blearyeyedme.com - Latest Comments

Re: The ‘Whats’ and ‘Whys’ of My Faith

escorts — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 22:37:44 -0000

I am a Catholic, like 99 per cent of people from Italy, and I think my faith has helped keep me strong," he tells me. "Sometimes religion helps you. I don't have time to go to church but I pray every day. "I get comfort from praying. ...

Re: The ‘Whats’ and ‘Whys’ of My Faith

Edén — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:56:59 -0000

Re: Preserving Selflessness

dsullery — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:37:17 -0000

Great post, Fenton. As an addendum to this, I'll point out that it also comes down to what we desire. Remember the quote 'the love of money is the root of all evil" ? Notice it doesn't say money itself is the root of all evil, it says that the love of it is . Or (as Jesus advised) "Be in the world, not of it". Desires and the motivation to go after what we want are intrinsic characteristics which God programmed into every human being. The effort to fulfill those desires constitutes a large portion of our waking life. The trick is deciding what desires we'll choose to pursue. If we seek to make the world a better place for our having been in it or if we choose to have a positive impact on the life of the people we encounter on our journey..then fulfilling these desires gives us what we want while simultaneously serving God . I definitely fall into the camp that believes this is how God intended it to be, with selflessness being the organic result of the deliberate pursuit of a goal (or goals ) which the individual in question is aware will benefit not only oneself, but others as well.

Re: On Reviews

Fenton — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:50:00 -0000

Well said, Duane. You make an excellent case in regards to the objectivity of some film critics. When I was writing this, I immediately thought of M. Night Shyamalan and the "bad" reviews I had seen for his various films over the years, reviews that had overlooked any deeper meaning of the sort that had kept you and I talking into the wee hours of the night. It is that kind of review that I see more often than not, and it is that kind of review to which I was more specifically referring. If any such critic of film, music, art, and so on can indeed remain objective, then absolutely their critique has something of value to offer. Yet, in the end, I think my point still stands that one should not rely solely on a review as the basis for purchasing a product.

Good points, Duane! Thanks!

Re: On Reviews

dsullery — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:54:28 -0000

I tend to agree with this, except for the area of film review. While personal taste does factor in, the more skilled critics often judge a film regardless of genre based on it's merits in terms of storytelling , performances, coherency.,etc. It isn't uncommon to come across a sentence such as "fans of this sort of film should fan this appealing" in a less than favorable review from the more polished film critics. Roger Ebert is the best example of this: This is a man who is a devout adherent of of Ingmar Bergman, Werner Herzog and Scorsese..yet in the same batch of reviews you'll find that he gives a four star rating to George Romero's original 1978 Dawn of the Dead and James Cameron's Aliens and a three star rating to the zombie flick Re-Animator ( about which he wrote one of my favorite comments : "Level one viewers will say that Re-Animator is in bad taste. Level two viewers will note that Re-Animator is ABOUT bad taste." ) . So in deference to the medium of film, while a professional critic may not know your tastes personally, there's a relatively general standard for what constitutes good writing, good performances and good direction. When they report that the film is subpar in any (or all) of those categories, most of the time it actually is. There are of course exceptions (I have a few personal favorites that were panned and , adversely, the appeal of several acclaimed movies still escapes me. A notable example of the latter would be Napoleon Dynamite, the DVD of which I'd be more likely to ingest than actually slip back into my DVD player ) ..but it's been my experience when the majority of critical response goes in the same direction towards a specific feature, it's usually accurate based on a culturally accepted definition of what qualifies as good and bad. No one agrees all the time..but there is a specific guideline for how the really good critics analyze a film and it's much like how you'd asses any other product.

Re: Vatican to Welcome Married Anglican Priests

Matt Algren — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:44:17 -0000

Let's be frank. Most priests and bishops (and Popes) aren't interested in marrying anyway, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.

This surprised me not one bit. It's another step to create a stronger confederation of ultra-conservative congregations to push an ultra-conservative public policy agenda in the halls of government. We saw it last month when all Catholic churches in Maine took up a special collection during mass three weeks in a row to run a political campaign. We saw it last year with Prop 8. We'll see it again next year, possibly in New York.

As far as the churches leaving the Anglican communion goes, I say let them. The communion is stronger without weak-willed yes-men behind the pulpit and bigots in the pews. The Church shouldn't cower in fear of losing a few members. That's not Her job.

(This isn't anti-Catholic for me, by the way. I said the same thing in 2008 when the UMC voted to bar LGBT people from full participation in the church (may God forgive us all). Teaching and fostering self-hate are anti-Christ and shouldn't be permitted within a church. Full stop.)

Re: Vatican to Welcome Married Anglican Priests

Shannon McShane Hollingsworth — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:19:36 -0000

I don't know, perhaps I'm old fashioned and a traditionalist...(actually scratch that, I AM old fashioned and traditionalist)...but perhaps it's those qualities in me that can understand the reasons behind *some* of the Roman Catholic ways.
While sure, we all are to be "Christ's bride" as you say, most are not solely devoted to Him. You are not, as you have also devoted yourself to me and someday to our children. I take away a lot of time in your life that you could be devoting to Christ and your apologetics and your arguing. Your mom is not, as she's also devoted to your dad, you, your sister, Ethan... No matter how "little" time a wife or husband (and children) cause a paster/minister to 'neglect their duties,' that is still more time than a Catholic priest 'neglects.' They don't put in an 8. 9. 10 hour day and then go home putting their duties aside to take care of dinner or bills, etc. As a priest, they have no one else to be devoted to at the end of their day. No one to split their attentions between nor their allegience.
The question is then, in my opinion, does being a minister of faith (of all religions) require 24/7 devotion? That's what's required of the Catholic Priests but not of other religious origanizations. So does having a mass everyday/every other day, and devotionals and hospital visits, etc...require someone's time 24/7, thus not allowing them time for spouses and children? I don't know the answer to that, but I get that there was a time that it was felt a person in such a capacity needed to be celibate and single to devote the proper time and attention to Christ and ministering to others. I would think now, the way the world and society is, we could use all the help we could get, and if that meant priests had to continue to devote themselves only to the cloth, then so be it. But that's just me.
As for the article point, I'm glad that married Anglican preists can uphold the Catholic standards and help minister mor people. Meanwhile, I'm personally glad and proud to be Catholic. :)

Re: The ‘Whats’ and ‘Whys’ of My Faith

Edén Almasude — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:40:20 -0000

Good lord, it's getting difficult for me to keep track of the different strings here. This week is insane for me, so my apologies if I take awhile to respond at times - I adore any sort of philosophical/religious debate, but my classes and research come first.

"I don't think I've ever met someone who purposefully wanted someone to suffer so they would see God's mercy, or the like."
Yeah, it's pretty much idiotic. Oh, and guess what else is "right"? Selling children into slavery or sacrificing them for disobedience, killing/dishonesty/manipulation/guilt-tripping/etc. to convert people, intentionally rejecting modern medical care...I've heard these and plenty more. Christians can be plenty stupid, but obviously not all of them. As for Christian relief organizations, I know of two kinds: those which genuinely want to help others out of a love for humanity and those which help others out of a desire to convert them. In both cases, if people are being helped then fantastic. But the motive of the latter still disgusts me.

Anyhow, I checked out your blog on Anselm and think it's real chill, but I need to let it marinate in my brain for a bit before I respond. :-) Also, I'll get to you on those good arguments against Christianity, or at least I'll attempt it.

Re: The ‘Whats’ and ‘Whys’ of My Faith

Fenton — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:44:54 -0000

Wow. I definitely know what you're saying, and where you're coming from... but wow.

I don't think I've ever met someone who purposefully wanted someone to suffer so they would see God's mercy, or the like. It's self-defeating.

Certainly, the idea that we cannot do it by ourselves is not meant in the physical sense that "addiction will overtake us if we do not submit to God", and so on. That's complete rubbish. Many people have strong will power and self-control. It's meant in the idea that we cannot overpower sin itself by ourselves. Check out my blog on "Anselm on the Atonement" (http://www.blearyeyedme.com....

Maybe it should be in extreme stubbornness to prove others wrong that you should, indeed, show others how helping people live healthy, safe lives is indeed the way to living a Christ-centered life. :) Besides, I don't think we'd see so many Christian relief organizations if they didn't think helping people was important. (My church alone has a food pantry, as well as a weekend where they serve meals to anyone in the community, and other such programs that do nothing but provide assistance to others without asking anything in return.)

As for the 'need' to convert people when they are in vulnerable positions, it seems more that they capitalize on those vulnerable positions than anything. I'm not of that sort, though. I've always steered away from those types of things, the "altar calls" and whatnot.

While I believe people can genuinely have an understanding of God through vulnerable times, I tend to believe the best proponents of a belief are those who struggle to get there themselves, through a mixture of reason and emotion, and not simply vulnerability.

Enjoy!

Re: The ‘Whats’ and ‘Whys’ of My Faith

Edén Almasude — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:23:30 -0000

I've an obligation in a few minutes, but let me try to briefly clear up what I meant, and I'll try to respond to the rest later on.

I've heard from countless Christians, even the tolerable/nice ones I've known, "sure, physical necessities are good to help those people out with, but what's more important than their physical life here is their eternal life, so humanitarian work is way less important than missionary work". Some have gone so far as to claim that it is BETTER that people live horrific lives rampant with unmentionable suffering, no education, etc etc. Because it "humbles them for God" and forces them to come to God broken and recognizing their frailty as humans. I can see this view in no other light but that of pure cruelty.

Does that clarify what I said earlier? Or at least, where I'm coming from?

Coming to God out of brokenness seems reverberant amongst Christian circles. I loathe the laudatory attitude towards suffering simply because it "brings people closer to God." It is not even true in countless situations. How many people have rejected theism entirely because of their experiences with Christianity? My own experience with addiction clearly showed me AWAY from all religion because it was very evident that my only way out was through belief that I COULD stop, where religion told me that I COULDN'T, at least by myself. It was only through extreme stubbornness to prove others wrong that I did, indeed, force control over it.

Why does Christianity 'need' to convert people when they are in very vulnerable positions?

That's far more than I intended to write, but I'll find the Thinktank pages and whatnot tonight when I have a free moment again.

Re: The ‘Whats’ and ‘Whys’ of My Faith

Fenton — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:21:10 -0000

Thanks for the link.

"This seems very depressing. I've only gotten to the (very good) point where I am now by accepting that things simply are the way they are. I do not understand how one can avoid self-loathing with the view that one is inherently evil and sin-prone and knowing that God will punish us for merely following the nature which we have because of the results of the laws he put in place in the natural world (I'm thinking evolution here). It does not seem psychologically healthy."

I do not believe we are inherently evil, nor do I believe we are natural sinful. We are born into a sin-filled world, and taught from an early age that certain things are acceptable and others aren't. We are indoctrinated with these social and cultural standards that may sometimes clash with what we probably should be doing. They become habits.

I may know that I am going to continually sin and struggle, but that doesn't cause me loathe myself or my situation. As you said, it is what it is. So, rather than wallow in my defeat, I revel in that God has promised that something better, and will help me struggle to attain it. I revel in that I am no longer bound by sin. I will continually sin and screw up until the day I die, but I am no longer bound by that sin. It has no hold over me in the sense that wages for sin have been paid already.

"That said, thank you for clearing up many of your views. It's very helpful to me; usually when I argue about Christianity with people they are surprised at how harsh (and perhaps inaccurate) my view of it is, but it is simply the result of the Christianity I know."

I enjoy clearing up my views. I'm glad it's helpful to you, as it's also helpful to me. :) Your harsh view of Christianity and of God is expected, given your upbringing (as you've described). Hopefully that can change. :)

Re: The ‘Whats’ and ‘Whys’ of My Faith

Fenton — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:00:01 -0000

"Yet God is the same God, regardless."

Absolutely. God's greatness does not hinder upon our acceptance of it or of God. We do not affect God's greatness. We can only recognize it or ignore it. Well said, Eden.

My point about Christ defeating death is that it is a central tenant of Christianity, not that somehow God would be any less God if Christ hadn't. Though I'm sure there's an argument that could be made that God's nature (i.e. Goodness, Love) is such that Christ's death and resurrection were imperative. I'm just saying... the argument could probably be made.

"Yeah, I think that's a kind of stupid argument on the part of such people."

Then you're far better off than most people, Eden.

"Why make stupid arguments against Christianity when there are so many good ones?"

Exactly. Wait. What? :)

I'm a little fuzzy on the "good arguments" against Christianity. Care to enlighten?

"This is not just. This requires nothing of us- no morality, no honest attempt to live rightly, nothing. Merely the self-centered, ignorant, victimization I have seen in the vast majority of Christians. This is not just in the same manner that it is not just that children all over the world, including my cousins, are practicing their math homework by drawing with a stick in the mud while I type a technical philosophy paper on my Macbook."

I'm not following what you're saying. But let me see if this addresses it.

I said salvation was free. I didn't say we should become raging assholes or murderous thieves. On the contrary, we accept salvation through Christ because we know that God is Love, and that through God we too can love and do good. Jesus didn't say "What you do to the least of these you do unto me" for nothing. That is precisely why I believe there will be an abundance of "unbelievers" in heaven, because of precisely the things they have done unto others in the name of love and goodness. (This too goes along with the reference to Lewis' The Last Battle. I'll try to find the actual text.) This is also why I believe many "believers" will not find their way into heaven, as they do not find themselves "doing unto others".

People get this idea in their heads that God is only in the business of Church and Church related enterprises. This is entirely not true. Certainly there is work that needs to be done to help the Word of Christ prosper. But I doubt God would pull you out of practising medicine in some third-world for the sake of mission work in another. What you are doing in medicine there is precisely the type of work God calls us to do. Your devotion to humanity is completely relevant.

If you could reference those thinktank pages, please. :)

Re: The ‘Whats’ and ‘Whys’ of My Faith

Edén Almasude — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:41:05 -0000

The specific episode of The Atheist Experience can be found as a streaming mp3 here : http://www.atheist-experien...

"But realize also that we are still human, and still prone to sin, regardless of God's presence in us.", and then "It's about admitting we will struggle, and doing it anyway."
This seems very depressing. I've only gotten to the (very good) point where I am now by accepting that things simply are the way they are. I do not understand how one can avoid self-loathing with the view that one is inherently evil and sin-prone and knowing that God will punish us for merely following the nature which we have because of the results of the laws he put in place in the natural world (I'm thinking evolution here). It does not seem psychologically healthy.

That said, thank you for clearing up many of your views. It's very helpful to me; usually when I argue about Christianity with people they are surprised at how harsh (and perhaps inaccurate) my view of it is, but it is simply the result of the Christianity I know.

Re: The ‘Whats’ and ‘Whys’ of My Faith

Edén Almasude — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:26:11 -0000

"As for God beating death, Christianity is what it is because Christ beat death."
Yet God is the same God, regardless. If you really believe that he is what Christianity claims, as well as constant throughout the ages, then he is morally supreme and supremely powerful independent of his chosen acts. C.S. Lewis said somewhere (sorry this is so rough) that God's "inability" to do silly things like make a rock too heavy for him to lift does not affect God's greatness in the least. Also, non-belief in God does not hinder his greatness in the least, for God is great regardless of whether or not it is recognized by humans.

"You'd be surprised how many people try to raise similarities of Christ to other savior myths, all of which fall short in the comparisons that are made."
Yeah, I think that's a kind of stupid argument on the part of such people. Even if it had extreme similarities to other saviour stories, that does not logically say anything about the truth or lack thereof of Christianity, which is what Zeitgeist seem to purport. Why make stupid arguments against Christianity when there are so many good ones? ;-)

"There are no hoops to jump through, or quests to go on, journeys to take or wars to be waged to earn salvation."
This is not just. This requires nothing of us- no morality, no honest attempt to live rightly, nothing. Merely the self-centered, ignorant, victimization I have seen in the vast majority of Christians. This is not just in the same manner that it is not just that children all over the world, including my cousins, are practicing their math homework by drawing with a stick in the mud while I type a technical philosophy paper on my Macbook.

I cannot accept such free, string-less salvation in part because I refuse to accept God's power over morality. If I were to accept it and God were to command me to abandon medicine for some random missionary work or a desk job, I know that I would not do it. I will not trust God's "sovereign plan" over what I see with my own eyes, and what I see is the desperate need for education and medicine in the world, NOT religious belief amongst those who are struggling only to keep alive.

Christianity, on the other hand, tells me that if I do not accept this unjust salvation and become a mindless being at God's control then my actions in the world and attempts to live rightly are all for naught, but are merely utterly worthless acts. My devotion to humanity is irrelevant, because God wants devotion to HIM and HIM ONLY. But wait! God loves people, doesn't he? Of course! Yet he commands genocide, etc because it maximizes goodness in his sovereign plan (I've been reading the Thinktank). It's nice to know that God's love for humanity goes out the door because he's bound by utilitarian principles.

I do hope I'm not posing a straw man here. If so, I'm genuinely curious as to what is instead the case.

Re: The ‘Whats’ and ‘Whys’ of My Faith

Fenton — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:01:28 -0000

"There's an interesting podcast from The Atheist Experience entitled "would you die for a lie?" It makes some good points, but unfortunately it's very long to sift through and I was at work when I listened to it and cannot stop in the middle of lab work in order to jot down notes."

I'm sure there are some interesting points, and I'd like to hear it if you could link me to it. I have no doubt there are *few* instances wherein someone would be willing to die for a lie, but if they exist, I am unaware of them.

"It's mere statistics."

Agreed. :)

"The feeling of God being close to us is NOT documented truth, but rather some people's personal experience. Anyhow, one may not sense the existence of many things which do in fact exist, and one may sense things which do not in fact exist (i.e. hallucinations, dreams)."

Again, agreed. :) However, we'd need to define "exist" before we can accept your statement. Either way, it just points out an inconsistency on that writers part, and says nothing of the validity of the "closeness of God" or of "belief from documented truth".

"I have known a hell of a lot of people who continually pray for the Holy Spirit to live in them and teach them to live as He wills. Yet instead they justify cruel, cruel acts through "God's will" and continue to live self-centered, victimized, ignorant lives. You may say these are not "true" Christians, but Geocities guy would respond that "Salvation is assured through a relationship, love, and devotion to Jesus; there is no "maybe" or "probably" - it is guaranteed." I would assume that asking the Holy Spirit to dwell with oneself is similarly guaranteed if one asks for it."

One can mutter the words and go through the motions and still not have faith, Eden. I am of the belief that many Christians will be surprised at the day of judgment at how many nonbelievers are admitted into heaven and how many church-goers aren't. Looks deceive. Tongues lie. But God sees the heart, into the very depths of your soul. To accept God and the Holy Spirit is to make a commitment to change yourself, to make an effort, to try not to give in to those old ways. But realize also that we are still human, and still prone to sin, regardless of God's presence in us. That presence, though, is what helps us struggle through that sin and make us into better people.

Sure these things are guaranteed, but that's not the end of it. You have to work for it. It may be the right road, but it's certainly not the easy road. To be a Christian, to die in Christ, to leave behind your earthly self, is to admit your failings and not let them overtake you. As I mentioned yesterday, it's not about self-pity and self-loathing, which only brings us back to sin. It's about admitting we will struggle, and doing it anyway.

Hope this helps.

Re: The ‘Whats’ and ‘Whys’ of My Faith

Fenton — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:46:35 -0000

"The book-link you sent seemed kind of silly in its chapter on religion by quoting all these people who happened to define Christianity as something other than religion."

Not silly, I don't think. Just that they have varying views of what encompasses religion and see how Christianity, at least to them, is different .

"I'm hoping to get to the parts of morality and epistemology, though! "

I hope you enjoy it. I haven't read it, so it's a toss up, really.

"I don't really think the first two quotes you posted matter as to why Christianity is "better" than other religions, just different as any other religion can be differentiated from the others."

They're not meant to show why Christianity is necessarily better, but why it is different than other religions. Certainly each religion can be differentiated from the others through its details, but that's not the point. The point is to show that it is exceedingly different in what it proclaims, that is, that no other religion (that I am aware of, but feel free to correct me) comes close to making the same types of claims as Christianity. No other religion solves the issue of sin. No other religion offers salvation freely by a means of grace from their deity(ies). No other deity was willingly incarnated as a human, being born as a human, and dying as a human, all for the sake of humankind, and seeking nothing in return but to save humankind.

You'd be surprised how many people try to raise similarities of Christ to other savior myths, all of which fall short in the comparisons that are made.

So it isn't necessarily about what makes it better as it is what makes it different helps to show what makes it better.

As for God beating death, Christianity is what it is because Christ beat death. If Christ had simply died, that would be the end of it. It's the Resurrection that is the cornerstone of Christianity.

"Isn't this one aspect of Calvinism? Or is it intended in other way?"

I cringe at the thought of Calvinism, especially with Stephen considering it. It is most definitely meant in another way, not the "elected of God" way. That is, salvation is offered freely by God through God's grace, to everyone. There are no hoops to jump through, or quests to go on, journeys to take or wars to be waged to earn salvation. Salvation cannot be earned. It is given. And it is given to us without cost. It is ours for the taking. All we must do is trust that God has provided that.

No puppets. No strings. No manipulation.

Re: The ‘Whats’ and ‘Whys’ of My Faith

Edén Almasude — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:55:09 -0000

From the second link you gave me:
"It is said that people will die for what they believe to be true (even if it is not true), but they will never die for what they know to be a lie."
There's an interesting podcast from The Atheist Experience entitled "would you die for a lie?" It makes some good points, but unfortunately it's very long to sift through and I was at work when I listened to it and cannot stop in the middle of lab work in order to jot down notes.

"The third thing different is the fact that Jesus fulfilled 61 prophecies all written at least 400 years earlier. A scientific study was conducted to estimate the probability of that happening."
Scientific study? First of all, unless he gives a citation for something like that, I'll assume it's made up or it was done by some sort of pseudo-intellectual christian "scientist" who is out to prove Christ by his own means. Also, I don't see what about this "study" would make it "scientific". It's mere statistics. One cannot make a testable hypothesis about humans-as-likelihood-of-fulfilling-prophesies in vitro. I don't know how one can posit that at all.

He then seemingly contradicts himself:
"The belief that God is part of everything all around us - the sense of closeness."
But then!
"Belief is based on documented truth rather than emotions."
The feeling of God being close to us is NOT documented truth, but rather some people's personal experience. Anyhow, one may not sense the existence of many things which do in fact exist, and one may sense things which do not in fact exist (i.e. hallucinations, dreams).

"The promise that God sends His Holy Spirit to dwell in us, giving us power to live as He asks, since we cannot do it on our own."
I have known a hell of a lot of people who continually pray for the Holy Spirit to live in them and teach them to live as He wills. Yet instead they justify cruel, cruel acts through "God's will" and continue to live self-centered, victimized, ignorant lives. You may say these are not "true" Christians, but Geocities guy would respond that "Salvation is assured through a relationship, love, and devotion to Jesus; there is no "maybe" or "probably" - it is guaranteed." I would assume that asking the Holy Spirit to dwell with oneself is similarly guaranteed if one asks for it.

Re: The ‘Whats’ and ‘Whys’ of My Faith

Edén Almasude — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:28:07 -0000

I'd agree that defining religion in regards to Christianity and whatnot becomes mere opinion. The book-link you sent seemed kind of silly in its chapter on religion by quoting all these people who happened to define Christianity as something other than religion. I'm hoping to get to the parts of morality and epistemology, though!

I don't really think the first two quotes you posted matter as to why Christianity is "better" than other religions, just different as any other religion can be differentiated from the others. So, God beat death, but would it make him less capable of doing so or less omni-etc. had he not beaten death? No, God is God and it would not have made him less great or less worthy of worship.

"In authentic Christianity, salvation is by God's gracious good pleasure alone."
Isn't this one aspect of Calvinism? Or is it intended in other way? It's terribly comforting to find that I'm destined to hell (whether it be for eternity or not) simply on God's whim. That we are mere puppets in the hands of a cruel manipulating ventriloquist who interferes with our lives and speaks through us using us as a mere means in order to reach his own ends. Simply to value my own existence as a human being, I think I'll pass.

