By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[Muffled]

You "need" to do that a lot more often. When you say "I believe" those arguments can be refuted with a simple "So what?"

You might as well admit that you are wrong when you only say "I believe . . . "

I believe it boggles my mind that you think the phrase "i believe" is an admission of being wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe the scientists view their speculations as facts.

Now it appears that you are breaking the Ninth Commandment. When you claim that someone is "speculating" that is an attack on those people that you need to be able to justify. How can you justify this claim of yours?

 

[Muffled]

Your actions speak louder than you words. If you were not afraid then you would be willing to learn. The Ostrich Defense only fools the person that uses it. Far too often believers only want to believe. They do not want to know. There are consequences to this. For example you calim that your God is a liar, but since you are afraid to learn you can never understand how you do that.

I believe my experience is that a person with nothing of value to say keeps repeating himself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe it boggles my mind that you think the phrase "i believe" is an admission of being wrong.

You are ignoring the context. It is not just the phrase. It is the phrase along with refusing to supporting it. Have you heard of "Hitchens' Razor"? I can quote it for you if needed. There is no difference between saying "I believe" and then not supporting what you believe and admitting that one was wrong, except that the latter is at least honest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe my experience is that a person with nothing of value to say keeps repeating himself.

LOL! Like you do. Excellent point!

 

[YoursTrue]

I think it's also worth noting that Christians don't agree on whether salvation in Jesus is unconditional or not, although they all read the Bible. They believe diverse biblical interpretations and church doctrines about salvation, which is defined as Calvinism vs. Arminianism (unconditional salvation vs. conditional salvation). Some Christians claim that salvation is conditional, and they will quote a few scriptures they believe support their belief. Other Christians claim that salvation is unconditional (OSAS), and they quote a few scriptures they believe support their belief. Yet other Christians claim that speaking in tongues or baptism is required for salvation, and they also quote a few scriptures they believe support their belief. It's ironic that they all claim the Holy Spirit gave them "spiritual discernment" to properly understand the Bible, but it's obvious that they all contradict each other. They all cite the Bible in an attempt to defend their answers, even though their answers are very different and contradictory. They also believe that they are correct about their preferred beliefs and everyone else (including other Christians) is wrong about theirs, but they have the audacity to claim that the Bible is the word of God and Christianity is the only true religion in the world. In my opinion, there's no reason to believe them. It seems unreasonable to me for any Christian to assert that their preferred biblical interpretation and theology are correct while simultaneously claiming that other Christians are wrong, that their God divinely inspired the Bible, and that Christianity is the only true religion and is superior to all other religions. I think it's also unreasonable for them to expect non-Christians to accept the Bible as the final authority on moral issues and as divinely inspired by their God, yet they cannot agree on what the Bible actually teaches.

I commiserate with your experience although mine was somewhat different. The fact that those calling themselves Christians (or Jews) do not necessarily agree on some basic issues is certainly not encouraging and can be confusing. At least I have found it so. I thank you for offering your experience though.

 

[YoursTrue]

I believe it boggles my mind that you think the phrase "i believe" is an admission of being wrong.

Me, too.

 

[jimb]

I commiserate with your experience although mine was somewhat different. The fact that those calling themselves Christians (or Jews) do not necessarily agree on some basic issues is certainly not encouraging and can be confusing. At least I have found it so. I thank you for offering your experience though.

Why is agreeing on a particular doctrine so important? Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13:8-13, "Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

Faith depends on acceptance of what has been given, even if that means that something isn't completely understood. To me, it's not important to have complete understanding, but to accept what I understand.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why is agreeing on a particular doctrine so important? Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13:8-13, "Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

Faith depends on acceptance of what has been given, even if that means that something isn't completely understood. To me, it's not important to have complete understanding, but to accept what I understand.

So here is one "basic doctrine": Love your neighbor, right? Also love your enemy. Now how do you do that? For instance, let me be explicit in this -- would "loving your neighbor and/or enemy" mean dropping a bomb on them if your government tells you to do so? Naturally there are more situations, but how do you feel about that and what Jesus did and what his disciples did when it comes to opponents. Matthew 5 has a good description of what loving your enemy means...I hope you read it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why is agreeing on a particular doctrine so important? Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13:8-13, "Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

Faith depends on acceptance of what has been given, even if that means that something isn't completely understood. To me, it's not important to have complete understanding, but to accept what I understand.

P.S. Because religious groups do not agree on some basic doctrines can be VERY CONFUSING for some. Maybe not you.

 

[F1fan]

P.S. Because religious groups do not agree on some basic doctrines can be VERY CONFUSING for some. Maybe not you.

That is the dilemma withold and obsolete traditions, including religions. They have to adjust to progress and social change in order to not be left behind, and by default become an obsolete coalition of conflicted citizens. Look at how many hold on to creationism, and only because that is an obsolete artifact from an obsolete Christian interpretation of Genesis. Even the Catholics have moved on, and they are the oldest form of Christianity.

