Love, peace, tolerance, compassion, education, these are the things that Jesus Christ stood for. I find myself wondering what happened to these basic principles. Why when Jesus was able to see past the sins of a whore, washing her feet, telling her she is not a bad person. Why can't Christians find the same compassion? Is it because they do not feel they have to sacrifice their moral pride in order to help?
Sadly I feel that more Christians are going to go to hell than they think. I think the conversation will go something like this.
"Welcome to heaven Mr. Anderson."
"Oh wow this place is amazing!"
"Yeah well, we like to keep our promises."
"No this is better than I could have ever expected, when do I get to go in.?
"You don't."
"Wait what?"
"You don't get to go in."
"But why, I did what I was supposed to. I accepted Jesus as my lord and savior! I went to church every Sunday; I prayed and asked forgiveness for my sins. What did I do wrong?"
"Well let's take a look. Looks like you spent your life drinking in excess. You cheated on your wife, twice. You disowned your son because he was a homosexual. Consequently he fell into a deep depression because all he ever wanted was your love and understanding. He killed himself because of that, you know that right? You taught your grandchildren that black people were lazy thieves, and that anyone that didn't have the same faith as you wasn't worth your time, because they were going to hell anyway. I could keep going but I think you've got the picture."
"But I accepted Jesus!"
"Do you think that gives you free reign to be a prick? No, Jesus died to bring you closer to god, not to let you act like a monster."
"I am so sorry. I didn't realize."
"Really, you didn't realize? The teachings of Jesus weren't clear enough? Do unto others, love thy neighbor, cultivate love, and understanding? It's too little too late for sorry. Maybe eternity will give you some time to find the true nature of Jesus. Good bye Mr. Anderson."
Sending people to heaven just so that they can be sent to hell again makes god look like an a-hole.
Quote from: Cecilie on May 17, 2011, 06:14:05 AM
Sending people to heaven just so that they can be sent to hell again makes god look like an a-hole.
There may be a good reason for it... Because someone created god in his own image and that person was... Well, an asshole, perhaps?
Quote from: Cecilie on May 17, 2011, 06:14:05 AM
Sending people to heaven just so that they can be sent to hell again makes god look like an a-hole.
lmao
I feel Christian's are in an extreme bind. Trying to make sense of a nonsensical book without having the opportunity to talk to the author to gain clarity. On top of that, having the understanding that your eternal position in heaven or hell is based on you having the correct understanding and following that to the letter. It must be bloody terrifying to them to see so many interpretations. Then when their own inner voice conflicts with the teachings (e.g. what's so wrong with people being gay?, what's so wrong with practicing safe sex?).
Quote from: thedport on May 16, 2011, 10:43:19 PM
Love, peace, tolerance, compassion, education, these are the things that Jesus Christ stood for. I find myself wondering what happened to these basic principles. Why when Jesus was able to see past the sins of a whore, washing her feet, telling her she is not a bad person. Why can't Christians find the same compassion? Is it because they do not feel they have to sacrifice their moral pride in order to help?
Jesus did not wash the feet of a whore. He washed the feet of his Disciples. Mary Magdalene (not a whore, but commonly confused as one) washed Jesus' feet.
QuoteSadly I feel that more Christians are going to go to hell than they think. I think the conversation will go something like this.
"Welcome to heaven Mr. Anderson."
Mr. Anderson from the Matrix or perhaps Beavis and Butthead?
Quote"Oh wow this place is amazing!"
"Yeah well, we like to keep our promises."
"No this is better than I could have ever expected, when do I get to go in.?
"You don't."
"Wait what?"
"You don't get to go in."
"But why, I did what I was supposed to. I accepted Jesus as my lord and savior! I went to church every Sunday; I prayed and asked forgiveness for my sins. What did I do wrong?"
"Well let's take a look. Looks like you spent your life drinking in excess. You cheated on your wife, twice. You disowned your son because he was a homosexual. Consequently he fell into a deep depression because all he ever wanted was your love and understanding. He killed himself because of that, you know that right? You taught your grandchildren that black people were lazy thieves, and that anyone that didn't have the same faith as you wasn't worth your time, because they were going to hell anyway. I could keep going but I think you've got the picture."
There are many cases in the Bible of trouble between fathers and sons, way back to Noah's son seeing his nakedness. Disowning your son isn't a reason to get sent to hell. Considering the Bible's stance on homosexuality, disowning your son for being gay would kinda be a plus. A man doesn't cheat on his wife. If a man has sex with a woman who winds up having sex with someone else, he has caused her to commit adultery. In other words, it's not his sin, it's hers. In other places it actually says that it is a sin for a man to commit adultery. I guess it's not important. According to the Bible, anyone that doesn't have the same faith as you is dangerous to be around. Then again the Bible also says you should go forth and preach the word. Again, I guess we have to make up our own minds.
Quote"But I accepted Jesus!"
"Do you think that gives you free reign to be a prick? No, Jesus died to bring you closer to god, not to let you act like a monster."
"I am so sorry. I didn't realize."
"Really, you didn't realize? The teachings of Jesus weren't clear enough? Do unto others, love thy neighbor, cultivate love, and understanding? It's too little too late for sorry. Maybe eternity will give you some time to find the true nature of Jesus. Good bye Mr. Anderson."
Yes, the Bible has rules in it that followers should live by. However, it does actually say that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. Regardless of the sinful life (as all are sinful) salvation is through Christ. So, yes, a man who is a prick and has done all these things can still get into heaven, according to the scriptures. Then again, a person doesn't have to accept Christ, either, they just have to be written in the book of life according to their works. Why not just ditch all the confusion and be free of it? I think Mr. Anderson will be just fine decomposing in the ground just like any other dead people.
Quote from: thedport on May 16, 2011, 10:43:19 PM
Love, peace, tolerance, compassion, education, these are the things that Jesus Christ stood for. I find myself wondering what happened to these basic principles. Why when Jesus was able to see past the sins of a whore, washing her feet, telling her she is not a bad person. Why can't Christians find the same compassion? Is it because they do not feel they have to sacrifice their moral pride in order to help?
Sadly I feel that more Christians are going to go to hell than they think. I think the conversation will go something like this.
"Welcome to heaven Mr. Anderson."
"Oh wow this place is amazing!"
"Yeah well, we like to keep our promises."
"No this is better than I could have ever expected, when do I get to go in.?
"You don't."
"Wait what?"
"You don't get to go in."
"But why, I did what I was supposed to. I accepted Jesus as my lord and savior! I went to church every Sunday; I prayed and asked forgiveness for my sins. What did I do wrong?"
"Well let's take a look. Looks like you spent your life drinking in excess. You cheated on your wife, twice. You disowned your son because he was a homosexual. Consequently he fell into a deep depression because all he ever wanted was your love and understanding. He killed himself because of that, you know that right? You taught your grandchildren that black people were lazy thieves, and that anyone that didn't have the same faith as you wasn't worth your time, because they were going to hell anyway. I could keep going but I think you've got the picture."
"But I accepted Jesus!"
"Do you think that gives you free reign to be a prick? No, Jesus died to bring you closer to god, not to let you act like a monster."
"I am so sorry. I didn't realize."
"Really, you didn't realize? The teachings of Jesus weren't clear enough? Do unto others, love thy neighbor, cultivate love, and understanding? It's too little too late for sorry. Maybe eternity will give you some time to find the true nature of Jesus. Good bye Mr. Anderson."
You are stereotyping Christianity, and I am very much offended by it.
By this this it seems you are calling all Christians hypocrites. You are calling me a hypocrite, the very thing Jesus preached against. And i dont take kindly to that. So what, we have a few rotten apples, doesnt everybody?
Only about a quarter of Christians are actually "hypocrites". I personally know at least 50 good men that gave up all of their possesions and all their wealth to live in poverty and try and make someone els's life better through community service. I know many, many, many christians who are VERY compassionate.
edit: to take out some things that I would regret saying later when i calm down. Actually i ended up taking out A LOT of things. lol. You seem like a good guy, Thedport, and I wouldnt want to offend. Now that I am starting to calm down I'll say this: didnt mean any offence, just kinda snapped. But my point remains the same: Sure there are those christians who do not fullly understand their faith, but that doesnt mean all of us are like that.
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 18, 2011, 02:13:37 AM
Quote from: thedport on May 16, 2011, 10:43:19 PM
Love, peace, tolerance, compassion, education, these are the things that Jesus Christ stood for. I find myself wondering what happened to these basic principles. Why when Jesus was able to see past the sins of a whore, washing her feet, telling her she is not a bad person. Why can't Christians find the same compassion? Is it because they do not feel they have to sacrifice their moral pride in order to help?
Sadly I feel that more Christians are going to go to hell than they think. I think the conversation will go something like this.
"Welcome to heaven Mr. Anderson."
"Oh wow this place is amazing!"
"Yeah well, we like to keep our promises."
"No this is better than I could have ever expected, when do I get to go in.?
"You don't."
"Wait what?"
"You don't get to go in."
"But why, I did what I was supposed to. I accepted Jesus as my lord and savior! I went to church every Sunday; I prayed and asked forgiveness for my sins. What did I do wrong?"
"Well let's take a look. Looks like you spent your life drinking in excess. You cheated on your wife, twice. You disowned your son because he was a homosexual. Consequently he fell into a deep depression because all he ever wanted was your love and understanding. He killed himself because of that, you know that right? You taught your grandchildren that black people were lazy thieves, and that anyone that didn't have the same faith as you wasn't worth your time, because they were going to hell anyway. I could keep going but I think you've got the picture."
"But I accepted Jesus!"
"Do you think that gives you free reign to be a prick? No, Jesus died to bring you closer to god, not to let you act like a monster."
"I am so sorry. I didn't realize."
"Really, you didn't realize? The teachings of Jesus weren't clear enough? Do unto others, love thy neighbor, cultivate love, and understanding? It's too little too late for sorry. Maybe eternity will give you some time to find the true nature of Jesus. Good bye Mr. Anderson."
You are stereotyping Christianity, and I am very much offended by it.
By this this it seems you are calling all Christians hypocrites. You are calling me a hypocrite, the very thing Jesus preached against. And i dont take kindly to that. So what, we have a few rotten apples, doesnt everybody?
Only about a quarter of Christians are actually "hypocrites". I personally know at least 50 good men that gave up all of their possesions and all their wealth to live in poverty and try and make someone els's life better through community service. I know many, many, many christians who are VERY compassionate.
edit: to take out some things that I would regret saying later when i calm down. Actually i ended up taking out A LOT of things. lol. You seem like a good guy, Thedport, and I wouldnt want to offend. Now that I am starting to calm down I'll say this: didnt mean any offence, just kinda snapped. But my point remains the same: Sure there are those christians who do not fullly understand their faith, but that doesnt mean all of us are like that.
I did not mean to offend you and for that I am regretably sorry. :-[
I was trying to convey my displeasure with the "Sunday Christians" the ones that really only follow the teachings one day a week. I do not mean all christians are this way, I know many christians myself that I respect very much because they sacrifice a lot in order to follow in the foot steps of the good word. Again I am sorry if I offended you, I just wanted to give some food for though to those "bad apples" lol.
Quote from: fester30 on May 17, 2011, 11:56:10 AM
A man doesn't cheat on his wife. If a man has sex with a woman who winds up having sex with someone else, he has caused her to commit adultery. in other words, it's not his sin, it's hers. In other places it actually says that it is a sin for a man to commit adultery. I guess it's not important. According to the Bible, anyone that doesn't have the same faith as you is dangerous to be around. Then again the Bible also says you should go forth and preach the word. Again, I guess we have to make up our own minds.
Can you site where you got the underlined interpritations from?
Quote from: fester30 on May 17, 2011, 11:56:10 AM
Yes, the Bible has rules in it that followers should live by. However, it does actually say that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. Regardless of the sinful life (as all are sinful) salvation is through Christ.
Right, but to truly believe in Christ you must follow Him. When you follow Him he will make himself known to you. One can not truly beleive in something if they do not know it. Sure, one could easily say they believe in something, but they dont truly believe, because they do not know.
Look at it in the sense if a cause (ie: a revolution). Sure it easy to say that you believe in said cause, but unless you truly know what it stands for, your vews can easily be faltered by outside influences.
Quote from: fester30 on May 17, 2011, 11:56:10 AM
So, yes, a man who is a prick and has done all these things can still get into heaven, according to the scriptures.
Wrong.
"Woe to the worthless shepherd who leaves his flock!"-- Zachariah 11:17 Translation: Woe to the father that deserts his family.
The whole second chapter of the book of Micah is titled "Woe to Oppressors".
"Woe to those who rise early in the morning that they may pursue strong drink, Who stay up late in the evening that wine may inflame them!"-- Isaiah 5:11
Woe is being used as a warning of the result of said sins.
Quote from: thedport on May 18, 2011, 02:51:28 AM
I did not mean to offend you and for that I am regretably sorry. :-[
I was trying to convey my displeasure with the "Sunday Christians" the ones that really only follow the teachings one day a week. I do not mean all christians are this way, I know many christians myself that I respect very much because they sacrifice a lot in order to follow in the foot steps of the good word. Again I am sorry if I offended you, I just wanted to give some food for though to those "bad apples" lol.
Now that I have calmed down, I see what you are adressing. ;D
I'm just really sick of all the Christian bashing jokes that get posted on this forum.
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 18, 2011, 03:22:39 AM
"Woe to those who rise early in the morning that they may pursue strong drink, Who stay up late in the evening that wine may inflame them!"-- Isaiah 5:11
Woe is being used as a warning of the result of said sins.
I've always lent my support to the scholars who have interpreted this usage of "woe" to mean "hang over".
The sufferer of a hangover can often be heard chanting woe, woe, woe. If there is an eternal woe waiting akin to a hangover, well that is a matter of concern.
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 18, 2011, 02:13:37 AM
You are stereotyping Christianity, and I am very much offended by it.
It is good to have theists around to keep us somewhat honest.
Quote from: Stevil on May 18, 2011, 07:50:18 AM
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 18, 2011, 02:13:37 AM
You are stereotyping Christianity, and I am very much offended by it.
It is good to have theists around to keep us somewhat honest.
Yes...I agree...even as much as I try I don't always catch stuff that might be rightfully viewed as offensive by others.
But Papist...you might need to grow a bit thicker skin; you can disagree without actually being offended. I don't know about you, but when I'm actually offended in the real sense I get really pissed off and somewhat irrational (that's what humans do when mad); so just keep that in mind if something starts to actually offend you (it might be time to take a few deep breaths). Not liking what is said is a different story; and will happen often here but shouldn't equal being offended.
What I'd suggest going forward is to ask for clarification first and then be offended (you probably wouldn't believe how many times some theist has posted something offensives here but it turns out they intended to direct the comment at just a specific type of atheist...or I guess you would believe if you looked at our back logs of posts) if the person continues to promote whatever they said that bothered you...and if they offend because they are not approaching the conversation civilly than I or another staff member will step in.
Quote from: Whitney on May 18, 2011, 08:17:49 AM
Yes...I agree...even as much as I try I don't always catch stuff that might be rightfully viewed as offensive by others.
But Papist...you might need to grow a bit thicker skin; you can disagree without actually being offended. I don't know about you, but when I'm actually offended in the real sense I get really pissed off and somewhat irrational (that's what humans do when mad); so just keep that in mind if something starts to actually offend you (it might be time to take a few deep breaths). Not liking what is said is a different story; and will happen often here but shouldn't equal being offended.
What I'd suggest going forward is to ask for clarification first and then be offended (you probably wouldn't believe how many times some theist has posted something offensives here but it turns out they intended to direct the comment at just a specific type of atheist...or I guess you would believe if you looked at our back logs of posts) if the person continues to promote whatever they said that bothered you...and if they offend because they are not approaching the conversation civilly than I or another staff member will step in.
You are very right. In retrosepect I am still very new to online forums and still have a ways to go before I can truly be "good at it".
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 18, 2011, 02:13:37 AM
You are stereotyping Christianity, and I am very much offended by it.
You have the right to be offended but thedport has the right to his opinions, if his opinion is in opposition to yours you are most likely to get offended by at least one small point. However the thedports words weren't really that offensive just highlighting the hypocrisy about certain people who consider themselves to be christians and follow the teachings of the fable Jesus.
Quote from: Crow on May 19, 2011, 08:53:47 PM
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 18, 2011, 02:13:37 AM
You are stereotyping Christianity, and I am very much offended by it.
You have the right to be offended but thedport has the right to his opinions, if his opinion is in opposition to yours bla bla bla
By all appearances, it isn't.
