there Is No God?

[TheHate]

Hi everyone i am ashley, i am a senior in high school age 17
i just wanted to discuss the matter of religon
my mom has always gone to church and what-not
and tried getting me to go.
I agreed but did not like it...
i felt in my mind
how can you bealive some invisable man up in the sky, he gives you 10 things not to do, and if you do them you go to a fiery world?
does that should like love to you?
personally me it did not
and then to think, i get a person on my game messaging me daily saying "God loves you' EVERY DAY! i usually curse at him and not speak to him for a bit. But we had a heated debate on religion and i said"Tell me how you bealive something that has no proven facts NON" and he replys "because i have faith" , In retaliation i said "what if you are wrong?, what if there is nothing and you wasted your whole life"? and he replyed "i would have done it out of love"
Mind you, he is about 13 , but how are you going to waste your entiere life on something that may not exist . Then i relized, i am Atheists because i have had so many discustions on this that it is entierlly to confusing so Atheists is the way to go in my opinion.
But if anyone has anything to say otherwise i gues...enlighten me
but also my mind may not be changed easly
my mind is not easly corrupted

[daedalus 2.0]

Partly because slavery isn't considered too cool anymore...

What???

I responded to this part:

I consider a Christian someone who follows the message of Jesus, but I don't think that's the popular definition.

Part of Jesus' message was that slavery was acceptable. It's gone out of favor in most regions of the world, luckily.

(There are other parts of Jesus' message that isn't too cool, either: ditch your family to follow Jesus, get rid of all your belongings, rip out your eye if you look at a sexy girl, etc.)

[Jester]

Hi everyone i am ashley, i am a senior in high school age 17

Hello there, my name's David (and, yes, I know I have a girl's face as my avatar right now, that's a picture I took of my wife).

i just wanted to discuss the matter of religon

You're definitely in the right place.

my mom has always gone to church and what-not
and tried getting me to go.
I agreed but did not like it...

I don't like church about half the time myself. Probably for different reasons, but I empathise all the same.

i felt in my mind
how can you bealive some invisable man up in the sky, he gives you 10 things not to do, and if you do them you go to a fiery world?
does that should like love to you?
personally me it did not

There's a long explanation there. The short version is that those ten things are things you do when you don't care about him or others. The firey world is what things are naturally like when he's not around anymore.

and then to think, i get a person on my game messaging me daily saying "God loves you' EVERY DAY!

I haven't had that myself, but I get a lot of Christian inspiriational e-mails that I mark as spam.

i usually curse at him and not speak to him for a bit. But we had a heated debate on religion and i said"Tell me how you bealive something that has no proven facts NON" and he replys "because i have faith"

If it had been me, I would have pointed out that no fact is absolutely proven, but that Christianity is as supported as any perspective.

In retaliation i said "what if you are wrong?, what if there is nothing and you wasted your whole life"? and he replyed "i would have done it out of love"

That sounds very noble of him, but I can't say that my reaction would have been all that different from yours. Mostly, there's the fact that the thing any of us live our lives for could turn out to be meaningless, or simply be destroyed in the end. We're all taking that risk.

Mind you, he is about 13

I remember being 13. I hated it, and probably said some very dumb things.

but how are you going to waste your entiere life on something that may not exist .

Again, this basic stance could be applied to darn near anything. We all have to make a choice, and none of us know for certain.

Then i relized, i am Atheists because i have had so many discustions on this that it is entierlly to confusing so Atheists is the way to go in my opinion.

Well, I can respect your opinion. Obviously, I'm not atheist myself, and will maintain that Christianity is more realistic than your 13 year old evangelist seems to be making it sound, but that's for you to decide.

But if anyone has anything to say otherwise i gues...enlighten me

That's a very long discussion.
The overview is that most of the biggest refutations to Christianity I've seen depend on a particular interpretation of it that is clearly inacurate. It is also a realistic perspective historically.
But, yes, there is a certain amount of faith required. To be Christian, atheist, or anything else. The fact is that there isn't one certain answer, so we're all going to have to decide for ourselves.

but also my mind may not be changed easly
my mind is not easly corrupted

Good for you, then.
Frankly, if its not you deciding on your own, it doesn't amount to a conversion anyway.
Just resist the temptation to believe that every Christian is trying to corrupt your mind. Some of us really do have a healthy respect for thoughts and questioning.

[Jester]

Pardon the intrusion, just wanted to add a couple of things.

Part of Jesus' message was that slavery was acceptable. It's gone out of favor in most regions of the world, luckily.

Very luckily indeed.
Unluckily, trans-atlantic slavery had become a horrible thing compared to the generally voluntarilly and always upwardly mobile system of indentured servitude to which Christ refers. It is incorrect to translate the word he uses as slavery if you know your history.

