NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been a Christian for most of my life and have been on this forum for just a little while. Of Late, I have seen these "Why are Christians Bashed or whatever threads?" I have just one thing to say to you. Grow Up, there are Chrisitans in Somalia and Myanmar being killed for their faith and you can't even take it when a few people on an Internet Forum make fun of you. Really we need to grow thicker skins.

For more thought I submit John 15:19-21:

"If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me."

I am tired of seeing people complain that we are being bashed and what not. Jesus knew that this would happen and I don't think you realize just how well off we are in North America and Europe.

And before I go another verse Matthew 5:10-12:

"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

Indeed

I have been a Christian for most of my life and have been on this forum for just a little while. Of Late, I have seen these "Why are Christians Bashed or whatever threads?" I have just one thing to say to you. Grow Up, there are Chrisitans in Somalia and Myanmar being killed for their faith and you can't even take it when a few people on an Internet Forum make fun of you. Really we need to grow thicker skins.

Just some things that need to be clarified:

1) Christians aren't 'bashed' here; people who get 'bashed' are fundamentalist Christians who are hell bent on ramming their particular brand of Christianity down not only the throats of non-believers, but moderate/liberal Christians and doing their part to bash those who don't fit into their narrow view of the world - namely gays on this forum.

2) Fundamentalist Christianity is not only a threat to individuals such as myself, but a threat to all moderate Christians who wish that their theological views are respected as being part of the larger Christian movement.

3) There is nothing wrong with being a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jew or what have you; but don't go around declaring that you have a monopoly on the truth, and that you're right and everyone else is wrong - that is what pisses people off; yes, you have a set of beliefs, but don't go around claiming that just because you believe something, it automatically graduates from being a belief to being a fact.

4) Most people are pretty damn tolerant when it comes to differeing views, what I and alot of people can't stand is this bible bashing that is used here; this constant use of the bible to justify any action that is done by an individual. If you're a Christian, good for you, but there is no need to make a song and dance about it, as if it is some sort of a achievement to be a Christian.

Just some things that need to be clarified:

1) Christians aren't 'bashed' here; people who get 'bashed' are fundamentalist Christians who are hell bent on ramming their particular brand of Christianity down not only the throats of non-believers, but moderate/liberal Christians and doing their part to bash those who don't fit into their narrow view of the world - namely gays on this forum.

2) Fundamentalist Christianity is not only a threat to individuals such as myself, but a threat to all moderate Christians who wish that their theological views are respected as being part of the larger Christian movement.

3) There is nothing wrong with being a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jew or what have you; but don't go around declaring that you have a monopoly on the truth, and that you're right and everyone else is wrong - that is what pisses people off; yes, you have a set of beliefs, but don't go around claiming that just because you believe something, it automatically graduates from being a belief to being a fact.

4) Most people are pretty damn tolerant when it comes to differeing views, what I and alot of people can't stand is this bible bashing that is used here; this constant use of the bible to justify any action that is done by an individual. If you're a Christian, good for you, but there is no need to make a song and dance about it, as if it is some sort of a achievement to be a Christian.

Righteous.


Again, the issue seems to be that moderate Christians get annoyed when non Christians react to fundamentalist rhetoric and bigotry as if they too are being attacked. Then, when it is pointed out to them that the majority of criticism that is levelled against Christianity is because of the Robertsons and Falwells of the world, the response is, "but we're nothing like them". Good. Then don't take it personally. Becuase it is most certainly not meant personally.

I agree it's just that a lot of Christians tend to take things personally even when the bashing is refering to Fundamentalists. I also agree with the fact that we can't just go around quoting the Bible to people because most simply don't believe that it is the word of God the same as us. I have seen this problem in some of my History classes at the University. Some students have wanted to site the Bible as a legitimate historical reference for papers and such. This might be ok in a Religious Studies course but it is ot in History. I am constantly trying to tell some of these Christians to come back down to the real world.

3) There is nothing wrong with being a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jew or what have you; but don't go around declaring that you have a monopoly on the truth, and that you're right and everyone else is wrong
But Christianity and Islam teach that they have a monopoly on truth! If, as the Bible says, Jesus is the only way to heaven, how can any alternative way be true? From that point of view, the fundamentalist attitude is at least logical.

- that is what pisses people off; yes, you have a set of beliefs, but don't go around claiming that just because you believe something, it automatically graduates from being a belief to being a fact.
OK, now I'm confused. So when a Christian says that God exists and Jesus died for our sins, he's not actually supposed to believe that he's stating a fact?? If it's not a fact, then it's a fiction.

I agree it's just that a lot of Christians tend to take things personally even when the bashing is refering to Fundamentalists. I also agree with the fact that we can't just go around quoting the Bible to people because most simply don't believe that it is the word of God the same as us. I have seen this problem in some of my History classes at the University. Some students have wanted to site the Bible as a legitimate historical reference for papers and such. This might be ok in a Religious Studies course but it is ot in History. I am constantly trying to tell some of these Christians to come back down to the real world.

:fluffle:

Hurray! Balanced, thoughtful and Christian. You have plenty of work here......;)

The bible was written by ordinary people of its time. It can be considered a historical point because of this. It was written by the people that were there when these things happened.

The bible was written by ordinary people of its time. It can be considered a historical point because of this. It was written by the people that were there when these things happened.

Actually, good point. However, I think that what was being alluded to is that it is often claimed to be historically accurate with no more supporting evidence than other, non religious, historical ducumentation.

they are bashed because religious jokes are the funniest.

thats why i know sooooooooooooooooo many jew jokes

Stop bashing me! :mad:

Sinners.

It was written by the people that were there when these things happened.

No, it wasn't. Most wasn't written down until years and years after the things claimed to have happened are to have happened.

The bible was written by ordinary people of its time. It can be considered a historical point because of this. It was written by the people that were there when these things happened.

Actually, the only person who can claim that he was "there when these things happened" would be Peter... and he didn't contribute that much to the actual bible. All the rest was written by people who had the stories told to them by the offspring of the witnesses...

I agree it's just that a lot of Christians tend to take things personally even when the bashing is refering to Fundamentalists. I also agree with the fact that we can't just go around quoting the Bible to people because most simply don't believe that it is the word of God the same as us. I have seen this problem in some of my History classes at the University. Some students have wanted to site the Bible as a legitimate historical reference for papers and such. This might be ok in a Religious Studies course but it is ot in History. I am constantly trying to tell some of these Christians to come back down to the real world.

True, the simple fact of the matter, its like science and intelligent design; people get all strung up saying, "well, evolution doesn't explain why we're here!" - the simple fact of them matter, that ISN'T the job of science.

Science's main purpose is to explain HOW things happen, its up to philosophy to explain WHY things happen - why we're here is a matter of religion and philosophy.

As for history; one *could* possibly talk about Jesus in terms of historical context how his philosophy influenced the direction of religion, just as one could study Buddha or Mohummad, but at the same time, they can't honestly expect a history class to believe that Noah's Ark as being a real historical event! if that is the case, we might as well wheel out stories regarding the easter bunny and santa claus!

The bible was written by ordinary people of its time. It can be considered a historical point because of this. It was written by the people that were there when these things happened.


Erm, no its not. Nothing in the book you know as the bible was written by actual witnesses to the events described and mediated upon within.

And that's before you even attempt to tackle the legacy of all the transcription and translation issues, together with the effects of blatant editorial impartiality in past.

I do not bash christians or any other religion, however I do have an opinion which may, or may not differ from your own.

I beleive that for starters, you should be able to create an argument to back yourself without resorting to ancient texts (or current texts for that matter). I do not think that anyone should adhere to rules laid out that are not relevant to today's life, which is a major thumbs down to religion, as it is such a static guideline.

It's not that I am against beleifs, I do encourage ppl to think for themselves and choose what they beleive in, given the information they have acquired. I do not like it when ppl adhere to the religion "Because I was brought up that way!". I think that religions should be pretty much abolished and members be allowed to pray to whomever and whatever they beleive in.

So, in summary, pls do not feel bashed by the comments in this forum and those who do criticize religion, do so positively and intelligently and provide food for thought on both sides, so that each individual will make up their own mind!

If nothing in the bible was written down by witnesses, then why are all four books of the gospel so similar. They are all written by different people, who probably never had much contact with each other, so they couldn't have just copied each other's work. The New Testament was WRITTEN BY THE PEOPLE OF THE TIME, otherwise the events mentioned couldn't have been mentioned in the detail that they were.

But Christianity and Islam teach that they have a monopoly on truth! If, as the Bible says, Jesus is the only way to heaven, how can any alternative way be true? From that point of view, the fundamentalist attitude is at least logical.

No, you can take a mature attitude by saying that "Jesus is the only way to heaven" whilst acknowledging that its your own belief and that others may have a different view on how to interprete Christianity or what ever deity they may believe in.

OK, now I'm confused. So when a Christian says that God exists and Jesus died for our sins, he's not actually supposed to believe that he's stating a fact?? If it's not a fact, then it's a fiction.

No, its a belief; a belief is an concept where evidence is abscent; thus, one can have the belief there is a god, it doesn't make it a fact, but at the same time, it doesn't make it non-existant; it simple means that the individual believes that their *could* be a deity and for that individual he or she doesn't require facts to make it so.

Which is where the idea of faith comes from; you have faith in something by hopeing that what you are told about something is true, in abscence of any wordly critical analysis - and what faith offers is hope; and for some, that is a very important idea, but at the same time, one shouldn't allow ones own hope and faith to blind them to such an extent that the rights of one idividual overrides the right of another individual to believe what they wish to believe.

I have been a Christian for most of my life and have been on this forum for just a little while. Of Late, I have seen these "Why are Christians Bashed or whatever threads?" I have just one thing to say to you. Grow Up, there are Chrisitans in Somalia and Myanmar being killed for their faith and you can't even take it when a few people on an Internet Forum make fun of you. Really we need to grow thicker skins.

For more thought I submit John 15:19-21:

"If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me."

I am tired of seeing people complain that we are being bashed and what not. Jesus knew that this would happen and I don't think you realize just how well off we are in North America and Europe.

