»
Topic: Question for P&R Anti-Christ crowd...
Replies: 88   Last Post: Nov 19, 2020, 10:22 AM by: AFDAWG
[ General Boards - Politics & Religion ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 88  

Question for P&R Anti-Christ crowd...

[2]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 2:42 AM
    Reply

Do you just disagree with the Christian faith or do you disagree with all religious beliefs?


I'm more against the snobbery of most congregations


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 4:26 AM
    Reply

Galations 5: 13-26 are words that we all could live by right now. Basically, love yourself and others.


Life by the Spirit
13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

The jounge is in real trouble....;)***

[1]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 8:17 AM
    Reply




Re: I'm more against the snobbery of most congregations

[1]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:36 AM
    Reply

Owen,

Many of the Christians that I encounter seem to be emphasize the sexual part and to forget all of the other acts of the flesh.

I also think that many Christians seem to have forgotten these calls to ACT from Jesus. Over the centuries, Protestants have over-emphasized faith alone, so that they have no need to ACT as Jesus suggested, but merely believe - and ask forgiveness.


Re: I'm more against the snobbery of most congregations

[2]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:46 AM
    Reply

What I get from it are two things. The first part of those scriptures are about conduct and towards the end focuses more on attitudes. Most church goers have the conduct part down but the have worst attitudes imaginable. And from talking to a couple of pastors, they really wish it were the other way around. They’d rather preach to a prison full of inmates that truly love the lord instead of people that have perfect conduct and a sucky attitude.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

I think Christianity is a really good thing

[1]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 4:36 AM
    Reply

for the most part the Church does a lot of good things. All religions do good things as well but the fringe is worse in some religions than others.

Being non religious is inherently bad. People that make up their own morals tend to be more selfish. Of course this is not a one size fits all.

I am not religious at all, never have been, never will be. I can count on my hands the times I have been to the synagogue or the church. It's the way I was brought up and I never saw any reason to change.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: I think Christianity is a really good thing

[1]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:53 AM
    Reply

Neal,

"Being non-religious is inherently bad."

This is a common belief that I don't quite get.

First of all, the majority of religious principles on how to live can easily be found in secular philosophical principles. I am a big fan of the simple Golden Rule. Some form of it can be found centuries before Christ in the writings of Confuscious, Philo, Plato,Aristotle, etc. There is no need to find one's ethical moorings in a supernatural religion.

Secondly, this belief in a supernatural god does not seem particularly helpful in keeping humans on a righteous path. Religious people are just as likely to ignore their supernatural moral code as non-religious people are to stray from their secular code of ethics. Humans of both ilks will sometimes rationalize ignoring their ethical codes.

I don't think anyone has reliable evidence that one group is more likely to do so than the other.


Re: Question for P&R Anti-Christ crowd...

emoji_events [6]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 8:28 AM
    Reply

-I open to the idea that any religious beliefs could be real, but at the moment, I don't think they are. I always welcome evidence to the contrary.

-I agree with the teachings of Jesus when it comes to mankind in general. Whether Jesus was real or not, I think they are good guidelines for how to treat others.

-I like the charitable works that comes out of Christianity as a result of above.

-I reject the fantastical stories as historical fact because "faith" and would like evidence to support their claims as historical fact.

-I reject policies in the Bible that are discriminatory, particularly since they are often hypocritical. Treatment of homosexuals, women, minorities (yes, racists back in the day used the Bible to justify their stances), etc. Basically, rejecting just about any "law" set forth in the Old Testament and by Paul.

-I reject the idea that anyone who doesn't fall in lock step with whatever form of Christianity someone follows is going to burn for eternity. #### was a concept fabricated by the Catholic Church centuries ago to scare the masses and the kings into line.

-Finally, none of that or any religion should be infused the laws or governance of our nation.

-I think people should be free to worship or believe whatever the #### they want to without interference, but at the same time, should not harm others with their beliefs or try to force their beliefs on others.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Sorry, an addendum


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 8:30 AM
    Reply

My primary rejection of Christianity comes from pain, suffering, and death I've witnessed of children and young people who didn't deserve it, and the subsequent pain caused to their families.

I used to be a Christian, but too much of this led me to believe in an absence of God in those situations.

That's fine if people think this is absurd. It's just my explanation.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

;)

[1]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 8:44 AM
    Reply




Re: Question for P&R Anti-Christ crowd...


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 10:02 AM
    Reply

Cat,

I agree with almost all of what you said.

I believe that religious people are believing in things without supporting evidence - which I think leads to negative things.

BUT, it is the inherent human right of people to believe in what they wish. My real problem with religious people is that they seem to feel justified in pushing their beliefs upon others - thus denying them their inherent human right to believe as they wish.

AND beyond that, many religious people feel as though they have a right to push their religious beliefs upon others through the law - which should remain secular. Nor should religious people be exempt from the secular laws that we have passed for the good of our human society.


The "no evidence" idea is a misconception for some,

[1]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 10:32 AM
    Reply

a mantra for others.

The evidence for the accuracy of the NT documents (for instance, did the resurrection occur) is exactly the same as for any historical account. We know with near certainty that some ancient documents are stories while others are histories. Discerning one from another is an investigative process, and that process should be, and has been, applied to the NT.

To myself and many others, the evidence is overwhelming that the authors were writing sincerely, that they were relating what they truly believed they saw and heard, and that the best explanation for this is that the events did occur. Any of those three can be true without the others being true, but the evidence is that all three are true.

Faith is not believing those things with no evidence. Faith is what one does with the truth. Most resistance to accepting the truth comes not from lack of evidence, but from what that truth would mean if it were so.

