Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Problems with Christianity.

Problems with Christianity.
Thread Tools
george68
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 12:08 AM
 
Written by a friend of mine, thought I'd share.

Here is my argument, compiled as best as I can, for why I disagree with Christianity:

I.) SELECTIVENESS FROM THE BIBLE:

According to our current culture, there are certain things in the bible that would be considered completely socially unacceptable today. My discomfort with mainstream Christianity is that people seem to gloss over these uncomfortable passages and focus only upon the good ones, which they want to emphasize. Before I go further, I will cite an example from each major category of my complaint : Slavery, Brutality, Sexism, Intolerance, and Contradictions (quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible) Keep in mind, unless you endorse and agree with every piece of the text, you advocate selectiveness from the bible:

Note with the passage Matthew 5:17 Jesus quotes, �Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.� So it is an invalid argument to assert that the new testament rejects the harshness of everything depicted in the old.

1.) Slavery:
Exodus 21:20-21 �If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.�
What did we learn?: It�s okay to treat your fellow human beings like savage animals if they are your slaves�furthermore it�s alright to beat them to a bloody pulp, as long as they don�t die. The bible supports ownership of human life and actively endorses cruelty upon it with this passage.

2.) Brutality:
Numbers 16:41-50 ; God kills 250 people because Korah challenges Moses� leadership. Then, when the rest of the travelers languishing in the desert complain that the lord has killed his own people, he sends down a plague ; �But those who died by the plague were 14,700, besides those who died on account of Korah.� (Numbers 16:49)
What did we learn?: God kills anyone with the nerve to exert their own free-will and dissent against his unjust conduct. Not just that, but wholesale slaughter. This kind of Stalinism is regarded as evil on Earth. How is it right for a divine creator to get away with such atrocities? Even if you want to argue that those people were evil and deserved to be destroyed, you still are forced to concede that God gave them no chance to change their minds or see his viewpoint; he didn�t argue with them and say, �Hey, you�re missing the point,� he simply destroys them for using their own power of free-will to make distinctions and choose based on the evidence in front of them.

3.) Sexism:
�The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.� (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) and �In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives� (1 Peter 3:1)
What did we learn?: next time you go to church, you�d better keep your trap shut, and when you find a guy who you want to marry, you have to sacrifice every part of you to his will. If he wants you to give up everything you love about life, you have to do it.

4.) Intolerance:
Mark 16:16 �He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned�
What did we learn?: God won�t allow any of those dirty Buddhists, or those awful Muslims into paradise. Just because you live your life according to the basic principles of coexistence and even if you live a life of fruitfulness and great accomplishment, that�s not enough; you have to administer faith in some guy, even if you have no rational evidence for it or logical proof. By that rationale, the prerequisite for salvation is blindness.

5.) Contradictions:
Hmm, maybe that quotation by Mark wasn�t right after all... Isn�t it true that Jeremiah 17:10 says �I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds.� So maybe it IS good enough simply to live your life the best you can and be a good person. Then again, �Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me.� John 14:6 or if you don�t like that one, how about this one : "But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.� (Matthew 10:33) Oh wait, Matthew also said, �For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.� (Matthew 16:27) Damn dude, make up your mind.
What did we learn?: Apparently, nothing.

Now at this point, even IF you can magically explain away all the ugly things recorded here, you are still stuck with a book that teaches people how to be great based on what NOT to do. So much is conveyed by negative example. Wouldn�t it be better to have a book that depicted how to be good, instead of sinning and wrong, so that people might learn by example how to be great? Christianity shows kids a book of rape, murder, pillage, and all other varieties of brutality and indecency with the caption �Here�s what NOT to do.� That�s not a good way of teaching someone how to live his or her life.

These examples did not take long to find. I could easily find more. The point is this: YES, there are good things in the bible, and yes, in some parts, it portrays good example and a great way to lead your life. We all know this. But those parts are equal in consequence and in validity to all the parts that are sick and wrong. You can�t tear pages out of this book and still call it the word of God, or even a history lesson, or even a path to follow. Biblical times were very different than today�s times but do personal opinions and social norms allow us to discredit certain passages of the bible because they simply are not convenient or do not fit in with the morals we hold today? In my view, absolutely not.

Saying you are Christian, and sorting through the bible, picking out only the passages which are convenient for you to use is like saying that tater-tot casserole is your favorite food, but whenever you eat it, you pick out everything except the tater-tots themselves. Obviously you do not like tater-tot casserole at all�you like just tater-tots only. So why claim that you like the whole thing. Christian morals are great. I embrace Christian morals, but guess what? Those two words are an oxymoron�MORALS are a concept that is independent of all religion. Are all atheists evil and sick people? No, there have been a great number of them who have made fascinating and wonderful contributions to our world. So eat your tater-tots, and forget the casserole. You don�t need it. Just like you don�t need a book full of obscenity and injustice to advocate the golden rule, the ethic of reciprocity, and the beauty of all that we can achieve together and the love we are capable of, given freedom to do so.


II.) EXCLUSIVE SALVATION

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me." John 14:6

There have been about 100 billion human births since modern Homo sapiens first appeared. The people who didn't believe in whichever god it is you want to advocate are in the company of about 96 billion others. Does it really make sense that a deity would remain so elusive to so many? If you are compelled to adhere to a belief that would admonish honest inquiry or if you worship a god that would eternally punish those who trust Logic and Reason over the claims of a supposed revealed truth, then it will be a hollow paradise indeed that awaits if you happen to be correct.

If the gospel according to John is correct, this says in BLACK and WHITE, plain language, that this omniscient god would have created 96 billion souls, people with families, feelings, dreams, desires, lives, hopes, and beliefs of their own� whole entire races and generations, only to be deliberately condemned to eternal suffering and damnation. He created these people only so that they could exist forever in agony. THINK: What separates you from them? What makes you think you�re better? Every person who honestly and decently fought to live their life by the universal code of ethics but who happened to not admonish praise to a MAN, a MAN, named Jesus of Nazareth, is going to burn forever. The Christian belief says this. Unarguably. Indisputably. This belief says that god is the ultimate good, yet somehow he is allowed to commit the greatest atrocity ever imaginable to untold masses of our own flesh and blood without question, without dissent. On Earth, if a government leader committed such crimes against humanity, it would be called genocide. Holocaust. How can anyone hold such a double standard against their own morality and the morality of their god? How can anyone turn their eyes away from this sickening statement and be blinded to the depravity to which their belief binds them? How can the faculty of Reason not disgorge anyone and everyone from this, the most extreme form of contradictory belief?