And before I go another verse Matthew 5:10-12:

"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."


I think the more interesting point is the feeling of persecution. Generally, I have noticed in threads I participate in (and some that I just read) that if you speak against a christian here, you are persecuting that christian.

Now, this is not true of all, but when, in the US at least, you are in the majority and have control of the government, Who is being persecuted?

Sure, this is just an internet forum. But I think that verse from Matthew, and the one from John, points out that christians can easily say, "I am righteous and therefore they persecute me", when in fact there is nothing more than a discussion of issues being had.

I don't claim that christians persecute me when they disagree with my point of view.

to the OP, good verses.

I would also like to throw in, the fact that it doesn't really matter if anyone like us (Christians) or not, because they are not our concern anyway.


Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

we all have better things to do, then worry about some athiest sitting in his mom's basement who thinks we are stupid. ;)


*this post was absolutly not meant to offend any 40 year olds who live in thier mom's basement and play NS all day

What bothers me as a U.S. citizen and atheist is when I see comments like this: "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
[Republican Presidential Nominee George Bush Sr.]

or like this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml


an excerpt:

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"


I would hope that christians could at least see my concern.

If nothing in the bible was written down by witnesses, then why are all four books of the gospel so similar. They are all written by different people, who probably never had much contact with each other, so they couldn't have just copied each other's work. The New Testament was WRITTEN BY THE PEOPLE OF THE TIME, otherwise the events mentioned couldn't have been mentioned in the detail that they were.


Circumstantial evidence hardly proves your point and returns us to one of the problems Christians create for themselves. Show supporting evidence outside of the manuscript you're referring to. It's the old argument that you cannot use a word to define itself.

What about all the translations, you dont think it's possible that some monk(s) somewhere got lazy? Or embellished? Or that King James' translaters didnt take into account what he wanted it to be? Or even the Pope's back when the Pope was more of a political figure than he is now?

Simply arguing your point is correct just because you cant believe it's not completely ignores any other possible explanation and is hardly the way to win an argument.

What bothers me as a U.S. citizen and atheist is when I see comments like this: "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
[Republican Presidential Nominee George Bush Sr.]

or like this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml


an excerpt:

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"


I would hope that christians could at least see my concern.

What I find also interesting is if a Conservative Muslim were to say that the US is a corrupt society and that their corruption is spreading to their own home land - you would see many people comdemn that individual, and yet, when GWB claims that God has a hotline straight to the oval office, we seem to have Christian fundamentalists claim that its perfectly rational to believe it.

to the OP, good verses.

I would also like to throw in, the fact that it doesn't really matter if anyone like us (Christians) or not, because they are not our concern anyway.


Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

we all have better things to do, then worry about some athiest sitting in his mom's basement who thinks we are stupid. ;)


*this post was absolutly not meant to offend any 40 year olds who live in thier mom's basement and play NS all day
Back when I was a believer, I used to take comfort in a scripture from Timothy--can't remember the exact verse--but the essence was Paul saying that if you're not being persecuted, that you need to worry, because Satan only goes after those he doesn't have control over.

Of course, in the time that I've stopped being a dogmatic christian, I've also had my share of tribulation, so I guess that theory is a little shot.

Back when I was a believer, I used to take comfort in a scripture from Timothy--can't remember the exact verse--but the essence was Paul saying that if you're not being persecuted, that you need to worry, because Satan only goes after those he doesn't have control over.

Of course, in the time that I've stopped being a dogmatic christian, I've also had my share of tribulation, so I guess that theory is a little shot.
is it really? I know the verse you are talking about, and it doesn't read that you only have trouble when you are doing what is right, just that if you are doing what is right don't worry about the trouble.


did that make any sense? I am not sure. I need coffee........

to the OP, good verses.

I would also like to throw in, the fact that it doesn't really matter if anyone like us (Christians) or not, because they are not our concern anyway.


Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

we all have better things to do, then worry about some athiest sitting in his mom's basement who thinks we are stupid. ;)


*this post was absolutly not meant to offend any 40 year olds who live in thier mom's basement and play NS all day


For the record, I am not quite 30 and I live in my own basement thank you! ;)

But seriously, do you realize the irony of that verse:

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

This is perfect example of the bible being out of date. Right now if you aren't Christian, you can't run a principality, have and power, or be a ruler in high places. Makes you wonder about the whole "wickedness" part of that sentence.

If nothing in the bible was written down by witnesses, then why are all four books of the gospel so similar. They are all written by different people, who probably never had much contact with each other, so they couldn't have just copied each other's work. The New Testament was WRITTEN BY THE PEOPLE OF THE TIME, otherwise the events mentioned couldn't have been mentioned in the detail that they were.

Actually, it has been well established for a long time that Luke and Marc copied large pats from Matthew (who wrote the first gosple, around 70 years after Jesus' death). Only John seems to have made an effort to collect other stories and to add philosophy to them.

Actually, it has been well established for a long time that Luke and Marc copied large pats from Matthew (who wrote the first gosple, around 70 years after Jesus' death).
Other way round - Matthew and Luke copied larges parts from Mark. Even the order of the books in the Bible isn't correct, let alone the content :)

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

This is perfect example of the bible being out of date. Right now if you aren't Christian, you can't run a principality, have and power, or be a ruler in high places. Makes you wonder about the whole "wickedness" part of that sentence.
did you not read the part where we wrestle not against flesh and blood?

we aren't supposed to be fighting people at all, the verse is about spiritual warfare, and that is what we should be worried about.

is it really? I know the verse you are talking about, and it doesn't read that you only have trouble when you are doing what is right, just that if you are doing what is right don't worry about the trouble.


did that make any sense? I am not sure. I need coffee........

Referring to the verse that (summarized) states God will only allow as much tribulations you're able to handle?

I suppose the most ironic part of my discussions with the Christians on this board is that I grew up a Baptist missionary's kid... What frustrates me most about the Christians on this board is that very few of them allow for other people to have their own beliefs - much the same reason there are even missionaries. People have their own beliefs and they are just as entitled to them as anyone else - whether you agree with them or not. In reality, all one can do is share their beliefs and hope that someone else sees 'the light.' Arguing that your beliefs are the only true beliefs will only turn people off. (and this goes for everyone, not just Christians)

Actually, it has been well established for a long time that Luke and Marc copied large pats from Matthew (who wrote the first gosple, around 70 years after Jesus' death). Only John seems to have made an effort to collect other stories and to add philosophy to them.
You got it a little backwards. Mark is the oldest of the canonical gospels---Matthew and Luke drew from him. Mark drew from other writings as well--the two main sources were the Q Gospel and the Secret Gospel of Thomas.

Other way round - Matthew and Luke copied larges parts from Mark. Even the order of the books in the Bible isn't correct, let alone the content :)

Sorry... I always mix up those two. Their names sound similar in German, maybe that's why.

Actually, it has been well established for a long time that Luke and Marc copied large pats from Matthew (who wrote the first gosple, around 70 years after Jesus' death). Only John seems to have made an effort to collect other stories and to add philosophy to them.

Let us not forget the fact that there were large number of books that were not included in the bible due to the politically sensitive nature of them - namely, the contradictory nature of these books when compared to other authors accounts of Jesus's ministry.

Sorry... I always mix up those two. Their names sound similar in German, maybe that's why.

Excuses, excuses :P

Referring to the verse that (summarized) states God will only allow as much tribulations you're able to handle?

I suppose the most ironic part of my discussions with the Christians on this board is that I grew up a Baptist missionary's kid... What frustrates me most about the Christians on this board is that very few of them allow for other people to have their own beliefs - much the same reason there are even missionaries. People have their own beliefs and they are just as entitled to them as anyone else - whether you agree with them or not. In reality, all one can do is share their beliefs and hope that someone else sees 'the light.' Arguing that your beliefs are the only true beliefs will only turn people off. (and this goes for everyone, not just Christians)


I believe that what I believe is the absolute truth, I also realize that it isn't my job to force it on anyone else. All I can do is be who I am, answer questions when asked, and try to be a light in the world. I don't ever want to make anyone believe anything, God gave everyone a choice and it isn't my place to try to take it away.

I have run into Christians on this board that think it is thier "job" to lead everyone to salvation, it isn't.

I have friends that are missionaries. Some of them are back from Cambodia for Thanksgiving, they are helping people there with clean water, and health care. The people are thankful for the help, they are not being forced to believe anything they don't want to, but when my friends come back here they get attacked by people who think they are doing a bad thing.

I don't see how clean water is a bad thing, it isn't like they are saying "denounce buddhism or no water for you":rolleyes:

Let us not forget the fact that there were large number of books that were not included in the bible due to the politically sensitive nature of them - namely, the contradictory nature of these books when compared to other authors accounts of Jesus's ministry.

And taking into consideration that today's canon of books in the New Testamtent was agreed on in the lat 4th century AD, leaving out a large number of books and agreeing on the current 26 books. By that time, the church had become an institutionalised religion and highly influential. I would therefore assume that the current books were chosen not only with an eye on the truthfulness of the accounts (which by that time would have been very hard indeed to verify without doubt) but also on political and social motives.

I believe that what I believe is the absolute truth, I also realize that it isn't my job to force it on anyone else. All I can do is be who I am, answer questions when asked, and try to be a light in the world. I don't ever want to make anyone believe anything, God gave everyone a choice and it isn't my place to try to take it away.

I have run into Christians on this board that think it is thier "job" to lead everyone to salvation, it isn't.

I have friends that are missionaries. Some of them are back from Cambodia for Thanksgiving, they are helping people there with clean water, and health care. The people are thankful for the help, they are not being forced to believe anything they don't want to, but when my friends come back here they get attacked by people who think they are doing a bad thing.

I don't see how clean water is a bad thing, it isn't like they are saying "denounce buddhism or no water for you":rolleyes:

Ahh, but not all missionaries are like that - which is where the problem comes in.

Grow Up, there are Chrisitans in Somalia and Myanmar being killed for their faith and you can't even take it when a few people on an Internet Forum make fun of you. Really we need to grow thicker skins.

