Board 8 > So, I finally came to terms with the fact I am not a Christian.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jesus basically said "screw the old testament what I'm telling you now is the real shit" but nobody cared

Deciphering the context of passages and the correct interpretation of them is different from just picking and choosing what parts of the Bible to believe in.
---

Paratroopa1 posted...

Jesus basically said "screw the old testament what I'm telling you now is the real shit" but nobody cared

yeah, i should correct myself by adding that in some instances the picking and choosing of what you believe in is not baseless.

if you say to a christian "the bible says 'eye for an eye,' why don't you adhere to this?" and they reply "i adhere to jesus' teachings and he specifically said that this is wrong and you should turn the other cheek," that's not baseless. you're directly basing your beliefs on words jesus supposedly said in that instance.

however, if a christian says "well i'm fine with gay people so the anti-gay stuff in the bible is OBVIOUSLY outdated silly nonsense and not the word of god!", that's just a baseless claim.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

however, if a christian says "well i'm fine with gay people so the anti-gay stuff in the bible is OBVIOUSLY outdated silly nonsense and not the word of god!", that's just a baseless claim.

Why does it make you so upset when Christians support homosexuality?
---

Wasn't a lot of the more stringent anti-homosexuality stuff exaggerated in the King James Version because the translators loathed the fact that their king was openly having dalliances with a male lover?

And didn't he commission that Bible in the first place because of his paranoid fear of witchcraft?

It's not always as simple as "They're picking and choosing baselessly," and I think assuming that is too presumptuous.
---

Of course it's not that simple. Lasa has a vendetta and his argument is "you can't be religious and accepting of this book as religion unless you're all in, but bring all I'm is bad so the religion is bad". It's a logic trap that he thinks he's clever for pushing it forward, without realizing that it's not that clever, he's changing nobodies opinion, and he's just coming across as scene.
---

I agree with Lasa here.

If you're a Christian, you take the Bible as the word of God. For sure, you can still discuss the proper interpretation of the Bible. Critical analysis of the text, and not just taking your pastor's interpretation for granted, is core to a reasoned faith. BowserCuffs provides a really good example: challenging the accuracy of the translation. (I hadn't heard that allegation, but it wouldn't surprise me. On the other hand, isn't the NIV also pretty anti-homosexual? Or are there similar issues there?) But what you shouldn't do is just dismiss stuff you don't like out of hand, without critical analysis. You can't claim the Bible is the word of God and then just sweep under the rug the parts that make you uncomfortable.

If you're not a Christian (and not a believer in another specific religion), then obviously you can take as much or as little from the Bible as you want. Mix and match freely! The world's religions are your buffet table! Though you're probably just going to take whatever matches your preexisting beliefs, so...there's not too much point?
---

Drakeryn posted...

I agree with Lasa here.

If you're a Christian, you take the Bible as the word of God. For sure, you can still discuss the proper interpretation of the Bible. Critical analysis of the text, and not just taking your pastor's interpretation for granted, is core to a reasoned faith. BowserCuffs provides a really good example: challenging the accuracy of the translation. (I hadn't heard that allegation, but it wouldn't surprise me. On the other hand, isn't the NIV also pretty anti-homosexual? Or are there similar issues there?) But what you shouldn't do is just dismiss stuff you don't like out of hand, without critical analysis. You can't claim the Bible is the word of God and then just sweep under the rug the parts that make you uncomfortable.

If you're not a Christian (and not a believer in another specific religion), then obviously you can take as much or as little from the Bible as you want. Mix and match freely! The world's religions are your buffet table! Though you're probably just going to take whatever matches your preexisting beliefs, so...there's not too much point?

You would have a hard time dealing with a great number of pastors in the denomination in which I worked; There is a strong and growing movement in the Lutheran church in particular to view the Old Testament completely differently from the New Testamant. It's becoming more and more of a historical addendum and less and less used in any sort of religious role.

You also are neglecting to note the fact that the Bible itself is so often called "divinely inspired but mortally written." A good chunk of ministers in various denominations use their extensive study of the Bible to push that the Bible reflects the best wisdom of its time and not necessarily ours. The big issue is that, much like in a literary course in college, people studying the Bible are so quick to judge it based on the merits of their own social mores and cultural values. What people can learn form the Bible is not simple rule of law. As many pastors I've worked with over the years have said, if we were meant to follow every rule of the Bible, we would put to death unruly children - and society would dry up pretty quickly.

