73 replies to this topic

[SparkyCola]

Quote

Christains hate Muslums for the most part. Christain groups that don't agree on the Bible don't get along with each other.

I completely disagree. Most Christians do NOT hate muslims, that's just a ridiculous generalisation to make.

And the second part is also a massive generalisation. If that were true, Catholics and Protestants wouldn't be allowed in each other's services or churches -but all are welcome to both. If that were true, you wouldn't get Anglican/Baptist churches or Methodist/whatever churches - but you do.

And like LoP says- if a Christian hates *anyone* - then they are not doing so in the name of Christianity.

Sparky

[Godeskian]

SparkyCola, on Apr 10 2007, 10:26 PM, said:

And like LoP says- if a Christian hates *anyone* - then they are not doing so in the name of Christianity.

And yet, neither old nor new testament is exactly filled with fluffy bunnies and kindness.

I grew up with Christians as both my neighbours, and they were to this day some of the kindest, friendliest people I've known. They respected my family's general lack of belief, and in return we tried not to go out of our way to offend them. (for instance, I  did carwashing for extra pocketmoney growing up, and I always made sure to do it on Saturday so as not to cause offense by working on a sunday)

But I've met Christians on the other end of the spectrum as well, those who proudly preached letter and verse from the bible while condemning me for a variety of things. AndI've known people who were in the middle oft hose two extremes, and for the most part got along fine with them.

It lead me years ago to the realisation that what I can't get along with is extreme fundamentalism, regardless of the religion it was claiming to represent.

[SparkyCola]

^ Like I say, extreme anything is bad, and just because Christianity is not excluded from that - doesn't mean it should have the spotlight either. Extreme atheists can be just as rude and bigoted and scary, I assure you.

In my experience though Gode, I'm a Christian, and as such I've met a large number of Christians from all kinds of backgrounds, and most of them have been the most welcoming friendly people I ever met.

I've met some nasty brown-haired people, but MOST are nice - so I'm not going to let those nasty ones make me prejudiced, because they are not nasty *because* of their brown hair.

Not a great analogy I know, but my point is this: Christians don't go to Church because they are perfect, they go because they are not. But Jesus says "Love your God, and love your neighbour, there are no greater commands than these". Pretty straight forward. If as a Christian you can't get those two down, don't even try to get into the more complex nuances of Christian spirituality. The point is, if you've met some off-par Christians, they are doing it DESPITE Christian values, not because of, regardless of what they may think.

Sparky

ps -

Quote

And yet, neither old nor new testament is exactly filled with fluffy bunnies and kindness.

What did Jesus do to make you think he is against fluffy bunnies and kindness? Preachiness is not Christian - it says "don't go knocking on people's doors evangelising, but let them come to you" and "live your life as an example to others"

It's like having something that calls itself a lamp. If it don't light up, it ain't a lamp. Genuine lamps aren't wrong just because this "so-called" lamp is wrong. Because that so-called lamp - clearly, is not a lamp. So how can it even be used in any sort of argument to do with genuine lamps? The label "Christian" does not a Christian make.

Wow, I suck at analogies

Edited by SparkyCola, 10 April 2007 - 05:56 PM.

[Godeskian]

SparkyCola, on Apr 10 2007, 11:49 PM, said:

^ Like I say, extreme anything is bad, and just because Christianity is not excluded from that - doesn't mean it should have the spotlight either. Extreme atheists can be just as rude and bigoted and scary, I assure you.

Oh I've no doubt about that. I could tell you stories about militant atheists which I find as tiresome as you do. Mostly I just prefer a live and let live attitude when it comes to personal faith.

However I do see religion as being something very different from faith.

Quote

In my experience though Gode, I'm a Christian, and as such I've met a large number of Christians from all kinds of backgrounds, and most of them have been the most welcoming friendly people I ever met.

I'm always hesitant to accept the plural of anecdote as data, but I imagine that the vast majority of any social grouping are friendly welcoming people. Laws of averages tend towards it.

Quote

But Jesus says "Love your God, and love your neighbour, there are no greater commands than these". Pretty straight forward. If you can't get those two down, don't even try to get into the more complex nuances of Christian spirituality.

And that right there is one those things that I disagree with Jesus on. It should, in my opinion, be love thy neighbour and then loving God. By placing loving God first, by giving it primacy, all sorts of things become forgiveable because the command is to love God first and foremost, and then your neighbour.

Quote

The point is, if you've met some off-par Christians, they are doing it DESPITE Christian values, not because of, regardless of what they may think.

Okay, here's the thing though. Those who aren't Christians, but who haven't done any indepth studies into the religion either, form their opinions of the religion not by the silent decent majority, but by those who make the news, by those who make the media. They don't hear about my neighbours or the good Christians you know, they hear about the priests molesting children and getting away with it, they hear about Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps picketing funerals.

And while they may not be Christians in your opinion, or even in mine, they most certainly are in their views, and as long as the silent majority continues to remain silent, they continue to spew venom in the name of your religion. I'm sure the silent majority of Christians are decent folk, and imo it's about time they stopped being silent and took back their religion from the nutjobs.

[Godeskian]

SparkyCola, on Apr 10 2007, 11:49 PM, said:

Quote

And yet, neither old nor new testament is exactly filled with fluffy bunnies and kindness.

What did Jesus do to make you think he is against fluffy bunnies and kindness? Preachiness is not Christian - it says "don't go knocking on people's doors evangelising, but let them come to you" and "live your life as an example to others"

Evangelical Christians obviously disagree.

As to Jesus, For his time I have no doubt he was considered something of a radical, but by modern standards he doesn't come off too well.

We've moved on in the twenty centuries since he was supposed to have lived, and we have advanced, and changed and moved away from the time and place where he lived. Our views on slavery, on racism, on religion and society aren't in any way comparable to those that he grew up in.

And Jesus hasn't moved with us. He is still stuck in a world 2000 years ago, when the world was a very different place.

Some of what he said is still applicable, the infamous golden rule that most societies come up with sooner or later (and in fact the Greeks articulated in writing at least 500 years prior to Jesus' birth) and some of what he said is not. In fact, some of the things he espoused, radical as they might have been in the day, would probably cause substantial offense today.

Quote

Wow, I suck at analogies

That's okay. I get them, so they can't be that bad.

[Captain Jack]

Godeskian said:

And Jesus hasn't moved with us. He is still stuck in a world 2000 years ago, when the world was a very different place.

Dude, I'm sorry.  I love you man, but you coudn't be more wrong here.

The only thing that is different today and then is technology.  People are still the same sons of b*tches like they were then.  Which is a shame since it merely shows mankind has learned nothing from anyone who spoke of peace, kindness, brotherly treatment, and goodness.  That includes many such as Moses, Ghandi, Jesus, and so many others.

Religion is so misunderstood by those who refuse to educate what is truly behind them.  The Holy Bible and the Koran (Qoran?) both speak heavily on being good to your fellow man, that nothing in this or any other world goes without consequences, that the wrongful should be punished, and the good should be good because they will to be so, and not expect to be rewarded with gifts.  The Bible talks about many feuds that still rage today.  There are many that would love to see the Jews wiped out, and Israel destroyed.

I'm not trying to convert anyone here.  Personally, i don't care.  But if Jesus comes back, and you stand before him, don't come running to me for help.  Ye been warned.

Religions such as Christianity, Buddism, and Islam all teach pretty much the same thing when you strip away all the "mysticism", or whatever you want to call it.  The message is simply "Don't screw each other over, dammit", and that should not simply be tossed aside and forgotten.  That's the best piece of advice any mortal can ever be given.

I've said in a few threads in the past here on this board, that I too have had my share of disbelief and skepticism.  But I've had too many unexplainable experiences that strongly prove to me at least, that there is something powerful and greater than we are hare on this rock.

[Godeskian]

Spidey, on Apr 11 2007, 12:57 AM, said:

Dude, I'm sorry.  I love you man, but you coudn't be more wrong here.

Wouldn't be the first time, probably won't be the last time.

Quote

The only thing that is different today and then is technology.

Can't say as I agree. Take slavery for example, something that was practiced extensively back when Christ was passing around his message, which no one at the time, Jesus and Paul included, thought was unusual, because in the history of mankind the concept that slavery is wrong, that one person shouldn't own another, is a pretty new concept. Societies have changed, sometimes in good ways, sometimes in bad ways, but they have changed in the last 2000 years.

Quote

Religion is so misunderstood by those who refuse to educate what is truly behind them.  The Holy Bible and the Koran (Qoran?) both speak heavily on being good to your fellow man, that nothing in this or any other world goes without consequences, that the wrongful should be punished, and the good should be good because they will to be so, and not expect to be rewarded with gifts.

You don't actually need religion to do that, Confucius said  "Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you." long before Jesus did. Ethical conduct, morality, social contracts. These things have existed across virtually every society, religious or non.

Quote

But if Jesus comes back, and you stand before him, don't come running to me for help.  Ye been warned.

