EPTI'm not offended at all by the "under God" though and I'm an ignostic/agnostic who isn't religious at all
Religiosity over facebook. - Page 7
| Blogs > Aberu |
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
I'm not offended at all by the "under God" though and I'm an ignostic/agnostic who isn't religious at all | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On January 20 2011 01:36 happyft wrote: Regarding the Mosaic law on slavery, you have to understand the times and what exactly was going on back then -- the Israelites and all the other tribes in the surrounding area were bitter enemies. The Israelites came and moved in, a dozen or so tribes didn't like that and they went to war with each other. As bad as you think the Israelites treated them, they treated the Israelites far, far worse. For example, they ran sledges (think spiked heavy sleds) over prisoners of war and used their living bodies for sacrifice, and that was after they sodomized them, brutalized and tortured them, blinded them, cut off their limbs, etc. etc. There are instances in the Old Testament where the Israelites would commit suicide rather than being captured by the enemy, and suicide was considered an extreme sin, that's how bad it was. So yes, the Israelites did have slaves -- BUT, there was a justice system in place to protect them. Killing a slave was punishable. Crippled slaves were to be set free. Slaves who ran away from oppressive masters were also considered free. Slaves also were to enjoy a Sabbath day of rest. And the law expressly prohibited rape, prostitution. Consider this compared to how Israelites' enemies treated them when they were captured. And it's not like the Israelites invented slavery -- the first account of slavery in the Bible in fact relates the Israelites as the slaves, not the slavers. I don't want to pretend like slavery is an okay and good thing -- but Israel certainly did not invent it, and was probably one of the more compassionate practitioners of it (relatively). But what I"m wondering is how you go from Israelites being enslaved, to having a justice system for slaves, to Christians support slavery, to Christians oppress people, to Christians are the opposite of socially progressive? Regarding your argument on why God is evil because He allows evil to occur ... first of all, it's a bit problematic when there's a little bit of evil in all of us? So does He forcibly make us all good with no free-will of our own? Keep in mind the Christian definition of good is to love God with all of our hearts mind soul and strength -- so in essence, if God were to take action in rectifying all evil, that would include forcing all humankind to love Him. That's pretty horrifying, and not something a loving God would do at all. Second of all, God allowed Satan to inflict hardship upon Job -- who is responsible for that, Satan or God? To which I ask, to what extent do beings have free-will? And the other example, why would God allow that man to slay his daughter? (Or allow evil to happen at all)? I believe these are similar questions to the one in the prior paragraph -- to what extent can you stop someone from committing evil? If you had a son who was a heroin addict -- it's in his nature to seek heroin, he can't help himself (definition of addiction) -- what can you do to stop him from going back to heroin time and time again? Every solution you can think of takes away his freedom, his free-will, his ability to act. Now regarding cherry-picking and killing unruly children -- the irony sir, is that you are the one cherry-picking a few verses of the whole Bible. You are correct in that the law does command extremely strict punishment for sinful actions -- and this is a correct representation of God's nature; that He utterly hates sin and wishes to demolish all that is sinful. The problem is that there is sin in all of us. All of us have lied at least once, perhaps stolen, disobeyed our parents, mistreated our neighbor -- think about all the hours you've wasted at work, being a dishonest employee and not working honestly for your pay (lol, as I sit here typing from my office computer). If we were to go to a court where the judge was omniscent and knew exactly how much we owed every single person in the world for every misdeed we did to them -- who knows how much each of us would owe in total. If you could put it in numerical terms, the debt would be staggering. (And being an unruly child counts as a misdeed) + Show Spoiler [The nature of sin] + And it's worse than just a debt to be repaid -- sin, performing any misdeed or evil, corrupts the soul. Doing bad things corrupts your soul, it is a sad fact of life. It is for this reason that when you enter a holy place, when you get down on your knees to pray, there is a feeling of unworthiness, of shame and guilt. It is not religion brainwashing you into guilt-tripping you to be a better person -- it is your conscience remembering all your misdeeds, bringing