Religious Beliefs

[FallenAngelII]

I wasn't responding to you.

Funny, you quote me.

the reason there was so much violence in the Old Testament. I did quote who I was responding to.

Yes, me. Yes, there's a lot of violence in the Old Testament. What gives you the right to pick and choose which passages to follow?

For an explanation of why it is in the Bible, look at the culture of that time.

Doesn't matter. It's in there. Supposedly the word of a demi-God (Deutoronomy). You claim the Bible is 100% true. Then it's not the work of culture but the work of God.

Look, I'm not Catholic, and for all I care, catholicism is distorted compromising Christianity.

What gives you to the right to decide which version of God's word is worth more?

Point out where in the Bible it states this. Romans 1:24 - 27

The ramblings of Paul, a mere mortal. His interpretations of what had occured in who-knows-where. He thought homosexuality was a sin and that God condemned it (because of Deutoronomy, Old Testament hatred, remember?). Never once was it said that God came to him and said any of those things.

Read the Bible yourself once in a whole.

Actually I am saying that it is based on the bible. More specifically thoug, I'm saying that Christians have Biblical proof, posted above, of why homosexuality is wrong.

Bible Proof schimifical proof. It's not proof because some random Apostle said he thought so.

Also, lack of evidence is not evidence.

Just because we cannot prove God does not exist (a feat impossible because you cannot prove something doesn't exist) doesn't mean he exists. Likewise, just because we cannot prove that the Apostles were crazy doesn't mean some of might not have been.

While they probably were not crazy, the fact that they probably weren't does not make their words 100% true or Jesus the Son of God. So they believed in Jesus. This proves what, really? It proves they believed in Jesus, nothing more.

And how come said devout belivers of Jesus (and not crazy) could come up with three different versions of how it was first revealed to his parents that he would be born through virgin birth?

[FallenAngelII]

About the passage in bold. Where did you learn this? I want to know. Where was Jesus just regarded as a prophet? By the Muslims? Yeah. By Christians? I don't think so. And, you perception of correct is relative, not universal. Also, for how I know that my perception of Chrsitianity is correct. I don't, to be honest. I definitely am not sure that 100% of everything I believe is absolutely correct, but I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus Christ is God in human flesh. I am positive about that, because I have witnessed it. And until you witness it, there is absolutely no way you'll be able to understand it. No way at all.

Pray tell, dear Ltcolshepjumper, how did you witness that Jesus was God in human flesh?

[An-Alteran]

That was kind of the argument that I was trying to make early in my post. From a completely objective standpoint (putting aside any thoughts of religion or atheism) a piece of evidence is ambiguous. A person with faith would look at that piece of evidence and say "this proves that God exists" whereas an atheist would say "it's only coincidence" or "it's the product of random phenomena". So what I am trying to say is that it is the belief which makes something seem evidential. Evidential faith being the belief, on the grounds of faith, that a piece of evidence shows something which somebody without that belief would not see as being shown. I believe that this counts as blind faith, in that it is the worldview (faith or atheism) that colours how the evidence is seen, without ever being able to be proved. So by this ground one could also possess "blind atheism".

This is the point I was trying to make earlier.

My issue on evidence is a comprehensive one, not a singular one.

When you look at the evidence and apply reason comprehensibly, what do you find?

That is what I am looking at.

To be honest, I would probably require definitive evidence, like Moses' burning tree talking to me, in order to build faith.

One clarification: God burned the bush and KEPT it burning (burning bushes were common... bushes that burn for a long time without being consumed quickly was not).
God spoke to mosses from the bush- per se. The bushdidn't speak.

And remember: Trust.

I can't prove that Moses really saw a burning Bush, approeched it, and then heard God speak to him.

I can indicate that from other evidence that demonstrates the reliability of the Bible, it is not a leap to say that the testimony of Moses and the bush may also be reliable.

The fact is, the Ressurection and nothing else sets the groundwork of our Trust in God.

And quite frankly, the evidence for the ressurection is extremely compelling.

I require concrete proof, that I can lay my hands on (so to speak).

Let me ask you something. If you saw a car, how do you know someone designed and built it?
Say you havn't seen a manufacturing plant or met a car designer.
How do you know?

So I acknowledge the possibility of extraterrestrial life because probability tells me it is extremely likely.

Uh, probability tells us life shouldn't exist anywhere at all.
The vast majority of starts don't produce heavy elements.
The vast majority of those that do are unstable.
The vast majority of those likely don't have planets.
The existence of abiogenesis is observably as impossible as a computer comming together by throwing all the elemts into a sentrifuge.

Similarly, I acknowledge that possbility that I may be wrong, and that God may actually exist. However, until I see definitive proof I do not actually believe that he exists, because nothing has told be that he does.

What would be evidence for you?

Possibily, if I have time. Quite honestly, exams are consuming that at the moment.

I know how that is.
Good luck with that.

I'll pray for you to be clear of mind and focused.

My faith in the Bible was kind of broken after learning that a Catholic council operating hundreds of years after Christ's death decided that it would be a good idea to say that he was the divine son of God, as up to that point he had been regarded as a sort of uber-prophet.

