• Create Account

Banner advertising on our site currently available from just \$5!

Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

134 replies to this topic

#101 landlocked   Members   -  Reputation: 103

Posted 06 June 2011 - 03:11 PM

The mandates that are man-made are the ones that have no basis is scripture. For you to be able to pin point which ones those are will take your study of the scriptures. Don't expect an easy out. It is up to you to discover and read for yourself.

You said yourself the scripture is man-made and context-specific. Are you saying the New Testament is God's Word but it must be read through a filter of understanding that it specifically applies to the culture and time at which it was written? Does that mean each person is personally responsible for studying that culture and time to know how much of a grain of salt to take when reading the New Testament? What about the various cultures who have translated the New Testament before it reached your eyes? How is a Good Christian to know what is legitimately God's word and what they inserted, distorted, or removed?

Mostly, yes, each person is responsible for knowing the context of why and where scripture was written. Without that knowledge how can they hope to understand what is really being said? This knowledge can largely be gained though talking with each other and study groups but in the end it is ultimately up to the individual. That doesn't mean you have to be an expert on each culture as a whole. That just means you should take care enough to look into the issues of the times and situations that lead to it being written. It's like people in the future looking at us in the States for passing the Patriot Act without knowing the facts about 9/11 and determining that ALL people should be subject to the Patriot Act even though all crime has been solved at that time. It's just plainly irresponsible.

How is a Good Christian woman supposed to know how deferential and submissive she should be to her husband, for example? The New Testament is pretty clear that a woman should obey her husband, but is that not simply the way things were then? Haven't we come a long way since then? But how do we know that's not what God wants? How can a Good Christian tell?

She is to be as submissive as he is to her. Again, the bible is clear on this.

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Ephesians 5:22-33

In there there is no greater and there is no lesser. They are equal for in order to love you do not seek to take advantage, to consider her, to do things for her, etc.

As far as knowing when to tell that is only determined through careful consideration, collaboration with other believers and most importantly prayer.

My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry,

James 1:19

What about the Old Testament? How do you pick and choose what to believe from that? That's obviously written to a culture much older than the New Testament, and with very different ideas... and yet, Jesus said:

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. 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. 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.

Matthew 5:17-19 (NIV)

How does a Good Christian know whether to cut off his own hand for masturbating, or whether to gouge his own eye out for lusting?

While you could do that it is better to remove yourself from being tempted than to lose limbs. Cutting off an appendage is an easy way out. Christ said that it is the lust in the heart that causes a man to stumble and it's hate in the heart that causes him to murder. The Bible is about reconciling the inner self with our creator. We are internally broken and through Christ we can be healed. That's the ultimate message of the Bible.

How does a Good Christian know whether he or she will spend eternity in Hell for the sin of divorce?

Don't divorce? If there's an issue of violence or other abuse then just leave.

How does a Good Christian know whether The Pledge of Allegiance is a sin, since he specifically says that to make an oath comes from the evil one?

You're not remembering the scripture correctly here.

Above all, my brothers, do not swear--not by heaven or by earth or by
anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be
condemned.

James 5:12

This is speaking about making promises. The Pledge of Allegiance is okay I suppose. Your pledging to a nation under God and I see no issue with that. The verse you're quoting is framed around being patient. You should simply do it or not. You should recognize that there is nothing that is yours that you can pledge in place of your honor.

Above all, why is it so confusing? Why doesn't God make his Word clear by providing us with a magical changing bible that modifies itself with the times? Why are we forced to choose between different versions? Why are we forced to choose which parts to listen to?

It is clear. All you have to do is read it. That's not to say there aren't things that aren't immediately understood. However, given our culture has largely thrown out the Bible, there are few resources we can draw on. That is why reading and prayer is very important as is talking to those of the same faith. The Bible is a compendium of man. It is not God's fault we stopped recording and compiling the works he does for others to read. As far as versions go pick the one that is easiest for you to understand and listen to all it's parts. Perhaps a good idea for you to do is to read the Bible from cover to cover once not drawing conclusions. Just read it and take note of what's going on. Then, reread it and actively think "what's being said here?" or "with everything else I've read what is God trying to say here?" and go from there.

Why is nothing in Christianity logical? Have you ever wondered that?

