Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Good for him.

At 8/14/03 08:55 AM, --bumcheekcity-- wrote: They interpret it in different ways. Don't forget, the book is 2000+ years old, and has been passed on by word of mouth a lot before it was written down, and even then is went through a multitude of translations.

The laws (such as Leviticus) were written down during the time period they were created in, as they were actual law, and were in effect for the Jewish people during that time period. Although we don't have any copies of the original manuscripts, those people who did pass down those tales, were passing it down from people who did have access to them and lived under their rule, if the bible were remotely true. And you'll notice how in the NT, the scriptures that reference the OT laws, were taken in a sense that would lead us to believe that the interpretation by those people was the same as it was written before. So not much of the law would have been lost to translation, since everyone knew what it was.

What if something got mis-represented, or mis-understood, or mis-trandlated in the 2000+ years in which the bible has been around?

You can only write so much off to mistranslation before the whole thing loses any validity. And the idea of mistranslation proves that the bible is shit anyway, since Mr. Almighty can create the world in a week, but can't write a damn book. The bible pretends that it is the word of god and that it is meant to carry a message to the people. Language barriers were created as a result of the Tower of Babel according to the bible, and as such, all translation errors would be caused by the fault of God. Which wouldn't equate if God really wanted this message to be delivered to the people. And every translation I've ever read has agreed that gays are an abomination to God, and all but one or two specifically called for their death, that's a very thin translation error line there.

At 8/13/03 09:12 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: It's still possible for him to love God, but not blindly follow the bible's readings. He can believe God is a merciful, tolerant, and loving God, rather than a vengeful, predjudiced and hating God that is becoming increasingly popular.

Most people are just blind enough to go along with what they see on the news and hear in their church. Any man with a white collar that preaches out against the homosexuals, they're going to listen to. We've become this dense.

At 8/6/03 03:16 PM, TheShrike wrote: Who cares if he's gay?

Is he ass-fucking you?

Hay dick suck I agree With GridLock kick his ass fuck 8 year old boy screwing ass out.

At 8/23/03 07:02 PM, excelion wrote: Hay dick suck I agree With GridLock kick his ass fuck 8 year old boy screwing ass out.

What language is this? Good to see simply_moronic has such class allies in these discussions. *rolls eyes*

At 8/23/03 07:44 PM, RoyBatty wrote: What language is this? Good to see simply_moronic has such class allies in these discussions. *rolls eyes*

I like the way that name sounds.

At 8/23/03 07:02 PM, excelion wrote:

Hay dick suck I agree With GridLock kick his ass fuck 8 year old boy screwing ass out.

God, I've been meaning to use this pic for a special occasion such as this one.

At 8/6/03 02:58 PM, GridLock wrote:

At 8/6/03 02:48 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: A person can believe in God, and believe that He is a loving God who loves His people regardless of sexual orientation.

Well, the Bible actually has specific references to homosexuality (against it). Has he not read those parts yet?

It also has specific references to feminism, inter-racial relations, Jews, all against. And has pro-slavery references.

Tell me, if you are a white anti-slavery woman who believes in gender equality and marry a black guy, are you not allowed to be Christian?

At 8/14/03 05:50 AM, RoyBatty wrote:
That's a logical defense for an agnostic, but not for a Christian who learned of his god through the same scriptures and religions based on them that command the murder of gays. I mean if the bible isn't to be trusted, then why trust the idea of a divinity that is brought forth from it's teachings?

You're suffering from an ailment I see all too often -- 'all or none' mentality. Either the church is objectively, 100% right in every aspect of its every belief ever, or it's COMPLETELY 100% wrong. There is NO WAY there could be a shade of grey. There's no way that the people in old would have gotten the core concept down correctly, but let their prejudices smudge it up slightly. Unto, that, I say...

Bullshit. You don't have to be dogmatic to be Christian, and it really bugs me that there are people who think one does.

Does anyone here know the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism?

And frankly, I find it annoying that people keep making references to the Bible as one, singular book. There's different versions of the Bible, and all are different. All enforce different biases. The Bible most used in this fashion is the King James Version. It is called as such because a monk during the reign of King James decided to paraphrase the whole thing in order to make the persecution of gays, pagans, atheists, et cetera seem moral.

Goddamn people, at least have the decency to know what the hell you're talking about before you post.

At 8/24/03 06:21 PM, Adept_Omega wrote: Tell me, if you are a white anti-slavery woman who believes in gender equality and marry a black guy, are you not allowed to be Christian?

Why would you want to be?

At 8/24/03 06:29 PM, Adept_Omega wrote: You're suffering from an ailment I see all too often -- 'all or none' mentality. Either the church is objectively, 100% right in every aspect of its every belief ever, or it's COMPLETELY 100% wrong. There is NO WAY there could be a shade of grey.

