(March 27, 2013 at 6:33 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(March 27, 2013 at 5:18 pm)John V Wrote: What greater liberty and fulfillment have you since found? Personally I can't think of anything I want to do which I can't due to Christianity.

Of course not. You interpret Christianity so that it suits your wants and desires, like most of your co-religionists.

Just like you do too...

(March 27, 2013 at 2:20 pm)Drich Wrote: \

Quote:That's not what it means at all, not even close. That verse was specifically addressing prophecy, which you would know if you had read the verse that preceeded it:

1 Thes 5:20
Do not treat prophecies with contempt

That verse is not asking you to question your faith. But, as a fellow human being, I am.

Ah, no. Nice try at an contextual exegesis though. Here's a tip when trying to build a contextual exegesis one must take a broader swath of scripture than just a glimps of one verse before the verse in question for example The NKJV identifies and groups the following verses together:

There is your problem right there. You make the very common error of assuming that the King James Version of the bible has most effectively sorted out the information in translation.

Quite the opposite is true, however, and many other examples could be provided.

Most translations agree that verses 20 and 21 were meant to convey a single thought, which is that prophets should be heard and received, but also questioned in order to verify the truth of what they are saying.

These two verse have most often been translated without a period between them, or by using of a comma or semi-colon, proving that most translators agree that a single thought is meant to be conveyed.

And your explanation makes no sense on any level, and you will find little or no credible support for your position that this verse actually calls for Christians to question their very faith.

You obviously need to brush up on the historical context of Paul's letters and the issues he was dealing with. He admonished the Corinthians regarding the same issue:

Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 1 Cor 14:29

So, while you are correct in your assertion that Paul is giving various instructions, you are wrong to have assumed a subject break between verses 20 and 21.

Quote:As you can see there is not one aspect of what i believe that has not been tested by me, and again by people like you everyday for the last 6 years. what you have asked and are learning to do now for yourself is an old hat that I wear comfortably.

I'm sure I don't know what you mean by this. What exactly is it that I'm doing that you, yourself, are so familiar with?

(March 27, 2013 at 6:33 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Of course not. You interpret Christianity so that it suits your wants and desires, like most of your co-religionists.

I don't want or desire anyone to suffer eternal punishment, but that's how I interpret the Bible.

(March 27, 2013 at 4:52 pm)JesusHChrist Wrote: So there is nothing inherently immoral about genocide?

Noope.

Quote: From what you are saying there is at least one circumstance where genocide, baby-killing and what not are OK?

yuuup.

---

(March 27, 2013 at 6:41 pm)smax Wrote:

(March 27, 2013 at 2:20 pm)Drich Wrote: \

Ah, no. Nice try at an contextual exegesis though. Here's a tip when trying to build a contextual exegesis one must take a broader swath of scripture than just a glimps of one verse before the verse in question for example The NKJV identifies and groups the following verses together:

There is your problem right there. You make the very common error of assuming that the King James Version of the bible has most effectively sorted out the information in translation.

Quite the opposite is true, however, and many other examples could be provided.

Most translations agree that verses 20 and 21 were meant to convey a single thought, which is that prophets should be heard and received, but also questioned in order to verify the truth of what they are saying.

These two verse have most often been translated without a period between them, or by using of a comma or semi-colon, proving that most translators agree that a single thought is meant to be conveyed.

And your explanation makes no sense on any level, and you will find little or no credible support for your position that this verse actually calls for Christians to question their very faith.

You obviously need to brush up on the historical context of Paul's letters and the issues he was dealing with. He admonished the Corinthians regarding the same issue:

Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 1 Cor 14:29

So, while you are correct in your assertion that Paul is giving various instructions, you are wrong to have assumed a subject break between verses 20 and 21.

Quote:As you can see there is not one aspect of what i believe that has not been tested by me, and again by people like you everyday for the last 6 years. what you have asked and are learning to do now for yourself is an old hat that I wear comfortably.

I'm sure I don't know what you mean by this. What exactly is it that I'm doing that you, yourself, are so familiar with?

Before i proceed with following this red herring do you conceed the rest of the arguement?

(March 27, 2013 at 7:07 pm)John V Wrote:

(March 27, 2013 at 6:33 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Of course not. You interpret Christianity so that it suits your wants and desires, like most of your co-religionists.

I don't want or desire anyone to suffer eternal punishment, but that's how I interpret the Bible.

You perhaps don't have any active desire to see it happen to people, but perhaps you also aren't very bothered by the idea that your god inflicts it on people.

You don't want or desire it. I find it repulsive and I won't accept a dogma which insists that a god who does something like this on purpose is a good god.

(March 27, 2013 at 5:18 pm)John V Wrote: What greater liberty and fulfillment have you since found? Personally I can't think of anything I want to do which I can't due to Christianity.

I have Christian friends, who live their lives with very little regard for the Bible and it's decrees.

As a result, they are happy, filled with a sense of liberty, and aren't constantly struggling with social and personal dilemmas.

These people aren't concerned about having Christian values forced on others in public schools and in other institutions of government. They don't judge other people's lifestyles or prefrences, and they don't feel other people are inferior to them.

To answer your question, I wasn't that type of Christian. I always felt that I should be fully in it or fully out.

---

(March 27, 2013 at 8:06 am)Tonus Wrote:

(March 27, 2013 at 7:19 am)smax Wrote: Now, of course, Christians will counter that by saying, “God must leave plenty of room for faith”. There are, however, two fundamental problems with that perspective:

I think it's more like:

(a) It's illogical.

(b) It's stupid.

Stronger points to be sure, but not points that actually appeal to people of faith.

That's what I was trying to accomplish.

(March 27, 2013 at 6:34 pm)catfish Wrote:

(March 27, 2013 at 6:33 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Of course not. You interpret Christianity so that it suits your wants and desires, like most of your co-religionists.

Just like you do too...

Catfish, try to take it in context: everyone interprets christianity the way they want to. The only difference is, doing so from an atheist perspective is more intellectually honest because we're the only ones not taking the words we're interpreting as binding declarations. Disagreeing with your personal interpretation is not the same as having some untenable bias or nonfunctional interpretation ourselves.

If anything, the person advocating that a book be read according to the words written in it is doing what one should.

(March 27, 2013 at 10:45 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 27, 2013 at 6:34 pm)catfish Wrote: Just like you do too...

Catfish, try to take it in context: everyone interprets christianity the way they want to. The only difference is, doing so from an atheist perspective is more intellectually honest because we're the only ones not taking the words we're interpreting as binding declarations. Disagreeing with your personal interpretation is not the same as having some untenable bias or nonfunctional interpretation ourselves.

If anything, the person advocating that a book be read according to the words written in it is doing what one should.

That was some of the most sanctimonious self-serving crap I've ever heard. Let me guess, you have an "objective" opinion, don't you?
.

(March 27, 2013 at 11:21 pm)catfish Wrote: That was some of the most sanctimonious self-serving crap I've ever heard. Let me guess, you have an "objective" opinion, don't you?
.

How surprising, contemptuous mocking in place of an actual argument.At least you're consistent.

Hey, I know! Why don't you deliberately misrepresent what I said and accuse me of thinking the bible is a fish! I bet that'll make you look so smart, dude. So smart.

Quote:The only difference is, doing so from an atheist perspective is more intellectually honest because we're the only ones not taking the words we're interpreting as binding declarations.

Really man, I wanna see you type it out because I know it's what you think.

"I, (state your name), have a more logical mind because I have an objective opinion."