I think Christianity is very logical. There is God. He made man. We sinned. He sent is son to save us. Through him we are saved. End of story. I don't get into a lot of nitpicking with issues because largely that is a practice in futility and even banned in the Bible.

But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and
quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.

Titus 3:9

All that is important is your relationship with Christ. Love God first. Love your neighbor as yourself second. Done.

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Matthew 22:36-40
Always strive to be better than yourself.

#102Khaiy  Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1713

Posted 06 June 2011 - 03:52 PM

Ah, but what if both people are wrong? The truth of the matter there is that they will both need to wait until they get to Heaven to be able to look God in the face and ask him about such things. The point is to not let those differences divide you or disrupt your faith by clouding your judgement because you are choosing to focus on something small and irrelevant where your salvation is concerned. I can not fathom an issue where two people who are earnestly working to know God better and to do all they can to be pleasing to him would fundamentally divide them to the point where they risk damnation.

I provided for both being wrong by saying that at least one must be wrong. If both are wrong then all bets are off, because neither side's interpretation will be accurate and therefore not particularly relevant to theology. The New Testament is awfully long to contain virtually nothing but small irrelevancies, which all things probably are when compared with eternal salvation. Not to mention the Old Testament, where God is throwing flaming death and smiting cities and so forth, seeming somewhat incongruous all on its own.

Perhaps you don't need to worry about withholding the rod showing that you hate your son (Proverbs 16:18) or boiling goats in their mothers' milk (Deuteronomy 14:21). But they're odd things to include as instructions or guidelines where not relevant, particularly as broader concepts behind them could have been at least as clear (and likely much moreso). Maybe these were only feeble attempts by humans to understand how to live a moral and godly life. Maybe they really were pronouncements of things that God would find pleasing, or lead humans to be so, but are ultimately irrelevant.

But it doesn't matter for my point. You are as encircled in the tautology of your stance as before. You cannot fathom something, but God cannot be constrained by what you are able to fathom. Some cannot fathom that those who bring suffering unto others even if trying to accept Jesus (perhaps they're simply mistaken, or are poor followers) gain eternal salvation in paradise anyways.

You do not believe that something is true because you observe yourself not believing that it's true. That's fine for you, if you choose to accept it, particularly because I don't doubt that you have undergone a great deal of reflection and have arrived at that conclusion after honestly weighing alternatives. But you shouldn't expect another person to be swayed by such a circular position which defines all opposing views as inherently incorrect.

You might be right. You may not be. There is only an absence of consequences for being wrong if you are right after all, which twists the whole position into a moebius strip.

...God is love1

1 John 4:8

Any interpretation that endangers this statement or contradicts it can not be a Biblical one. I do not hold myself out to the end all be all of scripture interpretation. I have simply examined within myself, as you've stated, concerning issues against that statement. For, if God be love, then the Bible is love and it's teachings, and meanings are those of love. However, if God not be love, or his attributes be not of love, then he is not the god of the Bible. Therefore, if an interpretation can not be reduced to the foundational statement that "God is love" then that interpretation is wrong. Otherwise, we're not discussing the Bible.

I'm not interested in debating a ton of specific points in the Bible to counter this, both because I have no interest in attacking your beliefs as being inherently wrong or bad as well as because you have selected a single portion of the Bible to matter above all others, negating some. You have defined all positions other than your own as out of scope, whether they are contained within the Bible or not. You do not consider yourself the end of interpretation, yet declare that interpretation is not all that important because most of the scriptures are ultimately of little importance. While most Christians take some degree of this position implicitly, I find it logically unacceptable for any one to pick and choose evidence presented in the same way and in the same place according to what they individually prefer.

I don't intend to sway you. But to wrap up the point that got us onto this discussion, there is nothing which necessarily reconciles two opposing beliefs on the same passage, however widely or narrowly they diverge. Your own interpretation would do so, but again is not one that should be logically embraced any more than any other as it has no support that is not support internally provided, or that requires such. You must be correct before you can be correct. Therefore, you are correct because you are correct. I find such reasoning deeply unsatisfying and generally unproductive and unlikely to lead to truth.

Therefore, your position, while temptingly noble and preferrable to alternatives, is not logically preferrable to any other in the context of a fixed religion, and I cannot accept it. Even if it would lead to better and stronger people, I do not accept it as the full context of religion which has so many conditions otherwise superfluous.