2021 white level member

Re: The "no evidence" idea is a misconception for some,

[1]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 10:45 AM
    Reply

To myself and many others, the evidence is overwhelming that the authors were writing sincerely, that they were relating what they truly believed they saw and heard, and that the best explanation for this is that the events did occur. Any of those three can be true without the others being true, but the evidence is that all three are true.


Where this gets complicating is conflicting stories (the different versions of the resurrection don't line up) and the risk of translation/manipulation over the centuries to deliver a message. The wrong people in control of documents and evidence can manipulate it or twist it to fit an agenda, and centuries ago, that was quite useful for controlling the masses.

Let's go with a non-religious example. Tiananmen Square. We all know what happened there, but there are millions of Chinese who don't (or won't speak of it) because of a well-orchestrated government measure to claim it never happened. My point here is that concrete evidence, written documents themselves can lose their weight depending on who controls them.

If the Catholic Church finds evidence in 1383 that contradicts the text, they're more likely to suppress that than alter the wording that fits their agenda.

Faith is fine in these cases; I can't fault a person for that. It's when they try to assert that we must accept it as fact, it has to be challenged. I have faith the CIA killed JFK for self-preservation and revenge, but can I prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt? No. Thus, I can't tell you that you must accept it as fact.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Your first paragraph has been asked and answered.

[1]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 11:57 AM
    Reply

The documents we have are reasonable representations of the originals. The possibility the question raises does exist - documents can be altered intentionally or unintentionally - but it has been answered. It's the first question raised in examining any historical document: does this reflect the (almost always unavailable) original?

Atheist blogs usually start with that - "the originals were rewritten or mistranslated" - but that claim is made in ignorance of the work done on that. It's a thing anybody can say, but the evidence is the other way.

I dont know what inconsistencies you are referring to, but the proposal is not that each author remembered every detail exactly like all the others. Had that been the case, the first objection should be that they simply cooked up the same story. Crime investigators look for minor differences in accounts as a sign of authenticity. All the inconsistencies I know about, and I'm pretty sure I read them all, are of no consequence to the story being told.

Edit: I am speaking very directly above, not persuasively, because I am not attempting to change your mind on this. A skeptic can whatabout endlessly, and the answers mean nothing except to raise another whatabout. If one actually wants to know if the Jesus story is authentic, we start there and move forward, answering objections and questions in that framework. IE, an open minded investigation, not an interrogation.

Basically I am responding to the other poster's claim that there is no evidence. That is simply not true, regardless of what one decides.

Edit 2. This is really irrelevant to this discussion, but the answers to the OP question are predictable: "I know some Christians who are not very nice." If the proposal were that Jesus turns jerks into nice people, the proposal fails. It doesn't work that way. One should be glad that it doesn't, because everyone on the planet today is a jerk. Instead, accountability for one's actions, and the question of how one's behavior is judged as right or wrong, changes drastically. What one should see in a follower of Jesus is not an absolute absence of jerkiness - which is what is being required if one looks at one's actions only today - but an ongoing change in how he/she views other people. Can't assess that via a few blog posts, though the jerky blogger is accountable for his/her words.

2021 white level member

Re: The "no evidence" idea is a misconception for some,


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 5:44 PM
    Reply

Tulsa,

This is from History World. I have a few questions.

The Bible (from biblos, Greek for 'book') is the basis of two great religions, Judaism in the Old Testament and Christianity in the New Testament. In each case it brings together a group of documents to tell the story of the founders and early followers of the religion. In doing so it also explains their beliefs.

The conventional sources of historical evidence (archaeological remains, written documents) provide few traces of the Old Testament story and none at all of the events described in the New Testament. Yet in the Bible the early Jews and Christians provide an account of themselves which is unparalleled, among religious groups of those times, in its wealth of detail.

OK, so these guys claim that there are NO remains or written documents of the events in the New Testament. What evidence are you relying upon ?


Epistles and Acts: AD 50-90

The holy book used by the early Christians is the Jewish Bible, known to Christians now as the Old Testament ('testament' meaning in this context a covenant between God and man). But from the middle of the 1st century AD texts begin to be written which will later be gathered into a New Testament, representing the updated covenant revealed by Christ.

The earliest such texts are the letters (or Epistles) written between about 50 and 62 AD by St Paul to various early Christian communities.

Next in chronological sequence comes the Acts of the Apostles, a description of the missionary efforts of Peter and others in Jerusalem and of Paul on his journeys.

This account is believed to be the work of Luke, who probably writes it between about AD 75 and 90. He has accompanied Paul on some of his travels, including his last journey to Rome. Much of Acts, therefore, is first-hand contemporary evidence of the events described.

So these are the earliest written parts of the NT. Now I am assuming that Paul & Luke were approximately the same age as Jesus give or take. So Paul is in his 60s & Luke in his 80s when they write a story that happened 20 - 50 years before from their memories. I don't know if you have ever listened to old man tales but accuracy is not the first adjective that comes to mind.

An oral source: from AD c.30

The Gospels in written form are slightly later than the Epistles and Acts, but they contain oral texts from earlier times.

The first Christians, gathering for worship, repeat together their beliefs about the life, death and promises of Jesus Christ. These truths are what they have been told and taught; they are what they teach to new converts and to their own children. They are the joyful tidings of a better world which only Christians share. 'Good news' is what the word gospel means.

So the Gospels - the story about Jesus himself and the heart of the NT is from an oral tradition and intended as a public relations vehicle at that. Have you ever played the game, telephone ? With a bunch of PR people ?

