Be a Supporter!

Why bash on Christianity?

  • 6,458 Views
  • 230 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
RubberTrucky
RubberTrucky
  • Member since: Mar. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-26 05:37:34 Reply

At 5/26/10 02:37 AM, Exblade wrote:
Which is why, the Crusades, witch hunts and anything bad that happened that make Christianity look horrible is an association fallacy,mainly because you cant put the fault on every single christian that lived during those times. It would be like the equivelant of me declaring that all athiests are monster because of what the soviets did.

When a person kills someone, cause he feels it pleases God to do so, though their is no actual standard in his religion, the person is at fault.

However, in case that religion and more importantly, their leaders (most of them) tell people to report atheists and then publicly execute them, it's the institute of religion that's at fault. As far as i know, you can't really push the crusades and witch hunts on persons instead of religion.

More annoying though, I feel, it's the "two wrongs make a right" fallacious defence, where Christianity shouldn't defend itself by pointing out other good ideals also led to huge dramas.
I find this to be relevant, because it is hardly fair to bash on Christianity for such occurences while still praising the other ideals. That should also be a fallacy, I feel.


RubberJournal: READY DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN TO DESCRIBE IT!
Mathematics club: we have beer and exponentials.
Cartoon club: Cause Toons>> Charlie Sheen+Raptor

BBS Signature
Drakim
Drakim
  • Member since: Jul. 7, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-26 09:54:16 Reply

At 5/26/10 05:37 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: When a person kills someone, cause he feels it pleases God to do so, though their is no actual standard in his religion, the person is at fault.

What about when the holy scriptures says that you are to kill such people, and when religious leaders tell them to do that because it says so in the holy scripture?

How far can the whole "it's not religions" fault thing be pushed? The Bible says that you shall not suffer a witch to live, and this is the sole reason that people murdered women for being witches during the dark ages. It wasn't one among many reasons or anything like that. There was no other thing pushing for it. Is it still not the holy scripture's fault?


http://drakim.net - My exploits for those interested

Ericho
Ericho
  • Member since: Sep. 21, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 44
Movie Buff
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-26 12:11:01 Reply

What about when the holy scriptures says that you are to kill such people, and when religious leaders tell them to do that because it says so in the holy scripture?

There is also some scripture that tells you not to kill people. It just depends on what part of the Bible you follow and if you chose to follow the negative parts, then it shows that you are simply a bad person by nature. If you follow the good parts, then you are a good person by nature. What any scripture says means really nothing as it is what you do with it that matters.


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

RubberTrucky
RubberTrucky
  • Member since: Mar. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-26 18:20:49 Reply

At 5/26/10 09:54 AM, Drakim wrote: There was no other thing pushing for it. Is it still not the holy scripture's fault?

I covered that in the rest of my post: part 2. Shortly, yes it is.


RubberJournal: READY DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN TO DESCRIBE IT!
Mathematics club: we have beer and exponentials.
Cartoon club: Cause Toons>> Charlie Sheen+Raptor

BBS Signature
Bacchanalian
Bacchanalian
  • Member since: Mar. 4, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-26 19:56:26 Reply

At 5/26/10 12:11 PM, Ericho wrote: If you follow the good parts, then you are a good person by nature. What any scripture says means really nothing as it is what you do with it that matters.

Enter irony: Have you ever lied, stolen, lusted, coveted, or been angry with someone unjustly?


BBS Signature
Exblade
Exblade
  • Member since: May. 16, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-26 20:14:50 Reply

At 5/26/10 07:56 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:
At 5/26/10 12:11 PM, Ericho wrote: If you follow the good parts, then you are a good person by nature. What any scripture says means really nothing as it is what you do with it that matters.
Enter irony: Have you ever lied, stolen, lusted, coveted, or been angry with someone unjustly?

which is why its very hard to argue that there is such thing as pure good or evil. How do we define something as Pure, or Corrupt?

The Scriptures themselves are flawed but are not completley evil. There is a diffrence between Ignorance and Evil.


What were you expecting?

Exblade
Exblade
  • Member since: May. 16, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-26 20:17:37 Reply

*sorry for the double post but I forgot to edit something*

nter Irony: How do we define something as Pure, or Corrupt, when something Pure can be harmful and something Corrupt can be bennifical ?


What were you expecting?