Finally, the Bible has always been a pick-and-choose book. The various Diets and Synods that formed in the first half-millennium of the church consistently chose different texts and books to put in the Bible. The Apocrypha to this day still stands as a crucial example of the mercurial and politicized nature of how the modern Bible came to be.

Both Lasa and you are welcome to hold belief that a religious person must hold stock in everything their text said, but this has never been true in any religion. The ancient Greeks were virtually agnostic, the Romans made addendum to their religion constantly, and most modern religions have been in a state of flux for centuries.
---

One has to wonder why god hasn't inspired a new bible to meet with more modern standards. An update every 200 years would seem like a good idea. Then again, it would seem like a good idea to get ancient people to have a morality system that is timeless.
---

You know the more I read this topic the more it feels Catholicism is just a completely different thing from all the Christian denominations you guys are referring to. From my perspective as a kid the way the Catholic Church worked is that it's the job of the upper echelons of the Church to interpret what the meaning of the Bible is, and basically they then disseminate that to the rest of the world. And from our perspective whatever they say is law/truth. But it doesn't sound like any other Christian denominations operate that way at all. It would definitely explain why I so quickly became disillusioned with the Church for reasons that don't seem to bother a lot of other people in this topic even when it seems like we're similar philosophically. (Of course determining that through GameFAQ's message board posts is probably wildly inaccurate so who knows)

For context's sake, I was raised as a Catholic but have been non-religious since about the time I was in high school, although I had trouble reconciling the Church as an institution somewhat before that time.
---

pyresword posted...

You know the more I read this topic the more it feels Catholicism is just a completely different thing from all the Christian denominations you guys are referring to. From my perspective as a kid the way the Catholic Church worked is that it's the job of the upper echelons of the Church to interpret what the meaning of the Bible is, and basically they then disseminate that to the rest of the world. And from our perspective whatever they say is law/truth. But it doesn't sound like any other Christian denominations operate that way at all. It would definitely explain why I so quickly became disillusioned with the Church for reasons that don't seem to bother a lot of other people in this topic even when it seems like we're similar philosophically. (Of course determining that through GameFAQ's message board posts is probably wildly inaccurate so who knows)

For context's sake, I was raised as a Catholic but have been non-religious since about the time I was in high school, although I had trouble reconciling the Church as an institution somewhat before that time.

Do you know the history of Protestantism at all?
---

Drakeryn posted...

If you're a Christian, you take the Bible as the word of God.

So the thing is

not all christians do that

Paratroopa1 posted...

Drakeryn posted...

If you're a Christian, you take the Bible as the word of God.

So the thing is

not all christians do that

And I don't mean this in a bad way mind you - it's just not universal tradition. I grew up catholic and taking the bible as literal word of god was just not a thing we did

Paratroopa1 posted...

I grew up catholic and taking the bible as literal word of god was just not a thing we did

Huh. I didn't realize that. I don't know much about Catholics in general.

So if you don't believe in the Bible as the word of God, then I guess your doctrine is just whatever the current pope says?
---

Drakeryn posted...

Paratroopa1 posted...

I grew up catholic and taking the bible as literal word of god was just not a thing we did

Huh. I didn't realize that. I don't know much about Catholics in general.

So if you don't believe in the Bible as the word of God, then I guess your doctrine is just whatever the current pope says?

No, we didn't really care that much about the pope either, he's kinda in the background

It has just gone through the hands of man too many times for me to feel comfortable with it.

Even growing up while I considered myself a believer, I would be immensely uncomfortable when someone would say " thank the lord he got better" in any relation to someone recovering from a surgery or something like that. I always thought they should be thanking the doctor's instead. These people weren't just using the phrase freely by the way; In these occurrences i'm referring to the people were legitimately saying credit should be given to God. This isn't uncommon or anything but just me relaying the discomfort I felt at even a young age.
---

INCEPTlON posted...

It has just gone through the hands of man too many times for me to feel comfortable with it.

Even growing up while I considered myself a believer, I would be immensely uncomfortable when someone would say " thank the lord he got better" in any relation to someone recovering from a surgery or something like that. I always thought they should be thanking the doctor's instead. These people weren't just using the phrase freely by the way; In these occurrences i'm referring to the people were legitimately saying credit should be given to God. This isn't uncommon or anything but just me relaying the discomfort I felt at even a young age.

Yeah, but I imagine their belief is that God was working through the doctor or whatever. Or to take it even further, it was God's plan that the doctor became a doctor and was able to help that person.
---

NFUN posted...

pyresword posted...

