What's your religion?

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by technomo12

ok um is it just me or that the religious vid that i saw in youtube shows that we should turn our backs to science

Maybe we should turn our backs on religious videos.

also why behemoth i mean come on there are literally dead evidence that dinosaurs exists in the past!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your point being...?

well also the evolution theory is not fact that is why it is called a theory

That is another debate, but evolution is also a fact, and "scientific theory" different from the vernacular use of the word "theory".

[technomo12]

wel never mind it is just soo shocking well any way one thing religion thought me is that be good to everybody and it will al go back to you hehehe

[Thentus]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

I'm sure most religious people would argue that God created free will, and temptation came after that. I've tried that line of reasoning before, but it didn't work. I can't remember the reply to that, though.

Do you mean like a chain reaction?

God creates free will --(leads to)--> temptation.

Originally Posted by technomo12

wel never mind it is just soo shocking well any way one thing religion thought me is that be good to everybody and it will al go back to you hehehe

That can be very easily learned by reasoning.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Maybe we should turn our backs on religious videos.

Especially those uploaded with poor quality on YouTube .

[WanderingKnight]

Do you mean like a chain reaction?

God creates free will --(leads to)--> temptation.

No, I mean that mankind would be guilty of falling into temptation, since God infused us with free will.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

That is another debate, but evolution is also a fact, and "scientific theory" different from the vernacular use of the word "theory".

At this point, agreeing with Anh, I think we should all be allowed to smack anyone with a large fish who trots out their misunderstanding of what the word "theory" means.

Theory == best explanation that fits the observed facts and contains predictions that can be tested to strengthen or invalidate it.

There's several "theories" of gravity too, where's the faction that disputes gravity as "only a theory"?

Its usually a bad idea to pick up the weakest ideas to use in a discussion.

In other news, the VP of General Motors ineptly shows one reason his company is in a technology-deficient tailspin by calling global warming a "crock of s---" (yes, its quoted). Backpedaling by the corporation is now in progress.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Vexx

There's several "theories" of gravity too, where's the faction that disputes gravity as "only a theory"?

Right here. It's all gravity hippos, I tell you. Damn hippos, pushing us down!



By the way, I haven't made a point of it before, but could you please stop calling me Anh? Minh or AM both work, if you don't want to type the whole name.

[4Tran]

To continue on Vexx's point, in many ways, a well-supported scientific theory is actually more significant than a scientific law, even if such a hierarchy is nonintuitive. A scientific law is just a general observation of how certain events occur. A scientific theory expands on such observations by providing an explanation for why they occur.

In the case of talking about scientific terminology, it just doesn't make any sense to apply lay definitions of those terms.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I mean there was some kind of unrest at the time. Maybe there was some kind of religious leader. Or several of them. Maybe one of them was called Jesus, but maybe not. Certainly, a lot of people ended up crucified. They were pretty big on crucifixion, at the time.

Maybe there were reported miracles - I don't believe in them, but I do believe that stuff happens, and more importantly, I believe tales take a life all on their own. Especially before the invention of the camera or of news reporting that isn't "travellers gossiping".

I'm not suggesting it's not possible the whole thing could have started from tales that grew like a rolling snowball, but the history we have covering this to either confirm or deny the claims other than the documents of the NT is... slim to non-existent.

Considering the particular claims of the NT gospels, though, if it hadn't been a religious and political clamor centered around one person... the absence of people claiming first-hand observation would have been conspicuous.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Edit: oh, wait.... I reread your post. You don't believe God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent ? Isn't that sort of thing in the Bible, though? If not, why is it so widespread a belief?

