Continuation of Christianity debate.

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Thu May 03, 2007 3:47 am

Gotta chime in on this for a moment. The KKK can claim the label "Christian" all it wants. That does NOT make it true. Just as with any group that uses misinterpretation of the Bible for their own agenda. Hitler also professed the Christian faith.... lets make this clear. Jesus did not come to condemn the world and Christians should not either. Those who do will be judged by the same measure that they judge. This misguided view of what Christianity is all about because of some "not-so-christian-acting" individuals is absurd.

Anarchist · Post by **Anarchist** » Thu May 03, 2007 4:04 am

jay_a2j wrote:Gotta chime in on this for a moment. The KKK can claim the label "Christian" all it wants. That does NOT make it true. Just as with any group that uses misinterpretation of the Bible for their own agenda. Hitler also professed the Christian faith.... lets make this clear. Jesus did not come to condemn the world and Christians should not either. Those who do will be judged by the same measure that they judge. This misguided view of what Christianity is all about because of some "not-so-christian-acting" individuals is absurd.

BRAVO, on that were agreed. Too bad its those individuals who are louder then the rest of you, could the true christians please stand up and tell the few to shut up? Perhaps the black community will follow, maybe even the muslims... Sorry theres the idealist in me again.(let it be noted i have never agreed with jay on anything)

b.k. barunt · Post by **b.k. barunt** » Thu May 03, 2007 4:26 am

The main problem i have with your post jay, is that you are one of the "not so christian acting" individuals. Look at your fucking avatar! Religion for you seems to be an attempt to justify your right wing politics - Matthew, Mark, Luke and Rush.

Jehan · Post by **Jehan** » Thu May 03, 2007 5:13 am

its hard to see how anything the kkk does can be construed as Christian, save for the act of saying that they are.

Also why does the left always claim global warming, WHY?? its a scientific theory, it should be removed from being left or right wing.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Thu May 03, 2007 5:53 am

b.k. barunt wrote:The main problem i have with your post jay, is that you are one of the "not so christian acting" individuals. Look at your fucking avatar! Religion for you seems to be an attempt to justify your right wing politics - Matthew, Mark, Luke and Rush.

No, his avatar just doesn't fit your agenda.

The Bible is so chock-full of stories that some people are going to use it for whatever, and not all christians agree with it.

sheepofdumb · Post by **sheepofdumb** » Thu May 03, 2007 6:05 am

Christianity is totally dependant on wheather you want to believe there is a God or not. I personally do. There is no real way to prove God exists. There is the possibility he doesn't. I don't know if this has been said because I'm not about to read over 40 pages of something I really don't care for.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Thu May 03, 2007 7:19 am

CrazyAnglican wrote:I seem to think this might have been directed at me. It’s a really good thing that us Christians have to swallow everything our church fathers tell us. ... But my simplified version is this. We have a perfectly good English word: homosexual, but we also have euphemisms in which it is entirely clear what we mean. Do we always use homosexual? No. Is there any reason to think that St. Paul was that different from us in the use of euphimisms or even coined his own word? No.

Firstly, thanks for your response. I just wanted to make it clear that I'm not arguing that the Bible 100% doesn't condemn homosexuality. I am aware of the arguments both for and against the various translations, and I have studied it first hand (at least the greek ones) as an exercise in translation. That debate is exactly my point. The treatment of homosexuals by the church is, lets face it, a pretty horrible thing. I'm not talking KKK lynching people here, more people feeling like they need to hide their true sexual feelings else they'll be outcast from their family and society. Thats a horrible burden to bear. One of my best friends recently came out at the age of 24, and her family (pretty devout Catholic) have pretty much severed contact with her because of their religious views. Even if she does ever go home she can never go to church with them, never join in with the many church activities that her family support... Thats a tragedy.

The fact that a pretty vehment debate over translation exists is purely the reason why I find it an issue. Its not a concrete translation and to base such persecution on that is completely wrong in my book.