Where did you hear this?
It isn't true. I am sorry that you were misled this way.

The Roman historians in the first and second centuries described Christians as singing worship to Jesus "as a God".
The Gospels, all of which written in the first century, and very likely within the lifetimes of their claimed authors, clearly depicted Jesus as reffering to Himself in divine ways and reffering to Himself as having divine attributes- especially in the eyes of a Jew. Note that half the time He is speaking a group of Pharisees inevitably try to stone Him for blasphemy.

Also, another point-
Paul who wrote in the 40s-60s AD clearly saw Christ as God.

He also quoted earlier creeds of the Church where Jesus was declared as God!

"Be, therefore like Christ, who though being in very nature God..."

In the context of exhorting the Church to be humble and pointig to Christ who though being God- humbled himself and became incarnate as a Human being.

Paul also asserted (and remember, the other Apostles were all alive when He said this) that He had on several occassions met with the Apostles and that what he [Paul] is teaching is what he was tought.

The earliest scrap of any piece of the new testament is from the Gospel of John (often believed to be the latest of the Gospels) and it dates to the late first century AD to absolutely no later than the mid second century.

Early Christians from the second century like Justin Martyr were very much aware of the Gospels and considered them completely true- and many of these early Christians would have either A known people taught by the apostles, or were removed by just one more generation.

The Gospels were therefore clearly written within the first century- and according to the early Christians- by Mathew, Mark (as a scribe and compiler of Peter's account), Luke, and John.

John of all the Gospels is the most emphatic:
"In the beggining was the word and the word was with God and the word was God... and the word became flesh and dwealt among us."

So one of the founding texts of Christianity declared Jesus as God.
All the Gospels indicated Jesus had divine attributes, and all the Gospels were said by people removed only by as much time as we are from WWI to have been written by the authors they are attributed to.

Paul Himself described Jesus in divine terms and said (as a quotation of an Christian creed-possibly dating from the AD 50s to the AD 30s) He "was in very nature God".

And Roman synics, Historians, and the like described Christians as acting towards Jesus as if He was God.

So most certainly, no council was formed that "decided" Jesus was God.
This is simply inncorrect and not historical.

Now, I am aware of the Council of Nicea.

Let me explain what it was-
Many controversies arrose in Christianity about doctrine.
Generally this occurs when something was taught and believed for a while already in origin based on first the Apostles and their writings- then another view emerges that conflicts with the view passed on by the Apostles and the Apostle's students.
This was called "heresy".

In the fourth century AD the heresy of the day was "Arianism" promoted by a Bishop named 'Arius'.

Arius taught that Jesus was a seperate being from God in essense and that Jesus was created by God and wasn't God in of himself.
This was, quite clearly, in total contradiction to what is said in John and what was said by Paul- and in contradiction to what had been taught by the Apostles and understood by their students and then those student's students.

Constantine demanded that the Church resolve the issue and not cause any more diversive division.

The Nicean Council was gathered.

Of those who attened, they almost unanimously agreed that the Apostles taught and instructed that Jesus was God, and the council dealt with a bunch of other issues also.

I say it was almost unanimous... the only people who disented were... Arius and a few of his close associates/friends.

Note: The Council reaffirmed, not decided, what had always been taught and understood since the Apostles.
They already all believed Jesus was God, and this was believed since thebggining. Arius came out and challenged that belief, prompting the council and the clear creed that was formulated to state clearly what we believe.
Not to establish what we believe... but to restate what we believe in a clear and concise form.

I hope this helps you.

When something that fundamental can be decided upon by a few old men in a meeting, I would question the historical authenticity of the entire document.

As would I.
But thankfully God doesn't allow such easily scrutinizable ways of revealing truth to us.

And that is historically innacurate.

And to preempt your rebuttal of this, one could say that others had been misguided up until then, and divine intervention through these men set the record straight. I leave that up to you to decide.

Honestly, if I had learned that what you said above was true, I would likely be in a similar boat as you faith-wise.

My question to you is how do you reconcile the fact that you believe that you are correct, and yet if I introduced you to one of my fervent Catholic relatives, they would be equally sure that they were correct?

Simple:
I would ask why do they believe they are correct?
And work from there.

I can make an argument here on this board, but it is time consuming- I would preffer not to. If you want to hear my thingking on this specifically, send me a PM.

And if both of you talked to a Muslim, even though you worship the same God (or Allah),

The Muslim Alah is not the God of Christianity, nor is the God of Christianity the Islamic Alah.

he would say you were both wrong and that you needed to follow the Qur'an.

Actually I think they would tell me to pay them the jizya.

And another Muslim might say that you needed the Qur'an + Shari'ah law, as opposed to the Qur'an only. Getting my drift yet? Who is right?

First of all, no Muslim would claim that the Qo'ran was somehow co-equal with something else.
The person who is right, is the person most logically consistent with the texts- the context of the text, and the cultural context when the text was written.

