Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history

Cosmo · November 2006

surferdude wrote:

That's a pretty old testament view of the bible.

...
There's something else that has always confused me... the explanation that the Old Testament is not to be adhered to. Aren't the Ten Commandments and the story Creation in the Old Testament? The Old Testament is where the homosexuals are killed... along with the adulterers and the people who work on the Sabbath. Why are these things discounted and why are they still part of the religion?

surferdude · November 2006

Cosmo wrote:

...
There's something else that has always confused me... the explanation that the Old Testament is not to be adhered to. Aren't the Ten Commandments and the story Creation in the Old Testament? The Old Testament is where the homosexuals are killed... along with the adulterers and the people who work on the Sabbath. Why are these things discounted and why are they still part of the religion?

Christianity from it's outset includes the new testament. There was no christian faith prior to Jesus and the new tetament pretty much starts with his birth. So I'm unclear how anyone can, when discussing christian tenets, can only refer to the old testament.

It all comes down to how the bible is interpretted though. As the Jewish faith is strictly old testament and they haven't seemed to have had the issues with homosexuality that some christians have. Given what the new testament says I'm not sure how any christian makes a big deal about homosexuality other than churches not wanting to perform gay marriages.

hippiemom · November 2006

surferdude wrote:

That's a pretty old testament view of the bible.

Every Christian church I've ever been to still reads from the old testament. It's not been disavowed by any of them, to my knowledge.

I don't have a bible handy here at work, but you don't even need the old testament for the blatant misogyny. My favorite is where Peter orders wives to submit to their husbands and compares a marriage to a master/slave relationship. Which reminds me, I forgot to mention slavery! You can keep human beings in bondage and still be a good Christian.

chopitdown · November 2006

hippiemom wrote:

Every Christian church I've ever been to still reads from the old testament. It's not been disavowed by any of them, to my knowledge.

I don't have a bible handy here at work, but you don't even need the old testament for the blatant misogyny. My favorite is where Peter orders wives to submit to their husbands and compares a marriage to a master/slave relationship. Which reminds me, I forgot to mention slavery! You can keep human beings in bondage and still be a good Christian.

the passage you are referring to says wife's submit to your husbands AND conveniently people leave out these parts of the passage...to me this is the ideal marriage. Men and women respecting each other and totally committing to each other...it's a 2 way street.

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; (this calls men to love their wife enough to die for her)
So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

And slavery...slaves were also let go every 7 years. But yes, the OT recognizes slavery

chopitdown · November 2006

Cosmo wrote:

...
There's something else that has always confused me... the explanation that the Old Testament is not to be adhered to. Aren't the Ten Commandments and the story Creation in the Old Testament? The Old Testament is where the homosexuals are killed... along with the adulterers and the people who work on the Sabbath. Why are these things discounted and why are they still part of the religion?

if you're really interested read this information on the covenants of God

http://biblia.com/jesusbible/2samuel2b.htm

it traces info on the different covenants of God.

Also, the question you're dealing with has had thousands of pages written about it, it can't poss be answered or explained sufficiently on a message board.

hippiemom · November 2006

chopitdown wrote:

the passage you are referring to says wife's submit to your husbands AND conveniently people leave out these parts of the passage...to me this is the ideal marriage. Men and women respecting each other and totally committing to each other...it's a 2 way street.

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; (this calls men to love their wife enough to die for her)
So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

And slavery...slaves were also let go every 7 years. But yes, the OT recognizes slavery

Loving someone enough to die for them, and that person submitting to your will ... that's a parent/child relationship, not one between equals. Also, the bible doesn't say to submit to your husband IF he loves you more than life itself ... you're supposed to submit anyway, and hope for the best I guess.

I agree, mutual respect, love and commitment is an ideal marriage, but that's not what the bible demands.

chopitdown · November 2006

hippiemom wrote:

Loving someone enough to die for them, and that person submitting to your will ... that's a parent/child relationship, not one between equals. Also, the bible doesn't say to submit to your husband IF he loves you more than life itself ... you're supposed to submit anyway, and hope for the best I guess.

