NationStates Jolt Archive

If you want to discuss an aspect of Christian theology, then you cant be suprised when people use the Bible to explain and/or support their point. For example, if someone asks "Why do some Christians consdider homosexuality a sin" and then the other person answers with a passgae from the Bible explaining this point, the arguement "The Bible is a load of rubbish" moves you outside of your orignianl question. In the same way, in the "How do you justify hell" thread, people are getting cross at me for producing the Bible to explain how and why hell works in the way it does. It's rediculous. I agree there is a seprate debate on the validity and nature of Christiaity's claims themselves, but if you are debating about Christainity do not be supprised when people use the Bible to explain Christianity to you.

It doesnt suprise me at all.

In fact, its par for the course.

Seems to me, that the very problem is that they cant seem to take a step outside thier own religions and take an objective third-person view, so to speak.
Ive engaged many a Christian on this very forum, and al too often, they can only resort to scripture, and do so, as if it was, well.."Gospel".

Its as if they are so wrapped up in the dogma, that they cant see absurdity, where it lies.
Im not saying "why cant they see my point of view", Im saying "Why cant they see that this (whatever the issue may be) is so inconsistant, that it must be fallacy?"

If you want to discuss an aspect of Christian theology, then you cant be suprised when people use the Bible to explain and/or support their point. For example, if someone asks "Why do some Christians consdider homosexuality a sin" and then the other person answers with a passgae from the Bible explaining this point, the arguement "The Bible is a load of rubbish" moves you outside of your orignianl question. In the same way, in the "How do you justify hell" thread, people are getting cross at me for producing the Bible to explain how and why hell works in the way it does. It's rediculous. I agree there is a seprate debate on the validity and nature of Christiaity's claims themselves, but if you are debating about Christainity do not be supprised when people use the Bible to explain Christianity to you.

Personally, whenever I ask a question like that, I would like to hear people speak for themselves. In many cases, quoting the bible is hiding behind somebody elses opinion...
To take the example of homosexuality. A good number of Christians will quote Leviticus on you. When asked if they would follow every command in Leviticus, you are told that Leviticus was turned obsolete with the coming of Jesus. So you ask them again what they base their believe that homosexuality is a sin on, they will reply with a quote by Paul. Now, Paul also expressedly forbid women to teach the faith, is that a sin as well, then? - I have to stop with the example here because nobody answered that question yet ;)

Anyway, whenever I get answers like those, I have the distinct feeling that those people are blind in their belief, rather than meditative, secure and open to debate. They will follow the letter, not the sense of that book.

It doesnt suprise me at all.

In fact, its par for the course.

Seems to me, that the very problem is that they cant seem to take a step outside thier own religions and take an objective third-person view, so to speak.
Ive engaged many a Christian on this very forum, and al too often, they can only resort to scripture, and do so, as if it was, well.."Gospel".

Its as if they are so wrapped up in the dogma, that they cant see absurdity, where it lies.
Im not saying "why cant they see my point of view", Im saying "Why cant they see that this (whatever the issue may be) is so inconsistant, that it must be fallacy?"

Firstly, I'd like to engage with you on points you consider falacy, but in another thread

Secondly, if you want to know what it is that Christians think about an issue then its only logical that they should use the Bible to justify their views. They are, after all, Christians. I'm sure you can apreciate that there are two sepreate debates. One is whether or not Christianity is true (apologietics) the other on the ideas of Chrsitianity itslef and how they work and why they work the way they do. If you cant accept Biblical suport for those issues, then what do you want.

Firstly, I'd like to engage with you on points you consider falacy, but in another thread

Secondly, if you want to know what it is that Christians think about an issue then its only logical that they should use the Bible to justify their views. They are, after all, Christians. I'm sure you can apreciate that there are two sepreate debates. One is whether or not Christianity is true (apologietics) the other on the ideas of Chrsitianity itslef and how they work and why they work the way they do. If you cant accept Biblical suport for those issues, then what do you want.

They want quotations from the Philokalia, clearly.

I don't mind the occational biblical quotes, if they're used sparingly, and backed up by the posters own thoughts & opinions.

But why would someone engage in a religious debate only to spew a never-ending stream of biblical quotes? That makes no sense. It's disruptive to the debate, and contributes nothing. People do not initiate dialogue to have a book read to them. They do it to learn & examine eachothers opinions. Not the literal txts of a manuscript.

If that was the point, noone would ever discuss anything, they'd simply read books.

Firstly, I'd like to engage with you on points you consider falacy, but in another thread

Secondly, if you want to know what it is that Christians think about an issue then its only logical that they should use the Bible to justify their views. They are, after all, Christians. I'm sure you can apreciate that there are two sepreate debates. One is whether or not Christianity is true (apologietics) the other on the ideas of Chrsitianity itslef and how they work and why they work the way they do. If you cant accept Biblical suport for those issues, then what do you want.