As the years pass, it makes sense to write down the sayings of Jesus and the stories about him which many Christians (but not all) know so well by heart. This is done in several places and in differing versions.

The earliest version to survive in the Bible is Mark's Gospel. It was probably written between AD 75 and 85, and it was used - together with other sources - as the basis for the Gospels of both Matthew and Luke, each written a few years later. The Gospel of John is later again (perhaps around AD 100) and differs from the other three in concentrating on spiritual issues more than biography. It is not until well into the 2nd century that the four Gospels are given their names (see Naming the Gospels).

So after all of that "telephoning" and polishing, the gospels come to be written down - some 45 - 70 years after the supposed events. And the writing is done in several places and in differing versions - with other sources as well. That would seem to explain the contradictions and omissions, but would hardly suggest a high degree of accuracy.

Establishing the canon: 2nd - 4th century AD

By the middle of the 2nd century it becomes evident that a great many different and often contradictory passages of holy scripture are circulating among the various Christian churches, each claiming to offer the truth. (There is even a Gospel according to Judas Iscariot.) Which of these shall be accepted as the official canon? This becomes a subject of urgent debate among church leaders.

By the end of the century it is widely agreed that four Gospels, the Epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles are authentic. But it is not until 367 that a list is circulated by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, which finally establishes the content of the New Testament.

So about 120 years after the supposed events, there are a great many different and contradictory passages of holy scripture floating about various christian churches. So church leaders (in an effort to keep their positions of influence and affluence, decide to consolidate all of these tales into the 6 books mentioned so far. Over the next 200 years they add 21 more books to the NT. I wonder how many they rejected - and why ?

Meanwhile the texts are being ceaselessly copied and recopied on papyrus and later on parchment. A few fragments survive from the 2nd century, but the earliest complete New Testament (the Codex Sinaiticus, in Greek, written probably in Egypt, now in the British Library) dates from the late 4th century.

So the first full New Testament that we can actually access is from the 4th Century, some 300 years after the supposed events. 300 years of retelling, and polishing, and manipulating for who knows what purposes. And this is before all of the translations and all of the different interpretations leading to hundreds of differing sects.

Tulsa, I will defend your right to believe what you wish, but to call this evidence is a bit of a stretch to me.

By this time Jerome is working in Bethlehem on his Latin version of the Bible. The story of the New Testament evolves into the story of its translations.


Re: The "no evidence" idea is a misconception for some,


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 5:46 PM
    Reply

Sorry,

I tried to bold my questions so that they could be easily separated from the History World stuff but it did not take. i hope you can figure out which is which.


Re: The "no evidence" idea is a misconception for some,

[1]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 8:48 PM
    Reply

Early Development
C. 1400–400 B.C. Books of the Hebrew Old Testament written

c. 250–200 B.C. The Septuagint, a popular Greek translation of the Old Testament, produced

A.D. 45–85? Books of the Greek New Testament written

90 and 118 Councils of Jamnia give final affirmation to the Old Testament canon (39 books)

140-150 Marcion’s heretical “New Testament” incites orthodox Christians to establish a NT canon

303-306 Diocletian’s persecution includes confiscating and destroying New Testament Scriptures

c. 305-310 Lucian of Antioch’s Greek New Testament text; becomes a foundation for later Bibles

367 Athanasius’s Festal Letter lists complete New Testament canon (27 books) for the first time

397 Council of Carthage establishes orthodox New Testament canon (27 books)

c. 400 Jerome translates the Bible into Latin; this “Vulgate” becomes standard of medieval church

English Versions From Latin
c. 650 Caedmon, a monk, puts Bible books into verse

c. 735 >Historian Bede translates the Gospels

871-899 King Alfred the Great translates the Psalms and 10 Commandments

950 The 7th-century Lindisfarne Gospels receive English translation

955-1020 Aelfric translates various Bible books

c. 1300 Invention of eyeglasses aids copying

c. 1325 Both Richard Rolle and William Shoreham translate psalms into metrical verse

1380-1382 John Wycliffe and associates make first translation of the whole Bible into English

1388 John Purvey revises Wycliffe Bible

1455 Gutenberg’s Latin Bible—first from press


Re: The "no evidence" idea is a misconception for some,

[1]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 8:49 PM
    Reply

I help you out there buddy.


Re: The "no evidence" idea is a misconception for some,


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:28 PM
    Reply

OC,

Not really helpful, budro. I was looking for supporting EVIDENCE.


Re: The "no evidence" idea is a misconception for some,


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 11:37 PM
    Reply

I was looking for you to disprove it. Keep trying tho but it might take the rest of your life.


Re: The "no evidence" idea is a misconception for some,


Posted: Nov 19, 2020, 9:24 AM
    Reply

OC,

I am not interested in trying to prove a negative to you. I am asking for evidence for your positive proposition. That entire chronology of yours does nothing to support the proposition that the events in the New Testament ever occurred or are accurately presented there.

Tulsa claimed that the NT was an accurate representation of the reality of the times. Neither of you have supported your claims substantively. Better luck next time.


No, you were not. Rather than asking for evidence, you led


Posted: Nov 19, 2020, 12:51 AM
    Reply

with a weak whatabout, one that comes from ignorance of evidence,

If you want to examine evidence, we can do that. To so that, you have to ask what evidence you want:
- That the documents we have reasonably represent the originals.
- That the writers were sincere.
- That they wrote what they believed they saw and heard.
- That what they wrote was most likely what they saw and heard.