If you didnt notice, the thread "Why is Chrisitianity bashed all over the world" is about Christian persecution in other countries.

Ahh, but not all missionaries are like that - which is where the problem comes in.
yeah, they are Southern Baptist missionaries, they tell me that some missionaries from another denomination are not so nice, if you don't take thier book they won't give you help. that sucks (for them)
My friends go in and say "we will help you no matter what, we love you"

they can't honestly expect a history class to believe that Noah's Ark as being a real historical event!
Many groups point to the ark resting on mount ararat. Whether it exists or not remains to be seen.

yeah, they are Southern Baptist missionaries, they tell me that some missionaries from another denomination are not so nice, if you don't take thier book they won't give you help. that sucks (for them)
My friends go in and say "we will help you no matter what, we love you"

...*a-hem*
Rephrase "Southern Baptist" to "Baptist", as it is the entire Baptist group, both Yank and Southern that refuses to play nice.

Let us not forget the fact that there were large number of books that were not included in the bible due to the politically sensitive nature of them - namely, the contradictory nature of these books when compared to other authors accounts of Jesus's ministry.

If I'm not mistaken, those books are called The Apocrypha, aren't they? That's a word that imparts some level of dismissal to those books, as if to say "these were written around the same time, but by people with ideas we didn't support, so we'll call them apocryphal."

a·poc·ry·phal
adj.
1. Of questionable authorship or authenticity.
2. Erroneous; fictitious: “Wildly apocryphal rumors about starvation in Petrograd... raced through Russia's trenches” (W. Bruce Lincoln).
3. Apocryphal Bible. Of or having to do with the Apocrypha.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
a·pocry·phal·ly adv.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

AND,

A·poc·ry·pha
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
1. The biblical books included in the Vulgate and accepted in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox canon but considered noncanonical by Protestants because they are not part of the Hebrew Scriptures. See table at Bible.
2. Various early Christian writings proposed as additions to the New Testament but rejected by the major canons.

(apocrypha Writings or statements of questionable authorship or authenticity.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English apocripha, not authentic, from Late Latin Apocrypha, the Apocrypha, from Greek Apokrupha, neuter pl. of apokruphos, secret, hidden, from apokruptein, to hide away : apo-, away + kruptein, kruph-, to hide.]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

I believe that the accounts in the Bible are true. Even if they weren't the Bible can be used as a historical reference. It expresses the views of the world at that time. It shows the culture of the age.

I beleive that for starters, you should be able to create an argument to back yourself without resorting to ancient texts (or current texts for that matter). I do not think that anyone should adhere to rules laid out that are not relevant to today's life, which is a major thumbs down to religion, as it is such a static guideline.
So, if you can't use "ancient" texts for support, that makes a little bit of sense to me. But if you can't even use CURRENT texts, then aren't you just supporting the idea that every Christian will be down to the argument of faith and personal belief? That doesn't leave ANY room for "an argument to back yourself" as you state.

It's not that I am against beleifs, I do encourage ppl to think for themselves and choose what they beleive in, given the information they have acquired. I do not like it when ppl adhere to the religion "Because I was brought up that way!".
Well, that one was well thought and rational, until you added this little kicker:
I think that religions should be pretty much abolished and members be allowed to pray to whomever and whatever they beleive in.
So now, though you "encourage" people to choose what they believe in, you think that religions should no longer be allowed? That does seem a little small-minded. I daresay as a Christian, and a well-educated Christian who came to my decision regarding beliefs after much study and questioning, it's quite contradictory to say "Believe what you want, as long as it's not a religion, because religions are rubbish and shouldn't be allowed". Um, newsflash....if you believe in a deity and pray to them, whether or not it has wide-range acceptance, IT IS A RELIGION.

So, in summary, pls do not feel bashed by the comments in this forum and those who do criticize religion, do so positively and intelligently and provide food for thought on both sides, so that each individual will make up their own mind!
Indeed, provide food for thought on both sides, as long as you can not only smack the religious with "Religions shouldn't be allowed because I say so!", but also claim that it's wrong of them to use even contemporary works to support them. Oh yeah. Way to encourage intelligent and positive debate, there.

...*a-hem*
Rephrase "Southern Baptist" to "Baptist", as it is the entire Baptist group, both Yank and Southern that refuses to play nice.
how is that?

The bible was written by ordinary people of its time. It can be considered a historical point because of this. It was written by the people that were there when these things happened.

I thought I'd try a stab:

The Bible is one of twenty-seven books for which divine origin is claimed. Christians deny the divinity of all Bibles but their own.

Out of 250 Jewish-Christian writings, sixty-six have arbitrarily been declared canonical by Protestants. The rejected books are of the same general character as those now published together as the "Holy Bible." Circumstances rather than merit determined selection.

For 150 years the Christian Bible consisted of the sacred books of the Jews. The New Testament was not formed until the latter half of the second century when Irenaeus selected twenty books from among forty or more gospels, nearly as many acts of apostles, a score of revelations and a hundred epistles. Why were these particular books chosen? Why four gospels instead of one? Irenaeus says, "There are four quarters of the earth in which we live and four universal winds." The gospels were unknown to Peter, Paul, and the early church fathers. They were forged later.

The Bible did not assume anything like its present form until the fourth century. The Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, and Protestant canons were not adopted until modern times. The Bible was recognized as a collection of independent writings. As mentioned, the Council of Trent (1563) determined the Roman Catholic Canon. Protestants denounce the Catholic Bible as a "popish imposture." The Greek Catholics at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 finally accepted the book of Revelation. Their Bible contains several books not in the Roman canon. The Westminster Assembly in 1647 approved the list of sixty-six books composing the authorized version, the one most used in America. The American Bible in it's present form, therefore, is less than 300 years old.

"Christians of NS, Grow Up."

I would have phrased it, "Christians of NS, Pray for More Faith."

Remember the foundations of your faith:

* Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind.

* Do not worship "idols." An idol can be anything or anyone: yourself, what you possess, money, your religious leader, your parents, the church ... anything!

* Love your neighbor as [ much as ] you love yourself.

* Try to be at peace with all men.

* Pray for faith because it is a gift of God, and not of yourself.



Do these things if you truly are a Christian, and all the other things ( politics, etc. ) will fall into place.

"Christians of NS, Grow Up."

I would have phrased it, "Christians of NS, Pray for More Faith."

Remember the foundations of your faith:

* Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind.

* Do not worship "idols." An idol can be anything or anyone: yourself, what you possess, money, your religious leader, your parents, the church ... anything!

* Love your neighbor as [ much as ] you love yourself.

* Try to be at peace with all men.

* Pray for faith because it is a gift of God, and not of yourself.



Do these things if you truly are a Christian, and all the other things ( politics, etc. ) will fall into place.

Amen

I thought I'd try a stab:

The Bible is one of twenty-seven books for which divine origin is claimed. Christians deny the divinity of all Bibles but their own.

Out of 250 Jewish-Christian writings, sixty-six have arbitrarily been declared canonical by Protestants. The rejected books are of the same general character as those now published together as the "Holy Bible." Circumstances rather than merit determined selection.
So what you're saying is that God cannot control "circumstances," yes? Then apparently there is no God, since any "god" worth his salt should certainly be able to control circumstances. :confused:

Here's another little suggestion for NS Christians:

The post about "circumstances" brings up another interesting point for Christians.

In I Thessalonians, Paul ( bless his Patriachal little heart! ) says that Christians should "be happy and rejoice and be glad-hearted continually ( always! ); be unceasing in prayer [ praying perseveringly ]; and thank God in everything [ no matter what the circumstances may be, be thankful and give thanks ], for this [ the circumstances in which you find yourself ] is the will of God for you [ who are ] in Christ Jesus."

Wow! Just ... wow! Please note the total emphasis on perseverance.

What that means in terms of NS is that, if you truly believe in God, this is exactly where he wants you at this time in your life, and these are exactly the people to whom he wants you to talk. Think about that for awhile! :D

God is dead and sacred cows make the best hamburgers. Or so they say. Think of it this way. Every attack on your faith is a test to see if you really believe or if you are just going along with trends and pressure.

God is dead and sacred cows make the best hamburgers. Or so they say. Think of it this way. Every attack on your faith is a test to see if you really believe or if you are just going along with trends and pressure.
Well said. :)

If I'm not mistaken, those books are called The Apocrypha, aren't they? That's a word that imparts some level of dismissal to those books, as if to say "these were written around the same time, but by people with ideas we didn't support, so we'll call them apocryphal."
The big question, then, is who made the call that those books, rather than, say, the letters of Paul, would be apocryphal? And the answer is, the leaders of the dominant church, the one that rose to power when Constantine made christianity the official religion of the empire. Before then, christianity was as divided--perhaps even more divided--than it is today, and some churches from that period exist to this day, most notably the Egyptian Coptics.

I believe that the accounts in the Bible are true. Even if they weren't the Bible can be used as a historical reference. It expresses the views of the world at that time. It shows the culture of the age.


It shows one rigorously vetted perspective from one point of view within one culture, within a rather small span of time. Sure, its quite useful as a reference for the worldview of one specific group of Jewish heretics in the first century A.D.. Beyond that, it is very useful as an explaination of the worldview of one of the major world religions. Once you move further than those two uses, however...

So what you're saying is that God cannot control "circumstances," yes? Then apparently there is no God, since any "god" worth his salt should certainly be able to control circumstances. :confused:

Actually, I didn't mention anything about the nature of God, just the bible.

It's obvious what you want to read into my post, but it is unfortunatley not there.

I do not bash christians or any other religion, however I do have an opinion which may, or may not differ from your own.

I beleive that for starters, you should be able to create an argument to back yourself without resorting to ancient texts (or current texts for that matter). I do not think that anyone should adhere to rules laid out that are not relevant to today's life, which is a major thumbs down to religion, as it is such a static guideline.


Why should a guideline about what is or isnt wrong or right move. If its right at one time it will be right all the time. Unless you believe that morality is reletive, in which case if the Nazis won WW2 would it be right to kill all non Aryans?