Im not implying that they shouldnt use the bible to express thier views, although too often I think, it is intentionally misread, to seem congruent to those views.
However, more to my point, it seems as though many, if not all, of those christians, are unable to separate themselves from that book.

Evolution is a prime example.

While most people with comon sense agree, many of the Fundamentalist types simply refuse to ackowledge that the bible just may be completely off base on that one.

What does this prove?
Nothing except that those particuar individuals are willing to be cast in ignorance for the sake of thier own faith.
Faith is a fine thing, but not at the exspense of the universe around you.

I think to truly argue well for something you believe in, you must be able to step back, and look at what you believe, and play Devil's Advocate, occasionally.

Sadly, most christians, are unable to, or unwilling to do this.

Now, Paul also expressedly forbid women to teach the faith, is that a sin as well, then? - I have to stop with the example here because nobody answered that question yet ;)

If so, that would explain why the Gospel of Mary, is not considered "canon".
It says that Mary was not only more than likely Jesus' wife, but also the most loved and favored of all the disciples.

It seems that Jesus had no particular fear of women in his Church, yet, Paul, certainly seemed to.

He is probably the reason why we associate Mary Magdeliene as a whore, when she in all likelyhood, most certainly was not.

This might be a bit off topic:

What I personally do not understand is that Christians often (righfully) complain that they are often generalized as "Christians" even if they are in fact several groups like Catholics, Amish, Quakers etc. with very different understandings and interpretations of the bible.

Yet they often refer to them as "Christians" themselves.

Wouldn't it be very helpful if you would start threads like this with a more specific term than simply "Christian"? It is very hard for us non-Christian people to understand the different aspects of your faith and using general terms like Christian isn't very helpful, especially if you want to discuss interpretations of the bible.

I hope that made some sense to you. :)

If so, that would explain why the Gospel of Mary, is not considered "canon".
It says that Mary was not only more than likely Jesus' wife, but also the most loved and favored of all the disciples.

It seems that Jesus had no particular fear of women in his Church, yet, Paul, certainly seemed to.

He is probably the reason why we associate Mary Magdeliene as a whore, when she in all likelyhood, most certainly was not.

Quite possible... .my own theory is that Paul was a sado-masochistic homosexual in denial. And hitting his head when falling of that horse in front of Damaskus didn't exactly help to clear his mind...

Quite possible... .my own theory is that Paul was a sado-masochistic homosexual in denial. And hitting his head when falling of that horse in front of Damaskus didn't exactly help to clear his mind...



All of that is likely true, and to my belief, the very worst thing that happened to the Christian religion.
I could go into detail, but I'll keep it short with this:

You know what Paul was?

He was the first "Born-Again".
Look at his life before the accident, and after....fanatical zealotism, bordering on near-irrationality.

How many other of the Apostles were quite so......extreme, in thier devotion?

If anyone was the "anti-christ" it was that whacko.

Quite possible... .my own theory is that Paul was a sado-masochistic homosexual in denial. And hitting his head when falling of that horse in front of Damaskus didn't exactly help to clear his mind...

It could be, you know, that he was just a bit of a git - like most religious leaders. I don't think that you need to plumb the depths of his psyche. Many people are capable of being assholes regardless of sexual preference.

Sadly, most christians, are unable to, or unwilling to do this.
Most? Oh hardly most there. PLEASE don't lump ME with some of the fundies.

It could be, you know, that he was just a bit of a git - like most religious leaders. I don't think that you need to plumb the depths of his psyche. Many people are capable of being assholes regardless of sexual preference.


No No...

Look at his hatred of women... afraid of them to the point of ostracizing of of Christs own disciples (Possibly Jesus' wife), and forbidding women to be priests.

If thats not self-hating inward loathing, from a repressed homosexuality, what is?

I dont think Cabra was implying that being gay was bad, just that Paul specifically had issues.

It could be, you know, that he was just a bit of a git - like most religious leaders. I don't think that you need to plumb the depths of his psyche. Many people are capable of being assholes regardless of sexual preference.

Well, his sexuality is the only explanation I could find for his obvious hatred and disgust for everything female...

Most? Oh hardly most there. PLEASE don't lump ME with some of the fundies.


"Most", in the most generic of terms, oh ye, of the all-capitalized name.

Well, his sexuality is the only explanation I could find for his obvious hatred and disgust for everything female...

You can be a mysogynist without being gay. I mean it's not impossible that that was the cause of his asshattery, but like I said, he could just have been a git too.

And I'm no bible scholar, but it always seems to me - at least from the little bit that they tried to stuff in my head at school in England - that he was down on just about everything, not just sexy parties. Like he was always writing those letters telling people off for having a good time.

(Wasn't he a self-loathing jew too?)

(Wasn't he a self-loathing jew too?)

I wouldn't be surprised - he loathed everything else, after all.
There's n oway of proofing his sexuality, though, but he seemed to fit the profile rather well.
Anyway, I think we are hijacking, so we had better stop it.

