Do you feel your Religion has been negatively influenced by religion?

Gathomas88 said:

None of which (going back to the original subject) changes the fact that, if one is going to claim belief in and allegiance to any particular deity or belief system, it would behoove them to follow that deity and belief system as actually intended.

Click to expand...

They are evaluating for themselves how that deity meant for them to believe, to worship him. That's the point. Their determination may be that other people were wrong and this is how God intended it, how they now believe. There is absolutely no objective evidence for how any god intended someone to worship him or her so it's all subjective and up for interpretation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gathomas88 said:

First off, I'm a member of a unified religious institution with actual leadership, and codified theological underpinnings that have been refined and developed over the course of 2000 years. On an objective basis, that is substantially different than the "every man for himself, and make it up as you go along" approach to "personal religion" Alpaca was defending.

We're a billion unified in a single cause. Not "lone voices in the wilderness."

Secondly, I don't know for a fact that mine is the true path. I have faith that it is. This was never the subject of the conversation, however, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.



Theology very much is a science (though not necessarily a 'hard' or 'physical' one). And it has presented numerous "proofs" and strong arguments over the years regarding Christian belief, and the validity thereof. Just because you are ignorant of them all, does not mean that they do not exist.

Additionally, a great many aspects of even physical science cannot be definitively proven outright. They exist as "theories" as such - i.e. things which cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but are reasoned to be true given available data and analysis.



I have no idea what you're even on about.



Yes, "objectively," I can prove that Christ and his Apostles prescribed some acts and ways of thinking as being good, while condemning others as being sinful. And yes, "objectively," I can criticize so called "Christians" who seem to want to ignore those facts, because they are, again, "objectively" failing to live up to the name.

Click to expand...

So, you got it right, and most got it wrong, because your leadership told you?? That doesn't sound reasonable and logical to me.

roguenuke said:

They are evaluating for themselves how that deity meant for them to believe, to worship him. That's the point. Their determination may be that other people were wrong and this is how God intended it, how they now believe. There is absolutely no objective evidence for how any god intended someone to worship him or her so it's all subjective and up for interpretation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

No, they're evaluating how they want to behave, and trying to twist God to their own image so he fits their desires. That is the point, and that is exactly why it's wrong.

Repeat the lie as often as you like. The fact of the matter is that Christianity is not a "subjective" religion. We have Holy Texts and thousands if years of tradition flat out telling the faithful, on an objective basis, what is expected of them.

If a person's going to try and deny those things, then they have absolutely no business trying to claim the title of "Christian" to begin with. It's a lie, nothing less.

Gathomas88 said:

No, they're evaluating how they want to behave, and trying to twist God to their own image so he fits their desires. That is the point, and that is exactly why it's wrong.

Repeat the lie as often as you like. The fact of the matter is that Christianity is not a "subjective" religion. We have Holy Texts and thousands if years of tradition flat out telling the faithful, on an objective basis, what is expected of them.

If a person's going to try and deny those things, then they have absolutely no business trying to claim the title of "Christian" to begin with. It's a lie, nothing less.

Click to expand...

Many people who re-evaluate their feelings about sins, or the Bible, or their faith, do so about things that have little to nothing to do with their actions. My own journey involved looking at the inconsistencies in science and the Bible. They didn't work. That led to further questioning about fairness and love and what I could believe of a truly kind and fair deity. I couldn't believe what was in the Bible. It had little to do with my actions or beliefs or how I live. Same sex marriage, homosexuality as a sin, divorce, are things that didn't hold up to me. I have every intention of making my marriage work, not getting divorced, but it is for me and my family and what's best for us, not because some deity says it is wrong. And I'm not gay, nor had anyone I knew at the time came out as such at that time.

You don't get to decide who gets to claim the title of Christian.

