PDA

View Full Version : Bible Passages That Leave You Scratching Your Head



Pages : [1] 2

Rusty Jones
06-02-2013, 01:50 AM
Oh, yes; I'm going there.

And before you say "Well, it really means..."

Save it. Because you DON'T know what it means. All you know is what it SAYS. I could show any of these verses to ten offended Christians, and I'll get ten different explanations for what they "really mean."

All any of us can go on, is what these verses SAY.

Rusty Jones
06-02-2013, 01:53 AM
I'll start:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

Hmmm... a woman who is a rape victim is required to marry her rapist. Interesting! I suppose that if we have the Judeo-Christian equivalent of Sharia in the US; if you see a hot chick that you want to marry, you know what you have to do!

Rusty Jones
06-02-2013, 02:06 AM
Luke 14:26

26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

Many atheists will say that they believe Jesus was a great guy, as opposed to those who follow him.

This verse right here is exactly why I'm not among those atheists.

JD2780
06-02-2013, 02:08 AM
Oh, yes; I'm going there.

And before you say "Well, it really means..."

Save it. Because you DON'T know what it means. All you know is what it SAYS. I could show any of these verses to ten offended Christians, and I'll get ten different explanations for what they "really mean."

All any of us can go on, is what these verses SAY.

Or because you can't tolerate a different view point. It's ok to be close minded.

Greg
06-02-2013, 02:08 AM
26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."

Anger, bitterness, a grudge, resentment.

Emotional baggage. Very difficult to exorcise. Takes a lot of hard work.

Rusty Jones
06-02-2013, 02:10 AM
Or because you can't tolerate a different view point. It's ok to be close minded.

Are you denying that what I'm saying is the case? Come on now, you're smarter than that!

Rusty Jones
06-02-2013, 02:20 AM
Does God love you? Are you sure he loves you? Are you sure that God doesn't, in fact, hate you?

Malachi 1:2-3

2 “I have loved you,” says the Lord.
“Yet you say, ‘In what way have You loved us?’
Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?”
Says the Lord.
“Yet Jacob I have loved;
3 But Esau I have hated,
And laid waste his mountains and his heritage
For the jackals of the wilderness."

God hated Esau, so God is capable of hate!

JD2780
06-02-2013, 02:23 AM
Are you denying that what I'm saying is the case? Come on now, you're smarter than that!

You said you don't want to hear it. You've closed your mind. It's ok. Besides you've already written off anything I would say.

Greg
06-02-2013, 02:30 AM
Did not God create man, in his image? Is not man capable of many different emotions?

JD2780
06-02-2013, 02:32 AM
Are you denying that what I'm saying is the case? Come on now, you're smarter than that!

You said you don't want to hear it. You've closed your mind. It's ok. Besides you've already written off anything I would say.

Rusty Jones
06-02-2013, 02:32 AM
Deuteronomy 13:6-11

6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, 7 of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, 8 you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; 9 but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11 So all Israel shall hear and fear, and not again do such wickedness as this among you.

Freedom of religion as a Judeo-Christian value? Yeah.... sure, buddy.

JD2780
06-02-2013, 02:39 AM
Acts 10:28 ESV

And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.

John 8:7

"And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”"

Just horrible messages. Horrible.

Rusty Jones
06-02-2013, 02:44 AM
John 13:23-25

23 Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. 24 Simon Peter therefore motioned to him to ask who it was of whom He spoke.

25 Then, leaning back on Jesus’ breast, he said to Him, “Lord, who is it?”

General consensus is that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" was John the Disciple. Although not mentioned in the Bible, John the Disciple was known to have only been a teenage boy at the time.

Yep...

JD2780
06-02-2013, 02:47 AM
John 13:23-25


General consensus is that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" was John the Disciple. Although not mentioned in the Bible, John the Disciple was known to have only been a teenage boy at the time.

Yep...

Yea and? I don't see anything shady there. A teenager in those days was basically an adult. You will look at anything in a negative light because of your prejudicial view towards the bible. You've got your "opinion". I've got mine. It's cool.

Rusty Jones
06-02-2013, 02:48 AM
I Kings 14:10


Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.

I normally post from the New King James Version, but this time around I used the regular King James Version. The "pisseth against the wall" part was too funny!

JD2780
06-02-2013, 02:49 AM
I Kings 14:10



I normally post from the New King James Version, but this time around I used the regular King James Version. The "pisseth against the wall" part was too funny!

Can't disagree there.

Rusty Jones
06-02-2013, 02:59 AM
Yea and? I don't see anything shady there. A teenager in those days was basically an adult. You will look at anything in a negative light because of your prejudicial view towards the bible. You've got your "opinion". I've got mine. It's cool.

Ah, okay. So the gay relationship between Jesus and John was 100% consensual? Cool, no harm no foul then!

Rusty Jones
06-02-2013, 03:04 AM
1 Samuel 20:30 (The Living Bible)

Saul boiled with rage. “You son of a bitch!” he yelled at him. “Do you think I don’t know that you want this son of a nobody to be king in your place, shaming yourself and your mother?

wildman
06-02-2013, 03:35 AM
I now make a plea to any Christian theologians who may post here to put this Rusty Jones in the place he so richly deserves. I who am not one even knows this individuals appears to have not a clue that the Bible is a series of writings an documents gathered form different sources an different styles. I also know they were written for the times an have been rewritten an interpreted over the years. I also know that a good bunch was written in the form of parables. I also know the old testament is a telling of the forthcoming of the savior who for us Christians is Jesus Christ. Please those of you with more knowledge than I have an are Christians set this individual straight, I beg you.

Always
Wildman

wildman
06-02-2013, 03:43 AM
All Rusty is doing is posting quotes directly from the bible. Why do you find this upsetting?

Because IMHO he does not have a clue to the true meaning of those verses, an I am not knowledgeable enough about theology to adequately debate him thus I ask for the experts to do so.

Always
Wildman

Absinthe Anecdote
06-02-2013, 03:43 AM
One of my favorites:

Mark 16:17-19
New International Version (NIV)
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

Absinthe Anecdote
06-02-2013, 03:47 AM
I now make a plea to any Christian theologians who may post here to put this Rusty Jones in the place he so richly deserves. I who am not one even know this individuals appears to have not a clue that the Bible is a series of writings an documents gathered form different sources an different styles. I also know they were written for the times an have been rewritten an interpreted over the years. I also know that a good bunch was written in the form of parables. I also know the old testament is a telling of the forthcoming of the savior who for us Christians is Jesus Christ. Please those of you with more knowledge than I have an are Christians set this individual straight, I beg you.

Always
Wildman

All Rusty is doing is posting quotes directly from the bible. Why do you find this upsetting?

meatbringer
06-02-2013, 03:51 AM
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Sweet...This is fun. Good idea for a thread.

wildman
06-02-2013, 03:53 AM
All Rusty is doing is posting quotes directly from the bible. Why do you find this upsetting?

Because IMHO he does not have a clue to the true meaning of those verses, an I am not knowledgeable enough about theology to adequately debate him thus I ask for the experts to do so.

Always
Wildman

Endzone
06-02-2013, 03:55 AM
Proverbs 26:12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.


That's King James. Now let me give you Endzone's interpretation.

Proverbs 26:12 Do you know somebody that always thinks they're smarter than everybody else and in fact they think they are even smarter than God Almighty Himself? They attempt to bring acusation against God Himself and by their fallen nature they set a standard of morality against God, and they are so arrogant as to find fault with God who dwells in the light no man approaches unto. These arrogant people are headed for a life of self-destruction, and it is very difficult if not impossible for them to humble themselves and be willing to embrace the truth. It's doubtful that anyone can get their attention except the Lord Himself. Only the Lord's mercy and prayers of saints will be able to break through to such a person.

meatbringer
06-02-2013, 04:01 AM
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Sweet...This is fun. Good idea for a thread.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-02-2013, 04:01 AM
Because IMHO he does not have a clue to the true meaning of those verses, an I am not knowledgeable enough about theology to adequately debate him thus I ask for the experts to do so.

Always
Wildman

I’ll let Rusty speak for his own motivations for posting these passages from the bible.

The reason I’m doing it is because I want believers to read the bible and think about it.

In all the years I was a church goer and a believer I knew very few people who read the whole bible front to back.

It sounds like you haven't read much of it or studied its history and the history of civilization much either. I don't say that to insult you but to encourage you to give it a try.

What really lead me to become an atheist was reading the bible.

meatbringer
06-02-2013, 04:03 AM
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)

HA!

meatbringer
06-02-2013, 04:12 AM
The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

Holy sh*t, I hope none of you guys have ever had to work on a Sunday. This one is straight from the burning bush too. So work on a Sunday = death.

Rusty Jones
06-02-2013, 04:21 AM
I now make a plea to any Christian theologians who may post here to put this Rusty Jones in the place he so richly deserves.

A Jewish one has attempted to do so already, and has failed. With there being even more inconsistencies in Christianity, handing a Christian theologian his own ass will be much easier.


I who am not one even knows this individuals appears to have not a clue that the Bible is a series of writings an documents gathered form different sources an different styles.

As usual, your grammar and syntax is off, and has made your post unreadable. Rewrite this.


I also know they were written for the times an have been rewritten an interpreted over the years.

And as long as Christians are living by the translations that are currently available to them, then those translations are what's relevant.


I also know that a good bunch was written in the form of parables.

If you ask me, the whole damn Bible was.


I also know the old testament is a telling of the forthcoming of the savior who for us Christians is Jesus Christ.

Pfft... ask a Jew. They'll give you a number of reasons why Jesus is not the Messiah. Was the Messiah ever predicted to be God and/or the Son of God? Was he predicted to die for everyone's sins, so they could go to Heaven? Nope.

If another Messiah claimant were to come, you can bet that the Jews who defect to follow this Messiah will view him in a totally different light than Christians view Jesus. Check out Sabbatai Zevi, if you don't believe me (and yes, I will post links if you want me to).


Please those of you with more knowledge than I have an are Christians set this individual straight, I beg you.

Always
Wildman

Are you admitting that you have less knowledge than I do?

You know what's sad? You actually have more knowledge of the Bible than all of the other Christians here; at least as far as I can tell from what they've displayed.

So... what does that mean? If you can't do it, then no one else can.


Because IMHO he does not have a clue to the true meaning of those verses, an I am not knowledgeable enough about theology to adequately debate him thus I ask for the experts to do so.

Always
Wildman

I don't claim to know what those verses "mean." What I AM claiming, is that anyone who DOES claim to know what they mean are only deceiving themselves. Whatever claim they make, will be self-serving. Again, show these verses to ten offended Christians, and you'll get ten "true meanings."

All I will EVER claim to know, is what these verses SAY. And that's the only claim that anyone can make.

Endzone
06-02-2013, 04:21 AM
Here's one that should make you atheist types go wild. Notice verse 3 in I Samuel 15 here. And then God was mad at King Saul because he didn't also kill King Agag and also all the sheep and oxen. What do you think about this aspect of the great God we Christians believe in?


http://i1132.photobucket.com/albums/m565/Endzone2/Sameul15.jpg

Endzone
06-02-2013, 04:23 AM
One of my favorites:

Luke 12:4-5

4 And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.

5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

meatbringer
06-02-2013, 04:25 AM
I'd like to just do a simple little test here. I want to find out who we are dealing with here. Do you like the first picture more than the second?


http://i1132.photobucket.com/albums/m565/Endzone2/NIUGirls.jpg






http://i1132.photobucket.com/albums/m565/Endzone2/OldLady.jpg



Matthew 5:28 ESV

"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Sorry, I'm married. Not allowed to look.

Endzone
06-02-2013, 04:25 AM
If by "like" you mean find more attractive or sexually desirable - then yes, obviously.

Thank you Mr. Bonham. That's what I wanted to know.

Endzone
06-02-2013, 04:26 AM
I don't know where you are going with this Endzone but I'll play. The first picture is better to look at but they are a little too young.

Oh yeah, they are young. But this is from my days of hanging out on college football forums. I didn't take either of these pictures.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-02-2013, 04:26 AM
John 14: 8-14
New International Version (NIV)

8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

Endzone
06-02-2013, 04:27 AM
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-02-2013, 04:33 AM
I don't know where you are going with this Endzone but I'll play. The first picture is better to look at but they are a little too young.

Endzone
06-02-2013, 04:36 AM
I don't know where you are going with this Endzone but I'll play. The first picture is better to look at but they are a little too young.

Oh yeah, they are young. But this is from my days of hanging out on college football forums. I didn't take either of these pictures.

Endzone
06-02-2013, 04:39 AM
Here's a few that are military related. This is TCU vs. Navy in Ft. Worth 9/2003. The last picture is the first play of the game.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-02-2013, 04:48 AM
I think endzone is just trying to distract from the topic.

Yes Endzone! Please explain your test, I was expecting something good from you.

Endzone
06-02-2013, 04:48 AM
Hijack over. Carry on. Thank you Mr. Bonham for your reply.

meatbringer
06-02-2013, 04:52 AM
I think endzone is just trying to distract from the topic.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-02-2013, 04:58 AM
I think endzone is just trying to distract from the topic.

Yes Endzone! Please explain your test, I was expecting something good from you.

Endzone
06-02-2013, 05:00 AM
Yes Endzone! Please explain your test, I was expecting something good from you.

Oh my test is BS. I just thought ya'll might find these pics entertaining. Did you like my favorite verse from Luke 12:4-5. The versus you posted were very encouraging. Thanks.

Endzone
06-02-2013, 05:00 AM
Matthew 5:28 ESV

"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Sorry, I'm married. Not allowed to look.

At the first one or second one?

Endzone
06-02-2013, 05:03 AM
Seriously :crazy

meatbringer, you didn't like any of those pictures? Seriously.

Rusty Jones
06-02-2013, 05:05 AM
Genesis 2:2


2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

Rest. Even if you're an omnipotent entity, you'll still need it!

meatbringer
06-02-2013, 05:07 AM
Oh my test is BS. I just thought ya'll might find these pics entertaining. Did you like my favorite verse from Luke 12:4-5. The versus you posted were very encouraging. Thanks.

Seriously :crazy

CrustySMSgt
06-02-2013, 06:21 AM
I've tried to have these discussion on Facebook and the only answers I ever get are, the New Testemant superceded the Old Testemant and If there's something that doesn't make sense in the New Testemant, it is a parable and I don't get the meaning... lol

Rusty Jones
06-02-2013, 12:01 PM
I've tried to have these discussion on Facebook and the only answers I ever get are, the New Testemant superceded the Old Testemant and If there's something that doesn't make sense in the New Testemant, it is a parable and I don't get the meaning... lol

If more Christians actually believed in this, half of the fuckery in Christianity would be unfucked.

CrustySMSgt
06-02-2013, 12:24 PM
If more Christians actually believed in this, half of the fuckery in Christianity would be unfucked.

Another general trend I've noticed is, it's OK to be hypocritical if YOU'VE done something wrong (premarital sex, divorce, "experementing with bi-sexuality" in college...), because you always have the "get out of jail free card" of asking forgiveness. But as long as you did it in the past and asked forgiveness, judging others is now free game.

Rusty Jones
06-02-2013, 12:32 PM
Another general trend I've noticed is, it's OK to be hypocritical if YOU'VE done something wrong (premarital sex, divorce, "experementing with bi-sexuality" in college...), because you always have the "get out of jail free card" of asking forgiveness. But as long as you did it in the past and asked forgiveness, judging others is now free game.

And this is where Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy actually make more sense.

You can pray and ask for forgiveness for minor sins (only Protestants believe in the "all sins are equal" thing); but if you commit one of the Seven Deadlies, you are now in state of mortal sin. For Protestants, it's about being "saved." For Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, it's about dying in a "state of grace." So if you are in a state of mortal sin, the only way to return to a state of grace is through the sacrament of penance. You are required to go to confession; and carry out any penance that is assigned to you. And you're not off the hook until your penance is complete. And it's not always saying a few Hail Mary's either. I know someone who had to volunteer at the SPCA for two weekends for kicking a dog. I also know someone else who was required to tell his wife that he cheated on her.

It's funny how Protestants scoff at confession; but... I think it's a more real system. Getting on your knees and asking forgiveness is easy. But actually having to right your wrongs? That's the true test to see if you are really remorseful for what you've done.

efmbman
06-02-2013, 01:15 PM
Oh, yes; I'm going there.

And before you say "Well, it really means..."

Save it. Because you DON'T know what it means. All you know is what it SAYS. I could show any of these verses to ten offended Christians, and I'll get ten different explanations for what they "really mean."

All any of us can go on, is what these verses SAY.

You laid out ground rules in your opening post, as seen above...


John 13:23-25


General consensus is that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" was John the Disciple. Although not mentioned in the Bible, John the Disciple was known to have only been a teenage boy at the time.

Yep...

Then you mention something that is not SAID in the verse... I have no opinion about the bible, but if you are trying to make a point you should probably stick to your own set of rules.

wildman
06-02-2013, 06:50 PM
Answer to Absinthe Anecdote Post #27.

I must now tell a bit of my history. My dad worked international construction an at the age of eight we moved to India where we stayed for three an a half years. We had servants and my dad had a rather large group of men working for him. Our cook was of the Muslim faith, our gardener was of the Parsi and our maid was of the Hindu faith. Men who worked for my father were of the Sikh and Buddhist faiths. Needless to say at a young age I was interested in what these folks had to say, teach an what they believed in. Now not to sound brackish I just may know a few more things than you do.

Always
Wildman

Endzone
06-03-2013, 12:37 AM
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Endzone
06-03-2013, 12:42 AM
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Endzone
06-03-2013, 01:16 AM
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

meatbringer
06-03-2013, 03:33 AM
meatbringer, you didn't like any of those pictures? Seriously.

Nah dude, you're just too psycho for my tastes. You'll end up on the news one day. And now you feel threatened by your religion being outed as a joke, so you continue posting tons of dumb pics to draw attention away from it. Oh well.

Endzone
06-03-2013, 03:37 AM
Nah dude, you're just too psycho for my tastes. You'll end up on the news one day. And now you feel threatened by your religion being outed as a joke, so you continue posting tons of dumb pics to draw attention away from it. Oh well.

Wow, I'm really surprised you didn't like any of them. I wonder what kind of pictures an atheist would like?

Endzone
06-03-2013, 04:34 AM
This one meatbringer? No, those aren't stars, but those are just bad pixels in my camera's CCD.



http://i1132.photobucket.com/albums/m565/Endzone2/P6021104_blackness_X.jpg

RobotChicken
06-03-2013, 05:29 AM
:nana: Took 40 post for you to figure that out?? :hitwithrock::fest30:

CrustySMSgt
06-03-2013, 07:09 AM
I just did a Google search on that girl named Amberly Cox. It looks like she is 18 years old in that picture and is from Friendswood, TX. Here she is 7 years later in 2012.


http://i1132.photobucket.com/albums/m565/Endzone2/amberlycoxwedding.jpg

What the flaming fuck are you smoking?!?

Endzone
06-03-2013, 07:33 AM
What the flaming fuck are you smoking?!?

I still have a good prayer life Sarge. I'm 57 years old. Please be more respectful or you can find out just how real this God we serve is. You want to challenge me and mock me? OK, go right ahead. Just remember I haven't worked in 4 years, and I have plenty of time on my hands. I still spend a lot of time on my knees in prayer. So, I'll leave it up to you, but I'm telling you, don't ever speak to me like that again. Thanks.

CrustySMSgt
06-03-2013, 07:46 AM
I still have a good prayer life Sarge. I'm 57 years old. Please be more respectful or you can find out just how real this God we serve is. You want to challenge me and mock me? OK, go right ahead. Just remember I haven't worked in 4 years, and I have plenty of time on my hands. I still spend a lot of time on my knees in prayer. So, I'll leave it up to you, but I'm telling you, don't ever speak to me like that again. Thanks.

If I was someone else on this board, I'd report this post as a threat... lol

I'll agree to give you the respect you're due if you agree to stop adding a page of random off-topic nonsense to posts. Act like a 57 y.o. and you might get treated like one; act like a troll and that's how you'll be treated.

Endzone
06-03-2013, 07:50 AM
To the Christian people who post on here. The Lord spoke something to me this morning when I woke up this Sunday morning. He reminded me of a verse in the Bible which is Matthew 7:6

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

This is what the Lord spoke to me. These so called atheist folks are arrogant and bitter people. They are angry at God (even though they say they don't believe in God) and you are the most convenient target of their anger. They think that they are a lot smarter than you and that your explanations to them from the Bible and your own experience are foolish. They have no desire to learn the truth, because they enjoy believing a lie. So, they are free to indulge their flesh all they want. Think of what the OP was saying when he started this thread. He was making himself God's critic and trying to point out how much God was in error. He wasn't trying to engage in an honest mental exercise. These kinds of questions are just made to stir up strife. These people aren't happy unless they are in strife about God's law. They love indulging their flesh. So, you don't have to defend the word of God against these people. A lot of them are swine that verse 6 in Matthew describes.

So my advice is let's all back out of this thread. Let these people debate among themselves, and they will soon get very bored. There is no sense trying to reason with them because they have no desire to learn the truth--with maybe one or two exceptions. I think this will be the last post I will make here--maybe the last on this entire board. I am not ex-military. I worked on merchant ships for 10 years. I'm not sure, maybe I'll do a few more post. But, I enjoyed the visit and God bless you all.

CrustySMSgt
06-03-2013, 08:00 AM
To the Christian people who post on here. The Lord spoke something to me this morning when I woke up this Sunday morning. He reminded me of a verse in the Bible which is Matthew 7:6

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

This is what the Lord spoke to me. These so called atheist folks are arrogant and bitter people. They are angry at God (even though they say they don't believe in God) and you are the most convenient target of their anger. They think that they are a lot smarter than you and that your explanations to them from the Bible and your own experience are foolish. They have no desire to learn the truth, because they enjoy believing a lie. So, they are free to indulge their flesh all they want. Think of what the OP was saying when he started this thread. He was making himself God's critic and trying to point out how much God was in error. He wasn't trying to engage in an honest mental exercise. These kinds of questions are just made to stir up strife. These people aren't happy unless they are in strife about God's law. They love indulging their flesh. So, you don't have to defend the word of God against these people. A lot of them are swine that verse 6 in Matthew describes.

So my advice is let's all back out of this thread. Let these people debate among themselves, and they will soon get very bored. There is no sense trying to reason with them because they have no desire to learn the truth--with maybe one or two exceptions. I think this will be the last post I will make here--maybe the last on this entire board. I am not ex-military. I worked on merchant ships for 10 years. I'm not sure, maybe I'll do a few more post. But, I enjoyed the visit and God bless you all.

For a long time I considered myself a Christian but organized religion never really did anything for me. Over the last decade, I have to say I really don't know what I believe. First, whose to say their "God" is more right than any of the other prevelant (or not so prevelant) interpretations of a higher power? And even those who believe the Bible and all that can't even agree on what to practice and what not to. Add to that the rampant hypocracy of those who talk the talk but don't walk the walk and I'm where I'm at.

I will say I was surprised at the Pope's recent comments regarding the status of those who don't believe;



Francis’s immediate predecessors regularly derided what they called the “culture of death” in speaking of those outside the faith. But in a homily in the chapel at St. Martha’s, this pope lifted up what he called the “culture of encounter.” In contrast to the habitual denigration of those of other religions — a mark of Catholic teaching for a generation — the Argentine pope praised every human being as a source of goodness. “Even the atheists?” he asked, giving voice in the homily to his inevitable critics. “ ‘But Father, this is not Catholic! [Atheists] cannot do good!’ ”

That simply, Pope Francis engaged an age-old question: Do we need God to be good? Religious people have emphasized Dostoyevsky’s aphorism that “if God does not exist, everything is permitted.” Look where the atheism of modernity led, they say, pointing to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

But Pope Francis notably rejects it. He credits the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus, but unlike preachers (including St. Paul) who restrict the benefit of Christ’s redemption to those who accept it, Francis affirms that it extends to “all of us! Not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!”



