Why I Am Not A Christian

[SmarterThanHick]

You didn't quote 8:13 you punk bitch because you completely ignored it. You did that because you claimed the covenant was "re-established" when I showed it was new and not re-established as you claimed. The part you partially quoted was from verse 9.

A Covenant is based on a set of conditions, including laws. If none of the laws are changed then it is impossible to have a new Covenant.

I think we're making progress here now. You say a covenant/agreement is based on a set of conditions including laws. But a covenant is NOT the laws themselves. It is a construct that references the laws. So changing the agreement does not inherently change the laws. For example, if we have an agreement that you will mow my lawn for some compensation, and we then later change the agreement, the local, state, and federal laws need not be changed in the process. The "covenant" works within the established laws.

So if it wasn't like the old covenant then what changed?

"No longer will a man teach his neighbor, *or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' **because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. *For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

This is the issue. I ask for an explicit reason, and you give some hand waiving speculation.

OK, so where in the bible does it say that man is required to teach his neighbor that by law? You'd need to point out the actual contradiction instead of just continuing to speculate away from the actual topic, which your guessing doesn't even address. That is specifically: WHY did the law change? You've established why the covenant changed. If you can provide a direct contradiction of law from the old testament, you will have even showed that the law changed, but you have yet to point out a quote that states WHY the law was changed.

But let's face it: you're just going to curse some more, claim other people don't know what they're talking about, and not support anything you say. Hey if I'm lucky you'll throw in more guesses and hand waiving: always entertaining.

As for the Cross....I was pointing out your analogy to a gun was stoopid because guns are generally used for instant death........not hours and hours of suffocation hanging on a Cross. I also don't wear a Cross and have always been outspoken about not wearing them.....but not for the reasons you so ignorantly have tried to spell out.

You're saying guns can't be used for torture? Really? You don't get out much to go to the movies ever I take it. Die Hard 4 was just on TV recently and would show you to be incorrect.

But yet again you seem to avoid the actual issues to complain and curse about something close but unrelated: if Jesus was tortured for hours with a gun, or an iron maiden, or water boarding, would you think it smart to use that device as a symbol for your religion? Don't backpedal now about how you don't wear a cross. That was never the point that made you throw your temper tantrum. You are misdirecting by saying "no but it was torture" and yet you tried to shoot down someone for claiming it is a masochistic symbol? Wow you're pretty dense.

 

[CurveLight]

You didn't quote 8:13 you punk bitch because you completely ignored it. You did that because you claimed the covenant was "re-established" when I showed it was new and not re-established as you claimed. The part you partially quoted was from verse 9.

A Covenant is based on a set of conditions, including laws. If none of the laws are changed then it is impossible to have a new Covenant.

I think we're making progress here now. You say a covenant/agreement is based on a set of conditions including laws. But a covenant is NOT the laws themselves. It is a construct that references the laws. So changing the agreement does not inherently change the laws. For example, if we have an agreement that you will mow my lawn for some compensation, and we then later change the agreement, the local, state, and federal laws need not be changed in the process. The "covenant" works within the established laws.

So if it wasn't like the old covenant then what changed?

"No longer will a man teach his neighbor, *or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' **because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. *For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

This is the issue. I ask for an explicit reason, and you give some hand waiving speculation.

OK, so where in the bible does it say that man is required to teach his neighbor that by law? You'd need to point out the actual contradiction instead of just continuing to speculate away from the actual topic, which your guessing doesn't even address. That is specifically: WHY did the law change? You've established why the covenant changed. If you can provide a direct contradiction of law from the old testament, you will have even showed that the law changed, but you have yet to point out a quote that states WHY the law was changed.

But let's face it: you're just going to curse some more, claim other people don't know what they're talking about, and not support anything you say. Hey if I'm lucky you'll throw in more guesses and hand waiving: always entertaining.

As for the Cross....I was pointing out your analogy to a gun was stoopid because guns are generally used for instant death........not hours and hours of suffocation hanging on a Cross. I also don't wear a Cross and have always been outspoken about not wearing them.....but not for the reasons you so ignorantly have tried to spell out.

