Is there such a thing as a Christian?

I do not suggest that people follow blindly. I posit that they pursue their good based on what that model of good is.

Frankly your speech has not kept pace with your claims. Why does a person follow a road?

 

I don't think many people wake up one day and say "EUREKA! I'l be a Muslim!".
They don't run sophisticated experiments to come up with "An eye for an eye".

Its told to them by a holy scripture.

You cannot claim to have invented something natural. And if your morals are not
natural, they are baseless.

Considering the wide array of circumstances a single religious group could be
subject to, I don't think a "road" is an accurate depiction of what religious belief is.

Religion is rather a guide. Eyes to replace your own.

Freedom from doubt by submitting to ignorance, telling you "turn left", "turn right", "stop and pray", "i promise i'm leading you to paradise".

 

Religion is taught as well as critical thinking. Morals are relating to issues of right and wrong and to how individual people should behave ,
based on what somebody's conscience suggests is right or wrong, rather than on what rules or the law says should be done, or
regarded in terms of what is known to be right or just, as opposed to what is officially or outwardly declared to be right or just.
Morals are giving guidance on how to behave decently and honorably good or right, when judged by the standards of the average person or society at large , or the able to distinguish right from wrong and to make decisions based on that knowledge based on an inner conviction, in the absence of physical proof moral certainty.
There is no natural morality beyond the desire for our own goodness.

How about just answering the question instead of objecting to terms?

I agree belief is a symbol chosen to represent an unknown variable but religion is usually a system of institutional or personal beliefs and practices relating to the divine.

Christian practice as I understand it encourages investigation, seek and find, knock and it will be open, and ask and you receive. As PB pointed out you have a narrow and unremarkable grasp of christian practice in specific and religious practice in general.

 

It sounds, Duck, like you have quite some version of interpretation of the bible going there - first off. My particular version, old and worn, as it is, KJV basically says we will be sinners, always, and there was only 1 perfect one.
There are many tales, parables, and (obscure) verses that people use to validate whatever their brand of "Christianity" is...

I think we should remember that, this subject, this discussion, is conjecture only, and by your standards there may well be no Christians. But then again, I think that surely there are a few - even with the "rules" you seem to interpret as necessary to being a Christian.

I consider myself a Christian, yet I do not believe as the "typical Christian" believes - if there is a "typical Christian". I think we as humans are a lot more concerned about who does who (especially re gays!) or who drinks a beer than God is. But again, that's jmo
I totally believe in the "God Head" - God the Father, God the Holy Spirit and God the Son, Jesus. I was baptized; tho' I do think that God will, surely, accept those that have not be so. I believe in a merciful God; but One that will allow us and our free wills to screw ourselves to the wall.

If I was real smart I'd finish this off with the picture of a platypus (defying the "rules" of evolution).

 

By logical and my standards

 

churches are to christians as zoos are to wild animals

just coz u in a zoo dont mean the animals are really wild.. most of em would die if you let them out

 

In Acts 15:1-35. Here it is made clear that Gentile converts to the Catholic Church are not to be bound by circumcision and the Mosaic Law (Acts 15:5 shows this is what the council was about) but rather simply to avoid “pollutions of idols, unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood.”

Galatians 5:19-21 provides a clear list of sins and immoralities which lead to damnation. (I know Okie has a good post about what the specific parts of each sinful act really mean, but I am not getting into that here). 1 Corinthians chapter 5 also makes it clear that sexual immorality is unacceptable.

1 Corinthians 10 Saint Paul speaks about how it is now permissible to eat the flesh of animals sacrificed to idols, warning the Corinthians to only be concerned about causing scandal, rather than any sin or wrongdoing which might be attached to eating the food itself. This clearly shows that the decision of the Council of Jerusalem to avoid certain foods was not doctrinal, but rather a discipline.
http://catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/6j.htm

Answer you concern Duck (from what is quoted above)?

http://theupsidedownworld.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/the-pladypus-and-evolution/

The pladypus actually conforms to the rules of evolution, which really can be summed up (quite eloquently) in: Life will find a way (That's Jurrrasic Park for you).

 

Why is it acceptable in the arena of religious debate such as this that an utter lack of understanding and knowledge of the subject matter gives one the attitude that they posses some greater understanding and insight into the topic than those who have studied it and have an understanding of the specifics as well as the intent of the religion in question.
I am not an expert in Buddhism and have never professed more than a basic knowledge and understanding of it, such lack as many in this thread have exhibited in regards to Christianity. Yet if I were to begin to deride the religion and profess that those who are it's adherents as delusion, mislead and unable to think for themselves I would most likely get assaulted from myriad directions, possibly even to the point of being banned from HF.

Ignorance of a subject has never been accepted as a valid and solid foundation to disprove the subject, much less to belittle and insult those who do posses such knowledge. If a person were to enter a physics class and start to insult the professor about his theories and basing such an attack upon on understanding derived from watching episodes of The Big Bang Theory, you would be laughed to scorn and most likely ignored and removed.

