[QUOTE=Big B]
I have the conclusion that most of the so-called ‘Christian’ people are wrong: either by the legalistic crap inserted by the leaders (aka, the Pope, Jerry Falwell, etc.), or by people who don’t know what’s really said and take what’s given to them as gold.
[/QUOTE]
I’m glad you brought this up so close to Christmas, where there a lot of ideas floating around about the holiday, Christianity, and Jesus himself.
[QUOTE=Big B]
1.)Would someone please enlighten me as to why we need a Pope? I’ve never heard of a good, Biblical reason as to why there is a need for that type of position.
[/QUOTE]
Christians (viewed as ‘Protestents’ by the Roman Catholic Church) do not believe in a pope nor hold the Catholic pope in any special esteem. History as I understand it presents the Pope as a creation of Roman Catholic dogma, established circa 495AD, around 450 years after Christ walked the planet. Im my mind, the pope was the natural extension of the Roman Ceasar into the Christian faith. Let me explain. For the Romans, the Ceasar was a god-like being, literally a living diety who was infallible and beyond all reproach. This helped cement the dominance of the Roman government because all Roman citizens were forced to make a sacrifice to Ceasar and swear him as their god. To oppose a caesar was to defy a god, and to incur the wrath of both the Roman government and other Roman citizens. When Christianity swept the Roman empire in the first 300 years AD (and this despite the wholesale slaughter of Christians by the hands of the Romans), the Roman government survived by mingling their own pagan customs, rituals and ideals
with that of Christianity. The result, among other things, is a man with the title ‘pope’ (from the Latin “father”) who is unsurprisingly considered infallible and his words considered dogma (on the same level as the Christian scriptures). This established a new type of ceasar, masked as a Christian leader. This is known as caesaropapism – the phenomenon of combining the power of secular government with the spiritual authority of the Christian church. A convenient way to lead ignorant masses, not a Christian convention at all.
[QUOTE=Big B]
2.)The Bible is not a scientific book, rather historic. Actually, to be correct, the Bible is a library, with different books, some historical, others poetic.
[/QUOTE]
What is science? My understanding of the word is that it is the pursuit of truth through the scientific process: hypothesis, experimentation, and analysis of the resulting data. While the bible is not a ‘scientific book’ per se, it is not unscientific in nature. Some seemingly incredible assertations made by biblical texts were scoffed at in the past and are now found to be accurate. For instance, the idea that wells existed under the ocean was considered by many to be a biblical fallacy until the mid 20th century. Now it is common knowledge that such wells exist, but the bible is rarely credited to be the first to point this out.
[QUOTE=Big B]
3.)There’s nothing wrong with saying Happy Holiday’s. I’m not politically correct, but I don’t see what the big deal is. Secondly, what’s wrong with the government not being partial to Christianity? That’s what separation of church and state is about. BTW, 'separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, thanks.
[/QUOTE]
The ideal of a secular state is to preserve religious freedom, not squelch it. In other words, the government should take a stricly “hands off” approach to religion, religious practice, and anything else of the sort unless it violated another person’s constitutional rights of liberty and justice. Today it seems our government is not very hands-off at all, and the rights of the people of America are trampled daily. This includes our freedom of speech, our right to bear arms in defence of our nation from enemies both foreign and domestic, our freedom to privacy, due process, and not least of all religious freedom.
[QUOTE=Big B]
4.)It’s ‘Thou shalt not murder’ not ‘Thou shalt not kill’. Governments are there, despite the corrupt officials that may run them, to enforce the law. Execution of a murderer is justified.
[/QUOTE]
In fact, the bible says that one who would kill another person in cold blood should be killed. It sends a strict message about the gravity of such an action and ironically about the value and fragility of life itself. Those who killed in self-defence or under special circumstances (accidentally, strongly provoked, etc) were given special provisions. Those were given a permanent mark on the forehead (meaning that they were not to be harmed) and banished from the area.
[QUOTE=Big B]
5.)Christianity isn’t about feeling good, and you’ll never find a promise from God or Jesus that you will.
[/QUOTE]
Many people see Christianity as a crutch which makes life easier for foolish and weak-minded people. In fact, it has been the dominant belief system of a vast majority of the great thinkers for centuries. If followed in its truest form, Christianity is the only belief system I know of (having studied every major religion and many minor ones) which claims that man is man, God is God, and man will never be a god. Furthermore, true Christianity demands that one constantly strive to be better, rather than succumb to the natural regression of humanity which occurs automatically without intervention. It also promises that those following the teachings of Christ will be generally disliked and persecuted, which has happened throughout history. This occurred often enough at the hands of others claiming the Christian title but not actually following the teachings of Christ.
