A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / Other Topics / Lively Discussion about Religion

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Kevin
User ID: 0854544 Jul 3rd 1:08 PM
We were having a lively discussion about religion in the ACOK section. Unfortunately, it didn't seem to have much to do with the books. We can continue that thread for discussions about the religions in the books but I started this thread for discussions about religions that aren't book centered.

Paula
User ID: 1035294 Jul 3rd 5:30 PM
Kevin-

I think Omer is referring to 1st Kings, 18:21-38.

Omer
User ID: 0485244 Jul 4th 4:26 AM
Paula, can be... it's been a while since I read the bible... I'll do it again soon enough, though

Watcher
User ID: 1704034 Jul 9th 1:54 AM
I know I'm new here and I shouldn't be jumping into this deep of a conversation before you all learned to really hate me:)

But I've have had Kevin's theory thrown in my face too many times not to respond and help Omer (who is doing a good job without me).

Kevin that is called Pascal's gamble. It is better to believe in a god because the consequence are better. My response is that is very hypercritical. The only reason you do something is that you fear the consequences. If god is as powerful as the bible says, don�t you think he will know that you really don�t have faith in him? You are just scared of the consequences.

The is the problem I have with Christianity. You don�t do something because you want to or because of so-called free will, you do it because you are afraid.

I find that whole argument to be anachronism today. You will get a reward if you do good. I think it is better to have the deed itself the reward. I help people because I believe it is the right thing to do, not because I�m going to get an external reward for it.

To quote a better philosopher then I �How can you have your pudding when you don�t eat your meat?�

Omer
User ID: 0485244 Jul 9th 3:23 PM
well... I guess its not a very lively discussion about religion :-)

Watcher - the problem is that religious beliefs all orientate from an irational place( I'm being condescending here, I know, sue me :-), and all so called logical justifications are attempts to rationalise the irational.

Moreta
User ID: 9565813 Jul 11th 0:24 AM
Most of Christianity I see around here, esp. in politics, are mostly for show. If you know a little about politics (the right-wing Republicans), then you'd know that those people are not true Christians, therefore not to be believed.

I, myself, am an agnostic, but I do defend true Christians because I know some true Christians. Those people I know don't thump their Bibles and burn down abortion clinics. They're just human beings with different beliefs.

Kevin
User ID: 0854544 Jul 12th 10:56 AM
Sorry it hasn't been very lively - got busy at work (imagine that!).

Watcher: Thanks for a name for my theory. I came up with my theory at a time when I had reached the conclusion that you could not prove or disprove the existance of God. Looking at the theory, I recognized that it was the better choice to investigate God more closely. I came to believe not because of the theory but because of the things I found in my investigation. If someone came to me and said, "I saw your table, now I believe!" I would tell them to do more research, read some more, give it a lot more thought, have some discussions then decided what you believe.

I don't do good deeds because I'm afraid of the punishment. I don't do good deeds because of an external reward. This is the trick - I do good deeds because God wants me to AND I love God therefore, I do what he wants me to do.

Omer: I have already conceded the fact that there is NO way to scientifically prove the existance of God - what more do you want. Yes my faith is based on faith (irrational belief). My faith is also based on my experience, my thought, my reading, my discussions. Faith is a personal thing. I'm not ever going to be able to debate you into believing. Not ever. Not once have I said, "You need to believe what I believe." My goal with this discussion is to have God discussed by a group of intelligent people with differing views.

Moreta: There is nothing a true Christian dislikes more than a false Christian (especially polititians :) ). Are you agnostic because you haven't done research/thought about it or are you agnostic because you can't decide. There either is a God or there isn't. There is no maybe God. I was an agnostic for 20 years then realized I needed to decide.

Question for all of the aethiest/agnostics reading: Where do you believe the universe came from? I would like to hear from all of you. I will have a follow up but would like to hear your answers first.

Moreta
User ID: 9565813 Jul 12th 8:16 PM
Kevin, due to my "handicapped" condition, I decided intellectually that there IS a God, but I have no emotional belief that there is a God. Make sense?

Although people would consider my position paradoxical because I read Christian books and go to church.

I don't believe in evolution. It always has amazed me that scientists believe in evolution because it is a theory therefore not proven. When evolution is proven then I will believe, but not before.

KAH
User ID: 9209903 Jul 13th 8:35 AM
Kevin;

I guess I would fall into the 'agnostic' section, sort of...there's no established religion that I feel I could 'own' to.

As to your question about where I believe the universe came from...