Actually, I didn't mention anything about the nature of God, just the bible.

It's obvious what you want to read into my post, but it is unfortunatley not there.
It seemed to be implicit in what you were saying. If you disagree, that's fine with me. :)

I have been a Christian for most of my life and have been on this forum for just a little while. Of Late, I have seen these "Why are Christians Bashed or whatever threads?" I have just one thing to say to you. Grow Up, there are Chrisitans in Somalia and Myanmar being killed for their faith and you can't even take it when a few people on an Internet Forum make fun of you. Really we need to grow thicker skins.

For more thought I submit John 15:19-21:

"If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me."

I am tired of seeing people complain that we are being bashed and what not. Jesus knew that this would happen and I don't think you realize just how well off we are in North America and Europe.

And before I go another verse Matthew 5:10-12:

"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
I concer...how is it spelled? Yes please correct me.

To jump into this discussion, I am a Christian who regularly bashes the fundamentalists. The type of orthodoxy they practice is false orthodoxy: They claim to stick to the letter, but they only do so when it is convienient for them. Like, for instance, they talk about God being a God of Love, but they really mean that he only loves those who believe like they do. They talk about personal salvation and how everyone can get that, but they do not mean certain groups, like "non-believers" and gays. Their religion is very exclusive, only for those who have been "born again", like those of us who were only born one time and have been christians all our lives are somehow less in touch with God. They claim to be able to talk to God, but don't explain why God doesn't speak directly to the rest of us while only they can hear his voice so clearly.

It's pretty much a mockery. They base their bigotry and prejudice on the words of Paul. But nowhere in the Gospels does it say that God thinks homosexuality is an abomination. The gospels are supposedly "Jesus' words". I believe the epistles exist to promote Paul's philosophy, not Jesus'.

Lastly, I don't get where they can mix religion and politics. In fact, Most writers of Christianity up into the 1970's tell christians to abandon the political realm and look to the religious realm. It is only with the advent of the fundamentalists where you begin seeing these religious fanatics getting involved with government.

I'll make a hypothesis here about what their problem is: They are not secure in their faith. This is based on the theory that As the degree of socialization and integration into a church environment decreases, the chances of fundamentalism increase, or more succinctly, there is an inverse relationship between socialization into a church and fundamentalism. These folks, who, many of them just coming to the church in the last 10 years, were probably VERY worldly, and they didn't like it, so they went looking for the exact opposite lifestyle. They found this and more in the fundamentalist religions, and not only that, but the ability to be self-righteous in their preaching about it to their former friends. like, "Look, I cleaned up my life, you all should do this too, because its so much better." While their intentions may be good at the beginning, their self-righteousness is continually reinforced in that environment where they are entirely immersed in a group of people who are all doing the same thing and reassuring each other that they are right for doing so. But they always need that reassurance, to know that they made the right choice to give up the things that were just SOOOO fun. They get that reassurance from an unchallengable belief, also called dogma, which cannot be argued against. "I am correct, because I base my ideas on this one unchallengable idea. Therefore nobody can logically convince me that I am wrong... I cannot even convince myself that I made the wrong choice, and everyone around here agrees with that. So I am right, and I don't have to defend my beliefs to logical scrutiny." It is a safe position for wounded people who are just looking for some stability in their lives. They are VERY insecure in this, and need the reassurance that this type of faith offers constantly. They get it not only from the dogma, but from the others in the church.

I have examined my beliefs. I don't like all of them, I certainly don't like the ones that the Church preaches. But I was socialized from the beginning of my life to be christian. I don't have to reassure myself. It is as much a part of my life as my language is. I know the nature of God. He is not going to punish me, regardless of what some fundamentalist claims, if I don't agree with every little thing the church claims. I have faith that is not really that shakable by the world. And I am a moderate Christian. I know I am going to heaven, I don't need to bring others there with me. But because I am going to Heaven does not mean that others who believe different than I do are not going there too. I think if a person loves God, he goes to heaven. Simple... I was socialized form Birth into the Church, and therefore, I think my fundamentalism is zero.

Basically, what I am saying is that a good Christian knows how to tell the difference between those who are bitching about fundamentalists and those who are bitching about real Christians. I think fundamentalists, born agains, evangelicals whatever, are Christians, but do not rely on faith, contrary to their propaganda. If they did rely on faith, they wouldn't need the constant reassurance of others in their 3 church visits a week, and they wouldn't be so self-righteous. I essentially inherited my faith, and I am secure in it. They made a choice to try it out and now they spend most of their time either patting themselves on the back for their choice or judging others for not making the same choice. There is a difference between a person who has faith unconditionally and a person who has faith only because he has to keep reminding himself through the company he keeps.

See post 38

If you didnt notice, the thread "Why is Chrisitianity bashed all over the world" is about Christian persecution in other countries. Fair enough.

I have been a Christian for most of my life and have been on this forum for just a little while. Of Late, I have seen these "Why are Christians Bashed or whatever threads?" I have just one thing to say to you. Grow Up, there are Chrisitans in Somalia and Myanmar being killed for their faith and you can't even take it when a few people on an Internet Forum make fun of you. Really we need to grow thicker skins.

For more thought I submit John 15:19-21:

"If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me."

I am tired of seeing people complain that we are being bashed and what not. Jesus knew that this would happen and I don't think you realize just how well off we are in North America and Europe.

And before I go another verse Matthew 5:10-12:

"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

Good point. That's fine with me.

But sometimes some of us Christians here get depressed with the amount of ridicule that is leveled against them. They see the injustice in the bashing, even though they know that persecution is inevitable, so they make the aforementioned threads asking why and how the bashers feel justified in attacking Christians. Try and look at it from their perspective as well as from your own. However, I am not condoning this complaining. I'm just offering a reasonable explanation for why it happens.

It is unbe-fuckin'-lieveable how some believers, even those I would call brothers in Christ, seem to think it is their mission to beat everyone else into submitting to God.

For the record, I think that there are some things that I believe that are 100% true, and that others who disagree are absolutely wrong. However, there are a few things that I will say until the day I die that will continue to piss off the Fundies:

A) You may be right on something, but you have no right to refuse someone the ability to think incorrectly. If you are found to be wrong on whatever you speak, you should hope they don't rub your nose in it.

B) You don't know everything you believe. There are a lot of mysteries that Christians can hold to, provided that they realize that there is more mystery to God than for which we sometimes like to give Him credit.

C) And for crying out loud, get off your high horse and quit trying to enforce your moral law on those who don't agree with you. Do you think that this is helping anyone in any way? Maybe it makes you more comfortable, but is that anything but selfish? People are saved by grace, through faith, right? Then why the hell are you trying to force them into being "good little Christians" with their works? THAT, my friends, is the biggest hypocracy of Christianity. Trying to get people to live according to the Law of God before they even care about God is idiotic and totally against what these same Fundies preach.

Whew. I feel better.

Note: I still love the people who act this way, but they make it hard sometimes. As a pastor, I have heard the term "shepherd of the sheep" a lot. Let me tell you something. Sheep bite. Sometimes the ones that bite the most and the hardest are those who are Fundamentalists. That's why I get so worked up about it. I don't mean to say that I have anything but love for them. They just make it hard to be taken seriously, as I also convey in my signature.

did you not read the part where we wrestle not against flesh and blood?

we aren't supposed to be fighting people at all, the verse is about spiritual warfare, and that is what we should be worried about.

Right, I understand that...

What I was saying is that really, since most people in powere are using their religion as a "get out of trouble" free card. They aren't waging a war against spiritual issues, but against opposing morals. Not the same thing.

If I'm not mistaken, those books are called The Apocrypha, aren't they? That's a word that imparts some level of dismissal to those books, as if to say "these were written around the same time, but by people with ideas we didn't support, so we'll call them apocryphal."

a·poc·ry·phal
adj.
1. Of questionable authorship or authenticity.
2. Erroneous; fictitious: “Wildly apocryphal rumors about starvation in Petrograd... raced through Russia's trenches” (W. Bruce Lincoln).
3. Apocryphal Bible. Of or having to do with the Apocrypha.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
a·pocry·phal·ly adv.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

AND,

A·poc·ry·pha
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
1. The biblical books included in the Vulgate and accepted in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox canon but considered noncanonical by Protestants because they are not part of the Hebrew Scriptures. See table at Bible.
2. Various early Christian writings proposed as additions to the New Testament but rejected by the major canons.

(apocrypha Writings or statements of questionable authorship or authenticity.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English apocripha, not authentic, from Late Latin Apocrypha, the Apocrypha, from Greek Apokrupha, neuter pl. of apokruphos, secret, hidden, from apokruptein, to hide away : apo-, away + kruptein, kruph-, to hide.]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

So you're claiming that Jesus's mother and his half brother are questionable sources for information? you would beleive Paul, who never actually met Jesus?!

So you're claiming that Jesus's mother and his half brother are questionable sources for information? you would beleive Paul, who never actually met Jesus?!

Er, yes he did

Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.

"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."

The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

If you didnt notice, the thread "Why is Chrisitianity bashed all over the world" is about Christian persecution in other countries.

Sorry, I didn't notice that I just thought someone was making a hasty generalization as seems to be common in the Western Hemisphere thinking the whole world revolves around us.

Agreed. I'm a Christian, also, and not everyone agrees with us. No need to shove "You're going to hell!" down people's throats because they said they don't have any reason to believe in Christ.

Really, Jesus Himself said that He is the ONLY one who will judge, not humans. So grow up and stop deciding who's going to hell or not.

Agreed. I'm a Christian, also, and not everyone agrees with us. No need to shove "You're going to hell!" down people's throats because they said they don't have any reason to believe in Christ.

Really, Jesus Himself said that He is the ONLY one who will judge, not humans. So grow up and stop deciding who's going to hell or not.

I agree. That is pretty much exactly what I believe.

I believe that the accounts in the Bible are true. Even if they weren't the Bible can be used as a historical reference. It expresses the views of the world at that time. It shows the culture of the age.

