Christianity is Morally Bankrupt

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.

How do you propose to renew your mind if you're not allowed to use it? The implication is that you change from a goat that bleats, "Lord! Lord!" to a sheep.

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.

And what evidence convinced you that you knew God or were saved?What does either of those silly statements even mean?

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.

But nothing there answers either of the questions.And what evidence convinced you that you knew God or were saved?What does either of those silly statements even mean? Even if the change was real, what is the evidence to support any attribution to "knowing God" or "Being saved"?People change. People evolve.What evidence convinced you that you knew God or were saved?What does either of those silly statements even mean?Why do such questions never get answered?

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.

And you still offer no idea of what that even means?

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.

There have been many claims about knowing Bigfoot and trolls and the tooth fairy and Flying Saucers and Alien Abductions and then there is Jim Jones.I have never denied the claims, I have questioned the claims asking "how do you know ...?"And yet again you simply misrepresent what I post to try to hide the fact that you have no answer.I have never tried to define what Christianity is. I accept the fact that Jim Jones was a Christian and that what happened was a Christian act.Edited by jar, : hit wrong key

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??

Christians, honest people, do have a responsibility to acknowledge the bad things done in the Name of Jesus and Christianity. And as Christians, they do have the responsibility to make amends and to not repeat such acts.

It is not I who will judge.Remember what the guy called Cain asked?Have you ever read Galatians 6?Matthew 25?Ephesians 4?Romans 12?Colossians 3?Phat, it is not a matter of what I say, it is what is actually written in the Bible from beginning to the end.

Because what you think you know about the character of God and the serpent is bullshit. But you don't. You swallow hook, line and sinker what the apologists are feeding you. You don't make any attempt to understand what they're actually saying. On the contrary, i accuse you of ignoring the text, even contradicting the text. Have you read any of my posts at all? I keep asking you to use the text to support your assertion (not arguments) and you never do it. It's not at all "authoritarian" to point out that the text says what it says. You're the one who appeals to the authority of apologists. As I've pointed out to you before, you're the one who's in the minority. Christianity is a minority religion and fundamentalism is a minor Christian cult. Then show how i have twisted anything. I don't call myself a believer.But you're talking about people who believe in the apologists, not people who believe in the Bible - because the Bible does clearly depict a God who is capable of learning. If He has a mind, He should be capable of changing it. But He is. And the Bible is literature. You don't have to be secular or a scholar to read the Bible honestly. You do have to be honest. Why don't you try that?