Republican Party Modus Operandi

[SanHeChuan]

For many years now the Republican Party has taken to the tactics of Appeal to emotion, creating a Culture of fear, and Propaganda.

They do this because they believe that Americans are not rational thinking human beings but sheeple not worth reasoning with. Why bother discussing merits of your ideas if you believe as they obviously do that manipulation works better. They act like they are stupid and maybe they are, but they act like we are stupid, and that’s where they lost me. If they think you’re stupid, will they lie to you, or will they show you one hand while hiding the other.


The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on “fear” of President Barack Obama and a promise to "save the country from trending toward socialism."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33866.html


The PowerPoint presentation described high-level Republican donors as "ego-driven" and claimed they could be enticed with "tchotchkes." The document included a slide -- called "The Evil Empire" -- with cartoonish images depicting Obama as the Joker, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as Cruella de Vil and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as Scooby Doo.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/08/rnc.images/


The presentation encourages fundraisers to use a direct marketing pitch that exploits "extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration." It also describes ways to appeal to major donors, including "peer to peer pressure," "access" and "ego driven."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/04/rnc-fundraising-document-caricatures-obama-appeals-fear/


“If you had any doubt whatsoever, that the Republican Party has been taken over by the fear-mongering lunatic fringe, those doubts were erased today,” Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse told the AP. “Republicans across the country have cheered on crowds where these very images appeared.” http://www.afro.com/?p=831

[1bad65]

Is this playing on people's fears any different from how the Democrats have said Republicans wanted to starve children and force senior citizens to have to eat dog food to survive?

They also snipped together Newt Gingrich soundbites to make it appear he said he wanted Medicare to "whither on the vine", when he never said such a thing.

[1bad65]

And it was Obama who said he wanted to "spread the wealth around". That's socialism. You can't say the Republicans are playing on any type of emotion when they are just calling a spade a spade. The truth is the truth, no matter how rude, un-PC, or ugly it may be.

And the Obama Joker picture has been around awhile now. It was actually created by a guy who voted for Obama.

[dimethylsea]

For many years now the Republican Party has taken to the tactics of Appeal to emotion, creating a Culture of fear, and Propaganda.

They do this because they believe that Americans are not rational thinking human beings but sheeple not worth reasoning with. Why bother discussing merits of your ideas if you believe as they obviously do that manipulation works better. They act like they are stupid and maybe they are, but they act like we are stupid, and that’s where they lost me. If they think you’re stupid, will they lie to you, or will they show you one hand while hiding the other.

The part about most Americans being "sheeple not worth reasoning with" has alot of truth in it.

You don't reason with the people who are screaming.. you just try to get along as best you can without involving them in the critical parts of the process.

[Kansuke]

The part about most Americans being "sheeple not worth reasoning with" has alot of truth in it.


Only as relates to you.

[SanHeChuan]

Is this playing on people's fears any different from how the Democrats have said Republicans wanted to starve children and force senior citizens to have to eat dog food to survive?

I'm not saying other people don't do it. Animal rights Activists and tree huggers also make emotional appeals almost exclusively, instead of appealing to our intellect, though that is starting to change. Christianity is a two millennium long campaign of fear.

My complaint is that is the Republican Party has been using these tactics in favor of all others. I think it makes them look stupid. I think it’s condescending and arrogant. And I feel insulted and repulsed.


The truth is the truth, no matter how rude, un-PC, or ugly it may be.

Death panels are Teh Truth? :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

Christianity is a two millennium long campaign of fear.

Incorrect. Try actually going to church beofre telling people what Christians believe.


My complaint is that is the Republican Party has been using these tactics in favor of all others. I think it makes them look stupid. I think it’s condescending and arrogant. And I feel insulted and repulsed.

You are so repulsed you give the Party who has used the fear playbook for decades though? Don't insult our intelligence.

The Republican Party is now campaigning primarily on smaller, cheaper, less intrusive Government and on national debt reduction. How is this using fear? To me, it's not fear, it's common sense.

Playing on fear is what the global warming frauds did. And they even outright lied and falsified data to further their agenda. Where is your anger there? :rolleyes:


Death panels are Teh Truth? :rolleyes:

Those go hand in hand with socialized medicine. If they are not in there now, they will be once this Government program runs over budget. You know what running over budget is, right? It's what EVERY Government program ends up doing.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Christianity is a two millennium long campaign of fear.


Dude, seriously, its time to stop trying to peddle that crap.

[1bad65]

Dude, seriously, its time to stop trying to peddle that crap.

Thank you.

[dimethylsea]

Christianity is a two millennium long campaign of fear.
:

+1. Half the reason the GOP is so repugnant is their pandering to the evangelical Christians (who are themselves an intellectual cancer).

[sanjuro_ronin]

+1. Half the reason the GOP is so repugnant is their pandering to the evangelical Christians (who are themselves an intellectual cancer).

I don't care much for the GOP or republicans, though I agree with some of their views and don't get me started on Fundamentalist Christians, but painting EVERYONE with the same brush is NOT what you wanna be doing.

[MasterKiller]

+1. Half the reason the GOP is so repugnant is their pandering to the evangelical Christians (who are themselves an intellectual cancer).

Pushing the term "evangelical" is propaganda designed to differentiate them from other "bad" fundamentalists.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The left is just as bad as the right, case in point:
http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0912/the-secret-service-chuck-norris-obama-demotivational-poster-1261034394.jpg

[1bad65]

I don't care much for the GOP or republicans, though I agree with some of their views and don't get me started on Fundamentalist Christians, but painting EVERYONE with the same brush is NOT what you wanna be doing.

Exactly. Should we all judge Kung-Fu practitioners based on our interactions with Rudy Abel?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Exactly. Should we all judge Kung-Fu practitioners based on our interactions with HW8?

Fixed that for you.

[1bad65]

Pushing the term "evangelical" is propaganda designed to differentiate them from other "bad" fundamentalists.

Get off it.

Lets look at the 10 Commandments. Those are, in short, a blueprint of how God wants Christians to live their lives.

1. You shall have no other Gods before me
2. You shall not worship idols
3. Do not take the Lord's name in vain
4. Keep the Sabbath holy.
5. Honor thy father and mother
6. You shall not murder
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. Do not bear false witness against your neighbor
10. Do not covet others possessions

Can you show us the hate in there? Can you show us the "bad" parts?

[1bad65]

Fixed that for you.

Or him. Or BD. But you get my point.

It's hilarious that the ones stereotyping Christians are the ones who would not like being lumped in with people like HW8, BD, or Rudy Abel.

[SanHeChuan]

Lets look at the 10 Commandments. Those are, in short, a blueprint of how God wants Christians to live their lives.

and what happens if you don't?

One word, HELL. The entire idea of if you don't believe what we tell you, you will suffer the worst fate we can imagine, is a campaign of fear. Sure in more recent times focus has shifted to more positive messages, but at the end of the day it’s still do what we say or you’re going to get punished.

One of the pro-arguments (that I think 1bad65 also used) is better safe than sorry. Meaning you should be afraid of what will happen if you don’t believe. Culture of fear.


Can you show us the hate in there? Can you show us the "bad" parts?

There is a whole lot more to the bible. If you wan to read the bad parts (http://www.evilbible.com/)...

[MasterKiller]

Leviticus 20:9
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

20:10 If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.

Deuteronomy 22:20-1 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house.

Exodus 35:2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men.

2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Leviticus 25:44-45
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.

[sanjuro_ronin]

and what happens if you don't?

One word, HELL. The entire idea of if you don't believe what we tell you, you will suffer the worst fate we can imagine, is a campaign of fear. Sure in more recent times focus has shifted to more positive messages, but at the end of the day it’s still do what we say or you’re going to get punished.

Yes, one of the messages of the bible ( or Judeo-christian-Islamic scripture) is that if you "disobey" you will get punished.
Of course there is much in the OT and even the NT that is beyond being simply "inspired by God" and, as a Christian ( for example) we need to realize that, where the bible and Jesus "conflict", Jesus is right.
This obviously does not apply to those that are not christians, but that is another matter.
Hell is the absence of Love ( God) and if you turn your back on God, while he doesn't turn his back on you (If I may use the male terms) and his gift of Grace is there, it is up to YOU to accept it, it won't be forced on you, but there is a warning against rejecting it, for your own good.
IF you believe those sorts of things.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Leviticus 20:9
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

20:10 If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.

Deuteronomy 22:20-1 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house.

Exodus 35:2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men.

2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Leviticus 25:44-45
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.

Never confuse the Word of God with the words of men.
The OT is full of this crap and even some in the NT.
My personal fav is how crustaceans are an abomination !!

[MasterKiller]

Ezekiel 20:25-26 I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; I let them become defiled through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.

Deuteronomy 7:1-2 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations . . . then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

20:10-17 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. . . . This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.

[MasterKiller]

Never confuse the Word of God with the words of men.
The OT is full of this crap and even some in the NT.
My personal fav is how crustaceans are an abomination !!

Yet, "evangelical" fundamentalists DO take the Bible as the word of God.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yet, "evangelical" fundamentalist DO take the Bible as the word of God.

Indeed and that is a crucial issue they have to address.
To a christian there is just ONE word of God and it is NOT a book, it is our Lord Jesus Christ.
The OT and the NT have many parts that are inspired ( the authors were inspired by their love for God to writ about Him) and many parts that are historical and some that are simply "excuses" man makes for his atrocities.
Jesus condemend the scribes of the OT and Paul reminded them that if they had gotten it right, there would have been no need for Jesus to make a personal appearance.
Fact is, many of the crap ( to us) we see in the OT and NT just shows that, regardless of divine inspiration, people are ****ing stupid at times and make up some stupid **** !

[MasterKiller]

Get off it.

Lets look at the 10 Commandments. Those are, in short, a blueprint of how God wants Christians to live their lives.

1. You shall have no other Gods before me
2. You shall not worship idols
3. Do not take the Lord's name in vain
4. Keep the Sabbath holy.
5. Honor thy father and mother
6. You shall not murder
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. Do not bear false witness against your neighbor
10. Do not covet others possessions

Can you show us the hate in there? Can you show us the "bad" parts?
He also says not to boil a kid in its mother’s milk (Exodus 34:26).

I hope, for the sake of your immortal soul and generations to follow you, you observe that rule as well, because he punishes "children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me" (Deuteronomy 5:9).

[sanjuro_ronin]

He also says not to boil a kid in its mother’s milk (Exodus 34:26).


Dude, do you mean:
"Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God. "Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk."

[MasterKiller]

Dude, do you mean:
"Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God. "Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk."

Yes, a kid is a baby goat. Correct?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yes, a kid is a baby goat. Correct?

Yep, but they way it looked I though you meant Kid as in child, LOL !

[MasterKiller]

What's funny is, I don't see anything in that list that says don't gay marry.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You mean a commandment against ****sexuality?

[MasterKiller]

You mean a commandment against ****sexuality?

Well, if those are my 10 rules, if that's my blueprint, then yeah.

And why aren't you guys honoring the Sabbath and taking off on SATURDAY??? Buncha hethens in this place.

[1bad65]

and what happens if you don't?

One word, HELL. The entire idea of if you don't believe what we tell you, you will suffer the worst fate we can imagine, is a campaign of fear. Sure in more recent times focus has shifted to more positive messages, but at the end of the day it’s still do what we say or you’re going to get punished.

One of the pro-arguments (that I think 1bad65 also used) is better safe than sorry. Meaning you should be afraid of what will happen if you don’t believe. Culture of fear.

Wrong again.

What part of "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." is the "culture of fear" you speak of?

[1bad65]

Well, if those are my 10 rules, if that's my blueprint, then yeah.

And why aren't you guys honoring the Sabbath and taking off on SATURDAY??? Buncha hethens in this place.

I'm still waiting for you to show us all the hate in the 10 Commandments....

[1bad65]

MK, I noticed every Verse you brought up is Old Testament. FYI, Christians believe the New Testament is how we should live our lives. They look at the Old Testament mostly for history.

You did know this, right? I figure someone who posts Scripture like you do must have studied it extensively. Or you just know how to Google well. ;)

[MasterKiller]

MK, I noticed every Verse you brought up is Old Testament. FYI, Christians believe the New Testament is how we should live our lives. They look at the Old Testament mostly for history.

You did know this, right? I figure someone who posts Scripture like you do must have studied it extensively. Or you just know how to Google well. ;)

If you believe in the NEW Testament, why are you using OLD Testament commandments as a blue print for your life?


I'm still waiting for you to show us all the hate in the 10 Commandments.... Can you show me where those exact quotes are in the bible, because the ones I used are. You are paraphrasing three different sections, each of which never uses the exact list you used, but one of which explicitly states not to boil a baby goat in it's mother's milk, which seems like a pretty odd commandment on which I should base my life.

[David Jamieson]

cherry picking the bible eh? lol

Leviticus is the book you're looking for (again) on what to do about gays.
I believe we are supposed to stone them as well due to their being abominations before god.

Christianity isn't based on teh ten commandments. IN fact, the OT is decidely jewish end to end. It is a set of Jewish texts dealing with jewish matters of religion and faith.

the new testament is for the christians. the old testamnet is to give them a reference when they want to understand where Rabbi Yeshua Bar Joseph (Jesus) was getting his guidelines for teaching from.

Many who proclaim themselves "Christian" cannot grasp this. they do not see themselves as an offshoot or spin off of being jews. Many cannot even accoet that Jesus was a jew and all his apostles were jews and all his early followers were jews and that Christianity itself was a form of Judaism right up until Constantine, the Roman emperor took that flavour of jewish and made it the official religion of the roman empire.

But, history doesn't seem to matter to a lot of people anymore. They just want to hold onto their peculiar brand of judging the world around them and will do exactly that to suit their mood or will that day (cherry pick the bible that is)

i challenge any Christian to be a better Christian and to be a humanist as guided by Jesus's own words. If you need to ask how Jesus addressed our humanity and how best to live within it, then you need to read the gospels again. :)

don't be shallow! go deep! it's worth it and when I say go deep i don't mean give in or give yourself up. really study it because it is very cool and you will learn a lot about humanity in general by actually reading a bible as opposed to skimming it looking for talking points and argument closers.

[1bad65]

If you believe in the NEW Testament, why are you using OLD Testament commandments as a blue print for your life?

Read how I described them again please. Some things changed after Jesus came to Earth, some did not. He never said to not follow the Commandments. However, he did preach forgiveness for sinners who repented. The Old Testament was more of God's wrath when angered in terms of sins.

Again, what Biblical/religious studies have you done? Or are you just one of those who despises Christianity, but tries to selectively use certain verses (from a book you do not believe in no less) to back your arguments up?


Can you show me the where those exact quotes are in the bible, because the ones I used are.

Not sure what you are asking for?

[KC Elbows]

Dude, seriously, its time to stop trying to peddle that crap.

I respect some people's religion.

