Your religious beliefs

[Davros]

I am a high priest in the best of the one true religions, and all my sins are justified.
The Church Of The Subgenius.

www.subgenius.com

 

[Subcommander R.]

To be fair many evangelical religious people and groups are very active in charity work. They may not support certain political ideas about how to best help people, but that doesn't mean they aren't concerned about other people's welfare and act to improve it.

To use the current political issue of the budget, here's the problem I see.

It goes without saying that the church can not/will not provide medical care for everyone in need as Christ commanded (heal the sick). My natural reaction is to see that it is done by the government, I can "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" and still do what God wanted. Win/Win situation.

Instead the christian right zealously argues against providing those services the church can't/won't and even wants to eliminate them in the name of fiscal responsibility. Of course they're promoting tax cuts for the rich the whole time, despite the camel and eye of needle qualification. We're hoarding up treasures on earth and getting irate when its suggested we share them.

Don't be too sure about the church can't/won't heal the sick, provide medical care. And the danger of your way of thinking is, to quote my pastor, "those that support government run charity do not sacrifice of themselves."

Great. Now call me again when the church has provided free health care for every single person in the United States.

(Additionally, the Catholics in question are better off doing this because they have unity. The sheer number of Protestant factions means we have very little unity.)

Considering I sacrifice my time every day to go volunteer helping poor kids at a community house, I don't think my desire for my tax dollars to do the most good is a problem. Certainly I don't see why it should be actively fought against.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Instead the christian right zealously argues against providing those services the church can't/won't and even wants to eliminate them in the name of fiscal responsibility. Of course they're promoting tax cuts for the rich the whole time, despite the camel and eye of needle qualification. We're hoarding up treasures on earth and getting irate when its suggested we share them.

Then the church needs to step it up tremendously. That's my feeling on the matter; I would rather have people who are close to the problem and actually know the local community involved, and that money should be given voluntarily, not forcibly taken. But the hard truth is that if the government backs off, then the moral obligation on the church becomes FAR greater. And I think that we as Christians really are asked to do that much. But freely--not by threat of force.

There are even churches now stepping in to replace insurance companies, instead of leaving people at the "tender" mercies of suits making decisions about who gets treated and who doesn't. Instead, they make sure that whatever a person and their doctor decide on will be paid. I want neither the government nor a company to be making such decisions; that should be between a patient and a doctor.

I also highly recommend supporting charities like St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. No one is turned away because insurance denies a claim or because of inability to pay. They need a tremendous amount of support to do what they do, and every little bit counts.

 

[Subcommander R.]

Instead the christian right zealously argues against providing those services the church can't/won't and even wants to eliminate them in the name of fiscal responsibility. Of course they're promoting tax cuts for the rich the whole time, despite the camel and eye of needle qualification. We're hoarding up treasures on earth and getting irate when its suggested we share them.

Then the church needs to step it up tremendously. That's my feeling on the matter; I would rather have people who are close to the problem and actually know the local community involved, and that money should be given voluntarily, not forcibly taken. But the hard truth is that if the government backs off, then the moral obligation on the church becomes FAR greater. And I think that we as Christians really are asked to do that much. But freely--not by threat of force.

There are even churches now stepping in to replace insurance companies, instead of leaving people at the "tender" mercies of suits making decisions about who gets treated and who doesn't. Instead, they make sure that whatever a person and their doctor decide on will be paid. I want neither the government nor a company to be making such decisions; that should be between a patient and a doctor.

I also highly recommend supporting charities like St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. No one is turned away because insurance denies a claim or because of inability to pay. They need a tremendous amount of support to do what they do, and every little bit counts.

Where to start?

What the government asks for, you are to pay. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's. If Caesar happens to be healing the sick with it, then great! You can't really find a biblical reason to not pay taxes though.

Government-run healthcare really wouldn't be different from an HMO. Both would want to minimize costs, but the government has more money and doesn't have to make a profit. It certainly doesn't have to be considered something 'bad.'

I do second your Saint Jude suggestion. I started donating them my allowance as a kid because I was so touched by their work. And they're experts in their field.

