The Religious Debate Thread : "Misogynistic" passages in the Bible etc [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The Religious Debate Thread : "Misogynistic" passages in the Bible etc

Pages : [1] 2 3

Seingeist
11-20-2011, 11:58 PM
Recently in the Bill Maher thread, Clydey presented three Biblical passages as clear evidence that Christians/the Bible are misogynistic.

Initially I refused to take up the topic, because I knew that it would take a post at least as long as the current one to deal with it, and that such would be an entirely wasted effort on someone who frankly has no interest at all in understanding them properly.

However, I’d been tossing it around in my mind a bit, and I considered that there might well be other posters on MTF who would be interested in understanding more fully and honestly both those verses and the Biblical view of men and women (not exhaustively and comprehensively, of course, but I can try to scratch at the surface). I had a chunk of time today, so I thought, “What the heck? It can’t do any harm.”

I had accused Clydey of "cherry-picking" a few verses out of their proper context and understanding, and what is fascinating is that in each of the three cases, the very next verse (among others) mitigates the charge of misogyny.

Now by way of preface, it is important to note that in the Biblical view of human relationships, men and women do indeed have different roles and responsibilities. These differing roles correspond largely to innate differences between men and women, most of them strictly biological. While I realize that the acknowledgement of differences between men and women and their subsequent roles in relationships is not at all popular or well-accepted in the modern ethos, it does not mean that such acknowledgement is inherently misogynistic, as I will endeavor to demonstrate.




The first passage that Clydey presented is from the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 22:20-21 (all verses from HCSB translation). It reads:

But if this accusation is true and no evidence of the young woman’s virginity is found, they will bring the woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city will stone her to death. For she has committed an outrage in Israel by being promiscuous in your father’s house. You must purge the evil from you.

It looks appalling on the face of it. Does the Bible advocate the slaughter of non-virgins?

Remember that the only appropriate context for sexual relations in the Bible is between a married man and woman. All sex outside of that context is seen as some variation of adultery. When a person has sex before he or she is married, it is akin to “cheating” on his or her future spouse (assuming that a future spouse is taken – the passage concerns the punishment only for a non-virgin who takes a different husband).

Still, killing a woman just because she commits adultery is as misogynistic as it gets, right? Surely the Israelites would dare not treat a man in the same fashion! But then we come to the immediately following verse:

If a man is discovered having sexual relations with another man’s wife, both the man who had sex with the woman and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel

Men faced the same punishment that women did for committing adultery: death. The passage even goes on to detail a scenario wherein a man and an engaged woman (to a different man) have sex. If it is consensual, they are both put to death; if it is a ra*pe and the woman cannot help herself, only the man is put to death.

Now while these laws may certainly strike us as overly severe, they can hardly be called “misogynistic,” because they are applied to both men and women with similar punishment.

The purpose for the general “severity” of OT laws is a very different discussion and not relevant to the topic at hand.


************************************************** ************************************************** ***************************


The second “misogynistic” passage is from Paul’s letter to the Colossians in the New Testament:

Wives, be submissive to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

Now what exactly does this submission mean? And on what basis is it made? Does it mean that women have to blindly do everything that their husbands tell them to, and moreover must do this simply by virtue of the fact that they are women and their husbands are men?

This passage will require a longer discussion because it entails the differing “roles” of husband and wife that I mentioned in the preface. When these roles are properly understood, I think that it will be seen that this injunction is anything but “misogynistic.”

The most important passage concerning these “roles” is found within Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, in which he fleshes out in more detail the same basic exhortations that he wrote to the Colossians. He draws an extremely significant and instructive analogy between the relationship of Christ to the church (church here meaning the whole body of Christians, not a building or a congregation) and husband to wife:

Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is head of the church. He is the Savior of the body. Now as the church submits to Christ, so wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as also Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her, to make her holy, cleansing her in the washing of water by the word. He did this to present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but holy and blameless. In the same way, husbands should also love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hates his own flesh, but provides and cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, since we are members of His body. [quoting Genesis 2:24:]For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This mystery is profound, but I am talking about Christ and the church. To sum up, each one of you is to love his wife as himself, and the wife is to respect her husband.

This analogy between Christ’s relationship to the church and that of husband to wife should not be glossed over, for it is presented to husbands as THE model upon which to base their relationship to their wives, and the instruction given to wives is much better understood when we also have a firm grasp on the role of the husband.

So what exactly is the relationship of Christ to church, at least insofar as it serves as a model to husbands? It is characterized primarily by devotion, care, service, provision, and self-sacrifice. In his earthly ministry, Jesus put His love of the people over Himself completely, devoting Himself totally to providing and caring for their spiritual and bodily well-being, and eventually making the ultimate sacrifice of Himself (and atonement for their sins) so that they might be saved.

There is no more profound example of perfect love and sacrifice, and this is the model that is given to husbands for the ways that they are to love and care for their wives. Of course, we are sinful human beings, and no husband can love his wife as perfectly as Christ loves the church. However, we are called to imitate His example as best we can, and husbands should thus love their wives through devotion, care, service, provision, and self-sacrifice.. They are to put the bodily and spiritual needs of their wives above their own; they are to make every sacrifice that needs to be made to this end, up to and including their very life. They are to provide and care for them materially and immaterially (i.e. emotionally, etc.) and meet all of their needs to the absolute best of their ability.

Understanding this role of the husband, then, it is far easier to understand why the wife is exhorted to “submit.” This does not mean that she must blindly agree with everything he says or does. It means that she is to her entrust her care and well-being to her husband (which she pledges to him through the act of getting married), show him respect, and not attempt to obstruct or oppose his sincere efforts to care for her.

While both the husband and the wife are called to be the best spouse that they can be regardless of how “good” or “bad” a job that the other spouse is doing, it is naturally much easier for both partners if both are fulfilling their duties to one another. That is, it is much easier for a husband to care for his wife sacrificially if she is not contentious and does not attempt to oppose him at every turn, and it is likewise much easier for a wife to submit to her husband if he is sincerely doing his best to serve her, care for her, and put herself above himself at every turn.

Ironically enough, the only husband who would ever even feel the need to throw the “submission” verse at his wife is very likely failing miserably in his own responsibility. He might find that his wife is more agreeable if he is serving her as he is supposed to. Or, to approach it slightly differently, for the husband who points to that verse and says, “You’re supposed to submit to me,” the wife could rightly point to that passage and say, “And you’re supposed to put my needs, desires, and well-being above your own, loving me as Christ loved the church!”

Again, there can be little dispute that all of the above is terribly “out of step” with our modern conception of relationships, “gender roles,” and marriage. But it can hardly be called “misogynistic.” There is abundant reciprocity and co-dependency in the relationship. The sense in which a husband is placed “above” his wife (i.e. the “head” of the relationship) is at once the same sense in which he is placed “below” her (i.e. in service and devotion to her).

Another quick example of the reciprocity between a husband and wife is the sexual duty that they have to one another. From 1 Corinthians:

A husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise a wife to her husband. A wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does. Equally, a husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. Do not deprive one another.

Neither the husband nor the wife has some kind of sexual priority or exemption in the relationship.

Above I said that the alleged “misogyny” in each passage is diminished by the very next verse that follows. Colossians 3:19 says:

Husbands, love your wives and don’t become bitter against them

Both husbands and wives have specific obligations to one another, and these obligations not only entail no kind of misogyny, but they go as far as to establish the wife as the more “served” and prioritized member of the relationship.


************************************************** ************************************************** ***************************


The final passage that is allegedly misogynistic comes from Paul’s letter to the church in Corinth. (I add in verse 8 to clarify 9-10). Paul writes:

For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man; and man was not created for woman, but woman for man. This is why a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head: because of the angels.

Now there are a few contextual considerations that need to be elucidated before we can understand these verses. First of all, they are in the midst of a passage about “head coverings,” and the “symbol of authority” that the woman is to wear on her head refers to a head covering to be worn during “prayer” or “prophecy.” It is another reference to the analogically symbolic relationship of Christ’s “headship” (see verse 3), the meaning of which I addressed above.

When Paul says that woman was “made from” and “made for” man, he is referring to the following passage in Genesis:

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is like him.[…] So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to come over the man, and he slept. God took one of his ribs and closed the flesh at that place. Then the Lord God made the rib he had taken from the man into a woman and brought her to the man. And the man said: This one, at last, is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called woman, for she was taken from man. This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh.

Lest this passage be mistaken, this does not mean that women are subservient to men. It merely means that women “complete” the human picture that was started with man. They constitute “one flesh” when they unite. “Man” alone was insufficient for God’s purposes for humanity, so He created woman as well. They are equally dignified human persons who are the same in terms of value in the eyes of God and in their dependence on one another.

To prevent misunderstanding, Paul actually makes this equality in terms of value and interdependence explicit in the very passage quoted above, in the verses immediately following the two that Clydey presented. He writes:

However, in the Lord, woman is not independent of man, and man is not independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman, and all things come from God.

Paul is careful to make the Corinthians understand that men do not have some kind of priority or special standing over women by virtue of the fact that woman were created subsequently. Indeed, it is Paul who makes the great decree of ultimate or spiritual equality when he writes to the Galatians in the passage that Orka N quoted in another thread:

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

I have done my best to render the above “misogynistic” passages clear, and I think that it is quite apparent at this point that such a label is grossly inappropriate and erroneous.

The fuller picture shows that Biblical Christianity is anything but “misogynistic,” instead treating men and women both as equally valued children of God.

And I hope that we also notice a very important sidebar here in terms of “criticism” involving Scripture. Random isolated “verses” can sometimes be grossly misunderstood inasmuch as they are separated from their fuller context. It is extraordinarily easy to snag a few verses and toss them about carelessly, but it requires a greater investment of time and thought to understand them honestly and fairly.

Pirata.
11-21-2011, 12:16 AM
This is not a Bible forum.

Seingeist
11-21-2011, 12:33 AM
This is not a Bible forum.

I hope that everyone takes note of the one special topic in NT (amidst all manner of controversial and sometimes obscene threads about politics, sex, ethnicity, religion, conspiracy, general flaming, etc.) that provokes an objection.

In any case, no one coerced you into entering this thread, Pirata, so if it is of no interest to you, you are welcome and encouraged to ignore it.

shiaben
11-21-2011, 12:47 AM
It's natural Seingeist. When someone opposes a particular belief, ideology, or even a fact, they will take it out of context to fit their own personal views. This could involve different religious passages from holy books, it could involve someone opposing something stated in the communist manifesto, just any source of information out there that conflicts with their views or beliefs.

I personally believe misogynistic practices would be a lot less frequent since it would backfire on those men that practice it: it could lead to affairs, retaliatory murder, divorce, separation, few women retaliating emotionally by becoming lesbians, and all kinds of other issues could arise.

Sunset of Age
11-21-2011, 12:51 AM
Yes, the so-called 'Holy' Bible contains TONS of mysogyny, hatred towards gays, well, in fact, hatred to whatever doesn't fit in with the opinions of 'true believers'.

If that book is 'Holy', well then, I'm Queen Elizabeth I. :wavey:

Sorry, but I despise it.
Whenever I come across a Bible in a hotel room drawer wherever, whenever (and as you may know by now, I am a traveller) - the first thing I do, is get rid of the awful pages of Deuteronium 22 and the like, burn them up in smoke.

:wavey:

Aloimeh
11-21-2011, 12:54 AM
Yes, the so-called 'Holy' Bible contains TONS of mysogyny, hatred towards gays, well, in fact, hatred to whatever doesn't fit in with the opinions of 'true believers'.

If that book is 'Holy', well then, I'm Queen Elizabeth I. :wavey:

Sorry, but I despise it.
Whenever I come across a Bible in a hotel room drawer wherever, whenever (and as you may know by now, I am a traveller) - the first thing I do, is get rid of the awful pages of Deuteronium 22 and the like, burn them up in smoke.

:wavey:

The Bible has special provisions for the likes of you.

Serious question: What coven do you belong to?

Pirata.
11-21-2011, 12:56 AM
few women retaliating emotionally by becoming lesbians

:stupid:

Aloimeh
11-21-2011, 12:58 AM
Seingeist: I realize more and more that people do not reject the Bible because of misogyny, the problem of evil, lack of scientific evidence, or anything like that. They reject God because they love sin and they hate a God who judges sin, and one who judges it most severely. They will get their just recompense. God has been more than merciful allowing vile creatures who burn his scripture to continue in this state for decade after decade. It will come to an end sooner and later and then these reprobates will meet their maker and feed the eternal fires of hell.

Sunset of Age
11-21-2011, 12:59 AM
The Bible has special provisions for the likes of you.

Serious question: What coven do you belong to?

Sure mate. :haha: The Coven of Atheists. :worship:
Christians have a fantastic reputation at "Burning The Witches", don't they?

I'd rather be a so-called 'witch' in your opinion than to ever feel the need to fit in with your ideas of religion. :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

Aloimeh
11-21-2011, 01:01 AM
Sure mate. :haha: The Coven of Atheists. :worship:
Christians have a fantastic reputation at "Burning The Witches", don't they?

I'd rather be a so-called 'witch' in your opinion than to ever feel the need to fit in with your ideas of religion. :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

Are you Wiccan?

Sunset of Age
11-21-2011, 01:04 AM
Are you Wiccan?

Nope. Like I said a gazillion times before, I do not 'believe' in anything - except perhaps courtacy, friendliness, respect and acceptance, despite differences, among peoples. :wavey:
Judging on your posts, that may well rule you out. Sorry about that.

Aloimeh
11-21-2011, 01:06 AM
Nope. Like I said a gazillion times before, I do not 'believe' in anything. :wavey:

I read elsewhere that you were spiritual.

What's clear is that you are not just an atheist. Someone who rejects God and is dispassionate about someone that allegedly doesn't exist, doesn't go to the pains of setting Bible passages on fire - in a hotel of all places.

Now, God's view on which sin in Deuteronomy pisses you off most, homosexuality or zoophilia, and why?

Pirata.
11-21-2011, 01:10 AM
Are you Wiccan?

Wiccans are theists.

Sunset of Age
11-21-2011, 01:17 AM
I read elsewhere that you were spiritual.

Being a spiritual, sensitive person doesn't have anything to do with being 'religious', which I explained in that very same post just as much.

What's clear is that you are not just an atheist. Someone who rejects God and is dispassionate about someone that allegedly doesn't exist, doesn't go to the pains of setting Bible passages on fire - in a hotel of all places.

Oh yes it does. I burn those 'holy' Bible pages in honour to all those who are being insulted in that book, whether you like it or not.

Now, God's view on which sin in Deuteronomy pisses you off most, homosexuality or zoophilia, and why?

All of it, as it's obviously conceived by some (or perhaps tons of them) writers with no genuine knowledge at all.

I'm done with you, bye.

Aloimeh
11-21-2011, 01:17 AM
I hope this rabid creature also realizes that she's guilty of arson and destruction of property, which could additionally be construed as reckless endangerment, theft, and vandalism. All felonies.

I hope she gets caught some day, but given the fleshpots/whorehouses/hellholes she visits that cater to her kind, I bear no illusion that she will face justice and indeed am surprised that Bibles are allowed in those dog kennels/leper colonies.

But she will get what's hers in the final day of judgment and ever after.

Mjau!
11-21-2011, 01:19 AM
God didn't write deuteronomy. Some jerks in Babylon did.
Jesus would be spinning on his cross if he knew this levitical filth is being passed off as God's law.

Aloimeh
11-21-2011, 01:21 AM
God didn't write deuteronomy. Some jerks in Babylon did.
Jesus would be spinning on his cross if he knew this levitical filth is being passed off as God's law.

Stop lying. Jesus quoted Deuteronomy. The book is as canonical as they get.

Sunset of Age
11-21-2011, 01:21 AM
I hope this rabid creature also realizes that she's guilty of arson and destruction of property, which could additionally be construed as reckless endangerment, theft, and vandalism. All felonies.

I hope she gets caught some day, but given the fleshpots/whorehouses/hellholes she visits that cater to her kind, I bear no illusion that she will face justice and indeed am surprised that Bibles are allowed in those dog kennels/leper colonies.

But she will get what's hers in the final day of judgment and ever after.

:haha: :haha: :haha:

zrzMhU_4m-g

Smoke944
11-21-2011, 01:22 AM
I hope this rabid creature also realizes that she's guilty of arson and destruction of property, which could additionally be construed as reckless endangerment, theft, and vandalism. All felonies.

I hope she gets caught some day, but given the fleshpots/whorehouses/hellholes she visits that cater to her kind, I bear no illusion that she will face justice and indeed am surprised that Bibles are allowed in those dog kennels/leper colonies.

But she will get what's hers in the final day of judgment and ever after.

:lol:

Mjau!
11-21-2011, 01:23 AM
Being a spiritual... person doesn't have anything to do with being 'religious'

Of course it does. :rolleyes: Spiritual is just a new age word for religious.

Mjau!
11-21-2011, 01:32 AM
Stop lying. Jesus quoted Deuteronomy. The book is as canonical as they get.

Quote please.

Jesus opposed the phariseans who carried on the traditions of the levites.

God's law according to Jesus C:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

"By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another"

"We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren."

"...by this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome"

'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

"do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

"Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise. But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful."

“But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”

I encourage everyone to read Deuteronomy and judge for themselves whether the philosophies are compatible or polar opposites.

Aloimeh
11-21-2011, 01:52 AM
Quote please.

Jesus opposed the phariseans who carried on the traditions of the levites.

God's law according to Jesus C:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

"By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another"

"We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren."

"...by this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome"

'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

"do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

"Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise. But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful."

“But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”

I encourage everyone to read Deuteronomy and judge for themselves whether the philosophies are compatible or polar opposites.

Dude, Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy and Leviticus there:

Deuteronomy 6: 4Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

5And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

These two verses, particularly 6:4, are some of the most foundational verses in all of the Old Testament. They form part of the Shema Yisrael, the greatest prayer in all of Judaism. Deuteronomy 6:4 is posted on the facade of the synagogue near where I live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shema_Yisrael

Leviticus 19:17Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

18Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

That's the only place in the Old Testament where it talks about loving your neighbor, in Leviticus!

Naudio Spanlatine
11-21-2011, 01:52 AM
God does hate the gays, murderers, thieves, rapists, pedifiles and others, he hates the act they commit, too many people always think that God hates ppl but thats not true, God loves everyone and yes we are all sinners thats how it is, this world would end in the most bloodist, horrible and scary way you could imagine, jus look at book of revelations, it tells you how the world is gonna end

Sham Kay
11-21-2011, 01:53 AM
My birth was at least ten different sins in selected religions. I've already planned ahead for my permanent retirement and rented a warm cosy flat in the Hellfire.

Pirata.
11-21-2011, 02:00 AM
God does hate the gays, murderers, thieves, rapists, pedifiles and others

http://www.collegefashion.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/ped-egg-2.jpg

:sad:

Aloimeh
11-21-2011, 02:01 AM
God does hate the gays, murderers, thieves, rapists, pedifiles and others, he hates the act they commit, too many people always think that God hates ppl but thats not true, God loves everyone and yes we are all sinners thats how it is, this world would end in the most bloodist, horrible and scary way you could imagine, jus look at book of revelations, it tells you how the world is gonna end

Thank you, completely right. These are pertinent verses here:

Malachi 2:17Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?

Who wearies the LORD? Those who say that God loves everyone and those who question God's very existence and righteousness.

There is no Old Testament God and New Testament God. There is one God. We live in the age of grace, of mercy. We are lucky to have Jesus Christ whom we can turn to. But make no mistake, we are dealing with a God who looks upon sin with righteous wrath and indignation, who will punish it most severely. He is holy and He will not tolerate the slightest blemish of sin in His presence.. He is merciful but He accepts only those who repent and believe on His perfect Son.

jmjhb
11-21-2011, 02:01 AM
God does hate the gays, murderers, thieves, rapists, pedifiles and others, he hates the act they commit, too many people always think that God hates ppl but thats not true, God loves everyone and yes we are all sinners thats how it is, this world would end in the most bloodist, horrible and scary way you could imagine, jus look at book of revelations, it tells you how the world is gonna end

Spot the odd one out there. :rolleyes:

http://thxforthe.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/DoubleFacePalm2.jpg

Naudio Spanlatine
11-21-2011, 02:02 AM
http://www.collegefashion.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/ped-egg-2.jpg

:sad:
:haha: :haha: :haha:

no not that pedifile, i dont even know how to spell that word

God does hate the gays, murderers, thieves, rapists, pedifiles and others, he hates the act they commit, too many people always think that God hates ppl but thats not true, God loves everyone and yes we are all sinners thats how it is, this world would end in the most bloodist, horrible and scary way you could imagine, jus look at book of revelations, it tells you how the world is gonna end
im sorry my spelling was wrong its suppose to say: God doesnt hate the gays, murderers, thieves, rapists, pedifiles and others, he hates the act they commit, too many people always think that God hates ppl but thats not true, God loves everyone and yes we are all sinners thats how it is, this world would end in the most bloodist, horrible and scary way you could imagine, jus look at book of revelations, it tells you how the world is gonna end

Naudio Spanlatine
11-21-2011, 02:06 AM
Spot the odd one out there. :rolleyes:

http://thxforthe.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/DoubleFacePalm2.jpg
:banghead:
i meant to say God doesnt hate those ppl, god hates their acts

jmjhb
11-21-2011, 02:08 AM
How do you know that? Did he confirm it when you last spoke to him on the phone?

Naudio Spanlatine
11-21-2011, 02:17 AM
How do you know that? Did he confirm it when you last spoke to him on the phone?

i expect a person like you to say that:rolleyes:

its says so in the bible:

John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

“But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ [i.e., made us alive in Christ], (by grace ye are saved) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” —Ephesians 2:4-8

he loves the world, he loves all sinners he loves everyone, but hates their evil doing, their wrong acts, their disobeying Him, why did he brought us into the world, why did he give us second chances, why did he bless us with parents and talents and love....why dont you tell me that

Mjau!
11-21-2011, 02:23 AM
Dude, Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy and Leviticus there:

These two verses, particularly 6:4, are some of the most foundational verses in all of the Old Testament. They form part of the Shema Yisrael, the greatest prayer in all of Judaism. Deuteronomy 6:4 is posted on the facade of the synagogue near where I live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shema_Yisrael
That's the only place in the Old Testament where it talks about loving your neighbor, in Leviticus!

:facepalm: Now find me a quote where he endorses all the hatred and destruction of Deuteronomy.

What don't you understand? When I say the teachings of Jesus are not compatible with the hatred in Deuteronomy, I obviously don't mean "love thy neighbor", but filth like the quotes below and the ones Clydey posted.

"thou shalt utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them"

"Of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shall save alive nothing that breatheth"

It is obviously the work of different people with very different philosophies. Deuteronomy and Leviticus go on to limit the meaning of neighbor, from universal to tribalist. Look how the attitude towards "strangers" evolves in Leviticus.

From: "the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself"

To: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."

"Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land: and they shall be your possession."

"You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Perfectly consistent :stupid:

A religion of universal love was distorted.

jmjhb
11-21-2011, 02:29 AM
i expect a person like you to say that:rolleyes:

its says so in the bible:

John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

he loves the world, he loves all sinners he loves everyone, but hates their evil doing, their wrong acts, their disobeying Him, why did he brought us into the world, why did he give us second chances, why did he bless us with parents and talents and love....why dont you tell me that


If he loves the world so much, then why does God allow disasters, famine, disease, slavery, suffering, etc?

To quote Epicurus and Hume: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Naudio Spanlatine
11-21-2011, 02:44 AM
If he loves the world so much, then why does God allow disasters, famine, disease, slavery, suffering, etc?

To quote Hume: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"

its not like he was shocked that these acts happen, this world is getting worse and worse, and he of course is watching what is happening, what people like me and you fail to realize that God will judge all of us at the end no matter what, sometimes you have to understand that God did meant for these acts to happen, he expects people to repent against his will and do more evil, and he knows that the world is falling and it will get worst, i was asking God the same question as you were, and now i know the reason, the fact that most people in this world dont even know who God really is, they jus believe in the Man that tell them about God, but are they really telling the truth about God, jus because people go to church, doesnt mean that their saved, in order for you to be saved you must believe in his Word and love God always, you wont understand because you either dont believe in Him or you feel lost that you dont know whats gonna happen

and look what happened to those people who didnt ask God for forgiveness of what they did wrong, they end up dying and have they deal with judgement with God himself, so you cant say that God wouldnt bring justice to the people who did wrong and evil

i use to hate God for letting me go through this pain and suffer i have gotten from people who abused me and made front of me and let my depression get worst, but when i found God on my own it was through spirit, i never thought that i will feel his presence but i did, and he gave me healing spiritually, God is the Holy Spirit, we cant see him but he can see, hear and know all of us, hes not stupid

tripwires
11-21-2011, 02:47 AM
I hope this rabid creature also realizes that she's guilty of arson and destruction of property, which could additionally be construed as reckless endangerment, theft, and vandalism. All felonies.

I hope she gets caught some day, but given the fleshpots/whorehouses/hellholes she visits that cater to her kind, I bear no illusion that she will face justice and indeed am surprised that Bibles are allowed in those dog kennels/leper colonies.

But she will get what's hers in the final day of judgment and ever after.

What a very Christian post. :worship: I'm so glad that none of my Christian friends are like you.

The original post was too long; didn't bother reading it. Sorry.

Naudio Spanlatine
11-21-2011, 02:49 AM
Im a christian myself and i am a firm believer in God and Jesus Christ!:angel:

tripwires
11-21-2011, 02:53 AM
Im a christian myself and i am a firm believer in God and Jesus Christ!:angel:

good for you! Hopefully you're not one to go around spewing vile hatred like Aloimeh does. :)

Naudio Spanlatine
11-21-2011, 02:57 AM
good for you! Hopefully you're not one to go around spewing vile hatred like Aloimeh does. :)

lol no, i dont judge anyone, why should i when the only person who knows everyone in this world is God, hes our judge not us Man,

i have judged ppl in the past and i have learned my lesson because what happened to them happened to me, so i know who i am and who God is and thats all it matters

Aloimeh
11-21-2011, 03:00 AM
:facepalm: Now find me a quote where he endorses all the hatred and destruction of Deuteronomy.