There is no reason for there to be a grey. Logically speaking, if God wanted followers, he would tell them how to worship him. The bible becomes this representation and as such is the text that brings you the knowledge of your god. Now two questions from the point of YHWH. If he wants to be worshipped then he sets patterns for the way he wants to be worshipped and the rules the people are supposed to follow to stay in his graces. Now he has three main options: A) write the book himself, translate it into every language (since confusing languages was his work, and "god is not the author of confusion", so why would he allow confusion of his beliefs by not writing it in every language he created). B) Put the knowledge he intended people to know right into their heads in the form of instinct, without any written text, we would all know he was true, and thus we would all know of him and we would still have free will to serve him or not. or C) Have a bunch of idiots write his teachings, put in their own beliefs on what God would want, command genocide, murder, theocide, sexism, homophobia, etc. in their own interests under the name of god. Now according to the Christian doctrines, he chose method three. And without that bible, you wouldn't even know of your god. Did it occur to you that if there was no popular concept of god, only extraordinarily superstitious people would naturally come up with such a theory? So these same people who tell you of your god tack on all this other bullshit, so if you believe the god part, why not the rest of it? It's from the same verses. I mean Matthew describes the loving Jesus just chapters away from showing Jesus commanding people to follow the law of the Tanakh. Why believe anything in the bible if not all of it? If inaccuracy and mistranslation caused such dissention on the planet and even among the churches (Ireland anyone), then why did God allow it? Why not just write it himself? He can create the world in a week, but can't write a fucking book? Come on. Do you beleive God wants to be worshipped or known?

There's no way that the people in old would have gotten the core concept down correctly, but let their prejudices smudge it up slightly. Unto, that, I say...

The entity introduced by the Tanakh was pretty constant in his warmongoring character, many of the stories in the Tanakh about his works (slaughtering whole towns, drowning the planet, commanding atrocities, summoning bears to eat children), these were the descriptions of his character, and this god wanted to be worshipped through fear, he made that very evident. This is the character of the God, this is the core of the god, this is the bottom line of those ancient people, so why is the other shit so far off? Is this the core they got right? And if so, is this god worthy of worship? Is Jesus (who's only right to power is through being the son of this warmongor) worthy of worship? Especially when he commands the adherence to OT law?

Bullshit. You don't have to be dogmatic to be Christian, and it really bugs me that there are people who think one does.

A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ. Who else really has the right to claim to be that? And the teachings of Christ come from the bible, and they include teaching people to follow the Tanakh scripture, and yes Christ was a hypocrite, and yes he contradicted himself, but he did still command those things if the bible is to be trusted at all. So if you're not dogmatic, then why not just make your own faith and stop jumping on an antiquated religion full of atrocities?

At 8/24/03 06:35 PM, TheOwlHasSpoken wrote: Does anyone here know the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism?

Yes.

And frankly, I find it annoying that people keep making references to the Bible as one, singular book.

It is compiled as such, supposedely by people who God allowed to represent him. Couldn't God predict how it would be compiled and somehow ensure the proper scriptures were getting to his people?

There's different versions of the Bible, and all are different.

Not by as much as you would think. Some things are very consistent.

All enforce different biases. The Bible most used in this fashion is the King James Version. It is called as such because a monk during the reign of King James decided to paraphrase the whole thing in order to make the persecution of gays, pagans, atheists, et cetera seem moral.

Not even close, go read up on translations. There was a large group of people involved in the KJV project, and it was translated from numerous different manuscripts. I've been in and witness to some very intense debates on this subject and the KJV is still the most accurate English translation we have available, and is the least biased to the translators personal beliefs. If you want to see an intentionally mistranslated version, go read the NIV.

Goddamn people, at least have the decency to know what the hell you're talking about before you post.

Right back atcha man.

At 8/13/03 07:02 AM, RoyBatty wrote:

At 8/13/03 05:42 AM, --bumcheekcity-- wrote: The Anglican church has accepted him as one of them. The Catholic Church sayd he is an evil piece of scum, and hates him. He's doing it to prove a point.

They both follow the same bible though, are the Catholics the only one who can read it?

More like misinterpeted more like? I decided to be agnoustic for now.

At 8/24/03 08:24 PM, RoyBatty wrote:

At 8/24/03 06:35 PM, TheOwlHasSpoken wrote: Does anyone here know the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism?

Yes.

Congratulations.

And frankly, I find it annoying that people keep making references to the Bible as one, singular book.

It is compiled as such, supposedely by people who God allowed to represent him. Couldn't God predict how it would be compiled and somehow ensure the proper scriptures were getting to his people?

People that "supposedly" Him, indeed. Like Pope Innocent II who just woke up and decided to be infallible? Come on, no person is qualified to be an advocate of God.

There's different versions of the Bible, and all are different.

Not by as much as you would think. Some things are very consistent.

I've read the KJV, the Living Bible, the American New Standard, the Children's Bible, and whatever my grandma had at her house (old and no edition indicated, I'm guessing KJV or Gutenburg) and noted many discrepancies. Some things remain consistent because the stories they are based on are older than the works placed in the Bible.

All enforce different biases. The Bible most used in this fashion is the King James Version. It is called as such because a monk during the reign of King James decided to paraphrase the whole thing in order to make the persecution of gays, pagans, atheists, et cetera seem moral.

