Singapore youths shun religion

[Frodo]

Very good and clever answer. I am happy with your reply. I hope the Sasquatch (and yeti) are found and proven to exist. Reason I believe is because I want to - I know there is no definite proof for their existence, but hundreds, if not thousands of people have claimed to have seen it. Compared to God (how many people claimed to have seen God?) Yet people believe God exists! So, yetis are real, and exist. BTW, these famous creatures have a smaller relative living closer to us here - Orang Pendek, in Sumatra. I am willing to join any expedition that hopes to look for it. Know of anything of this sort? Appreciate if you could clue me in. Thanks!

Cheers!

You claim to be very logical and reasonable, at least much more so than the believers, right? So can I ask you, given that God is invisible, would you reasonably and logically expect God to be seen by man? Yes or No? Note that even Jesus Himself said that no man has seen God. Moreover, if you have no problem believing in Yetis even though there is no proof for their existence, then you all the more you should have no problem believing that God exists, since the evidence pointing to God is far better. Besides, even if the yetis are real creatures, they will still need an explanation for their existence for which atheism would be unable to give a good answer. And finding them or not, is completely irrelevant to the question of whether God exists.

 

[Agoraphobic]

God is an idea, created by men. So a physical God cannot be produced, or seen. The closest "existence" of God was said by some Christians I came across in the past, they said," God cannot be seen, but God can be felt, just look around." So, God exists then, if one wants to believe in God. S/he exists in our mind.

Yetis are real. It is related to the North American bigfoot. Go to youtube, and type in yeti, or bigfoot, or sasquatch, lots of people have caught glimpses of the animal and have videotaped their sightings! Casts of footprints made, hair, have been found where it has been spotted. Any cast of God's footprint made? He is more invisible than these rare and shy animals. I didn't come across any videotape of God, but in a certain park in South-West of Singapore, the Chinese God, someone has made stone images of them, apparently, there are a few Gods. And someday, the South-East Asian relative of Bigfoot, the Orang Pendek will be found - it lives in the forests of Sumatra. Be patient. It will be discovered, soon.

Cheers!

You claim to be very logical and reasonable, at least much more so than the believers, right? So can I ask you, given that God is invisible, would you reasonably and logically expect God to be seen by man? Yes or No? Note that even Jesus Himself said that no man has seen God. Moreover, if you have no problem believing in Yetis even though there is no proof for their existence, then you all the more you should have no problem believing that God exists, since the evidence pointing to God is far better. Besides, even if the yetis are real creatures, they will still need an explanation for their existence for which atheism would be unable to give a good answer. And finding them or not, is completely irrelevant to the question of whether God exists.

 

[Frodo]

God is an idea, created by men. So a physical God cannot be produced, or seen. The closest "existence" of God was said by some Christians I came across in the past, they said," God cannot be seen, but God can be felt, just look around." So, God exists then, if one wants to believe in God. S/he exists in our mind.

Yetis are real. It is related to the North American bigfoot. Go to youtube, and type in yeti, or bigfoot, or sasquatch, lots of people have caught glimpses of the animal and have videotaped their sightings! Casts of footprints made, hair, have been found where it has been spotted. Any cast of God's footprint made? He is more invisible than these rare and shy animals. I didn't come across any videotape of God, but in a certain park in South-West of Singapore, the Chinese God, someone has made stone images of them, apparently, there are a few Gods. And someday, the South-East Asian relative of Bigfoot, the Orang Pendek will be found - it lives in the forests of Sumatra. Be patient. It will be discovered, soon.

Cheers!

Again, where is your evidence for the claim that God is an idea, a figment of man’s imagination? It’s merely an assertion you make, which you assume to be true, but which you provide no shred of evidence to support it. Again I question your supposed logical mind when you ask about any videos of God or footprints cast. You really have no clue what is meant by “God is spirit”? Do you believe that in this world there are material things and immaterial things? A thought is an immaterial thing, but it is no less real because you can’t video tape it or touch it. That’s why atheists are the most inconsistent people around. They insist that the natural world and material world is all there is, yet they would not bat an eyelid to affirm that there are immaterial things that are no less real. As to the eventual sighting of Bigfoot, well, good luck to you. There is more evidence that God exists than for bigfoot. Even the most famous video of Bigfoot turned out to be a hoax. LOL! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

 

[Agoraphobic]