BUT,

If you're Christian, you have to face the fact that, in most Christian lands, until very recently, it would have been a death sentence to form an atheists club in a community. Even through the first two-thirds of the twentieth century in America, being an atheist of any influence would have very serious negative repercussions.

I'm not saying these are your views, but unless you tore the pages out of your Bible saying all non-believers go to hell, gays go to hell, women are to be treated as property, then you are on very poor ground for this fight. I'm not saying you necessarily believe any of those things, but if those pages still stand DESPITE your belief, in YOUR copy of YOUR Bible, you can't complain when others point them out just because you don't look at them...

That said, any good idea from any text, mystical, religious, or otherwise, humans wrote and humans can make use of. But there is no meeting ground between "we all worship the same thing" and "only by accepting Jesus can you go to heaven" without clarifying which part of the second you don't agree with, and moderates almost always fail to do this.

[1bad65]

cherry picking the bible eh? lol

Leviticus is the book you're looking for (again) on what to do about gays.
I believe we are supposed to stone them as well due to their being abominations before god.

Christianity isn't based on teh ten commandments. IN fact, the OT is decidely jewish end to end. It is a set of Jewish texts dealing with jewish matters of religion and faith.

the new testament is for the christians. the old testamnet is to give them a reference when they want to understand where Rabbi Yeshua Bar Joseph (Jesus) was getting his guidelines for teaching from.

Correct.

But again I ask (not you of course), what is so hateful about the 10 Commandments? Is stealing now ok? Is it cool to murder people now? Is it ok to cheat on your spouse now?

[KC Elbows]

Correct.

But again I ask (not you of course), what is so hateful about the 10 Commandments? Is stealing now ok? Is it cool to murder people now? Is it ok to cheat on your spouse now?

Is it not cool to worship other Gods?

[1bad65]

If you're Christian, you have to face the fact that, in most Christian lands, until very recently, it would have been a death sentence to form an atheists club in a community. Even through the first two-thirds of the twentieth century in America, being an atheist of any influence would have very serious negative repercussions.

Can you give some examples of this?

As far as I know, it's not the Christians beheading people with other religious beliefs. It's not Christians killing women who don't cover themselves entirely. We don't kill women who are raped. We don't chop off people's hands for stealing. OTHER religion(s) do, but you don't see Christians doing that stuff.

[1bad65]

Is it not cool to worship other Gods?

God still does not like that. Sorry man. ;)

[MasterKiller]

Read how I described them again please. Some things changed after Jesus came to Earth, some did not.That's a copout so you can cherrypick the parts you like (God destroying Soddom, for example) and neglect the parts you don't (eating shellfish and getting to marry girls you rape, for example).


He never said to not follow the Commandments. However, he did preach forgiveness for sinners who repented. The Old Testament was more of God's wrath when angered in terms of sins.
Actually, Jesus DOES address this. But you don't like this part, huh?

Now someone approached him and said, "Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?"

He answered him, "Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."

He asked him, "Which ones?" And Jesus replied, " 'You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother'; and 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"

The young man said to him, "All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?"

Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to (the) poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad, for he had many possessions.


Again, what Biblical/religious studies have you done? Or are you just one of those who despises Christianity, but tries to selectively use certain verses (from a book you do not believe in no less) to back your arguments up? Ad hominem much?


Not sure what you are asking for? The list of 10 you posted never appears in those words. You paraphrased three different sections to arrive at that list, basically cherry picking the ones that make sense and leaving out the ones that don't.

[KC Elbows]

Can you give some examples of this?

As far as I know, it's not the Christians beheading people with other religious beliefs. It's not Christians killing women who don't cover themselves entirely. We don't kill women who are raped. We don't chop off people's hands for stealing. OTHER religion(s) do, but you don't see Christians doing that stuff.

Okay, I'll list some centuries, and you reply with the ones in which it would have been okay to form a club that said there was no God in a Christian land.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

[SanHeChuan]

Wrong again.

What part of "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." is the "culture of fear" you speak of?

Are you saying that because Christ died on the cross no one, even nonbelievers, will go to hell?

OR :confused:

Are you saying that ONLY those who accept Christ aren't going to hell, so you better believeth in him or he'll **** you up.

That's the culture of fear I'm talking about.

[dimethylsea]

I don't care much for the GOP or republicans, though I agree with some of their views and don't get me started on Fundamentalist Christians, but painting EVERYONE with the same brush is NOT what you wanna be doing.


What part of "evangelical" in the descriptor did you not get? I said exactly what I meant and I stand by it.

The evangelical wing of Christianity (at least as it exists in the US) is an intellectual cancer, the charismatic faction of the evangelicals is even more insane and magical-minded.

I grew up around these people. I was born in the town that houses the World Assembly of the Churches of God. It's kinda like someone slagging the Mormons when they grew up in Salt Lake City. I know these people like I know my family (most of my family thinks the evangelicals are "backslid" .. i.e. not religious ENOUGH).

You can hate my attitude about cops but when it comes to the Christian Right I've got 20 years of INTIMATE exposure to the disease.

[dimethylsea]

Can you give some examples of this?

As far as I know, it's not the Christians beheading people with other religious beliefs. It's not Christians killing women who don't cover themselves entirely. We don't kill women who are raped. We don't chop off people's hands for stealing. OTHER religion(s) do, but you don't see Christians doing that stuff.

The only reason you Christians aren't STILL doing that religious violence crap is because over a century of religious warfare in Europe made Europe into a intensely secular place and made the founding fathers write state religion out of government here in America.

And even now the Christians who have been dragged kicking and screaming into some kind of moderation try to claim the Deists and freethinkers among the Founding Fathers as their own.

The sooner Christianity dies, root and branch.. the better for Western Civ. Can't happen soon enough IMO.

[dimethylsea]

Get off it.

Lets look at the 10 Commandments. Those are, in short, a blueprint of how God wants Christians to live their lives.

1. You shall have no other Gods before me

No freedom of religion


2. You shall not worship idols

Restriction of religious freedom and (historically) suppression of art/icons/sculpture


3. Do not take the Lord's name in vain

No freedom of speech.


4. Keep the Sabbath holy.

No freedom of assembly.


5. Honor thy father and mother

Justification for abusive parenting.


6. You shall not murder

Unless they aren't "the right people" (i.e. heathens).


7. You shall not commit adultery

God cares who you screw!


8. You shall not steal

.. again except if they are heathens.


9. Do not bear false witness against your neighbor

In the religious courts that enforce all of the above.


10. Do not covet others possessions

Can you show us the hate in there? Can you show us the "bad" parts?

Just did. May the love of the One True God flow out your cheeks like a running gurgling, churning stream.

[1bad65]

That's a copout so you can cherrypick the parts you like (God destroying Soddom, for example) and neglect the parts you don't (eating shellfish and getting to marry girls you rape, for example).

Like you are doing?

And you still haven't answered my question about your background/studies of Christianity...

Did I say I liked that part? No, I did not. But since you brought it up, I'll give you my .02 on that. In the Old Testament times, God would destroy people and cities he felt had turned away from Him. After Jesus came down, His attitude was more like 'If you repent, you can have eternal life. If you do not, the wages of sin is death.' See the difference?


Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to (the) poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad, for he had many possessions.

Notice Jesus did not say 'Well pass laws that take others' possessions and then give them to the poor. Then you will be blessed.'


The list of 10 you posted never appears in those words. You paraphrased three different sections to arrive at that list, basically cherry picking the ones that make sense and leaving out the ones that don't.

I never said I quoted them directly. I figured speaking in modern English would be best for the discussion. Are you reduced to arguing semantics now?

Or are those not the 10 Commandments? Which did I leave out? Which did I include that I should not have included?

[1bad65]

Are you saying that because Christ died on the cross no one, even nonbelievers, will go to hell?

OR :confused:

Are you saying that ONLY those who accept Christ aren't going to hell, so you better believeth in him or he'll **** you up.

That's the culture of fear I'm talking about.

The second one.

So by your logic, all of civilized society is a "culture of fear" then. Since we say, obey our laws or you will face punishment, we must have created a "culture of fear". Correct?

And FYI, there is more to it than just accepting Christ. Maybe instead of bashing Christianity, you should study it first.

[1bad65]

The evangelical wing of Christianity (at least as it exists in the US) is an intellectual cancer, the charismatic faction of the evangelicals is even more insane and magical-minded.

Gee, who sounds like the intolerant one now?


I grew up around these people. I was born in the town that houses the World Assembly of the Churches of God. It's kinda like someone slagging the Mormons when they grew up in Salt Lake City. I know these people like I know my family (most of my family thinks the evangelicals are "backslid" .. i.e. not religious ENOUGH).

You can hate my attitude about cops but when it comes to the Christian Right I've got 20 years of INTIMATE exposure to the disease.

While you no doubt are well versed in the World Assembly of the Churches of God, keep in mind they are not the same as the Baptists, or the Catholics, or the Jehovahs Witnesses, or the Lutherans, etc. Again, you are the one stereotyping people.


The only reason you Christians aren't STILL doing that religious violence crap is because over a century of religious warfare in Europe made Europe into a intensely secular place and made the founding fathers write state religion out of government here in America.

And even now the Christians who have been dragged kicking and screaming into some kind of moderation try to claim the Deists and freethinkers among the Founding Fathers as their own.

STFU with that. Some religions are still doing it now! Why are you not bashing radical Muslims?

And FYI, the Baptists have never persecuted anyone. Nor have religions like the Lutherans. There are many more as well. Now the Catholics do have a history of bloodshed over religion. I'll not argue that. But again, you are stereotypins all Christians and Christian religions. Even in the Christian religions, Catholics and Protestants are very different.


The sooner Christianity dies, root and branch.. the better for Western Civ. Can't happen soon enough IMO.

Now there's the hatred I was talking about! But wait, it didn't come from God, Jesus, Bible thumpers, or Christianity. Hmmm....

[1bad65]

Just did. May the love of the One True God flow out your cheeks like a running gurgling, churning stream.

No you didn't. And to anyone with an open mind, it's obvious you cannot find any hatred in the 10 Commandments. You can make fun of them, but you can't find hate in them.

But you sure seem to hate certain groups of people....

[dimethylsea]

No you didn't. And to anyone with an open mind, it's obvious you cannot find any hatred in the 10 Commandments. You can make fun of them, but you can't find hate in them.

But you sure seem to hate certain groups of people....

Oh I think the Caanites felt some hate when they were the subject of divinely-mandated genocide.

I don't "hate" like that.. I just speak my mind.

I'm not the one whose professing belief in a genocidal rape-ordering mountain deity who orders killing and conquest in his name.

[MasterKiller]

This is from Exodus 34, and it is one of the passages that is often paraphrased into the form 1bad presented.


Observe what I command you today. See, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

Take care not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you are going, or it will become a snare among you.

You shall tear down their altars, break their pillars, and cut down their sacred poles(for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God).

You shall not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to their gods, someone among them will invite you, and you will eat of the sacrifice.

And you will take wives from among their daughters for your sons, and their daughters who prostitute themselves to their gods will make your sons also prostitute themselves to their gods.

You shall not make cast idols.

You shall keep the festival of unleavened bread. For seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the time appointed in the month of Abib; for in the month of Abib you came out from Egypt.

All that first opens the womb is mine, all your male livestock, the firstborn of cow and sheep.

The firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem.

No one shall appear before me empty-handed.

For six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even in ploughing time and in harvest time you shall rest.

You shall observe the festival of weeks, the first fruits of wheat harvest, and the festival of ingathering at the turn of the year.

Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel.

For I will cast out nations before you, and enlarge your borders; no one shall covet your land when you go up to appear before the Lord your God three times in the year.

You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven, and the sacrifice of the festival of the passover shall not be left until the morning.

The best of the first fruits of your ground you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God.

You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.

The Lord said to Moses: Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.

So, do you offer the first of every womb to God?

Do you observe the festival of unleavened bread?

I don't remember Jesus saying it was OK not to.

[Drake]

I'm an atheist, and even I know that all the OT stuff went out the window with the NT. Learned that when I was getting my tree-hugging liberal arts degree before switching to the hard sciences.

[MasterKiller]

I'm an atheist, and even I know that all the OT stuff went out the window with the NT. Learned that when I was getting my tree-hugging liberal arts degree before switching to the hard sciences.

Jesus never mentions gay people once. So, if all the OT is out the window, does he approve of hom0sexual relationships as long as they accept God into their hearts?

[David Jamieson]

Okay, I'll list some centuries, and you reply with the ones in which it would have been okay to form a club that said there was no God in a Christian land.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

I'll pick the 3rd century because that would be the 200's and I think it would've been pretty much ok anywhere to do that with the exception of maybe the Essene places or the Nasarene places... :p

[David Jamieson]

Is it not cool to worship other Gods?

Well that depends.

what "other" gods have you got? And why do you think they are cooler than the one and only god that ever there was, don't say the name *bow head, chant 3 times etc*

[Drake]

Jesus never mentions gay people once. So, if all the OT is out the window, does he approve of hom0sexual relationships as long as they accept God into their hearts?

Technically, yes. What I got out of it was basically, we all f^%$ up, and as long as we accept this guy as our savior, all of our f-ups are forgiven, be it ****sexuality, mass murder, or being a jerk.

All hogwash to me, but I hate seeing people misjudge this stuff.

[sanjuro_ronin]

cherry picking the bible eh? lol

Leviticus is the book you're looking for (again) on what to do about gays.
I believe we are supposed to stone them as well due to their being abominations before god.

Christianity isn't based on teh ten commandments. IN fact, the OT is decidely jewish end to end. It is a set of Jewish texts dealing with jewish matters of religion and faith.

the new testament is for the christians. the old testamnet is to give them a reference when they want to understand where Rabbi Yeshua Bar Joseph (Jesus) was getting his guidelines for teaching from.

Many who proclaim themselves "Christian" cannot grasp this. they do not see themselves as an offshoot or spin off of being jews. Many cannot even accoet that Jesus was a jew and all his apostles were jews and all his early followers were jews and that Christianity itself was a form of Judaism right up until Constantine, the Roman emperor took that flavour of jewish and made it the official religion of the roman empire.

But, history doesn't seem to matter to a lot of people anymore. They just want to hold onto their peculiar brand of judging the world around them and will do exactly that to suit their mood or will that day (cherry pick the bible that is)

i challenge any Christian to be a better Christian and to be a humanist as guided by Jesus's own words. If you need to ask how Jesus addressed our humanity and how best to live within it, then you need to read the gospels again. :)

don't be shallow! go deep! it's worth it and when I say go deep i don't mean give in or give yourself up. really study it because it is very cool and you will learn a lot about humanity in general by actually reading a bible as opposed to skimming it looking for talking points and argument closers.

Well said on many points David, BUT, while there is no doubt that Christianity was an "off-shoot)" of Judaisim, it is also very clear that it views itself as a "stand alone".
The New Covenant replaces the "obsolete" OC in Christianity.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I respect some people's religion.

