Why Do You Remain A Christian?

[chefranden]

If I were to make the statement "Compassion is more noble than selfishness" the statement itself is of a meta physical nature, Science can say nothing about it. Science may argue how these concepts came into being but it can not argue the validity / invalidity of the concepts themselves.

 

Your first problem is that you have not shown that there is anything beyond or after physics. You put the explanation in a realm that no one knows is there. Making a statement that because science has not yet explained values to your satisfaction it is automatically outside of the natural in the supernatural. Your argument is nothing but a sophisticated form of "I don't know, therefore divine." You have made an unfounded assumption.

 

Science doesn't need to argue the validity/invalidity of value concepts. It only has to show how the natural organism can produce a value judgment. The process producing value judgments that science (cognitive science) is beginning to describe is the source of the value, not some supernatural thingy. If a very anti-social animal such as the wolverine were to make value judgments it may well consider that selfishness over compassion is a self evident value. That is the value depends on what a behavior adds to survival and by extension is added to the emotion that motivates the action.

 

That selfishness has not died out means that it is still a useful emotion. That selfishness is valued less than compassion indicates that compassion may be a more useful tool than selfishness for a social animal. Be that as it may, if compassion killed selfishness the human species would die out. Eventually someone has to decide that this food is for me. If I have perfect compassion and give all my food to the starving, then I will die. Perhaps this is a noble death. However, if the starving were equally compassionate no one would eat, because they would be too busy giving away their food. Eventually everyone dies nobly taking compassion with it, while wolverines inherit the earth.

 

Compassion may be encouraged by assigning nobility to it. It is a more difficult emotion to direct towards strangers than is selfishness. Nobility is a value judgment given to behaviors that are more difficult than others. Which is more noble climbing to the top of a hill or climbing to the top of Everest? There is nothing metaphysical about Everest to make climbing it more noble than climbing a hill. It is only the difficulty that makes it so.

[Ouroboros]

I just recently read about Zoroastrianism, and they have a name for the Natural Law: Asha.

 

It's possibly the oldest monotheistic religion, and it seems like it influenced Judaism quite a bit.

 

So, if Natural Law would mean that we should believe in a God? Well then, lets become Zorostrians. Is that good DD?

[Kuroikaze]

I just wanted to present, as best I could, my response to what I believe to be some of the combined objections to my posts so far in defense of remaining a Christian. Now of course I started my defense with the proposals of a real and true (objective) right and wrong. What guides us in determining between them (conscience) and what binds people to accept certain basic human rights as inerrant regarless of race colour or creed (Natural Law). Of course, many objections have been raised, too many to list, but I think to further stengthen my position I believe most if not all of those objections seem to be of a scientific nature, while the questions themselves are of a meta physical one.

 

As has already been pointed out, you are assuming a metaphysical exists in the first place.

If I were to make the statement "Compassion is more noble than selfishness" the statement itself is of a meta physical nature, Science can say nothing about it. Science may argue how these concepts came into being but it can not argue the validity / invalidity of the concepts themselves. The same applies to the innitial question I posed of a real and true right and wrong when speaking of a moral act. No one can effectively argue against the concept of Natural Law with a scientific book, any more than some one could effectively argue against the concept of evolution with a theological book (the bible). The Bible is not a book of science, it is filled with conceptual symbolism, espescially O.T. and Revelations. People who read all of it literally, ignoring the teachings of Orthodoxy, inevitably wind up presenting a false Christianity. The same however applies to those who attempt to denounce the theological declarations of Christianity using Darwin's "On the origin of species" as their tool, in the end it just doesn't speak to the questions at hand.

 

I disagree, I think understanding how an idea came into being is helpful in deciding if it is valid or not. You are disusing validity/invalidity from a theistic perspective by assuming that validity/invalidity must be treated as a universal. Your argument is circular, it has no meaning to those who do not accept the existence of metaphysical things a-prioi.

