Total posts: 1,044
-->
@ludofl3x
Why not just tell him that he's the one to be sacrificed?Don't know, but if I had to speculate, in the real world I'd say it's because a kid Isaac's age could outrun a man Abraham's age. The way you are reading it, the whole thing makes LESS sense to me: If god knew he wasn't going t let Abraham kill Isaac, and Abraham knew god wasn't going tolet him kill Isaac, what exactly is the test about? BEcause you said this:It's pretty clear from the text that Abraham viewed the test as a cultural necessity meant to prove his allegiance to the God he believed in.So if neither Abraha nor Isaac expected this whole affair to end up with a dead kid, then no one is actually proving anything to anyone, because there's no stakes on either side.
Let's look at God's proclamation of faith concerning Abraham.
Hebrews 11:8-19
New International Version
8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9 By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 11 And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she[a] considered him faithful who had made the promise. 12 And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.
13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.
17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[b] 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.
13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.
17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[b] 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.
As you can see, a lot of what Abraham was commended for was his faith concerning God's promise of a future national off-spring through Isaac. Not faith in allowing his one and only son to die.
And of course if God didn't intervene there would have been no choice but to kill Isaac.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm not disputing what happens in the text. I'm saying the text says God asked Abraham to sacrifice his kid as a burnt offering. Whatever happens after, god indeed asked him to kill Isaac. It's very plain. I get the moral (though it doesn't make a lot of sense, but I get how Christians read it). But it doesn't change the fact that the text has god asking a man to kill his son.
But your questions just bring up more counter questions. Ethan has asked a couple, and I'll ask,
Why did Abraham say to Isaac
Genesis 22:7-8
New International Version
7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, “Father?”
“Yes, my son?” Abraham replied.
“The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”
8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.
Why not just tell him that he's the one to be sacrificed?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
The character in the book is purported to be all powerful, by definition all things could have been done differently.
Like Ethan said, Abraham was not expecting Isaac to be sacrificed. That's why he told those men both of them would be returning.
Another way to look at it.
Before Isaac was born, Abraham looked to God to save his family members in Sodom which was about to be destroyed. Abraham looked to God to save Isaac as well. The problem was that human sacrifice was the norm amongst Abraham's peers. There's also the opinion that the command actually came from men representing the voice of a god, or a god-king. There was no Israelite nation yet. Abraham was surrounded by pagans who stressed a necessity to sacrifice what's most valuable to their god. So rather than defy the abominable culture of the day, God chose to use the cultural practice of human sacrifice to display Abraham as one of the heroes of faith. So rather than Abraham looking to God to change his mind, it was probably more an attitude of looking to God to rescue Isaac as He did Lot and his family.
It's pretty clear from the text that Abraham viewed the test as a cultural necessity meant to prove his allegiance to the God he believed in. The text reveals that they left early in the morning with no hesitation. There appeared to be more expectancy of a rescue for Isaac than a temptation to refrain.
Of course later on God made it crystal clear to the chosen people Israel that human sacrifice is an abomination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
As are we all.Hi Rod, good post.
Thanks Ethan!
Welcome back. Good to see you again.
Created:
Posted in:
It's a bit baffling the absolute insistence that Christians cherry-picked the (for lack of a better term) Jesus-peace-and-love NT era over (again for a lack of a better term) a polar opposite fascist-style OT era. My guess is that if the book wasn't labeled a religious document, or represented a political rivalry, I think people would understand this to be another example of simply solving a puzzle through among other sciences, the science of linguistics.
It's true Jesus never changes, but this does not mean nothing as expressed in the bible changes. There are seasons of change. The book of Ecclesiastes makes this clear.
Right now, if you're living in the free world, you're in a place for opportunity. You're not subject to any religious theocratic dictatorship. If you're looking for religious oppressors to harass you, particularly in America, you'll probably have to search far and wide. Maybe you can find some snake handler in the deep south to oppress you. But, don't cross your fingers.
What you're facing now is an opportunity to find God for yourself. No one is ultimately going to do that for you. The problem with doing this though, is you might actually find him.
I like to believe though, that those who participate on debate forums arguing against Christianity are actually seeking.
A question.
Which is preferable?
Living in a free pluralistic society where you butt heads with people you disagree with?
Or, a totalitarian dictatorship that tells you that you had better not even consider the existence of God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOUR QUOTE IN RUNNING AWAY FROM MY POSTS #60 AND 66: "NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN AS A DUMBFOUNDED RUNAWAY AS RODERICKSPODE TO BE EASILY BIBLE SLAPPED SILLY®️ WILL BE....?Tell the membership and Jesus in how your quote shown above addresses you RUNNING AWAY from my two posts below, that thus far are making you the Bible fool equal to the totally Bible inept Tradesecret:
This was an answer to your question:
"NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN AS A DUMBFOUNDED RUNAWAY AS RODERICKSPODE TO BE EASILY BIBLE SLAPPED SILLY®️ WILL BE....?"
I assume that's why the question was posed. It's not a rhetorical question is it?
My answer is just a guess since I ultimately don't know. Apparently Pastor Deacon is superior to you in ranking. Does he have more biblical knowledge than you?
Okay, how about Daisy Mae Johnson?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'll see if I can't take the temperature down here, maybe I'm crabby this morning and it's just me. Apologies, sincerely.Is there any reliable way to determine the distinction between regular intuition and divine communication? It sounds like you think the answer is somewhere near 'not really.' And god doesn't always communicate in subtle ways, right? The burning bush, telling Abraham to drag his kid up on a mountain and kill him, Saul's road to Damascus experience...so were all these versions of mental illness?
That's very true!
And I do understand that referring to voices in the head can easily be associated with Saul and Abraham hearing God's voice which was not gentle in these particular cases. So no offense taken.
What's true is that God doesn't always speak to everyone the same way. It might depend on the individual, or it might depend on the circumstance.
I'll give an example, as I've fallen into this theme myself.
Typically, what follows after conversion is hearing the gentle voice directing the believer towards a calling. The callings differ per individual, but a common theme seems to be that the calling is both often desirable, but seemingly impossible to achieve. It's possible most Christians don't achieve fulfilling their calling to the fullest. But, I'm responsible for my own calling, so I don't delve too much into that.