You can be a mysogynist without being gay. I mean it's not impossible that that was the cause of his asshattery, but like I said, he could just have been a git too.

And I'm no bible scholar, but it always seems to me - at least from the little bit that they tried to stuff in my head at school in England - that he was down on just about everything, not just sexy parties. Like he was always writing those letters telling people off for having a good time.

(Wasn't he a self-loathing jew too?)



Paul: Right!

Dear Sirs!
You Lot!
Keep it down over there, were trying to be dreadfully pious over here!

Iron my shirt, bitch!

Paul: Right!

Dear Sirs!
You Lot!
Keep it down over there, were trying to be dreadfully pious over here!

Iron my shirt, bitch!

Yeah. That's pretty much what I took away from RE class.

I agree with the first post that if you challenge a Christian's faith/belief that you have to be able to deal with biblical quotations. I'm NOT Christian, however it is only common sense to defend your faith by quoting sources on that faith (e.g. bible). This is rather similar to people quoting Darwin or quantum theory when they try to defend the scientific view. The fact that most people see the latter as logical and proven doesn't change the principle. In fact, there is no proof to the theory of evolution (however very strong support for the theory is abundant) and quantum physics/string theory and all that advanced physics is practically improvable except on paper. There is many explanations for the strong evidence in favor of a theory that contradicts the bible, even from Christian perspective. One that I am surprised noone ever mentions, is that the world was created with the illusion of evolution (e.g. fossil bones were there when world was created but the dinosaurs never actually existed). It is possible that the world was created 10, 20, 30 thousand years ago along with implication that the rest of the universe was created as is with "evidence" of contradictory evidence to the bible in order to test the faith of the nonbelievers. (I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS THEORY :) ).
Touching on the homosexuality issue, I am really disappointed to see people throwing homosexuality around like it's the curse of all curses. I doubt he was homosexual, and there is ample examples of people who hate women and see them as not much more than a means of reproduction and these people are called chauvinists, not homosexuals. Most of the homos you'll see, in fact, love women and surround themselves with them. I'm not a great expert of Jewish culture of that time, but Rome certainly was a very sexually open culture, hence I don't really see the need for someone concealing their homosexuality.
Anyway, I firmly believe that it's stupid to challenge people's religious beliefs since noone really knows the truth about the big questions, and having one person believe something else than what you believe is in no way harmful to anyone. I think someone earlier said "believing in something at the expense of the universe" or some bullshit like that, trust me buddy, the universe isn't holding its breath.

I have been reading this thread and I am interested in the Argument about Paul's Teachings on Women in the Church. The Teaching's you are refering to is the fact that he said Women could not speak in the church. Well, when taken out of the historical context in which it was written it can truly mean that Women cannot be Pastors or Christian Speakers. This I believe is not what Paul was addressing. You see in the period we are talking about. Men and Women had to sit seprate in Church. Since, women were also unducated for the most part. They typically had a hard time understanding what was being taught in Church. This led to the practice of Women shouting questions at their Husbands during the Church service. And this was highly disruptive. So therefore Paul added in his letter that Women should not speak in the Church because at that time they were shouting in the middle of a church service. People get so bent out of shape on this passage when really it is not addressing the point that people typically interpret it as. If you take it out of the context of the time then it does seem chauvanistic. I happen to have had a Women Youth Pastor at my Church and my Mother is a Christian Author and Speaker. I do not think she is sinning by speaking in Church's. I think this is one of the most misinterpreted passages of scripture in the Bible.

I have been reading this thread and I am interested in the Argument about Paul's Teachings on Women in the Church. The Teaching's you are refering to is the fact that he said Women could not speak in the church. Well, when taken out of the historical context in which it was written it can truly mean that Women cannot be Pastors or Christian Speakers. This I believe is not what Paul was addressing. You see in the period we are talking about. Men and Women had to sit seprate in Church. Since, women were also unducated for the most part. They typically had a hard time understanding what was being taught in Church. This led to the practice of Women shouting questions at their Husbands during the Church service. And this was highly disruptive. So therefore Paul added in his letter that Women should not speak in the Church because at that time they were shouting in the middle of a church service. People get so bent out of shape on this passage when really it is not addressing the point that people typically interpret it as. If you take it out of the context of the time then it does seem chauvanistic. I happen to have had a Women Youth Pastor at my Church and my Mother is a Christian Author and Speaker. I do not think she is sinning by speaking in Church's. I think this is one of the most misinterpreted passages of scripture in the Bible.

When it comes to interpretation, who says the generally accepted interpretation of homosexuality is correct, then?

It doesnt suprise me at all.

In fact, its par for the course.

Seems to me, that the very problem is that they cant seem to take a step outside thier own religions and take an objective third-person view, so to speak.
Ive engaged many a Christian on this very forum, and al too often, they can only resort to scripture, and do so, as if it was, well.."Gospel".