THAT would be more inline with the imagine of the "loving God" I would like to believe exists... versus all the partisan rhetoric people like to spew. But instead people/groups choose to push their own agendas and interpretations.

I am lucky enought to have neighbors on both side of me who are very positive representations of living according to their faith (for Pete's sake one of their kids trots around the backyard on a stick pony... does it GET any more wholesome than that? lol); THAT goes a lot further to convince me the benefits of living according to the word than any fire & brimstone preacher at a pulpit telling me I'm going to hell if I don't do what he thinks I should be doing.

Endzone
06-03-2013, 08:29 AM
If I was someone else on this board, I'd report this post as a threat... lol

I'll agree to give you the respect you're due if you agree to stop adding a page of random off-topic nonsense to posts. Act like a 57 y.o. and you might get treated like one; act like a troll and that's how you'll be treated.

Thank You.

meatbringer
06-03-2013, 11:54 AM
I still have a good prayer life Sarge. I'm 57 years old. Please be more respectful or you can find out just how real this God we serve is. You want to challenge me and mock me? OK, go right ahead. Just remember I haven't worked in 4 years, and I have plenty of time on my hands. I still spend a lot of time on my knees in prayer. So, I'll leave it up to you, but I'm telling you, don't ever speak to me like that again. Thanks.

I told everyone this guy was f*cked in the head. I like how all of his christian buddies abandoned him because he was even too crazy for them. Check yourself in to a hospital, dude. Stop posting other people's wedding pics too, weirdo. You are a sad and pathetic individual.

Greg
06-03-2013, 12:13 PM
I told everyone this guy was f*cked in the head. I like how all of his christian buddies abandoned him because he was even too crazy for them. Check yourself in to a hospital, dude. Stop posting other people's wedding pics too, weirdo. You are a sad and pathetic individual.

This guy, Endzone, started posting on these boards a few days ago, what Christian buddies did he have on here?

JD2780
06-03-2013, 12:20 PM
I told everyone this guy was f*cked in the head. I like how all of his christian buddies abandoned him because he was even too crazy for them. Check yourself in to a hospital, dude. Stop posting other people's wedding pics too, weirdo. You are a sad and pathetic individual.

Who abandoned him? Also I'm not his buddy, just another forum member.

CrustySMSgt
06-03-2013, 01:04 PM
I don’t agree with your view of god but I’m enjoying your posts and I hope you’ll continue a little while longer. I promised not to trash you and I won’t engage in calling you names just because I disagree with you.

PS Crusty is a pretty cool dude in my opinion. I have found him to be consistently level headed and fair in his posts around here.


That about sums up my feelings too! Always enjoy a good discussion, even if we don't end up agreeing. My assumption was he was just another one of the many trolls that disrupt any attempt at rational discussion, which sparked my response. Thanks kind words!

Absinthe Anecdote
06-03-2013, 01:07 PM
To the Christian people who post on here. The Lord spoke something to me this morning when I woke up this Sunday morning. He reminded me of a verse in the Bible which is Matthew 7:6

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

This is what the Lord spoke to me. These so called atheist folks are arrogant and bitter people. They are angry at God (even though they say they don't believe in God) and you are the most convenient target of their anger. They think that they are a lot smarter than you and that your explanations to them from the Bible and your own experience are foolish. They have no desire to learn the truth, because they enjoy believing a lie. So, they are free to indulge their flesh all they want. Think of what the OP was saying when he started this thread. He was making himself God's critic and trying to point out how much God was in error. He wasn't trying to engage in an honest mental exercise. These kinds of questions are just made to stir up strife. These people aren't happy unless they are in strife about God's law. They love indulging their flesh. So, you don't have to defend the word of God against these people. A lot of them are swine that verse 6 in Matthew describes.

So my advice is let's all back out of this thread. Let these people debate among themselves, and they will soon get very bored. There is no sense trying to reason with them because they have no desire to learn the truth--with maybe one or two exceptions. I think this will be the last post I will make here--maybe the last on this entire board. I am not ex-military. I worked on merchant ships for 10 years. I'm not sure, maybe I'll do a few more post. But, I enjoyed the visit and God bless you all.

Back when I started my dialog with you I said that the discussion on these forums can be a little vile and crass from time to time.

Often my attempts at humor and levity fall flat and I’ve been slammed and totally embarrassed in these forums a couple of times. No biggie, that rush of blood from being embarrassed goes away after a few minutes and I learned from the experience.

I don’t agree with your view of god but I’m enjoying your posts and I hope you’ll continue a little while longer. I promised not to trash you and I won’t engage in calling you names just because I disagree with you.

You quoted Matthew 7:6 and I find that interesting because I think that verse is balanced by the verses that immediately precede it.

PS
Crusty is a pretty cool dude in my opinion. I have found him to be consistently level headed and fair in his posts around here.

Matthew 7:1-6
New International Version (NIV)

7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

CrustySMSgt
06-03-2013, 01:17 PM
I don’t agree with your view of god but I’m enjoying your posts and I hope you’ll continue a little while longer. I promised not to trash you and I won’t engage in calling you names just because I disagree with you.

PS Crusty is a pretty cool dude in my opinion. I have found him to be consistently level headed and fair in his posts around here.


That about sums up my feelings too! Always enjoy a good discussion, even if we don't end up agreeing. My assumption was he was just another one of the many trolls that disrupt any attempt at rational discussion, which sparked my response. Thanks kind words!

Rusty Jones
06-03-2013, 01:28 PM
You laid out ground rules in your opening post, as seen above...

Then you mention something that is not SAID in the verse... I have no opinion about the bible, but if you are trying to make a point you should probably stick to your own set of rules.

I didn't violate my rule. I didn't take something that was said, and turn it into some other meaning. St. Peter was crucified upside down, and buried at the Vatican. Is THAT in the Bible? No, there are things that are not in the Bible that you would actually have to look at secular history to know.


I still have a good prayer life Sarge. I'm 57 years old. Please be more respectful or you can find out just how real this God we serve is.

What, are you going to call on God to send his wrath down those who disrespect you? Pfft...


You want to challenge me and mock me? OK, go right ahead. Just remember I haven't worked in 4 years, and I have plenty of time on my hands.

Plenty of people here to "mock" you that can say the same.


I still spend a lot of time on my knees in prayer.

I bet that's not the only thing you do on your knees.


So, I'll leave it up to you, but I'm telling you, don't ever speak to me like that again. Thanks.

God must really be your bitch on a leash, seeing as how ready he is to do your bidding.


This is what the Lord spoke to me. These so called atheist folks are arrogant and bitter people. They are angry at God (even though they say they don't believe in God) and you are the most convenient target of their anger.

I swear, Endzone is like one of those gay dudes that thinks everyone else has an inner gayness. Come off of it. Everyone is born an atheist, until their parents fill their heads with something else.

As Measure Man pointed out; if anything, there are more non-believers among you, than there are believers among us.


They think that they are a lot smarter than you

Average scores on cognitive test actually confirm what we "think." On average, we beat you by nearly six IQ points.


and that your explanations to them from the Bible and your own experience are foolish.

For some, to a greater extent than others. If only one person fit that description, it would be you.


They have no desire to learn the truth,

According to you, we already know the truth. Which is it?


because they enjoy believing a lie. So, they are free to indulge their flesh all they want.

I see an implication here that atheists are immoral, and that morality can only come from religion; namely, Christianity.


Think of what the OP was saying when he started this thread. He was making himself God's critic and trying to point out how much God was in error.

Maybe God is in error, maybe God is a liar. He claims to be omniscient, but there are many examples in the Bible that show that he's not!


He wasn't trying to engage in an honest mental exercise. These kinds of questions are just made to stir up strife. These people aren't happy unless they are in strife about God's law. They love indulging their flesh. So, you don't have to defend the word of God against these people. A lot of them are swine that verse 6 in Matthew describes.

So my advice is let's all back out of this thread. Let these people debate among themselves, and they will soon get very bored. There is no sense trying to reason with them because they have no desire to learn the truth--with maybe one or two exceptions. I think this will be the last post I will make here--maybe the last on this entire board. I am not ex-military. I worked on merchant ships for 10 years. I'm not sure, maybe I'll do a few more post. But, I enjoyed the visit and God bless you all.

Good riddance.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-03-2013, 01:32 PM
I told everyone this guy was f*cked in the head. I like how all of his christian buddies abandoned him because he was even too crazy for them. Check yourself in to a hospital, dude. Stop posting other people's wedding pics too, weirdo. You are a sad and pathetic individual.

I’m an atheist and I “made friends” with him because I wanted to hear his story.

I don’t believe his story but I wouldn’t call him crazy because there are a lot of people who believe the way he does, you probably work with people that share his views.

Plus, I promised not to trash him and I won’t go back on that. I think he just might be a very interesting dude and who knows?
You just might pick up an interesting bit of knowledge that will help you deal with one of your troops one day.

When I was filling in for the squadron First Sergeant I had a troop come talk to me who had gotten into financial trouble and eventually told me it was because of demons. Long story, I’ll tell more of it later because I’ve got to go.

My point is that I hope he sticks around a little longer.

efmbman
06-03-2013, 10:46 PM
I will quote it again to help out...


All any of us can go on, is what these verses SAY.

Then you post this:


I didn't violate my rule. I didn't take something that was said, and turn it into some other meaning. St. Peter was crucified upside down, and buried at the Vatican. Is THAT in the Bible? No, there are things that are not in the Bible that you would actually have to look at secular history to know.

You seriously don't see the contradiction? If you don't, that's fine. It helps to understand many other things. It's more of a curiosity now.

Crewin323
06-04-2013, 01:32 AM
I registered for an account for one sole reason and that is to address some of the Biblical issues that are presented in the parent post. I did not read the ensuing flamefest, and I have no interest in engaging in one on an internet message board. What I desire is to provide some level 1 answers to the textual issues that the OP posted and provide an outlet for real discourse to anyone who wishes to seriously engage questions about a Biblical worldview. If anyone has a serious desire to have a conversation about anything I have written, or desire an accurate Biblical perspective please email me at crewin323@yahoo.com. That is a real, valid email address and anyone who wishes to discuss an issue. Even if you disagree and especially if you can provide a credible and challenging discourse (which I love dearly), you will get a reply from me. Since I understand that it is beyond the capacity of a faceless message board to have a genuine, honoring discourse I won’t be checking this post...and honestly, since this forum is especially bad at actually talking about sensitive issues in a compassionate manner I will probably disappear and my post count will never exceed what is required to post this long message. Please respond via email if you are interested in actually having a conversation.

With all that said, my intent here is to provide a Biblical perspective for texts that the OP provided. Please note that my intent is NOT to evangelize, nor is it to convince you that my view is the correct one. It is simply and solely to communicate what the Christian Biblical perspective is, which you, as reader, have the option of accepting or rejecting. So on to the actual textual issues:

Firstly, in opposition to what the OP posted in post 1, I am not providing what I 'think' the text means, I am providing what years of study have revealed as a holistic view of Biblical teaching. Rather, I would submit to this forum that cherry-picking a handful of verses is more likely to lead to speculation and misinterpretation. Imagine if I had selected 10-15 sentences out of Moby Dick or Othello and submitted it to a collection of individuals no more knowledgeable than myself on the literature...it would be impossible to glean the riches of the narrative based on that practice.

So with regards to the specific verses:


Deuteronomy 22:28-29

“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

In order to understand this verse we must to two primary things. First, take ourselves out of the 21st century cultural mindset and engage with the realities of life in the ancient world. Second, we must have a proper Biblical understanding of what the Hebrew Law was intended to accomplish and what its role and function is.

First, one must understand that women in the ancient world did not have the same type of individual rights that women rightly have today. Just as a fact of life: if a woman was not a virgin, she could not get married. If she could not get married her options for survival were relatively few; namely slavery and prostitution. If a man raped a woman, she was no longer a virgin and could not enter into marriage and gain all the lawful protections that a husband was obligated to provide his wife (which were left out of the OP). This passage is easily, and mistakenly, looked at as an effort to submit a woman to her rapist. The actual intent of the law provided in Deut 22:28-29 is to limit the damage caused by the sin of rape. This can be made clear when take in the context of Deut 22:13-30 which is solely addressing male sexual immorality and offers punishment and consequence for the men committing the crimes, including rape. When interpreted correctly, this passage becomes an obligation for a man to provide for a woman he violated...a potentially severe burden for a culture in which approximately 80% lived at or below the minimum sustenance rate.

Second, we must understand that the law was never provided to establish some kind of utopian moral society. The law was provided primarily for two reasons. First, so that God could justly convict the world of sin by establishing a kind of moral standard to which men and women would fail to meet. Simply put, the law was established to provide a measure of God's holiness and our failure to attain that level of holiness (a discussion on God's holiness in light of several other hand-selected verses in Scripture would be a good email topic for those who would reject this statement). Secondly, the law was given as a 'bare bones' approach to provide the minimum amount of social morality that a culture needed to prevent destroying itself. The law was a middleman and guardian until the one God promised Abraham and the OT prophets came and fulfilled the law...Jesus (See Romans 3:9-19 and Galatians 3:15-29). When Jesus came he actually instituted a MORE challenging moral code that God's people should attain to and can be found in his various teachings and more articulately in the Sermon on the Mount. The apostle Paul did a great job of summarizing it in this passage from Romans 13:


Owe nothing to anyone—except for your obligation to love one another. If you love your neighbor, you will fulfill the requirements of God’s law. For the commandments say, “You must not commit adultery. You must not murder. You must not steal. You must not covet.” These—and other such commandments—are summed up in this one commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to others, so love fulfills the requirements of God’s law.

Again, please feel free to email me with any objections or concerns, especially about any perceived misogyny/slavery issues if they concern you. That said, I am going to move on.


Luke 14:26

26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.


Malachi 1:2-3 (also Romans 9:10-14)

2 “I have loved you,” says the Lord.
“Yet you say, ‘In what way have You loved us?’
Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?”
Says the Lord.
“Yet Jacob I have loved;
3 But Esau I have hated,
And laid waste his mountains and his heritage
For the jackals of the wilderness."

A correct interpretation again relies on understanding two concepts. First the rendering of the English word hate which has lost some of its context as our definition of the word 'hate' has evolved over the centuries. The Greek in Romans is derived from a Hebrew word in Genesis, the story of Jacob and Esau, the word ‏שָׂנֵא. I'm not going to write another page or two on translational linguistics, but the work is out there for those interested in verifying this, but the definition, dependent on context, can mean a range of things:



•1. hate (contemporary understanding)

•2. be unable (or unwilling) to put up with

•3. enmity


In New Testament Greek (not just Greek in the NT, but as used by 1st century Greek speaking authors), the Greek version of שָׂנֵא is miseō. miseō
is often used, in context, as a comparative statement expressing preference. With those possible definitions in mind, the Christian understanding is that Jesus is saying that if you elevate your relationship with family above your relationship with me, your faith is not a faith that saves. The supremacy of Christ is a critical Christian theme (see Col 1:15ff). Also please understand that evaluating definition within context is nothing new, in fact we do it all the time. The film 12 Angry Men does a great job illustrating this point in the "I'm gonna kill you scene"...we would be wise to apply the same framework of understanding to Biblical understanding.

When applied to the Malachi/Romans passage, Paul is simply communicating that God favored Jacob over Esau. In fact, the OT documents how God in fact blessed Esau which makes an meaning of "hatred" in the contemporary sense even less plausible (see Gen 36). In regards to the last portion of the Malachi passage, the text records that the descendants of Esau did enjoy several generations of prosperity before the things spoken of came to pass. It is likely that the text is referring to the descendants of Esau (see heritage) as an execution of judgment.


John 13:23-25

Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore motioned to him to ask who it was of whom He spoke. Then, leaning back on Jesus’ breast, he said to Him, “Lord, who is it?”

To imply there is a sexual component of this text is the most absurd thing I think I've ever read on an internet message board...and that is saying something. If someone can provide some textual or historical evidence of a sexual relationship between Jesus and his disciples I'll happily engage it, otherwise I can only assume that this is a desperate attempt by the OP to misrepresent Scripture to push his own agenda. Sad.


Mark 16:17-19
And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

This is an interesting passage in Mark which has been the source of a LOT of debate. The scholarly consensus is that the latter part of Mark (long ending version) was something added later on, perhaps as late as the middle ages. This is not some ad-hoc attempt to eviscerate pieces of Scripture that don't make sense...we can point to some passages in the Olivet Discourse that are difficult to process but are still included in the canon. Rather, the vast amount of textual and historical evidence indicates that this passage was not apostolic in origin and does not fit well at all with the Markan tradition. More reading can be found here (http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/3973/is-the-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-169-20-original) among other places, but it is certainly a lively and engaging topic for those who are educated on the matter.

I skimmed the first 3 pages for other texts that the OP and others are seriously objecting to (not just manipulating to fit an agenda) and I didn't see much. As I stated earlier, I'm not interested in reading pseudo-anonymous flame posts about what I have written, nor the ad homineum/strawman/red herring arguments that invariably follow, so I will likely vanish from this board. Since I am a man of hope, I have provided an outlet for those who wish to engage me, either in support or opposition, to do so. So before any of the TL;DR comments start popping up I’ll just close with an echoing of Jeremiah's words that I feel represents my post:


For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for good and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.

For the believers out there who may stumble upon this, be assured that your faith does not consist simply of unthinking, uneducated bigots and fools as the so called 'free-thinkers' of the world would have you believe.

Thank you for taking the time to read my submission,
- BG

CrustySMSgt
06-04-2013, 08:08 AM
I registered for an account for one sole reason and that is to address some of the Biblical issues that are presented in the parent post. I did not read the ensuing flamefest, and I have no interest in engaging in one on an internet message board...

Since I understand that it is beyond the capacity of a faceless message board to have a genuine, honoring discourse I won’t be checking this post...and honestly, since this forum is especially bad at actually talking about sensitive issues in a compassionate manner I will probably disappear and my post count will never exceed what is required to post this long message. Please respond via email if you are interested in actually having a conversation.

Seriously? So you know "forum is especially bad at actually talking about sensitive issues in a compassionate manner"? Which tells me this is an alt account created by someone who doesn't have the stones to post under their real name, or you're relying on someone else's opinion. Either way, I stopped reading after the forst 2 paragraphs, which said to me, "I came here to enlighten the idiots here and I'm not coming back."

Thanks for nothing...

RobotChicken
06-04-2013, 08:11 AM
:omfg::wizard::fest30::sucks::gay::damnit-sign2: This tread has gone viral...:closed_2

Absinthe Anecdote
06-04-2013, 11:04 AM
I think the likely scenario was that someone went to a few Christian forums and solicited help.

I would imagine they (Crewin323) typed that response in order to make a certain someone (Wildman) shut up and stop having a tantrum over on the Christian forum.

That’s just my wild guess of the day.


I now make a plea to any Christian theologians who may post here to put this Rusty Jones in the place he so richly deserves. I who am not one even knows this individuals appears to have not a clue that the Bible is a series of writings an documents gathered form different sources an different styles. I also know they were written for the times an have been rewritten an interpreted over the years. I also know that a good bunch was written in the form of parables. I also know the old testament is a telling of the forthcoming of the savior who for us Christians is Jesus Christ. Please those of you with more knowledge than I have an are Christians set this individual straight, I beg you.

Always
Wildman

TJMAC77SP
06-04-2013, 11:41 AM
.............I bet that's not the only thing you do on your knees.....

Rusty,

Someone with more schooling in psychology might wonder why your default anger response is homoerotic retorts. There are far more clever ways to respond to anything.

JD2780
06-04-2013, 11:47 AM
Or somebody that is usually a spectator in the forums got tired of it and post their opinion. He was possibly tired of the condescending attitudes of some of the folks regardless of their stance on the issue.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-04-2013, 11:52 AM
Or somebody that is usually a spectator in the forums got tired of it and post their opinion. He was possibly tired of the condescending attitudes of some of the folks regardless of their stance on the issue.

No way it could be that, everybody likes Rusty.

JD2780
06-04-2013, 11:54 AM
No way it could be that, everybody likes Rusty.

He does have a personality that exudes happiness and understanding.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-04-2013, 01:02 PM
Mark 16:17-19
And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

This is an interesting passage in Mark which has been the source of a LOT of debate. The scholarly consensus is that the latter part of Mark (long ending version) was something added later on, perhaps as late as the middle ages. This is not some ad-hoc attempt to eviscerate pieces of Scripture that don't make sense...we can point to some passages in the Olivet Discourse that are difficult to process but are still included in the canon. Rather, the vast amount of textual and historical evidence indicates that this passage was not apostolic in origin and does not fit well at all with the Markan tradition. More reading can be found here (http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/3973/is-the-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-169-20-original) among other places, but it is certainly a lively and engaging topic for those who are educated on the matter.


No doubt there are many scholars aligned with the charismatic evangelical denominations that would oppose this statement.

However, I accept your contention that latter part of the book of Mark was possibly added in the middle ages.

I think that makes a very strong statement about what the bible actually is; a fictional work of men that is often claimed to be the word of god.

Rusty Jones
06-04-2013, 03:17 PM
First, one must understand that women in the ancient world did not have the same type of individual rights that women rightly have today. Just as a fact of life: if a woman was not a virgin, she could not get married. If she could not get married her options for survival were relatively few; namely slavery and prostitution. If a man raped a woman, she was no longer a virgin and could not enter into marriage and gain all the lawful protections that a husband was obligated to provide his wife (which were left out of the OP). This passage is easily, and mistakenly, looked at as an effort to submit a woman to her rapist. The actual intent of the law provided in Deut 22:28-29 is to limit the damage caused by the sin of rape. This can be made clear when take in the context of Deut 22:13-30 which is solely addressing male sexual immorality and offers punishment and consequence for the men committing the crimes, including rape. When interpreted correctly, this passage becomes an obligation for a man to provide for a woman he violated...a potentially severe burden for a culture in which approximately 80% lived at or below the minimum sustenance rate.

You see, he posts shit like this, and pussies out. Says that this is his one post, and that he's done.

What was my response going to be? That he's going to have to provide a link to the source of his information. And I don't mean the website of apologist Rev. Kockenbalz, where he explains this verse, either. I want PEER REVIEWED sources that confirm this information. Otherwise, this sounds exactly like something that can be found on a Christian website with no sources cited.


A correct interpretation again relies on understanding two concepts. First the rendering of the English word hate which has lost some of its context as our definition of the word 'hate' has evolved over the centuries. The Greek in Romans is derived from a Hebrew word in Genesis, the story of Jacob and Esau, the word ‏שָׂנֵא. I'm not going to write another page or two on translational linguistics, but the work is out there for those interested in verifying this, but the definition, dependent on context, can mean a range of things:

No details. It just means something... "different," yet you can't say what. Nothing helpful to your cause whatsoever here.


In New Testament Greek (not just Greek in the NT, but as used by 1st century Greek speaking authors), the Greek version of שָׂנֵא is miseō. miseō
is often used, in context, as a comparative statement expressing preference.

FALSE. You will NEVER see the word μισέω being explained to mean this, except in defensive Christian literature. You can look at this word anywhere outside of the Bible, or even use a Classical Greek translator or dictionary; and you'll see that it means EXACTLY what it says in English: HATE.


With those possible definitions in mind, the Christian understanding is that Jesus is saying that if you elevate your relationship with family above your relationship with me, your faith is not a faith that saves. The supremacy of Christ is a critical Christian theme (see Col 1:15ff). Also please understand that evaluating definition within context is nothing new, in fact we do it all the time. The film 12 Angry Men does a great job illustrating this point in the "I'm gonna kill you scene"...we would be wise to apply the same framework of understanding to Biblical understanding.

You're doing exactly what I said I knew people were going to do in my first post. Tsk, tsk.


