RonD1120 62 #26 November 17, 2011 Quote Quote Only two New Testament references that I noticed. You need to read more about Jesus. I suggest study in the Gospel of John. I think you should study Christian history, because this cop-out wasn't used by Christians when they were still murdering people because of texts in the old testament. That went on until quite recently in some areas. Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 280 #27 November 17, 2011 QuoteOnly two New Testament references that I noticed. You need to read more about Jesus. I suggest study in the Gospel of John. So a good Christian rejects the Old Testament? Is there a list somewhere of what parts of the bible a church disassociates itself with? Or does the Gospel of John say, "ignore pages x through y"? (And if the Old Testament were rejected, would they be saying that "God was indeed an evil tryrant, but he got better, and we don't believe in that killing stuff now", or that "The people who wrote the Old Testament were full of crap, God never did such evil things." Just trying to understand which interpretation a Christian would hold.) It just sounds really bad for Christians if they, in general, believe in "the Bible" when there's all that stuff about killing in it. Other people might get arrested for hate crimes (in some countries) if they started handing out pamphlets with such "kill people" messages. But Christians seem to get away with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #28 November 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteOnly two New Testament references that I noticed. You need to read more about Jesus. I suggest study in the Gospel of John. So a good Christian rejects the Old Testament? Is there a list somewhere of what parts of the bible a church disassociates itself with? Or does the Gospel of John say, "ignore pages x through y"? (And if the Old Testament were rejected, would they be saying that "God was indeed an evil tryrant, but he got better, and we don't believe in that killing stuff now", or that "The people who wrote the Old Testament were full of crap, God never did such evil things." Just trying to understand which interpretation a Christian would hold.) It just sounds really bad for Christians if they, in general, believe in "the Bible" when there's all that stuff about killing in it. Other people might get arrested for hate crimes (in some countries) if they started handing out pamphlets with such "kill people" messages. But Christians seem to get away with it. None of the Bible is rejected. As with the poster above, you lack understanding of what being a Christian really means. It does not mean joining a club. Again I state, study the Gospel of John for a better understanding. Save the OT for later study when you are rightly grounded in truth and guided by the Holy Spirit.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #29 November 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteOnly two New Testament references that I noticed. You need to read more about Jesus. I suggest study in the Gospel of John. So a good Christian rejects the Old Testament? Is there a list somewhere of what parts of the bible a church disassociates itself with? Or does the Gospel of John say, "ignore pages x through y"? (And if the Old Testament were rejected, would they be saying that "God was indeed an evil tryrant, but he got better, and we don't believe in that killing stuff now", or that "The people who wrote the Old Testament were full of crap, God never did such evil things." Just trying to understand which interpretation a Christian would hold.) It just sounds really bad for Christians if they, in general, believe in "the Bible" when there's all that stuff about killing in it. Other people might get arrested for hate crimes (in some countries) if they started handing out pamphlets with such "kill people" messages. But Christians seem to get away with it. It's pretty clear that this "God" person is bipolar: all death and destruction one moment, and lovey dovey the next. Kind of weird for an OMNIPRESENT personage.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #30 November 17, 2011 Those are compelling smileys, but I do think it means you don't really have a counter argument. That means you loose and I win. Also: I probably studied the bible better then you did and above that you're an American and thus probably a heretic to begin with. Real Christians (my European ancestors) knew exactly what to do with the likes of you. No more speaker's corner for you and straight to the bonfire.But seriously, don't advise me to study the bible, I could probably kick your ass when we would do a bible quiz or something. You might have done your alpha course, but that doesn't really compete with an old fashioned European Christian upbringing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #31 November 17, 2011 QuoteAs with the poster above, you lack understanding of what being a Christian really means. And for some reason you can't or won't explain what Christianity is really about, because your post lack arguments. "Study the gospel of John" isn't an argument, it's a lame excuse. Usually uttered by a Christian that's cornered in my experience. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 280 #32 November 17, 2011 Quote None of the Bible is rejected. As with the poster above, you lack understanding of what being a Christian really means. I'll accept that one can't just understand some things without effort. But boy it can be tough to get a straight answer at times about the essentials. Enough from me for now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #33 November 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteAs with the poster above, you lack understanding of what being a Christian really means. And for some reason you can't or won't explain what Christianity is really about, because your post lack arguments. "Study the gospel of John isn't an argument, it's an excuse. Usually uttered by a Christian that's cornered in my experience. It's about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, a new life in Christ and eternal salvation. Read the Gospel of John.