You're saying guns can't be used for torture? Really? You don't get out much to go to the movies ever I take it. Die Hard 4 was just on TV recently and would show you to be incorrect.

But yet again you seem to avoid the actual issues to complain and curse about something close but unrelated: if Jesus was tortured for hours with a gun, or an iron maiden, or water boarding, would you think it smart to use that device as a symbol for your religion? Don't backpedal now about how you don't wear a cross. That was never the point that made you throw your temper tantrum. You are misdirecting by saying "no but it was torture" and yet you tried to shoot down someone for claiming it is a masochistic symbol? Wow you're pretty dense.

Are you babbling again?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

well, once again your words are useless, but this time it looks like you gave up on cursing along with missing the point.

 

[CurveLight]

You didn't quote 8:13 you punk bitch because you completely ignored it. You did that because you claimed the covenant was "re-established" when I showed it was new and not re-established as you claimed. The part you partially quoted was from verse 9.

A Covenant is based on a set of conditions, including laws. If none of the laws are changed then it is impossible to have a new Covenant.

I think we're making progress here now. You say a covenant/agreement is based on a set of conditions including laws. But a covenant is NOT the laws themselves. It is a construct that references the laws. So changing the agreement does not inherently change the laws. For example, if we have an agreement that you will mow my lawn for some compensation, and we then later change the agreement, the local, state, and federal laws need not be changed in the process. The "covenant" works within the established laws.

So if it wasn't like the old covenant then what changed?

"No longer will a man teach his neighbor, *or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' **because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. *For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

This is the issue. I ask for an explicit reason, and you give some hand waiving speculation.

OK, so where in the bible does it say that man is required to teach his neighbor that by law? You'd need to point out the actual contradiction instead of just continuing to speculate away from the actual topic, which your guessing doesn't even address. That is specifically: WHY did the law change? You've established why the covenant changed. If you can provide a direct contradiction of law from the old testament, you will have even showed that the law changed, but you have yet to point out a quote that states WHY the law was changed.

But let's face it: you're just going to curse some more, claim other people don't know what they're talking about, and not support anything you say. Hey if I'm lucky you'll throw in more guesses and hand waiving: always entertaining.

As for the Cross....I was pointing out your analogy to a gun was stoopid because guns are generally used for instant death........not hours and hours of suffocation hanging on a Cross. I also don't wear a Cross and have always been outspoken about not wearing them.....but not for the reasons you so ignorantly have tried to spell out.

You're saying guns can't be used for torture? Really? You don't get out much to go to the movies ever I take it. Die Hard 4 was just on TV recently and would show you to be incorrect.

But yet again you seem to avoid the actual issues to complain and curse about something close but unrelated: if Jesus was tortured for hours with a gun, or an iron maiden, or water boarding, would you think it smart to use that device as a symbol for your religion? Don't backpedal now about how you don't wear a cross. That was never the point that made you throw your temper tantrum. You are misdirecting by saying "no but it was torture" and yet you tried to shoot down someone for claiming it is a masochistic symbol? Wow you're pretty dense.

well, once again your words are useless, but this time it looks like you gave up on cursing along with missing the point.

What are you fucking whining about now?

 

[Anguille]

Alright I'll bite. So why do you say the christians are masochists and not sadists. Or is the whole lot an S&M thing combined?

I never said that. Go back and read my original post if it really interests you.

I did

There are many reasons why I am not a Christian. One of them is because I am thoroughly repulsed by the masochistic overtones of the Crucifixion story and the whole glorification of martyrdom that goes with it. The cross has to be one of the most creepy religious symbols ever.

So I will ask again if you care to elaborate on this statement.

What I said pretty much sums up as well as I can put it as to why I am repulsed by the cross symbol. I remember the first time I saw a Dying Jesus on a cross. I was about 9 and it was in the main Cathedral of Montreal. It scared the bejesus out of me , no pun ...., . I think it's freaky to glorify suffering.