 

Earlier in our dialogue I used the example of acceptance of the Universe as being infinite as a stepping stone towards the acceptance of an infinite being. It was even countered by the assertion the universe may indeed have boundaries. I only mentioned it because it reveals that all of us do accept somethings on faith, realistically how could either position regarding the expanses of the universe ever be proved one way or the other. The same goes for God

 

You are just pontificating about possibilities, no one here claims that God's existence is not possible (depending on how you define god), just not very likely. Just because something might posibly exist doesn't mean it does. We are trying to determine what actually exists, not what might posibly exist so this entire line of argumentation is a red herring.

 

Furthermore there is no faith in accepting that we exist, how we got here may be a mystery to both of us, but that doesn't mean we give up throw our hands in the air and say "Goddidit"

 

 

I would venture to guess that most if not all here through faith believe that man has evolved from the apes with fewer signs to support it than those that exist supporting belief in a Christian God (IMO). Considering the obvious problems surrounding the ninth chapter of Darwins book citing the "imperfection of the geological record" problems yet rectified. It's amazing to me how some people can so adamantly adhere to a theory and then flatly reject a theology, when both clearly require a leap of faith to retain. For all ardent Darwinian's here I present for your consideration this qoute from G.K.Chesteron who in this same book "The Everlasting man" quiped that "the ultimate oxymoron is a history of pre-history." Interesting guy Chesterton, a great logician, he defended the church for nearly 30 years from outside of it, finally converting in the end.

 

 

I mean this really Your understanding of basic biology and evolutionary theory is just plain wrong. I'm a laymen here, my knowledge of biology is quite limited, but I can see several problems here.

 

First off no one here accepts anything in science through faith, things in science are accepted because there is evidence for them. While I may not fully understand genetics I can understand enough to know that there is plenty of support for evolution in genetics.

 

Second you don't even get your facts right, because evolution does NOT teach that man evolved from apes. It teaches that man and apes had a relatively close common ancestor. If you don't even know that much then on what basis can you criticize evolution?

 

3rd quoting Darwin means nothing. Much of Darwin's original theory has been discarded, Darwin did not even know about genetics.

 

What do you think would happen if you tried to quote Newton to a physicist to argue against a modern understanding of physics? You would be laughed at, and rightly so. Scientists do not worship their predecessors, they do not accept their words without question as you do the bible. No scientist worth anything would say that something has to be true because Darwin said it. Darwin wrote over a hundred years ago, our knowledge of biology has increased a million fold since then. Quoting Darwin to disprove evolution makes as much sense as Quoting Newton to disprove Einsteins theory of general relativity.

 

There is no leap of faith here at all, only the acceptance of the facts as we see them. Theology is nothing like a scientific theory, its just a bunch of people sitting around debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin ( or to be more direct, debating the nature of things that no one even knows exist in the first place )

 

 

As for this quote

 

"the ultimate oxymoron is a history of pre-history."

 

I don't really know this guy, but is really so ignorant as to not know how the term "pre-history" is used by historians. It is just a reference to any time before written language was common, thus what happened in pre-history must be discovered through inference in archaeology with out the benefit of first hand written testimony. Truthfully, its is likely he DID know this, it which case he wasn't being brilliant just a smart ass.

[Kuroikaze]

As an aside, as a teacher living in Japan do you know how many people I've met who reject evolution? Absolutely ZERO.

 

I've never met a person who rejected evolution who did not have a religious bias present in their thinking, step outside of American culture and that Bias disappears.

[Antlerman]

Greetings to all;

 

I just wanted to present, as best I could, my response to what I believe to be some of the combined objections to my posts so far in defense of remaining a Christian. Now of course I started my defense with the proposals of a real and true (objective) right and wrong. What guides us in determining between them (conscience) and what binds people to accept certain basic human rights as inerrant regarless of race colour or creed (Natural Law). Of course, many objections have been raised, too many to list, but I think to further stengthen my position I believe most if not all of those objections seem to be of a scientific nature, while the questions themselves are of a meta physical one.

