Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Serenity

Asking a white person to apologize is the same sort of ancestral blame that was used to rationalize the oppression of blacks (and other non-white non-semites) because of the sins of Ham (Genesis 9:22 + 9:25).

Who are you?

Its said several times in the Bible that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross can give us an all new slate, and we are no longer burdened by the sins of our ancestors.

Simply because a rationalization was used, does not make it right. Again, I say, it was basically more or less an excuse for the white man of the time to gain money and power. Thats all it ever is.

Er... you do know why Catholics baptize babies at birth, right? Because of original sin? aka ancestral sin dating straight back to Adam and Eve?

Oh, I thought it was because Romans 3:23 says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

On that note, you do know why Protestants DON'T do that, right? Mainly because accepting Jesus, or being baptized, has specifically stated several times to be a choice, so baptizing babies doesn't do squat according to the Bible.

Not reading very well then, are you?

Who are you you again?

I think you're the one who isn't reading very well.

Originally Posted by Luke 6:27-28

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

Originally Posted by Matthew 9:12-13

It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice. For I have not come to call the righteous, but the sinners.

Originally Posted by John 15:17

This is my command: Love one another.

As for your quotes, in Matthew 15:24 you DO realize he actually was being somewhat sarcastic there, right? The original hebrew implies some humor on his part because Jewish people thought the Messiah was meant only for himself. He healed the woman's daughter without hesitation immediately afterwards. He tells his disciples to go into ALL the world and preach the gospel to ALL nations. Not just Jewish.

For the Luke quote, he says immediately before that how he's distressed about the situation. In fact, it was a very accurate prediction, as he was simply saying that faith divided people. I don't think he's saying he WANTS to divide people, he's just saying that his message WILL. Realism doesn't equate to what you're implying.

For the second Luke quote, again it comes down to a town that completely refuses Jesus is screwed by their own disbelief. If Jesus is the only way to heaven as he claimed, not accepting them doesn't get them in. You could say their doing it to themselves rather than God having anything to do with it.


So, anyway TheSpacePope asked how I rationalize bad things done in the name of religion, and I answered it. You can't just pick half-verses without any background on it to disprove what I believe.

In fact, I'd love for you to be able to contradict the verses I quoted the same way I did yours.

[TheSpacePope]

It's a long-standing axiom that you can dig up a Bible verse to support any point of view you might have.

This is my problem with the book.

Incidentally, part of this springs from our failure to understand that the ancients were not writing literally in their religious texts. It was implicitly understood that the writings were allegory and metaphor.

If you look at it that way, God is tantamount to "the things that go bump in the night" and the whole concept is the simple control of population. You can't on one hand say that the bible is not literal, and then on the other tell me that there is some invisible being out there watching my every move and action. It's mutually exclusive.

I like swordchucks said it best, some people are evil. And some evil people wrote parts of the bible.

So, anyway TheSpacePope asked how I rationalize bad things done in the name of religion, and I answered it. You can't just pick half-verses without any background on it to disprove what I believe.

appreciate that, and I appreciate your faith, you are very devoted as it seems, however we can throw negative and positive bible quotes all day, and still not get to the point that God is within you. Yourself. No damn book written by power hungry romans is going to change how I act.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

I just realized I haven't responded to the whole Council of Nicea thing yet...

To be perfectly honest, my opinion here differs from many conservative christians. I believe the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, but I also believe there are parts when you can see the human author talking more than God. This gets to be quite confusing, because we're taught that the Bible is infallible, yet there are parts in which I think is clearly wrong.

Take for instance the epistles. Yes, there is a lot of good information in them. I have no doubt that Paul was a man of God, but I also have no doubt that he was just a man. He was also an excessively conservative, even more so than Jesus, man. In his letters to Timothy is a lot of advice to Timothy, but which has been used as rationale for a lot of things (for instance, the lower position of women). Ministers don't seem to point out that Paul never said that 'God wanted women to stay silent in church'. Paul said that HE wanted women to stay silent in church. He was a hardcore orthodox jewish kid growing up. Isn't it possible that his opinion on this matter may have been simply that, his opinion? I mean, from the gospels, its hard pressed to say that Jesus was sexist. If anything, he was quite radical in his treatment of women. You could say his 12 disciples were all male, sure, but was that because he took men more seriously, or because he knew society would take men more seriously? In the documented cases of his interaction with women, there is no evidence that he treated them any less than the men.

