patrick.net

wthrfrk80 says

St. Paul covers this issue ad-nauseum in his epistle to the Romans.

Does he? Can you please cite the verse where the epistles invalidate what thunder is quoting?

There are many hundreds of rules/laws in the bible between the old and new testaments. There is no blanket revocation of all old testament laws however some are altered/updated in the new testament. Some of the "updates" to gods law are also vague.

leoj707 says

Do "real" christians love their families? Can true followers of christ drink a pint of Drano and be OK?

Red herrings. I assume most Christians love their families, but what does that have to do with anything? As for the Drano comment, are you referring to "alternative ending" of Mark that isn't in the oldest manuscripts?

You're not listening, just trying to change the discussion.

I'm through debating this.

leoj707 says

Does he? Can you please cite the verse where the epistles invalidate what thunder is quoting?

That would be the book of Romans. Read it. I'm not going to post the entire book of Romans on here. It's in the public domain.

If you don't want to follow Christianity, than don't. I'm really not trying to convert anyone.

wthrfrk80 says

thunderlips11 says

They're all very highly regarded Bible Scholars and Academics.

Among people that want to attack Christianity.

Oh, not at all. Ehrman in particular is a distinguished professor of Religious Studies at one of the best public universities in the country (North Carolina). His work, as far as I know, is universally respected among classicists and academic theologians. If by "learn about Christianity" you mean learn the theological views of various strains, and the historical basis for them he's great. If instead you mean "develop and retain an unshakable Christian faith", then yes you'd be better off with someone else.

wthrfrk80 says

St. Paul covers this issue ad-nauseum in his epistle to the Romans.

(5:18) "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
is followed by...
(5:19) "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

Makes no sense for Jesus to tell his Jewish Kosher-keeping, Law-Abiding apostles these things, especially if it was just for the short time he was with them, but not mean it for everybody else going forward.

I don't believe the verses here are incompatible with forgiving man's sins via the Crucifixion, it just says those who don't follow the law will be "least in the Kingdom of Heaven".

One could read these passages to find no contradiction, because you could read it as that Men are still saved whether they follow the Law or not - but Jesus wants you to follow the law, and indeed not break the least of commandments, and you'll be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven if you don't follow them.

This is yet another Bible conundrum that shows that the Bible (BOTH OT and NT) were written/edited/revised by competing factions and men pushing a particular line.

Again, there was a battle between the Judaizers and "Proto-Orthodoxy". The Proto-Orthodoxy won, probably by having a larger number of converts attracted by the fact they weren't pushed to obey the Law the Judaizers upheld.

wthrfrk80 says

Read it.

I have and there nothing in there that I find invalidates thunders quote.

The bible is full of contradictions, why do you take an apostles "word" of that directly from Jesus?

That sir is cherry-picking.

leoj707 says

I have and there nothing in there that I find invalidates thunders quote.

Which proves you haven't actually tried to understand the book of Romans.

It's clear to me that neither leo or thunder care to actually understand Christianity. So I'm not going to continue the discussion.

wthrfrk80 says

Red herrings.

Oh, so when does a strict and literal interpretation become a red herring? Hmmm... my guess would be only when one is cherry-picking.

Luke 14:26 Jesus says to be a true disciple of his you need to hate your family.

So, according your assertion that those believing in a strict and literal interpretation are "better" christians then christians that love their families are not being "good" christians.

wthrfrk80 says

As for the Drano comment, are you referring to "alternative ending" of Mark that isn't in the oldest manuscripts?

Oh, so now it is an "alternative ending", how did you put it...? ah yes....
wthrfrk80 says

Well, how convenient.

If you are going to cherry-pick then fine, but don't pretend that your interpretations are somehow better or more valid than others. You just like them are choosing what to believe and what not to believe in the bible. You will dig and dig until you find a "reason" why something you do not like is not really valid, and should not be take literally.

wthrfrk80 says

I'm through debating this.

Of course you are.

wthrfrk80 says

Which proves you haven't actually tried to understand the book of Romans.

No, that only proves that you have not tired to truly follow jesus's teachings in a literal and strict way. You have sought excuses as to why you don't need to follow the new covenant that began with jesus.

wthrfrk80 says

It's clear to me that neither leo or thunder care to actually understand Christianity.