Following the teachings of Christ is a bit like strapping on a parachute while on a passenger plane that is going to crash. To the other passengers who have no idea the plane’s going down, you’ll look silly. It will make the majority of your flight very uncomfortable, and you will not be able to rest soundly like the other passengers. But when the plane goes down, the parachute’s true purpose will be revealed: not comfort, but being saved from one’s inevitable crash & burn.
[QUOTE=Big B]
6.)Humanity is flawed, and condemned for eternal damnation. You cannot do anything to get around this. (One of my gripes with the Catholic branch) You are only saved because God had Jesus die a painful death plus torture beforehand. There’s nothing you can ever do. On the flip-side, that doesn’t mean you should flippantly and willingly engage in activities contrary to what God has stated as being wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, this is true. Could you stand before a perfect being and not feel dirty? I couldn’t. Which brings me to the concept of hell. To many people, it is impossible to believe that God could be kind & loving and yet send people to hell. How could a perfect & wholesome God create the most horrible place in existance? To that I pose a counter-question: what makes a trash grotesque, the can, or the trash inside? I suspect that hell is a bit like that. We with our corruption, contempt, and above all selfishness are what makes hell a place nobody wants to be. Christians believe the only way to be un-corrupted is by allowing God to do so through his own means, thus exempting us from our ‘trash can’ fate.
[QUOTE=Big B]
7.)If Jesus did not die and rise again, the whole Bible doesn’t mean jack. That’s the entire crux (no pun intended) of the Bible. Worry about that point first and foremost…everything else builds on that.
[/QUOTE]
This brings me back to our creation theory argument some months back. In it, I posted the vollowing, which I will quote verbatim:
[SIZE=“5”]"[/SIZE]It seems we have a logical vacancy which I’d like to address. Let me clarify that this is directed at anyone who would take both sides of the argument here: It’s not reasonably possible to take both sides. I’m going to pull heavily from the writings of C.S. Lewis, but logically you have 3 choices in how one regards the person of Jesus Christ (Yeshua Ha’Mashiach for any Jews who may be reading this), since he claimed to be the Messiah. Those choices are as follows:
1)He was a persuasive liar and a con artist, but not really the Messiah
2)He was a good natured but insane individual, in that he truly believed himself to be the Messiah but was in fact an ordinary man with no grip on reality
3)He was actually who he claimed to be – the Messiah, Son of God, savior of mankind, the perfection of Adam’s weakness, etc.
If you are following this thread of logic, consider this. If Jesus was in fact a liar and a con man, nothing he said should be given any credence. After all, what good is the word of a liar? And if you can’t trust him in one matter, should you take him at his word in another? On the other hand, perhaps he really believed himself in some form of self-delusion to be the Son of God. In that case, though his intents were not necessarily evil, “that would put him on the level of a man who believes himself to be a poached egg” to paraphrase Lewis. If he is not even sure of who or what he is, obviously he can not be trusted in any matters of importance. Finally, we can choose to believe that Christ is in fact who he claims to be, and that as a result his teachings are in fact the Word of God. If that’s true, logic forbids that we pick and choose which of his teachings we choose to believe. If he was who he claimed to be, than we must give all of his teachings equal leverage. We don’t have the liberty to pay lip service by claiming that he was “just a good teacher”. Liar, madman, or Messiah - those are your choices. If we choose to accept that the teachings of Christ are trustworthy, then we must also accept the old testament in its entirety, since Christ fully endorsed it and spoke of it as the Word of God. Saying “I believe in Christian creation and also in the big-bang/evolution” is nonsensical, since the bible is very specific about the time frame in which the world was created. Also, evolutionary precepts are the antithesis of Christian teachings. There’s simply no room for agreement on this point.[SIZE=“5”]"[/SIZE]
[QUOTE=Big B]
8.)Drinking is not wrong. Getting drunk is…otherwise, God/Jesus has contradicted himself by stating that he does not tempt people.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, this is also true, and one I disagree strongly on with Mormons. They claim that when the scriptures mention people drinking wine it was merely grape juice, a product of their own convenient interpretation of the scriptures. In fact, the scriptures themselves do not lend that as a possiblity. Remember when Jesus turned water into wine? Check this out, from John 2 (emphasis mine):
[COLOR=“Navy”]9…the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the groom aside 10and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”
Too much grape juice to drink? What are they, toddlers with soft palletes? Yes, it was definately alchohol. Don’t like it? Too bad.
…All good points B but I’m afraid you were a little too thorough for me and I wasn’t able to comment on each point with the short time available to me. I’d like to comment on the remainder of your points when time allows. 
All the best,
-AT
It’s all a load of :swear: