[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

The way I see it, I don't have anything to lose by choosing Christianity.

So in your view, Christianity doesn't ask anything of you?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep. An awful lot of atheists aren't atheists at all - they're anti-theists. That is, their belief system is born out of a strong rebelliousness towards "established" belief systems rather than any strong conviction which they've independently arrived at.

Nice of you to decide for us why we believe what we do. It's hard for you to comprehend, no doubt, that some people just don't believe in a supernatural deity because there's not one shred of evidence that one exists.

[Chuckit]

He didn't say all atheists were like that. I think it's true that there are many who seem more interested in defiance than really thoughtful about what they believe. It's similar to how many Christians are merely in it for the social aspects.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Besides 10% of your income, premarital sex, drinking, and your Sunday mornings?

Unless your brand of Christianity involves rationalizing away any rules you don't want to follow.

Geez, that's no good for me given my amount of drunken premarital sex on Sundays.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Did I say I'd ban polyandry or polyamory? No. I just said I don't personally support it. Not supporting something is not equal to wanting it banned.

You're right. Not supporting something doesn't mean you want it to be banned.

So you are not against gay marriages or polygamy then?

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I think you need to go look up the term "anarcho-capitalist".

Dude, I think you need to look up "anarcho-capitalist". How does polygyny and speed limits fit into "anarcho-capitalist"? A "anarcho-capitalist" wouldn't be against speed limits.

Here's an anarcho-capitalist on speed limits, taxes, and public roads:

Project for the New Anarchist Century � Reflections on the Civil War in France


So now you are a left wing liberal, tree-hugging, vegetarian, free market libertarian?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You're right. Not supporting something doesn't mean you want it to be banned.

So you are not against gay marriages or polygamy then?

I don't believe in the mechanism which says you can't marry your boyfriend if you want to. I don't see why flamboyant folks should be denied the pleasure of putting up with a mother-in-law.

And if you want to go for a full-out Dr Phlox, knock yourself out.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Dude, I think you need to look up "anarcho-capitalist". How does polygyny and speed limits fit into "anarcho-capitalist"? A "anarcho-capitalist" wouldn't be against speed limits.

..As long as those speed limits are imposed by the property owner and not a government.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So now you are a left wing liberal, tree-hugging, vegetarian, free market libertarian?

I think you'll find that it's impossible to be a leftie who believes in the free market. Not believing in a free market is kind of the definition of "the left", no?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Nice of you to decide for us why we believe what we do. It's hard for you to comprehend, no doubt, that some people just don't believe in a supernatural deity because there's not one shred of evidence that one exists.

Damn dude, why have you lefties always got to be so black and white on everything?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Unfortunately, quite a lot of people in the US believe exactly the opposite. These individuals almost always call themselves "Christians," but wouldn't let Christ, or anyone else with long hair, a beard and sandals, into their "houses of worship." I know a LOT of actually sincere Christians, but these "my way or the highway" individuals are not among that number, and I am extremely sorry that they use Christ's name without appearing to have a clue about His teachings.

Indeed. It's like the NT was never written.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Geez, that's no good for me given my amount of drunken premarital sex on Sundays.

Post. Wins. Thread.

..As long as those speed limits are imposed by the property owner and not a government.

But aren’t public roads owned by the state whom the government represents?

(Gah, I’m so bored I’m reading the PWL. That’s not good.)

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Interesting.

I have more respect for someone who at least admits they can't know for sure (in any belief system or dogma) than someone who not only insists they are unequivocally right but also openly looks with disdain upon those who disagree with them.

Atheists are not the only people who carry such an attitude, although they are sometimes more vocal about it.

Atheists are more vocal about it? You don't have churches on many street corners, with signs with "cute" sayings about proclaiming the word of your god? Your town doesn't have Christian book stores, or institutions of learning with a base of believing in your god? You don't listen to the radio or watch TV, where everybody and their brother prolifically vocalizes how this is a Christian nation, founded by god, and those who don't believe will wind up in hell?

I think you have it backward.

People are all born into some kind of belief system. Sure, you have those who are born into a liberal home and turn conservative (and vice versa), and you have people born into Christian homes who turn Buddhist or whatever. But the majority of any philosophical, religious, or political demographic is there because they were born into it.

You just affirmed what I've been saying.

I was born into a Christian home. Until a few years ago, I just kind of went with it because it's what I knew. Then as I started to research things for my own knowledge, I developed strong convictions about what I believe. My beliefs didn't change, but I don't believe in God because my parents do. I believe in God because I do.

