Support NeoGAF

[Mortrialus]

I'm not slandering you.

You said that Jesus didn't follow the Law because he didn't kill people lol. Sorry if I misunderstood that statement.

In my opinion not following the law is a good thing. Intervening in the public execution of an adulterer is the definition of not following the law. If he really cared about the law, he would have joined in the stoning or went about his day.

And yes you did slander me. We have the entire conversation right there.

Can you cite Scriptures that indicate that most Israellites did those things? It's almost anti-Semitic to suggest that you're not really Jewish unless you started a good stoning..

Wow, you just called me "almost racist." I'm not really sure how to respond to that other than "Fuck you. The law is vile, unjust and completely antagonistic to any notions of happiness, deserves to be called out for being vile, unjust and completely antagonistic to any notions of happiness, and so does everyone who pays lip service to it."

I said your statement was. It was a way of telling you it may not be the best idea to accuse a whole race/creed/nation of only negative attributes.

 

[Jackson]

So why even care about the law if no human will ever meet the standard, all I need to do is to believe and I will be saved, no matter what? seems awfully convenient.

It is convenient that's the point! It's grace! Because it's about your heart. It's about who you are at the core, not what you do or don't do.

The debate about what is and isn't sin is pointless because everyone has sinned in their lifetime. It doesn't matter how you sinned, you fell short. Calling a homosexual a sinner is no more silly than calling a priest righteous. It's moot. They have both sinned many times in their lives. That's just how life is. No one is perfect. You can't judge standards of "goodness" in people because someone will always be "more good(tm)" than someone else. That's where Jesus comes in; He is there to make you right simply by belief because he was perfect according to the bible.

Romans 3:23-31
23 For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. 24 Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. 25 For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, 26 for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus. 27 Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on obeying the law. It is based on faith. 28 So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law. 29 After all, is God the God of the Jews only? Isn’t he also the God of the Gentiles? Of course he is. 30 There is only one God, and he makes people right with himself only by faith, whether they are Jews or Gentiles.[j] 31 Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

It is convenient that's the point! It's about your heart. It's about who you are at the core.

The debate about what is and isn't sin is pointless because everyone has sinned in their lifetime. It doesn't matter how you sinned, you fell short. Calling a homosexual a sinner is no more silly than calling a priest righteous. It's moot. They have both sinned many times in their lives. That's just how life is.

Please. Not all sins are created equal, and the christian community as a whole has made that extraordinarily clear. People don't call liars, adulterers, rapists, or murderers "sinners". That's a term reserved almost exclusively for gay people.

 

[Jackson]

Please. Not all sins are created equal, and the christian community as a whole has made that extraordinarily clear. People don't call liars, adulterers, rapists, or murderers "sinners". That's a term reserved almost exclusively for gay people.

The Christian community is not God. Nor does everyone in the Christian community agree with what you said.

I'll say it again, it doesn't matter what labels you use or don't use, because all have sinned according to the Bible. We're all equally unworthy without Jesus's atonement.

 

[KodMoS]

Please. Not all sins are created equal, and the christian community as a whole has made that extraordinarily clear. People don't call liars, adulterers, rapists, or murderers "sinners". That's a term reserved almost exclusively for gay people.

The term is not almost reserved exclusively for gay people. In term of serious sins, it's used for people who willingly practice a course of a sinful life style.

 

[Osietra]

There's the bit when Jesus says 'Get thee behind me Satan'. Thats pretty much gay as hell.

Thought for the day: Jesus was the catcher.

 

[GhaleonQ]

Explain Question #1, this is what I just understood according to your post and the one you quoted:

If its mentioned in the OT, but not in the NT, we can say it was a product of the time it was written, and we don't have to follow it.

If its mentioned in both, then is mandatory, right?

No. The Old Covenant and New Covenant, the Law (not levitical law, but the Standard For Holiness That Condemns Us All) and Love (again, not benign friendliness but agape love), and other such couples are the fundamental theological concept of the Bible.

It's not an extrapolation, like the Trinity or original sin. It's explicitly stated.

God forms the same relationship with human beings over all of history, but it's expressed differently as necessary. Jehovah's Old Covenant was expressed through failure and sacrifice. It was tied to lineage, politics, and country. Jesus' purpose was expressed by a supreme, eternal absolution that bridged Old and New. The Holy Spirit's New Covenant is expressed through grace and faith. It's tied to the individual's actions and beliefs. The same godly principles (here, erotic love can be negative as well as positive) then get applied contextually to the covenant God made with humans (then, erotic love could tear Israel apart and ought to be dealt with as such; now, erotic love can erode the individual soul, so it should be dealt with like that's true).

It's a difficult idea to express concisely and without context, but it's incredibly basic and easy when one reads the actual text.

There's the bit when Jesus says 'Get thee behind me Satan'. Thats pretty much gay as hell.

Thought for the day: Jesus was the catcher.

Your accidental "gay as hell" joke was funnier than the one you made on purpose.

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

The Christian community is not God. Nor does everyone in the Christian community agree with what you said.

They certainly aren't.

The community as a whole has decided which acts are worth calling out as sins and which are not. It's nice that you feel the way that you do, but you do not represent the community as a whole.

The term is not almost reserved exclusively for gay people. In term of serious sins, it's used for people who willingly practice a course of a sinful life style.

It absolutely is.

 

[JGS]

Explain Question #1, this is what I just understood according to your post and the one you quoted:

If its mentioned in the OT, but not in the NT, we can say it was a product of the time it was written, and we don't have to follow it.

The reason why the OT is different from the NT is Jesus and his replacing the Law. So it may have been a product of the time, but that's only in the sense that Jesus time had come.

That's not to say that a lot of the Law didn't have benefit considering that a lot of it had to do with morality, cleanness, hygiene, dress & appearance, & even respect for women rather than hatred of them.

The main points of Biblical teaching haven't changed. Stop having sex just because you're horny, don't murder each other, love each other, worship God, & keep the heathens out are the prominent parts of the teaching and they never changed.

The primary changes had to do with the difference between there being an actual nation backed by God and a people back by God but without a physical nation.

as for your question #2, it is a big deal if you have all these rules of what to apply or not to your daily life, none of them are specially explicit in the Bible, and is obvious that just quoting anything out of context is stupid, for believers and none believers, if my hypothesis is correct of course.

I agree that it's a big deal. That's kind of my point. Why focus on something that no longer applies when it clearly indicates that Christians follow Christian teaching? The primary reason to concern oneself with the OT is to see how God works (Because the end result will be very similar) and for curiosity sake to see why things were done the way they were.

So there isn't a contradiction regarding eating of shrimp between the OT & the NT. It's simply a case of shrimp couldn't be eaten by nation of Israel. Christianity doesn't concern itself with it. There's no contradiction at all regarding whether God's people approve of premarital sex. It's pretty clear they don't.

 

[mantidor]

23 For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. 24 Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. 25 For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, 26 for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus. 27 Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on obeying the law. It is based on faith. 28 So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law. 29 After all, is God the God of the Jews only? Isn’t he also the God of the Gentiles? Of course he is. 30 There is only one God, and he makes people right with himself only by faith, whether they are Jews or Gentiles.[j] 31 Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.

This is mind boggling, I know, "matter of faith" and all that, but I can't help by point out this as something insane.

So what I said was wrong, I can't forget the law, even though we know its impossible to withhold, and believing in Jesus will make me fulfill it, even though is just impossible. Do anyone really expects anyone else to take this kind of logic/teaching/ and take it as it is?

And then, why care so much about homosexuality?, clearly the law is being broken way more constantly everyday about stuff like adultery, fornication, eating meat, etc, etc, Homosexuality as a law breaking event is minuscule when compared to all the other sins, it clearly doesn't happen that often as say, shaving or eating shellfish.

 

[KodMoS]

It absolutely is.

That's what some people may think but that's not how it is according to the scripture.

 

[diamondstar]

This study on 2 Corinthians 7 verses 8–10 will answer your question in great detail.

So if you go by my example of myself earlier.. If I do not do a complete 180(no cursing, heavy drinking, partying, looking at naked chicks)then I will not be accepted into heaven?

That is where religion weighs heavy on my mind.. Wouldn't it suck to be this great person your entire life and struggle to fulfill others needs before your own and truly not have a selfish bone in your body yet you die and still get cast into hell. That to me makes me wonder who actually makes it into heaven? Is it comical like Homer Simpson said "I'll just pray like hell on my death bed"? It just seems like one has to shut himself off from the secular world and read the bible all day in order to be accepted since tomorrow is not promised to anyone.

And I know it says something in the bible about the road to heaven is narrow. But it's starting to look like the road is not only narrow but almost impossible considering the world we live in.

 

[Mortrialus]

The main points of Biblical teaching haven't changed. Stop having sex just because you're horny, don't murder each other, love each other, worship God, & keep the heathens out are the prominent parts of the teaching and they never changed.

Pretty sure the the actual teaching was "kill all heathens" given all the times God allegedly commanded genocide specifically for not worshiping him. I won't hold that mistake against you.

 

[GhaleonQ]

This is mind boggling, I know, "matter of faith" and all that, but I can't help by point out this as something insane.

So what I said was wrong, I can't forget the law, even though we know its impossible to withhold, and believing in Jesus will make me fulfill it, even though is just impossible. Do anyone really expects anyone else to take this kind of logic/teaching/ and take it as it is?

Kierkegaard's Fear And Trembling is instructive. That's not even a teaching specific to Christianity. "Emptying yourself" of your own desires to fill up with the right, external thing is an aspect of at least 4 sizable religions.

The point is not to reconcile what you want with what God wants. The point is to learn to want what God wants. When you have a mental or physical barrier to doing that, you rely on (you guessed it!) faith in its goodness. There are tons of tales, biblical and otherwise, that reinforce that this CAN occur. It's a sensible idea.

 

[JGS]

In my opinion not following the law is a good thing. Intervening in the public execution of an adulterer is the definition of not following the law. If he really cared about the law, he would have joined in the stoning or went about his day.

EDIT: So you're saying that all good Israellites share in a good stoning?

And yes you did slander me. We have the entire conversation right there.

Jesus followed Mosaic law? Would you mind citing the parts of the Bible in which Jesus killed adulterers, homosexuals and unruly children?

Jesus followed Mosaic law? Would you mind citing the parts of the Bible in which Jesus killed adulterers, homosexuals and unruly children?

Jesus followed Mosaic law? Would you mind citing the parts of the Bible in which Jesus killed adulterers, homosexuals and unruly children?

3 times for emphasis. I'm not sure how I'm slandering you based on your statement.

I've already apologized for it anyway, so grab that knife and carve out that pound of flesh I guess.

Pretty sure the the actual teaching was "kill all heathens" given all the times God allegedly commanded genocide specifically for not worshiping him. I won't hold that mistake against you.

NT doesn't say anything about killing heathens. Further, the vast majority of heathens lived long healthy lives right beside the Israellites in the OT. In fact, it was the beginning of their downfall. You may be mistaking non-Jews with enemies of the Jews which were entirely different categories.

War is always genocide isn't it?

 

[Kinitari]

JGS... how do you get from him implying Mosaic law is bad, to him implying that all jews are abhorrent? I don't understand how you did that. For regular day context - I think that Sharia law is abhorrent. Does that mean I think all Muslims are evil or something?

The justification for anti-homosexual language in the Bible as a way to increase population growth is sooooo idiotic I'm sorry. Do you think people were clamouring to be gay back then? Do you think the only reason people weren't gay was because the bible told them not to be? It's silly - people were gay at probably the same rate that people are gay now - maybe just under 10%. And a lot of people who are gay still procreate using traditional methods. It wasn't significant enough to risk population shrinkage. Hell, if God really wanted people to grow in population, he would have taught them about antibiotics or something. Done.

This is what it boils down to in my eyes, a critical minds attempt to create a version of Christianity that they can be happy with. I don't really have a problem with that though - because it means that the ethics that these people espouse are more closely aligned with mine.

 

[Jeff-DSA]

Using the Old Testament as law is faulty, as Jesus came to fulfill that law (Law of Moses) and institute a higher law (the Gospel).

The Old Testament is still very valuable for the principles it teaches, but many of the specific laws were fulfilled and done away with via the Atonement of Christ and the institution of the Gospel.

 

[JGS]

JGS... how do you get from him implying Mosaic law is bad, to him implying that all jews are abhorrent? I don't understand how you did that. For regular day context - I think that Sharia law is abhorrent. Does that mean I think all Muslims are evil or something?