Assessment of a set of documents is a systematic process, and is not done in a pamphlet. It you really want to know whether the documents are authentic, it will take a while to go through it all. If instead what you want to do is verbalize your bias against it, just state it and we can drop it.

2021 white level member

Re: No, you were not. Rather than asking for evidence, you led

[1]
Posted: Nov 19, 2020, 8:05 AM
    Reply

...with a weak whatabout, one that comes from ignorance of evidence,

No, he didn't. He presented a sincere debate, and, in typical Tulsa fashion, you lobbed with an underhanded jab at him. You're one of the worst on this board of sneaking in little insults here and there surrounded by a long-winded post of little substance.

You're not any more of a Biblical scholar than anyone here, and just because someone holds different beliefs and hasn't read the texts that undoubtedly placated your confirmation bias, it doesn't make that person ignorance.

Geez. This was a pretty good discussion, and then you came in here calling people ignorant. Grow up a little.

And before you start with me, I've studied this subject quite well on both ends, and yeah, pretty sure I can run some circles around you in Bible talk. But, no, I'm not going to engage with someone who is just going to be predisposed to calling people ignorant when he is presented with counter arguments.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Doesnt work that way. He said there was no evidence,


Posted: Nov 19, 2020, 8:43 AM
    Reply

I said that is not the case. Rather than asking what that might be, he makes a weak debate point, which is not asking for evidence. He is making an ideological point rather than asking for evidence, which he doesnt care about. Yeah, I called him on it.

My answer to you was related to the discussion, and to your point. If you need to start in with the insults again, lets go back to the agreement.

2021 white level member

Re: Doesnt work that way. He said there was no evidence,


Posted: Nov 19, 2020, 9:51 AM
    Reply

Then refute the point instead of calling him ignorant and claiming some kind of Biblical scholar superiority. Post your links, cite your sources. This has been a great thread filled with sound discussion. Twice by my count, you've tossed out the ignorance claim. You did it once with me and I ignored it because it wasn't worthy of a response. I already know I'm quite well-versed in this stuff.

My answer to you was related to the discussion, and to your point. If you need to start in with the insults again, lets go back to the agreement.


Not at all. I'm not going back to whining TMails about how you're too fragile to handle my replies. If you step onto the dance floor, get ready boogie cause I'm comin'.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: No, you were not. Rather than asking for evidence, you led


Posted: Nov 19, 2020, 8:55 AM
    Reply

Tulsa,

First of all, I pointed out some serious doubts about your assertion that the NT is based on accurate reality. I did this by pointing out gaps in the chain of evidence, in the timeline and in the authorship.

- I think that I presented objective questions about whether the documents reasonably represent the originals (which no longer exist)

- I do NOT think that the writers sincerity or beliefs (subjective) have any bearing on the veracity of the documents. They can believe as sincerely as they want, but the question at hand is whether these events actually happened and if they are being accurately portrayed (objective).

- Again, I think that the gaps in the chain of evidence, in the timeline, and in the number of tellers brings into serious doubt the accuracy of what they saw and heard. BTW, who uses the term "most likely" when talking about objective evidence.

You accuse me of bias, but who is more likely to favor their beliefs over rational examination, a religious believer who is deeply invested in the outcome or an objective outsider who is willing to examine the evidence in the same light that he would examine the evidence for any other substantive claim ?


"But.. but..."


Posted: Nov 19, 2020, 9:53 AM
    Reply

"You're biased and ignorant because you don't subscribe to the same biased documents that I cling to!"

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Your paragraphs seem to be summarized in this one:


Posted: Nov 19, 2020, 12:41 AM
    Reply

"So after all of that "telephoning" and polishing, the gospels come to be written down - some 45 - 70 years after the supposed events. And the writing is done in several places and in differing versions - with other sources as well. That would seem to explain the contradictions and omissions, but would hardly suggest a high degree of accuracy"

There is no evidence of telephoning and polishing. You need to provide it. Writing done in several locations by several writers, some being eyewitnesses, is a strength, as are the minor contradictions in the accounts, if indeed they are that. A weakness would be exact copies, which is collusion rather than remembrance. The fact that they agree on all the major claims is a strength, and argues against "polishing".

You are free to choose to not believe whatever you like. However, repeating the "no evidence" mantra is not an argument, or evidence. All I said is that a lot of evidence exists for the authenticity, sincerity and accuracy of the accounts. I presented none of it, just said it is there, which is all I intended to say, You follow with a very weak whatabout you read somewhere, and declare that to support your "no evidence" claim. Very weak.

On various topics you claim "I demand evidence", yet you hold positions without knowing the evidence or being interested in it. Instead, you are primarily ideological in your opinions and conclusions.

2021 white level member

Re: Your paragraphs seem to be summarized in this one:

[1]
Posted: Nov 19, 2020, 9:02 AM
    Reply

Tulsa,

There seems to be misunderstanding.

YOU made a claim - without evidence.

I pointed out that lack of evidence.

You asked me to prove a negative.

I do not need to. I do NOT believe in things without supporting evidence.

You have supplied me with none.

Therefore, I continue NOT to believe. It's simple, really.


There appears to be a dire need...


Posted: Nov 19, 2020, 9:54 AM
    Reply

For a workshop on this board for where the burden of proof lies.

When a person makes a claim, the burden of proof is on him to prove it, not to demand the other person prove him wrong.

Seems to be a lot of folks here who aren't getting this.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: There appears to be a dire need...


Posted: Nov 19, 2020, 10:06 AM
    Reply

No way you can disprove it or you would have already done so but if you want proof then its call faith.