When applied to the Malachi/Romans passage, Paul is simply communicating that God favored Jacob over Esau.

No, he isn't. He cursed the sons (descendants) of Esau, did he not? That goes just a tad bit beyond favoring Jacob over him, does it not?


In fact, the OT documents how God in fact blessed Esau which makes an meaning of "hatred" in the contemporary sense even less plausible (see Gen 36).

Genesis 36 is merely the geneology of Esau. Try again.


In regards to the last portion of the Malachi passage, the text records that the descendants of Esau did enjoy several generations of prosperity before the things spoken of came to pass. It is likely that the text is referring to the descendants of Esau (see heritage) as an execution of judgment.

I.e., hate.


To imply there is a sexual component of this text is the most absurd thing I think I've ever read on an internet message board...and that is saying something. If someone can provide some textual or historical evidence of a sexual relationship between Jesus and his disciples I'll happily engage it, otherwise I can only assume that this is a desperate attempt by the OP to misrepresent Scripture to push his own agenda. Sad.

No, it's not. Let's think about this for a second. Jesus loved EVERYBODY, right? So if Jesus loved everyone, then why does John the Disciple get the DISCTINCTION of being "the disciple whom Jesus loved?" Why is the SAME person who gets this distinction found all snuggled up on Jesus' chest?

Granted, this isn't strict confirmation of anything; I'll give you that much (it does, however, make for a much stronger case than Jesus fooling around with Mary Magdalene - for which there really isn't a case. That's just people doubting a man's ability to not have sex, and saying that it "must" have happened. Not the case with John the Disciple).

But, be honest: if you actually observed such behavior between men in person; you'd probably, without much doubt, say that someone is definitely taking a ride down the Hershey Highway.


For the believers out there who may stumble upon this, be assured that your faith does not consist simply of unthinking, uneducated bigots and fools as the so called 'free-thinkers' of the world would have you believe.

Thank you for taking the time to read my submission,
- BG

Religion provides a moral basis for you to judge others, so what you're saying isn't completely true.

sandsjames
06-04-2013, 03:49 PM
Average scores on cognitive test actually confirm what we "think." On average, we beat you by nearly six IQ points.











"The Bell Curve (1994) stated that the average IQ of African Americans was 85, Latinos 89, whites 103, East Asians 106, and Jews 113."

According to the stats, should we take anything you say as intelligent? It's obvious, by studies, who's smarter. Oh, and Jews, some of the most religious people in the world, top this list in the U.S.

I bring this up only to show you that you're arguments about atheists being more intelligent is pointless. It tells us nothing useful to any argument.

sandsjames
06-04-2013, 04:37 PM
I'm not surprised a Christian would bring up "The Bell Curve" - its already been debunked multiple times by actual REAL scientists and experts.

Its a work of fairy tales so white Christians can justify their racism, comforting themselves knowing that those awful Latinos and Blacks are all less intelligent. Sorry, its a load of nonsense.


http://www.slate.com/articles/briefing/articles/1997/01/the_bell_curve_flattened.2.html

It's just as accurate at stats saying that Atheists are more intelligent than religious people. There are so many other factors that play into the stats that making a blanket statement cannot possibly be accurate.

Rusty Jones
06-04-2013, 05:02 PM
"The Bell Curve (1994) stated that the average IQ of African Americans was 85, Latinos 89, whites 103, East Asians 106, and Jews 113."

According to the stats, should we take anything you say as intelligent? It's obvious, by studies, who's smarter. Oh, and Jews, some of the most religious people in the world, top this list in the U.S.

Hey, I'm half white! So 103 + 85 = 188; 188/2 = 94, dammit!

As far as Jews being the most religious? Bullshit. A good chunk of Jews aren't even of the Jewish faith; MANY are atheist or agnostic. Bill Maher is an example of this. Most of what's on TV that evangelical Christians bitch about, is on TV in the first place because of the Jews who own the channels, do the producing, and the acting.

Secondly, the story of the Creation is in the Tanakh too. Do you see them denying science? Trying to push Creationism in schools, or take evolution out? Hell, all of those Old Testament laws... Jews aren't even the ones pushing them; Christians are! And Jews are the most religious? Pfft...

You know who the most religious group up there is? Blacks. The fact that black culture, unfortunately, places other smarts over book smarts (you have to understand that in black culture, people are more in societal survival mode). It's similar with Latinos, but to a slightly lesser extent; and the IQ scores show.

African Americans, in fact, can be contrasted with African immigrants. African immigrants make up two-thirds of the black student population at Ivy League schools, despite their very small percentage of the US population. And you know something else? I don't know about IQ, but I do know that in terms of academic achievement (i.e., degrees obtained, and GPA); if African immigrants were counted as a separate race, they would actually outperform Asians.

I won't say all, but I will say that much of this can be chalked up to religiosity among these groups, as well as cultural attitudes toward education.

You also may not have noticed, but my political mindset is actually closer to a white liberal than it is to a black Democrat. I'm sure that you can tell the difference between the two.

I also have a master's degree. Do you see where I'm going with this? I'm not denying those stats. However, what I am saying is that... I'm not exactly your "average" black man.


I bring this up only to show you that you're arguments about atheists being more intelligent is pointless. It tells us nothing useful to any argument.

You were hoping that I would deny the stats, or say something hypocritical. Or that I'd be left speechless. Not the case. What the stats say, I won't deny. However, what I'm saying about religion still stands; and is not in any way challenged by what you posted.

JD2780
06-04-2013, 05:19 PM
It's all cool bro. Come rape some virgins with me.

JB where the heck did that come from?

JD2780
06-04-2013, 05:30 PM
Okay buddy nice try. The flaws of one study do not invalidate the findings of a different study.

The Bell Curve is conservative propaganda to show that non-whites are inferior. There is clear evidence that atheists are more intelligent than religious people... mostly because atheists aren't brainwashed with lies and pseudo-science.

I to this day do not have as firm a grasp on science as I would like. Know why? Because I was raised a Christian, and literally got suspended in school for being caught with a book about evolution (I was just "curious" at the time) - since then I have grown more and more non-religious, as I slowly realized that Christianity is just another tool by our rulers to keep people stupid and submissive.

It's a conservative conspiracy!!

RobotChicken
06-04-2013, 05:35 PM
JB where the heck did that come from?
:damnit-sign2: Ah hah...he is a Muslim!! :closed_2

meatbringer
06-04-2013, 06:26 PM
Um....no....the Sabbath is Saturday....

Holy Shit! That's even worse! I do stuff on Saturdays all of the time!

Pullinteeth
06-04-2013, 06:33 PM
I who am not one even knows this individuals appears to have not a clue that the Bible is a series of writings an documents gathered form different sources an different styles. I also know they were written for the times an have been rewritten an interpreted over the years. I also know that a good bunch was written in the form of parables. Please those of you with more knowledge than I have an are Christians set this individual straight, I beg you.

Always
Wildman


Because IMHO he does not have a clue to the true meaning of those verses, an I am not knowledgeable enough about theology to adequately debate him thus I ask for the experts to do so.

Always
Wildman

Or knowledgeable of the spelling of the word "and" either...


The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

Holy sh*t, I hope none of you guys have ever had to work on a Sunday. This one is straight from the burning bush too. So work on a Sunday = death.

Um....no....the Sabbath is Saturday....

Absinthe Anecdote
06-04-2013, 07:19 PM
Or knowledgeable of the spelling of the word "and" either...



Um....no....the Sabbath is Saturday....

It is Friday if you listen to the Islamic scholars. I say we should petition for Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays off because we are in real danger of making the god of Abraham angrier and angrier at us each time we observe the wrong day of rest.

sandsjames
06-04-2013, 07:22 PM
Secondly, the story of the Creation is in the Tanakh too. Do you see them denying science? Trying to push Creationism in schools, or take evolution out? Hell, all of those Old Testament laws... Jews aren't even the ones pushing them; Christians are! And Jews are the most religious? Pfft... Who's denying science? Not me. And I really love your new "Pfft". Very impressive.

sandsjames
06-04-2013, 07:23 PM
JB where the heck did that come from?

It came from him not having a grasp on what we are actually saying. He thinks he knows what we believe and thinks we are as extreme as he believes all Christians to be.

sandsjames
06-04-2013, 07:31 PM
Really? Maybe we can turn you to the Dark Side then! I don't know why people need to separate science and religion, and assume that we all do that. I'm also not sure how science could possibly "turn" me.




Give me a better way to respond to nonsense, and I'll make that switch.There has been nonsense on here for years, but you've started using that consistently only the past few days. Makes me wonder what the trigger was. Something you heard a 10 year old do?

Rusty Jones
06-04-2013, 07:32 PM
It is Friday if you listen to the Islamic scholars. I say we should petition for Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays off because we are in real danger of making the god of Abraham angrier and angrier at us each time we observe the wrong day of rest.

Technically, Friday is also the Sabbath in Judaism. In Judaism, the day begins at sunset. So the Jewish Saturday actually begins on Friday night.

I remember my very first gripe about church as a kid. When you go to church on Sunday, by the time you get out, half of that day is gone and now the Sunday Night Blues kicks in, as you now have to think about and get ready for school.

Far be it from me to tell Christians how to practice their religion; but they'd probably be alot cooler to deal with if they put church on Friday nights so they can get it done and out of the way.


Who's denying science? Not me.

Really? Maybe we can turn you to the Dark Side then!


And I really love your new "Pfft". Very impressive.

Give me a better way to respond to nonsense, and I'll make that switch.

sandsjames
06-04-2013, 07:40 PM
Really? Maybe we can turn you to the Dark Side then! I don't know why people need to separate science and religion, and assume that we all do that. I'm also not sure how science could possibly "turn" me.




Give me a better way to respond to nonsense, and I'll make that switch.There has been nonsense on here for years, but you've started using that consistently only the past few days. Makes me wonder what the trigger was. Something you heard a 10 year old do?

Pullinteeth
06-04-2013, 08:46 PM
Far be it from me to tell Christians how to practice their religion; but they'd probably be alot cooler to deal with if they put church on Friday nights so they can get it done and out of the way.

Catholics are pretty close...they have Mass Saturday evening....after supper but early enough that you are done in time to get ready to go out and get blitz'd!!

Absinthe Anecdote
06-04-2013, 08:53 PM
I suppose you could consider it a "conspiracy" in the sense that on one hand tens of millions of dollars are being spent to keep Christians ignorant, and the other hand finding ways to exploit Christian ignorance to take their money - "museums" (if they can be called that), Christian textbooks, televangelists, etc.

This reminds me of the Alec Baldwin and Tim Robbins Film Actors Guild (F.A.G) speeches from Team America.

Global warming! Hybrid cars! Stop smoking!

TJMAC77SP
06-05-2013, 12:13 PM
Technically, Friday is also the Sabbath in Judaism. In Judaism, the day begins at sunset. So the Jewish Saturday actually begins on Friday night.



Which would make anytime after sundown on Friday Saturday and no longer Friday.

JD2780
06-06-2013, 12:56 PM
Really? Did I read that right?

99% of the world's problems all summed up in one sentence!



You're right... its hopeless.



In all honesty, we'd be better off "finding" Magic Sky Man on a piece of burned toast, and then proclaiming that he told everyone to stop being backwards homophobic xenophobic douchehammers.

I've never had a pastor spew the hate you guys claim. Never been told to shun gays. Never been told to "cure" them.

JD2780
06-06-2013, 03:05 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/apple-removes-gay-cure-app-store-google-resists/story?id=19331115

Not trying to stir the pot or anything, but I was just wondering if anyone else had seen this. I think it's pretty funny. I wonder how such an app would work.

That's a nice spoon you have there.

JD2780
06-06-2013, 03:06 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/apple-removes-gay-cure-app-store-google-resists/story?id=19331115

Not trying to stir the pot or anything, but I was just wondering if anyone else had seen this. I think it's pretty funny. I wonder how such an app would work.

That's a nice spoon you have there.

meatbringer
06-06-2013, 03:11 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/apple-removes-gay-cure-app-store-google-resists/story?id=19331115

Not trying to stir the pot or anything, but I was just wondering if anyone else had seen this. I think it's pretty funny. I wonder how such an app would work.

JD2780
06-06-2013, 03:20 PM
I wonder if there is an app that can make someone attracted to the same sex.

Of course there is. And it's as likely to work as the gay cure app. Some of the stuff folks come up with is out there.

meatbringer
06-06-2013, 03:21 PM
That's a nice spoon you have there.

I wonder if there is an app that can make someone attracted to the same sex.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-06-2013, 03:25 PM
I'll start:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

Hmmm... a woman who is a rape victim is required to marry her rapist. Interesting! I suppose that if we have the Judeo-Christian equivalent of Sharia in the US; if you see a hot chick that you want to marry, you know what you have to do!

So "sieze" is the same as "rape"?

JD2780
06-06-2013, 03:29 PM
I wonder if there is an app that can make someone attracted to the same sex.

Of course there is. And it's as likely to work as the gay cure app. Some of the stuff folks come up with is out there.

sandsjames
06-06-2013, 05:55 PM
HaHah I love how that app says the "BONDAGE of homosexuality" - so many of these Christians are secretly homo-erotic themselves. Why can't they just admit that they're gay, and have orgies in the name of Magic Sky Man, instead of being all repressed and guilty and shit?

Now you're just projecting.

sandsjames
06-06-2013, 06:05 PM
All of this talk about bondage, chains and flagellation and stuff... you have to wonder about these guys.

There's always room for talk about that stuff.

sandsjames
06-06-2013, 06:05 PM
All of this talk about bondage, chains and flagellation and stuff... you have to wonder about these guys.

There's always room for talk about that stuff.

sandsjames
06-06-2013, 06:06 PM
HaHah I love how that app says the "BONDAGE of homosexuality" - so many of these Christians are secretly homo-erotic themselves. Why can't they just admit that they're gay, and have orgies in the name of Magic Sky Man, instead of being all repressed and guilty and shit?

Now you're just projecting.

Pullinteeth
06-06-2013, 07:06 PM
So "sieze" is the same as "rape"?

What exactly would YOU call it if you sieze a woman and lay with her?

Pullinteeth
06-06-2013, 07:19 PM
This is for those that believe the Bible is the literal word of god and should be taken literally;

Where is the second earth? If the Bible is to be taken literally, the heavens and the earth were created twice...where is the other one?

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-06-2013, 08:02 PM
If you "seize" a girl, butcher her entire family, and then penetrate her... its kind of assumed that it wasn't consentual.
Ah, see, the rest of the part wasnt added in for context, guess it is important when trying to quote the bible huh? If that was the case, and the rest of the stuff was ommitted, then I would see it as a decent punishment for the guy to take care of the woman he raped for the rest of her life, since killing her while not at war would have been a crime. Dont think rape was part of a commandment.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-06-2013, 08:04 PM
What exactly would YOU call it if you sieze a woman and lay with her?

Sex, maybe having intercourse with a slave you took after a war as a pluder. Doesnt mean rape. They could have used the word ravish or rape if that was rape. Just saying it didnt have to mean rape. Did jefferson rape his slaves or just have sex?

TJMAC77SP
06-06-2013, 08:46 PM
As long as there is lube. ;)

Joe, please put the pretty blue haired young lady back on your profile..............

RobotChicken
06-07-2013, 02:25 AM
This guy, Endzone, started posting on these boards a few days ago, what Christian buddies did he have on here?

Yea 'JOE B', were is your 'friend lately'? We miss him dearly with all that good book inspiration he gave so freely too us? Did his computer 'belly up' next to yours??

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-07-2013, 04:39 PM
Wow... just WOW. Rape is rape. Whether she is your slave, or "war plunder" or whatever you want to call it.

And yes, white aristocrats sexually exploiting their slaves was rape.
So no slave ever consented to having sex with their master? Whether he had power over her or not, can a slave not be genuinly attracted to their master and want sex from them?

Pullinteeth
06-07-2013, 05:47 PM
So no slave ever consented to having sex with their master? Whether he had power over her or not, can a slave not be genuinly attracted to their master and want sex from them?

Apparently, according to the AF, the only time a Trainee can consent to sex with a TI is when the TI is female so if you extrapolate that relationship all the way to slave/slaveholder, then no....a slave cannot consent to sex unless the slaveholder was female...

JD2780
06-07-2013, 05:54 PM
Apparently, according to the AF, the only time a Trainee can consent to sex with a TI is when the TI is female so if you extrapolate that relationship all the way to slave/slaveholder, then no....a slave cannot consent to sex unless the slaveholder was female...

By AF standards.

JD2780
06-07-2013, 10:08 PM
Com'on mannn! The 'AF' can't have it both ways now....Can they??

It gives it both ways!!!!

JD2780
06-07-2013, 10:08 PM
Com'on mannn! The 'AF' can't have it both ways now....Can they??

It gives it both ways!!!!

RobotChicken
06-07-2013, 10:17 PM
By AF standards.

Com'on mannn! The 'AF' can't have it both ways now....Can they??

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-10-2013, 12:34 PM
So did Elizabeth Smart ever consent to have sex with her kidnapper?

Point is - when someone controls every aspect of your life - both physically and psychologically - whether you and your family get to eat today, whether you'll be beaten or left out in a sweatbox... yeah, there's not a whole lot of "consent" going on.

You're making a pretty big assumption that ALL slave owners acted that way, even back in biblical times and that NO ONE ever felt like they were consenting.

JD2780
06-10-2013, 01:26 PM
You're making a pretty big assumption that ALL slave owners acted that way, even back in biblical times and that NO ONE ever felt like they were consenting.

Of course they are. Yet they're fact because JB said so.

How was drill JB?

Rusty Jones
09-19-2013, 04:23 PM
Tobit 6:11

and since you are her closest relative, you have the right to marry her. You also have the right to inherit all her father's property.

Rusty Jones
12-23-2013, 12:34 AM
Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Measure Man
12-23-2013, 01:07 AM
Ezekiel 23:20


There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

TJMAC77SP
12-23-2013, 03:53 AM
Ezekiel 23:20

You win MM.....................

That was actually worth Rusty Necro-Humping this dead thread

WCS
12-29-2013, 11:37 AM
17 ¶ For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

E4RUMOR
02-11-2014, 04:39 AM
Oh, yes; I'm going there.

And before you say "Well, it really means..."

Save it. Because you DON'T know what it means. All you know is what it SAYS. I could show any of these verses to ten offended Christians, and I'll get ten different explanations for what they "really mean."

All any of us can go on, is what these verses SAY.


To say that no one can know what they mean - are you sure? If so, I'd be interested to know how you came to that conclusion, and what evidence you have to substantiate that claim. Also, doesn't it seem somewhat contradictory to say that no one can know what verses mean, and then proceed to interpret the verse yourself?

For instance: 28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

Your interpretation or claim to understand or essentially know what this means: "Hmmm... a woman who is a rape victim is required to marry her rapist. Interesting! I suppose that if we have the Judeo-Christian equivalent of Sharia in the US; if you see a hot chick that you want to marry, you know what you have to do!"

I think human beings deserve a little more credit, otherwise, abiding by your logic the following verse, “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.",

simply means:

“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

js7799
02-11-2014, 01:32 PM
simply means:

“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Rusty Jones
02-11-2014, 01:42 PM
To say that no one can know what they mean - are you sure? If so, I'd be interested to know how you came to that conclusion, and what evidence you have to substantiate that claim.

Evidence is only required to substantiate a meaning if it differs from what is said. Other than that, what is said is said, and is there in black and white.


Also, doesn't it seem somewhat contradictory to say that no one can know what verses mean, and then proceed to interpret the verse yourself?

It would be, except that's not what I'm doing.


For instance: 28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

Your interpretation or claim to understand or essentially know what this means: "Hmmm... a woman who is a rape victim is required to marry her rapist. Interesting! I suppose that if we have the Judeo-Christian equivalent of Sharia in the US; if you see a hot chick that you want to marry, you know what you have to do!"

I think human beings deserve a little more credit, otherwise, abiding by your logic the following verse, “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.",

simply means:

“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

Nice try, except I broke it down and simplified it, instead of repeating it verbatim. That's not the same thing as reading into something, and obtaining a meaning that differs from what is said.

Human beings deserve a little more credit? I doubt it. What's the difference between a psychopath, a cult, and a religion? If one person believes something, he or she is a psychopath. If few people believe it, it's a cult. If many people believe it, it's a religion.

Yeah, talk about giving humans credit...

Absinthe Anecdote
02-11-2014, 02:39 PM
simply means:

“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

And that is why I am scratching my head, because what does it say about a god who has no problem with people who seize virgins, provided to pay fifty shekels of silver to the girl's father, but only if they are "found out."

I can only conclude that I have a higher moral code than any jackass of a god that would allow such a passage to be written in "his book."

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-11-2014, 04:37 PM
Evidence is only required to substantiate a meaning if it differs from what is said. Other than that, what is said is said, and is there in black and white.

Funny, we have the constitution written in black and "white" but yet it seems like liberals try to adjust what it means all the time. And it has never been rewritten from another language.

sandsjames
02-11-2014, 05:40 PM
Evidence is only required to substantiate a meaning if it differs from what is said. Other than that, what is said is said, and is there in black and white.



It would be, except that's not what I'm doing.



Nice try, except I broke it down and simplified it, instead of repeating it verbatim. That's not the same thing as reading into something, and obtaining a meaning that differs from what is said.

Human beings deserve a little more credit? I doubt it. What's the difference between a psychopath, a cult, and a religion? If one person believes something, he or she is a psychopath. If few people believe it, it's a cult. If many people believe it, it's a religion.

Yeah, talk about giving humans credit...

Broke it down and simplified it? That's pretty much what cults (and many churches) do. "Let me tell you what it really means".

So I'll break down the same thing you did, and simplify it, in other possible terms.

If you sleep with a woman then you are, in the eyes of God, now married to that woman. You are now required to take care of her for the rest of her life. Not taking care of her is equal to divorce.

It's not endorsing rape. It's not endorsing incest. It's stating that sex is, and should remain, part of marriage.

So there...I broke it down and simplified it.

SomeRandomGuy
02-11-2014, 06:11 PM
Since this thread got bumped I figured why not join?

1 Corinthians 14:34 (NIV)

The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.



So................No woman pastors? What about choir members?

sandsjames
02-11-2014, 06:18 PM
Since this thread got bumped I figured why not join?

1 Corinthians 14:34 (NIV)

The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.



So................No woman pastors? What about choir members?

You are correct. The traditional belief is that only men are to be pastors. It's been this way in every church I've ever attended and I've never known one woman who attended those churches to have an issue with it.

Choir is an interesting question. There are several different views about choirs, musical instruments, etc. This is pretty much determined church by church.

I have no issues with this at all. Someone who doesn't believe what these churches teach probably aren't attending anyway, so inside the church itself it's really not an issue.

It's more of an issue with the non church goers who feel that the women who choose to live this way are holding themselves back. It seems that freedom of choice is only ok if that choice is to not follow the traditional views.

SomeRandomGuy
02-11-2014, 06:23 PM
You are correct. The traditional belief is that only men are to be pastors. It's been this way in every church I've ever attended and I've never known one woman who attended those churches to have an issue with it.

Choir is an interesting question. There are several different views about choirs, musical instruments, etc. This is pretty much determined church by church.

I have no issues with this at all. Someone who doesn't believe what these churches teach probably aren't attending anyway, so inside the church itself it's really not an issue.

It's more of an issue with the non church goers who feel that the women who choose to live this way are holding themselves back. It seems that freedom of choice is only ok if that choice is to not follow the traditional views.

It just seems like maybe Joyce Meyer might have an issue with this. Also what should single women do? According to verse 35 if women want to learn they need to ask their husbands at home.

sandsjames
02-11-2014, 06:39 PM
It just seems like maybe Joyce Meyer might have an issue with this. Also what should single women do? According to verse 35 if women want to learn they need to ask their husbands at home.

Luckily Joyce Meyer has the choice of attending whatever church fits her lifestyle.