So if you take that example, is Paul's opinion on women fallible? Quite possibly. I disagree with him. In such, is everything in the Bible perfectly 100% God speaking? I find it hard to make that claim. The Council of Nicea likely did its best, but also likely added in some things (like the books of Timothy) to solidify an orthodox style church as promoted by Paul.

This is where I decide that the Bible is a roadmap. A guide. God also gave us rationality and common sense for us decide the difference between right and wrong. I think its up to us to listen to our inner conscience, and if the Bible says something we aren't sure on, pray, study, and in most cases, go with the gut.

When it comes down to it, most of my opinion comes from the Ten Commandments and the gospels. I consider the epistles helpful advice, but I do recognize they are simply sermons from an ancient pastor, and I treat them no different than if a pastor was here preaching right now. He might be right, but then again, he might not.

[Serenity]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Who are you?

Its said several times in the Bible that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross can give us an all new slate, and we are no longer burdened by the sins of our ancestors.

Er, I thought Jesus' sacrifice enabled us to go to heaven?

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Simply because a rationalization was used, does not make it right. Again, I say, it was basically more or less an excuse for the white man of the time to gain money and power. Thats all it ever is.

I agree. I mean, the whole story of Japheth, Shem, and Ham is blatantly racist. In case you don't know how, it's like this: Japheth = father of all europeans, Shem = father of arabs and jews, Ham = father of everybody else - what a surprise, Ham's the one who's child gets cursed for his personal sin. But a verse the bible is not a convenient excuse for acting like an immoral bastard.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Oh, I thought it was because Romans 3:23 says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Because newborn babies obviously have sinned. Paul was of course talking about children so small that they are incapable of initiating and understanding any form of communications, beyond obvious visual or audial cues, such as yelling or making funny faces.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

On that note, you do know why Protestants DON'T do that, right? Mainly because accepting Jesus, or being baptized, has specifically stated several times to be a choice, so baptizing babies doesn't do squat according to the Bible.

Also, 2 Samuel 12:23 has David (regarding his now-dead newborn baby) saying "But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

I think you're the one who isn't reading very well.

Yes, yes, love your neighbor as yourself, blah blah. But, counterpoint:

Originally Posted by 1 John 4:8

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Originally Posted by Jesus, Matthew 13:41-42

The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Apparently "love" is defined so loosely in the bible that throwing someone into a firey furnace - a death chamber - if you will, is acceptable.

As for your quotes, in Matthew 15:24 you DO realize he actually was being somewhat sarcastic there, right? The original hebrew implies some humor on his part because Jewish people thought the Messiah was meant only for himself. He healed the woman's daughter without hesitation immediately afterwards. He tells his disciples to go into ALL the world and preach the gospel to ALL nations. Not just Jewish.

Haha, hilarious. Because comparing someone's race to "dogs", and then requiring them to voice ascent to that statement in order to heal their child, is absolutely not racist - it's just a humorous little joke.

For the Luke quote, he says immediately before that how he's distressed about the situation. In fact, it was a very accurate prediction, as he was simply saying that faith divided people. I don't think he's saying he WANTS to divide people, he's just saying that his message WILL. Realism doesn't equate to what you're implying.

And? Fine, I'll get another divisive quote where he specifically states that he CAME to do it.

Originally Posted by Jesus, Matthew 10:34

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

There, he said it. He came to bring a sword.

For the second Luke quote, again it comes down to a town that completely refuses Jesus is screwed by their own disbelief. If Jesus is the only way to heaven as he claimed, not accepting them doesn't get them in. You could say their doing it to themselves rather than God having anything to do with it.

Oh, I see. See, what I noticed was two things:
• God is omnipotent, and made hell.
• They will suffer a worse fate than Sodom (I presume all the Sodomites went to hell after the nuke).

So, anyway TheSpacePope asked how I rationalize bad things done in the name of religion, and I answered it. You can't just pick half-verses without any background on it to disprove what I believe.

Eh. The bible is basically a meaningless text anyway - it preaches kindness on the one page and says that God will send you to hell if you don't believe in Jesus on the next.