Its as if they are so wrapped up in the dogma, that they cant see absurdity, where it lies.
Im not saying "why cant they see my point of view", Im saying "Why cant they see that this (whatever the issue may be) is so inconsistant, that it must be fallacy?"

The problem here, is that you are assuming, based upon a set of unfounded postulates, that the view is "inconsistent"... Which may or may not be the case, but then again, is the view any more "valid" than your own? That is, is your view more "Consistent" than theirs, and if you think so, why?

You're correct about the quotes, many do not have a well established "theology"... That is besides the point, your argument is not any more "established" than their own. You may invent it yourself; but so are they.

One of the reason why I do not go far into many of the POS debates that occur on these forums regarding particular theological opinion... It degrades into pissing contests between Dogmatic Spiritualists vs. Dogmatic Secularists... with nothing usefull or originall proceeding from anyone... Mostly because no one in the normal course every really demonstrates having a knowledge or understanding of the other side of the argument. Just the dusting off, and slapping around of the same old dusty monologues which have followed such debates over the last 2000+ years between various philosophies... [Though it get fairly humorous when some naturalist enters with some sort of epiphany or new wisdom, as if he is some great thinker; not realizing his argument was already batted around by some 2500+ year old philosopher, porking boys in his study...]

...I think this is one of the most misinterpreted passages of scripture in the Bible.

Which brings us full-circle back to the starting point of this debate. The fact that the Bible exists in so many translations and has so many different interpretations makes it more or less useless as a base to argue your standpoint from.

Of course, from here I could go on a rant about how the word of a supposedly perfect being exists only in such an imperfect form, but that would be a bit off-topic.

Well, his sexuality is the only explanation I could find for his obvious hatred and disgust for everything female...

Hey, for your information, the "gay men hates women" thing is a myth.

I'm gay, and I love women(in a platonic way, of course :p) and I'm for gender equality.

Most sexist bigots aren't gay: they're straight but they want women to be subdued under the domination of men.

Hey, for your information, the "gay men hates women" thing is a myth.

I'm gay, and I love women(in a platonic way, of course :p) and I'm for gender equality.

Most sexist bigots aren't gay: they're straight but they want women to be subdued under the domination of men.

On the other hand, I've met plenty of lesbians with a militant vitriolic hatred of men.

I don't mind the occational biblical quotes, if they're used sparingly, and backed up by the posters own thoughts & opinions.

But why would someone engage in a religious debate only to spew a never-ending stream of biblical quotes? That makes no sense. It's disruptive to the debate, and contributes nothing. People do not initiate dialogue to have a book read to them. They do it to learn & examine eachothers opinions. Not the literal txts of a manuscript.

If that was the point, noone would ever discuss anything, they'd simply read books.

A debate about the correctness of a religion (IE an apologetic debate) obviously requires outside infomation. However if you want to know "Why do Chrsitians believe X to be the case" then you should expect to be shown passages from the Bible

Hey, for your information, the "gay men hates women" thing is a myth.

I'm gay, and I love women(in a platonic way, of course :p) and I'm for gender equality.

Most sexist bigots aren't gay: they're straight but they want women to be subdued under the domination of men.

I don't believe in that myth, I've got way to many gay friends to believe that.
But I know of some who are suppressed gays, basically suppressing themselves, and they tend to hate all and everybody.

On the other hand, I've met plenty of lesbians with a militant vitriolic hatred of men.

I've met very few. They do exist, but I can't say there are many of them here. Then again, I live in Quebec, and our ratio of "enraged feminist and lesbian"/"Nice lesbian with male friends" might lower than yours, depending on where you live. Anyway, that's a little off topic, isn't it?

About the main post: what I often find disappointing, is that so many Christians use the Bible to justify their own prejudiced beliefs or bias. And they're often the most vocal about it, as well.

The only thing I have to say to you, sexist,homophobic,xenophobic and racist "Christians" using the bible to justify prejudice and discimination:

You're not Christians at all. A Christian is a follower of the Christ. The Christ was Jesus, not Paul, and now whoever wrote Leviticus. Jesus said to love your neighbour, not to judge lest ye be judged, he liked women, and he wasn't stuck up about sex as long as you didn't betray the trust of the person you love(adultery). He never said anything against contraception, or sex before marriage, or that marriage was for procreation, or that gays were immoral, sinful, and disgusting. All those opinions are from men; faillible, prejudiced men. And you're giving more weight to the opinion of those men because they comfort and reinforce your own prejudices. Shame on you for following the words of men before the words of the son of God.

Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone. I rest my case.

I've met very few. They do exist, but I can't say there are many of them here. Then again, I live in Quebec, and our ratio of "enraged feminist and lesbian"/"Nice lesbian with male friends" might lower than yours, depending on where you live. Anyway, that's a little off topic, isn't it?

About the main post: what I often find disappointing, is that so many Christians use the Bible to justify their own prejudiced beliefs or bias. And they're often the most vocal about it, as well.

