Pale Horse said:
This may be a semantic point, but isn't that Free-Choice, as opposed to Free-Will?
Yes, I was just using the predominant terminology. You are correct; free-choice is a better phrasing.
Lonsome said:
That is why I don't say much in threads like this. It's okay for others to bash my faith, but I can't even question theirs or others.
A very valid point.
Angie said:
But if I see someone is ignorantly bashing a religion without even trying to understand then I do say something.
Unfortunately, we now know that to be a lie. You did not stand up for us when Hovitos attacked with his boorish post. You, my friend, are a hypocrite.
Angie said:
What doesn't make sense? The whole God's plan thing.
I think I sufficiently explained that in my prior post.
Of course, you didn?t respond to or question that post, so it seems you didn?t even read it.
I really don?t think that you want an
answer. I think that you want an argument.
Nevetheless, for convenience?s sake, I will reprint it here:
WillKill4Food said:
My understanding has always been that God, being that He is omnipotent, (omniscient, omnipresent, omni-etc.) has, from the beginning of time, known what will transpire and who will turn to Him.
However, He does not force His creations (us) to choose him as a savior, hence free-will.
Thus, He is out of our business unless we pray the "sinner's prayer of salvation" and turn to Him for guidance and salvation.
It is only then that God "interferes" with our lives.
The major way that God does this is through choosing to acknowledge and fulfill our prayers or not.
And it is that decision that adheres to "God's plan."
You see, according to Christianity, there was a time when God's will was being followed through - that'd be in Eden.
But, being that we are mere humans, the first of our kind were greedy and, well, you know the rest of the story.
In an attempt to be like God, they succumbed to temptation and lost their eternal lives and their position in Eden.
By accepting Christ as our Saviour, we acknowledge his glory and grace; and our subsequent prayers are either answered or rejected, depending on whether or not it would be in our best interests and the best interests of our acquaintances.
For instance, you may pray to win the lottery. Obviously, gambling is a sin, but even still, there are other reasons God may not answer your prayer.
Perhaps, another family that really needs the money more should win in your stead.
Or, perhaps, He knows that if you get the money you'll become greedy and selfish and reject Him.
Of course, that's probably a bad example. But I think you understand what I'm trying to say.
Hovitos said:
If you're bashing a Christian, it's because you do know something about them, and you know they deserve every ounce of bashing you're willing to bring down on them.?.You know, there are religions out there that don't actually attack other belief systems and religions.
Ridiculous vitriolic drivel.
What is sad is that you don?t even realize how narrow-minded and bigoted that you are.
By that logic, all Muslims deserve to be punished for acts terrorism; all Jews deserve to be punished for usury; all Germans for being Nazis; all blacks for being criminals.
Of course, none of those are true; they are stereotypical generalizations that any thinking person would recognize as erroneous.
But, your statements about Christians are just as stereotypical, just as prejudiced.
You cannot blame all Christians for the actions of crusaders or inquisitors.
Furthermore, those Christians who do criticize other religions do not do so out of malice. I am not talking about crusaders or inquisitors; they were hypocrites.
But evangelicals are not.
The very core of Christianity is that Jesus Christ is the only way ? ?the Way, the Truth, and the Light? ? to Heaven and eternal bliss.
Evangelicals and fundamentalists strictly adhere to that, and because of that they try to convert others. They do this because they think Jesus is the Way, because they actually care enough to try to save the souls of others. Malevolence is not present in most Christians.
Of course there are violent Christians who do attack others, both literally and figuratively, but I could give you any number of incidents where Buddhists, Daoists, Hindus, and especially Muslims attack others because of religious differences. Would those incidents determine the virtues of everyone who believes that way?
Of course not.
In that same way, you cannot judge all Christians for the questionable actions of a few.
Angie said:
Okay when someone tells me that I have to believe in something they better have a better ****ing reason other than "cause I say so".
Again, you?re unwitting ignorance shines through.
There are other reasons to believe in Christianity. I have, in the past, listed them in other threads.
I don?t think that someone should judge another religion.
But, if you want reasons to believe in Christianity, I could list some reasons here. It would take a lot of space, but it would be possible.
And, of course, that begs the question: If you care so much, why don?t
you research it?
There you are, sitting at your computer, your hands either sitting on the keyboard or propping up you chin as you read. It?s likely that somewhere in a bookshelf near you there lies a George Lakoff or Al Franken book.
Or worse.
Meanwhile, every time your hand touches the keyboard, every time you place your hand on that mouse, you have, at your fingertips, access to a vast plethora of information ? the internet.
Yet still, you , and others like you, continue to question and ask that question: why?
I?m not saying you shouldn?t ask, but my question is the same: why?
When
I want to know something, whether it concern the theory of evolution, the beliefs of Buddhism, or the film
The Dark Knight, I don?t turn to the Raven. This is a place to discuss Indy, figures, memorabilia, movies, and, occasionally, archeology.
Yes, off-topic discussion does occur and should occur, but why don?t you research?
Why sit here at your computer and wait day to day to read the short responses of us, amateurs more often than not, when at your fingertips lie the words of millions of theologians who answer such questions every day?
Again, I don?t think that you want an answer.
You want a debate; one that you think you can win.
Pale Horse said:
'Belief System' are the operative words. I would suggest the format of your post attacks a persons "beliefs", as opposed to the machine (or more rightly the system) that erroneously propgates miss intrepratation, but I know it wasn't intentional, just the passion of the post.
As has been discussed many times before on this forum, there are so many different versions of "Christianity" it's hard to pinpoint which one accurately reflects the intent of the authors of the Bible.
Right on, bro.
Nurhachi said:
Im really neither a christan nor catholic.
Catholics
are Christians, buddro.
Nurhachi said:
?but I still believe in Jesus and all of the ways of the church?
Church attendance is not what defines Christianity. A Christian (in the Biblical sense, that is) is someone who accepts and believes in Jesus Christ as their Savior, admits to Him their guilt of sin, and repents from it. That is all. Everything else is debatable, including the ?God?s plan? bit.
Now that Pale Horse has mentioned it, Jefferson?s idea really is the rather clever; only the direct word of God is unquestionable.
