MollyMyth
I am open open to correction, criticism, and the like. I'm looking for a conversation, not a fight. I am only questioning to learn.
funny that you have to state this... funny or tragic, I suppose.
I am EXTREMELY versed in the christian belief system yet am coming to this topic in a post-christian life. So, my points are all going to be educated but definitely tinted by my own experiences, so bear with me.
Quote:
A lot of Christians say that I should accept Jesus Christ because he died on the cross for me so I could be free of original sin. My first question regarding this is: If Jesus died for my sins, then why are there still sins? Especially related to the subject of homosexuality considering many people say that Leviticus no longer needs to be followed, yet homosexuality, unlike eating shellfish or cutting hair, is still condemned and is considered "wrong".
You are conflicting issues here. Homosexuality, sin, and personal salvation, so I'll go into depth on each one. Depending on which sect of christianity you're talking about, the old testament was abolished once the new testament came to be. Very specifically Acts 10:9-15 describes a dream that Peter had. (the same peter that denied Jesus 3 times, was considered to be the first bishop of Rome and also crucified by Nero [who himself I find to be the more interesting historical figure{rumored to have watch Rome burn while playing his Lute; rumored to have started the great Roman fire to build his new, golden palace; and the best darned Artist Emperor Rome ever saw}]) In this dream, he was tempted with various "unclean" foods by god. He refused to eat them because they were "unclean", quite the correctly-Jewish answer back in the early days of christianity. But, god ended his dream by saying "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy".
Now, what does that mean? Well, if you believe that Jesus was actually the son of god, on the same footing, of the same substance of god, then what he says goes. Now, what was it that Jesus said was a sin? What was it that he said was a sin? He didn't. He gave the two highest commandments man should ever live by, but that's it. In Mark 12: 30-31
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
Now, he basically said that these two rules override every rule that has existed before and will exist after. Unless he (god) says something different, this is THE highest commandment. So, christians kind of feel free to disregard most of the old testament thusly. I mean, Paul and other foundational christian minds do say that Jesus is the only way to salvation, but what they say CAN'T override what god says. After all, what god has cleansed , no longer consider unholy. God cleansed anything that falls into the categories of "loving your god" and "loving your neighbor". I'm a huge proponent of not considering anything that falls within these two parameters "unholy".
So, homosexuality. Paul does state in Romans 1:27 it says:
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Post-old testament, that is the only thing ever said about homosexuality. Even in the old testament, there is compelling evidence to support the fact that those homosexual acts were condemned moreso because of prostitution and uncleanliness rather than morality. Even in this new testament verse, the question becomes: does this override what Jesus said? Does this override what Paul dreamed? There aren't conclusive answers here. This verse and subsequent verses don't even say that homosexuality IS a sin, it doesn't say a punishment except that "god gave them over to the depravity of their minds". And- in fact- in Roman culture(the people to whom these letters were written, BTW), male homosexuality was not considered indecent or unnatural and more of part of a learning phase in male development. It never specifies a specific action. It never specifies a specific behavior. It's EXTREMELY unclear.
So, let's go back to what is clear: loving the lord your god with all your strength and loving your neighbor as yourself. Those- to me- seem crystal clear.
Quote:
Another thing that I've heard is that everything in the bible is meant as a metaphor. But again, that person was against homosexuality.
(sorry to make this sound like a homosexuality defense post)
DO NOT let a christian hear you say that. That will- depending on what type of christian you're talking to- sound every mental alarm, bell, or whistle they have. Seriously, this is a hot topic. It is not one that EVERY christian agrees on.
Quote:
I also can't quite grasp the reason that Jesus had to be crucified in the first place. If God is an all powerful being, then why did he have to have a human sacrifice just to say "Hm, sure, I suppose I'll give people more chances to get out of forever burning in hell."?
Depending how in depth you want to go, this sacrifice was a HUGE gesture. Originally, the Jewish religion was founded by sacrifice.(Genesis 22, I believe) Basically, YAHWEH decided that he wanted to form a pact with someone- Abraham to be precise- the pact was that his descendants would be great and prosperous(although YAHWEH's part of the bargain wasn't defined till post-sacrifice), if only he sacrificed his son Isaac. He did in complete faith that his sacrifice would be rewarded.(or at least he was going to till god provided a literal scape goat, like a goat that could take abraham's son's place) He put his trust in this god that he believed in more than he did his own son. Population wasn't as abundant at the time, people were still relatively nomadic, so this was a HUGE deal. But Abraham trusted and god rewarded. From his descendants, the twelve tribes of israel were born/formed. This lead directly to the Jewish culture we know today (amazing how the stereotype is extremely rich and well-off, eh?).
The sacrifice that YAHWEH made was extremely symbolic. He basically allowed his only begotten son to be tortured and crucified when he had done NO wrong. He allowed this 'perfect' being to experience in full the depravity of human hatred and violence. Why? You could read this two ways. 1.It was god's sacrifices to prove his newly-developed, benevolent nature to everyone that believed in this new, improved, and less judgmental god. or 2.It was Jesus' sacrifice. That he, a perfect being, would stand through all these horrors without hatred or pain for the whole of the human race. He made the pact with god, he became sin for us and allowed himself to be the proverbial(literal perhaps) scapegoat. If you believe the former, I don't expect an omnibenevolent god would send people to hell arbitrarily. If you believe the second, where in the pact did Jesus say, "wait, hold on, let's add a clause that says people have to accept me as their lord and savior before this sacrifice means anything".
However, Jesus did say as his dying words, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" Which I find poetic, tragic, and also in a strange way, it fills me with peace. (it could also be that he was quoting psalms, which I find quite beautiful)
Quote:
Do you find it right that the Bible states that a victim should be forced to marry her rapist and never be allowed to divorced? Explain.
Yes, women are property, why not? Just kidding... how pre-post-modern of me. Seriously, though, the Bible was definitely written pre-women's rights... if you expect any of that from the bible, don't.
Quote:
Why is it up to atheists to prove that God does not exist, yet Christians can use a petty reason like "The Bible says so."? The burden of proof lies with the believers. It's like someone coming up to you, saying that they can shape shift, asking them to prove it, and them telling you that you have to prove that they can't. Wouldn't you find that senseless? Aggravating? Not worth your time?
That is actually the idea of the "burden of proof". Basically, in debates, anyone who states a new idea has to prove that their idea is true. Because we live in a relatively puritanical/christian culture, the burden of proof (depending on who you're speaking to) does fall on the atheist. Does that make it right? No. I feel both sides have a burden of proof that neither of them can offer in definite terms.
Quote:
Why is it impossible for an atheist with amazing morals who's never killed anyone, never intentionally hurt anyone, donates to charity, gives blood, and is over all a good person, to go to heaven, yet a murderer, rapist, child molester, thief, and any other type of criminal can go to heaven as long as they repent? Is all that God cares about is that people worship him? Is he so shallow as to not care in the least if someone is a good person, but only as to weather or not they treat him the way he wants?
You're projecting on god now. I'm sorry to say. This question is actually not a question, but is loaded with your personal feelings/issues towards god. Many of these questions don't have a solid or biblical answer to them. And even if they do, the answer is bound to change based on who you're talking to. What sect of christianity they're from, etc.
Overall, I feel christianity is a great philosophical/religious framework. But it allows people so much room for interpretation. Because of this, angry and hurt people project anger and hatred into it. The reason Christianity has so many problems, has so many issues is the fact that some bad people became influential people through christianity. If you feel that the core beliefs of christianity and its texts align with you, study it. Just make sure you're not being negatively persuaded by all the negativity current western christianity has to offer.
Hope this helps,
Haruki
200
100
50
