Welcome to Gaia! ::

If you're going to post here, especially when wanting to talk about Christian misconceptions, everything is up for debate and discussion. Maybe I didn't make things clear enough in our PM's.
You said in another thread that you wanted to "present God how he SHOULD be presented. " That's a matter entirely of your personal opinion and personal belief.
You are welcome to ask questions and reply to things, but there isn't much point here if you are going to reply to everyone with 'Well, I just believe.' I'm just letting you know to be more careful because we are not used to putting restrictions on discussions. :]


Sir Turkeypants beat me to pretty much what I was gonna say.
As for the rest of it about 'beliefs' and not understanding, more or less what it sounds like is that you would be approaching all other information through a filter of sorts. I'm not sure. I didn't have to read atheist literature or talk to other atheists. I went from Christian to Atheist on my own. It's probably strange the way I said it, but what I mean is there was a difference for me in pushing myself to think without having to approach it first through the mindset I already held.

yep, absolutely no evidence showing that suicide or being homoesexual will send you to hell. just misconceived ideas. the suicide bit is a catholic belief. the homosexuality bit is just of common zealots today i guess or just very conservative Christians.

the bit regarding evidence showing the world was flat? uhhhhhhhhh wow thats a wild one. i dont think i recall verses in the bible describing the world as flat since God created it in the beginning, and he never describes it as flat O_o so.....well god now you got me curious. do you remember the verses and what version of the bible you used that said the earth was flat or something?

everyones here to lob their opinions just as you are now. that doesnt mean everything is to be a debate.



A rebellious son is an extreme violation of the fifth commandment, "Honor your father and your mother", was to be punished by death. In view here was not an occasional lapse into disobedience but a persistent rebellion against one's father and mother even after the parents had warned their son of the consequences of his rebellious actions. The son was ultimately rebelling against the Lord's authority and therefore attacking the foundations of the covenant community. The legislation here was not cruel nor did it give parents a right to abuse their children.

The elders were required to make an impartial judgement. the son was not judged for being a profligate and a drunkard, but for being rebellious. His self-indulgent living and drunkenness were simply examples of his rebellion against parental authority. No record in the Bible or in extra biblical literature has come to light which indicates that this punishment was ever carried out. The fear of death apparently deterred Jewish sons from being stubborn rebels.



this one is a bit iffy to really say anything on because at the time the Israelites had a covenant relationship with God. The ten commandments were made at this time but instead of praising god for him taking them out of pure slavery from the Pharoah, what do they go and do? they go and make a golden calf and start worshiping it, falling prey to the desires of the flesh and completely ignoring god. so of course he isnt going to be happy.

But the things regarding punishment of death are not always going to take affect to how things work as of today. God can see past present and future, and thus he already knows, regarding this silly matter, that some jobs require you to work on Sundays. He's going to understand, its not going to be punishable by death.



ugh. This harsh punishment was not only intended for the sin of fornication (being promiscuous) but also for lying to her prospective husband and the deception this. This evil too was to be purged from the nation. Though the death penalty was to be administered for sexual unfaithfulness in marriage, the precise manner in which it was to be carried out was not specified. IN Mesopotamia an adulterous couple was bound and thrown into the water (Code of Hammurabi, Law 129), though no extant court records from Mesopotamia indicate that this penalty was ever enforced. The official leaders of Judaism in Jesus' day interpreted the penalty to mean death by stoning (another reference for this in John 8:5) but later Rabbinic tradition prescribed death by strangulation. How frequently this penalty was enforced is unknown.




The condemnation found in verse 27 of "rounding the corners of your head" or "mar the corners of thy beard" was the forbidding of a common pagan practice that cut the hair as worship and honor of the hosts of heaven.

Also please provide verses where God specifically states he "hates" something.



Regarding Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11, These verses discuss the concept of mixing materials and fibers that are of completely different characteristics. But many do not understand that these verses do allow for the mixture of certain fabrics while being within God’s Law. God established these laws to ensure that low quality fabrics are not produced.

All clothing is made from two different kinds of naturally occurring fibers: (1) Cellulose fiber, which is made from plants. This is typically linen and cotton; (2) animal protein fiber. Fabrics such as wool and silk fall into this category.

A question also arises regarding synthetic, man-made fibers such as nylon, polyester, rayon, etc. Although unknown to many, even synthetic fibers are created in such a manner that they mimic the characteristics of the materials they are combined with. If this were not the case, a low quality product would be produced. When you mix fibers of varying characteristics, you create a fabric that is of low quality and will wear out quickly.

