Timid8967

Saying homosexuality is an abomination and deserves the death penalty is not the same as saying you hate gays.  When my son looks at porn it is a grievous thing to me and deserves punishment. Yet it does mean I hate him. To let him continue without telling him it is wrong would suggest I don’t care for him. By informing him I actually reveal my care and concern and I fact that I do love him. I love him enough to tell him. 

Do what you like. I don't care what you believe or don't believe. I don't care if you listen to me or don't. It is of no interest to me

  They won't recognise any of those "flaws" that you are about to highlight and knock them dead with. 

1. It is impossible to define any individual thing apart from a worldview.

2. At the outset Christianity is radically different than non-Christianity, on the account that to us, the most fundamental reality is personal and eternal, while in non-Christianity, the most fundamental reality is either impersonal or personal and temporal.

3. Given that fundamental difference, it follows that an atheist will obviously find Christian beliefs incoherent, because they are incoherent when defined according to his worldview from the foundation.

4. This means that we can't debate over a singular belief apart from talking about the worldview that defines that belief. We can't debate whether or not God exists when we're operating under different definitions of God and being itself.

5. If you want to discuss this sincerely the first question you have to ask is "what is God?" and "what is being?", and then, having resolved that, we can talk about whether or not God exists.

6. The problem arises when you realize that in Christianity God and being are identical, and that you can't accept that. What do you do then? Then the only way to critique Christianity is to hypothetically adopt our believes and show that we're incoherent. And we'll do the same with atheism. The difference is that you will fail, while we won't.

Never heard those stories of Hitler myself, nor do they pop on the internet when I search them.

Sounds reaching, unsubstantiated, to me.

But as was said, doesn't matter so much as his tyrannical reign, war, and genocide.

If consistency of elements is what's important to you, tell me how much of the water you drink daily is truly natural out of the tap?  Let's not spit hairs

Relative to the Priesthood I hold, it is not a matter of what I consider. I am an ordained High Priest.

Oh there is indeed especially when it comes to John.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lQfy1PQl2STiQ69vFs_ZJrR9gCW82WD3_I8qKCZohrA/edit.Page 1 starts out all the times God advocates the death penalty for a group that does not deserve it.

Many Christians say, “The New Testament erases the Old Testament”.

Page 10 of this document shows the New Testament stating that the Old Testament is still valid and as a result, the New Testament advocates the death penalty for all the times the Old Testament did.

Because of this, I say good riddance to Christianity.  Unfortunately God still exists, but I need to find a different religion other than Christianity.

ood then there simply is  no need for you to be on this thread a second  longer is there.

"not capable of being refuted or disproved"

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/irrefutable

It might be simpler to just say Paul's message in Acts 17:24-31 is true.

I reckon that every person has the ability to be good sometimes. 

 They do.     And maybe this is why we read in the Egyptian epics that it is said they  weighed the "soul " or the heart of the dead ? i.e. Did ones good outweigh their bad?  

 I should imagine that even some  serial killers loved their mothers.

Christians too believe in some kind of mythical afterlife judgement , if I remember correctly.   

That they will be taken into the presence of God and they will be judged for the deeds they have done or failed to do during their lifetime?

Quite amazing I think, how  Christians have managed to wrap  so much Egyptian imagery around the story of Jesus the man, isn't  it?  

Anyone that has taken the time to read these scriptures will know that they ever hardly agree on anything at all.

#7

Beautiful.

Not that we can be certain that all girls are female these days.

And one would assume that a women who had been bleeding for 12 years, would have died 11 and a bit years ago....LOL

And most of the evidence would suggest that Jesus preferred male company, and never married any variously gendered person.

And one must consider that in biblical times, just as now in certain countries, women were not regarded as being worthy of much of a mention.

And Jesus's sexuality wasn't really a necessary part of the plot....So feel free to re-write the script.....Arabian Stallions could be the working title.

So baptism / Christening plays no part in becoming a Christian at all then?  

And after just one single reading you would like bible condemned to the flames.

I find it miraculous that you , after just one single reading have managed to point to three separate occasions where Jesus  is said to have came to the aid of women. But then equally miraculous that you didn't mention that Jesus also saved the "adulteress from being  stoned to death".  But you did well I must say, and  after just one reading. 10/10

There's a lot of circumstantial evidence indeed, in fact when he talks about why it's a sin to act on the urges it strongly implies he knows what it is to want to sleep with a man as one would with a woman, whereas in OT it was spoken of in third person and with rage towards it.

Every single disciple and person Jesus used his power on to cure was male, correct?

It's as if female attention and loyalty meant absolutely nothing to him.

I'm so glad you asked me that, because I have a pre-written Supreme Christian Checklist of Parts You Have to Devote Yourself To, To Be Christian, which is the absolute authority across the world because I, Castin the Great (Peace Be Unto Me), have declared it to be so, and only the Christians who devote themselves to my Supreme Checklist are the really real Christians. So sayeth Castin the Great.

Hmm, my browser red underlined "pre-written" as a misspelled word and suggested "pee-written" as one of the corrections.

Possibly a commentary on the theological value of my Supreme Checklist. Harsh but fair.

The point is, I am not the arbiter of what it means to be a follower of Christ.

And disagreements over what it does mean to be a follower of Christ appear to go back to the time of Peter, James, and Paul in the Apostolic Age. In my own experience, Christians have always devoted themselves more to the parts of the Bible they identify with, and de-emphasized parts of the Bible they do not identify with. I don't know a Christian who consistently follows "all of it."

I have a Christian acquaintance who divorced her first husband because of irreconcilable differences rather than infidelity. Jesus, it appears, does not approve of this, and according to him she is committing adultery on her first husband with her second husband. Yet she worships Christ and is a pillar of her church. Is she not a Christian because she doesn't follow "all of it"? No one in the Protestant world seems to question her Christianity, and I suspect you wouldn't either, even though Jesus's disapproval of divorce is spelled out far more explicitly in the Bible than the doctrine of the Trinity.

I approach the Bible as absolutely correct only insofar as it is written originally [by book, for it has many authors] 100% correctly, and then translated correctly by others. It cannot be otherwise, for God, himself, did not write one jot or tittle of it; it is a composition of men and women. Mortal men and women, meaning they have natural flaws, and they will be reflected in their writing. Such is the nature of man; a fact God understands and is willing to let be.  That God created, I have no doubt. That he created us perfectly is contrary to the intent of our creation in the first place. We were created to grow, to learn, to make mistakes, learn from them, and learn from our successes, and so progress  from ignorance to, ultimately, perfect knowledge such as God has. Creation is a process, not a complete act ended when it began. Therefore, since God did not write the books of the Bible, they have flaws. It's up to us to determine how to identify them and understand what should be a correct interpretation. How? I think James has the best answer. A read of chapter 1, in its entirety, is a valid process: ask God, trusting he will reply. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not." [verse 5] The whole chapter is wisdom in a bottle. The other 4 chapters are just as vital to understand. 

A nontrinitarian can believe in the divinity of Jesus without necessarily believing he is one with, or equal with, God the Father. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses would be modern examples. Alternatively, a Christian could venerate and follow the teachings of Jesus without thinking he is divine at all, like the ancient Ebionites. Unitarians would be a modern example -- some of them, anyway.

And I would argue that to be a follower of a certain ideological figure, you do not necessarily need to believe in them as a deity, but you do need to do more than just "like" them -- you need to devote yourself to their teachings and take them as a life model.