CrazyAnglican wrote:
It seems our “pointless” discussion had a point after all. You have repeatedly refused to show that scripture was intentionally tampered with. Instead trying very hard to attribute the worst motives to Christians; bringing us to this indictment. Never mind that Christians, on this site, unanimously decried the “God Hates Fags” idiots. You of course are overlooking one indisputable fact of the scripture. The Old testament says that it is unlawful and provides punishment for it, yes, among many other things. The New Testament never says to persecute homosexuals. You even mention that the persecution you speak of didn’t happen on a “massive scale”. Yet, feel perfectly justified in defaming an entire religion based on this. I humbly suggest that you may have a prejudicial outlook in this regard.

Firstly, I'm not addressing the previous issue I was discussing here. I'm discussing with BK Barunt how I find certain passages vague. I consitanlty stated that, as an Atheist I can see human motives in the canonisation of the Bible and some of the translations since, and as a theist those won't be present. I don't think its been tampered with by some new-order conspiracy organisation, nor is the church trying to systematically wipe out homosexuals through its translation. Its a non-arguable one in the long run so I'd like to move on. I'm really not trying to argue that one anymore because before you would see my view you would have to lose your faith and for me to see your view I'd have to gain some.

Secondly, I'm not condemning the whole of Christianity, nor the Christians on this site. At no point have I used the phrase 'God Hates Fags', and I am well aware that many churches ancd Christians are very tollerant toward homosexuals. I am just showing an aspect of the Bible with a less than concrete translation and the fact that I find it wrong to base such certain and drastic policies on a passage with diffeent interpretations. I don't even agree with Jay's accusation that I'm trying to show some Christians find passages to fit their prejudices. I genuinely think that the majority of Christians who have a problem with homosexuality do so becuase of the Church and because of Bible teaching, which is fine, but I doubt many have read the original greek version and looked at the various translations, and then considered the implecations of their actions based on such vague scripture.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Thu May 03, 2007 7:21 am

Jehan wrote:its hard to see how anything the kkk does can be construed as Christian, save for the act of saying that they are.

Also why does the left always claim global warming, WHY?? its a scientific theory, it should be removed from being left or right wing.

I think its more than the right, along with big business, opposes it. The 'left' would rather it was a universal issue but has no choice.

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Thu May 03, 2007 9:26 am

b.k. barunt wrote:The main problem i have with your post jay, is that you are one of the "not so christian acting" individuals. Look at your fucking avatar! Religion for you seems to be an attempt to justify your right wing politics - Matthew, Mark, Luke and Rush.

Please try to separate my Faith from my political views. Although my faith does play a part in shaping these views it is not because of my faith I have them. Global warming for example. I think God would be in favor of taking care of the planet. I am for not polluting recklessly but no SUV's or hairspray? (The 80's would have never been the same

) I think the world has far greater problems then the Earth overheating. We have kids harming others and themselves.... I'd much rather focus on that.

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Thu May 03, 2007 9:27 am

How about focusing on both? And SUVs are ugly.

luns101 · Post by **luns101** » Thu May 03, 2007 3:12 pm

Anarchist wrote:Luns, there are many people who would love to "burn faggots at the stake" before you deny that christians would do such a thing take a look at history... Now i never said that the bible demands that christians be burned. Jesus was a message of love, the church carries messages dipped in hate.(this doesnt apply to all, but those that ruin any chance of christians having a good name-Muslims have the same problem)

People - yes...true Christians - no. If someone were to want to kill someone simply because they are homosexual, that would be a heinous and immoral act against someone who God loves. The homosexual's life is just as precious to God as anyone who is heterosexual. Also, which church are you charging with carrying messages "dipped in hate"? If someone were to preach a message of "hate"...would they truly be Christian? I would reply, "no, they are not". So would the Bible:

1 John 2:9 - Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness.

1 John 2:11 - But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him.

1 John 3:15 - Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.

1 John 4:20 -If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.

Anarchist wrote:The words of jesus have been twisted in order to better serve the church and its followers.