Not even close, go read up on translations. There was a large group of people involved in the KJV project, and it was translated from numerous different manuscripts. I've been in and witness to some very intense debates on this subject and the KJV is still the most accurate English translation we have available, and is the least biased to the translators personal beliefs. If you want to see an intentionally mistranslated version, go read the NIV.

Right ... if you say so. Basically it comes down to taking a leap of faith and choosing what you believe and why.

Goddamn people, at least have the decency to know what the hell you're talking about before you post.

Right back atcha man.

Hey, I gotta give you mad kudos for at least being able to articulate yourself and forming a counterargument. I extend my hand in thanks for restoring my faith in NG debates.

At 8/24/03 08:46 PM, TheOwlHasSpoken wrote: Congratulations.

Hey you asked :P

People that "supposedly" Him, indeed. Like Pope Innocent II who just woke up and decided to be infallible? Come on, no person is qualified to be an advocate of God.

So what's the difference between the lying people who claim to be sent from God to compile the bible and the lying people who originally wrote the bible down into scriptures and claimed it was the word of God? Why would God need these people, and if he doesn't have a message to be delivered, then why worship him? Does he want worship? Does he want anything to do with people? Or does he maybe not even exist?

I've read the KJV, the Living Bible, the American New Standard, the Children's Bible, and whatever my grandma had at her house (old and no edition indicated, I'm guessing KJV or Gutenburg) and noted many discrepancies. Some things remain consistent because the stories they are based on are older than the works placed in the Bible.

I didn't say their weren't discrepancies, I would claim they were all equally good translations if there weren't differences. I was pointing out that some things are very consistent, one of which is the character of YHWH in the OT/Tanakh, and many of the oppressive laws in which he commanded the Israelites to follow, and Jesus's commands to follow those laws (although this contradicts in every translation as well). I think two translations that I know of actually change Matthew 23:2 in an attempt to avoid this moral contradiction. But for the most part, they are consistent on the important points.

Right ... if you say so. Basically it comes down to taking a leap of faith and choosing what you believe and why.

Or choosing what you know is right and wrong and not worrying about some superstitious doctrine that tries to train you out of your morals, and sometimes succeeds when introduced consistently and powerfully to you. My biggest problem is that people generally don't even know what they are worshipping, they are just so sure they are right because "how could so many people be wrong", and they go to church and are surrounded by other people who at least put on the facade that they are utterly faithful, and it's hard not to believe in what they believe in. This is how other cults draw people in as well.

Hey, I gotta give you mad kudos for at least being able to articulate yourself and forming a counterargument. I extend my hand in thanks for restoring my faith in NG debates.

No prob. Too bad I'm gonna reach my post limit in a sec ;)

I don't know exactly how to continue this thread, but I would just like to say again that bringing homosexual church leaders into the mainstream is the first step of gaining acceptance and tolerance for homosexual couples. It's a grand thing to see. I plan on writing a letter to Gene Robinson congratulating him.

Part 1:

I'm going to have to taket his piece by piece, it's a large block.
"Logically speaking, if God wanted followers, he would tell them how to worship him."

Tell me, what brings you to this conclusion?

If a webcomic maker wants fans, would he step up and say "I only want you to make me fan art. NO e-mails praising me, NO reviews of my works reccomending them to other people, NO cameo appearances of me or my characters in your own works, and NOTHING original or unique. I ONLY want you to make fan art, and nothing BUT fan art."?

... of course not. That would be stupid. He'd have to be a closed minded, block-headed idiot. People will honor an author in many ways -- and most of them are greatly appriciated. To suggest that God is a controlling, block-headed idiot instead of nice is already an admission that you're thinking only in terms of Romanesque and conservative visions of dieties. It has always been my opinion, as a liberal, that God does not want to bind and dictate humanity like a tyrant, but instead intends merely to gently point them in the right direction, giving them the liberty of free will and life.

"The bible becomes this representation and as such is the text that brings you the knowledge of your god."

This is, again, assuming that God has one objective way for us to interact with him, a set of strict behavioral code instead of a generalized guide. You're thinking of the bible as a rulebook -- I think of it as a guide. The difference? When a person reads a guidebook, they're free to deviate from its suggestions when the need arises. IE: "Do not go off the marked path" -- what if someone's bleeding to death just outside it? No DUH you're going to go outside the marked path to help them. A biblical parallel: "Thou shalt not murdur" -- Should this morally encompass accidental deaths, or self-defensive counter-strikes that kill the person instead of disabling them?

"Now two questions from the point of YHWH. If he wants to be worshipped then he sets patterns for the way he wants to be worshipped and the rules the people are supposed to follow to stay in his graces."

See previous arguments. You're implying God would have no exceptions eternally. There are always possible exceptions that common sense would tell us should be okay -- how are you going to define the infinity of such a concept within the limited, finite structure of our lingual system?

"Now he has three main options: A) write the book himself, translate it into every language (since confusing languages was his work, and "god is not the author of confusion", so why would he allow confusion of his beliefs by not writing it in every language he created)"

Were the bible written by God himself, there is no way we would possibly be able to comprehend a level of intelligence equivallant to "omniscent". Not only that, there is no objective way to write anything. Almost any statement can be interpreted entirely differently by different people. Words vary in meaning, and lingual useage of these words varies these definitions throughout time. IE: Let's hypothetically say he wrote the bible back when "gay" meant "happy." "Let all men and women be gay, for such is the way of the lord." -- Now put that in a modern context.

