Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[robvalue]

@Laika This is one way to split up someone's quote in order to reply to each section. (There may be easier ways I'm not aware of!)

Click reply as normal, so that their whole post gets quoted. Say it has three sections you want to reply to. It will look like:

[quote=blah blah]
Section A
Section B
Section C
[/quote]

To put in your reply after each section in turn, insert [/quote] to stop the quote, write your comment, then write [quote] to start the rest of the quote up. So it will eventually look like this:

[quote=blah blah]

Section A

[/quote]

Your reply to section A

[quote]

Section B

[/quote]

Your reply to section B

[quote]

Section C

[/quote]

Your reply to section C

[Hmmm?]

Paul was only endorsed by the 'leaders'/of the Original 12

Drich, my beloved brother, are you sure?

[abaris]

Paul was only endorsed by the 'leaders'/of the Original 12

Given the scientific historical evidence for this, he could have just as well been endorsed by Donald Duck. It's on the same level of proven facts.

[Drich]

I have.

Here's the thing: Christianity is not hard to decipher.

So what does that say about someone who gets it wrong?

 

The bible has a shit ton of detail about lineages and whatnot, but the basic story is very simple -

less than 1/16th of the total volume is dedicated to geneologies.

Mankind is cursed with sin due to Adam and Eve engaging in the Original Sin.

"Original sin' is not a topic mentioned or taught by the bible.

God does stuff with the Jews,

As well as Everyone else

makes commandments, demands sacrifices, smites people, etc.

This was not so from the start.. there are a few thousand years between Adam's first day out of the garden and when any of that was true. So why the need for it? "pop morality" and the decline of man's ablity to identify right and wrong.

After a time, he decides to give humanity an out, so he sends himself (or, a portion of himself) down to live among the people and teach them the right way to live.

Actually the 'out' has been their from the beginning. That's what the sacrifices were all about. It was to train and ingrain what a sacrifice meant and the depth of what God was actually doing when He sent Jesus to be that final sacrifice.

Cue: virgin birth, blah blah blah
Jesus performs some miracles, gains a following among the locals

Why did he do those things?

, and becomes a threat to Roman control of the area.

If you remember, "Rome" Pilate wanted to let him go because he found nothing wrong with Him/He hadn't broken any Roman Law. He washed his hands of Him, and put his death on the jews.

 Claims to have fulfilled the old prophecies of the coming messiah, but, eh, let's agree to disagree.

If you want to resolve this disagreement I can point to 353 prophecies, and show you where/how they were full filled.

He gets sold out by Judas, learns about it/already knew it would happen, has a crisis of conscious where he prays...

The selling out happened after the prayer.

to himself (lol),

God is a title not a name. Jesus prayes to God the Father.

and lets himself be tortured and crucified to death.

... Holy Crap you got one completely right! good for you!!

In doing so, since he was the epitome of innocence and righteousness, his sacrifice magically gives the rest of humanity a way out of perpetual sin...

Their no magic about it. Jesus' Death and blood shed is the Physical manifestation of the Pain endured by god to forgive sins. We have been given this physical example of pain so we could have some idea of the Spiritual cost. In so far as we can learn to respect what has been given so that we may not be held to account for the sin we have committed.

so long as they believe that Jesus was actually the messiah, of course.

Belief, forcing one to act, not just an acknoweledgement.

Jesus is resurrected three days later, does a quick farewell tour/victory lap, and rejoins himself (lol) in heaven.

Jesus hung around for 40 days after his resurrection.

You can quibble about the details all you want.  That's the crux of the story.  The blood price paid by Jesus saves humanity, who would otherwise all be sent to writhe and burn in the hell his Phase 2 form created earlier.

"The details" are the whole point.. Knowing the 'crux' without the details is the same as knowing how a movie ends with out the work up/without the details of the story. The whole point of a movie is the whole journey, not just how it ends. What if i gave you the ending of the next starwars movie before you got to see it, what would you call that?
Whether you like star wars or not the point is discovering the 'crux' of a story is not the reason we go to the movies and watch them. its the whole journey, its the details leading up to the 'crux' that gives a movie it's value. The same is true here. Yes you can boil Jesus whole life down to your 'crux', but what gives His work any real meaning are in the details of his story. Which by the way maybe why so many Christians have the 'proof' of God that illudes you and everyone else who just seek the 'crux.'

It's a story with a ton of problems.  Masturbating over the details of the story doesn't address those problems.  And because the problems are so systemic (you need to take the bible's word for, well, just about everything... sorry, no; holy backwards morality letting someone else take the fall for what may or may not be my flaws; etc.) and obvious, I cannot take the tale seriously.  Nor can many others.

