I wanted to apologize as a Christian....

[Brian37]

Then you agree with my point...

Rejecting religion does not equate to rejecting God.

God deals with a person on an individual basis, it's a personal experience. Did not one of the crucified thieves go to paradise because he believed Jesus? Does that make him religious?

So, you use a religious book to justify that you're not religious?

Yep, that is like saying I use Star Wars to justify Yoda but am not into Star Wars. What story is Yoda in then if not Star Wars?

[Drich]

Then you need to argue with other Christians, you are about the only Christian I have ever heard make this argument.

I have.. for a very long time. What I found?? Can't Save the 'saved.' People love their traditions more than they love God.

But that scares the shit out of me buddy, I like having laws against things like child rape and murder and robbery.

and we have them in society. As far as Christian goes we have no laws but we do have just 2 commands. Love God with all of our being love our neighbor as our selves. In these two commands all the 'laws' are built. That said these are not rules/they don't have a minimum required effort. they are guide lines based on your own abilities and limitations. God is not holding us to standards as he did, he is telling us do our best and can judge what is and is not our best. Like the greatest command Love God with all you Heart Soul Spirit and Strength. inessence with all that you are love God. That does not require once ounce more effort than what you have to give. So many times in our religious pasts we are required to give God far more than what we have.

Huge difference. between a rule/law/set standard and our two commands. Again not new as Jesus Himself set this precedent.

I like having seat belt laws and speed limits. But if you like a no rules society great, try Somalia, it is run completely by mostly warlords with a very corrupt government.

Does being or living like a Somali warlord consistent with love your neighbor as yourself?

This is simply new word salad and the same attempt with different word arrangements I have seen before where Christians try to separate the NT from the OT, and we still have to continually point out the NT contradictions where the Jesus character DOES say he came to fill the OT laws. 

Not contradiction.. The Law is not just a list of do's and don'ts it also the rules concerning atonement, and forgiveness of sin. To complete the law is to full fill the need for sacrifice once and for all leaving a perpetual system of forgiveness behind. The law (the do's and Don't's) as Christ said remains. Even Paul identifies with the law, and expounds on what Christ teaches and he tells us the law serves one purpose now and that is to identify sin. So that people are moved to repent. But once we receive atonement, we are no longer judged by what we do or do not do. Christ judges us now based on whether or not we 'know Him." To know Him is to live and try and be like him by loving God with all that we are and our neighbors as ourselves. that's it that's all. The rest of it is 'control' of man by man. Remember the law was just more than a list of right and wrong things the law as it is referred to also includes the rules of atonement, once the final or complete measure of atonement was reached by Christ then the purpose of the law changed. As in it is not what we are measured by, but as a means to identify sin in everyone. If we have sin then we should move to atone for it though Christ once we do the law of sin no long applies to define our righteousness. Meaning our righteousness is not based on our lives but how Christ lived his.

Still does not matter to me anyway because he/daddy/skitzo at the end of the book goes right back to being a vindictive bully who throws everyone who didn't kiss his ass into eternal torture.

Here's the thing sport. you wrongfully assume all are born under God. All who live are 'seed' of God. There is a parable Jesus teaches in luke that says 'a land owner'/God had a field planted and an enemy during the night planted weeds along side the good wheat. The land owner was ask what shall we do should we pull up the weeds the land owner said no, you might also uproot the wheat. Both are to grow together and at the harvest the wheat be separated from the weeds.

Meaning we are not all of the same stock, not all are Humans with souls Some are human with what ever the devil fills bodies with.

What does this mean? "We" are the wheat... And if it helps you think of the worst of the worst. Those in whom there are no redemption. Those who came to this country, went to school made friends, made themselves apart of the culture and then flew into the world trade center. The type of person who would kill you no questions asked because of the part of the world you come from.

You've gotta get past the idea that everyone is like you or sees themselves as "good people.' Do not lament for the wicked, for they would not think twice to destroy you your kids or anyone else. Simply seek righteousness where ever it may lead. Trust that God is not going to destroy the innocent. just make sure you are not 'off sides before the ball is snapped.'

The only thing I give you credit here for doing is creating new word salad, new lipstick on a pig argument to justify the same arguments.

Actually if you care to look I've never said anything new. Jesus said these things (And yes I can give you literal book chapter and verse when and where he said them) They may sound new because the 'church' has silenced much of what Christ says.

That book was written in a very tribal time when city states ruled by kings competed for resources and back then the mortality rate was really high so back then it was far more important to be loyal to the state king you lived under, but that was also the case in polytheism too. 

Check again. The first 5 books were written under the end of a world dominating empire. and the last of it under the Roman empire. none of the conditions you describe are true.

That book is not the good book you want it to be.

I am not in a position to judge good bad or ugly here. It is simply a book/map to find God.

You want to paint me as mean or bigoted because the thought of being wrong frightens you.

I never said you are a bigot. I simply am pointing out how wrong you are concerning the religion of Christianity and how it is lived out in the bible.
I am also pointing out that there are those who can reconcile and live by it's word and not stand in contradiction with any of it. I think that stark contrast makes you think I view you harshly. I don't. I see you as a potential causality of the church. So embittered by what you know does not work you can't see the great part that does indeed work.

No, I am giving you the psychology in time frame for that time because humans didn't know any better and that is what they thought at the time as being right. That is why you see words like "lord" and "master" and "kingdom" in that book, because that is the way humans lived back then. It has no reflection of modern science nor does it reflect our far more humane western concept of pluralism. It is a tribal book written to draw the reader in to defend the tribe.

So much potential...
wasted.

For me the answer is obvious as to the reason you see the word selection you find in the bible. such as Lord master kingdom was not a concern to the first century Roman/person who lived under rome. Those are not even the terms of the roman hierarchy.

I know for you common sense told you that was a logical extension as to the nature of the bible source material... Here's the problem sport. As I pointed out the bible was not written under that hierarchy. meaning those terms in the original language mean anything. The point? if those word mean nothing to those who wrote out the bible in koine Greek.. then where did those terms come from? They came from the translators. You only have words like lord, master, kingdom because you speak English doom-as! NOT Because the bible was written with those words in it!

[Huggy Bear]

Then you agree with my point...

Rejecting religion does not equate to rejecting God.

God deals with a person on an individual basis, it's a personal experience. Did not one of the crucified thieves go to paradise because he believed Jesus? Does that make him religious?

NO, not belonging to a club does not matter to me. You like someone who goes to a church still fall for the suspension of disbelief which still requires buying before insuring quality of facts. You are religious too, you simply don't belong to an official club. 

It takes no brains to swallow a religion or God. 

Now, don't sit here and lie to me, and answer the question, is your position that of a generic god, or does this "God" come from a book with a long tradition of being printed?

You cant separate Yoda from Star Wars. You can certainly watch the movie at home sure, you don't have to watch it with others in a group. But Yoda started out because someone wrote the script. 

Now unless you have a generic god, I am betting your use of "God" comes from the traditions of Abraham, which sorry, does make you religious. "I am not like the others"..... Yes you are. Watering down a naked assertion does not separate that naked assertion from its origins. 

I

I already made It clear to you that when I speak of religion I'm speaking of the organized system, If you bothered reading the bible you see that the "religious spirit" was an evil one. Was not the religious establishment responsible for the death of Jesus?

The idea of God existed long before the bible, or Abraham for that matter, since apparently you don't realize that the book of Job (who was not a Jew) is the oldest book in the bible.

[Brian37]

NO, not belonging to a club does not matter to me. You like someone who goes to a church still fall for the suspension of disbelief which still requires buying before insuring quality of facts. You are religious too, you simply don't belong to an official club. 

It takes no brains to swallow a religion or God. 

Now, don't sit here and lie to me, and answer the question, is your position that of a generic god, or does this "God" come from a book with a long tradition of being printed?

You cant separate Yoda from Star Wars. You can certainly watch the movie at home sure, you don't have to watch it with others in a group. But Yoda started out because someone wrote the script. 

Now unless you have a generic god, I am betting your use of "God" comes from the traditions of Abraham, which sorry, does make you religious. "I am not like the others"..... Yes you are. Watering down a naked assertion does not separate that naked assertion from its origins. 

I

I already made It clear to you that when I speak of religion I'm speaking of the organized system, If you bothered reading the bible you see that the "religious spirit" was an evil one. Was not the religious establishment responsible for the death of Jesus?

