Is Christianity really homophobic? [Archive]

eyedrop

24th April 2008, 01:43

PusherRobot
Who do you think you are to judge whether a person's interpretation of something is right or wrong? The arrogance!If I say the sentence; Homosexual people are evil.

Then I interpret that sentence as a non-homophobic sentence. Wouldn't you say that I misinterpreted that sentence?

There are rules (defined by humans) that states how sentences and words should be interpreted. If we should have a meaningful language we have to have those rules.

If I suddenly decide to interpret pie as ass then the language then I would misinterpret the language in everyones opinion. A language doesn't work if we can't agree on the rules on it. What a sentence means isn't a subjective thing, people have to agree on it for the language to make any sense.

Edric O
I would interpret it as saying that under Old Testament Law, the punishment for a man cheating on his girlfriend or wife with another man is death - but bear in mind Paul's argument that Old Testament Law exists only to prove the inability of human beings to achieve salvation without Christ. In the Christian view, Old Testament Law was intentionally designed as an impossible standard, and it is not meant to be followed, it is only meant to make you stop and think.

And I will once again point out that circumcision is one of the most important parts of Old Testament Law, so if you're saying that Christians should be killing people for the actions mentioned above then you are also saying that Christians should be circumcized - which, for the most part, they are not.Then why didn't it say that? Why didn't they sat that cheating should be punished by death. Why is Old Testament Law wrong now? Why was Old Law Testament right in the old testament time but wrong now?

Texts that cointain art and poems are open to interpretation texts that try to portray facts are not. Imagine if Newton had written a poem about apples falling down instead of his reason why the apples fell down. Then we could interpret that as whatever we would like.

The bible are either the word of God, and it all should be held as true as God wouldn't lie to us, the word of people influenced by God, in which case we couldn't trust anything in it since we couldn't know which parts they made up, or it's just random mumbo-jumbo made up by people thousands of years ago which we should pay no attention to now.

Make your pick!

The Intransigent Faction

24th April 2008, 02:07

So let me get this straight: Some Christians are homophobic and some are not, and you arbitrarily decide that the first group is right and the second is wrong? On what basis?

"Arbitrarily"? Slander. I knew a Christian would show up eventually but I did not expect my points to be so twisted. this is clearly a loaded question. Christians are homophobic because they adhere to Biblical law which condemns homosexuality.

An atheist cannot speak of any "correct" interpretation of the Bible, because from the atheist point of view the Bible does not represent a single coherent vision but is rather a collection of religious texts written by different authors with very different intentions and agendas.

That logic makes no sense. Where did I say anything about "correct interpretation"? It's not a matter of interpretation when such plain language is used.
Actually from any point of view the Bible is the basis of Christian dogma. Don't lecture me about what "Atheist point of view" is. The agenda, regardless of minor differences, had the same common ground of a Christian faith, which is based on the Bible. Simple as that.

First of all there is no verse in the Bible that says "kill homosexuals" (it does say "don't have sex with men as you do with women," but the "as you do with women" part is what allows for interpretation - that verse might be speaking about homosexuality, or bisexuality, or even just a certain sexual position; I've heard people interpret it as saying that you shouldn't cheat on your girlfriend with another man).

You know damn well it does. "If a man lies with a man as he lies with a woman, they have done what is detestable and shall be put to death. Their blood will be on their own hands." (Leviticus 20:13).
The rest is just bullshit. ""In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another". Pretty damn clear. Infidelity does not come into that.

Second of all Christians don't follow Jewish Law. See circumcision.

Once more in simple terms: If they don't follow Christian law, they aren't Christian! So your misleading slander that I am somehow misrepresenting or making generalizations about Christians is a flat out lie.
Christianity includes New and Old Testaments. See Ten Commandments (for one). If you claim to be a Christian, follow your God's "perfect" law instead of disputing that law. Just because "most Christians" aren't circumcised does not mean it does not apply to Christians. It merely means that they omit inconvenient bits of the Bible. You have no valid rebuttals.
As for the other response, "Ongoing debate"? There is no valid debate on this issue as "general acceptance" is irrelevant. Divine law is divine law regardless of what some self-proclaimed "Christians" try to omit. That's made quite clear.
1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.
2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever. "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)
3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)
etc.
Most importantly:

3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)
It's simply not a viable argument to claim that Old Testament law is no longer valid when the Bible clearly states otherwise.

The Intransigent Faction

24th April 2008, 02:24

PusherRobotIf I say the sentence; Homosexual people are evil.

Then I interpret that sentence as a non-homophobic sentence. Wouldn't you say that I misinterpreted that sentence?

There are rules (defined by humans) that states how sentences and words should be interpreted. If we should have a meaningful language we have to have those rules.

If I suddenly decide to interpret pie as ass then the language then I would misinterpret the language in everyones opinion. A language doesn't work if we can't agree on the rules on it. What a sentence means isn't a subjective thing, people have to agree on it for the language to make any sense.

Edric Then why didn't it say that? Why didn't they sat that cheating should be punished by death. Why is Old Testament Law wrong now? Why was Old Law Testament right in the old testament time but wrong now?

Texts that contain art and poems are open to interpretation texts that try to portray facts are not. Imagine if Newton had written a poem about apples falling down instead of his reason why the apples fell down. Then we could interpret that as whatever we would like.

The bible are either the word of God, and it all should be held as true as God wouldn't lie to us, the word of people influenced by God, in which case we couldn't trust anything in it since we couldn't know which parts they made up, or it's just random mumbo-jumbo made up by people thousands of years ago which we should pay no attention to now.

Make your pick!

I concur, Comrade. Hence my reference to the biblical claim that God's law/will is "perfect".
The twisting and omissions of scripture is in itself against Christian dogma.

BIG BROTHER

24th April 2008, 03:01

eyedrop

24th April 2008, 03:01

Agreed. I don't care that much about all the finer points of the bible as the most important part of my post stated that;
the bible are either the word of God, and it all should be held as true as God wouldn't lie to us, the word of people influenced by God, in which case we couldn't trust anything in it since we couldn't know which parts they made up, or it's just random mumbo-jumbo made up by people thousands of years ago which we should pay no attention to now.

So they either has to take it as law (coming to absurd conclusions), Cherry pick from it (Just take the parts from it that they like and there just end up with what they believed from before) or take it as rubbish and discard it.

By agreeing to speak english they have to abide by the laws og the english language. That means that; "If a man lies with a man as he lies with a woman, they have done what is detestable and shall be put to death. Their blood will be on their own hands." means just that not that people who cheat should be put to death. They are not free to interpret the language as they like. You should check my other topic here on how I percieve life outside of internet.

Thank the flying spaggeti monster that my social circle aren't full of morons who speak their gibberish without beeing embaressed. Luckily I can choose when I want to encounter such people.

eyedrop

24th April 2008, 03:07

Edric has some reason. Christians no longer follow most of the Jew law, and that among many other things includes stonning(is that how it is spelled?) homosexuals to death. But they still condem homosexuality.

Then they must agree that the bible isn't gods law. How do they decide which parts of it that is true? By their sense? Stoning homosexuals isn't really sensible. Why not follow their sense instead of using the bible as a shield for their reasons?

They could also find some other reasons why the parts of it would be true.

Let's take an example. Let's say I read a book that on the first page states that Africa is a country. Later on it states that Turkey is a country? Could I then trust that book on that account?

No I would have to find some more reliable source on that account. The statement in the first book would have been useless.

If the book later would state that a stone would fall to the ground when dropped from the ground. That would still be useless. I couldn't trust the stone to fall down from what I found in that book. If it also had contained some reasons for why that stone would fall to the ground then it would have been more usefull. Then I could have assessed those reasons.

The bible is just full of statements and if one of them fall all of them fall, sure some of them could be true but then I would need some other source o find that out and thus the bible would be useless.

Hopefully future historians will look at past religions and religious leaders like we look at the nazis and Hitler now.

Demogorgon

24th April 2008, 03:10

The bible are either the word of God, and it all should be held as true as God wouldn't lie to us, the word of people influenced by God, in which case we couldn't trust anything in it since we couldn't know which parts they made up, or it's just random mumbo-jumbo made up by people thousands of years ago which we should pay no attention to now.

Very few Christians believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. The position is that the writers were given "divine inspiration". Books are included in the Bible based on the judgement of whether they were divinely inspired or not, and that of course can be a very politically charged debate. Certainly different Christian denominations use different versions of the Bible with some omitting books that others include. And of course there is the fact that the Bible was heavily edited down, to put it mildly, to make it politically suitable, so that Christianity could become the State Religion of the Roman Empire.

All this taken into account, it is well recognised, by all but the craziest fundamentalists that the Bible is a man made document, written by many different people at different times in history. That is why the Bible is so contradictory.

Different parts of the Bible account for different things, it has a combination of history, mythology, legal codes, moral tales and so on. It all has to be placed in context and understood in terms of what the authors' agenda was in order to try and understand what the authors mean.

It is easy to quote parts of the Bible condemning Homosexuality, but it is just as easy to quote parts condoning it. The Book of Ruth for instance contains strong implications of same sex love, and indeed modern Christian marriage vows are based on the pledge that Ruth makes to Naomi.

It is very easy to pick and choose your favourite bits of the Bible to either defend your pro-Christian point of view or your anti-Christian one depending on your tastes, but it is intellectually dishonest. I am no believer, but I find the Bible to be a fascinating book. It offers such a wonderful insight into the thinking of different people throughout different points in history and various parts can also provoke much thought.

Really though, we must remain very clear that we must not try and dictate to Christians what they believe and then criticise them on the basis of what we think rather than on what they think. That is a classic Straw Man. The first thing to bear in mind is that the Bible is not the Be All and End All of the religion. For some denominations, especially the Catholic Church, there are vast numbers of other sources that various beliefs are derived from. There are many things that nearly all Christians believe that you will not find in the Bible.

eyedrop

24th April 2008, 03:28

Very few Christians believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. The position is that the writers were given "divine inspiration". Books are included in the Bible based on the judgement of whether they were divinely inspired or not, and that of course can be a very politically charged debate. Certainly different Christian denominations use different versions of the Bible with some omitting books that others include. And of course there is the fact that the Bible was heavily edited down, to put it mildly, to make it politically suitable, so that Christianity could become the State Religion of the Roman Empire.

All this taken into account, it is well recognised, by all but the craziest fundamentalists that the Bible is a man made document, written by many different people at different times in history. That is why the Bible is so contradictory.

Different parts of the Bible account for different things, it has a combination of history, mythology, legal codes, moral tales and so on. It all has to be placed in context and understood in terms of what the authors' agenda was in order to try and understand what the authors mean.

It is easy to quote parts of the Bible condemning Homosexuality, but it is just as easy to quote parts condoning it. The Book of Ruth for instance contains strong implications of same sex love, and indeed modern Christian marriage vows are based on the pledge that Ruth makes to Naomi.

It is very easy to pick and choose your favourite bits of the Bible to either defend your pro-Christian point of view or your anti-Christian one depending on your tastes, but it is intellectually dishonest. I am no believer, but I find the Bible to be a fascinating book. It offers such a wonderful insight into the thinking of different people throughout different points in history and various parts can also provoke much thought.

Really though, we must remain very clear that we must not try and dictate to Christians what they believe and then criticise them on the basis of what we think rather than on what they think. That is a classic Straw Man. The first thing to bear in mind is that the Bible is not the Be All and End All of the religion. For some denominations, especially the Catholic Church, there are vast numbers of other sources that various beliefs are derived from. There are many things that nearly all Christians believe that you will not find in the Bible.

A edited my last post a bit to show why we can cherrypick whichever part we will and they can.

Then they must agree that the bible isn't gods law. How do they decide which parts of it that is true? By their sense? Stoning homosexuals isn't really sensible. Why not follow their sense instead of using the bible as a shield for their reasons?

They could also find some other reasons why the parts of it would be true.

Let's take an example. Let's say I read a book that on the first page states that Africa is a country. Later on it states that Turkey is a country? Could I then trust that book on that account?

No I would have to find some more reliable source on that account. The statement in the first book would have been useless.

If the book later would state that a stone would fall to the ground when dropped from the ground. That would still be useless. I couldn't trust the stone to fall down from what I found in that book. If it also had contained some reasons for why that stone would fall to the ground then it would have been more usefull. Then I could have assessed those reasons.

The bible is just full of statements and if one of them fall all of them fall, sure some of them could be true but then I would need some other source o find that out and thus the bible would be useless.The argument goes as; a statement of facts is useless without a credible source. In any other book everyone would agree on that.

If I make a book full of random statements it would be useless. If I make a book of 50% true statements and 50% false statements you couldn't get more of the book than that there's a 50% chance that each statement is true.

If science had ended up showing that most of the things in the bible are true then I would be more likely to believe that parts of it is true. Except that in the real world it has gone as this instead.

Church; The Earth is the center of the universe
Galileo; The Earth is not the center of the universe (with factual backing)
Church(after killing scientists till it was pointless; Ohhh, I'm sorry we were misinterpreting the bible, it meant something else.

Who would believe the church or anyone that interprets the bible on any matter of thurth after that.

Demogorgon

24th April 2008, 03:49

eyedrop

24th April 2008, 04:28

Is the Lord Of The Rings a worthless book because Middle Earth did not really exist?

You have to take each book for what it is and understand it based on that. In actual fact the Bible is not really a book at all, but a series of books, each one having to be approached from a different angle. For instance Leviticus probably is a fairly accurate account of Ancient Jewish law, though it was not written in one go, so we have to be careful about that. On the other hand the Book of Job is pure fiction and that is how nearly all Christians happily acknowledge that. The point of that book is to make a point about hardship.

It is very easy to be dismissive of a book that you have never read, but if you make a study of the Bible and read each book with a mind to its context there is a hell of a lot of interesting stuff to be gleaned from it.

However focusing on the Bible is far too narrow a way of looking at Christianity. Christianity is defined by what Christians believe, not by what you think they should believe.

Lord of the Rings is a totally useless book when trying to find out anything of how the universe works. It's a quite enjoyable book to read but that doesn't make it a good book to make any factual statements about the world from.

Even if you devide it up my critique still stands, you can find some despicable things by todays standards in each and everyone of the books. Even if there were one of the books which didn't state anything despicable then congratulations. You have a book without something despicable in it. I know of loads of those books. But then you agree that we should ignore all those books in it written by those people with those despicable meanings.

Why wouldn't the Christians edit out all those morally despicable books? Because some raving lunatic who misinterpret gods word, or what he saw Jesus do, wrote it?

Please don't say that we must assess each sentence by itself then it just stands there as an empty statement.

I've read quite a bit in it but it doesn't really take more than 5 minutes to classify the whole thing as firewood. 1 minute reading the first page, ead some random passages that doesn't make sense and then read the last page. I regret all those hours I spent reading in it and all those hours I spent in sundayschool with other people read from it to me. I hope no child ever has to be put through that again

If it's a book that's just states fact then it's completely useless without a credibly source.

However focusing on the Bible is far too narrow a way of looking at Christianity. Christianity is defined by what Christians believe, not by what you think they should believe. All Christians agree to include the book at the altar. Without the book there is no basis for Christianity as without the book you wouldn't have any source of who christ was except word of mouth. Without the bible you don't know any of the specifics of Christ then he was just what some other guys told you he where. If I were a christian I would rather believe a book that told a crazy story than a man but it's your pick.

I can imagine a conversation with such a christian.

C:Praise the Lord, Jesus Christ, he has saved us all.
Me: Who is Christ?
C: My dad and that guy inside that building with a cross on it told me he was a guy that lived for 2000 years ago and sacrificed himself for us.
Me: Who told you dad?
C: His friend.
Me: And who told his friend?
C: His dad.
Me: Ever occured to you that you dads friends dad could have been wrong?
C: God enlightened with his wisdom.
Me: So he was mad you say?

The Intransigent Faction

24th April 2008, 04:46

Is the Lord Of The Rings a worthless book because Middle Earth did not really exist?

You have to take each book for what it is and understand it based on that. In actual fact the Bible is not really a book at all, but a series of books, each one having to be approached from a different angle. For instance Leviticus probably is a fairly accurate account of Ancient Jewish law, though it was not written in one go, so we have to be careful about that. On the other hand the Book of Job is pure fiction and that is how nearly all Christians happily acknowledge that. The point of that book is to make a point about hardship.

It is very easy to be dismissive of a book that you have never read, but if you make a study of the Bible and read each book with a mind to its context there is a hell of a lot of interesting stuff to be gleaned from it.

However focusing on the Bible is far too narrow a way of looking at Christianity. Christianity is defined by what Christians believe, not by what you think they should believe.

Actually as a former Christian myself who was confirmed as a member to a church, I have read the Bible. I've faced that same argument repeatedly and it's becoming frustrating.
No, Christianity's not defined by "what Christians believe", nor is it an issue what Atheists "think they should believe". If there's anything that Atheists claim Christians believe, it is the alleged "word of God" in the Bible.
Regardless of the variety of individual writers, the New Testament, as well as the unavoidable common ground between each contributor, makes it very clear that one book is not meant to disregard the others. In fact this is blatantly stated throughout.
The Bible is the series of books that aim to promote Christian doctrine, and as the Bible was the method of passing down that doctrine, it is/was the basis for Christianity itself. One cannot simultaneously claim to be a Christian while blatantly violating and even disregarding inconvenient parts of the religion's moral codes. The reality is that Christians derive their beliefs from the Bible. That's what makes them Christian, not merely the claim "I am a Christian".
Comrade eyedrop: I've repeatedly pointed out that scripture but the Liberal Christians here are quite insistent on weaseling out of that.
The difference that is apparently ignored here is that Lord of the Rings never formed the basis of a belief system that has killed many and that the Bible claims to be factual while it has no factual evidence to back up it's claims. The Bible was never claimed to be a work of fiction.
You aren't helping yourself by pointing out scripture contradicting other scripture which merely suggests that this "fascinating book" (book, not books? aha.) contradicts itself and has no place as something from which modern man should derive morals. Religion has caused needless problems and as stated before is not necessary as a basis of any sort for modern morals.

eyedrop

24th April 2008, 05:04

Brad

Comrade eyedrop: I've repeatedly pointed out that scripture but the Liberal Christians here are quite insistent on weaseling out of that.
The difference that is apparently ignored here is that Lord of the Rings never formed the basis of a belief system that has killed many and that the Bible claims to be factual while it has no factual evidence to back up it's claims. The Bible was never claimed to be a work of fiction.
You aren't helping yourself by pointing out scripture contradicting other scripture which merely suggests that this "fascinating book" (book, not books? aha.) contradicts itself and has no place as something from which modern man should derive morals. Religion has caused needless problems and as stated before is not necessary as a basis of any sort for modern morals. The only thing I scripture I posted was a part I copypasted from earlier in this thread. It was he that started the contradicting thing.

My points where that people have misinterpreted it before so I don't see why they should get it right now.
Any books stating a lot of facts about the world without any credible sources are useless.

He can devide the books into as many parts as he likes it's still stories without a credible source as long as it wasn't ¨handed down from god¨.

There's also the troubling part about all christians keeping the whole book instead of burning the despicable parts. But let's overlook that.

chimx

24th April 2008, 05:08

Christians are homophobic because they adhere to Biblical law which condemns homosexuality.

That's a beautiful blanket statement. Your generalizations are telling of your idiocy. Many Christian churches have openly gay priests. The Episcopalians have an openly gay Bishop on the east coast. These are people voted into their offices by their parishioners. Please fuck off with your ignorance.

As for homophobia in the bible, you have to look at the historical context to understand it. I am only going to cover the new testament, as everything in the old testament is completely irrelevant to modern day Christianity. Leviticus isn't practiced law (they also have laws in Leviticus about not being close to women when they are menstruating). The Genius passage about the city of Sodom is often mistranslated to have a homophobic slant.

The New Testament has one major passage that people read shallowly. Primarily Romans chapter 1 and 2. But many theologians, including the Archbishop of Canterbury who is head of the Anglican Communion, point out that it is unwise to use the passage as a condemnation of homosexuality. More than anything most theologians (that aren't right wing fundamentalists that is) explain that the passage is more a condemnation of pagan worship which used fertility/sexuality rituals. There are other interpretations that go farther, but this is the most common one.

And even if the Bible was homophobic, who gives a fuck? That was 1900 years ago. Almost every writer from 2000 BC to 1900 was homophobic, including most of the leftist theoreticians and political leaders that many of you claim to love.

Demogorgon

24th April 2008, 05:31

Lord of the Rings is a totally useless book when trying to find out anything of how the universe works. It's a quite enjoyable book to read but that doesn't make it a good book to make any factual statements about the world from.You can use it as a damn good starting point to launch into some interesting ideas based on. Tolkein was doing far more than writing a story with that book. However to use an even more obvious example, what about Shakespeare? Most of his plays are fictional, and even the ones based on fact take many artistic liberties. Would you honestly say we cannot gain any useful understanding of the world from those plays? You have too narrow a view of what literature is for.

Even if you devide it up my critique still stands, you can find some despicable things by todays standards in each and everyone of the books. Even if there were one of the books which didn't state anything despicable then congratulations. You have a book without something despicable in it. I know of loads of those books. But then you agree that we should ignore all those books in it written by those people with those despicable meanings.
A lot of books have despicable things in them. Pre-Twentieth Century literature is full of quite horrible stuff. Does that mean we shouldn't read it?

Why should we ignore books of the Bible with nasty stuff in it? If anything they are more useful as they give a clear impression of what society believed at the time. It is a very good insight into ancient attitudes that we do not normally get from periods that old. It is easier to put historical events into context when we know what the attitudes of people at the time were.

Why wouldn't the Christians edit out all those morally despicable books? Because some raving lunatic who misinterpret gods word, or what he saw Jesus do, wrote it?Why should they edit it out? Granted the Bible has already been edited many times for reasons of political convenience. But what is the point of doing so again? It would only make the Bible less useful for understanding religious history.

Please don't say that we must assess each sentence by itself then it just stands there as an empty statement.Why would I say that? I certainly do not think we should assess each sentence on its own. My entire point is to put each part of the Bible into context so that we understand what the writers meant. It seems to me to be plain that the writers of Leviticus intended to condemn homosexual acts. But what did Luke intend when he wrote the story of Jesus healing the male lover of the Roman Centurion? What did the writers describing the life of King David have in mind when they made it clear he had male as well as female lovers? We need a different context to understand them than we do for the writers of Leviticus.

I've read quite a bit in it but it doesn't really take more than 5 minutes to classify the whole thing as firewood. 1 minute reading the first page, ead some random passages that doesn't make sense and then read the last page. I regret all those hours I spent reading in it and all those hours I spent in sundayschool with other people read from it to me. I hope no child ever has to be put through that againWell it is pointless to teach it to children of course, I would not put children through that. However I believe adults should read the Bible if they have any interest in the subjects it relates to. The important thing I feel, is not to read it as if it is a true account but as a collection of writings from different periods in history that show the attitudes of the time.

If it's a book that's just states fact then it's completely useless without a credibly source.

It isn't a book of facts though. Far from it and it does not pretend to be so. Some parts of the Bible are plain old fiction written to convey a message. Other parts are ancient mythology. Always valuable in its own right. Other parts of course are factual accounts. There is no reason to doubt as far as I am aware that the various legal codes listed in the Bible were not used at one time or another.

All Christians agree to include the book at the altar. Without the book there is no basis for Christianity as without the book you wouldn't have any source of who christ was except word of mouth. Without the bible you don't know any of the specifics of Christ then he was just what some other guys told you he where. If I were a christian I would rather believe a book that told a crazy story than a man but it's your pick.

There is a lot more to Christianity than just the story of Jesus. If you want to understand Christian thought and Christian belief you will have to go a lot further than the Bible. The foundation of much of Catholic belief is actually found in Aristotelian Philosophy, not the Bible at all.

As for Jesus. Yes the Bible does indeed contain four stories of his life, and if you look around from the time period there were quite a few more written, some of which survive to this day, but were excluded from the Bible for political reasons. Of course, I do not believe any of these accounts to be accurate, I do not even know if Jesus the man even existed. It is perfectly possible the stories of him are an amalgamation of the lives of several different interesting people from the period.

And of course there is stuff in the Gospels that blatantly could not have happened and were only written to fulfill old testament prophecies. But again that is useful. It tells us that the writers obviously valued the old testament greatly. But at the same time it leaves open the question of why all four Gospel writers chose to blatantly contradict it in several places.

As I say, fascinating book.

Demogorgon

24th April 2008, 05:50

Actually as a former Christian myself who was confirmed as a member to a church, I have read the Bible. I've faced that same argument repeatedly and it's becoming frustrating.You would be an unusual Christian indeed, if you actually read the Bible. Lord knows, I never tried reading it till long after I stopped believing and I a the sort of person that naturally laps stuff like this up. Which Church were you confirmed into anyway? Catholic, Episcopalian, Presbyterian etc?

No, Christianity's not defined by "what Christians believe", nor is it an issue what Atheists "think they should believe". If there's anything that Atheists claim Christians believe, it is the alleged "word of God" in the Bible.Atheists are not a homogenous group, and I certainly won't be spoken for by anyone else as to what I believe. Atheism shouldn't really be focused on religion anyway. It is more a series of philosophical arguments. I personally hold a position of Strong Atheism, but I do not regard that as relevant in religious discussions. My belief that there is No God is one for philosophical debates, not religious ones, and my arguments have nothing to do with religion.

I think I could in many ways be described as an apatheist, while I am sure that there is no God, I cannot see how it can possibly matter. Does Class struggle change depending on whether there is a God or not?

My interest in religion is fundamentally about trying to understand human relations. What people believe at various times throughout history, what motivates these beliefs etc. God is not a particularly important part of it for me.

Regardless of the variety of individual writers, the New Testament, as well as the unavoidable common ground between each contributor, makes it very clear that one book is not meant to disregard the others. In fact this is blatantly stated throughout.Which raises the obvious question of how to approach blatant contradictions. Is there any way to reconcile the ban on Homosexual relations in Leviticus with the blatant endorsements of such relations in different books of the Bible? I don't know if there is. Obviously the writers had very different agendas and attitudes obviously changed at different times, if one were to try and get a message as to what the Bible actually says about Homosexuality, I don't think you could get an answer.

The Bible is the series of books that aim to promote Christian doctrine, and as the Bible was the method of passing down that doctrine, it is/was the basis for Christianity itself. One cannot simultaneously claim to be a Christian while blatantly violating and even disregarding inconvenient parts of the religion's moral codes. The reality is that Christians derive their beliefs from the Bible. That's what makes them Christian, not merely the claim "I am a Christian".Not really. Christianity sure as hell did not form because of the Bible, that is for sure. As for what Christians believe. There is no one thing they believe and there is no one source, different denominations have different beliefs and different understandings of how to form these beliefs. Catholicism for example, relies upon a number of sources, most prominently Aristotelian Philosophy and the Medieval developments in it, Natural law and certain doctrines formed by various Pontiffs. That is why for instance, the Catholic Church strongly opposes the Death Penalty even though much of the Bible very obviously endorses it.
[/QUOTE]

The Intransigent Faction

24th April 2008, 05:52

That's a beautiful blanket statement. Your generalizations are telling of your idiocy. Many Christian churches have openly gay priests. The Episcopalians have an openly gay Bishop on the east coast. These are people voted into their offices by their parishioners. Please fuck off with your ignorance.

Disagree if you must, but can we keep ad-hominem attacks out of it? I'm not an idiot. This ahould be a place for more civil discussion.
It's not just the Episcopalians. I'm aware that some "Christian" churches have openly gay priests in defiance of Christian law. None of this changes what is stated as Christian law in the Bible. Go by the book, not by what self-proclaimed adherents of Christianity choose to follow.

As for homophobia in the bible, you have to look at the historical context to understand it. I am only going to cover the new testament, as everything in the old testament is completely irrelevant to modern day Christianity. Leviticus isn't practiced law (they also have laws in Leviticus about not being close to women when they are menstruating). The Genius passage about the city of Sodom is often mistranslated to have a homophobic slant.

Historical context? How is that relevant? That is unless your suggesting moral relativism. Homophobia was wrong then and it's wrong now.
Clearly you read nothing that was stated here. Don't go calling me ignorant if you've decided to omit everything in the New Testament that says not to disregard the Old Testament.
I'm aware of that. There's also a passage in the Old Testament that suggests we should kill those who work on Sundays. However, the fact that it's conveniently ignored by modern "Christians" does not make it irrelevant as far as the historical Christian attitude toward certain differences.

The New Testament has one major passage that people read shallowly. Primarily Romans chapter 1 and 2. But many theologians, including the Archbishop of Canterbury who is head of the Anglican Communion, point out that it is unwise to use the passage as a condemnation of homosexuality. More than anything most theologians (that aren't right wing fundamentalists that is) explain that the passage is more a condemnation of pagan worship which used fertility/sexuality rituals. There are other interpretations that go farther, but this is the most common one.

When it says that they reject women and burn with "lust for one another", that's pretty clearly a condemnation of homosexuality--as part of Pagan rituals or not as part of pagan rituals.

And even if the Bible was homophobic, who gives a fuck? That was 1900 years ago. Almost every writer from 2000 BC to 1900 was homophobic, including most of the leftist theoreticians and political leaders that many of you claim to love.

Of course they do..but any such person I would "love" would not base that homophobia on ancient religious text. That and if a person condemns homosexuality this does not devalue any positive aspects of their beliefs. Theoreticians actually contributed something useful to society. Sure the Bible had some good messages, but those messages aren't dependent on the Bible. That and theoreticians have the potential to alter their beliefs overtime..whereas the suggestion that Christian law is "perfect" indicates that it does not admit to flaw and therefore does not change in such fundamental ways.

The Intransigent Faction

24th April 2008, 06:12

You can use it as a damn good starting point to launch into some interesting ideas based on. Tolkein was doing far more than writing a story with that book. However to use an even more obvious example, what about Shakespeare? Most of his plays are fictional, and even the ones based on fact take many artistic liberties. Would you honestly say we cannot gain any useful understanding of the world from those plays? You have too narrow a view of what literature is for.
A lot of books have despicable things in them. Pre-Twentieth Century literature is full of quite horrible stuff. Does that mean we shouldn't read it?

Yes but again neither Tolkien nor Shakespeare's works claim to be divinely inspired by a perfect being of any sort.
Are you asking me that question? Because it looked like you'd tried to answer it for me. No, I would not say that useful understanding cannot be gained from such literature. Again, see above. Neither of those works, as well as any other literature you might mention, insisted itself as divinely inspired and "perfect" (perfect implying that any moral deviation from it is something negative).

Why should we ignore books of the Bible with nasty stuff in it? If anything they are more useful as they give a clear impression of what society believed at the time. It is a very good insight into ancient attitudes that we do not normally get from periods that old. It is easier to put historical events into context when we know what the attitudes of people at the time were.
Why should they edit it out? Granted the Bible has already been edited many times for reasons of political convenience. But what is the point of doing so again? It would only make the Bible less useful for understanding religious history.
Why would I say that? I certainly do not think we should assess each sentence on its own. My entire point is to put each part of the Bible into context so that we understand what the writers meant. It seems to me to be plain that the writers of Leviticus intended to condemn homosexual acts. But what did Luke intend when he wrote the story of Jesus healing the male lover of the Roman Centurion? What did the writers describing the life of King David have in mind when they made it clear he had male as well as female lovers? We need a different context to understand them than we do for the writers of Leviticus.
Well it is pointless to teach it to children of course, I would not put children through that. However I believe adults should read the Bible if they have any interest in the subjects it relates to. The important thing I feel, is not to read it as if it is a true account but as a collection of writings from different periods in history that show the attitudes of the time.
It isn't a book of facts though. Far from it and it does not pretend to be so. Some parts of the Bible are plain old fiction written to convey a message. Other parts are ancient mythology. Always valuable in its own right. Other parts of course are factual accounts. There is no reason to doubt as far as I am aware that the various legal codes listed in the Bible were not used at one time or another.

This was not really addressed to me as I was not the one who originally stated that we should ignore the "nasty" parts of the Bible, but I'll respond anyway. I certainly don't believe that such "nasty" parts should be ignored. The problem is that this is exactly what's being done by self-proclaimed "Christians" who decide that none of these reprehensible views were part of the Christian paradigm. If you believe they were, then don't ignore this. Also certainly don't ignore the fact that the Bible claims to be the word of God. This leads to the conclusion that God supports such reprehensible ideas as outlined throughout the Bible involving murder of nonbelievers and other crimes. The Bible certainly isn't fact, but it is indicated nowhere that it is in fact fiction. This goes back to my earlier point about Lord of the Rings/other early works.

There is a lot more to Christianity than just the story of Jesus. If you want to understand Christian thought and Christian belief you will have to go a lot further than the Bible. The foundation of much of Catholic belief is actually found in Aristotelian Philosophy, not the Bible at all.

Are there any examples of Catholic beliefs you could point out that are inspired by Aristotelian philosophy that don't in some way relate to the Bible? That and it would again be another symptom of Liberal Christianity which makes it's own adjustments to the point that it cannot be recognized as truly "Christian".

As for Jesus. Yes the Bible does indeed contain four stories of his life, and if you look around from the time period there were quite a few more written, some of which survive to this day, but were excluded from the Bible for political reasons. Of course, I do not believe any of these accounts to be accurate, I do not even know if Jesus the man even existed. It is perfectly possible the stories of him are an amalgamation of the lives of several different interesting people from the period.

The obvious issue here is that we are taught to accept a first-century Rabbi who may have never really existed as our saviour or face the consequences.

And of course there is stuff in the Gospels that blatantly could not have happened and were only written to fulfill old testament prophecies. But again that is useful. It tells us that the writers obviously valued the old testament greatly. But at the same time it leaves open the question of why all four Gospel writers chose to blatantly contradict it in several places.

Enough said. They chose to contradict it for the same reasons modern "Christians" do. It's an attempt to modernize an outdated belief system in the hopes that people won't sit down, read the Bible themselves, and realize that it is in fact outdated.
Oh and by the way, when I was "Christian" I was confirmed into a Protestant church.

chimx

24th April 2008, 06:24

Disagree if you must, but can we keep ad-hominem attacks out of it?

Then stop being so obtuse and thick-headed. I've explained in detail what Christians believe, what Christian theologians and scholars believe, and you offer as your rebuttal an elongated "nuh-uh". You even go so far as to place quotation marks around my use of the word Christians, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is as much as a leader of Christians as the fucking Pope.

Yes theologians look at context. Yes Christian values have historically changed through the ages. No most Christians don't think the Bible is "perfect". No most Christians aren't Biblical literalists like you.

The Intransigent Faction

24th April 2008, 06:37

You would be an unusual Christian indeed, if you actually read the Bible. Lord knows, I never tried reading it till long after I stopped believing and I a the sort of person that naturally laps stuff like this up. Which Church were you confirmed into anyway? Catholic, Episcopalian, Presbyterian etc?Atheists are not a homogenous group, and I certainly won't be spoken for by anyone else as to what I believe. Atheism shouldn't really be focused on religion anyway. It is more a series of philosophical arguments. I personally hold a position of Strong Atheism, but I do not regard that as relevant in religious discussions. My belief that there is No God is one for philosophical debates, not religious ones, and my arguments have nothing to do with religion.

Sorry, trying to keep up with the length of posts here and making sure I don't miss something.
"Strong Atheism"? please elaborate. I'm confident that I know what you mean but I won't risk misrepresenting your stance.
As for the rest, I answered that on my other response.

I think I could in many ways be described as an apathist, while I am sure that there is no God, I cannot see how it can possibly matter. Does Class struggle change depending on whether there is a God or not?

Have you read the infamous passage of "Religion is the opiate of the masses"? This is elaborated on there.

My interest in religion is fundamentally about trying to understand human relations. What people believe at various times throughout history, what motivates these beliefs etc. God is not a particularly important part of it for me.

Fair enough. It is certainly important to understand the motivation behind certain religious beliefs. (Know what a "fire & brimstone" sermon is?)

Which raises the obvious question of how to approach blatant contradictions. Is there any way to reconcile the ban on Homosexual relations in Leviticus with the blatant endorsements of such relations in different books of the Bible?

No there is not. That's where the problems come in with regard to taking moral advice from the Bible.

Obviously the writers had very different agendas and attitudes obviously changed at different times, if one were to try and get a message as to what the Bible actually says about Homosexuality, I don't think you could get an answer.

If you can't get an answer to a social/philosophical/moral question, does that not defeat the purpose of the Bible as a source of moral lessons? It's not just homosexuality that the Bible contradicts itself on either.

Not really. Christianity sure as hell did not form because of the Bible, that is for sure. As for what Christians believe. There is no one thing they believe and there is no one source, different denominations have different beliefs and different understandings of how to form these beliefs. Catholicism for example, relies upon a number of sources, most prominently Aristotelian Philosophy and the Medieval developments in it, Natural law and certain doctrines formed by various Pontiffs. That is why for instance, the Catholic Church strongly opposes the Death Penalty even though much of the Bible very obviously endorses it.

No. That is what we call cherry-picking. I agree insofar as it is senseless to rely on the Bible for moral advice--but that's just it..without the Christian Bible (which is granted as important to the faith in any case), there is no Christianity. Or perhaps it would be better put as without a set dogma or fundamental moral values, it's hardly a religion. The Bible must act as an ultimate source, otherwise one could make a case that the most reprehensible of interpretations still passes as Christianity anyway. The central belief in any case suggests that there is a God and this is relevant because that can and has been exploited by bourgeois to trigger atrocities on a massive scale. The Bible is the source which is ultimately turned to. Going back to homosexuality, you must realize the Pope's stance on that issue. In fact many groups condemn homosexuality and use Christianity as their justification--they just don't take it to the next level. Now I'm not suggesting that, because these Christians condemn homosexuality, all self-proclaimed "Christians" are evil. What I am pointing out. however. is that the Bible is the ultimate source of modern Christian beliefs and thus the true Christians are in fact homophobic, while the rest merely claim to be Christian. It's not a matter of interpretation as it's very straightforward and it's not a matter of various "Christian" groups as the Bible claims to be the word of God and is accepted as a source of morals by any Christian you'll find.