That's the thing, name one other work that age who has a better providence than the bible. I have said many times the proof of the bible is not found in the way you are looking for it (Even though no other work older than 500 years old has a more complete a more collaborative history. ) The proof in the bible is in the fact that it gives a set of promises, that God to this day still stands behind.
If the bible says do abc and God will give you XYZ then it validation is found in the receipt of XYZ, not in anything else.

So, to go back around to the beginning: why should I care about your attempt to educate me?

Read the OP.

 Is it going to fix all of the problems the core story has with:

I thought You did not want to discuss the details of the story, and yet here you have listed out problems with said details

Morality?
Biology?
Physics?

Likely not.

What is more unlikely is you being honest enough with yourself to point these supposed problems out rather than just giving a random list of random "problems" and not tying them to the narritive in any way shape or form.
Or can you honestly not see the basic fallacy in reasoning here?

[Drich]

Paul was only endorsed by the 'leaders'/of the Original 12

Drich, my beloved brother, are you sure?

Please, show me.

[Minimalist]

The bible has a shit ton of detail about lineages and whatnot, but the basic story is very simple -

The stupidest story ever sold.

[Anomalocaris]

The bible has a shit ton of detail about lineages and whatnot, but the basic story is very simple -

Complexity is well beyond any Bronze Age god.

[jenny1972]

i think everyone here is well aware of what christianity believes but drich how do you know that christianity is right other religions have stories written in books too why arent their stories right and yours are right ? what has convinced you what is your evidence that these stories are true and not made up?

[Drich]

Alright, for argument's sake, I'll admit that I misunderstood your intention as written in the OP. So instead, let's go along with your "trying to inform us of what Christians believe" goal. There are two problems with this:

1) You are giving us YOUR interpretation of the Bible.

and you are giving YOUR Interpretation of what I've said here. so what? You like me have a chance to correct/challenge anything that is misrepersented.

YOUR personal interpretation which is no way an accurate representation of what the entire Christian faith believes.

Which faith? or which version of the Faith? Are you suggesting that out of the supposedly 40,000 different expressions of Christianity mine is unique? Or are you simply defaulting to the logical fallacy of sweeping generalizations?
Because in the OP (Again) I point to a very specific faith/system of belief.

For example, when dealing with the topic of gays, at some point I read a post from you saying that homosexuality itself isn't the sin, but the sexual act outside of a marriage is.

Homosexuality is a sin, for the sake of that specific arguement. the person i was speaking to was pretending that because Jesus did not identify Homosexuality specifically that the rest of the bible did not matter, and homosexuality according to Christ was not a sin. I said ok fine lets go with homosexuality is not a sin. I pointed out Jesus still identified sexual sin as a sin... And because their wasn't a santified pretext Homosexuals could have sex they were still in sin.

Many many many Christians would disagree with you on that. Many. Some Christians believe that any sexual act between a man and a man is immoral not because it is outside of a marriage, but because it is happening between a man and a man. And some Christians believe that just wanting to sleep with another guy is inherently a sin.

I agree, i have said many times homosexuality is sinful, but their is/was a popular arguement that tries and mutes what the NT says about homosexuality being sinful. The point i was making was that even if you silence the NT on Homosexuality you still do not have permission, as the bible/NT still regulates who has sex with who through a santified marriage.

See this is a perfect example of someone's intrepretation being wrong, and then being corrected. Again you have that very same oppertunity when i go line by line through the NT. Otherwise know that a sweeping generalization (that all interpretations are untrust worthy) is a weak attempt at a general dismissal of something you can't/do want to argue.

You are trying to teach us "Drich's personal guide to the Bible" with the intention of us gaining an "understanding" of what Christians actually believe, but in doing so you are using your own viewpoints.

My 'view point much like how i address your post is line by line in context. The only time we go outside of that structure is to address a "what if.." that you all seem to be so fond of.

So to say that the information you are giving us is what Christians actually believe is misleading, because it's really what Drich actually believes, and you are not a stand-in for everyone. 

Again, Read the OP. My views only repersent "BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY" Meaning I only am claim to repersent those who only base what they believe only on the bible. That is why I have gone line by line in this study so far. This differs from doctrinal Christianity who get's it's ques from a man who wears a funny hat, or a consul or some sort of denominational committee who decides what a particular faith should collectivly believe. If you want to argue one of their theological notions against biblical christianity (like say a priests right to marry) then obviously the belief will differ from what the bible actually says. I can only point out that yes that is what they believe.

