Do you believe in God?

[BobK]

Seriously? You think Christians are barbaric and that this is the last generation of them?

I know the question wasn't addressed to me but personally I consider cannibalism to be barbaric, whether actual or ritual. You could argue that the Crusades and witch trials and whatnot happened a couple centuries ago but the Catholic Church still practices cannibalism today. I don't see it disappearing in a generation or two, though.

 

[fitftw]

If you're Christian and you don't follow Leviticus in which it states that homosexuality is an abomination, then you are not a Christian. Christians are told by the Bible to fear/hate gays. You can't pick and choose from the bible and still call yourself religious. You would be a hypocrite.

I'm pretty sure God didn't write in the bible "Feel free to pick and choose what you want to follow and ignore the rest. You will still be saved." Religion is an all or nothing deal.

 

[KBRacing2488]

I am a christian. It's how I was raised. I have no problem with gays. Just as long as they don't come around me I am okay with it.

 

[Carbonox]

You have no problem with gays, yet you insist it becomes a problem if they come around you (how close exactly?). Yeah okay.

 

[KBRacing2488]

You have no problem with gays, yet you insist it becomes a problem if they come around you (how close exactly?). Yeah okay.

No I'm just saying I have no problem with them being gay. Im not going to go out there and protest the laws and things like that. I just get a little uncomfortable certain people start hitting on me or something. some of my best friends are gay and I'm not going to go against them.

 

[Carbonox]

Gays will not go and hit on you "just like that". They're people with senses too, and you bet they will respect straight men's personal privacy enough to consider you a friend, nothing more.

 

[KBRacing2488]

Gays will not go and hit on you "just like that". They're people with senses too, and you bet they will respect straight men's personal privacy enough to consider you a friend, nothing more.

Oh, some did actually hit on me, that's why I try to avoid some people, that's it.

 

[XoravaX]

I know the question wasn't addressed to me but personally I consider cannibalism to be barbaric, whether actual or ritual. You could argue that the Crusades and witch trials and whatnot happened a couple centuries ago but the Catholic Church still practices cannibalism today. I don't see it disappearing in a generation or two, though.

Please, source? Claims on cannibalism need backing, because they're pretty heavy. And if you mean the supper, well, that's symbolic. Like so much in the New Testament - doesn't your logic say that bread is bread?

But something the Catholics do doesn't attribute to Christianity as a whole. Calling Christians barbarians because of what some sect/church does is racistic in such a way calling all Americans idiots because of a retarded person you've met or calling all Russians commies because of Lenin/Stalin/Soviet Union.

Or calling Muslims terrorists.

I, as a Protestant, am offended by that comment of yours. You are practically telling that I'm like a Catholic accused of cannibalism.
And again, supper is not cannibalism, it's a metaphor to the connection. Purposeful misunderstanding is a really poor trick - try to pull that face-to-face and you'll get laughed on. Anyone with at least low-to-mediocre argumentation skills will avoid that to death.

Please, think a bit before posting.

If I did something as stupid, I could attribute all non-Christians commie-antisemitist-massmurder-terrorists because of some non-Christians who have murdered Jews or committed terrorist attacks, for example.
But I won't.

Gays will not go and hit on you "just like that". They're people with senses too, and you bet they will respect straight men's personal privacy enough to consider you a friend, nothing more.

Are you downplaying his personal experiences?

Don't go stereotyping people, there are both gays and heterosexuals alike who are rude and offend people. Not all gays are well-behaving, like not all heterosexuals either.

 

[BobK]

Please, source? Claims on cannibalism need backing, because they're pretty heavy. And if you mean the supper, well, that's symbolic. Like so much in the New Testament - doesn't your logic say that bread is bread?

Yes, my logic says that bread is bread. The Catholic priest, however, says it has become the body of Christ after it's consecrated.

But something the Catholics do doesn't attribute to Christianity as a whole.

Yes. Good thing I didn't say that then.

