Organized Religion

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

You better not be one of those dirty pizza-lovers!

[Guest SP-1]

Spicy, where have I quoted scripture and offered no interperetation? Anytime I use scripture, it's generally in the middle of an explanation of something. Dopey might have done that, but I sure as hell haven't that I can recall.

 

Mormons aren't Christians. A Christian, by definition, believes in the Godhood of Christ as a third of the Trinity. The mormons do not believe this and thus are not Christians. Considering the conversations I've had with other Christians on the board behind the scenes, I don't think I've alienated myself from anyone that knows what they believe in is about. Your faith is only as good as who you put it in when it comes to salvation I believe alot of Catholics are saved, but I think alot might not be. Alot of professing "Christians" are saved, but alot might not be. If acknowledging that as a truth is alienating myself from someone, then I'd rather be alienated than deny it.

 

And Marney, the theory that homosexuality is an emotional and psychologically driven behavioral disorder wasn't invented by me. Scientifically, no root cause has been determined. My belief is shared by others that I know who have come out of it and are wrestling with it themselves, as well as people in the Psychology community. For something that's "beat the shit" out of me, I've handled my earlier problems with it quite nicely and healthily, and it's no longer a problem, just like my being Bi-Polar and clinically depressed. All because of the work of Christ. Not as a crutch that I can simply say, "Well Jesus said so it must be true," but because of facing the root problems that caused the disorders through prayer (spending time with God, talking to Him about it), with counselors, and with time. But the inner healing and change came from God, and nothing else.

 

Simply because you don't believe it means nothing. Experience and repeated results in others around me is far more powerful than the rantings of someone more focused on trying to attack my character than carrying on an actual discussion.

 

Anyone that wants to logically discuss any of it with me, feel free to IM me or PM me. I'd love to if I'm on. Otherwise, this thread has degenerated terribly and I'd rather spend my time communicating with people interested in actual discussion. Good day.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

People have a genetic disposition to homosexuality. It is affected by the life you lead, but if two people lead exactly the same life, one will be more likely tha the other to be homosexual. It is not, in any way, an "emotional and psychologically driven behavioral disorder".

[Guest Big Poppa Popick]

havent read much of this, but gawd people, what i did read...why you bash us catholics so much ... eh okay half the stuff that goes on is whack

 

then again...so is most of the protestant stuff too

 

im pretty certain this thread degenerated into a debate on is there a god or what religion is true.

 

id just like to encourage anyone who has faith or wants to know about a defensible arguement for faith, read Kierkergard.  He's in Barnes and Noble...philosophy

 

The basic idea is to believe because it is absurd...anywho, thats where i ascribe.

 

as per any organized religion, im at the point where i go to church...what denomination it is depends on which friends im with...it really shouldnt matter in the end.

i love kierkegaard, but there's some problems with it.

such as? so far its the most logically defensible case for religion that i can find.

[Guest SP-1]

People have a genetic disposition to homosexuality. It is affected by the life you lead, but if two people lead exactly the same life, one will be more likely tha the other to be homosexual. It is not, in any way, an "emotional and psychologically driven behavioral disorder".

*Ahem*

 

A quick search to Yahoo leads me to a non-Christian organization that is studying the behavior in question. Theory. Not proof. All it takes is a quick search to check up on it.

[chaosrage 0]

I disagree. Medically, where one disease is cured, others run rampant. Look at the AIDS pandemic. Also, look at third world countries. Sure, we've ended things like slavery. But look at all the laborers in poorer countries working for cents a day.

 

You also are contradicting yourself by citing these medical and technological advances and then saying that "millions of people around the world that have known nothing but misery from the time they were born until the time they died."

 

I never said it was perfect now, but for the most part we're a LOT better off. 1,000 years ago the whole world was like Afghanistan. Now only about half of the world is. We've wiped out or controlled hundreds upon hundreds of diseases. Just 500 years ago 7 out of ten children died before they reached adulthood. Now we can reach ages that people wouldn't have even dreamed of. Torture, slavery, and a lot of other things used to be considered acceptable, but now isn't, meaning we not only improve technologically, but morally.

 

Who are you to decide what excess suffering is? No matter how hard you look, there is always something to learn from very necessary hardship. There absolutely is a reason for it. The point in persevering through misery, as everyone does, is literally the light at the end of the tunnel. There is no suffering in heaven. That's the point. You live a Christlike life, doing good and suffering through hardship, as He did... and you are rewarded with eternal life in heaven.