The problem is that sometimes natural reasoning gets in the way, and the believer will try to compromise, or play down the calling. Here's a scripture that conveys this idea, although it's not specifically about a calling.
John 11:23-24
New International Version
23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”
24 Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”
New International Version
23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”
24 Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”
Martha compromised Jesus' claim by suggesting He simply meant her brother would arise in the after life so to speak. But what Jesus was saying basically was no, when I say he will arise again, I meant right in the here and now.
For some reason, Martha used enough logic to suggest a miracle, but with a limitation. She couldn't, for whatever reason, grasp the concept of life returning back to a human after a few days.
I've had the same problem. God's guidance started out gentle, but as I procrastinated moving towards a calling, the voice became more persistent. This is why you might hear some preachers say they actually tried to run away from their calling, only to end up submitting to it because they could not run away from God's voice, even though they may have removed themselves from other believers (which at one time I did). We can also see that the case with Jonah running away from God's calling was very extreme.
To attempt to paint another picture, say a believer hears the call, whatever it might be (ministerial, or a particular profession) that involves traveling around the world. The receiver of the calling might reason that they don't make enough money to travel, but they live in an area that's an ethnic melting pot. So, similar to Martha, they may reason that what God actually meant was that by interacting with immigrants from different nations in a big American metropolis, they are (in a sense) traveling the world. But, what God actually meant was no, you're going to get your happy posterior on a plane.
In both these scenarios, there was enough logic and reasoning to accept a divine calling, and a resurrection in the afterlife. But the logic and reasoning became stifled by an unproductive counter-reasoning. The problem with a calling (from a human standpoint) is that although it may be desirable, the impossible elements require complete dependency on God. The natural human tendency is to try and achieve goals we feel we can do on our own strength.
Great, then we can drop this one, as many Christians DO believe you need god for morality, even if you don't think he's real. If god isn't responsible for morality, we can cross that off the list of benefits to believing in him I guess.
Someone helping their neighbor out, who they like, would certainly be a moral, or a humane act. The problem is that Jesus might raise the bar if that person's a believer, and lead them to help the neighbor who is rude, and not deserving of any help. So on one hand, the person is not immoral for not helping one who doesn't deserve it. On the other
hand the person is not obeying the leading of God to show kindness to the undeserving. So the person's morality might be said to at least be limited.
Did god ever change his stance on not judging them? The whole "should a man lay with another man as he lay with a woman, they are an abomination and shall surely be put to death" thing. I know there's a whole shift to "love everyone" popular in modern Christianity, but there sure seem to be plenty of Christians who still think it's a sin to be gay, and the opposition to gay marriage is exclusively religiously based. I don't think the bible features a passage that cancels this command anywhere NEAR as explicitly as the passage that condemns it.
God never changed his stance. And the command to love everyone never changed. Sin is judged in the afterlife (so to speak). The NT is just as severe towards sin as the OT,
because it speaks directly of judgment at the time one is face to face with the Creator. Thinking it's a sin to be gay seems to be equated with persecution. Many, many Christians perceive homosexuality to be sin, and don't display the slightest signs of homophobia.
As you know, I live in the San Francisco area. I encounter gay people fairly often. The majority of the time they are some of the nicest people. I
recall preferring to work with one simply because he was a lot more pleasant to work with than some of the macho knuckle-heads I've had to work with. I understand the
cultural intrigue of the gay community in San Francisco which helps make the city unique. My temptation is to never say anything that might offend them. And I actually don't say anything unless they ask. Ironically for me though, for me to not say anything per my temptation, would actually be unethical (per my belief).
Interesting question raised by your subsequent sentence though: if god decided to change your mind, or took away your power of control to say no, or coerced you, would that god still be moral?
I would have to say no.
I actually have plenty of Christian examples, but I used Islamic terror to get us both on the same page (religious extremism supported by a reading of the holy text) and use a very recent and very visible example if the phenomena I'm talking about. Do you think Islam played NO PART in 9/11 somehow?
I don't know enough about Islam to say. I know that far more Muslims condemned the attacks than supported it. I tend to view it as more of a factional affair. But, I'm not an expert.
Why not just give the Christian examples?
There's plenty of less acute Christian examples, from recent times, too. People using Christianity as an excuse to threaten Planned Parenthood, or as an excuse to scream in the face of a 15 year old on the way into an abortion clinic. Or standing along a soldier's funeral procession with sings that say God hates fags. I don't think these are the FAULT of the bible: I think people that want to be assholes will find any excuse to do so, or none, but you can't deny that these folks CITE THE BIBLE as a reason. They have clearly derived a permission structure from the book, because they think if they don't do it, they're disobeying God's will at peril to their own souls. Sounds like...coercion. How you call this observation absurd is beyond me, I mean these are well documented. Google them. These nuts with the guns going into polling places? LOTS of overlap with evangelical Christianity in that community dude. How's that far from Islamists declaring fatwahs based on the Quran?
I don't agree with threatening planned parent-hood, but are you aware how brutal PP is? They've had people leave people them because they got sick from witnessing the brutality of an abortion. So while it's wrong to threaten, it's not as if there's no reason. When a minority is murdered by a police officer, this has lead to protesting, which lead to looting, violence, and threats. While I'm sure you acknowledge that the reactions are wrong, do you equate the protestors with Islamic terrorists?
And of course your example naturally includes the Westboro Baptist Church. Whenever any sort of documentary is made to paint a picture of
religion (or Christianity), it will always without fail include the WBC. The most fringest of the fringe will always get the publicity. The small urban church that provides room and shelter for countless homeless will get zero recognition. That's the nature of the beast.
On a side note, video-documentaries on religion are so predictable. As i said, they always include the WBC. And they seem to target sermons from very conservative southern preachers.....and spooky or dark music. gotta have that spooky music.
Books aren't dangerous in and of themselves, they are totally inert. If no one reads them or no one thinks they're real, how's a book do any harm?
I agree that books aren't dangerous in and of themselves. But you sort of gave a read-between-the-lines comment by inserting If no one reads them.
What if someones does read them?
And here it does appear that you believe that the book could cause immoral behavior.
I think it gives potentially dangerous people an excuse to do things that they normally wouldn't do
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN AS A DUMBFOUNDED RUNAWAY AS RODERICKSPODE TO BE EASILY BIBLE SLAPPED SILLY®️ WILL BE....?
