180 replies to this topic

[Titanium Justice]

Um... not sure which Bible you're referring to, but God did say that stuff in "the Bible" (or allegedly commanded to do that stuff). From memory, Exodus and... I think Deuteronomy, are very heavy with "stone the infidels!" laws. Even goes as far to call for the stoning of unruly children. It also says no "unclean" foods (which includes pork), no wearing of wool-linen blends, no homosexual buttsecks, etc. To deny that stuff is in the Bible is just, well, ignorant icon_razz.gif

Very true. There were actually a lot of rules in Judaism. But I'm just gonna explain why (at least why I believe) some of these laws don't apply to Christian's today.

I seem to recall asking my parents how a just and loving god could say these things and they responded with some delusional bulls*** like "Oh God was just testing us with a silly joke lol he loves you". Other typical responses I've received from similar questions are "Why don't you ask God" (because asking him will totally clear up my doubt in his existence), "Why don't you ask (insert more knowledgeable person here)", or "let's talk about it later". Or sometimes I'd get an honest "IDK" followed by some canned response about how Jesus loves me. Maybe it's just me, but I feel it's important to doubt ones own beliefs...otherwise you become a mindless drone. So yeah story time's over and boy I've sure gone off topic...

The purpose of the Jewish laws were for God to test his people. Because of their self-serving, sinful nature, he let them see if they can redeem themselves by observing the laws. (It also served itself as a guardian until Christ came.) But Jesus proved that none of them truly could, and that every person that ever lived (besides himself, because he was God) basically deserves to be stoned. For example, he lifted the bar for "thou shall not commit adultery" by saying that if you even lust upon a woman (yes, that includes pornography), that you've committed adultery. (Ouch! I've especially broken this one from time to time!)

Some of you may wonder Why the heck would he care about something as simple as that? Well, God is perfect. Now, isn't he? And if he knows all and see all, then surely your secret sins and your past sins are as apparent to him as if you were sinning openly in front of him today. So how were the people to escape a terrible fate, where was the mercy? Well, I know you've probably heard this, but I'll say it again. Jesus went to die on the cross, taking the sins of the world upon himself (just as prophesied), and was raised from the dead. Not only in this did he fulfill the laws for us, he himself became the substitute for our sins, so that whoever believes in him will not perish, but will have everlasting life. This is the second chance, the New covenant God has made with us.

He fulfilled the sacrificial system, because he was the ultimate sacrifice, and other laws such as the dietary and clothing laws are also out, because he himself said that "there is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him."

Now, just because Jesus fulfilled the law doesn't mean that Christianity is lawless (and no, I don't believe that is a catch). There is still the Ten Commandments. Those basically demonstrated to us (like I said) that all have sinned, and can't perfectly obey these commandments, and any other laws, and thus, you can't rely on observing the law to save yourself. Therefore, if anybody believes in God and wants to be saved, you are in need of God's loving mercy. Likewise, Christian's follow God's Ten Commandments, not out of forcefulness, but out of love. Not because its the easy way, but because they believe by God that he knows what's best for them.

So you see, that's why I personally don't call Christianity a 'religion'. Because religion is somewhat more of a shadow to Christianity. There is commandments, but they are on a lower pedestal than ultimately loving God with all that you've got (which even Christian's fail at a lot of the time). That's why I'd call it a 'relationship'. But you know what, you don't have to take my word for it. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, so you can OBJECT(TION! Phoenix Wright! LOL!) in any way you like. I'm just putting this out here because I feel that some fallacies are being tossed back and forth.

Edited by HeavyTitanium, 05 August 2011 - 04:29 PM.

[Sheik]

The purpose of the Jewish laws were for God to test his people. Because of their self-serving, sinful nature, he gave them a (first) chance to see if they can redeem themselves by observing the laws.

Seriously, who had the idea that humans are all bad, self-serving, evil, sinful, egoistic, dirty, low beings? It simply isn't true. Yes, there are egoistic qualities in every human but just as well there are alturistic qualites in every human, too. And it's not denyable because it's been proven by brain research and you won't get any more accurate than observing how the brain works if you want to know how the human is (because you are your brain). Empathy is something every human brain is capable of and being the social brain it is it has a great interest in alturistic behavior.
Than on the second step I don't understand why humans can't be good without God. But I don't need to ask this because the first step the concept grounds on isn't right to begin with, so yeah.

I don't get the hate for the human nature, seriously. That's everything.
...How can you feel you are believing in something right when your religion grounds on the hate for the human nature? That's sick. I have no problem with the rituals. I have no problem with all the laws. I have no problem (well, none that's too big anyways) with the biogted hate-the-fags ideologies that might develop from them and whatever else. But I fail to get how a religon can be based upon the idea that the human nature is despiseable. That's... I can find no words. How is that a religion for humans? To me it sounds more like hate yourselves than love each other.

Edited by Sheik91, 05 August 2011 - 10:33 AM.

[ElLibertador]

The bible has undergone many changes in its life. Purposely or simply because of time and mistranslation doesn't matter, no one can truly say what's what. The bible shouldn't be used as an example for anything (or the koran but this one has been kept pretty well (I still don't like it, actually more but meh)) because even after all those changes or "corrections" it still manages to be wrong, like implying that earth is younger than 10,000 years.