(There are other parts of Jesus' message that isn't too cool, either: ditch your family to follow Jesus,

Is staying with mom and dad morally superior to helping people to whom you aren't related? Is it more important that you save your wealth and helpful attitude for the family?

get rid of all your belongings,

Is radical generosity a horrible problem for society?

rip out your eye if you look at a sexy girl, etc.)

I seem to remember some hyperbole in that one.

I consider a Christian someone who follows the message of Jesus, but I don't think that's the popular definition.

I'll definitely agree with that definition. It frustrates me as well when we veer off it.

[daedalus 2.0]

Part of Jesus' message was that slavery was acceptable. It's gone out of favor in most regions of the world, luckily.

Very luckily indeed.
Unluckily, trans-atlantic slavery had become a horrible thing compared to the generally voluntarilly and always upwardly mobile system of indentured servitude to which Christ refers. It is incorrect to translate the word he uses as slavery if you know your history.[/quote]Are you suggesting indentured servitude should be reinstated? I wouldn't think so, and either way, he was talking about slavery. You'd have to stretch the verses past the breaking point to get it to say what you want it to say. Such is the case with Liberal Xianity.

Is staying with mom and dad morally superior to helping people to whom you aren't related? Is it more important that you save your wealth and helpful attitude for the family?

Jesus suggested that people leave their wives and children to follow him. It's not about saving your wealth (although, that is wise: Here the Ant and the Grasshopper fable is more wise than Christ's teachings). Taking care of your family should be of top priority - above saving your soul (or following your religion). Jesus taught that you should find favor from God and follow him before anything. Suicide bombers are putting their faith before family. Other people who follow religions as doggedly as what Christ required of his followers are jeapordizing their family. Basically, Jesus was David Koresh. I'm sure you don't consider David Koresh admirable.

BTW, what happened to "honor your parents"? Is leaving them to fend for themselves, when it was an agrarian society, honoring them? No.

Is radical generosity a horrible problem for society?

If everyone did it, no. But if everyone believed as any radical did, there would be no problem either. What Jesus suggested was a form of Communism. Had he been smarter, he would have realized that people aren't perfect and can't reach that kind of equality: there still exists greed and corruption.

It's fine to dream a dream, but its not helpful if its not applicable. John Lennon's "Imagine" is a great song and wonderful sentiment - but totally unachievable. It doesn't diminish the sentiment, but it greatly diminishes the wisdom of the idea in this actual reality.

So, yes. It is. If people give away everything, they must rely on other people, who may not have anything themselves. That is a burden. The apostles and Jesus were freeloaders - that's why they wanted people to give away their things - so they could eat their food without putting in the hard work.

However, what is your answer to your question? No? Have you given away your things, follower of Jesus?

rip out your eye if you look at a sexy girl, etc.)

I seem to remember some hyperbole in that one.

Yes, it brings up the problem that Jesus was a less than perfect teacher. In some cases he was literal, at other times he wasn't. He was a man who didn't say what he meant, but went about his teachings in a passive-aggressive manner. He threatened Hell to those who didn't follow his message, but then made his message so convoluted - as he wanted some people to go to Hell. (And in John, he certainly flies in and relishes the idea!).

However, he was very clear that lusting after a woman was a horrible thing. For millions of years we have developed a sense of lust, so we want to procreate. Jesus (and other religious extremists, such as Muhammed), want humanity to feel guilty about this. Why? Were they unable to feel sexual urges? And, so if they can't, no one can?

I'll definitely agree with that definition. It frustrates me as well when we veer off it.

Well, then you disagree with a majority of Xians. (And, I suspect very few self-avowed Xians actually follow the teachings of Jesus).

There are also many distinct definitions of the term "Christian" (pronounced 'kristee`ân). Four examples are:

Most liberal Christian denominations, secularists, public opinion pollsters, and this web site define "Christian" very broadly as any person or group who sincerely believes themselves to be Christian. Thus, Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox believers, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, United Church members, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, etc. are all considered Christian. Using this definition, Christians total about 75% of the North American adult population.

However, many Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants define "Christian" more narrowly to include only those persons who have been "born again" regardless of their denomination. About 35% of the North American adult population identify themselves in this way.

Some Protestant Christian denominations, para-church groups, and individuals have assembled their own lists of cardinal Christian doctrines. Many would regard anyone who denies even one of their cardinal doctrines to be a non-Christian. Unfortunately, there is a wide diversity of belief concerning which historical Christian beliefs are cardinal.

Other denominations regard their own members to be the only true Christians in the world. Some are quite small, numbering only a few thousand followers.

Different definitions on such a fundamental topic makes dialog and debate among Christian groups very difficult. It also makes estimating the number of Christians in the U.S. quite impossible. By some definitions, 75% of Americans are Christians; by other definitions, it is a small fraction of 1%.