As for shari'ah law, it is based on many sources including the Qo'ran.

They would, if intelligent, argue that it has remained most consistent with their scriptures- the cultural context of the time all it was written in, and the each part of the context of the law is adherent to a logical and contextual exegesis of the passages they are based on.

In order for their to be a universal "correct", there must be consensus.

This assumes all views are valid- and that all people would naturally adhere to one belief if that belief was correct.

And this is a logic fallacy.

By your deffinition, to be correct it has to have consensus.,
Well, to haev consensus, it would have to be correct, well it can only be correct if there is consensus...
circular reasoning.

The fact that you say your beliefs are obviously correct throws doubt on whether you could acknowledge a Catholic or Muslim (or other religion) as being "correct".

Catholics are, iften, Christians.

Many who say "I am of Christ" are not anyway- especially in the USA.

And by the same token they would probably not acknowledge you as "correct".

Then lets debate and reason over the issues.

What I am saying is your perception of correct is relativistic, not universal.

I will concede that finding out what is correct is very difficult and very daunting, as well as filled with onstacles, if you will give me that no two contradictory viewpoints can both be correct and that either one is correct and the other isn't or they are both incorrect.

[An-Alteran]

ain't it more about doing it because someone said so ?

Yes and no.
God established a design and plan for how His creation is suposed to function and most importantly how we, His creation made in His image (IE: we can reason, think, chose, and we are thus 'like' him. Not that we physically look like Him as is taught by those who are not aware of the existence of idioms in any language other than English).
We do what is "right" because that is Gods plan and design.

Therefore He cares very deeply about how we are running our lives and how we are following His plan. He designed us to function according to the plan and design- and not doing so is harmful. Like trying to hammer a nail with a screwdriver, or pry-something open with one.
You "can" do it, but it damages the screwdriver.

now that is not an educated statement either
btw you're also contradicting your comrade A-Alteran

Budhism is about clearing yourself of suffering by emptying yourself of the bonds to the material world over many lifetimrs of suffering until you achieve nirvana and puff out of existence- becoming one with the universe.
They assume a priori that suffering is brought upon you by acting in negative ways- they never define what is good and bad, they just state it a priori.
Note this is a little generalized, not universal.

you don't say ! an absolute that is not based on something else ? incredible...

We believe absolute right is defined by God, and thus right" is based on God's design and "wrong" is misuse and damage to God's plan and design.

Thus it is absolute- because the designer is absolute.

So in that sense morality is relative... to God-the absolute absolute.

We have a basis for an absolute morality.

Ok, that's just wrong. Non-religion being a negative force?

When was the last time someone did something bad because they didn't believe in a higher power?

Stalin... Mao Zedong... ect.

And the death toll from those numbers in the tens of millions.

And really, religion is all about faith. Who are you to say that the person who said "I killed because God told me to"...

First of all, please develope your hypothetical question into a more detailed scenario.

People who don't believe in religion wage religious wars? Or do evil in the name of God? Really?

Separation of church and state. There is no official religion. It's the most widespread, yes, but it's not government sponsored or anything.

Did I say it was?

And people don't "turn good" because of religion.

Pleanty of people certainly become "good" thanks to the changing power of Jesus Christ active in their lives.

Alcoholic?

None of them went to alchoholics anonymous FYI.

Alcoholics Anonymous are basically a Christian association. One of the steps if "Accept Lord Jesus Christ as your saviour". Tons of things in America is Christian or Christian-based, even innocuous things such as A.A. which shouldn't be. So of course there's tons of cases of people turning good "because of Christianity".

Ok. I love this one. It is fully of juicy tender meat to chew on.

First lets identify some implications you made:
1. Alcoholics Anonymous [AA] is a succesful program that is known to succesfully help people overcome
2. AA is a Christian organization.
3. It teaches Christian principles.

What is amazing is that this is what you criticize it for:
1. Attributing its success to Christian principles.
2. Being a Christian organization and using Christian principles in their program that you imply works.
3. That it isn't an example of people becoming "good" when they become Christians because they do so by following Christian principles out of bad situations and thus turning good.

People do not randomly turn from bad to good because religion is so great.

Well, you say that they "need" to. Well, if they did not view religion as a better choice, why would they turn to it?

And you are simply wrong anyway.

Personal experience in my own life for one.
But also the fact that half the people in my old Church come from bad backgrounds- and changed remarkably.

They turn because they need to. They are in a bad position and fearing possible reprisal not only in this life but also in the afterlife, they turn to religion as a way to secure an afterlife, should there be one.

Ok. I agree.

And the fact that Christianity is the most mission-crazy religion there is doesn't help either.

You don't like Christianity at all do you?

Heck, people are sent to India where they preach and give out food to the starving.

I love how you are phrasing this as a bad thing!

Of course a starving man will stop for a few minutes to hear about Jesus Christ if he'll get a little food out of it. And then they'll preach to him every time he returns for more.

Ok. That is true.
You are saying that this is wrong, we are saying that God wants us to love people and spread the good news that they can be saved by Christ and freed from their bad lives.

