Last summer I started thinking more seriously about the way the world works, mainly, religion. I have had many conversations and debates with various people about the “spiritual world” and how we as humans should try to live. I started to find out that I had a lot of strong opinions about this topic. In the summer I attended an event at a local church that my ex-girlfriend was working at, this was one of those propaganda fairs, where they gave away free stuff and try to lure you into their “great church”. Afterwards they sent out evaluation cards, for those who attended to fill out and return, so they can improve their future events. I never sent mine back, but about a month ago, after being dumped by my girlfriend, I was feeling rather down on my self, and I saw the already filled out evaluation, and I decided to finally send it with a letter explaining my views on religion.

(This is a typed up copy of the letter, I omitted the first paragraph, it contained personal information to why I was writing and was late returning the card, but it did not contain any vital information. This is a revised copy, many words and sentences have been reformatted or changed.)


-----


It has been said many times that every human being is entitled to their own opinion and dreams, everyone is different and these facts of life should be easily accepted. I think these same concepts should apply to religion. Almost all religions have one thing in common, live a good and moral life, and you will in turn be rewarded- whether in this life or another. I don’t think should matter if you believe in a god or not, just as long as you use the short time you have on this Earth wisely. I think everyone knows what a moral life is, be kind and loving, leave the Earth a better place than it was when you were born, be good to yourself, and humble yourself to the fact that you are not the universal center, but just a part of this Earth as the air we breathe. How you choose your motivation to live a moral life is completely personal, and I don’t think belief in a god is not necessary to live in such a way.

I respect the fact that you have found a religion that makes you content, but that doesn’t mean you should try to force your views and opinions on everyone else. And again, just because someone is different, doesn’t mean that they are wrong. I have some major disagreements with Christianity, for one, I do not think that it is required to ask Jesus for constant forgiveness for your sins. Simply acknowledging that you have done wrong and strive towards reform has the same effect. I also disagree with the fact that no matter what, before you die, if you ask Jesus forgiveness for your sins you will be admitted into heaven; and that this is the only path to the eternal life of happiness.

I agree with repent and reform for things done wrong, but what about good and moral doing people across the world who have never even heard the Gospel of Jesus? Will they burn in hell for an eternity just because of the family they are born into? No, if there is a god and he is fair and all knowing, he will grant only those who disserve heaven by what they’ve done in their time on his Earth; not just the Christians who do whatever they please, as long as they go to mass on Sundays and repent before they die.

Furthermore, just because someone doesn’t believe in god doesn’t mean they are a bad or immoral person, you should think no less of them just because they have different ideas about the ways of life. My own father of four children has often said, “My biggest failing as a parent is that you kids aren’t Christians.” This is the mentality that drives people away from organized religion. All the people I’ve talked to live perfectly fine lives following whatever “religion”, morals, or guidelines that they wish. The more I discuss with people about their personal beliefs and morals, I get a stronger feeling that I have the right mindset about religion.

I may be wrong, but what I believe in sure makes a lot more sense than anything else I’ve heard, and the concept of self guidance towards morality also seems to work everyone I’ve spoke to about their beliefs. The only way we will know for sure to what happens after this life, is the day we die, and I will be happy to be a martyr for a sensible cause if I am indeed wrong.


-------


I put my phone number with the letter, just incase they would like to debate any of the issues discussed, but I didn’t hear anything back from the church for a long time. About two weeks ago, my old girlfriend started talking to me on facebook, she said she liked the letter I wrote, and that it was mass produced and a copy was sent to everyone, which would be about 400 people. I guess the people at the church liked it, and I was told that I was the type of person they wanted to bring in to their church. The next day I got an invitation inviting me to a dinner called Alpha, which is closed to the public, and where we would discuss the issues I brought up in my letter. I was told that I can bring my kids, so they must not have gotten the fact that I’m a junior in high school.

The dinner is on Thursday, April 2nd, and before then I would like to debate about the issues addressed in my letter, and any other flaw or contradiction concerning Christianity that we come up with. I plan to expand on my viewpoints at this meeting, I don’t plan to convert anyone away from their beliefs, but just show expand on the fact that Christianity is not the only way to live a good life. I can think of no better way to prepare for this meeting than to post a topic here on SEN, please post any thoughts, arguments, or expansions concerning the issues I have brought up, or any thing of relevance you feel like addressing.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 27 2009, 3:15 am by RoryFenrir.