Happily, you are discerning enough to recognize that, which means that you personally will be responsible for whether you accept His teachings or not. His followers will also be held accountable.

Anarchist wrote:they waste time arguing and fighting over what it says, there are too many branches of the church to claim that the message isnt vague, either that or the book is altered? Perhaps those who have rejected the "message" are the ones who have accepted the religion but refuse to accept christ?Whether through manipulation or misinterpretation, the loudest of christians have lost Jesus's message.

Most disagreements within the body of Christ are over church polity. But I can't blame you (or others) for being frustrated over the multitude of denominations. However, in the essentials we agree. Jimmy Carter is still my brother in Christ even though we disagree on our interpretation.

Anarchist wrote:can you please tell all the racists they arent needed anymore? that the protests at funerals have been heard and ignored? That even though the druids are dead the religion remains, can you all please leave me alone? Nope, christians still knocking on my door. Selling God...

Well, you're inferring that I have some kind of influence or connection with those nutjobs. We're all out here in these forums communicating with each other, and nobody is forcing any of us to post/respond...sorry, if you feel like you're being pestered.

Anarchist wrote:Not saying your one of those christians, but you cant deny that what your fellow christians do is wrong. (KKK,etc.. etc...)
unless of course you believe they are right?

This is what is probably the most insulting...that somehow a wacko cult bent on racial superiority is the same as an individual who worships Christ. Please read-up on the following Christian individuals: William Wilberforce, John Newton, William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, Wendell Phillips, Martin Luther King, Jr.

I'm taking the time to confront what you said, because if nobody does, then we Christians are falsely accused of things we don't believe in. People also tend to just go on hate-rants like the following:

captainvegetable wrote:Excellent interpretation. I've been wanting to burn those fucking faggots for a long time. GET THE TORCHES!!! Damn religious fundamentalists....

luns101 · Post by **luns101** » Thu May 03, 2007 3:22 pm

b.k. barunt wrote:The main problem i have with your post jay, is that you are one of the "not so christian acting" individuals. Look at your fucking avatar! Religion for you seems to be an attempt to justify your right wing politics - Matthew, Mark, Luke and Rush.

You and my uncle would get along great, BK (minus the cursing). People like Jay and myself are Christians and happen to be conservative politically, but there are just as many Christians on the left side of the political aisle. I guess it's more important for us to focus more on men's souls and hurting individuals.

I'm still laughing at the Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Rush comment...Good one!

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Thu May 03, 2007 8:57 pm

What does a Canadian band have to do with the three most prodominant gospel authors?

http://www.rush.com

CrazyAnglican · Post by **CrazyAnglican** » Thu May 03, 2007 10:13 pm

Hi Guiscard,

Thanks for your response as well.

Guiscard wrote: One of my best friends recently came out at the age of 24, and her family (pretty devout Catholic) have pretty much severed contact with her because of their religious views. Even if she does ever go home she can never go to church with them, never join in with the many church activities that her family support... Thats a tragedy.

I'm certainly sorry for your friend. Nobody deserves that. I do have faith in mother's though. Let us know if Momma sets Daddy straight on this particular issue. As for the Roman Catholic Church not allowing homosexuals in church activities, I have no idea. Lord Canti may be able to answer that.

Homophobia is a prejudice. It's bigotry, people with these views often make any excuse to defend them. You’re right the Bible doesn't portray homosexuality in glowing terms. Neither does it portray hatred in glowing terms. People will often use any excuse to perpetrate their prejudicial outlooks. They can use any number of reasons to validate bad choices (ie. Religion, Medicine, morality). I use these three because at one time or another they have all been used as arguments against homosexuality. Once again, you are not indicting doctors, psychiatrists, or philosophers only Christians. Christian teachings (that at the scriptural level do not advocate violence or hatred of homosexuals) cannot be reliably shown as the reason for homophobia among Christians. It's faulty causation, was the prejudice their before the teachings. There is no way to tell.