 

[jimb]

So here is one "basic doctrine": Love your neighbor, right? Also love your enemy. Now how do you do that? For instance, let me be explicit in this -- would "loving your neighbor and/or enemy" mean dropping a bomb on them if your government tells you to do so? Naturally there are more situations, but how do you feel about that and what Jesus did and what his disciples did when it comes to opponents. Matthew 5 has a good description of what loving your enemy means...I hope you read it.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Obviously, loving anyone does not mean dropping a bomb on them (thereby killing them). Jesus told the parable of the good Samaritan to describe what He meant by loving your neighbor. Jews -- Jesus' people -- passed by the stricken man, but a (despised) Samaritan not only gave aid to the stricken man but made sure that he was taken care of (at his expense) by the innkeeper. THAT is loving your neighbor!

As you may recall, Jesus even opposed violence when He was arrested at night in Gethsemane. And He was crucified without retaliation on his killers. (Not your will but mine!)

I hope that you read Matthew 5 and get off your strange interpretation of what loving your neighbor means.

 

[jimb]

P.S. Because religious groups do not agree on some basic doctrines can be VERY CONFUSING for some. Maybe not you.

Interpreting doctrines is often intellectualizing which results in confusion. Christians would be a lot better off by "walking the walk" and dropping the "talk the talk". Actions speak louder than words! (See the previous post.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Interpreting doctrines is often intellectualizing which results in confusion. Christians would be a lot better off by "walking the walk" and dropping the "talk the talk". Actions speak louder than words! (See the previous post.)

So again, when various religions get involved in national warfare, including those of groups calling themselves Christians, how does this demonstrate "loving your enemy"? Can you please explain.

 

[YoursTrue]

Interpreting doctrines is often intellectualizing which results in confusion. Christians would be a lot better off by "walking the walk" and dropping the "talk the talk". Actions speak louder than words! (See the previous post.)

Just wondering what you think the walk might be more explicitly about loving one's neighbor as well as one's enemy. But thanks anyway. It isn't "intellectualizing" to interpret doctrines. But if you say it is -- that's what you say. It's not what everyone else says. So...have a real nice day.

 

[jimb]

So again, when various religions get involved in national warfare, including those of groups calling themselves Christians, how does this demonstrate "loving your enemy"? Can you please explain.

I won't discuss this kind of sophistry. There are no wars that I know of being waged by any Christian denomination.

 

[jimb]

Just wondering what you think the walk might be more explicitly about loving one's neighbor as well as one's enemy. But thanks anyway. It isn't "intellectualizing" to interpret doctrines. But if you say it is -- that's what you say. It's not what everyone else says. So...have a real nice day.

I'm not "everyone else". I express my own thoughts.

You clearly have a distorted view of Christianity.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

P.S. Because religious groups do not agree on some basic doctrines can be VERY CONFUSING for some. Maybe not you.

Well said, in my opinion.

You clearly have a distorted view of Christianity.

In your personal opinion, of course.

 

[jimb]

Well said, in my opinion.



In your personal opinion, of course.

Of course it's my personal opinion. What else would I be stating? Someone else's? I think for myself, unlike some who are incapable of that.,

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

You are ignoring the context. It is not just the phrase. It is the phrase along with refusing to supporting it. Have you heard of "Hitchens' Razor"? I can quote it for you if needed. There is no difference between saying "I believe" and then not supporting what you believe and admitting that one was wrong, except that the latter is at least honest.

I know from personal experience that renouncing a sincerely held belief in God and Christian indoctrination can be frightening. I believed in God for forty years, so it was frightening to me, but I eventually learned how to think for myself and how to stand on my own two feet. I've also learned that I don't need to believe in God in order to be a good person, make moral decisions, and take care of myself and my family. I see my former belief as nothing more than an emotional crutch that was detrimental to my mental health and well-being. And I'm absolutely convinced that I'm far better off in my life now that I've renounced my belief in God and my Christian faith. It was a liberating experience that has profoundly changed my life. I wish I had done this years ago.

LOL! Like you do. Excellent point!

When I was a street preacher, I used to remind other Christians of 1 Peter 3:15–16 whenever they treated others with contempt, which frequently included false accusations of hating and/or rebelling against God, as well as extremely sarcastic remarks whenever a non-Christian attempted to reason with them. 1 Peter 3:15–16 says, "15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." I'd also remind my fellow Christians to "love your neighbor as yourself," "love your enemies, pray for your enemies, do good to your enemies," and "treat others the way you would like to be treated." They lacked the humility to admit that their behavior was severely damaging their Christian witness and personal reputation. Frankly, I've seen the same kind of arrogance toward non-Christians among certain Christians on this forum.