Demogorgon

24th April 2008, 06:42

Yes but again neither Tolkien nor Shakespeare's works claim to be divinely inspired by a perfect being of any sort.
Are you asking me that question? Because it looked like you'd tried to answer it for me. No, I would not say that useful understanding cannot be gained from such literature. Again, see above. Neither of those works, as well as any other literature you might mention, insisted itself as divinely inspired and "perfect" (perfect implying that any moral deviation from it is something negative).Tolkein certainly believed he was rceiving inspiration from God in his writing, it is fairly likely that Shakespeare believed the same. Does that devalue their work all of a sudden?

You have a deeply Schizophrenic view of the Bible, on the one hand you wish to dismiss it, on the other you want to take a deeply fundamentalist line on it being the absolute truth from a Christian perspective. Which is it?

This was not really addressed to me as I was not the one who originally stated that we should ignore the "nasty" parts of the Bible, but I'll respond anyway. I certainly don't believe that such "nasty" parts should be ignored. The problem is that this is exactly what's being done by self-proclaimed "Christians" who decide that none of these reprehensible views were part of the Christian paradigm. If you believe they were, then don't ignore this. Also certainly don't ignore the fact that the Bible claims to be the word of God. This leads to the conclusion that God supports such reprehensible ideas as outlined throughout the Bible involving murder of nonbelievers and other crimes. The Bible certainly isn't fact, but it is indicated nowhere that it is in fact fiction. This goes back to my earlier point about Lord of the Rings/other early works.Nowhere in the Lord Of The Rings is it pointed out that it is fiction either. Tolkein has a wonderful writing style where he is able to create the impression of a factual re-telling. And there are pretty reprehensible things in Tolkein's work too. Scary.

Seriously, you are going to have to come to terms with what your own views are here. You do not sound like an atheist to me at all in fact. Rather someone who just happens to dislike Christianity. At any rate you have built up your own little conception of what you think Christianity is and simply want to dismiss everyone who doesn't fit that standard as not being Christian. But that does not wash. Christianity is a series of human institutions defined primarily by the self-identification of its followers. That is unless you think there is a God laying out the rules as to who is really a Christian and who isn't.

Are there any examples of Catholic beliefs you could point out that are inspired by Aristotelian philosophy that don't in some way relate to the Bible? That and it would again be another symptom of Liberal Christianity which makes it's own adjustments to the point that it cannot be recognized as truly "Christian".
There is a hell of a lot actually. Though I am not sure how you could call it an example of "Liberal Christianity". The Medieval Church was not noted for its liberalism. Anyway as for Aristotelian philosophy, Catholic positions on the proof of the existence of God pretty much entirely come from Aristotle (the Bible not offering any proof after all). Also Aristotle had a huge influence on the way the Catholic Church views morality (though I think Kant plays a big role their too).

You can also see a lot of Platonic ideas come to think of it, in the way that Catholics often view the soul, and I think that old fashioned beliefs ont eh Afterlife draw on him. The sure as hell don't come from the Bible anyway.

The obvious issue here is that we are taught to accept a first-century Rabbi who may have never really existed as our saviour or face the consequences.
You'll get over it

Enough said. They chose to contradict it for the same reasons modern "Christians" do. It's an attempt to modernize an outdated belief system in the hopes that people won't sit down, read the Bible themselves, and realize that it is in fact outdated.How do you know why they contradicted it? They weren't even necessarily targeting the bits that were outdated at the time. There is more to it than that. And why do you think modern Christians would want people not to read the Bible? They mostly don't because the find it boring, but you are still meant to give it a go so to speak. Seeing as most Christians are not fundamentalists, unlike you it seems, they are quite capable at putting everything in context

Oh and by the way, when I was "Christian" I was confirmed into a Protestant church.
There are rather a lot of protestant Churches. You are not giving me much to go on here. I wish to know what kind of Christianity you experienced so I can understand what notions of it you will have.

Demogorgon

24th April 2008, 06:56

Sorry, trying to keep up with the length of posts here and making sure I don't miss something.
"Strong Atheism"? please elaborate. I'm confident that I know what you mean but I won't risk misrepresenting your stance.
As for the rest, I answered that on my other response.
Strong Atheism is the position that the non-existence of God can be proven. It is contrasted with Weak Atheism which states that in the absence of reasonable evidence for God it is pointless to believe in it. That is simplifying things rather a lot, but is the jist of it.

Incidentally, Strong Atheism is not a "better" position that Weak Atheism. Most people think the latter is the better argument.

Have you read the infamous passage of "Religion is the opiate of the masses"? This is elaborated on there.
I certainly have. The question is, have you? It certainly doesn't say what you think it says and it most certainly does not say anything about where God was in class struggle. Marx did not believe in God, he wasn't looking for one.

Fair enough. It is certainly important to understand the motivation behind certain religious beliefs. (Know what a "fire & brimstone" sermon is?)
You don't need to look at religion to understand the motivation for a fire and brimstone sermon. That is just an example of an authoritarian personality at work.

No there is not. That's where the problems come in with regard to taking moral advice from the Bible.
Okay, but people don't just do things because the Bible told them to.

If there is one position which I am very strongly entrenched in, it is materialism. I do not accept arguments in contradiction to it unless materialism itself can be disproved. Therefore I can not accept your notion of how the Bible affects people.

If you can't get an answer to a social/philosophical/moral question, does that not defeat the purpose of the Bible as a source of moral lessons? It's not just homosexuality that the Bible contradicts itself on either.
The Bible is rather more than a source of moral lessons. If that was all it was, I wouldn't find it that interesting.

No. That is what we call cherry-picking. I agree insofar as it is senseless to rely on the Bible for moral advice--but that's just it..without the Christian Bible (which is granted as important to the faith in any case), there is no Christianity. Or perhaps it would be better put as without a set dogma or fundamental moral values, it's hardly a religion. The Bible must act as an ultimate source, otherwise one could make a case that the most reprehensible of interpretations still passes as Christianity anyway. The central belief in any case suggests that there is a God and this is relevant because that can and has been exploited by bourgeois to trigger atrocities on a massive scale. The Bible is the source which is ultimately turned to. Going back to homosexuality, you must realize the Pope's stance on that issue. In fact many groups condemn homosexuality and use Christianity as their justification--they just don't take it to the next level. Now I'm not suggesting that, because these Christians condemn homosexuality, all self-proclaimed "Christians" are evil. What I am pointing out. however. is that the Bible is the ultimate source of modern Christian beliefs and thus the true Christians are in fact homophobic, while the rest merely claim to be Christian. It's not a matter of interpretation as it's very straightforward and it's not a matter of various "Christian" groups as the Bible claims to be the word of God and is accepted as a source of morals by any Christian you'll find.
You really need to understand Christian thought before you try to lecture me on Christianity. The Bible is not as important as you think. By the sound pf it you were brought up by some Bible Thumpers, but that is a long way away from being standard Christian thought. So far in this thread you have suggested that both Catholics and Episcopalians are not in fact Christian. I think however theya re more qualified to tell us their religious positions than you are.

The Intransigent Faction

24th April 2008, 07:00

Tolkein certainly believed he was receiving inspiration from God in his writing, it is fairly likely that Shakespeare believed the same. Does that devalue their work all of a sudden?

I don't recall Tolkien starting a religion based on LOTR. You know what I meant. The Bible itself was "inspired" by God on a whole different level than Lord of the Rings.

You have a deeply Schizophrenic view of the Bible, on the one hand you wish to dismiss it, on the other you want to take a deeply fundamentalist line on it being the absolute truth from a Christian perspective. Which is it?
Nowhere in the Lord Of The Rings is it pointed out that it is fiction either. Tolkein has a wonderful writing style where he is able to create the impression of a factual re-telling. And there are pretty reprehensible things in Tolkein's work too. Scary.

No, I wish to dismiss it because it is an inherently "fundamentalist" work. The fundamentalists who follow the Bible are the closest thing to Christians out there. Nice try though.
Yeah but again Tolkien's book doesn't claim to be the perfect word of God.

Seriously, you are going to have to come to terms with what your own views are here. You do not sound like an atheist to me at all in fact. Rather someone who just happens to dislike Christianity.

Then you clearly don't know me. Yeah I dislike Christianity but I am certainly an Atheist.

At any rate you have built up your own little conception of what you think Christianity is and simply want to dismiss everyone who doesn't fit that standard as not being Christian.

My own conception? No. The Bible's, yes.

But that does not wash. Christianity is a series of human institutions defined primarily by the self-identification of its followers. That is unless you think there is a God laying out the rules as to who is really a Christian and who isn't.

Defined by self-identification? That is a lie, plain and simple.
Yes, in fact thw ultimate authority on what is Christian is the source of the Christian belief system itself--the Bible.

There is a hell of a lot actually. Though I am not sure how you could call it an example of "Liberal Christianity". The Medieval Church was not noted for its liberalism.

Amen to that.

Anyway as for Aristotelian philosophy, Catholic positions on the proof of the existence of God pretty much entirely come from Aristotle (the Bible not offering any proof after all). Also Aristotle had a huge influence on the way the Catholic Church views morality (though I think Kant plays a big role their too).

Yes but did these theologians' moral views happen to be biblically inspired?

You can also see a lot of Platonic ideas come to think of it, in the way that Catholics often view the soul, and I think that old fashioned beliefs ont eh Afterlife draw on him. The sure as hell don't come from the Bible anyway.
You'll get over it.
How do you know why they contradicted it? They weren't even necessarily targeting the bits that were outdated at the time. There is more to it than that. And why do you think modern Christians would want people not to read the Bible? They mostly don't because the find it boring, but you are still meant to give it a go so to speak. Seeing as most Christians are not fundamentalists, unlike you it seems, they are quite capable at putting everything in context.

We've already gone through the "context" nonsense.
Where did the concepts of the soul and the afterlife come from? Plato, or religion?
Not really. Besides the point remains that the New Testament repeatedly insists that the Old Testament is still relevant.

There are rather a lot of protestant Churches. You are not giving me much to go on here. I wish to know what kind of Christianity you experienced so I can understand what notions of it you will have.

Why? So you can attack me based on that?

The Intransigent Faction

24th April 2008, 07:12

Strong Atheism is the position that the non-existence of God can be proven. It is contrasted with Weak Atheism which states that in the absence of reasonable evidence for God it is pointless to believe in it. That is simplifying things rather a lot, but is the jist of it.

Ah, glad I asked. I'd heard it referred to as the passive vs. aggressive adherence to the idea of non-existence of God. The "lack of belief" definition of weak Atheism is rather unsubstantial as that could include anything from a baby to my dog.

Incidentally, Strong Atheism is not a "better" position that Weak Atheism. Most people think the latter is the better argument.I certainly have. The question is, have you? It certainly doesn't say what you think it says and it most certainly does not say anything about where God was in class struggle. Marx did not believe in God, he wasn't looking for one.

Ah, so you assume to know what I think it says.
Insofar as I understand it, Marx referred to the promise of the afterlife and stated that it was a way of keeping the proletariat more passive about this life as they felt they would be rewarded after death.

You don't need to look at religion to understand the motivation for a fire and brimstone sermon. That is just an example of an authoritarian personality at work.

Okay, but people don't just do things because the Bible told them to.

Exactly. It's an authoritarian method of maintaining control over the populous by exploiting a superstitious state of mind.

If there is one position which I am very strongly entrenched in, it is materialism. I do not accept arguments in contradiction to it unless materialism itself can be disproved. Therefore I can not accept your notion of how the Bible affects people.The Bible is rather more than a source of moral lessons. If that was all it was, I wouldn't find it that interesting.

What else do you suggest it is besides a record of moral tales collected overtime and combined as the basis of Christian thought?

You really need to understand Christian thought before you try to lecture me on Christianity.

Not trying to lecture you any more than you're trying to lecture me.

The Bible is not as important as you think. By the sound of it you were brought up by some Bible Thumpers, but that is a long way away from being standard Christian thought. So far in this thread you have suggested that both Catholics and Episcopalians are not in fact Christian. I think however they are more qualified to tell us their religious positions than you are.

Fair enough. That's better than just being called an idiot.

The Intransigent Faction

24th April 2008, 07:14

Brad The only thing I scripture I posted was a part I copypasted from earlier in this thread. It was he that started the contradicting thing.

My points where that people have misinterpreted it before so I don't see why they should get it right now.
Any books stating a lot of facts about the world without any credible sources are useless.

He can devide the books into as many parts as he likes it's still stories without a credible source as long as it wasn't ¨handed down from god¨.

There's also the troubling part about all christians keeping the whole book instead of burning the despicable parts. But let's overlook that.

Oh, no, that second part was addressed to Demogorgon, not you. Sorry about that miscommunication.

chimx

24th April 2008, 07:18

Have you read the infamous passage of "Religion is the opiate of the masses"?

Have you? Marx says, "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

Opium in the 19th century was medicine doctors gave to patients suffering from pain. If it was said today it would read "religion is the Tylenol of the masses".

The Intransigent Faction

24th April 2008, 07:20

Have you? Marx says, "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

Opium in the 19th century was medicine doctors gave to patients suffering from pain. If it was said today it would read "religion is the Tylenol of the masses".

See above. I addressed that quote.

Demogorgon

24th April 2008, 07:25

I don't recall Tolkien starting a religion based on LOTR. You know what I meant. The Bible itself was "inspired" by God on a whole different level than Lord of the Rings.
I think you will find that neither was inspired by God at all. Of course if you disagree I am more than happy to attempt to demonstrate that no God exists to inspire any work.

No, I wish to dismiss it because it is an inherently "fundamentalist" work. The fundamentalists who follow the Bible are the closest thing to Christians out there. Nice try though.

What makes you able to dictate what a Christian is and what isn't? The doctrine of Papal infallibility is bad enough without you also claiming it

Then you clearly don't know me. Yeah I dislike Christianity but I am certainly an Atheist.

You don't sound much like an Atheist to me

Defined by self-identification? That is a lie, plain and simple.
Yes, in fact thw ultimate authority on what is Christian is the source of the Christian belief system itself--the Bible.
The majority of Christians disagree with you. What makes you more qualified to define Christianity than them?

Anyway are you in any way, shape or form a Marxist? If so you will hopefully realise how absurd your statement was

Yes but did these theologians' moral views happen to be biblically inspired?
It depends what time period you are talking about and which theologians. Certainly current Catholic thought on morality is based on Natural Law rather than Divine Command, so no, it is not based on the Bible. Catholics however would generally argue that the Bible in fact also works on this principle, but that what it says is not right "just because" but rather because it follows Natural Law

We've already gone through the "context" nonsense.
Where did the concepts of the soul and the afterlife come from? Plato, or religion?The afterlife is a concept that is a constant throughout just about every human culture. Very understandable given the human fear of Death. If you mean particular Christian notions of the afterlife, well the old fashioned Catholic view (that is still held by some fire and brimstone Protestants come to that) largely seems to come from Renaissance writers and Artists who had taken too much Opium.

As for the soul, it is another constant throughout various cultures, but the Catholic view looks closest to Plato to me

Not really. Besides the point remains that the New Testament repeatedly insists that the Old Testament is still relevant.
Indeed. So how do we resolve that? See what I mean by it being fascinating? Incidentally the New Testament was not written as "The New Testament". It was a bunch of authors writing different books. Some of them were obviously paying lip service tot he Old Testament. Others genuinely valued it, yet chose to deliberately contradict it. Like I say, fascinating.

Why? So you can attack me based on that?
So I can understand the position you are coming from. I can tell from your posts you have a very narrow fundamentalist view of Christianity, which suggests to me that you came from a baptist or possibly strongly Presbyterian Church, though I can't detect much Calvinism in you so the former is more likely. At any rate, I would like to know.

Demogorgon

24th April 2008, 07:37

Ah, glad I asked. I'd heard it referred to as the passive vs. aggressive adherence to the idea of non-existence of God. The "lack of belief" definition of weak Atheism is rather unsubstantial as that could include anything from a baby to my dog.
Weak Atheism is far from insubstantial. Strong Atheism is a very difficult position to argue from as it is open to Appeal To ignorance accusations. My Strong Atheism is based on technical analysis of possible world theory. Against a competent theist, I would usually mostly rely on Weak Atheist arguments as they are much better in arguments.

Ah, so you assume to know what I think it says.
Insofar as I understand it, Marx referred to the promise of the afterlife and stated that it was a way of keeping the proletariat more passive about this life as they felt they would be rewarded after death.
Yup, I did assume to know what you thought and I was exactly right. The passage you are referring to does not say anything remotely like that. What it says is religion is an expression of people's hopes and aspirations as well as a source of comfort against injustice.

Marx is essentially arguing that religion is a natural reflection of the world and that it will dwindle if the conditions it is based on goes away

Exactly. It's an authoritarian method of maintaining control over the populous by exploiting a superstitious state of mind.
Superstitious? Maybe, but you can pull that trick without religion at all. You just need to substitute it for something else. Nationalism is a popular one. Political Ideologies can work too.

What else do you suggest it is besides a record of moral tales collected overtime and combined as the basis of Christian thought?

As I said it is a combination of legal documents, history, mythology, traditional beliefs, parables and so on. As I say I find it most interesting as a reflection of attitudes at the time

Not trying to lecture you any more than you're trying to lecture me.

Yes, but I seem to have a stronger grasp on the subject. I am afraid your credibility is a little damaged by you claiming that most Christians are not Christians at all.

chimx

24th April 2008, 07:38

Insofar as I understand it, Marx referred to the promise of the afterlife and stated that it was a way of keeping the proletariat more passive about this life as they felt they would be rewarded after death.

This is not what Marx is saying.

The Intransigent Faction

24th April 2008, 07:40

I think you will find that neither was inspired by God at all. Of course if you disagree I am more than happy to attempt to demonstrate that no God exists to inspire any work.

What makes you able to dictate what a Christian is and what isn't? The doctrine of Papal infallibility is bad enough without you also claiming it/

Well that's too bad..as going by your assumption that Christianity is determined more by common perceptions, it would seem that Papal infallibility is an important Catholic tenant.

You know damn well I'm an Atheist. I'm no fundamentalist and we've already been over this. I've given an explanation and asked that you not misrepresent my views which is exactly what you're doing. Stop that and I'll be happy to answer your question.

You don't sound much like an Atheist to me
The majority of Christians disagree with you. What makes you more qualified to define Christianity than them?

Well that's your problem. The definition of Atheist is quite clear. If you're trying to make a point you should know that when I'm disputing someone's Christianity it's as a result of their lack of adherence to Christian teachings. Atheists on the other hand aren't restricted by a Bible.

Anyway are you in any way, shape or form a Marxist? If so you will hopefully realise how absurd your statement was.
It depends what time period you are talking about and which theologians. Certainly current Catholic thought on morality is based on Natural Law rather than Divine Command, so no, it is not based on the Bible. Catholics however would generally argue that the Bible in fact also works on this principle, but that what it says is not right "just because" but rather because it follows Natural Law. The afterlife is a concept that is a constant throughout just about every human culture. Very understandable given the human fear of Death. If you mean particular Christian notions of the afterlife, well the old fashioned Catholic view (that is still held by some fire and brimstone Protestants come to that) largely seems to come from Renaissance writers and Artists who had taken too much Opium.

Sorry, what was absurd?
Did you ever explain the reasons for the Pope's condemnation of homosexuality? Seems like "Divine Command" to me.
Yeah but it's a religious notion and religion just grew to become a part of culture. How many religious Marxists do you know anyway?

As for the soul, it is another constant throughout various cultures, but the Catholic view looks closest to Plato to me. Indeed. So how do we resolve that? See what I mean by it being fascinating? Incidentally the New Testament was not written as "The New Testament". It was a bunch of authors writing different books. Some of them were obviously paying lip service to the Old Testament. Others genuinely valued it, yet chose to deliberately contradict it. Like I say, fascinating.

By choosing to contradict it they hardly genuinely valued it, as the Old Testament condemned such contradictions. "Different books" that once again had the same common ground.

So I can understand the position you are coming from. I can tell from your posts you have a very narrow fundamentalist view of Christianity, which suggests to me that you came from a baptist or possibly strongly Presbyterian Church, though I can't detect much Calvinism in you so the former is more likely. At any rate, I would like to know.

Until you stop claiming I'm a religious fundamentalist (when in fact I'm not religious and you know that), I hardly feel that it's worth answering.

The Intransigent Faction

24th April 2008, 07:50

Weak Atheism is far from insubstantial. Strong Atheism is a very difficult position to argue from as it is open to Appeal To ignorance accusations. My Strong Atheism is based on technical analysis of possible world theory. Against a competent theist, I would usually mostly rely on Weak Atheist arguments as they are much better in arguments.
Yup, I did assume to know what you thought and I was exactly right. The passage you are referring to does not say anything remotely like that. What it says is religion is an expression of people's hopes and aspirations as well as a source of comfort against injustice.

Marx is essentially arguing that religion is a natural reflection of the world and that it will dwindle if the conditions it is based on goes away. Superstitious? Maybe, but you can pull that trick without religion at all. You just need to substitute it for something else. Nationalism is a popular one. Political Ideologies can work too.

Fair enough (to the first part). As for the rest..damn, and you tell me not to take things out of context. Yeah it works with Nationalism as well.

As I said it is a combination of legal documents, history, mythology, traditional beliefs, parables and so on. As I say I find it most interesting as a reflection of attitudes at the time

Yes, but I seem to have a stronger grasp on the subject. I am afraid your credibility is a little damaged by you claiming that most Christians are not Christians at all.

Damaged? How so? What I said was accurate. You can't claim to be Christian while contradicting Christian teachings.

Devrim

24th April 2008, 08:08

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
[/quote]
I would interpret it as saying that under Old Testament Law, the punishment for a man cheating on his girlfriend or wife with another man is death -
I would say that that is a pretty wild interpretation. I can not see any reference to cheating at all there. As obviously refers to manner not time.

so if you're saying that Christians should be killing people for the actions mentioned above then you are also saying that Christians should be circumcized - which, for the most part, they are not.
No, I am not. I am merely pointing out that the following statement wasn't true:

First of all there is no verse in the Bible that says "kill homosexuals"

Devrim

pusher robot

24th April 2008, 08:10

Well that's too bad..as going by your assumption that Christianity is determined more by common perceptions, it would seem that Papal infallibility is an important Catholic tenant.

Hmmm...well, in point of fact, Papal infallibility is in reality an important Catholic tenet. I think we might be suffering an "is/ought" problem here. You are arguing that by way of simple logical consistency, Christians who do not literally follow the bible ought not be considered actual Christians. But, in reality, such people are in fact considered Christians. Thus, when you make factual claims about "Christians" in reality, you are in fact talking about those people you feel ought not be Christians. Just keep that in mind when making your claims.

P.S. This is a really good thread.

chimx

24th April 2008, 08:17

I would say that that is a pretty wild interpretation. I can not see any reference to cheating at all there. As obviously refers to manner not time.

Leviticus was written by nomadic Jews who competed for land with pagan fertility cultists that practiced incest, homosexuality, beastiality, and all sorts of crazy shit. They got down. Levitical law was written as a way of differentiating themselves from these fertility cults.

Regardless of that, Levitical law is not followed by Christians. Under Christianity, Levitical law became irrelevant with the birth of Jesus. They don't follow it or pay it any mind.

Devrim

24th April 2008, 14:49

I didn't claim that it was. I just stated that the Bible did say that homosexuals must be killed.

Devrim

eyedrop

24th April 2008, 16:22

I don't have anything against viewing the bible as what it actually is. A collection of ancient texts. A mix of almost first person sources on the historical context it was written in and a mix of fantasy.

The parts of it cointaining views of how it was to live at that time should be assessed on equal criterias as we view all other historical sources. The fiction in it should be used as all the other fiction we read.

My point was that the bible should be disregarded as a source to derive any facts about the nature of the universe. Sure it can be used as a historical source and a fiction book. I've always regarded it as a badly written fantasy book myself. It's not interesting too read.

I agree completely with you on the point of it beeing a collection of historical sources.
Wiki

Its followers, known as Christians, believe that Jesus is[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#cite_note-6) the Son of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God) and the Messiah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah) (or Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ)) prophesied (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_prophecy) in the Old Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament), the part of their scriptures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scripture) they have in common with Judaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#cite_note-sect1-7) To Christians, Jesus Christ is a teacher, the model of a pious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piety) life, the revealer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation) of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God), the mediator of salvation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation)[clarify (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_clarify)] and the saviour who suffered, died and was resurrected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_and_resurrection_of_Jesus) in order to bring about salvation from sin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin) for all.[clarify (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_clarify)][9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#cite_note-8) Christians maintain that Jesus ascended (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_of_Jesus) into heaven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven) and most denominations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination) teach that Jesus will judge the living and the dead, granting everlasting life to his followers. Christians describe the New Testament account of Jesus' ministry as the Gospel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_news_%28Christianity%29), or "good news".

This seems to me like a ok definition of what a christian is. But how do the christians know that Jesus ascended into heaven if not from the bible. I find hard time using philosophical arguements. Without any kind of common belief Christianity seems empty. What defines one to be a Christian

chimx

24th April 2008, 17:09

My point was that the bible should be disregarded as a source to derive any facts about the nature of the universe.

Most Christians I think would agree that it shouldn't be used as a science book. It is to provide spiritual and moral guidance, while baring in mind it was written by regular people who were subject to the cultural values of a particular historical epoch.

eyedrop

24th April 2008, 18:43

Most Christians I think would agree that it shouldn't be used as a science book. It is to provide spiritual and moral guidance, while baring in mind it was written by regular people who were subject to the cultural values of a particular historical epoch.

Fine.

If just everyone could accept that, even though I prefer to get my moral guidance from other places. Fundamentalist isn't really a major force anywhere close to me anyway, but pointless arguing for entertainment is allowed to do at times (as most internetarguing is).

freakazoid

24th April 2008, 21:13

I have posted about this before, http://theoldbill.typepad.com/thebackroom/2005/10/things_james_do.html

Demogorgon

24th April 2008, 21:31

Well that's too bad..as going by your assumption that Christianity is determined more by common perceptions, it would seem that Papal infallibility is an important Catholic tenant.

You know damn well I'm an Atheist. I'm no fundamentalist and we've already been over this. I've given an explanation and asked that you not misrepresent my views which is exactly what you're doing. Stop that and I'll be happy to answer your question.
You are presenting fundamentalist arguments for your position. As I say you do not sound like an Atheist to me, for this and other reasons. If you are then fair enough, but I have always felt antitheism to be incompatible with atheism anyway

Well that's your problem. The definition of Atheist is quite clear. If you're trying to make a point you should know that when I'm disputing someone's Christianity it's as a result of their lack of adherence to Christian teachings. Atheists on the other hand aren't restricted by a Bible.

And what is it exactly that makes you think that Christians are bound by the Bible? Competent Christian debaters will never mention the Bible during a debate and will never base their arguments on it. I would advise you to look through some of the classic debates on the subject. The argument between Russell and Coplestone is a great example.

As I keep explaining, only fundamentalists regard the religion as being bound by the Bible. The Bible was not finalised until hundreds of years after the Church formed and was written by people who did not for the most part like literal stories. One could even argue that "true" Christianity does not base itself on the Bible

Did you ever explain the reasons for the Pope's condemnation of homosexuality? Seems like "Divine Command" to me.Catholic condemnation of Homosexuality is based on natural law theory. The logic is that sex is for procreation ergo sex for reasons other than procreation is wrong. The same logic is used for all sorts of other things too.

Yeah but it's a religious notion and religion just grew to become a part of culture. How many religious Marxists do you know anyway?
I know a great deal of religious Marxists. There are several on this site for a start.

By choosing to contradict it they hardly genuinely valued it, as the Old Testament condemned such contradictions. "Different books" that once again had the same common ground.

What makes you think they didn't value it?It is possible to greatly value something without entirely agreeing with it.

Until you stop claiming I'm a religious fundamentalist (when in fact I'm not religious and you know that), I hardly feel that it's worth answering.
What's the story here? If you don't know the specific denomination, just say.

Fair enough (to the first part). As for the rest..damn, and you tell me not to take things out of context. Yeah it works with Nationalism as well.

What have I taken out of context? Like I say it is well worth reading the passage

Damaged? How so? What I said was accurate. You can't claim to be Christian while contradicting Christian teachings.
Why not? Why do you think there are so many denominations? Nobody can agree what the teachings are. You can't just say that the Bible says because first of all it usually doesn't and second of all very few Christians regard it in such a way.

cappin

25th April 2008, 00:08

The Bible is bunk. The people who read it believe bunk. Whether Christians think the Bible says we should kill kittens or not is, therefore, irrelevant to chocolate cake.

The Intransigent Faction

25th April 2008, 00:27

I might as well briefly respond although I'm stretched for time at this point and I'm not sure if it will get this discussion anywhere.

You are presenting fundamentalist arguments for your position. As I say you do not sound like an Atheist to me, for this and other reasons. If you are then fair enough, but I have always felt antitheism to be incompatible with atheism anyway

I already explained why I referred to "fundamentalist arguments". Your insistence on branding me as a fundamentalist because I argue against fundamentalism is frankly quite frustrating. Anti-theism is just active Atheism. That's like saying vegans aren't vegetarians--If it's true it's only to the extent that one group takes a more harshly active stance.

And what is it exactly that makes you think that Christians are bound by the Bible? Competent Christian debaters will never mention the Bible during a debate and will never base their arguments on it. I would advise you to look through some of the classic debates on the subject. The argument between Russell and Coplestone is a great example.

Catholicism has the apocrypha; the church of england has a book of prayers, Mormons have the book of Mormon, etc.
Anyone who claims to be religion relies on this and the Bible.
You might as well tell me that competent Communists never refer to the Communist Manifesto in a debate.

As I keep explaining, only fundamentalists regard the religion as being bound by the Bible. The Bible was not finalised until hundreds of years after the Church formed and was written by people who did not for the most part like literal stories. One could even argue that "true" Christianity does not base itself on the Bible
Catholic condemnation of Homosexuality is based on natural law theory. The logic is that sex is for procreation ergo sex for reasons other than procreation is wrong. The same logic is used for all sorts of other things too.I know a great deal of religious Marxists. There are several on this site for a start.

What makes you think they didn't value it? It is possible to greatly value something without entirely agreeing with it.

*Sigh*. I'll only repeat this for you so many times but the Old Testament considers deviation from it's laws to be a sin..so one cannot value this Testament without adhering to it's principles, for if one disregards sections of the Old Testament at will they do not value the Old Testament.

What's the story here? If you don't know the specific denomination, just say.

I'll say when I damn well feel like I won't be misrepresented..oh hell. I'll tell you but I'm going to have to ask you not to use it against me.
The United Church (denomination of Protestant).

What have I taken out of context? Like I say it is well worth reading the passage.

If you did say that I can't recall it but fair enough.
You've taken "opiate of the masses" out of context. I've stated the true context already. "Opiate" was hardly a compliment.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.
Marx referred to the promise of the afterlife and stated that it was a way of keeping the proletariat more passive about this life as they felt they would be rewarded after death. It is also a source of conflict amongst the masses. This is particularly relevant as the contribution to a Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right was written very soon after the Opium wars began and in Marx's time there were beginning attempts to prohibit its use, sale and production as a result of the beginning of recognition of the negative effects of opium.

Why not? Why do you think there are so many denominations? Nobody can agree what the teachings are. You can't just say that the Bible says because first of all it usually doesn't and second of all very few Christians regard it in such a way.

First of all it usually does and second of all that's not true. The average Christian certainly places a high degree of importance on the Bible.
Different denominations exist as different religions exist. It's sparks division of the masses, for one. Again, people may choose to blatantly omit inconvenient parts of the Bible which they know would be commonly held to be reprehensible in modern society. It's a way of trying to rehabilitate a belief system that makes control of the masses easier.
Again, the Bible may contain some great moral lessons, but this is the product of human experiences and wisdom--not of divine revelation. As it stands, religion is merely an exploitable tool just as nationalism is. Nationalism might be interpreted as having positive aspects in it's teaching--devotion to something greater than oneself and a feeling of brotherhood among one's peers. However these ideals need not rely on an outdated value system inherently based on logical errors.

Demogorgon

25th April 2008, 01:19

I already explained why I referred to "fundamentalist arguments". Your insistence on branding me as a fundamentalist because I argue against fundamentalism is frankly quite frustrating. Anti-theism is just active Atheism. That's like saying vegans aren't vegetarians--If it's true it's only to the extent that one group takes a more harshly active stance.
Antitheism is idealist, and idealism is not compatible with atheism

Catholicism has the apocrypha; the church of england has a book of prayers, Mormons have the book of Mormon, etc.
Anyone who claims to be religion relies on this and the Bible.
You might as well tell me that competent Communists never refer to the Communist Manifesto in a debate.Well we do refer to the Communist manifesto. But it is not central to our outlook either

*Sigh*. I'll only repeat this for you so many times but the Old Testament considers deviation from it's laws to be a sin..so one cannot value this Testament without adhering to it's principles, for if one disregards sections of the Old Testament at will they do not value the Old Testament.

the Old Testament isn't a single document though, is it? Hell it was never taken together before the Bible was compiled. However the Old Testament contradicts itself many times. Indeed some of the laws in leviticus mean that in practice it is illegal to enforce other laws. You have the most single minded outlook on this topic, quite probably other topics as well. The authors of the New Testament obviously valued the Old Testament and also obviously contradicted it. There is a little more to it than simplistic statements, don't you think?

I'll say when I damn well feel like I won't be misrepresented..oh hell. I'll tell you but I'm going to have to ask you not to use it against me.
The United Church (denomination of Protestant).

The Canadian Presbyterian Church? It is not that fundamentalist? Why do you see Christianity as inherently fundamentalist then?

If you did say that I can't recall it but fair enough.
You've taken "opiate of the masses" out of context. I've stated the true context already. "Opiate" was hardly a compliment.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.
Marx referred to the promise of the afterlife and stated that it was a way of keeping the proletariat more passive about this life as they felt they would be rewarded after death. It is also a source of conflict amongst the masses. This is particularly relevant as the contribution to a Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right was written very soon after the Opium wars began and in Marx's time there were beginning attempts to prohibit its use, sale and production as a result of the beginning of recognition of the negative effects of opium.

You haven't read the passage, have you? Do you know what an opiate is? It is a painkiller, just about the only reliable one in Marx's day. He referred to religion as a painkiller and elaborated on length about it being people's expression of their desires and as a source of comfort. Please read the thing.

First of all it usually does and second of all that's not true. The average Christian certainly places a high degree of importance on the Bible.
Different denominations exist as different religions exist. It's sparks division of the masses, for one. Again, people may choose to blatantly omit inconvenient parts of the Bible which they know would be commonly held to be reprehensible in modern society. It's a way of trying to rehabilitate a belief system that makes control of the masses easier.
Again, the Bible may contain some great moral lessons, but this is the product of human experiences and wisdom--not of divine revelation. As it stands, religion is merely an exploitable tool just as nationalism is. Nationalism might be interpreted as having positive aspects in it's teaching--devotion to something greater than oneself and a feeling of brotherhood among one's peers. However these ideals need not rely on an outdated value system inherently based on logical errors.
How many Christians have even read the Bible?

The Intransigent Faction

25th April 2008, 03:03

Antitheism is idealist, and idealism is not compatible with atheism
Well we do refer to the Communist manifesto. But it is not central to our outlook either

See vegan/vegetarianism example. That is nonsense. As I said, it is a more extreme active standpoint, but Atheism is inherent in anti-Theism.

the Old Testament isn't a single document though, is it? Hell it was never taken together before the Bible was compiled. However the Old Testament contradicts itself many times. Indeed some of the laws in leviticus mean that in practice it is illegal to enforce other laws. You have the most single minded outlook on this topic, quite probably other topics as well. The authors of the New Testament obviously valued the Old Testament and also obviously contradicted it. There is a little more to it than simplistic statements, don't you think?

Single document? Well somebody saw it fit to shove 'em all together. For the millionth time, they've got obvious common ground.

The Canadian Presbyterian Church? It is not that fundamentalist? Why do you see Christianity as inherently fundamentalist then?

Presbyterian? Why the sudden broadening? You asked me to be specific so I said the United Church.
It's not fundamentalist.
You know exactly why and I can't force you to read anything I type but I'd highly suggest that you do if you insist on trying to discredit me.

You haven't read the passage, have you? Do you know what an opiate is? It is a painkiller, just about the only reliable one in Marx's day. He referred to religion as a painkiller and elaborated on length about it being people's expression of their desires and as a source of comfort. Please read the thing.

How infuriating. You haven't read my response. Yes I know what an opiate is. That's exactly why I referred to the move during Marx's time to limit/prohibit it's medical use! It's like talking to a wall..

How many Christians have even read the Bible?

Anyone who legitimately calls themselves Christian. That's who. After all it cannot be argued that the Bible, central or not, is of great imoprtance to the faith with the moral lessons it tries to provide.
Why is it that you can't respond without omitting or misrepresenting my responses? Is that a side effect of the thought pattern it takes to follow a skewered interpretation of the Bible?

The Intransigent Faction

25th April 2008, 03:26

Antitheism is idealist, and idealism is not compatible with atheism
Well we do refer to the Communist manifesto. But it is not central to our outlook either

See vegan/vegetarianism example. That is nonsense. As I said, it is a more extreme active standpoint, but Atheism is inherent in anti-Theism.

the Old Testament isn't a single document though, is it? Hell it was never taken together before the Bible was compiled. However the Old Testament contradicts itself many times. Indeed some of the laws in leviticus mean that in practice it is illegal to enforce other laws. You have the most single minded outlook on this topic, quite probably other topics as well. The authors of the New Testament obviously valued the Old Testament and also obviously contradicted it. There is a little more to it than simplistic statements, don't you think?

Single document? Well somebody saw it fit to shove 'em all together. They've got obvious common ground, for the millionth time.

The Canadian Presbyterian Church? It is not that fundamentalist? Why do you see Christianity as inherently fundamentalist then?

Presbyterian? Why the sudden broadening? You asked me to be specific so I said the United Church.
It's not fundamentalist.
You know exactly why and I can't force you to read anything I type but I'd highly suggest that you do if you insist on trying to discredit me. Are you suggesting that being raised Presbyterian means that one is bound to that belief for life? I see it as inherently fundamentalist because despite contemporary attempts to rewrite the Bible it IS fundamentalist. In fact the majority of Americans see the Bible as literally true.