As a quick review, I have stated that it is invalid to pick and choose passages from the bible at random to advocate modern ideals from an archaic volume. That said, I cannot and I refuse to believe in any deity that would send 96% of the world�s population into hell on no fault of their own, because many of these people would have had NO chance to be Christian or in many cases, not even EXPOSED to Christianity. If this IS the case, than I would rather burn in hell with my fellow human beings than go to heaven with such an evil, sadistic deity as my lord.

III.) ADVOCATION OF IRRESPONSIBILITY

Before I am able to elaborate on this point, I must first state that the goal of all human existence is to meaningfully accomplish something within our lifetimes. I think this is a pretty ubiquitous idea, and something that all people can agree on. It says; no matter how great or how modest, the purpose of you being alive was for you to DO something. In other words, to get something practical done. In the words I like to use, to ACCOMPLISH something. If you don�t get anything meaningful done in the time that you are alive for, you might as well not have been alive. Therefore, to BUILD and to ACCOMPLISH are our duties and our mission in life, no matter how great or modest our results may be. So where does this idea fit in, down inside god�s great ant farm?

FREE WILL is the ability that allows us to accomplish. Free will is the part of us that allows the human brain to discern right from wrong, good from bad, major from minor, small from large, etc, etc. You can�t do anything if you can�t make a decision, and the ability to discern is central to the process of doing so. So free will allows you to do stuff. And with your free will you set out to complete your mission, ACCOMPLISHMENT.

A.) INTRINSIC HUMAN WORTHLESSNESS
Something that bothers me about theism, specifically Christianity, for some reason, is the attitude that humans are foolish, petty creatures who must grovel daily to apologize for merely existing. Underlying the root of many of these issues to me is the idea of responsibility. When a parent has a child, he or she is responsible for that child, until it turns a certain age, and is declared independent. Basically what this tries to insure is that this new person has adequate knowledge to go out and tackle the world around itself. This says it's the parents� responsibility to insure the child's survival until a point.

I've been apologizing my whole life to a mystical god who curses me for my mere existence, and whom I am told I cannot possibly hope to understand. Original sin insures that I am born worthless and awful and my only chance at salvation is to become a beggar for everything beyond my grasp. I've known too many people whose only restraint from greatness is the belief that they lack any real worth.

Posit: I am wrong and bad, by nature.
Conclusion: I need something else to help me be right and good.

No.

B.) INABILITY TO ACHIEVE
Consider this: god is a sand-bucket, and life is a beach. Now if god is the source of everything good in you life, that means the sand-bucket is the tool you use to build castles on the beach. By this logic, no castle, no matter how great or modest, can ever be your own achievement. YOU can build nothing. God can claim responsibility for any amount of castles, or lack thereof, but you cannot. YOU, personally, cannot achieve. It is impossible under the belief that god is your ability to survive. If I have no responsibility of my own, how can I ever build anything?

This is what really bothers me about theism: the belief that you owe everything to god, and everything you do is a tribute to him. If at the end of the day, god gets all the credit for everything, what was the point of making humans, to do the work for him? He could�ve just as easily created cars and skyscrapers himself without the struggle of human knowledge and all the suffering that has earned us these things in our history.

When human beings obtained free will, we turned metaphorically 21 with the ability to make conscious decisions and shape our own lives. At this point, in my book, there�s a word, which describes that; responsibility. So we built the cars and the skyscrapers with our own free will, because we wanted to. To me, that means we�re responsible for them.

C.) RELIGION CREATES MORALITY
Another facet of the denying-responsibility ideal is this: The unspoken reason why humans need some god to be moral is that they are not capable of creating their own social rules and hence require an eternal rule-giver with accompanying eternal rewards and eternal punishments. How can a theist possibly claim this when even chimpanzees and other primates are clearly capable of creating social rules?

When I was talking to Josh, I asked him, �Okay, so say tomorrow I wake up and decide to be an atheist. Do you think the next thing I�m going to do is rob a store?� And he could not answer me. That was both a shocking and disheartening reaction. I explained morality to him this way: �People should not and do not need a spiritual gun hovering over their heads. If I go into a store, I�m not going to shoplift. And that has nothing to do with the fact that there is video cameras watching me, or there isn�t video cameras watching me. Either way, I�m going to do the same thing, which is not steal, because I know that is the right thing to do. In the same fashion, I�m going to behave rationally with regards to the people around me, I�m going to obey the golden rule, and the principle of reciprocity simply because that is how I expect other people to treat me. This is what separates an anarchist from an atheist.�

Wouldn�t it be better if the world could go around being fair and kind to each other simply for the sake of these ideas alone? Don�t you question someone�s motivation if they have damnation hanging over their head? With that threat against them, no amount of kindness or good act is ever the result of their own kind soul, it�s only an effort to evade eternal punishment. Wouldn�t it be better to do good for the sake of helping other people out, or even purely for the sake of what you expect to be done to yourself? Once again, irresponsibility�this time for being good.
     
george68  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 12:09 AM
 
D.) IRRESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL GUILT
Jesus forgives all sins: by that rationale, you�re safer locked in a room full of atheists living by the golden rule with butcher knives than Christians with the bible in their hands. By this rationale, I can do anything I want. I can go out tonight and sodomize a baby, kill a family in the middle of dinner, burn down a small business, burn down the library, the art museum, burn down my own family�s house and all of my relatives and defile myself in the ashes of the dead, and then wake up tomorrow a born-again and be saved. If that�s what you claim, you have to be prepared to take it to that extreme. And that I cannot do. If there�s a god, if there�s an afterlife, Adolf Hitler is burning in hell. You do know that he was born a Christian too? No savior can save a man such as that. Jesus died on a cross, for the sole sake of all humanity�s sins. So he is seriously going to heaven like nobody�s business if god is how the Bible depicts him. But Hitler, and every serial killer, and every unforgivable sinner like them, what did THEY do? They did nothing to save themselves. They did everything possible to condemn themselves to eternal damnation. How would you feel running into a person like that in paradise. Not so perfect anymore. Forgiveness exists, yes. And if the debt can be repaid, then that person can be absolved of that sin by paying it back�the only fair, just way. But when the damage is too much to ever repair, forget it. I don�t understand how anyone could completely forsake the ideal of justice in place of blind forgiveness. This time around Christianity makes you irresponsible for any evil you can do.