you the knowledge that before a most holy God, you are unworthy to stand before Him, you are unable to look Him in the eyes for you know you have sinned... But there is a hope -- every single book of the Bible (yes, every single one) speaks to a savior to come who would pay our debts by personally paying the price, and more than just giving us our old lives back, he gives us a new life to live -- the perfect life that he had lived. It is by this fundamental doctrine of forgiveness of sins that Christians do not kill their unruly children, nor do we exact justice for every single law and commandment in the Bible -- for our misdeeds have been forgiven. TL;DR -- grace > sin. Apologies for length, and if I used any Christian lingo that's not clear to the rest of you =T Regarding the Mosaic law on slavery, you have to understand the times and what exactly was going on back then -- the Israelites and all the other tribes in the surrounding area were bitter enemies. The Israelites came and moved in, a dozen or so tribes didn't like that and they went to war with each other. As bad as you think the Israelites treated them, they treated the Israelites far, far worse. For example, they ran sledges (think spiked heavy sleds) over prisoners of war and used their living bodies for sacrifice, and that was after they sodomized them, brutalized and tortured them, blinded them, cut off their limbs, etc. etc. There are instances in the Old Testament where the Israelites would commit suicide rather than being captured by the enemy, and suicide was considered an extreme sin, that's how bad it was. So yes, the Israelites did have slaves -- BUT, there was a justice system in place to protect them. Killing a slave was punishable. Crippled slaves were to be set free. Slaves who ran away from oppressive masters were also considered free. Slaves also were to enjoy a Sabbath day of rest. And the law expressly prohibited rape, prostitution. Consider this compared to how Israelites' enemies treated them when they were captured. And it's not like the Israelites invented slavery -- the first account of slavery in the Bible in fact relates the Israelites as the slaves, not the slavers. So two wrongs make a right according to gods law. Really neat. Yeah! They treated us horribly! Let's use them as slaves and beat them to near death! Also, no, killing a slave was not punishable, you didn't read my post which makes me not want to read yours. I quoted directly from the bible where it says if you beat them into a crippled state, they don't get punished, but if they die outright, they do. "When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)" That doesn't sound right to me, yet god thought it was fine then, why isn't it fine now? Oh, because you're cherry picking. I don't want to pretend like slavery is an okay and good thing -- but Israel certainly did not invent it, and was probably one of the more compassionate practitioners of it (relatively). But what I"m wondering is how you go from Israelites being enslaved, to having a justice system for slaves, to Christians support slavery, to Christians oppress people, to Christians are the opposite of socially progressive? Yeah, they're really compassionate. Luckily that justice system was in place so they could remain property, and have no rights so they can be beaten whenever. Sure sounds sweet. Also, the Bible 100% supports slavery, if you can't make the connection from that to not being socially progressive, I don't know how I can help you. I also already said this, which you seemed to just ignore. "Oh shush, I'm not nitpicking contradictions, I'm blatantly pointing out the disgusting morals of the bible, not contradictions. And trying to paint the point that with standards and morals like that, there is little to no progression" Meaning, the bible. You're assuming I'm meaning all christians ever, and as a whole, but I thought I clarified that in the quote above that I was talking about the morals of the bible, and how they are not progressive, at all. Regarding your argument on why God is evil because He allows evil to occur ... first of all, it's a bit problematic when there's a little bit of evil in all of us? So does He forcibly make us all good with no free-will of our own? Keep in mind the Christian definition of good is to love God with all of our hearts mind soul and strength -- so in essence, if God were to take action in rectifying all evil, that would include forcing all humankind to love Him. That's pretty horrifying, and not something a loving God would do at all. No god damnit, please fucking read my posts. I did state god is evil because he allows it to occur, true, but I also stated hes evil because he fucking IS evil. Read the pages that I linked and tell me hes a morally sound god. I have more morals than god or jesus would ever have, know why? Because I don't kill people for bets, I'm not a sick twisted individual and selfish to the point I have to force people to