Calling Christians barbarians because of what some sect/church does is racistic in such a way calling all Americans idiots because of a retarded person you've met or calling all Russians commies because of Lenin/Stalin/Soviet Union.

Yep. Good thing I didn't do that then.

Or calling Muslims terrorists.

Or that.

I, as a Protestant, am offended by that comment of yours.

Get over it.

You are practically telling that I'm like a Catholic accused of cannibalism.

No. You are badly misreading my post. Read it again, and kindly point out to me where I used the word "Christian" or any of it's variants.

And again, supper is not cannibalism, it's a metaphor to the connection.

Tell that to the priest.

Purposeful misunderstanding is a really poor trick - try to pull that face-to-face and you'll get laughed on. Anyone with at least low-to-mediocre argumentation skills will avoid that to death.

Given your misunderstanding of what I said and did not say, what does that say about your skills then?

Please, think a bit before posting.

Please, think a bit before replying. Make sure the poster said what you think he said.

If I did something as stupid, I could attribute all non-Christians commie-antisemitist-massmurder-terrorists because of some non-Christians who have murdered Jews or committed terrorist attacks, for example.
But I won't.

Considering the way you've put words in my mouth, I'd say you did do

something as stupid

.

 

[Kingland093]

Christians are told by the Bible to fear/hate gays.

wrong. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin but we are not told to hate or fear gays because they're people to

 

[fitftw]

wrong. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin but we are not told to hate or fear gays because they're people to

So are you pro-gay marriage or against it? I don't know any non-religious people who want to keep rights away from gays, or anyone else for that matter. It's always the religious nuts who are filled with fear about everything.

And how would homosexuality be a sin if supposedly God created all of us? Oh that's right, religious people think people CHOOSE to be gay...uh huh..........Even if they did choose to be gay, how in the world is it a sin? Just because they can't bear children? It just boggles my mind and makes my brain hurt.

 

[Kingland093]

against it. I just said that it's a sin
And allowing gay marriage isn't granting equal rights

 

[Scaff]

wrong. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin but we are not told to hate or fear gays because they're people to

Do you eat prawns or wear mixed fibre clothing?


Oh and as for not telling you to hate them, it may not do that, but it does tell you to kill them (and that it will be their fault)!!!!

18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

 

[fitftw]

against it. I just said that it's a sin
And allowing gay marriage isn't granting equal rights

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/same-sex-couples-federal-marriage-benefits-30326.html

 

[McLaren]

If you're Christian and you don't follow Leviticus in which it states that homosexuality is an abomination, then you are not a Christian. Christians are told by the Bible to fear/hate gays. You can't pick and choose from the bible and still call yourself religious. You would be a hypocrite.

I'm pretty sure God didn't write in the bible "Feel free to pick and choose what you want to follow and ignore the rest. You will still be saved." Religion is an all or nothing deal.

The whole bible itself already has hypocritical verses.

 

[homeforsummer]

Just as long as they don't come around me I am okay with it.

By "come around me" do you mean... oh, never mind...

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

A close analogy: if a soldier saves his nation by letting himself be tortured and executed (instead if eg. telling crucial information to the enemy), is his nation barbaric then? His death may be barbaric, but the barbarians are those who kill him, not those whom he saved.

That argument of yours is pretty poor I'd say - purposeful (?) misunderstanding makes never for a good argument.

This is not a correct analogy.

• The Soldier would need to be the commander of both armies, capable of calling it all off.
• The war would have to be caused by himself.
• He would have to send his innocent son, that is in fact himself, to be slaughtered by the armies, just to appease himself and end the war.
• Then if you don't accept him killing his innocent son that had nothing to do with war, you must go to war yourself.
• If you commit the awful crime of not worshipping the jealous commander, (or worshipping some false commander), you suffer for your entire "after life".
• All of this so the commander can demand you not jerk off, make women the property of men & make homo's an abomination.