I'd love to have a chance to debate the man face to face. He has voiced some ideas I find vaguely horrific, and I'd love to know if he meant them, or if he was misinterpreted by his followers and their descendants.

Quote

But I've had too many unexplainable experiences that strongly prove to me at least, that there is something powerful and greater than we are hare on this rock.

Meh. I've never had that religious experience, so i'm not sure I can relate, but if it gives you some measure of happyness or peace in your life, go you.

[Captain Jack]

Godeskian, on Apr 10 2007, 05:08 PM, said:

Spidey, on Apr 11 2007, 12:57 AM, said:

Dude, I'm sorry.  I love you man, but you coudn't be more wrong here.

Wouldn't be the first time, probably won't be the last time.

Eye guess you're right.  

Quote

Quote

The only thing that is different today and then is technology.

Can't say as I agree. Take slavery for example, something that was practiced extensively back when Christ was passing around his message, which no one at the time, Jesus and Paul included, thought was unusual, because in the history of mankind the concept that slavery is wrong, that one person shouldn't own another, is a pretty new concept. Societies have changed, sometimes in good ways, sometimes in bad ways, but they have changed in the last 2000 years.

Jesus never said slavery was just dandy.  Moses freed the Jews from slavery by the Egyptians.  That was by the help of God.  Jesus believed very strongly in a free and equal people.  He never supported slavery, and He never considered it the "norm".  It is not a new concept at all that people should not be slaves to anyone.

Quote

Quote

Religion is so misunderstood by those who refuse to educate what is truly behind them.  The Holy Bible and the Koran (Qoran?) both speak heavily on being good to your fellow man, that nothing in this or any other world goes without consequences, that the wrongful should be punished, and the good should be good because they will to be so, and not expect to be rewarded with gifts.

You don't actually need religion to do that, Confucius said  "Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you." long before Jesus did. Ethical conduct, morality, social contracts. These things have existed across virtually every society, religious or non.

Ah, but philosophy is no more or less important that religious scripture.  To me, they go hand in hand.  Religion has a lot to offer, and it's a personal experience for each individual.  In a sense, religion is a philosophy in of itself.

Quote

Quote

But if Jesus comes back, and you stand before him, don't come running to me for help.  Ye been warned.

I'd love to have a chance to debate the man face to face. He has voiced some ideas I find vaguely horrific, and I'd love to know if he meant them, or if he was misinterpreted by his followers and their descendants.

Be careful what you wish for.  As for what he meant, I believe it is misinterpretation.  The King James Bible has some major mistranslations.  The Greek Bible is far better since it is a correct translation.

Quote

Quote

But I've had too many unexplainable experiences that strongly prove to me at least, that there is something powerful and greater than we are hare on this rock.

Meh. I've never had that religious experience, so i'm not sure I can relate, but if it gives you some measure of happyness or peace in your life, go you.

I have learned that a religious experience isn't something one should expect.  It just doesn't work that way.  I wouldn't say it gives me any happiness in my life since my life sucks right now, and has for a while now.  But, it did give me some clarity, and offered some answers to my questions.  You have a PM for the rest my friend.

[Godeskian]

Spidey, on Apr 11 2007, 09:55 AM, said:

Eye guess you're right.  

To err is human. To forgive is human as well, although shakespeare disagrees

Before I continue, I'm really not looking to cause offense. If anyone feels offended, let me know and I'll delete or edit this post. My opinions in this case are not worth causing a fight.

Quote

Jesus never said slavery was just dandy.

In Collosians Paul told slaves to accept their lot in life. He admonished them not to disobey their masters. and Jesus did nothing to stop or admonish Paul for his statements. That is at the very least, indifference to the slaves fates. and at worst it's acceptance of slavery. In Titus the concept is repeated, but this time it is God telling people that slaves should submit, and give their masters true fidelity.

So yes, Jesus was quite comfortable with the notion of slavery.

Quote

Moses freed the Jews from slavery by the Egyptians.  That was by the help of God.

Don't start with me about Moses if you want to keep this discussion civil. I find him one of the most abhorrent people in the whole bible.

As for Slavery, God didn't seem to have a problem with it, as long as it wasn't his people being enslaved. To wit

Leviticus Chapter 25, verse 44:

Quote

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Sounds to me like support for slavery to me. At least during Moses' era.

Quote

Jesus believed very strongly in a free and equal people.  He never supported slavery, and He never considered it the "norm".

Show me where he says, or even implies, that slavery as an institution is wrong. I'm taking my knowledge directly from the bible. Show me i'm wrong.