Yet, from the negative Emails that we receive on this topic, there are many Christians out there who hold with fierce determination to their own definition of "Christian" as the only valid one. We wrote a special essay to address their concerns

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn.htm


The thing is, you agree that following the teachings of Jesus make you Xian. Have you given away all your possessions? If not, you aren't following the teachings of Jesus - and you are being hypocritical to suggest that "radical generosity" should be something to which we aspire.

The funny thing is, I haven't met ONE Xian who has heeded the advice of Jesus. And they all use the same excuse: "well, I'm not perfect I just try, and Jesus forgives."

How hard is it for you to call a church to come and pick up all your belongings? Remember, I'M not suggesting you do it - Jesus did. Your God told you to and you refuse. (And, then you suggest by a smarmy rhetorical question, that "radical generosity" is good for the society! )





Also:

One philosopher's definitions:

Michael Martin studied Christianity from the point of view of a philosopher. He prepared a series of definitions of "Christian:"
bullet Basic Christian: "Person P is a Basic Christian if and only if P believes that a theistic God exists, that Jesus lived at the time of Pilate, that Jesus is the Incarnation of God, that one is saved through faith in Jesus, and that Jesus is the model of ethical behavior."
bullet Orthodox Christian (meaning a traditional Christian, not necessarily a member of an Eastern Orthodox church): "Person P is an Orthodox Christian if and only if P is a Basic Christian and P believes in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Crucifixion [ordered] by Pilate, the Resurrection, and the Second Coming."
bullet Liberal Christian: Person P is a liberal Christian if they believe in "a theistic God, ...Jesus as a model of ethical behavior, ...[and] the historicity of Jesus."
bullet Extreme Liberal Christian: Person P is an extreme liberal Christian if they believe in "Jesus as a model of ethical behavior..." Presumably, such an extreme liberal Christian could also be an Agnostic, Atheist or Humanist. 1

Martin indicates that some would object to his minimal definitions, arguing that Christianity must be more than a set of beliefs; it must involve action. i.e. a Christian must attempt to follow the ethical teachings of Jesus. He suggests that each of his definitions could be given the suffix: "and P follows or attempts to follow the ethical teachings of Jesus."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn5.htm

[Jester]

Apologies in advance for the length of this.

Unluckily, trans-atlantic slavery had become a horrible thing compared to the generally voluntarilly and always upwardly mobile system of indentured servitude to which Christ refers. It is incorrect to translate the word he uses as slavery if you know your history.

Are you suggesting indentured servitude should be reinstated? I wouldn't think so

You thought correctly. I wasn’t really commenting on servitude, and have no personal desire to return to it myself.

and either way, he was talking about slavery.

Only according to an incorrect translation, as mentioned above.

You'd have to stretch the verses past the breaking point to get it to say what you want it to say. Such is the case with Liberal Xianity.

Actually, all it takes is reading a bit of history. Such as:

Hence under the Greek, Roman and Ancient Egyptian slavery there was no segregation between slave from the rest of society, it was non racial and slaves were upwardly mobile...
Slaves only ever became kings under Islamic regimes although, Roman and ancient Egyptian slavery was fairly liberal in a sense that it allowed upward mobility no society allowed its slaves to become kings and rule over freemen and nobles. Also like the Roman, Ancient Egyptian and Greek slaveries were not racial. They did not have inferior race theories although pretty wise to assume the rich and powerful thought themselves to be better but they did not employ a policy of designating their slaves as inferior race or cursed race (outside some sort of Hindu caste system). Prior to European dominance of the world masters and slaves could both be of any race. So under Islamic, Egyptian and Roman systems black men would have owned white slaves.

We can’t insist on assuming that Christ was talking about modern transatlantic slavery simply because that is the most obvious conclusion. The system as it existed in Israel at the time would have been much different.

Jesus suggested that people leave their wives and children to follow him. It's not about saving your wealth (although, that is wise: Here the Ant and the Grasshopper fable is more wise than Christ's teachings).

Jesus never insisted that people permanently leave their families. He is mentioned as having visited Peter’s family with him. He is speaking about social idolatry. People made their status as being head of a big family their self-identities quite frequently in this culture. This is something quite apart from loving your family – it is using them as status, and Christ is saying that this isn’t going to fit in with following him. We only get more than this out of the Bible by completely ignoring all the commands to love and respect your family.

Taking care of your family should be of top priority - above saving your soul (or following your religion).

This is an opinion that, yes, Christ opposes. I also disagree myself. To say that it’s better to have a full belly and an empty soul than the other way around is not a position of universal agreement. I would assume that most, in fact, would disagree.
Surely, one should take care of one’s family. I see no logical reason to believe, however, that taking physical care of them is more important than taking emotional and spiritual care of them. Both types of care may involve being separate from them for periods of time.