The only thing I have to say to you, sexist,homophobic,xenophobic and racist "Christians" using the bible to justify prejudice and discimination:

You're not Christians at all. A Christian is a follower of the Christ. The Christ was Jesus, not Paul, and now whoever wrote Leviticus. Jesus said to love your neighbour, not to judge lest ye be judged, he liked women, and he wasn't stuck up about sex as long as you didn't betray the trust of the person you love(adultery). He never said anything against contraception, or sex before marriage, or that marriage was for procreation, or that gays were immoral, sinful, and disgusting. All those opinions are from men; faillible, prejudiced men. And you're giving more weight to the opinion of those men because they comfort and reinforce your own prejudices. Shame on you for following the words of men before the words of the son of God.

Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone. I rest my case.

*stares silently
...
*applauds

You're not Christians at all. A Christian is a follower of the Christ. The Christ was Jesus, not Paul, and now whoever wrote Leviticus. Jesus said to love your neighbour, not to judge lest ye be judged, he liked women, and he wasn't stuck up about sex as long as you didn't betray the trust of the person you love(adultery). He never said anything against contraception, or sex before marriage, or that marriage was for procreation, or that gays were immoral, sinful, and disgusting. All those opinions are from men; faillible, prejudiced men. And you're giving more weight to the opinion of those men because they comfort and reinforce your own prejudices. Shame on you for following the words of men before the words of the son of God.

Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone. I rest my case.

Firstly, Jesus did say some of those things, specifcly that homosexual practise is a sin and that sex before marriage is, although the discussion about explaing that he did is so very complex that if we go into it, I suggest making another thread. Suffice to say that the word's "sexual immorality" have a great deal of scope in terms of the word he used at the time.

However, I do agree with you. Jesus did not leave us any scope to use those facts as a justification for any kind of prejudice. Seeing as how he told us to not judge. In other words we should not condem people for sin, seing as how we are all sinners. We should respond to those who sin with love, not condemnation, as Jesus did.

Firstly, Jesus did say some of those things, specifcly that homosexual practise is a sin and that sex before marriage is, although the discussion about explaing that he did is so very complex that if we go into it, I suggest making another thread. Suffice to say that the word's "sexual immorality" have a great deal of scope in terms of the word he used at the time.

However, I do agree with you. Jesus did not leave us any scope to use those facts as a justification for any kind of prejudice. Seeing as how he told us to not judge. In other words we should not condem people for sin, seing as how we are all sinners. We should respond to those who sin with love, not condemnation, as Jesus did.

Show me the chapter and verse where Jesus says specifically that sex before marriage is a sin.

Firstly, Jesus did say some of those things, specifcly that homosexual practise is a sin and that sex before marriage is, although the discussion about explaing that he did is so very complex that if we go into it, I suggest making another thread. Suffice to say that the word's "sexual immorality" have a great deal of scope in terms of the word he used at the time.


You certainly don't have the same version of the New Testament than I have, if you've ever read anything about that. I'd like to have a quote and your version of the NT, please, because that sounds highly dubious to me.

As for "sexual immorality", I don't buy the "gay sex and sex before marriage" definition. The ONLY thing Jesus EVER bothered condemning openly was adultery; what I understand from that is that he didn't care what was going on in bed. He just wanted us not to betray the love of someone we share our life with. I don't try to interpret what he said: that opens the door to projecting my own morality unto him.

If sex before marriage or sex with the same gender was THAT immoral, Jesus would have bothered to mention it explicitly. He didn't. He did openly condemn adultery, though(about 200 times in my NT, if my memory is correct). And there's no doubt in my mind that I agree with him.

Firstly, I'd like to engage with you on points you consider falacy, but in another thread

Secondly, if you want to know what it is that Christians think about an issue then its only logical that they should use the Bible to justify their views. They are, after all, Christians. I'm sure you can apreciate that there are two sepreate debates. One is whether or not Christianity is true (apologietics) the other on the ideas of Chrsitianity itslef and how they work and why they work the way they do. If you cant accept Biblical suport for those issues, then what do you want.

Behold the backing out of an answer. =/ It always gets to this point when a religious person is defeated by the supernatural forces of logic.

Show me the chapter and verse where Jesus says specifically that sex before marriage is a sin.

There is no specifc refence to the phrase, however the word that is used is "fornication" which basicly means sexual activity outside of marriage. Also remember, that Jesus was unafraid of speeking out against that which in the old code was made obsolete by him. Thus the fact that he upheld it (see sexual imorality) shows us what he thought of it

I think what atheists/agnostics want from Christinas in a debate is a way of relating scripture to, well, reality. If an infinite all-seeing personified being of three aspects indeed exists and operates, wouldn't it be nice if we could a bit more than blindly believe words written on paper? I don't know about anyone else, but to me the bible reads like nothing more than a legend. Add to that I'm taking a Folklore course, and the sheer number of jesus-esque stories around the world make it hard to understand how one small cult could rise to such power and fill so many with fear and belief. It seems nothing more than politics and manipulation, but it is at this point in this chain of thought that I would ask a question where in the physical world they see proof of their beliefs.

