New ALabama governor openly asks for non-Christians to convert

[Bad^Hat]

yeeep


OOPS IM JUMPING IN

It seems a fairly popular method of Christian-bashing around here is taking out the terrible sexist, racist, violent, homophobic shit from the Bible, and concluding that the entire religion is worthless.

Does this apply to everything? A quasi-modern example: has anyone seen Birth of a Nation? That movie is ****ing racist as shit. Except it is also a milestone in the history of cinema and a rather excellently directed and produced film. Oh well, it's racist, right? Anyone who respects it is clearly a horrible piece of shit that does not deserve a modicum of our respect.

In short, **** you all. It makes me ****ing sick reading the ignorant, intolerant and simple minded generalized bullshit based on faulty logic and assumption. Maybe you could put these things in the context of their origin instead of making harsh blanket statements about other people's beliefs due to your own blind ignorant rage. Or maybe you can take a Bible and ****ing shove it up your own boorish assholes if you hate it so much.

Cool.

Glad you got that off your chest, then?

 

[Sheepo]

I basically agree with Erestheux, but not so passionately. Yes, people pick and choose their beliefs and values. You, as an analytical person, may see that as inconsistency, but from the believers perspective they are finding what's most true to their heart, soul, relationship with Allah, etc. I also think it's rather obvious that people are just picking out the things that sound nice, but who knows? Maybe there's some spiritual thing giving them the secret codes we're not experiencing. Either way, their fath is, by definition, logic proof, and arguing against it is senseless. Besides, forcing someone to choose between fundimentalism and atheism is a stupid mission. A nice watered down christian will be better for humanity than a fundimentalist ever can.

 

[No Limit]

I basically agree with Erestheux, but not so passionately. Yes, people pick and choose their beliefs and values. You, as an analytical person, may see that as inconsistency, but from the believers perspective they are finding what's most true to their heart, soul, relationship with Allah, etc. I also think it's rather obvious that people are just picking out the things that sound nice, but who knows? Maybe there's some spiritual thing giving them the secret codes we're not experiencing. Either way, their fath is, by definition, logic proof, and arguing against it is senseless. Besides, forcing someone to choose between fundimentalism and atheism is a stupid mission. A nice watered down christian will be better for humanity than a fundimentalist ever can.

You saying you basically agree with Erestheux didn't really register in my head, because I still can't quite process his senseless ramblings.

But everything else you just said to me sounds like this: "if people want to believe in silly things let them belive in silly things without pissing all over their parade. Eventhough what they believe is almost certainly bullshit, we can't prove it beyond certain so just let it be."

Why is that ever acceptable in a society where we believe critical thinking is a good thing? Or did I miss the day when critical thinking became something we frowned upon?

 

[Bad^Hat]

Either way, their fath is, by definition, logic proof, and arguing against it is senseless.

I don't understand how it's logical. I mean, I understand that they might perceive it to be a certain way because of some ineffable spiritual enlightenment, but how does faith in something constitute actual proof?

Anyway, I kind of agree with the sentiment behind your post. If people want to live this way, I don't see any real harm in it. Moderate christianity as Shift describes it is much closer to following something spiritual and personal than it is to obeying doctrine or living by the word of scripture. On the other hand, that last point is why I find Erestheux's post kind of hilarious - as though a movie that most would respect more for it's contributions to film rather than it's actual message is in any way comparable to a belief system that millions follow religiously on a daily basis. Sure, claiming to have some manner of spirituality, or having faith in something on a strictly personal basis is fine, but are we to believe that religious dogma should be ignored or pandered to regardless of it's effect on a large portion of humanity? No, we're obviously just singling out the bad parts to be big dumb meanies.

I should note right here - this post has very little to do with this particular thread, because, well, neither did Erestheux's.

 

[Sheepo]

Critical thinking has nothing to do with it. It is entirely possible for some one to believe in science and reason, but still chock the creation of everything up to a diety. The fact that it can't be disproven makes it a plausible belief, therefore it seems perfectly acceptable to me*. Besides, my problem with what you're saying is that it's all or nothing. You can be not silly, or you can be silly as all **** (here replace silly with ignorant, stubborn, bigoted, and hateful). The fact is that there are plenty of reasonable, nice, moderate christians, and I don't think they should be harassed because they're not as true to christianity as the biggest idiotic assholes in the world. If for any reason, not that one.

*I'm not sure what you mean by acceptable here. Everyone that can be peaceful and productive in society should be accepted, regardless of belief.