Where do Hindus, North American Indians, Nordics, Ancient Egyptians, and other peoples get their idea of where their God(s) came from? Or how the world came about? Some elder told a story in some story-telling session, and the story is passed down, and it becomes truth to those peoples! It all started with some wise dude with lots of time, and a bag full of hallucinogenic mushrooms, and images (or visions) appeared to him in his dazed state. He may interpret this as an angel or spirit talking to him, but whatever it is, he is wise, and people believe what he says. The bible is a little more refined, in that it was compiled by a smart group of peoples who have ironed out the roughtr edges, discussed the issues thoroughly among themselves before putting out the final and agreed-upon edition for the public. The Jews were (and still are) sharp. They covered every corner. Its the world's best seller since Gutenberg printed the first publication.

If Bigfoot is not real, how do you explain the hundreds, (if not thousands) of sightings? Besides, if it were imaginary, there won't be footprints!

Cheers!

Again, where is your evidence for the claim that God is an idea, a figment of man’s imagination? It’s merely an assertion you make, which you assume to be true, but which you provide no shred of evidence to support it. Again I question your supposed logical mind when you ask about any videos of God or footprints cast. You really have no clue what is meant by “God is spirit”? Do you believe that in this world there are material things and immaterial things? A thought is an immaterial thing, but it is no less real because you can’t video tape it or touch it. That’s why atheists are the most inconsistent people around. They insist that the natural world and material world is all there is, yet they would not bat an eyelid to affirm that there are immaterial things that are no less real. As to the eventual sighting of Bigfoot, well, good luck to you. There is more evidence that God exists than for bigfoot. Even the most famous video of Bigfoot turned out to be a hoax. LOL! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

 

[Frodo]

Where do Hindus, North American Indians, Nordics, Ancient Egyptians, and other peoples get their idea of where their God(s) came from? Or how the world came about? Some elder told a story in some story-telling session, and the story is passed down, and it becomes truth to those peoples! It all started with some wise dude with lots of time, and a bag full of hallucinogenic mushrooms, and images (or visions) appeared to him in his dazed state. He may interpret this as an angel or spirit talking to him, but whatever it is, he is wise, and people believe what he says. The bible is a little more refined, in that it was compiled by a smart group of peoples who have ironed out the roughtr edges, discussed the issues thoroughly among themselves before putting out the final and agreed-upon edition for the public. The Jews were (and still are) sharp. They covered every corner. Its the world's best seller since Gutenberg printed the first publication.

If Bigfoot is not real, how do you explain the hundreds, (if not thousands) of sightings? Besides, if it were imaginary, there won't be footprints!

Cheers!

You asked the right questions, but answered them with your own wrong answers. LOL!

The Bible always present the best and right answers. The knowledge of God has been passed down since the time of Noah, and even from the time of Adam. From the family of Noah, the rest of humanity spread far and wide, and with it the knowledge of God. Over time the truth of God became embellished, lost, or corrupted, as people not only walked further away from the resting place of the Ark, they also moved away from God. Yet there is often always a core set of beliefs that are very similar among all cultures and tribes, and this is best explained by the events in the early chapters of Genesis. But God chose to reveal Himself through Abraham, and preserved the truth through Abraham’s offspring. And through Abraham’s faithfulness God would again spread the truth to all mankind. Yes, the Bible is the best selling book of all time. Even the first printing press was invented to use for the spreading of God’s Word! So much for your point that Christians do not advance society or make technological contribitions. LOL!

 

[Agoraphobic]

Bro, I never said Christians held back the progress of mankind. Although I would agree that the Church prevented certain people from publicising facts of our natural world and universe and persecuted them and charged them with heresies. BTW, Adam didn't write a log book that was later cataloqued into the Bible, neither did that wise guy Noah. I believe these stories were written by scribes later part of history. Where they obtained these stories from - its anyone's guess, perhaps from storytellers. Why I say so is because, if Adam was the first man on earth, paper (or papyrus?)wasn't invented yet, neither was handwriting (not even by Noah's time), so it was written by literate scribes at a later date, from tales handed down by word of mouth. The Bible happens to be the best selling book simply because Judeo Christian cultures prospered and spread their culture more so than Muslims or Orientals were able to. Otherwise, the best selling publication would be the Koran, or Analects of Confucius. Too bad for these two their languages are harder to learn and master than Engrish!

Cheers!