Christianity is a simple con, create a problem to sell a cure. (Original Snake Oil)

 

[XoravaX]

--

However, you quoted someone who was offended by the claim that Christians are barbarians, in the defence of the person who claimed that, defending the argument that Christians are barbarians, saying (because of) that some of them are cannibals.

Your logic says bread is bread, even though it is consecrated (or if you really think it changes form, I start questioning your sanity - if nothing noticeable happens to the bread, it can't be other than symbolic). Also, Jesus himself used symbolism in the form of metaphors - or what do you think the grain on rocks was? In the New Testament it is written that Jesus himself said he uses metaphors in his preaching.

If you're Christian and you don't follow Leviticus in which it states that homosexuality is an abomination, then you are not a Christian. Christians are told by the Bible to fear/hate gays. You can't pick and choose from the bible and still call yourself religious. You would be a hypocrite.

I'm pretty sure God didn't write in the bible "Feel free to pick and choose what you want to follow and ignore the rest. You will still be saved." Religion is an all or nothing deal.

God didn't write the Bible. No Christian/Jew should think so; the main Old Testament books are written (as well as it can be known) by Jewish prophets and the New Testament books by the early Christians.
The Bible doesn't say it was written by God. If it were, it would certainly say that.

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

If you imply this doesn't mean that it surpasses the Old Testament law, see it in other words:

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

These are direct quotes from the Bible, the New Testament that is.

I am not a Jew. I am a Christian. If I take the New Testament literally, I won't follow the Old Testament. Isn't taking it literally an all-or-nothing deal then?

The problem with taking all of the writings literally is that they can't, because they conflict. As a Christian, you are supposed to read the New Testament (because you wouldn't be a Christian if you didn't), because the Old Testament is Jews' book of law and prophets. If you read the New Testament, it tells you that the whole Torah (Law, or Leviticus) and Prophets are inferior to the Great Commandment.

I am not choosing anything - as Christians prioritise the New Testament - why? It's not called The New Testament without a reason.

Out of curiosity, who are you to say who is Christian when you aren't? Who are you to say how people believe and to what they believe? An authoritarian, aren't you?

They have known to be barbaric. See the Crusades, and Salem witch trials etc....

So has the whole humankind. Atheists too. And Muslims. And Jews. All others too.
Humankind will never be free of barbarians.

Even if they did choose to be gay, how in the world is it a sin? Just because they can't bear children? It just boggles my mind and makes my brain hurt.

You have to know the context the Old Testament was written at. The Jews were surrounded by hostile peoples back then, around 1000-500BC, and they were relatively few in number compared to the Egyptians and Assyrians. Anything that lowered the birth rate was bad for them as high birth rate was crucial for their survival - they forbade "pulling out" and (expressing) homosexuality, and raped women had to marry the rapist, for example.

Word of God or not, I'm not sure. But at least he changed his views to a more merciful direction in the following 500-1000 years.

This is not a correct analogy.

• The Soldier would need to be the commander of both armies, capable of calling it all off.
• The war would have to be caused by himself.
• He would have to send his innocent son, that is in fact himself, to be slaughtered by the armies, just to appease himself and end the war.
• Then if you don't accept him killing his innocent son that had nothing to do with war, you must go to war yourself.
• If you commit the awful crime of not worshipping the jealous commander, (or worshipping some false commander), you suffer for your entire "after life".
• All of this so the commander can demand you not jerk off, make women the property of men & make homo's an abomination.

