For all the Christians on here.

[zinfamous]

That is right. I don't care if someone wants to pray for me behind my back. It's their time to waste (or not waste depending on your beliefs). It's the commenting on it that bothers me. It feels condescending, especially after a conversation about religious beliefs. I think it bothers me mostly because it used to happen all the time after my repeated requests to stop. Actually, other than in this thread jokingly, it's been long enough I don't remember the last time someone said they would pray for me.

why not let them remain ignorant in their beliefs, if that is how you feel?

My point is: "why should you care how they feel about you?" All ti does is raise your BP. Nothing you say is really going to sway them.

I agree, though, that desecrating the remains of those from another belief, simply because they would feel it is their right to do so is abominable. But that;s another argument. These type of people are crazy. it is why you should approach most mormons with caution.

 

[Malak]

Actually, I can't sin. Sin requires a god.

That's actually a point I made in another thread. If God didn't exist, morality doesn't either.

 

[Tristicus]

That's actually a point I made in another thread. If God didn't exist, morality doesn't either.

...
Wow that is retarded. Of course sin doesn't exist, but morality?

 

[zinfamous]

Scripture is pretty clear, good deeds are just good deeds without belief. They won't "earn" anything on their own.

How did you interpret "good deeds and sacraments to earn God's grace" as "on their own?"

My point, is that reflect the protestant belief of "Solo fides," or, "faith alone."
I was raised a methodist, so I am familiar with this. I also find it to be a lazy cop out.

Sin all you want, recant on your deathbed. Honestly, IRL, I could give two shits about that. It's all fine by me. But if I actually cared to be a Christian, how is that not the lazy man's way? Faith alone? Honestly, what then, is the point. If one cares not to actually live the life and repeat the deeds that Jesus instructed his followers to do, then wtf is he supposed to have died fore? "Cleansing us of sins?" hilarious.

please....

 

[zinfamous]

That's actually a point I made in another thread. If God didn't exist, morality doesn't either.

religion is not the sole domain of morality.

surely you aren't this daft? that's weak sauce for even the most lazy of theists.

So, you honestly believe that it is only through a belief in a God that quells your instinctual urge to murder, rape, steal, etc?

lol.

 

[Nik]

Still waiting for your reply, Malak.

 

[Malak]

How did you interpret "good deeds and sacraments to earn God's grace" as "on their own?"

My point, is that reflect the protestant belief of "Solo fides," or, "faith alone."
I was raised a methodist, so I am familiar with this. I also find it to be a lazy cop out.

Sin all you want, recant on your deathbed. Honestly, IRL, I could give two shits about that. It's all fine by me. But if I actually cared to be a Christian, how is that not the lazy man's way? Faith alone? Honestly, what then, is the point. If one cares not to actually live the life and repeat the deeds that Jesus instructed his followers to do, then wtf is he supposed to have died fore? "Cleansing us of sins?" hilarious.

please....

The point is there is no magical formula to get a ticket into heaven. God chooses. Why would he choose you? That's the point. People always want to make things legalistic and Jesus tried his best to break that up. Jesus said love, and he said that is the basis for all commandments and demands of prophets. Just love. Don't worry about salvation of yourself, worry instead about salvation of others. The goal of Christianity isn't to make everyone Christians, but to help others live better lives. Ultimately that is the entire point, living better lives. God wants us to live in peace.

 

[zinfamous]

You have it backwards. It explicitly states in the bible multiple times that nothing can be done to earn salvation. Catholics, on the other hand, believe a lot of things that contradict explicit things in the bible. That's why many call the catholic church a cult and not Christian.

and those "many" are no less ignorant of history. what makes the earliest cult of lutherans and then protestants no less of a cult than the earliest Christians? the Coptics? And those that lead to Catholicism?

In what does your theology suddenly allow you to re-write history, redefine words and reinterpret historical belief however it sees fit to make you comfortable in your modern world, divorced from the generations of history that have created for you what you now have?


