Feed on Posts or Comments 25 October 2014

Christianity Thomas on 09 Aug 2010 12:45 am

“American Christianity is not well, and there’s evidence to indicate that its condition is more critical than most realize”

We covered Anne Rice’s defection from Christianity last week. Here is an article showing that the end of Christianity is near, because Christianity is filled with some of the most disgusting people on the planet:

American Christianity is not well, and there’s evidence to indicate that its condition is more critical than most realize

Christian activist Ronald J. Sider writes in his book, “The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience”: “By their daily activity, most ‘Christians’ regularly commit treason. With their mouths they claim that Jesus is their Lord, but with their actions they demonstrate their allegiance to money, sex, and personal self-fulfillment.”

How to explain the Grand Canyon-sized gap between principles outlined in the Gospels and the behavior of believers? Christians typically, and rather lamely, respond that shortcomings of the followers of Jesus are simply evidence of man’s inherent sinfulness.

But if one adheres to the principle of Occam’s razor — that the simplest explanation is the most likely — there is another, more unsettling conclusion: that many people who call themselves Christian don’t really believe, deep down, in the tenets of their faith. In other words, their actions reveal their true beliefs.

In addition, as Rice puts it:

I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life.

This video lays it out in cold, stark terms: “Why does every intelligent Christian disobey Jesus?”

Go ahead Christians, drink poison as the Bible commands. See what happens.

Why would anyone follow a book that tells them to drink poison?

The whole issue of why so many Christians (especially those in the Tea Party) are so bigoted, hateful and unchristian is a separate question that remains unanswered.

51 Responses to ““American Christianity is not well, and there’s evidence to indicate that its condition is more critical than most realize””

  1. on 10 Aug 2010 at 9:21 pm 1.Burebista said …

    Got admit American Christianity is not well in America. Just like the Hebrews in the OT, when things went well they turned there back on God. America is doing the same.

    Anne Rice did not turn her back on Christ, she denounced all the false Christianity which is wise. being aware of the wolves in sheep’s clothing.

    The Tea party bomb is just a delusion. No evidence there but when you can’t beat their arguments drop the race card on them. A favorite of the real racist that make up the Black caucus and the Black panthers which as we all know are components of the DNC.

    It is a good idea to read the links since our moderator really likes to twist his posts to the point of a pretzel.

  2. on 10 Aug 2010 at 10:56 pm 2.A Christian Guy said …

    As far as Rational thinking goes, this video is far from it. Every verse and quotation from the bible was taken extremely out of context.

    “Our moderator really likes to twist his posts to the points of a pretzel.”

    Completely so.

  3. on 11 Aug 2010 at 12:59 am 3.Charles said …

    CG,

    If you think that video is twisted visit the godisimiginary sister site. I can’t believe anyone takes any of it seriously but some like to reference it.

  4. on 12 Aug 2010 at 4:03 am 4.Cory Tucholski said …

    As a Christian, I can agree with the “unsettling” conclusion that many who say that they are Christian are not, in fact, Christian. The Bible predicts this fact.

    The trick is that Thomas here is trying to use Christian behavior to prove that Jesus is imaginary. That is a logical fallacy called ad hominem tu quoque: “[T]he fact that a person’s claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.”

    Oh, yeah, and one more thing: That video does not prove that every intelligent Christian disobeys Jesus, as ALL of the verses it cites as “commands” are not commands at all and taken grossly out of context.

  5. on 15 Aug 2010 at 3:08 am 5.GoodGodHeDon'tExist said …

    God Clearly Don’t Not Exist and Your Video are right target; maybe way more than you think!!!! Let me enlighten you a bit. I was a devoted christian, I made sure study bible accurately. And I prayed for over 25 years to overcome sexual sin with opposit sex. One day it seemed to work for 3.5 years but after that I discover I almost went completely impotent. Why God Want His Devote follower to go impotent rather than fullfil promise that I should overcome sins through His Blood. Of course it was because He’s imaginary. This got me thinking all you need to do is make a video short intro about Quantum Genesis (The Big Bang from Nothing as a quantum entity; some into is posted at doctorasshole.com) with little evolution then go through bible starting with how God lies about creating universe then go through every promise: eternal life, overcoming sins, … show them to be all lies.

  6. on 15 Aug 2010 at 2:10 pm 6.Bishop said …

    “God Clearly Don’t Not Exist”

    Wouldn’t the double negative then imply God does exist?

    Cory,

    Excellent point. The hypocrites in the Christian faith is an argument that does not pass the logic test. It is like claiming all Mexicans are illegal or all black fathers leave their kids just because a portion do so.

    They never acknowledge the Christians who are true to the faith, are genuinely different and love Christ and man with all their hearts. There is no argument for that.

  7. on 16 Aug 2010 at 12:06 am 7.3D said …

    6.Bishop said …

    Excellent point. The hypocrites in the Christian faith is an argument that does not pass the logic test. It is like claiming all Mexicans are illegal or all black fathers leave their kids just because a portion do so.
    They never acknowledge the Christians who are true to the faith, are genuinely different and love Christ and man with all their hearts. There is no argument for that.

    Not true! I mention Christians who are true to the Bible all the time, like Fred Phelps. They follow the Bible to the letter, persecuting homosexuals and the like. Usually “Christians” get very mad when I bring those real Christians up though.

  8. on 16 Aug 2010 at 4:38 am 8.A Christian Guy said …

    Fred Phelps doesn’t follow the bible to the letter. far from it. His ministry is based of of hate, where the bible is based of of love. Two polar opposites. You can quote Leviticus, or Issiah. Thats what he does. He’s not taking THE BIBLE in its entire context. you can’t just take a verse randomly, and says it means something. What he’s doing isn’t following the bible to the letter, its taking things out of context.

    Homosexuals, shouldn’t be persecuted. They should be pitied and prayed for. You don’t hate the sinner, you hate the sin. And if Homosexuality, is in fact genetic, then they should defiantly not be persecuted. Its thought that Alcoholics may have genetic, alcohol prone tendencies. Making them more prone to become alcoholics. From a Cristian standpoint, that is how Homosexuals should be looked at. They should be treated with the same love and kindness as any other person. Not with vicious Hate.

  9. on 16 Aug 2010 at 6:39 am 9.Severin said …

    ACG 8
    “… you hate the sin.”

    What is it: „hating sin“? Impossible to even understand such a construction!
    Your god “hated sins” and killed people (including children) for doing “sins”.

    We do nor RECOGNIZE “sin” as a base for persecuting.
    In modern societies LAWS are base for persecuting, not „sins“.

  10. on 16 Aug 2010 at 7:08 am 10.3D said …

    9.Severin said …

    ACG 8
    “… you hate the sin.”
    What is it: „hating sin“? Impossible to even understand such a construction!
    Your god “hated sins” and killed people (including children) for doing “sins”.
    We do nor RECOGNIZE “sin” as a base for persecuting.
    In modern societies LAWS are base for persecuting, not „sins“.

    Amazingly, A.C.G. admitted in his last post that homosexuality is genetically programmed into some people, and therefore it would be immoral to persecute them. I’m glad he’s taken that position, I agree with him.

    But if you’re acknowledging that homosexuality is preprogrammed, and you think God designed humans that way — what is there to ‘hate’? Why hate someone for doing what is natural to them?

  11. on 16 Aug 2010 at 7:15 am 11.3D said …

    8.A Christian Guy said …

    Fred Phelps doesn’t follow the bible to the letter. far from it. His ministry is based of of hate, where the bible is based of of love. Two polar opposites. You can quote Leviticus, or Issiah. Thats what he does. He’s not taking THE BIBLE in its entire context. you can’t just take a verse randomly, and says it means something. What he’s doing isn’t following the bible to the letter, its taking things out of context.

    Again with the context. The Bible says to stone homosexuals. What’s the missing context?

    The last time I asked you to provide some of this missing context, you disappeared for a week. How about now?

  12. on 16 Aug 2010 at 7:25 am 12.Severin said …

    ACG 8
    „You don’t hate the sinner, you hate the sin.“

    Sorry, now I understand what you mean (you = one, someone, somebody, people). It happens sometimes because of my poor English. I apologize.

    O.K., but god from Bible does NOT say it, and does NOT act that way.
    He directly ORDERS killing of sinners in some examples: consumed brides, disobediant children, people working on Sabbath, people offering wrong burnt animals to god, people making idols….
    He directly KILLS sinners, including their children, in other examples: Sodoma, Gomora, BF

    So: WHAT IS THE BIBLE FOR YOU?
    A book from which you pull out what yo please?
    A book which you RECONSTRUC/INTERPRET the way you please?

    If you DO NOT follow god’s direct orders to kill „sinners“ you do not follow the Bible!
    As simple as that, no other possibilities!
    Isn’ there said in many verses that god’s word is perfect and stands for ever?

    Now you DENY it. You NEGATE it! You do with the Bible what YOU want.
    This book has absolutely no meaning for you! You do not RESPECT it!

    WHERE can I find in the Bible such human and compassionate verses saying that sinners shoul be treated with same love nad kindness as any other person?
    No such verses in the Bible!

    So the Bible is obviously the same BS for you as it is for me!

    Why, then, you expect us to respect that ugly book, and religion it is standing behind, if YOU don’t respect it?

    You FALSIFY the Bible to try to porve something!

  13. on 16 Aug 2010 at 11:48 am 13.Lou said …

    “Why hate someone for doing what is natural to them?”

    How about rapist, pedophiles and alcoholics? If an alcoholic is behind the wheel toasted he is only being himself! Why do atheist HATE Christians? Atheist use the hate bomb to incite emotion. It is so juvenile. Anyhow…

    That’s silly talk. Jesus warns of wolves in sheep’s clothing. Maybe the atheist could share why they never include the NT in their interpretation of scripture? Atheist like Phelps since it helps them fulfill what they want Christians to be. Christians recognize the fulfillment of the Bible in Jesus Christ which makes Phelps a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

  14. on 16 Aug 2010 at 12:35 pm 14.Severin said …

    13 Lou
    “Why do atheist HATE Christians? Atheist use the hate bomb to incite emotion.”

    One has to be pretty sick to pose such questions!
    I have personally many good friends christians, which I love.
    On the other hand, there is no individual on earth I hate!

    What is with you man? Do YOU hate everyone who does not support your opinion?
    It is not style of atheists!
    We are debating here, not hating!

  15. on 16 Aug 2010 at 1:18 pm 15.Severin said …

    13 Lou
    “Maybe the atheist could share why they never include the NT in their interpretation of scripture?”

    Luke 14:26
    “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot.”

    So speaketh Jesus full of christian love!

    Satisfied?

    WHEN and WHERE did you see any atheist “interpreting” the Bible on this blog?
    None ever!

    We only CITE it, and Bible is interpreting itself clearly and undoubtly.
    You can not blame US for bullshits written there! We did not write Bible!

    As you can see, BELIEVERS are all the time trying to find some “context”.They give their own interpretations of Bible, even FALSIFY it, to somehow prove they are right.
    Please see #8 here as an example.