I didn't which is why I said that's almost anti-Semetic. He ran with it. In any event, to say that Jesus was not a good Jew because he refused to kill an alleged adulterer is borderline offensive. I got what he was trying to say but it was still highly incorrect and inappropriate.

You comparing the Sharia law with what ALL people should do with that law would be inappropriate as well btw. It's fine to think the Mosaic law is wrong (I would assume an atheist would), it is not OK to think the law somehow mandated everyone to kill sinners- as if forgiveness wasn't an option anyway under the law anyway.

I'm assuming the rest of this doesn't concern me.

 

[Kinitari]

I didn't which is why I said that's almost anti-Semetic. He ran with it. In any event, to say that Jesus was not a good Jew because he refused to kill an alleged adulterer is borderline offensive. I got what he was trying to say but it was still highly incorrect and inappropriate.

He didn't say that. He asked you in what instances was Jesus shown following particular aspects of Mosaic law. I still don't see how you leaped from THAT to him implying that for Jesus to be a good jew, he had to stone people - there is ABSOLUTELY no connection between the two ideas, and how you've created one is absolutely baffling to me.

You comparing the Sharia law with what ALL people should do with that law would be inappropriate as well btw. It's fine to think the Mosaic law is wrong (I would assume an atheist would), it is not OK to think the law somehow mandated everyone to kill sinners- as if forgiveness wasn't an option anyway under the law anyway.

I'm assuming the rest of this doesn't concern me.

It's not about assuming anything... it's harder with Mosaic law, as it's from way back when - but people are pretty confident that stoning was regular practice in Mosaic law back then - in fact, stoning of an adulterer made an appearance in the new Testament, did it not? Regardless - if I were to say "Sharia law calls for Apostates to be killed, thus if someone were to follow Sharia law exactly, Apostates (Like me!) would be killed" - that would be inappropriate?

And it doesn't concern you if you don't want it to, you seem like you can be critical sometimes, but it seems to mostly be about apologetics, and not a desire to modernize Christianity to fit your personal ideology.

 

[imtehman]

Not entirely correct, but it does have some very good points. Especially the last section on tolerance.

Nobody here on earth has the right to judge anyone else as we are all equally guilty so we cannot point fingers.

However I disagree with the "pick and choose" comment from the author. From the New Testament onward we are living in grace and not under law. There were many parts of the Jewish law that were historical preferences and not part of God's law. You see this problem today in many churches as they try to push their preferences on other people when it is not even an issue discussed by the Bible. Try playing an electric guitar or a drum set in many churches and they will have a problem with it when there is nothing stated about it in the Bible.

Living under grace is what God intended for us and gives us freedom to live our lives in many different ways. God laid out a framework for us to work within, but where we go within that framework is up to us and our guiding by the Holy Spirit.

If we were not to judge then why does the bible say...

"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment" (John 7:24)

"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them" (Ephesians 5:11).

"I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner -- not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore 'put away from yourselves that wicked person'" (1 Corinthians 5:9-13).

"And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother" (2 Thessalonians 3:14,15).

 

[Raist]

Nobody here on earth has the right to judge anyone else as we are all equally guilty so we cannot point fingers.

Guilty of... what exactly?

 

[Kinitari]

Guilty of... what exactly?

Adam and Eve eating an Apple, I think. I still feel like God set them up.

 

[PflargBlarg]

I'm just not sure why it matters a lick that the majority of people actually don't mind following what you say is a flawed book. if they are wrong they are going to wind up as dead as you and if they're right they gain much more and in the meantime, they are happy now. That should make even the crustiest atheist out there happy.

This sounds somewhat like Pascal's Wager to me.

And really, people questioning "oh man, why do you even care" is getting old. It should be very obvious why we care.

http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Why_atheists_care_about_religion

I mean, even the idea of legislation backed by religious beliefs should be an obvious enough reason to figure out why we care.

 

[Chaplain]

So if you go by my example of myself earlier.. If I do not do a complete 180(no cursing, heavy drinking, partying, looking at naked chicks)then I will not be accepted into heaven?

Jesus calls each of us to repent and turn to him for forgiveness. God knows you need help and wants to change you. But what is required of you is to tell him you want to stop and that you admit you have sinned against him. Once you do, God will do the rest. He will begin to change you. He will begin to take your bad habits and turn them into good ones. This is your choice and your choice alone. Do you continue living how you want to live or are you going to follow God and do what he tells you to do? We all face this choice throughout our lives (daily as well). But Jesus said very few will go to heaven because most people do not want to ask God for help and stop doing what he says is wrong.

That is where religion weighs heavy on my mind.. Wouldn't it suck to be this great person your entire life and struggle to fulfill others needs before your own and truly not have a selfish bone in your body yet you die and still get cast into hell.

God's definition of good is not our definition of good. God's definition of good has been only seen in Jesus. Jesus is God's standard of what human beings are to be like.

When we stop comparing ourselves to others and compare ourselves to Jesus, we can clearly see that we are sinners and not living according to God's standard of good.

So, no one will be cast into hell for being a good person. They will be cast into hell for rejecting Jesus and his payment for their sins.

It just seems like one has to shut himself off from the secular world and read the bible all day in order to be accepted since tomorrow is not promised to anyone.

God doesn't accept you because you go to church 5 times a week, read the bible 5 hours a day or because you pray 30 hours a week. God accepts you because of your faith and trust in Jesus and Jesus alone.

God will change your heart when you read his Word. The things that seem important now will not be important as you get closer and closer to God. So, the secular world does seem attractive when we live in it. But this world is empty and doesn't satisfy. This you will learn for yourself as you begin to walk daily with God.

And I know it says something in the bible about the road to heaven is narrow. But it's starting to look like the road is not only narrow but almost impossible considering the world we live in.

It is impossible if we try to do it by our own abilities and strength. Remember that Jesus got help carrying his cross by a man passing by. Jesus knows our crosses are to heavy to carry and he is always willing to help with the load if we just ask him. He will also send other believers to help you.

We are not alone and God knows we need all the help we can get. =]

 

[Deleted member 30609]

you guys seem less like disciples, more like pr handlers. with god playing the role of "drunken celebrity with an itchy twitter finger".

I've never seen anyone summarize threads in a sentence or two as perfectly and consistently as this guy right 'ere

 

[Mortrialus]

God will change your heart when you read his Word.

If he does it certainly isn't working as intended because sitting down and actually reading the bible was the final catalyst for me becoming an atheist. I was that appalled at how disgustingly vile it really was.

 

[Hylian7]

Hold the phone, the Bible condemns celibacy?! Oh Catholic Chuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurch, I have a surprise for you.......

 

[JGS]

This sounds somewhat like Pascal's Wager to me.

Why?

EDIT: I looked up Pascal's Wager just to make sure and I'm still not seeing the connection.

And really, people questioning "oh man, why do you even care" is getting old. It should be very obvious why we care.

http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Why_atheists_care_about_religion

I mean, even the idea of legislation backed by religious beliefs should be an obvious enough reason to figure out why we care.

What legislation is backed up by religious beliefs?

The link seems to be someone whining that they have to put up with religious people all day. It's like me whining about the number of white people that cross my path daily including family- something I would never do.

EDIT2: I'm being brief and therefore blunt. I have no interest in actually arguing this. Nothing is going to convince me that I am a problem to your continued existence.

However, I am curious how many acts of legislation are based on religious beliefs. Outside of the assumed gay marriage one (Which arguably has more than one reason for not being legal), I hope the rest of them are examples that actually would have a chance of passing legislation that that I am stunned speechless

 

[Hylian7]

Why?

EDIT: I looked up Pascal's Wager just to make sure and I'm still not seeing the connection.
What legislation is backed up by religious beliefs?

The link seems to be someone whining that they have to put up with religious people all day. It's like me whining about the number of white people that cross my path daily including family- something I would never do.

I'm going to guess you don't live in Texas.

 

[Mortrialus]

Why?

EDIT: I looked up Pascal's Wager just to make sure and I'm still not seeing the connection.
What legislation is backed up by religious beliefs?

The link seems to be someone whining that they have to put up with religious people all day. It's like me whining about the number of white people that cross my path daily including family- something I would never do.

http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Anti-atheist_laws

A link on the top of the very page he linked.