In ye olden days, when people where a little more primitive than they are now, and when the most popular way to get a woman was to knock her down from behind with a big club, people didn't understand their surroundings very well.

Strange and powerful happenings like, for instance, a lightning strike, could be understood as the making of some super-human force - the wrath of a god! People did not have the knowledge, so they made up an explanation that satisfied their curiosity (until more modern times, at least).

Now we understand more of such phenomena...but I strongly believe there are phenomena that _never_ will be fully explained by science.
Like how the universe originated. Even if there was a Big Bang, what preceded it? And what preceded _that_ thing again? And so on. There is always something more beyond the horizon.

These things are things that I suspect I will never get a good answer for - and so I could be led to do as the caveman - maybe think that there is some omnipotent force, some existence, _something_ that supercedes my mental capacity, that I'm not able to grasp, and that have set the whole universe in motion.

A 'god'.

And that works just fine for me. I don't see why I have to go any further than that acceptance. I believe I'm able to lead a perfectly healthy life without the supervision of a god, and if he/she/it thinks otherwise, he/she/it can bloody well tell me so.

In person.

Watcher
User ID: 1704034 Jul 13th 10:42 PM
My beliefs are similar to KAH�s. People have used the intervention of a supernatural being when their present understanding of the Universe could not explain a phenomena.

There is still a lot of questions that are unanswered by todays understanding of physics. Historically just about every time someone said I don�t know why that happens, must be a supernatural event it was later shown to have a rational explanation. So I propose that we should be looking for rational answers instead of jumping to a supernatural explanation for everything we still do not understand.

The question is what was here before the Big Bang? My answer is I don�t know. Since the laws of physics breakdown at that point, it isn�t answerable. Does it matter?

Moreta:

Evolution is a valid scientific theory. Read _But is it Science?_ by Michael Ruse. He is a philosopher not a scientist and you need a good understanding of evolution and the creationism counter to get the most out of this book.

_Abusing Science_, Phillip Kitcher is an easier read of you haven�t read about this subject before.

A serious question: do you know the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific fact?

Xallanthia
User ID: 0867924 Jul 14th 4:52 PM
I have a question before I can (intelligently) join this debate. What are we debating? The existance of God? Christian priciples? The path to Heaven? Creationism vs. Evolution? Some of these answers I know from reading. But I want to hear the words from YOU.
~Xalla

Kevin
User ID: 0854544 Jul 14th 6:31 PM
Xalla: Yes. We are debating all of the above mentioned topics and any others you want to propose. We started out discussing the belief in God in the religion thread of aCoK. We moved on to the existance of God. We have mostly avoided going into deep discussions about particular religions (some references have been made). Evolution seems to be a developing topic.

What book have you read that has given you the answers to these questions. Reading the bible has given me many of these answers but I don't tend to quote the bible in a debate like this because doesn't provide proof for a nonbeliever. For example, you can't prove Microsoft puts out a good product by reading a technical manual for Windows95 (thank goodness).

(short version) A scientific fact is a theory that has been shown to be true in many many tests without it ever being shown to be false. Alternately, a theory becomes a fact when it is proven absolutely. Evolution has not made the leap to fact yet because of the "missing link". There has not yet been proven a direct line of descendency from the ape to modern day man.

Moreta, I understand fully your position on mentally acknowledging the existance of a God but not having any emotional ties to said God. That is the exact position I was in about 4 years ago. BTW, that is all the further my arguments go. I can give good arguments for the existance of a higher being but I can't (won't) try to argue an emotional bond. Every person has to make the decision whether or not to pursue a relationship with God as they understand him/her/it/them (whatever).

Is anyone else frustrated with this medium? It is very dificult to get complex ideas across on a bulliten board like this. You have to cut your statements short so you don't rant.

Last thought for the day. I am genuinely interested in your answers to my question. I agree that man has historically jumped to give credit to a higher power for things he didn't understand. My only stumbling block on this issue is that the laws of physics that need to be violated to create something out of nothing require something FAR beyond our current understanding of science.

Jeff
User ID: 1578334 Jul 14th 8:03 PM
Moreta, I'm really curious as to your basis for the blanket statement that right wing Republicans are not "true Christians". I doubt that any of us have sufficient telepathy to judge the genuineness of the religious beliefs of rather large group of people. Your comment also begs the question of what you consider to be the characteristics of a "true Christian".

