EPTChristians: For believers and non-believers alike - Page 6
| Blogs > Fumanchu |
|
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
| ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On June 11 2012 02:37 Omnipresent wrote: We're not arguing specificly about the validity of his individual beliefs. He's saying this his beliefs are Christianity, and that if someone makes a point about Christianity that has nothing to do with his beliefs, they simply don't understand Christianity. He hopped into this thread with the post I quoted. He wasn't upset that people were holding him accountable for beliefs that he didn't hold. He was upset that people were talking about and making arguments based on a form of Christianity other than his own. Implicit in his argument is the notion that his version of Christianity is correct, and all other are "warped." I wont ask anyone to justify a belief that they don't hold. He has just failed to see the larger picture. You're implying that christianity is defined by the masses. Tell me, who defines philosophy? Random bystanders or philosophers? Who defines biology? Children or biologists? The only reason his claims appear odd to you is because you come with a negative bias towards christianism, considering it a simple thing that is defined by the masses and not by the knowledgeable few. On June 11 2012 02:37 Omnipresent wrote: I'm willing to accept that interpretation, pending a few questions. Are any parts meant to be literal rather than metaphorical? If so, which ones? How do you know? If not, should anyone accept the Bible as true in any sense (as its main claim to authority comes from claims within it)? If so, why? If not, why are we still talking about this? It seems likely to me that virtually everything in the Bible, save Jesus' parables and a couple other clearly metaphorical portions, is meant to be taken as literal. As time has gone on, most of the stuff in there starts to look a little ridiculous. We understand much more about the world than the people who wrote it. As a result, believers have recently started moving towards a softer, more metaphorical reading of the Bible. You're belitteling once more the history of theological exegesis. Which parts are litteral? I don't know, I haven't studied the Bible, but as an ignorant person I avoid pushing my misconceptions into such debates. Hypothetically speaking, the book can be metaphorical and its truth can very well reside in the way 2 billion people feel towards it. You can say that it has become a sacred book through contingency, which is what I believe, but it doesn't seem likely seen in this way. You speak only in reasonable terms (while not being very reasonable yourself, I shall say), dismissing possible intuitive explanations. This is, after all, faith. On June 11 2012 02:37 Omnipresent wrote: First, I suspect you don't know what that word means, so I'm not going to get upset about that. I'm not intollerant towards beliefs or the people that hold them. You're welcome to believe whatever you like, and I want you to have that right. But if someone wants to engage in discussion in public, they can expect to have their beliefs questioned. I'm also not prejudging here. I've made a specific effort to only ask UdderChaos about beliefs he holds. You have a strong negative bias towards christianism. Either that, or else there are very simple ideas that you fail to grap. So, yes, "biggotry" seems relevant. On June 11 2012 02:37 Omnipresent wrote: I'm not asking for special treatment. I'm prepared to justify any and every belief I hold, especially my lack of religious belief. If you really want to know, ask. Here's what not helpful, though. If UdderChaos tells me what he believes (God is real, some business about Jesus, other points on theology), and I shoot back with what I believe (there's no evidence for the existance of God. In the absence of that evidence, we should reject all positive claims for his existance), we're essentially just talking past one another. He's has shared an opinion. I am interrogating it, and attempting to use his own standards (where I know them) to do so. My goal isn't conversion, but understanding. I don't want to be aggressive, but I do want to be serious. I'm really not sure why either of you seem upset about it. I specifically said I wasn't trying to be a dick. Again, you're taking a condescending tone even though you lack the intellectual tools to back it up. Absence of evidence is the evidence of absence? This is pseudo-science right there. Scientific methods and are only viable inside a certain strict pattern of procedures. Can you apply this methodology to metaphysical questions? No, because the essence of scientific research is accuracy and rigor. The only common field is a philosophical one, which you haven't set foot on. At least try to leave your bias aside, fill the gaps inside your logic and you will venture into something worth discussing. | ||
|
Deleted User 255289
281 Posts
On June 11 2012 20:51 Chocolate wrote: The bible clearly states that eating shellfish, wearing clothes of several materials, and consuming pork is wrong, but I am sure you have done all of those in the past year. You can still teach about something you are uncertain of. Christianity is not truly a mental retardant but some people take the bible literally which is not that great. Christianity also promotes not questioning beliefs (blessed is he who has not seen but believed). For you, why do you believe that everything in the bible is true? What about it makes it special? Well, you must have missed one of the main points of the New Testament. Have you read the passage where Paul accepted the pagan food and ate it? I recommend you to read it. I am "certain" of this point. One of the important aspects of the Christian faith is - Faith. This means to trust in God regardless of what he says. Now you might think this is nonsensical, how/why would I do that? Well, you must understand that God is perfect (he knows whats good for you) and he loves you (he is wouldn't tell you to do something that he knows is bad). For example, God says to love your enemies. You might think this is absurd, but if you follow it, you will see that it isn't stupid. As for why I think the Bible is a holy book, it's because the Bible was written by God through his servants. @Omnipresent There is an abundance of evidence. If you seek it, you will find it. | ||
|
Deleted User 255289
281 Posts
On June 11 2012 22:49 Servius_Fulvius wrote: I'm a grad student in engineering and plan on making teaching a career. Along with well-established theory I will also be teaching current advances in the field. Do you have any idea how uncertain these are? In my own research we use a catalyst called tungstated zirconia. It's a strong acid that works as a Bronsted Acid, but the latest research only has vague ideas of what, specifically, that acid really is. While giving a presentation on the subject I taught a class that the identity was a heteropolyacid, but that's only because the latest research thought it MIGHT be. My point is that there was no moral or ethical dilemma in teaching a science class where may be proven wrong in the next 10 years. We do our best to know the subject to the best of our abilities, but there are inherent uncertainties, especially given that results from scientific research are highly biased to the researcher's own interpretation. You'd think that scientific research would have a better track record than religion for civil discussions using sound logic, but it's not uncommon for a researcher to formulate an opinion and then NEVER change it. There's a professor at my school who does not believe in climate change and has openly taught such in class without giving any form of evidence. I could bring up more examples, but I need to go to work. I believe that was enough to make my point. The difference is that the identity of this "tungstated zirconia" is not gonna alter the course of your life, much less your eternity. It is acceptable to not know the identity of this tungstated zirconia, but its is not acceptable to not know whether you are going to heaven/hell/nowhere, and still teach on the subject. Besides, since you know the effects of this particular catalyst, you can already use it well, so the identity itself is not crucial. | ||