 

If I were to make the statement "Compassion is more noble than selfishness" the statement itself is of a meta physical nature, Science can say nothing about it. Science may argue how these concepts came into being but it can not argue the validity / invalidity of the concepts themselves. The same applies to the innitial question I posed of a real and true right and wrong when speaking of a moral act. No one can effectively argue against the concept of Natural Law with a scientific book, any more than some one could effectively argue against the concept of evolution with a theological book (the bible). The Bible is not a book of science, it is filled with conceptual symbolism, espescially O.T. and Revelations. People who read all of it literally, ignoring the teachings of Orthodoxy, inevitably wind up presenting a false Christianity. The same however applies to those who attempt to denounce the theological declarations of Christianity using Darwin's "On the origin of species" as their tool, in the end it just doesn't speak to the questions at hand.

 

 

Earlier in our dialogue I used the example of acceptance of the Universe as being infinite as a stepping stone towards the acceptance of an infinite being. It was even countered by the assertion the universe may indeed have boundaries. I only mentioned it because it reveals that all of us do accept somethings on faith, realistically how could either position regarding the expanses of the universe ever be proved one way or the other. The same goes for God

 

 

I would venture to guess that most if not all here through faith believe that man has evolved from the apes with fewer signs to support it than those that exist supporting belief in a Christian God (IMO). Considering the obvious problems surrounding the ninth chapter of Darwins book citing the "imperfection of the geological record" problems yet rectified. It's amazing to me how some people can so adamantly adhere to a theory and then flatly reject a theology, when both clearly require a leap of faith to retain. For all ardent Darwinian's here I present for your consideration this qoute from G.K.Chesteron who in this same book "The Everlasting man" quiped that "the ultimate oxymoron is a history of pre-history." Interesting guy Chesterton, a great logician, he defended the church for nearly 30 years from outside of it, finally converting in the end.

I'm a gracious person. I was sympathetic to much of what you were saying up until you betrayed something lacking in your thoughts in what is quoted in red above. Nonsense.

 

Darwin is not Jesus. Darwin is not God. Darwin is not the source of doctrines/theology about Evolution. In this you betray your ignorance and inability to speak meaningfully to us. The theory of evolution is not dependent on Darwin, whose knowledge, whose understanding, though insightful as it was, is hardly considered "authoritative" in any Biblical sense (for one thing it was 150 years ago!). In this you betray your projection of theology into science, and your ignorance, respectfully speaking.

 

However, being gracious I'll cut you slack in regards to what you say about science not addressing everything in what it means to be human. It honestly doesn’t attempt to do so, and I think that those who turn to science as the new Messiah, are as guilty as the religious in thinking it holds the keys to give meaning to life. Neither discipline is the Savior of humanity, sorry to say.

 

As far as accepting the weight of scientific evidence on faith, in the same vein as a logical argument for God, you honestly couldn’t have more of a lack on knowledge about what science is. This isn’t to slight “faith”, but to be clear, there is a marked difference between the two. “God” is a choice, science is about facts. You want to kill God, make him/her/it about facts.

 

I’d be happy to engage you one on one in a discussion about God in the context of the human experience of life, should you wish. (I suggest this since I haven't seen you challenging me head on). I’d be curious to see how much insight you have in what God is about. I'd be happy to be pursuaded by insights I may not yet see.

 

 

 

Edit to add: The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming. It is accepted not on faith, but on the basis of evidence. To compare the evidence for God in the same context as the evidence for evolution betrays your lack of knowledge of science on the most basic level. It's great that you accept evolution, but there is direct evidence for doing so, not implied or subjectively derived reasons. It is supported by facts on the ground.

 

I'm going to assume since it's obvious you have no idea the data surrounding why evolution is widely accepted by nearly every scientist on the planet, no matter what their religious convictions are (save of course for American Evangelical YEC non-scientists), that you don't understand why the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is a called a theory. Theory does not mean conjecture, opinion, or speculation when used in the context of science. It means it is a model of explanation, which model can be used to predict what we should expect to find, which when it is discovered, which it has been, continues to confirm that models viability.

 

The ToE has been validated again and again and again by evidence, in fossil records with transition forms, in genetics with DNA maps tracing all animal life back to a single animal life form, and in modern day direct observation in lab experiments where scientists have witnessed evolution occur in real time. It is seen and touches into nearly every field of science in the world, and is part of nearly every piece of research done! It is a model of explanation that has so much evidence supporting it, which has stood the test of time and criticisms, that to unseat that theory in science with any competing model of explanation (theory) would be a virtual impossibility, nearly on the same level replacing the Theory of Gravity with some sort of Theory of Intelligent Falling.

 

Religious faith, and acceptance of evidence supporting the scientific theory of evolution are in no way comparable.

 

You should rethink your basis for your apologetic.

[chefranden]

1. No one can effectively argue against the concept of Natural Law with a scientific book, any more than some one could effectively argue against the concept of evolution with a theological book (the bible).

 

2. G.K.Chesteron who in this same book "The Everlasting man" quiped that "the ultimate oxymoron is a history of pre-history." Interesting guy Chesterton, a great logician, he defended the church for nearly 30 years from outside of it, finally converting in the end.

 

 

1. I can successfully argue against your concept of Natural Law if you like. We have a forum for that sort of thing.

 

2. Chesterton was an interesting Guy, but hardly an authority on evolution. Your argument is, "Well known religious journalist disses evolution, therefore evolution is false." Being an expert in one thing does not mean that said expert is expert outside of his field. If you find Richard Dawkins arguing against evolution, then you have something worth quoting as evidence.

 

Edit: About Theology: It is too bad that Theology isn't an actual science. But of course the first rule of Theology is "thou shall not ask questions". For you nothing about your faith is testable or falsifiable. Your faith though ironically full of predictions, cannot predict anything about what is real. Your faith is not a theory of anything.

 

Using scripture in a quasi scientific way I could show that either your faith is in nothing or that you have little or no faith. You are told that if you had the faith you could tell a mountain to move to the sea and it would do so. I'm willing for you to show me that this prediction is demonstrable. You and me in a room with a five kilo rock. You get 30 minutes to move the rock 5 meters with metaphysics. Then I get 30 minutes to move the rock 5 meters with physics. I predict that I will succeed and you will fail.

 

Are you willing to put your faith theory to the test?

[florduh]

Some good reasons to remain a Christian:

1. Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, and turned water into wine. He said that as a believer I would be able to do all those things and more. I have done that, and even commanded a mountain to move.

 

2. I drank a deadly poison and wasn't harmed because of my faith. The bite from the black mamba didn't bother me either.

 

3. Scientists have overwhelmingly concluded that geological evidence confirms the creation scenario exactly as presented in the Bible.

 

4. The Holy Spirit, as promised, has guided all us believers so we are all in agreement on what the Bible says.

 

 

Some bad reasons:

1. I just feel better thinking I'll go to Heaven when I die.

 

2. I'm afraid of Hell, so I will believe whatever it takes to avoid that fate.

 

3. My whole family is religious and I can't disappoint them.

 

4. I live in a Christian country, so I'd better be a Christian.

[dB-Paradox]

At the moment, I still consider myself a Christian. The reason I remain a Christian is because I have a hard time explaining away all the feelings of a deep relationship with Jesus as a child and young adult. Even as a child, I had a profound relationship with Jesus, and a deep understanding of my faith.

 

But there's also the whole universe...it's so beautifully created, it's too difficult for me to imagine how it could have all been an accident. How could life itself have been an accident? (I realize this has little to do with Christianity, and more to do with intelligent design and God in general.)

 

But one of the more compelling reasons (as of lately) is the on and off convictions I feel even now. There are times I feel a tug back to Christianity. My pastor told me a story to which he asked, "What do you make of this?" He said that a young handicapped girl in our church was in need of surgery. One afternoon, he was thinking of her and prayed that God would be with her as she was in the hospital. He fell asleep and told me of a dream he remembers well. Jesus was standing next to this girl in the hospital, stroking her forehead. That was the image he got. Later (I don't know how much later) the pastor got a call from the girl's mom, who was in tears. Her daughter was in so much pain, she said, that no one could even touch her...except for on her forehead.

 

I couldn't call the pastor a liar and accuse him of making up the story. So, was Jesus actually touching the girl's forehead? Or was it just a coincidence that the pastor had a dream about the girl's forehead? I suppose I could say it was a coincidence. But honestly, I don't know what to make of his story. But it's interesting, I think. I just don't think I'm ready to give up on God yet. Maybe the time will come, maybe it won't. I really don't know.

[Evolution_beyond]

The Physical forces of the Universe are not an 'accident'

 

Natural selection is not 'by accident'.

[Antlerman]

At the moment, I still consider myself a Christian. The reason I remain a Christian is because I have a hard time explaining away all the feelings of a deep relationship with Jesus as a child and young adult. Even as a child, I had a profound relationship with Jesus, and a deep understanding of my faith.

Maybe it's no so much a matter of "explaining away" something, as it is redefining or "updating" the understanding of it. Obviously there are things that don't quite fit for you, else there would be no questioning it. Since there is, then something isn't fitting. Maybe that's what needs to be addressed and the end result may seem an "abandonment" of faith, but in reality it becomes more an inclusion of different perspectives.

 

But there's also the whole universe...it's so beautifully created, it's too difficult for me to imagine how it could have all been an accident. How could life itself have been an accident?

The real question is why is it beautiful? That's about the value of human perspective. Nothing wrong with exploring meaning within that.

 

But one of the more compelling reasons (as of lately) is the on and off convictions I feel even now. There are times I feel a tug back to Christianity. My pastor told me a story to which he asked, "What do you make of this?" He said that a young handicapped girl in our church was in need of surgery. One afternoon, he was thinking of her and prayed that God would be with her as she was in the hospital. He fell asleep and told me of a dream he remembers well. Jesus was standing next to this girl in the hospital, stroking her forehead. That was the image he got. Later (I don't know how much later) the pastor got a call from the girl's mom, who was in tears. Her daughter was in so much pain, she said, that no one could even touch her...except for on her forehead.

 

I couldn't call the pastor a liar and accuse him of making up the story. So, was Jesus actually touching the girl's forehead? Or was it just a coincidence that the pastor had a dream about the girl's forehead? I suppose I could say it was a coincidence. But honestly, I don't know what to make of his story. But it's interesting, I think. I just don't think I'm ready to give up on God yet. Maybe the time will come, maybe it won't. I really don't know.

Just as a thought, logically speaking, how is it that evidences for God always take anecdotal form, such as someone's "vision", interpretation, sense, etc? The ultimate power of the universe though whom all physical reality came forth, should reveal himself in such obscure ways? These visions of deities in action are common-place throughout history and cultures, taking the various forms of their various gods.

 

The hand on the forehead is a fairly common symbol within our culture. One could easily see "Jesus" expressing comfort to a youth in pain this way if they were strongly wishing to imagine an image of comfort in their minds to console themselves. That she could "only be touched on the forehead", is hardly a conformation of that the image in his mind came from a supernatural source outside himself. It only stood out to him because if that had not been said, it would have not become the significant feature it did through this coincidence. It's a type of confirmation-bias, seeing whatever you can to support what you wish to see.

 

Not that this means the symbolic imagery is worthless, but just that its much more about the person and their desire to believe and the reasons or value of that, rather than it being about God giving evidence for himself. It's about humans and their beliefs, not about God. Or is that pretty much the same thing?

[dB-Paradox]

Just as a thought, logically speaking, how is it that evidences for God always take anecdotal form, such as someone's "vision", interpretation, sense, etc? The ultimate power of the universe though whom all physical reality came forth, should reveal himself in such obscure ways? These visions of deities in action are common-place throughout history and cultures, taking the various forms of their various gods.

This one statement has always stood out to me. Throughout my life, and especially when I was a highly fundamentalist and evangelical Christian, I would often get this question or thought. My answer was;

"...at one time humans could see God in a "tangible" way, but have since lost that privilage. Now, we live in a "Matrix" style world, with reality veiled from us seeing. Most of us don't even know we're in it! The most real things are the things we can't see and touch. And even if God would "prove" himself to us now in a "tangible" way, we would most likely still not believe. We would explain it away somehow."

