Christians: We Arent Trying To Condemn Anyone

Agnostic, atheist or theist, my response would remain the same.

I would offer the explanation given by the Bible. I would be ridiculed for using the Bible. The question would not be satisfied.

Uh, no, I mean the 'God doesn't talk to us anymore' bit. Seems like a convenient addition to the Bible to stop people from questioning, personally.

Human nature.
We simply have different manners in going about it.

Also I was never asserting a fact. It was merely an observation on my part. It doesn't necessarily mean every theist partakes in religion for that reason or purpose alone. Might want to take a little bit of your ego out of the equation before jumping to foolish conclusions of other people's statements.

Actually we have the same manner to go about it. I don't denounce or discredit science. I just am sick of the comment about people who believe in God being dumb.

All holy scripture is flawed to some degree or another, no doubt.

We find it dumb because it doesn't undergo the same stages of discredit or falsification through various cross examination and research in the scientific field. It has and always has been an absolution that condescends and damns people for questioning or even thinking otherwise. If not, it would make convenient loophole passages or vague answers that more often than not tend to be irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Religion, run by flawed people, automatically condemns people. There are acts that God forbids that can lead to condemnation, but even by His own words, the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the spirit. It also tells us that only he who is without sin may cast the first stone, well no earthly being is without sin, so none may cast that stone.

A good practicing Christian, and determine them by the person and not the whole, will not condemn anyone. That doesn't mean they cannot tell you that something is wrong, it means they cannot determine your fate. "You are going to hell for having a child out of wedlock." or "You are going to hell for being a homosexual." Are comments of judgement and condemnation and the Bible says he who judges will be judged.

The most basic and simple explanation for all this, and what every Christian SHOULD believe and SHOULD follow, is that everyone has a chance at forgiveness and entrance in God's kingdom, and that no one should attempt to determine who will be damned and who will not be, unless they too wish to be damned.

Once people stop blaming the Bible and start blaming the individual, then an understanding will be reached. It's not the Bible commanding people hate, it's people who don't know the Bible, but pretend they do who are commanding people hate.

Here is something that I find ironic, all the religious crap in politics. Technically (and probably I should say actually) a Christian shouldn't even vote, as man's government is an affront to God. So to fight so hard to stop this country from giving people equal rights under man's law, makes me chuckle a bit.

I guess then the issue is that the bible affords people the opportunity to hate and oppress others based on their vague interpretation of scriptures therein. That of course is a fault of the individual, but the tool of choice seems to be common throughout.

Liela knows what's up.
Casting Crowns puts it a good way: "Sometimes the best thing Christians can do for God, is just get out of the way."

That's really only half true. The Old Testament certainly does. I want to shake everyone I see who doesn't understand this, atheist and theist alike, but I guess that wouldn't be very Christian of me.

People need to understand that they can disagree with someone's lifestyle without hating them or attempting to harm them, whether socially, politically or physically.

Actually, wasn't the rule 'Render unto the Lord what is The Lord's and render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?'

I thought that was the goto rule for those sorts of things. Or was that just for taxes?

I'd have to read the whole passage to address it, if you remember the scripture. I think that has to do with paying your taxes and obeying your local laws. We are commanded to follow the laws of man until the Lord's Kingdom returns.

Was always a bit unclear to me if it was just following or participating. I don't really think democracy was well known in the area enough to address it, personally.

I think it was open enough, yet clear enough to point out that in a democracy, it would be prudent for Christians to try to vote in a manner that would elect leaders who would sustain freedom and balance. It would be the duty of a Christian to play their part in maintaining a balanced and fair government.

That's how I read it, at least in my go-to version, the New International Version. I also have the KJ and NWT (Jehovah Witness) version that I use to compare scriptures, since they all have varying translations that are similar, to try to determine what the original intent of the scripture was. I actually like the NWT version a lot, unfortunately I don't like the, how do I say, nerve that the JWs have on some things.

I don't like the teachings of the JW church on quite a few subjects. It seems very obscured to intentionally alienate people. Just my .02.

I also dislike the New Living Translation. Sometimes it waters down the true meaning of the passage for the sake of either a) being more easily readable or b) to be more easily swallowed by someone that the actual meanings may scare.

I agree. The Christian who brought me back to the faith is/was a JW, hard to explain, he isn't excommunicated by them, but he is like on the outskirts, viewed negatively in his hall. We kind of now worship God in our own way, which includes reading the Bible and discussing what it says and trying to make our own determination for what God expects out of us.

It's actually lead me to my knew philosophy on the Bible. "Don't believe what anyone else tells you the Bible says."

As for the NLT, haven't read it, but from what you are describing it sounds like the kiddies version of it all.

I'm not going to lie the Bible can be harsh and the requirements are harsh, however, the Bible also is forgiving and in instances shows you that God knows you will not be able to follow the scripture 100%, and that, that doesn't automatically exclude you from his love and salvation. I think the Bible needs to be taken as, whatever you take away from it.

I don't subscribe to the whole fallacy in logic, that you can't be a Christian and admit the Bible may not have been corrupted along the way for many reasons innocent and malicious. The Bible wasn't written in English or German, etc. Anyone who speaks multiple languages would know there is no such thing as a true translation, and a lot of it requires a good judgement call on context and that alone is where a lot of Christians need to step back and think about what they believe and say.

There's nothing in that statement/question that is 'dumb'. It makes sense for both sides of the fence, it's not favorable to any particular belief.. You can still believe in God and Satan without them being responsible for every little thing that happens in life. You don't hold the monopoly on the 'right view of religion' or anything.. Someone can still be every bit of a Christian or whatever religion you subscribe to and believe things slightly differently than you, such as God and Satan aren't responsible for every little thing that happens..

