• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Christianity summed up beautifully[W:28]

Well said:
If you look at history, the original Christians of the first century were like sheep led to the slaughter during the persecution by Rome and others. They lived by these words and Christianity perservered.

By the fourth century AD, Christianity became the official religion of Rome. Rome was not the official secular of Christianity. Rome was the overdog. The Christian church changes, more in the image of Rome. The mass was spoken in Latin and even Pagan festivals were added. The new Church did like Christ had said; it rendered onto both God and Ceasar, with the Caesar aspect of the church tough, ceremonial, powerful, empire, senate (college of Cardinals), wealthy, cruel, rational, artistic, scholarly, etc.

By about 1500 AD the composite Caesar-God church, like a cell preparing to divide, began to separate the secular from the Christian. Germany which led the birthing pains, later spawns the Emperor Hitler. The German goose step and salute was used by Rome. Hail Caesar. Little by little secular factions leave the church, allowing it to approach true spirit of Christianity.
Click to expand...

Rome went from killing people because they were Christian to killing people because they were not Christian. Not killing people over which religions they do or do not belong to is still something that people apparently can't figure out. Christianity never made a dent in this trend, it just changed who was being killed.

Ikari said:
I think the main message of Christianity is "Don't be a dick". It's supposed to be a religion based on love and acceptance of people for who they are, forgoing judgement (leaving it to god) and accepting all humans with open arms.
Click to expand...

That's the message of pretty much every religion, and of secular humanists. Why we needed to spend thousands of years at war with each other (and still do) because we can't agree on who told us not to be dicks or who will or won't punish us for being dicks is beyond me. How about we just stop being dicks?

zgoldsmith23 said:
I did the same. Baptized, raised, confirmed Catholic. I'd say it's more "don't be a dick ... unless we interpret the Bible in a way that says a group is wrong.
Click to expand...

It was the same in my Jewish upbringing, too. Except it was more "don't be a dick... but really it's only to prove that we're better than everyone." How about we just keep the "don't be a dick" part and actually do it en masse for the first time in human history? No one has ever tried it before.
 
spanky said:
No, it says they took them as wives, all they wanted. The concept of "wives" was a bit different then, the women rarely had a choice.

BTW - Can you tell us the difference between "Sons of God" as opposed to "son and daughters of men"?
Click to expand...


All women in the past were raped and forced into marriage? Prove it.

It doesn't say "angels." It says "sons of God." I do know the Bible says that angels did not/do not marry, so it can't mean angels. You just WANT to claim is says "angels" "raped" helpless women as part of your current rant in general on the forum against Christianity.
 
joko104 said:
All women in the past were raped and forced into marriage? Prove it.

It doesn't say "angels." It says "sons of God." I do know the Bible says that angels did not/do not marry, so it can't mean angels. You just WANT to claim is says "angels" "raped" helpless women as part of your current rant in general on the forum against Christianity.
Click to expand...

What is a "son of god" as opposed to a son or daughter of men?
 
Last edited:
spanky said:
What is a "son of god" as opposed to a son or daughter of men?
Click to expand...

It doesn't say. Hey, are one of those people who is convinced that of the 200+ billions stars of our galaxy, one of hundreds of billions of galaxies in our particular cosmos - and including the 80%+ of which is unaccounted for dark matter, if you are not aware of what it is, it therefore can not exist because, ultimately, the entire cosmos revolves around you and you are the the most superior species of it?

The only thing humans may actually have the highest status of concerns narcissm.

I suspect a fundamental distinction between us is you are certain you fully comprehend the concept of "god" and conclude there can not be such a thing. I have no doubt that if there is a god or gods, it/they are entirely beyond my ability to comprehend - nor do I see any particular reason to try.

My ego does not demand that I make determinations about gods or gods. I am wise enough to recognize there is no relevancy to me whether or not I do.

I am certain that homo sapien sapiens are not the highest order of creatures in intelligence, power, or importance.

My wife describes earth as one of the generally avoided bizarre, grostesquely primative, genocidal and irrational backwaters of the cosmos - but that the absurdly short life spans of creatures - particular homo sapien sapiens - is "interesting." Like looking at micro organisms in a petri dish - multiplying, eating each other and rapidly dying. They probably think they're a big deal too. I wonder if fungi in your blood stream can comprehend the existence of you? If not, therefore you do not exist - although their life is dependent upon you.

You do seem to think in very linear terms - a flat radius all extending from you.

ROFL
 
Ikari said:
I think it's because Catholicism more than any other sect of Christianity does encourage people to think about their beliefs. People do question quite a bit, and there are parts of the Church some are upset with; though they will support the organization as a whole.

I don't know, as I said it can be (and likely is) due to upbringing. I was raised Catholic, so I probably have the most sympathy towards it because of that.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

My impression if that Catholicism dictates the belief structure to it's members, and did not accept individual thought and analysis.

For many years, Catholicism discouraged individual bible reading and interpretation.

It seems to be a very rigid and unforgiving religious organization.
 
i think that even though the bible was written a long time ago that still doesnt change that its Gods word and i dont think we should ignore it or say it dont matter anymore. too bad people are taking it out of context.
 
SMTA said:
Interesting.

My impression if that Catholicism dictates the belief structure to it's members, and did not accept individual thought and analysis.

For many years, Catholicism discouraged individual bible reading and interpretation.

It seems to be a very rigid and unforgiving religious organization.
Click to expand...

It's not all that rigid and unforgiving... Not in this day and age at least.
 
As we see on this thread, what is truly difficult to understand is the absolute unrelenting rage of the atheists and homosexuals, rage that others would have faith in God and His Word. They can always be counted on to literally explode with hate and anger when someone expresses their happiness because of their faith. They demand that your life be as hopeless and Godless as their own barren lives.

There is no point in arguing with these people, their rage and hate are all that they have and they're not going to let go of that and they're not going to stop attacking others for no logical reason whatsoever.

Why even notice the fact that their silliness always centers on Christianity and Christians? Judgment Day will not be pleasant for them.
 
Last edited:
theres a lot of things people think about christians that just aren't true. some think we're all republicans and thats not true, even though i am a lot of people that go to my church voted for Obama and a lot of people agree with him. President Bush was a christian and so is Obama so theres probably more that we agree on than disagree.
 
teachix4jesus said:
i think that even though the bible was written a long time ago that still doesnt change that its Gods word and i dont think we should ignore it or say it dont matter anymore. too bad people are taking it out of context.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that?
 
teachix4jesus said:
theres a lot of things people think about christians that just aren't true. some think we're all republicans and thats not true, even though i am a lot of people that go to my church voted for Obama and a lot of people agree with him. President Bush was a christian and so is Obama so theres probably more that we agree on than disagree.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you would think this. The religious vote is pretty evenly divided between the parties although the pubs have about 80% of the evangelical vote. If this is what you meant by "christians", evangelicals, then that would make sense.
 
joko104 said:
It doesn't say. Hey, are one of those people who is convinced that of the 200+ billions stars of our galaxy, one of hundreds of billions of galaxies in our particular cosmos - and including the 80%+ of which is unaccounted for dark matter, if you are not aware of what it is, it therefore can not exist because, ultimately, the entire cosmos revolves around you and you are the the most superior species of it?

The only thing humans may actually have the highest status of concerns narcissm.

I suspect a fundamental distinction between us is you are certain you fully comprehend the concept of "god" and conclude there can not be such a thing. I have no doubt that if there is a god or gods, it/they are entirely beyond my ability to comprehend - nor do I see any particular reason to try.

My ego does not demand that I make determinations about gods or gods. I am wise enough to recognize there is no relevancy to me whether or not I do.

I am certain that homo sapien sapiens are not the highest order of creatures in intelligence, power, or importance.

My wife describes earth as one of the generally avoided bizarre, grostesquely primative, genocidal and irrational backwaters of the cosmos - but that the absurdly short life spans of creatures - particular homo sapien sapiens - is "interesting." Like looking at micro organisms in a petri dish - multiplying, eating each other and rapidly dying. They probably think they're a big deal too. I wonder if fungi in your blood stream can comprehend the existence of you? If not, therefore you do not exist - although their life is dependent upon you.

You do seem to think in very linear terms - a flat radius all extending from you.

ROFL
Click to expand...

So "sons of god" aren't angels nor humans but some other kind of being?

BTW - Your wife sounds like a laugh a minute.
 
Ikari said:
I was raised and confirmed Catholic, I went to Catholic school for quite some time, they seemed to be more along my line of thinking. Don't be a dick. You are, of course, free to be a dick; it's just not very Christ like.
Click to expand...

