Christianity is Morally Bankrupt

But even that is wrong. I know you don't buy the excuse that people try and get away with responsibility for bad actions as being done by people who were not acting like Christians, but standards are standards. One is either Christlike or not. Helping rebuild Haiti was Christlike. Handing out paper towels to Puerto Rico was not. Christians don't have a responsibility to accept every bad thing the US has done. We are, after all, a secular nation.

What Jim Jones did was the act of a psychotic delusional mentally deranged mind. (or a demon) It most certainly was not a Christian act. Quit forcing us to be responsible for every Christian on the planet who does something evil. How on earth could we ever stop them? So why is it dishonest? Am I my brother's keeper? Even if the "brother" is some stranger a thousand miles away with a mental problem and a gun??

Fact: You are not a believer.You consider the book to be literature, and the characters to be limited to the book. Why must you insist that I dont understand it, implying that you do? Besides, you cant have it both ways. You cant claim simply that the book must mean a certain thing except for what it means to you.So you guys think believers and apologists make stuff up? OK, fine... let's go with that. You still need to explain why that is dishonest. Do I go telling you how you should interpret Treasure Island? Of course not. And many people can get many different things from the story.

I respectfully disagree. Whether you claim that Christianity is misrepresented or not, the fact remains that to many members who call themselves Christians, Christianity(as a Belief) is an interactive relationship between God and Man through Jesus Christ. You frame it solely as a responsible set of actions initiated and achieved solely through the humans involved. Granted your definition appears more logical within the context of observable reality--there is no objective evidence that God interacts with or changes the new convert in any way, but the belief is still widely popular. On a personal level, I believe that it can and does happen.We have talked of Romans 12:2 and what it means. For many Christians, the transformation is communion and is an action of God initiated by the response of the Christian to accept the call(or as you say the charge.) Correct me if I'm wrong, for according to you I often am. On that note, I am not attempting to define what Christianity should be any more than you are. I am simply reporting what many people believe.
The Renewed Mind & How To Have It by John Piper.(Popular Reformed Theologian)As you trot out your insinuations of snake-oil and fantasy lies yet again, keep in mind that if you were to say this about any other religion, (which you oddly don't by the way) it would be construed as disrespectful.We are discussing what mainstream Christianity believes.Critics will attack this belief, but I am showing it to be quite mainstream.

Beliefs? Opinions, maybe? Did it ever occur to you that some people do not see the Bible as simply a product of Man and a human invention? Are they not entitled to their belief without being accused of dishonesty?But of course, it lends support to the argument that transformation (Romans 12:2) is entirely our responsibility and that God has nothing to do with it. Which is only one argument, not a conclusion.

I was never aware that it taught that God was a growing character and lied at times. I was never taught that the snake was a truth-telling plot device. That sounds more fringe than mainstream to me.

All I am telling you is that the way I was taught is mainstream. And it makes sense to me. You are free to argue that what the Bible says is mainstream, but the way you and jar describe some of the stories, I can tell you it isn't mainstream.

Its the same when we had Bible Studies. But some would ask whether or not it mattered if the truth as understood by the students was revealed by God or simply understood by Man. It is an ah-ha moment either way.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

Of course, a "God" who was learning on the job would gain progressive understanding right along with the humans. But to me that's silly. Some critics would say that every assumption should be challenged. Others of us hold to the view that belief requires standing on certain precepts and not discarding them easily. Take my Christianity as I understand it.
I understand God to be the Creator of all seen and unseen who Fathered an essence that was (and is) 100% human and thus capable of Communion with us. I don't see God as a fellow sojourner learning on the job. I can accept the argument that says that human understanding (and belief) changed through what you call progressive understanding and in my opinion, continues to deepen to this very point in time. If Christian belief asserts that GOD became Man in order to conjugate this Holy Communion, one could hypothetically argue that the "God character" that jar often talks about is an archetype of Jesus living in us and through us. In which case a "learning on the job" character would make sense.

What makes you conclude that an all-powerful God has a moral obligation to use His power to make your life perfect and pain-free? Just because He hypothetically had the ability to alleviate suffering, what gave you the idea that morality and humanism demand a 100% effort...(a forced effort, by the way) to alleviate pain and trial in others? Essentially by demanding such a response should such an option be available, you are playing God yourself. And your outrage over the very idea that an all-powerful God would have to subscribe to your morality to be considered good is itself outrageous. Don't tell me you can't think of even one reason (hypothetical to be sure) why if God existed He had to behave according to your terms. Is that your only conclusion? That He's denying them access? I confess its a valid question. You may declare it a copout to simply shrug and say that God works in mysterious ways, and i can see your point. But in your concluding line of reasoning, you say that since such a God is illogical, it is more logical to just conclude that no God exists. Which to me is a premature conclusion based on a scarcity of evidence only of a God you conclude to be logical rather than One who is.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

OK, explain this one. Since when do every beast of the earth eat like vegetarians? Surely the humans knew better.

You say that the story has nothing to do with God, but what good would it do to establish a sacred week was God not the source of the sacredness?

Also another question that I have which bugs me. Where you differ from just about any other critic of Christian belief who claims also to be Christian is this whole edict that you often say to throw God away. Where on earth did you adopt that advice and why do you pass it along? I see no way that it helps anything.

As I research the EvC archives to gather quotes and respond to your line of questioning, I find nearly this exact same issue raised with me before, which i at the time ignored, likely having nothing to say.
Message 268I think you are steering the issue in the direction of GOD being unknowable and "likely not as humans describe Her as".Thus you will likely argue that we need to throw away all apologetic and pastoral marketing descriptions defining the character of God and instead focus on living out the character of Jesus Christ in us through feeding, clothing, encouraging and sheltering the least of these. Similar to how you live out Santa Claus.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I essentially see this as your belief and practice. I believe though obviously cannot prove that GOD lives through Jesus Christ transferred to humanity through the Holy Spirit, which is far more than a human-created marketing tool. In the end, though your method of internalizing the character and my similar claim of internal Communion and necessary imitation of the character differ little.

The only difference between my idealized "Body of Christ" and your hoped-for global communion of socialism is that your body has no head. And that may prove to be a BIG difference.