BUT,

If you're Christian, you have to face the fact that, in most Christian lands, until very recently, it would have been a death sentence to form an atheists club in a community. Even through the first two-thirds of the twentieth century in America, being an atheist of any influence would have very serious negative repercussions.

I'm not saying these are your views, but unless you tore the pages out of your Bible saying all non-believers go to hell, gays go to hell, women are to be treated as property, then you are on very poor ground for this fight. I'm not saying you necessarily believe any of those things, but if those pages still stand DESPITE your belief, in YOUR copy of YOUR Bible, you can't complain when others point them out just because you don't look at them...

That said, any good idea from any text, mystical, religious, or otherwise, humans wrote and humans can make use of. But there is no meeting ground between "we all worship the same thing" and "only by accepting Jesus can you go to heaven" without clarifying which part of the second you don't agree with, and moderates almost always fail to do this.

I was raised in Portugal, a very RC land and there were NO issues with atheists or any other religions.
There is one WORD of God and that is Jesus and where there is "conflict" between Jesus's words and the bible, Jesus wins out.
To focus on "hell" and punishment and disregard Grace and salvation gives only part of the whole picture.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You can hate my attitude about cops but when it comes to the Christian Right I've got 20 years of INTIMATE exposure to the disease.

I don't hate anyone's view on anything, though I may disagree with it.
I have more issues with the "Christian right" than I can put into words.
I have dealt with religious cults far more than I ever cared too.
I know what the problem is and its PEOPLE not GOD.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Jesus never mentions gay people once. So, if all the OT is out the window, does he approve of hom0sexual relationships as long as they accept God into their hearts?

Jesus never mentions gays, this is true, though Paul does but he also mentions
that many of his views are just that, HIS views.
So what are we to make of it?
Judge not lest Ye be Judged.
Love your neighbour as yourself
Understand that God' gift of grace is for all the receive it.
None of this CONDONE Gays' nor doe it CONDEM, it means leave things that are up to God ( judgment) to God.

[MasterKiller]

Jesus never mentions gays, this is true, though Paul does but he also mentions
that many of his views are just that, HIS views.
So what are we to make of it?
Judge not lest Ye be Judged.
Love your neighbour as yourself
Understand that God' gift of grace is for all the receive it.
None of this CONDONE Gays' nor doe it CONDEM, it means leave things that are up to God ( judgment) to God.

Yet, this is NOT the "evangelical" fundamentalist approach, even though it is supported in the Gospel. They always fall back to the OT on issues such as gay marraige, or civil unions, which have no religious context at all. Their hypocricy is what this conversation was about in the first place.

Jesus was a social liberal. He urged care for the weak, the indigent, and the poor, and never questioned how they arrived at their station before attending to them. He would not approve of someone "looking down" on the poor.

[Drake]

Simply because the christian extremists are among the louder groups out there, does not mean they are the majority.

[MasterKiller]

Simply because the christian extremists are among the louder groups out there, does not mean they are the majority.

But they are the ones with the most influence in the Republican party, which caters to them for their votes. So when Republicans get elected, they owe the fundamentalist wing and push their agenda--public funds for religious schools (vouchers), intelligent design in public schools, bans on gay unions, prayer in schools, religious symbols on public property, etc...

All of which amounts to nothing short of state-sponsored religious propoganda.

[Drake]

But they are the ones with the most influence in the Republican party, which caters to them for their votes. So when Republicans get elected, they owe the fundamentalist wing and push their agenda--public funds for religious schools (vouchers), intelligent design in public schools, bans on gay unions, prayer in schools, religious symbols on public property, etc...

All of which amounts to nothing short of state-sponsored religious propoganda.

Actually, I'd say they have the least amount of influence. Currently, the anti-tax, anti-Obama, anti-health care, anti-socialism crowd seems to be running the show over there. I haven't heard a peep about religion from the GOP lately.

And religious symbols on public property is a losing bet, regardless of politics.

[MasterKiller]

Actually, I'd say they have the least amount of influence. Currently, the anti-tax, anti-Obama, anti-health care, anti-socialism crowd seems to be running the show over there. I haven't heard a peep about religion from the GOP lately.

They are one in the same. It's just a shift in message. Palin was originally portrayed as a religious conservative instead of the poster child against a "socialist" agenda. She was chosen as VP partly to enhance McCain's appeal to the fundamentalist right.

[1bad65]

I'm not the one whose professing belief in a genocidal rape-ordering mountain deity who orders killing and conquest in his name.

I see you still haven't grasped the concept of the Old Testament vs the New Testament I spoke of earlier.

[1bad65]

This is from Exodus 34, and it is one of the passages that is often paraphrased into the form 1bad presented.

So, do you offer the first of every womb to God?

Do you observe the festival of unleavened bread?

I don't remember Jesus saying it was OK not to.

It appear you haven't figured out the difference yet either. :rolleyes:

I'm still waiting on you to tell us the extent of your studies/experience in Christianity.....


I'm an atheist, and even I know that all the OT stuff went out the window with the NT. Learned that when I was getting my tree-hugging liberal arts degree before switching to the hard sciences.


Well said on many points David, BUT, while there is no doubt that Christianity was an "off-shoot)" of Judaisim, it is also very clear that it views itself as a "stand alone".
The New Covenant replaces the "obsolete" OC in Christianity.

Looks like these guys see the difference. Maybe they could explain it to you.

[1bad65]

Jesus was a social liberal. He urged care for the weak, the indigent, and the poor, and never questioned how they arrived at their station before attending to them. He would not approve of someone "looking down" on the poor.

Once again I point out Jesus never said to take others' possessions by force of law and then divvy it up among the poor.


But they are the ones with the most influence in the Republican party, which caters to them for their votes. So when Republicans get elected, they owe the fundamentalist wing and push their agenda--public funds for religious schools (vouchers), intelligent design in public schools, bans on gay unions, prayer in schools, religious symbols on public property, etc...

All of which amounts to nothing short of state-sponsored religious propoganda.

So which States have prayer in schools? Which States have vouchers?

Also, any bans or proposed bans have NEVER been done without a vote from the people. So if there are bans, you can't blame the evil Republicans, you have to blame the entire population of the States that have the bans.

[MasterKiller]

It appear you haven't figured out the difference yet either. :rolleyes: Yet, you are the one paraphrasing OT rules for living your life (though not all of them) even though you claim the OT was wiped by the NT.


I'm still waiting on you to tell us the extent of your studies/experience in Christianity..... I will break down my religious studies experience when you break down your financial donations per dollar to nonpolitical chairty groups and organizations since you started working fulltime.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yet, this is NOT the "evangelical" fundamentalist approach, even though it is supported in the Gospel. They always fall back to the OT on issues such as gay marraige, or civil unions, which have no religious context at all. Their hypocricy is what this conversation was about in the first place.

Jesus was a social liberal. He urged care for the weak, the indigent, and the poor, and never questioned how they arrived at their station before attending to them. He would not approve of someone "looking down" on the poor.

The bible and even the Teachings of Jesus are open to interpretation, like anything else in this world and some will take the high road while others will not.
The issue is that God ( OT and NT alike) was a PERSONAL God, he was "the God of Abraham, of Jacob, of Isaac", Jesus made that relationship even MORE persoanl, He was Our Father and Salvation was a PERSONAL thing, not do to being born a certain way or part of a certain group, that is obsolete.
Evangelical may view things a certain way but NO ONE os forced to agree or follow their views.
We ALL answer for our OWN beliefs.

[MasterKiller]

Once again I point out Jesus never said to take others' possessions by force of law and then divvy it up among the poor.
He never said gay people shouldn't get married, either. So why do you oppose it?


So which States have prayer in schools? Which States have vouchers? Do you deny there are groups in any state pushing these agendas?


Also, any bans or proposed bans have NEVER been done without a vote from the people. So if there are bans, you can't blame the evil Republicans, you have to blame the entire population of the States that have the bans. And who do you think funds the majority of the antigay-union campaigns? Focus on the Family and the Mormon Church, both "Christian" organizations.

[sanjuro_ronin]

He never said gay people shouldn't get married, either. So why do you oppose it?

Do you deny there are groups in any state pushing these agendas?

And who do you think funds the majority of the antigay-union campaigns? Focus on the Family and the Mormon Church, both "Christian" organizations.

I don't think that Mormon's are Christians...

[MasterKiller]

I don't think that Mormon's are Christians...

I think they would disagree.

[MasterKiller]

The issue is that God ( OT and NT alike) was a PERSONAL God, he was "the God of Abraham, of Jacob, of Isaac", Jesus made that relationship even MORE persoanl, He was Our Father and Salvation was a PERSONAL thing, not do to being born a certain way or part of a certain group, that is obsolete. I'm not sure how you can convince yourself to marry the OT and NT God, personally.

Just because Daddy doesn't drink anymore, that doesn't mean all those midnight visits to your room never happened.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think they would disagree.

Actually, I just viewed their info and yes, they do believe that Jesus is their saviour so yes, that does make them Christians.
My bad, sorry.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I'm not sure how you can convince yourself to marry the OT and NT God, personally.

Just because Daddy doesn't drink anymore, that doesn't mean all those midnight visits to your room never happened.

I don't need to convince myself of anything, not sure what you mean...

[1bad65]

Yet, you are the one paraphrasing OT rules for living your life (though not all of them) even though you claim the OT was wiped by the NT.

No, I did not say that. I said there was a difference, but never said the OT was "wiped by the NT".


I will break down my religious studies experience when you break down your financial donations per dollar to nonpolitical chairty groups and organizations since you started working fulltime.

Cop out.

What I give or do not give has no bearing on the discussion.

[1bad65]

He never said gay people shouldn't get married, either. So why do you oppose it?

Many reasons. And not just for religious reasons. Matter of fact, religion is not the main reason I oppose it.


Do you deny there are groups in any state pushing these agendas?

Of course I don't. But the ones calling for a 'moment of silence' are not calling for a mandatory prayer. Unlike liberals who always try and make their beliefs mandatory under the law.

And vouchers would not have to go to religious schools. FYI, not all private schools are religious. There is a huge misconception that private schools = religious schools.


And who do you think funds the majority of the antigay-union campaigns? Focus on the Family and the Mormon Church, both "Christian" organizations.

I don't care who funds what. I stated that there have never been any bans on gay marriage without a vote of the people. And you cannot deny that fact.

[1bad65]

Actually, I just viewed their info and yes, they do believe that Jesus is their saviour so yes, that does make them Christians.
My bad, sorry.

This is true.

However they believe in prophets that other Christians do not believe in. People like the con artist Joseph Smith.

[Drake]

This is true.

However they believe in prophets that other Christians do not believe in. People like the con artist Joseph Smith.

You could drop the "con artist" part and held some credibility.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You could drop the "con artist" part and held some credibility.

Correct.
Whether one agrees with JS's views are not has nothing to do with whether the Mormon's are Christians in the core sense:
Accept Jesus as the Son of God, their Lord and Saviour.

[Reality_Check]

Many reasons. And not just for religious reasons. Matter of fact, religion is not the main reason I oppose it.

In the past you have stated that you view ****sexuality as a sin. I'm curious as to the basis for that belief.

[1bad65]

You could drop the "con artist" part and held some credibility.

You should read about him and the founding of Mormonism. Trust me, between him and I, I'm not the one with credability problems.

Do you know how polygamy became a part of their religion?

[1bad65]

In the past you have stated that you view ****sexuality as a sin. I'm curious as to the basis for that belief.

Because God repeatedly says it is. And Jesus did not refute that. However,J esus did say God would forgive you for your sins if you repented and took Jesus as your Savior.

While God's way of dealing with sins changed, neither He nor Jesus ever said that particular act was no longer a sin.

[MasterKiller]

Do you know how polygamy became a part of their religion?

Polygamy is supported in the OT. When does Jesus say it is not acceptable?

[Reality_Check]

Because God repeatedly says it is. And Jesus did not refute that. However,J esus did say God would forgive you for your sins if you repented and took Jesus as your Savior.

While God's way of dealing with sins changed, neither He nor Jesus ever said that particular act was no longer a sin.

Could you please point me to the locations where he says it is a sin?

[1bad65]

Polygamy is supported in the OT. When does Jesus say it is not acceptable?

Can you please Google up the verses that support your claim?

The Bible repeatedly uses the word 'wife'. It does not use the word 'wives' when referring to a marriage.

[1bad65]

Could you please point me to the locations where he says it is a sin?

Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1st Corinthians 6:9-10 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor ****sexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Romans 1:26-28 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

The last two are New Testament scripture btw.

[MasterKiller]

Can you please Google up the verses that support your claim?

The Bible repeatedly uses the word 'wife'. It does not use the word 'wives' when referring to a marriage.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The bible has always been clear that a "natural" relationship (sexual) is between a man and a woman.
The OT is against sexual relationships between men and so is the NT.
Jesus's silence on the matter was probably due to not having to comment on it because it wasn't an issue he had to deal with during his time.
The Hebrews of his time KNEW the OT Laws against it.
That said, to be a gay does NOT mean one is going to hell/eternal ****ation or that God and Jesus have turned away from them.
Paul was the most outspoken VS Gays simple because the areas he preached in found it a "mainstay" of their culture, to a degree of course.
It was at least acceptable to them and Paul disagreed and voiced his views why.

[Reality_Check]

Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1st Corinthians 6:9-10 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor ****sexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Romans 1:26-28 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

The last two are New Testament scripture btw.


MK, I noticed every Verse you brought up is Old Testament. FYI, Christians believe the New Testament is how we should live our lives. They look at the Old Testament mostly for history.

Weren't Romans and Corinthians written by Paul? So, they would be his opinions, not those of Jesus.

Did Jesus repudiate any of these sins?


Leviticus 20:9
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

20:10 If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.

Deuteronomy 22:20-1 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house.

Exodus 35:2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men.

2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Leviticus 25:44-45
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.

[1bad65]

The bible has always been clear that a "natural" relationship (sexual) is between a man and a woman.

Thank you.

MK, normally you Google several verses from a book you do not believe in to try and prove your points. This time you only found 1, and it's not clear that it says you can be married to more than one woman at the same time.

[sanjuro_ronin]

A couple of things:
When Paul said for wives to submit to their husbands, he also said for husbands to take care of their wives for both were one flesh.
In regards to Paul's and Peter's teachings about obeying ( both one's master if oen is a slave and the governments), they both understood the volitile world they lived in, as did Jesus.
People wanted Jesus to lead in rebellion and Jesus told them to pay their taxes.
People wanted Christianity to free them physically, and they were told to "free the mind".
Paul and Peter knew what the price of revolution was and that was NOT something that Jesus taught.
The knew that by being good, by loving those that hated them and enslaved them that they would "reap hot coals upon the heads of the enemy", they knew that by obeying and submitting to authorites and masters that the people would eventually win them over with their love and grace and humility.

