A lot of Christians truly do cherry pick. However, the long established (SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE FUCKING RELIGION) theology that describes the application of old testament law to the Christian lifestyle is not cherry picking. In fact, not only is not cherry picking, it is a cornerstone of the very religion and in fact is a fundamental explanation of the divergence of Christianity from Judaism.

If you can't grasp this, you don't even know what Christianity is. Its that basic to the religion.

10/4/2009 8:21:58 PM

Quote :

"A lot of Christians truly do cherry pick. "

I'm glad you admit that.

Quote :

"However, the long established (SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE FUCKING RELIGION) theology that describes the application of old testament law to the Christian lifestyle is not cherry picking. In fact, not only is not cherry picking, it is a cornerstone of the very religion and in fact is a fundamental explanation of the divergence of Christianity from Judaism."

Okay, but that does nothing to dispute the points I made.

[Edited on October 4, 2009 at 8:35 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2009 8:34:08 PM

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Shinto, Bahai, Zoroastrianism, Wicca, Devil Worship, ad nauseum, it does no good to debate the basic tenets.

They're all bullshit.

10/4/2009 8:34:08 PM

^^ ah crap - i been trolled!

10/4/2009 8:39:15 PM

JESUS F*ING CHRIST WHAT IS WRONG WITH TWW SERVER?!

[Edited on October 4, 2009 at 8:39 PM. Reason : s]

10/4/2009 8:39:15 PM

Solinari i think matthew 5:18-19 is straight from the horse's mouth.

10/4/2009 8:43:16 PM

I mean, if you want to talk about cherry picking.... There's nothing like pulling one verse in isolation out of the Bible and slinging it around like a 2 yr old at McDonalds playground.

10/4/2009 8:46:45 PM

that part of mathew actually supports solinari, jesus is talking about how the pharisees and scribes have misinterpreted the laws.

10/4/2009 8:47:08 PM

well first of all that's two verses, and second ZOMG jesus christ said that.

and whatever their interpretation, they still apply. stoning, slavery, swine, and whatever else.

[Edited on October 4, 2009 at 8:51 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2009 8:49:59 PM

No, you haven't been trolled.

You have tried to justify the contradictory beliefs held by christians by giving some vague explanation about how "cherry-picking" the old testment is the cornerstone of christianity and judiasm.

So, like I said, I'm not sure how that disputes anything I said.

10/4/2009 8:50:01 PM

son of a bitch... you trolled me again

[Edited on October 4, 2009 at 8:54 PM. Reason : s]

10/4/2009 8:52:46 PM

Okay, I think I see the problem here. You think my issue was about the cherry-picking, when it was really about the contradictory beliefs held by christians. I thought that was pretty clear, but your brain works in mysterious ways.

10/4/2009 8:57:33 PM

What beliefs do you feel are contradictory?

10/4/2009 8:58:48 PM

Ok, here is some of my post from the last page:

"The bible is the unerring word of god... except for those inconvient errors and contradictions and immoral things."

That belief is contradictory, hypocritical.

10/4/2009 9:05:33 PM

k

10/4/2009 9:06:08 PM

I'm far from religious. I honestly can't even remember the last time i've been to church. i could possibly be considered agnostic by some definitions, or a liberal christian by others, but i won't delve into those semantics as there already seems to be disagreement on the terms, and frankly, in the end i don't think it really matters.