Re: The ‘Whats’ and ‘Whys’ of My Faith

Fenton — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 00:29:46 -0000

Hmmm. I think after consideration, and the fact that defining religion will ultimately prove futile, it becomes a matter of personal opinion as to Christianity being considered a religion or not. In that, I don't think it really matters, per se, as it's more about what makes Christianity different from other religions than it is about excluding Christianity as a religion.

Simply put, Christianity is still, at it's very core, an active relationship, and not simply a doctrine that seasonally brings people to church on Easter and Christmas.

It's what makes Christianity different from other religions that matters.

One site says, "True Christianity is different from other religions in that it is the only faith that answers the sin problem." Another says, "We are the only ones who claim to have a God who died because He CHOSE to and then beat death by coming back to life." And another, "In all other religious man does something to secure his salvation. In authentic Christianity, salvation is by God's gracious good pleasure alone."

These sites below offer interesting points as well:

- http://www.dontwastecornell...

- http://www.geocities.com/du...

- http://birdsoftheair.blogsp...

Re: The ‘Whats’ and ‘Whys’ of My Faith

Fenton — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 00:18:25 -0000

lol. Almost.

Though there's also another write-up somewhere on the site that talks about "What about people who don't know Jesus?", which also carries over into the realm of how God judges, that is, looks into the heart of the individual. In that, an excellent case is made for the salvation of people who would even consider themselves unsaved. (A similar case is made by C.S. Lewis in The Last Battle, of his Narnia Chronicles)

Re: The ‘Whats’ and ‘Whys’ of My Faith

Edén Almasude — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 00:14:38 -0000

Yeaaahh annihilationism. Since I assume I'm going to hell anyway, I do prefer annihilationism to the traditional view. Poofing out of existence/dispersal of my being sounds quite nice. Almost romantic.

Re: The ‘Whats’ and ‘Whys’ of My Faith

Fenton — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 00:05:09 -0000

I hear ya. I have spent hours poring over the site.

I understand about revisionism and re-interpretation, but in light of new information/understandings of history/et al, it becomes necessary. We don't tell the scientist who continuously revises his theory that it's obnoxious. We hope that one day that scientist finally won't need to revise anything. :)

Check out where he talks about differing views of hell (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part2.html). Interesting to find out the "traditional" view of hell isn't all fire and brimstone. ;) I'm more of an annihilationist than anything, I think.

Anywho, happy reading!

Re: The ‘Whats’ and ‘Whys’ of My Faith

Edén Almasude — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:55:01 -0000

I've been poking around the site for the last hour or so. I only wish I had more time to do so! There's all the different theistic religions to check out, booze to be drunk, pop culture to learn, biochemistry to learn, freshmen to teach molecular biology...

But Christian-Thinktank-dude seems like a chill one. The main thing that's getting on my nerves is the predictability of his responses. Some of his points are very good, but overall I find revisionism and re-interpretation of the bible to be a bit obnoxious.

Re: The ‘Whats’ and ‘Whys’ of My Faith

Fenton — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:36:19 -0000

Only to say, Christian Thinktank probably talks about most of your issues. It's really helped me understand Scripture better, and has answered a lot of questions I've had. Hopefully, it can do the same for you.

Re: The ‘Whats’ and ‘Whys’ of My Faith

Edén Almasude — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:13:04 -0000

C'est la vie!

On Jesus: sorry I don't have specific references or proper quotes for these stories - awhile ago I burned my bible and haven't touched one since. Please correct me if I misrepresent.
"Go and let the spiritually dead bury their dead" in response to some dude who wanted to follow Jesus but bury some family member first.
"if you don't believe me you'll die in your sins" - I think this one is from John, er...8 or 9 maybe?
"You guys have rejected the commandments because you should have put children to death who cursed their parents." - Mark 7, I think
"You can't come to me unless you hate your father, mother, brother, sister, etc. AND YOUR OWN LIFE" - Luke 14
That's all I know off the top of my head. I've heard a good deal of justification/explanations of these verses and whatnot, so unless you feel particularly inclined you should not feel an obligation to respond to them.

Indeed, I probably hold a very "NO excuse" view of many things. I'm very, very dogmatic about humanitarianism.