Christian bronies: meet, greet, and mingle!

[Yellow Diamond 7,574]

That's basically the Osiris myth in a nutshell.  Christianity is not at all unique or original in its story of a deity's son being sent to save the faithful.  The Osiris thing had been around for thousands of years before Jesus walked earth.  Surely a reasonable person can see how an objective critic would consider both Jesus and Horus to be cut from the same fabric of a primitive peoples' attempt to find meaning in life.

 

Things can be true-true and unrelated.

 

I'm also going to assume that you have some expertise on this subject, seeing as you've managed to instantly reduce people living ~2,000 years ago to primitive, viz. completely incapable of understanding their own world. That's retrojecting your assessment onto a time and world which was different from our own.

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

Things can be true-true and unrelated.

 

I'm also going to assume that you have some expertise on this subject, seeing as you've managed to instantly reduce people living ~2,000 years ago to primitive, viz. completely incapable of understanding their own world. That's retrojecting your assessment onto a time and world which was different from our own.

 

More or less.  Relatively speaking, people 2000-4000 years ago didn't understand the world very well.  They weren't unintelligent; just limited in their understanding.  That's why I used the word "primitive" to describe their attempts to understand things.  They commonly attributed plagues and earthquakes to wrathful deities instead of pathogens and tectonics.

 

In their cultural environment, supernatural explanations were an understandable conclusion.  If somebody today were to make up supernatural explanations for everything (i.e., Scientology) they become a laughing stock.  The world's older religions simply have the benefit of being established.

Edited August 25, 2013 by NLR Information Minister

[GrauWitz 1,010]

I am a Christian, but I dont believe in all the religious stuff. Niether does my Dad, nor my Uncle, John. We just dont think religion makes a whole pile of sense, not trying to be racist

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

I am a Christian, but I dont believe in all the religious stuff. Niether does my Dad, nor my Uncle, John. We just dont think religion makes a whole pile of sense, not trying to be racist

 

Here it is again...people confusing race and religion.  The more I think about it, the more I'm sure this is a potentially harmful oversimplification.  Racism is being discriminatory against something that people have no control over.  Religious preference is far more fluid.  Religions are ideas that can change, but race is a set of genetics that cannot.

 

Bottom line: don't feel bad about being opposed to ideas.  If an idea becomes above reproach, it's bad biscuits, bruddah.

[Dsanders 5,747]

A few questions

 

We may be the only forms of sentient life we know, however there are extremophiles such as Tardigrades that can survive in space, while we have not encountered any aliens that we know of, that doesn't except their existence I don't believe.

 

Why would the Universe had already achieved maximum entropy?

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, just asking for some stuff. It's great to see people interested in Physics

 

I forgot about the extremophiles, so thanks for that extra input. But yeah, I was basically referring to the likelihood of there being any other forms of intelligent life out there other than us humans. I'm not at all denying the possibility, but I'm just saying that we are most likely the only intelligent life around for hundreds, thousands, possibly, millions of lightyears in radius.

 

I could be wrong, who knows.

 

To answer you question on the universe's longevity and achieving full maximum entropy, I once again refer back to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. 

 

The easiest example I can give is leaving an ice cube in a full glass of water. It eventually melts due to the higher temperature in the liquid water. Thus the contrasting differences in the heat and coolness forces the ice cube's molecules to increase their energies, causing it to conform to the water's shape and form over a short period of time.

 

The same can be said in a much larger scale. Our universe for example. Countless theories and observations state that our universe is expanding, and I truly do believe that it is. Because it is expanding, all the dark matter and compositions must have came from a beginning source, which in turn, must have been instigated by an intelligent omniscient designer. 

 

However, if the universe were to somehow have always existed, with no beginning if that's even possible, and have always been expanding(this is where all those alternate theories start to make no sense.), then it would have definitely achieved full entropy. I imagine that it requires massive energy and heat for our universe to be expanding as it is. Over time, the heat and the exhaustion of all the energy needed to maintain it could've easily pushed our Universe towards a heat death long before life would have had a chance to start. Therefore we shouldn't even be alive right now.

 

It is my personal perspective overall. So yeah.

 

Anyways, this isn't really relevant to the thread, so I'll stop right here.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Sanderspie

[Yellow Diamond 7,574]

More or less.  Relatively speaking, people 2000-4000 years ago didn't understand the world very well.  They weren't unintelligent; just limited in their understanding.  That's why I used the word "primitive" to describe their attempts to understand things.  They commonly attributed plagues and earthquakes to wrathful deities instead of pathogens and tectonics.