Pastor Deacon Fred maybe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I don't know any Christians who hear voices in their head. Period. That's a mental illness. When a Christian uses terminology like hearing the voice of God, they're not talking about hearing voices in the head.I asked WHAT ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT. You said "you tell me." I don't know! That's why I'm asking. What's with the piteous
The problem is that I'm pretty sure I've been over this with you before.
But, I'll try again. This time I won't bother with posing a question.
If you've ever had an intuitive feeling, that would probably be the closest thing, or way to describe God's communication with believers. The Bible says that God (generally) speaks in a very quite subtle way. The more submitted a believer is, the gentler the leading/guiding is.
If you were to ask if intuitive thoughts all originate from God, that I don't know.
But again, hearing voices in the head is a mental illness. I suspect you still think that. That's why I asked for your rendition.
I really don't think so. I think you think you're doing some philosophical impression of whatever you think a deep religious thinker does, but you're not. You're just throwing a tandtrum when all I'm doing is asking a siimple question, and you don't even try to refute the obvious conclusion: if youwould disobey an order from god to harass your fellow humans, then it's pretty clear no one needs god to make a moral decision. That's good news!
That's another common quip of yours. "You're just throwing a tantrum when all I'm doing is (fill in the blank with gesture of innocence)."
How would you know this? Is there some skype feature at this forum I'm unaware of?
I'm not one who claims we need God for morality. Is that what you think? The most hardened criminal has some morality in them. Buffalo Bill (the serial killer) pampered his dog as an example.
What I said is what I think. I'm not sure why it's unclear: the question is what the hell does a parent and a four year old have t do with the proposition?
I'm sure you're aware there's a big difference between a 4 year old being taught about hate, and an adult who's been taught all his life about hating others.
It's a silly question just like if I asked you what would you do if your parents, who taught against hate all of a sudden taught the opposite. You don't think so because you don't think God exists. But you know full well that your parents would never do that. It's the same thing with God. If God changes his stance on not judging others, then God has moved away from His moral stance. In principle I would say I wouldn't obey, but an all powerful God could also take control of my person and force me to do such a thing. Or, God also has the power to change my mind to
where I end up obeying. Or, I can't say for sure that I wouldn't be coerced through threats.
Are you satisfied now?
I don't think the bible is inherently dangerous. I think it gives potentially dangerous people an excuse to do things that they normally wouldn'tdo, but all god concepts do that. Divine mandate absolves us of responsibility, s when people think god wants them to crash an airplane into abuilding and there's a big reward waiting if you do so, that is enough to move a dangerous person from "I'm pretty pissed off, but I'm not going to kill myself or anyone else over it" to "WHo am I to deny the will of god?"
Again, you're forced to jump to an entirely different religion to pin some atrocity on Christianity. I don't know how you can actually maneuver your fingers to type such nonsense.
If it gives potentially dangerous people an excuse to do things that they normally wouldn't do (which is absurd), then book would be dangerous, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Sounds awful.
On a positive note, how about that Liberty University football team?
Ranked #22 in the nation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Ok, so what ARE they talking about?
Why don't you tell me what you think happens when a Christian feels God is speaking to them. That's what this is about anyway.
I find it interesting you say you'd definitely defy god's command even though it's a sin to do so. It's as if you don't need god at all to make moral decisions!
You're so focused on this I got you trapped theme that you're only picking up about 20% of what I'm saying.
Still not clear what a four year old has to do with anything. Are you saying that god is the parent and it's not the child (CHristian's) place toquestion why he wants to harass or murderhomosexuals? I mean at 4 years old, you have the evolutionary naivete to need to believe your parent, but a) you can and many people do grow up to hold different beliefs from theirparents and (b) there's no eternal penalty for doing so. Not exactly apples to apples.
Why don't you just tell me what you think (as that's really what this is about).
Do you think the Bible is dangerous?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
RoderickSpode, how do you feel about Jesus when He promotes the murdering of homosexuals? Does He still become ever loving and forgiving?
According to to the bible, yes!
Galatians 2:20
New International Version
20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of
God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
1 John 1:9
New International Version
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
You don't think the Bible's lying do you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
What if your parents, as you were growing up, after teaching you to be kind and respect people, one day changed their mind and told you to harass gays?I would not harass gays if my parents told me to do it. Your turn,
Deep down I knew it wouldn't work just saying as you were growing up.
If you were 4 years old, do you really think you could make that judgment?
But to answer your question, no, I wouldn't do it. And the reason I wouldn't is because I knew it wouldn't be God doing the demanding. The people that do these types of things often enough do hear voices in their head. It's a mental illness.
Now if I became mentally ill/insane myself, then I can't make any claim to what I wouldn't do. Just like I don't think you can make any moral judgment claim at the age of 4.
No. I don't hear voices in the head. That would be a delusion.Interesting, so do you think other Christians who claim to hear god's voice when they pray are deluded? What about all the people in the bible tow whom god spoke directly, were they deluded as well?
I don't know any Christians who hear voices in their head. Period. That's a mental illness. When a Christian uses terminology like hearing the voice of God, they're not talking about hearing voices in the head.
If God woke me up to tell me anything it wouldn't matter whether I was convinced or not. It would be fact, reality, perceived as such or not.I just want to be clear I'm understandinng the distinction you're making. If you hear god's voice in your dreams or in your head, you're deluded, but if you are awake and you hear it, you are dealing with reality. Do I have that right? SO now you can pick which version of this impossibly difficult question you cananswer, since I unequivocally answered yours:
No, you don't have it right.
I can't tell, but do you need to get this right first? The reason it's difficult to answer your questions is simply because I'm not really sure what you're saying (or asking) much of the time.
1: If you woke up convinced you heard god's voice tell you to go out and start harassing gays, would you deny his command?
Yes I would.
One of the many verses you conveniently ignore (and expect us to ignore).
Galatians 1:8
New International Version
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!
OR2: IF you were awake and totally lucid and walking down the street in your San Francisco area, and suddenly heard a voice that you were sure was god, or somehow got whatever you would consider communication directly from the almighty himself, to start harassing the many gay people in your city, would you do so?
