Religion: Problem / Solution

[steveorino 7]

the rest of the text says ... for those who love him.

I guess some people just can't read. @#$%^& educational system!

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

You talk about context, but you ignore the context of the passage. .

I think I have a little understanding on what it takes to read passages in context.

steveOrino

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

they bring it on themselves.. particularly when they cry 'persecution' to get attention..

I missed that, were you talking about gays? or blacks? or some other demographic?

(just making the point that the common perception is that groups get to decide if they are persecuted nowadays - you don't get to decide for them)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[philh 0]

No, you are simply assuming the bible is free of contradictions to assume that anything that contradicts itself must be a metaphor. There are good bits in the bible and there are ugly bits in the bible. You fail to recognise the ugly bits, when conforonted with one you just assume they are all metaphors. Fortunatley you take the ugly bits such as kill sabbath breakers and punish children for their parents sins as metaphorcial. But the whole problem is others before you,today (and most likely in the future) have/do not. They take the ugly bits quite literally as a result countless people have suffered awful deaths. I have seen a video of someone being stoned to death its gruesome and yes its religiously motivated. Those people were following exactly what it says in the bible. Lets not forget you are advocating follwoing the bible and thats what they did.

With regards to the use of the word generations, yes agreed it is not in Exodus but in Deut. According to most scholars Deuternomy has its own author also thought to be resposible for Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings. Since most scholars believe that D (the author of Deuternomy) lived after the original authors such as J and E, its at leats questionable to simply agree with the re insertion of generations in Exodus. After all why should we agree with D's spin on it rather than J/E?
But quite frankly it makes no difference whether generations should be there or not. Lets just assume everything you say is true, the point still remains: in the bible its not simply just but ordained by god to punish children for their parents sin. Thats undeniable and that should be condemmed. If god acts mostly in nice ways but even just once in an unjust way we should recognise it as such and condenm it. After all if somone conducts themselves mostly within the law and then occasionally breaks it we dont say "well thats ok they're usually good we'll let them off that double homicide. " we arrest them. Similarly if god loves most of the world most of the time but does this horrible act of punishing children for the religious beliefs of their parents for lets say only 4 genrations out of a thousand its still 4 generations too much, its still to be condemmed. You yourself have said you wouldnt want to punish the children of the Nazis who killed millions. The god of the bible will punish many genrations simply for the crime of not following him. That must surely be considered unjust and is at least one (of many) reasons why we should not follow the bible.

You may compare me to a fundamentalist if you like, I dont care for personal insults; but the problem is not with me who sees there are good and bad parts to the bible. The problem is with those that fail to see there are any bad parts of the bible. They are the ones that read religious texts and go off killing homo sexuals,sabbath breakers, burning their religious opponents etc etc . This behaviour comes from somewhere and faliure to recognise and condenm those parts of the bible that are ugly is at least partly to blame.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

You may compare me to a fundamentalist if you like, I dont care for personal insults; but the problem is not with me who sees there are good and bad parts to the bible.

You obviously have never read many of my posts on religion and especially the Bible. I have said many times there has been way too many atrocities done in the name of God. (see my question in the thread: Honest Questions for God)

I have frequently said the bible has been misunderstood and misused by countless generations for their own agenda.

My worldview is centered on Christ teachings. I try very hard to see the Bible through that filter. That doesn't make me right and everyone else wrong, but it does however give me the best chance to not misuse to Bible for my own gain whether that be personal, political or anything else.

For instance: This whole "left behind" "rapture" crap. I believe the biblical writer writes to his own generation. I believe Revelation was about staying true to Christ during persecution. The promise of victory for those in Christ is about the peace that living for Christ brings. Today, and many times before people point to some small valley (Meggido) where in a future battle God overcomes evil with force in a literal battle. My goodness, JC clearly taught that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. You cannot overcome evil by force! /rant

BTW, calling you a fundy is only stating the obvious. You prefer not to study scripture to gain good insight, but prefer to take everything literal so it will support your worldview that there is no God.

I wish you peace, so I will stop responding to you on this thread as it seems to inflame you more. I'm sorry about that.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

"You obviously have never read many of my posts on religion and especially the Bible. I have said many times there has been way too many atrocities done in the name of God. (see my question in the thread: Honest Questions for God) "

I haven't kept track of all your posts no, thats correct. I am glad you and I agree there have been way too many attorcities done in the name of the god. But perhaps you have not been paying attention to my posts. My point is not that you personally support the atrocities done in the name of god but that the attrocities are a likely result of the belief in god and the desire to follow the teachings of the bible.
You often talk of your own beliefs and they dont seem unreasonable. But if you pay attention to what I am writing it should be clear that the debate isnt about your beliefs but the effect of belief in the bible as a whole. The world is bigger than your beliefs. The fact that I often pursue a literal interpretation of the bible is to show where it can lead and also to show that such an intepretation is not unreasonable if one actually believes in the bible. The solution is not to reinterpret the bible so the ugly bits go away, its to junk the bible all together. As long people believe the bible is inpsired by god we should not be suprised when they take it seriously when it says kill fags, sabbath breaker, disbelievers etc if the bible says put disbelievers in a fire and we all agree it meant a metaphorical fire should we be suprised that those disbelievers end up on a very real fire?

"BTW, calling you a fundy is only stating the obvious. You prefer not to study scripture to gain good insight, but prefer to take everything literal so it will support your worldview that there is no God. "

You dont know me mate, I was religious, I studied the bible and eventually I started to doubt, the more that doubt grew the more i realised I was wrong, I looked at the evdience objectively and i changed my mind. I abandoned my religion in the face of the evidence. If you think a fundamentalist is someone that changes there mind in the light of evidence you may wish to reconsider who you label a fundamentralist. Ill state it here as clear as I can: I believed in god and changed my mind becuase of the lack of evidence and thhe evidence against the bible; I will gladly change my mind back if new evidence arrived convincing me otherwise. I know you dont want to continue with this debate and thats fine, but perhaps answer me this one last question and we will find out who is the fundamentalist, would you change your mind and disbelieve in god if the evidence warranted it?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

My point is not that you personally support the atrocities done in the name of god but that the attrocities are a likely result of the belief in god and the desire to follow the teachings of the bible.

I agree with you then. Much has been done that is VERY wrong by people who were either misusing texts for their own personal gain, or pure ignorance.

Quote

I know you dont want to continue with this debate and thats fine, but perhaps answer me this one last question and we will find out who is the fundamentalist, would you change your mind and disbelieve in god if the evidence warranted it?

Yes, I would. One of the reasons I studied theology was that I had so many questions. Learning how to study scripture helped with most of the questions.

BTW, it is not that I don't want to continue our debate, but were going around in circles, and I felt I was making you upset.

steveOrino

[pajarito 0]

You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet

Any Fifth Street Promenade tarot card reader would be thrilled to nail a prediction as accurately as William Booth did one hundred years ago. “I consider that the chief dangers which confront the coming century will be religion without the Holy Ghost, Christianity without Christ, forgiveness without repentance, salvation without regeneration, politics without God, and heaven without hell.” Was the founder of the Salvation Army accurate? Is there religion without the Holy Ghost? With a red face I confess that we conservatives have veered from the zany antics of televangelism into a ditch with little recognition of the active work of the Holy Spirit. Is there Christianity without Christ? Have you been to an Episcopal church lately? Is there forgiveness without turning from sin? Ask Dallas Theological Seminary. Is there salvation without regeneration? Google “Carnal Christianity.” Is there politics without God? www.ACLU.com Is there heaven without hell? Paging Rob Bell. How was General Booth able to make such an accurate prediction? He surveyed the doctrines that were under assault, and then forecasted where that errant theology would take us. What deficient theology did he see? He witnessed a forsaking of the preaching of the Law. While he did not know what the result would be named, he knew that antinomianism (no law, lots of grace) had to lead to what turned out to be watered down mainline Protestantism and the seeker sensitive movement. Now that General Booth’s predictions have been fulfilled, we would do well to survey the latest threat. “Isn’t the seeker sensitive movement the latest threat?” you ask. I would suggest it is not. The seeker sensitive movement is the result of the squishy, anti-nomianism that General Booth witnessed; it is not a new threat. Seeker Sensitive is the manifestation of bad theology. Seeker sensitive is merely a fad (a bad fad, but a fad, nonetheless), and it won’t be long before it is replaced by another fad that is the result of new bad theology. What is the bad theology of our day? Redefined justification. Nearly 500 years ago, God used Martin Luther to recapture the foundational doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone. Every puritan who followed in his wake recognized that justification is the core doctrine of Protestantism. How did they define it? Man=sin. God=holiness. Consequence=hell. But God chose to demonstrate His kindness by taking the punishment we deserve by sending His Son, Jesus Christ, to live a sinless life and die on a cross, rise from the dead and defeat death. Therefore, if people will repent and trust the Savior, the righteousness of Jesus will be imputed (credited to our account) that we might be made the righteousness of God (see II Cor.5:21) so that God can be glorified for His kindness. That is justification. But alas, today’s “progressive” theologians have decided we need to take a fresh, new look at our cherished corner stone. Emergent leader, Brian McLaren says he simply wants to have a conversation and re-think long-held evangelical assumptions. While he acts like he is taking us on a journey whose destination is unknown, Mr. McLaren seems to know exactly where this conversation is headed: a new definition of justification. From the article “Interview with Brian McLaren about ‘A Letter to Friends f Emergent.’”

Interviewer: I think with all the other change going on, one thing we’ve got to hold firm on is the Gospel.

McLaren: What do you mean when you say “the Gospel?

Interviewer: You know, justification by grace through faith in the finished atoning work of Christ on the cross.

McLaren: Are you sure that’s the Gospel?

Interviewer: Of course. Aren’t you?

McLaren: I’m sure that’s a facet of the Gospel, and it’s the facet that modern evangelical Protestants have assumed is the whole Gospel, the heart of the Gospel. But what’s the point of that Gospel?