 

You're not making a point for it, you're just excusing it. The people who suffer all the time would get to the same light at the end of the tunnel as those that hardly suffer at all.

 

If there's no suffering in heaven, then that must be a horrible place, an eternity full of robots who just float through life and never learn anything, right? Otherwise, this life is superfluous, and suffering is unnecessary.

 

Why don't you bang your head against the wall a few times to see how good it feels when you stop?

 

Here's one... IF the Pope ordered a crusade, he was wrong. And the individual is ultimately responsible for himself, no matter what the influences. If my Church leaders suddenly advocated the death of all non-Catholics, they would invalidate themselves. I wouldn't turn away from the Church... I would say they had. It is always my final decision with my consequences, and it's my responsibility... not the religion, not the Church leader.

 

It wouldn't be your responibility because there were so few people that could interpret the Bible. It was all up to the pope, and what the pope said was the very definition of Christian. Popes were supposed to have been ordained by God. So what he said was the absolute truth, don't you see that? Back then, Church endorsement = christianity. It doesn't matter if it was wrong or not. All that matters is if it was Christian or not, it was. Just because you believe that God wouldn't prescribe it doesn't make it change the fact that he did prescribe it according to the only authority that could say so.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

People have a genetic disposition to homosexuality. It is affected by the life you lead, but if two people lead exactly the same life, one will be more likely tha the other to be homosexual. It is not, in any way, an "emotional and psychologically driven behavioral disorder".

*Ahem*

 

A quick search to Yahoo leads me to a non-Christian organization that is studying the behavior in question. Theory. Not proof. All it takes is a quick search to check up on it.

That page agrees with what I said. Homosexuality is believed by almost all researchers to be affected by genetics as well as environment. Granted it hasn't been proved, but

 

From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:

"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."

 

I agree with them that there isn't a "gay gene". My original post was in response to your views that homosexuality is an "emotional and psychologically driven behavioral disorder", which suggests that it is not biological and is out of God's hands, but instead is a completely free choice on the behalf of the individual. If I misconstrued any of your posts, then I am sorry and apologise

[Guest KJ Brackish]

Well I can say that my few friends that ARE mormon wish that they wern't. They got put into the religion by their parents. A large portion of that religion here in Utah, think that they are better than the rest of us (other religions.) It pisses me off. Especially because at least once a week, we have at least one missionairy come and try to convert us. I've gotten down-right evil toward a couple of em (Shouting that Joseph Smith can kiss my ass.) and other stuff. But I'm just saying that that is the reason that I hate that religion. IMO

 

DFA

[Guest Lil Naitch]

Much like communism, it works in theory.

[Guest Lil Naitch]

Well I can say that my few friends that ARE mormon wish that they wern't. They got put into the religion by their parents. A large portion of that religion here in Utah, think that they are better than the rest of us (other religions.) It pisses me off. Especially because at least once a week, we have at least one missionairy come and try to convert us. I've gotten down-right evil toward a couple of em (Shouting that Joseph Smith can kiss my ass.) and other stuff. But I'm just saying that that is the reason that I hate that religion. IMO

 

DFA

Just put a chalk outline of a body on your front porch, then scatter some of those religious pampets......

[Guest BaldFish]

Mormons aren't Christians. A Christian, by definition, believes in the Godhood of Christ as a third of the Trinity. The mormons do not believe this and thus are not Christians. Considering the conversations I've had with other Christians on the board behind the scenes, I don't think I've alienated myself from anyone that knows what they believe in is about. Your faith is only as good as who you put it in when it comes to salvation I believe alot of Catholics are saved, but I think alot might not be. Alot of professing "Christians" are saved, but alot might not be. If acknowledging that as a truth is alienating myself from someone, then I'd rather be alienated than deny it.

Hey, don't feel the need to leave any room for people with other definitions of "Christian" or anything. That happens to be a loaded word, and has a number of different meanings to a number of different people.

 

A broader definition could simply "follower of Christ"--although "follower" can mean any number of things to any number of people.