........................The Bible always present the best and right answers. The knowledge of God has been passed down since the time of Noah, and even from the time of Adam. From the family of Noah, the rest of humanity spread far and wide, and with it the knowledge of God. Over time the truth of God became embellished, lost, or corrupted, as people not only walked further away from the resting place of the Ark, they also moved away from God. Yet there is often always a core set of beliefs that are very similar among all cultures and tribes, and this is best explained by the events in the early chapters of Genesis. But God chose to reveal Himself through Abraham, and preserved the truth through Abraham’s offspring. And through Abraham’s faithfulness God would again spread the truth to all mankind. Yes, the Bible is the best selling book of all time. Even the first printing press was invented to use for the spreading of God’s Word! So much for your point that Christians do not advance society or make technological contribitions. LOL!

 

[Frodo]

Bro, I never said Christians held back the progress of mankind. Although I would agree that the Church prevented certain people from publicising facts of our natural world and universe and persecuted them and charged them with heresies. BTW, Adam didn't write a log book that was later cataloqued into the Bible, neither did that wise guy Noah. I believe these stories were written by scribes later part of history. Where they obtained these stories from - its anyone's guess, perhaps from storytellers. Why I say so is because, if Adam was the first man on earth, paper (or papyrus?)wasn't invented yet, neither was handwriting (not even by Noah's time), so it was written by literate scribes at a later date, from tales handed down by word of mouth. The Bible happens to be the best selling book simply because Judeo Christian cultures prospered and spread their culture more so than Muslims or Orientals were able to. Otherwise, the best selling publication would be the Koran, or Analects of Confucius. Too bad for these two their languages are harder to learn and master than Engrish!

Cheers!

You must have in mind Galileo, but I doubt you knew what really happened. Most atheists just think that it is a case of the Church (the Roman Catholic Church) suppressing science. You didn’t know that it involved a lot of egos too. Anyway, even if I for the sake of argument “let you win” this point about the church having suppressed science, the question is, is this a result of the church following the teachings of the Bible? It’s one thing to charge the church for doing this, quite another to prove that the Bible teaches it! Christians are people too, lest you forget. They can do things that are not sanctioned by the Bible. So indicting the church is not the same as indicting Christianity.

The first 5 books of the Bible credits Moses as the author. Am I making an argument for Adam or Noah as the writer of Genesis? Even if they are not, how does that diminish the account of Genesis? Being a highly oral culture, and mind you, even though Adam and Noah never met as Adam died before Noah was born, yet Methuselah was the living link between the two. And there is nothing to say that records of some form could not have been kept and passed down. Writing not developed? This is a myth, an evolution concocted myth. Where there is language there will be writing. Time for you to ditch that evolutionary paradigm with which you used to evaluate and judge all things. The evolution story is not even proven fact! Writing is normally thought to have invented about 5000 years ago, not surprising from a Bible viewpoint because that was probably about the time Noah left the Ark, and when civilisation would be reborn. We would never know how the PreFlood world was like. It could well be that writing already was a common thing but the Flood destroyed such written records. And Noah may have had only a small library of records to pass on. It would not be far fetch to suggest that Noah would have kept some written records on the Ark to preserve for the next repopulation of the earth. http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk/writing/home_set.html

 

[Agoraphobic]

Fine. If you separate the Bible from the Chuch, I can accept that. The Church was a political entity, that operated as God's voice on Earth, endorsed by royalty, which it helped to collect taxes. If this is the case, then the actual Holy Book is the Torah. From which the Old Testamment of your Bible is based on. On this, how different, or similar are the two texts? Who are the people that put together the Torah?

If I am not wrong, then the Sumerians were the earliest civilization on Earth, did they believe in a single God like the Jews did? They had writings on stone walls. And papyrus too. Also, the first people to believe in ONE God were the Zoroastrians. What was their creation story? And then how did it come about that the Jews became God's chosen people, and not the Zoroastrians?

Cheers!

You must have in mind Galileo, but I doubt you knew what really happened. Most atheists just think that it is a case of the Church (the Roman Catholic Church) suppressing science. You didn’t know that it involved a lot of egos too. Anyway, even if I for the sake of argument “let you win” this point about the church having suppressed science, the question is, is this a result of the church following the teachings of the Bible? It’s one thing to charge the church for doing this, quite another to prove that the Bible teaches it! Christians are people too, lest you forget. They can do things that are not sanctioned by the Bible. So indicting the church is not the same as indicting Christianity.