  16. on 16 Aug 2010 at 1:44 pm 16.Severin said …

    Lou,

    Have you noticed the “hierarchy of hate” in Jesus’ words?

    He did not say “…and does not hate his wife, his father, his mother- yes, EVEN HIS OWN CHILDREN -…”, as I would say if I wonted to spread hate the way he did.

    Man in me would put children on the end of this message of hate, or would exclude children from that messae of hate.

    God in Jesus probably had some memories on the times he, in form of just “god”, ordered killing of millions of children, and personally killed other millions (BF, Sodoma, Gomora). Who cares for children!?

    Or, maybe he wasn’t god at all, just a twisted human?!

  17. on 16 Aug 2010 at 1:48 pm 17.Severin said …

    Sorry, “life”, not “wife”, which does not change anything substantially in what I said.
    My error.

  18. on 16 Aug 2010 at 3:17 pm 18.Lou said …

    “So speaketh Jesus full of christian love!”

    (sigh), Severin this is so sad. Quick study here. Jesus is stating that your love for him most be SO great that your love for others must look like hate in comparison. How do I know this? By studying all of his teachings.

    Have you heard of “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul and love you neighbor as yourself” (Matt 22:37-38)? Did Jesus actually hate his mother? Did Jesus actually hate anyone on earth? Provide an example? Have you even read John 3:16, John 5:8? Do you see how your translation does not fit within the framework of the NT?

    Try a little honesty and stop pulling out texts you know good and well are dishonest.
    _______________________________________

    You didn’t answer the original question. Why do you hate alcoholics, pedophiles and rapists?

  19. on 16 Aug 2010 at 5:45 pm 19.3D said …

    13.Lou said …

    “Why hate someone for doing what is natural to them?”
    How about rapist, pedophiles and alcoholics?

    First, I don’t think alcoholics belong in the same category as rapists and pedophiles.

    Second, you’re making my point for me. I believe that most of the human race has evolved with morality intact. Rapists, pedophiles and killers are examples of the imperfection of the evolutionary system, people who have evolved without that moral framework that makes them averse to terrible acts. It’s not our job as a society to ‘hate’ them, just to punish them and separate them from society so they can’t harm anybody.

    If you look at it that way, it makes perfect sense — pedophiles are an unfortunate mutation of an imperfect system, and it’s our job to put them away behind bars, or find a way to rehabilitate them so they don’t harm children. But if you look at it as God created people with these flaws, then you have a big, big problem. Why did God design pedophiles into the system? Why did he design people with this sickness? Is he just a sick fuck or is he incompetent?

    If an alcoholic is behind the wheel toasted he is only being himself!

    Exactly, and that is why we have LAWS (manmade) to deter this behavior. If the alcoholic can’t stop himself from drinking, because of his nature, at least maybe fear of jail time will prevent him from getting into a car to drive home. If he does it anyway, we will forcibly remove him from society.

    It’s interesting that you compare pedophiles and killers to consenting adult homosexuals, though. Who would ever make that comparison other that someone whose mind is twisted by the Bible?

    Why do atheist HATE Christians? Atheist use the hate bomb to incite emotion. It is so juvenile. Anyhow…
    That’s silly talk. Jesus warns of wolves in sheep’s clothing. Maybe the atheist could share why they never include the NT in their interpretation of scripture?

    I agree, the NT is less crazy than the OT — people weren’t as violent as they were 3,500 years before (evolution!) — but it’s still crazy. Still supports misogyny and mistreatment of women, still supports slavery, and worst of all, it promises wish fulfillment through prayer, something that has gotten countless people killed over the years, praying for treatments and cures rather than going to a doctor, among other things.

    Atheist like Phelps since it helps them fulfill what they want Christians to be. Christians recognize the fulfillment of the Bible in Jesus Christ which makes Phelps a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

    No, atheists realize that Phelps is just reading the Bible the way it was intended, while “Christians” cherry-pick the Bible looking for things that match their personal beliefs (for example, “Christians” who believe that homosexuality is wrong, but working on the Sabbath is OK).

  20. on 16 Aug 2010 at 5:55 pm 20.3D said …

    Its thought that Alcoholics may have genetic, alcohol prone tendencies. Making them more prone to become alcoholics. From a Cristian standpoint, that is how Homosexuals should be looked at. They should be treated with the same love and kindness as any other person. Not with vicious Hate.

    Yes, they should be very lovingly pelted with stones, I guess.

  21. on 16 Aug 2010 at 6:02 pm 21.Severin said …

    18 Lou
    “Jesus is stating that your love for him most be SO great that your love for others must look like hate in comparison.”

    Who is interpreting the Bible now?
    I did not see anything what leads to such a conclusion anywhere arround the a.m. verse (context).
    No one saw it.

  22. on 16 Aug 2010 at 6:24 pm 22.Severin said …

    Lou,

    As I already said, I do not hate anyone.
    I hate what some people are doing, and when I see some examples in papers or on TV, I am full of both compassion and sorrow for victims, and anger directed to the perpetrator, but not hate.
    Of course I agree with any punishment the law predicts for their crimes, but I would not call it hate.

  23. on 16 Aug 2010 at 7:42 pm 23.Severin said …

    Lou,
    John 3:16
    16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

    For god so loved the world, that he made the big flood and killed millions of innocent children.
    Then, after killing tem all FOR NOTHING (no results = for nothing, he kiled millions achieving no RESULTS), he did the dirtiest and the sickest thing ever:
    he scrificed his own son to himself!

    What logic stays behind such a deed?
    If you have sacrificing, you MUST have:
    1. PEOPLE who sacrifice something to GOD (to please him to give something to people, to forgive them something…)
    2. GOD who accepts the sacrificed object
    3. OBJECT to be sacrificed
    Did I miss something? I did not.

    In this case we have:
    1. PEOPLE who made god angry, but DID NOT sacrifice anything to him
    2. GOD, who was so angry, that he decided to sacrifice his own son TO HIMSELF
    3. Jesus, who was sacrificed from GOD to HIMSELF

    This is the only example in history of religions of GOD-TO-HIMSELF sacrificing. ONLY Christianity has such a lunatic story as the very BASE of the religion!

    If I was a believer, I would be ashamed what god „did“ for me! He killed his son to please himself, to forgive MY sins!
    Extremely sick! Totally lunatic!

    AND: for NOTHING, again! Results: none!

    Was your god beside being lunatic also stupid? Didn’t he see after so many killings his method did not work?
    He should have stopped killing after Sodoma and find another method of making human race better.
    To heal instead to kill!

    How an we find “christian love” in a such a deed full of lunacy? In sacrificing of one’s son to himself?
    Who love and who is love here?
    Story of lunacy and hate!

    Sorry, I do not understand the John 5:8 babbling. It does not contibute in showing any nicer picture of your god.
    You kill children, then say: love ech other! Love your neighbour!
    Love him by all your heart and all the time untill I kill yo by my next attack of schizo-lunacy.

    BS, and a BIG one!

  24. on 16 Aug 2010 at 7:44 pm 24.Severin said …

    …and who is loved here?

    Sorry.

  25. on 16 Aug 2010 at 9:43 pm 25.A Christian Guy said …

    Okay, let me be a little more specific about context. Context is not only what the verse itself means, but what it means when you take into account what the rest of the bible says. You Quote verses about stoning Gays, and other people. thats in the old testament. Its part of the covenant, that isn’t a factor in Christianity anymore. We don’t offer sacrifices to God anymore. why? because they were inadequate in the first place. So God made A NEW COVENANT.

    one more time. NEW COVENANT. “The old has gone, the new has come.” (2 Corinthians 5:17) When Christ came, and died, THE RULES CHANGED.

    Taking that into account. To Christians, most of the old testament is looked at as a history to how we got to the new testament. so, when you quote verses about stoning homosexuals, your not quoting commands anymore. Your quoting a history. What WAS a command, but isn’t anymore. We have new commands from Jesus.

    Does that make more sense?

  26. on 16 Aug 2010 at 9:56 pm 26.Lou said …

    3D & Sev,

    Why do you get to disagree with another individuals actions and it is not hate? When Christians disagree with the homosexual lifestyle it for some reason is interpreted as hate?

    I think CG spelled out interpretation correctly. You must read the verse in context of the Bible. Severin, I spelled out numerous verse for you and you ignored them. If you refuse to do so, it is your choice. If you believe Fred Phelps truly represents Christ, I feel sad for you.

  27. on 16 Aug 2010 at 10:30 pm 27.3D said …

    25.A Christian Guy said …

    Okay, let me be a little more specific about context. Context is not only what the verse itself means, but what it means when you take into account what the rest of the bible says.

    No. That’s not context. Context would be if we were reading the verses about stoning wrong, and interpreting them incorrectly. And you produced another verse to show that the stonings weren’t really stonings, they were metaphorical, or something else. Then we would be incorrectly interpreting the stonings as literal, while your CONTEXT in other verses would show that they weren’t literal.

    But you aren’t doing that. You are saying the stonings were real, that God really wanted them, but he stopped, and changed the law. In other words, you agree with us about the meaning of those verses about stoning, so that isn’t a contextual issue. You agree that God once ordered those brutal acts, you just think it’s OK, because later, he changed his mind.

    If one part of the Bible says one thing, and another part of the Bible says the opposite, and you pick the one you like better, that’s “cherry-picking”. The Bible is full of those contradictions; it doesn’t mean that the contradictions provide “context” for each other, it just means that the Bible is a big nonsensical mess.

    You Quote verses about stoning Gays, and other people. thats in the old testament. Its part of the covenant, that isn’t a factor in Christianity anymore. We don’t offer sacrifices to God anymore. why? because they were inadequate in the first place. So God made A NEW COVENANT.

    God asked for the sacrifices. The people gave him what he asked for. Why were they inadequate?

    Also, even if those old laws aren’t a factor in Christianity anymore, they certainly were at one time. It’s the same god now as it was back then, the same god who was ordering those stonings and burnings. Do you feel comfortable worshipping something who is capable of such brutality? How do you know the skies won’t open up tomorrow ordering the law back to stoning and burning? What would you do?

    one more time. NEW COVENANT. “The old has gone, the new has come.” (2 Corinthians 5:17) When Christ came, and died, THE RULES CHANGED.
    Taking that into account. To Christians, most of the old testament is looked at as a history to how we got to the new testament. so, when you quote verses about stoning homosexuals, your not quoting commands anymore. Your quoting a history. What WAS a command, but isn’t anymore. We have new commands from Jesus.
    Does that make more sense?

    If the rules changed, why do Christians constantly quote the OT when they want to persecute gays?

    They are doing what you are doing — cherrypicking parts of the Bible that agree with their personal POVs. For you it’s the mushy nice stuff in the NT, for them it’s the fire and brimstone panty sniffing crap. Either way it’s YOU finding parts of the Bible that match your morality, not you getting your morality from the Bible.

  28. on 16 Aug 2010 at 10:37 pm 28.Boz said …

    “Romans 1:26-27: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

    Point of reference, Romans is a New Testament book. I don’t like to assume atheist know. Atheist, if you are going to use the Bible for your own purposes, at least know what is states. Why do atheist hate Christians, pedophiles and alcoholics?

  29. on 17 Aug 2010 at 5:05 am 29.A Christian Guy said …

    3D.

    I guess we just don’t see eye to eye on this. And, I honestly doubt we ever will. This is gonna be my last post. Like Alex, this has become a great distraction for me. I probably won’t check back again. I wasn’t Cherry picking the bible, I even made that clear. The New Testament, contains the new Covenant. The reason its wrong for “Christians” to use the OT to justify persecuting Gays, is that those aren’t the commands we have now.

    Severin, you, and I have gone around on a lot of things. And sense this is my last post, i just wanted to say, i really hope you guys someday find Christ. Its a joy you’ve never known, realizing that you where made for a purpose, and that God loves you so much he died for you. I know that you guys are gonna think of a bunch of rational reasons why i’m just wasting my time. But the bible says the Word of the LORD is living and active. It sticks with you, and it speaks for itself.

    Just know that there is a loving God, who wants a personal relationship with you. He’s been there your whole life, whether you recognize it or not. He’s there, and he wants to be with you. I pray that you both find him someday.

  30. on 17 Aug 2010 at 7:29 am 30.3D said …

    28.Boz said …
    “Romans 1:26-27: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
    Point of reference, Romans is a New Testament book. I don’t like to assume atheist know. Atheist, if you are going to use the Bible for your own purposes, at least know what is states.

    I did not say that the NT is pro-gay. I said that anti-gay Christian bigots often use the OT to defend their anti-gay bigotry.

    The NT is very anti-gay (well, except the parts where Jesus is gay — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciple_whom_Jesus_loved_)

    Why do atheist hate Christians, pedophiles and alcoholics?

  31. on 17 Aug 2010 at 7:30 am 31.3D said …

    Sorry — quote tags fixed below.

    28.Boz said …

    “Romans 1:26-27: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
    Point of reference, Romans is a New Testament book. I don’t like to assume atheist know. Atheist, if you are going to use the Bible for your own purposes, at least know what is states.

    I did not say that the NT is pro-gay. I said that anti-gay Christian bigots often use the OT to defend their anti-gay bigotry.
    The NT is very anti-gay (well, except the parts where Jesus is gay — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciple_whom_Jesus_loved_)

    Also, why can’t one single goddamn Christian spell “atheists”? Are you allergic to plural Ss?

  32. on 17 Aug 2010 at 12:44 pm 32.Severin said …

    25 ACG

    3D gave you perfect explanation about what is context, and I will give you an example:

    What would you conclude if you found somewhere written only this sentence:
    “X’s mother felt guilt for killing her son. She suffered, she felt dirty, her conscience was a mess, her toughts were only directed to his son’s owfull death.”
    You would probably conclude a mother killed her son, and deserved to have a bad conscience and to suffer.

    Then you read on another place that X’s mother was a women who dedicated 20 years of her life to serve her paralized son, who had several other desease too, but he died in spite of her sacrificing for him. When he died, she took guuilt on herself.

    THAT is context! Pulling out a part of the text saying something incomplete, something that might look like to be the truth, but it is not, without knowing the whole story.

    The Bible looks like something else. For example:

    “Y’s mother took the hammer and killed her son.
    Then she prayed for him to the end of her life.”

  33. on 17 Aug 2010 at 2:08 pm 33.Severin said …

    25 ACG
    “To Christians, most of the old testament is looked at as a history to how we got to the new testament. so, when you quote verses about stoning homosexuals, your not quoting commands anymore. Your quoting a history.“

    So the OT is canceled? When? Who did it?
    Or a part of it is canceled? Which part?

    Stoning of homosexuals is history?
    If stoning of homosexuals is history, for whatever reason, then it must be that Genesis is history too!?
    No?
    Why not? WHO was the one (or a group) who decided what was history and what was not? Based on WHAT arguments? What METHODS were used to make a choice what from the OT is history and what is not?
    “Metthods” of cherry-picking, or some other?

    I do hope you are aware of the fact: if Genesis is history, Christianity is history too!
    No making man from mud. No A&E. No Eden. No “first sin”. Baptism is senseless if there was no first sin, so no baptism. No ten commendments! No Abraham, Noah…
    Of course, if the OT is history, the NT, which is its “extension”, which is BASED on the OT, becomes history too.
    No Christ!

    You should be more careful! You are braking Christianity in peaces! Are you authorized from someone to do it?

  34. on 17 Aug 2010 at 4:04 pm 34.Lou said …

    3D

    You take on context is not correct. Context of the Bible is a hermeneutical process. Text must be interpreted within the framework of the Bible, culture, type of literature and audience. Atheist obviously have little desire to do such study therefore I would contend the work of Christians and other scholars may supersede that of an atheist who has an ax to grind.

    Just saying.

    I do have one concern. Do you Understand the definition of homosexual?

  35. on 17 Aug 2010 at 5:48 pm 35.Observer said …

    Lou #34. I understand the meaning of homosexual, although I seriously doubt you do, and I also understand the slang term “queer”. Additionally, I understand the meaning of the word queer in its original sense, as in “It is rather queer to hear a knuckle dragging cretin use the word ‘hermeneutical’ in a sentence.” Have you been boning up on your Heidegger, or rather looking in on a dumbass Christian website or attending a hallelujah session trying to create the impression of intelligence and rigour for the purpose of promoting the bankrupt ideas of Christian theology?

    As early as the first millennium the idiocy of the Bible was recognized by the clergy, and they created special hermeneutical categories for the Bible. It took until the Enlightenment, when the strictures and oppression of the church were greatly diminished, for that to be undone by Friedrich Schleiermacher. Something akin to a universality of texts is the way to approach a text. No special five-finger pitching wedge should be required.

    Lou, aside from feeling bad that you are more than two hundred years behind on human thought, you should feel even worse that only dipshit white-trash filth like the Baptists are the only ones accompanying you to feast on the bullshit of the Bible. Of course, there are others who’s bread is directly buttered by propagating myth and delusion, but the better of that ilk are merely liars and charlatans.

    Of course in the last paragraph, I raised the H.G. Frankfurt topic. I submit the latter are the true bullshitters. The former, are, in the theme of this website and its sister, delusional- and from the rational point of view extremely dangerous and destructive to society.

  36. on 17 Aug 2010 at 6:57 pm 36.Horatio said …

    Nose Buster,

    You always bring sunshine to this little remote part of the web. It is always a joy to have you show up and throwing out words like queer, cracker and cretin. Shouldn’t you be hanging off a ledge at a Farrakhan rally waiting for the mother ship to pass? Gets some lunch, a stiff drink and your benzodiazepines (in that order) and then contemplate this reality. You will never be all that you already are in your own little closed mind.

    Later Buster.

  37. on 17 Aug 2010 at 7:37 pm 37.3D said …

    34.Lou said …

    3D
    You take on context is not correct. Context of the Bible is a hermeneutical process. Text must be interpreted within the framework of the Bible, culture, type of literature and audience.

    Still waiting for your explanation of why God in the Bible telling people to bash each other in the head with rocks is open to interpretation. We both agree he ordered that to happen, right? It’s there in black and white and you don’t deny that used to be the law, right? So what’s the interpretation that’s being missed? Seems like we agree about what the Bible says in this case. God said bashing people’s brains in with rocks is a proper punishment for certain acts, then later he said not to do it anymore.

    So you’re not supplying us with “context”, you’re supplying us with your personal justification of why you think bashing people’s brains in with rocks used to be OK, and now it’s bad.

    That’s your prerogative if that’s what you believe, but most people would never come to the conclusion that murdering people with stones by bashing them over the head repeatedly is a good thing under any circumstances. Only people who are tainted with the Bible.

  38. on 17 Aug 2010 at 7:48 pm 38.Severin said …

    34 Lou
    “Atheist obviously have little desire to do such study therefore”

    No desire at all, Lou, no desire at all! Whatever you say, and whatever anyone other says, the Bible is one cruel history of god’s lunacy.
    No “context” can save it from this destiniy.

  39. on 17 Aug 2010 at 8:16 pm 39.3D said …

    38.Severin said …

    34 Lou
    “Atheist obviously have little desire to do such study therefore”
    No desire at all, Lou, no desire at all! Whatever you say, and whatever anyone other says, the Bible is one cruel history of god’s lunacy.
    No “context” can save it from this destiniy.

    Severin, the funny thing is that if you took this discussion to the people who actually wrote the Bible, and followed it in the early times — or to the millions of people who followed it in the Dark Ages or all through the 16th Century — the people who are arguing that the Bible is open to interpretation, and not meant to be taken literally, would have be brutally murdered, right alongside the atheists. They would see no difference. Because the Bible WAS originally meant to be taken quite literally.

    This “context” bullshit is a new development, spawned in the enlightened age, created to seek out loopholes to explain the silly and dumb stuff in the Bible, and also the violent and sickening stuff. Because people are less prone to really believe that shit literally nowadays, than they used to be. (Thanks to science, and the evolution of the human mind.)

    Lucky for Lou & company, the world has progressed enough for them to be able to make this blasphemous, heretical argument without being burned at the stake or having their brains bashed in with a stone. You’re welcome =)

  40. on 17 Aug 2010 at 10:38 pm 40.Xenon said …

    “It is always a joy to have you show up and throwing out words like queer, cracker and cretin.”

    You left out so many other choice words. Dip shit, white trash and filth. Warms your heart and makes you want to embrace the atheism doesn’t it.

    Now exactly where did God command people to bash the brains in of innocent people? Missed that one. I do know the NT warns of wolves in sheep’s clothing. Maybe this is just some inane howling.

    Are the atheists in China still killing male babies? Now why would atheists decide to kill male babies when they haven’t even received a command? Tell you what Sev & 3D, I’ll explain the passage in question if you can justify the atheist baby killings.

  41. on 18 Aug 2010 at 2:46 am 41.3D said …

    40.Xenon said …

    You left out so many other choice words. Dip shit, white trash and filth. Warms your heart and makes you want to embrace the atheism doesn’t it.

    Ah yes. I see your point. We can support lynching homosexuals, setting people on fire, and pounding their skulls with rocks for minor moral infractions like sassing their parents, as long as we don’t say any dirty words like dipshit! We need to be civil while we discuss murdering our neighbors I guess.

    That’s some moral code ya got there.

    Now exactly where did God command people to bash the brains in of innocent people? Missed that one.

    He didn’t! He first judged them guilty of homosexuality, gathering sticks on the Sabbath and backtalking their parents before pronouncing the sentence of having their brains bashed in with rocks. That’s smart, that way they’re not technically “innocent”. Then, when you bash their brains in with rocks for these minor infractions, it holds up in court.

    Are the atheists in China still killing male babies? Now why would atheists decide to kill male babies when they haven’t even received a command? Tell you what Sev & 3D, I’ll explain the passage in question if you can justify the atheist baby killings.

    I don’t justify them. China’s regime is just as wrong as the OT. Of course not in sheer numbers — they could never hope to match God’s body count (he drowned everyone in the world minus 2 people, and that’s just in the beginning of the damn book) but in principle, yes, equally wrong. I don’t side with people or governments just because they are atheists; wrong is wrong.

    The problem with you is you will bend over backwards to excuse anything God ever did, and anything Christians ever did. You think one form of senseless killing is wrong, in China, and the other form of senseless killing is the divinely inspired word of God. Go figure.

  42. on 18 Aug 2010 at 11:03 am 42.3D said …

    Yes X, Buster is my sunshine. The elitist are always the most hateful

    3D,

    We know you don’t like God and the Bible. You don’t like God’s warnings and you don’t like God’s judgment. This thread is full of explanations on the very topic by ACG and others. I feel certain you understand the explanation. Maybe you need to take it up with God and argue with him. I’m just a man and you seem to think you are more. Go for it big guy. Watching the pot shake his fist at the potter is the OT in action.

    Meantime, your atheist comrades continue to kill. Sam Harris even makes the statement some people need to be killed just for their ideas. Jump on a plane and take some action. You guys are just like the Muslims. I promise, if anyone in the name of Christ murders, I will be the first to denounce them.

  43. on 18 Aug 2010 at 4:45 pm 43.Severin said …

    “Sam Harris even makes the statement some people need to be killed just for their ideas.”

    I do NOT gree with this statement of Mr. Sam Harris, although I DO agree with his book “Letter to Christian Nation”.

    Unlike your god, Mr Harris, by my knowledge, never really klled anyone. Which DOES NOT justify him for his words.

    “Meantime, your atheist comrades continue to kill.”
    They are not atheists, and certainly not my/our comrades.
    They believe in their god, communist party, as strongly and as sincerely as you believe in yours, so they could be called YOUR comrades.
    They continue deeds of YOUR god, just doing them in the name of another god, but what is the difference? Aren’t all gods the same?. What is the difference between any religion and communist regime?

    Unlike you, I do NOT justify killing of children by ANYONE, be it christian god, communist party, …

    I would NEVER pose a question some of you (you?) posed here: “Why is killing of children immoral?”

    This question of yours puts the mark “=” between yourself and those baby killers: they TOO, like you, do not know why are killing of children immoral.

  44. on 19 Aug 2010 at 2:59 pm 44.Observer said …

    #36 Hor You clearly are trying to make some sort of deniable mockery of blacks in your comment, and now that you are being called on it will blather on something along the lines of me trying to “read something into” what you wrote. It stands on its own, and does show you to be lovely as always. Why not pick up on the idiocy of Christian hermeneutics?

    #40 Xenon My dear bloviating bag of inert gas, you finally give some insight. By your statement regarding my previous post #35

    “You left out so many other choice words. Dip shit, white trash and filth. Warms your heart and makes you want to embrace the atheism doesn’t it.”

    you make clear you are looking for the soothing salve of a cosmic “bwankie” ( an attempt to portray a child’s pronunciation of blanket ) to curl up with during the dark and stormy night we know as life on earth. Why not just come clean and say that imagining a god out there makes a psychological crutch that allows you to go about the business of life? That would be a first step toward healing. Is there something like a twelve step program for theists? A new fellowship of man sort of thing.

  45. on 19 Aug 2010 at 6:00 pm 45.GoodGodHeDoesn'tExist said …

    (In response to #6 Bishop) You miss the point by using a mere grammar detail in your vain attempt to make a point for your god. The fact is that for almost 200 year religious types could not defeat evolution. THAT’S 200 YEARS!!! Well let me see: religion didn’t lack either financial or education resources over that time. THAT’S BECAUSE RELIGION ONLY LACKED ONE SMALL THING; THE TRUTH! AND ULTIMATELY THIS IS FROM A GOD THAT CLAIMS TO BE THE TRUTH! The fact is that this video brings up some important points but I’m sure you will focus in on some minor detail to make a trivial point. In defence of evolution there is the fossil record, a mechanism for point mutation(keto-enol tauterism result in rare enol bases that mis-pair during replication), a Big Bang Theory that starts from a Quantum Nothing Universe (checkout doctorasshole.com on a Quantum Genesis Theory), and Abiogenesis from comets and meteors(go to wikipedia). And as if we need anymore proof a God who does not answer prayers even when they involve promises based on He’s blood. If God existed He could will it from afar that someone could counter ALL the BS against Him without even a miracle. But I guess that is just too much for God; after all dying on the cross was whole easier for this all powerful God. What I’m trying to saying is this:
    there is allot more going on here than a few minor mistakes. And so God has to PUT UP or PERISH from minds of men. That is IF He exits at all!

  46. on 23 Aug 2010 at 6:28 am 46.me said …

    I gotta say, this is a sad and pissed off site. To tempt god is stupid. Further more, without god, there would be no laws, no good or evil. These are things that keep ppl in check. The first laws ever were the ten comandments. If I were to become an atheist I would start taking whatever I want, and kill any one in my way. The world would easily slip into caos. Without good or evil, there is no right or wrong. May sound like fun to some, but there is always going to be a need for god. I’m not the typical Christian, I don’t believe in eternal damn nation, but I do believe if you truly believe in god and ask for help on your path he will be there, however, if you ask him to prove he doesn’t exist to you buy asking him to alter the nature of the whole world, and the natural selection for death for millions of cancer patients, then you are more vain then most. Why would you think a retarded prayer like that should be answered. Why don’t you ask him for what you really wish for, eternal life more money and a bigger Dick. Hope this post speaks out to anyone naive enough to believe your burned ass.