Quote

It is not a new concept at all that people should not be slaves to anyone.

Are you kidding me? We've got records going back five thousand years that indicate that people have always owned other people. It wasn't until two hundred or so years ago that people finally started standing up and saying that it was truly, unequivocally wrong.

Quote

Ah, but philosophy is no more or less important that religious scripture.  To me, they go hand in hand.  Religion has a lot to offer, and it's a personal experience for each individual.  In a sense, religion is a philosophy in of itself.

Shrug, that feels an awful lot like semantics, but yes, religions espouse a philosophy. However most religions impart a supernatural element to it's philosophy that takes precendence. After all, it was Love God, then Love thy neighbour. Not the other way round.

Quote

Be careful what you wish for.  As for what he meant, I believe it is misinterpretation.

Then by all means, let him come back. The Christians will be happy because it's the second coming, and I'll be happy because I get to debate the man himself. Everyone wins.

Quote

I have learned that a religious experience isn't something one should expect.  It just doesn't work that way.  I wouldn't say it gives me any happiness in my life since my life sucks right now, and has for a while now.  But, it did give me some clarity, and offered some answers to my questions.  You have a PM for the rest my friend.

Then I'm happy for you. And if I ever have a religious experience and see the light I may change my mind, but I wouldn't bet any serious money on it.

[amended because DWF makes a fair point]

Edited by Godeskian, 11 April 2007 - 07:23 AM.

[DWF]

Quote

In Collosians he told slaves to accept their lot in life. He admonished them not to disobey their masters. That is at the very least, indifference to the slaves fates. and at worst it's acceptance of slavery. In Titus the concept is repeated, but this time it is God telling people that slaves should submit, and give their masters true fidelity.

So yes, Jesus was quite comfortable with the notion of slavery.

That was Paul not Jesus.  

[Godeskian]

DWF, on Apr 11 2007, 01:09 PM, said:

Quote

In Collosians he told slaves to accept their lot in life. He admonished them not to disobey their masters. That is at the very least, indifference to the slaves fates. and at worst it's acceptance of slavery. In Titus the concept is repeated, but this time it is God telling people that slaves should submit, and give their masters true fidelity.

So yes, Jesus was quite comfortable with the notion of slavery.

That was Paul not Jesus.  

Consider the quote's origin suitably amended. It does not excuse Jesus though. Did he stop Paul? did he disagree with him on this point? Did he ever, and i do mean ever, say that slavery was wrong? You'd think if he was as against slavery as everyone keeps telling me, he would have said something concrete on the topic, and you'd think that if he was against slavery that his disciples wouldn't be preaching it.

[DWF]

Godeskian, on Apr 11 2007, 08:22 AM, said:

DWF, on Apr 11 2007, 01:09 PM, said:

Quote

In Collosians he told slaves to accept their lot in life. He admonished them not to disobey their masters. That is at the very least, indifference to the slaves fates. and at worst it's acceptance of slavery. In Titus the concept is repeated, but this time it is God telling people that slaves should submit, and give their masters true fidelity.

So yes, Jesus was quite comfortable with the notion of slavery.

That was Paul not Jesus.  

Consider the quote's origin suitably amended. It does not excuse Jesus though. Did he stop Paul? did he disagree with him on this point? Did he ever, and i do mean ever, say that slavery was wrong? You'd think if he was as against slavery as everyone keeps telling me, he would have said something concrete on the topic, and you'd think that if he was against slavery that his disciples wouldn't be preaching it.

Paul came after Jesus had ascended and most of Paul's letter were written in the final years of his life while he was in prison awaiting his death.

Slavery while being morally wrong wasn't against the law and even Jesus instructed his people to maintain the laws as is.  

[Godeskian]

DWF, on Apr 11 2007, 02:03 PM, said:

Slavery while being morally wrong wasn't against the law and even Jesus instructed his people to maintain the laws as is.  

So he condoned it because it was legal.

Edited by Godeskian, 11 April 2007 - 08:09 AM.

[Bobby]

Let's get this right, god can bring plagues on nations and ruin and blessings to people's lives but he can't send the word to end a great moral evil like slavery?  I've read the argument before, on this board, I think, that God knew they wouldn't give it up or something like that.  Excuse me, the Bible says to stone people to death so they will do that but if God said no more slaves that just wouldn't fly?

[DWF]

Godeskian, on Apr 11 2007, 09:09 AM, said:

DWF, on Apr 11 2007, 02:03 PM, said:

Slavery while being morally wrong wasn't against the law and even Jesus instructed his people to maintain the laws as is.  