It doesn't matter if you believe the Bible is true or not, I do. Regardless of that fact, I have witnessed people who use the Bible as a definitive source of History when it is not meant to be used as that and will get you laughed at in the Scholarly Community. Like, I said earlier it's fine if you want to refer to the Study of the Religion but please don't use it as a Source of Historical Information. A lot of it is exaggerated to make the Israelites seem like they had a lot more influence than was actually true. They were a very small kingdom compared to other Kingdoms of the day.

It doesn't matter if you believe the Bible is true or not, I do. Regardless of that fact, I have witnessed people who use the Bible as a definitive source of History when it is not meant to be used as that and will get you laughed at in the Scholarly Community. Like, I said earlier it's fine if you want to refer to the Study of the Religion but please don't use it as a Source of Historical Information. A lot of it is exaggerated to make the Israelites seem like they had a lot more influence than was actually true. They were a very small kingdom compared to other Kingdoms of the day.
There are still people around who hold that "the only book you ever need to read is the Bible!" :rolleyes:

Many times over the years I have been told that "reading that [ meaning some book of which the speaker disapproved ] will put ideas in your head that don't belong there!"

Book-burning lurks just around the corner, waiting for this personality type to be in charge. Again. :(

There are still people around who hold that "the only book you ever need to read is the Bible!" :rolleyes:

Many times over the years I have been told that "reading that [ meaning some book of which the speaker disapproved ] will put ideas in your head that don't belong there!"

Book-burning lurks just around the corner, waiting for this personality type to be in charge. Again. :(

I know what you mean and this annoys me to no end. I had a Pastor who was like this. He began to change slowly. Him and his wife were very disappointed that I didn't go to Bible School. I felt it unnecessary. He also told me that Led Zeppelin were evil but they are one of my Favorite Bands. The way I was raised was to think critically about anything people tell me. I don't automatically trust anything until I work it out. My family is also one that likes to argue everything. Me and My Father are always debating something or other. Not like yelling at each other or anything like that but just debating. The way most or all men on my Dad's side are we often take the opposite position just so that we can argue about it even if we don't agree with it. It can be quite entertaining at Family gatherings.

Er, yes he did
The encounter on the road to Damascus was a vision (to put it nicely), not a physical encounter. If Paul lived today, he could have benefited from psychiatric or neurological treatment for his hallucinatory problem :)

Some people are 14 you know.

Some people are 14 you know.
Uuuh. Yes. So??:confused:

Why should a guideline about what is or isnt wrong or right move. If its right at one time it will be right all the time. Unless you believe that morality is reletive, in which case if the Nazis won WW2 would it be right to kill all non Aryans?

Yes moral is relative to the cultural context. Somewhere on this world it is okay to eat your enemies after you killed them to honor them. Disgusting and immoral here. Just because it is ... immoral.

Ethics is more what you want, because they try to argue the WHY of the rules. And that is the difference between philosophy and religion. Religion asks you to comply in the first place and if you have a nice religion they talk about the WHY (except the "because it is so" or "god wants it so" r "that is how we define good behaviour") later.

Concerning the bible ... first and foremost it is a book written by humans. so if you want to prove anything form or with its contents, do it the scientifical way - find more references. If you want to argue from the standpoint of "god given wisdoms", just stop right there and try to acknowledge, that this might do fine if we were all believers of this postulat, but that in a scientifical argument it just won't be any good. Else you might get "bashed".

Why should a guideline about what is or isnt wrong or right move. If its right at one time it will be right all the time. Unless you believe that morality is reletive, in which case if the Nazis won WW2 would it be right to kill all non Aryans?

Just because we as a Religion have a standardised Moral Code does not mean that everyone does. While our country's laws have been based on these laws it is entirely conceivable that if Islam was dominant then there Moral Code would be used. Regardless, most people believe that Morality is Relative. Just because as Christians we don't doest not mean we can just try and enforce our morality on Non-Christians.

Every attack on your faith is a test to see if you really believe or if you are just going along with trends and pressure.
Or ... every critique of your faith is a test to see whether you're open-minded and give fair consideration to other ideas and evidence, or whether you've shut your mind down and go with what you want to believe simply because you want to believe it.

I have seen this problem in some of my History classes at the University. Some students have wanted to site the Bible as a legitimate historical reference for papers and such. This might be ok in a Religious Studies course but it is ot in History. I am constantly trying to tell some of these Christians to come back down to the real world.
Actually, the Bible has been used as a guide for uncovering historic sites before, by institutions like National Geographic and the Smithsonian so citing it as a reference might not be totally off-base if one has other sources that confirm it.

Just because we as a Religion have a standardised Moral Code does not mean that everyone does. While our country's laws have been based on these laws it is entirely conceivable that if Islam was dominant then there Moral Code would be used.
It's largely a fiction to suggest that our laws are based on a Christian moral code. Most of the prohibitions - against murder, violence, rape, theft etc - are common to most societies, regardless of their religion. Many modern laws - in favour of democracy, equality, freedom of speech etc - have evolved out of the Enlightenment, and were never part of the Christian tradition until Christianity adjusted itself to take account of enlightened morality. Neither the harsh OT punishments - e.g. an eye for an eye - nor the peaceful NT ones - e.g. turning the other cheek - are part of our legal systems. In the US, most of the prohibitions in the Ten Commandments are not part of the legal code (there's no law against coveting your neighbour's ass, or requiring one to honour one's parents, or to keep the Sabbath), and for a few of them, laws to write them into the legal code would be unconstitutional (the First Commandment would breach the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, for example).

Why should a guideline about what is or isnt wrong or right move. If its right at one time it will be right all the time. Unless you believe that morality is reletive, in which case if the Nazis won WW2 would it be right to kill all non Aryans?

Aren't there numerous examples in the Old Testament of Jehovah ordering the Israelites to raze the cities of their enemies to the ground and slaughter every man, woman, and child in those cities? That sounds an awful lot like genocide to me.

So the bigger question you're opening up here is that if God is omnipotent and omniscient, which is the Christian view, then why would he have let the Nazis even start wiping people out, let alone finish the job, unless it were with his consent in the first place. And if that's the case, then what purpose could there possibly be for such attrocities to be committed? If God wanted humanity to learn something from it, why not simply reveal the knowledge instead of teaching the lesson by slaughtering millions of people... the majority of whom did nothing more than exist in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In fact, there have been times in history when the prevailing morality allowed for genocide, frequently with the use of religion as a justification, and such incidents are even recorded in the Bible itself, directly at the behest of Jehovah. It has been a change in our own conscience, our own morality and sense of priorities as human beings, that has led to a world in which the majority of the inhabitants no longer favor slaying all the Midianites, or what have you. Were a literal interpretation of the Old Testament to have survived until this day, we might well still be doing exactly the same things that were done at that point in history. In fact, it might well be the case that the Holocaust would be viewed as a GOOD thing, wherein a bunch of heathens who refused to accept the divine word made flesh were slaughtered to make the world a purer, more Godly place.

Sadly and sickly enough, there are people who do see things that way still among us. There are people who advocate, for instance, genocide upon Muslims or that getting rid of the Jews entirely wouldn't have been such a bad idea. A significant fraction of those people do believe, even now, that the Old Testament stands as justification for their point of view. In fact, many of them go under the banner of "Christian Identity."

I find the ramifications of a literalist interpretation of the Bible and a refusal to allow for the shifting of morality and ethics over time and over the course of civilization's eviolution to be just about as terrifying a prospect as I can imagine.

Since you posed the question, I'd like to turn it around and ask you if you believe that people who refuse to accept the current incarnation of the Bible as divinely revealed, inerrant law should be put to the sword, as was done in the past. If so, how is this different from the Nazi attrocities?

Actually, the Bible has been used as a guide for uncovering historic sites before, by institutions like National Geographic and the Smithsonian so citing it as a reference might not be totally off-base if one has other sources that confirm it.
The Bible was not written in a vacuum, so it's not unreasonable to refer to it when looking for historical sites. However, there is sometimes a tendency to find a site which just could be somewhere in the Bible, and then assume that it is.

There's an even worse tendency to assume that because the Bible was right about the existence of a certain place or person, therefore what the Bible says happened in that place or to that person must be true. That is utter nonsense.

It's largely a fiction to suggest that our laws are based on a Christian moral code. Most of the prohibitions - against murder, violence, rape, theft etc - are common to most societies, regardless of their religion. Many modern laws - in favour of democracy, equality, freedom of speech etc - have evolved out of the Enlightenment, and were never part of the Christian tradition until Christianity adjusted itself to take account of enlightened morality. Neither the harsh OT punishments - e.g. an eye for an eye - nor the peaceful NT ones - e.g. turning the other cheek - are part of our legal systems. In the US, most of the prohibitions in the Ten Commandments are not part of the legal code (there's no law against coveting your neighbour's ass, or requiring one to honour one's parents, or to keep the Sabbath), and for a few of them, laws to write them into the legal code would be unconstitutional (the First Commandment would breach the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, for example).

I think that if you actually look at it you would realize that the founding fathers of the US and Canada for that matter, were Christians and if not were heavily influenced by Christianity. You could even go back to Enlightenment thinkers who were Christians. To say that our legal code is not influenced by Christianity is just foolish. It is definately not based on the Paganism that was dominant in other societies before Christianity was adopted. Nor does it have basis in Islam. First, you would find it extremely difficult to prosceute someone for coveting something. I'm not sure how you could enforce Honouring your parents either. If you don't think that keeping the Sabbath wasn't a law unitl very recently you are mistaken. I seem to remember that it used to be illegal and then frowned upon to open businesses on Sunday.

I think that if you actually look at it you would realize that the founding fathers of the US and Canada for that matter, were Christians and if not were heavily influenced by Christianity. You could even go back to Enlightenment thinkers who were Christians. To say that our legal code is not influenced by Christianity is just foolish. It is definately not based on the Paganism that was dominant in other societies before Christianity was adopted. Nor does it have basis in Islam. First, you would find it extremely difficult to prosceute someone for coveting something. I'm not sure how you could enforce Honouring your parents either. If you don't think that keeping the Sabbath wasn't a law unitl very recently you are mistaken. I seem to remember that it used to be illegal and then frowned upon to open businesses on Sunday.