 

In their cultural environment, supernatural explanations were an understandable conclusion.  If somebody today were to make up supernatural explanations for everything (i.e., Scientology) they become a laughing stock.  The world's older religions simply have the benefit of being established.

 

Let's refocus here. I want to know where you are citing your claims about the Osiris myth (and similar myths) being related to the Christian reports of the resurrection. I even had a look at the Wikipedia article you linked, and not one section mentioned any relation. Unless you were simply using prejudicial language ("Surely a reasonable person can see how an objective critic...") to enhance your point, I am going to assume you had more to back up that assertion beyond a Wikipedia link. That's why I challenged you assessments about people of the ancient world desperately struggling to find meaning: the arguments you presented seemed more geared toward reductionism rather than deductive conclusions.

 

Yes, I agree that people living several thousands of years ago did not have as much information at their fingertips as we commonly do. I readily acknowledge cultures cultivating cosmogonies and cosmologies for making sense of the world and the universe. I take issue with retrojecting literalism onto past cultures (e.g., every single person took the Osiris myth as fact) and assuming most everyone was dumb as a lamp post in the 1 century CE Judea. These are replies steeped in modern biases, ones which may assume that previous generations simply didn't know any better.

[Loony Luna <3 4]

imma christian too! woot woot christian parteh up in poniverse! loool! xD glad to know there are other christian ponies/people here

[Derpyfilmaholic 12]

Im from a christian family and I really do believe in God, but I wouldn't call myself a bornagain christian, not just yet anyway.  

Nice to know there are so many christian bronies!

Im from a christian family and I really do believe in God, but I wouldn't call myself a bornagain christian, not just yet anyway.

Nice to know there are so many christian bronies!

[Reuel(Crystal Slave) 287]

Im from a christian family and I really do believe in God, but I wouldn't call myself a bornagain christian, not just yet anyway.

Nice to know there are so many christian bronies!

Im from a christian family and I really do believe in God, but I wouldn't call myself a bornagain christian, not just yet anyway.

Nice to know there are so many christian bronies!

 

Well there comes a time in everyone's life where they have to make their faith their own... I really hope you do get to know Jesus personally. It's awesome and He's changed my life so much! God is waiting with His arms open, and believe me when I say your life will never be the same after making a definite decision to follow Jesus.

[Flutterspark 48]

@@DusK,

 

Sorry it's been so long. I've been pretty busy lately, and I'm about to be busy again, so this'll probably have to be my last post in what was going to be a discussion.

 

 

 

Unless He exists, and the Bible was simply written by man. Not exactly an out-there concept. Too many people put far too much stock in the Bible. If a person's ability to believe hinges significantly more (or even entirely) on a book instead of a personal relationship through trust and prayer, then really, any book is fair game, because there's no solid proof in any way that the Bible is "the absolute word of God", and certainly not "infallible". I prefer to put a personal relationship with Christ above a book that's "infallible" in name only, as I'll detail later in this post.

 

However, if you choose to reject the Bible as the Word of God, then you really don't have anything on which your ideas of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ stand. What is God? What is He like? What are His promises? All of these things and more you throw away.

 

You seem, in a sense, to be unwilling to consider the Bible as being the Word of God because it is presented in book format. Christians who accept the Bible are not putting their faith on a book, they are putting their faith on the Living Word.

 

How do we know, for absolute certain, that the Bible is the Word of God? The Holy Spirit, inside of every Christian, testifies of the Truth, and the Bible agrees with this Truth.

 

If you don't trust the Bible as God's word, why trust anything that it says? Why even bother with it? You see, this is an all or nothing deal. I would describe it as very "out there".

 

 

 

Furthermore, people insisting that people who don't revere that Bronze Age collection of texts are doing it wrong are themselves doing it wrong according to the very book they're revering (Romans 14:1-23).

 

 

You are misusing that passage. The subject line, the first verse in that chapter is:

 

"Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters." - Romans 14:1 (NKJV)

 

The authority of the scriptures is not a disputable matter.

 

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," - 2 Timothy 3:16

 

In this verse, Paul says that all of the Bible is inspired by God.

 

Please understand me, I'm not here to tell you "you're doing it wrong" for the sake of saying it. I'm here to build up your faith. I can see where you are not getting things right, and I wish to direct you along the right road.

 

In the very passage you listed:

 

"Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another." - Romans 14:19 (NKJV, my italics)

 

 

 

The Bible contradicts itself on many occasions, the most notable being the massive inconsistencies in testimony on the death of Jesus between the various disciples.

 

 

What appears to be a difference, is not necessarily an inconsistency. The Bible never contradicts itself. This site has a bunch of information on the differences between the gospels:

 

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark

 

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/luke-john-and-acts

 

 

 

Aside from these, there are smaller examples. For example, is God a God of peace (Romans 15:33) or a God of War (Exodus 15:3)?

 

 

Exodus 15:3 does not state that God is a God of war, it says He is a warrior. You are not applying the Law of non-contradiction. Isn't it possible that God is a peaceful warrior?

 

 

 

Is Joseph the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23)?

 

 

See "Why are there different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3?"

 

 

 

If you're not for God, are you automatically against Him (Matthew 12:30), or if you aren't against God, are you automatically for Him (Luke 9:50)?

 

 

That isn't contradictory.

 

 

If the Bible were indeed as perfect as people claim, not a single inconsistency would exist.

 

This is true. And there are no inconsistencies.

 

 

 

Firstly, I find it rather easy to rationalize a believe in evolution with Christianity, especially if one doesn't revere the Bible as the "perfect word of God" that others seem to.

 

Indeed, rationalizing a belief in evolution with Christianity is impossible if you do hold the Bible as the perfect Word of God.

 

See "Did God Create Over Billions of Years?"

 

But what you have presented to me is not Christianity. It has no solid foundation, as far as I can see.

 

 

 

Additionally, there's incontrovertible evidence supporting evolution. Mounds of it. The same cannot be said for creationism; it only exists inside the Bible.

 

I don't really want to go into an indepth debate about Evolution. Other than the basic reasons on why why it doesn't work, I know little about the evidence for it. However, I highly doubt it is "incontrovertible".

 

Creation only exists in the Bible? We only have a reliable eye-witness account given by God Himself. It doesn't account for anything.

 

There is loads of evidence for a young-earth Creation.

 

For starters, see "Age of the earth - 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe".

 

 

 

Thirdly, Creation Ministries is far from scientific, and certainly not rational. They have zero credibility. The closest thing they have to a real scientist is the founder Carl Wieland, and his degree is in medicine; far from a field of any credibility regarding the subject at hand.

 

So people with science degrees and Ph.D.s are not real scientists?

 

Also, you do you wave-off the all of Creation Ministries International like that? It's all just "not rational"? Who says?

 

 

 

This, compounded with their usage of the "reverse scientific method" (coming to a conclusion first, seeking out only answers that can be construed to fit that conclusion, and ignoring evidence opposed to the conclusion out entirely no matter how reliable or, in the case of the young-earth vs. old-earth debate, irrefutable) makes them far from reasonable.

 

 

You are confusing what is effectively pseudoscience with having a world view. A world view (in my understanding) is one's framework for interpreting evidence which allows one to interpret and form conclusions about the world around him. Evidence does not speak for itself, it must be interpreted according to some kind of world view. Both Creationists and Evolutionists have world views. You have to start somewhere in order to be able to make sense of the world around us. Young-earth Creationists started with the presumption that there is a God and that the world was created 6000 years ago in a certain way. Evolutionists started with the presumption that there is no God, and that the world is very old, and essentially made itself.

 

 

 

Young earth creationism flies in the face of stuff we've known with 100% certainty to be true for the past few decades. It's essentially the modern equivalent of believing in a flat earth, and Creation Ministries, attempts to rationalize using pseudo-science and all, is not unlike the Flat Earth Society.

 

 

100% certainty? Science can never prove or tell us with 100% certainty something that happened thousands of years ago. It is a framework for understanding the world around us today. The only thing that can tell us what really happened, in detail, is a reliable eye-witness account.

 

See It's Not Science. (Scroll down to the section called "A Valid Distinction")

 

 

 

Hosea 9:11-16 Numbers 5:11-21 Numbers 31:17 Hosea 13:16 2 Kings 15:16 1 Samuel 15:3 Psalms 135:8 Psalms 137:9 Leviticus 20:9 Judges 11:30-40 Psalms 137:8-9 Deuteronomy 21:18-21 Judges 19:24-29 Exodus 12:29 Exodus 20:9-10 2 Kings 2:23-24 Leviticus 26:30 Isaiah 13:15-18 Jeremiah 11:22-23 Jeremiah 19:7-9 Lamentations 2:20-22

 

Those are all good examples of God's purity and often his righteous wrath.