I agree, mutual respect, love and commitment is an ideal marriage, but that's not what the bible demands.

it's not submitting to your will and whims. It's putting the other person first. And it should not be taken without the previous verse attached to it (esp if you follow greek translation...there is technically no verb in the Greek for that verse so in order for it to flow in English they had to use the verb from the previous verse about submitting to God) It means wives, respect your husbands just as you respect Christ. It's not elevating husbands to Christs level it's just showing a groundwork for respect. Again, it's not a one way street for men to boss women around...please understand that. A lot of men try to use it for that, but they are wrong.
edit: if you follow the biblical principle of marriage it is 2 people ignoring their own interests and working toward a common goal. If you love someone and are devoted to them you will make decisions out of selflessness.

hippiemom · November 2006

chopitdown wrote:

it's not submitting to your will and whims. It's putting the other person first. And it should not be taken without the previous verse attached to it (esp if you follow greek translation...there is technically no verb in the Greek for that verse so in order for it to flow in English they had to use the verb from the previous verse about submitting to God) It means wives, respect your husbands just as you respect Christ. It's not elevating husbands to Christs level it's just showing a groundwork for respect. Again, it's not a one way street for men to boss women around...please understand that. A lot of men try to use it for that, but they are wrong.
edit: if you follow the biblical principle of marriage it is 2 people ignoring their own interests and working toward a common goal. If you love someone and are devoted to them you will make decisions out of selflessness.

I just find it to be an interesting choice of words ... husbands love your wives, wives submit to your husbands. Nowhere does it turn it around and demand wives to love, or husbands to submit. Added to the passages such as "the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church," and the admonitions against women speaking in church, etc., it seems clear to me that an egalitarian society is not exactly what they have in mind.

chopitdown · November 2006

hippiemom wrote:

I just find it to be an interesting choice of words ... husbands love your wives, wives submit to your husbands. Nowhere does it turn it around and demand wives to love, or husbands to submit. Added to the passages such as "the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church," and the admonitions against women speaking in church, etc., it seems clear to me that an egalitarian society is not exactly what they have in mind.

it is an interesting choice of words. It prob would be better to say respect or something else. Sometimes in tranlsations we don't have words to capture the original intent of the other language. Take love, greek has a many words for love, we have one. take hate, again sometimes it means to despise other times it means to love less.

Also, some passages do say women shouldn't speak in churches, but if memory serves, those were in churches where the women were not following God's will and were corrupting the church so it was more prescriptive to that church. Taht's the hard thing about the bible; it's difficult to study.

Cosmo · November 2006

chopitdown wrote:

if you're really interested read this information on the covenants of God

http://biblia.com/jesusbible/2samuel2b.htm

it traces info on the different covenants of God.

Also, the question you're dealing with has had thousands of pages written about it, it can't poss be answered or explained sufficiently on a message board.

...
Oh... I have talked to people in great length about Christianity, the Bible, The Church and so on... I am told that my questions won't be answered in an hour or two or in a week, month or year... or even in my lifetime. This, coming from many sources, including priests.
I figured... if these guys can't answer me... I'm going to have to figure it all out myself. They don't know the answers... no one knows. So, why bother asking them?

cornnifer · November 2006

hippiemom wrote:

There are some things you just can't get around in the bible. The misogyny is palpable. Children are treated badly. Homosexuality is an "abomination." You could treat your wife as though you owned her, beat your children, and be opposed to any type of gay rights, and still be quite a fine Christian, according to the bible.

.

And its very convienient that you apparently don't really have to do shit to be "quite a fine" Atheist.

The only real requirements seem to be blaming the worlds ills on religion while bitching about the pledge of allegiance and slogans on U.S. currency.

surferdude · November 2006

Cosmo wrote:

... no one knows. So, why bother asking them?

Do you adopt this same attitude when critically assessing science?
String theory or Quantum physics? The best and brightest don't know so why bother asking.

hippiemom · November 2006

cornnifer wrote:

And its very convienient that you apparently don't really have to do shit to be "quite a fine" Atheist.

The only real requirements seem to be blaming the worlds ills on religion while bitching about the pledge of allegiance and slogans on U.S. currency.

No, the only "requirement" is that you don't believe in god. I can't really call it a requirement though, since there's no organization or authority to require anything. Who would codify the requirements?

Cosmo · November 2006

surferdude wrote:

Do you adopt this same attitude when critically assessing science?
String theory or Quantum physics? The best and brightest don't know so why bother asking.