You haven't read the passage, have you? Do you know what an opiate is? It is a painkiller, just about the only reliable one in Marx's day. He referred to religion as a painkiller and elaborated on length about it being people's expression of their desires and as a source of comfort. Please read the thing.

How infuriating. Read my response. It's like talking to a wall..

How many Christians have even read the Bible?

Anyone who legitimately calls themselves Christian. That's who. After all it cannot be argued that the Bible, central or not, is of great importance to the faith with the moral lessons it tries to provide.
Why is it that you can't respond without omitting or misrepresenting my responses? Is that a side effect of the thought pattern it takes to follow a skewered interpretation of the Bible?
You must also know of theological determinism..a Calvinist principle. Whatever denomination you examine, there is common ground in the belief in an omnipotent, omniscient deity.
Plato argued that God must be an eternally perfect being.
And so on.
Where does the printing press come into this? Paper existed for quite a while before you could produce many copies of a book each day..and even before that one was not stopped from writing.

chimx

25th April 2008, 04:04

Anyone who legitimately calls themselves Christian. That's who.

If that's the case, there were only a few hundred Christians throughout the entire world until the invention of the printing press.

Demogorgon

25th April 2008, 06:07

See vegan/vegetarianism example. That is nonsense. As I said, it is a more extreme active standpoint, but Atheism is inherent in anti-Theism.

Thinking back to my anti-theist days I find that hard to believe. But if you say so...

That being said I can't see how an idealist position like antitheism can fit in with atheism

Single document? Well somebody saw it fit to shove 'em all together. They've got obvious common ground, for the millionth time.

Indeed, but the common ground is not author's intention

Presbyterian? Why the sudden broadening? You asked me to be specific so I said the United Church.
It's not fundamentalist.
You know exactly why and I can't force you to read anything I type but I'd highly suggest that you do if you insist on trying to discredit me. Are you suggesting that being raised Presbyterian means that one is bound to that belief for life? I see it as inherently fundamentalist because despite contemporary attempts to rewrite the Bible it IS fundamentalist. In fact the majority of Americans see the Bible as literally true.

Neither of us is American. Why obsess over them? You seem paranoid about trying to discredit you. I wished to know what your religious background was in order to understand your position. Knowing now that it is moderate Presbyterian I am at a bit of a loss. I can only conclude you have only rejected it in the last few years

How infuriating. Read my response. It's like talking to a wall..

I did. Now read Marx.

Anyone who legitimately calls themselves Christian. That's who. After all it cannot be argued that the Bible, central or not, is of great importance to the faith with the moral lessons it tries to provide.

Well as Cimx said that would greatly limit the number of Christians. Your position on religion is not materialist to say the least

Why is it that you can't respond without omitting or misrepresenting my responses? Is that a side effect of the thought pattern it takes to follow a skewered interpretation of the Bible?Skewered interpretation? I am the one trying to understand it in historic terms

You must also know of theological determinism..a Calvinist principle. Whatever denomination you examine, there is common ground in the belief in an omnipotent, omniscient deity. Calvinism is controversial to say the least. Theological Determinism (actually a form of fatalism) is not accepted by the vast majority of Christians

Plato argued that God must be an eternally perfect being.
And so on.
Where does the printing press come into this? Paper existed for quite a while before you could produce many copies of a book each day..and even before that one was not stopped from writing.
Where on earth did this discussion of the printing press come from?

The Intransigent Faction

25th April 2008, 06:38

That being said I can't see how an idealist position like antitheism can fit in with atheism.

Nonsense.

Indeed, but the common ground is not author's intention

See above.

Neither of us is American. Why obsess over them? You seem paranoid about trying to discredit you. I wished to know what your religious background was in order to understand your position. Knowing now that it is moderate Presbyterian I am at a bit of a loss. I can only conclude you have only rejected it in the last few years.

If I "seem paranoid" it's because you apparently love to twist my words.

I did. Now read Marx.

No you didn't, and I did read Marx. You've read neither.

Well as Cimx said that would greatly limit the number of Christians. Your position on religion is not materialist to say the least. Skewered interpretation? I am the one trying to understand it in historic terms. Calvinism is controversial to say the least. Theological Determinism (actually a form of fatalism) is not accepted by the vast majority of Christians
Where on earth did this discussion of the printing press come from?

That came from chimx, which you'd know if you were indeed taking the time to read other responses before responding with rhetoric.
Yeah it would. and?
No, you're the one twisting the historic terms (organized religion has been
used to manipulate the masses based on superstitious beliefs).
The Pope himself has condemned gay marriage. How's that for homophobia?
Once again you're spouting rhetoric without reading: Christian doctrine is not determined by the beliefs of the "vast majority of Christians". Maybe this will clear things up: What exactly makes Christianity Christianity if not the Bible? You might say that the people determine what is Christian but first of all that contradicts the idea that Christian perspective is in any meaningful way divided and second of all, what principles define Christianity?
Oh and if I'm not mistaken this issue was raised already by someone else in another response, but most importantly: I said before that the Bible was not a necessarily tool from which to derive morality. In fact I'd think we could agree on this if you in fact don't place much importance on the Bible. That being the case, why rely on a belief system that's so open to "misinterpretation" for moral lessons in the first place?

chimx

25th April 2008, 07:09

What exactly makes Christianity Christianity if not the Bible?

The teachings of Jesus, which come from the Bible, but have gone through centuries of interpretation and changing of values and emphasis.

As far as homophobia in the Bible, you should know that most Christian theologians don't get behind gay marriage not because of the arguably homophobic passages in the NT (which many Anglicans for example, don't even view as a condemnation of homosexuality), but rather because of the creation story in Genesis which views marriage as a union between a man and woman.

In Christianity marriage is defined as being a heterosexual couple. Many Christians don't have problems with homosexual couples. Like I said before, a prominent Bishop of the Episcopal church has a gay partner. It's more than anything a semantical problem with what marriage means theologically. Now, there are many groups that suggest that gay relationships should have a marriage equivalent that the church recognizes.

But the whole premise of this thread is that those passages about killing gay people in Leviticus or passages in Romans is the basis of the Church's opposition to gay marriage is erroneous.

The Intransigent Faction

25th April 2008, 07:49

The teachings of Jesus, which come from the Bible, but have gone through centuries of interpretation and changing of values and emphasis.

Exactly. They come from the teachings of Jesus who himself warned against ignoring the Old Testament and said that he did not seek to replace old law. Matthew 5:17 and 5:27 as well as other passages make this quite clear. If one yields to the authority of Jesus Christ they must in turn yield to Christ's view of the scripture itself. Of course Jesus Christ's teachings are the ultimate authority in Christianity.

As far as homophobia in the Bible, you should know that most Christian theologians don't get behind gay marriage not because of the arguably homophobic passages in the NT (which many Anglicans for example, don't even view as a condemnation of homosexuality), but rather because of the creation story in Genesis which views marriage as a union between a man and woman.

So most Christian theologians justify the condemnation of homosexuality based on the Old Testament? What of the Pope? That contradicts what was said earlier (unless I'm mistaken and it was not you who said this) that Old Testament law is no longer followed by Christians (I say Christians generally in this case because no Christians that I know actually take Old Testament law seriously--convenience permitting as some Old Testament laws are followed). On the other hand they do claim to follow the teachings in the New Testament which happens to insist on the legitimacy of the Old Testament, such insistence including the words of Christ himself, in the Christian doctrine. When Christ himself makes a blatant statement about the Old Testament's relevance that is put in such a way too straightforward for interpretation, Christians certainly can't ignore this.

In Christianity marriage is defined as being a heterosexual couple. Many Christians don't have problems with homosexual couples. Like I said before, a prominent Bishop of the Episcopal church has a gay partner. It's more than anything a semantical problem with what marriage means theologically. Now, there are many groups that suggest that gay relationships should have a marriage equivalent that the church recognizes.

That would of course suggest that it depends on the denomination, church, etc. Catholicism is a pretty major denomination and when someone with the kind of authority that the Pope has makes such statements about their religion's stance on homosexuality those statements are not going to be ignored by Catholics any less than Episcopalians would ignore the words of a prominent Episcopalian bishop. That of course leads back to my point about misinterpretation and the harm it can do.
For anyone who responds to this: It's about time I left for the night..so don't expect another response from me for quite a few hours.

chimx

25th April 2008, 08:42

Exactly. They come from the teachings of Jesus who himself warned against ignoring the Old Testament and said that he did not seek to replace old law. Matthew 5:17 and 5:27 as well as other passages make this quite clear. If one yields to the authority of Jesus Christ they must in turn yield to Christ's view of the scripture itself. Of course Jesus Christ's teachings are the ultimate authority in Christianity.

I didn't look up the passage you just cited, but I'm pretty sure I know what one you are talking about. Jesus is upholding the 10 commandments, not Levitical law. Again, Levitical law isn't followed by most Christians. That's why Christians eat seafood, birds, and all other kinds of stuff outlawed as an abomination in Leviticus.

But as I have said again and again, more than anything, the values of the modern church are completely different from those of Peter in the 1st century. Christian values are in constant flux and change with the cultural values present in any community. Christians constantly reinterpret the Bible, and derive different meanings from from the scriptures.

I mean, you do admit that Christians values have significantly changed over the course of 2000 years, right?

So most Christian theologians justify the condemnation of homosexuality based on the Old Testament? What of the Pope? That contradicts what was said earlier (unless I'm mistaken and it was not you who said this) that Old Testament law is no longer followed by Christians

Levitical law is not followed by Christians. They still view the OT as a spiritually valuable collection of books though. That's why they still read from it during church services.

As for the pope, I'm not as well versed on Catholicism (the only thing I really remember from my theology classes in college was that they were a wacky bunch), but I'm fairly sure they define marriage along Genesis lines like most Christians, though I wouldn't be surprised if they took a more conservative interpretation of NT passages on homosexuality. I mean, Catholics still don't allow women to be priests! Talk about a culturally backwards bunch of people.

When Christ himself makes a blatant statement about the Old Testament's relevance that is put in such a way too straightforward for interpretation, Christians certainly can't ignore this.

Again, Jesus is talking about the 10 commandments. Look at Matthew 5:19 (I had to look it up since you keep bringing it up)

That of course leads back to my point about misinterpretation and the harm it can do.

Of course religious leaders can be harmful. I wouldn't disagree with that in the slightest. The Catholic church is especially notorious for this.

However, it is wise not to make blanket statements about Catholics because of the church. Remember, the Vatican is staunchly opposed to liberation theology, but that doesn't stop Catholics from being liberation theologians unless they become excommunicated, which to my knowledge has not occurred.

A lot of Catholics, or other religious people for that matter, remain part of the church, despite reactionary aspects, because of their cultural heritage and their familiarity with them. If you have ever been to church, you no doubt realize that they act as much as fulfilling a community need as they do a spiritual need. The end result is Catholics who hold views in opposition to Catholicism.

Demogorgon

25th April 2008, 14:10

Nonsense.

Antitheism holds that ideas have power independently of their material circumstances. That is idealism, a position that as far as I can see cannot work with atheism. And it certainly cannot work with Marxism

If I "seem paranoid" it's because you apparently love to twist my words.

Where do I twist your words? I take you on the basis of what your write. You do seem paranoid and hold utterly bizarre opinions. I cannot simply pretend I think they are reasonable

No you didn't, and I did read Marx. You've read neither.

There is no point trying to call my bluff here. Of course I have read Marx, you have to when you study philosophy apart from anything else. If you have read him, which I highly doubt, you have either not understood him or disagreed with him completely as you appear to reject Historical Materialism.

That came from chimx, which you'd know if you were indeed taking the time to read other responses before responding with rhetoric.
Yeah it would. and?Yes and still isn't relevant to go on about that. The printing press reference was to indicate that there were very few Bibles in the world before the advent of printing. Most people hadn't read them. Does that mean they were not Christians. What is it that gives you the authority over everyone else to determine what is Christian and what isn't? I know you reject all Marxist means of understanding society and religion, but even so, basic common sense dictates that what a belief system is will be defined by those who believe in it.

The Pope himself has condemned gay marriage. How's that for homophobia?It makes him a homophobe. Your point? He is one Christian, are all Catholics ipso facto Homophobes?

Once again you're spouting rhetoric without reading: Christian doctrine is not determined by the beliefs of the "vast majority of Christians". Maybe this will clear things up: What exactly makes Christianity Christianity if not the Bible? You might say that the people determine what is Christian but first of all that contradicts the idea that Christian perspective is in any meaningful way divided and second of all, what principles define Christianity?Again, what gives you the authority to determine what other people's belief systems are? Christianity is not based on the Bible, it is based on the belief that Jesus was the son of God. The Bible was compiled for political reasons hundreds of years after the church formed. To many Christians it is not terribly important

Oh and if I'm not mistaken this issue was raised already by someone else in another response, but most importantly: I said before that the Bible was not a necessarily tool from which to derive morality. In fact I'd think we could agree on this if you in fact don't place much importance on the Bible. That being the case, why rely on a belief system that's so open to "misinterpretation" for moral lessons in the first place?
You would have to ask someone who does use it for moral lessons. I have told you what it is useful for: understanding the various time periods in which it was written.

al8

25th April 2008, 14:36

eyedrop

25th April 2008, 15:35

Antitheism holds that ideas have power independently of their material circumstances. That is idealism, a position that as far as I can see cannot work with atheism. And it certainly cannot work with Marxism

No. Antitheism holds that something that is not part of materialism, ie idealism, ( in this spesific case, god) is bullshit and should be combated because belief in it has bad effects in the material world. It is not the idea of theism that affects the material world but the belief in it.

Is it idealistic to say that an non-material idea is crap?

Funny how you accused us of being idealistic for being against an idealistic idea, by attacking what you percieved as an idealistic idea.

Demogorgon

25th April 2008, 15:36

Care to say why you think so? Rather than just state it so idealistically.

Like I say, it holds that ideas have power in of themselves. It says religion is harmful in of itself. That is that it is not merely certain religious institutions or certain religious practices, but rather the entire thing is bad.

That requires religion to be taken as an abstract, an idealist position.

Demogorgon

25th April 2008, 15:45

No. Antitheism holds that something that is not part of materialism, ie idealism, ( in this case a specific case, god) is bullshit and should be combated because belief in it has bad effects in the material world.

Is it idealistic to say that an non-material is crap?

If something is not material, it cannot have an effect on the world in of itself, according to materialist outlook.

Idealism is wrong and can lead to very jumbled up thinking, but it cannot cause anything by itself.

eyedrop

25th April 2008, 15:54

If something is not material, it cannot have an effect on the world in of itself, according to materialist outlook.

Yes the idea can't have an affect in the material world, but the belief in it can have.

Idealism is wrong and can lead to very jumbled up thinking, but it cannot cause anything by itself.The point is that jumbled up thinking leads to jumbled up actions..As the thinking goes on in the brain, which is a part of the materialistic world. An idealist can cause something by himself.

Demogorgon

25th April 2008, 16:28

Yes the idea can't have an affect in the material world, but the belief in it can have.

The point is that jumbled up thinking leads to jumbled up actions..As the thinking goes on in the brain, which is a part of the materialistic world. An idealist can cause something by himself.
This is an example of jumbled up idealist thinking in fact. How can a belief in of itself cause harm? What does it do? It is the causes of the belief that will be leading to any action.

You cannot say both that idealism is wrong and that ideas can cause harm by themselves, it is one or the other.

To put it in context however, your jumbled up thinking on this is harmless in of itself, however you obviously have material reasons for disliking religion, it is these causes that could potentially lead you to doing something harmful. The most common things amongst anti-theists to do that are harmful is to either try and exclude religious people from political movements or else focus on religion rather than material things as the cause of societies problems.

eyedrop

25th April 2008, 17:17

This is an example of jumbled up idealist thinking in fact. How can a belief in of itself cause harm? What does it do? It is the causes of the belief that will be leading to any action.

You cannot say both that idealism is wrong and that ideas can cause harm by themselves, it is one or the other.

To put it in context however, your jumbled up thinking on this is harmless in of itself, however you obviously have material reasons for disliking religion, it is these causes that could potentially lead you to doing something harmful. The most common things amongst anti-theists to do that are harmful is to either try and exclude religious people from political movements or else focus on religion rather than material things as the cause of societies problems.

This is just semantics, yes it is the causes of the belief that will be leading to any actions. But the causes for the belief is the material world and that includes human interaction. A world where human interaction is disdainful of idealism means that idealism get less causes.

Arguing with people is one of the causes for belief which will be leading to any actions

The Intransigent Faction

25th April 2008, 22:35

I can only respond to so many posts at once and I have to get busy with work, so I'll respond to the person who isn't trying to misrepresent my position.

I didn't look up the passage you just cited, but I'm pretty sure I know what one you are talking about. Jesus is upholding the 10 commandments, not Levitical law. Again, Levitical law isn't followed by most Christians. That's why Christians eat seafood, birds, and all other kinds of stuff outlawed as an abomination in Leviticus.

Yes but Levitical law is upheld at various points by Jesus in the New Testament. In fact in Mark 7:9-13 and Jesus criticizes those who do not kill their disobedient children in accordance with Old Testament law. Actually, Matthew 5:17-19 make it very clear that he's referring to Old Testament law. Jesus himself insisted that the entirety of the Old Testament is still relevant Christian law.

But as I have said again and again, more than anything, the values of the modern church are completely different from those of Peter in the 1st century. Christian values are in constant flux and change with the cultural values present in any community. Christians constantly reinterpret the Bible, and derive different meanings from from the scriptures.

I mean, you do admit that Christians values have significantly changed over the course of 2000 years, right?

Again this leaves the law open to misinterpretation. Actually Christian values are significantly more regressive than the rest of the community (see abortion & gay marriage). The very idea of scripture is to outline general values and beliefs of a religion. The point remains that there is therefore no need to base one's moral views on such scripture that can be misinterpreted. It brings unnecessary problems with no real advantages.

Levitical law is not followed by Christians. They still view the OT as a spiritually valuable collection of books though. That's why they still read from it during church services.

I think I covered enough on Levitical law above so I'll just refer you to that to avoid repeating myself.

As for the pope, I'm not as well versed on Catholicism (the only thing I really remember from my theology classes in college was that they were a wacky bunch), but I'm fairly sure they define marriage along Genesis lines like most Christians, though I wouldn't be surprised if they took a more conservative interpretation of NT passages on homosexuality. I mean, Catholics still don't allow women to be priests! Talk about a culturally backwards bunch of people.

I share your discontent with Catholicism's regressive aspects. As for Genesis, see above. You seem to be saying that most Christians refer to the Old Testament for a definition of marriage. This suggests that the Bible itself still holds significant importance in the religion.

Again, Jesus is talking about the 10 commandments. Look at Matthew 5:19 (I had to look it up since you keep bringing it up)

See above.

Of course religious leaders can be harmful. I wouldn't disagree with that in the slightest. The Catholic church is especially notorious for this.

"Amen" to that.

However, it is wise not to make blanket statements about Catholics because of the church. Remember, the Vatican is staunchly opposed to liberation theology, but that doesn't stop Catholics from being liberation theologians unless they become excommunicated, which to my knowledge has not occurred.

A lot of Catholics, or other religious people for that matter, remain part of the church, despite reactionary aspects, because of their cultural heritage and their familiarity with them. If you have ever been to church, you no doubt realize that they act as much as fulfilling a community need as they do a spiritual need. The end result is Catholics who hold views in opposition to Catholicism.

How can Catholics hold views in opposition to Catholicism? That makes no more sense than a Communist with Capitalist views. One cannot simultaneously claim such adherence to a belief system while rejecting it's beliefs.

pusher robot

26th April 2008, 02:17

One cannot simultaneously claim such adherence to a belief system while rejecting it's beliefs.
Why not? If what you say is true, e.g., entryism would not exist.

Bud Struggle

26th April 2008, 03:43

Arguing with people is one of the causes for belief which will be leading to any actions

Example please!:D

chimx

26th April 2008, 04:31

Actually, Matthew 5:17-19 make it very clear that he's referring to Old Testament law. Jesus himself insisted that the entirety of the Old Testament is still relevant Christian law.

Matthew 5:19 says the commandments. Its a reference to the ten commandments. Christian theologians as a rule agree that Jesus upholds the ten commandments but rejects Levitical law. You can argue all you want that Jesus really wanted people to follow Leviticus, but you would be taking a theological position that stands against the vast majority of modern Christian thought.

Again this leaves the law open to misinterpretation.

I disagree with the idea of misinterpretation. The Bible exists to act as a moral guide for Christians. As the communities morals have historically changed, so has the interpretations. Your argument implies that there is a correct interpretation, while I would say that interpretation is subject to the intersubjective moral beliefs of a community at any given period in time. It is important to remember the dynamism religious institutions have had through the ages.

the Bible itself still holds significant importance in the religion.

The Bible is very important for Christians. But equally important is how Christians have developed in their understanding of the Bible.

How can Catholics hold views in opposition to Catholicism? That makes no more sense than a Communist with Capitalist views. One cannot simultaneously claim such adherence to a belief system while rejecting it's beliefs.

Well, for example, liberation theologians are Catholics whose ideology is condemned by the Vatican. Another example I could provide is a story my girlfriend told me. She was visiting Swaziland about two years ago and staying with small parish nurses out in the country. These Catholic nurses freely distributed condoms to people whenever they could afford to have them supplied despite the Vatican's totally backwards stance on condoms. (a backwards view which is slowly changing I might add)

The Intransigent Faction

26th April 2008, 05:04

Where do I twist your words? I take you on the basis of what your write. You do seem paranoid and hold utterly bizarre opinions. I cannot simply pretend I think they are reasonable/

No. You have time and time again claimed that I'm a fundamentalist. You also conveniently omitted my reference to the fact that opium was in fact facing strong restrictions and even prohibition. Those are just a couple of examples. Trying to dismiss me as "paranoid" and calling my opinions "utterly bizarre" is not productive in any way.

There is no point trying to call my bluff here. Of course I have read Marx, you have to when you study philosophy apart from anything else. If you have read him, which I highly doubt, you have either not understood him or disagreed with him completely as you appear to reject Historical Materialism.

Call your bluff? That's also a vague accusation. In what way am I "rejecting Historical Materialism"?

Yes and still isn't relevant to go on about that.

About what? In any case, so what? Theological fatalism is the logical conclusion presupposing that (as most Christian seem to) God is omnipotent/omniscient. So insofar as a Christian accepts the omnipotence and omnipotence of God, they are in fact theological fatalists.

The printing press reference was to indicate that there were very few Bibles in the world before the advent of printing. Most people hadn't read them. Does that mean they were not Christians.

When exactly are we talking about? Regardless, Christianity stems from Christ's teachings in writing or otherwise, and Christ taught that the Old Testament was in fact relevant.

It makes him a homophobe. Your point? He is one Christian, are all Catholics ipso facto Homophobes?

Yeah because the Pope is merely one insignificant Catholic no different from the rest in religious authority.

Again, what gives you the authority to determine what other people's belief systems are?

Hey, I'm not the authority here on what's Christian. Apparently Christ's teachings are (see above). That and it's not about what I think, it's about Christ's own teachings in the New Testament.

Christianity is not based on the Bible, it is based on the belief that Jesus was the son of God. The Bible was compiled for political reasons hundreds of years after the church formed. To many Christians it is not terribly important
You would have to ask someone who does use it for moral lessons. I have told you what it is useful for: understanding the various time periods in which it was written.

There you go. Now we're getting somewhere! You do believe that Christ is the son of God and as a result his teachings do hold ultimate authority. Christ himself got moral lessons from the Old Testament and insisted on it's infallibility.

The Intransigent Faction

26th April 2008, 05:21

Matthew 5:19 says the commandments. Its a reference to the ten commandments. Christian theologians as a rule agree that Jesus upholds the ten commandments but rejects Levitical law. You can argue all you want that Jesus really wanted people to follow Leviticus, but you would be taking a theological position that stands against the vast majority of modern Christian thought.

Woah, one at a time! in any case it should not be necessary to state that Christianity is ultimately rooted in the teachings of Christ himself, and it is in fact true that he insisted on the infallibility of the Old Testament.

I disagree with the idea of misinterpretation. The Bible exists to act as a moral guide for Christians. As the communities morals have historically changed, so has the interpretations. Your argument implies that there is a correct interpretation, while I would say that interpretation is subject to the intersubjective moral beliefs of a community at any given period in time. It is important to remember the dynamism religious institutions have had through the ages.

I'm not following. You don't believe that scripture can be misinterpreted? That suggests that it's not subject to interpretation and is thus a rigid doctrine. Do you mean to say that I suggest a correct interpretation while in fact the Christian interpretation is based on consensus within the Christian community? It is the belief that determines the followers, not the other way around. If a bunch of people proclaimed themselves to be Communists while consensus amongst them suggested that they believe Communism advocates more power for the bourgeois, does that make it so?

The Bible is very important for Christians. But equally important is how Christians have developed in their understanding of the Bible.

This depends on consensus-based determination of "context". See above.

Well, for example, liberation theologians are Catholics whose ideology is condemned by the Vatican. Another example I could provide is a story my girlfriend told me. She was visiting Swaziland about two years ago and staying with small parish nurses out in the country. These Catholic nurses freely distributed condoms to people whenever they could afford to have them supplied despite the Vatican's totally backwards stance on condoms. (a backwards view which is slowly changing I might add)

This depends on consensus-based determination of "context". See above.

chimx

26th April 2008, 06:11

I'm not following. You don't believe that scripture can be misinterpreted?

The point is that, like Christian fundamentalists that read the bible literally, you can't assume there is a "correct" interpretation for Christians to follow if most other Christians interpret it differently. A theological understanding of Christianity is just as important, if not more so, to the understanding of how Christian's use the bible.

As for the OT stuff, I've repeated myself too many times: Christians don't follow Levitical law because most theologians agree that Jesus wasn't talking about Leviticus but simply the ten commandments. Christians don't follow Levitical law. Christians don't follow Levitical law. Christians don't follow Levitical law. Please don't make me say it again.

The Intransigent Faction

26th April 2008, 06:30

The point is that, like Christian fundamentalists that read the bible literally, you can't assume there is a "correct" interpretation for Christians to follow if most other Christians interpret it differently. A theological understanding of Christianity is just as important, if not more so, to the understanding of how Christian's use the bible.

Alright, just wanted to clarify. Otherwise, see above.

As for the OT stuff, I've repeated myself too many times: Christians don't follow Levitical law because most theologians agree that Jesus wasn't talking about Leviticus but simply the ten commandments. Christians don't follow Levitical law. Christians don't follow Levitical law. Christians don't follow Levitical law. Please don't make me say it again.

I've repeated myself too many times. Jesus himself insisted that the entirety of the Old Testament is still relevant Christian law. Jesus himself insisted that the entirety of the Old Testament is still relevant Christian law. Jesus himself insisted that the entirety of the Old Testament is still relevant Christian law. Please don't make me say it again. Repeating yourself ad-nauseam does not make your argument more true and that applies to any argument either of us has made. That and well..you (should have) read the rest. So I guess we'll just leave it at that. Besides that, "OT" is more than just Leviticus, as you must know.

chimx

26th April 2008, 07:35

The Intransigent Faction

26th April 2008, 07:45

The OT only had one other "homophobic" passage that I can think of. That is in Genesis 18 I believe when God destroys the city of Sodom because some dudes in the city wanted to get their fuck on with some (male) angels, or something like that. Many theologians insist that it has more to do with a condemnation of violence and/or inhospitably.

Look harder. "Many theologians" are skilled at obfuscation.

I read one book that points out that the passage could be translated to mean "the people of Sodom" rather than the "men of Sodom", making this all the more true.

Oh, that changes everything. So there were other reasons for the killing of so many people. So essentially the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah in that tale were indiscriminately killed to illustrate the point of a condemnation of violence? Interesting.

As for Leviticus. Scholars and theologians feel that Jesus is talking about the 10 commandments. I'm sorry that I trust them over you.

Ten Commandments? Irrelevant to my point. Don't make me repeat myself.

chimx

26th April 2008, 19:15

The Intransigent Faction

26th April 2008, 19:22

Your point is that Jesus believes people should follow all the rules of the old testament. I'm telling you that no Christian believes that, while Christian scholars understand it to mean the commandments, not Levitical law. You are being incredibly stubborn on this point: trying to tell the entirety of Christendom what they should believe just strikes me as ludicrous.

Yeah but you seem fixated on one passage that "could" mean the Ten Commandments. I'm feeling in a good enough mood this morning to repost some things. Oh and I know my point. Why exactly are you trying to dictate to me what my point was?

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17)
*Said by Christ

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17)

Jesus criticizes those who do not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. "Whoever curses father or mother shall die." (Mark 7:9-13)

“He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7) *Said by Christ

"The scripture cannot be broken.” (John 10:35)
*Said by Christ

..and there's more. Regardless of what some theologians try to do to obfuscate for the purpose of defending an outdated belief system, it's quite literal and straightforward in it's meaning. If I'm being stubborn it's because it's an important point that needs to be properly heard. It's just basics. I wouldn't call it any more ludicrous to "tell" (more like point out or remind) the "entirety" of Communists, Capitalists, etc. what they believe because each point of view has some fundamental principles, one of Christianity's being as you recognized, that Jesus is the Son of God and thus his words are extremely important to the basis of the faith. If you deny the clear literal meaning what the main figure of a belief is saying you end up with something inherently opposed to what the belief system really is. Again, it's not about consensus any more than it would be if the majority of Communists got together and decided that Marx was advocating bourgeois control over the workers. So it's not about me trying to dictate anyone's beliefs based merely on what I think. That would certainly be arrogant and by that logic I could just as well be, again, telling Communists that Marx advocated bourgeois control of the workers. Based on the very thing I argue against, I could not be telling anyone what they believe based solely on my own personal convictions.

chimx

26th April 2008, 19:43

Marx and Engels thought that homosexuality was a human perversion. Does that mean all Marxists also believe it is a human perversion?

The Intransigent Faction

26th April 2008, 19:51

Marx and Engels thought that homosexuality was a human perversion. Does that mean all Marxists also believe it is a human perversion?

Marxism isn't a religion. Therefore we aren't taught to take Marx's views religiously. They are the foundation for a belief system. This is a bit tough to explain but the goal is clear in Marxism. While certain aspects are malleable hence the "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist" vs. "Anarcho-Communist", Marx is not the son of God specifically telling us that we have to follow every last word of his teachings to be Communists. You can disagree with the less consequential (for lack of a better word) of Marx and Engel's views, including their on homosexuality and still be considered Marxist. My above analogy about self-proclaimed Marxists claiming that he advocated bourgeois control was much more appropriate. You cannot on the other hand disagree with the fundamental aspects of a religious figure's beliefs and still be considered a subscriber to that religion.

Demogorgon

26th April 2008, 20:12

No. You have time and time again claimed that I'm a fundamentalist. You also conveniently omitted my reference to the fact that opium was in fact facing strong restrictions and even prohibition. Those are just a couple of examples. Trying to dismiss me as "paranoid" and calling my opinions "utterly bizarre" is not productive in any way.

I have said your position is one of fundamentalism, because it is. You are interpreting Christianity as inherently fundamnetalist when only a minority of Christians see it that way

As for Opium, it is irrelevant that it was facing restriction. The fact is that Marx was referring to religion as a painkiller. Try reading the passage.

Call your bluff? That's also a vague accusation. In what way am I "rejecting Historical Materialism"?

It is hardly a vague accusation. You are hoping that I have not read the passage either and that you will consequently be able to pretend you have read it. owever as I have read it, that will not work.

You are rejecting historical materialism because your position on religion is fundamentally incompatible with it. You insist on looking at religion, and Christianity in particular, in an abstract manner and insisting that there is a "correct" Christian belief. You refuse to look at Christianity in context and seem to think it is something more than simply an institution comprising its believers. There is no "Christian belief system" only the collection of what Christians believe. You can disagree with that if you want, but don't pretend to be a Marxist if you do.

About what? In any case, so what? Theological fatalism is the logical conclusion presupposing that (as most Christian seem to) God is omnipotent/omniscient. So insofar as a Christian accepts the omnipotence and omnipotence of God, they are in fact theological fatalists.

Calvinism is fatalistic as are some other branches, but most Christians believe in free will, and that is not compatible with fatalism, so no, that is not what Christians believe

When exactly are we talking about? Regardless, Christianity stems from Christ's teachings in writing or otherwise, and Christ taught that the Old Testament was in fact relevant.

Do you really think so? Christianity was originally an offshoot of Judaism that expanded and was greatly changed in form in order to become the Roman State religion. It is a political institution. Christ's teachings were adapted to suit political needs. Never view anything as being anything other than what it is in material terms.

Yeah because the Pope is merely one insignificant Catholic no different from the rest in religious authority.

The Prime Minister of the UK believes that the war in Iraq was correct. Does it follow that because I am in the UK that I believe the war in Iraq was just? Catholics are no more bound by the word of their leader (except when he speaks ex cathedra and even then that is contentious) than I am bound by the word of the Prime Minister. I will ask again, are all Catholics homophobes?

Hey, I'm not the authority here on what's Christian. Apparently Christ's teachings are (see above). That and it's not about what I think, it's about Christ's own teachings in the New Testament.

No, it is about what Christians believe. This is the problem with idealism, it comes up with these silly conditions that don't relate to the real world. Nobody entirely follows Christ's teachings. Not least because he frequently contradicted himself.

There you go. Now we're getting somewhere! You do believe that Christ is the son of God and as a result his teachings do hold ultimate authority. Christ himself got moral lessons from the Old Testament and insisted on it's infallibility.I believe that Christ was the son of God?

Anyway if you are so sure that Christ upheld the entire old testament, how do you explain the fact that he explicitly broke it on several occasions? For example he purposefully ignored the rules regarding the Sabbath and told his followers to do likewise.

Further many scholars believe that when he said that he fulfilled the law of Moses, what he meant that it need no longer apply. As has been pointed out, many Christians believe that the old testament laws are intentionally impossible to obey in order to show humans to be fallible. By dying for mankind, Jesus supposedly redeemed everyone and thus "fulfilled" the law making it no longer necessary. That is the reason why Christians are not required to be circumcised for instance.

Further it is worth pointing out that it is unlikely that Jesus, the man, would have wished to draw his moral lessons from the old testament. In his time the laws were not followed. The Israelites had never enforced the law to any great extent and by the time of the Roman occupation had pretty much given up. Leviticus puts very strong restrictions on the use of punishment, the burden of proof is very high, and when it comes to the death penalty, it is almost impossible to apply it. Jewish courts on average handed down a deaths sentence about once a generation. By the time of Jesus in fact, the Sanheidren had in fact abolished the death penalty for all crimes under its jurisdiction as a result (making the crucifixion story a bit suspicious incidentally).

In short Jesus did not live in a society where Jewish law was much more than symbolic anyway and even on that he frequently made a point of breaking the law. How can you say that he insisted people must obey it?

The Intransigent Faction

26th April 2008, 20:36

I have said your position is one of fundamentalism, because it is. You are interpreting Christianity as inherently fundamnetalist when only a minority of Christians see it that way

Already rebutted. See above.

As for Opium, it is irrelevant that it was facing restriction. The fact is that Marx was referring to religion as a painkiller. Try reading the passage.

No, YOU try reading the passage. It is perfectly relevant that it faced restriction. Your stubborn resistance to the obvious is astounding. Oh and by the way: You're saying that religion is a painkiller? How appropriate, because painkillers (particularly opium and it's harsher cousin heroin) only deal with pain. You can't take a painkiller for a brokem arm and in doing so fix the arm. It just masks the problem by giving an illusion that one's arm is fine, hence Marx's use of the term "illusory". YOU need to read that passage.

It is hardly a vague accusation. You are hoping that I have not read the passage either and that you will consequently be able to pretend you have read it. owever as I have read it, that will not work.

Unsubstantiated.

You are rejecting historical materialism because your position on religion is fundamentally incompatible with it. You insist on looking at religion, and Christianity in particular, in an abstract manner and insisting that there is a "correct" Christian belief. You refuse to look at Christianity in context and seem to think it is something more than simply an institution comprising its believers. There is no "Christian belief system" only the collection of what Christians believe. You can disagree with that if you want, but don't pretend to be a Marxist if you do.

Yeah there is. See above. Don't pretend to be a Marxist if you subscribe to Christianity.

Calvinism is fatalistic as are some other branches, but most Christians believe in free will, and that is not compatible with fatalism, so no, that is not what Christians believe.

See above. You haven't read any of this discussion. Do so before you post.

Do you really think so? Christianity was originally an offshoot of Judaism that expanded and was greatly changed in form in order to become the Roman State religion. It is a political institution. Christ's teachings were adapted to suit political needs. Never view anything as being anything other than what it is in material terms.

Your rejection of the Bible which contains Christ's teachings rejects materialism. Obviously someone saw it fit to include the Old Testament as part of his teachings when the Christian Bible was made.

The Prime Minister of the UK believes that the war in Iraq was correct. Does it follow that because I am in the UK that I believe the war in Iraq was just? Catholics are no more bound by the word of their leader (except when he speaks ex cathedra and even then that is contentious) than I am bound by the word of the Prime Minister. I will ask again, are all Catholics homophobes?

Same mistake, different analogy. That question's been answered extensively if you bother to read.

No, it is about what Christians believe. This is the problem with idealism, it comes up with these silly conditions that don't relate to the real world. Nobody entirely follows Christ's teachings. Not least because he frequently contradicted himself.
I believe that Christ was the son of God?

If you don't you're hardly Christian.

Anyway if you are so sure that Christ upheld the entire old testament, how do you explain the fact that he explicitly broke it on several occasions? For example he purposefully ignored the rules regarding the Sabbath and told his followers to do likewise.

He was a hypocrite. That's how.

Further many scholars believe that when he said that he fulfilled the law of Moses, what he meant that it need no longer apply. As has been pointed out, many Christians believe that the old testament laws are intentionally impossible to obey in order to show humans to be fallible. By dying for mankind, Jesus supposedly redeemed everyone and thus "fulfilled" the law making it no longer necessary. That is the reason why Christians are not required to be circumcised for instance.

