What’s up with the hostility toward Christianity around here? Sure, it’s been around a while, but as time goes on, it just gets worse, to the point that some are showing blatant hatred…and furthermore, it doesn’t make much sense – after all, if ‘tolerance’ is the new be-all and end-all of virtue, why is it so hard for people around here to be tolerant of a viewpoint they don’t agree with? True tolerance isn’t selective, it’s absolute.
And besides that, what’s so wrong with Christianity that it has so many around here in such a stink? Because people believe in moral values? Because those same people want to prevent the destruction of moral practices and standards that they believe are important? That they want a future where every moral standard that they teach to their children isn’t subverted by society and the public school system? What’s so wrong with that?
Sure, there are Christian extremists out there. There are extremists in every religion, including the religion of secular humanism/moral relativism that so threatens traditional culture (and most, if not all, who show hostility toward Christianity here are members of this religion; a religion is a system of beliefs, and while all do not believe exactly the same, their beliefs are similar enough to warrant such a grouping). The truth of the matter is that Christian extremists by no means represent mainstream Christianity. Consider this:
-Most Christians are anti-abortion. However, this doesn’t mean that they want to, or even support, bombing abortion clinics. Most would rather help people considering abortions to realize that there are alternatives to the murder of an unborn child. They want to change current law because they believe that abortion is exactly that: the wholesale murder of a segment of our society. If abortion law instead allowed murder of unwanted persons along racial lines, it would be much easier to be against it. It is only because the children are unborn that the illusion of moral ambiguity exists.
-Many Christians want the theory of Intelligent Design to be taught as an alternative to the theory of Evolution in our public schools. I myself support this, and do not see much of a problem with it, especially in light of the fact that neither theory has or can be conclusively proven to date. Some Christians see it as an either/or situation: either Intelligent Design or Evolution. Personally, I do not support this, and I have yet to meet anyone who embraces this viewpoint. And after all, it was not Christianity that started the perceived science vs. theology dichotomy – that lies at the door of popular culture, declaring that “God is dead” in the light of science (in spite of the fact that even to this day, science has done nothing to disprove the existence of God, and has, in fact, caused many scientists to believe in the theory of Intelligent Design simply through the sheer complexity of our planet and universe – after all, the probability that our planet and its plant and animal organisms developed through mere chance is miniscule to the point of being virtually nonexistent).
-Many Christians want gay marriage to be (and remain) against the law. This is not because they want to discriminate against homosexuals. It is not because they hate or fear homosexuals. It is because Christianity holds marriage to be more than just a government contract of convenience that two people enter into in order to receive certain social and economic benefits, and to allow people engaged in a relationship that the Bible repeatedly defines as abominable would cheapen the institution more than it already has been. And, in fact, the recognition of the institution of marriage by the government springs directly from its importance in Christianity, lending credence to their concerns.
-Many Christians attack such things as Harry Potter not necessarily because of any Satanic influences that these works in particular may have over our children, but rather because they are part of a continuing attack on Christian mores and values that has been ongoing for many decades now. Harry Potter books have been singled out (wrongly, in my opinion) for their endorsement of witchcraft, to the exclusion of other attacks that have been much more degrading to our society’s moral fabric. Among these attacks are:
-Blatant and gratuitous violent and sexual behavior, as well as profanity, on primetime television
-The infusion of profanity and sexual and violent themes throughout popular music
-The saturation of the internet with soft- and hard-core pornography
-The saturation of advertising with sexual innuendo and soft-core porn
-The re-definition by secularists of mainstream conservative Christians as extremists
-The deliberate movement in public schools to combat the teaching of traditional moral values, mainly (but not limited to) the teaching of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle
Christianity is and has been under attack by American culture for some time, yet when Christians try to defend their moral and cultural values, they are mocked and derided by the likes of you for trying to stand up for the moral values that have preserved our society for so long…after all, without Christian morals, we would be facing the same kind of AIDS crisis that threatens the continent of Africa. Our government could pass a law requiring parents to abort any child they have after their second, and we would be okay with that, because life would have no value. Disabled and mentally retarded people could be euthanized due to their inconvenience (likely in the interests of ‘preserving the gene pool’) and we would likewise have no problem with this, because without God to give value to our lives, there is no intrinsic value in life except the value that each person subjectively gives it.
Our Founding Fathers understood the inherent importance of Christianity, to the point that the first clause of the First Amendment excludes government from getting involved in affairs of religion (and not vice-versa). They believed so much in the importance of Christian values that the Bible was taught in public schools, and many of the founders wrote about the importance of Biblical virtue in bringing up good, moral citizens, in the interest of preserving our society.
Christianity was key in the founding of our nation, and it has held extreme importance in its development. Today, as we see the cheapening of Christian morality in our society, anyone with eyes can see the slide our society is taking into immoral oblivion. Consider this: in 1940 (when Christian values still meant something to our society), when teachers were asked to identify the top problems among teens, they said, “talking out of turn, chewing gum, making noise.” In 1990, teachers said, “drug and alcohol abuse, pregnancy, suicide, rape, robbery, and assault.”
Throughout our history it has been Christian moral values that have held our society together. Some respect is warranted. And if Christians overreact on some issues (such as Harry Potter), it is likely because Christianity is daily being overrun by a society that views their values as old-fashioned, out-of-date, and unnecessary, leaving Christians to watch the society that they grew up in slide into moral decay. Christians today are fighting a losing battle against a culture that just doesn’t care – a battle to save future generations from the moral degradation that has become such a stain on our culture. You can either be part of the solution, or part of the problem, and through apathy and criticism, too many choose to be part of this slide into moral decay.
Because people believe in moral values?
Nonsense statement. Non-Christians are just as interested in morals as Christians.
Disagreement doesn't mean non-interest.
Because those same people want to prevent the destruction of moral practices and standards that they believe are important?
..in your opinion
That they want a future where every moral standard that they teach to their children isn’t subverted by society and the public school system?
Hmm - I'm interested in what your refering to here. Is it evolution specifically, or is a broader 'God is generally undermined at school' type deal...
including the religion of secular humanism/moral relativism that so threatens traditional culture
Hmm - true enough to an extent. I'm pretty sure the context of the word 'religion' is innacurate, but I get the point your trying to make. And it'd be more accurate if you added 'the individual aspects of traditional culture which are considered immoral by humanism', but whatever. No biggie.
True tolerance isn’t selective, it’s absolute.
Very true. I'll expect to see you campaining for homosexual unions in the name of tolerance then ;)
Most Christians are anti-abortion. However, this doesn’t mean that they want to, or even support, bombing abortion clinics. Most would rather help people considering abortions to realize that there are alternatives to the murder of an unborn child. They want to change current law because they believe that abortion is exactly that: the wholesale murder of a segment of our society. If abortion law instead allowed murder of unwanted persons along racial lines, it would be much easier to be against it. It is only because the children are unborn that the illusion of moral ambiguity exists.
Hmm - well won't speak for anybody else, but abortion comes pretty low on my list of concerns about Christian ideals. (Apart from when 'extremists' go killing doctors, but I accept that's extremism)
I agree that abortion should not be too easy an option.
But there IS definelty moral ambiguity (in the sense that there is at least something to be discussed) in the issue (when looking at case by case). Just cos you say their isn't moral ambiguity, doesn't make it so I'm afraid.
I'd also check your Bible for instances of God slaughtering kids. Those 'innocents' were different how?
Many Christians want the theory of Intelligent Design to be taught as an alternative to the theory of Evolution in our public schools. I myself support this, and do not see much of a problem with it, especially in light of the fact that neither theory has or can be conclusively proven to date.
Regardless of any evidence there may, or may not be for Intelligent Design, it can't be taught as 'science' because it is NOT a scientific theory.
it is NOT a scientific theory because it cannot be falsified.
As far as I'm aware, creationism / ID is already taught in Religious Studies / Education in many American schools. That's fine, and that's where it should stay.
Leave only science in the science class...
Some Christians see it as an either/or situation: either Intelligent Design or Evolution. Personally, I do not support this, and I have yet to meet anyone who embraces this viewpoint. And after all, it was not Christianity that started the perceived science vs. theology dichotomy – that lies at the door of popular culture, declaring that “God is dead” in the light of science (in spite of the fact that even to this day, science has done nothing to disprove the existence of God, and has, in fact, caused many scientists to believe in the theory of Intelligent Design simply through the sheer complexity of our planet and universe – after all, the probability that our planet and its plant and animal organisms developed through mere chance is miniscule to the point of being virtually nonexistent).
Well, I'm glad to see your more enlightned than perhaps many other creationists. However, none of what you have said above has any bearing on my last point.
Life starting 'by chance' also has nothing to do with the theory of Evolution - which I guess is what your eluding to. But I'm fairly sure many of your Christians friends would be viewing ID as being fundemetnally 'opposed' to evolution.
So tell ya what. You Christians actually get a scientific (i.e. can be falsified) theory together that you all actually agree on, and then we'll talk about evidence, OK? :)
Many Christians attack such things as Harry Potter not necessarily because of any Satanic influences that these works in particular may have over our children, but rather because they are part of a continuing attack on Christian mores and values that has been ongoing for many decades now.
Hmm - sorry. This is where you get farcical.
I'm sure Rowling - with her billions - is plotting the destruction of the Vatican as we speak!
when Christians try to defend their moral and cultural values, they are mocked and derided by the likes of you for trying to stand up for the moral values that have preserved our society for so long
I've seen Christianity mocked a lot - it's true. BUt usually with good reason.
And I'm sure you think you can substantiate your claim that society has only survived because of Christian values, but you'll have trouble doing it to rationally-minded people.
The rest of your post - well, not an expert on the Founding Fathers. Some seem to think they were Christian. Some not. But I don't see how their personal beliefs can be used to colour the Constitution they drafted unless they actually included those beliefs in the wording.
..but you Americans feel free to argue about that one ;)
Meh, it's because Christian influenced politicians have such a heavy hand in deciding what laws and policies people must abide by. Which is not always a bad thing. But to be fair, alot of people don't like having other people decide what's good or bad for them, especially when it's based on a faith that not everyone agrees with. I don't think the hostility is always aimed directly at Christians themselves, so much as Christian politicians.
The largest arguement will always be directed at the majority. Until I see any sign Christianity isn't the majority, I'ma go with that.
Just so you know, Rowling herself is a christian, so I don't see how she's part of some conspiracy to destroy christianity or something.
Personally, I've no problem with any religion or other supernatural belief, particularly if the believer cites as reason for his belief that he is comforted, that he simply has faith, or because it "works" for them in providing personal explanation for the universe around them.
I do, however, react when believers of gods, aliens, ESP, psi, channeling, and other supernatural silliness claim that they have proof of their beliefs; or if they attempt to impose their beliefs upon others through political means. I'm very opposed to those that attempt to codify their superstitions into public policy which must be followed by those that don't believe or have other beliefs.
In the latter regard, Christianity becomes a target for those that would rather religious practices and requirements remain within their cults and not be applied to policies that those of other cults must adhere.
I'm certainly not opposed to politicians and government leaders having religious opinions or ideals that they have to live up to. Indeed, I think that if the teachings of the alleged Christ were followed to the letter, the government would be far better place. But I'm very opposed to the tenets of any religion being codified into policy.