Oh, because we don't agree with your interpretation that means we just don't understand christianity?

Yours is just one in a million different interpretations of christianity and you have not presented a good reason why yours is any better than the other 999,999 interpretations.

wthrfrk80 says

So I'm not going to continue the discussion.

Well, I do appreciate your genuine attempts at communicating your beliefs.

marcus says

But I understand, this should be about time for you to bow out, in one way or another.

Bow out? WTF you talking about, Willis? I made a dozen points, all of which you completely ignored. Meanwhile, I have addressed every single point you made in exquisite detail. Sorry honey, but you've already dropped your entire case and conceded all of my points through silence.

I feel no need to repeat all those points as people can simply Page Up.

wthrfrk80 says

Yikes it seems like there are two or three different arguments occuring in this room at the same time. It's getting awfully confusing.

Yes, the thread has split in two. However, the leoj707/wthrfrk80 argument is clearly distinguishable from the Dan8267/marcus both in content and the participants.

I haven't followed the first argument thread since it's going off into very specific Christian stuff, which isn't of much interest to someone who's advocating that all religions, not just one specific one, are false and destructive.

Dan8267 says

However, the leoj707/wthrfrk80 argument is clearly distinguishable

Yeah, and I think that that argument thread has come to a close.

leoj707 says

Yeah, and I think that that argument thread has come to a close.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/VxEkwUMyDUc

'Nuff said.

wthrfrk80 says

It's clear to me that neither leo or thunder care to actually understand Christianity. So I'm not going to continue the discussion.

Wthrfrk, I don't think this is fair, but maybe I'm not being articulate enough.

By offering my opinion on why and how these verses are disregarded, I don't believe I show a lack of understanding Christianity, just the opposite.

The Bible can and has been used to support many different theologies. Most of these theologies can be advanced with Bible Verses, and have answers as to why competing theologies' bible quotes are inadequate or misapplied.

Calvinists can back up their predestination with Bible Verses:
"Many are called, but few are Chosen" for one, and there are many others (including many that seem to be stretching). So can Non-trinitarians. So can Faith/Grace proponents, and their opponents who believe works can lead to salvation have theirs as well - and all points in between.

leoj707 says

Luke 14:26 Jesus says to be a true disciple of his you need to hate your family.

In an early, cult-like religion, this is a useful quote, since many who join a small outlandish cult will be ostracized by their family. It gives the converted comfort. Now that Christianity is the dominant religion, and has to deal with a situation where most adherents have family members of their own and are not members of a small cult, this verse is "Depreciated", and indeed, almost all the big Christian groups now advocate "Family Values".

Same kind of situation with the Judaizers. To get big with pork eaters, Christianity had to dump the Kosher.

Most Christians today dismiss Jesus' exposition about following the Law. Their justification for doing so is the result of what I believ to have been a long slog between competing theologies. I believe they dismiss it because people not of Jewish Culture would have rejected having to obey the Laws and preferred to join Churches that preached following the Law was entirely unnecessary.

leoj707 says

wthrfrk80 says

It's clear to me that neither leo or thunder care to actually understand Christianity.

Oh, because we don't agree with your interpretation that means we just don't understand christianity?

Yours is just one in a million different interpretations of christianity and you have not presented a good reason why yours is any better than the other 999,999 interpretations.

By "understand Christianity" he means "become a Christian". If you believe that Christianity is true, ipso facto anything you think is an issue must be a misunderstanding.

bdrasin says

By "understand Christianity" he means "become a Christian". If you believe that Christianity is true, ipso facto anything you think is an issue must be a misunderstanding.

Not true.

It's possible to understand Islam w/o beoming a Muslim.
It's possible to undertand atheism w/o becoming one.

I've actually gone on the record as saying Christianity has been shown to be false by genetics: there was no Adam and Eve first couple.

I wasn't trying to convert anyone to anything.

wthrfrk80 says

Not true.

It's possible to understand Islam w/o beoming a Muslim.
It's possible to undertand atheism w/o becoming one.

I agree, and to take it a bit further I think that it is often those outside of a religion can better understand it than those in it. If they have done the reading/research.

A non-believer can more rationally and objectively evaluate the differing opinions of the different sects. One within a religion is going to be heavily bias towards their interpretations and ignore evidence that is contrary to their belief.

