Quote:

---

i know it is not exclusive to Christianity but i was saying that despite what I was taught and what i now believe.....it is the best i am do at this time as I fall short of my own religous beliefs....i havn't changed my beliefs simply because I struggle with following the word.

---

Quote:

---

It's not intelligent. I've read the entire New Testament and about half of the old Testament.

---

In other words, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

"Hey I've read half of Madame Bovary, want to hear my opinion on French literature?"

Quote:

---

I'd go so far to say that you can talk your self blue in the face about the grace of your god but that you don't really understand your own religion,......christians are supposed to be actively avoiding sin, "how can we live in it any longer" Christians are supposed to set the example to non believers, sure you are a sinner saved by grace but it also says "grace without works are dead". It can be a nice little mind fuck trying to validate the grace versus works debate. It's not really a debate as you are only saved by christs sacrifice (in the christian belief), and it's all grace but the general idea is if you really believed that you would be trying to eradicating sin from your life.

If you really believe that you can sin all you want and are still saved by grace this is where I actually start finding your believe extremely fucking offensive, because you're basically saying you could cheat, murder, steal, rape, molest whoever/whatever you wanted and you'd be saved and someone else would go to hell simply by being a Hindu or Buddhist. I think the vast majority of people that consider themselves Christians believe that are saved no matter what they do.

---

Your understanding of 'Christianity' seems limited to fundamentalist Baptist teaching. None of what you've said applies to Catholic or most Protestant theology.

Once again, you don't have enough background in the subject to discuss the matter knowledgeably. Hell, I don't either, but I know enough to know that you are full of shit. Please STFU with your typical 'internet intellectual' prattle (with the typical soft spot for Buddhism). This is the kind of auto didactic garbage that chokes up every forum.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I'd go so far to say that you can talk your self blue in the face about the grace of your god but that you don't really understand your own religion,......christians are supposed to be actively avoiding sin, "how can we live in it any longer" Christians are supposed to set the example to non believers, sure you are a sinner saved by grace but it also says "grace without works are dead". It can be a nice little mind fuck trying to validate the grace versus works debate. It's not really a debate as you are only saved by christs sacrifice (in the christian belief), and it's all grace but the general idea is if you really believed that you would be trying to eradicating sin from your life.

If you really believe that you can sin all you want and are still saved by grace this is where I actually start finding your believe extremely fucking offensive, because you're basically saying you could cheat, murder, steal, rape, molest whoever/whatever you wanted and you'd be saved and someone else would go to hell simply by being a Hindu or Buddhist. I think the vast majority of people that consider themselves Christians believe that are saved no matter what they do.

---

Your understanding of 'Christianity' seems limited to fundamentalist Baptist teaching. None of what you've said applies to Catholic or most Protestant theology.

Once again, you don't have enough background in the subject to discuss the matter knowledgeably. Hell, I don't either, but I know enough to know that you are full of shit. Please STFU with your typical 'internet intellectual' prattle (with the typical soft spot for Buddhism). This is the kind of auto didactic garbage that chokes up every forum.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

i know it is not exclusive to Christianity but i was saying that despite what I was taught and what i now believe.....it is the best i am do at this time as I fall short of my own religous beliefs....i havn't changed my beliefs simply because I struggle with following the word.

---

Just answer this one question. I'm not a christian, would you say I'm going hell?

---

Quote:

---

I read about an archeological dig in Italy where they excavated a trash heap behind an ancient Roman brothel. They found many skeletons of infants that had knife wounds in their skulls. Apparently the whores would just have the kids, kill them, and throw the bodies onto the trash heap so they could get back to work. Bad birth control methods, I guess. Atheist wisdom tells us they are just reducing the amount of unwanted children from an already over populated area in other words good for the whole of society and acceptable. Does anyone here believe these were appalling acts, if so, why?

---

Quote:

---

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

i know it is not exclusive to Christianity but i was saying that despite what I was taught and what i now believe.....it is the best i am do at this time as I fall short of my own religous beliefs....i havn't changed my beliefs simply because I struggle with following the word.

---

Just answer this one question. I'm not a christian, would you say I'm going hell?

---

you may but it isn't based on that alone

---

Quote:

---

OK, I'll take the bait. Some good things here, some misconceptions.

First, yes, I've studied the entire Bible. I tried twice to become a Methodist. Bug, your statement about "grace without works is dead" may be a misquote of the Book of James' famous "Faith without works, is dead". The Book of James was and still is a bit controversial, and barely made it in the Bible, IIRC.

I couldn't become a true Christian because I do not believe in some of the basic precepts of the religion - that Jesus was Christ born of a virgin, and that his death is the only path to salvation. That Paul's letters are the Word of God. I just do not have the faith that these things are true. But, I met many wonderful, spiritual, honest people in my times with the Methodists, and I have occasion to work closely with some fairly observant Catholics who are basically good people, too. In both cases, religion strengthens them, gives their life much more meaning, helps give a moral compass, and provides a place to do good works and socialize. More power to them.

I've also met some very spiritual atheists. If this one go 'round is all you get, better make the most of it. Live well, and your legacy is how people remember you. People who don't normally do wrong, because it is wrong, not because of some fear of eternal damnation. People like Patty. More power to them, too.

