If I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ but don't believe he was the son of God can I call myself a Christian? Cause I guess I do. Love all that socialist hippy stuff he came out with. Just the bits about himself that I don't go along with. I reckon I subscribe to more of his philosophy than a lot of those who call themselves Marxists subscribe to The Communist Manifesto.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Which language you say his name in doesn't matter. I use Jesus and Yeshua all the time.
But god the father is god the son so isnt that partly schizophrenic?
I dunno Stick it's almost like it was written by blokes who didn't compile notes very effectively or cross reference plot inconsistencies.
The trinity is made up of three persons, separate and distinct, but in perfect achdut, which is oneness or total unity. Christ prays in John 13 to John 17 that his Church would have this same achdut (I use that word because there isn't a very good equivalent word in English). It also uses the same concept for marriage. One man and one woman, separate and distinct, shall become one flesh.
The Bible isn't unitarian, it is trinitarian throughout.
I reckon an awful lot of us agree broadly with most of his philosophy, or at least the philosophy that's attributed to him without being especially religious.
I don't know about the rest of you guys but this is exactly how I feel about my penis.
Not according to what Christ taught and what the apostles taught and believed. Jesus' greatest teaching was that man should love the Lord his God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength. It isn't possible to do that if you don't recognise who he is in the first place.
What am I then? I should have a term.
*waits for some witty person to say "C of E"*
This, this right here is the problem. You assume that people who are unbelievers choose to be so because they want to sin, or they "hate" God, or something to that effect. They don't, and Hitchens didn't. Hitchens simply didn't believe God existed. It really is that simple. There is no creed, there is no rejection of God's love or rejection of God's authority. He simply didn't believe there was such a thing as God.
He certainly did reject even the concept of God. He hated the idea of being subject to God's authority.
Believe me, if Hitchens saw even a shred of evidence for the existence of God, he would believe in him. He might not have liked him, but he would have believed in him. But there isn't, so he didn't. He also thought Zeus and the rest of the gods in the Greek pantheon were dicks, but that's not why he didn't believe in them either. The same goes for Allah, Vishnu, Loke and all the rest. Their imperfections might make them interesting characters to read about, but it doesn't impact their existence - or non-existence.
I reckon I'm a Christian. I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. I just ignore the theological bits. Like you can be a Thatcherite without paying attention to her views on ice cream.If you don't know, how am I supposed to know?
The strongest reason Hitchens had for not believing in God was the idea that you shouldn't want to believe in him.
Come on, now. You obviously aren't a Christian. There is no need for you to group yourself with that bunch just because you agree with some of their decent, common sense teachings. If you want to call yourself anything, call yourself a Humanist.
No, it's because there is no evidence now Darwinian evolution explains complex organisms.
No. The strongest reason Hitchens had for not believing in God was the fact that there isn't any evidence in the world for his existence. The fact that he, rightly, thought you shouldn't want to believe in him was only secondary.
That is wildly inaccurate. Hitchens' strongest reason was that there is simply no reason to believe in God.
You can disagree with him if you want but don't do him the disrespect of misconstruing his views.
I agree with the vast majority of Christian teaching.
Also, it's raining and I'm bored. That's a fine reason.
The problem is, the theological aspect is not irrelevant in the way Thatcher's views on ice cream would be. Christ didn't come to teach people how to be good but that they couldn't be good apart from him. He called his disciples evil, and not because they were particularly unkind compared to other people, but because man is evil in the sight of the Lord, requiring a saviour. All of Christ's ministry was about establishing who he is and about redeeming man from the clutches of sin and bearing the wrath of God so that we wouldn't have to. It's the scandal of the gospel. Not just unmerited grace, but demerited grace. Not only not throwing somebody into hell as they deserve but bestowing such love on those who crucified him that they are drawn into the Kingdom of God as sons and daughters, having the incredible affections of God.
And people wonder why I love this God...
Yes ok but god is the three omnis so he knows everything already so why bother with any of this as it must be incredibly boring for him/her/it.
But did god really get his arse out @Herman Van Rompuy ?
Subjective. I think the former flows out of the latter, in any case. The latter certainly doesn't flow out of the former.
I feel you are underrating the importance of Margaret Thatcher's views on ice cream. She basically invented Mr Whippy.
First of all, I very much doubt you do.
Secondly, it doesn't matter. Christianity is a religion built around believing in a divine being. You do not believe in that divine being. You are not a Christian.
Complete and utter nonsense. Not even worth discussing, even.
You are probably the most zealous and brainwashed person I have ever met. And I mean that sincerely.
And I'd love to buy you a Mr Whippy over a conversation about Jesus of Nazareth. How does that sound?
This gets me all the time. Ok so he created something evil and he dictated his word to be written down by these evil folk. Could it be believed then that the evil folk may have purposely mininterpreted his word in the bible to be evil because they were made that way?
It is but I'm not claiming to be part of the religion. Just a follower of Christ.
I'll hold you to this.
Okay, but that still doesn't make you a Christian.
Maxi twist or nothing!
Kind of does though... Thatcher, ice cream etc...
I must be doing something right then.
Ecclesiastes 7 says that God made man upright and that they have sort out many schemes. God didn't create man evil.
What I don't get is how you intend to convert non-believers when all of your arguments require someone to already believe in the absolute infallibility of the bible. Surely, "because the bible says so" isn't a very compelling argument to people who don't believe it to be the literal word of god.
The bible talks about that too innit.
feck that. Even if I didnt think it was all bollocks, I'd resist on the basis it's absolutely horrible. I'd rather go to hell.
Ecclesiastes was written by a man/men so how do you know it isn't evil and untrustworthy?