Anther thing about Christians that I find a point of criticism is the fallacy that they have the market cornered on morals and values. This is an ignorant assumption and one easily debunked by noting the morality and values that exist in the absence of Christianity. The Christian cults are relatively recent additions among the religions and cults of humanity and evidence exists that people of antiquity, or in regions of the world where Christianity was and is not now dominant, had and now have systems of morality and values. Some of these morals and values may differ from those of Christianity, but a great many are the same.
It is also a fallacy to believe that in the absence of religion morals and values do not exist. This is usually followed by the fallacious statement regarding the extent to which moral relativism exists in secular society, but, again, this is easily debunked by pointing out the so-called "moral relativism" that exists within those that consider themselves to be Christian. I'm quickly reminded of rccar's comment which states, "most Christians are anti-abortion." But when we look at the statistics, it is mostly Christians that are having abortions (CBR, 2005).
Because of Christianity's failure in dealing with social problems within its own religions, I could easily assert that Christianity doesn't work. If Christianity worked, would not the 93% of the nation's populace (Barna 1996) that claim their faith is important to them fail to commit crimes at rates that are higher than those of the non-religious? And when we examine prison statistics we find that 89% of inmates in prison consider themselves to be religious (Clear et al 1992), most of them Christian. It should follow that in a nation where over 80% of the populace is supposed to be Christian, that crime should be low. Is it the fault of the 3-9% of the population that is atheistic and agnostic (Pew 2002)?
A fine example of a completely valid reason for criticizing the various cults of the world is when they attempt to assert their beliefs as scientific fact. The Raellians did this with their announcement that they had cloned the first human. A claim they have yet to retract or demonstrate. The fact that they also assert that human gods are aliens and should be worshipped with rituals of sex does little to give credibility to their claims.
Another example of this is, of course, the more familiar assertion of some Christians that 'intelligent design' is an actual science. The ignorant assumption that evolution has no conclusions because it is "just a theory" begs that the criticisms of the religious asserters of 'intelligent design' be merciless and harsh. I challenge anyone who wishes to debate the validity and probability of evolution against 'intelligent design' or creation to create a new thread and let's have it out. Evolution is a fact. It really happened. The undereducated see the word "theory" and assume the colloquial definition rather than the scientific one. If you start that thread, I'd caution you against coming to it armed with that fallacious assumption.
Rccar also asserts that it "was not Christianity that started the perceived science vs. theology dichotomy – that lies at the door of popular culture, declaring that “God is dead” in the light of science..." I'll agree quite readily that god is not dead. As long as people believe, he'll live on. But I disagree that the alleged dichotomy that exists between science and theology isn't the responsibility of religion. Science, clearly, has its roots in religion. A prehistoric human on the way home from hunting & gathering stops in his tracks and falls to his knees moments after lightning strikes his friend, killing him where he stood. This human knows immediately that his friend angered the gods and knew nothing of electrical theory, conductivity, etc. Overtime, humans learn not to walk in the open during thunderstorms. Eventually, we learn to place iron rods on buildings to route the electricity to the ground rather than let it burn the house down.
Science is the process of observation and making inferences from those observations to explain our universe. Religion is often happy with settling for supernatural causes but science looks for empiricism. We see this split of science and theology quite clear in the story of Galileo.
I also take issue with rccar's assertion that "many scientists" now believe in the theory of 'intelligent design.' This is simply not true. Indeed, very, very few actual scientists believe in this pseudoscience and fewer still are actually of disciplines that are involved with evolutionary forces. That 'intelligent design' uses an appeal to authority (Nizkor Project 2005) to validate itself is telling. Either their data is empirical and testable or it isn't. The creationists of the so-called 'intelligent design' movement don't publish to the peer-review process. There's a good reason. Their assertions don't hold up (Perakh 2005). Commenting on probabilities in an infinite universe also demonstrates fallacy.
With regard to "gay marriage" and the desire of Christians to make/keep it illegal, I find myself wanting to say fine. Keep it illegal in your church. But the concept of marriage isn't a Christian one. It's a human concept. So this is a matter that is up to governments to decide and, to date, no one has given a valid reason to make/keep it illegal. If you think you can, create another thread. I'll be there to debate it.
But the bottom line is, if you don't like abortion and gay marriage (neither particularly appeals to me), don't have an abortion or marry someone of your own gender. Why is this so difficult? The answer is easy. Religion confuses it in the attempt at creating an "other," and enemy that can be used to rally believers and unite them, which, in turn, ensures the priestly classes and religious leaders continue to profit (Sinclair 1918). Politicians seek to appeal to the masses (remember, 80+% are believers) in their elections and spin them into real issues, driving cultural wedges in our society, clouding our perceptions to prevent us from focusing on the real issues of the time. Bomb the sh** out of some backward brown people who pose no threat to our nation half-way around the globe? Hey, what would Jesus do?
Rccar goes on to cite the many "attacks" on society's "moral fabric," but lets use the math, bubba: 3-9% of the nation are agnostic/atheistic. These attacks are from within the "Christian moral fabric," not from without. And "mainstream conservative Christians" are defined as extreme by themselves. Accepting the mythology presented in Christian literature as 100% accurate-all-the-time-and-with-out-fail is extreme. This same literature states that the Christian god "stopped the sun!" Do you truly believe that? If not, why believe the other mythical stories are completely true? Why not simply accept that these are wonderful myths of proto-historic people who were describing the world as best they knew how. There's plenty of wisdom remaining in this very same literature (the bible). Psalm 119, for instance: "When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things."
Humanity has to grow and progress. We cannot keep thinking as the "children' we were intellectually 4 kya just because the stories have remained in the literature.
The remainder of rccar's post is likewise replete with fallacy on the alleged dichotomy of Christianity and the "American culture." He paints a picture of "moral decline" and blames "secular society" for it. But again, let's do the math. In The Churching of America, 1776-1990, the authors note that for the last two hundred or more years church membership rates in this nation have risen dramatically! It's gone from just 17% in the 1770s to 34% in the mid-19th century to a well over 60% of the American population today (Finke & Stark 1992). Rccar brings up the Founding Fathers as if deists like Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin, and atheists like Thomas Payne really considered Christianity an important model for our nation and instrumental in its development. Genocide and slavery were instrumental in its development, yet I don't see that we're large proponents of this any longer. Indeed, both of those paragons of immorality were once endorsed by Christianity as well as other religions.
So when rccar states, "[t]hroughout our history it has been Christian moral values that have held our society together," I find myself wondering if first generation Africans who were forbidden from the pursuit of happiness and forced into labor at the threat of death or torture of themselves or their families would have agreed with that assessment. Indeed, I also wonder if the Powhatans would agree. This nation of free people once thrived in what's now called New Jersey and Virginia. They've long since been slaughtered and all that remains are a few street and river names from their language. I wonder if the kids at Wounded Knee understood that the massacre of their mothers before their own eyes just before their brains were dashed out by the hooves of horses was all for the greater good of Christian morality?
Don't lecture us all on the importance of "Christian morality" until the genocides and terrorism of this set of cults has been reconciled. Don't blow the smoke of "Christian values" up our butts and try to convince us its sunshine as long as Christians continue to commit crimes and atrocities in society and fill our penitentiaries. The BTK guy was a devout believer, right?
What would Jesus do? I can tell you what he wouldn't do: he wouldn't join your cult.
References:
Barna, George (1996). Index of Leading Spiritual Indicators. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing.
CBR (2005). Abortion Facts (
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html). The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform
Clear, TR et al (1992). Does Involvement in Religion Help Prisoners Adjust to Prison? National Criminal Justice Reference Service, NCJ #151513
Finke, R and Stark, R (1992). The Churching of America, 1776-1990: Winners and Losers in Our Religoius Economy. Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, NJ.
Nizkor Project (2005). Fallacy: Appeal to Authority (
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html)
Perakh, Mark (2005). The Dream World of William Dembski's Creationism (
http://members.cox.net/perakm/Dream_Dem.htm). Skeptic.
Pew (2002). Americans Struggle with Religion's Role at Home and Abroad (
http://pewforum.org/publications/reports/poll2002.pdf). Pew Research Council.
Sinclair, Upton (1918). The Profits of Religion. Pasadena, Calif.
eh, most of the people here are ok w/christians. Disrespect isn't really tolerated here, as that's how most flamewars start, one or both sides of a debate taking something too personal.
for instance, I *think* i could get away with saying 'i hate americans, they're so annoying' but if i said something for instance, a member here, say, member1 is american and i say to him or her 'you are the most pathetic american i have ever met'
that could start a flamewar, as it's more personal.
as for the nonchristian thing, there are millions of christians around, many are new christians and nobody changes overnight, or that new christian is just trying too hard, or weren't brought up in a good church (pastors can go bad, just like everyone with any amount of power, there's that potential for it to be used for evil), and forgets the reason why they are a christian in the first place, and forget that the reason is belief in Christ, and and love for their neighbor (or whatever their reason is). I think that could be why some of the nonchristians are put off by us, and that's why there's so much controversy and stuff.
i hope whoever reads this post made sense of all the above. :)
I really am not as eloquent as Skin, but basically, I have no qualms with Christians. I have no qualms with most anybody. UNLESS they start bothering me. And that is something Christians are very good at. Whether it's telling me that i'm going to burn in hell if I don't follow their Dogma, or passing laws restricting the freedoms of other people because of it.
THAT is what I have a problem with.
Because those same people want to prevent the destruction of moral practices and standards that they believe are important?
Exactly.
When certain Christians defend their beloved values of anti-homosexuality, abortion being evil, and nudity being the devil, I have a problem with that.
If those values are fighting the rising divorce rate, combatting crime, et cetera, fine. As long as you realize that Buddhists, Muslims, and atheists have morals, too.
Throughout our history it has been Christian moral values that have held our society together.
The moral values you describe (don't rape, et cetera) aren't only Christian values. Atheists, Muslims, et cetera have these rules, too, and the decline of Christianity does not necessarily have anything to do with the rise of crime.
I think everyone (especially skinwalker) has answered with pretty much everything i wanted to say. Basically its only the certain brand of christianity that insists on interfering with my life that i have problems with.
I did want to pick up one minor nitpicking point that no-one else has mentioned. You say that if Africa had our Christian Moral Framework then the wouldn't have the AIDS crisis over there. Africa has one of the largest populations of christians in the world (the missionaries did their work well), and it is mainly down to this that they have such a high AIDS rate, as their religious leaders tell them not to use contraception. If it wasn't for our aditional money, science etc.. we would have an AIDS epidemic too.. and I suspect that if the religious leaders had had their way then the safe-sex campaigns of the 80s would have been far less sucessful in stopping it's spread.
And when you say that science started the attack on religion, you should bear in mind all the scientists over the years who were imprisoned or put to death for pointing out such things as "the sun doesn't move around the earth" or "light can be split into different colours". These men were usually highly religious, and all they were doing was being curious about how god's world worked, and pointing out obvious observations... yet the church often punished them severely for such wickedness.
I am a Christian, further I am a Catholic. I believe I am a moral person, but try very hard to be neither moralistic nor judgemental.