Why is it an acceptable tactic with regards to atheists in dealing with Christians?
If you are going to take on the Christian faith with the intent to show it to be false and it's adherents to be deluded, at least have the basic intelligence and humility to know what you are talking about before hurling insults at those that do.

And some of you guys have the gall to call Christians narrow minded and unintelligent. Look a little closer in the mirror.

Now if any of you are actually interested in the Christian faith beyond just hurling insults at it's adherents may I suggest C.S. Lewis as a respected, intelligent and unimposing source for information into what Christianity teaches and what Christians believe at it's core. The book Mere Christianity is a very good starting point, that is if you truly have an interest beyond ignorant debate.

 

So conscience comes from where?

Is it learned, or are people born killers?

Does morality even have to be beyond the desire to understand?

This is relevant to my prior question in "Is it learned, or are people born killers?"

I gave what i felt was a satisfactory explanation as to why we cant talk
about religion like its a "road". I do not recognize enough similarities
to illustrate them together.

Whats wrong with my "guide" alternative, anyways?

One or both of us is wrong in our understanding. I don't understand how you
can fail to explain to me why I have a narrow and unremarkable grasp
while making the claim with the same sentence.

It seems to me like you are defining terms with hard to understand run on
sentences to somehow distract me. I realize this is a cynical analysis but
surely there is an easier way to illustrate your point?

Do you mean to say that we cannot understand the "what" by understanding
the "why"?

Thedope and yourself are missing the meaning when you think we are talking
about Christianity alone when we mention it. I could easily point out
similarities between any "Christian" belief and other religions. So why would
you disregard similarities and say that we are talking about just yours?

 

It is learned.

There is no law that says that we have to kill, however people do not need to be instructed as to how to kill.

Morality is a type of understanding, a boundary that is developed through education. The motive for all life can be witnessed as a bandwidth of activity
and sensitivity ranging from the instinct for self preservation to the sensation of gratitude. To this single expression, we are absolutely committed.

Plainly religion is a path, a mental pathway or devotion of consciousness to achieve an end. The devotee "follows the path". One of the definitions of path is "a course of action or way of living."

You are portraying the subject to yourself as mindless devotion to superstition or personality. Those things do exist but they are not representative but abhorrent manifestations.

I have shown a quality of faith which is an identical element of the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge, known as scientific method.
That is, the willingness to withhold judgment until the truth can be found.
The same measure of faith that is required to invest energy into any testable hypothesis.

See above.

I show above what I see as lacking in your assessment. That you fail to appreciate the point that religion can be regarded as a road or a path. I see your point and understand it to be gleaned from a too small sampling.

No, I am right on point. You are trying to overrun consideration to disseminate your narrow position. You even changed the wording of my statement, calling it incorrect because the way it was worded didn't correspond to your attitude. What was the phrase, "you thought I was thumping bibles"
I don't regard your analysis as cynical, just incorrect.

 

The condition of embodiment emerges energetically as male and female principle,
not good and evil. Belief does not contend with the truth only other beliefs.

 

The mind is naturally abstract, in it we may find reason for peace. A mind without anxiety demonstrates itself to be wholly kind.

 

What door?

 

So how do we determine what we learn is truth?

 

To me truth and reality are synonymous terms. We can debate "truth" as a synonym for abstract model of the world but the abstract is by it's nature, tah dah...,abstract. Reality or the true state of things is something we can mutually appreciate.
So the meaningful question to ask is how do we know what is real.
In my seeking I have come to rely on certain properties on which to base my consideration of what is real.
Reality is non local, nor is it remote.
What is not real does not exist.

We do not need to decide what is real, only be present to it to appreciate it.

 

You seem to understand the bible better than god does (and i do mean that).
Its a credit to you, but what your positing isn't what religious faith is, its
what you think it should be, which is not faith. Faith does not suspend judgement,
understanding does that.

 

One definition for faith is trust, confidence in and reliance on good qualities, especially fairness, truth, honor, or ability. We can suspend judgment for the sake of not knowing.

 

All of the words you listed

trust, confidence, reliance, good, fair, truth, honor, ability.....
they all express a positive reflection.

Its because having faith is arguing in the affirmative.

It does not take faith to not know something.

 

In the absence of knowing for certain, we find some measure of faith. For instance, we make plans and promises on the assumption that our personal lifespan will continue long enough for those to be fulfilled. However there is no guarantee, for certain, that the phenomena in question will occur.

 

I love how you assume my ignorance on the topic and then go on to call me narrow minded.
I do not know as much scripture as a priest or pastor would of most any sect; nor can I quote as many scriptures as most devout followers, but I've read the Bible cover to cover, read Luther's Small Catechism and much of it's big brother and spent 18 years of my life in the church.

I do not claim to know all, or even most, only to know much more than the average (Western) Christian.

Yes, to a certain extent.

My question, though maybe not worded as clearly as it should have been or lacking in examples, was more of how can there be contradictions in the Bible if the Bible is the one true Word of God?

This certainly answers to the Mosaic laws pretty well (especially if I'm being nice and accepting of the church's authority), but I may think about other parts and start a similar thread anew.