You know the more I read this topic the more it feels Catholicism is just a completely different thing from all the Christian denominations you guys are referring to. From my perspective as a kid the way the Catholic Church worked is that it's the job of the upper echelons of the Church to interpret what the meaning of the Bible is, and basically they then disseminate that to the rest of the world. And from our perspective whatever they say is law/truth. But it doesn't sound like any other Christian denominations operate that way at all. It would definitely explain why I so quickly became disillusioned with the Church for reasons that don't seem to bother a lot of other people in this topic even when it seems like we're similar philosophically. (Of course determining that through GameFAQ's message board posts is probably wildly inaccurate so who knows)

For context's sake, I was raised as a Catholic but have been non-religious since about the time I was in high school, although I had trouble reconciling the Church as an institution somewhat before that time.

Do you know the history of Protestantism at all?

I mean in historical sense yes. But I couldn't tell you what their actual religious differences were at any level of detail above what you'd find in a middle school history textbook.

I also don't think it's immediately obvious that the difference between Catholics and other Christian denominations is as pronounced as it was in those days, although maybe it turns out that is the case? I really don't know much that's significant about what other denominations of Christianity look like in today's world.
---

Drakeryn posted...

Paratroopa1 posted...

I grew up catholic and taking the bible as literal word of god was just not a thing we did

Huh. I didn't realize that. I don't know much about Catholics in general.

So if you don't believe in the Bible as the word of God, then I guess your doctrine is just whatever the current pope says?

You having to ask these questions is why there is such a disconnect here. The most common interpretation of Christianity's doctrine is "believe in God, believe in Jesus's teachings, do good". For the most part, the New Testament is very applicable to daily life. The Old Testament is more about faith and devotion to God... in this manner, the Bible is used as a tool to help put our lives in context and approach our personal experiences, relationships with each other, and relationship with God from a different perspective.

I understand that there are Christians in the US who take the Bible literally and as personal law, but there are plenty of Christians who don't. It's astounding to me that someone would actually think that you can't be a Christian unless you believe the Bible to a T. But my perspective and experience is clearly alien to some others, so there you go.
---

Yeah, there was no really hard doctrine in my church. It was more about cultural tradition for the most part. The bible is there, and it's regarded, but everything aside from the gospels, which are critical, is kind of backdrop. Nothing in the old testament was taken seriously and we were outright taught to take it with a grain of salt.

This is not a universal catholic experience either mind you but it was mine

HanOfTheNekos posted...

You having to ask these questions is why there is such a disconnect here. The most common interpretation of Christianity's doctrine is "believe in God, believe in Jesus's teachings, do good". For the most part, the New Testament is very applicable to daily life. The Old Testament is more about faith and devotion to God... in this manner, the Bible is used as a tool to help put our lives in context and approach our personal experiences, relationships with each other, and relationship with God from a different perspective.

So this is an interesting perspective to me. Obviously I'm not knocking these beliefs -- people can believe whatever they want. But I'm surprised that people would still identify as Christian even though they think most of the Bible is false. (I was going to say "you" but I just realized I'm not sure if you personally are in this camp.) This goes for the pastors that scarlet was discussing as well. If you think most of a religion's holy book is {pick all that apply: a crock; fallible; mistaken; an interesting historical artifact but not actually God's word} then why would you stay a member of that religion?

Also, if this does apply to you, how much of the Bible do you believe in? You mention Jesus' teachings so I figure you would believe in the gospels (minus whatever you would consider to be embellishments by the authors or mistranslations). What about the rest of the New Testament? Like I think Eddv alluded earlier to a view that Paul was a false prophet who perverted Jesus' doctrine, which is also a super interesting view to me. And as for the Old Testament, is that just like...cool bedtime stories?
---

pyresword posted...

NFUN posted...

pyresword posted...

You know the more I read this topic the more it feels Catholicism is just a completely different thing from all the Christian denominations you guys are referring to. From my perspective as a kid the way the Catholic Church worked is that it's the job of the upper echelons of the Church to interpret what the meaning of the Bible is, and basically they then disseminate that to the rest of the world. And from our perspective whatever they say is law/truth. But it doesn't sound like any other Christian denominations operate that way at all. It would definitely explain why I so quickly became disillusioned with the Church for reasons that don't seem to bother a lot of other people in this topic even when it seems like we're similar philosophically. (Of course determining that through GameFAQ's message board posts is probably wildly inaccurate so who knows)

For context's sake, I was raised as a Catholic but have been non-religious since about the time I was in high school, although I had trouble reconciling the Church as an institution somewhat before that time.