I believe that the various religions provide excellent philosophical frameworks for how to live. Most center on respect for the greater whole (whether you call that deity or humanity matters not), respect for fellow man, respect for nature, and respect for self.
It is because a great many people do not choose to show respect for others that we get into the trouble of 'protecting', which in turns morals into moralism. We shouldn't have to protect small kids from being molested, but we do ... and I don't know any serious-minded group that believes that sex between a <5 year old and a >18 year old is either 'normal' or 'right'. But what about homosexuality? Or anal sex in general between consenting adults? Why is it suddenly my business what others do with joint consent in the privacy of their own home.
Tolerance means people you don't agree with *ESPECIALLY* - just like with Freedom of Speech, tolerance is easy when we already agree!
Mike
Tolerance means people you don't agree with *ESPECIALLY* - just like with Freedom of Speech, tolerance is easy when we already agree!
Very well said txa.
The biggest problem I have is that "Christianity" in this country has become synonymous with "Conservatism." I believe most of the people who are conservative would also be so even if they weren't Christian.
Also, it makes it seem that you cannot be liberal and follow the teachings of Christ... which is something I think is an insult, as I like to classify myself as both, and know a great many others who do so as well. I don't think your political and social-issue leanings should have anything to do with your personal morality and your personal path to salvation.
I was always taught in church that we should "Be in the world, but not of this world." I was also taught to teach by my example, but that it was impossible to get someone to understand God's laws unless God "called them" and opened their mind first. That since it was impossible for us to save everybody in the world at this time, getting involved with politics and attempting to use the system to try and legislate morality on people who God was not "calling" right now would only cause them to be hostile to you. Morality and salvation are meant to be personal. You can attempt to lead by example, and hope people follow you down that path, but you can't use the secular institutions of the Government to outlaw that which you belive is sin, and force people into a holy life using Earthly law enforcement.
So, if I cannot force my views on anybody, then I feel that people should be free to live the live they so choose with a minimum of Government intervention.
Tolerance cuts both ways... if you wish for everyone to leave you alone to practice your pious, Christian existence, then you are going to have to accept the fact that the non-Christians of this country are going to expect exactly the same in return.
My problem with religion [Christianity] comes to play when they shove their beliefs down my throat, and pass laws that impose their beliefs on others (Abortion/Gay rights).
If they didn't do this, I wouldn't have a problem.
Its interesting to note that the exact same moral conservatives who bemoan the loss of christian morals, the laxity of today's standards and the corruption of today's society are often quick to condemn Islam for its strict moral laws and policies.
(this rightwing conservative lord in the UK for example
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4163484.stm)
Yet when you look at a number of african countries that DO practice close to biblical law (death sentances for homosexuals etc..) you find that they are fairly similar to the types of regime that we have in supposedly evil Islamic states. I think it might well be possible to argue that if some clever people hadn't decided to seperate church and state a long time ago we might well be living in Christian states that were just as strict, stagnant and unfree as hardline Islamic/Christian states in the middle east and third world.
During the dark ages christianity basically prevented the west from developing any decent science, mathmatics, medicine etc... but the muslims were storming ahead in terms of scientific advances. Then once religious freedom opened up in the christian west we stormed ahead... and almost everything we see today from lights to spectacles, to phones is a result of these early scientific developments. Islam on the other hand became more hardline and has therefore become more stagnant, with very few important scientific breakthroughs in the past 500 years.
So I for one am quite glad we decided not to allow the church to run everything.
I'll admit it can sometime be fun to bait republicans and christians, but i'm sure they have just as much fun baiting us. Also as this tends to be a forum for debating theoretical issues I'm sure alot of us are more forthright than we would be in real life... i know i wouldn't wander up to random christians in the street and start harassing them.
I'm entirely tollerant of what they want to do privately in their own time, but i expect them to be the same way towards me. If they tell me I can't do things that are my own choice, then i'll start telling them what they should do in their churches.
I think that, from reading rccar's first post, that he doesn't really understand what 'tolerance' is. As has been pointed out (and far more eloquently than I ever could), one can not be tolerant of someone's enforcement of their beliefs on another, only tolerant of the beliefs themselves. To draw quite a hideous Star Wars parralel, Obi-wan doesn't saber Han for saying that he doesn't belive in the force. Yes, I know it's terrible, but that's all I've got. I personally have a problem with Religion in general, as I believe that organised religions (such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam) were originally invented as a means to control the masses. I do not believe that any religion should retain the right to codify our laws for us (I have no problems with Bhuddists, for example).
People fear/hate/dislike what they don't understand. It does go both ways, but with Christianity it goes a little further. A lot of forums here, when asked, openly admit that they havn't read the Bible. They admit, not only by saying they don't, but by their posts, admit they don't understand. There is a lot of talk about Christianity. Its not all true. A lot of people don't understand the religion.
My problem with religion [Christianity] comes to play when they shove their beliefs down my throat, and pass laws that impose their beliefs on others (Abortion/Gay rights).
Phreak, last time I checked you were a guy. So... you can't have an abortion. Are you gay? If not, whats the big deal?
The moral values you describe (don't rape, et cetera) aren't only Christian values. Atheists, Muslims, et cetera have these rules, too, and the decline of Christianity does not necessarily have anything to do with the rise of crime.
The religion part is irrelavent. Islam was born from Christianity, and athiests know what Christianity is about. Not to mention, Islam nor athiesm never played a huge role in this country, at least not as big a role as Christianity. Coincidentally, when people embraced Christianity more "openly" these problems (rape, et criteria) occured less than when people stopped embracing Christian rules. In other words, the problem increased when Christianity was thrown "out the window."
As for Skins long post, anyone can claim to be Christian. Its too complicated to explain what a true Christian really is. You can't just call yourself a Christian and be one. You can't just go to a Christian church and you become one. It doesn't work like that! You have to be saved by the Holy Spirit. Its all about the experience.
My point is, a lot of people claim to be Christian and are not. When the census comes around, they just check christian on the religon section.
In simpler terms... a rhetorical question: Can I be an Atheist if I believe in God?
I really am not as eloquent as Skin, but basically, I have no qualms with Christians. I have no qualms with most anybody. UNLESS they start bothering me. And that is something Christians are very good at. Whether it's telling me that i'm going to burn in hell if I don't follow their Dogma, or passing laws restricting the freedoms of other people because of it.
Umm, but if you don't believe in Hell, why the anger? I mean, you don't think its there, so in your mind you won't be going there if it doesn't exist. There is no reason to be angry if you seriously don't think Hell exists. But then again, there is that possibility you do think it exists, but you would like to not think it exists.
Lets face it, if the two places really did exist, where you pick to go? Heaven or Hell?
Well I don't believe in trolls, but if someone said I looked like a troll I know it's not a good thing. It's all about context. Negative things bring negative feelings.
And even if phreak isn't gay, it's still a big deal because it's stupid to oppress a group of people just because you think they're evil. I don't eat carrot cake, but if someone told me it's illegal I'd be damn pissed because it makes no sense and is based on someones personal beliefs. Beliefs not everyone shares.
To further on what Sith said, there are two contrary arguments at play here, both of which deal with things not directly affecting us.
On the one hand, if we are not gay/looking for abortion/minority/whatever, should we be looking to make changes to those who are? I don't think that that true philosophical basis of any of the religions would say we should. Similarly, those consenting adults who are engaging in 'unorthodox' behaviour in their own homes, presenting no danger to anyone else - whould we be looking to 'fix them'? I really don't think we should.
On the other hand, if we see those who are being oppressed/repressed/etc, should we act to help them even if it is not of any direct concern to us? I would argue that *that* is the very essense of human compassion, and a large basis of the philosophy of every religion.
Mike
Phreak, last time I checked you were a guy. So... you can't have an abortion. Are you gay? If not, whats the big deal?
I am not a mexican, but I would be pretty upset about a law banning mexicans from marrying. Same thing.
Umm, but if you don't believe in Hell, why the anger?
Not believing in Hell is irrelevant, I KNOW what Hell is, and I know they are telling me that I am such a bad person I deserve to burn in a pit of fire for all of eternity after I die.
The religion part is irrelavent. Islam was born from Christianity, and athiests know what Christianity is about. Not to mention, Islam nor athiesm never played a huge role in this country, at least not as big a role as Christianity.
So are you honestly saying that it is because of Christianity that we developed morals that are against murder and rape? I'd like you to show some evidence that rape increases when Christianity was thrown out the window.
You know what's strange is that christians claim only they have morals, and yet so many serial killers are devoted christians. BTK for example was a leader or something of his church.
Not believing in Hell is irrelevant, I KNOW what Hell is, and I know they are telling me that I am such a bad person I deserve to burn in a pit of fire for all of eternity after I die.
Thats NOT what Christianity is about. I'll tell you the truth, right here, right now. It doesn't matter how good of a person you are, the nicest person on the planet can still burn in Hell. Yes, it is good to be good. It is good to donate to charity, to help people in need, to stand up for people who can't stand up for themselves. Yes, it is good to preach God's word, it is good to go to chruch on Sunday mornings. But you know what, none of that means you are going to Heaven. None of that even makes you eligable to go to Heaven. The truth is, a Pastor and a Murderer can both be on the same path to Hell. Yes, they are completley different people, the Pastor does nothing but good things, while the murderer is the exact opposite, yet they can both go to Hell. How is this possible you ask? (Im not done explaining, other Christians don't jump on me untill you read my full statement)
Before I continue, I will ask you a question ET: Are you as good as the Pastor, who has done everything he can to help people? Are you as bad as the murderer who has hurt and destroyed many people's lives? I don't know you personally. If you think about it, both of those people "deserve to burn in a pit of fire for all eternity" you have to ask yourself: how can a person get into Heaven?
I'll tell you: It doesn't matter how much good you do. The only thing that matters, the only thing that can get you into the Book of Life, is accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Knowing Jesus, having a personal relationship with him is the only way to get into heaven.
As you can see (or maybe not) I can do all the good things in the world, but if I don't accept Christ, none of it matters. Think of it like a test: There are certain requirements to pass, and everything else is extra credit. Don't get me wrong, being a "good person" and helping others is all a part of the job. You can't accept Christ and still go around doing wrong deeds. When you accept Christ you are expected to change your life, and God can help you do it. He will make you into the kind of person he wants you to be.
No one likes hearing that. I didn't either, thats why I did something about it. Its a choice, Heaven or Hell, and everyone has to choose, whether you like it or not. You either accept Christ (by doing that you choose Heaven) or... you can not make a decision and.. sadly go to Hell, I hate saying it. Thats what the religion says. Im really not making this up. I at least hope you understand what I am trying to say. Overall, it means you can't work your way into Heaven, and the only person who can really and truly save you is Christ himself. You can't pay your way into Heaven by doing good works.
To better understand how a Christian should be, check out Galations Chapter 5: Verses 22-26.
So are you honestly saying that it is because of Christianity that we developed morals that are against murder and rape? I'd like you to show some evidence that rape increases when Christianity was thrown out the window.
I'll look around for stats tomorrow. Perhaps its just talked about more know, or whatever, or reported on more, because of increased technology. I'll look into it.
EDIT: You know what's strange is that christians claim only they have morals, and yet so many serial killers are devoted christians. BTK for example was a leader or something of his church.
