The Devil and God are Raging Inside this Thread (God Thread Pt. 2)

[thespearkid]

ArtfullyAborted (http://www.absolutepunk.net/member.php?u=180830) 804 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=912512#)
GeeBee (http://www.absolutepunk.net/member.php?u=200949) 710 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=912512#)
vodyanoj (http://www.absolutepunk.net/member.php?u=692782) 579 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=912512#)
PlayRadioPlay (http://www.absolutepunk.net/member.php?u=113298) 332 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=912512#)
thespearkid (http://www.absolutepunk.net/member.php?u=163028) 250 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=912512#)
zion the lion (http://www.absolutepunk.net/member.php?u=629452) 115 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=912512#)
peder458 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/member.php?u=121982) 99 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=912512#)
saysmydoctor (http://www.absolutepunk.net/member.php?u=79881) 98 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=912512#)
perceptrons (http://www.absolutepunk.net/member.php?u=600572) 98 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=912512#)
Love As Arson (http://www.absolutepunk.net/member.php?u=18005) 82 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=912512#)

Continuation of the now expired "who here believes in the one we call "God"" thread. This is the official thread for intelligent debate on atheism/theism, intelligent design, religion in politics, and whatever else we can think of to argue about for the next 5000 posts. Keep in mind that this is a debate thread, which basically means two things:

1. People will disagree with you. Get over it and defend your beliefs.
2. Snide one-liners your read on 4chan are not welcome. They're dumb and don't benefit the discussion.

Now, let's do this thing.

Jesus is love.

I'm going to be compiling important links here in the original post. If anyone wants me to include a link, PM me the link and a short blurb about what it is and I'll add it here.

Important links:
1. http://www.biblegateway.com - Great site for looking up scriptures online and linking them in the thread.
2. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/06/ancient.bible.online/index.html - Oldest known Bible goes online.
3. http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html - Features quotes on religion from several founding fathers.

[The Personist]

First! And most posts! Win!

[Machu505]

Woot woot.

[peder458]

hello friends, glad to see you went with this title!

[billyboatkid]

What the tits.

[wewascontenders]

haha had no idea there was a god thread.

[thespearkid]

Who was it who said putting the Brand New reference in the title would attract more participants?

[The Personist]

:-)

[peder458]

Who was it who said putting the Brand New reference in the title would attract more participants?


me! remember.... it would bring 'brand new' participants..... hahah

EDIT: cuz they all think it is about brand new?? funny, kinda?

[thespearkid]

I totally slipped a "Jesus is love" in the OP.

[The Personist]

Shhhhh don't tell anyone.

[RuckerPark]

i believe we live in a way too complex world to not assume a higher power exists.

food for thought: when people say something is "horrible, wrong, or evil" on what principle are they basing this upon?

[peder458]

i was just trying to ignore it.....

we should have named it after the new brand new album. everyone on this site would have been in here!

[thespearkid]

I edited the original post. Any qualms?

[The Personist]

ArtfullyAborted (http://www.absolutepunk.net/member.php?u=180830) 804 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=912512#)
GeeBee (http://www.absolutepunk.net/member.php?u=200949) 710 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=912512#)
vodyanoj (http://www.absolutepunk.net/member.php?u=692782) 579 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=912512#)
PlayRadioPlay (http://www.absolutepunk.net/member.php?u=113298) 332 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=912512#)
thespearkid (http://www.absolutepunk.net/member.php?u=163028) 250 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=912512#)
zion the lion (http://www.absolutepunk.net/member.php?u=629452) 115 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=912512#)
peder458 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/member.php?u=121982) 99 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=912512#)
saysmydoctor (http://www.absolutepunk.net/member.php?u=79881) 98 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=912512#)
perceptrons (http://www.absolutepunk.net/member.php?u=600572) 98 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=912512#)
Love As Arson (http://www.absolutepunk.net/member.php?u=18005) 82 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=912512#)

Continuation of the now expired "who here believes in the one we call "God"" thread. This is the official thread for intelligent debate on atheism/theism, intelligent design, religion in politics, and whatever else we can think of to argue about for the next 5000 posts. Keep in mind that this is a debate thread, which basically means two things:

1. People will disagree with you. Get over it and defend your beliefs.
2. Snide one-liners your read on 4chan are not welcome. They're dumb and don't benefit the discussion.

Now, let's do this thing.

Jesus is love.

I see what you did there.

[Brokenhill]

I always wondered what happened to the religous debate thread I use to be in all the time. Idk why I never thought of it getting archived...

I'm interestested in biblical discussion.

[thespearkid]

I always wondered what happened to the religous debate thread I use to be in all the time. Idk why I never thought of it getting archived...

I'm interestested in biblical discussion.
Go for it. Bible study is one of my biggest past times and I've been thinking about starting a Bible study thread in General or something.

[The Personist]

The Bible! Oh, what a wealth of discussion-worthy material. Let's go for it.

I gotta read that sucker again.

[bung]

Jesus saves, the devil spends. :-p

[peder458]

Go for it. Bible study is one of my biggest past times and I've been thinking about starting a Bible study thread in General or something.

that would be really interesting. i think it would end up almost exactly like this thread (the old one) though, all about debate...

[Brokenhill]

Go for it. Bible study is one of my biggest past times and I've been thinking about starting a Bible study thread in General or something.

Hmm...well recently I was in a discussion with someone from Yahoo! Answers about salvation in the new testament. He teaches that you are saves through faith alone, and the whole saying a certain prayer bit which means Jesus excepts you. I on the other hand believe that there is more than just to belief in God/Jesus to be saves - you must repent, confess Jesus, and be baptized.
The main scripture he used was Romans 4:5 but also used John 3:16. (I kept replying and giving handfuls of scripture and it didn't take long for him to stop replying).

What is your stand on this?

[thespearkid]

that would be really interesting. i think it would end up almost exactly like this thread (the old one) though, all about debate...
Yup, that's what I'm thinking. I'd probably link this thread in the original post of any kind of Bible study thread.

[The Personist]

Hmm...well recently I was in a discussion with someone from Yahoo! Answers about salvation in the new testament. He teaches that you are saves through faith alone, and the whole saying a certain prayer bit which means Jesus excepts you. I on the other hand believe that there is more than just to belief in God/Jesus to be saves - you must repent, confess Jesus, and be baptized.
The main scripture he used was Romans 4:5 but also used John 3:16. (I kept replying and giving handfuls of scripture and it didn't take long for him to stop replying).

What is your stand on this?

I think Islam and Judaism are equally valid faiths. I'm not a fan of "salvation" because I don't think we're cunts in the hands of a God who is angry at us or something. I think that the point of things is to live with compassion and live responsibly. For me, that means living in Christ.

[thespearkid]

Hmm...well recently I was in a discussion with someone from Yahoo! Answers about salvation in the new testament. He teaches that you are saves through faith alone, and the whole saying a certain prayer bit which means Jesus excepts you. I on the other hand believe that there is more than just to belief in God/Jesus to be saves - you must repent, confess Jesus, and be baptized.
The main scripture he used was Romans 4:5 but also used John 3:16. (I kept replying and giving handfuls of scripture and it didn't take long for him to stop replying).

What is your stand on this?
I don't believe baptism is a requirement to be saved, although I've never actually looked into it. Any particular scripture you suggest? I think John 3:16 is really the best reference on the subject for me. "Whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." I think that to "believe" in Christ in this context means that you believe He is the son of God, accept Him as your personal savior, and try to follow His teachings and show His love in all you do. I believe this includes repentance and confession (to God, not necessarily a priest).

[peder458]

Yup, that's what I'm thinking. I'd probably link this thread in the original post of any kind of Bible study thread.

i would love to learn about the bible. learning about other sacred texts would be kinda cool too, if anyone has any background. i would give it my 100% all not to be argumentative!

[The Personist]

I don't believe baptism is a requirement to be saved, although I've never actually looked into it. Any particular scripture you suggest? I think John 3:16 is really the best reference on the subject for me. "Whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." I think that to "believe" in Christ in this context means that you believe He is the son of God, accept Him as your personal savior, and try to follow His teachings and show His love in all you do. I believe this includes repentance and confession (to God, not necessarily a priest).

But that obviates other religions and beliefs, with which I am not comfortable because it is the same kind of judging Paul says we are incapable of doing in a world where we all are in need of grace.

[Brokenhill]

I don't believe baptism is a requirement to be saved, although I've never actually looked into it. Any particular scripture you suggest? I think John 3:16 is really the best reference on the subject for me. "Whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." I think that to "believe" in Christ in this context means that you believe He is the son of God, accept Him as your personal savior, and try to follow His teachings and show His love in all you do. I believe this includes repentance and confession (to God, not necessarily a priest).

Well for starters: Acts 2:38
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:38;&version=49;

All the accounts in Acts of people being saves/being added to the Lord's church/having their sins washed away always comes after baptism.

[thespearkid]

i would love to learn about the bible. learning about other sacred texts would be kinda cool too, if anyone has any background. i would give it my 100% all not to be argumentative!
I've really been thinking about getting into other religious texts as well. I believe that God has given me all the tools I need for my walk in the Bible and in prayer but I also think there are personal truths to be found in almost all worldviews.

[The Personist]

Well for starters: Acts 2:38
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:38;&version=49;

All the accounts in Acts of people being saves/being added to the Lord's church/having their sins washed away always comes after baptism.

Baptism as a metaphor for God's forgiveness of everyone.

[peder458]

I've really been thinking about getting into other religious texts as well. I believe that God has given me all the tools I need for my walk in the Bible and in prayer but I also think there are personal truths to be found in almost all worldviews.

i took a class on the philosophy of world religions last semester, and it was one of the most interesting classes i have taken. just learning about the major religions was fascinating. there is so much to take in ya know?

[Brokenhill]

Baptism as a metaphor for God's forgiveness of everyone.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:35-40;&version=49;

Note vs. 36

[thespearkid]

But that obviates other religions and beliefs, with which I am not comfortable because it is the same kind of judging Paul says we are incapable of doing in a world where we all are in need of grace.
That assumes salvation is something that's universal. My salvation isn't the same as a muslims.

Well for starters: Acts 2:38
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:38;&version=49;

All the accounts in Acts of people being saves/being added to the Lord's church/having their sins washed away always comes after baptism.
What exactly is baptism (or rather, it's Biblical relevance)? I've never been baptized but I wouldn't opposed to it.

[The Personist]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:35-40;&version=49;

Note vs. 36

:shrug: My point still stands.

[The Personist]

That assumes salvation is something that's universal. My salvation isn't the same as a muslims.


What exactly is baptism (or rather, it's Biblical relevance)? I've never been baptized but I wouldn't opposed to it.

I don't believe that God discriminates on the basis of creed.

[Brokenhill]

:shrug: My point still stands.

It's a physical action.

[thespearkid]

i took a class on the philosophy of world religions last semester, and it was one of the most interesting classes i have taken. just learning about the major religions was fascinating. there is so much to take in ya know?
Yeah. I had sort of the opposite experience haha. My school required a class where a certain portion of the lectures were from the Bible. This was before I was a Christian. Even now though, I think it's a dumb idea considering there were English, Math, and Biology teachers trying to teach scripture.

[The Personist]

It's a physical action.

In the passage. But it's metaphorical overall. Taking the Bible literally is a dangerous thing.

[peder458]

I don't believe that God discriminates on the basis of creed.

i think that is the only way to go if you believe; i could not agree more.

[peder458]

Yeah. I had sort of the opposite experience haha. My school required a class where a certain portion of the lectures were from the Bible. This was before I was a Christian. Even now though, I think it's a dumb idea considering there were English, Math, and Biology teachers trying to teach scripture.

that just seems silly. why not have the math teacher teach an english class? or a physics teacher teach a psychology class..... pointless. was this a private school?

[theguy77]

I think Islam and Judaism are equally valid faiths. I'm not a fan of "salvation" because I don't think we're cunts in the hands of a God who is angry at us or something. I think that the point of things is to live with compassion and live responsibly. For me, that means living in Christ.

the foundation of how i practice my own views. i feel like a lot of religious perspectives try to personify god as a spiteful, jealous, angry king and i simply cant subscribe myself to that. those are human evils to me and i cant imagine those characteristics being embodied by the proverbial entity of true divinity.

[Brokenhill]

That assumes salvation is something that's universal. My salvation isn't the same as a muslims.


What exactly is baptism (or rather, it's Biblical relevance)? I've never been baptized but I wouldn't opposed to it.


Well the root word "baptizo" means being submerged into water. Completely covered, not sprinkled or poured.

[The Personist]

the foundation of how i practice my own views. i feel like a lot of religious perspectives try to personify god as a spiteful, jealous, angry king and i simply cant subscribe myself to that. those are human evils to me and i cant imagine those characteristics being embodied by the proverbial entity of true divinity.

Have I made you look up panentheism yet? You should.

Also: stay in the threadddddddddddd!!!!

[Brokenhill]

In the passage. But it's metaphorical overall. Taking the Bible literally is a dangerous thing.

Not dangerous at all. You can't be wrong by doing so.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206:1-5;&version=49;

It's a physical action that is done for and represents something spiritual.

[thespearkid]

Hey guys, I'm going to start compiling important links posted in the thread. I'll edit them into the original post as they are PM'd to me. This will help with the problem we had in the last thread where someone would post an article and then we'd all lose it and not remember where to find it. A few requests with this system:

1. If you want a link added to the original post, PM it to me with a short blurb about what the link is.
2. You link has to have been posted in the thread before it was PM'ed to me.
3. The link has to be relevant to the thread (meaning I want be linking to any sites the general thread membership deems "offensive". ex, God Hates ****.)

[dtrzcin]

That assumes salvation is something that's universal. My salvation isn't the same as a muslims.


What exactly is baptism (or rather, it's Biblical relevance)? I've never been baptized but I wouldn't opposed to it.

Repentance is dying to the flesh = Christ's death
Baptism is being buried in water for remission of sins = Christ's burial
Believing on Him, receiving His spirit, and starting life anew = Christ's resurrection

Edit: Doing the above is basically what it means to "take up your cross".

[The Personist]

Not dangerous at all. You can't be wrong by doing so.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206:1-5;&version=49;

It's a physical action that is done for and represents something spiritual.

3rd Century: Jerome said we should all have more than one interpretation of any given passage of scripture, but the most dangerous of all interpretations is the literal one.

Religious language is the language of metaphors.

[theguy77]

Have I made you look up panentheism yet? You should.

Also: stay in the threadddddddddddd!!!!

hahaha, it can be so stressful justifying your spiritual indulgences through logos though, because there are some sides to it that a person who is less of an emotional thinker simply can not accept or validate.

[thespearkid]

that just seems silly. why not have the math teacher teach an english class? or a physics teacher teach a psychology class..... pointless. was this a private school?
Yup. Other than that instance, it's a pretty great school.

[The Personist]

hahaha, it can be so stressful justifying your spiritual indulgences through logos though, because there are some sides to it that a person who is less of an emotional thinker simply can not accept or validate.

No more stressful than us tag-teaming motherfuckers in the Brand NEw thread :highfive:

But seriously, you should hang around.

[thespearkid]

Repentance is dying to the flesh = Christ's death
Baptism is being buried in water for remission of sins = Christ's burial
Believing on Him, receiving His spirit, and starting life anew = Christ's resurrection

Edit: Doing the above is basically what it means to "take up your cross".
The repentance and acceptance of Christ as a savior, I understand. Baptism though just seems more like a religious tradition to me.

[Brokenhill]

3rd Century: Jerome said we should all have more than one interpretation of any given passage of scripture, but the most dangerous of all interpretations is the literal one.

Religious language is the language of metaphors.

I've heard this from you before. I don't go by what Jerome said, what Ghandi said, what (insert philosopher's name here) said. I go by what God has said.

Now there are instances in the bible which are predominantly metaphorical such as Revelation because it's a vision brought to Peter in which the occurences are related to things that the people at that time were dealing with for further understanding.

But when the bible speaks on worship or baptism or other commandments, they're literal, unless context says otherwise - why wouldn't they be?

[thespearkid]

Second page already.

[The Personist]

I've heard this from you before. I don't go by what Jerome said, what Ghandi said, what (insert philosopher's name here) said. I go by what God has said.

Now there are instances in the bible which are predominantly metaphorical such as Revelation because it's a vision brought to Peter in which the occurences are related to things that the people at that time were dealing with for further understanding.

But when the bible speaks on worship or baptism or other commandments, they're literal, unless context says otherwise - why wouldn't they be?

People wrote the bible, not God.

[Brokenhill]

The repentance and acceptance of Christ as a savior, I understand. Baptism though just seems more like a religious tradition to me.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206:1-5;&version=49;

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:38;&version=49;

[Brokenhill]

People wrote the bible, not God.

Physically, yes - but the content was from God. Inspired by God.

[The Personist]

Physically, yes - but the content was from God. Inspired by God.

But it is metaphor, a catalogue of meaning, not history.

The Creation is a human creation story, not what actually happened.

