Christianity, the religion of Death, Rape, Slavery and Murder in it's own words.

[Bob Hubbard]

ok, my misunderstanding of your intents.
Apologies.

 

[Tez3]

I think the problem is that unlike Judaism, for Christians the OT has stayed the same. There has been no updating of the laws, no molding the laws to fit the times, no discussions over what the laws mean for us so the Christians remain using the millenia old laws.

One question though, why can no one spell Sikh properly?

 

[Jenna]

This is stupid. I do not understand the point of these threads. Any numpty can extract verses from any holy text and cite it in a complete contextual vacuum. this is exactly what cults, sects and fundamentalists do. To do so is backward and uneducated. Who here practices a martial art the way it was originally conceived, to kill and maim???

The various holy texts are historical documents. It is up to us to interpret them with common sense and moderation.

EVERYTHING ELSE HERE IS JUST FORUM STATIC

 

[Tez3]

This is stupid. I do not understand the point of these threads. Any numpty can extract verses from any holy text and cite it in a complete contextual vacuum. this is exactly what cults, sects and fundamentalists do. To do so is backward and uneducated. Who here practices a martial art the way it was originally conceived, to kill and maim???

The various holy texts are historical documents. It is up to us to interpret them with common sense and moderation.











EVERYTHING ELSE HERE IS JUST FORUM STATIC

Er, actually I do! So does our club and quite a few others I know of.

 

[Jenna]

Er, actually I do! So does our club and quite a few others I know of.

I am seeking no argument with you and but you have killed and maimed in your martial art? Surely you take your martial art as it was designed to kill and maim and you moderate it because you live in 2011 no?

Holy texts are reliant upon contextual historical interpretation.

 

[cdunn]

The various holy texts are historical documents. It is up to us to interpret them with common sense and moderation.

This, vs sola scriptura, which demands the abandonment of tradition, is one of the major schisms in the various christian churches. So, there really are a LOT of "True Christians" who read their book this way.

 

[Jenna]

This, vs sola scriptura, which demands the abandonment of tradition, is one of the major schisms in the various christian churches. So, there really are a LOT of "True Christians" who read their book this way.

Yes, the bible is one of those texts which demands a literal interpretation and but *within certain constraints*. Unfortunately there are many who follow its writings (and similarly for other religions) without any points of reference whatsoever, feeling at liberty to extract and utilise chapter and verse as weapons to win their own capricious personal and global wars. Nevertheless, these holy texts are documents constructed in a time that, though it was in many ways similar, is in many others vastly different to today. The prophets from all religious traditions accepted and based their teachings around the concept of freewill, It is in the end unfortunate in my opinion that this choice is left to the individual adherent or group or sect to contextualise and moderate the teachings (or not!) in line with how the world has changed since the inception of those teachings.

Divine words are not solely, as some seem to think, didactics for how to live and but also lessons form history describing the human horrors of past civilisations. We often have to meditate upon our human errors before we can subsequently live according to the core concepts of our various religions. Again, unfortunately these core concepts are missed by the uneducated reader of the holy texts who extracts a passage in order to wage their own war (which can be anything from simple pompous piety through hatred to war itself).

Anyway, I think I am merely assisting here in generating more internet forum static. And for that I apologise. There is enough hot air already in this forum to fly my hot air balloon to the moon. Whereupon I will set up my own colony

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I spent 3 of my 4 years in High School as a member of the bible study club. Was top student several years in my Sunday School (got the autographed prayer book to prove it too, ). I've spent significant time reading holy books from all the major faiths, several 'dead' ones, and several 'minor' faiths as well. I don't consider myself a 'scholar', but do consider myself 'versed'. I've had at least 1 pastor complain I knew the Bible better than most of his congregation.

I don't disagree with you Jenna. If one looks at the Bible as a guide one can cherry pick. However if one looks at it as law, one cannot. My arguments on all these books is that the documents were written about 2,000 years ago, in a different time, under different political and social and geographical conditions. Putting them into context, they are all outdated, obsolete and out of touch. This thread was started because a member made a claim. Actually, over the last few years a few members made the same or similar claims. All this does is disprove those claims.

If you are a Christian, a Follower of Christ, then as he reportedly said, all of the OT laws are in force.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)3b)

“...the scripture cannot be broken.” -- John 10:35

That reads as in don't cherry pick, follow all of it.

So, those following Christ who make claims like "The Bible claims homosexuality is a sin, but we can eat shrimp now because Jesus voided that rule" are simply put, wrong.

A person can make the decision to live by modern social standards, and drop the parts that are obviously outdated (like taking a paddle and pooping 25' outside of town), but a strict read says you still need to do that because it's always (at least according to Matthew) going to be the law.


All religions fail when tested against logic and reason.