Addressed above.

Further it is worth pointing out that it is unlikely that Jesus, the man, would have wished to draw his moral lessons from the old testament. In his time the laws were not followed. The Israelites had never enforced the law to any great extent and by the time of the Roman occupation had pretty much given up. Leviticus puts very strong restrictions on the use of punishment, the burden of proof is very high, and when it comes to the death penalty, it is almost impossible to apply it. Jewish courts on average handed down a deaths sentence about once a generation. By the time of Jesus in fact, the Sanheidren had in fact abolished the death penalty for all crimes under its jurisdiction as a result (making the crucifixion story a bit suspicious incidentally).

In short Jesus did not live in a society where Jewish law was much more than symbolic anyway and even on that he frequently made a point of breaking the law. How can you say that he insisted people must obey it?

Irrelevant. See above.
If you aren't going to read anything I say I'm not going to waste time reiterating. Stop taking up space. You're the one making repeated idealist statements.

Dean

26th April 2008, 22:25

He was a hypocrite. That's how.

Perhaps, but not for this reason. Jesus explicitly states in Matthew, on the so-called "sermon on the mount:"

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

This is a distinct reference to the old-testament value system and code of law, as is this:

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.
The Sermon on the Mount is considered a central aspect of Christian morals precisely for this reason. It directly attacked the old system of laws, as told in the old texts, and opened the way for a more fluid understanding of the dogma presented throughout, with guiding principles as opposed to rigid legalism. It is for this reason that old testament homophobia can be discarded, and new testament bigotry can be viewed with suspicion. And it is very much worth noting that seperate books in the bible are contradictory, making all the atomized quotes suspect and subject to interpretation in the understanding of a wider range of tendancies, traditions and stories.

Finally, it is simply ignorant to think that a person being Muslim, Christian, Jewish or Taoist indicates a following of all holy texts. To be religious doesn't mean that one fits into any rigid structure or dogma except that which they themselves distinctly adhere to. This is why 8-year-old Christians aren't usually homophobic: despite what their church may believe, they are probably fairly ignorant of the issue and hence have no opinion. A person should be judged solely for what is in their heart: whatever dogma they may not know of or support, but is part of an institution they support is just coincidence.

Demogorgon

26th April 2008, 23:10

No, YOU try reading the passage. It is perfectly relevant that it faced restriction. Your stubborn resistance to the obvious is astounding.

Do you think the fact that reactionary elements wished to restrict Opium weighed upon Marx's opinion. Like I say read the passage. If you already have, read it again, this time with somebody to help you understand it.

Yeah there is. See above. Don't pretend to be a Marxist if you subscribe to Christianity.

Since when have I subscribed to Christianity? As I have already stated, my position is one of strong atheism. Which makes it somewhat ironic you accuse me of not having read the discussion.

Your rejection of the Bible which contains Christ's teachings rejects materialism. Obviously someone saw it fit to include the Old Testament as part of his teachings when the Christian Bible was made.

By rejecting the Bible, I reject materialism? I see

Like I say, the only materialist position is to judge Christianity by the Christians that actually exist.

Same mistake, different analogy. That question's been answered extensively if you bother to read.

I made no mistake. However, please don't dodge the question. Are all Catholics homophobic?

If you don't you're hardly Christian.

Like I say, I'm not

He was a hypocrite. That's how.

How do you know? He may not have even existed. If he did however, and if the Bible is an accurate account (which I doubt) then I still see no reason to call him a hypocrite. He was not entirely consistent. But he managed better than most people

Irrelevant. See above.
If you aren't going to read anything I say I'm not going to waste time reiterating. Stop taking up space. You're the one making repeated idealist statements.
Do you know what idealism is? If not, then don't try and accuse me of it. If so, please explain what I have said that is idealist.

The Intransigent Faction

26th April 2008, 23:30

What's with the mob?

Perhaps, but not for this reason. Jesus explicitly states in Matthew, on the so-called "sermon on the mount:"

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

This is a distinct reference to the old-testament value system and code of law, as is this:

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.

Thus proving that he was a hypocrite. He said not to disregard the OT at all and yet contradicted the OT. That's just poor logic by someone trying to avoid the Christian laws of the OT as an attempt to rehabilitate an out-of-date belief system.

The Sermon on the Mount is considered a central aspect of Christian morals precisely for this reason. It directly attacked the old system of laws, as told in the old texts, and opened the way for a more fluid understanding of the dogma presented throughout, with guiding principles as opposed to rigid legalism. It is for this reason that old testament homophobia can be discarded, and new testament bigotry can be viewed with suspicion. And it is very much worth noting that seperate books in the bible are contradictory, making all the atomized quotes suspect and subject to interpretation in the understanding of a wider range of tendancies, traditions and stories.

See above. You cannot logically attack the "old system" and still follow Christian doctrine. There's nothing to be interpreted about straightforward literal statements, so you rather mean to take it out of context to avoid the abhorrent ideals.

Finally, it is simply ignorant to think that a person being Muslim, Christian, Jewish or Taoist indicates a following of all holy texts. To be religious doesn't mean that one fits into any rigid structure or dogma except that which they themselves distinctly adhere to. This is why 8-year-old Christians aren't usually homophobic: despite what their church may believe, they are probably fairly ignorant of the issue and hence have no opinion. A person should be judged solely for what is in their heart: whatever dogma they may not know of or support, but is part of an institution they support is just coincidence.

Wrong. This certainly does not answer my statement above. Again, self-proclaimed Marxists claiming that he advocated bourgeois control was much more appropriate. You cannot on the other hand disagree with the fundamental aspects of a religious figure's beliefs and still be considered a subscriber to that religion. You might as well be denying that 2+2 = 4, it's been made so clear.

The Intransigent Faction

26th April 2008, 23:53

Do you think the fact that reactionary elements wished to restrict Opium weighed upon Marx's opinion. Like I say read the passage. If you already have, read it again, this time with somebody to help you understand it.

I've already read and quoted that. Admit that you took it out of context and give it up already.

Since when have I subscribed to Christianity? As I have already stated, my position is one of strong atheism. Which makes it somewhat ironic you accuse me of not having read the discussion.

Sorry about that, there are Christians in this thread and it's easy to get mixed up when mobbed. Still, you're pulling the same revisionist crap that "Christians' use to try to rehabilitate an out-of-date ideology.

Like I say, the only materialist position is to judge Christianity by the Christians that actually exist.

By the Bible, you mean.

I made no mistake. However, please don't dodge the question. Are all Catholics homophobic?

I'm not going to repeat myself! I could not be dodging the question as I've already answered the question. Read.

Like I say, I'm not.

Then it's strange how defensive you are of Christianity. What makes you not Christian? The lack of belief in God? Then you should be familiar with the Christian belief in an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. How can one simultaneously believe in an omnibenevolent God while recognizing the evil acts that have been committed in his name? That and if no interpretation is incorrect, are the evil interpretations that promote murder, slavery and the like correct as well?

How do you know? He may not have even existed. If he did however, and if the Bible is an accurate account (which I doubt) then I still see no reason to call him a hypocrite. He was not entirely consistent. But he managed better than most people.

See above.

Do you know what idealism is? If not, then don't try and accuse me of it. If so, please explain what I have said that is idealist.

Idealism is the doctrine that ideas, or thought, make up either the whole or an indispensable aspect of any full reality. By claiming that what is Christian is determined by consensus, you're being idealistic.

The Advent of Anarchy

27th April 2008, 00:14

Leviticus was written by nomadic Jews who competed for land with pagan fertility cultists that practiced incest, homosexuality, beastiality, and all sorts of crazy shit. They got down. Levitical law was written as a way of differentiating themselves from these fertility cults.

Regardless of that, Levitical law is not followed by Christians. Under Christianity, Levitical law became irrelevant with the birth of Jesus. They don't follow it or pay it any mind.

Chimx, if it's considered irrelevant in Christianity, why is it in the Bible, and by extention, the entire Old Testament a part of the Bible?

Demogorgon

27th April 2008, 01:33

I've already read and quoted that. Admit that you took it out of context and give it up already.
If you really have read it, then I suggest you take up my suggestion of reading it again with assistance from academics well versed in Marxism. Marx is not always the easiest writer to understand. You have to really work with him.

Trust me,h owever, when I say he obviously did not care a great deal about religion.

Sorry about that, there are Christians in this thread and it's easy to get mixed up when mobbed. Still, you're pulling the same revisionist crap that "Christians' use to try to rehabilitate an out-of-date ideology.

Oh dear the term revisionism. On second thought, I shouldn't make assumptions there before asking, what school(s) of Marxism are you closest to?

By the Bible, you mean.

No the Bible is a good representation of Christians 1600 years ago. I prefer to judge modern Christians by the Christians alive today.

I'm not going to repeat myself! I could not be dodging thequestion as I've already answered the question. Read.

Okay, I wanted to trap you into explicitly stating your position. You won't bite, but I can rely on you still holding your position that Catholics are homophobic. That is nonsence as I am about to explain.

Then it's strange how defensive you are of Christianity. What makes you not Christian? The lack of belief in God? Then you should be familiar with the Christian belief in an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. How can one simultaneously believe in an omnibenevolent God while recognizing the evil acts that have been committed in his name? That and if no interpretation is incorrect, are the evil interpretations that promote murder, slavery and the like correct as well?

This is going to require quite an extensive answer. First of all I am obviously not a Christian because I am very confident that there is no God. If you wish to discuss this further, then I will be quite delighted. We will find a lot of common ground there, I am sure. However it is not directly relevant here, so I will discuss it no further in this thread. Either PM me or start another thread if you want to discuss that particular issue.

As for why I am "so defensive of Christians", it is largely to do with me being against all bigotry. All people should be liberated from capitalism, christians included. To give you a fuller position, let me give you a piece of my background. I was raised Catholic. Given a Catholic education (in Scotland, the state provides a religious education if your parents want it). However by the age of thirteen or fourteen, I realised religion was incorrect. More important I realised that I was gay. I kept that bottled up for a while. But when I came out, I got a surprise. No-one rejected me. Everyone was accepting. The priests I knew simply said that God would not care about that and it was no barrier to rejoining the Church. I could not rejoin because of my atheism, however I have not forgotten how accepting everyone was in spite of Catholicism's alleged bigotry. I will not throw that back in anyone's face. If catholicism can be accepting, so can Communism.

BTW, I was originally introduced to Communism by Catholics, and more recently have become very greatful to Nuns for bringing sanwiches out to our stalls.

As for Christian belief, most Christians, Catholics very much included, believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient, but do not believe he controls people. They believe that people are entirely free to act, even against God's will. To explain that position, you will have to ask a Christian. I disagree with it so strongly that I will not be able to give a fair description of it, nonetheless that is their view.

Idealism is the doctrine that ideas, or thought, make up either the whole or an indispensable aspect of any full reality. By claiming that what is Christian is determined by consensus, you're being idealistic.
Non sequiter. I have said that Christianity is determined by Christians, the materialist position. You have said it is determined by some non-mind-dependent criteria. An idealist position.

The Intransigent Faction

27th April 2008, 02:14

If you really have read it, then I suggest you take up my suggestion of reading it again with assistance from academics well versed in Marxism. Marx is not always the easiest writer to understand. You have to really work with him.

As far as Marx & Religion, you don't know what you're talking about and it's you who needs to read it properly. Sorry to be harsh and perhaps a bit rude there but I've talked with other Communists about this enough and read it enough to understand what Marx means. In any case, you hardly responded to me. All you just did was restate the rebutted point.

Trust me, however, when I say he obviously did not care a great deal about religion.

Depends on what you mean. Yeah he didn't care for religion but he certainly cared that it was used against the proletariat.

Oh dear the term revisionism. On second thought, I shouldn't make assumptions there before asking, what school(s) of Marxism are you closest to?

After reading your responses I'd think you seem sincere enough to not be deliberately misinterpreting and lying about Marxist and Biblical scripture. So I'll answer. I wouldn't say that at this point I adhere to any specific school of Marxism though. There are elements of each that seem agreeable. I also don't want to digress this into a debate about which is the proper school of Marxism. So if you must know I'd say Marxist-Leninist with Maoist sympathies--although as a newcomer I'm keeping myself open to different views. That does not mean I don't understand something as clear as the aforementioned statement by Marx about religion, however.

No the Bible is a good representation of Christians 1600 years ago. I prefer to judge modern Christians by the Christians alive today.

Idealist.

Okay, I wanted to trap you into explicitly stating your position. You won't bite, but I can rely on you still holding your position that Catholics are homophobic. That is nonsence as I am about to explain.

No, it is you who is being nonsensical (in this case, so that is not meant as an offense, just so we're clear on this).
That and we've established that Christ is/was the central authority in Christianity. Has it not occurred to you that Christ was in fact Jewish and thus would have advocated his positions based to a large degree on Jewish law?

This is going to require quite an extensive answer. First of all I am obviously not a Christian because I am very confident that there is no God. If you wish to discuss this further, then I will be quite delighted. We will find a lot of common ground there, I am sure.

However it is not directly relevant here, so I will discuss it no further in this thread. Either PM me or start another thread if you want to discuss that particular issue.

Fair enough, but I'm doubtful that you understand what you're against. Again, not meant to be offensive, but it just doesn't present a materialist understanding of Christianity to make such claims about how Christian doctrine is determined.
EDIT: Yet I am glad that you made this suggestion. As comrades it would seem more productive to spend all this time and energy focusing on our common ground.

As for why I am "so defensive of Christians", it is largely to do with me being against all bigotry. All people should be liberated from capitalism, christians included. To give you a fuller position, let me give you a piece of my background. I was raised Catholic. Given a Catholic education (in Scotland, the state provides a religious education if your parents want it). However by the age of thirteen or fourteen, I realised religion was incorrect. More important I realised that I was gay. I kept that bottled up for a while. But when I came out, I got a surprise. No-one rejected me. Everyone was accepting. The priests I knew simply said that God would not care about that and it was no barrier to rejoining the Church. I could not rejoin because of my atheism, however I have not forgotten how accepting everyone was in spite of Catholicism's alleged bigotry. I will not throw that back in anyone's face. If catholicism can be accepting, so can Communism.

If you claim to be against all bigotry then stop making bigoted claims that I somehow don't understand Marx's view on religion.
I sympathize with that tendancy but I would caution you against basing such views on personal experience. I haven't experienced religious bigotry first-hand but it would be foolish to say that it's not out there.
You mistake me. My position is not that anyone who claims to be Christian is a bigot. It's that many self-proclaimed Christians are misguided as they fail to understand the sinister nature behind what they follow. Religion has been used to manipulate. That cannot be denied. For such manipulation to last it logically follows through that a doctrine must be rigid depending upon the words of major figures.

BTW, I was originally introduced to Communism by Catholics, and more recently have become very greatful to Nuns for bringing sanwiches out to our stalls.

Yes, again I'm not denying that some self-proclaimed Christians have a good heart. As I've said I was raised by Liberal Christians (the church I went to supported gay marriage and such) so it would indeed be foolish of anyone to claim otherwise. So when I say Christians are bigots I'm not intended that as a condemnation of those who claim to be Christian, but of those figures such as the Pope who exploit the significance of their position to spread such bigotry as homophobia.

As for Christian belief, most Christians, Catholics very much included, believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient, but do not believe he controls people. They believe that people are entirely free to act, even against God's will. To explain that position, you will have to ask a Christian. I disagree with it so strongly that I will not be able to give a fair description of it, nonetheless that is their view.

I'm aware of that position and would ask that you be careful of mentioning such things in such a way that it leaves an impression of contempt. Still, I am glad to hear that you have the sense to disagree with that because I do as well. That position is logically absurd and an unacceptable conclusion of anyone who claims to believe that God has such traits. The free will argument is just BS. One reason being that an all-knowing God logically would have known what our future thoughts and actions would be prior to and during our alleged creation.

Non sequiter. I have said that Christianity is determined by Christians, the materialist position. You have said it is determined by some non-mind-dependent criteria. An idealist position.

That's quite an idealistic statement in itself. You've just restated your original point and not addressed in any way the clear rebuttal. Idealism is the doctrine that ideas, or thought, make up either the whole or an indispensable aspect of any full reality. By claiming that what is Christian is determined by consensus, you're being idealistic.

EDIT: Oh and by the way, if religion or at least it's acceptance is so important to Marxism, why is it addressed as a topic in a sub-forum of Opposing Ideologies (bolded for emphasis)? If it were that important, rest assured, I would gladly help you and others in pushing for it to be addressed in it's own General forum outside of "Opposing Ideologies".

Demogorgon

27th April 2008, 02:58

As far as Marx & Religion, you don't know what you're talking about and it's you who needs to read it properly. Sorry to be harsh and perhaps a bit rude there but I've talked with other Communists about this enough and read it enough to understand what Marx means. In any case, you hardly responded to me. All you just did was restate the rebutted point.

While I hate to come across here as perhaps being a little arrogant, you do not get into advanced stages of University philosophy courses (at least on this side of the Atlantic) if you cannot even understand as important figure as Marx. I understand the point perfectly, as I understand all his other points. If you honestly want read Marx as an anti-theist, I am distressed to say you will be disappointed. As I say, while Marx was certainly an atheist, his most fundamental position was that of apatheism, not anti-theism.

After reading your responses I'd think you seem sincere enough to not be deliberately misinterpreting and lying about Marxist and Biblical scripture. So I'll answer. I wouldn't say that at this point I adhere to any specific school of Marxism though. There are elements of each that seem agreeable. I also don't want to digress this into a debate about which is the proper school of Marxism. So if you must know I'd say Marxist-Leninist with Maoist sympathies--although as a newcomer I'm keeping myself open to different views. That does not mean I don't understand something as clear as the aforementioned statement by Marx about religion, however.

Fair enough, I will never attack another comrade simply for preferring another tendency to myself.

Fair enough, but I'm doubtful that you understand what you're against. Again, not meant to be offensive, but it just doesn't present a materialist understanding of Christianity to make such claims about how Christian doctrine is determined.
EDIT: Yet I am glad that you made this suggestion. As comrades it would seem more productive to spend all this time and energy focusing on our common ground.

Yes, as Comrades we would certainly be better to focus on common ground, however I must point out that I do understand religion very well indeed

If you claim to be against all bigotry then stop making bigoted claims that I somehow don't understand Marx's view on religion.There is nothing bigoted about that. Saying that you have made a factual mistake is not bigotry. I certainly would not think any less of you for doing so.

I sympathize with that tendancy but I would caution you against basing such views on personal experience. I haven't experienced religious bigotry first-hand but it would be foolish to say that it's not out there.Well against your caution I must state another piece of personal experience. Here in Scotland there is no bigotry against atheists, but there is a great deal of bigotry between Catholics and Protestants. All bigotry, whether it is between religions or against religions divides the working class.

You mistake me. My position is not that anyone who claims to be Christian is a bigot. It's that many self-proclaimed Christians are misguided as they fail to understand the sinister nature behind what they follow. Religion has been used to manipulate. That cannot be denied. For such manipulation to last it logically follows through that a doctrine must be rigid depending upon the words of major figures.

Actually, it requires the opposite. For religion to be able to manipulate, the core of the religion must be able to change according to political convenience.

Yes, again I'm not denying that some self-proclaimed Christians have a good heart. As I've said I was raised by Liberal Christians (the church I went to supported gay marriage and such) so it would indeed be foolish of anyone to claim otherwise. So when I say Christians are bigots I'm not intended that as a condemnation of those who claim to be Christian, but of those figures such as the Pope who exploit the significance of their position to spread such bigotry as homophobia.

So what is the point of claiming such a thing? If it does not apply to Christians as a rule, it is a pointless statement

I'm aware of that position and would ask that you be careful of mentioning such things in such a way that it leaves an impression of contempt. Still, I am glad to hear that you have the sense to disagree with that because I do as well. That position is logically absurd and an unacceptable conclusion of anyone who claims to believe that God has such traits. The free will argument is just BS. One reason being that an all-knowing God logically would have known what our future thoughts and actions would be prior to and during our alleged creation.

Disagreeing with something is not to show contempt. Nonetheless the free will argument does not lead to what you claim. There are various concepts of time that can get around that

That's quite an idealistic statement in itself. You've just restated your original point and not addressed in any way the clear rebuttal. Idealism is the doctrine that ideas, or thought, make up either the whole or an indispensable aspect of any full reality. By claiming that what is Christian is determined by consensus, you're being idealistic.You must understand what idealism is. Holding that religious institutions are defined by their believers is materialism, holding that they are determined by their alleged ideas is idealism

EDIT: Oh and by the way, if religion or at least it's acceptance is so important to Marxism, why is it addressed as a topic in a sub-forum of Opposing Ideologies (bolded for emphasis)? If it were that important, rest assured, I would gladly help you and others in pushing for it to be addressed in it's own General forum outside of "Opposing Ideologies".

Because there are too many religious bigots in the CC

The Intransigent Faction

27th April 2008, 03:35

While I hate to come across here as perhaps being a little arrogant, you do not get into advanced stages of University philosophy courses (at least on this side of the Atlantic) if you cannot even understand as important figure as Marx. I understand the point perfectly, as I understand all his other points. If you honestly want read Marx as an anti-theist, I am distressed to say you will be disappointed. As I say, while Marx was certainly an atheist, his most fundamental position was that of apatheism, not anti-theism.

Clearly the many anti-Theists here aren't disappointed. Marx was certainly opposed strongly to religion. While I must say "Congratulations comrade." regarding your accomplishments at University, I would have to point out that this is an Appeal to Authority.

Fair enough, I will never attack another comrade simply for preferring another tendency to myself.

Nor will I. Although we should both keep in mind the difference between attacking a view and a person.

Yes, as Comrades we would certainly be better to focus on common ground, however I must point out that I do understand religion very well indeed.

You understand theologians who claim to be interpreting Christ's words and explaining what determines Christian theology. What you do not understand is Christianity as it is viewed by Marx and the relevance of the Old Testament to Christianity.

There is nothing bigoted about that. Saying that you have made a factual mistake is not bigotry. I certainly would not think any less of you for doing so.

Except that the mistake is/was yours regarding the meaning behind Marx's statement.

Well against your caution I must state another piece of personal experience. Here in Scotland there is no bigotry against atheists, but there is a great deal of bigotry between Catholics and Protestants. All bigotry, whether it is between religions or against religions divides the working class.
Actually, it requires the opposite. For religion to be able to manipulate, the core of the religion must be able to change according to political convenience.

Perhaps I was not clear. In accordance with dialectical materialism it certainly holds that for a manipulator to exist, so must the manipulated. However, what I meant was that this change in religious views not determined by consensus but by a certain authority. The doctrine is rigid not in the sense that it cannot be misused to manipulate the masses at will into holding whatever view the manipulator desires, but that it is dependent upon this manipulator. Outside of this religion, one does not rely on Christianity for moral purposes. Christian morality is rigid in the sense that it relies on Christianity.

So what is the point of claiming such a thing? If it does not apply to Christians as a rule, it is a pointless statement.

But you've omitted the rest of what I've said. It does apply to Christians. Hence why I used the distinguishing term "self-proclaimed Christians".

Disagreeing with something is not to show contempt. Nonetheless the free will argument does not lead to what you claim. There are various concepts of time that can get around that.

It is contemptuous to assume the other person's ignorance.
That is logically absurd. There is NO way of getting around that. Whatever happened to your supposed disagreement with the free will argument?

You must understand what idealism is. Holding that religious institutions are defined by their believers is materialism, holding that they are determined by their alleged ideas is idealism.

That's quite an idealistic statement in itself. You've just restated your original point and not addressed in any way the clear rebuttal. Idealism is the doctrine that ideas, or thought, make up either the whole or an indispensable aspect of any full reality. By claiming that what is Christian is determined by consensus, you're being idealistic.

Because there are too many religious bigots in the CC

The CC? Sorry, I'm not following.

eyedrop

27th April 2008, 04:56

Example please!:D

I agree that the claim that human interaction isn't a part of tha causes of belief is a humorous one. But I feel quite boring today so unfortunately you have too just make up an example yourself.

Internet arguing is mostly fruitless though.

Demogorgon

27th April 2008, 15:39

Clearly the many anti-Theists here aren't disappointed. Marx was certainly opposed strongly to religion. While I must say "Congratulations comrade." regarding your accomplishments at University, I would have to point out that this is an Appeal to Authority.

It is not a fallacy to appeal to authority, when the authority is relevant. However I don't really need to do that anyway. The fact that I am right about what Marx said is proven simply by the text in Question and also by some other things that he wrote. I can only conclude that the majority of anti-theists here have either not read the text or else simply disagree with it

You understand theologians who claim to be interpreting Christ's words and explaining what determines Christian theology. What you do not understand is Christianity as it is viewed by Marx and the relevance of the Old Testament to Christianity.

No, I understand both very well. Like I keep saying, you do not understand that religion is not a collection of set ideas but rather just institutions and believers.

Perhaps I was not clear. In accordance with dialectical materialism it certainly holds that for a manipulator to exist, so must the manipulated. However, what I meant was that this change in religious views not determined by consensus but by a certain authority. The doctrine is rigid not in the sense that it cannot be misused to manipulate the masses at will into holding whatever view the manipulator desires, but that it is dependent upon this manipulator. Outside of this religion, one does not rely on Christianity for moral purposes. Christian morality is rigid in the sense that it relies on Christianity.

I don't want to turn this into a discussion of Dialectics, we have had quite enough of them here. I would suggest you read some of Rosa's posts to see why you may be in error here.

The rest of your point does not make sense. How would any of that apply to any Christian that is neither a manipulator nor manipulated? And at any rate Christianity is certainly not rigid, it has changed completely many, many times.

That is logically absurd. There is NO way of getting around that. Whatever happened to your supposed disagreement with the free will argument?

Sure you can get around it, you can claim that God and humans exist in certain realities that intersect in such a way that God can view all tim periods simultaneously, but for people the future is in no way set. I disagree with the notion, but that is what many believe.

That's quite an idealistic statement in itself. You've just restated your original point and not addressed in any way the clear rebuttal. Idealism is the doctrine that ideas, or thought, make up either the whole or an indispensable aspect of any full reality. By claiming that what is Christian is determined by consensus, you're being idealistic.

Sigh, I will try to explain this further. Your position is idealist because it holds that there is a body of belief that is the "correct" Christian belief as opposed to incorrect versions of Christianity. For this to be true, there would have to be something akin to a Platonic Form of Christianity, a position that is of course idealist.

My position however is that religion is not based on ideas at all and that it is simply a material institution. Religious ideas do not come into it, only the actual existing aspects of religion. From that it simply follows that religious belief is simply what religious people happen to believe.

The CC? Sorry, I'm not following.
The Commie Club, its position on Religion is not always sensiblele.

Dean

27th April 2008, 17:51

Thus proving that he was a hypocrite. He said not to disregard the OT at all and yet contradicted the OT. That's just poor logic by someone trying to avoid the Christian laws of the OT as an attempt to rehabilitate an out-of-date belief system.
So, in the entirety of his travels he changed his beliefs - according to a very strict, literalist translation of a man-made text.

See above. You cannot logically attack the "old system" and still follow Christian doctrine. There's nothing to be interpreted about straightforward literal statements, so you rather mean to take it out of context to avoid the abhorrent ideals.
When you are making blanket statements about a culture or tradition there is. I might as well talk of all Marxists as if they all support the DotP, but that's simply not true. Besides that, the bible is known to contradict itself - I know a very well respected professor of the Testaments who has written books on them. I remember he remarked once how most of the disciples portrayed Jesus as a non-bigot, yet one, because his beliefs were bigoted, portrayed Jesus as profoundly different than the other disciples did. This isn't some rogue antagonist, this is coming straight from Christians: just because the bible says it, doesn't make it so. And yes, you are VERY ignorant of Christian tradition and mythology to think that the New Testament doesn't contest the Old. That is one of the fundamentals of Christianity. Talk to any preacher; and again, since it is a tradition rather than a distinct rulebook, you should trust a preacher more than the bible; after all, it is ultimately the preacher that Christians listen to.

The only people I see honestly promoting a very strict interpretation of the bible are anti-christians who usually know little of the topic in the first place.

Wrong. This certainly does not answer my statement above. Again, self-proclaimed Marxists claiming that he advocated bourgeois control was much more appropriate. You cannot on the other hand disagree with the fundamental aspects of a religious figure's beliefs and still be considered a subscriber to that religion. You might as well be denying that 2+2 = 4, it's been made so clear.
It was not fundamental to Jesus's teachings to oppose homosexuality. That is viewed as a non-issue by self respecting theologians, not because Jesus appears to support it, but because the references to homosexuality are all in the context of describing hedonism. Secondly, as I mentioned above, Christianity is a tradition first and foremost. Even the Bible was put together once the tradition was established; it is not a predecessor. You simply cannot talk of something as if it is fundamentally based in a text which came after its creation. In the same vein, not all communists believe what is written in Capital, though most agree with some of it at least. And as much as you like to claim otherwise, religion is simply not an inherently rigid, rule-book tradition. It is a fact that it is a fluid tradition; people call themselves Christian based on tradition, rather than a distinct belief system. That would be an ideology.

The Intransigent Faction

27th April 2008, 19:27

*Sigh*. After a lot of typing I had taken too long and apparently had been signed out, so I've had to start over. So I might seem quite frustrated.

It is not a fallacy to appeal to authority, when the authority is relevant. However I don't really need to do that anyway. The fact that I am right about what Marx said is proven simply by the text in Question and also by some other things that he wrote. I can only conclude that the majority of anti-theists here have either not read the text or else simply disagree with it.

It is a fallacy to appeal to authority even if the authority seems relevant because it has no bearing on whether the point made itself is accurate. You're being bigoted by attacking the collective integrity of every anti-Theist on this site with regard to understanding of Marx's words.

No, I understand both very well. Like I keep saying, you do not understand that religion is not a collection of set ideas but rather just institutions and believers.

Like I keep saying, you do not understand that religion is not just institutions and believers, but rather a collection of set ideas. There are certainly beliefs which are central to Christianity and thus which cannot be rejected without rejecting Christianity itself.

I don't want to turn this into a discussion of Dialectics, we have had quite enough of them here. I would suggest you read some of Rosa's posts to see why you may be in error here.

I'm not the one in error but I agree that it's a digression.

The rest of your point does not make sense. How would any of that apply to any Christian that is neither a manipulator nor manipulated? And at any rate Christianity is certainly not rigid, it has changed completely many, many times.

Yes but it's changed according to a central authority and is not necessary for moral beliefs to begin with. You're not reading what I'm saying. Again, it's rigid in the sense that it presupposes it's necessity for moral beliefs. If Christianity is not based on set moral beliefs but can be changed to the point where it contradicts itself, it is not necessary.

Sure you can get around it, you can claim that God and humans exist in certain realities that intersect in such a way that God can view all time periods simultaneously, but for people the future is in no way set. I disagree with the notion, but that is what many believe.

That's still ridiculous. Of course it's evident that an all-powerful god could interact with us at various points in time simultaneously, but this does not discount the fact that an all-knowing god would have known everything we'd think, say and do and everything that would happen before, as, and after he created us. Thus the future was indeed set upon our alleged creation by a god that knew beforehand and during creation what our every action would be.

Sigh, I will try to explain this further. Your position is idealist because it holds that there is a body of belief that is the "correct" Christian belief as opposed to incorrect versions of Christianity. For this to be true, there would have to be something akin to a Platonic Form of Christianity, a position that is of course idealist.

My position however is that religion is not based on ideas at all and that it is simply a material institution. Religious ideas do not come into it, only the actual existing aspects of religion. From that it simply follows that religious belief is simply what religious people happen to believe.

No. Your position is idealist because it holds that what is Christian is determined by consensus. Again if the majority of Christians decided that they adhered to a principle which contradicted a central aspect of Christianity, that would not make it Christian. If suddenly Christians got together and they all decided that there was no God, they would no longer be Christian even though the majority of them who happened to be Christian agreed on this.

The Commie Club, its position on Religion is not always sensiblele.

Neither are you apparently.

The Intransigent Faction

27th April 2008, 19:44

So, in the entirety of his travels he changed his beliefs - according to a very strict, literalist translation of a man-made text.

He changed his beliefs according to a strict interpretation? That just doesn't make any sense. All it does is reinforce the point: He contradicted himself. He was a hypocrite.

When you are making blanket statements about a culture or tradition there is.

Except that I'm not making blanket statements. Have you read anything I said above? It's no more of a blanket statement than it is to say that Communists are opposed to the bourgeoisie's hoarding of wealth.

Besides that, the bible is known to contradict itself -

So why take one interpretation above the other?

This is coming straight from Christians: just because the bible says it, doesn't make it so. And yes, you are VERY ignorant of Christian tradition and mythology to think that the New Testament doesn't contest the Old. That is one of the fundamentals of Christianity. Talk to any preacher; and again, since it is a tradition rather than a distinct rulebook, you should trust a preacher more than the bible; after all, it is ultimately the preacher that Christians listen to.

Bullshit. How many times must I repeat this? 50? 100? 1000?
The New Testament insists that the Old Testament still applies.

The only people I see honestly promoting a very strict interpretation of the bible are anti-christians who usually know little of the topic in the first place.

Without a correct interpretation, what makes one interpretation more Christian than another?

It was not fundamental to Jesus's teachings to oppose homosexuality. That is viewed as a non-issue by self respecting theologians, not because Jesus appears to support it, but because the references to homosexuality are all in the context of describing hedonism.

He insisted that the Old Testament still applied and was in fact Jewish himself. So yes, he would have opposed homosexuality (or again, been a hypocrite).

Secondly, as I mentioned above, Christianity is a tradition first and foremost. Even the Bible was put together once the tradition was established; it is not a predecessor. You simply cannot talk of something as if it is fundamentally based in a text which came after its creation. In the same vein, not all communists believe what is written in Capital, though most agree with some of it at least. And as much as you like to claim otherwise, religion is simply not an inherently rigid, rule-book tradition. It is a fact that it is a fluid tradition; people call themselves Christian based on tradition, rather than a distinct belief system. That would be an ideology.

Christianity is a religion first and foremost. Again, see above. It must be a rigid tradition to the extent that it holds fundamental principles which cannot be rejected without rejecting Christianity. If it's so fluid and doesn't have any set rules, what makes it necessary at all?

Demogorgon

28th April 2008, 11:24

It is a fallacy to appeal to authority even if the authority seems relevant because it has no bearing on whether the point made itself is accurate. You're being bigoted by attacking the collective integrity of every anti-Theist on this site with regard to understanding of Marx's words.

No, an appeal to relevant authority is perfectly apt. It is appeal to irrelevant authority that is wrong. For instance a Doctor's authority is entirely relevant to a discussion of medicine but irrelevant to a discussion of physics.

And it is rich to say that it is bigotry to accuse the anti-theists here of being wrong when you say the same thing of religious people. The fact is the anti-theists here do either not understand Marx or else disagree with him. The majority of this site are anarchists anyway, so I wouldn't expect them to agree with Marx all the time anyway

Like I keep saying, you do not understand that religion is not just institutions and believers, but rather a collection of set ideas. There are certainly beliefs which are central to Christianity and thus which cannot be rejected without rejecting Christianity itself.

And you tell me that you are not an idealist.

I'm not the one in error but I agree that it's a digression.

Well like I say read Rosa's stuff

Yes but it's changed according to a central authority and is not necessary for moral beliefs to begin with. You're not reading what I'm saying. Again, it's rigid in the sense that it presupposes it's necessity for moral beliefs. If Christianity is not based on set moral beliefs but can be changed to the point where it contradicts itself, it is not necessary.

How is it not necessary if that is the case? The important part of the Church if it is to manipulate is that it appear as an authority, not that it is consistent. The simple proof is in the evidence, when has the Church ever been consistent?

That's still ridiculous. Of course it's evident that an all-powerful god could interact with us at various points in time simultaneously, but this does not discount the fact that an all-knowing god would have known everything we'd think, say and do and everything that would happen before, as, and after he created us. Thus the future was indeed set upon our alleged creation by a god that knew beforehand and during creation what our every action would be.

But said God would not know "before" because there is no before or after in its reality. It requires a relativistic position to reality. I am not saying you should agree with it, but that is the position, hence most Christians are not fatalists.

No. Your position is idealist because it holds that what is Christian is determined by consensus. Again if the majority of Christians decided that they adhered to a principle which contradicted a central aspect of Christianity, that would not make it Christian. If suddenly Christians got together and they all decided that there was no God, they would no longer be Christian even though the majority of them who happened to be Christian agreed on this.

Of course it would become Christian. In the eleventh century, Christianity began to hold to the doctrine of Transubstantiation. That is a big change that had no direct basis in the Bible. An entirely new concept. Are you saying it did not become part of Christianity?

And then of course Martin Luther convinced a large number of Christians that Transubstantiation was in fact wrong. That was a large aspect of the reformation. So of course that means that Catholics believe in it and Protestants don't.

Are you saying differing perspectives on it are not part of the religion?

The Intransigent Faction

28th April 2008, 22:46

No, an appeal to relevant authority is perfectly apt. It is appeal to irrelevant authority that is wrong. For instance a Doctor's authority is entirely relevant to a discussion of medicine but irrelevant to a discussion of physics.

An appeal to relevant authority MAY be apt. HOWEVER, that appeal alone is not enough to prove or disprove a claim and is thus irrelevant. The evidence for or against a claim is relevant, not the qualifications of the person making the claim. So let's not turn this into an ad-hominem discussion here. I will say that I respect your credentials but that credentials alone aren't enough to validate any claim and leave it at that.

And it is rich to say that it is bigotry to accuse the anti-theists here of being wrong when you say the same thing of religious people. The fact is the anti-theists here do either not understand Marx or else disagree with him. The majority of this site are anarchists anyway, so I wouldn't expect them to agree with Marx all the time anyway.

Trying to use the very point I was making against me? I was repeatedly accused of being a bigot for claiming that religious people are wrong, so that claim would be no more valid than mine.

And you tell me that you are not an idealist.