Jesus taught that you should find favor from God and follow him before anything.

Correct.

Suicide bombers are putting their faith before family.

I think the bigger issue there is that they are putting their bigotry and unchecked hatred before their family.

Other people who follow religions as doggedly as what Christ required of his followers are jeapordizing their family.

How so?
I can come up with any number of examples of religious people treating their families poorly. However, people who are obsessed with stockpiling money in the bank for security offer just as many anecdotes of poor home situations. Listening to both pieces of advice in the Bible (love and care for your family, but don’t be so obsessed with this that you can’t put anything else ahead of giving them nice things and, thus end up as a workaholic) seems to be the best course of action.

Basically, Jesus was David Koresh. I'm sure you don't consider David Koresh admirable.

No I don’t, but I also fail to see the comparison.
Where, exactly, did Jesus recommend that people make suicide runs at police officers?

BTW, what happened to "honor your parents"? Is leaving them to fend for themselves, when it was an agrarian society, honoring them? No.

There was no indication that one ought to leave one’s parents permanently. Nor was there any advice that one shouldn’t be working and sending money home all the while.

Is radical generosity a horrible problem for society?

If everyone did it, no. But if everyone believed as any radical did, there would be no problem either. What Jesus suggested was a form of Communism. Had he been smarter, he would have realized that people aren't perfect and can't reach that kind of equality: there still exists greed and corruption.

He seems to have been aware that corruption existed. Supporting the concept of sharing with others is positive advice. There is no approaching a better society without those who are willing to set a positive example. While it could be termed socialism, he wasn’t speaking of an economic system at all. He merely suggested that people be generous. There is no reason to conclude that he insisted that people impoverish themselves to the point of needing similar generosity in order to survive. This is quite an interpretive stretch based on a very limited part of the Bible as a whole.

It's fine to dream a dream, but its not helpful if its not applicable.

I would agree to a point. We all should strive for perfection in ourselves, and to create a perfect society in spite of the fact that these things are not really possible. This need not imply that we are dissatisfied with any less than perfection, of course, but setting a lofty goal is often an inspirational motivator for improvement in everyday life. I see no reason to be cynical about it based wholly on the idea that it is unachievable.

So, yes. It is. If people give away everything, they must rely on other people, who may not have anything themselves. That is a burden. The apostles and Jesus were freeloaders - that's why they wanted people to give away their things - so they could eat their food without putting in the hard work.

I think it is a vast stretch, if not completely arbitrary, to assume that we can know the secret motivations of such people so accurately. In general, a lot more money can be made from a typical job than as a wondering holy man. The only people that make a great deal of wealth in this way use resources that would have been unavailable to Christ and his immediate followers.
Moreover, what they did would have been a great deal of work. I have a hard time believing that this would be the job of choice for a lazy person. Classic begging would require much less.

However, what is your answer to your question? No? Have you given away your things, follower of Jesus?

I did give away nearly all of my things when I took a very low paying (technically, volunteer position) that involved a great deal of traveling around specific parts of the world to do ministry work. This involves a salary of less than 10% than I could have been making with my degree. It was also a great deal more work than the more traditional jobs I’ve had.

rip out your eye if you look at a sexy girl, etc.)

I seem to remember some hyperbole in that one.

Yes, it brings up the problem that Jesus was a less than perfect teacher. In some cases he was literal, at other times he wasn't.

How does this make him less than perfect? I always thought that he wanted people to think, rather than have everything spelled out to them.

He was a man who didn't say what he meant, but went about his teachings in a passive-aggressive manner.

I’d put “woe unto the Pharisees who are hypocrites” into the aggressive-aggressive category myself.

He threatened Hell to those who didn't follow his message, but then made his message so convoluted - as he wanted some people to go to Hell. (And in John, he certainly flies in and relishes the idea!).

I’m not sure what part of John you’re speaking about, would you mind quoting it?
As for the rest of the issue, the basics of what he teaches aren’t all that complex for those that don’t choose to make them that way: Love people, love God. That means don’t cheat them, don’t put your own needs above others, be willing to forgive as well as to admit when you are wrong, etc. They all seem to have a very clear theme, and perfection is not required (forgiveness is a very clear principal of Christianity). Personally, I don’t see how he could have made getting into heaven any easier.

However, he was very clear that lusting after a woman was a horrible thing. For millions of years we have developed a sense of lust, so we want to procreate. Jesus (and other religious extremists, such as Muhammed), want humanity to feel guilty about this. Why? Were they unable to feel sexual urges? And, so if they can't, no one can?