--your friendly neighborhood semi-objective observer
Quote from: Crow on May 19, 2011, 08:53:47 PM
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 18, 2011, 02:13:37 AM
You are stereotyping Christianity, and I am very much offended by it.
You have the right to be offended but thedport has the right to his opinions, if his opinion is in opposition to yours you are most likely to get offended by at least one small point. However the thedports words weren't really that offensive just highlighting the hypocrisy about certain people who consider themselves to be christians and follow the teachings of the fable Jesus.
No, his words werent offensive, but the generalization of Christians was. He never mentioned how "certain" people who consider themselves Christians are hypocrites. They way that I had read it he was generalizing
all Christians to be like the one in his example.
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 20, 2011, 02:42:02 AM
Quote from: Crow on May 19, 2011, 08:53:47 PM
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 18, 2011, 02:13:37 AM
You are stereotyping Christianity, and I am very much offended by it.
You have the right to be offended but thedport has the right to his opinions, if his opinion is in opposition to yours you are most likely to get offended by at least one small point. However the thedports words weren't really that offensive just highlighting the hypocrisy about certain people who consider themselves to be christians and follow the teachings of the fable Jesus.
No, his words werent offensive, but the generalization of Christians was. He never mentioned how "certain" people who consider themselves Christians are hypocrites. They way that I had read it he was generalizing all Christians to be like the one in his example.
You have a point, but as someone who talks about Christians as well and sometimes generalises (I sometimes forget to add things like 'some Christians' to make distinctions explicit) I'm aware of how generalisations are wrong, but sometimes forget to make that clear.
Think of it this way, if you know that a generalised statement does not apply to you, just know that it does not apply to you and that there's no personal reason to get offended. If you know that
you're not a hypocrite, then why feel offended if some Christians are? Next time something like this happens, just calm down and clarify.
But then it should go both ways. People who do not fit a generalised
good statement usually don't complain about any stereotyping. ::)
It's worth rembering that it's the bad things that leave a stronger impression on people's minds, and this applies to everything, not just religious matters, and hypocritical Christians do leave a stronger impression that good Christians and thus stereotype the whole group.
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 18, 2011, 03:22:39 AMQuote from: fester30 on May 17, 2011, 11:56:10 AM
So, yes, a man who is a prick and has done all these things can still get into heaven, according to the scriptures.
Wrong.
"Woe to the worthless shepherd who leaves his flock!"-- Zachariah 11:17 Translation: Woe to the father that deserts his family.
The whole second chapter of the book of Micah is titled "Woe to Oppressors".
"Woe to those who rise early in the morning that they may pursue strong drink, Who stay up late in the evening that wine may inflame them!"-- Isaiah 5:11
Woe is being used as a warning of the result of said sins.
What bearing do these Old Testament verses have on this question? The fact is that Christians acknowledge that they are all sinners, undeserving of heaven on their own. It is only through the supposed sacrifice of Jesus that they hope to enter heaven. There is only one unforgivable sin mentioned in the Bible (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%203:22-30&version=DRA):
QuoteMark 3:28, 29
Amen I say to you, that all sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and the blasphemies wherewith they shall blaspheme:
But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin.
Thus a person can sin in innumerable ways during their lifetime, going far beyond the sort of behavior described in previous posts, and still enter heaven if they:
1. Accept Jesus as their savior.
2. Ask forgiveness for their sins.
3. Avoid blaspheming against the Holy Ghost.
I think
fester30 is correct. Your Old Testament verses cannot supersede the teachings of the New Testament.
(Even ten years ago, I would have taken this opportunity to make some blasphemous remarks about the Holy Ghost. I've got that covered now; any further blasphemy against that furtive member of the Christian trinity would be redundant.)
Quote
Blasphemy has been condemned as a serious, or even the most serious, sin by the major creeds and Church theologians
Blaspheme is such an ambiguous word.
Given the dire consequences you would have thought it would have been made crystal clear in the bible, quran, torah...
Quote
Christian theology condemns blasphemy. It is spoken of in the Mark 3:29, where blaspheming the Holy Spirit is spoken of as unforgivable - the eternal sin. However, there is dispute over what form this blasphemy may take and whether it qualifies as blasphemy in the conventional sense.
The Torah not only mentions God's eternal punishment but a kind of double jeopardy where the oft' used and much loved phrase comes into play
Quote
In the third book of the Torah, Leviticus 24:16 states that those who speak blasphemy "shall surely be put to death".
And so it seems, the Christian's got word of the Torah's message
Quote
Historically, blasphemy against God had been a crime punishable by death in much of the Christian world.
Although I'd be much interested if the instances of this lovely phrase within the Christian bible have ever been carried out by the Christian world
Quote
'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death
Quote
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him
Quote
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death
Quote
And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them
Quote
And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
Quote
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them
Quote
And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you
Quote
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast
Quote
And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them
So quite clearly the bible insists that certain folk should be put to death. But doesn't talk about putting to death the blasphemer.
Well... Not so clear actually.
Quote
And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. 21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless
You would have thought that this would have fallen into the same category of "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife" and just to make this crystal clear, incase you were wondering "even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife"
But as luck may have it, Catholics have a way out with regards to blaspheme, despite that the bible says "Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men"
Quote
In the Catholic Church, there are specific prayers and devotions as Acts of Reparation for blasphemy.
It seems that all us atheist's are blasphemers
Quote
In Britain's last blasphemy execution, 18-year-old Thomas Aikenhead was executed for the crime in 1697. He was prosecuted for denying the veracity of the Old Testament and the legitimacy of Christ's miracles
NOTE: Not Bible quotes come from WIKIPEDIA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy
Quote from: Recusant on May 20, 2011, 07:30:44 PM
Thus a person can sin in innumerable ways during their lifetime, going far beyond the sort of behavior described in previous posts, and still enter heaven if they:
1. Accept Jesus as their savior.
2. Ask forgiveness for their sins.
3. Avoid blaspheming against the Holy Ghost.
Of course each of these have deeper meanings than the simple terms or ideas promoted here. But I'm sure I don't need to relay them to *you as it probably doesn't matter to you anyway.
Yeah, I understand that you can go to heaven no matter what your transgressions as long as you ask for forgiveness and accept jesus as your lord and savoir.
I guesse what I was trying to say was that I feel the promise of eternal life in heaven as long as you accept jesus, and ask for forgiveness has led to much moral ambeguity.
I am not saying that I think christians are immorral, so please do not take it that way. But I feel much sorrow when I see people destroying their lives, or being very unkind and say, well I am a christian. And act like that makes it all better.
I am not sure if those that have read my post's so far can tell this about me. But I try to be as kind and understanding as possible. I feel that without love and compassion nothing else matters. Don't take that as I do not feel that some people deserve what they get. Like Bin laden, yes I feel sorrow that things happened they way they did, on both sides but that does not mean I do not feel that he deserved to die.
But just because I am atheist I have been told by theists that I am an idiot, a godless heathen, an immoral bastard, and numerous other nasty things. But those same people have a certain amount of mallice that I do not share.
So the origanal post was why, if I am a immoral godless heathen, can I show more compassion than the theists that feel that having jesus on their side give them free reign to pass judgements on people without knowing to the full extent what has happened in these peoples lives to bring them to where they are. I love the song What it's like by everlast, none of us are perfect, but we all have the ability to love and help eachother.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 20, 2011, 08:58:05 PM
Quote from: Recusant on May 20, 2011, 07:30:44 PM
Thus a person can sin in innumerable ways during their lifetime, going far beyond the sort of behavior described in previous posts, and still enter heaven if they:
1. Accept Jesus as their savior.
2. Ask forgiveness for their sins.
3. Avoid blaspheming against the Holy Ghost.
Of course each of these have deeper meanings than the simple terms or ideas promoted here. But I'm sure I don't need to relay them to *you as it probably doesn't matter to you anyway.
Quite right; it doesn't matter to me in the sense that I'm not worried that some mythical "immortal soul" that it is postulated that I possess is doomed to an eternity of torment. I do have what might be called an academic interest, in that I find it intriguing to learn about the beliefs of various people.
However simply I may have stated it, I think you'll agree that my formulation is accurate. I'm aware of the supposed "deeper meanings," having attended a Christian school for 9 years and having continued to study and explore Christian thinking since. If you feel a need to elaborate on any of the above points and feel that you can do it while avoiding sounding as if you're preaching, feel free to do so.
I was addressing what I consider to be a rather bizarre position for a Christian to take; citing Old Testament passages as if they were the final word on the subject.
Quote from: Recusant on May 20, 2011, 09:24:31 PM
If you feel a need to elaborate on any of the above points and feel that you can do it while avoiding sounding as if you're preaching, feel free to do so.
Nope. Had I felt the need, I would've given more detail. Suffice it to say, accepting Christ is not simply a mouthing of idle words, nor is asking for forgiveness a utterance of simply "I'm sorry".
Quote from: PapistItalian16
...Only about a quarter of Christians are actually "hypocrites"....
Would you kindly provide a source for this statement?
Because I've heard that 71.96% of statistics on the internet are simply cultivated from the author's rectum. ;)
Quote from: Ihateyoumike on May 20, 2011, 11:23:33 PM
Quote from: PapistItalian16
...Only about a quarter of Christians are actually "hypocrites"....
Would you kindly provide a source for this statement?
Because I've heard that 71.96% of statistics on the internet are simply cultivated from the author's rectum. ;)
Well you know what they say, there lies, damn lies, then statistics. LOL
According to this study (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/12/19/index.html)almost all American Christians are hypocrites. :D
Sorry it took so long to get back with you on this. Busy week preparing for the rapture.
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 18, 2011, 03:22:39 AM
Quote from: fester30 on May 17, 2011, 11:56:10 AM
A man doesn't cheat on his wife. If a man has sex with a woman who winds up having sex with someone else, he has caused her to commit adultery. in other words, it's not his sin, it's hers. In other places it actually says that it is a sin for a man to commit adultery. I guess it's not important. According to the Bible, anyone that doesn't have the same faith as you is dangerous to be around. Then again the Bible also says you should go forth and preach the word. Again, I guess we have to make up our own minds.
Can you site where you got the underlined interpritations from?
Matt 5:32 - But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
I slightly misread it at first, as this verse has to do with marriage, and my original comment just had to do with sex. However, to Catholics and Missouri Synod Lutherans (two of the denominations I frequented in my youth), if you have sex you are married in God's eyes (what numerous ministers in both denominations told me directly). However, if a man divorces his wife for any other reason than fornication, he is causing HER to commit adultery. It does not say anything about that same man bearing any fault of his own adultery. Her sin, not his. If you hold to the idea that sex=married in God's eyes, then this especially holds true.
2 Corinthians 6:14: 14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
" I will dwell in them
And walk among them.
I will be their God,
And they shall be My people."
17 Therefore
" Come out from among them
And be separate, says the Lord.
Do not touch what is unclean,
And I will receive you."
18 " I will be a Father to you,
And you shall be My sons and daughters,
Says the LORD Almighty."
In other words, God has said make sure you spend more time around believers than unbelievers. Going against God is dangerous, therefore it's dangerous for a Christian to spend too much time with unbelievers.
QuoteQuote from: fester30 on May 17, 2011, 11:56:10 AM
Yes, the Bible has rules in it that followers should live by. However, it does actually say that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. Regardless of the sinful life (as all are sinful) salvation is through Christ.
Right, but to truly believe in Christ you must follow Him. When you follow Him he will make himself known to you. One can not truly beleive in something if they do not know it. Sure, one could easily say they believe in something, but they dont truly believe, because they do not know.
Look at it in the sense if a cause (ie: a revolution). Sure it easy to say that you believe in said cause, but unless you truly know what it stands for, your vews can easily be faltered by outside influences.
So the guy who spent his entire life as a Muslim gets in a car accident, and suddenly his heart is moved to Jesus, and asks God to take him into his kingdom, as he accepts Christ... are you saying he goes to hell because he didn't live his life with that belief? Just because someone lives their life in a cavalier manner doesn't mean they don't truly believe in their heart and truly accept Christ in the last moments before death. Sure, Jesus mentions that only those who do the will of his father will enter into the kingdom (therefore establishing that belief isn't enough), but then he tells the criminal who asks at the last minute for Jesus to remember him that he will join him in the kingdom. So deathbed pleading is or isn't enough? Do you have to be on the cross next to Jesus for it to work? It's confusing at best I suppose.
QuoteQuote from: fester30 on May 17, 2011, 11:56:10 AM
So, yes, a man who is a prick and has done all these things can still get into heaven, according to the scriptures.
Wrong.
"Woe to the worthless shepherd who leaves his flock!"-- Zachariah 11:17 Translation: Woe to the father that deserts his family.
The whole second chapter of the book of Micah is titled "Woe to Oppressors".
"Woe to those who rise early in the morning that they may pursue strong drink, Who stay up late in the evening that wine may inflame them!"-- Isaiah 5:11
Woe is being used as a warning of the result of said sins.
[/quote]
Every time I bring up the horrible things God does to people in the Old Testament, and how we're supposed to kill homosexuals and Sabbath-workers, Christians tell me that is the old covenant, and that there is a new covenant in the blood of Christ written in the New Testament, therefore those old laws no longer pertain. Now a Christian is using the Old Testament to prove his point about acts being a necessary part of faith. How about the prodigal's son who was lost to his father, but then the father held a celebration when he returned? Is all the talk of forgiveness and grace under the new covenant just lip service if you must meet faith with works?
Quote from: Whitney on May 21, 2011, 12:54:41 AM
According to this study (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/12/19/index.html)almost all American Christians are hypocrites. :D
I know I am for sure.
Quote from: Ihateyoumike on May 20, 2011, 11:23:33 PM
Quote from: PapistItalian16
...Only about a quarter of Christians are actually "hypocrites"....
Would you kindly provide a source for this statement?
Because I've heard that 71.96% of statistics on the internet are simply cultivated from the author's rectum. ;)
If I could have cited this, I would have. It is based apon the Christians that I know, and I should have mentioned that. my bad.
And I have come to the realization that I too am a hypocrite in some ways. I swear at school and make dirty jokes with my friends. I've gotten drunk on occaision, and have probably been quite am "A-H" to some people in the past 16 years that I have been on this Earth. But there is a difference in sining and thinking you're okay just cause' youve been "born again" (and then continueing to sin), and sinning and feeling sorrow and trying to better yourself and become less of a sinner, and less of a hypocrite. To act as Christ did is what most Christians strive to do, but the simple fact that we are only human gets in the way. We (Christ's Church) are not perfect --I am not perfect-- but Christ was, and that is who I strive to be like.
Quote from: fester30 on May 21, 2011, 03:09:29 AM
Every time I bring up the horrible things God does to people in the Old Testament, and how we're supposed to kill homosexuals and Sabbath-workers, Christians tell me that is the old covenant, and that there is a new covenant in the blood of Christ written in the New Testament, therefore those old laws no longer pertain. Now a Christian is using the Old Testament to prove his point about acts being a necessary part of faith. How about the prodigal's son who was lost to his father, but then the father held a celebration when he returned? Is all the talk of forgiveness and grace under the new covenant just lip service if you must meet faith with works?
Quote 17 "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.
18 For truly I tell you, 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.
19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
The Covenant made in Christ's blood was a covenant of how much He loves us, and how He died for our sins. That Covenant did not "abolish" the old laws, but it fulfilled them (ie: "to bring to realization" or "clarify"). This is MY interpritation of this, NOT "other Christians". There is a difference.
In this passage above, in Matthew 5: 19-20, Christ is obviously preaching against hypocrites, he does it A LOT in the Gospels, but it took a while for His Apostles to "get it" just as it takes a lot of us Christians to "get it". In Matt 5:20, He is saying that only those who are more righteous than the pharasees and the teachers of the law(who are hypocrites: Matt 23:13 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." ) will enter heaven.
Quoting the bible is a fruitless endeavor. Proving fiction with fiction does nothing to help discover the truth. To act as if any Christians are not hypocrites is absurd. Christianity is the definition of hypocrisy. Did Jesus teach war, brainwashing, pedophilia, torture, oppression, segregation and bigotry? If so then Christians are not hypocrites. However, in my knowledge, Christianity is responsible or has condoned all of the above atrocities at some point in its history. To align yourself with Christianity means that you are guilty by association. This guilt makes you a hypocrite 100% of the time without question.
Quote from: Twentythree on May 24, 2011, 06:51:54 PM
Quoting the bible is a fruitless endeavor. Proving fiction with fiction does nothing to help discover the truth. To act as if any Christians are not hypocrites is absurd. Christianity is the definition of hypocrisy. Did Jesus teach war, brainwashing, pedophilia, torture, oppression, segregation and bigotry? If so then Christians are not hypocrites. However, in my knowledge, Christianity is responsible or has condoned all of the above atrocities at some point in its history. To align yourself with Christianity means that you are guilty by association. This guilt makes you a hypocrite 100% of the time without question.