 

For what it's worth, I think that Christ was probably a pretty decent guy who was trying to reform the Jewish church--and I strongly suspect that his followers forced him into the mold of "messiah" after his death. There are a number of things that are said in the New Testament that I agree with, and probably just as many (mostly things said by Paul after Jesus's death) that I find revolting.

 

Does that make me a Christian? It's arguable. I would point you to the book <i>Contact</i> by Carl Sagan--you may have seen the movie, but some great stuff was left out of Ellie's dialogues:

 

"I'm a Christian in the sense that I find Jesus Christ to be an admirable historical figure.  I think the Sermon on the Mount is one of the greatest ethical statements and one of the best speeches in history.  I think that 'Love your enemy' might even be the long-shot solution to the problem of nuclear war.  I wish he was alive today.  It would benefit everybody on the planet.  But I think Jesus was only a man.  A great man, a brave man, a man with insight into unpopular truths.  But I don't think he was God or the son of God or the grandnephew of God."

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

If there's no suffering in heaven, then that must be a horrible place, an eternity full of robots who just float through life and never learn anything, right? Otherwise, this life is superfluous, and suffering is unnecessary.

But heavenly- and earthly-life do not have the same purpose.

[Guest DrTom]

You can't just scream from the highest hilltop that its mythical without a whole lot more discussion on a whole lot of things we probably don't want to get into.

Sure I can. It’s my opinion, and it colors my perspective on all things religious, Christianity in particular. I don’t really have anything against it – I’ve even defended it here before, which I found rather surprising – but I think God was an invention of people who couldn’t explain the unexplained in any other way. Eventually, they found mythoi similar to their own, and cobbled a lot of stories together to make the Bible. It’s not that there’s nothing good in the Bible (in fact, there are a lot of good virtues for living one’s life in there), but I see it as a book of derivative mythology and nothing more.

 

Still you imply that religion, being created by man, is the cause of evil that men do.

More accurately, some of the evil that men have done at various points in history, but yes.

 

Wouldn't it just be easier to cut out the middle man and just say humanity is evil?

No, because I don’t think that’s the case. Would the Crusades have happened if not for religion? Evil people will find a way to wreak their particular brand of mayhem on the world, but I think the Crusades don’t happen if not for the underlying reason of converting the heathens at the point of a sword. Would the Inquisition have happened if not for religion? How about the witch trials? Waco?

 

They might not have technically been communist…

I think you misunderstood me. People killed in the name of religion were killed for worshipping a different god, worshipping the same god in a different way, being a “witch,” etc. The people killed in Russia were not killed specifically because of communism. I doubt someone said, “Blood for The Party!” before executing a dissident. In short, I think many of those deaths would have been committed, regardless of whether Stalin was a Communist or a Beebopist.

 

It also leads to wild generalizations that don't always hold true.

You’re hung up on the negative connotation of the word. Being judgmental involves challenging assumptions, challenging the information that is present and that which is absent, and reasoning out a conclusion. Sure, some people jump the gun and conclude before they have all the facts, but (if you’ll pardon the term) they’re being prejudgmental.

 

The Catholic Church is an institution... religon is an abstract.

Actually, I’d say God is the abstract, with religion as an institution unto itself, with its many sects also being institutions.

[Guest godthedog]

sorry this took response took a while, my internet was down for a day.

You just said he was omnipotent, nothing is necessary or unavoidable for an all-powerful god of course...It's a contradiction. You can't be both omnipotent and omni-benevolent.

sorry, that's not the case. god is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived," and even though nothing could possibly be greater than him by definition, certain things ARE neccesary and unavoidable. to say that NOTHING is impossible to god is to assume this same "supralogical" god about whom it makes no sense to talk, in response to JotW's post. there are limits on his power. some are logical limits: god can't make 2+2=5, he can't destroy himself or make another being as powerful as he is, etc. some are limits by his very nature: he can't make himself NOT know any true fact about the world, because that goes against his omniscience; by the same token, he can't go against his omnibenevolence.

don't be confused and think that this somehow means god somehow isn't the greatest conceivable being anymore. just because there are some things man can do that god can't (such as destroy ourselves or act out of pure malice), does NOT mean that anyone who can do those things is more powerful than god.