The first 5 books of the Bible credits Moses as the author. Am I making an argument for Adam or Noah as the writer of Genesis? Even if they are not, how does that diminish the account of Genesis? Being a highly oral culture, and mind you, even though Adam and Noah never met as Adam died before Noah was born, yet Methuselah was the living link between the two. And there is nothing to say that records of some form could not have been kept and passed down. Writing not developed? This is a myth, an evolution concocted myth. Where there is language there will be writing. Time for you to ditch that evolutionary paradigm with which you used to evaluate and judge all things. The evolution story is not even proven fact! Writing is normally thought to have invented about 5000 years ago, not surprising from a Bible viewpoint because that was probably about the time Noah left the Ark, and when civilisation would be reborn. We would never know how the PreFlood world was like. It could well be that writing already was a common thing but the Flood destroyed such written records. And Noah may have had only a small library of records to pass on. It would not be far fetch to suggest that Noah would have kept some written records on the Ark to preserve for the next repopulation of the earth. http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk/writing/home_set.html

 

[Frodo]

Fine. If you separate the Bible from the Chuch, I can accept that. The Church was a political entity, that operated as God's voice on Earth, endorsed by royalty, which it helped to collect taxes. If this is the case, then the actual Holy Book is the Torah. From which the Old Testamment of your Bible is based on. On this, how different, or similar are the two texts? Who are the people that put together the Torah?

If I am not wrong, then the Sumerians were the earliest civilization on Earth, did they believe in a single God like the Jews did? They had writings on stone walls. And papyrus too. Also, the first people to believe in ONE God were the Zoroastrians. What was their creation story? And then how did it come about that the Jews became God's chosen people, and not the Zoroastrians?

Cheers!

Separate the Bible from the church? You got it wrong. I was merely telling you to make a proper distinction between what the Bible teaches and what Christians (or even the institutional church) has done. The sad fact is, the “church” can be teaching things that the Bible does not even hint at. Purgatory is one of them. So are indulgences. That’s why we have the Reformation. Didn’t you know that? But sad to say, even within Protestantism there are also leftover things that are still rearing its ugly head. The truth is, the church is NOT a political entity, not even an institutional organisation, if you are at all knowledgeable about the Bible’s teachings about the church. But I don’t expect you to know that. You will simply be seeing things on a superficial level and making judgements at that level of superficiality. I am trying also to educate you and remove the misconceptions you have, but I don’t seem to sense you wish to part with them.

Often times I wonder if my replies to you will fall on deaf ears, and I suspect most did. But I am still giving you the benefit of the doubt. So here are a few things for your research. After the Flood civilisation was restarted in Mesopotamia, from where Sumer arose. So I have no problem with Sumer being one of the prominent ancient civilisations. But is it THE earliest? Maybe not. Anyway check this out if you are not afraid to ruffle your own feathers and shatter some misconceptions you cherish.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/abraham-and-the-chronology-of-ancient-mesopotamia/
https://answersingenesis.org/creati...-genesis-111-a-derivation-from-ancient-myths/

 

[Agoraphobic]

So, with so many churches, which one is the correct one? I remember in one of the episodes of The Simpson's, Homer was questioned, why doesn't he go to mass, his reply was "But how do I know which God should I pray to?" If this is the case, then the muslims got their book right, there is only ONE Allah in Islam, ONE Koran, but in Christianity, there are many!!! This just adds to the confusion. Makes the religion somewhat messy. The reason there are so many churches then is? Well, there are a couple of reason, but one thing lies at the bottom of it all - politics, within and among the clergy themselves, all scrambling for the titles and statuses of being the head honcho! In the name of God!!! Fine example they set! I see what happens, and read what is reported. Ideas form in my mind from these. What ideas emerge stems from these. What's wrong with the way I perceive, unless the news presented to me was fabricated, and deceiving, then I have been deceived. And whose doing was that? As for the history lesson on ancient Mesopotamia, I am still reading. It is interesting, and I wished I studied this at this level, than other commercial courses at school. Allow me some time to read through it. Read about Hammurabi in history at school, but not in detail. Trouble is, we can only take what we read as correct, it may not have been as reported, can't read Sumerian. Thanks!!!

Cheers!