Yeah because I'm not. Like I keep saying, you do not understand that religion is not just institutions and believers, but rather a collection of set ideas. There are certainly beliefs which are central to Christianity and thus which cannot be rejected without rejecting Christianity itself. Now stop with the blank statements. If you're going to respond to me then try providing a relevant response to the points I make instead of making blank statements about me. Calling someone an idealist, like simply saying "You're wrong" is not enough. It's just a convenient way to avoid bringing up supporting evidence.

Well like I say read Rosa's stuff.

Well like I say stop with the irrelevant statements. If you can prove that I'm wrong, do so. But that as a start hardly qualifies as proof.

How is it not necessary if that is the case? The important part of the Church if it is to manipulate is that it appear as an authority, not that it is consistent. The simple proof is in the evidence, when has the Church ever been consistent?

It is irrelevant BECAUSE it is inconsistent! This is connected to another point so I will explain this below.

But said God would not know "before" because there is no before or after in its reality. It requires a relativistic position to reality. I am not saying you should agree with it, but that is the position, hence most Christians are not fatalists.

Yes there is. A God may exist in multiple time frames but there would still be a sequence of events. That and in at least one of those time frames a truly omniscient God would had to have created us with knowledge of our future fates and actions. Relative reality..now THAT's idealism.

Of course it would become Christian. In the eleventh century, Christianity began to hold to the doctrine of Transubstantiation. That is a big change that had no direct basis in the Bible. An entirely new concept. Are you saying it did not become part of Christianity?

And then of course Martin Luther convinced a large number of Christians that Transubstantiation was in fact wrong. That was a large aspect of the reformation. So of course that means that Catholics believe in it and Protestants don't.

Are you saying differing perspectives on it are not part of the religion?

Transubstiantion, or any proposition for that matter, cannot be both right and wrong.
That's akin to a 100% subjective reality.
So no, I'm not saying that different perspectives aren't allegedly a part of religion but what I am saying is that there are three possibilities:

1.) Sola scriptura is valid and thus all true Christian must follow exactly by the books.
2.) There is absolutely no central doctrine as part of the belief system, in which case it is akin to moral relativism (the church could thus effectively become an instrument of hate as it is bound by absolutely no foundation whatsoever).
3.) Scripture and doctrine in general is all relative to interpretation, in which case you pick and choose the parts you agree with, interpret as you see fit, and are thus essentially left with exactly the same views you had when you started, which makes Christianity unnecessary and potentially harmful as it could easily be interpreted to justify hatred.

Demogorgon

28th April 2008, 23:37

Trying to use the very point I was making against me? I was repeatedly accused of being a bigot for claiming that religious people are wrong, so that claim would be no more valid than mine.

You were not merely called a bigot for saying they were incorrect. I also say they are incorrect. You are a bigot because as an anti-theist you want to take action against religious people.

Yeah because I'm not. Like I keep saying, you do not understand that religion is not just institutions and believers, but rather a collection of set ideas. There are certainly beliefs which are central to Christianity and thus which cannot be rejected without rejecting Christianity itself. Now stop with the blank statements. If you're going to respond to me then try providing a relevant response to the points I make instead of making blank statements about me. Calling someone an idealist, like simply saying "You're wrong" is not enough. It's just a convenient way to avoid bringing up supporting evidence.

If you believe that anything, religion included, can be (or include) a "collection of ideas", you are ipso facto an idealist. That would not mean that you are wrong, but it would mean that you are not a Marxist, something that you claim you, in fact, are. So which is it? I cannot argue effectively until I know which side you wish to come down on. Are you a Marxist or are you an idealist?

Well like I say stop with the irrelevant statements. If you can prove that I'm wrong, do so. But that as a start hardly qualifies as proof.

Like I say, I am not turning this into a discussion of Dialectics. If you want proof that they are wrong, go to Rosa's site. She has all the proof you could possibly want (and rather a lot still).

Yes there is. A God may exist in multiple time frames but there would still be a sequence of events. That and in at least one of those time frames a truly omniscient God would had to have created us with knowledge of our future fates and actions. Relative reality..now THAT's idealism.

Yes, relative reality would usually fall under the category of Idealism (though it might fit in with certain forms of realism), however religion is usually idealist in nature, so that prevents no problem, and as long as one holds such a position God does not need to exist in multiple time frames in order to be aware of all time frames. Hence Christianity does not need to be fatalistic.

Transubstiantion, or any proposition for that matter, cannot be both right and wrong.
That's akin to a 100% subjective reality.Indeed, and as it happens it is wrong. However we are not talking about whether it is correct or not, but whether it makes up an aspect of Christianity

So no, I'm not saying that different perspectives aren't allegedly a part of religion but what I am saying is that there are three possibilities:

1.) Sola scriptura is valid and thus all true Christian must follow exactly by the books.
2.) There is absolutely no central doctrine as part of the belief system, in which case it is akin to moral relativism (the church could thus effectively become an instrument of hate as it is bound by absolutely no foundation whatsoever).
3.) Scripture and doctrine in general is all relative to interpretation, in which case you pick and choose the parts you agree, interpret as you see fit, and are thus essentially left with exactly the same views you had when you started, which makes Christianity unnecessary and potentially harmful as it could easily be interpreted to justify hatred.
Irrelevant. Yes, Christianity can be anything its followers wish it to be, but that won't mean it embraces moral relativism. Most Christian institutions are in fact hold absolute positions on morality, the just don't agree what these positions are. Holding such a position does not mean that you never change your views, it simply holds that you believe there to be only one incorrect view.

Further even if any given Church is relativist in its moral position, that does not mean it could "promote anything". Moral relativism is not the same as moral nihilism or similar.

And even if Churches could simply "promote anything", that still would mean they were nothing more than a neutral force as they would simply promote what their followers thought anyway!

daniyaal

28th April 2008, 23:54

Jesus inaugurated the New Covenant at the Last Supper, which is what Christians follow.

daniyaal

29th April 2008, 00:07

Chimx, if it's considered irrelevant in Christianity, why is it in the Bible, and by extention, the entire Old Testament a part of the Bible?

So it can give context to Jesus' ministry.

The Intransigent Faction

29th April 2008, 02:16

First off, the New Testament affirms the Old Testament. I suggest that our friendly newcomer ought to look back into previous posts so we don't go full circle through the same arguments again.

You were not merely called a bigot for saying they were incorrect. I also say they are incorrect. You are a bigot because as an anti-theist you want to take action against religious people.

You are a bigot for wanting to take action against anti-theists!
But of course intolerance will not be tolerated!
If this is going to degenerate into name-calling I suggest we stop here.

If you believe that anything, religion included, can be (or include) a "collection of ideas", you are ipso facto an idealist. That would not mean that you are wrong, but it would mean that you are not a Marxist, something that you claim you, in fact, are. So which is it? I cannot argue effectively until I know which side you wish to come down on. Are you a Marxist or are you an idealist?

No. Religion is a collection of ideas, hence it is idealistic. You're trying to propose that I support the idealism just because I realize that it's idealistic.
That kind of misrepresentation does no good in any discussion.

Like I say, I am not turning this into a discussion of Dialectics. If you want proof that they are wrong, go to Rosa's site. She has all the proof you could possibly want (and rather a lot still).

Neither am I but then neither of us should claim to be right about that from this point forward if it's in fact so irrelevant to the discussion.

Yes, relative reality would usually fall under the category of Idealism (though it might fit in with certain forms of realism), however religion is usually idealist in nature, so that prevents no problem, and as long as one holds such a position God does not need to exist in multiple time frames in order to be aware of all time frames. Hence Christianity does not need to be fatalistic.Indeed, and as it happens it is wrong. However we are not talking about whether it is correct or not, but whether it makes up an aspect of Christianity.

Hence religion is contradictory to Marxism, and hence you are defending an idealist position. If God were not omnipresent then God would not be omnipotent. I have not disputed that God is aware of all time frames. Nevertheless, all that needs to be said is that he would have existed in a time frame where created us, knew of the consequences, and had the power not to do so. It is also logically impossible to have huge gaps between God's alleged existence. Again, with regard to sequence of events, God would have to exist in all time frames. A religion that promotes the idea of an omniscient and omnipotent God certainly would not be able to avoid the conclusion that God created us knowing of our imminent suffering. Fatalism does make up an "aspect of Christianity" (is that an admission that there are in fact concrete aspects of Christianity) as it presupposes the existence of an omniscient God that created us knowing of our imminent fate. God set up a whole series of events (creation) and foresaw what the results would be.

Irrelevant. Yes, Christianity can be anything its followers wish it to be, but that won't mean it embraces moral relativism. Most Christian institutions are in fact holding absolute positions on morality, the just don't agree what these positions are. Holding such a position does not mean that you never change your views, it simply holds that you believe there to be only one incorrect view.

As I've been saying, it's logically impossible to hold contradictory absolute positions and thus one position must be correct since "contradictory" implies that the positions are mutually exclusive. Period. It is on this basis that it can be determined that there is a single correct Christian ideal. Also, if they are in fact "absolute" then no, they will not change.

Further even if any given Church is relativist in its moral position, that does not mean it could "promote anything". Moral relativism is not the same as moral nihilism or similar.

Pardon? Being morally relativist would suggest that it could not in fact promote a single absolute position.
moral relativism: the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, historical or personal circumstances.
What you were thinking of was moral pluralism.

And even if Churches could simply "promote anything", that still would mean they were nothing more than a neutral force as they would simply promote what their followers thought anyway!

Again, to reiterate:
"Being morally relativist would suggest that it could not in fact promote a single absolute position.
It's logically impossible to hold contradictory absolute positions and thus one position must be correct since "contradictory" implies that the positions are mutually exclusive."
If that is in fact your claim then the abrupt dismissal of everything I said was unfounded as this claim that "they were nothing more than a neutral force as they would simply promote what their followers thought anyway!" identifies with position #3.
"Scripture and doctrine in general is all relative to interpretation, in which case you pick and choose the parts you agree with, interpret as you see fit, and are thus essentially left with exactly the same views you had when you started, which makes Christianity unnecessary and potentially harmful as it could easily be interpreted to justify hatred."
If Christianity is determined by views that are held anyway without Christianity, all it does is make moral claims that could be made anyway while backing them up dangerously as a "Divine Truth". Some churches are in fact homophobic and since Christianity itself is unnecessary, this brings unnecessary moral condemnation of homosexuals. The church helped in making homosexuality illegal, and campaigned strongly against its de-illegalization in the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1967. Historically the public has had to drag the church with it into any progressive movements. This makes religion a regressive element of society that is harmful to keep but that we could easily do without. As a general regressive element of society, even if some Christians do claim to have no problems with homosexuals. Where I take issue with this claim is in the implicit condemnation shown through membership in this regressive element of society. By even adhering to Christianity based on it's positive aspects, they support a movement that can and has done harm. Certainly Atheists can also do harm, but not as a direct result of subscribing to the Atheist movement. If an Atheist opposes homosexuality, this is not the result of morals allegedly promoted in the name of an omniscient, omnipotent God.

daniyaal

29th April 2008, 03:05

First off, the New Testament affirms the Old Testament.

Nope. Jesus says he came to fulfill the Old Law, which is what he did at the Last Supper.

Demogorgon

29th April 2008, 03:25

No. Religion is a collection of ideas, hence it is idealistic. You're trying to propose that I support the idealism just because I realize that it's idealistic.
That kind of misrepresentation does no good in any discussion.

I am not misrepresenting anything, I am trying to show the gaping hole in your argument. If religion is a collection of ideas then idealism must be correct because it would be the case that ideas exist independently of their material basis. Materialism holds that there is no possible world when any persons ideas can vary without a corresponding material variation and that no idea can ever be independent of material things. Hence religion must just be material institutions and their followers. If it is something more, a set of ideas, then it is actually onto something!

Hence religion is contradictory to Marxism, and hence you are defending an idealist position.Well not all religion holds to idealism. If you want to delve into the philosophy of the matter, there are certain reasons why I believe that provided we accept materialism then God can be logically proven not to exist, however many people disagree with me. They do attempt to reconcile God and materialism. Certainly the earliest materialists believed in God. I don't want to get into the complexities of this as it is entirely irrelevant. The fact that some people believe it is enough. Further, even when it comes to religious people, who are idealists. Being an idealist is not a crime

If God were not omnipresent then God would not be omnipotent. I have not disputed that God is aware of all time frames. Nevertheless, all that needs to be said is that he would have existed in a time frame where created us, knew of the consequences, and had the power not to do so. It is also logically impossible to have huge gaps between God's alleged existence. Again, with regard to sequence of events, God would have to exist in all time frames. A religion that promotes the idea of an omniscient and omnipotent God certainly would not be able to avoid the conclusion that God created us knowing of our imminent suffering. Fatalism does make up an "aspect of Christianity" (is that an admission that there are in fact concrete aspects of Christianity) as it presupposes the existence of an omniscient God that created us knowing of our imminent fate. God set up a whole series of events (creation) and foresaw what the results would be.

Nope, not if you hold to a relativistic position. Suppose I am traveling close to the speed of light and I look out and see you. Everything you do will appear to be vastly speeded up and you will look compressed, I will look normal to myself. Conversely, if you see me, you will look normal to yourself and I will look stretched out and my own movements will seem to have slowed down. We have too entirely different perspectives on the event. Neither perspective can be said to apply to the other person.

The religious argument I am talking about uses a similar concept. The perspective of God and the perspective of us is entirely different. Too God all time frames are in fact a snap picture, the Universe is essentially a space-time worm from start to finish, but from the perspective of someone in the Universe, that is not the case at all, the future is not set. It might be if you are God the future is already known, but you would have to have God's relative perspective for it to be so. From a human's relative perspective, the future is in no way set, according to the theory neither will be more correct than the other. I do not agree with this view, but that is the argument. You can disagree with it, indeed I hope you do, but don't claim that if it is accepted that it solves the problem of fatalism.

As I've been saying, it's logically impossible to hold contradictory absolute positions and thus one position must be correct since "contradictory" implies that the positions are mutually exclusive. Period. It is on this basis that it can be determined that there is a single correct Christian ideal. Also, if they are in fact "absolute" then no, they will not change.

You are getting mixed up in your definitions here. Moral absolutism is a doctrine in meta-ethics that says that there is an absolute correct, empirical moral code. Those that hold to it, do not necessarily hold that they are going to get it right on first try. For example, suppose I give you a jar of sweets and ask you to guess how many are inside it. You know that there is going to be an indisputable finite number of sweets in it. That cannot be disputed. Your guess as to what that number is may be wrong though. Hence you are sure that there is a definite number, you just aren't sure what it is.

Absolute morality is much the same. The Catholic Church for instance says there is absolute morality and it reckons it is based on natural law. They do sometimes concede however that they were wrong on aspects of their code here and there. They do not claim what is right has changed, rather they claim that they were in fact previously wrong and now they are right.

Pardon? Being morally relativist would suggest that it could not in fact promote a single absolute position.
moral relativism: the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, historical or personal circumstances.
What you were thinking of was moral pluralism.

Well as I say, most of them are not moral relativists anyway. I doubt even a quarter of the religions out there are relativists. Nonetheless, I should point out that moral pluralism is something different. It is the belief that there are various different moral values, none of which has absolute priority over others. It is similar to modern liberalism's empahasis on pluralism in political values.

Relativism is quite different, it does not say there are these competing values but rather that these values are determined by social factors. A relativist might hold their particular moral views very strongly, they just don't think they can be universally applied. However we are drifting miles from the point. Few Christians hold to that position anyway.

Again, to reiterate:
"Being morally relativist would suggest that it could not in fact promote a single absolute position.
It's logically impossible to hold contradictory absolute positions and thus one position must be correct since "contradictory" implies that the positions are mutually exclusive."
If that is in fact your claim then the abrupt dismissal of everything I said was unfounded as this claim that "they were nothing more than a neutral force as they would simply promote what their followers thought anyway!" identifies with position #3.
"Scripture and doctrine in general is all relative to interpretation, in which case you pick and choose the parts you agree with, interpret as you see fit, and are thus essentially left with exactly the same views you had when you started, which makes Christianity unnecessary and potentially harmful as it could easily be interpreted to justify hatred."
If Christianity is determined by views that are held anyway without Christianity, all it does is make moral claims that could be made anyway while backing them up dangerously as a "Divine Truth". Some churches are in fact homophobic and since Christianity itself is unnecessary, this brings unnecessary moral condemnation of homosexuals. The church helped in making homosexuality illegal, and campaigned strongly against its de-illegalization in the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1967. Historically the public has had to drag the church with it into any progressive movements. This makes religion a regressive element of society that is harmful to keep but that we could easily do without. As a general regressive element of society, even if some Christians do claim to have no problems with homosexuals. Where I take issue with this claim is in the implicit condemnation shown through membership in this regressive element of society. By even adhering to Christianity based on it's positive aspects, they support a movement that can and has done harm. Certainly Atheists can also do harm, but not as a direct result of subscribing to the Atheist movement. If an Atheist opposes homosexuality, this is not the result of morals allegedly promoted in the name of an omniscient, omnipotent God.
If religion can cause harm by magnifying a bad belief to be divine truth then it by definition balances itself out by magnifying good beliefs to be divine truth also. If you are correct about what you said (and I am not saying you are, I don't think religion actually does magnify things much) then it might push things out on the extreme a bit but it does not change anyones position from what it otherwise is. If Fred Phelp's homophobia is amplified by his "religion", then Archbishop Tutu's support of gay rights is also magnified.

And to site the example of the law reform. Many of the church hierarchy might have opposed it, but most of the MPs who voted for it were Christian.

I do not believe that religion either increases or decreases one's tendancy to be homophobic.

The Intransigent Faction

29th April 2008, 03:27

Nope. Jesus says he came to fulfill the Old Law, which is what he did at the Last Supper.

Read the rest of the post and don't repeat old arguments.

chimx

29th April 2008, 03:46

Read the rest of the post and don't repeat old arguments.

Brad, as I've explained, you've misunderstood Christian theology. The coming of Jesus, who is supposed to by the son of God, fulfills Levitical law. The laws of Jesus replaced Leviticus, which is why Christians don't follow Leviticus. Justs did still uphold the 10 commandments.

I'm in an email exchange with a doctor of theology who is in the process of providing more information, since I only have a limited amount myself. I'll post it here when I get it, and hopefully you'll understand better what I'm trying to explain to you. But in essence: Jesus replaced Leviticus.

The Intransigent Faction

29th April 2008, 04:15

I am not misrepresenting anything, I am trying to show the gaping hole in your argument. If religion is a collection of ideas then idealism must be correct because it would be the case that ideas exist independently of their material basis. Materialism holds that there is no possible world when any persons ideas can vary without a corresponding material variation and that no idea can ever be independent of material things. Hence religion must just be material institutions and their followers. If it is something more, a set of ideas, then it is actually onto something!

Then why did you specifically say it was idealist? You're contradicting yourself. Materialism stands in stark contrast to idealism. Religion is idealist. It's really quite simple.
"As the word itself signifies, Materialism is a philosophical system which regards matter as the only reality in the world, which undertakes to explain every event in the universe as resulting from the conditions and activity of matter, and which thus denies the existence of God and the soul. It is diametrically opposed to Spiritualism and Idealism, which, in so far as they are one-sided and exclusive, declare that everything in the world is spiritual, and that the world and even matter itself are mere conceptions or ideas in the thinking subject."
"No idea can ever be independent of material things". Well there you go.
For material, see the Bible.

Well not all religion holds to idealism. If you want to delve into the philosophy of the matter, there are certain reasons why I believe that provided we accept materialism then God can be logically proven not to exist,

There certainly are. In addition to the blatant paradoxes associated with omnipotence, there are material ways.

The fact that some people believe it is enough. Further, even when it comes to religious people, who are idealists. Being an idealist is not a crime.

A crime in the legal sense, maybe not. It is, however, harmful to society and contradictory to Marxism.

Nope, not if you hold to a relativistic position. Suppose I am traveling close to the speed of light and I look out and see you. Everything you do will appear to be vastly speeded up and you will look compressed, I will look normal to myself. Conversely, if you see me, you will look normal to yourself and I will look stretched out and my own movements will seem to have slowed down. We have too entirely different perspectives on the event. Neither perspective can be said to apply to the other person.

You're traveling at the speed of light and you look slowed down to me while I'm traveling at normal speed?
Regardless, this has nothing to do with the original point. it does not address the fact that an omniscient being knew what our actions would be before, during and after our creation! It's simple logic. You're overanalyzing. (see Occam's Razor).

The religious argument I am talking about uses a similar concept. The perspective of God and the perspective of us is entirely different. Too God all time frames are in fact a snap picture, the Universe is essentially a space-time worm from start to finish, but from the perspective of someone in the Universe, that is not the case at all, the future is not set. It might be if you are God the future is already known, but you would have to have God's relative perspective for it to be so. From a human's relative perspective, the future is in no way set, according to the theory neither will be more correct than the other. I do not agree with this view, but that is the argument. You can disagree with it, indeed I hope you do, but don't claim that if it is accepted that it solves the problem of fatalism.

If it's accepted it solves the problems of fatalism? I'm not the one claiming that. As for the rest, see the bolded part. God = omniscient. Therefore God = all-knowing. Therefore no matter what crazy technicalities you come up with, as I've already stated, in one of those "snap pictures" he created us knowing and in fact determining himself what would happen. If our fates are outside of God's control then he is not akll-powerful. That's what you overlooked.

You are getting mixed up in your definitions here.

No. You are. That's a plain fact.
A moral absolutist would know of the exact number. Hence the root "absolute". Absolutes are not subject to change. Stealing is wrong. That's an absolute statement. Any deviation from that means it's not absolute *i.e. "sometimes wrong/usually wrong/etc.".

Absolute morality is much the same. The Catholic Church for instance says there is absolute morality and it reckons it is based on natural law.

There you go. They insist on absolute "natural" laws.

They do sometimes concede however that they were wrong on aspects of their code here and there. They do not claim what is right has changed, rather they claim that they were in fact previously wrong and now they are right.

Then it's not absolute. That's basically saying that they develop a code claiming it to be "absolute" but then change it once in a while and claim that as the new "absolute". That seems like a manipulative way of guiding absolute doctrine.

Well as I say, most of them are not moral relativists anyway. I doubt even a quarter of the religions out there are relativists. Nonetheless, I should point out that moral pluralism is something different. It is the belief that there are various different moral values, none of which has absolute priority over others. It is similar to modern liberalism's empahasis on pluralism in political values.

If they hold onto absolutes then of course they aren't relativist, but you claimed previously that there was no absolute Christian doctrine. You've contradicted yourself again.
Moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective. and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.--This is the position of any church that would legitimately claim to have evolved with the rest of society in such a way. If the majority relativist they in fact are reliant upon what the members of the church say, which takes us back to the point about Christianity being unnecessary. If they are absolutist that takes us back to the exploitative nature of religion.

If religion can cause harm by magnifying a bad belief to be divine truth then it by definition balances itself out by magnifying good beliefs to be divine truth also. If you are correct about what you said (and I am not saying you are, I don't think religion actually does magnify things much) then it might push things out on the extreme a bit but it does not change anyones position from what it otherwise is. If Fred Phelp's homophobia is amplified by his "religion", then Archbishop Tutu's support of gay rights is also magnified.

You didn't read a single thing from the last paragraph of my last response.

And to site the example of the law reform. Many of the church hierarchy might have opposed it, but most of the MPs who voted for it were Christian.

That would be relativist my friend.

I do not believe that religion either increases or decreases one's tendency to be homophobic.

That is contrary to all evidence presented in the last paragraph of my previous response which you've conveniently omitted.

The Intransigent Faction

29th April 2008, 04:17

Brad, as I've explained, you've misunderstood Christian theology. The coming of Jesus, who is supposed to by the son of God, fulfills Levitical law. The laws of Jesus replaced Leviticus, which is why Christians don't follow Leviticus. Justs did still uphold the 10 commandments.

I'm in an email exchange with a doctor of theology who is in the process of providing more information, since I only have a limited amount myself. I'll post it here when I get it, and hopefully you'll understand better what I'm trying to explain to you. But in essence: Jesus replaced Leviticus.

Jesus said numerous times that Leviticus/all of the "Old Law" still applies, and as stated he was Jewish himself. There are mountains of evidence to the contrary regardless of biblical cherry-picking.

chimx

29th April 2008, 04:34

I've had arguments with walls that were less stubborn.

The Intransigent Faction

29th April 2008, 04:36

I've had arguments with walls that were less stubborn.

If I'm stubborn it's because my points seem to go in one ear and out the other lately. Not necessarily in your case but frustration doesn't help.
In fact i believe I was the first one to make a "wall" comment in this thread.

daniyaal

29th April 2008, 04:50

Read the rest of the post and don't repeat old arguments.

Sorry brad. But Jeremiah 31:31:32 and Luke 22:20 have not been addressed in this thread previously. If you want to read a discussion on this topic, you can read my past posts where I already discuss this, here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1057098&postcount=78 and here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1059867&postcount=82 I am, however, a little shocked, though not surprised, that you have nothing whatsoever to say on the verses I posted that disprove your original premise.

freakazoid

29th April 2008, 05:32

I remember a passage where the apostles where questioned about a time when they where not following one of the Levetical laws and they explained it there. I don't remember which book it is from or what it is that they where doing. I think it might of been that they didn't wash or something. Will try to find the actual passage and will post it.

The Intransigent Faction

29th April 2008, 05:46

Sorry brad. But Jeremiah 31:31:32 and Luke 22:20 have not been addressed in this thread previously. If you want to read a discussion on this topic, you can read my past posts where I already discuss this, here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1057098&postcount=78 and here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1059867&postcount=82 I am, however, a little shocked, though not surprised, that you have nothing whatsoever to say on the verses I posted that disprove your original premise.

Alright, no worries..about that anyway.
I've noted the number of times your opponent has had to say "see above" and other things like that. That just mirrors the exact same frustration I've found here. I'd highly suggest that this be followed by anyone who wants to have a discussion that's in any sense productive, hence my own frustration here.
In any case, first off I solemnly swear to you that I have indeed read the scripture to which you've referred. However, all that really does is show me how much the scripture contradicts itself.
If you don't mind, I have some scripture to share with you:

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19)
***Said by Jesus

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17)
***Said by Jesus

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16)
"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21)
"Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10)
***Said by Jesus

“He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)
***Said by Jesus
“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).
“...the scripture cannot be broken.” (John 10:35)
***Said by Jesus

Demogorgon

29th April 2008, 11:25

Then why did you specifically say it was idealist? You're contradicting yourself. Materialism stands in stark contrast to idealism. Religion is idealist. It's really quite simple.
"As the word itself signifies, Materialism is a philosophical system which regards matter as the only reality in the world, which undertakes to explain every event in the universe as resulting from the conditions and activity of matter, and which thus denies the existence of God and the soul. It is diametrically opposed to Spiritualism and Idealism, which, in so far as they are one-sided and exclusive, declare that everything in the world is spiritual, and that the world and even matter itself are mere conceptions or ideas in the thinking subject."You are getting confused as to what materialism and idealism are. If you accept that materialism is true, then idealism must be a point of view that comes about for material reasons. If it is an independent set of ideas then idealism is correct

"No idea can ever be independent of material things". Well there you go.
For material, see the Bible.
How can a book think?
[quote]
A crime in the legal sense, maybe not. It is, however, harmful to society and contradictory to Marxism.

If materialism is correct then how can any idea on its own be harmful?

If it's accepted it solves the problems of fatalism? I'm not the one claiming that. As for the rest, see the bolded part. God = omniscient. Therefore God = all-knowing. Therefore no matter what crazy technicalities you come up with, as I've already stated, in one of those "snap pictures" he created us knowing and in fact determining himself what would happen. If our fates are outside of God's control then he is not akll-powerful. That's what you overlooked.
A typo, I meant to say that you cannot claim that it can't solve fatalism if accepted. It is not important that you accept it, merely that you understand that other people accept it.

No. You are. That's a plain fact.
A moral absolutist would know of the exact number. Hence the root "absolute". Absolutes are not subject to change. Stealing is wrong. That's an absolute statement. Any deviation from that means it's not absolute *i.e. "sometimes wrong/usually wrong/etc.".

I think you should go an learn about this subject before disagreeing with me. Absolutism is a meta-position, about the nature of morality, it does not tell you exactly what they are. For example an absolutist could say that stealing is always wrong but it is possible to be wrong about that. As analogy, most people believe the age of the Universe is objective, however there have been differences of opinion as to how old it is. We used to believe it was 15 billion years old, now we believe it to be 13.9 billion years old or thereabouts. That doesn't mean we think the age of the Universe to be relevant.

There you go. They insist on absolute "natural" laws.

I never said otherwise. What I said is that they sometimes say they were previously wrong about what natural law is and wish to revise their opinion.

Then it's not absolute. That's basically saying that they develop a code claiming it to be "absolute" but then change it once in a while and claim that as the new "absolute". That seems like a manipulative way of guiding absolute doctrine.

No, it is actually the only way absolute morality can be handled. Can anyone be exactly right first time?

If they hold onto absolutes then of course they aren't relativist, but you claimed previously that there was no absolute Christian doctrine. You've contradicted yourself again.No, but Christians believe that they have an absolute position. Hence their position is that there is absolute morality. Doesn't mean there is an absolute definition of Christianity.

Moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective. and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.--This is the position of any church that would legitimately claim to have evolved with the rest of society in such a way. If the majority relativist they in fact are reliant upon what the members of the church say, which takes us back to the point about Christianity being unnecessary. If they are absolutist that takes us back to the exploitative nature of religion.

Nope, a Church is perfectly free to claim that it has remained consistent throughout the years. Doesn't mean that there is any truth to that claim.

You didn't read a single thing from the last paragraph of my last response.

Yes I did, but I thought I would spare you the embarrassment of going through it. You are simply asserting your view the Christianity is inherently homophobic and saying all Christians are implicitly endorsing homophobia as a result. That would be no different from me claiming that you are implicitly endorsing homophobia by describing yourself as a Maoist.

That would be relativist my friend.

No, it would simply be people disagreeing. You think all moral absolutists agree with each other?

That is contrary to all evidence presented in the last paragraph of my previous response which you've conveniently omitted.
There was no evidence in your last paragraph though, just your assertions.

daniyaal

29th April 2008, 21:55

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17). “...the scripture cannot be broken.” (John 10:35) Christians may do both. In the beginnings of the Christian movement there formed a group known as the Ebionites who were both Christians and held to the Law. What created a problem for them, as well as for some in the New Testament period, is the claim that you must follow the Law in order to be saved. A number of the epistles of Paul, if not most, address at some point this particular mistake reminding people that with the coming of Christ there is a more perfect means of reaching God; faith and obedience are better than sacrifice. This wasn't a new concept with the coming of Jesus either. The Old Testament prophets attested to it. Hosea 6:6 says, For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. Psalm 40:6 reads, Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced; burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require. Both of these passages are quoted in the New Testament to attest to the idea that I presented. The author of Hebrews who talks most extensively about the Law no longer being in effect quotes the Psalmist and Jesus himself quotes Hosea. The Old Testament recognition of the futility of the Law is best summed up in Micah 6:8. He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. This is what the God of both Testaments desires uniformly.
I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”(Matthew 5:17-20 1. In Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus is speaking to the Jews. According to Judaism, only Jews were required to follow Mosaic Law in order to achieve salvation. Gentiles instead only had to follow Noachian Law (a much less stringent set of requirements) in order to be saved. Almost all Christians are Gentiles, and therefore exempt from Mosaic Law. 2. In Matthew 5:18, Jesus qualifies his statement about following the OT laws with the phrase "...until everything is accomplished." Christian theologians understand "everything" to mean the death and resurrection of Christ. Since those things did occur, "everything" has been accomplished, and now Christians are part of a New Covenant that supersedes the Old Covenant.

The Intransigent Faction

30th April 2008, 05:05

You are getting confused as to what materialism and idealism are. If you accept that materialism is true, then idealism must be a point of view that comes about for material reasons. If it is an independent set of ideas then idealism is correct

"No idea can ever be independent of material things". Well there you go.
For material, see the Bible.
How can a book think?Where did that come from? I never claimed the Bible could think. In fact I'm stating the exact opposite. It is you who is either confused or making deliberate distortions.

If materialism is correct then how can any idea on its own be harmful?
A typo, I meant to say that you cannot claim that it can't solve fatalism if accepted. It is not important that you accept it, merely that you understand that other people accept it.

Already explained that (see the three points a couple of posts ago). Yeah, you can't solve Capitalism..or reactionary attitudes..just accept that they have supporters. Bullshit.

I think you should go an learn about this subject before disagreeing with me. Absolutism is a meta-position, about the nature of morality, it does not tell you exactly what they are. For example an absolutist could say that stealing is always wrong but it is possible to be wrong about that. As analogy, most people believe the age of the Universe is objective, however there have been differences of opinion as to how old it is. We used to believe it was 15 billion years old, now we believe it to be 13.9 billion years old or thereabouts. That doesn't mean we think the age of the Universe to be relevant.

I think you should stop making absurd claims and distorting reality. That and holding beliefs as absolutes despite their clear fallibility is dangerous in itself.

never said otherwise. What I said is that they sometimes say they were previously wrong about what natural law is and wish to revise their opinion.

Hence the law was not absolute. "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia".

No, it is actually the only way absolute morality can be handled. Can anyone be exactly right first time?

Which is where absolutism is a problem. I suggest you get a dictionary or better yet read the definitions I generously posted for you.

No, but Christians believe that they have an absolute position. Hence their position is that there is absolute morality. Doesn't mean there is an absolute definition of Christianity.

You've refuted nothing and merely restated the same bullshit.

Nope, a Church is perfectly free to claim that it has remained consistent throughout the years. Doesn't mean that there is any truth to that claim.

So what you're saying is that a church is perfectly free to be deceitful and manipulative. Some of us consider those traits detrimental to any part of society.

Yes I did, but I thought I would spare you the embarrassment of going through it. You are simply asserting your view the Christianity is inherently homophobic and saying all Christians are implicitly endorsing homophobia as a result. That would be no different from me claiming that you are implicitly endorsing homophobia by describing yourself as a Maoist.

In other words you had to think of more twisted logic so you didn't respond immediately.
That is bullshit. READ WHAT I SAY IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE SUCH CLAIMS! That's the same point you made some replies ago and the same point I responded to before.

No, it would simply be people disagreeing. You think all moral absolutists agree with each other?

No. I think you're conveniently overlooking half of every paragraph I've typed. I'm not going to restate what I think 50 times over.

There was no evidence in your last paragraph though, just your assertions.

Load of crap. That and if they were just assertions you'd be able to give a valid response countering those assertions, but you insist on making blank statements. Argument =/= contradiction.

The Intransigent Faction

30th April 2008, 05:09

Christians may do both. In the beginnings of the Christian movement there formed a group known as the Ebionites who were both Christians and held to the Law. What created a problem for them, as well as for some in the New Testament period, is the claim that you must follow the Law in order to be saved. A number of the epistles of Paul, if not most, address at some point this particular mistake reminding people that with the coming of Christ there is a more perfect means of reaching God; faith and obedience are better than sacrifice. This wasn't a new concept with the coming of Jesus either. The Old Testament prophets attested to it. Hosea 6:6 says, For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. Psalm 40:6 reads, Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced; burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require. Both of these passages are quoted in the New Testament to attest to the idea that I presented. The author of Hebrews who talks most extensively about the Law no longer being in effect quotes the Psalmist and Jesus himself quotes Hosea. The Old Testament recognition of the futility of the Law is best summed up in Micah 6:8. He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. This is what the God of both Testaments desires uniformly. 1. In Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus is speaking to the Jews. According to Judaism, only Jews were required to follow Mosaic Law in order to achieve salvation. Gentiles instead only had to follow Noachian Law (a much less stringent set of requirements) in order to be saved. Almost all Christians are Gentiles, and therefore exempt from Mosaic Law. 2. In Matthew 5:18, Jesus qualifies his statement about following the OT laws with the phrase "...until everything is accomplished." Christian theologians understand "everything" to mean the death and resurrection of Christ. Since those things did occur, "everything" has been accomplished, and now Christians are part of a New Covenant that supersedes the Old Covenant.

You've failed to grasp the point. Scripture contradicts itself.
You.
CAN'T.
Hold.
Two or more.
Contradictory.
Absolute.
Beliefs.
And.
Claim.
That.
Both.
Are.
Correct.
PERIOD!

pusher robot

30th April 2008, 05:44

Which is where absolutism is a problem. I suggest you get a dictionary or better yet read the definitions I generously posted for you.

Brad, Demogorgon has been very patient trying to respond to everything you say. But I would like to concentrate on this narrow point since it seems so fundamental.

Do you believe that something can be both "absolute" and "unkown?" Or even "absolute" and "unknowable?" Or do you deny that this is possible?

The Intransigent Faction

30th April 2008, 05:50

Brad, Demogorgon has been very patient trying to respond to everything you say. But I would like to concentrate on this narrow point since it seems so fundamental.

Do you believe that something can be both "absolute" and "unkown?" Or even "absolute" and "unknowable?" Or do you deny that this is possible?

It's not possible (unless you're a schizophrenic or extremely illogical, or just plain old lying trying to get a point across).
Patient?! Oh shut up. It's easy to be "patient" when you make empty responses that restate the same point ad nauseam. Saying that contradictory absolute doctrines can both be right is nonsense.
Oranges are orange. There's an absolute. Oranges can't be both blue and orange at the same time (Again "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia").

Demogorgon

30th April 2008, 11:20

This is getting a little difficult. You are so stubborn in your outlook that you will accept no point of contradiction. Moreover you have a great deal of difficulty distinguishing between belief and reality.
Where did that come from? I never claimed the Bible could think. In fact I'm stating the exact opposite. It is you who is either confused or making deliberate distortions.

You said the Bible was a material source of ideas. How? It can't think.

Already explained that (see the three points a couple of posts ago). Yeah, you can't solve Capitalism..or reactionary attitudes..just accept that they have supporters. Bullshit.

You think the problem with capitalism is people supporting it? To borrow an Americanism, I think you need to do materialism 101

I think you should stop making absurd claims and distorting reality. That and holding beliefs as absolutes despite their clear fallibility is dangerous in itself.

