Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[Vincent]

Which faith? or which version of the Faith? Are you suggesting that out of the supposedly 40,000 different expressions of Christianity mine is unique? Or are you simply defaulting to the logical fallacy of sweeping generalizations?

Because in the OP (Again) I point to a very specific faith/system of belief.

That's my point. You can't just say we all don't understand Christianity and then try to teach us your interpretation so we'll be able to argue intelligently. You don't speak for the Catholics with their 1747438 saints. You don't speak for the Mormons and their friendo Joseph Smith. You don't speak for the Protestants or the Lutherans or the Presbyterians or the Baptists or any other Christian denomination. You speak only for yours. And with all the past wars and conflicts and discrimination and aggression between these guys throughout the years, I'd venture to say that the interpretations must be different enough, enough to say that your single sect of Christianity is not a stand in for the whole. 

Homosexuality is a sin, for the sake of that specific arguement. the person i was speaking to was pretending that because Jesus did not identify Homosexuality specifically that the rest of the bible did not matter, and homosexuality according to Christ was not a sin. I said ok fine lets go with homosexuality is not a sin. I pointed out Jesus still identified sexual sin as a sin... And because their wasn't a santified pretext Homosexuals could have sex they were still in sin.

Wow, so you are able to openly admit that your book condemns homosexuality as morally wrong and causes you to think of it as such. THIS kind of shit is why I disagree with the shit you believe in. 

I agree, i have said many times homosexuality is sinful, but their is/was a popular arguement that tries and mutes what the NT says about homosexuality being sinful. The point i was making was that even if you silence the NT on Homosexuality you still do not have permission, as the bible/NT still regulates who has sex with who through a santified marriage.

I don't believe in sex before marriage either, but tbh I don't think of it as sinful or morally wrong. Some people just don't want to get married.   Here is another example of a religion imposing judgment or criticism on someone's lifestyle choice. 

Again, Read the OP. My views only repersent "BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY" Meaning I only am claim to repersent those who only base what they believe only on the bible.

Adorable...  but unfortunately, a vast majority of the Christians that are on TV, in the government, that cause issues, and that i address when I voice my dislike of religion, and that i fight with, are the ones that go to Church, that listen to a Pastor or a Minister or a Priest tell them what to believe. So since those are the ones I criticize, and since you have professed that your thread's insurance policy covers only Christians who are based solely on Bible readings, then that means your accusations of my misguided bigotry aren't even really justified, since my dislike is not aimed at the "Bible-based Christians" you seek to defend (though the homosexual discrimination is still there, so in a way I do have that problem with you). You make no case for the other like 80% that I actually target. 

However, even if you are only defending the Biblical Christians, your thread and nothing you have said thus far has debunked or proven me wrong in saying that you believe in a book that presents scientific impossibilities and that can't honestly be trusted to be the 100% true word of a God it claims exists. How do you know your Bible is true? How can you prove that? That is my issue, and that issue is not being addressed in the content of this thread. I care less about the details of your book and more about you proving to me the validity of it. 

Where does the bible say we must deny evolution?

Well obviously the Bible isn't going to say "thou must deny evolution" because the idea hadn't been discovered yet. However, the entire first chapter of Genesis is not in line with evolution. At all. The only way it can be so is if you twist the words into every which metaphor you can think up. 

lol, A virgin in OT times was a young woman with hymen intact.

Ummmmmmm....... For most women, the hymen breaks when she loses her virginity. 

So two possibilities exist: One, you imply that Jesus's mother DID have sex with a human male, and was just lucky enough that her hymen didn't break. So in this case, if both parents are human, and he was naturally conceived, that means he was NOT divinely conceived, and thus why believe him to be the son of god? 

Possibility two: the hymen is in tact because she never had sex, and because artificial insemination (as far as I know) was not around at the time (and even if it was, that would just lead us back to problem #1), then that means she was a virgin in today's terms. and it is scientifically impossible for a virgin to conceive. 