Needless to say we will never get anywhere, science and religion operate from diametrically opposed schools of thought. In religion you start with the assumption that a few core ideas are absolutely true and cannot be proved otherwise, no matter the evidence, and everything else either fits the scheme, becoming proof, or does not, becoming irrelevant. In science nothing can be proven, so you start with nothing, but evidence relegates what can be considered the most fitting theory, and in turn, the truth. The truth is not permanent and can always change. Thus you either live securely and ignorantly in religion or die in tumultuous brainstorm through science. Pick your poison.

There is no specifc refence to the phrase, however the word that is used is "fornication" which basicly means sexual activity outside of marriage. Also remember, that Jesus was unafraid of speeking out against that which in the old code was made obsolete by him. Thus the fact that he upheld it (see sexual imorality) shows us what he thought of it

It would indeed be a fascinating read to see a few books in which Jesus just goes through the old testament and say "NOT" after every other sentence. Good try for an argument though.

The real problem is that non-believers want to be substantiated. They want their non-belief to be valued as belief, they don't want to feel 'bad,' and they get mad when people tell them that they are being bad :(


Even some Christians think that way, "you have to be loving and forgiving" (yes you do, but they don't stop there), "you have to be accepting of other peoples actions, even if they are Sinners (for you), it might not be a Sin for them etc., (:rolleyes: ) Jesus accepts everyone and you are a bad Christian because you say some things are wrong to do..."

And they say, "Jesus wouldn't do it that way, everyone loved Jesus because he accepted everyone just the way they are."

No, they did not. Jesus told them the way it was even when they didn't want to hear it and some people were mad as Hell at him for it and he even told them why they were mad.

Christians weren't told to go around and tell everyone what they want to hear to feel good about themselves and try to get everyone say how "those Christians are all nice." No, they were told to go around and tell the world the the truth that has been revealed to them and to relay the Good News of salvation.

Even Jesus made people want to beat him up when he told them they were messed up.

John 8 … 19-58
"You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew me, you would know my Father also." He spoke these words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his time had not yet come.

Once more Jesus said to them, "I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come."

This made the Jews ask, "Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, 'Where I go, you cannot come'?"

But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."

"Who are you?" they asked.

"Just what I have been claiming all along," Jesus replied. "I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is reliable, and what I have heard from him I tell the world."

They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him." Even as he spoke, many put their faith in him.

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?"

Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your father."

"Abraham is our father," they answered.

"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your own father does."

"We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."

Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."

The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?"

"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."

At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"

Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

The problem is there are no sources or records independent of the bible corroborating the miracles that the bible say occurred.
Sure you can say some city existed or a disaster happened but just because you find the city of Troy doesn’t prove that Achilles was invulnerable except for his foot.

-snip-
Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone. I rest my case.

This is misquote is always taken out of context.

It is from John 8,
3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

Now, notice that they were trying to trap Jesus. What was the trap?

Notice it says that she was "caught in the act", meaning they found her actually having sex with a married man, and they pulled them apart.
Now according to OT law, both the man and the woman were supposed to be judged, and if there were witnesses to the act, they were both to be stoned, by the witnesses.

But the pharisees only brought the woman. They were testing Jesus' knowledge of the OT. If he condemned her, they would say, see, he doesn't know the law, so therefore, he cannot have been sent by God.

That is why Jesus said, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." That means, if any of you really saw this going on, you begin the stoning, and don't forget to stone the man as well. Speculation is that the adulterous man was one of the pharisees, so they weren't going to stone one of their own.

Anyway, speculation about the identity of the man aside, it was against OT law to stone only the woman, and the witnesses had to begin the stoning. So obviously, Jesus was casting doubt about their story, that she had been caught "in the very act." And he was pointing out their sin in bringing the woman for illegal punishment.

So it does not mean that only sinless people can condemn others, it means that false witnesses had better keep their mouths shut.The pharisees had sinned by their act of singling this woman out for punishment and letting the man go free.

So, notice the response of the pharisees:

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Now, Jesus knew that the woman was a sinner, but he did not condemn her, because he wasn't there to see what she had done, if anything.

Interesting that the older ones left first, I guess they knew that they had a lot more similar sins under their belts.

Behold the backing out of an answer. =/ It always gets to this point when a religious person is defeated by the supernatural forces of logic.

Care to explain how in that particular instance I was?

For those who said earlier that the idea of homosexuality as a sin was unbiblical, see what you make of this

http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

For those who said earlier that the idea of homosexuality as a sin was unbiblical, see what you make of this

http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

From a Christian view, I see homosexuality as a sin.... Arguments over it's biblicality in this manner mean little... Because there is a second issue of much more import.