#103ManaStone  Members   -  Reputation: 148

Posted 06 June 2011 - 04:19 PM

If you are interested, Yale has some online lectures on youtube about the history of the New Testament.

#104A Brain in a Vat  Members   -  Reputation: 313

Posted 06 June 2011 - 04:20 PM

She is to be as submissive as he is to her. Again, the bible is clear on this.

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Ephesians 5:22-33

What are you talking about? That clearly says that SHE is to submit to HIM. Never does it say that HE should submit to HER. It says he should love her as himself, that's all very nice. But where does it say he is to submit to her? You are reading that because that is what you want to believe it says.

Allow me to quote from Peter 3.

1 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives,2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

So you still claim that she is to be as submissive to him as he is to her? Don't pick and choose, don't be a hypocrite. Don't change the meaning to match what you view as convenient. Have some backbone and stand up for what you believe, which is the Bible. If it's God's word, it's God's word. Would you pick and choose which parts of a sermon from Jesus' mouth you wanted to believe in? That's essentially what you're doing. It's so easy to say "The Bible is clear on this" and put out a piece of scripture that doesn't even remotely say what you're trying to force it to say.

This is speaking about making promises. The Pledge of Allegiance is okay I suppose. Your pledging to a nation under God and I see no issue with that. The verse you're quoting is framed around being patient. You should simply do it or not. You should recognize that there is nothing that is yours that you can pledge in place of your honor.

Actually the verse I'm quoting is framed around not making oaths.
Matthew 5, from the mouth of Jesus himself:

33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[g

Do you think most Christians avoid making promises because this is in the Bible? Why not? Why pick and choose? You say The Pledge of Allegiance is okay to you. He specifically says.. "You have heard 'fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.' But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all." Do you claim that doesn't prohibit The Pledge of Allegiance? Why not? Because you like The Pledge of Allegiance?

Don't divorce? If there's an issue of violence or other abuse then just leave.

Oh, unfamiliar with this one? Here you go. Matthew 5 again.. from the mouth of Jesusl

31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[f] 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

So let's analyze what this is saying. If you are a man you may not divorce, unless your wife is an adulterer. If you are a woman you clearly cannot divorce at all, and if you do, anyone you marry in the future is an adulterer. Can you make sense of this in the current times? Does this rule not count anymore?

Perhaps a good idea for you to do is to read the Bible from cover to cover once not drawing conclusions.

I've read the Bible all the way through. I was a Christian when I was a young man. Then I learned the power of reason and how to use logic, and I learned. I grew out of that phase.

You seem smart. Lots of Christians do. I can't understand so many smart people waste their intellect on trying to figure something out that's clearly a man-made fairy tale. I don't offer this as an ad-hominem attack, it's an attack of the confusing willingness of smart people to try to make sense of fairy tales, and then to stick their heads in the sand and pretend they don't notice that none of it makes sense at all.

#105 landlocked   Members   -  Reputation: 103

Posted 06 June 2011 - 04:33 PM

Ah, but what if both people are wrong? The truth of the matter there is that they will both need to wait until they get to Heaven to be able to look God in the face and ask him about such things. The point is to not let those differences divide you or disrupt your faith by clouding your judgement because you are choosing to focus on something small and irrelevant where your salvation is concerned. I can not fathom an issue where two people who are earnestly working to know God better and to do all they can to be pleasing to him would fundamentally divide them to the point where they risk damnation.

I provided for both being wrong by saying that at least one must be wrong. If both are wrong then all bets are off, because neither side's interpretation will be accurate and therefore not particularly relevant to theology. The New Testament is awfully long to contain virtually nothing but small irrelevancies, which all things probably are when compared with eternal salvation. Not to mention the Old Testament, where God is throwing flaming death and smiting cities and so forth, seeming somewhat incongruous all on its own.

Perhaps you don't need to worry about withholding the rod showing that you hate your son (Proverbs 16:18) or boiling goats in their mothers' milk (Deuteronomy 14:21). But they're odd things to include as instructions or guidelines where not relevant, particularly as broader concepts behind them could have been at least as clear (and likely much moreso). Maybe these were only feeble attempts by humans to understand how to live a moral and godly life. Maybe they really were pronouncements of things that God would find pleasing, or lead humans to be so, but are ultimately irrelevant.