Is it beneficial to question whether Christians should have Christmas trees? Sure. Is it necessary to question whether Christmas trees are green? The doctrine of justification has been long settled. To open up the doctrine for the sake of conversation screams of a hidden agenda. While Mr. McLaren’s framing of the issue is under the guise of, “Let’s just open up the issue for discussion,” does Mr. McLaren know where he wants this conversation to go? It sure seems like it. He just seems to recognize that if he does not take a slow, meandering, deconstructionist path, he might be labeled for what he is. “Is getting individual souls into heaven the focal point of the Gospel? I’d have to say, ‘No,’” states Mr. McLaren. Sure seems like the conversation is closed. Mr. McLaren considers the classic understanding of penal substitution as “cosmic child abuse.” Is it any wonder that Brian thought the manager in Hotel Rwanda was a better example of love than Jesus in The Passion of the Christ? The new bad theology is mangled justification. That means we have no further need for the Bible, Jesus or the cross. Christianity will be nothing more than a work righteous religion on the same level of Islam or Buddhism. Christianity will no longer be about forgiveness of sins for the glory of God. The cross is no longer about satisfying the wrath of God. Faith is no longer about being in a right relationship with the Creator and inheriting eternal life. Now, let’s put on our General Booth goggles and take a look into the future of Christianity. What will be the result of this bad theology? Universalism. If the emergents have their way, Jesus Christ will no longer be the exclusive way to everlasting life, nobody will go to hell and everyone will go to Heaven. Brian McLaren offers this oxymoronic defense. “I am not embracing a traditional universalist position, but I am trying to raise the question, ‘When God created the universe, did he have two purposes in mind—one being to create some people who would forever enjoy blessing and mercy, and another to create a group who would forever suffer torment, torture, and punishment? What is our view of God? A God who plans torture? A God who has an essential, eternal quality of hatred? Is God love, or is God love and hate?’” Straw man aside, that is like stating, “I am not saying I think everyone is going to go to heaven, I’m just saying that God is so loving He won’t send anyone to hell.” In 1759, William Romaine presented, “The Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness Defended.” This was an effort to fend off the advances of the Catholic merit system (infused righteousness) into Protestant circles. The doctrine of justification that Luther had rescued was under assault. Here is what William Romaine begged. I have taken the liberty of replacing “Catholicism” with “Emergent”.
“A sinner made righteous by the righteousness of Christ is the doctrine upon which a church stands or falls. Upon it our church was established, and has long stood; but do we stand upon it now? Are we all champions for the protestant doctrine, or are we in general departed from it? Alas! Our enemies can tell, with triumph they tell of the increase of the emergent interest among us. And why does it increase? Whence is it that they make so many converts? Is it not because our people are not well established in the protestant doctrine? If it was taught and preached more, our churches would not be so empty as they are, nor the emergent houses so full. Many of our people know not what it
is to be a protestant, and therefore they become an easy prey to the emergents, who are so busy and successful in making converts.” Our new bad theology is redefined justification. The result can only lead to universalism. Mr. McLaren might try to obfuscate his position by saying he does not believe in “traditional universalism”, but universalism by any name (or with any adjective) is heresy. Heresy means people will go to hell. Listen to William Romaine. “I fear this may be true; but is it not alarming, and ought it not to stir up the clergy, to try to put a stop to the spreading of the emergents? May the Lord raise up faithful and able men to defend His righteousness against them who have established a meritorious righteousness of their own, and will not submit to the righteousness of God.” If you choke on the squishy gospel of the seeker sensitive movement, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

[jakee 1,564]

Hehe, Bill Booth.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Hehe, Bill Booth.

I don't get it.

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Quote

Hehe, Bill Booth.

I don't get it.

We're on a skydiving website - it's just one of those coincidences.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

Quote

May the Lord raise up faithful and able men to defend His righteousness against them who have established a meritorious righteousness of their own, and will not submit to the righteousness of God.

Dear god, please keep your sheep off my porch. Amen.

[philh 0]

"Nearly 500 years ago, God used Martin Luther to recapture the foundational doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone."

did god also use martin Luther to help inspire the holocasut with his book “On the Jews and Their Lies"
where he said:
“Jerusalem was destroyed over 1400 years ago, and at that time we Christians were harassed and persecuted by the Jews throughout the world for about 300 years… During that time they held us captive and killed us… So we are even at fault for not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for 300 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then… We are at fault in not slaying them” ?

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

"Nearly 500 years ago, God used Martin Luther to recapture the foundational doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone."

did god also use martin Luther to help inspire the holocasut with his book “On the Jews and Their Lies"
where he said:
“Jerusalem was destroyed over 1400 years ago, and at that time we Christians were harassed and persecuted by the Jews throughout the world for about 300 years… During that time they held us captive and killed us… So we are even at fault for not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for 300 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then… We are at fault in not slaying them” ?

No dude, you don't get how this works - that was a bad thing, so God didn't do it. God only made Luther do the good things.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[philh 0]

Yeah sorry didnt spot that. Also when Luther said slay and kill the Jews he probably only meant it in a spiritual sense.

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Yeah sorry didnt spot that. Also when Luther said slay and kill the Jews he probably only meant it in a spiritual sense.

Yeah, it was all just a metaphor for how much we should love God. I'm surprised you didn't spot that.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Yeah sorry didnt spot that. Also when Luther said slay and kill the Jews he probably only meant it in a spiritual sense.