|
Vod.kaholic
United States1052 Posts
On June 09 2012 02:23 Fumanchu wrote: *Authors Note: Please don’t let this turn into some sort of religious debate. I write this because I hope that some non- Christians will understand us a bit more, and some Christians will understand how to compose themselves a bit more. Also let it be known that I am not trying to reduce the entire religion down to this one statement. I'm sorry, but this is just silly. How do you expect to bring up a religious topic without people debating their own personal stances on the subject? It's so...dishonest to have this as the opening line. Goddamnit, encourage debate, welcome it, don't say "oh, here's a debatable topic, don't have a debate about it plzkthx" like a tease... | ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
On June 11 2012 23:07 Kukaracha wrote: You're implying that christianity is defined by the masses. Tell me, who defines philosophy? Random bystanders or philosophers? Who defines biology? Children or biologists? The only reason his claims appear odd to you is because you come with a negative bias towards christianism, considering it a simple thing that is defined by the masses and not by the knowledgeable few. I'm not implying that Christianity is defined by the masses. Christians are an extremely diverse group with an extremely diverse set of opinions about their faith. It's a highly personal viewpoint, and I think defining it through the most common belief of the masses (as you think I think) would ignore almost every importing aspect of it. I also happen to think that defining christianity through the opinions of a "knowledgeable few" (as you suggest) is inaccurate, elitist, and concescending. For reference, I also think it's dumb to define it as "whatever I believe is true christianity" (as UdderChaos initially implied). It's a much more complex issue than that. I think everything I've said should demonstrate that I understand that fact. You're belitteling once more the history of theological exegesis. Which parts are litteral? I don't know, I haven't studied the Bible, but as an ignorant person I avoid pushing my misconceptions into such debates. Hypothetically speaking, the book can be metaphorical and its truth can very well reside in the way 2 billion people feel towards it. You can say that it has become a sacred book through contingency, which is what I believe, but it doesn't seem likely seen in this way. You speak only in reasonable terms (while not being very reasonable yourself, I shall say), dismissing possible intuitive explanations. This is, after all, faith. I'm not belitteling anyone or anything. If you don't know which parts are literal and which are metaphorical, why did you advance the position that the Bible isn't contradictory because it should be seen as metaphorical. I'm not "dismissing possible intuitive explanations," as no one has advanced any. I will say this, though, if the primary way you know what is true and untrue is personal intuition, why would you need to reference it back to the Bible? Why not just apply your intuition to everyday life? In what way does personal intuition have anything to do with truth claims of the Bible. Also, I think the word you're looking for is "rational," but reasonable will do (it's just such an easily misinterpreted word in English). We're having a discussion. It's possible that you or UdderChaos or any other given individual may not want to engage in a debate about his/her personal religious belief in rational terms. In fact, it seems like fairly difficult thing to do. But if your answer to these questions is "It's faith," where does the conversation go from there? There are no more questions for me to ask and no more reason for you to explain your beliefs. It's a conversation stopper. Now it may be true that faith is your only explanation, but you don't get to engage in public discussions if that's the case. They can only be one way conversations, with you asking questions, demanding answers, and refusing to provide any yourself. This is preaching, not discourse. Also, Hypothetically speaking, the book can be metaphorical and its truth can very well reside in the way 2 billion people feel towards it. is almost word salad. It doesn't mean anything. I barely know where to begin. I'll say this, though. We're talking about objective truth. That means that sentiments like "it's true because I feel it so strongly," "the idea has so much power that it's true," and "so many people believe it, it must be true," don't count. You have a strong negative bias towards christianism. Either that, or else there are very simple ideas that you fail to grap. So, yes, "biggotry" seems relevant. I'm not a Christian and I don't support Christianity. But I am tolerant. I want to understand. I try my best no to prejudge... Yeah, that makes me not a bigot. Your country tag says France, so English may not be your first language. You should know that "bigot" is an offensive term. That doesn't mean you can't use it. It doen't mean it isn't true of someone. It just means that you should be sure you know what you're talking about before you throw it out. I don't think you do. Again, you're taking a condescending tone even though you lack the intellectual tools to back it up. Absence of evidence is the evidence of absence? This is pseudo-science right there. Scientific methods and are only viable inside a certain strict pattern of procedures. Can you apply this methodology to metaphysical questions? No, because the essence of scientific research is accuracy and rigor. The only common field is a philosophical one, which you haven't set foot on. At least try to leave your bias aside, fill the gaps inside your logic and you will venture into something worth discussing. More ad hominem, sigh... After that, you actually had some things worth talking about. My position is not "absence of evidence is evidence of absence." My position is best described as rational skepticism. That means that I reject any claim for which there is insufficient evidence. That doens't mean I assert its opposite. For example, UdderChaos says God exists. This is a positive claim. The burdon is, therefore, on him to demonstrate that it is correct. If he is unable to do so, which so far he and everyone else in the world has failed to do, it is the skeptic's responsibility to reject it, pending further evidence (preferably empirical, but a flawless philosophical argument will do). So that leaves me in an interesting position. I am unable to prove God's existance. I am also unable to disprove it. This means, when asked the question "do you believe in god?," I say "no." My position is functionally identical to that of someone who thinks he can disprove God. That is, we both behave the same way in relation to god. The distinction is subtle, but important. Since you correctly pointed out that philosophy is the underlying field here, I would have guessed you understand basic epistemology. Let me give you a less controversial example. I have to tell you something, but you have to keep it a secret. I have a million dollars in the trunk of my car. I can't show it to you and I have no evidence. You have to believe me. So here's the question, "do you?" Do you believe me? I haven't demonstrated it or even provided you with a little evidence. I'm going to guess (hope) you don't believe it. Can you prove it's not true? You can't. The trunk is locked, and you're not allowed anywhere near the car. Now imagine I start asking you to make decisions and take action based on the fact that I have a million dollars in the trunk of my car. I tell you, "I'll give you everything in the trunk of my car if you babysit my kid every day for a year, or something else you don't want to do. It's going to take a while, and it's going to be unpleasant. When you're done, you get everything in my trunk. Do you do those things? It's a lot of work, and you can't definitively prove that I'm deceiving you. It's the same situation with god. In the first paragraph, I'm explaining my skepticism. The correct position is to reject my claim of car-trunk-riches until I can demonstrate it to you. The second paragraph shows that the position is functionally identical to that of someone who can prove I don't have the money. He know's it's not there, so he's not going to do the work. You don't know it's not there, but you also have no reason to think it is. You also wont do the work. | ||
