Jump to content

why i'm a christian


Recommended Posts

Just to repeat (for you may not have seen my late edit) the Jews had rules about what they were allowed to eat but these rules don't seem to affect Christians so we don't care whether we are eating a bat or a bird.

If Christians followed the teachings of Jesus, they would.

 

"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."-Matthew 5:13-20

 

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it."-Matthew 7:`3-27

 

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."-Matthew 16:24-28

 

"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."-Matthew 19:16-24

 

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed [thee]? or thirsty, and gave [thee] drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took [thee] in? or naked, and clothed [thee]? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."-Matthew 25:31-46

 

It's kind of one of his main points.

Faith healing wasn't part of the original doctrine, afaik

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."-Mark 16:17-18
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

On another note, why I'm an atheist: a rational desire to no longer lie to myself and continue with unnecessary mental gymnastics and dissonance. Said another way, I'm an atheist for the same reasons

(emphasis mine)  So, you're a Christian for the same reason most are.

So, A Christian, because it's easier than getting a real explanation of those experiences.

I don't follow the logic of using quotes from the Bible to disprove religion, Moontanman and ydoaPs.

I can list a multitude of scientific writings from >1000 yrs ago that are also demonstrably wrong.

They certainly don't invalidate science and the scientific method.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't follow the logic of using quotes from the Bible to disprove religion, Moontanman and ydoaPs.

I can list a multitude of scientific writings from >1000 yrs ago that are also demonstrably wrong.

They certainly don't invalidate science and the scientific method.

The difference is that science is not still trying to pretend that the 2000 year old book is right.

Religion, on the other hand has barely moved on.

 

 

Incidentally, the practice of what we now call "science" is not a thousand years old

The best you can do are the likes of Bacon and Ocam around 1300

so I'd like to see this " multitude of scientific writings from >1000 yrs ago "

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'll leave it to MigL to support his multitude of writings comment, an argument can be made that science goes back before Bacon and Occam in 1300, potentially back to the 8th century with the Islamic Golden Age: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

 

The Islamic Golden Age refers to the period in Islam's history during the Middle Ages from the 8th century to the 13th century when much of the historically Arabic-speaking world was ruled by various caliphates, experiencing a scientific, economic, and cultural flourishing.

See also Ibn al-Ḥaytham: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'll leave it to MigL to support his multitude of writings comment, an argument can be made that science goes back before Bacon and Occam in 1300, potentially back to the 8th century with the Islamic Golden Age: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

Or that Aristotle guy.

Or even the presocratics. Anaximander was all about relying on observation and disregarding religion. He'd be right at home with today's "new" atheists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry ydoaPs, I guess 'disproving religion' was a bad choice of wording.

But the Ptolemaic system as opposed to the Copernican system comes to mind as an accepted scientific fact which was later shown to be false.

( although one could say proof had been available since the Greeks/Egyptians of Alexandria )

 

All I'm suggesting is that the allegorical book which we call the Bible is not meant to be a historical or factual text, but rather a guideline as to how we should lead our lives.

And as such, it is perfectly valid.

Once we start ascribing other meaning to it, it quickly fails.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"That Aristotle guy "is noted for not actually doing science. He sat and thought about stuff then wrote down what he imagined to be the truth. That's

(1) what distinguished him from scientists) and

(2) the reason why he thought men had more teeth than women, and that the brain's function was to cool the blood.

 

But when science started depends on what you call science. It's not really the point.

 

The difference between a thousand year old natural philosophy text and a thousand year old religious text is when both are shown to be wrong, one of them gets superseded but the other is still worshipped.

Also, (at least in the idealised version) in one case the person who showed that it's wrong is congratulated; in the other case he's threatened or ostracised.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with all of the above, John.

With science, change ( towards improvement ) and questioning is encouraged.

With religion, it is frowned upon ( and sometimes actually forbidden and punishable by death ).

 

That being said most religions have changed, albeit at a glacial pace.

The Vatican, for one, actually encourages scientific progress ( now, but not at the time of Galileo though ).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with all of the above, John.

With science, change ( towards improvement ) and questioning is encouraged.

With religion, it is frowned upon ( and sometimes actually forbidden and punishable by death ).

 

That being said most religions have changed, albeit at a glacial pace.

The Vatican, for one, actually encourages scientific progress ( now, but not at the time of Galileo though ).

 

With respect, I'd dispute that last comment, MigL. The notion that Galileo vs the Church was a battle between scientific rationality on the one side, and irrational dogmatic religious dummies on the other, is something of a myth, I believe; a myth that indeed I was brought up with myself, but which later reading has caused me to reconsider.

 

As we all know, the evidence supporting heliocentrism continued to accumulate with the passing of time until finally attaining almost universal acceptance; at the time of Galileo, however, I'd argue that that the weight of scientific evidence lay firmly on the side of the church. It wasn't just the Vatican that was unconvinced of the literal truth (as opposed to the instrumental value) of the Copernican model which Galileo was championing, perhaps the greatest astronomer of the age -- Tycho Brahe -- was also unpersuaded.