Blackhole72
Blackhole72
  • Member since: Apr. 16, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-26 20:30:25 Reply

I think because there are Christians who aren't religous nuts, And then there are the fundies... (fundementalist Christians) Which are crazy believers. I dont think they are making fun of Christians, just the fundies. I hope this helps.

DonnieDonnie
DonnieDonnie
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-26 21:00:46 Reply

You know fundamentalist just means someone who believes every word of their books right? That's a lot of Christians, Muslims too.

Bacchanalian
Bacchanalian
  • Member since: Mar. 4, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-26 22:02:49 Reply

At 5/26/10 02:37 AM, Exblade wrote: Agreed, my appologies if I misinterpeted it as "Religion is all to blame"

Apology accepted. What my original argument was, was that the game is played on both sides. On one end: if it's good, thank religion; if it's bad, blame the people. On the other: if it's good, thank people; if it's bad, blame religion.

Many of those people quick to blame people for the crusades, are quick to thank religion for charity.

So in other words, you aknowledge that religion can be used for good purposes?

The idea that religion can't would be an insanely myopic position to take.

but inherently can be used for evil purposes just as well. Does this mean that you aknowledge a sort of dualism, were Religion is neither good or evil but both?

Or neither, but is rather used. And by its use we can generalize it.

also another question, Is this how you feel about organised religion, or any spiritual beliefs? If iI compared a Deist to a Christian, who would you argue to be more rational?

That's an impossbly vague question when you're so eager to cry association fallacy.

On one hand you would be arguing that Religion is responsible for everything that a believer does, but on the other hand, wouldnt that person have a choice on what to believe in the first place.

Generalization is not inherently an association fallacy. You can generalize religion without holding every single believer responsible for the crusades. And holding religion responsible for anything just misses the point. Consider it an argument of attribution, rather than blame. People are to blame, the group possesses attributes.

At 5/26/10 08:14 PM, Exblade wrote: which is why its very hard to argue that there is such thing as pure good or evil.

Well... yeah. The irony is that the question is part of a test to see if you need to be saved by Jesus, commonly employed as an ice breaker in conversions.


BBS Signature
Exblade
Exblade
  • Member since: May. 16, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-26 23:06:47 Reply

At 5/26/10 10:02 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:
At 5/26/10 02:37 AM, Exblade wrote: Agreed, my appologies if I misinterpeted it as "Religion is all to blame"
Apology accepted. What my original argument was, was that the game is played on both sides. On one end: if it's good, thank religion; if it's bad, blame the people. On the other: if it's good, thank people; if it's bad, blame religion.

completley agree with you on this.

Many of those people quick to blame people for the crusades, are quick to thank religion for charity.

I agree

So in other words, you aknowledge that religion can be used for good purposes?
The idea that religion can't would be an insanely myopic position to take.

agreed


but inherently can be used for evil purposes just as well. Does this mean that you aknowledge a sort of dualism, were Religion is neither good or evil but both?
Or neither, but is rather used. And by its use we can generalize it.

Well, that depends on how its use really. I mean you can take any philosophy and claim that X belief = Negative Y action. Take the soviet example I used earlier, there doesnt have to be a doctrine to make it look bad if I claimed that they did it to erradicate religion. Doesnt mean its true, but thats really all it takes to convince some people.

also another question, Is this how you feel about organised religion, or any spiritual beliefs? If iI compared a Deist to a Christian, who would you argue to be more rational?
That's an impossbly vague question when you're so eager to cry association fallacy.

not really, Im only asking if you could tell me which is eather more rational in your personal opinion because I want to know what you would consider a rational person, and it wasnt meant as a personal attack.
to be fair, I may be mistaken, but you seem to associate that every single person that believes in god is both stupid and evil, rather than misguided. Your sort of eager to cry Burden of Proof, even if the person admits that its faith based, and that they have no real evidence. True it may not be fact, but I wouldnt consider them stupid. just misinformed.

On one hand you would be arguing that Religion is responsible for everything that a believer does, but on the other hand, wouldnt that person have a choice on what to believe in the first place.
Generalization is not inherently an association fallacy. You can generalize religion without holding every single believer responsible for the crusades. And holding religion responsible for anything just misses the point. Consider it an argument of attribution, rather than blame. People are to blame, the group possesses attributes.

