(February 8, 2012 at 7:06 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(February 8, 2012 at 6:08 am)brotherlylove Wrote: I'm not sure why any Christian would quote Leviticus on that, because homosexuality is described as sin in the New Testament.

They usually quote Leviticus, but where in the New Testament does it actually condemn homosexuality?

There are a few. One is Rom. 1:26-27

---

(February 8, 2012 at 5:55 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: So are you're saying that if I don't believe that Jesus died to pay for my sins, and I reject the whole notion of the "Sacrificial Lamb" thing, that this is ok?

May I ask who gave you the authority to change those rules prey tell?
I personally think you have just made a highly devious and underhanded statement.
You say, "You are free to worship and follow Christ the way you are called to."
But by the mere use of the word "Christ" instead of "Jesus" you are automatically demanding the following:

1. They must believe in the God of Abraham and the fable of original sin.
2. They must believe in the prophecies of a promised messiah.
3. They must believe that the entire Old Testament is infallible truth and the word of God.
4. They must believe that Jesus was born of a virgin
5. They must believe that God spoke to a crowd from a cloud (after all if the bible contains lies why believe any of it?)
6. They must believe in Satan who tested and tempted Jesus
7. They must believe that evil spirits possess people and that Jesus can cast them out.
8. They must believe that Mary Magdalene was carrying around a load of seven evil spirits before she met Jesus.
9. They must believe that Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of God who died to pay for their sins.
10. They must believe that the only way to salvation is by condoning his crucifixion on their behalf.
11. They must believe that to not believe in Jesus is justification for eternal damnation (because John says so in these fables)
12. They must believe that only few people make it to heaven and the vast majority of souls are sent to eternal punishment (because Jesus say so in these fables)

Holy shit. This is already a dozen things that a person must believe just in order to believe that Jesus was "The Christ".
And truly this list could be made virtually as long as the entire biblical cannon because in truth you really need to believe all of it.
I'm mean if you're going to believe any of it at all you may as well believe all of it.

You say, "You are free to worship and follow Christ the way you are called to."

I say baloney. The mere fact that you use the term "Christ" reveals your treachery.

Tell people that they are free to follow the teachings of Jesus, and don't even demand that they are required to "worship" him, and you make make some progress.

But to proclaims that they must "worship" him as the "Christ" is already placing restrictions on "Freedom".

Are they "free" to believe that Jesus had nothing to do with the God of Abraham?
Are they "free" to believe that he has nothing to do with any idea of a 'sacrificial lamb of God"

If not, then basically what "Freedom" are you talking about?

There is no FREEDOM in Christianity Brotherlylove.

Freedom and the Christian God are totally incompatible concepts.

There is no freedom with the Christian God. You either swallow the dogma hook-line-and-sinker, or you don't.

There is no "middle path" in Christianity. It's all or nothing.

If you want the freedom of a "middle path" you should look into Buddhism.

The freedom I am talking about is one not dictated to someone by an institution. I am not talking about just believing whatever you want about Jesus, I am talking about the difference between being part of a body of believers, the body of Christ, which is the true church, and the denominationalism that created institutions founded on the traditions of men.

(February 8, 2012 at 6:08 am)brotherlylove Wrote: I'm not sure why any Christian would quote Leviticus on that, because homosexuality is described as sin in the New Testament.

(February 8, 2012 at 7:06 am)Zen Badger Wrote: They usually quote Leviticus, but where in the New Testament does it actually condemn homosexuality?

(February 8, 2012 at 5:55 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: It's probably somewhere in the writings by Paul. Paul was extremely nasty about dredging up crap from the Old Testament and shoving it down the throat of Jesus.

And of course Christians worship the words of Paul as if they came directly from Jesus. In fact, a lot of stuff that they claim came from Jesus actually came from Paul.

I'm absolutely certain that Jesus himself never addressed homosexuality directly. But that doesn't mean that it isn't in the New Testament somewhere. There are a lot of references to the Old Testament within the New Testament so it could easily be referred to in that kind of indirect way.

He addressed it when He said that marriage is between a man and a woman. Sex outside of marriage is fornication.

Haha, nope. That just says they had vile affections and unnatural relations. It does not even say god condemned it. Really, it all depends on the translation too.

(February 10, 2012 at 12:11 am)brotherlylove Wrote: The freedom I am talking about is one not dictated to someone by an institution. I am not talking about just believing whatever you want about Jesus, I am talking about the difference between being part of a body of believers, the body of Christ, which is the true church, and the denominationalism that created institutions founded on the traditions of men.