I have to respectfully dissagree with you. By your logic you should be imprisoned and killed for being a human being. Human beings throughout history have been evil, biggoted hypocrites. And well obviously you must be just as bad because you have aligned yourself as being a human being. Doesn't work that way bud, that pretty much sounds like discrimination, bordering on hate mongering racism. No, Chritianity is not the difinition of hypocracy, man is the deffinition of hypocracy.
Quote from: thedport on May 24, 2011, 07:04:27 PM
Quote from: Twentythree on May 24, 2011, 06:51:54 PM
Quoting the bible is a fruitless endeavor. Proving fiction with fiction does nothing to help discover the truth. To act as if any Christians are not hypocrites is absurd. Christianity is the definition of hypocrisy. Did Jesus teach war, brainwashing, pedophilia, torture, oppression, segregation and bigotry? If so then Christians are not hypocrites. However, in my knowledge, Christianity is responsible or has condoned all of the above atrocities at some point in its history. To align yourself with Christianity means that you are guilty by association. This guilt makes you a hypocrite 100% of the time without question.
I have to respectfully dissagree with you. By your logic you should be imprisoned and killed for being a human being. Human beings throughout history have been evil, biggoted hypocrites. And well obviously you must be just as bad because you have aligned yourself as being a human being. Doesn't work that way bud, that pretty much sounds like discrimination, bordering on hate mongering racism. No, Chritianity is not the difinition of hypocracy, man is the deffinition of hypocracy.
Ok, first of all, don't go dropping a condescending "bud" on me. And don't talk about flawed logic when you are comparing being born a human being which one has no choice over and aligning yourself with a religion which you do have a choice over. I can choose to be a man or I can choose to be dead. However, I can choose which religious and societal groups I support and align myself with. So don't go dropping a "bud" on me chief until you get your own logic sorted out pal. I do not align myself or condone any religious teaching or institutions, by choice.
Quote from: Twentythree on May 24, 2011, 07:42:24 PM
Quote from: thedport on May 24, 2011, 07:04:27 PM
Quote from: Twentythree on May 24, 2011, 06:51:54 PM
Quoting the bible is a fruitless endeavor. Proving fiction with fiction does nothing to help discover the truth. To act as if any Christians are not hypocrites is absurd. Christianity is the definition of hypocrisy. Did Jesus teach war, brainwashing, pedophilia, torture, oppression, segregation and bigotry? If so then Christians are not hypocrites. However, in my knowledge, Christianity is responsible or has condoned all of the above atrocities at some point in its history. To align yourself with Christianity means that you are guilty by association. This guilt makes you a hypocrite 100% of the time without question.
I have to respectfully dissagree with you. By your logic you should be imprisoned and killed for being a human being. Human beings throughout history have been evil, biggoted hypocrites. And well obviously you must be just as bad because you have aligned yourself as being a human being. Doesn't work that way bud, that pretty much sounds like discrimination, bordering on hate mongering racism. No, Chritianity is not the difinition of hypocracy, man is the deffinition of hypocracy.
Ok, first of all, don't go dropping a condescending "bud" on me. And don't talk about flawed logic when you are comparing being born a human being which one has no choice over and aligning yourself with a religion which you do have a choice over. I can choose to be a man or I can choose to be dead. However, I can choose which religious and societal groups I support and align myself with. So don't go dropping a "bud" on me chief until you get your own logic sorted out pal. I do not align myself or condone any religious teaching or institutions, by choice.
Sorry, I didn't mean for the bud to be condesending. I actually call a lot of my friends, and my little brother bud. I meant it as a freindly thing. On the other parts, I was just throwing out my oppinion not attacking you personally. I hope this hasn't ruined any further interactions we may have. Also I happen to agree that proving fiction with fiction is a fruitless endevour. And I happen to agree that people use the institution of church to further their own personal agenda. But I have met many, good christians. But because the religion itself is so open to interprataion using a blanket outlook on all who beleive in god as being biggots, or hypocrits just isn't fair.
I can understand that, but clearly you have to acknowledge that the casual demeanor you take with friends and relatives can be easily misinterpreted by individuals you have just met, especially when engaging in debate. This is a happy atheist forum and I am a happy atheist. It certainly will not ruin and future interactions. With that in mind, can you now see how Christians are all hypocrites? Does it not make sense that by attending and supporting even the most fringe of Christian institutions you are supporting, bigotry, intolerance, and political brainwashing? Even if you are not buying fundamentalism you are still buying fundamentalist parts, you are helping to support the mechanism that allows these giant grandfather religious institutions to continue to push their agenda. Of course I am not saying you personally but I think you get what I mean.
Quote from: Twentythree on May 24, 2011, 08:00:39 PM
I can understand that, but clearly you have to acknowledge that the casual demeanor you take with friends and relatives and be easily misinterpreted by individuals you have just met, especially when engaging in debate. This is a happy atheist forum and I am a hoppy atheist. It certainly will not ruin and future interactions. With that in mind, can you now see how Christians are all hypocrites? Does it not make sense that by attending and supporting even the most fringe of Christian institutions you are supporting, bigotry, intolerance, and political brainwashing? Even if you are not buying fundamentalism you are still buying fundamentalist parts, you are helping to support the mechanism that allows these giant grandfather religious institutions to continue to push their agenda. Of course I am not saying you personally but I think you get what I mean.
Oh yeah, I can see your point. I actually modified my last post to include my shared point of veiw that you had. But I feel that the biggotry and hypocracy usually go with a personal agenda. Like further a political power, or making money. I think that the basic fundementals of most religions can actually be used for good. I think that taking them as fictitious philosphy and not 100% truth would be a better aproach. All religion is just philosophy taken to an imaginitive extreme. I don't think the people who beleive in it are fundamentally bad, in fact I have met many christians who take your veiw point but subscribe to an understanding that if they can one christian at a time change to actaully being good people, slowly they can chang the rest. Not sure if that last part made sense. I just kind of put it as I thought it.
I see your point about not all Christians being bad. But they are supporting the entrenched evil in Christianity. If I like Audi cars, and I know Audi supports the slaughter of baby seals, even if i am adamantly against the slaughter of baby seals yet still purchase and proudly drive an Audi I have effectively done nothing to prevent the future slaughter of baby seals. Quite the opposite is true. I'm just saying that a person cannot be religious without subsequently supporting religion. And by supporting religion you have have to support the good and the evil that comes along with it. It's as true with religion as it is with politics. If we support the united states we have to support the good and the evil it does, we have to be accountable for the social and political climate that we create just as the faithful have to take accountability for the evil their religion has caused. I'm not saying it can't change, it certainly could but it won't until the pious can accept responsibility for all facets of the faiths they choose to endorse. Here might be an interesting way to look at it. If Pepsi was the official sponsor of Christianity, do you think that they would have pulled their sponsorship yet for character issues?
Quote from: Twentythree on May 24, 2011, 08:24:15 PM
I see your point about not all Christians being bad. But they are supporting the entrenched evil in Christianity. If I like Audi cars, and I know Audi supports the slaughter of baby seals, even if i am adamantly against the slaughter of baby seals yet still purchase and proudly drive an Audi I have effectively done nothing to prevent the future slaughter of baby seals. Quite the opposite is true. I'm just saying that a person cannot be religious without subsequently supporting religion. And by supporting religion you have have to support the good and the evil that comes along with it. It's as true with religion as it is with politics. If we support the united states we have to support the good and the evil it does, we have to be accountable for the social and political climate that we create just as the faithful have to take accountability for the evil their religion has caused. I'm not saying it can't change, it certainly could but it won't until the pious can accept responsibility for all facets of the faiths they choose to endorse. Here might be an interesting way to look at it. If Pepsi was the official sponsor of Christianity, do you think that they would have pulled their sponsorship yet for character issues?
Wow, I had a good chuckle at the pepsi analogy, that was good. But yeah, I think they may pull their sponsorship. I think the biggest "bad" part of religion is the seperation. Chritianity, Judiaism, and Islam are all abrahamic religions and the current Monotheistic based christian religions are all started from these. Now let's back trace them some more.
I want to make a statement here and now not to twentythree, but to any theist reading this. Please do not take offense to what I am going to say, before you reply please if you do not beleive what I am about to say look into it before you reply.
The three main abrahamic religions stemmed directly from polytheistic religions such as, the Greek panthion, and paganism. If you look at the ritualistic practices and teachings of these beleif systems they are very much simalar. So I think if more people knew that their beleifs all stemmed from the same thing that there would be a lot less hostility. But as it stands now, each religion thinks they are the right ones because their books tell them so, and their sages tell them so, and their elders tell them so, from an early age they are told it is so. And because they beleive it so, the things in their lifes good and bad are then thought be because of such. It's pattern association. Again, this is just my opinnion. But I think it is rather pretentious to think your the only correct beleif system, because you were told so, by fallible human beings.
"Fear holds dominion over people when they understand little, and need storys and legends to comfort and explain."-The good book
That kind of reasoning is not a consistency I would apply to everything, so I don't think it's fair to apply it to Christianity. I also think this is throwing around the word hypocrite a little too loosely.
I sometimes define myself as an atheist, when I do, I'm not agreeing with, supporting or accepting everything every other atheist has said or done and I don't think it's a requirement to do so to not be a hypocrite. I'm very adamant about theists not trying to throw me into an atheist bucket where they can debate against anything ever said by any atheist ever in the entire history of the world, and expect me to defend it.
I also think the country thing you brought up is a good example for how and why one supports something: I'm a citizen of the U.S. and I support the U.S. through various means, but that doesn't mean that I support every fucking thing ever done by the government or just by citizens just because I support the U.S.. I actively struggle to fix the things I do not support. So does that make me a hypocrite because I don't support slavery but I support the U.S. which used to have legalized slavery? I don't think so, these kinds of macro against micro comparisons are useless I think.
Quote from: Davin on May 24, 2011, 09:00:06 PM
That kind of reasoning is not a consistency I would apply to everything, so I don't think it's fair to apply it to Christianity. I also think this is throwing around the word hypocrite a little too loosely.
I sometimes define myself as an atheist, when I do, I'm not agreeing with, supporting or accepting everything every other atheist has said or done and I don't think it's a requirement to do so to not be a hypocrite. I'm very adamant about theists not trying to throw me into an atheist bucket where they can debate against anything ever said by any atheist ever in the entire history of the world, and expect me to defend it.
I also think the country thing you brought up is a good example for how and why one supports something: I'm a citizen of the U.S. and I support the U.S. through various means, but that doesn't mean that I support every fucking thing ever done by the government or just by citizens just because I support the U.S.. I actively struggle to fix the things I do not support. So does that make me a hypocrite because I don't support slavery but I support the U.S. which used to have legalized slavery? I don't think so, these kinds of macro against micro comparisons are useless I think.
Ok, I can backtrack a bit regarding the term hypocrite. The hypocrisy in Christianity specifically stems from the notion that "Christ" is a symbolic representative of peace and love, acceptance and kindness, yet Christianity...even if we disregard history, is structured in a way that promotes segregation and intolerance. If you are a modern Christian and you do not take accountability for the nature of your religion then you are being a hypocrite.
If you claim to be an atheist, do you not take accountability for atheism and thus other atheists. If a prominent atheist started a war or buried sexual indiscretion by manipulating their political and or social position, in particularly a position gained by their atheism directly, you would have to be accountable for them as a representative of atheism as a whole. You could stand contrary to the individual beliefs but you would still have to account for the activities and behaviors inherit in the belief you support. Atheism stands alone however as it is not a structured group with specific rules or tenants. It's a collective meaning system with individual interpretations. I am certainly not saying that all theists are accountable for Christianity but anyone claiming to be Christian is accountable for Christianity. If you were an atheist and also a part of the AHA you would have to be accountable for the actions and conduct of the AHA as it pertains to its tenant in debate.
Quote from: Twentythree on May 24, 2011, 09:27:40 PM
Quote from: Davin on May 24, 2011, 09:00:06 PM
That kind of reasoning is not a consistency I would apply to everything, so I don't think it's fair to apply it to Christianity. I also think this is throwing around the word hypocrite a little too loosely.
I sometimes define myself as an atheist, when I do, I'm not agreeing with, supporting or accepting everything every other atheist has said or done and I don't think it's a requirement to do so to not be a hypocrite. I'm very adamant about theists not trying to throw me into an atheist bucket where they can debate against anything ever said by any atheist ever in the entire history of the world, and expect me to defend it.
I also think the country thing you brought up is a good example for how and why one supports something: I'm a citizen of the U.S. and I support the U.S. through various means, but that doesn't mean that I support every fucking thing ever done by the government or just by citizens just because I support the U.S.. I actively struggle to fix the things I do not support. So does that make me a hypocrite because I don't support slavery but I support the U.S. which used to have legalized slavery? I don't think so, these kinds of macro against micro comparisons are useless I think.
Ok, I can backtrack a bit regarding the term hypocrite. The hypocrisy in Christianity specifically stems from the notion that "Christ" is a symbolic representative of peace and love, acceptance and kindness, yet Christianity...even if we disregard history, is structured in a way that promotes segregation and intolerance. If you are a modern Christian and you do not take accountability for the nature of your religion then you are being a hypocrite.
If you claim to be an atheist, do you not take accountability for atheism and thus other atheists. If a prominent atheist started a war or buried sexual indiscretion by manipulating their political and or social position, in particularly a position gained by their atheism directly, you would have to be accountable for them as a representative of atheism as a whole. You could stand contrary to the individual beliefs but you would still have to account for the activities and behaviors inherit in the belief you support. Atheism stands alone however as it is not a structured group with specific rules or tenants. It's a collective meaning system with individual interpretations. I am certainly not saying that all theists are accountable for Christianity but anyone claiming to be Christian is accountable for Christianity. If you were an atheist and also a part of the AHA you would have to be accountable for the actions and conduct of the AHA as it pertains to its tenant in debate.
Though I agree with a multitude of the points you are making, I just can't agree with the idea that we should be held acountable for the actions of others. We are acountable for our own actions, not those of others. And onother way to look at this is, yeah I am an atheist, but without prior knoledge of my beleif structure I could easily "fake" being a christian in order to acomplish my personal agenda. But that doesn't make me a christian. I can lie, cheat and steal my way into office all the time calling myself a christian. So why should the people whom I lied to have to take responsability for my actions. They shouldn't I should have to take the responsability. It's kind of like someone said on a different thread. When some one say god told them to take action that would be conceived and not in accordance with proper christian action but because god told them to do it it's ok, god is not telling them to do such a thing, the christian god wouldn't do such a thing. It's a lie being covered with a veil of christianity. And it is unfair for anyone to say that those who are already christians and think that these things are bad must take responsiblity just because they subscribe to the system that this evil person is using to further their own personal agenda.
Do you think all the cathalics should be held acountable for the hollocaust? Hitller was cathalic and used his religion among other things to defend what he was doing.
I think when we look at individuals as representatives of a religion we have to take into consideration the religious institutions regard to those individuals. The holocaust was not supported implicitly by the leaders in power in the catholic church so we can make a certain exception for that. Also I think a certain amount of flexibility has to be considered for history as we cannot expect people in the past to change their minds. What we can expect people to do is take accountability now...not necessarily bear the brunt repercussions of individuals actions but if prevailing Christian sentiment is anti gay and you are a Christian you are supporting an anti gay organization period. Even if you are part of a fringe Christian group that is accepting to homosexuality you should still be held accountable for the actions of the organization as a whole. Consider this if I pledge allegiance to an organization, but in order for me to feel comfortable as part of that organization I have rewrite the rules creating fringe branches of that organization to suit my own needs I am not taking accountability for the group, and I am not taking accountability for my own faith. I am saying that I like these parts but not the whole. To use the car analogy again...I'm not buying a Honda but I'm still buying Honda parts and services, this by extension supports Honda. So I guess in short I do feel that modern Christians should be held accountable for the atrocities of its past to a certain extent and even more so for the atrocities of its present. By not denouncing the faith you are essentially condoning it's behavior through your silent acceptance. I do not expect direct repercussions for the fact that the united stated practiced slavery but by continuing to support the united states I am taking ownership of its past transgressions just as much as I would for it's modern successes or failures. I was not part of the system in the past but I am agreeing to keep the system alive in the future by my knowledge able participation in it.
