What deism has done for the world

[DeistPaladin]

I'm pretty sure Paul or Peter said that it would be good if you didn't have sex, or why would anyone want to take a vow of chastity? If you must, do it within marriage. It's also stated that it's better to shoot your sperm in a woman than let it be wasted otherwise.

1 COR 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

Paul goes on to say that marriage is the next best option for those "who can't contain".

1 COR 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Nonetheless, in the verses before, Paul makes it clear that celibacy is a virtue preferable to marriage.

1 COR 7:7-8 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

It's a common belief among christians that masturbation is bad,

This is an interpretation of the story of Onan.

GEN 38:8-10 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

My opinion: I agree with the interpretation that this is NOT a condemnation of masturbation or non-procreative sex but rather Onan was killed for disobedience of a direct order.

I will say that the fact that so many Christians interpret this story differently is another example of how the supposed Word of God is unclear on many issues. Unlike Christian apologists, I make no claim to have the "correct" interpretation since there's no way to know what was going on in the mind of the author.

[DeistPaladin]

So, since we hear lots of folks tout how the US was founded on Christian principles, is that why slavery and the oppression of women lasted so long?

Christian principles. Yep.

Let's not forget those "contributions."

Non Stamp Collector has an excellent video on this topic. If God really did come down in the flesh, you'd think he'd have been a little more progressive and clear.

...or the NT is the product of its time and the authors were only human which is why apologists must twist themselves into knots trying to reinterpret scripture to say, "oh yes, it really said this all along."

Anyway, here's the video:

[discipulus]

In what way do you mean?

You cannot take the actions of a few adherents to a particular religion whose said actions are contrary to the tenets of said religion and hold them up and say: Aha! Got ya, this religion is evil because these particular adherents have committed said acts.

You cannot justifiably do that. For one you ignore the fact that said acts are CONTRARY to the tenets of said religion. Two, you reason incorrectly that the acts of a few are representative of the acts of all. This is fallacious.

Do you understand?

Because I think it comes down to whether or not a person can be called a Christian if he is committing such acts, or condoning them in some way. If you are saying that a person cannot be a Christian and still commit such acts, then it's the No True Scotsman fallacy. If you are saying otherwise, then we must determine where you are drawing the line. Or you may simply leave the question hanging.

The word "Christian" can be used to express several different ideas. The word does not have only one meaning.

Is that theist a True Theist?

A true theist is one who believes in the existence of God or gods. This is a generic dictionary definition. If a person calls themselves a theist and does not actually believe in the existence of God or gods, then in what way could they be said to be a theist? The term theist, it appears to me, can have only meaning. The term "Christian" however, can be used in several ways. In fact, upon referencing the term, in one dictionary, there existed roughly twelve different definitions. For our discussion suffice it to say there there are two main definitions. One, to denote someone who has confessed that they have been born of God and seeks to imitate Christ's life of selfless love and self-denial (this is how the New Testament writers used the term). Two, to denote one who affiliates themselves with the organized religion known as Christianity.

I will briefly highlight the difference in the two. If you ask a person if they are a Christian and they say yes and then proceed to ask them why they are, their answers will give you a clue as to which sense they can be called a Christian. If you were to ask me why I was a Christian, I would say that I have been born of God and that as a result of the new birth and relationship with God, I seek to live a life worthy of His Name.

If you were to ask a person you met at a particular church one day if they were a Christian and they said yes and then you asked them why and they said something like: "Well, uhh, I was raised in a Christian home, and I uhh...go to church every Sunday and pay my tithes....and uhh....I like to read the bible a lot." You can then ask them this question: "Have you been born again? If they say: "What's that? or, "Oh...goodness no! I just go to church and try to pay my tithes and stuff like that because thats how I was raised. That old stuff about being born again is just a way of saying we should try to live a certain way."

In the first instance the word Christian is used in the first sense I gave. In the second instance the word Christian is used in the second sense. So from this it is evident that sense one entails sense two (in the sense one affiliates themselves with the organized religion), but sense two does not entail sense one.

A person can be a member of a church but not be born again nor seek to live a life of Christlike love and self-denial. But if a person has been born again then they will automatically be a Christian in a sense that they are affiliated with a church.

One entails two, but two does not entail one.

The distinction is crucial Tonus and unless rightly understood will lead to much confusion.

[*Deidre*]

So, since we hear lots of folks tout how the US was founded on Christian principles, is that why slavery and the oppression of women lasted so long?

Christian principles. Yep.

Let's not forget those "contributions."

Non Stamp Collector has an excellent video on this topic. If God really did come down in the flesh, you'd think he'd have been a little more progressive and clear.

...or the NT is the product of its time and the authors were only human which is why apologists must twist themselves into knots trying to reinterpret scripture to say, "oh yes, it really said this all along."

Anyway, here's the video:

Lol Yes.