How does that follow? It is perfectly possible to believe there is an objective set of facts about any given thing, but also acknowledge you can be wrong about any of them.

Hence the law was not absolute. "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia".

No, they say they were mistaken. There is a difference. THey say the law is objective but they make mistakes over it.

So what you're saying is that a church is perfectly free to be deceitful and manipulative. Some of us consider those traits detrimental to any part of society.

Or how about them genuinely believing they have been consistent?

In other words you had to think of more twisted logic so you didn't respond immediately.
That is bullshit. READ WHAT I SAY IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE SUCH CLAIMS! That's the same point you made some replies ago and the same point I responded to before.

No, you are simply driven by prejudice against Christianity (interesting to claim to be an anti-theist but only talk about one religion) so that you will not accept anything that paints it in anything less than a completely negative light.

It is making you irrational.

pusher robot

30th April 2008, 19:22

It's not possible (unless you're a schizophrenic or extremely illogical, or just plain old lying trying to get a point across).

I find it bizarre that you would think so. To use Demo's example, surely you would agree that the size of the universe is an absolute at any given time, right? That is is a certain size at a certain time? But surely you must also agree that we do not know with any degree of certainty what that size it.

How about another example: pi. I would hope that you would agree that pi, as a mathematical constant, is an absolute. Yet we do not - and likely can not - know the exact value of pi, only an approximation that grows more and more accurate.

I would think we could all agree that the speed of light in a vacuum is an absolute, a physical constant. Yet for many years humans were unable to accurately measure it. Doesn't this contradict your assertion that it's impossible for an absolute to be unknown? For most of our existence it was so!

Dystisis

30th April 2008, 19:42

How about another example: pi. I would hope that you would agree that pi, as a mathematical constant, is an absolute. Yet we do not - and likely can not - know the exact value of pi, only an approximation that grows more and more accurate.
It is impossible to know the exact value of Pi, it has no exact value as it is "infinitely complex" (i.e. uncomputable, like a perfect circle). It is therefore pythagoreans called those (together with irrational numbers) "unspeakable".

pusher robot

30th April 2008, 20:28

It is impossible to know the exact value of Pi, it has no exact value as it is "infinitely complex" (i.e. uncomputable, like a perfect circle). It is therefore pythagoreans called those (together with irrational numbers) "unspeakable".

Sort of - it's computable to any degree of precision you care to spend time computing, but you are correct that barring a radical revolution in mathematics, pi has been incontrovertibly proven transcendental. Yet it's an absolute, and unchanging constant. I wonder how Brad countenances this.

The Intransigent Faction

12th May 2008, 03:58

This is getting a little difficult. You are so stubborn in your outlook that you will accept no point of contradiction. Moreover you have a great deal of difficulty distinguishing between belief and reality.

No. That would be you. You won't accept contradictions in what you view as "Christianity".
It is Christians who have difficulty in distinguishing fantasy and realty--hence their belief in an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god.

You said the Bible was a material source of ideas. How? It can't think.

I never said the Bible could think. Thinking is not a requirement for something to be a material source. I don't know where that idea came from.

You think the problem with capitalism is people supporting it? To borrow an Americanism, I think you need to do materialism 101.

Did I say that? No.

How does that follow? It is perfectly possible to believe there is an objective set of facts about any given thing, but also acknowledge you can be wrong about any of them.

Then it's not an absolute!

No, they say they were mistaken. There is a difference. They say the law is objective but they make mistakes over it.

Exactly. They claim to know an objective absolute truth but they make convenient changes at every turn.

Or how about them genuinely believing they have been consistent?

That would be a lie since they have not been consistent.

No, you are simply driven by prejudice against Christianity (interesting to claim to be an anti-theist but only talk about one religion) so that you will not accept anything that paints it in anything less than a completely negative light. It is making you irrational.

No more than you're being driven by a prejudice against Atheists.
Nice personal attack there. The problem is that this thread is specifically addressing Christianity. If I want to talk to you about another religion I'll talk to you on another thread.

Sort of - it's computable to any degree of precision you care to spend time computing, but you are correct that barring a radical revolution in mathematics, pi has been incontrovertibly proven transcendental. Yet it's an absolute, and unchanging constant. I wonder how Brad countenances this.

Yes, I understand the argument that absolutes can exist without us knowing them and with us making changes and still being wrong as we haven't learned the ultimate answer.
HOWEVER, Christianity and any Theistic religion holds that their word is inspired by a perfect being. On this basis their word would have to be perfect. They can't repeatedly claim that their word is inspired by a perfect god if they happen to be wrong many times over.
That's like claiming the earth is round; holding that as an absolute divine truth, chastising or taunting anyone who claims otherwise, and writing down in a book that you claim is divinely inspired and when scientific groups outside of religion provide very strong evidence to the contrary, suddenly changing your mind and claiming that "the earth is round" was the divinely inspired truth. Religions involving the belief in a perfect being (specifically Christianity in this thread's case--I think I've made that clear) have been making false claims and branding them "divinely inspired truth". There's a great danger in that and, as per the above example, religion is not necessary to make that transition--only that when a belief is held it's recognized to not be an absolute and adjusted accordingly without worry that it contradicts what was once held to be divinely inspired.

chimx

12th May 2008, 04:02

The Intransigent Faction

12th May 2008, 04:18

Brad, the only thing you have proven in these threads is that you have never read any books or articles on theology. I'm not going to waste time trying to explain Christian theology to you since you clearly are uninterested in learning about it.

Lol. Nice ad-hominem.
You've got me there. Since I disagree I must not have read anything that you agree with.
You won't "waste time explaining"..in other words you have to resort to claiming that I'm too stupid to understand since I'm not coming to the conclusion that you want and you don't feel like defending your position or accepting it's fallacious nature is necessary. If you're going to try to insult me then at least try to (logically) show how I'm wrong.
Or don't. This does get tiresome. I'm sure we've both got busy lives and other things to do.

chimx

12th May 2008, 05:12

Since I disagree I must not have read anything that you agree with.

It's not that you disagree. It's that you reject what Christians believe as being inaccurate. It doesn't matter what the NT says or doesn't say regarding Levitical Law. Christians have interpreted the scriptures to mean that the resurrection of Christ fulfilled the scriptures and made Levitical Law no longer applicable. You aren't engaging us on this point, rather you say that Christians shouldn't believe that. What they should or shouldn't believe is not relevant to the discussion.

The Intransigent Faction

12th May 2008, 06:05

It's not that you disagree. It's that you reject what Christians believe as being inaccurate. It doesn't matter what the NT says or doesn't say regarding Levitical Law. Christians have interpreted the scriptures to mean that the resurrection of Christ fulfilled the scriptures and made Levitical Law no longer applicable. You aren't engaging us on this point, rather you say that Christians shouldn't believe that. What they should or shouldn't believe is not relevant to the discussion.

Still going huh..
I'm sure it is.
"Christians have interpreted the scriptures to mean that the resurrection of Christ fulfilled the scriptures and made Levitical Law no longer applicable."
We're not going through that again are we? I've already shown you that followers of the NT inevitably follow Levitical law.
Of course it's relevant what Christians "should" believe if by "should" you mean what corresponds with the authorities of Christianity. It does matter to those Christians who claim to follow the New Testament. There's also nothing to "interpret". Others have already explained this to you!

"If I say the sentence; Homosexual people are evil.

Then I interpret that sentence as a non-homophobic sentence. Wouldn't you say that I misinterpreted that sentence?

There are rules (defined by humans) that states how sentences and words should be interpreted. If we should have a meaningful language we have to have those rules.

If I suddenly decide to interpret pie as ass then the language then I would misinterpret the language in everyones opinion. A language doesn't work if we can't agree on the rules on it. What a sentence means isn't a subjective thing, people have to agree on it for the language to make any sense.

Like I said I'm sure that we both have other stuff to do.

chimx

12th May 2008, 06:38

We're not going through that again are we? I've already shown you that followers of the NT inevitably follow Levitical law.

Followers of the New Testament, aka Christains, don't

This is precisely what I mean. It's as if it is a purposeful ignorance. Christians don't follow Levitical Law. Christians believe that the coming of Christ fulfilled the scripture and made Levitical Law no longer necessary. Here is the basic theology:

Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill." (Matt 5:17)

Paul then writes in Ephesians 2:15, "He [Jesus] abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two."

Jesus didn't abolish the covenant of the Old Testament, he fulfilled it by dying on the Cross, replacing it with his new covenant.

I'm sorry if you don't understand this. Again, I suggest you read a book on theology if you want to try to actually discuss theology.

The Intransigent Faction

12th May 2008, 07:24

Followers of the New Testament, aka Christians, don't

Yes they do. By the way, Christians follow the OLD AND NEW Testaments. Besides that, you can't follow the New Testament without following the Old Testament. It's simple!

This is precisely what I mean. It's as if it is a purposeful ignorance.

Oh the hypocrisy..

Christians don't follow Levitical Law. Christians believe that the coming of Christ fulfilled the scripture and made Levitical Law no longer necessary. Here is the basic theology:

Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill." (Matt 5:17)

Paul then writes in Ephesians 2:15, "He [Jesus] abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two."

Jesus didn't abolish the covenant of the Old Testament, he fulfilled it by dying on the Cross, replacing it with his new covenant.

I'm sorry if you don't understand this. Again, I suggest you read a book on theology if you want to try to actually discuss theology.

Again, nice try with the ad-hominem attack but it's really not productive.

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19)
***Said by Jesus

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17)
***Said by Jesus

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16)
"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21)
"Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10)
***Said by Jesus

“He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)
***Said by Jesus
“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).
“...the scripture cannot be broken.” (John 10:35)
***Said by Jesus

..And you accuse me of willful ignorance! Your attacks at me personally don't hide the fallacy of your argument. I suggest you stop ignoring everything right in front of you.
You've made these claims as if you believe that there's a definite Christianity after all. You're also quoting scripture which just proves the point that it is very relevant to the faith.

chimx

12th May 2008, 07:29

I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.

You don't understand theology. I can't think of any way of explaining what Christians believe any more simplistically than I already have. Again, I suggest you read more on the topic before you try to speak authoritatively on the topic.

Ephesians 2:

"1And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, 2wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; 3among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:-- 4but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved), 6and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus: 7that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus: 8for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not of works, that no man should glory. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them. 11Wherefore remember, that once ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands; 12that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ. 14For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, 15having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; 16and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 17and he came and preached peace to you that were far off, and peace to them that were nigh: 18for through him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father. 19So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, 20being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone; 21in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord; 22in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit."

The Intransigent Faction

12th May 2008, 07:36

You don't understand theology. I can't think of any way of explaining what Christians believe any more simplistically than I already have. Again, I suggest you read more on the topic before you try to speak authoritatively on the topic.

...You are nauseatingly stubborn. If I was somehow wrong you'd be able to provide evidence of this instead of repeating tired tag lines.
That was a quick reply..I'm not looking for two-line "You don't understand"'s though.
That's just not productive.
Seriously. "You won't "waste time explaining"..in other words you have to resort to claiming that I'm too stupid to understand since I'm not coming to the conclusion that you want and you don't feel like defending your position or accepting it's fallacious nature is necessary. If you're going to try to insult me then at least try to (logically) show how I'm wrong."
It doesn't take much to simply say "You don't understand. I'm nit going to bother explaining." That doesn't make you right. It makes you unable to defend what you say. I really don't appreciate your resorting to that as a way of avoiding productive discussion.
For all the scripture you tried to site you only proved that Christ is to be considered the ultimate authority in the faith and since he commanded that the Old Testament is still valid, as did is Apostles, it's an open-and-shut case. Pretty simple.

chimx

12th May 2008, 07:38

provide evidence

"Jesus abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances" -The Bible

The Intransigent Faction

12th May 2008, 07:44

"Jesus abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances" -The Bible

The quick one-liners get frustrating. They make it seem like you post out of reflex without reading a word.
Seriously, what happened to the Bible not being the authority on Christianity?
He did not abolish the law. He commanded that it still be followed.
Quoting scripture that contradicts scripture spoken by Christ himself doesn't help you.

chimx

12th May 2008, 07:59

The quick one-liners get frustrating.

You ignored my entire theological explanation above by reposting the same handful of misunderstood bible quotes that you have been posting since the beginning of this thread. You didn't engage any of the points I made, and instead choose to ignore them. I'll repost the explanation if you would like to have another go at it:

Christians don't follow Levitical Law. Christians believe that the coming of Christ fulfilled the scripture and made Levitical Law no longer necessary. Here is the basic theology:

Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill." (Matt 5:17)

Paul then writes in Ephesians 2:15, "He [Jesus] abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two."

Jesus didn't abolish the covenant of the Old Testament, he fulfilled it by dying on the Cross, replacing it with his new covenant.

He commanded that it still be followed.

He commanded that the laws be followed by the Jews until the new covenant had been fulfilled, which only occurred once he was crucified. This is what I explained above and what you have ignored.

The Intransigent Faction

12th May 2008, 08:36

I really can't do this forever..I've got work to do and besides that I need some sleep.

You ignored my entire theological explanation above by reposting the same handful of misunderstood bible quotes that you have been posting since the beginning of this thread. You didn't engage any of the points I made, and instead choose to ignore them. I'll repost the explanation if you would like to have another go at it:

I didn't ignore it. I read it and posted my response. It just so happens that, as I said, it did not rebut a single point that I made. You're the one ignoring me so do not try to flip it around like that. You should take the time to elaborate before you accuse someone of ignoring you. They aren't misunderstood. You can't misunderstand such plain language.

Jesus didn't abolish the covenant of the Old Testament, he fulfilled it by dying on the Cross, replacing it with his new covenant.

And yet in his new covenant he proclaims that the old covenant's laws are still valid! There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament that indicates that Christ adhered to a "new covenant".

Demogorgon

12th May 2008, 13:55

How old are you exactly? Your views here have a childlike simplicity that simply does not recognise subtlety
No. That would be you. You won't accept contradictions in what you view as "Christianity".
It is Christians who have difficulty in distinguishing fantasy and realty--hence their belief in an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god.

I rather fancy I know more about Christianity than you do. Then again I imagine my pet dog does as well given how little you seem to know.

It is alright that you do not understand the complexities of Christian theology and philosophy, but that you simply refuse to learn and simply repeat empirically false claims is extremely grating.

Then it's not an absolute!

The precise distance right now between me in Scotland and you in Canada is an absolute. Neither of us knows it nor has a hope of getting it right. Does that mean it is not an absolute?

Exactly. They claim to know an objective absolute truth but they make convenient changes at every turn.

Where do they claim to know an objective truth? Rather they claim there is an objective truth and that they as fallible humans are doing their best to understand it.

That would be a lie since they have not been consistent.

Do you understand the difference between a lie and a mistake?

No more than you're being driven by a prejudice against Atheists.

How can I be prejudiced against atheists? I am an atheist!

I've already shown you that followers of the NT inevitably follow Levitical law.The single most important aspect of levitical law, emphasised over and over in the Bible is that boys and men be circumcised. Christians are not circumcised (well some are of course for secular reasons, but most are not). The reason for this is early Christians wished to emphasise that they very specifically did NOT follow Levitical law and modern Christians follow on from this. No amount of misunderstood Bible passages will change that.

Now you might understand that you understand the Bible better than the whole of Christianity, perhaps you do, but that will not change Christianity. The fact is that Christians very specifically do not follow Levitical law. And before you come back with yet another tired attempt to claim that this fact is wrong. Can you point to any Christians who do follow Levitical law?

chimx

12th May 2008, 19:24

And yet in his new covenant he proclaims that the old covenant's laws are still valid!

Reread the quotes you provided. He says that the laws are still valid until everything has been fulfilled. I.e.: until the crucifixion when he created a new covenant. That is what Paul was saying in Epheseans 2.

There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament that indicates that Christ adhered to a "new covenant".

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. We can trace the idea of the creation of a new covenant all the way back to the Old Testament. Read Jeremiah 31:

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Christians believe that the new covenant is the relationship between humans and God that is mediated by Jesus. When Jesus was crucified and died for human sin, it created a new covenant that replaced the old covenant of the Old Testament.

The Intransigent Faction

12th May 2008, 20:58

How old are you exactly? Your views here have a childlike simplicity that simply does not recognise subtlety
I rather fancy I know more about Christianity than you do. Then again I imagine my pet dog does as well given how little you seem to know.

It is alright that you do not understand the complexities of Christian theology and philosophy, but that you simply refuse to learn and simply repeat empirically false claims is extremely grating.

The ad-hominem arguments are getting old. Just because I disagree does not mean that I don't understand what you're claiming. I could say the same of you but trading such attacks is just not productive discussion.
If it seems simple, that's because it's straightforward.
"That you simply refuse to learn and simply repeat empirically false claims is extremely grating." It's ironic whose really excelling at that here.

The precise distance right now between me in Scotland and you in Canada is an absolute. Neither of us knows it nor has a hope of getting it right. Does that mean it is not an absolute?

Did I say it wasn't? Try reading my last response.

Where do they claim to know an objective truth? Rather they claim there is an objective truth and that they as fallible humans are doing their best to understand it.

No, they claim that their alleged "truth" is the word of a perfect God.

Do you understand the difference between a lie and a mistake?

Yes.

How can I be prejudiced against atheists? I am an atheist!

I never said that you were. You're trying to mix aroubd my words to someone else as if they were directed at you.

The single most important aspect of levitical law, emphasised over and over in the Bible is that boys and men be circumcised. Christians are not circumcised (well some are of course for secular reasons, but most are not). The reason for this is early Christians wished to emphasise that they very specifically did NOT follow Levitical law and modern Christians follow on from this. No amount of misunderstood Bible passages will change that.

They aren't misunderstood. They're straightforward and they in fact show that followers of the New Testament must follow the Old Testament!
Repeating nonsense ad-nauseam doesn't make you right.

Now you might understand that you understand the Bible better than the whole of Christianity

Better then self-proclaimed "Christians" who can't get a grip on their own theology, yes.

perhaps you do, but that will not change Christianity.

I'm not trying to change Christianity.

The fact is that Christians very specifically do not follow Levitical law.

Bullshit.

And before you come back with yet another tired attempt to claim that this fact is wrong. Can you point to any Christians who do follow Levitical law?

I could point to some that conveniently follow bits and pieces of it, yes. That's a non-issue, however, as by ignoring Levitical law they are defying Christianity and Christ's words no matter how many times they claim to be followers.

The Intransigent Faction

12th May 2008, 21:25

Reread the quotes you provided. He says that the laws are still valid until everything has been fulfilled. I.e.: until the crucifixion when he created a new covenant. That is what Paul was saying in Epheseans 2.

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19)
***Said by Jesus

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17)
***Said by Jesus

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16)
"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21)
"Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10)
***Said by Jesus

“He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)
***Said by Jesus
“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).
“...the scripture cannot be broken.” (John 10:35)
***Said by Jesus

Yeah, to fulfill as in to put into effect since at the time many were breaking the laws of Christianity and of Judaism which was the religion that Christ himself subscribed to. Paul was a self appointed apostle and never met Christ. To claim that he's a higher authority in the faith is ridiculous!

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. We can trace the idea of the creation of a new covenant all the way back to the Old Testament. Read Jeremiah 31:

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Christians believe that the new covenant is the relationship between humans and God that is mediated by Jesus. When Jesus was crucified and died for human sin, it created a new covenant that replaced the old covenant of the Old Testament.

There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament that indicates that Christ adhered to a "new covenant".
Once again, part of this "new covenant" was that the Old Covenant still applied!

Demogorgon

12th May 2008, 22:18

The ad-hominem arguments are getting old. Just because I disagree does not mean that I don't understand what you're claiming. I could say the same of you but trading such attacks is just not productive discussion.
If it seems simple, that's because it's straightforward.
"That you simply refuse to learn and simply repeat empirically false claims is extremely grating." It's ironic whose really excelling at that here.
If you think there is an ad hominen in anything I said you are only demonstrating that you do not know what an ad hominen is. Once again, how old are you?

No, they claim that their alleged "truth" is the word of a perfect God.
But also that the perfect God does not speak to them directly so there is plenty of room for error

They aren't misunderstood. They're straightforward and they in fact show that followers of the New Testament must follow the Old Testament!
Repeating nonsense ad-nauseam doesn't make you right.

Better then self-proclaimed "Christians" who can't get a grip on their own theology, yes.

I could point to some that conveniently follow bits and pieces of it, yes. That's a non-issue, however, as by ignoring Levitical law they are defying Christianity and Christ's words no matter how many times they claim to be followers.
Seeing as you are too childish and stubborn to accept the fact that Christians do not follow ancient Jewish law, let's try a different tact. If only your definition of Christianity is correct and one can only e a Christian if they follow Leviticus then there is not a single Christian in the world and furthermore no Christian has ever existed. Why are you so hung up about something that does not exist?

Dean

12th May 2008, 22:44

Christianity is a religion first and foremost. Again, see above. It must be a rigid tradition to the extent that it holds fundamental principles which cannot be rejected without rejecting Christianity. If it's so fluid and doesn't have any set rules, what makes it necessary at all?

For someone that opposes religion so much, you have a more dogmatic approach to it than most Christians. I'm very glad for the sake of society that most people, Christians specifically, do not follow a rigid and necessarily contradictory concept of biblical law. And you really believe in the bible! I'm glad most others are more sane than you.

You might do well to learn the difference between religion, which is an activity and tradition, versus a book, which is, well, just a book.

The Intransigent Faction

12th May 2008, 23:38

For someone that opposes religion so much, you have a more dogmatic approach to it than most Christians. I'm very glad for the sake of society that most people, Christians specifically, do not follow a rigid and necessarily contradictory concept of biblical law. And you really believe in the bible! I'm glad most others are more sane than you.

You might do well to learn the difference between religion, which is an activity and tradition, versus a book, which is, well, just a book.

A

Oh would you give up your nonsense and lies already!
Christianity by definition is dogmatic. There's nothing to "approach" since it's a defined idea with a basic set of principles. I'm telling you this because I'm not religious. Just because I'm arguing that it's a repressive entity doesn't mean I support the repressive entity.
I'll ask as calmly as I can once more but it's starting to get on my nerves. Stop the ad-hominem attacks. They just are not productive here. They don't advance your arguments in any way.
I don't believe in the Bible! That's my point CHRISTIANS DO!
"All Christians agree to include the book at the altar. Without the book there is no basis for Christianity as without the book you wouldn't have any source of who christ was except word of mouth. Without the bible you don't know any of the specifics of Christ then he was just what some other guys told you he where. If I were a christian I would rather believe a book that told a crazy story than a man but it's your pick."
To say that the Christian Bible is not relevant to Christianity is absolute bullshit and you won't find any legitimate Christian say otherwise.
The Christian Bible is "just a book" UNLESS you're a Christian, in which case it is the basis for your beliefs. Christians derive their teachings from the Christian Bible. 2+2=4 and saying 50 times that it equals 5 doesn't make you right. Got it?

The Intransigent Faction

12th May 2008, 23:51

If you think there is an ad hominen in anything I said you are only demonstrating that you do not know what an ad hominen is.

*hominem
See now that's just frustrating beyond expression. I know damn well what ad-hominem is and you know damn well that you did make ad-hominem arguments.

But also that the perfect God does not speak to them directly so there is plenty of room for error.

That's not what they claim though. All that this would make them is liars.
The point is that they are willing to claim for their own benefit that this perfect God is speaking through them, not that he actually is.

Seeing as you are too childish and stubborn to accept the fact that Christians do not follow ancient Jewish law

Since you're too childish and stubborn to concede or make a valid counter-argument to my points and have decided to resort to attacking me personally, you clearly can't rebut anything I've said.

If only your definition of Christianity is correct and one can only be a Christian if they follow Leviticus then there is not a single Christian in the world and furthermore no Christian has ever existed. Why are you so hung up about something that does not exist?

Besides primitive man, that is.
I'm "hung up" about it because it's still dangerous. People proclaiming themselves to be "Christian" and using this book as justification for their beliefs and actions are still dangerous because they are duped and/or dupe others into believing that their ideas are divinely inspired. It doesn't mean that they are Christian.
What's more dangerous, a psychopath that runs around torching gay people or a psychopath that runs around torching gay people and manages to convince people that his beliefs and actions were inspired by an omnipotent god? Definitely the latter.

Demogorgon

13th May 2008, 00:05

*hominem
See now that's just frustrating beyond expression. I know damn well what ad-hominem is and you know damn well that you did make ad-hominem arguments.
An ad hominem can be one of two things. It can either be the logical fallacy where one claims that an argument is wrong because of some flaw in the person making the argument or it can be a legitimate rhetorical device where "debating points" are scored by pointing out an inconsistency in the opponents position. As far as I see I did neither. I may have offended you in some way, but that is not the same as ad hominem

That's not what they claim though. All that this would make them is liars.
The point is that they are willing to claim for their own benefit that this perfect God is speaking through them, not that he actually is.

Under most circumstances to claim that God was speaking through you would be considered blasphemy. That is certainly not what Christians believe. At any rate something can only be a lie if the person telling it knows it to be false. You cannot lie about something you genuinely believe in.

Since you're too childish and stubborn to concede or make a valid counter-argument to my points and have decided to resort to attacking me personally, you clearly can't rebut anything I've said.

Now I am beginning to wonder if you are just trolling. You calling me childish? I am the one who has finished puberty. And for the record I confess to having held similar views to you before that happy day came. Everything you have said has been rebutted by me, Chimx and others. Hell, even Pusher Robot managed several posts of pure common sense in this thread. You are the one continuing to claim utter falsehoods even once it has been explained to you that they have no factual basis.

Once again, how old are you?

Besides primitive man, that is.
I'm "hung up" about it because it's still dangerous. People proclaiming themselves to be "Christian" and using this book as justification for their beliefs and actions are still dangerous because they are duped and/or dupe others into believing that their ideas are divinely inspired. It doesn't mean that they are Christian.
What's more dangerous, a psychopath that runs around torching gay people or a psychopath that runs around torching gay people and manages to convince people that his beliefs and actions were inspired by an omnipotent god? Definitely the latter.But once again, according to you, Christians do not exist (which shows just how absurd and contrary to materialism your position is). How can anything that does not exist possibly be a danger? If people "torching gays" (a rather rare occurence if it happens at all) are simply psychopaths (they are not, but that is what you are claiming), how does anything other than their flawed state of mind have any bearing on their crimes?

The Intransigent Faction

13th May 2008, 00:33

An ad hominem can be one of two things. It can either be the logical fallacy where one claims that an argument is wrong because of some flaw in the person making the argument or it can be a legitimate rhetorical device where "debating points" are scored by pointing out an inconsistency in the opponents position. As far as I see I did neither. I may have offended you in some way, but that is not the same as ad hominem.

I know what an ad-hominem is, thanks. That's not necessary.
If I have to spell it out then fine, whatever. Calling me childish and comparing my level of intelligence to that of your dog certainly qualifies. That and asking my age. You have no other reason to ask that question except to try to use that against me by claiming that I somehow lack understanding as a result.

Under most circumstances to claim that God was speaking through you would be considered blasphemy. That is certainly not what Christians believe. At any rate something can only be a lie if the person telling it knows it to be false. You cannot lie about something you genuinely believe in.

You can genuinely believe something, not know it's a fact, and claim it to be a fact just to win people over. That's certainly lying. But that's beside the point. Two plus two equals four. Christians claim that their words and beliefs are divinely inspired. It's simple.

Now I am beginning to wonder if you are just trolling. You calling me childish?

Funny how you say that as you troll yourself.

Everything you have said has been rebutted by me, Chimx and others..

Don't lie to yourself. The only sense in which that's true is if you consider ignoring everything that the other person has said and restating your rebutted point to be a "rebuttal".
You claimed that Leviticus doesn't apply to Christians.
I said it does and provided evidence to the contrary.
You then claimed again that Leviticus doesn't apply to Christians.

You are the one continuing to claim utter falsehoods even once it has been explained to you that they have no factual basis.

But once again, according to you, Christians do not exist (which shows just how absurd and contrary to materialism your position is). How can anything that does not exist possibly be a danger? If people "torching gays" (a rather rare occurence if it happens at all) are simply psychopaths (they are not, but that is what you are claiming), how does anything other than their flawed state of mind have any bearing on their crimes?

I've already spelled it out. You're just side-stepping.
"Besides primitive man, that is.
I'm "hung up" about it because it's still dangerous. People proclaiming themselves to be "Christian" and using this book as justification for their beliefs and actions are still dangerous because they are duped and/or dupe others into believing that their ideas are divinely inspired. It doesn't mean that they are Christian.
What's more dangerous, a psychopath that runs around torching gay people or a psychopath that runs around torching gay people and manages to convince people that his beliefs and actions were inspired by an omnipotent god? Definitely the latter."

First line shows that I'm not claiming that Christians don't exist/never existed.
Now you're making assumptions. Did I say that anyone who torches gays is a psychopath? No I didn't. I was merely providing an explanation with a hypothetical.
What does exist is, AGAIN, people claiming to be "Christian" and using this as justification for terrible actions.

Dust Bunnies

13th May 2008, 00:57

The Intransigent Faction

13th May 2008, 01:12

Wait an Athiest is talking about Christian beliefs? Hmmm what is wrong with this picture, anyone want to guess?

About the entire Leviticus discussion; Christians don't really follow that book. I eat pig all the time, I eat shrimp, my brother eats lobster, I'm fine with shaving, my dad shaves, I'm not seeing any similarities between Leviticus and our lifestyle. BTW I am Christian.

A self-proclaimed Christian anyway. It means more than simply saying "I am Christian".
Oh come on. THAT is childish. Because someone disagrees with a religion they cannot talk about it and thereby express that disbelief? That's bullshit. You might as well say that a strong proponent of multiculturalism shouldn't go around condemning Nazism.

chimx

13th May 2008, 01:23

*bangs head on desk*

You did not address a single point I made. I'm washing my hands of this ignorance.

The Intransigent Faction

13th May 2008, 01:25

*bangs head on desk*

You did not address a single point I made. I'm washing my hands of this ignorance.

You accuse me of ignorance?!
Just because you ignore my answers doesn't mean that they aren't there!
Look. I responded. It's right there on front of you! I addressed your points.
That and be patient. I can only respond to so many of you at once!
I couldn't give a thorough response to three different people in one post, now could I?

Dust Bunnies

13th May 2008, 01:27

The Intransigent Faction

13th May 2008, 01:31

I am not just a self proclaimed Christian. I am a member of the Catholic church who sings in a choir, helps the church's school, and is an alter server. You lost the battle, just leave the thread while you can Brad.

I lost nothing. That's just your way of trying to dismiss every valid point that's been made.
Being a member of a church that rejects what it once claimed was divinely inspired by a perfect God doesn't make you a Christian.

eyedrop

13th May 2008, 01:37

Can everyone just post a definition of what a christian is and then instead argue about that?

Demogorgon

13th May 2008, 01:41

I know what an ad-hominem is, thanks. That's not necessary.
If I have to spell it out then fine, whatever. Calling me childish and comparing my level of intelligence to that of your dog certainly qualifies. That and asking my age. You have no other reason to ask that question except to try to use that against me by claiming that I somehow lack understanding as a result.

Comparing your knowledge (not intelligence, my Dog is very smart) to that of my Dog was certainly an insult, but it was not an ad hominem. I did not claim your arguments were wrong because your knowledge of Christianity compared unfavourably to that of my dog, but rather that your knowledge was obviously sub-standard due to your arguments. Hence it was not an ad hominem.

As for your age, young people have as mush right to an opinion as everyone else, but an important aspect of maturity is learning not to see the world in such black and white terms and you obviously have not mastered that yet. Hence your age is relevant and as you have not answered the question, I can only conclude that it is rather telling.

You can genuinely believe something, not know it's a fact, and claim it to be a fact just to win people over. That's certainly lying. But that's beside the point. Two plus two equals four. Christians claim that their words and beliefs are divinely inspired. It's simple.

Eh? How can you lie about something you genuinely believe in?

Funny how you say that as you troll yourself.

Don't lie to yourself. The only sense in which that's true is if you consider ignoring everything that the other person has said and restating your rebutted point to be a "rebuttal".
You claimed that Leviticus doesn't apply to Christians.
I said it does and provided evidence to the contrary.
You then claimed again that Leviticus doesn't apply to Christians.

You are the one continuing to claim utter falsehoods even once it has been explained to you that they have no factual basis.

Chimx and I certainly know considerably more theology than you, we are not going to be swayed by your ham-fisted attempts to re-define Christianity. The fact is that a defining aspect of Christianity in relation to Judaism is that it specifically does not follow Leviticus. You can claim otherwise as many times as you like, but it is not you that gets to define what Christianity is. Your attempts to do so are only utterly destroying your credibility.

I've already spelled it out. You're just side-stepping.
"Besides primitive man, that is.
I'm "hung up" about it because it's still dangerous. People proclaiming themselves to be "Christian" and using this book as justification for their beliefs and actions are still dangerous because they are duped and/or dupe others into believing that their ideas are divinely inspired. It doesn't mean that they are Christian.
What's more dangerous, a psychopath that runs around torching gay people or a psychopath that runs around torching gay people and manages to convince people that his beliefs and actions were inspired by an omnipotent god? Definitely the latter."

First line shows that I'm not claiming that Christians don't exist/never existed.
Now you're making assumptions. Did I say that anyone who torches gays is a psychopath? No I didn't. I was merely providing an explanation with a hypothetical.
What does exist is, AGAIN, people claiming to be "Christian" and using this as justification for terrible actions.
And what "primitive" people do you know of following Leviticus? The fact is you are quite specifically claiming there are no Christians in the world. A defining aspect of Christianity is not following the laws of leviticus believing that they have been fulfilled, hence no Christian follows them. However, as you claim that one can only be a Christian if one does follow Leviticus (complete with circumcision, not eating pork, not wearing garments of mixed fabrics etc) then there cannot be any Christians in the world. The only people who make any attempt to follow Leviticus are Orthodox Jews and they are certainly not Christians, so according to you there are no Christians in the world and never have been. Hence according to you Christianity does not exist. See how week your position is?

Kwisatz Haderach

13th May 2008, 01:41

So, Brad, let me see if I can sum up your view:

Christianity is inherently homophobic, but since no self-proclaimed Christians follow Old Testament Law (which you claim they should follow in order to be true Christians), no true Christians actually exist. So Christianity is homophobic, but it doesn't actually exist any more.

I'm glad we got that sorted out.

Dust Bunnies

13th May 2008, 01:44

Ahhh my head is spinning! I am not homophobic and neither should Christianity. If God made everything then God made the gays and lesbians and bisexuals.

Kwisatz Haderach

13th May 2008, 01:46

That's ok; you don't exist, remember? :)

Dust Bunnies

13th May 2008, 01:47

Yup, I don't exist! Really that is the biggest piece of crap next to that Capitalism is the system of freedom.

Kwisatz Haderach

13th May 2008, 01:52

Well, yes, of course; it was merely sarcasm to point out the absurdity of Brad's position (which basically holds that Christians don't exist).

Dust Bunnies

13th May 2008, 02:01

I understood, just piling on the sarcasm. I love sarcasm, I hate total idiots.

The Intransigent Faction

13th May 2008, 02:06

Comparing your knowledge (not intelligence, my Dog is very smart) to that of my Dog was certainly an insult, but it was not an ad hominem. I did not claim your arguments were wrong because your knowledge of Christianity compared unfavourably to that of my dog, but rather that your knowledge was obviously sub-standard due to your arguments. Hence it was not an ad hominem.

Not directly but there was certainly an implication.

As for your age, young people have as much right to an opinion as everyone else, but an important aspect of maturity is learning not to see the world in such black and white terms and you obviously have not mastered that yet. Hence your age is relevant and as you have not answered the question, I can only conclude that it is rather telling.

Ad-hominem.
We could debate about what you're doing anyway but personal attacks don't advance your argument in any way.

Eh? How can you lie about something you genuinely believe in?

Already answered.
You can genuinely believe something, not know it's a fact, and claim it to be a fact just to win people over. That's certainly lying. But that's beside the point.

Chimx and I certainly know considerably more theology than you, we are not going to be swayed by your ham-fisted attempts to re-define Christianity.

You're the one doing the re-defining.

The fact is that a defining aspect of Christianity in relation to Judaism is that it specifically does not follow Leviticus. You can claim otherwise as many times as you like, but it is not you that gets to define what Christianity is. Your attempts to do so are only utterly destroying your credibility.

Oh you got me there. Simply by saying something contradictory to the evidence you've overcome the fact that Christ and the New Testament both command that the "Old Law" still applies.

And what "primitive" people do you know of following Leviticus? The fact is you are quite specifically claiming there are no Christians in the world.

The fact is that you need to stop deliberately skewering my position.
Obviously I don't know them in person, but clearly the writers of Leviticus believe it! Clearly Jesus did too when he asserted its relevance to Christian law along with the rest of the Old Testament.

The Intransigent Faction

13th May 2008, 02:08

I understood, just piling on the sarcasm. I love sarcasm, I hate total idiots.

Oh you got me there. One who disagrees MUST be an idiot!
Obviously you exist, but you aren't a true Christian.

Kami

13th May 2008, 02:13

Obviously you exist, but you aren't a true Christian.
http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/56.jpg

Now, you could say he goes against mainstream christian doctrine, but even reading that was painful.

The Intransigent Faction

13th May 2008, 02:17

Now, you could say he goes against mainstream christian doctrine

Essentially the same meaning. If one goes against Christian doctrine then they aren't Christian.
That fallacy isn't relevant here. In situations where the subject's status is previously determined by specific behaviors, the fallacy does not apply. For example, it is perfectly justified to say, "No true vegetarian eats meat," because not eating meat is what defines a person as a vegetarian.

Kami

13th May 2008, 02:19

Essentially the same meaning. If one goes against Christian doctrine then they aren't Christian.
In that case, you have a whole lot of smaller Christian denominations that aren't, apparently, Christian. Hell, in that case, the early gnostics weren't Christian :P

Dust Bunnies

13th May 2008, 02:21

There is an opinion and there is not an opion. If the entire argument makes no sense then its not an opinion, if the speaker babbles and goes around in circles it isn't an opinion.