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say anything about whether or not one can conduct business on a Sunday.

Thomas Jefferson wrote his own Bible, wherein he cut out all of the mystical materials. The Jefferson Bible is still in publication.

The majority of the authors of the Constitution, and certainly the author of the Declaration of Independence, were Deists and Unitarians. Many of them wrote quite eloquently against the idea of religious influence in government. Jefferson, and I believe Madison as well, came out with quite unambiguous statements denouncing no only the Christianity of their day, but against all mystical religious belief.

That isn't to say that their beliefs didn't share some commonalities with Christianity. In fact, many of the moral ideas of Christianity were around for quite some time before Christ and exist in religions that formed without any interaction at all with Christianity. Much of it is just formalized common sense, so that of course there are similarities which can be seen as direct borrowing if one wants to see it that way.

Still, I have never been able to find any of the freedoms guaranteed in the bill of rights anywhere in the Bible. In which books of the Bible are the rights to a free press, freedom of religion, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure advocated as part of God's law?

I think that if you actually look at it you would realize that the founding fathers of the US and Canada for that matter, were Christians and if not were heavily influenced by Christianity. You could even go back to Enlightenment thinkers who were Christians. To say that our legal code is not influenced by Christianity is just foolish.
I didn't say the legal code hasn't been influenced by Christianity, but that it is not based on it.

It is definately not based on the Paganism that was dominant in other societies before Christianity was adopted.
With the exceptions of Quebec and Louisiana, the legal code in the US and Canada is based not on the founding fathers, but on Common Law, which originated in Pagan England.

I enjoy a bit of religous debate from time to time but i fear getting embroiled in these sorts of debates sometimes. But oh what the heck...


I generally take a very liberal view of religion and attempt to treat all religions as equal, but sometimes it can be tough, as i shall explain.

My own religious beliefs are somewhat different to the majority of the forum i should think. As a polytheist i believe all religions are equal, all exist. It is your choice to follow the one you chose and your choice alone. So you might be brought up Christian but you might switch to Buddism or Hindu or Druid or whatever. It's your choice.

Fundamentally i see no 'truth', no 'true' correct religion, but merely 'true' religions. Who am i to say which is correct? As far as i'm concerned pick what you want and follow it.

So as you can see thus far i'm very liberal. I do however object to when people say they are 'right' and everyone else is damned and wrong. If we're going to quote ancient texts then there are frequent references in the Old Testament of the bible that refer to other non-Christian gods, and as far as i remember the Christian God never once said they did not exist. He proscribed that Jews and Christians should not follow them but did not deny their existence. Therefore if you are a Christian or a Jew to get to your Heaven you must follow your path and worship that God, and that god alone because the texts say you should, however it doesn't mean as far as i can see it that all other religions are wrong. So if you're following the Norse religion, true it won't get you to Heaven, but if you're following that religion you'd not want to go to Heaven anyhow, but it might just get you to Valhalla.

If Christian's can quote the Bible to support their religion, does i mean i can back mine up with the Iliad? Afterall it was composed at the time and it mentions the deeds of the gods, yet monotheists refer to my religion as Mythology (this really gets me), yet if i referred to the Bible (written by scribes and not by the hand of God himself) as Christian mythology, then there'd be a massive uproar and i'd be lynched.

The Bible teaches two lessons; love they neighbour and forgive, this to me is what religion should be about. Religion is alot like favorite colours, i might prefer blue, you might prefer white... doesn't mean we have to fight over it though. (And everyone knows the best colour is purple anyhow...) ;)


Oh and as a final point, some of the most religious people i know, with the deepest convictions are actually atheists.

Oh and as a final point, some of the most religious people i know, with the deepest convictions are actually atheists.
This bears some explaining, I think. Yes? :)

This bears some explaining, I think. Yes? :)


Yeah perhaps saying they are 'religious' is a misnomer from the off. But atheists are often quite strongly commited to the belief that religious individuals are just wasting their time (they might be right), and often atheists do try and ram the point home, examples of which are when they try and get the oath swearing on the bible in court banned (i merely would think it should be made non compulsory, but should you want to do so you may).

I hope that made sense... it's a tricky subject i find (i used to be an atheist).

I have been a Christian for most of my life and have been on this forum for just a little while. Of Late, I have seen these "Why are Christians Bashed or whatever threads?" I have just one thing to say to you. Grow Up, there are Chrisitans in Somalia and Myanmar being killed for their faith and you can't even take it when a few people on an Internet Forum make fun of you. Really we need to grow thicker skins.

For more thought I submit John 15:19-21:

"If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me."

I am tired of seeing people complain that we are being bashed and what not. Jesus knew that this would happen and I don't think you realize just how well off we are in North America and Europe.

And before I go another verse Matthew 5:10-12:

"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."


to be honest its the anti-christian people who constantly start yet more threads about the same thing that need to grow up. Post something interesting for a change...

examples of which are when they try and get the oath swearing on the bible in court banned (i merely would think it should be made non compulsory, but should you want to do so you may).

I hope that made sense... it's a tricky subject i find (i used to be an atheist).

You may insist on an alternate oath. Even in backwards old Texas I was allowed to. You do not have to swear on the Bible.

to be honest its the anti-christian people who constantly start yet more threads about the same thing that need to grow up. Post something interesting for a change...
People post interesting different stuff all the time. The thing is, you need to say things that people understand. And the only language that all parties understand is that of aggression. Hence the problems.

StatesAnd before I go another verse Matthew 5:10-12:

"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

so basicly, they should thank us for bashing them? :D

If nothing in the bible was written down by witnesses, then why are all four books of the gospel so similar. They are all written by different people, who probably never had much contact with each other, so they couldn't have just copied each other's work. The New Testament was WRITTEN BY THE PEOPLE OF THE TIME, otherwise the events mentioned couldn't have been mentioned in the detail that they were.

I didn't read *any* of those books nor bible, but the simularities can be attributed to many things, including the various rewrites/translations/transcriptions that took place over the 2 thousand years of history.

The same for the details, just take a look at Tolkien's work of fiction & the details he put in those books, details doesn't always mean it's accurate or true.

What events did you have in mind btw?

we all have better things to do, then worry about some athiest sitting in his mom's basement who thinks we are stupid. ;)


*this post was absolutly not meant to offend any 40 year olds who live in thier mom's basement and play NS all day

....
Something about casting the first stone & judging people comes to mind :rolleyes:

What bothers me as a U.S. citizen and atheist is when I see comments like this: "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
[Republican Presidential Nominee George Bush Sr.]

or like this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml


an excerpt:

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"


I would hope that christians could at least see my concern.

I still can't understand how any sane person would vote/tolerate Bush (both of them)

You got it a little backwards. Mark is the oldest of the canonical gospels---Matthew and Luke drew from him. Mark drew from other writings as well--the two main sources were the Q Gospel and the Secret Gospel of Thomas.

Argh, you got me thinking of Star Trek now

over 90 responses to a topic that can never proceed. religion is a belief. just that. there is absolutely no point in discussing it, as it is not provable fact. If someone choses to lean on a greater being for support that's their decision. but saying it's the wrong being or that the being doesn't exist is futile. but, being stubborn belief driven people, this will be ignored, and you will continue to debate the undebateable. I belive this accurately describes it ->:headbang: "I'm right!" :headbang: "No, I am!"
good luck to you however. If you manage to prove me wrong, please send me the text to edhitman88@yahoo.com I would be amazed to see it...
"The belief in a supreme being stems from the need to be dependant. As children we have parents, but as we progress into adulthood, we lose that safty net. So we invent one in our mind. We use the idea of a supreme being as an excuse for our errors. A crutch, as it were. To use a prime example; christians believe that thier god will forgive them any sin if they are sincere enough. this leaves the option to do what you want, and when consequences come, you become "genuinely" sorry for what you have done, and are granted forgiveness. In essence, you have and eternal easy way out."
Copyright 2004 (on quote)

Being a Christian is about faith not proof if you saw santa claus puting presents under your tree you would belive in him. If God just walked around we would all belive in him because we had seen him with our own eyes but Adam and Eves disobeyed God. Since he is perfect he can't stand to be around sin(bad deeds) Thus God can';t walk around us because of all the sin. If you think you are a good person listen to this if you have ever told the littlest "white lie", that is still a sin, God sees it as the same as murder. All sins are seen the same by God. Then we get into all the stuff with Jesus and how he died for us but you can't belive that if you don't think your a sinner.

Being a Christian is about faith not proof if you saw santa claus puting presents under your tree you would belive in him. If God just walked around we would all belive in him because we had seen him with our own eyes but Adam and Eves disobeyed God. Since he is perfect he can't stand to be around sin(bad deeds) Thus God can';t walk around us because of all the sin. If you think you are a good person listen to this if you have ever told the littlest "white lie", that is still a sin, God sees it as the same as murder. All sins are seen the same by God. Then we get into all the stuff with Jesus and how he died for us but you can't belive that if you don't think your a sinner.


Are you saying God loaths sin? Does he hate it because he fears it? Sounds like human emotion to me...

Which suggests he's not completely in control and thus ultimately means he's not omnipotent? Which i don't see as particularly problematic but what's monotheist stance on this?

so basicly, they should thank us for bashing them? :D
No, but you should thank God for them bashing you. Remember "this is the will of God" for you. :)

EDIT: Whoops. Misread that one. You should thank God that there are still Christians who don't take up arms against those who "bash" them. :p

Quoting the Bible to a non-Christian is like bribing a vegetarian with steak dinner :rolleyes:

Quoting the Bible to a non-Christian is like bribing a vegetarian with steak dinner :rolleyes:
Rock on dude...
someone with something worthwhile to say ;)

Originally Posted by Solopsism
Quoting the Bible to a non-Christian is like bribing a vegetarian with steak dinner :rolleyes:
Wait, I thought that all we had to know was "the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible."

Bull . . . utter bull . . .

As a Christian, I could not agree with you more, Solopsism.

Are you saying God loaths sin? Does he hate it because he fears it? Sounds like human emotion to me...