I don’t seem to remember a “you should feel guilty” being attached to the “don’t” statement. That’s a bit of a minor issue, however. The more significant factor would be the fact that the “problem” with lusting after a woman only seemed to come up in these religions in context of the woman being married to someone else.
Given that this was the stipulation, I’m with Christ and Mohammed on this one. Either you’re spending time craving something you know you can’t have, or you’re planning on going after something you know you shouldn’t have. Both of these are bad ideas. They are immature and selfish. I understand that lust is a prerequisite for the survival of the species, but the proper direction and control of our instincts is a prerequisite for the survival of society. I fail to see the problem here.

I'll definitely agree with that definition. It frustrates me as well when we veer off it.

Well, then you disagree with a majority of Xians. (And, I suspect very few self-avowed Xians actually follow the teachings of Jesus).

I don’t know about the majority of Christians, though I would imagine that they’d agree with the definition (can’t say that I’ve checked on that, though).
I do agree that very few people follow the teachings of Christ in that no one follows them perfectly. There is a large percentage that doesn’t (to me) seem to be trying very hard. However, there is also a great many who are clearly trying very hard. It seems irrational to ignore either of these facts, or to assume that this has anything to do with the validity of the Christian religion.

There are also many distinct definitions of the term "Christian" (pronounced 'kristee`ân). Four examples are:
….

I agree that there are large discrepancies in whether or not we define a person as Christian. As long as we’re talking definitions, however, it should be pointed out that the issue we’ve been discussing is not “Christian”, but “Christianity”. It is also very argued, and interpretive issues are a problem, but there are problems with deciding on who is Christian that do not exist for determining the religion itself.
First is the fact that Christianity is very clear that someone need not be following the religion perfectly in order to be a member. This creates a certain vagueness as to how much need be practiced before the title can be taken, as seen in the definitions you posted.
Second is the simple (and frustrating) politics of the situation. There are a great many people who define themselves as Christian without any real knowledge of the religion. Logically, they would not be Christian, but there is a difference between what is logically acceptable, and what is politically acceptable (both in a social “PC” sense, and in a demographic categorization sense). This further confuses the definition of “Christian” without actually confusing the definition of “Christianity”.

Certainly, I have my own definition, but I’m not sure that it’s relevant. I agree that it is hard to define something as abstract as a religion, and I also agree that many disagree. Mostly, I fail to see how this is an issue for Christianity. All statements will have opponents. So long as we are using a definition that you and I consider to be logical, this seems merely a tangent.

The thing is, you agree that following the teachings of Jesus make you Xian. Have you given away all your possessions? If not, you aren't following the teachings of Jesus - and you are being hypocritical to suggest that "radical generosity" should be something to which we aspire.

My personal history aside for a moment, are you not insisting on a personal definition of Christianity. I agree that the teachings of Christ are the core of Christianity by definition. I did not say that one must follow them perfectly in order to be Christian, nor did I agree that the Bible demands that we give all that we own to the poor. It does demand that we give up a great deal of what we own as well as give to the poor. For the record, yes, I do this, but am not convinced that failure to do so (while wrong) would simply, automatically make a person non-Christian.

The funny thing is, I haven't met ONE Xian who has heeded the advice of Jesus. And they all use the same excuse: "well, I'm not perfect I just try, and Jesus forgives."

”I’m not perfect” is more a fact than an excuse. I make no claim to be following all the advice of Christ. There’d be no point in studying the Bible, going to Church, or most any of the indicatively Christian behaviors if I were.

How hard is it for you to call a church to come and pick up all your belongings? Remember, I'M not suggesting you do it - Jesus did. Your God told you to and you refuse. (And, then you suggest by a smarmy rhetorical question, that "radical generosity" is good for the society! )

I do think that radical generosity is good for society, and, personally, I am much closer to practicing it than I was before I became a Christian. I’ve given away most of the things I own (everything I still own fits into three suitcases). Also, I think one can’t be legalistic about giving everything they own away. There is no direct demand that you impoverish yourself, and Christ suggested that only to a person who was far too in love with his money. Even then, Christ immediately offered him a way to avoid with poverty by offering him a job. Unless we’re pre-assuming Christianity to be false, we cannot claim that Christ wasn’t perfectly able to keep him fed and housed. Frankly, we can’t assume that even if we were assuming the falsehood of Christianity, it would merely become a possibility at that point.

[Truth_Teller]

In such debates the first weapon my Atheist friends bring out is "Why believe in someone whom you can´t even see?" etc. My answer to the same question would be that "If God had shown and made Himself visible then the very purpose of "Good" (God) and "Evil" (Satan) won´t exist. If God comes out every evening to show up and meet people etc then no one would ever be influenced towards "Evil" fearing that his acts/her will be punished."