Agree to a certain extent, Problem is that Christianity is diverse itself (with all the sects and all) that it is really hard to consider what "True Christianity" would be. Take the Quakers for example, they are Christians, but If I claimed that they are evil because they have to follow "Passage X" of the bible, when in reality they dont, is missing the point. Not all Christians are the same. However if you argued Core beliefs being evil, that would be a diffrent story.


At 5/26/10 08:14 PM, Exblade wrote: which is why its very hard to argue that there is such thing as pure good or evil.
Well... yeah. The irony is that the question is part of a test to see if you need to be saved by Jesus, commonly employed as an ice breaker in conversions.

Which I agree with you, people in general may have simillar codes or ethics. Its hard to argue about Good or Evil, because the most rational things arent always the most benevelont.


What were you expecting?

Ytaker
Ytaker
  • Member since: Dec. 16, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 28
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-26 23:16:12 Reply

At 5/26/10 09:54 AM, Drakim wrote:
At 5/26/10 05:37 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: When a person kills someone, cause he feels it pleases God to do so, though their is no actual standard in his religion, the person is at fault.
What about when the holy scriptures says that you are to kill such people, and when religious leaders tell them to do that because it says so in the holy scripture?

How far can the whole "it's not religions" fault thing be pushed? The Bible says that you shall not suffer a witch to live, and this is the sole reason that people murdered women for being witches during the dark ages. It wasn't one among many reasons or anything like that. There was no other thing pushing for it. Is it still not the holy scripture's fault?

The catholic church said that witches didn't exist, and tried to stop persecution. Hate of witches happened way before Christianity. See this roman law, say.

http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps01_1.
htm

Anyone who, by means of incantations and magic arts, prevents grain or crops of any kind belonging to another from growing, shall be sacrificed to Ceres.[3]

Anyone who annoys another by means of magic incantations or diabolical arts, and renders him inactive, or ill; or who prepares or administers poison to him, is guilty of a capital crime,[1] and shall be punished with death.

They disliked witches because they thought the witches were trying to kill them.

If you wish to criticize some aspect of Christianity, you should focus on some aspect of it which isn't universal across almost every culture ever, and some aspect which the church actually encourages.

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-27 01:30:00 Reply

At 5/26/10 12:11 PM, Ericho wrote: There is also some scripture that tells you not to kill people.

Which would obviously not apply in this case since if something explicitly says "you should not let so and so live" then they either don't meet the criteria of being "people" or the old "don't kill" rule doesn't apply. Pretty obvious.

It just depends on what part of the Bible you follow and if you chose to follow the negative parts, then it shows that you are simply a bad person by nature.

But the Bible is The Word Of God. That is what it's advertised as and therefore I've always found it hard to believe people can "choose" what parts they want to follow.

Also I don't believe everybody who follows the "negative parts" is necessarily a bad person. Maybe ignorant, maybe misguided, maybe they just think their being true to their faith, but a "bad person"? I dunno. I find it's rarely as simple as all that.

If you follow the good parts, then you are a good person by nature.

Define the "good parts" because I've known some pretty bad and hypocritical folks who have been following and espousing what you'd probably consider the "good parts". I really think you're being naieve to think it's so black and white, good and evil.

What any scripture says means really nothing as it is what you do with it that matters.

So then why the hell do we have that scripture or put any value on it if it "doesn't matter"? Hmmm? Now you're just making crap up to suit yourself, which actually makes you a pretty common religious person I find :)


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
StodgyAyatollah
StodgyAyatollah
  • Member since: Apr. 1, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Artist
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-27 03:30:49 Reply

At 5/27/10 01:30 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: But the Bible is The Word Of God. That is what it's advertised as and therefore I've always found it
hard
to believe people can "choose" what parts they want to follow.

Agreed, if it is truly the word of god I feel it is a bit naive to believe that any individual has the appropriate comprehension to form their own unique interpretation of it and ignore certain teachings just because they don't think it coincides with their own sense of morality.

I feel that one of the most important things to address about religion is the fact that it promotes a system of belies and a culture in witch almost anything can be justified based on an individuals interpretation of the religion or even the negative aspects of the religion. I don't think the "good people do good things, bad people do bad things" argument is truly a valid one. Religion promotes a culture and system of beliefs that allows evil to become good. That can only be blamed on religion and I strongly believe religion is detrimental to the progress of civilized and pragmatic culture because of this.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion." ~ Steven Weinberg

There are many people of faith who acknowledge the negative aspects of religion and do not follow them, for that I am thankful. It would be a truly disturbing time we lived in if for example christians still killed people who "secretly" tried to convert them to another faith. Thankfully that is no longer followed. Christians have considerably distanced themselves from a lot of the teachings in the bible and I would consider that to make them bad christians but better people. It just baffles me that they still cling to their religion even though they discredit and ignore so much of it themselves.