believe what I want, or I send them to eternal hellfire. And before you say they're different, they're one in the same, and both have committed disgusting acts that would be punishable by prison or death in todays society. Did you know in the cut books of the bible (yes, its HEAVILY edited), they said Jesus went around and made people old and die instantly when he was a kid? Pretty fucking cool, but still a dick. Second of all, God allowed Satan to inflict hardship upon Job -- who is responsible for that, Satan or God? To which I ask, to what extent do beings have free-will? And the other example, why would God allow that man to slay his daughter? (Or allow evil to happen at all)? I believe these are similar questions to the one in the prior paragraph -- to what extent can you stop someone from committing evil? If you had a son who was a heroin addict -- it's in his nature to seek heroin, he can't help himself (definition of addiction) -- what can you do to stop him from going back to heroin time and time again? Every solution you can think of takes away his freedom, his free-will, his ability to act. Lol, freewill + religion, you had me going there for a second. Ok. God has the power to create the entire fucking earth, god claims hes omnipotent, god claims he's good, god claims hes all powerful, god intervenes with human lives in the past, god allows the devil to exist, god KILLS 2,476,633 people yet he can't intervene for worry of harming our free-will? HAAHAAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAAHAAAHAHHHAHHAHAHAHAAAHAHA Please. Thats a fucking joke and you know it. You wanna know the best thing that god could have done to prove he was real to all the people on Earth? Is if he told everyone about germs. Why didn't he do that? Simple yeah? They're his creations yeah? Why would he not want to prove himself? Instead, the bible is filled with stories that was written hundreds of years after everything happened. And he expects everyone to believe it. Genius plan. You claim him helping hurts free-will, well him doing jack-shit doesn't exactly win me over either. Now regarding cherry-picking and killing unruly children -- the irony sir, is that you are the one cherry-picking a few verses of the whole Bible. You are correct in that the law does command extremely strict punishment for sinful actions -- and this is a correct representation of God's nature; that He utterly hates sin and wishes to demolish all that is sinful. Man, darn that sin! Always messing everything up! No man, I'm not the one cherry-picking. You choose to follow everything else in the bible, except the parts you don't like, even though Jesus said you should follow his law until everything is done (including the old testament), thats the definition of cherry-picking. Because I point out the evilness in the bible (which there is a shit-ton of) doesn't mean I'm "cherry-picking", thats stupid, I'm simply pointing out things in the bible that are morally horrendous. I know there are decent laws in the bible, I acknowledge this. The reason YOU are cherry-picking, is because you choose to follow certain things in the bible, but not the rest. Do you understand the difference? Me, point things out. Majority of christians (I'd say all actually, It's probably impossible to follow the bible top to bottom, as you'd be dead quickly), follow the bible half-assed. But there is a hope -- every single book of the Bible (yes, every single one) speaks to a savior to come who would pay our debts by personally paying the price, and more than just giving us our old lives back, he gives us a new life to live -- the perfect life that he had lived. It is by this fundamental doctrine of forgiveness of sins that Christians do not kill their unruly children, nor do we exact justice for every single law and commandment in the Bible -- for our misdeeds have been forgiven. No no no no no no no no no. I'm going to assume you're talking about Jesus. You're saying the "perfect life that he had lived". Jesus killed people, he was not perfect, he'd be considered a mass-murderer by todays standards. Jesus is the god of the old testament yes? If so (I know I already basically said this), I have better morals than god or jesus will ever have. I don't torture people for disagreeing with me, I don't let millions of people not hear my word, then punish them in eternal hellfire, I don't "act in mysterious ways" and kill some here, save some here, because I'm a morally sound human being, and I get my morals from a far better place than the bible, myself. | ||
|
gimpy
United States72 Posts
I have a BS in Physics, but am not employed as a scientist. I understand physics and mathematics like the back of my hand. I comprehend quantum and relativistic physics. This gives me some credibility when I tell you that EVERYTHING in the universe is as it needs to be for life, and NOTHING could be different. You can't have a car that runs without an ingnition or a frame or a cooling system. In the same way, As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." Read more here if you are open minded: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe It makes me sad that Idra thinks our faith is abusurd. I've really been pulling for him! | ||
