Christianity is Morally Bankrupt

You didnt have a choice to exist in the first place. What makes you have this desire to choose your destiny? Could it be that you have a little bit of that desire to be your own Creator?

We don't always get to frame our own topics.But in reference to the moral bankruptcy of Christianity, don't you think you are taking too big a step in calling out all members of clubs christian that have Calvinist roots?I swear you must have had a Jewish Mother!

ok, so you believe that you have a responsibility to create your own destiny. Better?

are you asking why its logical that the Creator of all seen and unseen would favor us?This is where Jesus comes in.GOD may very well communicate with every sub species in the language that they can handle.And yes, this is often not logical. My bias comes into play. I suppose I would ask why not? Why would the Creator of all seen and unseen not communicate with us?Edited by Phat, : oops...double negative

i suppose its only logical from a human centrist perspective

its logical because the main messenger...Jesus---was a man and not a whale or a snail or pond scum

Yet you say that a God who picks and chooses is evil! Why would the Christians get singled out and picked on....being hypothetically rejected in a greater percentage than any other belief or non-belief?

There are likely far more Christians that have ever existed than there are(or were) Jews...for example. Besides...you use the word "welcomed". That implies a God who picks and chooses. Many of them dont know any better. They are uneducated and ignorant, yet not willfully so. I disagree with your assessment that they will be rejected and pitied. When it comes to who gets chosen, I reject the idea that only those who work hardest and try their best will get considered before the woefully ignorant who have clung only to trust.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Bias rather than logic, eh? Based on logic, we could say that "I believe that there will be far more bacteria, pond scum, and animals and insects in Heaven than there will be humans..From a human centric perspective, which I admitted that I had---and which I will admit is bias...its more likely that heaven will have humans as its main focus---not animals. Nor insects. But to your credit, I will concede that it is bias and not technically logical from the perspective of a Creator of all things seen and unseen.

I keep finding things you(jar) posted years ago which I am just now reading. Message 9 So I am reexamining this topic in light of the criticisms of religion and Christianity currently being discussed on our forum. The problem here is that you cant simply "save" someone who doesn't feel a need to change. They must first surrender. If you allow them to keep their own opinions and beliefs, you are really not saving them. I suppose the next question is this: If all of these various beliefs are allowed in Heaven, will there then be a universal consensus in that place? What would you expect God Himself to contribute to that consensus? After all, there certainly needs to be standards in heaven. It cant be some giant social club. That my point also. Everyone admitted to heaven needs to be transformed. They simply cant waltz in the door smoking a cigarette. (Unless God had no problem with it, which I highly doubt.) As would everyone allowed in the door. Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

Honest replies from both jar and ringo. The differences in their beliefs from mine and Faiths are highlighted here.
Whereas we believe that all have sinned and that humans are independent free-willed beings who will never fulfill their destiny without a spiritual transformation from God, such as Romans 12:2 suggests. This plus the exhortations to be Born Again emphasize a change. Just because you go feed the hungry and do altruistic acts of service, the implication is that to be a Christian implies sacrificing your free willed individualism. Doing isnt enough. One must be transformed.They seem to believe that Christianity is simply some humanist do-gooders club where any religion or worldview is accepted as long as they roll up their sleeves and help do the works commanded. To be sure, these are two radically different extremes. The issue is whether God or Jesus cares what they believe. Let's look at it this way. Say I am looking for a roommate. I can relax my standards to a degree if I want someone to occupy the extra bedroom, but there are standards. Should I allow them to smoke? Do I care if they throw parties? Do I care if they bring strangers into the house? The question is how inclusive or exclusive God's standards are. Romans 12:2 hints that a transformation of thought and behavior is necessary.As do these words of Jesus: Implication? Gods people need a shepherd. They cant just freely do as they please.
Look at the words of John the Baptist. Implications?
1) bear fruits worthy of repentance. In other words, you gotta change.
2)Bear good fruit. Granted feeding and clothing people is good fruit, so that is noted.
3) He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Implication? God will assist in transforming you and renewing your mind.
4) But He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Implication? Not everybody gets to come in the door. I could go on. There are many examples proving that people need to change and lay down their own agendas before being allowed in the door.

That's my point also. Why can't some scriptures be interpreted with what we know or think we know about the character of God and the motives of the serpent, (for instance).On the one hand, you urge us to use our minds. Then when we do, you accuse us of using the text to support our arguments (which all agree, by the way...no collusion involved, we all usually come to similar conclusions regarding scriptural meaning). You are quite authoritarian on the insistence of the plain meaning.So why do so few agree with you?Do you wanna know what I think? Its because you twist the whole story. You cant make up a learning-on-the-job god character and still call yourself a believer. God either knows what He is doing or He doesn't. Also, you don't read the book as if God is simply some character in the literature. That is unless you are a secular scholar using critical exegesis to begin with.As for jar, I think he knows what we believe and takes his best shots at mocking it. I find his interpretations pitiful and disgusting. I will admit that I expect the God I want. What I will say, however, is that I never knew God until I was saved. And I trust that He is more than simply some character in the book. Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

I hesitate to tell you this story because of your known ridicule of Biblical Christians.I don't have any facts to back it up and I don't have any real need to convince you or anyone else. I honestly don't know what exactly happened except that it was a definite perception of a major change in my life that has continued to this day. Granted I still show signs of my old self at times. I can be an ass. Anyone who has known me a long time will tell you that I have changed in some ays but am the person I always was. There is no magic involved. God is real, however. Jesus is as alive as I can make Him be through me. I believe that He does not pick and choose only certain people, but I do know of people whom it might be more difficult for Him to commune with. They have their own ideas.You asked why anyone should change. You questioned what transformation means. Theological words like sanctification, transformation, glorification, and communion are just words.I suppose that this lends support to your belief that Christianity is about what you do. All I'm arguing about is the fact that its more than that. But it cant ignore works. Jesus kept busy.

For the same reason that you claim your belief to be personal.Nobody is going to understand it anyway.When you insist on there to be evidence you cheapen the impact that such a belief does in and for people. You make it a common thing that anyone can have and you even hint that its common human experience. Perhaps it is, but I think that of all the Christians who claim the name, perhaps 20% of them at best actually feel close to God. And there is no evidence for or against that claim.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

I already know your basic argument. Once again, using evidence as the only standard, you will find I have none and dismiss my claim, arguing that the idea of God only reaching *some* people is exclusivist and is a hallmark of the carny deceptions of the apologists. Except that lack of evidence does not invalidate a claim based on the appeal to popularity. There have been many reported incidents, and your denial of that claim is just another sad attempt by the non-supernatural secular humanists masquerading as Christians and attempting to redefine what Christianity actually is. Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.