Why is it when people are challenged about their perception of Catholicism, they somehow assume that simply asserting they once went to a Catholic church or attended a Catholic school helps their credibility?

For the record, I was not purposely being a dick, I was simply stating some facts, something as a scientist I thought you would appreciate. If someone offers their "opinion" on some physics theory that you know is wrong and you correct them is that being a dick?


Love is not acceptance. Catholicism does not teach acceptance, it does teach love and service to God, the difference is profound.

To truly love requires making some very painful judgements, most often and first and foremost about ourselves.
 
gilbertc1908 said:
To truly love requires making some very painful judgements, most often and first and foremost about ourselves.
Click to expand...

I understand what you were saying up until this sentence. What sort of judgements do you mean?

If to truly love there's a requirement for "very painful judgements...of ourselves" (whatever they are), then does this mean that God is incapable of ever truly loving?

CL
 
gilbertc1908 said:
Love is not acceptance. Catholicism does not teach acceptance, it does teach love and service to God, the difference is profound.

To truly love requires making some very painful judgements, most often and first and foremost about ourselves.
Click to expand...

To me, love absolutely is acceptance. It is acceptance of people just as they are, without condemning them, based on one's own prejudices. It doesn't mean that you think someone is "right" or "wrong", but you leave the judgement up to something bigger than yourself, and let things go as they may.
 
As nice as your post sounds lizzie, this doesn't always work out practically.

I wonder if you do accept every person you meet, just as they, especially when they are probably only portraying to you their best possible image.

Why leave the judgement "up to something bigger than yourself"? What if there is nothing? We are individuals that should makes these decisions ourselves.

I don't feel comfortable holding an idealist belief of the world when I'm ignorant of the terrible lives that billions have around the globe.
 
contactlenses said:
As nice as your post sounds lizzie, this doesn't always work out practically.

I wonder if you do accept every person you meet, just as they, especially when they are probably only portraying to you their best possible image.

Why leave the judgement "up to something bigger than yourself"? What if there is nothing? We are individuals that should makes these decisions ourselves.

I don't feel comfortable holding an idealist belief of the world when I'm ignorant of the terrible lives that billions have around the globe.
Click to expand...

1. I didn't say it's practical.
2. I am not an idealist.
 
contactlenses said:
Okay, but your original post does say something else.
Click to expand...

My original post says that I do believe that love is acceptance. It is accepting people the way they are, and not expecting them to live up to your expectations. If I were an idealist, I would condemn those with whom I don't agree, or who don't live their lives according to my own standards.
 
lizzie said:
Well, frankly, it's hard to square the history of people like Stalin and Mao with the nice ideas expressed in communist ideology, so I guess it all boils down to the fact that just because humans are imperfect, it doesn't mean that ideas are flawed.
Click to expand...
Great post.
 
gilbertc1908 said:
Yours is a very common misconception regarding Christianity by non Christians.

Loving and serving are very different than accepting. Judgement mine and Gods are at the very center of Christianity, the idea that we are not to exercise the moral tools provided within the Christian faith is a bit silly. Christ did not accept behavior he loved in spite of it and sought to influence it.
Click to expand...
Agreed, however, how did Christ influence people during his lifetime? He did so by teaching and miracles. Did he cage people up and make them listen to his message? No he did not. If a person heard Jesus speak, it was of their own free will. In addition, Jesus demonstrated NUMEROUS times but no better than with the Woman at the Well, that he was not above speaking to people that were seen as dirty and unclean by society. The Woman at the Well would be the equivalent to speaking to a lesbian Muslim nowadays. Yet he spoke to there with no qualms, no shame. Christians these days are so afraid of what others will say that they would never speak to a homosexual. They would never be seen in public speaking to a Muslim with a head scarf on. I think that is what Ikari was getting at.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Christians these days are so afraid of what others will say that they would never speak to a homosexual. They would never be seen in public speaking to a Muslim with a head scarf on.
Click to expand...

You must be exposed to some very odd Christians, if this is your observation. It puzzles me a bit, I must admit.
 
lizzie said:
You must be exposed to some very odd Christians, if this is your observation. It puzzles me a bit, I must admit.
Click to expand...
Forgive me, I live in the south lol. Plus, you're a Libertarian. This lends to your being a little more accepting and understanding than most.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom