[Dunk#7]

You keep on referencing Matt Slick. You know the man is an ultra-Calvinist? The he beleives people are preordained to be saved or not? Matt Slick doesn't understand John 1.13: "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Those who are saved are not because they are born of the blood (procreation), nor of the flesh (passion), nor the will of man (by planning or "will worship", Col. 2.23), but of God. It is God who does the saving, not our will, and requires our choice to save us. Since God is relational in His Three Persons, He is relational with us. He enjoys our positive response to His sufficient grace bestowed upon us all. Grace is not sufficient if it is irresistible. Salvation is a gift from God and freely obtainable by any of us. "We have also obtained access by faith into this grace" (Rom. 5.2), "for by grace are ye saved through faith" (Eph. 2.8), NOT "saved by irresistible faith through an irresistible grace." You can't will yourself ("will worship") into being saved by assuming you are irresistibly selected as Calvinists do. God never saves such deluded and selfish souls. Salvation is by His resistible grace and conditional election, for God supplies sufficient grace to all, affording all human beings with the choice; that's why He pleads with us, calls us to repent and woos by His Spirit, otherwise it is just a charade which is morally bankrupt. This verse has nothing to do with god of Calvinism claiming we don't have a choice and people go to Hell just because they were born into sin with no opportunity, mercy, love or grace of God to be saved. Are faith and works contrasted as opposites? "By grace are ye saved, through faith;...not of works" (Eph. 2.8-9); "But to him that worketh not, but believeth..." (Rom. 4.5). Therefore, we can come to God in faith and can reject the notion we cannot unless we are irresistibly made to, or should I say, as Calvinists assume pridefully they were made to.

I am just looking into that now. I did not know he was a Calvinist. I had not seen any of his writings pertaining to the subject.

Predestination is definitely not something I believe in. I feel that God has the ability and may even know the future and who will be saved or not, but that does not take away the free will of that individual simply by God knowing what choices they will make.

[endre]

Not sure if this is the right thread to argue about it, but I feel the exact opposite. Organized religion is just an inevitable bad symptom; belief and the mindset that comes with it is the actual problem.

I for one agree with you. Once religious views were used to describe the world and even try to ease the sufferings of the people. I might add people of particular origin. Later on religion was (partially) recognized as a god tool to rule people.

I can go over spirituality, but organised stuff that requires regular attendance?

EDIT: I will just put it all out. Where does God come from? And who is he to decide that his is the right way?

[alekth]

http://bible.cc/exodus/21-22.htm on something like abortion, and reading the notes regarding the probable reasoning, the punishment (in most cases a fine, in those times where plenty was punishable by death) is not even simply because it was just any potential human life.

What right do you have to judge? In order for someone to raise a valid objection against the moral statutes of the Old Testament, he or she must provide a standard by which such judgments can be made. While people may not agree with the moral judgments of the Old Testament, not agreeing does not invalidate them or mean they are wrong; nor does simply saying "they were obviously barbaric rules" mean that they were. Likewise, saying that "society has evolved" is a meaningless statement. By what standard does the critic offer morally objective criteria by which he or she can judge another culture's morals? We have to ask what right does a person in a present-day culture have to judge any ancient culture which existed in a completely different economic, militaristic, judicial, and geographical configuration? Of course, people are entitled to their opinions and they don't have to like what the Bible teaches, but not liking it has no bearing on whether or not it is good. So, those critics who insist that the Old Testament laws were wrong need to provide an objective standard (not their own opinions) by which they can make moral judgments.

Because there are people insisting that an "ancient culture which existed in a completely different economic, militaristic, judicial, and geographical configuration" has the right to judge ours.
And this applies to the NT as well.

[shanshan310]

Your church has lost a great, level-headed guy Chi.

For some reason I still can't eat pork though. o_O

Its okay, pork is kinda gross anyway. The only pig worth eating is bacon.

[drspeedy]

I for one agree with you. Once religious views were used to describe the world and even try to ease the sufferings of the people. I might add people of particular origin. Later on religion was (partially) recognized as a god tool to rule people. I can go over spirituality, but organised stuff that requires regular attendance funding?

Fixed that for you

[BruiserBear]

I have such a hard time understanding how religious people can be pro-choice when it comes to abortion. If you think that every life is created by god, how can you believe a woman has a "right" to end that pregnancy? Isn't that woman playing god?

[ChiTownBuffalo]

I have such a hard time understanding how religious people can be pro-choice when it comes to abortion. If you think that every life is created by god, how can you believe a woman has a "right" to end that pregnancy? Isn't that woman playing god?

Well, for example.

I don't think just because life begins at conception that rape is a blessing from God.

I don't think that everyone has to agree with my particular religious beleifs.

[Dunk#7]

I for one agree with you. Once religious views were used to describe the world and even try to ease the sufferings of the people. I might add people of particular origin. Later on religion was (partially) recognized as a god tool to rule people. I can go over spirituality, but organised stuff that requires regular attendance? EDIT: I will just put it all out. Where does God come from? And who is he to decide that his is the right way?

Attendance is not required. Christianity is not a works based religion. Nothing you do can allow you to merit heaven. The work has already been done, and it just has to be accepted

When you make the universe you kinda get to decide how everything works. Don't believe God created the universe? Well, I am not going to be able to prove it to you since it is a matter of faith. There are quite a few things that point to God being at the helm, but if you have your mind made up they are not going to sway you.

[Game Analyst]

The Bible is not the word of God.

An article on this subject.

The Bible isn't the word of God. It contains the word of God. One of the objections raised by critics of biblical inspiration is that the Bible is not the word of God but that it contains the word of God. Is this accurate? No. First of all, this doesn't fit what the Bible says about itself. The collection of 66 books that the Christian Church recognized as being inspired speaks as the very words of God in many places. "Thus says the Lord" occurs over 400 times in the Old Testament. "God said" occurs 42 times in the Old Testament and four times in the New Testament. "God spoke" occurs 9 times in the Old Testament and 3 times in the New Testament. "The Spirit of the Lord spoke" through people in 2 Sam. 23:2; 1 Kings 22:24; 2 Chron. 20:14. Of course, the errantists (those who say the Bible in its original documents had errors) will reject these scriptures' accuracy; that is, they will deny that God's word is without error -- even in the originals. If appealing to the Bible in a general sense isn't good enough. Let's consider that Jesus said the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (all of the Old Testament) were Scripture and that the Scriptures cannot be broken, cannot fail (John 10:35). Some might say that there are instances of verses that "contain" God's word, but that it doesn't mean the Bible is God's word. The problem is addressed by Jesus. Luke 24:44-45, "Now He said to them, 'These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.' 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures." Notice that Jesus speaks about what is written regarding him in the Old Testament. Then Luke writes that Jesus opened their mind to understand the Scriptures. What Scriptures? The Law (Moses), the Prophets, and the Psalms. This was a common designation for the Old Testament. Therefore, Jesus says that the written form of the Old Testament is Scripture. Jesus goes on to deal with the religious leaders who would violate these Scriptures which he called "the word of God." Matt 15:6, "he is not to honor his father or his mother. And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition." Mark 7:13, "thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.” John 10:35 “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)." Jesus never said the scriptures contain the word of God. He said they were the word of God. Therefore, we can see that the word of God is the written form of Scripture. In fact, we are told by Paul not to exceed what is written. Note, Paul doesn't say to not exceed the parts of the scripture that contain God's word, he says not to exceed what is written! 1 Cor. 4:6, "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other." It is the written form that is proclaimed as being Scripture, unbreakable, the word of God, and the standard of which we are not to exceed. This can only be true, if the written form is the Word of God, not just something that subjectively contains the word of God. What does it mean to be the Word of God? The Bible is full of citations where it quotes God. However, it also has citations of non-inspired individuals, such as Judas, Herod, etc. Satan, for example, lied when addressing Eve in The Garden of Eden. This means that the Bible contains a record of a lie. But how can such an error be included in the Word of God and still have the word of God be inerrant, since a lie is an error? The answer is that the Bible inerrantly records the lie. It makes no mistakes in its reporting of events, in its proclamation of truth, and in its revelation of God's will. Where it may record the lies, failures, deception, etc. of various individuals, it does so perfectly and without error. Likewise, when it records historical events, genealogies, etc., it does so using the idioms and cultural norms of the time -- yet it is without error. Jesus acknowledged this when he said that the Word of God, the Scripture, cannot be broken. This means that it cannot fail. Why? because the written form of the word of God, which is Scripture, is inspired; and because it is inspired, it cannot fail, it must be fulfilled. Remember, Jesus called the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (all of the Old Testament) Scripture and he says that the Scriptures cannot be broken, cannot fail. He was obviously referring to the written form of the Old Testament: Luke 24:44-45, "Now He said to them, 'These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.' 