[Reality_Check]

Can you please Google up the verses that support your claim?

The Bible repeatedly uses the word 'wife'. It does not use the word 'wives' when referring to a marriage.

Didn't King David and King Solomon have many wives?
Didn't Rehoboam have multiple wives?
Didn't Abraham have three wives?
Didn't Jacob have multiple wives?

So, wouldn't the Bible have used the word "wives" in reference to their marriages?

[1bad65]

Weren't Romans and Corinthians written by Paul? So, they would be his opinions, not those of Jesus.

Paul had a very close relationship to God. And if you are a Christian, you believe God had control of what went into the Bible.


Did Jesus repudiate any of these sins?

What Jesus said on the topic of sinning, was change the way sins were dealt with.

[1bad65]

Didn't King David and King Solomon have many wives?
Didn't Rehoboam have multiple wives?
Didn't Abraham have three wives?
Didn't Jacob have multiple wives?

So, wouldn't the Bible have used the word "wives" in reference to their marriages?

I would have to look that info up. I'm a Christian, but I obviously do not claim to be an expert on the Bible.

Even if they did, whether God approved or disapproved of it would be the issue.

I still maintain I've never seen where God or Jesus calls for men to marry multiple women at the same time.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Polygamy is an interesting issue.
Obviously God allowed it in the OT but in the NT, Paul is very clear that he views a One Husband and One wife relationship as an ideal:
Wives and Husbands

22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansinga her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”b 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.


Why the change?
Jesus, when talking to the Samaritan woman, Jesus did not rebuke her about her many husbands per say, but he wasn't happy about it and that was in regards to divorce and living with someone.

I think that, in the case of the OT, with more women than men and wars and such, polygamy was overlooked because it was the only way for a woman to be take care of, outside her family if she had one.
It was a patriarchal society so a single woman was in trouble.

It seems to be one of those things that was tolerated.
And of course, men took advantage of that, those idiots !

[MasterKiller]

Thank you.

MK, normally you Google several verses from a book you do not believe in to try and prove your points. This time you only found 1, and it's not clear that it says you can be married to more than one woman at the same time.

Sometimes work gets in the way:


Deuteronomy 17:17

"The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, 'You are not to go back that way again.' He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

Notice, he doesn't say more than one, or two. He says many.


Deuteronomy 21:15-16

If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love

No mention of remarriage here after the death of one wife.


Timothy 3:2

Now the bishop must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach

Why tell clergy they can ONLY have ONE wife if that's the rule for everyone?

[Drake]

Common sense, please. You can't just google the bible, take a few phrases from it, and pretend to have the slightest clue of what you're talking about. There are friggin people who have devoted their lives to understanding what the bible really meant, and wading through CENTURIES of translations and changes in meaning and context. If you are so naive to think you can google these phrases, IN ENGLISH, and somehow believe that you have the slightest idea of what was meant, you are only fooling yourself.

Seriously... this discussion has turned moronic.

[MasterKiller]

Why the change?
Jesus, when talking to the Samaritan woman, Jesus did not rebuke her about her many husbands per say, but he wasn't happy about it and that was in regards to divorce and living with someone.

Matthew 22:23-32

That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.
"Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.
Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.
The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.
Finally, the woman died.
Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"
Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you,
'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

So in other words, if Jesus allowed for a widow to marry her former husband's brother even if he were married, then a man can be one flesh with more than one woman. In the case of Matthew 22:24-28, the man can be one flesh with his wife, and one flesh with his deceased brother's wife.

His reply doesn't deny them the act, only that marraige after death is not a construct to worry about.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Common sense, please. You can't just google the bible, take a few phrases from it, and pretend to have the slightest clue of what you're talking about. There are friggin people who have devoted their lives to understanding what the bible really meant, and wading through CENTURIES of translations and changes in meaning and context. If you are so naive to think you can google these phrases, IN ENGLISH, and somehow believe that you have the slightest idea of what was meant, you are only fooling yourself.

Seriously... this discussion has turned moronic.

As someone that has spent the last couple of years studying the bible ( The NT) and learning koine greek, I can't agree more.
Even with concodrances and lexican's its a chore to say the least.
I mean, context is crucial.

[MasterKiller]

As someone that has spent the last couple of years studying the bible ( The NT) and learning koine greek, I can't agree more.
Even with concodrances and lexican's its a chore to say the least.
I mean, context is crucial.

I completely agree, which is my point during this exercise.

Christian fundamentalists take the English word as the Word, and try to push it out down everyone elses's throat. Evangelicals are fundamentalists, by definition.

[sanjuro_ronin]

So in other words, if Jesus allowed for a widow to marry her former husband's brother even if he were married, then a man can be one flesh with more than one woman. In the case of Matthew 22:24-28, the man can be one flesh with his wife, and one flesh with his deceased brother's wife.

His reply doesn't deny them the act, only that marraige after death is not a construct to worry about.

Remarriage was never a problem in the OT or NT, even divorce was authorised under certain conditions.
One couldn't be "one flesh" with more than one wife at a time though, I mean, "one flesh" is symbolic and "literal".
Whether a realtionship was consumated...well, one assumes it was of course, unless the widow was butt ugly.
:)

[MasterKiller]

Remarriage was never a problem in the OT or NT, even divorce was authorised under certain conditions.
One couldn't be "one flesh" with more than one wife at a time though, I mean, "one flesh" is symbolic and "literal".
Whether a realtionship was consumated...well, one assumes it was of course, unless the widow was butt ugly.
:)

Not quite, because as I pointed out in Exodus, you are permitted to marry a slave and take them as your wife, and then acquire a new wife at the same time, as long as you don't quit sleeping with the slave as your wife.

[SanHeChuan]

There are friggin people who have devoted their lives to understanding what the bible really meant, and wading through CENTURIES of translations and changes in meaning and context. If you are so naive to think you can google these phrases, IN ENGLISH, and somehow believe that you have the slightest idea of what was meant, you are only fooling yourself.

And yet Christians read the bible and try to make sense of it themselves every day. Basically what you are saying is that if you don't have a PhD in theology you’re not a Christian, because you cannot possibly understand what the bible means.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Not quite, because as I pointed out in Exodus, you are permitted to marry a slave and take them as your wife, and then acquire a new wife at the same time, as long as you don't quit sleeping with the slave as your wife.

Not sure how that contridicts what I said so I don't understand the "not quite".
One thing though, the slave will never have the same "rights" as the "true" wife.
At times a man would take a slave as a second wife, for example, when his first couldn't conceive or even the other way around.
Though typically the first wife (unless a slave) was always the "first lady", no matter what.

[Drake]

And yet Christians read the bible and try to make sense of it themselves every day. Basically what you are saying is that if you don't have a PhD in theology you’re not a Christian, because you cannot possibly understand what the bible means.

Not exactly. Sure, they can be christian, because the basics are already interpreted and considered general knowledge. I WOULD say that virtually every christian out there is a generally uninformed and potentially miseducated one, unless they had an excellent scholar of the works to learn from.

But honestly, as long as they understand the basics of their religion, they can pick up the concept of salvation. That's pretty much a given.

The problem comes when people sart wading out into the weeds and bushes, and start trying to decipher other meanings without the slightest idea of the source or context. They confuse allegory, metaphor, and subtle meanings with facts, and sometimes are simply victims of a poor translation. It's even worse when atheists like myself or someone trying to prove an e-point are googling phrases with some lunatic hope of proving their side.

I'd wager this is why people tend to rely on organizations like The Vatican for their guidance, because these are people who are able to dedicate their lives to interpreting this stuff, and don't get wrapped up in other careers, families, and life in general. Their sole mission is interpretation of complex religious documents. It's not easy.

[MasterKiller]

Not sure how that contridicts what I said so I don't understand the "not quite".
One thing though, the slave will never have the same "rights" as the "true" wife.
At times a man would take a slave as a second wife, for example, when his first couldn't conceive or even the other way around.
Though typically the first wife (unless a slave) was always the "first lady", no matter what.

EDIT, just reread and you said the same thing I did.

Whether or not she has the same rights is irrelevent, though.

[sanjuro_ronin]

And yet Christians read the bible and try to make sense of it themselves every day. Basically what you are saying is that if you don't have a PhD in theology you’re not a Christian, because you cannot possibly understand what the bible means.

The core of the bible and its base message is very clear, it's when people try to make scripture say what THEY WANT it to say that there are issues.
As a Christian we have as our guide HS ( if you believe that) and the teachings we have had passed down to us of Jesus Christ.
All must be interpreted based on those teachings and core of Jesus and his prime commandments:
Love one another as I have loved you.
Love and forgive thy neighbour.
Do not judge.
DO good deeds out of love and not for recompense.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Not exactly. Sure, they can be christian, because the basics are already interpreted and considered general knowledge. I WOULD say that virtually every christian out there is a generally uninformed and potentially miseducated one, unless they had an excellent scholar of the works to learn from.

But honestly, as long as they understand the basics of their religion, they can pick up the concept of salvation. That's pretty much a given.

The problem comes when people sart wading out into the weeds and bushes, and start trying to decipher other meanings without the slightest idea of the source or context. They confuse allegory, metaphor, and subtle meanings with facts, and sometimes are simply victims of a poor translation. It's even worse when atheists like myself or someone trying to prove an e-point are googling phrases with some lunatic hope of proving their side.

I'd wager this is why people tend to rely on organizations like The Vatican for their guidance, because these are people who are able to dedicate their lives to interpreting this stuff, and don't get wrapped up in other careers, families, and life in general. Their sole mission is interpretation of complex religious documents. It's not easy.

Correct,
One needs a more thourgh grasp of languages and cultures and history and even science when you study the bible and theology, but not so much for everyday life.
At the sametime though, I think that too many christians let themselves be led by organizations just because they are too lazy to try to verify if what is being preached is correct.

[Drake]

Correct,
One needs a more thourgh grasp of languages and cultures and history and even science when you study the bible and theology, but not so much for everyday life.
At the sametime though, I think that too many christians let themselves be led by organizations just because they are too lazy to try to verify if what is being preached is correct.

That and steelworkers, etc, have no time to learn ancient Greek between long hours and taking care of their families.

If I believed in a religion, I'd personally try learning it on my bits of spare time.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Most people don't take their religion that seriously, they go to church and put in their time and do what they are told and that is good enough for them.
I don't agree with that view especially if one ALLOWS religious organizations to dictate things to us.
I think that people get daunted by the task of understanding their faith and all the questions that will come with doing that.
Personally, I love that part.

[MasterKiller]

That and steelworkers, etc, have no time to learn ancient Greek between long hours and taking care of their families.

If I believed in a religion, I'd personally try learning it on my bits of spare time.

In order to not believe in it, I still think you have to learn it.

[MasterKiller]

Case in point, who knows why Moses was often portrayed with horns?

http://www.wga.hu/art/m/michelan/1sculptu/giulio_2/moses1.jpg

[sanjuro_ronin]

Case in point, who knows why Moses was often portrayed with horns?

http://www.wga.hu/art/m/michelan/1sculptu/giulio_2/moses1.jpg

That looks a lot like Heston !

[Drake]

In order to not believe in it, I still think you have to learn it.

I don't have 20 years to dedicate myself to proving why I don't believe in something. Burden of proof logical error. You lose 20 points.

[SanHeChuan]

1bad65
So by your logic, all of civilized society is a "culture of fear" then. Since we say, obey our laws or you will face punishment, we must have created a "culture of fear". Correct?

If the punishment is torturing you for as long as we possibly can before you die, then yes. Hell is eternal torture is it not? If god said you just had so spend a few years in purgatory before getting a second chance that would be like our system. Funny how we are more compassionate than god.


drake
The problem comes when people sart wading out into the weeds and bushes, and start trying to decipher other meanings without the slightest idea of the source or context.

Time to get out the weed whacker and get rid of the detritus. They did it at the council of nicea, they can and should do it again. Thomas Jefferson did it.


Sanjuro ronin
The core of the bible and its base message is very clear, it's when people try to make scripture say what THEY WANT it to say that there are issues.

In a better world...

[sanjuro_ronin]

In a better world...

Indeed, that is the whole point of Jesus's visit, to make it better and to remind us that it is up to US.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't have 20 years to dedicate myself to proving why I don't believe in something. Burden of proof logical error. You lose 20 points.

While I don't agree with Pascals wager, it is a good starting point in deciding if you want to believe in God or not.

[Reality_Check]

Paul had a very close relationship to God. And if you are a Christian, you believe God had control of what went into the Bible.

However, Masterkiller clearly asked where Jesus said gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. What Paul says about it is irrelevant, as he never met Jesus. Where in the Bible did Jesus say gays could not marry or that ****sexuality was a sin?


What Jesus said on the topic of sinning, was change the way sins were dealt with.

That doesn't answer the question. Did he repudiate those sins?

[MasterKiller]

That looks a lot like Heston !

The horns show up in medieval sculptures because of a translation error in the Latin Vulgate based on the description of Moses' face as "cornuta" ("horned"). The Greek Septuagint and Hebrew Masoretic texts use words meaning "radiant", suggesting an effect like a halo.

[MasterKiller]

I don't have 20 years to dedicate myself to proving why I don't believe in something. Burden of proof logical error. You lose 20 points.

What else are you going to do, play Call of Duty all day?

An unexamined life is not worth living.--Socrates

You should at least know why you don't believe.

[1bad65]

Christian fundamentalists take the English word as the Word, and try to push it out down everyone elses's throat. Evangelicals are fundamentalists, by definition.

There goes that stereotyping again.

So, what studies/experience do you have with Christian fundamentalists?

[1bad65]

If the punishment is torturing you for as long as we possibly can before you die, then yes. Hell is eternal torture is it not? If god said you just had so spend a few years in purgatory before getting a second chance that would be like our system. Funny how we are more compassionate than god.

Do what?!?!

This may be news to you, but we lock some people up for their entire lives. And we also use the death penalty on people. God quit using the death penalty after Jesus came down. Unlike many Governments (including ours), he lets us live out our natural lives, no matter how bad we are.

[1bad65]

Indeed, that is the whole point of Jesus's visit, to make it better and to remind us that it is up to US.

This is an excellent, and simple, way to put it.



However, Masterkiller clearly asked where Jesus said gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. What Paul says about it is irrelevant, as he never met Jesus. Where in the Bible did Jesus say gays could not marry or that ****sexuality was a sin?

Where did Jesus say they COULD marry? So if he didn't specifically say they couldn't marry, by default they should be able to?

And no, what Paul said is not irrelevant. The guy is the author of several Books in the Bible for crying out loud.

[sanjuro_ronin]

There are tons of literature on the subject of God and suffering and the atrocites of the OT, I would suggest to anyone looking for them to get BOTH sides because typically, neither side likes to admit the truth:
We don't know why or if God does.
One thing I can say is this, we see today, what people do in the name of God so it would surprise me at all that the atrocities commited in his name, even on his command, was nothing other than man putting the blame on God for the crap he did then, just as he does now.