Which suggests he's not completely in control and thus ultimately means he's not omnipotent? Which i don't see as particularly problematic but what's monotheist stance on this?
Omnipotence is a logical paradox.

It can't exist.

Neither can omniscience regardless of whether you allow for 'freedom of choice'.

....
Something about casting the first stone & judging people comes to mind :rolleyes:
There's the problem right there: interpretation. A rational person would understand that as a warning against judgement of others because nobody is completely free of misconduct. Another way to look at it could be "Jesus has taken away all my sins, so I am without sin. Therefore, I am commanded to throw rocks at people."

I doubt anyone would come out and say that, but their actions seem to indicate that is what is in their heart.

Being a Christian is about faith not proof if you saw santa claus puting presents under your tree you would belive in him.
And faith is about self-delusion.
If God just walked around we would all belive in him because we had seen him with our own eyes but Adam and Eves disobeyed God. Since he is perfect he can't stand to be around sin(bad deeds) Thus God can';t walk around us because of all the sin.
This is heresy three time over. 1) If God can't cope with walking around when there's some sin about, then he isn't perfect. 2) The words "God can't ..." are a denial of his ominipotence, 3) The very basis of the Christian faith is that God did walk around us amongst all our sin - Jesus is suppose to be an incarnation of God, part of his trinity.

If you think you are a good person listen to this if you have ever told the littlest "white lie", that is still a sin, God sees it as the same as murder. All sins are seen the same by God.
Then God is a simplistic fool with no sense of proportion, and no sense of justice.

over 90 responses to a topic that can never proceed. religion is a belief. just that. there is absolutely no point in discussing it, as it is not provable fact. If someone choses to lean on a greater being for support that's their decision. but saying it's the wrong being or that the being doesn't exist is futile. but, being stubborn belief driven people, this will be ignored, and you will continue to debate the undebateable.
I've successfully "de-converted" at least two Christians, and put serious doubts into the mind of a Muslim, not by setting out to evangelize for atheism, but simply by friendly debate over a period of time.

Actually, the Bible has been used as a guide for uncovering historic sites before, by institutions like National Geographic and the Smithsonian so citing it as a reference might not be totally off-base if one has other sources that confirm it.

Yeah, that's what I meant. If you have other sources that support it's conclusions. I was talking about Christians who use the Bible as the be all and end all of History of that time period. Which I just think is ridiculous. I was talking to some of my friends and they told me that they were in a History class about writing history papers and someone in that class asked if you could use the Bible as a source for their essay. This is not appropriate in a Undergraduate History essay as the Bible is a primarily religious document. While you can use it to uncover historical sites. I would not suggest using it in a paper in University because many Scholars need more than just that as proof of something.

Being a Christian is about faith not proof if you saw santa claus puting presents under your tree you would belive in him.
And faith is about self-delusion.

If God just walked around we would all belive in him because we had seen him with our own eyes but Adam and Eves disobeyed God. Since he is perfect he can't stand to be around sin(bad deeds) Thus God can';t walk around us because of all the sin.
This is heresy three time over. 1) If God can't cope with walking around when there's some sin about, then he isn't perfect. 2) The words "God can't ..." are a denial of his ominipotence, 3) The very basis of the Christian faith is that God did walk around us amongst all our sin - Jesus is suppose to be an incarnation of God, part of his trinity.

If you think you are a good person listen to this if you have ever told the littlest "white lie", that is still a sin, God sees it as the same as murder. All sins are seen the same by God.
Then God is a simplistic fool with no sense of proportion, and no sense of justice.
My thoughts exactly

And faith is about self-delusion.
Ok, you made the allegation, now prove it! :p

[ Anti-religious rant deleted for clarity. ]

Yeah, that's what I meant. If you have other sources that support it's conclusions. I was talking about Christians who use the Bible as the be all and end all of History of that time period. Which I just think is ridiculous. I was talking to some of my friends and they told me that they were in a History class about writing history papers and someone in that class asked if you could use the Bible as a source for their essay. This is not appropriate in a Undergraduate History essay as the Bible is a primarily religious document. While you can use it to uncover historical sites. I would not suggest using it in a paper in University because many Scholars need more than just that as proof of something.

You forget. You call it a religious document because it now has those conotations. But you forget that when it was being written it was written with history in mind IE to tell the history of what happened to the Jews (the old testement) and the history of what Jesus did in the Gospels. Granted Pauls letters are not historical documents in the same sense but Acts is a history of the Apostles.

This is heresy three time over. 1) If God can't cope with walking around when there's some sin about, then he isn't perfect.

He is perfect, thats why he cant stand to be around sin.


2) The words "God can't ..." are a denial of his ominipotence.

Can someone omnipotent make a three sided square. No, because that is not what square means. That doesnt make God any less powerful. It is just the rules of our language. As for God can't walk amoung people, its because of his nature and ours.


3) The very basis of the Christian faith is that God did walk around us amongst all our sin - Jesus is suppose to be an incarnation of God, part of his trinity.

Your being selective about your use of the trinity. Happy to use it when it does suit you and not when it doesnt. God the father does not walk amoung us. Thats what he is talking about and you know it.


Then God is a simplistic fool with no sense of proportion, and no sense of justice.

If you have a penelty in a game of football, if you hit the post, or miss it by a few inches or miss it by several feet or miss it by several yards or sevearl dozen yards you have still missed it. The result is the same. This is what sin is like. That doesnt mean to say that hell is one size fits all

Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

The point is that sin is sin. If you miss a penelty by a yard or by an inch it is the same result. Fortunetly however sin is capable of being delt with

You forget. You call it a religious document because it now has those conotations. But you forget that when it was being written it was written with history in mind IE to tell the history of what happened to the Jews (the old testement) and the history of what Jesus did in the Gospels. Granted Pauls letters are not historical documents in the same sense but Acts is a history of the Apostles.

I dare you to find one book in the Bible that is not meant as a Religious Document. All the books in the Bible with the exception of the Hebrew Version of Esther is full of references to God. How God helped them, How God did this or that. It could be argued that it was meant as a History of the Jewish Faith rather that just of the ethnic group. There are definately books that are meant as History but there are more like the Prophetic Books, Psalms and Proverbs that are purely Religious in Nature. I think that Moses meant his History of the Jews to be a scripture as well as the other wirters. It is supposed to be inspired by God.

Ok, you made the allegation, now prove it! :p

[ Anti-religious rant deleted for clarity. ]
Oh, I can do that. Those who consider God have to persuade themselves to sign up to a religious organisation, since those are the only groups within which such thinking is accepted, and thus intrinsically restrict their own view of Him to suit that of the group. So just who within the group has their own faith any more? Answer? Nobody. In a very real sense, what you have is compromise of belief that perfectly fits nobody's idea of God. And yet, people claim to belive the exact one thing that lies behind the Faith. Which they can't; doing so would change the skew of what the net belief was, thus meaning they no longer believed exactly what the religion did. Therefore, People are deluding themselves into believing that their views are those of their faith in order to continue to adopt the labelling.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum?

^^;

they are bashed because religious jokes are the funniest.

thats why i know sooooooooooooooooo many jew jokes

Share some!

Omnipotence is a logical paradox.

It can't exist.

Omnipotence is only a logical paradox in so far as language contains it. IE Can you create a four sided triangle? No. Why not? Because that is not what the word Triangle means.


Neither can omniscience regardless of whether you allow for 'freedom of choice'.

God may know about the choices we make, but that doesnt mean that because they have already happened that we didn't choose them. As Stephen Hawking said "Are we predestined, yes. But since we cant see the future, it doesnt matter"

But Christianity and Islam teach that they have a monopoly on truth! If, as the Bible says, Jesus is the only way to heaven, how can any alternative way be true? From that point of view, the fundamentalist attitude is at least logical.


OK, now I'm confused. So when a Christian says that God exists and Jesus died for our sins, he's not actually supposed to believe that he's stating a fact?? If it's not a fact, then it's a fiction.

All true and good, but you miss the point. Yes, they may believe that all of that is true, but they shouldn't go around telling other people that it's definetly true, no matter what the other people think.

All true and good, but you miss the point. Yes, they may believe that all of that is true, but they shouldn't go around telling other people that it's definetly true, no matter what the other people think.

I think you missed the point. I can't speak for Islam but as for Christianity we are commanded by God to spread our Religion. I do not believe that we should force it on other people(I understand this has been a problem in the past.), but we definately should go around telling people. Just telling someone something doesn't mean we are forcing it on you. And since we believe it is definately true why should we tell it any other way.

Uuuh. Yes. So??:confused:
So they shouldnt grow up.

I think you missed the point. I can't speak for Islam but as for Christianity we are commanded by God to spread our Religion. I do not believe that we should force it on other people(I understand this has been a problem in the past.), but we definately should go around telling people. Just telling someone something doesn't mean we are forcing it on you. And since we believe it is definately true why should we tell it any other way.

Goody for you.

But, if you feel this way, don't whine when others of us (a) are annoyed by your proseltizing and/or (b) argue our own view of truth.

As the OP put it, grow up.

Goody for you.

But, if you feel this way, don't whine when others of us (a) are annoyed by your proseltizing and/or (b) argue our own view of truth.

As the OP put it, grow up.

I agree with you and by the way I am the OP. I don't mind if you tell me to stop I will stop and If you want to debate with me about it by all means go for it.

Ok, you made the allegation, now prove it! :p
Easy. There are many different faiths in the world which are mutually contradictory and yet are believed with the same certainty and sincerity by their followers. Since all but one of them must be false, their followers must be mistaken or deluded. If faith gets it wrong in 999 out of 1000 instances, it's a near certainty that "faith" itself is at fault, even if one faith happened by chance to hit upon the truth (which we wouldn't know until the truth was corroborated by something other than faith).

It is also now possible to demonstrate scientifically that religious experiences (e.g. visions) are neurological phenomena, which can be induced in a lab by applying electrical stimuli to the appropriate area of the brain.

Anti-religious rant deleted for clarity.

