Nicos wrote: ShadowcatX wrote: Nicos wrote: But can you give a quote in the old testament? because I can not (because i am mostly ignorant in this issue).
I would like to see something like
"hey, obey this rules until I send the messiah"
until now i only found things like
"hey, obey this rules forever"
There isn't such a quote in the old testament. Sad. But then you can not blame me for seeing a contracition in the old and new testament. If there was no changes in the New Testament, it wouldn't be called the _New_ Testament!
Sanakht Inaros wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Nicos, why does it have to be in the Old Testament? Why is the New Testament not sufficient for you? Because the NT isn't sufficient for christians. Why does the verse Nico is looking for have to be in the OT?
Darkwing Duck wrote: Nicos, why does it have to be in the Old Testament? Why is the New Testament not sufficient for you? Well, if God inspired the bible i would like to see more consistence, he said forever and now he is saying well forget it, that is weird.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Sanakht Inaros wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Nicos, why does it have to be in the Old Testament? Why is the New Testament not sufficient for you? Because the NT isn't sufficient for christians. Why does the verse Nico is looking for have to be in the OT? OT means?
I have thisargument because if god said homosexuality is bad, and then he say my laws are forever, then homsexuality is still a sin.
Nicos wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Nicos, why does it have to be in the Old Testament? Why is the New Testament not sufficient for you? Well, is God inspired the bible i would liketo see more consistence, he said forever and now he is saying well forget it, that is weird.
I think you've got a misunderstanding of what religion is.
If there was absolute consistency across the thousands of years that took place to write the Bible, it'd be a manifest miracle.
Faith is a virtue.
I swear I wish junior high school and high school taught cultural studies. I really do.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
And philosophy. Logic. A lot of things that aren't needed to make retail workers. :/
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
TriOmegaZero wrote: And philosophy. Logic. A lot of things that aren't needed to make retail workers. :/ absolutely!
Darkwing Duck wrote: Nicos wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Nicos, why does it have to be in the Old Testament? Why is the New Testament not sufficient for you? Well, is God inspired the bible i would liketo see more consistence, he said forever and now he is saying well forget it, that is weird.
I think you've got a misunderstanding of what religion is.
If there was absolute consistency across the thousands of years that took place to write the Bible, it'd be a manifest miracle.
Faith is a virtue.
Well, I have no problem with people like you, you seems to be a reasonable and tolerant person.
But there is others that claims "inherent and undisputed moral superiority" for been christian.
Faith is something very personal, there is not such thing like christian country.
Nicos wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Nicos wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Nicos, why does it have to be in the Old Testament? Why is the New Testament not sufficient for you? Well, is God inspired the bible i would liketo see more consistence, he said forever and now he is saying well forget it, that is weird.
I think you've got a misunderstanding of what religion is.
If there was absolute consistency across the thousands of years that took place to write the Bible, it'd be a manifest miracle.
Faith is a virtue.
Well, I have no problem with people like you, you seems to be a reasonable and tolerant person.
But there is others that claims "inherent and undisputed moral superiority" for been christian.
Faith is something very personal, there is not such thing like christian country. Well, I used to be full of hate and anger. I still deal with it. I knew the Bible very well, but not how to live it. I've had very good examples in church to teach me how to be a better person. I'm not perfect, but I am trying.
The thing I want to stress is regardless of all the crap you see from the fundamentalist whackjob branch of Christianity, they don't represent the majority, just the ones who get the most camera time.
Nicos wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Sanakht Inaros wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Nicos, why does it have to be in the Old Testament? Why is the New Testament not sufficient for you? Because the NT isn't sufficient for christians. Why does the verse Nico is looking for have to be in the OT? OT means?
I have thisargument because if god said homosexuality is bad, and then he say my laws are forever, then homsexuality is still a sin. I think there's some confusion as to what God's laws are. You think they are things written down in the Bible. Yet, Jesus said that the greatest law was the Golden Rule - which appears nowhere in the OT. God said it was okay to eat unclean beasts. I think that illustrates that God's laws are not things that are written down. Rather, they are the intent behind those laws.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkwing Duck wrote: Well, I used to be full of hate and anger. I still deal with it. I knew the Bible very well, but not how to live it. I've had very good examples in church to teach me how to be a better person. I'm not perfect, but I am trying.
The thing I want to stress is regardless of all the crap you see from the fundamentalist whackjob branch of Christianity, they don't represent the majority, just the ones who get the most camera time.
From the POV of an atheist (or secular humanist, if you prefer), it is very, very difficult to come up with any criteria for determining who the "fake" Christians are, especially since everyone will tell you "the other guy."