What don't you understand? When I say the teachings of Jesus are not compatible with the hatred in Deuteronomy, I obviously don't mean "love thy neighbor", but filth like the quotes below and the ones Clydey posted.

"thou shalt utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them"

"Of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shall save alive nothing that breatheth"

It is obviously the work of different people with very different philosophies. Deuteronomy and Leviticus go on to limit the meaning of neighbor, from universal to tribalist. Look how the attitude towards "strangers" evolves in Leviticus.

From: "the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself"

To: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."

"Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land: and they shall be your possession."

"You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Perfectly consistent :stupid:

A religion of universal love was distorted.

You asked for a quote, and I gave it to you. Jesus' two great commandments come straight from Deuteronomy and Leviticus and unfortunately it seems you didn't know that. Now you do.

As for my views on much of the content of Deuteronomy and Leviticus: it was right at the particular place, time, and for that particular people (God's chosen, Israel) but we shouldn't draw conclusions from it as to our behavior. Some of those laws are clearly ceremonial and have no hold on us. Others still hold, obviously. I don't think the Old Testament is "hateful," I just think it illustrates very well that God is a righteous, holy, God who is outraged at sin and will not tolerate it.

And don't lie about God's word. There is no message of "universal love." There is a message of universal forgiveness for those who repent, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and follow the will of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Father. The vast majority of those screaming "God is love" don't want to obey His clear commandments because they love their sin too much and want to continue sinning.

Aloimeh
11-21-2011, 03:02 AM
If he loves the world so much, then why does God allow disasters, famine, disease, slavery, suffering, etc?

To quote Epicurus and Hume: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Those are a consequence of what Adam and Eve did. The whole creation degenerated. We, their descendants, and the animal and plant life must endure the consequences of "natural evil."

The vast majority of evil that scandalizes us, however, is what humans do to each other. And you can't blame God for that, no matter how much you try.

Why God permits evil to exist? Because without it there would be no faith. If He were to destroy evil immediately there would be no basis for faith, it would be all about knowledge and fear.

Aloimeh
11-21-2011, 03:06 AM
What a very Christian post. :worship: I'm so glad that none of my Christian friends are like you.

The original post was too long; didn't bother reading it. Sorry.

good for you! Hopefully you're not one to go around spewing vile hatred like Aloimeh does. :)

How convenient that you didn't notice the part where she talks about burning pages out of Bibles in hotels. Or did you see it and approve?

I'm glad your Christian friends are "nice." I'm also not surprised that you aren't Christian, when they sell you this polite and saccharine story.
You're not very impressed with that, are you?

I don't spew hate. I love Sunset of Age, that's why I tell her what she is, what she's doing, and what she must do to set things right. She hates God, she destroys His word, mocks Him and His followers, and leads a life of sin. She is headed on an express train to hell. She knows now what she must do to avoid it. I've told her and done my part.

abraxas21
11-21-2011, 03:13 AM
aloimeh has been improving his ACC game exponentially. he's going to be very hard to beat

at the risk of sounding like a bandwagoner, i might say we're looking at the future champion here

Naudio Spanlatine
11-21-2011, 03:14 AM
How convenient that you didn't notice the part where she talks about burning pages out of Bibles in hotels. Or did you see it and approve?

I'm glad your Christian friends are "nice." I'm also not surprised that you aren't Christian, when they sell you this polite and saccharine story.
You're not very impressed with that, are you?

I don't spew hate. I love Sunset of Age, that's why I tell her what she is, what she's doing, and what she must do to set things right. She hates God, she destroys His word, mocks Him and His followers, and leads a life of sin. She is headed on an express train to hell. She knows now what she must do to avoid it. I've told her and done my part.

but what you are doing is judging people and you dont even know them, i would admit that i did judge people, but its still wrong for anyone including myself and you to judge others! God said "Judge not less not ye be judge", thats the truth, you dont want to judge others cause then you will come out as a hypocrite more than the person you judge, now im not saying that you are not a christian and that i disagree with every comment you made, but sometimes theres a point where you need to tone it down a bit and dont get too much hype into the person who you argue, deal or debate with

Naudio Spanlatine
11-21-2011, 03:16 AM
Those are a consequence of what Adam and Eve did. The whole creation degenerated. We, their descendants, and the animal and plant life must endure the consequences of "natural evil."

The vast majority of evil that scandalizes us, however, is what humans do to each other. And you can't blame God for that, no matter how much you try.

Why God permits evil to exist? Because without it there would be no faith. If He were to destroy evil immediately there would be no basis for faith, it would be all about knowledge and fear.
this is very true, it says so in Genesis:worship:

orangehat
11-21-2011, 03:18 AM
I'm gonna first address the question at hand and then veer off-tangent slightly.

First of all, whether the bible is misogynistic at all is really not our concern. Regardless of whether God or his followers wrote the bible, (which I will first say I am more inclined to believe the latter), it was written at a certain point of time. Social norms are only valid for the time period they were found in. (e.g. Slavery was normal in Roman times but not in modern period, i.e. misogyny may be acceptable or in fact demanded at that time, vs how it is not acceptable now). Whether or not misogyny was accepted is another matter, but whether the bible is misogynistic at all is really not our concern as it is only applicable to social standards then.

Which leads me to my 2nd point.
Given that we can all conclude that not everything in the bible can be taken as written, can we all just agree to disagree? Bible-believers will always believe, and non-bible-believers will never believe. ALL I ASK is for bible-believers to stop quoting the bible as "fact" (when it is so obviously not sufficient on its own to be a fact) or, this is my more important concern, making laws on the basis of the bible (far more problematic). Similarly, burning the bible is kind of stupid, especially if it's burning hotel bibles, seeing as they're not really your property.

I will say this though, the only thing I am truly unhappy about the bible is that it brings about crazy people like Aloimeh :lol:

Sham Kay
11-21-2011, 03:24 AM
its says so in the bible:

Can't argue with that logic. It's so cute.

Naudio Spanlatine
11-21-2011, 03:28 AM
I'm gonna first address the question at hand and then veer off-tangent slightly.

First of all, whether the bible is misogynistic at all is really not our concern. Regardless of whether God or his followers wrote the bible, (which I will first say I am more inclined to believe the latter), it was written at a certain point of time. Social norms are only valid for the time period they were found in. (e.g. Slavery was normal in Roman times but not in modern period, i.e. misogyny may be acceptable or in fact demanded at that time, vs how it is not acceptable now). Whether or not misogyny was accepted is another matter, but whether the bible is misogynistic at all is really not our concern as it is only applicable to social standards then.

Which leads me to my 2nd point.
Given that we can all conclude that not everything in the bible can be taken as written, can we all just agree to disagree? Bible-believers will always believe, and non-bible-believers will never believe. ALL I ASK is for bible-believers to stop quoting the bible as "fact" (when it is so obviously not sufficient on its own to be a fact) or, this is my more important concern, making laws on the basis of the bible (far more problematic). Similarly, burning the bible is kind of stupid, especially if it's burning hotel bibles, seeing as they're not really your property.

I will say this though, the only thing I am truly unhappy about the bible is that it brings about crazy people like Aloimeh :lol:
i think we should quote bible scriptures to get our point across but people can agree and disagree thats what forums and threads are for right? and plus the Word is translated to different versions, such as; King James Version, International Version, American Standard Bible and etc.

the king james version is really how is actually written in the Word while other translations are for other people to understand what the King James Version is saying, so i understand its ridiculous for believers to quote bible scriptures but were not jus doing it for the heck of it, maybe some others but the reason is because most believers know the Word and know what the meaning of the scripture is telling you, Alomieh is not perfect, but yes he does go overboard which he didnt have to, but i do agree with some of his comments

Naudio Spanlatine
11-21-2011, 03:29 AM
Can't argue with that logic. It's so cute.
and what is it are you applying my dear friend :lol:

Mjau!
11-21-2011, 03:48 AM
You asked for a quote, and I gave it to you. Jesus' two great commandments come straight from Deuteronomy and Leviticus and unfortunately it seems you didn't know that. Now you do.

As for my views on much of the content of Deuteronomy and Leviticus: it was right at the particular place, time, and for that particular people (God's chosen, Israel) but we shouldn't draw conclusions from it as to our behavior. Some of those laws are clearly ceremonial and have no hold on us. Others still hold, obviously. I don't think the Old Testament is "hateful," I just think it illustrates very well that God is a righteous, holy, God who is outraged at sin and will not tolerate it.

And don't lie about God's word. There is no message of "universal love." There is a message of universal forgiveness for those who repent, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and follow the will of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Father. The vast majority of those screaming "God is love" don't want to obey His clear commandments because they love their sin too much and want to continue sinning.

I asked for a quote challenging my assertion that the hatered of Deuteronomy is incompatible with the teachings of Jesus. You did not deliver.

It must be nice to be able brush off such gross inconsistencies with the cop out "it was right at the time". :lol: Could you elaborate on when and why God changed His mind from "love strangers" to "enslave strangers"? :scratch:

No message of universal love? What do you call this then? :shrug:

"You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you"

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another"

"Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse"

"Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble"

and so on...

Sham Kay
11-21-2011, 03:51 AM
and what is it are you applying my dear friend :lol:

Oh you know.. the usual. Written by men.. for men.. male dominance.. female oppression.. male God.. contradictions.. yada yada.

Best selling fictional book of all time that Bible.. the writers deserve their kudos. The tales kept me on the edge of my seat as a kid.

Naudio Spanlatine
11-21-2011, 04:39 AM
If your alleged god lumps the "actions" of gays like me together with those of killers and thieves and sexual criminals, then I am even more glad your god doesn't exist. :wavey:

As for the subject of this thread, any fool with an iota of literacy can easily see where the Bible is misogynistic. The punishments proscribed for sexual "crimes" are generally far harsher for a woman than they are for men, as they also are for men who abandon the traditional male gender role (i.e. take on the "woman's role") by lying with other men. And despite the Bible's claim that women's status as childbearers is a holy/divine role, the rules for pregnant or menstruating women are all based around the idea that women are unclean. A woman who has just discharged her "holy" duty to "be fruitful and multiply" by giving birth is considered unclean and is considered unworthy to enter the tabernacle without offering a blood sacrifice after she waits the proscribed period: if she gives birth to a boy she is unclean for a week and must wait 33 days to be purified, whereas if she gives birth to a girl she is unclean for two weeks and must wait 66 days. :spit: This is misogyny plain and simple, predicated on the notion that women are unclean and of less worth. This notion of women being ritually unclean is not unique to Christianity but it's a major part of its history, and is the root of all the rules which are still in place in some Christian denominations that bar women from participating in the religion as fully as men do, whether it be their prohibition from distributing communion, teaching in church, touching sacred objects, or being ordained.

People can cry all they want about critics "cherry-picking" bad verses from the Bible to delegitimize it. Those people never stop to wonder why there is a veritable smorgasbord of verses for us "critics" to choose from, and how they themselves are cherry-picking the verses out of the Bible that makes them feel comfortable and happy with the religion they've chosen. They need to examine how they are conveniently absolving themselves of any responsibility for the hate and discrimination perpetrated on millions with the justification of Bible passages they claim to disavow even as they try to defend the book as a legitimate moral authority and Guide to Living. :wavey:

if you wouldve read my other quote:
im sorry my spelling was wrong its suppose to say: God doesnt hate the gays, murderers, thieves, rapists, pedifiles and others, he hates the act they commit, too many people always think that God hates ppl but thats not true, God loves everyone and yes we are all sinners thats how it is, this world would end in the most bloodist, horrible and scary way you could imagine, jus look at book of revelations, it tells you how the world is gonna end
then you wouldve understand that i was sry that i mispelled the word in the bold area,

anyways, how is God discriminating people, if he did that he wouldve wiped us all out, so your saying that the Word is basically false and our births were never meant to be, thats very absurd, if you havent heard of Adam and Eve, Jesus and the Cross, David and Goliath, then you really should read about them, God made Mary "The Virgin" gave birth to Jesus, she was 90, he wanted Jesus to heal the sick and the wound he wanted Jesus to send the message to the people about what has God planned for the Jews, but also God wanted Jesus to die for our sins so that all of us sinners will be forgiven, if Jesus didnt die on the cross, we would be in the wrath already and their wont be none of us, so we all shall be thankful that God gave us all a second chance to live life, he expects us to sin, all of us, its the way of life, no one is perfect God doesnt expect us to be perfect, all God wants us to do is to obey his Word and have wisdom thats all he wants us to do, the problem is people take for granted of what life really is, we need to realize that God does give us second chances because he loves us

another reason why i mentioned gays, murderer, child molesters, rapists, thieves, and etc. is because most people who are traditionists would label gays as evildoers like them, i never would label them like that, im jus telling you that God doesnt hate them, he hates what they do in their lifestyle

Naudio Spanlatine
11-21-2011, 04:40 AM
Oh you know.. the usual. Written by men.. for men.. male dominance.. female oppression.. male God.. contradictions.. yada yada.

Best selling fictional book of all time that Bible.. the writers deserve their kudos. The tales kept me on the edge of my seat as a kid.

:hug: :lol:

Orka_n
11-21-2011, 04:51 AM
Oh wow. This thread turned to shit faster than it would take heya to troll a Roddick thread.

First of all, I am what they in the states would call a born-again christian. Secondly, it's worth repeating that Aloimeh is a TERRIBLE spokesperson for Christianity. He seems to love judging others despite the fact that the Bible strictly says we don't have a right to do that since we all fail sometimes.

Yes, the so-called 'Holy' Bible contains TONS of mysogyny, hatred towards gays, well, in fact, hatred to whatever doesn't fit in with the opinions of 'true believers'.

If that book is 'Holy', well then, I'm Queen Elizabeth I. :wavey:

Sorry, but I despise it.
Whenever I come across a Bible in a hotel room drawer wherever, whenever (and as you may know by now, I am a traveller) - the first thing I do, is get rid of the awful pages of Deuteronium 22 and the like, burn them up in smoke.

:wavey:Whoa. Karin, if you have any trust at all in me as a friend, believe this: Christianity is not as crazy as it sounds. Aloimeh is just the worst representation of this religion. Believe me this once, I know first hand what I'm talking about. Within the Bible there are places which I don't really understand, Deu 22 is one of them, but as a whole it is an incredible book. I have read it through.

However I won't deny there are some intolerant, hateful people in this world who call themselves christians who think the Bible instructs them to hate certain groups. This is clearly not the message of the Bible though, which anyone can see if they study it closer.

Naudio Spanlatine
11-21-2011, 05:11 AM
:) I know you mistyped. Doesn't change the fact that you lumped together gays with actual criminals and tried to argue that your god only hates all of our actions. Because your god and some of its followers believe that me loving another consenting adult is a sin that needs to be forgiven the same way as someone shooting up a liquor store. Any god who can come up with that :bs: is either :stupid: or fascist.

Your larger paragraph is basically a bunch of fallaciously argued gobbledygook so I'm not going to even touch that with a ten-foot-pole. :tape: But as to your "lifestyle" comments, you are way off base with that one. My penchant for Thai food and hiking is part of my lifestyle; the person I fall in love with isn't a "lifestyle." :spit:

i didnt lump them together i was trying to answer a question that someone said about god hating gays, criminals etc, i didnt say that gays were criminals i didnt even try to compare them, the reason why i said about their "lifestyle" is because everybody has their own lifestyle DONT WE ALL,my meaning of their "lifestyle" basically says that its what you want to do instead of what somebody tells you to do, ok so "lifestyle" was the wrong term im sry for using that word:rolleyes:, God doesnt believe in relationships between two males and two females, he believes in a male and female relationship thats how he is, and quit saying "your God" its absolutely nonsense, jus say that it is what you believe in, thats all you need to say!

but hey if you dont believe in God, hey thats your choice, im not gonna crucify you for not believing in Him, im jus stating my opinion in what i believe, im not trying to judge anyone, im jus a christian whose trying to live her life and be appreciated in life:angel:

tripwires
11-21-2011, 05:32 AM
How convenient that you didn't notice the part where she talks about burning pages out of Bibles in hotels. Or did you see it and approve?

The only possible explanation for your post is that you're not actually being serious and that you're merely parodying what a hardcore Christian would say. Otherwise, I'd find it - and you, by extension - slightly worrying.

I saw Sunset's post about burning pages from the Bible. My post did not address whether I approved or disapproved with her actions. My post addressed only the vile nature of your response to her, which at least matched, if not exceeded, the offensive nature of her actions. On second thought, I would say that you came out tops in the contest of whose post was more disgusting - your post smacked of the kind of irrational and hateful spite that I hope to never come in contact with in my daily, offline life. Thankfully most of the Christians that I've encountered in my life are normal people.



I'm glad your Christian friends are "nice." I'm also not surprised that you aren't Christian, when they sell you this polite and saccharine story.
You're not very impressed with that, are you?


Sorry, didn't understand what you meant by "polite and saccharine" story. I can say, however, that almost all my friends are Christians and they've presented a way better version of Christianity than you have on this forum, and not just in this thread.

And of course, trust you to imply that my friends' version of Christianity is flawed.


I don't spew hate. I love Sunset of Age, that's why I tell her what she is, what she's doing, and what she must do to set things right. She hates God, she destroys His word, mocks Him and His followers, and leads a life of sin. She is headed on an express train to hell. She knows now what she must do to avoid it. I've told her and done my part.

If that's your version of love, then I fear for your enemies.

tripwires
11-21-2011, 05:37 AM
Oh wow. This thread turned to shit faster than it would take heya to troll a Roddick thread.

First of all, I am what they in the states would call a born-again christian. Secondly, it's worth repeating that Aloimeh is a TERRIBLE spokesperson for Christianity. He seems to love judging others despite the fact that the Bible strictly says we don't have a right to do that since we all fail sometimes.

Whoa. Karin, if you have any trust at all in me as a friend, believe this: Christianity is not as crazy as it sounds. Aloimeh is just the worst representation of this religion. Believe me this once, I know first hand what I'm talking about. Within the Bible there are places which I don't really understand, Deu 22 is one of them, but as a whole it is an incredible book. I have read it through.

However I won't deny there are some intolerant, hateful people in this world who call themselves christians who think the Bible instructs them to hate certain groups. This is clearly not the message of the Bible though, which anyone can see if they study it closer.

I agree completely with the bolded parts. I've always thought it somewhat ironic that, as an atheist, some of my closest friends are practising Christians. In fact, my boyfriend is a Christian. I went to a Catholic school. At least 99% of the Christians that I've encountered are nothing like Aloimeh. There weren't many like him in my school either.

Naudio Spanlatine
11-21-2011, 05:42 AM
:spit: By saying "your god" I am stating what I believe in. The god you speak of is one you believe in and the one you hold as a moral authority. It's not my god and it would be difficult for me to find any authority in something I don't believe in. Therefore, "your god." :p

And sorry, but you don't get to have it both ways. You don't get to tell me or anyone else that the god you hold as the moral authority "doesn't believe" in the relationship(s) that are an essential part of who I am and then get to skip away and type ":angel:" and say you're not judging anyone. Telling me that your moral authority doesn't believe in or approve of what I am as a person isn't judging? :spit: Good one, try that on someone who isn't paying attention.

:lol:
wow, yet you still think I'm judging people? Im jus stating what God does and doesn't like, im not expecting you to follow Him I was jus telling you what God says, im a bisexual I like both men and women, and im a christian, but I know what the Word says, if I was judging gays or anybody else I would've spread blasphemy on the gays n lesbians and bicurious and so on, but no I dont do that because I'm a human being and I know who I am, I wouldnt judge anybody I dont care who you are, of course everyone would judge ppl once or more in our lifetime, so I appreciate who you are jus like I appreciate who I am, and I will say this im not a perfect christian, no other christian is tbh, you can hate me or love me, but I'm jus like I said stating what God says not what I said, what I said I stated in my own opinions of what God was saying

Orka_n
11-21-2011, 07:05 AM
I agree completely with the bolded parts. I've always thought it somewhat ironic that, as an atheist, some of my closest friends are practising Christians. In fact, my boyfriend is a Christian. I went to a Catholic school. At least 99% of the Christians that I've encountered are nothing like Aloimeh. There weren't many like him in my school either.I have never encountered a christian like Aloimeh IRL, and I've met quite a few christians.

Anyway, what I find frustrating, even tragic, is that these rough discussions never even have any progress. The thing with christianity is that, while you can like or dislike it as a religion, you cannot truly understand it until you have experienced it yourself. This is the reason for all misunderstandings and all the prejudice about christians being "brain washed".

Now, I'm not saying brain wash is not possible. I have talked to Jehovah's Witnesses who have looked at me with such blanc and empty eyes it was scary. It was like their mind was buried somewhere, I couldn't "see" the person I was talking to even if I had eye contact.
However the Bible actually encourages the reader to check if the things it says actually works. (With an open mind, that is. If someone is not really searching for God then probably nothing will happen. God will not violate the free will.)

Lopez
11-21-2011, 07:55 AM
I hope this rabid creature also realizes that she's guilty of arson and destruction of property, which could additionally be construed as reckless endangerment, theft, and vandalism. All felonies.

I hope she gets caught some day, but given the fleshpots/whorehouses/hellholes she visits that cater to her kind, I bear no illusion that she will face justice and indeed am surprised that Bibles are allowed in those dog kennels/leper colonies.

But she will get what's hers in the final day of judgment and ever after.

Disgusting comment. Equal to what Bigjohn said to you.

As for my views on much of the content of Deuteronomy and Leviticus: it was right at the particular place, time, and for that particular people (God's chosen, Israel) but we shouldn't draw conclusions from it as to our behavior. Some of those laws are clearly ceremonial and have no hold on us. Others still hold, obviously. I don't think the Old Testament is "hateful," I just think it illustrates very well that God is a righteous, holy, God who is outraged at sin and will not tolerate it.

But doesn't the fact that you can make the distinction from the commandments that should be followed to the ones that shouldn't prove that your morality comes from somewhere else (i.e. the morality of your society). If the book were a source of all morality, then you wouldn't be able to make the distinction.

Ask a normal Christian what they think about homosexuality and /or the act of homosexual sex, nowadays they will probably widely accept it compared to say 50 years ago. The book hasn't changed, but the moral zeitgeist has. (I know you will disagree)

I have never encountered a christian like Aloimeh IRL, and I've met quite a few christians.

Anyway, what I find frustrating, even tragic, is that these rough discussions never even have any progress. The thing with christianity is that, while you can like or dislike it as a religion, you cannot truly understand it until you have experienced it yourself. This is the reason for all misunderstandings and all the prejudice about christians being "brain washed".

Now, I'm not saying brain wash is not possible. I have talked to Jehovah's Witnesses who have looked at me with such blanc and empty eyes it was scary. It was like their mind was buried somewhere, I couldn't "see" the person I was talking to even if I had eye contact.
However the Bible actually encourages the reader to check if the things it says actually works. (With an open mind, that is. If someone is not really searching for God then probably nothing will happen. God will not violate the free will.)

Yeah I have not met one like Aloimeh either.

Believe it or not, I was actually once religious, around the time of my confirmation and a few years after that. But slowly doubt crept in and my views have changed. While I might be open to a vague notion of a deity (and I don't believe in that either), it certainly has nothing to do with any that the organized religions promote. I am still a member of the church for some personal reasons, though I plan to separate from it later on in my life.

But I think saying that "nothing will happen without an open mind" is a bit disrespectful towards some people (or perhaps I'm misinterpreting). I'm willing to bet there are hundreds that have really struggled and tried to find their faith but have "failed" and are now atheists. I've heard many such things in the US for example, where faith is such a big deal. Losing their faith there has been a tremendous process and involved a LOT of Bible studies etc. Are you saying that they have not approached the subject with an open mind?

Har-Tru
11-21-2011, 08:10 AM
I'm not sure if there is a God, but I definitely know there isn't a Devil.

Because with a God like that, who the hell needs the Devil???

tripwires
11-21-2011, 08:17 AM
I have never encountered a christian like Aloimeh IRL, and I've met quite a few christians.

Anyway, what I find frustrating, even tragic, is that these rough discussions never even have any progress. The thing with christianity is that, while you can like or dislike it as a religion, you cannot truly understand it until you have experienced it yourself. This is the reason for all misunderstandings and all the prejudice about christians being "brain washed".

Now, I'm not saying brain wash is not possible. I have talked to Jehovah's Witnesses who have looked at me with such blanc and empty eyes it was scary. It was like their mind was buried somewhere, I couldn't "see" the person I was talking to even if I had eye contact.
However the Bible actually encourages the reader to check if the things it says actually works. (With an open mind, that is. If someone is not really searching for God then probably nothing will happen. God will not violate the free will.)

I think this applies to all religions. Christianity - and in recent times, Islam - tends to get a bad rep because of people like Aloimeh and evangelists who insist on propagating their religion even when people aren't interested, and sometimes resorting to rather despicable ways to do so (example: denigrating another religion. This always annoys me. And telling people that they will go to hell if they don't convert. How is this supposed to make me want to be a Christian?).

I don't think all Christians are brainwashed. I do, however, think that there will always be certain people that subscribe to a particular faith, whatever it is, that are brainwashed by their religion. Look at those Islamic fundamentalists. Look at the morons who called for Salman Rushdie's death for publishing a novel. Those people are brainwashed. Aloimeh appears brainwashed to me. It's just pointless discussing such issues with people who are so narrow-minded that they can't even see the extent to which their minds have been closed by their beliefs.