[SanHeChuan]

Do what?!?!

This may be news to you, but we lock some people up for their entire lives. And we also use the death penalty on people. God quit using the death penalty after Jesus came down. Unlike many Governments (including ours), he lets us live out our natural lives, no matter how bad we are.

A life sentence or the death penalty isn't as bad as eternal torture. In fact we don't torture at all in our justice system. Torture bad, god torture = god bad. I'd much rather be put to an early grave that go to hell.

I'd say the death penalty is still in effect, we still die, only now we have the option of not going to hell. Before Jesus everyone had to go to hell. Yeah that's fair. :rolleyes:

[Reality_Check]

Where did Jesus say they COULD marry? So if he didn't specifically say they couldn't marry, by default they should be able to?

And no, what Paul said is not irrelevant. The guy is the author of several Books in the Bible for crying out loud.

Paul may be the author of several books. Nevertheless, he was not Jesus. Since Masterkiller asked about what Jesus said (or didn't say), what Paul says on the subject is irrelevant.

Where did Jesus say abortion was forbidden? He said nothing on the subject. So, I guess that means he would be okay with it as he didn't specifically say abortion was forbidden.

[Drake]

What else are you going to do, play Call of Duty all day?

An unexamined life is not worth living.--Socrates

You should at least know why you don't believe.

Excuse me? I have other priorities in my education that take precedence over studying a dead language just to verify my lack of faith in something. But if you must know, the immediate barrier is finishing my thesis, getting my soldiers prepped for upcoming gunnery ranges, getting my 2-mile run time down, and working on my CLF. I also dabble in mathematics when time allows.

Besides, my lack of faith is at a very basic level of interpretation. IOW, knowing what they REALLY meant in Leviticus will not change my beliefs, and will be nothing but a waste of time for me. I don't believe in god, I don't believe Jesus was the son of a god, and I don't follow some happy idea of some universal vindication/reward for being a nice person.

[Drake]

Paul may be the author of several books. Nevertheless, he was not Jesus. Since Masterkiller asked about what Jesus said (or didn't say), what Paul says on the subject is irrelevant.

Where did Jesus say abortion was forbidden? He said nothing on the subject. So, I guess that means he would be okay with it as he didn't specifically say abortion was forbidden.

Actually, if nothing was said on it, you cannot assume Jesus was either ok or NOT ok with it.

[David Jamieson]

Actually, if nothing was said on it, you cannot assume Jesus was either ok or NOT ok with it.

Jesus was a rabbi. His teachings were based on and within the context of the previous jewish tenets, beliefs etc.

ergo, it doesn't have to be restated as far as jesus was concerned. It it's in the pentatuch, then Jesus was ok with it.

Jesus didn't like the pharisees because they operated like the cult of amun and gave themselves power over and above god.

He also didn't like romans very much, but accepted that they were the worldly masters of the people he was from and indeed advised said people to pay their taxes and obey Caesars laws. (render unto Caesar what is Caesars = pay your taxes and pay attention to and heed the laws of men)

so, if the pentatuch, or other jewish books speak out against ****sexuality, then it follows suit that rabbis, such as Jesus was, would adhere to those laws as being from God through men and held as a covenant between each.

The new testament takes it to a level where jesus advises us to go beyond the superficial guidelines of earthly living and to really grow spiritually, he asks us to see beyond the worldly things and seek out the divine in everyone and attempt to nurture that divine aspect through divine practice.

[Reality_Check]

Jesus was a rabbi. His teachings were based on and within the context of the previous jewish tenets, beliefs etc.

ergo, it doesn't have to be restated as far as jesus was concerned. It it's in the pentatuch, then Jesus was ok with it.

Jesus didn't like the pharisees because they operated like the cult of amun and gave themselves power over and above god.

He also didn't like romans very much, but accepted that they were the worldly masters of the people he was from and indeed advised said people to pay their taxes and obey Caesars laws. (render unto Caesar what is Caesars = pay your taxes and pay attention to and heed the laws of men)

so, if the pentatuch, or other jewish books speak out against ****sexuality, then it follows suit that rabbis, such as Jesus was, would adhere to those laws as being from God through men and held as a covenant between each.

The new testament takes it to a level where jesus advises us to go beyond the superficial guidelines of earthly living and to really grow spiritually, he asks us to see beyond the worldly things and seek out the divine in everyone and attempt to nurture that divine aspect through divine practice.

Excellent post. Thanks for the clarification.

[1bad65]

One thing I can say is this, we see today, what people do in the name of God so it would surprise me at all that the atrocities commited in his name, even on his command, was nothing other than man putting the blame on God for the crap he did then, just as he does now.

This is so true.

While people who bash on Christians call it a religion of hate and intolerance, nowhere does the NT tell Christians to carry out ANY punishment themselves. As a matter of fact, it is quite clear man is not to judge, and that vengeance and judgement are to be done by God.

And when I say "judge", let me be clear I'm talking about judging SINS, not enforcing laws made by man.

[1bad65]

A life sentence or the death penalty isn't as bad as eternal torture. In fact we don't torture at all in our justice system. Torture bad, god torture = god bad. I'd much rather be put to an early grave that go to hell.

I'd say the death penalty is still in effect, we still die, only now we have the option of not going to hell. Before Jesus everyone had to go to hell. Yeah that's fair. :rolleyes:

I understand your point.

But you pointed out man is more forgiving than God. I simply answered that God no longer uses the death penalty, while man does. And God does not indiscriminately send people to Hell, the actions of every individual determine where he spends eternity.

And God is 100% right. You don't hear about God releasing a guy from Hell because new test showed the DNA didn't match.

To me, the ultimate injustice is punishing a man for something he did not do. God never does this.

[1bad65]

Actually, if nothing was said on it, you cannot assume Jesus was either ok or NOT ok with it.

Thank you.

Using RC's logic, driving drunk is ok in God's eyes because he never specifically forbade it.

[1bad65]

Excellent post. Thanks for the clarification.

I also agree with you on that as well. David is quite well versed in Christianity.

David, if you don't mind me asking, what experience do you have with Christianity?

[Drake]

BREAK: It has often been stated by religious authorities that hell isn't necessarily eternal torture. I've heard interpretations that hell is the absence of god, among other interpretations.

[1bad65]

BREAK: It has often been stated by religious authorities that hell isn't necessarily eternal torture. I've heard interpretations that hell is the absence of god, among other interpretations.

As have I.

[Reality_Check]

To me, the ultimate injustice is punishing a man for something he did not do. God never does this.

One word: Job

He was punished by the Satan for nothing he did. All done with God's permission ("Behold, all that he hath is in thy power"). His children were killed. Now while his piety resulted in rewards (including new children), his suffering was certainly undeserved.

I guess since he didn't do anything, he wasn't technically punished. However, was is just?

[dimethylsea]

Basing one's life and worldview on something with no more evidence that that for the Tooth Fairy..

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

It's a tragedy that people are led astray by bronze age myths. Very sad.

[KC Elbows]

To clarify the problem.

Let's say a guy in DuBuque, named Doug, comes along, has some followers, says love is groovy, accept my loving message, or the divine overlord will flay you, but don't judge those that the divine overlord is going to flay.

What sane person who doesn't believe in Doug would trust his followers, given that?

[David Jamieson]

To clarify the problem.

Let's say a guy in DuBuque, named Doug, comes along, has some followers, says love is groovy, accept my loving message, or the divine overlord will flay you, but don't judge those that the divine overlord is going to flay.

What sane person who doesn't believe in Doug would trust his followers, given that?

I think you and Doug should take it to PMs man.

[Hardwork108]

Here is some interesting and extremely humorous "info" on god and religion ( better known as mumbo jumbo):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o&feature=PlayList&p=ACB78C39AF2A1943&index=2

[sanjuro_ronin]

BREAK: It has often been stated by religious authorities that hell isn't necessarily eternal torture. I've heard interpretations that hell is the absence of god, among other interpretations.

The "fire and brimstone" hell comes from Revelation ( in the final judgement act where satan, the best, the false prophet and those that choose to follow them are thrown into the sea of fire) and from Jesus's parable of Lazarus and the wealth man.
I would agree that, far more painful than a firey death and far more torturous would be KNOWING God's Love and then having it taken away.

[sanjuro_ronin]

One word: Job

He was punished by the Satan for nothing he did. All done with God's permission ("Behold, all that he hath is in thy power"). His children were killed. Now while his piety resulted in rewards (including new children), his suffering was certainly undeserved.

I guess since he didn't do anything, he wasn't technically punished. However, was is just?

The reason the story of Job "sticks out" is because of the many lesson there ( whether or not it ever happened is irrelevant for the lessons to be learned):
Satan ( the accuser): Don't make a bit with someone that knows all the possible outcomes.
Job: Don't assume that because all is going well that **** won't happen.
God: Just because a person is faithful, don't think they don't h ave the right to question when crap happens to them.
The rest: God doesn't need to justify anything he does or that happens, but he will if you ask, you just might not like the answer.
:D

[sanjuro_ronin]

To clarify the problem.

Let's say a guy in DuBuque, named Doug, comes along, has some followers, says love is groovy, accept my loving message, or the divine overlord will flay you, but don't judge those that the divine overlord is going to flay.

What sane person who doesn't believe in Doug would trust his followers, given that?

A valid point and one that has been brought up many times bu atheists and answered many times by believers.
The think is, and I was guilt of this too for awhile, those that doubt have no problem in reading books or seeing clips that confirm what they WANT to believe, but how many views counter to what you choose to believe have you heard?
Have you read the works of Dinesh, McGrath, or Francis Collins?

[SanHeChuan]

To me, the ultimate injustice is punishing a man for something he did not do. God never does this.

Original sin. Everyone was sent to hell, for something adam and eve did.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Original sin. Everyone was sent to hell, for something adam and eve did.

Nope, everyone has the POTENTIAL for evil because of what Adam and Eve did ( think a heridetary "evil gene) and as such, they must be saved and how does this happen, is it somethign we do?
Nope, God knows that there is now what for us to go "up there" to his level, so he came "down here" to ours and gave us the gift of Grace.
A gift that says, No matter what you do, I love you, I can't love you any less or any more so your salvation is NOT based on anything you have to do but it is based on something you CAN do- Accept Jesus as your saviour and the path to God and accept his grace and all that goes with it.
And what is that "all"?
Love, forgiveness and understanding that we are ALL sinners and ALL are imperfect and that God loves us anyways.
There is no "hell" for those that have love in their heart.

[MasterKiller]

There is no "hell" for those that have love in their heart.

What if that's NAMBLA love...? :eek:

[1bad65]

One word: Job

Job was not punished. Job was tested.

[sanjuro_ronin]

What if that's NAMBLA love...? :eek:

I don't know what that is...

[Reality_Check]

Job was not punished. Job was tested.

His testing was just?

[SanHeChuan]

Job was not punished. Job was tested.

What about his family, surely since they weren't the one's being tested, they were being punished. They were killed and sent to hell. Does testing Job faith justify killing presumably inocent people, to test something you presumably already know?

[sanjuro_ronin]

What about his family, surely since they weren't the one's being tested, they were being punished. They were killed and sent to hell. Does testing Job faith justify killing presumably inocent people, to test something you presumably already know?

The Story of Job is one that does create a lot of issues for a benevolent and loving God, of that there is no doubt.
But nowhere is it mentioned that his family went to hell, not sure where you got that.
Nevertheless, they did die and regardless of what happened to Job after and how afluent and loved he was after, it doesn't change what happened before.
The OT is not my specialty nor is the hebrew faith, I would suggest you ask a rabbi on how the story of Job is interpreted.
Some can very simply say that it is an example of how God's will is greater than all and that he owes no explanation - the Lord giveth, the lord taketh away.

[MasterKiller]

I don't know what that is...

Google it at work and turn off your safe search features. Trust me!!!!*









*Getting fired, losing your house, and possibly your family is just a test to see if you really, really, really trust me. Nothing personal.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Google it at work and turn off your safe search features. Trust me!!!!

AH DUDE !!!!
It boggles the mind that things like that exist !!

[David Jamieson]

AH DUDE !!!!
It boggles the mind that things like that exist !!

It's a uniquely American thing thankfully.

[KC Elbows]

A valid point and one that has been brought up many times bu atheists and answered many times by believers.
The think is, and I was guilt of this too for awhile, those that doubt have no problem in reading books or seeing clips that confirm what they WANT to believe, but how many views counter to what you choose to believe have you heard?
Have you read the works of Dinesh, McGrath, or Francis Collins?

The last book I read was The Screwtape Letters.

The problem with your argument is that you assume your previous position and mine now are necessarily similar, that I look for sources that confirm my views uncritically, and that the views of a small number of Christian scholars and those few moderates who read up are a bit of good in negotiating interactions with the average Christian.

I am a non-Christian. Raised a Catholic in Catholic schools, I left that by high school. I was once the sort of atheist that you presume I am now. But this is not then.

The virtue of studying God and Christianity for me is no different than the virtue of studying Zeus or Buddha or any other human construction attempting to codify what humans have never had the body of knowledge to codify. Except in the utility of looking at it from other Christian's perspectives, since I have no choice but interact with them, I would only read them for glimpses of human reason. Aside from that, there is no need for me to study it from a perspective of its overall concrete truth, any more than I need to consider whether there are invisible gods on mount Olympus.

As for choosing sources to confirm my own views. My copy of Mengzi is considered authoritative by scholars. My copy of Zhuangzi is considered authoritative by scholars. Same with my translations of western philosophers. My favorite book on law has recommendations by William F. Buckley, Jr. and Norman Mailer. I choose books based on their ability to challenge the limits of my knowledge, not their claim to be able to or their convergence with my own views. I do not choose to read 'pop' anything.

Further, I despise so-called atheist writers for the most part because, while all the modern ones recognize that atheism is merely the name for those who see no reason to consider religion as reality, they have failed to realize that having the sole purpose of countering it is of limited worth. This is not to say that, being an atheist in a situation where Christian customs and dogma are often translated into social and legal realities, one should never speak up, but that the main goal is reclaiming human developments for human uses.

I will use Harris' Letters to A Christian Nation as an example. Addressed to the far Christian Right, his opening holds the key to what he fails to develop within the text. He essentially says that how the Christian Right dismisses Islam as untrue is how he deals with all religions.

What he fails to point out is that both are acts of atheism, as was Jesus' renunciation of previous forms of judaism, as was Buddha's renunciation of Brahmanism as the sole explanation for his times. Each, dealing with previous religious beliefs that became institutions, said that those institutions and beliefs were not enough to encapsulate truth.