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkwing Duck wrote: The thing I want to stress is regardless of all the crap you see from the fundamentalist whackjob branch of Christianity, they don't represent the majority, just the ones who get the most camera time. It's all semantics.
bugleyman wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Well, I used to be full of hate and anger. I still deal with it. I knew the Bible very well, but not how to live it. I've had very good examples in church to teach me how to be a better person. I'm not perfect, but I am trying.
The thing I want to stress is regardless of all the crap you see from the fundamentalist whackjob branch of Christianity, they don't represent the majority, just the ones who get the most camera time.
From the POV of an atheist (or secular humanist, if you prefer), it is very, very difficult to come up with any criteria for determining who the "fake" Christians are, especially since everyone will tell you "the other guy." Actually, its pretty easy. If a self-proclaimed Christian isn't working to try to manifest the fruits of the spirit, then he's not a Christian.
Matthew 7 wrote:
15“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkwing Duck wrote: bugleyman wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Well, I used to be full of hate and anger. I still deal with it. I knew the Bible very well, but not how to live it. I've had very good examples in church to teach me how to be a better person. I'm not perfect, but I am trying.
The thing I want to stress is regardless of all the crap you see from the fundamentalist whackjob branch of Christianity, they don't represent the majority, just the ones who get the most camera time.
From the POV of an atheist (or secular humanist, if you prefer), it is very, very difficult to come up with any criteria for determining who the "fake" Christians are, especially since everyone will tell you "the other guy." Actually, its pretty easy. If a self-proclaimed Christian isn't working to try to manifest the fruits of the spirit, then he's not a Christian. That's about as clear as concrete. I could argue that you're not christian because you're not following X. Again, it's semantics.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkwing Duck wrote: bugleyman wrote:
From the POV of an atheist (or secular humanist, if you prefer), it is very, very difficult to come up with any criteria for determining who the "fake" Christians are, especially since everyone will tell you "the other guy."
Actually, its pretty easy. If a self-proclaimed Christian isn't working to try to manifest the fruits of the spirit, then he's not a Christian. That may mean something to you, but it's gibberish to me. What exactly are "the fruits of the spirit" and how do I tell if someone is "working to try to manifest" them? Is there a device I can use to measure this?
I snark, but I'm serious at the same time.
Aretas wrote: The United States is indeed a Christian nation!
The founders never wanted to establish a secular nation.
I'm going to believe James "Father of the Constitution" Madison and Thomas "Author of the Declaration of Independence, and the guy who took a pair of scissors to the Bible" Jefferson on that one, rather than you. No offense, but my guess is that their opinions are slightly more authoritative.
thejeff wrote: What exactly are "the fruits of the spirit" Galatians 5:22-23 wrote:
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
thejeff wrote: how do I tell if someone is "working to try to manifest" them? The discernment of spirits is a gift of the spirit. There is no easy answer. If your spirit is open and you can hear that still, small voice, you'll know.
But, I've certainly made the mistake several times in my life in signficant ways.
Darwking duck wrote: Actually, its pretty easy. If a self-proclaimed Christian isn't working to try to manifest the fruits of the spirit, then he's not a Christian. You assume that the fruits of the spirit are good and tolerant. Unbelievers have more than enough reason to doubt that assumption.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Unbelievers have more than enough reason to doubt that assumption. Yes, they do.
And that's something that Christians need to work harder on.
Darkwing Duck wrote: bugleyman wrote: it is very, very difficult to come up with any criteria for determining who the "fake" Christians are, especially since everyone will tell you "the other guy." Actually, its pretty easy. If a self-proclaimed Christian isn't working to try to manifest the fruits of the spirit, then he's not a Christian. Essentially, it's like this:
Darkwing Duck is to Christianity as Comrade Anklebiter is to Communism.
"Hey, look at all the bad things Christians/Communists have done!"
DD/CA: "Those weren't real Christians/Communists!"
Fair enough.
I'm still gonna punch St. Peter, though.
Darkwing Duck wrote: thejeff wrote: What exactly are "the fruits of the spirit" Galatians 5:22-23 wrote:
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
thejeff wrote: how do I tell if someone is "working to try to manifest" them? The discernment of spirits is a gift of the spirit. There is no easy answer. If your spirit is open and you can hear that still, small voice, you'll know.
But, I've certainly made the mistake several times in my life in signficant ways. So, True Christians are the ones trying to be good. Why didn't you just say that.
Obviously then, no True Christians are persecuting homosexuals. Oh wait, I suppose they could be trying but failing to manifest the fruits. Then they could persecute and still be True Christians.
Bah. Too complicated. I'll go back to talking about what organizations and movements do and stop trying to decide whether individuals are really what they call themselves or not.