2) You make the claim in your OP that atheists lack an understanding of what Christianity is and what Christians believe. Now, I am an atheist. Do you want to know what I believe about Christianity?

Yes you believe that you are an unknowable snowflake and what ever i say you believe you will contest.

I believe that it is the foolish worship of a nonexistent being based on an ancient and factually fallacious book that contains scientific impossibilities including (but not limited to): the denial of evolution, 

Where does the bible say we must deny evolution? I believe your confusing denomination belief with biblical belief.

a virgin birth,

lol, A virgin in OT times was a young woman with hymen intact. (that was their only test) Now ask yourself is it possible to have a baby with your hyman intact? the university of NC says their were 45 since 1995 in the US.
(google it)

 a guy turning water into wine, a guy walking on water, and a guy ascending into the clouds.

And if these things did happen as described?

What if I said i could reproduce all those these feats now? To you, and some knoweledge of modern tech, you might cry foul, but what would someone who live 2000 years ago say? If we can reproduce these effects now then why would it have been 'scientifically impossible' for God to have done them then?

I believe that it has spawned so much discrimination and ignorance throughout the years (i.e. sexism, homophobia, justification of slavery, denial of evolution), that it is not worth having in our society. Especially when we know that people can behave just fine without it. 

Maybe because again. you like so many others do not understand the basics of biblical Christianity. Just look at you list of objections.. They are all sterotyped nonsense that is well with in the reach of MAN today. Yet you posit them as impossible. Why? because you have never seriously given any of this any thought outside of what others have pointed out to you to think. You 'think' you know, but as I pointed out your best 'objections' so far are bunk.

This is what I believe about Christianity and the Bible. 

You say I don't "understand" Christianity. Well, I'll admit again: I haven't read the entire Bible. But those things that I listed, do you or do you not believe in them?

Every blessed one. why? because they are all FIRMLY with in the realm of reason for an open mind.

And the negative effects of your religion, are they or are they not factually correct?

All religion has a negitive aspect, why? because at some point 'religion' is used by hart hearted men to get what they want. Understand though that With or without religion you do not eliminate hard hearted men who will maniuplate anything to get what they want. For them religion becomes a tool to serve a wicked nature. Our natures do not disappear with out God. Matter of fact they worsen.

Has Christianity not caused sexism, the subjugation of women?

The religion, yes. Biblical Christianity no. It was the first to give women any rights and forced accountablity to men to care for their wives and families for the first time in history.

Has it not been a leading cause of prejudice against homosexuals?

The Religion (Again religion is the work of man in the "name" of God/But absent of any biblical mandate) Yes, Biblical Christianity? No. Homosexuals are looked at as sexual sinners. If anything All sexual sinners were looked at with distain, but not until recently were sexual sinners given a pass, but homosexuals were not. Again not a biblical mandate, just something the self righteous among us (without God) have done on their own, but happen to use the 'name of God' to justify their own hate. Show me a Mandate to Hate or even 'judge' evil people let alone sinners. and I will point you back to Romans 2:1 where Paul very specifically says we are not allowed to judge/Act against EVIL People let alone sinners because we are ALL GUILTY of the Same things.

Again your ignorance here of basic biblical Christianity makes you beleve ALL Christians see themselves as being better hence the ablity to judge or hate those in unrepentant sin, when clearly this act would be in direct violation of what Paul says we are to do.

Was it not used and quoted during the 1800's as a way to defend slavery as a moral institution?

Again, If an Evil man wants to use you as an excuse to kill, rape and murder those people in whom you have issue with, yet in no way have you ever expressed a wish for any harm to come to those people, Matter of fact you have a strict live and let live policy, is it your fault your name was used to justify this evil? If you are not at fault for the things evil men do in your name, who then is? It is the evil in those who would use your name to commit the things on their hearts. Men then wanted slaves, they used anything that would sway an arguement to keep what they wanted. Otherwise know, no where does the bible command we all have slaves.

And was the Bible not held up as a reason to deny evolution (and is still used as such in some areas today)? 

Nope. Religion was used to deny evolution. It was man's understanding that the earth is only 5000 years old. because when you count the geneologies back to Adam and even include the protracted lives some of these men lived it comes out to 5000 years. So some very 'religious' person proudly proclaimed that because his understanding was such, no other understand had merrit.
How ever if you count the generations back you only come to the point where A&E were expelled from the garden and had thier first kids... Nothing in the bible says how long they were in the garden. It could have been a day month, year, 100 years or the billions needed for evolution to work. The only claim the bible makes are all from a central garden perspective. Meaning if you were standing in the garden this is what you would see about the world around you.
So 7 days of creation, then a unnamed amount of time, then the explution where created man (man with a soul) met evolved man. This explains the cities, and spouces mentioned in genesis that YEC's attribute to incest in a more biblically consistant way.