 

[TheGodBen]

Apparently you need to reread the gospels. They tell the same story. The variations are minor and hardly exclusive.

There are significant contradictions in the gospels that undermines its credibility as a historical text. They don't even get the year of Jesus' birth right, they're out by at least 10 years, or something like that. I wouldn't accept that sort of continuity error from an episode of Star Trek, so I certainly wouldn't accept it from a book that it is claimed was inspired by an all-knowing being.

Shades of grey for most things, but others? Not so much. The disciples and apostles didn't find themselves executed for following some false embellishment. The entire early church didn't preserve the tradition because that Jesus dude was a nice guy.

Early Muslims were persecuted too, and their traditions (which most of us would probably agree are stricter than Christian ones) continue to this day. Does that mean that Mohammed was divinely inspired? Why don't you accept his message from God as you do Jesus' message?

And if you want to respect his words but you claim that some of them were made up, then you really can't have it both ways. You wouldn't know what to respect and what was added later.

I don't particularly care either, because I don't follow Jesus' message, much of it just happens to coincide with my own personal set of morality. When Jesus said that everyone should sacrifice all their possessions to follow him and aid the less well off, I don't ignore that because I think it was transcribed incorrectly, I ignore that because I think it's stupid. Besides, I like my computer and I'm not giving it up without a fight. (Or at least not without a bloody good moan.)

If you doubt any of this, go ask a good pastor. They'd actually be happy to set you straight. I don't have the time or patience though.

I'm sorry, set me straight? What, you think I haven't put much thought into my position? I spent 13 years in Catholic school learning about Jesus and his father, I was baptised and confirmed in their name, I struggled for years with the fact that this thing that was a part of who I was wasn't adding up any more. I talked to priests, teachers and family members and none of them could present an argument that held up in my mind. Perhaps I'm just stupid and they're really smart. If that's what you want to believe then so be it, but I don't think talking to yet another amateur theologian is going to "help" me.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

That seems silly to suggest that I shouldn't question what the government is doing. The Biblical command is not to be blind to how they waste money, to refuse to point that out--it's about not inciting an insurrection, which was the very literal concern Jesus had at the time (the Pharisees were trying to catch Jesus advocating an insurrection against Rome, so that he could be put to death).

But put simply, I see government-run health care as having all the ills of the current system without even the ability to take our business elsewhere. Even the last power remaining to us to make a point is gone. Either we have suits in corporate offices deciding how we should be treated, or we have the government doing that for us--again, in place of our doctors. No company, nor government, should have power over our health. That is WAY too much power--not to mention the inherent inefficiency of government, which is a whole other line of argument. No profit also means no incentive to be efficient in its operations. After all, they can force their customers to pay more. Both current models suck; a third model is needed, one that is neither corporate nor government. That is why I believe it is the responsibility of Christians, through our local churches and the hospitals that the churches already have a part in running.

I believe that the church could step up and do far better than the government if they really, truly got serious about it...and if they did, "Caesar" wouldn't dare ask for that money anymore because the church would be doing ITS job the way it's supposed to. Make no mistake--when I say "step up," I am talking about a TREMENDOUS step, if we are to have more St. Judes in this country. Even a lot of hospitals that supposedly have a connection to the church play the insurance rip-off game along with everyone...they don't do anything to stand up against that. There's no excuse for that.

 

[Xelo]

Episcopal

 

[KB24]

You kind of left a lot missing, some that are very different to bulk in the 'other' choice. Jewish, Pagan...

I'm A Christian Protestant Methodist.

 

[Admiral Shran]

As for C.S. Lewis, I'll just say I think Prince Caspian is the best of the three films, though once you start really looking at the messages presented by any of the films you're in trouble AFAIC. But then, I'm a bit of a cynic.

I found the ending of Dawn Treader particularly unsubtle and cringe-worthy...though to be fair I found much of that film unsubtle and cringe-worthy.

I have my problems with Dawn Treader as well, mostly because they MASSIVELY altered the story from what it is in the novel.

But, as for the ending - I assume you mean the scene where Aslan says that he also exists on Earth and is known by another name, clearly meaning that Aslan is, in fact, Jesus. All I can say there is that they did tone that down from the novel. In the novel....

Spoiler: Dawn Treader

Aslan appears to them as a Lamb.

 

[Subcommander R.]

Apparently you need to reread the gospels. They tell the same story. The variations are minor and hardly exclusive.

There are significant contradictions in the gospels that undermines its credibility as a historical text. They don't even get the year of Jesus' birth right, they're out by at least 10 years, or something like that. I wouldn't accept that sort of continuity error from an episode of Star Trek, so I certainly wouldn't accept it from a book that it is claimed was inspired by an all-knowing being.

Shades of grey for most things, but others? Not so much. The disciples and apostles didn't find themselves executed for following some false embellishment. The entire early church didn't preserve the tradition because that Jesus dude was a nice guy.

Early Muslims were persecuted too, and their traditions (which most of us would probably agree are stricter than Christian ones) continue to this day. Does that mean that Mohammed was divinely inspired? Why don't you accept his message from God as you do Jesus' message?

And if you want to respect his words but you claim that some of them were made up, then you really can't have it both ways. You wouldn't know what to respect and what was added later.

I don't particularly care either, because I don't follow Jesus' message, much of it just happens to coincide with my own personal set of morality. When Jesus said that everyone should sacrifice all their possessions to follow him and aid the less well off, I don't ignore that because I think it was transcribed incorrectly, I ignore that because I think it's stupid. Besides, I like my computer and I'm not giving it up without a fight. (Or at least not without a bloody good moan.)

If you doubt any of this, go ask a good pastor. They'd actually be happy to set you straight. I don't have the time or patience though.

I'm sorry, set me straight? What, you think I haven't put much thought into my position? I spent 13 years in Catholic school learning about Jesus and his father, I was baptised and confirmed in their name, I struggled for years with the fact that this thing that was a part of who I was wasn't adding up any more. I talked to priests, teachers and family members and none of them could present an argument that held up in my mind. Perhaps I'm just stupid and they're really smart. If that's what you want to believe then so be it, but I don't think talking to yet another amateur theologian is going to "help" me.

I don't believe Matthew specified the time, while Luke specified it based on events. They don't overlap, but I don't see them contradicting. Even if they did, the writers aren't infallible. You can still expect them to get the teachings right though.

Who am I to say Mohammed wasn't? I don't judge people's religions. I simply hold by my statement that Jesus was who he said he was. If you ignore that, I believe you might as well ignore everything else.

I'm not calling you stupid. Sorry if I came off wrong.

That seems silly to suggest that I shouldn't question what the government is doing. The Biblical command is not to be blind to how they waste money, to refuse to point that out--it's about not inciting an insurrection, which was the very literal concern Jesus had at the time (the Pharisees were trying to catch Jesus advocating an insurrection against Rome, so that he could be put to death).

But put simply, I see government-run health care as having all the ills of the current system without even the ability to take our business elsewhere. Even the last power remaining to us to make a point is gone. Either we have suits in corporate offices deciding how we should be treated, or we have the government doing that for us--again, in place of our doctors. No company, nor government, should have power over our health. That is WAY too much power--not to mention the inherent inefficiency of government, which is a whole other line of argument. No profit also means no incentive to be efficient in its operations. After all, they can force their customers to pay more. Both current models suck; a third model is needed, one that is neither corporate nor government. That is why I believe it is the responsibility of Christians, through our local churches and the hospitals that the churches already have a part in running.

I believe that the church could step up and do far better than the government if they really, truly got serious about it...and if they did, "Caesar" wouldn't dare ask for that money anymore because the church would be doing ITS job the way it's supposed to. Make no mistake--when I say "step up," I am talking about a TREMENDOUS step, if we are to have more St. Judes in this country. Even a lot of hospitals that supposedly have a connection to the church play the insurance rip-off game along with everyone...they don't do anything to stand up against that. There's no excuse for that.

I'd argue the rhetoric on the right is calling for just that: an insurrection. Its in extremely bad taste. Its a worrying fusion of religion and politics. Its to the point where if I state that I dislike Fox and want universal healthcare people act as if I'm an atheist. Or given my love for the Palestinian people they act like I'm a Muslim. And you can guess the reaction is gross intolerance.

Universal healthcare can be provided look to France or the UK for practical models to emulate. I only believe the US government is unlikely to do it well. We need a preexisting model to use.

The problem with the church is that it tends to become a business with size, but on a small scale it lacks the funds to provide medical care.

 

[TheGodBen]

I don't believe Matthew specified the time, while Luke specified it based on events. They don't overlap, but I don't see them contradicting.

Matthew 2:1 states that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, who died in 4BC, while Luke 2:2 states that Jesus was born during the first census while Quirinius was governor of Syria, which happened in 6AD. One of them has to be wrong, and I'm betting it's the Gospel of Luke. That book just seems to be a bit more dodgy.

Even if they did, the writers aren't infallible.

Which was kinda my point all along. People are flawed and the gospels were written by people. It's perfectly possible that Jesus was just a normal preacher and that those who came after him distorted his message to make it more powerful, so that it would spread easier. In the decades between Jesus' death and the writings of the gospels, there's a lot that could have been added. Hell, a lot was added in the 10 years or so between the gospels of Mark and Luke, including the concept of the virgin birth.

 

[RyanKCR]

I don't believe Matthew specified the time, while Luke specified it based on events. They don't overlap, but I don't see them contradicting.

Matthew 2:1 states that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, who died in 4BC, while Luke 2:2 states that Jesus was born during the first census while Quirinius was governor of Syria, which happened in 6AD. One of them has to be wrong, and I'm betting it's the Gospel of Luke. That book just seems to be a bit more dodgy.

Even if they did, the writers aren't infallible.

Which was kinda my point all along. People are flawed and the gospels were written by people. It's perfectly possible that Jesus was just a normal preacher and that those who came after him distorted his message to make it more powerful, so that it would spread easier. In the decades between Jesus' death and the writings of the gospels, there's a lot that could have been added. Hell, a lot was added in the 10 years or so between the gospels of Mark and Luke, including the concept of the virgin birth.

This may or may not explain the supposed contradiction you allude to. At least it may give a resonable explaination. Yes yes it is a Christian site, but who else would try to understand the supposed contradiction without writting it off as an error?

 

[iguana_tonante]

This may or may not explain the supposed contradiction you allude to. At least it may give a resonable explaination. Yes yes it is a Christian site, but who else would try to understand the supposed contradiction without writting it off as an error?

 

[Subcommander R.]

I don't believe Matthew specified the time, while Luke specified it based on events. They don't overlap, but I don't see them contradicting.

Matthew 2:1 states that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, who died in 4BC, while Luke 2:2 states that Jesus was born during the first census while Quirinius was governor of Syria, which happened in 6AD. One of them has to be wrong, and I'm betting it's the Gospel of Luke. That book just seems to be a bit more dodgy.

Even if they did, the writers aren't infallible.

Which was kinda my point all along. People are flawed and the gospels were written by people. It's perfectly possible that Jesus was just a normal preacher and that those who came after him distorted his message to make it more powerful, so that it would spread easier. In the decades between Jesus' death and the writings of the gospels, there's a lot that could have been added. Hell, a lot was added in the 10 years or so between the gospels of Mark and Luke, including the concept of the virgin birth.

Snoopy's link is actually quote interesting on that point, so I'll defer to the dog pursuing the Red Baron.

As to you, all I can really do is sigh. You seem to brandish the tiniest details that may be wrong as clubs with which you demand that EVERYTHING IMPORTANT must be wrong. To me thats ridiculous, and I really can't keep this up. I don't want to get angry and say anything rash. God does not need me to defend him, and being a bad example certainly won't help his cause.

I hope you have a great day and ultimately find the right answers for your questions.

 

[Mysterion]

Other: Wiccan