Would you be comfortable with a Mosque built in your neighbourhood?

[Mirc]

I'm a bit confused - you don't believe that Christianity requires you to be a Christian to go to Heaven and that all other religions are going to Hell?

You said "Explain why a religion that sends its followers to Hell is not evil, please." That's what I commented at. Not about how it views other religions.

 

[Stacmon]

Yes I am making that assumption, I'm also fairly sure the Pope makes that assumption also.

How do Christians justify all of the inherent contradictions between the Old and New Testaments then? This is one thing I don't understand.

In the Old Testament, it is said:

"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:20).

This is completely consistent with Islam, but at complete odds with Christianity, which originated as an offshoot of Judaism. How can Christians adopt the concept of original sin when it is clear that people are responsible for their own sins.

Also, there are numerous references in the Old Testament about the Oneness of God, such as:

DEUTERONOMY 6:4 — Hear, O Israel: The LORD thy God is one LORD.

(Several more can be found here.)

Furthermore, how did Jews and other people attain salvation before Jesus Christ? What about people who have never heard of the New Testament and Jesus, and died not knowing that they (according to you) were living a life of sin without having repented.

There are so many inconsistencies in the New Testament, and so much of the religion was voted on and constructed by people hundreds of years after the life of Jesus. Furthermore, unitarian Christian groups (like those in North Africa) were stamped out by the dominant Trinitarian Christian hierarchy. The same thing is true about countless other groups that interpreted the teachings of Jesus differently, and so many were declared heretical, forced to change their views or to die.

 

[Mirc]

My answer is no. I wouldn't feel comftable with a Church or a synagouge being built here either. I am an athiest, I reject religion and their attempts to impose on me.

How does a church/synagogue/mosque in your neighborhood impose religion to you?

 

[Bad Player]

You said "Explain why a religion that sends its followers to Hell is not evil, please." That's what I commented at. Not about how it views other religions.

I'm getting more and more confused by what you meant then... I think there's a communication breakdown.

 

[Mirc]

How do Christians justify all of the inherent contradictions between the Old and New Testaments then? This is one thing I don't understand.

In the Old Testament, it is said:

"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:20).

This is completely consistent with Islam, but at complete odds with Christianity, which originated as an offshoot of Judaism. How can Christians adopt the concept of original sin when it is clear that people are responsible for their own sins.

Also, there are numerous references in the Old Testament about the Oneness of God, such as:

DEUTERONOMY 6:4 — Hear, O Israel: The LORD thy God is one LORD.

(Several more can be found here.)

Furthermore, how did Jews and other people attain salvation before Jesus Christ? What about people who have never heard of the New Testament and Jesus, and died not knowing that they (according to you) were living a life of sin without having repented.

There are so many inconsistencies in the New Testament, and so much of the religion was voted on and constructed by people hundreds of years after the life of Jesus. Furthermore, unitarian Christian groups (like those in North Africa) were stamped out by the dominant Trinitarian Christian hierarchy. The same thing is true about countless other groups that interpreted the teachings of Jesus differently, and so many were declared heretical, forced to change their views or to die.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5289420&postcount=19

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5289439&postcount=23

I explained this in another thread.

 

[Mirc]

I'm getting more and more confused by what you meant then... I think there's a communication breakdown.

Maybe.

 

[Swedishguy]

I don't think any religion needs any religious buildings. Just my opinion.

 

[MobBoss]

Wrong. Christians do blow up abortion clinics. Otherwise Muslims don't blow people up. One or the other.

Either way, the point is Chrisrians are not so innocent as propaganda makes them out to be

Please. Lets stop with the outrageous comments please. You seem determined to ignore the facts surrounding your statement. While a bare handful of people who may describe themselves as 'christian' have bombed abortion clinics, that number PALES in comparison of the number of muslim suicide bombers......it is utterly inane to even compare the two.

To use the instances of abortion clinic bombings to claim christians are not so innocent is completely disengenuous to the extreme.

There hasnt been an abortion clinic bombing in almost 10 years. Can you say the same in regards to muslim suicide bombers?

 

[ComradeDavo]

How does a church/synagogue/mosque in your neighborhood impose religion to you?

Well, for a start I do not approve of the local church sending people to knock on my door trying to give me pro-christian leaflets.

I do not approve of my local primary school (which I attended) having a close relationship with the church, sending kids into the church on regular occasions and assuming all kids muct be religious.

I was not spefically statiung that I don't want a religous bulding in the area for that reason, my main reason is that I plain despise organised religion. But those are a couple of good reasons as well.

 

[Stacmon]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5289420&postcount=19

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5289439&postcount=23

I explained this in another thread.

I read those posts, but that only addresses a small section of the arguments I made in my post above.

Why would God first claim that everyone is responsible for their own sins, and then claim that because of the Sin of Adam, all people are inherently sinful and can't redeem themselves without God coming in the form of Jesus?

If God is all powerful, why does he have to send Jesus at all? He has the power to forgive whomever he wills, since he has power over all things.

 

[MobBoss]

Well, for a start I do not approve of the local church sending people to knock on my door trying to give me pro-christian leaflets.

Then put a small placard on your door that says 'no solicitors' and you will never get another one.

 

[azzaman333]

No god makes sence if you pick apart every individual action made by <god in question> if the god claims to be all powerful.

 

[Swedishguy]

He has the power to forgive whomever he wills, since he has power over all things.

Yeah, God is kind of mighty. But he doesn't have power to control Knubb. Therefore your argument fails.

 

[Bad Player]

How do Christians justify all of the inherent contradictions between the Old and New Testaments then? This is one thing I don't understand.

In the Old Testament, it is said:

"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:20).

This is completely consistent with Islam, but at complete odds with Christianity, which originated as an offshoot of Judaism. How can Christians adopt the concept of original sin when it is clear that people are responsible for their own sins.

Hmmm, I don't know. I see myself as inherently evil and I try to stop my evil nature so I believe in original sin in that sense.

Also, there are numerous references in the Old Testament about the Oneness of God, such as:

DEUTERONOMY 6:4 — Hear, O Israel: The LORD thy God is one LORD.

(Several more can be found here.)

Christianity is monotheistic. Genesis says that God said "Let us make Man in our image" so I wonder if Judaism followers and Muslims query this meaning. I see it as a monotheistic reference to the Holy Trinity.

Furthermore, how did Jews and other people attain salvation before Jesus Christ? What about people who have never heard of the New Testament and Jesus, and died not knowing that they (according to you) were living a life of sin without having repented.

1) OT Jewish believers were saved through Jesus as I understand it.
2) Hard question, I don't want to answer it because I don't know.

There are so many inconsistencies in the New Testament, and so much of the religion was voted on and constructed by people hundreds of years after the life of Jesus. Furthermore, unitarian Christian groups (like those in North Africa) were stamped out by the dominant Trinitarian Christian hierarchy. The same thing is true about countless other groups that interpreted the teachings of Jesus differently, and so many were declared heretical, forced to change their views or to die.

There were criteria (3 things IIRC) that determined if a letter was included in the NT. Late now, can't think straight.

 

[Mirc]

I read those posts, but that only addresses a small section of the arguments I made in my post above.

Why would God first claim that everyone is responsible for their own sins, and then claim that because of the Sin of Adam, all people are inherently sinful and can't redeem themselves without God coming in the form of Jesus?

Well, I explained my view on the original sin in the same thread. I don't know how many people share my opinion, but I think most do.

Well, I view it this way:
- the original sin was something from the old testament. Most of the old testament contradicts the new testament. The new one is the one given by Jesus, the one that counts. The old testament is kept as a tradition rather than a guideline book.
- in the old testament, it says all people in the world will be affected by what Adam did
- in the new testament, Jesus baptizes himself and tells us this is not going to have any effect if we are baptized.

So basically the New Testament made a huge revision to the Old Testament.

********

Yes I am baptized and I will baptize my children. But not that I don't believe in it - I believe the original sin is not something that important, because in the new testament, which is as I said what defines Christianity, or in any case much more definitory for Christianity than the old one, we have a way to be sure it doesn't have any influence on us. I also view the original sin to be symbolic. I don't actually believe that someone bit an apple, but rather a way of explaining to the ancients that the perfectly human curiosity has certain implications, and the moment is an explanation and invocation of the time when we were animals no more.

If God is all powerful, why does he have to send Jesus at all? He has the power to forgive whomever he wills, since he has power over all things.

Oh yes, he has the power to do this. However, he would break his word if he did. Before Jesus came, He told the people how He is going to forgive them if they did certain things (which are pretty different from what you have to do in the New Testament, but this is another story). If He would have just forgiven everyone, He would have broken his word. As he is good (he is the definition of good) he did not break his word, but he went the other way: he sent himself (his Son, it is said; but the family relations between them are purely theoretical) to become half human and die on the cross for all the humans on Earth ("immolatum in cruce pro homine" - Latin) - the Supreme Sacrifice.

 

[mythmonster2]

i have a big problem with one near me, terrorist training camps is all they are

AHEM AHEM. Look at my sig. Anyways, I wouldn't mind, a closer place to worship but still, traffic.. could... get ... messy.

 

[Bad Player]

I read those posts, but that only addresses a small section of the arguments I made in my post above.

Why would God first claim that everyone is responsible for their own sins, and then claim that because of the Sin of Adam, all people are inherently sinful and can't redeem themselves without God coming in the form of Jesus?

If God is all powerful, why does he have to send Jesus at all? He has the power to forgive whomever he wills, since he has power over all things.

I think it means a sinful nature that makes you want to sin but then you are responsible for choosing to sin. I think...

I think the thing there is that the sin must be punished so Jesus took the punishment so that we won't if we ask for forgiveness for our sin.

 

[Bad Player]

AHEM AHEM. Look at my sig. Anyways, I wouldn't mind, a closer place to worship but still, traffic.. could... get ... messy.

You might have to get rid of the mindless killa tag if you want to denounce terrorism!

 

[Mirc]

I think it means a sinful nature that makes you want to sin but then you are responsible for choosing to sin. I think...

Exactly. As I mentioned, the original sin is a symbol.

 

[Stacmon]

Christianity is monotheistic. Genesis says that God said "Let us make Man in our image" so I wonder if Judaism followers and Muslims query this meaning. I see it as a monotheistic reference to the Holy Trinity.

In the Qur'an, God often refers to Himself with the plural, translated as "We" in English. This is very similar to the Royal Plural used by the Queen of England, and does not denote a multitude of people. The same way that no one would argue that the Queen is more than one person, no Muslim would argue that the "We" used in reference to God suggests that He is more than one according to Islam.

Hebrew and Arabic are both semitic languages and have similar structures.