I am a Deist, basically. Not that I've studied the thoughts of other Deists, that's not what it's about. I believe in an initial Creator, and I know God has been with me at various times in my life. But I also believe He made things the way they are, and divine intervention is very rare, miracles don't happen every day. While I reject the dogma associated with organized religion, I respect and value the spiritual principles put forth in beautiful things like the Sermon on the Mount, or the Psalms.

The Methodists and Catholics I have mentioned, that I have respect for, are the good side of Christianity, and religion. The dark side that is giving the whole religion a bad name, is the Phelps clan in Kansas, Pat Robertson, George W. Bush, you're going to hell type of person who is not really following the teachings of Christ at all. At least, not the way I studied His teachings for many years. I never could understand these people. And I never did believe in a punishing God. And, Catholics who are single issue abortion nuts, people who knock on doors selling religion, political Christians who try to push their religion through legislation all give the religion a bad name.

So, does Christ save? Or, is it the inherent spiritual thirst of the individual that allows them to take the beauty and spirituality of the teachings, and downplay the little verses that have been perverted to use as excuses for hatred? I would say the latter. And, what are the teachings of Christianity? That pornography, and masturbation, and prostitution, are wrong? I don't see these things as great sins when I read scripture. No doubt, verses can be pointed out about loose sexual conduct, but you have to search and interpret. In my case, these indulgences are much better than lying and deceiving someone to obtain sex. And, there are much larger moral issues for me to look at, personally.

Xbit sees the bigger picture, she has that inherent beautiful spiritual thirst. The understanding that good begets good, the love of giving to others, the feeling of wholesomeness to honestly feel good about herself. Despite the guilt of her Catholic upbringing regarding petty sexual dalliances. And, Patty has that spirituality, too, although he may resent me calling it that.

So, people are people, spirituality is from within, and there are good and bad in Christianity, and in the local supermarket, and in my workplace. But, thinking any religion is a set of rules to follow, in order to receive Divine blessing in an afterlife, is exactly what Jesus fought against! He took on the conservative Jewish clergy who were making all these rules, and tried to get people to drill down to the basic spiritual principles - love God, and love your neighbor as you love yourself. Crucifixion was the ultimate expression of that love for others.

Many of the Methodists I studied with would agree with what I've written here, except for the part about virgin birth, one path to salvation, and the Bible being the word of God. Many also agree about the Bible, and make in depth scholastic studies from a historical viewpoint, seeing letters as letters intended for the target audience, and seeing the Old Testament as history and something superseded by the teachings of Jesus. I really enjoyed studying with them, and I enjoyed my retreats at the Abby of Gethsemane with the monks, too.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Ignore the nuts, take what you believe in your heart to be true, and seek and nurture those beliefs. And, buy Gag Factor 30, it has truth and beauty, too.

-Chuck, Vegetarian fanboy

---

Quote:

---

"faith without works is dead" is the line I misquoted...What it ultimately comes down to is it's simple teaching that christ is the only way to salvation. You talk about big sins and small sins but really, sin is sin according to the bible, (I believe there was only one "unpardonable sin" which if memory serves correctly I believed referred to one of 'gods elect' denying the words of christ from flowing through him/her during a certain event in revelations) talked about in the bible. But it basically would make it cut and dry that any sin committed in your entire life would be enough to condemn you if you don't except christ. From what I've studied the bible is also pretty clear that once you are "saved" you are pretty much supposed to dedicate your life to christianity. (%99 who call them selves christians don't do this.)

The guy earlier telling me I was full of shit because I hadn't read the entire bible so I can't comment on it one way or the other basically proved the point I was trying to make earlier. really, what "christians" have read the whole bible?...If I don't know enough to be allowed to comment on the subject, you might as well say christians don't have a right to call them selves christians unless they've read the entire bible and earned a theological degree.

...So much as the message of the bible it's self is what's offensive (and any other 'all or nothing' religion, that declares it's self the only true religion or you will go to hell. For those who would say I'm only picking on christians and not muslims or jews).

---

Okay, if we're going to argue theology on a porn forum...

Again, you're interpretation comes from a fundamentalist viewpoint, which most people in the US seem to think represents the christian religion in toto.

Catholic and protestant theology is much more subtle than your argument makes out. Read Reinhold Niebhur, Simone Weil or Han Kung to get an idea of how complex and debated the reading of 'grace vs. works' actually is in christian theology.

Regarding being 'saved' the idea is a 19th century invention of the American revival that is specific to the fundamentalists, it is not in the bible. Neither does the bible declare itself 'inerrant.' Simplistic statements that christianity is the only path to salvation can be easily refuted by the story of the good Samaritan.

The bible is much more open to different readings than standard dogma would have you believe. The meaning of the gospels and other books of the bible was debated for centuries and the common reading that we know today was the result of political oppression of alternative and gnostic interpretations (look at Karen Armstrong's Biography of the Bible, Jonathan Kirsch's God Against the Gods, Elaine Pagels Adam, Eve and the Serpent). Also look at Nietzsche's reading of the gospels in The Antichrist to see a radical reading which actually revives some of the ideas of the gnostics.