So where does this leave us? Let�s see, you can�t accomplish anything of your own accord, you can�t do any genuine good because you�re only trying to escape damnation, and you can�t do any evil really either, because Jesus forgives. Why even bother being alive then if you have absolutely zero responsibility? To glorify god?

E.) THE PINNACLE OF USELESSNESS
Imagine if there was a man who had two sons. The first son lived at home his whole life and didn�t try to venture out into the world past what he already knew, but spent all of his time clumsily trying to make his father happy, and lived off of his father�s means. The second son traveled out into the world to make his own fortune and become independently self-sufficient, building a large amount of knowledge, experience, and making his own living while pushing his own way to the top. The first son spent a great amount of time telling his father how much he admired him and how great he was, making drawings, and building little trinkets to offer to him. The second son came home once and a while and treated his father with respect, but for the most part did his own thing and lived by his own means. Which son would this father admire most and be more proud of? That is how I regard worship.

Here�s an alternate version:
When I see a great sunset, I never ever say, �wow, thank you god for this wonderful sunset.� And here�s why: When you go into an art museum, what makes a good painting? This sunset is gorgeous because it intrinsically IS gorgeous. A great painting is not made because the name Picasso is scrawled in the corner. I saw some paintings in New York that were done by Van Gogh which I thought were pointless and not worth looking at. Then there was Starry Night. I stared at it for about an entire half-hour, trying from every angle to pick up every new nuance and subtlety that eluded my gaze in any moment preceding the current. A sunset is Red and Orange and Blue in different parts. It doesn�t say �god� on it anywhere, but maybe if I could flip it over, it would say that on the back. But that doesn�t matter. My biggest compliment to Van Gogh was staring at his painting for half an hour and not wanting to leave even then; it wasn�t reading a big book about him or talking to my friends about how Awesome He is. My biggest compliment to god is looking at the sunset and appreciating it for exactly what it is without reference to its origin, not running down to church and reciting a dozen �our fathers.� Let me put it this way: If I make a beautiful piece of music, I don�t want everyone to talk about how great it is; I want them to LISTEN to it! So I�m not going to thank god. At all, or for anything. But I�m going to appreciate the living hell out of this world and all that it has to offer me. And isn�t that the biggest thanks of all? Seeing something untainted for what it IS, and loving it for THAT reason?

I believe that man can be good and accomplish great things. I believe this is our charge and our duty here on Earth. I believe that if there is a God out there, it is an utterly worthless gesture to sit in a church and talk about how great he is all day. The best form of gratitude, if you want to tell your creator "Thank you for my existence," is to MAKE SOMETHING of your life, to ACCOMPLISH and to rise above the difficulty that binds you. I believe that this is what we are meant to do; to BUILD--whatever that means in the scope of each of our individual lives. In this fashion, I almost don't think it matters whether there is a God or not. You honor yourself and you honor him by doing the same thing.

I should note, I know not all Christians are guilty of these accusations, but there are certainly many that are.

F.) THE ABOLISHION OF FREE WILL AND THE FOREFITURE OF LIFE
Another thing that bothers me is the idea that god �guides� you life and that the decisions you make are influenced by his command, therefore you are a puppet and have no control of your own if god is the one pulling the strings.

It pains me greatly to see someone great deny their own strength� deny their own potential. By letting god take responsibility for us, we sacrifice our own free will to make decisions. At the root of the ability to think is free will. Let me again restate it: the greatest cause of suffering and pain in this world is people refusing to think. Humans are capable of brilliant, incredible acts. Why condemn ourselves to any less than our full potential by denying the greatness of which we are capable. �ONLY human,� is a wretched excuse for ineptitude and a contradictory statement in itself. That self-fulfilling prophecy of worthlessness and inability to achieve will destroy us all if we let it.

The conclusion this leads me to, and which I think some people will particularly disagree with, is that Christianity wants to advocate spiritual addiction to relieve them of the burden of responsibility for their own lives and actions. That kind of dependence is evil, no matter what form of addiction it is. If I was shooting heroin, I think you�d be pretty worried about that kind of an addiction because it�s destroying my body and eventually it would kill me. So then, why is it not considered unacceptable when people become so intensely religious that they hold any responsibility for themselves and they grow to depend on god as the source of everything meaningful and good in their life? This is just another way of killing yourself.
     
ambush
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 12:14 AM
 
Yo instantly earned my full respect.

     
hyperb0le
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 12:43 AM
 
I agree completely. I didn't read the entire thing, but I read 1/2 or 2/3 of it. Very good.

But get ready for the flames to start rolling in... *puts on flame-retardant suit*
     
george68  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 12:49 AM
 
Originally posted by ambush:
Yo instantly earned my full respect.

I didn't write it. One of my friends did. We roomed together 2 summer ago, and talked about this type of stuff all the time, we both got pretty big on philosophical ideas and arguments. He was raised catholic, so ultimately, he can disagree with more of Christianity than I can, since I'm not as well informed, nor do I care to be.

- Rob
     
SafariX
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 12:56 AM
 
Originally posted by george68:
I didn't write it. One of my friends did. We roomed together 2 summer ago, and talked about this type of stuff all the time, we both got pretty big on philosophical ideas and arguments. He was raised catholic, so ultimately, he can disagree with more of Christianity than I can, since I'm not as well informed, nor do I care to be.

- Rob
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 01:27 AM
 
Sooo long... won't read it all right now, might later - but at a first glance, it looks well-put and thought through, which leads me to give it an initial .
     
Disgruntled Head of C-3PO
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In bits and pieces on Cloud City
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 01:49 AM
 
Who do you think will be a post whore in this thread till it gets locked?

Not me, I am off to go camping
"Curse my metal body, I wasn't fast enough!"
     
KrazyEvilGoat
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 02:43 AM
 
I shake my head is disbelief. I could rip that up point by point, heck, the first paragraph invalidates 70% of what he wrote. Unfortunately its late. Maybe tomorrow.

What I find the most amusing is the reactions. Also that most people haven't read it, and probably haven't bothered to check out what he says.

Zimphire, if ever I welcome one of your posts now would be that time. I just don't have the patience to quote all that.
     
chalk_outline
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: sleep
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 02:58 AM
 
I don't really care anymore. I don't buy the heaven and hell ****. It's cool to be a NEUROSIS fan. But I only listen to Jawbreaker now. So does this mean when I die the chicks will have better smelling hair?
     
phoenixboy70
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ma, germany
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 03:09 AM
 
Originally posted by george68:
...I believe this is our charge and our duty here on Earth.
errrrrr...no!
     
demograph68
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 03:17 AM
 


Pfft... But God is all so powerful! Be saved!
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 04:04 AM
 
Awesome writeup, I can't wait for the rebuttals!