Christianity is a simple con, create a problem to sell a cure. (Original Snake Oil)

• If he called it off himself, it would not be from the people. When the people do it themself, it's freedom. Otherwise it's dictatorship. (If there is God, he could force everyone believe, but freedom would be lost - now people are given the choice to believe or not.) If you were God, would you rule with an iron fist or let the people lead themselves? Which would be more merciful?
• The war is caused because of a conflict between his followers and those who do not follow him
• He is the son - as an Irishman you must have heard of the Trinity of God? Also, the people who are saved, gain access to eternal life.
• Because of the evil that men, both his followers and enemies, do.
• I gain no access to the afterlife (heaven) if I don't believe. Isn't it what you think that happens to you when you die, you just cease being?
• Theologians solved it out that the Onan thing was actually pulling out, not jerking off (which isn't thereby mentioned in the Bible), but see the New Testament and what I posted above. Also, what is in the Old Testament isn't the "requirement", because:

  And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
  He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
  And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
  And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

The analogy is pretty close (especially from a Protestant viewpoint), don't you think?

 

[huskeR32]

The problem with taking all of the writings literally is that they can't, because they conflict.

So why believe any of it?

As a Christian, you are supposed to read the New Testament (because you wouldn't be a Christian if you didn't), because the Old Testament is Jews' book of law and prophets. If you read the New Testament, it tells you that the whole Torah (Law, or Leviticus) and Prophets are inferior to the Great Commandment.

I am not choosing anything - as Christians prioritise the New Testament - why? It's not called The New Testament without a reason.

OK then. What follows is the entirety of the Newest Testament:

huskeR32 1:1 And so it is now said, there is no god. Everything that hath ever been said, or shall henceforth be said, promoting the existence of a god, is false, and shan't be believed.

If all it takes to know which testament is to be believed is the name of it, then you must now believe this Newest Testament over all others, no?

Word of God or not, I'm not sure. But at least he changed his views to a more merciful direction in the following 500-1000 years.

Why would an omniscient god ever need to change his views at all?

 

[fitftw]

Religion is a crutch on which weak-minded people stand. They are handicapped. That in itself is not the problem, but what is written in these ancient texts that the handicapped people drink and swallow, is certainly problematic. How long has it been since the Bible has been amended? I think it's time for someone else to "talk to God" and see what "He would want" for "His people" and erase the parts that say homosexuality is a sin, among numerous other dumb sentences in there.

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

@XovoraX (the apologist)Why didn't he give us a flawless book?
He wrote 10 commandments in stone! (acc. to bible...)

How can you accept this invisible dictatorship ?

Born sick into sin, commanded to be well and love somebody you fear.
Entire life serving God... slavery.

and all you needed was a poorly written book.

I just don't get it.

 

[CodeRedR51]

By "come around me" do you mean... oh, never mind...

 

[Scaff]

If you imply this doesn't mean that it surpasses the Old Testament law, see it in other words:


These are direct quotes from the Bible, the New Testament that is.

I am not a Jew. I am a Christian. If I take the New Testament literally, I won't follow the Old Testament. Isn't taking it literally an all-or-nothing deal then?

The problem with taking all of the writings literally is that they can't, because they conflict. As a Christian, you are supposed to read the New Testament (because you wouldn't be a Christian if you didn't), because the Old Testament is Jews' book of law and prophets. If you read the New Testament, it tells you that the whole Torah (Law, or Leviticus) and Prophets are inferior to the Great Commandment.

I am not choosing anything - as Christians prioritise the New Testament - why? It's not called The New Testament without a reason.

Out of curiosity, who are you to say who is Christian when you aren't? Who are you to say how people believe and to what they believe? An authoritarian, aren't you?

This is also from the New Testament:

matthew 5:17
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Looks like Jesus/God can't make his mind up about that one.

You have to know the context the Old Testament was written at. The Jews were surrounded by hostile peoples back then, around 1000-500BC, and they were relatively few in number compared to the Egyptians and Assyrians. Anything that lowered the birth rate was bad for them as high birth rate was crucial for their survival - they forbade "pulling out" and (expressing) homosexuality, and raped women had to marry the rapist, for example.

Which I might accept if the OT didn't list a huge number of ways in which you could be 'slain', such as using the wrong door to holy places, kids being rude to parents, women not shouting loud enough when being raped, etc, etc. Oh and they didn't forbade "expressing" homosexuality, they murdered you for it, lets not try and sugar coat it please.