EDIT2: I'm being brief and therefore blunt. I have no interest in actually arguing this. Nothing is going to convince me that I am a problem to your continued existence.

No one should ever earnestly say "Nothing is going to convince me to change my mind on an opinion I hold." You might as well hold a sign saying "Do not talk to me."

 

[Deleted member 30609]

I'm just not sure why it matters a lick that the majority of people actually don't mind following what you say is a flawed book. if they are wrong they are going to wind up as dead as you and if they're right they gain much more and in the meantime, they are happy now. That should make even the crustiest atheist out there happy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU

Profoundly flawed logic

 

[JGS]

http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Anti-atheist_laws

A link on the top of the very page he linked.

This is at the top:

Organizations
Atheists cannot be Boy Scouts
Freemasons require that members "believe in a Supreme Being."
The Fraternal Order of Eagles requires that members believe in god.
Some schools may require students to go to church or they are not able to be enrolled

This is not legislation. these are private organizations doing whatever they feel like in connection to their religious beliefs which are as protected as an atheists.

As for the legislation that are each well over a 100 years old and unenforceable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheophobia

Some atheists say that they are discriminated against in the United States and compare their situation to the discrimination faced by ethnic minorities, LGBT communities, and women.[26][27][28][29] "Americans still feel it's acceptable to discriminate against atheists in ways considered beyond the pale for other groups," asserted Fred Edwords of the American Humanist Association.[30] Other atheists reject these comparisons, arguing that while atheists may face disapproval they have not faced significant oppression or discrimination.[31][32]

In the United States, seven state constitutions officially include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office, and in some cases being a juror/witness, though these have not generally been enforced since the early nineteenth century.[33][34][35] The U.S. Constitution allows for an affirmation instead of an oath in order to accommodate atheists and others in court or seeking to hold public office.[33][36] In 1961, the United States Supreme Court explicitly overturned the Maryland provision in the Torcaso v. Watkins decision, holding that laws requiring "a belief in the existence of God" in order to hold public office violated freedom of religion provided for by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[33][37][38] This decision is generally understood to also apply to witness oaths.[39]

Pretty sure ones can muster up the courage to run for office in this day and age.

I think my original question involved current legislation that was baased on religious beliefs- not on old laws that are struck down at every opportunity or private religious based organizations doing as they please.

No one should ever earnestly say "Nothing is going to convince me to change my mind on an opinion I hold." You might as well hold a sign saying "Do not talk to me."

Now whose slandering? I know myself way more than you know me...Or maybe not. Maybe you can tell me the danger I hold for you. To the point, what am I doing to you now or in the future that is prohibiting your rights to be non-Christian/agnostic/atheist? Reminiscing about the goold old days of 1874? Breathing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU

Profoundly flawed logic

For the record, if one must explain themselves by Youtube, then that means they're likely not very good and explaining their position to begin with.

Secondly, of course it's flawed logic because, for whatever reason, many atheists on the board do indeed dislike us for no other reason than we don't agree with you and thus are a threat. There's no other reason it could be.

 

[Mortrialus]

This is at the top:

This is not legislation. these are private organizations doing whatever they feel like in connection to their religious beliefs which are as protected as an atheists.

Yeah, it's a wiki, so it isn't going to be the best example. Still, I noticed your comment, checked it out and saw a page dedicated for anti-atheist laws. Plus I can think of at least one occasion in recent years where an atheist was kicked out of office for being an atheist despite the law being illegal. Give me a bit of time and I can find it.

As far as the private organizations, the Boy Scouts gains preferential treatment from the government because of their work, and they are openly discriminatory. They should lose the preferential treatment they get on that basis.

Of course there is always this example. It is long, but it does discuss the worst type of preferential treatment for religious organizations by the government.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/new-bethany-ifb-teen-homes-abuse




Also, churches aren't taxed and they should be.

 

[KodMoS]

Hold the phone, the Bible condemns celibacy?! Oh Catholic Chuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurch, I have a surprise for you.......

It condemns anyone who teaches that God is against marriage.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

For the record, if one must explain themselves by Youtube, then that means they're likely not very good and explaining their position to begin with.

Secondly, of course it's flawed logic because, for whatever reason, many atheists on the board do indeed dislike us for no other reason than we don't agree with you and thus are a threat. There's no other reason it could be.

Does any of this have anything to do with the point you made that the video refutes?

 

[les papillons sexuels]

No, Christ makes distinctions on what to follow and what to cast away. I'm following His word and His teachings.

But that really isn't the point.

I want to share with Gaf, that Christianity might not be what they think it is. I'm not saying that my way is right, I'm just sharing an experience I had amongst other beleivers to show them that maybe what they had been taught needs to be reconsidered. And still keeping it edifying to God, and our fellowship. I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything.

But, members of Atheist-GAF, some of it intentional, some of it I think an uncontrollable urge, have an issues with this.

"You can't even follow your own rules. Therefore your faith is invalid. You must continue adhering to old doctrine so we can continue to mock you."

And if that's the way Atheist-GAF wants to present itself that's fine. I know many atheists are nice people that don't feel the need to go out of their way to make attacks. I hope the people who feel the need to lash out in a reactionary manner find some peace in their hearts. I would offer to pray for that peace, but I know that just torques alot of you off even more.

I think you're missing the point of that argument entirely. Also the bolded part comes off sounding extremely childish and immature.

 

[Kyon]

A different lover is not a sin, believe capital H.I.M

PREACH DA GODGA SCRIPTURE SIS!

 

[Mario]

God's definition of good is not our definition of good. God's definition of good has been only seen in Jesus. Jesus is God's standard of what human beings are to be like.

So, no one will be cast into hell for being a good person. They will be cast into hell for rejecting Jesus and his payment for their sins.

God doesn't accept you because you go to church 5 times a week, read the bible 5 hours a day or because you pray 30 hours a week. God accepts you because of your faith and trust in Jesus and Jesus alone.

It is impossible if we try to do it by our own abilities and strength.

So God, having cursed all humans with the burden Original Sin, sets a test of goodness which he knows is impossible for humans to achieve anyway, a test which can only be passed by accepting his own "sacrifice" to overcome the curse he put in place to begin with, and a test where the cost of failure is eternal damnation?

God moves in mysterious ways that seem suspiciously like blackmail.

God will change your heart when you read his Word.

I read His Word multiple times and He didn't change my heart on anything. In fact, reading the Bible strengthened my position. I don't believe He exists.

 

[JGS]

Does any of this have anything to do with the point you made that the video refutes?

Not sure. Didn't view it as it's not available for me at this time.

 

[hellclerk]

So what is repentance?

I will use myself as an example. I grew up in church, was baptized, received the holy spirit, and believe in God and Jesus died on the cross for our sins. I feel I am a good person that really puts others before himself and will go out of his way to not do any wrong upon others. Yet I curse, love to drink and party, love my fair share of porn and currently don't go to church.

Some of those sins I feel remorse about and some I don't. If I never turn away from my sins am I condemned to hell? And I know I am not supposed to judge but I see quite a few Christians that do go to church but do a few things that I would consider a sin.. What makes them better than me?

Well here's your main issue, you really seem to have a very twisted sense of "sin". Eating, drinking, and being merry is no sin. Hell, getting drunk isn't a sin, no matter what you were led to believe. You're more open to sin in those situations, but I go out to drink and party, and I can't really think of any particularly egregious sin I've committed under the influence. Even the act of viewing porn isn't particularly sinful, it's the objectification of what's on screen that's the inappropriate part.

Y'see, sin is when you start treating people like things, including yourself. Those who go to church are neither more or less worthy than you. Them going to church does not necessarily do anything if they sin like you say, but what matters most is the intent. But don't concern yourself with the sins of others. Unless it directly effects your life, then there's really no reason to concern yourself with it. Go to your local priest or pastor and ask him about your brand of reconciliation and see if it fits your spiritual needs.

Here's the short of it: the "Lake of Fire" doesn't exist. Hell is simply a construct, an idea, a concept for "distance from God" What matters most is trying your best to close the gap created by sin. Don't worry about who's closer or further away from God by this definition, because trying to quantify it as mortals is impossible. Just focus on making that gap as small as possible. As a normal human being, it's impossible to not have a good wide gap, but that's okay, you can still strive for it, and it's the striving that matters most of all.

