[Video] Why I hate religion, but love Jesus

[CaptainAmerica]

Unfortunately, this act of throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a common theme in many modern faiths.

If "Christians" would look at what Jesus did they would see that he studied all the laws of the Israelites and their history and he knew backwards and forwards. Of course in perspective Jesus fulfilled the laws and that spoken of by the prophets , he did not do away with law but fulfilled the law. Foundation of religion being: the covenants and laws which bind those covenants(vows/promises). The threat I see coming from the "christianity is not religion" people is that they will soon accept Unitarianism which has to do with accepting alternate paths to God which I completely disagree with as a christian.

 

[TER]

Indeed, everything in the Old Testament was a preparation for the due and proper worship of God. In fact, the worship of the Church on earth worships along with the Church in Heaven. It is the reflection of the worship of God in Heaven, as described by St. John the Evangelist in Revelation. The praying of the saints and singing of the angels and powers in heaven in communal worship, the incense, the Lamb sacrificed on the Holy Altar, the offering of incense, even down to the vestments. This has always been the liturgical worship of the Church, first before His Advent in part by those of the Old Covenant, and now with His Resurection and Ascension, in the fullness of the Holy Spirit within and above creation, uniting the created with the divine.

The new wine for the new wine skin is still wine and still in a wine skin, though now reconnected with the Father and restored to the glory of the divine image of God in man.

 

[Gimme Some Truth]

I see no problem with Matthew 5:21-22. Since murder stems from unreasonable anger, if we want to avoid murder, it is wise to run from anger; he who is unreasonably angry is nurturing the seeds of murder, and is thus putting himself in danger. I find this a rational and persuasive teaching- it has nothing to do with "thought crime" in the civil sense.

Yea, I've heard this argument before but I don't think it addresses the problem. He said that you would be judged (His word) for these thoughts. This is thought-crime. The context is judgement for murder in which Jesus adds that you won't just get judged for murder but also for anger (and other thoughts) alone.

Regarding Hell, what, specifically, do you find objectionable? If it is the "eternal-conscious-suffering" thing, I wish to point out that although it is now institutionally dominant, this is certainly not the only take on the matter, and I do not believe it is what Jesus teaches in the Gospels; look into Annihilationism, or the reading according to which the ultimate fate of sinners is simply destruction....

First, the obvious issue for a literal hell is that it's self-evidently evil to have someone tortured forever for simply not believing. The same goes for even rejecting Jesus in the instance that you do come to believe in the existence of Yahweh. In the case of crimes, not even someone like Hitler deserves eternal torment. No matter what, no matter what your crime or what your belief (or lack thereof), humans are not capable of doing anything which deserves eternal torment. Period. The reverse simply cannot be defended.

I don't think one needs to go any further on eternal torment but it gets worse. If the Christian deity is all-knowing, which most claim is the case, then he created the non-christian knowing full well that this person was going to suffer eternal torment before Dr. Paul even delivered him/her. It is literally the case that the deity in question has created someone for the end purpose of torturing him/her forever. Above I talk about how there is nothing anyone can do to be worthy of eternal torment but this is the only thing I can think of which would be worthy of such a punishment.

As far as annihilation is concerned, yea, I suppose it's favourable over eternal torment, but don't tell me that God is moral for destroying me for simply not being pursuaded that he exists. Some may say that he created me and owns me and thus he can discard me like a banana peel but we're not banana peels . We are sentient beings, we have hopes, dreams, interests, loves, feelings etc. etc. No-one here would argue that, irrespective of God's existence, we as parents could dispose of our children simply because we created them and own them

For what it's worth, if God did indeed exist and I was stood infront of him, I don't ask for Heaven, I don't ask for immortality (I fear such a thing would be a curse), I just ask to stay alive until I don't want to stay alive. I don't think I'd object to be punished for any wrongdoings I've commited against others. I've hurt the feelings of others, I've hurt people physically but I've never annihilated anyone so I don't think it'd be fair to be annihilated

...But then I am me and perhaps I am biased

 

[Johnny Appleseed]

Isn't a persons level of Christianity based upon the number of lost souls they have won for Christ?