Do you know the history of Protestantism at all?

I mean in historical sense yes. But I couldn't tell you what their actual religious differences were at any level of detail above what you'd find in a middle school history textbook.

I also don't think it's immediately obvious that the difference between Catholics and other Christian denominations is as pronounced as it was in those days, although maybe it turns out that is the case? I really don't know much that's significant about what other denominations of Christianity look like in today's world.

mnkboy907 posted...

INCEPTlON posted...

It has just gone through the hands of man too many times for me to feel comfortable with it.

Even growing up while I considered myself a believer, I would be immensely uncomfortable when someone would say " thank the lord he got better" in any relation to someone recovering from a surgery or something like that. I always thought they should be thanking the doctor's instead. These people weren't just using the phrase freely by the way; In these occurrences i'm referring to the people were legitimately saying credit should be given to God. This isn't uncommon or anything but just me relaying the discomfort I felt at even a young age.

Yeah, but I imagine their belief is that God was working through the doctor or whatever. Or to take it even further, it was God's plan that the doctor became a doctor and was able to help that person.

Oh yeah for sure, I know that will generally be the sentiment they are trying to express. I just still felt though that it took away from the Doctor's schooling and talents which came from perseverance and hard work.
---

Relevant excerpt from the Nicene Creed

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

Even still I don't think that most practicing Catholics at any level of the Church take the Bible as 100% literal and relevant, but it is worth mentioning that this idea of the Bible literally being the word of God is directly written into many people's religious experiences.

Of course, you can still claim that the Bible is an interpretation of the words of the prophets, but my point is that there are many people who don't see things that way.
---

Drakeryn posted...

HanOfTheNekos posted...

You having to ask these questions is why there is such a disconnect here. The most common interpretation of Christianity's doctrine is "believe in God, believe in Jesus's teachings, do good". For the most part, the New Testament is very applicable to daily life. The Old Testament is more about faith and devotion to God... in this manner, the Bible is used as a tool to help put our lives in context and approach our personal experiences, relationships with each other, and relationship with God from a different perspective.

So this is an interesting perspective to me. Obviously I'm not knocking these beliefs -- people can believe whatever they want. But I'm surprised that people would still identify as Christian even though they think most of the Bible is false. (I was going to say "you" but I just realized I'm not sure if you personally are in this camp.) This goes for the pastors that scarlet was discussing as well. If you think most of a religion's holy book is {pick all that apply: a crock; fallible; mistaken; an interesting historical artifact but not actually God's word} then why would you stay a member of that religion?

Also, if this does apply to you, how much of the Bible do you believe in? You mention Jesus' teachings so I figure you would believe in the gospels (minus whatever you would consider to be embellishments by the authors or mistranslations). What about the rest of the New Testament? Like I think Eddv alluded earlier to a view that Paul was a false prophet who perverted Jesus' doctrine, which is also a super interesting view to me. And as for the Old Testament, is that just like...cool bedtime stories?

I feel like we're still really far apart here. There just isn't anything in our doctrine about the bible being the literal word of god. It's just not there. Nobody ever suggests such a thing or imagines such a thing. The gospels are taken seriously, but everything else sort of depends. It's a collection of stories and parables and moral teachings and also some weird old stuff that doesn't matter anymore but remains as a matter of tradition. Some old testament stuff is still held sacred but some of it's ignored. There is no rule that says you can't ignore stuff. There ain't a damn thing in the Nicene Creed that says you have to hang on every word of the bible.

pyresword posted...

Relevant excerpt from the Nicene Creed

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

Even still I don't think that most practicing Catholics at any level of the Church take the Bible as 100% literal and relevant, but it is worth mentioning that this idea of the Bible literally being the word of God is directly written into many people's religious experiences.

Of course, you can still claim that the Bible is an interpretation of the words of the prophets, but my point is that there are many people who don't see things that way.

I like how we both contradicted each other here

But that is not at all a universal interpretation of that line. "Has spoken through the prophets" doesn't mean "literally every word of the bible is 100% true and equally important, yo"

like, it just doesn't hold up if you actually study the bible or know anything about the bible's origins, and we all knew that, so there's no reason to pretend

Interesting that those posts happened back-to-back.

For clairty's sake I am definitely aware there are more ways to interpret that passage than the one I was implying. (Which is definitely the way I interpreted it once upon a time when I considered myself a Catholic) I was only trying to create a basis on which to view the other side of this argument.
---

Drakeryn posted...