Re: There appears to be a dire need...


Posted: Nov 19, 2020, 10:08 AM
    Reply

And thus, that's not proof. Claiming, "It's the way it is because I believe it" isn't any sort of evidence of existence.

And a person cannot prove something doesn't exist. You can't declare Bigfoot is real because I can't prove it's not.

When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Your paragraphs seem to be summarized in this one:

[1]
Posted: Nov 19, 2020, 9:19 AM
    Reply

Tulsa,

Thank-you for your permission to believe as I wish.

Actually, I think that pointing out your lack of evidence is a reasonable argument against your proposition. Demanding evidence is not a mantra. It is a process that has led to positive results for centuries in a very wide variety of fields of study. It works well for me in my daily life, as well.

You also imply that my position is merely a regurgitation of someone else's ideas. This is rich coming from a purveyor of centuries old religious dogma. You made a bold assertion about the accuracy of the New Testament. I looked up a neutral history of the New Testament and then presented the disconnections from evidentiary reality that I saw there.

I find it interesting, and not uncommon with religious zealots, that you would like to accuse me of the flaws in your own position - weakness, regurgitation without original thought, and ideological blindness.

Again, believe as you wish, but when presenting an objective prposition in public to me (or anybody else for that matter) please bring your evidence and show your work. Thanks.


Hate to break it to ya, but


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 11:24 AM
    Reply

A lot of laws that you like, like ones against murder, are part of religious beliefs. It's too broad and subjective a statement to say that religious shouldn't be infused into our laws. It is infused, incontrovertibly, and will always be.


Re: Hate to break it to ya, but

[2]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 2:50 PM
    Reply

We don't need religion to determine one shouldn't murder. That's been a pretty basic tenant throughout civilized humanity--not perfectly enforced by any means, but a fairly standard law throughout society to prevent people from running around and killing others.

Our laws in America exist primarily to prevent people from harming other people. We don't need religion to tell us that. Religion often addresses that, but that's not the primary force behind the creation and existence of those laws.

When I say religions shouldn't be infused, I mean kids shouldn't be forced to pray to a Christian God in school. I shouldn't be forced to keep my business closed on Sunday mornings because of Christianity. There shouldn't be laws that say you have to believe in God to run for public office (still on the books in SC). Conversely, there shouldn't be laws that prevent the practice of Christianity.

That's the stuff I meant.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

OK, that's fine.


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 3:01 PM
    Reply

Initially you made an extremely broad statement that I didn't think you really believed, and you clarified here to a more specific opinion. That's all I was saying.


Re: Question for P&R Anti-Christ crowd...


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:58 PM
    Reply

Catahoula said:

-I open to the idea that any religious beliefs could be real, but at the moment, I don't think they are. I always welcome evidence to the contrary.

-I agree with the teachings of Jesus when it comes to mankind in general. Whether Jesus was real or not, I think they are good guidelines for how to treat others.

-I like the charitable works that comes out of Christianity as a result of above.

-I reject the fantastical stories as historical fact because "faith" and would like evidence to support their claims as historical fact.

-I reject policies in the Bible that are discriminatory, particularly since they are often hypocritical. Treatment of homosexuals, women, minorities (yes, racists back in the day used the Bible to justify their stances), etc. Basically, rejecting just about any "law" set forth in the Old Testament and by Paul.

-I reject the idea that anyone who doesn't fall in lock step with whatever form of Christianity someone follows is going to burn for eternity. #### was a concept fabricated by the Catholic Church centuries ago to scare the masses and the kings into line.

-Finally, none of that or any religion should be infused the laws or governance of our nation.

-I think people should be free to worship or believe whatever the #### they want to without interference, but at the same time, should not harm others with their beliefs or try to force their beliefs on others.


Do you dispute Jesus was real or not? Even after so many text, cultures and historians confined his existence? Even the same civilization that documented that condemned him to death by crucifixion?


As an atheist who raised his children as such, my problem is

[2]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 8:33 AM
    Reply

with religions in general. With the exception of prosperity gospel evangelicals, I bear no ill will towards them. The ill will I bear is in the form of "please S.T.F.U!" but little more.

My kids attended church functions with their friends. None of those Christians tried to force anything on my kids, and my kids did not impose their skepticism on them. It was a good time for all.


I think that brings me to another thought...

[4]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 8:48 AM
    Reply

I have issues with parents who force religion or a lack of religion their children. From rushing to dunk them in a tub or demanding that they adhere to every religious rule, custom, and discrimination, or people who refuse to let their kids go to youth group or Young Life because they don't want them to be Christian.

I think it's fine if parents are open with their kids about their beliefs and disagree with them. But I think children should be allowed to explore their own beliefs.

Now, I'm not saying let 6-year-old Johnny have his way because he doesn't want to get dressed up and go to church. Screw you, Johnny, we aren't getting a babysitter. Go get dressed.

But when Johnny is 15 and says, "Dad, I think this stuff is all BS." Well, now's not the time to force him.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

That's how I was raised. And ####, my parents are still

emoji_events [5]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:08 AM
    Reply

like that. Now my dad not so much.

For example, 2 weeks ago my mother saw beer and my fridge and made the comment about if I didn't quite drinking that I would end up in ####. I told her that since this is my house I'll drink whatever I want and she could leave if she didn't like it.

My dad is much more laid back. He just doesn't like me drinking mexican beer.


I grew up where everything was a sin and people who had absolutely no problem telling you you were going to #### for the least little thing.