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

Looks like Jesus/God can't make his mind up about that one.

At least God won't be angry at the non-believers forever.
He is never angry forever.

"For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever."

but then again... its possible.

"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever."

 

[XoravaX]

So why believe any of it?

Some of the events, are historical facts like Herodes as the king, Augustus as the emperor and Cyrenius as the governor, as well as the taxing which was held. Also, the Chinese have written of a "bright star" around the date (AD 1 +/- 15 years as far as I remember), which the astronomers have thought out to be a supernova. The New Testament's ethics are working still, don't you think that doing good to others works (although not answering violence is weak I think, that's where I don't follow it for example)? The others may just be a story, but there are a lot of written texts that are more fictitious.

Why I believe some of it? Because of the cultural value of Christianity and ethics in the New Testament. The Western World wouldn't exist as we know it without Christianity, and not knowing one's roots is like having no roots. A nation which forgets its history and culture is no more.

OK then. What follows is the entirety of the Newest Testament:

huskeR32 1:1 And so it is now said, there is no god. Everything that hath ever been said, or shall henceforth be said, promoting the existence of a god, is false, and shan't be believed.

If all it takes to know which testament is to be believed is the name of it, then you must now believe this Newest Testament over all others, no?

If you want, believe that.

If you follow the Old Testament like a Jew, well, you are a Jew, because you follow their rules (Jews think that it's impossible to follow them, hence they don't think they can gain eternal life because it's impossible to be "perfect"). What separates a Jew and a Christian is that Christians follow the New Testament.

If people want to be huskeR32ians, they may want to follow what you wrote.

Why would an omniscient god ever need to change his views at all?

Because not everything is black and white (I really hope the people in this thread find it out sooner or later, preferably sooner, and also use in their thinking). And the world changes, what is right may not be right 500 years later.

@XovoraX (the apologist)Why didn't he give us a flawless book?
He wrote 10 commandments in stone! (acc. to bible...)

How can you accept this invisible dictatorship ?

Born sick into sin, commanded to be well and love somebody you fear.
Entire life serving God... slavery.

and all you needed was a poorly written book.

I just don't get it.

Invisible dictatorship? Well, those who don't believe, don't believe, those who believe have chosen to believe (or should have).

A flawless book? The world changes. Again, not everything is black and white.

This is also from the New Testament:

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

Indeed.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Law and the Prophets refer to Torah, the Jewish law, in which Leviticus belongs.

Which I might accept if the OT didn't list a huge number of ways in which you could be 'slain', such as using the wrong door to holy places, kids being rude to parents, women not shouting loud enough when being raped, etc, etc. Oh and they didn't forbade "expressing" homosexuality, they murdered you for it, lets not try and sugar coat it please.

Huge number? Only three: stoning, hanging and burning. Others aren't kosher. There were lots of ways for which you could be slain, but the ways in which you could be slain were few in number.

They forbade expressing it. With death penalty.

Religion is a crutch on which weak-minded people stand. They are handicapped. That in itself is not the problem, but what is written in these ancient texts that the handicapped people drink and swallow, is certainly problematic. How long has it been since the Bible has been amended? I think it's time for someone else to "talk to God" and see what "He would want" for "His people" and erase the parts that say homosexuality is a sin, among numerous other dumb sentences in there.

Which was the meaning of the New Testament in the first place. To renew the commandments.

But please explain why it is weak? I don't believe God helps us on Earth, I don't believe he likes to mess with the matters of the world. I don't rely on God in daily matters, or any matters to be honest.

 

[ScouserInExile]

.

You have to know the context the Old Testament was written at. The Jews were surrounded by hostile peoples back then, around 1000-500BC, and they were relatively few in number compared to the Egyptians and Assyrians. Anything that lowered the birth rate was bad for them as high birth rate was crucial for their survival - they forbade "pulling out" and (expressing) homosexuality, and raped women had to marry the rapist, for example.
.