Read Galations 5: 22-26 Yeah yeah yeah, I know Im shouting off about the Bible. Newsflash, if you don't follow this, you don't follow Christ, meaning... you are NOT a Christian.
EDIT2: Another Point, God doesn't care if you are a Church leader. He doesn't care how religious you are. What he cares about is if you have taken the time to know him. Thats what really counts. Everything else is in vein. Also about the Bible verses, Im not saying if you aren't 100% like that your not a Christian. But come on people? A serial killer claiming to be Christian? Lets get real here. What I have said is the ONLY way to be a Christian. Im not just saying it, the Bible is saying it, it is God's word. You can't be a Christian if you don't follow God/Christ! Hence the name, CHRISTian!
Like I said before, how can I be an athiest if I believe in God? I can't be! Its impossible! Likewise, I can't be a Christian if I don't follow Christ! Right? You guys really need to drop this "christian serial killer" "Christian genocide attack" bullcrap.
I'll tell you: It doesn't matter how much good you do. The only thing that matters, the only thing that can get you into the Book of Life, is accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Knowing Jesus, having a personal relationship with him is the only way to get into heaven.
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but that is the kind of Bible-thumping nonsense that gives Christians a bad name. I don't believe it, none of the Priests or Bishops or other church members I've dealt with for the past nearly 40 years have believed it, and I certainly don't teach it to my CCD classes.
I believe that it very much matters how you live and what you do - because of the basic teachings throughout the bible emphasize the correct ways for living in a way that emphasizes Jesus golden rule - love god above all else and your neighbor as yourself. Even if you are not Christian those things ring true - love and respect for all of nature above selfish needs, and love and respect for all others. You don't need to read ANY pages in the Bible to get there - that is all man-made crap.
Mike
Phreak, last time I checked you were a guy. So... you can't have an abortion. Are you gay? If not, whats the big deal?
The big deal is that it happened. What will be next?
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but that is the kind of Bible-thumping nonsense that gives Christians a bad name. I don't believe it, none of the Priests or Bishops or other church members I've dealt with for the past nearly 40 years have believed it, and I certainly don't teach it to my CCD classes.
I believe that it very much matters how you live and what you do - because of the basic teachings throughout the bible emphasize the correct ways for living in a way that emphasizes Jesus golden rule - love god above all else and your neighbor as yourself. Even if you are not Christian those things ring true - love and respect for all of nature above selfish needs, and love and respect for all others. You don't need to read ANY pages in the Bible to get there - that is all man-made crap.
Mike
Aye, your Catholic. Its not harsh at all, I don't let online stuff affect me. Bible thumping nonsense? My main complaint about the catholic church is that they don't follow the Bible 100%.
Strangley enough, the Bible contradicts what your saying? While yes, you are right, Jesus said that stuff, but he said more. Ever read John 3:16? Really, TXA, why do we need God if we can just "be good" and go to Heaven. Crap, why do we need Christ? He was sent to save us. But wait a sec, I can be good by myself, right? So uhh... where is Jesus saving? Oh he not.. by being good, I am saving myself... But, hey then whats Mary got to do with anything, if in the long run I keep doing more good than bad, we don't need her either!
Don't you see how your ideas are making the whole religion fall in on itself? Well, you might as well remove anything important in it, and your making Christ's sacrifise... pointless.
The Bible says Jesus is here to save us. We don't save ourselves, we need him. You can't work your way in, its in the Bible.
Hmm... I've said it before, I don't believe Catholics truly follow the Bible. Correct me if I am wrong (I could be) but don't you guys hold Mary a bit higher than Jesus? How can you be a Christian then? Like I said, I can't be an athiest if I believe in God. How can I be a Christian if I don't even believe Christ (the founder of Christianity) is supreme? I also love how you guys are screwing up the name "Christianity" with your crusuades and pergatory. TXA, what about when the Catholic church was charging money to forgive sins. I guess the poor begger was damned?
And when you say that science started the attack on religion, you should bear in mind all the scientists over the years who were imprisoned or put to death for pointing out such things as "the sun doesn't move around the earth" or "light can be split into different colours". These men were usually highly religious, and all they were doing was being curious about how god's world worked, and pointing out obvious observations... yet the church often punished them severely for such wickedness.
I didn't want to say it- Catholisicm at work. That was the Catholic church, not the Protestant Church.
Further more, I'll add, how was the Catholic church being tolerant when they were selling "peices of paper" to forgive sins? How were they loving thy neighbor when they slaughtered the Islamics during the crusuades. At one point there was a river of blood and bodies 3 feet deep. Oh and, while we are at it, if it isn't enough to charge for forgivness (a free gift, in God's view) it must not be enough to charge loved ones at a funeral to get them out of pergatory, right? Really moral, give us money and we will pay. Poor farmer who has lossed a loved one: "Oh I don't have enough money!" Catholic Preist: "Oh... I guess Im out of time for praying" Farmer: "Here $5!" Preist: "Oh... I just realised I had a few spare minutes!"
Who is really giving Christianity the "Bad Name" as you put it, TXA.
Check this out:
Ephesians Chapter 2 verse 8-9
I mean that you have been saved by grace through believing. You did not save yourselves; it was a gift from God. It was not the result of your own efforts, so you cannot brag about it. NCV
There is more scripture backing me up... lots more.
Whoa, I just realised I missed two full posts:
And even if phreak isn't gay, it's still a big deal because it's stupid to oppress a group of people just because you think they're evil.
I believe the action is evil, not the person.
On the other hand, if we see those who are being oppressed/repressed/etc, should we act to help them even if it is not of any direct concern to us? I would argue that *that* is the very essense of human compassion, and a large basis of the philosophy of every religion.
But... what if your religion doesn't condone the action? Sure, if someone is being robbed in the street you should do something... but gay marriage? What, do you want me to wed them? There is not a thing I can do.
The big deal is that it happened. What will be next?
uhh, nothing changed, Gay marriage was never legal... and it still isn't. In fact, I could say you guys are winning because abortion is legal! Whats next? We took the ten commandments out school and removed the statue. If anything, a lot of stuff is being done in your favor.
I'll tell you: It doesn't matter how much good you do. The only thing that matters, the only thing that can get you into the Book of Life, is accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Knowing Jesus, having a personal relationship with him is the only way to get into heaven.
And THAT. RIGHT there, is one of my main beefs with Christians who are always in my face. They are telling me straight up that I deserve the same fate as murderers, rapists, child molestors, and the like, simply because I don't believe what they do. In fact, YOU just told me the same thing. You actually believe that I am going to burn in a pit of fire for all of eternity right alongside the murderers and rapists?
Well, aside from the murderers and rapists who decide to accept Jesus as their lord and savior before they die. They get to spend eternity in Heaven.
Awesome.
And as for us dropping the christian serial killer etc. etc.
Seems to me that you yourself said that all you have to do to get into heaven is accept Jesus. So what happens if you kill 50 people, realize that Jesus wouldn't have done that, ask for forgiveness and accept him as your savior. Aren't you a christian? A Christian who killed 50 people?
Let me first say that I have read the bible. In fact, I still reference it from time to time, mostly to debunk its nonsense. The bible is mythology. Period. It was written by a few superstitious individuals who were attempting to unite their people and manipulate them using the innate tendency to believe in counterintuitive concepts that exists in every human brain.
Religion is simply a form of magical thinking and a "mind virus" in that it can be replicated and passed on from "carrier" to "carrier." The bible has been debunked 3 ways from Sunday (no pun intended) and there is very little evidence that the key events of the bible occurred when, where or in the manner they are described. What *is* clear, however, is that these few authors wanted their people to believe in order to herd them like sheep while maintaining their wealth and status as priests or leaders in their cults.
This isn't just Christianity, but all religions. There is no evidence to refute what I'm saying and ample evidence to support it.
Okay, that was harsh, but it's what I see. I see this because I have read the bible as well as the religious texts of other, older cults. When read with a literary eye, many biblical stories are seen as literary manifestations of older stories gathered from several Near Eastern cultures. The flood motif from Gilgamesh and the Atrahasis, the creation myth from the Enum Elish, parables from Egyptian stories, virgin births from older myths in the Indus Valley, etc., etc.
But to someone who reads only the bible and is raised to believe it as an ontological concept and to be the "only" truth; and when that someone isn't exposed to these other, older texts; he or she refuses to acknowledge the validity of the other religions of the world. The fallacies of one's own religion cannot be seen from within. That person must begin to look with a critical eye from without, something that religions are good at preventing.
Ironically, it’s the current evangelical types that are the most extreme in the Christian faiths. They denounce other, older versions of Christianity as being "not true Christians" etc., as if this actually meant something. But it was the catholic cult that put the bible together! It was their committee that decided which "scriptures" would be in and which would be out. A committee! They freakin' voted on it!
Of course, this is the "breath of God" speaking through the priestly classes to help them decide. In reality, the scriptures that made the cut did so because of politics.
So then we get the "Christians" that say Catholics aren't really Christian and this guy or that person isn't really Christian... yada, yada, yada... But you know what? They are. They are because they believe they are. And you know what else? Christianity is a failed social experiment. Morality doesn't exist there. Its an ideal that gets a lot of talk and play, but in the end, the Christian churches of America are full of sheep that say, "don't do this and don't do that because you won't get into heaven, etc." Then, when one of them shows his/her true colors, like Mr. BTK, the rest of them say, "oh, well he wasn't a real Christian, so it doesn't count."
What a cop out. What nonsense.
I said in an earlier post that I have no problem with the Christian who believes what he/she believes because it works for them or because it gives them comfort. And I don't. But it’s the nutters that go around proselytizing and trying to convince others that the crap they have to sell is "the only way" to live and die that I have a problem with.
If you're religious, superstitious, etc., big deal. I'm even interested in what you believe in. But don't blow your smoke up my butt and tell me it's sunshine and get pissed when I challenge that notion. And if you expect to quote scripture to me to "prove" your point, don't be surprised when I tell you that your "proof" isn't valid because it has no proof of its own.
"The bible says Jesus is here to save us..." Poppycock. Where's the evidence? The bible says a lot of stuff. No evidence. Take the biblical story of Jericho. The archaeological evidence is completely contrary to the mythology of the bible. The bible says the Jews wander the desert for 40 years until they reached the 'promised land.' Bunk. No evidence. If that many people "wandered the desert," there'd be some evidence in the archaeological record. What there *is* evidence for, however, is a bunch of scattered settlements in and around the region once known as Canaan.
The bible says the Red Sea was parted. Nonsense. No evidence. The bible says god stopped the sun in the sky making one day almost two. No evidence. The sun doesn't move, the earth rotates. And if the earth were to have suddenly "stopped" rotating then just as suddenly started again, there would have been some evidence in the geologic and archaeological record consistent on a global scale. There isn't.
The bible says a flood covered the globe. Not possible. No evidence.
The bible, therefore, can be tossed out as a historical record of anything. It's good only for getting a glimpse at daily life for early historic man in the Near East. So making a comment that there are those that "openly admit that they haven't read the bible" is not much different that saying there are those that openly admit that they haven't read Moby Dick. Both give us insight into the human condition, but the latter is a better read and far more interesting.