There are three basic reasons that I do not buy your argument, that have little to do with my faith, and quite a lot to do with simple logic. Homophobia is a phenomenon that exists quite independently of Christianity. I fight against homophobia when I encounter it, and pointing a finger at me (or others like me) does little to aide me in this fight.

1) Homophobia is present in non Christian societies
http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/india/innews061.htm "Indian Culture keeps many in the closet"
You seem to be keen on indicting Christians for keeping homosexuals in the closet. Can I expect an indictment of Indian culture next? There are of course other cultures with taboos against homosexuality, but one suffices for my point.
2) Homophobia predates Christianity, in an area where Judaic law had little influence.
Sulla comes out, the Senate gapes! Lucius Cornelius Sulla, acknowledged Metrobius, a Roman tragic actor of Greek birth, as his lover in his final speech to the Roman Senate, much to the dismay of the audience. (Wikipedia):
Roman attitudes and acceptance of homosexuality varied over time, such attitudes ranging from strong condemnation to quite open acceptance. The article intimates that the Roman view was originally one of rejection as a decadent Greek custom but applied specifically to Pederasty with adolescent boys. (Wikipedia)

Again (Wikipedia) Anti-gay slogans date back at least as far as Classical Greece 2500 years ago. These slogans have expressed numerous derogatory viewpoints against gays which have ranged from disrespectful to overtly insulting.

Plato wasn’t too keen on it (was surprised by this)
This particular charge dates back to Plato, who argued in the Laws I 636c and VIII 841d that homosexual sex was "against nature" (para phusin).

3) A negative veiw of it is not unheard of among atheists:
(Would you want to come out with this guy as your Dad?)

WHAT ON EARTH IS ALL THIS GAY_GAY_GAY STUFF.?????..Just because we refuse to be the victims of the hucksters of religious fantasy doesn't mean we think homosexuality is right or natural...please separate the sex from the religion!

But more importantly check out the response http://atheism.about.com/b/a/034332.htm
It’s pretty clear that, for this author, it’s just an issue to further oppose the Religious Right. Is it ethical for these guys to exploit the issue just to gain support for their world view?

In closing, you are still slamming Christianity, in particular, for what seems to be a general human problem.

Jenos Ridan · Post by **Jenos Ridan** » Sat May 05, 2007 1:11 am

jay_a2j wrote:Gotta chime in on this for a moment. The KKK can claim the label "Christian" all it wants. That does NOT make it true. Just as with any group that uses misinterpretation of the Bible for their own agenda. Hitler also professed the Christian faith.... lets make this clear. Jesus did not come to condemn the world and Christians should not either. Those who do will be judged by the same measure that they judge. This misguided view of what Christianity is all about because of some "not-so-christian-acting" individuals is absurd.

Actually, he did. By way of us rejecting our fallen, natural, 'fleshly' carnal ways. We, as christians, are set apart from the ways of the world (ie: the narrow path of Matthew 7:13-14). We only live in the world for a time that is equal to zero compared to eternity; we are NOT of the world. Our real home in the Kingdom of God in Heaven.

As for misuse of God's word, that is by not means a new thing. It have been happening since the fall of adam and eve. In fact, that is the cause of their fall, Satan's twisting of God's words and flat-out lies. People need to bother to learn the difference between nominal christians and genuine christians.

Jenos Ridan · Post by **Jenos Ridan** » Sat May 05, 2007 1:17 am

jay_a2j wrote:
b.k. barunt wrote:The main problem i have with your post jay, is that you are one of the "not so christian acting" individuals. Look at your fucking avatar! Religion for you seems to be an attempt to justify your right wing politics - Matthew, Mark, Luke and Rush.

Please try to separate my Faith from my political views. Although my faith does play a part in shaping these views it is not because of my faith I have them. Global warming for example. I think God would be in favor of taking care of the planet. I am for not polluting recklessly but no SUV's or hairspray? (The 80's would have never been the same ) I think the world has far greater problems then the Earth overheating. We have kids harming others and themselves.... I'd much rather focus on that.