Quote from: Twentythree on May 24, 2011, 10:43:27 PM
I think when we look at individuals as representatives of a religion we have to take into consideration the religious institutions regard to those individuals. The holocaust was not supported implicitly by the leaders in power in the catholic church so we can make a certain exception for that. Also I think a certain amount of flexibility has to be considered for history as we cannot expect people in the past to change their minds. What we can expect people to do is take accountability now...not necessarily bear the brunt repercussions of individuals actions but if prevailing Christian sentiment is anti gay and you are a Christian you are supporting an anti gay organization period. Even if you are part of a fringe Christian group that is accepting to homosexuality you should still be held accountable for the actions of the organization as a whole. Consider this if I pledge allegiance to an organization, but in order for me to feel comfortable as part of that organization I have rewrite the rules creating fringe branches of that organization to suit my own needs I am not taking accountability for the group, and I am not taking accountability for my own faith. I am saying that I like these parts but not the whole. To use the car analogy again...I'm not buying a Honda but I'm still buying Honda parts and services, this by extension supports Honda. So I guess in short I do feel that modern Christians should be held accountable for the atrocities of its past to a certain extent and even more so for the atrocities of its present. By not denouncing the faith you are essentially condoning it's behavior through your silent acceptance. I do not expect direct repercussions for the fact that the united stated practiced slavery but by continuing to support the united states I am taking ownership of its past transgressions just as much as I would for it's modern successes or failures. I was not part of the system in the past but I am agreeing to keep the system alive in the future by my knowledge able participation in it.
That is an exelent and well articulated point. It will give me something to look into and meditate on thank you.
Quote from: Twentythree on May 24, 2011, 10:43:27 PM
I think when we look at individuals as representatives of a religion we have to take into consideration the religious institutions regard to those individuals. The holocaust was not supported implicitly by the leaders in power in the catholic church so we can make a certain exception for that. Also I think a certain amount of flexibility has to be considered for history as we cannot expect people in the past to change their minds. What we can expect people to do is take accountability now...not necessarily bear the brunt repercussions of individuals actions but if prevailing Christian sentiment is anti gay and you are a Christian you are supporting an anti gay organization period. Even if you are part of a fringe Christian group that is accepting to homosexuality you should still be held accountable for the actions of the organization as a whole. Consider this if I pledge allegiance to an organization, but in order for me to feel comfortable as part of that organization I have rewrite the rules creating fringe branches of that organization to suit my own needs I am not taking accountability for the group, and I am not taking accountability for my own faith. I am saying that I like these parts but not the whole. To use the car analogy again...I'm not buying a Honda but I'm still buying Honda parts and services, this by extension supports Honda. So I guess in short I do feel that modern Christians should be held accountable for the atrocities of its past to a certain extent and even more so for the atrocities of its present. By not denouncing the faith you are essentially condoning it's behavior through your silent acceptance. I do not expect direct repercussions for the fact that the united stated practiced slavery but by continuing to support the united states I am taking ownership of its past transgressions just as much as I would for it's modern successes or failures. I was not part of the system in the past but I am agreeing to keep the system alive in the future by my knowledge able participation in it.
I don't accept any responsibility for the damage caused by Bush II because I never supported him, but I still support the country. This same kind of reasoning can be applied to Christianity in that people may support what they think the grand idea of the church is, but not even the most prominent leaders (even of the same sect they are in).
Another problem I see is that Christianity is such a diverse group that saying that every Christian must take responsibility for every Christian thing is untenable. Certaintly Catholics hold no responsibility for the Protestents, JWs, Mormons, Baptists... etc. and vice versa, no other sect holds responsibility for the what the Catholics do.
I also don't like the dichotomy of either denouncing the faith or supporting what the church had done/is doing, like in my first example in this post; I think it's entirely possible to not denounce the faith and attempt to correct the problems in the church. This would be another option: keeping the faith but not being a silent supporter of the churches immoral actions. Like the many Christians that are fighting for gay rights even in sects that are/were originally against it.
I can see your point, and perhaps as in most arguments general concepts need to bow to the pressures of individual instances or isolated exceptions. Although, it could be argued that if you paid taxes and contributed to the united states work force during the Bush Presidency that you be default supported Bush, at the very least you supported the United States, which, like it or not, supported Bush for eight years so...
All of these minor points however do not detract from my initial point though that by saying one thing but doing another you are a hypocrite. E.g. "I am a Christian, yet I don't behave or believe like a Christian when it comes to things that I don't agree with." A la carte religion is a direct statement of the fallibility, impermanence and irrationality of religion.
Quote from: thedport on May 24, 2011, 10:58:43 PM
Quote from: Twentythree on May 24, 2011, 10:43:27 PM
I think when we look at individuals as representatives of a religion we have to take into consideration the religious institutions regard to those individuals. The holocaust was not supported implicitly by the leaders in power in the catholic church so we can make a certain exception for that. Also I think a certain amount of flexibility has to be considered for history as we cannot expect people in the past to change their minds. What we can expect people to do is take accountability now...not necessarily bear the brunt repercussions of individuals actions but if prevailing Christian sentiment is anti gay and you are a Christian you are supporting an anti gay organization period. Even if you are part of a fringe Christian group that is accepting to homosexuality you should still be held accountable for the actions of the organization as a whole. Consider this if I pledge allegiance to an organization, but in order for me to feel comfortable as part of that organization I have rewrite the rules creating fringe branches of that organization to suit my own needs I am not taking accountability for the group, and I am not taking accountability for my own faith. I am saying that I like these parts but not the whole. To use the car analogy again...I'm not buying a Honda but I'm still buying Honda parts and services, this by extension supports Honda. So I guess in short I do feel that modern Christians should be held accountable for the atrocities of its past to a certain extent and even more so for the atrocities of its present. By not denouncing the faith you are essentially condoning it's behavior through your silent acceptance. I do not expect direct repercussions for the fact that the united stated practiced slavery but by continuing to support the united states I am taking ownership of its past transgressions just as much as I would for it's modern successes or failures. I was not part of the system in the past but I am agreeing to keep the system alive in the future by my knowledge able participation in it.
That is an exelent and well articulated point. It will give me something to look into and meditate on thank you.
Ya think?
It doesn't sit well with me and I'm not sure what it means because it's not particularly articulate.
QuoteI think when we look at individuals as representatives of a religion we have to take into consideration the religious institutions regard to those individuals.
Why? Do we regard the rep's as unreliable or excusable liars because they are likely to suffer unthinkable torture if they speak out of line?
QuoteThe holocaust was not supported implicitly by the leaders in power in the catholic church so we can make a certain exception for that.
I'm not sure what exceptions I'm granting here.
QuoteAlso I think a certain amount of flexibility has to be considered for history as we cannot expect people in the past to change their minds.
No I don't suppose dead people can change their minds, but I'm not allowing them any flexibility, they are dead and fixed. Open to reinterpretation maybe.
QuoteWhat we can expect people to do is take accountability now...not necessarily bear the brunt repercussions of individuals actions but if prevailing Christian sentiment is anti gay and you are a Christian you are supporting an anti gay organization period.
So what does that mean? The Bible says in one bit sodomites are wrong so focus all the wrongness existence fills you with upon them. Another bit says love your neighbour. Christians have slaughtered each other for what seems petty reasons to me, but I don't think in a big battling power elites kind of way. Just admit those guys holding swords while wearing a red cross, birth control, stomping on Galileo and gays were mistakes and we can talk.
QuoteConsider this if I pledge allegiance to an organization, but in order for me to feel comfortable as part of that organization I have rewrite the rules creating fringe branches of that organization to suit my own needs I am not taking accountability for the group, and I am not taking accountability for my own faith. I am saying that I like these parts but not the whole. To use the car analogy again...I'm not buying a Honda but I'm still buying Honda parts and services, this by extension supports Honda.
Oh Jesus save us from car analogies, or not. Henry offered any colour as long as it was black.
Shedding the car crap maybe you see some goodness, not as good as you'd like but what else is on offer?
QuoteSo I guess in short I do feel that modern Christians should be held accountable for the atrocities of its past
I think they should address them, and recognise religious leaders have been wrong and may still be wrong in important matters.
QuoteBy not denouncing the faith you are essentially condoning it's behavior through your silent acceptance.
Some Christians express their opposition to some purveyors of the faith loud and clear.
QuoteI do not expect direct repercussions for the fact that the united stated practiced slavery but by continuing to support the united states I am taking ownership of its past transgressions just as much as I would for it's modern successes or failures. I was not part of the system in the past but I am agreeing to keep the system alive in the future by my knowledge able participation in it.
I'm not sure what that means, it seems the Christians are being held strictly responsible for all the evil perpetrated under it's name, why don't you reject your citizenship because of Abu Grave, Guantamamo, or the Tuskegee syphilis experiment and so many more things?
Quote from: Twentythree on May 25, 2011, 05:44:05 PMI can see your point, and perhaps as in most arguments general concepts need to bow to the pressures of individual instances or isolated exceptions. Although, it could be argued that if you paid taxes and contributed to the united states work force during the Bush Presidency that you be default supported Bush, at the very least you supported the United States, which, like it or not, supported Bush for eight years so...
Which is my point against your point, why would this make me a hypocrite?
Also in your example I would either have to denounce America or silently support a president I don't agree with... however, I was not silent and I did not denounce America.
Quote from: TwentythreeAll of these minor points however do not detract from my initial point though that by saying one thing but doing another you are a hypocrite. E.g. "I am a Christian, yet I don't behave or believe like a Christian when it comes to things that I don't agree with." A la carte religion is a direct statement of the fallibility, impermanence and irrationality of religion.
It does in fact show that your initial position is just as faulty as when theists try to throw me into their atheist bucket. "I am a Christian because I believe in Christ the savior" is all one needs to not be a hypocrite while being a Christian. All else is very dependent and diverse as is evidenced by the amount of sects there are. All it seems that you're doing is trying to pidgeon hole Christians into a position that they most likely don't hold (telling them what they believe) or trying to trap them into defending against a baseless accusation (starting them from the position of a hypocrite even though they themselves might not be). I'm against either of those in all versions (not just when theists attempt to do it to me), because I see them as dishonest argument tactics.
In my opinion, you should save the word hypocrite for when someone actually does something they've said shouldn't be done (like Ted Haggard). Because the more you dilute a term, the less impact it has. If you go around saying every Christian is a hypocrite by virtue of being a Christian, then a Christian that is anti-porn that attends porn conventions is on the same level as a Christian that fights for gay marriage because they see it a civil right.
That is exactly my point. I am guilty of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and all the other things you mentioned because I pay taxes, work and live in the united states, just because I didn't pull the trigger does not mean that I am not to be held accountable. I support the system by my participation in it. You can exclude yourself from the responsibility you have as a contributor to the system. I don't reject my citizenship because I continue to want to support the united states. I am making a choice to be an American, just as people choose to be Christians.
And hey, I thought my car analogy was pretty good.
This topic kind of rabbit holed too, it's amazing the direction these discussions take sometimes.
Quote from: Davin on May 25, 2011, 06:22:48 PM
In my opinion, you should save the word hypocrite for when someone actually does something they've said shouldn't be done (like Ted Haggard). Because the more you dilute a term, the less impact it has. If you go around saying every Christian is a hypocrite by virtue of being a Christian, then a Christian that is anti-porn that attends porn conventions is on the same level as a Christian that fights for gay marriage because they see it a civil right.
Wow you have totally missed the point. At which point did I say anything about a persons beliefs or trying to influence them? To dumb it down as much as I possibly can I am simply saying that Christians need to be accountable for Christianity. Just as Americans need to be accountable for America. Christianity is fundamentally hypocritical in that it professes love thy neighbor but promotes bigotry. Not that every small sect or fringe group or individual within Christianity shares their beliefs but by their knowledgeable support of Christianity they have to be held accountable and by trying to isolate themselves they only make themselves more hypocritical. They are essentially saying "I as an individual support Christianity but only so far as it suits me. Many of the teachings of Christianity are false, I however am choosing only those that allow me to live and work in comfort and excluding myself from the whole." That is weak, if someone were to ask me to defend my allegiance to America you don't think that I'd have to account for both the good and the bad that America has done. If asked about the financial crisis do you think it would be acceptable for me to cop out and say "Hey, I don't work for Goldman Sachs so that aint my bad". No way, I'd have to own up to the fact that at the very least I contributed to the system and my intentional ignorance of the detailed working of the financial system in the country I support led to the meltdown. Was I directly responsible? No but do I have to take some accountability for being part of the system. Just because you are not the trigger man does not exclude you from the prosecution of murder. So I have to kindly disagree with you, I am not diluting the term hypocrite. I think it is being used precisely as intended. It is just a word anyway...a tool for the conveyance of ideas. If it has failed in conveying my point then perhaps I did use it incorrectly.
Quote from: Twentythree on May 25, 2011, 06:51:48 PM
That is exactly my point. I am guilty of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and all the other things you mentioned because I pay taxes, work and live in the united states, just because I didn't pull the trigger does not mean that I am not to be held accountable. I support the system by my participation in it. You can exclude yourself from the responsibility you have as a contributor to the system. I don't reject my citizenship because I continue to want to support the united states. I am making a choice to be an American, just as people choose to be Christians.
If someone is actively trying to prevent a thing, how can you hold them accountable for other people doing the things? That's like saying that Martin Luther King Jr. should be held accountable for all the racism against blacks because he was an American. You're holding people to unreasonable standards.
Quote from: Twentythree on May 25, 2011, 07:26:15 PM
Quote from: Davin on May 25, 2011, 06:22:48 PMIn my opinion, you should save the word hypocrite for when someone actually does something they've said shouldn't be done (like Ted Haggard). Because the more you dilute a term, the less impact it has. If you go around saying every Christian is a hypocrite by virtue of being a Christian, then a Christian that is anti-porn that attends porn conventions is on the same level as a Christian that fights for gay marriage because they see it a civil right.
Wow you have totally missed the point. At which point did I say anything about a persons beliefs or trying to influence them?
Right about here:
Quote from: TwentythreeChristianity is fundamentally hypocritical in that it professes love thy neighbor but promotes bigotry.
Not all Christians and not all sects promote bigotry, and even some that do both of these things are still not hypocrites because they believe the "love thy nieghbor" bit only applies to actual neighbors and not everyone in the world. This is one the major problems with your position: you're trying to establish their beliefs for them seemingly so that you can call them hypocrites.
Quote from: TwentythreeTo dumb it down as much as I possibly can I am simply saying that Christians need to be accountable for Christianity. Just as Americans need to be accountable for America. Christianity is fundamentally hypocritical in that it professes love thy neighbor but promotes bigotry. Not that every small sect or fringe group or individual within Christianity shares their beliefs but by their knowledgeable support of Christianity they have to be held accountable and by trying to isolate themselves they only make themselves more hypocritical.
I don't agree, only the people actually doing the things should be held accountable, I might go as far as to say that those that don't speak out against the things should be pointed out and asked to take a stand on some issues, but as for every Christian being responsible for all things Christian... no, that's irrational.
Quote from: TwentythreeThey are essentially saying "I as an individual support Christianity but only so far as it suits me. Many of the teachings of Christianity are false, I however am choosing only those that allow me to live and work in comfort and excluding myself from the whole." That is weak, if someone were to ask me to defend my allegiance to America you don't think that I'd have to account for both the good and the bad that America has done.
Providing an honest account of the things ones group did/does is not the same thing as being accountable for the things a group did/does.
Quote from: TwentythreeIf asked about the financial crisis do you think it would be acceptable for me to cop out and say "Hey, I don't work for Goldman Sachs so that aint my bad". No way, I'd have to own up to the fact that at the very least I contributed to the system and my intentional ignorance of the detailed working of the financial system in the country I support led to the meltdown.
I would agree that your intentional ignorance helped out the financial crash, however my non-ignorance and attempts to inform people and to prevent it, according to you; means nothing and I'm still just as responsible for it as the people actually doing things to cause it. That's ridiculous.
Quote from: TwentythreeWas I directly responsible? No but do I have to take some accountability for being part of the system.
Sure take responsibility for your part in it, not for what other people did. Take responsibility by voicing your opinion and attempt reform of the system or anything else, but to say that you're just as guilty as the dudes that actually did the things is unreasonable.
Quote from: TwentythreeJust because you are not the trigger man does not exclude you from the prosecution of murder. So I have to kindly disagree with you, I am not diluting the term hypocrite. I think it is being used precisely as intended. It is just a word anyway...a tool for the conveyance of ideas. If it has failed in conveying my point then perhaps I did use it incorrectly.