I think that at the very least, the Bible is a compilation of hearsay and fables of what one sect of people thought of, in terms of their own "interpretation" of a Deity; at the worst, it is a book that was designed to control the masses, none of it at all even being hearsay, but rather a diabolical approach to governing people by teaching them to fear a Deity.

It's just a book worth keeping around for any positive purpose. It would be more productive to analyze "To Kill a Mockingbird."

[discipulus]

That's a lot of "misinterpreting" of "scripture," wouldn't you say?

Absolutely.

Considering that the majority of US Presidents have been Christian. Some of them owning slaves, themselves. Hmmmm....

I do not know about the majority of presidents being Christian. I will take your word for it, and yes they may have owned slaves. If they did and if they used the bible to justify it they were wrong. Plain and simple.

And then there's the question of homosexuals not being permitted to marry, legally. Was the law that put into place that only one man and one woman be legally allowed to marry, ANOTHER "misinterpretation?"

Well with regards to this issue, I think the Bible is clear. From the beginning we see God's plan for marriage as that which is between a man and a woman. Jesus confirmed this and so did the apostle Paul as well as the other apostles. I.e. a monogamous heterosexual union.

And women weren't legally given the right to vote until roughly 100 years ago.
Another "misinterpretation?"

Or could it be that the Bible has been a useful tool for heterosexual white men who have been running the US, to excuse away their own immorality, bigotry and hatred?

It is a very useful tool for heterosexual white men who were bigots and immoral and hateful. It is still used today by men and women who seek to give credence to their views.

This is not in dispute. I agree with you. But this is not an argument against the inspiration of the Bible or against the existence of God. This is rather, clear cut proof that men in their depraved thinking, will use whatever they can to achieve their evil ends.

[Chad32]

I'm not sure about bringing an end to volcanoes, since they actually make the land around them quite fertile. Also I'm not sure if getting rid of all deserts would really be the best thing for the world.

[*Deidre*]

So, since we hear lots of folks tout how the US was founded on Christian principles, is that why slavery and the oppression of women lasted so long?

Christian principles. Yep.

Let's not forget those "contributions."

Non Stamp Collector has an excellent video on this topic. If God really did come down in the flesh, you'd think he'd have been a little more progressive and clear.

...or the NT is the product of its time and the authors were only human which is why apologists must twist themselves into knots trying to reinterpret scripture to say, "oh yes, it really said this all along."

Anyway, here's the video:

Lol Yes.

I think that at the very least, the Bible is a compilation of hearsay and fables of what one sect of people thought of, in terms of their own "interpretation" of a Deity; at the worst, it is a book that was designed to control the masses, none of it at all even being hearsay, but rather a diabolical approach to governing people by teaching them to fear a Deity.

It's just not a book worth keeping around for any positive purpose. It would be more productive to analyze "To Kill a Mockingbird."

[DeistPaladin]

OK, I'm done trying to have an honest discussion about religion with you because you're not discussing anything honestly. However, I can't resist setting you straight on this point:

The bible condemns lustful acts and warns that allowing lust to consume you can only ultimately end up hurting you. This is not controversial unless you feel that acting upon lust is somehow beneficial. A position I have yet to see rationally defended.

Well then, you haven't spoken with very many people on the subject, at least none outside the prudish and hypocritical circles of Christianity.

Lust itself isn't bad nor is acting on it between consenting adults necessarily bad.

True, there are bad stories you can tell about lust, ones that involve for example stalking, harassment, deception or callousness. This only means that stalking, harassment, deception or callousness are bad. The logical fallacies here are over-reliance on anecdotal evidence and assumption of correlation proving causation, a.k.a. "post hoc ergo propter hoc". In this case, the latter fallacy is expressed as, "Here are stories about lust and deception; therefore lust involves deception"

Let me personal about this. I've had what I've called "dear friends", and have since learned that the colloquial is "friends with benefits." At all times that I've indulged in casual sex or in sex with friends-but-not-a-committed-relationship, whatever you call it, I've always made sure to use protection, avoid deception and respect the rights of the other.

On one occasion, the "lustful" sex was quite therapeutic for the other. She was a divorced woman. I didn't ask the details but I gathered it was a nasty one. She was not ready for another relationship and made that clear to me. We kept in touch as friends by email for a while afterwards. She told me how I showed her such a romantic time and helped her to heal. Last I heard, she was getting married having found a better man than before. I was happy for her and wished her well.

The rules I follow in and out of the bedroom are simple:
1. Act with integrity
2. Respect the rights of others
3. Take responsibility for your actions

These are simple rules of morality. Stay within these bounds and you can lust all you like.

Rational enough for you?

[*Deidre*]

That's a lot of "misinterpreting" of "scripture," wouldn't you say?

Absolutely.

Considering that the majority of US Presidents have been Christian. Some of them owning slaves, themselves. Hmmmm....