I do, but that he's removed Himself from playing that part with us, or else free will and objective truth would be non-existent. That's where the "direct intervention versus proxy" distinction comes in. If God had decided to use his omnipotence to get the Hebrews out of Egypt, He would have just spoke and *poof* have it done, like magic. Saying He hardened Pharaoh's heart doesn't mean He changed it directly, but that he used some means of influence. Exodus also records God as saying that He knew Pharaoh wouldn't let them go unless "a mighty hand compels him". Basically, the words weren't meant to be taken absolutely literally when they were written, and all that hubbub was necessary because God wasn't going to trample on free will or just omnipotently change the situation.

Incidentally, the necessity of not exercising omnipotence (well, more specifically, authority as God, period) is part of what the temptation of Christ was about.

As for exercising absolute (as opposed to ultimate) benevolence and omniscience including knowing the future and choices, et cetera... That's in direct conflict with free will. Having the big picture and utilizing that knowledge in the process of predicting and influencing things in order to accomplish certain purposes within the progression of humanity is not.

You are correct, probabilities, statistics, and randomness don't mean anything to a being capable of knowing and analyzing the data to create predictions. These are concepts applying to physical things, though, and are inapplicable to the soul and spirit (concepts applying to all living things, and sort-of applying to non-living things).

technomo12, as for evolution being true or untrue as a general whole... As I've gone into in other threads, evolution and Judaism/Christianity are not at odds. Whether God created various parts at differing times, whether he influenced evolutionary progress, or whether he started it spinning and just watched, the only relevant point of contention is whether man is a product of evolution from apes (which is quite a natural conclusion for any one who doesn't believe that God created man as a separate, unique creation). Anything else relies too much from subjective interpretation to be worth arguing as an "either/or" scenario.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

I'm not suggesting it's not possible the whole thing could have started from tales that grew like a rolling snowball, but the history we have covering this to either confirm or deny the claims other than the documents of the NT is... slim to non-existent.

That's the point, isn't it? Something happened. Exactly what? Nobody knows. Were miracles involved? Was it really as big as we think? Was there really only one person? No way to tell.

Considering the particular claims of the NT gospels, though, if it hadn't been a religious and political clamor centered around one person... the absence of people claiming first-hand observation would have been conspicuous.

I don't think a penury of first-hand accounts is ever a problem, for that sort of things.

I do, but that he's removed Himself from playing that part with us, or else free will and objective truth would be non-existent. That's where the "direct intervention versus proxy" distinction comes in. If God had decided to use his omnipotence to get the Hebrews out of Egypt, He would have just spoke and *poof* have it done, like magic. Saying He hardened Pharaoh's heart doesn't mean He changed it directly, but that he used some means of influence. Exodus also records God as saying that He knew Pharaoh wouldn't let them go unless "a mighty hand compels him". Basically, the words weren't meant to be taken absolutely literally when they were written, and all that hubbub was necessary because God wasn't going to trample on free will or just omnipotently change the situation.

Incidentally, the necessity of not exercising omnipotence (well, more specifically, authority as God, period) is part of what the temptation of Christ was about.

As for exercising absolute (as opposed to ultimate) benevolence and omniscience including knowing the future and choices, et cetera... That's in direct conflict with free will. Having the big picture and utilizing that knowledge in the process of predicting and influencing things in order to accomplish certain purposes within the progression of humanity is not.

He's omnipotent. He could have done... whatever... without conflicting with free will. And as I said... I really don't agree with your proxy thing. If I make a casual remark, and it makes a woman leave the room thirty seconds earlier than she would have otherwise, and she meets her next husband because of it, and together they give birth to the next Hitler... It really isn't my fault. Nobody in his right mind would blame me for something like that. Because I'm only human. And as with all humans, there are some things that are just outside of what I could possibly know, and out of my control.

Not so with God. No matter what intermediary he uses, it's really all him.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

And I would throw myself in with them except that me believing that Jesus was/is/is-to-be the Messiah causes most Jews to draw a big line in the sand between me and them, and I am still studying to understand the state of Mosaic law in the Messianic age.