 

See Is the God of the Old Testament a Merciless Monster?

 

Here are some passages on God's mercy:

 

2 Samuel 24:14

Psalms 86:5

Psalms 145:9

Luke 6:36

Ephesians 2:4

Titus 3:5

Hebrews 4:16

1 Peter 1:3

1 John 1:9

Joel 2:12-14

 

Good talking with you! Again, I'm arguing with you not to bring you down, but to make you question. I'm not here to make an enemy of you, but to edify you.

 

I won't have time to write for a while, so this'll be my last post in our discussion, but please feel free to PM me if you want to talk more about this or anything, really.

 

I hope this post makes an interesting read. God bless you. 

Edited November 23, 2013 by Flutterspark

[)O( Scarlet )O( 1,259]

Right, well I am a Christian, I was born and raised a Christian (although out of my immediate family (my mum, dad, brother and sister) I am the only Christian now), and whilst I acknowledge that there are really nice Catholics out there, the ones I have met, have all been idiots and jerks/losers (in my own personal opinion), there are also a few other things I don't like about Catholics. But let's just say these songs pretty much sums it up:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHtbnyBUrv4

 

 

 

 

Also the game/movie Dante's Inferno is quite interesting...

 

And YES, I am well aware that the band is a Pagan band, I was at one time, a Pagan too. Though I am a Christian, I do like some Pagan bands, as their music is quite good!

Edited August 31, 2013 by Swift Quill

[DusK 1,264]

However, if you choose to reject the Bible as the Word of God, then you really don't have anything on which your ideas of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ stand. What is God? What is He like? What are His promises? All of these things and more you throw away.

Once again: I gain that knowledge through a personal relationship.

 

If you have a friend, you don't learn about who they are and what they're like from simply reading a book someone else wrote about them. You learn what they're like by getting to know them.

 

You seem, in a sense, to be unwilling to consider the Bible as being the Word of God because it is presented in book format. Christians who accept the Bible are not putting their faith on a book, they are putting their faith on the Living Word.

That's only one part of it; I'd be willing to accept that the book is indeed the Word of God if it wasn't wrong and self-contradictory so often.

 

How do we know, for absolute certain, that the Bible is the Word of God? The Holy Spirit testifies of of the Truth in our hearts, and the Bible agrees with this Truth.

Basically, "How do we know the Bible is the Word of God? Because The Bible says so." My mom tried to use that same argument on me for years. It won't work.

 

If you can find some sort of verifiable evidence outside the Bible itself that the Bible is indeed the Word of God (and no, unlike what you say later, "eye-witness" stuff isn't reliable and doesn't count), I'd love to see it. Until then, no; the Bible self-proclaiming its own status as truth is no different than the thousands -- maybe even millions -- of texts throughout the world that have done the exact same thing; the Qu'ran, Dianetics, The Five Classics, Shruti, the list goes on for miles. All religious texts self-proclaim.

 

If you don't trust the Bible as God's word, why trust anything that it says? Why even bother with it? You see, this is an all or nothing deal. I would describe it as very "out there".

Easily; I don't trust anything it says. Anybody can write a book about anything they want. Putting it to paper doesn't mean it's fact.

 

It's a very great way to learn what other people thought (or may have thought) about various religious topics, but nothing more. It's not "proof" of anything, and anyone capable of rational thought and consequentialist moral thinking knows it definitely shouldn't be some sort of guide book or instruction manual for life.

 

You are misusing that passage. The subject line, the first verse in that chapter is:

 

"Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters." - Romans 14:1 (NKJV)

 

The authority of the scriptures is not a disputable matter.

 

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," - 2 Timothy 3:16

 

In this verse, Paul says that all of the Bible is inspired by God.

 

Please understand me, I'm not here to tell you "you're doing it wrong" for the sake of saying it. I'm here to build up your faith. I can see where you are not getting things right, and I wish to direct you along the right road.

 

In the very passage you listed:

 

"Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another." - Romans 14:19 (NKJV, my italics)

Again: "The authority of the scriptures is not a disputable matter, I'm writing right here that the scriptures themselves say that they're not a disputable matter." -Paul

 

It's cool that you're trying to "edify" me and all, but you're basically saying that being reasonable and being Christian are antithetical. Sorry, but God gave me a brain and the power of rational thought so that I would be able to think for myself.

 

Oh, and as a side note: If I were to be "edified" by all this and suddenly listen to the Bible and stop believing stuff that's actually been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, I wouldn't be "improved"; I'll have regressed.

 

What appears to be a difference, is not necessarily an inconsistency. The Bible never contradicts itself. This site has a bunch of information on the differences between the gospels:

 

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark

 

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/luke-john-and-acts

I love Bible apologetics. Nothing says "we're wrong, but please believe we're right" like lengthy explanations to try to make something look like it says something completely different than what it actually says.

 

Look, I actually did a lot of apologetics when I first got back into Christianity. I know how it works, and how linguistic and logical gynmastics are necessary to rationalize everything that's wrong with scripture, as both you and the site you linked demonstrate. I'm not gonna bother getting into this again, but this:

 

But what you have presented to me is not Christianity. It has no solid foundation, as far as I can see.

My foundation is in a relationship. That's far more reliable than a book.

 

I'm getting married in four months. My relationship with my fiance of nine years doesn't hinge entirely on what other people have posted about her on Facebook. It's built on connection, communication, and experience. A relationship with God is no different.

 

Now let's get into the fun stuff: Science!

 

I'm linking that article because you really should read it.

 

I don't really want to go into an indepth debate about Evolution. Other than the basic reasons on why why it doesn't work, I know little about the evidence for it. However, I highly doubt it is "incontrovertible".

Too bad: You opened this can of worms, so it's time to hook 'em up and get to fishin'.

 

You're basically taking something that humanity has seen, documented, and has solid proof for and going "nah, it doesn't work because this other book that's claimed to be written by God just doesn't jive with it".

 

I hate Dawkins and his dogmatic atheism with a passion (I actually have a disdain for New Atheism for the same reasons I dislike organized religion), but if you ever want to learn how evolution works from someone who actually studied and published peer-reviewed, scientifically-sound research on the subject, give some of his videos a watch. Despite his obvious biases, he does a great job at explaining exactly how verifiable science is at odds with young earth creationism.

 

Creation only exists in the Bible? We only have a reliable eye-witness account given by God Himself. It doesn't account for anything.

You just repeated what I said, but worded it differently. So, um... thanks?

 

There is loads of evidence for a young-earth Creation.

 

For starters, see "Age of the earth - 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe".

Here's a list of every single one of those debunked with scientifically-sound research (something the Batten list lacks, but I guess I can't fault him, you're not exactly going to know a whole lot about the research that discerned the Earth's age from studying agriculture). Check the citations to learn more.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe

 

So people with science degrees and Ph.D.s are not real scientists?

If you have a degree in medicine, it means you know about medicine. I'm not going to ask a physician or botanist how geology or astronomy works.

 

Also, you do you wave-off the all of Creation Ministries International like that? It's all just "not rational"? Who says?

 

You are confusing what is effectively pseudoscience with having a world view. A world view (in my understanding) is one's framework for interpreting evidence which allows one to interpret and form conclusions about the world around him. Evidence does not speak for itself, it must be interpreted according to some kind of world view. Both Creationists and Evolutionists have world views. You have to start somewhere in order to be able to make sense of the world around us. Young-earth Creationists started with the presumption that there is a God and that the world was created 6000 years ago in a certain way. Evolutionists started with the presumption that there is no God, and that the world is very old, and essentially made itself.

 

100% certainty? Science can never prove or tell us with 100% certainty something that happened thousands of years ago. It is a framework for understanding the world around us today. The only thing that can tell us what really happened, in detail, is a reliable eye-witness account.

 

See It's Not Science. (Scroll down to the section called "A Valid Distinction")

Science. It seems to be a term you don't understand, given this explanation, and the explanation given in your link. So I went ahead and shot you a link to an article that, unlike Creation.org, doesn't redefine the word entirely. Consider this, an explanation of what science actually is, and how it differs from what you believe it to be, my attempt to "edify" you.

 

If it's all about "interpretation", then how do you interpret the massive amount of evidence via radiocarbon dating, geology, and similar methods which yielded those numbers?

 

Actually, let's really dig into this. How do you rationalize fossil research that clearly indicate the presence of materials and organisms significantly older than your claims of the Earth itself? Unacceptable answers include "this particular book/scripture/etc says differently". Rational explanations only.

 

The fact is that every single discovery relevant to the age of the Earth is at odds with your completely unsubstantiated theories. We know your claims are wrong by now stuff is wrong, just as we knew in by the 1800s that the flat-earth theory is wrong. It's been proven wrong. Real proof, not the-Bible-says-so "proof".

 

Lots (and I mean LOTS) of citations you can check in this article.

 

You're actually going to say that witnesses are more reliable than tangible physical evidence? You can't be serious. It's actually kind of funny how much you're proving the parallels between flat-earth crap and YEC true.

 

Eye-witness accounts of the Earth from space (photographs, even, which is quite a bit more reliable than text by itself) were rationalized by the Flat Earth Society as "proof that the Earth is nothing more than a flat disc". You're doing the exact same thing here; attempting to choose only the methods that you know can be skewed or interpreted to "prove" the conclusion that you reached long before you bothered to look into the matter at all -- just like the FES -- and completely ignore significantly more valid and reliable evidence that would prove your claim false. You're using the scientific method in reverse.

 

You (and that hilarious site that you keep linking as if it has any credibility at all) are attempting to discredit solid evidence and the scientific method itself, not because it's wrong, but because it runs contrary to your claim. Someone else on this board made me laugh when he said "science doesn't produce facts". You're basically saying the same thing here, and see, here's the problem with that statement: Producing facts is pretty much entirely what science is meant to do. Saying science doesn't produce facts is like saying a knife isn't meant to cut. You, that other guy, and that site you're linking have zero understanding of what science actually is.

 

When the only way to bring credit to your own argument is to completely misinterpret, redefine, or otherwise skew the opposition, you should really re-think your position.

 

Those are all good examples of God's purity and often his righteous wrath.

 

See Is the God of the Old Testament a Merciless Monster?

That article in a nutshell: "Stuff was different back then, people were raping and killing babies all the time, so it's okay for God to command them to do those things over and over and over again."

 

No. People in Africa kidnap children and sell them into the child soldier market all the time. If Kony decided, one day, to be a perfect saint and start dedicating his life to feeding the impoverished denizens of Uganda, his actions in the child soldier trade don't suddenly become "merciful" and "pure". They're still pretty messed up.

 

And as a side note, it will always amaze me that many of the very hyper-religious people who oppose abortion on the basis that "you can't rationalize taking the life of an innocent 'baby'" themselves attempt to rationalize the murder of babies. And women. And workers. Pretty much any non-combatant, really.

[duidamasterXD 9,627]

This thread was made as a way for Christian bronies to get in touch with each other, and while a little discussion of matters of faith and the bible, and other things is fine, it really wasn't intended as a catch all topic for debates regarding Christianity. There are threads in the Debate Pit that would be much better suited for such things. If this thread continues to carry on like this, I'm afraid to say that it will be locked.

[Vinstar59 59]

I came across this and thought I'd share. I knew hunchback had some amazing music, but dang did I completely forget about what has to be one of the greatest songs I've heard in a while.
 

http://youtu.be/0pLCDnbBEk0

Edited September 3, 2013 by Vinstar59

[Inactive01 5,299]

For all the Christian singles out there, I find this article to be very illuminating and humbling. It's to encourage all us singles to realize that we are not alone. We are not defined by the fact that we're single. We're defined by the fact that our true sense of unity and joy comes through Christ Jesus. I know I'm prone to forgetting this as a single, but I hope this article helps you as much as it did me.

 

http://www.critiquebycreating.com/2011/04/the-most-eligible-christian-bachelor/

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

This thread was made as a way for Christian bronies to get in touch with each other, and while a little discussion of matters of faith and the bible, and other things is fine, it really wasn't intended as a catch all topic for debates regarding Christianity. There are threads in the Debate Pit that would be much better suited for such things. If this thread continues to carry on like this, I'm afraid to say that it will be locked.

 

Maybe instead of locking it (and penalizing people who had nothing to do with derailing it), maybe the extraneous posts could just be removed periodically...including yours and mine.

[RrVPfX9cPtw59FpC 1,304]

I'm not christian, I'm an athiest, but I'm pretty sure that members of all religions are accepting and loving! Forgive me, but I don't really see why religion would influence your opinions of a person.

[CornBreadGang 514]

I'm a Christian, and it's great to finally find a thread for Christians! I've been looking for one longer than one could have thought humanly possible.

So yeah... Present!

[00Pony 286]

While I may have said a few things on here, and goodness knows I have done and said things in real life that seem pretty against the Bible's teachings, I am indeed a Christian, born and raised in a Christian household.

 

As stated above, I have made mistakes in the past, but of course, I am only human. None of us are perfect. I can only strive to be better in the future, really.

[CornBreadGang 514]

I really have to ask, what do you guys think about your fellow believers condemning MLP as a thing of Satan?

I can't say that my church has done that. In fact, we use scenes from MLP in our sermons to show how non-Satanic it is.

And that's 20% cooler.

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

Guys, I love a good debate as much as anyone, I agree with DashForever. If there's one thing we can all agree about our religion is that it says to love and respect one another, so we need to all follow that and try and keep this civil. 

Edited September 27, 2013 by Shoboni

[Jessper 735]

I can't say that my church has done that. In fact, we use scenes from MLP in our sermons to show how non-Satanic it is.

And that's 20% cooler.

 

Well, I can see where those people are coming from, I mean, talking animals were generally considered devil's handiwork or even the devil himself, later in christian history, it was connected to witchcraft. Tho God had "talking ass" (you know, as in donkey), which I guess is close to horses, which in turn is close to ponies. But I apart from that pretty much all talking animals were a big no-no as far as I'm aware.

 

Anyway, you have brony minister/priest/pastor? That doesn't sound too bad.

 

 

Guys, I love a good debate as much as anyone, I agree with DashForever. If there's one thing we can all agree about our religion is that it says to love and respect one another, so we need to all follow that and try and keep this civil. 

 

 

I think that is the one thing no classical religion says, BUT we could agree it's nice thing to do in our human to human interaction here and now.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Jessper

[CornBreadGang 514]

Well, I can see where those people are coming from, I mean, talking animals were generally considered devil's handiwork or even the devil himself, later in christian history, it was connected to witchcraft. Tho God had "talking ass" (you know, as in donkey), which I guess is close to horses, which in turn is close to ponies. But I apart from that pretty much all talking animals were a big no-no as far as I'm aware. I think that is the one thing no classical religion says, BUT we could agree it's nice thing to do in our human to human interaction here and now. Anyway, you have brony minister/priest/pastor? That doesn't sound too bad.

Yes, I have a brony pastor.

And as for talking animals, the only real big no-no talking animal in my church are serpents. And that's because they caused the fall of man in the beginning.

Edited September 27, 2013 by super2379

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

I think that is the one thing no classical religion says, BUT we could agree it's nice thing to do in our human to human interaction here and now.

 

It does, the bible for example says quite a bit but people want an excuse to hate others and judge them while while feeling like they hold some kind of moral high ground, so most religions will gloss over those passages and only preach the hateful ones(even though many of them actually condemn it and say the harsher you judge people, the harsher you will be judged.)

 

Granted, no religious document is perfect, all of them had a human hand in their creation and it's arrogant of them in the first place to assume they hold all the answers and speak for whoever God may be in the first place even before you get into that one. 

[Jessper 735]

Yes, I have a brony pastor.

And as for talking animals, the only real big no-no talking animal in my church are serpents. And that's because they caused the fall of man in the beginning.

 

Yeah, serpents are the obvious ones, but there were other animals too, even tho they didn't do anything very remarkable.

The God's donkey didn't either at that.

 

Anyway, how old is the pastor? I know many started to make things more interesting than just standing there and citing Bible in gloomy voice tone, but I didn't see anyone this innovative and cheerful. I've seen quite a few too, you could say visiting different churches and seeing how they lead it there is kind of a pet project of mine.

 

 

It does, the bible for example says quite a bit but people want an excuse to hate others and judge them while while feeling like they hold some kind of moral high ground, so most religions will gloss over those passages and only preach the hateful ones(even though many of them actually condemn it and say the harsher you judge people, the harsher you will be judged.)

 

Granted, no religious document is perfect, all of them had a human hand in their creation and it's arrogant of them in the first place to assume they hold all the answers and speak for whoever God may be in the first place even before you get into that one. 

 

 

All those passages about tolerance and love seem a bit sketchy to me, in fact, you could even say they say to not be respectful, tolerant or loving of many thing, people and opinions. Especially when it comes to schisms inside the religion or other religion. 

 

I phrased it in a bit weird way, but what I actually meant is that we all can be nice and civil regardless of what Bible or any other document for that matter says about it. Gee, that sounds so wrong when I say it.