It doesn't say if they want to learn...it says if they want to ask questions. And I've never been in a church that did not allow women to speak, though if there was one, it's perfectly ok because those who don't like it don't have to attend.

There are plenty of ways for women, and men, to make decisions based on their own moral beliefs. There are plenty of ways to research information.

I know everyone has an example they could give so I'll give mine.

My sister attended church (and still does) as long as I can remember. She was celibate until she was married. Unfortunately, because of a cheating husband, she was divorced. That was 20 years ago. She has remained celibate since the divorce. She is now dating again but has made it very clear to guys she dates that there will be no sex until married. It makes it difficult, of course, but this is her belief. She's more willing to be single the rest of her life than to sleep with a guy before marriage.

She also attends a pretty traditional church. No musical instrument. No women pastors (though women can lead Sunday School classes).

She knows there are other choices out there. She has moved to different churches, more liberal churches, but found the traditional path the path for her.

She's happy, and I'm happy for her. It's not the lifestyle I choose, but that doesn't mean I question her.

To answer your question, I don't know what single women did centuries ago. I have no idea. But I can't figure out why the choice to be more traditional is so looked down upon these days. It's not for everyone, I get that. But if it makes those who choose it happy, just as with any other lifestyle, then who are we to question it?

Rusty Jones
02-11-2014, 06:45 PM
Funny, we have the constitution written in black and "white" but yet it seems like liberals try to adjust what it means all the time. And it has never been rewritten from another language.

Gee, I just love it when people feel like they have "unfinished business" with me... and they try to follow me around with their bullshit to other threads.


Broke it down and simplified it? That's pretty much what cults (and many churches) do. "Let me tell you what it really means".

So I'll break down the same thing you did, and simplify it, in other possible terms.

If you sleep with a woman then you are, in the eyes of God, now married to that woman. You are now required to take care of her for the rest of her life. Not taking care of her is equal to divorce.

It's not endorsing rape. It's not endorsing incest. It's stating that sex is, and should remain, part of marriage.

So there...I broke it down and simplified it.

No, you didn't. The passage SAYS seize and lay with. You left that part out. So... if you rape a woman, you're required to pay her father 50 shekels, and she has to marry you. It's right there in black and white. You rape an unbetrothed woman, contratulations, you've just been set back 50 shekels, and you've got yourself a wife.

sandsjames
02-11-2014, 06:50 PM
Gee, I just love it when people feel like they have "unfinished business" with me... and they try to follow me around with their bullshit to other threads.



No, you didn't. The passage SAYS seize and lay with. You left that part out. So... if you rape a woman, you're required to pay her father 50 shekels, and she has to marry you. It's right there in black and white. You rape an unbetrothed woman, contratulations, you've just been set back 50 shekels, and you've got yourself a wife.

Again, your interpretation. I choose to interpret it differently. And that's after it was translated several times anyway.

A definition of "seize" is "grab". I regularly seize my wife before I lay with her. As a matter of fact, if I don't, she gets quite upset.

Rusty Jones
02-11-2014, 06:54 PM
Luckily Joyce Meyer has the choice of attending whatever church fits her lifestyle.

It doesn't say if they want to learn...it says if they want to ask questions. And I've never been in a church that did not allow women to speak, though if there was one, it's perfectly ok because those who don't like it don't have to attend.

There are plenty of ways for women, and men, to make decisions based on their own moral beliefs. There are plenty of ways to research information.

I know everyone has an example they could give so I'll give mine.

My sister attended church (and still does) as long as I can remember. She was celibate until she was married. Unfortunately, because of a cheating husband, she was divorced. That was 20 years ago. She has remained celibate since the divorce. She is now dating again but has made it very clear to guys she dates that there will be no sex until married. It makes it difficult, of course, but this is her belief. She's more willing to be single the rest of her life than to sleep with a guy before marriage.

She also attends a pretty traditional church. No musical instrument. No women pastors (though women can lead Sunday School classes).

She knows there are other choices out there. She has moved to different churches, more liberal churches, but found the traditional path the path for her.

She's happy, and I'm happy for her. It's not the lifestyle I choose, but that doesn't mean I question her.

To answer your question, I don't know what single women did centuries ago. I have no idea. But I can't figure out why the choice to be more traditional is so looked down upon these days. It's not for everyone, I get that. But if it makes those who choose it happy, just as with any other lifestyle, then who are we to question it?

The people who choose this life don't know any better. It's self-oppression that has been instilled into them. I have no issue with your sister, just those who indoctrinated her.

Rusty Jones
02-11-2014, 06:57 PM
Again, your interpretation. I choose to interpret it differently. And that's after it was translated several times anyway.

A definition of "seize" is "grab". I regularly seize my wife before I lay with her. As a matter of fact, if I don't, she gets quite upset.

That's funny, because there are some versions of the Bible that actually use the word "rape" in this verse... translated by people who are fully aware of what's being said, moreso than anyone else.

And... what you just said is exactly what the problem is with Christianity. You see something in the Bible that says something you don't like? Convince yourself that it means something else!

sandsjames
02-11-2014, 06:57 PM
The people who choose this life don't know any better. It's self-oppression that has been instilled into them. I have no issue with your sister, just those who indoctrinated her.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and let's say that she is "indoctrinated". She leads a happy life. She raised 2 beautiful children. She has a good job. She doesn't hurt anybody. She doesn't judge anybody. What, even if she IS indoctrinated, is it hurting?

sandsjames
02-11-2014, 06:59 PM
That's funny, because there are some versions of the Bible that actually use the word "rape" in this verse... translated by people who are fully aware of what's being said, moreso than anywhere else.

And... what you just said is exactly what the problem is with Christianity. You see something in the Bible that something you don't like? Convince yourself that it means something else!

Isn't that what you do? You see something in the bible you think can be used to discredit so you convince yourself of the meaning?

This is the standard atheist argument...what exactly is your purpose?

1. Trying to convince me there is no God or
2. Trying to convince me that there is a God but he isn't as great as I think he is?

You have to pick one because using both is pretty contradictory. He can't be a mean God if he doesn't exist.

Stalwart
02-11-2014, 07:02 PM
She's happy, and I'm happy for her. It's not the lifestyle I choose, but that doesn't mean I question her.

Bravo


To answer your question, I don't know what single women did centuries ago. I have no idea. But I can't figure out why the choice to be more traditional is so looked down upon these days. It's not for everyone, I get that. But if it makes those who choose it happy, just as with any other lifestyle, then who are we to question it?

Too many people are convinced if you don't think as they do you are: wrong, ignorant, unAmerican, right wing lunatic, left wing lunatic, unChristian, born-again nut job etc. and unable to accept that not everyone thinks as they do or that there is more than one acceptable way of thinking about or doing something.

Frankly, I seek out people who do think differently, it makes for good conversation and prevents group-think.

Rusty Jones
02-11-2014, 07:09 PM
Isn't that what you do? You see something in the bible you think can be used to discredit so you convince yourself of the meaning?

Nope. I see it for what it says. Nothing more.


This is the standard atheist argument...what exactly is your purpose?

1. Trying to convince me there is no God or
2. Trying to convince me that there is a God but he isn't as great as I think he is?

You have to pick one because using both is pretty contradictory. He can't be a mean God if he doesn't exist.

The existence of God is not what's being discussed. The worth(lessness) of the Bible IS.

sandsjames
02-11-2014, 07:10 PM
Nope. I see it for what it says. Nothing more.



The existence of God is not what's being discussed. The worth(lessness) of the Bible IS.


Ok...you've convinced me. I will immediately give up all my beliefs because of your interpretation of a book you don't believe in.

Rusty Jones
02-11-2014, 07:13 PM
Ok...you've convinced me. I will immediately give up all my beliefs because of your interpretation of a book you don't believe in.

Great! Don't forget to throw out your toilet paper, and stock your bathroom with Bibles!

Stalwart
02-11-2014, 07:14 PM
Religious people who are overly motivated to convince me of their beliefs are easy to come across as pushy and irritating.

Atheists who are overly motivated to convince me that belief is ignorant or oppressive are easy to come across as pushy and irritating.

I have known people of very good character who had faith of some kind, I have known atheists who had good character too. I have known people of no or little character who had faith or were Athiests too. Belief or non-belief in and of itself harms no one, I have friends on both sides. Their actions that they take then use their belief or non-belief as an excuse for are their responsibility. Rather than lump everyon of group [a] into one category, I let people's actions (or lack thereof) form my opinion of them.

sandsjames
02-11-2014, 07:16 PM
Great! Don't forget to throw out your toilet paper, and stock your bathroom with Bibles!

I'm all over it...thanks for setting me straight. For you to pull out these verses that obviously no Christian has ever read or ever questioned was the push I needed.

AJBIGJ
02-11-2014, 07:36 PM
It's an interesting thing to take these verses because, like posts in MTF, often the reader takes individual statements made in the Bible without understanding the greater context. This "Rape" passage or whatever we want to call it is interesting because I think history and the society at the time is a major part of the greater context, and I think we tend to forget that. One of the reasons I believe in the faith itself is because what Jesus set out to do when he came to earth, according to the bible, which was to break down a lot of the "Religious" observances and refocus on the prize, (I'm paraphrasing obviously).

The roles of women in society in, most cultures were viewed a lot differently then than now, we were pretty patriarchal on average in that day.

What makes this verse interesting is that it does hold men accountable for their actions to an extent, you don't get to stick it in everything you want without bearing the responsibility from the decision itself. Whether it be forcibly or by consent, and let's be honest with ourselves, in those days very little was given by a woman's consent, it was the societies of the era.

The problem we face, whether we believe what the Bible says and accept it as wholly, partially, or not-at-all true, is we have a lot of difficulty understanding independent verses because we don't really have a good contextual understanding in which it was delivered. This is especially true of older content, where literacy was not as prominent, there were generally more translations than less, and the societies of the era were more far removed from society as we understand it today.

Think about history itself, look back two millenia, we had a very prominent nation rise as a world power with VERY similar politics to our own, yet there were significant differences that seem rather severe to us now. For instance, ACTUAL daggers on the Senate floor. It was just different, and to claim we really understand ANY HISTORICAL text in direct context is a pretty bold claim to make, unless we've ourselves spent a lifetime dedicated to furthering our understanding of those societies. Let's face it, if you're posting content in the MTF, you are likely not one of those people.

The real question about the Atheism vs. Christianity is what are your views on faith? The rest is just verbal chaff we use to reinforce our decisions whether to have it or not, which is fine for ourselves but has no hope of "Winning the argument".

Rusty Jones
02-11-2014, 07:42 PM
Religious people who are overly motivated to convince me of their beliefs are easy to come across as pushy and irritating.

Atheists who are overly motivated to convince me that belief is ignorant or oppressive are easy to come across as pushy and irritating.

I have known people of very good character who had faith of some kind, I have known atheists who had good character too. I have known people of no or little character who had faith or were Athiests too. Belief or non-belief in and of itself harms no one, I have friends on both sides. Their actions that they take then use their belief or non-belief as an excuse for are their responsibility. Rather than lump everyon of group [a] into one category, I let people's actions (or lack thereof) form my opinion of them.

Belief doesn't harm anyone? Gee, how many times have we discussed the millions that have died over the centuries in the name of religion, particular in the name of the Abrahamic God? And how many people have contributed heinous acts in "His" name?

That aside, let's talk about sandsjames sister a little bit more: because women are more adversely impacted than men. For some straaaaanngggeee reason, women are more devout than men when it comes to religion. I wouldn't doubt that physchology experts have done some research and published some academic journal articles on this, but nonetheless... that's the case.

How many women have you seen that obviously belong to Christian denominations that have "modesty" rules for women? Where they're forced to adopt a totally desexualized appearance?

Many sects of Pentecostalism have this, as well as others: for example, where women have to wear long skirts and sneekers, no make up, and they can't cut their hair short. You're most likely to see them with a French braid and bangs.

You know what I've seen throughout the years? No one is attracted to these women. Not even the men of their own congregation. These men will usually mess with women OUTSIDE of their church - the ones who actually make themselves pretty - while the women IN these churches just sit there being single. And if she's lucky enough to marry a man in the church, she'll be faithful to him... but it won't be the other way around.

Yeah, faith never hurt anyone? As long as these women can convince themselves that they're not being hurt, I guess you're right.

AJBIGJ
02-11-2014, 07:51 PM
Yeah, faith never hurt anyone? As long as these women can convince themselves that they're not being hurt, I guess you're right.

Faith never has, faith is inanimate, people do. Their personal beliefs are just the excuse used to do violence, which may or may not be a misinterpretation of their system of faith.

Rusty Jones
02-11-2014, 08:00 PM
I'm all over it...thanks for setting me straight. For you to pull out these verses that obviously no Christian has ever read or ever questioned was the push I needed.

...and not every Christians questions verses like these. Some will actually embrace these verses, and incorporate them into their practices. If I'm not mistaken, the verse that we're discussing right now is used by the FLDS substantiate wedding ceremonies that are performed by raping little girls.

Yep, people who worship the SAME God as you. People who believe that the SAME God that YOU worship... sanctions this. And who are you to tell them that this goes against Christianity? Who is ANYONE to tell them that?

AJBIGJ
02-11-2014, 08:05 PM
...and not every Christians questions verses like these. Some will actually embrace these verses, and incorporate them into their practices. If I'm not mistaken, the verse that we're discussing right now is used by the FLDS substantiate wedding ceremonies that are performed by raping little girls.

You have a point here, a lot of people don't. I also think a lot of people don't have a very questioning attitude in general, whether it be concerning religion, politics, entertainment, or whatever. We do tend to adhere to our areas of comfort, whatever they are, and try to tune out anything that appears to directly challenge this area of comfort. I would label this as a part of the human condition. There is a lot of solace to be had in maintaining the status quo.

sandsjames
02-11-2014, 08:14 PM
Belief doesn't harm anyone? Gee, how many times have we discussed the millions that have died over the centuries in the name of religion, particular in the name of the Abrahamic God? And how many people have contributed heinous acts in "His" name? How many have died in the name of Democracy? Does that make Democracy inherently bad?


That aside, let's talk about sandsjames sister a little bit more: because women are more adversely impacted than men. For some straaaaanngggeee reason, women are more devout than men when it comes to religion. I wouldn't doubt that physchology experts have done some research and published some academic journal articles on this, but nonetheless... that's the case. I disagree with every premise of this statement. I don't believe women are more devout. I do feel that they are more likely to express the more traditional views because if a man does it he's labeled a chauvinist.


How many women have you seen that obviously belong to Christian denominations that have "modesty" rules for women? Where they're forced to adopt a totally desexualized appearance?Not forced, in most cases. Is it hard for you to believe that people could choose this?


You know what I've seen throughout the years? No one is attracted to these women. Not even the men of their own congregation. These men will usually mess with women OUTSIDE of their church - the ones who actually make themselves pretty - while the women IN these churches just sit there being single. And if she's lucky enough to marry a man in the church, she'll be faithful to him... but it won't be the other way around. Probably because you don't hang out with the people who would be attracted by these women. I find modestly dressed women attractive. I think there is a lot of sexiness when much is left to the imagination. Not to say I don't find the ones who "make themselves pretty" (whatever that means) though.


Yeah, faith never hurt anyone? As long as these women can convince themselves that they're not being hurt, I guess you're right. How are they hurt? Please tell me? I don't understand where you're coming from with this statement. If a woman doesn't dress up pretty in order to attract guys then she is somehow being hurt? I know many who would argue the opposite. The women who dress up in order to attract guys, especially from a young age, are hurt far more. Though from knowing your posts from the last couple of years, if one isn't screwing anything they can then they aren't living.

TJMAC77SP
02-11-2014, 08:17 PM
Nice try, except I broke it down and simplified it, instead of repeating it verbatim. That's not the same thing as reading into something, and obtaining a meaning that differs from what is said.

Actually since to 'break it down and simplify it would be an opinion of the passage it is exactly the same..............................

sandsjames
02-11-2014, 08:18 PM
...and not every Christians questions verses like these. Some will actually embrace these verses, and incorporate them into their practices. If I'm not mistaken, the verse that we're discussing right now is used by the FLDS substantiate wedding ceremonies that are performed by raping little girls. Right, and some people will actually embrace views that they should adhere to no "morals" or "standards" and actually incorporate these views into their practices.


Yep, people who worship the SAME God as you. People who believe that the SAME God that YOU worship... sanctions this. And who are you to tell them that this goes against Christianity? Who is ANYONE to tell them that? People can worship the same God without worshipping the same way. I'm nobody to tell them what is part of their belief or not. It's not up to me. We will all be judged one day and all we can do is follow the path that we believe is the right one.

sandsjames
02-11-2014, 08:37 PM
I was trying to figure out your end game with all of this and I think you finally got it. You're unhappy that some women don't pretty themselves up and throw themselves at you. If it wasn't for religion there would be more women for you to sleep with.

Rusty Jones
02-11-2014, 08:41 PM
How many have died in the name of Democracy? Does that make Democracy inherently bad?

Normally, I would name a few others issues that I take with democracy, but I hadn't thought of this. Now that you mention it...


I disagree with every premise of this statement. I don't believe women are more devout. I do feel that they are more likely to express the more traditional views because if a man does it he's labeled a chauvinist.

You forget... I wasn't always atheist. I was Christian up until about ten years ago. Whenever you went to Bible study; whenever you went to any other "extracurricular" (for lack of a better word) activity that the church participated in... it was mostly WOMEN who were there. Were we there for reasons other than faith, I'd have never set foot into a club again.


Not forced, in most cases. Is it hard for you to believe that people could choose this?

Right, because the threat of eternal damnation doesn't constitute coercion. Gotcha!


Probably because you don't hang out with the people who would be attracted by these women.

I couldn't if I wanted to. Where the hell are they?


I find modestly dressed women attractive. I think there is a lot of sexiness when much is left to the imagination. Not to say I don't find the ones who "make themselves pretty" (whatever that means) though.

When I describe modesty as mandated by certain denominations of Christianity, you probably don't know what I'm talking about. I live in Norfolk, VA... and these denominations aren't very common here. However, where I'm from - Dover, DE - they're all over the place like cockroaches in Joe's Apartment. I take it that either a) you probably don't know what I'm referring to, or b) you might, and are simply being disingenuous to avoid hurting your own argument.

When I say "modestly," I don't simply mean leaving more to the imagination. There's a bit more to it than that. Have you seen denominations that don't allow women to wear pants?


How are they hurt? Please tell me? I don't understand where you're coming from with this statement. If a woman doesn't dress up pretty in order to attract guys then she is somehow being hurt? I know many who would argue the opposite. The women who dress up in order to attract guys, especially from a young age, are hurt far more. Though from knowing your posts from the last couple of years, if one isn't screwing anything they can then they aren't living.

Again, I don't think you know what I'm talking about. Back in Dover, when I was in high school... I remember girls my age - teenagers - who dressed in such a way that they looked like somebody's grandma. Wearing muumuu dresses and shit. Long skirts down to their ankles, a pair of Reeboks, and their plain-jane hair tied back. No makeup, no nothing. People WANT to look like this? Maybe they've been conditioned to want it. But notice how no one "wants" to look like this but THEM.


Right, and some people will actually embrace views that they should adhere to no "morals" or "standards" and actually incorporate these views into their practices.

I'm failing to see how this disputes what I said.


People can worship the same God without worshipping the same way. I'm nobody to tell them what is part of their belief or not. It's not up to me. We will all be judged one day and all we can do is follow the path that we believe is the right one.

So then you condone what they do?

Rusty Jones
02-11-2014, 08:47 PM
I was trying to figure out your end game with all of this and I think you finally got it. You're unhappy that some women don't pretty themselves up and throw themselves at you. If it wasn't for religion there would be more women for you to sleep with.

Oh, gee. We've got an eight month old thread here, and modesty has only been brought up in the last hour or so. And what is it all about, according to sandsjames? Whether or not I'm getting laid!

I suppose that, being a member of the male sex; this is one of the things that I'm forced to deal with when arguing something with another man... because, after all is said and done, that's what it all comes down to... whether or not the man you're arguing with is getting laid.

Tsk, tsk. As passive aggressive as you get in your arguments, it looks like I've overestimated you.

sandsjames
02-11-2014, 09:00 PM
You forget... I wasn't always atheist. I was Christian up until about ten years ago. Whenever you went to Bible study; whenever you went to any other "extracurricular" (for lack of a better word) activity that the church participated in... it was mostly WOMEN who were there. Were we there for reasons other than faith, I'd have never set foot into a club again. The church extracurricular activities I attended were things like pot lucks, church camps, etc. There were always just as many guys as girls.




Right, because the threat of eternal damnation doesn't constitute coercion. Gotcha! You've got it backward. It's not the threat of eternal damnation, it's the promise of eternal glory. And that coercion is something I'll chase.








When I describe modesty as mandated by certain denominations of Christianity, you probably don't know what I'm talking about. I live in Norfolk, VA... and these denominations aren't very common here. However, where I'm from - Dover, DE - they're all over the place like cockroaches in Joe's Apartment. I take it that either a) you probably don't know what I'm referring to, or b) you might, and are simply being disingenuous to avoid hurting your own argument. When I say "modestly," I don't simply mean leaving more to the imagination. There's a bit more to it than that. Have you seen denominations that don't allow women to wear pants?
You don't find Mennonite women attractive? not being disingenuous at all. Just as I find traditional Muslim women attractive. It's something about wondering what's going on under there. It's the librarian thing. If a woman chooses to follow a religion that doesn't allow her to wear pants then who am I to say anything? You just assume that no educated person would choose this lifestyle. You would be mistaken.





Again, I don't think you know what I'm talking about. Back in Dover, when I was in high school... I remember girls my age - teenagers - who dressed in such a way that they looked like somebody's grandma. Wearing muumuu dresses and shit. Long skirts down to their ankles, a pair of Reeboks, and their plain-jane hair tied back. No makeup, no nothing. People WANT to look like this? Maybe they've been conditioned to want it. But notice how no one "wants" to look like this but THEM. I've seen them, I've been around them. I just think you have a hard time understanding a lack of vanity. Not surprising.




I'm failing to see how this disputes what I said. You seem to think people would make better choices without religion. I'm simply pointing out that religious and non religious people make horrible decisions. Not because of their beliefs, but because, the truth is, you find stupid people in all walks of life.




So then you condone what they do?

What who do? These rapists your talking about from centuries ago? Of course I don't condone rape. I condone people following their beliefs, whatever they may be, as long as they aren't hurting someone.

I don't support people who take advantage of a system of any beliefs in order to further their own personal agenda. I don't care what system, religion, political affiliation, etc. There are bad people in every aspect of humanity.

I do enjoy how you talk as if Christian men are going around raping women in the name of religion and somehow being supported by the Church because it's in the scripture. Times have changed, people have changed, and I'd venture to say that almost every sect of Christianity has become much more liberal (relatively) over the years.

sandsjames
02-11-2014, 09:02 PM
Oh, gee. We've got an eight month old thread here, and modesty has only been brought up in the last hour or so. And what is it all about, according to sandsjames? Whether or not I'm getting laid!

I suppose that, being a member of the male sex; this is one of the things that I'm forced to deal with when arguing something with another man... because, after all is said and done, that's what it all comes down to... whether or not the man you're arguing with is getting laid.

Tsk, tsk. As passive aggressive as you get in your arguments, it looks like I've overestimated you.

You yourself stated that these women aren't attractive and should want to appear more attractive. If you have an explanation as to why your statements are valid then maybe I'll bite. Why do you care how women you wouldn't be interest in look when they go out in public? Why does it matter to you at all?

USN - Retired
02-11-2014, 09:30 PM
Great! Don't forget to throw out your toilet paper, and stock your bathroom with Bibles!

