India and Christianity

Pixel:

As they say, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the fire...

Peace.

So Greg, James, you two dating now?

I asked my old aunt, a retired school teacher and faithfull christian, to explain exactly why she thought it was that she believed, whilst my uncle (her brother) was a commited athiest, as both had recieved identical indoctrination as children.

She explained that for her there was no doubt that the bible is a true and accurate account of events, and that faith was enough. I put it to her that it was her nature to be a good protestant christian. She is by nature very loyal, and not one to question her "betters", or the nature of her orders. After some consideration she agreed that to stop going to church would feel like a betrayal of her (long dead) parents.

I then put it to her that had she been adopted, and bought up as a catholic/muslim/jew/buddist or whatever, then she would no doubt have been a good and faithfull catholic/muslim/jew/buddist. This she conceded.

I then put it to her that, by her own admission, her absolute certainty that protestant christianity is the one true faith was merely an accident of birth, and based solely on the assumption that her parents knew what they were talking about, which is what they had assumed about their parents, and so on back through time.

She nodded slowly and started to say "I suppose so...".

For a couple of seconds a look came across her face that I had never seen before (and never want to see again!). A momentary look of desolation, like a child the moment it realises it's lost sight of it's mom in a busy market. Scary to see in a woman of 65 years old!

A moment later she was back, saying things like "I know what I believe", and "Each to his own", and quickly moving on to another subject.

I let it go, but it made me think, "behind that sweet, dogmatic facade lurks a reasonable person".

Unfortunately, believing something, no matter how fervently, does NOT make it so. 

gdub411 wrote: James Lee wrote: Arioch wrote: Now that you quasi-intellectuals tried to awe us with your super long , self masturbatory rants, I for one am glad this thread is coming to an end. ). BTW: generally used, masturbatory doesn't require a 'self' before it- that's implied. But that's just the kind of quasi-intellectual thing you're talking about, isn't it? Boy...you must be REALLY exciting in bed. If you haven't heard of someone masturbating another person then you must be flat out retarded when it comes to lovemaking.

Err, James is right on this, gdub, it IS implied, which is why such acts as "mutual" masturbation need such clarification.

"Blah, Blah, Blah,"= Oh yeah, you're right, I stand corrected.

gdub411 wrote: Reed Lover wrote: So Greg, James, you two dating now? Nah...James isn't my type. Remember....I don't like chicks.

why am I a chick now?

Or is that a subtle attempt to get a peek under my hood?

gdub411 wrote: James Lee wrote: gdub411 wrote: Reed Lover wrote: So Greg, James, you two dating now? Nah...James isn't my type. Remember....I don't like chicks. why am I a chick now? Or is that a subtle attempt to get a peek under my hood? ............................................................ ........................................ Just having fun JL.

I do look shockingly good in a dress, but then again I look shockingly good in anything!!!

JrKASperov wrote: Fine then. Although Maani has said sufficient things, I wonder why he refused to officially and pubically reply on the A&E subject. Then I will. Yes, I believe that. It is quite easy. There is a God. He has proven me and Maani that He is there. Not by simply questionable feelings, but hugely remarkable miracles that have changed both our ways a total 180 degrees. After this, He has shown both me and him a LOT of times He is there, supporting us and answering our prayers, sometimes in a way beyond coincidental things like 'chance' and 'cause-effect'. If you want to know about the nature of these effects, please PM me. And I will reply. (though the email and pm service seems to be having problems between maani and me, take this as disclaimer.) Now, this established, if there is a God, what's to stop him from for some reason placing 'evidence' to support 'theories' that would 'undermine' his Scripture. Perhaps as a test of faith, many of the Biblical books underscribe the strange ways in which God works. We must not forget that if He is to be true, He is FAR beyond óur understanding, and we, even as atheist philosophers, must nót in any way be arrogant enough to even assume we can morally subject Him to óur ethical ideas. It is, as is often explained in Scripture, faith which saves us, even against the most dire of circumstances. Even as atheist philosopher I hád to agree that what Jesus ministers is indeed what we feel to be 'good' inside. I know, and will testify, that the vast majority(as Maani elsewhere beautifully stated) is apostate, if not heretical. () This makes it incredibly hard for outsiders to take the good crop from the bad. As is written in Scripture, there will be many who will take the disguise of the faithful, as even satan himself is called an angel of light, and trying to emulate God. But please, drop your formal ideas of what 'Christianity' is according to the public 'sources' for it. It is the only faith in which man is saved by doing nothing more than accept someone as the Son of God. That alone shows the grace of God, suitable to a God, which is supposed to be perfection. That fact should offer sufficient sypmathy for the Christian faith to not just discard them as opressant fanatics. As sadly I must say, most of the 'Christians' show to be. Instead, Jesus teaches a way of freedom, in which the ideas of man, as imperfect instance, are to be disregarded, and therefore, no 'Christian' should be taken as an example. Amen.

It seems to me that you have your own take on Christianity which is pertinent to your own situation.You are presenting yourself as arbiter of how the Scripture should be interpreted.This is what I get from many "devout" Christians-how you can make a world-wide faith esoteric is beyond me.
Your statement that "the ideas of Man are to be disregarded" does not make any sense. If God speaks through Man how do you know which man is speaking God's word and which man is just presenting his own thoughts on social morality?