The term hypocrite I think means someone doing something they told other people not to do, not someone supporting a system that sometimes does things they don't agree with. But go ahead, I'm just voicing my disagreement with it... which I guess means that even though I'm voicing my disagreement, I'm supporting your use of the word because I also support using English.
Quote from: Twentythree on May 24, 2011, 06:51:54 PM
Quoting the bible is a fruitless endeavor. Proving fiction with fiction does nothing to help discover the truth.
But the Bible isnt fiction. It is the truth. :P hahaha
Then what I'm I suposed to do when people on this forum question me about the Bible? Spit at them? Lol.
If you wish to look at the Bible as fiction, then I will say this: If I had a Phd in Liturature and ELA I could
probably make a point supporting my beliefs with quotes from other pieces of liturature throughout history just as easily as I could with quotes from the Bible. I would use the basic fundimental meanings behind each word and literary element.
Quote from: Twentythree on May 24, 2011, 06:51:54 PM
To act as if any Christians are not hypocrites is absurd. Christianity is the definition of hypocrisy. Did Jesus teach war, brainwashing, pedophilia, torture, oppression, segregation and bigotry?
You are right in saying that to act as if any Christians are not hypocrites is absurd, I explained that in my last post.
Is Christianity the definition of hypocrisy? No. A person could be a hypocrite, yet still be totally against Christianity. I'm sure there are probably a few politicians who are not Christians, yet are complete hypocrites.
Does Jesus teach those things that you mentioned? No, in fact, He teaches just the opposite. But I guess I don't need to site this because apperently there is no need in quoteing the Bible in a debate.
Quote from: Twentythree on May 24, 2011, 06:51:54 PM
However, in my knowledge, Christianity is responsible or has condoned all of the above atrocities at some point in its history. To align yourself with Christianity means that you are guilty by association. This guilt makes you a hypocrite 100% of the time without question.
Sure, Christianity
has been responsible for those attrocities, but I don't think it's right to blame
all Christians for said attrocities. Christianity
is a belief not a denomination of a belief. The Catholic Church is a denomination, The Anglican Church is a denomination, the Baptist Church is a denomination, ect., ect., but Christianity in itself is the belief in Jesus Christ. The belief itself cant condone anything, but its the people who follow it who can. And most of them dont.
Do I condone any of those things that you mentioned? No. And I am a Christian, so guess what? Christianity
doesnt condone those things.
Quote from: Davin on May 25, 2011, 08:28:37 PM
Providing an honest account of the things ones group did/does is not the same thing as being accountable for the things a group did/does.
ac·count·a·bil·i·ty
[uh-koun-tuh-bil-i-tee]
–noun
1.
the state of being accountable, liable, or answerable.
2.
Education . a policy of holding schools and teachers accountable for students' academic progress by linking such progress with funding for salaries, maintenance, etc.
I think you are confusing responsibility for accountability.
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 25, 2011, 09:23:26 PM
Sure, Christianity has been responsible for those attrocities, but I don't think it's right to blame all Christians for said attrocities. Christianity is a belief not a denomination of a belief. The Catholic Church is a denomination, The Anglican Church is a denomination, the Baptist Church is a denomination, ect., ect., but Christianity in itself is the belief in Jesus Christ. The belief itself cant condone anything, but its the people who follow it who can. And most of them dont.
Do I condone any of those things that you mentioned? No. And I am a Christian, so guess what? Christianity doesnt condone those things.
Perhaps it does not openly condone those things now, but what is happening behind the high gates of the Vatican? What are the Swiss Guards guarding?
So if I am being too broad in saying that Christians should not be held accountable for Christianity, how close in proximity does one have to be in order to be held accountable for the actions and ideals of a group. In particular a religion. Should groups and supporters of institutions be completely exempt from the ideals that their group promotes. Would I have to view each person as an individual or each congregation or each denomination. If we looked at Christianity as a living thing, a culturally evolved meaning system, who is supposed to be accountable for the evils of Christianity in general. For example in the case of Westboro Baptist, do we only hold the members of that particular church accountable, clearly we cannot expect all Baptists to share in the burden of this one rogue church and religious leader, it would be even more ridiculous to expect the Christian faith as a whole to bear any of the heavy social load that they are towing. Or maybe we can only expect each individual to be held accountable for their own individual actions, fully exonerating any and all other group members from the actions of the individual. If that is the case then we should view mother Theresa entirely on her own, as an unaffiliated member of society not contributing to or influenced by Christianity.
Quote from: Twentythree on May 26, 2011, 12:04:01 AM
Perhaps it does not openly condone those things now, but what is happening behind the high gates of the Vatican? What are the Swiss Guards guarding?
The Swiss Guards guard the Pope. A person who, throughout history has been attacked and in danger, even now. Especially now, with all teh terrorist groups out there.
Quote from: Twentythree on May 26, 2011, 12:04:01 AM
So if I am being too broad in saying that Christians should not be held accountable for Christianity, how close in proximity does one have to be in order to be held accountable for the actions and ideals of a group. In particular a religion. Should groups and supporters of institutions be completely exempt from the ideals that their group promotes. Would I have to view each person as an individual or each congregation or each denomination. If we looked at Christianity as a living thing, a culturally evolved meaning system, who is supposed to be accountable for the evils of Christianity in general. For example in the case of Westboro Baptist, do we only hold the members of that particular church accountable, clearly we cannot expect all Baptists to share in the burden of this one rogue church and religious leader, it would be even more ridiculous to expect the Christian faith as a whole to bear any of the heavy social load that they are towing. Or maybe we can only expect each individual to be held accountable for their own individual actions, fully exonerating any and all other group members from the actions of the individual. If that is the case then we should view mother Theresa entirely on her own, as an unaffiliated member of society not contributing to or influenced by Christianity.
Christians should be accountable for Christianity and all
good things that happen in It's name. And if you want my opinion, their is only one person to be held responsible for the bad things; Satan.
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 26, 2011, 12:58:01 AM
Christians should be accountable for Christianity and all good things that happen in It's name. And if you want my opinion, their is only one person to be held responsible for the bad things; Satan.
I'm going to butt in here, but only briefly...
This is one sort of thinking that I have a personal problem with (I've met a few people who place responsibility for their failures and bad acts on satan). Why is it that some people have a real problem seeing their faults as their own failures instead of placing the blame on a thrid party (satan)?
That really doesn't make sense. People say that we have free will, except when we do bad things.
Quote from: Twentythree on May 25, 2011, 11:37:32 PM
Quote from: Davin on May 25, 2011, 08:28:37 PM
Providing an honest account of the things ones group did/does is not the same thing as being accountable for the things a group did/does.
ac·count·a·bil·i·ty
[uh-koun-tuh-bil-i-tee]
–noun
1.
the state of being accountable, liable, or answerable.
2.
Education . a policy of holding schools and teachers accountable for students' academic progress by linking such progress with funding for salaries, maintenance, etc.
I think you are confusing responsibility for accountability.
That's a not so clever avoidance. If you reread my posts, you'll see that I'm not confusing either terms:
Quotere·spon·si·ble
[ri-spon-suh-buhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management (often followed by to or for ): He is responsible to the president for his decisions.
2.
involving accountability or responsibility: a responsible position.
3.
chargeable with being the author, cause, or occasion of something (usually followed by for ): Termites were responsible for the damage.
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 26, 2011, 12:58:01 AM
Christians should be accountable for Christianity and all good things that happen in It's name. And if you want my opinion, their is only one person to be held responsible for the bad things; Satan.
This will forever be the difference between an atheist mind and a religions mind. In an atheist mind, direct responsibility (accountability) and the onus of all of ones decision fall on the person making the decisions. We don't have the option nor the mental predisposition to blame our misdeeds on any one or anything other than ourselves. Atheism is all about taking responsibility for your own actions and the repercussions each one of those actions and decisions brings along with it.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 26, 2011, 03:54:51 AM
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 26, 2011, 12:58:01 AM
Christians should be accountable for Christianity and all good things that happen in It's name. And if you want my opinion, their is only one person to be held responsible for the bad things; Satan.
I'm going to butt in here, but only briefly...
This is one sort of thinking that I have a personal problem with (I've met a few people who place responsibility for their failures and bad acts on satan). Why is it that some people have a real problem seeing their faults as their own failures instead of placing the blame on a thrid party (satan)?
That really doesn't make sense. People say that we have free will, except when we do bad things.
In a religious mind everything is predestined anyway, free will is an illusion.
Unless of course you read "Finding Darwin God" Where in which the creation of evolution was a tool for god to use to trick biology into creating free will so we could choose to accept or reject a god. It's amazing to me that with every scientific discovery made god seems to become more and more mischievous and elusive, he used to come right out and tell people to build;d boats or climb mountains, now he is intentionally fooling us with convincing scientific evidence so he can pull an enormous gotcha at some point.
Quote from: Davin on May 26, 2011, 04:50:07 PM
That's a not so clever avoidance. If you reread my posts, you'll see that I'm not confusing either terms:
[/quote]
[/quote]
Not sure what i was avoiding, it seems to me that Yahoo answers thinks were both right, so FACE! :D
accountability
Definition: 1. "responsibility" to someone or something;
2. liability or answerability for something
Synonyms: liability, answerability, culpability, responsibility
Antonyms:
Tips: To account for something is to take responsibility or to answer for something. When you are accountable for something, you must answer for it, account for it, or take responsibility for it.
Usage Examples:
We don't have enough accountability in the creative department; no one wants to take responsibility for unacceptable ad concepts. (answerability, responsibility)
How can we account for all the business we lost last month when we meet with the board of directors next Monday? (answer) verb
You're not my boss; I'm not accountable to you. (answerable) adjective
The consumer advocacy group demanded greater accountability from the big energy company. (liability, answerability)
Quote from: Twentythree on May 26, 2011, 05:21:53 PMNot sure what i was avoiding[...]
My whole post, save one sentence.
Quote from: Twentythree[...]it seems to me that Yahoo answers thinks were both right, so FACE! :D
Yahoo answers thinks you're right for telling me that I have two similar and very often interchangeable terms confused as well as me being right that I didn't have those terms confused? That doesn't make any sense.
As a former Christian, I think I understand the idea of Satan's responsibility versus man's accountability, even if the use of the words are a bit off in accordance with the dictionary/thesaurus. I'm not a big fan of dictionaries, anyway, as they are there to describe the language the way it's most commonly used, not a rule book for using the language. It's why words get added and definitions get altered due to common use. Anyway...
The Christian beliefs I held at the time (feel free to laugh and scoff and such) were that when bad things happen, it's Satan's fault, as Satan is the root of all evil. Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and Hitler were all Satan's fault. Sometimes, however, humans are Satan's tools. A human not strong in the Holy Spirit is susceptible to Satan's suggestions. Any bad thoughts you might have are Satan putting temptations into your head. So when Hitler and his followers exterminated millions, Satan was responsible for orchestrating the genocide by tempting Hitler and his followers, working in their minds to either make them crazy or power-hungry. Hitler allowed this temptation to take hold of him by not having a close relationship with Jesus Christ and by not allowing the Holy Spirit to take hold in his heart. Hitler chose to follow the dark path into all that murder. Therefore, Hitler and Satan are actually BOTH hold responsibility for the evil acts that took place. Accountability, as it was used, I believe, by the theist above, refers to the judgment of the soul after death. Hitler will bear that sort of accountability in the afterlife when called into judgment. His eternal soul will be cast into the pit of fire. Satan's accountability (punishment) will be the same.
While the words weren't quite used in line with dictionary definitions, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that he meant that both Satan and man are both responsible and accountable for bad things that happen at the hand of men.
Part of my path away from Christianity was realizing how ridiculous this all sounded to me. Humans used to blame God for bad things (Old Testament wrath of God stuff), such as Sodom and Gomorrah's disasters and Noah's flood and the genocides (killing of all women and children and livestock) of those dwelling in the land of Canaan when the Israelites invaded to take the land God promised them. Now all bad things are Satan's fault, because God is good. Seems to me one of the many shifts of religion to make it more palatable to people. Who wants their God to be wrathful? The Christians say fear God but nobody really wants to fear their God, because a wrathful, vengeful God doesn't leave one with much hope to avoid that wrath when you realize there is no way to live life without sinning against God's rules.
Quote from: Twentythree on May 26, 2011, 05:17:52 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 26, 2011, 03:54:51 AM
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 26, 2011, 12:58:01 AM
Christians should be accountable for Christianity and all good things that happen in It's name. And if you want my opinion, their is only one person to be held responsible for the bad things; Satan.
I'm going to butt in here, but only briefly...
This is one sort of thinking that I have a personal problem with (I've met a few people who place responsibility for their failures and bad acts on satan). Why is it that some people have a real problem seeing their faults as their own failures instead of placing the blame on a thrid party (satan)?
That really doesn't make sense. People say that we have free will, except when we do bad things.
In a religious mind everything is predestined anyway, free will is an illusion.
Unless of course you read "Finding Darwin God" Where in which the creation of evolution was a tool for god to use to trick biology into creating free will so we could choose to accept or reject a god. It's amazing to me that with every scientific discovery made god seems to become more and more mischievous and elusive, he used to come right out and tell people to build;d boats or climb mountains, now he is intentionally fooling us with convincing scientific evidence so he can pull an enormous gotcha at some point.
No, the religious argument goes that everything is predestined
but we have free will. Don't ask me how they reconcile that, I have absolutely no idea.
What an odd apologetic stance...but Ken Miller is useful anyways, so I'll let him be.
Quote from: Davin on May 26, 2011, 05:38:50 PM
Quote from: Twentythree on May 26, 2011, 05:21:53 PMNot sure what i was avoiding[...]
My whole post, save one sentence.
Quote from: Twentythree[...]it seems to me that Yahoo answers thinks were both right, so FACE! :D
Yahoo answers thinks you're right for telling me that I have two similar and very often interchangeable terms confused as well as me being right that I didn't have those terms confused? That doesn't make any sense.
jeez bro, lets get all snippy about semantics and definitions. You are right your posts are the best, my insight is unfounded and wrong...whatever.
Quote from: fester30 on May 26, 2011, 05:45:40 PM
As a former Christian, I think I understand the idea of Satan's responsibility versus man's accountability, even if the use of the words are a bit off in accordance with the dictionary/thesaurus.
Part of my path away from Christianity was realizing how ridiculous this all sounded to me. Humans used to blame God for bad things (Old Testament wrath of God stuff), such as Sodom and Gomorrah's disasters and Noah's flood and the genocides (killing of all women and children and livestock) of those dwelling in the land of Canaan when the Israelites invaded to take the land God promised them. Now all bad things are Satan's fault, because God is good. Seems to me one of the many shifts of religion to make it more palatable to people. Who wants their God to be wrathful? The Christians say fear God but nobody really wants to fear their God, because a wrathful, vengeful God doesn't leave one with much hope to avoid that wrath when you realize there is no way to live life without sinning against God's rules.
All great points, which all seem to reinforce the idea that I have about atheism being truly responsible for personal decisions. When there are no gods or daemons to blame for our moral inconsistencies, we must assume full responsibility (or accountability or whatever Davin) for ourselves. It's a big responsibility to take full ownership of yourself. That is why I feel it's actually a easier to believe. God is a crutch and a scapegoat, perfect for those afraid of their own reflection.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 26, 2011, 06:25:05 PM
What an odd apologetic stance...but Ken Miller is useful anyways, so I'll let him be.
No doubt if more theist were like Ken, we might be a whole lot closer to understanding the truth about the nature of reality. But for every Miller there are 1000 or more Campings....evidence can be found at
www.fakeinternetstats.com
Quote from: Twentythree on May 26, 2011, 07:51:56 PMjeez bro, lets get all snippy about semantics and definitions.
If I was snippy at all, it was because you told me that I have terms confused when I didn't, and that you avoided all but one sentence in my post in which I took the time to address your points and to vet what I was saying. I take accusations very seriously and spend the time to evaluate the things I've said to either correct myself or drop what I said. I consider baselessly accusing me something to be very rude and I don't think I've been snippy, I was just asking for clarification of something you said that did not make sense to me.
Quote from: TwentythreeYou are right your posts are the best, my insight is unfounded and wrong...whatever.
How can I be right about my posts being the best if I've not said anything about my posts being the best? Are you no longer interested in discussion?
Quote from: Davin on May 26, 2011, 09:24:43 PM
Quote from: Twentythree on May 26, 2011, 07:51:56 PMjeez bro, lets get all snippy about semantics and definitions.
If I was snippy at all, it was because you told me that I have terms confused when I didn't, and that you avoided all but one sentence in my post in which I took the time to address your points and to vet what I was saying. I take accusations very seriously and spend the time to evaluate the things I've said to either correct myself or drop what I said. I consider baselessly accusing me something to be very rude and I don't think I've been snippy, I was just asking for clarification of something you said that did not make sense to me.
