Public Religous posts

Despite what is claimed. God hates a large portion of people. Or should I clarify.. he hates the sin. So much so he is willing to make it ok for his followers to kill them. Oh sure Jesus came along and for the most part didn't expressly condone stoning people to death for the mildest of infractions. I guess that makes it all ok.

Tell me something.. If a pedophile turned to Jesus does that make it all ok? Would you allow him near you kids etc? Or would you still keep your guard up knowing what he had been.. And may still be.. The God of the Bible is a disgusting insecure melting pot of child like emotions. Does suddenly preaching about love suddenly make all of the genocides, advocated rapes, the slavery, the commandments to kill (read: murder) x, y, and z ok?

Give me a break. Let's apply some real world logic.

God is a criminal..

And what about all the other Gods?

They're all obviously false. But not my God!

I know him personally.

This just in: Other people of other faiths have personal relationships/experiences with their Gods too..

Is anyone actually interested in learning how their religion was formed. The various authorship of the texts? The influences of the times and regions? The culture and the surrounding cultures? The fact that for a large amount of time only certain people could read the Bible? Ever notice how the Bible is tailored to keep people in check? Or subdue their critical thinking skills? Their rationale and logic?

Ever notice how you can back a believer into a corner they can't argue out of because you've shown how illogical or impossible, or backwards a claim is etc.? They usually just go silent at that point.

/rant

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Oh sure Jesus came along and for the most part didn't expressly condone stoning people to death for the mildest of infractions.

Jeremiah 31:31 NIV
“The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.

Matthew 5:17-18 NIV
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

To me this is saying that the New Covenant will not come to be on Earth while we are living.

The implications being that the Old Law [with all its atrocities] are still in place.

I may lack scriptural sophistication here, but I find this interesting as many Christians say the New Covenant is here and now and the Old Law is no more. Or something to that effect.

Regardless, people that hold The Bible as the inspired word of god have to acknowledge that despite Jesus and a 'New Covenant' there is absolutely immoral acts deemed righteous in that book. Condoned at least at some point in time by Yahweh. Unless of course they believe the actions to be morally good no matter what so long as they are godly. That's a frightening prospect.

I don't make rules making them live my way. I don't cry to government to take others rights away. I just dispute the facts. I am not infringing on anyone's right to believe or not. People drive around with Jesus lives sticker on their cars. Jesus is fake is just as appropriate. Or Satan loves you. Or Orthodox Jews suck baby genitalia. ( a real circumcision ritual ) SICKOS a reply to: ketsuko

You can preach it. It is all over. So can i. Problem is they try and run my life not theirs. If they kept it at home or the church. Or in discussions. Not trying to affect others. Would i be here, saying such things? Get real. Why do Muslims hate the other religions, that's why. Why do other religions hate Muslims, that's why. Get a clue.a reply to: ketsuko

There is no doubt that science is a learning curve. At least they take facts into account. If science believed what was written in old books as fact. The world would still be flat. Doctors would still bleed you out to heal you. That is the difference.a reply to: ketsuko

a reply to: roth1

Total off-topic.

But if you message me I can tell you the BBCode and how to add replies and quotes in that way.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Actions are more important than words:

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." - Matthew 5:9

Many "Christians" say asking for forgiveness makes everything ok since Jesus is a human sacrifice for sins but believing that does not encourage keeping peace with others but serves as an excuse for people to do whatever they want.

There are even people who say "please forgive me for what I'm ABOUT to do" so they choose harmful actions knowing what they're doing but don't care since they believe they are automatically "forgiven" because they are covered in Jesus blood.

Yes the people that say god is coming for them as chosen people are the ones that wrote it. If everything in old books were true and we never stepped away from what we learned that proved things to be false. We would still be in the middle ages. Bleeding people to heal them. Asserting that the world was flat. Worshiping our leaders as gods. When will people get that mankind wasn't very smart then. Primitive apes worship thing not understood. When will they get that we living now will look that stupid to those a millennium from now. They will laugh at how we poison our food. Poison our bodies for medicine to heal. Use fossil fuels. ECT... That is we do not destroy everything first.a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

a reply to: arpgme

arpgme I am curious as to your thoughts on my post above. I just quoted scripture that suggests Jesus wants the Law [Old Law] to be intact. That we should follow it. I think those verses support that notion..

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Says you. How do you know that morality isn't an evolutionary advantage to help individual members of our species survive longer.

I have read an article some time ago concerning "Evolutionary Ethics". Here is a small quote

How do Darwin and Spencer derive "ought" from "is"? Let us look at Darwin first, using an example which he could have supported.

Child A is dying from starvation.
The parents of child A are not in a position to feed their child.
The parents of child A are very unhappy that their child is dying from starvation.
Therefore, fellow humans ought morally to provide food for child A.