Also, BTW, I have participated in organizations like the one you describe.
We care for people because we love them. We share Christ with them because we love them. We feed them because we love them.
If they are irresponsive we still feed them, we still love them.

Let me explain this to you:

We believe that the body isn't the only thing starving- that their spirit and soul is straving because they lack a relationship with the God that designed them. So why are you criticising us for trying to feed both body and spirit?

O RLY? What about that part where it's perfectly OK for a soldier to kidnap a woman in war and force-wed her?

Out of context.

This is a situation if a soldier encounters a woman captured in a war, that if he likes her, he can take her back to his town.
He can't rape her and leave her there, or sleep with her and leave here there.
He has to go about it the right way and not abuse her. The passage is regulatory- not prescriptive.

She is given a month to take care of things,
and mourn her country if need be.

The woman is also free to leave and do whatever she wants if the man is not pleased with her after the marriage ceremony (this implies that if she reffused consumation, she would be free to go about her bussiness as a free woman- and he can't force her to stay or force her into a situation she is totally unwilling to enter into).

Or those lovely parts about the men with multiple wives?

The Bible does not shy away from accurately recording History- even if it makes the very people who are supposed to be good guys look bad.
It is honest.

In every formula for marriage in the Bible, it is monogomy.
Adam and Eve.
Malachi- "Keep the wife of your youth."

Dueteronomy "Do not multiply wives." Effectively: Don't marry multiple women.

And so on it goes.

Just because certain countries do not have devout Christian leaders and lawmakers doesn't mean they lack morals.

Never said they did.

And I have yet to hear widespread use the argument "There is no God, so I can kill". That is crap. Find sources supporting that claim, please.

You never see "there is a God so I can kill" either.

You have arguments for killing in cercumstances- allways based on your presuppositions and your a-priori beliefs.

You never see "there is a God, so I can kill somone" or "there is no God, so I can kill somone" .

Those worldviews form a foundation that other ideas and concepts are based on, + influence from culture and family.

[An-Alteran]

For **** sake educate yourself, this is starting to get embarrassing to read.

I find it interesting that this statement you just said could be used in response to almost any post by any person in this thread and have the same effect.

If there was anything incorrect in what I said, please show me.
Otherwise, don't attack me withour demonstrating your points.
That is called attacking a person instead of an argument.

It appears to me that you disagree with me,
therefore I am wrong and am uneducated. That is the attitude you come off as having.

uh, this is so tiring.
do some research.

I have been doing so for the last 5 years of my life,
along with many other things.

evolution is not random. the mechanism by which it occurs- genetic mutations- are, however natural selection is certainly not random!

Ok.
I was talking about abiogenesis and the simplest working living cell-not evolution.

Just thought I'd add that in my last post I said I hated the Church, not Christianity itself. The Church is a manipulating body that has hundreds of civil offenses in its history (although, granted, they've been pretty good in the last 100 years).

I have no hatred for Christians, personally, or their faith. Nor do I hate any religion, merely the human institutions that try to use it to take advantage of people through their devotion.

Ok. On that we agree!

I would argue that the Church was painted with an unfair light as a result of biased anti-religious anti-christian viewpoints established in the Enlightenment.

Generally these "attrocities", as I have researched them and read about them, are blown way out of proportion.

The Spanish Inquisition (the most fierce and strict of the inquisitions) resulted in the death of around 2,000 people total over hundreds of years.
And the entire inquisition was sparked when a monk, sent in a group to learn why and how heretical views were spreading in an area and undermining the Church, was murdered by one of the heretics.
This sorta pissed the pope off a bit...

The Crusades were a defencive response to fierce invasions by the Muslims who swept accross northern africa, up into spain, and also swept accross and took over massive portions of the eastern roman Empire.
It took several hundreds years for the Pope to even call for a response (there was no organized government in western Europe, the Church was the only thing left holding the groups of people together- there was no centralized political authority to organize a defence).
The first crusade was a great victory and they took back Jerusalem- and relieved the pressure off of the Byzantine empire.

All the crusades after this were failures both organizationally and strategically.
The crusades were not a victory. The crusades were a string of defeats with the odd victory here or there culminating in a draw- that left the Byzantine empire gone, and almost ended in the Muslims taking over Europe in entirety.

This draw allowed a buffer to be created, and the war allowed the aquisition of Muslim ship technology like navigation techniques and the like, aswell as trade relationships with the far east.

And the barrier the Church created as it acted as the only defence between Western civilization and Muslim conquest created a safety zone in the central and upper parts of europe for Art, Science, and all sorts of technologies to progress and develope.

The Crusades, again, failed.

The fourth peasant Crusade, for instance, went wild and pillaged anyone who disagreed with them, including and especially Jews. The Church quickly condemned those who did those things.

Doesn't matter. It's inscribed into the Bible, your holy texts.

The Bible is a conglomeration of many different genres.

History is not foreign to the Bible.

Many parts of the Bible are histories. And they record what happened and what was.

The Bible does not hide the truth because it may make people look bad.