If we get rid of the Bible and also the Christian religion in our country, then all we have left is Darwin's theory of natural selection - the strong live and the weak die. It is the way of nature. A poor, i.e. weak, person is a person who has substandard/weak genes and should be left to die. Don't blame me. Blame nature. It goes against nature to help a weak and poor person live because that person's inferior/weak genes will just degrade the human species and may lead to our extinction. Name another species that takes care of their poor and their weak (excluding species that take care of their healthy offspring).

Of course, the poor and the weak will attempt to attack us with shaming language in an attempt to get us to provide them with valuable and limited resources, but their shaming language is really nothing more than a pathetic attempt by the poor and the weak to cling to life.

Without Christianity and other organized religions, there is very little standing in the way of a potential leader/tyrant like Caligula. Caligula was the type of leader that commonly ruled in the world back before Christianity was accepted by the leaders in Rome in the 3rd century, and Caligula is the type of leader that would again commonly exist in a world without religion. Caligula embodies Darwin's theory of natural selection - the strong live and the weak die.


Belief doesn't harm anyone? Gee, how many times have we discussed the millions that have died over the centuries in the name of religion, particular in the name of the Abrahamic God? .

How many people have died in the name of socialism and communism?

Rusty Jones
02-11-2014, 09:30 PM
The church extracurricular activities I attended were things like pot lucks, church camps, etc. There were always just as many guys as girls.

The "fun" activities. What about the others where faith is strictly the only purpose?


You've got it backward. It's not the threat of eternal damnation, it's the promise of eternal glory. And that coercion is something I'll chase.

Regardless, it's external motivation.


You don't find Mennonite women attractive?

Nope.


not being disingenuous at all. Just as I find traditional Muslim women attractive. It's something about wondering what's going on under there. It's the librarian thing. If a woman chooses to follow a religion that doesn't allow her to wear pants then who am I to say anything? You just assume that no educated person would choose this lifestyle. You would be mistaken.

I'm not saying no educated person would. However, no properly enlightened person would.


I've seen them, I've been around them. I just think you have a hard time understanding a lack of vanity. Not surprising.

Yet, I stand by what I said about the things I've seen... I've attended a few of these churches, as I had friends who were members of such denominations. A lot of stuff going on that everybody knows about, yet won't say anything about.

What's really interesting is that the men in these religions can look however they want. They sport the last brand name clothes and styles, get the latest haircuts, etc, etc... but the women? Nope. They have to look like someone's grandma. Women are held to the standard, but the men aren't held to any. Nope, no oppression here!


You seem to think people would make better choices without religion. I'm simply pointing out that religious and non religious people make horrible decisions. Not because of their beliefs, but because, the truth is, you find stupid people in all walks of life.

Of course! But I'm talking about enjoying life, without worrying about heaven or hell. I've been where you've been. I know what it's like. It's much better over here.


What who do? These rapists your talking about from centuries ago?

No, I'm talking about rapists NOW. I mentioned the FLDS, or did you forget?


Of course I don't condone rape. I condone people following their beliefs, whatever they may be, as long as they aren't hurting someone.

Even if the Bible sanctions acts that involve hurting others?


I don't support people who take advantage of a system of any beliefs in order to further their own personal agenda. I don't care what system, religion, political affiliation, etc. There are bad people in every aspect of humanity.

Is it really "taking advantage of a system" when they're simply living within its constraints?


I do enjoy how you talk as if Christian men are going around raping women in the name of religion and somehow being supported by the Church because it's in the scripture. Times have changed, people have changed, and I'd venture to say that almost every sect of Christianity has become much more liberal (relatively) over the years.

The problem is... it still IS happening. Quit acting like you're not aware.


You yourself stated that these women aren't attractive and should want to appear more attractive. If you have an explanation as to why your statements are valid then maybe I'll bite. Why do you care how women you wouldn't be interest in look when they go out in public? Why does it matter to you at all?

I'm not worried about the attractiveness; I'm worried about the very thing that they subject themselves to that makes them look the way they look. Meanwhile, men who are of the SAME religion can look like they belong on the cover of GQ if they want. I'll at least give the Amish credit, as the men are held to an equivalent standard as the women, but... for everyone else? The women are being oppressed.

Rusty Jones
02-11-2014, 09:32 PM
How many people have died in the name of socialism and communism?

Far less than have died in the name of capitalism... which includes fuedalism, imperialism, slavery, and colonialism... capitalism is responsible for ALL of those.

Stalwart
02-11-2014, 09:33 PM
Faith never has, faith is inanimate, people do. Their personal beliefs are just the excuse used to do violence, which may or may not be a misinterpretation of their system of faith.

What he said.

USN - Retired
02-11-2014, 09:45 PM
Far less than have died in the name of capitalism... which includes fuedalism, imperialism, slavery, and colonialism... capitalism is responsible for ALL of those.

That's because capitalism has a really big head start on communism and socialism. The Soviets experimented with socialism, communism and atheism and they got a leader like Caligula, i.e. Joseph Stalin. Just sayin'.

And all that talk reminded me of a classic quote from a really great movie...

"Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, 'I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me.' Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus." ~Ferris Bueller

sandsjames
02-11-2014, 10:39 PM
The "fun" activities. What about the others where faith is strictly the only purpose? Like what? Bible study type stuff? Or is there something else you're talking about? The bible study thing I see the same as a book club. You don't get a whole lot of (straight) guys attending book clubs, or any other clubs that don't involve sports. Not limited to religion.




Regardless, it's external motivation. Is there anything that doesn't have external motivation? Getting a job? Having a family? Going to the bar? They all have external motivation.








I'm not saying no educated person would. However, no properly enlightened person would. And by enlightened you mean non-religious because they are mutually exclusive.




Yet, I stand by what I said about the things I've seen... I've attended a few of these churches, as I had friends who were members of such denominations. A lot of stuff going on that everybody knows about, yet won't say anything about.

What's really interesting is that the men in these religions can look however they want. They sport the last brand name clothes and styles, get the latest haircuts, etc, etc... but the women? Nope. They have to look like someone's grandma. Women are held to the standard, but the men aren't held to any. Nope, no oppression here! Only oppression if the women don't choose to live this way. If they are forced to stay around then I'll agree with you. And I'm sure it happens. But for the most part it's a choice made by the person.




Of course! But I'm talking about enjoying life, without worrying about heaven or hell. I've been where you've been. I know what it's like. It's much better over here. It's a shame you think I haven't been enjoying my life. It's a shame you don't feel that a traditional religious person is enjoying life. They just don't find the same things enjoyable as you do.








Even if the Bible sanctions acts that involve hurting others? It doesn't sanction hurting anyone. It tells what the consequences of hurting others will be. Big difference.




Is it really "taking advantage of a system" when they're simply living within its constraints? Again, you seem to be saying the bible says it's ok to rape a woman. It does not. It says that if you do, this is what happens.




The problem is... it still IS happening. Quit acting like you're not aware. Yes, it happens. It happens in religious communities. It happens in non religious communities. Guess what...religious people are just as flawed as everyone else.




I'm not worried about the attractiveness; I'm worried about the very thing that they subject themselves to that makes them look the way they look. Meanwhile, men who are of the SAME religion can look like they belong on the cover of GQ if they want. I'll at least give the Amish credit, as the men are held to an equivalent standard as the women, but... for everyone else? The women are being oppressed. So what??? If they are happy this way then who gives a shit? And don't pretend you're concerned with the oppression of women in these religions. You are simply using it as an excuse to attempt to prove your point.

E4RUMOR
02-12-2014, 01:03 AM
Evidence is only required to substantiate a meaning if it differs from what is said. Other than that, what is said is said, and is there in black and white.



It would be, except that's not what I'm doing.



Nice try, except I broke it down and simplified it, instead of repeating it verbatim. That's not the same thing as reading into something, and obtaining a meaning that differs from what is said.

Human beings deserve a little more credit? I doubt it. What's the difference between a psychopath, a cult, and a religion? If one person believes something, he or she is a psychopath. If few people believe it, it's a cult. If many people believe it, it's a religion.

Yeah, talk about giving humans credit...


And that is why I am scratching my head, because what does it say about a god who has no problem with people who seize virgins, provided to pay fifty shekels of silver to the girl's father, but only if they are "found out."

I can only conclude that I have a higher moral code than any jackass of a god that would allow such a passage to be written in "his book."

Ok, let's break this down Barney Style. Rusty, you blatantly said, and I quote: "Save it. Because you DON'T know what it means. All you know is what it SAYS."

You then proceeded to pick two verses out of Deuteronomy to validate your point. Upon posting those verses, you "broke it down and simplified it, instead of repeating it verbatim." How is that different from reading into what is said, and obtaining a different meaning? If NO ONE can know what a verse means, and only what is said, how do YOU know what that verse means?

If you don't know, and it's just your opinion of what the verse means by breaking it down to simpler terms, how are you not simply doing the same thing you're criticizing? I understand this might seem mind-blowing, but if I can recognize this, surely someone of your intellect can recognize how your words conflict with your statement that "you DON'T know".

So I reiterate: Are you sure everyone doesn't know what verses mean?

As far as people's remarks concerning confusion with the Dueteronomy verse, you should read my entire response to Rusty. The bold is key, hence the double tap of the verse:

abiding by your (Rusty's) logic the following verse, “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.",

simply means:

“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

Case in point: It's not open for interpretation or simplification based off Rusty's logic. If you think about it, according to Rusty's logic, you can't even pretend to say you understand the meaning. You can only read it. If it's not open to interpretation, there's really no reason to find fault with it. Why? It's simply writing on paper, and according to Rusty humans do not possess the credit to discover the meaning. Remember: Because you DON'T know what it means. All you know is what it SAYS."[/B]

However, if it does actually mean something, and can be interpreted, then Rusty contradicts his own view by interpreting or "simplifying" it, inevitably, so he can spin his own view on it.

Now lets address the following from Rusty:

"Human beings deserve a little more credit? I doubt it. What's the difference between a psychopath, a cult, and a religion? If one person believes something, he or she is a psychopath. If few people believe it, it's a cult. If many people believe it, it's a religion."

Is this true? Is it accurate? Ok, if so, it must apply to everyone, including Rusty.

Rusty, you hold the belief that God does not exist, correct? You hold the belief that the Bible is full of contradictions and fairy tales, correct? Does that make you a psychopath? Couple yourself and your atheist friends who hold the same belief. Does that make you a cult? Let's take all the atheists across the globe who hold the same belief - is that a religion?

I am reminded of a quote from a UC Berkeley law professor which goes like this: "One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs."

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-12-2014, 12:14 PM
Gee, I just love it when people feel like they have "unfinished business" with me... and they try to follow me around with their bullshit to other threads.

Ive had posts on this thread for a while now. Sorry you have a guilty conscience about leaving something unresolved somewhere else.

Rusty Jones
02-12-2014, 02:57 PM
Like what? Bible study type stuff? Or is there something else you're talking about? The bible study thing I see the same as a book club. You don't get a whole lot of (straight) guys attending book clubs, or any other clubs that don't involve sports. Not limited to religion.

Yes, but... women are still more generally devoted to religion than men. There are far more women doing what your sister is than men.


Is there anything that doesn't have external motivation? Getting a job? Having a family? Going to the bar? They all have external motivation.

Yes. In fact, every example you just gave, has internal motivation. Well... getting a job might be through external motivation for most. But since when has having a family become a means to an end?


And by enlightened you mean non-religious because they are mutually exclusive.

This doesn't make sense, but okay.


Only oppression if the women don't choose to live this way. If they are forced to stay around then I'll agree with you. And I'm sure it happens. But for the most part it's a choice made by the person.

Or if they were raised to believe that it's the only way to live.



It's a shame you think I haven't been enjoying my life. It's a shame you don't feel that a traditional religious person is enjoying life. They just don't find the same things enjoyable as you do.

I don't know what your denomination is, or what your religion says you can or can't do. But think about this: if you're Jewish, you can't eat bacon or shrimp. Guess what? I can eat both. In fact, I can eat some delicious bacon-wrapped shrimp. Too bad Jews can't eat that. Sucks for them! Me? I'll take a whole plate, please!

What does YOUR religion say you can't do? Me? I can do whatever I want, as long as I'm not committing a crime.


It doesn't sanction hurting anyone. It tells what the consequences of hurting others will be. Big difference.

Yeah, I love how it punishes the women for GETTING raped.


Again, you seem to be saying the bible says it's ok to rape a woman. It does not. It says that if you do, this is what happens.

You get rewarded with a wife.


Yes, it happens. It happens in religious communities. It happens in non religious communities. Guess what...religious people are just as flawed as everyone else.

Yep, but at least in non-religious communities; the perpetrator has no one or nothing to point the finger to but himself. There's no Bible or god that told him that it was okay for him to do what he did.


So what??? If they are happy this way then who gives a shit? And don't pretend you're concerned with the oppression of women in these religions. You are simply using it as an excuse to attempt to prove your point.

Oh, please. I initially brought up how modesty has a negative impact on women in the churches that practiced it a few pages ago. Hell, I've been talking about how religion has adversely impacted women when Joe was here.

What I'm seeing here... is you trying to cop out of addressing the double standard that I brought up in churches that impose modesty rules on women ONLY.


Ok, let's break this down Barney Style. Rusty, you blatantly said, and I quote: "Save it. Because you DON'T know what it means. All you know is what it SAYS."

You then proceeded to pick two verses out of Deuteronomy to validate your point. Upon posting those verses, you "broke it down and simplified it, instead of repeating it verbatim." How is that different from reading into what is said, and obtaining a different meaning? If NO ONE can know what a verse means, and only what is said, how do YOU know what that verse means?

If you don't know, and it's just your opinion of what the verse means by breaking it down to simpler terms, how are you not simply doing the same thing you're criticizing? I understand this might seem mind-blowing, but if I can recognize this, surely someone of your intellect can recognize how your words conflict with your statement that "you DON'T know".

So I reiterate: Are you sure everyone doesn't know what verses mean?

As far as people's remarks concerning confusion with the Dueteronomy verse, you should read my entire response to Rusty. The bold is key, hence the double tap of the verse:

abiding by your (Rusty's) logic the following verse, “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.",

simply means:

“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

Case in point: It's not open for interpretation or simplification based off Rusty's logic. If you think about it, according to Rusty's logic, you can't even pretend to say you understand the meaning. You can only read it. If it's not open to interpretation, there's really no reason to find fault with it. Why? It's simply writing on paper, and according to Rusty humans do not possess the credit to discover the meaning. Remember: Because you DON'T know what it means. All you know is what it SAYS."[/B]

However, if it does actually mean something, and can be interpreted, then Rusty contradicts his own view by interpreting or "simplifying" it, inevitably, so he can spin his own view on it.

Now lets address the following from Rusty:

"Human beings deserve a little more credit? I doubt it. What's the difference between a psychopath, a cult, and a religion? If one person believes something, he or she is a psychopath. If few people believe it, it's a cult. If many people believe it, it's a religion."

Is this true? Is it accurate? Ok, if so, it must apply to everyone, including Rusty.

Rusty, you hold the belief that God does not exist, correct? You hold the belief that the Bible is full of contradictions and fairy tales, correct? Does that make you a psychopath? Couple yourself and your atheist friends who hold the same belief. Does that make you a cult? Let's take all the atheists across the globe who hold the same belief - is that a religion?

I am reminded of a quote from a UC Berkeley law professor which goes like this: "One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs."

See, here's your problem... instead of going off of what I SAID, you're going off of what you think I mean.

I'm gonna say it again - I said what the verse said, just not verbatim. I didn't change the meaning. Quit wasting parts of your day with this. Again, I said what it said. End of discussion.


Ive had posts on this thread for a while now. Sorry you have a guilty conscience about leaving something unresolved somewhere else.

What's your problem? You have OCD? You can't let shit go, at least until we're in the proper thread again?

Absinthe Anecdote
02-12-2014, 03:25 PM
Ok, let's break this down Barney Style. Rusty, you blatantly said, and I quote: "Save it. Because you DON'T know what it means. All you know is what it SAYS."

You then proceeded to pick two verses out of Deuteronomy to validate your point. Upon posting those verses, you "broke it down and simplified it, instead of repeating it verbatim." How is that different from reading into what is said, and obtaining a different meaning? If NO ONE can know what a verse means, and only what is said, how do YOU know what that verse means?

If you don't know, and it's just your opinion of what the verse means by breaking it down to simpler terms, how are you not simply doing the same thing you're criticizing? I understand this might seem mind-blowing, but if I can recognize this, surely someone of your intellect can recognize how your words conflict with your statement that "you DON'T know".

So I reiterate: Are you sure everyone doesn't know what verses mean?

As far as people's remarks concerning confusion with the Dueteronomy verse, you should read my entire response to Rusty. The bold is key, hence the double tap of the verse:

abiding by your (Rusty's) logic the following verse, “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.",

simply means:

“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

Case in point: It's not open for interpretation or simplification based off Rusty's logic. If you think about it, according to Rusty's logic, you can't even pretend to say you understand the meaning. You can only read it. If it's not open to interpretation, there's really no reason to find fault with it. Why? It's simply writing on paper, and according to Rusty humans do not possess the credit to discover the meaning. Remember: Because you DON'T know what it means. All you know is what it SAYS."[/B]

However, if it does actually mean something, and can be interpreted, then Rusty contradicts his own view by interpreting or "simplifying" it, inevitably, so he can spin his own view on it.

Now lets address the following from Rusty:

"Human beings deserve a little more credit? I doubt it. What's the difference between a psychopath, a cult, and a religion? If one person believes something, he or she is a psychopath. If few people believe it, it's a cult. If many people believe it, it's a religion."

Is this true? Is it accurate? Ok, if so, it must apply to everyone, including Rusty.

Rusty, you hold the belief that God does not exist, correct? You hold the belief that the Bible is full of contradictions and fairy tales, correct? Does that make you a psychopath? Couple yourself and your atheist friends who hold the same belief. Does that make you a cult? Let's take all the atheists across the globe who hold the same belief - is that a religion?

I am reminded of a quote from a UC Berkeley law professor which goes like this: "One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs."

I understand that bible verse just fine, and conclude that I have a higher moral code than a god that sanctions the raping of women, provided they pay the victim's father fifty shekels.

What I don't understand is your post or your position on this issue, despite your attempt to break it down "Barney Style."

Rusty Jones
02-12-2014, 03:36 PM
I understand that bible verse just fine, and conclude that I have a higher moral code than a god that sanctions the raping of women, provided they pay the victim's father fifty shekels.

What I don't understand is your post or your position on this issue, despite your attempt to break it down "Barney Style."

Dude, E4Rumor is trying to play semantics games. I don't have time for that. It's very plain to see that he's not trying to convince anyone of anything, or gain the understanding of others on a certain point of view. He only cares about winning an argument, even if that argument is not the "meat and potatoes" of the discussion. If he can win at a semantics game, it's still a "W" for him. Just let him have it.

DocBones
02-12-2014, 03:46 PM
The New Testament fulfilled the Old Testament. All of the OT 'rules and regulations' are dropped, because Jesus came to offer a new hope (basically), open to all of man kind, not only to the Jews.

I see a lot of Mennonite women, from babies up to those ready for the grave, daily. At least, when I can look at faces unadorned by wearing pounds or makeup, I actually see the gals look like. The long skirts remind me of high school, when the granny skirts became popular.

So far, I haven't seen any of the girl types wearing tennis shoes made out of recycled AF reflective belts. That's a good thing, isn't it?

USN - Retired
02-12-2014, 04:00 PM
The current version of the Bible, while arguably imperfect, does provide a moral compass. It has been the Bible and Christianity that has contributed to the moral development of the western culture over the past 2000 years. In our society today, the Bible and Christianity serve as a moderating influence on western culture. If we were to completely eliminate the Bible and Christianity from our culture, then we would have a leader like Caligula in a generation or two.

Rusty Jones
02-12-2014, 04:04 PM
The New Testament fulfilled the Old Testament. All of the OT 'rules and regulations' are dropped, because Jesus came to offer a new hope (basically), open to all of man kind, not only to the Jews.

However, there are 300,000+ Christian denominations, and not all of them believe that it's as simple as following the two greatest commandments. Many, if not most, believe that following "the law" (or at least the ones that the denomination chooses out of convenience) is how one fulfills the first greatest commandment... while others believe it to be the other way around.


I see a lot of Mennonite women, from babies up to those ready for the grave, daily. At least, when I can look at faces unadorned by wearing pounds or makeup, I actually see the gals look like. The long skirts remind me of high school, when the granny skirts became popular.

And you know something else? Modesty rules are based on Old Testament laws. You don't even see Jewish women following them, so why Christian women? It doesn't make sense. And it's not just Mennonite women. FLDS women are subject to modesty rules, as well as women who belong to certain Pentecostal sects.

Modesty rules are in place for control reasons. To control the sexuality of the women by making them less desirable to men, and to aid the men's inability to control themselves.


So far, I haven't seen any of the girl types wearing tennis shoes made out of recycled AF reflective belts. That's a good thing, isn't it?

Not that it can get much worse, but I'll grant you that.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-12-2014, 04:07 PM
The New Testament fulfilled the Old Testament. All of the OT 'rules and regulations' are dropped, because Jesus came to offer a new hope (basically), open to all of man kind, not only to the Jews.

I see a lot of Mennonite women, from babies up to those ready for the grave, daily. At least, when I can look at faces unadorned by wearing pounds or makeup, I actually see the gals look like. The long skirts remind me of high school, when the granny skirts became popular.

So far, I haven't seen any of the girl types wearing tennis shoes made out of recycled AF reflective belts. That's a good thing, isn't it?

You might want to read the New Testament again.

Matthew 5:17
New International Version (NIV)
The Fulfillment of the Law

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Rusty Jones
02-12-2014, 04:25 PM
You might want to read the New Testament again.

Matthew 5:17
New International Version (NIV)
The Fulfillment of the Law

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

There are verses in the New Testament that contradict this. In fact, this is probably the most self-contradictory topic in the New Testament. And this is exactly why there are Christians who follow Old Testament laws, and those who don't.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-12-2014, 04:35 PM
There are verses in the New Testament that contradict this. In fact, this is probably the most self-contradictory topic in the New Testament. And this is exactly why there are Christians who follow Old Testament laws, and those who don't.

That leads me to conclude that I must be more logical than a god that allows contradictions in his book.

OR

A perfect god had nothing to do with the bible.

THEN


The bible was written by men and is not divine.

IF SO, THEN

God is very likely an imperfect creation of man.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-12-2014, 04:40 PM
What's your problem? You have OCD? You can't let shit go, at least until we're in the proper thread again?
Wow, really? I cant let things go? The point of my post was to counter your idea that the bible is written in "black and white" and you were saying there is not interpretation allowed in the contents from the version you posted. I was showing you how the english language is twisted and turned by liberals all the time, not only with the bible, but with the constitution as well. One was written in a certain language and had been translated over centuries into many different languages. The other was written in English at a very basic level that even the po dunk farmer could understand. You want to have people read the bible a certain way and not give any leeway to how its interpretid while the constitution is twisted and turned and has things injected into it from other places to get the desired results. I am on topic, just giving an example of how you are wrong on this topic.

sandsjames
02-12-2014, 04:46 PM
Yes, but... women are still more generally devoted to religion than men. There are far more women doing what your sister is than men. And?




Yes. In fact, every example you just gave, has internal motivation. Well... getting a job might be through external motivation for most. But since when has having a family become a means to an end? You don't think people get external motivation for families? Hmmm...lets see...parents want grandchildren. Keeping the family line going. Taxes. Just to name a few.




Or if they were raised to believe that it's the only way to live. I still don't see the point. Because you've been taught something your whole life means you can't be happy following that lifestyle? Again, you seem to think most people are forced to live this way.





I don't know what your denomination is, or what your religion says you can or can't do. But think about this: if you're Jewish, you can't eat bacon or shrimp. Guess what? I can eat both. In fact, I can eat some delicious bacon-wrapped shrimp. Too bad Jews can't eat that. Sucks for them! Me? I'll take a whole plate, please! Actually, it says you can't eat it either. And (belaboring the point) does it take being able to do this to be happy? It does not.