Quick edit:

The doctrine of Original Sin is a uniquely Catholic/Western Christian creation that finds its roots in the writings of St. Augustine. Good luck finding Biblical references to the importance Catholicism and Western Christian traditions attach to it outside the tale of Adam and Eve in Genesis.

Context, good sir. I was making the point that Catholics are the one responsible for the crusades and inquisition, and they clearly find ancestral sin within their God and their Jesus, so they should have no problem with apologizing.

Ten Commandments edit:

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

When it comes down to it, most of my opinion comes from the Ten Commandments and the gospels. I consider the epistles helpful advice, but I do recognize they are simply sermons from an ancient pastor, and I treat them no different than if a pastor was here preaching right now. He might be right, but then again, he might not.

I'm going to assume that you're talking about the first ten commandments God happened to give, not the Ten Commandments as God named them (which include such awesomeness as "No one is to appear before me empty-handed" and "Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk" - see Exodus 34).

Those are not so good commandments, even ignoring their giver. Let's take a look at the first five, shall we?

Originally Posted by 1st Commandment

You shall have no other gods before me.

I guess this most be the most important precept of all.

Originally Posted by 2nd Commandment

You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Wait, what? Did God just say that he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers? I guess whites should apologize to blacks after all!

Originally Posted by 3rd Commandment

You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

Top notch morality there - don't say God's name in vain. That's right, saying "oh my God" is a crime which, apparently, rates higher than MURDER.

Originally Posted by 4th Commandment

Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Please note that God says you shall not labor or work on the Sabbath day. This is still before he even MENTIONS murder.

Originally Posted by 5th Commandment

Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

At least this is an actual moral precept rather than God just saying "I rule", even if it's rated higher than murder.

From here on down it's the old standbies - don't murder, don't adulter, don't steal, don't lie, and don't covet.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Serenity

Er, I thought Jesus' sacrifice enabled us to go to heaven?

I agree. I mean, the whole story of Japheth, Shem, and Ham is blatantly racist. In case you don't know how, it's like this: Japheth = father of all europeans, Shem = father of arabs and jews, Ham = father of everybody else - what a surprise, Ham's the one who's child gets cursed for his personal sin.

Yes. I know that.

But a verse the bible is not a convenient excuse for acting like an immoral bastard.

No, its not, thats why I don't follow up with those people who use the bible as a convenient excuse. Because its not.

Because newborn babies obviously have sinned. Paul was of course talking about children so small that they are incapable of initiating and understanding any form of communications, beyond obvious visual or audial cues, such as yelling or making funny faces.

I just said that was why Catholics baptize babies. I don't believe a dead baby goes to hell.

Also, 2 Samuel 12:23 has David (regarding his now-dead newborn baby) saying "But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

Again, I don't believe a dead baby goes to hell, baptized or not. Did I say that I did? No, I said the baptism had no meaning. And it doesn't.

Yes, yes, love your neighbor as yourself, blah blah. But, counterpoint:

The love your neighbor as yourself is relatively a major theme of Jesus, in case you didn't notice.

Apparently "love" is defined so loosely in the bible that throwing someone into a firey furnace - a death chamber - if you will, is acceptable.

If you take a kid and he murdered someone and got sent to jail for life, and his parents even testified against him, that doesn't mean they love him less. That means that they respect justice.

Haha, hilarious. Because comparing someone's race to "dogs", and then requiring them to voice ascent to that statement in order to heal their child, is absolutely not racist - it's just a humorous little joke.

I don't suppose you realize the difference between sarcasm and a joke? He wasn't being sarcastic to the woman, he was being sarcastic to the Jewish people with him who considered is sacrilegious for him to help her.

Also, believe it or not, what is considered humorous changes over time. Yelling out penis multiple times is considered amusing by a lot of people today, but I'll bet that wasn't so funny back then.

There, he said it. He came to bring a sword.
Oh, I see. See, what I noticed was two things:
• God is omnipotent, and made hell.
• They will suffer a worse fate than Sodom (I presume all the Sodomites went to hell after the nuke).

Hmm, nah that doesn't work on me, because I believe there's a higher level of metaphysics. You're humanizing the whole cosmic battle between good and evil. What is hell, exactly? Most of the description in the Bible is quite metaphoric, and it could be argued that hell is simply detachment from God. In order to make a heaven, and have a place where people are with God, would not then a hell exist by default? I've argued before in this thread that good cannot exist without evil, so in creating something good, evil came about naturally. And yeah, people go to hell. It strikes me as ironic how people refuse to accept God simply because people go to hell, because thats why they go to hell. It's like "send people to hell, would you? well screw you! how'd you like THAT?". Seriously. If people go to hell, and you don't like that fact, do you really think that thumbing your nose at it keeps you from it? It's your own choice. God doesn't send you there. You walk down that path all on your own.