To assert that because something bad is recorded as occuring in a historical statement in the Bible, therefore that thin is justified is illogical.

My History book doesn't support Hitler by recording the fact that he killed 12 million people.

Funny, since the Church (believe the Catholic one) used to wed gay couples a few hundred years or so back.

Evidence?

Point out where in the Bible it states this... Point out anything in the bible that supports this besides the Old Testament's Deutoronomy.

Romans 1:26-27 "... their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another,"

Also the establishment of a man and his wife in Genesis 1-3.
The constant affirmation of such relationships.

So you're claiming the old Homophobia of the Church isn't based on the Bible but based on Christians' random homophobic tendendices passed from parent to child?

You are using inflamatory and derisive language.

This old covenant was under the old sytem of righteousness, when the other 'nations' surrounding the Israelites practiced all sorts of idolatry. because they, the Israelites, were not able to have security of salvation, via Jesus Christ, it was necessary that they have no hint of sin in they civilization.

This is incorrerct. People were saved by grace through faith then aswell as now.
Paul makes this clear in Hebrew 11 where it says "Abraham had faith in God and it was counted to him as righteoussness.

they are the words of Jesus. Even then, the majority of the Bible is not the Gospels alone. It is the word of God, because Jesus is God. And yes, they were 100% human. But they would not die for something they knew to be a lie. Also, since you say they were 100% human, and that the new testamnet is not valid,

explain how they could be so closely synonimous and uncontradictory, but yet be written so many years after Jesus's death?

]
The Gospels were all likely written before 70 AD- and by the people who they were attributed to.
Furthermore, the whole point of the Gospels being accurate was that they were NOT written long after Jesus died.

All the basic concepts and beliefs that defines Christianity was well established before the AD 60s.

The ressurection dates back to easily the start of Christianity in the early AD 3os.

These were not late accounts, they were very very early accounts.

The ramblings of Paul, a mere mortal.
His interpretations of what had occured in who-knows-where. He thought homosexuality was a sin and that God condemned it (because of Deutoronomy, Old Testament hatred, remember?). Never once was it said that God came to him and said any of those things.

This was very dishonest of you.

You asked for where in the Bible does it say homosexuality is wrong- besides Dueteronomy. He gave you an answer, and then you pulled a "Gotcha!" argument out.

You asked him a loaded question.

So they believed in Jesus. This proves what, really? It proves they believed in Jesus, nothing more.

You are missing one tiny tidbit:
The Apostles who new Jesus personally and saw him die- started claiming that not only did they, but about 500 others saw the resurrected Jesus alive after 3 days of being in the tomb. And that Jesus interacted with them for weaks.

The apostles were all put to death often in brutal ways, for their claims.

But the thing is, they claimed to be the eyewittnesses!

They died claiming that they all were wittnesses of a man dieing and then being ressurected.

And how come said devout belivers of Jesus (and not crazy) could come up with three different versions of how it was first revealed to his parents that he would be born through virgin birth?

The 3 accounts of the virgin birth are complementary not contradictory.

[FallenAngelII]

The Bible is a conglomeration of many different genres.

History is not foreign to the Bible.

Many parts of the Bible are histories. And they record what happened and what was.

Yet a lot of the violence is apparently sanctioned by God or "supposedly" sanctioned by God (some guy way back claimed it was). Who's to say which person who claims God spoke to them is right and which person isn't?

Romans 1:26-27 "... their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another,"

Paul's words. Paul's thoughts. Paul's sentiments. It does in no way mean God condemns said actions and thinks said things.

Also the establishment of a man and his wife in Genesis 1-3.
The constant affirmation of such relationships.

Yes, because God created Adam and Eve, it must mean man should only lie with womankind.

This is incorrerct. People were saved by grace through faith then aswell as now.
Paul makes this clear in Hebrew 11 where it says "Abraham had faith in God and it was counted to him as righteoussness.

People are saved by faith because they believe. They cling to it as a lifeline because maybe their life was going down the crapper and believing in a higher power gave them self-imposed happiness. It does no way make it magical or something that can't be bad. People have done bad things because of faith as well.

The Gospels were all likely written before 70 AD- and by the people who they were attributed to.
Furthermore, the whole point of the Gospels being accurate was that they were NOT written long after Jesus died.

"Likely" is the key word here. It's not even "likely". It's "guesswork". There is absolutely no proof that the Gospels were written by the Four Evangelists. They could've all been written by a mule with super-high IQ for all we know.

Besides, they aren't accurate. Because they contradict each other.

You asked for where in the Bible does it say homosexuality is wrong- besides Dueteronomy. He gave you an answer, and then you pulled a "Gotcha!" argument out.

It's no proof that the Bible and Jesus, God and old Christians thought homosexuality was wrong because Paul thought so. Not once did he claim to be speaking on behalf of God or even his religion.

The statement challenged, btw, was not that the Bible spouted hate-speech. The statement challenged was that "there's Biblical proof that homosexuality is immoral". Paul saying it does not make it so.

