Two babies discussion.

[vorlon13]

Funny you brought up divorce there, Lek. Seems a small minority of protestant franchises are even aware of Mark 10:11, let alone enforce it.

[Esquilax]

Does the bible say that it's okay for me to have slaves, commit genocide, or have more than one wife?

It explicitly commands the first two, and it's the same god in both the new and old testament. In fact, Jesus is that god too, so when you say you're a follower of Christ, you're saying you're a follower of a genocidal, slavery advocating, rape marriage law making, psychopath. You just think he got better because now he only allows for some of the atrocities, and sees fit to torture people after they die. It's sort of like following Hitler because he says he's cool now, in full knowledge of the torture basement he's built under his house, because he only tortures people some of the time, and told you not to mention the concentration camps at all. Only, you know, worse, because god's body count is higher and more indiscriminate.

Christian was a name given to the very early followers of Christ after Jesus had departed the earth. They were first called by that name in Antioch by nonbelievers in Paul's time, and the name stuck. It simply refers to followers of Christ. That's what a christian is and that's how I define christianity. I don't follow the old testament law and I don't derive my morality from old testament figures.

Still the same god, Lek. Still the same guy, whether you choose to forget the old testament out of convenience or not. Moreover, Jesus was no saint: he said that none of the old testament laws would change, remember? Or that slaves should obey their masters, no matter how cruel? Or that only the Israelites would be saved, the rest would burn in hell? The hell that only begins to appear in Jesus' teachings and not the old testament?

You don't follow Jesus either. You follow a sanitized, lionized caricature of him, defining him only by his good words, and ignoring the evil ones entirely. And worse, you then argue as though everyone else is obligated to assume your shiny, half-truth version of your religion when they argue.

But I'm not required to lie to myself when I discuss christianity just because you do, and I can't imagine why you would seriously ask me to.

[Lek]

Funny you brought up divorce there, Lek. Seems a small minority of protestant franchises are even aware of Mark 10:11, let alone enforce it.

I'm afraid you're right Vorion.

[vorlon13]

Funny you brought up divorce there, Lek. Seems a small minority of protestant franchises are even aware of Mark 10:11, let alone enforce it.

I'm afraid you're right Vorion.

Can a schism of Christianity that is lax on divorce/remarriage transmit Salvation to any of their adherents ??

[Lek]

It explicitly commands the first two, and it's the same god in both the new and old testament. In fact, Jesus is that god too, so when you say you're a follower of Christ, you're saying you're a follower of a genocidal, slavery advocating, rape marriage law making, psychopath. You just think he got better because now he only allows for some of the atrocities, and sees fit to torture people after they die. It's sort of like following Hitler because he says he's cool now, in full knowledge of the torture basement he's built under his house, because he only tortures people some of the time, and told you not to mention the concentration camps at all. Only, you know, worse, because god's body count is higher and more indiscriminate.


Still the same god, Lek. Still the same guy, whether you choose to forget the old testament out of convenience or not. Moreover, Jesus was no saint: he said that none of the old testament laws would change, remember? Or that slaves should obey their masters, no matter how cruel? Or that only the Israelites would be saved, the rest would burn in hell? The hell that only begins to appear in Jesus' teachings and not the old testament?

You don't follow Jesus either. You follow a sanitized, lionized caricature of him, defining him only by his good words, and ignoring the evil ones entirely. And worse, you then argue as though everyone else is obligated to assume your shiny, half-truth version of your religion when they argue.

But I'm not required to lie to myself when I discuss christianity just because you do, and I can't imagine why you would seriously ask me to.

Jesus did say that not one iota of the law was changed, but he fulfilled the requirements of the law and relieved us of living under it. The new testament was a new covenant with mankind. Muslims think they are still living under the old covenant, which explains their religious outlook. They don't accept what Jesus did for us. They still have the mindset of the pre-Christ world.

---

I'm afraid you're right Vorion.

Can a schism of Christianity that is lax on divorce/remarriage transmit Salvation to any of their adherents ??

Only Christ can transmit salvation. Acceptance of divorce is a sin, but doesn't represent a schism.

[vorlon13]

Lek posted:

Jesus did say that not one iota of the law was changed, but he fulfilled the requirements of the law and relieved us of living under it.



Is this a fair analogy:

speeding remains illegal, so you still shouldn't do it, for example, but if you do, Jesus pays the ticket ?

[Mudhammam]

Lek posted:

Jesus did say that not one iota of the law was changed, but he fulfilled the requirements of the law and relieved us of living under it.



Is this a fair analogy:

speeding remains illegal, so you still shouldn't do it, for example, but if you do, Jesus pays the ticket ?

No, it means speeding is illegal but each person gets to determine the limit for everyone else.

[Esquilax]

Jesus did say that not one iota of the law was changed, but he fulfilled the requirements of the law and relieved us of living under it. The new testament was a new covenant with mankind. Muslims think they are still living under the old covenant, which explains their religious outlook. They don't accept what Jesus did for us. They still have the mindset of the pre-Christ world.

Which is all very convenient, but again, do you have any actual evidence that the biblical authors meant that what they wrote be taken in a way that's precisely opposite to what the words mean?

[rexbeccarox]

Funny you brought up divorce there, Lek. Seems a small minority of protestant franchises are even aware of Mark 10:11, let alone enforce it.

I'm afraid you're right Vorion.

So does that small minority contain the only possible True Christians?

[robvalue]

If a book is perfect, one attribute of being perfect would be the inability to cause any misunderstandings.

I don't think any book has caused more misunderstandings in recent history. And, you know, the violence and hatred that goes along with it.

If rent-a-God wants to talk to someone, he needs to man up and talk to them directly in such a way that they can't misinterpret it.

But even then, we have a problem. How can you possibly distinguish someone who has been given instructions by God to someone who is experiencing mental illness? You can't, unless God talks to everyone. So he needs to start doing that.

Or he could just stop being such an absolute dick and fix all the blatantly obvious problems with his "creation".

Or preferably, and more rationally, no one created this dung heap, we have perfectly satisfactory scientific explanations which do not need an extra unfounded assumption about some fictional contradictory character somehow jumping off the pages of a magic book "because".