I want my children to question it. I want them to look at religion from a 30,000 ft view. Then if they agree with it, I am perfectly fine with them practicing it. As long as they aren't trying to push their beliefs on others.

My mom takes my kids to church. I want them to have that foundation. And when the time comes, I will be ready to ensure that they ask questions about it instead of threatening to kick them out when they are 13 because they dare question God.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


As long as they aren't trying to push their beliefs on others....


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:14 AM
    Reply

Interesting concept.....I'm a poor example, as I'm one of the least evangelical Christians you'll probably meet, but if your kids are believers, "pushing their beliefs on others" to them could be saving someone's eternal life.

It would be like saying "I don't mind my kids being cautious when crossing the street, as long as they don't try to stop anyone else from stepping in front of a bus"

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg


It's different view points

[1]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:16 AM
    Reply

If you have looked all over and don't see a bus coming, then why try to stop them from crossing?


Also, it's pretty ###### to tell an 8 year old they are going to #### because they wore shorts to Sunday night service (yes this happened)

Message was edited by: FBCoachSC®


2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


That's life in general......

[1]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:19 AM
    Reply

hard core PETA and Sierra Club people generally annoy me because I don't share their priorities, but I try to be empathetic and understand that to them, tuna nets catching dolphins or a pipeline marring a beautiful landscape is as important as anything in their world.

Just saying it would be no different if your kids grew up to be evangelicals. Annoying to you, I'm sure, but hopefully you'd be empathetic as to the origins of their activism.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg


Re: It's different view points


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 10:15 AM
    Reply

Coach,

Yeah, this brings up another problem. Plenty of religious people want to imbue their personal beliefs with this religious authority. I think shorts are sinful so god thinks shorts are sinful.

Actually, lots of religious people are NOT very aware of what their holy books actually say - and don't say. Many of them merely listen to their sermons - and cherry pick the quotes that serve their own purpose.


Worse thing I ever did for my Christian belief was

[1]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 10:16 AM
    Reply

read the bible from cover to cover (twice)

Of course I did skip over a few "begats" in Numbers

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Re: It's different view points


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 10:19 AM
    Reply

Wow, I am surprised that you know so much about the Christian faith.


Re: It's different view points

[1]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 10:36 AM
    Reply

OC,

You might be even more surprised to know that Caoch is not alone in this.

According to a Pew Survey, atheists & agnostics in general know more about the bible than to religious adherents.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2010/09/28/130191248/atheists-and-agnostics-know-more-about-bible-than-religious



Best & favorite book in my life is the Bible


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 10:43 AM
    Reply

I wish everyone had the time & opportunity to read this amazing book.


Re: Best & favorite book in my life is the Bible


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 12:40 PM
    Reply

Me too. The best book ever written.


But something you said in there opens up a problem.

[2]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:18 AM
    Reply

...but if your kids are believers, "pushing their beliefs on others" to them could be saving someone's eternal life.

And this is why those of us who aren't Christian have some problems here. It's still the concept that if we don't subscribe to your beliefs, we're doomed to eternal damnation. We reject that, and don't want to hear it. It comes across very pompous, it logically doesn't make sense (for one religion to claim they got it right and they're the only path to salvation is silly), and we don't want to be told we're going to burn even if it's meant in a nice, "I want to save you" kind of way.

Thus, it only makes us reject it more.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

I get that, but flip the viewpoints.......


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:21 AM
    Reply

Technically, isn't me being a believer and also being laissez-faire about other's lack of belief pretty much the height of hypocrisy, if not selfishness?

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg


I don't think so.

[1]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:27 AM
    Reply

I know that Christianity calls for followers to witness and try to bring others to the fold, and I don't see a problem with recruitment. Where I see problems is pushing the "this is the only way to salvation" angle, which, well, thousands of religions can lay claim to that.

Invite them to church or Sunday School or whatever. Maybe just share your experience if they're willing to listen. See where it goes. But the "I want to save you from damnation" angle doesn't really work, and I see that a lot happening with why adults want it pushed on children.

I've always asked other Christians, and many here, this question. I even asked this of the pastor before he married my wife and me because we were required to do "counseling" beforehand. He couldn't give me an answer.

What's the cut off age for eternal damnation if you aren't saved? Does a 4 year old who hasn't accepted Christ and dies in a car accident doomed to burn? Or does that bump up to age 7? Maybe 13?

Because there's either an age where this happens, or we accept that anyone who dies and isn't a Christian is burning right now.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

12


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:29 AM
    Reply

I was told the age of accountability was 12 years old.

Anything before that, straight to heaven. After that, ####.


Not sure where they got that number from but I was not allowed to question it.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Does that include...


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:34 AM
    Reply

12 year olds with mental incapacities? Or 12 year olds raised in families that don't believe or sheltered them from religion?

I know you agree with me and get my point. I'm just throwing out some more stuff.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

That would be considered questioning


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:45 AM
    Reply

Straight To #### GIFs | Tenor

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Re: I don't think so.


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 10:37 AM
    Reply

Why would you presume that God needs an age of accountability to determine a person's eternal destiny? I'm unaware of any biblical verse that addresses this. Is it possible that through God's foreknowledge He knew the child would have come to saving faith, thus, redeemed him? Conversely, God would also know the child would never have accepted Jesus, thus would enter damnation. This is a perplexing question only if you are requiring a definitive age at which a decision must be made. In the end, the Christian has to trust God's perfect judgement in such matters.


That's precisely my point.