 

[Madeline]

It was fucking ignorant to claim the Cross is a symbol of masochism so your safest path is to run and hide....

Why I Am Not A CurveLight

CurveLight, what does some minutiae of christian theology have to do with the main question of this thread? Can you please link it up for those of us not involved in the dispute?

It's pretty bizarre to claim the Cross is a sign of masochism and since you thanked the person for making the accusation it didn't seem to be minutia to you. My beef is how claims like that are made then the accuser runs and hides. If you would like I can pm you my posts for approval before I actually post. How would that be?

That accusation and the op have a lot in common because both are making proclamations that try to justify deriding Christianity.

I was referring to your feud with SmartThanHick, not Anguille. I think you have misread Anguille's response. I suspect that he meant "I will not reply because I am not a masochist". If you are too upset by other's POVs to sustain reading comprehension, you probably aren't enjoying this thread anymore, CurveLight. You feel free to stop posting to it, at least for awhile. No one will assume you concede a thing if you do.

I do not need to "justify deriding christianity". My Op is not about anger or hatred for christians -- it is about the total submersion I endured as a child in a faith that never made sense to me and still does not. Others have had similar life experiences, and whether they fetched up with the same beliefs as I, it seems to me the rejoinder would be something like "why I follow christianity", not "you are all assholes".

Just a thought. Please feel free to carry on however you see fit; it's my Op but I am not the USMB Hall Monitor. I just hate to see a generally rewarding convo tank, is all.

Maybe you can answer some questions, CurveLight. If God is unknowable, reality is a fiction and Evil cannot be defined, then how are you a christian? To me, you sound like a Nihilist.

 

[CurveLight]

Why I Am Not A CurveLight

CurveLight, what does some minutiae of christian theology have to do with the main question of this thread? Can you please link it up for those of us not involved in the dispute?

It's pretty bizarre to claim the Cross is a sign of masochism and since you thanked the person for making the accusation it didn't seem to be minutia to you. My beef is how claims like that are made then the accuser runs and hides. If you would like I can pm you my posts for approval before I actually post. How would that be?

That accusation and the op have a lot in common because both are making proclamations that try to justify deriding Christianity.

I was referring to your feud with SmartThanHick, not Anguille. I think you have misread Anguille's response. I suspect that he meant "I will not reply because I am not a masochist". If you are too upset by other's POVs to sustain reading comprehension, you probably aren't enjoying this thread anymore, CurveLight. You feel free to stop posting to it, at least for awhile. No one will assume you concede a thing if you do.

I do not need to "justify deriding christianity". My Op is not about anger or hatred for christians -- it is about the total submersion I endured as a child in a faith that never made sense to me and still does not. Others have had similar life experiences, and whether they fetched up with the same beliefs as I, it seems to me the rejoinder would be something like "why I follow christianity", not "you are all assholes".

Just a thought. Please feel free to carry on however you see fit; it's my Op but I am not the USMB Hall Monitor. I just hate to see a generally rewarding convo tank, is all.

I'm not misreading anything. Anguille clearly stated:

"....masochistic overtones of the Crucifixion story..."

and that is what I challenged because there is no masochism at all.

As for my ex-feud with NotSmarterThanHick I don't know how in the hell you could consider it a "minutae" of Christian theology. In a nutshell, Heb 8 summarizes the entire theological reason for Jesus.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I'm not misreading anything. Anguille clearly stated:

"....masochistic overtones of the Crucifixion story..."

and that is what I challenged because there is no masochism at all.

You don't understand how people getting all excited over a story which you describe as "a long slow, excruciating death" as having masochistic overtones? I think this is yet another one of those times where you don't actually understand the meaning of certain words but try to refute them anyway.

 

[CurveLight]

Why I Am Not A CurveLight

CurveLight, what does some minutiae of christian theology have to do with the main question of this thread? Can you please link it up for those of us not involved in the dispute?