Quote from: TwentythreeYou are right your posts are the best, my insight is unfounded and wrong...whatever.
How can I be right about my posts being the best if I've not said anything about my posts being the best? Are you no longer interested in discussion?
well i tried to diffuse the whole argument about definitions by making a joke about us being both right and finding a post on yahoo answers of all place that reiterated exactly what you had been saying. I am certainly still interested in discussion it's why i joined this forum. I was just trying to diffuse the situation a bit by being sarcastic. I can see also how it would be frustrating to have given so much and gotten so little...perhaps a bit selfish on my part. Give me a few and I'll address each of your preceding points in turn.
I am sorry, I didn't know that anything needed diffusing. I also hope you took what I said as I meant it (not as I said it), as relating to your interest of our dicussion on this thread.
I will begin taking a more light hearted and less strict approach to discussions with you. Here is a smiley: ;D
It is very rare for me to use smileys.
Also, don't worry about upsetting me, that is near impossible, but do let me know if I have upset you along with the why and how and I will attempt to correct my behavior.
Quote from: Davin link=topic=7487.msg114806#msg114806
If someone is actively trying to prevent a thing, how can you hold them accountable for other people doing the things? That's like saying that Martin Luther King Jr. should be held accountable for all the racism against blacks because he was an American. You're holding people to unreasonable standards.
I very well may be holding people to high standards or it's more likely that there may be a sliding scale of accountability or responsibility. I think that scale has to be addresses specifically by a person's level of knowledgeable participation. Ignorance is not a defense but it can be used as a deterrent. If I've been pouring my money and support into a business and then discover out of the blue that that business has been unethical and or committed a crime. My level of accountability will be lower than that of a person who was knowingly participating. I think what I can't do is excuse myself from accountability whatsoever. Me not being aware is my fault and thus makes me accountable at least to a degree for the unethical practices of the business I supported. So if let's say that I'm a catholic and had no knowledge that catholic priests were raping little boys. When I find out, I am certainly less accountable than those doing the raping but I am accountable nonetheless for being a participant. Any act of financial contribution, intellectual support or acts of conversion led to the situation where boys were being raped. You can look at this much the same way that lawmakers look at scenarios where bartenders/owners are being prosecuted in vehicular homicide cases where they themselves were not driving the car but knowingly acted in a manner that set up the scenario.
http://www.oceancitytoday.net/news/2011-03-25/Top_News/Lawmakers_want_bar_liability_for_drunken_driving.html
It seems completely unfair but nonetheless it is anchored by the same logic that I am using for people of faith.
Should Dr. King be held accountable for racism, in a way yes. If he paid taxes, voted and contributed his time to the work force he helped build the system in which racism was able to thrive. He also helped to reform that system. It may be that his knowledge and understanding of this accountability caused him to want to speak out against the system. He and others like him fully believe in the potential of the system, community or religion, but have to be an opponent of certain aspects of it. This does not however erase their participation and does not remove their accountability although it may dilute it somewhat in our general perception.
Quote from: Davin link=topic=7487.msg114806#msg114806Not all Christians and not all sects promote bigotry, and even some that do both of these things are still not hypocrites because they believe the "love thy nieghbor" bit only applies to actual neighbors and not everyone in the world. This is one the major problems with your position: you're trying to establish their beliefs for them seemingly so that you can call them hypocrites.
I don't think that I'm trying to establish any beliefs. Perhaps the entire argument would be easier to digest if I restated "all" with a vast majority bordering on all. To be specific with Christianity I am using what I know of their beliefs to show that Christianity is hypocritical for the most part excluding of course those individuals or sects that have specifically rewritten the religion to be more progressive and inclusive. But even still, if I cut the tags off my wrangler jeans because I don't want to be associated with brett farvem that is all fine and dandy except for the fact that I still bought wrangler Jeans. (I kind of just reworded my car analogy into a jeans analogy, it's the bet one I've got)
Quote from: Davin link=topic=7487.msg114806#msg114806I don't agree, only the people actually doing the things should be held accountable, I might go as far as to say that those that don't speak out against the things should be pointed out and asked to take a stand on some issues, but as for every Christian being responsible for all things Christian... no, that's irrational.
I'm not sure it's irrational. It does require that you look at accountability through a certain lens. To see that there is no one element of a system that is void of accountability for that system. It can be looked at on a sliding scale of direct responsibility as such. If a crime such as murder is committed the person who pulled the trigger is directly responsible, but the parents of the shooter have to be accountable for the product of their nurturing. Society also has to be held accountable for creating a scenario in which the parents weren't able to effectively raise their child. And thus every member of a society is responsible for both the good and evil in society because we all contribute. In some ways greater than other but we all own a stake in the product. So by extension should humanity in general be held accountable for religion as a whole. I think so absolutely. It was the fear and irrationality of our predecessors that set up a precedent for religious faith that still permeates and disrupts our modern society we in our current environment still support and condone religious freedom no matter how irrational and potentially dangerous they become.
I think the important thing here is that I'm proposing a solution and I'm not talking about the way things should be I am simply stating the way things are. No individual is a brainless automaton, everyone gives and takes form the system and therefore everyone should be held accountable for the good bad and the ugly that brings.
Quote from: Davin link=topic=7487.msg114806#msg114806I would agree that your intentional ignorance helped out the financial crash, however my non-ignorance and attempts to inform people and to prevent it, according to you; means nothing and I'm still just as responsible for it as the people actually doing things to cause it. That's ridiculous.
So in the spirit of discussion you don't think the above passage was meant as a jibe regarding my intelligence. I'm sorry I didn't know I was in a discussion with Warren Buffet here.
If in fact you did you due diligence in the prevention of the financial crisis then you are less responsible for it but still should be held accountable because you paid taxes and I'm sure bought things on credit, or perhaps even paid a mortgage. I don't know your story but I find it hard to believe that for the past 2 decades you lived in a completely isolated bubble of economic independence. You may not have sold any subprime mortgages but, you knowingly contributed to the system that did. Unless you didn't in which case I'd love for you to tell me how.
Quote from: Davin link=topic=7487.msg114806#msg114806Sure take responsibility for your part in it, not for what other people did. Take responsibility by voicing your opinion and attempt reform of the system or anything else, but to say that you're just as guilty as the dudes that actually did the things is unreasonable.
Not "just as" guilty but certainly guilty nonetheless. You cannot exist outside of existence, therefore you are accountable for your presence in existence. That is about as broad as I can put it.
[quote
Quote from: Davin link=topic=7487.msg114806#msg114806The term hypocrite I think means someone doing something they told other people not to do, not someone supporting a system that sometimes does things they don't agree with. But go ahead, I'm just voicing my disagreement with it... which I guess means that even though I'm voicing my disagreement, I'm supporting your use of the word because I also support using English.
I think that the only variable is an individual's level of knowledgeable participation. Burt not knowing is not even 100% excusable because ignorance like it or not at any level is voluntary. You can always find truth it just depends on how hard you want to work for it. And yes, by using language you are supporting my use of language. We can both work to redefine it buy by doing so we are contributing and thus entitled to all the joy of religion and responsible for all it's sorrow.
(In direct response to your most recent post, I am not upset whatsoever. It was not just you who needed the diffusing, trust me, I get embroiled just as much as any other man. I do occasionally like to step back and remind myself that just by being here we are on the same team, we are both explorers in the uncharted territory of the mind. The things we discuss here are the things that will help shape our perceptions and actions in the future. Challenging one another is tremendously beneficial as it reinforces our place in conscious reality. there is not right and wrong just varying degrees of subjective interpretation.)
All of this is lovely, Twentythree, but since "free will" is an illusion, so are "guilt" and "responsibility."
Just Kidding :P
Maybe.
Actually, even if free will is an illusion, it would still be wise to treat people as if they acted freely.
I have to say there are certain problems I have with the interpratation of logic. Like, I do not see the logic behind, in many states if you know someone is going to commit suicide but do nothing to try and stop it, you can be charged with invaulentary MANSLAUGHTER! I love that word, it looks and sounds ridiculous. MANSLAUGHTER! Oh, not in a million years did I think that my first post would be the foundation to such healthy debate. Yay, and on my birthday. LOL
Quote from: Twentythree on May 27, 2011, 12:06:11 AM
Quote from: Davin link=topic=7487.msg114806#msg114806
If someone is actively trying to prevent a thing, how can you hold them accountable for other people doing the things? That's like saying that Martin Luther King Jr. should be held accountable for all the racism against blacks because he was an American. You're holding people to unreasonable standards.
I very well may be holding people to high standards[...]
Not "high standards"; "unreasonable standards".
Quote from: Twentythree[...]or it's more likely that there may be a sliding scale of accountability or responsibility. I think that scale has to be addresses specifically by a person's level of knowledgeable participation. Ignorance is not a defense but it can be used as a deterrent. If I've been pouring my money and support into a business and then discover out of the blue that that business has been unethical and or committed a crime. My level of accountability will be lower than that of a person who was knowingly participating. I think what I can't do is excuse myself from accountability whatsoever. Me not being aware is my fault and thus makes me accountable at least to a degree for the unethical practices of the business I supported. So if let's say that I'm a catholic and had no knowledge that catholic priests were raping little boys. When I find out, I am certainly less accountable than those doing the raping but I am accountable nonetheless for being a participant. Any act of financial contribution, intellectual support or acts of conversion led to the situation where boys were being raped.
I heavily disagree, the priests that were raping the boys were and are the only people responsible for the raping of the boys, but using your logic, so were the boys. The boys being raped should be held accountable for the priests raping them.
Quote from: TwentythreeYou can look at this much the same way that lawmakers look at scenarios where bartenders/owners are being prosecuted in vehicular homicide cases where they themselves were not driving the car but knowingly acted in a manner that set up the scenario.
http://www.oceancitytoday.net/news/2011-03-25/Top_News/Lawmakers_want_bar_liability_for_drunken_driving.html
It seems completely unfair but nonetheless it is anchored by the same logic that I am using for people of faith.
If you're using the same logic that I disagree with and find unreasonable, then this example is meaningless. This is unreasonable because the law makers aren't also trying to make the car manufacturers liable for selling cars but are trying to make bartenders liable for selling alchohol. We should make the mechanics that maintained the cars liable too. We should also hold everyone who drives cars liable because they helped contribute to the situation too. Hell even people that take the bus, or bought anything, or have ever had an alchoholic beverage. Jesus fucking Onubus, it's everyone's fault so we should all be fined $100 whenever a drunk driver kills someone! But wait a minute, everyone is also accountable for preventing drunk driving so we're at a zero sum here where people are both preventing and causing drunk driving. What you're doing is creating definitions so useless that we don't even need to have them and you can't point your finger (as you've already done) at a specific group and admonish them without also chastizing yourself, because you're just as responsible.
It's unreasonable to hold someone liable for the actions of another. So unless the bartenders are forcing beer down the peoples throats and forcing them to drive, then they shouldn't be held liable.
Quote from: TwentythreeShould Dr. King be held accountable for racism, in a way yes. If he paid taxes, voted and contributed his time to the work force he helped build the system in which racism was able to thrive. He also helped to reform that system. It may be that his knowledge and understanding of this accountability caused him to want to speak out against the system. He and others like him fully believe in the potential of the system, community or religion, but have to be an opponent of certain aspects of it. This does not however erase their participation and does not remove their accountability although it may dilute it somewhat in our general perception.
And this is where I find it completely unreasonable, I suppose the boy being raped is responsible for being raped because he somehow or another contributed to the system that the rapist was a part of... All this is doing is saying that everyone is responsible for everything and making the words accountable and responsible effectively useless. Who's responsible for a boy being raped? We all are. Who's responsible for preventing a boy from being raped? We all are. So everyone is responsible for everything and nothing because my actions are the responsibility of other people. How do you point to a problem when you've created a giant scrambling of making every single problem everyone's problem? It makes saying that there is a problem useless because there is no solution.
Following your logic we are all hypocrites, being that we're all hypocrites, saying that a particular group of people are hypocrites (like you calling all Christians hypocrites), it superfluous at best.
Quote from: TwentythreeQuote from: Davin link=topic=7487.msg114806#msg114806Not all Christians and not all sects promote bigotry, and even some that do both of these things are still not hypocrites because they believe the "love thy nieghbor" bit only applies to actual neighbors and not everyone in the world. This is one the major problems with your position: you're trying to establish their beliefs for them seemingly so that you can call them hypocrites.
I don't think that I'm trying to establish any beliefs. Perhaps the entire argument would be easier to digest if I restated "all" with a vast majority bordering on all. To be specific with Christianity I am using what I know of their beliefs to show that Christianity is hypocritical for the most part excluding of course those individuals or sects that have specifically rewritten the religion to be more progressive and inclusive. But even still, if I cut the tags off my wrangler jeans because I don't want to be associated with brett farvem that is all fine and dandy except for the fact that I still bought wrangler Jeans. (I kind of just reworded my car analogy into a jeans analogy, it's the bet one I've got)
You don't have to worry about arguments being easy to digest, I completely understand your argument, which is why I disagree with it. Perhaps you can provide some data behind your supposition that it's the "vast majority" of Christians being hypocrites.
Quote from: TwentythreeQuote from: Davin link=topic=7487.msg114806#msg114806I don't agree, only the people actually doing the things should be held accountable, I might go as far as to say that those that don't speak out against the things should be pointed out and asked to take a stand on some issues, but as for every Christian being responsible for all things Christian... no, that's irrational.
I'm not sure it's irrational. It does require that you look at accountability through a certain lens. To see that there is no one element of a system that is void of accountability for that system. It can be looked at on a sliding scale of direct responsibility as such. If a crime such as murder is committed the person who pulled the trigger is directly responsible, but the parents of the shooter have to be accountable for the product of their nurturing. Society also has to be held accountable for creating a scenario in which the parents weren't able to effectively raise their child. And thus every member of a society is responsible for both the good and evil in society because we all contribute. In some ways greater than other but we all own a stake in the product. So by extension should humanity in general be held accountable for religion as a whole. I think so absolutely. It was the fear and irrationality of our predecessors that set up a precedent for religious faith that still permeates and disrupts our modern society we in our current environment still support and condone religious freedom no matter how irrational and potentially dangerous they become.
I think the important thing here is that I'm proposing a solution and I'm not talking about the way things should be I am simply stating the way things are. No individual is a brainless automaton, everyone gives and takes form the system and therefore everyone should be held accountable for the good bad and the ugly that brings.
So those boys should be held accountable for being raped by priests? In your view there are no victims because all are accountable for everything. So there are no attrocities that you can hold to religion because everyone is doing all this stuff to themselves.
Quote from: TwentythreeSo in the spirit of discussion you don't think the above passage was meant as a jibe regarding my intelligence. I'm sorry I didn't know I was in a discussion with Warren Buffet here.
If in fact you did you due diligence in the prevention of the financial crisis then you are less responsible for it but still should be held accountable because you paid taxes and I'm sure bought things on credit, or perhaps even paid a mortgage. I don't know your story but I find it hard to believe that for the past 2 decades you lived in a completely isolated bubble of economic independence. You may not have sold any subprime mortgages but, you knowingly contributed to the system that did. Unless you didn't in which case I'd love for you to tell me how.
It was not a jibe regarding your intelligence, it was using your own words as you described yourself. By using the word "economic" you're already implying dependence, which means that "economically independent" is an oxymoron. Now draw a line of accountability from people actually doing things to cause the financial crash to my accountbility, without skipping anything important, making any generalizations, making any sweeping statements or jumps in logic.
Quote from: TwentythreeNot "just as" guilty but certainly guilty nonetheless. You cannot exist outside of existence, therefore you are accountable for your presence in existence. That is about as broad as I can put it.
So we're all guilty of everything everyone is doing and everything everyone will do. So either you're being unreasonable by calling Christians hypocrites by virtue of being Christian or we're all hypocrites and it's as definitially useful to call Christians "hypocrites" as it is to call Christians "air breathing mammals".
Quote from: TwentythreeI think that the only variable is an individual's level of knowledgeable participation. Burt not knowing is not even 100% excusable because ignorance like it or not at any level is voluntary. You can always find truth it just depends on how hard you want to work for it. And yes, by using language you are supporting my use of language. We can both work to redefine it buy by doing so we are contributing and thus entitled to all the joy of religion and responsible for all it's sorrow.
So I'm both supporting and not supporting your use of language, how interesting, can you explain how this is possible?
Quote from: Twentythree(In direct response to your most recent post, I am not upset whatsoever. It was not just you who needed the diffusing, trust me, I get embroiled just as much as any other man. I do occasionally like to step back and remind myself that just by being here we are on the same team, we are both explorers in the uncharted territory of the mind. The things we discuss here are the things that will help shape our perceptions and actions in the future. Challenging one another is tremendously beneficial as it reinforces our place in conscious reality. there is not right and wrong just varying degrees of subjective interpretation.)
No, I did not need any diffusing, trust me, there is nothing you can do to even mildly irritate me. I'd appreciate it if you stopped making baseless speculations about me, because those are just a waste of time and I already tend to get very verbose and don't need to add more to my response by telling you that you're assumptions about me are wrong.
Ok fine, I won't assume anything about ye of superior mind and unflappable constitution. You do get kind of brazen , I mean we can both admit that right.
"there is nothing you can do to even mildly irritate me...[Harrumph]" That is making a generalization about me...you have no idea how annoying I have the potential to be. I don't feel like I know you well enough yet, but give me enough time, and I bet I could annoy you...at least a little bit.
"speculations about me, are just a waste of time and I already tend to get very verbose"
This seems close to annoyance, Mr. Verbose. I actually appreciate the time you take to articulate your points.
I think that at this point I want to try to back this train up a little bit. I believe that humanity, and possibly consciousness itself are not a bunch of individual bits, but a larger thriving system, we are all specialist primates, using our specialist functions to drive the organism. What we have discovered in the arguments above is that if we trace any act of an individual back far enough then yes we are all accountable. Like I said above, you cannot remove yourself from reality, therefore we all Accountable for reality. I mean that says it all, ultimately yes we are all responsible for everything. That is what I believe, that is where atheism has brought me, to a place of full acceptance of the insignificance and the impact of each one of my infinite decisions. I do not have a problem taking accountability for humanity I am a part of it...a larger part of some aspects, a smaller part in others I do not try to exclude myself from the whole it's not possible. My problem lies in the fact that most people particularly those of faith never take full accountability not only for themselves but the systems they support, in particular their religion. So I just feel like maybe this debate has begun to lose the spirit of my initial post and has come down to arguments over semantics and has gotten to that point where explanation has left the central idea dry and withered. Which is perhaps the state in which it belongs.
Quote from: thedport on May 27, 2011, 06:45:16 PM
I have to say there are certain problems I have with the interpratation of logic. Like, I do not see the logic behind, in many states if you know someone is going to commit suicide but do nothing to try and stop it, you can be charged with invaulentary MANSLAUGHTER! I love that word, it looks and sounds ridiculous. MANSLAUGHTER! Oh, not in a million years did I think that my first post would be the foundation to such healthy debate. Yay, and on my birthday. LOL
I love it, great topic! Happy Birthday sir. Like i said there are sliding scales of accountability. What do you think about the insane, should they be excluded from accountability for their actions. when a person has a different conscious experience can we hope to hold them accountable for anything they do? Not really a question for a "religion" forum, but I think this topic jumped those tracks about a page and a half ago.
Quote from: Twentythree on May 27, 2011, 08:07:49 PM
Quote from: thedport on May 27, 2011, 06:45:16 PM
I have to say there are certain problems I have with the interpratation of logic. Like, I do not see the logic behind, in many states if you know someone is going to commit suicide but do nothing to try and stop it, you can be charged with invaulentary MANSLAUGHTER! I love that word, it looks and sounds ridiculous. MANSLAUGHTER! Oh, not in a million years did I think that my first post would be the foundation to such healthy debate. Yay, and on my birthday. LOL
I love it, great topic! Happy Birthday sir. Like i said there are sliding scales of accountability. What do you think about the insane, should they be excluded from accountability for their actions. when a person has a different conscious experience can we hope to hold them accountable for anything they do? Not really a question for a "religion" forum, but I think this topic jumped those tracks about a page and a half ago.
In your analysis you have been extremely vague about what it would practically mean to hold others accountable in your system of guilt. Please elucidate.
And where, exactly, can you draw the line with "insanity" - if there are influences on our choices, can any of us really be held accountable for anything, since these influences are either environmental or biological, neither of which we have much control over.
Quote from: Twentythree on May 27, 2011, 08:02:37 PMOk fine, I won't assume anything about ye of superior mind and unflappable constitution. You do get kind of brazen , I mean we can both admit that right.
Neither you nor I have any idea if I do have a superior mind. As for brazen, yes I am without shame and when I'm sure of something I am bold. Kudos for you for assuming something about me correctly. What you most likely wouldn't have assumed is that I've never felt shame.
Quote from: Twentythree"there is nothing you can do to even mildly irritate me...[Harrumph]" That is making a generalization about me...you have no idea how annoying I have the potential to be.
You're right, I have no idea how potentially annoying you can be, however: in my entire time that I've been alive I've never been irritated by people talking, because posting is your only ability to have any kind of interaction with me, I colloquially know that it's impossible, while there might be an extremely tiny chance that it is.
Quote from: TwentythreeI don't feel like I know you well enough yet, but give me enough time, and I bet I could annoy you...at least a little bit.
I really doubt it, and further reading of the things you've stated only serve to increase my surety that you won't be able to annoy me.
Quote from: Twentythree"speculations about me, are just a waste of time and I already tend to get very verbose"
This seems close to annoyance, Mr. Verbose. I actually appreciate the time you take to articulate your points.
I do like speaking my mind and having discussions with people, which is why I still do it. People assuming to know my emotional and/or mental state and being wrong is a very common occurance for me. The "seems" is what usually throws people off: 98° seems like a temperature that metal would be a solid.
Quote from: TwentythreeI think that at this point I want to try to back this train up a little bit. I believe that humanity, and possibly consciousness itself are not a bunch of individual bits, but a larger thriving system, we are all specialist primates, using our specialist functions to drive the organism. What we have discovered in the arguments above is that if we trace any act of an individual back far enough then yes we are all accountable. Like I said above, you cannot remove yourself from reality, therefore we all Accountable for reality. I mean that says it all, ultimately yes we are all responsible for everything.
Then why did you only apply the word hypocrite to Christians? We are all hypocrites according to this concept. Also, this is your belief, and as far as beliefs go... I like how Christopher Hitchens said it, "Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Quote from: TwentythreeThat is what I believe, that is where atheism has brought me, to a place of full acceptance of the insignificance and the impact of each one of my infinite decisions. I do not have a problem taking accountability for humanity I am a part of it...a larger part of some aspects, a smaller part in others I do not try to exclude myself from the whole it's not possible.
Then we are all both accountable and not accountable for everything. This is similar to the Christian concept that we're all sinners, in that you're saying that we're all bad by default and there's nothing we can do about it except to never have been born into the system in the first place. That's fine for your personal beliefs, and I don't have any problems with people believing what they want, but I also don't have any problems publicly voicing the problems I see in the beliefs that people profess publicly.
Quote from: TwentythreeMy problem lies in the fact that most people particularly those of faith never take full accountability not only for themselves but the systems they support, in particular their religion.
This is one of my contentions, you stated that we're all responsible for everything, but then go and single out religious people who are no more or less responsible for everything as you are (or anybody else). In your concept, there is no way to hold anyone accountable or responsible for anything, and yet you think that you can make some kind of exception just because people believe differently than you do. Also, you need to take full accountability for people not taking full accountability.
Quote from: TwentythreeSo I just feel like maybe this debate has begun to lose the spirit of my initial post and has come down to arguments over semantics and has gotten to that point where explanation has left the central idea dry and withered. Which is perhaps the state in which it belongs.
You're responsible for it. However I feel that you've not cleared up your original post when you called all Christians hypocrites, because you went on to claim that all Christians are hypocrites because they're Christians and then to show that you consider everyone a hypocrite... then still focused in on Christians by calling them hypocrites.
Accountability and responsibility for me is in the people that either have actually done things (performed actions) or had a reasonable chance to do actually do something. Which means that I don't hold the boys being raped by priests accountable for being raped by priests, I hold the priests accountable for raping the boys becuase they actually did something. There are points where the accountability is blurry, but I can under no conditions see how one could reasonably hold a boy responsible for being raped by a preist as you do.
Quote from: Davin on May 27, 2011, 09:38:53 PM
Quote from: Twentythree on May 27, 2011, 08:02:37 PMOk fine, I won't assume anything about ye of superior mind and unflappable constitution. You do get kind of brazen , I mean we can both admit that right.
Neither you nor I have any idea if I do have a superior mind. As for brazen, yes I am without shame and when I'm sure of something I am bold. Kudos for you for assuming something about me correctly. What you most likely wouldn't have assumed is that I've never felt shame.
this does not seem normal, you may want to get an evaluation. Feeling no shame is part of a sociopathic behavior profile. I've left a link, if there are any more similarities you may want to see a psychologist and get on some medication.
Entitled Sociopath
Entitled sociopath can either be from genes or developmental. It's a state of over entitlement , where self needs justify any ends. These type of people have no ideals & feel no shame in their actions, very often feel satisfaction in what they do. Many of them enjoy making fun of authority & feel proud of it.
http://sociopathx.com/
I don't know what else to say on this topic. Just to be sure you don't find Christianity as a belief system any more hypocritical, or contradicting than other belief systems?
Quote from: Twentythree on May 27, 2011, 08:07:49 PM
Quote from: thedport on May 27, 2011, 06:45:16 PM
I have to say there are certain problems I have with the interpratation of logic. Like, I do not see the logic behind, in many states if you know someone is going to commit suicide but do nothing to try and stop it, you can be charged with invaulentary MANSLAUGHTER! I love that word, it looks and sounds ridiculous. MANSLAUGHTER! Oh, not in a million years did I think that my first post would be the foundation to such healthy debate. Yay, and on my birthday. LOL
I love it, great topic! Happy Birthday sir. Like i said there are sliding scales of accountability. What do you think about the insane, should they be excluded from accountability for their actions. when a person has a different conscious experience can we hope to hold them accountable for anything they do? Not really a question for a "religion" forum, but I think this topic jumped those tracks about a page and a half ago.
Well, I kind of agree. This went from being a religious topic to a philosophical/moral debate. I think we have started to get into known unknowns. Under the pretenses of this entire conversation being based on oppiniative hypothosies we will never actually know what the correct stand on this should or will ever be. This series of points and rebutles show how quickly a topic can transistion. LOL, and I have enjoyed reading and participating in a, at times heated, social discussion. I had thought about closing this topic after this post but I think that some very good ideas have sprouted from this discussion. So I will leave said topic open for further discussion, until either Admin or myself see this going to far dawn hill in personal heated discussion to furhter the point in positive direction. Again thanks for making this a great discussion. ;D
Quote from: Twentythree on May 27, 2011, 11:34:53 PM
Quote from: Davin on May 27, 2011, 09:38:53 PM
Quote from: Twentythree on May 27, 2011, 08:02:37 PMOk fine, I won't assume anything about ye of superior mind and unflappable constitution. You do get kind of brazen , I mean we can both admit that right.
Neither you nor I have any idea if I do have a superior mind. As for brazen, yes I am without shame and when I'm sure of something I am bold. Kudos for you for assuming something about me correctly. What you most likely wouldn't have assumed is that I've never felt shame.
this does not seem normal, you may want to get an evaluation. Feeling no shame is part of a sociopathic behavior profile. I've left a link, if there are any more similarities you may want to see a psychologist and get on some medication.
It's not normal, that however doesn't mean that it's a problem.
Quote from: TwentythreeEntitled Sociopath
Entitled sociopath can either be from genes or developmental. It's a state of over entitlement , where self needs justify any ends. These type of people have no ideals & feel no shame in their actions, very often feel satisfaction in what they do. Many of them enjoy making fun of authority & feel proud of it.
If feeling satisfaction in things one does means one is a sociopath, then I've not met a person that wasn't a sociopath. I mean who doesn't very often feel satisfaction in what one does? I can see how self needs justifying any ends is a problem, but why would any of the other things be an issue?
Quote from: TwentythreeI don't know what else to say on this topic. Just to be sure you don't find Christianity as a belief system any more hypocritical, or contradicting than other belief systems?
I find Christianity just as hypocritical and contradicting as other belief systems, more so than some and less so than others. I see no reason to have a belief system.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 26, 2011, 03:54:51 AM
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 26, 2011, 12:58:01 AM
Christians should be accountable for Christianity and all good things that happen in It's name. And if you want my opinion, their is only one person to be held responsible for the bad things; Satan.
I'm going to butt in here, but only briefly...
This is one sort of thinking that I have a personal problem with (I've met a few people who place responsibility for their failures and bad acts on satan). Why is it that some people have a real problem seeing their faults as their own failures instead of placing the blame on a thrid party (satan)?
That really doesn't make sense. People say that we have free will, except when we do bad things.
Thats a good point, but hear this:
What makes Satan so opposite of God is the fact that he has the ability to affect free will. A demon can possess someone whether the person wants it or not, but if a person wishes to have an experience with the Holy Spirit, they first must want it, then ask for it.
PS: Sorry I havent been posting recently, I was at a re-enactment all weekend, away from any modern technologys and conveniences. And sorry about bad spelling. :)
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 30, 2011, 11:42:28 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 26, 2011, 03:54:51 AM
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 26, 2011, 12:58:01 AM
Christians should be accountable for Christianity and all good things that happen in It's name. And if you want my opinion, their is only one person to be held responsible for the bad things; Satan.
I'm going to butt in here, but only briefly...
This is one sort of thinking that I have a personal problem with (I've met a few people who place responsibility for their failures and bad acts on satan). Why is it that some people have a real problem seeing their faults as their own failures instead of placing the blame on a thrid party (satan)?
That really doesn't make sense. People say that we have free will, except when we do bad things.
Thats a good point, but hear this:
What makes Satan so opposite of God is the fact that he has the ability to affect free will. A demon can possess someone whether the person wants it or not, but if a person wishes to have an experience with the Holy Spirit, they first must want it, then ask for it.
PS: Sorry I havent been posting recently, I was at a re-enactment all weekend, away from any modern technologys and conveniences. And sorry about bad spelling. :)
This topic interests me because I've had to deal with people who, after having done bad things, place the blame on a third party, the most convenient being satan.
So why can satan affect free will and god can't? Has satan found something in which his power is greater than that of god?
It just looks like an awfully convenient argument for the immoral to me...
Have fun?
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 30, 2011, 11:42:28 PM
What makes Satan so opposite of God is ...
Satan is crucial to god's plan. Without Satan the story of the apple in Eden wouldn't have happened, there would be no free will, no original sin, god's plan of earth wouldn't have worked. The two character's of god and Satan go hand in hand towards the same outcome.
If you were to try and rewrite the bible without satan you would find a lot of the key stories wouldn't work.
Quote
Satan is crucial to god's plan. Without Satan the story of the apple in Eden wouldn't have happened, there would be no free will, no original sin, god's plan of earth wouldn't have worked. The two character's of god and Satan go hand in hand towards the same outcome.
If you were to try and rewrite the bible without satan you would find a lot of the key stories wouldn't work.
I don't know that's necessarily true. The story of the Garden of Eden and the fall of humanity is far older than the idea of God v Satan, and works perfectly well without the idea of Satan being attached to it (humanity's disobedient, gets thrown out of paradise).
I think the concept of Satan is something that Christians have developed as one way of trying to explain how there is so much suffering and evil in a world supposedly created by a good and omnipotent deity. It's also a nice easy way of religious folk being able to abrogate themselves of responsibility when they do morally incorrect things (Satan made me do it...)
Quote from: Stevil on June 01, 2011, 10:24:31 AM
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 30, 2011, 11:42:28 PM
What makes Satan so opposite of God is ...
Satan is crucial to god's plan. Without Satan the story of the apple in Eden wouldn't have happened, there would be no free will, no original sin, god's plan of earth wouldn't have worked. The two character's of god and Satan go hand in hand towards the same outcome.
If you were to try and rewrite the bible without satan you would find a lot of the key stories wouldn't work.
Satan wasn't in the garden of Eden. Most people assume so, but Satan was not mentioned, only "the serpent," a talking snake.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on June 01, 2011, 11:17:50 AM
Quote
Satan is crucial to god's plan. Without Satan the story of the apple in Eden wouldn't have happened, there would be no free will, no original sin, god's plan of earth wouldn't have worked. The two character's of god and Satan go hand in hand towards the same outcome.
If you were to try and rewrite the bible without satan you would find a lot of the key stories wouldn't work.
I don't know that's necessarily true. The story of the Garden of Eden and the fall of humanity is far older than the idea of God v Satan, and works perfectly well without the idea of Satan being attached to it (humanity's disobedient, gets thrown out of paradise).