No difference.
BOnus one, even easier: is it a sin to deny the commands of god?
Yes!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Yes, I know, the Bible represents the primitive Bronze and Iron Age way of thinking, but do you see how difficult it is for me being a TRUE Christian, where I have to follow ALL, and I repeat, ALL of the JUDEO-Christian Bible in the new 21st Century Scientific Age way of thinking? It's a BITCH!
The inner turmoil must be devastating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Rod, come on now. I can't answer your question because I don't know what it refers to (You can see me ask "about what?", right?). DO you mean what would i do if god told me to harass gay people? I wouldn't do so.
No.
What if your parents, as you were growing up, after teaching you to be kind and respect people, one day changed their mind and told you to harass gays?
I am ALREADY granting that god exists, that's who you hear in your head right before you wake up and decide if you have to harass gay people by divine order.
No. I don't hear voices in the head. That would be a delusion.
Are you ever going to answer this question? My guess is no.
It will probably be answered the same way you answer mine. That is if you were to answer it.
LOL, no, Rod, I am not, in any way, asking that question, inadvertently or accidentally or intentionally. What I am asking is very, very simple: if you woke up convinced that god told you to get up and go start harassing gay people in the name of Jesus or whatever, would you do it?
Of course your asking that question.
If I woke up convinced that God told me to get up and start harassing gay people that would be a delusion.
If God woke me up to tell me anything it wouldn't matter whether I was convinced or not. It would be fact, reality, perceived as such or not.
And....
in the name of Jesus or whatever, would you do it?
You don't hide things very well.
If you were able to grant God's existence, you should be able to understand the correlation between your question and mine concerning your
parents.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
What about the guy instructed to execute someone caught in the 'act' who's words were quoted in the Talmud Times "I didn't want to do it"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
What's so difficult about the question "what would you do?"
I think one of the problems in these trap-quizes about God/Christianity is that you assume God doesn't exist. That makes a huge difference.
If you can assume God exists for the sake argument, it might help in our conversation.
If you can't do that, your comments and questions will wreak of the assumption that we're guided by delusion. What you're (inadvertantly?) asking is what if our delusion changes. Not what if God changes.
I think one of the problems in these trap-quizes about God/Christianity is that you assume God doesn't exist. That makes a huge difference.
If you can assume God exists for the sake argument, it might help in our conversation.
If you can't do that, your comments and questions will wreak of the assumption that we're guided by delusion. What you're (inadvertantly?) asking is what if our delusion changes. Not what if God changes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Answer my question: if god told you to do it, is it moral or immoral of you to do it? If you woke up from a dream SURE you heard God's own voice telling you to go kill or even harass your gay neighbor, and you decide NO, are you righteous or a sinner now?Moral parents don't teach children to hate. That question is a distraction, and not a very good one.
It seems you're so focused on trying to trap Christians with this question, you don't really read people's responses.
I'll break it down though.
If moral parents who raised their child teaching them to be kind all of a sudden told their child to hate, what would be the moral or right response from the child?
Your parents teach you to be kind. Kindness is an act of morality. So, based on this alone one can say they are moral. Then one day they change their tune, go the complete
opposite direction (basically change their mind), and tell you to hate everyone.
Just telling me moral parents don't teach children to hate has nothing to do with the question.
That being said, what would you do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
The topic of the thread is whether or not the bible makes it's reader homophobic, not if the O.T. law should be carried out today.
Do you think that carrying out that law during the O.T. time period necessitated being homophobic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Did you forget about..... all of the old testament?
I was actually thinking of the old testament.
I wouldn't have any more right to kill you than I would someone the law was after.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I agree it doesn't CAUSE homophobia. Does it give PERMISSION to be homophobic, permission to persecute gays? Instructions on how to do so? Could someone predisposed tohomophobia use the bible to justify their feelings by saying things like "It's just not natural!" and "It's Adam and EVE, not Adam and Steve?"
The bible doesn't give permission for any of those.
Someone could be predisposed to homophobia to where they may use the bible to justify their feelings. But that could happen to someone watching the movie "Cruisin".
To Weakeredge's question: if God ordered you to do it, which is the moral act: obedience or disobedience?
If moral parents who raised their child teaching them to be kind all of a sudden told their child to hate, what would be the moral or right response from the child?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Nah it's fine, just next time if you could tag me for convenience as you said, I'm pretty active, so I'm usually busy with something else. If I see it I also may get distracted by something else. I have a couple of other things I have to get to, then I'll address this, kay?
No problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Does that make anyone uncomfortable? I'll ask it again:The bible says you should stone gay people.I'm gayIf you had the means and God ordered you to do it, would you murder me?
That's sort of like asking,
if God ordered a believer to worship Satan, would they do it.
Or suggesting,
the military placing a civilian in front of a firing squad for going AWOL from their postal service job.
Killing you is such a theological contradiction (as well as to personal sentiment) there's no way to answer it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You know I'd appreciate it if you would've linked me to this topic that way I could actually respond to each of your points.
My apologies.
My thought at the time was you seemed pretty active on the board, and that you would have seen the thread right away.
Created:
Posted in:
No. That is, not anymore than the bible causing fornicatophobia, adulteraphobia, liarophobia, stealophobia (a lot of red dots), etc.
This is a continuation from a discussion that veered off topic in the better explanation/origin universe thread with Theweakeredge.
--> @RoderickSpode
Perhaps this is the case, but homosexuals were one of the more persecuted groups by the church, people practically ignored the old testament, except for the popular stories and that it was evil to be gay. In fact, the god of the bible still hasn't changed their mind, it is still a sin to be gay according to the bible.
It's a sin to practice homosexuality (and heterosexual adultery), yes.As far as persecution, I don't deny it at all. But persecution of homosexuals is universal, and not tied to any religion or ideology. The Bible doesn't make people homophobic. And if someone is homophobic, it doesn't matter whether they believe in God or not.Um.... as Stephen (though I do not agree with them on most things, these specific things is true) pointed out, there are multiple verses in the bible that demonstrate, yes, the bible is a specific cause of homophobia. What matters is that the bible spreads homophobia, by calling it a sin. It is homophobic to consider someone's sexuality evil. Does that necessarily make the person homophobic? No. It means they are doing something homophobic, and that they should stop that, before they actually buy further in and become fully homophobic.