RubberTrucky
RubberTrucky
  • Member since: Mar. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-27 04:17:41 Reply

At 5/27/10 03:30 AM, StodgyAyatollah wrote:
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion." ~ Steven Weinberg

He's wrong, though, that religion is the only thing that can turn good people bad. Among others: Patriotism, nationalism, romance, wish for freedom and even the scientific method can be used to do evil things, even wth the best intentions.

It's not that it makes good on things religion does, but be aware that religion is not the only danger for human culture/dignity.


RubberJournal: READY DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN TO DESCRIBE IT!
Mathematics club: we have beer and exponentials.
Cartoon club: Cause Toons>> Charlie Sheen+Raptor

BBS Signature
StodgyAyatollah
StodgyAyatollah
  • Member since: Apr. 1, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Artist
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-27 09:40:04 Reply

At 5/27/10 04:17 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: It's not that it makes good on things religion does, but be aware that religion is not the only danger for
human culture/dignity.

I wouldn't say he's wrong, just overlooking a few things when he said that and I'm certainly aware of that, I just enjoyed the quote too much to not use it. Human emotion and organizations certainly have the potential to do the same thing, I just feel that religion tends to have the ability to foster a much stronger devotion than either of those alone and also has the potential to combine with those other things to make matters even worse. Basically if you add the support of god to your emotional beliefs or political ideology then there is a much greater risk for extreme behavior.

Ericho
Ericho
  • Member since: Sep. 21, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 44
Movie Buff
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-27 10:20:47 Reply

At 5/27/10 01:30 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: But the Bible is The Word Of God. That is what it's advertised as and therefore I've always found it hard to believe people can "choose" what parts they want to follow.

Also I don't believe everybody who follows the "negative parts" is necessarily a bad person. Maybe ignorant, maybe misguided, maybe they just think their being true to their faith, but a "bad person"? I dunno. I find it's rarely as simple as all that.

Okay, I guess I worded that poorly. What I meant was, is that if you follow negative parts, then you do bad things by nature. Scripture is inconsistent, and it is up to you to make sense of that inconsistency.

Define the "good parts" because I've known some pretty bad and hypocritical folks who have been following and espousing what you'd probably consider the "good parts". I really think you're being naieve to think it's so black and white, good and evil.

Okay fine then, the good parts are most of what Jesus says. Thomas Jefferson made a version of the Bible featuring only Jesus' teachings and nothing much else. If so, he is wrong for disobeying the Word of God, but everyone says how great it was for him to do that, so I say good for him.


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

Bacchanalian
Bacchanalian
  • Member since: Mar. 4, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-28 01:05:33 Reply

Don't worry exblade... I'll be back...

At 5/27/10 10:20 AM, Ericho wrote: Okay, I guess I worded that poorly. What I meant was, is that if you follow negative parts, then you do bad things by nature. Scripture is inconsistent, and it is up to you to make sense of that inconsistency.

"But the Bible is The Word Of God. That is what it's advertised as and therefore I've always found it hard to believe people can "choose" what parts they want to follow."

And my own addition... if it's up to us to judge what's right/wrong/truth/lie, then what use or authority is there inherent or unique to the Bible?

Okay fine then, the good parts are most of what Jesus says. Thomas Jefferson made a version of the Bible featuring only Jesus' teachings and nothing much else. If so, he is wrong for disobeying the Word of God, but everyone says how great it was for him to do that, so I say good for him.

Do you think it was great of him to "do that"?


BBS Signature
Exblade
Exblade
  • Member since: May. 16, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-28 02:13:20 Reply

At 5/27/10 03:30 AM, StodgyAyatollah wrote:
At 5/27/10 01:30 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:
There are many people of faith who acknowledge the negative aspects of religion and do not follow them, for that I am thankful. It would be a truly disturbing time we lived in if for example christians still killed people who "secretly" tried to convert them to another faith. Thankfully that is no longer followed. Christians have considerably distanced themselves from a lot of the teachings in the bible and I would consider that to make them bad christians but better people. It just baffles me that they still cling to their religion even though they discredit and ignore so much of it themselves.