What does YOUR religion say you can't do? Me? I can do whatever I want, as long as I'm not committing a crime. Kill, cheat, lie, judge, cheat on my wife, etc. Damn, those are some horrible rules I have to follow.




Yeah, I love how it punishes the women for GETTING raped. Was there a lot of this going on in the churches you were raised in? Raping of women, etc?




You get rewarded with a wife. You are completely missing the point of the verse, even though you broke it down and simplified it. The meaning of the verse, in my opinion, is that if you sleep with a woman, you are now tied to her. It's a message about not screwing a chick unless you were married, or the results of screwing the woman were marriage. But for some reason you have one, and only one, possible meaning of the word seize.




Yep, but at least in non-religious communities; the perpetrator has no one or nothing to point the finger to but himself. There's no Bible or god that told him that it was okay for him to do what he did. Keep telling yourself the bible says that it's ok to rape women. And keep telling yourself that your interpretation is the only way to interpret that verse. Now I have to get back to dominating my harem, as that's what God told me to do.




Oh, please. I initially brought up how modesty has a negative impact on women in the churches that practiced it a few pages ago. Hell, I've been talking about how religion has adversely impacted women when Joe was here. Yep, all those adversely impacted women. You should see the discourse on the faces of the women I know. Man, are they miserable.


What I'm seeing here... is you trying to cop out of addressing the double standard that I brought up in churches that impose modesty rules on women ONLY. There is a "double standard" in traditional religion, for sure. And, this may surprise you, but there are plenty of women who enjoy being house wives, raising the children, taking care of the home. And they choose to do it.

sandsjames
02-12-2014, 04:48 PM
That leads me to conclude that I must be more logical than a god that allows contradictions in his book.

OR

A perfect god had nothing to do with the bible.

THEN


The bible was written by men and is not divine.

IF SO, THEN

God is very likely an imperfect creation of man.

You nailed it!!!! Get this out to the world!!! If only someone had argued this in the past we wouldn't have religion. Thank "God" for your logic.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-12-2014, 05:01 PM
WILDJOKER5

You sound very far off topic to me, you are still talking about how crafty liberals are with the English language.

You could have just said, "People have trouble interpreting the meaning of the US Constitution, a document only 226 years old, and you expect them to agree on a collection of books cobbled together from numerous unknown authors over the course of several centuries?"

Instead, you chose to come in here and regurgitate a bunch of anti-liberal talking points from some cheesy AM radio station.

We are trying to study the scripture in this thread, not politics.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-12-2014, 05:07 PM
You nailed it!!!! Get this out to the world!!! If only someone had argued this in the past we wouldn't have religion. Thank "God" for your logic.

Thanks man, but the truth is, I am just a humble retired MSgt with a big ass dick.

I don't need any special recognition.

Rusty Jones
02-12-2014, 05:19 PM
Wow, really? I cant let things go? The point of my post was to counter your idea that the bible is written in "black and white" and you were saying there is not interpretation allowed in the contents from the version you posted. I was showing you how the english language is twisted and turned by liberals all the time, not only with the bible, but with the constitution as well. One was written in a certain language and had been translated over centuries into many different languages. The other was written in English at a very basic level that even the po dunk farmer could understand. You want to have people read the bible a certain way and not give any leeway to how its interpretid while the constitution is twisted and turned and has things injected into it from other places to get the desired results. I am on topic, just giving an example of how you are wrong on this topic.

Yep, you come at me in here trying to relate this discussion to "liberals" and the "Constitution." Is there a thread that I stopped posting in, where I left you to play ping-pong by yourself? Do you need me to go back there, so you have someone to play with?

Either way, this thread isn't the place for that.


And?

The fact that you see no problem with this speaks volumes. When it comes to religion, women appear to be far more easier than men to manipulate and, no doubt, men use this to their advantage.


You don't think people get external motivation for families? Hmmm...lets see...parents want grandchildren. Keeping the family line going. Taxes. Just to name a few.

Maybe those are YOUR motivations. I have a family specifically because I wanted a family. Nothing else.



I still don't see the point. Because you've been taught something your whole life means you can't be happy following that lifestyle? Again, you seem to think most people are forced to live this way.

This reminds me... just before the Civil Rights Era, many blacks in the South actually weren't onboard for organizing a moevement. You know why? Because they grew up in Jim Crow, and that's what they were used to. That's the life they accepted, because they didn't know any other way. And... you saw many white southerners at the time, who were pissed off at Northerners, for screwing up the contenment that black Southerners lived in at the time.

Moral of the story? Maybe the women in these denominations are happy, maybe they're not. But even if they are... it still doesn't change the fact that these women are victims of their religion.



Actually, it says you can't eat it either. And (belaboring the point) does it take being able to do this to be happy? It does not.

Oh, I dunno. You take away my bacon and tell me that I can never eat it again, I'm not gonna be very happy. I'm pretty sure that most people will second that.


Kill, cheat, lie, judge, cheat on my wife, etc. Damn, those are some horrible rules I have to follow.

Right, because the Bible ONLY forbids you to commit acts with victims... right? There are no victimless sins in the Bible, right? Come on now, you CONVENIENTLY ignored that!


Was there a lot of this going on in the churches you were raised in? Raping of women, etc?

Maybe, maybe not. I really don't know what's going on behind the closed doors of the people in those congregations. I'm pretty sure that Eddie Long's congregation didn't know that he was butt-fucking teenage boys. If it was going on in any of the churches I attended, I wouldn't be shocked. If it's going on in so many other churches, why should I think it never happened in any of the churches I'VE attended?


You are completely missing the point of the verse, even though you broke it down and simplified it. The meaning of the verse, in my opinion, is that if you sleep with a woman, you are now tied to her. It's a message about not screwing a chick unless you were married, or the results of screwing the woman were marriage. But for some reason you have one, and only one, possible meaning of the word seize.

Yes... and if you want a wife, you have your pick of the litter... ANY woman you want, as long as she's not betrothed. You want her as your wife, and she or her family won't agree? There's always Plan B. And it's in the Bible.


Keep telling yourself the bible says that it's ok to rape women. And keep telling yourself that your interpretation is the only way to interpret that verse.

You know what the funny thing is? If you show this SAME verse to other Christians, they will all tell you what it "really" means... and the meanings they give won't be the same. So which of those meanings do you follow? Sorry, but you really have no other option but to fall back on what it SAYS.


Now I have to get back to dominating my harem, as that's what God told me to do.

Exactly. That's why religion is fucked up. God tells you to do fucked up shit.


Yep, all those adversely impacted women. You should see the discourse on the faces of the women I know. Man, are they miserable.

Just like all of those blacks in the south before the civil Rights Era who were content living under Jim Crow. Because you can only be fucked if you KNOW you're getting fucked, right?


There is a "double standard" in traditional religion, for sure. And, this may surprise you, but there are plenty of women who enjoy being house wives, raising the children, taking care of the home. And they choose to do it.

Since when were we talking about the examples that you gave?

Absinthe Anecdote
02-12-2014, 06:48 PM
There are verses in the New Testament that contradict this. In fact, this is probably the most self-contradictory topic in the New Testament. And this is exactly why there are Christians who follow Old Testament laws, and those who don't.

You know, now that I read Matthew 5:17 again, and the subsequent passages, I think that all of the Old Testament Laws certainly were not abolished.

Matthew 5:17-20
New International Version (NIV)

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

I think what confuses people are instances where Jesus does not observe ceremonial laws, like not washing your hands before eating or claiming food can't make you unholy, but only your actions.

Also things like working on the Sabbath: (Matthew 12:1-14, Mark 2:23-28, 3:1-6, Luke 6:1-11, 13:10-17, 14:1-6, John 5:1-18)

However, it is very clear to me that there are obvious contradictions between Matthew 5:17-20 and elsewhere in the text.

This is clearly an indication that a divine and perfect entity was not involved in the editing of the bible.

Your average high school English paper has less contradictions in logic.

It is hard for me to take the early Christian Church seriously when all they came up with is an incoherent text.

The only way to make it work is to ignore their mistakes and make an endless stream of excuses for crafting such a lousy text.

I claim that the vast majority of practicing Christians don't even read the bible and just rely on what their minister tells them.

USN - Retired
02-12-2014, 07:01 PM
God tells you to do fucked up shit.

Deut. 15:7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

Deut. 26:12. When you have finished paying the complete tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and the widow, that they may eat in your towns, and be satisfied.

Lev. 19:19ff. Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God.

Prov. 31:8ff. [Commandment to kings.] Open your mouth for the dumb, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.

Is. 58:66ff. Is this not the fast which I choose, to loosen the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into the house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?

Jer. 22:3. Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.

Luke 12:33. "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys."

Luke 3:11. And [John the Baptist] would answer and say to them, "Let the man with two tunics share with him who has none, and let him who has food do likewise."

Mt. 5:42. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

====================================


This is clearly an indication that a divine and perfect entity was not involved in the editing of the bible..

The bible was edited by the First Council of Nicaea in the 3rd century AD. Many would argue that the First Council of Nicaea was far from perfect and divine.

Rusty Jones
02-12-2014, 07:19 PM
The only way to make it work is to ignore their mistakes and make an endless stream of excuses for crafting such a lousy text.

This, right here.

Rusty Jones
02-12-2014, 07:42 PM
Deut. 15:7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

Deut. 26:12. When you have finished paying the complete tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and the widow, that they may eat in your towns, and be satisfied.

Lev. 19:19ff. Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God.

Prov. 31:8ff. [Commandment to kings.] Open your mouth for the dumb, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.

Is. 58:66ff. Is this not the fast which I choose, to loosen the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into the house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?

Jer. 22:3. Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.

Luke 12:33. "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys."

Luke 3:11. And [John the Baptist] would answer and say to them, "Let the man with two tunics share with him who has none, and let him who has food do likewise."

Mt. 5:42. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

This doesn't take away from God telling people to do fucked up shit.


The bible was edited by the First Council of Nicaea in the 3rd century AD. Many would argue that the First Council of Nicaea was far from perfect and divine.

Maybe by Christians. The Old Testament has been edited by Jews since at least 600 BC, after the exile from Babylon. In fact, I would rely on an Old Testament in the Christian Bible before I would rely on the Tanakh, since Christians have far less of a stake in what it contains. The edits in the Tanakh actually cover up early Jewish polytheism far more than the Old Testament in the Christian Bible.

sandsjames
02-12-2014, 07:45 PM
Yep, you come at me in here trying to relate this discussion to "liberals" and the "Constitution." Is there a thread that I stopped posting in, where I left you to play ping-pong by yourself? Do you need me to go back there, so you have someone to play with?

Either way, this thread isn't the place for that.



The fact that you see no problem with this speaks volumes. When it comes to religion, women appear to be far more easier than men to manipulate and, no doubt, men use this to their advantage.



Maybe those are YOUR motivations. I have a family specifically because I wanted a family. Nothing else.




This reminds me... just before the Civil Rights Era, many blacks in the South actually weren't onboard for organizing a moevement. You know why? Because they grew up in Jim Crow, and that's what they were used to. That's the life they accepted, because they didn't know any other way. And... you saw many white southerners at the time, who were pissed off at Northerners, for screwing up the contenment that black Southerners lived in at the time.

Moral of the story? Maybe the women in these denominations are happy, maybe they're not. But even if they are... it still doesn't change the fact that these women are victims of their religion.




Oh, I dunno. You take away my bacon and tell me that I can never eat it again, I'm not gonna be very happy. I'm pretty sure that most people will second that.



Right, because the Bible ONLY forbids you to commit acts with victims... right? There are no victimless sins in the Bible, right? Come on now, you CONVENIENTLY ignored that!



Maybe, maybe not. I really don't know what's going on behind the closed doors of the people in those congregations. I'm pretty sure that Eddie Long's congregation didn't know that he was butt-fucking teenage boys. If it was going on in any of the churches I attended, I wouldn't be shocked. If it's going on in so many other churches, why should I think it never happened in any of the churches I'VE attended?



Yes... and if you want a wife, you have your pick of the litter... ANY woman you want, as long as she's not betrothed. You want her as your wife, and she or her family won't agree? There's always Plan B. And it's in the Bible.



You know what the funny thing is? If you show this SAME verse to other Christians, they will all tell you what it "really" means... and the meanings they give won't be the same. So which of those meanings do you follow? Sorry, but you really have no other option but to fall back on what it SAYS.



Exactly. That's why religion is fucked up. God tells you to do fucked up shit.



Just like all of those blacks in the south before the civil Rights Era who were content living under Jim Crow. Because you can only be fucked if you KNOW you're getting fucked, right?



Since when were we talking about the examples that you gave?

I find it very hard to believe that you think, especially in today's day and age, that the majority of people are uneducated, unhappy, and unable to make a choice or decision about their religious beliefs. I also find it hard to believe that YOU actually believe (as you make it sound) that a large number of men are going around dominating and raping women in the name of religion and, that when they do it, there is no consequences and everyone turns their head. Is that really what you believe? I doubt that even you are that ignorant.

DocBones
02-12-2014, 07:50 PM
AbsintheAnecdote,

You are correct. I was half asleep when I said that the NT fulfilled the OT. Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophecies.

The OT, to Christians, is a history of the Jewish people, largely, while the NT is a telling of Jesus and his doings, and a new set of rules for those that went (and do go) Christian.

sandsjames
02-12-2014, 07:50 PM
You know, now that I read Matthew 5:17 again, and the subsequent passages, I think that all of the Old Testament Laws certainly were not abolished.

Matthew 5:17-20
New International Version (NIV)

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

I think what confuses people are instances where Jesus does not observe ceremonial laws, like not washing your hands before eating or claiming food can't make you unholy, but only your actions.

Also things like working on the Sabbath: (Matthew 12:1-14, Mark 2:23-28, 3:1-6, Luke 6:1-11, 13:10-17, 14:1-6, John 5:1-18)

However, it is very clear to me that there are obvious contradictions between Matthew 5:17-20 and elsewhere in the text.

This is clearly an indication that a divine and perfect entity was not involved in the editing of the bible.

Your average high school English paper has less contradictions in logic.

It is hard for me to take the early Christian Church seriously when all they came up with is an incoherent text.

The only way to make it work is to ignore their mistakes and make an endless stream of excuses for crafting such a lousy text.

I claim that the vast majority of practicing Christians don't even read the bible and just rely on what their minister tells them.

Almost every chapter in the New Testament was written by a different person. Obviously things will be written differently. I'm sure you've played the telephone game when you were younger. Sit down and brief 10 troops on what you expect of them. Then, as them to write down what you expect of them. I promise you that all 10 papers you receive back will have differences. Does that mean that your expectations weren't clear? Not at all. That means that people look at, and receive, information differently.

And I can't take Shakespeare seriously because of all the incoherent text but, as you know, in the time it was written the language and speech was much different.

USN - Retired
02-12-2014, 07:50 PM
This doesn't take away from God telling people to do fucked up shit..


So are you saying that there is a God? If yes, then do we know what he said, i.e. his rules, commandments, etc?

Are you saying that God really told us to do fucked up shit?

sandsjames
02-12-2014, 07:51 PM
AbsintheAnecdote,

You are correct. I was half asleep when I said that the NT fulfilled the OT. Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophecies.

The OT, to Christians, is a history of the Jewish people, largely, while the NT is a telling of Jesus and his doings, and a new set of rules for those that went (and do go) Christian.

Not a new set of rules. The old set of rules clarified, for the most part. Also, for the most part, the old rules expanded upon.

Rusty Jones
02-12-2014, 08:29 PM
I find it very hard to believe that you think, especially in today's day and age, that the majority of people are uneducated, unhappy, and unable to make a choice or decision about their religious beliefs.

Have you ever heard the phrase "not of this world," without quoting Jesus? Many Christian denominations use this phrase to substantiate a practice of separating themselves from the rest of society, and rejecting anything secular. For example, some denominations forbid listening to secular music. Others forbid watching TV or using computers.

So... it IS indeed possible for people to be living a religious life in a vacuum. In this day and age, it is STILL happening. And you KNOW this. Quit acting like you don't.


I also find it hard to believe that YOU actually believe (as you make it sound) that a large number of men are going around dominating and raping women in the name of religion and, that when they do it, there is no consequences and everyone turns their head. Is that really what you believe? I doubt that even you are that ignorant.

I'm not going to debate the semantics of the terminology and/phraseology of things like "a large number," but do you at least acknowledge that it's happening? Hell, Christians have been pointing the finger at Muslims for years for this, while ignoring other denominations within their own religion.


Almost every chapter in the New Testament was written by a different person. Obviously things will be written differently. I'm sure you've played the telephone game when you were younger. Sit down and brief 10 troops on what you expect of them. Then, as them to write down what you expect of them. I promise you that all 10 papers you receive back will have differences. Does that mean that your expectations weren't clear? Not at all. That means that people look at, and receive, information differently.

Aren't Christians supposed to believe that the Bible is "The Word of God," and therefore inerrant? And that ALL of the authors were under the influence of the Holy Spirit when writing these texts?

To say what you're saying would be to deny all that. You might want to keep your words on this short and sweet, in case you have to eat them later.


And I can't take Shakespeare seriously because of all the incoherent text but, as you know, in the time it was written the language and speech was much different.

At least his works aren't considered a religious text. Well, not be anyone that we'd consider "sane."


So are you saying that there is a God? If yes, then do we know what he said, i.e. his rules, commandments, etc?

Are you saying that God really told us to do fucked up shit?

If I told you that I watched Terminator last night, and that the Terminator tried to kill Sarah Connor but got destroyed by Sarah Connor in the end, does that mean that I believe these characters were real, and that the events really did take place?

I've already stated what my beliefs are, numerous times on MTF. I'm speaking in a context that provides ease of conversation. Let's not resort to what E4Rumor is resorting to (i.e., trying to find something to "win" at). Let's stick to the meat and potatoes of the discussion.

SomeRandomGuy
02-12-2014, 08:52 PM
Have you ever heard the phrase "not of this world," without quoting Jesus?

Sure have. I win, I win!

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/6/20/4450342/nba-finals-2013-game-7-spurs-heat-lebron-james-gif

USN - Retired
02-12-2014, 09:20 PM
If I told you that I watched Terminator last night, and that the Terminator tried to kill Sarah Connor but got destroyed by Sarah Connor in the end, does that mean that I believe these characters were real, and that the events really did take place?

I've already stated what my beliefs are, numerous times on MTF. I'm speaking in a context that provides ease of conversation. Let's not resort to what E4Rumor is resorting to (i.e., trying to find something to "win" at). Let's stick to the meat and potatoes of the discussion.

Interesting dodge of my questions... I'll try some other questions.

If there is no God and the Christian bible is nothing more than fiction, then what does that leave us with, i.e. are we really nothing more than smart apes?
If we are nothing more than smart apes, then why should I care about the poor, sick and weak? Nature and Darwin's theory of natural selection says that I should not?

By dismissing the Bible, you have thrown out the baby with the bath water.

Rusty Jones
02-12-2014, 09:29 PM
Interesting dodge of my questions... I'll try some other questions.

*sigh*... okay.


If there is no God and the Christian bible is nothing more than fiction, then what does that leave us with, i.e. are we really nothing more than smart apes?

Correct. Even according to science. Chimpanzees and bonobos are more closely related to humans than to gorillas. With that being said, the word "ape" can only be used if it either a) excludes chimpanzees and bonobos in addition to humans, or b) includes humans.

In science, they go by b).


If we are nothing more than smart apes, then why should I care about the poor, sick and weak? Nature and Darwin's theory of natural selection says that I should not?

No, it doesn't say that you shouldn't. It's simply an explanation of what is carried on the the next generation. Plenty of animals care for eachother in the animal kingdom. There's no contradiction here.


By dismissing the Bible, you have thrown out the baby with the bath water.

Nope. Try again.

TJMAC77SP
02-12-2014, 09:35 PM
Far less than have died in the name of capitalism... which includes fuedalism, imperialism, slavery, and colonialism... capitalism is responsible for ALL of those.

Actually I would argue that faith is the result of what you have erroneously called capitalism. I think what you were getting at is economics were responsible. For instance, feudalism is about the exact opposite of capitalism.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-12-2014, 09:53 PM
Interesting dodge of my questions... I'll try some other questions.

If there is no God and the Christian bible is nothing more than fiction, then what does that leave us with, i.e. are we really nothing more than smart apes?
If we are nothing more than smart apes, then why should I care about the poor, sick and weak? Nature and Darwin's theory of natural selection says that I should not?

By dismissing the Bible, you have thrown out the baby with the bath water.

Humanity has clearly developed a moral code during the course of our existence. You think it came from a divine being and I think it is something our species created.

If you need a heavenly Santa Claus like figure keeping tabs on you and promising you a reward for good behavior, well, that is very sad.

If it turns out that you are right, don't you think that god will know that goodness doesn't really exist in your heart. He might even pull up that post you just made on judgement day as evidence against you.

I look at the bible as proof that man created his own morals, you can actually see those morals evolve over the course of the text.

Would not a perfect entity such as a god be able to get it right the first time?

USN - Retired
02-12-2014, 09:56 PM
No, it doesn't say that you shouldn't. It's simply an explanation of what is carried on the the next generation. Plenty of animals care for eachother in the animal kingdom. There's no contradiction here..

It appears that you have been watching too many Disney films. In nature, the strong (and lucky) survive and the weak (and unlucky) die. Survival of the fittest. Name another species that take care of their poor and their weak (and I am not talking about species that take care of their healthy offspring). In nature, the weak are left to die.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-12-2014, 10:04 PM
It appears that you have been watching too many Disney films. In nature, the strong (and lucky) survive and the weak (and unlucky) die. Survival of the fittest. Name another species that take care of their poor and their weak (and I am not talking about species that take care of their healthy offspring). In nature, the weak are left to die.

So you don't think the human species is part of nature?

Taking care of the weak and sick is a set of behaviors that our species developed, it doesn't mean that our tendency for altruism came from a god.

Besides, there are plenty of instances in human history when strong humans kill weak humans and leave the sick to die.

It still happens to this very day.

USN - Retired
02-12-2014, 10:24 PM
Humanity has clearly developed a moral code during the course of our existence. You think it came from a divine being and I think it is something our species created.

Perhaps the moral code was created by rulers (or people who want to be rulers) to control the masses.


...You think it came from a..... .

I seriously doubt that you know what I think.


If you need a heavenly Santa Claus like figure keeping tabs on you and promising you a reward for good behavior, well, that is very sad.

Interesting use of shaming language. Obviously, you are hoping to control me. I won't work. Nature is full of sad events, e.g. lion killing a gazelle.


, ....well, that is very sad....

And nature doesn't care that you are sad.


If it turns out that you are right, don't you think that god will know that goodness doesn't really exist in your heart. He might even pull up that post you just made on judgement day as evidence against you.

I'm just asking questions. There is no commandment against trolling (as far as I know).


I look at the bible as proof that man created his own morals, you can actually see those morals evolve over the course of the text.

Again, perhaps those so-called morals were created by the rulers to control the masses. Many people believe that Constantine embraced Christianity in the 3rd century because he knew that he could use Christianity and the morals of Christianity to control the masses.


Would not a perfect entity such as a god be able to get it right the first time?

Perhaps God is just testing us.... If life were easy, it wouldn't be much of a test.

USN - Retired
02-12-2014, 10:28 PM
Taking care of the weak and sick is a set of behaviors that our species developed, .

Are those "set of behaviors" mandatory or optional?

Absinthe Anecdote
02-12-2014, 10:48 PM
Are those "set of behaviors" mandatory or optional?

We try to enforce some of them as a group, but I would not consider them mandatory in the mind of each individual since many us them break them all the time.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-12-2014, 11:17 PM
Perhaps the moral code was created by rulers (or people who want to be rulers) to control the masses.