Do you know anyone who became homophobic specifically due to reading the Bible?
If so, how would you know they weren't already homophobic?
Some things to consider, particularly if you're American.
The founding fathers spoke very little, if anything about homosexuality. More than likely, it was so taboo that it wasn't discussed publicly. There were more Christians in America amongst European immigrants than anything else, so we could have become a religious state akin to Islamic nations. Instead, the finding fathers decided to allow freedom of choice in terms of religious (or lack of) belief. And homosexuals could have been ostracized like today like they are in the Middle East. Instead, Christian Americans determined through the years that what people do in their bedroom is their business. And eventually we now have same sex weddings. It would certainly appear that Christians are more tolerant than our founding fathers were.
Do you really think you have cause for worry? I've seen these references often about the potential danger (a danger that isn't even present) of the bible, Christianity, and religion. You seem to be saying something like "You need to stop reading the bible because it might turn me into a homophobe".
And there's kind of a catch-22 here as well. It seems like some people are disappointed that Christians don't try and carry out, or claim contemporary need for OT punishments. And I think logically the reason would be because if we did, it would provide great reason to claim Christianity a detriment to society.
When some atheists read the OT, they see it as cannon fodder for claiming the bible is evil. The Christian (generally speaking) sees it as God showing us how serious sin is, and how much grace is being extended to us. And then we also can't help ignore the verses (that some atheists ignore) admonish us to not judge others, and to focus primarily on our own faults (and sins).
We also understand that certain laws are applied in certain circumstances where they are not in other circumstances. For instance, laws for civilians are not the same as is
within the military.
So you probably don't have much to worry about as far as American or western religion is concerned.
No, I would disagree, it's because they decide to say, "Hey what if the bible god wasn't a complete and utter arsehole?" then they cherry-pick verses or statements of god just as you have. Don't get me wrong, I love that people are becoming more and more tolerant of gay people, but the fact is, they have opposing ideas from their supposed creator. There is no struggle intellectually, god hates a group of people for something as inherent as one's ethnicity.Sorry, you lost me. Particularly (but not limited to) the reference to one's ethnicity.My point was that someone does not choose their sexuality any more than they choose their ethnicity. My points previously are that churches who accept gay people are cherry-picking verses, and while I love the fact that they are being less homophobic, it is factually correct that they are not interpreting gods will correctly.
Again, that catch-22. If we don't persecute homosexuals, we're not doing our job, and are a big disappointment for those looking for people to play the role of the evil religious oppressors. We must be cherry-picking.
My sexuality is something I refuse to ever ask forgiveness for. Not to mention - why the h*ll am I asking that god for forgiveness? That dude is evil according to her own rules!I think you have to admit though. You have changed your tone a bit here. In a prior post you suggested your view that God is evil was maybe subjective, or personal opinion.When I said my morality, I meant the moral philosophy that I applied to, while it is subjective - so it all morality - and that what I meant wasn't to claim that god was objectively evil in some kind of tonal difference, but point out that even according to god's own rules, she is immoral.
One of the magnificent things about our free pluralistic (so far) society is that you have freedom to draw that conclusion. And you probably won't ever lose it.
What more could you ask for?
What? Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle, even if I were to never get married and just do a bunch of dudes my entire life, that still wouldn't be a lifestyle of homosexuality. That would just be one free of exclusive relationships.I think you're misunderstanding me (emphasis on I think).If 2 people of the same gender are married, and at a still young age one of the partners had an accident or became ill to where they couldn't have sex together, would the healthy partner remain faithful?If the healthy partner needs to have sex with someone else (another person of the same gender), then I would say that yes, it's a lifestyle. The person can't do without it. It may not be as much of a lifestyle to them as the bar-hopping one-night-stand person. But still.I thank you for your humbleness, but I must digress:
I think it sounded a bit arrogant myself.
In some cases no, but this also applies to heterosexual relationships. Is a relationship between two men or two women any less likely to fall apart than one between a man and a woman due to cheating? I do not think so, and since this is a claim that is indicative of a change in status, it should be backed up with evidence.
I don't make any claim that a man and woman relationship is less likely to fall apart.
To your second claim, how is someone doing (what you assert as necessary) a necessary function a lifestyle? That's like saying someone who needs to eat and therefore is an eaterby lifestyle. I suppose you could semantically argue the point, but it wouldn't be true.
Eating can certainly be a lifestyle. I think it quite obviously is for a number of people.
This also presumes that the ideal relationship is marriage. Which is false, marriage, as a concept is broken. The only real difference is that you threaten each other into staying with the other. Civil unions are much more my speed. And yes, if I found a guy whom I loved, I would be willing to stay with that guy until one of us died, as long as the relationship isn't toxic of course.No, I make no suggestion at all that marriage is the ideal relationship. To myself, platonic relationships would be ideal. But what I'm doing is simply giving you the biblical model of marriage, which pretty much coincides with the traditional marriage vow. After all, it's the bible we've been talking about, right?
Perhaps it was a misinterpretation from me, but the point is, using marriage in your premises would imply that your points and impacts are based on the relationship model of marriage, I was simply pointing out that Marriage is not at all ideal, and therefore not a good piece of information to have in one premise.
What I was inferring was that faithful monogamous marriage is the standard for the love that encompasses the examples you gave earlier in terms of a biblical model.
I am curious, why is a platonic the most ideal relationship platonic? Not saying I disagree or anything, I'm just curious as to your reasoning. To the last question, I suppose? I thought we were talking about god in general. I just so happened to believe in the one of the bible.
What I meant was, for me, in a selfish sense would consider platonic relationships more ideal (or convenient). But what is ideal or convenient is not a good standard as far as unconditional love is concerned.
This entire section discounts polygamy, which is a perfectly valid area of relationships, not to mention, it once more assumes that marriage is the ideal relationship state: I can not stress enough that it is not.I'm sorry, but I'm a bit confused. Why do you think polygamy is a perfectly valid area of relationships?Why isn't it? First of all, if we're talking about the bible, then you should know that in genesis it explicitly favors polygamy, or at least a descendent of adam is not punished for having two wives.
The bible doesn't favor (or condone) polygamy. It refers to specific individuals who practiced it. But that's not condoning it.
