Why I'm Still a Christian

[Neo-Scholastic]

Lek, I’m impressed with your honest testimony. Everyone has their own reasons for joining AF. Nearly all the regular Christian members have an initial desire to see their beliefs from a different perspective. Those original reasons are not always the same as for why we stay. I’m glad that you feel you have grown and I agree with you on many, but not all, of the points you mentioned.

My own experience, as a former atheist, has actually been quite the opposite. At one time I held many of the same philosophical positions as most of AF atheists. Once it became clear to me that one strand of atheistic thought, ontological naturalism, fell apart in self-contradiction and paradox, I understood more and more that the objections I once considered quite reasonable are just not very rigorous. I find it very disheartening that so many atheists are swayed by modern falsities and a libertine culture. If anything AF conversations have prompted me to further explore the depth of the riches to be found in the Western philosophical tradition. At every turn my faith has found the support of reason.

Yes, it can be disheartening at times, knowing that an entrenched atheism will lead to a dire fate, but I feel it a duty to present and re-present the Truth of our Lord and Savior on the off-chance that a curious seeker might also find the hope that is in our hearts.

[abaris]

Early church fathers supported views of hell other than eternal torment, but because the catholic church embraced that view, it became the prevailing view. I believe that, although the bible does definitely teach of hell as a place of torment, I don't believe that it teaches that one's time there will be eternal.

You really should look up the views of early church fathers, since they're as diverse as they are interesting. Most of them opposed military service as being sinful. They also opposed capital punishment and to deliver any criminal to the authorities. So, following that reasoning, early christians often excommunicated soldiers serving in the legion.

The church as it developed in the late 4th century, is more a result of political gambling than of spiritual insights. They knew they would have to drop their pacifistic views to gain influence. And so they did - as simple as that.

Hell? Well, hell isn't exactly a christian invention. The German as well as the english word for it derived from the Germanic Hel. which was a goddess as well as a place. In the case of Germanic mythology it was cold rather than hot. Also many mediterranian cultures had that concept before christianity or even judaism evolved. The Egypts believed in being eaten by a beast and thrown into oblivion if the afterlife court of Osiris found you wanting.

[Ravenshire]

I was against gay marriage and civil unions, but I now support civil unions, but not gay marriage. I don't think the government has any business in marriage. I have come to realize that we are not a christian nation, but a secular one. Because of that all citizens are deserving of equal treatment under the law. I still think that homosexuality is sinful, but I think a lot of things people do are sinful, and this doesn't effect whether or not I care for an individual.

I have no problem with the civil union thing and government getting out of the marriage business, with one caveat. That the church get the fuck out of the legally binding agreement business. You want marriage limited to a religious function? Fine, as long as it has no legal ramifications whatsoever. If you want to reduce it to a promise before your gawd, knock yourself out. Civil unions could them become the legal end of what marriage is today and marriage can become no more important to the functioning of society than whether or not your holy shaman dunked you in some water.

Anyone who claims the buy-bull clearly defines marriage as one man and one woman hasn't read that fucking book.

[Minimalist]

I have no problem with the civil union thing and government getting out of the marriage business, with one caveat.

The government cannot get out of the marriage business because it is a civil, legal, contract and thus enforceable in a court of law. The courts are inherently governmental.

The church, OTOH, should fuck off.

[Lek]

I have no problem with the civil union thing and government getting out of the marriage business, with one caveat. That the church get the fuck out of the legally binding agreement business. You want marriage limited to a religious function? Fine, as long as it has no legal ramifications whatsoever. If you want to reduce it to a promise before your gawd, knock yourself out. Civil unions could them become the legal end of what marriage is today and marriage can become no more important to the functioning of society than whether or not your holy shaman dunked you in some water.

Anyone who claims the buy-bull clearly defines marriage as one man and one woman hasn't read that fucking book.

