"True Christian" denominations must teach True Christian doctrine.

In response to MagicRats post about Mormonism being "Christian",

But I cannot find any objective justification for the 'brother of Satan' issue. They seem to hold Jesus in very high regard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chu...ter-day_Saints (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints)
In order to be Christian, a denomination or doctrine must be biblically sound, the teachings that Christ taught.

This would rule out Mormonism as Christian, they add other writings than the bible to their doctrine. And they teach Jesus was a "Spirit Child" of God in heaven, as they say all humans, and the angles like Lucifer were.
http://www.dearelder.com/index/inc_name/Mormon/title2/Mormon_Doctrine

Jesus Christ, the firstborn spirit of Heavenly Father, agreed to act as Savior in the Father’s plan, and give all glory to the Father. Lucifer was also one of the spirit children of God. He proposed an alternate plan at the same time. In his plan mortal men would not have moral agency. To have agency puts a person in jeopardy of choosing evil over goodThis is NOT the doctrine of Christ is any sense according to the Bible.
According to the bible Christ is the Son of God AND God the Son.
Mormonism teaches Christ was only a creation of God as we are.

This is totally false and is why Mormonism is NOT considered Christian.

so let me guess.. one view is correct and one isnt

Thanks for the reply DownToGround!
Especially since MagicRat decided to ignore this thread!

For those who know and study the Bible for what it clearly states,
YES the Mormon claim of Christ just being a creation is totally false.

Of course then there is the issue do you choose to believe
what the bible says or not?
Apparently those who wrote Mormon doctrine weren't concerned
about adhering to what the bible teaches!

Especially since MagicRat decided to ignore this thread!

And I know that sentiment is expressed with the deepest of affection. :)

I have refrained from commenting here because I did not want to start ranting and burn this thread to the ground.

But I will agree that the accounts and events that are part of the Mormon theology are entirely false and contrived. Extensive (fake) mythology, contrived laws and rules of governance of member's private lives all help remove the burden of independent thought from the members. Extensive social and peer pressure is used in Mormon communities to ensure compliance to rigid social rules and expectations.

To this end the church promotes its own morality and control over its members, at the expense of their free will. One example is the collection of tithe, or almost-mandatory donations to support church programs. Thus in Mormon communities, the church grows ever-wealthier and controls vast amounts of spending and finance with no accountability to the members and the public.

Much of this spending goes to support Mormon missions overseas to prosthelysize and spread their own particular pack of lies about life, the universe etc. If they were truly concerned about the fate of mankind, they would perhaps feed the poor, instead of sending them useless books.

Mormon communities do seem to be more willing to look after their own poor and disadvantaged, within their community. But, imo, much of this is to extend their own rigid control over the community and all its members. Pull someone up by their bootstraps and you have more control over them.

Yes, other religions all do much the same thing. But the Mormons have shown themselves to be very good at it, which is a bit disturbing, imo.

Well, MagicRat,
What else is a thread like this for, if not to "burn to the ground", like all other threads on philosophy and religion???:)

And remember, the issue is "Does Mormon doctrine, adhere to bible doctrine?"
Thats regardless of whether you consider Mormonism false, Christianity false,
or both.
( you could make up a story about Goldilocks going into the three bears house to eat shrimp jambalaya,
it certainly doesn't align with the original story of Goldilocks eating porridge, even though both stories are fairy tales!):rolleyes:


Also, have you known any Mormons? they are usually very nice, upstanding people
even if they believe false doctrine!

A lot of people judge 'christians' as a whole because of some sects whose practices are not related or congruent with the life of Jesus Christ. Not saying that is Mormons, I don't know enough about them, but I am addressing this as a general statement. There are so many worldviews under one umbrella, it is easy to pass judgement without looking deeper into what individuals actually believe. I went to an Alliance church when I was at college, and the pastor there didn't even like to use the term 'Christians', as it was so often stereotyped and came with cultural baggage that people automatically had distaste for the word and the person associated with it.

To this end the church promotes its own morality and control over its members, at the expense of their free will...

I have been interested in this issue for a long time, and continue my studies on it, as I do not believe we were designed to follow God with a lack of free will. This is one of the common misconceptions about what 'religious' people are like, that they are 'bound by their beliefs'. From what I have come to understand (and will surely continue to learn about more) is how untrue this is. In fact, a denial of a creator is the true acceptance of a lack of free will, because everything is randomly happening around us and we are merely responding to stimuli, there is no greater reason or outcome.

God created us in his image with the capacity to choose. While it is understood in Christian doctrine that God knows what our choices will be, that does not mean we don't have the ability to choose. If I have a choice to go out on a Friday night - I can go to a strip club or to Bible Study. If I were to choose to go to the strip club, I would not hit an invisible wall on my way to the club, I would walk in as does any other person with any other faith or worldview. I believe God would be disappointed in my actions and I would have sinned, but this choice is built into us by God's design. For those that are Christians I am not advocating that we all go out to strip clubs, it is simply an example. Hopefully we would have the sense and discipline to avoid it in the first place, but nobody is perfect, also by God's design. Jesus spent a lot of time with people society deemed to be 'dirty', 'forgotten' or 'inadequate' - it was when people felt they had lost everything that they gained everything. They now had a choice.

I don't claim to know all there is to know about this issue but it's a doozie, I enjoy seeing Hitchens and McGrath debate on this issue among others. For atheist and believers alike, watching debates between Alister McGrath (atheist turned Christian, scholar and multiple Ph.D holder) and Michael Hitchens (atheist, ph.D, writer) and Dawkins (everyone knows...) are some great debates to watch.

I feel it appropriate to re-post this here from this post (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6095416&postcount=284) from that thread.

Not BIBLICAL Christianity. I'm sure you are referring to Catholic run nations. Catholicism is not pure biblical Christianity. They corrupt it with man made rules and doctrine not found in the bible.

To make it easier to see what part I'm interested in questioning, I've high-lighted it in red.

And because you I never got a reply to my question in that thread, I'll re-post that too.

So are you saying that Cathlocism isn't Christianity then?

really not much difference on the grand scale of things, just another advocate for faith.....(which ever faith you have)..religion

Well, MagicRat,
What else is a thread like this for, if not to "burn to the ground", like all other threads on philosophy and religion???:)

And remember, the issue is "Does Mormon doctrine, adhere to bible doctrine?"
Thats regardless of whether you consider Mormonism false, Christianity false,
or both.
( you could make up a story about Goldilocks going into the three bears house to eat shrimp jambalaya,
it certainly doesn't align with the original story of Goldilocks eating porridge, even though both stories are fairy tales!):rolleyes:


Also, have you known any Mormons? they are usually very nice, upstanding people
even if they believe false doctrine!

I like your Goldilocks reference. That's an excellent metaphor for the way millions of people use religion for self-assurance.
As people search for a church they like, they might say.....

"Hmmm...... this first church that I attended has too many rules......."

"This second church makes me feel guilty. I don't want that."

"Ah, this third church makes me feel good about myself, so it is just right......."

You see, that's the thing about biblical doctrine, not all of it can be right at the same time. Imo theological discussions about Mormonism are undermined by the elephant in the room.... the fact that such doctrines are often contradictory, yet neither one has any kind of evidentiary support to elevate it over the others.

However, for the sake of staying on topic, yes, Mormon doctrine does seem to adhere to biblical doctrine because the various Mormon texts were written to supplement the Bible, not replace it.
Yes, they do diminish the Bible's stature, but no more so than the New Testament undermines the Old. Yes, Jesus was credited with stating warnings of 'false prophets' undermining his teachings. But imo Jesus had some knowledge of this, because his teachings and actions undermined the Old Testament in some ways, so Jesus could be expected to warn of future prophets.
So, Christians who do not become Mormons are, in a way, like Jews who do not become Christians.

And the theological objections that Christians have to the Mormons simply reinforces the logical conclusion that all these theologies have not a word of truth to them.

That being said, some of the functions and principles of the Mormon church are, imo, legitimate grounds for calling them a 'cult'. Many people have made this accusation. However, it is no more a cult than other denominations, such as the Catholic Church, which, with the papal hierarchy has elevated cultism to vast heights.

Finally, are Mormons nice people? Definitely.
But they would be nice people regardless of their religion. They are nice due to their nature and not their religion, just the same as all the nice Christians, Muslims and Jews that I know.

I feel it appropriate to re-post this here from this post (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6095416&postcount=284) from that thread.



To make it easier to see what part I'm interested in questioning, I've high-lighted it in red.

And because you I never got a reply to my question in that thread, I'll re-post that too.

So are you saying that Cathlocism isn't Christianity then?
__________________


I would compare Catholicism to a batch of brownies baked with a tablespoon of sand and a teaspoon of urine in the batter. They are still brownies, but contaminated brownies.

Catholicism could still be call "Christian" but contaminated with false doctrine. (Like Mormonism):rolleyes:

I like your Goldilocks reference. That's an excellent metaphor for the way millions of people use religion for self-assurance.
As people search for a church they like, they might say.....

"Hmmm...... this first church that I attended has too many rules......."

"This second church makes me feel guilty. I don't want that."

"Ah, this third church makes me feel good about myself, so it is just right......."

You see, that's the thing about biblical doctrine, not all of it can be right at the same time. Imo theological discussions about Mormonism are undermined by the elephant in the room.... the fact that such doctrines are often contradictory, yet neither one has any kind of evidentiary support to elevate it over the others. Christ himself is evidence of the truth of the bible

However, for the sake of staying on topic, yes, Mormon doctrine does seem to adhere to biblical doctrine because the various Mormon texts were written to supplement the Bible, not replace it.I guess you aren't aware of the warnings in Revelation 21: 18, to not ADD anything to the words of "this book" the bible.
Yes, they do diminish the Bible's stature, but no more so than the New Testament undermines the Old. Yes, Jesus was credited with stating warnings of 'false prophets' undermining his teachings. But imo Jesus had some knowledge of this, because his teachings and actions undermined the Old Testament in some ways,wrong, Jesus fulfilled the laws of the O.T., he didn't undermine the O.T.

Finally, are Mormons nice people? Definitely.
But they would be nice people regardless of their religion. They are nice due to their nature and not their religion, just the same as all the nice Christians, Muslims and Jews that I know.A persons beliefs are a large part of their nature!

Jesus fulfilled the laws of the O.T., he didn't undermine the O.T.
I entirely stand corrected. Thank you for enlightening me. :) Jesus was a supporter of the OT, and of all the cruelties, atrocities and god-instructed mass murder found therein.

All the more reason not to give Jesus the credibility some bestow upon him.