I am saying no different, only with more freedom of form. I don't own truth, I don't claim to, I don't wake in the morning and say "KC is truth" or "Sartre is truth" or any such thing. Christians say "Jesus is truth". Hardline Buddhists say "reincarnation is truth". Each defines themselves versus other views by this, and thus loses the right to say "we're all talking about the same thing" by the distinction. They find themselves in arguments where they claim hell is not torture, but only the worst pain there could ever be because of the certainty that arguments claiming truth falsely give humans combined with the desire for human harmony, and Harris falls prey to this in his own way by the assumption that reason cannot lead to inequity and suffering, and even ignorance; that, in fact, the causes for these things are more often cynical, with the rationales being mystical: however, one cannot argue this as a defense of the mystical, as, being presented always by human hands, one cannot discount in all cases cynical causes in the first place.

From missing this point, Harris falls into pointing out Christian inconsistencies. You may blame such inconsistencies on humans, and credit all virtues on God, but, given that all Christians are human, I would suggest Okkam's Razor(probably misspelling that) says that you are creating an unnecessary step in your explanation. Humans do good and bad things, all of us, and none seem to have escaped this truth.

But, I digress. My main criticism of Harris is that he is just another in a long line of acceptable atheist authors who do more for their writing career than for their fellow atheists. Atheism as a counter-argument is dead, unnecessary. I'm not arguing it, clearly Drake holds a similar view. The Golden Compass books, while uninteresting to me as well and flawed in their methodology, provide a glimpse of what atheism is moving toward, which is what every groups of humans move towards, community. Those books seek to do a Catholocism 2.0, induct the children. Stupid. Movements are started by adults, communities are started by adults.

What Harris should have done is built a permanent Atheist meeting place, complete with the original pledge of allegiance emblazoned on the front, across from a mega-church, as a demonstration that there is no choice but living side by side. Instead, he sold books.

I do not doubt. I am from a different community than you. Our communities have to coexist, but if yours continues to lag on this front, that doesn't mean mine should wait for its place. Given that your community began by saying to a culture that allowed many gods that only your one God was allowable, I can't accept moderate arguments that claim the universality of all religions when specific beliefs in Christianity are, for the vast bulk of Christians, excusionary, and even the scholars are unwilling to revise texts, texts collected by humans with their own motivations, including political, for fear of not being Christian enough. I have a right to point this out, you have a right to the debate of it, but moderate christian views are as consistent from person to person as any personal view, and so your right to associate it with other Christianity as a whole is hamstrung by your fellow Christians, be they contemporary, or the collectors of the various versions of the Bible, or the Apostles with their differences, or even the figures in the Bible.

Scholars argue a Christianity that hardly exists. I'm on the edge of the Bible Belt. What they say has little meaning here. Are you right, and all the others wrong, about a belief system that neither side should have any certainty in?

[SanHeChuan]

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-418566

[sanjuro_ronin]

KC,
Your post is too long to quote :D
So I will say this.
I agree with much that you said but those authors I mentioned will indeed challenge you and your views and not in a "conversion" sort of way.
Their views of faith BASED on reason are very refreshing ( if not new).
Collins, for example, headed the human genome program.
Check this site out, not as anything other than someone that has a curiosity about things.
www.biologos.org

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-418566

Only the stupid have anything to fear from "free thinkers".
Problem is, most free thinkers arent that free. LOL !!

[1bad65]

His testing was just?

Considering his reward, I think so.

But again, the issue we were discussing was punishment for sinning, and Job was not being punished for sinning. He was actually leading a righteous life.

[1bad65]

But nowhere is it mentioned that his family went to hell, not sure where you got that.

He is either ignorant of the facts concerning Job, or he made it up. Which is it? ;)

[1bad65]

*Getting fired, losing your house, and possibly your family is just a test to see if you really, really, really trust me. Nothing personal.

You left out the fact that Job reaped rewards that left him more wealthy than before, and that God let him live another 140 years.


It's a uniquely American thing thankfully.

That particular group of chesters may be American, but we all know that type of garbage exists in other countries as well.

[MasterKiller]

You left out the fact that Job reaped rewards that left him more wealthy than before, and that God let him live another 140 years. yeah, with a NEW wife and NEW sheep. Too bad for the old ones...

[SanHeChuan]

He is either ignorant of the facts concerning Job, or he made it up. Which is it? ;)

It is my understanding that everyone one went to hell before Jesus died for our sins. Many Christians believe that, though some qualify it as some safe place in hell. You can argue that it's not right from your interpretation, but that doesn't make it any less of a commonly held belief. To me what you’re suppose to believe isn't as important as what many people actually believe.


You left out the fact that Job reaped rewards that left him more wealthy than before, and that God let him live another 140 years.

Yeah thats great for Job, **** his wife and kids though, right? Would you trade your wife and kids for wealth and long life and call it fair?

[KC Elbows]

KC,
Your post is too long to quote :D
So I will say this.
I agree with much that you said but those authors I mentioned will indeed challenge you and your views and not in a "conversion" sort of way.
Their views of faith BASED on reason are very refreshing ( if not new).
Collins, for example, headed the human genome program.
Check this site out, not as anything other than someone that has a curiosity about things.
www.biologos.org

I'm familiar with Collins.

I think you miss my point. I don't claim that there aren't moderate Christians, or that no logical arguments exist, flawed as they have to be regarding something to be taken on faith, on the existence of God.

My point is this:

1) Moderate Christianity, by its own actions in the modern era, is irrelevant in this discussion. As proof, I would point out that a moderate Baptist wrote "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." We all know, in order to fight "Godless communism", "under God" was added later. The original intent was to define something all could agree on, while the added bit excluded many. Christians, as long as liberty and justice for all was at the heart of the matter, could make the pledge, but, in the revised version, non-beleivers and members of other faiths are explicity excluded. And now, moderates are incapable of taking substantial roles in changing this because it would be an explicit refutation of their God.

2) In different groups dealing with each other, with difference an allowable thing, as it must be in a free society, it is where those groups come in contact that defines the start of interaction. For the atheist, it is far more often the rank and file's belief that they encounter, and so it should be the rank and file's belief that we debate. Occasional debate of the scholar's view is interesting, but academic, because currently they, tending towards the moderate, are ineffectual in the larger community in teaching their moderation, and ineffectual in society by their own actions in terms of this debate.

3) The atheist's familiarity with some religion AS IT IS PRACTICED is not, by default, less informed than the familiarity of the Christian scholar who proposes their faith as it may hardly be practiced at all, in regards to debate between communities. In life, I am not likely debating this with Christian scholars, but with people who may go to churches that receive tax exemption AND play politics, or know of other churches that do and say nothing, or attempt to build Christian sculptures with tax money, or pressure for laws that reflect their views of the OT that are at odds with central principles of the Republic they claim to stand for more than others. Or, I may be debating with moderates, whose actual role in the discussion, lacking the ability to affect either side, cannot simply be "look at my belief" as the whole and sum of the discussion, especially since they know that many Christians even within their own church hold different views than they do.

I am not disputing that you may find virtue in your beliefs at all. I do dispute claims that you can place bad occurences in your faith's history on the heads of humans while touting the good as coming from God. It's horrible logic. And I do dispute that Christianity, as it is most commonly practiced, and often as it is written, is exclusionary. Jesus himself said so, there is one practice that yeilds spiritual results, and it is through him alone that it is found.

And, primarily, I am saying that I am familiar with some works on the subject on several sides of the issue, but, in context to how Christians deal with others, the only reliable source material is in how they may deal with others, and nowhere else, and it's a history that theology cannot write away, but not necessarily one that I take as necessarily negative from the present moment. Being humans, Christians can do good or bad, just like the rest of us, and apparently, no better. For every Mother Teresa, there's a secular doctor doing free work in war torn corners of the world for less benefit in terms of reputation.

[KC Elbows]

The short, quotable-lemngthed answer:

I do not believe in God, I believe in community, in my larger community this must include Christians, and I don't agree with what many of them choose to act on from their faith, and where it influences my society negatively, I can point this out, and my right to point this out does not also require me to consider belief in God. If I sleep with my neighbor's wife, his ire likewise does not require him to consider the virtue of my Johnson.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The short, quotable-lemngthed answer:

I do not believe in God, I believe in community, in my larger community this must include Christians, and I don't agree with what many of them choose to act on from their faith, and where it influences my society negatively, I can point this out, and my right to point this out does not also require me to consider belief in God. If I sleep with my neighbor's wife, his ire likewise does not require him to consider the virtue of my Johnson.

ROTFLMAO !
Well put my friend :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

If I may:


I am not disputing that you may find virtue in your beliefs at all. I do dispute claims that you can place bad occurences in your faith's history on the heads of humans while touting the good as coming from God. It's horrible logic. And I do dispute that Christianity, as it is most commonly practiced, and often as it is written, is exclusionary. Jesus himself said so, there is one practice that yeilds spiritual results, and it is through him alone that it is found.

Bad things happen to good people AND bad people, this has nothing to do with God.
Good things happen to good people and bad people, this has nothing to do with God.
Regardless of how much we all ( those of faith) want to believe that God blesses us above others, he doesn't, he loves us ALL equally and treats us ALL the same.
It is in KNOWING God and developing a personal relationship with God ( Through Christ for a christian) that one comes to peace with this and truly "finds" God.
Christians have done horrific things, so have other religious people and so have atheists.
The vast majority of religious people, like atheists are nice, happy and loving people and just as we can't blame them for what others do, we can't blame God for what WE DO.
As for religion being exclusionary, yes, ORGANIZED religion yes, faith isn't and neither is God.
Is Jesus the only way to God? For a Christian, Yes.

[1bad65]

yeah, with a NEW wife and NEW sheep. Too bad for the old ones...

This is the part not touched on. I would like to think they went to Heaven, but the Bible does not touch on that subject.


It is my understanding that everyone one went to hell before Jesus died for our sins.

But again, the Bible never says this. So you cannot ASSUME they did.


Yeah thats great for Job, **** his wife and kids though, right? Would you trade your wife and kids for wealth and long life and call it fair?

I don't have kids. As for the wife part, what do you think most married guys would choose? ;)

[1bad65]

Bad things happen to good people AND bad people, this has nothing to do with God.
Good things happen to good people and bad people, this has nothing to do with God.
Regardless of how much we all ( those of faith) want to believe that God blesses us above others, he doesn't, he loves us ALL equally and treats us ALL the same.
It is in KNOWING God and developing a personal relationship with God ( Through Christ for a christian) that one comes to peace with this and truly "finds" God.
Christians have done horrific things, so have other religious people and so have atheists.
The vast majority of religious people, like atheists are nice, happy and loving people and just as we can't blame them for what others do, we can't blame God for what WE DO.
As for religion being exclusionary, yes, ORGANIZED religion yes, faith isn't and neither is God.
Is Jesus the only way to God? For a Christian, Yes.

Once again, very well put.

[Reality_Check]

2 Samuel 12


12:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

12:10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

12:12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

12:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

12:14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

12:15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.

12:16 David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth.

12:17 And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them.

12:18 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead?

David did wrong by having Bathsheba's husband killed. Why then were his wives and the child punished? Surely they were innocent.

2 Samuel 21


21:1 Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.

Why punish everyone for the crimes of Saul? Doesn't sound just to me.

Jude


4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

So, God preordained that some "ungodly men" would deny Jesus. Which would condemn them to Hell. So, they're condemned to Hell for something God did to them.

Deuteronomy


2:30 But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.

2:31 And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land.

2:32 Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz.

2:33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.

2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain

Heshbon was utterly destroyed because the king wouldn't allow the Israelites to pass. Why did Sihon do this? God hardened his spirit so he couldn't allow them to pass. Which resulted in genocide. Sounds just to me.

Lamentations


5:7 Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquities.

Punishing children for the sins of their fathers.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Hey, don't forget Lot.
His daughters got him drunk and played "hide the micehgana", got preganant and God, supposedly, punished the kids and not the parents for it.
Now, I am not 100% sure on the details of that part of Genesis, but the just of the matter is there.
One of the many reasons the OT ( at least most of it) can't be taken as "the literal word of God" and is best viewed as ancient man's attempt to reconcile what happens to them with their view of God.

[KC Elbows]

Hey, don't forget Lot.
His daughters got him drunk and played "hide the micehgana", got preganant and God, supposedly, punished the kids and not the parents for it.
Now, I am not 100% sure on the details of that part of Genesis, but the just of the matter is there.
One of the many reasons the OT ( at least most of it) can't be taken as "the literal word of God" and is best viewed as ancient man's attempt to reconcile what happens to them with their view of God.

Or you could take the gnostic view that it's not the same God.

[1bad65]

Once again RC, that is Old Testament scripture.

[Reality_Check]

Once again RC, that is Old Testament scripture.

Which means what?

[MasterKiller]

One of the many reasons the OT ( at least most of it) can't be taken as "the literal word of God" and is best viewed as ancient man's attempt to reconcile what happens to them with their view of God.

What makes the NT anymore reliable?

God tells Moses he will punish children and grandchildren for the sins of their fathers. Either he keeps his word and it's valid and not fair, or it's not his actual words and therefore none of it can be accurately attributed to him, which makes following it all pretty silly.

I mean, did anyone ask those pigs what they thought before Jesus cast demons into them?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Or you could take the gnostic view that it's not the same God.

Yeah, if one is to believe in more than one God ( why not I guess, LOL).
But the issue really only presents a problem to those that think the bible is innerant and infalliable ( it is not).
The bible was written by man, men who, for the most part in regards to spiritual matters, were inspired by God and their love for God.
The rest was historical story telling with lots of blaming God for crap.
We wiped out the *insert pagan tribe here*, now what?
I know, God told us to do it and since he didn't stop it, he must be ok with it !!
There is no reason NOT to be critical of the bible in the parts that we SHOULD be critical of.

[David Jamieson]

What makes the NT anymore reliable?

God tells Moses he will punish children and grandchildren for the sins of their fathers. I mean, either he keeps his word and it's valid and not fair, or it's not his actual words and therefore none of it can be accurately attributed to him, which makes following it all pretty silly.

what do you mean by "reliable".

[sanjuro_ronin]

What makes the NT anymore reliable?

I very valid question.
One can argue that it portrays a more loving and benevolent God, more inline with what is being preached by his own son, himself incarnate, but that only hold s up if you are a christian.

If you are not, then what?
You try your best to apply reason to the NT and does not the NT version of God seem like far more "logical" God for an all powerful being to be?

[sanjuro_ronin]

God tells Moses he will punish children and grandchildren for the sins of their fathers. I mean, either he keeps his word and it's valid and not fair, or it's not his actual words and therefore none of it can be accurately attributed to him, which makes following it all pretty silly.

One can easily take that to mean that kids will pay for the crap their parents do, sometimes for generations and we know that to be true.
Now, is it God doing the punishing?
I think that ancient man, Moses, probably though so.

[Reality_Check]

I very valid question.
One can argue that it portrays a more loving and benevolent God, more inline with what is being preached by his own son, himself incarnate, but that only hold s up if you are a christian.