[peder458]

I've heard this from you before. I don't go by what Jerome said, what Ghandi said, what (insert philosopher's name here) said. I go by what God has said.

Now there are instances in the bible which are predominantly metaphorical such as Revelation because it's a vision brought to Peter in which the occurences are related to things that the people at that time were dealing with for further understanding.

But when the bible speaks on worship or baptism or other commandments, they're literal, unless context says otherwise - why wouldn't they be?

the bible says not to eat shellfish, and not to mix meat with dairy, and not to wear mixed thread clothing. are those also to be taken literal?

[thespearkid]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206:1-5;&version=49;

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:38;&version=49;
I'm not convinced that "baptism" in this sense refers to the literal dunking of into a pool. Could it be metaphorical? Perhaps to allow Christ to fully envelope you?

[The Personist]

the bible says not to eat shellfish, and not to mix meat with dairy, and not to wear mixed thread clothing. are those also to be taken literal?

The reason that academic analysis and biblical scholarship is necessary is because we have to sift through some of the crap entailed therein--like the rules pertaining to women and rape, for instance.

[peder458]

The repentance and acceptance of Christ as a savior, I understand. Baptism though just seems more like a religious tradition to me.

to me it kind of just seems like people 'showing off' that they are one with god. it doesn't really change them imo.

[dtrzcin]

The repentance and acceptance of Christ as a savior, I understand. Baptism though just seems more like a religious tradition to me.

In sense, it is, as in how people say it is an "outward sign of an inward faith," but according to the Bible it is necessary. Probably because having an "outward sign" is essential if you are going to be a witness to others, but I'm not sure. I'd say just go by what Acts 2:38 says. They asked Peter what they must do to be saved, and in his response he included baptism. :shrug:

[Brokenhill]

the bible says not to eat shellfish, and not to mix meat with dairy, and not to wear mixed thread clothing. are those also to be taken literal?

To those who were living under the old law - of course!

However, the old law was done away with as Jesus fulfilled it and put the new into place that all men should be judged by it on that final day.

There is no commandments on not being able to eat certain foods. The Catholics with their fridays and no meat is tradition. Not biblical. The only thing the NT really condemns for (related to food) is being a glutton.
It is a sin to over-eat.

[Brokenhill]

I'm not convinced that "baptism" in this sense refers to the literal dunking of into a pool. Could it be metaphorical? Perhaps to allow Christ to fully envelope you?

As I previously showed AA:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:35-40;&version=49

[peder458]

The reason that academic analysis and biblical scholarship is necessary is because we have to sift through some of the crap entailed therein--like the rules pertaining to women and rape, for instance.

maybe those were bad examples....

how about Christ and the sword? if we don't take those literally*, then he MUST be perceived as violent. therefore we need to look at scripture as a metaphor. (i think i am arguing the same thing you are; literal interpretation = usually bad)

*figuratively

[Brokenhill]

But it is metaphor, a catalogue of meaning, not history.

The Creation is a human creation story, not what actually happened.

If it was all just a collection of metaphors then how do you explain the details on Jesus' and the apostles journies...and their adressing other congregations through personal occurences or writing letters.

[The Personist]

As I previously showed AA:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:35-40;&version=49

Name's David. And I stand by my rebuttal.

maybe those were bad examples....

how about Christ and the sword? if we don't take those literally, then he MUST be perceived as violent. therefore we need to look at scripture as a metaphor. (i think i am arguing the same thing you are; literal interpretation = usually bad)

We are arguing the same thing! :-) The problem with literal scripture is that it practically undermines itself

[thespearkid]

In sense, it is, as in how people say it is an "outward sign of an inward faith," but according to the Bible it is necessary. Probably because having an "outward sign" is essential if you are going to be a witness to others, but I'm not sure. I'd say just go by what Acts 2:38 says. They asked Peter what they must do to be saved, and in his response he included baptism. :shrug:
Whenever people asked Christ what to do to be saved, He always said it was as simple as believing Him and accepting Him as your savior.

As I previously showed AA:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:35-40;&version=49
Definitely an interesting scripture. Tell me, do you believe there is a strict path to salvation?

[The Personist]

If it was all just a collection of metaphors then how do you explain the details on Jesus' and the apostles journies...and their adressing other congregations through personal occurences or writing letters.

I do not believe that what Jesus did in the scripture actually happened as detailed. It is a catalog of the meaningfulness of what he did. Most progressive Christian scholarship would support that idea, too. Read Marcus Borg.

[peder458]

If it was all just a collection of metaphors then how do you explain the details on Jesus' and the apostles journies...and their adressing other congregations through personal occurences or writing letters.

i would argue that if you are going to follow the bible, it is the metaphors to life that matter, not the mundane facts about peoples' lives and lineages that matter; even if it was jesus.

[Brokenhill]

maybe those were bad examples....

how about Christ and the sword? if we don't take those literally*, then he MUST be perceived as violent. therefore we need to look at scripture as a metaphor. (i think i am arguing the same thing you are; literal interpretation = usually bad)

*figuratively

Not all of it is literal, but if it's metaphorical then it's clearly understood as that in the scripture.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%206:12-17;&version=49;

The physical object is related to the spiritual meaning.

[Brokenhill]

Context is extremely important in understanding scripture. It's really not that difficult to understand...you just have to read into it.

[peder458]

I do not believe that what Jesus did in the scripture actually happened as detailed. It is a catalog of the meaningfulness of what he did. Most progressive Christian scholarship would support that idea, too. Read Marcus Borg.

i feel you touched on this in the last thread, but this is very clear. if you were going to make any atheist say 'AMEN' than this should be the cause!

(though i might even go broader and say the meaningfulness of what WE CAN do, not only what he did)

[Brokenhill]

i would argue that if you are going to follow the bible, it is the metaphors to life that matter, not the mundane facts about peoples' lives and lineages that matter; even if it was jesus.

I'm not exactly getting all that you are trying to say, but...

The straight forward commandments matter just as much as the examples that are brought forth by not only Jesus but by his apostles/disciples.

If the scripture says we are to be like Christ, and we see that Christ does this or that - shouldn't we also do this or that? Or at least try our best to ?

[The Personist]

i feel you touched on this in the last thread, but this is very clear. if you were going to make any atheist say 'AMEN' than this should be the cause!

(though i might even go broader and say the meaningfulness of what WE CAN do, not only what he did)

It's about what he meant to others, and how they saw God made manifest in a human being, that makes it religious and not just a secular role model (and what will make atheists angry about it still)

[peder458]

Not all of it is literal, but if it's metaphorical then it's clearly understood as that in the scripture.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%206:12-17;&version=49;

The physical object is related to the spiritual meaning.

i am confused then as to what we are actually arguing; (within the context of this passage) explain why we should take the bible literally?

[peder458]

It's about what he meant to others, and how they saw God made manifest in a human being, that makes it religious and not just a secular role model (and what will make atheists angry about it still)

i can disagree without being angry! :)

[Brokenhill]

I do not believe that what Jesus did in the scripture actually happened as detailed. It is a catalog of the meaningfulness of what he did. Most progressive Christian scholarship would support that idea, too. Read Marcus Borg.

Well then we are near polar opposites.

I take it that you don't believe that he was born of Mary as a virgin...?

See, if I didn't believe such things - then I would take Jesus as meerly another man who just happened to be a "really good guy" therefor would not accept him as God nor the means by which I could be saved. Hence my life meaning-less.

[The Personist]

i can disagree without being angry! :)

This is true; you're certainly one of the more pleasant to discuss with.

[peder458]

This is true; you're certainly one of the more pleasant to discuss with.

likewise. i almost always learn something when i visit here!

[dtrzcin]

Whenever people asked Christ what to do to be saved, He always said it was as simple as believing Him and accepting Him as your savior.



Yes, and even the thief on the cross was given access to Paradise by simply believing in Him. Just as those who were righteous in the OT were allowed access into Heaven. But that was all before His mission on Earth was finished. He told the disciples before he ascended to wait in Jerusalem and He would send them the Holy Ghost. Later in the chapter, they all received it. (Acts 1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%201;&version=9;)) And then there is when He tells them about baptism in Matthew 28:19*. So after His mission on Earth was accomplished (creating a way around sin) people could now follow Him and take up their cross, which included the 3 things I posted earlier.

*I'll also note here that when it says in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, it says name singular. What is the name of the Son? Jesus. "I and my father are one." - John 10:30. So the Father's name is Jesus. And He said He would send them His spirit, so its name must be Jesus. So this is why the apostles baptized in Jesus' name. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

[Brokenhill]

i am confused then as to what we are actually arguing; (within the context of this passage) explain why we should take the bible literally?

All i'm saying is that it's not all metaphorical. But it also isn't all literal. Based on context it is understood as to which it is.

[peder458]

Well then we are near polar opposites.

I take it that you don't believe that he was born of Mary as a virgin...?

See, if I didn't believe such things - then I would take Jesus as meerly another man who just happened to be a "really good guy" therefor would not accept him as God nor the means by which I could be saved. Hence my life meaning-less.

i have to stop you there; as a non-believer i can see where your life might seem better with religion/god/jesus, but let's not jump to conclusions and write your whole life off as meaningless without those things.

[The Personist]

Well then we are near polar opposites.

I take it that you don't believe that he was born of Mary as a virgin...?

See, if I didn't believe such things - then I would take Jesus as meerly another man who just happened to be a "really good guy" therefor would not accept him as God nor the means by which I could be saved. Hence my life meaning-less.

How does it make it meaningless? How is Christ merely just another good guy? What he did was fundamentally oppose the dominant, oppressive Roman Empire, work for change through compassion, and simply struggle for freedom. He was a mover and a shaker, not just another good guy. If you live your life in Christ and follow that example, I don't see how you have no meaning.

[peder458]

All i'm saying is that it's not all metaphorical. But it also isn't all literal. Based on context it is understood as to which it is.

thanks for clarifying, i understand your stance now.

[Brokenhill]

Yes, and even the thief on the cross was given access to Paradise by simply believing in Him. Just as those who were righteous in the OT were allowed access into Heaven. But that was all before His mission on Earth was finished. He told the disciples before he ascended to wait in Jerusalem and He would send them the Holy Ghost. Later in the chapter, they all received it. (Acts 1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%201;&version=9;)) And then there is when He tells them about baptism in Matthew 28:19*. So after His mission on Earth was accomplished (creating a way around sin) people could now follow Him and take up their cross, which included the 3 things I posted earlier.

*I'll also note here that when it says in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, it says name singular. What is the name of the Son? Jesus. "I and my father are one." - John 10:30. So the Father's name is Jesus. And He said He would send them His spirit, so its name must be Jesus. So this is why the apostles baptized in Jesus' name. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Indeed.

During the time of Christ was a transition period for everyone at that time - yet everyonce after his death have the complete information as to how to live our lives.

[peder458]

Indeed.

During the time of Christ was a transition period for everyone at that time - yet everyonce after his death have the complete information as to how to live our lives.

god should have planned better...

[Brokenhill]

i have to stop you there; as a non-believer i can see where your life might seem better with religion/god/jesus, but let's not jump to conclusions and write your whole life off as meaningless without those things.


if I was athiest/agnostic/whatever and believed in evolution or whatnot I would just look at myself as another animal. I would be a strong believer in using natural selection to man-kinds benefit. Truthfully...I would probably believe that all with diseases and other hereditary complications should be killed off so that a more perfect race could be breeded...because my entire mindset would be how the animals is - kill or be killed - survival - keep my kind alive.

There'd be no point to living besides fulfilling physical lusts that are never satisfied, and dealing with different annoying or tragic circumstances in which I would feel that there wouldn't be a point to living anymore - therefor probably resort to suicide of PAS.

[Brokenhill]

How does it make it meaningless? How is Christ merely just another good guy? What he did was fundamentally oppose the dominant, oppressive Roman Empire, work for change through compassion, and simply struggle for freedom. He was a mover and a shaker, not just another good guy. If you live your life in Christ and follow that example, I don't see how you have no meaning.

(Not to sound sarcastic or anything, but...) Did you read when I said "If I didn't believe such things"?

Also, refer to the reply I made to peder.

[peder458]

if I was athiest/agnostic/whatever and believed in evolution or whatnot I would just look at myself as another animal. I would be a strong believer in using natural selection to man-kinds benefit. Truthfully...I would probably believe that all with diseases and other hereditary complications should be killed off so that a more perfect race could be breeded...because my entire mindset would be how the animals is - kill or be killed - survival - keep my kind alive.

i stopped here. you don't believe there is ample evidence for the theory of evolution???

[The Personist]

(Not to sound sarcastic or anything, but...) Did you read when I said "If I didn't believe such things"?

Also, refer to the reply I made to peder.

I did read it; I'm not sure we agree on what "salvation" is. Do you believe in the physical places of Heaven and Hell?

[Brokenhill]

i stopped here. you don't believe there is ample evidence for the theory of evolution???


I can understand how people think that some supreme being - or even God spun evolution into existence, but do I believe it myself - No way.

[Brokenhill]

I did read it; I'm not sure we agree on what "salvation" is. Do you believe in the physical places of Heaven and Hell?

Of course. I believe that all who die will go to a place of waiting (either torment or paradise) until Jesus returns to the earth and then the earth is destroyed followed by the judgment of everyone...and that is when we either enter heaven or hell.

[The Personist]

In the Bible, salvation is mostly concerned with something that happens in this life. Even in the New Testament, the primary meaning of the word "salvation" is transformation in this life. One can see this in the roots of the English word salvation, which comes from "salve," which is a healing ointment. Salvation is about healing. We all grow up wounded, and salvation is about the healing of the roots of existence.
Sounds like a mid-life crisis. Well, yeah. And the Bible has specific images of salvation. Salvation is about light in the darkness, liberation from bondage, return from exile, or reconnection with God. It's about our hunger being satisfied, our thirst being quenched, and so forth. The identification of salvation with "going to heaven" in much of popular Christianity not only impoverishes the meaning of salvation but I also think really distorts what being a Christian is all about.

Whenever the afterlife is made central to being Christian, it invariably turns Christianity into a religion of requirements. If there is an afterlife, it doesn't seem fair that everyone gets to go there regardless of what they do before death , so there must be something you have to do or believe. And then suddenly Christianity ceases to be a religion of grace and instead becomes a religion of measuring up to what God requires.

Marcus Borg on salvation.

[peder458]

I can understand how people think that some supreme being - or even God spun evolution into existence, but do I believe it myself - No way.

what causes you to disagree with the theory itself? there is MORE THAN ENOUGH evidence to support it; hence it is a "theory". many religious people have found ways to synthesize the two together.

what beliefs do you hold that are in contradiction with evolution specifically?

[The Personist]

I can understand how people think that some supreme being - or even God spun evolution into existence, but do I believe it myself - No way.

Errm...

[The Personist]

what causes you to disagree with the theory itself? there is MORE THAN ENOUGH evidence to support it; hence it is a "theory". many religious people have found ways to synthesize the two together.

what beliefs do you hold that are in contradiction with evolution specifically?

I'm kind of a whore for Borg, but I think reading him is beneficial. You should take a gander at "The God We Never Knew." It's a great book that's got nothing to prove except that God isn't exactly what you may have conceived of him as being to some religious people.

[Brokenhill]

To, uhh... Mr. Borg

Yea...God has requirements and has set up a plan for all of to follow in order to please him. It's all up to us - it's our choice...and he's giving us plenty of time to make it.

[The Personist]

Yea...God has requirements and has set up a plan for all of to follow in order to please him. It's all up to us - it's our choice...and he's giving us plenty of time to make it.

I agree with Borg about this...it seems to distort what being a Christian is all about.

[Brokenhill]

what causes you to disagree with the theory itself? there is MORE THAN ENOUGH evidence to support it; hence it is a "theory". many religious people have found ways to synthesize the two together.

what beliefs do you hold that are in contradiction with evolution specifically?

Well if the big bang was how the universe started and evolution was the means in which we God here, that'd mean that God lied. Yet God cannot lie.

[peder458]

I'm kind of a whore for Borg, but I think reading him is beneficial. You should take a gander at "The God We Never Knew." It's a great book that's got nothing to prove except that God isn't exactly what you may have conceived of him as being to some religious people.

that passage you quoted is really nice. i think i would probably enjoy a fresh outlook, much what i get from your personal statements.

[Brokenhill]

I agree with Borg about this...it seems to distort what being a Christian is all about.

How so?

Being a Christian is about following Christ. Following Christ is about following his commandments and spreading the gospel to all so that they obtain the chance of being saved and one day living eternally with God.

[The Personist]

Well if the big bang was how the universe started and evolution was the means in which we God here, that'd mean that God lied. Yet God cannot lie.

People wrote the book, not God.

[peder458]

Well if the big bang was how the universe started and evolution was the means in which we God here, that'd mean that God lied. Yet God cannot lie.

so do you also believe that the earth is roughly 6-10,000 yrs old? that adam and eve were the first two humans ever? and, among other things, that the earth is flat and is also the center of the universe???

if you do it is going to be a long night....