Perhaps if Genesis 1:1 started with "call me Ishmael" instead of "in the beginning..."
I realize that my post is harsh, but I think its what Christians in this country need to hear. Particularly when they are so narrow minded and ignorant as to assume, as lukskywalker1 affirmed, that they are the originators of morality. More poppycock. Even the worshipped-like-idols Ten Commandments have their origins in older laws like the Code of Hammurabi. The bible "says" Moses went up a hill then came down with the tablets... poppycock. He plagerized Hammurabi and other codes in Mesopotamia. Thou shalt not steal, right. Meh.
A lot of forums here, when asked, openly admit that they havn't read the Bible. They admit, not only by saying they don't, but by their posts, admit they don't understand.
A few here, maybe - but there are many here who have, including myself.
Luke - you might wanna check out James 2: 14-20.
It clearly says that faith should and indeed MUST be represented by 'works' or 'deeds'.
So infact much of what you have said contridicts the Bible. Although the truth is you can say next to anything from the Bible and it will end up getting contridicted somewhere else.
That's just the nature of the book.
I haven't bothered to read any of this thread. I just thought I'd toss my two cents out there.
I don't "hate" "christianity".
I hate people.
A good friend of mine, Donald, has been a friend of mine since I was two years old. Don's parents are practicing Catholics. Always have been. They attend Mass every Sunday, and they attend on Saturday night if they can't make it Sunday. Grace before every meal. The works. These people are Catholic. They are also some of the best people in the world. I couldn't imagine who else I'd rather be around. Hell, in the last few years, Don has admitted to his parents that he is agnostic/athiest. And they're okay with that. Because they're comfortable with their choices, and they're comfortable with his choices. All they want is the people they know and love to be happy.
Now, another friend of mine has a girlfriend. Let's call her Sara. Sara's mother is nothing short of psychotic. In the Christian variety. For years this woman had hounded Sara, believing Sara to be a lesbian. And I would not be surprised if this woman thought Sara's dating boys was nothing but a clever ruse. She believes that role-playing (or more specifically, D&D, since Jack Chick would have you believe that is the only role-playing game around) is nothing short of communicating with Satan. I'm sure you all understand the kind of person Sara's mom must be as well as the kind of convictions she holds.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I have been an avid table-top gamer for many, many years. And I can tell you it's nothing but six or seven good friends sitting around for a few hours, drinking soda, making bad jokes to humor each other, and just generally shooting the ****. I do not appreciate this bitch telling me that not only am I not welcome in her house because I am a conduit for Satan, but also telling me that I shall burn in eternal damnation. It's demeaning, insulting, and simply ****ing rude.
Certainly, ever religion has these sort of fanatics. And I hate every last one of them. Every last person that would rather spit on me than join me for a session of Shadowrun. The thing is, without question, Christianity is the dominant religion in the States. Hence, six times out of ten, when I'm ripping on a Christian when I'm ripping on some ******* who drew first blood.
When ripping in "Christians" it can never mean ALL christians, because there are so many different denominations, groups, beliefs etc.. who all claim themselves to be christian... and within each group there are huge variations in the actions of individual people.
Most people are ripping on either the big institutions, or specific idividuals who do things that are insulting or stupid.
lukes1:
Calling the christians that compiled the bible unchristian does seem a bit weird though.
The idea that god would be so petty and self-obsessed that he would reward those that sucked up to him rather than those that deserved it tends to make a lot of people think that (if true) he's a kind of sucky god that we wouldn't want to be associated with. I'm banking on the fact that if a god does exist he would (by definition) be a bit more intelligent than a petty-middle-manager. Still, if he does exist and disagrees with me i'm sure he'll get in touch before sending me down to eternal torment, 'sonly fair.
And since the quran says that jews and christians won't get into heaven unless they accept Allah you are taking a similar chance with your selection of jesus.
I tried reading Galations 5: 22-26 and it, as usual, made very little comprehensible sense and would be open to lots of interpretations.
I did notice that The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." which is how i live my life without having been told to by religious teachings - does that mean that jesus has spoken to me without me knowing and I'm going to heaven even if i don't call myself christian?
Surely if calling your self Christian and going to church isn't enough to get you into heaven, then a lot of people may have been spoken to and accepted jesus into their hearts without realisign it was him... you could even say he manifeted himself as our own moral compass.
I think you are probably barking up the wrong tree with the theory that people "fear what they don't understand". It is often true, but i think in th case of christianity that most people here probably have at least some background in christianity - and at least a passing familiarity with the bible. If it was the fear thing that lead to people complaining about christianity on this board then there would be far more posts about other religions which we understand far less of. Whereas a lot of us (sorry if i'm speaking for everyone) wouldn't want to comment in as much detail about other religions as we don't know much about them to base our comments on.
I'll admit i haven't read the bible (have you tried READING that thing, talk about incomprehensible), but i have studied its teachings (at least as they were taught to me by my religious teachers) and i get the gist of it. Which, frankly, i think is a better way to be... it means you get the overall message, without being bogged down in all the minute little anachronisms, rituals and inconsistencies.
Of course, you will probably say that i can't know as i haven't taken jesus into me, or that the teachers were "the wrong sort of christian" (which is probably exactly what they would say about you btw)... but then that is a get-out-of-jail-free argument that can be used to defeat anything anyone ever says to you.
When they compiled the Bible they were fine, get a history lesson, they corrupted over a period of hundreds of years, mainly because of money. The Romans like traditions, and ceremonys, etc. In fact, they didn't recognize any religion unless they had some kind of tradition, or ceremony. They started adding this, and adding that. It especially got worse around the 1400s-1600s. Things are still changing in that church. In actuality, the Catholics were the first church.
Luke - you might wanna check out James 2: 14-20.
It clearly says that faith should and indeed MUST be represented by 'works' or 'deeds'.
So infact much of what you have said contridicts the Bible. Although the truth is you can say next to anything from the Bible and it will end up getting contridicted somewhere else.
That's just the nature of the book.
That doesn't contradict what I am saying. I said the only way into Heaven is to accept Jesus Christ as your savior. Good deeds won't get you into Heaven. That verse does not say that good deeds will get you into heaven, it is just saying that it proves your faith! And if you read near the end of my post, I said the Bible tells you how a Christian should act, and provided a part of the Bible to look up (Galations 5:22-26)
My point is still Valid- The Religion says this, if you don't do "this" your not in. Thats what it says! For Example: Right now I am being trained to be A+ Certified. If I don't pass the test, I won't be certified. I can't tell people "yeah, I am A+ Certified" if I don't pass the test!
which is how i live my life without having been told to by religious teachings - does that mean that jesus has spoken to me without me knowing and I'm going to heaven even if i don't call myself christian?
Surely if calling your self Christian and going to church isn't enough to get you into heaven, then a lot of people may have been spoken to and accepted jesus into their hearts without realisign it was him... you could even say he manifeted himself as our own moral compass.
Wow thats kinda complex. Im not sure, I think it all comes down to "Do you really believe in Christ?" Yeah, I am sure a lot of people don't realise whats going on, when it does. Its possible. But, I think that sooner or later, God would at least reveal what has happend so you don't wander around not really knowing.
The idea that god would be so petty and self-obsessed that he would reward those that sucked up to him rather than those that deserved it tends to make a lot of people think that (if true) he's a kind of sucky god that we wouldn't want to be associated with.
I see why you would think that. But heres something your not looking at: God made us, he knows us. You see we all sin, no doubt about it. We know we do, I sin, you sin... everyone does. Sin seperates us from God. Nothing impure can enter Heaven, even if you have only sinned once in your life it makes you impure. The only way to get pure, is to repent and ask God for forgiveness. But heres the problem, how can you communicate with God? Prayer right? Well, heres the thing. When you pray, but havn't accepted Christ, God is basically thinking - Ok, why should I spend time forgiving you, when you havn't even bothered to acknowledge my Son's sacrifice.
In the old testament (Judiaic Law) people offered sacrifices to atone for their sins. God decided to send his son (Jesus Christ) to earth. He teached his message, and was nailed to a cross. You see, Christ was human, but he led a perfect life. He was spotless. Like I said above, nothing impure can enter Heaven. Christ was perfect, so in a sense he was offered as a perfect sacrifise to God, for our sins. The ultimate sacrifise, was a perfect sacrifise. All thats left is to acknowledge it and accept it.
Ok, back to the other paragraph- Once you accept Christ he sends his helper to be with you, the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit then communicates with us and God. Hes like a bridge, one that you can cross to other side - God's side.
So then we get the "Christians" that say Catholics aren't really Christian and this guy or that person isn't really Christian... yada, yada, yada... But you know what? They are. They are because they believe they are. And you know what else? Christianity is a failed social experiment. Morality doesn't exist there. Its an ideal that gets a lot of talk and play, but in the end, the Christian churches of America are full of sheep that say, "don't do this and don't do that because you won't get into heaven, etc." Then, when one of them shows his/her true colors, like Mr. BTK, the rest of them say, "oh, well he wasn't a real Christian, so it doesn't count."
You know what, I believe I am a dog. I can bark and walk on four legs. Am I a dog? You know, the Bible says this stuff. Jesus said this stuff. Its not my fault that you refuse to accept his teaching, even though you want to still call yourself a Christian. It doesn't work. I've stated many examples. And you know Skin- based on your knowledge of "They believe so they are" I believe there is a God, so there must be one.
I'll post more later.
Well, heres the thing. When you pray, but havn't accepted Christ, God is basically thinking - Ok, why should I spend time forgiving you, when you havn't even bothered to acknowledge my Son's sacrifice. That's just you attributing imperfect human failings to God. You're saying that he's so petty and egotistical he won't even LISTEN to us if we don't believe everything he told us vicariously through a 2,000 year old book. I have forgiven people who have wronged me in the past, even if they don't always believe what I'm telling them, are you saying i'm a more forgiving being than God? Because I think God MIGHT take slight offense at that...well, he'd take offense except as a perfect being, he shouldn't hold grudges.
What I don't get is why you need to ask god for forgiveness for your sins. If god made us to sin, why should we apologize to him for sinning? Shouldn't he be asking us for forgiveness for making us imperfect when he could have made us perfect, and now we have to live among evil and death?
And I don't get how Jesus was "sacrified." So he died, but he got to go up to heaven and be with his dad just shortly after. To sacrifice something you have to lose it. God nor Jesus lost nothing.
Good deeds won't get you into Heaven.
Good deeds ALONE won't get you into heaven...
I said the only way into Heaven is to accept Jesus Christ as your savior.
...but faith ALONE won't get you into heaven either.
Faith without works is dead. You need BOTH. Not one or the other, but both.
...so faith has to change your behaviour.
Now that's all to be decided is - what are the works that demonstrate true faith...
Funnily enough, all kinds of denominations have all kinds of ideas on exactly what those works are. Your referencing a handful of verses to summerise those 'deeds', when the Bible is a huge, thick book - chockfull of possible actions you can interperet as the 'nessesary' ones.
All the more reason to keep your crazy ideas out of secular affairs. Christians confuse each-other enough without inficting their confusion upon goverment...