Can non-Christians also be good?
Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: bugleyman wrote: it is very, very difficult to come up with any criteria for determining who the "fake" Christians are, especially since everyone will tell you "the other guy." Actually, its pretty easy. If a self-proclaimed Christian isn't working to try to manifest the fruits of the spirit, then he's not a Christian. Essentially, it's like this:
Darkwing Duck is to Christianity as Comrade Anklebiter is to Communism.
"Hey, look at all the bad things Christians/Communists have done!"
DD/CA: "Those weren't real Christians/Communists!"
Fair enough.
I'm still gonna punch St. Peter, though. It does smack a bit of No True Scotsman, doesn't it?
MeanDM wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
EDIT: Fabian wasn't an emperor, of course.
Of course not! Then he would have been a member of the bourgeoisie. :)
(Actually he still woulda been but still....) You need to freshen up on your history, Comrade MeanDM. Fabian wasn't bourgeois, he was plebeian, which is Latin for "stooge of the plutocracy!"
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkwing Duck wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Unbelievers have more than enough reason to doubt that assumption. Yes, they do.
And that's something that Christians need to work harder on. Its not what the christians are doing.
...ok its not just what the Christians are doing.
The old testament portrays a very angry Yawey urging his followers on to some pretty barbaric acts.
Jesus's main points, the thing he spent the most time concerned about, was "Follow me, believe in me I am the only way to God" Works are absolutely useless without belief. Actions, thoughts, deeds, love.. they're all meaningless if you don't believe.
He didn't spend a whole lot of time explaining who or what God was: his primary audience was Jewish and he expected them to know already. Jesus' miracles were a sign of his veracity. The new testament makes absolutely no sense outside of the context of the old testament (or the semi codified jewish beliefs in place till that point)- there is no redemption without original sin, and Jesus's authority is based on who he is: the son of the being described in the old testament that i cannot by any stretch of the imagination describe as good.
Its that being that he's trying to lead you to. So when you try to say that following the text leads to something irreconcilable with good therefore you must be reading it wrong... it does. not. fly.
thejeff wrote:
It does smack a bit of No True Scotsman, doesn't it?
How did you know I am a quarter Scottish?!?
Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote: thejeff wrote:
It does smack a bit of No True Scotsman, doesn't it?
How did you know I am a quarter Scottish?!? 1/4 Scottish, 1/4 French, 1/4 Goblin, 1/4 Troll?
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: MeanDM wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
EDIT: Fabian wasn't an emperor, of course.
Of course not! Then he would have been a member of the bourgeoisie. :)
(Actually he still woulda been but still....) You need to freshen up on your history, Comrade MeanDM. Fabian wasn't bourgeois, he was plebeian, which is Latin for "stooge of the plutocracy!" No, Comrade Anklebiter, it is you who need to freshen up your history. His name was Fabius and he was a patrician.
thejeff wrote: Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote: thejeff wrote:
It does smack a bit of No True Scotsman, doesn't it?
How did you know I am a quarter Scottish?!? 1/4 Scottish, 1/4 French, 1/4 Goblin, 1/4 Troll? That's an excellent guess, but actually, 1/2 Italian, 1/4 Scottish, 1/8 English, 1/8 German, ALL goblin.
"Troll" is my occupation, not my race!
What I'm saying sounds a bit like 'no true Scotsman'?
And, if a scientist fabricates data so that he can win a grant, is that a mark against science? Is criticizing him, also, a 'no true Scotsman' thing?
If not, then why the double standard?
BigNorseWolf wrote: Jesus's main points, the thing he spent the most time concerned about, was "Follow me, believe in me I am the only way to God" I'd have to argue that Jesus spent a lot of time, one of his main points is, turning the other cheek and loving your neighbor as yourself.
Darkwing Duck wrote: And, if a scientist fabricates data so that he can win a grant, is that a mark against science? It's certainly a mark against that scientist -- but moreover, it's a mark against the grant process as well. Now, if only the grant process were an integral part of the scientific method, the rest of your attempted point might fit as well... but it's not. However, the peer review that exposes the falsified data -- that IS an integral part of the method. Intentionally so, for that reason.
And if Joseph Stalin murders millions while pursuing the anti-socialist policies of "socialism in one country" and the appeasement of foreign imperialism, is that a mark against Marxism, or a no true Scotsman thing?
And I thought you were slowly developing a sense of humor. Why the backpedalling?
Darkwing Duck wrote: What I'm saying sounds a bit like 'no true Scotsman'?
And, if a scientist fabricates data so that he can win a grant, is that a mark against science? Is criticizing him, also, a 'no true Scotsman' thing?