What, I wonder, is so god damn terrifying when it comes to history and modern, fundamentalist Christians?

 

[Malak]

religion is not the sole domain of morality.

surely you aren't this daft? that's weak sauce for even the most lazy of theists.

So, you honestly believe that it is only through a belief in a God that quells your instinctual urge to murder, rape, steal, etc?

lol.

No that isn't what I believe. I spelled it out a lot more in the other thread, I think it was my sunday sermon actually if you want to go look.

 

[sourceninja]

yes, it's illogical to assume that an atheist should "wish to be able to believe in God." that is just ridiculous.

but as an atheist, and adopting the rational notion that prayer does nothing, should it not matter to you that someone chooses to pray for you? It does nothing, so...no harm, no foul, right?

Hell...what if there is some sort of afterlife and despite your beliefs, some random dude praying for you without your knowledge, in an appeal to their god, gives you that opening in death?

I mean...why not, right? It honestly shouldn't affect you...yes, the smugness of "i will pray for your soul" is obnoxious sometimes, but it really amounts to no negative loss, right?

But as a christian, and adopting the rational that gay are not christians, should it matter to you if they are married? It does nothing according to your faith, so... no harm, no foul right?

Hell, what if god really doesn't care if gays are married, and you just sitting idly by appeases him. It really amounts ot no negative loss, right?



Praying in my name is the same as me having abortions for God.

 

[Malak]

and those "many" are no less ignorant of history. what makes the earliest cult of lutherans and then protestants no less of a cult than the earliest Christians? the Coptics? And those that lead to Catholicism?

Cults of Judaism killed Jesus. Cults of Christianity were pointed out right in the Epistles. Some could argue that every denomination is a cult. The scope of that discussion exceeds this thread I think, but I'm open to PM's any time for more discussion.

In what does your theology suddenly allow you to re-write history, redefine words and reinterpret historical belief however it sees fit to make you comfortable in your modern world, divorced from the generations of history that have created for you what you now have?


What, I wonder, is so god damn terrifying when it comes to history and modern, fundamentalist Christians?

I never redefined or rewrote anything, nor do I try to make things fit with my world. I try to make my world fit with what I believe is right. I change my beliefs to fit new understandings with ease, which I even pointed out in my first post in this thread.

 

[sourceninja]

That's actually a point I made in another thread. If God didn't exist, morality doesn't either.

Morality is a civil concept required for us to live in groups. We tolerate this because living in groups makes our lives much easier.

Having a graven image is a sin, but not immoral. It in no way hurts the group. Stealing and murdering however, these are immoral because they hurt the group as a whole.

Morality exists even without God. It is a requirement for any social structure. Morality is also not set in stone. It changes based on the needs of the culture. If we suddenly had a illeness that reduced our life expectancy to 20, having sex with 15 year olds would not be immoral. If we lived in a world with zombies, it would be considered immoral to not execute anyone who might be bitten by a zombie.

 

[Cookie]

why not let them remain ignorant in their beliefs, if that is how you feel?

My point is: "why should you care how they feel about you?" All ti does is raise your BP. Nothing you say is really going to sway them.

I don't try to change anyone's beliefs. I will defend my point of view if and when it is challenged, but I don't care what anyone else believes. And I don't care how they feel about me or my beliefs, I only care that they respect my wishes and not keep telling me they are going to pray for me. So far it's worked too. The religious friends I have either don't pray for me or don't tell me about it.

 

[Malak]

What you describe is law, not morality. They are not the same thing. Morality cannot be swayed by what is legal or socially acceptable. It needs to be a set standard. If it isn't, then it has no substance. Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral, nor does making something illegal suddenly make it immoral. They are two different things.