The problem with most "Christians" in today's society is this exact mindset. They go, "Yay, Jesus died for our sins. We're saved! Now let's do whatever the f**k we want." I believe that's wrong. The saying that I've gone with is that Faith without works is dead. Here's a quote by Rev. Dr. Robert M. Bowman:
This lack of devotion/knowledge is what makes many people ignorant of their own religions.

This has been quite a hot topic for many people I know, there are varying opinions. This article voices some of their answers. Particularly check out Part 2. I will say that I disagree with what they say about Limbo, Purgatory, and the five point Calvinism.

I agree. and seeing as the Bible is over 2000 years old and not a single word of it is a direct translation. none of it makes sense anyway. it's all a "he says that she said that they say that this possibly happened like this but most likely not" kind of thing. and the whole thing is a contradiction and almost everything in there has either been taken out of context or completely blown out of proportion... any way good points on a lot of that

Those are some pretty good points.

@MillenniumArmy, thanks for those links I'm definitely going to have to read those sometime, just glanced over them quickly so far.

Another subject that may be worth looking up is this: I remember something about when Jesus rose from his grave and went around he had to prove to others that He was for real and resurrected and all that. My question is pretty obvious, why did He discontinue doing that? If Jesus himself was going around today proving stuff, there would be a lot of stuff solved and people could move on with their lives.

A) You're the dinner.
B) Everyone picks on christianity, because it's the only thing they know. If you want to impress them, do your research on other religions, and discuss that also. Odds are they'll know nothing.
C) If they tell you once you believe in him, you'll feel his presence. Rebut with 'Is it possible that you only feel his presence because you believe it is there?' Then continue to explain; saying when you believe something, you start to think its real.
D) If they bring up un-explainable miracles. Calmy say 'Oh, unexplainable, sort of like the big bang?'
E) If they ask why you dont believe in God, reply, 'Because I don't believe in magic. Much like you all don't believe in Santa.'

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 27 2009, 8:57 am by Vrael. Reason: combined

It would be helpful if you specified what particular Christian sect is being dealt with rather than lumping all of the Christian religions into one.

Its because most Christians forget the fact that it is a sin to sin with later plans of repentence.

Finally a SD topic starter that isn't "Should _____ be like ______? Discuss."

This is a good example of how a good SD topic should start off.

So. They'll just have to repent that too.

I actually do beleive in a god lol, but my deininition of god being: at the very top of the particle->atom->molecule->cell->organism->environment->world->galaxy... organisation scale, and thats about as far as my personal belief goes. But I like speaking as though I am without belief, and defending those who dont, just to proove that it doesnt matter.

I think the word god was just invented to give an answer to all of life's biggest unsolved problems, but thats completely ignorant to make up a name and then deny further reseach or thought on the subject.


And me and a friend did some research on this church, its actually a part of a massive group of curches, a coorporation almost, and I dont know exactly what sect they are, but they are definatly one of those "christian rock, thank jesus for everything, and jesus is the answer" churches. Heres their page: ev4square

Ya and I was looking at some parts of the bible, the old testemate mainly, but there are a ton of rediculous things and contradictions, but these are surely addressed all the time, so i dont plan on brining any of these up.

That's actually your bread and butter when arguing with them, do not simply brush it aside.

Almost all such addressed issues can be looked up (or perhaps even answered) with a simple google search. That's what I do if I happen to see an issue which I'm not too sure about (hence why I'm glad such topics concerning Christianity or the Bible are brought up as they continually drive me to learn and understand more and more about the very religion I follow.) Such websites provide their various opinions and intakes upon such matters with directions citations and quotations to Bible Passages or of various people to support their views.

But if you want to incite actual discussion, the best places to start would be questioning the motives of the teachings prophets in the Bible (like Jesus, Moses, Paul, King David, etc etc) have to share or figuring out exactly what the passages are saying. Depending on what people take to understand the theme and messages of the Bible can easily have a profound affect on the very beliefs they follow.
For instance a few days ago in a Bible study, we studied John Chapter 14 versus 1-14:
We spent most of our time discussing verse six and what those three words in red meant in the context of this passage (in fact I'd like to hear from you Christians here on SEN what you guys think the three mean.) What does Jesus mean when he said what he said in verse six? How does that affect the overlaying theme and message of this entire passage? Also in Verses two and three, what does Jesus mean when he says that he will leave to prepare a place in the father's house and when he comes back he'll take us with him? Is he referring to his resurrection? His second coming? Some passages can even become quite controversial. In fact, my favorite one is the Book of Job (an old testament book) that book itself is one big topic of debating how we view God and what his motives are.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 28 2009, 5:15 am by MillenniumArmy.