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures." John 10:35 “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)." If a citation of a city was incorrect, is that not a failure of Scripture? If a date is wrong, is that not a failure of scripture? Likewise, would not an error in a fact likewise be a failure in the Scripture? Of course it would! But Jesus says the Scriptures cannot be broken. They cannot fail. Is Jesus wrong? Is the New Testament also Scripture? It should go without saying that the New Testament is also Scripture. The early church recognized the New Testament documents as being authentic and inspired and included them in the canon of Scripture along with the Old Testament. In fact, Paul recognized the authority that his words had in the church. Take for example what he said to the Colossians. Col. 4:16, "And when this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea." Likewise, Peter made an interesting comment about Paul's writings when he said, "as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction," (2 Pet. 3:16). Peter called Paul's writings Scripture. In turn, Paul called Scriptures "God-breathed," and Jesus said the Scriptures cannot fail. Scripture is God-breathed 2 Tim. 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." The word "inspired" is literally "God-breathed." This is an interesting phrase, since it implies that the Scriptures are from the mouth of God. Likewise, Peter says in 2 Pet. 1:21, "for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Notice that Peter is stating that prophecy is not the product of human will. Instead, prophecy occurs by those moved by the Holy Spirit. God spoke through the mouth of the prophets. We see in Acts 3:18, "But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer, He has thus fulfilled." Clearly, Luke, the writer of Acts, understood the Old Testament Scriptures to be spoken by God through the prophets. In fact, we find other references to the Old Testament referring to God speaking through the prophets. Words spoken through the prophet Jeremiah are referenced in Matt. 2:17, 27:9. Words spoken through the prophet Isaiah are referenced in Matt. 1:22, 8:17; John 12:37-40. Words spoken through the prophets Moses and Hosea are referenced in Matt. 2:15. Words spoken through the prophet David are referenced in Matt. 13:34-35. Words spoken through the prophet Zechariah are referenced in Matt. 21:4. Words spoken through the prophets generically are referenced in Matt. 26:56. Because the prophets speak for God, write Scripture, and make prophecies, the Scriptures must be fulfilled. It is the written Scriptures that are referenced here. It is not some vague and ambiguous reference to some areas of the Bible that "contain" the word of God. The problem of subjectivity If the Bible contains the word of God, but is not the word of God, then we must ask which parts of the Bible are the Word of God and which are not? The problem in answering this question is that the one who seeks to do so inadvertently places himself as the judge of what is and what is not inspired and without error. But by what standard would such a person make such judgment? What about the numerous contradictions in the Bible? It is true that there are difficulties with in the Word of God. But these are due to copying errors through the centuries. As more and more historical, archaeological, and manuscript evidence is uncovered, the fewer Bible difficulties there are. Nevertheless, for an examination of answers to the alleged Bible contradictions, please see The Bible Difficulties section in the navigation menu on the left. Conclusion When claims that the Bible contains the word of God but is not the word of God are made, it is done so usually because the critic of inspiration wants to assert that the original documents in the Bible contained errors. The problem is that this undermines the very trustworthiness of God's Word. How are we to decide what is and is not inspired, and therefore true, if the very breath of God moving through a sinner results in documents with mistakes? Does this inspire trust in God's Word? Does it promote security and rest in believing God's Word? Obviously not. This undermines the faith of Christians and is, naturally, a dangerous and false teaching.

Some other articles for those who are interested:

Evidence of biblical inspiration
Is the Bible inspired?
Inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible
2 Timothy 3:16, All Scripture is inspired

And there are many things in the Apocrypha which elaborate on the teaches of Jesus, but are not included in the "Bible."

For those who are curious about the Apocrypha.