You seem to know more about certain aspects of Judaism than I do, and you also maintain a view of Christianity that I find rather intriguing and respectable. You're probably aware of them, but have you ever looked into the organization "Jews for Jesus"? I'd planned to attend some of the meetings of a local Jews for Jesus group in my area to see what their line of thinking was, but I never got around to it.

As everyone is approaching things with an open mind, I'll share some of my own confusion about Christianity here:

As I mentioned before (and will repeat, as we seem to be on a new forum page) the relation between Jews and God is that God made an agreement with the Jewish people in the distant past. The Jews would follow God's directives and be God's people, and in exchange God would free them from the enslavement that they were under at the time and He would ensure their prosperity in the world. The Christians seemed to approach God as an all-knowing and benevolent creator of the world and of humanity, and feel that humanity has gone down the path of sin. Jesus Christ, God's son, was sent to Earth to be sacrificed in order to atone for the sins of humanity and to show people that God still cared for them and wanted them to correct their ways.

The part where I don't understand Christianity's line of reasoning is in how they interpret Jesus Christ. Under Judaism, the prominent figures who communicated with God were just normal people. The concept of the messiah indicates a spiritual leader sent by God, but this leader is otherwise human. Under Christianity, Jesus is God. When attending church services, I always felt that the focus was more on worshipping and paying attention to Jesus than to God. For Christians, there is no difference - God is made up of three entities (God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost - although nobody could ever tell me where that final concept came from, nor could they really explain it fully.

Christians await the second coming of Jesus, but the Jews await the coming of the next messiah. The specific distinction is that the Christians believe that Jesus was the messiah that the Jews are currently waiting for. Yet I just can't understand the idea of worshipping a messiah. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was raised believing that Moses was essentially the first (if not only) messiah - nobody goes around worshipping Moses. Moses is spoken of as a humble man who balked at the idea of leading God's people, but he did it anyway. All credit for what happened goes to God. Let's say that Jesus was the next messiah - why is so much credit granted to Him (capitalized out of respect for the Christians) and not to God? I guess it bothers me. Even if we're not examining religion from the skeptical sense that the entire thing is a story made up to control people, it feels like someone shifted the focus improperly. If Jesus was the messiah, fine - if Jesus was a part of God, that's fine as well! But why is so much focus given to Jesus and not to God? It says in the Bible that we're not to worship angels or other Godly entities, but God alone. Angels are still given brief mention in the Bible, but nobody worships them. Isn't worshipping Jesus like taking away from God?

My thoughts like go back to the concept of the agreement made between the Jews and God. If the agreement was with God, then it's with God alone and not other aspects or creations of God. To worship a messiah is almost like worshipping an angel - here is a being with the power of God, yet it's forbidden to worship them. Why does Jesus get so much attention when it should all be going to God?

In my mind, what's going on is a fatal error in people's perception of what Jesus was trying to say. I have no problem accepting that Jesus existed, and I'm even open to the idea that Jesus was sent by God, possibly as the messiah. I don't believe that Jesus should be worshipped as Christians do, though. It's almost as if they missed the point - they saw a bit of God's power and immediately felt that Jesus should be the object of worship, rather than God Himself.

It was my wondering about this that led me to the Christian study groups. I posed the question to only a few people (didn't care to offend some or make too many question their faith) but I never really received an answer that clarified it in my mind. It likely has to do with our upbringing. If you're brought up to accept the fact that Jesus is the son of God and thus a part of God, then your idea of what God is differs from mine at least slightly. Yet it's a difference that's critical in being able to perceive how God should be interpreted and treated. I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on this, and of course I'm hoping that Kyuusai will magically be able to point out something that makes it all click.

Side note: this took me forever to type because one of my external HDs randomly started dismounting and mounting, and my computer began to cut into my upper wrists. Must be Christian components

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

By the way, I haven't made a point of it before, but could you please stop calling me Anh? Minh or AM both work, if you don't want to type the whole name.

Sorry, I just keep thinking of that sweet red bean paste (あん）　.... "roger wilco".