I did at one point keep an open mind regarding religion, and being in a Catholic school meant that I was exposed to the Christian faith on a daily basis. After a while, though, I decided that none of it made sense to me and therefore chose atheism.

habibko
11-21-2011, 10:21 AM
Seingeist: I realize more and more that people do not reject the Bible because of misogyny, the problem of evil, lack of scientific evidence, or anything like that. They reject God because they love sin and they hate a God who judges sin, and one who judges it most severely. They will get their just recompense. God has been more than merciful allowing vile creatures who burn his scripture to continue in this state for decade after decade. It will come to an end sooner and later and then these reprobates will meet their maker and feed the eternal fires of hell.

why wait so long, the LORD has given good people like you permission to carry his punishment on Earth before the day of judgement, I say you should go and take care of those fuckers who defile the word of the LORD by your own hands, OT-style

this is what religion does to you ladies and gentlemen, the more seriously you take it, the more vile, despicable and intolerant you become, first he pretends he's a man of science, and now this good Christian and man of God admits he fancy the idea of people burning eternally in hellfire and looks forward to it

Orka_n
11-21-2011, 10:25 AM
Believe it or not, I was actually once religious, around the time of my confirmation and a few years after that. But slowly doubt crept in and my views have changed. While I might be open to a vague notion of a deity (and I don't believe in that either), it certainly has nothing to do with any that the organized religions promote. I am still a member of the church for some personal reasons, though I plan to separate from it later on in my life.

But I think saying that "nothing will happen without an open mind" is a bit disrespectful towards some people (or perhaps I'm misinterpreting). I'm willing to bet there are hundreds that have really struggled and tried to find their faith but have "failed" and are now atheists. I've heard many such things in the US for example, where faith is such a big deal. Losing their faith there has been a tremendous process and involved a LOT of Bible studies etc. Are you saying that they have not approached the subject with an open mind?That is a very good question. I will try to answer it tomorrow if you don't mind - been up for 30 hours straight as of now. ;)

Gagsquet
11-21-2011, 10:34 AM
According to Pascal's wager, we should believe in God. It's statistically more advantageous.

Clydey
11-21-2011, 11:20 AM
According to Pascal's wager, we should believe in God. It's statistically more advantageous.

It's not really a choice, though. If God is truly omniscient, he will see right through the act.

Time Violation
11-21-2011, 11:48 AM
I hope this rabid creature also realizes that she's guilty of arson and destruction of property, which could additionally be construed as reckless endangerment, theft, and vandalism. All felonies.

I hope she gets caught some day, but given the fleshpots/whorehouses/hellholes she visits that cater to her kind, I bear no illusion that she will face justice and indeed am surprised that Bibles are allowed in those dog kennels/leper colonies.

But she will get what's hers in the final day of judgment and ever after.

Hm... the really rabid thing here is your post I'm afraid. Since you claim you are Serb/part Serb, maybe you'll recollect what the former Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church said, "Let's be human even though we are Serbs". ;)

buddyholly
11-21-2011, 12:40 PM
To get involved in this thread for me would be akin to getting involved in a thread about the sun orbiting the earth. With one side arguing in favour, because there are ancient scriptures that do indeed prove that the sun orbits the earth.

Aloimeh
11-21-2011, 12:45 PM
I asked for a quote challenging my assertion that the hatered of Deuteronomy is incompatible with the teachings of Jesus. You did not deliver.

It must be nice to be able brush off such gross inconsistencies with the cop out "it was right at the time". :lol: Could you elaborate on when and why God changed His mind from "love strangers" to "enslave strangers"? :scratch:

No message of universal love? What do you call this then? :shrug:

"You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you"

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another"

"Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse"

"Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble"

and so on...

1.) It's not a gross inconsistency. In Deuteronomy God is addressing Israel in ~1500 B.C. In the Gospels, God is addressing Israel and wider the wider Gentile world in the 1st century. For you to pretend that things had not changed in 1500 years is disingenuous.

In ~1500 B.C. Canaan was inhabited by a vicious, pagan, idolatrous, fornicating, child sacrificing group worthy of God's judgment. They got. it. Additionally, Israel was a nascent nation with a new religion and allowing that faith to become adulterated with paganism was very dangerous. That's why the commands regarding dealing with the Canaanites were so comprehensive.

I don't know what passages you find offensive - there are some that I find hard to bear - but I accept them. It's called believing in God and His word. You don't get to pick and choose what you like believing and what you dislike believing. That's not what faith's all about.

2.) Regarding universal love, I'd say that's not entirely off for how we humans are to behave amongst each other. The reason I took you up on it is because so often people love to scream "God loves everyone" even while persisting in gross sin. God gave us all Christ and has given us the opportunity to believe in Him, which is an act of great love. God has not accepted us in our sinful unbelieving state and anyone who preaches that God's loving everyone means everyone goes to heaven is a filthy liar. Clearly God doesn't love those in hell.

Aloimeh
11-21-2011, 12:52 PM
If your alleged god lumps the "actions" of gays like me together with those of killers and thieves and sexual criminals, then I am even more glad your god doesn't exist. :wavey:

As for the subject of this thread, any fool with an iota of literacy can easily see where the Bible is misogynistic. The punishments proscribed for sexual "crimes" are generally far harsher for a woman than they are for men, as they also are for men who abandon the traditional male gender role (i.e. take on the "woman's role") by lying with other men. And despite the Bible's claim that women's status as childbearers is a holy/divine role, the rules for pregnant or menstruating women are all based around the idea that women are unclean. A woman who has just discharged her "holy" duty to "be fruitful and multiply" by giving birth is considered unclean and is considered unworthy to enter the tabernacle without offering a blood sacrifice after she waits the proscribed period: if she gives birth to a boy she is unclean for a week and must wait 33 days to be purified, whereas if she gives birth to a girl she is unclean for two weeks and must wait 66 days. :spit: This is misogyny plain and simple, predicated on the notion that women are unclean and of less worth. This notion of women being ritually unclean is not unique to Christianity but it's a major part of its history, and is the root of all the rules which are still in place in some Christian denominations that bar women from participating in the religion as fully as men do, whether it be their prohibition from distributing communion, teaching in church, touching sacred objects, or being ordained.

People can cry all they want about critics "cherry-picking" bad verses from the Bible to delegitimize it. Those people never stop to wonder why there is a veritable smorgasbord of verses for us "critics" to choose from, and how they themselves are cherry-picking the verses out of the Bible that makes them feel comfortable and happy with the religion they've chosen. They need to examine how they are conveniently absolving themselves of any responsibility for the hate and discrimination perpetrated on millions with the justification of Bible passages they claim to disavow even as they try to defend the book as a legitimate moral authority and Guide to Living. :wavey:

Unfortunately for you He does exist, whether you finds that threatening or not.

The Bible is not particularly misogynistic, although it would be true to say that it is patriarchal.

For instance, the Old Testament laws oftentimes go way beyond those of other societies in putting women on a more equal footing. The commandment tells us to honor both our father and mother (not just the father). It also says that a child who curses or strikes his mother - just like his father - is worthy of punishment (death). In adultery, both the man and woman get stoned. When it's clear that it was **** only the rapist gets stoned.

Christianity, on the other hand, gives women practically equal rights. Read the Gospels. Women are discriminated against in terms of church service and are to be subject to their husbands in the home, but anyone reading the Gospel will see just how prominent of a role women had in Jesus' ministry - Mary, Elizabeth, Anna, Mary & Martha, Mary Magdalene, etc.

Aloimeh
11-21-2011, 12:57 PM
:) I know you mistyped. Doesn't change the fact that you lumped together gays with actual criminals and tried to argue that your god only hates all of our actions. Because your god and some of its followers believe that me loving another consenting adult is a sin that needs to be forgiven the same way as someone shooting up a liquor store. Any god who can come up with that :bs: is either :stupid: or fascist.

Your larger paragraph is basically a bunch of fallaciously argued gobbledygook so I'm not going to even touch that with a ten-foot-pole. :tape: But as to your "lifestyle" comments, you are way off base with that one. My penchant for Thai food and hiking is part of my lifestyle; the person I fall in love with isn't a "lifestyle." :spit:

Gays are criminals in Iran. So what? You're mixing up morals with laws. In some societies it is illegal to be gay/engage in gay sex. I am sure you disapprove of such laws. In other societies it's perfectly OK to be gay. I disagree with those laws myself. So we can only speak of morals here.

The Bible clearly censures homosexuality, male homosexuality specifically in the Old Testament, and both male and female homosexuality in the New Testament.

Before going on a rampage against God because he puts a damper on your desires and behavior, maybe it's time you consider whether or not you have a firm moral foundation for believing your feelings/behavior to be right.

What, exactly, tells you that it's OK to be gay other than the fact that you are so and it feels good (to you)?

Aloimeh
11-21-2011, 01:04 PM
The only possible explanation for your post is that you're not actually being serious and that you're merely parodying what a hardcore Christian would say. Otherwise, I'd find it - and you, by extension - slightly worrying.

I saw Sunset's post about burning pages from the Bible. My post did not address whether I approved or disapproved with her actions. My post addressed only the vile nature of your response to her, which at least matched, if not exceeded, the offensive nature of her actions. On second thought, I would say that you came out tops in the contest of whose post was more disgusting - your post smacked of the kind of irrational and hateful spite that I hope to never come in contact with in my daily, offline life. Thankfully most of the Christians that I've encountered in my life are normal people.

Really, it doesn't surprise me that you didn't post about her behavior, because you seem to think it not particularly bad.

Let's see: hate crime (hatred of Judaism and Christianity), destruction of the property of others, vandalism, arson in a hotel. Anything I left out? The woman is guilty of multiple felonies in every hotel in which Bibles are kept in the bedrooms. She's admitted as much herself.

Your response: let's talk about Aloimeh's outraged words on an internet forum instead of dealing with her arson.

Lest we forget: "Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings." (Heine)

Sorry, didn't understand what you meant by "polite and saccharine" story. I can say, however, that almost all my friends are Christians and they've presented a way better version of Christianity than you have on this forum, and not just in this thread.

And of course, trust you to imply that my friends' version of Christianity is flawed.

If that's your version of love, then I fear for your enemies.

I mean that the Jesus gentle, sweet, and mild image is not effective for all or even most people. It's also a half-truth. There's a whole other side of God - the holy, perfect judge - that needs to be conveyed to unbelievers. If your friends are anything like what you say they are, I suppose they are the sort that say "I totally understand where you're coming from. I personally believe in Jesus as my savior, but I can understand your different belief system, and that's OK."

It's NOT OK. It's not just false, it's not Christianity at all.

I agree completely with the bolded parts. I've always thought it somewhat ironic that, as an atheist, some of my closest friends are practising Christians. In fact, my boyfriend is a Christian. I went to a Catholic school. At least 99% of the Christians that I've encountered are nothing like Aloimeh. There weren't many like him in my school either.

Catholicism is as different from Christianity as from Islam.

Aloimeh
11-21-2011, 01:05 PM
Oh wow. This thread turned to shit faster than it would take heya to troll a Roddick thread.

First of all, I am what they in the states would call a born-again christian. Secondly, it's worth repeating that Aloimeh is a TERRIBLE spokesperson for Christianity. He seems to love judging others despite the fact that the Bible strictly says we don't have a right to do that since we all fail sometimes.

Whoa. Karin, if you have any trust at all in me as a friend, believe this: Christianity is not as crazy as it sounds. Aloimeh is just the worst representation of this religion. Believe me this once, I know first hand what I'm talking about. Within the Bible there are places which I don't really understand, Deu 22 is one of them, but as a whole it is an incredible book. I have read it through.

However I won't deny there are some intolerant, hateful people in this world who call themselves christians who think the Bible instructs them to hate certain groups. This is clearly not the message of the Bible though, which anyone can see if they study it closer.

How can you possibly call yourself Christian? You make no comment about a woman torching portions of the Holy Scriptures even while attacking me and distancing yourself from true Christianity because of my verbal response to that witch's disgusting acts of arson?

abraxas21
11-21-2011, 01:08 PM
How can you possibly call yourself Christian? You make no comment about a woman torching portions of the Holy Scriptures even while attacking me and distancing yourself from true Christianity because of my verbal response to that witch's disgusting acts of arson?

dude, stop. seriously... just stop

you know, i always kind of despised some of those intolerant atheists in the USA for being such idiots towards Christians. however, if there are several like you in the USA, i can fully understand them

Aloimeh
11-21-2011, 01:10 PM
I think this applies to all religions. Christianity - and in recent times, Islam - tends to get a bad rep because of people like Aloimeh and evangelists who insist on propagating their religion even when people aren't interested, and sometimes resorting to rather despicable ways to do so (example: denigrating another religion. This always annoys me. And telling people that they will go to hell if they don't convert. How is this supposed to make me want to be a Christian?).

I don't think all Christians are brainwashed. I do, however, think that there will always be certain people that subscribe to a particular faith, whatever it is, that are brainwashed by their religion. Look at those Islamic fundamentalists. Look at the morons who called for Salman Rushdie's death for publishing a novel. Those people are brainwashed. Aloimeh appears brainwashed to me. It's just pointless discussing such issues with people who are so narrow-minded that they can't even see the extent to which their minds have been closed by their beliefs.

I did at one point keep an open mind regarding religion, and being in a Catholic school meant that I was exposed to the Christian faith on a daily basis. After a while, though, I decided that none of it made sense to me and therefore chose atheism.

Well your friends lovey-dovey BS doesn't seem to have convinced you to believe. I can see that the other approach doesn't either.

Again, Catholicism is as far from Christianity as Islam or Hinduism. Stop telling us that you know what Christianity is all about.

And I like to see how you take special offense at someone who knows the scriptures and can quote them to you. I'm apparently brainwashed according to you. Memo: you can know someone is brainwashed only by knowing their life history and/or witnessing their way of arguing. The fact that their beliefs are rigid and even socially-unacceptable doesn't mean they are brainwashed. I don't just spit out answers with no backing, I always try to back everything up with Bible quotes. That's hardly brainwashing, it's called being a well-informed Christian.

Aloimeh
11-21-2011, 01:11 PM
dude, stop. seriously... just stop

you know, i always kind of despised some of those intolerant atheists in the USA for being such idiots towards Christians. however, if there are several like you in the USA, i can fully understand them

So I need to stop saying this even while she rips Deuteronomy 22 out of every Bible she can find (especially ones that don't belong to her) and sets fire to the pages? :rolleyes:

Aloimeh
11-21-2011, 01:14 PM
why wait so long, the LORD has given good people like you permission to carry his punishment on Earth before the day of judgement, I say you should go and take care of those fuckers who defile the word of the LORD by your own hands, OT-style

this is what religion does to you ladies and gentlemen, the more seriously you take it, the more vile, despicable and intolerant you become, first he pretends he's a man of science, and now this good Christian and man of God admits he fancy the idea of people burning eternally in hellfire and looks forward to it

Well, as far as I can tell it's Saudi Arabia that's run more Old Testament "style" than anything I do. No, scratch that, it's run according to the Koran, which means it's inspired not by God but the enemy.

It's not my job to exact judgment on anybody. I am a sinner like everyone else and in need of God's salvation and forgiveness. It's God who will punish. But I think that needed to be stated clearly and openly because many here hate the thought of God judging their behavior after they die. And you're one of them.

Aloimeh
11-21-2011, 01:17 PM
Hm... the really rabid thing here is your post I'm afraid. Since you claim you are Serb/part Serb, maybe you'll recollect what the former Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church said, "Let's be human even though we are Serbs". ;)

I am not a member of the SPC, it's pretty much a false church. So I don't care what Gojko Stojcevic had to say. I think what he said at the time was valid, but it's not addressed to me anyway, so it's neither here nor there.

Time Violation
11-21-2011, 01:19 PM
How can you possibly call yourself Christian?

Who are you to ask that? It's hilarious that you criticism Catholicism, yet you behave like some kind of holy inquisition around here. Get a grip really.

I am not a member of the SPC, it's pretty much a false church. So I don't care what Gojko Stojcevic had to say. I think what he said at the time was valid, but it's not addressed to me anyway, so it's neither here nor there.

Btw, who do you belong? Seems like some kind of rabid quasi-Christian cult to me :p

Aloimeh
11-21-2011, 01:20 PM
Who are you to ask that? It's hilarious that you criticism Catholicism, yet you behave like some kind of holy inquisition around here. Get a grip really.



Btw, who do you belong? Seems like some kind of rabid quasi-Christian cult to me :p

Yes, saying "How can you call yourself a Christian?" equals hiding rapist pedophilia within the church, operating concentration camps in Croatia, operating the rack and other torture devices in Spain, burning Bible translators at the stake... :mad:

Don't you have any sense of measure or decency?

To whom do I belong? God.

Lopez
11-21-2011, 01:27 PM
So I need to stop saying this even while she rips Deuteronomy 22 out of every Bible she can find (especially ones that don't belong to her) and sets fire to the pages? :rolleyes:

It's just a book FFS :rolleyes:

Listening to Aloimeh talk about how Catholicism is far from Christianity made me remember this pic:

http://apina.biz/49796.jpg

tripwires
11-21-2011, 01:39 PM
Aloimeh. :haha: This is comedy gold.


Really, it doesn't surprise me that you didn't post about her behavior, because you seem to think it not particularly bad.

Let's see: hate crime (hatred of Judaism and Christianity), destruction of the property of others, vandalism, arson in a hotel. Anything I left out? The woman is guilty of multiple felonies in every hotel in which Bibles are kept in the bedrooms. She's admitted as much herself.

Your response: let's talk about Aloimeh's outraged words on an internet forum instead of dealing with her arson.

Lest we forget: "Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings." (Heine)



Outraged words? I think you understated the nature of the words that you chose to use in that post of yours.

I don't agree with what Sunset claims to do, but I definitely don't think it's as bad as what you wrote, precisely because of the standards to which you hold yourself and the fact that you call yourself a Christian. This may be news to you, but to a non-believer like me who knows nothing about Christianity apart from the "gentle, sweet and mild image" that my friends present to me, a person who claims to be Christian shouldn't be sprouting the kind of vile hatred - yes, it is hatred - that you directed at Sunset. What's this thing about turning the other cheek? I know nothing about Christianity, so please educate me.


I mean that the Jesus gentle, sweet, and mild image is not effective for all or even most people. It's also a half-truth. There's a whole other side of God - the holy, perfect judge - that needs to be conveyed to unbelievers. If your friends are anything like what you say they are, I suppose they are the sort that say "I totally understand where you're coming from. I personally believe in Jesus as my savior, but I can understand your different belief system, and that's OK."

It's NOT OK. It's not just false, it's not Christianity at all.



It's not Christianity according to you. My boyfriend doesn't think my best friend's version of Christianity is Christianity. So what? They both believe in the same God, as do you. And you know what? I way prefer their saccharine version of Christianity than what you've portrayed it to be in this thread and on this forum.



Catholicism is as different from Christianity as from Islam.

Sure. But Catholicism is a form of Christianity, is it not?



Well your friends lovey-dovey BS doesn't seem to have convinced you to believe. I can see that the other approach doesn't either.

Again, Catholicism is as far from Christianity as Islam or Hinduism. Stop telling us that you know what Christianity is all about.



I don't know anything about Christianity except for some random hymns and information that I picked up from my friends. Catholics and Christians, however, essentially (note this word) believe in the same God, do they not?

Don't worry, it's not just Christianity that I'm not convinced of. I grew up in an extended family that practises a form of Taoism. I don't believe that either.



And I like to see how you take special offense at someone who knows the scriptures and can quote them to you. I'm apparently brainwashed according to you. Memo: you can know someone is brainwashed only by knowing their life history and/or witnessing their way of arguing. The fact that their beliefs are rigid and even socially-unacceptable doesn't mean they are brainwashed. I don't just spit out answers with no backing, I always try to back everything up with Bible quotes. That's hardly brainwashing, it's called being a well-informed Christian.

I can definitely accept that you're an intelligent person. This is why it befuddles me, to say the least, that you're capable of saying the things that you do. See, I don't have a problem with your faith; why should I? It's none of my business and what you choose to believe doesn't affect me one bit. It does agitate me, however, when I see people like you directing hatred and judgment towards those that don't share your belief system. This is my fundamental problem with religious people, no matter of what faith. It breeds intolerance, which leads me to this...


Well, as far as I can tell it's Saudi Arabia that's run more Old Testament "style" than anything I do. No, scratch that, it's run according to the Koran, which means it's inspired not by God but the enemy.

Pretty much speaks for itself, does it not?

Sham Kay
11-21-2011, 01:46 PM
Brainwashed.. you know you've been brainwashed when you blindly believe what you're taught without ever stopping to wonder whether something else might be right.. maybe what you've been told is incorrect. Hey, much of what the bible or other religious scriptures say might be true for all I know, but likely untrue due to it just being words without evidence, for all we know the life you lead is pot luck and at the end regardless of how you were as a person everyone has the same fate.. the point is, being so sure about things that can't be proven apart from by pages written by people - strangers even.. is a bit demented.. you can try arguing about it all day, but there's nothing to argue about.. whether it ends up being true or not, being so sure is idiotic.

Not as if you'd blindly trust some random hobo who told you rats were all powerful.. yet you see people claiming they know what God wants of us, they know he/she/it exists, they know the Bible/Quran/Harry Potter speaks the truth and must be adhered to otherwise we're all going to some place that sounds eerily similar to what is said in fairy tales.

One thing about the bible and religion though.. this blind belief may have caused death and suffering, but we would most likely not be as safe as we even are today in the world without religion. Even though I'm pretty sure it's all bullshit myself, I would never want to see a world without religion as a peaceholder. Law and science can only hold up society for so long until things come crashing down around us.. without people having some hope in there being a blessing for the righteous believers after death, rather than the most likely eventuality of just rotting in the ground regardless of what tripe you are told is the truth, crime would be high.. there would be nothing to contain the religious nutters without religion.. they would just be nutters.

Many folk have and will prevent themselves from descending into crime and corruption due to the one thing we most adhere to: fear. In fact the brainwashing begins with fear, the act of believing in God and what he/she apparently told us is a great way to control us and our natural evils.. I suppose they figured that out as we developed and became more aware of our violent tendencies.

Time Violation
11-21-2011, 01:46 PM
Yes, saying "How can you call yourself a Christian?" equals hiding rapist pedophilia within the church, operating concentration camps in Croatia, operating the rack and other torture devices in Spain, burning Bible translators at the stake... :mad:

Don't you have any sense of measure or decency?

Your constant pointing fingers left, right and center would make you a decent apprentice for an inquisitor. You're a classic case of holier than thou attitude, what on Earth gives you the right to behave like that? Or to borrow your words, don't you have any sense of measure...?

Naudio Spanlatine
11-21-2011, 02:43 PM
Yeah I have not met one like Aloimeh either.

Believe it or not, I was actually once religious, around the time of my confirmation and a few years after that. But slowly doubt crept in and my views have changed. While I might be open to a vague notion of a deity (and I don't believe in that either), it certainly has nothing to do with any that the organized religions promote. I am still a member of the church for some personal reasons, though I plan to separate from it later on in my life.

But I think saying that "nothing will happen without an open mind" is a bit disrespectful towards some people (or perhaps I'm misinterpreting). I'm willing to bet there are hundreds that have really struggled and tried to find their faith but have "failed" and are now atheists. I've heard many such things in the US for example, where faith is such a big deal. Losing their faith there has been a tremendous process and involved a LOT of Bible studies etc. Are you saying that they have not approached the subject with an open mind?
if you feel uncomfortable at a church and feel bad vibes from others in the church then you should leave its plain and simple, i had to do that at my other church where i grew up in because they didnt like me and my mom because we were trying to follow what God wants us to do, how can people like that call themselves christians and they jus pick what they think is good and bash and the other people who are not in their league, i couldnt understand that for a long time, im currently not in church right now, but im still a christian, tbh you dont need to go to church to be saved or a christian, all you have to do is have wisdom and trust in God our Father, thats all you need to do and also believe in his Word, and he will direct your path, we need to have patiences in life, we cant let satin control us, ask God to fight your battles

and i dont know Alomieh either, but hes starting to remind me of why me and my mom left my other church because people in that church like to judge others and pick who they want them to be in their social club:rolleyes:

God said "Judge not less ye be judge", but people like alomieh is failing to realize that:facepalm: :stupid: :o

Echoes
11-21-2011, 02:54 PM
Of course it does. :rolleyes: Spiritual is just a new age word for religious.

True. Some "atheists" (the most fanatical ones or politically oriented) have one secret dream. Killing the every kind of inner-life (which means freedom, subjectivity, art, affectivity, ...) and merchandizing everything that stands on the planet.

"The Civilization of Machines is a conspiracy against every kind of inner-life" said Bernanos.

Joolz
11-21-2011, 03:38 PM
Some "atheists" (the most fanatical ones or politically oriented) have one secret dream. Killing the every kind of inner-life (which means freedom, subjectivity, art, affectivity, ...) and merchandizing everything that stands on the planet.

Some "religious people" (the most fanatical ones or politically oriented) have a not so very secret dream. Killing those who don't share their beliefs.

Pirata.
11-21-2011, 04:03 PM
Again, Catholicism is as far from Christianity as Islam or Hinduism. Stop telling us that you know what Christianity is all about.