[Brokenhill]

People wrote the book, not God.

Didn't I reply to this not too much earlier?

The basis of my faith is that the bible is God's inspired word. If I didn't believe that then once again there'd be no point.

[The Personist]

How so?

Being a Christian is about following Christ. Following Christ is about following his commandments and spreading the gospel to all so that they obtain the chance of being saved and one day living eternally with God.

Following Christ is about living your life in the same way he did, with the transformative love and compassion for others that Christ demonstrates. I find it alarming that you think there is only one true path to "salvation" and that is your religion. That, to me, is fundamentally dangerous and isolationist.

[peder458]

Didn't I reply to this not too much earlier?

The basis of my faith is that the bible is God's inspired word. If I didn't believe that then once again there'd be no point.

the bible clearly states that the earth is flat? how do you understand those passages literally without thinking them flawed?

[Brokenhill]

Following Christ is about living your life in the same way he did, with the transformative love and compassion for others that Christ demonstrates. I find it alarming that you think there is only one true path to "salvation" and that is your religion. That, to me, is fundamentally dangerous and isolationist.

I believe that there is only one way unto salvation - that which is expressed in the NT. It's not "my religion" it's God's plan.

Now I know that I may not be following everything 100% right, 100% of the time - but ever since being saved my goal has been to grow spiritually and learn more about his plan by reading scripture (which I have been). I try my hardest to follow the commandments.

As you have seen though, the things which I believe and follow - I have scriptural reference to. I'm not making this stuff up. If it was my way then I would be doing things different. But it's not...it's GOD's way - I have to follow it if I want to be with him for eternity.

[Brokenhill]

the bible clearly states that the earth is flat? how do you understand those passages literally without thinking them flawed?

Bk. Ch. Vs.?

I'd like to look at it contextually - as I have yet to read this.

[The Personist]

I believe that there is only one way unto salvation - that which is expressed in the NT. It's not "my religion" it's God's plan.

Now I know that I may not be following everything 100% right, 100% of the time - but ever since being saved my goal has been to grow spiritually and learn more about his plan by reading scripture (which I have been). I try my hardest to follow the commandments.

As you have seen though, the things which I believe and follow - I have scriptural reference to. I'm not making this stuff up. If it was my way then I would be doing things different. But it's not...it's GOD's way - I have to follow it if I want to be with him for eternity.

Never said you were making it up. But if you think that the billions of people who are not Christian are going to hell because they are not "saved," then I will continue to find your iteration of religion dubious.

[peder458]

I believe that there is only one way unto salvation - that which is expressed in the NT. It's not "my religion" it's God's plan.

Now I know that I may not be following everything 100% right, 100% of the time - but ever since being saved my goal has been to grow spiritually and learn more about his plan by reading scripture (which I have been). I try my hardest to follow the commandments.

As you have seen though, the things which I believe and follow - I have scriptural reference to. I'm not making this stuff up. If it was my way then I would be doing things different. But it's not...it's GOD's way - I have to follow it if I want to be with him for eternity.

honestly, out of curiosity; what do you believe about the age of the earth, adam and eve being the first people and noah really saving two of every animal?

[Brokenhill]

Never said you were making it up. But if you think that the billions of people who are not Christian are going to hell because they are not "saved," then I will continue to find your iteration of religion dubious.

I'm not codemning anyone to hell, but I believe that few will enter the kingdom of heaven - as expressed in Matthew 7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:13-14;&version=49;

[Brokenhill]

honestly, out of curiosity; what do you believe about the age of the earth, adam and eve being the first people and noah really saving two of every animal?

I do believe all of this.

The power of God trumps any and all of man's "theories".

These theories are a lot easier to believe because they are being comprehended by the brains and with the same relative thinking as to which they were created.

IMO, there's a biiiig picture, yet the majority of the world only looks at this zoomed in portion.

[The Personist]

I'm not codemning anyone to hell, but I believe that few will enter the kingdom of heaven - as expressed in Matthew 7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:13-14;&version=49;

Easier to lead a destructive life than to lead one of compassion and love. THat's the point.

[BryterJonah]

'scribed.

Even though I'm annoyed by this. But I guess that's human nature.

[peder458]

Bk. Ch. Vs.?

I'd like to look at it contextually - as I have yet to read this.

the earth has four corners, is a circular disk, is flat, and doesn't move:
Isa 11:12, Ps 24:2, Isa 40:22, Ps 93:1, Jer 10:13, Dan 4:10-11, Zech 9:10, Chr 16:30.....

[The Personist]

'scribed.

Even though I'm annoyed by this. But I guess that's human nature.

Oh, you enjoy reading it.

specially my posts :-)

[Brokenhill]

Easier to lead a destructive life than to lead one of compassion and love. THat's the point.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2013:23-25;&version=49;

The point is what it says. It's very easy to understand. Don't try to twist its' meaning.

[peder458]

I do believe all of this.

The power of God trumps any and all of man's "theories".

These theories are a lot easier to believe because they are being comprehended by the brains and with the same relative thinking as to which they were created.

IMO, there's a biiiig picture, yet the majority of the world only looks at this zoomed in portion.

the earth is most certainly more than a few thousand years old, but there really isn't a point in debating, if you are unwilling to examine evidence from 'feeble' human theories..... (paraphrased)

[The Personist]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2013:23-25;&version=49;

The point is what it says. It's very easy to understand. Don't try to twist its' meaning.

It's impossible to lead a perfect life in Christ, so you're right, few people will actually make it in. He never says being in the house is the ultimate point of everything.

[Brokenhill]

the earth has four corners, is a circular disk, is flat, and doesn't move:
Isa 11:12, Ps 24:2, Isa 40:22, Ps 93:1, Jer 10:13, Dan 4:10-11, Zech 9:10, Chr 16:30.....

Overall these are language things and metaphorical in the sense that as to explain the importance/greatness/whatever such wordage was used.

Isa. 11:12 - He will raise a banner for the nations
and gather the exiles of Israel;
he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
from the four quarters of the earth.

As in people from all areas of the earth will be assembled.
___

Isa 40:22 - It is He who [a (http://absolutepunk.net/#fen-NASB-18443a)]sits above the [b (http://absolutepunk.net/#fen-NASB-18443b)](E (http://absolutepunk.net/#cen-NASB-18443E))circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like (F (http://absolutepunk.net/#cen-NASB-18443F))grasshoppers,
Who (G (http://absolutepunk.net/#cen-NASB-18443G))stretches out the heavens like a (H (http://absolutepunk.net/#cen-NASB-18443H))curtain
And spreads them out like a (I (http://absolutepunk.net/#cen-NASB-18443I))tent to dwell in.

If it was literally spoken of as a circular, then everything would be 2 dimensional whish is obv. impossible so it's termanology relating to spherical.
___
Dan. 4:10 Now these were the (A (http://absolutepunk.net/#cen-NASB-21848A))visions in my mind as I lay on my bed: I was looking, and behold, there was a (B (http://absolutepunk.net/#cen-NASB-21848B))tree in the midst of the earth and its height was great.
11'The tree grew large and became strong
And its height (C (http://absolutepunk.net/#cen-NASB-21849C))reached to the sky,
And it was visible to the end of the whole earth.

It's a vision...

[Brokenhill]

the earth is most certainly more than a few thousand years old, but there really isn't a point in debating, if you are unwilling to examine evidence from 'feeble' human theories..... (paraphrased)


Well my first post in this thread was that "I was interested in biblical discussion" as I had started with TheSpearKid, though he dropped out after replying like twice.

It's impossible to debate with anyone who has a different standard than you. You can't prove the big bang theory or evolution through the bible to me, and I can't prove through humanities scientific reasoning that the bible is 100% credible and fact as to how we got to where we are today and how we should live from here on.

You're not going to change my mind and i'm not going to change your mind. However if we had the same standard (lets say I was discussing thigns with a "Catholic" or "Lutheran" - then I might have some leeway into changing their mind.)

[Brokenhill]

Anyway i'm going to be heading out in a few minutes. I'd still love to be included in biblical discussion...although i don't know of many that would do so other than like S.T.E.V.E.N.

[Brokenhill]

It's impossible to lead a perfect life in Christ, so you're right, few people will actually make it in. He never says being in the house is the ultimate point of everything.

Well what else would be the point? I don't see anywhere where it says "yet love all others and become as one, accepting everyone for who they are so that all future existence of humanity will be happier and more productive" or something along those lines.

I always think of this verse...it's short, simple, powerful. Sums everything up nicely.

Revelation 2:10 (latter part) http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%202:10;&version=49;

"Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life." It's what we should all want...and what we should all want others to all want and to recieve.

[vodyanoj]

How does it make it meaningless? How is Christ merely just another good guy? What he did was fundamentally oppose the dominant, oppressive Roman Empire, work for change through compassion, and simply struggle for freedom. He was a mover and a shaker, not just another good guy. If you live your life in Christ and follow that example, I don't see how you have no meaning.

The Israelites were quite comfortable oppressing each other(and anyone else that happened to be around) without the Roman Empire's intervention. One can say that the laws of the Roman Empire were far more just and equitable than the laws of many societies it has incorporated (without denying that it was, essentially, a police state).

And my significant comment from the previous thread was regarding your quip on Great Expectations, and I said:

"Not so. for any string of bits I can come up with an algorithm to decode it into any other string of bits. There exists a decoding algorithm that transforms Great Expectations directly into Protocols of Zion."

[x togepi x]

Overall these are language things and metaphorical in the sense that as to explain the importance/greatness/whatever such wordage was used.

Isa. 11:12 - He will raise a banner for the nations
and gather the exiles of Israel;
he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
from the four quarters of the earth.

As in people from all areas of the earth will be assembled.
___

Isa 40:22 - It is He who [a (http://absolutepunk.net/#fen-NASB-18443a)]sits above the [b (http://absolutepunk.net/#fen-NASB-18443b)](E (http://absolutepunk.net/#cen-NASB-18443E))circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like (F (http://absolutepunk.net/#cen-NASB-18443F))grasshoppers,
Who (G (http://absolutepunk.net/#cen-NASB-18443G))stretches out the heavens like a (H (http://absolutepunk.net/#cen-NASB-18443H))curtain
And spreads them out like a (I (http://absolutepunk.net/#cen-NASB-18443I))tent to dwell in.

If it was literally spoken of as a circular, then everything would be 2 dimensional whish is obv. impossible so it's termanology relating to spherical.
___
Dan. 4:10 Now these were the (A (http://absolutepunk.net/#cen-NASB-21848A))visions in my mind as I lay on my bed: I was looking, and behold, there was a (B (http://absolutepunk.net/#cen-NASB-21848B))tree in the midst of the earth and its height was great.
11'The tree grew large and became strong
And its height (C (http://absolutepunk.net/#cen-NASB-21849C))reached to the sky,
And it was visible to the end of the whole earth.

It's a vision...


dude if you're willing to pass these things off as metaphor, why are you so for a literalist interpretation when it applies to gay people?

[vodyanoj]

Well if the big bang was how the universe started and evolution was the means in which we God here, that'd mean that God lied. Yet God cannot lie.

That means that the people who wrote the Bible had no clue about modern cosmology and biology, no more, no less. In that they were exactly the same as the rest of the human population of the planet at the time.

[vodyanoj]

Well my first post in this thread was that "I was interested in biblical discussion" as I had started with TheSpearKid, though he dropped out after replying like twice.

It's impossible to debate with anyone who has a different standard than you. You can't prove the big bang theory or evolution through the bible to me, and I can't prove through humanities scientific reasoning that the bible is 100% credible and fact as to how we got to where we are today and how we should live from here on.

You're not going to change my mind and i'm not going to change your mind. However if we had the same standard (lets say I was discussing thigns with a "Catholic" or "Lutheran" - then I might have some leeway into changing their mind.)

We DO have the same standard. It's called logic and reason, and although you may reject their validity as long as you make empirically verifiable claims about the Universe you implicitly accept it.

[Regards]

Go for it. Bible study is one of my biggest past times and I've been thinking about starting a Bible study thread in General or something.
I back this... hard. As someone going to school for a biblical degree it would be nice to discuss thoughts, doctrine, etc etc with people. I'll keep my eye on this thread.

Subscribed.

[perceptrons]

Oh no... a fundie.

[Regards]

Oh no... a fundie.
lol, I'm quite open to other's ideal's, but yeah, I'll back my "fundamental" beliefs pretty hard. Nothing but love though, but if these topics get as out of hand as most internet topics do I'll just bail. Gets to a point where its not worth it.

[TK]

Note to Dion: I'll make all the snide one liners I read on 4chan as I want.

[TK]

Now, serious question to all believers in this thread: Do you believe you must have absolute belief in Jesus, the Bible, and Christianity to be allowed into Heaven? Or is it okay to have slight personal doubt? Just curious on what you guys think.

[GeeBee]

From the Book Of GEEBEE, Chapter 121, Verse 13-

"And thus was Spearkid overtaken in religious literalist nutjobbery by the valiant quixotic A Fatal Goodbye..."
So was it written. So was it done.

Sorry Spearkid. It was a noble effort. But what took you hundreds of pages to achieve has taken Fatal Goodbye but 9 to undo.

[bung]

How do you Christians feel about your religion declining around the world and in America specifically (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29585222/)?

Is is that our morals are being corrupted? Is Satan's handy work to blame? Why are people breaking up with Jesus?

[GeeBee]

How do you Christians feel about your religion declining around the world and in America specifically (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29585222/)?

Is is that our morals are being corrupted? Is Satan's handy work to blame? Why are people breaking up with Jesus?

Because Jesus was all nice and all, but then they met his DAD (who is actually just Jesus, gofigure), who is quite the douche.

[Regards]

How do you Christians feel about your religion declining around the world and in America specifically (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29585222/)?

Is is that our morals are being corrupted? Is Satan's handy work to blame? Why are people breaking up with Jesus?
"If God hasn't removed his blessings from America, then he owes Sodom and Gomorrah a huge apology"
-Chuck Missler

It doesn't take much more than turning on a TV and watching a television show to know that moral boundaries are constantly being pushed in a direction that's different than the morals that line up with that of the Bible. As for Satan's handy work, I agree, but I can point to church's that want to shy away from these subjects and see even more of his handy work, which would be my answer towards your third question. I guess I would reply with were the people really into Jesus if they're breaking up with him as you put it? That brings up a whole new argument of the "once saved always saved", but there are so many feel-good churches out there that are more damaging (in my eyes) to people faith than anything. IE Joel Osteen.

[bung]

"If God hasn't removed his blessings from America, then he owes Sodom and Gomorrah a huge apology"
-Chuck Missler

It doesn't take much more than turning on a TV and watching a television show to know that moral boundaries are constantly being pushed in a direction that's different than the morals that line up with that of the Bible. As for Satan's handy work, I agree, but I can point to church's that want to shy away from these subjects and see even more of his handy work, which would be my answer towards your third question. I guess I would reply with were the people really into Jesus if they're breaking up with him as you put it? That brings up a whole new argument of the "once saved always saved", but there are so many feel-good churches out there that are more damaging (in my eyes) to people faith than anything. IE Joel Osteen.

So your answer is pretty much that Satan is using TV and movies as tools to turn Americans away from God? Is that your final answer?

[Regards]

So your answer is pretty much that Satan is using TV and movies as tools to turn Americans away from God? Is that your final answer?
Did you even read my post? Or were you just looking to catch someone in a snare?

[GeeBee]

Your post was as rambling as it was incoherent.

[Regards]

Your post was as rambling as it was incoherent.
As the tend to be when I post from work. I should learn my lesson and wait til I'm home.

I'll revise my statements when I get home to clear things up, however I'll have to join in on the conversation later this week, I'm heading off to a music fest til Sunday.

[peder458]

Well my first post in this thread was that "I was interested in biblical discussion" as I had started with TheSpearKid, though he dropped out after replying like twice.

It's impossible to debate with anyone who has a different standard than you. You can't prove the big bang theory or evolution through the bible to me, and I can't prove through humanities scientific reasoning that the bible is 100% credible and fact as to how we got to where we are today and how we should live from here on.

You're not going to change my mind and i'm not going to change your mind. However if we had the same standard (lets say I was discussing thigns with a "Catholic" or "Lutheran" - then I might have some leeway into changing their mind.)

it is absolutely NOT impossible to argue with people of different viewpoints/backgrounds. it is impossible to argue using logic/reason when one person decides they are above logic/reason. if you say before our discussion even starts that 'i won't believe anything you say despite how much evidence you have' that is definitely going to put a damper on our debate. it has nothing to do with the standard you are talking about. it has to do with discarding any knowledge given by science.

god says he gives us reason to know him. while i don't believe that, i think you could understand in your interpretations to understand that knowledge is good. god gave you knowledge to understand him. for you to say that you don't believe any of it is ridiculous especially when other religious people have done so; synthesize new discoveries with old texts that is.

you are depriving yourself. i hope you give it another look.