"B) Put the knowledge he intended people to know right into their heads in the form of instinct, without any written text, we would all know he was true, and thus we would all know of him and we would still have free will to serve him or not."

Point, but where does the concept of 'faith' come in anymore? If you can be 100% certain, then of course any idiot's going to participate in prayer. And in a sense, by forcing us to be aware of this, he doesn't let us choose many things in life. Free will to have a certain perception of God is massacred in this fashion. There's no need for debates on morality or ethics -- we already know it. If that isn't control, I don't know what is. After all, thought control is a pinnacle of fascism -- this is prettymuch knowledge/thought control, with lack of behavior control. No need for a left or right wing, it's all set out. So much for liberty.

"C) Have a bunch of idiots write his teachings, put in their own beliefs on what God would want, command genocide, murder, theocide, sexism, homophobia, etc. in their own interests under the name of god."

He can gently guide humanity and lead them down the right path, but he doesn't force people to do things. To force these people to write his objective word would literally be to strip them of their own free will, because only God is omniscent. Notice that you focus heavily on conservative texts and the old testament instead of the more loving messages of Jesus -- furthermore, I'd go so far as to argue that the bible is merely man's workings as a result of God's influence on the world, as opposed to the bible being the intent of God's influence on the world. That's like saying that George Bush became president so people could see him on CNN. ...right.

Part 2:

The entity introduced by the Tanakh was pretty constant in his warmongoring character, many of the stories in the Tanakh about his works (slaughtering whole towns, drowning the planet, commanding atrocities, summoning bears to eat children), these were the descriptions of his character, and this god wanted to be worshipped through fear, he made that very evident. This is the character of the God, this is the core of the god, this is the bottom line of those ancient people, so why is the other shit so far off? Is this the core they got right? And if so, is this god worthy of worship? Is Jesus (who's only right to power is through being the son of this warmongor) worthy of worship? Especially when he commands the adherence to OT law?

Again, more conservatism and Old Testament references, all based on an assumption made at the very top of this message. You're assuming God either wants to slap shackles on all our wrists and jerk us around or simply doesn't exsist.

Bear in mind, the times of the Old Testament were riddled with superstition and fear. An airborne disease brings a town to it's knees? High ranking rulers of their enemies begin shouting that God is on their side. Now that we have modern science, we can cut through crap like that -- but you make the assumption, "if science can prove concept A wrong, then it can also prove concepts B, C, D, E, F, G, U, X, N, G, and W wrong, therefor, all your concepts are wrong because this specific one is so."

A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ. Who else really has the right to claim to be that? And the teachings of Christ come from the bible, and they include teaching people to follow the Tanakh scripture, and yes Christ was a hypocrite, and yes he contradicted himself, but he did still command those things if the bible is to be trusted at all."

Again, all jumping back to your first lousy point. If that's your only line of defense, you're in for a sharp surprise. You're assuming that God has one objective way of doing one objective thing. The real world has no place for such a finite, restricting, and unforgiving system.

"So if you're not dogmatic, then why not just make your own faith and stop jumping on an antiquated religion full of atrocities?"

You keep assuming that the bible is either completely right or completely wrong, and it's really annoying. Look, I respect you, RoyBatty, but must you resort to militant Athiesm? Black and white visions of religion are causes of some of the most painful hate in this world. And the argument "God would be this way if he exsisted because most Christians think so and the bible says so in some parts" is really weak.

Now this is interesting *puts popcorn in the microwave*

Actually the bible wasent written by jeus. It was written by jeus' friends. And you know how your friends always screw up your stories.

Tell me, what brings you to this conclusion?

I guess the best way to demonstrate my point would be to ask you a question. Do you believe that God has the abilities of the God of the bible? Is he omnipotent? Is he omniscient? Is he omnipresent? If he is the God of the bible, then he could foresee what knowledge of his existence without some guidance would be like. Basically this is like having a child and abandoning it. Are you a worthy parent just because you created something? Or do you only gain credibility after nurturing it? Think of how many things have been done in the name of God, in the name of the bible, all the horrid and evil things. If God wanted anything to do with his creation, wouldn’t he have wanted to avoid that? Wouldn’t he have at least made his will known? If not, how is he a good God either way? At best he’s a negligent father figure according to your defense, and certainly nothing akin to the God that the bible describes.

If a webcomic maker wants fans, would he step up and say "I only want you to make me fan art. NO e-mails praising me, NO reviews of my works reccomending them to other people, NO cameo appearances of me or my characters in your own works, and NOTHING original or unique. I ONLY want you to make fan art, and nothing BUT fan art."?

Say a comic maker’s fans go out and kill people in his name, or start huge wars over the intent of the comic. If the comic maker was a moral person, wouldn’t you expect him to at least come out and say: “umm this isn’t what I meant guys”.?

