Out of this list, some are useless in terms of human morality. If we take it down to the bare-bone of what should be followed by anyone, then keep only 6, 8, 9 and 10 (with limitations but still, spending a lifetime wishing you have what this other guy has, you wind up not doing much).
The rest are add-ons, specific to the traditions of this specific religion. Number 1 is racist and discriminatory but I doubt its intent is towards hating other religions as much as it is about having its own members following only one cult at a time, please.
6,8,9, and 10 are basic human decency, and of course every single one of them has exceptions.
I don't see how 1 is racist, and it wasn't intended as discriminatory because I think it was intended just so that Jews would only be Jews. However, it's been used as an excuse to forcibly spread christianity.
You are right though...there is no logic in Christianity. I know that sounds weird to say that Christianity makes no sense yet I still believe it...but I do.
about commandment 3. You know that it's taking His name in vain to say "goddamn" or "oh my god"....you take God's name in vain when you use it without reverence. Anytime you say God and aren't referring to GOD or a god at all....it's taking His name in vein. Also anytime you use His name as a witness to a lie. such as when you are in court and you swear by His name...yet you lie...you take His name in vain as you have not used it with reverence and have used it carelessly witnessing Him to you're falseness.
"The Pharisee of the parable, for instance, used the name of God with a loud voice and raised his hands and eyes, but in vain. His intent was to gain arrogant personal satisfaction rather than to present a devoted prayer in repentance and humbleness."
^^ I found that one a website....does that explain it a little more for you?
Okay, I understand it better now. Thank you.
I don't agree with it, but I now at least understand.
I find it incredibly pretentious of God to demand that his name be used with awe and reverence. Who the hell does he think he is?
Vashti-
I suppose I don't believe that humans should even have to strive for such perfection. Individuals have the right to pursue the endeavors they see fit. "Do what thou wilt." I don't mean to blatantly reference Satanism, but I believe that sentiment. Which leads me to Rampage's comment...
I don't believe literally in Lucifer, no. You're right, I find symbolism in his image. But I'm not bashing every form of belief. The description of the Christian God is filled with inconsistencies, in my opinion. Now, there could easily be a belief that said some form of greater power created this world. It doesn't necessarily have to be a perfect, infallible being. Perfection is not a staple of a god, as is evident in the ancient mythologies. However, Christianity purports this idea of an omnipotent, omniscient god, which I find implausible.
Now, to WAIF:
People who follow those commandments believe that they will be punished for breaking them. They obey out of fear (or love, some might say; I view it as fear...). I don't understand why using the lord's name in vain is disrespectful either. Perhaps someone here can explain it to us.
Once again, the concept of fearing god is an invention of the church. I find the concept of a god you fear disgusting, frankly. It has nothing to do with Christ's concept of god, who was a paternal figure, stern yet benevolent, forgiving, and above all loving. This one is more like an abusive alcoholic father who beats the shit out of his kids every time they squeak.
at finding incredibly glaring faults in the tenets of Christianity yet believing it anyway.
If someone comes up to you with a rock in his hand and says it's a butterfly, do you believe him too? Think for yourself.
V5, no offense, but shut up. We've gone over this point repeatedly. I know you're not a moron, so either you didn't read my (or Zeph's) post or you're being willfully ignorant. Either way, please either contribute meaningfully or go back to lurking.
i don't see why god makes such a big deal out of 'believing in him' or not. i mean if he really wants to let us know he's there why doesn't he just do it? why all the vagueness? not only that... is it reasonable to send someone to eternal torment because they aren't convinced that said god exists even though he's suspiciously absent from the picture?
According to christ's concept of god, he doesn't. The idea that someone could be nice and kind and loving and all that but go to hell because they're a buddhist is again an invention that has no basis in christ's message. The original god was down with the heathens as long as they were cool. He'd just prefer if you believed in him.
Because then it would be concrete belief in fact, which is effortless, and proves no loyalty. Faith, however, requires effort and is a sign of devotion.
thank you. I thought I made this clear earlier, but I guess certain people didn't read my post.
Why would God risk the future and destiny of ones soul, with the chance that they won't be a believer and have them burn in Hell? In fact, I would rather burn in Hell, than worship a God like that, who doesn't care about his people. Also, if God did show himself, then the religion and worship would still require effort, like going to church, giving up sacrifices, etc.
My understanding is that the idea of people who haven't accepted Christianity going to hell is an invention of the church and has nothing to do with christ's original message.