Eh. The bible is basically a meaningless text anyway - it preaches kindness on the one page and says that God will send you to hell if you don't believe in Jesus on the next.

If the bible is meaningless, why are you using verses from it to support your argument? Again, God doesn't send you to hell. People do. Think about it this way... an entire race are screwing themselves up so much that they have corrupted their own souls to a point where its impossible for them to enter heaven. The only way to make penance for such sin is through death, and God isn't willing that any should perish. God decides to give them a way out, and takes form on earth as a human baby. He lived as we lived, took all our sin upon himself, and died in one of the most painful ways imaginable all so that the blood debt owed for all of our sins is paid. It isn't follow Jesus or else. The or else existed long before Jesus did, Jesus simply became that hand reaching out for you while you're drowning in life. All you have to do is take the hand... otherwise you drown anyway whether or not Jesus was there.

Context, good sir. I was making the point that Catholics are the one responsible for the crusades and inquisition, and they clearly find ancestral sin within their God and their Jesus, so they should have no problem with apologizing.

And as I said, if the Catholics want to apologize, thats their business. But they aren't the only church around, you know.

I'm going to assume that you're talking about the first ten commandments God happened to give, not the Ten Commandments as God named them (which include such awesomeness as "No one is to appear before me empty-handed" and "Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk" - see Exodus 34).

Not all the law given was the Ten Commandments. A lot of it was Jewish specific law that in many ways was necessary for the survival of the race. People act all the time like many of those laws were ridiculous, but they're only considering the modern context. Yes. They'd be ridiculous today.

Back then, the situation was a lot more extreme. It was a do or die lifestyle, and they needed a strict code in order to survive. They were a small nation and many wanted to destroy them... the law was what kept them alive and victorious. Deviations from the law brought consequences.

When Jesus came, he fulfilled the contract from the old law. He said himself that he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. The contract with God was complete, and those rules that no longer made sense are just that: rules that no longer make sense. Do you think God would be so stupid as to create a dynamic, changing world, and then not be able to adapt to the changes in society? Of course not.

Those are not so good commandments, even ignoring their giver. Let's take a look at the first five, shall we?

I guess this most be the most important precept of all.

Wait, what? Did God just say that he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers? I guess whites should apologize to blacks after all!

Top notch morality there - don't say God's name in vain. That's right, saying "oh my God" is a crime which, apparently, rates higher than MURDER.

Please note that God says you shall not labor or work on the Sabbath day. This is still before he even MENTIONS murder.

At least this is an actual moral precept rather than God just saying "I rule", even if it's rated higher than murder.

From here on down it's the old standbies - don't murder, don't adulter, don't steal, don't lie, and don't covet.

You seem to think that the commandments are given in order of importance. I don't really think thats the point... The first five concern our relationship with God (yes, even honor your mother and your father since our relationship with our parents is often related to our relationship with god.) The last five are societal rules, the laws which govern our relationship with the community. No one is more or less important than the other, they are all sin. ALL of them must be followed to be free of sin.

And yeah, you keep going to that ancestral sin thing, but as I keep pointing out, the sacrifice of Jesus changed that. You keep providing Old Testament examples of ancestral sin which are all BEFORE JESUS CHANGED THAT. You could give 100 old testament examples and your point still falls completely flat, as that is Old Testament.

And saying 'oh my god' is not taking the lord's name in vain. It's speaking his title, and not even as a curse word. The lord's name is "YHWH", and it is a sin to use that as a curse word.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, take issue with it all you like. But the fact of the matter is, if the ten commandments were followed, and Jesus' teachings were followed in the purest way, and not corrupted, and EVERYBODY did it, I'm quite sure this world would be a lot better of a place.

K, anything else?

[ZAKtheGeek]

That's an interesting issue there with the commandments. Why are there two sets, and why are you choosing to follow one and not the other?