But there is one more possibility, one that you might not have considered before.........
........
..........
Maybe she just told a lie. 

What if I said i could reproduce all those these feats now? To you, and some knoweledge of modern tech, you might cry foul, but what would someone who live 2000 years ago say? If we can reproduce these effects now then why would it have been 'scientifically impossible' for God to have done them then?

Because first you'd have to prove that God exists in order to make that assertion. You can't lay your claim on another unproven claim. (begging the question)

Maybe because again. you like so many others do not understand the basics of biblical Christianity. Just look at you list of objections.. They are all sterotyped nonsense that is well with in the reach of MAN today. Yet you posit them as impossible. Why? because you have never seriously given any of this any thought outside of what others have pointed out to you to think. You 'think' you know, but as I pointed out your best 'objections' so far are bunk.

It's not a stereotype if it's true. 
Has Christianity not been a leading cause of the things I mentioned? 
Yes? Then it is not a generalization. It's rested on statistics and fact. 

Every blessed one. why? because they are all FIRMLY with in the realm of reason for an open mind.

Hahahahahahhahahhhaahhahahhha.... hahaha..... haha.....ha.

Ok, Drich.

All religion has a negitive aspect, why? because at some point 'religion' is used by hart hearted men to get what they want. Understand though that With or without religion you do not eliminate hard hearted men who will maniuplate anything to get what they want. For them religion becomes a tool to serve a wicked nature. Our natures do not disappear with out God. Matter of fact they worsen.

I agree. It is used by shitty people to do shitty things. Just as science and government sometimes are. However, since we clearly are at a point in societal evolution in which we don't need a god to keep us on our best behavior, and we don't need a god to fill in gaps of scientific knowledge, then we can just toss religion out altogether, in my book. Of course, saying that won't make it true, but one can hope.

The religion, yes. Biblical Christianity no.

Let's take a little vocab lesson. 

Religion (as found in any dictionary): the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Christianity (as found in any dictionary): the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.

Biblical Christianity is a religion. Don't try to weasel your way out of denying what Christianity has been responsible for by painting your tiny, specific sect as innocent or abject from the term. The Bible by itself is not a religion. The Bible itself is nothing, just markings on paper. Everything it is and all power and influence it has is intertwined with an individual reading and believing its words to be absolute truth, and once he believes there's a God, it becomes a religion. You don't need to got to church to be a part of a religion. 

You might be able to make a case for organized or institutional religion, but do yourself the favor of admitting that you are in a religion. Denying it will get you nowhere.

It was man's understanding that the earth is only 5000 years old. because when you count the geneologies back to Adam and even include the protracted lives some of these men lived it comes out to 5000 years. So some very 'religious' person proudly proclaimed that because his understanding was such, no other understand had merrit.

How ever if you count the generations back you only come to the point where A&E were expelled from the garden and had thier first kids... Nothing in the bible says how long they were in the garden.

I did read Genesis. Adam and Eve were already established human beings when they were put in the garden. "Man and woman". The only way you can turn it into evolution is if you say that each day God took to make the Earth was longer than a 24 hour day. Kind of a cop out in my opinion, but it would slide. 

The Religion (Again religion is the work of man in the "name" of God/But absent of any biblical mandate) Yes, Biblical Christianity? No. Homosexuals are looked at as sexual sinners. If anything All sexual sinners were looked at with distain, but not until recently were sexual sinners given a pass, but homosexuals were not. Again not a biblical mandate, just something the self righteous among us (without God) have done on their own, but happen to use the 'name of God' to justify their own hate. Show me a Mandate to Hate or even 'judge' evil people let alone sinners. and I will point you back to Romans 2:1 where Paul very specifically says we are not allowed to judge/Act against EVIL People let alone sinners because we are ALL GUILTY of the Same things.

Again your ignorance here of basic biblical Christianity makes you beleve ALL Christians see themselves as being better hence the ablity to judge or hate those in unrepentant sin, when clearly this act would be in direct violation of what Paul says we are to do.

Because viewing them as sexual sinners is soooooo much better. 