No, you believe in your god because you can't comprehend that there is no basis for him existing, even though there is no evidence that he does. You haven't questioned anything; you've simply looked for evidence to confirm your point of view, and found it because it was convenient. You've simply convinced yourself that he exists because the majority has said he does.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

No, you believe in your god because you can't comprehend that there is no basis for him existing, even though there is no evidence that he does. You haven't questioned anything; you've simply looked for evidence to confirm your point of view, and found it because it was convenient. You've simply convinced yourself that he exists because the majority has said he does.

For someone who was whining at me earlier with "Nice of you to decide for us why we believe what we do", you're a little presumptuous here aren't you Karl?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

But aren’t public roads owned by the state whom the government represents?

Wouldn't the state actually BE the people? In any case, it seems that there must be some compromise between group safety and individual liberty, at least when it comes to speed limits. Now if people would just learn how to actually drive (as opposed to "pointing the car while chatting and texting"), then maybe these speed limits we're discussing could be set based on the construction of the road rather than being slowed down to accommodate horrible drivers. Oh wait. There's that "personal responsibility" stuff rearing its head again. Too bad...

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

..As long as those speed limits are imposed by the property owner and not a government.

Do you believe in having a government at all? Do you believe government should make rules and laws?

Should slaves be treated as property and traded on the "free-market" in the 1800s without government intervention?

What about child labor? Are you against labor laws as well if they are imposed by the government?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Do you believe in having a government at all?

No, not really.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No, not really.

So you are just anti-government. Not really "anarcho-capitalist" nor an anarchist.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

For someone who was whining at me earlier with "Nice of you to decide for us why we believe what we do", you're a little presumptuous here aren't you Karl?

Yes, I am. There is absolutely no logical reason to believe in imaginary deities, as there is absolutely no evidence that they exist, other than in the minds of most of mankind, and that is simply because we're always looking for answers. We've found many of them in the history of our existence, and there are many, many, more to discover, but that doesn't mean we should look to our ignorant ancestors (and I mean that term not in a derogatory way, but simply as one of describing the lack of knowledge they had) for guidance in living our current lives. We don't practice bloodletting anymore; we should stop relying on fairy tales and get on with the business of finding out the real reasons we don't understand things.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So you are just anti-government. Not really "anarcho-capitalist" nor an anarchist.

Can you explain the difference you're perceiving between Doofy's anti-government stance and anarchism?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So in your view, Christianity doesn't ask anything of you?

Not exactly.

According to the Bible, salvation is through faith alone - no amount of good works will serve as a replacement for salvation through Christ.

That's not to say that it's appropriate to become a Christian and still behave like a bad person - that would go against being a good witness to the world, obeying God, etc.

What I mean is that I see no reason to not be a Christian.

[ebuddy]

I've done some informal analysis by breaking the respondents down into two categories for expediency; Theists and Secular Humanists.

Secular Humanists; While I realize there were respondents who claimed Non-Theist, Unitarian Universalism, etc... and may feel left out, there were 12 who claimed Secular Humanist as their top choice. I'm trying to balance sample sizes and only have so much time for free analysis folks.

Theists; I had to compile the remainder of respondents using the following top choices- Orthodox Quaker, Orthodox Judaism, Eastern Orthodox, Reform Judaism, and Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______________________________________

Analysis-Secular Humanist;

• 12 respondents aligned with Secular Humanist at the highest rate.
• Respondents least aligned with 3 different philosophies.
• Of the 12 respondents, 9 least aligned with Jehovah's Witness, 2 Roman Catholic, and 1 Seventh Day Adventist.
• Degree of least alignment measured by averaging last selection percentages; Secular Humanists scored 12.5%.

Analysis-Theists;

• 10 respondents aligned with Theism at the highest rate.
• Respondents least aligned with 6 different philosophies.
• Of the 10 respondents, 4 least aligned with Taoism, 2 Secular Humanist, 1 Hinduism, 1 New Thought, and 1 Nontheist.
• Degree of least alignment measured by averaging last selection percentages; Theists scored 18.8%.

Conclusion;

• Secular Humanists are 6.3% more rigid in their ideology.
• Theists are 2 times more accepting and tolerant of differing world views.
• Secular Humanists are exponentially more narcissistic evidenced by an almost 10% higher response rate and statements like; "right on", "not surprising", and "I'm 41 years old and married to a Buddhist."
• Neither group is very fond of Jehovah's Witnesses, but a Secular Humanist is approximately 41% more likely to slam the door in a Jehovah's Witnesses' face.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

According to the Bible, salvation is through faith alone - no amount of good works will serve as a replacement for salvation through Christ.