Darwin (1930: 234) writes that "happiness is an essential part of the general good." Therefore, those who want to be moral ought to promote happiness, and hence, in the above case, provide food. However, the imperceptible move from "is" to "ought" which Hume found in moral systems, is also present in this example. Thus, Darwin derives ought from is when he moves from the empirical fact of unhappiness to the normative claim of a duty to relieve unhappiness.

The same can be said for Spencer whose above argument about the survival of the fittest could be represented as follows:

Natural selection will ensure the survival of the fittest.
Person B is dying from starvation because he is ill, old, and poor.
Therefore, fellow humans ought to morally avoid helping person B so that the survival of the fittest is guaranteed.

Even if both premises were shown to be true, it does not follow that we ought to morally support the survival of the fittest. An additional normative claim equating survival skills with moral goodness would be required to make the argument tenable. Again, this normative part of the argument is not included in the premises. Hence, Spencer also derives "ought" from "is." Thomas Huxley (1906: 80) objects to evolutionary ethics on these grounds when he writes:

The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philantropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before.

And here is the link : Evolutionary Ethics

Peace

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Yes, Jesus wants people to follow the Law but what is The Law according to him?

"
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." - Matthew 7:12

a reply to: arpgme
The same thought is expressed by "...the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith"- Matthew ch23 v23

a reply to: arpgme

I found this commentary insightful. I suggest giving it a read.

Actually according to this Jesus could be thought of as an ardent supporter of the 'Old Law' in the way the Constitutionalists are towards the Constitution. This seems to be a compelling case that he wanted strict adherence to the whole of 'god's word', and then some.

Matthew 5 Commentary - Christians Must Obey God's Law

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

There is no "old" law. God's Law is perfect and The Law and what the true prophets teach (as opposed to the many false prophets) is compassion like it says in Matthew 7:12.

The Torah (so-called "old" testament of "god" ) contradicts Jesus's teachings. For example Torah says "show no pity: trade life for life eye for eye and tooth for tooth" Jesus specifically told people NOT to obey this but instead to "turn the other cheek".

Jesus WORKED on the sabbath Healing others which is against torah (so-called "old" testament).

He taught against torah many times to serve God The merciful heavenly father. In fact, according to the stories the followers of torah openly called him a sinner and tried stoning him to death before crucifying him.

a reply to: arpgme

I was using 'old law' in a colloquial sense. In fact my whole point is that the Law isn't old

Not sure if you read the link I provided, but it asserts, as I am, that Jesus very much wanted people to strictly adhere to the so-called Old Testament but he had additional conditions that needed to be followed.

Anyways. Thought you might be interested in that link. If not that's alright. I'm not a follower of Jesus or The Bible.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I did look at it and it's trying to say that Jesus agreed with torah "old" testament which he didn't. (I gave the example of how he said not to obey the eye for an eye thing and how he worked on the sabbath - which are sins according to torah/ "old" testament).

The people following this "old" testament are the same ones who called him sinner or blasphemer so no it is not the "old" law because it was never God's law at all in the first.

You're saying that the law isn't "old" because Jesus followed it but just gave additional teachings to it. I'm saying (and the bible also slips up and admits it) that he did not follow it such as breaking the commandment of not working on sabbath. They tried to stone him to death before they crucified him. It wasn't one incidentwhere he was called "sinner" for not following something in the so-called "law".

a reply to: arpgme
I didn't say look at it, I said read it lol

In its entirety.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree? It seems more than clear to me Jesus was saying a strict adherence to the existing Judaic religion was paramount. But that there were additional conditions that needed to be embraced in order to enter the Kingdom of God.

If you want to discuss this further than I would post from that link and discuss the commentary there and see what we agree on.

As for the 'slips'. Yes the inconsistencies of scripture are a real problem theologically.

a reply to: Seed76

From your link:

Ethics, following this understanding, evolved under the pressure of natural selection. Sociability, altruism, cooperation, mutual aid, etc. are all explicable in terms of the biological roots of human social behavior. Moral conduct aided the long-term survival of the morally inclined species of humans. According to Wilson (ibid. 175), the prevalence of egoistic individuals will make a community vulnerable and ultimately lead to the extinction of the whole group. Mary Midgley agrees. In her view, egoism pays very badly in genetic terms, and a "consistently egoistic species would be either solitary or extinct" (Midgley, 1980: 94).

Wilson avoids the naturalistic fallacy in Sociobiology by not equating goodness with another natural property such as pleasantness, as Darwin did. This means that he does not give an answer to our first essential question in ethics. What is good? However, like Darwin he gives an answer to question two. Why should we be moral? Because we are genetically inclined to be moral. It is a heritage of earlier times when less morally inclined and more morally inclined species came under pressure from natural selection. Hence, we do not need divine revelation or strong will to be good; we are simply genetically wired to be good. The emphasis in this answer is not on the should, as it is not our free will which makes us decide to be good but our genetic heritage.

That looks to be exactly what I said.