Oh, my favorite! Not ALL Christians! Hey, if I'm digging through a barrel of apples, and I can only find 5-6 good ones, and all the rest are rotten, I'm not going to look up and say, "this is a good barrel." Not all of Christianity is bad, but when the percentage is so high, i really don't waste my time searching for the diamonds in the rough. 

Again, If an Evil man wants to use you as an excuse to kill, rape and murder those people in whom you have issue with, yet in no way have you ever expressed a wish for any harm to come to those people, Matter of fact you have a strict live and let live policy, is it your fault your name was used to justify this evil? If you are not at fault for the things evil men do in your name, who then is? It is the evil in those who would use your name to commit the things on their hearts. Men then wanted slaves, they used anything that would sway an arguement to keep what they wanted. Otherwise know, no where does the bible command we all have slaves.

No, but let's be honest... The Bible didn't exactly condemn it. Your guy knows all, sees all, past and future. Don't ya think he would have been smart enough to include "no slaves" up there in the 10 commandments, if he foresaw how lack of it would cause people to use the Bible as a avocation? What poor foresight your god has. Or maybe he just doesn't give a shit. 

I care less about what your book actually says (until you are prepared to prove the shit, since in my book it's all myths), and more about how it affects other people and causes them to act. And if it causes them to do so many shitty things, with so little benefit, then why keep it around? 

By the objections you've listed almost everything. You are like a car guy who changes his own oil trying to tell a guy who worked on cars for 30 years and now designs them 'you' know everything their is to know. when infact your ignorance is staggering, yet you want to claim full knoweledge. I have studied this stuff2 3 hours (sometimes 7 or 8 with you guys) a Day Almost EVERYDAY for the last 20+ years, and what I don't know can fill libaries. So i don't pretend to be in a position to claim even 1/2 the mastery you all do. and yet look at how easily your objections were just picked off one by one. Not even in a subjective way that you can really argue (not to say you wont try) Most of what you know is absolutely wrong, and I've given you the right answers according to what scripture says and what it does not.

Haha, okay. Let's pick this apart. 

I don't claim to have all knowledge, buddy. That's you. YOU and your posse think you KNOW exactly how the universe was created, when at least I will tell you that I lack understanding of that event. You think that you KNOW the nature of a God. You think that you KNOW that he exists, and you think that you KNOW all the shit written in your book is true. There is only one thing I claim to know about your God, your Bible, and your religion: there's no evidence to support any of it. There's no foundation for it's claims of jesus's divinity, of his magic powers, of his "saving mankind", outside of your book and some letters written by the same people who starred in the book. Funny, I'd figure that if there was someone walking on water or floating into the clouds, a number of everyday eye witnesses would have reported it. You have the same issue with the story of Moses parting the Red Sea, and the fact that there's no evidence that the Israelites were even in Egypt to be slaves in the first place. Jesus might have existed, his followers might have existed, but as for all the supernatural mumbo jumbo.... that seems to be remarkably kept between jesus and those followers. Do you think it matters to me how long you've been reading the Bible? I could spend 50 years examining the Harry Potter franchise and I'd be no closer to proving Harry Potter existed. 

I don't claim to know the secrets of the universe. I just know enough to reject stuff the reeks of bullshit. You might call yourself imaginative. I call you gullible.

Actually, you didn't answer any of my points about homosexual discrimination, advocating slavery, denying evolution, and fighting against women's rights. All you did was brush it off saying, "that's religion, not MY religion".

ll i needed to do to prove you wrong is show a discrepency between "religious belief" and what the bible says or does not say.

Don't care that much about what it says. Because I doubt a quarter of it is true. Once again, I care about how people use it. 

Again I am not here to argue denominational doctrines and which one is right. In the OP I state I am trying to communicate what Biblical Christians believe. Nothing more

hey, that's fine. But if you're not interested in any other discussion about Christianity, its crimes, and whether it's actually true, then you don't have grounds to say I'm wrong in what I believe about your religion.