Marriage is binding to christians. And I agree that civil unions are pretty much a necessity to protect the interest of the parties involved. Of course, if all christians followed God's law in marriage, they wouldn't need a civil contract to protect the partners. As far as I'm concerned though, I'm married whether or not the government tells me I am. I don't need the government's authorization to be married.

[Ravenshire]

Marriage is most certainly not binding to christers considering the percentages in failed marriages. Still misses the point. You want government out of the marriage business. Fine, as long as whatever ceremonies are performed by the church have no legal status.

Whether you feel the need for a legally binding agreement or not, the church should not be granting them, period.

[Whateverist]

Marriage is binding to christians. And I agree that civil unions are pretty much a necessity to protect the interest of the parties involved. Of course, if all christians followed God's law in marriage, they wouldn't need a civil contract to protect the partners. As far as I'm concerned though, I'm married whether or not the government tells me I am. I don't need the government's authorization to be married.

Understood. I feel the same way about the church's sanction. That whole marriage is-between-a-man-and-a-woman crap is why it is hard to co-habitate with most xtians. I wish they would just enjoy the freedom to practice their religion their way and leave the rest of us out of it. Many 'murican xtians seem compelled to throw everyone else under the bus in order to suck up to their guy in the sky. I really don't mind believers being believers. I just want to get back the same tolerance in return.

[vorlon13]

I'm concerning over the 'not a Literalist' statement.

Am I interpolating too much to say that is your way of admitting scriptural cherry picking ?

[robvalue]

Welcome back Lek! I want to say I am really impressed with your decision to go think things through. Of course I'm going to still violently disagree with most of your remaining conclusions, and will be happy to debate them so you should desire, but the changes you have made are very positive and you are moving towards enlightenment.

I would consider you a friend. I bash ideas on this forum, not people. I find some things you believe to be horrible, but I know why you believe them. And honestly, I don't think you would go through with a lot of things you profess to believe in a real situation. That's just my opinion. I think you are a better person than you give yourself credit for, and your conscience would step in. I certainly don't think you'd hand your kid over to be essentially murdered by "faith healing" or other fake treatment just because they said somehing about jesus. I wonder have you changed your opinion about that? Basically, even if you say no, I don't actually believe you would do it because I have more faith in you than that. (Faith, he said faith! Ahaha!)

Anyhow, welcome back, and I look forward to more fruitful discussions. You are making progress to being a better person. Of course I don't expect anyone to just drop all their beliefs at once, or even ever become an atheist. But there is always room for improvement within any belief system, and you are definitely moving in the right direction.

Regarding "sin": sin is just what God doesn't like. If God doesn't like homosexuals, then he doesn't like part of his creation and is taking it out on that "faulty" creation. Where as in reality, homosexuality is a part of evolution, it's entirely natural, and there is nothing "wrong" with it. All it reflects is the prejudice of bygone age, which sadly still lingers today. But I feel your attitude towards this is softening, so I'm very impressed with that.

And regarding marriage, assuming you're in USA or Europe, marriage is entirely a government matter (as far as I'm aware). The church has no authority. All they can do is provide a venue, and someone to sign the marriage certificate. If the church just "weds" two people, without the certificate, they are not legally married. So the church can refuse to "wed" gays, that is fine. But the government can and should wed them, because the church has no authority over the legality of marriage. If your country isn't functioning this way, then it should be, in my opinion. Why should non-christians be subject to christian ideas of marriage? Would you bow down to what a Muslim tells you your marriage must include, or not include? If a Muslim says God demands you can't be married because of such and such, why should you care?

---

When I say violently disagree, all I mean is I have very strong opinions. I in no way am trying to suggest an aggressive or angry stance, because I am neither of those things, and I don't feel that way towards people when I use that language. It's probably a phrase I should stop using!

And I'm very impressed on accepting evolution, that is an amazing step and an acceptance of reality. Bravo!

[pocaracas]

I'm glad some of what we write on here has made a dent. Welcome to a more rational world, lek. Keep going, don't stop.