Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm not someone who tries to spread atheism or non-belief but I have a couple questions for the board while we're on the subject.
Is it wrong for a believer to try to spread christianity? Is it wrong for an atheist to try and spread atheism? (both using non-violent means)
I'm not someone who tries to spread atheism or non-belief but I have a couple questions for the board while we're on the subject.
Is it wrong for a believer to try to spread christianity? Is it wrong for an atheist to try and spread atheism? (both using non-violent means)
It is wrong to knock on someone door and ask to talk about something? No. Is it wrong to bang the door in after a person has said, no? Yes.
I don't think that claim is meant to be taking parts of the Bible as morally appropriate today, but the book as a whole. For many years, Catholics were told not to even read the Bible as they might interpret it wrong.
Then there is the saying "Even the Devil can quote scripture."
This is just another anti-Christian thread meant to attack Christians and their beliefs, which is kind of ironic since it's using the Old Testament to attack Christians.
Christ came and changed things long after Sodom and Gomorrah.
Very well, then let's follow this reasoning (which I can't fault in itself) up a bit further.
You apparently agree that Lot was not, in any terms we would recognize today, a righteous man or a good man; that his behavior was execrable although not by the standards of his own time and culture -- which amounts to an indictment of that culture.
You say that Jesus' ministry and/or his sacrifice changed things and obviated the old rules, the old law, replacing it I would presume with Jesus' own teachings. Indeed one can see such a discrepancy, in that Jesus reduced the Law to two commandments, when it is by no means obvious that the Law can in fact be so reduced. So in essence, he changed the Law.
You further acknowledge that the Bible is not to be taken piecemeal, and imply that its reading may in fact mislead; you point out that the Catholic Church discouraged reading of Scripture for a long time. (What changed that was surely that it is no longer possible to do so.)
All of this is logically sound. But does it not lead to the conclusion that the Bible is not "God's word" in the sense that most Christians mean by that phrase? If we cannot take each passage of the Bible as both factually true and morally enlightening, are we not left with something from which we can pick and choose, being inspired by the passages that inspire us and disregarding the rest?
This thread makes interesting reading.
Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. Ezekiel 16:49-50
No mention of homosexuals or lesbians.
I don't think that claim is meant to be taking parts of the Bible as morally appropriate today, but the book as a whole. For many years, Catholics were told not to even read the Bible as they might interpret it wrong.
Gee, isn't that special. By wrong, they mean "something that we haven't declared to be true." And you're right, I went to Catholic Schools for 12 years, and realized the bullshit pretty early. For instance, Bible clearly says "No Graven Images", but you have all sorts of statues in any given Catholic Church of the saints you are supposed to pray to.
(Praying to Saints- Kind of to Polytheism what nicotine gum is to smoking.)
Then there is the saying "Even the Devil can quote scripture."
This is just another anti-Christian thread meant to attack Christians and their beliefs, which is kind of ironic since it's using the Old Testament to attack Christians.
Christ came and changed things long after Sodom and Gomorrah.
Oooooh, I love when they compare me to "the devil" because I point out the insane crap in their own holy book.
Okay, let's take this silliness one step further. This is always one of my favorite arguments from Bible Thumpers. "But that's the OLD TESTAMENT".
That would assume that Jesus (who is God) actually would have disapproved of God's (which is to say his) handling of the whole S&G fiasco....
But the problem is, he didn't.
Luke 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
17:32 Remember Lot's wife.
So the only person who Jesus/God was really okay with Punishing was Lot's wife, who let's not forget, only committed the horrible sin of looking back when her home was destroyed (which I think any of us would do), while he had no problem with Lot pimping his daughter or having drunken sex with them.
Also, I'd have to wonder why God would 1) Screw up his own creation so bad that it was so evil and 2) Wait 2000 years before putting in the fix of sending Jesus down to be a kinder, gentler Sky Pixie after torturing his followers for all those years.
This thread makes interesting reading.
Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. Ezekiel 16:49-50
No mention of homosexuals or lesbians.
immoral sex = " did detestable things"
I'm not someone who tries to spread atheism or non-belief but I have a couple questions for the board while we're on the subject.
Is it wrong for a believer to try to spread christianity? Is it wrong for an atheist to try and spread atheism? (both using non-violent means)
It is wrong to knock on someone door and ask to talk about something? No. Is it wrong to bang the door in after a person has said, no? Yes.
I would put that in the category of violence.
Your schtick is getting old, kid... only those I care about can lay a guilt trip on me, and that was a pathetic attempt at a guilt trip anyway. Practice that some more before you get married.
Oh, and by the way... Matthew 10:14
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
In His own words, I think He would approve.
Hey as long as you're at peace with mocking Jesus's golden rule, I have no problem with that, I'm not a christian.
Once you start spreading a good message, I'll happily listen to it. Whether you're motivated by Jesus, a cloud free sky or a tasty lunch.
Yeshua did not tolerate insults to His Father (see the temple scene where he throws tables and kicks them out of His Father's house). Funny how those that claim not to believe want to use the Lord to control others.