Actually, whether or not God is good or evil shouldn't affect your belief in him at all. All I'm trying to figure out is why people would worship such a monster.

it SHOULD affect your belief in him, because if you believe in a "god" that is evil, you're not believing in god, because it just doesn't fit the definition that people use. that's like saying, "i believe a car exists that has no engine, no wheels, no seats, no frame, and is not used for transportation"--you're not talking about a car anymore, because you're taking away the qualities that make it a car. in the same way, if you talk about an evil judeo-christian god, you're not talking about god anymore because you're taking away an essential quality that makes him god.

as i understand it, you're pointing to various violent acts of terrible suffering that seem to serve no greater good whatsoever (gratuitous evil) and saying that if god existed, he would prevent these acts. if i'm misunderstanding you, then please correct me, but this is essentially the form of every "problem of evil" argument i've read and it seems to fit what you're saying.

if you can't see any greater good coming out of this suffering, and no one can illustrate any greater good coming from it, then you have a perfectly rational basis for not believing in god.

however, this will not win an argument over the theist, and for this reason:

our minds are very limited, and we know very little. god knows EVERYTHING. there's an insurmountable gap between what greater good WE can think of from a terrible act, and what greater good GOD can think of from a terrible act. taking this into account, the fact that WE can't explain some evils in the world doesn't really prove a thing, because there's an infinite amount of explanations we haven't thought of; and just because we haven't thought of them, doesn't mean they're not there (and hence, known by god, since god knows all).

that's why i said the results of the problem of evil have always been inconclusive, it ends in a stalemate. the atheist is perfectly rational in not believing in god, since the theist can't provide an explanation; and the theist is perfectly rational in continuing to believe, since he doesn't HAVE to provide an explanation.

[Guest Michael Joel Benoit]

I'm torn on the issue, personally.

 

It's perfectly logical to not believe in a god. You live. You die. That's it. For there to be life after death, and for a invisible supernatural being to create us and watch our every move is completely illogical.

 

However....

 

I myself have had visions that I cannot comprehend and have freaked me out. I've experienced several supernatural phemeneom in my life just recently.

 

And, even though I accept evolution as fact because it actually did happen, it just doesn't seem right that it all happened by chance and someone didn't get the ball in motion.

 

I just don't accept that we're all here by chance and life is essentinally meaningless.

 

The human mind still hasn't fully evolved. And until then, I don't think we will know 100% sure if there really is a God.

 

So, I am labeling myself an agnostic.

[Guest Michael Joel Benoit]

And even though I'm agnostic, I will say that I find the Bible to be a great source on how to live life and intelligently written. I am suprised on how well, it is written considering it was written at a time when humans were generally dumb and didn't know as much as they know today.

[Guest The Czech Republic]

I am suprised on how well, it is written considering it was written at a time when humans were generally dumb and didn't know as much as they know today.

You of course being the living example of the human race's progression.

[Guest Michael Joel Benoit]

Here is a question I've always wondered and I hope the full-fledged Christians on this board can anwser: How do you know Christianity is the right religion? What makes you so confident that you will go to Heaven (or Hell) when you die? What if the atheists are right and there is no God at all? How can you be so confident that Christianity is true when there is so much to disregard it as being nothing more than a joke and a myth?

[Guest godthedog]

just for fun, i'll throw the ontological argument out there & see what happens, since nobody's brought it up yet.

 

from 'proslogium', by st anselm:

 

"...it is one thing for an object to be in the understanding, and another to understand that the object exists...and whatever is understood, exists in the understanding. and assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. for, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality, which is greater.

 

"therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. but obviously this is impossible. hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality."

 

more simply: god is defined as that than which nothing greater can be conceived. insofar as god is understood, he exists in the understanding: you have a definite idea of god in your mind.

 

now, suppose that god only exists in the understanding, and not in reality.

 

but then you could conceive of a god that exists in reality, and this god in reality would be greater than the god that's only in the understanding.

 

therefore, god cannot exist in the understanding alone. hence, he must exist in reality.

 

"and it assuredly exists so truly, that it cannot be conceived not to exist. for, it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist; and this is greater than one which can be conceived not to exist. hence, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that, than which nothign greater can be conceved. but this is an irreconcilable contradiction. there is then, so truly a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived not to exist."

 

Here is a question I've always wondered and I hope the full-fledged Christians on this board can anwser: How do you know Christianity is the right religion? What makes you so confident that you will go to Heaven (or Hell) when you die? What if the atheists are right and there is no God at all? How can you be so confident that Christianity is true when there is so much to disregard it as being nothing more than a joke and a myth?

read the last 12 pages, there's quite a few answers back there.