I hear so many Christians now a days claim that the Old Testament is defunct for Jesus was the “lamb” to clear away its rules and regulations. This is just another bullshit scapegoat that Christians use to ignore the atrocities and bizarre laws commanded by their god. Their preachers spoon feed them that the Old Testament is no longer binding so that they can excuse the majority of evil that the bible promotes. I am so tired of Christians manipulating the scriptures so that they can assign a kinder nature to their God, that I have assembled a BRIEF list of verses which clearly show that the Old Testament is not to be ignored. Its laws should indeed be adhered to, for the New Testament demands it! After this section I shall list where the Bible contradicts itself concerning other laws.

1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.

2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever. "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. "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) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell. (Matthew 5:27)

7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.” This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18

8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

9) “...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35


But wait, the NT and the OT have many contradictions in laws and instructions. Whatever shall we do?


10) Shall we obey the law? Romans 13:1-7 says quite clearly that Christians are to submit to the law and regard it as the institution of God. 1 Peter 2:13-14 “Submit your self to every ordinance of man ... to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors.” Matthew 22:21 “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s.” Also see Titus 3:1. Matthew 23:2-3 & Ecclesiastes 8:2 This leads one to assume that Christians must and should obey the law, yet look at these verses which contradicts what I just sited. Acts 5:29 “We ought to obey God rather then men.” Exodus 1:17-20 shows God punishing the midwives for following their rulers instead of God. Also see Daniel 3:16-18, 6:7-10, Acts 4:26 & 27, Mark 12:38-40, Luke 23:11, 24 & 33-35 which all say the law should be ignored. Now we know why Christians get away with their selective morality so often.

11) Should we steal? (Exodus 20:15 & Leviticus 19:13) Stealing is absolutely forbidden. Yet, Exodus 3:21-22, 12:35-36 & Luke 19:29-34 all promote stealing.

12) Should we judge? Jesus is quoted in Matthew 7:1-2: “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged.” Also see Luke 6:37 & 1 Corinthians 5:12. Now take a look at “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24). Also note 1 Corinthians 5:12 & 6:2-4.

1 3) Should we covet? Exodus 20:17 says, “Thou shalt not covet . . . anything that is thy neighbor’s,” while 1 Corinthians 12:31 says, “Covet earnestly the best gifts.” So, are we or are we not to covet?

14) Is lying okay? Exodus 20:16. Proverbs 12:22 & Revelations 21:8 all say lying is forbidden. Joshua 2:4-6, Exodus 1:18-20 & 1 Kings 22:21-22 all support lying.

15) Can we kill? Exodus 20:13 says “thou shalt not kill”. Exodus 32:27, Numbers 31, and THOUSANDS of other verses show God commanding us to kill.

16) Can we own slaves? Leviticus 25:45 “Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy … and they shall be your possession… they shall be your bondmen forever.” Genesis 9:25 “And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” Exodus 21:2 & 7 “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing… And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.” Joel 3:8 “And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord hath spoken it.” Luke 12:47-48 [Jesus speaking] “And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.” Colossians 3:22

“Servants, obey in all things your masters.” So obviously the Biblical God thinks slavery is right, right? Just look at these: Isaiah 58:6 “Undo the heavy burdens... let the oppressed go free, ... break every yoke.” Matthew 23:10 “Neither be ye called Masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.” (Also see Exodus 22:21 & 21:16) Let it be known here that pro-slavery Bible verses were cited by many churches in the South during the Civil War, and were used by some theologians in the Dutch Reformed Church to justify apartheid in South Africa. There are more pro-slavery verses than cited here. I simply do not have the room to post all of them.

17) What about Improvidence? Improvidence is enjoined in Luke 12:3 “Sell that ye have and give alms.” also in Luke 6:30 & 35 “Give to every man that asketh of thee, and of him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again ... And lend, hoping for nothing again, and your reward shall be great.” Also note Matthew 6:28, 31 & 34. Improvidence is condemned in I Timothy 5:8 “But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. “ Also see Proverbs 13:22.

18) What does the law say about anger? Ephesians 4:26 says “Be ye angry and sin not not.” Anger is disapproved in Ecciesiastes 7:9 “Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry; for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.” Proverbs 22:24 “Make no friendship with an angry man.” Also see James 1:20.

19) Are we to let our good works be seen? Matthew 5:16 “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.” This contradicts verse Matthew 6:1 , “Take heed that you do not your alms before men, to be seen of them.”

20) Should we pray in public? 1 Kings 2:22, 54 & 9:3 shows the Lord is joyed by public prayer and listens intently. Matthew 6:5-6 condemn public prayer and command people keep it a secret.

21) Can we wear long hair? Judges 13:5 & Numbers 6:5 encourages people to grow their hair and insists it is a source of strength. 1 Corinthians 11:14 calls long hair a “shame”.

22) Should we circumcise males? Genesis 17:10 “This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee: Every man and child among you shall be circumcised. Clearly this demands circumcision, yet Galatians 5:2 says “Behold, I Paul, say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.”

23) Are there certain kinds of foods we should not eat? Deuteronomy 14:2-8 lists several animals that we are NOT to eat because they are “unclean”, “chew the cud” and “divide the hoof”. Yet Genesis 9:3 & 1 Corinthians 10:25 insists there is nothing we can’t eat. Romans 14:14 says: “There is nothing unclean of itself.”

24) Can we take oaths? Numbers 30:2, Genesis 21:23-24, 31, 31:53 & Hebrews 6:13 says that we can take oaths and encourages it. Matthew 5:34 says “swear (make an oath) not at all.”

25) Can we get married? Genesis 2:18, 1:28, Matthew 19:5 & Hebrews 13:4 all insist marriage is honorable. Marriage is disapproved and scorned in 1 Corinthians 7:1 & 7:7-8.

26) Can we commit adultery? Exodus 20: 14 “thou shalt not commit adultery.” Also see Hebrews 13:4. Now look at Numbers 31:18, Hosea 1:2 & 2:1-3 where adultery is advocated by God.

27) Can we drink alcohol? Proverbs 31:6-7, 1 Timothy 5:23 & Psalms 104:15 all encourage drinking and intoxication. Proverbs 20:1 & 23:31-32 discourage drinking and intoxication.

28) Do women have rights? Genesis 3:16 “And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” 1 Timothy 2:12 says a woman must not teach, remain silent and must be subjugated to her man. 1 Corinthians 14:34 & 1 Peter 3:6 both say that women have limited rights and are under control of their men. Judges 4:4, 14-15, 5:7, Acts 2:18 & 21:9 all tell of powerful women who were not subjugated by men and were not punished for their authority of men.

29) Should we obey our masters with usurped authority? Colossians 3:22-23 & 1 Peter 2:18 says we should. 1 Corinthians 7:23 “Be not ye the servants of men.” Also see Matthew 4:10 & 23:10 which say we should not submit usurped to our masters.

30) Was the law of the Old Testament destroyed by Christ’s crucification? Luke16:16, Ephesians 2:15 & Romans 7:6 says that the old law is no longer binding. Yet Matthew 5:17-19 and MANY other verses say that the old law is forever binding. If you want to see the many verses that command we follow the old law please consult the upper portion of this page.

31) Should we swear an oath? Numbers 30:2 “If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath…he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.” Genesis 21:22-24 & 31 “…swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me…And Abraham said, I will swear…Wherefore he called that place Beersheba [“Well of the oath”]; because there they sware both of them.” Hebrews 6:13-17 “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself…for men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability ofhis counsel, confirmed it by an oath.” See also Genesis 22:15- 19, Genesis 31 :53, & Judges I 1 :30-39. So apparently it is okay to swear an oath, we even do this on the Bible in American courts. Just try and forget these verses: Matthew 5:34-37 “But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven…nor by the earth…Neither shalt thou swear by thy head…But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”

James 5:12 “…swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.”

32) Do we keep the Sabbath? Exodus 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Exodus 31:15 “Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.” Numbers 15:32-36 “And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day…And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.” Each of these contradict Isaiah 1:13 “The new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity.“ John 5:16 “And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the Sabbath day. “Colossians 2:16 “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days.”

33) Should we make graven images? Exodus 20:4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven…earth ... water.” Leviticus 26:1 “Ye shall make ye no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone.” Deuteronomy 27:15 “Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image.” Okay, I got it I shouldn’t produce a thing in fear of making a graven image, but wait: Exodus 25:18 “And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them.” I Kings 7:15-16 & 23-25 “For he [Solomon] cast two pillars of brass…and two chapiters of molten brass…And he made a molten sea…it stood upon twelve oxen ... [and so on]”


How about we stick to Secular law, which can be refined and adjusted, instead of taking this stuff seriously? :)

Source: http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm

In order to be Christian, a denomination or doctrine must be biblically sound, the teachings that Christ taught.

This would rule out Mormonism as Christian, they add other writings than the bible to their doctrine....

This is totally false and is why Mormonism is NOT considered Christian.


I would compare Catholicism to a batch of brownies baked with a tablespoon of sand and a teaspoon of urine in the batter. They are still brownies, but contaminated brownies.

Catholicism could still be call "Christian" but contaminated with false doctrine. (Like Mormonism):rolleyes:

Which is it then?
How can Catholicism be Christian despite, as you say, it is contanimated with false doctrine and at the same time, Mormonism, that is also contanimated with false doctrine not be Christian.

How about we stick to Secular law, which can be refined and adjusted, instead of taking this stuff seriously? :)

Source: http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm

Ha ha, the one source for all of that is www.evilbible.com? Gee, that's not one-sided at all! There are plenty of people that will take scripture out of context or in loose translation and say its evil, this is the only way they can attempt to attack the truth that the Bible contains. Fortunately, there are many Bible scholars that offer a scriptural perspective on the verses.

Many people looking from the outside have criticisms already in mind, and just scan the Bible to find an assumed proof of their already determined beliefs without any need for knowledge of what the verse is actually talking about. But if you read it with an open mind and without preconceived judgement, and in my personal experience, it always passes the test. I have personally witnessed some of the toughest verses broken into a sensible, God-honouring conclusion.

Oh, and a significant part of our law and politics (at least in the United States, less so Canada unfortunately) is based on Judeo-Christian doctrine. You know, "In God We Trust".

Which is it then?
How can Catholicism be Christian despite, as you say, it is contanimated with false doctrine and at the same time, Mormonism, that is also contanimated with false doctrine not be Christian.

That is a good point. I would say personally that the term 'Christian' is pretty vague, just about anybody can claim to be a Christian, which is why the term has such broad disapproval and an underlying stereotype of hypocrisy. Maybe the umbrella term 'Christian' does indeed encompass both of these religions, but they are further categorized by their 'Catholic' and 'Mormon' designations, kind of like all the different Protestant denominations - Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, Alliance, etc.

what did i start?!?!?!?!

Which is it then?
How can Catholicism be Christian despite, as you say, it is contanimated with false doctrine and at the same time, Mormonism, that is also contanimated with false doctrine not be Christian.

I believe the line is drawn in what their doctrine says about Christ. Mormonism denies the deity of Christ Catholicism does not.

what did i start?!?!?!?!

You didn't start this thread, I did!!!!

I entirely stand corrected. Thank you for enlightening me. :) Jesus was a supporter of the OT, and of all the cruelties, atrocities and god-instructed mass murder found therein.

All the more reason not to give Jesus the credibility some bestow upon him.


But wait, the NT and the OT have many contradictions in laws and instructions. Whatever shall we do?



How about we stick to Secular law, which can be refined and adjusted, instead of taking this stuff seriously? :)

Source: http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm


Congratulations MagicRat for your excellent display of utter incompetence
of understanding bible doctrine!!!!:bigthumb:

I believe the line is drawn in what their doctrine says about Christ. Mormonism denies the deity of Christ Catholicism does not.

So you'll recognise them as Christian and are allowed to contanimate Bible doctrine with man made laws and false doctrine as long as they still recognise Jesus?

Congratulations MagicRat for your excellent display of utter incompetence
of understanding bible doctrine!!!!:bigthumb:

Ha ha, the one source for all of that is www.evilbible.com? Gee, that's not one-sided at all! There are plenty of people that will take scripture out of context or in loose translation and say its evil, this is the only way they can attempt to attack the truth that the Bible contains. Fortunately, there are many Bible scholars that offer a scriptural perspective on the verses.

Many people looking from the outside have criticisms already in mind, and just scan the Bible to find an assumed proof of their already determined beliefs without any need for knowledge of what the verse is actually talking about. But if you read it with an open mind and without preconceived judgement, and in my personal experience, it always passes the test. I have personally witnessed some of the toughest verses broken into a sensible, God-honouring conclusion.

Oh, and a significant part of our law and politics (at least in the United States, less so Canada unfortunately) is based on Judeo-Christian doctrine. You know, "In God We Trust".
Okay, I like both of you so please do not take this blasting personally. :)

But from CL8, all I hear is ridicule but no facts, no support and, amazingly enough, not even any biblical support for your arguments. Boy, I don't even believe in god but I can use religion to support my argument better than you. :rolleyes: If your scripture was not so self-destructive, you could actually use it to make a point instead of calling me names.:nono:

Akboss, is evilbible biased? Sure it is!! And both of you are, too.

For example, CL8 displays tremendous bias in most of her religious posts. She uses selected bit and pieces of religious doctrine to support her very narrow religious beliefs, and to pillage those of other Christian doctrines. Right now, she is heaping disdain upon the Catholics. But I am sure that most devout Catholics would say that her interpretation is wrong! Can both CL8 and about a billion Catholics both be right at the same time? Of course not. It is much more reasonable to conclude that they are BOTH wrong.

How are biblical scholars useful?? Again, the Catholic church has many, many devout biblical scholars who all believe their Church is right, true and just? Yet CL8 (and pretty much all Protestants everywhere) claims all those scholars are wrong!! How can they ALL be right at the same time?? This proves that Biblical scholars are all virtually useless..... interpreting a vast, hazy mishmash of fables and legends to support whatever preconceived notion they want to support. The sheer weight of contradictions that such scholars comes up with clearly means ALL are not credible.

Frankly, you, CL8 and evilbible all support my notion that the bible is simply fairytales used by some humans to manipulate and control others. So, the Bible needs interpretation to be useful? In my experience, the Bible verses can be twisted, manipulated and interpreted to support almost anything. How useful is the bible, if it needs such acrobatic interpretation to come up with anything good?.

And how useful is the bible when so MUCH of it is obviously inconsistent with a modern, secular concepts such as free will, freedom basic human rights?

Whatever is good in the religious world comes from the people involved. Not god and not the bible! In fact, there is AMPLE proof to show that the average person is more decent, is more honorable and more respectful than god or the bible.!:lol:

As for the basis of North American law.... you are wrong. Most of the law as we know it today is sourced from a Greco-Roman tradition (the source of the concept 'democracy'), as modified my the Napoleonic code, English common law, the work of many secular liberal philosophers, and modern judicial and statute law. Often these sources of law directly contradict biblical teachings, and rightly so.

For example, many slaveowners in 18th and 19th century America used the bible's acceptance of slavery and laws permitting slave ownership as a basis for their own terrible and cruel actions. :(




what did i start?!?!?!?!
hahaha. Well, you did get this thread rolling!
But don't worry, many of these arguments have been made elsewhere on this forum. I think we all enjoy the debate, or else we would not participate. Personally, I find supporting the atheist cause quite easy - the various religions themselves provide ample evidence why they all should not be taken seriously. :)

to quote van wilder " you shouldn't take life to seriously, you'll never get out alive"

Okay, I like both of you so please do not take this blasting personally. :)

Hey likewise, I am personally really enjoying this as it gives me a chance to honestly look at what I believe and why I believe it - it's all friendly!


Akboss, is evilbible biased? Sure it is!! And both of you are, too.


Well this is an interesting point. See, the problem I see here is one of perspective. I look at sites like Evilbible.com and before they even start to intellectually unpack these verses (because they don't), they simply say this God dude is all BS, let's try and find verses that easily identify it. But if you start with a worldview that says God is real and what his son Jesus speaks is truth, then you can look at it much differently. Instead of reading a verse and saying "look, God is evil!" one would ask "well, that's not like Jesus to say that, what did he mean by that?" And then it opens the door to intellectual studying and, hopefully, understanding.

Contrary to the perception that most Christians wake up into a daze of brainwashed routine, most people that I know keep studying because they find the answers in the Bible to be intellectually satisfying. There are many Christian publications that are specifically written to find the underlying meanings to the 'difficult verses' that Evilbible throws on the table. I did a quick search on Amazon and there is like a dozen such books, likely more.

(http://www.amazon.ca/Hard-Questions-Answers-William-Craig/dp/1581344872/ref=pd_sim_b_2)

You may be thinking these are biased, but if you consider the Bible to be truth, and you are attempting to intelligently challenge the tough verses, I'd say it is a much better attempt than simply suggesting loosely that the Bible is evil.

Just the other day I had the pleasure of watching a series of great interest by a Dr.Eggerichs (great name eh?) who teaches a lecture series called 'love and respect', it's basically a marriage 'tool' to open easier communication between husbands and wives. Excellent series, no matter what your views on faith. Anyways, he took a look at the verse so often used by the feminist movement against the Bible. 1 Peter 3:7 reads "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered." Now, it would be easy to look at this and say that the Bible says women are weaker - that is what it says right? Well, look a little closer. In fact, Peter is referring to 'husbands' specifically, not men. This is significant, because the relationship between a husband and wife is much different than that of a strange man and woman. Then he says 'give honour unto the wife' - also not to be missed. Honour is a very strong word, you would give honour to a King in your unwavering allegiance, or charge to war and die for honour. Following that, he says 'as unto the weaker vessel'. The 'as unto' identifies a comparative statement, not a descriptive one. Basically he is saying 'give honour to your wife, as if she was a weaker vessel'. And if the term 'vessel' seems derrogatory, it isn't. There are other verses in the Bible where this term is used with an air of praise.

I may not have done this one instance complete justice, but it gives you an idea of how one can simply look at a verse and make presuppositions, but if you take the time to carefully look at it, there is a reason for it.


And how useful is the bible when so MUCH of it is obviously inconsistent with a modern, secular concepts such as free will, freedom basic human rights?


I don't quite understand this one. Free will must basically be said to be non existent if one is to accept that evolution is how we arrived to be, and there is no greater meaning to any of our choices or actions.


As for the basis of North American law.... you are wrong. Most of the law as we know it today is sourced from a Greco-Roman tradition (the source of the concept 'democracy'), as modified my the Napoleonic code, English common law, the work of many secular liberal philosophers, and modern judicial and statute law. Often these sources of law directly contradict biblical teachings, and rightly so.

Not sure about that one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQOCvthw-o


For example, many slaveowners in 18th and 19th century America used the bible's acceptance of slavery and laws permitting slave ownership as a basis for their own terrible and cruel actions. :(


You must be forgetting about Martin Luther King, Baptist pastor and possibly one of the greatest civil rights activists of our time. Many attribute major milestones in the abolition of slavery in Western culture directly to this Bible-preachin' brother.

And now I've got something for you, Magic...or anyone else. Atheists love to take examples of Christians who do bad things and say 'look! They are hipocrites, the Bible is corrupt!" But in all honesty, a true Christian should be the first one to admit that those individuals, and indeed all of us, are flawed. It's the whole reason Jesus came to die on the cross, because man in human nature is flawed and sinful. So it isn't 'un-Christian' to screw up or do bad things, it's just a person who is a little lost. But what does an atheist attribute horrible acts to? If a Christian murders someone, he is going against the principles, values and morals he has been taught. But if an atheist murders someone, he isn't breaking any of his principles, values and morals, just the law. Now I'm not saying that anybody who isn't a Christian doesn't have morals - some of my closest friends don't believe in God - but what is there that instills moral value into an atheist? Nature surely isn't like that, if I can get ahead I should do it. Why would someone help a stranger, even if it was to their own disadvantage?

Hey likewise, I am personally really enjoying this as it gives me a chance to honestly look at what I believe and why I believe it - it's all friendly!



Well this is an interesting point. See, the problem I see here is one of perspective. I look at sites like Evilbible.com and before they even start to intellectually unpack these verses (because they don't), they simply say this God dude is all BS, let's try and find verses that easily identify it. But if you start with a worldview that says God is real and what his son Jesus speaks is truth, then you can look at it much differently. Instead of reading a verse and saying "look, God is evil!" one would ask "well, that's not like Jesus to say that, what did he mean by that?" And then it opens the door to intellectual studying and, hopefully, understanding.

Contrary to the perception that most Christians wake up into a daze of brainwashed routine, most people that I know keep studying because they find the answers in the Bible to be intellectually satisfying. There are many Christian publications that are specifically written to find the underlying meanings to the 'difficult verses' that Evilbible throws on the table. I did a quick search on Amazon and there is like a dozen such books, likely more.

(http://www.amazon.ca/Hard-Questions-Answers-William-Craig/dp/1581344872/ref=pd_sim_b_2)

You may be thinking these are biased, but if you consider the Bible to be truth, and you are attempting to intelligently challenge the tough verses, I'd say it is a much better attempt than simply suggesting loosely that the Bible is evil.