So he condoned it because it was legal.

That's one way of looking at it, Paul was I'm sure more concerned about getting people closer to God and that would in the end, end slavery but then not all of his letters were written to te Jews.

[G1223]

Remember slavery had existed even among the jews of the old world. Saying end slavery would be like telling the fish to stop swimming. Every nation had them. It was what one sometimes did with the poor of a nation. Or Criminals. Or those defeated in battle rather than put them to death.

It would be nice if Jesus had been gifted with 20th century morals. Espically in a late Iron age world. which was manpower intensive. Think of it if the tribal societies of the anceinet world had only our morality to guid them. Yeah right.

We see slavery today as a immoral practise becasue we have been told it is wrong.Very few people get away with trying to own slaves. But 2000 years ago would we have the same mindset?

But since the thread is derailed.


Basically I see Iran being allowed to get the bomb. I see that our we must get along types sitting there like poster for Home alone when a 'terrorist' group sets off a nuke in Israel.  Then someone will need to stop Israel from a second round of Nuclear strikes on Iran as I do not see us having the time to react to stop them from a first strike.

Or we stop Iran now. and if it means nuking the Iranian reactor sites then do so. But stop trying to find ways to allow Iran to nickle and dime us into allowing them to get the bomb.

[Godeskian]

G1223, on Apr 11 2007, 02:37 PM, said:

It would be nice if Jesus had been gifted with 20th century morals. Espically in a late Iron age world. which was manpower intensive. Think of it if the tribal societies of the anceinet world had only our morality to guid them. Yeah right.

Which was actually my point. Jesus was a man of his time, like we all are.

Quote

Or we stop Iran now. and if it means nuking the Iranian reactor sites then do so. But stop trying to find ways to allow Iran to nickle and dime us into allowing them to get the bomb.

Okay, can I ask a question G,

Iran has the legal right to their own civilian nuclear power under the nonproliferation treaty. In fact, my own interpretation of the treaty is that countries who have signed it have the right not only to civilian nuclear power, but to expect nuclear nations to aid them in setting up such a system if they want it.

So given that they have the legal right to civilian nuclear power, how do you go about denying them the bomb? Has it really got to the point where the only valid option is the use of nuclear weapons on what are arguably at the moment, civilian infrastructure?

[DWF]

Godeskian, on Apr 11 2007, 09:52 AM, said:

G1223, on Apr 11 2007, 02:37 PM, said:

It would be nice if Jesus had been gifted with 20th century morals. Espically in a late Iron age world. which was manpower intensive. Think of it if the tribal societies of the anceinet world had only our morality to guid them. Yeah right.

Which was actually my point. Jesus was a man of his time, like we all are.

Morals are moral and rights and wrong don't change with the times.

[Godeskian]

DWF, on Apr 11 2007, 03:00 PM, said:

Godeskian, on Apr 11 2007, 09:52 AM, said:

G1223, on Apr 11 2007, 02:37 PM, said:

It would be nice if Jesus had been gifted with 20th century morals. Espically in a late Iron age world. which was manpower intensive. Think of it if the tribal societies of the anceinet world had only our morality to guid them. Yeah right.

Which was actually my point. Jesus was a man of his time, like we all are.

Morals are moral and rights and wrong don't change with the times.

Nope, they don't.

[G1223]

Godeskian, on Apr 11 2007, 09:52 AM, said:

G1223, on Apr 11 2007, 02:37 PM, said:

It would be nice if Jesus had been gifted with 20th century morals. Espically in a late Iron age world. which was manpower intensive. Think of it if the tribal societies of the anceinet world had only our morality to guid them. Yeah right.

Which was actually my point. Jesus was a man of his time, like we all are.

Quote

Or we stop Iran now. and if it means nuking the Iranian reactor sites then do so. But stop trying to find ways to allow Iran to nickle and dime us into allowing them to get the bomb.

Okay, can I ask a question G,

Iran has the legal right to their own civilian nuclear power under the nonproliferation treaty. In fact, my own interpretation of the treaty is that countries who have signed it have the right not only to civilian nuclear power, but to expect nuclear nations to aid them in setting up such a system if they want it.

So given that they have the legal right to civilian nuclear power, how do you go about denying them the bomb? Has it really got to the point where the only valid option is the use of nuclear weapons on what are arguably at the moment, civilian infrastructure?

By taking their nuclear power away from them. They lost the right to it when they started working towards weapons building. And if they will not give it back destroy it. Not knock out a few key systems but vaporize it.