The idea of God existed long before the bible, or Abraham for that matter, since apparently you don't realize that the book of Job (who was not a Jew) is the oldest book in the bible.

Nope, you not being attached to a building or following an official club doesn't matter. If you watch Star Wars at home and justify Yoda as being real, you are STILL religious. 

The other nonsense dodge we get is "I am not religious, I am spiritual". Same argument different semantics different word salad to justify a naked assertion. 

I don't care Job being a character in a book of myth does not make magic babies real nor do humans survive rigor mortis. Outside the books of Abraham there are much older religions regardless. 

Of course your bible mentions non Jews. It is a very typical tactic in world religion history for a splinter sect to incorporate old social norms and even plop in old historical characters to entice the reader into joining the new splinter sect. That is how the former polytheistic lesser god Yahweh of the Canaanites went on to become the monotheistic god of the OT and bible. The splinter sect Hebrews got tired of the polytheism, nothing more. So they stole the polytheistic Yahweh character and elevated his status to the only God. Before that successful marketing and eventual defeat of Canaanite polytheism El was the head and top God.

If you look at the history of Buddhism, you will also see in it's early mythology it too incorporates prior motifs and ideas from Hinduism which is far older.

Religions dont succeed because they are true or required, they succeed merely because enough people buy into them. Religion succeeds for the same reason any other product succeeds, marketing. 

When the earliest car companies started in America, there were thousands of competing car companies. Even Henry Ford had employees who left and went on to start their own car companies. Religion competes just like Coke and Pepsi. Coke will come out with a cherry flavored soda, Pepsi, not being one to be outdone, will create a similar product to compete.  

New religions start like this. Even the Rasta religion is a mix of African Jewish/Christianity.

[Drich]

Sorry you family had such a strict view on divorce.

But your family attitude towards divorce is a perfect example of religious Christianity and bible based.. Yes traditional religious views often times can cite certain passages.. but rarly if ever does it take all passages into consideration.

As I pointed out in Mat 19 Christ Himself added a condition or proviso for acceptable divorce. I further pointed out depending on the translation the condition of sexual unfaithfulness was also translated into marital unfaithfulness meaning not faithful to one's vows. Either way ALL translations have either one or the other conditions for divorce.

In traditional/religious based Christianity doctrine are studied and are the center of action and worship, because people don't/won't read the bible for themselves. So they follow tradition, rther than the God found in the bible. but rarly does the doctrinal view account for everything. Doctrine = power in the church. power to control and manipulate its members to fall in line with church thinking/policy. Again doctrine can be both a good and bad thing as the good is paired with the bad to give the bad legitimacy. and thus the church power.

Here is the main reason for this: The Christianity found in the bible seeks to decentralize power... Yes it seeks to keep Christianity in small groups, just look at how the bible it self is laid out after the gospel you have a couple dozen letters going to various regions speaking to individual problems each church had. Meaning each region was it's own central church structure. each region had it's own set of rules based on a given people's ablitiy to comprehend the gospel. (some had to be circumcised, and live as jews for some many year before conversion to Christianity, some could not eat meat while other church could, some had so much freedom in their church they thought it ok to have incestuous relationships. while others were so dedicated to God marriage was off the table for many of its members.) Again this stripping the church of power and putting people in direct contact with God was meant to take power from man's authority and give it all back to God.

Then religion came along with it's cherry picked rules and 'we' traded our freedoms for something easier to comprehend, even though it was far more oppressive. But the truth is still out there in print. That is why I say check all doctrine, to see if it stands up to what the bible says. to start see if the doctrine is spelled out in scripture as it is in the church liturgy. If the doctrine does not appear in the bible in one central place in the bible and has to be cherry picked using 1/2 a verse from here and 2/3 a verse from somewhere else then off the bat this is a bad/non God of the bible doctrine.

The other doctrines we must be super careful of are the 1/2 truth doctrine. You experience in church and divorce is an example of the 1/2 truth doctrine. to expose these you must either read you bible or know someone who does. because as I showed you your passage in mark is only apart of the whole message the Jesus Himself had to say. Once you incorporate all of what the bible has to say you can see it completely undermines the traditional church doctrine.