|
TechniQ.UK
United Kingdom391 Posts
Someone else said that I'm a bad theologian because "the bible clearly teaches that God is against homosexuality". That's really not true if you know about the context, scholarship and issues over the hebrew and greek languages. Leviticus was written in a very particular context, as was Romans and indeed all books of the bible. What appears clear to you might be very wrong and unfortunately many have misused the bible to support homophobia. | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On June 12 2012 03:47 TechniQ.UK wrote: I think that some people have a skewed view of what most parts of Christianity teach. Someone said above that I would be supporting a religion that basically causes children to fear hell, hate homosexuals and switch off their minds. I have been in many different types of church, some more conservative, some liberal. I know a lot of the top clergy and ministers in the country, and rarely have I seen any church like the one your describing. American Evangelical/Fundamentalism may do all of the above in certain cases, but the majority of Christianity does not at all. One should perhaps attend an episcopal or a liberal Presbyterian Church U.S.A to get a better idea of what the majority of Christianity looks like. I've attended church services (Sunday sermon, or for Easter / Christmas / something else) in maybe some 10 institutions in the American South, spanning a fairly wide range of denominations and ideologies out of what's available in the region. That hardly makes me an expert, but as an agnostic observing (well, generally I was there being paid as an amateur / student musician), I've seen the below. I'm sure others have many more experiences. Of the things you mentioned: [1] "causes children to fear hell" — very common, often a point of emphasis [2] "hate homosexuals" — not something I've seen; many are convinced they're headed for eternal damnation etc. though [3] "switch off their minds" — not really, since they all encourage Bible study; however, some are very dismissive of certain ideas and even *wink wink* imply which political party to vote for in elections | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On June 12 2012 00:17 superbarnie wrote: Well, you must have missed one of the main points of the New Testament. Have you read the passage where Paul accepted the pagan food and ate it? I recommend you to read it. I am "certain" of this point. One of the important aspects of the Christian faith is - Faith. This means to trust in God regardless of what he says. Now you might think this is nonsensical, how/why would I do that? Well, you must understand that God is perfect (he knows whats good for you) and he loves you (he is wouldn't tell you to do something that he knows is bad). For example, God says to love your enemies. You might think this is absurd, but if you follow it, you will see that it isn't stupid. As for why I think the Bible is a holy book, it's because the Bible was written by God through his servants. @Omnipresent There is an abundance of evidence. If you seek it, you will find it. If you gate gays or think that lifestyle is wrong then maybe you have in fact missed an important part of the new testament: Matthew 7:1 Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. Mark 12:31 Love your neighbor as yourself. John 13:34-35 As I have loved you, so you must love one another. Also, sure Paul says that it's OK to eat pagan food, but does he address all of the retarded things in Leviticus? The bible says: + Show Spoiler + Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19) Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19) Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19) Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27) Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20  ) If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10). If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11) If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14) If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16). If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18) Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27) If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21 )People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18) Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16) Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19) Deuteronomy also has some weird laws + Show Spoiler + Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:5) If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10) If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15) Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7) Do you follow those? How many of those did Paul explicitly state were now void? Onto faith: why would you believe something just because you want to? If I said that there was a smiling baby on the other side of the sun that will bring us paradise when we die, who will reward those that have faith (i.e. those that believe him no matter what, even though there is no actual evidence that he exists), and who helped the writers of teletubbies create his sacred scripture, then we would not actually be very far from Christianity (at least, your version). I respect everyone just like how God says to love your enemies, too. Christianity is, in some parts and forms, very kind and understanding, that is just one thing I agree with. However, I don't believe in the baby sun just because he supports sharing, which I agree with. I think you have a little circular reasoning going on with your beliefs. You say that you have faith because God loves us and is perfect. Ok, if I said that the baby sun loved us and was perfect, would you worship him as well? So, you believe in God because of what scripture tells us, which you say is inspired by God (written by God through servants). What in the world makes you say that? The bible is an assortment of books written over the course of several hundred years. There were tons of different gospels and other apocrypha at the time the standard bible was compiled in the Council of Nicaea, the books in the bible were just the ones that were approved. What about being approved makes them holy? Of course, God must have been working through the Church! The Church, according to Acts, is an extension of Christ and the Holy Spirit works through it. Now do you see the circular reasoning? God works through Church Church actions inspired by God and are thus correct Bible inspired by God because written and compiled by Church Bible says that God works through Church Ultimately, I think some people need religion because it gives them a reason to do the right thing, answers questions that we can't normally answer, and gives people hope for a better life after death. I wouldn't dislike religion if it only did the aforementioned things, but since most of them have, in my opinion, poor moral teachings (gays are bad, women can't abort) I am mostly against it. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On June 12 2012 07:07 Chocolate wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On June 12 2012 00:17 superbarnie wrote: Well, you must have missed one of the main points of the New Testament. Have you read the passage where Paul accepted the pagan food and ate it? I recommend you to read it. I am "certain" of this point. One of the important aspects of the Christian faith is - Faith. This means to trust in God regardless of what he says. Now you might think this is nonsensical, how/why would I do that? Well, you must understand that God is perfect (he knows whats good for you) and he loves you (he is wouldn't tell you to do something that he knows is bad). For example, God says to love your enemies. You might think this is absurd, but if you follow it, you will see that it isn't stupid. As for why I think the Bible is a holy book, it's because the Bible was written by God through his servants. @Omnipresent There is an abundance of evidence. If you seek it, you will find it. If you gate gays or think that lifestyle is wrong then maybe you have in fact missed an important part of the new testament: Matthew 7:1 Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. Mark 12:31 Love your neighbor as yourself. John 13:34-35 As I have loved you, so you must love one another. Also, sure Paul says that it's OK to eat pagan food, but does he address all of the retarded things in Leviticus? The bible says: + Show Spoiler + Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19) Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19) Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19) Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27) Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20 ) If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10). If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11) If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14) If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16). If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18) Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27) If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21 )People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18) Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16) Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19) Deuteronomy also has some weird laws + Show Spoiler + Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:5) If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10) If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15) Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7) Do you follow those? How many of those did Paul explicitly state were now void? Onto faith: why would you believe something just because you want to? If I said that there was a smiling baby on the other side of the sun that will bring us paradise when we die, who will reward those that have faith (i.e. those that believe him no matter what, even though there is no actual evidence that he exists), and who helped the writers of teletubbies create his sacred scripture, then we would not actually be very far from Christianity (at least, your version). I respect everyone just like how God says to love your enemies, too. Christianity is, in some parts and forms, very kind and understanding, that is just one thing I agree with. However, I don't believe in the baby sun just because he supports sharing, which I agree with. I think you have a little circular reasoning going on with your beliefs. You say that you have faith because God loves us and is perfect. Ok, if I said that the baby sun loved us and was perfect, would you worship him as well? So, you believe in God because of what scripture tells us, which you say is inspired by God (written by God through servants). What in the world makes you say that? The bible is an assortment of books written over the course of several hundred years. There were tons of different gospels and other apocrypha at the time the standard bible was compiled in the Council of Nicaea, the books in the bible were just the ones that were approved. What about being approved makes them holy? Of course, God must have been working through the Church! The Church, according to Acts, is an extension of Christ and the Holy Spirit works through it. Now do you see the circular reasoning? God works through Church Church actions inspired by God and are thus correct Bible inspired by God because written and compiled by Church Bible says that God works through Church Ultimately, I think some people need religion because it gives them a reason to do the right thing, answers questions that we can't normally answer, and gives people hope for a better life after death. I wouldn't dislike religion if it only did the aforementioned things, but since most of them have, in my opinion, poor moral teachings (gays are bad, women can't abort) I am mostly against it. well, yeah you can't hate homosexuals and still say you're acting like a good Christian, we should never hate anyone for any reason. and we should absolutely not condemn them or ever judge them at all. but we can absolutely judge their lifestyle as inappropriate and immoral, we are just called not to judge them for living such a life, or to force them to live a different lifestyle. that is the meaning of the passage telling us to judge not, it's telling us that since we are all sinners, we must treat all sinners with the same basic respect and love. that doesn't mean we can't say that a certain action or lifestyle is wrong though. Jesus addresses the issue of the different laws of the OT a couple different times, but the two biggest in my opinion are: Matthew 15:11 What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' and Matthew 12:1-14 1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.” 3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” 9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” 11 He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” 13 Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus. the first passage tells us not only that eating "forbidden" food is no longer forbidden, but it also has a deeper meaning. to understand this, you have to understand how the Jews looked at the idea of "unclean" foods and actions. to eat unclean food made one unclean, and to be unclean was to lose God's grace. for Jesus to tell them that it is words, not food, that makes a person unclean is to make the statement that actions and words are the essence of the law, rather than physical things like food and custom. the second passage is one of the most important passages in the entire Bible (and Jesus' life and ministry) for multiple reasons, but especially because of his declaration to be the "Lord of the Sabbath". He is here establishing himself as 1) the Son of Man (the Christ) and 2) the rightful judge over the Law. his words: "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath" take away all of our obligation to keep to ritual or custom that we do not feel that we have to keep. he is telling us that the Sabbath is a time for doing good, and nothing else. coupled with the first passage, we can see that he is not condemning the rituals or customs, but is just freeing us from the requirement of them. this is reflected in Paul's writings when he tells us that we cannot be saved by the Law, and therefore we should not circumcise new Christians unless they want it. the idea was that the death and Resurection of the Christ was the true circumcision, and that since Christ was the living embodiment of the Law, by his blood were we freed from the constraints of the Law. to break one part of the Law was to break all of it, eating clean food was no longer necessary because we had already profaned ourselves and no amount of clean food or clean living according to the Law could take our filth and wash it away. here Christ tells us: "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." thus telling us the true meaning of the Law, which had been misinterpreted: the Law could be summed up in two commandments: love others as you love yourself, and love God above all others. anything else was irrelevant the moment we sinned. why would you believe something just because you want to? why else would you believe something? keep in mind that i'm not speaking of whether i believe a lie from a person, or a fraudulent advertisement, but rather a philosophy of being. since we have no proof either way concerning the existence of a deity, why should i not believe in the deity that i want to believe in? You say that you have faith because God loves us and is perfect. Ok, if I said that the baby sun loved us and was perfect, would you worship him as well? I can't speak for anyone else, but my interpretation of that is that God loves us and is perfect, therefore is both worthy of my faith and love, and further, his constant love for me allows me to have faith. it is by his Grace that i am even capable of possessing such a thing as faith. i could not have faith like that for a sun baby god quite simply because a sun baby god doesn't exist, doesn't love me, and doesn't extend to me Grace. The bible is an assortment of books written over the course of several hundred years. The Bible as a whole is that, but the NT was written over a relatively short period of time by a rather connected group of people. we believe that the NT serves as a witness to the truth of the OT, and in turn was foretold and witnessed by the OT. you may call it circular, but what else is a prophecy but a circle? a Prophet receives a vision, and tells the prophecy, people wait and see if it comes true, some believe, some don't. if it comes true, than the Prophet was a true one, if it doesn't come true, than the Prophet was a false one. you verify the Prophet by the fulfillment of his prophecy and you interpret and verify the fulfillment by the word of the Prophet. Ultimately, I think some people need religion because it gives them a reason to do the right thing perhaps this is true, but at the same time, i do not think that is the full story. for me, at least, i don't need religion to do what is right, i need a very specific religion to give me a reason why i should forgive others when they don't do the right thing. | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
On June 09 2012 02:23 Fumanchu wrote: *Authors Note: Please don’t let this turn into some sort of religious debate. He said please, guys. Be polite. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
*Authors Note: Please don’t let this turn into some sort of religious debate. Wow so optomistic. Perhaps you should base yourself a little more in reality tho, because that was never going to happen. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On June 09 2012 02:23 Fumanchu wrote: ... The main thing non-believers have to understand about Christians is our understanding of life after death. Without jumping into a giant explanation backed by many different biblical sources, let me underline one important notion: Christians believe in Hell. Yes, there are a great many other things that Christians believe about life after death, and all of our crazy ideas on how to get there, but the main thing non-believers must always remember is that we believe in Hell ... I realize I'm jumping in here late but I read this first paragraph and had to say something about this passage. I am currently a non-believer but I did spend about 3 years going to church while in high school for various reasons. My church was more of a liberal church and definitely had more of a love everyone and turn the other cheek type of place rather than fire and brimstone. Near the end of my stay there a friend asked my pastor why hell existed to which she responded, "I personally don't think Hell exists, I think that those who do not believe in our God do not get to spend an eternity with him." or something to that extent. Of course everyone who was listening was like wtf, how can you say that? It says so in the bible that you get damned to hell and all that good shit. Her explanation was that the KJV bible translated the Hebrew word for pit/grave into this word "hell" which implies eternal torment. It was still best to spread God's love as salvation and heaven are better than not salvation and heaven but an eternal punishment i.e. demons burning people and stuff did not exist in her view. I knew very little about the bible at the time and soon left after so I never really tried figuring this one out, but it seems that not all Christians believe in a hell? | ||
|
snotboogie
Australia3550 Posts
Hell is separation from God. God has already done all He can do to save imperfect sinners - to the point of sacrificing His son (whom we are told by John that we are all created through). I think people have been desensitised to this idea, but torturing and killing the most holy person in existence, who is God manifested in the flesh, is actually an idea that should provoke horror. The whole situation is an abomination - the Son of God crucified by man - but God let this sacrilege happen because Christ's death pays for sin. Because someone who is sinless received the penalty for sin (death), that person was able to sanctify those who belong to Him as He has taken the penalty on the behalf of Christians. This is a very self-sacrificing and servant-like love from God, who wants His creation to be with Him. This is God reaching out to us to save us. But the crucifixion of Christ is the ultimate representative of our sin - rejection of God. This is the sin that, in the Old Testament, is repeated again and again by Israel. They reject God. It is in our sinful nature to reject God and choose our own "gods" to worship - money, idols, ourselves, whatever. Here's the thing - God honours your choice. Having sent His sacred Son to die, having worked in the hearts of missionaries to send them to the world, proclaiming this amazing act of love God has done for us, most will still choose to reject this message. And so God honours peoples' rejection of Him. After death, they are put in a place where God isn't. The reason this is so horrible is because God is the source of all that is good. And if you've chosen to reject Him and live in a place without Him, then you're in a place without good. That's why it's torment. (Life on this earth is sustained by God so in a Christian's perspective, God is actually actively preserving your life while you are alive in the body. He will take this protection away after death if you have made the choice to reject Him). | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On June 12 2012 08:25 sc2superfan101 wrote: + Show Spoiler + On June 12 2012 07:07 Chocolate wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On June 12 2012 00:17 superbarnie wrote: Well, you must have missed one of the main points of the New Testament. Have you read the passage where Paul accepted the pagan food and ate it? I recommend you to read it. I am "certain" of this point. One of the important aspects of the Christian faith is - Faith. This means to trust in God regardless of what he says. Now you might think this is nonsensical, how/why would I do that? Well, you must understand that God is perfect (he knows whats good for you) and he loves you (he is wouldn't tell you to do something that he knows is bad). For example, God says to love your enemies. You might think this is absurd, but if you follow it, you will see that it isn't stupid. As for why I think the Bible is a holy book, it's because the Bible was written by God through his servants. @Omnipresent There is an abundance of evidence. If you seek it, you will find it. If you gate gays or think that lifestyle is wrong then maybe you have in fact missed an important part of the new testament: Matthew 