You appear to be very close to understanding the fundamental problem that atheists have with this religion then.

Atheists view the entire biblical cannon as precisely what you claim to not be interested in, (i.e. the denominationalism that created institutions founded on the traditions of men)

That is precisely how atheists view the scriptures. They are nothing more than traditions and superstitions created by ancient Hebrew men.

That's all they are. Period.

Religion is nothing but a "tradition of men". There's nothing but human beings behind religion, anywhere we care to look, anytime we care to look.

BTW BL, the passage you decided to mention is about idolatry, not homosexuality, try again. The author makes mention of homosexuality only because it is an assumed effect of idolatry. God "gives up" the idolaters to homosexuality, it is a punishment for idolatry, not a sin itself. Know your fucking scriptures. Even after all of this, I'm actually just giving you homosexuality, because the word used does not translate to homosexuality at all.

I bet you can't find a direct statement regarding your "marriage is between a man and a woman" bullshit either. Because it isn't in there, not even in Leviticus.....Not once, from "In the beginning" to "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

(February 8, 2012 at 6:08 am)brotherlylove Wrote: What standards did you apply?

The null hypothesis must be defeated by evidence. More extraordinary claims require commensurate evidence. My desire for something to be true doesn't make it more likely to be true, if anything, the opposite.

(February 8, 2012 at 6:08 am)brotherlylove Wrote: Psychic is not the right word to describe the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. My general criteria are being able to shape and alter events and circumstances both large and small, predict the future, know me completely, always being there, and a pure love.

I think an imaginary friend can satisfy the emotional criteria and selection bias can cover the rest. I'm willing to entertain any demonstrations of supernatural power you can arrange via the creator of the universe being inside you.

(February 8, 2012 at 6:08 am)brotherlylove Wrote: I don't expect you'll take my word for it; I pray God will have mercy on you and draw you near to Him.

Fair enough, if he exists he is more than welcome to draw me.

(February 8, 2012 at 6:08 am)brotherlylove Wrote: Satan.

I'm sorry, I can't resist: 'Isn't THAT special!'

I think you underestimate the mischief we mere humans can get up to on our own account, but I accept your view is consistent with your beliefs. So original sin isn't a sufficient curse, God also chooses to let Satan have free reign over billions of people whose primary crime is being raised in the wrong religion?

(February 8, 2012 at 6:08 am)brotherlylove Wrote: Again, even skeptical historians believe that the apostles were honestly convinced of the resurrection of Christ.

I don't think the consensus is as one-sided as you do.

(February 8, 2012 at 6:08 am)brotherlylove Wrote: Further, all but one of them were all martyred for their faith. The theory doesn't match the facts.

People will die for what they believe in. That doesn't make what they believe in true. And are you counting Judas among the martyrs, or are you counting Matthias as his 'replacement'? John is the one who died of natural causes.

(February 8, 2012 at 6:08 am)brotherlylove Wrote: You have a long way to go to prove a conspiracy.

I've never contended a conspiracy. Only a meme combined with a game of Chinese whispers where the early Christians didn't write down the Gospels for decades because they thought the Kindgom of Heaven was due any minute, and finally caught on that their movement was in trouble if they didn't write things down. Of course, lots of people had that idea and dozens of Gospels were flying around 50-100 years after the reported events. Some mistakes and exaggerations are to be expected even with the best of intentions and pious sincerity. But I don't have to prove anything. It was two thousand years ago, the books that wound up in the Bible were picked by a committee, and no one can be sure what actually happened...although it is reasonable to rule out resurrection as a likely event when pretty much any natural alternative is more plausible (like not really being dead in the first place) and nobody besides Christians writing down that the dead were walking the streets of Jerusalem, and they didn't bother to record it until 50+ years later. It's all a bit much to take seriously. It's like being a Mormon, you have to be on the inside for it to make sense. Under the circumstances, the null hypothesis stands.

(February 8, 2012 at 6:08 am)brotherlylove Wrote: I can agree with some of this, however, it doesn't follow that belief in God is a delusion, or is ruled out by, or mutually exclusive with science.

