How do Christians possibly rationalize these things?

[boagie]

Thomas gospel: He who drinks from my mouth, shall become as I am, and I shall be he. Blasphemy love it!!

[Didymos Thomas]

Is this another comment you will not address when asked to do so?

That would be your second in this thread, Boagie.

In any case, I do not see the issue with the statement.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Mhm, labels are misleading.

A Christian is someone who finds value in the teachings of Jesus. That's the only definition that accounts for all Christians. At least, the only definition that I know of that accounts for all Christians.

Agnostic refers to a view on God. You can be agnostic and be a Christian.

'Blaspheme the Father and you shall be forgiven. Blaspheme the Son and you shall be forgiven. Blaspheme the Holy Spirit and you shall not be forgiven in Heaven or in Earth' - from the Gospel of Thomas, one of those books banned from the Bible.

The views I agree with are not specific to Christianity. In fact, I can name five religions off the top of my hands that have similar views. And since I don't worship the Gods for any religion, and don't deny the possibility of a God existing, I refer to myself as agnostic. However, I understand what you're saying.

[Didymos Thomas]

Right. I'm not saying you are a Christian - that's your decision. I'm just saying you fit the description, and labeling yourself a Christian would not be contradictory even as an agnostic.

The heart of the matter is that most faith traditions teach essentially the same message - be kind.

[Mephistopheles]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Pardon me, but you did not give this sort of qualification to your question in previous posts.

If you want fundamentalist Christians to justify themselves, good luck. I think even serious attempts to justify their beliefs are against their beliefs.

They often actually do try to justify themselves. All I am seeking is the possibility of one of them actually making some sort of rational sense. I know this is so far-fetched from the reality of fundamentalist Christianity, but I can dream, can I not?

Dream a little dream of love and joys
perchance rain comes and drives you to hide
cry not for the people outside
they're all just paper mache toys.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Myself, I do not take the literature literally, nor do I accept all canon, and I accept some extra-canonical literature for my personal scripture. I also have no problem looking to other faith traditions for spiritual guidance. I am a Christian in that I find value in teachings attributed to Jesus. Some teachings attributed to him I think to be forgeries and nasty attempts to rule over the masses. I am even less attached to Old Testament literature, though, I can read through the stories and see the allegorical meaning and appreciate the stories for their content.

I can understand that. My main problem is with the sociopathic Christians who take the bible so literally they are actually WILLING to justify stoning people to death for being Wiccans, or burning people alive, or killing senselessly. I don't understand how they don't realize they have no moral fiber whatsoever; it's absolutely frakking insane if you ask me.

[Didymos Thomas]

They often actually do try to justify themselves. All I am seeking is the possibility of one of them actually making some sort of rational sense. I know this is so far-fetched from the reality of fundamentalist Christianity, but I can dream, can I not?

The problem is that they think pointing to the Bible is more than enough justification - and that is clearly not a serious attempt at justification.

I'm sure serious defenses of fundamentalism exist, but I'm not familiar with any.

I can understand that. My main problem is with the sociopathic Christians who take the bible so literally they are actually WILLING to justify stoning people to death for being Wiccans, or burning people alive, or killing senselessly. I don't understand how they don't realize they have no moral fiber whatsoever; it's absolutely frakking insane if you ask me.

It is insane.

[GoshisDead]

But then what is stopping people now from just murdering people and saying it's God's will (and yes, many people do do this)? I highly doubt even Christians would buy that load of bull****! If God says to do it, it's not murder? Surely these people aren't not killing just because of their religion (as the religion actually advocates it in some instances)

The post is supposed to be about rational contraditions. All I are responses based on personally adopted ethical and moral contraditions. Within the realm of the doctrine expressed by the general judeo/christian tradition, there cannot be a logical contradiction about this. Justifying these things through alternate means is impossible and pointless.

[Zetetic11235]

Many of the rules are applicable to ancient societal norms and very much are based in efficient methods of primative order keeping and survival and cleanliness. To take the prime breeding material for the conquered peoples they provide furtherence of the peoples and prevent inbreeding. In banning homosexuality,sodomy and kicking out those who have had contact with the dead, they prevent spread of disease. Same is true of kosher foods. The jews in these methods were very systematic and ahead of their time. There were no cures for disease then and disease was not well understood. In this sense, that they had the foresight to implement these measures should be considered amazing rather than irrational and callous. You must observe things in a broader perspective rather than out of context and at face value. This is why those idiots who think that evolution contradicts the literal meaning of the bible are still around on both sides, when it is clear that the concept of day was used before the sun was created leaving it an ill defined period of time. Intelligent design is fine, and doesn't contradict science, it just presumes somthing that cannot be proven and is not involved in evolution or science.
Once again, ignorance is rampant and the atheists are as ignorant and foolhardy as the fundamentalists. If you want a rational approach to god, look at the work of preists, they spend their lives studying the word of the bible and the books not contained in the bibile, read some scholarly works on the subject. Realize that any 'rational' interpretation you can conjure up in less than several years of study is probably somthing trite and ill founded to boot.

[Martin Cothran]

Wouldn't it be just as logical to ask, "How do non-Christians possibly condemn these things?"

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Martin Cothran

Wouldn't it be just as logical to ask, "How do non-Christians possibly condemn these things?"

Well, there's a certain assumption that lends to Christians having a morality that coincides with that of Jesus. Yes, it may not be true in some cases, but that's the point behind the question. So, with that said, it seems logical to ask the OP's question.

As a non-Christian an assumption or base may not exist for the person's morality. Now, this is not to say the person will have a 'better' or 'worse' set of moral values, or even different, but it is to say that the lack of initial label applied to the person, to many people, implies they may not have values that fall in line with Christianity. This doesn't mean that it's right to generalize like this, however, it's the premise behind the question. In other words, if you're going to say you're Christian (assuming that the person should follow a moral code similar to that to Jesus, at least in some respect) then it is obviously a sin to do the acts that are presented here (again, this is taking the Bible literally, which we've discussed). So, it is logical to ask why non-Christians comdemn the act but not as profound in my opinion.

Regardless, what each question does is prod one to investigate morality, and self exploration is something I highly advocate, so thanks for addressing this.