|
Providence
United States125 Posts
On January 17 2011 21:08 IdrA wrote: no legitimate biologists believe in intelligent design why do students have a right to learn about intelligent design? theres no support for it, its just an attempt to stick god into a concept that has no need for him. During the supreme court case, evidence was presented that those trying to introduce intelligent design into the public school system had printed text books where there were several instances of "intelligent design" embedded within the word "creationism", e.g. creaintelligent designtionism. This was pretty much the lynch pin that demonstrated intelligent design was simply a cover and way to introduce a renamed creation theory into the public curriculum, as all these instances (among others) demonstrated intelligent design was simply a re-branding of creation theory. | ||
|
Providence
United States125 Posts
On January 20 2011 01:36 happyft wrote: Now regarding cherry-picking and killing unruly children -- the irony sir, is that you are the one cherry-picking a few verses of the whole Bible. You are correct in that the law does command extremely strict punishment for sinful actions -- and this is a correct representation of God's nature; that He utterly hates sin and wishes to demolish all that is sinful. What's wrong with cherry-picking a few verses from a book which asserts the claim that it is in whole infallible? | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
On January 20 2011 01:36 happyft wrote: But there is a hope -- every single book of the Bible (yes, every single one) speaks to a savior to come who would pay our debts by personally paying the price, and more than just giving us our old lives back, he gives us a new life to live -- the perfect life that he had lived. On January 20 2011 06:08 gimpy wrote: God does not contridict Himself, but his responses to us change as the situation changes. Hi, these are arbitrary beliefs that you two have obviously heard from Church. If you were to read the Bible from scratch without having any prior Christian or Church upbringing these would not be the conclusions you would come to regarding what the Bible itself actually says. A blog post which I find to be quite insightful: When I first began theological studies from a conservative Protestant background, I quickly found a universally accepted truth was that salvation was "by faith alone", it was "by grace" and that it was our duty to "rest" on "Christ's finished work". It was considered important to realize that we could "add nothing" to "Christ's atoning work". It was important that we didn't try to "save ourselves" by "human effort". It was extremely important not to add the least bit of "works" to salvation, otherwise you'd be like those (heretical) Roman Catholics and teach (evil) "Works Based Salvation". Paul's writings about "by grace through faith not works" were considered "irrefutable proof" of this view. Anyone who said anything different was being "unbiblical" and "straying" from the Bible's teachings. Salvation by "human effort" was how "human religions" worked, and all humans who are "in the flesh" inherently by their psychology wanted to try to save themselves, whereas the fact that Christianity relied on God alone for salvation separated it from other religions and caused it to be "nonsense" and "foolishness" to the "natural man". I found that in some quarters there was even worry that our very belief in and acceptance of Christ's finished work for us might be considered something we do, as a work based on human effort that saves us. Thus, some thought that we ought to think of even our faith in Christ's finished atoning work as something given graciously to us by God. However, now that I've learned a bit more than I once knew about both Pauline theology and the Church Fathers, it is with amusement that I look back on such ideas and claims. Advances in biblical scholarship in the last thirty years have well and truly refuted the "irrefutable evidence" of Paul's grace, faith and works language... ironically it turned out that grace didn't mean grace, faith didn't mean faith, and works didn't mean works. The New Perspective on Paul has thus cast Paul's writings in quite a different light to the ideas above. Far from being the apostle who rejects the value of human effort, it in fact turns out that not once in any of his writings does Paul reject or deny the value or saving value of human effort to avail before God, and in fact he regularly affirms it. Studying the early Church Fathers has been no less interesting. I find it reasonable to assume (contrary to some Protestants) that Christianity didn't suddenly disappear out of the world