The Apocrypha: Is it scripture? The Apocrypha consists of a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ. The word "apocrypha" (απόκρυφα) means "Hidden." These books consist of 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. The Protestant Church rejects the apocrypha as being inspired, as do the Jews, but in 1546 the Roman Catholic Church officially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon of scripture. These are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch. The apocryphal books are written in Greek, not Hebrew (except for Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, a part of Judith, and Tobit), and contain some useful historical information. Is the Apocrypha Scripture? Protestants deny its inspiration but the Roman Catholic Church affirms it. In order to ascertain whether it is or isn't, we need to look within its pages. Not quoted in the New Testament First of all, neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted from the Apocrypha. There are over 260 quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament, and not one of them is from these books. Nevertheless, a Roman Catholic might respond by saying that there are several Old Testament books that are not quoted in the New Testament, i.e., Joshua, Judges, Esther, etc. Does this mean that they aren't inspired either? But, these books had already been accepted into the canon by the Jews, where the Apocrypha had not. The Jews recognized the Old Testament canon and they did not include the Apocrypha in it. This is significant because of what Paul says: "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God," (Rom. 3:1-2). Paul tells us that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. This means that they are the ones who understood what inspired Scriptures were and they never accepted the Apocrypha. Jesus' references the Old Testament: from Abel to Zechariah Jesus referenced the Jewish Old Testament canon from the beginning to the end and did not include the Apocrypha in his reference. "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation,’" (Luke 11:51). "The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah," which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (cf. Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr of which we read in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (cf. II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers."1 This means that the same Old Testament canon, according to the Jewish tradition, is arranged differently than how we have it in the Protestant Bible today. This was the arrangement to which Jesus was referring when he referenced Abel and Zechariah, the first and last people to have their blood shed -- as listed in the Old Testament Jewish canon. Obviously, Jesus knew of the Apocrypha and was not including it in his reference. Jesus references the Old Testament: The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms Catholics sometimes respond by saying that the Old Testament is referred to in three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. It is these writings that are sometimes said to include the Apocrypha. But this designation is not found in the Bible. On the contrary, Jesus referenced the Old Testament and designated its three parts as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, not as the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. "Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled," (Luke 24:44). So we see that the designation offered by the Roman Catholics is not the same designation found in the Bible and their argument is invalid as their argument is incorrect. Nevertheless, even if it did say "writings" it would not include the Apocrypha for the above-mentioned reasons. Church Fathers Did the Church fathers recognized the Apocrypha as being Scripture? Roman Catholics strongly appeal to Church history but we don't find a unanimous consensus on the Apocrypha. Jerome (340-420) who translated the Latin Vulgate which is used by the RC church, rejected the Apocrypha since he believed that the Jews recognized and established the proper canon of the Old Testament. Remember, the Christian Church built upon that recognition. Also, Josephus the famous Jewish historian of the First Century never mentioned the Apocrypha as being part of the canon either. In addition, "Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and the great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha."2 So, we should not conclude that the Church fathers unanimously affirmed the Apocrypha. They didn't.

And

Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible Catholics and Protestants disagree regarding the exact number of books that belong in the Old Testament Scriptures. The dispute between them is over seven books, part of what is known as the Apocrypha: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), Baruch, Tobit, Judith, and additions to Daniel and Esther. However, there are a number of reasons why the Old Testament Apocrypha should not be part of the Canon, or standard writings of Scripture. Rejection by Jesus and the Apostles 1. There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or the apostles. While there may be various allusions by the New Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say." There are references in the New Testament to the pseudepigrapha (literally “false writings”) (Jude 14-15) and even citations from pagan sources (Acts 17:22-34), but none of these are cited as Scripture and are rejected even by Roman Catholics. In contrast, the New Testament writers cite the Old Testament numerous times (Mt. 5; Lk. 24:27; Jn. 10:35) and use phrases such as "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say," indicating their approval of these books as inspired by God. 2. Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).” Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis, while Zechariah was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles. In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles. They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently. For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book. This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today. By Jesus referring to Abel and Zachariah, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today. Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Rejection by the Jewish Community 3. The "oracles of God" were given to the Jews (Rom. 3:2) and they rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha as part of this inspired revelation. Interestingly, Jesus had many disputes with the Jews, but He never disputed with them regarding the extent of the inspired revelation of God. 4. The Dead Sea scrolls provide no commentary on the Apocrypha, but do provide commentary on some of the Jewish Old Testament books. This probably indicates that the Jewish Essene community did not regard them as highly as the Jewish Old Testament books. 5. Many ancient Jews rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Philo never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture. Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha and listed the Hebrew Canon to be 22 books. In fact, the Jewish Community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written. Rejection by many in the Catholic Church 6. The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation. 7. Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius. 8. The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after, but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired. False Teachings 9. The Apocrypha contains a number of false teachings (see: Errors in the Apocrypha). (To check the following references, see http://www.newadvent.org/bible.) The command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7). Forgiveness of sins by almsgiving (Tobit 4:11; 12:9). Offering of money for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45). Not Prophetic 10. The Apocryphal books do not share many of the chararacteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41).