I was raised christian, but i grew up in a liberal household, and after time, religion lost steam in my family. but i never had an issue with people "cherrypicking" from the bible. i've never once considered the bible to be infallable (and i think it would be foolish to follow it as the absolute law), as it was written by man in a time when complex questions had answers that weren't readily available. so to me, it always made sense that they filled in the gaps with whatever hypothesis they had (is this not what science does? albeit, from a faith based bent). and in my oversimplified logic, it makes sense to view the bible as a guide and not something concrete and irrefutable. every person that reads it is likely to interpret it differently, and i think that's ok. it encourages discussions amongst believers as well non believers and further emphasizes the need to view the scripture as a document written long ago by people who were trying to make sense of something they could never fully understand. but to attack those who view the bible, or any other religious canon as a source of inspiration and guidance as "deserving of ridicule" is mean spirited, and discourages healthy debate. furthermore, i think some people attack the belief of a god by personifying him as a bearded white man in the clouds, and i don't think all religious people feel that way.

i can understand some of the angst toward organized religion, and i have a friend who has recently become "reborn," and i find it absolutely maddening how there is no compromise in his eyes with the bible. he's become very conservative, and essentially rejects what's he's learned growing up to follow what i believe to be an outdated and often foolish text. it burns me up that he is against things such as stem cell research, and other forms of progress because of some fear of eternal damnation. but just as it is not his place to convince me of why i'm going to hell, it's not really my place to mock him or ridicule him for his belief, because it is his reality of truth. we operate on two different levels of curiosity, and i've learned to accept that.

Quote :

"Maybe one of these dickhead fervent atheists will, because they get off on that shit, and your kind and theirs belong together anyway."

i found this quote particularly amusing, because i mostly agree. the smarmy and obnoxious responses of some are not only unwarranted, but they irritate me just as much as a fundamentalist who knocks on my door and tells me i'm going to hell. i understand that some people here only accept what can be verified or observed. that is their reality. and that makes sense. but to turn around and accuse all religious people of essentially accepting their stupidity and desire to remain aloof is an asshole move. i don't see why it would be so wrong for the religious to view their canon as a working hypothesis and approach it with the same academic rigor that an atheist understands his or her world.


i'd also be interested in finding out why so many people, after rejecting christianity, turned to atheism. did any of you dabble in other organized religions before taking the plunge? or was it straight to atheism? honest question, i'm really am interested in knowing

10/4/2009 9:16:41 PM

I took the plunge straight to atheism/agnosticism, because one of the fundamental reasons why I left Christianity is because there is no objective way to determine whether or not it is legitimate. By the same criteria, I have to forsake all religion.

Very recently, however, I've started considering looking into hindu practices (I know its not necessarily a formal religion), or buddhism (which totally turns me off because its such a cliche). Even if everything is meaningless in the end after I die and after the last human dies, one of these types of religions/lifestyles may make my short stay a little bit more pleasant. Who knows though... I'm probably too analytical to handle any sort of religion.

10/4/2009 9:23:22 PM

^see, i think that's alright though. even if you don't adhere to the religion, arming yourself with the knowledge of it can only be good. it'd at least make you more well rounded. and even if only one verse/sentence/whatever helps refine your view of the world, then there is something to gain from the experience.

i guess my overarching principle is that religion can (and in my view, should) be viewed from an academic lens.

but alas, i am not religious and am very much naive to most organized religion and religious tenants.

10/4/2009 9:27:26 PM

Quote :

"then there is something to gain from the experience."

Which will all, sadly, be lost at the point of my death!!

10/4/2009 9:29:19 PM

Quote :

"i'd also be interested in finding out why so many people, after rejecting christianity, turned to atheism. did any of you dabble in other organized religions before taking the plunge? or was it straight to atheism? honest question, i'm really am interested in knowing"

after realizing catholicism wasn't for me, I tried other christian denominations. after that I tried other religions and went to at least 1 service of every type I could find. it was a great experience, but overall I'd have to say it made me even less of a believer.

I like the way God put it:

Quote :

"What you're saying is, "Look, I've examined the available evidence, and I'm reasonably sure that God doesn't exist. Because I am a man of science, if evidence arrives to the contrary I will examine it for it's legitimacy. Until then, I am making the hypothesis that God doesn't exist.""