Well yeah, I mean Religion by no reason is completley good. The problem with this argument though is when you bring in a small qoute from the bibe, not all christians follow that specific rule, That arguement only really works if you hammer on the core beliefs of a Christian. I mean a Protestant wouldnt exactly agree with a Roman Catholic! so by default its hard to argue because not all sects agree on everything. The best way you could form this arguement and win in a landslide victory is if you could prove that the source of their faith was wrong, in other words If the Early Christian church believed that witches were evil and needed to be killed, chances are most of the other sects will probably believe the same thing.


What were you expecting?

JonH2O
JonH2O
  • Member since: Dec. 18, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-28 17:44:31 Reply

Jesus is a friend of mine!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-NOZU2iP A8


Myspace | Audio | Alter | It sounds like a fire hydrant went off in an old folks home with screaming babies field recorded, glitched, and spontaneously played back

BBS Signature
aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-29 01:05:17 Reply

At 5/27/10 10:20 AM, Ericho wrote: Okay, I guess I worded that poorly. What I meant was, is that if you follow negative parts, then you do bad things by nature. Scripture is inconsistent, and it is up to you to make sense of that inconsistency.

No, what you did is not address the fundamental point, which is a consistent problem for you. The Bible is THE WORD OF GOD, that is why we're supposed to believe in the validity of it right? So if it's the word of God, and God is Infallible then ALL of the Bible should be followed because ALL of the Bible is right or else it either was given to us by a fallible God (which is inconsistent with Judeo-Christianity) or it was written by a bunch of men and therefore has as much bearing and impact on anyone as Harry Potter or other works of fiction potentially can. Which one is it?

Okay fine then, the good parts are most of what Jesus says.

Wow that's a hell of a lot we could cut down on and chuck out under your view. More a pamphlet then a book ain't it?

Thomas Jefferson made a version of the Bible featuring only Jesus' teachings and nothing much else.

Good for him, it's still blasphemy though ;)

If so, he is wrong for disobeying the Word of God, but everyone says how great it was for him to do that, so I say good for him.

Who is "everyone"? I've never heard of this, I've never heard from "everyone". Here we go again with vague sources and you going back to the idea that no one will question it if the founding fathers did it. Sort of playing on the idea that if someone isn't a Christian then they would still hold up the founding fathers in a similar way as Jesus.

Also, according to Christianity, what Jefferson did is either outright blasphemous, or is basically the start of some completely new sect. This again is obfuscation that does nothing to address my point or the fundamental question I put forth.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
RubberTrucky
RubberTrucky
  • Member since: Mar. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-29 06:57:57 Reply

At 5/29/10 01:05 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:
No, what you did is not address the fundamental point, which is a consistent problem for you. The Bible is THE WORD OF GOD, that is why we're supposed to believe in the validity of it right?

So yeah, what's the deal with that 'big bang theory'? If there is no solid matter distribution, soundwaves can not propagate, and even with a minimum of sound, they never actually proven it sounded like "Bang"! How can they make such a connection, it's totally unscientific.

"The wordof God" is a traditonal collection of tales in which people try to relate/demonstrate what they percieved as God's messages. Because it is tradition and moralising in nature, it inherently contains stuff that need to be interpreted rather than followed to the letter.


RubberJournal: READY DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN TO DESCRIBE IT!
Mathematics club: we have beer and exponentials.
Cartoon club: Cause Toons>> Charlie Sheen+Raptor

BBS Signature
Ytaker
Ytaker
  • Member since: Dec. 16, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 28
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-29 08:26:42 Reply

At 5/29/10 01:05 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:
At 5/27/10 10:20 AM, Ericho wrote: Okay, I guess I worded that poorly. What I meant was, is that if you follow negative parts, then you do bad things by nature. Scripture is inconsistent, and it is up to you to make sense of that inconsistency.
No, what you did is not address the fundamental point, which is a consistent problem for you. The Bible is THE WORD OF GOD, that is why we're supposed to believe in the validity of it right? So if it's the word of God, and God is Infallible then ALL of the Bible should be followed because ALL of the Bible is right or else it either was given to us by a fallible God (which is inconsistent with Judeo-Christianity) or it was written by a bunch of men and therefore has as much bearing and impact on anyone as Harry Potter or other works of fiction potentially can. Which one is it?