[Guest Brush with Greatness]

See, the thing that bugs me about God being all knowing is that he then must be evil. Which counteracts those that argue God is all good or whatever.

 

Think about it. If God is all knowing, then he would've known that Lucifer would turn on him and God is responsible for all the evil in the world.

 

Also, if God is all knowing, then our lives are pre-destined which sort of sucks.

 

And with the whole flood thing with Noah and the arc. I'm under the impression that God did that because he got upset at what he saw about his creation and stuff (something along those lines). Now, why just then would he get upset about it when he knew all along how people would turn out?

 

Also, how do you explain dinosaurs? There is scientific proof that dinosaurs did exist. Now did God actually create the dinosaurs, wipe them out and then start up a human race or what?

 

Also, if heaven is such a paradise, then what was the big sacrifice that Jesus was making by dying on the cross. I mean, Jesus knew heaven was paradise so why would dying be a large sacrifice?

 

And what was Jesus up to between about age 12-30?

 

Now, I'm not necessarily arguing that God doesn't exist, I'm just legitametly curious about how religion addresses some of these questions.

[Guest The Metal Maniac]

Also, if heaven is such a paradise, then what was the big sacrifice that Jesus was making by dying on the cross. I mean, Jesus knew heaven was paradise so why would dying be a large sacrifice?

 

Probably because of the way he died. I would imagine that being crucified is mind-bogglingly painful, what with the nails and the fact that you apparantly die due to lack of oxygen (I think I saw that somewhere, anyway - Apparantly since you're so slumped down, it's hard to breath unless you pull yourself up by your hands, which are NAILED to a giant cross) and all that.

 

HOWEVER, I question why it was such a huge sacrifice to begin with, no matter how he died.

 

Was it because Jesus was God's only son? Because, well, he's God. If he's all-powerful, then I have a hard time believing that it's a big deal for him to make a son. He can make an entire UNIVERSE - I doubt a son is much harder.

 

And WHY did God need Jesus to die for us to be cleansed of sin? Again, he's GOD. Why couldn't he just forgive us? Isn't that what God does? Forgives people? So why was it necessary for him to send Jesus down to die? I can understand Jesus coming to teach people that things in the Church are gonna be done differently, but why did he need to die?

 

The whole thing seems even sillier to me when you consider God's knowledge of everything. He created people, knowing that we'd sin, knowing that he'd be pissed off at people for doing so, and knowing that he'd eventually send in Jesus to clean things up. I dunno, it just doesn't seem like a big sacrifice when you plan it that way all along.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

Jesus has nothin on Mahavira.

 

Dat's rite, I said it.

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

I'd think God would be extremely bored without a devil. God would have to make things happen or else he's just there by himself, which doesn't seem like that great of an existence.

But then, the Bible also says that God is completely content, in and of himself, which hinders a lot of the reason people give for the things God does, specifically the creation of man, Lucifer, and by extension, evil and sin.

[Guest SP-1]

Here is a question I've always wondered and I hope the full-fledged Christians on this board can anwser: How do you know Christianity is the right religion? What makes you so confident that you will go to Heaven (or Hell) when you die? What if the atheists are right and there is no God at all? How can you be so confident that Christianity is true when there is so much to disregard it as being nothing more than a joke and a myth?

For me, it's my own personal experiences with God Himself. I apparently have been gifted in one of the more supernatural spiritual gifts, though a while back I asked for ti to be toned down and it thankfully has been for a while. That He continues to work in my life and reveal Himself to me despite how frequently I screw up proves that He does continually love. That I've seen Jesus while praying testifies to His existence. That I emerged from the occultish practice of seeking "spirit guides" and have had to call on God to keep afloat when I've found myself under supernatural attack tells me that He is good and that He is as powerful as He claims. No other name has ever silenced attacking forces, in my experience.

 

I never simply read The Bible and had someone tell me that it must be absolutely true so I must believe it or I'll burn in Hell. I am a Christian because my life has been irrevocably changed by God Himself through the healing work of Jesus Christ and the personal, continuing relationship with Him.

 

 

As for whomever asked about why Jesus dying was such a big deal, there's more to it than simply going to Heaven. Christ had already been in Heaven, as He is God in the Flesh. The big deal is that God chose to send a part of Himself, willingly, to be born as a man on Earth, with the plan of offering the one perfect sacrifice according to the covenant of sacrifice He had set up in the Old Testament. A sacrifice of an animal without blemish was an atonement for the sins committed. With Christ, the blood being shed for the sacrifice was perfect. Fully God and fully man, He never sinned so was perfect in heart, mind, body, and soul. Thus, it was a sacrifice that was all-encompassing, removing the need for any further sacrifices for sin. The death and ressurrection of Jesus Christ was essentially God taking care of the problem of sin for us since we'll never be able to, and freeing us from the bonds of sin once and for all insofar as how He views us.

 

But your heart has to be in everything. Your faith is only as good as what/who you put it into. In the Old Testament, many pagan religions offered sacrifices, but those sacrifices were not to the only real God and didn't acknowledge Him at all so they meant nothing. With Christ, the sacrifice was made for all, but if you don't embrace it, believe in it, then it does nothing for your sins. When you accept Christ, God sees you in Christ, his sacrifice atoning for your sins and His righteousness accounted to you so that sin cannot rob you of eternal life.

 

That was the big deal. It's a beautiful thing.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

...

 

 

 

 

um. Can I have his phone number?

[Guest Insanityman]

Yeah, I have the most respect for people who have experienced something with God, or Jesus, or whatever... I respect who can let a religion base their whole life, hoping their reward is Heaven.

 

Bbbuuttt, I think I got lost into becoming agnostic (I'm in a very Catholic family) because my religious education classes sucked. Honestly. They told me to love God when I was in first grade or so. So I went along with it, I mean, kids don't think into it that deeply. But around third grade I asked why we should love God... they got very pissy and said because he loved us. The lack of actual substance to their answers that I kept asking just made me think about it more and more. But I went along with the charade, saying meaningless prayers, dazing off in church, all that fun stuff.

 

 

But last year when my Uncle died, who was perhaps the coolest guy I knew but perhaps the least Catholic, I got pissed in general. So for a few weeks I went into "Anti-christ" mode, writing essay and rant after rant about why there could be no God and if there is you shouldn't let organized religion rule your life. Without the anger, I'm still in that set of mind. I believe there is some higher power, possibly... it's just as hard to think there's not as to think there is. But anyway, I'd rather just pass on organized religion and live the life I know I have. Nobody 'cept my family truly has a problem about it, because I don't really go around bashing religion until they try to convert me or get obnixious about it.

 

Anyway, my question is even though I understand God willing sent down a son who taught and suffered... but if you're going into Heaven regardless it seems a little less, I dunno, something. If you catch what I'm saying. If he had a free ticket to Heaven and opened the gates of Heaven to all, where's the true sarcifice? SP you pretty much already answered, but I'm more throwing it out into the void.

[Guest SP-1]

The sacrifice came in that he died. It wasn't for Jesus' personal gain to get to Heaven. He came from Heaven and went back. He didn't have to though. God could've just wiped Adam and Eve out and said to hell with us and the very notion of humanity. But once we screwed up, He Himself became one of us and died an excruciating death here on earth in physical form to pay the price for something He didn't even do. He left perfection, He left part of Himself, and came here to die, go to Hell, and rise to bust the chains of sin and death.

 

Of course, the term sacrifice itself applies to the death of Christ and the technical spilling of His blood in death as atonement for sin, as established in the Old Covenant.

 

That's what any Christian will tell you. I'm not sure there are many other ways to explain it, really. Hope that shed some light on it, though.

 

I'm sorry to hear about your Uncle. Losing someone tends to hit everyone hard. It's not uncommon to question faith in the instance. I shudder to wonder how I would have handled it when I was younger if I had been a Christian when I lost my father.

[Guest Brush with Greatness]

What is your take on the rest of my questions?

 

Also what did God looklike and how did you know it was him?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Yeah, I'd like an answer to that one too. I mean if Satan didn't have a reputation for honesty why couldn't it have been him? Just to fuck with some random moron?

 

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law," after all.

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

I used to make people run screaming from the room by making "demons" appear before their eyes. At the time (age 14 or so), I thought I was actually doing something, but in retrospect they were probably just idiots.