Well what im talking about is stuff like [if a woman speaks in the church of god she should be put to death] or [if you have a rebellious child they should be brought to the elders and put to death]

I guess though contradictions in the new testamate apply, I remember one time I was listening to a church sermon, and they were speaking of anger about muslims and terrorists, and how they should be put out of this world, but then later he started talking of brotherly and neighborly love... I thought it was kind of funny.

I do plan on doing a little bit of reasearch on the Muslim religion, mainly their guidlines and morals, to see how close they are to the 10 commandments.


This must be where the "you must accept jesus as your saviour to get into heaven" idea comes from

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 28 2009, 2:35 pm by RoryFenrir.

Post some of these "contradictions", I can almost completely guarantee that they are easily cleared up.


One thing you have to remember that Jesus is the God of the old testament, which is most likely a main reason for the sudden change in behavior you see in "God" between the new and old testaments.


I would actually say that it is referring to the fact that Jesus died to atone for our sins, in order to satisfy the demands of justice, and only through repentance, which is only possible because of his atonement, can we return to live with our Father in heaven.

You have to be really careful about this. Saying that God is like this in one part of the Bible and that God is like another in another part of the Bible leads many to accept only one aspect of God while ignoring the other aspect. In seminary school, this is the one thing they teach you not to do as that's the wrong approach to take when studying the Bible. Instead, when understanding aspects of the Bible, you understand what certain passages are saying while using other passages to help develop an understanding. It's kind of like when a President makes any of his or her executive decisions. He has several advisers who offer their various and perhaps even totally opposite opinions and he makes his final decision based off all their opinions (with his personal one being of most priority of course.)

So anyways Falkoner, I'm curious as to what you think about the Book of Job? Why did you think God did what he did to the guy? What was the moral to that story?

You're only like... 10% there. It's much deeper than that. What about the fact that Jesus died to atone for our sins does it correlate with the "truth" mentioned in John 14:6? How does "you must accept jesus as your saviour to get into heaven" play a part in this? What was there [for Jesus] to show to the Jews and all his disciples? Why did all this happen? All these are pieces of the puzzle, the "truth" is the completed puzzle.

To this, as with any other question of a similar nature, I think a relevant question would be to ask why the obvious approach is the "wrong" approach. Sure, the obvious answer isn't always the right one, but usually there is some extremely convincing reason for the second approach's superiority over the first. In this case, I believe it can most effectively be argued that the "right" approach is nothing more than an attempt to reconcile the obvious differences in the manner of the biblical God, where the consequence of unreconciled differences leads to reduced belief in God and loss of membership within the religion.

As for the argument, it lies along the lines of "If God acts within the reasonable bounds of X (presuming X is the fire-and-brimstone type God of wrath) in one distinct and independant section of the bible, and God acts within the reasonable bounds of Y (good and all-loving) during a separate, distinct, and independant section of the bible, that implies that there is an inconsistency in the actions of God." Now, that by itself isn't all that bad. People act differently in some situations than others, so why not a God? The problem occurs when you add in things like "God is perfect and omnipotent, and all good." If God is perfect and omnipotent and all good, that would imply that God should always act in accordance with his perfection, omnipotence, and goodness. God must be consistent with his perfection and omnipotence, otherwise he isn't going to be perfect, because if he acts in a non-perfect manner, then his actions aren't perfect and he is not perfect.

The case then becomes "Well who are we to say that "fire-and-brimstone" in one situation and "good and all loving" in another weren't the perfect actions?"
To this, there is no reasonable answer, just as the statement above is not reasonable. The statement above omits the objective of the actions. That is to say, the actions need to be perfect with respect to some goal. Anyone could argue that God's actions are perfect, and anyone could argue that God's actions are imperfect, merely by taking different objectives for God's actions, and if the objective taken is precise enough, then the logic behind the argument will be infallible, and we will end up with a version of an imperfect God and a perfect God.

Relating this back to the original statement about the dual natures of God in the bible, if we are to take the objective for the fire-and-brimstone God to be the objective which makes the fire-and-brimstone argument infallible, then the good-and-all-loving argument will have no objective for which the argument is infallible, and vice versa. This is what I see as the reason for bible study classes to teach that one approach is the "wrong" approach, and another would be the "right" approach, with the consequence of the irreconciliation being loss of faith in the bible.