[McCulloch]

In such debates the first weapon my Atheist friends bring out is "Why believe in someone whom you can´t even see?" etc. My answer to the same question would be that "If God had shown and made Himself visible then the very purpose of "Good" (God) and "Evil" (Satan) won´t exist. If God comes out every evening to show up and meet people etc then no one would ever be influenced towards "Evil" fearing that his acts/her will be punished."

And your point is? Does God want people to be influenced towards evil? Why would a good God want evil to exist at all?

[daedalus 2.0]

Apologies in advance for the length of this.

Unluckily, trans-atlantic slavery had become a horrible thing compared to the generally voluntarilly and always upwardly mobile system of indentured servitude to which Christ refers. It is incorrect to translate the word he uses as slavery if you know your history.

Are you suggesting indentured servitude should be reinstated? I wouldn't think so

You thought correctly. I wasn’t really commenting on servitude, and have no personal desire to return to it myself.

and either way, he was talking about slavery.

Only according to an incorrect translation, as mentioned above.

You'd have to stretch the verses past the breaking point to get it to say what you want it to say. Such is the case with Liberal Xianity.

Actually, all it takes is reading a bit of history. Such as:

Hence under the Greek, Roman and Ancient Egyptian slavery there was no segregation between slave from the rest of society, it was non racial and slaves were upwardly mobile...
Slaves only ever became kings under Islamic regimes although, Roman and ancient Egyptian slavery was fairly liberal in a sense that it allowed upward mobility no society allowed its slaves to become kings and rule over freemen and nobles. Also like the Roman, Ancient Egyptian and Greek slaveries were not racial. They did not have inferior race theories although pretty wise to assume the rich and powerful thought themselves to be better but they did not employ a policy of designating their slaves as inferior race or cursed race (outside some sort of Hindu caste system). Prior to European dominance of the world masters and slaves could both be of any race. So under Islamic, Egyptian and Roman systems black men would have owned white slaves.

We can’t insist on assuming that Christ was talking about modern transatlantic slavery simply because that is the most obvious conclusion. The system as it existed in Israel at the time would have been much different.

Jesus suggested that people leave their wives and children to follow him. It's not about saving your wealth (although, that is wise: Here the Ant and the Grasshopper fable is more wise than Christ's teachings).

Jesus never insisted that people permanently leave their families. He is mentioned as having visited Peter’s family with him. He is speaking about social idolatry. People made their status as being head of a big family their self-identities quite frequently in this culture. This is something quite apart from loving your family – it is using them as status, and Christ is saying that this isn’t going to fit in with following him. We only get more than this out of the Bible by completely ignoring all the commands to love and respect your family.

Taking care of your family should be of top priority - above saving your soul (or following your religion).

This is an opinion that, yes, Christ opposes. I also disagree myself. To say that it’s better to have a full belly and an empty soul than the other way around is not a position of universal agreement. I would assume that most, in fact, would disagree.
Surely, one should take care of one’s family. I see no logical reason to believe, however, that taking physical care of them is more important than taking emotional and spiritual care of them. Both types of care may involve being separate from them for periods of time.

Jesus taught that you should find favor from God and follow him before anything.

Correct.

Suicide bombers are putting their faith before family.

I think the bigger issue there is that they are putting their bigotry and unchecked hatred before their family.

Other people who follow religions as doggedly as what Christ required of his followers are jeapordizing their family.

How so?
I can come up with any number of examples of religious people treating their families poorly. However, people who are obsessed with stockpiling money in the bank for security offer just as many anecdotes of poor home situations. Listening to both pieces of advice in the Bible (love and care for your family, but don’t be so obsessed with this that you can’t put anything else ahead of giving them nice things and, thus end up as a workaholic) seems to be the best course of action.

Basically, Jesus was David Koresh. I'm sure you don't consider David Koresh admirable.

No I don’t, but I also fail to see the comparison.
Where, exactly, did Jesus recommend that people make suicide runs at police officers?

BTW, what happened to "honor your parents"? Is leaving them to fend for themselves, when it was an agrarian society, honoring them? No.

There was no indication that one ought to leave one’s parents permanently. Nor was there any advice that one shouldn’t be working and sending money home all the while.

Is radical generosity a horrible problem for society?

If everyone did it, no. But if everyone believed as any radical did, there would be no problem either. What Jesus suggested was a form of Communism. Had he been smarter, he would have realized that people aren't perfect and can't reach that kind of equality: there still exists greed and corruption.

He seems to have been aware that corruption existed. Supporting the concept of sharing with others is positive advice. There is no approaching a better society without those who are willing to set a positive example. While it could be termed socialism, he wasn’t speaking of an economic system at all. He merely suggested that people be generous. There is no reason to conclude that he insisted that people impoverish themselves to the point of needing similar generosity in order to survive. This is quite an interpretive stretch based on a very limited part of the Bible as a whole.

