Explain this logically christians....

[Kathryn]

Here's an example: I've heard it argued by a number of prominent mainstream Christians that we don't need to worry about climate change, because God won't allow humanity to muck up the planet. I've even heard a couple of televangelists argue that worrying about climate change implies lack of faith in God.

I've never heard such a bizarre statement. But I don't listen to televangelists. I think their debacles have pretty much disenfranchised them from thinking, intelligent Christians.

What are you doing watching such pablum?

 

[waitasec]

I've never heard such a bizarre statement. But I don't listen to televangelists. I think their debacles have pretty much disenfranchised them from thinking, intelligent Christians.

What are you doing watching such pablum?

unfortunately, unthinking christians are a dime a dozen.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

unfortunately, unthinking christians are a dime a dozen.

How about 'unthinking so-called Christians' that apparently Jesus also thought like you are a dime a dozen [many] at Matthew 7v22?

Thinking Christians are foot-step followers who do what Jesus said to do at Matthew 28vs19,20; 24v14 and make 'apprentices to Jesus' to do the same teaching work he did but doing it on an earth wide scale.
-Acts 1v8

 

[waitasec]

How about 'unthinking so-called Christians' that apparently Jesus also thought like you are a dime a dozen [many] at Matthew 7v22?

Thinking Christians are foot-step followers who do what Jesus said to do at Matthew 28vs19,20; 24v14 and make 'apprentices to Jesus' to do the same teaching work he did but doing it on an earth wide scale.
-Acts 1v8

and who are you to judge?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

People who say as you suggest, are certainly not "Mainstream Christians."
They might be prominent American Christians,
But that is another matter.
What you relate there, is simply an extreme view made by some anti Green right wing fundamental Christians.

Good point. What passes as mainstream in America is sometimes off-the-charts crazy anywhere else.

can we have names?

The Family Research Council and Focus on the Family for starters:

Resisting the Green Dragon Asserts Green Movement Is Evil - Culture - GOOD

I've never heard such a bizarre statement. But I don't listen to televangelists.

Good for you, but many people do.

I think their debacles have pretty much disenfranchised them from thinking, intelligent Christians.

But they haven't disenfranchised their followers from voting, so their opinions still have an impact on the lives of everyone else.

What are you doing watching such pablum?

I find it boring to watch stuff I already agree with.

 

[Kathryn]

unfortunately, unthinking christians are a dime a dozen.

What passes as mainstream in America is sometimes off-the-charts crazy anywhere else.

I'm an American Christian who knows a very wide circle of American Christians and I'm here to tell you - televangelists are not well respected in the United States, by most people INCLUDING Christians. They have their following, but it's not the majority of US Christians.

Heck, they have a following in the UK and other countries as well.

 

[waitasec]

I'm an American Christian who knows a very wide circle of American Christians and I'm here to tell you - televangelists are not well respected in the United States, by most people INCLUDING Christians. They have their following, but it's not the majority of US Christians.

Heck, they have a following in the UK and other countries as well.

maybe not in your world but you can't deny the ratings here in the states, can you?
even if you don't call them christians, they do.


this sounds like how the sunnis and the shiites see one another without the violence thank goodness. but then again, the catholics and the protestants didn't get along so well either...

 

[URAVIP2ME]

maybe not in your world but you can't deny the ratings here in the states, can you?
even if you don't call them christians, they do.
this sounds like how the sunnis and the shiites see one another without the violence thank goodness. but then again, the catholics and the protestants didn't get along so well either...

Isn't what is even more important is if God would call them Christian.
In other words, do they measure up with being compared to Scripture.
God's judgment thinking or his standard is outlined for us in Scripture, do they measure up to His Word?

Didn't Jesus say 'many' would come in his name at Matthew chapter 7?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

and who are you to judge?

Isn't God's judgment already recorded in Scripture for all to read?
When we read 'thou shall not steal' are we judging those words,
or seeing those words as God's judgment on matters?

Jesus judgment was based on God's judgment.
-John 5v19

 

[Copernicus]

...I just didn't happen to be ADDRESSING the misapplication of religious principles which can harm others when I was responding to that particular argument given by Penguin. Obviously, it's happened repeatedly throughout history, and I'd have to have never cracked a history book not to know that.

I think that you have somewhat missed the point of my comments. While you seem to be agreeing with what I said about the moral neutrality of religion, you keep bringing up the idea that religious principles are somehow being "misapplied". But my point was that they cannot ever be misapplied if they are morally neutral. Penguin's argument makes perfect sense in that context. From a logical perspective, anything you do is fulfilling God's plan, even doing nothing to alleviate suffering.

The bottom line is that anyone can missapply just about any teaching from any belief set - based in religion or otherwise - to justify their actions. Unfortunately, this seems to be human nature.

We agree on that, but not on the point that religion-inspired evil is a "misapplication" of religion. Depending on your perspective, it can be a perfectly appropriate application, and that is what the debate is about.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I think that you have somewhat missed the point of my comments. While you seem to be agreeing with what I said about the moral neutrality of religion, you keep bringing up the idea that religious principles are somehow being "misapplied". But my point was that they cannot ever be misapplied if they are morally neutral. Penguin's argument makes perfect sense in that context. From a logical perspective, anything you do is fulfilling God's plan, even doing nothing to alleviate suffering.

Yipes! Where in Scripture did Jesus ever give the idea to do nothing to alleviate suffering? What do you think of Jesus teaching illustration of the 'good Samaritan' ?

Of course religious principles can be misapplied because a person chooses which way to lean. Leaning toward righteousness or not.

Decisions take effort on our part. Choices of entertainment, recreation, etc. all show that gray area if we lean toward Bible principles or away from them.

Can't the Golden Rule be misapplied in the settling of conflicts?

 

[Copernicus]

Yipes! Where in Scripture did Jesus ever give the idea to do nothing to alleviate suffering? What do you think of Jesus teaching illustration of the 'good Samaritan' ?

Bear in mind that both Kathryn and I were making generalizations about religion in general and about Christianity in general. I take no sides on how to interpret the Bible, because I am an outsider to that debate. From my perspective, the Bible contains a lot of conflicting passages. What I observe is that people seem to read into scripture whatever they want to read. If you don't like the idea of nonviolence and charity, you will have no trouble finding a Christian church to supply you with religious rationalizations for both, complete with Biblical back-up passages.

Of course religious principles can be misapplied because a person chooses which way to lean. Leaning toward righteousness or not.

Not if one regards religion as morally neutral. Since different doctrines have different standards of "righteousness", there is no objective direction in which to lean (although all religions will declare their own direction to be the correct one).

Decisions take effort on our part. Choices of entertainment, recreation, etc. all show that gray area if we lean toward Bible principles or away from them.

The problem is that different people see the Bible as recommending different directions. Not everyone sees your direction in it.

Can't the Golden Rule be misapplied in the settling of conflicts?

Well, it partly depends on what you would have others do unto you, and I suppose that sadists and masochists have different opinions in that respect. Just the same, I wish that the Golden Rule were promoted by the Bible, but I don't think that many of the people who smote their enemies in the name of God had that principle in mind.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Bear in mind that both Kathryn and I were making generalizations about religion in general and about Christianity in general. I take no sides on how to interpret the Bible, because I am an outsider to that debate. From my perspective, the Bible contains a lot of conflicting passages. What I observe is that people seem to read into scripture whatever they want to read. If you don't like the idea of nonviolence and charity, you will have no trouble finding a Christian church to supply you with religious rationalizations for both, complete with Biblical back-up passages.
Not if one regards religion as morally neutral. Since different doctrines have different standards of "righteousness", there is no objective direction in which to lean (although all religions will declare their own direction to be the correct one).
The problem is that different people see the Bible as recommending different directions. Not everyone sees your direction in it.
Well, it partly depends on what you would have others do unto you, and I suppose that sadists and masochists have different opinions in that respect. Just the same, I wish that the Golden Rule were promoted by the Bible, but I don't think that many of the people who smote their enemies in the name of God had that principle in mind.

Thank you for your reply.
With all the conflicting teachings I understand why you said what you said.

Ever since 1st-century Christianity ended people have been reading into Scripture what they want to hear or what the clergy has just taught them.

The Bible has corresponding and parallel verses and passages.
So one way to see if a teaching matches there should be another saying the same thing. The Bible can be examined by subject or topic arrangement so as to see the internal harmony between its writers.

Since the Bible is not written ABC as a dictionary then it needs to be looked at by subject or topic. Often the help of a comprehensive concordance acts as a quick locater.

The Golden Rule is do unto others as you would have them do onto you,
Confucius put a negative slant on that by saying refrain from doing harm to others. So there is a big difference in that in the illustration of the good neighborly Samaritan the first passerbys did no harm, but they did not help.
Whereas the Samaritan stopped and helped the injured man.
-Luke 10vs30-37

The Golden Rule shows also to fix conflict as soon as possible.
Jesus was always looking for ways to resolve problems among his followers.

So the Golden Rule [Matt 7v12] is promoted by the Bible, and if all on earth lived by the Golden Rule what kind of earth would we have?

Like the religious leaders of Jesus day often the clergy class of today instead of listening to the words that came out of Jesus mouth, they put words, so to speak, in his mouth. Often the clergy instead of following Christ's agenda they have their own agenda, often political. That does not make Scripture wrong it makes false teachings as wrong.

So, I hope you keep on open mind and will not lump 1st-century Christianity as Christendom. Christendom came into existence after the first century ended especially since the time of Constantine.

One outstanding feature Jesus often talked about was behavior.
Good trees produce good fruit.
Jesus said he genuine followers would be recognized by good fruit , or good behavior meaning showing Christ-like love among themselves and to others, besides sharing the good news of God's kingdom government as the solution to earth's troubles.
How could one confuse the words recorded at John 13 verses 34 and 35?

 

[RaimThunder]

Everything we have came from God. Even our families. So to leave God because a family member was taken is foolish. And ask yourself this. If he dosen't lean on God, Who Does He Lean On? Satan. Good luck with that one.

John 8:32
the comforter.info

 

[Copernicus]

Ever since 1st-century Christianity ended people have been reading into Scripture what they want to hear or what the clergy has just taught them.

There was no standardized "Bible" at the end of the 1st century, except for the Septuagint. The New Testament "orthodox" interpretation was really started by Ireaneus. Before then, there were many different versions of the Christian doctrine, and that persisted until the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as its state religion. The 4th century emperor Constantine started that process, and he was instrumental in crafting the final version of Christianity that has become the standard "orthodox" version of Christianity that we know today.

The Bible has corresponding and parallel verses and passages.
So one way to see if a teaching matches there should be another saying the same thing. The Bible can be examined by subject or topic arrangement so as to see the internal harmony between its writers.

I don't really see that "internal harmony", but it has been the goal of all the compilers and editors of that document since Ireaneus' time to piece together as coherent a document as they could from the hodgepodge of traditions that had made up early Christianity. The Bible that we have today is the end result of a long collaborative process of editing and revision.

So, I hope you keep on open mind and will not lump 1st-century Christianity as Christendom. Christendom came into existence after the first century ended especially since the time of Constantine.

Yes, that is true, because since the time of Constantine, the Roman Empire sought to control it. That included the systematic destruction of so-called "Gnostic" Christianity. Today, we only have fragments of the rich Christian tradition that existed during the pagan period of the Roman Empire, because most of what we have has been filtered through centuries of orthodox Christian scribal tradition. However, the extant fragments (most coming from the Nag Hammadi manuscripts) gives us a tantalizing window of the earlier period of Roman Christianity.

...How could one confuse the words recorded at John 13 verses 34 and 35?

Well, the Book of John is an interesting part of the New Testament, in comparison to the synoptic gospels. Perhaps it is only there because of the particular history that Iraneus had with his mentor Polycarpus.

 

[Deborah Judge]

I think it is more of a question of how we view death, than how we view God. In other societies, when one dies, no matter at what age, it is good for them because they are gone to a better place. The sense of loss we feel when someone dies, should not cloud the fact that death is a natural part of life, it only affects the ones left behind who feel cheated. In the case of a parent losing a child, the bereaved parent is grieving for the future of the child that the child will never experience, I doubt the child would share that view. He is also grieving for his wife, he has so carefully built his life around and who was ripped away from him in his eyes. The loss that he feels is legitimate but looking to blame a higher power is just silly. He will go through the process everyone goes through, and if he is lucky, he will come out with a greater appreciation for living in the present because that is what it is, a present. The past is gone and the future is not guaranteed.
The only sane way to think about God, is to realize that He is just like us, our human nature is just a mirror of His nature. He has weaknesses, He wouldn't have created us if He didn't need to have a relationship with people who may or may not choose to be friends with Him. All powerful, omnipresent, but lonely.
Your bitterness towards Christians is probably well founded, but remember, God is just like you. He gets bitter, angry, sometimes violent, but when it all subsides, He will not turn His back on anyone, even if they write Him off until the day they die. That is why He is God.

 

[ninerbuff]

Everything we have came from God. Even our families. So to leave God because a family member was taken is foolish. And ask yourself this. If he dosen't lean on God, Who Does He Lean On? Satan. Good luck with that one.

John 8:32
the comforter.info

I've had my share of problems and I lean on people who I trust and not some entity that doesn't utter a word in my ear. Never had any comfort from this god, but have had much comfort from those I trust. Thanks but no luck needed. I make my own.