I wouldn't call belief in God (or ancestor spirits, or whatever) a delusion. It's only natural to believe what you were raised to believe and that people you trust treat as real. It's actually a problem that God isn't mutually exclusive with science. There are claims made about God that science could confirm if true. At every turn, science could have found evidence clearly supports the claims of the Bible: global flood, life forms not related to each other by heredity, young earth, universe appeared as is out of nothing, prayers to God have a higher success rate than prayers to teddy bears...this particular God doesn't seem to have evidence where evidence would be expected if it really existed per the Biblical description.

(February 8, 2012 at 6:08 am)brotherlylove Wrote: According to statistics, believers live longer, have happier and healthier lives and are less prone to depression and suicide. In any case, the changes in my life are remarkable, and happened with virtually no effort on my part. I think that is noteworthy, you are free to disagree. It's not the central point to any argument I am making.

In America, where atheists are a tiny minority, that's true. In countries with much larger populations of atheists, not so much. It's the close-knit community that benefits theists and isolation that harms atheists. I was 42 before I knowingly met my third atheist. Thanks to the internet it is easier to find each other and escape that isolation. Now I know hundreds of atheists...or more specifically, rational skeptics. I predict that subsequent studies will show our situation improving. I appreciate that you are not appealing to consequences, as in 'whoever has the best outcome has the truth.'

(February 10, 2012 at 4:06 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: The null hypothesis must be defeated by evidence. More extraordinary claims require commensurate evidence. My desire for something to be true doesn't make it more likely to be true, if anything, the opposite.

Well, it's been my experience that God is more than willing to provide that evidence. It doesn't seem like you ever got to know God personally in your Christian upbringing, that you weren't born again. Would say that is accurate?

(February 10, 2012 at 4:06 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I think an imaginary friend can satisfy the emotional criteria and selection bias can cover the rest. I'm willing to entertain any demonstrations of supernatural power you can arrange via the creator of the universe being inside you.

Many people have imaginary friends and it doesn't lead to any positive changes in their lives. You can arrange it for yourself by asking God to come into your life, to forgive you for sins and repent of them, and accepting Him as Lord and Savior.

(February 10, 2012 at 4:06 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Fair enough, if he exists he is more than welcome to draw me.

So, if knew Jesus was God you would be a Christian?

(February 10, 2012 at 4:06 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I'm sorry, I can't resist: 'Isn't THAT special!'

I think you underestimate the mischief we mere humans can get up to on our own account, but I accept your view is consistent with your beliefs. So original sin isn't a sufficient curse, God also chooses to let Satan have free reign over billions of people whose primary crime is being raised in the wrong religion?

Satan doesn't cause anyone to sin; he isn't responsible for what human beings do. He just offers them a road, but it is the person who decides to take it.

(February 10, 2012 at 4:06 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I don't think the consensus is as one-sided as you do.

People will die for what they believe in. That doesn't make what they believe in true. And are you counting Judas among the martyrs, or are you counting Matthias as his 'replacement'? John is the one who died of natural causes.

People are willing to die for what they believe in, if they believe it. If they don't actually believe it, as in your conspiracy theory, they are not going to be willing to die for it. I'm counting Matthias, yes.

(February 10, 2012 at 4:06 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I've never contended a conspiracy. Only a meme combined with a game of Chinese whispers where the early Christians didn't write down the Gospels for decades because they thought the Kindgom of Heaven was due any minute, and finally caught on that their movement was in trouble if they didn't write things down. Of course, lots of people had that idea and dozens of Gospels were flying around 50-100 years after the reported events. Some mistakes and exaggerations are to be expected even with the best of intentions and pious sincerity. But I don't have to prove anything. It was two thousand years ago, the books that wound up in the Bible were picked by a committee, and no one can be sure what actually happened...although it is reasonable to rule out resurrection as a likely event when pretty much any natural alternative is more plausible (like not really being dead in the first place) and nobody besides Christians writing down that the dead were walking the streets of Jerusalem, and they didn't bother to record it until 50+ years later. It's all a bit much to take seriously. It's like being a Mormon, you have to be on the inside for it to make sense. Under the circumstances, the null hypothesis stands.

You are contending a conspiracy when you say that the apostles didn't believe Jesus was raised from the dead. You are saying basically that they pretended He did and wrote down a bunch of lies to keep the religion going. Some dates place the gospels and epistles within 20 years of the resurrection, and who says there weren't any other writings. It's not as if our documentation from that period is complete. Historians have lost track of entire civilizations. We wouldn't have even known about the Hittite empire if it wasn't for its mention in scripture.