I think the concept of Satan is something that Christians have developed as one way of trying to explain how there is so much suffering and evil in a world supposedly created by a good and omnipotent deity. It's also a nice easy way of religious folk being able to abrogate themselves of responsibility when they do morally incorrect things (Satan made me do it...)
I think it's interesting that Satan wasn't always an evil being. He used to be on God's team. Job was probably written by many different people in layers over the course of maybe a thousand or so years. The injection of Satan into the story probably means the book was finished after the Babylonian Exile, around the 590s BCE. However, there are parts of the Book of Job very similar to ancient Sumerian traditions, and may have been written perhaps around the 1500s BCE. In college, the Rabbi that taught the OT class told us Job was the oldest book. However, just doing simple Google searches tells me this isn't set in historical concrete, and there are many different opinions. Satan's Heavenly job in Job was to tempt man. He and God debated about man. To me, Satan seemed more like a lawyer than anything else back then.
Satan wasn't developed by Christians, but by Jews. However, I do agree that Satan was created so that believers no longer had to preach about a wrathful God, as perhaps that wasn't so popular.
QuoteSatan wasn't in the garden of Eden. Most people assume so, but Satan was not mentioned, only "the serpent," a talking snake.
Spot on. The serpent was originally the guardian of the Tree of Life, and not Satan.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on June 01, 2011, 11:45:00 AM
Spot on. The serpent was originally the guardian of the Tree of Life, and not Satan.
So what was it doing hanging around an apple tree then? and with earth being so big why did god put the apple tree in the garden of eden along with Adam and Eve?
Also, how did Adam and Eve learn a language?
If they disobeyed god does that mean that they are bad or simply that god didn't have very good parenting skills?
I prefer to use naughty corner with my child rather than casting her out of my special garden, never speaking to her again, and ensuring she and all her female offspring for all generations to come endure pain at child birth. But that's just me, I am less than perfect after all.
Quote from: Stevil on June 01, 2011, 11:59:46 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on June 01, 2011, 11:45:00 AM
Spot on. The serpent was originally the guardian of the Tree of Life, and not Satan.
So what was it doing hanging around an apple tree then? and with earth being so big why did god put the apple tree in the garden of eden along with Adam and Eve?
Also, how did Adam and Eve learn a language?
If they disobeyed god does that mean that they are bad or simply that god didn't have very good parenting skills?
I prefer to use naughty corner with my child rather than casting her out of my special garden, never speaking to her again, and ensuring she and all her female offspring for all generations to come endure pain at child birth. But that's just me, I am less than perfect after all.
hmmm, it's a myth and possibly shouldn't be questioned quite so literally. There's a serpent guarding the tree because serpents were quite often guardians in myths and quite often found alongside trees in mythology (eg the Garden of the Hesperides in Greek mythology where a serpent also guarded some very special apples on a tree).
Quote from: fester30 on June 01, 2011, 11:43:18 AM
To me, Satan seemed more like a lawyer than anything else back then.
That's interesting because I once read somewhere that scholarly Jews engage in some sort of "interrogation" with god when debating their scriptures. They encourage skeptical analysis to a higher degree than Christians do and satan in a way reflects that pre Fall era?
I also find it interesting that the word "demon" or "daemon" originally meant something like "wise man". ;D
Quote from: Stevil on June 01, 2011, 11:59:46 AM
I prefer to use naughty corner with my child rather than casting her out of my special garden, never speaking to her again, and ensuring she and all her female offspring for all generations to come endure pain at child birth. But that's just me, I am less than perfect after all.
When somebody calls you mere human, take that as a compliment! ;)
Quote from: Stevil on June 01, 2011, 11:59:46 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on June 01, 2011, 11:45:00 AM
Spot on. The serpent was originally the guardian of the Tree of Life, and not Satan.
So what was it doing hanging around an apple tree then? and with earth being so big why did god put the apple tree in the garden of eden along with Adam and Eve?
Also, how did Adam and Eve learn a language?
If they disobeyed god does that mean that they are bad or simply that god didn't have very good parenting skills?
I prefer to use naughty corner with my child rather than casting her out of my special garden, never speaking to her again, and ensuring she and all her female offspring for all generations to come endure pain at child birth. But that's just me, I am less than perfect after all.
It wasn't an apple tree, it was a fruit tree. The Bible doesn't specify the type of fruit. God didn't say be appleful and multiply, he said be fruitful and multiply. Why do people turn the fruit tree into the apple tree but not the other thing? Sheesh damn atheists not reading the Bible! Of course, being a fictional tree, I suppose we can also fictionize the type of fruit (I just made up the word fictionize).
Adam and Eve were created by God. Apparently God taught them language.
Yes, God had terrible creator skills with his new creations. Perhaps he shouldn't have created the serpent.
God didn't stop speaking to Adam and Eve, just cast them from the Garden and guarded the Garden with a sword of light (I think) to keep them from coming back. And yes, you are not perfect, don't you forget it. You can not know the complexity of God's ways. His ways are above us. Shame on you for trying. I would rather you fictionize the sex the Bible doesn't mention that Jesus had, because as a Jewish man, you know he never got horny.
A lot of the questions being asked here are a bit overwhelming. I can try and supply an answer here, but bear with me. :)
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 31, 2011, 12:17:08 AM
This topic interests me because I've had to deal with people who, after having done bad things, place the blame on a third party, the most convenient being satan.
So why can satan affect free will and god can't? Has satan found something in which his power is greater than that of god?
It just looks like an awfully convenient argument for the immoral to me...
Have fun?
Because God, like a just ruler, gives his people the right to choose the path of "right or wrong". Satan wants everyone to do wrong and doesnt give people the chance to decide, but he is not powerful enough to control maultiple amounts of people at the same time. Only God, with the use of the Holy Spirit can do that. And remember God created Satan, so Satan is
not more powerful than God.
And yes, it is and "awefully convinient" arguement for the immoral. And thats very unfortunate.
"If God had wanted a perfect Church, he would have made it populated by His angels, and if He had wanted perfect Church leaders, He would have put the Archangels in charge."
Quote from: Stevil on June 01, 2011, 10:24:31 AM
Satan is crucial to god's plan. Without Satan the story of the apple in Eden wouldn't have happened, there would be no free will, no original sin, god's plan of earth wouldn't have worked. The two character's of god and Satan go hand in hand towards the same outcome.
If you were to try and rewrite the bible without satan you would find a lot of the key stories wouldn't work.
How do you know what God's plan is?
Quote from: Too Few Lions on June 01, 2011, 12:32:42 PM
Quote from: Stevil on June 01, 2011, 11:59:46 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on June 01, 2011, 11:45:00 AM
Spot on. The serpent was originally the guardian of the Tree of Life, and not Satan.
So what was it doing hanging around an apple tree then? and with earth being so big why did god put the apple tree in the garden of eden along with Adam and Eve?
Also, how did Adam and Eve learn a language?
If they disobeyed god does that mean that they are bad or simply that god didn't have very good parenting skills?
I prefer to use naughty corner with my child rather than casting her out of my special garden, never speaking to her again, and ensuring she and all her female offspring for all generations to come endure pain at child birth. But that's just me, I am less than perfect after all.
...shouldn't be questioned quite so literally.
What he said.
And my reenactment was very fun, I plan on attending another one this weekend. I'm pumped. :)
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on June 01, 2011, 06:54:16 PM
How do you know what God's plan is?
I made it up, just like everyone else does. But it does seem that without the bad stuff, without the temptation away from god, then there wouldn't be much point to the bible, free will, sin, judgment...
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on June 01, 2011, 06:54:16 PM
Quote
...shouldn't be questioned quite so literally.
What he said.
When you stop taking things literal then you need to interprete, when you interprete you end up making stuff up and your version becomes different to others versions. Also there doesn't seem to be aa key on which bits are literal and which bits are not. Plus, it is much more fun to take it literal, nonsense can be a lot of fun.
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on June 01, 2011, 06:54:16 PM
And my reenactment was very fun, I plan on attending another one this weekend. I'm pumped. :)
I saw your photo with your getup on Phatmass, looks interesting.
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on June 01, 2011, 06:54:16 PM
"If God had wanted a perfect Church, he would have made it populated by His angels, and if He had wanted perfect Church leaders, He would have put the Archangels in charge."
Wasn't Satan an angel?
Are the other angels really the embodiment of virtue?
There is that unfortunate story of Sodom, I wonder if that angel dressed provocatively. Did they really search for ten righteous people, or did that have to be ten virtuous men? The three year old children, I'm sure they were all evil.
If I hear of hear of soldiers calling for an air strike to destroy a town because there's a bunch of guys with guns in the street, well Angel is not the first word that springs to my mind.
Yes, Lucifer (meaning:bringer of light) was God's most beautiful angel. It's my fav myth of angelogy.
Mainly because Japanese culture is obsessed with angel myths, so beautiful Lucifer has been featured in many Japanese comics.
Quote from: Stevil on June 01, 2011, 08:07:02 PM
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on June 01, 2011, 06:54:16 PM
How do you know what God's plan is?
I made it up, just like everyone else does. But it does seem that without the bad stuff, without the temptation away from god, then there wouldn't be much point to the bible, free will, sin, judgment...
Good point.
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on June 01, 2011, 06:54:16 PM
Quote
...shouldn't be questioned quite so literally.
What he said.
Quote from: Stevil on June 01, 2011, 08:07:02 PM
When you stop taking things literal then you need to interprete, when you interprete you end up making stuff up and your version becomes different to others versions. Also there doesn't seem to be aa key on which bits are literal and which bits are not. Plus, it is much more fun to take it literal, nonsense can be a lot of fun.
"I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells. Fantasy is a necessary ingredient in living, It's a way of looking at life through the wrong end of a telescope. Which is what I do, And that enables you to laugh at life's realities." -- Dr. Seuss.
hahahahaha
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on June 01, 2011, 06:54:16 PM
And my reenactment was very fun, I plan on attending another one this weekend. I'm pumped. :)
Quote from: Stevil on June 01, 2011, 08:07:02 PM
I saw your photo with your getup on Phatmass, looks interesting.
It is very interesting.
Quote from: thedport on May 16, 2011, 10:43:19 PM
Love, peace, tolerance, compassion, education, these are the things that Jesus Christ stood for.
These are the principles Jesus taught:
• Abandon all your Earthly ambitions.
• Forsake your Earthly family and give your loyalty to God and your fellow believers.
• Sell everything you own and use the money to do good works.
• Avoid receiving any Earthly reward for your good works.
• Follow the Mosaic Law, both the letter and the spirit of it.
• Abstain from all sin, inside and out;
• Abstain from covetousness
• Abstain from anger
• Abstain from lust.
• Abstain from adultery.
• Do WHATEVER YOU NEED TO DO to abstain from lust.
• Practice strict nonviolent pacifism.
• Do not resist evil.
• Do not strike back.
• Do good to those who hate you.
• Practice mercy and forgiveness and peacemaking.
• Do not judge others; Judgment Day will come soon enough.
• Seek to purify your own character, strive to "be perfect, even as your father in Heaven is perfect."
• Over-fulfill the Law seeking to follow the spirit of it as well as the letter.
• Kill those that do not believe.
• Abstain from swearing false oaths.
But, none of the above makes much sense when one considers:
Quote"But why, I did what I was supposed to. I accepted Jesus as my lord and savior! I went to church every Sunday; I prayed and asked forgiveness for my sins. What did I do wrong?"
Anderson didn't do anything wrong. Anderson is one tiny piece of God's preordained plan.
Ephesians 1:3-6 [NIV]: "Praise be to [God], who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves."
Ephesians 2:10 [NIV]: "For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."
One can only enter heaven if you are blameless (without sin) and to do that you need Jesus. And you have Jesus if God has chosen you as one who is blessed with Jesus. Those who are chosen are automatically destined to 'do good works' which 'God prepared in advance for them to do. People don't choose to do good, and be accepted into Heaven, or that people choose to do good and come to accept Jesus. The Bible clearly states that God makes specific people do specific 'good works'.
Romans 8:28-30 [NIV]: "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified."
After reading this I wonder if I couldn't make a hot topic out of how many feathers there are on a Pegasus wings, or how long exactly Andromeda was chained to the rocks before Perseus came to the rescue. Arguing not only the content but the validity of myths with absolutely no truth content is a waste beyond whatever entertainment value can be gleaned from them. Just as previous posters have said, nonsense can be "fun" that is about the extent of it. No one really knows anything about what Jesus stood for, or if Jesus really even existed as it was written in the bible. No matter how many times you read the words it will never ever turn them into facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory
@Gawen: (cool name btw)
I always find it ridiculous how the bible preached peace and violence at the same time.
Supposedly the people in ancient Rome thrown to the lions were true christian believers. How nice it must of been to be torn apart painfully by lions whilst thinking of your lord and saviour. :D
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 07, 2011, 07:39:40 PM
@Gawen: (cool name btw)
I always find it ridiculous how the bible preached peace and violence at the same time.
Supposedly the people in ancient Rome thrown to the lions were true christian believers. How nice it must of been to be torn apart painfully by lions whilst thinking of your lord and saviour. :D
In Bible classes, some churches teach kids about martyrs. In mine, the teacher told us about the importance of always standing up for Jesus, even if it cost us our lives.
@fester: (you're using the icon xDD)
Wow... What a horrible thing to teach someone.
Quote from: fester30 on June 07, 2011, 10:20:19 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 07, 2011, 07:39:40 PM
@Gawen: (cool name btw)
I always find it ridiculous how the bible preached peace and violence at the same time.
Supposedly the people in ancient Rome thrown to the lions were true christian believers. How nice it must of been to be torn apart painfully by lions whilst thinking of your lord and saviour. :D
In Bible classes, some churches teach kids about martyrs. In mine, the teacher told us about the importance of always standing up for Jesus, even if it cost us our lives.
Yeah, I've always found the idea of celebrating martyrdom to be pretty sick, but it's very much been at the heart of Christianity from the earliest days. The earliest mention of Christians by Roman sources portrayed them as religious fanatics who were quite happy to die for their faith, often in an attempt to emulate the story of their saviour. Church Fathers like Cyprian and Basil of Caesaria openly promoted martyrdom as a way of gaining entrance to heaven.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on June 08, 2011, 01:39:38 PM
Church Fathers like Cyprian and Basil of Caesaria openly promoted martyrdom as a way of gaining entrance to heaven.
Sounds a lot like another group of religious extremists I know. The kind that like to drive planes into buildings.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 07, 2011, 10:42:45 PM
@fester: (you're using the icon xDD)
Wow... What a horrible thing to teach someone.
I figure since it looks so much like me in real life, why not?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 07, 2011, 07:39:40 PM
@Gawen: (cool name btw)
Thanks!!
QuoteI always find it ridiculous how the bible preached peace and violence at the same time.
Yeah. It seems that the bible only teaches ambiguities and contradictions. And all that comes from an omniscient God.....whew!!
QuoteSupposedly the people in ancient Rome thrown to the lions were true christian believers. How nice it must of been to be torn apart painfully by lions whilst thinking of your lord and saviour. :D
It is still debatable that Xtians were thrown to lions for their faith. There are references that these people were public nuisances.
Quote from: fester30
In Bible classes, some churches teach kids about martyrs. In mine, the teacher told us about the importance of always standing up for Jesus, even if it cost us our lives.
Yeah, I got the same thing.
Conversely, if there ever were a god, it's name should be death. And the only thing we should ever have to say to it is "Not today".
Quote from: Gawen on June 11, 2011, 02:25:58 AM
Quote from: fester30
In Bible classes, some churches teach kids about martyrs. In mine, the teacher told us about the importance of always standing up for Jesus, even if it cost us our lives.
Yeah, I got the same thing.
Conversely, if there ever were a god, it's name should be death. And the only thing we should ever have to say to it is "Not today".
Nice GOT reference.
Quote from: Twentythree on June 10, 2011, 11:16:53 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on June 08, 2011, 01:39:38 PM
Church Fathers like Cyprian and Basil of Caesaria openly promoted martyrdom as a way of gaining entrance to heaven.
Sounds a lot like another group of religious extremists I know. The kind that like to drive planes into buildings.
Yeah, when you look at the way the Romans viewed the early Christians (and particularly the martyrs) it was very similar to how we westerners would view Islamic extremists today. And the way the early Christians viewed all non-Christians was very similar to the way al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists view all infidels. The downside is that the religious extremists won out 1800 years ago. The outlawing of all non-Christian texts and any philosophical or religious debate, and the deliberate destruction of libraries, temples, academies and any other place of non-Christian learning in the 4th-6th centuries helped to bring about the Dark Ages.