[kujoe]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

The part where I don't understand Christianity's line of reasoning is in how they interpret Jesus Christ. Under Judaism, the prominent figures who communicated with God were just normal people. The concept of the messiah indicates a spiritual leader sent by God, but this leader is otherwise human. Under Christianity, Jesus is God. When attending church services, I always felt that the focus was more on worshipping and paying attention to Jesus than to God. For Christians, there is no difference - God is made up of three entities (God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost - although nobody could ever tell me where that final concept came from, nor could they really explain it fully.

Interesting that this discussion is beginning to delve into theology. I remember having to tackle a theology and philosophy of religion (atheism/deism) class at the same time since they were both requirements in my university. Good times those were, but heck I wasn't that good of a student, so I might get some of this stuff wrong.

I may be a bad Roman Catholic by being unsure of this myself, but I'm really not practicing, so anyway... As far as I know (key phrase here), Moses isn't viewed as a messiah at all, not in the same vein as Jesus. Moses is mainly regarded as God's prophet, a leader and a voice of God to his people. All throughout the OT, there are recurring references (or at least, read as such) to the future arrival of a Messiah, who will hail from the line of David, etc., and this covenant becomes fulfilled with the birth of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

With that, you are delving into the very nature of Jesus' existence, in that he is both wholly man and divine. There is no division in-between, nor a bringing together of two halves (like divine vs. human), as God himself simultaneously exists, indivisible into parts, yet distinct as three "entities" as one divine simple being. As "part" of that Trinity, the Son incarnate is Jesus Christ, and with that view Jesus holds much importance in Christian doctrine and faith, and thus why he is worshiped unlike Moses.

I think the idea of the Trinity is what makes this confusing. (Heck, I don't really get it myself.) There are theological terms to get into, some contradictions or paradoxes perhaps, but all in all Jesus Christ represents much of the NT which is the main root of Christian doctrine, hence his significance in the practice of Christian faith. It doesn't necessarily mean that God (in a distinct sense) is outside of that faith at all.

As for where that concept came from, the Church had all these meetings and councils regarding this, pondering on the various texts mainly from the New Testament.

[Thentus]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

No, I mean that mankind would be guilty of falling into temptation, since God infused us with free will.

Can you explain to me how that, free will, DOES NOT lead to temptation?

I said it did lead to it, and now you have me completely lost .

[Amray]

I do not have a religion, but I was born into a Catholic family.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

He's omnipotent. He could have done... whatever... without conflicting with free will. And as I said... I really don't agree with your proxy thing. If I make a casual remark, and it makes a woman leave the room thirty seconds earlier than she would have otherwise, and she meets her next husband because of it, and together they give birth to the next Hitler... It really isn't my fault. Nobody in his right mind would blame me for something like that. Because I'm only human. And as with all humans, there are some things that are just outside of what I could possibly know, and out of my control.

Not so with God. No matter what intermediary he uses, it's really all him.

As I've said, though, omnipotence isn't really an issue with the world since He's not going to use it (much like a good parent sets guidelines and rules but does not "live their child's life for them", so to speak.). If he's omnipotent, surely he could have violated the rules he set forth, but that would defeat the purpose of setting things up as He did. It's like asking "Could God create a rock so heavy he could not lift it?"

Originally Posted by Ledgem

You seem to know more about certain aspects of Judaism than I do, and you also maintain a view of Christianity that I find rather intriguing and respectable. You're probably aware of them, but have you ever looked into the organization "Jews for Jesus"? I'd planned to attend some of the meetings of a local Jews for Jesus group in my area to see what their line of thinking was, but I never got around to it.

I've seen some good books from people representing Jews for Jesus (can't remember what those books were, sorry), but...

Frequently it seems like the organization (or just many in it?) try to convert Jews instead of simply bring them news of the Messiah... which doesn't make sense.