Well, a lot of it is just humans trying to obey the word of god and failing. Plus, you're not required to follow any of the legal stuff from the old testament. It's from god, so it's morally correct, but the exact nature of the laws is specific to what Israel was then- a highly rural, decentralised community, with a great deal of youth crime.

And also, around a lot of contentious agreements, there are honest disagreements over what it actually says. Over genesis, there's disagreement whether the style of writing was what you have for history, or poetry. Over Levitius, there's disagreement over whether the condemnation of homosexuality referred to consensual gay sex, or whether it was a greek style "don't do anal sex" or a cultural attack against Pagans who did it for religious reasons. Unsurprisingly, most people tend to chose the translation that fits their biases.

If the thing was written for cultural reasons, it may have a message from God, just not the obvious one- say, don't have gay sex to get closer to the moon goddess, or you'll be an abomination.

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-29 14:43:17 Reply

At 5/29/10 06:57 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: So yeah, what's the deal with that 'big bang theory'? If there is no solid matter distribution, soundwaves can not propagate, and even with a minimum of sound, they never actually proven it sounded like "Bang"! How can they make such a connection, it's totally unscientific.

That is not the same thing at all. You know this. You're not that stupid to not know this. So either answer my question without obfuscation or don't reply to me please. I'm sick of asking what I feel are very simple questions and people being snarky instead of giving me a straight answer because they seem to think I'm some militant dick shitting on their belief. I'm not shitting on the whole thing, I'm just shitting on what I see is people being hypocritical about and playing fast and loose with it.

"The wordof God" is a traditonal collection of tales in which people try to relate/demonstrate what they percieved as God's messages. Because it is tradition and moralising in nature, it inherently contains stuff that need to be interpreted rather than followed to the letter.

No, this does not work. When you say something is "The Word Of God" by definition it would be truth. It's the very definition of "taking someone at their word" when we do that, we're saying that whatever that person is telling us is the honest truth on their oath. If it turns out that what is being told is not in fact honest, then that means someones "word" is useless. Why is that different for God? The one that is supposed to be totally superior and teaching us how to be moral (and actually condemns lying as one of the Big 10)?


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-29 14:53:47 Reply

At 5/29/10 08:26 AM, Ytaker wrote: Well, a lot of it is just humans trying to obey the word of god and failing. Plus, you're not required to follow any of the legal stuff from the old testament.

Who said that? Where's the part that God said the Old Testament doesn't count? And if I don't have to follow the "legal stuff" then I don't have to follow The 10 Commandments right? Time to stop bashing the gays too since that was old testament right? Also leave the witches alone since that's old testament right?

Also if we're not supposed to follow it, why didn't Christians chuck it out whent he Bible was voted on and formalized (which nobody ever addresses that one for me either: how can you vote on and decide on the mortal plane the will of the divinine)?

It's from god, so it's morally correct, but the exact nature of the laws is specific to what Israel was then- a highly rural, decentralised community, with a great deal of youth crime.

So it's morally correct and it's from God...but we don't have to follow it...is anybody else completely baffled and seeing the contradictions so far?

And also, around a lot of contentious agreements, there are honest disagreements over what it actually says.

I'm not saying disagreements are all lies. I'm saying there SHOULDN'T be disagreements because it's "The Word of God" it's supposed to be His law and His order and the way people need to live to please Him. So what's in the book is what those that believeth in Him should be following and there shouldn't be debate over it ever right? Or else we're not following "The Word of God" anymore.

Over genesis, there's disagreement whether the style of writing was what you have for history, or poetry. Over Levitius, there's disagreement over whether the condemnation of homosexuality referred to consensual gay sex, or whether it was a greek style "don't do anal sex" or a cultural attack against Pagans who did it for religious reasons. Unsurprisingly, most people tend to chose the translation that fits their biases.

Indeed, which again is what I'm getting at. Why should "The Word of God" hold such sway and people feel bound to any of it if they have the ability to interpret it to fit their biases and then those in the religious hierarchy get to tell you whether that's good or bad based on their biases? Why does it really have any hold when all I've been hearing since I answered the question is three followers basically saying "well it is...except when it isn't". I mean, I know what my answer to that is, but I'm just curious how someone can hold it up as "The Word of God" as "The Way" and yet decide there are parts of "The Way" that don't apply.