Second of all - as long as it's a healthy relationship between consenting adults, and isn't toxic, it really isn't a bad thing at all, in fact, I would argue that polygamy can be more ideal than monogamy, as each partner is given more love and affection (in a healthy relationship anyway).
How is each partner given more love and affection?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
To be clear, I am okay with continuing the conversation as long as you are.
Absolutely!
Do you mind if I start a new thread and move the conversation there?
I think Tradesecret has an interesting thread started, and I may have steered us off track.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Would you say, realizing we all have some pain in our life, that life basically is good?I think that blanket assumption is, well, assuming a lot. I wouldn't make the argument, nor hold the position.
What assumption are you talking about?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Perhaps this is the case, but homosexuals were one of the more persecuted groups by the church, people practically ignored the old testament, except for the popular stories and that it was evil to be gay. In fact, the god of the bible still hasn't changed their mind, it is still a sin to be gay according to the bible.
It's a sin to practice homosexuality (and heterosexual adultery), yes.
As far as persecution, I don't deny it at all. But persecution of homosexuals is universal, and not tied to any religion or ideology. The Bible doesn't make people homophobic. And if someone is homophobic, it doesn't matter whether they believe in God or not.
No, I would disagree, it's because they decide to say, "Hey what if the bible god wasn't a complete and utter arsehole?" then they cherry-pick verses or statements of god just as you have. Don't get me wrong, I love that people are becoming more and more tolerant of gay people, but the fact is, they have opposing ideas from their supposed creator. There is no struggle intellectually, god hates a group of people for something as inherent as one's ethnicity.
Sorry, you lost me. Particularly (but not limited to) the reference to one's ethnicity.
My sexuality is something I refuse to ever ask forgiveness for. Not to mention - why the h*ll am I asking that god for forgiveness? That dude is evil according to her own rules!
I think you have to admit though. You have changed your tone a bit here. In a prior post you suggested your view that God is evil was maybe subjective, or personal opinion.
What? Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle, even if I were to never get married and just do a bunch of dudes my entire life, that still wouldn't be a lifestyle of homosexuality. That would just be one free of exclusive relationships.
I think you're misunderstanding me (emphasis on I think).
If 2 people of the same gender are married, and at a still young age one of the partners had an accident or became ill to where they couldn't have sex together, would the healthy partner remain faithful?
If the healthy partner needs to have sex with someone else (another person of the same gender), then I would say that yes, it's a lifestyle. The person can't do without it. It may not be as much of a lifestyle to them as the bar-hopping one-night-stand person. But still.
This also presumes that the ideal relationship is marriage. Which is false, marriage, as a concept is broken. The only real difference is that you threaten each other into staying with the other. Civil unions are much more my speed. And yes, if I found a guy whom I loved, I would be willing to stay with that guy until one of us died, as long as the relationship isn't toxic of course.
No, I make no suggestion at all that marriage is the ideal relationship. To myself, platonic relationships would be ideal. But what I'm doing is simply giving you the biblical model of marriage, which pretty much coincides with the traditional marriage vow. After all, it's the bible we've been talking about, right?
This entire section discounts polygamy, which is a perfectly valid area of relationships, not to mention, it once more assumes that marriage is the ideal relationship state: I can not stress enough that it is not.
I'm sorry, but I'm a bit confused. Why do you think polygamy is a perfectly valid area of relationships?
Um, of course? Why would someone not being able to have sex matter with regard to love? Look, there are four primary forms of love as far as I can see it: Platonic love, Familiar love,Romantic love, and Sexual love. Yes, I would, because sex isn't the be-all end of all of relationships. There are certain people, where I'd give up sex entirely, in order to have a romantic relationship with them. This entire thing is nonsense, no offense, I would really recommend you do some more research.
I'm not trying to give you a lesson on relationships if that's what you think. That should be evident though due to the fact I've been asking you a fair amount of questions. Why do I do that? Basically it's because I don't know.
And I'm not one to push people into a conversation. If you you wish to stop, I assure you there's no offense.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Specifically, it was the internal inconsistencies of the bible, that the tellings of the bible did not match what was objectively true, I also chided under the blatant immorality it was spewing. As a gay teen, I find the verse saying I should be stoned and that I am an abomination, particularly uncompelling. Not to mention the creation story, the flood myth, the tower of babel. So many things were incorrect within the bible that I started to completely reconsider my biases. It was thanks to the bible that I decided to study philosophy and logical thinking and such.
It's not just homosexuality that brought on a death penalty. Pretty much most of us here would be potential candidates for harsh punishment. You're not the only one by any stretch of the imagination. The invitation to receive God's grace is as much open to you as anyone else.
But anyway, I understand the conflict as far as Christianity and homosexuality is concerned. I would say the reason why there are Christian churches, or Christian individuals
who identify as being gay is because they know God is love. Some might see it as a struggle. Some may have a difficult time resolving between God's love for them, and God's stance against homosexuality. But it all boils down to it being between us individually, and God. That time will come for all of us.
Homosexuality is not meant to be a lifestyle anymore than heterosexuality is. What I mean by that is, sex is only a small part of a marriage union. There comes a time when a couple grows old enough to the point they may not have the ability to engage in sexual activity. But the union between the two is to be as strong as it was on the wedding day. That's love. Since same sex marriage is a major issue, would you be willing to spend the rest of your life with one partner of the same sex until the day one of you passes on?
Even at a young age, the marriage vow implies that faithfulness is mandatory. If not, it's not love. Or certainly not ultimate love. If a wife or husband has an unfortunate accident or illness that renders them incapable of sexual activity, the marriage vow still suggests sexual faithfulness. Even if the person who is no longer able to perform sexually tells their spouse they understand their physical needs, and it's okay to find a sex partner, the ultimate act of love would still demand complete faithfulness. If you were in a same sex union, would you be able to remain faithful should something unfortunate happen to your partner?
If you think homosexuality is a lifestyle, then probably not.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No not really, I look for the most powerful arguments every once in a while, but no new evidence has been found for months, though I do look fairly often. I still have not found valid evidence of god. I suppose yes, any god that did exist would have to be inherently evil to create such an environment, but this doesn't really provide an argument against a god, simply a reason to doubt one cares.