If you are not, then what?
You try your best to apply reason to the NT and does not the NT version of God seem like far more "logical" God for an all powerful being to be?

But, wouldn't that be human logic? God, by definition, is inhuman.

[Drake]

Y'all are still Google-Fu'ing ancient scripture like professional scholars. I'm having issues taking seriously those who cut and paste and assume they know anything. Is your thinking truly this simplistic and naive? This stuff has been under analysis and scrutiny by those who do this for their living, and it has been going on for centuries. You honestly believe you are going to google a few bible quotes, make snide comments, and suddenly unearth some huge contradiction that you think hasn't been considered before? STUPIDITY.

[kfson]

Republicans to Christology, I wish I would have been here earlier!

Christ is in you, ask him.

[sanjuro_ronin]

But, wouldn't that be human logic? God, by definition, is inhuman.

Human logic is based on God's logic, it was given to us as we were made in God's image and then, on top of that, we decided that we wanted to be "like God" and ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge.

God is revealed to Us and is open to being revelaed.
Currently, as we study and fine more about the universe, more of God is revealed to us.

[MasterKiller]

You try your best to apply reason to the NT and does not the NT version of God seem like far more "logical" God for an all powerful being to be?

Uh....is that really the line of logic you want to follow? Because God having sex with a woman who gave birth to God who is really his own son who then caused himself to die so God would forgive people for killing him, who then went to Hell to take all the souls to heaven to be with God who then returned to Earth, rose from the dead even though God can't die, and then died again so he could be with himself, well...it does tend to push the limits, now doesn't it?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Uh....is that really the line of logic you want to follow? Because God having sex with a woman who gave birth to God who is really his own son who then caused himself to die so God would forgive people for killing him, who then went to Hell to take all the souls to heaven to be with God who then returned to Earth, rose from the dead even though God can't die, and then died again so he could be with himself, well...it does tend to push the limits, now doesn't it?

LMAO !!!
Funny, the "cosmic zombie" thing eh?

[MasterKiller]

Seriously, if you want logic, it's far more likely that Jesus disappeared into the Wilderness, was exposed to Buddhist teachings along the silk road, and meshed them into his Judeo beliefs.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Seriously, if you want logic, it's far more likely that Jesus disappeared into the Wilderness, was exposed to Buddhist teachings along the silk road, and meshed them into his Judeo beliefs.

I heard that one too.
Of course we need to remember that God gives his message to different people in different ways, that is why the core of the vast majority of religions is basically the same.
Or perhaps they all came from the same original source.
Of course Christs's teachings weren't that original, the golden rule had been around before Christ, but he was the first to apply it to ALL.

[sanjuro_ronin]

By the way, you do know that the version you posted:

Because God having sex with a woman who gave birth to God who is really his own son who then caused himself to die so God would forgive people for killing him, who then went to Hell to take all the souls to heaven to be with God who then returned to Earth, rose from the dead even though God can't die, and then died again so he could be with himself, well...it does tend to push the limits, now doesn't it?
Isn't what happened, right?

[MasterKiller]

I heard that one too.
Of course we need to remember that God gives his message to different people in different ways, that is why the core of the vast majority of religions is basically the same.
Or perhaps they all came from the same original source.

You just paraphrased the Quran!! You Un-North-American freedom hater!!!!

[MasterKiller]

Isn't what happened, right?

Well, that all depends on who you ask. You guys can't keep your story straight. Probably from all the speaking in tongues you do.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You just paraphrased the Quran!! You Un-North-American freedom hater!!!!

True, true...even in the Quran you will find the truth.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Well, that all depends on who you ask. You guys can't keep your story straight. Probably from all the speaking in tongues you do.

Hey, don't knock it, women love tongue action :D

[Reality_Check]

Hey, don't knock it, women love tongue action :D

Now, that just screams for one of your pictures.

[MasterKiller]

Now, that just screams for one of your pictures.

Once we go down that dark path, my friend, forever will it dominate our destiny.

[Reality_Check]

Once we go down that dark path, my friend, forever will it dominate our destiny.

And that would be bad. Okay, important safety tip. Thanks.

[kfson]

True, true...even in the Quran you will find the truth.

Why do the Freemasons use the half moon?

[1bad65]

Y'all are still Google-Fu'ing ancient scripture like professional scholars. I'm having issues taking seriously those who cut and paste and assume they know anything. Is your thinking truly this simplistic and naive? This stuff has been under analysis and scrutiny by those who do this for their living, and it has been going on for centuries. You honestly believe you are going to google a few bible quotes, make snide comments, and suddenly unearth some huge contradiction that you think hasn't been considered before? STUPIDITY.

LMAO at this. And you wonder why they won't share with us their experience and/or education in Chrisitan religions.

[KC Elbows]

Y'all are still Google-Fu'ing ancient scripture like professional scholars. I'm having issues taking seriously those who cut and paste and assume they know anything. Is your thinking truly this simplistic and naive? This stuff has been under analysis and scrutiny by those who do this for their living, and it has been going on for centuries. You honestly believe you are going to google a few bible quotes, make snide comments, and suddenly unearth some huge contradiction that you think hasn't been considered before? STUPIDITY.

This assumes that those scholars answered those questions, which in some cases, is not the case. It's perfectly within reason to argue the against the cosmological argument, because basic logic shows its difficulties.

This tends to be true of most of the arguments that have existed regarding God in philosophy. It's part of the nature of having a God that cannot be proven to exist and must be taken on faith; logical arguments never fully win out in favor of existence.

See Anselm's argument, one of the better ones: it presupposes the ability to conceive of an infinite being in a finite being's mind and have it be a real representation of the infinite being, plus it presumes the reality of a thing is better than the idea of it(see: high maintenance girlfriends), and also is open to the unicorn argument, though there are certainly counters to the unicorn argument.

I know a number of philosophy p.h.d.'s, and they would hardly call the discussion stupid, and would agree with the problem's for those arguing on God's side based in some readings. The difference between OT God and New Testament God was answered differently by early Christians than by Catholics and after, one such answer being that only the NT one was the True God, the OT God being a petulant but powerful being pretending. Textually, the books support this reading quite well, as the OT God often says things that are far more difficult to explain from "early man thought this about him". Historically, this group was closer to the era of Christ, so why would one assume scholarship in answers so long after the fact, when no scholar does this in other studies of ancient texts?

For example, the reading that the OT is man's view is a reading of it, not a verifiable fact of it. Did early Christians hold this? Not the Gnostics, who were quite early. Why?

[David Jamieson]

Why do the Freemasons use the half moon?

Likely a reference to the Half Moon Tavern where they used to dine after regular lodge:

here's a snippet:


It would seem that many lodges were what is now termed as "occasional lodges" i.e. that sufficient masons were called together to hold a lodge for the specific purpose of making new masons, and the lodge existed for only that occasion for which it was called.

A further interesting entry in Ashmole's diary, this time for March 10th 1682, states that after the assembly at the Masons Hall, the company dined at the Half Moon Tavern, Cheapside, and the dinner was paid for by the candidate, seemingly a normal practice in those times.

After his death in 1692 Ashmole left a historical gold-mine in the 1,800 manuscripts found, and his name lives on in the Ashmolian Museum, Oxford, built to house this precious gift of the first public collection of antiquities in England.

[1bad65]

Probably from all the speaking in tongues you do.

Once again you stereotype. This is not done by a large majority of Christians.

I've seen it done in person only once. We went to that church because an aquaintence asked us to check out the church she went to. We never went back. FYI, it was a non-demoninational church.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Now, that just screams for one of your pictures.

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/6/22/633812399628155125-drunkenkissing.jpg

[Drake]

This assumes that those scholars answered those questions, which in some cases, is not the case. It's perfectly within reason to argue the against the cosmological argument, because basic logic shows its difficulties.

This tends to be true of most of the arguments that have existed regarding God in philosophy. It's part of the nature of having a God that cannot be proven to exist and must be taken on faith; logical arguments never fully win out in favor of existence.

See Anselm's argument, one of the better ones: it presupposes the ability to conceive of an infinite being in a finite being's mind and have it be a real representation of the infinite being, plus it presumes the reality of a thing is better than the idea of it(see: high maintenance girlfriends), and also is open to the unicorn argument, though there are certainly counters to the unicorn argument.

I know a number of philosophy p.h.d.'s, and they would hardly call the discussion stupid, and would agree with the problem's for those arguing on God's side based in some readings. The difference between OT God and New Testament God was answered differently by early Christians than by Catholics and after, one such answer being that only the NT one was the True God, the OT God being a petulant but powerful being pretending. Textually, the books support this reading quite well, as the OT God often says things that are far more difficult to explain from "early man thought this about him". Historically, this group was closer to the era of Christ, so why would one assume scholarship in answers so long after the fact, when no scholar does this in other studies of ancient texts?

For example, the reading that the OT is man's view is a reading of it, not a verifiable fact of it. Did early Christians hold this? Not the Gnostics, who were quite early. Why?

Let those PhDs read this particular discussion. If they find this thread to be a valid, groundbreaking discussion, then I'll be genuinely surprised.

[1bad65]

This assumes that those scholars answered those questions, which in some cases, is not the case. It's perfectly within reason to argue the against the cosmological argument, because basic logic shows its difficulties.

But who would you rather discuss religion with; a Biblical scholar who is open about his credentials, or a mod on Kung-Fu forum who is obviously Googling like mad and refusing to share his education/experience with Christianity?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Let those PhDs read this particular discussion. If they find this thread to be a valid, groundbreaking discussion, then I'll be genuinely surprised.

Not sure what your point is bro, I mean, you guys have political discussions all the time and economics ones too, and you guys don't know anything about that stuff too !
LOL !
:p

[sanjuro_ronin]

But who would you rather discuss religion with; a Biblical scholar who is open about his credentials, or a mod on Kung-Fu forum who is obviously Googling like mad and refusing to share his education/experience with Christianity?

Its in good fun, don't take these things so seriously.
If a person has a genuine interest that's cool, if they are just fooling and teasing, that's ok too.
MK description of Christianity was in good fun and I've seen it before, no one takes these things seriously, nor should they.

[MasterKiller]

But who would you rather discuss religion with; a Biblical scholar who is open about his credentials, or a mod on Kung-Fu forum who is obviously Googling like mad and refusing to share his education/experience with Christianity?

Why do your arguments *always* de-evolve into ad hominem attacks. I never refused anything. I offered a quid pro quo exchange. You show in monetary USD denomoniations the amount of money you've donated to nonreligious charity organizations, and I will tell you how many times I went to bible school since I was 5.

I'm not sure what my credendtials, anyway, have to do with the focus of this conversation. But if you can't offer up your donation amounts, then by your own critique of me, you should never be posting on threads concerning government social programs. You don't even have a college degree, afterall. What makes you more knowledgeable about social economics than White House economists besides the blogs you read?

[MasterKiller]

not sure what your point is bro, i mean, you guys have political discussions all the time and economics ones too, and you guys don't know anything about that stuff too !
Lol !
:p

zing! !

[KC Elbows]

Let those PhDs read this particular discussion. If they find this thread to be a valid, groundbreaking discussion, then I'll be genuinely surprised.

There are some points raised here that are still in debate. Given it's not a professional forum for the topic, that's fair.

OT God vs. NT: still debated.

OT God vs. Jesus maybe endorsing some OT: still debated

Scholarship with belief adds difficulties other scholars need not deal with. In other texts, there is less concern about orthodoxy, so new developments face less resistance. In any other fields, the starting point would not be the text as it was defined later, but the entirety of the field that went into it. Christians in the early years had collections of books quite different from what we call the Bible. To presume that they, closer to the era of Christ, knew less in all cases is problematic. Philosophically, many of the arguments about this are from centuries after anyone who knew Christ died, some of them modern contributions without any reason for assuming they represent early Christian views, or Jesus' views, so modern counters are perfectly fair.

In a discussion like this, the Christian might have recourse to early sholarship, but he is basing that upon a collection of books that early Christians did not use, or did not use exclusively, and that changes the context dramatically. Again, Anselm's argument, one of the strongest, has weak links. The cosmological argument, which some still use, is outright faulty. Your assuming that Christian philosophers have answers to these questions, but the answers to Anselm's faults have not stood nearly as well as he has without them.

Plus, it is a kung fu forum.:D

[Drake]

SR,
I DO hope you aren't trying to publish my discussions on politics and the economy on a professional forum. :D

I only qualify as a SME on Army-related topics.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Just wanted to point out how very civilized this whole discussion is going.

[KC Elbows]

But who would you rather discuss religion with; a Biblical scholar who is open about his credentials, or a mod on Kung-Fu forum who is obviously Googling like mad and refusing to share his education/experience with Christianity?

It doesn't matter, the scholar is no more relevant to what Christianity is in the world I live in than any other person.

To me, it's like arguing whether Yoda could ultimately beat the Emporer. The more one claims to definitely have the answer, the more I know about them. The more well thought out the answer, the more interesting or entertaining.

[KC Elbows]

Just wanted to point out how very civilized this whole discussion is going.

Screw you.:mad::D

[MasterKiller]

To me, it's like arguing whether Yoda could ultimately beat the Emporer. The more one claims to definitely have the answer, the more I know about them. The more well thought out the answer, the more interesting or entertaining.

Well, Yoda did lose in a 1-on-1 fight, so that point is moot.

[sanjuro_ronin]

There are some points raised here that are still in debate. Given it's not a professional forum for the topic, that's fair.

OT God vs. NT: still debated.

OT God vs. Jesus maybe endorsing some OT: still debated

Scholarship with belief adds difficulties other scholars need not deal with. In other texts, there is less concern about orthodoxy, so new developments face less resistance. In any other fields, the starting point would not be the text as it was defined later, but the entirety of the field that went into it. Christians in the early years had collections of books quite different from what we call the Bible. To presume that they, closer to the era of Christ, knew less in all cases is problematic. Philosophically, many of the arguments about this are from centuries after anyone who knew Christ died, some of them modern contributions without any reason for assuming they represent early Christian views, or Jesus' views, so modern counters are perfectly fair.

In a discussion like this, the Christian might have recourse to early sholarship, but he is basing that upon a collection of books that early Christians did not use, or did not use exclusively, and that changes the context dramatically. Again, Anselm's argument, one of the strongest, has weak links. The cosmological argument, which some still use, is outright faulty. Your assuming that Christian philosophers have answers to these questions, but the answers to Anselm's faults have not stood nearly as well as he has without them.

Plus, it is a kung fu forum.:D

Indeed, I have read the Apostolic Fathers, the first generation writings of the disciples of the apostles.
WHiel there was no NT as that time, many of the views were already being thrown around.
Of course, in a fath that is focused on personal relationship with God and personal interpretation of his Word, one is going to have differences.
The divinity of Jesus for one, the Deity of Jesus for another.
Augustine, 1500 years ago was interpreting things in regards to Genesis that scientists only "confirmed" recently:
That in the beginning of the creation of the universe, time and space was created also, that there was no time before creation.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Well, Yoda did lose in a 1-on-1 fight, so that point is moot.