[Edited on October 4, 2009 at 9:36 PM. Reason : derp]

10/4/2009 9:29:26 PM

Quote :

"i found this quote particularly amusing, because i mostly agree. the smarmy and obnoxious responses of some are not only unwarranted, but they irritate me just as much"

This is just a result of the dialogue in America now that the only "real Americans" are ones that don't do any of that fancy University "book learnin'," "Ivory tower liberal elitists," etc...

If Richard Dawkins acts like he's smarter and more educated than a lot of the people he interviews with, it's because he is. To act like that's somehow his fault, and that you can only take him seriously if he talks with a slow southern drawl, is to be a fucking moron.

10/4/2009 9:29:39 PM

I can't believe I'm saying this but Solinari is correct, the Bible absolutely does not condone slavery as we think of it today. Nor does it specifically condemn the act of slavery itself. But it frequently speaks against the ABUSES of slavery (specifically violence). If you read the same passages that seem to "promote slavery" in their entirety you will see evidence of this (e.g. Leviticus 25:46, Exodus 21:16,26,27). And I'm not sure if everyone realizes that the OT is not to be followed word for word today? While the OT still has value in context and is still God's word, the NT is what we are meant to obey today (in times after Christ's death and resurrection). Christ's coming literally changed everything, so any OT passage must be taken in context with the NT.

But back to slavery, even the NT does not come out and condemn it. You can't skirt around that, so you have to acknowledge it and understand the application. Think about what a master-slave relationship should be, it is literally a relationship of obedience. Just like say...a butler, or a military chain of command, or really any other employer-employee. Slaves were given housing and food so often times they actually were "better off" than paid workers. Just like any of these other relationships, there should be a mutual respect and treatment as such. So if this relationship holds true, it isn't necessarily a bad thing. The NT even uses the relationship in a POSITIVE sense in reference to our obedience as Christians ("...having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness." Rom 6:16-18).

But literally speaking, abuses of slavery were far too common so in actuality it wasn't a good thing and the act of it in that case is incompatible with the Gospel. In the book of Philemon, Paul, in not so many words, points the church away from it. This is a good excerpt on Philemon: http://www.crosswalk.com/spirituallife/11609084/

So, Bible does acknowledge the existence of slavery, but its direct references to it in the NT are basically supporting the act of obedience. It says God is still in control, therefore you need to obey as if you were obeying God (Ephesians 6:5-8). Furthermore, it calls all Christians to the same kind of obedience and submission to those who have been put over you so long as they do not forcibly make you disobey God's Law - whether it be political leaders (Rom 13), children to your parents (10 commandments, Eph 6:1), wives to husbands (Eph 5), or even slaves to masters. Again, the act of obedience for a Christian means submitting to God because it is ultimately acknowledging His sovereignty.

10/4/2009 9:31:38 PM

For example, take a look at this interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8f1w1cYvs

The woman Dawkins is interviewing says, "Show me XYZ...."

Dawkins says, "Here is XYZ..."

And the woman says, "But where is XYZ? Clearly I am right."

How could you not lose your cool and say, "Look, you're a complete fucking moron, are uneducated, and have no idea what you're talking about"?

And then, of course, when you lose your cool you're labeled as a "smug militant frothing Atheist who is no worse than the fundementalists Christians!!!"

[Edited on October 4, 2009 at 9:33 PM. Reason : ]

10/4/2009 9:32:25 PM

Quote :

"Look, I've examined the available evidence, and I'm reasonably sure that God doesn't exist. Because I am a man of science, if evidence arrives to the contrary I will examine it for it's legitimacy. Until then, I am making the hypothesis that God doesn't exist."

I had basically the same internal conversation, except I didn't pretend to have examined all the available evidence. Instead, I recognized that there are a lot of people a hell of a lot smarter than me that have dedicated literally their entire lives to studying this issue and they have all come to differing conclusions. If smarter people than I can spend decades studying something and not reach a consensus, then I am not even about to start wasting my time on that crap... I've got a lot better things to do before I die!