Would you say, realizing we all have some pain in our life, that life basically is good?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
If no God exists then what evidence would be sufficient to prove God exists? None. And no one would be able to come up with the sort of evidence they require.On the other hand if God exists then everything they observe is evidence for the fact that God exists.As I have said on many other occasions - everything I see is evidence for God. I say humanity is proof. I say evil is proof. I say atheists are proof.Yet, none of these are evidences for the atheist. Hence the axiomatic position of what the bible says is more plausible than what the atheist says.
Amen Tradesecret!
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The problem is that if God/Creator exists, you're looking right at evidence every day. Wouldn't you agree?
Another problem is that no matter who the creator is, even if impersonal, they would all be nasty by your interpretation. No matter who the creator is, there's still earthquakes, murders, starvation, etc.
Would you agree that a creator would have to be evil (nasty) by virtue of creating an environment where people die?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Then you may be experiencing an internal conflict. You might be open to the existence of an impersonal deistic God, but not the God of the bible.
In other words, on one hand you're open to a creator's existence, but on the other hand not open to a creator's existence if the creator turns out to be the God of the bible.
If someone doesn't want the biblical God's existence to be reality, then they can avoid it by ignoring what the bible says (the formula), and just continue to demand evidence on discussion forums.
In other words, on one hand you're open to a creator's existence, but on the other hand not open to a creator's existence if the creator turns out to be the God of the bible.
If someone doesn't want the biblical God's existence to be reality, then they can avoid it by ignoring what the bible says (the formula), and just continue to demand evidence on discussion forums.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
When you read the Old Testament, do you perceive Yahweh to be evil like a number of members here think?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Are you open to the idea that you can find out for yourself?
If the formula for finding out if God exists requires complete personal effort, then anything else would be a waste of time. Asking me to prove it to you is like asking me to prove to you that being in Hawaii is like being in paradise. That would require you to take the necessary action in buying a plane ticket.
If you're for some reason against the idea of Hawaii being a paradise (that mere photos and film don't give credit to), don't go there, and keep asking for people to prove it to you while you remain in New Jersey, or wherever.
If the formula for finding out if God exists requires complete personal effort, then anything else would be a waste of time. Asking me to prove it to you is like asking me to prove to you that being in Hawaii is like being in paradise. That would require you to take the necessary action in buying a plane ticket.
If you're for some reason against the idea of Hawaii being a paradise (that mere photos and film don't give credit to), don't go there, and keep asking for people to prove it to you while you remain in New Jersey, or wherever.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The problem is that if God ignited a big bang, we still can't attach any scientific method to how God created the avenue for the creation of the universe. We can only say "ex-nihilo". And that leaves us with endless possibilities in terms of our existence.
And ultimate truth cannot really be the objective unless one is willing to accept the idea that man is in a bad condition needing redemption. That's the problem with (for lack of a better term) "theism". We have to be open to the possibility that each of us are accountable to a creator.
And ultimate truth cannot really be the objective unless one is willing to accept the idea that man is in a bad condition needing redemption. That's the problem with (for lack of a better term) "theism". We have to be open to the possibility that each of us are accountable to a creator.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The secular (atheist/agnostic) community is so paranoid over the prospect of creation that they can't even handle the idea of intelligent design.
You don't think there's politics involved in the evolution/creation issue?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The problem with claiming we (you) don't know is that we (you) can't claim naturalistic evolution. Just allowing for the mere possibility of a creator places a huge problem for those who claim science disproves any aspect of theism including biblical creation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't think I claimed anywhere that the Orthodox Church is a denomination.
Why would God lead a believer to a heretical church?
I don't disagree with that by the way. There's a fairly famous American evangelist who was invited to preach at a cultic church (Christ Scientist possibly), and ended
up giving an alter call leading to the conversion of the church as a whole to (for lack of a better term) mainstream Christianity. I would say he was probably lead there to preach.
But I'm wondering what "you" mean?
I don't agree with your stance on speaking in tongues, but do you think pentecostals (those at the very top of the organizations) purposely mock the bible by speaking in tongues?
When you say you don't know what a universalist orthodox church is, but doesn't sound right, what are you implying? That there isn't any such church? Or if there is they are in error?
If it's the latter (which I assume), then it might sound right because a universalist believes every human will be saved.
The problem with your claim of one church is that there isn't. Not even within the Orthodox Church as a whole.
Actually, I do consider there to be just one church, but as more of a nucleus of believers from different church (if you don't mind) factions and denominations.
In other words, you're trying to claim a faction is the one true church, when obviously the faction itself is not in total agreement. Do you think there are heretical Orthodox churches?
As far as ancient heresies, that's my argument against the idea that we should believe what ancients believed "because" they were closer to the time period the bible was written, because obviously some had to be corrected within the scriptures themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
Great question.
It would be nice to get a better understanding of what atheists would consider evidence. I don't think they know though.
It brings up the question, does a person need to be aware of proof, evidence, or anything in between in order for it to be as such? If an ant in a human created ant farm touches the glass with their antenai, are they touching proof, evidence, or anything in between of human creation? Or do they have to have the concious intellect in order for it to be as such?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
There's some truth to what you're saying. The whole Cosmic Humanism and New Age Movement theme is the embracing of eastern spirituality/philosophy.
So in that respect there's some similarity between that and Christian conversions in Asia.
However, there's also a big difference. For one, the embracing of eastern religion/spirituality is modified into a more western influence. Even Buddhism itself has been westernized (sometimes called McDharma Buddhism). Asian (and non-western) conversions tend to stick to the direct message of the bible with little to no compromise.
Another difference is that the mass conversions had little to do with western influence. We're talking the early 20th century where globalization was nothing like today. They had no internet, and more than likely the Christian influence in Asian nations like China and Korea were a result of small enclaves of Asian Christians who probably received the Gospel through Jewish missionaries sent out shortly after the crucifixion of Christ.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You hit on a key note when emphasizing only Christ being able to save.
This brings up questions on the necessity of belonging to a specific denomination. The question is, would God lead one individual to, say, a baptist church; and another to a pentacostal church even though they differ in certain doctrines apart from the common belief of Christ being God?
I would argue..... absolutely!