[ChiTownBuffalo]

And once again

carm.org is the work of a nutjob.

[XNarte]

I have such a hard time understanding how religious people can be pro-choice when it comes to abortion. If you think that every life is created by god, how can you believe a woman has a "right" to end that pregnancy? The mental gymnastics involved are just too much for me.

Just like the Bible makes exceptions for divorce (such as cheating), some Christians make exceptions for abortion, like if a woman is raped.

Also, even though some people are against it they don't think that themselves or the government should make the decision for the women who are considering it.

Should we have the government control the decisions of adulterers? Or those coveting thy neighbor?

Not that hard to comprehend really.

[Warrior_Keoni]

I don't particularly have much for religion let alone having time for it in my life. But it takes a brave soul to admit this stuff, and it's even worse if I have to say it in front of family. All I try to do is live a hearty life and help others if needed. Kudos to you Chi, hope things continue to work out for you.

[endre]

Fixed that for you

Good point, but I have not forgotten it.

I know people who do not fund the church, but still believe in the same christian God. Mind you I am not talking about young Earth creationists. More like an entity that is governing all.

I think that the major thing keeping religion alive is the possibility of an afterlife.

And while i acknowledge your point, at my home town you can go to church without giving a dime. Not to mention that if you are in a situation where you cannot afford any money, the parish will try to help you out.

[RELAYER]

Ah yes, the stage of religious debate where endless amounts of spam from outside sources are copy and pasted in lieu of actual effort.

[Game Analyst]

And once again carm.org is the work of a nutjob.

What happened to...

“Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged."

[Jokergrin]

Stage one: Complete

perfect

[BruiserBear]

Just like the Bible makes exceptions for divorce (such as cheating), some Christians make exceptions for abortion, like if a woman is raped. Also, even though some people are against it they don't think that themselves or the government should make the decision for the women who are considering it. Should we have the government control the decisions of adulterers? Or those coveting thy neighbor? Not that hard to comprehend really.

But again, if you believe that god created life, it's a pretty huge thing to end a life. So I would say that's a bit more serious than adultery or coveting thy neighbor.


These are the sort of mental gymnastics that ultimately led me to begin questioning my faith in god.

[Angry Fork]

tl;dr: I quit organized religion. Slow your roll Atheist-GAF, I'm still a Christian.

Doesn't make sense.

The bible itself is the problem. The christians who hate on gay people ARE PROPER christians. That's part of what christianity is. Limiting women's rights is sanctioned by the bible.

Trying to revise it to suit modern times makes zero sense and only proves how silly and ridiculous the original text is (and that progressive secular values often end up being on the right side of history). Why can't you see the rest of it is garbage and get rid of the entire thing?

[ChiTownBuffalo]

What happened to... “Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged."

So, it's ok for you to post stuff from a group which is highly judgmental. But I can't call them out on it?

Or are we again going down the path of calling me a false Christian because I don't want to put up with the single minded direction of evangelical Christian institutions in this country?

[Dunk#7]

Ah yes, the stage of religious debate where endless amounts of spam from outside sources are copy and pasted in lieu of actual effort.

Does that change the message being delivered?

Some people are better at describing things and I feel that their description is better than what I could produce. Therefore I use their text to deliver a point

[Crunched]

tl;dr: I quit organized religion. Slow your roll Atheist-GAF, I'm still a Christian. Doesn't make sense. The bible itself is the problem. The christians who hate on gay people ARE PROPER christians. That's part of what christianity is. Trying to revise it to suit modern times makes zero sense and only proves how silly and ridiculous the original text is (and that progressive secular values often end up being on the right side of history). Why can't you see the rest of it is garbage and get rid of the entire thing?

I don't know about that. I am an atheist, but I understand that to be a Christian means to follow the teachings and examples of Jesus. And he doesn't seem like the type of guy who put down other fellas for their sexual orientation.

[Game Analyst]

The bible itself is the problem. The christians who hate on gay people ARE PROPER christians. That's part of what christianity is. Limiting women's rights is sanctioned by the bible.

You are wrong about your beliefs. They go against Jesus' teachings and His Apostle's teachings.

[XNarte]

But again, if you believe that god created life, it's a pretty huge thing to end a life. So I would say that's a bit more serious than adultery or coveting thy neighbor. These are the sort of mental gymnastics that ultimately led me to begin questioning my faith in god.

You would say, but the Bible says all sin is equal in the eyes of God.

[Crunched]

You are wrong about your beliefs. They go against Jesus' teachings and His Apostle's teachings.

Yeah the bigotry that comes out of religion is not always central to that religion, but it's easy to twist the meaning of religion around to suit the needs of bigots.

Just think about the "god helps those that help themselves" quote that gets thrown around by classists. That's nowhere in the bible, which in fact suggests the opposite. It's the same as people who credit Darwin as saying "only the strong survive." It's a false quote that goes against the actual words of the attributed source, but people believe it anyway.

People are dumb.

[SmokyDave]

What happened to... “Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged."

"The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment." (Psa 37:30)

"With my lips have I declared all the judgments of thy mouth." (Psa 119:13)

"Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy." (Prov 31:9)

Jesus commended Simon, "Thou hast rightly judged." (Luke 7:43)

"Now, thou son of man, wilt thou judge, wilt thou judge the bloody city? yea, thou shalt show her all her abominations." (Ezek 22:2)

"But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." (1 Cor 2:15)

"Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?" (1 Cor 6:2)

"Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?" (1 Cor 6:3)

[RELAYER]

tl;dr: I quit organized religion. Slow your roll Atheist-GAF, I'm still a Christian. Doesn't make sense. The bible itself is the problem. The christians who hate on gay people ARE PROPER christians. That's part of what christianity is. Limiting women's rights is sanctioned by the bible. Trying to revise it to suit modern times makes zero sense and only proves how silly and ridiculous the original text is (and that progressive secular values often end up being on the right side of history). Why can't you see the rest of it is garbage and get rid of the entire thing?

Here we go.

"Oh, so you're a Christian who doesn't hate gays and supports women's rights? Nope sorry, you have to hate them, it's way too inconvenient otherwise."

[Game Analyst]

You would say, but the Bible says all sin is equal in the eyes of God.

Not true.

“Why don’t you talk to me?” Pilate demanded. “Don’t you realize that I have the power to release you or crucify you?” Then Jesus said, “You would have no power over me at all unless it were given to you from above. So the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.” - John 19:10-12

[rkn]

Just looking at this thread makes me realize I'm pretty much glad I don't give a crap either way.

[Game Analyst]

"The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment." (Psa 37:30) "With my lips have I declared all the judgments of thy mouth." (Psa 119:13) "Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy." (Prov 31:9) Jesus commended Simon, "Thou hast rightly judged." (Luke 7:43) "Now, thou son of man, wilt thou judge, wilt thou judge the bloody city? yea, thou shalt show her all her abominations." (Ezek 22:2) "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." (1 Cor 2:15) "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?" (1 Cor 6:2) "Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?" (1 Cor 6:3)

Context is key. Those scriptures have nothing to do with the subject Jesus was referring to.

[Double D]

I'm pretty much right there with you, Chi. Although I think I've slipped a little further away.

I feel like being raised as a Catholic made me a pretty good person. The schools I went to weren't too heavy handed and I met a lot of good people who were all under the same mindset that you just need to be nice to each other if you want people to be nice to you.

Then as I got older everything just started falling apart. Went through college taking various courses on Theology and also just meeting different people from all kinds of backgrounds and cultures. All of this just slowly chipped way at the little beliefs I had in everything.

I think the culmination of everything was went I got my girlfriend of 6 years pregnant. We were just finishing college, and planning on getting married anyways, so this just accelerated things. She was 7 months pregnant when we got married in the Church, on the altar, the whole nine. My father has always contributed a lot of money, so the priests didn't even acknowledge that she was pregnant. Everything went fine, and we are still married and now have 3 kids, but the whole thing just didn't sit right with me.

It sounds weird, I know, but it was just like, "what is this all for?". Everything that I've ever been taught that is good and bad is simply negated because of my family's financial status. None of it matters.

Then my sister comes out as gay and throws a whole other set of crap into the mix. Certain people support her while others don't believe she is gay. Some of them think that her partner is literally Satan.

She's happier than she's ever been now that she has 'sinned against the church'. So am I. And I don't at all feel like we've 'succumbed to the devil'. We just followed out hearts which lead us to the path we are on today, and we're better people because of it.

To quote a book I just read, "the secret of life is simply living". Just be good to each other, and try not to treat this planet like total shit.

[Dunk#7]

Yeah the bigotry that comes out of religion is not always central to that religion, but it's easy to twist the meaning of religion around to suit the needs of bigots.

Way too many things these days are described under the veil of Christianity when that may or may not describe the actions or beliefs taking place.

That is the easiest way for the devil to target the message. Make tons and tons of copies that seem close, but are not the true message. It creates internal problems and also makes the religion look terrible to the outside world since everything is grouped together. It is hard to see through all of the traditions and other crap that has been thrown under the description of Christianity, but it can be done and at its core everything is fine.

[TucoBenedictoPacifico]

Here we go. "Oh, so you're a Christian who doesn't hate gays and supports women's rights? Nope sorry, you have to hate them, it's way too inconvenient otherwise."

That's... not what he's saying at all?

[Crunched]

Way too many things these days are described under the veil of Christianity when that may or may not describe the actions or beliefs taking place. That is the easiest way for the devil to target the message. Make tons and tons of copies that seem close, but are not the true message. It creates internal problems and also makes the religion look terrible to the outside world since everything is grouped together. It is hard to see through all of the traditions and other crap that has been thrown under the description of Christianity, but it can be done and at its core everything is fine.

I am still kind of weirded out by the devil stuff but I think we are seeing along the same lines.

[PaddyOCanager]

I couldn't agree with you more OP. I'm a Christian who stopped going to church years ago for many of the same reasons you stated. I cannot abide people who use religion to excuse prejudice and act superior to others based on their "faith", picking and choosing parts of the Bible to suit their own personal agendas. I'm no saint, but I don't pretend to be either and don't use my faith as a license to pass judgment on others.

[XNarte]

Not true. “Why don’t you talk to me?” Pilate demanded. “Don’t you realize that I have the power to release you or crucify you?” Then Jesus said, “You would have no power over me at all unless it were given to you from above. So the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.” - John 19:10-12

How does this show that one sin that one commandment addresses is any different than another sin mentioned in a different commandment?

Every time I have heard someone ask a Christian why they condemn homosexuals because loving a same sex partner in a committed relationship is a lot better than murdering someone, they are always told that it is a sin and all sin is equal in the eyes of God.

You say "context is key", would you mind giving some context?

[endre]

Then my sister comes out as gay and throws a whole other set of crap into the mix. Certain people support her while others don't believe she is gay. Some of them think that her partner is literally Satan.

People literary believe that? USA is more fucked up then I thought.

To quote a book I just read, "the secret of life is simply living". Just be good to each other, and try not to treat this planet like total shit.

^word

[Angry Fork]

I don't know about that. I am an atheist, but I understand that to be a Christian means to follow the teachings and examples of Jesus. And he doesn't seem like the type of guy who put down other fellas for their sexual orientation.

I don't care about Jesus. There is no proper evidence he existed so he's meaningless (in terms of him being son of god, obviously his words if real have meaning). And even if he did exist (and was a great person) there have been millions of great men throughout history there is no reason to revolve religions around them. I'm surprised somebody hasn't started The Church of Martin Luther King Jr.™ yet based on people harping on about how cool Jesus was, therefore, let's be his slaves! And if you don't you go to hell =D (and apologists call this free choice lol)

Instead I care about the silly, evil, philistine book that billions supposedly live by and influences their decisions. The book itself is obviously wrong and immoral ALL OVER. None of it should be taken serious and the Christian faith should not be taken serious. It causes the suffering and death of millions over NOTHING. Absolute superstitious white noise.

If you think some parts of the bible aren't kosher that's your logic/reason taking precedence over dogma. That is stage one and stage two is realizing the rest of it is nonsense too. Stage 3 is realizing the god hypothesis has no weight either.

Fact: Picking and choosing parts of the bible that you don't like doesn't make YOU a 'proper' Christian, it makes you less and less Christian. Actual proper christians are those nutjob evangelicals. That is what the books are about, and ChiTown has recognized that is dangerous and scary, he just hasn't got the gumption to go further and analyze the rest of it.