Part of that "anti-religious rant" was actually criticising an argument for being UNChristian :)

It is also now possible to demonstrate scientifically that religious experiences (e.g. visions) are neurological phenomena, which can be induced in a lab by applying electrical stimuli to the appropriate area of the brain.



I've heard of that. Do you have any links to those experiments?

All true and good, but you miss the point. Yes, they may believe that all of that is true, but they shouldn't go around telling other people that it's definetly true, no matter what the other people think.
Why not? If you have definite knowledge of how people can get to heaven, then you're doing those around you a serious disservice by refusing to try and persuade them of it. It's like refusing to try and convince someone that the glass of liquid he's about to drink is poison, not water, when you know full well it's poison.

For centuries, Christians understood this, and evangelical ones still do, but modern liberal Christianity finds ways of wimping out of the logical consequences of their own beliefs, in the interests of social harmony. I'm glad they do, but it doesn't make for consistent, honest religion (if that's not a contradiction in terms :))

Why not? If you have definite knowledge of how people can get to heaven, then you're doing those around you a serious disservice by refusing to try and persuade them of it. It's like refusing to try and convince someone that the glass of liquid he's about to drink is poison, not water, when you know full well it's poison.

For centuries, Christians understood this, and evangelical ones still do, but modern liberal Christianity finds ways of wimping out of the logical consequences of their own beliefs, in the interests of social harmony. I'm glad they do, but it doesn't make for consistent, honest religion (if that's not a contradiction in terms :))

They don't have knowledge. What they have is a belief. It will become knowledge only when they can demonstrate it as factual to someone else regardless of the other person's beliefs.

The same thing could be said of a believer in any religion that propounds the existence of an afterlife of some kind. Without some sort of reliable test with demonstrable and repeatable results, there's no more legitimacy, and thus no more knowledge, to the idea that one gets to heaven by following the teachings of Jesus than there is to the assertion that one gets there by following Moses, Krishna, Mohammed, Alfred Hitchcock, Daffy Duck (he went several times, as I recall), or Stan the Plumber Who Showed You His Buttcrack While Fixing the Kitchen Sink.

All hail Stan the Plumber!

Without a demonstration of:

a) the existence of heaven
b) conscious existence after death
c) said disembodied conciousnesses arriving in said heaven
d) a quantifiable measurement of the likelihood of getting to heaven by following one prophet/preacher/philosopher
e) a comparison of the likelihood of getting to said heaven under the one system of beliefs to other systems

Then there really is no reason to assume that any one religion — or any religion at all — has the "secret" to eternal bliss.

Would you get into a car with an absolute stranger on the basis of someone who heard him speak once claiming that the guy knows the route to get you to work in the morning?

Goody for you.

But, if you feel this way, don't whine when others of us (a) are annoyed by your proseltizing and/or (b) argue our own view of truth.

As the OP put it, grow up.

The OP was complaining about a thread which was talking about how Christians are persecuted all around the world. Its a legitimate point, Christians are persecuted by many diffrent governements and its right that we should bring it to peoples attention. However he said we were being immature about it, which isnt the case.

The OP was complaining about a thread which was talking about how Christians are persecuted all around the world. Its a legitimate point, Christians are persecuted by many diffrent governements and its right that we should bring it to peoples attention. However he said we were being immature about it, which isnt the case.

No, What I meant was people in North America who complain about being bashed by other people just for becuase we are Christians. I was merely pointing out the fact that we have no right to complain about so-called "persecution" because there are people in the world being jailed and killed for their faith. I think you misunderstood my original meaning. We are being immature about it when we start threads like "Why are Christians bashed on this forum?" I don't agree with it I say we just take it. I also say we pray for those who are actually persecuted because of their faith.

They don't have knowledge. What they have is a belief. It will become knowledge only when they can demonstrate it as factual to someone else regardless of the other person's beliefs.
I absolutely agree, but surely they think that their belief is true knowledge, othewise why would they believe it? And if they do think that, shouldn't they act accordingly?

I'm not advocating that more Christians go out and try and convert people - I'd rather none of them did - but given the (false) premises under which operate, it would seem like the logical and compassionate thing to do (from their point of view).

I absolutely agree, but surely they think that their belief is true knowledge, othewise why would they believe it? And if they do think that, shouldn't they act accordingly?

I'm not advocating that more Christians go out and try and convert people - I'd rather none of them did - but given the (false) premises under which operate, it would seem like the logical and compassionate thing to do (from their point of view).

That is correct. We do believe that God has given us the Absolute Truth. He also tasked us to spread it to other people. Now you may believe they are false premises but we believe they are absolutely true, and because of that we try to save as many people as we can.

I've heard of that. Do you have any links to those experiments?
Google "Michael Persinger". His experiments produced different results in different people, depending (he believes) on their susceptibility to "otherwordly" experiences and their cultural background. Amongst those whose experiences were religious, they correlated with the religious background of the subject, i.e. Christians would feel or see Jesus, Mary etc; Muslims would have Islam-based experiences etc.

Needless to say, his results are controversial, partly because they're pretty new and there's a lot more work to be done, and partly because of resistence by religious communities to the possibility that he might be right (like the 16th/17th resistence to the possibility that the Earth circles the Sun, based on belief not evidence).

That is correct. We do believe that God has given us the Absolute Truth. He also tasked us to spread it to other people. Now you may believe they are false premises but we believe they are absolutely true, and because of that we try to save as many people as we can.
Fortunately (from my point of view) you're fighting a losing battle. In Europe at least, the proportion of non-religious people is growing with every generation.

I absolutely agree, but surely they think that their belief is true knowledge, othewise why would they believe it? And if they do think that, shouldn't they act accordingly?

I'm not advocating that more Christians go out and try and convert people - I'd rather none of them did - but given the (false) premises under which operate, it would seem like the logical and compassionate thing to do (from their point of view).

The problem with that argument is that it involves somebody else. If a Christian evangelist approaches me and begins advancing their belief as fact, is it not equally incumbent upon me, based upon the exact same compassion, to point out to them that what they think is knowledge is only belief, that it has no factual basis, and that, in fact, as far as I can tell it is cutting them off from a truth that can be objectively demonstrated?

And isn't that just going to result in more whining about how they're being oppressed and "bashed" on some chatboard like this one?

Do you really want more such whining? :rolleyes:

That is correct. We do believe that God has given us the Absolute Truth. He also tasked us to spread it to other people. Now you may believe they are false premises but we believe they are absolutely true, and because of that we try to save as many people as we can.

The main thing we need saving from is evangelists.

You don't have the absolute truth. You may well not have any truth at all. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, you are as likely causing harm as you are doing anything at all.

The main thing we need saving from is evangelists.

You don't have the absolute truth. You may well not have any truth at all. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, you are as likely causing harm as you are doing anything at all.

That's your opinion. I personally believe that we do have the Absolute Truth. Just because you say that we don't doesn't make it so. Just because I say we do doesn't make it true. The one thing that religion requires is Faith and because we have that we don't need to prove our religion to ourselves. If you can provide me with solid evidence that Christianity is wrong I will believe you. I have yet to see anything that would disprove the fact that Jesus did in fact live. I have also seen nothing to indicate that I should not take his claims seriously.

The bible was written by ordinary people of its time. It can be considered a historical point because of this. It was written by the people that were there when these things happened.
That's one way of looking at it.
Another is that the bible was written by schizophrenics who probably hurt themselves with the pen they were holding while doing so, rather than ordinary people. (Unless everybody was barking back then, of course.)

That's your opinion. I personally believe that we do have the Absolute Truth. Just because you say that we don't doesn't make it so. Just because I say we do doesn't make it true. The one thing that religion requires is Faith and because we have that we don't need to prove our religion to ourselves. If you can provide me with solid evidence that Christianity is wrong I will believe you. I have yet to see anything that would disprove the fact that Jesus did in fact live. I have also seen nothing to indicate that I should not take his claims seriously.

This is called an argument from ignorance. "Nobody has disproven it, so it must be true."

If I am wrong about my opinion, I have done harm to nobody but myself, as I haven't convinced anyone else to place retrictions upon themselves.

If you are wrong, and you are successful in convincing people to impose the same limitations upon themselves as your belief demands that you place upon yourself, you have caused harm to others.

What you are doing is exactly the same thing that held human progress back for hundreds of years during the dark ages; you're basing your assertion upon an unproven authority (you yourself say so in this very statement, as the evidence you have for your belief is that nobody has disproven an authority, not that the authority has been proven correct) and then claim ignorance (by which I mean a lack of factual knowledge) as Absolute Truth... and then go the extra step of believing that it is incumbent upon you to "save" others by convincing them to believe the same thing you do.

Hence my earlier statement that the very thing from which we need to be saved is evangelists.

You're right; my saying that something exists doesn't constitute proof, and neither does yours. However, I don't go about "saving" others. The only things I try to convince anyone else of are factual, demonstrable things. You, on the other hand, would appear to attempt to convince them that of something quite different.

Should the way in which people conduct their sex lives, for example, be governed by this "absolute truth" of yours? Can you demonstrate that, for example, they are less likely to be saved if they are promiscuous homosexuals than if they are married, strictly monogamous heterosexuals? If so, how?

Are they more likely to be "saved" if they believe in your absolute truth than if they do good for others but reject your claims as utter nonsense?

Are we saved by works or by faith, Bryce?

The one thing that religion requires is Faith and because we have that we don't need to prove our religion to ourselves.
Relying on faith is a cop-out; a way of believing what you want to without regard to the evidence. It pointless offering faith as an argument to those who don't share your faith either because they don't believe in the concept, or because they're one of the majority who's faith tells them something entirely different. You might as well be saying "Christianity is true because I have red hair", because there is no known correlation between either hair colour or faith and objective truth.

If you can provide me with solid evidence that Christianity is wrong I will believe you. I have yet to see anything that would disprove the fact that Jesus did in fact live. I have also seen nothing to indicate that I should not take his claims seriously.
Why do you want evidence? I thought you believed through faith. In order to deal in evidence, one needs to accept its fundamental principle that the onus of proof is on the person making the assertion (that Christianity is true, in this case), not upon those who question it.