This goes for the pastors that scarlet was discussing as well. If you think most of a religion's holy book is {pick all that apply: a crock; fallible; mistaken; an interesting historical artifact but not actually God's word} then why would you stay a member of that religion?

Because Christianity has two testaments; one testament almost entirely mired in a different religious tradition, and a second testament that is used primarily in sermons, messages, and the like. So often, the uneducated and unindoctrinated use the first testament as the primary source for their complaints, but it is that second testament that most denominations use as the basis for their beliefs (with certain major exceptions). The philosophy and dogma come from the New Testament. God's actions through Christ are what primarily concern Christians (hence, "Christ"-ians being Christians). So you can scratch your head and puzzle it out, but the fact of the matter is that most religions have similar perspectives on religious texts. Texts and ideas in any religion do not always line up 100%.
---

I think the argument could be restated like this: "You believe in an omnipotent, benevolent deity. Why would an omnipotent, benevolent deity choose to communicate his desires to humans in such a flawed and half-assed manner??"
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Because Christianity has two testaments; one testament almost entirely mired in a different religious tradition, and a second testament that is used primarily in sermons, messages, and the like.

When I was growing up, the Old and New Testaments received about equal screentime in sermons/messages, though I'm aware that's not everyone's experience >_>
---

Paratroopa1 posted...

But that is not at all a universal interpretation of that line. "Has spoken through the prophets" doesn't mean "literally every word of the bible is 100% true and equally important, yo"

Further clarification: I don't think I ever interpreted that passage in quite this extreme a manner. I did, however, think it necessitated treated the Bible with a greater degree of reverance than just a tool created by humans to better understand God. Maybe to attempt an analogy, I treated the Bible sort of as a human-made (and still therefore imperfect) transcript of God's word, as opposed to an author's interpretation of it, which seems to be how a lot of people in this topic view things.
---

pyresword posted...

Paratroopa1 posted...

But that is not at all a universal interpretation of that line. "Has spoken through the prophets" doesn't mean "literally every word of the bible is 100% true and equally important, yo"

Further clarification: I don't think I ever interpreted that passage in quite this extreme a manner. I did, however, think it necessitated treated the Bible with a greater degree of reverance than just a tool created by humans to better understand God. Maybe to attempt an analogy, I treated the Bible sort of as a human-made (and still therefore imperfect) transcript of God's word, as opposed to an author's interpretation of it, which seems to be how a lot of people in this topic view things.

Oh I agree with this for sure. It is definitely called upon to treat the bible with reverence - that in itself is why it's taken seriously despite the fact that so many things in it are obviously either mythological or long out of date and nonsensical in a modern context.

Drakeryn posted...

scarletspeed7 posted...

Because Christianity has two testaments; one testament almost entirely mired in a different religious tradition, and a second testament that is used primarily in sermons, messages, and the like.

When I was growing up, the Old and New Testaments received about equal screentime in sermons/messages, though I'm aware that's not everyone's experience >_>

Part of that depends on denomination. For the Lutheran Church, virtually no Old Testament reading will ever be the main reading for a Sunday service. It's primarily gospel usage in those instances. Even pastors do not use the Old Testament except to reinforce other points. But often, the stories of the Old Testament are portrayed in the same way as a parable.
---

Drakeryn posted...

So this is an interesting perspective to me. Obviously I'm not knocking these beliefs -- people can believe whatever they want. But I'm surprised that people would still identify as Christian even though they think most of the Bible is false. (I was going to say "you" but I just realized I'm not sure if you personally are in this camp.)

one reason I could see is for social and communal reasons. for example you know that jesus isn't actually a wizard who could create bread and fish out of thin air, but that part doesn't really matter. they're more interested in the 'do good to others' part and find the church as a convenient way to meet an already gathered group of fairly like-minded individuals.
---

think of it like a tree fort where the password to get inside is "JESUS CHRIST WAS THE SON OF GOD"
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Why does it make you so upset when Christians support homosexuality?

it doesn't?
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Of course it's not that simple. Lasa has a vendetta and his argument is "you can't be religious and accepting of this book as religion unless you're all in, but bring all I'm is bad so the religion is bad".

...i don't know what this mess of words is supposed to mean but this isn't my argument at all.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Of course it's not that simple. Lasa has a vendetta and his argument is "you can't be religious and accepting of this book as religion unless you're all in, but bring all I'm is bad so the religion is bad".

...i don't know what this mess of words is supposed to mean but this isn't my argument at all.