 

[Twin Fist]

s'alright bro

ok, my misunderstanding of your intents.
Apologies.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I can spend the next week debunking Christianity. Disproving the existence of key people, pointing out the hundreds of contradictions in the Bible.

Know what?

Don't mean squat. Faith isn't based on 'Fact', but belief.
Science tells me that this quartz crystal is a rock, useful in a radio. Faith tells me it has 'healing energy'. I can say "Jesus never existed, all evidence is false", and you reply "But I believe", and I can't fight that. And, I don't want to. It's -never- my intent to 'convert' or 'steal away' anyone. Because, despite my, 'disagreement' with most religions, they still serve purpose, and everyone needs something to believe in, to take strength from, to find hope within.

My intent with the Op was to refute a couple points made over years in arguments. That's all. I think that everyone could do with a deeper read of their texts and some quiet time to think on them, and how they apply today, not 2000 years ago.

 

[Jenna]

I spent 3 of my 4 years in High School as a member of the bible study club. Was top student several years in my Sunday School (got the autographed prayer book to prove it too, ). I've spent significant time reading holy books from all the major faiths, several 'dead' ones, and several 'minor' faiths as well. I don't consider myself a 'scholar', but do consider myself 'versed'. I've had at least 1 pastor complain I knew the Bible better than most of his congregation.

I don't disagree with you Jenna. If one looks at the Bible as a guide one can cherry pick. However if one looks at it as law, one cannot. My arguments on all these books is that the documents were written about 2,000 years ago, in a different time, under different political and social and geographical conditions. Putting them into context, they are all outdated, obsolete and out of touch. This thread was started because a member made a claim. Actually, over the last few years a few members made the same or similar claims. All this does is disprove those claims.

If you are a Christian, a Follower of Christ, then as he reportedly said, all of the OT laws are in force.


That reads as in don't cherry pick, follow all of it.

So, those following Christ who make claims like "The Bible claims homosexuality is a sin, but we can eat shrimp now because Jesus voided that rule" are simply put, wrong.

A person can make the decision to live by modern social standards, and drop the parts that are obviously outdated (like taking a paddle and pooping 25' outside of town), but a strict read says you still need to do that because it's always (at least according to Matthew) going to be the law.


All religions fail when tested against logic and reason.

I do not want to narrow focus solely onto the Christian bible as I feel adherents of each religion are apt to their own idiotic foibles of decontextualised misinterpretation. However, in terms of christianity, yes Jesus absolutely confirmed the historicity of the writings of the old testament and naturally professed to be the fulfiller OF THE PROPHESIES. Jesus would have been wholly forsaken by all had there been no old testament prophesies detailing his purpose so it was incumbent upon him to confirm their authenticity and validate their teachings. However, Jesus by his teachings did overthrow much of the accepted wisdom of former times. There is no cherry picking. Christianity is formed of a single idea, that Jesus Christ is the only conduit to salvation. Jesus preached tolerance, forgiveness and love of an enemy. None of that was previously accepted wisdom.

I think respectfully Bob that you have cherry picked the issue of homosexuality in the bible because it is an outwardly fraught issue. Yes, that is condemned in the old testament and but old testament scripture is a different beliefset yet and you were talking about Christianity yes? Though, as you have rightly said, Jesus was himself an adherent to the old testament teachings, Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexuality. Why? Because it was implied in his adherence to the antecedent scriptures?? Perhaps. I do not claim to know. Perhaps however his HISTORICAL CONTEXT would never have permitted it. Jesus may have alluded to such: "I have still many things to say to you, and but you cannot bear them now." etc.

I do not want to argue specifics with you Bob as faith is a very subjective and personal thing and there is nothing to be gained or lost. Except one's soul if one is so inclined What I only want to say is that chapters and verses cannot be extracted from any holy text in isolation while completely disregarding the core principles of that religion and also the historical environments in which they were first written. This is unfortunately what happens when abominations like Anders Breivik (who never belonged nor attended any christian church it is reported and but used his default religious upbringing as a mere facebook tag upon which to hang his psychoses) use their default or adopted religions to pigeonhole a world that they do not comprehend or they feel has disavowed them. Fundamentalists of Islam will continually cite the sword verse also as madating jihad and which is to acknowledge nothing except one's ignorance of the teachings of Mohammad. I hope this makes sense. I seek neither to preach nor proselytise and I appreciate that it is all internet traffic in the end. To paraphrase Henry Ford, whether you think all religious teaching is illogical or not, you are correct. Should you ever seek a conversation beyond internet traffic then I would like that. If your mind is made then that is how it is also. I am no expert on anything. This is simply my opinion I hope sincerely that you are well, Jenna.

 

[Archangel M]

Did Christ tell the priests to stone the adulteress Bob? That was an OT law. I don't think you understand what Christs message was in relation to the OT.