 

[Nik]

The point is there is no magical formula to get a ticket into heaven. God chooses. Why would he choose you? That's the point. People always want to make things legalistic and Jesus tried his best to break that up. Jesus said love, and he said that is the basis for all commandments and demands of prophets. Just love. Don't worry about salvation of yourself, worry instead about salvation of others. The goal of Christianity isn't to make everyone Christians, but to help others live better lives. Ultimately that is the entire point, living better lives. God wants us to live in peace.

What gives you any sort of reason to believe that any of what you just said is actually true?

 

[sourceninja]

I don't try to change anyone's beliefs. I will defend my point of view if and when it is challenged, but I don't care what anyone else believes. And I don't care how they feel about me or my beliefs, I only care that they respect my wishes and not keep telling me they are going to pray for me. So far it's worked too. The religious friends I have either don't pray for me or don't tell me about it.

Besides, posting a counter argument is a requirement for a discussion. It may not sway a truly blind man, but it might prevent future generations for going down that silly path.

 

[Nik]

No that isn't what I believe. I spelled it out a lot more in the other thread, I think it was my sunday sermon actually if you want to go look.

You gave up and quit that thread after people started asking you questions.

 

[highland145]

How did you interpret "good deeds and sacraments to earn God's grace" as "on their own?"

My point, is that reflect the protestant belief of "Solo fides," or, "faith alone."
I was raised a methodist, so I am familiar with this. I also find it to be a lazy cop out.

Sin all you want, recant on your deathbed. Honestly, IRL, I could give two shits about that. It's all fine by me. But if I actually cared to be a Christian, how is that not the lazy man's way? Faith alone? Honestly, what then, is the point. If one cares not to actually live the life and repeat the deeds that Jesus instructed his followers to do, then wtf is he supposed to have died fore? "Cleansing us of sins?" hilarious.

please....

I think we're not on the same train of thought. Deeds and taking the sacraments won't bring salvation without Romans 10:9. But I would argue that if Romans 10:9 is true for a person then the good works will follow.

 

[sourceninja]

What you describe is law, not morality. They are not the same thing. Morality cannot be swayed by what is legal or socially acceptable. It needs to be a set standard. If it isn't, then it has no substance. Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral, nor does making something illegal suddenly make it immoral. They are two different things.

Not true at all. For a society, morality is the generally accepted standards of behavior within the society at a point in time.

Ethics is the rules for deciding proper conduct. While not absolutely timeless, ethical principles change very little though the ages. Morality is the standards for behavior that exist at some point in time. Compared to ethics, morality undergoes changes frequently. Compared with ethics, morality is more like a snapshot taken of something moving. Since the principles of ethics are more fundamental and stable, ethics is bigger than morality. Ethics is able to call morality - the existing standards for conduct - into question, and cause morality to change. As an example, consider slavery. Once it was considered moral to own slaves. Over time, ethics called the morality of slavery into question and the eventual result was that slavery was no longer considered moral.

And to my previous example. If we had a max life expectancy of 20, it would be perfectly moral and ethical to have sex with a 15 year old. Obviously this is not moral or ethical today.

 

[Cookie]

What you describe is law, not morality. They are not the same thing. Morality cannot be swayed by what is legal or socially acceptable. It needs to be a set standard. If it isn't, then it has no substance. Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral, nor does making something illegal suddenly make it immoral. They are two different things.

I disagree. Morality is not, and does not need to be, a set standard. Morality changes with the times, and depending on culture.

 

[Malak]

Not true at all. For a society, morality is the generally accepted standards of behavior within the society at a point in time.

Ethics is the rules for deciding proper conduct. While not absolutely timeless, ethical principles change very little though the ages. Morality is the standards for behavior that exist at some point in time. Compared to ethics, morality undergoes changes frequently. Compared with ethics, morality is more like a snapshot taken of something moving. Since the principles of ethics are more fundamental and stable, ethics is bigger than morality. Ethics is able to call morality - the existing standards for conduct - into question, and cause morality to change. As an example, consider slavery. Once it was considered moral to own slaves. Over time, ethics called the morality of slavery into question and the eventual result was that slavery was no longer considered moral.