the moment that the New Testament was completed, and that post-NT Christian writings accurately depict the major doctrines of early Christianity. There's a quote by Clement of Alexandria (~200AD) that succinctly summarizes what appears to have been universal early Christian doctrine: "God desires us to be saved by our own efforts." (Stromata 6.12.96) As is attested in the numerous writings we have from the second century church, Christianity worldwide was a religion of "works based salvation". It was with great amusement then, and also a little frustration and sadness that I recently read this article which made all the claims I had originally been taught as a conservative protestant about how the true gospel is about us trying to cease from human effort and rely on God's salvation. In the article he writes "We do not need a better set of how to's, or a better teacher, or a better therapist." which brought to my mind all the early Christian writings which boasted about Christianity providing precisely these three things. It is really quite amazing, when I reflect on it, that Christianity has come in such a full circle that this writer, in the belief that he is proclaiming the true Christian gospel can be attacking the very essence of original Christianity. | ||
|
gimpy
United States72 Posts
This is claim without evidence, and it is wrong. Why would you suggest we just accept this? "Studying the early Church Fathers has been no less interesting. I find it reasonable to assume (contrary to some Protestants) that Christianity didn't suddenly disappear out of the world the moment that the New Testament was completed, and that post-NT Christian writings accurately depict the major doctrines of early Christianity. There's a quote by Clement of Alexandria (~200AD) that succinctly summarizes what appears to have been universal early Christian doctrine: "God desires us to be saved by our own efforts." (Stromata 6.12.96) As is attested in the numerous writings we have from the second century church, Christianity worldwide was a religion of "works based salvation"." 1st: Clement wasn't comissioned by Jesus as an Apostle, Paul was. Peter (who Paul sometimes fought with) even told us that Pauls letters were inspired by God. Are you going to believe just anybody who tells you what God's will is? 2nd: And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. -First epistle of Clement to the Corinthians This is why we shouldn't cherry-pick. Clement concludes the same way as Paul, but then exhorts us to behave morally. | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
On January 20 2011 06:58 gimpy wrote: This is claim without evidence, and it is wrong. Why would you suggest we just accept this? Hurr durr... As he said... It is sourced in Biblical scholarship surrounding the New Perspective on Paul. It is an area too large to fit into a single post (your statement is equivalent to someone responding by saying: "Evolution is a claim without evidence, and it is wrong. Why would you suggest we just accept this?") - but feel free to read his links and the books he refers to on his blog: theogeek.blogspot.com. | ||
|
whatever
Mexico693 Posts
On January 20 2011 06:08 gimpy wrote: Bravo happyft! I have to say it is refreshing to read responses from someone who sincerely studies God's Word. You obviously love Him and want to know more about Him. The Bible is hard to understand, but as you are demonstrating, it can be understood. God does not contridict Himself, but his responses to us change as the situation changes. The old covenant is hard to comprehend because we live under a new covenant with Jesus. The old cerimonial law was good, but it's time is now past. No one puts new wine in an old wineskin right? Don't misunderstand though, the moral law will never pass away. Love one another as you love yourself and love the Lord your God above all things. I have a BS in Physics, but am not employed as a scientist. I understand physics and mathematics like the back of my hand. I comprehend quantum and relativistic physics. This gives me some credibility when I tell you that EVERYTHING in the universe is as it needs to be for life, and NOTHING could be different. You can't have a car that runs without an ingnition or a frame or a cooling system. In the same way, As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." Read more here if you are open minded: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe It makes me sad that Idra thinks our faith is abusurd. I've really been pulling for him! You will never be employed as a scientist with that attitude (even less without a phd). I find your lack of curiosity disturbing. To me, your obsession is just a product of culture. For what it's worth: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26276/ | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 20 2011 10:31 whatever wrote: I find your lack of curiosity disturbing. I see what you mean. Some people are quick to accept shaky explanations! | ||
