^^I can't believe your still at this, give it a rest. This is a laser forum not a bible forum.

I came across this yesterday.
I figure, why bother worshiping a dude that may or may not have lived 2000+ years ago, may or may not have been the "son of god", and may or may not have lived the way he was described.
I was having this discussion with my girlfriend earlier in the evening and it was an "agree to disagree" discussion.
Then I found this and thought it apt.
Today we celebrated a "happy ugly xmas"
The little furry shows caring and peace even as he dies. That is more worthy of following as a religion as far as I'm concerned.
Even if Ugly didn't exist and this had never happened I will follow these beliefs and enforce them with violence, and oh yeah, he was also god's pet.......
Awww damn, another pushy religion that doesn't practice what it preaches.... That didn't take long
*the gf and I did actually celebrate today as "happy Ugly xmas" though ^_^

This is a BEAUTIFUL message!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank You for posting it.

Have an UGLY XMAS to ALL!!!!!!!!!!

Look at the thread title.

Maybe you are in the wrong thread?

Thanks Auto, I hope you had an Ugly Christmas.
Thanks for posting that.


@Ossum I said my peace, this thread was about what religion members are, not bible study. everyone has their own interpretation of the bible and it's meanings. I just don't think this is the place to debate it and drag it on.

The bible is a thick old book....great for stabilizing a VERY lopsided table

If you've studied the Bible, you wouldn't keep misusing verses, and throwing them out of context.

Really? Being a good slave to your master? Serving with sincerity?

What was it supposed to say? "Rebel against your master, with all your might"?

You can't deny the economic realities of time bro.

Human rights? Anyone serving as slave in that time did so for a living, to pay off a debt, to avoid punishment, or because they weren't good for anything else. Did you look at the context of this entire passage? The chapter? The book? I think not. If you did, you would see that no one described in this passage was being oppressed.

The Bible ALSO says that any of whom that owns a slave, were to free them after 6 months of service. Where's the oppression now?

So which point of yours did I just "prove"? Let me know so I may properly refute you. What do you want to talk about? The economy? Or the Bible?

I honestly expected something better from you. Slavery is NOT a hotly debated issue about the Bible, there are far more interesting issues you're overlooking. If you had studied, you would have many of those to bring forward.

One man's interpretation will never get him far. There's a relevant truth in there, and no matter how you see it- what it really means won't ever change. There are better places to debate it, but heck, where there's a need....

So you are saying that the moral judgement of god was based on the human economy?
I agree with you, the bible reflects the contemporary economic situation, but this means that the morals in the bible (at least partially) come from the economic desires of man and not from god.

You are right, there is a relevant, unchanging truth, and it's not in any religion.

Also, please enlighten me, how were the quoted passages out of context, or how does their meaning change because of which chapter they are in?

The sweet irony here is that ad hominem is an argumentative fallacy.



-Trevor

^^^^^^^^^^^^
True dat!

Peace,
dave

twhite-he's not using that picture as a part of an argument, he's just pointing out a general truth.

The sweet irony here is that sweeping generalization is an argumentative fallacy.



...also, posting a comic in this thread that derides "believers" for their ability to argue is quite certainly an attack, rather than a meaningful contribution to the "debate" at hand. If you're saying that he's not using that argumentatively, try looking at the context.

Here's an ad hominem for you: So far, though, you have demonstrated a remarkable ability to ignore context. Try meticulously constructing an argument like the author of that comic says, and use context! It'd be an improvement to every facet of your argument!

</troll>

-Trevor

Ah, I see war has broken loose again
Let's see what we have:
The whole slavery thing is ripped out of context, no wonder it seems weird.
Remarks about the bible ment to offend.
Comics about rules people supposedly have or haven't
Fallacious arguments
Arrogance between the lines

And best of all:
Everybody thinks they're right!

TRUTH like BEAUTY is in the EYE of the BEHOLDER!

So the truth in a^2 +b^2 = hyp^2 is subjective as well?

(and then, what about inconsistent/contradictory truths?)

Depending on ones understanding of math the truth of the equation could be disputed.

I was rather referring to Truth in more ideological circumstances.

It really was just a quip.

I went and did some research for you on this question. I tried to find some hilarious Obama or Bush quotes to take out of context, but I had to settle for a scripture passage.

When taken out of context, this appears as if the "LORD" is promising all of humanity prosperity and safety. In reality, that promise was made to exiles in Babylon. The chapter is a letter Jeremiah wrote to them.

In this case, knowing context changes the meaning to an individual a whole lot.

-Trevor

What a thread!!! I'm not religious at all and do not ever plan to become religious. I like to come to my own conclusions about things rather than take what is said by someone else as the truth (unless that person has lots of real evidence to back up what they say). Christianity and other practiced religions as a whole keep reminding of Russell's Teapot but to each his own.

When did I say that?

Any "morals" put forth in the Bible come in the form of God's own character. I would not even go as far as to say that the Bible "endorses" any particular moral set, but it does endorse character aspects. Morals is such a misued term since they can be whatever a man wants them to be. God's character fortunately is consistent throughout the whole Bible.

Loving, and Just.

Before you jump all over those two words, I'll just tell you that God can be viewed as a parent, (we are his "children") or a professor.

He sits us all down in class, and he hands out his syllabus. The rules are all lined out nice and clear, and the last rule says that if any of the class rules are broken, you get an F in the class.

You'll always have "that guy" in class who for instance cheated on a test just once. They were caught, and the teacher say's he has to fail that student. The student may plead and ask for another chance, but he can't have it. He broke the rules. The student must fail, God is Just.

But, the professor never WANTS their students to fail the course.

Ezekial 18:23
"Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord GOD, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?

The professor WANTS his students to pass, he cares about his students, so instead of just allowing us all to simply fail the course, he takes the blame for the test score, and gets terminated for it. God is Loving.

I would not make the claim that Christianity is the most ideal religion. Religion is the system by which man (religiously) tries to improve, better, or save himself. Was it not the religious that killed Jesus and hung him on a tree to die? Jesus wasn't a big fan of the religious either.

"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them."

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are."

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence."

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."

And my personal favorite:

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town."

Religion is about man doing things to be saved.

Christianity is (supposed to be) about Christ dying for me, so I don't have to suffer likely for even the tiny "little" bad things that I have indeed done.

When you're quoting me a part from the Old Testament like that, you're just spitting it out there without telling everyone who wrote it, to whom it is being written, and why it is being written.

I'll believe your understanding of the Bible when you can give me an accurate background of the passage, and can then tell me if the passage applies to me as a 2011 midwestern believer, or if it more applies to a different people from a different time.

Why is it still important then if it doesn't directly apply to me?

Because looking at the "why" God did this, and "why" his people were commanded that, are what tell us the things we can believe about God and his character if we are to be saved. Not about what we can do, but what we can believe.

Got it? That's all Christianity is. That's it. No rituals, no sacrifices, no chants, no condemning others to hell, no "I am Holier than thou" attitudes, no "doing" things for a god to please him, no punishment for not going to church, no polygamy, no avoidance of alcoholic beverages, no baptisms in the nearest river, no drinking of blood, no holy wars, no jumping on others for their beliefs, no separation from civilization, no legalism just to avoid some kind of punishment, and no saying "I'm perfect".

I know of the nearly infinite examples of people and events that look different than this that claim to be "Christian". They "do" things under the banner of "God". I don't endorse it, and neither does the Bible. I can't speak for their actions, and the things they say. They will have to answer to it someday, but for me, I'm just living my life like anyone else would. I'm just doing it for different reasons, and its not all about me me me.

A very wise man you are sir. Question everything.

Win. You're doing research on your own, and looking behind the words themselves.

"Thats good beans!"

Do you mind finding how MY particular passages are out of context? I realize that taking things out of context is possible... I was wondering about MY posts, which meatball claimed were out of context.

Also, sweeping generalizations are only a fallacy if you don't recognize that they are a sweeping generalization. (Remember how I said "general truth"? That implies there are exceptions.)




TL; DR
However, I read enough of your post to realize that it was complete BS-your god is not "loving" or "just". Well, maybe he is, but to quote epicurus...
God is all-powerful.
God is perfectly good.
Evil exists.
If God exists, there would be no evil.
Therefore God does not exist.

And to quote david hume...
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

So if your god is loving and just, then he doesn't have the power to make the world a loving and just place. But your bible claims that he DOES have this power. It has to be wrong somewhere... and before you say "Oh, god's like a professor in that he wants us to succeed, but can't make us," why did an omnipotent, loving god make a universe where sadness, hate, evil, etc. are possible? He even created our brains and bodies in his image (theoretically) which would mean that he is capable of and willing to commit violence and, by his theoretical standards, sin.

I'll take a look at them and try to give it an objective analysis on how the context or a lack thereof might have altered the meaning. Perhaps you could take a look also, and Meatball too?

Well... given this context it appeared to me a sweeping generalization. But hey, let's ignore that and instead do what I said above. More productive for this thread.

-Trevor

You want the world to be without evil?

Then you take away free will, and any purpose as to why God would create at all.

Men and Angels alike were created with free will, the ability to choose.

You want God to just end it all, so you can become a little robot among several billion?

You would not like God so much if you realized that he gave you no ability to choose to live for him, or to live for yourself. Makes sense?

There are a few things God cannot do.

He cannot lie. Hebrews 6:18
He cannot be tempted. James 1:13
He cannot cease to exist. Psalm 102:25-27

We are created in his image (not a physical image, not the body, but rather like the ''likeness'' of God) having these things.

1. Having concerns about death and life after death
2. Consciousness of self and of destiny
3. Drive to discover and capacity to recognize truth

No matter the time and place in history, if a creature does not have these, it cannot be considered "adam".

When did God say that violence in and of itself is sin?

Would God be just, and fair if he did not punish for sin? Just letting people 'slip' by?

Remember that the punishment for sin is death.

Thus, there is no forgiveness of sins without the spilling of blood.

Do you know why we don't have to sacrifice our animals, like those in the Old Testament did?

What's the point of having students in classroom if they are already "perfect"?

God DOES have the power to wipe us all off the face of the Earth for what we've done. I for one am thankful that I can stand before him and open my mouth to speak without being smitten to the ground for doing so.

Why listen to an atheistic philosopher who ideally cannot acknowledge the existence of evil itself? By realizing evil, you also realize that there exists a total polar opposite.

As long as the defense of the text is portions of the very text itself, there is no validity to the defense. You can measure internal consistency or lack thereof. However, you cannot measure validity

Unfortunately, once one moves outside the text being discussed to examine it, the "truths" fall.

As long as the defense of the text is based in "feelings" about what it means and/or what its origin are, there is no analysis.

Without valid analysis, there is no argument. There is only emotional posturing.

Emotional posturing is what the vast majority of these discussions are.

Y'all are (of course) welcomed to continue posturing and "puffing up." However, do it with the realization that no amount of posturing or bombast will ever alter anothers "beliefs" or "feelings." It only serves to further entrench yourself in your own beliefs

When it appears that someone is actually looking for truth, rather than looking for ways to defend and propigate their own beliefs, I will participate. Whenever it becomes obvious that someone is simply trying to defend their personal beliefs or feelings, I will step back.

The truth is out there. It is just NEVER contained within one single volume of work. ANY INFORMATION "touched" by humans is tainted by that (or those) human's "frame of reference" (terministic screen), experience, beliefs, and feelings. That simple fact REQUIRES that in order to have some idea of truth, one MUST view the subject from different and alternate perspectives.

Peace,
dave