Just the other day I had the pleasure of watching a series of great interest by a Dr.Eggerichs (great name eh?) who teaches a lecture series called 'love and respect', it's basically a marriage 'tool' to open easier communication between husbands and wives. Excellent series, no matter what your views on faith. Anyways, he took a look at the verse so often used by the feminist movement against the Bible. 1 Peter 3:7 reads "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered." Now, it would be easy to look at this and say that the Bible says women are weaker - that is what it says right? Well, look a little closer. In fact, Peter is referring to 'husbands' specifically, not men. This is significant, because the relationship between a husband and wife is much different than that of a strange man and woman. Then he says 'give honour unto the wife' - also not to be missed. Honour is a very strong word, you would give honour to a King in your unwavering allegiance, or charge to war and die for honour. Following that, he says 'as unto the weaker vessel'. The 'as unto' identifies a comparative statement, not a descriptive one. Basically he is saying 'give honour to your wife, as if she was a weaker vessel'. And if the term 'vessel' seems derrogatory, it isn't. There are other verses in the Bible where this term is used with an air of praise.

I may not have done this one instance complete justice, but it gives you an idea of how one can simply look at a verse and make presuppositions, but if you take the time to carefully look at it, there is a reason for it.



I don't quite understand this one. Free will must basically be said to be non existent if one is to accept that evolution is how we arrived to be, and there is no greater meaning to any of our choices or actions.



Not sure about that one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQOCvthw-o



You must be forgetting about Martin Luther King, Baptist pastor and possibly one of the greatest civil rights activists of our time. Many attribute major milestones in the abolition of slavery in Western culture directly to this Bible-preachin' brother.

And now I've got something for you, Magic...or anyone else. Atheists love to take examples of Christians who do bad things and say 'look! They are hipocrites, the Bible is corrupt!" But in all honesty, a true Christian should be the first one to admit that those individuals, and indeed all of us, are flawed. It's the whole reason Jesus came to die on the cross, because man in human nature is flawed and sinful. So it isn't 'un-Christian' to screw up or do bad things, it's just a person who is a little lost. But what does an atheist attribute horrible acts to? If a Christian murders someone, he is going against the principles, values and morals he has been taught. But if an atheist murders someone, he isn't breaking any of his principles, values and morals, just the law. Now I'm not saying that anybody who isn't a Christian doesn't have morals - some of my closest friends don't believe in God - but what is there that instills moral value into an atheist? Nature surely isn't like that, if I can get ahead I should do it. Why would someone help a stranger, even if it was to their own disadvantage?

Wow, that's a lot of material there.
Okay, last paragraph first. Generally, my objection to organized religion is that it removes much of the opportunity for people to think rationally for themselves. It substitutes much of common sense with a whole raft or irrational laws. For example, you say that man is flawed and sinful. Why? The bible says it is from original sin as outlined in Genesis. But this is rediculous. Genesis is an impossible tale without a shred of credibility. So how are we sinful for something that we did not do, but only happened in a fake story?

It it notions of stuff like 'original sin' that are repugnant. It says the alleged loving god who created us allowed all of us to pay for the sins of the first (fake) people. Akboss, are you held accountable for the actions fo your father? Grandfather? Great-grandfather? No, of course not. But your loving god seems to think such an outlook is reasonable. Furthermore, devout religious people use this 'original sin' notion to harrass and threaten people...... by saying we are all born sinful and will go to a firery hell unless we take special action to cleanse ourselves. How is this beneficial? How is this moral, or decent? How does this show a thread of common human decency? It doesn't. But it DOES allow a select few religious people to command the loyalty of their religious followers.


Humans are human, we are good or bad, in varying degrees because of our nature and upbringing, not because a fake god made us so. Good people will be good whether they are athiest, agnostic jewish, muslim etc. So god does not make us bad. And god will not save us, because he does not exist. Humans should be kind and decent to each other because that is all we've got. There is no afterlife and there is no god to condemn us or save us if things go bad.

Many atheists believe this. Most atheists are altruistc, moral and kind people, just like religious people because it is in their nature to be so. Anthropologists have puzzled over that same thing..... why are so many people altruistic/moral when it serves no tangible benefit?

It turns out that altruistic people historically do better in the small social groups, primitive communities etc in which humans evolved. Altrustic people benefit their community and help it survive. In turn, their communities help them survive and help their kids survive. Selfish people are more likely to be rejected by their community and have to survive on their own, and thus often died without successfully rearing children.

So, humans have evolved to be altruistic and do not need a god to tell them to be so. All they need is a community which recognizes and ultimately, benefits from such behaviour.

Next.... criticism of religion. Most atheists take issue with the nature and teachings of organized religion, but NOT the religious people themselves.

I have noticed it is virtually universal among modern religious people to 'pick and choose' amongst the lessons and principles of their religion. They will accept some aspects and reject others.
Religois people will not keep slaves, even if the Bible permits it.
They will not kill people who worship another god, even if the bible tells them to do so.
They will not take arms up and invade the neighbouring village and slay all those worship another god, even though the bible tells them to do so.
They will not kill those who curse their parents, they do not burn hookers to death, they do not stone blasphemers to death, kill adulterers, nor do many other immoral things that biblical laws tell them to do.

This is because modern religious people have modified biblical teachings to suit their sensibilites. Clearly, religious humans are deciding how to be good, and not the bible. Indeed, almost all humans are better and more moral than the bible is. You may call these laws "tough verses" but I call them an obvious sign that the bible is deeply flawed, and proof that people are better than the bible, because they can recognise the flaws.

This is the core tenant of atheism. People can think for themselves. People can create and develop moral and just societies, with secular laws that serve humanity for the greater good. Humans are not under the oppression of a fake deity, nor are we bound to a barbaric ancient code based on primitive tales and superstition.

As for slavery...... Martin Luther King was a fine man and did much good work. But he had nothing to do with abolishing slavery. Akboss, you may find this surprising, but it was a different religious group that spearheaded the abolishment of slavery. The Quakers of England were the first organization to truly recognise slavery for what it was AND mount an organized tireless defence against it.

There is an excellent book on the subject, called Bury the Chains. I sincerely suggest you read this. I read ita few years ago and found it to be a thoroughly fascinating and uplifting book.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Bury-the-Chains/Adam-Hochschild/e/9780618619078

I should add the Quakers first addressed the slave trade itself through consumer boycotts...... abolishing slavery itself took considerably more effort by a much larger group of people.

As for the basis for law in Canada and the US...... oh dear...... it was not religion. I sincerely assure you, that a study of the executive, legislative and judicial systems in these countries will show many different influences. Even the most basic study of political history can tell you this.
Yes, your youtube video shows that American politicians pray (and pray quite often, but most still lose elections:)) But most American politicians still favor the principle of official separation of church and state, as found in the First Amendment. The US courts system has held up this principle, in support of the Constitution many, many times.

The Greco-Roman traditions gave us the notion of democracy and the concept of an elected governing body, such as a Senate. Indeed, the both the Americans and Canadians use much the same name and basic structure from ancient times. Philosophers like John Locke, and others gave us many of the concepts structures and principles found in western democracies, particularly the US and Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

Vital principles such as Libertarianism are vital in understanding the tenants and prinicples that affect the creation and development of all levels of US and Canadian government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Indeed, the philosophy of Liberalism was far more fundamental to the principles of the US government than religious tenants. Many earlier Americans of the time were distrustful of religious control over people and sought to free America of the religious persecution found elsewhere in the world.

Other influences? The Magna Carta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
I will add to this the lengthy pariamentary democracy that has existed (for better or worse) in the Brishish Isles for centuries before the the US independence.
Do you want more secular influences? The events and principles that were developing in revolutionary France deeply affected the law and government of the US. These include the Declaration of the Rights of Man and The Citizen, of 1789.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citize n

Also, events such as the adoption of the Napoleonic Code influenced the US judiciary, amongst others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_code

Treatment of women in the bible: Well, intellectuals can do linguistic gymnastics to apologize for the treatment of women in the bible. But it is obvious that the bible is repeatedly misogynistic. Hoe can one explain away this: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11%3A3-9&version=KJV
Again, modern secular law manages to treat women better than the bible would have us do. I sincerely invite you to put a more beneficial spin on this. Yes, I know that you favor interpretation. But this is in black-and-white, and is utterly inconsistent with basic human rights.

I'll address the other issues in a little while.

Generally, my objection to organized religion is that it removes much of the opportunity for people to think rationally for themselves.


Well, as I stated before, that's because you are choosing not to approach the Bible and its teachings as rational, and invest in something just as mysterious with just as many approachable flaws (evolution). In fact, just looking at the complexity of the world around us and saying it is just by chance is the definition of ignorance to me personally - I couldn't be as arrogant as to assume that I am the most supreme being in existence.

I will give you that some religious people respond to intelligent questions (often seen in debates with atheists) with spiritual rhetoric, instead of approaching the situation on an equally intellectual level. Not all religious people are like this! It's why I'm a fan of Alister McGrath, double Ph.D in biology and philosophy, who is an atheist-converted-Christian. His background allows him to but head-to-head with the best because he once thought that way as well, and do you really think that someone with those accreditations is going to just 'stop thinking'? Never!



Humans are human, we are good or bad, in varying degrees because of our nature and upbringing...Most atheists are altruistc, moral and kind people, just like religious people because it is in their nature to be so.
So what is it in their nature that causes this? It goes against the very principle of evolution - the strongest survive, and their code is passed down, hence slowly building a more adept and capable 'creature'. So if I give money to a charity, what part of my evolutionary human nature is saying "I could buy a new car or new clothes, which would potentially make me more attractive to the opposite sex, getting me a more attractive mate, and bettering my offspring - but I want to help this person, because I want to". I know why a Christian would do it - they would be trying to be more like Christ, who lived a life devoted to love and compassion towards others.



Most atheists take issue with the nature and teachings of organized religion, but NOT the religious people themselves.
Ah, I wish this were the case, but one can tell from the condescending tone and adjectives used by the God-figures of atheism (aka Dawkins) that this is not the case. Religious people are insulted as being knuckle-dragging neanderthals, even if they are bringing to the table valid points for intellectual discussion.


Religois people will not keep slaves, even if the Bible permits it.
They will not kill people who worship another god, even if the bible tells them to do so.
They will not take arms up and invade the neighbouring village and slay all those worship another god, even though the bible tells them to do so.
They will not kill those who curse their parents, they do not burn hookers to death, they do not stone blasphemers to death, kill adulterers, nor do many other immoral things that biblical laws tell them to do.
Again, misinterpretations based on your disinterest to intellectually approach the Bible verses from a different perspective. You can't tell me who is inside a car if you're too busy looking at the condition of the glass on the windows. Bad analogy, but you get the idea.