 

[Steve]

This is stupid. I do not understand the point of these threads. Any numpty can extract verses from any holy text and cite it in a complete contextual vacuum. this is exactly what cults, sects and fundamentalists do. To do so is backward and uneducated. Who here practices a martial art the way it was originally conceived, to kill and maim???

The various holy texts are historical documents. It is up to us to interpret them with common sense and moderation.

EVERYTHING ELSE HERE IS JUST FORUM STATIC

Jenna, I think that's exactly the point. If I understand correctly, Bob is trying a different tactic to persuade some people on the forum that they are doing nothing more than "extract[ing] verses from any holy text and cite it in a complete contextual vacuum." The point I'm getting from Bob is exactly your point, any numpty (I love this word) can do this, and many here have been doing this for months against the muslim faith. He's tried refuting the arguments against muslims by Twin Fist with facts and that hasn't gone anywhere, so I applaud him for taking a different tack and demonstrating how easy it is for any numpty to pull things out of context.

Take this same point and apply it to socialism, liberalism, progressivism, conservativism or any other ism you can think of. The lesson is this: any numpty can do this.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Did Christ tell the priests to stone the adulteress Bob? That was an OT law. I don't think you understand what Christs message was in relation to the OT.

Arch,
Christ didn't write the various documents chosen to be part of the New Testament.
He wrote nothing. Nada. Zip.

All of the things attributed to him were written down, over about 100 years, starting about 30 or so years -after- his crusifiction.

The 4 chosen Gospels hold contradictions.

I don't think the authors knew what his message was.

The simple fact is however that at the time of his preaching, there was no NT.
He was a Jew, he followed Jewish law.
His followers were mostly Jewish too. Same laws.
He is reported by at least 2 of his followers, as stating that the OT laws were not negated or replaced by his preaching.

In the case of the adulteress, he never said don't kill her. He just said let the one who hasn't sinned be the -first- to throw a rock.
There's a difference.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I think respectfully Bob that you have cherry picked the issue of homosexuality in the bible because it is an outwardly fraught issue.

I only used it as an example of the cherry picking that goes on all the time. Wasn't the focus of the thread. I wrapped that up in the 1st 2 posts.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Jenna, I think that's exactly the point. If I understand correctly, Bob is trying a different tactic to persuade some people on the forum that they are doing nothing more than "extract[ing] verses from any holy text and cite it in a complete contextual vacuum." The point I'm getting from Bob is exactly your point, any numpty (I love this word) can do this, and many here have been doing this for months against the muslim faith. He's tried refuting the arguments against muslims by Twin Fist with facts and that hasn't gone anywhere, so I applaud him for taking a different tack and demonstrating how easy it is for any numpty to pull things out of context.

Take this same point and apply it to socialism, liberalism, progressivism, conservativism or any other ism you can think of. The lesson is this: any numpty can do this.

:cheers::highfive:artyon:artyon:

This was never about attacking Christianity.
It's not about gays, Islam, attacking TF, any of that.
Steve got it.



Though I may convert and become a Pastafarian. Sounds yummy.

 

[Twin Fist]

yeah, the bible is so violent, i bet there are christians all over the world blowing **** up....


wait, you mean they dont do that?? but the book is, as has been demonstrated by bob, full of evil and bloody raping and gopher molestation and all sorts of evil crap. Why are christians not out murdering and raping?

 

[Archangel M]

In the case of the adulteress, he never said don't kill her. He just said let the one who hasn't sinned be the -first- to throw a rock.There's a difference.

Exactly. And its an important distinction when it comes to interpreting the application of OT "law" that you are cherry picking. Especially in context of faiths who want to take the literal word of the book (all those head lopping Islamic gvts for example) over the deeper message.

 

[Twin Fist]

hmm, gee, i am confused now, why, if BOTH books are full of evil, are not BOTH groups out doing horrible things? why is it only ONE group doing that?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

*Sigh*

Both groups are John. The MEDIA just reports on the one you like to complain about. I posted numerous reports of Christian atrocities, that you said don't matter because we should only pick on Muslims because you don't care what Christians do because Muslims are bad, mkay?

Don't act like the idiot we both know you not to be in making such a false claim.

That is off topic btw.



As to why Most Christians arent out Crusading?
Went out of style a few centuries ago as society matured, as people got healthier, wealthier and more free thinking.
Compare the US, Canada, Britain, France and Germany to oh, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudia Arabia.
Really, really compare them.
You'll find your reasons.

Again, off topic.

Lets discuss the Christians who do follow the guidelines.
The good christians who stoned and burned the gay kid for being gay.
The good christians who murder abortion doctors.
The good christians who locked their child in a drawer.
The good christians who went to jail for sexual abuse of children
Etc.

You want to turn this into that discussion John, I'll take the week and I will -shred- the faith, including your own. It's not hard.

You know what? Lets not.

You made -a- claim.
I debunked it. I debunked it so hard Adam felt it.
Deal with it.