If the thing was written for cultural reasons, it may have a message from God, just not the obvious one- say, don't have gay sex to get closer to the moon goddess, or you'll be an abomination.

If God is making unclear laws, then God is fucking up. Especially because we have these other passages where God makes Himself pretty clear on what he wants and doesn't want people to do (The 10 Commandments). So why is it massively clear in some parts, but there's others where we can say "well, it's vague and open to interpretation"? Hell, even the parts that are explicitly clear seem for some organizations and people to be open to interpretation so again...how is it "The Word of God", immutable moral law, if it's not absolute?


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
WaterShake
WaterShake
  • Member since: Jun. 7, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Artist
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-29 16:04:59 Reply

I dislike Christianity because of the hatred it promotes towards the LGBT community. They have also committed numerous crimes against humanity, i.e stating that condoms spread aids.

Steven Fry sums up my views quite well during this debate


nobody goes there anymore. its too popular.

BBS Signature
Ytaker
Ytaker
  • Member since: Dec. 16, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 28
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-29 16:21:29 Reply

At 5/29/10 02:53 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
At 5/29/10 08:26 AM, Ytaker wrote: Well, a lot of it is just humans trying to obey the word of god and failing. Plus, you're not required to follow any of the legal stuff from the old testament.
Who said that? Where's the part that God said the Old Testament doesn't count? And if I don't have to follow the "legal stuff" then I don't have to follow The 10 Commandments right? Time to stop bashing the gays too since that was old testament right? Also leave the witches alone since that's old testament right?

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I mean, the punishments. Back then, they didn't have prisons for the majority of crimes, because prisons are expensive, and so they had a very different system of punishments. You're not required, even from an all the bible is true perspective, to have those punishments when there are other options.

10 commandments, loved by most christians, but, from exodus "13 You shall tear down their altars, break their pillars, and cut down their sacred poles

14 (for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God)." We're not required to tear down the altars, pillars, or sacred poles, what with those civilisations being dead. That's a culturally specific commandment.

Gay stuff is new testament too. Even the most hardcore of conservatives don't advocate the death penalty for being gay, though.

The majority of their criticisms were focused on necromancers, and they were often contained within attacks on pagan religions, which gives some of the context. Later christians, of learning at least, believed that magic was impossible as only god could violate natural law. This has never been a big thing. It's been fairly clear to people of learning that magic doesn't actually exist, for a long time.

St Augustine made the above argument, as to why magic is impossible, and so the church punishments tended to be fasting, or pilgrimages. They still condemned witchcraft and such, but had no special need to do it as hard as the israelites.

Also if we're not supposed to follow it, why didn't Christians chuck it out whent he Bible was voted on and formalized (which nobody ever addresses that one for me either: how can you vote on and decide on the mortal plane the will of the divinine)?

You are supposed to follow it. A lot of it's just not that relevent to us now. It just tells us what god's will was for that country at that specific time.

Baring revelations, every book of the bible was definitely written by someone in the first century AD. Plus, a lot of the other books were either clearly self serving or ... loopy, to say the least. The Gospel of Marcion is a rewritting of Luke to fit his prejudices. The Shepherd of Hermas presents jesus as a god/angel hybrid. In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus reveals himself to be sexist when he says that a woman must make herself male to enter the kingdom of heaven. Plus, they were all obviously written long after Jesus.

The way they determined whether something was fit to go in the bible was normally by how close it was to Jesus, who they accepted widely as human god.


So it's morally correct and it's from God...but we don't have to follow it...is anybody else completely baffled and seeing the contradictions so far?

Is our community a rural community with little governments, no prisons, regular starvation, and severe youth crime?


I'm not saying disagreements are all lies. I'm saying there SHOULDN'T be disagreements because it's "The Word of God" it's supposed to be His law and His order and the way people need to live to please Him. So what's in the book is what those that believeth in Him should be following and there shouldn't be debate over it ever right? Or else we're not following "The Word of God" anymore.

It was written millenia ago in another language in another culture. If you can read ancient hebrew, greek, you have good common sense, understand how idioms of that time worked, and understand their culture, then sure, it should be fairly obvious to you. Our culture is very, me centred. Their culture was much more, community, good of the whole, centred. Understanding that is one of the biggest parts to understanding the whys.


Indeed, which again is what I'm getting at. Why should "The Word of God" hold such sway and people feel bound to any of it if they have the ability to interpret it to fit their biases and then those in the religious hierarchy get to tell you whether that's good or bad based on their biases? Why does it really have any hold when all I've been hearing since I answered the question is three followers basically saying "well it is...except when it isn't". I mean, I know what my answer to that is, but I'm just curious how someone can hold it up as "The Word of God" as "The Way" and yet decide there are parts of "The Way" that don't apply.

Well, what you seem to be getting at is a different point. How do people believe it's the word of god, and still not believe and follow all of it? Because they don't believe it's all the word of god. Simple enough. Jesus is the focus of Christianity, now and always. The charming, kind, widely seen as cool face of god. Plus, emotional connection with god is the foundation for a huge amount of religion. Praying, and getting answers, and the feeling of God in your mind.

"if they have the ability to interpret it to fit their biases and then those in the religious hierarchy get to tell you whether that's good or bad based on their biases"

There's a limit to how flexibly you can interpret it. Obviously, some readings are extremely strained, and unlikely. But yes, a lot of people are less trusting of church authorities. Others aren't, because they trust higher up authorities to give them accurate information. Like members of the catholic church.


If God is making unclear laws, then God is fucking up. Especially because we have these other passages where God makes Himself pretty clear on what he wants and doesn't want people to do (The 10 Commandments). So why is it massively clear in some parts, but there's others where we can say "well, it's vague and open to interpretation"? Hell, even the parts that are explicitly clear seem for some organizations and people to be open to interpretation so again...how is it "The Word of God", immutable moral law, if it's not absolute?

Well, it's not clear to us. It was more clear to the Hebrews. The priests developed the Talmuds, based on their understanding of the old testament, to provide specific laws for situations.

Look at modern law. A twisted network of cross references, ideals, and interpretations. Unclear laws are the norm. You'd have to be pretty arrogant to think you could just go into another country, pick up their translated lawbooks, and understand everything in them in your first read. The bible is less complicated, but the same certainly applies to its laws.

Plus, another point to make- reality loves contradictions. Tricky situations, where there's no absolute truth, just lots of relative truths competing to be heard. Competing factors, which, situation by situation, all demand to be heard at varying intensities. Crime is inherently like this. Everyone is the hero of their own story, everyone believes the other person started it.

Like, "Resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" my interpretation of this is you shouldn't respond to a petty insult with your own insult. A continuation of the eye for an eye principles, that you shouldn't over respond, and start a cycle of revenge. There are however, lots of situations where the bible calls you to resist evil (worse evils) and fight back hard.

Bacchanalian
Bacchanalian
  • Member since: Mar. 4, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-29 17:20:24 Reply

At 5/29/10 04:21 PM, Ytaker wrote: Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I mean, the punishments. Back then, they didn't have prisons for the majority of crimes, because prisons are expensive, and so they had a very different system of punishments.

So where's the Gospel letting us know it's ok to use prisons instead of stones?

That's a culturally specific commandment.

So when does Jesus' applicability expire?

Gay stuff is new testament too. Even the most hardcore of conservatives don't advocate the death penalty for being gay, though.

They must advocate prison then! Since we have prisons now.

(And that's all I have time for today...)


BBS Signature
Ytaker
Ytaker
  • Member since: Dec. 16, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 28
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-29 17:31:34 Reply

At 5/29/10 05:20 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:
At 5/29/10 04:21 PM, Ytaker wrote: Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I mean, the punishments. Back then, they didn't have prisons for the majority of crimes, because prisons are expensive, and so they had a very different system of punishments.
So where's the Gospel letting us know it's ok to use prisons instead of stones?

You're saying jesus should have made a specific comment for your benefit, so you could understand him better?

That's a culturally specific commandment.
So when does Jesus' applicability expire?

Sorry? What do you mean?

Gay stuff is new testament too. Even the most hardcore of conservatives don't advocate the death penalty for being gay, though.
They must advocate prison then! Since we have prisons now.

(And that's all I have time for today...)

Nope, prayer and jesus camp. And therapy. We also have social care thingies now.

The-universe
The-universe
  • Member since: Apr. 6, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Why bash on Christianity? 2010-05-29 17:38:17 Reply

At 5/29/10 05:31 PM, Ytaker wrote: You're saying jesus should have made a specific comment for your benefit, so you could understand him better?

Yes, it should be.


It's not the lack of crimes that values your morality but your capacity for contrition.

Click this and one day I'll be worth bazillions.