And I don't get how Jesus was "sacrified." So he died, but he got to go up to heaven and be with his dad just shortly after. To sacrifice something you have to lose it. God nor Jesus lost nothing.
The sacrifice was in that he endured 3 days (I think it was 3 days) of Hell so that people would be absolved of their sin.
What I don't get is why you need to ask god for forgiveness for your sins. If god made us to sin, why should we apologize to him for sinning? Shouldn't he be asking us for forgiveness for making us imperfect when he could have made us perfect, and now we have to live among evil and death?
He didn't make us to sin. Remember, we have free will, we can do what we want right? Is God forcing us to sin? Of course not.
...but faith ALONE won't get you into heaven either.
Faith without works is dead. You need BOTH. Not one or the other, but both.
...so faith has to change your behaviour.
Now that's all to be decided is - what are the works that demonstrate true faith...
Funnily enough, all kinds of denominations have all kinds of ideas on exactly what those works are. Your referencing a handful of verses to summerise those 'deeds', when the Bible is a huge, thick book - chockfull of possible actions you can interperet as the 'nessesary' ones.
Nice one! You had me thinking. Read this though: ...so faith has to change your behaviour.
Ah... the behavior changes are a side effect of faith. If you don't have faith your behavior doesn't change. Besides, the Galations verses were just traits of someone who should be following God. Im not trying to say Christians are perfect (another point of the religion, admitting I am not perfect, and I need God's help!)
And I don't get how Jesus was "sacrified." So he died, but he got to go up to heaven and be with his dad just shortly after. To sacrifice something you have to lose it. God nor Jesus lost nothing.
Umm, his life was lost? Of course, as proof that he really was God in human form, he rose again. If he hadn't of, it would all be meaningless. I don't know if it means anything to you, but speaking as if the bible is 100% true, I think it would mean a lot if you crucified the living God.
That's just you attributing imperfect human failings to God. You're saying that he's so petty and egotistical he won't even LISTEN to us if we don't believe everything he told us vicariously through a 2,000 year old book. I have forgiven people who have wronged me in the past, even if they don't always believe what I'm telling them, are you saying i'm a more forgiving being than God? Because I think God MIGHT take slight offense at that...well, he'd take offense except as a perfect being, he shouldn't hold grudges.
Im saying, if you don't pay any attention to God why should He pay attention to you? And, I don't understand, if you don't believe God/or you don't have any want to follow him, why repent to him? Many people believe God exists, they just don't want nothing to do with him. The simple fact is, He won't hear you until you have the Holy Spirit.
I'll admit i haven't read the bible (have you tried READING that thing, talk about incomprehensible), but i have studied its teachings (at least as they were taught to me by my religious teachers) and i get the gist of it. Which, frankly, i think is a better way to be... it means you get the overall message, without being bogged down in all the minute little anachronisms, rituals and inconsistencies.
Of course, you will probably say that i can't know as i haven't taken jesus into me, or that the teachers were "the wrong sort of christian" (which is probably exactly what they would say about you btw)... but then that is a get-out-of-jail-free argument that can be used to defeat anything anyone ever says to you.
While true, versions of the Bible like the King James are tough to read. I have to think twice when listening to someone speak it. There are other versions, however, which are not as tough to understand, like the NIV, or NCV... or even the Living Bible (havn't read much of this one). Im not saying whoever told you whatever is wrong, because I don't know what they have said. What I would advise is, actually checking it out for yourself.
Let me first say that I have read the bible. In fact, I still reference it from time to time, mostly to debunk its nonsense.
I know you have read it. And yes, I remember your references, really Skin no offense, I said it then, I will repeat. You quoted out of context, not reading the full chapter, or even verses. You even gave cites to a verse that didn't exist (probably a typographical error.)
I hate people.
We already knew that... :-p
Religion is simply a form of magical thinking and a "mind virus" in that it can be replicated and passed on from "carrier" to "carrier." The bible has been debunked 3 ways from Sunday (no pun intended) and there is very little evidence that the key events of the bible occurred when, where or in the manner they are described. What *is* clear, however, is that these few authors wanted their people to believe in order to herd them like sheep while maintaining their wealth and status as priests or leaders in their cults.
This isn't just Christianity, but all religions. There is no evidence to refute what I'm saying and ample evidence to support it.
I have posted several links in the past, each time, either not clicked or refuted due to some silly reason. I remember one refute: "Oh its come from some_christian_site.com! Can't be right."
(have you tried READING that thing, talk about incomprehensible),
Yeah, read it all. I honestly don't have a problem :-\
The bible says the Red Sea was parted. Nonsense. No evidence. The bible says god stopped the sun in the sky making one day almost two. No evidence. The sun doesn't move, the earth rotates. And if the earth were to have suddenly "stopped" rotating then just as suddenly started again, there would have been some evidence in the geologic and archaeological record consistent on a global scale. There isn't.
Ummm, there are records of an extended night in some portions of the world, at around that same time period. A night that lasted several hours longer than it should have. And as for the Red Sea, explain the hundreds of Egyptian Chariots found at the bottom of it... I guess they flew in and drowned right? Don't believe me-- photographs... plus a detailed explanation. This is old knowledge guys, I've known about it for years, I just figured I should try and find a link to back me up...
Red Sea Crossing (
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/red_sea_crossing.htm)
Sodom and Ghomorrah (
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm)
Theres a lot of interesting stuff on that site, and links to more things, with lots of photographs. The thing is, I've read this stuff before on other sites (simular things) and seen other photographs. Its not just one website saying this stuff. I've read a lot about the red sea, talking about natural ways to split it. God can use this stuff if he wants too.
Other sites:
http://www.christcenteredmall.com/discoveries/noahs-ark-page-1.htm)
I realize that my post is harsh, but I think its what Christians in this country need to hear. Particularly when they are so narrow minded and ignorant as to assume, as lukskywalker1 affirmed, that they are the originators of morality. More poppycock. Even the worshipped-like-idols Ten Commandments have their origins in older laws like the Code of Hammurabi. The bible "says" Moses went up a hill then came down with the tablets... poppycock. He plagerized Hammurabi and other codes in Mesopotamia. Thou shalt not steal, right. Meh.
Please, recheck your Bible. Moses didn't do anything. In the chapter before the 10 commandments, God tells Moses to go down the mountain. God wanted Moses to tell the people that they could not go onto the mountain. After that God told EVERYONE the ten commandments. After this lightning appeared, smoke rose from the mountain, thunder and rumpets sounded. The people were scared, and requested that only Moses speak to them after that, because they were scared they would die if God spoke to them. This was Chapter 20. A few Chapters later God calls Moses back up the mountain, and in Chapter 31, on Mt. Sinai, he recieves the two stone tablets.
Tell me SkinWalker, if God announced the Ten Commandments in front of the people... how did Moses make it up. How did he steal them from Hammurabi? Was Moses hiding behind a rock making cool sound effects? Perhaps he turned the bass up on his speakers? Really, lets throughly check out the Bible before we post. I know... you say the Bible didn't happen. But this is all I have to go by, and reguardless of how you make it out, there is plenty of proof of the Bible. Sadly, a lot of my old links are dead... or I just simply didn't bookmark them.
Also, while we are on topic, I want to hear more of your explantions Skinwalker-- When Jesus died how come there was an earth quake? How come for some reason in the city of Jerusalem people saw "spirits of the dead" after the tombs broke open? Umm, how come suddenly the temple curtain ripped? All of this at the same time Jesus died?
Let me elaborate on that one quickly-- In the Temple of God there was a curtain. Behind it was the alter of God. As I said earlier, people used to sacrifice animals to God.
I think it was... once a year(?) the high priest would go back their and offer a sacrifice for the whole nation. The High Priest had to be pure and holy (there were certain requirements for being in the Lord's presence.. after all.. He is God of the universe.. creator of all existance) They would tie a rope around the Priest's waste, because if he was not holy he would die. No one was allowed behind the curtain... at all. Except the preist once a year, I believe. So, they would tie the rope around him, so if in the event that he would die, they could just pull him out.
When Jesus died the curtain literally ripped from top to bottom. This right here, signifies there was no need for that alter anymore. Jesus paid the full price for sin, even though He didn't sin. Also, after Jesus rose again, 500 people saw him. Thomas put his fingers through Jesus' holes! Really, can you tell me this was all a plot for fame? To be a religious leader? If it was all fake, the guy who was "playing Jesus" would have had to cut a hole in his side, and cut holes in his hands and feet. And soon after, pretty much all for nothing, because 40 days later he would have had to stay away his whole life. I can't believe that. These people saw Jesus ascend into the sky.
Not to mention, the Bible in itself is an amazing peice of work. Imagine this, over the coarse of hundreds of years, several different authors wrote a book, that only was chronoligically, and geographically correct, but even proven to a point historically correct. The books match up properly. They even list Jesus' blood line (hence, one major point of the Old Testament, notice that the old testament talks about a lot of people who are a part of Jesus' bloodline.) They give dates, years and locations, measurements... you name it... its there. Also, did I mention how it was grammatically correct? No errors... at all (minus changes in punctuation and stuff over time, and I read somewhere that there was an extrusion or intrusion of the word "light" in the book of Isaiah. But that is incredibly minor. One word differences, which many Bible's add notes on, for example, my Bible will say "some greek copies include verses X - X... If there is any discrepancy a lot of publishers have it marked in the Bible.
Ok... that took a while.. phew.
EDIT: grammar.. spelling man... theres a lot bugs in my typing. BTW, I forgot about that Sith.
Your biggest problem here, is that the only evidence you HAVE for those events that happened is the Bible, which you can't prove is truth. Your proof is in your faith, which not everyone shares.
Im saying, if you don't pay any attention to God why should He pay attention to you? And, I don't understand, if you don't believe God/or you don't have any want to follow him, why repent to him? Many people believe God exists, they just don't want nothing to do with him. The simple fact is, He won't hear you until you have the Holy Spirit. And what I am saying, is that you've told me that even if I DO believe in God, but don't believe the Christians got it right, and I live a good life, and I offer my thanks to God, and appologize for my imperfections, he just isn't going to give a damn, because I chose to use the free will he gave me to make my own decisions, and being an imperfect being, I may have made a mistake, but he won't accept that.
He didn't make us to sin. Remember, we have free will, we can do what we want right? Is God forcing us to sin? Of course not.
But you just said that we all sin, that it's inevitable. Why should we have to ask for god's forgiveness when he made us like this? It'd be like if a kid is born retarded and the kid has to ask their parents for forgiveness for being retarded. And I don't get the "free will" thing... if exercising our god-given right to free will is going to get you sent to hell, why should we have free will in the first place? Is it like a test or something? Like we're just god's lab mice to experiment with? I guess so, because when his experiments went bad he just flooded them all...
Umm, his life was lost? Of course, as proof that he really was God in human form, he rose again. If he hadn't of, it would all be meaningless. I don't know if it means anything to you, but speaking as if the bible is 100% true, I think it would mean a lot if you crucified the living God.
So what if you can't be on Earth anymore when you get the number two spot in heaven? And they didn't know that Jesus was really the son of god. Such a person would go against what THEIR religion taught.
Ummm, there are records of an extended night in some portions of the world, at around that same time period. A night that lasted several hours longer than it should have.