10/4/2009 9:33:35 PM

^^refer them to the go god go episodes of south park - dawkins is pretty easy to understand there haha



[Edited on October 4, 2009 at 9:36 PM. Reason : lawlz]

10/4/2009 9:34:52 PM

i still reserve the right to consider that person an asshole.

and no offense, but i think you're jumping at the bit to prove your intellectual superiority over people. which i find annoying.

it's one thing to be angry against someone who absolutely refuses to listen, but its quite another to confuse those who have fundamental disagreements with you over an issue that cannot yet be proven one way or another with driveling morons.

[Edited on October 4, 2009 at 9:39 PM. Reason : ]

10/4/2009 9:35:30 PM

If pointing out the obvious logical fallacies, confirmation bias, supposition, and lack of education in someone I am arguing with makes me an asshole, then I guess I'm an asshole.

10/4/2009 9:37:04 PM

As you can see from NCSURemy's post, there's a reason why I don't want to get into the distasteful business of explaining Christian theology

10/4/2009 9:37:14 PM

Quote :

"Solinari i think matthew 5:18-19 is straight from the horse's mouth."

Christ is talking about Himself here. HE has fulfilled the OT law, so Christians do not need to fulfill the ceremonial requirements in the OT. "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." -Colossians 2:16-17

10/4/2009 9:39:05 PM

Freedom of Speech has given everyone in this country the right to express their ideas, but it has given too many people the incorrect belief that their expressed ideas are right.

10/4/2009 9:39:40 PM

That goes for atheists too

10/4/2009 9:40:06 PM

I was never a deeply religious person to begin with, but I did believe in the trinity and resurrection and the basic principles of Christianity. I guess at some point I just started asking questions and looking for answers and decided that religion wasn't for me. I went straight to atheism fairly quickly. I guess I would consider myself a "naturalist".

10/4/2009 9:40:34 PM

yes, but you seem so god-damned sure that you're belief is right, that you cast aside the possibility new evidence emerging to prove the contrary (i know you don't say this, but your attitude does certainly seem to suggest it - but this isn't really the argument i'm interested in making). given that some people have abstracted the notion of god to mean almost anything, to absolutely and utterly mock that person is a real jerk-off move. you're equating all people who disagree with you with as being uneducated, backwoods, slack-jawed yokels. surely you can see how some would find this irritating.


disclaimer: i'm not even sure who this post is in response too, as i'm not interested in reading through and figuring out exactly who said what, and i may even be guilty of morphing two or more users as one person here.

[Edited on October 4, 2009 at 9:49 PM. Reason : ]

10/4/2009 9:48:20 PM

^ that pretty much describes the average atheist. You could probably compare them to your run-of-the-mill 21yo IT guy who thinks he's some hot shit because he just got his CCNA

[Edited on October 4, 2009 at 9:51 PM. Reason : s]

10/4/2009 9:50:46 PM

^^hope that wasn't directed at me, as I don't feel that way at all

10/4/2009 9:53:09 PM

I love it when people ask me my position on abortion.... I ask them which worldview they want me to espouse and then, based on that, I tell them if I'm either prolife or prochoice

Doesn't really matter to me either way

[Edited on October 4, 2009 at 9:55 PM. Reason : s]

10/4/2009 9:54:41 PM

^^it wasn't, i'm just too lazy to go through and figure out how man ^'s i should put after each post.

[Edited on October 4, 2009 at 9:56 PM. Reason : ]

10/4/2009 9:56:17 PM

Quote :

"yes, but you seem so god-damned sure that you're belief is right, that you cast aside the possibility new evidence emerging to prove the contrary (i know you don't say this, but your attitude does certainly seem to suggest it - but this isn't really the argument i'm interested in making)."

Seriously?

What evidence?

WHAT evidence?

Show me anything.

Show me ANY journal published article, scientific study, peer-reviewed ANYTHING that supports that position.

I'll wait.

I've said this before, I would not cast aside any evidence, any scientific evidence, any peer-reviewed study or article in a scientific journal that supports that position.