As for the world being better if everyone followed the earlier commandments? Yeah, I'm sure things would go much better if no one worked on Sundays. There are some good (and completely obvious) ideas in the commandments, and some not so much. Likewise, Jesus said some pretty cool things too. But that does following any of that have to do with miracles and resurrections and magical creator-beings?

[Serenity]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Yes. I know that.

No, its not, thats why I don't follow up with those people who use the bible as a convenient excuse. Because its not.

I just said that was why Catholics baptize babies. I don't believe a dead baby goes to hell.

Again, I don't believe a dead baby goes to hell, baptized or not. Did I say that I did? No, I said the baptism had no meaning. And it doesn't.

Okay then, let's just leave the dead babies behind.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

The love your neighbor as yourself is relatively a major theme of Jesus, in case you didn't notice.

The greatest of the commandments is love God, not love your neighbor - that is, an invisible undetectable being who leaves you around to suffer on this world with no visible interference, who if you dare question him, you're screwed (see Job, see the go-to-hell without Jesus, et cetera) is better than another living, breathing human being with actual emotions and feelings who can be detected by human senses.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

If you take a kid and he murdered someone and got sent to jail for life, and his parents even testified against him, that doesn't mean they love him less. That means that they respect justice.

False. If they did it for retributive justice, it is very much anti-love, but there is more than one type of justice, typified by different ideas of how to treat criminals - should we try to fix them, so they can be released back into society safely? Should we try to keep them seperated from the good folk for as long as possible, so they won't harm them? Should we get our petty vengeance out by killing them? God goes for the third - retributive justice, because obviously in Heaven you can't die or get raped or have all your stuff stolen, because, well, it wouldn't be much of a Heaven otherwise.

I don't suppose you realize the difference between sarcasm and a joke? He wasn't being sarcastic to the woman, he was being sarcastic to the Jewish people with him who considered is sacrilegious for him to help her.

Oh so the joke was on the invisible jews. FACT: Jesus compared the Canaanites to dogs. FACT: He did not heal the woman's daughter until she ascented to this comparison.

Hmm, nah that doesn't work on me, because I believe there's a higher level of metaphysics. You're humanizing the whole cosmic battle between good and evil. What is hell, exactly? Most of the description in the Bible is quite metaphoric, and it could be argued that hell is simply detachment from God. In order to make a heaven, and have a place where people are with God, would not then a hell exist by default? I've argued before in this thread that good cannot exist without evil, so in creating something good, evil came about naturally. And yeah, people go to hell. It strikes me as ironic how people refuse to accept God simply because people go to hell, because thats why they go to hell. It's like "send people to hell, would you? well screw you! how'd you like THAT?". Seriously. If people go to hell, and you don't like that fact, do you really think that thumbing your nose at it keeps you from it? It's your own choice. God doesn't send you there. You walk down that path all on your own.

Three basic precepts of Christian theology:
• The greatest duty of a Christian is to spread the word.
• Non-Christians deserve, and will suffer, horrible pain for all eternity. (weeping and nashing of teeth, firey furnace, I don't see how it can be unclear)
• We are all born sinners, God doesn't care about the magnitude of Earthly sin, doomed to hell without him, only Jesus can save you, etc etc.

Do you agree with those three statements? These three statements form the foundation of historical persecution. How so?

The first is motivation. If a person converts, that is fundamentally good, yes?

The second is justification. By torturing someone in my mere mortal capacity, I am hurting them far less than God would, am I not?

The third is absolution. No sin save the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable, and one tiny lie is receives equal punishment to billions of murders (that is, either a) eternal damnation or b) total forgiveness).

If the bible is meaningless, why are you using verses from it to support your argument?

Because, uh, I'm using quotes from it to prove that it's a meaningless text by showing verses that are directly contradictory? If you were attempting to show something was contradictory, you would figure out what and how it is intended to work, and then show that that was false, by pointing out contradictions.

And as I said, if the Catholics want to apologize, thats their business. But they aren't the only church around, you know.

But they're the only church around that was responsible for the Inquisition and the crusades.

Not all the law given was the Ten Commandments. A lot of it was Jewish specific law that in many ways was necessary for the survival of the race. People act all the time like many of those laws were ridiculous, but they're only considering the modern context. Yes. They'd be ridiculous today.

No, those are the Ten Commandments there in Exodus 34. Don't believe me?