:spit:

It's just a book FFS :rolleyes:

Listening to Aloimeh talk about how Catholicism is far from Christianity made me remember this pic:

http://apina.biz/49796.jpg

:haha:

habibko
11-21-2011, 04:08 PM
Well, as far as I can tell it's Saudi Arabia that's run more Old Testament "style" than anything I do

good, at least you realize that the Old Testament style is bad to say the least, even though you "accept" it because you are too brainwashed and hasn't grown up from scary childish visions of Hell to judge it for what it is and act accordingly

funny how people keep attacking Saudi Arabia whenever they feel like attacking me, as if they are proving anything against me by doing that

It's not my job to exact judgment on anybody. I am a sinner like everyone else and in need of God's salvation and forgiveness. It's God who will punish. But I think that needed to be stated clearly and openly because many here hate the thought of God judging their behavior after they die. And you're one of them.

it's a fact that God often exacted his judgement using other people in the Bible regardless of them being sinners or not, so I thought since you are so literal and adherent to it you might as well do what pleases the God of the Bible

it all down to your beliefs, the God of Islam would punish you in exactly the same way you think your God will punish Muslims, given there is no absolute proof on either side and that both positions require blind faith, there's a very good chance you will be condemned to hell yourself if a God did exist

if a supposed God truly endorsed you as a fine and good believer, he is not a god worthy of love let alone worship, let's not get started on a God that endorses the OT

Lopez
11-21-2011, 04:08 PM
if you feel uncomfortable at a church and feel bad vibes from others in the church then you should leave its plain and simple, i had to do that at my other church where i grew up in because they didnt like me and my mom because we were trying to follow what God wants us to do, how can people like that call themselves christians and they jus pick what they think is good and bash and the other people who are not in their league, i couldnt understand that for a long time, im currently not in church right now, but im still a christian, tbh you dont need to go to church to be saved or a christian, all you have to do is have wisdom and trust in God our Father, thats all you need to do and also believe in his Word, and he will direct your path, we need to have patiences in life, we cant let satin control us, ask God to fight your battles

and i dont know Alomieh either, but hes starting to remind me of why me and my mom left my other church because people in that church like to judge others and pick who they want them to be in their social club:rolleyes:

God said "Judge not less ye be judge", but people like alomieh is failing to realize that:facepalm: :stupid: :o

No worries, I never go to church and the only way it touches me is that my tax rate is slightly higher.

Sapeod
11-21-2011, 04:13 PM
The Bible is both mysognistic and homophobic.

Lopez
11-21-2011, 04:24 PM
The Bible is both mysognistic and homophobic.

Remind me: What do you think of your English skills :scratch:?

:lol:

habibko
11-21-2011, 04:34 PM
One thing about the bible and religion though.. this blind belief may have caused death and suffering, but we would most likely not be as safe as we even are today in the world without religion. Even though I'm pretty sure it's all bullshit myself, I would never want to see a world without religion as a peaceholder. Law and science can only hold up society for so long until things come crashing down around us.. without people having some hope in there being a blessing for the righteous believers after death, rather than the most likely eventuality of just rotting in the ground regardless of what tripe you are told is the truth, crime would be high.. there would be nothing to contain the religious nutters without religion.. they would just be nutters.

if God didn't exist people would have made him up anyway, which is pretty much what happened, nutters will be nutters regardless of their faith, you don't see atheists running around and killing people like mad men whilst extremist religious people are holding society up, if anything it's the other way around

your logic is extremely flawed because it assumes that criminals are criminals because they lack faith in God and an afterlife, this obviously isn't true and crimes have so many different motives that are more significant than that, religion happens to be a major one of them, as a matter of fact good religious people are usually good "despite" their religion and its radical tenets

people who are smart enough to denounce religion are usually smart enough to realize we don't need it to have faith in humanity, love, tolerance and generosity, people are good and kind even without religion, and less hypocritical and awaiting a heavenly reward for their deeds as a plus

out_here_grindin
11-21-2011, 04:37 PM
Catholicism is as different from Christianity as from Islam.

Have you ever set foot inside a Catholic church?

habibko
11-21-2011, 04:38 PM
It's just a book FFS :rolleyes:

Listening to Aloimeh talk about how Catholicism is far from Christianity made me remember this pic:

http://apina.biz/49796.jpg

:lol:

the Catholicism talk reminded me of another one

http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss65/habibko/34716_1463475461566_1073861966_31094834_1022580_n. jpg

Har-Tru
11-21-2011, 04:41 PM
Why is faith a virtue? Why do people like Aloimeh think blindly believing in a supernatural Kim Jong-Il is not only acceptable, but desirable and praiseworthy? In fact, they go further than that. They say faith is the only thing that matters, after all.

Why? Why??? What is so admirable about blind faith? Humankind has progressed incredibly in an incredibly short period of time. Societies, at least the Western ones, are now better, fairer, safer, freer. And they have not achieved that thanks to faith, belief or unfounded superstitions. They have achieved that through logic, rational thinking and a scientific, empirical approach to life. That is a fact, examples of that are all around us. We know that that approach works, we know it is the way to go, we have seen its fruits and fully understand and share its predicament.

Yet the religious would make us believe an approach that is the exact opposite of that, an approach based on unfounded, unsupported belief and blind faith is not only commendable, but the most commendable of all human attitudes!

I for one do not want to cherish a God that values my believing in him in the lack of any shred of evidence over my integrity and goodness as a person.

Lopez
11-21-2011, 04:54 PM
Yet the religious would make us believe an approach that is the exact opposite of that, an approach based on unfounded, unsupported belief and blind faith is not only commendable, but the most commendable of all human attitudes!

I for one do not want to cherish a God that values my believing in him in the lack of any shred of evidence over my integrity and goodness as a person.

One of the reasons is surely that they offer explanations to questions that you cannot possibly know the answer to. People don't like ambiguity, especially when it concerns their own death.

I've always been slightly moved by this, coming from a man who's probably close to death:

YJ60bBMesFo&feature=related

Har-Tru
11-21-2011, 05:22 PM
One of the reasons is surely that they offer explanations to questions that you cannot possibly know the answer to. People don't like ambiguity, especially when it concerns their own death.

I've always been slightly moved by this, coming from a man who's probably close to death:

YJ60bBMesFo&feature=related

I understand the human tendency towards faith, what I don't understand is why it should be seen as admirable or even acceptable as a means to acquire knowledge or truth (which is what religious people do, whether they want to admit it or not).

Lopez
11-21-2011, 06:17 PM
I understand the human tendency towards faith, what I don't understand is why it should be seen as admirable or even acceptable as a means to acquire knowledge or truth (which is what religious people do, whether they want to admit it or not).

Well yes, I agree with you there :)

Seingeist
11-21-2011, 08:57 PM
Wow. What a disappointing mess that I wake up to this morning.

In 7 pages of fruitless, chaotic spewings, I counted 5 posts that were loosely on topic, and not a single one of them attempted to engage any of the points in my opening post.

It is to these loosely "on-topic" posts that I will respond.


Yes, the so-called 'Holy' Bible contains TONS of mysogyny, hatred towards gays, well, in fact, hatred to whatever doesn't fit in with the opinions of 'true believers'.

Our topic here is the Biblical/Christian position on women, not homosexuals.

You can make bald claims about these "TONS of misogyny" until you're blue in the face, but until you can actually show or demonstrate it, your assertions are empty and non-compelling. If there are indeed "TONS," then it should be extremely easy to make your case.

Of course, you'll also have to explain away the points that I made in my opening post, which demonstrate the (unparalleled) profound value and dignity of women in the Christian worldview.

************************************************** *************************************

Oh you know.. the usual. Written by men..

Yes. By virtue of the fact that nearly the entire ancient world was "patriarchal" in its socio-political structure, most "occupations" (including "scribe") were held by men.

for men..

Demonstrably false. The message of Christianity is to everyone and for everyone. I have already demonstrated this in my opening post - see the final verse.

male dominance.. female oppression..

Again, what you describe here is more a function of "patriarchal" society than of Judaism or Christianity; the Bible establishes the equal dignity and value of women in the eyes of God, and this was reflected even in the fact that the OT laws were far more fair to women than those of the other contemporary patriarchal societies. I have already shown this in relation to the verses above, and you have done nothing to detract from that.

male God..

More symbolic than literal (God does not have genitals), and you're really grasping at straws if this is supposed to demonstrate "misogyny."

************************************************** ****************************

As for the subject of this thread, any fool with an iota of literacy can easily see where the Bible is misogynistic. The punishments proscribed for sexual "crimes" are generally far harsher for a woman than they are for men, as they also are for men who abandon the traditional male gender role (i.e. take on the "woman's role") by lying with other men.

I have used Biblical evidence (that Clydey was kind enough to offer) that shows the very level footing of men and women in terms of sexual sin and the law. You have neither offered any of your own, nor explained away the case that I presented.

Therefore, in spite of the fact that you tell us that "any fool with an iota of literacy" can easily see the "misogyny" of the Bible, your statements are (like Sunset's) empty and non-compelling. Even your hypothetical barely-literate fool requires more than careless and bald assertions.


And despite the Bible's claim that women's status as childbearers is a holy/divine role, the rules for pregnant or menstruating women are all based around the idea that women are unclean. A woman who has just discharged her "holy" duty to "be fruitful and multiply" by giving birth is considered unclean and is considered unworthy to enter the tabernacle without offering a blood sacrifice after she waits the proscribed period: if she gives birth to a boy she is unclean for a week and must wait 33 days to be purified, whereas if she gives birth to a girl she is unclean for two weeks and must wait 66 days. :spit: This is misogyny plain and simple, predicated on the notion that women are unclean and of less worth.

Your conclusion is entirely inaccurate and wrongheaded. Ritual purification centered largely around bodily excretion. It involves laws that regulate eating and even excretory functions (directed at both men and women). Sperm, for example, was seen as particularly "unclean." Leviticus 15:16 ("When a man has an emission of semen, he is to bathe himself completely with water, and he will remain unclean until evening") is alone sufficient to demolish your ridiculously flimsy case.

In other words, it is not "women" who are unclean, as you claim, but "bodily emissions" generally speaking (and I should hope that it is obvious how "menstruation" fits into that picture).


This notion of women being ritually unclean[...]

Not women, emissions.

[...]is not unique to Christianity but it's a major part of its history, and is the root of all the rules which are still in place in some Christian denominations that bar women from participating in the religion as fully as men do, whether it be their prohibition from distributing communion, teaching in church, touching sacred objects, or being ordained.

This is also a wildly false claim. The "root" of such rules lies in tradition and in the general symbolism of male "authority" or "headship." As you note, these sorts of regulations are not uniform across the denominations, and the interpretations of the Scriptural passages used to support them vary widely.

Moreover, even in those more "restrictive" denominations, it is not quite correct to say that they do not "participate in the religion as fully as men do." The crux of Christianity is not who hands out the crackers and wine, but who has a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. There is absolutely no distinction made between men and women in that regard.

People can cry all they want about critics "cherry-picking" bad verses from the Bible to delegitimize it. Those people never stop to wonder why there is a veritable smorgasbord of verses for us "critics" to choose from, and how they themselves are cherry-picking the verses out of the Bible that makes them feel comfortable and happy with the religion they've chosen.

"Cherry-picking" involves selecting a few isolated verses and entirely ignoring their specific context as well as the overall message and purpose of the Bible/Christianity. Naturally, this is great for rhetorical purposes and people who have no interest in a genuine understanding, but it is entirely useless for anyone interested in an honest accounting of things (i.e. the truth). You might note with interest that I did not "cherry-pick" verses that "made me feel comfortable." I actually used the verses that a vehement opponent to Christianity (Clydey) selected in order to make my case.

You, on the other hand, have entirely ignored these verses and the case that I made above that demonstrates the dignity and value that Christianity (like nothing else) attributes to women via Scripture.

You have ignored the fact that in both the Old and New Testaments, there are women who are held up as courageous and heroic and who perform enormously significant acts for the kingdom of God in historical periods within which the majority of the world assigned women an entirely insignificant role and status.

And it is up to you to explain how a religion and people who are so obviously "misogynistic" that a "fool" could see it would tell women that they are equals in the eyes of God (from the mouth of Jesus), would tell men to love and cherish their wives in the most sacrificial and selfless way possible, would go out of its way to show Jesus expressing His love and mercy to even the societally lowest of women (the prostitute).

************************************************** *************************************************

The Bible is not particularly misogynistic, although it would be true to say that it is patriarchal.

It is not even "slightly" misogynistic. And as you do a good job of pointing out immediately below, even in terms of "patriarchy," the Bible positions women in a far more dignified and equal way than any contemporary society would have deemed acceptable or appropriate.

For instance, the Old Testament laws oftentimes go way beyond those of other societies in putting women on a more equal footing. The commandment tells us to honor both our father and mother (not just the father). It also says that a child who curses or strikes his mother - just like his father - is worthy of punishment (death). In adultery, both the man and woman get stoned. When it's clear that it was **** only the rapist gets stoned.

Yes.

Christianity, on the other hand, gives women practically equal rights.

Again, I object slightly to the wording of this ("practically equal"), but I suppose that it depends on what you mean by "rights." In terms of intrinsic value, dignity, and the love of God, women are entirely equal to men. The particular roles assigned to men and women differ, inasmuch as men and women are innately different (much of this difference is biological).

Read the Gospels. Women are discriminated against in terms of church service and are to be subject to their husbands in the home, but anyone reading the Gospel will see just how prominent of a role women had in Jesus' ministry - Mary, Elizabeth, Anna, Mary & Martha, Mary Magdalene, etc.

And husbands, as I have shown above, are to be devoted servants to their wives who put the well-being of their wives above their own ("subject" in another sense, if you like). Moreover, sexually speaking, they are mutually subject, which I also touched on in my original post.

************************************************** *********************************

The Bible is both mysognistic and homophobic.

A bald, unsupported, and accordingly useless contribution.

You may write that sentence on a chalkboard one hundred times in the manner of Bart Simpson in the show's opening sequence, but it will render it no more true or convincing.

Sham Kay
11-21-2011, 09:42 PM
if God didn't exist people would have made him up anyway, which is pretty much what happened, nutters will be nutters regardless of their faith, you don't see atheists running around and killing people like mad men whilst extremist religious people are holding society up, if anything it's the other way around

your logic is extremely flawed because it assumes that criminals are criminals because they lack faith in God and an afterlife, this obviously isn't true and crimes have so many different motives that are more significant than that, religion happens to be a major one of them, as a matter of fact good religious people are usually good "despite" their religion and its radical tenets

people who are smart enough to denounce religion are usually smart enough to realize we don't need it to have faith in humanity, love, tolerance and generosity, people are good and kind even without religion, and less hypocritical and awaiting a heavenly reward for their deeds as a plus
You're correct in all respects. Of course criminals would be criminals regardless of their faith or lack thereof. It's just that people are afraid of the darkness - we naturally fear the unknown, and what does an animal like a human who is blind to its own fate likely to do? Lash out most likely. This is just assuming faith never existed at all to this day.. but yeah, I suppose like you said with our intellect, faith is something that was unavoidable.. kinda ironic actually considering how little logic is placed into believing in these fairy tales. My dog would howl with laughter if he could understand the concept.. and could laugh.

But hey, I wouldn't call all religous people idiots. I do respect many religious people who do not practice their faith in an extreme manner. Sure, I disagree with them, but I can only respect their beliefs regardless, particularly those who do not preach and keep an open mind about all faiths and not only the one they were brought up on. These kinds of people just want to do good while they live without worrying too much about the benefits they may gain by being a decent fella. They follow their teachings but do the right things not because they've been told to do so, but because they're righteous by nature.

The types of religious people I find disgraceful are those that only believe in their God and his/her teachings and act like honest and good righteous people because that is what they have been told they must do to live a great life and reach heaven or something similar. Unfortunately, this is the large majority I've noticed from personal experience. It's an incredibly selfish way of thinking and regardless of what they have been told, it makes no sense that they would be considered a "better" person than for example a kind and caring atheist. "Don't hurt people, otherwise God will punish you and you will go to hell" .. well I dunno about the rest of you, but it should be simpler than that.. "Don't hurt people.. full stop".

I see it everyday.. people going to Churches, temples, Mosques.. to relieve their guilt or display their faith and wanting to do right by what they are told to do by "God", possibly even out of fear of this almighty God.. they go not because they particularly want to, but for the reason and belief that they'll get benefits and be "rewarded" for their goodness. How contradictory.. they do this all the while pointing fingers at the "sinners" that are the atheists and those that don't believe what they do, despite many of them being selfless, being good because they want to be good and not expecting much in terms of karma or afterlife, rather than seeking blessings and benefits.

Karma.. I laugh.

Har-Tru
11-21-2011, 09:48 PM
I brought more toys:


"1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days" Leviticus 12:1-2

Wives are treated as mere property, all throughout the bible:

"Exodus 21:1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.

Exodus 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

Exodus 21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

Exodus 21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

"Exodus 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

Exodus 21:8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

Exodus 21:9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

Exodus 21:11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money."



Keep all men and all non-virgin women. But don't kill the virgin ones, just have fun with them!

Numbers:

"17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."



From the New Testament. You know, the "nice bit":

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. " -1 Timothy 2:11

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says." -1 Corinthians 14:34



I have more, much more. But that should keep the Holy Babble's apologists busy for a while.

habibko
11-21-2011, 09:56 PM
You're correct in all respects. Of course criminals would be criminals regardless of their faith or lack thereof. It's just that people are afraid of the darkness - we naturally fear the unknown, and what does an animal like a human who is blind to its own fate likely to do? Lash out most likely. This is just assuming faith never existed at all to this day.. but yeah, I suppose like you said with our intellect, faith is something that was unavoidable.. kinda ironic actually considering how little logic is placed into believing in these fairy tales. My dog would howl with laughter if he could understand the concept.. and could laugh.

But hey, I wouldn't call all religous people idiots. I do respect many religious people who do not practice their faith in an extreme manner. Sure, I disagree with them, but I can only respect their beliefs regardless, particularly those who do not preach and keep an open mind about all faiths and not only the one they were brought up on. These kinds of people just want to do good while they live without worrying too much about the benefits they may gain by being a decent fella. They follow their teachings but do the right things not because they've been told to do so, but because they're righteous by nature.

The types of religious people I find disgraceful are those that only believe in their God and his/her teachings and act like honest and good righteous people because that is what they have been told they must do to live a great life and reach heaven or something similar. Unfortunately, this is the large majority I've noticed from personal experience. It's an incredibly selfish way of thinking and regardless of what they have been told, it makes no sense that they would be considered a "better" person than for example a kind and caring atheist. "Don't hurt people, otherwise God will punish you and you will go to hell" .. well I dunno about the rest of you, but it should be simpler than that.. "Don't hurt people.. full stop".

I see it everyday.. people going to Churches, temples, Mosques.. to relieve their guilt or display their faith and wanting to do right by what they are told to do by "God", possibly even out of fear of this almighty God.. they go not because they particularly want to, but for the reason and belief that they'll get benefits and be "rewarded" for their goodness. How contradictory.. they do this all the while pointing fingers at the "sinners" that are the atheists and those that don't believe what they do, despite many of them being selfless, being good because they want to be good and not expecting much in terms of karma or afterlife, rather than seeking blessings and benefits.

Karma.. I laugh.

now that's a post I would almost fully agree with, it's refreshing to see one so young and so wise :yeah:

almost because I disagree with a tiny detail which is in bold, I don't respect their beliefs, I might respect them for who they are as a person, but I don't think unfounded blind faith is a virtue, especially when it turns people into morally vile and twisted characters and often leads to violence once someone decides to follow the script by the letter, not to mention when the founding script of said religion contains so many disgusting parts

Seingeist
11-21-2011, 10:08 PM
But that should keep the Holy Babble's apologists busy for a while.

Quite the contrary, actually. You've dropped in a few passages whose context you do not even begin (or attempt) to appreciate or understand.

Moreover, you have not touched the points that I made in my original post, and none of those hastily posted verses refutes or overturns any of them.

I could "busy" myself with those verses with long and thorough posts, and you would ignore them just as thoughtlessly as you did the original post. :shrug:

I would make the concession that it's a "nice try," but it is not even that.

cobalt60
11-21-2011, 10:56 PM
How come I was always taught never to talk about politics, sex and religion? ;)

Naudio Spanlatine
11-21-2011, 10:58 PM
How come I was always taught never to talk about politics, sex and religion? ;)

:hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug:

Sham Kay
11-21-2011, 11:31 PM
now that's a post I would almost fully agree with, it's refreshing to see one so young and so wise :yeah:

almost because I disagree with a tiny detail which is in bold, I don't respect their beliefs, I might respect them for who they are as a person, but I don't think unfounded blind faith is a virtue, especially when it turns people into morally vile and twisted characters and often leads to violence once someone decides to follow the script by the letter, not to mention when the founding script of said religion contains so many disgusting parts
Hm.. reminds me of how I used to think. I'm guessing you once had similar beliefs to what you disagree with? But it changed overtime? Well that was the case with me. I believed everything in the Bible as a young teen.. even these misogynistic passages made sense, it's almost scary thinking back just 10 years ago.. I guess it's difficult to expect everyone to grow out of it, it just depends on upbringing and opinons different people develop overtime due to who they talk to. In some ways it's all random, one or two different choices in life could have led me to be preaching the glory of God and religion.. we are in some ways just blank canvases painted in random colours through sheer pot luck.. which is why I'm reserved when it comes to criticising those with these blind beliefs. Sympathetic I suppose.

But yeah most people similar to myself disagree with me on the notion of respecting the beliefs of the religious despite having already decided to disregard religion myself. It's not really the actually beliefs I respect per se, it's more the respect I have in what those people I respect believe to be truth.. hey for all I and anyone else knows it could be true, no point being definate about things which are essentially impossible to be definate about.. blindly believing in what the bible and other scriptures say is naive, while conversely blindly disparaging it as definately completely false would be equally naive.. most things in the bible are impossible to prove either way which is what gives those that believe so strongly in their religion power and confidence.. nobody can prove it wrong, and they're right. I'd rather ignore it and occasionally make light of it than simply disagree with it with 100% certainty, wouldn't make me any better than those who speak of god and religon with 100% certainty and criticise me for not doing so. Food gives me the energy to survive - that I can be certain of, the bible? Might as well tell me witches and wizards exist.. they could for all I know, but we don't really think about it hm.

But hey, we're by nature expected to believe one thing or another and disregard all other opinions as simply false. Even though if we had their upbringing and experiences, we would more than likely have the same beliefs.. it's just a pointless cycle of true lies.

buddyholly
11-21-2011, 11:40 PM
How come I was always taught never to talk about politics, sex and religion? ;)

Because doctors and lawyers shouldn't have time for that stuff.

cobalt60
11-22-2011, 12:23 AM
:hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug:

Because doctors and lawyers shouldn't have time for that stuff.

I should have added "at the dinner table" :lol: And on that note you've reminded me so off to read a good journal.

Clydey
11-22-2011, 01:48 AM
I brought more toys:




Wives are treated as mere property, all throughout the bible:





Keep all men and all non-virgin women. But don't kill the virgin ones, just have fun with them!





From the New Testament. You know, the "nice bit":




I have more, much more. But that should keep the Holy Babble's apologists busy for a while.

Keep them coming. I was going to reply when I felt in the mood, but this should keep Seingeist occupied for the time being.

Pirata.
11-22-2011, 02:48 AM
More symbolic than literal (God does not have genitals)

Never heard anyone refer to God as "The Mother" before :scratch:

Castafiore
11-22-2011, 07:34 AM
almost because I disagree with a tiny detail which is in bold, I don't respect their beliefs, I might respect them for who they are as a person, but I don't think unfounded blind faith is a virtue, especially when it turns people into morally vile and twisted characters and often leads to violence once someone decides to follow the script by the letter, not to mention when the founding script of said religion contains so many disgusting parts
I do think that only a minority is as extreme as it may seem in threads like these.

I'm an agnostic myself but I grew up as a catholic and quite a few of my family members are still religious (catholic, lutheran,...) in a very moderate way. Not every religious person is twisted and extreme. I know only one extreme person and she is impossible to argue with because she wants respect for her beliefs but gives no respect back. Not everybody is like that.
Most of my family, even if they do consider themselves catholic, believe in gay rights, are critical towards the pope,... They may be believers but it's not a blind faith.
Many I know believe in god because they are convinced that there's enough evidence of his presence around us. I may not agree with them and I may question why god has to be so invisible and why you just have to "believe" because expecting hard evidence shows that you don't have enough faith in god. However, many of the moderate religious people I know do feel that they see evidence around us (in nature for example).

Most religious people I know say that the Bible is written by people in a specific social context. Adding to that, many mistakes were made during the translations (one of the priests who taught us at school used to give us examples of wrong translations which was actually fun and he used those examples to remind us that you need to be critical of what you read, even if it's the Bible. That was a catholic priest saying that).

The Bible as we know it now was re-written in a major way in the early middle ages and many of the mysogynist passages were added and written in during that time. For example, Mary Magdelene changed from being one of the disciples of Jesus (a highly respected woman) to a whore just because those in charge of the church back then decided that the church should be a men's business and women should "know their place" and not given that much power. In the early days of christianity, however, women had a much bigger role (my sister is a theologist, can you tell? :p She knows much more about this obviously). For example, the idea that the clergy in the catholic church (priests, cardinals, the pope,...) have to be male and have to be celibate was only introduced in the middle ages. Popes used to have wives. Priests used to be able to marry.
One of the explanations given now for the fact that only men can be priests in the catholic church is that the disciples of Jesus were all male and they accompanied jesus without wives so they have to be celibate. However, at least one of his disciples was a woman (Mary Magdelene) and most of those disciples were actually married.

Islam can't be reduced to the extremists.
Christianity can't be reduced to the extremists either.

You can't dismiss an entire religion if you're only willing to reduce it to its extremes.


Edit: Catholicism is part of christianity. To say otherwise is dumb. The word christianity contains the word "christ" as in Jesus Christ. So, every religion where Jesus is seen as the christ, the messiah,...is part of christianity. In catholicism, Jesus is seen as the messiah, hence, it's a christian religion.

Echoes
11-22-2011, 08:13 AM
Some "religious people" (the most fanatical ones or politically oriented) have a not so very secret dream. Killing those who don't share their beliefs.

Killing those who don't share one's beliefs is ideological and not religious. Religion is strictly private.

Islamism is not a religion, it's an ideology (I don't say Islam, out of carefulness).


Edit: Catholicism is part of christianity. To say otherwise is dumb. The word christianity contains the word "christ" as in Jesus Christ. So, every religion where Jesus is seen as the christ, the messiah,...is part of christianity. In catholicism, Jesus is seen as the messiah, hence, it's a christian religion.

I'm an anticlericalist Catholic but I don't think people who deviate the Christian message are Christian. Otherwise any liar can claim the Inquisition was Christian. Personally I have trouble in considering Calvinists as Christians.

It's not all a matter of interpretation.

Castafiore
11-22-2011, 08:28 AM
I'm an anticlericalist Catholic but I don't think people who deviate the Christian message are Christian. Otherwise any liar can claim the Inquisition was Christian. Personally I have trouble in considering Calvinists as Christians.
I didn't think that it was up for interpretation either since it seems obvious to me so I'm very surprised to see that many disagree on what's christian and what's not.

How would you define a "christian" exactly?
Perhaps it's a linguistic issue on a different level to you?
Example:
When I grew up, you could hear people call bad actions "not christian": stealing, cursing, showing disrespect to your parents, etc.
If you were caught lying, you could often hear "that's not very christian of you" for example.
So, "christianity" was almost a synonym for what was considered to be "proper" and good behaviour. In that sense, the Inquisition was not christian.

But when talking about which religion is part of Christianity, it goes back to which religion accepts Jesus as the messiah. (look at the etymology of the word). The way that story is told within each religion may differ but at the core, they all accept Jesus Christ.
The Inquisition was a bad, evil part in the history of Christianity but to me, it was part of it because they did believe in Jesus Christ.

zeleni
11-22-2011, 08:50 AM
Taejin, no need to fabricate or transmit someone else forgery. You have plenty of real statements from the likes of Clinton, Holbrooke, Freud, Biden, Hitler, Chirac, Starcevic, Blair, Roman Pope etc. for your needs.

True. Some "atheists" (the most fanatical ones or politically oriented) have one secret dream. Killing the every kind of inner-life (which means freedom, subjectivity, art, affectivity, ...) and merchandizing everything that stands on the planet.

"The Civilization of Machines is a conspiracy against every kind of inner-life" said Bernanos.

Affirmative. Only wouldnt agree it is a secret anymore.

As for subject of the thread... OT for Christians is important only for contextualization of NT. Namely, Jesus lived, preached and died in Jewish society therefore need for OT texts.

Joolz
11-22-2011, 09:11 AM
Killing those who don't share one's beliefs is ideological and not religious. Religion is strictly private.

Islamism is not a religion, it's an ideology (I don't say Islam, out of carefulness).

I would call it religious fundamentalism. But even if you prefer to call it an ideology then it's still one that's based on religion and believing in a god. Whether you approve of that religion and its rules doesn't change that. What I was trying to point out is that people do horrible things in the name of their version of religion, as well as in the name of ideologies that don't include the belief in a god. But that doesn't mean that either side, whether believing in a god or not believing in any god is necessarily or inherently evil.

I completely agree with you that religion should be strictly private. And I would add that this also includes the absence of religion.

Har-Tru
11-22-2011, 02:20 PM
Quite the contrary, actually. You've dropped in a few passages whose context you do not even begin (or attempt) to appreciate or understand.

Moreover, you have not touched the points that I made in my original post, and none of those hastily posted verses refutes or overturns any of them.

I could "busy" myself with those verses with long and thorough posts, and you would ignore them just as thoughtlessly as you did the original post. :shrug:

I would make the concession that it's a "nice try," but it is not even that.

You have addressed some of the numerous verses relating to women, and you have indeed offered a plausible explanation to some of them. In most cases, however, you make mere personal interpretations and assumptions.

Now let it be noted that I was not the one saying that the Bible is misogynistic. While I think it is essentially true, I don't think it is the most suitable term. Yahweh is extremely cruel and vile to women, yes, but he is also cruel and vile to men. He might have taken it with women more than with men, but for the purpose of the matter in hand it is more fitting to say that the Bible is male chauvinistic.


Referring 1 Chorintians, it is true that the article you quote deals with ceremonial head coverings (apparently a matter of utmost importance) that gives different guidances to men and women (a clear sign of equality), and that is not one of the passages I would quote as especially misogynistic. However, since we're at it, verse 3 is a nice one:

3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Yes, you have addressed this point earlier in the post. And I am willing to agree that those passages are not misogynistic. What they are, very clearly, is male chauvinistic. Paul preaches the Christian (here meaning specifically "of Christ") message of universal love. Yet these passages clearly put women in an inferior footing with respect to men.

As to the Deuteronomy passages, just as I said above, it is true that God doesn't treat women worse than men there. He just treats both of them like shit, in the most typical Yahwehian fashion. Talk about a powerful argument.

These were not my quotes, though. You know where (some of) mine are.

Sapeod
11-22-2011, 02:21 PM
Remind me: What do you think of your English skills :scratch:?

:lol:
Very good. Far better than most on here. The fact that I have small typos every now and then doesn't change that :) Also, I write fast, so the fact I don't have more typos is quite something :)

Naudio Spanlatine
11-22-2011, 02:30 PM
:facepalm: :rolleyes:

GOAT = Fed
11-22-2011, 02:54 PM
Very good. Far better than most on here. The fact that I have small typos every now and then doesn't change that :) Also, I write fast, so the fact I don't have more typos is quite something :)

May I please ask you why you are so arrogant about your English skillzzz?:)

Arrogance is not a good thing, sir.

Sapeod
11-22-2011, 03:11 PM
Not arrogant, just honest.

GOAT = Fed
11-22-2011, 03:51 PM
Not arrogant, just honest.

But Y U NO HUMBLE, MAN?!

Har-Tru
11-22-2011, 04:15 PM
How come I was always taught never to talk about politics, sex and religion? ;)

Oh, I was taught that too. ;)

Ricky Gervais has a great quote: "When you're a working class child, what your parents hope for is not that you become a doctor, or a lawyer. It's that you don't die in a bar-room fight."

habibko
11-22-2011, 04:40 PM
Most of my family, even if they do consider themselves catholic, believe in gay rights, are critical towards the pope

this is a common word play in our civilized world in the efforts of good natured religious people to have the best of both worlds, people make their own religion and their own god inside them according to what feels "right" to them, they might "consider" themselves catholic, but that won't make them one, they aren't adhering to the tenets of their faith anymore

there is no room for gays in the Bible, no prophet respected gays or addressed them with any form of respect, on the contrary they were always condemned and punished, and critical towards the pope? would the pope have called those who defied him catholics when christianity was still fresh?

religious teachings and morals have evolved tremendously to catch up with the evolution of morals and human rights in civilized societies to remain acceptable and relevant, what we call "extreme" is simply people who are serious about their faith and follow all the teachings without turning a blind eye on what is considered "bad" in our societies now

but we don't call a spade a spade nowadays

Edit: Catholicism is part of christianity. To say otherwise is dumb. The word christianity contains the word "christ" as in Jesus Christ. So, every religion where Jesus is seen as the christ, the messiah,...is part of christianity. In catholicism, Jesus is seen as the messiah, hence, it's a christian religion.

by that definition Islam is also part of Christianity.. I'm sure all Christians would disagree

Time Violation
11-22-2011, 04:45 PM
Pope is not God, so who cares what he thinks. :) God has the last word anyway, so it's quite irrelevant what definition is correct and /or what includes which ;)

Sham Kay
11-22-2011, 05:15 PM
Pope is not God, so who cares what he thinks. :) God has the last word anyway, so it's quite irrelevant what definition is correct and /or what includes which ;)
Last word.. I'm still waiting patiently to hear the FIRST word from that guy.

Time Violation
11-22-2011, 05:34 PM
Last word.. I'm still waiting patiently to hear the FIRST word from that guy.

I'm curious to hear what would you consider "first word"? God making an account on MTF and saying, hey Shambritfan, can you hear me you mug? :p

Sham Kay
11-22-2011, 05:45 PM
I'm curious to hear what would you consider "first word"? God making an account on MTF and saying, hey Shambritfan, can you hear me you mug? :p
I expect a text from a number with 12 digits claiming to be the The Almighty's secretary, at the very least.

Castafiore
11-22-2011, 06:19 PM
this is a common word play in our civilized world in the efforts of good natured religious people to have the best of both worlds, people make their own religion and their own god inside them according to what feels "right" to them, they might "consider" themselves catholic, but that won't make them one, they aren't adhering to the tenets of their faith anymore
I think that you've been talking to the more extreme believers a bit too much.

there is a no room for gays in the Bible, no prophet respected gays or addressed them with any form of respect, on the contrary they were always condemned and punished, and critical towards the pope? would the pope have called those who defied him catholics when christianity was still fresh?
:shrug:
I can only say that many christians I know do make room for gays in this world. Yes, perhaps that's cherry-picking. I can understand that viewpoint (esp. if your viewpoint is static as well). I don't quite agree with that, though. If it makes them fake christians in the eyes of many, fine. I don't think that such matters are that static and absolute.

I don't view what the early popes said about real or fake catholics as relevant. Popes are humans, flawed just like the rest of us. (heck, I don't view what the current pope says as relevant but I'm an agnostic and no longer a practicing catholic anyway)

by that definition Islam is also part of Christianity..
No.

No offense but didn't you push the "reply" button a bit too quickly here?
If I'm not mistaken, Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet but NOT as the messiah. Hence, it's not christianity. "Christ" means, "the anointed one', the "messiah".
The Bible has many prophets but only one messiah.

habibko
11-22-2011, 06:53 PM
I think that you've been talking to the more extreme believers a bit too much.

doesn't matter who I'm talking to, you didn't say where I was wrong

:shrug:
I can only say that many christians I know do make room for gays in this world. Yes, perhaps that's cherry-picking. I can understand that viewpoint (esp. if your viewpoint is static as well). I don't quite agree with that, though. If it makes them fake christians in the eyes of many, fine. I don't think that such matters are that static and absolute.

I don't view what the early popes said about real or fake catholics as relevant. Popes are humans, flawed just like the rest of us. (heck, I don't view what the current pope says as relevant but I'm an agnostic and no longer a practicing catholic anyway)

this is not a matter of opinion, it's straight forward logic, if the God of the Bible and his prophets thought and preached homosexuality is wrong, you either follow them which means you believe what they believe or you don't, not so hard is it?

now if one thinks the God of the Bible is wrong in condemning them and not giving them their equal rights, it's hypocritical to keep pretending they accept the Bible as the truth and claim that they follow it

No.

No offense but didn't you push the "reply" button a bit too quickly here?

no

If I'm not mistaken, Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet but NOT as the messiah. Hence, it's not christianity. "Christ" means, "the anointed one', the "messiah".
The Bible has many prophets but only one messiah.

you are mistaken, you should learn more about a subject before making statements on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masih

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus

sicko
11-22-2011, 06:57 PM
Are there famous tennis players that officially do not believe in god?

Lopez
11-22-2011, 07:37 PM
Are there famous tennis players that officially do not believe in god?

Nadal I think. Might be more though (and might be that they just don't say it so they won't alienate any fans)

sicko
11-22-2011, 07:47 PM
Nadal I think. Might be more though (and might be that they just don't say it so they won't alienate any fans)

Nadal: "For me, religion is the main cause of mortality in history" :worship:

Not that's it's true, but to say something like that in today's glamor PR world means you got an attitude.

Now I will appreciate the great warrior even more.

out_here_grindin
11-22-2011, 07:49 PM
doesn't matter who I'm talking to, you didn't say where I was wrong



this is not a matter of opinion, it's straight forward logic, if the God of the Bible and his prophets thought and preached homosexuality is wrong, you either follow them which means you believe what they believe or you don't, not so hard is it?

now if one thinks the God of the Bible is wrong in condemning them and not giving them their equal rights, it's hypocritical to keep pretending they accept the Bible as the truth and claim that they follow it



no



you are mistaken, you should learn more about a subject before making statements on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masih

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus

That's not the same as the Christian view. Islam does not teach that Jesus was God incarnate or the son of God. All Christian denominations hold that as the center-piece of the religion. (Including Catholics Aloimeh)

Har-Tru
11-22-2011, 07:49 PM
Are there famous tennis players that officially do not believe in god?

Nadal I think. Might be more though (and might be that they just don't say it so they won't alienate any fans)

We might surmise from this statements that Nadal is a non-believer indeed:

http://www.religionenlibertad.com/articulo.asp?idarticulo=5468

"To me, religion is the major cause of mortality in history"

Funny coming from someone whose surname means Christmas. :lol:

habibko
11-22-2011, 07:54 PM
That's not the same as the Christian view. Islam does not teach that Jesus was God incarnate or the son of God. All Christian denominations hold that as the center-piece of the religion. (Including Catholics Aloimeh)

I didn't say that, refer to Castafiore's definition

Clydey
11-22-2011, 08:13 PM
Recently in the Bill Maher thread, Clydey presented three Biblical passages as clear evidence that Christians/the Bible are misogynistic.

Initially I refused to take up the topic, because I knew that it would take a post at least as long as the current one to deal with it, and that such would be an entirely wasted effort on someone who frankly has no interest at all in understanding them properly.

However, I’d been tossing it around in my mind a bit, and I considered that there might well be other posters on MTF who would be interested in understanding more fully and honestly both those verses and the Biblical view of men and women (not exhaustively and comprehensively, of course, but I can try to scratch at the surface). I had a chunk of time today, so I thought, “What the heck? It can’t do any harm.”

I had accused Clydey of "cherry-picking" a few verses out of their proper context and understanding, and what is fascinating is that in each of the three cases, the very next verse (among others) mitigates the charge of misogyny.

Now by way of preface, it is important to note that in the Biblical view of human relationships, men and women do indeed have different roles and responsibilities. These differing roles correspond largely to innate differences between men and women, most of them strictly biological. While I realize that the acknowledgement of differences between men and women and their subsequent roles in relationships is not at all popular or well-accepted in the modern ethos, it does not mean that such acknowledgement is inherently misogynistic, as I will endeavor to demonstrate.

Deuteronomy 22:20-21
But if this accusation is true and no evidence of the young woman’s virginity is found, they will bring the woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city will stone her to death. For she has committed an outrage in Israel by being promiscuous in your father’s house. You must purge the evil from you.

It looks appalling on the face of it. Does the Bible advocate the slaughter of non-virgins?

Remember that the only appropriate context for sexual relations in the Bible is between a married man and woman. All sex outside of that context is seen as some variation of adultery. When a person has sex before he or she is married, it is akin to “cheating” on his or her future spouse (assuming that a future spouse is taken – the passage concerns the punishment only for a non-virgin who takes a different husband).

Still, killing a woman just because she commits adultery is as misogynistic as it gets, right? Surely the Israelites would dare not treat a man in the same fashion! But then we come to the immediately following verse:

Deuteronomy 22:22
If a man is discovered having sexual relations with another man’s wife, both the man who had sex with the woman and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel

It may have escaped your attention, but the above passage is also misogynistic. Note that the crime is sleeping with another man's wife. Whether consciously or not, you are misrepresenting its meaning. It says nothing about the man being a virgin or cheating on his wife. The punishment is because a married man has been wronged. See below:

Deuteronomy 22:24
Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Men faced the same punishment that women did for committing adultery: death. The passage even goes on to detail a scenario wherein a man and an engaged woman (to a different man) have sex. If it is consensual, they are both put to death; if it is a ra*pe and the woman cannot help herself, only the man is put to death.

Again, you are misrepresenting the passage. There is no punishment described for a man who cheats on his wife. I should also point out that only the ra*pe of an engaged woman is punishable. Again, the woman's partner has been wronged, not the woman.

Now while these laws may certainly strike us as overly severe, they can hardly be called “misogynistic,” because they are applied to both men and women with similar punishment.

Deuteronomy describes different crimes for males and females. Crucially, punishment for males is reserved for crimes against another man.


************************************************** ************************************************** ***************************

Colossians 3:18
Wives, be submissive to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

Now what exactly does this submission mean? And on what basis is it made? Does it mean that women have to blindly do everything that their husbands tell them to, and moreover must do this simply by virtue of the fact that they are women and their husbands are men?

The most important passage concerning these “roles” is found within Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, in which he fleshes out in more detail the same basic exhortations that he wrote to the Colossians. He draws an extremely significant and instructive analogy between the relationship of Christ to the church (church here meaning the whole body of Christians, not a building or a congregation) and husband to wife:

Ephesians 5:22-33
Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is head of the church. He is the Savior of the body. Now as the church submits to Christ, so wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as also Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her, to make her holy, cleansing her in the washing of water by the word. He did this to present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but holy and blameless. In the same way, husbands should also love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hates his own flesh, but provides and cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, since we are members of His body. [quoting Genesis 2:24:]For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This mystery is profound, but I am talking about Christ and the church. To sum up, each one of you is to love his wife as himself, and the wife is to respect her husband.

Let me get this straight. Simply because man is ordered to love his wife, the instruction for women to submit to their husbands is not misogynistic?

Imagine a man who loves his wife dearly. He smothers her with affection, buys her gifts, and provides a comfortable life for her. His only demand is that she spend her days in the kitchen because that is where she belongs.

Is the man a misogynist? He may love her dearly, but his attitude and his expectations are still misogynistic.


This analogy between Christ’s relationship to the church and that of husband to wife should not be glossed over, for it is presented to husbands as THE model upon which to base their relationship to their wives, and the instruction given to wives is much better understood when we also have a firm grasp on the role of the husband.

So what exactly is the relationship of Christ to church, at least insofar as it serves as a model to husbands? It is characterized primarily by devotion, care, service, provision, and self-sacrifice. In his earthly ministry, Jesus put His love of the people over Himself completely, devoting Himself totally to providing and caring for their spiritual and bodily well-being, and eventually making the ultimate sacrifice of Himself (and atonement for their sins) so that they might be saved.

See above.

I should also point out that you are comparing passages from two different authors. Most agree that Paul did not author Ephesians.

There is no more profound example of perfect love and sacrifice, and this is the model that is given to husbands for the ways that they are to love and care for their wives. Of course, we are sinful human beings, and no husband can love his wife as perfectly as Christ loves the church. However, we are called to imitate His example as best we can, and husbands should thus love their wives through devotion, care, service, provision, and self-sacrifice.. They are to put the bodily and spiritual needs of their wives above their own; they are to make every sacrifice that needs to be made to this end, up to and including their very life. They are to provide and care for them materially and immaterially (i.e. emotionally, etc.) and meet all of their needs to the absolute best of their ability.

Understanding this role of the husband, then, it is far easier to understand why the wife is exhorted to “submit.” This does not mean that she must blindly agree with everything he says or does. It means that she is to her entrust her care and well-being to her husband (which she pledges to him through the act of getting married), show him respect, and not attempt to obstruct or oppose his sincere efforts to care for her.

While both the husband and the wife are called to be the best spouse that they can be regardless of how “good” or “bad” a job that the other spouse is doing, it is naturally much easier for both partners if both are fulfilling their duties to one another. That is, it is much easier for a husband to care for his wife sacrificially if she is not contentious and does not attempt to oppose him at every turn, and it is likewise much easier for a wife to submit to her husband if he is sincerely doing his best to serve her, care for her, and put herself above himself at every turn.

Ironically enough, the only husband who would ever even feel the need to throw the “submission” verse at his wife is very likely failing miserably in his own responsibility. He might find that his wife is more agreeable if he is serving her as he is supposed to. Or, to approach it slightly differently, for the husband who points to that verse and says, “You’re supposed to submit to me,” the wife could rightly point to that passage and say, “And you’re supposed to put my needs, desires, and well-being above your own, loving me as Christ loved the church!”

Again, there can be little dispute that all of the above is terribly “out of step” with our modern conception of relationships, “gender roles,” and marriage. But it can hardly be called “misogynistic.” There is abundant reciprocity and co-dependency in the relationship. The sense in which a husband is placed “above” his wife (i.e. the “head” of the relationship) is at once the same sense in which he is placed “below” her (i.e. in service and devotion to her).

It is misogynistic by modern standards. The apparently inerrant word of God is not bound by context, otherwise he is no more enlightened than your average 21st century male.

Another quick example of the reciprocity between a husband and wife is the sexual duty that they have to one another. From 1 Corinthians:

Neither the husband nor the wife has some kind of sexual priority or exemption in the relationship.

Above I said that the alleged “misogyny” in each passage is diminished by the very next verse that follows. Colossians 3:19 says:

Both husbands and wives have specific obligations to one another, and these obligations not only entail no kind of misogyny, but they go as far as to establish the wife as the more “served” and prioritized member of the relationship.

Colossians 3:19 does not say that. Where on earth did you get that from? I'm not sure how the above is gleaned from the following:

Colossians 3:19
Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.


************************************************** ************************************************** ***************************


The final passage that is allegedly misogynistic comes from Paul’s letter to the church in Corinth. (I add in verse 8 to clarify 9-10). Paul writes:

Now there are a few contextual considerations that need to be elucidated before we can understand these verses. First of all, they are in the midst of a passage about “head coverings,” and the “symbol of authority” that the woman is to wear on her head refers to a head covering to be worn during “prayer” or “prophecy.” It is another reference to the analogically symbolic relationship of Christ’s “headship” (see verse 3), the meaning of which I addressed above.

When Paul says that woman was “made from” and “made for” man, he is referring to the following passage in Genesis:

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is like him.[…] So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to come over the man, and he slept. God took one of his ribs and closed the flesh at that place. Then the Lord God made the rib he had taken from the man into a woman and brought her to the man. And the man said: This one, at last, is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called woman, for she was taken from man. This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh.

Lest this passage be mistaken, this does not mean that women are subservient to men. It merely means that women “complete” the human picture that was started with man. They constitute “one flesh” when they unite. “Man” alone was insufficient for God’s purposes for humanity, so He created woman as well. They are equally dignified human persons who are the same in terms of value in the eyes of God and in their dependence on one another.

You have just spun this to suit your own ends. Nowhere in the passage does it even hint at the equality you have described above. Indeed, the woman is referred to as a 'helper'. As I said earlier, I was looking forward to the gymnastics you would have to engage in to put any of this into an acceptable context. You have not disappointed.

Clydey
11-22-2011, 08:13 PM
Nadal I think. Might be more though (and might be that they just don't say it so they won't alienate any fans)

I think Murray is also an atheist, much to my delight.

Har-Tru
11-22-2011, 08:17 PM
Not exactly misogynistic, but this is too good to be ignored.

I have to say, in the name of all those males genetically destined to suffer from alopecia, that it is comforting to find that God severely punishes those who make fun of such terrible affliction.


II Kings, 2

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.


This is true, it's in the Bible. You can look it up yourselves.

Of the many weird and freaky stuff that book contains, I think it is fair to say it doesn't get more WTF than that.

Clydey
11-22-2011, 08:35 PM
Not exactly misogynistic, but this is too good to be ignored.

I have to say, in the name of all those males genetically destined to suffer from alopecia, that it is comforting to find that God severely punishes those who make fun of such terrible affliction.


II Kings, 2




This is true, it's in the Bible. You can look it up yourselves.

Of the many weird and freaky stuff that book contains, I think it is fair to say it doesn't get more WTF than that.

QFlrg22GjM8

Orka_n
11-22-2011, 11:16 PM
Yeah I have not met one like Aloimeh either.

Believe it or not, I was actually once religious, around the time of my confirmation and a few years after that. But slowly doubt crept in and my views have changed. While I might be open to a vague notion of a deity (and I don't believe in that either), it certainly has nothing to do with any that the organized religions promote. I am still a member of the church for some personal reasons, though I plan to separate from it later on in my life.

But I think saying that "nothing will happen without an open mind" is a bit disrespectful towards some people (or perhaps I'm misinterpreting). I'm willing to bet there are hundreds that have really struggled and tried to find their faith but have "failed" and are now atheists. I've heard many such things in the US for example, where faith is such a big deal. Losing their faith there has been a tremendous process and involved a LOT of Bible studies etc. Are you saying that they have not approached the subject with an open mind?I repeat: this is a good question. I'll answer it from my point of view, I guess. I am indeed biased, but I do have some experience regarding these matters.

First off, every christian has moments of doubt sometimes. Once in a while that moment does not pass and the person leaves his/her faith. Personally I have had many moments in my life, especially in my younger years, when I have desperately WISHED that there was no God, but for some reason I could never convince myself of this. (I've experienced some very strange things in my life which I cannot logically attribute to something else than God. There are more reasons too but they're harder to describe.) I should also say that when I read the Bible, even though there are passages that do sound very far-fetched (Noah and the Ark for example), I still perceive a very peculiar... how do I say this... I feel like a presence of truth which is there throughout the entire Bible. Yeh, I can't explain it better. As I said earlier, it's not something a person can understand without experiencing it.

Back to your question. Many times, I've met people who have become atheists when they experienced something tragic in their life. But in almost every case, when I dig deeper I realize they are only atheists in the way that they don't want to have anything to do with God. Very, very few of them fully deny his existence. And if there really are hundreds of people like you say who are reading their Bible in desperate search for God and WANT to believe, then I actually cannot imagine they would get no answers from God. As a matter of fact, I believe (like other christians) that God searches for us foremost, rather than the other way around. Otherwise he wouldn't have sent his son to sacrifice himself in order to restore the Man to God connection. Jesus in Rev 3:20 - "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me." <-- And that is honestly what I believe in. In a way that is also what I HAVE to believe in, I guess. Still, I sure wouldn't have anything against sitting down with these people struggling with their faith and talk. I'm sure I could learn something.

I think this applies to all religions.That's possible. I can only speak for christianity though.Christianity - and in recent times, Islam - tends to get a bad rep because of people like Aloimeh and evangelists who insist on propagating their religion even when people aren't interested, and sometimes resorting to rather despicable ways to do so (example: denigrating another religion. This always annoys me. And telling people that they will go to hell if they don't convert. How is this supposed to make me want to be a Christian?).That is and have always been a terrible way of trying to convert someone. However some of these people bear no ill will; after all in their own view they say that because they want you to join them in heaven. They are just stupid and don't understand that they're saying something offensive and very subjective.

I don't think all Christians are brainwashed. I do, however, think that there will always be certain people that subscribe to a particular faith, whatever it is, that are brainwashed by their religion. Look at those Islamic fundamentalists. Look at the morons who called for Salman Rushdie's death for publishing a novel. Those people are brainwashed. Aloimeh appears brainwashed to me. It's just pointless discussing such issues with people who are so narrow-minded that they can't even see the extent to which their minds have been closed by their beliefs.Aloimeh is EXTREMELY close-minded and judgmental, but I would have to meet him in order to tell if he is brainwashed. For the record, I agree with you about there being brainwashed people in every faith. I've met both christians and atheist who could be considered brainwashed.

I did at one point keep an open mind regarding religion, and being in a Catholic school meant that I was exposed to the Christian faith on a daily basis. After a while, though, I decided that none of it made sense to me and therefore chose atheism.Yup, you have all right to do that. 2 of my friends went to christian schools as well and they pretty much hated christianity after that. Nowadays they have a very different and more positive view of it, even if they don't call themselves christians.

How can you possibly call yourself Christian? You make no comment about a woman torching portions of the Holy Scriptures even while attacking me and distancing yourself from true Christianity because of my verbal response to that witch's disgusting acts of arson?I'm more surprised how YOU can call yourself a christian. Going by all the judgment you dish out I wouldn't be surprised if you suddenly revealed to us you think you are God himself.

cobalt60
11-22-2011, 11:19 PM
:lol: How are your sinner rabbits :devil::devil: doing by the way? :hug:

I can honestly say they are not misogynists since hubs and I have raised them very well;) As well as with our religious beliefs:p

Castafiore
11-23-2011, 07:27 AM
you are mistaken, you should learn more about a subject before making statements on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masih

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus
That's not the same, though.

Until Islam really considers Jesus as the messiah, as the son of God/Allah, Islam is not part of christianity.
This is no slant at all (I don't know why you react so strongly against my words). It's just a simple fact. I thought everybody knew that but apparently, not.

From your text (you should read that before lecturing others on learning more on a subject)
Islam rejects the Christian view that Jesus was God incarnate or the son of God
I figured, since you present yourself as an expert, that you knew that in christianity, Jesus is seen as the son of god and god sent his son to us as the messiah. My mistake, I should have explained it more thoroughly and I shouldn't have taken it for granted.
I think that you're arguing with me for the sake of arguing, though.

Castafiore
11-23-2011, 08:11 AM
Aloimeh is EXTREMELY close-minded and judgmental, but I would have to meet him in order to tell if he is brainwashed. For the record, I agree with you about there being brainwashed people in every faith. I've met both christians and atheist who could be considered brainwashed.
I've known two people I consider to be brainwashed. I agree with you when you say that you have to meet Aloimeh to know if he is brainwashed, though.

Brainwashing often entails isolating such person (not physically - although that also happens - but mostly mentally), to make sure that this person views the information they give as the right information and seeking information outside is a bad idea (to put it simplistically). Brainwashing is about controlling the mind of a person and you can only do that if you cut off other sources. The threat of hell and eternal damnation is often the best way of doing so.

I've known a person who was in a dangerous cult and she was taught self-hypnosis. Very odd to witness. Whenever this person would hear information they weren't supposed to hear, her eyes would start rolling and she'd put herself into a trance, blocking everything out. Very weird. She finally stepped out of the cult when she got really ill and asked for a doctor but her cult leaders refused it because "the illness is a test from god and if your faith is strong enough, you'll survive". :rolleyes: This made her rethink, luckily.

The other person I know whom I consider to be brainwashed is a Jehovah's witness. She doesn't read newspapers, doesn't follow the news on tv or on the internet,...She's not allowed to go to birthdays and such,... All this to mentally isolate that person. Everything she feels she needs to learn about what's going on in the world is told by her when she goes to one of their weekly meetings. The threat of hellfire and doom is never far away in her life.

-
When I was about 18, I approached my catholic parents to tell them that I was going to stop going to church because I don't believe in it any longer and I added that I felt like a hypocrite by continuing going to church (just in case somebody up there is taking notes, catholics have to go regularly to church) when it was meaningless to me. They accepted it but told me about their fear that I would be stepping into a spiritual black hole. I still consider it to be one of the best decisions I've made in my life because I felt so free afterwards. It was the opposite of stepping into a void.

habibko
11-23-2011, 08:39 AM
That's not the same, though.

Until Islam really considers Jesus as the messiah, as the son of God/Allah, Islam is not part of christianity.

now you are adding something that you haven't originally stated, your definition was "every religion where Jesus is seen as the Christ, the Messiah, is part of Christianity", in Islam Jesus is seen as the Christ, the Messiah, so according to your definition it is part of Christianity

This is no slant at all (I don't know why you react so strongly against my words). It's just a simple fact. I thought everybody knew that but apparently, not.

From your text (you should read that before lecturing others on learning more on a subject)

I figured, since you present yourself as an expert, that you knew that in christianity, Jesus is seen as the son of god and god sent his son to us as the messiah. My mistake, I should have explained it more thoroughly and I shouldn't have taken it for granted.
I think that you're arguing with me for the sake of arguing, though.

I know exactly how Jesus is viewed in both religions, I was pointing out to you that your definition is wrong, you didn't say "where Jesus is the son of God", for your information, the word Christ/Messiah =/= son of God

Time Violation
11-23-2011, 08:46 AM
now you are adding something that you haven't originally stated, your definition was "every religion where Jesus is seen as the Christ, the Messiah, is part of Christianity", in Islam Jesus is seen as the Christ, the Messiah, so according to your definition it is part of Christianity

I know exactly how Jesus is viewed in both religions, I was pointing out to you that your definition is wrong, you didn't say "where Jesus is the son of God", for your information, the word Christ/Messiah =/= son of God

Way to split hairs :lol:

Castafiore
11-23-2011, 09:05 AM
I know exactly how Jesus is viewed in both religions, I was pointing out to you that your definition is wrong, you didn't say "where Jesus is the son of God", for your information, the word Christ/Messiah =/= son of God
:lol: How is the view up there on your high horse. :p


In christianity, Jesus = Christ/messiah = the son of god, you nitpicker. :nerner:
That's just it.

In catholicism or the way I have been taught, if you mention "Jesus Christ", the messiah, it's understood to be "the son of god". I should have realised that it's not common knowledge.
(just as I assumed that it's common knowledge that catholicism is part of christianity but apparently, it's not obvious for some. You learn every day)

I don't know exactly what the word "messiah" means in other religions but I do know what it means in christianity and I wrongly assumed that it was obvious. Instead of adding to my definition and giving me your insights into other religions in your infinite wisdom, you decide to attack me for it. I have no idea why exactly but hey, if it gives your pleasure, you're welcome. :)

Echoes
11-23-2011, 12:00 PM
I didn't think that it was up for interpretation either since it seems obvious to me so I'm very surprised to see that many disagree on what's christian and what's not.

How would you define a "christian" exactly?
Perhaps it's a linguistic issue on a different level to you?
Example:
When I grew up, you could hear people call bad actions "not christian": stealing, cursing, showing disrespect to your parents, etc.
If you were caught lying, you could often hear "that's not very christian of you" for example.
So, "christianity" was almost a synonym for what was considered to be "proper" and good behaviour. In that sense, the Inquisition was not christian.

But when talking about which religion is part of Christianity, it goes back to which religion accepts Jesus as the messiah. (look at the etymology of the word). The way that story is told within each religion may differ but at the core, they all accept Jesus Christ.
The Inquisition was a bad, evil part in the history of Christianity but to me, it was part of it because they did believe in Jesus Christ.

It's more or less the way I see it, even though the examples are a bit too simplistic. Christianity is not a community like a nation is, for example (at least the way I see it). It's first of all a message given by Jesus Christ.

In my opinion nothing is more opposed to the Christian (of Christ) message than the Inquisition. If only for the fact that the Inquisition was a political action while Jesus never did politics.

And then it's clearly an infringement to the secularist principle invented by Jesus Christ (in the European civilization at least) namely that the Temporal and the Spiritual should be distinguished: "Give Caesar what belongs to Caesar, Give God what belongs to God".

It's so disrespectful to do things in the name of someone who said the exact opposite of what you're doing. I mean it's very easy to take any book you like, isolate a sentence from its context, make some sort of a "montage" and then justify the invasion of Poland. With a bit of dishonesty, it can be done with any other book.

In that sense, saying that Inquisition was Christian is an outrageous lie.

If the - say - Socialist Party has a programme that is not really socialist (often the case now), can you still call it Socialist? I don't think so.

Perhaps what can be argued is to say that the Inquisitors were Christians but not what they did.

Castafiore
11-23-2011, 12:10 PM
It's more or less the way I see it, even though the examples are a bit too simplistic.
I figured as much (I kept the examples that simplistic on purpose to get the message across).


A theologist once told me that you can prove anything if you know your way in the Bible. You just have to pick the right quotes and put them in the context that fits your agenda.

Perhaps what can be argued is to say that the Inquisitors were Christians but not what they did.
Agreed. :)

Time Violation
11-23-2011, 01:01 PM
It's so disrespectful to do things in the name of someone who said the exact opposite of what you're doing. I mean it's very easy to take any book you like, isolate a sentence from its context, make some sort of a "montage" and then justify the invasion of Poland. With a bit of dishonesty, it can be done with any other book.

In that sense, saying that Inquisition was Christian is an outrageous lie.

If the - say - Socialist Party has a programme that is not really socialist (often the case now), can you still call it Socialist? I don't think so.

Spot on. :) If I go and rob a bank in the name of Christ, what does that mean? Christians are bank robbers? :p

Lopez
11-23-2011, 01:19 PM
Spot on. :) If I go and rob a bank in the name of Christ, what does that mean? Christians are bank robbers? :p

I think this is a bit of a simplification really.

If the act is motivated by faith and has the doctrine and/or the support of the church to back it up, then I'd say it's due to the religion of that person/those people who commit the act. Of course one should not condemn an entire religion based on the acts of some people, but still they shouldn't be overlooked...

When muslims were protesting violently against the Mohammed pictures or when they flew the planes to the WTC, they were acts that were definitely motivated by their faith; doesn't mean all muslims would do them.

Similarly, the Inquisition was motivated by faith and the church. So I'd say it's bit of a simplification and a cop-out really to leave that part out of the equation.

Time Violation
11-23-2011, 01:59 PM
Similarly, the Inquisition was motivated by faith and the church. So I'd say it's bit of a simplification and a cop-out really to leave that part out of the equation.

Sorry, but I cannot agree. You have the Bible, and that's it. Nothing, and absolutely nothing Jesus preached there can be a base for what the Inquisition did. No person or church has the monopoly over that. What Pope and (a part of) Catholic church did then is solely their own responsibility, as it should be, there can be no collective responsibility.

Clydey
11-23-2011, 04:14 PM
Sorry, but I cannot agree. You have the Bible, and that's it. Nothing, and absolutely nothing Jesus preached there can be a base for what the Inquisition did. No person or church has the monopoly over that. What Pope and (a part of) Catholic church did then is solely their own responsibility, as it should be, there can be no collective responsibility.

How can you possibly say that faith did not motivate the Inquisition? It is so well documented. Whether or not you agree with their interpretation, it was religiously motivated. There are no ifs, ands, or buts.

Har-Tru
11-23-2011, 04:17 PM
What if you support gay rights? Are you also a Christian then?

Time Violation
11-23-2011, 04:56 PM
How can you possibly say that faith did not motivate the Inquisition? It is so well documented. Whether or not you agree with their interpretation, it was religiously motivated. There are no ifs, ands, or buts.

I'm saying what they did had nothing to do with what Jesus preached. They pretty much made their own twisted religion and acted accordingly.

Sham Kay
11-23-2011, 05:03 PM
What if you support gay rights? Are you also a Christian then?
Certainly not. In fact, any who commit the evil of simply ignoring the plight of women and gay people are not true Christians. A proper Christian must go out of their way to destroy their rights. It's the Christian way.

cobalt60
11-23-2011, 05:07 PM
:lol: Your rabbits reminds me of the joke in Red Dwarf about the Seventh-Day Adventhoppists, whose source of inspiration came from a typo in the Bible: "Now abideth faith, hop, and charity, and of these the greatest is hop." :spit:

:rolls: Don't you love how we can have our own off topic conversation anywhere?;) We are missing the other famous derailers though who don't post anymore..............Happy T day!

Sham Kay
11-23-2011, 05:08 PM
Still think the bible is a great read. Fortunately most Christians don't take much of it literally.. just the basic stuff we should already know about to be genuinely good human beings. You'd have to be deluded to take everything written so long ago by people nobody in our society would be able to even remotely relate to, literally.

Time Violation
11-23-2011, 05:18 PM
What if you support gay rights? Are you also a Christian then?

I'm not an expert on Bible, but I don't remember Jesus asked anyone about their sexual orientation, so I guess it's safe to say that it's not really pertinent issue.

Har-Tru
11-23-2011, 05:25 PM
I'm not an expert on Bible, but I don't remember Jesus asked anyone about their sexual orientation, so I guess it's safe to say that it's not really pertinent issue.

Jesus didn't comment on it, but God himself did say in the OT that homosexuality is an abomination, and Paul condemned it in the NT as well.

habibko
11-23-2011, 05:30 PM
I'm not an expert on Bible, but I don't remember Jesus asked anyone about their sexual orientation, so I guess it's safe to say that it's not really pertinent issue.

I always found it strange when Christians act as if only what Jesus said or done matters, don't they accept the OT as the word of God? don't they accept and worship the God of the OT? what did HE have to say about homosexuality?

after all according to Christians Jesus IS the God of the OT or at least his son

Time Violation
11-23-2011, 05:41 PM
I always found it strange when Christians act as if only what Jesus said or done matters, don't they accept the OT as the word of God? don't they accept and worship the God of the OT? what did HE have to say about homosexuality?

after all according to Christians Jesus IS the God of the OT or at least his son

Jesus didn't comment on it, but God himself did say in the OT that homosexuality is an abomination, and Paul condemned it in the NT as well.

Well, a curious thing; lookie here:

8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

According to what you two say, Jesus here did what? Obviously he didn't do what Aloimeh's spiritual ancestors expected him to do, and you might even say he ignored and/or broke the law of the OT. Does that mean he's not a good Christian? :p

habibko
11-23-2011, 06:49 PM
Well, a curious thing; lookie here:

According to what you two say, Jesus here did what? Obviously he didn't do what Aloimeh's spiritual ancestors expected him to do, and you might even say he ignored and/or broke the law of the OT. Does that mean he's not a good Christian? :p

this is not relevant and you are evading the point we are making, were the laws of the OT once preached and applied or not? what did God and his prophets say about homosexuality? you are supposed to worship that same God, how can you worship and follow a God when you think he was wrong?

Time Violation
11-23-2011, 07:05 PM
this is not relevant and you are evading the point we are making, were the laws of the OT once preached and applied or not? what did God and his prophets say about homosexuality? you are supposed to worship that same God, how can you worship and follow a God when you think he was wrong?

Not relevant? Are you kidding? If what Jesus said is not relevant for Christians, I don't know what is :) It's very obvious that God himself did something there, that was completely against OT and the law. So I would conclude that not everything is black and white like you are so eager to prove.

habibko
11-23-2011, 07:20 PM
Not relevant? Are you kidding? If what Jesus said is not relevant for Christians, I don't know what is :) It's very obvious that God himself did something there, that was completely against OT and the law. So I would conclude that not everything is black and white like you are so eager to prove.

so he realized he was wrong and corrected himself some hundreds of years later? this is the God one is supposed to worship?

Har-Tru
11-23-2011, 08:19 PM
Well, a curious thing; lookie here:



According to what you two say, Jesus here did what? Obviously he didn't do what Aloimeh's spiritual ancestors expected him to do, and you might even say he ignored and/or broke the law of the OT. Does that mean he's not a good Christian? :p

Jesus contradicted and corrected God. I mean himself... I mean God... I mean himself... aaaah!

Good luck coming to terms with that though. If Jesus himself contradicted God's teachings in the OT, what is the OT good for? And if the OT is the true word of God, what was that Jesus doing correcting it?

Of course, one might say God addresses humans differently according to the different periods of history. Still doesn't account for the cruelty of the OT. Seriously, read the Bible. From cover to cover. That bully just loves his killing...

Time Violation
11-23-2011, 08:53 PM
so he realized he was wrong and corrected himself some hundreds of years later? this is the God one is supposed to worship?

I wouldn't really know. As for the last part you said, you really don't want to go there.

Jesus contradicted and corrected God. I mean himself... I mean God... I mean himself... aaaah!

Good luck coming to terms with that though. If Jesus himself contradicted God's teachings in the OT, what is the OT good for? And if the OT is the true word of God, what was that Jesus doing correcting it?

Of course, one might say God addresses humans differently according to the different periods of history. Still doesn't account for the cruelty of the OT. Seriously, read the Bible. From cover to cover. That bully just loves his killing...

Well, that was the first and only time God addressed people in such a way. Without Jesus there would be no Christianity today, I think that's for sure, OT alone would probably be considered as an old and obscure book.

Anyway, that's only my own view, I'm not going to say it's uniquely true, or even logical for that matter. Faith is not always the most logical thing anyhow :lol:

habibko
11-23-2011, 10:12 PM
I wouldn't really know.

and yet that's what you believe to be true?

As for the last part you said, you really don't want to go there.

I actually do want to go there, giving a satisfactory answer to such questions would really help

you can't believe in gay rights and worship the God of the OT at the same time, pretending to do so only adds to the reputation of theists for being nonsensical and hypocritical, when one can do so much better by believing in science, reason and things we actually do know to be true and good for us

Time Violation
11-23-2011, 11:33 PM
you can't believe in gay rights and worship the God of the OT at the same time, pretending to do so only adds to the reputation of theists for being nonsensical and hypocritical, when one can do so much better by believing in science, reason and things we actually do know to be true and good for us

What's with the gay rights anyway? When the Bible was written, slavery was still rampant, so human rights were on a very low level, let alone gay rights, it's not like they were discussed in detail. The fact gay sex was mentioned in OT, doesn't necessarily mean anything - as I've already pointed out, the woman had to die according to the OT, yet not only Jesus didn't stone her, he saved her (btw, there goes misogynistic part out of the window).

Anyway, not sure what's the point of Science vs God argument, when it doesn't say anything. Science doesn't deal with god, can't prove nor disprove its existence (it's not even trying to), simply doesn't apply.

habibko
11-23-2011, 11:55 PM
What's with the gay rights anyway? When the Bible was written, slavery was still rampant, so human rights were on a very low level, let alone gay rights, it's not like they were discussed in detail.

true, and the God of the OT didn't make things better for humans, he actually commanded despicable laws that only added to the misery of people at that time (for instance the original invention of cutting portions of the genital organs, all rights reserved to God for that one) rather than teaching them with his infinite wisdom, power and knowledge how to behave like proper people, something close to how the civilized, secular world - that got rid of religious commandments - lives now

unless of course; God was a human invention back at a time when they didn't know any better, some men tried to control others (especially women) and didn't have any higher wisdom or knowledge to help them become better human beings, unless you think followers of the OT were better than our secular societies now, in which case Aloimeh would agree with you

The fact gay sex was mentioned in OT, doesn't necessarily mean anything - as I've already pointed out, the woman had to die according to the OT, yet not only Jesus didn't stone her, he saved her (btw, there goes misogynistic part out of the window).

again, I'm not talking about what Jesus did, I'm talking about what the God of the OT and its prophets commanded and applied on their society, Jesus (according to Christian theology) is supposed to be one and the same in essence, so all the atrocities of the OT have been condoned by Jesus during a significant part of human history

you only have to answer a simple and direct question, do you believe the God of the OT did the right thing by condemning homosexuals and the homosexual act or not?

Anyway, not sure what's the point of Science vs God argument, when it doesn't say anything. Science doesn't deal with god, can't prove nor disprove its existence (it's not even trying to), simply doesn't apply.

science shows us that we don't need God to understand our world, things we once ascribed to God now have very plausible and reasonable natural and scientific explanations, you don't need to keep that childish blind faith in despicable, ancient moral values that are no longer relevant to our life, especially when they cause much misery in our world once people take them too seriously

habibko
11-24-2011, 12:34 AM
I wonder if Christians here realize the God of the OT would want me dead simply for posting what I post here


Leviticus 24:10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp;

Leviticus 24:11 And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan: )

Leviticus 24:12 And they put him in ward, that the mind of the LORD might be showed them.

Leviticus 24:13 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Leviticus 24:14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.

Leviticus 24:15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.

Leviticus 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.



nice! I'm sure you would have loved to live at those times, under such graceful merciful divine care

Echoes
11-24-2011, 07:38 AM
How can you possibly say that faith did not motivate the Inquisition? It is so well documented. Whether or not you agree with their interpretation, it was religiously motivated. There are no ifs, ands, or buts.

The Christian message is explicit (against it) and unequivocal. The hell with this Nietzschean bullshit that there ain't no facts but only interpretations.

It's a non-violent and (unfortunately - lol joking :p) an utterly feministic message. The only feministic religion I know. I know atheists who accept that, so ...


science shows us that we don't need God to understand our world

Understanding of the World has never been the Christian religion's purpose. I hate the idea that life should be an investigation, a problem to solve, something for Experts, for cops in a way. Georges Bernanos magnificently showed it was a risk to gamble.

Orka_n
11-24-2011, 09:37 AM
For a moment I was tempted to respond to Habibko's empty ramblings too but I refrained. His main goal is to ridicule christianity and there's not much to do about that really.

Shirogane
11-24-2011, 11:33 AM
Science shows us that we don't need God to understand our world, things we once ascribed to God now have very plausible and reasonable natural and scientific explanations, you don't need to keep that childish blind faith in despicable, ancient moral values that are no longer relevant to our life, especially when they cause much misery in our world once people take them too seriouslyI didn't read the rest of the thread, but this I would QFT.

buddyholly
11-24-2011, 11:40 AM
For a moment I was tempted to respond to Habibko's empty ramblings too but I refrained. His main goal is to ridicule christianity and there's not much to do about that really.

If you had the power to isolate it from ridicule would you use that power? Do you think Christianity is vulnerable to ridicule?

Time Violation
11-24-2011, 12:01 PM
science shows us that we don't need God to understand our world, things we once ascribed to God now have very plausible and reasonable natural and scientific explanations

Science still hasn't explained a good deal of things, including some of the most basic/fundamental ones. For example:


What happened before the Big Bang? The conventional answer to that question is usually, “There is no such thing as ‘before the Big Bang.’” That’s the event that started it all. But the right answer, says physicist Sean Carroll, is, “We just don’t know.” Carroll, as well as many other physicists and cosmologists have begun to consider the possibility of time before the Big Bang, as well as alternative theories of how our universe came to be. Carroll discussed this type of “speculative research” during a talk at the American Astronomical Society Meeting last week in St. Louis, Missouri.

“This is an interesting time to be a cosmologist,” Carroll said. “We are both blessed and cursed. It’s a golden age, but the problem is that the model we have of the universe makes no sense.”

So much for science having an answer for everything :)

And one more thing:

you don't need to keep that childish blind faith in despicable, ancient moral values that are no longer relevant to our life, especially when they cause much misery in our world once people take them too seriously

I'm anxious to hear, which of those things that Jesus preached you consider despicable and not longer relevant to our life? Love your enemies? Forgive your brother? Do not judge others? Let's hear, which one is troubling you the most? :lol:

Har-Tru
11-24-2011, 12:03 PM
The Christian message is explicit (against it) and unequivocal. The hell with this Nietzschean bullshit that there ain't no facts but only interpretations.

It's a non-violent and (unfortunately - lol joking :p) an utterly feministic message. The only feministic religion I know. I know atheists who accept that, so ...

So what?

How is the Christian message feministic?


Understanding of the World has never been the Christian religion's purpose. I hate the idea that life should be an investigation, a problem to solve, something for Experts, for cops in a way. Georges Bernanos magnificently showed it was a risk to gamble.

The quest for understanding is the quest for truth. It is no wonder that Christianity has been the major enemy of scientific endeavour, and hence of progress and advancement.

Har-Tru
11-24-2011, 12:21 PM
Science still hasn't explained a good deal of things, including some of the most basic/fundamental ones. For example:



So much for science having an answer for everything :)

Who the hell says science has an answer for everything? Who?? I'll tell you who: religious people and people who epically fail to understand what the scientific approach is all about. Scientists are the first to say they don't have an answer for everything. Not yet, at least. They are happy to say "I don't know". They are not scared of ignorance, they see it as a fascinating and invigorating challenge. It is because of people with that mentality that you and me are living such a comfortable life with all possible commodities.

The pool of scientific knowledge doubles every few years. There is always less and less things we don't know. We might still don't know some things, and perhaps we'll never be able to know everything. While an apparently instinctive human reaction, trying to give an answer to everything is very illogical, limited and limiting approach.

The way to address a gap in knowledge is by saying "we don't know/understand this, therefore we'll keep investigating, experimenting, trying to work it out", certainly not by going "we don't know/understand this, but we MUST have an answer for this, and we must have it NOW, therefore we'll go with the particular supernatural explanation we fancy, which will most probably be the one we were brought up in".

As has already been said, there are a vast amount of things that used to be unexplainable and impossible to understand in the past and are now perfectly explained by science. When approaching unexplained things, what is more logical, then: to conclude that a supernatural being must exist to account for them, or that they will one day be explained by findings achieved through scientific analysis, like all others before?

Sham Kay
11-24-2011, 01:21 PM
The bible needs a remake. A bunch of people must surely have had simultaneous visions of God by now. They need to get together and write down what he said to suit the human thinking in the modern day world and modify the bible into an edition that people of our time can relate to. The Bible 2.0: Now homophobia, Misogyny and mutilation free.

I'm hardly kidding either. This entire thing has and always will reek of nonsense however much faith you possess in religion and in this case, Christianity. The fact is, if you are a true believer and trust that the bible speaks the Gods words, then you must accept everything the bible states.. there can be no half and half - oh I'll pick and choose what I believe God is telling me through this book, oh look respect thy neighbour, that works! Hm, women know your place and wives be submissive to your husband? Nah, we can't take everything said in the bible literally. Completely reeks of double-standards.

If as you claim, the Bible speaks the truths told by the Lord himself, why would misogynistic rubbish that not very coincidently would have been prevalent in everyday life back then soil its pages? If that's how things should be according to God, are Christians who respect women and all sexualities disrespecting their own religion and God himself? Yes? Then fine, Christianity might speak truths, but they are truths that we as knowledgable human beings cannot respect or abide by, the God represented in that book is not someone we in the modern day should even consider, let alone praise and pray to. I don't care how all powerful he is, we are talking about right and wrong - even the all powerful can be wrong, being cowards and blindly loving an all powerful being despite that being having plain wrong ideals is not righteous.. it's simply cowardly. But whenever someone questions the Bible or God, they're going to hell right? That's the reason we do anything.. to avoid going to hell. Not to do right and love and care for what we have been fortunate enough to experience, no we pretend to be selfless and bow down to the all powerful.. not because of what he/she/it tells us.. that's just a guise when you logically look at how we're expected to behave, but because we need a free ticket to heaven.

Back to what I said earlier - are Christians who respect and treat women and all sexualities EQUALLY disrespecting their own religion and God himself? No? Then you agree, the Bible needs a revamp, no point picking and choosing, since God loves one and all equally right? That can only mean some slanderous human fool has been misrepresenting him, only the good stuff in the Bible is what God expects of us, not what we in the modern day consider "wrong". Why leave it in the disgraced state it is at the moment? Destroy those pages filled with what we consider wrong today and the Bible will become truly what God speaks.

Because if it makes me a fool that's going to hell for being someone who tries to be the best he can to do good in his lifetime, even if it means questioning the ideals of a God that may have and is teaching corrupt, backhanded beliefs; then rather than being a cowardly selfish puppet that goes to heaven for blindly respecting and glorifying one that possesses these disturbing ideals, I'll continue being a fool that's going to hell.

Orka_n
11-24-2011, 02:12 PM
If you had the power to isolate it from ridicule would you use that power?Nah, firstly that would mean changing the religion and secondly I wonder if that is even possible.Do you think Christianity is vulnerable to ridicule?To non-believers, absolutely. The bible even says so itself.
Who the hell says science has an answer for everything? Who??Habibko

Lopez
11-24-2011, 02:20 PM
Habibko

To be fair, he only said that we don't need religion to explain how the world works and that things previously ascribed to Gods or explained by religion have been explained by science.

Nothing wrong with that :shrug:

habibko
11-24-2011, 02:29 PM
For a moment I was tempted to respond to Habibko's empty ramblings too but I refrained. His main goal is to ridicule christianity and there's not much to do about that really.

empty ramblings? I've asked plenty of direct questions here and none got answered, come up with a good answer for a start, this will go a long way in defending Christinity

I really don't understand how any decent person (this doesn't include someone like Aloimeh) could defend the God of the OT, let alone worship him

the truth is most believers don't actually worship him, they turn a blind eye on all the wrong parts in the ancient text and focus on Jesus meek and mild, for different reasons they are not courageous enough to face the reality of life as it is, and prefer to live in the delusion of their imaginary friend that answers all their wishes

Orka_n
11-24-2011, 02:29 PM
To be fair, he only said that we don't need religion to explain how the world works and that things previously ascribed to Gods or explained by religion have been explained by science.

Nothing wrong with that :shrug:He said we no longer need God to explain the universe - which indicates science pretty much covers everything. (Which is far from true.)

Orka_n
11-24-2011, 02:33 PM
empty ramblings? I've asked plenty of direct questions here and none got answered, come up with a good answer for a start, this will go a long way in defending Christinity

I really don't understand how any decent person (this doesn't include someone like Aloimeh) could defend the God of the OT, let alone worship him

the truth is most believers don't actually worship him, they turn a blind eye on all the wrong parts in the ancient text and focus on Jesus meek and mild, for different reasons they are not courageous enough to face the reality of life as it is, and prefer to live in the delusion of their imaginary friend that answers all their wishesAnd this is the reason I didn't respond to you seriously. You show no respect at all towards me or my religion yet you still expect me to treat you with respect. I've seen this so many times, tired of it.

Lopez
11-24-2011, 02:43 PM
Who the hell says science has an answer for everything? Who?? I'll tell you who: religious people and people who epically fail to understand what the scientific approach is all about. Scientists are the first to say they don't have an answer for everything. Not yet, at least. They are happy to say "I don't know". They are not scared of ignorance, they see it as a fascinating and invigorating challenge. It is because of people with that mentality that you and me are living such a comfortable life with all possible commodities.

The pool of scientific knowledge doubles every few years. There is always less and less things we don't know. We might still don't know some things, and perhaps we'll never be able to know everything. While an apparently instinctive human reaction, trying to give an answer to everything is very illogical, limited and limiting approach.

The way to address a gap in knowledge is by saying "we don't know/understand this, therefore we'll keep investigating, experimenting, trying to work it out", certainly not by going "we don't know/understand this, but we MUST have an answer for this, and we must have it NOW, therefore we'll go with the particular supernatural explanation we fancy, which will most probably be the one we were brought up in".

As has already been said, there are a vast amount of things that used to be unexplainable and impossible to understand in the past and are now perfectly explained by science. When approaching unexplained things, what is more logical, then: to conclude that a supernatural being must exist to account for them, or that they will one day be explained by findings achieved through scientific analysis, like all others before?

:worship: Great post.

He said we no longer need God to explain the universe - which indicates science pretty much covers everything. (Which is far from true.)

The post I alluded to, he said "our world". Depends on how you interpret things I guess :).

Gagsquet
11-24-2011, 02:46 PM
*useless thread*

Har-Tru
11-24-2011, 03:23 PM
He said we no longer need God to explain the universe - which indicates science pretty much covers everything. (Which is far from true.)

Wait, I think we understand differently the sentence "science has an answer for everything". I see it as meaning "science has not yet explained everything" and you see it as meaning "science can explain everything".

As I said, I don't see why there is reason to think science can't one day have an explanation for the things it hasn't explained yet.

And this is the reason I didn't respond to you seriously. You show no respect at all towards me or my religion yet you still expect me to treat you with respect. I've seen this so many times, tired of it.

Where has he treated you with lack of respect?

As to your religion, why is it worthy of so much respect? If this were a discussion about political issues and he criticised your political ideas and stance with the same vehemence he's criticised your religion, I doubt you'd jumped and said he wasn't showing "no respect at all towards you or your political stance". Why is religion any different?

*useless thread*

Useless post(er).

Orka_n
11-24-2011, 03:30 PM
Wait, I think we understand differently the sentence "science has an answer for everything". I see it as meaning "science has not yet explained everything" and you see it as meaning "science can explain everything".

As I said, I don't see why there is reason to think science can't one day have an explanation for the things it hasn't explained yet.I do. I doubt that science will ever be able to explain WHY things work in a certain way, why there even exists a universe and physical laws etc. Other than that I get what you mean.
Where has he treated you with lack of respect?

As to your religion, why is it worthy of so much respect? If this were a discussion about political issues and he criticised your political ideas and stance with the same vehemence he's criticised your religion, I doubt you'd jumped and said he wasn't showing "no respect at all towards you or your political stance". Why is religion any different?Oh please. He is accusing every christian of being delusional. If that is not lack of respect I don't know what is.

Gonna go catch some sleep now.

Har-Tru
11-24-2011, 03:39 PM
I do. I doubt that science will ever be able to explain WHY things work in a certain way, why there even exists a universe and physical laws etc. Other than that I get what you mean.

Perhaps there just isn't an answer for those questions. Some things just happen out of randomness. And that would also be a scientific answer.

Oh please. He is accusing every christian of being delusional. If that is not lack of respect I don't know what is.

Gonna go catch some sleep now.

Well, every atheist says that, by definition. You are basically saying that all atheists are disrespectful by virtue of disagreeing with you.

Gagsquet
11-24-2011, 03:53 PM
Useless post(er).

Coming from you :lol:

Orka_n
11-24-2011, 03:53 PM
Well, every atheist says that, by definition. You are basically saying that all atheists are disrespectful by virtue of disagreeing with you.Nonsense and you know it. It is possible to disagree with someone without telling the other person they're stupid.

Har-Tru
11-24-2011, 04:08 PM
Nonsense and you know it. It is possible to disagree with someone without telling the other person they're stupid.

When did he call you stupid? I must have missed that post.

Orka_n
11-24-2011, 04:19 PM
When did he call you stupid? I must have missed that post.Oh I'm sorry, I'll correct myself. It is possible to disagree with someone without telling the other person they're delusional.

Later.

habibko
11-24-2011, 04:39 PM
And this is the reason I didn't respond to you seriously. You show no respect at all towards me or my religion yet you still expect me to treat you with respect. I've seen this so many times, tired of it.

I do not expect you to treat me with respect at all and don't ask for it (very rarely does anyone in MTF treat others with respect anyway), I only expect my questions to be answered

it's very typical of theists when they are stuck in a corner and can't defend the morally questionable parts of their faith to retreat to the "I'm offended" theme, the fact that my questions have very clear right answers that Christians can't admit as they would contradict their faith has a lot to do with you or Taejin's inability to answer them

Har-Tru
11-24-2011, 04:39 PM
Oh I'm sorry, I'll correct myself. It is possible to disagree with someone without telling the other person they're delusional.

Later.

But that is the whole point... atheists are implicitly calling all believers delusional by the mere fact of being atheists.

habibko
11-24-2011, 05:13 PM
I'm anxious to hear, which of those things that Jesus preached you consider despicable and not longer relevant to our life? Love your enemies? Forgive your brother? Do not judge others? Let's hear, which one is troubling you the most? :lol:

once again you avoid my question and bring what Jesus said, I've already answered you but you haven't replied

I always found it strange when Christians act as if only what Jesus said or done matters, don't they accept the OT as the word of God? don't they accept and worship the God of the OT? what did HE have to say about homosexuality?

after all according to Christians Jesus IS the God of the OT or at least his son

again, I'm not talking about what Jesus did, I'm talking about what the God of the OT and its prophets commanded and applied on their society, Jesus (according to Christian theology) is supposed to be one and the same in essence, so all the atrocities of the OT have been condoned by Jesus during a significant part of human history

you only have to answer a simple and direct question, do you believe the God of the OT did the right thing by condemning homosexuals and the homosexual act or not?

Castafiore
11-24-2011, 05:49 PM
I only expect my questions to be answered
Do you really?

You will never be satisfied with an answer given by a christian in here because you clearly find christianity total fiction only followed by the gullible and delusional so what's the purpose of your questions exactly if not mockery and playing out a superiority complex? Let's be honest here.

I may no longer consider myself as a believer so I'm sharing quite a few of your doubts but I don't see your point in wanting answers when you're never going to accept them.

Time Violation
11-24-2011, 05:50 PM
Sorry, you seem quite unable to grasp the role or meaning of Jesus. :) He's not just another "messenger" as the Muslim world sees him, he's the God himself. His coming was foretold, he came, and everything he said/taught is the essence of Christianity. Some random verse from OT that could've very well come from the human writer, and not from the God himself, cannot be more pertinent than what Jesus/God himself was saying. And now you cherry-pick things from OT and scream "look, this is written in OT, if you don't fully agree you're not Christian". Sorry, that's not your call, capiche? ;)

Har-Tru
11-24-2011, 05:55 PM
Whatever his intentions are, habibko's questions are legitimate and pretty straightforward. And they haven't been answered yet.

Castafiore
11-24-2011, 06:11 PM
Whatever his intentions are, habibko's questions are legitimate and pretty straightforward. And they haven't been answered yet.
Yes, they have been but they're just not the answers he's looking for.;)

I can't answer them properly because I'm outside of it. I can simply talk about what I believed when I was a child and early teen before I stepped out of it all: I did believe in the OT but I also believed that the bible was an account of god and his creation (to be simplistic) but written down by humans, thus flawed and written with the social context of a long time ago in it.
For example, I was taught in a catholic school (granted, not a conservative one) for example that the beginning of the bible (with the creation of the world in 6 days + 1 rest day) was not to be taken literally but it was a story to explain things, to get a certain message across, just like Jesus loved to tell fictional stories to get a message across, to teach.
The main stronghold of my faith used to be Jesus and what he did and say in the NT while realising that we're talking about the same god as in the OT.

I struggled with it (not helped by the fact that I had a strong dislike for the pope and I have an even bigger dislike for the current pope) but a really great priest once told me that Jesus once said that he could understand that people had difficulty accepting it all and believing that he's the son of god but Jesus added (I'm sure some can easily come up with the exact quote and the right references): "if you don't believe in me for who I am, believe in me for what I do".

I may no longer think Jesus is the son of god but I still think that perhaps a man, a human like the rest of us, did live about 2000 years ago. A man with a lot of charisma. I still find him a great and inspirational figure as he was written about in the NT. :shrug:

habibko
11-24-2011, 06:14 PM
Do you really?

You will never be satisfied with an answer given by a christian in here because you clearly find christianity total fiction only followed by the gullible and delusional so what's the purpose of your questions exactly if not mockery and playing out a superiority complex? Let's be honest here.

I may no longer consider myself as a believer so I'm sharing quite a few of your doubts but I don't see your point in wanting answers when you're never going to accept them.

I don't know how they square these moral questions and keep on worshipping such a God, if they told me clearly they reject all the bad things in the OT and only accept the good things Jesus commanded, I'll have more respect for their beliefs, but it wouldn't make sense for them to call themselves Christians any longer, unless there was a Christian denomination that rejects the OT (plus the bad parts in the NT) that I haven't heard of

Sorry, you seem quite unable to grasp the role or meaning of Jesus. :) He's not just another "messenger" as the Muslim world sees him, he's the God himself. His coming was foretold, he came, and everything he said/taught is the essence of Christianity. Some random verse from OT that could've very well come from the human writer, and not from the God himself, cannot be more pertinent than what Jesus/God himself was saying. And now you cherry-pick things from OT and scream "look, this is written in OT, if you don't fully agree you're not Christian". Sorry, that's not your call, capiche? ;)

I don't think God's atrocious acts (such as stoning for blasphemy) can be explained away by human modification of the text, I'm talking about things Christians really do believe God himself ordained

if you are going to be skeptic about texts in the OT you might as well be skeptic about NT and the foundations of faith itself, that's what atheists are after all, they just go more steps than you and don't cherry-pick

selyoink
11-24-2011, 06:16 PM
But that is the whole point... atheists are implicitly calling all believers delusional by the mere fact of being atheists.

This is true. And it of course also works the way as well.

Castafiore
11-24-2011, 06:18 PM
I don't know how they square these moral questions and keep on worshipping such a God, if they told me clearly they reject all the bad things in the OT and only accept the good things Jesus commanded, I'll have more respect for their beliefs, but it wouldn't make sense for them to call themselves Christians any longer, unless there was a Christian dominion that rejects the OT that I haven't heard of
I understand your doubts.

I'm far, far from an expert so if anybody wants to correct me, feel free:
I think that the story as it is told in the OT is shared to a large degree with the Jewish faith but they don't view Jesus as the son of god so that's where the two religions go apart.
Christianity (following Jesus, the son of god, the messiah, the christ) centers more around Jesus. So, it's logical that they focus on Jesus and thus, the NT. (at least, I can understand it). They don't reject the OT, I think, but to them, the NT is more clear and offers a clearer message, guide and example to follow.

Lopez
11-24-2011, 06:22 PM
What I find interesting about Jesus is that so few actual facts are known of him, yet he's created a huge following.

Many of the stories in the Old and New testament can be found in other mythologies as well.

Shirogane
11-24-2011, 06:30 PM
^I love Greek mythology. :yeah:

habibko
11-24-2011, 06:33 PM
I understand your doubts.

I'm far, far from an expert so if anybody wants to correct me, feel free:
I think that the story as it is told in the OT is shared to a large degree with the Jewish faith but they don't view Jesus as the son of god so that's where the two religions go apart.
Christianity (following Jesus, the son of god, the messiah, the christ) centers more around Jesus. So, it's logical that they focus on Jesus and thus, the NT. (at least, I can understand it). They don't reject the OT, I think, but to them, the NT is more clear and offers a clearer message, guide and example to follow.

this isn't an answer to my question, not only do they believe their God and the God of the Jews (Yahweh) is the same, they actually believe in the OT and accept the acts of God in the OT as legitimate, I didn't hear any Christian say [nah actually God originally said "let my people blaspheme my name all they like and don't hurt them in the name of freedom of speech, for I'm merciful like that, oh and leave gays alone" and then came a bad Jew and changed the text to "stone them all!"]

Castafiore
11-24-2011, 06:46 PM
this isn't an answer to my question
Surprise, surprise. :p
Like I said, you're not ready for an answer. :shrug:


I'm just explaining why some christians are not holding on to every single word in the bible but focus on the main message told by Jesus (which you find unacceptable, so it seems).

You don't accept that because to you (if I understand you correctly), you either accept it all or you don't. I understand why you accuse some of cherry-picking but I think you're doing it too.
(you're thinking too much in extremes for me, mate ;) )

Let me try again as I was taught (so, I underline, I'm only speaking for my experiences as a former catholic):

My teachers said the following about how the OT was written. It's based on accounts told orally for ages and ages from generation to generation, from parents to children to their children to ....
Finally, people decided to write all these accounts down but to frame it, they used their own social context.

For the NT and to write this down, people used more direct accounts and more direct witness accounts, namely by the apostles Matthew, Marc, Luke, John. You can see how very human it all is because those 4 witness accounts differ at times just because their perspective differed.
This more direct (and thus, more reliable) account is, as I always understood it, the main reason why christians will hold on to the NT more closely. That and the existence of Jesus in the NT.

I'm sure you'll dismiss this as well but I've tried.

Har-Tru
11-24-2011, 06:48 PM
Yes, they have been but they're just not the answers he's looking for.;)

I can't answer them properly because I'm outside of it. I can simply talk about what I believed when I was a child and early teen before I stepped out of it all: I did believe in the OT but I also believed that the bible was an account of god and his creation (to be simplistic) but written down by humans, thus flawed and written with the social context of a long time ago in it.
For example, I was taught in a catholic school (granted, not a conservative one) for example that the beginning of the bible (with the creation of the world in 6 days + 1 rest day) was not to be taken literally but it was a story to explain things, to get a certain message across, just like Jesus loved to tell fictional stories to get a message across, to teach.
The main stronghold of my faith used to be Jesus and what he did and say in the NT while realising that we're talking about the same god as in the OT.

I struggled with it (not helped by the fact that I had a strong dislike for the pope and I have an even bigger dislike for the current pope) but a really great priest once told me that Jesus once said that he could understand that people had difficulty accepting it all and believing that he's the son of god but Jesus added (I'm sure some can easily come up with the exact quote and the right references): "if you don't believe in me for who I am, believe in me for what I do".

I may no longer think Jesus is the son of god but I still think that perhaps a man, a human like the rest of us, did live about 2000 years ago. A man with a lot of charisma. I still find him a great and inspirational figure as he was written about in the NT. :shrug:

I could have written this myself. :yeah:

habibko
11-24-2011, 06:59 PM
Surprise, surprise. :p
Like I said, you're not ready for an answer. :shrug:

I explained why I don't find your answer satisfactory, the fact that you are agnostic yourself shows you realize the Christian answers aren't satisfactory yourself, not sure why you are arguing in their place here

I'm just explaining why some christians are not holding on to every single word in the bible but focus on the main message told by Jesus (which you find unacceptable, so it seems).

You don't accept that because to you (if I understand you correctly), you either accept it all or you don't. I understand why you accuse some of cherry-picking but I think you're doing it too.
(you're thinking too much in extremes for me, mate ;) )

Let me try again as I was taught (so, I underline, I'm only speaking for my experiences as a former catholic):

My teachers said the following about how the OT was written. It's based on accounts told orally for ages and ages from generation to generation, from parents to children to their children to ....
Finally, people decided to write all these accounts down but to frame it, they used their own social context.

For the NT and to write this down, people used more direct accounts and more direct witness accounts, namely by the apostles Matthew, Marc, Luke, John. You can see how very human it all is because those 4 witness accounts differ at times just because their perspective differed.
This more direct (and thus, more reliable) account is, as I always understood it, the main reason why christians will hold on to the NT more closely. That and the existence of Jesus in the NT.

I'm sure you'll dismiss this as well but I've tried.

so the OT isn't a reliable text? God never actually asked people to stone the blasphemers? is that what Christians believe and preach?

Sham Kay
11-24-2011, 07:06 PM
What I find interesting about Jesus is that so few actual facts are known of him, yet he's created a huge following.

Many of the stories in the Old and New testament can be found in other mythologies as well.
People are always most appreciated long after they're gone. In Jesus' case, he probably never even arrived.. it's no wonder he is so revered.

Lopez
11-24-2011, 07:19 PM
Surprise, surprise. :p
Like I said, you're not ready for an answer. :shrug:


I'm just explaining why some christians are not holding on to every single word in the bible but focus on the main message told by Jesus (which you find unacceptable, so it seems).

You don't accept that because to you (if I understand you correctly), you either accept it all or you don't. I understand why you accuse some of cherry-picking but I think you're doing it too.
(you're thinking too much in extremes for me, mate ;) )

Let me try again as I was taught (so, I underline, I'm only speaking for my experiences as a former catholic):

My teachers said the following about how the OT was written. It's based on accounts told orally for ages and ages from generation to generation, from parents to children to their children to ....
Finally, people decided to write all these accounts down but to frame it, they used their own social context.

For the NT and to write this down, people used more direct accounts and more direct witness accounts, namely by the apostles Matthew, Marc, Luke, John. You can see how very human it all is because those 4 witness accounts differ at times just because their perspective differed.
This more direct (and thus, more reliable) account is, as I always understood it, the main reason why christians will hold on to the NT more closely. That and the existence of Jesus in the NT.

I'm sure you'll dismiss this as well but I've tried.

This is where you're mistaken, they're not eyewitness accounts according to historians though and they're written 35-65 years after his death.

Castafiore
11-24-2011, 07:52 PM
Lopez, the way I have been taught (which is only one teaching and thus, relative), they're not written by the apostels themselves but based on their direct witness accounts. There's a difference. ;)


so the OT isn't a reliable text? God never actually asked people to stone the blasphemers? is that what Christians believe and preach?
I can't speak for every christian. :shrug: You seem to view them as one entity. There are differences between christians (roman catholics, protestants,...), though, so I'm not going to talk for them all.

I've already give you my view as a former catholic on the bible. I struggled with it but unlike your view on religion and christianity (as I understand it), I focused on what I saw as the core and the essence (Jesus' teachings) and I did view the bible as flawed. I saw Jesus as a good guide and moral compass in life.

You have a very specific view on christianity and you seem to be fixed on boxing them into your strict definition.

Lopez
11-24-2011, 07:59 PM
Lopez, the way I have been taught, they're not written by the apostels themselves but based on their direct witness accounts. There's a difference. ;)


I can't speak for every christian. :shrug: You seem to view them as one entity. There are differences between christians (roman catholics, protestants,...), though, so I'm not going to talk for them all.

I've already give you my view as a former catholic on the bible. I struggled with it but unlike your view on religion and christianity (as I understand it), I focused on what I saw as the core and the essence (Jesus' teachings) is flawed. Others will disagree with me.

:)

I understand that's what you've been taught, but the fact is that there is really not much proof that they would have been written by anyone even remotely close to Jesus. The gospels were originally anonymous; it's only after some time that they were named and "writers" ascribed to them.

habibko
11-24-2011, 08:03 PM
I can't speak for every christian. :shrug: You seem to view them as one entity. There are differences between christians (roman catholics, protestants,...), though, so I'm not going to talk for them all.

I've already give you my view as a former catholic on the bible. I struggled with it but unlike your view on religion and christianity (as I understand it), I focused on what I saw as the core and the essence (Jesus' teachings) and I did view the bible as flawed. I saw Jesus as a good guide and moral compass in life.

You have a very specific view on christianity and you seem to be fixed on boxing them into your strict definition.

is there any Christian denomination that you know of that teaches that the OT isn't a reliable text and that God never actually asked people to stone blasphemers?

Castafiore
11-24-2011, 08:21 PM
is there any Christian denomination that you know of that teaches that the OT isn't a reliable text and that God never actually asked people to stone blasphemers?
It's not as simple as a "christian denomination" either.

I wish that I hadn't slept so much during sermons in church :lol: because I do remember that our priest talked about just that but I don't remember exactly what he said about it. However, my priest was a man who lived with a woman and who clashed with his superiors to no end, so I never had a strict view on such things to begin with (so, if I get your strict views correctly, I never was a catholic to start with, right?). I always viewed the bible as flawed but I accepted Jesus as my moral compass back then.

Maybe somebody else can help out with your game. :p

Echoes
11-25-2011, 06:58 AM
So what?

How is the Christian message feministic?

What is what?

Jesus looked women's company and defended their cause at the time society cast stones on 'em. That's common knowledge. Womens could be missionaries along with men.




The quest for understanding is the quest for truth. It is no wonder that Christianity has been the major enemy of scientific endeavour, and hence of progress and advancement.

Quest for FACTS. Thank you. If the premise is wrong, no need to read the rest. :angel:

To be fair, he only said that we don't need religion to explain how the world works and that things previously ascribed to Gods or explained by religion have been explained by science.

And I repeat that the Christian faith does not claim to explain how the World works. Hence, there ain't nothing that was formerly explained by God and that's now explained by physics. There ain't no overlapping between Science and Religion, though some atheists love to think that way.

Lopez
11-25-2011, 08:12 AM
And I repeat that the Christian faith does not claim to explain how the World works. Hence, there ain't nothing that was formerly explained by God and that's now explained by physics. There ain't no overlapping between Science and Religion, though some atheists love to think that way.

Historically there has been though. Nowadays religion has a more metaphysical role than it did in the past.

Anyway, Aloimeh and a lot of other fundamentalists would disagree with you here as well. I agree in the sense that as long as religion doesn't make scientific claims (and it tends not to in modern western societies) then there is no overlap.

However, I wouldn't say they're enitrely compatible either. Science is looking for answers to questions like morality and the beginning of the universe which might overlap.

In addition, combining evolution with Christianity does give rise to some interesting questions. If morality is absolute and given only to humanity by God, in which phase of the evolutionary process did this happen? When does a soul enter a fetus? Moreover, if humans are the only creatures with souls, when was the first human born that had a soul but the parents didn't? Just interesting questions in my opinion.

Black Adam
11-25-2011, 08:47 AM
God didn't write deuteronomy. Some jerks in Babylon did.
Jesus would be spinning on his cross if he knew this levitical filth is being passed off as God's law.
Did God write a single verse in the bible? Bible was wrote by people who had God in them

Har-Tru
11-25-2011, 01:06 PM
What is what?

Jesus looked women's company and defended their cause at the time society cast stones on 'em. That's common knowledge. Womens could be missionaries along with men.

You are using the word Christian as meaning "of or related to Jesuschrist". Which is fine, but may I remind you that all Christian denominations posit Jesus and the OT God are the same, and should therefore not be analysed as separate beings.

Quest for FACTS. Thank you. If the premise is wrong, no need to read the rest. :angel:


Why exactly is the premise wrong? Because you say so?

I say you're saying that same thing I said. Facts are things known or proved to be true.

And I repeat that the Christian faith does not claim to explain how the World works. Hence, there ain't nothing that was formerly explained by God and that's now explained by physics. There ain't no overlapping between Science and Religion, though some atheists love to think that way.

That is nonsensical... Christianity makes monumental scientific claims. It makes the claim that there is a soul separate from the physical body, that there it is possible to survive your own death, that there exists an omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural being who created the universe... all of those are scientific claims.

And of course, thousands of things used to be explained by God and are now explained by science. Every time less and less.

Sham Kay
11-25-2011, 02:18 PM
Did God write a single verse in the bible? Bible was wrote by people who had God in them
It is very unlikely God has ever written or told anyone anything. Dreams and visions can be faked and can be just that - dreams. Besides, communication is something humans developed through signs and sound. It's humorous how everyone naturally thinks God knows how to communicate. He/she/it is not supposed to be human.

sicko
11-25-2011, 04:57 PM
It is very unlikely God has ever existed

fixed.

GOAT = Fed
11-25-2011, 04:58 PM
Forget the topic at hand

Seingeist's writing style :hearts:

Echoes
11-25-2011, 06:55 PM
Historically there has been though. Nowadays religion has a more metaphysical role than it did in the past.

Anyway, Aloimeh and a lot of other fundamentalists would disagree with you here as well. I agree in the sense that as long as religion doesn't make scientific claims (and it tends not to in modern western societies) then there is no overlap.


Aloimeh says what he wants, not my problem.

Historically, the Romans and the Old Greek believed in supernatural things causing natural phenomena. Think of Ulysses defying Poseidon in the Odyssey. With Jesus Christ, all that stopped.

There ain't no superstition in Christianism. Some "Christians" might just have kept the Pagan beliefs. That's all.

By the way, atheists are not superstition-free. Superstition is the act of giving an object a dismeasured value compared to what it really is. Hence there ain't no difference between a Pygmy with his blessed piece of wood and the Westerner with his Reason, an immaterial object compared to a material object, that's all. The idea that Reason would save the World is so naive and superstitious. Historically, the opposite has even been proven.

If I may respond to your last sentence, I'd say yes but NOMA should be prohibitive towards Science/Reason too. Subjectivity (Christians would call it 'soul') does exist. It can't be objectively described. Hence scientist should stay away from it.

Killing subjectivity (which includes Freedom) is after all the Bolsheviks' ultimate goal.

You are using the word Christian as meaning "of or related to Jesuschrist". Which is fine, but may I remind you that all Christian denominations posit Jesus and the OT God are the same, and should therefore not be analysed as separate beings.

I do it. I'm neither a Jew nor a Protestant. :p

That is nonsensical... Christianity makes monumental scientific claims. It makes the claim that there is a soul separate from the physical body, that there it is possible to survive your own death, that there exists an omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural being who created the universe... all of those are scientific claims.

No. (see my alinea above on subjectivity)

By the way I've reason not to believe in the omnipotence of God. That's probably personal.

Har-Tru
11-25-2011, 07:14 PM
Aloimeh says what he wants, not my problem.

Historically, the Romans and the Old Greek believed in supernatural things causing natural phenomena. Think of Ulysses defying Poseidon in the Odyssey. With Jesus Christ, all that stopped.

There ain't no superstition in Christianism. Some "Christians" might just have kept the Pagan beliefs. That's all.

By the way, atheists are not superstition-free. Superstition is the act of giving an object a dismeasured value compared to what it really is. Hence there ain't no difference between a Pygmy with his blessed piece of wood and the Westerner with his Reason, an immaterial object compared to a material object, that's all. The idea that Reason would save the World is so naive and superstitious.

I noticed you have a tendency to define things the way you want. Superstition is not even close to meaning what you make it to mean. Here's how the Oxford Dictionary of English defines the word superstitition:

1 Excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural.

2 A widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences, especially as leading to good or bad luck, or a practice based on such a belief.


Atheists (who by the way are not a uniform mass, it's annoying when people bunch us all together) do not believe in anything supernatural. At least the vast majority of them.

Your comparison of a blessed piece of wood with reason knocked me off the chair, in all fairness. What on earth does the one have to do with the other??

Historically, the opposite has even been proven.


I'm not sure I'm following you here.

Clydey
11-25-2011, 08:04 PM
I noticed you have a tendency to define things the way you want. Superstition is not even close to meaning what you make it to mean. Here's how the Oxford Dictionary of English defines the word superstitition:

1 Excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural.

2 A widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences, especially as leading to good or bad luck, or a practice based on such a belief.


Atheists (who by the way are not a uniform mass, it's annoying when people bunch us all together) do not believe in anything supernatural. At least the vast majority of them.

Your comparison of a blessed piece of wood with reason knocked me off the chair, in all fairness. What on earth does the one have to do with the other??



I'm not sure I'm following you here.

I have a feeling Echoes is trotting out the Stalin argument. It's tired, it's inaccurate, but that won't stop people from using Stalin's Russia as an example of reason gone mad.

As Sam Harris said, no society has ever suffered from its people being too reasonable.

Echoes
11-26-2011, 04:50 PM
Why exactly is the premise wrong? Because you say so?

I say you're saying that same thing I said. Facts are things known or proved to be true.


I skipped that yesterday (no time) but it reminds me of a scene from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade at the uni when Indy wrote the "FACTS" on the blackboard saying something like archeology is dealing facts and not truth, "if you want a lecture on truth, go to the philosophy department".

Facts are objective truthS. Not THE truth. Subjective truth also exists. The subjective truth can even be truer than the objective truth which is mainly a superficial truth.

---------

Okay I might have confused the term 'superstition' with 'fetishism'.

In this respect, my comparison is still right. I also fell off my chair when a Professor of mine at uni made the same comparison, but since then I've realized it's true.


I have a feeling Echoes is trotting out the Stalin argument. It's tired, it's inaccurate, but that won't stop people from using Stalin's Russia as an example of reason gone mad.

If it were only that.

It all started with the French Revolution (of 1792!), I guess.

Saying that the christianized world (pre-1792) was less freedom-friendly than the dechristianized world that followed, is not only not following me but also not following the facts.

You might wanna take conscription for example. For France, it was invented by the Convention and accepted by the dechristianized French people. Those who combatted it, Vendeans or Chouans, were massacred in unspeakable atrocities, by the "Realists" from the young French Republic. For sure, the Kings would have wished to have such absolute power but they never succeeded.

Conscription lasted during all of Buonaparte's Empire + the 3rd Republic in 1914. Is that what you call being free?


If scientists invented (or whichever verb you like, no matter) Freedom, than they should be able to describe it positively. Not sure it is possible.

Bakhtin showed that Science had a monologic (single-voiced) discourse, opposed to dialogic discourses of carnivals.

Har-Tru
11-26-2011, 05:20 PM
I skipped that yesterday (no time) but it reminds me of a scene from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade at the uni when Indy wrote the "FACTS" on the blackboard saying something like archeology is dealing facts and not truth, "if you want a lecture on truth, go to the philosophy department".

Facts are objective truthS. Not THE truth. Subjective truth also exists. The subjective truth can even be truer than the objective truth which is mainly a superficial truth.

---------

Expand, please.

You'll excuse me for not taking Indiana Jones as a source of authority. ;)

Okay I might have confused the term 'superstition' with 'fetishism'.

In this respect, my comparison is still right. I also fell off my chair when a Professor of mine at uni made the same comparison, but since then I've realized it's true.

How? How is it true?

Sunset of Age
11-26-2011, 06:11 PM
I just cannot stop at wonder at what seems so scary about certain folks being atheist - aka a non-believer in any supernatural force - to start with.
After all, those who claim to not believe, will end up in 'hell', anyways? So, please explain to me, you True Believers, what's so scary about me/us. Aren't we 'damned' anyways? :wavey:

Confrontational, perhaps?

:bolt:

cobalt60
11-26-2011, 09:11 PM
I just cannot stop at wonder at what seems so scary about certain folks being atheist - aka a non-believer in any supernatural force - to start with.
After all, those who claim to not believe, will end up in 'hell', anyways? So, please explain to me, you True Believers, what's so scary about me/us. Aren't we 'damned' anyways? :wavey:

Confrontational, perhaps?

:bolt:

This is only Black and White in some religions Karin; I don't have a problem with someone choosing to be an atheist. What I do dislike is someone trying to shove their beliefs down others throats.

Clydey
11-26-2011, 09:26 PM
I skipped that yesterday (no time) but it reminds me of a scene from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade at the uni when Indy wrote the "FACTS" on the blackboard saying something like archeology is dealing facts and not truth, "if you want a lecture on truth, go to the philosophy department".

Facts are objective truthS. Not THE truth. Subjective truth also exists. The subjective truth can even be truer than the objective truth which is mainly a superficial truth.

Rubbish. How can something be true for you and not for me? And that last sentence just blows my mind.

If it were only that.

Stalin's Russia was a form of state worship. It had zero to do with atheism. Stalin was an atheist, but his actions had about as much to do with him having a moustache, as has been pointed out many times.

It all started with the French Revolution (of 1792!), I guess.

Saying that the christianized world (pre-1792) was less freedom-friendly than the dechristianized world that followed, is not only not following me but also not following the facts.

You need to brush up on your history. Read up on the inquisition.

You might wanna take conscription for example. For France, it was invented by the Convention and accepted by the dechristianized French people. Those who combatted it, Vendeans or Chouans, were massacred in unspeakable atrocities, by the "Realists" from the young French Republic. For sure, the Kings would have wished to have such absolute power but they never succeeded.

Conscription lasted during all of Buonaparte's Empire + the 3rd Republic in 1914. Is that what you call being free?

You haven't explained what any of this has to do with atheism/reason/science.

If scientists invented (or whichever verb you like, no matter) Freedom, than they should be able to describe it positively. Not sure it is possible.

Bakhtin showed that Science had a monologic (single-voiced) discourse, opposed to dialogic discourses of carnivals.

Who said scientists invented freedom?

Sunset of Age
11-26-2011, 09:54 PM
This is only Black and White in some religions Karin; I don't have a problem with someone choosing to be an atheist. What I do dislike is someone trying to shove their beliefs down others throats.

Well, I just wish it were only the case in 'some' religion's. I've experienced quite the opposite during my lifetime. :o

Fully agree with your second sentence, it's all a matter of mutual respect, or rather, "Live and let Live". :D
I just don't understand what's so difficult to grasp about that, unless one's a zealot for whatever a cause.

Yep I admit I've expressed my utter disapproval for certain Bible texts in this thread. If you would like to understand why - I do not see any difference between condemning 'gays' to death, as that Bible text in fact does, and condemning 'blacks', 'women', or whatever a 'lower kind of human species'. :o
That certain bible text goes against MY personal morals, and as such, I fight it whereever I can. This including ripping out those dreadful texts thenever I come across them. If doing so makes me 'evil', than so be it. :wavey:

cobalt60
11-26-2011, 10:13 PM
Well Karin- here is why I choose this movement. (If you consider the Bible as a text written by whomever at a certain time and choose to interpret it for one's own time)

What is Reform Judaism?

Throughout history, Jews have remained firmly rooted in Jewish tradition, even as we learned much from our encounters with other cultures. Nevertheless, since its earliest days, Reform Judaism has asserted that a Judaism frozen in time is an heirloom, not a living fountain. The great contribution of Reform Judaism is that it has enabled the Jewish people to introduce innovation while preserving tradition, to embrace diversity while asserting commonality, to affirm beliefs without rejecting those who doubt and to bring faith to sacred texts without sacrificing critical scholarship.

Reform Judaism affirms the central tenets of Judaism - God, Torah and Israel - even as it acknowledges the diversity of Reform Jewish beliefs and practices. We believe that all human beings are created in the image of God, and that we are God’s partners in improving the world. Tikkun olam — repairing the world — is a hallmark of Reform Judaism as we strive to bring peace, freedom and justice to all people.

Reform Jews accept the Torah as the foundation of Jewish life containing God’s ongoing revelation to our people and the record of our people’s ongoing relationship with God. We see the Torah as God inspired, a living document that enables us to confront the timeless and timely challenges of our everyday lives.

In addition to our belief that Judaism must change and adapt to the needs of the day to survive and our firm commitment to Tikkun Olam, the following principles distinguish Reform Jews from other streams of Judaism in North America.

Reform Jews are committed to the principle of inclusion, not exclusion. Since 1978 the Reform Movement has been reaching out to Jews-by-choice and interfaith families, encouraging them to embrace Judaism. Reform Jews consider children to be Jewish if they are the child of a Jewish father or mother, so long as the child is raised as a Jew.

Reform Jews are committed to the absolute equality of women in all areas of Jewish life. We were the first movement to ordain women rabbis, invest women cantors and elect women presidents of our synagogues.

Reform Jews are also committed to the full participation of gays and lesbians in synagogue life as well as society at large."

Sunset of Age
11-26-2011, 10:31 PM
Your post may well explain why I usually get on with 'modern' jews pretty well, Sue. :hug:

As I do with about any religious person, as long as all respect the different opinions on beliefs - this including those who have no belief at all.
It still comes down to 'live-and-let-live', and 'do whatever makes you happy, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else' to me. :)

Har-Tru
11-26-2011, 10:35 PM
This is only Black and White in some religions Karin; I don't have a problem with someone choosing to be an atheist. What I do dislike is someone trying to shove their beliefs down others throats.

When was the last time you saw atheists going house by house preaching their thing? Picketing in churches to stop believers from having their religious office? Saying all believers are bad, inmoral people who deserve eternal punishment? All of those things are done by religious people regularly.

I struggle to find examples of atheists trying to shove their beliefs down other people's throats. Unless you consider defending one's position and trying to politely convince others of one's views shoving one's beliefs down others' throats, which I don't think you do. ;)

cobalt60
11-26-2011, 11:10 PM
When was the last time you saw atheists going house by house preaching their thing? Picketing in churches to stop believers from having their religious office? Saying all believers are bad, inmoral people who deserve eternal punishment? All of those things are done by religious people regularly.

I struggle to find examples of atheists trying to shove their beliefs down other people's throats. Unless you consider defending one's position and trying to politely convince others of one's views shoving one's beliefs down others' throats, which I don't think you do. ;)

I never stated atheist's do that. My second sentence was in general terms. I am not a believer in proselytizing.

Har-Tru
11-26-2011, 11:23 PM
I never stated atheist's do that. My second sentence was in general terms. I am not a believer in proselytizing.

I know you didn't, but many people (including people on this thread) do and I felt the need to make the statement. :) I have no problem with what I call passive proselytism, that is trying to defend your beliefs and convince others of your views in a propitious environment. It seems to me an only logical course of action, be your points what they may.

Sunset of Age
11-26-2011, 11:46 PM
When was the last time you saw atheists going house by house preaching their thing? Picketing in churches to stop believers from having their religious office? Saying all believers are bad, inmoral people who deserve eternal punishment? All of those things are done by religious people regularly.

I struggle to find examples of atheists trying to shove their beliefs down other people's throats. Unless you consider defending one's position and trying to politely convince others of one's views shoving one's beliefs down others' throats, which I don't think you do. ;)

José's claim is perfecty right. :shrug:
Never ever have I've seen folks blowing up houses, condemning gay people and deny women their claim to just be able to live their lives in whatever way they want, in other words, not dismiss their rights to live their lives in peace and allow them to have a sexual life of their own - in name of atheism. NEVER. :shrug:

My major question to so-called religious people: why care about us 'heretics' so much? Are you frightened, or what? Why just not allow us disbelievers to live our lives like we do, in peace, without any bothering us about a possible afterlife, which we don't believe in? What's your bother, to start with?

Sunset of Age
11-27-2011, 12:22 AM
czAPDWTKJEY

"DNA -We all got expiry dates,
Trust me, there's no get-away from my DNA

Can you forgive me, for things that I've done, things that I've said?
Trust me, there's no get-away from my DNA... "

;)

A perfect example of spiritualism brought to you by a Jew (Mr. Aviv Geffen) and an Atheist (Mr. Steven Wilson), who happen to be good friends of one another. :D

buddyholly
11-27-2011, 12:36 AM
My major question to so-called religious people: why care about us 'heretics' so much? Are you frightened, or what? Why just not allow us disbelievers to live our lives like we do, in peace, without any bothering us about a possible afterlife, which we don't believe in? What's your bother, to start with?

From where do you get this harrassment? Apart from the built in cultural nods to religion, like National Anthems, public prayers etc, I am not aware of anyone trying to prohibit me living my life like I do. I don't think anyone has ever bothered me about a possible afterlife.

And if you live in Holland I would have thought that would be the last place you would be bothered.

Sunset of Age
11-27-2011, 12:43 AM
From where do you get this harrassment? Apart from the built in cultural nods to religion, like National Anthems, public prayers etc, I am not aware of anyone trying to prohibit me living my life like I do. I don't think anyone has ever bothered me about a possible afterlife.

You said it yourself already.
My main problem is about 'religious' folks claming to have 'higher morals', which is complete rubbish and which I see happening all too often.

And if you live in Holland I would have thought that would be the last place you would be bothered.

You obviously have no idea at all about my country. I consider this a bit of an insult, to be honest. :wavey:

Clydey
11-27-2011, 12:45 AM
From where do you get this harrassment? Apart from the built in cultural nods to religion, like National Anthems, public prayers etc, I am not aware of anyone trying to prohibit me living my life like I do. I don't think anyone has ever bothered me about a possible afterlife.

And if you live in Holland I would have thought that would be the last place you would be bothered.

Well, if you don't experience it I guess it must not exist. Go through the links I provided to you. Do you live in the southern states?

By the way, you do realise that Theo van Gogh was murdered in Holland, right?

Sunset of Age
11-27-2011, 12:54 AM
Well, if you don't experience it I guess it must not exist. Go through the links I provided to you. Do you live in the southern states?

This. :help:

By the way, you do realise that Theo van Gogh was murdered in Holland, right?

Yep, by a total overzealous religious IDIOT. :o

Sigh, once again, whence did ever an atheist do the likewise?

Sheez, gotta get out of here....

Topspindoctor
11-27-2011, 01:00 AM
Can the mods ban all the religious fanatics already?

Sunset of Age
11-27-2011, 01:04 AM
Can the mods ban all the religious fanatics already?

:yeah:

Black Adam
11-27-2011, 04:40 AM
Fanatics like Aloimeh live for these kind f threads.

However everyone has a right to opinion regardless of opinion

tripwires
11-27-2011, 06:01 AM
José's claim is perfecty right. :shrug:
Never ever have I've seen folks blowing up houses, condemning gay people and deny women their claim to just be able to live their lives in whatever way they want, in other words, not dismiss their rights to live their lives in peace and allow them to have a sexual life of their own - in name of atheism. NEVER. :shrug:

My major question to so-called religious people: why care about us 'heretics' so much? Are you frightened, or what? Why just not allow us disbelievers to live our lives like we do, in peace, without any bothering us about a possible afterlife, which we don't believe in? What's your bother, to start with?

From what I understand from my Christian friends, part of the Christian faith is to propagate it and "save" non-believers from the terrifying prospect of spending all of eternity in hell. They preach and sometimes harrass out of "love". Pretty sure this was what Aloimeh alluded to in this thread too. :)

Thankfully I've never been harrassed by zealots to go to church or whatever. I admit I get irritated when a random Christian hands me a Christianity flyer on the streets, but I either take it and then throw it away after some suitable distance or politely decline. Singapore isn't the kind of country where you can get away with forcing your beliefs down another person's throat. :) (Not that it's always a good thing though.)

Castafiore
11-27-2011, 10:19 AM
José's claim is perfecty right. :shrug:
Never ever have I've seen folks blowing up houses, condemning gay people and deny women their claim to just be able to live their lives in whatever way they want, in other words, not dismiss their rights to live their lives in peace and allow them to have a sexual life of their own - in name of atheism. NEVER. :shrug:
I don't think you're being totally fair here, Karin.

Atheists will use other motives to argue with, fight & hurt people. So, if religion isn't a motive, they will find and have found other reasons to hurt others because it's human nature.. :shrug:

Throughout history, a lot of people have been hurt and killed in the name of a god or gods, yes. IMO, that's because religion is one of the easiest methods to control people and have power over them. However, it's never been the only cause of misery brought on by humans. Atheists have and will find other reasons to hurt others just because it's in human nature.

Atheists will not blow up houses in the name of god but some of them will hurt other people badly for other reasons.

Besides, the people going from door to door to talk about Jehovah/god/... are peaceful people who will accept it quickly enough if you make it clear that you're not interested. I don't know what sort of experience you have had with them but I don't quite see your point with them (other than waking you up too early on a Sunday morning perhaps. ;) )
It's no worse than saying no to a man or woman ringing your doorbell to try and sell you an insurance policy.


I saw this movie on tv recently:
God on Trial.
dx7irFN2gdI
Spellbinding and I'm sure many in here would find that movie fascinating.

Filo V.
11-27-2011, 03:14 PM
IDGAF who is religious and who isn't, but the reality is, too many religious types, religious fundamentalists, are uneducated on real world matters, are extremely one-track minded, and basing your entire existence on a 2000+ year old book is incredibly naive, at the very least.

Just my 2 cents.

Filo V.
11-27-2011, 03:15 PM
The Bible is fucking old. It's basically an ancient fable. So therefore, there will be ridiculous things within in for that reason.

Topspindoctor
11-27-2011, 11:39 PM
The Bible is fucking old. It's basically an ancient fable. So therefore, there will be ridiculous things within in for that reason.

The most important thing to note is that The Bible was written by a MAN and is, therefore, flawed like any human creation. It's not a magical book given to us by a wizard that created Earth 6000 years ago with infallible laws and guidelines to follow. The sooner religious fanatics accept it, the better it would be for the world.

Echoes
11-28-2011, 10:57 AM
Expand, please.
You'll excuse me for not taking Indiana Jones as a source of authority. ;)

My liking Pink Floyd music, Hitchcock's films, Rod Laver's style is subjective truth. No scientific theory can describe it.

An artist's creativity is subjective truth.



How? How is it true?

I've explained it in the previous post. Reason is not everything in life. So thinking it is is thinking it's sacred.

By the way, in the French language, the 'supernatural' does not appear in the definition of 'superstition'. Hence if your post was corrected. The English language is Newspeak-like (meaning reduction). Wouldn't surprise me. :p

I just cannot stop at wonder at what seems so scary about certain folks being atheist - aka a non-believer in any supernatural force - to start with.

I've always implied here that what was frightening to me was the belief that everything in life was rational and that irrationality should be wiped off (which means Art, Freedom, Love - or Hate-, Creativity, Beauty, etc.). Why should such blind faith in Science deserve such respect after all the harm done.

Some of these visionaries were deist - but anti-Christian - like Robespierre, for example.

If I were to choose between a Deist with such fanatical belief in Science and an atheist "derationalist" (like Nietzsche), I'll choose the latter without the shadow of a doubt, even if they're inconsistent. I haven't seen much of that on this thread.

By the way, it seems that atheist are more frightened than believers on this thread.

Stalin's Russia was a form of state worship. It had zero to do with atheism. Stalin was an atheist, but his actions had about as much to do with him having a moustache, as has been pointed out many times.

I know. There's always a bypass anyway. While for the reverse thing, there's none, despite the facts.

You need to brush up on your history. Read up on the inquisition.

Inquisition never reached France. And you'd better read my whole alinea instead of singling out every sentence.

Who said scientists invented freedom?

I was sure the verb 'invent' would've been the problem. You link Science with Freedom, do you? I'm telling you that it's nonsensical.


Yep, by a total overzealous religious IDIOT.

Sigh, once again, whence did ever an atheist do the likewise?


Between 1917 and 1991 in Russia, for starter.