But, I have also said this, what would be evidence for God? I mean, just use your imagination, what sort of evidence could one provide for God? Even something like an inexplicable miracle occurring would only leave open the possibility that we just haven't figured out why it occurred yet.

10/4/2009 9:59:41 PM

who the hell cares?? As an atheist, you know that once we die, it won't matter either way... It won't even matter if Ken Ham starts running all the public schools in the nation.

As long as no one's gettin up in your face, just chill the F out. And, as someone who believes that consciousness ends at death, you should be the LAST to get up in other people's faces.

[Edited on October 4, 2009 at 10:02 PM. Reason : s]

10/4/2009 10:02:16 PM

Quote :

"I had basically the same internal conversation, except I didn't pretend to have examined all the available evidence. Instead, I recognized that there are a lot of people a hell of a lot smarter than me that have dedicated literally their entire lives to studying this issue and they have all come to differing conclusions. If smarter people than I can spend decades studying something and not reach a consensus, then I am not even about to start wasting my time on that crap... I've got a lot better things to do before I die!"

That's pretty what I said to myself, too.

10/4/2009 10:05:00 PM

Quote :

"who the hell cares?? As an atheist, you know that once we die, it won't matter either way... It won't even matter if Ken Ham starts running all the public schools in the nation. As long as no one's gettin up in your face, just chill the F out. And, as someone who believes that consciousness ends at death, you should be the LAST to get up in other people's faces."

Who else is there to take on the enemies of reason?

10/4/2009 10:06:14 PM

Quote :

"(i know you don't say this, but your attitude does certainly seem to suggest it - but this isn't really the argument i'm interested in making).""

look, i'm strictly talking about your demeanor here. i even said that i wasn't interested in making the argument about evidence vs. non evidence. what i was interested in was dissecting how you treat those who see the world through a different lens than you do. they simply have a different reality than you. i don't understand why you can't be at ease with that. i said that you give the impression of being someone who absolutely cannot tolerate someone with whom you disagree, and that you'll revert to parading your perceived intellectual superiority, which i think that last post most certainly demonstrates.

i'm not here to try and convince you of anything. i already admitted that i don't know enough, and will never know enough to make an informed opinion. i just choose to remain humble about the whole thing. no biggie.




V deaf ears, so it seems

[Edited on October 4, 2009 at 10:10 PM. Reason : ]

10/4/2009 10:07:04 PM

From my post on the first page...

Quote :

"Humility and quiet tolerance of people's personal beliefs is usually the best strategy"

10/4/2009 10:10:01 PM

Maybe when "Atheist" doesn't rank the lowest on "minorities you'd vote for President," and states in the U.S. don't require an unofficial (and in some official) religious test for office, and people don't campaign for Intelligent Design to be added to the biology curriculum, and people don't fly planes into towers or let their kids die because they feel like it has something to do with God, then maybe I'll have quiet humility.

10/4/2009 10:17:28 PM

so go argue with those people, you can join plenty of christians who already do

10/4/2009 10:19:13 PM

I am.

10/4/2009 10:27:59 PM

Quote :

"Maybe when "Atheist" doesn't rank the lowest on "minorities you'd vote for President,""

Because smug elitism and ridicule is surely the way to reconcile this issue!

10/4/2009 10:29:08 PM

People get far too much leeway for maintaining an idiotic opinion. Sorry if that comes off as smug.

And I'm tired of the word "elitist" becoming a bad thing in this fucking country. Don't we WANT only the most elite to be in charge of everything?

10/4/2009 10:31:22 PM

it's not because of this issue, this is pretty much how you post on any topic you can

10/4/2009 10:33:04 PM

^^ depends on how you define elite. being one of the elite could also bring with it the baggage of being out of touch with the struggles of the lower classes

[Edited on October 4, 2009 at 10:38 PM. Reason : s]

10/4/2009 10:38:06 PM