Originally Posted by Exodus 34:27-28

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

When Jesus came, he fulfilled the contract from the old law. He said himself that he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. The contract with God was complete, and those rules that no longer made sense are just that: rules that no longer make sense. Do you think God would be so stupid as to create a dynamic, changing world, and then not be able to adapt to the changes in society? Of course not.

I do think that God would be so stupid as to make racist, sexist, religionist, bigoted, anti-gay laws and then be unable to change them. I even have evidence: Luke 16:17. I already quoted it above.

You seem to think that the commandments are given in order of importance. I don't really think thats the point... The first five concern our relationship with God (yes, even honor your mother and your father since our relationship with our parents is often related to our relationship with god.) The last five are societal rules, the laws which govern our relationship with the community. No one is more or less important than the other, they are all sin. ALL of them must be followed to be free of sin.

Jesus makes it pretty clear that the first four commandments are more important than the second six.

Originally Posted by Matthew 22:34-38

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

And yeah, you keep going to that ancestral sin thing, but as I keep pointing out, the sacrifice of Jesus changed that. You keep providing Old Testament examples of ancestral sin which are all BEFORE JESUS CHANGED THAT. You could give 100 old testament examples and your point still falls completely flat, as that is Old Testament.

Luke 16:17

I've said it before and I'll say it again, take issue with it all you like. But the fact of the matter is, if the ten commandments were followed, and Jesus' teachings were followed in the purest way, and not corrupted, and EVERYBODY did it, I'm quite sure this world would be a lot better of a place.

I'm quite sure that the world would be full of hatred if we followed the Ten Commandments. But of course, you are running on a No True Scottsman Fallacy - if somebody interprets the Bible in a negative way, they're obviously "corrupting" it, and ignoring the message, thus making it IMPOSSIBLE for the Bible to be wrong.

[Arlia Janet]

Richard Dawkins discusses religion and takes questions for almost two hours, and it is an awesome two hours regardless of your point of view.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Serenity

The greatest of the commandments is love God, not love your neighbor - that is, an invisible undetectable being who leaves you around to suffer on this world with no visible interference, who if you dare question him, you're screwed (see Job, see the go-to-hell without Jesus, et cetera) is better than another living, breathing human being with actual emotions and feelings who can be detected by human senses.

Jesus also makes it implicitly clear that you can't have one without the other. You can't love God without loving your neighbors. In order to follow the first commandment, you have to follow the second, so its not an either or thing.

False. If they did it for retributive justice, it is very much anti-love, but there is more than one type of justice, typified by different ideas of how to treat criminals - should we try to fix them, so they can be released back into society safely? Should we try to keep them seperated from the good folk for as long as possible, so they won't harm them? Should we get our petty vengeance out by killing them? God goes for the third - retributive justice, because obviously in Heaven you can't die or get raped or have all your stuff stolen, because, well, it wouldn't be much of a Heaven otherwise.

You don't seem to get what I'm saying... God doesn't send people to hell. People send people to hell. And yes, consequences for your actions is justice, and it is not anti-love.

Oh so the joke was on the invisible jews. FACT: Jesus compared the Canaanites to dogs. FACT: He did not heal the woman's daughter until she ascented to this comparison.

When Jesus was alone in the gospels, it makes it pretty clear that he was alone. You can be reasonably sure here that his disciples and the main body of his followers were with him as they usually were.

He also complimented the woman and said she had greater faith than anybody in Israel. So much for being mean.

Three basic precepts of Christian theology:
• The greatest duty of a Christian is to spread the word.
• Non-Christians deserve, and will suffer, horrible pain for all eternity. (weeping and nashing of teeth, firey furnace, I don't see how it can be unclear)
• We are all born sinners, God doesn't care about the magnitude of Earthly sin, doomed to hell without him, only Jesus can save you, etc etc.

Do you agree with those three statements? These three statements form the foundation of historical persecution. How so?

The greatest duty of a Christian is to serve God with heart soul and strength, be that through evangelism or some other method.

The is no differentiation between what Non-Christians and what Christians deserve, God is willing that none should perish, but its up to the individual to accept eternal life.

Where does it say God doesn't care? It says no sin shall enter into heaven. It doesn't say that everybody receives the same punishment or reward. It says that people receive their punishment or reward based on deeds. The bible really speaks more about going to heaven that going to hell, but it definitely says that your final position in the afterlife isn't solely based on accepting Jesus. It might take accepting Jesus to get into heaven, sure, but there's a spectrum of rewards and punishments for your deeds.