Separate the Bible from the church? You got it wrong. I was merely telling you to make a proper distinction between what the Bible teaches and what Christians (or even the institutional church) has done. The sad fact is, the “church” can be teaching things that the Bible does not even hint at. Purgatory is one of them. So are indulgences. That’s why we have the Reformation. Didn’t you know that? But sad to say, even within Protestantism there are also leftover things that are still rearing its ugly head. The truth is, the church is NOT a political entity, not even an institutional organisation, if you are at all knowledgeable about the Bible’s teachings about the church. But I don’t expect you to know that. You will simply be seeing things on a superficial level and making judgements at that level of superficiality. I am trying also to educate you and remove the misconceptions you have, but I don’t seem to sense you wish to part with them.

Often times I wonder if my replies to you will fall on deaf ears, and I suspect most did. But I am still giving you the benefit of the doubt. So here are a few things for your research. After the Flood civilisation was restarted in Mesopotamia, from where Sumer arose. So I have no problem with Sumer being one of the prominent ancient civilisations. But is it THE earliest? Maybe not. Anyway check this out if you are not afraid to ruffle your own feathers and shatter some misconceptions you cherish.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/abraham-and-the-chronology-of-ancient-mesopotamia/
https://answersingenesis.org/creati...-genesis-111-a-derivation-from-ancient-myths/

 

[Frodo]

So, with so many churches, which one is the correct one? I remember in one of the episodes of The Simpson's, Homer was questioned, why doesn't he go to mass, his reply was "But how do I know which God should I pray to?" If this is the case, then the muslims got their book right, there is only ONE Allah in Islam, ONE Koran, but in Christianity, there are many!!! This just adds to the confusion. Makes the religion somewhat messy. The reason there are so many churches then is? Well, there are a couple of reason, but one thing lies at the bottom of it all - politics, within and among the clergy themselves, all scrambling for the titles and statuses of being the head honcho! In the name of God!!! Fine example they set! I see what happens, and read what is reported. Ideas form in my mind from these. What ideas emerge stems from these. What's wrong with the way I perceive, unless the news presented to me was fabricated, and deceiving, then I have been deceived. And whose doing was that? As for the history lesson on ancient Mesopotamia, I am still reading. It is interesting, and I wished I studied this at this level, than other commercial courses at school. Allow me some time to read through it. Read about Hammurabi in history at school, but not in detail. Trouble is, we can only take what we read as correct, it may not have been as reported, can't read Sumerian. Thanks!!!

Cheers!

Which church is the correct one?

The above question betrays a woeful lack of understanding of the Christian faith. You can choose to start with the present and give up after seeing all the mess of which much are a hangover from what happened centuries after the first disciples of Jesus has passed from the scene. Or if you are more diligent, you can start from ground zero, read the Bible and see for yourself how the church was like when she was young. Oh, and if you think the Bible does not teach monotheism, then I can be 100% sure that all this while you are NOT rejecting true Christianity, but one of your own misconceptions. We call that destroying your own strawman argument. Which means, you are barking up the wrong tree! LOL!

 

[Agoraphobic]

??????? You Christians can't decide which road to walk because the lot of you can't seem to agree which path is the correct one. Then you say non-followers are wrong because they do not walk the path? How do you determine where ground zero is? Going by conventional thinking, one would say the earliest church - which to me, is the Roman Catholic Church, BUT this was the authority that the Protestants were against, and formed their own churches, to walk a different path from the RCs!!! I am glad I remained outside this circle of much-confused buggers! ALL of them are hogwash!

Cheers!

Which church is the correct one?

The above question betrays a woeful lack of understanding of the Christian faith. You can choose to start with the present and give up after seeing all the mess of which much are a hangover from what happened centuries after the first disciples of Jesus has passed from the scene. Or if you are more diligent, you can start from ground zero, read the Bible and see for yourself how the church was like when she was young. Oh, and if you think the Bible does not teach monotheism, then I can be 100% sure that all this while you are NOT rejecting true Christianity, but one of your own misconceptions. We call that destroying your own strawman argument. Which means, you are barking up the wrong tree! LOL!

 

[Frodo]

??????? You Christians can't decide which road to walk because the lot of you can't seem to agree which path is the correct one. Then you say non-followers are wrong because they do not walk the path? How do you determine where ground zero is? Going by conventional thinking, one would say the earliest church - which to me, is the Roman Catholic Church, BUT this was the authority that the Protestants were against, and formed their own churches, to walk a different path from the RCs!!! I am glad I remained outside this circle of much-confused buggers! ALL of them are hogwash!

Cheers!