 

Even today, I hold to the belief that we are not as smart as we think we are. We base our logic on the world we know. And that's good, don't get me wrong, but what if the things we can't see are just as real, if not more? But you have also some valid points to cinsider. In the end, I think it's just as I said earlier...I don't think I'm ready to give up on God just yet. And I'm not trying to push for it either. If the time comes, it comes. If not, then that's fine with me, too. The last thing I want to is be blatantly defiant of what I currently believe. I still want to be wise, and I'm a slow-goer!

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

I still want to be wise, and I'm a slow-goer!

Those are good qualities IMHO.

[today]

With respect to TexasFreethinker's post in the Lion's Den, I'm starting a part 2 version of his question which spawned probably the most read thread on this site with over 41,150 views, and 1,576 responses on 79 pages. It was finally closed due to sheer size, but it seems a question that obviously continued to spark many discussions from many responders. Therefore I'm reposting his original question here in the Colosseum to re-open the question for continued responses and discussions.

 

TexasFreethinker's original question:

 

In the spirit of understanding (rather than debating), I'd like to ask another question of the Christians who are members or guests of this site.

 

Why are you still a Christian, in spite of the evidence and logic to the contrary that's been presented here?

 

What I'm trying to understand is what maintains your belief - on what basis do you continue to believe?

 

If you take a close look at why you are a believer does it come down to reason, evidence, a gut feeling, do you think you are hearing directly from your god, etc? I think most Christians would have to admit that there are strong reasons to disbelieve, but there must be something that is keeping you on the side of belief. What is that, exactly?

 

I'm hoping for answers more explicit than "I have faith". I'm interested in why you have faith.

[Antlerman]

Looks like a slip on the quote function there... I look forward to the actual response.

[today]

I believe because i choose to believe, i remain because i choose to remain, to remain a christainn, i really don't think there are any, if i am not mistaken to be Christian is to be CHRIST like and i really have not seen anyone that fit that word and it is a man made word.

 

to REMAIN FOLLOWING CHRIST, I CHOOSE TO; believe the word of God, it brings hope, love, truth. FAITH is not something that causes me to follow CHRIST, the word says when he returns that he will not find but a few with faith (not many but a few) so many building church people claim faith, if so why so many mountains in thier lives? (OPPS) i need to stay the course here.

 

i read the word and it is alive, with the truth, in the Beginning God Created the Heaven (not Heavens) and the Earth (it took millions of years), and it was viod and full of darkness and if you notice here it says that GODS SPIRIT moved upon the face of the water (NOT HIM BUT HIS SPIRIT). As you can see i am not a CHRISTAIN (i can read for myself) there are not any, it is a man made word just, like the powdered milk they make for babies.

 

Claiming to remain a Christ follower because of my faith would be a lie, i ask God every day to help me in MY UNBELIEVE, I REMAIN BECAUSE I BELIEVE,(opps) didn't mean to yell.

 

 

THERE IS LIFE IN THE WORD

I AM ALIVE

HOW ABOUT YOU

[Vigile]

the word says when he returns that he will not find but a few with faith (not many but a few) so many building church people claim faith, if so why so many mountains in thier lives? (OPPS) i need to stay the course here.

 

In other words you want to be one of those few chosen by a tyrant who would sentence the rest of us to infinite time for finite crimes. Crimes as awful as merely just not being a true believer. Is that right?

 

You and I seem to have very different standards about what constitutes love and forgiveness and what makes a person and a leader great.

[florduh]

I believe because i choose to believe,

 

We can only truly believe things that are believable. "Choosing" to believe is a pretense.

 

I think many people adopt this stance out of fear of what might happen if we don't believe something we're told we're suppose to believe. It's a form of Pascal's Wager. It's intellectually dishonest.

[today]

the word says when he returns that he will not find but a few with faith (not many but a few) so many building church people claim faith, if so why so many mountains in thier lives? (OPPS) i need to stay the course here.

 

In other words you want to be one of those few chosen by a tyrant who would sentence the rest of us to infinite time for finite crimes. Crimes as awful as merely just not being a true believer. Is that right?

 

You and I seem to have very different standards about what constitutes love and forgiveness and what makes a person and a leader great.