The Apostles who new Jesus personally and saw him die- started claiming that not only did they, but about 500 others saw the resurrected Jesus alive after 3 days of being in the tomb. And that Jesus interacted with them for weaks.

I claim I saw Jesus in my pickle jar yesterday (quite a feat since I don't have one). Prove me wrong. This must mean I saw him.

They died claiming that they all were wittnesses of a man dieing and then being ressurected.

And I'll die claiming "And Jesus spoke to me: Ask not what man can do for man's best friend but why gay marriage isn't yet universally legal."

The 3 accounts of the virgin birth are complementary not contradictory.

O RLY?

"And then Michael spoke to Joseph and told him a load of bovine manure"
"And then two angels spoke to Joseph and Mary"
"And then an angel spoke to a random sheppherd and told of a load of bovine manure"

(Paraphrasal and possibly slightly inaccurate but mostly correct)

Three completely contradictory passages. Who told who? If they can't even agree on this fact, did Jesus make crap up as he went and accidentally told them different things or did the Evangelists make bovine manure up?

Contradictory! Hello!

First lets identify some implications you made:
1. Alcoholics Anonymous [AA] is a succesful program that is known to succesfully help people overcome
2. AA is a Christian organization.
3. It teaches Christian principles.

A.A. is an organization that superimposes its Christian values, morals and standpoints on the people it's supposed to help. Not only that, it shoves its ideology down their throats. One of the 12 steps is "Accepting Jesus Christ as your saviour"!

What is amazing is that this is what you criticize it for:
1. Attributing its success to Christian principles.

No I didn't.

2. Being a Christian organization and using Christian principles in their program that you imply works.

No I didn't.

3. That it isn't an example of people becoming "good" when they become Christians because they do so by following Christian principles out of bad situations and thus turning good.

No I didn't. I never said people can't "become good" when they choose to follow "Christian" principles. After all, the majority of said principles aren't really "Christian" but universal. They existed long before Christianity and a lot of it is just common sense and morality, really, existing all across the world, even in non-Christian communities.

Well, you say that they "need" to. Well, if they did not view religion as a better choice, why would they turn to it?

Let's see, you've killed 29 people and are improsoned for life. Along comes a "helpful" priest who preaches that God is forgiveness and that if you accept Jesus Christ as your saviour, you'll go to Heaven. Of course a lot of bozos will choose the Heaven-part... possibly "just in case".

And you are simply wrong anyway.

Oh yes. What a scathing argument.

This is a situation if a soldier encounters a woman captured in a war, that if he likes her, he can take her back to his town.
He can't rape her and leave her there, or sleep with her and leave here there.
He has to go about it the right way and not abuse her. The passage is regulatory- not prescriptive.

The woman is also free to leave and do whatever she wants if the man is not pleased with her after the marriage ceremony (this implies that if she reffused consumation, she would be free to go about her bussiness as a free woman- and he can't force her to stay or force her into a situation she is totally unwilling to enter into).

The bad part is that he can take her back to his town. The scriptures indicates that it's up to him to decide whether he'll take her or not!

If, after the little ceremony, the woman does not wish to stay, she's free to shave her head and go. But it does not change the fact that he could pick and choose and she could not to begin with.

Also, note that in my post, I never mentioned "rape". I mentioned "kidnapping".

And why is she only allowed to go if he is displeased?! What about her rights, her thoughts, her free will?!

In every formula for marriage in the Bible, it is monogomy.
Adam and Eve.
Malachi- "Keep the wife of your youth."

Wasn't it Abraham or Moses or both who had one gazillion wives of all kinds of ages?

Never said they did.

"[...] logical lack of morality in a non-absolute ethical system"

You never see "there is a God so I can kill" either.

Yes we do. Given, those are bad interpretations of the Bible, but it's happened and sure as Hell keeps happening. Hate crimes against homosexuality are committed every day, especially in the United States based on "The Bible tells me so". While some may not kill from it, they would have no qualms if their beaten victims die from their wounds.

You never see "there is a God, so I can kill somone" or "there is no God, so I can kill somone" .

Yet you yourself claim Mao and Stahlin did so with the justification "There is no God, so it's OK" instead of just the fact that they were just really twisted nutbags.

[jenks]

Actually many church's position is healing of people who are homosexual, while saying the homosexuality itself is sinful. Here is an article from my school:
http://www.thefalcononline.com/story/6197

It's about a pastor that came to our school, that used to be gay and gave a talk about the church and homosexuality.

Used to be gay? Ha ha ha

[Womble]

Used to be gay? Ha ha ha

What's with the "hahaha"? You think straight people can "discover being gay" but not the other way round?

[Womble]

Wasn't it Abraham or Moses or both who had one gazillion wives of all kinds of ages?

Neither. And just like in the case of shipper hannah, this statement of yours shows how much you know the subject.

Why is it that when it comes to discussing science, you need to actually know stuff, but when it comes to religion, every ignoramus and his dog fancies himself an expert?

[FallenAngelII]

What's with the "hahaha"? You think straight people can "discover being gay" but not the other way round?