If you do end up going, please let me know what you think. I'm really not sure how they operate in general (they aren't in my area), and I'm on the fence about the appropriateness of prosletysing to Jewish people, as it is.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

As everyone is approaching things with an open mind, I'll share some of my own confusion about Christianity here:

As I mentioned before (and will repeat, as we seem to be on a new forum page) the relation between Jews and God is that God made an agreement with the Jewish people in the distant past. The Jews would follow God's directives and be God's people, and in exchange God would free them from the enslavement that they were under at the time and He would ensure their prosperity in the world. The Christians seemed to approach God as an all-knowing and benevolent creator of the world and of humanity, and feel that humanity has gone down the path of sin. Jesus Christ, God's son, was sent to Earth to be sacrificed in order to atone for the sins of humanity and to show people that God still cared for them and wanted them to correct their ways.

Christians generally have less of that Jewish understanding because they're, well, Gentiles. The concepts of God as perfect creator, of man's sinfulness and need for redemption, of sacrifice to cover that sin... those were originally Jewish concepts. But since Christians come to God via recognizing Jesus as having paid for their sins, and generally lack the "Jewish experience", it's most of what Christians focus on.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Spoiler for Spoilered for space.:

The part where I don't understand Christianity's line of reasoning is in how they interpret Jesus Christ. Under Judaism, the prominent figures who communicated with God were just normal people. The concept of the messiah indicates a spiritual leader sent by God, but this leader is otherwise human. Under Christianity, Jesus is God. When attending church services, I always felt that the focus was more on worshipping and paying attention to Jesus than to God. For Christians, there is no difference - God is made up of three entities (God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost - although nobody could ever tell me where that final concept came from, nor could they really explain it fully.

Christians await the second coming of Jesus, but the Jews await the coming of the next messiah. The specific distinction is that the Christians believe that Jesus was the messiah that the Jews are currently waiting for. Yet I just can't understand the idea of worshipping a messiah. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was raised believing that Moses was essentially the first (if not only) messiah - nobody goes around worshipping Moses. Moses is spoken of as a humble man who balked at the idea of leading God's people, but he did it anyway. All credit for what happened goes to God. Let's say that Jesus was the next messiah - why is so much credit granted to Him (capitalized out of respect for the Christians) and not to God? I guess it bothers me. Even if we're not examining religion from the skeptical sense that the entire thing is a story made up to control people, it feels like someone shifted the focus improperly. If Jesus was the messiah, fine - if Jesus was a part of God, that's fine as well! But why is so much focus given to Jesus and not to God? It says in the Bible that we're not to worship angels or other Godly entities, but God alone. Angels are still given brief mention in the Bible, but nobody worships them. Isn't worshipping Jesus like taking away from God?

My thoughts like go back to the concept of the agreement made between the Jews and God. If the agreement was with God, then it's with God alone and not other aspects or creations of God. To worship a messiah is almost like worshipping an angel - here is a being with the power of God, yet it's forbidden to worship them. Why does Jesus get so much attention when it should all be going to God?

In my mind, what's going on is a fatal error in people's perception of what Jesus was trying to say. I have no problem accepting that Jesus existed, and I'm even open to the idea that Jesus was sent by God, possibly as the messiah. I don't believe that Jesus should be worshipped as Christians do, though. It's almost as if they missed the point - they saw a bit of God's power and immediately felt that Jesus should be the object of worship, rather than God Himself.

It was my wondering about this that led me to the Christian study groups. I posed the question to only a few people (didn't care to offend some or make too many question their faith) but I never really received an answer that clarified it in my mind. It likely has to do with our upbringing. If you're brought up to accept the fact that Jesus is the son of God and thus a part of God, then your idea of what God is differs from mine at least slightly. Yet it's a difference that's critical in being able to perceive how God should be interpreted and treated. I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on this, and of course I'm hoping that Kyuusai will magically be able to point out something that makes it all click.