Then why are you saying it's nonsensical to not be all in on the Bible?
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Then why are you saying it's nonsensical to not be all in on the Bible?

because it is?

"the way you're approaching your religion makes no sense" != "you can't be religious."

spoilers: being religious in the first place is nonsencial too.
---

So then, yes, he's completely right.

You have an agenda. Which means you aren't worth a damn to talk to on the subject.
---

what the fuck are you talking about?
---

Okay so upon reflecting, I think your approach to religion is going to depend on what you want out of religion in the first place.

1. Truth: This is the model I follow. To me, the purpose of religion is to find out the truth about whether there is a god, whether morality exists (in the sense of absolute and unchanging standards of right and wrong), and to act accordingly. So if a particular religion is false, then it has no value for me. Well "no value" is kinda harsh -- it might be interesting historically, or its holy book might be interesting from a literary standpoint -- but I would never want to be an adherent of that religion.

2. Socializing: I'm going to call this the "tree fort" model based on what Maria said. Suppose the coolest kids in town have a really sweet tree fort, and they have secret handshakes and chants to the Almighty Were-Tree-Bear of the Forest and a book of tree bear legends. If you want to be friends with them and get into that sweet tree fort, then you have to do the handshakes and the chants. So you do it.

I don't mean this in an insulting way -- maybe they really are genuinely cool dudes and over the years you become fast friends for more than just the tree fort stuff. But you still have to pretend, because if you ever told them "the Were-Tree-Bear is just a dumb thing you made up as kids" then they'd get offended, and might not be friends with you any more, and you definitely wouldn't get to hang out in their tree fort.

In that case it makes total sense to call yourself a devotee of the Were-Tree-Bear (or a Christian, etc.). But you should at least be honest with yourself that you think it's all a crock and you're just playacting to keep your tree fort access.

3. Philosophical/Historical: Maybe you're just interested in discussing philosophy and insights into human nature. Confucius had some neat stuff to say about human nature and relations. So did Nietzsche. So did Jesus. As a scholar, you could study all three (and Jesus holds a special position because of his pervasive historical influence over Western society).

You wouldn't necessarily need to become a Christian (or a Confucian, a Nietzschean, etc.). But maybe you become convinced that Jesus' views are just really insightful and he's basically your favorite philosopher. In that case, I'd say your views are still not strictly religious; you don't believe in his divinity, you don't believe he's the path to salvation, you just think he was a clever dude that was more clever than other clever dudes. I'm not the gatekeeper of words, though, so if you wanted to call yourself a Christian then I sure couldn't stop you.
---

Nobody is a Christian because Jesus is their favorite philosopher. And almost nobody would stay in a church if they don't believe in it, at least if they live in a community where they won't get ostracized for leaving.

I get that you're trying to make sense if this by drawing lines, but it's really more of a spectrum. Everyone's relationship with their religion is unique to them.
---

han: no-one?

incorrect as there are christians who consider jesus their favorite philosopher

Free will is a myth. Religion is a myth. We're all controlled by something greater.
---

INCEPTlON posted...

I cant believe that the planet is 2000 years old

you realize Christians don't believe this
---

MZero11 posted...

INCEPTlON posted...

I cant believe that the planet is 2000 years old

you realize Christians don't believe this

Should have been 6000, and i have met an equal number of Christians who believe this and dont believe this.
---

norenxaq posted...

han: no-one?

incorrect as there are christians who consider jesus their favorite philosopher

But that's not why they're Christians. Nobody is like "I don't believe in God or that Jesus is a divine being, but he says some good stuff so I will follow this religion".

INCEPTlON posted...

MZero11 posted...

INCEPTlON posted...

I cant believe that the planet is 2000 years old

you realize Christians don't believe this

Should have been 6000, and i have met an equal number of Christians who believe this and dont believe this.

There are enough who don't believe it where it's not a defining trait of being a Christian.
---

It sounds like you kinda cherry-picked things like "6000 years" to go "And this is why I'm not Christian" when those are things that aren't actually defining traits of Christians

The top half of your post should pretty much not exist
---

Yeah, like I said, it more just sounds like you're not a creationist

which is completely sensible

I have never personally met a single christian who believed the 6000 years old thing, and I went to a church full of them for half of my life

Well I do think something made everything. Essentially, I think the Big Bang was made by something. I just dont think humanity is something that this thing dedicated any time to or that it has anything to do with how we developed. I also think that whatever it is, is beyond human comprehension.
---