You really should stop trying to fit everyone into little boxes, stereotypes of black and white.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

roguenuke said:

Many people who re-evaluate their feelings about sins, or the Bible, or their faith, do so about things that have little to nothing to do with their actions. My own journey involved looking at the inconsistencies in science and the Bible. They didn't work. That led to further questioning about fairness and love and what I could believe of a truly kind and fair deity. I couldn't believe what was in the Bible. It had little to do with my actions or beliefs or how I live. Same sex marriage, homosexuality as a sin, divorce, are things that didn't hold up to me. I have every intention of making my marriage work, not getting divorced, but it is for me and my family and what's best for us, not because some deity says it is wrong. And I'm not gay, nor had anyone I knew at the time came out as such at that time.

Click to expand...

In other words, you didn't like the idea of having to obey the will of God, and didn't agree with it anyway, so you willfully abandoned your faith. This is fairly common amongst the fallen away. I can't say that I agree, but at least it's intellectually honest and consistent. That's not, however, what we're discussing here.

To the contrary, what we are discussing here is the coward's way out, or that of those too intellectually lazy and inept to bother with basic self-awareness. The "I don't like this, so I'm just going to pretend like God never said it," crowd.

Again, the simple fact of the matter is that such people are basically "Christians in name only." Their views and their priorities are essentially the same as your own; the same as those of any atheist or agnostic - to put themselves before God.

They simply like to cling to the empty title for its own sake. In doing so, they are effectively lying, whether to those around them, or to themselves, isn't really relevant. They are what they are.

You don't get to decide who gets to claim the title of Christian.

Click to expand...

No, but God does. Again, he has laid out what is required in no uncertain terms.

People can pretend otherwise all they like. It doesn't make their revisionism any less illegitimate.

You really should stop trying to fit everyone into little boxes, stereotypes of black and white.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, I'm not going to call it a kangaroo. I'm certainly not going to do so just for the sake of some delicate flower's "feelings," when they're only ultimately harming themselves and those around them with their blatant self-delusion.

People are judged on the basis of what they are, not what they claim to be.

Why? Because a Hell of a lot of people out there are full of ****.

If someone who willfully rejects almost every true word ever spoken by Christ or his followers wants to claim themselves a "Christian," they can go right ahead. I will not humor them in such a falsehood, however, and neither will God, if his own word is anything to go by.

blackjack50 said:

I just recently had a conversation with a friend and I noticed something. He was not really feeling like a Christian anymore. The more we talked about why, the more his reasoning shifted from a "lack of belief" or a "lack of feeling spiritual," and more towards being upset with the involvement in things like condemnation of gays and so on. And he is hardly alone.

A lot of people are feeling "alienated" by the "church." The more I got to thinking about this, the more I feel like many churches have gotten too much involved with politics. And I think this has turned members away. Personally I think the church should go hands off with politics, and my specific reasoning is that the most corrupting and violent thing a human can be involved in IS politics.

So what do you think as a religious person? Does politics corrupt religion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I appreciate that my Rabbi and his Shul are more or less completely abstemious of all politics---unless I inquire on a particular issue.

blackjack50 said:

I just recently had a conversation with a friend and I noticed something. He was not really feeling like a Christian anymore. The more we talked about why, the more his reasoning shifted from a "lack of belief" or a "lack of feeling spiritual," and more towards being upset with the involvement in things like condemnation of gays and so on. And he is hardly alone.

A lot of people are feeling "alienated" by the "church." The more I got to thinking about this, the more I feel like many churches have gotten too much involved with politics. And I think this has turned members away. Personally I think the church should go hands off with politics, and my specific reasoning is that the most corrupting and violent thing a human can be involved in IS politics.

So what do you think as a religious person? Does politics corrupt religion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I don't believe getting involved in politics is bad for the Church. I actually believe it is quite the opposite; it's healthy for the Church to have something to say about moral issues. I think the real harm has come from the alliance between the Church and a specific political party. That alliance has essentially dragged the Church into the muck of the petty partisan tribalism that dominates contemporary politics in the US. The alliance with the Republican party has also forced the Church to allow the party to define which moral stands the Church should be lobbying for. If Churches remained above the petty partisanship, they could accomplish a lot more; they could be leading on issues of: poverty, racism, injustice, peace, and the environment. Instead, the alliance with the Republican party has forced the Church to only talk about two moral isssues: abortion and homosexuality.