I'm not someone who tries to spread atheism or non-belief but I have a couple questions for the board while we're on the subject.
Is it wrong for a believer to try to spread christianity? Is it wrong for an atheist to try and spread atheism? (both using non-violent means)
Frankly, screw your God. He's evil, he's a hypocrite and he doesn't exist.
I can't take a God seriously who gets all hung up about homosexuality (I'm straight, btw) or eating shrimp (but I do love my seafood), but can't tell people straight up that genocide or slavery are wrong. that God would seem to have some pretty seriously messed up priorities.
Yes, it would seem that way to a close minded, sinful human who can't see past the tip of his nose.
It ain't about me, sweetheart.
I always notice that when I make a point that a funditard can't refute, they always want to make it about me, although they don't know my name, where I live or anything about me really.
How about a stab at answering my question. How can a just and moral God consider homosexuality (which most Americans don't consider that big of a deal anymore) a bigger moral issue than Slavery? How can he condemn eating shellfish as an abomination while inciting his followers to commit genocide?
Unless, of course, he's just the figment of bronze age savage imaginations.
Of course it's about you. You want to bash God and call all Christians stupid, be prepared when some of that slop splashes back on you.
And obviously you're narrow minded if you can't grasp the idea that it isn't ignorance that leads us to believe, it's the belief that God is perfect and brilliant, and so far above us that we cannot fathom his actions. You certainly aren't perfect, none of us is. So when you deign to pass judgment on God, of course it's going to be pointed out to you that you aren't exactly in a position to judge God, being a sinful human.
As we are all sinful humans.
Nothing special about you, sweetcheeks, in other words.
Well, actually, I can pass judgment on a myth.. which is all "God" is.
You present your "God" as a perfect moral being. Okay. Fair enough. A perfect moral being wouldn't have written a bible that allows such serious wrongs to be considered moral.
The Bible endorses slavery. Doesn't call one human being owning another to be a sin. I don't know about "sin", but I think one person owning another is wrong, and I think most sensible people in 2011 would agree with that sentiment- even Christians. So why doesn't God come right out and say it's wrong?
The Bible says eating Shellfish is an "abomination". Well, sorry, nothing wrong with eating shellfish if it's prepared properly and you don't have an allergy to it. And most so-called Christians ignore this rule with the old, "But that's the OLD TESTAMENT" excuse.
Which brings us to HOmosexuality. Not my cup of tea, there's nothing about a man's hairy ass I find appealing, personally. But is it "sinful"? Can you come up with any reason why it is other than "God says so", without pointing out that you have the little bit of hypocrisy of ignoring the rules about slavery and Shrimp?
You are just cherry-picking rules you want to follow to justify your own biases.
I, on the other hand, follow a more sensible morality. When questioning the morality of an action I take, I ask, "Will anyone be harmed by this action". Anything from hurt feelings to physical bodily harm.
If my answer to that is "no", then it isn't sinful or wrong. If it's yes, then I either don't do it or I ask myself if the harm is justified (hitting in self defense, telling someone something the person really needs to hear, etc.)
Under that rule, slavery is wrong, because it harms another person, while eating Shellfish is right, as long as I don't have the allergy. And engaging in sex is not wrong as long as both partners consent and want it, and are willing to deal with the consequences.
It's morality based on treating each other and ourselves right, not on pleasing an imaginary sky friend based on what people 3000 years ago said.
Which brings us to HOmosexuality. Not my cup of tea, there's nothing about a man's hairy ass I find appealing, personally. But is it "sinful"? Can you come up with any reason why it is other than "God says so", without pointing out that you have the little bit of hypocrisy of ignoring the rules about slavery and Shrimp?
Homosexuality is an obvious perversion of nature let alone God's will. Slavery was not condemned in the Old Testament but neither were a lot other things that God's grace looked past. Hell we have slavery today but it is just covered over by the "systems" in play. As for shrimp. Who says it doesn't cause some genetic mutations to cause people such as you to think the way you do?
I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry at this.
Okay, to start with, homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom, so it is not against nature. Some scientists have even theorized that it appears in populations where the population has has exceeded limits. They did an expirament in the 1950s with mice in an enclosure, gave them infinite amounts of food and let them reproduce until they were crowding each other out. The mice ended up turning gay. No word on whether or not they start throwing killer Oscar Parties, though.
On slavery. No, the bible just doesn't "fai to condemn", it frequently gives rules on how to beat your slaves, how to punish your slaves and even how to extend their period of servitude. The bible is a "Slavery for Dummies" manual. Still in use in 1865 Confederate States.
And serious, Shrimp causes genetic mutations that make me tolerant of gays and contemptuous of religion. Obviously, you don't know how genetics work, but we should probably be adding shellfish to the school menus across the nation.
Jesus came and said to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I would say that covers any logical thought about slavery, heh?
Except the same New Testament then turned around and told slaves to happily serve their masters. So, no, it didn't.