This is the core tenant of atheism. People can think for themselves. People can create and develop moral and just societies, with secular laws that serve humanity for the greater good. Humans are not under the oppression of a fake deity, nor are we bound to a barbaric ancient code based on primitive tales and superstition.
Again with an undertone of disrespect and self-appointed superiority in your 'faith' that God is fake. It's easy to look at what good people could do, but if there is no higher morality and we can each do as we see fit and be justified doing it, there is much more room for an abuse and in fact anti-civilization with your utopian interpretation of a world without religion. In fact, a documentary recently explored the effects of a hospital in Germany which 'kills off' sick and older patients with death pills, inspired by Darwinian philosophy. This isn't mercy-killing as they call it, this is against the will of the family because they are simply absorbing resources and need to die. There is a growing interest in parts of Germany (and around the world) in eugenics and selective breeding, some things I'm sure that you wouldn't even want to know about, inspired of course by our ability to 'think freely' and push our species ahead. Of course they are justified, what reason should anyone have to stop them? Why would we not perform all kinds of exploratory operations on babies and children to test new medicines, it's for the better of our species right? What moral reason could you have not to do this, and if you have one, where does that come from?

Double post, (don't know how)

But from CL8, all I hear is ridicule but no facts, no support and, amazingly enough, not even any biblical support for your arguments. Boy, I don't even believe in god but I can use religion to support my argument better than you. :rolleyes: If your scripture was not so self-destructive, you could actually use it to make a point instead of calling me names.:nono:Uh,where did I call you names?
I still DO like you MR! :)



Genesis is an impossible tale without a shred of credibility. So how are we sinful for something that we did not do, but only happened in a fake story?MR, You are not backing your view up with any credibility. It makes much more sense, with more evidence that humans came from humans and not monkeys.
Furthermore, devout religious people use this 'original sin' notion to harrass and threaten people...... by saying we are all born sinful and will go to a firery hell unless we take special action to cleanse ourselves. How is this beneficial? How is this moral, or decent? How does this show a thread of common human decency? It doesn't. But it DOES allow a select few religious people to command the loyalty of their religious followers. MagicRat, you mean you actually can't see the benefit in cleansing oneself of evil, hurtful motives and deeds? Everyone benefits if everyone stops breaking laws and hurting other people, thats what the the Bible teaches, that is what is beneficial, LOVE thy neighbor as thyself. (the second of the great commandments)



So, humans have evolved to be altruistic and do not need a god to tell them to be so. All they need is a community which recognizes and ultimately, benefits from such behaviour. Then why are our jails overfilled with criminals?

.




As for the basis for law in Canada and the US...... oh dear...... it was not religion. I sincerely assure you, that a study of the executive, legislative and judicial systems in these countries will show many different influences. Even the most basic study of political history can tell you this.
Yes, your youtube video shows that American politicians pray (and pray quite often, but most still lose elections:)) But most American politicians still favor the principle of official separation of church and state, as found in the First Amendment. The US courts system has held up this principle, in support of the Constitution many, many times. MR,this is another biblical concept you ignore. TRUE worship of God comes from the heart by ones FREE choice, not because they are compelled to worship by the state. Christs church is NOT a state run church because his kingdom is NOT of this world. The founders saw the abuses of the state church and wanted to stop it.
Read a few quotes from Americas founders (and first three presidents):

George Washington (first U.S. president):
" It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the bible."

John Adams (second U.S. president): "Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the bible for their own law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited... what a utopia; what a paradise this region would be!"

Thomas Jefferson (third U.S. president): "the bible makes the best people in the world."

"the bible is the source of liberty."

As for the references you site, especially the one on liberalism, MR, did you know that is what God wanted for his people the Israelites?

If you know O.T. history, you know shortly after the Israelites settled in the promised land, they begged for God to give them a king. God was displeased. He didn't want them to have an earthly king, he wanted them to worship and serve HIM as their king, individually obeying his laws as set forth in his word.
The system of government the U.S. still has today is about as close a form of government as you can get to that today. And several times in the declaration of independence there is reference to GOD giving people the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.



Treatment of women in the bible: Well, intellectuals can do linguistic gymnastics to apologize for the treatment of women in the bible. But it is obvious that the bible is repeatedly misogynistic. Hoe MagicRat, are you trying to degrade women even further???!!:)can one explain away this: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11%3A3-9&version=KJV
I would love to see you attempt to explain what that passage says.

I am a woman and I am not offended that the bible states that the man was made to be the leader in a relationship with his wife.

Is the position of vice president in the U.S. an abusive or disgraceful position? I don't think anyone would say that. The woman is to be the "vice president" in her marriage, letting her husband have the final say.

TRUE worship of God comes from the heart by ones FREE choice, not because they are compelled to worship by the state. Christs church is NOT a state run church because his kingdom is NOT of this world. The founders saw the abuses of the state church and wanted to stop it.

I picked this bit out of your post, CL8, excellent phrasing and great point.

it's interesting that Jefferson was quoted because he also said this:
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

A few points here. Akboss, please re-read my brief notion in altruism's role in evolution. It really does make sense. Humans have evolved to be largely cooperative and altruistic for common survival. It is not at all counter-intuitive to evolution as you say. It is also found in many places elsewhere in the animal world. Mother animals altruistically look after their offspring. Male animals protect their pack or herd. Many animals actively seek to live in packs or herds for mutual self-interest, because of evolutionary forces. Humans are socially more sophisticated so their altruism is similarly more spohisticated. But the forces which shape it are just the same.

Next, I still observe the both you and CL8 do not explicity defend the entire bible. The both of you, being decent people, still pick-and-choose what you want to believe in. While this is a good thing, imo, the both of you need not claim the bible is the source for your morality. It comes from within you, not from a god.

Indeed, as I have stated so many times, the bible and christianity has much evil in it, and many, many contradictions. IMO the both of you are far better than your religion.

Thomas Jefferson, Adams and Washington's statements of religion and the bible are fine from a personal opinion. But are they morally credible in the modern sense? Jefferson and Washington were slave-owners. (Not sure about Adams). Jefferson even had a slave mistress who bore him children. Some of their descendants today have been identified through genetic markers (PBS did a special on this a few years ago).

I am sure all the founding fathers were fine people and did many virtuous things. I have respect for their views on government, politics and philosophy. But their opinions and actions must be kept in context. I do not believe some have much credibility in terms of being moral compasses for modern times.

Case in point "The bible is the source of liberty". Really? For whom? His slaves? How about the slaves in the bible? How about women? How about those who worshipped other gods, or worshipped gods incorrectly? They were supposed to be killed by the righteous, according to bible law. If anything, the bible is the source of much oppression. The source of liberty are the people who fought the oppressors, (including some religious institutions) and the philosophers and statesmen who helped influence their actions.

But, just as modern society has moved beyond slave-ownership, it has also moved beyond the reliance of an obviously deeply -flawed bible as a moral compass for government. Indeed, the First Amendment very rationally put religion in its proper place, with respect to government. If I were to be a jerk, I would say the "GOD-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" extended only to land-owning white men. It took many post-First Amendment governments to extend those fundamental rights to everyone else. :)

EDIT:
The notion that Free-will exists for religious worship is patently absurd. The existence of Hell as a penalty for worshiping incorrectly, or not at all, and heaven as a bribe for doing it right, essentially removes any notion of 'free will'. It is the same as if I mugged you with a gun. I might say" give me your wallet. You have the free will not to give it to me, but I will kill you if you do not do as I say"
Free will is the ability to make choices without the threat of punishment of the allure of a reward. When these factors are brought into play, free will is rendered largely irrelevant.

Hmmm.... prison populations. CL8, how many convicts are Christian? I came across a source (cannot find it now:() that 75% of convicts considered themselves to be Christian when they committed their crimes. As I have stated before, people are good or bad because of their nature, not their religion, or lack of it.

Now, much as I really enjoy debating the two of you, I will have to address the rest of this later. I have a job and a career, and I am in university. I have a big assignment for tomorrow (Saturday) and if I don't get back to studying, I will never pass. If I were inclined to pray, I would be doing so right now. :) But as a 'godless heathen', I had better learn the material!! :)

Cheers!

Hey good debates, and while we still maintain different sides of the fence on most of these issues, glad to bounce ideas back and forth. You really would get some consolation by reading into verses that seem to come across as encouraging slaves or demeaning women. As I broke down the verse so commonly used by feminists against the Bible, so all of these verses have a reason and a purpose that is not as grim as it first seems. Believe me, Christians struggle with these too, but that is what is so interesting, the challenge to understand God's word 'better'.

Good luck on your paper and studies!

I too must start getting some work done :runaround:

All the best.

I picked this bit out of your post, CL8, excellent phrasing and great point.

Thanks Akboss!

It's nice to see I'm not alone in my views here!

So you'll recognise them as Christian and are allowed to contanimate Bible doctrine with man made laws and false doctrine as long as they still recognise Jesus?

Not necessarily "born-again", but "Christian" as the world defines Christian.

I would again say "contaminated" Christian.

(the Catholic doctrine, not the people in the catholic church)

it's interesting that Jefferson was quoted because he also said this:


True to a point, just because you reject God Drunken Monkey, doesn't
mean I suffer because of it.

Now if your rejection of God causes you to embrace immoral acts like rape, and you rape me, then that would indirectly cause me harm from your unbelief.

Hmmm.... prison populations. CL8, how many convicts are Christian? I came across a source (cannot find it now:frown:) that 75% of convicts considered themselves to be Christian when they committed their crimes. As I have stated before, people are good or bad because of their nature, not their religion, or lack of it.
The point MR, was not how many Christians committed crimes and are in prison, the point, as you said below,
is that we humans "evolved" to be altruistic and good to each other.
If that statement was true then we should have far fewer inmates in our prisons, not overcrowding as we have.:cool:

So, humans have evolved to be altruistic and do not need a god to tell them to be so. All they need is a community which recognizes and ultimately, benefits from such behaviour.

The point MR, was not how many Christians committed crimes and are in prison, the point, as you said below,
is that we humans "evolved" to be altruistic and good to each other.
If that statement was true then we should have far fewer inmates in our prisons, not overcrowding as we have.:cool:
Good point. But anthropologists have found that there is evidence that many fairly common human flaws actually provided primitive human societies and communities with survival benefits. Here are a few:

Sickle-cell anemia is common among those of African descent. It is a chronic and debilitating condition, but also provides protection against the malaria bacteria. So humans so afflicted had a survival benefit and the affliction survived today.

Color-blindness and dyslexia present problems in modern life. But they also bring about differing abilities. The color-blind have better vision for detecting camouflaged prey or predators. Also, they have been shown to have much greater visual acuity for seeing beige/brown/grey hues.

Dyslexics have differing abilities with spacial relationships and problem-solving which are an advantage in hunting prey or escaping predators.