... of course not. That would be stupid. He'd have to be a closed minded, block-headed idiot. People will honor an author in many ways -- and most of them are greatly appriciated. To suggest that God is a controlling, block-headed idiot instead of nice is already an admission that you're thinking only in terms of Romanesque and conservative visions of dieties. It has always been my opinion, as a liberal, that God does not want to bind and dictate humanity like a tyrant, but instead intends merely to gently point them in the right direction, giving them the liberty of free will and life.

Out of all the myths you could have drawn reference to, I think the Romans are some of the least fitting. The Roman gods were generally seen as more playful and mischievous, and more kindred to humans than controlling. When they did cause humans to do things, it was generally through subterfuge and deceit and not any real tyranny. So how is God even gently pointing in the right direction then? If the bible isn’t to be trusted as a source, where do you get this subtle hinting from? And how does this equate to you being a Christian? I mean what did Christ teach exactly, and tell me how you know this. Quote your sources, and if they happen to be full of contradictions and moral problems, then expect that their credibility will be considered shot.

This is, again, assuming that God has one objective way for us to interact with him, a set of strict behavioral code instead of a generalized guide. You're thinking of the bible as a rulebook -- I think of it as a guide.

I’m thinking of it as it was created. It was meant to be a rulebook. Could the authors been any more obvious? The same authors that tell you of your god, told you that the rules came from god, and god wanted them followed, and most the time the punishment for not following them was death. If the contradictions in these books aren’t enough to destroy the credibility, how about the obviously evil intentions of authors who would show “commandments” (not guidelines) that offer all of these evil deeds? How are these people to be trusted with anything? And how do you know who or what God really is? And if you don’t think the bible accurately describes God, then why be a Christian? Why not an agnostic or a deist?

The difference? When a person reads a guidebook, they're free to deviate from its suggestions when the need arises. IE: "Do not go off the marked path" -- what if someone's bleeding to death just outside it? No DUH you're going to go outside the marked path to help them.

What if they are a witch? Shouldn’t you “suffer them not to live”?

A biblical parallel: "Thou shalt not murdur" -- Should this morally encompass accidental deaths, or self-defensive counter-strikes that kill the person instead of disabling them?

Or mass genocide, or killing people because it’s the law, etc. etc. No I think that would be called a contradiction, not a guideline. Anyone who has read the bible knows how much bullshit is in “thou shalt not kill”, and let’s not get into translation variations at this point because you already admit most of the problems with the bible.

See previous arguments. You're implying God would have no exceptions eternally. There are always possible exceptions that common sense would tell us should be okay -- how are you going to define the infinity of such a concept within the limited, finite structure of our lingual system?

Do you think a god or a people who commanded genocide and used terms like “utterly destroy”, a people who wrote scriptures that commanded the genocide of 6 races in one verse, were big on exceptions? Do you think people who made these immoral and merciless laws that would kill a homosexual for being who he is or kill someone for not worshipping the same god would be big on mercy or reason? Why do you get to imply this about their character when the only traces we have of leads us to believe that they were evil, merciless, cruel, and bigots. Oh yeah and they invented your god to boot.

Were the bible written by God himself, there is no way we would possibly be able to comprehend a level of intelligence equivallant to "omniscent".

So that answers one of my previous questions. So can God in his omniscience not put concepts in a way he knows people WILL understand? Can he not make humans at least smart enough to understand what he is trying to say? I mean did he blow Moses’ mind when he conveyed his commandments to him? Any all powerful god, should at least be able to grasp something as simple as communication.

Not only that, there is no objective way to write anything. Almost any statement can be interpreted entirely differently by different people.

If God is writing about God’s will, why would he need to be objective? And God, were he omnipotent could talk in a manner that is clear and easy to understand, and most words that have multiple definitions can easily be judged by context, most authors can manage to convey their messages just fine by carefully selecting their words, you do God no defense to claim he couldn’t at least do this, and do it better than anyone else.

Words vary in meaning, and lingual useage of these words varies these definitions throughout time. IE: Let's hypothetically say he wrote the bible back when "gay" meant "happy." "Let all men and women be gay, for such is the way of the lord." -- Now put that in a modern context.

Having the foresight to understand (omniscient after all) that the word would change meaning, he would follow it up by a short description of the act (like the bible actually does generally), so that there is no mistake to be made. Also if it was that big of an issue, Mr. Almighty could get off his lazy ass and make a yearly edition.

Point, but where does the concept of 'faith' come in anymore? If you can be 100% certain, then of course any idiot's going to participate in prayer.

If I had inherent knowledge of the God of the bible, I would hate him for the atrocities he represents. Power does not earn respect in my book, but kindness in morality. If I knew about him, I wouldn’t worship him, I would probably attempt to hunt him. Faith would of course become unnecessary, and thus there would be less dissention among the people. And there wouldn’t be a concept that you would be punished in hell for all eternity for not having faith in the intangible.

And in a sense, by forcing us to be aware of this, he doesn't let us choose many things in life.

So it’s unjust that I know that it’s wrong to rape a girl? Does it take away my free will? Can I not choose to do the wrong thing? And what if I don’t think God is the right thing? What if I’m just not a follower? What makes you think a god who gives you the option of believe in me or suffer for all eternity cares about free will anyway? We should work on your definition of “free”.