What did we learn?: Apparently, nothing.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Chris O'Brien
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hebburn, UK
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 05:38 AM
 
Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Who do you think will be a post whore in this thread till it gets locked?
Umm.. let me think. Is it going to be Zimphire?

Edit: I've decided to actually write something on topic since I've just read it now (incredibly bored at work):

That's a nice read, cheers for posting it. It needs a spell checker run over it, and a few things more tightly tied together*, but good nonetheless.

*as an example, it posits that mans main goal in life is to accomplish things, but there is no real qualification for this as far as I could see. Why do we think we are so important? We could just be some little role in a much larger scheme. It assumes we have the ability to discern everything - but we would laugh at the fact that a dog could figure out the meaning of life, so why do we believe we are at the pinnacle of intelligence and can do so?

Now, I don't believe what I'm writing, but blind faith in the excellence of mankind is almost as bad as blind faith in some make-believe man-in-the-sky. We just don't know - hence why I'm agnostic(ish)

I'm looking forward to some discussion on this, but I know it will degenerate to a macnn slagging match. Oh well, here's hoping
( Last edited by Black Book; Aug 4, 2004 at 06:14 AM. )
Just who are Britain? What do they? Who is them? And why?

Formerly Black Book
     
Link
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hyrule
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 05:57 AM
 
aw @*(#$%& it.

Eep.. I pulled a prank and this dude got the last laugh..
( Last edited by Link; Aug 4, 2004 at 06:14 AM. )
Aloha
     
george68  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 08:15 AM
 
Originally posted by KrazyEvilGoat:
I shake my head is disbelief. I could rip that up point by point, heck, the first paragraph invalidates 70% of what he wrote. Unfortunately its late. Maybe tomorrow.

What I find the most amusing is the reactions. Also that most people haven't read it, and probably haven't bothered to check out what he says.

Zimphire, if ever I welcome one of your posts now would be that time. I just don't have the patience to quote all that.
Of course you could, sweeheart. I mean, it's completely logical and all the points are valid, but you'd just ignore that and instead point out parts of the bible that say things the other way, because you believe in it selectively.

- Rob
     
george68  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 08:19 AM
 
Originally posted by Black Book:
It assumes we have the ability to discern everything - but we would laugh at the fact that a dog could figure out the meaning of life, so why do we believe we are at the pinnacle of intelligence and can do so?
I would say that about Christians and christianity. Christians have an argument for everything, a reason for anything, and they can explain any question about god/life you have. It's pretty pathetic actually, they would not accept an ant explaining it's location in an ant farm, but that is precisely what they're doing. When you really stump christians, they say "god works in mysterious ways", or some other ********, but they still provide an answer. Always. Zimphire will probably come in here and set up counter-arguements for every single point (and they'll be completely weak because they all support 'filtering' the bible's bad horrible parts out and selectively promoting the good parts, which is incorrect.), pointing out how everything was taken out of context, bla bla bla. Just watch.

- Rob
     
sanity assassin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a gadda da vida.
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 08:33 AM
 
Cool post ca$h, very informative, and seems a little more personal than other articles one reads on Christian dogma.



Originally posted by Black Book:
Umm.. let me think. Is it going to be Zimphire?
Probably, but it isn't Zimmer's style to actually debate the article, rather he will deflect the focus of the topic onto his own black and white view of the world, his warped agenda.

Case in point. The thread on the ambulance crew who were stopped by the police. Fairly civil thread and shock at what happened. Zim comes in with his usual dumb pic of another unrelated topic, and thus tries to deflect the negative views being thrown up about the police.

Why? because he can't stand anyone having a go at his nation, and in his attempt at defence, he goes to any lengths in which to absolve the people of any crime. Bit strange.

Also, you'll notice that when a few topics come up in which, once again, the topic isn't to his taste (the recent spate of dumb Police arrests on people), he will post a thread in which to defelct attention from those other threads. Case in point, the S. African thread. It's a bit like saying, 'Oh look here, look at these non-Americans, look how whacked they are'.


Anyway, rant off, but his antics really just begger belief at times, quite pitiful, and very sad.


So, T-minus whatever time before Zimmer makes his appearance.
     
BoomStick
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 09:12 AM
 
Ah, I see Macnn is keeping up it's reputation for hate.

     
willed
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: USA at the moment
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 09:18 AM
 
Originally posted by BoomStick:
Ah, I see Macnn is keeping up it's reputation for hate.

Quite. I mean what's the point of this? It's not going to change any minds so Ca�h is obviously only doing it to annoy people and to boost his warped ego. I hope ambush's first post was sarcastic.
     
dreilly1
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 09:39 AM
 
That was a very good post. Your friend clearly put some thought into it, a lot more than many people on both sides of the debate here seem to be able to.

There are some things I disagree with, though. I should get back to work so I won't take long, but I want to start a discussion about this guy's perception of Free Will and Christianity. While there are some sects who reject the notion of free will and believe in predestination, most of the Christian sects I am familiar with absolutely believe in Free Will, in the truest sense.

The writer seems to indicate that the worship of and gratitude to a deity is a sign that we are somehow slaves to that deity. He states that "accomplishing something within our lifetimes" should be the goal of our lives (which is a worthwhile statement), but then seems to indicate that attributing any part of your success to a higher power is equivalent to forfeiting your role in that achievement. Thus, any acknowledgement on our part of a higher power at work in our lives is equivalent to relinquishing our free will.

Based on my knowledge of the particular Catholic sect which I belong to, I'd have to disagree with this assessment. It's true that Catholics believe that their abilities and talents are given by God, but that's really where the handouts end. It's up to each individual to make the most out of what they are given. The gratitude that is expressed is not "thank you for letting me do this", but rather "thank you for giving me the tools to do this". There certainly is room for personal ambition and achievement in my religion, and personal choices can and do change our lot in life. Furthermore, personal choices that make us more sucessful in life but in an immoral way will affect us down the road. If we are grateful to a higher power after we achieve success, it is because he has given us the tools needed to excel and has shown us how to excel in a moral fashion, not because he has permitted us to excel.