The first is motivation. If a person converts, that is fundamentally good, yes?

If you mean someone going to heaven rather than hell is good, then sure.

The second is justification. By torturing someone in my mere mortal capacity, I am hurting them far less than God would, am I not?

Ridiculous. How can you rationalize risking your own soul for the claim of saving someone else's? Torturing someone goes completely against teachings of Jesus, and the Bible also makes it clear that ends do not justify means. It also says that we cannot save somebody. We cannot force somebody into christianity, only God by his holy spirit can do that. So the only accomplishment in doing something like that is risking your own place in the afterlife.

The third is absolution. No sin save the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable, and one tiny lie is receives equal punishment to billions of murders (that is, either a) eternal damnation or b) total forgiveness).

You think in too much black and white. You can't even come up with a verse to support that. The bible doesn't say there's only one of two situations you can end up with... it says we will be put through the fire and our deeds on earth will be tested, and we will be treated according to those deeds. Someone who put their faith in Jesus before they died but lived the life of a murderer is saved from eternal damnation, but has no reward. You could easily make an argument that one who lived a good life but doesn't put their faith in Jesus doesn't make it to heaven (as they cannot), but doesn't have that much of a punishment either.

Because, uh, I'm using quotes from it to prove that it's a meaningless text by showing verses that are directly contradictory?

Oh, is THAT what you're doing? I couldn't really tell. I've seen it done much better.

No, those are the Ten Commandments there in Exodus 34. Don't believe me?

Uh, Exodus 34 doesn't give the ten commandments. It says Moses made two more tablets with the ten commandments on it, and then God gave him more rules. The ten commandments are in Exodus 20.

I do think that God would be so stupid as to make racist, sexist, religionist, bigoted, anti-gay laws and then be unable to change them. I even have evidence: Luke 16:17. I already quoted it above.

First of all, if you look at the original language of this, the Law he speaks of in this verse doesn't not neccessarily mean Jewish law. It basically means the laws of nature and of morality and of good and evil. It doesn't mean the specific Jewish law such as don't eat pork. The laws that govern morality do not change. Evil is evil, and good is good. This does not include societal laws that governs how a government or a nation should be run. So yeah, your point falls flat again... so much for using the verse that you keep using to save yourself.

Jesus makes it pretty clear that the first four commandments are more important than the second six.

He also made it clear you can't follow the first four without following the second six. It's like saying the brain is more important than your kidneys or your heart or your liver. You need all of them to live.

Luke 16:17

I believe I've covered that enough.

I'm quite sure that the world would be full of hatred if we followed the Ten Commandments. But of course, you are running on a No True Scottsman Fallacy - if somebody interprets the Bible in a negative way, they're obviously "corrupting" it, and ignoring the message, thus making it IMPOSSIBLE for the Bible to be wrong.

Full of hatred? So if everybody loved their neighbor as they loved themselves, the world would be full of hatred? Seriously... that doesn't even make sense.

And no, I don't believe that if someone interprets the Bible in a negative way their obviously corrupting it. I believe if they take whats being said, such as you with your Luke quote, without considering the meaning and historical reference it should be taken in, then they might not be getting out of it what was originally intended. There are verses, particularly in the epistles as I said before, that I disagree with.

I believe God is infallible. The Bible was written by men. You could easily argue for sexism with the book of Timothy without misinterpreting the Bible, I just think that Paul was wrong and that Jesus would have totally disagreed with him.

Anyways, I'm done with this now because I've got a life to get back to. I've enjoyed our little debate. Later.

[ZAKtheGeek]

In my experience, people that claim to depart an online debate usually don't. In my experience, I_Like_Swordchucks is an exception; a guerrilla debater, really. Still, with nothing to lose...

Uh, Exodus 34 doesn't give the ten commandments. It says Moses made two more tablets with the ten commandments on it, and then God gave him more rules. The ten commandments are in Exodus 20.

Originally Posted by Exodus 34:1

The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.

God then proceeds to tell Moses a wacky bunch of rules, and tells him to write them down. So, first of all, there is a second set of commandments, and second, God lied about writing the first set down (both because he gave a new set, and also because he didn't write anything at all).