Free will to have a certain perception of God is massacred in this fashion. There's no need for debates on morality or ethics -- we already know it.

I think we do already know right from wrong inherently. Even the bible agrees with this.

[Genesis 3:22] And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know GOOD and EVIL…

We still have the option to choose which path we follow. The free will is not taken away by knowledge.

If that isn't control, I don't know what is. After all, thought control is a pinnacle of fascism -- this is prettymuch knowledge/thought control, with lack of behavior control. No need for a left or right wing, it's all set out. So much for liberty.

You’re right; I don’t think you know what is. Thought control is preventing you from thinking. When thinking outside of what you are taught is punished.

He can gently guide humanity and lead them down the right path, but he doesn't force people to do things.

And he does this by hiding behind a bunch of representatives that butcher in his name? The people who gently push people towards the bible through fear of hellfire, and gently convince them that there is no real alternative path? Is this God’s gentle guidance?

To force these people to write his objective word would literally be to strip them of their own free will, because only God is omniscent.

Then only God should be writing the shit. If mankind’s lack of communication skills resulted in all the horrors that have been done in God’s name, then he obviously shouldn’t have left the chore to them.

Notice that you focus heavily on conservative texts and the old testament instead of the more loving messages of Jesus –

That’s because I think Jesus was a politician and a conman if he even existed. The good things that he taught, were all common sense, and based on cliché phrases of the time period, things that were heard anywhere from Sumerian folk tales to Aesop. Then you picture that he was teaching that and then right beside that he was teaching people to worship the same God who commanded all of the atrocities in the Tanakh, specifically stated he came not to destroy the law, and in fact told others to follow the Tanakh law (the main oppressive parts of the OT) make him 10 times more dangerous in my opinion. Because he didn’t just come right out and say do these evil things. He first lulled them in with kind words and talks of peace, and then tossed out subtle commands to follow the teachings of the Pharisees, which commanded murder and sexism and slavery. At least the Tanakh was honest about it’s intent.

furthermore, I'd go so far as to argue that the bible is merely man's workings as a result of God's influence on the world, as opposed to the bible being the intent of God's influence on the world. That's like saying that George Bush became president so people could see him on CNN. ...right.

So you see that God’s influence on the earth created a book that creates dissention, murder, war, genocide, child abuse, slavery, sexism, etc. How is this God worthy of being worshipped if this is the result of his influence?

Again, more conservatism and Old Testament references, all based on an assumption made at the very top of this message. You're assuming God either wants to slap shackles on all our wrists and jerk us around or simply doesn't exsist.

And you’re assuming he doesn’t. The only difference is, the bible that tells you of your god agrees with me, so where is the basis for your assumption that he’s kind and caring and good? At least my viewpoint has a foundation.

Bear in mind, the times of the Old Testament were riddled with superstition and fear.

Yes the same type of fear and superstition that leads people to create deities.

An airborne disease brings a town to it's knees? High ranking rulers of their enemies begin shouting that God is on their side. Now that we have modern science, we can cut through crap like that -- but you make the assumption, "if science can prove concept A wrong, then it can also prove concepts B, C, D, E, F, G, U, X, N, G, and W wrong, therefor, all your concepts are wrong because this specific one is so."

Hmm, did I make that assumption? Can you quote this? Or maybe just kind of admit that you are the one making assumptions left and right, even about your own religion, when even the scriptures don’t back you up.

Again, all jumping back to your first lousy point. If that's your only line of defense, you're in for a sharp surprise. You're assuming that God has one objective way of doing one objective thing. The real world has no place for such a finite, restricting, and unforgiving system.

Do you have a line of defense? Other than: “I have faith, so nothing that actually refers to my God is true except for the two characteristics out of 2,000 described I pick out and decide are true.” I mean where do you get off accusing me of making assumptions when you’re entire religion is an assumption that God is who you want him to be instead of how every text that speaks of him describes him?

You keep assuming that the bible is either completely right or completely wrong, and it's really annoying.

Actually I never said it was completely wrong. Again you make an assumption. I did however say that its credibility is shot, and how can it be trusted to present anything that you would live your life by. I mean for instance, I don’t think it’s wrong about certain historical figures ruling during the lives of certain people. But as to the events that come from the same chapters that happen to contradict each other, and tell of things that aren’t detailed in more reliable texts, I tend not to believe. The existence of God is one of those things. See the purpose of the OT is to give the history and the law of God according to Judaism, but in Christianity it’s purpose is to act as a symbol of the character and power of the father of Christ. And the character it describes is disgusting. So if you don’t agree with the character of the God that is described within, then why not find a deity from another religion that more matches what you think God is? What I find really annoying is that you keep saying that I’m assuming things when I’m not, and that you imply that the bible is somewhat right. What gives you the right to assume it’s right? What makes that assumption more valid than my “assumptions”? And what exactly do you consider to be the character of the Christian God, and what gives you this belief?

Look, I respect you, RoyBatty,

Obviously not or you would stop accusing me of assumptions and acting like I’m talking out of my ass. By the way my name is Cory.

but must you resort to militant Athiesm?