I don’t know who are you talking about. But there are core tenets of the faith that Christians do not disagree over. Sad to say there are other issues that Christians disagree over, but that’s just being human because no two believers are of the same knowledge and understanding. Differences in opinions are common, whether in religion, in politics, in science, in practically every area of life. Even atheists also disagree and break themselves up into various shades of atheism! LOL! The trouble comes when people no longer want to think for themselves, and so appoint one man and allow him to decide what is right for all. Sounds familiar right? If you think the RCC is the earliest church, you are simply wrong, period. Sad to say, while many believers tried to get out of Rome, Rome did not really get out of them. So many protestant institutional churches still bear the marks of the Roman Catholic Church. But I understand that your knowledge of religion especially Christianity is shallow, so you are not aware that one can live a Christian life without being caught up with all these things. http://wendymccaig.com/2010/06/26/r...finding-god-outside-the-institutional-church/

 

[Agoraphobic]

There is another group of Christians, called the Gnostics, who are not really seen as Christians by other Christians for whatever reasons, maybe because they ask too many questions.

From what I observe among "Christians," to be accepted as a Christian, you've got to belong to a certain church or group. Attend bible discussion groups, attend church or mass on Sundays. Catholics and Anglicans (and maybe some others, don't know for sure) also believe you must receive holy communion, which they see as the Body of Christ, and that your should go for confession before receiving holy communion. You must pray, and follow the ten commandments. Unlike their some of their semitic cousins, you are allowed to drink alcohol and eat pork! (Yes!) So it aint' that difficult to be Christian. The good thing is that after confession, you have a clean slate, and can waltz into heaven, no matter how hideous crime(s) you have committed in the past. Not a bad deal eh?

Cheers!

I don’t know who are you talking about. But there are core tenets of the faith that Christians do not disagree over. Sad to say there are other issues that Christians disagree over, but that’s just being human because no two believers are of the same knowledge and understanding. Differences in opinions are common, whether in religion, in politics, in science, in practically every area of life. Even atheists also disagree and break themselves up into various shades of atheism! LOL! The trouble comes when people no longer want to think for themselves, and so appoint one man and allow him to decide what is right for all. Sounds familiar right? If you think the RCC is the earliest church, you are simply wrong, period. Sad to say, while many believers tried to get out of Rome, Rome did not really get out of them. So many protestant institutional churches still bear the marks of the Roman Catholic Church. But I understand that your knowledge of religion especially Christianity is shallow, so you are not aware that one can live a Christian life without being caught up with all these things. http://wendymccaig.com/2010/06/26/r...finding-god-outside-the-institutional-church/

 

[Frodo]

There is another group of Christians, called the Gnostics, who are not really seen as Christians by other Christians for whatever reasons, maybe because they ask too many questions.

From what I observe among "Christians," to be accepted as a Christian, you've got to belong to a certain church or group. Attend bible discussion groups, attend church or mass on Sundays. Catholics and Anglicans (and maybe some others, don't know for sure) also believe you must receive holy communion, which they see as the Body of Christ, and that your should go for confession before receiving holy communion. You must pray, and follow the ten commandments. Unlike their some of their semitic cousins, you are allowed to drink alcohol and eat pork! (Yes!) So it aint' that difficult to be Christian. The good thing is that after confession, you have a clean slate, and can waltz into heaven, no matter how hideous crime(s) you have committed in the past. Not a bad deal eh?

Cheers!

Another misconception that you need to disabuse yourself of, is the bigoted idea that believers are not supposed to ask questions about the faith. Can you even find such a thing in the New Testament? Can you find an instance where Jesus or any of His apostles, actually tell the believers not to ask questions? If you cannot find such a thing being taught in the Bible, and yet you insist that Christians are not allowed to ask questions or maybe ask one question too many, who do you think got it wrong? Your observation has often times been shown to be wrong. You want to know what is a Christian? Find it in the Bible! Going to church on Sunday does not make you a Christian. Taking communion also does not make you a Christian. In fact, you can do all sorts of “Christian” things and still not be a Christian! It’s not difficult to look Christian…but being one is not easy. After confession? You seem to still entertain the wrong idea that Roman Catholicism = Biblical Christianity. Sorry to burst your bubble on that one.