The failure of the YEC Young earth Creationist is Their view is not biblically based. The produce a number the bible does not mention nor does it endorse. That is why I said this is a doctrinal teaching and not a biblical one. Because when someone asks a YEC how old the earth is they have to refer to their doctrinal beliefs, and point to a number where the bible is silent on that fact. That is the difference between a Christian who believes in the bible first, over one who is doctrinally grounded. The Biblically based Christian only strives to Speak where the bible Speaks and remain silent where the bible is silent.

That is why when ask I said their was an unspecificed amount of time between the end of creation and the fall of man. that could amount to one day or the billions of years needed for evolution to work. Now couple that with the evidence found in the strata and what the bible actually does say about the spouces Adam's children took along with the pre-existing cities, it would indicate life outside the garden happened at it's own pace. How long all of that took.. I personally think billions of years is just some 'faith' number scientists came up with to try and take creation away from God, but bottom line it does not matter how long it really took if one speaks where the bible speaks and remains silent where it is silent.

So, then, in what way am I "not understanding"? In what way am I misrepresenting your faith in my dislike for it? 

By the objections you've listed almost everything. You are like a car guy who changes his own oil trying to tell a guy who worked on cars for 30 years and now designs them 'you' know everything their is to know. when infact your ignorance is staggering, yet you want to claim full knoweledge. I have studied this stuff2 3 hours (sometimes 7 or 8 with you guys) a Day Almost EVERYDAY for the last 20+ years, and what I don't know can fill libaries. So i don't pretend to be in a position to claim even 1/2 the mastery you all do. and yet look at how easily your objections were just picked off one by one. Not even in a subjective way that you can really argue (not to say you wont try) Most of what you know is absolutely wrong, and I've given you the right answers according to what scripture says and what it does not.

The only way you can prove that my understanding is wrong is by either proving to me that Christianity is not responsible for the things I have said it has been responsible for (which will be virtually impossible), or by proving to me that the things that happened in your book actually happened. That the book is true. This Paul and Romans crap really ain't proving that my understanding of your religion is wrong in any way whatsoever. 

And sorry for my late reply. I've had nine hour shifts the past couple days and I didn't have the time/motivation to sit down and write an entire reply to your post.

See above.

All i needed to do to prove you wrong is show a discrepency between "religious belief" and what the bible says or does not say. In 90% of your arguments you do not/can not make that distinction. Again I am not here to argue denominational doctrines and which one is right. In the OP I state I am trying to communicate what Biblical Christians believe. Nothing more.
For a biblically based Christian, if we do not have a command say to oppress women or own slaves or hate homosexuals then all of that even if endorsed by another religion is not apart of biblically Christianity. Again per my analogy with someone killing in your name does not mean You want them to kill anyone.

Does this mean I'm right/All biblically based Christians are 'right' and everyone else goes to Hell? No. We have one Great Command, and that is to Love our God with all of our ablity to do so and each other as ourselves. This means the same forgivness extended to us when we willfully sin is so much more extended to All of us when we try and love our lord God with all that we are and the best we can phathom is what some broken religion tells us. That said their is little mercy for the one who uses said religion to manipulate people as per Jesus' example of the pharisees. Our salvation is completely based on what God has given us and out faithness to it. (do we use what we have been given or to we try and coast our way in)

[Drich]

i think everyone here is well aware of what christianity believes but drich how do you know that christianity is right other religions have stories written in books too why arent their stories right and yours are right ? what has convinced you what is your evidence that these stories are true and not made up?

On the contrary. I firmly believe, what they say happened to mohammad happened as He says it happend, and for the sake of argument willing to give Joseph Smith a pass as well.. (and as i already stated where i thought greek and Roman gods came from which also have it's roots in reality.)

My objections center around what I used to 'proof' the bible. In that their books make claims/promises that are flat out wrong, or go unfulfilled. Their is a doctrine of faith till you die. I know most of you believe this to be true of Christianity but it is not. We have been given an chance to interact with God in this life. No other religion makes that claim/promise unless one is a prophet. In Christianity we have been given direct access to the Holy Spirit. A promise i took God up on and received. Now because that was true I know the bible to be reliable. Which can not even be claimed in Judaism. Because all other religions put God out of the reach of Man while Christian's purpose is to put man in direct contact with God. Yes their is an after life componet, but where we differ is God wants this relationship in this life as well.