That's a very selective reading of the Bible. I agree, that's the traditional interpretation by Christians, but it's not to only possible reading. In fact, only the writings of Paul support this idea, and he was a fringe preacher among Christians in his own day.

What I mean is that I see no reason to not be a Christian.

Beside not finding the Bible being very believable or reliable? And not finding the traditional Christian interpretation to be accurate or honest?

"Believe in Jesus, and go to heaven". Sounds easy enough, but it just isn't credible to me.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

What I mean is that I see no reason to not be a Christian.

I listed several.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I listed several.

Several reasons YOU see for not being a Christian. That is no "minor detail."

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Several reasons YOU see for not being a Christian. That is no "minor detail."

You missed the point of my post.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

That's a very selective reading of the Bible. I agree, that's the traditional interpretation by Christians, but it's not to only possible reading. In fact, only the writings of Paul support this idea, and he was a fringe preacher among Christians in his own day.

Really? The Bible makes it pretty clear that good works are not going to win your salvation.

Originally Posted by Romans 3:22-24

This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

And of course, the most famous one...

Originally Posted by John 3:16

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

No, good works are not required to redeem yourself from your sinful nature. You will not lose your salvation by drinking alcohol, skipping Sunday service, tithing less than 10% of your income, or having sex before a legally-recognized marriage license is acquired.

The change in behavior and attitude comes with a genuine desire to do what is right and what pleases God. It's not so that God won't take away your salvation at a moment's notice.

Think about it - when you love someone, you want to do right by them, correct? I'm not just talking about romantic love, either. If your parents aren't abusive dickwads, wouldn't you do the right thing as a child because you know it makes them happy - not just so you can avoid a spanking or getting grounded?

Beside not finding the Bible being very believable or reliable? And not finding the traditional Christian interpretation to be accurate or honest?

Here's the way I see it - the Bible was written by humans and subsequently translated into other languages by humans. Humans are inherently fallible, therefore the content of the Bible is not guaranteed to be reliable. That being said, the key tenets that God wants us to know are very clear throughout the Bible, reinforced in both the Old and New Testaments. All the little behavioral things like "don't drink" or "don't listen to secular music" or "don't let your daughter wear skirts with a hemline above her knees" are not what the fundamentals of Christianity are about.

Modern Christianity has very much lost sight of what salvation is really about. In fact, humans started losing their grip on the basics centuries ago, and it's been a downward spiral ever since - look at how many different denominations and factions exist just within Protestant Christianity, let alone others. We've come to that point because we get caught up in the (relatively) trivial details instead of remembering what it's really about.

"Believe in Jesus, and go to heaven". Sounds easy enough, but it just isn't credible to me.

It sounds easy because it is. I don't buy that the life of a Christian is supposed to be filled with pain, misery, emotional detachment, loneliness, unhappiness, and torment. A Christian should do what's right because they know it's right and they want to please God - not because they're living in constant terror that if they sin, forget to sufficiently confess it, and die in a car accident that same day, they'll be destined to an eternity of separation from God.

This is just the way that I see it. I'm not going to say that I am 110% correct in my interpretation of things, but I'm pretty secure in what I believe. If you ask me, questioning is a lot better than swallowing whatever your local megachurch's pastor has decided is Truth.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

That's a very selective reading of the Bible. I agree, that's the traditional interpretation by Christians, but it's not to only possible reading. In fact, only the writings of Paul support this idea, and he was a fringe preacher among Christians in his own day.

Beside not finding the Bible being very believable or reliable? And not finding the traditional Christian interpretation to be accurate or honest?

"Believe in Jesus, and go to heaven". Sounds easy enough, but it just isn't credible to me.

Well, Paul is the founder of modern Christianity, being the first apostle to openly accept gentiles. Not that I'm fully defending him, I take issue with some of his teachings, but you can't discount his arguments either, since his writings set the foundation for the earliest councils.

Key here is Ephesians 2:8,9: For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

I don't think anyone can argue that this scripture doesn't define the method of salvation.

[Big Mac]

And yet your religion also says faith without works is dead.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And yet your religion also says faith without works is dead.

Not MY religion, back up there. I've been closer to Judaism for quite some time, as my test results can prove.

However, I feel comfortable saying that if you have such faith, grace will lead you to good works. It's a matter of the changes that will happen in a person's heart.

