry, sleeping with the daughter of a priest, taking God's name in vain, complaining that you're having a bad day, not being a virgin, speaking another god's name, making fun of bald people ( That gets you eaten by bears. Specifically children. Eaten by bears. Because God commanded it. Over a bald joke. ). And that's just the first half of the book.

Methods of execution include: Stoning, fire, smiting, torn apart by lions, torn apart by bears, torn apart by general beasts, leprosy, shitting yourself to death ( Yes, one guy is cursed to *shit himself to death* by God ), stabbing, hanging, chopping bodies into several pieces and mailing them to different parts of the country, etc etc etc.

God orders the rape of women and the murder of children and infants an almost comical number of times too. He *is* the villain of the Old Testament.

[crashhelmet]

Meanwhile, Islam and Judaism, who both have much more direct from the source Holy text I might add, have a different perspective on Jesus. They both agree Jesus was a teacher and Islam hails him as a prophet just like Mohammad. Both of them reject claims of Christ's divinity. The Quran even goes so far as to say that Jesus rejected these claims himself and will straight up tell you that when he shows up on Judgement Day.

Sura 5:116 - "And behold! God will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of God'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden."

It also rejects stories of his crucifixion:

Surah 4-157 - "That they said in boast, "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no certain knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not"

( Islam teaches that Christ skipped straight to the ascension to Heaven part and was not conquered by the evil of men. )

In Islam, Jesus was a prophet sent to guide the Jews ( and is in fact mentioned more by name than Mohammad in the Quran really ) who was given a Gospel from God to teach. This is why Islam isn't too fond of the Bible. Islam considers the Bible to be tainted by human hands because of how it was composed and edited to fullfill the goals of man instead of God.

So whose right here? The two other religions with whom Jesus is also deeply intwined that say he was a teacher and/or a prophet? Or the one religion that pieced together a shambles of a book 300 years after his death based on what they thought sounded like a good story that would uphold the church? -.-

Could this be spin?

Why provide evidence that would promote people to leave your religion to go to another? Or are we Christians the only ones possibly capable of doing that?

The Quran and Torah were written by man as well. Not rewritten as much as the Christian Bible was, but still written.

I don't read the verses about Jesus' last days as anything but a political assassination. He was taking power away from those in power and they had him silenced. It took them multiple attempts in multiple courts before they could do it, but they did it. Governments of the world still do it today.

Who's to say that the information left out or even presented in the other texts aren't politically driven too?

[Canarr]

It bothers non-Christians what Christians believe because Christians have such a bad habit of forcing their beliefs on others, especially through the legislative process (blue laws, the attempts to outlaw homosexuality, attempting to force prayer in schools, etc).
Non-believes just want to be left the fuck alone, but that is too much for Christians to allow.

Actually, that appears to be a mostly American phenomenon. Being homosexual, or an atheist, or whatever is not a problem in Germany, where both Christian churches go calmly about their business and rarely bother anyone else. Yes, we did have our share of child abuse cases in Christian facilities, but those happened in purely secular schools, as well.

It's not Christians that are the problem. It's assholes.

[HYHYBT]

Islam and Judaism . . . both have much more direct from the source Holy text...

Interesting notion. Mind explaining it?

[Gravekeeper]

Why provide evidence that would promote people to leave your religion to go to another? Or are we Christians the only ones possibly capable of doing that?


Jesus is part of the Islamic religion though. This is why its kind of odd that some Christians claim such a monopoly on him. -.-



Interesting notion. Mind explaining it?

The Quran was written as it was spoken by Mohammad himself and he intentionally had his disciples recite and memorize it the verses as he taught them. It is in effect, the equivalent of having Jesus write the whole Bible himself and then tell all his disciples they better memorize it word for word. All of its chapters were immediately compiled into a book right after Mohammad's death and put into the care of his wife. A standardized version of it was then formalized 19 years after his death. This copy still exists and is kept in a museum in Uzbekistan.

So basically it'd be like having Jesus write the Bible himself and still have the original copy of it around ( Which would be remarkably handy ). This is why you don't see any huge debates over the contents of the Quran like you do with the Bible.

[crashhelmet]

Jesus is part of the Islamic religion though. This is why its kind of odd that some Christians claim such a monopoly on him. -.-

I'm not questioning his existence within their faith. I'm questioning his role and how he's portrayed.

*WHAT IF* He was more than just a prophet?

*WHAT IF* He was more than just a teacher?

Admitting to those things would be like McDonald's launching an ad campaign revealing that Burger King is better quality food.

As I said before, Jesus was killed for taking power away from those in power. They spun it as "this guy's just a teacher who has the audacity to claim he's the Son of God. He must die for that." They launched a smear campaign among the people to take all of the power out of his name, and today only acknowledge that he was a prophet or a teacher.

Couldn't there have been something similar going on in the Islamic faith to keep their followers?

[HYHYBT]

The Quran was written as it was spoken by Mohammad himself...Thank you for the explanation. A lot of that I hadn't heard before.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm not questioning his existence within their faith. I'm questioning his role and how he's portrayed.

*WHAT IF* He was more than just a prophet?

*WHAT IF* He was more than just a teacher?


Only 1 of the 3 makes these claims and seeing that 1 took the other's Holy books and glued it into their own, I think Judaism gets to have a say in this. Plus the claims of Christ's divinity emerged later in the timeline of Christianity. He never really claimed divinity in the Bible and there are passages where he denies divinity when asked. There are also no major miracles attributed to Jesus that are not replicated by others at other points in the Bible. God pretty much resurrects people left, right and center. So he is not unique as a Biblical figure.

On top of that, many of the miracles ( and several aspects of the Jesus story ) attributed to Jesus are generously borrowed from earlier figures such as Buddha. Buddha did the whole walk on water thing hundreds of years before Jesus even existed. Interestingly enough despite Buddha loathing it when miracles were attributed to him, people still attributed miracles to him.




As I said before, Jesus was killed for taking power away from those in power. They spun it as "this guy's just a teacher who has the audacity to claim he's the Son of God. He must die for that." They launched a smear campaign among the people to take all of the power out of his name, and today only acknowledge that he was a prophet or a teacher.

Jesus was killed for pissing off the Romans ( he was rather a public shit disturber by all accounts ) and was crucified for sedition. The Gospels claim it was because Jesus claimed to be a King thus challenging Roman rule, not because he claimed to be the son of God. The smear campaign was actually directed at the Jews as blame was pinned on them for Jesus's death.



Couldn't there have been something similar going on in the Islamic faith to keep their followers?

I really don't think you understand here. Jesus is a loved and highly regarded figure in Islam. They were not under threat by Christianity. Islam emerged as a major religion *after* Jesus's death. Not before it. That is the entire core structure of Islam: God has sent a series of prophets to teach his word beginning with Adam in the Garden of Eden. Jesus is considered one of these prophets as is Mohammad. They are on equal terms in Islamic faith.

This is why there are passages in the Quran that deny the divinity of Jesus. Because Islam was coming into its own some time after Jesus's death when the claims of Jesus divinity where starting to emerge to raise his stock value. This struck Muslims as total heresy hence the Quran denies Jesus's divinity in direct response to the emerging narrative of his divinity at the time. Which was seen as heresy and the actions of man not the word of God. Both by Muslims and Jews.

[BlaqueKatt]

Yes, we did have our share of child abuse cases in Christian facilities, but those happened in purely secular schools, as well.

It's not Christians that are the problem. It's assholes.

but secular schools didn't have a written plan, from the "school leaders" on how to actively cover up abuse allegations, and prevent shame to the school did they?

[Canarr]

but secular schools didn't have a written plan, from the "school leaders" on how to actively cover up abuse allegations, and prevent shame to the school did they?

Don't know, on either case. Can you cite a source for that?

[BlaqueKatt]

Don't know, on either case. Can you cite a source for that?
um yeah

cardinal Ratzinger, now pope Benedict IX conspired to keep sex abuse investigations confidential, and within the church, not involving outside law enforcement, he was granted diplomatic immunity by pres, George W. Bush in 2005.

Sources

the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection)
the london evening standard (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do)

In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety.

The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.

Five years ago he sent out an updated version of the notorious 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis - Latin for The Crime of Solicitation - which laid down the Vatican's strict instructions on covering up sexual scandal. It was regarded as so secret that it came with instructions that bishops had to keep it locked in a safe at all times.

Cardinal Ratzinger reinforced the strict cover-up policy by introducing a new principle: that the Vatican must have what it calls Exclusive Competence. In other words, he commanded that all child abuse allegations should be dealt with direct by Rome.

Patrick Wall, a former Vatican-approved enforcer of the Crimen Sollicitationis in America, tells the programme: "I found out I wasn't working for a holy institution, but an institution that was wholly concentrated on protecting itself."

And Father Tom Doyle, a Vatican lawyer until he was sacked for criticising the church's handling of child abuse claims, says: "What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen.

[crashhelmet]

I really don't think you understand here. Jesus is a loved and highly regarded figure in Islam. They were not under threat by Christianity. Islam emerged as a major religion *after* Jesus's death. Not before it. That is the entire core structure of Islam: God has sent a series of prophets to teach his word beginning with Adam in the Garden of Eden. Jesus is considered one of these prophets as is Mohammad. They are on equal terms in Islamic faith.

This is why there are passages in the Quran that deny the divinity of Jesus. Because Islam was coming into its own some time after Jesus's death when the claims of Jesus divinity where starting to emerge to raise his stock value. This struck Muslims as total heresy hence the Quran denies Jesus's divinity in direct response to the emerging narrative of his divinity at the time. Which was seen as heresy and the actions of man not the word of God. Both by Muslims and Jews.

Again, I don't think you understand my questions. The Quran, just like the Christian Bible, was written by Man. Can you use the argument that one is fallible because of it and the other is not?

If it was written at the same time Christian bible was being "enhanced" who's to say that it wasn't influenced by bias as well?