Edit: Haha, you misunderstood that phrase badhat. I didn't mean logical proof. I meant faith is logic proof in the same sense glass can be bullet proof.

 

[No Limit]

But what do you personally believe? I'm guessing you think that the bible is likely bullshit, no?

 

[Sheepo]

Yeah, that's what I believe of it for the most part. It's a fun read though.

 

[lord_raken]

Wow Sheepo. I wish there were more people like you in the world.

I agree with Sheepo from a social point of view. Moderate and humane faith is much better for society than and extreme fundie, just as reasonable atheism is better that crusading Atheism.

No one is ever going to agree on everything. At some point we have to accept that and instead of trying to "Win" we have to try and understand each other. Its important to try and see the good in other people. I myself believe and yet I find videos like this one below to be spellbindingly beautiful.

It is a fact that people pick their beliefs, but its not a real conscious decision. One believes (atheism is included in this) what helps them create/find meaning in the world around them. For some that is believing in a god. For others they chose to believe in only what they can experience or prove. There is a rationality and logic to one's beliefs, but that logic is often difficult for people who believe differently to understand.

I am familiar with Shift's position, and it is a very rational approach to the Bible and the Christian faith. The Analysis that goes into this approach is very scientific and logical within its beginning premise. It takes into account historical context (social/political norms of the time) and recognizes that leviticus is no longer on the books for a very good reason. It recognizes that humanity progresses and such brutal laws are no longer necessary of appropriate for our society (and should not be brought back). Yes this approach rendered a stricter interpretation but you can have an intellectual conversation with them that deals with critical literary and historical analysis to find what is the truth and what is the historical context.

I'd much rather have No Limit in charge of a church than some other types of "christians"


Watch this video. I approach this from a more spiritual angle, but I think it is something anyone can appreciate.

 

[No Limit]

Yeah, that's what I believe of it for the most part. It's a fun read though.

And I'm sure you have a very good reason as to why you feel that way. But if you try to explain your reasoning to shift or erestheux they will never accept it and say you are not understanding what the bible is saying. Everyone certainly has a right to their opinions but that doesn't frustrate you in the slightest? It sort of reminds me of the people that think Obama was born in Kenya or 911 was an inside job. Sure, you can ignore it. But that kind of irrational thinking really bugs me.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Critical thinking has nothing to do with it. It is entirely possible for some one to believe in science and reason, but still chock the creation of everything up to a diety. The fact that it can't be disproven makes it a plausible belief, therefore it seems perfectly acceptable to me*. Besides, my problem with what you're saying is that it's all or nothing. You can be not silly, or you can be silly as all **** (here replace silly with ignorant, stubborn, bigoted, and hateful). The fact is that there are plenty of reasonable, nice, moderate christians, and I don't think they should be harassed because they're not as true to christianity as the biggest idiotic assholes in the world. If for any reason, not that one.

*I'm not sure what you mean by acceptable here. Everyone that can be peaceful and productive in society should be accepted, regardless of belief.

Edit: Haha, you misunderstood that phrase badhat. I didn't mean logical proof. I meant faith is logic proof in the same sense glass can be bullet proof.

I'm not sure if you're speaking specifically to me, but I never suggested that anyone should be anything. I prefer "moderate" belief immensely over fundamentalism - the problem there is you literally *can't* debate those kind of people. They won't have an inch of it. When I engage in something like this, it's not to win anyone over or "convert" them to atheism or something, it's simply for my own benefit. If the other guy gains something from it (doubtful ), all the better, but I'm not pompous enough to presume I hold the absolute truth of the matter. I'm just trying to take a logical approach to something that is, as you say, usually resistant to that kind of thinking. Why? Because it interests me. That's about it.

But yeah, you could argue that there's a time and a place for this kind of thing, and if Shift or whoever else don't wish to engage in it any further I won't hold it against them (unlike certain people). Things get heated sometimes, impolite words are exchanged, because... hell, it's the internet. This isn't exactly new territory. If it seems like they're being harassed, it's probably because religiousness isn't really the predominant element around here. Then again, neither is being a republican, and I don't see those people being let up on.

Edit: Whoops, missed No Limit's post before mine. Might be responding to some stuff that wasn't actually targeted at me.

 

[Eejit]

I basically agree with Erestheux, but not so passionately. Yes, people pick and choose their beliefs and values. You, as an analytical person, may see that as inconsistency, but from the believers perspective they are finding what's most true to their heart, soul, relationship with Allah, etc. I also think it's rather obvious that people are just picking out the things that sound nice, but who knows? Maybe there's some spiritual thing giving them the secret codes we're not experiencing. Either way, their fath is, by definition, logic proof, and arguing against it is senseless. Besides, forcing someone to choose between fundimentalism and atheism is a stupid mission. A nice watered down christian will be better for humanity than a fundimentalist ever can.