[Big Mac]

Apologies - not my intention to offend. I was also unaware that you do not consider yourself a member of the Christian faith.

i keep having to remember that it's too hard to have a dispassionate discussion on the philosophy of religion online in an open forum with members of various (and no faiths), without coming off mean spirited or getting sidetracked by trolls. We had one particular thread months back that was an exception to that rule; I can't expect that of every religion thread.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Conclusion;

• Secular Humanists are 6.3% more rigid in their ideology.
• Theists are 2 times more accepting and tolerant of differing world views.
• Secular Humanists are exponentially more narcissistic evidenced by an almost 10% higher response rate and statements like; "right on", "not surprising", and "I'm 41 years old and married to a Buddhist."
• Neither group is very fond of Jehovah's Witnesses, but a Secular Humanist is approximately 41% more likely to slam the door in a Jehovah's Witnesses' face.

I presume these conclusions (apart from the first one, which is just an odd choice of words) are to be taken as sarcastic, yes? There’s quite a long way from not identifying yourself as belonging to a certain religion/creed/philosophy/way of life, to not tolerating it.

I also don’t see what “Right on”, “Not surprising”, or “I’m 41 years old and married to a Buddhist” have to do with narcissism. The first two just show that the respondent considered the results of the test to align well with how he identifies himself, or with what he had expected the outcome of the test to be. The latter … well, I’m too lazy to go and look for the context, and I can’t remember it offhand.

Besides, theist or secular humanist (or anything else), slamming the door in anyone’s face is pretty damn rude. Jehovah’s Witnesses may not be the most popular of people, but I’d hope most people here would at least politely decline their offers and Watch Towers, and close the door in a normal fashion.

Still, I’m going to assume your conclusions were indeed sarcastic.

[- - e r i k - -]

My best buddy growing up was a Jehova's Witness, so I'm quite kind to them and their kooky world views (minus the whole blood transfusion thing, that is just f'ed up).

[kylef]

1. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (100%)
2. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (95%)
3. Eastern Orthodox (88%)
4. Roman Catholic (88%)
5. Orthodox Quaker (85%)
6. Seventh Day Adventist (83%)
7. Hinduism (67%)
8. Orthodox Judaism (65%)
9. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (62%)
10. Liberal Quakers (60%)
11. Baha'i Faith (58%)
12. Unitarian Universalism (58%)
13. Jehovah's Witness (56%)
14. Islam (51%)
15. Reform Judaism (48%)
16. Sikhism (48%)
17. Mahayana Buddhism (43%)
18. Neo-Pagan (41%)
19. Theravada Buddhism (41%)
20. Jainism (39%)
21. New Age (35%)
22. New Thought (29%)
23. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (26%)
24. Scientology (24%)
25. Secular Humanism (12%)
26. Nontheist (10%)
27. Taoism (9%)

#1 is right.

[kylef]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Besides 10% of your income, premarital sex, drinking, and your Sunday mornings?

Unless your brand of Christianity involves rationalizing away any rules you don't want to follow.

Elaborate on the "drinking" please. I don't see where you are getting that from.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And yet your religion also says faith without works is dead.

Indeed - like anything, actions speak louder than words. If you claim to be a Christian and do nothing more than sleep through church every Sunday morning, what do you really believe? Does your faith actually mean anything to you?

I've met precious few people who I've been able to confidently say are definitely Christians - most of the so-called Christians I've known my whole life appear to just be putting on a front.

Like I said in my previous post, if you truly believe, you should want to please God - which is where your actions come into play.

There's a huge difference, however, between doing the right thing because it's right and because you want to please God, and doing the right thing because you believe that it is the path to securing your salvation.

Things that Laminar listed are not required for salvation or for faith in God. Going to church once a week, tithing 10% of your income, and abstaining from alcohol and premarital sex are not going to save you. In fact, those acts are debated even within the Christian church, and making your life into nothing but a series of rules and moral expectations ultimately devalues those very actions - I don't go to church anymore, for instance. It's not because I'm trying to deliberately defy some rule; it's because church was meaningless for me. I got nothing out of it, and I only went because I had to. Does this mean I'm not a Christian? I don't think so, no. Listening to someone else talk for an hour about what he thinks is accurate or right is pretty pointless. Most Christians I've come across go to church to be seen going to church - not because it has any intrinsic value or meaning to them personally. That seems like a pretty crap reason to haul ass out of bed on Sunday morning, if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I feel comfortable saying that if you have such faith, grace will lead you to good works. It's a matter of the changes that will happen in a person's heart.

THIS. I believe that God changes you internally when He brings you to Him, which is why a lot of people who claim to be Christians haven't convinced me that they actually are.