Why are people, claiming Christianity as their foundation, perverting my religion by trying to legislate it?

The Victorian militant atheist Charles Bradlaugh, who went on tub-thumping speaking tours, used to stride onto the stage, take out his pocket watch and challenge God to strike him dead in 60 seconds. His survival at the end of the minute was, for him, proof positive that God did not exist.

Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, tried to prove the inefficacy of prayer, at least to his own satisfaction, by comparing the life expectancy of the British royal family--whose health was prayed for in churches throughout the land--with that of other members of the aristocracy. Finding no difference, he concluded that prayer was not an effective means of prolonging life.

Very much in the same tradition, Gregory S. Paul, writing in the Journal of Religion and Society, attempts to prove that religious belief, far from contributing to the moral fiber of society, actually causes social disintegration. Mr. Paul is a paleontologist whose previous works have included "Predatory Dinosaurs of the World" and "Dinosaurs of the Air."

He finds that highly developed countries with the lowest levels of belief in God also have the lowest levels of social pathology and the best physical health; and that the U.S., with its uniquely high level of religious belief, "is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious and wealthy, prosperous democracies."

Ergo, religion is bad, if not for you personally, at least for society as a whole. Mr. Paul's study has been covered in newspapers from Australia to England and lauded smugly in academic circles. As one University of Southern California student wrote in the Daily Trojan: "The last thing we [Americans] need is any more blind faith."

It is interesting that Mr. Paul's paper makes no mention of Russia, whose 70-year experiment with enforced atheism did not create a society altogether lacking in social pathology, to put it mildly, and where the life expectancy of men is now appreciably lower than that of credulous countries such as Guatemala.

Which brings up the question of what should be compared with what. After all, comparisons within countries, both static and across time, control for far more cultural factors than comparisons between them.

Thus not even Mr. Paul would claim that he was more likely to be mugged in America by believers emerging from a Sunday service at a Baptist church than by drug-taking atheists emerging from a crack den, or that the highly religious in America are more prey in general to venereal disease than the irreligious. Nor could he very well deny that criminality in Britain, an extremely law-abiding country when three-quarters of its children still attended Sunday school, has risen exponentially in the wake of sudden secularization.

The crudity and selectivity of Mr. Paul's thinking betrays an animus not only toward religion but toward the U.S., or at least toward American society. It is true that the murder rate in America is higher than in any other Western country, but all other crimes of violence are more prevalent in Britain than America, and one is more likely to have one's home burgled in France than America.

Mr. Paul suspects "that Europeans are increasingly repelled by the poor societal performance of the Christian states"--i.e., the U.S.--as if European anti-Americanism were founded on the relatively high U.S. rates of teenage pregnancy and infection with gonorrhea rather than on envy and disappointment at Europe's loss of power and prestige.

He also states, as if it were an incontrovertible fact, that "the United States is . . . the least efficient nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health." It is true, for example, that the life expectancy of Americans is less than that of Britons--but by a month or two, which is hardly of great significance. It is also true that much American popular culture is crass, vulgar and worthless--but this is something that has not exactly escaped the notice of thinking Americans, from at least H.L. Mencken onward, and secular Europeans are just as susceptible to crass and vulgar kitsch, as the briefest of acquaintance with Italian television or contemporary British art will establish beyond reasonable doubt.

To present America, even by implication, as an intellectual and cultural wasteland is an inaccuracy that can derive only from a visceral hostility that is not conducive to honesty. Not only is America pre-eminent, by a very long way, in science but its best universities are by far the best in the world. Its cultural institutions are unparalleled. In effect, the rest of the world is in a state of intellectual dependence on America, unable or unwilling to distinguish the good from the bad.

A debate about the correctness of a religion (IE an apologetic debate) obviously requires outside infomation. However if you want to know "Why do Chrsitians believe X to be the case" then you should expect to be shown passages from the Bible
Sorry, I wan't actually talking about apologetics. I rarely partake in such debates, as I consider them a waste of time. Religion is irrational, and as such, I'll never believe one. Faith isn't my strong side.
I'm not trying to say you're wrong & I'm right. Obviously I think I'm right, but since I'll never accept an irrational argument, there's no reason for us to debate it. I can't ptove you wrong any more that you can prove you're right ;)

In a debate about a given religion, Biblical quotes are sometimes relevant & necessary, but I expect the people I debate with to try and keep it to a minimum. If I just wanted the quotes, I'd go to the library instead of engaging an independent consciousness in a debate. I suspect you'd find it disruptive if I started reciting atheist litterature non stop, if we were debating my personal veiw of humanism.

NB: Skaladora, thanks for pointing out the rampant hypocricy. A lot of us atheists unfortunately seem to forget that religion isn't an excuse for being a hatefull irrational bitch.

From a Christian view, I see homosexuality as a sin.... Arguments over it's biblicality in this manner mean little... Because there is a second issue of much more import.