Hopefully the rise of Moral Mondays can help right that ship and get the Church back on the right track, and perhaps the rise of Donald Trump can help complete the split with the Republican party.

blackjack50 said:

Because religion offers up something that politicians don't like: a belief in a power and set of morals greater than their own. If you asked me to side with the United States or my religion...I would pick my religion so fast your head would spin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

This is no different from an atheist. If you asked me to side with the US or my principles, i would pick my principles so fast...The difference of course is that 70% of the voters are Christian, so that's who politicians listen to

The church gained SO many followers over the centuries and across the spectrum of geo-politics *because* it was merciless towards 'sins' like homosexuality, birth control, adultery. Now it's losing followers for the same reason, as our personal lives become more open.

I sympathize that your friend is losing faith over things that you don't see as incompatible to begin with. You may see it as "well i'm ok with gays and i'm Christian, so why can't he?" But you don't have identical experiences. The church needs to get out of politics and stop actively trying to ruin lives, whether here or Uganda or Russia, but it also needs to stop condemning gays from the pulpit. Your friend may have heard this in many churches and many locations and it's just too much. As anyone who is gay and used to endure these judgments would tell you, it makes you 2nd guess everything else you're taught

The real problem then has only to do with politics by extension. Your friend needs better examples, and how many churches actually support gay couples? A church that has had a minister continuously condemning them for decades is unlikely to stop now. People don't forget. The church will have to adjust or become like in sweden - practically nonexistent, but it will take time to gain the same followers back, and in other cases it will be impossible

Gathomas88 said:

In other words, you didn't like the idea of having to obey the will of God, and didn't agree with it anyway, so you willfully abandoned your faith. This is fairly common amongst the fallen away. I can't say that I agree, but at least it's intellectually honest and consistent. That's not, however, what we're discussing here.

To the contrary, what we are discussing here is the coward's way out, or that of those too intellectually lazy and inept to bother with basic self-awareness. The "I don't like this, so I'm just going to pretend like God never said it," crowd.

Again, the simple fact of the matter is that such people are basically "Christians in name only." Their views and their priorities are essentially the same as your own; the same as those of any atheist or agnostic - to put themselves before God.

They simply like to cling to the empty title for its own sake. In doing so, they are effectively lying, whether to those around them, or to themselves, isn't really relevant. They are what they are.



No, but God does. Again, he has laid out what is required in no uncertain terms.

People can pretend otherwise all they like. It doesn't make their revisionism any less illegitimate.



I'm sorry, but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, I'm not going to call it a kangaroo. I'm certainly not going to do so just for the sake of some delicate flower's "feelings," when they're only ultimately harming themselves and those around them with their blatant self-delusion.

People are judged on the basis of what they are, not what they claim to be.

Why? Because a Hell of a lot of people out there are full of ****.

If someone who willfully rejects almost every true word ever spoken by Christ or his followers wants to claim themselves a "Christian," they can go right ahead. I will not humor them in such a falsehood, however, and neither will God, if his own word is anything to go by.

Click to expand...

You come here not only attacking one of the nicest, most consistent people, but you also effectively call the OP's friend a fraud. Well! I won't go into the absurdity of your claim, because you're so in denial about your own conflict. You have posted before about gay friends and such and now you're here to give someone crap for not wanting to continuously hear those same people condemned and treated like dirt from a young age. Make up your own mind!

ecofarm said:

Who didn't stop reading there?

What?

Click to expand...

I learned to not finish anything he posts. Just read a line or 2 and know the rest will be redundantly (and in many other ways) worthless if you do want to tell him off

As if the OP was looking for a divisive solution to his friend's dilemma either

Gathomas88 said:

None of which (going back to the original subject) changes the fact that, if one is going to claim belief in and allegiance to any particular deity or belief system, it would behoove them to follow that deity and belief system as actually intended.

Click to expand...

They are following it the way they believe it should be followed. God did not write the Bible, neither did Jesus. This means people can read it and find fault in it for the words of Jesus followers, believe that like all humans, those followers can make mistakes, be wrong about what they believed occurred.