Or did he?

[dimethylsea]

1Bad65,

Do you believe that

1.) That women get pregnant because they have sexual intercourse with a man, fertilization of the ovum occurs.. 9 months later (if all goes well) a baby..

2.) That a Stork brings the baby..

Or

3.) That the stork is actually invisible and that the Stork is the motivating force that is making the baby happen, and that without the Stork there is no way the ovum and sperm could actually meet and manage to do something so incredibly unlikely as creating a new human being in all it's complexity?


I'm interested to hear your views.

[KC Elbows]

Well, Yoda did lose in a 1-on-1 fight, so that point is moot.

But the dark side was strongest at that time. One could certainly suggest that it was the will of the force that Yoda lose, and Yoda, choosing to be at one with the force, thus was the victor.

The parallel lies in Obi Wan choosing to fall to Darth Vader: such was the will of the force, and choosing to be at one with it, he lived forever and Vader was ultimately saved.

Luke, only by accepting the betrayal of both Obi Wan(he killed your father) and Vader(to the dark side), and still loving both, showed Vader the shallowness of his path and revealed the narrowness of previous jedi dogma on the dark side.

[sanjuro_ronin]

But the dark side was strongest at that time. One could certainly suggest that it was the will of the force that Yoda lose, and Yoda, choosing to be at one with the force, thus was the victor.

The parallel lies in Obi Wan choosing to fall to Darth Vader: such was the will of the force, and choosing to be at one with it, he lived forever and Vader was ultimately saved.

Luke, only by accepting the betrayal of both Obi Wan(he killed your father) and Vader(to the dark side), and still loving both, showed Vader the shallowness of his path.

Deep !
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/yoda2.jpg

[KC Elbows]

The divinity of Jesus for one, the Deity of Jesus for another.


Care to elaborate on this? Is this similar to the distinction between Jesus as a God, and Jesus in the gnostic sense, as having a divinity that all have, but knowing the means to it?

And btw, that yoda pic is the coolest thing you have ever posted that did not have a vagina.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Care to elaborate on this? Is this similar to the distinction between Jesus as a God, and Jesus in the gnostic sense, as having a divinity that all have, but knowing the means to it?

Not all christians were and are, trinitarians and as such, not al believed Jesus to be fully human and fully God.
Some said he was divine, like "a god" or an "angel", others said simply human and then divine (after death), others only human but divine after baptizim, etc.
Of course not all that believe Jesus to be God were / are Trinitarians, some are "bitarians" ( God and Jesus One).
Some believed the "trinity" to be a manifestation and no more, while others view(ed) it as simple man's attempt to understand the nature of God, to put a description on God's nature.

[kfson]

What happened to the god Mother Mary?

[Drake]

Just wanted to point out how very civilized this whole discussion is going.

The atheist crowd (except me) has generally been pretty uncivilized, referring to the religion as a disease, culture of fear, and generally mocking the religion at every given chance.

[KC Elbows]

The atheist crowd (except me) has generally been pretty uncivilized, referring to the religion as a disease, culture of fear, and generally mocking the religion at every given chance.

Where exactly did I do this?

[sanjuro_ronin]

The atheist crowd (except me) has generally been pretty uncivilized, referring to the religion as a disease, culture of fear, and generally mocking the religion at every given chance.

Dawkins and a few others are notorious like that.
Too bad because I like Richard Dawkins and his views.
His debate with Alastir McGrath was excellent.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Where exactly did I do this?

You didn't, not that I noticed anyways, but we go way back, ever since I let you live after you kidnapped Alyssa Milano !
:mad:

[Drake]

But what does this have to do with the Tim Tebow ad? :confused:

[KC Elbows]

You didn't, not that I noticed anyways, but we go way back, ever since I let you live after you kidnapped Alyssa Milano !
:mad:

I had to catch her before the moustache set in.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I had to catch her before the moustache set in.

good work
http://celebritiesblog.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/alyssa_milano_unicef_3_big-795x1024.jpg

[David Jamieson]

Let's not forget that the greater part of atheists are faux.

They are simply to lazy to look into anything and so they look into nothing and declare themselves non believers.

Most never challenge their thinking on the matter and in Fact even Dawkins says some remarkably weird things and makes huge assumptions.

Hitchens is another one. A drunken journalist who gets a shock because he travels around war torn countries and sees the worst of humanity and then because of this goes off on a tangent about whether or not god exists.

practically an idiot that one, but still remarkably well spoken, well read and not an uneducated man, but his arguments and talking points often fall flat with anybody that isn't with the gusto of his proclamations.

I don't agree with a lot of what the church has done over the last millenium + though. It is filled with men and women and all are subject to corruption and selfishness.

I don't doubt for a second that there are many deep within the various flavours of church who do not belong there by any definition of the word.

And if the massive amounts of abuse within organized religion are any indication, I am well off staying away from it! :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Let's not forget that the greater part of atheists are faux.

They are simply to lazy to look into anything and so they look into nothing and declare themselves non believers.

Most never challenge their thinking on the matter and in Fact even Dawkins says some remarkably weird things and makes huge assumptions.

Hitchens is another one. A drunken journalist who gets a shock because he travels around war torn countries and sees the worst of humanity and then because of this goes off on a tangent about whether or not god exists.

practically an idiot that one, but still remarkably well spoken, well read and not an uneducated man, but his arguments and talking points often fall flat with anybody that isn't with the gusto of his proclamations.

I don't agree with a lot of what the church has done over the last millenium + though. It is filled with men and women and all are subject to corruption and selfishness.

I don't doubt for a second that there are many deep within the various flavours of church who do not belong there by any definition of the word.

And if the massive amounts of abuse within organized religion are any indication, I am well off staying away from it! :)

Agreed on all sides David.
It amazes me the Hitchens is so quick to judge religion based on all the bad that is done in God's name and disregard all the good, but does the reverse with atheism.
Organized religion can be a cancer on society, not many open minded people will argue that.
It is the very symptom you mentioned, laziness (though perhaps not the best term) that is why organizations to exist.

[1bad65]

It doesn't matter, the scholar is no more relevant to what Christianity is in the world I live in than any other person.

It is quite relevant. Many times your education/life experiences shape your perception of things and your beliefs.

I just asked the guy about his experience(s) with Christianity. It honestly makes for better debate, as you see where the people in the debate are coming from. I'll be more than happy to post up my experience with religion. However, what I do and do not give to charity is moot in this discussion.

From my experience, those with hatred for Christianity usually fall into one or two categoes: 1) the people who grew up in it, and who are now disenchanted with it, or 2)the people who have no experience with it and are drawing off what others tell them. As you can see, though both groups have alot of the same opinions, their experiences are polar opposites. I just wondered what MK's experience was, as it would make it easier for me to relate to him by knowing that answer. I have no ulterior motives in asking the question. However, it is quite interesting he won't answer.

I hang out on car forums alot too. I've never had anyone refuse to give their experience with cars or what car they drive, as it is germane to the situation. And it lets everyone see what experience in the topic at hand those who are posting have.

[1bad65]

Look at it this way: We are on a Martial Arts forum. If we were discussing martial arts and someone who was giving their opinions on martial arts was asked about their experience/training in martial arts and he refused to answer unless the guy asking posted his credit score, you would think he was being evasive.

[1bad65]

I don't agree with a lot of what the church has done over the last millenium + though. It is filled with men and women and all are subject to corruption and selfishness.

Sadly, Government is the exact same way.

What's amazing to me is that usually those who despise religion are often the ones calling for more Government.

[KC Elbows]

It is quite relevant. Many times your education/life experiences shape your perception of things and your beliefs.

I was not suggesting in an clear discussion about the religion, scholarship has no place.

What I was suggesting is that, in discussions regarding conduct by people in a certain religion, and their religious rationales for it, it often does not.

Now, you can blame that bad behavior on bad people, but then you're also stuck crediting good people for the good behavior, religious rationales of either aside.

As for MK, in fairness, this is just an off topic forum, and so some shenanigans on all our parts will tend to occur. I would suggest his views on Star Wars are sacrilege as well.:D

[dimethylsea]

The atheist crowd (except me) has generally been pretty uncivilized, referring to the religion as a disease, culture of fear, and generally mocking the religion at every given chance.

My bad.

The earth is flat.

Storks bring babies.

Zeus will judge us all when we die.

Everyone is entitled not only to their own opinion but to their own facts as well.

[MasterKiller]

Look at it this way: We are on a Martial Arts forum. If we were discussing martial arts and someone who was giving their opinions on martial arts was asked about their experience/training in martial arts and he refused to answer unless the guy asking posted his credit score, you would think he was being evasive.

Do we need to go back and track how long it took for you to tell Rudy where you train? Because, if I remember correctly, that took weeks and Rudy practically had to hire a PI to get it.

I don't recall where you listed your experiences in local government, positions you ran for, or volunteer work you did on other campaigns. Also, I've never seen a list of your experience in social economics or where you studied world government. For someone that doesn't have a degree, you must have a ton of real world government and economic experiences, probably even work in some large-scale financial facet of local or state government.

And I still haven't seen a list of your charity donations.

For that matter, I've never seen any information regarding your religious education.

In my experience, people that oppose social programs are usually white, never had to worry about how the light bill got paid, never missed a dentist visit, got a car when they turned 16, didn't have to get a job to pay for gas or insurance right away because mom and dad wanted them have fun while they could, and slept with girls at FCA retreats without marrying them.

But without knowing anyone's background experiences in detail, how am I really supposed to know what they mean?

The truth is, you are just looking for reasons to be dismissive of individual arguments.

[Drake]

My bad.

The earth is flat.

Storks bring babies.

Zeus will judge us all when we die.

Everyone is entitled not only to their own opinion but to their own facts as well.

Well, I'm glad you have it all figured out, then.

[KC Elbows]

If Christians have the right to be offended when others say their belief is hokum, then non-Christians have the right to be offended when Christians say that they are going to hell for not accepting Jesus. Doctrine doesn't give a viable reason for one side to expect respect that it cannot give in turn.

Of course, sometimes those on both sides are going to be presumed to be the ****ish ones when none of the ****ish ones may be present. But it is a bit ****ish regardless to say someone believes in hokum, or is going to hell because of a God you're not supposed to know exists, but are acting like you do. No avoiding it. It's like being in rival wing chun schools, only where Yip Man is God, Ermin Bozteppe is Jesus, and Bruce Lee is Darwin.

[strokes beard, waiting for the great wing chun-jkd-Jesus-atheist-Star Wars flame war convergence to ensue.]

[MasterKiller]

[strokes beard, waiting for the great wing chun-jkd-Jesus-atheist-Star Wars flame war convergence to ensue.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br7rlbuBauM&feature=player_embedded

[sanjuro_ronin]

If Christians have the right to be offended when others say their belief is hokum, then non-Christians have the right to be offended when Christians say that they are going to hell for not accepting Jesus. Doctrine doesn't give a viable reason for one side to expect respect that it cannot give in turn.

Of course, sometimes those on both sides are going to be presumed to be the ****ish ones when none of the ****ish ones may be present. But it is a bit ****ish regardless to say someone believes in hokum, or is going to hell because of a God you're not supposed to know exists, but are acting like you do. No avoiding it. It's like being in rival wing chun schools, only where Yip Man is God, Ermin Bozteppe is Jesus, and Bruce Lee is Darwin.

[strokes beard, waiting for the great wing chun-jkd-Jesus-atheist-Star Wars flame war convergence to ensue.]

Can meet worms !
LOL !

[1bad65]

Do we need to go back and track how long it took for you to tell Rudy where you train? Because, if I remember correctly, that took weeks and Rudy practically had to hire a PI to get it.

And you saw why. The moment he found out he had minions annoy the gym I trained at. And still years after the fact, not one of them has shown up, which is why they said they wanted the info in the first place.

Second, I was very open about my training and belt ranks. The same with religion, I said what religion I am, but you won't see me posting the name and address of the church I attend.


I don't recall where you listed your experiences in local government, positions you ran for, or volunteer work you did on other campaigns. Also, I've never seen a list of your experience in social economics or where you studied world government. For someone that doesn't have a degree, you must have a ton of real world government and economic experiences, probably even work in some large-scale financial facet of local or state government.

I was a History major in college. I have stated this before. I did not graduate. I am not one of those that dismisses those simply based on whether or not they have a degree, btw.


And I still haven't seen a list of your charity donations.

And you likely never will, as its not germane to the discussion and it's also none of your business.


For that matter, I've never seen any information regarding your religious education.

I never studied it in college. But I went to Christian private school for awile, among other experience with religion.


The truth is, you are just looking for reasons to be dismissive of individual arguments.

Not at all. You are looking for reasons to duck a simple, relevant question.

Again, I would like to know whether you have experience in religion, or if you are drawing off other's opinions and have ZERO firsthand knowledge of the subject.

[1bad65]

In my experience, people that oppose social programs are usually white,

White, but with Jewish blood as well.


never had to worry about how the light bill got paid,

Wrong. I've had the lights turned off a time or two when I was younger.


never missed a dentist visit,

Wrong again.


got a car when they turned 16,

Wrong again.


didn't have to get a job to pay for gas or insurance right away because mom and dad wanted them have fun while they could,

Wrong again. I actually was working (bagging groceries) well before I got a car.


and slept with girls at FCA retreats without marrying them.

Wrong again. And on both assumptions.

See how wrong you can be when you stereotype people.


But without knowing anyone's background experiences in detail, how am I really supposed to know what they mean?

Just ask. As you can see I am quite forthcoming when asked a relevant question. Others are a bit more secretive....

[MasterKiller]

And you saw why. The moment he found out he had minions annoy the gym I trained at. And still years after the fact, not one of them has shown up, which is why they said they wanted the info in the first place. LOL! Didn't you call Tom Fox's teacher or associates and try to stir up trouble for him? I think there's a word for that...


I said what religion I am, but you won't see me posting the name and address of the church I attend. Then why should I?


Just ask. As you can see I am quite forthcoming when asked a relevant question. Others are a bit more secretive....


And you likely never will, as its not germane to the discussion and it's also none of your business.

I don't see my personal religous training to be relevant here, either, as this discussion isn't about me. To quote you, it's none of your business.

As usual, you are trying to derail a perfectly good thread with your ad hominem attacks. So, as far as I'm concerned, that's the end of it.

Now, back to KC and Sanjuro...

[sanjuro_ronin]

If I may,
This is how discussions and debates are suppose to be done.
KC and I shared our views, opinons views most of the times, and neither one was trying to convince ( mush less convert) the other.
We posted are POV and answered each others questions.
We were civilized because we both respect each other and each others opinions, even if we don't agree or see "eye-to-eye".
And we did that on the topic of RELIGION and in the OFF TOPIC forum !!!
:eek: