Religions - Your Opinion

[Alpha]

I doubt I'm going to cover everything, I'm a little short on time, but I'll do what I can.

In Genesis? ... That's two chapters. You can't honestly be arrogant enough to assume that somebody is referring to two chapters of genealogy when they admit to not having read all of the Bible.

It's clear you take things literally. I used that as an example of much of the unnecessary information of the Bible to counter an assertion that one must read the whole Bible. Try to take not of when I use examples. Look for implications, I don't mean everything as the be-all end-all.

Not at all -- you don't have to have read any of the Bible before you become Christian, if you hear the message from other people. Many, many people became Christians without ever having touched a Bible.

Good to know; so why then why do you keep saying I'm not a Christian when I do as Jesus says and (do my utmost) to love both my neighbour and God? I have not read the whole Bible, but I go to Mass every Sunday, and on Holy Days of Obligation, and hear no less than THREE readings each time, in addition to 13 years of Catholic education, and occasional reading of the Bible in my own time (admittedly, not as much as I should).

You'd assume wrong. Of course everybody who has faith in anything believes themselves to be right.

So who's right? Where's the proof that Christianity is right? It is a matter of faith, and there's no 'better' or 'worse', so why does anyone preach?

Really? It's "the Christian" thing to be involved in a discussion of religion with those who do not follow the same beliefs and never bring up how Christianity is "right"?

It's Christian to not slam the door in their face, and it is NOT Christian to bring up why Christianity is 'right', because that would be disrespect another. Many things are moot, but if you're just going to sit there, laugh at someone's belief and say "nup. nup. nup. you're wrong. you're stupid because you don't believe in Christ as the Savior", then you're just being a jerk, by a lot of standards.

Probably not, but who knows? A lot of people convert because of neighborhood preaching.

A lot? I keep the Mormons at bay with a statue of the Virgin at my door. That's not to disrespect them, it's just kind of annoying every second week.

What's wrong with being zealous about any belief, as long as you're peaceful about it? All too many ignorant people use "zealous" and "fundamentalist" as insults. And the point of the whole exercise would be to spread your belief -- even if you didn't "convert" anybody, you still brought it up, so they might think about it later, consider it, maybe want to learn more about it, etc.

Is it more tolerant to just keep your belief to yourself? In this day and age, everyone has heard of Christianity in all it's variants, so why do we need zealots to try force people in to it? It scares more people than attracts people.

On that note, what's the point of your post to me, or this part of this post, that addresses you, if we both know that at this point, neither of us has changed the other's mind?

Sh*t. What's the point of talking? Maybe someone else is going to read this, or we are going to become more informed about the other's belief. I respect your belief, and I seek to understand it, but I'm not going to change. Debate is one way to understand another.

Where in this thread have I declared my beliefs?

You're a fundamentalist Christian. Right or wrong?

Say, you have a kid. You tell that kid that the stove is hot. You tell him again that the stove is hot, and that he/she should stay away from it. You tell him again that the stove is hot, and it will burn him/her. You tell him/her many more times. But you don't control the kid, and sure enough, the kid puts his/her hand on he burner and gets the crap burned out of him. According to your illogical line of thinking here, that must mean that you don't love that kid.

You say "him" at the start of each sentence, and then change to him/her by the end. Sorry, just noticed.

OK, so thinking for myself for a moment, if God created everyone, and He loves them all equally, then why does He hate them enough to eternally damn them? It is illogical to assume that a loving and merciful God would keep us from that? Seems that you prefer the whole 'vengeful God' thing. Even you must be aware that God has several characteristics. Why emphasise the vengeful part when one can emphasise the merciful part?

I don't sound like a Catholic at all.

This is true.

The indulgences were Catholic, not Christian. Luther's problem was with the Church, and with clergy, doing whatever they wanted to and justifying it through the Bible, then claiming that certain things -- like PAYING THE CHURCH -- would help "repay" a person's debt of sin. You do something bad, you pray a few times (to Mary, something totally against Christianity, but that's another subject) and give the Church some money and you'll be forgiven. THAT is what Luther's 95 Theses were about -- following the Bible and not the Church.

They were pre-Reformation, and thus CHRISTIAN. If Protestantism did not yet exist, then it is improper to suggest that only Catholics participated in this.