I don’t recall threatening to kill you or use physical force on you for your not bending to my atheism. I don’t even remember trying to convert you to atheism, I believe I actually suggested agnosticism or deism, which are not even my beliefs, but seem more fitting of yours than Christianity.

Black and white visions of religion are causes of some of the most painful hate in this world. And the argument "God would be this way if he exsisted because most Christians think so and the bible says so in some parts" is really weak.

And the same people who brought you the idea of god brought those visions to the world. Where do you get off trying to judge the people who invented and/or carried on the religion you have tacked yourself to? I think deciding that the bible and everyone else is wrong about the Christian God and your assumptions about his character based on all the love, disease, famine, suffering, war, and hatred in the world that you can see around you is really weak.

It's an abomination!!! It's against the bible. (and its fucking sick)

At 8/26/03 05:15 AM, Tank_Clock wrote: It's an abomination!!! It's against the bible. (and its fucking sick)

Thank you for showing us how much of a pile of shit Christianity is.

Hadn't heard of 'deism' before, so I looked it up on dictonary.com -- interesting. I'd have to say I have both Deist and Christian beliefs, then.

Have you heard of something called 'out group homogeny'? It's something studied in social psyche where a person percieves the group they are in (IE: homosexuals, liberals, librarians, etc.) as being more diverse, while outgroups (respectively: straight, conservative, repairment or whatever, etc.) are percieved as being more 'homogenious' (the people within the group are very similar to each other with few exceptions). Thus, the notion that Christian beliefs are only drawn from the bible could very well be an aspect of this aspect of psychology.

Consider this, for example.

What you are saying is that the only way for a religion to be Christian is if it centers its beliefs around the bible. Then, I'm sure you would agree, that there is no way there could be a Christian church before the gospels of the New Testament were written, 30 years after the death of Jesus.

Yet the early Christian church was formed before the gospels were written, before Paul's letters, the gospels, and the old testaments were packed together in one religious text and handed around as "The Bible". This being the case, it seems that Christianity merely entails...

A) A belief in God
B) A belief in Jesus as the Son of God
C) A general accordance to some moral rules. (Not specific because we know that many early Christians cast aside some of the views imposed on them by the pharasees)

Also, we know it's not entirely based off the bible because Mormons, a Christian sect, put a great deal of their faith in The Book of Mormon, and a great deal of liberal Christians prescribe to humanistic views portrayed in The Urantia Book.

That all being the case, is it fair to say that the Christian faith is based solely off of the bible?

At 8/26/03 05:15 AM, Tank_Clock wrote: It's an abomination!!! It's against the bible. (and its fucking sick)

So is feminism. If a person respects a woman, should they be dragged out of church and beaten?

So is tolerance of Jews. If a person tolerates other religions, should we cast them aside like broken merchandise?

So is acceptance of other races. Ah hell, why don't we all join the KKK so we can be bishops?

Honestly, do you think homosexuality is any different than the last three human rights struggles? If anything, you have less against them, because in comparassion to anti-feminist views, the bible has barely any references to homosexuality at all. You'd think with all the clamor there'd be a lot more about it in the book, no?

Hadn't heard of 'deism' before, so I looked it up on dictonary.com -- interesting. I'd have to say I have both Deist and Christian beliefs, then.

I find that looking up religions in a dictionary will not give you a remotely accurate view of the religion. I would suggest actually reading up on it when you get some time. Although Deism is actually more of a pre-atheism that was caused by a lack of debate support for atheists before Darwin’s theories came around and caused a semi-viable (at least viable enough to show there are other options) alternative to creationism. Since before Darwin, if you didn’t believe in creationism you were seen as pretty much a lunatic, and it somehow destroyed your credibility. Although Deism is still around, most deists that are familiar with both creationism and Darwinism have become agnostic or atheist, due to the natural questions that arise from examination of nature as a reflection of god’s will. Deists generally believed their god was good, but how can you believe that when he creates something like a disease that tortures an innocent person for 2 weeks and then kills them (among other general shows of apathy or injustice)? So the next moral step was generally towards Agnosticism, which basically believes there may be a god, but he certainly doesn’t give too much care about us, or just simple disenfranchisement with the idea of gods, in the form of atheism. So if you still consider yourself partly Christian, then what exactly is it from Christianity that you do still believe? And what is the source for the idea that those teachings come from Christ, and how do you really know it’s credible, when every witness to his existence and character are obviously biased, and have already been caught in the trap of contradiction?

Have you heard of something called 'out group homogeny'? It's something studied in social psyche where a person percieves the group they are in (IE: homosexuals, liberals, librarians, etc.) as being more diverse, while outgroups (respectively: straight, conservative, repairment or whatever, etc.) are percieved as being more 'homogenious' (the people within the group are very similar to each other with few exceptions). Thus, the notion that Christian beliefs are only drawn from the bible could very well be an aspect of this aspect of psychology.