Actually... I think you're mostly spot on. The best way I could summarize it is "They're wrong because they don't understand their own religion." (A truth that applies to this issue and many others.)

But to expand on that, and cover the points where I slightly differ:

Christians (properly, if not generally) see Jesus as a human animated by the Spirit of God, who did all his work (miracles included) as a man, and not with the power of God. In this sense, he's called both God as well as the "begotten son of God", but to hear a lot of Christians tell it, it would sound like God stepped down from heaven or actually had a kid. That and the idea of God being "split" is pretty much an inbreeding of ideas as the result of the linguistic inadequacy and ignorance. (The point of God animating human flesh with his own Spirit, as you probably well know, was to pay the ultimate penalty of sin so that no man would have to.)

Jesus claimed to be God ("one with", "son of", however we want to put it in words), but in only indirect manners. Likewise, while making that claim, he pointed to the God, the "Father", as the only object of worship. Jesus instructed his followers to pray "in his name", but they were to pray to the Father, not him.

That didn't seem to stop any one from worshipping or praying to him. Considering that he's understood to be alive rather than dead, I can see the argument for addressing (as a leader and friend, which he was to his disciples) or reverencing (as a king), but the line doesn't exist for a lot of Christians.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Side note: this took me forever to type because one of my external HDs randomly started dismounting and mounting, and my computer began to cut into my upper wrists. Must be Christian components

*gigglesnort*

[WanderingKnight]

Can you explain to me how that, free will, DOES NOT lead to temptation?

Eh? In a Christian's mind, free will is free will, and mankind has the freedom to do good or do bad... I don't get what you're saying here.

[Thentus]

OK I think we just misunderstood each other, but that's been all cleared up.

[technomo12]

READING SO MANY PHRASES WITH SUCH UNDERSTANDING HAS GIVEN ME A NEW VISIONS IN LIFE

well thnaks hehe also miss Minh ty for any good comment you gave also

hmm now that is almost about settled i keep on wondering on if we are able to unlock deep space travel what course would we take???? i mean i think there is life outside our solar system but when that heppens we are aold or dead soo man

man i have soooooo many question but soo little time

i just hope im alive if mankind is were able to meet alien life form

[Quzor]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Spoiler for saving space:

You seem to know more about certain aspects of Judaism than I do, and you also maintain a view of Christianity that I find rather intriguing and respectable. You're probably aware of them, but have you ever looked into the organization "Jews for Jesus"? I'd planned to attend some of the meetings of a local Jews for Jesus group in my area to see what their line of thinking was, but I never got around to it.

As everyone is approaching things with an open mind, I'll share some of my own confusion about Christianity here:

As I mentioned before (and will repeat, as we seem to be on a new forum page) the relation between Jews and God is that God made an agreement with the Jewish people in the distant past. The Jews would follow God's directives and be God's people, and in exchange God would free them from the enslavement that they were under at the time and He would ensure their prosperity in the world. The Christians seemed to approach God as an all-knowing and benevolent creator of the world and of humanity, and feel that humanity has gone down the path of sin. Jesus Christ, God's son, was sent to Earth to be sacrificed in order to atone for the sins of humanity and to show people that God still cared for them and wanted them to correct their ways.

The part where I don't understand Christianity's line of reasoning is in how they interpret Jesus Christ. Under Judaism, the prominent figures who communicated with God were just normal people. The concept of the messiah indicates a spiritual leader sent by God, but this leader is otherwise human. Under Christianity, Jesus is God. When attending church services, I always felt that the focus was more on worshipping and paying attention to Jesus than to God. For Christians, there is no difference - God is made up of three entities (God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost - although nobody could ever tell me where that final concept came from, nor could they really explain it fully.