|
Aberu
United States968 Posts
On January 20 2011 06:08 gimpy wrote: Bravo happyft! I have to say it is refreshing to read responses from someone who sincerely studies God's Word. You obviously love Him and want to know more about Him. The Bible is hard to understand, but as you are demonstrating, it can be understood. God does not contridict Himself, but his responses to us change as the situation changes. The old covenant is hard to comprehend because we live under a new covenant with Jesus. The old cerimonial law was good, but it's time is now past. No one puts new wine in an old wineskin right? Don't misunderstand though, the moral law will never pass away. Love one another as you love yourself and love the Lord your God above all things. I have a BS in Physics, but am not employed as a scientist. I understand physics and mathematics like the back of my hand. I comprehend quantum and relativistic physics. This gives me some credibility when I tell you that EVERYTHING in the universe is as it needs to be for life, and NOTHING could be different. You can't have a car that runs without an ingnition or a frame or a cooling system. In the same way, As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." Read more here if you are open minded: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe It makes me sad that Idra thinks our faith is abusurd. I've really been pulling for him! The fine tuned universe argument is often discredited easily by the anthropic principle. On January 19 2011 06:57 happyft wrote:  Prison reform, mental hospital reform, abolitionism of slavery, women's right to vote, minority's equality, and caring for all kinds of sick (especially those dying of very infectious diseases like the plague and tuberculosis), orphaned, and the impoverished, to name a few things? Can you find scriptural basis that would religiously lead people to reforming prison? To reforming mental hospitals (mental hospitals or an equivalent didn't exist in the biblical age)? To the abolition of slavery (the bible is quite the proponent of slavery)? To giving women the right to vote (this one is hilarious, so many times in the bible it says in many different ways that women are hardly people, that they are the property of men, and should have no power in society at all and own no land)? To giving equality to minorities (this one is hilarious since the bible many times has the Jews kill people who are of different beliefs and different races, just for that reason, and they do it because god told them to)? And caring for all kinds of the sick, are you kidding me? Where in the bible does the germ theory of disease get explained? Nowhere in the bible does it say to wash your hands before you eat, and people didn't back then. | ||
|
Sm3agol
United States2055 Posts
On January 20 2011 07:25 Tony Campolo wrote: Hurr durr... As he said... It is sourced in Biblical scholarship surrounding the New Perspective on Paul. It is an area too large to fit into a single post (your statement is equivalent to someone responding by saying: "Evolution is a claim without evidence, and it is wrong. Why would you suggest we just accept this?") - but feel free to read his links and the books he refers to on his blog: theogeek.blogspot.com. Oh god....all the New Perspective on Paul, New perspective on Jesus, blah, blah. That is completely not "scholarship" by any means. All that crap is, is trying to rearrange the Bible to fit what you believe, not vice-versa. If you believe the Bible, fine, believe it, go by it, live morally. It's really a great moral code if followed correctly. But I will never ever figure out why people basically invent something to believe in, then try and warp established doctrines and documents to fit their beliefs. | ||
|
HeadhunteR
Argentina1258 Posts
I had prayer and religion classes in my school and most of my classmates are atheists or non practicing Catholics. I go to a Catholic University and had theology but no one really believes in GOD let alone that god that protects and serves America or any country. The real god in the united states is green and its called the Almighty dollar that is what really drives the capitalist free market America. Anyone that doesn't believe in it is ANTI AMERICAN yeah ANTI AMERICAN thats what these republicans believe in. As Frank Zappa said "well I dont think the world will improve, God gave up on everything when he created Republicans". | ||
Falling
Canada11179 Posts
If America as a whole does not see Christianity as relevant or else sees the phrase as offensive- fighting a battle over the phrase is the wrong fight to fight. Looking across the border, I tend to think politics and Christianity has gotten tied too closely together. I don't like how the Republicans seem to have the Evangelicals in their corner when many of their policies are just as counter-Christian as the Democrats- they just happen to talk Christianese come election time. | ||
| ||