Gathomas88 said:

No, they're evaluating how they want to behave, and trying to twist God to their own image so he fits their desires. That is the point, and that is exactly why it's wrong.

Repeat the lie as often as you like. The fact of the matter is that Christianity is not a "subjective" religion. We have Holy Texts and thousands if years of tradition flat out telling the faithful, on an objective basis, what is expected of them.

If a person's going to try and deny those things, then they have absolutely no business trying to claim the title of "Christian" to begin with. It's a lie, nothing less.

Click to expand...

Then there are maybe a couple of hundred Christians in the world.

chromium said:

You come here not only attacking one of the nicest, most consistent people

Click to expand...

Who?

I have attacked foolish arguments.

but you also effectively call the OP's friend a fraud

Click to expand...

If acceptance of sins like homosexuality is more important to a person than God? Hell! If anything is more important to a person than God... Particularly to the point where they are willing to abandon their faith over it.

Well... A "fraud" is exactly what they are. :shrug:

Well! I won't go into the absurdity of your claim, because you're so in denial about your own conflict. You have posted before about gay friends and such and now you're here to give someone crap for not wanting to continuously hear those same people condemned and treated like dirt from a young age. Make up your own mind!

Click to expand...

I don't believe I ever said that someone could not have homosexual acquaintances. After all, one need not accept the lifestyle to be polite.

No one here has called for blind hatred of homosexuals either.

roguenuke said:

They are following it the way they believe it should be followed. God did not write the Bible, neither did Jesus. This means people can read it and find fault in it for the words of Jesus followers, believe that like all humans, those followers can make mistakes, be wrong about what they believed occurred.

Click to expand...

Seriously? The Bible and the traditions built off of it are literally all we have to go off of regarding God's word and Christ's teachings on Earth. If you're going to pretend like they're not accurate, and substitute your own beliefs instead, you're not worshiping Christ. You're basically inventing a fictional character out of thin air, tailor-built to specifically service your own needs.

Do you really not see how hollow and self-serving that is?

No, it doesn't make sense to "pick and choose" either. As you said yourself, Christ didn't write anything. His followers did. Hell! It was the Catholic Church who actually compiled, edited, and published the writings which make up the Christian Bible in the first place, in the 3rd Century A.D. They did so with Catholic teachings specifically in mind.

How on Earth are you going to accept some of that as being valid, but not all of it? After all, if some is wrong, surely the whole thing must be suspect.

Again, I'm sorry, but absolutely no part of what you're arguing here makes sense. It only even begins to be coherent if one simply assumes that all Christian teaching is intrinsically false, and therefore irrelevant - exactly what you believe - which makes your entire stance here completely useless for anyone attempting to maintain a real devotion to the religion.

I'm frankly not sure why so many atheists and generalized non-believers can't seem to overcome this basic mental block (or why they choose to wade into these conversations to begin with if they have nothing of actual value to add), but it is absurd all the same.

Dittohead not! said:

Then there are maybe a couple of hundred Christians in the world.

Click to expand...

An awful lot of them (particularly in the United States) probably aren't making it into heaven... At least not without some serious repentance and time in purgatory.

I can tell you that much.

blackjack50 said:

I just recently had a conversation with a friend and I noticed something. He was not really feeling like a Christian anymore. The more we talked about why, the more his reasoning shifted from a "lack of belief" or a "lack of feeling spiritual," and more towards being upset with the involvement in things like condemnation of gays and so on. And he is hardly alone.

A lot of people are feeling "alienated" by the "church." The more I got to thinking about this, the more I feel like many churches have gotten too much involved with politics. And I think this has turned members away. Personally I think the church should go hands off with politics, and my specific reasoning is that the most corrupting and violent thing a human can be involved in IS politics.

So what do you think as a religious person? Does politics corrupt religion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

One does not have to attend a church to be a Christian, maybe you friend should be reminded that their faith is between them and God, the church is just there for people to share in their faith and for some to learn more.

Gathomas88 said:

Who?

I have attacked foolish arguments.



If acceptance of sins like homosexuality is more important to a person than God? Hell! If anything is more important to a person than God... Particularly to the point where they are willing to abandon their faith over it.

Well... A "fraud" is exactly what they are. :shrug:



I don't believe I ever said that someone could not have homosexual acquaintances. After all, one need not accept the lifestyle to be polite.

No one here has called for blind hatred of homosexuals either.

Click to expand...

They don't believe in the same exact god or share the same interprets as you. Give it a rest man

And yes you are calling for blind hatred, but at least i can respect westboro more for their consistency when they label people with such acquaintances "fag enablers" and not real Christians. If i were in your position, i don't usually hang out with people i consider deserving of eternal torment; if i were in the position of your "acquaintances" and knew you had such disdain for me, i would have to choose between dignity and staying away from you

And because i have dignity, i can assure you that telling a gay poster on here they are a sinner who cannot possibly care about God is blind hatred

Gathomas88 said:

And the splintering of Christianity was, and continues to be, a bad thing; responsible for countless wars, and the gradual weakening of the Christian religion as a whole.

What's your point?

The fact of the matter remains, if you're abandoning Christianity because you don't like its stance on homosexuality, pre-marital sex, abortion, or etca, you obviously weren't much of a "believer" to begin with. These things have been fundamental aspects of the religion for more than 2000 years.

You would have long since past chosen to put your faith in something other than Christ, and his teachings.

Click to expand...

The problem as I see it is that Christian dogma (in particular the Fundamentalist Evangelical and Pentecostal) do not understand or follow the teachings of Jesus.

Gays - Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone Judge not lest you be Judge and the rock on which Jesus basis his teachings aka "the Golden Rule" - Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

Pre-Marital Sex Jesus has no comment ... in the OT there was no issue with men having sex outside of marriage. Most if not all of the patriarchs had concubines.

Abortion - The Bible does not forbid abortion. Jesus has nothing to say on the issue and God in fact commands abortion for women who are suspected to be pregnant by someone who is not their husband and commands the killing of babies and fetuses on numerous occasions.

chromium said:

They don't believe in the same exact god or share the same interprets as you. Give it a rest man

Click to expand...

If one is going to claim to follow the God of the Bible, it would behoove them to actually give some thought to the words he put down in that very book.

If not, then I very much think that speaks for itself. You are not worshiping God. You're making up an imaginary friend who agrees with everything you do. In doing so, you basically make yourself God.

That is incompatible with true "Christianity" for a wide number of reasons.

And yes you are calling for blind hatred, but at least i can respect westboro more for their consistency when they label people with such acquaintances "fag enablers" and not real Christians. If i were in your position, i don't usually hang out with people i consider deserving of eternal torment; if i were in the position of your "acquaintances" and knew you had such disdain for me, i would have to choose between dignity and staying away from you

And because i have dignity, i can assure you that telling a gay poster on here they are a sinner who cannot possibly care about God is blind hatred

Click to expand...

I have no idea who may or may not be bound for "eternal torment." However, if I were to avoid associating with sinners entirely, I would basically have to live alone in a hut in the mountains somewhere. Frankly, even then, I'd still be unsuccessful in the attempt, given my own company.

In any case, Christian teaching is clear. Homosexual acts, and homosexual lifestyles (though, not necessarily homosexuality as a condition), are "sinful." If you don't want to accept that, fine. Don't be a Christian. :shrug:

thinkagain said:

The problem as I see it is that Christian dogma (in particular the Fundamentalist Evangelical and Pentecostal) do not understand or follow the teachings of Jesus.

Gays - Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone Judge not lest you be Judge and the rock on which Jesus basis his teachings aka "the Golden Rule" - Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

Pre-Marital Sex Jesus has no comment ... in the OT there was no issue with men having sex outside of marriage. Most if not all of the patriarchs had concubines.

Abortion - The Bible does not forbid abortion. Jesus has nothing to say on the issue and God in fact commands abortion for women who are suspected to be pregnant by someone who is not their husband and commands the killing of babies and fetuses on numerous occasions.

Click to expand...