Kind of like when scientologists ignore quotes from Hubbard like, "If you want to get rich start a religion." Yet, they insist that no one understands scientology like a scientologist.

wthrfrk80 says

bdrasin says

By "understand Christianity" he means "become a Christian". If you believe that Christianity is true, ipso facto anything you think is an issue must be a misunderstanding.

Not true.

It's possible to understand Islam w/o beoming a Muslim.

It's possible to undertand atheism w/o becoming one.

I've actually gone on the record as saying Christianity has been shown to be false by genetics: there was no Adam and Eve first couple.

I wasn't trying to convert anyone to anything.

Very sorry for my misunderstanding. I'll be more careful in the future.

Dan8267 says

Bow out? WTF you talking about, Willis? I made a dozen points, all of which you completely ignored. Meanwhile, I have addressed every single point you made in exquisite detail. Sorry honey, but you've already dropped your entire case and conceded all of my points through silence.

That will work - it's the first time I've seen you use that one.

or click on this.

marcus says

Dan8267 says

marcus says

Your logic as far as I can tell: Religion is sometimes evil, therefore end all religion.

Or religion is sometimes evil. Religion involves belief in god. Therefore belief in god is evil.

By similar reasoning you could say, humans are sometimes evil....

It's so weak. I thought you were smarter than that.

It makes for cool sounding rants for everyone else. And I get it. "Too much conflict ...can not compute...does not fit my simplistic model....error...stack overflow..."

marcus says

It's so weak. I thought you were smarter than that.

It makes for cool sounding rants for everyone else. And I get it. "Too much conflict ...can not compute...does not fit my simplistic model....error...stack overflow..."

Once again, I've tried to keep this conversation on the issue, but you still have to revert to personal attacks. So be it.

marcus says

marcus says

Your logic as far as I can tell: Religion is sometimes evil, therefore end all religion.

Your reading comprehension skills illustrate why our educational system is doomed. If a so-called teacher has such poor grasp of the English language, then what hope do your students have.

I have never even implied that religion is "sometimes" evil. I've stated that religion "is" evil by its nature.

And you are still dodging all the points. How about address just one?

Tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Islamic men in the Middle East, deeply and religiously believe that it is a moral imperative to honor kill a woman in their family if she has had sex with a man who isn't her husband, even if the woman was raped.

Tell me that you "respect" that belief. It's a deeply held, religious conviction from another culture. Are you saying you would tolerate honor killings out of respect for these men's beliefs?

Or are you still too pussy shit to address that?

I have addressed every lame ass argument you made and answered every entrapment question you had. You have failed to address even one of my points. That proves beyond any doubt that you have nothing, absolutely nothing, to support your childish and foolish positions.

The fact that you are too lazy to read through more than a few lines of text also makes me cringe to think that you are actually a teacher of anything. I'd say god help your students, but I know that no one is listening. It's actually kind of like talking to you.

thunderlips11 says

In an early, cult-like religion, this is a useful quote, since many who join a small outlandish cult will be ostracized by their family. It gives the converted comfort. Now that Christianity is the dominant religion, and has to deal with a situation where most adherents have family members of their own and are not members of a small cult, this verse is "Depreciated", and indeed, almost all the big Christian groups now advocate "Family Values".

Yep, it's all marketing bullshit. Religions are always started as scams, grow if they are successful scams, and have to cover up their old scams with new ones to prevent collapse. Religion was the first scam, and it's still the most popular one.

leoj707 says

Kind of like when scientologists ignore quotes from Hubbard like, "If you want to get rich start a religion."

I've always thought that Hubbard started Scientology as a lark, and then some con artists decided it could make real money and took it to the next level.

Dan8267 says

Or are you still too pussy shit to address that?

For the third (or is it fourth) time.

marcus says

I can understand people taking issue with fundamentalist christians or islamic fundamentalists as being an impediment to progress or worse. Maybe my language was not clear, but I was assuming people would know what I meant.

If someone wanted to argue that the world would be better off without religious extremists or without fundamentalists (who take their Bible or Koran literally - when it suits them), I could accept that as a reasonable assertion.

But to me this is far different than asserting that the world would be better off without any religion - and without any belief in god, even if it is possibly true (since eliminating all religion does eliminate the extremists and or fundamentalists- but still unknowable since it eliminates all religion - the belief of 80% of the world(some kind of belief in god)), but still also in my view possibly false.