[- - e r i k - -]

So, basically you are a lazy Christian?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

So, basically you are a lazy Christian?

Because I don't go to church?

I still care plenty about theology and researching what I believe and why. I just have no interest in sitting in an uncomfortable chair or pew for several hours while listening to other people sing, pray, and preach/talk. I would much rather get with my Christian (and non-Christian, for that matter) friends and actually talk and debate about issues, rather than being told what to believe.

[Doofy]

I have to agree with Shif here. The difference between a proper Christian and someone who's just going through the motions because of some kind of cultural normalisation is immense.

For example, what's all this crap about abstaining from alcohol? Didn't Jesus himself find water a bit boring so turned it into wine? So where did that come from? The late 19th Century Amerikan temperance movement, as far as I can tell - throughout Christian history monks all over Europe have been brewing alcohol.

Likewise, what's all this about tithing? Are we talking Christianity or Judaism here? I think a lot of Amerikans get mixed up between the two. Was tithing all about giving 10% of your income to the church, or was it about helping the poor? Do you have to give 10% of your income, or should you do it in the way suggested in the NT - that is, don't harvest up to the edges of your field?

Going to church every week? Where did that come from? According to my reading of the NT, the "church" is the body of believers, not a building. So, if you hung out with a bunch of other Christians at the mall this afternoon, you've essentially "been to church".

If tithing, not drinking beer and getting up early every Sunday morning floats your boat and makes you feel like you're being a good Christian, then good luck with that. But it ain't the path - it's an add-on to make you feel good.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

I presume these conclusions (apart from the first one, which is just an odd choice of words) are to be taken as sarcastic, yes?

If I said it was sarcastic, would you be compelled to edit your response to my analysis?

The first item merely suggests that Secular Humanists are more narrow in their ideology. I could've said more resolved or confident, but those are positive words when the data was clearly negative. Their lowest percentages were 6.3% lower than the lowest percentages for Theists. rigid; not pliant or flexible. This suggests the respondent used a higher priority for "No incarnations as there is no God" and shared less of the philosophies of the other, multiple choices.

There’s quite a long way from not identifying yourself as belonging to a certain religion/creed/philosophy/way of life, to not tolerating it.

The numbers don't lie Oisín.

I also don’t see what “Right on”, “Not surprising”, or “I’m 41 years old and married to a Buddhist” have to do with narcissism. The first two just show that the respondent considered the results of the test to align well with how he identifies himself, or with what he had expected the outcome of the test to be.

Actually, the results of the numbers related to Secular Humanists suggests a sort of peculiar pride in their answers. Not only did they respond in much greater numbers than any other single philosophy to make you aware of their views, they had to be appended with "it's true!" and "look at me" and "here's an interesting tidbit about me."

Besides, theist or secular humanist (or anything else), slamming the door in anyone’s face is pretty damn rude. Jehovah’s Witnesses may not be the most popular of people, but I’d hope most people here would at least politely decline their offers and Watch Towers, and close the door in a normal fashion.

I like to invite them inside and discuss Jesus with them.

Still, I’m going to assume your conclusions were indeed sarcastic.

Okay.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Because I don't go to church?

I'm just teasing. In fact your type of personal beliefs staying personal are the beliefs I can respect the most.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (91%)
3. Nontheist (79%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (73%)
5. Liberal Quakers (72%)
6. Neo-Pagan (68%)
7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (59%)
8. Taoism (52%)
9. Reform Judaism (50%)
10. New Age (48%)
11. Orthodox Quaker (33%)
12. Sikhism (33%)
13. Mahayana Buddhism (32%)
14. Scientology (32%)
15. New Thought (29%)
16. Baha'i Faith (25%)
17. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (25%)
18. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (20%)
19. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (18%)
20. Seventh Day Adventist (16%)
21. Eastern Orthodox (13%)
22. Islam (13%)
23. Jainism (13%)
24. Orthodox Judaism (13%)
25. Roman Catholic (13%)
26. Hinduism (8%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (0%)

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I have to agree with Shif here. The difference between a proper Christian and someone who's just going through the motions because of some kind of cultural normalisation is immense.

For example, what's all this crap about abstaining from alcohol? Didn't Jesus himself find water a bit boring so turned it into wine? So where did that come from? The late 19th Century Amerikan temperance movement, as far as I can tell - throughout Christian history monks all over Europe have been brewing alcohol.