7:1 Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. Mark 12:31 Love your neighbor as yourself. John 13:34-35 As I have loved you, so you must love one another. Also, sure Paul says that it's OK to eat pagan food, but does he address all of the retarded things in Leviticus? The bible says: + Show Spoiler + Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19) Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19) Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19) Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27) Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20 ) If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10). If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11) If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14) If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16). If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18) Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27) If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21 )People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18) Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16) Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19) Deuteronomy also has some weird laws + Show Spoiler + Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:5) If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10) If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15) Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7) Do you follow those? How many of those did Paul explicitly state were now void? Onto faith: why would you believe something just because you want to? If I said that there was a smiling baby on the other side of the sun that will bring us paradise when we die, who will reward those that have faith (i.e. those that believe him no matter what, even though there is no actual evidence that he exists), and who helped the writers of teletubbies create his sacred scripture, then we would not actually be very far from Christianity (at least, your version). I respect everyone just like how God says to love your enemies, too. Christianity is, in some parts and forms, very kind and understanding, that is just one thing I agree with. However, I don't believe in the baby sun just because he supports sharing, which I agree with. I think you have a little circular reasoning going on with your beliefs. You say that you have faith because God loves us and is perfect. Ok, if I said that the baby sun loved us and was perfect, would you worship him as well? So, you believe in God because of what scripture tells us, which you say is inspired by God (written by God through servants). What in the world makes you say that? The bible is an assortment of books written over the course of several hundred years. There were tons of different gospels and other apocrypha at the time the standard bible was compiled in the Council of Nicaea, the books in the bible were just the ones that were approved. What about being approved makes them holy? Of course, God must have been working through the Church! The Church, according to Acts, is an extension of Christ and the Holy Spirit works through it. Now do you see the circular reasoning? God works through Church Church actions inspired by God and are thus correct Bible inspired by God because written and compiled by Church Bible says that God works through Church Ultimately, I think some people need religion because it gives them a reason to do the right thing, answers questions that we can't normally answer, and gives people hope for a better life after death. I wouldn't dislike religion if it only did the aforementioned things, but since most of them have, in my opinion, poor moral teachings (gays are bad, women can't abort) I am mostly against it. well, yeah you can't hate homosexuals and still say you're acting like a good Christian, we should never hate anyone for any reason. and we should absolutely not condemn them or ever judge them at all. but we can absolutely judge their lifestyle as inappropriate and immoral, we are just called not to judge them for living such a life, or to force them to live a different lifestyle. that is the meaning of the passage telling us to judge not, it's telling us that since we are all sinners, we must treat all sinners with the same basic respect and love. that doesn't mean we can't say that a certain action or lifestyle is wrong though. Jesus addresses the issue of the different laws of the OT a couple different times, but the two biggest in my opinion are: Matthew 15:11 What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' and Matthew 12:1-14 1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.” 3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” 9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” 11 He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” 13 Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus. the first passage tells us not only that eating "forbidden" food is no longer forbidden, but it also has a deeper meaning. to understand this, you have to understand how the Jews looked at the idea of "unclean" foods and actions. to eat unclean food made one unclean, and to be unclean was to lose God's grace. for Jesus to tell them that it is words, not food, that makes a person unclean is to make the statement that actions and words are the essence of the law, rather than physical things like food and custom. the second passage is one of the most important passages in the entire Bible (and Jesus' life and ministry) for multiple reasons, but especially because of his declaration to be the "Lord of the Sabbath". He is here establishing himself as 1) the Son of Man (the Christ) and 2) the rightful judge over the Law. his words: "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath" take away all of our obligation to keep to ritual or custom that we do not feel that we have to keep. he is telling us that the Sabbath is a time for doing good, and nothing else. coupled with the first passage, we can see that he is not condemning the rituals or customs, but is just freeing us from the requirement of them. this is reflected in Paul's writings when he tells us that we cannot be saved by the Law, and therefore we should not circumcise new Christians unless they want it. the idea was that the death and Resurection of the Christ was the true circumcision, and that since Christ was the living embodiment of the Law, by his blood were we freed from the constraints of the Law. to break one part of the Law was to break all of it, eating clean food was no longer necessary because we had already profaned ourselves and no amount of clean food or clean living according to the Law could take our filth and wash it away. here Christ tells us: "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." thus telling us the true meaning of the Law, which had been misinterpreted: the Law could be summed up in two commandments: love others as you love yourself, and love God above all others. anything else was irrelevant the moment we sinned. why would you believe something just because you want to? why else would you believe something? keep in mind that i'm not speaking of whether i believe a lie from a person, or a fraudulent advertisement, but rather a philosophy of being. since we have no proof either way concerning the existence of a deity, why should i not believe in the deity that i want to believe in? You say that you have faith because God loves us and is perfect. Ok, if I said that the baby sun loved us and was perfect, would you worship him as well? I can't speak for anyone else, but my interpretation of that is that God loves us and is perfect, therefore is both worthy of my faith and love, and further, his constant love for me allows me to have faith. it is by his Grace that i am even capable of possessing such a thing as faith. i could not have faith like that for a sun baby god quite simply because a sun