Would God lead some to a Catholic or Orthodox Church? Sure! As long the church embraces Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
To place this idea to a question, what would you rather attend?
A pentecostal church with the conventional view of the Gospel message, or a Universalist Orthodox Church?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Why do people do things?.....Because they can.....Conversion is an aspect of culture and previous experience is also.
Maybe I misunderstood you then.
The popular belief is that particular nations, regions, have a cultural religion that most people of that nationality/ethnicity will have a tendency to draw to .....if they choose to embrace a religion. The idea of conversion being an aspect of culture, if I understand you correctly puts a damper on that notion. We would all just be subject to a global choose for yourself the religion of your choice theme (including non-religion or atheism).
For instance, Asian nations tend to favor religion or spirituality that doesn't center on a single all powerful creator. So for so many Chinese, Christianity opposes their culture. And the Chinese who are directly opposed to Christianity or western religion (usually credited to government) reject it partially because of western influence.
But statistics.Maybe so, but the same is also probably applicable to theist activists.
Possibly. But what would you consider a theist activist? And how would they manipulate statistics?
Though as I see it, the term "atheist activist" is somewhat contradictory in terms of pure belief.... So I would further suggest, that what you are actually referring to is the application of an ideology as the basis of social control (to a lesser or greater degree). Though inevitably a social control system also has to incorporate everything else relative to a societies function, and this is demonstrably as applicable to theist based systems as to atheist based systems.
What I mean specifically is particular organizations like Freedom From Religion Foundation, Atheist Union, Atheist Experience, individual activists etc.
Nonetheless, the question was simple....And the answer was easy...No....Culture is far broader than an acquired creation hypothesis....Culture is also the food you eat, the clothes you wear, the music you listen to and the technology you utilise.....etc. etc. etc.
I don't know if these organizations think ahead as to the cultural implications of an atheist based society. But that's what they seem to be pushing for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
When most people think of biblical contradictions, it's suggesting certain "verses" contradict each other, particularly the coinciding verses in the Gospels. These are not really contradictions.
There are incidences in the bible that oppose the "law of non-contradiction". This is different. An example might be verses pertaining to predestination. The idea of having both free-will, and one's life following the pattern of God's will.
This is only a problem for fallible humans. We don't have to go to the bible to see how limited we are in our perceptions of reality. Just imagine going back in time, and preventing your birth. If one can't answer the question of what would happen if they time travelled in the past and prevented their birth, then there will be certain things in the bible, like predestination that will seem contradictory.
There's really no excuse for thinking scriptures themselves contradict.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Good point.
Just think, the closest thing to an "invisible" floating skyman isn't even invisible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
I understand.
I'm actually not talking about atheists in general. I think the majority of atheists, in the U.S. anyway, are puralists who have a stable/sober mind about religion.
I'm mainly referring to atheist activists (particularly militant atheists).
There are even atheists who seem to be militant "against" militant atheism.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
True!
The closest thing I know of to a floaty sky man would be during the Macy's Thanksgiving parade.
The closest thing I know of to a floaty sky man would be during the Macy's Thanksgiving parade.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Culture incorporates everything relative to a society and not just religion.Religion is a consequence of culture, and therefore culture can be influenced by religion, to a greater or lesser degree.
Why would so many Chinese nationals convert to Christianity? The religion of their culture is Buddhism and Confuciusism. What caused this extreme division between communist ideology, eastern religion/philosophy, and a religion considered a product of European origin?
And then there's being Christian and then there's being Christian....Having water forcibly splashed on you head as a child doesn't necessarily make one religious.I'm a prime example of this....Probably, statistically regarded as Christian...But in reality, far from it.The manipulation of statistics is also part of a societies culture, and therefore an assumed culture is often the result of manipulated statistics.
I agree.
But statistics (and the manipulation thereof) is a major weapon atheist activists try to use to suggest atheists are more intelligent, educated, more moral/less likely to be incarcerated, have a better understanding of religion, more peaceful,.......and even know the bible more.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
The issue in these verses refer to avoiding spoiling a child, not unnecessary abuse. Just like today, some parents obviously spoiled their children.
This is the same problem with multiple other verses taken out of context in favor of alleging abuse because of certain words that have developed into suggesting immoral acts like the word you're capitalizing "beating".
Imagine interviewing historical heroic Americans (or heroes from your nations).
No matter what country you're from, it's pretty much understand Abraham Lincoln is a major historical hero. Imagine interviewing him, asking if his parents beat him as per suggested by the verses you provided. What do you think he'd say?
But again, the verses are not aimed at abusive parents. It's directed at parents that spoil their children.
Have you ever seen a person who was spoiled as a child? I have. Not a good thing.
This is the same problem with multiple other verses taken out of context in favor of alleging abuse because of certain words that have developed into suggesting immoral acts like the word you're capitalizing "beating".
Imagine interviewing historical heroic Americans (or heroes from your nations).
No matter what country you're from, it's pretty much understand Abraham Lincoln is a major historical hero. Imagine interviewing him, asking if his parents beat him as per suggested by the verses you provided. What do you think he'd say?
But again, the verses are not aimed at abusive parents. It's directed at parents that spoil their children.
Have you ever seen a person who was spoiled as a child? I have. Not a good thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The bible is the claim. Under no circumstances should a claim be considered proof of itself.
I stated that the bible informs us on how to make a specific determination. Your comment is like saying the BMW manual is the claim, and under no circumstances should be considered proof of how to connect a fuel line.
No that is a non sequitur. That some gid created something does not imply that said god also gave that something any particular capacity. In fact just granting some god(s) is different entirely from granting some creator god(s). If I were to grant your god you would still have some work to do to prove that your preferred god created anything.
Keep in mind, I'm focusing on the God of the Bible in a hypothetical situation.
The God of the bible suggests creator. Even though created beings might find themselves with butterflies in their stomachs independent of the creator, wouldn't it be at the very least just as logical for love to be an attribute provided by the creator?
This means that if you wanted to do someone you love good, big or small, then God would be the ultimate reason you're throwing a surprise birthday party for a loved one.Incorrect especially if I don't even believe in that god. In fact the reason I throw people birthday parties is that their parents had sex on that date less nine months.
I have a hard time believing you're that callous!
But again I was painting a hypothetical scenario.
Created: