Cool Christian webcomic

... typical. This is always the response to direct probing questions. As an agnostic, trying to have a real and logical religious discussion with a proselytizing Christian is like trying to wrestle a bowl of wet noodles. You are either a clown or a terrific troll.

 

another old antiquated response that has been used forever. Sounds nice but doesn't really answer the question of his moral compass or sense of justice. More side stepping and putting the blame on somebody else. The bible or god is never in the wrong, it always has to be ME.

 

As a Metallurgical engineer, do you believe in evolution? Have your views about evolution changed since your recent conversion?

I'm glad you have found some type of redemption in your new-found faith. But as Muslim and Christian extremists have demonstrated a misguided blind faith can be every bit as damaging as no faith at all.

Your posts display a dogmatic trajectory much more exclusionary to understanding and openness than I think you want to portray. Many religious converts can be every bit as spiritually "lost" within their faith as you seem to perceive those who have no faith.

 

I have a great deal of respect and love for the Pope. I obviously differ on some parts of Catholic theology and tradition, but you don't get to be Pope without living out what it means to abide in the grace and sufficiency of Christ. Sometimes I wish for the traditions of the Catholic church as it provides a meaningful means to commune with God. People just get lost in the forms of tradition and forget the function.

 

I've had those kinds of conversations with disappointing results too, not really keen on duplicating effort.

I will say that there have been members here that have given great responses to your questions, and the flip side of American religiosity (atheists with a cause) made terribly inept responses in kind.

This really isn't a good medium for these kinds of thing even with members you respect online.

 

I didn't read the link provided, but I'll take a shot at answering this:

the death of Christ is essential to the Christian belief. As I mentioned before, God must be both infinitely loving while also being absolutely just. If the price of Sin is death and all of humanity is sinful (and warrants death), then the price must be paid. Christ death was required to pay the price for humanity. This is also why Christ is both 100% God and 100% human. The debt belongs to man, but to pay an eternal debt requires a death that only God can pay. Christ was always destined to suffer the death and separation from God to redeem humanity. His resurrection is how Christian can know grace and to understand Truth in such a way we could not before (the indwelling of the Holy Spirit).

 

You weren't responding to me, but I just wanted to reply to the bolded part. Extremist by virtue of their extreme behavior tend to easily characterize the entire group, when in reality they probably aren't true representations of groups themselves.

I will say that my view of Christian extremist, or even super conservative/republican/take America back folks aren't a very good representation of the Church Christ started. I say that simply because if you understand your bible well and your theology is solid, there really is no need or reason to fear the world or culture you're in. Extremist behavior screams fear and insecurity when really for the Christian there shouldn't be any reason to fear.

 

There you go again. Your God is personal, keep it personal. You really do not know other religion, but just your, and not even Christianity, but your particular take on it.

There are Religion with no need for God. There are Religion with no need for Heaven. One of the largest Religion and oldest Religion in the world has no God. You are extremely narrow minded, which is what people not of your same mind often see, when you put your Religion on top of others and claim that it's the only or best way. It's the way for you personally, period.

That picture someone post of a cross banging on someone head is quiet appropriate response toward your type of altitude.

 

But that is not how the story is told.

If one of your children disobeys you by taking a cookie out of the jar even though he/she was forbidden, would you banish that child including his siblings and all of his offsprings FOREVER? Offsprngs who had nothing to do with the misdemeanor actions of their ancestors. Taking that apple did not hurt, kill, opress anybody except for hurting this god's ego. Is there anybody here who thinks that paying for the sins of your father is morally justified?

Then the only way that they can come back to the house and enjoy your company is by killing and torturing your one of your siblings. What is being proposed is to pay by blood for what our current laws would call a misdemeanor.

 

I usually don't take the bait on here about topics like this but I couldn't help it when I saw those ridiculous comics being posted. In real life I avoid religious discussions like the plague because I don't want to offend anyone. I have had girls break up with me when they find out my views on religion, even though when we first meet I tell/warn them that I am not religious.

 

Your analogy is off....though it's fair to say any analogy is limited simply because it's just an analogy. But I'll try one that's closer to the Christian understanding.

Your analogy sounds terrible in that the infraction of a child taking from a cookie jar is a minor offense if even an offense at all. In my mind it's more like a wife you have taken as your bride, treasured and cherished, fought for, loved and committed yourself with unbridled passion and devotion. Yet this wife has cheated on you for a far lessor man. Not only that but continues to stray and commit adultery on you. And now the nature to cheat and be adulterous is now in the heart of ever child of man. Such a person(s) warrant divorce or separation. Most today would agree with that, if a spouse constantly cheats in the marriage, then really they don't want to be in the marriage and ought to be divorced. Yet God found a way to redeem His bride, but at great cost. This is why the bible says that God hates divorce, yet also gave concession to Moses to allow it...because He understood in order to recover from adultery, requires infinite grace and infinite justice. And really only God can do both.

 

Of course it sounds terrible because it goes against what you believe to be true.

My analogy is off? I compared cookies to apples while you use a spouse as an analogy?

Telling a kid to not grab a cookie from the jar even though you placed the cookie jar right smack in the middle of the dining table (apple in the tree) and then allowing one of the bad neighbors inside the house (the devil) to seduce your child into taking a cookie. How many kids can pass this test? You then blame the kid by banishing him/her forever?

If anybody here did this to a child in this age, you will be sending some time in jail.

 

Also, it's worth considering what "reconciliation" means. If it means to make things right so a relationship is restored......what can really be done to make up for wrongs that you can't possibly make up for? Meaning, if I accidentally or purposefully cut your arm off, what can I really do to make things right again? I can pay a law suit worth millions but you're still without an arm to work and even hug your family with. I could cut off my arm as justice, but that doesn't make things whole for you again.

This is why Christ had to die. Nothing anyone could do can right the wrong. It requires an infinite sacrifice that God Himself had to provide in order to right the wrong and reconcile humanity back to Him.

 

Referring back to my own analogy, that would be like the wife saying, "even though you told me to never cheat on you with the guy next door, it's your fault you let me be tempted by him and even put him next door".

Ironically this is actually what is said by both Adam and Eve.....they blamed God, one another and the serpent for the failure of their own will and volition. I can tell where this reasoning is going, we'll eventually have to start debating God's sovereignty vs. man's free will.

 

So you lash out not only at her but also at your children's offsprings? They also get to suffer your wrath?

Why would they not? In our current laws, that is close to being considered entrapment.

 

I suspect I'm not the only one that raises an eyebrow at being told I need to beg forgiveness for imperfection from a creator that made me imperfect.

 

you say lash out as if it's a disproportionate response. You minimize the offense for the offender and then portray the response as irrational. It's divorce.....and the reconciliation of a divorce, is it not reasonable to think a divorce is just for one who has behaved in a way that's violated the commitment of the marriage?

Again you characterize the offender as a helpless child incapable victim who's offense is as minor as looking at their parent the wrong way. This is part of the reason the concept doesn't fit for you. I view the offender (us) as fully capable people who can make decisions of free will and their (our) decisions are no small offense, but grave travesties that ultimately amount to adultery. IMO

 

I understand this is a popular viewpoint, just here to say it is not the viewpoint of Christian theology.

 

That's not the consensus of your co-adherents unless you want to make the case that Christians that believe in original sin aren't Christians.