I seriously doubt that you know what I think.


You seemed to be defending Christianity tooth and nail, but you are right, I don't know what you think. If it is something other than what you are posting here, then it is your fault that you are being misunderstood.



Interesting use of shaming language. Obviously, you are hoping to control me. I won't work.


Why is it shaming that I made a comparison between god and Santa Claus?

They have a lot more in common than they have differences. Granted, Santa is merely omniscient, while god is purported to be omnipotent. If you feel shamed that I pointed that out, I suggest you evaluate your belief in Santa like deities.



Nature is full of sad events, e.g. lion killing a gazelle.
And nature doesn't care that you are sad.


I never made a claim to the contrary.

What I claimed was sad, is your apparent need for a reward in order to behave in a kind and gentle manner toward the sick and weak.



I'm just asking questions. There is no commandment against trolling (as far as I know).


Don't have a clue what you are talking about here.



Again, perhaps those so-called morals were created by the rulers to control the masses. Many people believe that Constantine embraced Christianity in the 3rd century because he knew that he could use Christianity and the morals of Christianity to control the masses.


Ok, but codes for human morality go back much further than the 3rd century.



Perhaps God is just testing us.... If life were easy, it wouldn't be much of a test.

Or perhaps humanity is just a wonderful mistake; if it is a being, like the god of Abraham that toys with us and asks us to kill our sons, in order to test us, well, then I think he is a big jerk.

BENDER56
02-12-2014, 11:19 PM
Do not think I am joining this fray, because I am not. These discussions are nothing more than individuals expressing their deeply entrenched beliefs and refusing to budge in the face of others' opposing, deeply entrenched beliefs. Religious belief and faith is just that -- belief and faith. It cares not for logic or science or empirically derived facts. If that were the case, we would have proven/disproven the existence of God a long time ago.

But irks me to see misinformation go unchallenged.


If we get rid of the Bible and also the Christian religion in our country, then all we have left is Darwin's theory of natural selection - the strong live and the weak die. It is the way of nature. A poor, i.e. weak, person is a person who has substandard/weak genes and should be left to die. Don't blame me. Blame nature. It goes against nature to help a weak and poor person live because that person's inferior/weak genes will just degrade the human species and may lead to our extinction. Name another species that takes care of their poor and their weak (excluding species that take care of their healthy offspring).

First of all, if we "get rid of the Bible and also the Christian religion in our country" we aren't left with nothing but Darwin's natural selection. We will still have Judaism and Islam and Hinduism and Confucianism and Mormonism, etc., etc.

As to Darwin; evolutionary theory has far outstripped what Darwin first proposed and to call it "Darwin's theory of natural selection" is like calling quantum mechanics "Plank's theory of physics." Evolutionary theory never proposed that, as you say, "the strong live and the weak die," -- not today and not in Darwin's time. You might be thinking of Herbert Spenser's use of the phrase, "The survival of the fittest." Darwin did eventually use the same phrase, but "fitness" in evolutionary theory refers to a specie's capability to out-reproduce it's competitors over thousands of years, and to adapt mutations that promote this favorability. This doesn't happen within the lifespan of any individual organism, hence, no one is "left to die" because within our own short lifetimes we don't know who has the advantageous or disadvantageous mutations that will lead to reproductive advantage or disadvantage over the next few millennia. Oh, and just because a person is sickly doesn't mean he carries bad genetics -- he could also be carrying some mutation that will eventually lead to the overall strengthening of the entire human gene pool. You could put the sickly person to death, but only out of ignorance.

Here's a list of animals who care for the less fortunate among them. (Yeah, it's Wikipedia -- go ahead and pretend it doesn't count.):

Dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels, ducks, and even tigers.[10]
Wolves and wild dogs bring meat back to members of the pack not present at the kill.[citation needed]
Mongooses support elderly, sick, or injured animals[citation needed]
Meerkats often have one standing guard to warn whilst the rest feed in case of predator attack.
Raccoons inform conspecifics about feeding grounds by droppings left on commonly shared latrines. A similar information system has been observed to be used by common ravens.[11]
Male baboons threaten predators and cover the rear as the troop retreats.[citation needed]
Gibbons and chimpanzees with food will, in response to a gesture, share their food with others of the group.[citation needed] Chimpanzees will help humans and conspecifics without any reward in return.[12]
Bonobos have been observed aiding injured or handicapped bonobos.[13]
Vampire bats commonly regurgitate blood to share with unlucky or sick roost mates that have been unable to find a meal, often forming a buddy system.[14][15]
Vervet Monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked.[16]
Lemurs of all ages and of both sexes will take care of infants unrelated to them.[citation needed]
Dolphins support sick or injured animals, swimming under them for hours at a time and pushing them to the surface so they can breathe.[17]
Walruses have been seen adopting orphans who lost their parents to predators.[18]
African buffalo will rescue a member of the herd captured by predators.[citation needed]

In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives support in raising its young from other "helper" birds, including help with the feeding of its fledglings.[19] Some will even go as far as protecting an unrelated bird's young from predators [20]


Some termites and ants release a sticky secretion by fatally rupturing a specialized gland. This autothysis altruistically aids the colony at the expense of the individual insect. For example, defending against invading ants by creating a tar baby effect.[21] This can be attributed to the fact that ants share their genes with the entire colony, and so this behaviour is evolutionarily beneficial (not necessarily for the individual ant but for the continuation of its specific genetic make-up).

An interesting example of altruism is found in the cellular slime moulds, such as Dictyostelium mucoroides. These protists live as individual amoebae until starved, at which point they aggregate and form a multicellular fruiting body in which some cells sacrifice themselves to promote the survival of other cells in the fruiting body.[3]

Without Christianity and other organized religions, there is very little standing in the way of a potential leader/tyrant like Caligula. Caligula was the type of leader that commonly ruled in the world back before Christianity was accepted by the leaders in Rome in the 3rd century, and Caligula is the type of leader that would again commonly exist in a world without religion. Caligula embodies Darwin's theory of natural selection - the strong live and the weak die.

Not sure which way you want it -- you say, "Without Christianity and other organized religions" we're doomed to suffer under tyrants such as Caligula. For ancient Romans, religion was a part of everyday life and they considered themselves to be quite pious. So why didn't their religious beliefs prevent Caligula's accession as Emperor? But I suppose their polytheistic religion doesn't count in your view. But Caligula has reappeared many, many times during our Christian era. He reappeared as Hitler and Stalin and Ceaușescu and Mugabe and Amin and al-Assad and Pol Pot and Nicholas II and Leopold II and the list goes on and on.

That's all I wanted to say. Now y'all go back to ignoring each others' comments and believing what you already believe.

sandsjames
02-13-2014, 12:12 AM
Have you ever heard the phrase "not of this world," without quoting Jesus? Many Christian denominations use this phrase to substantiate a practice of separating themselves from the rest of society, and rejecting anything secular. For example, some denominations forbid listening to secular music. Others forbid watching TV or using computers.

So... it IS indeed possible for people to be living a religious life in a vacuum. In this day and age, it is STILL happening. And you KNOW this. Quit acting like you don't. Absolutely people live that way, without the music, technology, etc. I still can't figure out what your issue is with that. But you were discussing the rampant rapes that are taking place in these religions.




I'm not going to debate the semantics of the terminology and/phraseology of things like "a large number," but do you at least acknowledge that it's happening? Hell, Christians have been pointing the finger at Muslims for years for this, while ignoring other denominations within their own religion. I'm not debating that at all. Of course it happens. Just as there is voter fraud and welfare fraud there is also religious fraud. There are people in all walks of life that will take advantage of any system in place for their own personal gain.




Aren't Christians supposed to believe that the Bible is "The Word of God," and therefore inerrant? And that ALL of the authors were under the influence of the Holy Spirit when writing these texts? Ok?


To say what you're saying would be to deny all that. You might want to keep your words on this short and sweet, in case you have to eat them later. Not once did I deny any of it happening. I'm just stating that there are people who enjoy this sort of lifestyle and you can't seem to understand how that could happen without it being forced upon them.

sandsjames
02-13-2014, 12:20 AM
Or perhaps humanity is just a wonderful mistake; if it is a being, like the god of Abraham that toys with us and asks us to kill our sons, in order to test us, well, then I think he is a big jerk.

It's about faith. If everything in the bible was cut and dry, there would be no need for faith. Faith, in my opinion, is what is going to determine who is saved and who is not.

And, let's assume I am wrong? Let's assume that there is no God, no afterlife, no reward. I've still lived my life, I believe, without intentionally hurting others and trying my best to treat others with respect. I'm law abiding, love my wife, take care of my family, pay my bills, etc. So, even if there is no God, how am I any worse off than if I didn't believe? If I didn't believe in God would I be out womanizing, stealing, etc? I would hope not because that's not the kind of lifestyle I choose to lead, even if there was no God.

USN - Retired
02-13-2014, 02:04 AM
Here's a list of animals who care for the less fortunate among them. (Yeah, it's Wikipedia -- go ahead and pretend it doesn't count.):

[I]Dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels, ducks, and even tigers.[10]
Wolves and wild dogs bring meat back to members of the pack not present at the kill.[citation needed]
Mongooses support elderly, sick, or injured animals[citation needed]
Meerkats often have one standing guard to warn whilst the rest feed in case of predator attack.
Raccoons inform conspecifics about feeding grounds by droppings left on commonly shared latrines. A similar information system has been observed to be used by common ravens.[11]
Male baboons threaten predators and cover the rear as the troop retreats.[citation needed]
Gibbons and chimpanzees with food will, in response to a gesture, share their food with others of the group.[citation needed] Chimpanzees will help humans and conspecifics without any reward in return.[12]
Bonobos have been observed aiding injured or handicapped bonobos.[13]
Vampire bats commonly regurgitate blood to share with unlucky or sick roost mates that have been unable to find a meal, often forming a buddy system.[14][15]
Vervet Monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked.[16]
Lemurs of all ages and of both sexes will take care of infants unrelated to them.[citation needed]
Dolphins support sick or injured animals, swimming under them for hours at a time and pushing them to the surface so they can breathe.[17]
Walruses have been seen adopting orphans who lost their parents to predators.[18]
African buffalo will rescue a member of the herd captured by predators.[citation needed]

In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives support in raising its young from other "helper" birds, including help with the feeding of its fledglings.[19] Some will even go as far as protecting an unrelated bird's young from predators [20].

Apples and Oranges. The animals are not following a "moral code". They are simply behaving instinctively. Altruism in animals is not identical to the everyday concept of altruism in humans. In humans, an action would only be called "altruistic" if it was done with the conscious intention of helping another. But in the animal behavior sense there is no such requirement. Indeed, some of the most interesting examples of altruism in animals are found among species that are presumably not capable of conscious thought, e.g. insects. When apparent altruism is not between kin, it may be based on reciprocity. A monkey will present its back to another monkey, who will pick out parasites; after a time the roles will be reversed. Such reciprocity will pay off, in evolutionary terms, as long as the costs of helping are less than the benefits of being helped and as long as animals will not gain in the long run by "cheating" – that is to say, by receiving favors without returning them.

The examples that you citied are misleading. Dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels, ducks, and even tigers because of a parental bonding with a pseudo- offspring. A male baboons who threatens predators and covers the rear as the troop retreats is just protecting his mate and offspring. Dolphins usually only support sick or injured infants. Dolphins don't usually support other adult dolphins, and actually they often treat each other in a brutal manner, especially male dolphins. And the example about Bonobos is questionable at best. Your bird example is just another example of parental bonding with a pseudo-offspring, i.e., parental instinct.


For ancient Romans, religion was a part of everyday life and they considered themselves to be quite pious. So why didn't their religious beliefs prevent Caligula's accession as Emperor? But I suppose their polytheistic religion doesn't count in your view.

Correct. Their polytheistic religion didn't really have a moral code to follow. More to follow about ancient Rome in my next post. Please stay tuned.


But Caligula has reappeared many, many times during our Christian era. He reappeared as Hitler and Stalin and Ceaușescu and Mugabe and Amin and al-Assad and Pol Pot and Nicholas II and Leopold II and the list goes on and on..

Good examples of leaders who felt no obligation to follow a Christian moral code.

So here's the question: what happens if Christianity disappears from our Western culture?

Will we live in some kind of socialist utopia with benevolent and honest rulers? -Or-

Will some tyrant take control and force us into some new dark age of terror? What does history suggest? Just askin'

USN - Retired
02-13-2014, 02:23 AM
You seemed to be defending Christianity tooth and nail, but you are right, I don't know what you think. If it is something other than what you are posting here, then it is your fault that you are being misunderstood.

I'm just asking questions and making observations, i.e. trolling. A troll doesn't need to be understood. A troll usually wants to be somewhat of a mystery. The purpose of a troll is to ask questions and make observations that will cause chaos and pandemonium.


If you feel shamed that I pointed that out, I suggest you evaluate your belief in Santa like deities..

I didn't say that I felt shame. I said that you failed in your attempt to use shaming language. Please try to keep up.


What I claimed was sad, is your apparent need for a reward in order to behave in a kind and gentle manner toward the sick and weak..

Not just me. All humans.
And nature still doesn't care that you are sad. Does that make you sad?


Ok, but codes for human morality go back much further than the 3rd century. .

Human morality was very sketchy back before Christianity was accepted by the Roman leaders in the 3rd century. Before the 3rd century, the Romans fed Christians to the lions, forced gladiators to fight to the death and saw nothing wrong with slavery. It was not a fun time for most people. In the Western world, human morality has developed significantly in the past 1700 years. In the past 200 years, the development of human morality has been especially strong and fast in the Western world (although it does appear to be leveling off or maybe even starting to decline).


Don't have a clue what you are talking about here..

Do you really not know what an internet troll is?

Absinthe Anecdote
02-13-2014, 05:01 AM
It's about faith. If everything in the bible was cut and dry, there would be no need for faith. Faith, in my opinion, is what is going to determine who is saved and who is not.

I am unable to look at it from only that perspective; I have far too many questions and see too many flaws in Christianity to just ignore them, and then, call myself virtuous for it.

I'll agree that faith is the only thing holding that belief system up; it certainly isn't an omnipotent and perfect god that is holding it up.

He needs you to believe in him, in order for him to exist; in other words, you have the power to make the Christian god wink out of existence. Just like the Greek and Roman gods, the Norse gods, the Egyptian gods, and even Santa Claus, the Christian god ceases to exist the second you stop believing in him.



And, let's assume I am wrong? Let's assume that there is no God, no afterlife, no reward. I've still lived my life, I believe, without intentionally hurting others and trying my best to treat others with respect. I'm law abiding, love my wife, take care of my family, pay my bills, etc. So, even if there is no God, how am I any worse off than if I didn't believe? If I didn't believe in God would I be out womanizing, stealing, etc? I would hope not because that's not the kind of lifestyle I choose to lead, even if there was no God.

That is Pascal's Wager, my own father subscribes to that way of thinking, I can not.

I see it as selling your mind for the mere possibility of a reward; to me, that is a very shallow and insincere philosophy.

If an omnipotent god did exist, I would much rather be judged as an atheist than a proponent of Pascal's Wager.

As far as turning into an immoral lawbreaking, womanizing thief, no, that does not happen when you stop believing in god.

USN - Retired
02-13-2014, 06:26 AM
Or perhaps humanity is just a wonderful mistake; if it is a being, like the god of Abraham that toys with us and asks us to kill our sons, in order to test us, well, then I think he is a big jerk.


"A wise man, recognizing that the world is but an illusion, does not act as if it is real, so he escapes the suffering." ~ Buddha

sandsjames
02-13-2014, 01:50 PM
That is Pascal's Wager, my own father subscribes to that way of thinking, I can not.

I see it as selling your mind for the mere possibility of a reward; to me, that is a very shallow and insincere philosophy.

If an omnipotent god did exist, I would much rather be judged as an atheist than a proponent of Pascal's Wager.

As far as turning into an immoral lawbreaking, womanizing thief, no, that does not happen when you stop believing in god.


By no means am I saying that I only believe just in case. I was just saying that if I live my life the way I believe is the right way to live and I'm not hurting anyone then what does it matter to you and others if I believe or not?

kool-aid
02-13-2014, 02:12 PM
This is one way to get some traffic flowing back on here, revisit a popular topic like merits and failures of religion. Now I'm waiting for us to go back to bashing and supporting LBGT folks.

kool-aid
02-13-2014, 02:15 PM
Perhaps God is just testing us.... If life were easy, it wouldn't be much of a test.

Goes to the argument of how can you now happiness if you've never experienced sadness. The hard times make us appreciate the good times more, supposedly. How would you know you like a Big Mac unless you have tried a nasty McRib to compare it to? lol

kool-aid
02-13-2014, 02:23 PM
It's about faith. If everything in the bible was cut and dry, there would be no need for faith. Faith, in my opinion, is what is going to determine who is saved and who is not.

And, let's assume I am wrong? Let's assume that there is no God, no afterlife, no reward. I've still lived my life, I believe, without intentionally hurting others and trying my best to treat others with respect. I'm law abiding, love my wife, take care of my family, pay my bills, etc. So, even if there is no God, how am I any worse off than if I didn't believe? If I didn't believe in God would I be out womanizing, stealing, etc? I would hope not because that's not the kind of lifestyle I choose to lead, even if there was no God.

You aren't supposed to live and do things a certain way only because of a fear of Hell as a Christian, you are supposed to live and do certain things because they are right. It just so happens that if you try to live by the current tenants of non-denominational christianity, you would be living as a decent, productive member of society as a result anyway.

sandsjames
02-13-2014, 02:44 PM
You aren't supposed to live and do things a certain way only because of a fear of Hell as a Christian, you are supposed to live and do certain things because they are right. It just so happens that if you try to live by the current tenants of non-denominational christianity, you would be living as a decent, productive member of society as a result anyway.

I agree...and hopefully that's the point I was making, especially in the posts where I said it wasn't about the threat of hell but about the reward of heaven.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-13-2014, 03:03 PM
By no means am I saying that I only believe just in case. I was just saying that if I live my life the way I believe is the right way to live and I'm not hurting anyone then what does it matter to you and others if I believe or not?

I understand and I'm glad you find peace in that belief system. It doesn't work that way for me.

I know I tease you a lot, but I find it curious that you are able to look at the concept of god in that manner.

Why?

Because in matters connected with the Air Force or any other form of human authority, you come across as a very questioning person and a critical thinker.

It is funny, because I am the opposite, I let a lot of bullshit connected to the Air Force and government slide. I recognize the flaws in humanity, but they don't piss me off that much.

However, when it comes to matters of religion and the concept of faith in a creator, the flaws I see in those, bug me, and I am not able to let them slide and just "go along with it."

Do you get what I'm talking about?

AJBIGJ
02-13-2014, 03:20 PM
I like that "altruism" was brought in here, I was thinking about this the other day and especially about the works of one of the most consistent Atheists I've ever witnessed, Ayn Rand. One of my favorite reads is "The Virtue of Selfishness". In my interpretation of it, she took a particularly hard-line approach in considering self-serving actions as virtuous and altruistic actions as a vice. The one thing separating my own position on it (That selfish actions and atruistic actions can be either/or) is morality. Morality often finds itself in conflict with purely logical decision-making, because quite frankly "altruism" in any sense is never the "logical position" strictly speaking. The only morality she appeared to espouse as sancrosanct over decisions that are strictly logical were in her aversion to the use of force and violence to achieve one's ends. From a strictly logical standpoint she was exactly correct and consistent if we consider "logical" decision making to be synonymous with "virtuous" decision making. Morality and altruism particularly are the divergence. What is interesting about Modern Atheism is it usually results from a Christian founding of morality. In general there are a lot of similarilities in what is considered "moral" by the Christian faith and the divergence stems around moral issues they have chosen to reject somewhere along the line (the Leviticus position on homosexuality being an example). Not to steer the conversation away from self-righteous back-and-forths, but what are people's thoughts on "morality" where it pertains to people who, intellectually should consider themselves "amoral" but in general are not in the least?

Absinthe Anecdote
02-13-2014, 04:07 PM
I like that "altruism" was brought in here, I was thinking about this the other day and especially about the works of one of the most consistent Atheists I've ever witnessed, Ayn Rand. One of my favorite reads is "The Virtue of Selfishness". In my interpretation of it, she took a particularly hard-line approach in considering self-serving actions as virtuous and altruistic actions as a vice. The one thing separating my own position on it (That selfish actions and atruistic actions can be either/or) is morality. Morality often finds itself in conflict with purely logical decision-making, because quite frankly "altruism" in any sense is never the "logical position" strictly speaking. The only morality she appeared to espouse as sancrosanct over decisions that are strictly logical were in her aversion to the use of force and violence to achieve one's ends. From a strictly logical standpoint she was exactly correct and consistent if we consider "logical" decision making to be synonymous with "virtuous" decision making. Morality and altruism particularly are the divergence. What is interesting about Modern Atheism is it usually results from a Christian founding of morality. In general there are a lot of similarilities in what is considered "moral" by the Christian faith and the divergence stems around moral issues they have chosen to reject somewhere along the line (the Leviticus position on homosexuality being an example). Not to steer the conversation away from self-righteous back-and-forths, but what are people's thoughts on "morality" where it pertains to people who, intellectually should consider themselves "amoral" but in general are not in the least?

Interesting, I recently had a conversation about this in one of my literature classes.

I also think that an altruistic act can indeed be "self serving" in some cases. People who are charitable can be motivated by any number of reasons; ranging from the selfish, to the selfless.

As for the question in the end of your post, I view morality as a set of codes for social behavior that our species developed over the course of our existence.

Therefore, for me to consider a person to be amoral, they would have to consistently break the social norms of acceptable behavior, what psychologists call a sociopath.

Just because a person breaks a law, social rule, or cultural rule, that doesn't make them a sociopath, but what does is a consistent disregard of these boundaries.

Humans are social animals and we have a complex set of behaviors that allow us to live in large groups. To me, that is the "natural" meaning of morality, and it has nothing to do with deities, despite the fact that many of our rules developed around religious practices.

sandsjames
02-13-2014, 04:09 PM
I understand and I'm glad you find peace in that belief system. It doesn't work that way for me.

I know I tease you a lot, but I find it curious that you are able to look at the concept of god in that manner.

Why?

Because in matters connected with the Air Force or any other form of human authority, you come across as a very questioning person and a critical thinker.

It is funny, because I am the opposite, I let a lot of bullshit connected to the Air Force and government slide. I recognize the flaws in humanity, but they don't piss me off that much.

However, when it comes to matters of religion and the concept of faith in a creator, the flaws I see in those, bug me, and I am not able to let them slide and just "go along with it."

Do you get what I'm talking about?

Absolutely...and don't think that I (and many Christians) don't question the same things you bring up on a regular basis.

One thing that keeps my faith strong, when I question it, is that I cannot see everything around us as being random. My logic tells my that it had to be intelligent design. No matter how much I read about evolution, etc, I cannot picture any possible way the we came from a single cell, that the single cell has changed into what it is today.

USN - Retired
02-13-2014, 04:53 PM
I like that "altruism" was brought in here, I was thinking about this the other day and especially about the works of one of the most consistent Atheists I've ever witnessed, Ayn Rand. One of my favorite reads is "The Virtue of Selfishness". In my interpretation of it, she took a particularly hard-line approach in considering self-serving actions as virtuous and altruistic actions as a vice. The one thing separating my own position on it (That selfish actions and atruistic actions can be either/or) is morality. Morality often finds itself in conflict with purely logical decision-making, because quite frankly "altruism" in any sense is never the "logical position" strictly speaking. The only morality she appeared to espouse as sancrosanct over decisions that are strictly logical were in her aversion to the use of force and violence to achieve one's ends. From a strictly logical standpoint she was exactly correct and consistent if we consider "logical" decision making to be synonymous with "virtuous" decision making. Morality and altruism particularly are the divergence. What is interesting about Modern Atheism is it usually results from a Christian founding of morality. In general there are a lot of similarilities in what is considered "moral" by the Christian faith and the divergence stems around moral issues they have chosen to reject somewhere along the line (the Leviticus position on homosexuality being an example). Not to steer the conversation away from self-righteous back-and-forths, but what are people's thoughts on "morality" where it pertains to people who, intellectually should consider themselves "amoral" but in general are not in the least?