You need not throw away materials made of mixtures listed above. The materials are NOT sin in themselves. God simply does not want manufacturers to create low-quality products and take advantage of—and deceive—consumers. Such actions would break the spirit of the Eighth Commandment. While it is not a sin to own such products, it is recommended that you buy the best quality that you can afford. Your appearance should honor God. Cheap imitations, either in clothing or one’s character, do not. If you buy quality clothing, you are setting an example. If this example extends to your conduct, you are representing the lifestyle of a quality Christian. That honors both yourself and God.



*sighs* here we go again. Among the Israelites a person could sell himself and his wife into slavery due to pverty or debt, but the servitude was to be limited to six years. thus it was indentured service. Further, a master was obligated to provide for his servant on his release. If a male servant wanted to remain in permanent servitude his request was to be validated by the judges and then one of his ears was to be pierced with an awl, to symbolize willing service. A female servant could do the same. Female slaves were treated differently. Many times female slaves were concubines or secondary wives. some Hebrew fathers thought it more advantageous for their daughters to become concubines of well-to-do neighbors than to become the wives of men in their own social class.

If a daughter who became a servant was not pleasing to her master she was to be redeemed by a near kinsman, but never sold to foreigners; she could also redeem herself. If she married her master's son she was to be given family status. If the master married someone else he was required to provide his servant with three essentials: food, clothing, and shelter (marital rights probably means living quarters, not sexual privilege).

In regards to your more recent post, bullshit. Utter bullshit. Don't tell me some of the Bible is literal but other parts were metaphorical. Where are the footnotes that tell me, "This part is to be taken literally!" "This part is a metaphor!" Maybe the Mosaic laws are metaphorical, maybe Christ's ascension is really just me overcoming my own internal demons.

It is a cop out to say that certain people don't have the right Bible, either, because that says God doesn't care to enforce the accuracy of his book or that he can't do it. Both of these things rob him of any right to be called God. This moderate attitude of subjective interpretation with its cherry picking is doing more to ruin any credibility of Christian religion than any Atheist attack or fundamental radicalism.

To the first post...



Are you speaking for the whole world? The whole guild? All Atheists?

We’re here to share facts and study their relevance to our life. It is a fact that things fall, fire is hot and water is wet. It is an opinion that the Bible is relevant. If it were self-evident and unquestionably correct, why would it have been under hot debate since its first inception? Why are Christians still revising and altering its text to better fit the modern world?



For emphasis…


This is an amazingly callous, uninformed and indefensible statement. A few lines down you’re quoted saying that a whole group of people broke off from the Mosaic law and started worshiping a golden idol, but you feel comfortable saying that never once in the entire Covenant period did a single male child of a faithful family rebel? You’re saying that since it’s not recorded in the Bible there’s no proof it happened. Yet you’ve stated elsewhere just the opposite logic; that the Bible can’t be bothered to cite every animal in creation. I’d like you to reconcile this gross incongruence of logic on your behalf.



I’m really surprised that you didn’t read over this statement and revise it heavily. Or if you think it stands on its own, I’m just impressed with the irrational approach. On one side you say that the Bible is full of the secrets to eternal life and the perfect truth of God. Then you say that, “Well, he doesn’t really mean that part now.” What a pitiable argument – as someone asked of you elsewhere, what makes you so special as to know when the irrefutable law of God applies and when it can be shrugged off for the sake of convenience and modern lifestyles? Where are the little asterisks that link to an explanation, “Well, God only expects us to follow this rule until about 600 years after the Messiah dies?” You have failed to sustain your own integrity and succeeded in making clear that the Bible is impossible to be literally followed by anyone who wishes to remain outside of a jail or insane asylum.



Wrong.



Or are you going to say that the word of God commanded something else and that the people who wrote it down in the Mosaic law changed it to fit their outlooks? That only does a more to ruin the Bible’s claim to infallibility.



See above.



You have done nothing to disprove that the Bible states it is a sin to trim your beard. All you’ve done is share one outlook on why that was a sin. Why can’t God come out and say, “Don’t mimic pagan rituals?” I’m sure pagans walked during their rituals. I’m sure they used some of the same words that the Israelites did. So why doesn’t God ban that? It’s something the pagans do, after all. Why does God have to pussyfoot around issues here and while striking down with flaming stones of sulfur entire settlements elsewhere? It should go on record that no attempts were made by God to reach out to the Sodomites and the Gomorrahns, just that he decided to kill them.