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #34 November 17, 2011 Quotet's pretty clear that this "God" person is bipolar: all death and destruction one moment, and lovey dovey the next. Kind of weird for an OMNIPRESENT personage. If you assume that Jesus=God he's bipolar, but since it took Christians 3 centuries to draw that conclusion, it means it's not exactly certain that Jesus was intended to be God. So if Jesus isn't God that pretty much leaves you with the monster of the OT that preferred his genocides with rape on the side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #35 November 17, 2011 QuoteIt's about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, a new life in Christ and eternal salvation. Read the Gospel of John. Oh, I read the gospel of John, I read the whole bible multiple times. And yes, it's part of the "truth". But that doesn't mean Christianity isn't about hate, intolerance and bigotry too. The idea that the OT laws don't apply any more is rather modern, because people were killed for witchcraft, blasphemy, heresy and homosexuality because of those texts until the 18th century in the Western world. The success of Christianity is due to several reasons, but not in the last place because the religion is traditionally extremely violent and intolerant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #36 November 17, 2011 >So a good Christian rejects the Old Testament? Well, a realistic Christian rejects all the parts of the Bible he doesn't like. Conservative Christians reject the parts about helping the poor, for example, because it doesn't fit their politics - and almost all Christians reject the Old Testament because it doesn't fit with reality. (Or more often they come up with facile justifications as to why the parts they disagree with are invalid.) And there's nothing wrong with that. The problem arises when these exact same Christians go on and on about the accuracy of the Bible and how despicable it is when people "pick and choose" which parts of the Bible to believe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #37 November 17, 2011 QuoteWell, a realistic Christian rejects all the parts of the Bible he doesn't like. Conservative Christians reject the parts about helping the poor, for example, because it doesn't fit their politics Is that why conservatives and especially conservative Christians donate MORE than their liberal or atheist counterparts?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #38 November 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteWell, a realistic Christian rejects all the parts of the Bible he doesn't like. Conservative Christians reject the parts about helping the poor, for example, because it doesn't fit their politics Is that why conservatives and especially conservative Christians donate MORE than their liberal or atheist counterparts? Silly Mike - Let BV wallow in the stereotype. Anyway you know that giving personally and directly to a cause doesn't count in liberal land - that's reckless spending because you picked the organization instead of letting the government do it for you. It only counts when you don't personally contribute, instead, you must advocate that others give via the tax and spend system. That's REAL charity. It doesn't count unless the "more equal" pigs get their cut. ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #39 November 17, 2011 QuoteIs that why conservatives and especially conservative Christians donate MORE than their liberal or atheist counterparts? That could or couldn't be true, do you have an unbiased source to back that claim up? In my experience Christians give loads of money to the church but that isn't exactly a charity. Also, godless western countries tend to distribute the wealth a lot better than their Christian counterparts. The whole "love thy neighbour" thingy seems to be entrenched in society Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #40 November 17, 2011 Quote QuoteIs that why conservatives and especially conservative Christians donate MORE than their liberal or atheist counterparts? That could or couldn't be true, do you have an unbiased source to back that claim up? In my experience Christians give loads of money to the church but that isn't exactly a charity. And symphony orchestras and opera companies and museums and Harvard and Yale and other things that indirectly benefit the rich themselves but don't do much for the poor.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #41 November 17, 2011 QuoteSay Merry Christmas - American Christian Life United Choir - YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWrrvQ_3-40&feature=colike So the message here is that Christians should not do business with unbelievers. They are evil and although we aren't allowed to smite them anymore (stupid liberal judges) we certainly must shun them. They are not part of our community. In fact foreigners who are Christian deserve our loyalty far more than Americans who are not. Got it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #42 November 17, 2011 QuoteSo the message here is that Christians should not do business with unbelievers. They are evil and although we aren't allowed to smite them anymore (stupid liberal judges) we certainly must shun them. They are not part of our community. In fact foreigners who are Christian deserve our loyalty far more than Americans who are not. Got it. sounds like a lot of talk from various groups - Global warmers, liberals in general, rabid christians, hollywood, exclusive country clubs, retirement communities, wing suiters, those that don't do CrW, attractive women, etc dog bites man - so what? ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