Likewise, what's all this about tithing? Are we talking Christianity or Judaism here? I think a lot of Amerikans get mixed up between the two. Was tithing all about giving 10% of your income to the church, or was it about helping the poor? Do you have to give 10% of your income, or should you do it in the way suggested in the NT - that is, don't harvest up to the edges of your field?

Going to church every week? Where did that come from? According to my reading of the NT, the "church" is the body of believers, not a building. So, if you hung out with a bunch of other Christians at the mall this afternoon, you've essentially "been to church".

If tithing, not drinking beer and getting up early every Sunday morning floats your boat and makes you feel like you're being a good Christian, then good luck with that. But it ain't the path - it's an add-on to make you feel good.

Hear hear

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" would seem to support the "why the hell do people have to call it a Church" idea. But of course I would think "the bread and the wine" bit might make "hanging out at the mall" not quite as deserving of the cut?

(Not that I really care either way; just sayin.)

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

[*] Neither group is very fond of Jehovah's Witnesses, but a Secular Humanist is approximately 41% more likely to slam the door in a Jehovah's Witnesses' face.

Hahaha, I'm 41% more likely to ask them to explain Matthew 18:9 and Mark 9:47, or Luke 16:23, or a lot of Revelations.

It's more fun watching them squirm.

greg

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If I said it was sarcastic, would you be compelled to edit your response to my analysis?

No. I’m too lazy for that.

The first item merely suggests that Secular Humanists are more narrow in their ideology. I could've said more resolved or confident, but those are positive words when the data was clearly negative.

How are the data negative? The fact that one number is higher or lower than another is neither positive or negative.

Their lowest percentages were 6.3% lower than the lowest percentages for Theists. rigid; not pliant or flexible. This suggests the respondent used a higher priority for "No incarnations as there is no God" and shared less of the philosophies of the other, multiple choices.

Or just that most of the other, multiple choices have more in common with each other than they do with the ‘there is no God’ choices, thereby creating a smaller discrepancy.

The numbers don't lie Oisín.

This just has to be sarcasm. Since when do numbers not lie? In our statistics-saturated world, lying seems to be their primary function, almost.

And again, the test said absolutely nothing about tolerance or acceptance of others’ life styles. It’s a test of how you define yourself. My lowest number, if I recall correctly, was 12.5% or something, for Jehova’s Witnesses, and not much higher for some other groups (Mormons, some kind of Catholic group? Not sure). That means that my attitudes to the things asked in those questions lie very far from the attitutes the makers of the test have decided are representative of these beliefs/belief groups. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn’t mean that I have only 12.5% tolerance (if tolerance can be measured in per cent) towards Mormons. Claiming that identifying less with a certain group means you’re less tolerant of their existence is not only making the numbers lie, it’s ignoring the numbers and making up your own statistics.

If your conclusions weren’t meant to sarcastic (or at least tongue-in-cheek), then they’re quite offensive.

Actually, the results of the numbers related to Secular Humanists suggests a sort of peculiar pride in their answers. Not only did they respond in much greater numbers than any other single philosophy to make you aware of their views, they had to be appended with "it's true!" and "look at me" and "here's an interesting tidbit about me."

This is “peculiar pride”?

Again, I’m far too lazy to actually bother reading through the thread, but surely stating whether or not one’s results are or are not compatible with the testee’s own personal view of themselves is something done by both secular humanists and theists alike? I really can’t see why saying, “Yeah, those results are pretty much in sync with reality” is a display of pride of any kind. It’s a statement of fact.

I like to invite them inside and discuss Jesus with them.

Good for you, and probably for them, too, since that seems to be what they usually ask you whether you want to do. I don’t invite them inside, ’cause I don’t generally find discussions about Jesus particularly interesting. Does that mean I don’t tolerate their beliefs because they’re not secular humanists? No. It just means their beliefs aren’t really relevant to my life and I don’t care enough about it to discuss it with people I don’t know. I’d feel the same way if someone knocked on my door and wanted to discuss the inner workings of Wall Street with me, which is about as secularly humanist as you can get, I’m guessing.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Mormons, some kind of Catholic group? Not sure

sig worthy

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Hear hear

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" would seem to support the "why the hell do people have to call it a Church" idea. But of course I would think "the bread and the wine" bit might make "hanging out at the mall" not quite as deserving of the cut?

(Not that I really care either way; just sayin.)

greg

I live in what seems to be the heart of "big box church country." Look up "Cornerstone Church" some time-the San Antonio church of that name was the very first Google hit I got. It looks like a mall-and not a small one-from the outside. It has a huge amount of parking, a digital display sign that can be seen for MILES (oh yeah, it's on a hill too), and the complex of buildings around the church is vast.