Moreta
User ID: 9565813 Jul 15th 11:05 AM
Certainly there are some Republicans who are Christians :) but one thing I would not consider Christianlike is adultery. Do you remember that whole brouhaha about Monica Lewinksy (ugh)? It turned out that many of those Republicans who accused Clinton had affairs themselves. They should have read about that story about Jesus and the adulterous woman. In the end, Jesus said something like "If anyone of you are without sin, then stone her." No one stoned her.

Kevin could explain the definition of a true Chrisitan better, seeing that he is one, but I can't explain it well. The word that comes to my mind is humility and love (No hell and brimstone talk). Kevin?

Ahhhh, I see I need to make myself more clear :) Before in a previous post, I referred myself as "handicapped." I don't know what you guys thought about that, so I'm explaining that statement better. It is true. In the eyes of the American government and others, I am handicapped. That is one of the politically correct terms to call me. So, this is one of the things that has made me an agnostic.

KAH
User ID: 9209903 Jul 15th 11:35 AM
Moreta;

Uh...you mean _you_ don't consider yourself 'handicapped', as opposed to the American government and others?

Or is this a subtle way of coming out of the closet?

***waiting for Clue Stick to bounce painfully back from head***

Sorry, but as clarification goes, I was left pretty confused here.
Perhaps you could provide a politically _incorrect_ term for yourself. :)
Or just tell me to bugger off, seeing as this is not my business at all. :)

Emily
User ID: 3688974 Jul 15th 11:36 AM
I'll keep this brief.

Christianity - I agree with Watcher. Christianity was based on fear: 'Do as we tell you or you'll burn in hell. And if that doesn't work, we'll burn you on Earth too.' Christianity - and Catholicism in particular - is now in crisis because few people actually believe that rubbish about damnation any more.

Creation - how the hell should I know? Give science a few more centuries to come up with an explanation, and if it still can't, I'll believe that Doctor Who went back in time in his TARDIS and started the Big Bang.

Agnosticism - well, to quote Professor Dawkins, I'm not agnostic about the tooth fairy so I'm not agnostic about God.

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Jul 15th 12:08 PM
I'll disagree with emily and at least her interpretation of what Watcher said. Saying that Christianity is "based" on fear is quite an overstatement. There were times in the history of Christianity when fear was the primary motivator and when heretics were burned. But there also were a lot times when that was not the majority practice.

Certainly, there is a carrot and stick element present. But my reading of the Bible and particularly early Christianity suggests that it was the positive lure of the afterlife, not the threat of damantion, that was the primary motivator. Its hard to lure somebody to a religion without a positive message. Once you've got them, the threats may work to keep them.

The problem Christianity and other religions now face is that the world isn't nearly as harsh and brutal a place as it was in the past. So, the lure of the afterlife is less compelling. Its much easier to believe (and want to believe) in the afterlife when you're an abused peasant than when you own a house, two cars, and a satellite dish.

Kevin
User ID: 0854544 Jul 15th 3:04 PM
That's it!!! Now I know why I'm a Christian, I don't have a satellite dish! Don't even have cable. To top it off, one of my cars doesn't work.

Kevin
User ID: 0854544 Jul 15th 3:17 PM
Welcome Emily. Been wondering when you would finally post on this subject. A clarification on Catholicism - In the mid 70's, the Catholic church realized that what was being taught (fire and brimstone) in some of the churches did not match the views of the church as a whole. They then came up with the "official" statement that the hell and damnation viewpoint was not the message Catholicism wanted to give.

This was not a change as much as it was making an implied practice an explicit policy.

Kevin
User ID: 0854544 Jul 15th 3:41 PM
My definition of a true Christian?
1) Believing that Jesus Christ was the son of God and that he died for the forgiveness of our sins. That's the big one.
2) Makes a continual effort to follow what God wants him/her to do to the best of his/her ability. This includes several things (in no particular order):
a) Serves others.
b) Does not judge others.
c) Learn and grow in your belief.
d) Expand your love of God.
e) Serve as an example of God's love to others.
f) 10 commandments.
g) Recognizing that you are going to make mistakes and asking for forgiveness and realising that others are going to make mistakes and forgiving them.

There is more but the above gives a decent sample.

As to the right wing Christian Fundamentalist Wackos as one local radio personallity calls them it is not for me to judge. I can watch their actions and think that they sometimes do not portray the Christian image but I don't know what is in their hearts. Maybe they say they are Christian for the votes. Maybe they are just off track. Their faith is between them and God.