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 10:54 AM
    Reply

There isn't a cut off age, yet the crux of Christianity is that one must find salvation through Christ alone. Thus, where is the line drawn over who burns and who doesn't when he/she doesn't have the mental capacity to be "saved" or isn't exposed to Christianity? Does a 73-year-old dude out in the middle of Africa get a free pass?

Christian denominations can't even agree on this, or where sin begins.

If the wages of sin are death, and not accepting Christ as your savior leads to damnation, where does this begin?

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: That's precisely my point.


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 11:30 AM
    Reply

Perhaps God eternally destines us perfectly.


So God sends people to ####***


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 12:10 PM
    Reply



2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Re: So God sends people to ####***


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 12:18 PM
    Reply

Mine is a response to the "age of accountability" in which a person accepts (or not) salvation. In such cases, I presume God will destine the person using his perfect judgement.


Re: That's precisely my point.


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 2:47 PM
    Reply

Perhaps. But doesn't that conflict with the premise of Christianity, that one must know and accept Christ as his savior to receive eternal life?

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: That's precisely my point.


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 3:47 PM
    Reply

I agree....one must know and accept Christ as his savior. That said, I have no idea what happens to babies who die in childbirth or are aborted. All I can fall back on is my belief that God has perfect judgement and no one goes to #### or heaven who shouldn't. That may seem like a cop-out but it's the best I can do. I suspect there are lots of things we (mankind) haven't figured out that God has.


Re: I don't think so.


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:33 PM
    Reply

Dawg,

Wait a minute. Now not only knows what is going to happen - the kid dies young, but he also knows what might have happened if the kid didn't die. God knows about multiple possible outcomes ??


Re: I don't think so.


Posted: Nov 19, 2020, 9:38 AM
    Reply

I suppose if you're a believer in Molinism, yes.


Re: I get that, but flip the viewpoints.......


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 10:23 AM
    Reply

Obed,

I take your point. In psychology, there is a term - true believers - that characterizes someone who believe in their dogma so completely that they are willing to do whatever it takes.

To see the problem with this, try substituting something less prevalent than Christianity in our society. What if some of the kids in school were trying to proselytize about Allah rather than Jesus. Would the intensity of THEIR beliefs justify them constantly telling YOUR child about the negative consequences of not believing in Allah ? What about Satan ?


Re: But something you said in there opens up a problem.


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 10:47 AM
    Reply

What circles are you traveling in where you are continuously (or ever) being told you're going to burn in #### or be dammed? Are people walking up to you on the street and proselytizing? If you are choosing to engage in conversations with Christians - about their Christian faith tells them - then you probably shouldn't be surprised or outraged by their beliefs. Your problem isn't with them. It's with the Bible.


I grew up Pentecostal, there's your answer***


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 11:03 AM
    Reply



2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Re: I grew up Pentecostal, there's your answer***


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 11:29 AM
    Reply

Do you still socialize with Pentecotals? If so, are you surprised by their stances on this matters?


Re: That's how I was raised. And ####, my parents are still

[1]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:14 AM
    Reply

We had a couple of relatives not go to our wedding reception because we served alcohol. Simply cause of the Jesus. One of them even just gave us a card as a present with a note telling us to find a church--soon. Which I found humorous since my wife is Christian. Guess it was directed at me (and I never shared my religious beliefs with any of the extended family).

I can't wrap my head around refusing to attend someone's happy day because some other people there are drinking beer.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

One of my main problems with religion

[1]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:17 AM
    Reply

Your beliefs should tell you what YOU can't do. Too many times it's perverted into what OTHERS can't do.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Re: One of my main problems with religion

[1]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:20 AM
    Reply

Exactly, and there's also an arm of that extending into weddings, religious or not. Basically, if you aren't the bride or you're not paying for the wedding, S T Absolute F U and go along with whatever the bride has planned for this wedding. Enjoy the meatballs at the reception. Have a beer or don't. Know that the band is going to play Brick House.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: That's how I was raised. And ####, my parents are still

[1]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 10:28 AM
    Reply

It is like this.


Re: I think that brings me to another thought...

[2]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 10:11 AM
    Reply

Cat,

This is a tough one because parents are charged with raising their kids, especially through an age during which they are not fully equipped to make reasonable decisions on their own.

However, it is disturbing to see kids how a belief in the supernatural (without supporting evidence) forced down their throats before they have the rational skills to question such presumptions. It can have a lasting and deleterious effect on their ability to apply reason to their lives.

In particular, I find it inhumane to teach a child that they are an unworthy sinner from birth and that only god's grace can save them from an eternity in burning ####. What an abusive burden to place on a child far too young to have to try to deal with in any humane fashion.


Re: I think that brings me to another thought...


Posted: Nov 19, 2020, 10:22 AM
    Reply

So you know people, who were raised Christian and continue in their Christian beliefs, who now cannot apply reason in their lives...because they were raised in the faith? I am a Christian and most of the people I know at least claim to be. None are perfect but there doesn't seem to be any problem with the application of reason. You think maybe you find them unable to apply reason because they don't agree with you?


"Being raised as an atheist". Man, that must have been a

[1]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:01 AM
    Reply

blast!


"Dad, we're having a 2nd grade Christmas party at school. I signed up to bring cookies.". "Ok son, we will bring them, but you must make everyone sign a waiver that these are Holiday cookies and their consumption is purely dependent upon secular enjoyment of said cookie"


"Dad, little Suzie's leukemia went away. Everyone at school says it's a miracle". "Son, there are no such things as miracles. Tonight after dinner we will discuss remission, white cell counts, and the various mutations of leukocytes"


"Dad, can I give that lady ringing the bell a dollar?" "No son, that's false advertising. See on her bucket, it says Salvation Army? Salvation is a concept created by man in an attempt to assuage their own internal guilt on violations of arbitrary societal norms."

