Burt Reynolds wrote:

Yeah I think the people that ruin it on both sides are the ones who lack critical thinking skills. I know tons of Christians that are awsome people and don't judge me on my beliefs. The people that ruin it are those who are incapable of looking at both sides, and understanding opposing views. Unfortunately, it's those that get the media attention and troll the internet. Our opinions aren't entertaining because they are too logical and there is no conflict.

The people that ruin it are people like those that belong to a certain church who is only a stonethrow away from where I live, who, coincidently, love to cast stones.

When a child doesn't obey God and "His standard", not only are they going to Hell, but it is a direct result of the parent who hates the child and is an enabler, and are going to Hell for this, as well as other things.

BUT, if you are a member of said church, and your son leaves the church, and is going to Hell, it doesn't seem to have an impact on you, as you live by a double standard.

Also, when bad things happen (VT shootings, terrorist attacks, space shuttle explosions, etc) it is because of God's wrath.

BUT, again, because some people live by a double standard, when they are attacked, bad things happen to them, or someone tries to blow up your church, these attacks aren't as a result of God's wrath, but rather a result of those who hate them. In fact, they are the only ones who seem to be exempt from God's wrath.

Aside from these people, and people of their ilk.

I suppose verbally assaulting these people isn't very Christian-like on my part. Maybe I'm ruining it for others too.

ross_rifle113 wrote:

I think I've been unreligious (not anti- or against, just...un-) since I was 5, when a girl a year younger than me told me I was going to Hell if I didn't go to church

I don't ever like it when somebody says somebody else is going to Hell, aside from telling somebody to go to Hell, or in jest ("you're going to Hell for stealing my last life on Contra").

I always wondered how somebody knows somebody else is going to Hell. Because the Bible said so? Maybe they're right. But I was under the impression that Jesus died for our sins. Also, something else I always wondered, if God is all powerful, what makes people so sure that He doesn't have the ability to change his mind. "Well, I know I said anybody who did this was going to Hell. But it's pretty much your only felony offense, and you've turned your life around since then, and all in all, lived a great life from a moral standpoint. So, I'm letting you in."

Something, I may occaisionally get ripped for from other Christians is my feelings toward the Bible.

For the most part, the Bible is an account of events or the word of God as observed by man. But from those events, or from when God spoke (via words, angels, dreams, visions, etc) up to now, there is a lot of room for human error. Are the actual text a firsthand account? Are they things that were dictated to a scribe? Were they passed down by word of mouth before being written? If so, how many generations passed? Are any of the books made by assembling seperate accounts of the same events? Some books that were originally accepted by early Christians were ommited from the official cannon. So basically man wrote the Bible, Man decided what would go into the Bible. And all of this over a great deal of time. I'm not saying I don't believe what I read in the Bible, but what I am saying is there is a lot of room for human error. I'm sure God may have the ability to prevent this, but did he? Who knows.

For me the toughest thing for me is the book of Revelations. Is John of Patmos John the Evangelist, John the Apostle, both, or neither? Nobody knows. If he is indeed an author of other books of the Bible, it would add more credibility. If not, he becomes some guy who delivered a message from God. either you believe him or not. Either the powers that be found it credible enough to cannonize, or they added it so people reading it would think, "believe in God or else."

I do believe in God. I do consider myself a Christian. But I do catch a lot of flak in my interpretation of the Bible and even of God.

Cattivo wrote:

scamrock wrote: I do believe in God. I do consider myself a Christian. But I do catch a lot of flak in my interpretation of the Bible and even of God. If you're Protestant, my understanding is that should not be a problem in theory. They're all supposed to interpret the Bible individually without an intermediate between them and God. If you're Catholic, it's technically a problem. That's why, under the church's rules, I am by definition a "Cafeteria Catholic", because I don't toe the church's line on many issues.

I'm not Catholic. But I know a lot of Protestants that would classify what I wrote as heresy. Because people believe the Bible is inerrant, and even if you question that, you don't talk about it. However, I'm not saying that I do think there is error in the Bible. I'm simply stating that I don't know that there isn't. Its not a popular stance.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

I don't know but celebrating the suffering and consequent destruction of humanity doesn't seem very christian like. Seems like they would want to delay that to save as many people as possible.

Well, the church I was referencing earlier does a lot of protesting and thanking God for awful events. They justify it by quoting scriputures that tell us to inform others that they are sinners or make them aware of their sins, and scriptures telling us to rejoice for acts of God. Since God is responsible for all things, they believe this includes the bad stuff, that they should rejoice.

As far as not saving others, they believe in unconditional election, or the belief that God chose certain people to go to Heaven and others will not. They believe its already decided who will go and who will not. What you do in your lifetime holds no weight on whether or not you are saved. So trying to save others will ultimately do no good, because they can't be saved.

Syd Lexia wrote:

Cattivo wrote: If you're Catholic, it's technically a problem. That's why, under the church's rules, I am by definition a "Cafeteria Catholic", because I don't toe the church's line on many issues. The current pope, Benedict XVI, said in July that evolution is largely supported by scientific evidence, and that creation vs. evolution is an unnecessary, manufactured debate: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961 And with the Church, the official stance is always much more conservative than the reality. The Church is technically against contraception, artificial insemnination, heterosexual divorce, and gay marriage, but it does little, if anything, to end these practices. The pope will bring them in up in speeches from time to time and say that they're morally wrong practices, but there's always a tinge of accepted futility in the speeches. The rhetoric is also far less critical than rhetoric usually spoken by top Protestant leaders like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell. The pope will usually say something that amounts to "The Church feels this is wrong and it would be nice if you guys would work on changing it." Meanwhile, the decidely Protestant American Christian Right will say something like "Change now or burn forever in the fiery pits of hell! The Book of Leviticus says gayness is wrongness! God caused 9/11 because our society's too secular! Did I mention Hell yet? HELLLLLL! YOU'RE GUNNA BURN, BROTHAS AND SISTAS!"

Well, according to the people I'm talking about, Falwell is in Hell. I'm sure you know who I'm talking about. I just haven't called them by name, because I didn't want you to get emails from them if they somehow chanced upon this site.