It's pretty bizarre to claim the Cross is a sign of masochism and since you thanked the person for making the accusation it didn't seem to be minutia to you. My beef is how claims like that are made then the accuser runs and hides. If you would like I can pm you my posts for approval before I actually post. How would that be?

That accusation and the op have a lot in common because both are making proclamations that try to justify deriding Christianity.

I was referring to your feud with SmartThanHick, not Anguille. I think you have misread Anguille's response. I suspect that he meant "I will not reply because I am not a masochist". If you are too upset by other's POVs to sustain reading comprehension, you probably aren't enjoying this thread anymore, CurveLight. You feel free to stop posting to it, at least for awhile. No one will assume you concede a thing if you do.

I do not need to "justify deriding christianity". My Op is not about anger or hatred for christians -- it is about the total submersion I endured as a child in a faith that never made sense to me and still does not. Others have had similar life experiences, and whether they fetched up with the same beliefs as I, it seems to me the rejoinder would be something like "why I follow christianity", not "you are all assholes".

Just a thought. Please feel free to carry on however you see fit; it's my Op but I am not the USMB Hall Monitor. I just hate to see a generally rewarding convo tank, is all.

Maybe you can answer some questions, CurveLight. If God is unknowable, reality is a fiction and Evil cannot be defined, then how are you a christian? To me, you sound like a Nihilist.

I'm not misreading anything. Anguille clearly stated:

"....masochistic overtones of the Crucifixion story..."

and that is what I challenged because there is no masochism at all.

You don't understand how people getting all excited over a story which you describe as "a long slow, excruciating death" as having masochistic overtones? I think this is yet another one of those times where you don't actually understand the meaning of certain words but try to refute them anyway.

This is why you are not smarter than a hick you dumbfuck.

mas·och·ism *(ms-kzm)n.1. The deriving of sexual gratification, or the tendency to derive sexual gratification, from being physically or emotionally abused.

Even if you remove the sexual component how fucked up do you have to be to think Jesus received any type of pleasure? Or anyone who was crucified? What the fuck is wrong with you?

 

[del]

i'm not a christian because i don't believe christ was divine.

thank you

 

[Modbert]

i'm not a christian because i don't believe christ was divine.

thank you

Sorry, religion & ethics threads all require long winded answers.

 

[del]

i'm not a christian because i don't believe christ was divine.

thank you

Sorry, religion & ethics threads all require long winded answers.

i believe god works through people and that perhaps jesus was used for that purpose to a greater extent than the usual human. god's in everything, IMO.

that's just how i roll

 

[Modbert]

i believe god works through people and that perhaps jesus was used for that purpose to a greater extent than the usual human. god's in everything, IMO.

that's just how i roll

Sorry, needs to be more long winded.



All seriousness, good answer though. Especially since it involved no insulting of any other religion to get your own point across.

 

[syrenn]

I never said that. Go back and read my original post if it really interests you.

I did

There are many reasons why I am not a Christian. One of them is because I am thoroughly repulsed by the masochistic overtones of the Crucifixion story and the whole glorification of martyrdom that goes with it. The cross has to be one of the most creepy religious symbols ever.

So I will ask again if you care to elaborate on this statement.

What I said pretty much sums up as well as I can put it as to why I am repulsed by the cross symbol. I remember the first time I saw a Dying Jesus on a cross. I was about 9 and it was in the main Cathedral of Montreal. It scared the bejesus out of me , no pun ...., . I think it's freaky to glorify suffering.

Are you sure you don't mean sadistic overtones? When you say masochistic do you mean speaking from a "roman" POV or the guy on the cross POV?

I would consider the entire thing more sadistic then masochistic.

 

[CurveLight]

i'm not a christian because i don't believe christ was divine.

thank you

You don't have to believe he was divine to be a Christian. Even Jesus himself made a few statements that denied divinity. The most obvious is he said he didn't know when the End Day would happen.

So I'm not sure where you're getting your info but I'd double check.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You don't understand how people getting all excited over a story which you describe as "a long slow, excruciating death" as having masochistic overtones? I think this is yet another one of those times where you don't actually understand the meaning of certain words but try to refute them anyway.