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg


Re: "Being raised as an atheist". Man, that must have been a


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 10:30 AM
    Reply

Obed,

That beats being told that your are a sinner and are going to #### if you don't do exactly what mom and dad and the church tell you.

Not to mention that agnostic parents can be a bit more smooth than you portray.


Dude....it's humor. Try it.***


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 12:10 PM
    Reply



2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg


Re: Dude....it's humor. Try it.***


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 4:55 PM
    Reply

Obed,

Sorry if I missed it, but I have seen too many students ostracized (bu students & adults) for not buying into that religious dogma. I may be a bit touchy about it still.


It's ok, those students seem to come out ahead by


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:20 PM
    Reply

quite a bit on the average college campus. It all comes out in the wash.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg


Re: It's ok, those students seem to come out ahead by


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:34 PM
    Reply

Often, but not always. And it is still a bit painful to watch.


That's quite the caricature! Got a good chuckle

[2]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 11:24 AM
    Reply

As an agnostic, I might respond more like this:

"Dad, we're having a 2nd grade Christmas party at school. I signed up to bring cookies."

- Cool beans! Your mom just bought some new Christmas cookie cutters and I know she can't wait to try them out. We might not be Christians, but we still enjoy the holiday season.. and why not? Many of our "Christmas traditions" actually originated in pre-Christian pagan cultures. Remember to be respectful and keep that to yourself, though, unless someone tries to preach to you.

"Dad, little Suzie's leukemia went away. Everyone at school says it's a miracle."

- Wow, that's great news! Her parents must be so relieved. I bet Suzie had some really smart doctors and nurses taking care of her. Maybe one day you could be a doctor or nurse and help sick kids get better, too.

"Dad, can I give that lady ringing the bell a dollar?"

- Of course, and I'm proud of you for being so generous with your allowance. We should always try to think of others, not just ourselves, but even more so at this time of year. The Salvation Army is a religious charity, but we can appreciate the good work they do even if we don't share their religious beliefs.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Question for P&R Anti-Christ crowd...


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:31 AM
    Reply

I believe in things for which I can find find supporting evidence.

There may be some valuable (& supported) philosophy in some religions, but it is all stuff that had already been learned from natural experiences. There is no need (or evidence) for the supernatural.


Re: Question for P&R Anti-Christ crowd...


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 9:49 AM
    Reply

Inspiring work of fiction.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: Question for P&R Anti-Christ crowd...

[2]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 10:04 AM
    Reply

WOW! Thank you ALL so much for your thoughtful and straightforward replies.
I just got back from a meeting I had this morning and had a chance to really take some time in considering these responses. It is so helpful to learn how & why others think the ways they do and I'm very grateful to each of you for sharing your experiences & feelings in this post!
I can relate, in my own personal experiences, to a lot of what's been shared.


Re: Question for P&R Anti-Christ crowd...


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 10:24 AM
    Reply

I dislike both and I like both. That questions is too vague. There are layers.

2021 white level member

Re: Question for P&R Anti-Christ crowd...

[1]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 11:38 AM
    Reply

I think the teachings of Christ are good guidelines to live by. It's the hypocrisy and goal post moving that today's conservative Christians use to justify support for an "infidel" like Donald Trump that shows most of them are insincere with their beliefs. In before someone tries to say God uses blasphemous sinners to push his message. LOL


Re: Question for P&R Anti-Christ crowd...


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 12:45 PM
    Reply

If you ever would read the bible that is what God has done over and over.


To take this conversation in a different direction

[1]
Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 8:27 PM
    Reply

Let me first say that the Bible is clearly the most important book in the world, and it’s not even close. No one will ever go wrong living their life based off of biblical principles. Some of my favorite people in the world are very religious, and it has served them well living by religious principles. Now, these favorite people I’m referring to live Christianity through example and are not “ Church ladyish”, and are not condescending towards people who are not like them.

Personally, at least from the standpoint of going to church all the time I am not that religious. I believe there is some sort of God and I attended church at least occasionally until I had children, but because of life situations with two autistic children and one of them severely autistic, it’s just very difficult to comfortably integrate into a church lifestyle and life is hard enough trying to navigate autism and dealing with integrating them into church was just too much. But I do believe in much of what the church teaches, and I have tried to teach that to my children.

But from an early age, my issues with religion are more big picture and philosophical. It’s hard to dispute that humans have been around for at least 500,000 years and many think humans have been on earth for millions of years. Why did Christianity not come on the scene until roughly 5000 years ago? Are all the humans that lived before Christianity in ####? Are the Poor people in Africa and other parts of the world that have never been exposed to christianity in ####? Are all Muslims, Buddhist, and Hindus in ####?

Even if Christianity is exactly right and God created the world, where did God come from? Our existence in my view is just a total mystery, and its just impossible to know why we are here. My core religious belief is to love your fellow man, and live by the Golden Rule. Without each other, we are nothing.

So for those who make the decision that the Bible is the most important book in the world and I can’t go wrong following it, I totally respect that. But don’t act like the Bible unlocks the mysteries of our existence. It’s clearly much more complicated than that IMO.


Re: To take this conversation in a different direction


Posted: Nov 18, 2020, 11:39 PM
    Reply

If and when I meet God I will ask him where he came from.


Replies: 88  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: (4) Section J row S...$3600. Email if interested. Go Tigers!!

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ General Boards - Politics & Religion ]
Start New Topic
912 people have read this post