Based on the fact that I’m an individual and I’m not looking at anything from a group perspective, I think this would be a more appropriate example of your personal problem. Why are you so certain your group is so diverse? I mean there are lots of denominations yes, there are individuals within certainly, but isn’t the core the same? And isn’t that core belief really what is at the heart of the problem? The belief in the Christian god and that he’s worthy of worship, despite the fact that even your holy texts describe him as a warmonger who rules by fear, and who believes that fear and belief in him is more important than morality. And also I used to be a Christian, so my perspective of this isn’t flawed by looking from an outside perspective or by stereotyping. I’m not stereotyping who Christians are; I’m stereotyping what they are supposed to be if they are really Christian. If a Nazi told me he wasn’t a racist, and I said then why be a Nazi, and he said there is a lot of diversity in Nazis you shouldn’t stereotype, am I the one at fault? Or should he maybe find something else to belong to?

What you are saying is that the only way for a religion to be Christian is if it centers its beliefs around the bible. Then, I'm sure you would agree, that there is no way there could be a Christian church before the gospels of the New Testament were written, 30 years after the death of Jesus.

I’m saying that Christianity is following the teachings of Christ, which since you aren’t in his presence and never knew the guy, are brought to you by the bible. Before the bible, there could have been people who followed his teachings (supposedly the people who wrote them down and brought them to you), but they didn’t need the bible, because they heard it straight from his mouth supposedly. So that’s how there could be a Christian church before the gospels, the people who wrote it were part of that church. Whether they learned of those teachings from people who actually were witness to Christ (since Mark, the first gospel was written well after Christ’s supposed death by about 30-37 years (33AD ->63-70AD), and there is no way he knew Christ if Christ even existed. Those that believed it was written in 50AD deny literary and evidentiary standards in an attempt to place the author as close enough to Christ’s death to plausibly have been alive during the time of Christ) or just made it up at the time (since no real proof has been provided that there was anything we would call a church of Christ before the gospels gained popularity). So you don’t have access to Christ or people who knew him, so logically you would be reliant on second hand hearsay of his character, which has already shown that it can’t be trusted.

Yet the early Christian church was formed before the gospels were written, before Paul's letters, the gospels, and the old testaments were packed together in one religious text and handed around as "The Bible". This being the case, it seems that Christianity merely entails...

A) A belief in God

No it entails the belief in the Christian God, not just any god, and that God has traits that are described in the bible, and without those traits, there is no reason to choose this god over any other gods.

B) A belief in Jesus as the Son of God

Jesus, according to the bible, teaches that this is his claim to authority, so yeah I would agree with this based on the bible, but those same authors who came up with this idea, also fed us other contradictions and commanded adherence to OT law. So they also make a statement about the character of Christ, and as such you should pay attention to that as well if you are going to pay attention to the requirements for Christianity that the bible describes.

C) A general accordance to some moral rules. (Not specific because we know that many early Christians cast aside some of the views imposed on them by the pharasees)

Actually the Pharisees cast out the rules they were teaching as well. They couldn’t practice the laws they were preaching because Roman law wouldn’t allow it. If they went around killing everyone the bible told them to kill, the Romans would be forced to put them to death as well. So the Pharisees commanded adherence to the law of the OT, but in general they didn’t follow it. Jesus points this out in Matthew 23:2, as part of a verse where he commands his people to follow the laws that the Pharisees are teaching. There were some times when the Jews did push for death sentences for other Jews who broke the laws, but the final go ahead had to come from Roman authority, and generally was given as long as it was in group shit, because the Romans respected the Jewish autonomy until the Jews attacked the Roman government. So what moral rules did these early Christians follow, and can you prove that they followed any moral rules? I mean how moral could anyone be who pushed for a coup against the Roman government (which the Christians helped the Jews with) to bring back Israeli biblical law, complete with a theocracy over Roman law and democracy? I mean yeah the Romans had their flaws (strongly depended on who was at the head of the government at the time), but during no Roman regime was there ever a set of laws that equaled the tyranny commanded by the Tanakh, and to my knowledge, never during Roman rule did anyone commit absolute genocide to any races. Nor command the 6 counts of genocide in one sentence. So how moral were these people?

Also, we know it's not entirely based off the bible because Mormons, a Christian sect, put a great deal of their faith in The Book of Mormon,

But the Mormons still include the teachings of Christ, and basically see the book of Mormon in the same way most Christians see the NT, as the next logical step towards God. Most Christians include the Tanakh with the NT to prove the worthiness of Christ, and the Mormons include the teachings of the NT and through it the OT, to show the worthiness of their order of Melchizedek among other things. Without the foundation, Mormonism would lose it’s link to God. And that foundation still describes God as a murderous warmonger.

and a great deal of liberal Christians prescribe to humanistic views portrayed in The Urantia Book.

I think any Christian who believes in Urantianism has totally stepped outside of the scope of Christianity. I’ve seen people blend paganism with Christianity as well, and this is about just as stupid. You really don’t have a right to step into someone else’s religion, change what everything means to fit your own rules, and decide that everyone who follows the laws that Christianity was founded on don’t know what they are talking about. There becomes a time when what you are doing stops being the religion you claim it is.

That all being the case, is it fair to say that the Christian faith is based solely off of the bible?

It’s based solely on the supposed teachings of Christ. And the only source of those teachings is the bible. So effectively yes.