Yeah, it was all just a metaphor for how much we should love God. I'm surprised you didn't spot that.

Do the sins of Christians disprove Christianity and what the Bible teaches? Do the Crusades and the Inquisition prove God doesn’t exist and the Bible false? Would the hypocritical sins of televangelist Jimmy Swaggert reveal that Jesus is not humanity’s Savior? Does former NAE President Ted Haggard’s meeting with a homosexual “escort” prove Jesus Christ was not the Son of God? If so, then we must accept as a general principle that the (im)moral actions of any adherents of any belief system are a way to determine said belief’s system is ultimately true.

If crusades refute Catholicism, do jihads refute Islam? DoStalin’s political attacks on Soviet scientists refute Marxism and/or atheism? Can we reject a belief system based upon the bad behavior of those upholding it?

Bad or incosistent behavior by atheists or theists can not logically prove or disprove the existence of God or the truth or falsity of any philosophical position or religion. The Crusades, the Inquisition, Western Imperialism, the transatlantic slave trade, the Irish Troubles, etc., can not ultimately prove the falsehood of the Bible or of belief in God. The Bible could be perfectly true, and God could exist, yet people who believe in it and Him would have an evil human nature that causes them to fail to love others of their faith or outside of it.

If you want to argue that practioners of faith who act or speak inconsistently with their faith create problems, I'll agree. But let's not use this as a straw man to debunk a faith. Nor should we imply good exegesis of scripture as trying to cover up "contradictions" or misinterpretations

steveOrino

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Do the sins of Christians disprove Christianity and what the Bible teaches? Do the Crusades and the Inquisition prove God doesn’t exist and the Bible false? Would the hypocritical sins of televangelist Jimmy Swaggert reveal that Jesus is not humanity’s Savior? Does former NAE President Ted Haggard’s meeting with a homosexual “escort” prove Jesus Christ was not the Son of God? If so, then we must accept as a general principle that the (im)moral actions of any adherents of any belief system are a way to determine said belief’s system is ultimately true.

Not in the slightest, that's not what I was arguing. (In fact I wasn't arguing anything, just being sarky)

What it does highlight though, is the utter ridicule of several on this site who contend that morality is impossible without knowledge of God, or that good works are a result of God's hand and bad ones of the person's own judgement. (And yes, we do have posters on the site who believe exactly that)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Not in the slightest, that's not what I was arguing. (In fact I wasn't arguing anything, just being sarky)

I know, but I can't stand political threads and I wanted to post.

steveOrino

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Quote

Not in the slightest, that's not what I was arguing. (In fact I wasn't arguing anything, just being sarky)

I know, but I can't stand political threads and I wanted to post.

So where do you stand on immigration...

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[philh 0]

Whilst the frequent attorocities done in the name of the bible dont neccesarily imply the the bible is immoral the attrocities in the bible do.
Genocide is celebrated in several passages and that should be enough for us not to follow it.
Even without this the fact of the continual violece and oppresion made in the name of religion should at least make us consider the possibility that the problem is not just the religious but religion itself.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Do the sins of Christians disprove Christianity...

Does boldfacing your post mean it's more important than everyone else's?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Do the sins of Christians disprove Christianity...

Does boldfacing your post mean it's more important than everyone else's?

No, perhaps it is my old age. I have a hard time reading some reply posts when there are multiple comments to multiple fractions of paragraphs. i thought it may help other old farts .. sorry.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Whilst the frequent attorocities done in the name of the bible dont neccesarily imply the the bible is immoral the attrocities in the bible do.
Genocide is celebrated in several passages and that should be enough for us not to follow it.
Even without this the fact of the continual violece and oppresion made in the name of religion should at least make us consider the possibility that the problem is not just the religious but religion itself.

I like what James said about religion (James 1:27) Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

steveOrino

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I like what James said about religion (James 1:27) Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

So good deeds will get you into heaven?

First Class Citizen Twice Over