I said this before you made this argument.

I give up. I think I get it. You're so emotionally challenged you want to be on my permanent ignore, so that I'll stay out of all your threads. I called it right before. You're an adolescent.

I respond repeatedly to what you say is your biggest best argument, and it's something I addressed before you even made it. And I repeatedly quote it, and still all I get is.

"you're avoiding my question."

I get it. You've got nothing other than:

Sometimes religion is evil, therefore to this genius engineer all religion and all belief in god is evil.

Dan8267 says

Your reading comprehension skills illustrate why our educational system is doomed

Yes, I said your logic is weak. So now you say I'm an idiot, and I guess you get to think you've got more than:

**"Sometimes religion is evil, therefore all religion is evil, and any belief in god is incorrect and detrimental."

just because I'm an idiot, okay, hide from your own sad excuse for logic.

Even you must be able to see how terrible the logic is in that statement (**).

Notice how I can boil my argument down to a couple of simple statements that you can't refute (see **) ? OTher than calling me iliterate and a sad excuse for a teacher.

Dan8267 says

I've always thought that Hubbard started Scientology as a lark, and then some con artists decided it could make real money and took it to the next level.

There's rumors that they made a bet over who could make money off religion. Supposedly, Hubbard started Scientology, while Heinlein wrote "Stranger in a Strange Land". Which is all about cults and organized religions and even a little about how cults become organized religions.

Surprised the two were friends. Heinlein was in an entirely different class than Hubbard.

It's interesting that most religious founders we know about in recent times - L Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, Charles Dederich, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, the TBN crowd, Wiley Brooks, etc. - could be considered charismatic delusionals at best, and sociopaths at worst.

marcus says

For the third (or is it fourth) time.

Your quote does not even begin to address the question.

Here, I'll give you a hint at how you should answer the question.

Hell no! Honor killings are utterly inexcusable regardless of any religious context. Religion does not give any person the right to slaughter another person.

So, no I wouldn't respect a Muslim's belief that he is morally obligated to kill his daughter after she's just been raped. I'm not a total idiot devoid of any common sense.

See? That's how you're suppose to answer the question.

marcus says

I called it right before. You're an adolescent.

Spoken with such maturity. You set a fine example for your students.

thunderlips11 says

There's rumors that they made a bet over who could make money off religion.

Sounds plausible.

thunderlips11 says

It's interesting that most religious founders we know about in recent times - L Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, Charles Dederich, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, the TBN crowd, Wiley Brooks, etc. - could be considered charismatic delusionals at best, and sociopaths at worst.

A-MEN!! a most excellant point. I agree 100%.

Who gets credited for starting the religion of Higher Education Western Progressive Leftist Liberal Anti-Christians ... aka-Atheism???? (lol -- but really, who is the guy the atheists point to as the Joe Smith of their system of non-belief?)

Bap33 says

Who gets credited for starting the religion of Higher Education Western Progressive Leftist Liberal Anti-Christians ... aka-Atheism???? (lol -- but really, who is the guy the atheists point to as the Joe Smith of their system of non-belief?)

There is no Joe Smith, Mohamed, Jesus, L Ron Hubbard, Mary Baker Eddy, etc. equivalent in atheism, it has been around for thousands of years.

thunderlips11 says

L Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, Charles Dederich, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, the TBN crowd, Wiley Brooks, etc. - could be considered charismatic delusionals at best, and sociopaths at worst.

Right, and this is only because we know so much more about them than founders of religions 500+ years old. If we had court documents, personal letters, diaries, news paper articles, etc. from the times of Jesus, Mohamed, etc. we would probably come to the same conclusions about them.

leoj707 says

Right, and this is only because we know so much more about them than founders of religions 500+ years old. If we had court documents, personal letters, diaries, news paper articles, etc. from the times of Jesus, Mohamed, etc. we would probably come to the same conclusions about them.

I completely agree. I think Mohammed would be really interesting in particular. And also Jesus' words about leaving your family for his sake are words you'd hear from any cult leader - Matthew 19:29.

Bap33 says

Who gets credited for starting the religion of Higher Education Western Progressive Leftist Liberal Anti-Christians ... aka-Atheism???? (lol -- but really, who is the guy the atheists point to as the Joe Smith of their system of non-belief?)