You discover being gay because you were gay to begin with.

No one "used to be gay" because if they "turned straight", then they weren't gay to begin with. Maybe they deluded themselves, maybe they were just nuts. But no one "used to be gay", just like no one "used to be straight". You just discover your true sexuality.

[Womble]

You discover being gay because you were gay to begin with.

No one "used to be gay" because if they "turned straight", then they weren't gay to begin with. Maybe they deluded themselves, maybe they were just nuts. But no one "used to be gay", just like no one "used to be straight". You just discover your true sexuality.

That's a very secure unfalsifiable claim to make. Any counter-example can be dismissed by "maybe they deluded themselves or were nuts". Besides, why not extend it further? Perhaps all gay people are deluding themselves, and those of them who don't turn straight again simply persist in their delusion?

Arguments from insanity are always a double-edged sword.

[FallenAngelII]

That's a very secure unfalsifiable claim to make. Any counter-example can be dismissed by "maybe they deluded themselves or were nuts". Besides, why not extend it further? Perhaps all gay people are deluding themselves, and those of them who don't turn straight again simply persist in their delusion?

Arguments from insanity are always a double-edged sword.

You do not "turn gay". Or do you truly think I could "turn you gay" somehow? Are you so insecure in your own sexuality that you believe it not unmovable? Or do you view your sexuality as something superior? You just happen to be one of those people whose sexualities are steadfast while millions of people worldwide are so insecure they sometimes delude themselves into thinking they're gay?

Nobody "turns gay". And nobody "turns straight". And it's obvious most of these "ex-gays" are nutbags. Just take the practices of turning people "ex-gay".

Through prayer (yes, prayer cures everything!) and questionable (and sometimes homo-erotic) practices that are close to brainwashing. And then when they emerge ex-gay, they suddenly claim to be "100% heterosexual", now finding the male body vile and disgusting.

Um... yeah. Going from loving the *male genitalia* to finding it disgusting. Suuuuure.

Neither. And just like in the case of shipper hannah, this statement of yours shows how much you know the subject.

Why is it that when it comes to discussing science, you need to actually know stuff, but when it comes to religion, every ignoramus and his dog fancies himself an expert?

O RLY?

Abraham:
First wife: Sarai (Sarah) (his half-sister)
Second wife: Sarah's hand-maiden Hagar (because Sarai was infertile)

Ironically, Sarah would later bear him Isaac.

Moses:
First wife: Zipporah (Daughter of a sheppherd)
Second wife: Tharbis (Daughter of a king)

Try reading the Bible before claiming people are ignorant for knowing more than you do about it.

While I was wrong on the gazillion part, they were both bigamists.

The argument I was refuting was that the Bible encourages monogamy and that every instance of marriage in the Bible is about monogamy (an argument made by either you or An-Alteran, I don't remember who). I believe I won said argument.

"Where's your Todd now?" - Catbert

[Womble]

You do not "turn gay". Or do you truly think I could "turn you gay" somehow?

You? Nope. Hell, with an attitude like that, you're more likely to stop someone from being attracted to whatever your gender is.

Are you so insecure in your own sexuality that you believe it not unmovable?

I *know* that human sexuality is "moveable"; I've witnessed a few cases close and personal. I don't consider myself so special as to be above the normal human nature, so hypothetically speaking I probably could turn gay under some very specific circumstances.

Or do you view your sexuality as something superior? You just happen to be one of those people whose sexualities are steadfast while millions of people worldwide are so insecure they sometimes delude themselves into thinking they're gay?

No, I simply happened to not find myself in the circumstances and/or under the influences that influenced those other people's behavior the way they did.

Nobody "turns gay". And nobody "turns straight". And it's obvious most of these "ex-gays" are nutbags. Just take the practices of turning people "ex-gay".

Through prayer (yes, prayer cures everything!) and questionable (and sometimes homo-erotic) practices that are close to brainwashing. And then when they emerge ex-gay, they suddenly claim to be "100% heterosexual", now finding the male body vile and disgusting.

That be a double non-sequitur. If you find those practices objectionable, it doesn't mean they don't yield results; and even if they don't yield results, it doesn't follow that other methods wouldn't. Not to mention that the gays practice their own forms of "brainwashing". Various GLBT pride events are a textbook case of communal reinforcement.

Um... yeah. Going from loving the *male genitalia* to finding it disgusting. Suuuuure.

Yet you find going the other way round plausible?

O RLY?

Abraham:
First wife: Sarai (Sarah) (his half-sister)
Second wife: Sarah's hand-maiden Hagar (because Sarai was infertile)

Ironically, Sarah would later bear him Isaac.

Moses:
First wife: Zipporah (Daughter of a sheppherd)
Second wife: Tharbis (Daughter of a king)

Try reading the Bible before claiming people are ignorant for knowing more than you do about it.

Yes rly.

Let me requote your post which I was commenting on:

Wasn't it Abraham or Moses or both who had one gazillion wives of all kinds of ages?

Does having two wives fit the bill? Nope, not at all.