Likewise, about 2% of humans display psychopathic and/or violent tendencies. It's been theorized that such people are terrible in peacetime, but make excellent soldiers and defenders of communities. So, these people also have evolved to exist in our communities, Unfortunately, unless we are actually at war, modern society does not have much place for them, so many end up as misfits, criminals and prisoners.

Please note that there are many, many social and legal factors that affect prison populations. The US has a much higher incarceration rate and violent crime rate (murders, gun crime etc) than most other developed western nations.
Nations like Norway have much less crime, and far fewer prisons, but are much less religious that the US. The reasons for this differing rates are vast and complex and cannot be overcome by religious enthusiasm.

But one common thread found in most American prisoners is...... that lack of an active, responsible father figure when the prisoners were growing up. Growing up without a decent father does not guarantee one becomes a criminal, but it sure increases the odds.

Frankly, imo, family responsibilities is one foundation of Christian principles. But,the US divorce rate is so high, as is desertion of the family by the father.This is all the more tragic when one considers how many Americans consider themselves to be christian. Therefore, imo, lots of Christians do not always follow christian family values when raising kids, to the detriment of the kids and society as a whole.


MR, did you know that is what God wanted for his people the Israelites?

If you know O.T. history, you know shortly after the Israelites settled in the promised land, they begged for God to give them a king. God was displeased. He didn't want them to have an earthly king, he wanted them to worship and serve HIM as their king, individually obeying his laws as set forth in his word.
The system of government the U.S. still has today is about as close a form of government as you can get to that today. And several times in the declaration of independence there is reference to GOD giving people the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This reminds me of a quote (I forget who it was) who was commenting on George Washington's autocratic style, in 1776. "I fear we have exchanged King George III for King George I :)
I think that you give far too much weight to this principle. Americans value religious freedom and separation of church and state too much to consider god to be a ruler or king of any kind, either metaphorically or literally.

IMO autocratic religious nations, like Saudi Arabia are much, much closer to this ideal. Remember, they believe their god is the same one as yours.


I would love to see you attempt to explain what that passage says.

I am a woman and I am not offended that the bible states that the man was made to be the leader in a relationship with his wife.

Is the position of vice president in the U.S. an abusive or disgraceful position? I don't think anyone would say that. The woman is to be the "vice president" in her marriage, letting her husband have the final say.

My first thought when reading this is: "Will you marry me? Right now, my present wife is somewhat less agreeable." :)

Actually, it makes me a little sad. I respect your choice for your own well-being, but I sincerely believe this attitude should not be inflicted upon any other girl or woman. I am not saying that you would, but many religions do treat women as second-class. And this is wrong.

That biblical passage as referred above states the hierarchy is: god----> christ----> man---->woman. Many religions do this. We all know of Muslim sharia law, where women are officially undervalued. We all know of muslim and/or Arab traditions that seek to control women. There are thousands of examples.

But christianity is also so often patriarchal, both subtly and overtly. Biblical passages like this one, and others clearly show women's lower status in biblical law, thus giving misogynists ammunition for their attitudes. Also, christian religions discriminate overtly. Many hierarchical positions are reserved for men, either explicitly or implicitly, including popes, cardinals, bishops, priests and many ministers, reverends, etc.
This is wrong. It degrades women and affects peoples morals and values. It perpetuals the cultural and religious myth that women are worth less than men, and can accomplish less than men.
Most parents cognatively believe that such misogynistic beliefs are wrong and antiquated, and try not to perpetuate them...... which reinforces my belief that most people are better, more moral and more virtuous than organized religions like christianity (and, especially, Islam!)

Now, much as I really enjoy debating the two of you, I will have to address the rest of this later. I have a job and a career, and I am in university. I have a big assignment for tomorrow (Saturday) and if I don't get back to studying, I will never pass. If I were inclined to pray, I would be doing so right now. :smile: But as a 'godless heathen', I had better learn the material!! So how did your assignment go, and is it the norm to have college classes on Saturday in Canada?


Good point. But anthropologists have found that there is evidence that many fairly common human flaws actually provided primitive human societies and communities with survival benefits. Here are a few:

Sickle-cell anemia, Color-blindness, Dyslexics

(deleted details to save space)

How do you legitimately compare a trait you are born with to a choice to do right or wrong?

Likewise, about 2% of humans display psychopathic and/or violent tendencies. It's been theorized that such people are terrible in peacetime, but make excellent soldiers and defenders of communities. So, these people also have evolved to exist in our communities, Unfortunately, unless we are actually at war, modern society does not have much place for them, so many end up as misfits, criminals and prisoners.
You made your point well in the bolded statement

.

Frankly, imo, family responsibilities is one foundation of Christian principles. But,the US divorce rate is so high, as is desertion of the family by the father.This is all the more tragic when one considers how many Americans consider themselves to be christian. Therefore, imo, lots of Christians do not always follow christian family values when raising kids, to the detriment of the kids and society as a whole. True, I agree


I think that you give far too much weight to this principle. Americans value religious freedom and separation of church and state too much to consider god to be a ruler or king of any kind, either metaphorically or literally. What about God being mentioned in the declaration of Independence?
Every Christian believes Christ to be King of kings and Lord of lords.
I have often wondered what American Christians reaction to Christ setting up his kingdom on earth will be like.
They are so used to voting in their president, it might be hard for some to get used to a king ruling over them!

IMO autocratic religious nations, like Saudi Arabia are much, much closer to this ideal. Remember, they believe their god is the same one as yours. I'm sure glad I don't live in Saudi Arabia, their women can't even legally drive there!



My first thought when reading this is: "Will you marry me? Right now, my present wife is somewhat less agreeable." :)Some of the strongest marriages I've obsreved, including my parents, are ones where there is a lot of arguing!Actually, it makes me a little sad. I respect your choice for your own well-being, but I sincerely believe this attitude should not be inflicted upon any other girl or woman. I am not saying that you would, but many religions do treat women as second-class. And this is wrong. The same bible that says the head of the woman is the man also says the husband is to love and respect his wife.


But christianity is also so often patriarchal, both subtly and overtly. Biblical passages like this one, and others clearly show women's lower status in biblical law, thus giving misogynists ammunition for their attitudes.Thats their wrong doing, not the bibles. Also, christian religions discriminate overtly. Many hierarchical positions are reserved for men, either explicitly or implicitly, including popes, cardinals, bishops, priests and many ministers, reverends, etc.
This is wrong. It degrades women and affects peoples morals and values. It perpetuals the cultural and religious myth that women are worth less than men, and can accomplish less than men. Are you familiar with Galations 3:28? It says "....there is neither male nor female: for ye are all ne in Christ Jesus."
Meaning the bible states women are worth the same as men in the eyes of God.

You totally but not unexpectedly missed the point of that quote.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

i) legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurous to others.
ii) it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god.

in case you still don't understand; it is a statement that government is and should be seperate from religion.


And once again with the double standards.
Thats their wrong doing, not the bibles.
Why is it when a Christian is bad, it is because of the person and not the Bible but when a Muslim is bad, it is because of Islam?

i would agree for the seperation.. what if all country's enforced religious beliefs on there public( and you didnt agree ).......its power.....for heiarchy, for the future

You totally but not unexpectedly missed the point of that quote.



i) legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurous to others.
ii) it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god.

in case you still don't understand; it is a statement that government is and should be seperate from religion.

I fully understand that point, but what you DM, and most other left thinking people seem to believe
is that when a politician becomes an elected official, he/she must check their personal religious beliefs
at the door of their elected office an have NO religious beliefs.
Not only is that wrong, and taking away their religious freedom, but it is also impossible.
EVERY elected official WILL lead according to his beliefs (religious or not) whether you try to stop them or not.
This is not the same as forcing religious beliefs on others.



Why is it when a Christian is bad, it is because of the person and not the Bible but when a Muslim is bad, it is because of Islam?Because Christianity is good and true, but Islam is evil and false.:smile:

and so the circle continues with your answer returning to: 'because you say so'.

I can just easily say that Christianity is just as evil and false and only Taoism is good and true. Except I wouldn't add a smiley icon to show how pleased I am that I thought of such a smart reply.

Because i'm interested in hearing you explain it; why is an elected official making policies based on a religious belief not the same as imposing his religion on others?

For the record, I am actually sort of in agreement with you in that religion itself is neither good or bad; rather it is people who abuse it. That is true of any system of government or institution: there are always those who use their power and/or influence.
Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.3; U; Series60/3.2 NokiaN96-1/3.00; Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1;) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413

and so the circle continues with your answer returning to: 'because you say so'.

I can just easily say that Christianity is just as evil and false and only Taoism is good and true. Except I wouldn't add a smiley icon to show how pleased I am that I thought of such a smart reply.The two great commandments Christ himself stated "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart with all thy soul
with all thy strength and with all thy mind"
and to "Love thy neighbor as thyself" Shows that Christianity is good, not evil.
If everyone loved their neighbor as themself there would be no crime.

Because i'm interested in hearing you explain it; why is an elected official making policies based on a religious belief not the same as imposing his religion on others?You explain to me how it is possible for anyone to make a personal leadership decision without doing it based on his beliefs
(religious or not), then I'll explain how it's not the same as imposing it on others.

Why is it that I ask you to qualify your statement, you ask me to first disprove you?

In any case, any elected official is elected to serve the people.
Sometimes that may mean doing something they don't agree with 100% if it is benefitial to the people.
If it is totally against their beliefs, they can vote against any proposal.
That is how government works.
I'm surprised that as a citizen of a democratic country failed to grasp that basic concept.

Making proposals that may go against their personal beliefs does not affect how they practice their day to day life.
If they cannot seperate their personsal lives and the lives of people they iare supposed to be responsible for, then how a good a leader are they really?


Let's go back to Thomas Jefferson, a founding father of your nation.
He was, as was most people of his time, a religious person.
He was also a leader of your country.
He was the principle author of the Declaration of Independence.
He saw the importance of seperating religion from government.


Finally.
"Love thy neighbour" was something that Confucius said 500 years before Christ was supposed to have been around.
Loving God has nothing to do with whether or not Christianity is good or evil.
After all, you seem to forget again that in the Bible, God has a habit of smiting those that don't love him.

Why is it when a Christian is bad, it is because of the person and not the Bible but when a Muslim is bad, it is because of Islam?

This is a good question and a point that deserves attention. First off, I believe CL8 is right in her initial post that, as we are all sinful people, we will be reckless with God's word and from time to time, choose a path of corrupt nature. This is people willfully choosing to disregard the Bible, or are acting passionately on verses they do not understand. This is again my point of Christianity offering the freedom of choice. Thankfully, God tells us that if we approach him with a humble heart of honest repentance, he will forgive our sins. I'm just guessing what you're thinking at this point, 'so you can do anything you want and just ask for forgiveness and it's cool!?!?' No, no, no. That is why Jesus so often refers to the 'condition of your heart'. You can't fool God by saying "yep, I'm sorry alright, now let me keep beating my wife", or whatever it may be. God 'knows our heart' because that is a place where you can't lie - it's your gut feeling, your intent, the feelings only you (and God) know, and when that is full of regret and a desire to make things right, God offers his hand in forgiveness.