 

[ninerbuff]

I think it is more of a question of how we view death, than how we view God. In other societies, when one dies, no matter at what age, it is good for them because they are gone to a better place. The sense of loss we feel when someone dies, should not cloud the fact that death is a natural part of life, it only affects the ones left behind who feel cheated. In the case of a parent losing a child, the bereaved parent is grieving for the future of the child that the child will never experience, I doubt the child would share that view. He is also grieving for his wife, he has so carefully built his life around and who was ripped away from him in his eyes. The loss that he feels is legitimate but looking to blame a higher power is just silly. He will go through the process everyone goes through, and if he is lucky, he will come out with a greater appreciation for living in the present because that is what it is, a present. The past is gone and the future is not guaranteed.
The only sane way to think about God, is to realize that He is just like us, our human nature is just a mirror of His nature. He has weaknesses, He wouldn't have created us if He didn't need to have a relationship with people who may or may not choose to be friends with Him. All powerful, omnipresent, but lonely.
Your bitterness towards Christians is probably well founded, but remember, God is just like you. He gets bitter, angry, sometimes violent, but when it all subsides, He will not turn His back on anyone, even if they write Him off until the day they die. That is why He is God.

Then this would not make him perfect, right?

 

[Thesavorofpan]

A close friend informed me today that his cousin lost his wife and 2 kids to a drunk driver a few days ago.
Now the cousin is being asked to "lean on god" and "faith" to make it through it.
So explain that if it was god's "plan" to take his family away, then why lean on god for support? How does that logically make sense?

It doesn't, but thats life. People die. But lets blame God because we can't accept the fact that tragic things happen whether there is a god or not.

 

[Evandr]

I think it is more of a question of how we view death, than how we view God. In other societies, when one dies, no matter at what age, it is good for them because they are gone to a better place. The sense of loss we feel when someone dies, should not cloud the fact that death is a natural part of life, it only affects the ones left behind who feel cheated. In the case of a parent losing a child, the bereaved parent is grieving for the future of the child that the child will never experience, I doubt the child would share that view. He is also grieving for his wife, he has so carefully built his life around and who was ripped away from him in his eyes. The loss that he feels is legitimate but looking to blame a higher power is just silly. He will go through the process everyone goes through, and if he is lucky, he will come out with a greater appreciation for living in the present because that is what it is, a present. The past is gone and the future is not guaranteed.
The only sane way to think about God, is to realize that He is just like us, our human nature is just a mirror of His nature. He has weaknesses, He wouldn't have created us if He didn't need to have a relationship with people who may or may not choose to be friends with Him. All powerful, omnipresent, but lonely.
Your bitterness towards Christians is probably well founded, but remember, God is just like you. He gets bitter, angry, sometimes violent, but when it all subsides, He will not turn His back on anyone, even if they write Him off until the day they die. That is why He is God.

I have to agree with you for the most part. I believe that as man is God once was and as God is man may become.

I believe that Him choosing to be called "Father" is no mere happenstance but a literal interpretation of the relationship we have with Him; it is the only way that someone who already has it all can have more, that being through our (His children) becoming like Him and being the focus of worship within realms of our own as we become the parents to our own spiritual children and they theirs and so on and so forth to all eternity. That is why the family unit is so sacred in its organization and why accepting any configuration of the family other than the way God commanded it to be is forbidden, not to mention selfish; it denies the only real purpose for existing.

To become God (a name that is not singularly held but the designation of the highest office of the priesthood, which is the embodiment of the power contained in all creation and wielded by one who holds that position) a person must become sufficiently mature in all things and then be tested in order to be trusted with such, anything less would simply be too dangerous to all creation and therefore is given only to those who would pose no threat to themselves and their realms of creation (spiritual family). This mortal probation is that time of testing; It is perfect in its conception perpetual in its purpose. Can you imagine what would happen if Lucifer were given such power? We would not be here talking about it because all creation would quickly be reduced to matter unorganized and pure chaos.

God has feelings but not weaknesses; His joy is full and His purpose is to pass that joy to all of us to the extent that each of us warrants it. He never said that this trial, this mortal probation would be easy He only said it would be worth it to endure to the end keeping His commandments even in the face of extreme trial; trial like the death of the family. For God there is no death only change and how we handle change demonstrates who we are and what blessings we have the capability of handling.

The concepts of Hell and eternal damnation that most of Christianity (and the rest of the world) holds as true is not. Failure to measure up to the highest standards of our Heavenly Father will cause untold grief within us but does not condemn us to some physical realm of eternal torture. Damnation is the cessation of forward progress to greater realms of glory and is eternal because God is eternal.