Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[dan964]

but do you think this makes you a "bad" christian? like when u die and ur judged by god or whatever, will he be like u didn't follow my commandments, go 2 hell?

Also, why would a christian not oppose being a gay? like the beliefs of the religion r homos should not be a thing but then you have gay christians? like is gay christians a troll or just seeking attention?

A gay Christian is someone who is attracted to those of the same sex, but would not necessarily enter into a sexual relationship with persons of the same sex. It really depends though, if they are genuinely a Christian they usually won't use the label gay because of the identity politics surrounding it (and for a Christian their identity is in Christ). If they are genuinely gay and practicing homosexual, then they certainly are disregarding what the Bible (and Christians) have been saying on the matter, so the label Christian does not appear accurate to describe such beliefs (although we don't make the final judgement call on that)

 

[dan964]

Whether or not someone would be sent to hell is another discussion. This is because of the countless divisions in Christianity today relating to the core beliefs. There are concepts such as "Purgatory", which is a place where you are "purified" and made ready to go to heaven, hence judgement is affected by such factors.

That is a catholic doctrine. Not accepted by all Christians, for good reasons.

AND The countless divisions are not all on core beliefs. Catholicism vs. Protestantism, yes. But say Anglican vs Presbyterian vs Baptist, hardly core issues (sometimes it is the geographical origin of the church, or views on baptism)

Modern Christians think this way because of modern societal influences from groups different to them, particularly in the Western world. These have only become more dominant in recent years, which of course led to the legalisation of same-sex marriage.

You are right to identify that some people would identify as Christian but rather have seemingly "un-Christian" values on particular topics, influenced perhaps by Western world.

I wouldn't label gay Christians as trolls or attention seekers, but rather people who according to their belief system, are not on the right path/are doing something wrong.

Well put!

 

[thetestdude]

why value Christian values over Christian values on homosexuality? It's not like the Bible sets weightings to each thing. Why value one higher than the other, when both are stated as values? Is this not preferential bias?

How can there be Christians values on homosexuality when the religion itself rejects it? Just because a number Christians choose to support a particular concept doesn't mean the religion does.

AND The countless divisions are not all on core beliefs. Catholicism vs. Protestantism, yes. But say Anglican vs Presbyterian vs Baptist, hardly core issues (sometimes it is the geographical origin of the church, or views on baptism)

That's right, thanks for that.

The point I was trying to make there was that divisions complicate things, hence the reason people within different denominations could have different perspectives as to how one gets to heaven.

I don't support divisions within Christianity personally, as many of them were made to achieve personal goals (e.g. Church of England) and/or caused great distortion with respect to the original teachings of Christianity (e.g. Jenovah's Witnesses, Mormon Church).

 

[dan964]

That's right, thanks for that.

The point I was trying to make there was that divisions complicate things, hence the reason people within different denominations could have different perspectives as to how one gets to heaven.

I don't support divisions within Christianity personally, as many of them were made to achieve personal goals (e.g. Church of England) and/or caused great distortion with respect to the original teachings of Christianity (e.g. Jenovah's Witnesses, Mormon Church).

It is worth saying that the Reformation existed prior to Church of England breaking away from Roman Catholicism and becoming Protestant.
"Many Roman Catholics consider the separation of the Church in England from Rome in 1534 to be the true origin of the Church of England, rather than dating it from the mission of St. Augustine in AD 597. While Anglicans acknowledge that Henry VIII's repudiation of papal authority caused the Church of England to become a separate entity, they believe that it is in continuity with the pre-Reformation Church of England "

 

[idkkdi]

How can there be Christians values on homosexuality when the religion itself rejects it? Just because a number Christians choose to support a particular concept doesn't mean the religion does.



That's right, thanks for that.

The point I was trying to make there was that divisions complicate things, hence the reason people within different denominations could have different perspectives as to how one gets to heaven.