That was a really long winded way of saying “dress nice.” So God is a fashion critic. How is this relevant to our lives? How can a loving God disqualify people from eternal bliss based on what they wear? Moses was drunk and naked in his tent, according to the Bible. Job was covered in boils and harried by insects. These people were hardly examples of righteous attire, but God will let me roast in hell for wrapping a trash bag over myself instead of parading about nude?



Again you spoke for a long time but justified nothing. You didn’t make a single statement refuting that God endorses slavery. Why do we think that slavery is wrong? Why does the civilized world think slavery is wrong? It sure doesn’t say it’s wrong in the Bible. But we know it is wrong because it rapaciously steals away a person’s civil rights; those things which allow us to be here speaking our outlooks and opinions without fear; those things on which many great countries are now well-founded. Guess my right to liberty and self-government isn’t appreciated by the God who would kill me for following the sin nature that he ultimately put in me. Yet people will say that the Bible is the ultimate and sole moral authority, the origin of all moral behavior.

Boy, would I hate to have been one of those schmucks who existed before the Bible was completed. I wouldn’t have seen the whole picture and would have probably gone to hell for a bad haircut. The Bible is rife with horrible commands and dreadful threats (smashed baby, anyone?). God is cold and hateful to those who don’t worship him for 2,000+ years, but then allofasudden loves everyone? This is idiocy, circular and intellectually dishonest. I'm worried for anyone who accepts the whole of this book as their moral guide, because it surely must induce schizophrenia if sincerely followed. More directly, I'm disturbed by its contents and that anyone would defend such a pathetic spasm of anti-logic.

I told myself I was done with the my last post for you in another thread, but consider this a postscript to your false accusations against me.



I said your arguments were bullshit. I haven’t defamed you or your character. Let’s not bring a persecution complex into this.



The credibility I speak of is that which can be tested, proven and adopted, the whole foundation of empirical thought, the entire basis for science and the sum of logic. Again you belittle my words and give false attribution of opinion to what is clearly fact. This is getting old.



I like that you quoted a tiny snippet and avoided the paragraph beneath it. I’ll post it again.


Next time you would be wise to try and defend yourself instead of publicly ignoring a valid inquiry that puts your credibility on the line.



I did. By using the Bible. Which you seem to have ignored to lend false credence to your bravado.



Did you mean “conceited?” A person can be conceited. An idea does not have a mind or the ability to be arrogant, nor make concessions to its own truth.



I guess he kills things because he loves them? He forces Pharaoh’s heart to harden to make himself look good? He allows nations to build up sin and then wipes them out for giggles? If genocide isn’t hate I don’t want to think what is.

I’m also not impressed that you either couldn’t understand the irony in my statements about God’s love of fashion or simply refused to acknowledge the point made by the satire. Another evasion. This is getting really old.



This is by far the most dreadful statement you’ve made. You know damn well I’m an Atheist and cast out religious belief and sin doctrine with the dirty dish water. How dare you accuse me of hiding behind your mythos to justify things I do? I have stated publicly, here and proudly that I am responsible for myself and don't need to cower behind supernatural influences when I ******** up. Subsequently, I can stand proud in my accomplishments, owing no credit to almighty sky-fathers, but able to confidently appreciate my own success. If you truly, honestly haven’t noticed from my prior overt statements that the concept if sin, to me, is a brash supposition to be treated with the same degree of veracity as ufo sightings and astrology, then you truly are not capable of a self-supporting debate.



This is what God promises to them; read the verse again. Your above statement is either made in ignorance or deceit.



You have come here, made extraordinary claims, then admitted you cannot give any evidence to support them. I have made logical claims and backed up their veracity – claims with which you have agreed - that the Bible cannot be proven true. Until you can produce evidence that I should believe as you do I shall remain in a place of reason, logic and proof. And I’m not holding my breath. I'm done with this.

oo wait i have another question...wow that was fast...

quote:

wow hes not very open minded. the bible WARNS about boasting about one self so to boast about how Christianity is the ultimate religion is quite conceded in its own light. in fact there are many religions that have similar teachings to Christianity.


Then...(if you know why), are there, christians that do boast about their religion. And act all holier than thou. Doesn't that go aginst religion ??? Or the christians that haze wiccas, damning them to hell, or the ones that drop down in prayer in front of my gay friends.

I really thought religion was about acceptance, and im just curious...are people who do those things, just to passonate, or possers giving religion a bad name? Its always bugged me, but ive yet to find someone who gave me a straight awnser.