And actually, I don't think ANYONE should really consider themselves a christian unless they have read the bible. That seems like reasonable minimum requirement, otherwise they're left open to the bullshit distortions of the preachers who take passages out of context to push whatever agenda they feel like. That is what most of the Reformation was about, individuals right to reading and interpreting the bible for themselves.

Again, outside of the fundamentalist NO ONE thinks the bible is the literal word of God. Not catholics, jews or mainline protestants. They may believe the bible is divinely inspired but not that every letter of a document from thousands of years ago that has been translated into various other languages decades at least after the events, many of which clearly never historically occurred, is objectively true.

Now you can say that most christians don't take their religion seriously enough, or think deeply enough about it, but that is true for about every creed out there.

I've read the bible, koran, dhammapada and upanishads. Not saying this to brag, I'm saying if you're going to talk about someone else's beliefs do your homework first. I'm not christian at all, I was raised in an agnostic household where religion was completely absent, but I've worked closely with people from different religious backgrounds and looked into their beliefs out of mutual respect. They had all read Albert Camus after all.

btw the koran says that christians, jews and muslims are 'people of the book' and should all be respected, it was the later rulings of the power hungry ulema that promoted intolerance of other creeds.

Man, now that I've typed all this I realize who wants to read a goddamn essay on theology and religious history on a fucking porn forum. This is why I hate discussing this shit on the internet.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

"faith without works is dead" is the line I misquoted...What it ultimately comes down to is it's simple teaching that christ is the only way to salvation. You talk about big sins and small sins but really, sin is sin according to the bible, (I believe there was only one "unpardonable sin" which if memory serves correctly I believed referred to one of 'gods elect' denying the words of christ from flowing through him/her during a certain event in revelations) talked about in the bible. But it basically would make it cut and dry that any sin committed in your entire life would be enough to condemn you if you don't except christ. From what I've studied the bible is also pretty clear that once you are "saved" you are pretty much supposed to dedicate your life to christianity. (%99 who call them selves christians don't do this.)

The guy earlier telling me I was full of shit because I hadn't read the entire bible so I can't comment on it one way or the other basically proved the point I was trying to make earlier. really, what "christians" have read the whole bible?...If I don't know enough to be allowed to comment on the subject, you might as well say christians don't have a right to call them selves christians unless they've read the entire bible and earned a theological degree.

...So much as the message of the bible it's self is what's offensive (and any other 'all or nothing' religion, that declares it's self the only true religion or you will go to hell. For those who would say I'm only picking on christians and not muslims or jews).

---

Okay, if we're going to argue theology on a porn forum...

Again, you're interpretation comes from a fundamentalist viewpoint, which most people in the US seem to think represents the christian religion in toto.

Catholic and protestant theology is much more subtle than your argument makes out. Read Reinhold Niebhur, Simone Weil or Han Kung to get an idea of how complex and debated the reading of 'grace vs. works' actually is in christian theology.

Regarding being 'saved' the idea is a 19th century invention of the American revival that is specific to the fundamentalists, it is not in the bible. Neither does the bible declare itself 'inerrant.' Simplistic statements that christianity is the only path to salvation can be easily refuted by the story of the good Samaritan.

The bible is much more open to different readings than standard dogma would have you believe. The meaning of the gospels and other books of the bible was debated for centuries and the common reading that we know today was the result of political oppression of alternative and gnostic interpretations (look at Karen Armstrong's Biography of the Bible, Jonathan Kirsch's God Against the Gods, Elaine Pagels Adam, Eve and the Serpent). Also look at Nietzsche's reading of the gospels in The Antichrist to see a radical reading which actually revives some of the ideas of the gnostics.

And actually, I don't think ANYONE should really consider themselves a christian unless they have read the bible. That seems like reasonable minimum requirement, otherwise they're left open to the bullshit distortions of the preachers who take passages out of context to push whatever agenda they feel like. That is what most of the Reformation was about, individuals right to reading and interpreting the bible for themselves.

Again, outside of the fundamentalist NO ONE thinks the bible is the literal word of God. Not catholics, jews or mainline protestants. They may believe the bible is divinely inspired but not that every letter of a document from thousands of years ago that has been translated into various other languages decades at least after the events, many of which clearly never historically occurred, is objectively true.

Now you can say that most christians don't take their religion seriously enough, or think deeply enough about it, but that is true for about every creed out there.

I've read the bible, koran, dhammapada and upanishads. Not saying this to brag, I'm saying if you're going to talk about someone else's beliefs do your homework first. I'm not christian at all, I was raised in an agnostic household where religion was completely absent, but I've worked closely with people from different religious backgrounds and looked into their beliefs out of mutual respect. They had all read Albert Camus after all.

btw the koran says that christians, jews and muslims are 'people of the book' and should all be respected, it was the later rulings of the power hungry ulema that promoted intolerance of other creeds.

Man, now that I've typed all this I realize who wants to read a goddamn essay on theology and religious history on a fucking porn forum. This is why I hate discussing this shit on the internet.

---