  47. on 23 Aug 2010 at 4:39 pm 47.3D said …

    46.me said …

    If I were to become an atheist I would start taking whatever I want, and kill any one in my way.

    Yes, we know that there are some morally bereft people who would immediately become murderers if it weren’t for religion. That’s unfortunate, but I believe there are remedies (like therapy) that can help people like you with no grounded morality, other than religion.

    Most of us just do the right thing because it’s right, not for fear of going to hell. (I think most Christians do the same, really — most of them are good people and only do the religion casually out of a sense of ritual and habit. There’s only a handful of them that would actually start raping and killing without religion, as you just admitted to.)

    The world would easily slip into caos. Without good or evil, there is no right or wrong. May sound like fun to some, but there is always going to be a need for god.

    Oh OK. That’s good that you think that, cause I’ve been asking the religious people on this site, and usually they say the opposite of what you’re saying — there is no real right and wrong, whatever God says at the time is good, and it changes over time with his moods. So I’m glad to hear that you believe there is absolute right and wrong. (I agree — I think stoning people, burning people and slavery are always wrong, no matter what century it is and what the prevailing customs are.)

    So does that mean that God did bad things in the Bible? I am assuming that you agree with me that bashing people’s brains in with rocks is universally wrong, so you would have to agree that God was guilty of commanding people to take immoral acts. Right? Or do you believe that it was morally right for God to order babies to be smashed to pieces against rocks and to condone slavery? Do you believe it is morally wrong now, but it was right back then when God did it? Because if so then you are in the same weird place as the other religious people commenting on this site, but that would contradict your earlier claim that the Bible gives us an idea of universal right and wrong.

    I’m not the typical Christian, I don’t believe in eternal damn nation, but I do believe if you truly believe in god and ask for help on your path he will be there, however, if you ask him to prove he doesn’t exist to you buy asking him to alter the nature of the whole world, and the natural selection for death for millions of cancer patients, then you are more vain then most. Why would you think a retarded prayer like that should be answered.

    Because it says so in the retarded Bible. It says that whatever you ask for will happen, as long as you really want it and really have faith in Jesus. So I understand that if I pray the prayer, it won’t work (I don’t believe in Jesus). But, if we get all the Christians in the world together to pray for things, they should happen. So why don’t they?

  48. on 23 Aug 2010 at 6:18 pm 48.me said …

    I’m sorry you think god wrote this bible we have today, but in old testament times he was pretty vengful as we know. When the new testament came, we were should have followed the teachings of Jesus, but then man had to control what that man’s message was. The good book is a rewrite of the bible. It has tares in it now to purposely conflict us. There are truths mixed with lies. It is up to the reader to decide what they believe, or don’t believe. Going back to the killing part, I simply used that as an example. If god, and morals don’t exist, then why I ask would it be wrong to be simplistic and animalistic in nature to take or kill. These are basic instincts. Not saying I would be that way, just a valid question to ask an atheist, no?

  49. on 23 Aug 2010 at 7:16 pm 49.me said …

    Lol. You can say whatever you want about the bible and god, these are your god givin rights. Every year you read this interesting book it will say new things to you personally. If you think its all bullshit that is your choice. Free will is his gift unto you. And if you chose to us it to call him out that’s your choice. Just because a book rewriten buy kings men say that you can pray for anything and it will happen, and you decidedly made this your proffered doesn’t make any retarded coment you make about god true. Hope you have a great day.

  50. on 23 Aug 2010 at 7:25 pm 50.Severin said …

    48 me
    “If god, and morals don’t exist, then why I ask would it be wrong to be simplistic and animalistic in nature to take or kill.”

    Because it is NOT in humans nature to kill, as it is not in nature of primates, horses, sheep…

    Evolution provided mechanisms against killing of members of own species in human/animal nerv system, not equal for all species, but very similar in general.

    Evolution is not perfect, so some people have lack of this “built in” natural morality and are able to kill without reason, or to get some profit. Such people are minority.

  51. on 23 Aug 2010 at 8:01 pm 51.3D said …

    49.me said …

    Lol. You can say whatever you want about the bible and god, these are your god givin rights.

    I prefer to say ‘human rights’. Because human rights are static, they never change.

    God-given rights, as we all know from reading the bible, can change on any given day with the snap of a finger or the nailing of a poor innocent schmuck to a cross. One day you’re going along your merry way giving alms to the poor and hating your family the way Jesus commanded, and the next day God wakes up on the wrong side of the bed and says it’s OK to kill babies again by smashing them in the side of the head with a rock till there’s blood and brains everywhere, like before. God likes to change his mind a lot about what “rights” are, but I don’t.

    Every year you read this interesting book it will say new things to you personally. If you think its all bullshit that is your choice. Free will is his gift unto you. And if you chose to us it to call him out that’s your choice. Just because a book rewriten buy kings men say that you can pray for anything and it will happen, and you decidedly made this your proffered doesn’t make any retarded coment you make about god true. Hope you have a great day.

    Do you have the secret Bible that wasn’t rewritten by men, that has the real word of God in it? If so, why aren’t you sharing it with the world instead of letting them be misled with this fake altered Bible they’re all reading?

    If you’re just using the same Bible as everyone else, and it’s all screwed up by people, WHY DO YOU BELIEVE ANYTHING IT SAYS?

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply