For Christians, the term 'free will' just refers to your freedom to decide whether you want to be in heaven or hell for eternity.


Probably, but that's why the gotchas are built-in.


Well, they obviously think the other denominations are wrong about something or they wouldn't have separated groups at all. Let's just set aside the fact that the basics of Christianity are: accept Christ as your savior and do good things in his name.


Well, this is interesting. Just think of how badly Christians would be able to rub it in our faces if they were right.

In this world, accepting anything blindly is inviting danger: "Hey little kid, come hop in my car, I have candy." But it's possible (although not probable at all) that the stranger might have candy in their car. It's a weird parallel, but I think you get my point. That 'weakness' and blind acceptance can be fruitful in some cases, but in most cases, it's idiocy.


I think what's most annoying about these types of people isn't that they base their decisions on their religious beliefs but more-so that their religious beliefs are rarely questioned. If it made perfect sense to consult your bible for your daily outfit because your religion made sense, what's wrong with that? The same goes for relationships and your stance on abortion. These aren't the real issues.

The real issue is: Christians, why do you believe what you believe?


Yeah, melidere is a good sport to sit through all my arguments and rebukes.


Have you checked out Deism?

I've come into the debate a bit late, and only briefly skimmed over the last 5 pages of foruming.
I generally adhere to a monotheistic view - mostly what most people would consider the "Christian" God.  However, it seems every Christian has a different idea of what the Christian God is.
I try to be open minded about other people's beliefs and views but in some cases this is hard for me.  Funnily enough, it is easier for me to tolerate (there's that firecracker of a word) the views of most Buddhists, an Eastern religion not at all centred around the Judaic God, than it is for me to accept the views of most Mormons I know, though the LDS religion is supposedly centred around the Judaic God - not only that, but Christianity itself is at the "root" of the Mormon faith.

I am not really ashamed to tell you that I pick-and-choose my beliefs from the Bible (and elsewhere!).  I see pretty much the entire thing as a metaphor, some parts less metaphoric and more realistic than others (again, from what my limited perspective can determine).  Like Sleeper mentioned some while back, I find it is of greater importance to be a good person than to spread Christianity.  It would be ridiculous of me to expect other people to cling to a faith I have a hard time clinging to myself.  As far as evangelism goes, I would prefer to evangelize and proselytize through my actions and life and choices than through empty words that mean nothing compared to what I do.  Also, I see no reason to believe in a God who doesn't share my same beliefs - though I am aware of how human I am and God is (hopefully) bigger than me... but I do not wish to believe in God if He or She truly hates homosexuals (as homosexuality is clearly not a choice, though is probably influenced by environment as well as genetics), or allows bears to be called out of the woods to maul children who taunted His or Her prophet. I am close minded that way, I do not love a god who does not love in return.

Some history: I became a Christian at age 16.  my mother was raised methodist and converted to the Reorganised Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints when she married my father, who was at the time a devout RLDS.  Then my father got a PhD, did a postdoc, moved himself and his family (a 3-year-old me and my mom) to Utah, where it seems he promptly lost all of his faith altogether.  I suspect my mother never really believed in the RLDS church, though she does consider herself to be Christian.  My father is more atheist, but I think he holds some belief in a higher power, still.  Flying Spaghetti Monster, anyone?  But seriously, he has his spiritual moments, so I like to think he's spiritually atheist. heh.
So anyway, seeing as how I was 3 or 4 when my parents stopped believing, I wasn't really raised in a church environment at all.  That said, they (along with Captain Planet and Sesame Street) instilled in me a very hard-coded set of morals and ideals which closely resemble many of those of ...well, to be honest..any 'religion' in which God is loving and wishes His or Her children to be loving.  Like dear Luxxy, though, I've gone to Christianity because what little church experience I did have was in a Christian church, and it was the Christian God whom I got to know the best.
...Mormonism just never did sit too well with me; too many of my Mormon peers were(are) ridiculously gossipy and shallow and unloving and ultimately to me that reflected poorly upon their faith.

Anyway I feel i've rambled on far too much now.  please pull apart my arguments and show me new things to think about.

I wonder why that is?


I think I know what you mean. I've done a bit of research into the LDS faith (including that one South Park episode) and it is a bit tougher to accept than most other religions, only because of the way that it came about. In that way, it's similar to Scientology.


We've discussed the cherry-picking religion on this thread before. Don't worry, you're not alone. :]


I don't think the Christian God hates homosexuals, technically. The hate is directed toward the sin, not the sinner but I get what you mean.


I don't understand- your father is atheist but believes in a higher power? Aliens? or was that your allusion with the 'flying spaghetti monster' comment? :]


It's difficult, but I don't think it's right to judge a religion by the people who follow it. That's just me though.


I don't think you leave much to be torn apart. When you give us insight as to what you base your religion on (why you think God exists), you'll fit right into the thread (Does God Exist?).

Glad to have you here though.

Hotep Scott!

We believe in quite a few things but I'd say the real foundation is living in what we call "ma'at". Ma'at is a goddess of justice, truth, honesty, righteousness but it also can be used as a word to mean those things as well. To live in Ma'at is to be a good, honest, kind person to those around you. It's being fair and honest and not living a life of hatefulness or cruelty towards others. It's being a good person and speaking truth.  That's really the FOUNDATION.

We believe in the gods of ancient Egypt and that we all have particular "parent gods", though this is a modern practice as in ancient Egypt, you worshiped the god of your area. (If you lived in Mennefer which is now known as Memphis Egypt, you would worship the triad of gods Sekhmet/Ptah/Nefertem) So back then it was based on your area but as we are a "changing and evolving" faith,  it does have it's differences from the very old ways but we stick to the ancient ways as closely as possible and change that which cannot be done anymore or wouldn't be suitable in this day and age. (For example, priests in antiquity worshiped in the temples all day and as we know now in this society, that's just not possible anymore for the average man who has a family and a job)

Anyway, I hope that gives you some insight into my faith!

*coughchristianitycough*

hehe


and i watched that video; that guy is awesome.
i love it.

I discovered a fascinating proof for the existence of a god. It doesn't prove a Christian God, but it does prove a being that transcends us and exists apart from belief in him. And the argument involves logic, specifically the existence of logic. I give credit to Matt Slick for this argument. The argument is pretty in-depth, so sit tight and I'll summarize.
The first thing we have to understand about logic is that it abides by rules. I will list 3 examples. The law of identity states that something is what it is and isn't what it isn't. For example, an egg is an egg and not an eraser. The law of non-contradiction states that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way. For example, we can claim Jesus is the Christ or we can claim he is not the Christ; we cannot claim both at the same time with the same definition of Christ. The law of the excluded middle states that a prediction is either true or it is false. For example, when we claim that there is a God, that claim is either true or false; it cannot be sort of true.
Now, there are three things we have to understand about these laws, of which I listed three. These laws are conceptual in nature; that is, they occur in the mind and cannot be measured or frozen or quantified or touched or photographed, etc. These laws are also absolute; they don't stop being true if we disagree with them--they're not true because of popular opinion, but because they're tried and true. And these laws transcend space and time; you cannot travel back (or forward) in time, or north, west, east, or south, to find an instance where the laws do not apply.
Here's where you have to exercise your noggin. Since these laws are conceptual, and concepts reside in minds, and since these laws transcend our minds, they must exist in a mind that transcends our own. Since absolute rules cannot exist without an absolute ruler who decreed these rules, this transcendent mind is absolute. And what I just described--an absolute, transcendent mind--is a god.

Appalling why?
The disrespect for religion made my heart sink, especially in the one about Bible prophecies. The other three just left me baffled. I'm still trying to make sense of them. Do you have proof/sources of the other Messiah figures that I could research?

Regarding prayer, you never answered my question: who should I pray to? the Christian God, the Egyptian Gods, Allah, Shiva? Or should I pray to all of them and see who responds? If you're asking me to pray to any particular God, I'm not against giving it a shot.
Obviously I'd like to suggest the Christian God, because that's the God I'm trying to prove the existence of. But if you feel more comfortable praying to an anonymous deity and asking that Being to reveal himself/herself/itself to you in a way that's relevant to your life and your need to believe, I don't think it's necessary to attach a name to that god until you've seen proof/persuasion that (s)he/it exists. (Forgive my complicated sentence--I hope you can follow it).
Or if you want to try them all one at a time as you're researching them, that makes sense, too.

when it comes to 'inter-denominational' (is that a word?) rule-breaking, though, a friend of mine was dumped by a guy who was lutheran (she's catholic) because he 'knew' she was going to hell.  she had accepted christ as her saviour; however, because her version differed a bit from his, she was still condemned in his eyes.

i was raised catholic, but i've gotten the impression from (and have been told out-right by) protestants and mormons that, if i returned to the catholic faith, it still wouldn't be good enough because it's -not their- (aka 'correct') version. 

it's all bloody semantics, which only serves to discredit denominations in my opinion because, again, there is no proof; there are no first-hand witnesses.  it's all stuff that has been passed on; and, while the bible claims to be 'inspired,' it is still not a direct account from god.

also, scott, if you find anything about attis, krishna, dionysus, mithra, et al, let me know (except where the kemetic is concerned; 'Shepsut has discredited much of what was said about that, not to mention Ra is the Sun God which i believe is pretty common knowledge).  i'd like to do my own research, too, but i know you'll find it a lot sooner than i will.