Oh, and Rory, at this dinner I strongly reccommend that if you're going to be debating, that you ask them to nominate someone to act as a moderator for the discussion (for fairness), and that you bring/nominate someone yourself. Otherwise you will be subject to being talked over, not being allowed to formulate your points, being drowned out, ect. Establish a set of rules and follow them. Ex: the good old "one person talking at a time" like in class. And I wouldn't put anything to a vote, since they will outnumber you so greatly. Also try to establish an air of respect and willingness to listen, if they have someone talking to you, look them in the eye and pay attention to what they say. Think before responding, and offer responses that aren't personal or offensive. "Well, if this is true, than X must be true because they are related by Y" is a much better response than "You're wrong because Y." Present to them a well-mannered, respectful person and I think they will be much more inclined to return that respect while the debate is ensuing.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 28 2009, 10:02 pm by Vrael.

I am also in a Seminary class, however, as it pertains to my religion, and as we have not only one witness of the gospel, the Bible, we have two, it makes questions like this more certain, it's like nailing a board down, you stick one nail in it and you can spin it any way you want, you nail a second nail into the other side and it is set into one spot. Vrael, this also pretty much applies to your question.


Once again, having a second witness of Christ and the gospel solves this, since all these questions have definitive answers, the truth is the gospel of Christ, and the gospel all revolves around Christ's atonement, without him none of us could be saved as we are all sinners. If you do not accept Christ as your savior, you have no means for repentance, which keeps you out of "heaven". All of those questions have definitive answers in my religion, and I admit, it is not certain when all you have is a possible mistranslated book to work from.


A similar question, but one that is more easily answered, would be why would God have asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? You also cannot forget that the Lord eventually ended up blessing Job more abundantly than he was previously, why are we tempted? Why must good people die? 1 Cor. 10:13 says:
We have temptations, in this case, Job was tempted to "curse god and die", however, the Lord always creates a way for us to get out of it, and when we do we are blessed for obeying him. If you'd like a better explaination of it, I can also give that as well, if you would like.

As a put me up, I appreciate your opinion though I do not agree with everything you say here.


Could you explain what you mean by "Force your views and opinions on everyone else"?

We do not NEED to continually admit our sins to God in order to go to Heaven, but it is an important part of a Christian life. To explain it I'll put it this way: God is like our friend. When we do something that offends our friend we don't just forget it and go on do we? If we want to continue being good friends we have to have some communication there. Since God is a good friend of ours it's good practice to ask him to forgive us of our misgivings so that he will continue to be with us.

Talking and having a relationship with God is something that comes after salvation. We accept Jesus as our Lord after being saved. We develop a relationship with God our Father as we grow in our Christianity. God wants to be our Friend. He created man for a purpose. I believe this purpose was to have somebody who had a free will to decide to be his friend. This goes into some things that I will not debate right now, just have mercy and entertain the thought of free will, and so on. He walked in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve. We can see this and assume this from Gen. 3:8 "And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day:" It was something that God obviously did often. Enoch walked with God according to Gen. 5:22 "And Enoch walked with God"

You stated before that to "humble yourself" was a good thing. This is why part of Salvation is to admit you are a sinner, and admit that Jesus is the only way. Which is what I believe "I am the way" signifies. By the way Millennium my Pastor preached a sermon on that - http://blessedhopebaptistchurch.net/audio/11-02-08.mp3 I missed this so I'll listen to it also


I'll break this down into 2 points. You made this statement because as you stated later people "Christians who do whatever they please." I understand that. I'll say 2 things. Sometimes people 1. Did not mean it when they accepted Jesus into their heart. I'm sure you've made a half-hearted promise and later did not deliver. The Bible says in Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead then thou shalt be saved." Sometimes people logically understand the gospel, but they really never believed it in the first place. These people need to be saved. Sometimes though 2. They really are saved, and sin anyway. I Corinthians 1:9 "God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." God made a promise, and he will keep it. That is the definition of faithful. A person who keeps his promise from what I remember is a faithful person. I said before the God is our friend. Just because your best friend stops being your friend doesn't mean you should just stop loving him, neh? God is our friend, and when we people like this start doing as they please they do it knowingly hurting their friend God. It's bitterness, and it's human weakness. God is forgiving, God has promised us that we'll still go to Heaven even if we are not right with him when we die, or when Jesus comes back.


Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

Isaiah 64:6 "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."

Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

Humbleness. Pride. That is the whole thing. We have all sinned, first of all. God can't have sin in Heaven. Why? Because as in Romans 6:23 "The wages of sin is death." That would stink in Heaven, neh? So covering that. What about good and moral people? Well they're nice, my aunt is one of those people, but she is also on her way to a burning lake of fire and brimstone. Do I seem happy about it? I'm not. I talked about Pride and Humbleness because if you get to Heaven because you're a good and moral person then it is YOU who gets YOU to Heaven. There would be bragging rights involved if that was the way. There would be no need for a relationship with God if you went that way, and you would be worshiping not the Creator, but yourself, or whatever inspired you to be moral.

Fair? Uh-oh. Fair? Jesus Christ did not have an easy time on this earth. I believe he was either 30 or 40 by the time he started his ministry. Back then especially he would be feeling some pain in his back or his knees for sure. Even if he was in good condition it still isn't nice getting sick is it? Or for that matter just waking up a lot of times. Living on this earth is kind of hard physically. It's demanding. God cursed the earth twice in Genesis. It's hard. Putting that aside as assumption he was tempted by Satan in Matthew and Luke chapter 4. He was also tempted after that according to the Bible Luke 4:13 "And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season." Just for a season. Hebrews says that he was tempted of all things that we are in 4:15 "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin." Oh yea, did I mention that according to the Bible I believe that Jesus was God. I'll go into that if you sincerely desire to know. He was, and so that means God came to earth, lived, and died for us. Wow, not only that, but Jesus was his only begotten son. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. So God gave himself and his only son to die for us. It just isn't fair that all we have to do is humble ourselves enough and admit we sin, and admit we can't do it on our own to get to Heaven. Sorry /rant. I suggest reading the Crucifixion of Jesus at least once if you're really curious. Matthew chapter 27, Mark chapter 15, Luke chapter 23, and John chapter 19. Jesus did that to humble himself just like a friend would humble himself in order to gain or improve a friendship. Also he did it to clean away our sins with his atoning blood.

It isn't fair to those people who do not sincerely get to hear the gospel, and that is a failure on Christians part, and on mans part in general. There are missionaries we support in China right now. Those Christians can't actually meet according to their government. China doesn't allow missionaries into their borders.


I've never said people who weren't born-again Christians were bad. My aunt is the best woman in the world as far as I'm concerned. The failure your Father may have been talking about is the fact that without Jesus there is no way to Heaven.


I only have a few points to give you for you to simply think on. I haven't been trying to convert you, though I may have come off that way, but I have just tried to direct you in what I believe as a Christian from my understand of the Bible.

Thoughts to think on:



Because God wants us to have the free choice to choose him as our Salvation. If Jesus was here, then it would be an easy choice, neh? He wanted us to step out by faith, and trust him. He wanted someone who would love him by choice. Faith is defined in Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance ofthings hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Now that explanation might not have made much sense to you, and I'm sorry if it didn't. Look at it this way. If you wanted friends would you want them to like you because you were so great at something. If you were great at basketball would you want your teammates to like you just because you were good. Or would you rather them like you because they sincerely desire a relationship with you that is more than just your dribbling and shooting ability?

I'm not sure about all ya'lls views on marriage, but would you want that special somebody you were going to marry to desire that marriage because you were handsome/pretty or because you were someone they loved and someone they enjoyed being with?

Falkoner, the introduction of the gospel does not eliminate the new testament or old testament, or reconcile them. If it does, somehow, you're going to have to explain that else we (or maybe it's just me) will never see it. To use your anaolgy, you've given us a second nail but not where to hammer it in.

Falkoner is mormon, thus he has a go-around for most things. They get to put holy asterisks by things if said by their current president/pope/prophet person.

Now if only mormonism didn't require you to believe all the crazy things joseph smith said about Indians/Florida/Golden Plates/Many wives, we'd have ourselves a not too shabby religion...

It doesn't matter where you hammer it in, the nail will still hold the board, however, while it doesn't work for the analogy, I know what you're saying, it does not eliminate them, but it gives you a second reference point, which makes it much harder to vary on interpretations of it, as one has to correlate with the other.


This makes me think the majority of what you know about the LDS church comes from a South Park episode, a show written by a couple of previous mormons who love to bash on their old religion whenever they can.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 29 2009, 5:19 am by Falkoner.