If you caught me at the wrong time, you might walk away wondering, "That guy is Christian??? What kind of God does he believe in?" or "He doesn't practice what he preaches." My job is to try to makes those wrong times as few as I possibly can.

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Kevin User ID: 0854544	Jul 3rd 1:08 PM We were having a lively discussion about religion in the ACOK section. Unfortunately, it didn't seem to have much to do with the books. We can continue that thread for discussions about the religions in the books but I started this thread for discussions about religions that aren't book centered.
Paula User ID: 1035294	Jul 3rd 5:30 PM Kevin- I think Omer is referring to 1st Kings, 18:21-38.
Omer User ID: 0485244	Jul 4th 4:26 AM Paula, can be... it's been a while since I read the bible... I'll do it again soon enough, though
Watcher User ID: 1704034	Jul 9th 1:54 AM I know I'm new here and I shouldn't be jumping into this deep of a conversation before you all learned to really hate me:) But I've have had Kevin's theory thrown in my face too many times not to respond and help Omer (who is doing a good job without me). Kevin that is called Pascal's gamble. It is better to believe in a god because the consequence are better. My response is that is very hypercritical. The only reason you do something is that you fear the consequences. If god is as powerful as the bible says, don�t you think he will know that you really don�t have faith in him? You are just scared of the consequences. The is the problem I have with Christianity. You don�t do something because you want to or because of so-called free will, you do it because you are afraid. I find that whole argument to be anachronism today. You will get a reward if you do good. I think it is better to have the deed itself the reward. I help people because I believe it is the right thing to do, not because I�m going to get an external reward for it. To quote a better philosopher then I �How can you have your pudding when you don�t eat your meat?�
Omer User ID: 0485244	Jul 9th 3:23 PM well... I guess its not a very lively discussion about religion :-) Watcher - the problem is that religious beliefs all orientate from an irational place( I'm being condescending here, I know, sue me :-), and all so called logical justifications are attempts to rationalise the irational.
Moreta User ID: 9565813	Jul 11th 0:24 AM Most of Christianity I see around here, esp. in politics, are mostly for show. If you know a little about politics (the right-wing Republicans), then you'd know that those people are not true Christians, therefore not to be believed. I, myself, am an agnostic, but I do defend true Christians because I know some true Christians. Those people I know don't thump their Bibles and burn down abortion clinics. They're just human beings with different beliefs.
Kevin User ID: 0854544	Jul 12th 10:56 AM Sorry it hasn't been very lively - got busy at work (imagine that!). Watcher: Thanks for a name for my theory. I came up with my theory at a time when I had reached the conclusion that you could not prove or disprove the existance of God. Looking at the theory, I recognized that it was the better choice to investigate God more closely. I came to believe not because of the theory but because of the things I found in my investigation. If someone came to me and said, "I saw your table, now I believe!" I would tell them to do more research, read some more, give it a lot more thought, have some discussions then decided what you believe. I don't do good deeds because I'm afraid of the punishment. I don't do good deeds because of an external reward. This is the trick - I do good deeds because God wants me to AND I love God therefore, I do what he wants me to do. Omer: I have already conceded the fact that there is NO way to scientifically prove the existance of God - what more do you want. Yes my faith is based on faith (irrational belief). My faith is also based on my experience, my thought, my reading, my discussions. Faith is a personal thing. I'm not ever going to be able to debate you into believing. Not ever. Not once have I said, "You need to believe what I believe." My goal with this discussion is to have God discussed by a group of intelligent people with differing views. Moreta: There is nothing a true Christian dislikes more than a false Christian (especially polititians :) ). Are you agnostic because you haven't done research/thought about it or are you agnostic because you can't decide. There either is a God or there isn't. There is no maybe God. I was an agnostic for 20 years then realized I needed to decide. Question for all of the aethiest/agnostics reading: Where do you believe the universe came from? I would like to hear from all of you. I will have a follow up but would like to hear your answers first.
Moreta User ID: 9565813	Jul 12th 8:16 PM Kevin, due to my "handicapped" condition, I decided intellectually that there IS a God, but I have no emotional belief that there is a God. Make sense? Although people would consider my position paradoxical because I read Christian books and go to church. I don't believe in evolution. It always has amazed me that scientists believe in evolution because it is a theory therefore not proven. When evolution is proven then I will believe, but not before.