 

The Vatican wanted what many of us want: that unjustifiable claims to knowledge be suppressed or at least refuted -- very much as modern day scientists balk at Creationism being taught in schools. And the suggestion that the Earth might be hurtling through space at an unimaginable speed, while rotating on its own axis faster than a Boeing747 (at the equator at least) was, circa 1600, quite frankly... preposterous.

Edited by Reg Prescott
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Vatican, for one, actually encourages scientific progress ( now, but not at the time of Galileo though ).

No, it does not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS

 

...

The Vatican wanted what many of us want: that unjustifiable claims to knowledge be suppressed or at least refuted -- very much as modern day scientists balk at Creationism being taught in schools. And the suggestion that the Earth might be hurtling through space at an unimaginable speed, while rotating on its own axis faster than a Boeing747 (at the equator at least) was, circa 1600, quite frankly... preposterous.

An argument from personal incredulity was a logical fallacy back in 1600, just as it is today.

They were using fake logic to back up their power back then, and I'm not sure anything has changed on that account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it does not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS

An argument from personal incredulity was a logical fallacy back in 1600, just as it is today.

They were using fake logic to back up their power back then, and I'm not sure anything has changed on that account.

 

Are we to take it that Tycho Brahe was using this fake logic too?

 

Are you familiar with the "Tower Argument", John? Take a look and tell us what you think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never met Tycho Brahe ; I never read his work.

I don't know if he used that argument or not. It hardly matters.

If he used it he was mistaken.

It's possible that he came to the right conclusions for the wrong reasons, or that he came to the wrong conclusion.

I'm also unfamiliar with the tower argument but, as far as I can tell from a bit of Googling, it seems they didn't understand physics properly back then.

I am unsurprised by this as the physics wan't invented/ discovered until some time later (broadly by Newton, and subsequently developed further by others.

 

That's the way science works; it gets better as time goes on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your own link says, John, that the Catholic church is the largest private caregiver in the world with regards to HIV.

What they are against is the promiscuity ( ?? ) that condom use brings with it as opposed to abstinence ( ?? again, not my opinion, but I understand theirs ).

 

I don't see how that is against ( or what it has to do with ) scientific progress ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is people have sex.
The response "they should not do that" is not helpful.
Scientific evaluation of the data says if people use a condom when they have sex, they will be less likely to catch an STD.
Insisting that the use of condoms be suppressed is an anti-science based judgement some people want to force on others.
seems pretty simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet both prevent the spread of HIV.

 

And 'people have sex' is just rubbing it in now.

I can tell that with advancing age that happens less and less.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't have sex, because god says, might prevent the HIV in people who can deny their basic biology because somebody told them that is what god wants.
All the sexually deviant (in their church's view) mega preachers in the evangelical community might be a sign that it causes desperate unsafe behavior.

And believe me, I'm not rubbing it in. Celebacy is not always a choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't overeat, and deny your basic biology, because that may lead to obesity and heart disease.

Don't overindulge in alcohol/drugs, and deny any biological feel-good stimulus, because that is also bad for your health.

And there are many others which are preached to us daily by non-clergy.

 

Fact is, unprotected sex is dangerous.

One safeguard is protection,; another is abstinence ( and MOST of the time, that's not a choice ).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact is, unprotected sex is dangerous.

 

 

Thank you for reinforcing my point about the unscientific foolishness of condom use being discouraged?

 

If "don't have sex because you can regret it for the rest of your possibly short unhappy life" does not convince people to abstain, "because i say so" is hopeless.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for cherry picking my post, and disregarding all the other 'don't dos' which are meant to also safeguard our health.

Do you think its unscientific to avoid foods which cause obesity and heart disease, and more scientific to have your stomach stapled and a triple bypass ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't overeat, and deny your basic biology, because that may lead to obesity and heart disease.

Don't overindulge in alcohol/drugs, and deny any biological feel-good stimulus, because that is also bad for your health.

And there are many others which are preached to us daily by non-clergy.

 

Fact is, unprotected sex is dangerous.

One safeguard is protection,; another is abstinence ( and MOST of the time, that's not a choice ).

 

There are observations to support all that.

just like science, religion saw the ill effects of promiscuity,gluttony, and I can't remember what the bible says about drugs.

Unlike science, religion says don't do it or burn.

I'm not trying to deny faith is powerful, in the faithful. So screw everybody else?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are observations to support all that.

just like science, religion saw the ill effects of promiscuity,gluttony, and I can't remember what the bible says about drugs.

Unlike science, religion says don't do it or burn.

I'm not trying to deny faith is powerful, in the faithful. So screw everybody else?

There are some extreme examples in the OT. Take Solomon for example, we are told he had 300 wives and 700 concubines. Now that seems rather promiscuous IMO yet it didn't count against him. It is taking responsibility for your actions that seems to be the message that I got from reading the OT.

Edited by Robittybob1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some extreme examples in the OT. Take Solomon for example, we are told he had 300 wives and 700 concubines. Now that seems rather promiscuous IMO yet it didn't count against him.

 

 

It's good to be king.

 

 

 

It is taking responsibility for your actions that seems to be the message that I got from reading the OT.

 

 

That is a goal I wish more people shared.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.