But when I was growing up, I went to small churches. And what I got out of that experience was the fellowship aspect of a church. I really respect small churches because everyone is involved in everything the church does. With a huge church like Cornerstone, if they have enough money to build all those buildings and pay for that big honkin' sign, why aren't they doing something for the poor in their own home town? Do they sponsor medical missions to Central America? What do they do with all that money? Well for one thing, their pastor wears some really spiffy suits, and he hasn't missed any meals...

Sam Kinnison's father held a full time job in order to afford to be able to preach. I know an Orthodox Christian priest and his family; he is an Air Force chaplain, meaning he works very long hours, frequently is deployed to the war zone, and really doesn't get paid that much, but he still volunteers his time and pays his own way on mission trips to some really UNpleasant places, because that's what God tells him he needs to do.

Now I see "big time preachers" getting quite wealthy off of "their calling." I remember Jim Bakker going to jail for building a dog house with church funds-a dog house made of brick and with air conditioning, one that cost a whole lot of money that his church was supposed to be using for other purposes... I have to wonder just how genuine these "big time preachers" really are. I don't think I'm being too cynical in thinking that many of them are really just in it for the attention and the money.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

No. I’m too lazy for that.

How are the data negative? The fact that one number is higher or lower than another is neither positive or negative.

I can't do it any more Oisín. It was entirely tongue-in-cheek, from the very beginning to the very end with the big grin. I tried as hard as I could to make 6.3% sound monumental and leapt as far as humanly possible in reasoning. In the spirit of honesty however, I thought it was funny because it was both absurd and a pinch true. Just a pinch.

This just has to be sarcasm. Since when do numbers not lie? In our statistics-saturated world, lying seems to be their primary function, almost.

You're correct. I thought for sure when I said; "I could've said more resolved or confident, but those are positive words when the data was clearly negative." you would've given up on me.

And again, the test said absolutely nothing about tolerance or acceptance of others’ life styles. It’s a test of how you define yourself. My lowest number, if I recall correctly, was 12.5% or something, for Jehova’s Witnesses, and not much higher for some other groups (Mormons, some kind of Catholic group? Not sure). That means that my attitudes to the things asked in those questions lie very far from the attitutes the makers of the test have decided are representative of these beliefs/belief groups. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn’t mean that I have only 12.5% tolerance (if tolerance can be measured in per cent) towards Mormons. Claiming that identifying less with a certain group means you’re less tolerant of their existence is not only making the numbers lie, it’s ignoring the numbers and making up your own statistics.

If your conclusions weren’t meant to sarcastic (or at least tongue-in-cheek), then they’re quite offensive.

I apologize for having offended you Oisín. They were intended to be funny. I suck at humor.

This is “peculiar pride”?

I think a little introspect and curiosity as to what compels one to respond to such a test is perfectly acceptable. Maybe someone can determine with some degree of accuracy, how many respondents were "right down the middle". (to be clear, I'm not sure this is possible)

Again, I’m far too lazy to actually bother reading through the thread, but surely stating whether or not one’s results are or are not compatible with the testee’s own personal view of themselves is something done by both secular humanists and theists alike? I really can’t see why saying, “Yeah, those results are pretty much in sync with reality” is a display of pride of any kind. It’s a statement of fact.

It was slanted to the absurd. I apologize for offending you. I was trying to be funny, but I'm no good at humor.

Good for you, and probably for them, too, since that seems to be what they usually ask you whether you want to do.

For about 20 minutes.

I don’t invite them inside, ’cause I don’t generally find discussions about Jesus particularly interesting. Does that mean I don’t tolerate their beliefs because they’re not secular humanists? No. It just means their beliefs aren’t really relevant to my life and I don’t care enough about it to discuss it with people I don’t know. I’d feel the same way if someone knocked on my door and wanted to discuss the inner workings of Wall Street with me, which is about as secularly humanist as you can get, I’m guessing.

This is all understandable and true.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Really? The Bible makes it pretty clear that good works are not going to win your salvation.

"The Bible" is not a monolithic document with one viewpoint, but of collection of many documents of various viewpoints.

No, good works are not required to redeem yourself from your sinful nature. You will not lose your salvation by drinking alcohol, skipping Sunday service, tithing less than 10% of your income, or having sex before a legally-recognized marriage license is acquired.

How about raping and murdering?