[Crunched]

I don't care about Jesus. There is no proper evidence he existed so he's meaningless. And even if he did exist (and was a great person) there have been millions of great men throughout history there is no reason to revolve religions around them. I'm surprised somebody hasn't started The Church of Martin Luther King Jr.™ yet based on people harping on about how cool Jesus was, therefore, let's be his slaves! And if you don't you go to hell =D (and apologists call this free choice lol) Fact: Picking and choosing parts of the bible that you don't like doesn't make YOU a 'proper' Christian, it makes you less and less Christian. Actual proper christians are those nutjob evangelicals. That is what the books are about, and ChiTown has recognized that is dangerous and scary, he just hasn't got the gumption to go further and analyze the rest of it.

I think you need to reexamine the word "Christian."

You are right about the picking and choosing, but tossing Jesus out the argument is a totally wrong way to approach this. Whether or not he existed is irrelevant, but what he is said to have preached is literally the core of Christianity. It's All About Jesus.

[bengraven]

Dunk is the kind of guy that's causing Chi is leaving the church.

[thesoapster]

Have you ever considered looking for a more open-minded denomination? Or maybe even moving towards Unitarian Universalism (or something along those lines)? I personally cannot believe anymore, but if you're still looking for something it may be worth looking into more liberally-minded groups.

[Arcteryx]

Context is key. Those scriptures have nothing to do with the subject Jesus was referring to.

Yes, it's perfectly fine for you to choose choice quotes from the Bible, but when someone else brings up something counter to your point..."context is key".

[Angry Fork]

I think you need to reexamine the word "Christian." You are right about the picking and choosing, but tossing Jesus out the argument is a totally wrong way to approach this. Whether or not he existed is irrelevant, but what he is said to have preached is literally the core of Christianity. It's All About Jesus.

Mr. Rogers preached a lot better stuff than Christ for a lot longer.

Give me a good reason why people shouldn't start Fred Rogers religion if Christ is fair game (and we don't even know if he was real or not!).

edit - I'll pick Carl Sagan instead since people will inevitably say Rogers was just saying 'god's word' since he was presbyterian.

[Raist]

What happened to... “Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged."

Well if you judge wisely and accurately it should be A-OK, right?

[Dunk#7]

Dunk is the kind of guy that's causing Chi is leaving the church.

How dare I assert what the Bible says on the subject at hand

I have simply stated what I feel is a sin based upon the Bible. What is and is not a sin has nothing to do with how I deal and talk with others. I am on a equal level with everybody and quite guilty and deserving of Hell. It would be dumb for me to chastise others for their sins when I am in the same boat.

I have my beliefs about what is and is not a sin, but that does not make me call others out for their sins as that is between them and God.

Yes, it's perfectly fine for you to choose choice quotes from the Bible, but when someone else brings up something counter to your point..."context is key".

Context is key when the meaning that is derived from the segment is different than the meaning that would be derived from the segment in context.

Some verses require the context for understanding, others make sense with or without the context and the context being added would not change the meaning that came from the segment.

[ToxicAdam]

The church is just a building. You are giving it too much power.

If a relative gets married or dies, you will not enter it because of your new edict?

[TucoBenedictoPacifico]

Yes, it's perfectly fine for you to choose choice quotes from the Bible, but when someone else brings up something counter to your point..."context is key".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o

[drspeedy]

...Give me a good reason why people shouldn't start Fred Rogers religion...

day one

[Zeer0id]

I still can't eat pork though. o_O

I freely declare myself atheist now, and while I do eat pork, I still can't help but feel a tinge of guilt or distaste for it every time.

It's funny how that kind of conditioning works, eh?

Except with bacon. I can always eat bacon.

[PairOfFilthySocks]

I gave up on religion when I realised how wildly corrupt the Church is here in Ireland. Fuck that shit.

[Crunched]

Mr. Rogers preached a lot better stuff than Christ for a lot longer. Give me a good reason why people shouldn't start Fred Rogers religion if Christ is fair game (and we don't even know if he was real or not!). edit - I'll pick Carl Sagan instead since people will inevitably say Rogers was just saying 'god's word' since he was presbyterian.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Christianity exists because it does. There is no Rogerism, there are no Sagainsts. But there is Christianity. So what?