Yes, you are right, sorry. According to Luther (among many other things):

Faith alone can work justification, and man is saved by confidently believing that God will pardon him. This faith not only includes a full pardon of sin, but also an unconditional release from its penalties

But this is not something I see as valid. This suggests that Christians don't have to do any good. What is the point of being Christ-like, and showing the Good News by example?

Not in Christianity, they're not.

Do YOU believe that good works are therefore completely redundant?

... it is in Christianity. See, this is where it would have helped to have read the Bible.

That's where it is enough for you to listen to Luther. He thought for himself, and so should you.

Jesus wasn't a Christian, He was a Jew.

So, as a Jew, 'real' Christians should ignore him, and listen to Luther?

PLEASE DO. Please. I want a Bible verse that says that -- like you said -- "WORKS are the most important part of getting your salvation. [sic]" I want a verse. I mean, here, I'll show you some verses that say the exact opposite ...

"Leave some grapes on the vine for travelers and the poor." Leviticus 19:10

"Blessed is he that considereth the poor." Psalms 41:1

"Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it." Proverbs 3:27

"Cease to do evil; learn to do well ... relieve the oppressed ... plead for the widow." Isiah 1:16-17

"Blessed are the merciful" Matthew 5:7

"Blessed are the peacemakers" Matthew 5:9

"Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." Matthew 7:12

"Love thy neighbor as thyself." Mark 12:31

"This is my commandment, That ye love one another." John 15:12, 17

"In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive." Acts 20:35

"He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need." Ephesians 4.28

"Comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men." 1 Thessalonians 5:14

"Pure religion ... is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." James 1:27

"Let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth." 1 John 3:18

"Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God." 3 John 11

Good enough?

Alright kid, you need to know what "fundamentalist" means. It means those who take something seriously and literally. If you read the Bible and followed exactly what it says, you'd be a fundamentalist Christian. If you read the Torah and followed exactly what it says, you'd be a fundamentalist Jew. If you read the Qur'an and followed exactly what it says, you'd be a fundamentalist Muslim.

So using "fundamentalists" -- those who follow the religion closest -- as a representation of the entire religion itself (not its followers, but the religion) isn't a bad thing.

It's a huge misrepresentation. Did you know that when Westerners first examined the Buddhist scriptures in India, they assumed that they had no funeral rights, or any kind of death practices. While it is not in their scripture, funeral rites and relic worship was and is a huge part of Buddhism. It is not enough to look at the fundamentalists, who are usually in the minority. How religion is practiced is a far more important mode of anaysis.

That having been said, when the Qur'an tells its followers to kill non-believers, you can't say much else about it.

"Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but agress not. God loves not agressors." Koran 2:190

"And they feed, for the love of God, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive." Koran 76:8-9

I've encountered the kinds that try to kill me for various reasons, the kinds that try to kill me -- or simply resent me -- because I don't follow Islam, and the kinds that care more about people than what religion they are. Next time you supposedly go to that open prayer session, ask about the verses that detail the slaughtering of infidels. Of course, before you do that, you might want to do a little reading in the Qur'an ... but then, if you claim to be Catholic, you might want to do a lot of reading in the Bible, too.

Who tries to kill you and when? Don't lie.

Yes, because you see Christian suicide bombers and terrorists attacking non-Christian civilian groups every week, it seems like, right?

And you see a very small minority of Muslims performing those actions, and you denounce Islam as a whole? Tolerance, please. And don't be so sucked in by the media.

I don't make the rules, kid. You want your own rules, star your own religion ... you might as well, seeing as you don't believe Christianity.

I asked you to think for yourself. Please go back and do this, as I'm really interested in your response.

Christians believe that it was inspired by God -- as in, God made sure it was written correctly. Thus, it would be correct and literal.

Give me a Biblical quote for that. Did Jesus even know what he said was going to be codified? Probably not, or he would've written something, right? So why must we think it is literal?

I would love to discuss Creation vs. the religion of Evolutionism with you -- and in doing so, correct your ignorance -- but perhaps another time, in another thread. This isn't the place.

Should you start the thread, or should I? Please note, I believe in a creator God, and accept evolution as an understanding of creation.

