kinigget
New Member
At some point, I WILL have an avatar I swear!
Posts: 3
|
Post by kinigget on Dec 6, 2011 1:01:19 GMT -5
In the same vein as the above. I have a problem with the idea that there is such a thing as a "true Christian" Because it seems to me that Every. Single. Christian. EVER. has a different idea of what a "true christian" is. The worst part is that they knowingly invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy as if were actually an argument.
|
|
czechmate
Full Member
Czech Republic / UK
Posts: 123
|
Post by czechmate on Dec 6, 2011 4:33:41 GMT -5
Nothing destroys Christianity better than the Christians. As an atheist, I couldn't care less about who or what theists believe in, I just look upon everyone as a fellow human being. Religion, in its fundamentalist form, only succeeds in creating unbridgeable divides among human society. So much for being the great uniter! The greatest blow that can be dealt to Christianity is the Cayman Islands being wiped out in the next major earthquake, thus instantly wiping out the illicit fortunes of Pat Robertson and his corrupt ilk.
|
|
|
Post by rageaholic on Dec 6, 2011 13:39:51 GMT -5
That's the frusturating thing with arguing against Christians. You can confront them on an issue and they'll say "but we don't believe that!". A lot of the time they do believe it, but to a lesser extreme. Like if you say "what do you have against homosexuals?". Some might say they don't "hate" them they're just against their acts. Or if you say "Why does god send people to hell?" And they'll say "god doesn't send people to hell, you send yourself there!". Yeah so that robber didn't shoot that guy, he shot himself when he refused to hand over the money!
And speaking of Christians redefining words, I love how god's atrocities are considered acceptable just by attacting the word "righteous" or "holy" to it. It's sinful when humans kill people (as it should be), but when god does it, it's "righteous". Why don't they just say as long as god does something, it's good? Oh wait, I've heard that justification too!
Religion is fucked up.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 6, 2011 14:36:22 GMT -5
Unless you repeat back what they say exactly, you're wrong. Any rephrasing you do, even if it doesn't change the actual content, is wrong. Any inferences you make based entirely on what logically follows from what they say are wrong. As an unbeliever, you can never, ever be right about anything. I know exactly what you mean.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Dec 6, 2011 20:02:58 GMT -5
That's the frusturating thing with arguing against Christians. You can confront them on an issue and they'll say "but we don't believe that!". A lot of the time they do believe it, but to a lesser extreme. Like if you say "what do you have against homosexuals?". Some might say they don't "hate" them they're just against their acts. Or if you say "Why does god send people to hell?" And they'll say "god doesn't send people to hell, you send yourself there!". Yeah so that robber didn't shoot that guy, he shot himself when he refused to hand over the money! And speaking of Christians redefining words, I love how god's atrocities are considered acceptable just by attacting the word "righteous" or "holy" to it. It's sinful when humans kill people (as it should be), but when god does it, it's "righteous". Why don't they just say as long as god does something, it's good? Oh wait, I've heard that justification too! Religion is fucked up. Point of order; not all Christians have a religious problem with homosexuals. I'm a Christian, I can't see anything in the Bible that suggests one mustn't be, or must villify, homosexuals.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Dec 7, 2011 0:25:19 GMT -5
Er...
Now, there's some argument that the passeges in leviticus were refering to worship of Molech, and the epistles were refering to temple prostitution, but it is equivocal on this.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Dec 7, 2011 0:32:26 GMT -5
Thats good Lexikon, now google the difference between the Old and New Covenants, and you'll see why it's irrelevent. I am aware of what Leviticus says, but if it was the actual basis for Christian morality, we would'nt allow people to wear clothes of mixed fibre or eat oysters, either.
That's before one even gets into the many arguments surrounding the correct, contextual interpretation ofthe original Hebrew is in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by gyeonghwa on Dec 7, 2011 0:38:29 GMT -5
Thats good Lexikon, now google the difference between the Old and New Covenants, and you'll see why it's irrelevent. I am aware of what Leviticus says, but if it was the actual basis for Christian morality, we would'nt allow people to wear clothes of mixed fibre or eat oysters, either. That's before one even gets into the many arguments surrounding the correct, contextual interpretation of " ëá åÀàÆú-æÈëÈø--ìÉà úÄùÑÀëÌÇá, îÄùÑÀëÌÀáÅé àÄùÌÑÈä: úÌåÉòÅáÈä, äÄåà " in the first place. Unicode doesn't work on Proboards.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Dec 7, 2011 0:45:57 GMT -5
The laws in leviticus could have been for the Israelites and everyone else. It also says not to commit adultery (in the same chapter) as well as not to murder, steal, etc.
So you need to show that Homosexuality is in the category of customary laws, or in the case of laws for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 7, 2011 0:49:22 GMT -5
Thats good Lexikon, now google the difference between the Old and New Covenants, and you'll see why it's irrelevent. I am aware of what Leviticus says, but if it was the actual basis for Christian morality, we would'nt allow people to wear clothes of mixed fibre or eat oysters, either. That's before one even gets into the many arguments surrounding the correct, contextual interpretation ofthe original Hebrew is in the first place. Uh... half of those verses are from the NEW Testament, dude. Not to mention Jesus flat-out states in one verse that he shall not change one jot nor tiddle of the law. Or... whatever he used. My Hebrew terminology is rusted into pieces.
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on Dec 7, 2011 6:30:37 GMT -5
Thats good Lexikon, now google the difference between the Old and New Covenants, and you'll see why it's irrelevent. I am aware of what Leviticus says, but if it was the actual basis for Christian morality, we would'nt allow people to wear clothes of mixed fibre or eat oysters, either. That's before one even gets into the many arguments surrounding the correct, contextual interpretation ofthe original Hebrew is in the first place. Uh... half of those verses are from the NEW Testament, dude. Not to mention Jesus flat-out states in one verse that he shall not change one jot nor tiddle of the law. Or... whatever he used. My Hebrew terminology is rusted into pieces. Actually you're combining verses. In Matthew 5:17-18 he said: 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Then in verse 19, he goes on to say "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." But the gist of what you are saying is correct.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Dec 7, 2011 7:06:14 GMT -5
Thats good Lexikon, now google the difference between the Old and New Covenants, and you'll see why it's irrelevent. I am aware of what Leviticus says, but if it was the actual basis for Christian morality, we would'nt allow people to wear clothes of mixed fibre or eat oysters, either. That's before one even gets into the many arguments surrounding the correct, contextual interpretation ofthe original Hebrew is in the first place. Uh... half of those verses are from the NEW Testament, dude. Not to mention Jesus flat-out states in one verse that he shall not change one jot nor tiddle of the law. Or... whatever he used. My Hebrew terminology is rusted into pieces. Leviticus 18 22 is definitely old testament. As for not changeing a jot or anything otherplaces he sure did. Depends on context and to whom he was speaking at the time. A lot of his words were very diplomatic, as they were answers to people trying to trip him up.
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on Dec 7, 2011 7:29:45 GMT -5
Uh... half of those verses are from the NEW Testament, dude. Not to mention Jesus flat-out states in one verse that he shall not change one jot nor tiddle of the law. Or... whatever he used. My Hebrew terminology is rusted into pieces. Leviticus 18 22 is definitely old testament. As for not changeing a jot or anything otherplaces he sure did. Depends on context and to whom he was speaking at the time. A lot of his words were very diplomatic, as they were answers to people trying to trip him up. So does that mean he didn't really mean what he was saying at times? He was merely giving answers that would placate or confuse his listeners? Good job, Jesus. See, this is the problem right here with religion in general and Christianity in particular. And that's why there are thousands of denominations, sects, and cults within just the Christian faith, Say what you want, but every one of those divisions has an interpretation different than anyone else of something in the Bible. And in what context are some of these verses to be taken? Many verses in both the old and new testaments refer to prophets that aren't even mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. And when I was doing Bible study, I would read commentary by "Biblical experts" that refer to texts outside the Bible for "context." If the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God as so many Christians claim, why is there so much division as to what it says and means? And why would one need to refer to something outside the Bible for "context?" And you'd be hard pressed to find any of the major religions in the world today that don't have divisions amongst the "faithful."
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Dec 7, 2011 7:34:12 GMT -5
Indeed. Those ARE problems and I would even agree that misinterpretation and lack of context are the reasons for most of Christianities problems? But whaddya expect? No one ever claimed the Bible was perfect, except the fundie nutters.
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Dec 7, 2011 10:35:42 GMT -5
This brings up another thing about fundies I hate. They will gleefully and easily ignore 99.9% of the Mosaic Law, and say that Jesus made it no longer apply, but then when you try to say "well that means you have no grounds for opposing homosexuality", that's suddenly the one verse in Leviticus that is still in force.
|
|