I don't support divisions within Christianity personally, as many of them were made to achieve personal goals (e.g. Church of England) and/or caused great distortion with respect to the original teachings of Christianity (e.g. Jenovah's Witnesses, Mormon Church).

you misunderstood my point. I meant that the Christian value on the topic of homosexuality is rejection, but some believers seem to dismiss this despite being afraid to dismiss other values, and this is kinda weird.

 

[thetestdude]

you misunderstood my point. I meant that the Christian value on the topic of homosexuality is rejection, but some believers seem to dismiss this despite being afraid to dismiss other values, and this is kinda weird.

My bad. I believe that's the case because society approves of it overall (including Christians and non-Christians), which reduces/eliminates a Christian's feeling of "guilt" of not sticking to the actual perspective of Christianity (and in other cases even convinces those individuals out of what they originally believe).

 

[dan964]

you misunderstood my point. I meant that the Christian value on the topic of homosexuality is rejection, but some believers seem to dismiss this despite being afraid to dismiss other values, and this is kinda weird.

Incomplete, the Christian value is that marriage as one man-one woman, and fidelty in marriage (meaning sexuality is to be expressed only in marriage), and that leads to the rejection of a lot of things, including homosexuality, adultery, divorce, incest, polygamy etc.

 

[braintic]

2. the Bible wasn't penned by a single author nor is it a single book, nor is it from one time period, yet somehow has the one consistent message.

That is what happens with any story which is initially disseminated by word of mouth over centuries. The core message doesn't change because that is the whole reason for passing on the story, but the fringe details change and become inconsistent. This is what has happened with the bible. It doesn't go close to proving the veracity of the story.

 

[dan964]

That is what happens with any story which is initially disseminated by word of mouth over centuries. The core message doesn't change because that is the whole reason for passing on the story, but the fringe details change and become inconsistent. This is what has happened with the bible. It doesn't go close to proving the veracity of the story.

wrong.
1. The Bible is not merely "disseminated by word of mouth over centuries".
2. Secondly the weight of textual evidence begs to differ. There is a solid case for preservation of the texts of both the Old Testament and New Testament, while that does not prove the truthfulness of the text, it does a least put a pin on the whole, inconsistency idea, because we are fairly sure what the original would have been, by the sheer number of manuscripts (regarding the variations of the text [New Testament], it is interesting the critics never mention what those variations are (things like spelling/dialect variants, some which are not even noticeable upon translation into English, or clarifications). , the variety of languages and locations; especially when compared to other texts of antiquity. (that was the first point I made in the post you quoted from)

One of the strengths of being convinced of the veracity of the Bible (say over the Quran), is its diverse authorship and genre styles; set over 1500 years; written in different historical and political contexts (yes the underlying culture, especially religious culture is consistent but even that evolves). Of course books written earlier can be referenced by those that come latter and its understandable that authors would develop similar themes further. However, the sheer weight of intertextuality is what I am referring to. Allusions, links, symbolism. Again it does not prove that veracity of it, but it does show the integrity of group of texts as a whole (aka its internal correspondence)

 

[braintic]

wrong.
1. The Bible is not merely "disseminated by word of mouth over centuries".
2. Secondly the weight of textual evidence begs to differ. There is a solid case for preservation of the texts of both the Old Testament and New Testament, while that does not prove the truthfulness of the text, it does a least put a pin on the whole, inconsistency idea, because we are fairly sure what the original would have been, by the sheer number of manuscripts (regarding the variations of the text [New Testament], it is interesting the critics never mention what those variations are (things like spelling/dialect variants, some which are not even noticeable upon translation into English, or clarifications). , the variety of languages and locations; especially when compared to other texts of antiquity. (that was the first point I made in the post you quoted from)

One of the strengths of being convinced of the veracity of the Bible (say over the Quran), is its diverse authorship and genre styles; set over 1500 years; written in different historical and political contexts (yes the underlying culture, especially religious culture is consistent but even that evolves). Of course books written earlier can be referenced by those that come latter and its understandable that authors would develop similar themes further. However, the sheer weight of intertextuality is what I am referring to. Allusions, links, symbolism. Again it does not prove that veracity of it, but it does show the integrity of group of texts as a whole (aka its internal correspondence)

Except that there are early manuscripts which have been edited. I believe there is one housed in an Egyptian museum (strange place to have it, I know) which clearly shows a description of the "ascension to heaven" being written over an early version which simply said that he was no longer in the cave and left it at that. There is no "textual evidence" when there has been blatant editing. Find me the original manuscripts.

 

[dan964]

Except that there are early manuscripts which have been edited. I believe there is one housed in an Egyptian museum (strange place to have it, I know) which clearly shows a description of the "ascension to heaven" being written over an early version which simply said that he was no longer in the cave and left it at that. There is no "textual evidence" when there has been blatant editing. Find me the original manuscripts.

I presume you are referring to the ending of the gospel of Mark. You do realise we (Christians, historians, textual critics) are all aware of that and most English translations bracket that section off for a reason because long and behold we have even earlier manuscripts don't have the longer ending. The reason we can tell is because of good textual study, we have textual evidence that can show when 'editing' has occurred, is because we have more than one line of propagation (more of a web then a linear propagation)

Look, you'd be hard pressed to find an original of any ancient document. The very original New Testament copies would have worn out very easily from copying and just use. As that would dispel your disbelief, you still wouldn't believe it, even if you saw it with your own eyes.

Relative to other texts of the period, we have first copies within 100 years (most of the earliest date to late second century) of them being written.
And in terms of number in excess of 20,000 (5000 in greek, 5000-10000 in latin, 5000-10000 in coptic and other lang)+ we have quotations from early church fathers as well. So there is amply testimony, and good textual study we can have certainty (not absolute and that is ok) on what the original text said.

 

[SylviaB]

There's historical textual evidence of all assortments of supernatural nonsense. It's not valid proof.

 

[Squar3root]

apparently moses wrote some of the bible but then people don't believe moses existed which begs the question who wrote it then if it wasn't moses?

 

[YourRoyalHighness]

apparently moses wrote some of the bible but then people don't believe moses existed which begs the question who wrote it then if it wasn't moses?

people don't believe Jesus existed with the ample evidence so its not that surprising they don't believe moses existed either.

 

[YourRoyalHighness]

I believe they still have the ark of the covenant somewhere in Ethiopia

 

[Queenroot]

I believe they still have the ark of the covenant somewhere in Ethiopia

lol

 

[Queenroot]

apparently moses wrote some of the bible but then people don't believe moses existed which begs the question who wrote it then if it wasn't moses?

i heard u got 99.99 in studies of religion

 

[Squar3root]

people don't believe Jesus existed with the ample evidence so its not that surprising they don't believe moses existed either.

what "ample evidence" are u talking about?

saying the bible is evidence is just simply wrong cos i can just say spoderman is real cos of a comic book

like is there anything certain like his body or video of him walking on water or something?

 

[SylviaB]

people don't believe Jesus existed with the ample evidence so its not that surprising they don't believe moses existed either.

there is virtually no evidence outside of the bible that moses existed

 

[YourRoyalHighness]

what "ample evidence" are u talking about?

saying the bible is evidence is just simply wrong cos i can just say spoderman is real cos of a comic book

like is there anything certain like his body or video of him walking on water or something?

Lmao when did I mention the bible, as if you don't believe Jesus existed, to believe in the divinity of him is one thing, but to not believe that he actually existed? The ample evidence refers to the art (the 2th century catacombs), architecture, tradition if you want more psychical evidence, Caeser and Pontius Pilatus governed and ordered Jesus to crucifixion do you believe that? The new testament consists of multiple stories from witnesses recounting the story of Jesus. They have the tomb of Jesus, when you read the bible it will tell you from brith to death where Jesus went and lived. The church of Christ has everything perserved from the time of Jesus you would be surprised how many artefacts they hold, they have the cross Jesus died on, the belt of Holy Mary, etc.