 

No my friend we are all chosen and i am not a Christain, i do not beleive as they do, you do not have to have faith to enter in to heaven. the only tyrant is chritaindom and the god they promote.

GOD WOULD NOT HAVE ANY OF HIS CREATION GO TO HELL, HE IS NOT GOD IF HE SENDS EVEN ONE TO HELL TO BE SUBJECTE TO THE KIND OF PUNISHMENT THAT christaimdom believes, to have your flesh burned away your eyes burned out and for there to be tearing away of the physical flesh that is pure ignorance, there is not any scipture to back that up, ingnorance can be cured with knowldge and wisdom.

 

You are right about the differance i dont have standards, I LOVE AND FORGIVE BECAUSE GOD COMMANDS ME TO, Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.

Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

WHO AM I TO NOT DO GODS WILL. IT IS NOT MY LIFE ANY MORE BUT HIS, I GAVE IT TO HIM.

 

TO SERVE, NOW THATS WHAT MAKES A PERSON AND A LEADER GREAT, (TRUE GREATNESS IS GREATNESS IS GREATNESS MAINTAINED)

[Legion]

I LOVE AND FORGIVE BECAUSE GOD COMMANDS ME TO

I think it would be far better if you loved and forgave because it came naturally from within you.

[florduh]

Finally - someone has the CORRECT interpretation of the Bible! That should clear things up for everybody.

[Ouroboros]

No my friend we are all chosen and i am not a Christain, i do not beleive as they do, you do not have to have faith to enter in to heaven. the only tyrant is chritaindom and the god they promote.

GOD WOULD NOT HAVE ANY OF HIS CREATION GO TO HELL, HE IS NOT GOD IF HE SENDS EVEN ONE TO HELL TO BE SUBJECTE TO THE KIND OF PUNISHMENT THAT christaimdom believes, to have your flesh burned away your eyes burned out and for there to be tearing away of the physical flesh that is pure ignorance, there is not any scipture to back that up, ingnorance can be cured with knowldge and wisdom.

...

I'm a bit confused... you're not a Christian. Are you Muslim?

[today]

No my friend we are all chosen and i am not a Christain, i do not beleive as they do, you do not have to have faith to enter in to heaven. the only tyrant is chritaindom and the god they promote.

GOD WOULD NOT HAVE ANY OF HIS CREATION GO TO HELL, HE IS NOT GOD IF HE SENDS EVEN ONE TO HELL TO BE SUBJECTE TO THE KIND OF PUNISHMENT THAT christaimdom believes, to have your flesh burned away your eyes burned out and for there to be tearing away of the physical flesh that is pure ignorance, there is not any scipture to back that up, ingnorance can be cured with knowldge and wisdom.

...

I'm a bit confused... you're not a Christian. Are you Muslim?

 

No i am not a Christain or muslim. all of CHRISTIANDOM is just saying that there way is the only way to enter into heaven, and then there are those that say there is no god, and then those that say there is no heaven or hell, and then those that say that they are the only ones that will inherit the kingdom of god.

 

I will say again that i FOLLOW THE WORD, HE BECAME FLESH AND DEWELT AMONG US, HE IS MY WAY, that does not make me a Christain, I Will Not Claim to Be Something that Is A LIE that brings fear and comdemnation,I have not met one Christain that reads the word for what it is,(THE TRUTH). God does not and will not condem even one of his CREATIONS, He created us for Love and Fellowship and he made us HUMAN FULLY HUMAN, with all our flaws and short comings we are still his, and he dos not desire for even one to be thrown into hell, but in the end we will all stand before him and those things that are not of him wil be burned away (not our flesh,eyes,hair,bones you get the point) it is not a physical fire it is spiritual.

[Ouroboros]

:wtf:

 

 

Anyone here who speaks space-monkey language?

[today]

:wtf:

 

 

Anyone here who speaks space-monkey language?

that is a good one my friend

[Ouroboros]

that is a good one my friend

So... you're not a Christian, but you believe in the Bible, God, and Christ?

 

And... why are you in the "Why do you remain a Christian" thread, if you are not a Christian?!? I think your psychiatrist needs to give you a new kind of medication, because the one you're on now doesn't work.