Remember at the end of Dr. Faustus that at the end of it all, God still took Faustus back, even after a life of sin and lack of faith. Keep your faith in something, you'll make it through just fine.

 

[KodMoS]

So God, having cursed all humans with the burden Original Sin, sets a test of goodness which he knows is impossible for humans to achieve anyway, a test which can only be passed by accepting his own "sacrifice" to overcome the curse he put in place to begin with, and a test where the cost of failure is eternal damnation?

God moves in mysterious ways that seem suspiciously like blackmail.

You may have read the bible but that doesn't mean you understand much about it.

 

[Gamecocks625]

If he does it certainly isn't working as intended because sitting down and actually reading the bible was the final catalyst for me becoming an atheist. I was that appalled at how disgustingly vile it really was.

That's because it is full of broken people with every story pointing to the need of a savior which is Jesus. You're right in that there is very shocking stuff in scriptures.

 

[JGS]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU

Profoundly flawed logic

OK, I viewed a large portion of it and I'm not sure what the point of posting this was- which is why I prefer people simply explain it.

 

[Mario]

You may have read the bible but that doesn't mean you understand much about it.

It appears God's Word is nowhere near as powerful, clear and unambiguous as Game Analyst would suggest based on my lack of "heart change", apparent misunderstanding and the myriad of Christian sects who all interpret the same text differently.

BTW I was asking the question based on his interpretation of the Bible as outlined in his post, not mine.

 

[Replicant]

You may have read the bible but that doesn't mean you understand much about it.

It's always amusing to read/hear 'holier-than-thou' statements like this. Like your interpretation is better than his.

As a kid, I heard/saw this kind of condascending attitude from my very religious uncles/aunts whenever my family visit them. It's the kind of thing that turn me off from religious people and religion in general. It made me wonder if they were aware of how condascending they were being. It's not like my family were heathen either. We were practicing Catholic but for some reason they thought we were not doing enough because all we did for our religious life was going to church every weekend and just trying to be decent people in general.

 

[JGS]

To be fair, not all intrepretations are equal.

 

[Air]

It's always amusing to read/hear 'holier-than-thou' statements like this. Like your interpretation is better than his.

As a kid, I heard/saw this kind of condascending attitude from my very religious uncles/aunts whenever my family visit them. It's the kind of thing that turn me off from religious people and religion in general. It made me wonder if they were aware of how condascending they were being. It's not like my family were heathen either. We were practicing Catholic but for some reason they think we're not doing good enough because all we did for our religious life was going to church every weekend.

It's not condescending, it happens a lot. People can easily read or watch something and miss the original intent. There isn't anything wrong with being corrected by that.

It's like if you read a poem about love, and you mistook it for war. A person can come in and say that the original intent of the poem was to portray war. Yes you can have your own perception of what that poem meant to you, but that doesn't change the fact that there was an intent that was already attached to it.

 

[KodMoS]

Basically what it comes down to his this...

The Bible does condemn homosexually and it's a sin. Sins are not all equal. We're not simply talking about one act of a sin, we're talking about a sin that is practiced repeatedly. This could be a person who is a homosexual, fornicator, drunkard ect. I'm not going around condemning people about their life style, that's their choice.

One can argue that Christians are "picky" when it comes to following scripture. However, that doesn't mean they're real Christian. Fore example: The many churches are against gay people attending their church, but are not against fornicators joining their church. The reason why I use this as an example is because a fornicator is in the same category as homosexuals (as of those not inheriting gods kingdom)in the scripture.

 

[Mario]

It's not condescending, it happens a lot. People can easily read or watch something and miss the original intent. There isn't anything wrong with being corrected by that.

It's like if you read a poem about love, and you mistook it for war. A person can come in and say that the original intent of the poem was to portray war. Yes you can have your own perception of what that poem meant to you, but that doesn't change the fact that there was an intent that was already attached to it.

So which of the 14,000 different sects of Christianity or any Bible scholars has correctly interpreted the intent of the Bible?

 

[KodMoS]

It's always amusing to read/hear 'holier-than-thou' statements like this. Like your interpretation is better than his

I didn't even give you my interpretation on that statement so don't even assume you even know what my interpenetration is. You're just spewing ignorance.