Here's the way I see it - the Bible was written by humans and subsequently translated into other languages by humans. Humans are inherently fallible, therefore the content of the Bible is not guaranteed to be reliable. That being said, the key tenets that God wants us to know are very clear throughout the Bible, reinforced in both the Old and New Testaments. All the little behavioral things like "don't drink" or "don't listen to secular music" or "don't let your daughter wear skirts with a hemline above her knees" are not what the fundamentals of Christianity are about.

They why does Jesus go on and on about the sheep and the goats?

25:37 “Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? 25:38 When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? 25:39 When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?’

25:40 “The King will answer them, ‘Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ 25:41 Then he will say also to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels; 25:42 for I was hungry, and you didn’t give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; 25:43 I was a stranger, and you didn’t take me in; naked, and you didn’t clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’

25:44 “Then they will also answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn’t help you?’

25:45 “Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn’t do it to one of the least of these, you didn’t do it to me.’ 25:46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Sounds like good works are pretty important.

It sounds easy because it is. I don't buy that the life of a Christian is supposed to be filled with pain, misery, emotional detachment, loneliness, unhappiness, and torment.

Did you not learn the Beatitudes?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Well, Paul is the founder of modern Christianity, being the first apostle to openly accept gentiles.

No, it seems to have begun with Simon Peter.

Key here is Ephesians 2:8,9: For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

I don't think anyone can argue that this scripture doesn't define the method of salvation.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And yet your religion also says faith without works is dead.

That is exactly what I'm talking about. That quote is from James, the brother of Jesus. The more "orthodox" apostles like James and Matthew were big on works, while the more "mystical" apostles like Paul and John were big on abstractions like grace and faith. The New Testament does not speak with a consistent viewpoint, and the tensions between Paul and Peter, and between Paul and James, are openly discussed.

Regardless, all of the early Christians expected belief in Jesus and high moral conduct of fellow Christians. "Theological debate" about which saves and which doesn't is pretty pointless hair-splitting.

In response to those how eschew going to church, the New Testament is pretty consisent on the necessity of Christian community. They wouldn't have recognized "lone wolf" Christians as true Christians.

[Big Mac]

i was going to write more about these off-topic subjects, but I think this thread worked better when it was just about people's belief test results.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

For example, what's all this crap about abstaining from alcohol? Didn't Jesus himself find water a bit boring so turned it into wine?"

The story of water-to-wine is probably a symbolic myth: the ritual washing of 1st century Judaism is replaced by the bread-and-wine ritual in remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice.

Likewise, what's all this about tithing? Are we talking Christianity or Judaism here? I think a lot of Amerikans get mixed up between the two. Was tithing all about giving 10% of your income to the church, or was it about helping the poor? Do you have to give 10% of your income, or should you do it in the way suggested in the NT - that is, don't harvest up to the edges of your field?

You mean the OT. And the NT is pretty clear: preachers were entitled to community support, to "earn their bread by the Gospel." Tithing evolved out of that.

Going to church every week? Where did that come from? According to my reading of the NT, the "church" is the body of believers, not a building. So, if you hung out with a bunch of other Christians at the mall this afternoon, you've essentially "been to church".

Wow, what crap that is. The early church gathered every Sunday to celebrate the Resurrection, and they celebrated the same way everyone celebrates: with a meal. "Hanging out with other Christians" isn't celebrating the Resurrection.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Because I don't go to church?

I still care plenty about theology and researching what I believe and why. I just have no interest in sitting in an uncomfortable chair or pew for several hours while listening to other people sing, pray, and preach/talk. I would much rather get with my Christian (and non-Christian, for that matter) friends and actually talk and debate about issues, rather than being told what to believe.

I'm sure your debating and researching is fascinating, but it isn't worship. Given the the Bible is filled with songs and prayers and religious rituals, I think maybe they're kind of important to God (or the people to wrote the bible).

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The story of water-to-wine is probably a symbolic myth: the ritual washing of 1st century Judaism is replaced by the bread-and-wine ritual in remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice.
You mean the OT. And the NT is pretty clear: preachers were entitled to community support, to "earn their bread by the Gospel." Tithing evolved out of that.

Wow, what crap that is. The early church gathered every Sunday to celebrate the Resurrection, and they celebrated the same way everyone celebrates: with a meal. "Hanging out with other Christians" isn't celebrating the Resurrection.

Bread symbolizes the flesh of Jesus.
Red wine symbolized the blood of Jesus.

Mmm... yummy.

What's the passover story? God inflicted ten plagues with the tenth plague being the killing of the firstborn sons. Hebrews were instructed to mark the doorposts of their homes with the blood of a spring lamb so the spirit of the Lord passed over these homes.

Poor sacrificial lamb.