Jesus blatantly condemned divorce, adultery, and impurity. Pre and extra-marital sex falls pretty squarely in those same categories, and so does homosexuality. His Apostles certainly condemned them, and so did Jewish law, all of the earliest Christian religious manuals we're aware of, and the last 2000 years of Christian moral tradition.

Regarding abortion, it didn't really exist yet in a commonly practiced form (infanticide tended to be far more common, and Jews were actually somewhat unique in explicitly forbidding that). However, there is the following quote from the Old Testament.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you." - Jeremiah 1:5

And also the fact that the early Christian religious manuals I mentioned before all make explicit mention of avoiding contraceptive herbs, which was the general Christian teaching on the subject right up until the 20th Century, and continues to be the Catholic teaching even today.

blackjack50 said:

The more I got to thinking about this, the more I feel like many churches have gotten too much involved with politics. And I think this has turned members away.

Click to expand...

This isn't true. The effects of religion on politics in the U.S. is at an all-time low. The only thing that has changed is the the churches have lost the culture war and people are being more influenced by their culture than their beliefs.

Personally I think the church should go hands off with politics, and my specific reasoning is that the most corrupting and violent thing a human can be involved in IS politics.

Click to expand...

This maybe true. Focus on sorting things out internally before they bother changing things externally.

So what do you think as a religious person? Does politics corrupt religion?

Click to expand...

Definitely. Look what happened to Christianity when it became a state enforced religion under Constantine around 300 AD.

Gathomas88 said:

Jesus blatantly condemned divorce, adultery, and impurity. Pre and extra-marital sex falls pretty squarely in those same categories, and so does homosexuality. His Apostles certainly condemned them, and so did Jewish law, all of the earliest Christian religious manuals we're aware of, and the last 2000 years of Christian moral tradition.

Click to expand...

As is the case with many Christians you rely on man made dogma rather than an understanding of the teachings of Jesus.

Adultery in the OT did not apply the same to men as to women. A woman having sex outside of marriage was committing adultery. A man was only committing adultery if the woman he was having sex with was married (owned) by another man.

Women were a kind of property and so taking another mans wife was akin to stealing .. but worse.

When Jesus says

27*“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28*But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Click to expand...

If you actually study this passage you will find that the Greek words for woman also can mean wife. So in context of "Adultery" which is what Jesus is talking about ... he is saying that if you look at another man's wife with lust you are committing adultery in your heart.

Jesus has no comment on "pre marital" sex and in the days of the OT it acceptable for men.

This saves us from calling God fickle for changing his mind in relation to pre-marital sex.

Regarding abortion, it didn't really exist yet in a commonly practiced form (infanticide tended to be far more common, and Jews were actually somewhat unique in explicitly forbidding that). However, there is the following quote from the Old Testament.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you." - Jeremiah 1:5

Click to expand...

Please tell me that you can come up with something better. This passage has nothing to do with abortion and it is one of those could have many meanings, or could be allegorical, depending on the mindset of the people of that time. Putting a 20th century spin on some vague ancient passage is sketchy on a good day. The other thing I will say is that if you are going to throw out a vague and culturally (and linguistically) complicated passage and give it your own spin then you should have at least done a bit of research to back up your interpretation.

Further, God actually commands abortion for women who have are suspected of getting pregnant by a man other than their husband.

Then of course there are the large number of fetuses and babies that God ordered killed. God did not seem that concerned fetuses (or the lives of anyone who was not an Israelite and or who did not worship him)

Even of the people that worshiped YHWH - that did not guarantee "satus" in the good ol days of the OT.

And also the fact that the early Christian religious manuals I mentioned before all make explicit mention of avoiding contraceptive herbs, which was the general Christian teaching on the subject right up until the 20th Century, and continues to be the Catholic teaching even today.

Click to expand...

Early Christians were a strange an varied bunch. There were all kinds of different groups with all kinds of different beliefs.

Pauline Christians took over the Church after the temple was destroyed and the Church of Jerusalem/Judeo Christians (founded by the disciples and led by James) disappeared from the pages of history.