baby god doesn't exist, doesn't love me, and doesn't extend to me Grace. The bible is an assortment of books written over the course of several hundred years. The Bible as a whole is that, but the NT was written over a relatively short period of time by a rather connected group of people. we believe that the NT serves as a witness to the truth of the OT, and in turn was foretold and witnessed by the OT. you may call it circular, but what else is a prophecy but a circle? a Prophet receives a vision, and tells the prophecy, people wait and see if it comes true, some believe, some don't. if it comes true, than the Prophet was a true one, if it doesn't come true, than the Prophet was a false one. you verify the Prophet by the fulfillment of his prophecy and you interpret and verify the fulfillment by the word of the Prophet. Ultimately, I think some people need religion because it gives them a reason to do the right thing perhaps this is true, but at the same time, i do not think that is the full story. for me, at least, i don't need religion to do what is right, i need a very specific religion to give me a reason why i should forgive others when they don't do the right thing. There is nothing about homosexuality that is inappropriate or immoral though, it is just two people of the same gender having sex as opposed to two people of opposite genders. The only possible reasons you could call it immoral is 1. you were raised to think of it that way, or 2. it says so in the bible. If you are influenced by #1, maybe you should take a step back and ask yourself why it is such a big deal. Just because you find the idea repulsive ( I do too, I would not want to have sex with another man) does not make it wrong. If you are under the influence of #2, then as I tried to point out, Christians don't necessarily follow all of the OT because much of it is, quite frankly, ridiculous. TBH I didn't mean to start a discussion of Jewish law in Christianity, but to show how silly it is and raise questions as to why homosexuality gets special treatment as many Christians still find it wrong, but don't find wearing clothing of several materials wrong. As for believing in what you want to, I mean that just because something is appealing doesn't make it true. I think Christianity has a message that many people simply want to hear, helping its success. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses probably mostly believe that they are the chosen ones, as they are born into their faith (I admittedly don't know much about JW; I was raised a Catholic). Some protestants believe that salvation comes through faith alone, so they don't even have to do what Jesus said, just believe (wut). Calvinists believe in predestination, and most of them probably think that they are the predestined ones to live with God. On a more ancient note, Christianity owed much of its early success to appealing to the poor and marginalized in Roman society due to its teachings that we are all equal, all can get into heaven, and being poor is better than being rich. This phenomenon is not only limited to Christianity, however, as shown in the Muslim belief in paradise. Generally, people like Christianity because 1. You can make mistakes and be forgiven if you ask for it. 2. You live forever in Paradise if you live correctly. 3. It holds that there is indeed an afterlife and we live forever. 4. Everyone is the same in the eyes of God (some denominations). since we have no proof either way concerning the existence of a deity, why should i not believe in the deity that i want to believe in? This is essentially where I respectfully disagree with you. I understand greatly the longing for eternal life, and I am extremely relieved that you mentioned that we can't prove the existence of a God. I wish all Christians thought along the same lines, but many are convinced that God is real and that this is proven, which is very silly. Many parts of the NT are connected, and they were written in a short time (50-120 IIRC), but some parts like John's Gospel and Revelation were written in mostly seclusion. Revelation was written while he was in exile on Patmos, and the Gospel is quite different from the other three ( don't think the two books have the same author though, just same community). If you are a fundamentalist, which you don't appear to be, the fact that John's Gospel has blatant discrepancies with the other gospels should be alarming. The fact is that there was still lots of other literature that was not included, for whatever reason. On a slightly related note, I'm curious as to why you are pro-life when you admitted that we can't prove that God is real  | ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
On June 12 2012 11:35 snotboogie wrote: I'd like to present my viewpoint, (the one I have been taught in church) and the one that I believe is right. I'm posting this because many posts in this thread are claiming that God is malevolent and does not deserve to be worshipped, even if he exists, because only an evil being would condemn people to eternal suffering. However I'd like to present a rebuttal and show that my belief in Hell is consistent with a perfectly loving God. Hell is separation from God. God has already done all He can do to save imperfect sinners - to the point of sacrificing His son (whom we are told by John that we are all created through). I think people have been desensitised to this idea, but torturing and killing the most holy person in existence, who is God manifested in the flesh, is actually an idea that should provoke horror. The whole situation is an abomination - the Son of God crucified by man - but God let this sacrilege happen because Christ's death pays for sin. Because someone who is sinless received the penalty for sin (death), that person was able to sanctify those who belong to Him as He has taken the penalty on the behalf of Christians. We have to get something out of the way right at the start. If god exists, he has not "done all he can do to save imperfect sinners." This is, by definition, impossible. If god exists, he is omnipotent. There are no limits to his power. He can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. Even if you buy the whole story, there was no reason for god to sacrifice his son in order to pay for mankind's sins. He gets to make the rules. It's his system. He could, if he wanted, abolish all sin instantaneously, with no effort. He didn't have to create it in the first place, especially since, as an omnicient god, he would have know the outcome way ahead of time. This means your god planned the whole thing from the beginning. No one doubts the horror of crusifixion. It's one of the most cited examples among people who hold the position that god, even if he existed, is not deserving of worship. It's ugly, horrifying, and, because god makes the rules, completely unnecessary. There is nothing good about it. Any positive outcome you attribute to it could have been achieved without the added suffering. This is a very self-sacrificing and servant-like love from God, who wants His creation to be with Him. This is God reaching out to us to save us. But the crucifixion of Christ is the ultimate representative of our sin - rejection of God. This is the sin that, in the Old Testament, is repeated again and again by Israel. They reject God. It is in our sinful nature to reject God and choose our own "gods" to worship - money, idols, ourselves, whatever. Here's the thing - God honours your choice. Having sent His sacred Son to die, having worked in the hearts of missionaries to send them to the world, proclaiming this amazing act of love God has done for us, most will still choose to reject this message. And so God honours peoples' rejection of Him. After death, they are put in a place where God isn't. So your contention here is that an all loving god with infinite power, wisdom, etc. decided to create a