God DOES want us to take care of His earth, we were created 1) to be in a relationship with Him and 2) to have power and authority over this realm of existance. But first, we must address the state of our brothers and sisters who are suffering from pain and emotional turmoil because of sin.

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Sat May 05, 2007 3:47 am

On a side note: several people, believers in Christ, have said that there are real Christians and people who only claim to be but aren't really.
This is exactly what one side argued in one of the 1-on-1 debates and he was promptly told by several christians who chimed in that such people should be given the benefit of doubt.
Don't know if it were the same people, don't think so, though. Still, it's somewhat amusing.

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Sat May 05, 2007 3:49 am

I can't believe this is still going on.

CrazyAnglican · Post by **CrazyAnglican** » Sat May 05, 2007 10:22 am

Skittles! wrote:I can't believe this is still going on.

I can

MeDeFe wrote:On a side note: several people, believers in Christ, have said that there are real Christians and people who only claim to be but aren't really.
This is exactly what one side argued in one of the 1-on-1 debates and he was promptly told by several christians who chimed in that such people should be given the benefit of doubt. Don't know if it were the same people, don't think so, though. Still, it's somewhat amusing.

Hi MeDeFe,

Excellent point as usual, but I think there is a big difference between giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who says "I'm a Christian" and nothing else (ie They filled out a survey, and that is all we know), and someone who says "I'm a Christian, now let's go beat up a homosexual".

I reread the debate thread and couldn't find any other Christian "chiming in". I did make statements to the effect that people should be given the benefit of the doubt, but qualified all but one of them to indicate that their actions and other statements could be considered too. I don't see my statements as contradictory; a statement of hatred under the guise of Christian doctrine disqualifies you as a "true" Christian, as far as I'm concerned. At one time or another it may have disqualified me, but I'm not sure.

I wrote: Without any true evidence that many people are lying about being Christians, we have to assume that they really are Christians, and not simply shy atheists.

For the record, I think Juggrenaut did a fine job. I got the idea, as our debate developed, that he was pretty young, but don't know his age. I respected his willingness to go toe-to-toe with me.

Here's the whole thing If you'd like to look back over it and check me.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16563

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Sun May 06, 2007 3:27 am

The debate spread to at least one other thread, I think the original one where the debate system was proposed. Maybe one would be luckier there.

CrazyAnglican · Post by **CrazyAnglican** » Sun May 06, 2007 11:56 pm

Oh, okay. I didn't really argue in either of those so I'm not sure who you were talking about. Sorry to confuse the issue.

Jenos Ridan · Post by **Jenos Ridan** » Sat May 12, 2007 3:20 am

And now, time to get back on topic.

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Sat May 12, 2007 4:49 am

Jenos Ridan wrote:God DOES want us to take care of His earth, we were created 1) to be in a relationship with Him and 2) to have power and authority over this realm of existance. But first, we must address the state of our brothers and sisters who are suffering from pain and emotional turmoil because of sin.

And how do you know they're suffering? And what "sin" are you talking about?

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Sat May 12, 2007 4:57 am

MeDeFe wrote:
Jenos Ridan wrote:God DOES want us to take care of His earth, we were created 1) to be in a relationship with Him and 2) to have power and authority over this realm of existance. But first, we must address the state of our brothers and sisters who are suffering from pain and emotional turmoil because of sin.

And how do you know they're suffering? And what "sin" are you talking about?

Sin is almost everything we do. We laugh at ones pain, it's sin. We masturbate, we sin. A lot of things we do, we sin.

How do we know that people are suffering? You can just look around, and see that people are suffering. Even if it isn't visible, people are still suffering from something.

got tonkaed · Post by **got tonkaed** » Sat May 12, 2007 3:12 pm

I made a fairly insightful post about why i dont always like the application of the notion of sin, but conquerclub (or my computer ate it)....

everyone should consider this a great loss.

Continuation of Christianity debate.

Re: Wild exaggeration

You're like my uncle