But it doesn't matter for my point. You are as encircled in the tautology of your stance as before. You cannot fathom something, but God cannot be constrained by what you are able to fathom. Some cannot fathom that those who bring suffering unto others even if trying to accept Jesus (perhaps they're simply mistaken, or are poor followers) gain eternal salvation in paradise anyways.

You do not believe that something is true because you observe yourself not believing that it's true. That's fine for you, if you choose to accept it, particularly because I don't doubt that you have undergone a great deal of reflection and have arrived at that conclusion after honestly weighing alternatives. But you shouldn't expect another person to be swayed by such a circular position which defines all opposing views as inherently incorrect.

You might be right. You may not be. There is only an absence of consequences for being wrong if you are right after all, which twists the whole position into a moebius strip.

...God is love1

1 John 4:8

Any interpretation that endangers this statement or contradicts it can not be a Biblical one. I do not hold myself out to the end all be all of scripture interpretation. I have simply examined within myself, as you've stated, concerning issues against that statement. For, if God be love, then the Bible is love and it's teachings, and meanings are those of love. However, if God not be love, or his attributes be not of love, then he is not the god of the Bible. Therefore, if an interpretation can not be reduced to the foundational statement that "God is love" then that interpretation is wrong. Otherwise, we're not discussing the Bible.

I'm not interested in debating a ton of specific points in the Bible to counter this, both because I have no interest in attacking your beliefs as being inherently wrong or bad as well as because you have selected a single portion of the Bible to matter above all others, negating some. You have defined all positions other than your own as out of scope, whether they are contained within the Bible or not. You do not consider yourself the end of interpretation, yet declare that interpretation is not all that important because most of the scriptures are ultimately of little importance. While most Christians take some degree of this position implicitly, I find it logically unacceptable for any one to pick and choose evidence presented in the same way and in the same place according to what they individually prefer.

I don't intend to sway you. But to wrap up the point that got us onto this discussion, there is nothing which necessarily reconciles two opposing beliefs on the same passage, however widely or narrowly they diverge. Your own interpretation would do so, but again is not one that should be logically embraced any more than any other as it has no support that is not support internally provided, or that requires such. You must be correct before you can be correct. Therefore, you are correct because you are correct. I find such reasoning deeply unsatisfying and generally unproductive and unlikely to lead to truth.

Therefore, your position, while temptingly noble and preferrable to alternatives, is not logically preferrable to any other in the context of a fixed religion, and I cannot accept it. Even if it would lead to better and stronger people, I do not accept it as the full context of religion which has so many conditions otherwise superfluous.

You are looking for an answer that does not exist. Regardless of what you are told you will continue to as "what about this" or "but this other thing says this." What I'm telling you is none of that matters:

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a]38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Matthew 22:36-40

Once you master those two things then by all means move on to the other aspects of faith and master them. However, I know that I, myself, have not mastered them so I don't worry about the other aspects.
Always strive to be better than yourself.

#106 landlocked   Members   -  Reputation: 103

Posted 06 June 2011 - 04:43 PM

She is to be as submissive as he is to her. Again, the bible is clear on this.

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Ephesians 5:22-33

What are you talking about? That clearly says that SHE is to submit to HIM. Never does it say that HE should submit to HER. It says he should love her as himself, that's all very nice. But where does it say he is to submit to her? You are reading that because that is what you want to believe it says.

Allow me to quote from Peter 3.

1 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives,2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

So you still claim that she is to be as submissive to him as he is to her? Don't pick and choose, don't be a hypocrite. Don't change the meaning to match what you view as convenient. Have some backbone and stand up for what you believe, which is the Bible. If it's God's word, it's God's word. Would you pick and choose which parts of a sermon from Jesus' mouth you wanted to believe in? That's essentially what you're doing. It's so easy to say "The Bible is clear on this" and put out a piece of scripture that doesn't even remotely say what you're trying to force it to say.

This is speaking about making promises. The Pledge of Allegiance is okay I suppose. Your pledging to a nation under God and I see no issue with that. The verse you're quoting is framed around being patient. You should simply do it or not. You should recognize that there is nothing that is yours that you can pledge in place of your honor.

Actually the verse I'm quoting is framed around not making oaths.
Matthew 5, from the mouth of Jesus himself:

33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[g

Do you think most Christians avoid making promises because this is in the Bible? Why not? Why pick and choose? You say The Pledge of Allegiance is okay to you. He specifically says.. "You have heard 'fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.' But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all." Do you claim that doesn't prohibit The Pledge of Allegiance? Why not? Because you like The Pledge of Allegiance?

Don't divorce? If there's an issue of violence or other abuse then just leave.

Oh, unfamiliar with this one? Here you go. Matthew 5 again.. from the mouth of Jesusl

31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[f] 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

So let's analyze what this is saying. If you are a man you may not divorce, unless your wife is an adulterer. If you are a woman you clearly cannot divorce at all, and if you do, anyone you marry in the future is an adulterer. Can you make sense of this in the current times? Does this rule not count anymore?

Perhaps a good idea for you to do is to read the Bible from cover to cover once not drawing conclusions.

I've read the Bible all the way through. I was a Christian when I was a young man. Then I learned the power of reason and how to use logic, and I learned. I grew out of that phase.

You seem smart. Lots of Christians do. I can't understand so many smart people waste their intellect on trying to figure something out that's clearly a man-made fairy tale. I don't offer this as an ad-hominem attack, it's an attack of the confusing willingness of smart people to try to make sense of fairy tales, and then to stick their heads in the sand and pretend they don't notice that none of it makes sense at all.

Don't be a hypocrite? I'm human. I can not possibly frame everything with the sum total knowledge of the universe. A common theme in this thread is ignoring the humanity of people. Humans make mistakes and they don't know everything. If someone misspeaks then god forbid they not take something into consideration yet the common demand is for us people to explain the darkest mysteries of the Bible when we clearly have not even made much progress in addressing the two commandments Christ describes.

And how is what I quoted not showing a husband is to submit to his wife? If you love her you will consider her and place her considerations before your own. That is submission. Also, is it not odd that it takes only 3 verses in Ephesian to tell wives to submit to husbands yet 9 verses are devoted to expounding a husbands role back to the wife? Maybe we don't frame love in the correct way.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

1 Corinthians 13:4-7

I feel I have made my case very well. You are not satisfied with the answers yet they are plainly before you. Nothing I have said is counter to scripture yet you try to make it so. I am glad I am no longer as you are: nitpicking everything until not even God himself could give you the answers you seek. Be happy with the simple mystery of faith and work from there. God and science can coexist.
Always strive to be better than yourself.

#107A Brain in a Vat  Members   -  Reputation: 313

Posted 06 June 2011 - 05:04 PM

One doesn't have to have sum total knowledge of everything in the universe to avoid being a hypocrite, one only needs not preach one thing and do another.

I'm merely pointing out that you preach adherence to the Bible as God's word, and yet you do not follow its word yourself. You pick and choose, as any sane person would have to do with the Bible. You picked and chose the arguments you made to me, completely skipping over that about Jesus commanding you to adhere to the old laws, commanding you not to make promises about ANYTHING, you skipped over the entire sexist statements from Jesus about divorce and adultery. Basically you skipped over any ancient square peg which you couldn't pound into your modern round hole.

Christians are the biggest supporters of every war in modern times, which Jesus makes no qualms about being completely against. Where do you stand?

Christians are the biggest supporters of the death penalty, which Jesus makes no qualms about being completely against. Where do you stand?

Christians were the ones cheering loudest for the killing of Osama Bin Laden, which Jesus would have been completely against. Where do you stand?

I don't actually care where you stand. I'm pointing out that to adhere to an ancient, out-moded belief system and to try to function within modern times almost requires one to be a hypocrite. You simply can't function if you go by that book and actually follow it. It requires a significant level of cognitive disequilibrium.

Honestly, as an atheist, I wish more people would act a lot more Christian in some ways (turning the other cheek, for example), and a lot less Christian in others.

#108way2lazy2care  Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 06 June 2011 - 08:09 PM

Christians are the biggest supporters of every war in modern times

Not really.

Christians are the biggest supporters of the death penalty,

not even close.

which Jesus makes no qualms about being completely against. Where do you stand?

I imagine most catholics if not most christians would have a belief in line with the catholic catechism. Do not mistake the small subset of christians who happen to reside in texas with christianity as a global faith. Likewise I would not take the subset of militant Muslims as an ideal sample of the beliefs of Islam.

Christians were the ones cheering loudest for the killing of Osama Bin Laden, which Jesus would have been completely against. Where do you stand?

considering christianity is the largest religious following in America and American's generally were cheering loudly for killing osama bin laden, it would make sense that a lot of them would cheer loudly. If you broke it down by what percent of each faith cheered for it, I think it would be pretty much even across most religions in america.

Then I learned the power of reason and how to use logic, and I learned.

I take issue with this sentiment. You cannot find solid logical ground for yourself, but the implication that people who believe in it are beyond logic and reason or unenlightened is just as close minded as you might find religious people.

#109cowsarenotevil  Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2308

Posted 06 June 2011 - 08:20 PM

Christians are the biggest supporters of the death penalty,

not even close.

Source?
-~-The Cow of Darkness-~-

#110ChaosEngine  Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3267

Posted 06 June 2011 - 09:26 PM

Christians are the biggest supporters of every war in modern times

Not really.

Christians are the biggest supporters of the death penalty,

not even close.

Do you actually have an argument there or should we just take you at your word? If you're going to refute something you need to provide some evidence (or at the very least some solid reasoning) for your position.

To be fair, brain in a vat didn't provide any evidence either, but most people would accept that there is a certain demographic within America that supports both the war and the death penalty and that that demographic is largely christian. They would also accept that the most vocal proponents of that stance (i.e. Fox News et al) are also vocal proponents of christianity. If you have evidence or reasoning to the contrary, I'd like to hear it.
if you think programming is like sex, you probably haven't done much of either.-------------- - capn_midnight

#111way2lazy2care  Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 06 June 2011 - 09:43 PM

Christians are the biggest supporters of the death penalty,

not even close.

Source?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut7.htm

Though I appreciate you asking for my source rather than the source of the original claim lest we risk being impartial.

The reason many polls consider christians to be more supportive of the death penalty is because they consider anything that is not completely abolitionist to be supportive. The largest denomination of christians in the US supports the death penalty in the extreme situation where a violent criminal represents a continued and severe risk to others if he be allowed to survive even with non-lethal precautions being taken, but under no other circumstances. That's not really pro-death penalty. A good example is californians overwhelmingly support the death penalty (around 70% in 2010), but in the case of first degree murder only 40% of californians support the death penalty.

This is putting aside the fact that there are other faiths that practice the death penalty today as a punishment for non violent crimes.

#112way2lazy2care  Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 06 June 2011 - 10:04 PM

Do you actually have an argument there or should we just take you at your word? If you're going to refute something you need to provide some evidence (or at the very least some solid reasoning) for your position.

To be fair, brain in a vat didn't provide any evidence either, but most people would accept that there is a certain demographic within America that supports both the war and the death penalty and that that demographic is largely christian. They would also accept that the most vocal proponents of that stance (i.e. Fox News et al) are also vocal proponents of christianity. If you have evidence or reasoning to the contrary, I'd like to hear it.

The first argument is just showing ignorance of the history of wars in the last century. The Korean and Vietnamese wars were not extraordinarily supported by christians, and the gulf war was supported just as much by Jewish and Islamic people as by christians as many of them had a much larger stake than any christian. I don't think christians supported the war in bosnia any more than anyone else, and I don't think anyone would argue that christians supported either of the world wars more or less than anyone else. Then there are plenty of wars that many christians probably don't even know about.

It's especially surprising coming from someone that seems to have been led away from faith by logic and rationality and is calling out hypocrisy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1945%E2%80%931989
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1990%E2%80%932002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_2003%E2%80%932010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_2011-present

The second was covered in my previous post.

If you only look at the US, christians will probably be a larger demographic of any supportive group of anything because they are the largest religious demographic. You need to remember that christianity is not an american faith.

#113cowsarenotevil  Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2308

Posted 06 June 2011 - 10:05 PM

Though I appreciate you asking for my source rather than the source of the original claim lest we risk being impartial.

"Christians are the biggest supporters of the death penalty," is hardly even a claim at all although I interpreted it to mean "of the people who are in favor of the death penalty, most of them are Christian" which seemed somewhat unlikely to be true at least worldwide. You responded with enough conviction that I figured you were likely to have a specific interpretation and reasoning for disbelieving said interpretation.
-~-The Cow of Darkness-~-

#114demonkoryu  Members   -  Reputation: 976

Posted 07 June 2011 - 04:01 AM

People believing in god have experienced something that agnosticists have not. Whether that "something" is being talked dumbed by missionaries, or a spiritiual revelation, what matters after all is the faith: Because faith can get you through life much better than apathy.

How can you say something like this ? This holier-than-thou attitude is really off putting. How can you know that you experienced something that we lack ?

I didn't mean to convey a "holier-than-thou attitude". In fact, I wrote that this experience could be "being talked dumb". Experiencing the effect of this however, that means: "choosing to believe", is something that agnostics by definition have not.

Maybe it is the other way round ?

Maybe. I don't know.

You don't need faith to lead a happy and fulfilling life. And there are many things in life besides apathy and faith into a deity. Believing in yourself, your own abilities and the ones of your loved ones, for example.

I didn't say you need it. I said it can help.

|

#115A Brain in a Vat  Members   -  Reputation: 313

Posted 07 June 2011 - 09:22 AM

http://www.religious...org/execut7.htm

Though I appreciate you asking for my source rather than the source of the original claim lest we risk being impartial.

The reason many polls consider christians to be more supportive of the death penalty is because they consider anything that is not completely abolitionist to be supportive. The largest denomination of christians in the US supports the death penalty in the extreme situation where a violent criminal represents a continued and severe risk to others if he be allowed to survive even with non-lethal precautions being taken, but under no other circumstances. That's not really pro-death penalty. A good example is californians overwhelmingly support the death penalty (around 70% in 2010), but in the case of first degree murder only 40% of californians support the death penalty.

This is putting aside the fact that there are other faiths that practice the death penalty today as a punishment for non violent crimes.

What do you suppose Jesus would say about that situation? Gee, maybe he'd say "Well, this guy is really bad. Yeah, everyone else is deserving of the mercy and forgiveness which I've commanded my human underlings to give everyone, except for this guy!"

What does it really mean to say someone is a severe risk to others if he be allowed to survive even with non-lethal precautions being taken? Someone locked up in solitary for the rest of his life is a severe risk to others? To whom? The pope is more of a severe risk to others, if only because there's a small risk that he might run someone over on his pope-mobile.

So, you guys want evidence that Christians support more the death penalty more than others. Here:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/gallup-poll-who-supports-death-penalty Please look up "Religious Preference"

Unfortunately this poll does not ask people whether they are atheists, which I guarantee you would yield a number far smaller than those seen there.

I will admit that people who actually go to Church are less in favor than those who call themselves Christians but rarely or never go to church. That said, it is painfully clear to anyone who's even looked at a Bible from across the room that no person who believes in the divinity of Jesus or the Bible should support murder of any sort. It's hypocrisy, plain as day, and if your God exists he's really pissed off about it.

Now, war? Is Jesus in favor of war? Any sane Christian would say "No, of course not." But just look at these poll numbers:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/7888/support-war-modestly-higher-among-more-religious-americans.aspx

I'm calling on all you Christians to be good Christians. Start by being honest and admitting that there's a sick death-hunger among your ranks. Then be courageous and stand up to your fellow Christians, and tell them that they are being extremely shitty Christians by supporting these things. Only then you can stand up with your head held high and say "I am not a hypocrite."

#116way2lazy2care  Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 07 June 2011 - 10:35 AM

What do you suppose Jesus would say about that situation? Gee, maybe he'd say "Well, this guy is really bad. Yeah, everyone else is deserving of the mercy and forgiveness which I've commanded my human underlings to give everyone, except for this guy!"

I'm not sure what Jesus would say, but it is not a matter of forgiveness or penalty it is a matter of protection.

What does it really mean to say someone is a severe risk to others if he be allowed to survive even with non-lethal precautions being taken? Someone locked up in solitary for the rest of his life is a severe risk to others? To whom? The pope is more of a severe risk to others, if only because there's a small risk that he might run someone over on his pope-mobile.

That's why the Church ONLY condones it when there are not non-lethal ways to ensure the safety of everyone else. Why would you give an example the church would not agree with the death penalty in as evidence for something that the church would approve the death penalty in?

The church is also for abortions when the mother's life is in danger, but would you argue that the church is pro-abortion? I sincerely hope not.

#117cdoty  GDNet+   -  Reputation: 671

Posted 07 June 2011 - 10:59 AM

A christian is person who is able to enjoy life as it comes. Can you do that? CONGRATULATIONS, YOU HAVE A PLACE IN HEAVEN. In addition wtih all you have already enoyed in earth,

Isn't that the opposite of what the Bible teaches? The real treasure is after this life... all suffering in this life will be rewarded... deny yourself in this life to be rewarded in the afterlife... no suffering in heaven.

There is the good advice, shared with many religions or ideologies, in that you should not focus on what do do not have, but on what you have.

Check out Super Play, the SNES inspired Game Engine: http://www.superplay.info

#118A Brain in a Vat  Members   -  Reputation: 313

Posted 07 June 2011 - 11:16 AM

What do you suppose Jesus would say about that situation? Gee, maybe he'd say "Well, this guy is really bad. Yeah, everyone else is deserving of the mercy and forgiveness which I've commanded my human underlings to give everyone, except for this guy!"

I'm not sure what Jesus would say, but it is not a matter of forgiveness or penalty it is a matter of protection.

What does it really mean to say someone is a severe risk to others if he be allowed to survive even with non-lethal precautions being taken? Someone locked up in solitary for the rest of his life is a severe risk to others? To whom? The pope is more of a severe risk to others, if only because there's a small risk that he might run someone over on his pope-mobile.

That's why the Church ONLY condones it when there are not non-lethal ways to ensure the safety of everyone else. Why would you give an example the church would not agree with the death penalty in as evidence for something that the church would approve the death penalty in?

The church is also for abortions when the mother's life is in danger, but would you argue that the church is pro-abortion? I sincerely hope not.

What is "the Church"? Are you talking about the Catholic Church? I'm talking about Christians in general, and I'm talking about Jesus as the authority, not "the Church". Christians in general tend to condone the death penalty. The death penalty is never necessary for public safety, because there is always the alternative of life in prison. And yet Christians condone the death penalty. Why do you skirt the issues which you don't like to talk about? Most Christians support the death penalty. Will you join me in proclaiming that most Christians are hypocrites? If not, then you are a hypocrite yourself.

#119way2lazy2care  Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 07 June 2011 - 11:30 AM

What is "the Church"? Are you talking about the Catholic Church? I'm talking about Christians in general, and I'm talking about Jesus as the authority, not "the Church". Christians in general tend to condone the death penalty. The death penalty is never necessary for public safety, because there is always the alternative of life in prison. And yet Christians condone the death penalty. Why do you skirt the issues which you don't like to talk about? Most Christians support the death penalty. Will you join me in proclaiming that most Christians are hypocrites? If not, then you are a hypocrite yourself.

I'm confused on whether or not you read the post 2 previous to this one past the first sentence. There is NOT always the alternative of life in prison; there is almost always the alternative.

Anyway I'm done with you as by your last sentence you have made clear you do not want to actually discuss anything, but rather talk down to anybody that disagrees with you.

#120A Brain in a Vat  Members   -  Reputation: 313

Posted 07 June 2011 - 11:41 AM

I'm confused on whether or not you read the post 2 previous to this one past the first sentence. There is NOT always the alternative of life in prison; there is almost always the alternative.

Anyway I'm done with you as by your last sentence you have made clear you do not want to actually discuss anything, but rather talk down to anybody that disagrees with you.

Can you possibly give me an example of when life in prison is not an alternative to the death penalty?

I'm not talking down to anyone, and agreeing with me has nothing to do with anything. A hypocrite is a hypocrite, regardless of whether he is an atheist or a Christian. The fact is that I think most people are hypocrites, regardless of whether they're atheists or Christians. The difference is that Christians are so blatant about it. They go around basing their entire lives around this ancient book that says "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" all over it. They spend their entire lives talking about emulating this guy that said to love your enemy, to turn the other cheek, and to NOT KILL PEOPLE. And yet they are the most fervent to charge into war or to kill a killer. The rest of us can see it, why can you not? Even some Christians can see it. Those I would call real Christians. Yet you can't. Why is that?

How do you know God isn't speaking to you through me right now? How do you know that God isn't reaching out to you right now, pleading with you to PLEASE STOP SUPPORTING THE MURDER OF HIS CHILDREN and imposing judgment where only he has the power to do so?

Anyway, I'm done with this too. I'm doing nothing more than asking you to go by what you preach, but as usual, it's like talking to a wall.

Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

PARTNERS