It's amusing to see some Christians who ignore all the 'bad stuff' get all offended when we refuse to pretend that those who embrace it don't exist.

 

[Shift]

So which rules from the old testament do you HAVE to live by and which do you not? Be specific.

You must be trolling...

So can you give me a simple yes or no answer to these questions:

- Is it a sin to eat shell fish?
- Is it a sin to have sex with your mother?
- Is it a sin to permit a gay men to be a preacher in your church?

- No, the dietary laws of the Old Testament were in fact upturned by God in Acts 10, 9-16, whereby he gave a vision to Peter showing him that all meats were now clean. So the Jews shouldn't even be following them now.
- Yes, regardless of whether it is condemned in the Old Testament, it is also spoken against in the New Testament, as it is an act of sexual immorality.
- Well you kept mentioning priests, when there shouldn't even be anymore priests in the first place. As for homosexuals preaching the Bible, then I find nothing against that specifically in either the Old or New Testament. The act of homosexuality itself is condemned in both the Old and New, but I can't find anything about them being unable to preach.

So who gets to decide what interpretation is correct and which one isn't? He interpreted the bible in a way that said killing abortion doctors was okay.

Well his interpretation is incorrect. Can you find any quotes from either Jesus or the apostles, the teachings he as a Christian under Jesus, should be following, about killing abortion doctors?

You interpret the bible in a way that says you don't have to stone the gays just because the old testament tells you to. Who gets to decide who is right and who isn't? Aren't both of you (in your head) deciding to give your life to christ?

I interpret the Bible from the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, teachings which contain many quotes against murder for example:

And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness

The difference between me and him as a believer of Christ, is that I strive, NOT, to murder people, I strive not to sin in any way. The fact that that man went out and deliberately killed someone means he isn't striving to turn away from sin at all so how can he justify he is walking with Christ in spirit? The very person that condemned murder of any kind?

In Roeder's case he went all out, he decided to spend the rest of his life in prison for christ.

No he is in prison because he murdered someone in cold blood and that's exactly where he should be. It has nothing to do with Christ.

As you know God doesn't really have a problem with war as long as the war is meant to uphold the law of God. So maybe Rodder saw this as a war?

God commanded the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites because of their persistent immoralities and way of life that was blatantly against God. It was a nation burning children as a gift to their Gods along with all manner of other atrocities, and seeing as though only God can give true justice, then that is what had to happen at the time, for the greater good of his kingdom. I mean atheists complain that God is some kind of evil war mongerer, despite the fact that he had very good reasons, when the United States deems it fine to invade a country for no reason others than their rich oil supplies... But its besides the point, God clearly commanded that of Joshua, whereas this guy killed someone because of his own sinful rage.

I assume you do agree that abortion is a very grave sin (if this assumption is wrong on my part I just want to apologize in advance, I'm trying my best not to make any assumptions about your position here). Do you agree it's on the same level as murder?

Abortion isn't even mentioned in the Bible. All arguments against it from a biblical standpoint at inconclusive, because there are no clear arguments against it therefore to call it a sin would be baseless.

http://atheism.about.com/od/abortioncontraception/p/AbortionBible.htm

Ok, fine. So you agree that the bible is consistent in saying that not a single word from the old testament was invalidaded by Christ (not a single word, not a single pen stroke). If you could just say you agree to this that would save me a lot of headache. As I understand it you do, I just want to make sure I am understanding you 100% correct.

No, what? Are you trying to trip me up or something? He said not a single word or stroke would vanish from the Old Testament, i.e. whatever God said then, applies now, apart from obvious the dietary stuff as proven in Acts 10. But I live under Christ, and since he lived the life, with all the rules etc that God commanded from the Old Testament, and then died on the cross for all my sins, I now no longer have to live under the rules of the Old Testament, despite the fact that they are still apparent, as stated in numourous quotes throughout the New Testament. I therefore follow the teachings of Jesus and his apostles in the New Testament, as that has full relevance over my life as a disciple of Jesus.

 

[Shift]

Also:

Moderate and humane faith is much better for society than and extreme fundie, just as reasonable atheism is better that crusading Atheism.

What people don't seem to understand is that there shouldn't be varying levels of Christianity as that is saying there are varying levels of faith. You either have full faith in Jesus or you don't, he stated this clearly. What I am trying to establish with my debate with No Limit is that, I am a follower of Christ, and due to that premise, I no longer conform to the laws of the Old Testament, I simply don't have to. Its not a question of 'I don't like them, I am not going to', its the premise that Jesus lived via those rules for me, and every person who chose to believe in him, so we didn't have to. That is what I'm trying to prove.

For others they chose to believe in only what they can experience or prove.

The other problem is that atheists think Christians base everything on pure, blind faith. When actually, I, and many others, as Christians, believe that science points strongly towards a theistic argument, it was actually that realization after years of researching all possibilities that caused me to look into Christianity properly. I am not here to debate this point, I am just stating where I come from.

I'd much rather have No Limit in charge of a church than some other types of "christians"

That makes no sense, atheism is a non-faith/religion, why on earth would they require churches?

 

[Asknoone]

The other problem is that atheists think Christians base everything on pure, blind faith. When actually, I, and many others, as Christians, believe that science points strongly towards a theistic argument, it was actually that realization after years of researching all possibilities that caused me to look into Christianity properly. I am not here to debate this point, I am just stating where I come from.

Then you're looking at it wrong.

 

[Shift]

Then you're looking at it wrong.

Or maybe you're looking at wrong. Do you want to say I am again or?

 

[voodoospriest]

Shift, were you brought up Christian? Because if you were any good skeptic knows that it is very easy for the average Joe to misinterpret evidence as support for their beliefs.

 

[Shift]

I was a heavy agnostic for most my life, but to be honest it was getting to a point where I may as well have called myself an atheist. It was only after I looked at the evidence thoroughly that I turned to Christianity, I was 21 at the time.

 

[Bad^Hat]

That makes no sense, atheism is a non-faith/religion, why earth would they require churches?

Just felt like saying: thankyou for getting it.

 

[voodoospriest]

So you were overweight? What's a heavy agnostic? So who gave you the 'evidence'?

 

[Shift]

Well I mean I was at a point of not even contemplating the idea of God or religion, I was just going through life, doing what the hell I liked, a rogue term on my part. And I read a lot of books, and theories, and data reports etc, spent years doing it, from both sides of the argument. And I don't know what putting 'evidence' is going to achieve, or are you already patronizing me?

 

[voodoospriest]

I don't think you did see or understood all the evidence. Someone who can't think analytically will come to different conclusions. An individuals scientific understanding isn't evidence. As an unrelated question what do you think an IQ test measures?

 

[Sheepo]

And I'm sure you have a very good reason as to why you feel that way. But if you try to explain your reasoning to shift or erestheux they will never accept it and say you are not understanding what the bible is saying. Everyone certainly has a right to their opinions but that doesn't frustrate you in the slightest? It sort of reminds me of the people that think Obama was born in Kenya or 911 was an inside job. Sure, you can ignore it. But that kind of irrational thinking really bugs me.

Well frankly, my understanding of the bible doesn't really have anything to do it. When it comes down to it, I don't think Jesus ever rose from the dead, and that's a bit of a dealbreaker. But ignoring that, I think that such people as Shift are mostly reasonable and know that their understanding of the bible is only their own, and that they can't hope to objectively declare or prove it superior to to other outlooks. It doesn't bother me because, in the cases we're talking, it's not counter productive to our society, unlike the conspiracy stuff you listed, and their belief is based on a reasonable lack of explanation, whereas the normal alternatives to those conspiracies have perfectly well explained and reasonable explanations already.

Edit: Whoops, missed No Limit's post before mine. Might be responding to some stuff that wasn't actually targeted at me.

Yeah, my mistake, I should really quote the people I respond to more.

The other problem is that atheists think Christians base everything on pure, blind faith. When actually, I, and many others, as Christians, believe that science points strongly towards a theistic argument, it was actually that realization after years of researching all possibilities that caused me to look into Christianity properly. I am not here to debate this point, I am just stating where I come from.

Frankly, while I admit that science doesn't preclude the possibility of a christian god, it in no way supports it. Perhaps you're talking specifically of the big bang, but creation is in no way exclusive to christianity, nor does it necessarily require any god. As for everything in the new testament, virtually all the evidence I've heard has contrasted with the miracle stuff, and even if that evidence is outdated, I highly doubt there's anything in support of the miracles.

 

[No Limit]

- No, the dietary laws of the Old Testament were in fact upturned by God in Acts 10, 9-16, whereby he gave a vision to Peter showing him that all meats were now clean. So the Jews shouldn't even be following them now.
- Yes, regardless of whether it is condemned in the Old Testament, it is also spoken against in the New Testament, as it is an act of sexual immorality.
- Well you kept mentioning priests, when there shouldn't even be anymore priests in the first place. As for homosexuals preaching the Bible, then I find nothing against that specifically in either the Old or New Testament. The act of homosexuality itself is condemned in both the Old and New, but I can't find anything about them being unable to preach.

Where do you find anything in the new testament against incest?

Here are somethings I could find:

But if any man thinks that he is behaving himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requires, let him do what he will; he is not sinning; let them marry (1 Corinthians 7:36)

So clearly, you think incest is cool in the eyes of God, right?

Also, is your argument that the only time the old testament doesn't apply is if the new testament absolves you of it? So if it's not mentioned in the new testament it still applies?

Well his interpretation is incorrect. Can you find any quotes from either Jesus or the apostles, the teachings he as a Christian under Jesus, should be following, about killing abortion doctors?
...
I interpret the Bible from the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, teachings which contain many quotes against murder for example:
...
The difference between me and him as a believer of Christ, is that I strive, NOT, to murder people, I strive not to sin in any way. The fact that that man went out and deliberately killed someone means he isn't striving to turn away from sin at all so how can he justify he is walking with Christ in spirit? The very person that condemned murder of any kind?
...
No he is in prison because he murdered someone in cold blood and that's exactly where he should be. It has nothing to do with Christ.

He murdered someone because he believed that's what Jesus wanted. And who could blame him? Just look all the inconsitancies we went over in the bible. You are in this thread saying that not a single stroke of a pen from the old testament is invalidated. If that's true then there are all kinds of things in it that say to kill wicked non believers. Just because he doens't share your interpretation about the OT (as many in the christian community don't) who are you to judge him?

You yourself have said in this thread that as long as you believe in Jesus with your full heart you are allowed to look at porn (which in the bible seems to be just as grave of a sin as killing someone). Who's to say that you won't burn in hell for your interpretation?

God commanded the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites because of their persistent immoralities and way of life that was blatantly against God. It was a nation burning children as a gift to their Gods along with all manner of other atrocities, and seeing as though only God can give true justice, then that is what had to happen at the time, for the greater good of his kingdom. I mean atheists complain that God is some kind of evil war mongerer, despite the fact that he had very good reasons, when the United States deems it fine to invade a country for no reason others than their rich oil supplies... But its besides the point, God clearly commanded that of Joshua, whereas this guy killed someone because of his own sinful rage.

So is God cool with war when its against "evil" or is he not?

Abortion isn't even mentioned in the Bible. All arguments against it from a biblical standpoint at inconclusive, because there are no clear arguments against it therefore to call it a sin would be baseless.

http://atheism.about.com/od/abortioncontraception/p/AbortionBible.htm

So you think a life doesn't start until birth?

No, what? Are you trying to trip me up or something? He said not a single word or stroke would vanish from the Old Testament, i.e. whatever God said then, applies now, apart from obvious the dietary stuff as proven in Acts 10. But I live under Christ, and since he lived the life, with all the rules etc that God commanded from the Old Testament, and then died on the cross for all my sins, I now no longer have to live under the rules of the Old Testament, despite the fact that they are still apparent, as stated in numourous quotes throughout the New Testament. I therefore follow the teachings of Jesus and his apostles in the New Testament, as that has full relevance over my life as a disciple of Jesus.

So you can have sex with your mother. And life isn't life until you are born. And wanking it (or just the act of looking at porn) is a very serious and very grave sin. And women can't file for divorce.

You must also believe that the universe was created in 7 days and that Noah is the savior of every species on our planet. Since you say you believe the bible because of scientific evidance where is your evidance for this?

You have very interesting views on Christianity. I would say by far the huge majority of Christians don't agree with you, are they going to hell?

 

[lord_raken]

That makes no sense, atheism is a non-faith/religion, why on earth would they require churches?

Sorry, forgot who was quoting who. I fixed it now.

 

[Shift]

Where do you find anything in the new testament against incest?

So clearly, you think incest is cool in the eyes of God, right?

If you are going to quote from the Bible, then use an accurate translation please, not some weird rewrite of the outdated King James version.

If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry - it is no sin.

There is no mention of daughters.

Also, is your argument that the only time the old testament doesn't apply is if the new testament absolves you of it? So if it's not mentioned in the new testament it still applies?

No it isn't and I'm starting to get tired of repeating myself now.

He murdered someone because he believed that's what Jesus wanted. And who could blame him? Just look all the inconsitancies we went over in the bible. You are in this thread saying that not a single stroke of a pen from the old testament is invalidated. If that's true then there are all kinds of things in it that say to kill wicked non believers. Just because he doens't share your interpretation about the OT (as many in the christian community don't) who are you to judge him?

As a Christian who has murdered, he has disobeyed one of the very things that makes him a Christian, which is the yearning to turn his back on sin. That means not killing people. As a disciple of Christ, he is only to follow his and his apostles' teachings, regardless of the old Law still being applicable, it has no reference to his way of life or how he is to live. Any Christian who thinks differently has got it very wrong, its that simple I'm afraid.

So is God cool with war when its against "evil" or is he not?

Whatever God's intentions for war may be, I know that they were for very good reasons, otherwise he wouldn't have called for it.

So you think a life doesn't start until birth?

I think there is a long period of time before the foetus actually becomes a person, and if someone wants to stop that foetus becoming a person, so that her life may not be ruined, she has every right to do so. The fact that the Bible doesn't even mention anything about abortion further strengthens my view on it. I do however think, that if the baby is in the latter stages of its development, whereby all its organs have formulated and its taken its full shape, it would then definitely be wrong to kill it.

So you can have sex with your mother.

Why do you keep saying this? Incest is condemned as a sin in the Old Testament just as its a sin to me now as a Christian, that doesn't change.

And women can't file for divorce.

They can if the other commits adultery actually...

You must also believe that the universe was created in 7 days

Genesis does not say that.

and that Noah is the savior of every species on our planet. Since you say you believe the bible because of scientific evidance where is your evidance for this?

Scientific evidence for the Bible? I said I think science points towards a theistic creator, which in turn, means I believe the Bible.

You have very interesting views on Christianity. I would say by far the huge majority of Christians don't agree with you

For someone who isn't a Christian themselves, that is almost laughable. Especially coming from someone who can't grasp the very ethics behind Christianity under Jesus, who are you to suggest what the majority thinks when you haven't the slightest idea how any of it works?

 

[No Limit]

I guess finding another translation to make up your beliefs works well too. I was actually expecting a far simpler explaination from you on that phrase (that the bible is talking about letting the daughter marry someone else), but I see going with the wrong translation argument was far easier for you.

Did you anywhere in that post show me where the new testament condamns incest?

So you say Roeder is going to hell because "he has disobeyed one of the very things that makes him a Christian, which is the yearning to turn his back on sin". Is looking at women on the internet in lust disobeying the very thing that makes someone a Christian? Are you turning your back on that sin for the rest of your natural life?

Why do you keep saying this? Incest is condemned as a sin in the Old Testament just as its a sin to me now as a Christian, that doesn't change.

Because you keep saying that just because it's in the old testament doesn't mean it's law any longer. That for it to be law it must be upheld in the new testament. This isn't just about incest, I am using one of the most obvius examples. There are plenty of other things in the old testament that you will never follow, they are not mentioned in the new testament nor does Jesus absolve you of them in the new testament. So you might want to tread lightly with your answer here.

What do you mean genesys doesn't say the universe was made in 7 days? It's the very opening chapter of the bible, that's exactly what it says. It describes in some detail the exact thing God did on each day and then how he rested on the seventh:

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-1/

How could you possibly deny this? Is there another convenient translation you have available?

Who am I to say what the majority of christians believe? How about scientific public opinion polls, do they work for you? Just if you look at abortion 72% of self identified christians think it's a moral sin and should be outlawed. You clearly don't agree with them on that as you don't on many other issues. What exactl interpretation will God allow in to heaven?

I think there is a long period of time before the foetus actually becomes a person, and if someone wants to stop that foetus becoming a person, so that her life may not be ruined, she has every right to do so. The fact that the Bible doesn't even mention anything about abortion further strengthens my view on it. I do however think, that if the baby is in the latter stages of its development, whereby all its organs have formulated and its taken its full shape, it would then definitely be wrong to kill it.

But it's only wrong to kill it in your eyes, God would be cool with it. Since you just admited the bible says nothing about abortion therefore abortion must be okay in God's eyes. Terminating a baby in the late term is still abortion.

 

[Shift]

I guess finding another translation to make up your beliefs works well too.

Look up the Reformation.

I was actually expecting a far simpler explaination from you on that phrase (that the bible is talking about letting the daughter marry someone else), but I see going with the wrong translation argument was far easier for you.

Because it is uncertain whether Paul is addressing men who have deffered marriage to their fiancée or fathers who have not permitted their daughters to marry in this passage. However, the main idea is clear; both married and unmarried status are good options.

Did you anywhere in that post show me where the new testament condamns incest?

It condemns sexual immorality which I think incest definitely falls under...

So you say Roeder is going to hell because "he has disobeyed one of the very things that makes him a Christian, which is the yearning to turn his back on sin". Is looking at women on the internet in lust disobeying the very thing that makes someone a Christian? Are you turning your back on that sin for the rest of your natural life?

Yes, because I am Christian under Christ, I am striving to turn my back on all sin for the rest of my life, I am not going out and murdering people and I'm not looking at porn on the internet, I do not strive to commit any sin because of my new found life under Christ.

Because you keep saying that just because it's in the old testament doesn't mean it's law any longer. That for it to be law it must be upheld in the new testament.

This is becoming a joke now. I did not say that at all, how many more times do I have to say it for it to sink in? It is in the Old Testament and it his condemned as a sin, since Jesus said not one thing will pass from that Law, then it is now, still a sin. It is still a sin to God, as it is still a sin to me. The only thing that has changed is that all the rules and the ways of living that were found in the Old Testament, I no longer have to live by, because Jesus lived by them in my place.

What do you mean genesys doesn't say the universe was made in 7 days?

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

What do you think it means when it says the 'heavens' were created? No specific time was given to it.

Who am I to say what the majority of christians believe? How about scientific public opinion polls, do they work for you? Just if you look at abortion 72% of self identified christians think it's a moral sin and should be outlawed. You clearly don't agree with them on that as you don't on many other issues. What exactl interpretation will God allow in to heaven?

And you accuse me for picking pieces of my faith? I base my views on abortions primarily off the Bible, for which says nothing on the matter. What are all these other Christians basing their views off? And the only thing God will allow for people to get into heaven is for them to have lived in spirit with Jesus, only then can sin they committed be forgiven, there is no other way around it.

Since you just admited the bible says nothing about abortion therefore abortion must be okay in God's eyes. Terminating a baby in the late term is still abortion.

The fact that scientifically speaking, that foetus is not a person until later on in its stages of development, and the fact that the Bible says nothing about abortion is evidence enough for me to say there is nothing wrong with it. Only when that foetus has developed into an actual child, with a fully developed brain and all its other organs formulated, would it be classed as killing a person.

 

[No Limit]

It condemns sexual immorality which I think incest definitely falls under...

So God didn't explain to you what sexual immorality is? You just get to decide what it is yourself? Which verses in the new testament cover sexual immorality without giving specifics as to what it is? I'm not aware of it. Sure, there is a bunch of stuff about how man should not lie with man. Or how you can't commit adultery. But all is very specific. What statements in the new testament about sexual immorality are not at all specific and open to your own interpretation as to what kind of act is covered?

Yes, because I am Christian under Christ, I am striving to turn my back on all sin for the rest of my life, I am not going out and murdering people and I'm not looking at porn on the internet, I do not strive to commit any sin because of my new found life under Christ.

So someone that believes they have given their life to christ but they end up looking at porn anyway is going to hell?

This is becoming a joke now. I did not say that at all, how many more times do I have to say it for it to sink in? It is in the Old Testament and it his condemned as a sin, since Jesus said not one thing will pass from that Law, then it is now, still a sin. It is still a sin to God, as it is still a sin to me. The only thing that has changed is that all the rules and the ways of living that were found in the Old Testament, I no longer have to live by, because Jesus lived by them in my place.

Yes, this is becoming a joke. Did you even reread what you just posted in that statement? You said at the beginning that it is a sin because the old testament says it is a sin (since the OT still applies). So it is a sin to you and to your God. Then in the very next sentance you say that you no longer have to live by any rules from the old testament. Do you not understand why that makes absolutely no sense? If something is a rule in the old testament then if you break that rule you are sinning. And you are not allowed to sin, correct?

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

What do you think it means when it says the 'heavens' were created? No specific time was given to it.

I do know what it means. It implies the earth and all the universe were created at the exact same time. And further the bible implies it was all in a day. But okay, I see your point, fair enough. God doesn't say how long it took to create the universe, he just said he did it in the beginning. But what you can't dispute is what the bible does say. It says that the sun and all the starts in the universe were created AFTER the earth was created in a single day. Do you agree with this? Further the bible says that all life was created in a single day which included people. So that means no life could have existed before people. Do you agree with that as well?

One final question, you do agree the earth is around 4.5 billion years old and the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, right?

And you accuse me for picking pieces of my faith? I base my views on abortions primarily off the Bible, for which says nothing on the matter. What are all these other Christians basing their views off? And the only thing God will allow for people to get into heaven is for them to have lived in spirit with Jesus, only then can sin they committed be forgiven, there is no other way around it.

I don't know what they are thinking, you can ask them. Chances are the next time you talk to a christian they will be more than happy to share their views on abortion with you. But the question you keep refusing to answer is who gets to decide which interpretation is correct? OVer 70% of christians don't agree with you on abortion. I would say that almost as high an amount disagree with you on a lot of other things (especially having to do with the OT). If they don't get the interpretation right do they go to hell? Roeder didn't get the interpretation right although he thinks in his head he is living in spirit with Jesus, and you already agreed he is going to hell. So where do you draw the line?

The fact that scientifically speaking, that foetus is not a person until later on in its stages of development, and the fact that the Bible says nothing about abortion is evidence enough for me to say there is nothing wrong with it. Only when that foetus has developed into an actual child, with a fully developed brain and all its other organs formulated, would it be classed as killing a person.

The bible never says at what point a fetus becomes a person with a soul. So you are just going to make something up? Isn't that just a bit ironic given what you just said above this paragraph? That the 70% of your religion that thinks abortion is a sin is just making shit up and we shouldn't take them seriously?

 

[Dead Phil]

Long, I do not want to write that much......... didn't this thread die?

sigh

I don't really care who believes what so can you stop going on about this freaking thread ok? I will take that as a yes

 

[No Limit]

Thank you for your thought provoking insight.

 

[Dead Phil]

yeah... that was uncalled for

 

[Shift]

Alright No Limit, I could continue debating but I'm not going to anymore because I just find debating with you boring now if I'm honest. It has taken all the staying power I have to keep this going as long as I have but all I have done for the past few pages, is repeated myself, over and over and over again, so its clear to me that you just don't understand the ethics behind Christianity which further proves what Jesus said when he said those without faith have their eyes closed. In other words, they simply cannot grasp Christianity and none of it will make any sense to them, so I don't why I'm bothering trying to explain it.

With regards to the whole Genesis creation thing, that's entirely new debate altogether and I am not, debating with you about that now, maybe another time.

 

[No Limit]

Come on just answer that one question, please? Do you think that earth came before the sun and the stars?

 

[voodoospriest]

What does ethics have to do explicitly with Christianity? If there are so many 'Christians' that got it wrong who is to say you don't have it wrong? The answer is "YOU!" of-course. I'll agree that Christianity gives a form of ethical code but that people who behave in an ethical fashion without having to be scared into it by a higher power and the threat of not making it to heaven are the more ethical.

 

[Dead Phil]

thank you for killing this thread,

THANK YOU

 

[Bad^Hat]

Yes, this is becoming a joke. Did you even reread what you just posted in that statement? You said at the beginning that it is a sin because the old testament says it is a sin (since the OT still applies). So it is a sin to you and to your God. Then in the very next sentance you say that you no longer have to live by any rules from the old testament. Do you not understand why that makes absolutely no sense? If something is a rule in the old testament then if you break that rule you are sinning. And you are not allowed to sin, correct?

Okay, I'm not trying to defend the bible or it's message or claim that it has any kind of validity, but I don't think someone with such a pathetic misunderstanding of what is commonly established to be "Christ's message" should really be debating christianity. Really, it's sailed so far over your head it might as well be in heaven.

Long, I do not want to write that much......... didn't this thread die?

sigh

I don't really care who believes what so can you stop going on about this freaking thread ok? I will take that as a yes

Oh hey thanks for your contribution, valued member of community. We will surely take your grievance to heart when deciding the outcome of this most undesirable thread. Sorry to have displeased you!!!

 

[Dead Phil]

well it is old news... I don't really care about what anyone believes and ther is no point in trying to debate someone into disproving their said beliefs, I am atheist myself so like I said I DON"T CARE what anyone believes and i won't bother anyone on trying to disprove their beliefs... I have no standpoint

 

[Sheepo]

Okay, I'm not trying to defend the bible or it's message or claim that it has any kind of validity, but I don't think someone with such a pathetic misunderstanding of what is commonly established to be "Christ's message" should really be debating christianity. Really, it's sailed so far over your head it might as well be in heaven.

Being deliberately obtuse is kind of No Limit's thing.

 

[Dead Phil]

yeah no limit is always on the political and lounge threads

 

[Bad^Hat]

Do you have some kind of blog I could subscribe to or something? I feel like I'm being robbed of precious insights whenever you don't pop into a thread to shed these little jewels of wisdom. Please, tell me more about the "I DON"T CARE."