KAH User ID: 9209903	Jul 13th 8:35 AM Kevin; I guess I would fall into the 'agnostic' section, sort of...there's no established religion that I feel I could 'own' to. As to your question about where I believe the universe came from... In ye olden days, when people where a little more primitive than they are now, and when the most popular way to get a woman was to knock her down from behind with a big club, people didn't understand their surroundings very well. Strange and powerful happenings like, for instance, a lightning strike, could be understood as the making of some super-human force - the wrath of a god! People did not have the knowledge, so they made up an explanation that satisfied their curiosity (until more modern times, at least). Now we understand more of such phenomena...but I strongly believe there are phenomena that _never_ will be fully explained by science. Like how the universe originated. Even if there was a Big Bang, what preceded it? And what preceded _that_ thing again? And so on. There is always something more beyond the horizon. These things are things that I suspect I will never get a good answer for - and so I could be led to do as the caveman - maybe think that there is some omnipotent force, some existence, _something_ that supercedes my mental capacity, that I'm not able to grasp, and that have set the whole universe in motion. A 'god'. And that works just fine for me. I don't see why I have to go any further than that acceptance. I believe I'm able to lead a perfectly healthy life without the supervision of a god, and if he/she/it thinks otherwise, he/she/it can bloody well tell me so. In person.
Watcher User ID: 1704034	Jul 13th 10:42 PM My beliefs are similar to KAH�s. People have used the intervention of a supernatural being when their present understanding of the Universe could not explain a phenomena. There is still a lot of questions that are unanswered by todays understanding of physics. Historically just about every time someone said I don�t know why that happens, must be a supernatural event it was later shown to have a rational explanation. So I propose that we should be looking for rational answers instead of jumping to a supernatural explanation for everything we still do not understand. The question is what was here before the Big Bang? My answer is I don�t know. Since the laws of physics breakdown at that point, it isn�t answerable. Does it matter? Moreta: Evolution is a valid scientific theory. Read _But is it Science?_ by Michael Ruse. He is a philosopher not a scientist and you need a good understanding of evolution and the creationism counter to get the most out of this book. _Abusing Science_, Phillip Kitcher is an easier read of you haven�t read about this subject before. A serious question: do you know the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific fact?
Xallanthia User ID: 0867924	Jul 14th 4:52 PM I have a question before I can (intelligently) join this debate. What are we debating? The existance of God? Christian priciples? The path to Heaven? Creationism vs. Evolution? Some of these answers I know from reading. But I want to hear the words from YOU. ~Xalla
Kevin User ID: 0854544	Jul 14th 6:31 PM Xalla: Yes. We are debating all of the above mentioned topics and any others you want to propose. We started out discussing the belief in God in the religion thread of aCoK. We moved on to the existance of God. We have mostly avoided going into deep discussions about particular religions (some references have been made). Evolution seems to be a developing topic. What book have you read that has given you the answers to these questions. Reading the bible has given me many of these answers but I don't tend to quote the bible in a debate like this because doesn't provide proof for a nonbeliever. For example, you can't prove Microsoft puts out a good product by reading a technical manual for Windows95 (thank goodness). (short version) A scientific fact is a theory that has been shown to be true in many many tests without it ever being shown to be false. Alternately, a theory becomes a fact when it is proven absolutely. Evolution has not made the leap to fact yet because of the "missing link". There has not yet been proven a direct line of descendency from the ape to modern day man. Moreta, I understand fully your position on mentally acknowledging the existance of a God but not having any emotional ties to said God. That is the exact position I was in about 4 years ago. BTW, that is all the further my arguments go. I can give good arguments for the existance of a higher being but I can't (won't) try to argue an emotional bond. Every person has to make the decision whether or not to pursue a relationship with God as they understand him/her/it/them (whatever). Is anyone else frustrated with this medium? It is very dificult to get complex ideas across on a bulliten board like this. You have to cut your statements short so you don't rant. Last thought for the day. I am genuinely interested in your answers to my question. I agree that man has historically jumped to give credit to a higher power for things he didn't understand. My only stumbling block on this issue is that the laws of physics that need to be violated to create something out of nothing require something FAR beyond our current understanding of science.
Jeff User ID: 1578334	Jul 14th 8:03 PM Moreta, I'm really curious as to your basis for the blanket statement that right wing Republicans are not "true Christians". I doubt that any of us have sufficient telepathy to judge the genuineness of the religious beliefs of rather large group of people. Your comment also begs the question of what you consider to be the characteristics of a "true Christian".