Why are people, claiming Christianity as their foundation, perverting my religion by trying to legislate it?

Because they argue (and I agree) that marriage is intrinsicly one man and one woman. Thats what Genesis 2:24 says. I think they have a right to do this if the people democraticly elected people who said they were going to do this then let them do it. Marriage is not a right and so this shouldnt be considered demeaning to rights

It's perfectly acceptable to use the Bible to explain Christian beliefs. What creates problems is when the Bible is used to justify Christian beliefs.

One could say that they killed their parents because they were abused as a child. That's a completely rational explanation. Does this mean that such a person should avoid all penalties of the law? No.

It's perfectly acceptable to use the Bible to explain Christian beliefs. What creates problems is when the Bible is used to justify Christian beliefs.

It becomes an issue when people refuse to see parts of the Bible as historical documents, which is unfair

It becomes an issue when people refuse to see parts of the Bible as historical documents, which is unfair
For most discussions, the historical accuracy of the Bible is irrelevant. What is discussed is the interpretation of Biblical content.

Genesis would be a good example. Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden tree of knowledge of good and evil, therefore created emnity between people and snakes, pain in childbirth, domination of women by men, having to dig in the ground for food, and being barred from having immortality.

Interpretation 1: because man went against God's warning to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he and his descendants have lost eternal life.

Interpretation 2: Knowledge of good and evil is more valuable than eternal life, therefore it should be used wisely to make the price paid for it worthwhile.

It's perfectly acceptable to use the Bible to explain Christian beliefs. What creates problems is when the Bible is used to justify Christian beliefs.

One could say that they killed their parents because they were abused as a child. That's a completely rational explanation. Does this mean that such a person should avoid all penalties of the law? No.

Very interesting point. Again, it fits well with my idea that for most "fundamentalists", religion is only a mean to justify prejudice and hatred. Christians cannot spread hatred and prejudice, be it agaist gays, women, or any other minority, and then hide behind the Bible and say :"I'm not the one saying all those nasty things, the Bible is".

Guys, some of you need to grow up and start thinking for yourselves. Religion is NOT about following blindly what a book or a minister tells you. God gave us free will, and a brain to be able to think things through. Use it, and then let God and your conscience guide you on the right path.

Because they argue (and I agree) that marriage is intrinsicly one man and one woman. Thats what Genesis 2:24 says. I think they have a right to do this if the people democraticly elected people who said they were going to do this then let them do it. Marriage is not a right and so this shouldnt be considered demeaning to rights

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman as well. HOWEVER, this is a religious belief for me. However, and this is also a belief, but one I will practice upon you, and your ilk; anyone attempting to legislate my religion into civil law. Is not a member of my religion [Christianity]. Because, no part of Christianity is about legislating our religion upon the planet.

You can't hate Christ [which you do], and claim some sort of biblical foundation. Much like Robertson and his ilk; you're an unrepentant sinner, and we know where the unrepentant go....

Christianity, and this religion as a whole, has absolutely nothing to do with legislating morality. And I will not support the heretics, such as yourself, who attempt to pervert the purity of Christian religion.

If you want to discuss an aspect of Christian theology, then you cant be suprised when people use the Bible to explain and/or support their point. For example, if someone asks "Why do some Christians consdider homosexuality a sin" and then the other person answers with a passgae from the Bible explaining this point, the arguement "The Bible is a load of rubbish" moves you outside of your orignianl question. In the same way, in the "How do you justify hell" thread, people are getting cross at me for producing the Bible to explain how and why hell works in the way it does. It's rediculous. I agree there is a seprate debate on the validity and nature of Christiaity's claims themselves, but if you are debating about Christainity do not be supprised when people use the Bible to explain Christianity to you.

Quite simple, really.

I have read the Bible (quite thoroughly), and I interpret it very differently to SOME of the posters, I'm sure.

To me - the Bible SHOULD be read as a book about loving each other, and accepting each other. It should be about not judging each other, because we are all flawed, and it should be about staying away from the things we don't like.

It shouldn't be used as the artillery in a war on lifestyles we disapprove of.

Thus - if I were to ask you WHY do YOU consider homosexuality a sin (for example) I already KNOW what is in the text, and I disagree with your interpretation. What I want to know is why YOU believe what YOU believe... not what you found written in a book.

Because they argue (and I agree) that marriage is intrinsicly one man and one woman. Thats what Genesis 2:24 says. I think they have a right to do this if the people democraticly elected people who said they were going to do this then let them do it. Marriage is not a right and so this shouldnt be considered demeaning to rights

Prove it.

The way I read it (from the Hebrew) the 'marriage' of Adam and Eve (or 'adam and Chavvah) is more about retelling the story of creation... the 'marriage' of spirit with flesh, to make the first humans.

And, even if the marriage WERE literal, it in no way disallows homosexual marriage... it is simply the marriage of ALL the people alive at that time, is it not?