Paul had a bunch of strange ideas (some which contradicted Jesus) not the least of which was his puritanism. Paul never knew Jesus, did not become a Christian until after the death of Jesus, knew almost nothing about the life of Jesus (or at least he did not write anything) and was not part of the Church of Jerusalem - no close or significant contact with the disciples.

The "universal Church - Catholic" that gained power after Constantine got weirder and weirder over the centuries. The split with Orthodox came around 1000 AD. Orthodox Priests still have wives. Catholic priests had wives until the 12th century and then one day decided to go celibate.

Talk about weird nut-bars. Wives for centuries and one day go celibate.

Regardless - The Catholic Church after Constantine was evil, hideous and completely corrupt.
About as anti-Jesus/anti-Crist of an organization as one can imagine ... so forgive me if I do not give much credence for their "opinion".

Gathomas88 said:

If one is going to claim to follow the God of the Bible, it would behoove them to actually give some thought to the words he put down in that very book.

If not, then I very much think that speaks for itself. You are not worshiping God. You're making up an imaginary friend who agrees with everything you do. In doing so, you basically make yourself God.

That is incompatible with true "Christianity" for a wide number of reasons.



I have no idea who may or may not be bound for "eternal torment." However, if I were to avoid associating with sinners entirely, I would basically have to live alone in a hut in the mountains somewhere. Frankly, even then, I'd still be unsuccessful in the attempt, given my own company.

In any case, Christian teaching is clear. Homosexual acts, and homosexual lifestyles (though, not necessarily homosexuality as a condition), are "sinful." If you don't want to accept that, fine. Don't be a Christian. :shrug:

Click to expand...

No, that's Paulian teaching, and Augustine, and a whole line of assholes who weren't Jesus

All i see is someone who doesn't know the history of his own holy book, the texts that *humans* excluded, and the numerous contextual translation problems. For instance, Jews reject the Jesus claims. You reject others, like Mohammad's, but swallow whole what some council decided should be included centuries ago. That is your problem, not theirs. Others believe the gospel of Thomas should be included, or whatever.

Gathomas88 said:

Who?

I have attacked foolish arguments.



If acceptance of sins like homosexuality is more important to a person than God? Hell! If anything is more important to a person than God... Particularly to the point where they are willing to abandon their faith over it.

Well... A "fraud" is exactly what they are. :shrug:



I don't believe I ever said that someone could not have homosexual acquaintances. After all, one need not accept the lifestyle to be polite.

No one here has called for blind hatred of homosexuals either.



Seriously? The Bible and the traditions built off of it are literally all we have to go off of regarding God's word and Christ's teachings on Earth. If you're going to pretend like they're not accurate, and substitute your own beliefs instead, you're not worshiping Christ. You're basically inventing a fictional character out of thin air, tailor-built to specifically service your own needs.

Do you really not see how hollow and self-serving that is?

No, it doesn't make sense to "pick and choose" either. As you said yourself, Christ didn't write anything. His followers did. Hell! It was the Catholic Church who actually compiled, edited, and published the writings which make up the Christian Bible in the first place, in the 3rd Century A.D. They did so with Catholic teachings specifically in mind.

How on Earth are you going to accept some of that as being valid, but not all of it? After all, if some is wrong, surely the whole thing must be suspect.

Again, I'm sorry, but absolutely no part of what you're arguing here makes sense. It only even begins to be coherent if one simply assumes that all Christian teaching is intrinsically false, and therefore irrelevant - exactly what you believe - which makes your entire stance here completely useless for anyone attempting to maintain a real devotion to the religion.

I'm frankly not sure why so many atheists and generalized non-believers can't seem to overcome this basic mental block (or why they choose to wade into these conversations to begin with if they have nothing of actual value to add), but it is absurd all the same.



An awful lot of them (particularly in the United States) probably aren't making it into heaven... At least not without some serious repentance and time in purgatory.

I can tell you that much.

Click to expand...

No its not all people have to go off of. They have those words and many others, they have scientific information, and their own hearts. Only a fool follows the written words of others without caring what their heart tells them.

Gathomas88 said:

If a person feels "alienated" by their religion just because it sticks by its established teachings, that's really their problem, not a problem with the religion itself.

Too many people these days think they have the right to "pick and choose" what they want to believe. I'm sorry, but that's just not how this works.

Such people are basically holding "false idols" before God. Their true "religion" (if they can even be said to have one) is populist modern secularism, not Christianity.

Click to expand...

says the man whose faith evolved out of Judaism

thinkagain said:

you rely on man made dogma rather than an understanding of the teachings of Jesus.

Click to expand...

The entire Bible was written by men. Rejecting some parts of it on that basis, but not others, makes literally no sense whatsoever.

Adultery in the OT did not apply the same to men as to women.

Click to expand...

Prove it. Prove that this was the norm in Jesus' society, or in early Christian society.

Hell! Pre-marital sex isn't even really acceptable in more "traditional" parts of the world even today. Teen couples have actually been stoned to death over it in the Middle East and India.

Please tell me that you can come up with something better.

Click to expand...

It clearly establishes that God views "personhood" as not beginning at birth.

Putting a 20th century spin on some vague ancient passage is sketchy on a good day.

Click to expand...

As I have already established, Jewish law and Christian moral codes have prohibited abortion and contraception since the 1st Century AD at the very least.

Who is trying to put a "20th century spin" on things again?

God actually commands abortion for women who have are suspected of getting pregnant by a man other than their husband.

Click to expand...

Absolutely false.

God did not seem that concerned fetuses (or the lives of anyone who was not an Israelite and or who did not worship him)

Click to expand...

Those were lives taken in war, in the Old Testament. Not even remotely the same thing.

Pauline Christians took over the Church after the temple was destroyed and the Church of Jerusalem/Judeo Christians (founded by the disciples and led by James) disappeared from the pages of history.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. "Pauline Christianity" is Christianity. You're basically trying to reinvent history out of whole cloth here, because you dislike the actual record.

Paul had a bunch of strange ideas (some which contradicted Jesus)

Click to expand...

Only based off of your own, "20th Century," interpretation of Christ's words. I'm sorry, but that interpretation is not only factually unfounded, but blatantly clashes with the interpretations embraced by the people who actually lived with Christ himself.

Paul never knew Jesus... - no close or significant contact with the disciples.

Click to expand...

Paul knew and worked with Peter, and several of the other Apostles. They never said anything against him, or his teachings.

Catholic priests had wives until the 12th century

Click to expand...

This is just a flat-out misrepresentation. The earliest mention of Clerical celibacy in the Church goes back to the 4th Century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy_(Catholic_Church)


Married men were allowed to become clergy at that point, but they were traditionally expected to practice celibacy from that point onwards. Unmarried clerics, meanwhile, were expected to remain unmarried.

Regardless - The Catholic Church after Constantine was evil...
About as anti-Jesus/anti-Crist of an organization as one can imagine ...

Click to expand...

I think it's fairly clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. This is no different.

chromium said:

No, that's Paulian teaching, and Augustine, and a whole line of assholes who weren't Jesus

Click to expand...

Again, you people realize how little sense this whole position makes, right? :roll:

Literally everything we know about Christ has been passed down to us through the filter of people like St. Paul and St. Augustine. If you're not going to accept them, you might as well toss out everything else as well.

roguenuke said:

No its not all people have to go off of. They have those words and many others, they have scientific information, and their own hearts. Only a fool follows the written words of others without caring what their heart tells them.

Click to expand...

Are you trying to worship God, or "science" and your own "heart?" :roll:

Gathomas88 said:

If a person feels "alienated" by their religion just because it sticks by its established teachings, that's really their problem, not a problem with the religion itself.

Too many people these days think they have the right to "pick and choose" what they want to believe. I'm sorry, but that's just not how this works.

Such people are basically holding "false idols" before God. Their true "religion" (if they can even be said to have one) is populist modern secularism, not Christianity.

Click to expand...

Actually that is exactly how religion works. Everybody that belongs to one picked it out of thousands because it best suited them.

Gathomas88 said:

You would have long since past chosen to put your faith in something other than Christ, and his teachings.

Click to expand...

That is ironic, you being Catholic. The Catholic church practices many heresies.