Buffman

Sabine,

Thank you. I do appreciate your efforts to find a harmonious accommodation between the True Believer and the Unbeliever. I also appreciate that you have adopted a belief system that works best for you. However, do you not see the inconsistencies within that belief system? You are picking and choosing the items to fit your personal wants and desires. Perhaps you are exposing why there are so many Religious Sects and Denominations in the world. Humans are attracted to those beliefs which seemingly work best for them in order to give purpose, meaning and direction to their lives in a seemingly random natural universe. Some humans have chosen to create a supernatural universe in which nothing is random. Obviously that has great appeal to the majority of humans who merely embellish that universe with different names, curtains, drapes, rugs, and other paraphernalia/images from out of their own cultures and histories to help them understand and explain the unknown.

Your question attributes to my thoughts the definition of sin as presented by a biblicaly convicted christian. I hope you can differenciate that my thoughts on the topic of sin do not fit that attribution.

I have from the moment of your first post. However, I have also challenged you to examine the supernatural portion of your belief system applying it to a critical analysis process. I honestly do realize just how difficult this is for any person who has been conditioned by a faith belief system ...as are so many of those claiming to be Christians that post to these forums. Yet just look at the diversity of Christian opinions you read here. Who is to decide which is more accurate than another? How are they to arrive at that decision?

I believe that your most important point is exposing just how inconsistent is a faith belief in Christianity. Therefore, it is vital that each person claiming such a belief explain the nature of what that belief means to them before a non-believer is adversely influenced simply by the label.

I know.. what I present is very simplistic. It can be that simple. And have nothing to do with religious morality or non religious morality. Nothing to do with being a God believing individual or a non believing individual. Just a personal choice. Each time.

Do you not see how that statement helps to define the non-believers approach to the world? Aren't you saying that we do not require supernatural guidance/intervention in order to lead positive and productive lives? If so, I most heartily agree! However, I fear that your views would not be welcome in a goodly number of other Christian denominations.

HelenM

Is that your actual experience with people? That Christians forgive and forget more easily than non-Christians?

Helen

Radorth

Helen, I clearly made a distinction because you missed it the first tme, or I wasn't clear. Then I made it again, more clearly, and you are still wanting to speak in generalities. It's like asking me if I think all birds fly south for the winter when I've already said some do not.

Ok. SOME Christians are forgiving and SOME aren't. It depends on whether they understand Roman's, why rightoeousness must be imputed to them, whether the believe they are saved by grace or works, whether they feel saved one day and lost the next, their legalistic tendencies...

And with Christians who've heard a Gospel unpolluted by religious people, and legalists, yes it is my experience.

Rad

Radorth

Read about the community in Acts. Read the history of Oberlin College. Read Franklin's autobiography and what he saw in Philadelphia after Whitefield preached on imputed righteousness. Read what Locke believed and taught and guess whether he was influenced by Jesus. Read Jefferson. Read about the four Quaker men who came out against slavery in 1680, and how they treated children. Christians were first in every move to liberate people from religious and racial oppression, child labor- you name it. I know. They got it all from Voltaire and Paine.

York murdered German soldiers? Or are you revising history again? How can you say this in one breath and insist God wants us to kill our enemies in the next? Are you just switching premises and tactic when convenient? I think so.

Bull&^%$. If you want to stop making stupid, simplistic assertions like that, and asking your famous rhetorical questions, let me know. You are simply oversimplifying my position in order to argue with it.

Rad

Hail

I think Christianity has done a lot of good deeds but it has some fundamental flaws. Flaws not really introduced by Christ but most often by human good intent.
For example you cannot achieve world harmony while in seperate groups. You cannot stop being of seperate groups if you believe that God doesn't approve of certain groups or individuals even your own. You override God's viewpoint if you go ahead and thoroughly approve of your fellow man if you believe these things.
You won't do it, you will only make charitable type gesture then return to your group. This is a impediment to global corporation which we cannot function without in this world of TODAY. I'm am not for thowing out the baby with the bath water but it's time to change out the water.
Jesus gave us a pointer as to how masses could organize so as to develop but people could not comprehend what this advanced mind had to offer. It is those same people who rose to the task of recording what was being shown to the best of their understanding.
Lets just say if: The temple in Jerusalem has a specific type of energy which is directly related to the pourpose of the human potential. This seems inconsiquential now but it's value can be realised in time to come. It's significance is recorded in these texts in attempt to keep some attention to it and folks head in a rewarding direction. Organized Religion has turned this into bomb blasting competition.
Nobody wants that to happen but: one group thinks they are the approved of group as per their own religious people so the other group should let them goege on resources and humbly accept whatever is left.
This is not working. This is not Love of others. This is seperation in action. One group gets put in a desperate situation and start to do desperate things to the other group. Then the first group has to do desperate thing to survive the desperate things being done to them.
I'ts an unmerry-go-round. The torch has been passed to humans to overcome this not Jesus not God, YOU. I don't demand that you believe me but just look at it and keep it in mind for later on, say about 2008 or so.
That is how I see it
Cheers.

Buffman

Rad,

Thanks once again for demonstrating what you do so well and so often.

York murdered German soldiers? Or are you revising history again? How can you say this in one breath and insist God wants us to kill our enemies in the next? Are you just switching premises and tactic when convenient? I think so.

EXODUS 20:13 "Thou shalt not KILL."

DEUT. 5:17 "Thou shalt not KILL."

So Sgt. York violated his supernatural God's Commandment and KILLED German Soldiers while capturing others...unless he lied in his dairy...which would constitute a different Commandment violation.

http://www.alvincyork.org/Diary.htm

(Extract)
OCTOBER 8th 1918 (continued)
--and I got hold of the German major, and he told me if I wouldn't kill any more of them he would make them quit firing. So I told him all right, if he would do it now. So he blew a little whistle, and they quit shooting and come down and gave up.
I had killed over twenty before the German major said he would make them give up. I covered him with my automatic and told him if he didn't make them stop firing I would take off his head next. And he knew I meant it. He told me if I didn't kill him, and if I stopped shooting the others in the trench, he would make them surrender.
He blew a little whistle and they came down and began to gather around and throw down their guns and belts. All but one of them came off the hill with their hands up, and just before that one got to me he threw a little hand grenade which burst in the air in front of me.
I had to touch him off. The rest surrendered without any more trouble. There were nearly 100 of them.
(End extract)

Oxymoron

Huh? More likely, someone that "understands" and believes the fictions of the gospel doesn't have a snowball's chance of understanding human nature (but will no doubt convince themselves that they do).

Radorth

He was not murdering them, which is my interpretation of the commandment

It is hypocritical to say "Amie, God wants us to kill our enemies," and then interpret the scripture legalistically when it suits.

Make up your semi-principled, legalistic mind and we'll talk.

BTW, we note that it is a Christian who wants to do something about nutballs with nuclear weapons, while atheists whine about it. Yes, I am against a preemptive strike (depending on evidence) but a rational person would think Bush's initiative would be welcomed here, considering atheists depend on human inititative to solve major dilemmas.

Rad

Ab_Normal

If I recall correctly, brettc was making the "God wants us to kill our enemies" argument, and Buffman was making the "God says THOU SHALT NOT KILL" argument. Two different people, two different statements. (Unless you think we're all actually one atheist with a lot of sockpuppets and a really good typing speed. )

edited 'cos "arguement" isn't a word... anybody have a mnemonic for that one? it kicks my ass every (*&!@$(*& time.

HelenM

Ok, thanks for your answer.

I'm glad you've found that to be so in your experience.

I've realized I'd rather not discuss mine so I guess that's that.

Helen