Citation? What record? Archaeological? Epigraphical? I say more poppycock.
And as for the Red Sea, explain the hundreds of Egyptian Chariots found at the bottom of it... I guess they flew in and drowned right?
We went over this in another thread some time ago. I'm surprised you're still bringing it up. What was the guy's name... Wyatt? He was a fraud. There is no evidence of chariots at the bottom of the Red Sea.
See this thread:
http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=117600&highlight=wyatt)
Likewise, there is no genuine evidnece for "Sodom and Ghomorrah." The guy was a fraud. He's dead now, actually. But that's the point. People have a mind virus called 'belief' that infects them and gets passed on. You believe this guy was genuine and question not a single claim he makes. But the reality is that none of his claims could (or can) be supported.
http://www.christcenteredmall.com/discoveries/noahs-ark-page-1.htm)
Noah's ark. Another load of poppycock. No supportable evidence. Just speculations and spurious claims. The reality is that the ark story is almost verbatum a stolen myth from the Sumerians. Gilgamesh is a far older story and is very clearly the literary progenitor of the noachian tale.
Please, recheck your Bible. Moses didn't do anything.
I thought that's the point I was making.
After that God told EVERYONE the ten commandments. [...] if God announced the Ten Commandments in front of the people... how did Moses make it up.
There's no evidence that there even existed an actual person named "Moses." What there exists is a story of Moses and how he led his people, etc., etc.
How did he steal them from Hammurabi? Was Moses hiding behind a rock making cool sound effects? Perhaps he turned the bass up on his speakers?
More likely, the literate scribes of the Jewish people read the code of Hammurabi and then wrote their own, telling their people that they now have their own code. To add validity to the story, simply add one mythical, legendary hero, shake well and instant "scripture" is the result.
Really, lets throughly check out the Bible before we post.
I'm all for that. Lets do it. Over the course of the next few weeks, I'll pick apart some individual fallacies, one or two at a time. You get the opportunity to defend them if you like.
I know... you say the Bible didn't happen.
On the contrary. I'm very certain the bible happened. I just believe it happened because of the superstitions of people, not the "divine word" of some magical deity.
But this is all I have to go by, and reguardless of how you make it out, there is plenty of proof of the Bible.
There is very, very little proof of the bible that doesn't include the bible itself. It's bootstrap proof only, my friend.
Also, while we are on topic, I want to hear more of your explantions Skinwalker-- When Jesus died how come there was an earth quake?
Who says there was an earthquake? Only Matthew 27:51. Not any geologist I know of. So the answer is, the earthquaked because the author of Matthew (and I think Luke) wished it to be so. Earthquakes are not uncommon to the region, and indeed, there were many very severe quakes throughout the historical and prehistorical periods of the Near East. It would have been surprising if each of them weren't associated with human superstition. But we know the causes of earthquakes today, and can dispense with the magical thinking of antiquity.
How come for some reason in the city of Jerusalem people saw "spirits of the dead" after the tombs broke open?
Again, what's the source? If you say Matthew 27:52, et al, then I'm afraid you might as well quote Aesop and assert that the hare and the tortoise did, indeed, race.
Umm, how come suddenly the temple curtain ripped? All of this at the same time Jesus died?
How come Ahab wouldn't give up on the whale? Either is as relevant to the other. Show me the curtain with its rip, then lets talk.
Let me elaborate on that one quickly-- In the Temple of God there was a curtain. Behind it was the alter of God. As I said earlier, people used to sacrifice animals to God.
Yes. Sacrifice is a time-honored tradition that demonstrates the ultimate in pious behavior. The idea is that you make a sacrifice, you give up something valuable, like a healthy ox for sacrifice to the god(s). The offering is made on an altar and prayers offered. The meat is then distributed to those less fortunate and often the leftover parts are "burnt" allowing the smoke to travel to the sky where the god(s) live(s). It's a method of redistributing wealth originating in egalitarian, clan, or small kingdom societies.
Also, after Jesus rose again, 500 people saw him. Thomas put his fingers through Jesus' holes! Really, can you tell me this was all a plot for fame?
And the only account of this amazing feat was a single, heavily edited volume? Amazing. Other people who did far less significant things had reams of papyrus written about them. Even from other cultures. Yet the only epigraphical accounts are from the cults of christianity. And not one archaeological artifact remains.
To be a religious leader? If it was all fake, the guy who was "playing Jesus" would have had to cut a hole in his side, and cut holes in his hands and feet.
So you're saying that Ahab really had to cut off his leg? After all, he wore an attachment carved from the bone of a whale, eh?
Not to mention, the Bible in itself is an amazing peice of work.
Sure. So is Moby Dick. So is Gilgamesh and a hundred other early literary works. The bhagavad gita is far older, larger, and more detailed than biblical mythology. Does that mean it is more valid?
... that [not] only was chronoligically, and geographically correct, but even proven to a point historically correct.
Moby Dick was chronologically and geographicall correct. Indeed, more so than the bible. Many, many things in the bible do not match the archeological and actual historical record. Historically, the bible is seriously flawed. There are some bits and pieces of "truth" here and there, but it is politically skewed in favor of the Jewish in the Old Test. and biased to the new christian cults in the NT.
The books match up properly. They even list Jesus' blood line
If I'm not mistaken, there are two bloodlines listed. But then, it should be easy to create a posthumous bloodline.
They give dates, years and locations, measurements... you name it... its there.
Easy enough to write a "prophecy" after-the-fact.
Also, did I mention how it was grammatically correct? No errors...
Show me one misspelled word in Moby Dick.
luke is pretty much proving my point.
"You're going to hell because you don't follow my religion."
"My religion is right, you are wrong."
"The bible knows all. You are wrong."
"Conform or burn in hell!"
Again, I don't have a problem with religion or religous people, but when they start getting fanatical (Datheus's example), it really angers me. They keep to themselves, I'll keep to myself.
If you don't have faith your behavior doesn't change.
Very true. If your suppost to have experienced this 'life-altering' new change in faith, but it has no outward affect, can't have been much of a change. This is obvious. James was disturbed by many in the church who had taken this 'saved by faith alone' thing too much to heart, and were clearly telling them that you don't pray 'Save me Jesus', and then carry on your merry way.
OK - so you've just spent a good deal of time telling txa how he was wrong. But I can't see how he was. If you've 'gained' true faith, you'd expect a certain reulting behaviour. In fact it's not just expected, it's required. Faith without works is dead. The BIble is very specific on this.
And that was txa's point - wasn't it?
You can disagree what behaviour you'd expect to see (the Bible's too contridictory for one answer to that question), but you can't argue behaviour shouldn't matter - cos it obviously does...
Take that from someone who DOES know his Bible ;)
Now maybe you can discuss it a bit more reasonably without throwing a handful of verses out, as if that answers the issue
Im not trying to say Christians are perfect (another point of the religion, admitting I am not perfect, and I need God's help!)
Many Christians are FAR from perfect. No need to tell me that...
But along with many others in this thread, I'm not against Christian belief in and of itself. I too also accept that there is a lot of good in Christianity.
But Christianity crosses the line sometimes. And when it does, you can bet some of us will be speaking out about it.
I'm not sure it's worth attempting to discuss this rationally, as religion and rationality are mutually exclusive in my view, but I might as well try. The way I see it, it's a vicious circle, the Bible is true rather than other religious texts because it's the word of God. Where does it say this? In the Bible. How can we justify the use of the Bible as evidence? It's the word of God! (Repeat ad nauseum).
One way of looking at the anti-abortion/gay rights thing is this: 'God gave us free will, and the Christian cults are doing their utmost to take it away again.'
Citation? What record? Archaeological? Epigraphical? I say more poppycock.
Archaeological, but unfortunantly I lossed the link.
"You're going to hell because you don't follow my religion."
"My religion is right, you are wrong."
"The bible knows all. You are wrong."
"Conform or burn in hell!"
According to other religions Im going to be screwed, but I don't let it bug me ;) The only reason it should even have any sort of effect on anyone, is if they belive it, even if it is only in part.
.
OK - so you've just spent a good deal of time telling txa how he was wrong. But I can't see how he was. If you've 'gained' true faith, you'd expect a certain reulting behaviour. In fact it's not just expected, it's required. Faith without works is dead. The BIble is very specific on this.
And that was txa's point - wasn't it?
Yup. But I was talking about Salvation, not Faith (when I spoke to Txa)
Who says there was an earthquake? Only Matthew 27:51. Not any geologist I know of. So the answer is, the earthquaked because the author of Matthew (and I think Luke) wished it to be so. Earthquakes are not uncommon to the region, and indeed, there were many very severe quakes throughout the historical and prehistorical periods of the Near East. It would have been surprising if each of them weren't associated with human superstition. But we know the causes of earthquakes today, and can dispense with the magical thinking of antiquity.
Yeah, but at exactly 3:00 PM when Jesus died? Some nice timing going on there.
More likely, the literate scribes of the Jewish people read the code of Hammurabi and then wrote their own, telling their people that they now have their own code. To add validity to the story, simply add one mythical, legendary hero, shake well and instant "scripture" is the result.
So basically, your saying that the jewish people stole the ideas from Hammurabi and completly made up the character Moses and other things such as Genesis?
We went over this in another thread some time ago. I'm surprised you're still bringing it up. What was the guy's name... Wyatt? He was a fraud. There is no evidence of chariots at the bottom of the Red Sea.
See this thread:
http://www.lucasforums.com/showthre...highlight=wyatt)
Likewise, there is no genuine evidnece for "Sodom and Ghomorrah." The guy was a fraud. He's dead now, actually. But that's the point. People have a mind virus called 'belief' that infects them and gets passed on. You believe this guy was genuine and question not a single claim he makes. But the reality is that none of his claims could (or can) be supported.
I never read that thread, and also... I just found that stuff last night. I think I had read vaguley of it before, but cannot remember. Besides, I did question the Moses grew up in Egypt so he measured in Egyptian measurements... "thing"
But for the most part, it is strange that he found all that stuff. But at the same time, some of the arugments against him are hearsay/have no proof. Maybe someone should more thoroughly check the place out... theres no harm right?
Sure. So is Moby Dick. So is Gilgamesh and a hundred other early literary works. The bhagavad gita is far older, larger, and more detailed than biblical mythology. Does that mean it is more valid?
The difference is, Mobey Dick is not meant to be taken as a true story, where the Bible is. The other ones are not longer in existance. If those gods were real they would have preserved there "myths" on earth, and would make sure they were followed.
Show me one misspelled word in Moby Dick.
Im sure there was a misprint somewhere. ;)
And what I am saying, is that you've told me that even if I DO believe in God, but don't believe the Christians got it right, and I live a good life, and I offer my thanks to God, and appologize for my imperfections, he just isn't going to give a damn, because I chose to use the free will he gave me to make my own decisions, and being an imperfect being, I may have made a mistake, but he won't accept that.
Meh, thats between you and Him. Isn't that pretty much what I have been saying?
Meh, thats between you and Him. Isn't that pretty much what I have been saying?No. You have been saying that if I don't accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior I'm going straight to hell. Do not pass go.
