Why be a Christian?

[Rian]

Yay! Grace Brethren made Jim's list. Woo hoo!

?? What the hell is Grace Brethren??

It is the denomination to which I and seven or eight other people belong.

Hey, there was a Grace Brethren church near us, so you can add at least 3 more people to your count ...

(our kids went to a Grace Brethren school in California)

[stickmangrit]

i don't know when it "becomes a person," because you have to define what the fuck makes a person a person before you can determine when they start being a person. it's not rational thought, because then they'd be fair game for killin until somewhere around two, to say nothing of mental retardation or severe brain deformities. fetal viability is already under the law as being the protected "point of personhood," and until the fetus is capable of feeling pain, it's kinda hard to hurt it, so these seem as good a point to start determining from as any. see, unlike you, i don't have an instruction book on life that's contradictory enough to sound like it's saying whatever i say it is(even if it's saying the opposite thing last chapter), so i've got to work at what to believe. i have no choice but to look into all aspects of the discussion and reach a personal conclusion.

[whoosanightowl]

Stickman wrote:

until the fetus is capable of feeling pain, it's kinda hard to hurt it,

Perhaps, but it's not too hard to intentionally kill it, and since when is the ability to feel pain a prerequisite for determining if murder is illegal? Abortion deliberately ends the life of a pre-born human being, so whether a fetus can feel pain yet or survive outside it's mother or not seems irrelevant. I personally consider the point at which an embryo becomes a fetus, 12 weeks, to be the point at which it should be legally protected as a person, but even before that time abortion should not be taken lightly or without respect for the life of the unborn child. Prevention of pregnancy/implantation should be taken more seriously to avoid the necessity for most abortions.
Anything beyond the 2 month point should only be legal for extenuating circumstances such as the life (not health) of the mother or severe problems with the baby. In those rare situations the parents should be able to decide along with their doctors what course of action would be best to take.

[stickmangrit]

Stickman wrote:

until the fetus is capable of feeling pain, it's kinda hard to hurt it,

Perhaps, but it's not too hard to intentionally kill it, and since when is the ability to feel pain a prerequisite for determining if murder is illegal? Abortion deliberately ends the life of a pre-born human being, so whether a fetus can feel pain yet or survive outside it's mother or not seems irrelevant. I personally consider the point at which an embryo becomes a fetus, 12 weeks, to be the point at which it should be legally protected as a person, but even before that time abortion should not be taken lightly or without respect for the life of the unborn child. Prevention of pregnancy/implantation should be taken more seriously to avoid the necessity for most abortions.
Anything beyond the 2 month point should only be legal for extenuating circumstances such as the life (not health) of the mother or severe problems with the baby. In those rare situations the parents should be able to decide along with their doctors what course of action would be best to take.

not arguing that at all, and i've said as much on other threads. as a child of divorce and a nineteen year old mother, i'm quite aware of what happens when two people have a child they are unprepared to raise. however, i was asked when it becomes a person, and my question in response is what is a person? what defines us as people?

[kobodur]

Scott said that he's a follower of Jesus, so he believes in the bible and God because Jesus did. You have to believe in the bible first to know who Jesus is. I think he's putting the cart before the horse. He also said that Western culture is being forced on an Eastern culture book. Is God a Ancient near Eastern Culture God, is that part of his nature? Scott also mentioned beauty and order in the universe. Beauty is subjective, one man's trash is another man's treasure. If there's order in God, he needs a god who needs a god etc. I can't find a reason to stop at one God just to get a final answer. He also said he's a christian because of the community. But, his theology is seems quite opposed to the theology of his church. From previous episodes I gather that they're Calvinists, but I also gather that he is not. I'm quite surprise he can commune with that church. It would make more sense for him to go to a Methodist church or some church that was closer to Arminianism. He seems to atribute today's Hell to The Inferno. The Inferno was very specific, it had torture chamber for various sets of sins. But there are a great variety of Hells today ranging from literal fire and sulfur to God allowing people to be as bad as they can be. He seems to have said that Christians can be Calvinists, Arminians, and Universalists, but only one is true. 3 opposing views of salvation that are all held by true believers. This picture leaves a lot to be desired.

[jori]

Scott said that he's a follower of Jesus, so he believes in the bible and God because Jesus did. You have to believe in the bible first to know who Jesus is. I think he's putting the cart before the horse.

Scotts statement would make sense for the OT. I think it is the main reason why the OT is considered scripture by Christians: because Jesus believed in it and because it is referred to in the NT. As for believing in the NT, I don't know, it could be that someone has a revelation and finds out that revelation is consistent with the NT. Then belief in Jesus would come before belief in the scriptures. I also heard of people who got convinced in the NT by reading in it - however that can happen.

He also said that Western culture is being forced on an Eastern culture book. Is God a Ancient near Eastern Culture God, is that part of his nature?

I think that would be an interesting topic for a podcast or a thread. Christianity claims to be culturally independent, thus all this talk about inculturation in missiology, and it definitely has different cultural forms (just compare eastern Orthodoxy to American Pentecostalism). However, I think it is deeply linked to the respective culture or actually a part of it (I as an Atheist would say that it is nothing but a part of a (sub-)culture). So deep that it is not always clear whether some values are from the respective culture or religion.

As for Judaism, I don't know, it is probably still stronger based on Middle Eastern Culture, especially if followed traditionally. Just consider the sacrifice rules, they won't make sense in areas where the mentioned animals are not part of regular lifestock.
[quote] Scott also mentioned beauty and order in the universe. Beauty is subjective, one man's trash is another man's treasure.[/qote]
That's where I had a longer discussion with Jimminy on some other thread. I think it is not obvious that the universe is entirely good. It has it good and bad aspects and also people's view on them change a lot (for example the mountains that we admire nowadays were mostly considered dangerous some centuries ago). So imho there is not a lot to draw from the "beauty of the universe".