Demogorgon

13th May 2008, 02:22

Not directly but there was certainly an implication.

No it wasn't. I did not say so until long after I had concluded that your views were utterly bonkers.

Ad-hominem.
We could debate about what you're doing anyway but personal attacks don't advance your argument in any way.

What cause is there left to advance? By this stage even most of the anti-theists on the board will agree with me, your credibility being this shot. All that is left to do now is garner entertainment.

Already answered.
You can genuinely believe something, not know it's a fact, and claim it to be a fact just to win people over. That's certainly lying. But that's beside the point.

I genuinely believe your age is somewhere between thirteen and fifteen. But I do not know that as a fact. Does that make me a liar?

Oh you got me there. Simply by saying something contradictory to the evidence you've overcome the fact that Christ and the New Testament both command that the "Old Law" still applies.

As has been pointed out again and again the New Testament says that Leviticus has been fulfilled and no longer applies. You know this board takes a dim view of trolls, right?

The fact is that you need to stop deliberately skewering my position.
Obviously I don't know them in person, but clearly the writers of Leviticus believe it! Clearly Jesus did too when he asserted its relevance to Christian law along with the rest of the Old Testament.
The writers of Leviticus belonged to a ver ancient branch of Judaism, not Christianity! The New testament authors who did belong to Christianity said that Leviticus no longer applied, how hard is this to understand?

Demogorgon

13th May 2008, 02:23

Oh you got me there. One who disagrees MUST be an idiot!
Obviously you exist, but you aren't a true Christian.
Give us an example of someone who is a true Christian.

The Intransigent Faction

13th May 2008, 02:32

No it wasn't. I did not say so until long after I had concluded that your views were utterly bonkers.

And yet you still said so.

I genuinely believe your age is somewhere between thirteen and fifteen. But I do not know that as a fact. Does that make me a liar?

You're still ignoring the point! You can genuinely believe something, not know it's a fact, and claim it to be a fact just to win people over. That's certainly lying.
Genuinely believing that because someone has a supposedly simplistic view they must be young doesn't make you a liar. It does make you prejudiced though. Additionally, you would therefore be lying if you went around screaming "I know for a fact that Brad is somewhere between 13 and 15 years of age!"

As has been pointed out again and again the New Testament says that Leviticus has been fulfilled and no longer applies. You know this board takes a dim view of trolls, right?

As has been pointed out again and again the New Testament and Christ himself say that Leviticus and the rest of the Old Testament still apply. You know that ignoring the obvious and calling me a troll doesn't make you correct, right?

The writers of Leviticus belonged to a very ancient branch of Judaism, not Christianity! The New testament authors who did belong to Christianity said that Leviticus no longer applied, how hard is this to understand?

The New Testament and Jesus Christ himself said that Leviticus still applies. How hard is this to understand?
I suggest you look up the term "blackwhite".

The Intransigent Faction

13th May 2008, 02:33

In that case, you have a whole lot of smaller Christian denominations that aren't, apparently, Christian. Hell, in that case, the early gnostics weren't Christian :P

Now you're starting to get it!

The Intransigent Faction

13th May 2008, 02:33

There is an opinion and there is not an opinion. If the entire argument makes no sense then its not an opinion, if the speaker babbles and goes around in circles it isn't an opinion.

Which is why you are wrong.

The Intransigent Faction

13th May 2008, 02:38

Give us an example of someone who is a true Christian.

Christianity: a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior.

Therefore a Christian is: One who adheres to a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior.

Demogorgon

13th May 2008, 02:40

The Intransigent Faction

13th May 2008, 02:44

No an example. Not your definition. Tell us of an actually existing person (who is mentioned on the internet sow e can verify their existence) who is a Christian according to your view.

Christianity: a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior.

Therefore a Christian is: One who adheres to a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior.

chimx

13th May 2008, 02:46

You accuse me of ignorance?!
Just because you ignore my answers doesn't mean that they aren't there!
Look. I responded. It's right there on front of you! I addressed your points.
That and be patient. I can only respond to so many of you at once!
I couldn't give a thorough response to three different people in one post, now could I?

I'll try again. Reply to private message:

Seriously, I just had to PM you to ask:
I'm sorry if I missed something that you said (if it was pushed off the page by the various other replies or something like that).
I'd be happy to respond if you'd tell me exactly what I missed because as far as I know I did respond to you, if you're referring to your point about Leviticus.

The quotes you provide say that the covenant will be valid until "everything is completed" or "until all has been fulfilled" (i'm paraphrasing). This refers to the creation of a new covenant, which had been discussed by Jeremiah in the Old Testament.

If you read the Gospel of Luke, when Jesus is with his apostles at the last supper, you will see him say that the wine represents his blood which symbolizes as a new covenant. I believe he uses the phrase "testament", but theologians believe Jesus used the terms interchangeably.

The belief that a new covenant between God and humans was created with the crucifixtion of Jesus is probably one of the most core elements of Christianity. Prophets talked about it in the old testament, and it was again discussed in the New Testament. Jesus only mentioned the preservation of the old covenant in that it will not be replaced (or "fulfilled", or "completed") until the crucifixion.

The crucifixion is significant because it represents the end of a covenant. In the same sense, Christians believe that the marriage between a man and a woman represents a covenant that can only be broken by death. (This relates back to Genesis, and is the real root reason behind Christianity treating homosexuals differently). Death is what fulfilled the covenant, but it was replaced by the human/god relationship to be mediated by Jesus, which allows for the forgiveness of sins.

Demogorgon

13th May 2008, 02:48

Kami

13th May 2008, 02:49

One who adheres to a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior.
Which parts? what about the apocrypha?

Kwisatz Haderach

13th May 2008, 03:16

Christianity: a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior.

Therefore a Christian is: One who adheres to a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior.
No living person fits the above description. Ergo, according to your view, Christians don't exist. Since Christians are purely fictional, then, all discussion of whether they are homophobic or not is rather moot, wouldn't you say?

Edit: You have also said that we should ignore the views of Paul, since he never met Jesus in person while he was alive. That means you presumably wish to throw Paul's writings out of the New Testament and out of the body of texts that a person must adhere to in order to be a Christian. So you reserve the right to be sole judge of what should or should not belong in the Bible? Tell us then, O Enlightened One, which other books must we remove or add to the Bible in order to become True Christians (tm)?

You may also consider looking up the term "Straw Man"... I would say that the biggest Straw Man I have ever seen is you inventing your own religious sect - which currently suffers from a distinct lack of adherents - and then proclaiming your sect to be the one true Christianity in order to criticize Christianity based on the views of your invented sect.

The Intransigent Faction

13th May 2008, 03:53

First off, to the rest of you: I'd appreciate being given the opportunity to respond to one person before everyone else jumps in. As said, I can't respond to three different people all at once.

I'll try again. Reply to private message:

The quotes you provide say that the covenant will be valid until "everything is completed" or "until all has been fulfilled" (i'm paraphrasing). This refers to the creation of a new covenant, which had been discussed by Jeremiah in the Old Testament.

If you read the Gospel of Luke, when Jesus is with his apostles at the last supper, you will see him say that the wine represents his blood which symbolizes as a new covenant. I believe he uses the phrase "testament", but theologians believe Jesus used the terms interchangeably.

The belief that a new covenant between God and humans was created with the crucifixtion of Jesus is probably one of the most core elements of Christianity. Prophets talked about it in the old testament, and it was again discussed in the New Testament. Jesus only mentioned the preservation of the old covenant in that it will not be replaced (or "fulfilled", or "completed") until the crucifixion.

The crucifixion is significant because it represents the end of a covenant. In the same sense, Christians believe that the marriage between a man and a woman represents a covenant that can only be broken by death. (This relates back to Genesis, and is the real root reason behind Christianity treating homosexuals differently). Death is what fulfilled the covenant, but it was replaced by the human/god relationship to be mediated by Jesus, which allows for the forgiveness of sins.

A couple of the quotes mentioned fulfillment, but not all of them. In any case:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Now, ask yourself this: Did heaven and earth disappear?
You'll have to forgive me for taking Christ's word above the Prophets'.
If his intent was to say that until he died the Old Law must be followed, he would have said that instead of insisting so often that the Old Law would always apply. Yes, theologians do consider "testament" and "Covenant" to be interchangeable.

The word "covenant" occurs 20 times in 18 verses. The only reference of the word with respect to Jesus is here:

"And all they that heard them laid them up in their hearts, saying, What manner of child shall this be! And the hand of the Lord was with him. And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; The oath which he sware to our father Abraham."(Luke 1:66-72).

And as we see here, this use of the word covenant, is a reference about Jesus' coming in regard to the older one between Yahweh and Abraham.

The other "covenant" references are in the letters to and from Paul and Timothy where they refer to covenant(s) that they share between the churches they were establishing, as they proselytized their beliefs among the Romans, Greeks and Macedonians, Corinthians, Thessalonians, etc., as they tried to whip them into shape and keep them in-line.

There are no verses within the NTV where Jesus is ever attributed with having uttered the word "covenant." Neither old, nor new or improved.

The Intransigent Faction

13th May 2008, 04:05

No living person fits the above description. Ergo, according to your view, Christians don't exist. Since Christians are purely fictional, then, all discussion of whether they are homophobic or not is rather moot, wouldn't you say?

*Sigh*. This again?
Key word no living person.
In any case it's not really relevant because as I had stated before:
People proclaiming themselves to be "Christian" and using this book as justification for their beliefs and actions are still dangerous because they are duped and/or dupe others into believing that their ideas are divinely inspired. It doesn't mean that they are Christian.
What's more dangerous, a psychopath that runs around torching gay people or a psychopath that runs around torching gay people and manages to convince people that his beliefs and actions were inspired by an omnipotent god? Definitely the latter.

Edit: You have also said that we should ignore the views of Paul, since he never met Jesus in person while he was alive. That means you presumably wish to throw Paul's writings out of the New Testament and out of the body of texts that a person must adhere to in order to be a Christian. So you reserve the right to be sole judge of what should or should not belong in the Bible? Tell us then, O Enlightened One, which other books must we remove or add to the Bible in order to become True Christians (tm)?

Me? The sole judge? No. It's based on what Christ said..he certainly takes higher authority than Paul in what does and doesn't apply to the Christian doctrine.

You may also consider looking up the term "Straw Man"... I would say that the biggest Straw Man I have ever seen is you inventing your own religious sect - which currently suffers from a distinct lack of adherents - and then proclaiming your sect to be the one true Christianity in order to criticize Christianity based on the views of your invented sect.

Inventing my own religious sect? No. I didn't invent Christianity. Christ established Christianity. As for "true Christianity", I've already provided you with the example/definition.

The Intransigent Faction

13th May 2008, 04:09

Which parts? what about the apocrypha?

All parts (Christ has said that all parts apply, which you'd know if you read the Bible). I'm not saying "omit Paul's writings" but Christ's words certainly take precedence over his.
What about the Apocrypha? Does it claim to be a replacement Bible that declares every other scripture invalid?

chimx

13th May 2008, 06:58

Yes, theologians do consider "testament" and "Covenant" to be interchangeable.

"And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide [it] among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament [i.e. new covenant] in my blood, which is shed for you." -Jesus (Luke 22 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/Luk022.html#14;))

Kwisatz Haderach

13th May 2008, 10:59

*Sigh*. This again?
Key word no living person.
I'm sorry, I didn't know you were afraid of the reactionary actions that might be taken by dead people.

In any case it's not really relevant because as I had stated before:
People proclaiming themselves to be "Christian" and using this book as justification for their beliefs and actions are still dangerous because they are duped and/or dupe others into believing that their ideas are divinely inspired. It doesn't mean that they are Christian.
Ok, so why are we talking about doctrine and scripture and covenants at all that stuff? Clearly your problem is with religion in general, not with Christianity in particular. If you think people who believe their ideas to be divinely inspired are dangerous, then the issue we should be talking about is the notion of divinely inspired ideas, not the content of these ideas.You are saying that it doesn't matter if Christianity is homophobic or not; you oppose it anyway, on principle, because you oppose all religion.

Me? The sole judge? No. It's based on what Christ said... he certainly takes higher authority than Paul in what does and doesn't apply to the Christian doctrine.
Trouble is, Christians don't agree on the precise meaning of what Christ said. That's why there are so many denominations. And your particular interpretation of what Christ said has the distinction of being rejected by every single Christian denomination out there.

Inventing my own religious sect? No. I didn't invent Christianity. Christ established Christianity. As for "true Christianity", I've already provided you with the example/definition.
You've provided the definition, but you haven't provided any example of a real, existing person that actually fits that definition. If you are attacking a belief that no people actually hold, that's called a straw man fallacy.

And in any case, your definition is contradictory. You say that a Christian must uphold the New Testament, and you say the New Testament includes the writings of Paul. But you also say that Christians must reject the writings of Paul when it comes to Paul's belief that Old Testament Law no longer applies. You can't uphold Paul and reject Paul at the same time. Make up your mind.

BurnTheOliveTree

13th May 2008, 11:36

I hope comrades will forgive me for not reading this topic from the first page, I'm pressed for time.

The short answer to the title question is yes.

The long answer:

To just say 'yes' is of course simplistic. There are christians around who are fine on homosexuality, like Edric O or my ex. It's not something that is cast in iron. However, I think the evidence suggests that, at every level of christianity, it's leaders, it's clergy, it's rank and file church-goers, it's scripture and it's history, Christianity is overwhelmingly a homophobic religion.

We'll start with leaders - I doubt I'll get much disagreement on this score, even from chimx. :)

Pope Ratzinger:

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.

Previous pope John Paul discussing gay marriage:

It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams says that the Church of England should be "welcoming" of homosexuals, but try to "convert" them to heterosexuality. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527357/Gays-must-change,-says-archbishop.html

I looked for the UK baptist church's official position - suffice to say that I found a single minority group arguing for inclusion, the rest was a torrent of homophobia from various groups in the U.S and some horrendously bigoted articles from UK baptists - but these were not the leaders. If anyone can find me a baptist figurehead making statement about homosexuality that's not homophobic, I'll concede the point.

Pentecostal leaders seem the worst of all; homosexuality is the result of sexual abuse or demonic influence! www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/11/uk-charismatic-leader-sexual-abuse-causes-spirit-of-homosexuality (http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/11/uk-charismatic-leader-sexual-abuse-causes-spirit-of-homosexuality)

The rank and file:

Barna Research also determined that 85% of Evangelicals, 61% of born-again adults, and 65% of those who attend conservative Protestant churches believe that a person chooses to be a homosexual.

The quote is from this link - http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_poll2.htm

So in the U.S at least, which we can assume is a reasonable benchmark for christianity worldwide I think, people start out with positions out of step with modern science which has found a genetic base for homosexuality - and also clashes with basic common sense; why would a person 'choose' to be a homosexual if it will result in their persecution, which in many instances is the case? I think this shows a subtle trend of homophobia. Interestingly, the evangelicals are overwhelmingly in favour of this position, whereas the protestants are only moderately in favour. The more zealous the christian, the more homophobic you get, apparrently.

And of course, this is reinforced by other polls of christian denominations by Gallup. According to a 2001 poll, just 34% of born-again christians feel that homosexuality should even be legal. In a poll of the evangelical churches, around 95% feel that homosexuality is "unacceptable". A smaller poll of non-selected adults found that 53% disagreed with the statement "the bible does not specifically condemn homosexuality", and 20% were unsure.

Which brings us onto the bible. Just to avoid the accusation that the old testament somehow doesn't count, I'll use the new testament exclusively, and remember, most adults in the U.S seem to agree with me. Quotes!

Romans:

Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Corinthians:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

Jude:

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

I think these quotes from the cuddly liberal new testament will suffice for now - calling gays worthy of death and the vengeance of eternal fire is pretty homophobic...

-Alex

Addendum to chimx:

There are many church leaders who are homophobic, yes, and there are many church leaders who are not homophobic (again, there is an openly gay bishop in the Episcopal church, gay and lesbian priests, etc). But I think that this homophobia is more a byproduct of societal homophobia generally.

Give me examples of non-homophobic church leaders then, don't just allude to their existence. Also, how is this more a byproduct of societal homophobia generally? Our governments are reasonably tolerant these days, and a great whack more than the churches, which is why we had the clash over gay adoption a couple of years back.

Even the "atheist state's" such as the Soviet Union and Cuba heavily persecuted homosexuals. It has only been recently in both countries that homosexual persecution has stopped on a state level -- and actually if you look at the theistic statistics, a rise in religious belief correlates with a decrease in legal persecution of homosexuals (though I don't think that this implies causation).

Of course, this kind of thing I'd agree is a result of societal homophobia - because the USSR was quite a bit further back in history... homosexuality was directly illegal for most of the 20th century. Nonetheless, my argument was not that christianity is the root of all homophobia, just that it is homophobic.

As I have argued, religion as a societal superstructure is subject to the changing value systems within any particular culture. I have provided historical examples for how this is true, but I think anybody with a brain can think back at how the church has developed with Europe's changing production relationships and see that this is obviously true.

Yes, I agree with you. However, this is not to say that religion is simply a straight out expression of changing value systems. I'd argue that the church always tries to fight progress, whether ethical or scientific, as much as it can provided it does not fall out of the cultural paradigm altogether. The modern church is a good example of this - most other superstructural institutions like governments have come a long way, and as such the boundaries of acceptability have shifted quite considerably. Most church leaders will not dare to be as direct as Jerry Falwell these days, but they'll still fight progress as hard as they can so long as they can retain legitimacy.

I think a wiser course is to continue to push for cultural values of sexual tolerance, and has society becomes more and more tolerant of homosexuality, you will see a corresponding shift within the church. This is already beginning to happen with the ordination of gay priests and bishops (and as a personal anecdote, I live in a "gay neighborhood", and about 4 blocks from my house is a Christian church which has banners welcoming gay men and women on its side). As we as a society become more tolerant, church's will out of necessity become more tolerant as well, lest they risk alienating themselves from the cultural values of the communities they represent.

Again, I totally agree with you mate. They'll shift out of necessity, as you put it. And there we get right to the heart of this thread's question; the church will accomodate gays, but only because it is forced to by external cultural pressure, and not becaus it isn't homophobic at heart. It always has been, and it always is when it can get away with it.

Now, as for the other topic. I believe there is a great deal of confusion, and lack of a better term, ignorance regarding the root of Christianities current stance of gay marriage. As I have demonstrated, it has nothing to do with Levitical Law, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, or any of the anti-gay comments made in the New Testament. The reason Christians are hesitant to have gay marriage is due to how marriage is defined as a covenant between a man and a woman in the creation story in Genesis.

If you are interested in agitating for equal rights for gay and lesbian couples in the church, it is best you actually try to tackle the relevant scripture. Specifically, this is Genesis 2:18-25:

Why is the scripture I quoted irrelevant, and why is your's relevant? What, precisely, have I got wrong about their gay marriage stance?

Kami

13th May 2008, 11:53

All parts (Christ has said that all parts apply, which you'd know if you read the Bible). I'm not saying "omit Paul's writings" but Christ's words certainly take precedence over his.
What about the Apocrypha? Does it claim to be a replacement Bible that declares every other scripture invalid?
If I'd read the bible? I'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate, but up untill a year or two ago I was a fundamentalist Christian; I know that book cover to cover, contradictions and all. MY point was, there is no "Christian" who adheres to every part of the bible; all pick and choose as is convenient to their own morality, perhaps getting hung up on a part or two.

What about the Apocrypha? Does it claim to be a replacement Bible that declares every other scripture invalid?
You're really not to up on the history of Christianity, are you? The books of the bible the nicean council didn't like. They're not a replacement, they're part of it, that most conveniently ignore, and have done for hundreds of years.

chimx

13th May 2008, 18:17

We'll start with leaders - I doubt I'll get much disagreement on this score, even from chimx.

There are many church leaders who are homophobic, yes, and there are many church leaders who are not homophobic (again, there is an openly gay bishop in the Episcopal church, gay and lesbian priests, etc). But I think that this homophobia is more a byproduct of societal homophobia generally.

Even the "atheist state's" such as the Soviet Union and Cuba heavily persecuted homosexuals. It has only been recently in both countries that homosexual persecution has stopped on a state level -- and actually if you look at the theistic statistics, a rise in religious belief correlates with a decrease in legal persecution of homosexuals (though I don't think that this implies causation).

As I have argued, religion as a societal superstructure is subject to the changing value systems within any particular culture. I have provided historical examples for how this is true, but I think anybody with a brain can think back at how the church has developed with Europe's changing production relationships and see that this is obviously true.

I think a wiser course is to continue to push for cultural values of sexual tolerance, and has society becomes more and more tolerant of homosexuality, you will see a corresponding shift within the church. This is already beginning to happen with the ordination of gay priests and bishops (and as a personal anecdote, I live in a "gay neighborhood", and about 4 blocks from my house is a Christian church which has banners welcoming gay men and women on its side). As we as a society become more tolerant, church's will out of necessity become more tolerant as well, lest they risk alienating themselves from the cultural values of the communities they represent.

Now, as for the other topic. I believe there is a great deal of confusion, and lack of a better term, ignorance regarding the root of Christianities current stance of gay marriage. As I have demonstrated, it has nothing to do with Levitical Law, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, or any of the anti-gay comments made in the New Testament. The reason Christians are hesitant to have gay marriage is due to how marriage is defined as a covenant between a man and a woman in the creation story in Genesis.

If you are interested in agitating for equal rights for gay and lesbian couples in the church, it is best you actually try to tackle the relevant scripture. Specifically, this is Genesis 2:18-25:

18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

BurnTheOliveTree

13th May 2008, 20:30

Replied in my above edit.

-Alex

Dean

13th May 2008, 23:04

Oh would you give up your nonsense and lies already!
Christianity by definition is dogmatic. There's nothing to "approach" since it's a defined idea with a basic set of principles. I'm telling you this because I'm not religious. Just because I'm arguing that it's a repressive entity doesn't mean I support the repressive entity.
I'll ask as calmly as I can once more but it's starting to get on my nerves. Stop the ad-hominem attacks. They just are not productive here. They don't advance your arguments in any way.
I don't believe in the Bible! That's my point CHRISTIANS DO!
"All Christians agree to include the book at the altar. Without the book there is no basis for Christianity as without the book you wouldn't have any source of who christ was except word of mouth. Without the bible you don't know any of the specifics of Christ then he was just what some other guys told you he where. If I were a christian I would rather believe a book that told a crazy story than a man but it's your pick."
To say that the Christian Bible is not relevant to Christianity is absolute bullshit and you won't find any legitimate Christian say otherwise.
The Christian Bible is "just a book" UNLESS you're a Christian, in which case it is the basis for your beliefs. Christians derive their teachings from the Christian Bible. 2+2=4 and saying 50 times that it equals 5 doesn't make you right. Got it?

Hmm, most Christians I know either didn't believe in the bible as a definitive source, or don't follow a vast majority of the biblical law. I'll say it again: you believe more in the bible than Christians do (and no, Christianity is not by definition a following of the Bible, but of Christ, who by your own admission contradicts the bible). You are clearly more dogmatic about religion than most Christians I've met. And I know you will never cede the point, though it is clear that your entire argument hinges on the concept that Christianity is by definition the following of a 'holy' text. Atheists like you are the most interesting brand of catch-22s I've encountered.

The Intransigent Faction

14th May 2008, 00:12

I'm sorry, I didn't know you were afraid of the reactionary actions that might be taken by dead people.

I'm not. You're still deliberately twisting my words here.

How about reading what I write for a change? I'm "hung up" about it because it's still dangerous. People proclaiming themselves to be "Christian" and using this book as justification for their beliefs and actions are still dangerous because they are duped and/or dupe others into believing that their ideas are divinely inspired. It doesn't mean that they are Christian.
What's more dangerous, a psychopath that runs around torching gay people or a psychopath that runs around torching gay people and manages to convince people that his beliefs and actions were inspired by an omnipotent god? Definitely the latter.

Ok, so why are we talking about doctrine and scripture and covenants at all that stuff? Clearly your problem is with religion in general, not with Christianity in particular. If you think people who believe their ideas to be divinely inspired are dangerous, then the issue we should be talking about is the notion of divinely inspired ideas, not the content of these ideas.You are saying that it doesn't matter if Christianity is homophobic or not; you oppose it anyway, on principle, because you oppose all religion.

Of course it matters that it's homophobic. That's just another reason to strongly oppose Christianity.
*Sigh* stop making me repeat myself!
The problem is that this thread is specifically addressing Christianity. If I want to talk to you about another religion I'll talk to you on another thread.

Trouble is, Christians don't agree on the precise meaning of what Christ said. That's why there are so many denominations. And your particular interpretation of what Christ said has the distinction of being rejected by every single Christian denomination out there.

Trouble is that the "interpretations" are mutually exclusive. Besides that, its NOT a matter of interpretation when it's so straightforward! You've seen the Bible verses. You can choose to ignore them but you won't be right in doing so.

You've provided the definition, but you haven't provided any example of a real, existing person that actually fits that definition. If you are attacking a belief that no people actually hold, that's called a straw man fallacy.

Straw man? I'm not misrepresenting anything. One more time in case you missed/chose to ignore it above:
I'm "hung up" about it because it's still dangerous. People proclaiming themselves to be "Christian" and using this book as justification for their beliefs and actions are still dangerous because they are duped and/or dupe others into believing that their ideas are divinely inspired. It doesn't mean that they are Christian.
What's more dangerous, a psychopath that runs around torching gay people or a psychopath that runs around torching gay people and manages to convince people that his beliefs and actions were inspired by an omnipotent god? Definitely the latter.

And in any case, your definition is contradictory. You say that a Christian must uphold the New Testament, and you say the New Testament includes the writings of Paul. But you also say that Christians must reject the writings of Paul when it comes to Paul's belief that Old Testament Law no longer applies. You can't uphold Paul and reject Paul at the same time. Make up your mind.

I already explained this above. What I said was "Paul was a self appointed apostle and never met Christ. To claim that he's a higher authority in the faith is ridiculous!" As I stated above: I'm not saying "omit Paul's writings" but Christ's words certainly take precedence over his.
Quit misrepresenting what I'm saying.

The Intransigent Faction

14th May 2008, 00:31

Hmm, most Christians I know either didn't believe in the bible as a definitive source, or don't follow a vast majority of the biblical law. I'll say it again: you believe more in the bible than Christians do (and no, Christianity is not by definition a following of the Bible, but of Christ, who by your own admission contradicts the bible). You are clearly more dogmatic about religion than most Christians I've met. And I know you will never cede the point, though it is clear that your entire argument hinges on the concept that Christianity is by definition the following of a 'holy' text. Atheists like you are the most interesting brand of catch-22s I've encountered.

First of all, what I meant to show in quoting verses from the Bible which have been attributed to Jesus is that according to the Bible (the source for anything Christ would have said, although edited later by others), Christ and others reasserted the relevance of the Old Testament.
Talk about a Catch 22..if you follow the Bible, then the Old Testament still applies. If you follow Christ, you follow the Old Testament as Christ himself stated that the Old Testament still applies.
You can try to find contradictory scripture, but in doing so you beg the question of why the scripture you quote contradicting a claim is more valid that scripture supporting the original claim.
Pointing out that both Christ and the scripture contradict themselves isn't a very good supporting argument for Christianity. We've gotten caught up in a red herring. I presented arguments in earlier posts for why Christianity would be an unnecessary harm if in fact there was no absolute Christian dogma. So, I made hypothetical points about it being an absolute in order to establish that Christianity is harmful either way.

The Intransigent Faction

14th May 2008, 00:42

If I'd read the bible? I'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate, but up untill a year or two ago I was a fundamentalist Christian; I know that book cover to cover, contradictions and all. MY point was, there is no "Christian" who adheres to every part of the bible; all pick and choose as is convenient to their own morality, perhaps getting hung up on a part or two.

Then you should have read one of my earlier posts:

What I am saying is that there are three possibilities:

1.) Sola scriptura is valid and thus all true Christian must follow exactly by the books.
2.) There is absolutely no central doctrine as part of the belief system, in which case it is akin to moral relativism (the church could thus effectively become an instrument of hate as it is bound by absolutely no foundation whatsoever).
3.) Scripture and doctrine in general is all relative to interpretation, in which case you pick and choose the parts you agree with, interpret as you see fit, and are thus essentially left with exactly the same views you had when you started, which makes Christianity unnecessary and potentially harmful as it could easily be interpreted to justify hatred.

You're really not to up on the history of Christianity, are you? The books of the bible the nicean council didn't like. They're not a replacement, they're part of it, that most conveniently ignore, and have done for hundreds of years.

Yes, the Apocrypha was not accepted as canonical scripture.
If it's considered valid, it is still scripture, not separate.

Kwisatz Haderach

14th May 2008, 04:13

I'm not. You're still deliberately twisting my words here.
You agreed that no living Christians exist. I said I wasn't aware that you were afraid of dead Christians. If you agree that no living Christians exist and you have no problem with dead Christians, then why are you opposed to Christianity, exactly?

Of course it matters that it's homophobic. That's just another reason to strongly oppose Christianity.
But I thought that Christianity didn't exist?

Your problem is that you have dug yourself into a logical hole where you must conclude that either (a) Christianity does not exist, or (b) Christianity is not homophobic. You refuse to admit that Christianity is not homophobic (at least not always and not inherently), and you try to get away from the conclusion that Christianity does not exist by saying that pseudo-Christians are still dangerous even if they're not True Christians (tm). But if they're not True Christians, they don't have to be homophobic, right?

I already explained this above. What I said was "Paul was a self appointed apostle and never met Christ. To claim that he's a higher authority in the faith is ridiculous!" As I stated above: I'm not saying "omit Paul's writings" but Christ's words certainly take precedence over his.
Quit misrepresenting what I'm saying.
You are saying that Paul's writings directly contradict Christ's teachings. Therefore it can't be a matter of mere precedence. You have interpreted Christ in such a way that makes Paul a liar. And now you're saying that the Bible should not omit lies - indeed you're saying that these lies are part of what Christians are supposed to believe! How the hell is it possible for Christians to believe A and not-A at the same time, even if A "takes precedence" or not-A has a "lower priority"?

The Intransigent Faction

14th May 2008, 04:33

You agreed that no living Christians exist. I said I wasn't aware that you were afraid of dead Christians. If you agree that no living Christians exist and you have no problem with dead Christians, then why are you opposed to Christianity, exactly?

It's still dangerous. People proclaiming themselves to be "Christian" and using this book as justification for their beliefs and actions are still dangerous because they are duped and/or dupe others into believing that their ideas are divinely inspired. It doesn't mean that they are Christian.
What's more dangerous, a psychopath that runs around torching gay people or a psychopath that runs around torching gay people and manages to convince people that his beliefs and actions were inspired by an omnipotent god? Definitely the latter.

Your problem is that you have dug yourself into a logical hole where you must conclude that either (a) Christianity does not exist, or (b) Christianity is not homophobic. You refuse to admit that Christianity is not homophobic (at least not always and not inherently), and you try to get away from the conclusion that Christianity does not exist by saying that pseudo-Christians are still dangerous even if they're not True Christians (tm). But if they're not True Christians, they don't have to be homophobic, right?

Christianity DOES exist. True Christians DON'T. I'm trying as hard as I can not to use profanity here but this utter misrepresentation and refusal to listen is giving me a pounding headache.
Correct, not necessarily. However when people "interpret" scripture at ill this is bound to be used for manipulative purposes.
However that's not particularly relevant here as I'm speaking of legitimate Christians, not those who claim to be Christian while utterly contradicting Christian doctrine.

You are saying that Paul's writings directly contradict Christ's teachings. Therefore it can't be a matter of mere precedence. You have interpreted Christ in such a way that makes Paul a liar. And now you're saying that the Bible should not omit lies - indeed you're saying that these lies are part of what Christians are supposed to believe! How the hell is it possible for Christians to believe A and not-A at the same time, even if A "takes precedence" or not-A has a "lower priority"?

I'm not saying "omit Paul's writings" but Christ's words certainly take precedence over his.
Quit misrepresenting what I'm saying. Repeating a lie doesn't make it truth.
That's the problem with basing one's moral beliefs on or trying to argue about a book that seems to contradict itself.
I don't know, you tell me. There was an earlier claim in this thread by a Christian apologist that two absolutes can coexist.
If you're indeed suggesting that a Christian can't hold two contradictory principles then voilà! There must be a set doctrine as Christianity holds fundamentals that cannot be rejected without rejecting Christianity. A belief system can't hold two contradictory and mutually exclusive ideals like that. I might as well be saying "As a Christian, I believe that homosexuality is right and also that it's wrong!"

chimx

14th May 2008, 05:02

Christ's words

Christ's words are recorded two generations after Christ. The earliest gospel was written by a follower of St. Peter.

Christianity DOES exist. True Christians DON'T.

Define "true" Christianity. The idea of a "true" religious belief is a fundamentalist perspective that modern religions have thankfully shed.

Bluetongue

14th May 2008, 05:05

Are none of you aware of HUNDREDS if not thousands of gay christian churches? Are you going to walk into a church filled with homosexuals singing gospels and tell them they aren't True Christians(TM) because they are gay? Or is just internalized homophobia (what about your Christianaphobia?) What kind of reactionary crap is that? Religions CHANGE.

http://www.gaybiblechristians.org/

Our continued word for our Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender visitors and members:
Remember always that you are loved by God [John 3:16], JUST as you are, JUST as He created you to be [Psalm 139:13-16] -- and anyone who says differently is trying to put themselves between you and God [Luke 11:46; Acts 15:5-11; Titus 1:10-11] (and you KNOW whose agenda THAT is! [Matthew 16:23; Mark 4:15]). REJECT false teachings and REMOVE yourself from those who witness falsely against Queer or any other people [Matthew 7:15-29; Galatians 5:1-8; 1 John 4:1] and take care of the Queer people around you who need to see the love of Jesus in your face, in your hands, in your words [John 13:34-35]!

Don't let bad Christians keep you from a good God!

Admittedly, these people disturb the hell out me (haha), but they are rather common.

The Intransigent Faction

14th May 2008, 05:08

The Intransigent Faction

14th May 2008, 05:10

Christ's words are recorded two generations after Christ. The earliest gospel was written by a follower of St. Peter.

If not the Bible, what exactly is your source for Christ's words?

Define "true" Christianity. The idea of a "true" religious belief is a fundamentalist perspective that modern religions have thankfully shed.

You seem to have missed the above. I gave a definition:

Christianity: a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior.

Therefore a Christian is: One who adheres to a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior.

Kwisatz Haderach

14th May 2008, 05:13

Are you going to walk into a church filled with homosexuals singing gospels and tell them they aren't True Christians(TM) because they are gay?
Why, yes, I do believe that is exactly what Brad would do. He said that all Christians who don't follow Old Testament Law are not True Christians, so that includes not only any gay Christians, but also any Christians who are not circumcised.

Claiming to be Christian while contradicting scripture does not make them Christian.
Yes, but according to you no Christian is a True Christian anyway, so what difference does it make?

Brad, I have answered your points, but you have not answered mine. Indeed, I have already answered your big bolded text several posts above. My answer was that it is not relevant to the question of whether Christianity is homophobic, because:

If you think people who believe their ideas to be divinely inspired are dangerous, then the issue we should be talking about is the notion of divinely inspired ideas, not the content of these ideas.
I say "Christianity is not inherently homophobic." You reply "People proclaiming themselves to be 'Christian' and using this book as justification for their beliefs and actions are still dangerous." Fair enough, but that's an entirely different claim that requires an entirely different argument.

I'm not saying "omit Paul's writings" but Christ's words certainly take precedence over his.
Again I ask: How is it possible for someone to believe both A and not-A even if A "takes precedence" over not-A?

And do keep in mind that it is your interpretation of Christ's words that contradicts Paul, not mine.

But anyway, I'm glad we can at least agree on the main answer to the original question of this thread:

[You say] that pseudo-Christians are still dangerous even if they're not True Christians (tm). But if they're not True Christians, they don't have to be homophobic, right?
Correct, not necessarily. However when people "interpret" scripture at ill this is bound to be used for manipulative purposes.
However that's not particularly relevant here as I'm speaking of legitimate Christians, not those who claim to be Christian while utterly contradicting Christian doctrine.
Ok, so you agree that living Christians (who aren't True Christians in your view, but whatever) do not necessarily have to be homophobic. Wonderful! Case closed.

The Intransigent Faction

14th May 2008, 05:38

STOP MISREPRESENTING EVERYTHING I SAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hopefully that was visible enough for you.

Why, yes, I do believe that is exactly what Brad would do. He said that all Christians who don't follow Old Testament Law are not True Christians, so that includes not only any gay Christians, but also any Christians who are not circumcised.

Fair enough.

Yes, but according to you no Christian is a True Christian anyway, so what difference does it make?

*SIGH*It's still dangerous. People proclaiming themselves to be "Christian" and using this book as justification for their beliefs and actions are still dangerous because they are duped and/or dupe others into believing that their ideas are divinely inspired. It doesn't mean that they are Christian.
What's more dangerous, a psychopath that runs around torching gay people or a psychopath that runs around torching gay people and manages to convince people that his beliefs and actions were inspired by an omnipotent god? Definitely the latter.

Brad, I have answered your points

No you haven't, you've misrepresented my points and claimed to answer them.

but you have not answered mine.

Ignoring responses does NOT mean they aren't there!

Indeed, I have already answered your big bolded text several posts above.

No you haven't.

My answer was that it is not relevant to the question of whether Christianity is homophobic, because:

I say "Christianity is not inherently homophobic." You reply "People proclaiming themselves to be 'Christian' and using this book as justification for their beliefs and actions are still dangerous." Fair enough, but that's an entirely different claim that requires an entirely different argument. No it's COMPLETELY relevant here. You know damn well why. You've conveniently arranged the response/statement in the order that you please. I scanned through the last couple of pages and all I could find was you deflecting the issue.

Again I ask: How is it possible for someone to believe both A and not-A even if A "takes precedence" over not-A?