Homosexuality is an obvious perversion of nature let alone God's will. Slavery was not condemned in the Old Testament but neither were a lot other things that God's grace looked past. Hell we have slavery today but it is just covered over by the "systems" in play. As for shrimp. Who says it doesn't cause some genetic mutations to cause people such as you to think the way you do?
I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry at this.
Okay, to start with, homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom, so it is not against nature. Some scientists have even theorized that it appears in populations where the population has has exceeded limits. They did an expirament in the 1950s with mice in an enclosure, gave them infinite amounts of food and let them reproduce until they were crowding each other out. The mice ended up turning gay. No word on whether or not they start throwing killer Oscar Parties, though.
On slavery. No, the bible just doesn't "fai to condemn", it frequently gives rules on how to beat your slaves, how to punish your slaves and even how to extend their period of servitude. The bible is a "Slavery for Dummies" manual. Still in use in 1865 Confederate States.
And serious, Shrimp causes genetic mutations that make me tolerant of gays and contemptuous of religion. Obviously, you don't know how genetics work, but we should probably be adding shellfish to the school menus across the nation.
Jesus came and said to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I would say that covers any logical thought about slavery, heh?
Except the same New Testament then turned around and told slaves to happily serve their masters. So, no, it didn't.
Slavery is still alive and well in the Middle East, Asian and African countries.
I don't think that claim is meant to be taking parts of the Bible as morally appropriate today, but the book as a whole. For many years, Catholics were told not to even read the Bible as they might interpret it wrong.
Gee, isn't that special. By wrong, they mean "something that we haven't declared to be true." And you're right, I went to Catholic Schools for 12 years, and realized the bullshit pretty early. For instance, Bible clearly says "No Graven Images", but you have all sorts of statues in any given Catholic Church of the saints you are supposed to pray to.
(Praying to Saints- Kind of to Polytheism what nicotine gum is to smoking.)
Oooooh, I love when they compare me to "the devil" because I point out the insane crap in their own holy book.
Okay, let's take this silliness one step further. This is always one of my favorite arguments from Bible Thumpers. "But that's the OLD TESTAMENT".
That would assume that Jesus (who is God) actually would have disapproved of God's (which is to say his) handling of the whole S&G fiasco....
But the problem is, he didn't.
Luke 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
17:32 Remember Lot's wife.
So the only person who Jesus/God was really okay with Punishing was Lot's wife, who let's not forget, only committed the horrible sin of looking back when her home was destroyed (which I think any of us would do), while he had no problem with Lot pimping his daughter or having drunken sex with them.
Also, I'd have to wonder why God would 1) Screw up his own creation so bad that it was so evil and 2) Wait 2000 years before putting in the fix of sending Jesus down to be a kinder, gentler Sky Pixie after torturing his followers for all those years.
There are many instances where being in the presence of the Lord equalled death. The Hebrews would not look at the Lord. They would throw themselves to the ground and not look up at Him. After He joined the hebrews, and stayed with them, if people that were not properly cleansed entered His sancuary, they disinegrated. It is possible that when Lot's wife looked back, she saw the Lord's face, and was destroyed.
Of course you would.
Of course, they would just be behaving in a manner that is indicative of their love for you, and your desire that you make it to heaven.
What insecure assholes!
Pretty much.
But frankly, what kind of God only lets you into heaven if you kiss his ass?
I used this comparison in another thread, but let's do it again.
Ann Frank didn't accept Jesus into her soul. Because she was Jewish and the Christian Nazis were killing her peeps. So because she didn't worship the "right" God, or worship him the "right" way, she gets to burn in hell for all eternity. Because God is such a loving guy. Hitler burns Ann Frank once and he's evil, God burns her for all eternity and he's good.
But it gets better. Even evil people can get into heaven if they just accept Jay-zus into their souls. Even Jeffrey Dahmner, who despite eating 17 people, found Jay-zus in prison. And persumably didn't do any more sinning after he was forgiven and baptized.
So Ann Frank burns in hell for all eternity and Chef Jeff gets to sit on a cloud with a harp? Seriously?
So you base your hatred of God based upon what you think he thinks, not on what was actually said or done.
Brilliant. Another illustration of the dishonesty and ignorance of the anti-Christians.
I don't believe in your god or any gods, so no I don't hate it. Do you hate Santa Claus despite not believing in him?
The Bible says he's committed genocide time after time after time, all one has to do is be able to read to know this.
So you base your hatred of God based upon what you think he thinks, not on what was actually said or done.
Brilliant. Another illustration of the dishonesty and ignorance of the anti-Christians.
I don't believe in your god or any gods, so no I don't hate it. Do you hate Santa Claus despite not believing in him?
The Bible says he's committed genocide time after time after time, all one has to do is be able to read to know this.
....." The Bible says he's committed genocide time after time after time" .... evidence?????
Genocide was committed by the Hebrew slaves when the Lord led them into the promised land. Those that dwelt there had sinned against the Lord and against man. The Lord used "slaves" to do as he had promised (read Jubilees). A weak force overthrew (with the Lord's help) bullies of the area.
So when was the time after that, and the time after that?