It appears that most of human morality comes from either the Abrahamic religions (behave nicely or you will be spanked by God when you die) or Buddhism (behave nicely or you will be reincarnated as a cockroach). The Aztecs and Incans were a very brutal people. The Romans before Constantine were a very brutal people. Hawaii in pre-contact times was a very brutal place. The development of morality did not happen overnight. It has been a slow process over many centuries. Interestingly, human morality is a relatively new concept, i.e. it began about 2000 years ago. If Christianity were to disappear from our western culture, would morality also disappear from our culture?

Our entire legal system, our concept of morality and even our culture itself basically evolved from religious law, e.g. the bible, the ten commandments, etc. While an atheist in our western culture today may reject the idea of God, they have nevertheless been considerably influenced, for better or worse, by then teachings of Christian morality.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-13-2014, 05:17 PM
Absolutely...and don't think that I (and many Christians) don't question the same things you bring up on a regular basis.

One thing that keeps my faith strong, when I question it, is that I cannot see everything around us as being random. My logic tells my that it had to be intelligent design. No matter how much I read about evolution, etc, I cannot picture any possible way the we came from a single cell, that the single cell has changed into what it is today.

A lot of people feel that way.

However, I am the opposite, the concept of an "intelligent designer" is ludicrous to me. Some designer sitting at a celestial drafting table, churning out blueprints for duckbill platypuses and vestigial appendages on puppy dog legs is something I'll never be able to embrace.

Besides, nature is far from being perfect in designing species, many are extinct because they were horribly inefficient.

Even the human body is rife with design flaws; it has a respiratory and digestive system that share the same input pipes, a urinary tract that runs through the prostate, an unneeded appendix that can kill you if it becomes inflamed.

Heck, the even the design team at Lockheed Martin would not have screwed up something as basic as that, well, probably not.

As far as life on the planet making the jump from single celled organisms, we have a few theories as to how that might have happened over the course of 4.5 billion years, but we don't really know.

Just because our knowledge is fuzzy on that particular matter, I see no need to invent an explanation that includes some supernatural character that started blinking shit into existence, "I Dream of Jeanie" style.

PS

I find a profound sense of beauty and amazement at the idea we are the result of a random set of circumstances. I can draw much more peace and comfort from being the result of circumstance, than from the story of creation in bible.

The god of the bible, who created the first batch of people, and then, drowned them because he was displeased with them, is not something to worship, but to despise.

The story of the great flood reminds me of a little boy in his backyard, burning ants with a magnifying glass. I'll never understand people who would worship a son-a-bitch who lost his cool and committed genocide.

Then, in the style of a wife beater who feels a pang of guilt for losing his temper, he gives us rainbows, and promises to never kill us with water again.

I will never understand why people believe in something so fucking absurd, and then, call that same god loving.

AJBIGJ
02-13-2014, 06:10 PM
Interesting, I recently had a conversation about this in one of my literature classes.

I also think that an altruistic act can indeed be "self serving" in some cases. People who are charitable can be motivated by any number of reasons; ranging from the selfish, to the selfless.

As for the question in the end of your post, I view morality as a set of codes for social behavior that our species developed over the course of our existence.

Therefore, for me to consider a person to be amoral, they would have to consistently break the social norms of acceptable behavior, what psychologists call a sociopath.

Just because a person breaks a law, social rule, or cultural rule, that doesn't make them a sociopath, but what does is a consistent disregard of these boundaries.

Humans are social animals and we have a complex set of behaviors that allow us to live in large groups. To me, that is the "natural" meaning of morality, and it has nothing to do with deities, despite the fact that many of our rules developed around religious practices.

I don't know if I agree that "altruism" can be "self-serving" just based on the fact that part of the definition of "altruism" requires "self-sacrficing behavior" as well. But strict definitions aside, I take a similar position on your greater context, because I do think it is important to understand that self-serving actions can and frequently are things that can benefit others simultaneously.

On your statement regarding your view of morality, what do you consider to be the source for these codes? I'm not disagreeing with the point but I would like to know what it is based in, because I hypothesize there is probably quite a substantial degree of variance, not only for Atheists but also for just about every religion we can name.

sandsjames
02-13-2014, 06:12 PM
A lot of people feel that way.

However, I am the opposite, the concept of an "intelligent designer" is ludicrous to me. Some designer sitting at a celestial drafting table, churning out blueprints for duckbill platypuses and vestigial appendages on puppy dog legs is something I'll never be able to embrace.

Besides, nature is far from being perfect in designing species, many are extinct because they were horribly inefficient.

Even the human body is rife with design flaws; it has a respiratory and digestive system that share the same input pipes, a urinary tract that runs through the prostate, an unneeded appendix that can kill you if it becomes inflamed.

Heck, the even the design team at Lockheed Martin would not have screwed up something as basic as that, well, probably not.

As far as life on the planet making the jump from single celled organisms, we have a few theories as to how that might have happened over the course of 4.5 billion years, but we don't really know.

Just because our knowledge is fuzzy on that particular matter, I see no need to invent an explanation that includes some supernatural character that started blinking shit into existence, "I Dream of Jeanie" style.

PS

I find a profound sense of beauty and amazement at the idea we are the result of a random set of circumstances. I can draw much more peace and comfort from being the result of circumstance, than from the story of creation in bible.

The god of the bible, who created the first batch of people, and then, drowned them because he was displeased with them, is not something to worship, but to despise.

The story of the great flood reminds me of a little boy in his backyard, burning ants with a magnifying glass. I'll never understand people who would worship a son-a-bitch who lost his cool and committed genocide.

Then, in the style of a wife beater who feels a pang of guilt for losing his temper, he gives us rainbows, and promises to never kill us with water again.

I will never understand why people believe in something so fucking absurd, and then, call that same god loving.


Interesting that it makes you angry enough to call it "fucking absurd". Fucking absurd is having to salute someone because they went to college, but you bought into that.

I'd also like to state that I'm not against many of the theories about our existence today. I just believe that they can all be part of the design.

And, I do believe that our bodies and design are perfect, even with the flaws. I know, perfect with flaws sounds stupid, but what we see as flaws are all part of the requirement of faith. We aren't supposed to understand, until the day we all understand.

AJBIGJ
02-13-2014, 06:14 PM
It appears that most of human morality comes from either the Abrahamic religions (behave nicely or you will be spanked by God when you die) or Buddhism (behave nicely or you will be reincarnated as a cockroach). The Aztecs and Incans were a very brutal people. The Romans before Constantine were a very brutal people. Hawaii in pre-contact times was a very brutal place. The development of morality did not happen overnight. It has been a slow process over many centuries. Interestingly, human morality is a relatively new concept, i.e. it began about 2000 years ago. If Christianity were to disappear from our western culture, would morality also disappear from our culture?

Our entire legal system, our concept of morality and even our culture itself basically evolved from religious law, e.g. the bible, the ten commandments, etc. While an atheist in our western culture today may reject the idea of God, they have nevertheless been considerably influenced, for better or worse, by then teachings of Christian morality.

But it begs the question, do we choose to be "moral" only for decidedly "selfish" reasons? Either to avert everlasting damnation or an evolutionary demotion? Or is there something more that compels us to engage in actions that are neither self-serving nor logical based on the fact that we consider them to be moral? I think that truly is an interesting question because we are often engaging in decisions that do not in any way help ourselves, sometimes going as far as sacrificing our own lives, for what could be entirely false pretenses.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-13-2014, 06:25 PM
Interesting that it makes you angry enough to call it "fucking absurd". Fucking absurd is having to salute someone because they went to college, but you bought into that.

I'd also like to state that I'm not against many of the theories about our existence today. I just believe that they can all be part of the design.

And, I do believe that our bodies and design are perfect, even with the flaws. I know, perfect with flaws sounds stupid, but what we see as flaws are all part of the requirement of faith. We aren't supposed to understand, until the day we all understand.

You got me laughing a little with the officer corps reference.

It is interesting that I harbor a lot of anger toward religion, I guess it is because I felt betrayed by it once I started poking at what I believed in all those years. Much of my anger has dissipated, but I am still capable of tossing an F-bomb or two.

That flood story gets me going every time.

I am curious about your concept of faith. Would you care to share your description of it and a few favorite bible passages regarding faith?

sandsjames
02-13-2014, 06:43 PM
You got me laughing a little with the officer corps reference.

It is interesting that I harbor a lot of anger toward religion, I guess it is because I felt betrayed by it once I started poking at what I believed in all those years. Much of my anger has dissipated, but I am still capable of tossing an F-bomb or two.

That flood story gets me going every time.

I am curious about your concept of faith. Would you care to share your description of it and a few favorite bible passages regarding faith?

I've only got 1 favorite verse in the Bible and that is the obvious John 3:16. I think that states everything that we need to know. There are thousands of little things that people argue about, especially within Christianity. But 3:16 states "whosoever". It doesn't discriminate. It doesn't say that if you don't believe in baptism, or you think that the Sabbath is Saturday and not Sunday, or you take things literally or figuratively verse by verse. It's states, matter of fact, that if you believe, if you have faith, then you will be saved.

Now this is where I find it difficult and have obvious contradiction. I believe strongly in my Christian faith. I believe that it's the right way. But I don't believe that other religions are the wrong way. Islam is a very kind religion, in it's true form. I believe that if they believe strongly enough that they are doing all they can to please God then they, too, will be saved. Even though, for me, Christianity is my basis and relies fully on my faith in Jesus, I don't assume that those who don't believe in Jesus won't be saved.

It's strange, I know. And a huge contradiction. But that's the way my religion has evolved over the years. I don't profess to know what God requires, other than knowing that the faith the person has is true.

I'd also say that I don't buy into the "young earth" concept. I don't believe that an existence of God as taught in the Bible means that there aren't other creations in other areas in the universe. Just because it wasn't in the Bible that was written for my education doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. We don't have all the answers, and weren't given them for a reason. Because if we all knew everything it would be like cheating on a test.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-13-2014, 06:59 PM
I don't know if I agree that "altruism" can be "self-serving" just based on the fact that part of the definition of "altruism" requires "self-sacrficing behavior" as well. But strict definitions aside, I take a similar position on your greater context, because I do think it is important to understand that self-serving actions can and frequently are things that can benefit others simultaneously.

On your statement regarding your view of morality, what do you consider to be the source for these codes? I'm not disagreeing with the point but I would like to know what it is based in, because I hypothesize there is probably quite a substantial degree of variance, not only for Atheists but also for just about every religion we can name.

On altruism, I was thinking that a person can quickly calculate a short-term sacrifice for a long-term gain. I'll admit that in instances where a person sacrifices their life or risks their life on behalf of another, that the standard definition makes more sense.

On the source of human morality, I see human interaction as the ultimate source. Once we started living in small groups of people, that alone required that we develop a protocol for social behavior.

Once these groups became larger and more complex, so did our need for a more intricate system of behavior, what I see as morality.

Granted, these eventually developed around religious practices, but that doesn't make the deities that our early ancestors worshipped real.

My ancestors trace back to the pagan tribes of Northern Europe where some of them worshipped spirits in trees. I doubt there are many people in Northern Europe that still believe in sprits in trees; however, we very likely have social behaviors and customs that were developed in the time we where polytheistic.

That Naval Troll, who keeps positing the question of, "What if Christianity disappeared from Western civilization?" Seems to be unaware of the fact that Christianity and Judaism are actually a hodgepodge of older polytheistic religions that they absorbed.

Human activity and human morality predate the Abrahamic religions by thousands of years. Christianity is not the source of our morality, but only an influence on the course of it's development. Our morality continues to change, right along with the nature of our social interaction.

Our morals have never been static, they have always changed as our societies and cultural groups have changed.

AJBIGJ
02-13-2014, 07:15 PM
Granted, our morals have never been static, they have always changed as our societies and cultural groups have changed.

This is the part I believe that interests me most, while the beliefs themselves have transitioned over time, it appears to be in a somewhat similar direction, as if it's steering towards an eventual outcome. What is truly remarkable to me is the sheer number of similarities between the various moral belief systems and how their concurrences tend to transition somewhat similarly as their cultures progress, even when they are not really influencing one another.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-13-2014, 07:43 PM
This is the part I believe that interests me most, while the beliefs themselves have transitioned over time, it appears to be in a somewhat similar direction, as if it's steering towards an eventual outcome. What is truly remarkable to me is the sheer number of similarities between the various moral belief systems and how their concurrences tend to transition somewhat similarly as their cultures progress, even when they are not really influencing one another.

Please explain this a little more.

Because I interpret part of your statement to mean that we are slowly moving toward a global culture, but I don't think that is what you mean.

USN - Retired
02-13-2014, 07:45 PM
On the source of human morality, I see human interaction as the ultimate source. Once we started living in small groups of people, that alone required that we develop a protocol for social behavior...

Examples include slavery, human sacrifice, and organized warfare.


Once these groups became larger and more complex, so did our need for a more intricate system of behavior, what I see as morality..

Examples includes a rigid caste system and a belief that the decisions of Kings should never be questioned


That Naval Troll, who keeps positing the question of, "What if Christianity disappeared from Western civilization?" Seems to be unaware of the fact that Christianity and Judaism are actually a hodgepodge of older polytheistic religions that they absorbed..

How did you arrive at that incorrect conclusion?


human morality predate the Abrahamic religions by thousands of years. .

That is true only if you consider slavery, rape, murder, a rigid caste system and no rights for women to be moral.


Christianity is not the source of our morality, but only an influence on the course of it's development. Our morality continues to change, right along with the nature of our social interaction..

Perhaps you, an atheist, are uncomfortable admitting that the source of your moral foundation basically comes from Christianity and a Christian culture, especially the teaching of Jesus. Perhaps I am telling you something about yourself that you'd rather not admit, even to yourself. Perhaps that is why you feel the need to attack me.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-13-2014, 08:01 PM
I've only got 1 favorite verse in the Bible and that is the obvious John 3:16. I think that states everything that we need to know. There are thousands of little things that people argue about, especially within Christianity. But 3:16 states "whosoever". It doesn't discriminate. It doesn't say that if you don't believe in baptism, or you think that the Sabbath is Saturday and not Sunday, or you take things literally or figuratively verse by verse. It's states, matter of fact, that if you believe, if you have faith, then you will be saved.

Now this is where I find it difficult and have obvious contradiction. I believe strongly in my Christian faith. I believe that it's the right way. But I don't believe that other religions are the wrong way. Islam is a very kind religion, in it's true form. I believe that if they believe strongly enough that they are doing all they can to please God then they, too, will be saved. Even though, for me, Christianity is my basis and relies fully on my faith in Jesus, I don't assume that those who don't believe in Jesus won't be saved.

It's strange, I know. And a huge contradiction. But that's the way my religion has evolved over the years. I don't profess to know what God requires, other than knowing that the faith the person has is true.

I'd also say that I don't buy into the "young earth" concept. I don't believe that an existence of God as taught in the Bible means that there aren't other creations in other areas in the universe. Just because it wasn't in the Bible that was written for my education doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. We don't have all the answers, and weren't given them for a reason. Because if we all knew everything it would be like cheating on a test.

So you have adopted an A la carte approach to Christianity?

I did that for a while, but I eventually jettisoned the entire Christian menu in favor of an Atheist menu.

I know that sounds a little snarky, but I am not trying to piss you off. This is the coolest conversation I've had in here for a long while.

However, by focusing almost entirely on John 3:16 you are ignoring large parts of the bible and there a large number of Christians that would shun you.

On the other hand, you have lots of company, because there are a great many Christians who share your view.

My question to you is, why describe yourself as a Christian? The more I talk to you, the more you sound like a Deist.

Here is a short description of deism:

Deism gained prominence in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment—especially in Britain, France, Germany, and the United States—among intellectuals raised as Christians who believed in one god, but found fault with organized religion and did not believe in supernatural events such as miracles, the inerrancy of scriptures, or the Trinity.

AJBIGJ
02-13-2014, 08:06 PM
Please explain this a little more.

Because I interpret part of your statement to mean that we are slowly moving toward a global culture, but I don't think that is what you mean.

You're correct in that. While I do think globalism of some variety may be an eventual outcome, it's not what I was referring to here. More specifically what I believe is I think most cultures do have what is essentially a variety of "moral compass" if you'll pardon the cliche. I do think cultures seem to transition towards an almost uniform direction, in an almost uniform fashion, eventually seeking a "True North" where morality is concerned. While it's true we could think of say, those who purport Sharia law or the North Korean government as being a bit behind the "power curve" where we're referring to overall societal devolopment. I do believe eventually we will wind up in essentially the same place in determining where virtue and vice truly lies. I won't go as far as predicting the day or the year or even the millenia, but I do believe we're eventually headed towards a common goal where morality is concerned.

USN - Retired
02-13-2014, 08:08 PM
I did that for a while, but I eventually jettisoned the entire Christian menu in favor of an Atheist menu.


Did you look at Buddhism?

Absinthe Anecdote
02-13-2014, 08:08 PM
Examples include slavery, human sacrifice, and organized warfare.



Examples includes a rigid caste system and a belief that the decisions of Kings should never be questioned



How did you arrive at that incorrect conclusion?



That is true only if you consider slavery, rape, murder, a rigid caste system and no rights for women to be moral.



Perhaps you, an atheist, are uncomfortable admitting that the source of your moral foundation basically comes from Christianity and a Christian culture, especially the teaching of Jesus. Perhaps I am telling you something about yourself that you'd rather not admit, even to yourself. Perhaps that is why you feel the need to attack me.

I felt the need to attack you when you described your self as a troll a couple of pages back, that coupled with your editing and selective omission of portions of my words in your bullet style quotes.

I see no reason to continue with you until clean up your act.

USN - Retired
02-13-2014, 08:13 PM
I felt the need to attack you when you described your self as a troll a couple of pages back, that coupled with your editing and selective omission of portions of my words in your bullet style quotes.

I see no reason to continue with you until clean up your act.

Did I take something you said out of context? Which words of yours did I selectively omit?

sandsjames
02-13-2014, 08:24 PM
So you have adopted an A la carte approach to Christianity?

I did that for a while, but I eventually jettisoned the entire Christian menu in favor of an Atheist menu.

I know that sounds a little snarky, but I am not trying to piss you off. This is the coolest conversation I've had in here for a long while.

However, by focusing almost entirely on John 3:16 you are ignoring large parts of the bible and there a large number of Christians that would shun you.

On the other hand, you have lots of company, because there are a great many Christians who share your view.

My question to you is, why describe yourself as a Christian? The more I talk to you, the more you sound like a Deist.

Here is a short description of deism:

Deism gained prominence in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment—especially in Britain, France, Germany, and the United States—among intellectuals raised as Christians who believed in one god, but found fault with organized religion and did not believe in supernatural events such as miracles, the inerrancy of scriptures, or the Trinity.

I don't focus completely on 3:16, but I think it makes a pretty big statement.

I guess the simplest way to explain my faith is as follows:

I believe that people can believe in God in whatever way they choose, through whatever religion they choose, as long as they really believe what they believe.

I don't feel that I am any more right or any more wrong than anyone else. I just feel that, for me, the beliefs I've chosen are the ones I must follow.

Now the trouble starts when you find someone who tells you they have all the answers. Those are the ones to stay away from.

And my question for Atheists is always the same. Why are Atheists, in general, always so intent on trying to disprove theology and do you think you will be any more successful at disproving than I would in proving it?

Absinthe Anecdote
02-13-2014, 09:15 PM
I don't focus completely on 3:16, but I think it makes a pretty big statement.

I guess the simplest way to explain my faith is as follows:

I believe that people can believe in God in whatever way they choose, through whatever religion they choose, as long as they really believe what they believe.

I don't feel that I am any more right or any more wrong than anyone else. I just feel that, for me, the beliefs I've chosen are the ones I must follow.

Now the trouble starts when you find someone who tells you they have all the answers. Those are the ones to stay away from.

And my question for Atheists is always the same. Why are Atheists, in general, always so intent on trying to disprove theology and do you think you will be any more successful at disproving than I would in proving it?

I can't speak for all Atheists, but the reason I get wrapped up in these discussions is two fold; they are immensely interesting, but they are, unfortunately, inherently frustrating.

Most of these conversations turn pointless, but sometimes they result in an intellectual stimulating exchange of ideas.

I do strongly believe that the quickest road to atheism for a Christian is through a study of their bible and the history of their religion, and that is why I always encourage Christians to read their bibles, but I don't think I could convert someone.

I would probably be delighted if I converted someone, but I never enter into one of these conversations expecting to do that.

SomeRandomGuy
02-13-2014, 09:20 PM
And my question for Atheists is always the same. Why are Atheists, in general, always so intent on trying to disprove theology and do you think you will be any more successful at disproving than I would in proving it?

I know you aren't talking to me but I wanted to chime in on this part. I'm not an athiest. If I had to describe my religious views right now I would say I am agnostic. I was raised christian and still have many christian friends. I just don't really have an appettite for religion right now. With that being said I can understand why Aithiests would try to steer christians toward athiesm. The reason is exactly the same as why christians try to convert non-christians. When you think you have found the answer it is a natural human reaction to try and help others find that answers.

Say for example you were on a journey through the desert. There are thousands of other travelers in this same desert and you are all looking for the same thing--water. Many of the travelers believe that a massive water source exists at the end of the jounrey. We will call it "The Great Oasis" and all they have to do is make it there. Along the way are several small watering holes that are very likely to dry up. The people who believe in the water at the end will very rarely enjoy the water along the way. They say their reward is at the end and they don't mind going thirsty in the meantime. At all of the watering holes along the way people who do not believe in "The Great Oasis" are simply enjoying the water they have now. Some of them bathe in it, swim in it, and a few have even brewed some beer with it. Now imagine you are one of the people who used to believe in "The Great Oasis" but somehow you figure out no such thing exists and it is just one giant lie. Woudln't you want to convince the weary travelers that they should stop and enjoy some of your water since we are all going to die anyways?

sandsjames
02-13-2014, 09:39 PM
I can't speak for all Atheists, but the reason I get wrapped up in these discussions is two fold; they are immensely interesting, but they are, unfortunately, inherently frustrating.

Most of these conversations turn pointless, but sometimes they result in an intellectual stimulating exchange of ideas.

I do strongly believe that the quickest road to atheism for a Christian is through a study of their bible and the history of their religion, and that is why I always encourage Christians to read their bibles, but I don't think I could convert someone.

I would probably be delighted if I converted someone, but I never enter into one of these conversations expecting to do that.

Why would you be delighted? That's what I don't understand. There's an innate need for many Atheists to try to move someone away from their religion. I just can't fathom a reason behind it. What would you possibly gain by this?

What frustrates me is that (and I'm sure there is plenty of evidence on this board) the majority of these discussions are started by Atheists, and it always includes the verses that are controversial. It's almost as if you search the bible for that "Gotcha" verse. I'm extremely curious as to why I never see Atheists bring up the verses about taking care of people, supporting people, loving people. This is one thing I can give Joe Bonham (I think that's the 3rd mention he's received over the past couple days) credit for is that he has stated several times that the message behind Christianity is a good one, even though he doesn't agree with the theory of the religion.

I really enjoy these discussions because they make me think about my religion. But never, for one second, have they made me think about turning away from it. As a matter of fact they only strengthen my faith and, for that, I thank people like you.

I just wish that, for once, a discussion could be had without Atheists throwing out all the negatives they can possibly find. I always thought Atheism was just about not believing, but I'm coming to realize that it's actually about trying to discredit everyone who does.