[peder458]

Anyway i'm going to be heading out in a few minutes. I'd still love to be included in biblical discussion...although i don't know of many that would do so other than like S.T.E.V.E.N.

a biblical discussion is first and foremost going to lead the bible's contradictions when non-believers are involved; though i have doubts as to whether you believe there are any. i would love to have a biblical discussion, but for you to take things from the bible as fact even though they blatantly disagree with empirical evidence in the real world throws out any credibility you had.

[peder458]

Sorry Spearkid. It was a noble effort. But what took you hundreds of pages to achieve has taken Fatal Goodbye but 9 to undo.

this...... (sigh)

[The Personist]

Because Jesus was all nice and all, but then they met his DAD (who is actually just Jesus, gofigure), who is quite the douche.

Disagree. Just because you're repping Groucho doesn't make YOU funny ;-)

[The Personist]

a biblical discussion is first and foremost going to lead the bible's contradictions when non-believers are involved; though i have doubts as to whether you believe there are any. i would love to have a biblical discussion, but for you to take things from the bible as fact even though they blatantly disagree with empirical evidence in the real world throws out any credibility you had.

:-( It's so true.

But I'm still game for discussion.

[peder458]

:-( It's so true.

But I'm still game for discussion.

i think once people got over that initial problem, it could still be discussed! i could be wrong, but i would still be down with it.

[The Personist]

i think once people got over that initial problem, it could still be discussed! i could be wrong, but i would still be down with it.

I feel bad because I just don't understand interpretations of the Bible like that. They don't make sense to me :shrug:

[peder458]

I feel bad because I just don't understand interpretations of the Bible like that. They don't make sense to me :shrug:

i think the only people those type of interpretations make sense to are those raised to believe it no matter what. they hold it so tight that it is impossible for them to think that there is any other possible way to interpret it. that is when they will discard ANYTHING that goes against it...... which is just silly.. (to me).

[The Personist]

i think the only people those type of interpretations make sense to are those raised to believe it no matter what. they hold it so tight that it is impossible for them to think that there is any other possible way to interpret it. that is when they will discard ANYTHING that goes against it...... which is just silly.. (to me).

I feel bad and I hope we don't sound passive aggressive by discussing it like this (because he'll see the thread later, but i hope he knows no offense is at all intended), but it is very frustrating. Biblical literalism never became prominent until Protestants felt threatened during the Enlightenment and, as a defense mechanism, declared the Bible to be the only truth and to be taken exactly as is. It was a desperate, stupid move done by people whose grip on knowledge was slipping.

[yves.]

reading the posts by a fatal farewell or whatever the fuck his name is is going to drive me insane.

[The Personist]

Now, serious question to all believers in this thread: Do you believe you must have absolute belief in Jesus, the Bible, and Christianity to be allowed into Heaven? Or is it okay to have slight personal doubt? Just curious on what you guys think.

I just noticed this. I'm agnostic about the afterlife, but in general, that sort of absolutism is insane. Billions of people around the world aren't Christian or of an Abrahamic creed. I don't think people who don't believe the same things as I do are condemned to anything. That's just dumb. Faith, by the way, entails doubt. Otherwise it's a blind acceptance of creedal assertions to assuage a fear of death, which is ridiculous. I think the important thing is living, and that religion is a guideline for living productively, not living a certain way so you aren't damned eternally.

The Israelites were quite comfortable oppressing each other(and anyone else that happened to be around) without the Roman Empire's intervention. One can say that the laws of the Roman Empire were far more just and equitable than the laws of many societies it has incorporated (without denying that it was, essentially, a police state).

And my significant comment from the previous thread was regarding your quip on Great Expectations, and I said:

"Not so. for any string of bits I can come up with an algorithm to decode it into any other string of bits. There exists a decoding algorithm that transforms Great Expectations directly into Protocols of Zion."

I'm not sure that makes much sense. Can you elaborate? From what I gather, you're using the algorithms to change the text itself so that the Protocols of Zion would be emergent not in the actual Great Expectations.

[Animalhill]

I feel bad and I hope we don't sound passive aggressive by discussing it like this (because he'll see the thread later, but i hope he knows no offense is at all intended), but it is very frustrating. Biblical literalism never became prominent until Protestants felt threatened during the Enlightenment and, as a defense mechanism, declared the Bible to be the only truth and to be taken exactly as is. It was a desperate, stupid move done by people whose grip on knowledge was slipping.
Hey man, this is irrelevant to this post, but I was wondering if you had read that article about (bear with me, I am paraphrasing and cannot find the link at the moment) the oldest version of the New Testament going on sale?
Apparantly there is absolutely nothing in there reguarding a resurrection of Jesus. Thoughts?

[thespearkid]

lol, I'm quite open to other's ideal's, but yeah, I'll back my "fundamental" beliefs pretty hard. Nothing but love though, but if these topics get as out of hand as most internet topics do I'll just bail. Gets to a point where its not worth it.
Agreed. "Fundie" is thrown around in these threads as a kind of insult but I've never really seen it as such, until people try to take the fundamentalist stereotype pushed by CNN and MSNBC and try to apply it to every Christian on Earth.

Note to Dion: I'll make all the snide one liners I read on 4chan as I want.
Hahaha.

Now, serious question to all believers in this thread: Do you believe you must have absolute belief in Jesus, the Bible, and Christianity to be allowed into Heaven? Or is it okay to have slight personal doubt? Just curious on what you guys think.
Occasional doubt is perfectly fine. I mean, there are times I don't feel like praying but I don't think God can help me. Even Jesus Christ Himself had moments of doubt, particularly at the last supper and in the garden of gethsemane. When I first start exploring Christianity, I didn't even believe in God but as soon as I started to go to Him in prayer, I felt Him.

From the Book Of GEEBEE, Chapter 121, Verse 13-

"And thus was Spearkid overtaken in religious literalist nutjobbery by the valiant quixotic A Fatal Goodbye..."
So was it written. So was it done.

Sorry Spearkid. It was a noble effort. But what took you hundreds of pages to achieve has taken Fatal Goodbye but 9 to undo.
I believe that particular verse in the book of GeeBee is a metaphor for how Christ's love replaces our love for wordly sins.

How do you Christians feel about your religion declining around the world and in America specifically (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29585222/)?

Is is that our morals are being corrupted? Is Satan's handy work to blame? Why are people breaking up with Jesus?
America has bred it's citizens to be arrogant (or "patriotic") and greedy (or "capitalistic"). Naturally, a worldview that suggests we're all equally shitty people and encourages us to help the poor (while discouraging excessive wealth) isn't going to sit well in that type of culture.

[perceptrons]

lol, I'm quite open to other's ideal's, but yeah, I'll back my "fundamental" beliefs pretty hard. Nothing but love though, but if these topics get as out of hand as most internet topics do I'll just bail. Gets to a point where its not worth it.
I was referring to Fatal Goodbye, actually.

[The Personist]

Hey man, this is irrelevant to this post, but I was wondering if you had read that article about (bear with me, I am paraphrasing and cannot find the link at the moment) the oldest version of the New Testament going on sale?
Apparantly there is absolutely nothing in there reguarding a resurrection of Jesus. Thoughts?

:shrug: I don't think Jesus was actually resuscitated, and I think the question of an empty tomb is irrelevant. Christ was resurrected, which intimates a new kind of existence not dependent on a corpse. It's metaphoric for Jesus' impact continuing beyond his death.

[Animalhill]

:shrug: I don't think Jesus was actually resuscitated, and I think the question of an empty tomb is irrelevant. Christ was resurrected, which intimates a new kind of existence not dependent on a corpse. It's metaphoric for Jesus' impact continuing beyond his death.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/06/ancient.bible.online/index.html
There's the link. I think I am more curious to see what some of the fundamentalists will say given their believe of a literal "second coming".

[Mercy Medical]

So has this thread turned into worth while discussion or is it just atheists shitting on Christians and vice versa?

[Animalhill]

So has this thread turned into worth while discussion or is it just atheists shitting on Christians and vice versa?
I am an atheist but am most definitely not shitting on Christians :-)
Unlike most (gross generalization) atheists, I am not irked by others having personal faith, only when the faith of some drive political policy.

[Mercy Medical]

I am an atheist but am most definitely not shitting on Christians :-)
Unlike most (gross generalization) atheists, I am not irked by others having personal faith, only when the faith of some drive political policy.
I'm interested in having actual discussion on these topics, but I grow very tired of degrading remarks coming from either side.

[Animalhill]

I'm interested in having actual discussion on these topics, but I grow very tired of degrading remarks coming from either side.
I hear you. I feel like people get very defensive very easily when it comes to this topic.

[Jefferson Rank]

Already so many posts? Geez.

[Mercy Medical]

I hear you. I feel like people get very defensive very easily when it comes to this topic.
I mean, I considering myself a Christian, but I can completely understand why atheists don't believe. I also find die hard, hardcore Christians to be extremely obnoxious as they tend to ignore the fact that all their beliefs are just that...merely beliefs, not fact.

I strayed away from the previous God thread because of certain people being dickbags. Honestly, I see no point in being a dick to one another. People believe different things and there's no point in trying to make either side out to be an idiot considering no one truly knows nor will they ever know what happens after we die.

[bung]

America has bred it's citizens to be arrogant (or "patriotic") and greedy (or "capitalistic"). Naturally, a worldview that suggests we're all equally shitty people and encourages us to help the poor (while discouraging excessive wealth) isn't going to sit well in that type of culture.

This doesn't really make sense, as the religious decline has really only began in about the past 20 years or so. And America has been a capitalistic country for 200+ years. Moreover, some of the least religious countries of the world are those in Scandinavia, which are far more socialistic.

[Animalhill]

I mean, I considering myself a Christian, but I can completely understand why atheists don't believe. I also find die hard, hardcore Christians to be extremely obnoxious as they tend to ignore the fact that all their beliefs are just that...merely beliefs, not fact.

I strayed away from the previous God thread because of certain people being dickbags. Honestly, I see no point in being a dick to one another. People believe different things and there's no point in trying to make either side out to be an idiot considering no one truly knows nor will they ever know what happens after we die.
haha I hear you, that is why I also stopped posting in that thread.

[Mercy Medical]

haha I hear you, that is why I also stopped posting in that thread.
Same, but if this one is better, then I'm down to discuss! lol

[thespearkid]

This doesn't really make sense, as the religious decline has really only began in about the past 20 years or so. And America has been a capitalistic country for 200+ years. Moreover, some of the least religious countries of the world are those in Scandinavia, which are far more socialistic.
I'm not a socialogist so I can't really tell you exactly why America is shying away from Christianity but I do believe it has something to do with how our culture is breeding us, more and more so, to be selfish. Notice the rise in neo-conservatism. I'm not saying non-Christians are automatically selfish or that Christians are automaticlly selfless but the basics of Christianity call for one to shed their arrogance and to help others, something America as a whole is shying further and further away from (hopefully the Obama administration can reverse some of this).

Honestly though, it's not about how many Christians there are. It doesn't matter. The Bible says whereever two or three are gathered, His presence can be felt.

[The Personist]

This doesn't really make sense, as the religious decline has really only began in about the past 20 years or so. And America has been a capitalistic country for 200+ years. Moreover, some of the least religious countries of the world are those in Scandinavia, which are far more socialistic.

Because the predominant kind of Christianity in America, at least as far as we see it, is the fundamentalist, biblical literalist, supernatural theist kind, of course it's going to turn people off to it. It's just insane. People need to realize that believing in God isn't a way of covering for the things we don't know.

[Animalhill]

Same, but if this one is better, then I'm down to discuss! lol
haha the same goes for me. Maybe it would be interesting to discuss not the validity of peoples belief/disbelief, but the reasons for such.

[thespearkid]

So has this thread turned into worth while discussion or is it just atheists shitting on Christians and vice versa?
Sometime within the last thousand posts of the old thread, we all started to get along better and actually reached a certain level of civility. There are still semi-sarcastic jabs thrown around every now and then but, for the most part, it's a lot calmer.

[Mercy Medical]

Okay, so on that note I suppose I'll say a random comment on my thoughts about God/Christianity/etc. Personally, I believe in the existence of God. Obviously I have no proof, but I just believe it considering what I see in this world and what I feel in my heart. I've been a Christian since I was 5, was raised in a Christian home. Past believing in God, however, I'm not really sure what I believe. I can't fully believe in the Bible, mostly because I know it was written by man and while I do believe in the goodness of God, I cannot believe in the goodness of man 100%. We are flawed creatures and I don't see it as a stretch to have some of the men who wrote the Bible add their own personal touches to it. I also find it very difficult to believe in the present day Bible, mostly because it's been translated numerous times and a lot of the original messages/meanings have been lost. I'm not sure how I stand on my beliefs in Jesus Christ, mostly because if I believe what I stated previously, it's plausible that those stories are nothing more then that...stories. I think I believe in Jesus Christ, dying for our sins, etc, but I'm not 100% at that yet.

I believe that the Bible and Christianity has a very good message to it at it's very core, but people have corrupted and bastardized that message for their own personal gain. I also believe that people are very capable of being good and maintaining the same general message the Bible preaches without being religious. I don't believe religion and morals are mutually exclusive.

[The Personist]

Sometime within the last thousand posts of the old thread, we all started to get along better and actually reached a certain level of civility. There are still semi-sarcastic jabs thrown around every now and then but, for the most part, it's a lot calmer.

We tamed GeeBee! :-)

[The Personist]

Okay, so on that note I suppose I'll say a random comment on my thoughts about God/Christianity/etc. Personally, I believe in the existence of God. Obviously I have no proof, but I just believe it considering what I see in this world and what I feel in my heart. I've been a Christian since I was 5, was raised in a Christian home. Past believing in God, however, I'm not really sure what I believe. I can't fully believe in the Bible, mostly because I know it was written by man and while I do believe in the goodness of God, I cannot believe in the goodness of man 100%. We are flawed creatures and I don't see it as a stretch to have some of the men who wrote the Bible add their own personal touches to it. I also find it very difficult to believe in the present day Bible, mostly because it's been translated numerous times and a lot of the original messages/meanings have been lost. I'm not sure how I stand on my beliefs in Jesus Christ, mostly because if I believe what I stated previously, it's plausible that those stories are nothing more then that...stories. I think I believe in Jesus Christ, dying for our sins, etc, but I'm not 100% at that yet.

I believe that the Bible and Christianity has a very good message to it at it's very core, but people have corrupted and bastardized that message for their own personal gain. I also believe that people are very capable of being good and maintaining the same general message the Bible preaches without being religious. I don't believe religion and morals are mutually exclusive.

:nod:

[Mercy Medical]

:nod:
I mean, there's really no better way to explain it and it's definitely not logical, but I just feel it.

[Machu505]

Seeing as this thread is also related to religion in politics, here's a link with various quotes from the Founding Fathers and their opinions on Christianity and religion in general.

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

[theguy77]

Okay, so on that note I suppose I'll say a random comment on my thoughts about God/Christianity/etc. Personally, I believe in the existence of God. Obviously I have no proof, but I just believe it considering what I see in this world and what I feel in my heart. I've been a Christian since I was 5, was raised in a Christian home. Past believing in God, however, I'm not really sure what I believe. I can't fully believe in the Bible, mostly because I know it was written by man and while I do believe in the goodness of God, I cannot believe in the goodness of man 100%. We are flawed creatures and I don't see it as a stretch to have some of the men who wrote the Bible add their own personal touches to it. I also find it very difficult to believe in the present day Bible, mostly because it's been translated numerous times and a lot of the original messages/meanings have been lost. I'm not sure how I stand on my beliefs in Jesus Christ, mostly because if I believe what I stated previously, it's plausible that those stories are nothing more then that...stories. I think I believe in Jesus Christ, dying for our sins, etc, but I'm not 100% at that yet.

I believe that the Bible and Christianity has a very good message to it at it's very core, but people have corrupted and bastardized that message for their own personal gain. I also believe that people are very capable of being good and maintaining the same general message the Bible preaches without being religious. I don't believe religion and morals are mutually exclusive.

every single word in this post is backed so hard by me its not even funny. this is a replica of what my views have been over the past year or two.

[The Personist]

I mean, there's really no better way to explain it and it's definitely not logical, but I just feel it.

Absolutely. It's quite a nice feeling, too.

[The Personist]

Seeing as this thread is also related to religion in politics, here's a link with various quotes from the Founding Fathers and their opinions on Christianity and religion in general.

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

lol at the founding fathers.

[Machu505]

lol at the founding fathers.
Do not lol at Benjamin Franklin!

[Mercy Medical]

every single word in this post is backed so hard by me its not even funny. this is a replica of what my views have been over the past year or two.
And I suppose I feel a bit guilty about feeling that way. I mean, I was raised in a Christian home so this has obviously been part of my life for quite some time and I feel like it's bad that I don't believe in the Bible, but I just can't. It was written by men and knowing the history of the human species and human nature, I can't fully believe everything in the Bible is truly God's word. Especially when there are so many things, so many passages that contradict one another. I've seen people argue in other forums using different passages to support their side. It's just sort of silly to me. Plus, I find it moderately silly that the big incentive to believe in God is to avoid hell, this place that's painted out to be absolutely awful. I mean, if you look at it, that's the big reason anyone is a Christian. To me that feels so fake and flawed. People shouldn't believe in God just to get a free pass to heaven. It seems perfectly plausible to me that it was put in the Bible in order to make people obey...

I dunno, I guess I just view God in a completely different light then most other Christians. It's also been a life changer for me since I realized I was gay. There's absolutely no way God made me this way and essentially sentenced me directly to hell according to some passages in the Bible (which I believe are completely interpreted incorrectly).

[bung]

I'm not a socialogist so I can't really tell you exactly why America is shying away from Christianity but I do believe it has something to do with how our culture is breeding us, more and more so, to be selfish. Notice the rise in neo-conservatism. I'm not saying non-Christians are automatically selfish or that Christians are automaticlly selfless but the basics of Christianity call for one to shed their arrogance and to help others, something America as a whole is shying further and further away from (hopefully the Obama administration can reverse some of this).

Honestly though, it's not about how many Christians there are. It doesn't matter. The Bible says whereever two or three are gathered, His presence can be felt.

See, I think the exact opposite is happening, as far as America becoming more and more selfish goes. I mean, there is more support for universal health care in this country than there ever has been before, for one. Environmental concerns and pollution awareness are the highest they've ever been. I just really, really don't see any support at all for the decline of Christianity as being due to America becoming more "selfish."

Because the predominant kind of Christianity in America, at least as far as we see it, is the fundamentalist, biblical literalist, supernatural theist kind, of course it's going to turn people off to it. It's just insane. People need to realize that believing in God isn't a way of covering for the things we don't know.

I agree, but there also must be some catalyst that has sparked this change. Personally, with the rapid increase of information exchange that has taken place in the last 20 years, I think people are now more than ever able to see the detrimental effects fundamentalist Christianity has on the progress of society. I'd say the internet has played a very large role in this decline.

[theguy77]

And I suppose I feel a bit guilty about feeling that way. I mean, I was raised in a Christian home so this has obviously been part of my life for quite some time and I feel like it's bad that I don't believe in the Bible, but I just can't. It was written by men and knowing the history of the human species and human nature, I can't fully believe everything in the Bible is truly God's word. Especially when there are so many things, so many passages that contradict one another. I've seen people argue in other forums using different passages to support their side. It's just sort of silly to me. Plus, I find it moderately silly that the big incentive to believe in God is to avoid hell, this place that's painted out to be absolutely awful. I mean, if you look at it, that's the big reason anyone is a Christian. To me that feels so fake and flawed. People shouldn't believe in God just to get a free pass to heaven. It seems perfectly plausible to me that it was put in the Bible in order to make people obey...

I dunno, I guess I just view God in a completely different light then most other Christians. It's also been a life changer for me since I realized I was gay. There's absolutely no way God made me this way and essentially sentenced me directly to hell according to some passages in the Bible (which I believe are completely interpreted incorrectly).

i need to save a link to this post, because this is the argument i make on behalf of homosexuals every time i get into a religious discussion with a bigot. for starters, its philosophically wrong and disgustingly presumptuous and arrogant to assume that homosexuality is a choice, especailly when you yourself have no idea. on the accounts of every gay person ive ever talked to, it's something they naturally developed, and it wouldnt even make sense for someone to make the "choice" to become homosexual anyway considering the amount of adversity that the gay community faces in the world.

so with all that said, why would god make you a certain way and then spite himself against it? i feel the same when it comes to the concept of atheism; god gave us the discretion and intellect to question anything that is difficult for us to accept, so why would it be such a big problem when it comes to questioning an entity that is, by nature, incomprehensible? a stance of theism has nothing to do with your morality and in a lot of cases it means you arent using the text of an illogical book to justify stances of bigotry and prejudice. i have atheist friends with very strong moral bases, who are fair, kind, and responsible with the way they live thier lives with respect to others, and ive never been able to adopt the view that they're going to hell just because they dont believe -- let alone the fact that i am similar to you in my skepticism of hell.

the whole, "if you dont believe in god you're going to hell" thing just sounds like a ploy that was used to enhance the strength of the clergy back when they held prominent roles in western governments. it subjects people to obedience out of fear, and i dont see how anyone could associate that kind of jealous and spiteful behavior with a divine higher power, given the benign connotations of the term "divinity". if god is divine, why do people personify him to be an asshole? and likewise, who are the countless editors of the bible to assume that they themselves know what embodies true divinity? excuse my supposed controversy but prejudice against homosexuals and adherance to sexist gender roles (a wife must "submit" to her husband... try and explain that one away in a manipulative sermon) are not part of my definition of divine.

anyway, i could really ramble about this kind of thing for such a long time becuase i have so many issues with the contradictions of basic logic and morality that go along with subscribing yourself completely to the bible.

[thespearkid]

See, I think the exact opposite is happening, as far as America becoming more and more selfish goes. I mean, there is more support for universal health care in this country than there ever has been before, for one. Environmental concerns and pollution awareness are the highest they've ever been. I just really, really don't see any support at all for the decline of Christianity as being due to America becoming more "selfish."

What would you attribute it to?

[Brokenhill]

dude if you're willing to pass these things off as metaphor, why are you so for a literalist interpretation when it applies to gay people?

Note the rest our our discussion.

Of course the bible isn't 100% literal, but a lot of it is. You can tell whether it's literal or metaphorical or a little bit of both based on context.

When it says that women and men were swapping the natural function of the opposite gender for that which is unnatural and that because of this God gave them over to their degrading passions - how is that metaphorical?

How is the fact that God only authorized marraige of a man and a woman in Genesis metaphorical?

[thespearkid]

And I suppose I feel a bit guilty about feeling that way. I mean, I was raised in a Christian home so this has obviously been part of my life for quite some time and I feel like it's bad that I don't believe in the Bible, but I just can't. It was written by men and knowing the history of the human species and human nature, I can't fully believe everything in the Bible is truly God's word. Especially when there are so many things, so many passages that contradict one another. I've seen people argue in other forums using different passages to support their side. It's just sort of silly to me. Plus, I find it moderately silly that the big incentive to believe in God is to avoid hell, this place that's painted out to be absolutely awful. I mean, if you look at it, that's the big reason anyone is a Christian. To me that feels so fake and flawed. People shouldn't believe in God just to get a free pass to heaven. It seems perfectly plausible to me that it was put in the Bible in order to make people obey...

I dunno, I guess I just view God in a completely different light then most other Christians. It's also been a life changer for me since I realized I was gay. There's absolutely no way God made me this way and essentially sentenced me directly to hell according to some passages in the Bible (which I believe are completely interpreted incorrectly).
Yes, the Bible was written by men and has been translated a ton of times so it's going to have some contradictions (like anything that can ever be written, language itself hinders it from ever being perfect). That's why I've always believed that combining Bible study with prayer and fasting is the best way to go.

[Brokenhill]

We DO have the same standard. It's called logic and reason, and although you may reject their validity as long as you make empirically verifiable claims about the Universe you implicitly accept it.

No, that's not the standard. That's the means in which the standards are deciphered.

[Brokenhill]

a biblical discussion is first and foremost going to lead the bible's contradictions when non-believers are involved; though i have doubts as to whether you believe there are any. i would love to have a biblical discussion, but for you to take things from the bible as fact even though they blatantly disagree with empirical evidence in the real world throws out any credibility you had.

I don't believe the bible has contradictions...while on the surface some instances or particular scripture may seem to be contradicting - reading into them contexually will prove that they do not contradict.

[Mercy Medical]

i need to save a link to this post, because this is the argument i make on behalf of homosexuals every time i get into a religious discussion with a bigot. for starters, its philosophically wrong and disgustingly presumptuous and arrogant to assume that homosexuality is a choice, especailly when you yourself have no idea. on the accounts of every gay person ive ever talked to, it's something they naturally developed, and it wouldnt even make sense for someone to make the "choice" to become homosexual anyway considering the amount of adversity that the gay community faces in the world.

so with all that said, why would god make you a certain way and then spite himself against it? i feel the same when it comes to the concept of atheism; god gave us the discretion and intellect to question anything that is difficult for us to accept, so why would it be such a big problem when it comes to questioning an entity that is, by nature, incomprehensible? a stance of theism has nothing to do with your morality and in a lot of cases it means you arent using the text of an illogical book to justify stances of bigotry and prejudice. i have atheist friends with very strong moral bases, who are fair, kind, and responsible with the way they live thier lives with respect to others, and ive never been able to adopt the view that they're going to hell just because they dont believe -- let alone the fact that i am similar to you in my skepticism of hell.

the whole, "if you dont believe in god you're going to hell" thing just sounds like a ploy that was used to enhance the strength of the clergy back when they held prominent roles in western governments. it subjects people to obedience out of fear, and i dont see how anyone could associate that kind of jealous and spiteful behavior with a divine higher power, given the benign connotations of the term "divinity". if god is divine, why do people personify him to be an asshole? and likewise, who are the countless editors of the bible to assume that they themselves know what embodies true divinity? excuse my supposed controversy but prejudice against homosexuals and adherance to sexist gender roles (a wife must "submit" to her husband... try and explain that one away in a manipulative sermon) are not part of my definition of divine.

anyway, i could really ramble about this kind of thing for such a long time becuase i have so many issues with the contradictions of basic logic and morality that go along with subscribing yourself completely to the bible.And those are a lot of the basic reasons I have issues with Christianity. Like I said, I believe in God...I will always believe in God and that's never going to change. The rest of it though, I have no idea. It's not difficult for me to believe that things were changed over time. Maybe the original Bible was the divine word of God, but Lord knows the "church" has done things in the past to benefit itself. It's not difficult for me to believe some of the same things happened.

To me, my belief in God has always been a personal thing and will always be a personal thing. I don't share much about it unless asked or involved in discussions such as this. I'm not and will never be the "preachy" type. I believe in live and let live and if someone is living their life being a non-believer and is happy, then that is great for them. I would rather someone be a happy atheist then a miserable Christian because regardless of how many people out there want to claim that Christians are happier people because they're filled with "God" or whatever that kind of bullshit is, there are a LOT of miserable Christians out there.

I don't agree with a lot of things the Bible says, such as the gender roles you used as an example. I dunno, I think that kind of thing is complete and total bullshit and find it highly laughable that a good portion of Christians today have abandoned those traditions, but still want to hang onto the "homosexuality is a no no" ideas. There's so much hypocrisy in the religion itself, that I can't take it seriously nor do I want to be part of it as an organization. I've pretty much abandoned church for these reasons. You could have two churches across the street from one another and they could preach the completely opposite thing from one another. I don't want some guy at a pulpit telling me how HE interprets the Bible. Everyone interprets it differently. These are all many reasons I want nothing to do with the organization of Christianity.

Yes, the Bible was written by men and has been translated a ton of times so it's going to have some contradictions (like anything that can ever be written, language itself hinders it from ever being perfect). That's why I've always believed that combining Bible study with prayer and fasting is the best way to go.See, I just can't get into that kind of thing. I never have and I don't think I ever will be able to. Props to people who can though. I pray and that's about where it stops.

[thespearkid]

See, I just can't get into that kind of thing. I never have and I don't think I ever will be able to. Props to people who can though. I pray and that's about where it stops.
Fasting? It's interesting haha. I used to hate it when I had to do it as a child.

[Mercy Medical]

Fasting? It's interesting haha. I used to hate it when I had to do it as a child.
I just love food too much to ever do that sort of thing...hahaha...plus, I personally just don't see the point in it. Like I said, if it benefits someone, that's fantastic...but it's just not for me.

[theguy77]

And those are a lot of the basic reasons I have issues with Christianity. Like I said, I believe in God...I will always believe in God and that's never going to change. The rest of it though, I have no idea. It's not difficult for me to believe that things were changed over time. Maybe the original Bible was the divine word of God, but Lord knows the "church" has done things in the past to benefit itself. It's not difficult for me to believe some of the same things happened.

To me, my belief in God has always been a personal thing and will always be a personal thing. I don't share much about it unless asked or involved in discussions such as this. I'm not and will never be the "preachy" type. I believe in live and let live and if someone is living their life being a non-believer and is happy, then that is great for them. I would rather someone be a happy atheist then a miserable Christian because regardless of how many people out there want to claim that Christians are happier people because they're filled with "God" or whatever that kind of bullshit is, there are a LOT of miserable Christians out there.

I don't agree with a lot of things the Bible says, such as the gender roles you used as an example. I dunno, I think that kind of thing is complete and total bullshit and find it highly laughable that a good portion of Christians today have abandoned those traditions, but still want to hang onto the "homosexuality is a no no" ideas. There's so much hypocrisy in the religion itself, that I can't take it seriously nor do I want to be part of it as an organization. I've pretty much abandoned church for these reasons. You could have two churches across the street from one another and they could preach the completely opposite thing from one another. I don't want some guy at a pulpit telling me how HE interprets the Bible. Everyone interprets it differently. These are all many reasons I want nothing to do with the organization of Christianity.

yeah... i really dont have much to add haha, it stuns me how identical your take on things is to mine.

[Mercy Medical]

yeah... i really dont have much to add haha, it stuns me how identical your take on things is to mine.
I think there are a lot of people out there who feel that way, but it's an odd stance, I guess? I mean, for all extensive purposes you don't really fall into any religious label. I consider myself Christian, but I know my disbelief in the Bible probably nullifies that...but I don't considering myself an agnostic.

[Animalhill]

Okay, so on that note I suppose I'll say a random comment on my thoughts about God/Christianity/etc. Personally, I believe in the existence of God. Obviously I have no proof, but I just believe it considering what I see in this world and what I feel in my heart. I've been a Christian since I was 5, was raised in a Christian home. Past believing in God, however, I'm not really sure what I believe. I can't fully believe in the Bible, mostly because I know it was written by man and while I do believe in the goodness of God, I cannot believe in the goodness of man 100%. We are flawed creatures and I don't see it as a stretch to have some of the men who wrote the Bible add their own personal touches to it. I also find it very difficult to believe in the present day Bible, mostly because it's been translated numerous times and a lot of the original messages/meanings have been lost. I'm not sure how I stand on my beliefs in Jesus Christ, mostly because if I believe what I stated previously, it's plausible that those stories are nothing more then that...stories. I think I believe in Jesus Christ, dying for our sins, etc, but I'm not 100% at that yet.

I believe that the Bible and Christianity has a very good message to it at it's very core, but people have corrupted and bastardized that message for their own personal gain. I also believe that people are very capable of being good and maintaining the same general message the Bible preaches without being religious. I don't believe religion and morals are mutually exclusive.
We have the same reasons but different beliefs :-)
I guess because I had a very fucked up childhood, have seen my family drop like flies, and especially since I was diagnosed schizo, I just can't believe in a god. I have to believe soley in myself, because such is the way that I survived childhood and is the reason I am now typing on a computer. Alive.

[BrennanHickson]

I am also interested in discussing religion respectfully.

[theguy77]

I think there are a lot of people out there who feel that way, but it's an odd stance, I guess? I mean, for all extensive purposes you don't really fall into any religious label. I consider myself Christian, but I know my disbelief in the Bible probably nullifies that...but I don't considering myself an agnostic.

me either, ive always gone with "christian" because i am comfortable calling my deity "God" and because i havent been given a reason to be skepitcal about the story of jesus, except for maybe the birth by a virgin part. the scripture is just a guide to the fundamentals, but its the fundamentals that matter.

[whataclush]

what the fuck is a "god?"

[x togepi x]

Note the rest our our discussion.

Of course the bible isn't 100% literal, but a lot of it is. You can tell whether it's literal or metaphorical or a little bit of both based on context.

Any logical definition of the phrase "based on context" that doesn't take into consideration the social context of the times in which the bible was written, as well as the types of language of available to its writers is, at best, idiotic, and at worst, insanely fucking oppressive when you're using it to condemn homosexuality.

on a social level, the classification of "homosexual" didn't exist in biblical times. if we were to speak in the language available to the writers, we would have no conception of sexualities at all. At best, all we could do is condemn sex acts. Now, i know you're going to say "okay, that's what the bible does. condemn sex acts between two men" but again, look at social contexts and notice that all sex outside of pro-creation is condemned in that time period, yet I don't see christians really complaining about that.

furthermore, explain to me how we can easily "tell whether it's literal or metaphoric or little bit of both" and how that standard isn't merely a justification for the oppression of other people while getting around some of the more absurd literalist parts of the bible.

When it says that women and men were swapping the natural function of the opposite gender for that which is unnatural and that because of this God gave them over to their degrading passions - how is that metaphorical?

I would buy this except for there's so many problems with it that it's not even funny.

There is no "natural function of the opposite gender" since gender is not biological. i think the women's rights movement has more than proven there's no natural function of gender. but i realize that you could just replace gender with sex and make the same argument so you're forgetting another key factor in the male biology:

if god created people like you think he did, he then created a being, the male, who's prostate can most easily be stimulated through anal sex. How is the very way we're created, one in which gay sex is inherently pleasurable and extremely easily so not natural? I mean, i might buy a biblical condemnation of gay sex if it wasn't so easy. but beyond that, pretty much every reputable study on animals and homosexuality shows time and time again that it occurs in nature.

So it seems to me that people can be naturally homosexual so that passage has to be talking about something else. Once again, look to the social context the bible was written in and you can easily see that it's a condemnation of pagan ritual, which could easily look like mindless orgies to the outsider and logically condemnable by the bible because of the 10 commandments.

How is the fact that God only authorized marraige of a man and a woman in Genesis metaphorical?

this is exactly why i'm saying your interpretation of the bible is oppressive, you're willing to ignore all sorts of biblical parts in genesis that make absolutely no rational sense but when it comes to keeping the minority down you get a boner at the prospect of a literalist interpretation.

One could say that the authorization of marriage of man and woman is referring to, historically, the marriage of humanity to the earth since men have been metaphors for human life in general and women have been metaphors for nature/earth. when he's saying that a man should not live alone, he could be saying that people should not be living strictly in a social world separate from nature. the marriage, then, describes a healthy relationship with the planet.

now it may seem like i'm grasping at straws here but the important point here is that i can come up with a logical interpretation of that piece of scripture that's metaphorical in nature. this means that you can't really know whether the bible is condemning same sex relations or not because of the level of indeterminability involved in the text.

To say that you know 100% that your interpretation is correct is insanely flawed because of the many many interpretations/ways of reading the bible as well as creating a false idol, your interpretation of the text, as if your way is THE way, which is not exactly the humble model that christians are supposed to live in.

[Mercy Medical]

Any logical definition of the phrase "based on context" that doesn't take into consideration the social context of the times in which the bible was written, as well as the types of language of available to its writers is, at best, idiotic, and at worst, insanely fucking oppressive when you're using it to condemn homosexuality.

on a social level, the classification of "homosexual" didn't exist in biblical times. if we were to speak in the language available to the writers, we would have no conception of sexualities at all. At best, all we could do is condemn sex acts. Now, i know you're going to say "okay, that's what the bible does. condemn sex acts between two men" but again, look at social contexts and notice that all sex outside of pro-creation is condemned in that time period, yet I don't see christians really complaining about that.

furthermore, explain to me how we can easily "tell whether it's literal or metaphoric or little bit of both" and how that standard isn't merely a justification for the oppression of other people while getting around some of the more absurd literalist parts of the bible.



I would buy this except for there's so many problems with it that it's not even funny.

There is no "natural function of the opposite gender" since gender is not biological. i think the women's rights movement has more than proven there's no natural function of gender. but i realize that you could just replace gender with sex and make the same argument so you're forgetting another key factor in the male biology:

if god created people like you think he did, he then created a being, the male, who's prostate can most easily be stimulated through anal sex. How is the very way we're created, one in which gay sex is inherently pleasurable and extremely easily so not natural? I mean, i might buy a biblical condemnation of gay sex if it wasn't so easy. but beyond that, pretty much every reputable study on animals and homosexuality shows time and time again that it occurs in nature.

So it seems to me that people can be naturally homosexual so that passage has to be talking about something else. Once again, look to the social context the bible was written in and you can easily see that it's a condemnation of pagan ritual, which could easily look like mindless orgies to the outsider and logically condemnable by the bible because of the 10 commandments.



this is exactly why i'm saying your interpretation of the bible is oppressive, you're willing to ignore all sorts of biblical parts in genesis that make absolutely no rational sense but when it comes to keeping the minority down you get a boner at the prospect of a literalist interpretation.

One could say that the authorization of marriage of man and woman is referring to, historically, the marriage of humanity to the earth since men have been metaphors for human life in general and women have been metaphors for nature/earth. when he's saying that a man should not live alone, he could be saying that people should not be living strictly in a social world separate from nature. the marriage, then, describes a healthy relationship with the planet.

now it may seem like i'm grasping at straws here but the important point here is that i can come up with a logical interpretation of that piece of scripture that's metaphorical in nature. this means that you can't really know whether the bible is condemning same sex relations or not because of the level of indeterminability involved in the text.

To say that you know 100% that your interpretation is correct is insanely flawed because of the many many interpretations/ways of reading the bible as well as creating a false idol, your interpretation of the text, as if your way is THE way, which is not exactly the humble model that christians are supposed to live in.
I love when you post. lol

[BrennanHickson]

We have the same reasons but different beliefs :-)
I guess because I had a very fucked up childhood, have seen my family drop like flies, and especially since I was diagnosed schizo, I just can't believe in a god. I have to believe soley in myself, because such is the way that I survived childhood and is the reason I am now typing on a computer. Alive.
As a human being, I believe you have right to question the existence of a supernatural being. In some ways, everyone is the same person. We have all cracked a smile, shed a tear, lost a loved one. In other ways, we're polar opposites. Though I can't claim to have gone through the events that you have, I can claim to have encountered a burdensome past.

As a Christian, I believe God gives you what you can handle. I don't believe it to be a test of faith, but rather, a way of life. I believe your control comes in with the way you shape what He gives you. You have the choice to be a cynic with doubts. You have the choice to be a follower with total belief in a higher being. You have the choice to bend your pieces in some completely innovative way. In no way, however, do you have a choice of what detriments you can handle.

[bung]

What would you attribute it to?

I think a lot of it's due to non-religious Americans getting fed up with this social stigma that being labeled atheist or agnostic automatically makes them a "bad" person. There was a recent poll done that found, basically, atheists are the only minority group left in America that people can openly badmouth with virtually no repercussions. Over half of Americans would highly disapprove if their son or daughter married an atheist, and 48% of Americans wouldn't vote for a president merely because they were atheist (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm) (higher than gays and Muslims).

As a society, atheism is starting to come into the spotlight more and more, with many atheist-oriented books consistently topping bestseller lists. People are starting to "come out of the closet" as atheists, as the fear people have of others knowing they don't believe in God is starting to diminish (although the judgmental nature people have toward atheists is still very much there). I see a lot of Western Europe's religiosity starting to seep into American life--namely, that more and more people are starting to find that it simply isn't relevant to their lives and they're just as happy without it.

America as a whole is starting to become more and more accepting of lifestyles different from their own. Atheists see homosexual rights gaining steam, and they see them speaking out, and I think in a way they're looking to them as a model for speaking out about religion. Religion is, less and less, no longer the taboo subject it once was to debate. It's also sort of a domino effect--people see atheists speaking out, telling their friends and family they no longer believe, and that helps them gain the courage to speak out themselves. And with the advent of the internet, atheists are able to see that there are more people out there who think like they do, with tons of atheistic and secular humanist groups available.

Essentially, I guess I see our culture moving forward. As things become more modern, people are beginning to see that living their lives by a 2000 year old book may not be in their best interest, nor in society's best interest. Also, rather than sorting through the dogma to get the good things out of the Bible, people see that secular humanist doctrines provide either equal or even superior ethical and human rights standards, all without the metaphorical junk.

[Animalhill]

As a human being, I believe you have right to question the existence of a supernatural being. In some ways, everyone is the same person. We have all cracked a smile, shed a tear, lost a loved one. In other ways, we're polar opposites. Though I can't claim to have gone through the events that you have, I can claim to have encountered a burdensome past.

As a Christian, I believe God gives you what you can handle. I don't believe it to be a test of faith, but rather, a way of life. I believe your control comes in with the way you shape what He gives you. You have the choice to be a cynic with doubts. You have the choice to be a follower with total belief in a higher being. You have the choice to bend your pieces in some completely innovative way. In no way, however, do you have a choice of what detriments you can handle.
You are a very intelligent 14 year old- and that isn't an insult.
I know what you're saying, and I've been told this time and again. I do sort of agree with you, and the age-old cliche of, "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger", however I truly believe that we are no different than ants; just scurrying around the planet to serve the good of the whole (ie: superorganism) while attempting to maintain a certian amount of personal happiness.

[bung]

As a Christian, I believe God gives you what you can handle.

I don't really know how to phrase this without coming off as a dick, but don't the thousands of suicides each year kind of negate this?


"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger".

- Nietzsche ;-)

[thespearkid]

I think a lot of it's due to non-religious Americans getting fed up with this social stigma that being labeled atheist or agnostic automatically makes them a "bad" person. There was a recent poll done that found, basically, atheists are the only minority group left in America that people can openly badmouth with virtually no repercussions. Over half of Americans would highly disapprove if their son or daughter married an atheist, and 48% of Americans wouldn't vote for a president merely because they were atheist (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm) (higher than gays and Muslims).

As a society, atheism is starting to come into the spotlight more and more, with many atheist-oriented books consistently topping bestseller lists. People are starting to "come out of the closet" as atheists, as the fear people have of others knowing they don't believe in God is starting to diminish (although the judgmental nature people have toward atheists is still very much there). I see a lot of Western Europe's religiosity starting to seep into American life--namely, that more and more people are starting to find that it simply isn't relevant to their lives and they're just as happy without it.

America as a whole is starting to become more and more accepting of lifestyles different from their own. Atheists see homosexual rights gaining steam, and they see them speaking out, and I think in a way they're looking to them as a model for speaking out about religion. Religion is, less and less, no longer the taboo subject it once was to debate. It's also sort of a domino effect--people see atheists speaking out, telling their friends and family they no longer believe, and that helps them gain the courage to speak out themselves. And with the advent of the internet, atheists are able to see that there are more people out there who think like they do, with tons of atheistic and secular humanist groups available.

Essentially, I guess I see our culture moving forward. As things become more modern, people are beginning to see that living their lives by a 2000 year old book may not be in their best interest, nor in society's best interest. Also, rather than sorting through the dogma to get the good things out of the Bible, people see that secular humanist doctrines provide either equal or even superior ethical and human rights standards, all without the metaphorical junk.
It sounds like you're basically equating the atheist movement to the gay rights struggle, which I really don't think is a fair comparison. Maybe it is different in our communities but here, it's quite the opposite. The fundamental Christians are the people who are made fun of around here, regardless as to what our stances on are on religion. The mainstream media has painted this ridiculous picture of Christians as if we're all like Jerry Falwell. At the same time, certain outlets have painted atheists in a negative light as well. In my opinion, it's just part of the media's ridiculous mission to convince us that everything is black or white, left or right, conservative or liberal, democrat or republican, believer or atheist. I refuse to think it's that simple. Both sides have a lot to contribute to the discussion of the world. Again, I don't care if the number of Christians is shrinking, as a lot of "Christians" are closer to atheists anyway so they might as well take the name and by honest with themselves. It's not a competition to try and win people over to either side, no matter how the media paints it.

[thespearkid]

I don't really know how to phrase this without coming off as a dick, but don't the thousands of suicides each year kind of negate this?

Are you saying there are people who really had no other choice but to commit suicide?

[Animalhill]

I don't really know how to phrase this without coming off as a dick, but don't the thousands of suicides each year kind of negate this?



- Nietzsche ;-)
Are you referring to him in disdain or approval?
I've only read, "Hammer of the Gods" so I wouldn't really consider myself well-versed in Nietzsche.

[Manicapathy]

Here's my 2 cents:
http://i641.photobucket.com/albums/uu131/HOUSEbrix/god_listens_to_slayer.jpg

[Animalhill]

Are you saying there are people who really had no other choice but to commit suicide?
I feel like I have a certain amount of experience to comment on this.
Very recently my cousin hung herself, and I have been asking myself this question pretty much constantly since it happened. I don't feel like they may necessarily have, "no other choice", but I believe that they are subconsciously safcrificing themselves for the good of the superorganism. I mean this in a very non-literal way. I believe it is all chemical.

[BrennanHickson]

You are a very intelligent 14 year old- and that isn't an insult.
I know what you're saying, and I've been told this time and again. I do sort of agree with you, and the age-old cliche of, "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger", however I truly believe that we are no different than ants; just scurrying around the planet to serve the good of the whole (ie: superorganism) while attempting to maintain a certian amount of personal happiness.
Your stance on maintaining a certain amount of personal happiness stems into the belief in religion. Many people want or need to believe in something, whether it's a god or a religion or a consistency in order to reach that level of contentment that you mentioned earlier. This is a partial factor in the development of my own faith. I simply am not equipped to survive without knowing that there is something better waiting for me in the afterlife.

I can certainly see how you've come to establish the ideals that you mention, as I'm sure most everyone has seen resemblance in them at some point in their lifetime. Regardless of their legitimacy, though, I suppose the only thing I, as a Christian, can say to someone with a separate mindset is to strive for more than just contentment, whether that is found in the acknowledgment of a God or without it, I could care less. Just make sure to live up to your potential, no matter what seemingly apocalyptic obstacles cause you to question whether or not you can reach that level of pure happiness.

[Brokenhill]

Any logical definition of the phrase "based on context" that doesn't take into consideration the social context of the times in which the bible was written, as well as the types of language of available to its writers is, at best, idiotic, and at worst, insanely fucking oppressive when you're using it to condemn homosexuality.


Of course you have to take into consideration the context of the time period in which it was written as well as who was writing and who it was written to. I know that overtime words have changed usage and such. I'm not sure why you're trying ot spark another homosexuality discussion again as that has not come up in any of my previous statements, but...


on a social level, the classification of "homosexual" didn't exist in biblical times. if we were to speak in the language available to the writers, we would have no conception of sexualities at all. At best, all we could do is condemn sex acts. Now, i know you're going to say "okay, that's what the bible does. condemn sex acts between two men" but again, look at social contexts and notice that all sex outside of pro-creation is condemned in that time period, yet I don't see christians really complaining about that.

Well fornication is fornication...regardless if the circumstance involves 2 men, 2 women, or 18 with any combination of genders/sexes. Fornication is sin, and should be equally condemned whether it's between a boyfriend/girlfriend or between a man and a male prostitute. However, there's no reason to condemn such things unless the people involved have already been saved through Jesus. Lots of people (and so-called Christians) have the wrong idea as to how we are to go about saving souls. All a Christian's job is to spread the gospel...explain to others that they can be saved and how. The action of condemning sin (whether it be fornication, lying, or forsaking the assembling) should only be done by Christians to other fellow Christians.


furthermore, explain to me how we can easily "tell whether it's literal or metaphoric or little bit of both" and how that standard isn't merely a justification for the oppression of other people while getting around some of the more absurd literalist parts of the bible.

Let me just give you some examples:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=6&verse=15&end_verse=17&version=49&context=context
There is no literal "shield of faith" or "helmet of salvation" or "sword of the spirit" - it's metaphorical because he's explaining to them (and to those who read now) how we should be equipped.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:34-38;&version=49;
In this instance Peter baptized (physically) the one he was teaching becuase he confessed. This isn't metaphorical - it's an account of what events actually took place.


I would buy this except for there's so many problems with it that it's not even funny.

There is no "natural function of the opposite gender" since gender is not biological. i think the women's rights movement has more than proven there's no natural function of gender. but i realize that you could just replace gender with sex and make the same argument so you're forgetting another key factor in the male biology:


The natural function is the reproduction of another human between a male and a female - any other use of the organs is because of the lust for physical pleasure - which is only acceptable between a married man/woman (scripturally backed).


if god created people like you think he did, he then created a being, the male, who's prostate can most easily be stimulated through anal sex. How is the very way we're created, one in which gay sex is inherently pleasurable and extremely easily so not natural? I mean, i might buy a biblical condemnation of gay sex if it wasn't so easy. but beyond that, pretty much every reputable study on animals and homosexuality shows time and time again that it occurs in nature.
I don't think "easily stimulated" is a widely accepted assumption - it's personal preference. To me personally whether it be a male's or female's anus - it's disgusting, revolting, the last thing I would want to be involved in a sexual action.

It's God who created how things are but man who twisted the usage of things to further access pleasures. It's satan who tempts people through such things.


So it seems to me that people can be naturally homosexual so that passage has to be talking about something else. Once again, look to the social context the bible was written in and you can easily see that it's a condemnation of pagan ritual, which could easily look like mindless orgies to the outsider and logically condemnable by the bible because of the 10 commandments.

Like I said fornication is fornication - which is sin. If God had authorized the marraige of a man with a man or a woman with a woman or 10 all married together - then such actions would not be sinful while done in marraige.


this is exactly why i'm saying your interpretation of the bible is oppressive, you're willing to ignore all sorts of biblical parts in genesis that make absolutely no rational sense but when it comes to keeping the minority down you get a boner at the prospect of a literalist interpretation.


I don't ignore the thing brought about in Gensis or other books like Leviticus that people bring up (because in there it deals with not eating shellfish and things like that) - but us today, we don't live under the old law therefor such commandments aren't held to us (as backed in the scripture).

I have no interest in oppression...that is not and has not been my goal. Teaching that certain things are sinful is not oppression. I have nor will ever be one of those people who stand on the street corner with a sign that says "GOD HATES GAYS". There is no point...aside from the major fact that that is not we are commanded to do.

I think you have the wrong idea about me in so many areas. And I can understand why in the homosexuality area - because a couple of years ago (only a time or 2) I started arguments solely myself in which I had no need (like in the Gorilla Bizkitz? thread). For that I apologize as it was not my place. In that case it was somewhat oppressive - however all the other circumstances where within religous or biblical discussions and I was just providing my beliefs.
Remember, I was only 15 - fairly new to my faith even though I had grown up in it...now I get the bigger picture. I hope you understand that.


One could say that the authorization of marriage of man and woman is referring to, historically, the marriage of humanity to the earth since men have been metaphors for human life in general and women have been metaphors for nature/earth. when he's saying that a man should not live alone, he could be saying that people should not be living strictly in a social world separate from nature. the marriage, then, describes a healthy relationship with the planet.

I don't see how this could be...reading through such events it is clear that there are no metaphorical ties (at least in the overall picture - because sure, there may be some metaphorical instances within the events). If the creatoin of the world was all metaphorical - I think God would have it be a lot more evident when he was telling his prophets to record such things.

now it may seem like i'm grasping at straws here but the important point here is that i can come up with a logical interpretation of that piece of scripture that's metaphorical in nature. this means that you can't really know whether the bible is condemning same sex relations or not because of the level of indeterminability involved in the text.
Once again, the bible condemns fornication regardless of what sexes are involved...if the same sexes were married and then having these relations - then fine, it's not sinful - but that cannot justify it as God gave no authority for people of the same sex/gender to marry.


To say that you know 100% that your interpretation is correct is insanely flawed because of the many many interpretations/ways of reading the bible as well as creating a false idol, your interpretation of the text, as if your way is THE way, which is not exactly the humble model that christians are supposed to live in.

Well I believe that there is only once truth, and while there may be different ways of looking at scripture - it basically comes down to 1 general meaning. See, "my" interpretation is just that which is presented in the scriptures. So actually...it isn't necessarily "my" interpretation.

I'm not trying to believe what I want to believe - i'm trying to further understand the scripture each and everytime I open up the bible and read therein...I know I don't have everything right though.

It's God's plan...i'm just trying my best to follow it. If it was MY WAY then I probably wouldn't have a lot of things the way they are.

Do you think that on a mankind/society level that I want there to things in the scirpture which disbalance the roles of men/women (for example) - No...
But it's not my choice, i'm not God - he set things up and I have to follow as he has instructed.

And see, I am fairly humble and open minded (in the scriptural sense). If there is something that I have overlooked in the scripture I WOULD LOVE, YES LOVE for you or anyone to tell me what that is so that I can better myself by it. That is why I came to this thread in the first place, and is why I spend a decent amount of time in the Relgion & Spirituality section in Yahoo! Answers...I'm trying to further understand the scripture.
I know i'm not perfect, no one is.

[Animalhill]

Your stance on maintaining a certain amount of personal happiness stems into the belief in religion. Many people want or need to believe in something, whether it's a god or a religion or a consistency in order to reach that level of contentment that you mentioned earlier. This is a partial factor in the development of my own faith. I simply am not equipped to survive without knowing that there is something better waiting for me in the afterlife.

I can certainly see how you've come to establish the ideals that you mention, as I'm sure most everyone has seen resemblance in them at some point in their lifetime. Regardless of their legitimacy, though, I suppose the only thing I, as a Christian, can say to someone with a separate mindset is to strive for more than just contentment, whether that is found in the acknowledgment of a God or without it, I could care less. Just make sure to live up to your potential, no matter what seemingly apocalyptic obstacles cause you to question whether or not you can reach that level of pure happiness.
I feel like there is much more dynamic to the spectrum of reaching, "pure happiness". I think it has very much to do with pecking orders, on a micro and macro scale, that determine how happy you are. Even amongst religions, there is the pecking order of faiths. If your faith is on top, you are happy with your beliefs and consider yourself successful, and your religion just. However, when pecking orders shift, as they always will/have, it may seem that "your" god is unsatisfied, and thus you feel that on a personal level. Everything is just much, much more complicated than we can begin to fathom.

[bung]

It sounds like you're basically equating the atheist movement to the gay rights struggle, which I really don't think is a fair comparison. Maybe it is different in our communities but here, it's quite the opposite. The fundamental Christians are the people who are made fun of around here, regardless as to what our stances on are on religion. The mainstream media has painted this ridiculous picture of Christians as if we're all like Jerry Falwell. At the same time, certain outlets have painted atheists in a negative light as well. In my opinion, it's just part of the media's ridiculous mission to convince us that everything is black or white, left or right, conservative or liberal, democrat or republican, believer or atheist. I refuse to think it's that simple. Both sides have a lot to contribute to the discussion of the world. Again, I don't care if the number of Christians is shrinking, as a lot of "Christians" are closer to atheists anyway so they might as well take the name and by honest with themselves. It's not a competition to try and win people over to either side, no matter how the media paints it.

In a way, I am equating the atheist movement with the gay rights movement. I think it's a very fair comparison, to be honest. Atheists are the most hated minority group in America, more so than gays. The fact that half of America wouldn't vote for a president because he/she is an atheist deeply upsets me.

Are you saying there are people who really had no other choice but to commit suicide?

No, there's always other choices than suicide. But if they did commit suicide, I think it's fair to say that the life God gave them was a bit more than they could personally handle.

Are you referring to him in disdain or approval?
I've only read, "Hammer of the Gods" so I wouldn't really consider myself well-versed in Nietzsche.

Haha, neither disdain or approval. I was just pointing it out because it's such a popular quote and a lot of people don't know it was him who said it.

[The Personist]

Any logical definition of the phrase "based on context" that doesn't take into consideration the social context of the times in which the bible was written, as well as the types of language of available to its writers is, at best, idiotic, and at worst, insanely fucking oppressive when you're using it to condemn homosexuality.

on a social level, the classification of "homosexual" didn't exist in biblical times. if we were to speak in the language available to the writers, we would have no conception of sexualities at all. At best, all we could do is condemn sex acts. Now, i know you're going to say "okay, that's what the bible does. condemn sex acts between two men" but again, look at social contexts and notice that all sex outside of pro-creation is condemned in that time period, yet I don't see christians really complaining about that.

furthermore, explain to me how we can easily "tell whether it's literal or metaphoric or little bit of both" and how that standard isn't merely a justification for the oppression of other people while getting around some of the more absurd literalist parts of the bible.



I would buy this except for there's so many problems with it that it's not even funny.

There is no "natural function of the opposite gender" since gender is not biological. i think the women's rights movement has more than proven there's no natural function of gender. but i realize that you could just replace gender with sex and make the same argument so you're forgetting another key factor in the male biology:

if god created people like you think he did, he then created a being, the male, who's prostate can most easily be stimulated through anal sex. How is the very way we're created, one in which gay sex is inherently pleasurable and extremely easily so not natural? I mean, i might buy a biblical condemnation of gay sex if it wasn't so easy. but beyond that, pretty much every reputable study on animals and homosexuality shows time and time again that it occurs in nature.

So it seems to me that people can be naturally homosexual so that passage has to be talking about something else. Once again, look to the social context the bible was written in and you can easily see that it's a condemnation of pagan ritual, which could easily look like mindless orgies to the outsider and logically condemnable by the bible because of the 10 commandments.



this is exactly why i'm saying your interpretation of the bible is oppressive, you're willing to ignore all sorts of biblical parts in genesis that make absolutely no rational sense but when it comes to keeping the minority down you get a boner at the prospect of a literalist interpretation.

One could say that the authorization of marriage of man and woman is referring to, historically, the marriage of humanity to the earth since men have been metaphors for human life in general and women have been metaphors for nature/earth. when he's saying that a man should not live alone, he could be saying that people should not be living strictly in a social world separate from nature. the marriage, then, describes a healthy relationship with the planet.

now it may seem like i'm grasping at straws here but the important point here is that i can come up with a logical interpretation of that piece of scripture that's metaphorical in nature. this means that you can't really know whether the bible is condemning same sex relations or not because of the level of indeterminability involved in the text.

To say that you know 100% that your interpretation is correct is insanely flawed because of the many many interpretations/ways of reading the bible as well as creating a false idol, your interpretation of the text, as if your way is THE way, which is not exactly the humble model that christians are supposed to live in.

...I love you.

[BrennanHickson]

I don't really know how to phrase this without coming off as a dick, but don't the thousands of suicides each year kind of negate this?
If you read my entire rant, you would notice that I also mentioned that you are the only one with the capability to manage how you cope with what you are given. Suicide is one of the more unfortunate approaches to this theory.

[Animalhill]

In a way, I am equating the atheist movement with the gay rights movement. I think it's a very fair comparison, to be honest. Atheists are the most hated minority group in America, more so than gays. The fact that half of America wouldn't vote for a president because he/she is an atheist deeply upsets me.



No, there's always other choices than suicide. But if they did commit suicide, I think it's fair to say that the life God gave them was a bit more than they could personally handle.



Haha, neither disdain or approval. I was just pointing it out because it's such a popular quote and a lot of people don't know it was him who said it.
haha word. That's really interesting, I never knew that.
The only one I know/really like is, "When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you."

[The Personist]

In a way, I am equating the atheist movement with the gay rights movement. I think it's a very fair comparison, to be honest. Atheists are the most hated minority group in America, more so than gays. The fact that half of America wouldn't vote for a president because he/she is an atheist deeply upsets me.



No, there's always other choices than suicide. But if they did commit suicide, I think it's fair to say that the life God gave them was a bit more than they could personally handle.



Haha, neither disdain or approval. I was just pointing it out because it's such a popular quote and a lot of people don't know it was him who said it.

Thinking these two movements are comparable is absurd. Show me where atheists were called unnatural or abominable toward nature. Atheists can still operate within a heteronormative society; gay people are ostracized.

[jawstheme]

Hahaha, I love the new title.

[thespearkid]

In a way, I am equating the atheist movement with the gay rights movement. I think it's a very fair comparison, to be honest. Atheists are the most hated minority group in America, more so than gays. The fact that half of America wouldn't vote for a president because he/she is an atheist deeply upsets me.
I don't think it's a fair comparison whatsoever. Atheists have all their rights. They are not discriminated against. They are not economically disadvantaged for the sake of their skin color. Also, I think the reason why a lot of people wouldn't vote for an atheist is because the majority of Americans want to vote for someone like them. Mormons were hugely in favor of Mitt Romney for president, women were hugely in favor of Hilary Clinton, blacks were hugely in favor of Barack Obama. Odds are, we've already elected presidents who are, basically, atheists but we've never elected an openly atheist president. I wouldn't be opposed to voting for an atheist, if his policies were good, but it's just natural for people to want to vote for someone who has the same belief system as them. :shrug: It sucks, kinda, but it's true.

No, there's always other choices than suicide. But if they did commit suicide, I think it's fair to say that the life God gave them was a bit more than they could personally handle.
Someone committing suicide doesn't automatically mean that they couldn't have handled the things in their life. It just means they chose not to. During depressive episodes, suicide is often, literally, the only thing on my mind but I take my medicine, read my Bible, and struggle through. Honestly, I don't believe there is any amount of mental anguish that is impossible to overcome in some way, whether one has God in their life or doesn't.

[bung]

Thinking these two movements are comparable is absurd. Show me where atheists were called unnatural or abominable toward nature. Atheists can still operate within a heteronormative society; gay people are ostracized.

I've read many stories of atheists "coming out" and being excommunicated from family and friends. I think the movements are comparable, but obviously there are differences.

The fact of the matter is that a large portion of America still sees atheists as selfish, amoral, hedonists. Bush Sr. said atheists shouldn't even be considered American citizens.

If specific actions could easily designate a person as atheist, I imagine they, too, would face consequences similar to what homosexuals have experienced.

I don't think it's a fair comparison whatsoever. Atheists have all their rights. They are not discriminated against.

Search "atheist discrimination" in Google.

[perceptrons]

Thinking these two movements are comparable is absurd. Show me where atheists were called unnatural or abominable toward nature. Atheists can still operate within a heteronormative society; gay people are ostracized.
Just quoting you to get your attention, since your answer to my soul question was a great read.

What are your opinions on prayer?

[Animalhill]

I don't think it's a fair comparison whatsoever. Atheists have all their rights. They are not discriminated against. They are not economically disadvantaged for the sake of their skin color. Also, I think the reason why a lot of people wouldn't vote for an atheist is because the majority of Americans want to vote for someone like them. Mormons were hugely in favor of Mitt Romney for president, women were hugely in favor of Hilary Clinton, blacks were hugely in favor of Barack Obama. Odds are, we've already elected presidents who are, basically, atheists but we've never elected an openly atheist president. I wouldn't be opposed to voting for an atheist, if his policies were good, but it's just natural for people to want to vote for someone who has the same belief system as them. :shrug: It sucks, kinda, but it's true.


Someone committing suicide doesn't automatically mean that they couldn't have handled the things in their life. It just means they chose not to. During depressive episodes, suicide is often, literally, the only thing on my mind but I take my medicine, read my Bible, and struggle through. Honestly, I don't believe there is any amount of mental anguish that is impossible to overcome in some way, whether one has God in their life or doesn't.
I disagree man. I think in some cases, brain chemistry cannot be overridden by willpower, reguardless of its source.

[thespearkid]

I disagree man. I think in some cases, brain chemistry cannot be overridden by willpower, reguardless of its source.
That's what medication is for.

[x togepi x]

I've read many stories of atheists "coming out" and being excommunicated from family and friends. I think the movements are comparable, but obviously there are differences.

The fact of the matter is that a large portion of America still sees atheists as selfish, amoral, hedonists. Bush Sr. said atheists shouldn't even be considered American citizens.

If specific actions could easily designate a person as atheist, I imagine they, too, would face consequences similar to what homosexuals have experienced.



Search "atheist discrimination" in Google.

I would like to see a list of people who have been tortured and killed post 1990 for being an atheist like matthew shepard was for being gay. they're completely incomparable. even then, most people who are okay with atheists are actually okay with them instead of a lot of people who are "okay" with gay people but still condemn them anyway.

[Animalhill]

That's what medication is for.
I don't believe medication works all the time. I believe some people are born, "wired" to kill themselves, reguardless of medication and/or environment.

[bung]

I would like to see a list of people who have been tortured and killed post 1990 for being an atheist like matthew shepard was for being gay. they're completely incomparable. even then, most people who are okay with atheists are actually okay with them instead of a lot of people who are "okay" with gay people but still condemn them anyway.


I didn't say they are discriminated against on the same level as homosexuals. But they are discriminated against. I am comparing the two movements because they are both struggling for people to see them as equals.

"Pocopson, Pennsylvania: My own atheism came to prominence when I became involved in a legal challenge to a Ten Commandments plaque on the wall of the Chester County, Pennsylvania, courthouse. Neighbors organized a shunning campaign, some area merchants refused to do business with me, and I received hundreds of threatening letters and phone calls. (The depth of public animus against me became a subject of local news and magazine coverage.) I was forced to close my interior decorating business because of death threats that compelled me to stop visiting the homes of persons unknown to me."

"Calgary, Alberta: An eleven-year-old boy (name withheld) experienced daily physical attacks and threats against his life by schoolmates—notably the sons of three local pastors—after protesting intercom readings of the Lord’s Prayer in a public school. He was repeatedly body-checked into hallway walls and attacked in the rest rooms. One pastor’s son stalked him with a butcher knife in an empty portable classroom. Despite the seriousness of this incident, no action was taken. The boy’s parents transferred him to another school for his own safety."

"Ada, Oklahoma: A Baptist student told a local newspaper she wouldn’t take professor William Zellner’s classes because he was an atheist, triggering a flurry of abuse. Zellner received harassing notes and telephone calls, some threatening. His car was vandalized, for a time on a daily basis. A local church sold “I am praying for Dr. Zellner” buttons. His children experienced shunning and beatings from religious children."

Source: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/downey_24_4.htm

[x togepi x]

I didn't say they are discriminated against on the same level as homosexuals. But they are discriminated against. I am comparing the two movements because they are both struggling for people to see them as equals.

"Pocopson, Pennsylvania: My own atheism came to prominence when I became involved in a legal challenge to a Ten Commandments plaque on the wall of the Chester County, Pennsylvania, courthouse. Neighbors organized a shunning campaign, some area merchants refused to do business with me, and I received hundreds of threatening letters and phone calls. (The depth of public animus against me became a subject of local news and magazine coverage.) I was forced to close my interior decorating business because of death threats that compelled me to stop visiting the homes of persons unknown to me."

"Calgary, Alberta: An eleven-year-old boy (name withheld) experienced daily physical attacks and threats against his life by schoolmates—notably the sons of three local pastors—after protesting intercom readings of the Lord’s Prayer in a public school. He was repeatedly body-checked into hallway walls and attacked in the rest rooms. One pastor’s son stalked him with a butcher knife in an empty portable classroom. Despite the seriousness of this incident, no action was taken. The boy’s parents transferred him to another school for his own safety."

"Ada, Oklahoma: A Baptist student told a local newspaper she wouldn’t take professor William Zellner’s classes because he was an atheist, triggering a flurry of abuse. Zellner received harassing notes and telephone calls, some threatening. His car was vandalized, for a time on a daily basis. A local church sold “I am praying for Dr. Zellner” buttons. His children experienced shunning and beatings from religious children."

Source: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/downey_24_4.htm

and i'm saying your claim that atheists are the "most hated minority group" based on one survey ignores the real world. i get that atheists get discriminated against, but it's nowhere near the discrimination that most gay people face.

[The Personist]

Just quoting you to get your attention, since your answer to my soul question was a great read.

What are your opinions on prayer?

I am wholly opposed to petitionary prayers, asking God for something as though he will actually intervene and, say, help you get an A on your test through some divine spark. I think that prayers for fortitude or reassurance, those that give you a sense of knowing God is in your heart at all times, are the kind of "reality checks," so to speak, that are immensely beneficial. I personally am not big on prayer, but instead prefer meditation, which I think is a far better way of focusing oneself.

Have you seen I <3 Huckabee's? I like to think of prayer as being like what Jason Schwartzman's character does, the "dismantling" thing.

[bung]

and i'm saying your claim that atheists are the "most hated minority group" based on one survey ignores the real world. i get that atheists get discriminated against, but it's nowhere near the discrimination that most gay people face.

There's been quite a few polls on the subject. I merely referenced one. It's obvious you've done no research on the subject. You can go do that now.

There has been openly gay politicians. I don't think I've ever heard of one openly atheist politician.

[The Personist]

There's been quite a few polls on the subject. I merely referenced one. It's obvious you've done no research on the subject. You can go do that now.

There has been openly gay politicians. I don't think I've ever heard of one openly atheist politician.

I forget his name, but there's a senator or congressman right now who's openly atheist.

[Machu505]

I forget his name, but there's a senator or congressman right now who's openly atheist.
Rep. Pete Stark from California is who you're thinking of.

[The Personist]

There's been quite a few polls on the subject. I merely referenced one. It's obvious you've done no research on the subject. You can go do that now.

There has been openly gay politicians. I don't think I've ever heard of one openly atheist politician.

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

[Machu505]

And there's also Clement Attlee in the UK is you want to go international and farther back.

[bung]

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

Well shit. We've got one!

[Machu505]

Well shit. We've got one!
As opposed to three for homosexuals?

[bung]

As opposed to three for homosexuals?

Ever or current?

[Machu505]

Ever or current?
Current in Congress at the moment, only two of which were first elected while they were openly gay.

EDIT: In history for Congress there have been six.

[thespearkid]

I don't believe medication works all the time. I believe some people are born, "wired" to kill themselves, reguardless of medication and/or environment.
I strongly disagree.

[The Personist]

I feel like the numbers are small enough to be statistically insignificant concerning who gets more shit.

[Machu505]

Plus no demographic is accurately represented in Congress.

[bung]

Current in Congress at the moment, only two of which were first elected while they were openly gay.

EDIT: In history for Congress there have been six.

Hm, interesting.

[The Personist]

Plus no demographic is accurately represented in Congress.

Exactly.

Well shit. We've got one!

Do the surveys take into account the fact that there probably is little or no differentiation for most people between "atheist" and "antitheist"? I would not vote for someone who was actively antitheist if it was part of his platform just like I wouldn't vote for someone whose religion was part of his platform.

[bung]

Exactly.



Do the surveys take into account the fact that there probably is little or no differentiation for most people between "atheist" and "antitheist"? I would not vote for someone who was actively antitheist if it was part of his platform just like I wouldn't vote for someone whose religion was part of his platform.

I really don't know. Probably not. I would like to see statistics though on the number of atheists that are also antitheists.

[The Personist]

I really don't know. Probably not. I would like to see statistics though on the number of atheists that are also antitheists.

I think it would make it easier to comment about the whole situation.

[perceptrons]

I am wholly opposed to petitionary prayers, asking God for something as though he will actually intervene and, say, help you get an A on your test through some divine spark. I think that prayers for fortitude or reassurance, those that give you a sense of knowing God is in your heart at all times, are the kind of "reality checks," so to speak, that are immensely beneficial. I personally am not big on prayer, but instead prefer meditation, which I think is a far better way of focusing oneself.

Have you seen I <3 Huckabee's? I like to think of prayer as being like what Jason Schwartzman's character does, the "dismantling" thing.
So since you can't, if I understand your concept of God correctly, interact with God really, you just view prayer as a way to focus yourself, and not communicate directly to God?

I haven't seen it, no. I've wanted to for some time now, though.
I strongly disagree.
Unless you count a lobotomy, some people just aren't fixable with medication (short of putting them in a coma, that is). If you count lobotomies, is the person really there anymore?

[Praetor]

Current in Congress at the moment, only two of which were first elected while they were openly gay.

EDIT: In history for Congress there have been six.
Where are you getting these statistics? I want to read more about this.

[Machu505]

Where are you getting these statistics? I want to read more about this.
I found that on Wikipedia. Where else? Haha.

[Praetor]

I found that on Wikipedia. Where else? Haha.
Could you link me specifically? I can't find an article.

[x togepi x]

Of course you have to take into consideration the context of the time period in which it was written as well as who was writing and who it was written to. I know that overtime words have changed usage and such. I'm not sure why you're trying ot spark another homosexuality discussion again as that has not come up in any of my previous statements, but...

I saw you in this thread saying you can take some things in the bible metaphorically. While knowing our origins is important, it currently pales in comparison to the real world discrimination your interpretation of the bible forces on the gblt community, so i asked how your way of reading the bible isn't merely a way of getting out of the absurdities of a literalist interpretation while getting to oppress the Other.

You don't take into consideration the context though. If you did, you would note that no case in which homosexuality is supposedly condemned in the bible is at all analogous to a gay relationship. I'm sorry but scripture obviously describing the rituals of greek mystery religions/pagans is not at all like what a male/male female/female relationship based out of love is like.

just like you, presumably, could fall in love with a woman and it not be called "pure lust", a gay man can fall in love with a man and a gay woman can fall in love with a woman. the bible doesn't condemn this. some scripture even promotes it.
Well fornication is fornication...regardless if the circumstance involves 2 men, 2 women, or 18 with any combination of genders/sexes. Fornication is sin, and should be equally condemned whether it's between a boyfriend/girlfriend or between a man and a male prostitute.

the problem is you define it as a sin based around marriage. under this paradigm, you will always condemn homosexuals because you keep them out of your definition of marriage. that's not really a legit conception of sin, especially when talking about the indeterminacy of the bible (the idea that there is a plethora of interpretations of what is "sin" so we don't really know what "sin" truly is in an objective way).

this is an oppressive paradigm, even if you, yourself don't attack homosexuals, someone else using the same line of thinking can use it as justifications since sin is supposed to be bad.

However, there's no reason to condemn such things unless the people involved have already been saved through Jesus.

Jesus never talked about homosexuality so there's no reason to condemn it at all.

Lots of people (and so-called Christians) have the wrong idea as to how we are to go about saving souls. All a Christian's job is to spread the gospel...explain to others that they can be saved and how. The action of condemning sin (whether it be fornication, lying, or forsaking the assembling) should only be done by Christians to other fellow Christians.

Oh okay, you don't comdemn all gay people, just the christian ones. why exactly are you thinking this is a good clarification?


Let me just give you some examples:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=6&verse=15&end_verse=17&version=49&context=context
There is no literal "shield of faith" or "helmet of salvation" or "sword of the spirit" - it's metaphorical because he's explaining to them (and to those who read now) how we should be equipped.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:34-38;&version=49;
In this instance Peter baptized (physically) the one he was teaching becuase he confessed. This isn't metaphorical - it's an account of what events actually took place.

These examples do nothing to prove your point here because I could say Peter's physical baptism is a metaphor for something else. Anyone who's read books knows that even physical things can be metaphors and therefore not be taken literally. Even then, i don't see how you're not just deciding to oppress homosexuals by taking their condemnations literally instead of using them as a metaphor for something else.

This is, a key point in literary theory, namely that almost anything can be a metaphor and is subject to interpretation. Why do you draw the line so strictly when it comes to gay people? When responding don't try and tell me this theory is wrong (because it's not and you will learn this in college if you take any lit classes), but just answer the question.

The natural function is the reproduction of another human between a male and a female - any other use of the organs is because of the lust for physical pleasure - which is only acceptable between a married man/woman (scripturally backed).

As I've said before, one can consider homosexuals to be a natural way of making sure a population doesn't procreate too much, thus their pleasurable sex from members of the same sex is an incentive which helps promote procreation because it keeps the population at a safe level. That would be natural, and based around reproduction even if the two individuals themselves aren't producing a child, so it should fall under your standard.

but even then, I would contend that pleasure itself (which you're going to write off as lust) is natural and good. Biblical condemnations of lust should be interpreted as going too far to the extreme, like being so overcome with wanting pleasure that you cheat on your spouse to get laid, but that the good median level of pleasure is good (it is, supposedly god's plan to give us pleasure sexually). once again, this goes back to the level of indeterminability in the bible.

I don't think "easily stimulated" is a widely accepted assumption - it's personal preference. To me personally whether it be a male's or female's anus - it's disgusting, revolting, the last thing I would want to be involved in a sexual action.

Easily stimulated is not an assumption, it's quite possible even you think it's gross. it is one reason why many people find prostate exams to be embarrassing because they do feel something they don't like. Even if you yourself dislike it, that doesn't mean that it's not natural. The fact of the manner is, that's where your prostate is, when you get a prostate exam, it's going to be done in that way because it's the easiest way to check it out (and therefore stimulate it), this is not an assumption, it's easily verifiable by medicine.

I would even contend that any sexual act that one finds pleasurable is probably outside of one's control and therefore, natural in context. It's not like most people go "oh man, i'm totally going to give myself a fetish".

It's God who created how things are but man who twisted the usage of things to further access pleasures. It's satan who tempts people through such things.

I'm not entirely sure how homosexuals fit into this "twisting things".

I don't ignore the thing brought about in Gensis or other books like Leviticus that people bring up (because in there it deals with not eating shellfish and things like that) - but us today, we don't live under the old law therefor such commandments aren't held to us (as backed in the scripture).

at the point in which you concede that we don't live in the time where the old laws apply, you have to concede that homosexual relationships have changed in a way so much that, at best, all we can really say is homosexuality is an area where we don't know what god would say. why do you not do this?

the "backing in scripture" falls apart when we see indeterminability.

I have no interest in oppression...that is not and has not been my goal.

It doesn't matter what your goal is, oppression is the end result of your views.

Teaching that certain things are sinful is not oppression.

Yes it is in this case. It's telling people to repress themselves, which is psychologically damaging. it also has been proved to lead to the homosexual community being attacked.

I have nor will ever be one of those people who stand on the street corner with a sign that says "GOD HATES GAYS". There is no point...aside from the major fact that that is not we are commanded to do.

No, you're just a stealth version of them.

I think you have the wrong idea about me in so many areas. And I can understand why in the homosexuality area - because a couple of years ago (only a time or 2) I started arguments solely myself in which I had no need (like in the Gorilla Bizkitz? thread). For that I apologize as it was not my place. In that case it was somewhat oppressive - however all the other circumstances where within religous or biblical discussions and I was just providing my beliefs.
Remember, I was only 15 - fairly new to my faith even though I had grown up in it...now I get the bigger picture. I hope you understand that.

I do not have the wrong idea of you until you admit that you can't really say "the bible condemns homosexuality", all you can do is say that's your interpretation, which is fine and all, but you're hardly the authority. therein lies the problem.

I don't see how this could be...reading through such events it is clear that there are no metaphorical ties (at least in the overall picture - because sure, there may be some metaphorical instances within the events). If the creatoin of the world was all metaphorical - I think God would have it be a lot more evident when he was telling his prophets to record such things.

The fact that you concede that there is a possibility that there are metaphorical instances within the supposedly literal events means that you have to concede that there is a possibility of my interpretation being correct. At this point, all my arguments about indeterminability come into play.

I'm also not entirely sure how you can say you think God would be more evident. I mean, you weren't there, so you don't know that it wasn't evident at the time. Haven't you ever said anything to someone and had someone else take it completely out of context even though you and the person you were speaking to understood what you said perfectly? If so, then you have to admit that this can be the case with my analysis of marriage as a metaphor.

I don't find it all that important whether my interpretation is the RIGHT ONE because i don't think this is a claim anyone can ever make based on indeterminability.

[quote=A Fatal Goodbye]Once again, the bible condemns fornication regardless of what sexes are involved...if the same sexes were married and then having these relations - then fine, it's not sinful - but that cannot justify it as God gave no authority for people of the same sex/gender to marry.

how do you know fornication can't be a metaphor for people exploiting the environment whereas people conserving and using resources the right way could be the metaphor for marriage?

It also makes no sense, in context, for god to say "hey same sexes can get married" since at the time he is supposedly making that claim, there were only two people in existence, who were both of different sexes.

Well I believe that there is only once truth, and while there may be different ways of looking at scripture - it basically comes down to 1 general meaning. See, "my" interpretation is just that which is presented in the scriptures. So actually...it isn't necessarily "my" interpretation.

It is your interpretation because I can read the scripture and take it the way I do. How do you know you're right and i'm wrong? I too can claim to base my interpretation on just what is presented in the scripture. This is where indeterminability comes in.

Indeterminability centers around the idea that two or more people can read the exact same words and, based purely on those words, come up with different interpretations of what those words "say". Nowhere have you even touched this in your position. Even if there is "once truth", you can't prove your way of looking at the scripture is THE way. doing so is creating a false idol since, you aren't god and therefore you're putting the creation of a person, your interpretation of the scripture, up as THE way.

I'm not trying to believe what I want to believe - i'm trying to further understand the scripture each and everytime I open up the bible and read therein...I know I don't have everything right though.

if you're not accepting indeterminability, then you're tying the bible to what you believe.

It's God's plan...i'm just trying my best to follow it. If it was MY WAY then I probably wouldn't have a lot of things the way they are.

No, it's your interpretation of what "god's plan is", which is essentially saying MY WAY. Just because you might not like some of the outcomes doesn't mean that it's not your way. I didn't say you wrote the bible, i just said you interpreted it. Clearly you don't have control over what the text says enough to change those things you dislike.

Do you think that on a mankind/society level that I want there to things in the scirpture which disbalance the roles of men/women (for example) - No...
But it's not my choice, i'm not God - he set things up and I have to follow as he has instructed.

This is exactly why I will call you oppressive everytime you make a claim about the bible. You can hide sexism within the scripture and say "no no no, i'm totally not sexist, it's just what god wants". You're passing the responsibility beyond yourself. That's what philosophers call bad faith. I don't think any modern theologians who are worth anything are going to agree with what you're saying here.

And see, I am fairly humble and open minded (in the scriptural sense). If there is something that I have overlooked in the scripture I WOULD LOVE, YES LOVE for you or anyone to tell me what that is so that I can better myself by it. That is why I came to this thread in the first place, and is why I spend a decent amount of time in the Relgion & Spirituality section in Yahoo! Answers...I'm trying to further understand the scripture.
I know i'm not perfect, no one is.

Your problems come from the fact that you're willing to extrapolate your views in a universal sense. there's an insanely large number of christian theologians who are going to disagree with what you say, why not read some of them?

[Machu505]

Could you link me specifically? I can't find an article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_congress

[Praetor]

long-ass post
Holy mother of fuck
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_congress
Ah, I went about it the wrong way. Thanks.

[x togepi x]

There's been quite a few polls on the subject. I merely referenced one. It's obvious you've done no research on the subject. You can go do that now.

There has been openly gay politicians. I don't think I've ever heard of one openly atheist politician.

I can easily go for the cheap shot that "you're obviously not gay or bi so you don't know what you're talking about." Considering the fact that my views could fall under the rubric of atheism, I'm pretty sure I would know a lot more about who's more oppressed since I would be a member of both communities. So, while you have "done the research", i've lived the life, and my experience trumps your mindless posting of links every day of the week.

What you're talking about with your argument is representation, which is clearly not at all a good way to measure how hated/oppressed a group is. That's like saying "well, obviously racism isn't a big deal because obama got elected".

[bung]

I can easily go for the cheap shot that "you're obviously not gay or bi so you don't know what you're talking about." Considering the fact that my views could fall under the rubric of atheism, I'm pretty sure I would know a lot more about who's more oppressed since I would be a member of both communities. So, while you have "done the research", i've lived the life, and my experience trumps your mindless posting of links every day of the week.

What you're talking about with your argument is representation, which is clearly not at all a good way to measure how hated/oppressed a group is. That's like saying "well, obviously racism isn't a big deal because obama got elected".

Yep, your own personal experience definitively speaks for the attitude of all of America. I understand now.

As far as my argument for representation goes: I am saying half of America flat-out refuses to vote for an atheist. That is higher than any other group. Your analogy is false and does not fit.