universe in which hell could exist (even if he didn't directly create hell himself, which seems dubious at best), and then placed humans all around it. Those humans who were born in the right place at the right time so as to be fortunate enough to actually hear about the one true god were given the opportunity to either blindly accept him or face eternal damnation. Gullibility isn't just a virture in this situation, it's the only virture that matters. In this story, they are the lucky ones. For most of human history, this story wasn't even available for them to hear. For a hundred thousand years, there was no redemption (4k, if you're a young Earth Christian, but then this discussion is the least of your problems). Even after it was revealed, it spread slowly. Two thousand years later, there are still people on earth who haven't heard it. That doesn't even count children who died before the age of reason, stillborn babies, miscarriages, or the mentally handicapped. Those billions of people who never even had the chance to prove their gullability, well they're screwed. Eternal damnation awaits. It's really too bad that they lost the heavenly lottery. The reason this is so horrible is because God is the source of all that is good. And if you've chosen to reject Him and live in a place without Him, then you're in a place without good. That's why it's torment. (Life on this earth is sustained by God so in a Christian's perspective, God is actually actively preserving your life while you are alive in the body. He will take this protection away after death if you have made the choice to reject Him). So all that other stuff sucks pretty bad, but it's still not the worst of it. See, god doesn't have to reject non-believers at all. Humans have such limited capabilities compared to him, it's completely unreasonable for him to hold us to such a high standard. Even if he was petty and jealous enough that he only wanted those who worshiped him to get into heaven, why hell for everyone else? Why not their own heaven, limbo, or at least annihilation? Surely non-existance is preferable to damnation. I'm sorry, but you don't have to be omnicient to see the wickedness of all this. If god exists, and I want to stress, there's no good reason to think he does, even a child could see the faults in his master plan. Sorry man, but there's just no way to square an all-loving god with hell. You could argue he just doesn't have the power to do anything about it, but then he's not much of a god. But then again, god works in mysterious ways. Right? | ||
|
Deleted User 255289
281 Posts
On June 12 2012 09:56 ZeaL. wrote: I realize I'm jumping in here late but I read this first paragraph and had to say something about this passage. I am currently a non-believer but I did spend about 3 years going to church while in high school for various reasons. My church was more of a liberal church and definitely had more of a love everyone and turn the other cheek type of place rather than fire and brimstone. Near the end of my stay there a friend asked my pastor why hell existed to which she responded, "I personally don't think Hell exists, I think that those who do not believe in our God do not get to spend an eternity with him." or something to that extent. Of course everyone who was listening was like wtf, how can you say that? It says so in the bible that you get damned to hell and all that good shit. Her explanation was that the KJV bible translated the Hebrew word for pit/grave into this word "hell" which implies eternal torment. It was still best to spread God's love as salvation and heaven are better than not salvation and heaven but an eternal punishment i.e. demons burning people and stuff did not exist in her view. I knew very little about the bible at the time and soon left after so I never really tried figuring this one out, but it seems that not all Christians believe in a hell? A lot of pastors these days like to make stuff up. The is Bible states that there is such thing as Hell, so I think your pastor is probably one of those that try to soften up the hard to accept parts of Christianity so that they can get more converts. there are many passages that describe Hell as more than just "away from God" like Matthew 5:22 And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. and Matthew 13:42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.] You may also have heard the Parable of the Rich Man and Poor Dude in Luke 15. The Rich Man who got sent into Hell was so tormented that he wanted to have someone send a message to his relatives to warn them. If the Hell is so painful, it couldn't be just "away from God". So, yeah I believe that Hell is a real place where people who were not saved are sent to for eternity where they suffer endlessly. | ||
|
Deleted User 255289
281 Posts
On June 12 2012 07:07 Chocolate wrote: If you gate gays or think that lifestyle is wrong then maybe you have in fact missed an important part of the new testament: Matthew 7:1 Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. Mark 12:31 Love your neighbor as yourself. John 13:34-35 As I have loved you, so you must love one another. Also, sure Paul says that it's OK to eat pagan food, but does he address all of the retarded things in Leviticus? The bible says: + Show Spoiler + Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19) Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19) Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19) Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27) Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20 ) If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10). If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11) If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14) If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16). If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18) Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27) If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21 )People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18) Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16) Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19) Deuteronomy also has some weird laws + Show Spoiler + Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:5) If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10) If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15) Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7) Do you follow those? How many of those did Paul explicitly state were now void? The passages that you quoted are the laws that God set for the Israelites, not for the entire world. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On June 12 2012 15:34 superbarnie wrote: The passages that you quoted are the laws that God set for the Israelites, not for the entire world. But then what is wrong with being homosexual? Why would God give them those laws in the first place, since so many of them are pointless? | ||
|
guN-viCe
United States687 Posts
-The earth is over 6 billion years old. -Humans and our ancestors are millions upon millions of years old. -The universe is HUUUUUUUGE, it's extremely unlikely that other life does not exist out there. -The Bible was written by men who lived in huts, thousands of years ago. -Christianity is the dominate religion out there, but it still has less followers than that of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam combined. -The Bible contradicts itself hundreds of times. Add all of these up, and one begins to realize that the Bible is not very accurate. It is actually a book of lies and contradictions. Believing in the Bible is akin to believing in the Tooth fairy and Santa Clause; wishful thinking. Everybody fears death, and the Bible promises "everlasting life". The Bible plays on these fears, and has been quite successful at scaring people into practicing religion. Just look at this thread for proof. | ||
| ||