If not, then why the double standard?
It would be a double standard if it were the same thing, but seeing as they are not...
Darkwing Duck wrote: thejeff wrote: What exactly are "the fruits of the spirit" Galatians 5:22-23 wrote:
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
thejeff wrote: how do I tell if someone is "working to try to manifest" them? The discernment of spirits is a gift of the spirit. There is no easy answer. If your spirit is open and you can hear that still, small voice, you'll know.
But, I've certainly made the mistake several times in my life in signficant ways.
And you were complaining about atheists having self-serving definitions?
Darkwing Duck wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Unbelievers have more than enough reason to doubt that assumption. Yes, they do.
And that's something that Christians need to work harder on. Part of the problem is that there is not enough publicity for groups like this, and they are a small minority in a group that is either non-vocal or very vocal in the opposite way.
It is not up to non-christians to learn that the image they are being shown is only a minority, or that people claiming to be christian are not actually following the beliefs. It is up to christians to make sure that how they are percieved and the message being sent by their members is what they want. And right now, a very vocal, militant, angry message is being broadcast painting a negative shadow over the religion. It is one I know many christians who are ashamed of.
<wanders off to lurk some more>
Darkwing duck wrote: God said it was okay to eat unclean beasts. I think that illustrates that God's laws are not things that are written down. Rather, they are the intent behind those laws. Which verse was that?
Sanakht Inaros wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: What I'm saying sounds a bit like 'no true Scotsman'?
And, if a scientist fabricates data so that he can win a grant, is that a mark against science? Is criticizing him, also, a 'no true Scotsman' thing?
If not, then why the double standard?
It would be a double standard if it were the same thing, but seeing as they are not... And why exactly is it not a double standard?
You want to judge all of Christianity on the actions of some of them, but are unwilling to judge all of science on the actions of a few scientists.
That's a double standard.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Darkwing duck wrote: God said it was okay to eat unclean beasts. I think that illustrates that God's laws are not things that are written down. Rather, they are the intent behind those laws. Which verse was that? Acts 10:9-19.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Kirth Gersen wrote: Aretas wrote: The United States is indeed a Christian nation!
The founders never wanted to establish a secular nation.
I'm going to believe James "Father of the Constitution" Madison and Thomas "Author of the Declaration of Independence, and the guy who took a pair of scissors to the Bible" Jefferson on that one, rather than you. No offense, but my guess is that their opinions are slightly more authoritative. But he used an exclaimation point!
Darkwing Duck wrote: You want to judge all of Christianity on the actions of some of them, but are unwilling to judge all of science on the actions of a few scientists.
That's a double standard.
1) Science doesn't have an ethical component. The nutjobs discovering new ways of altering viruses so that they kill more people are still doing good science, even though its bad morality.
2) The peer review process and experimentation, which is HOW fakes in science get busted, is part of the process.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkwing Duck wrote: Actually, its pretty easy. If a self-proclaimed Christian isn't working to try to manifest the fruits of the spirit, then he's not a Christian.
Only trust people who come bearing ghost-fruit. Got it. :)
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: MeanDM wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
EDIT: Fabian wasn't an emperor, of course.
Of course not! Then he would have been a member of the bourgeoisie. :)
(Actually he still woulda been but still....) You need to freshen up on your history, Comrade MeanDM. Fabian wasn't bourgeois, he was plebeian, which is Latin for "stooge of the plutocracy!" I raise you a shot of the finest socialist made vodka and counter with the assertion that Fabius was the son and grandson of consuls of Rome and descended from the patrician family of Fabii. That's pretty darn bourgeois. :) Unless you're talking about the Fabian society in which case I'll quietly slink away now. :)
*edit* I see your other personality caught that. Vodka offer still stands. This thread moves too fast.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I think he's talking about Fabian, the Elvis wanna-be.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Sanakht Inaros wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: What I'm saying sounds a bit like 'no true Scotsman'?
And, if a scientist fabricates data so that he can win a grant, is that a mark against science? Is criticizing him, also, a 'no true Scotsman' thing?
If not, then why the double standard?
It would be a double standard if it were the same thing, but seeing as they are not... And why exactly is it not a double standard?
You want to judge all of Christianity on the actions of some of them, but are unwilling to judge all of science on the actions of a few scientists.
That's a double standard. Even after it's been explained to you by others, you STILL don't get it. Science is self-correcting. Christianity is not.
I was removing some personal attacks. However, I think this thread is done: It has come so far from the original topic. If you want to continue your discussion, please either create a new thread for whatever it is you're now talking about, or go to the Civil Religious thread.
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions
|