It's fine to dream a dream, but its not helpful if its not applicable.

I would agree to a point. We all should strive for perfection in ourselves, and to create a perfect society in spite of the fact that these things are not really possible. This need not imply that we are dissatisfied with any less than perfection, of course, but setting a lofty goal is often an inspirational motivator for improvement in everyday life. I see no reason to be cynical about it based wholly on the idea that it is unachievable.

So, yes. It is. If people give away everything, they must rely on other people, who may not have anything themselves. That is a burden. The apostles and Jesus were freeloaders - that's why they wanted people to give away their things - so they could eat their food without putting in the hard work.

I think it is a vast stretch, if not completely arbitrary, to assume that we can know the secret motivations of such people so accurately. In general, a lot more money can be made from a typical job than as a wondering holy man. The only people that make a great deal of wealth in this way use resources that would have been unavailable to Christ and his immediate followers.
Moreover, what they did would have been a great deal of work. I have a hard time believing that this would be the job of choice for a lazy person. Classic begging would require much less.

However, what is your answer to your question? No? Have you given away your things, follower of Jesus?

I did give away nearly all of my things when I took a very low paying (technically, volunteer position) that involved a great deal of traveling around specific parts of the world to do ministry work. This involves a salary of less than 10% than I could have been making with my degree. It was also a great deal more work than the more traditional jobs I’ve had.

rip out your eye if you look at a sexy girl, etc.)

I seem to remember some hyperbole in that one.

Yes, it brings up the problem that Jesus was a less than perfect teacher. In some cases he was literal, at other times he wasn't.

How does this make him less than perfect? I always thought that he wanted people to think, rather than have everything spelled out to them.

He was a man who didn't say what he meant, but went about his teachings in a passive-aggressive manner.

I’d put “woe unto the Pharisees who are hypocrites” into the aggressive-aggressive category myself.

He threatened Hell to those who didn't follow his message, but then made his message so convoluted - as he wanted some people to go to Hell. (And in John, he certainly flies in and relishes the idea!).

I’m not sure what part of John you’re speaking about, would you mind quoting it?
As for the rest of the issue, the basics of what he teaches aren’t all that complex for those that don’t choose to make them that way: Love people, love God. That means don’t cheat them, don’t put your own needs above others, be willing to forgive as well as to admit when you are wrong, etc. They all seem to have a very clear theme, and perfection is not required (forgiveness is a very clear principal of Christianity). Personally, I don’t see how he could have made getting into heaven any easier.

However, he was very clear that lusting after a woman was a horrible thing. For millions of years we have developed a sense of lust, so we want to procreate. Jesus (and other religious extremists, such as Muhammed), want humanity to feel guilty about this. Why? Were they unable to feel sexual urges? And, so if they can't, no one can?

I don’t seem to remember a “you should feel guilty” being attached to the “don’t” statement. That’s a bit of a minor issue, however. The more significant factor would be the fact that the “problem” with lusting after a woman only seemed to come up in these religions in context of the woman being married to someone else.
Given that this was the stipulation, I’m with Christ and Mohammed on this one. Either you’re spending time craving something you know you can’t have, or you’re planning on going after something you know you shouldn’t have. Both of these are bad ideas. They are immature and selfish. I understand that lust is a prerequisite for the survival of the species, but the proper direction and control of our instincts is a prerequisite for the survival of society. I fail to see the problem here.

I'll definitely agree with that definition. It frustrates me as well when we veer off it.

Well, then you disagree with a majority of Xians. (And, I suspect very few self-avowed Xians actually follow the teachings of Jesus).

I don’t know about the majority of Christians, though I would imagine that they’d agree with the definition (can’t say that I’ve checked on that, though).
I do agree that very few people follow the teachings of Christ in that no one follows them perfectly. There is a large percentage that doesn’t (to me) seem to be trying very hard. However, there is also a great many who are clearly trying very hard. It seems irrational to ignore either of these facts, or to assume that this has anything to do with the validity of the Christian religion.

There are also many distinct definitions of the term "Christian" (pronounced 'kristee`ân). Four examples are:
….

I agree that there are large discrepancies in whether or not we define a person as Christian. As long as we’re talking definitions, however, it should be pointed out that the issue we’ve been discussing is not “Christian”, but “Christianity”. It is also very argued, and interpretive issues are a problem, but there are problems with deciding on who is Christian that do not exist for determining the religion itself.
First is the fact that Christianity is very clear that someone need not be following the religion perfectly in order to be a member. This creates a certain vagueness as to how much need be practiced before the title can be taken, as seen in the definitions you posted.
Second is the simple (and frustrating) politics of the situation. There are a great many people who define themselves as Christian without any real knowledge of the religion. Logically, they would not be Christian, but there is a difference between what is logically acceptable, and what is politically acceptable (both in a social “PC” sense, and in a demographic categorization sense). This further confuses the definition of “Christian” without actually confusing the definition of “Christianity”.