It has "missing books" because the Catholic Church says it has "missing books" -- it also has books that the Catholic Church added. Most translations now are extremely accurate to original texts. Christians believe that it was inspired by God, so it doesn't matter when it was written -- hell, it could have been written before the events took place. While I've seen some sad attempts at pointing out "conflicting representations of the same events", the differences are minor, if existent at all and not simply fabricated or misinterpreted (by the individual).

Surely God would not let the Church be wrong about these Biblical omissions and additions?

So you don't have to be Christian if you don't want, and you don't have to follow the Bible ("fundamentalist") if you don't want. Be a "good person". Live how you want. Do your own thang. Just don't call yourself a Christian when you're obviously not -- or even a Catholic when you're obviously not.

That sorta hurts, bro. I've been involved in St Vincent de Paul since I was 12.

The point is, no they don't. Yahweh and God don't tell their followers to slaughter those who don't believe in them -- not as a general rule, anyway.

The point is, yes they are. We have recorded different instructions, but they are the same deity.

Yes. When a holy book states that giving one's life during the slaughter of infidels will automatically grant passage into paradise, it's screwed up.

Martrydom is a Christian tradition too. Did the Crusaders go to Heaven or Hell?

Once again, this isn't the time or the place to correct your ignorance -- or your arrogance.

I think if anyone is being arrogant, it's you, for only accepting one (Biblical) line of thought.

Except for the whole terrorist, suicide bombs, IEDs, slaughtering of infidels, the fact that more than 90% of the conflicts in the last few decades have involved Muslms, etc. etc. ... sure, pretty peaceful.

cf. my previous point.

Explain where.

Mary in the Koran

Jesus in the Koran

"Then We caused our messengers to follow in their foot-steps: and We caused Jesus, son of Mary to follow, and gave him the Gospel, and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him." Surah lvii:27

This is why there is a difference between Catholicism and Christianity. Christians follow the holy book of Christianity -- the Bible. Other religions may follow a mix of between the Bible, certain organizations, and appointed leaders, but that would make them non-Christian. And when said appointed leaders openly state that belief in the Bible is not necessary to follow their religion, it's obvious that their religion isn't Christianity.

Any follower of Christ is a Christian. Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church is non-Christian? You'd have a billion people to disagree with.

That would be overlooking the Bible, though, and the fact that SHE DID HAVE MORE CHILDREN. Jesus had a brother named James.

That's a Protestant belief. Catholics believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, as a general rule, though there is tolerance around this.

Where they'd spend eternity is a fairly big issue, too. Eternity's kinda long, you know.

While I believe in Heaven, neither of us have any certainty that it exists.

While I don't know enough about this to say for sure what the Bible says, I think they are judged on what they DO believe, combined with their actions.

Here you would tell me to "read the Bbile". Just sayin'.

Yes, and there are multiple conflicts between Christians and Jews right now over those holy sites, aren't there? Those Christians and Jews just fighting to the death over ... wait? What's that you say? There are no conflicts between Christians and Jews? They're all between Muslims and Jews or Muslims and Christians? But Christians and Jews share some of the same holy sites -- almost all of them. You mean Christians and Jews DON'T slaughter each other? There aren't many Jewish suicide bombers that target buses full of Christian women and children? There aren't many Christians who drop mortars into Jewish densely-populated civilian areas?

"There have been more devastating wars among so-called Christian states (fighting each another) in the past 1000 years than between so-called Christian and so-called Muslim states."

"Predominately Christian states have killed more Jews and Muslims than predominately Muslim states have killed Christians or Jews."

Get your facts straight, please.

Besides, what is America (a Christian state), doing in two Islamic nations right now?

Oh, well. At least you wait until the end of your post to admit defeat by pulling out "bigot". You had a good run, kid. Maybe next year.

I didn't call you bigoted. Nice try.

Limbaugh ... Are you referring to Rush Limbaugh? You've got to be smart enough to not be referring to Rush Limbaugh while referring to Christian witnessing, missions, outreach programs, and education. You've got to be smart enough to know that Rush Limbaugh is a political commentator, not a religious one. You've got to be that smart. You must be referring to another Limbaugh, of which I have heard nothing.

I apologise for not being an American. How's Fred Phelps? Jerry Falwel (he is who I meant to use as an example the first time around)?