And to my previous example. If we had a max life expectancy of 20, it would be perfectly moral and ethical to have sex with a 15 year old. Obviously this is not moral or ethical today.

Actually you got your definitions mixed up. Ethics are culture-based, not morality. It is also ethical in some cultures to have sex with minors. Some people have even tried to make child porn legal in some countries.

 

[Nik]

I think we're not on the same train of thought. Deeds and taking the sacraments won't bring salvation without Romans 10:9. But I would argue that if Romans 10:9 is true for a person then the good works will follow.

It's circular reasoning. The Bible says that you'll be judged by your fruits, not by your motivation and fruits. Christians say "fruit" like good deeds can't get you into heaven alone, but someone who is saved will have "good fruits" because nobody who is saved will have bad fruits or do bad deeds.

Therefore, you're judged on your deeds and it doesn't matter whether you're "saved" or not but Christians still think some sort of magical motivation will make those good deads credible.

This also gives many Christians an "out" to judge good people just because they're not Christians.

 

[zinfamous]

But as a christian, and adopting the rational that gay are not christians, should it matter to you if they are married? It does nothing according to your faith, so... no harm, no foul right?

Hell, what if god really doesn't care if gays are married, and you just sitting idly by appeases him. It really amounts ot no negative loss, right?



Praying in my name is the same as me having abortions for God.

IN this case, yes, I think it does affect you if they are actively infringing on your right to live your life, pursue your happiness, whatever. This is a different case than simply praying for you, for whatever reason that they would want to.

And not all Christians believe that the gay is evil. There are plenty of sects out there that freely ordain gays and lesbians, allow them into the church just as any other. Though it does tend to be the ones that rub their faith in your face that have the most fundy, "you live how I live," anti-Christian interpretation of the faith.

 

[highland145]

This also gives many Christians an "out" to judge good people just because they're not Christians.

I've got enough of my own issues that I'm not going to throw rocks at others.

 

[zinfamous]

Cults of Judaism killed Jesus. Cults of Christianity were pointed out right in the Epistles. Some could argue that every denomination is a cult. The scope of that discussion exceeds this thread I think, but I'm open to PM's any time for more discussion.

absolute BULL-FUCKING-SHIT.

Christ claimed he was the son of God. Caesar was the son of God--everyone kenw and accepted this in this day. IT WAS ON THE COINS that Jesus would have carried growing up. This was a fact of life in the Roman empire.

His insult was an affront to ROME, not to the jews. The Pharisees weren't even of any influence during Christ's ministry. It wasn't until 50-70 years after his death, around the time John started writing his gospel, that the power struggle between Jews and the Christian jews came to a head, that John took on this very anti-semetic perspective on the events of the crucifixion, and scribbled the Pharisees into that part of the story, when historical facts show that they had little to no influence within the jewish faith, let alone Rome during the final years of Jesus's ministry.

"The passion" was just that--a "passion play." Jesus was killed by ROME for usurping Caesar's authority. The re-imagining of Christ's death was a political move reflecting the exile of jews, their defeat in the revolt, and a power struggle within the faith. John explicitly depicted his death in this manner for this very political reason. This is why the gospels diverge on this issue, b/c of differing political environments when each was written.
These men were essentially living in exile, both as citizens and men within their own faith. And it wasn't until many, many years later that the cross was adopted as a symbol simply to reinforce the crucifixion as a Jewish conspiracy to kill the man that had now, long after his death, become known as Christ.

The jews never distrusted Christ because he was a threat to him--they believed that the messiah would come with the sword, with his army and conquer--not with the olive branch. There wasn't a single thing that Christ taught that threatened the Jewish faith, much less the very loose power structure that actually existed in his time. He insulted Rome, pure and simple.


this shows your paltry, brainwashed anti-semetic perspective on the truth of the early Christian faith.

lol