Then I ask people can you now see the beginning of the divide from religion and the picture of God the bible builds. Church says your life be damned if you married the wrong person you are forever screwed. God says he understands the level of hurt sexual betrayal can produce and does not expect us to be able to continue our role as husband or wife with that person. Which according to Christ does indeed free us to remarry. God shows mercy in the bible, but only demands in doctrine.

---

what Christian teaching has us 'bothering gays?'

Since we live under a secular government and not a theocracy, it really does not matter to me one bit your old book of myth says about divorce. Unless you are involved in the marriage, you have no say who does what. Islam also has it's views on marriage. So what.

way to move the goal posts!

first it's all "how evil Christianity is for it's views on marriage" and after I show your retarded behind it was not the bible or God.. now you don't care.

[Brian37]

Since we live under a secular government and not a theocracy, it really does not matter to me one bit your old book of myth says about divorce. Unless you are involved in the marriage, you have no say who does what. Islam also has it's views on marriage. So what.

way to move the goal posts!

first it's all "how evil Christianity is for it's views on marriage" and after I show your retarded behind it was not the bible or God.. now you don't care.

Nope sorry, it was because humans, even prior to the founding of America confused their own evolutionary empathy as being that source. What was really going on is more and more people over time got tired of religious brutality. Of course many attribute that new growing empathy to make that change. But so what? Even after the founding of America we still had religiously justified slavery, religiously justified sexism in women staying at home and not being allowed to vote, and religiously justified genocide of Native Americans.

I am not calling Christians evil FYI, if I thought you were evil I would not be talking to you. If I thought you were evil I would report you to authorities just like I would someone saying they were going to join Isis.

I am saying that religion IS NOT the root of our rights even if some what to claim it is. Do not confuse the protection of religion as being the source of our species morality. Other religions also have members as individuals whom also claim their club is the root of human rights and human morality. 

I am saying your logic sucks, nothing more.

"The founders said" yea, again, so what. If it was that important to them to give special status to Christians where all others are mere pets or house guests, they failed. Would have been very easy for Adams or Madison or Jefferson or Paine to put the words "Christian, Jesus, Bible" in either or both the First Amendment and make it an oath to some sect of Christianity in the oath of office, they did not do that. 

You have no more proof that our rights come from a Christian god than a Muslim does reading quotes from the Koran. You have no more proof that human rights come from the Torah or Talmud either. You have no proof that it comes from the writings of Buddha or out of the Vedas.

The only thing the First Amendment says is you have the right to, it makes no claims as to a deity doing anything. The oath of office backs this up, "no religious test".

[Harry Nevis]

Since we live under a secular government and not a theocracy, it really does not matter to me one bit your old book of myth says about divorce. Unless you are involved in the marriage, you have no say who does what. Islam also has it's views on marriage. So what.

way to move the goal posts!

first it's all "how evil Christianity is for it's views on marriage" and after I show your retarded behind it was not the bible or God.. now you don't care.

You showed him?! Riiight....

[Brian37]

way to move the goal posts!

first it's all "how evil Christianity is for it's views on marriage" and after I show your retarded behind it was not the bible or God.. now you don't care.

You showed him?! Riiight....

I love how theists get bent all out of shape when you don't give them special treatment. Drich wants me to give his pet claim special treatment. He doesn't get the context of having to care because bad logic when spread en mass does affect politics and global interactions between religions and even within the same  umbrella label's  sub sects. But, he so fervently believes that I care about a fictional being, nope, I don't. I am no more frightened of his God than I am the Muslim God, the same way he isn't frightened of Yoda or Darth Vader.

He showed me.

[downbeatplumb]

Am I a OT Jew?? is that what you are saying? or do you still not understand the OT law (and the bits including stoning) only pertained to OT Jews!!!

Then tear the OT out of your book.

There was an early christian sect that argued for that very thing saying that the character of the old testament god was so different from the new testament god that it could not be the same thing.
The only reason that the old testament was kept, was that the Romans had a law that to count as a religion it must be old and the Christian belief was fresh out the box, like scientology or Mormonism today. So all the old making your Mrs stay outside until you killed a dove after her period etc is still in there.

[TheoneandonlytrueGod]

You see they don't cheery pick. They are taking the bible literally, not interpreting it. I know because they have told me so. How stupid do they think I am?

Any time they quote a particular chapter and verse to counter a belief or statement you make they are "Cheery Picking". That is the end of "taking the bible literally" for fuck sake.