As with anything that has the capacity to transform lives, and countless Christians will give you examples of how it has, the Bible can be perversed to act out people's own agendas. Separating an atom is not inherently evil, in fact Nuclear technology is responsible for giving millions of people the electricity they use daily. But when it is used to create a weapon, it becomes evil. The Bible does contain power, the power to change lives, and people who use it as a weapon are taking it out of context, and using it to their personal advantage.

As for Islam, we must admit that generally Western Culture is fairly ignorant when it comes to our understanding of Muslim culture. Especially in the United States, and to a lesser extent Canada, the way news and media portray the Muslim community is largely what we understand. There are very few that care to distinguish extremists from the general public, and hence an innate resentment is born that is unfounded and irrational. It is this ignorance that creates the immediate answer you pose above, 'when a Muslim is bad, it is because of Islam'. There is a fearfully large number of people assume that Muslim culture breeds families of terrorists and extremists, even if in reality it is a small sect of the population. Judging all of one worldview, religion or culture by the extreme acts of one group is just plain foolish, no matter who we are talking about.

I'm still amused that CL8 insists that her chosen Church that goes by a particular version of the Bible (a later re-translated/edited version I should add) is the true version of Christianity whereas the Catholic Church is the one tainted by false doctrine and hence isn't true Christianity.

Akboss.
You seem like an intelligent fellow and one who would appreciate this.
I highly recommend a book called Zen and the Birds of Appetite.
It was written by a man called Thomas Merton who was a (Catholic) Trappist monk who had a personal interest in how one relates/worships God and how that relates to being human.
The last time I looked, the little book costs less than $10.

As a related subject on how one behaves as a true Christian, it is worth reading on the history and philosophy of the Desert Fathers as that is one subject that Thomas Merton felt particulary close to.

I'm still amused that CL8 insists that her chosen Church that goes by a particular version of the Bible (a later re-translated/edited version I should add) is the true version of Christianity whereas the Catholic Church is the one tainted by false doctrine and hence isn't true Christianity.

Akboss.
You seem like an intelligent fellow and one who would appreciate this.
I highly recommend a book called Zen and the Birds of Appetite.
It was written by a man called Thomas Merton who was a (Catholic) Trappist monk who had a personal interest in how one relates/worships God and how that relates to being human.
The last time I looked, the little book costs less than $10.

As a related subject on how one behaves as a true Christian, it is worth reading on the history and philosophy of the Desert Fathers as that is one subject that Thomas Merton felt particulary close to.

Sounds like some interesting reads - the physical and emotional relationship of worship would be an interesting topic, something that is most often left out of religious books for a focus on the grander subject of the worship itself. I wish I had more time to read - our culture is just pummeled with 'easier' methods to obtain information, reading is a lost art and I'm as guilty as any of avoiding it.

Why is it that I ask you to qualify your statement, you ask me to first disprove you?

In any case, any elected official is elected to serve the people.
Sometimes that may mean doing something they don't agree with 100% if it is benefitial to the people.
If it is totally against their beliefs, they can vote against any proposal.
That is how government works.
I'm surprised that as a citizen of a democratic country failed to grasp that basic concept.I didn't fail to grasp any concept. DM, you agree with me by admitting a leader can vote against a proposal because of his BELIEFS.

Making proposals that may go against their personal beliefs does not affect how they practice their day to day life.
If they cannot seperate their personsal lives and the lives of people they iare supposed to be responsible for, then how a good a leader are they really?It is a very bad leader who will go against his beliefs. President Obama CLAIMS to have Christian beliefs, but he doesn't lead by them and he is destroying the U.S.


Let's go back to Thomas Jefferson, a founding father of your nation.
He was, as was most people of his time, a religious person.
He was also a leader of your country.
He was the principle author of the Declaration of Independence.
He saw the importance of seperating religion from government.Baptists, which I am, also believe in separation of religion from government, like Jefferson, we believe no law should be made restricting our freedom of practicing our Christian religion.


Finally.
"Love thy neighbour" was something that Confucius said 500 years before Christ was supposed to have been around.
Loving God has nothing to do with whether or not Christianity is good or evil.
After all, you seem to forget again that in the Bible, God has a habit of smiting those that don't love him.Jesus was around when the earth was created, that is well before Confucius. Christ created confucius!

Humanity has a habit of clinging to everything that is against God and Christianity!

I'm sorry if this is harsh, CL8, this is one of those times when I simply cannot see you go unchallenged. :)

.Jesus was around when the earth was created, that is well before Confucius. Christ created confucius!
CL8, claiming that your god is magical and thus can do anything grows tiresome and makes for a poor argument. Again, I'm an atheist, and even I can see how your religion makes your claim ludicrous and false, even by the most liberal biblical standards.

1. Confucianism's origin is well-documented and is approx. 500 years older than Christ. He can't create anything if he was not in existence.

2. Your theology spends a great deal of effort claiming that Jesus was born, and started his religious teachings in his lifetime..... again, 500 years after the start of Confucianism. Claiming that Jesus was around since the dawn of time is patently ridiculous; it goes against your bible and the tenants of a monotheistic religions. (You don't worship TWO gods, do you?)

3. Confucianism is, in many ways the antithesis of biblical teachings.
The bible is packed full of rules enforced by punitive measures, that is, punishment (aka. hell) is metered out for alleged wrongdoing, and a reward (eternal salvation) is granted for supposedly getting things right.
These measures are handed out by an external force (aka your god)

Confucianism teaches that one morality and virtuous, responsible behavior comes from within one's person, and does not stem from any external being (like a god), nor is it directly responsible to any external being..... and therefore has an entirely different structure than christianity.

Therefore, Confucianism directly challenges and opposes the authority and role of your christian god and your christian laws. There is absolutely no way that jesus could ever have created a philosophy and set of principles like Confucianism that so directly refutes the basic role of the christian god and bible like this. It makes no sense. The bible is packed full of tales of doom and woe that will fall upon the non-believers. How can you claim that Confucianism is an exception?

I like Confucianism for these reasons; it's an ancient, respectable philosophy and set of principles that has established itself free of the polluting influences of middle-eastern religious dogma....... and thus proves that god did not create anything and everything as the bible claims. Very refreshing!! :)


Humanity has a habit of clinging to everything that is against God and Christianity!
Well, that is because much of humanity can see that christianity is a mass of jumbled contradictions, illogic, unsubstantiated claims and patently false allegations. For these reasons, much of humanity reaches the same conclusion that I do.... that god simply does not exist, except in the minds of the delusional believers. :)

I'm sorry if this is harsh, CL8, this is one of those times when I simply cannot see you go unchallenged. :)


CL8, claiming that your god is magical and thus can do anything grows tiresome and makes for a poor argument. Again, I'm an atheist, and even I can see how your religion makes your claim ludicrous and false, even by the most liberal biblical standards.

1. Confucianism's origin is well-documented and is approx. 500 years older than Christ. He can't create anything if he was not in existence. MagicRat, you are just like the Pharisees in John 8:53-59.
They didn't understand that Christ was God come down in the flesh.

Thats why they argued Jesus couldn't have known Abraham, they believed Jesus only existed from the time he was born, the same thing you are arguing here. Yet Christ was in heaven before Abraham went to heaven!
it goes against your bible and the tenants of a monotheistic religions. (You don't worship TWO gods, do you?)Here again you show a lack of understanding of bible doctrine. Christians worship ONE God, in Three persons. God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. All ONE God.



I like Confucianism for these reasons; it's an ancient, respectable philosophy and set of principles that has established itself free of the polluting influences of middle-eastern religious dogma....... and thus proves that god did not create anything and everything as the bible claims. Very refreshing!! :)
MR, saying that is like saying When one person gives an account of a driver in a car driving downhill in the left lane at 40mph and the car flipped over suddenly on it's own.
Then another guy gives an account saying "no" I was the driver, I was in the right lane driving downhill at 40mph , my car hit the curb and flipped over .
Then you say the account of the first driver proves the account of the second driver is false.

that makes no sense, and if anything the account of the second driver would prove the first account false since he claims to have been the driver of the car!

link (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/sumerians_look_on_in_confusion_as)


I didn't fail to grasp any concept. DM, you agree with me by admitting a leader can vote against a proposal because of his BELIEFS.It is a very bad leader who will go against his beliefs.

Voting for/against something is not the same as drafting bills/policies based on what may be anachronistic religious ideals/principles/teachings.
A religious person voting against something that he doesn't agree with on a religious basis is not neccessarily the same as voting against something for the benefit of the people.
Isn't a bad leader also someone who ignores the wishes of his people?

So explain to me how a polictial leader who proposes policies based on his personal religious beliefs that his people may not share not imposing his religion on others?


President Obama CLAIMS to have Christian beliefs, but he doesn't lead by them and he is destroying the U.S.
how?


Baptists, which I am, also believe in separation of religion from government

So why did you go on about your founding fathers talking about government and religion and insinuating (incorrectly in the case of Jefferson) that they all thought Christianity and your Government should be entwined?


like Jefferson, we believe no law should be made restricting our freedom of practicing our Christian religion.

Again with the double standard.
So why is it that you are allowed to condemn others for not following your particular brand of Christianity?
i.e why are you allowed to restrict the freedom of others to practice their religion?


Christ created confucius!
Seeing as you like to use the Bible as your source for "facts", please show me where in the Bible this is said.


Humanity has a habit of clinging to everything that is against God and Christianity!
Right.
How about you explain what you mean by this?
I'm sure when it is shouted with authority amongst a congregation it gets a nice reaction but we are not all Christians let alone Baptists so excuse me for not simply repling with an "Amen!!!!!" whilst I stand waving my hands/fists around.

link (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/sumerians_look_on_in_confusion_as)




Voting for/against something is not the same as drafting bills/policies based on what may be anachronistic religious ideals/principles/teachings.The U.S. congress and the justices in the courts do this all the time. The problem is it's too often from their immoral beliefs, not moral beliefs
A religious person voting against something that he doesn't agree with on a religious basis is not neccessarily the same as voting against something for the benefit of the people.And how do THEY decide it is for the "benefit" of the people? Through their BELIEFS!
Isn't a bad leader also someone who ignores the wishes of his people?It depends on if the wishes of his people are right or wrong.

So explain to me how a polictial leader who proposes policies based on his personal religious beliefs that his people may not share not imposing his religion on others?
Proposing a law for stricter prison sentences on rapists comes from a leaders belief that rape is wrong and immoral, but that isn't forcing other people to believe the same way. (although that is a very sick and miserable society that believes nothing is wrong with rape)


how?

I guess living in the U.K. it's difficult to see the harm Obama is causing. He is destroying our economy (and he knows he is, and he wants to) By over spending in the trillions of dollars, money the U.S. and it's citizens don't have, and he is taking away our freedoms that our nation was built on in the process by trying to force us into a health care system that is inadequate and will eventually limit what medical treatment we CAN have.




So why did you go on about your founding fathers talking about government and religion and insinuating (incorrectly in the case of Jefferson) that they all thought Christianity and your Government should be entwined?What you are missing is that they wanted no LAWS regulating the church and ones freedom of religion (mandating what church you can attend, etc.) But they all agreed leaders must have a core set of religious, BIBLICAL principles in order to govern rightly. This is as true about leaders as the fact that 2+2=4.




Again with the double standard.
So why is it that you are allowed to condemn others for not following your particular brand of Christianity?
i.e why are you allowed to restrict the freedom of others to practice their religion?This is a false statement. Christians, especially in America, are NOT allowed to restrict others freedom to practice their religion.



Seeing as you like to use the Bible as your source for "facts", please show me where in the Bible this is said.
John 1:3 "All things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made."
All of John Ch 1 shows Christ as God and creator.



Right.
How about you explain what you mean by this?
I'm sure when it is shouted with authority amongst a congregation it gets a nice reaction but we are not all Christians let alone Baptists so excuse me for not simply repling with an "Amen!!!!!" whilst I stand waving my hands/fists around.I mean until God changes the heart of a person, they live for things that are against God (drinking, drunkenness, promiscuity, greed, worldliness etc.)

The U.S. congress and the justices in the courts do this all the time. The problem is it's too often from their immoral beliefs, not moral beliefs

a baseless statement.
plese show me policies and bills that have been submitted based on immoral beliefs.


And how do THEY decide it is for the "benefit" of the people? Through their BELIEFS!

the Bible is not neccessary for making good decisions.
In some cases, it can be argued that the Bible is the cause of some potentially bad ones.


Proposing a law for stricter prison sentences on rapists comes from a leaders belief that rape is wrong and immoral, but that isn't forcing other people to believe the same way. (although that is a very sick and miserable society that believes nothing is wrong with rape)

what?
please show me what political figures have ever said that rape is not wrong and immoral?
besides, as before, the belief that rape is wrong and immoral does not stem from the Bible, a book that has illustrated God as a figure who permits his people to rape the women of nations they have "conquered".


I guess living in the U.K. it's difficult to see the harm Obama is causing. He is destroying our economy (and he knows he is, and he wants to) By over spending in the trillions of dollars, money the U.S. and it's citizens don't have, and he is taking away our freedoms that our nation was built on in the process by trying to force us into a health care system that is inadequate and will eventually limit what medical treatment we CAN have.

what you to forget is why your country is in debt in the first place but I forgot that you are possibly not the best person to talk to regarding economics.

as for the health care system.
how does having a health care system limit what treatment you can have?
in case you missed it, as you obviously have, having no health care system already limits what medical you can have.
here's a little question; how much would it cost you to have something simple like a broken arm treated?
answer that and I'll tell you how much it'll cost me then we can discuss which of us has limits on what medical treatment is available to us.


What you are missing is that they wanted no LAWS regulating the church and ones freedom of religion (mandating what church you can attend, etc.) But they all agreed leaders must have a core set of religious, BIBLICAL principles in order to govern rightly. This is as true about leaders as the fact that 2+2=4.

again, you miss the point that they were Christians but anyway, does this mow mean you're changing your original point that the founding fathers said that governments should be Christian?

This is as true about leaders as the fact that 2+2=4.This is a false statement. Christians, especially in America, are NOT allowed to restrict others freedom to practice their religion.

sorry but the way I see it, if a person is telling others that their religion is wrong and that they should convert to their own brand of religion; then that person is trying to restrict the freedom of others to practice their religion.


John 1:3 "All things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made."
All of John Ch 1 shows Christ as God and creator.I mean until God changes the heart of a person, they live for things that are against God (drinking, drunkenness, promiscuity, greed, worldliness etc.)

So by that rationale, God/Jesus is also responsible for Hilter, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Slobodan Milošević as well as every other evil and murderous individual throughout history.
Oh wait, God/Jesus is only responsible for the the good people throughout history because God changes the heart of a person.
Oh wait, Confucius wasn't a Christian because Christianity didn't exist when he was alive and he didn't even believe in your God and yet you claim that he was a product of your God. Doesn't that then mean you don't need to be Christian or even believe in a single God because Confucius being a man of his time in China certainly didn't believe in a single God.
Why thank you CL8 for finally agreeing with me.

!Here again you show a lack of understanding of bible doctrine. Christians worship ONE God, in Three persons. God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. All ONE God.

Well, now that you bring it up, this concept is contradictory, and makes no sense. This 'doctrine' was invented up by humans to reconcile one of the most glaring flaws of the bible and tenants of worship.

Obviously, christians worship more than one god. Christianity is a de-facto polythiestic religion, and god is not the one and only religious authority.

Christians often make a distinction between worshiping Jesus and worshiping god just by the act of worship. Indeed, Catholics have long made it a policy where one can worship and/or pray to ordained saints,the holy ghost, mother Mary, angels, some dead people, and their icons, such as statues and holy places.

For some reason, christians feel polytheism is wrong and came up with the holy trinity, 3-as-one nonsense to make themselves feel better. Obviously this 'doctrine does not hold water, for these logical reasons.

1. The holy trinity does not include all the saints, angels etc that are also worshiped regularly.

2. Religious doctrine says (over and over again) that 'Jesus died for your sins'. How can Jesus die, if he is really part of god and thus is still alive? Did the bible lie about his death?

3. How are we supposed to believe that jesus made any kind of a sacrifice to die for us, if he was part of god and incapable of dying? Why should we be made to feel bad or learn from a death that either never happened, or did not matter since he is really part of god?

4. For that matter, how can we accept that jesus really was 'born' if he was part of god. The concept of being 'born' implies the beginning as a separate and distinctive individual...... a concept which is cannot exist if he is part of god.

Again, as I have said many times, this is yet another example of the extensive and contradictory nature of the bible and christianity as a whole. As soon as one starts to apply logic and reason to christian principles and arguments, the entire fabric of the religion falls apart like a wet newspaper.
Really, christian theology is a thorough insult to the intelligence of any reasonable, rational individual. :)

CL8, have you ever heard of Ravi Zacharias? Excellent speaker! If you haven't heard him, watch any of his videos online - a professor of philosophy and a supremely eloquent speaker, it's a joy to hear him speak on the matters of God and the journey each of us takes in this world.

MR and DM, with all due respect, you will continue to misunderstand the gospel until you open your eyes not only to how God is real, but how real it is that we need him. A world without God is no world at all, I only pray that you could see that.

Thanks Akboss!

I have been quite busy lately. The busier season for student drivers is here, so I have had more students on my schedule.


DMs' request:
plese show me policies and bills that have been submitted based on immoral beliefs.
This is easy! Roe vs Wade, 1973

I found this gem of an example from the U.K.!
Most of it is on the assisted suicide (immoral, degrades human life)

and at the bottom one sentence stating parliament passed a bill
forcing public schools in the U.K. to PROMOTE homosexuality!

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10022506.html

quote from DM:

the Bible is not neccessary for making good decisions.
In some cases, it can be argued that the Bible is the cause of some potentially bad ones.Not according to the first president of the United states.
He said "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible"

Give examples of the bible being the cause of bad decisions
quote from DM:
the belief that rape is wrong and immoral does not stem from the Bible, a book that has illustrated God as a figure who permits his people to rape the women of nations they have "conquered".DM, don't you enjoy the freedom to make choices, even if they are wrong and bad choices?
Permitting something and condoning it are separate issues.

again, you miss the point that they were Christians but anyway, does this mow mean you're changing your original point that the founding fathers said that governments should be Christian?No. Thomas Jefferson never did come to believe Jesus was God the Son.
He was not Christian, but believed the Christian religion taught the best belief system.
They didn't believe "governments" should be Christian. They believed leaders should lead by Christian principles.

sorry but the way I see it, if a person is telling others that their religion is wrong and that they should convert to their own brand of religion; then that person is trying to restrict the freedom of others to practice their religion.Just like if someone tells you buying more than you can afford to pay for on a credit card is wrong, is restricting ones freedom to max out their credit card limit?

1. The holy trinity does not include all the saints, angels etc that are also worshiped regularly. MR, did you forget my posts on the FLAWED doctrines of Catholicism?
2. Religious doctrine says (over and over again) that 'Jesus died for your sins'. How can Jesus die, if he is really part of god and thus is still alive? Did the bible lie about his death?
Where in the bible does it say God cannot die?
3. How are we supposed to believe that jesus made any kind of a sacrifice to die for us, if he was part of god and incapable of dying? Why should we be made to feel bad or learn from a death that either never happened, or did not matter since he is really part of god?
Again you are presuming something that is not in the bible
4. For that matter, how can we accept that jesus really was 'born' if he was part of god. The concept of being 'born' implies the beginning as a separate and distinctive individual...... a concept which is cannot exist if he is part of god.
You can accept it by faith, if you wish,
implying is YOUR interpretation. It doesn't make it true.
Again, as I have said many times, this is yet another example of the extensive and contradictory nature of the bible and christianity as a whole. As soon as one starts to apply logic and reason to christian principles and arguments, the entire fabric of the religion falls apart like a wet newspaper.
Really, christian theology is a thorough insult to the intelligence of any reasonable, rational individual. MagicRat, intelligence is YOUR god!

DM, do you know what British politician was responsible for abolishing slavery
in Brittan and what his background was?:smile:

DM, do you know what British politician was responsible for abolishing slavery
in Brittan and what his background was?:smile:

Do you really want to go into the whole slavery issue?
Here's a hint, seeing as you so like to use the founding fathers of your country as an example for Christianity; name the prominant members of that group who did not have slaves.

If anything, your example of a British politician being key in the abolition of slavery is more to do with him being British.

Do you really want to go into the whole slavery issue?
Here's a hint, seeing as you so like to use the founding fathers of your country as an example for Christianity; name the prominant members of that group who did not have slaves.

If anything, your example of a British politician being key in the abolition of slavery is more to do with him being British.

DM, why are you trying to change the point of my question?

The issue is what motivated the politician in the U.K. to seek to abolish slavery.
This is totally separate from what Americas founders did with slaves or slavery.

So do you not know the answer to my question?