Christians await the second coming of Jesus, but the Jews await the coming of the next messiah. The specific distinction is that the Christians believe that Jesus was the messiah that the Jews are currently waiting for. Yet I just can't understand the idea of worshipping a messiah. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was raised believing that Moses was essentially the first (if not only) messiah - nobody goes around worshipping Moses. Moses is spoken of as a humble man who balked at the idea of leading God's people, but he did it anyway. All credit for what happened goes to God. Let's say that Jesus was the next messiah - why is so much credit granted to Him (capitalized out of respect for the Christians) and not to God? I guess it bothers me. Even if we're not examining religion from the skeptical sense that the entire thing is a story made up to control people, it feels like someone shifted the focus improperly. If Jesus was the messiah, fine - if Jesus was a part of God, that's fine as well! But why is so much focus given to Jesus and not to God? It says in the Bible that we're not to worship angels or other Godly entities, but God alone. Angels are still given brief mention in the Bible, but nobody worships them. Isn't worshipping Jesus like taking away from God?

My thoughts like go back to the concept of the agreement made between the Jews and God. If the agreement was with God, then it's with God alone and not other aspects or creations of God. To worship a messiah is almost like worshipping an angel - here is a being with the power of God, yet it's forbidden to worship them. Why does Jesus get so much attention when it should all be going to God?

In my mind, what's going on is a fatal error in people's perception of what Jesus was trying to say. I have no problem accepting that Jesus existed, and I'm even open to the idea that Jesus was sent by God, possibly as the messiah. I don't believe that Jesus should be worshipped as Christians do, though. It's almost as if they missed the point - they saw a bit of God's power and immediately felt that Jesus should be the object of worship, rather than God Himself.

It was my wondering about this that led me to the Christian study groups. I posed the question to only a few people (didn't care to offend some or make too many question their faith) but I never really received an answer that clarified it in my mind. It likely has to do with our upbringing. If you're brought up to accept the fact that Jesus is the son of God and thus a part of God, then your idea of what God is differs from mine at least slightly. Yet it's a difference that's critical in being able to perceive how God should be interpreted and treated. I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on this, and of course I'm hoping that Kyuusai will magically be able to point out something that makes it all click.

Side note: this took me forever to type because one of my external HDs randomly started dismounting and mounting, and my computer began to cut into my upper wrists. Must be Christian components

For the sake of saving time, I'm going to tackle only one aspect of which you spoke, while not specifically looking up the paragraphs in which you mentioned it.

One of your questions was (and I'm paraphrasing): Why do Christians spend so much time worshiping Jesus? That seems to be taking away from God.

I believe you might have answered yourself in another of the paragraphs, when you mentioned this (paraphrasing again): God, in Christianity, is a representative of three beings; The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

In a sense then, Christians give worship and praise to Jesus, because he represents the "Son" portion of the greater "God." It's not taking away from God, because Jesus is simply the portion of God sent to Earth to pay the ultimate price for man's sin.

I'm with you in the point that I don't fully understand the Holy Trinity idea (especially the "Holy Ghost" bit), but I'm of the belief that the above reason is why people worship Jesus. Despite him being, for all intents and purposes, a human man, he is considered more than man, in the eyes of Christianity, because he was born of God. In that sense, worshiping Jesus and worshiping God are considered one in the same.

If someone has greater knowledge of this idea, please feel free to elaborate, or correct me if I'm wrong.

[Vexx]

No, after you cut out all the chaff -- that's about as clear as it gets. The three are one and each is separate yet a seamless part of the three. The best you can tag Trinity discussions with is that its "one of the mysteries" kind of like quantum mechanics -- if you think you grok it... you haven't grokked it. The best I've ever come up with is my diamond analogy for religion in general applied to the Trinity. You can see some of the facets and the sparkles but its impossible for mortals to see the whole diamond at once.
(caveat: I don't 'believe' in the Trinity, though I still use the diamond analogy for a model of many people finding "truths"/facets of the Truth -- kind of a Universalism armwave).

I'll refrain from opining on the Trinity other than it was one of the many research moments in my life that started leading me on other paths.