Atheism doesn't have a leader, any kind of hierarchy, holy book, prophets or dogma/belief system. It simply posits that there are no Gods or God, other than that one point, atheists usually agree on very little. I just don't understand how folks can compare non-belief to any belief system.

Ummm. I don't think delusional. I think slick. Their followers are delusional. Especially the people that commisioned any literature to be printed for the followers. They are really slick. Pat Robertson ran a magical healing carnival before he became oh, respectable religious wise then ran for President. (let the reader take note. I told you about psychopathic liars. They never quit.) Christians for the most part don't like healing carnivals. They are embarassing and really hard to explain given the facts. They have to back down rationlize the crap out of Christianty and start all over again. When they hit the magic healing issue

I am sure there had to be the first ateist ... lets call him Alpha Atheist , or AA for short. AA was the one that shared with others that he did not believe all of the stories about ancient times told by the old people (in text or around the cave fire). There MUST be an AA ..... and I bet you really smart guys know why.

Bap33 says

I am sure there had to be the first ateist ... lets call him Alpha Atheist , or AA for short. AA was the one that shared with others that he did not believe all of the stories about ancient times told by the old people (in text or around the cave fire). There MUST be an AA ..... and I bet you really smart guys know why.

Two things.

1. Actually it was probably the other way around. As human brains and society evolved to the point where religion was viable there was probably an Alpha Spirit Seeker, or ASS for short. This ASS started to tell stories to explain things that primitive humans did not understand. The ASS probably made up stories like angry gods make rain and thunder, etc.

2. Either way AA or ASS there was most likely no single originator of either.

leoj707 says

This ASS started to tell stories to explain things that primitive humans did not understand.

Oh, one more thing. There have been "primitive" tribes found that do not seem to have a single ASS among them. So even primitives are at least capable of recognizing resiting the allure of an ASS.

Bap33 says

I am sure there had to be the first ateist ... lets call him Alpha Atheist , or AA for short.

Man did not start out believing in a god. Man started out believing in other superstitions, monsters and magic. Some of the monsters were real: lions, and tigers, and bears. Others were imaginary. Some of the magic was real: herbal medicines containing chemicals that treated food poisoning and other ailments. Most of the magic was imaginary. But at this time, there were no gods, no polytheism, and no monotheism. Everyone would have been an atheist if the question of god was brought up by anyone. But, of course, no one thought to bring up such a question.

Later tribes invented the idea of the spirit. All living things had "spirits". Many non-living things did too. Animals, trees, rocks, the ocean, all had spirits.

Only when tribes started settling down did they invent a kind of "god". Gaia, the Earth goddess, was the first god. She represented fertility, both human fertility and the fertility of the land.

But Gaia and other Earth fertility spirits fell wayside when agriculture took off and man started building cities. This became the age of male gods, gods of war and power. The Egyptians were the first to capitalize on this given their strategic location that served as a trade hub and had mild weather compared to the competition north.

The ancient Greeks had their own pantheon of gods. It is at this time that the first atheists are known to exist as some of the Greek scholars rejected the idea of gods controlling the world and sought natural explanations.

At about 2500 BCE, the first monotheist religion Zoroastrianism was invented. This religion set the ground work for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Zoroastrianism is not only the first monotheist religion, but is also one of the oldest religions still practiced today. In its beginning, Zoroastrianism competed with polytheistic religions.

Of course, Hinduism is also much older. It is possible that there could have been detractors of gods from Hindi cultures, but I don't know of any records of that.

In the very least, we know that there were atheists in ancient Greece including Aristophanes and Epicurus. There were also agnostics like Protagoras. And Aristotle believed in a clockmaker god that had no effect on the universe after creating it.

"Shrines! Shrines! Surely you don't believe in the gods. What's your argument? Where's your proof?" - Aristophanes

"Men create gods in their own image, not only with regard to their form but with regard to their mode of life." - Aristotle.

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" - Epicurus

"As to the gods, I have no means of knowing either that they exist or do not exist. For many are the obstacles that impede knowledge, both the obscurity of the question and the shortness of human life." - Protagoras

In any case, doubt is old. And the more intelligent and educated the person and more enlightened the society, the more doubt and disbelief there is. This pattern holds throughout history regardless of a few notable exceptions who lived in highly religious cultures.