 

[Agoraphobic]

What can I do? My (and many other's) views of Christians and Christianity is from what we see around us, and from the movies. Unless one is a Christian, how else would one know? To non-Christians, Christians celebrate Christmas as the birth of Jesus Christ. Other people celebrate Christmas with song, dance and revelry, get drunk. What we see of Christians observing Christmas is the joyous rememberance of the coming of Jesus. The Nativity Story of the great King born in a humble manger. And the good he will bring to humankind (good luck, he needs to do it again, it didn't work well the first time round!) Christian upbringing is seen as strict, with rules and tight morality (no masturbation, nor premarital sex! But okay if you're a priest! Haha!) Attending church on Sundays, and bible-study class. A little boring I'd say. Given the choice, I think a non-Christian life is more free!Also, much of Christian history (on TV, eg. History Channel) is about the Vatican, which is about Roman Catholicism, that's not my doing, just happen to be the way things came about. So we view Christianity from the angle of Roman Catholicism.

Cheers!

Another misconception that you need to disabuse yourself of, is the bigoted idea that believers are not supposed to ask questions about the faith. Can you even find such a thing in the New Testament? Can you find an instance where Jesus or any of His apostles, actually tell the believers not to ask questions? If you cannot find such a thing being taught in the Bible, and yet you insist that Christians are not allowed to ask questions or maybe ask one question too many, who do you think got it wrong? Your observation has often times been shown to be wrong. You want to know what is a Christian? Find it in the Bible! Going to church on Sunday does not make you a Christian. Taking communion also does not make you a Christian. In fact, you can do all sorts of “Christian” things and still not be a Christian! It’s not difficult to look Christian…but being one is not easy. After confession? You seem to still entertain the wrong idea that Roman Catholicism = Biblical Christianity. Sorry to burst your bubble on that one.

 

[Frodo]

What can I do? My (and many other's) views of Christians and Christianity is from what we see around us, and from the movies. Unless one is a Christian, how else would one know? To non-Christians, Christians celebrate Christmas as the birth of Jesus Christ. Other people celebrate Christmas with song, dance and revelry, get drunk. What we see of Christians observing Christmas is the joyous rememberance of the coming of Jesus. The Nativity Story of the great King born in a humble manger. And the good he will bring to humankind (good luck, he needs to do it again, it didn't work well the first time round!) Christian upbringing is seen as strict, with rules and tight morality (no masturbation, nor premarital sex! But okay if you're a priest! Haha!) Attending church on Sundays, and bible-study class. A little boring I'd say. Given the choice, I think a non-Christian life is more free!Also, much of Christian history (on TV, eg. History Channel) is about the Vatican, which is about Roman Catholicism, that's not my doing, just happen to be the way things came about. So we view Christianity from the angle of Roman Catholicism.

Cheers!

Well, what you can do now, for a start, is to stop thinking that what you know about Christianity so far from what you observe, is the truth about Christianity. I have given you enough information to burst that thought. Yes, unfortunately much of what people know about Christianity is from Roman Catholicism, people think Roman Catholicism = Biblical Christianity. But now that you have been informed otherwise, do you still insist to persist in that misconception?

 

[Agoraphobic]

Cool. It would be nice if people in other denominations were to open up and discuss their churches and beliefs (without the intention of converting others). At the moment, no one in my company talks about their religious beliefs. And one that I lunch with quite often is a member of City Harvest Church (which he defends, very strongly, his pastor actually). I will pay closer attention to other churches if I get a chance to. Just don't want to look nosey and become intrusive onto what others might consider their private and personal matters.

Cheers!

Well, what you can do now, for a start, is to stop thinking that what you know about Christianity so far from what you observe, is the truth about Christianity. I have given you enough information to burst that thought. Yes, unfortunately much of what people know about Christianity is from Roman Catholicism, people think Roman Catholicism = Biblical Christianity. But now that you have been informed otherwise, do you still insist to persist in that misconception?

 

[Frodo]

Cool. It would be nice if people in other denominations were to open up and discuss their churches and beliefs (without the intention of converting others). At the moment, no one in my company talks about their religious beliefs. And one that I lunch with quite often is a member of City Harvest Church (which he defends, very strongly, his pastor actually). I will pay closer attention to other churches if I get a chance to. Just don't want to look nosey and become intrusive onto what others might consider their private and personal matters.

Cheers!

If you are sincere to learn about what people believe, I am sure they will see that and be happy to share with you. Just remember to hold back the sarcasm and tendency to ridicule or mock. LOL! City Harvest Church..haiz….sad to say it has evolved (pun intended) to pretty much a personality cult in my opinion. Instead of “The Bible says” people now say “Kong Hee say” or “My pastor say”. I hear this also face/palm!