Again I answer:
I'm not saying "omit Paul's writings" but Christ's words certainly take precedence over his.
Quit misrepresenting what I'm saying. Repeating a lie doesn't make it truth.
That's the problem with basing one's moral beliefs on or trying to argue about a book that seems to contradict itself.
I don't know, you tell me. There was an earlier claim in this thread by a Christian apologist that two absolutes can coexist.
If you're indeed suggesting that a Christian can't hold two contradictory principles then voilà! There must be a set doctrine as Christianity holds fundamentals that cannot be rejected without rejecting Christianity. A belief system can't hold two contradictory and mutually exclusive ideals like that. I might as well be saying "As a Christian, I believe that homosexuality is right and also that it's wrong!"

And do keep in mind that it is your interpretation of Christ's words that contradicts Paul, not mine.

Except that it's NOT A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION. NOT WHEN IT'S SO STRAIGHTFORWARD!

But anyway, I'm glad we can at least agree on the main answer to the original question of this thread:

Ok, so you agree that living Christians (who aren't True Christians in your view, but whatever) do not necessarily have to be homophobic. Wonderful! Case closed.

...Okay either you have problems with reading or you're deliberately misrepresenting my posts yet again.
Dismissing something so key with a "whatever" and claiming that I agree just does not count.
They don't have to be homophobic because they aren't Christians. They merely claim to be Christians. I've said that 100 times. Learn to read.

Kwisatz Haderach

14th May 2008, 05:42

Dismissing something so key with a "whatever" and claiming that I agree just does not count.
They don't have to be homophobic because they aren't Christians. They merely claim to be Christians. I've said that 100 times. Learn to read.
I'm sorry, but it's not key at all, because not a single Christian in the world shares your view of what it means to be a Christian. Therefore, your view does not matter.

You can say it 1000 times if it makes you feel better, but it still does not matter, and the two billion Christians in the world will still laugh in your face. Your opinion of Christianity is irrelevant because all living Christians reject your definition of "Christianity." I am done talking to you.

Moving on...

BurnTheOliveTree, you've raised many good points; unfortunately I only have time to reply to a couple of them for now:

Again, I totally agree with you mate. They'll shift out of necessity, as you put it. And there we get right to the heart of this thread's question; the church will accomodate gays, but only because it is forced to by external cultural pressure, and not becaus it isn't homophobic at heart. It always has been, and it always is when it can get away with it.
The church, like most social institutions, is fundamentally preoccupied with one thing and one thing alone: Its own continued existence. From the Dark Ages until very recently, the continued existence of the church has largely depended upon its relationship with feudal power structures. These power structures were highly patriarchal and they ruled over, and enforced, a highly patriarchal society. Even long after feudalism and its power structures are dead and buried, the church still clings to some aspects of its relationship with them, mostly because it doesn't know how to cope with change. That's why the church is so obsessed with "family values" despite the fact that they are nowhere to be found in Christian doctrine. And that is also why the church is often homophobic. Feudalism was homophobic (and not just out of cultural inertia like capitalism). The church had to be homophobic in order to fit into feudal society, and now it just doesn't want to let go of that aspect of its past because it is afraid of what might happen if it does.

In the long run, the church will do anything it believes will help it survive and grow. Church leaders are homophobic because they believe homophobia will help the church survive and grow. Once they no longer hold this belief, church homophobia will disappear within a generation or two.

So in the U.S at least, which we can assume is a reasonable benchmark for christianity worldwide I think...
No, I'm afraid it's really not. The United States is unique in many respects - mainly through being the only majority-Christian country in the world with a strong fundamentalist Protestant current. Most other majority-Protestant countries (generally meaning Northern Europe) are thoroughly secularized. Outside of the United States, Christian fundamentalism is a major force only in some majority-Catholic countries (which have a different, Catholic sort of fundamentalism) and in some countries where Christians are the minority.

The Christian world, I believe, can be divided in 7 major categories:

1. Majority-Catholic countries
2. Majority-Orthodox countries
3. Formerly majority-Protestant countries in Europe, plus Australia and Canada
4. Christianity in Africa
5. Christianity in Asia
6. Ethiopia
7. The United States

The Intransigent Faction

14th May 2008, 06:04

The church, like most social institutions, is fundamentally preoccupied with one thing and one thing alone: Its own continued existence.

As a result it's willing to bend over backwards to fight blatant contradictions. The church is founded on a lie told to rally and exploit the proletariat.

From the Dark Ages until very recently, the continued existence of the church has largely depended upon its relationship with feudal power structures.

Indeed.

These power structures were highly patriarchal and they ruled over, and enforced, a highly patriarchal society. Even long after feudalism and its power structures are dead and buried, the church still clings to some aspects of its relationship with them, mostly because it doesn't know how to cope with change.

Also true. It can't cope with change though as it is a regressive element of society which has historically been upheld to reinforce patriarchy with a concept of divine order and justice behind that patriarchy.

That's why the church is so obsessed with "family values" despite the fact that they are nowhere to be found in Christian doctrine.

Whatever happened to your claim about their being no definite Christian doctrine?

And that is also why the church is often homophobic. Feudalism was homophobic (and not just out of cultural inertia like capitalism).

Bingo!

The church had to be homophobic in order to fit into feudal society, and now it just doesn't want to let go of that aspect of its past because it is afraid of what might happen if it does.

Yes. Again, the church depends on such a societal structure.

In the long run, the church will do anything it believes will help it survive and grow. Church leaders are homophobic because they believe homophobia will help the church survive and grow. Once they no longer hold this belief, church homophobia will disappear within a generation or two.

What will it take for them to let go of this belief? For all the support that gay marriage has found, churches are still the most regressive element of society in this regard.

The United States is unique in many respects - mainly through being the only majority-Christian country in the world with a strong fundamentalist Protestant current.

Ah, but you say that fundamentalists are in fact Christian. That would mean that those churches holding contrary positions could not logically be Christian.

Most other majority-Protestant countries (generally meaning Northern Europe) are thoroughly secularized.

Well of course in places where the church is put under more pressure it will stretch its message more to the limit in order to be recognized as a less harmful element of society than it would be otherwise.

Outside of the United States, Christian fundamentalism is a major force only in some majority-Catholic countries (which have a different, Catholic sort of fundamentalism) and in some countries where Christians are the minority.

"Christian fundamentalism" still holds sway in the States though--and that's where it can be the most dangerous.
Of course, fundamentalism being "strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles"..that's essentially what Christianity is--strict adherence to a Christian doctrine held to be inspired by a perfect being.
In any case, I'm out of time at this point as well. Sleep is something that's not good to go without for so many days.

freakazoid

14th May 2008, 06:19

There must be a set doctrine as Christianity holds fundamentals that cannot be rejected without rejecting Christianity.

I think that if there is one then it is basically that Jesus is the son of God who died on the cross for our sins. And even that could be pushing it.

Demogorgon

14th May 2008, 14:12

Except that it's NOT A MATTER OF INTERPRETATIONNOT WHEN IT'S SO STRAIGHTFORWARD!

If it is so straightforward how come NOBODY agrees with you?

The reason people are "misrepresenting" you is because you are simply not making the blindest bit of sense anymore. You need to get out of your black and white teenage rut and see the world is a bit more complex than you seem to think it is.

Dean

14th May 2008, 21:05

Christianity DOES exist. True Christians DON'T. I'm trying as hard as I can not to use profanity here but this utter misrepresentation and refusal to listen is giving me a pounding headache.
Correct, not necessarily. However when people "interpret" scripture at ill this is bound to be used for manipulative purposes.
However that's not particularly relevant here as I'm speaking of legitimate Christians, not those who claim to be Christian while utterly contradicting Christian doctrine.

So, you're a fundamentalist when it comes to the interpretation of Christian dogma, and every Christian is a "false Christian." Again, you sound like more of a bullshitter than them.

The Intransigent Faction

15th May 2008, 01:04

I think that if there is one then it is basically that Jesus is the son of God who died on the cross for our sins. And even that could be pushing it.

That just nonsensical. The idea that Jesus is the son of God is a central tenant of Christianity. That's hardly "pushing it".
Christianity is a religion and as a religion it is founded on a fundamental set of beliefs that any "denomination" would have to agree upon. This has been explained at length.

Kami

15th May 2008, 01:09

Brad: Please, please, PLEASE read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)

Demogorgon

15th May 2008, 01:10

That just nonsensical. The idea that Jesus is the son of God is a central tenant of Christianity. That's hardly "pushing it".
Christianity is a religion and as a religion it is founded on a fundamental set of beliefs that any "denomination" would have to agree upon. This has been explained at length.
Christianity did not Uniformly settle on that matter for many years after the life of Jesus.

The Intransigent Faction

15th May 2008, 01:14

If it is so straightforward how come NOBODY agrees with you?

The reason people are "misrepresenting" you is because you are simply not making the blindest bit of sense anymore. You need to get out of your black and white teenage rut and see the world is a bit more complex than you seem to think it is.

Ah, an ad populum argument. Whether or not anyone agrees has no bearing on the words being straightforward. Now you're just desperately dodging the main point. I could just as easily ask you 'how come' no "Christian" I've met outside this thread, online or otherwise, has made such ludicrous claims as the Bible being irrelevant to Christianity?
No, you are misrepresenting me by twisting my words. I'm making perfect sense if you read what I'm actually saying instead of making blind assumptions and calling them my position. You're the one whose been setting up straw man arguments (on Paul, for example, where you misrepresented my point by claiming that I said "discard everything Paul says").

The Intransigent Faction

15th May 2008, 01:18

Brad: Please, please, PLEASE read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)

I ALREADY DID! Now read my damn response to that. Don't waste my damn time. Why the hell should I read what you want me to read if you aren't going to read any of my responses? The "No True Scotsman" fallacy already came up and I responded, though I'm not sure why since you seem to conveniently ignore my response anyway.

Demogorgon

15th May 2008, 01:25

Ah, an ad populum argument. Whether or not anyone agrees has no bearing on the words being straightforward. Now you're just desperately dodging the main point.
No, you are misrepresenting me by twisting my words. I'm making perfect sense if you read what I'm actually saying instead of making blind assumptions and calling them my position. You're the one whose been setting up straw man arguments (on Paul, for example, where you misrepresented my point by claiming that I said "discard everything Paul says").
Where is the ad populum argument? I did not say I was correct because people agreed with me, but rather that your interpretation could not be straightforward because you are in a minority of one regarding it. If something is straightforward it will be commonly understood, by the fact that nobody at all goes for your position, we can conclude that your view is rather an ultra obscure interpretation that simply cannot be rationally followed.

You have blatantly not read the Bible. If you had, you would see that it is impossible to get your interpretation from it (why do you think even literalists don't go along with you?). Has it ever occurred to you, for instance, that there is a reason why the very earliest Christians stopped using circumcision?

You need to grow up and realise that just because you think something, it is not automatically correct.

Kami

15th May 2008, 01:32

I ALREADY DID! Now read my damn response to that. Don't waste my damn time. Why the hell should I read what you want me to read if you aren't going to read any of my responses? The "No True Scotsman" fallacy already came up and I responded, though I'm not sure why since you seem to conveniently ignore my response anyway.
If you've read it, stop making the same damn fallacy -.-

The Intransigent Faction

15th May 2008, 01:32

I'm sorry, but it's not key at all, because not a single Christian in the world shares your view of what it means to be a Christian. Therefore, your view does not matter.

You can say it 1000 times if it makes you feel better, but it still does not matter, and the two billion Christians in the world will still laugh in your face. Your opinion of Christianity is irrelevant because all living Christians reject your definition of "Christianity." I am done talking to you.

It DOES matter you thick-skulled..well I'll still try to avoid profanity here.
You conveniently omitted the statement that TRUE Christians are homophobic and on that basis turned my point inside out by claiming that I claimed the opposite of what I actually did.
When I said "key" I meant key in UNDERSTANDING WHAT I'M COMMUNICATING HERE! You've only further proven that you insist on twisting my words at every given opportunity.
It doesn't matter how many "Christians" laugh, because they themselves are the joke through their self-contradictions and justification of discrimination. That joke is getting old though.

The Intransigent Faction

15th May 2008, 01:34

If you've read it, stop making the same damn fallacy -.-

That repetition on your part only proves that you refuse to my response to the claim that's already been made.
You read "I ALREADY DID!" and conveniently stopped there.

Demogorgon

15th May 2008, 01:37

It DOES matter you thick-skulled..well I'll still try to avoid profanity here.
You conveniently omitted the statement that TRUE Christians are homophobic and on that basis turned my point inside out by claiming that I claimed the opposite of what I actually did.
When I said "key" I meant key in UNDERSTANDING WHAT I'M COMMUNICATING HERE! You've only further proven that you insist on twisting my words at every given opportunity.
It doesn't matter how many "Christians" laugh, because they themselves are the joke through their self-contradictions and justification of discrimination. That joke is getting old though.You still aren't getting the simple fact that nobody except you thinks that the definition of a "true Christian" is what some naive teenager with very little knowledge of the subject thinks.

Incidentally it might interest you to know that the existence of homosexuality was not even properly known until the nineteenth century. Previously only the existence of the acts and not the orientation were known. On that basis it would have been rather difficult for the writers of the bible to be homophobic in the modern sense.

The Intransigent Faction

15th May 2008, 01:38

So, you're a fundamentalist when it comes to the interpretation of Christian dogma, and every Christian is a "false Christian." Again, you sound like more of a bullshitter than them.

Oh I'm astounded by the articulation.'m astounded by the articulacy.
"You're a bullshitter". Wow. Anyone can say that, you know. It's not much of an argument.

Kami

15th May 2008, 01:42

That repetition on your part only proves that you refuse to my response to the claim that's already been made.
You read "I ALREADY DID!" and conveniently stopped there.
Dear god, go back and check who you were talking to when you first said it; suprise suprise, I did read it, replied to your response, and it's bullshit! Simple fact is, there are Christians who do not fit your defininition, therefore your defininition is wrong.
Now, do you have any actual arguments?

The Intransigent Faction

15th May 2008, 01:46

You still aren't getting the simple fact that nobody except you thinks that the definition of a "true Christian" is what some naive teenager with very little knowledge of the subject thinks.

Again, the personal attacks are unnecessary. I've been very patient with you about this.
See "ad populum".
Whether or not nobody agrees is irrelevant to the point I was making--you deliberately twisted my point into the opposite of it's original meaning by omitting this.
If I stated that homosexuality was okay and "nobody agreed", that wouldn't mean that I was claiming that it wasn't okay.

Incidentally it might interest you to know that the existence of homosexuality was not even properly known until the nineteenth century. Previously only the existence of the acts and not the orientation were known. On that basis it would have been rather difficult for the writers of the bible to be homophobic in the modern sense.[/quote]

Demogorgon

15th May 2008, 01:52

Again, the personal attacks are unnecessary. I've been very patient with you about this.
See "ad populum".
Whether or not nobody agrees is irrelevant to the point I was making--you deliberately twisted my point into the opposite of it's original meaning by omitting this.
If I stated that homosexuality was okay and "nobody agreed", that wouldn't mean that I was claiming that it wasn't okay.

Again, there is no ad populum argument. I suspect you do not know what it means. Yes I did make a personal attack, but it was hardly unjustified. You have come into this thread, spouted incoherent junk and continuously claimed to have the one true definition of Christianity even when faced with people vastly more knowledgeable on the subject than you are. You are becoming a great irritation and people are now only talking to you out of the same sort of fascination you can get from a car crash.

The Intransigent Faction

15th May 2008, 02:03

Dear god, go back and check who you were talking to when you first said it; suprise suprise, I did read it, replied to your response, and it's bullshit! Simple fact is, there are Christians who do not fit your defininition, therefore your defininition is wrong.
Now, do you have any actual arguments?

Well it would be helpful if you'd done so before and provided an "actual" response.
If one goes against Christian doctrine then they aren't Christian.
That fallacy isn't relevant here. In situations where the subject's status is previously determined by specific behaviors, the fallacy does not apply. For example, it is perfectly justified to say, "No true vegetarian eats meat," because not eating meat is what defines a person as a vegetarian.
Re-posted for your convenience, but you probably won't read it anyway.
If all you can say is :it's bullshit!" then you don't have a legitimate counter-argument.
You're begging the question by presuming that my definition is wrong without providing an argument for this. We really shouldn't have to go over this again at this point but: Christianity DOES exist. True Christians DON'T.
You can't say that "there are Christians who don't fit your definition" when not fitting the definition of Christianity means that one is NOT Christian.
It depends on the validity of the definition which I've provided. So this really doesn't get us anywhere until you can provide a valid counter-claim against the dictionary definition of Christianity.

Demogorgon

15th May 2008, 02:10

Well it would be helpful if you'd done so before and provided an "actual" response.
If one goes against Christian doctrine then they aren't Christian.
That fallacy isn't relevant here. In situations where the subject's status is previously determined by specific behaviors, the fallacy does not apply. For example, it is perfectly justified to say, "No true vegetarian eats meat," because not eating meat is what defines a person as a vegetarian.
Re-posted for your convenience, but you probably won't read it anyway.
If all you can say is :it's bullshit!" then you don't have a legitimate counter-argument.
You're begging the question by presuming that my definition is wrong without providing an argument for this. We really shouldn't have to go over this again at this point but: Christianity DOES exist. True Christians DON'T.
You can't say that "there are Christians who don't fit your definition" when not fitting the definition of Christianity means that one is NOT Christian.
It depends on the validity of the definition which I've provided. So this really doesn't get us anywhere until you can provide a valid counter-claim against the dictionary definition of Christianity.
You still haven't explained to us what makes you more qualified than everyone else in the world to determine what a Christian is.

Kami

15th May 2008, 02:11

*sigh*
Christian (plural Christians)

(Christianity) A believer in Christianity.
(Christianity) An individual who seeks to live his or her life according to the principles and values taught by Jesus Christ.

That's the dictionary definition. Tons of people fit it.
EDIT: another, that MORE people fit, courtesy of dictionary.com

Chris·tian http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif Audio Help /ˈkrɪshttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngtʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kris-chuhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1.of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith. 2.of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country. 3.of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades. 4.exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity. 5.decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial. 6.human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian. –noun 7.a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity. 8.a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian. 9.a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren. 10.the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. 11.a male given name.

And yes, you do commit a "No True Scotsman". You change the definition to christian to this mysterious "True Christian" of yours, which naturally no one fits.

The Intransigent Faction

15th May 2008, 02:19

I missed this momentarily in the frenzy of responses.

Where is the ad populum argument? I did not say I was correct because people agreed with me, but rather that your interpretation could not be straightforward because you are in a minority of one regarding it. If something is straightforward it will be commonly understood, by the fact that nobody at all goes for your position, we can conclude that your view is rather an ultra obscure interpretation that simply cannot be rationally followed.

That's essentially the same thing.
No, the definition of "straightforward" is not dependent upon an ad populum basis.

You have blatantly not read the Bible.

Why would that matter if the claim that it is not relevant to Christianity is valid? Regardless, I've read it more closely than you have, apparently.

If you had, you would see that it is impossible to get your interpretation from it (why do you think even literalists don't go along with you?). Has it ever occurred to you, for instance, that there is a reason why the very earliest Christians stopped using circumcision?

Ah but I guarantee that you can't point out anyone whose seriously takes the Bible literally that wouldn't. It's very much possible and I have provided you with a long list of scripture confirming this.
*Sigh*. This again? Apparently you weren't paying attention before.
They don't use circumcision anymore because they've been driven to attempt to redeem the Bible through omissions and radical explanations for the blatantly unacceptable parts. This was done in an attempt to redeem Christianity in the public eye from which it would be at risk of pressure.
If nobody had spoken up there'd be no intent to omit some and redefine the meaning of other scripture.

You need to grow up and realise that just because you think something, it is not automatically correct.

You need to grow up and realize that making a statement is not akin to believing it automatically correct merely because you say that statement. A definition, for example, is given in the context of an argument and is there to be disputed, but the claims that follow are relevant until the definition itself faces a valid counter-argument.
If you wish to dispute my definition then go ahead and do so but it is not too much to ask of you to provide a basis for this dispute. If I seem to be assuming that my definition is correct it is because I have not seen a valid counter-argument that disputes my definition. As stated earlier, the relevance of claims that follow are dependent on the validity definition so we aren't really getting anywhere until that's resolved.
EDIT: The definition can also be affected by the source for Christ's words. If we've established that the source of Christ's words is the Bible, then it depends on what he says in the Bible and again that's not a matter of interpretation. The meaning of what Christ says about the Old Testament still applying is straightforward and this is established even further by 2 Peter 20-21 which states that "there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation".

The Intransigent Faction

15th May 2008, 02:22

Kami

15th May 2008, 02:22

That's interesting as my definition of Christianity came from the same web site.
As for the rest, my response is in another post.
And it is no more valid now than it was then.

Demogorgon

15th May 2008, 02:24

I missed this momentarily in the frenzy of responses.

That's essentially the same thing.
No, the definition of "straightforward" is not dependent upon an ad populum basis.
What is your definition os "straightforward" then? Something that happens to be your belief

Why would that matter if the claim that it is not relevant to Christianity is valid? Regardless, I've read it more closely than you have, apparently.

It matters because you are trying to make claims about a book that you have never read.

Ah but I guarantee that you can't point out anyone whose seriously takes the Bible literally that wouldn't. It's very much possible and I have provided you with a long list of scripture confirming this.There are a fair number of Biblical Literalists in the world. A grand total of NONE of them believe that "true Christians" do not exist

*Sigh*. This again? Apparently you weren't paying attention before.
They don't use circumcision anymore because they've been driven to attempt to redeem the Bible through omissions and radical explanations for the blatantly unacceptable parts. This was done in an attempt to redeem Christianity in the public eye from which it would be at risk of pressure.
If nobody had spoken up there'd be no intent to omit some and redefine the meaning of other scripture.

Nope, Christians stopped using circumcision before the Bible was compiled and before many of the passages in it were written. Try again.

The Intransigent Faction

15th May 2008, 02:46

And it is no more valid now than it was then.

Apparently you ignore the above. Stop posting one-liners at random intervals and pay attention.

You need to grow up and realize that making a statement is not akin to believing it automatically correct merely because you say that statement. A definition, for example, is given in the context of an argument and is there to be disputed, but the claims that follow are relevant until the definition itself faces a valid counter-argument.
If you wish to dispute my definition then go ahead and do so but it is not too much to ask of you to provide a basis for this dispute. If I seem to be assuming that my definition is correct it is because I have not seen a valid counter-argument that disputes my definition. As stated earlier, the relevance of claims that follow are dependent on the validity definition so we aren't really getting anywhere until that's resolved.You contribute nothing by making knee-jerk contradictions with no supporting evidence.

The Intransigent Faction

15th May 2008, 02:54

What is your definition of "straightforward" then? Something that happens to be your belief

You don't know what straightforward means? I suggest that you get a dictionary. It certainly isn't dependent on an ad populum basis.

t matters because you are trying to make claims about a book that you have never read.

That's quite arrogant of you. Again, why would that matter if the claim that it is not relevant to Christianity is valid? Regardless, I've read it more closely than you have, apparently. Again, such personal attacks do nothing to advance your points and all they do is show you side-stepping the issue.

There are a fair number of Biblical Literalists in the world. A grand total of NONE of them believe that "true Christians" do not exist.

So none of them believe that True Christian's don't exist? If none of them believe that then they must believe that Christians do exist. But presumably you meant the opposite, so: Provide evidence. Because I've seen otherwise.

Nope, Christians stopped using circumcision before the Bible was compiled and before many of the passages in it were written. Try again.

There were no Christians before the Bible was written except the writer's of the Christian Bible. Naturally they would stop the practice for the aforementioned reasons and then attempt to justify the change through writing that unfortunately for them contradicts the scripture already written and declared perfect by those whom they followed.

Kami

15th May 2008, 03:10

You contribute nothing by making knee-jerk contradictions with no supporting evidence.

*sigh*
Christian (plural Christians)

(Christianity) A believer in Christianity.
(Christianity) An individual who seeks to live his or her life according to the principles and values taught by Jesus Christ.

That's the dictionary definition. Tons of people fit it.
EDIT: another, that MORE people fit, courtesy of dictionary.com

Chris·tian http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif Audio Help /ˈkrɪshttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngtʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kris-chuhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1.of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith. 2.of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country. 3.of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades. 4.exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity. 5.decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial. 6.human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian. –noun 7.a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity. 8.a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian. 9.a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren. 10.the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. 11.a male given name.

And yes, you do commit a "No True Scotsman". You change the definition to christian to this mysterious "True Christian" of yours, which naturally no one fits.
Supporting evidence, or were you not paying attention? You asked me to challenge your definition, I did, you did nothing. Over to you.

chimx

15th May 2008, 05:23

As a general rule, Christians are those that follow the teachings of Christ.

However, there are some things that the vast majority of Christians agree on that they feel define the religion. Principally: trinitarianism. Mormon's and Jehovah Witnesses do not believe in the trinity and are generally excluded from being defined as Christians despite being followers of the teachings of Christ -- though some would (especially Mormon's and JW's would disagree).

The second key value in Christianity is the covenant between God and man follow the crucifixion of Jesus, which I have discussed at length in this thread. Because Jesus was crucified for man's sins, salvation becomes possible. That is a core value.

Dean

15th May 2008, 05:24

Oh I'm astounded by the articulation.'m astounded by the articulacy.
"You're a bullshitter". Wow. Anyone can say that, you know. It's not much of an argument.

I'd like to see a convincing argument as to why Christianity is necessarily homophobic. I'd also be interested to know how, if "no true Christians exist" (what is Christianity then?) you can really claim that it is anything.

To me, all you are doing is asserting the thesis and denying all facts / changing definitions whenever they show you to be incorrect. For instance, now Christians follow the bible word for word. There are no Christians. If Jesus is said to have said two opposing things, the one which links him to supporting homophobic statements is true and the other is false. And, contrary to established christian dogma, the bible is not falliable. It is more the word of God to you, whereas to others it is the interpretted word of god! You are more a believer than most Christians, I guess. I'll give you that.

Dr Mindbender

15th May 2008, 14:41

chimx

15th May 2008, 15:00

it could be argued that christianity is also racist

I'll be sure to let Desmond Tutu know if I see him.

Kami

15th May 2008, 15:06

I'll be sure to let Desmond Tutu know if I see him.
He'll be sure to let you know that yes, it can be argued that Christianity is racist; he came face-to-face with a lot of people who believed just that, I'm sure.

Demogorgon

15th May 2008, 15:45

You don't know what straightforward means? I suggest that you get a dictionary. It certainly isn't dependent on an ad populum basis.

I understand what it means. I doubt you do though. If only one person on earth has come to a conclusion, it cannot be a straightforward conclusion.

That's quite arrogant of you. Again, why would that matter if the claim that it is not relevant to Christianity is valid? Regardless, I've read it more closely than you have, apparently. Again, such personal attacks do nothing to advance your points and all they do is show you side-stepping the issue.

It matters in context to this discussion. Don't bullshit us, we know perfectly well you have not read the Bible, even less understood it.

So none of them believe that True Christian's don't exist? If none of them believe that then they must believe that Christians do exist. But presumably you meant the opposite, so: Provide evidence. Because I've seen otherwise.

Yes Biblical literalists believe that true Christians exist. They count themselves amongst that number for instance

There were no Christians before the Bible was written except the writer's of the Christian Bible. Naturally they would stop the practice for the aforementioned reasons and then attempt to justify the change through writing that unfortunately for them contradicts the scripture already written and declared perfect by those whom they followed.
You want to check your history, who precisely, according to you, were the Romans persecuting for instance? The Bible was not compiled until after the Roman persecution of Christians ended.

Kwisatz Haderach

15th May 2008, 16:17

it could be argued that christianity is also racist, since old testament doctrine refers to the mark of kane, and suggests that dark skin was a sign of those who failed to follow god in the 'time before times'.
Actually, no. The relevant verses are as follows:

Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" He said, "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?"
And the LORD said, "What have you done? Listen; your brother's blood is crying out to me from the ground!
And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.
When you till the ground, it will no longer yield to you its strength; you will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth."
Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is greater than I can bear!
Today you have driven me away from the soil, and I shall be hidden from your face; I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and anyone who meets me may kill me."
Then the LORD said to him, "Not so! Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance." And the LORD put a mark on Cain, so that no one who came upon him would kill him.
Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and named it Enoch after his son Enoch.
To Enoch was born Irad; and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael the father of Methushael, and Methushael the father of Lamech.
Lamech took two wives; the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
Adah bore Jabal; he was the ancestor of those who live in tents and have livestock.
His brother's name was Jubal; he was the ancestor of all those who play the lyre and pipe.
Zillah bore Tubal-cain, who made all kinds of bronze and iron tools. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.
So yeah, apparently the descendants of Cain are people "who live in tents and have livestock" as well as those "who play the lyre and pipe" and possibly also those "who made all kinds of bronze and iron tools". There's no indication of skin colour, though. Presumably the three references above are meant to refer to specific ancient tribes or peoples from the Middle East, now long since forgotten. There is, however, nothing to suggest that Cain's descendants are in any way bad or inferior, nor that the mark was passed on to them. Indeed, the purpose of the mark is to ensure that no one kills Cain!

Edit: And if you're a C&C fan, this explains why Kane just won't die. ;)

BurnTheOliveTree

15th May 2008, 17:36

BurnTheOliveTree, you've raised many good points; unfortunately I only have time to reply to a couple of them for now:

Cheers.

The church, like most social institutions, is fundamentally preoccupied with one thing and one thing alone: Its own continued existence.

Tosh. The church's continued existence means nothing unless the church remains able to propagate it's agenda. It's existence is a means for propagating it's agenda, nothing more. And, as I showed in my previous post, christianity's agenda is overwhelmingly one of extreme homophobia.

The church had to be homophobic in order to fit into feudal society, and now it just doesn't want to let go of that aspect of its past because it is afraid of what might happen if it does.

Neat explanation, I suppose, but there are problems with it:

The church was homophobic before the feudal power structures came about; hence the bible verses from Paul, and the implication that being a homosexual or even "effeminate" is punishable by eternal torture with fire.

Secondly, it has been hundreds of years since these power structures collapsed, you cannot possibly say that centuries of homophobia are just a historical hiccough that christianity will shortly recover from. Christian homophobia pre-dates and outlives the feudal system.

In the long run, the church will do anything it believes will help it survive and grow. Church leaders are homophobic because they believe homophobia will help the church survive and grow. Once they no longer hold this belief, church homophobia will disappear within a generation or two.

In a straight choice between homophobia and survival, of course they'll pick survival. However, as we can see from all available evidence, most christians will not do that unless they absolutely have to, and are flat-out forced by cultural pressure. This is because homophobia is an intrinsic part of christianity. It's much the same with the opression of women; despite the emancipation of women in most sectors of society, the church persists in opressing women as far as it legitimately can - on abortion, on "family values", on women priests and bishops, and so on and so forth.

Regarding the USA as a benchmark - I take your point about the unusual demographics of the denominations, but as far as I'm aware the USA has more christians than anywhere else, so IMO we can use the statistics of the U.S as a cautious barometer for global christianity.

Perhaps you'd like to reply to my other points? Also, chimx - I replied to your comments in an edit, don't know if you saw them.

-Alex

Demogorgon

15th May 2008, 18:38

I think it is important to point out that the Church has not been consistently homophobic. Sodomy laws appeared across Europe around 1050-1150 (it may have been slightly later, I will need to check) and before then society, the Church included, were pretty accepting. It is no co-incidence that the Church changed its tune so dramatically at the time feudalism was requiring a clamp down on anything other than marital sex in the missionary position.

Similarly there have been many times when the Church has obviously bnot been homophobic. In the fifties and sixties for instance, the Church Of England lobbied very heavily to remove the British laws against homosexuality.

chimx

16th May 2008, 00:18

He'll be sure to let you know that yes, it can be argued that Christianity is racist

I'm sure he'll tell you that there is a difference between saying it is racist and that it can be used for racist ends.

Kami

16th May 2008, 00:23

I'm sure he'll tell you that there is a difference between saying it is racist and that it can be used for racist ends.
And I'm sure he'll point out that's just what he said when he pointed out it can be argued.
He seems to be quite a nit-picker, doesn't he?

chimx

16th May 2008, 00:30

Anything can be argued. I don't understand how your wording is relevant.

Kami

16th May 2008, 00:35

arguing it doesn't make it the case; my point was with the wording I used, I said exactly what you said in response -.-

The Intransigent Faction

16th May 2008, 01:47

Supporting evidence, or were you not paying attention? You asked me to challenge your definition, I did, and you did nothing. Over to you.

I was getting to that but I have other things to do than post here you know. There's also still no need to make those knee-jerk remarks. It's quite confusing when you insist on making one-liner comments in the interval. Without that, I'd have responded much sooner, I promise you that.
Those first two are correct and once again, they merely advance the definition which I provided. For to be a believer in Christianity and a follower of Christ, as per earlier posts, one must recognize that Christ stated quite clearly that the Old Law still applies. To reject the Old Testament is to reject much of what Christ himself followed and upheld.
As for the others:
The first three are essentially restatements of the above, and the fourth:
4.exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
That merely emphasizes my point that there is in fact a "proper" or "true" code of ethics for Christianity that of course includes following Jesus Christ..and that reinforces the above statement that the Old Law must be followed by one who legitimately claims to be a Christian.
5. Not really related to a definition of the faith itself but more a phrase that's worked itself in to mean "proper" in a largely "Christian" community which naturally proclaims whatever ethical behaviour it endorses to be appropriate, truly in line with their faith or not. It's based on common and deliberately propagated misconceptions as to what Christian doctrine actually endorses.
6. "Such behavior isn't Christian." The claim about the behaviour mentioned itself is contestable. However, it remains clear here that there is a set behaviour which is deemed "Christian".
7. See the first five or so. Again, essentially a repetition of the first two.
8. See four and six. "He died like a true Christian."
9. Ah yes, the pseudo-Christian “mainline Protestants”. The “Christian” label comes from the common misconception/lie that they follow the teachings of the Old Testament. In fact, they don’t. That relates to another response below but I’ll state it here to be clear that in order to follow the New Testament; one must follow the Old Testament.
10. A name. Not really relevant to defining the faith.
11. A name. Not really relevant to defining the faith.

-So there you go. There are core values that define Christianity.
Isaiah 7:16 said that before Jesus had reached the age of maturity, both of the Jewish countries would be destroyed. Yet there is no mention of this prophecy being fulfilled in the New Testament with the coming of Jesus.

Christ’s crucifixion did NOT invalidate the Old Testament which he himself reasserted the validity of and was bound by given his faith.
In fact, if a perfect God exists as the father and the son, then he makes the Old Law and thus it must follow that Jesus upheld this law. You have yet to prove to me that heaven and earth have moved. Even if Christ’s death brought about a New Covenant, that New Covenant included the many aforementioned (and more) affirmations that the “Old Law” still applied.
This whole discussion as to whether or not Christ brought about a New Covenant is a false dilemma because if he didn’t (though at this point we may both concede that Christians hold as an essential belief) then the Old Covenant would course still apply, but since we can concede that he did then in accordance with the New Testament itself, which affirms the Old Testament’s relevance, the “Old Law” still applies. So put briefly, even though wee can concede that it is an essential Christian belief that Christ brought about a New Covenant, this New Covenant brought through Christ himself blatantly affirms the Old Testament’s relevance and authority in Christian doctrine.

-You’re asking me the same question I’ve already answered. You’re just being plain unreasonable. Christianity DOES exist. True Christians DON'T.
No. Stop. See the above post where I referred to the three logical possibilities.
Well what reason do you have to say that the statement for homosexuality was more valid?
Jesus stated that the Old Testament is still valid, therefore the Old Testament view on homosexuality still applies to Christianity. It’s simple. Instead of trying to provoke me you could always actually read my responses. Just a strong suggestion.
Actually, Christian dogma holds that scripture is infallible (why? because it’s inspired by an infallible God), if you believe your own saviour's words, of course.

chimx

16th May 2008, 01:57

Even if Christ’s death brought about a New Covenant, that New Covenant included the many aforementioned (and more) affirmations that the “Old Law” still applied.

The old covenant was fulfilled when Jesus was crucified, after which it was replaced by the new covenant of Christianity. This is why Christians don't follow Levitical Law. If you want Biblical passages that explain this, look through this thread. I've quoted the Bible in great detail.

The Intransigent Faction

16th May 2008, 02:20

The old covenant was fulfilled when Jesus was crucified, after which it was replaced by the new covenant of Christianity. This is why Christians don't follow Levitical Law. If you want Biblical passages that explain this, look through this thread. I've quoted the Bible in great detail.

So there you go. There are core values that define Christianity.
Isaiah 7:16 said that before Jesus had reached the age of maturity, both of the Jewish countries would be destroyed. Yet there is no mention of this prophecy being fulfilled in the New Testament with the coming of Jesus.

Christ’s crucifixion did NOT invalidate the Old Testament which he himself reasserted the validity of and was bound by given his faith.
In fact, if a perfect God exists as the father and the son, then he makes the Old Law and thus it must follow that Jesus upheld this law. You have yet to prove to me that heaven and earth have moved. Even if Christ’s death brought about a New Covenant, that New Covenant included the many aforementioned (and more) affirmations that the “Old Law” still applied.
This whole discussion as to whether or not Christ brought about a New Covenant is a false dilemma because if he didn’t (though at this point we may both concede that Christians hold as an essential belief) then the Old Covenant would course still apply, but since we can concede that he did then in accordance with the New Testament itself, which affirms the Old Testament’s relevance, the “Old Law” still applies. So put briefly, even though we can concede that it is an essential Christian belief that Christ brought about a New Covenant, this New Covenant brought through Christ himself blatantly affirms the Old Testament’s relevance and authority in Christian doctrine.

The emboldened shows how I responded to the claim that you just seem to have repeated at reflex. I've got a myriad of Bible quotes as well. This is still a false dilemma. It's really irritating how I made every effort to elaborate and you just restated your original claim like I was talking to a wall.
I wanted to refrain from saying this at first but: If you're going to bother posting, don't pick out a couple of lines and make incomplete responses. I'm glad that you're willing to post here but a more full response would really help to clarify exactly why you say what you say.