I do not know about the majority of presidents being Christian. I will take your word for it, and yes they may have owned slaves. If they did and if they used the bible to justify it they were wrong. Plain and simple.

And then there's the question of homosexuals not being permitted to marry, legally. Was the law that put into place that only one man and one woman be legally allowed to marry, ANOTHER "misinterpretation?"

Well with regards to this issue, I think the Bible is clear. From the beginning we see God's plan for marriage as that which is between a man and a woman. Jesus confirmed this and so did the apostle Paul as well as the other apostles. I.e. a monogamous heterosexual union.

And women weren't legally given the right to vote until roughly 100 years ago.
Another "misinterpretation?"

Or could it be that the Bible has been a useful tool for heterosexual white men who have been running the US, to excuse away their own immorality, bigotry and hatred?

It is a very useful tool for heterosexual white men who were bigots and immoral and hateful. It is still used today by men and women who seek to give credence to their views.

This is not in dispute. I agree with you. But this is not an argument against the inspiration of the Bible or against the existence of God. This is rather, clear cut proof that men in their depraved thinking, will use whatever they can to achieve their evil ends.

I agree with all you say, but...you seem to defend the Bible as a book that exemplifies a moral code of conduct. The men spoken of that are held up as "Prophets" are some of the most bigoted, depraved men in history. (should they have truly existed and are not fictional characters)

If a person professes himself to be a Christian, he supports the Bible, in all of its confusion and depravity. Of course excusing it as a book that takes the moral high ground.

If God exists, he isn't the version portrayed as a petulant child as the Bible depicts. If God exists, he isn't a bigot or a racist or a misogynist. The Bible was created by men to control other men. (and women)

My opinion, fwiw. I do appreciate your respectful tone in discussing this, though. :-)

[discipulus]

Given how confusing the bible is,

Indeed, there are things in the bible that can give rise to confusion. Many things which have been studied by theologians for centuries still remain unclear. I see this as clear cut proof that men are just that.....men. We are not God and we see through a glass dimly. We are fallible. God's thoughts are not ours. His ways are not our ways. We know enough, and God has made enough clear that we know what we need to know, but that is not to say that we have, can, or will ever know it all. We have always been and always will be less than He.

and that whatever deity you guys are worshiping doesn't seem to put much effort into making things clear, it seems the bible is a very poor source of wisdom, morality, or really anything else.

Aww.....come on Chad....really? Have you actually and sincerely sat down and studied the effects that the Bible has had on humanity? There is much that can be said about the Bible. To try and do so here simply would not do it justice. But if you like, I am sure you can research the matter online.

It's not helpful in getting across what it wants to get across.

Over two billion people seem to think that it is at least in one way helpful. And that way is to point us to Jesus Christ. The Bible is not a book on social reform or climate change or anything like that. Nor does it speak specifically to many of the issues we face in the world today. However, within its pages are timeless principles that people from all ages and all nations and all races have benefited from. It tells us what is fundamentally wrong with the human race but does not stop there. It tells us that God has done something about it. It points us to Jesus. Through Jesus Christ, the individual is transformed from the inside out and in turn, becomes a bastion for social reform.

Have we not seen what happens when Christ-less ideologies are used as platforms for social reform? It ends in the degradation of the sanctity of human life ultimately. So I urge you to examine more closely the impact of Christianity on the world.

It doesn't even help people find evidence for Yahweh/Jesus, since we're 2-3000 years after people started writing it and we're still debating over and over if he's real or not.

The scripture says that when the fullness of time had come, Christ came into the world. That means He came at the perfect time. Heck! I would have loved to been there when Jesus was walking on the earth, but I do not despair over that. In fact, I rejoice, for I have Christ living in me at this very moment! So in a sense we now who live, live in a privileged age, for we live in the dispensation of grace where Christ will come and take up residence in your heart without hesitation. But you must believe He is, and the He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.

Not everyone believes Yahweh is real,

You are right.

and those that do are split amongst tens of thousands of different denominations. Some differences being minor, and some major.

The existence of Christian denominations should not be a cause for despair. It is indisputable, there are many denominations within Christianity. Catholicism and Protestantism are the two main ones and within protestantism you have Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, and Anglican. These are the main four.

The existence of the large number of denominations is primarily due to people, unsurprisingly, acting like people generally do and instead of coming together in the Spirit of love and unity, would rather break off and associate with them that are like minded.

This is the biggest testimony against Christians that I think exists in the world today. But notice what I said, it is a testimony against "Christians", not Christianity. For Christ never taught or implied that His church would be divided, and in a sense it is not. For The Church, when used as a proper noun, refers to the entire body of believers that have ever lived and will ever live. They are one in Spirit and the Lord knows whose are His.

Let it not be forgotten, that not all of these people in these various denominations are members of The Body of Christ. For there are many that are wolves in sheep's clothing and it will not be known who these are until the time comes for Christ to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I hope I have been of some help to you with what I have written.