Moreta User ID: 9565813	Jul 15th 11:05 AM Certainly there are some Republicans who are Christians :) but one thing I would not consider Christianlike is adultery. Do you remember that whole brouhaha about Monica Lewinksy (ugh)? It turned out that many of those Republicans who accused Clinton had affairs themselves. They should have read about that story about Jesus and the adulterous woman. In the end, Jesus said something like "If anyone of you are without sin, then stone her." No one stoned her. Kevin could explain the definition of a true Chrisitan better, seeing that he is one, but I can't explain it well. The word that comes to my mind is humility and love (No hell and brimstone talk). Kevin? Ahhhh, I see I need to make myself more clear :) Before in a previous post, I referred myself as "handicapped." I don't know what you guys thought about that, so I'm explaining that statement better. It is true. In the eyes of the American government and others, I am handicapped. That is one of the politically correct terms to call me. So, this is one of the things that has made me an agnostic.
KAH User ID: 9209903	Jul 15th 11:35 AM Moreta; Uh...you mean _you_ don't consider yourself 'handicapped', as opposed to the American government and others? Or is this a subtle way of coming out of the closet? *waiting for Clue Stick to bounce painfully back from head* Sorry, but as clarification goes, I was left pretty confused here. Perhaps you could provide a politically _incorrect_ term for yourself. :) Or just tell me to bugger off, seeing as this is not my business at all. :)
Emily User ID: 3688974	Jul 15th 11:36 AM I'll keep this brief. Christianity - I agree with Watcher. Christianity was based on fear: 'Do as we tell you or you'll burn in hell. And if that doesn't work, we'll burn you on Earth too.' Christianity - and Catholicism in particular - is now in crisis because few people actually believe that rubbish about damnation any more. Creation - how the hell should I know? Give science a few more centuries to come up with an explanation, and if it still can't, I'll believe that Doctor Who went back in time in his TARDIS and started the Big Bang. Agnosticism - well, to quote Professor Dawkins, I'm not agnostic about the tooth fairy so I'm not agnostic about God.
Jeff User ID: 0227464	Jul 15th 12:08 PM I'll disagree with emily and at least her interpretation of what Watcher said. Saying that Christianity is "based" on fear is quite an overstatement. There were times in the history of Christianity when fear was the primary motivator and when heretics were burned. But there also were a lot times when that was not the majority practice. Certainly, there is a carrot and stick element present. But my reading of the Bible and particularly early Christianity suggests that it was the positive lure of the afterlife, not the threat of damantion, that was the primary motivator. Its hard to lure somebody to a religion without a positive message. Once you've got them, the threats may work to keep them. The problem Christianity and other religions now face is that the world isn't nearly as harsh and brutal a place as it was in the past. So, the lure of the afterlife is less compelling. Its much easier to believe (and want to believe) in the afterlife when you're an abused peasant than when you own a house, two cars, and a satellite dish.
Kevin User ID: 0854544	Jul 15th 3:04 PM That's it!!! Now I know why I'm a Christian, I don't have a satellite dish! Don't even have cable. To top it off, one of my cars doesn't work.
Kevin User ID: 0854544	Jul 15th 3:17 PM Welcome Emily. Been wondering when you would finally post on this subject. A clarification on Catholicism - In the mid 70's, the Catholic church realized that what was being taught (fire and brimstone) in some of the churches did not match the views of the church as a whole. They then came up with the "official" statement that the hell and damnation viewpoint was not the message Catholicism wanted to give. This was not a change as much as it was making an implied practice an explicit policy.
Kevin User ID: 0854544	Jul 15th 3:41 PM My definition of a true Christian? 1) Believing that Jesus Christ was the son of God and that he died for the forgiveness of our sins. That's the big one. 2) Makes a continual effort to follow what God wants him/her to do to the best of his/her ability. This includes several things (in no particular order): a) Serves others. b) Does not judge others. c) Learn and grow in your belief. d) Expand your love of God. e) Serve as an example of God's love to others. f) 10 commandments. g) Recognizing that you are going to make mistakes and asking for forgiveness and realising that others are going to make mistakes and forgiving them. There is more but the above gives a decent sample. As to the right wing Christian Fundamentalist Wackos as one local radio personallity calls them it is not for me to judge. I can watch their actions and think that they sometimes do not portray the Christian image but I don't know what is in their hearts. Maybe they say they are Christian for the votes. Maybe they are just off track. Their faith is between them and God. If you caught me at the wrong time, you might walk away wondering, "That guy is Christian??? What kind of God does he believe in?" or "He doesn't practice what he preaches." My job is to try to makes those wrong times as few as I possibly can.