Also, if you look at the rules around Kosher (and halal, for that matter), they're basically sensible if you live in a hot climate and are really designed to keep your followers alive and healthy. Adding "god said" added a bit of weight to it all.

One of the issues I have with people taking the bible at face value is that they ignore the time it comes from, which was a time when the commandments made a lot more sense.

Also, they ignore the origins. The abrahamic religions borrow heavily from other religions, with added spin to get across the message the writers want. Even those cornerstones of Christianity, the virgin birth, the Eucharist and the whole Easter thing are basically plagiarised from pagan / earth goddess type "old religions"

 

[huskeR32]

If you follow the Old Testament like a Jew, well, you are a Jew, because you follow their rules (Jews think that it's impossible to follow them, hence they don't think they can gain eternal life because it's impossible to be "perfect"). What separates a Jew and a Christian is that Christians follow the New Testament.

It appears to me (and correct me if I'm wrong), that you're trying really hard to separate the OT from Christianity. And if you really believe the OT has no bearing on Christianity, why is it in the Bible? I'm honestly curious.

If people want to be huskeR32ians, they may want to follow what you wrote.

I wasn't trying to do anything other than point out the fallacy of the "logic" you've tried using multiple times now -- that the NT is clearly to be believed over the OT because of the name.

In the end, I see no reason to believe anything in the OT or NT, or to value one over the other. Unless you have something more substantial than pointing out the use of the words old/new, then I'm having a hard time seeing how you can be so sure which is right and which is wrong.

Because not everything is black and white (I really hope the people in this thread find it out sooner or later, preferably sooner, and also use in their thinking). And the world changes, what is right may not be right 500 years later.

You're absolutely right. But one thing in this world that had better be black and white is an omniscient god, if one so exists. (granted, I don't recall you using that word, but I imagine you do hold god as being such?).

 

[Kingland093]

the Old Testament has always been relevent to Christianity

 

[huskeR32]

the Old Testament has always been relevent to Christianity

I agree. It seems that XoravaX is trying to downplay that...

 

[Scaff]

Some of the events, are historical facts like Herodes as the king, Augustus as the emperor and Cyrenius as the governor, as well as the taxing which was held. Also, the Chinese have written of a "bright star" around the date (AD 1 +/- 15 years as far as I remember), which the astronomers have thought out to be a supernova. The New Testament's ethics are working still, don't you think that doing good to others works (although not answering violence is weak I think, that's where I don't follow it for example)? The others may just be a story, but there are a lot of written texts that are more fictitious.

Yet any event that directly relates to Jesus can't be confirmed, up to and including the exact location of Bethlehem (which didn't officially exist until around 200 years after his birth).

Its a little like setting a fictional story during WW2, that WW2 happened is not in question, that doesn't suddenly make the film "Atonement" true.

Why I believe some of it? Because of the cultural value of Christianity and ethics in the New Testament. The Western World wouldn't exist as we know it without Christianity, and not knowing one's roots is like having no roots. A nation which forgets its history and culture is no more.

We can retain cultural traits without following the religion, plenty of people with no religious convictions at all still celebrate Christmas.

As for ethics, sorry but religion is not required for holding an ethical and moral view on the world, and I would argue that religion removes direct accountability from it, which is not a good idea at all.

Also, if you look at the rules around Kosher (and halal, for that matter), they're basically sensible if you live in a hot climate and are really designed to keep your followers alive and healthy. Adding "god said" added a bit of weight to it all.

Apart from all the people you execute for daft 'crimes', doesn't exactly keep them alive and healthy does it.

Also, they ignore the origins. The abrahamic religions borrow heavily from other religions, with added spin to get across the message the writers want. Even those cornerstones of Christianity, the virgin birth, the Eucharist and the whole Easter thing are basically plagiarised from pagan / earth goddess type "old religions"

Not ignoring them at all, I've mentioned them on a number of occasions, all they do however is further undermine the entire thing.