This is why you are not smarter than a hick you dumbfuck.

mas·och·ism *(ms-kzm)n.1. The deriving of sexual gratification, or the tendency to derive sexual gratification, from being physically or emotionally abused.

Even if you remove the sexual component how fucked up do you have to be to think Jesus received any type of pleasure? Or anyone who was crucified? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Ah very good. You figured out how to use the dictionary. Unfortunately, you appear to lack the capability of understanding that words have multiple definitions. Had you read down past #1, you would have seen:
mas·och·ism:
2. gratification gained from pain, deprivation, degradation, etc., inflicted or imposed on oneself, either as a result of one's own actions or the actions of others
alt 3. A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences.

So no need to remove the sexual aspect as the word doesn't necessitate it. Did Jesus "subject [him]self to unpleasant or trying experiences"? Do people gain gratification from the telling of the story despite pain, deprivation, and degradation inflicted or imposed as a result of the actions of others? You've already established you are incapable of basic reading comprehension. Cherry picking a single dictionary definition, believing it is the end all meaning of a word, and ignoring all other definitions is just laughable.

 

[Toro]

I'm a Christian because you can do whatever you want in your life, then repent and accept Jesus on your deathbed and still get into heaven.

That's awesome.

 

[Anguille]

It's pretty bizarre to claim the Cross is a sign of masochism and since you thanked the person for making the accusation it didn't seem to be minutia to you. My beef is how claims like that are made then the accuser runs and hides. If you would like I can pm you my posts for approval before I actually post. How would that be?

That accusation and the op have a lot in common because both are making proclamations that try to justify deriding Christianity.

I was referring to your feud with SmartThanHick, not Anguille. I think you have misread Anguille's response. I suspect that he meant "I will not reply because I am not a masochist". If you are too upset by other's POVs to sustain reading comprehension, you probably aren't enjoying this thread anymore, CurveLight. You feel free to stop posting to it, at least for awhile. No one will assume you concede a thing if you do.

I do not need to "justify deriding christianity". My Op is not about anger or hatred for christians -- it is about the total submersion I endured as a child in a faith that never made sense to me and still does not. Others have had similar life experiences, and whether they fetched up with the same beliefs as I, it seems to me the rejoinder would be something like "why I follow christianity", not "you are all assholes".

Just a thought. Please feel free to carry on however you see fit; it's my Op but I am not the USMB Hall Monitor. I just hate to see a generally rewarding convo tank, is all.

Maybe you can answer some questions, CurveLight. If God is unknowable, reality is a fiction and Evil cannot be defined, then how are you a christian? To me, you sound like a Nihilist.

I'm not misreading anything. Anguille clearly stated:

"....masochistic overtones of the Crucifixion story..."

and that is what I challenged because there is no masochism at all.

You don't understand how people getting all excited over a story which you describe as "a long slow, excruciating death" as having masochistic overtones? I think this is yet another one of those times where you don't actually understand the meaning of certain words but try to refute them anyway.

This is why you are not smarter than a hick you dumbfuck.

mas·och·ism *(ms-kzm)n.1. The deriving of sexual gratification, or the tendency to derive sexual gratification, from being physically or emotionally abused.

Even if you remove the sexual component how fucked up do you have to be to think Jesus received any type of pleasure? Or anyone who was crucified? What the fuck is wrong with you?

You are so utterly clueless. And being a sadist, I will leave you in that state of mind.

 

[Anguille]

i'm not a christian because i don't believe christ was divine.

thank you

Sorry, religion & ethics threads all require long winded answers.

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

 

[del]

i'm not a christian because i don't believe christ was divine.

thank you

You don't have to believe he was divine to be a Christian. Even Jesus himself made a few statements that denied divinity. The most obvious is he said he didn't know when the End Day would happen.

So I'm not sure where you're getting your info but I'd double check.

last time i checked, to be a christian meant that one believed that jesus was god. i don't believe that. i don't believe in an end day, either. i don't know if i'm right or wrong, but that's what i believe.