The church at that time was composed mostly of direct witnesses of Jesus Christ, both when He was alive and when He was resurrected. It doesn't make any sense that these people would martyr themselves for what they knew wasn't true, or that this truth couldn't easily be verified by direct witnesses. The apostles, who were in the position to know everything, died for their belief in Jesus. Either what they wrote was lies which makes no sense or they wrote what they believed is true and died for those beliefs.

(February 10, 2012 at 4:06 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I wouldn't call belief in God (or ancestor spirits, or whatever) a delusion. It's only natural to believe what you were raised to believe and that people you trust treat as real. It's actually a problem that God isn't mutually exclusive with science. There are claims made about God that science could confirm if true. At every turn, science could have found evidence clearly supports the claims of the Bible: global flood, life forms not related to each other by heredity, young earth, universe appeared as is out of nothing, prayers to God have a higher success rate than prayers to teddy bears...this particular God doesn't seem to have evidence where evidence would be expected if it really existed per the Biblical description.

Well, you have a much different perspective on the evidence than I do. I could give you 10 young earth dating methods to every one you have showing an old earth. Life having common genetics indicates a common designer, especially since the genetics show a mosaic and not a branching pattern. There is evidence for a global flood, again this is an interpretation of the evidence. Uniformitarianism vs Catastrophism.

(February 11, 2012 at 5:49 am)brotherlylove Wrote: Well, it's been my experience that God is more than willing to provide that evidence. It doesn't seem like you ever got to know God personally in your Christian upbringing, that you weren't born again. Would say that is accurate?

Oh for fuck's sake! I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your shit because you're refusing to listen to what anyone is saying, but I for one am getting sick of seeing this kind of crap. Do you realise how insulting it is that you're essentially telling people that they don't believe because they weren't doing it right?! Like you're the only person who ever got religion, so you're the only one who understands it properly?!

Get fucked. Seriously.

(February 11, 2012 at 5:49 am)brotherlylove Wrote: You can arrange it for yourself by asking God to come into your life, to forgive you for sins and repent of them, and accepting Him as Lord and Savior.

Is it just me or does this kind of attitude and behavior remind you of not just primitive human tribes but also any of the primate, especially ape, societies where there is an evolutionary and hard wired programming in the brain to respond positively and even have a longing, if it's absent, for the presence of a powerful and angry alpha male to whom you can defer all protection and guidance and be utterly submissive to?

When studying Chimps or Apes we call this ethology (The study of animal behavior) but when looking at the same type of behavior in humans it could equally be called religion.

(February 11, 2012 at 5:49 am)resident christoholic Wrote: Uniformitarianism

Here it goes a full 360 degrees. This guy really is an asshole.

(February 11, 2012 at 5:49 am)brotherlylove Wrote: Well, you have a much different perspective on the evidence than I do. I could give you 10 young earth dating methods to every one you have showing an old earth. Life having common genetics indicates a common designer, especially since the genetics show a mosaic and not a branching pattern. There is evidence for a global flood, again this is an interpretation of the evidence. Uniformitarianism vs Catastrophism.

You think that the earth is young!

It is a fact that the earth is very very old.

The vast amount of real evidence that says confirms this is unrefutable.

From the magnetised lines in the rocks of the sea to the eroded mountains in ireland, the jigsaw of the continents made by continetal drift, the raised mountains and tlted strata laid down over millions of years, the carbon dated fossils and the nuclear decay warming the earths interior, the evidence in mitochondrial DNA and it takes time for evolution to happen and we all know hat it does.

Those are just a few that I thought off in the five minutes I've been sat here.

That the earth is old seems to contradict your faith position.

Time to change your faith position.



I would like to see this young earth 'evidence' for I could do with a good laugh.

---

(February 11, 2012 at 6:21 am)Darwinian Wrote:

(February 11, 2012 at 5:49 am)brotherlylove Wrote: You can arrange it for yourself by asking God to come into your life, to forgive you for sins and repent of them, and accepting Him as Lord and Savior.

Is it just me or does this kind of attitude and behavior remind you of not just primitive human tribes but also any of the primate, especially ape, societies where there is an evolutionary and hard wired programming in the brain to respond positively and even have a longing, if it's absent, for the presence of a powerful and angry alpha male to whom you can defer all protection and guidance and be utterly submissive to?

When studying Chimps or Apes we call this ethology (The study of animal behavior) but when looking at the same type of behavior in humans it could equally be called religion.

I dont understand this desire to worship things, maybe by being led they have to use their brains less. What do you think?