Certainly, I have my own definition, but I’m not sure that it’s relevant. I agree that it is hard to define something as abstract as a religion, and I also agree that many disagree. Mostly, I fail to see how this is an issue for Christianity. All statements will have opponents. So long as we are using a definition that you and I consider to be logical, this seems merely a tangent.

The thing is, you agree that following the teachings of Jesus make you Xian. Have you given away all your possessions? If not, you aren't following the teachings of Jesus - and you are being hypocritical to suggest that "radical generosity" should be something to which we aspire.

My personal history aside for a moment, are you not insisting on a personal definition of Christianity. I agree that the teachings of Christ are the core of Christianity by definition. I did not say that one must follow them perfectly in order to be Christian, nor did I agree that the Bible demands that we give all that we own to the poor. It does demand that we give up a great deal of what we own as well as give to the poor. For the record, yes, I do this, but am not convinced that failure to do so (while wrong) would simply, automatically make a person non-Christian.

The funny thing is, I haven't met ONE Xian who has heeded the advice of Jesus. And they all use the same excuse: "well, I'm not perfect I just try, and Jesus forgives."

”I’m not perfect” is more a fact than an excuse. I make no claim to be following all the advice of Christ. There’d be no point in studying the Bible, going to Church, or most any of the indicatively Christian behaviors if I were.

How hard is it for you to call a church to come and pick up all your belongings? Remember, I'M not suggesting you do it - Jesus did. Your God told you to and you refuse. (And, then you suggest by a smarmy rhetorical question, that "radical generosity" is good for the society! )

I do think that radical generosity is good for society, and, personally, I am much closer to practicing it than I was before I became a Christian. I’ve given away most of the things I own (everything I still own fits into three suitcases). Also, I think one can’t be legalistic about giving everything they own away. There is no direct demand that you impoverish yourself, and Christ suggested that only to a person who was far too in love with his money. Even then, Christ immediately offered him a way to avoid with poverty by offering him a job. Unless we’re pre-assuming Christianity to be false, we cannot claim that Christ wasn’t perfectly able to keep him fed and housed. Frankly, we can’t assume that even if we were assuming the falsehood of Christianity, it would merely become a possibility at that point.

My impression is that you are a good guy, whether you are Xian or not. That is, given a decent upbringing, you would have been a good guy despite any religion.

I often see this: the way you interpret the Bible is always towards your idea of Goodness, not the other way around: that is, you don't go to the Bible to find out what is Good. This is Liberal Xianity. It is a mixture of Humanism, New Ageism, good old-fashioned common sense and the general Zeitgeist of our age.

I simply disagree with your interpretation of the Bible, but not really your conclusion. That is, I could read Moby Dick and tell you it shows that we should be Environmentally friendly, whereas you would say its more about taming the rashness in your soul. We'd both be right (until we read another book and see that sometimes ordering Nature is important, and being brash is a good ideas sometimes).

This is the complexity of mythology: it is always right in some measure, no matter the source. As they say, even Hitler was right sometimes.


So, what to do? We both see different things in the Bible but agree tha, e.g., slavery and even servitude are to be limited if not avoided; that radical generosity isn't wise all the time, but is some of the time; that we take care of our loved ones; - and to throw in some more Universals: that we should try not to decieve our friends; that searching truth is preferable; that we should not torture people for no reason; etc.

All of these ideas did not originate with the Bible, or, frankly, were addressed very well in Jesus's words, but when you have a prediliction to find these kinds of things, you can find them anywhere. For example, there are wonderful themes in Gilgamesh, the bhagavad gita, the saying of Confucious and even The Prince or the Art of War.

Especially when you consider sometimes the most horrible story is meant to be a cautionary tale.

As I have said before, religion just seems to an Extreme Book Club. like those people who feel "War and Peace" has every theme every needed in life, and once you crack it, it opens your eyes to truth and beauty. Hell, I know people who feel that way about certain Directors, Artists and Musicians.

We all have something in common: we look for what we want to see.

[Truth_Teller]

And your point is? Does God want people to be influenced towards evil? Why would a good God want evil to exist at all?

No, He doesn´t. He leaves us alone on this Earth and lets us do what we please. He sees whether we will stick to Him or not without seeing Him and for the same reasons evil exists. It´s for us to choose in this world but results will be revealed hereafter.

[carolineislands]

Partly because slavery isn't considered too cool anymore...

What???

I responded to this part:

Part of Jesus' message was that slavery was acceptable. It's gone out of favor in most regions of the world, luckily.

Oh, I see. Slavery was Jesus's fault. I must have missed that day in World History class.