...
But, at least Science provides me answers on that specfic subject. I may not possess the mental capacities to fully understand them... still, the answers are given to me.
....
And Thanx for showing your true Christian Fellowship. Attitudes like yours and Cornifer only point out that my criticisms of Christians are valid.

hippiemom · November 2006

surferdude wrote:

Do you adopt this same attitude when critically assessing science?
String theory or Quantum physics? The best and brightest don't know so why bother asking.

Ah, but they're working on it!

angelica · November 2006

Cosmo wrote:

...
And Thanx for showing your true Christian Fellowship. Attitudes like yours and Cornifer only point out that my criticisms of Christians are valid.

If you're expecting people in any group or in any walk of life, or with any kind of religious affiliation to not be human and fallible, you will be disappointed.

It doesn't seem fair to set someone up to an expectation of being more than their human nature allows, and then to put the accountability for their "failure" on them. If you are looking for anything here, it would seem you are looking to see the results of your self-fulfilling prophecy.

Cosmo · November 2006

angelica wrote:

If you're expecting people in any group or in any walk of life, or with any kind of religious affiliation to not be human and fallible, you will be disappointed.

It doesn't seem fair to set someone up to an expectation of being more than their human nature allows, and then to put the accountability for their "failure" on them. If you are looking for anything here, it would seem you are looking to see the results of your self-fulfilling prophecy.

...
Not true.
I really want to find out truths... telling me, "Because the Bible says so" is not the truth. Especially when the ones telling me this can't even explain to me why we're supposed to live by certain rules and discard others. I know God didn't write the Bible... Men did. What makes these men any different from any others? Why doesn't God speak to any of us anymore? I mean, the homeless guy who lives in the streets in Fairfax claims God talks to him... how do we really know He isn't?
and I have tried Christianity a couple of times... as a kid and a teen and a young adult and even as recent as 2001... no one has the time to explain anything... yet, they claim to know the Truth. I am told that they can't explain it... what kind of answer is that? You know it, but you cannot tell me? It's because you don't know... just say, "I don't know"... that would be a truth.
Finally... I run into that pompous attitude by other 'Christians'... just like the ones I run into in here. That is the stereotypical Christian that is created when people claiming to be Christians act in that predictible, stereo-typical manner. If they want people like me to quit seeing them in that light... maybe they should quit acting like that.
...
That's not to say ALL Christians are like that. You and guys like HailHailKC have been very thoughtful and caring... things one would come to expect from people claiming to be followers of the teachings of Jesus Christ. My former neighbor... a great guy. We'd talk for hours and he was honest with me and answered what he could and admitted that he didn't know if Christianity was the only way... it was just the way he had chosen.
That's all i expect. Don't bullshit me with all this great stuff about religion when you're acting like a dick.
And I have a lot of Jewish friends. None of them have ever said anything about going to Hell for not doing this or that. They don't try to convince me of the virtues of their religion... it's theirs and they seem happy with it. So, i'm not going into religion looking and expecting it to fail... I am looking for it to just give me some truths.
Again... the greatest thing I have witnessed, regarding religion, was the Amish after those girls were molested then murdered. I stood in awe of them. If anyone... I'm guessing God and Jesus were, too.

surferdude · November 2006

Cosmo wrote:

...And Thanx for showing your true Christian Fellowship. Attitudes like yours and Cornifer only point out that my criticisms of Christians are valid.

I'm not sure where you cop this attitude from. But if it makes you day and makes you feel better about yourself then so be it. I think your true colors when you take offense at Christians as a whole rather than as individuals. If you adopted this same attitude by race, well, I'm sure you know what that would make you.

Cosmo · November 2006

surferdude wrote:

I'm not sure where you cop this attitude from. But if it makes you day and makes you feel better about yourself then so be it. I think your true colors when you take offense at Christians as a whole rather than as individuals. If you adopted this same attitude by race, well, I'm sure you know what that would make you.

...
You're right... you are not a good representative of Christians. If you act like a dick... you're a dick.
...
Reference note listed below.

cornnifer · November 2006

Cosmo wrote:

...
....
And Thanx for showing your true Christian Fellowship. Attitudes like yours and Cornifer only point out that my criticisms of Christians are valid.

There's nothing wrong with my attitude. All i've done is challenge your foolish little "Christians are the source of the worlds evil" theory. If you don't want to be challenged there's always the ignore function.

By the way, if i'm "boring", and you aren't "talking TO me" anymore, i'd appreciate you not talking about me. Thats just weak. Thanks.

Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history

Comments

Categories