While I was wrong on the gazillion part, they were both bigamists.

You were "wrong on the gazillion part" to begin with. You had to go research and then essentially retract your claim and attempt to weasel your way out. There's a lesson to be learned for here, and do keep it in mind before making your next outlandish claim.

The argument I was refuting was that the Bible encourages monogamy and that every instance of marriage in the Bible is about monogamy (an argument made by either you or An-Alteran, I don't remember who). I believe I won said argument.

No, you haven't. You still know squat all about the Bible, and it dooms every argument you make.

I'll help you out on this one. Both marriages you are referring to were marriages made before the Sinai covenant which forbade polygamy. The covenant's laws do not apply retroactively; it would violate the basic tenets of Biblical justice. Until the Sinai revelation, the only active covenant was the Seven Laws of Noah, which prohibited extramarital adultery, but did not regulate the number of lawful spouses one could have.

Not to mention that Hagar wasn't Abraham's wife, as you have actually admitted yourself, nor was Abraham's union with Hagar sanctioned or approved by God (quite the contrary; it was explicitly NOT recognized, and Ishmael wasn't considered Abraham's rightful heir in God's eyes).

[FallenAngelII]

Yet you find going the other way round plausible?

I never said that. Nobody goes from beind disgusted by the male genitalia and gender to loving it either.

You were "wrong on the gazillion part" to begin with. You had to go research and then essentially retract your claim and attempt to weasel your way out. There's a lesson to be learned for here, and do keep it in mind before making your next outlandish claim.

I already said I was wrong about the "gazillion" part. I remembered things wrong.

The whole discussion came up because you or An-Alteran claimed the every single mention of marriage in the Bible was in the context of monogamy and that the Bible sponsors monogamy.

I, interjected and said "Didn't Moses or Abraham have a gazillion wives" as in "No it doesn't. Moses and Abraham had many wives". While I was wrong on the number of wives (I thought they had, like, 10 each or whatever. Abraham did, after all, live to be over 150), I was right on that they both had more than one, hence, the original claim that the Bible only promotes monogamy has been defeated.

I'll help you out on this one. Both marriages you are referring to were marriages made before the Sinai covenant which forbade polygamy. The covenant's laws do not apply retroactively; it would violate the basic tenets of Biblical justice. Until the Sinai revelation, the only active covenant was the Seven Laws of Noah, which prohibited extramarital adultery, but did not regulate the number of lawful spouses one could have.

Point out where exactly it states that polygamy is forbidden (as a whole - not just for the priests or certain kings).

Not to mention that Hagar wasn't Abraham's wife, as you have actually admitted yourself, nor was Abraham's union with Hagar sanctioned or approved by God (quite the contrary; it was explicitly NOT recognized, and Ishmael wasn't considered Abraham's rightful heir in God's eyes).

When did I admit to this? Hagar was taken as Abraham's second wife.

God did not disapprove or state that Ishmael was an abomination or whatever. Ishmael was just not the Promised Heir. God, however, told Hagar that her descendants (through Ishmael) would be too numerous to count and that "he would become a great Nation". So it's not like God thought Ishmael was a ******* son who should be shot.

And let's not forget about Abraham's concubine. Obviously monogamy was not in Abraham's vocabulary.

[SoulReaver]

(answers in bold)

Yes and no.
God established a design and plan for how His creation is suposed to function and most importantly how we, His creation made in His image (IE: we can reason, think, chose, and we are thus 'like' him. Not that we physically look like Him as is taught by those who are not aware of the existence of idioms in any language other than English).
We do what is "right" because that is Gods plan and design.

Therefore He cares very deeply about how we are running our lives and how we are following His plan. He designed us to function according to the plan and design- and not doing so is harmful. Like trying to hammer a nail with a screwdriver, or pry-something open with one.
You "can" do it, but it damages the screwdriver.
ie. Yes

Budhism is about clearing yourself of suffering by emptying yourself of the bonds to the material world over many lifetimrs of suffering until you achieve nirvana and puff out of existence- becoming one with the universe.
uh not really...perhaps you're mixing up with the Star Wars universe (where you become "one with the Force" or whatever the lil' green guy said)
somewhat different..

They assume a priori that suffering is brought upon you by acting in negative ways- they never define what is good and bad, they just state it a priori.
sure - nothing wrong with that btw, obviously an absolute can only be stated. your "defining" right & wrong as what God decreed is merely reiterating what God states - too bad the definitions of right & wrong vary even amongst the main monotheist religions eh ?

We believe absolute right is defined by God, and thus right" is based on God's design and "wrong" is misuse and damage to God's plan and design.
Thus it is absolute- because the designer is absolute.
So in that sense morality is relative... to God-the absolute absolute.
We have a basis for an absolute morality.

no you have a basis for a relative morality based on an absolute - though ultimately it comes to the same thing - buddhists believe in an absolute morality & you believe in a morality that depends on an absolute
then again God's absolute does tend to differ with each religion (edit> but lemme guess : yours is right & the others' are wrong...right ? :-)