"How can you feel you are believing in something right when your religion grounds on the hate for the human nature?"

Great question I myself have asked. The rest of our post has my thoughts exactly.

You know, I myself use to think that I could feel the holy ghost in me and that I couldn't do right without it. I realize now that feeling was just fear and a nice work of brainwashing. I do right because I want to. Teaching children that only God can keep them sane and good is a HORRIBLE thing to teach. Imagine what would happen when that person starts doubting in a time of depression or hardship or someone starts leaving God for the wrong reasons. What do you think will happen? They will snap and do something horrible simply because they've been told they will as shown by the number of murders, suicides and other things that have been claimed under the name of God. Such as parents who kill their children because they fear hell or because their children aren't godly enough. It's sick.

I'm not saying every religious person is a psycho but the world can be a bad place and I believe religion only makes people even more fragile.

Edited by Rafael, 05 August 2011 - 03:11 PM.

[Russ]

Seriously, who had the idea that humans are all bad, self-serving, evil, sinful, egoistic, dirty, low beings? It simply isn't true. Yes, there are egoistic qualities in every human but just as well there are alturistic qualites in every human, too. And it's not denyable because it's been proven by brain research and you won't get any more accurate than observing how the brain works if you want to know how the human is (because you are your brain). Empathy is something every human brain is capable of and being the social brain it is it has a great interest in alturistic behavior.

I just want to interject here. it's true, not all humans are evil, sinful, etc. But deep down, human nature itself is. For instance, let's take a hypothetical good person. He gives to charity all the time. So you could say he's not selfish. But deep down inside, he is. He wants the money he's giving away; it's human nature to want. But he's in control of himself. He knows he shouldn't be selfish, and he knows he should give that money to the needy instead. He's conquered his human nature, but that human nature itself is selfish. That's the way I see it, at least. All humans tend to care only about themselves. They just learn to conquer that nature.

Because of their self-serving, sinful nature, he gave them a (first) chance to see if they can redeem themselves by observing the laws.

Not at all how I was taught. I was told that the whole point of the law was to show them that they had no chance of redeeming themselves. There was no way they could possibly hope to keep all the laws. It was a way of showing them that they needed a savior, or they were hopelessly lost.

[Fabbrizio]

I just want to interject here. it's true, not all humans are evil, sinful, etc. But deep down, human nature itself is. For instance, let's take a hypothetical good person. He gives to charity all the time. So you could say he's not selfish. But deep down inside, he is. He wants the money he's giving away; it's human nature to want. But he's in control of himself. He knows he shouldn't be selfish, and he knows he should give that money to the needy instead. He's conquered his human nature, but that human nature itself is selfish. That's the way I see it, at least. All humans tend to care only about themselves. They just learn to conquer that nature.

On an entirely different level it could be argued that there is a selfish motivation behind every human decision. A person who gives to charity does so because they want to feel like they're making a difference. That's a self-satisfying motivation. They're using generous actions to justify themselves.

[ElLibertador]

Or you could believe that people are good at heart.

Edited by Rafael, 05 August 2011 - 03:50 PM.

[ShadowTiger]

^ This.

Ah yes, but I doubted my former beliefs, and now I'm at Christianity. I'm sure a lot of you are going to think I'm not done doubting. :B

There are plenty of Christians who converted to Atheism (Or otherwise,) and there are also plenty of Atheists (Or otherwise! o.o) who converted to Christianity. It's so interesting to hear the reasons for their various conversions. It really is. It's particularly interesting to hear the reasoning behind the conversion of someone who used to do the whole "Occult / spiritual" thing, to Christianity.

One thing will always be true, though: It's healthy to have a strong thirst for knowledge and understanding. Who knows what doors we're locking ourselves out of by being closed-minded to adjacent beliefs. I used to believe that Pagans held dark beliefs. I never even really knew what that meant! Nowadays, I would be proud, even honored, to call myself a Pagan, but that's not a route I have chosen to travel. (Though I straddle the fence now and then, because I can.)

It's a wide-open universe out there. I'm looking forward to finding out what happens in the end.

-----------------------------------------------

Something I've always wondered about, though, is when it says "And God made man in his image." The sinful nature of man had originated from the tree of knowledge between good and evil then, I take it? It had to have. Otherwise God would be subject to the same morality as we are, unless it's a physical image that was recreated, which wouldn't make much sense. ... ... But if we're just dealing with semantics here, then we don't know exactly which semantics are true and which are just used for idle debate.

[Rambly]

On an entirely different level it could be argued that there is a selfish motivation behind every human decision. A person who gives to charity does so because they want to feel like they're making a difference. That's a self-satisfying motivation. They're using generous actions to justify themselves.

I've heard that argument a lot of times, and it's just simply not a very good one. I mean, what's wrong with that? Is there something wrong with wanting to feel like you're making a difference? Isn't that what altruism is? Doing good because you want to do (or feel like you're doing) good? Doing a sincere gesture of good will just because it makes you feel good is still a sincere gesture of good will. If maybe someone was hoping to get some kind of benefit or something in return besides a simple feeling, then perhaps it might not be so sincere. But that's obviously not the case you were using for your argument.

As for the topic at hand: I'm agnostic. I voted non-theist, non-religious because I do not have an active belief in a God. I just don't claim to know whether or not there is one (ie. I haven't rejected the belief in a God either--although I lean closer to that end of the spectrum and you might call me an agnostic atheist, or something similar).

Edited by Rambly, 05 August 2011 - 04:00 PM.

[Fabbrizio]

Or you could believe that people are good at heart.

The only way you can be good at heart is if you do good and then never talk about the fact that you've done good. You have nothing to prove, so nobody has to know that you've done something good. That's why anyone who is okay with becoming a poster-child of being 'good at heart' isn't actually good at heart at all, they're just feeding their own egos. Making it about themselves and not about the people they've helped.

I've heard that argument a lot of times, and it's just simply not a very good one. I mean, what's wrong with that?

I never said anything wrong with that, I was just trying to provide another side to the debate. In any situation in which you make a decision, you're going to choose the option that will make you feel good, or will work out better for you in the end. That's all I'm saying.

Edited by PowerGauntlets, 05 August 2011 - 04:15 PM.

[Titanium Justice]

Not at all how I was taught. I was told that the whole point of the law was to show them that they had no chance of redeeming themselves. There was no way they could possibly hope to keep all the laws. It was a way of showing them that they needed a savior, or they were hopelessly lost.

Uh yeah, that's kinda what I was trying to imply. Sorry, I'm kinda tripping over my own thoughts here.

[Sheik]

I just want to interject here. it's true, not all humans are evil, sinful, etc. But deep down, human nature itself is. For instance, let's take a hypothetical good person. He gives to charity all the time. So you could say he's not selfish. But deep down inside, he is. He wants the money he's giving away; it's human nature to want. But he's in control of himself. He knows he shouldn't be selfish, and he knows he should give that money to the needy instead. He's conquered his human nature, but that human nature itself is selfish. That's the way I see it, at least. All humans tend to care only about themselves. They just learn to conquer that nature.

The biggest mistake you are making is the common misunderstanding that the human is either good or evil by nature. By nature, the human is quite amoral. The only morals that are intuitive are empathy (and thusly alturistic behavior) and the wish that the unfair are put to justice. These two are carried on from millenia of evolution (and aren't concious even most of the time, they are rather "emotional morals"). Other than that, the human nature is much more what PowerGauntlets described: the self-satisfiying motivations. They aren't "evil" by far. In fact, they are amoral. And more over, without the motivation to satisfy yourself you wouldn't do the first thing. You wouldn't even eat if you had no interest in your own well-being. This interst, however, is taking place much more on an emotional level and not on a level where people think "I do good because I will make money of it". Yes, these may exist, too, but they aren't acting upon human nature but upon an idea which society has developed ever since it has known property: the (false) idea that between property (in this case money) and well-being exists a casual chain. By human nature they have an interst in a comforting mood and satisfying emotions. The intersts they hold by human indoctrination are a whole other story.
Your second mistake is to assume that humans are in control of themselves. Only about 10% (some say less) of the experience of your live are concious. The remaining 90% (or more) are uncouncious and precouncious. What happens without you knowing it and without you actively controling it is so much more than anything that is within your control.
Human nature itself is a social brain that keeps itself active by (innocently) satisfying itself via several hormones. No devils attached.

Edit: We aren't good by heart. We are good by brain. (<- I'm not being serious. I think we are amoral/alturistic by brain, not forcefully "good".)

Edited by Sheik91, 05 August 2011 - 04:51 PM.

[trudatman]

was it put forth that because Jesus existed, he was all things enough to absolve all immorality, giving believers free roam to say "put it on my boy Jesus' tab" and feel fresh to sin again? that religion scares me. I think that is bad for us all.

[Fabbrizio]

was it put forth that because Jesus existed, he was all things enough to absolve all immorality, giving believers free roam to say "put it on my boy Jesus' tab" and feel fresh to sin again? that religion scares me. I think that is bad for us all.

That ATTITUDE is dangerous, yes, and I will say I've had some terrible experiences with that kind of attitude in Christianity, but I think it's unfair to say that it applies to all Christians.

Edited by PowerGauntlets, 05 August 2011 - 05:25 PM.

[Titanium Justice]

was it put forth that because Jesus existed, he was all things enough to absolve all immorality, giving believers free roam to say "put it on my boy Jesus' tab" and feel fresh to sin again? that religion scares me. I think that is bad for us all.

Let me see...

Well then, should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more of his wonderful grace? Of course not! Since we have died to sin, how can we continue to live in it?

Romans 6:1–2

Edited by HeavyTitanium, 05 August 2011 - 05:30 PM.

[Sheik]

That ATTITUDE is dangerous, yes, and I will say I've had some terrible experiences with that kind of attitude in Christianity, but I think it's unfair to say that it applies to all Christians.

Still, techinically, modern Christianity is a get-away-with-it-religion.