charlie5 0 #43 November 17, 2011 Quote>So a good Christian rejects the Old Testament? Well, a realistic Christian rejects all the parts of the Bible he doesn't like. Conservative Christians reject the parts about helping the poor, for example, because it doesn't fit their politics - and almost all Christians reject the Old Testament because it doesn't fit with reality. I'll have to disagree there, even though I'm not religious I know that Churches and conservatives give more to charities than anyone else. Food banks, homeless shelters, soup kitchens etc.The feather butts bounce off ya like raindrops hitting a battle-star when they come in too fast...kinda funny to watch. - airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #44 November 17, 2011 Quote QuoteIs that why conservatives and especially conservative Christians donate MORE than their liberal or atheist counterparts? That could or couldn't be true, do you have an unbiased source to back that claim up? In my experience Christians give loads of money to the church but that isn't exactly a charity. Is Reason far enough left to not trip your bias trigger? QuoteBrooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. And while religion is a major factor, the figures don't just show tithing to churches. Religious donors give significantly more to non-religious causes than do their secular counterparts. QuoteAlso, godless western countries tend to distribute the wealth a lot better than their Christian counterparts. The whole "love thy neighbour" thingy seems to be entrenched in society Actually, the US (1.85% of GDP), Israel (1.34%) and Canada (1.17%) hold the top spots for monetary giving. The Netherlands hold the #14 spot with 0.49% of GDP donated. That said, the Netherlands holds the top spot for total philantrophy (4.95%) due to the large amount of volunteering they do. They're followed by Sweden (4.41% total, 0.40% monetary (#18)) and the US (3.94% total).Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #45 November 17, 2011 Of course the song is done by idiots who think Christmas is an Christian holiday while it's in fact a pagan winter solstice celebration that's hijacked by the wine drinkers and bread eaters. And that's exactly what I celebrate: the winter solstice not the birth of that Jewish hippy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #46 November 17, 2011 QuoteIs Reason far enough left to not trip your bias trigger? Reason is good enough. I'm not easily triggered anyway, but some people really push thing to far. I wouldn't accept Conservapedia for instance QuoteActually, the US (1.85% of GDP), Israel (1.34%) and Canada (1.17%) hold the top spots for monetary giving. The Netherlands hold the #14 spot with 0.49% of GDP donated. That said, the Netherlands holds the top spot for total philantrophy (4.95%) due to the large amount of volunteering they do. They're followed by Sweden (4.41% total, 0.40% monetary (#18)) and the US (3.94% total). That's interesting enough, but meant the fact that the more secular Western countries tend to have socialist tendencies. While social security isn't precisely charity of course, it still is intended to help out the less fortunate. Especially the Scandinavian heathens pay astonishing amounts of taxes to redistribute the wealth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #47 November 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteIs Reason far enough left to not trip your bias trigger? Reason is good enough. I'm not easily triggered anyway, but some people really push thing to far. I wouldn't accept Conservapedia for instance QuoteActually, the US (1.85% of GDP), Israel (1.34%) and Canada (1.17%) hold the top spots for monetary giving. The Netherlands hold the #14 spot with 0.49% of GDP donated. That said, the Netherlands holds the top spot for total philantrophy (4.95%) due to the large amount of volunteering they do. They're followed by Sweden (4.41% total, 0.40% monetary (#18)) and the US (3.94% total). That's interesting enough, but meant the fact that the more secular Western countries tend to have socialist tendencies. While social security isn't precisely charity of course, it still is intended to help out the less fortunate. Especially the Scandinavian heathens pay astonishing amounts of taxes to redistribute the wealth. From Forbes: The more studies you read about motivations for philanthropy, the murkier they become. One fact, though, does stand out: Among developed nations, those with higher taxes and bigger social safety nets tend to have lower rates of giving. In charitable giving as a percentage of GDP, nations with cradle-to-grave welfare systems rank far down the Johns Hopkins list: Sweden 18th, France 21st, Germany 32nd.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #48 November 17, 2011 We've been through the conservative charity thing before. Your only source for your claim is that Brooks book. The fact that Reason (which is libertarian, not leftist) did an article about the book doesn't count as multiple sources. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #49 November 17, 2011 QuoteWe've been through the conservative charity thing before. Your only source for your claim is that Brooks book. The fact that Reason (which is libertarian, not leftist) did an article about the book doesn't count as multiple sources. So?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #50 November 17, 2011 Quote The more studies you read about motivations for philanthropy, the murkier they become. One fact, though, does stand out: Among developed nations, those with higher taxes and bigger social safety nets tend to have lower rates of giving. In charitable giving as a percentage of GDP, nations with cradle-to-grave welfare systems rank far down the Johns Hopkins list: Sweden 18th, France 21st, Germany 32nd. Sweden has better social security than both Germany and France, but it might still be true (any change you got a link to that list?) However, as a citizen of a country with decent social security, It's sometimes kinda hard to find targets to throw money at. For example: the local homeless guy drives a better car than I do. I usually give money to medical charities (foundations against cancer, malaria, HIV whatever) I do volunteer for a monastery turned elderly home for retired Roman Catholic clergy. Did I mention the fact that I'm an apatheist? I also godfathered the son of my best friend and pretend to be a Christian when working with demented elderly. Anyhow, it looks like Western Christians spent more money then us Godless heathens. Well, we can't be the best in everything I guess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