The difference is, Mobey Dick is not meant to be taken as a true story, where the Bible is. The other ones are not longer in existance. If those gods were real they would have preserved there "myths" on earth, and would make sure they were followed.Why is the Bible meant to be taken as a true story? I'll bet the only reason you believe that is you were probably brainwashed to believe it pretty much from birth.
Why is the Bible meant to be taken as a true story?
To answere this, you have to understand the history of the Bible. Contrary to what a lot of people think, some parts were not meant to be read by billions of people, as it is today. The beginning bits were actaully history books, in a way. Others were prophecies written down to keep track of them I guess. The letters of Paul, were exactly that: Letters. He probably had no clue anyone would be reading them nearly 2000 years later. The thing is, it wasn't written, nor compiled (even though by the Catholic Church) for our enjoyment.
Not to mention, I fail to see why so many people would die, fully knowing they were living a lie. Take Saul for example, a bright and young leader in the Jewish "Church" (for lack of a better word) He was quickly moving through the ranks. He disliked Christains, a lot. When they stoned Stephen, he said it was a good thing. Check it:
Acts Chapter 7:60- Chapter 8:1
He fell on his knees and cried in a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." After Stephen said this, he died. (Chapter 8) Saul agreed that the killing of Stephen was good.
Acts Chapter 8:3
Saul was also trying to destroy the church, going from house to house, dragging out men and women and putting them in jail.
Eventually Saul decided to go a bit further. He made threats to kill the Christians, while he was in Jerusalem. Saul decided to go to Damascas to arrest anyone following Christ's Way. While heading there--- Check for the rest of the story here
http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Acts%209:1-17;&version=31;)
Its a good read. Soon after the man changed his name to Paul. Paul died for this stuff. Think about it, he had nothing to gain by converting. He obviously wasn't going to just listen to any random Christian, or even some as influential as Stephen. There was no way to convert this guy, and he was out on a mission. The message of Christ scared the Jewish leaders, people like Saul wanted to take the Christians down. He didn't have a problem with throwing them in jail, and if allowed to continue, he probably would have killed some, like he said.
Really, if this was all a lie, Peter would have known about it. He gave up everything for it. What motive? He was hung on a cross upside down. Paul was beheaded, John was exiled, stephen stoned, and James was killed with swords... oh and, Jesus was hung on a cross. They stabbed him through his side. Blood and water poured out... thats pretty much dead, and if it wasn't true... he could have kept his life by admiting it.
But Paul especially, why the conversion? So he could be a leader? Yeah right, not only is that the last thing he wanted, but there was a very high risk that he wouldn't be accepted (would you believe it if the guy trying to arrest/kill people in your group just joined? I would at least be skeptical!) And then he died for it? You know how powerful he was becoming under the Jewish law? He gave that up for... what? A lot of Jail time and whippings, it seems, and the loss of his head. All he had to do was say its not true and they would have let him go.
While this is all in the Bible (some of what I said isn't) ... there is proof that these men were executed/imprisoned, and that they had a lot to do with the start of the religion. Many people here on these forums at least believe that, even if they don't agree with the message in full.
I'll bet the only reason you believe that is you were probably brainwashed to believe it pretty much from birth.
Its a good thing you didn't bet money. I knew nothing of the Bible for a long time (well, I knew of it.. that was it) I didn't want to go to church. Like a lot of people, I simply said "why should I waste an hour of my time, listening to some dude, telling me how to live my life, when chances are, I won't know what hes talking about anyways!") Crap, we even involved ourselves in Pagan rituals before I was a Christian (not that we thought anything of it...)
Why does everyone assume most Christians were brainwashed from birth? A lot of people don't even really take it seriously till they are at least a teenager. I talk to a lot of pastors, and other random people. A guy I spoke to recently didn't become a Christian untill he was 30+. A lot of 50 year old men come along "yeah, I became a Christian 20 years ago!" that doesn't seem raised from birth to me. While sure, a lot are raised from birth, but a lot aren't.
No. You have been saying that if I don't accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior I'm going straight to hell. Do not pass go.
I don't understand. I said you have accept Jesus as your savior. You say I believe in God and thank him and ask for forgiveness... whats the deal? Is Christ not good enough for the equation? To be honest, considering Christ is God, by believing in God you believe in Christ... so... I don't know what your talking about. The Bible says you have to accept him, thats it. Its not that hard, especially in the scenario you projected.
If your not going to follow the Bible, or believe it.. then how can you call yourself a Christian. Its not about what the Christians think, its about what the Bible says. It specifically says-
Acts Chapter 4:12
Jesus is the only One who can save people. His name is the only power in the world that has been given to save people. We must be saved through him."
I really don't see how that is up for interpretation.
Copied from
http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=John%203;&version=31;#fen-NIV-26114a)
John Chapter 3 verse 3
3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
John Chapter 3 verse 5
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=John%201;&version=31;)
John Chapter 1 verse 31-33
32Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' 34I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."
[John the Baptist is talking about Jesus baptising with the Holy Spirit.]
http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=John%208;&version=31;)
John Chapter 8 verse 12
12When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
Okay, first of all, you have got to STOP using stories, FROM the Bible, to PROVE the Bible. It doesn't work that way. We don't believe the Bible is telling literal factual stories, so why does it matter what happened to the people in the Bible? It doesn't. I can go write a story about a man who was so hardcore Christian that he talked to God all the time, but then he got his name changed and started burning churches, until he eventually burned to death in his own fire. That doesn't mean that there is some special calling for burning churches.
People die ALL THE TIME for causes. How about those muslims who are willing to die for their faith every day? Does that mean that they are right and you are wrong?
If your not going to follow the Bible, or believe it.. then how can you call yourself a Christian. Its not about what the Christians think, its about what the Bible says. . Oh goodness, I don't understand how to explain this, since you're obviously not getting it. I didn't SAY I was a Christian, I'm pretty sure you won't find me having said that at any point in this thread. what I said, is that I think it's pretty ridiculous that, say, Muslims are all going to hell, because they don't believe Jesus was the son of God. They believe in the same God, worship him, give him thanks, follow the laws that THEY believe were given to them by him, and live good lives. According to you, they all go to hell, just because they were raised being told something other than you.
Ask yourself this, if you were raised muslim, would you be muslim right now? You'll probably say no, but you're lying to yourself and obviously not giving it much thought. You are currently christian because you were raised that way, and have been raised to NOT question if you are right.
I was saying "you" in general.
Chances are... I would be a Muslim, but you never know. I coulda turned agnostic :p
You'll probably say no, but you're lying to yourself and obviously not giving it much thought. You are currently christian because you were raised that way, and have been raised to NOT question if you are right.
Meh, I just explained (in my last post) that I wasn't raised as a christian. While yeah, I still live at home, I didn't start as a Christian, knew almost nothing of them, and really didn't care.
According to you, they all go to hell, just because they were raised being told something other than you.
No, according to the Bible. Like I said I am not just making this up. I don't understand why you can't just see that if the scriptural text says one thing, you can't just change it! I clearly posted scripture that backs my point up. It doesn't matter whether you believe the Bible is true or not, the fact is, the religion says it! Not me.
Let me clarify:
The Christians have the Bible. It is their sacred book, they believe it to be true.
The Muslims have the Quaran. It is their sacred book, they believe it to be true.
The Jews have the Torah. It is their sacred... scroll/book, they believe it to be true.
I can't change what the Torah says. Just because I believe something, doesn't make it a part of the Religion. If I don't follow its teaching, Im really not following the relgion. If the Religion says "This is what you have to do to get to Heaven:" and I don't do it, I can't cry when I don't get in.
Okay, first of all, you have got to STOP using stories, FROM the Bible, to PROVE the Bible. It doesn't work that way. We don't believe the Bible is telling literal factual stories, so why does it matter what happened to the people in the Bible? It doesn't.
I was saying, I don't understand why so many people would die to protect a lie. Re-read it. The people were real... thats given, and a lot of athiests have no problem in saying that Paul and the other desciples really existed. For the most part (minus Paul's conversion) everything was natural in my post, not supernatural (in that section). Theres no reason not to believe that those people were killed, or simply didn't exist. And I am saying, for what? They had no possible motives to decieve others, and I am stating that Paul (one of the most influential and most powerful Christian leaders back then) definatly had no reason to convert, given his status under the Jewish Temple.
There is no reason to say any of that is untrue as its all very possible, and most likley happend (I am talking about the normal stuff.. not the blinding lights... etc.) I mean, we know they existed, we know they died at around the same time. (Im thinking Peter and Paul died really close in time periods). If those guys had not of existed then Christianity wouldn't be here today... I guess.
Archaeological, but unfortunantly I lossed the link.
Link, schmink. Archaeology is a science. Offer a citation. I'm an archaeologist and know of none.
According to other religions Im going to be screwed, but I don't let it bug me
Other than the Abrahamic cults, other religions of the world don't generally make the implication that "infidels" will not find salvation.
Yeah, but at exactly 3:00 PM when Jesus died? Some nice timing going on there.
There's no evidence to support that there even existed a Jesus much less the fact that he died at 3:00pm. Moreover, there's no evidence to suggest that there is a known day that this alleged Christ died and certainly no evidence of an earthquake on that day. What I was saying was that it wasn't a far reach for early Christian cult leaders to use a known phenomena that is already blamed on the supernatural to "prove" their point.
So basically, your saying that the jewish people stole the ideas from Hammurabi and completely made up the character Moses and other things such as Genesis?
Pretty much. More likely, though, it was a combination of embellishment of already existing oral histories from the varied cultures of the region. A cult/political/clan leader named Moses probably existed, but, consistent with typical human behavior, his accomplishments were almost certainly embellished far beyond reality. A Davey Crockett or Paul Bunyon of sorts.
But for the most part, it is strange that he found all that stuff. But at the same time, some of the arugments against him are hearsay/have no proof. Maybe someone should more thoroughly check the place out... theres no harm right?
Wyatt was the claimant as is anyone who continues his claims. The burden of proof is on the claimant. To date, there is no evidence that he "found" any of "that stuff," and quite a bit of evidence that his "finds" were hoaxes and lies. The "place" you refer to has been "checked out" by actual archaeologists. Both before and after Wyatt.
The difference is, Mobey Dick is not meant to be taken as a true story, where the Bible is.
I disagree. I assert that Moby Dick was intended by Melvile to be fact. Indeed, I further assert that this history was divinely inspired by the spirit of the Whale, who is the true God. All other gods are false and attempts to promote them are blasphemous and will meet with eternal damnation in Davey Jones' Locker or reincarnation as a bottom-feeding Sergeant Fish.
Sound preposterous? Of course it does.
The other ones are not longer in existance. If those gods were real they would have preserved there "myths" on earth, and would make sure they were followed.
They're real to the millions of Hindi. Their still real to the many indigenous and aboriginal cultures around the globe. The fact that you dismiss these gods so readily is an acknowledgement of your ignorance of other religions and therefore lack of qualification to decide what, if any, religion is the "correct" one.
I clearly posted scripture that backs my point up.
That's called begging the question, or using your argument to support your argument. It doesn't work. You can't simply "quote scripture" to demonstrate that scripture to be valid.
The bible is bunk. It has its clear literary roots in older religions and their texts. We, therefore, can toss it out and move on with our lives.