its funny how they call this christian fiction... Showing 1,051-1,100 of 1,587

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

A drunk staggers into a Catholic Church, enters a confessional booth, sits down, but says nothing. The Priest coughs a few times to get his attention, but the drunk continues to sit there. Finally, the Priest pounds three times on the wall. The drunk mumbles, "Ain't no use knockin'! There's no paper on this side either!"

[Jake]

I am Christian, but never considered it "Christian". I consider it Fantasy, because since the world hasn't ended, we don't know how it's going to end. It was entertaining, I gotta admit. Hate the movies though.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

People make apocalypse jokes like there's no tomorrow.

[Glenn]

@ aPriL. Now that is funny.

[Ellena]

Off the topic but it is the book of Revelation not Revelations. ;)I am a Christian as well but I agree that the Left Behind books are probably not the best introduction to Christianity for non-Christians. I actually found the writing to be of poor quality and "cheesy". I would recommend C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" for a more interesting read.

[Will]

Xox wrote: ""It is true that Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman sources of his day." -- Bart Ehrman"

"He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" -- Bart Ehrman

But I think you missed my point, Xox. It doesn't matter if there was a person really called Jesus of the time whose followers attributed supernatural claims to him. This is easily within the realm of plausible and probable. IMO, a real person was given these supernatural characteristics, just like modern "prophets." Take a look at any modern-day "prophet" and a real person is behind it. But in the end, this doesn't really matter to me. A regular person existing and people claiming he was more than regular happens all the time.

The real question is whether the supernatural claims attributed to this person are accurate, of which we can be certain they are not.

You just have to be careful that when people say Jesus existed, they usually mean the superhero version, of which I will flatly deny, but if they just mean a man of the time who people claimed was more, well that happens all the time.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

I respect and frequently mine Bart E's books. However, I think he is operating on the 'where there is smoke' principle here. So much gossip - there must be something there there. I respectfully decline belief until there are corroborating contemporary documents discovered. Quite a few cultures at the time had writing. So far, everything I've read and learned in college points to a fairy tale creation much the same as 'The Iliad' was developed. We don't believe in those gods, do we? I kinda like Athena, though.

[Will]

Yes, I mentioned that logic. We don't believe in myths like the Iliad, but we certainly acknowledge real events might have inspired it (a city in the area destroyed by warfare about the same time as described). We don't conclude it's accurate or that there were actual gods in the same way don't conclude Jesus really performed miracles and rose from the dead, but concluding there was an actual Jesus is not a leap of logic and there's nothing to "believe" in any meaningful sense, it's just a possibility. Other cultures that could write wouldn't bother to mention some regular Joe who had a few followers and said he did miracles (like many other prophets of the time). Now, if there was a Jesus actually performing miracles and rising from the dead, then we would expect some actual corroborating documents, but as that's not the case, we can conclude the miracle stories are myths and were probably attached to a regular human who gathered a few followers and convinced them of his divinity, just like the many documented Messiah claimants even up to today.

[Will]

Hahaha yes Xox, I know that. It's actually what I've been saying.

[Shanna]

Alec wrote: "Says the bitch who doesn't realize I didn't know how to unfollow. Asshole."

Really and you couldn't use your big person words and ask? I would have gladly let you know how...

[Glenn]

"Freedom of worship" doesn't seem to apply here. "Agree to differ" seems more appropriate than the vitriolic rhetoric being served up here. Just because someone doesn't share your beliefs doesn't mean that they should be demeaned or worse. Well, Hitler had a plan for those that didn't agree with his philosophy.

[[deleted user]]

Pick up a bible and go to revalation(last book). If you think Jesus is still a character, then you must be blind.

[Will]

I greatly encourage the reading of the Bible. The fastest way to become an atheist is to put your thinking cap on and read the Bible in its entirety.

[[deleted user]]

what's that supposed to mean?

[Mary]

Mw10 wrote: "Pick up a bible and go to revalation(last book). If you think Jesus is still a character, then you must be blind."

Did you know that Revelation almost did not make the cut when the Council of Nicea was canonizing the bible? It was considered too apocalyptic for many of the bishops in attendance. They were trying to collect the books that were the least controversial for inclusion in the canon. One of the undocumented tales that surrounds the Council is Constantine getting fed up and sweeping a bunch of scrolls off of the table and saying, anything left on the table goes in the canon.

[Will]

Mw10 wrote: "what's that supposed to mean?"

I don't know how to re-word my post to be any clearer, honestly.

[Will]

I could have said, "put your critical thinking cap on." That might have been a little clearer.

[Shanna]

Mw10 wrote: "what's that supposed to mean?"

If you read the bible in it's entirety applying your own moral compass, logic and critical thinking skills, like you would any other book, you would struggle to find it believable. Better yet, if you haven't already, research how the bible came to be. See, if you can, after that, still subscribe to any claim that the bible is the "word" of god.

[Shanna]

Glenn wrote: ""Freedom of worship" doesn't seem to apply here. "Agree to differ" seems more appropriate than the vitriolic rhetoric being served up here. Just because someone doesn't share your beliefs doesn't m..."

As Xox already stated THIS is not a place of worship. It's not even a thread on the bible itself, (unless you are claiming the left behind books should be scripture?:)) You don't get to control others opinions and their expression of it and make a special pleading case for religion.
How is your "freedom of worship" in anyway abrogated because I don't subscribe to your faith, or don't treat it respectfully? Does it require my participation or respect? seems pretty flimsy to me if it does... That is of course IF you are a theist, I'm not sure going on your comments.

[Glenn]

Great things have been done by people who philosophically differ. Neither side is going to make any converts. Why are they wasting their time, efforts, energy, logic?, and merely polarizing their positions? I assume that we are dealing with intelligent, if not reasonable people here. And if I may quote the Bible: Blessed be the peacemakers, for they shall know peace. I think it's a good quote, even if one is a Christian, a non-Christian, or seated somewhere on the fence!

[Giansar]

Glenn wrote: "Neither side is going to make any converts."
In my own experience nothing affected my own outlook on life more than discussing it with people that have a completely different one (even while trying to convince them my is, of course, the righter one).
I guess it's one of our intrinsic evolutionary traits to believe in strange things - even completely irrational one. I know MDs who will prescribe you a homeopathic drug but otherwise are perfectly rational human beings.
Heck, I know a one hardcore atheist who strongly believes he has free will and gets angry when I contradict him on that!

[Will]

Glenn wrote: "Neither side is going to make any converts."

Well that's an odd way of looking at things. You don't think people change their minds after hearing arguments? I wonder where that leaves me, since I used to be a Christian and now I identify as an atheist after listening to arguments from both sides. (It was a slow process, but it was still the arguments/evidence that swayed me eventually.)

Do you feel the same way about politics, I wonder?

[Glenn]

@ Will. "that's an odd way of looking at things." Not as odd as thinking that by name calling, cursing and insulting people they would think your argument rational! I bet that your decision to become an atheist was not the result of being told that your opinions were BS. Or by calling Jesus dirty names. As rational as your arguments might be, your fellow atheists, with one in particular have merely offered vituperation. Alas, we are all judged by the company we keep. As for politics, I am a white man who grew up and live in South Africa. I don't think that there are many out there who can compare with the political change that has taken place here! Enough (almost) to make one believe in God!

[Shanna]

Mocking ideas has it's place in changing minds, ask any kid who believed in Santa after their class mates had dismissed the idea. Especially if the idea is ridiculous and damaging and involves the willful refusal to accept reality on it's own terms.

[Will]

Glenn wrote: "Alas, we are all judged by the company we keep."

And what company would that be? I think we can both agree that both sides of any argument has bad apples, so why would that mean that neither side will make any converts? One does not follow the other. And you've confirmed for me that politically, change is common. I think if you'll take a close look, change is equally common religiously.

[Glenn]

I whole-heartedly agree with you, Will. There are always converts if we present them with rational arguments. BUT, if one of your protagonists is overly and negatively and emotively aggresive, you will be grouped with him/her in the minds of those you are trying to convert. No negotiations can survive when one or two of the team continually verbally abusive and belittling the other side. You and I have discussed this matter and exchanged views and ideas. We have interpreted was each other have written with insight and respect. Why can't others do the same?

[Giansar]

Will wrote: "I used to be a Christian and now I identify as an atheist after listening to arguments from both sides."
I bet the arguments that made you an atheist were not just: "religion is bullshit and Jesus was a jerk, which was a particularly difficult fit for him as he didn't even exist".

[Glenn]

Rational argument seems to have become unfashionable. Why would a rational person deliberately provoke a harmless dissenter to become a polarised enemy? The answer seems to be that the objective of the dispensed vitriolic adjectives is to deliberately create a situation where there can be no amicable resolution to the dispute. We DON'T have to agree with each other, but there is no reason to deliberately create enmity. I am impartial in this matter, everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but why turn nasty? Small mindednes? Immaturity? Or perhaps merely desperation at the failure to persuade others of similar beliefs to adopt a vituperative stance. I have enjoyed discussing with you, Will. I feel that you have a good argument to augment your beliefs. I just wish that others would attempt a more reasonable approach. Trouble with using emotive language is that it is liking standing before a mirror. It is you that is reflected.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Speaking for myself, a lifetime of Christians speaking double talk at me, at once declaring affection and free will, while twisting my arm to become a Christian and sitting in frowning judgement of my liberal love of civil rights and free speech (particular about homosexuals and swearing, risqué jokes, drinking, tight clothes, dancing and most any topic regarding New York City), has given me a rousing good knee jerk hatred of Christian piety. In my head, I'm thinking 'asshole get out of my face - can you hear yourself, jerk? Yeah, right, you love everybody as Jesus said - except women in Authority, rights for women, gays, children, yourhful playfulness, abortion, free speech, fun, can't read whatever we want, would force me to church, deny sex and sexuality, force a dress code on me like no pants (I was told once 'gee, don't you think a dress is so much better for women, dear, more fitting?'). Me, who you don't hesitate to condemn to hell and everlasting torture, and try to change the laws so people can be condemned to hell and misery while alive on earth on top of the hell you push at me upon my death.....

All of the sweet politeness and conversational adult philosophizing among the intellectually calm retorts cannot change the fact that people who are religious tend to not stop at arguing about whether a god exists or not.

I can't speak for XOX, but when my distaste for religious people overwhelms my polite argumentation, it's usually not because there is no meeting of minds on the question of a god's existence, it's the background of real past experience of religious repression and oppression. As a 60 year old woman, religiously-based laws condemned me to lose a place in going to college, earning half the salary of men doing the same work, being a secretary instead of possibly a manager, constant pressure to have a child and to get married, expectations to be decently dressed, legs together, sit up straight, never swear or drink or smoke, wear dresses, etc. even when in the company of swearing, drunk smoking men, consigned to leave the room for the kitchen at parties with the wives while the men got serious, etc.

I am full of repressed resentment. Although I live much more free these days, and wear pants all of the time (quit smoking), I tend to swear on purpose in front of religious people. Not rational, I know, and unjust to well-meaning current Christians. The difficulty is if our democracy WAS controlled by Christian values, I'd be forced back into a social straight jacket again. I'd be in hell, and it wouldn't be of any god's making. Christianity enslaves women and children into steel-encased roles from head to toe, clothes, sitting, standing primly, cooking, talking sweetly, having children whether you wanted them or not, no outside jobs for money, no authority anywhere financially, socially, professionally. It was a horrible horrible way to live, especially if the father or husband was a bastard. My childhood was dreadful because men controlled the law, the home, school, work. Most of it was due to religion-based customs. I grew up in a blue-collar American neighborhood.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who wants to actually communicate my rage at a Christian upbringing of unjust restrictions and impoverished freedoms and mindless cruel punishments while supposedly discussing Biblical faith and 'god's love.' If god exists, he wants me to be an enslaved female, cooking and having sex on demand, with absolutely no say in my clothes, work, family or comportment, subject horrendous tortures if I disagree, with no freedom of movement without a male's agreement and participation and guidance.

No matter whatever high-minded philosophical discussions and righteous politeness imposed here, the fact is if Christianity became the law of the land and America a Christian theocracy, women would be born, live and die as slaves to men's authority. I already lived it. I'd rather kill myself and take the peace of the grave than live so restricted and condemned to a 'godly' life of bed and housework.

[Glenn]

April, I can understand your distaste for bias, a distaste that I share with you. And I certainly believe in a separation of religion and government, so much of what you say I can identify with. And certainly many an abuse and worse has been done in the name of religion. Here you are preaching to the converted, if you'll excuse the metaphor. Please understand I know what it is to live in a repressed country. I'm a 67-year-old white male and I was a member of the "privileged" group in the bad old days of apartheid. I was a little too outspoken in my beliefs and had many an argument with those who preferred the status quo. But, I prefer to associate my beliefs those of Nelson Mandela, who taught us to leave behind the resentments of the past, and create a new future for ALL the people of our country. Of course there are many of the white minority who still won't admit to the malpractices of the past, as there are many of the black majority who don't want to forgive the evils of that same past. The only harm that they do is to themselves, allowing those resentments to fester and make them bitter. I just personally think that whatever any other person chooses to believe is either their salvation or their burden. I prefer to believe that most people are basically good. Therefore I don't see any reason to explain to them that they are stupid for nurturing their own beliefs. Let the past remain just that: the past. It's now that is really important, and how we can improve that and consequently shape a better future.

[Mary]

Glenn wrote: "Therefore I don't see any reason to explain to them that they are stupid for nurturing their own beliefs. Let the past remain just that: the past. It's now that is really important, and how we can improve that and consequently shape a better future.
.."

The problem is the "past" is not entirely in the past. It is lifting its ugly head right here in the USA. Narrow minded people also caused me to leave the church and never go back. The vitriol aimed at minorities after the election of Barack Obama to the presidency is horrific and most of it is done by those claiming affiliation with fundamentalist evangelicals. This group is also very much attempting to turn back time with respect to the rights of women. Why would I as a woman believe in a religion that automatically places me in second class citizen status? Why would I want to belong to a group that seems to have a core of downright meanness and absolutely no empathy for those who are different than they are? What possible reason is there for following a group professing to follow Christ who hate the poor, the workers, the sick, living children, immigrants, etc.?

[Glenn]

Mary wrote: "Glenn wrote: "Therefore I don't see any reason to explain to them that they are stupid for nurturing their own beliefs. Let the past remain just that: the past. It's now that is really important, a..."

I must agree with you that there are a lot of strange people in this world that want to impose there beliefs on everybody else. All the more reason for us to be tolerant of those that don't do so, but think differently from us.

[Mary]

Glenn wrote: " I must agree with you that there are a lot of strange people in this world that want to impose there beliefs on everybody else. All the more reason for us to be tolerant of those that don't do so, but think differently from us. ..."

You mean how they are so tolerant of me? I don't go to their door and ring the bell, then try and force my opinions on them. I don't go out to restaurants and instead of tipping the waiter/waitress leave a tract. I don't vote against helping the poor, the sick, the working man and side with the rich. No. I do not tolerate people who support greed and hatred in the name of Christ.

[Glenn]

I was born with a blood defect and was completely transfused at birth to save my life. Many years later a young lady, a Jehovah's Witness, told me: "It would've be better if they hadn't done that." I'm beginning to feel that she might have been trying to save the world from yet another tilter at windmills.

[Glenn]

Xox wrote: "Glenn wrote: "I was born with a blood defect and was completely transfused at birth to save my life. Many years later a young lady, a Jehovah's Witness, told me: "It would've be better if they hadn..."
Perhaps it would be better if you don't aspire to a career in diplomacy. Removing tongue from cheek.

[Mary]

Xox wrote: "I wish more diplomats tell the truth as it is, to be very honest. Instead of fake politeness. ..."

Except when you are rude, people don't really listen to you...

[Glenn]

Except when you are rude, people don't really listen to you..."

Very insightful, Mary. And very direct. My mistake is always beating about the bush!

[Mary]

Glenn wrote: "Except when you are rude, people don't really listen to you..."

Very insightful, Mary. And very direct. My mistake is always beating about the bush!"

I understand XOX's anger. I really do. I believe that organized religion has done more to hold back progress than assist it. I believe that "most" organized religion is more self-perpetuation than about doing good in the world. I live in the Bible Belt and it absolutely galls me to see multi-million dollar budgets that allocate NOTHING to the poor and a congregation that votes against helping those in need. When it becomes more about erecting a new cross or building an activity center than feeding the homeless or taking care of the sick, then religion has really lost its purpose. When I hear the filth that comes out of the mouths of these purportedly Christian people about our President, immigrants, homosexuals and women, I find I have nothing in common with them. The old adage, "why would I want to belong to an organization that would not want me as a member" comes into play. So I get where XOX is coming from. Then I remember my mother, who visits members of her congregation who are homebound; who though she lives on a fixed income, donates to those in need; who votes for candidates who have compassion. Then I remember that there are good Christians in the world. They just happen to be much more quiet than those without compassion.

[Glenn]

Mary wrote: "Glenn wrote: "Very insightful, Mary." "Then I remember my mother,"
Which is precisely the point I have been trying to make. We cannot tar everyone with the same brush. In all walks of life; amongst people of every which belief, there are the good, and there are the bad. By all means chastise those who deserve it, but don't judge everyone to be as flawed as the few. In my country, we don't really have the fundamentalists prancing around to the degree that the USA has, so I am not subjected to it the way you might be, so my experience in that quarter is limited if not non-existent. But not every religous person is like that, so I don't think we should judge them as such. Mary, I found your reflections on your mother very moving. These are the Christians that I hope abound.

[Mary]

Glenn wrote: "Mary, I found your reflections on your mother very moving. These are the Christians that I hope abound. ..."

My mother raised me to be a Christian. However she also raised me to use my mind. Education was the highest priority in my household. Having a thorough education makes it extremely difficult to believe in an inerrant Bible. For me it is impossible. When you learn just how the Bible came to be, it is impossible to ever claim it is the Word of God with a straight face. I still consider myself spiritual in a sense, but I no longer subscribe to any organized religion. Religion just attempts to answer questions that science has not shed light on yet. Spirituality is more of a "what if" philosophy in my opinion. What if there are parallel universes of infinite variety? What happens to the matter than animates us when we die? Since matter does not disappear, but merely changes form, is there another form we take or is there NO matter or energy that separates life from death? If infinity exists, then was there ever a creation to begin with? Or have we existed (or some semblance of life) forever? I believe that philosophical questions give rise to scientific ones.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Mary, no matter how wonderful your mother is, she is working for an outfit which will NEVER give her the respect she deserves, except as a third class citizen, behind Jesus and ANY low-class, drug-dealing, douchebag or couch potato male! HE could get any position in the church he wants - SHE will be left giving a male all the credit for HER hard work while she is on her knees praying to a man. (Praise the lord, right?) I'm glad people like your mother exist. I'd rather pray to her than the church she'd undoubtedly ask me to do.

The issue isn't that women exist who are good and do good works - it's the GD religion they do it for! People are so deluded and blinded. Buy your mom some flowers - don't donate them to GD Jesus on Sunday! Take your mom to dinner - don't give offerings to the GD useless church! After everything good women do, the church takes all the credit. Any wonder atheists can't take Christians trying to convince them how wonderful Christianity is? All the church wants from women like your mom is her money offerings, cleaning up the bathrooms and contributing food for the coffee hour and her misplaced 'its god that is making me good. Don't thank me, thank god.' The church not only can't lose, it will use up your mother and then say, 'god will provide' 'or 'it's in god's hands'. It will tell people to stop by your mother's house and drop off a casserole. People are wonderful. The church should stand in THEIR shadow! But that's not how it works.

This constant thanking the church and gods which don't do a GD thing instead of the good works of actual living people makes me sick. Worse, people like your mom aren't allowed a bit of self-esteem or credit, but must give all the glory to an invisible god who never will thank them. Recipients are emcouraged to 'thank god' not your mom. Lets ask the male minister to live on god's blessing and not get a salary, like most stay-at-home women.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Glenn - I want the leeches behind the fraud of religion to stop. I want Christianity to die and fade away into history. I hate religion. People can be good and helpful. Religion is a sucking leech on the people who do good works.

[Mary]

aPriL MEOWS often with scratching wrote: "his constant thanking the church and gods which don't do a GD thing instead of the good works of actual living people makes me sick. Worse, people like your mom aren't allowed a bit of self-esteem or credit, but must give all the glory to an invisible god who never will thank them. Recipients are emcouraged to 'thank god' not your mom. Lets ask the male minister to live on god's blessing and not get a salary, like most stay-at-home women. ..."

Actually, my mother's church (Episcopal) does ordain women priests. My mother can actually give communion to home bound members even though she is not a priest. She and I have had quite a few discussions about religion because it saddens her that I left religion. My mother is 83 years old and not likely to change at this point in her life. Her religion gives her comfort and who am I to deny her that? She is a very progressive and liberal Christian. She believes in female equality, marriage for homosexuals, healthcare for all, etc. She (and her mother) were feminists before they ever heard the word. They worked to change things within the confines of their time. My time is different from theirs.
When I personally give to the poor or help disadvantaged children, it is not so that I will get credit. I do it because it is the right thing to do. In fact, I would rather do it anonymously so that the recipients never feel beholden. That is one of the reasons I prefer taxes going to help the less fortunate rather than churches. With churches, there is typically a catch to their help if they provide it at all.

[Mary]

Interesting piece that is somewhat germane to our conversation:
http://samuel-warde.com/2013/09/presi...

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Mary, I feel the same way about credit taking in doing good works. My problem is that the Church doesn't hesitate to take the credit away from people and give it to a god.

I don't care if some churches are allowing women in leadership roles. They are going against doctrine, being rebellious against the Bible. I can't imagine that they can continue being Biblical Christians if they go that route. They will 'evolve', won't they? They will need to write a different Bible.

[Mary]

aPriL MEOWS often with scratching wrote: "I don't care if some churches are allowing women in leadership roles. They are going against doctrine, being rebellious against the Bible. I can't imagine that they can continue being Biblical Christians if they go that route. They will 'evolve', won't they? They will need to write a different Bible. .."

Everything evolves eventually ;0)

[Mary]

Xox wrote: "Mary wrote: "Xox wrote: "I wish more diplomats tell the truth as it is, to be very honest. Instead of fake politeness. ..."

Except when you are rude, people don't really listen to you..."

Do peop..."
Diplomacy is not synonymous with lying. When you are rude, no one takes you seriously at best and at worst you turn off potential allies.

[Mary]

Xox wrote: "Mary wrote: "Xox wrote: "Mary wrote: "Xox wrote: "I wish more diplomats tell the truth as it is, to be very honest. Instead of fake politeness. ..."

Except when you are rude, people don't really l..."
You just come across as a petulant child and this is from someone who agrees with much of what you level at religion.

[Mary]

Xox wrote: "Mary wrote: "Xox wrote: "Mary wrote: "Xox wrote: "Mary wrote: "Xox wrote: "I wish more diplomats tell the truth as it is, to be very honest. Instead of fake politeness. ..."

Except when you are ru..."

Whatever...

[Giansar]

Xox wrote: "I don't really need you or anyone to agree with me. "
But you, acting as you are, do actual harm to the cause you supposedly support. There are countless valid and rational arguments for atheism. Instead of using them you resort to obscenity and babbling about fictitiousness of Jesus.