In the end, though, the author's sandcastle analogy is a very good one, and one that I'll steal in future discussions. I believe that none of the sandcastles would be possible without the bucket. However, I also believe that none of them would be possible without the individuals holding the bucket, either. And when you look at the finished product, castles made with the same bucket will share the same features (like the diameter of the towers, bounded by the dimensions of the bucket), but will also be a unique expression of the person making that individual castle. Just like choices made by a bunch of true Christians should share the same moral underpinning, but in the end be a true expression of each individual.

Member of the the Stupid Brigade! (If you see Sponsored Links in any of my posts, please PM me!)
     
GoGoReggieXPowars
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Tronna
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 10:02 AM
 
Oh boy, another Christian-bating thread from Ca$h!
Oh, and hey, look, obligatory Hitler mention. Must be sound.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 10:04 AM
 
I'd like to address each of the issues below, but before I do I want to clarify that there is no winner or loser in this argument by virtue of the debate itself, but at the possible education that can be attained from it. The points below are very good ones and they are perhaps at the cornerstone of disbelief for many. I like the questions and feel they warrant explanation.

Written by a friend of mine, thought I'd share.
Here is my argument, compiled as best as I can, for why I disagree with Christianity:

I.) SELECTIVENESS FROM THE BIBLE:

According to our current culture,
Do not breeze passed that point, it's critical, but let's move on for now...

there are certain things in the bible that would be considered completely socially unacceptable today. My discomfort with mainstream Christianity is that people seem to gloss over these uncomfortable passages and focus only upon the good ones, which they want to emphasize. Before I go further, I will cite an example from each major category of my complaint : Slavery, Brutality, Sexism, Intolerance, and Contradictions (quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible) Keep in mind, unless you endorse and agree with every piece of the text, you advocate selectiveness from the bible:
Very good point. There are many who only accept parts and pieces and look beyond other parts that they might find disturbing. I find the numbering of each verse to be critical and therefore important for understanding.

Note with the passage Matthew 5:17 Jesus quotes, �Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.� So it is an invalid argument to assert that the new testament rejects the harshness of everything depicted in the old.
Jesus' statement says; "abolish law or prophets" and you say "everything". This is a slight leap, but let's assume for sake of argument that we are talking about everything. Would not everything in the Old NEED to come to pass for all which is found in the new? If events had occurred differently (knowing that the New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old) would that not have changed the future?

1.) Slavery:
Exodus 21:20-21 �If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.�
What did we learn?: It�s okay to treat your fellow human beings like savage animals if they are your slaves�furthermore it�s alright to beat them to a bloody pulp, as long as they don�t die. The bible supports ownership of human life and actively endorses cruelty upon it with this passage.
I find it mildly interesting that your friend passed over Exodus 21:16; "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death." And Deuteronomy 24:7; "If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you." Remember, the New Testament establishes Gentiles as also being chosen which makes us all brothers one to another. Slavery in this time was nothing like the slavery you and I are familiar with. Our slavery involved kidnapping our "brothers" from their families and then selling them. The Bible is very clear about this as being evil. The slavery in the Bible was not based on race at all. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more of a social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their family. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, even politicians were slaves of someone else for one reason or another. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master. The slavery of the 1700�s and 1800�s was based on skin color. Black people were considered slaves because of their nationality � most slave owners truly believed black people to be �inferior human beings� to white people. This is similar to the slavery the Jews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Jews were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Jews. Often times this example is brought forth not as much out of concern for the minority, but as an attempt to enrage them in opposition to Christianity. Thankfully, this has not been very effective historically. The Word of God holds true to even those persecuted by some who claimed they did their evil deeds in the name of Him. Onward...
ebuddy
     
Disgruntled Head of C-3PO
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In bits and pieces on Cloud City
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 10:09 AM
 
Originally posted by BoomStick:
Ah, I see Macnn is keeping up it's reputation for hate.

Ya you're right, MacNN is very Christian.
"Curse my metal body, I wasn't fast enough!"
     
xi_hyperon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Behind the dryer, looking for a matching sock
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 10:30 AM
 
Ca$h, after using the racist term "redneck" in the car thread, and now this, I think Zimpy isn't going to be your friend anymore.
     
Gankdawg
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 10:35 AM
 
I think Zimph could get to 25,000 on this thread alone!
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 10:37 AM
 
2.) Brutality:
Numbers 16:41-50 ; God kills 250 people because Korah challenges Moses� leadership. Then, when the rest of the travelers languishing in the desert complain that the lord has killed his own people, he sends down a plague ; �But those who died by the plague were 14,700, besides those who died on account of Korah.� (Numbers 16:49)
What did we learn?: God kills anyone with the nerve to exert their own free-will and dissent against his unjust conduct. Not just that, but wholesale slaughter. This kind of Stalinism is regarded as evil on Earth. How is it right for a divine creator to get away with such atrocities? Even if you want to argue that those people were evil and deserved to be destroyed, you still are forced to concede that God gave them no chance to change their minds or see his viewpoint; he didn�t argue with them and say, �Hey, you�re missing the point,� he simply destroys them for using their own power of free-will to make distinctions and choose based on the evidence in front of them.
It's quite possible that God was not only harshly judging those who opposed Him, but also those that simply questioned Him, but let's address this from two angles; Christians either entirely avoid the subject matter, or deal with it. The ones that deal with it, do this generally in two different ways;

1)God's love and compassion grew for man over the course of humanity as examples may be sited; Hosea 11; �How can I hand you over? How can I destroy you? My heart is changed within me; all my compassion is aroused� Jonah 3:10; �When God saw what the people did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened� Genesis 9:9; �Never again will I send a flood to destroy the earth� God seems to "question" moral cleansing through mass destruction as something He did not want to do again. This should serve as an example of God's Love for us and His ability to be merciful. Surely if he could be merciful with us, we should be merciful with others.

2)Man's love and passion for God grew over time and gradually discovered the truth about God. One could argue Old Testament man's knowledge of God. They seemed to believe that God was always with them and justified their actions as such, but in Jeremiah they realize that they are just as bloody and malicious as their enemies. While this may have been painful for them to hear, it is important that we see this truth also. True faith does not come down to us second-hand. We must learn and grow to know God more ouselves. This is why Christians refer to it as a personal relationship. The words of the Bible are completely applicable to us in that they meet us where we are. Many of the "atrocites" you mention are still relevant to the cultures that exist in those places. I remember how poorly my mother spoke of my father, but once I gave my father a chance I realized he was not such a bad guy. God continues to move on throughout the ages. We should also.
ebuddy
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 10:46 AM
 
Again, an Atheist starts a religion thread (and an anti-Christian one at that). I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 10:50 AM
 
Suffice it to say that you're coming from a few rather flawed assumptions of the Christian concept of God.
Note with the passage Matthew 5:17 Jesus quotes, �Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.� So it is an invalid argument to assert that the new testament rejects the harshness of everything depicted in the old.
Semantics, but important ones. If we go by the New Testament, then Jesus came to fulfill the old Covenant. To abolish it would mean that it would go away unfulfilled. Either way, however, it is gone. Does this mean that the New Testament rejects the harshness of everything in the Old? No, it does not. But either way, it removes the need for these things.

Frankly, this fact invalidates most of your arguments right there. A few still stand, though, so I'll touch on those:
"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me." John 14:6

There have been about 100 billion human births since modern Homo sapiens first appeared. The people who didn't believe in whichever god it is you want to advocate are in the company of about 96 billion others. Does it really make sense that a deity would remain so elusive to so many? If you are compelled to adhere to a belief that would admonish honest inquiry or if you worship a god that would eternally punish those who trust Logic and Reason over the claims of a supposed revealed truth, then it will be a hollow paradise indeed that awaits if you happen to be correct.
You are right, in that this interpretation makes no sense. Perhaps the problem is not with the message, but with your narrow interpretation of it.

The Bible does in fact say that Jesus is the sole way, the sole truth. It does not, however, say that this life is the only chance in which to do it.
Posit: I am wrong and bad, by nature.
Conclusion: I need something else to help me be right and good.

No.
Bad interpretation. Let's try that again:

Posit: I am wrong and bad, my nature
Conclusion: I need to become more than my nature alone dictates.

A large part of the Bible is dedicated to the idea that yes, we are worthless intrinsically, but that we can be more than what we were born as. That's what responsibility is: through your actions, becoming better (or worse) than some previous state.

It does state that we cannot do this alone; we need help. Many people, atheist and theist alike, believe this sort of thing quite readily in pretty much every other area of life, from the intellectual to the athletic to the military to the economic and so forth: no one can do much of anything alone. Is it truly so far-fetched, then, that this principle could also apply to the spiritual or the moral?

When you need help intellectually, you seek a good teacher. When you need help athletically, you find a good coach. When you need help militarily, you find a good general. When you need help economically, you seek out someone or something with good finances. For the spiritual or moral, why not seek out someone with the best possible backing in these things: the creator of these concepts? Assuming you can find such a being, does this not make sense?
C.) RELIGION CREATES MORALITY
Another facet of the denying-responsibility ideal is this: The unspoken reason why humans need some god to be moral is that they are not capable of creating their own social rules and hence require an eternal rule-giver with accompanying eternal rewards and eternal punishments. How can a theist possibly claim this when even chimpanzees and other primates are clearly capable of creating social rules?
Who "creates" morality? To many Christians, morality is an aspect of the universe -as real as chemistry or physics- rather than some abstract human concept like money. Even the most ardent atheist has to concede that science is about discovery, not creation; Newton's laws of motion (actually good approximations over relatively small areas, as it turns out, rather than the actual laws themselves) did not spring into being when he thought of them; they had existed all along even though we were not aware of them.

Chimpanzees and other primates (I find it interesting that you don't mention canines, ants, or bees) do not "create" their social rules. These things are instinctive, born into those species, probably by the mechanisms we now call natural selection. Even a baby chimpanzee has an instinctive concept of the group's alpha, even though it might not immediately know who that alpha is. Do these inborn social rules necessarily reflect universal morality? Maybe, maybe not; given how the solar system itself developed counter to universal thermodynamics, the idea that a species' social rules might develop counter to universal morality doesn't seem terribly far-fetched.
D.) IRRESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL GUILT
Jesus forgives all sins: by that rationale, you�re safer locked in a room full of atheists living by the golden rule with butcher knives than Christians with the bible in their hands. By this rationale, I can do anything I want. I can go out tonight and sodomize a baby, kill a family in the middle of dinner, burn down a small business, burn down the library, the art museum, burn down my own family�s house and all of my relatives and defile myself in the ashes of the dead, and then wake up tomorrow a born-again and be saved.
Jesus forgives those who want forgiveness. If, indeed, you intend to do the whole metaphorical "born again" thing then you can, but if you've really done that, then your example is going to live out a rather tormented life for the next several years at least. Repentance includes accepting what you did as wrong, and someone who committed atrocities like that is in for some serious pain once they make that recognition.

If there is a hell, then it is our own conscience. To recognize what one did as wrong and strive not to repeat it -in other words, real repentance- is a painful process in proportion to what you did. Some minor things are easy enough to get over, but someone repenting for what your example did will probably wish he was burning in a physical hell.

Jesus may forgive our sins, but forgiving ourselves when we really recognize our wrongs is not nearly that simple. This is not to say that people should "spend every day apologizing for merely existing", as you mentioned earlier. Given enough time, even the worst guilt heals naturally. That is what real hell is, and it only seems eternal to those in it.

You mention Hitler, and how if there is a God then you hope he is burning in Hell. You assume it's a place to burn in. Frankly, though, I would see a more fitting punishment: let him realize the enormity and vileness of what he has done. The emotional prisons that people can put themselves in are far worse than anything even God could create, because there is nothing more painful then that which is self-inflicted.

In any case, you are starting from a fairly stereotypical concept of the Christian God: omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. Where this concept comes from, I do not know, but the Bible paints a very different picture in those first three, and it's worth noting that benevolent (wishing good) and beneficient (doing good) are very different things anyway.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Ghoser777
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 10:58 AM
 
I.) SELECTIVENESS FROM THE BIBLE:

According to our current culture, there are certain things in the bible that would be considered completely socially unacceptable today. My discomfort with mainstream Christianity is that people seem to gloss over these uncomfortable passages and focus only upon the good ones, which they want to emphasize. Before I go further, I will cite an example from each major category of my complaint : Slavery, Brutality, Sexism, Intolerance, and Contradictions (quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible) Keep in mind, unless you endorse and agree with every piece of the text, you advocate selectiveness from the bible:

Note with the passage Matthew 5:17 Jesus quotes, �Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.� So it is an invalid argument to assert that the new testament rejects the harshness of everything depicted in the old.
He may have based a little too much of his article on this one point. To abolish the Law and the Prophets would mean to invalidate the blood sacrifices that had to be made in the past for redemption of sins. Jesus wasn't coming to do that - instead, he was presenting one sacrifice that would cover all humanity. Most of the "harshness" wouldn't be necessary to perform after the fulfilling of the blood sacrifice.

1.) Slavery:
Exodus 21:20-21 �If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.�
What did we learn?: It�s okay to treat your fellow human beings like savage animals if they are your slaves�furthermore it�s alright to beat them to a bloody pulp, as long as they don�t die. The bible supports ownership of human life and actively endorses cruelty upon it with this passage.
Why were people in the bible slaves? There were two ways - one, you sold yourself (and unfortunately, sometimes you were sold by brothers) into slavery to pay off a debt; the other way I know of is to be captured in war. When we think of current slavery, we're thinking of race slavery, where everyone from the race is enslaved and treated terribly with hate. These really are two different matters.

The bible talks a lot about servant hood, that you are suppose to give if yourself to help others. Essentially a slave would be the ultimate form of servant hood - and I'll admit, I don't think I have enough in me to be a good and humble slave.

Slavery is a tricky matter that a lot of people use as their justification for not being a Christian.

2.) Brutality:
Numbers 16:41-50 ; God kills 250 people because Korah challenges Moses� leadership. Then, when the rest of the travelers languishing in the desert complain that the lord has killed his own people, he sends down a plague ; �But those who died by the plague were 14,700, besides those who died on account of Korah.� (Numbers 16:49)
What did we learn?: God kills anyone with the nerve to exert their own free-will and dissent against his unjust conduct. Not just that, but wholesale slaughter. This kind of Stalinism is regarded as evil on Earth. How is it right for a divine creator to get away with such atrocities? Even if you want to argue that those people were evil and deserved to be destroyed, you still are forced to concede that God gave them no chance to change their minds or see his viewpoint; he didn�t argue with them and say, �Hey, you�re missing the point,� he simply destroys them for using their own power of free-will to make distinctions and choose based on the evidence in front of them.
Time frames in the bible are sometimes hard to follow. My *guess* is that when they where languishing in the desert, they were waiting a heck of a long time (like years). These re the people who saw the red sea split and the fire pillar in the sky... and they are still challenging God? Also, I doubt it was just questioning God. It probably was more extreme stubbornness, and in some ways, cursing and turning the backs to God. If I was God, would I have done that? Probably not, but I'm a pushover.

3.) Sexism:
�The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.� (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) and �In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives� (1 Peter 3:1)
What did we learn?: next time you go to church, you�d better keep your trap shut, and when you find a guy who you want to marry, you have to sacrifice every part of you to his will. If he wants you to give up everything you love about life, you have to do it.
My mom had an interesting take on that (although I'm not sure I entirely agree). For whatever reason, she finds that women like to gossip / cluck away. I'd say men can do the same, but her thinking is that the women would be asking their husbands questions about the sermon or what was going on during church and that would disrupt the sermon. In that time, most women weren't that educated, so it would not be as likely that the husband would ask his wife a question. So she should wait till they get home to ask her question. And to be honest, my mom asks me a lot of questions during church.

I really don't have a lot of problems with the second verse. The bible isn't about intellectualism, and sexual equality is mostly about women and men having equally qualified minds. The man-headed household used to make a great deal of sense because most jobs where strength related, and men develop muscle better/faster than women. And once again, the bible puts a lot of importance on servanthood - whether or not society sees that as a virtue or not is another matter. (Yes, I'm a male, so that automatically invalidates all my arguments, I know)

4.) Intolerance:
Mark 16:16 �He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned�
What did we learn?: God won�t allow any of those dirty Buddhists, or those awful Muslims into paradise. Just because you live your life according to the basic principles of coexistence and even if you live a life of fruitfulness and great accomplishment, that�s not enough; you have to administer faith in some guy, even if you have no rational evidence for it or logical proof. By that rationale, the prerequisite for salvation is blindness.
Just as a quick counterpoint, there are some Christians who believe everyone is saved by what Christ did, and death there means something different than what you are thinking - it means not living a full life, or living in spiritual darkness. Not many Christians believe that, but some do.

Anyway, as a counterpoint to something you say below - how can someone disbelieve if they have not heard? Well, I think most people agree they still go to heaven. It's only those who hear about the Word and reject it that would be the lost. There is something called "Abraham's Bosom" which I don't know much about where those people who go until Christ comes again.

And it's not like people would normally make decisions in life without a logical proof - usually only the intellectuals require that. Most people (even my Father of all people, who you would describe as the most anti-Christian person around) believe there is something greater than them that has allowed everything around us to happen.

5.) Contradictions:
Hmm, maybe that quotation by Mark wasn�t right after all... Isn�t it true that Jeremiah 17:10 says �I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds.� So maybe it IS good enough simply to live your life the best you can and be a good person. Then again, �Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me.� John 14:6 or if you don�t like that one, how about this one : "But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.� (Matthew 10:33) Oh wait, Matthew also said, �For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.� (Matthew 16:27) Damn dude, make up your mind.
What did we learn?: Apparently, nothing.
No, you're confusing separate things to be given. Nowhere is it saying there that you are given salvation based on deeds. It does indicate that your deeds are important and God marks them, but not that salvation is based on them.

Now at this point, even IF you can magically explain away all the ugly things recorded here, you are still stuck with a book that teaches people how to be great based on what NOT to do. So much is conveyed by negative example. Wouldn�t it be better to have a book that depicted how to be good, instead of sinning and wrong, so that people might learn by example how to be great? Christianity shows kids a book of rape, murder, pillage, and all other varieties of brutality and indecency with the caption �Here�s what NOT to do.� That�s not a good way of teaching someone how to live his or her life.
Maybe because we're all sinners, we can relate better. Of course, if you're looking for all the bad stuff, you'll find them. And because paradise isn't here yet, if the Bible is true, then the stories should be about how stuff on Earth isn't all the great. If it was, then why should Earth pass away? There are several stories of triumph in the Bible, many of which required people to go through tough times accomplish a great thing in the end... but isn't that the way of things?

These examples did not take long to find. I could easily find more. The point is this: YES, there are good things in the bible, and yes, in some parts, it portrays good example and a great way to lead your life. We all know this. But those parts are equal in consequence and in validity to all the parts that are sick and wrong. You can�t tear pages out of this book and still call it the word of God, or even a history lesson, or even a path to follow. Biblical times were very different than today�s times but do personal opinions and social norms allow us to discredit certain passages of the bible because they simply are not convenient or do not fit in with the morals we hold today? In my view, absolutely not.
I agree.

Saying you are Christian, and sorting through the bible, picking out only the passages which are convenient for you to use is like saying that tater-tot casserole is your favorite food, but whenever you eat it, you pick out everything except the tater-tots themselves. Obviously you do not like tater-tot casserole at all�you like just tater-tots only. So why claim that you like the whole thing. Christian morals are great. I embrace Christian morals, but guess what? Those two words are an oxymoron�MORALS are a concept that is independent of all religion. Are all atheists evil and sick people? No, there have been a great number of them who have made fascinating and wonderful contributions to our world. So eat your tater-tots, and forget the casserole. You don�t need it. Just like you don�t need a book full of obscenity and injustice to advocate the golden rule, the ethic of reciprocity, and the beauty of all that we can achieve together and the love we are capable of, given freedom to do so.
I agree with your point, but one quick thing. When instruction was given SPECIFICALLY to the Israelities, I'm not so sure that has to apply to us today. Those weren't commands to Christians, who entered in by another way - by Christ.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 11:10 AM
 
3.) Sexism:
�The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.� (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) and �In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives� (1 Peter 3:1)
What did we learn?: next time you go to church, you�d better keep your trap shut, and when you find a guy who you want to marry, you have to sacrifice every part of you to his will. If he wants you to give up everything you love about life, you have to do it.
Genesis 1:27; "And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." Man in his desire to dominate has used many of the above verses to keep women in subjection to them, but we shouldn't focus on man's plan for God, rather we should focus on God's plan for mankind. Okay you thug males, get out your Bible! Deborah was both a judge and leader of Israel. (judges 4:4) Other women were involved in ridding Israel of her enemies. (Judges 4:21) Quite a number of women are described as being prophetesses. (Exodus 15:20) Other women in the Bible were involved in teaching the Word of God (Acts 18:26) or serving as leaders and deaconesses in the early Christian church. (Romans 16:1-12)

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. (Ephesians 5:21)

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Ephesians 5:25)

Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. (Colossians 3:19) Many men could've taken heed here.

The mention of "not speaking in Church" has been confused by men for a very long time. The culture of the time had women and men separated in Church. For them to speak would've meant them shouting over to the men or talking amongst themselves which was mentioned by Paul. He emphasizes that his rules for church are given so that everything would be "done in a fitting and orderly way." (1 Corinthians 14:40) Paul also mentioned several women in positions of authority in the Church (Romans 16:1-12), but Paul was prohibiting the Ephesian women, not all women, from teaching. To understand this, see; (Ephesians 2:9-15). In first-century Jewish culture, women were not allowed to study. When Paul said that women should learn in quietness and full submission, he was offering them a unique opportunity for leadership in the Church. Paul did not want the Ephesian women to teach because they didn't yet have enough knowledge or experience of the Word. The Ephesian church had a particular problem with false teachers. Evidently the women were especially susceptible to the false teachings (2 Timothy 3:1-9), because they did not yet have enough Biblical knowledge to discern the truth. In addition, some women were apparently flaunting their new-found Christian freedom by wearing inappropriate clothing (1 Timothy 2:9). Paul was telling Timothy not to put anyone (in this case, women) into a position of leadership who was not yet mature in the faith (1 Timothy 3:6).

Now, because I have willingly (as in Biblical times) subjected myself to slaverly for the betterment of my family, I must be going now. I'll reply to the rest when I get home around 9pm CST. See ya then!
ebuddy
     
ambush
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 11:51 AM
 
Originally posted by sanity assassin:
Probably, but it isn't Zimmer's style to actually debate the article, rather he will deflect the focus of the topic onto his own black and white view of the world, his warped agenda.

Case in point. The thread on the ambulance crew who were stopped by the police. Fairly civil thread and shock at what happened. Zim comes in with his usual dumb pic of another unrelated topic, and thus tries to deflect the negative views being thrown up about the police.

Why? because he can't stand anyone having a go at his nation, and in his attempt at defence, he goes to any lengths in which to absolve the people of any crime. Bit strange.

Also, you'll notice that when a few topics come up in which, once again, the topic isn't to his taste (the recent spate of dumb Police arrests on people), he will post a thread in which to defelct attention from those other threads. Case in point, the S. African thread. It's a bit like saying, 'Oh look here, look at these non-Americans, look how whacked they are'.

Anyway, rant off, but his antics really just begger belief at times, quite pitiful, and very sad.
That's the best summary of Zimph's attitude I've read...
     
wdlove
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 11:57 AM
 
It needs to be realized that no one is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. All we can do is to try and improve ourselves each day.

"Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense." Winston Churchill
     
KrazyEvilGoat
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 12:15 PM
 
Originally posted by george68:
Of course you could, sweeheart. I mean, it's completely logical and all the points are valid, but you'd just ignore that and instead point out parts of the bible that say things the other way, because you believe in it selectively.

- Rob

No, it looks nice, it reads nice, but its still tripe. As for valid.. well read the posts above debunking it. No, I believe every word of the bible unlike this fellow who tries to pick it apart based on a single verse. What I don't believe is one bitter man's interpretation of it.

Most of you seem to be agreeing with this simply because it agrees with your own beliefs.

Anyway, I'm still not getting involved in this one unless I have to..
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 12:25 PM
 
AAAAAAAhahha I haven't even POSTED in this thread an my fan club have already become obsessed.



Some of you really need to get the chips off your shoulders and grow up.

Seriously.

I mean I mean it.
     
KrazyEvilGoat
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 12:29 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
AAAAAAAhahha I haven't even POSTED in this thread an my fan club have already become obsessed.



Some of you really need to get the chips off your shoulders and grow up.

Seriously.

I mean I mean it.

I'm proud. You resisted the urge to post here knowing full well everyone was waiting for it like the pack of salivating hounds they are.

     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 12:30 PM
 
Oh, BTW

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
This has been mentioned before, but some people don't seem to get the message: take your religious debate elsewhere. THIS IS A ****ING MAC FORUM. People are getting sick of it. I'm getting sick of. Let it go or leave.


     
waxcrash
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 12:30 PM
 
Zimph - your image isn't loading.

http://webpages.charter.net/zimphire...lubpennant.png

[EDIT: Looks like you fixed it.]
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 12:32 PM
 
Yeah Charter's web server took a dump. It's back up now.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 12:52 PM
 
BTW cash, you have posted this before

It got smacked down there. What makes you think now is any different?

     
Demonhood
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Aug 4, 2004, 01:04 PM
 
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:17 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,