 

[PierzStyx]

Isn't a persons level of Christianity based upon the number of lost souls they have won for Christ?

Not quite. Though it is a measure of it. I think it is said very well here: “A man filled with the love of God, is not content with blessing his family alone, but ranges through the whole world, anxious to bless the whole human race.”― Joseph Smith Jr. When you're full of God's love you want everyone to have the same experience.

 

[PierzStyx]

Yea, I've heard this argument before but I don't think it addresses the problem. He said that you would be judged (His word) for these thoughts. This is thought-crime. The context is judgement for murder in which Jesus adds that you won't just get judged for murder but also for anger (and other thoughts) alone.




First, the obvious issue for a literal hell is that it's self-evidently evil to have someone tortured forever for simply not believing. The same goes for even rejecting Jesus in the instance that you do come to believe in the existence of Yahweh. In the case of crimes, not even someone like Hitler deserves eternal torment. No matter what, no matter what your crime or what your belief (or lack thereof), humans are not capable of doing anything which deserves eternal torment. Period. The reverse simply cannot be defended.

I don't think one needs to go any further on eternal torment but it gets worse. If the Christian deity is all-knowing, which most claim is the case, then he created the non-christian knowing full well that this person was going to suffer eternal torment before Dr. Paul even delivered him/her. It is literally the case that the deity in question has created someone for the end purpose of torturing him/her forever. Above I talk about how there is nothing anyone can do to be worthy of eternal torment but this is the only thing I can think of which would be worthy of such a punishment.

As far as annihilation is concerned, yea, I suppose it's favourable over eternal torment, but don't tell me that God is moral for destroying me for simply not being pursuaded that he exists. Some may say that he created me and owns me and thus he can discard me like a banana peel but we're not banana peels . We are sentient beings, we have hopes, dreams, interests, loves, feelings etc. etc. No-one here would argue that, irrespective of God's existence, we as parents could dispose of our children simply because we created them and own them

For what it's worth, if God did indeed exist and I was stood infront of him, I don't ask for Heaven, I don't ask for immortality (I fear such a thing would be a curse), I just ask to stay alive until I don't want to stay alive. I don't think I'd object to be punished for any wrongdoings I've commited against others. I've hurt the feelings of others, I've hurt people physically but I've never annihilated anyone so I don't think it'd be fair to be annihilated

...But then I am me and perhaps I am biased

I think you raise some good questions. Perhaps my Latter-day Saint (aka Mormon) perspective might help answer some of them.

You're argument about Hell is relevant. After all even we acknowledge on Earth that no matter how evil a crime a punishment can be affixed and once that punishment has been paid then the prisoner is set free. Even in cases of murder we hold that the only thing justice can ask is to pay the utmost farthing giving our lives in payment for the life taken. What does it say about God that He would punish you for eternity for something that was a finite action with a finite consequence and a finite end? It would seem the imply that God is not being just, since justice requires no more than giving what was taken. So what does this say about Hell? It would say Hell is evil. The problem here isn't your line of reasoning, its the traditional understanding of Hell as a place of unending punishment where you suffer eternally. This is not the view the LDS have. For all but a select number of the most wicked (such as Satan and his followers) Hell has an end. Hell is a punishment, a punishment we choose by rejecting the Atonement of Jesus Christ, either here or in the hereafter. According to the eternal law of mercy those who accept the sacrifice of Christ accept Him suffering the punishment for their sins and fulfilling the demands of the eternal; law of justice. But those who reject God's mercy lay themselves open to pure justice, a justice which calls for their being punished in direct proportion to the evils they have done. But this comes to an end. This raises the question of if these who reject Jesus and suffer Hell will then be allowed to be with God in Heaven. The answer is no. When they had the choice to choose God or not they rejected Him and everything that came along with Him. They are released to a place of glory but they are damned to be out of God's presence forever. The LDS perspective of Heaven is similar to the Catholic view in that Heaven has multiple "levels", (but we only have 3 not 7) the lowest of which these people receive. While it is greater than Hell, but not the presence of God, they are eternally damned spiritually never to become like their Father and never to know the eternal joy of having their loved ones forever. This is what LDS understand scriptural teaching on eternal damnation and endless woe to be, an eternity of being without those you love and being out of God's presence. Before you feel to bad for these damned, this is what they wanted. Latter-day revelation teaches us that people gain in eternity what they want (Doctrine and Covenants 88:31-32). These wanted damnation and that is what they got.

God did not create us to suffer or be damned. In fact He created us with a far greater goal in mind, to become like Him, divine and full of eternal joy. But in order to become like Him we have to be tested and trained to know the difference between good and evil and to always renounce evil and always choose good. This is one of the purposes of life. But in order for this purpose to be fulfilled one has to be exposed to both good and evil and have the power to choose one or the other. And that is what we see everyday in life. We can either choose good or choose evil. Sadly to many of us would rather choose evil than good. But the system is set up to maximize returns while still allowing for our own individual free will, which is sacrosanct to God, it being essential to us having the ability to learn the difference between good and evil and thus becoming like Him. Whether in this life, or in the spirit world afterward, all of us have the opportunity to hear the word of God and accept the Atonement of Jesus Christ and to choose to follow Him and keep His commandments. Everyone who wants what God is willing to give them can choose to accept it and those who are unwilling can reject it and accept the consequences of that choice.

I have no argument for eternal annihilation. It is not something I believe in. All people, saints and sinners, are eternal spirit children of God and will not be annihilated in my belief.

 

[Gimme Some Truth]

PierzStyx,

Thanks for the reply. Unfortunetly I don't have time to reply in full right now and so would rather do so later but there is a quick question I'd like to ask which has always interested me when thinking of Heaven.

Would heaven truly be heaven without your close loved ones there with you?

As you say, those who suffer damnation are "never to know the eternal joy of having their loved ones forever", and I suspect that this would be the worst part of the whole deal, but that works both ways, doesn't it? In fact, one could argue that the person damned could be less troubled by the seperation than those who entered heaven (or the higher level of heaven) as it could be tempered by the knowledge that they're in a better place

 

[MRoCkEd]

First, the obvious issue for a literal hell is that it's self-evidently evil to have someone tortured forever for simply not believing.

I have to challenge you on this. Why is that evil? If God exists, He determines what is good and evil. If God doesn't exist, morality is just an opinion or preference.

 

[TomL]

^ I saw that on facebook. Yes, it was good. But I like this one better: (a must-see)

[video=vimeo;20960385]http://vimeo.com/20960385[/video]

Tried to watch this video but there were no picture, and the audio was choppy.

The first video was good. He got a couple things wrong. But I understand and share the overall sentiment.

 

[TomL]

That's a great message. I felt the same way about the relationship between God and religion, which is why I've found myself so attracted to Quakerism. I don't proselytize for Quakerism, but they have a singular plank that I think is truly awesome - namely, they believe truth is manifested in each and every individual human being (believer in Christ or not), and that religious hierarchy has a stultifying effect on people's spiritual growth. It's a very individualistic and anti-authoritarian way of going about the search for a higher truth and I think that's really what the mainstream discourse could use more of right now.

Quakerism is still man-made.

 

[TomL]

I've never understood why people say religion causes wars, hence religion is bad. In the last century till now, I'm sure well over 100,000,000 people have been killed do to needless violence, probably more than any other time in history. But seldom has it been over religion, can we honestly say the world wars were over religion, vietnam, korea, can we say that the genocides committed by the hands of secular marxists were religious?! Of course not.

If the church dismantled Christianity from it's true philosophy, then one should try to discover it again.

To some degree, WWII was fought over religion. It was certainly fought over ethics. They were trying to eliminate all except for a pure race of people.

The wars in the Middle East are definitely over religion. Oil is secondary.

Israel wants to rebuild the temple. Problem is, there is an Islamic mosque on the site where they want to build the temple. They have been fighting about this ever since 1948 when the United Nations unwisely establish the nation of Israel.

And there are several factions within Islam that fight each other.

American Christian leaders like John Hagee applauds whenever we go to war because of his sick and twisted view of Bible prophecy. He seems to think that the more war we have the closer we are to the coming of Christ, and the end of the world. That is a doctrine right out of Hell.

During WWII there were charismatic religious leaders like Billy Sunday and a young Billy Graham that ran around the country preaching, "this could be the sign of the end." Then there is Harold Camping who latches on to the "signs of the times" including wars and makes predictions as to when the end will come.

Vietman, Korea and WWII may not have been religious wars per se, but religious leaders made good use of them preaching sermons, writing books, making predictions about the end of the world and laughing all the way to the bank with the money they receive from poor dumb victims of these charlatans. And quite frankly, those religious leaders who take advantage of people that don't know any better really burns me up.

 

[TomL]

If I were to be asked a favorability question about Jesus I'd probably be in the "somewhat favourable" camp.

He pushed some very good moral principles but kind of let himself down with Matthew 5:21-22 (which is as close to thought-crime as you're likely to get) and his preachings of hell, imo.

On the whole tho still "somewhat favourable", not least because he created a religion centred around a less crazed deity than its predecessor.

Greetings.

Sometime ago, I wrote an article in which I stated,

Thinking controls what people do. So, by what people do we can tell what they're thinking. Before you do a thing you generally think about it first. And, you may have thought about somethings for a long time. That's called premeditation. Some things we do become routine, like getting out of bed in the morning. Although, as you get older, sometimes that takes more thought than it use to. Somethings we do, and situations we get ourselves into demand quick responses. But, most of what we do happens in our head before we act. This is also true for what we speak, although we think less about what we say than what we do. Speaking is somewhat different than actions. Speaking often demands quick responses which are based more on what we already know than what we're thinking at the moment. But, there are those who are more contemplative about what they say.

Jesus understood that in his statements in Matthew 5.21-22. Before anyone acts out a crime, they think about it first. So, we are held responsible for what we think. And only God can do that. Man does not know what we think, but God does.

I also wrote an article called "The Two Realms of Existence." Here is a part of it,

I have noticed throughout life that people are trying to understand the spiritual by using physical understanding. The apostle Paul states in I Corinthians 2.14, "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

http://sonofdavid.myfreeforum.org/The_Two_Realms_of_Existence_about425.html

The Old Testament Law was given to be people in the flesh. When Jesus came along and said, "but I say to you," he was teaching in the Spirit. And Paul rightly taught that people in the flesh can't understand those things that are in the Spirit.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

 

[JohnGalt1225]

Quakerism is still man-made.

All of Christianity is man made as well. In fact all religion is man made.

 

[HankXavier]

I didn't come to Christ until I learned that the religion doesn't represent him. As for what anyone else thinks about it, that's between you and God. I have enough to do working on my own walk with Him.

 

[lilymc]

Tried to watch this video but there were no picture, and the audio was choppy.

The first video was good. He got a couple things wrong. But I understand and share the overall sentiment.

No picture? That's weird. It was working fine for me... and I just clicked on it now in your quote, and it worked again. It's actually a very well-produced video, so I'm not sure why the picture or sound wouldn't be working for you.

 

[ClayTrainor]

If God exists, He determines what is good and evil. If God doesn't exist, morality is just an opinion or preference.

Either way you look at it, according to your challenge... Morality is a preference, it just depends on who's opinion/preference you are referring to.

 

[TomL]

No picture? That's weird. It was working fine for me... and I just clicked on it now in your quote, and it worked again. It's actually a very well-produced video, so I'm not sure why the picture or sound wouldn't be working for you.

It's my computer. It doesn't do videos to well.

 

[Jesse Penny]

Here's a Lutheran pastor's response to that video. Since the RCC and Lutheran Church are similar, so are the critiques.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

The purpose of law in the old testament and new testament is to recognize sin.God does establish principles,and laws through prophets, and Jesus fulfilled it through his death and resurrection.Needless to say Jesus calls for his followers to be like him. Jesus did not do away with law of the prophets,he said it himself he came to fulfill the law. Law =religion.By definition,case closed.