And don't bother with the explanation from the Bible.. As we determined the other night, you pick and choose which passages to take as literal, which to take as metaphorical and which are no longer relevant. If you followed the Bible to the letter, then I might care about whatever passage you wanted to throw out, but since you don't, no passage you could throw out really holds any weight.

And no person who does not believe in the Bible has the right to decide how it has to be followed. Especially since you cannot even understand the most basic of concepts when it comes to what the OT and NT is. I don't pick anything to take literal or metaphorical, nor have I. The words OT and who it was written for and the words NT and who it is written for are clearly defined, so you can continue to try to assert that we are making it up, doesn't make it true.

By the Bible, each man is responsible for himself, and the devil attempts to influence him to win his soul to prove his wager with God correct. God gives him free will to seek out salvation if he so chooses. You don't like it fine, but stop proposing your words like fact, when they aren't.

No non-believer is going to tell me the proper way to believe, that's absurdity.

Our pastor made it a point in a lesson a couple of months back, for us to stop giving Satan so much credit when things happen in our lives that aren't part of our plan. In my belief, everything is for the ultimate glorification of God; therefore, some things may happen that don't seem too good, or even sensible at the time. The funny thing is, you go back and look at it a few weeks later, or even a few years later, and sure enough that led to a chain of events that in some way would glorify God. There really aren't just 'good' and 'bad' things that happen in life, it's really just a difference in what our plans are for events and people, versus what His plan is for the same events and people.

EDIT: It's like Dave Ramsey's description of money. Money is neither innately good or evil. It just exists. The way in which it is used determines what it becomes. If someone uses it to pay a bounty to kill their wife, it becomes evil. If the same person instead, uses it to feed and clothe the poor, it becomes good. Events in our lives are the same. They just happen to us, it is the way in which we respond and direct ourselves during/after those events that determine the alignment of said event.

Perhaps you should read this post again.

You do choose which to follow and what not to follow.. When's the last time sacrificed animals in God's name? You said that Jesus said the old laws are still relevant. This is the problem I have with Christians, they want their cake and to eat it too.. You can't have things both ways. Either the Bible is completely open to interpretation, or it's a set of guidelines that God commands his followers to follow (you don't get to just say 'no'. He is God after all...) Either OT is still relevant, or it's not.

P.S. I was a practicing Christian for many, many years, and I've read the Bible in it's entirety multiple times over. Just because my view of it and your view of it aren't congruent doesn't mean I don't understand it.

I thought about warning them, but I figured they'd say something that would get them ripped apart before I could make my point clear. I agree Slip, one can't choose parts of something to give into. You either completely follow something, or completely dis-follow (making up words, I know). God Himself even said He doesn't like luke warm water. We, as Christians (you and I Evandis), must either follow the Bible as the living word fully and wholly, or we must say it is totally corrupted by the hand of man, and utilize none of it for the sanctity of our convictions. I for one, choose the former.

Addressing each issue:

1. Jesus blood was sacrificed for our sins to be forgiven, effectively ending the need to sacrifice animal blood.

2. Laws and punishment aren't the same. I am sorry that's a hard concept for you to understand. I am also sad to hear that you still judge the Christian faith solely on the portion of the Bible written for the Israelites.

I never understood the point of the New Testament. Why did Jesus need to suffer?

That was one of the major questions I had as a Christian. Why do people need to suffer for forgiveness?

Why did Jesus get to absolve me of the sins I didn't make yet? If Jesus = God = Holy Spirit, then why ever would he need to kill himself?

I don't judge the Bible for that, I'm just using your own words.. You said it's still relevant. I said the other day that either Jesus' sacrifice rendered the OT irrelevant, or it didn't. You responded with "this is a world of grey" well no, it's really not. The only way it can be grey, is if you view the Bible as to be interpreted and not read.. God commands his followers to follow his word, it's right there in the Bible several times. That's black and white, follow it all, or don't follow any of it. It can only become grey if you choose to interpret it as something like "My followers must follow my command within reason"

And if you go that route, you can longer lean on the Bible in arguments and try to use what's said in it as if they were facts. Since you're already choosing to interpret instead of read and follow.

Because God commanded that sin must be temporarily cover sins, meaning every time you sinned you must make an offering to God as show for your transgressions. Back then most people had animals to feed themselves and their families and earn a living, sacrificing an animal could be the difference between eating that night or not, or making coin. It showed your devotion to God, that you were willing to take from yourself to give to Him.

Jesus came because our sinful ways were growing and Jesus sacrificed his blood to forgive all our sins past and present. His suffering was for the salvation of man.

Yeah, but if Jesus is God, why couldn't God just be like "Hey guys, you all done and messed up, but I'll always forgive you"?

I never understood the middle step.

The Bible has a timeline, the words in the NT take precedent over those in the OT. If in the NT we are commanded to do something differently than the the OT, than we follow the NT. The NT is the beginning of Christianity. That is why it is a world of gray, because you have to first rely on the NT to know what has changed. The laws stay the same, the punishments do not, that is the gray I am referring to, that Jesus' sermon on the Mount was not as black and white as the OT is still 100% relevant. All Jesus stated was he was not here to destroy the laws of the prophets, not the punishments of old.

Jesus isn't God, some sects of Christianity believe he was, but many others don't. Jesus is the son of God, not God himself.

EDIT: I have class now, my silence simply means I am actually not here, not that I have no response.