lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Christianity is a religion of tolerance and other assorted myths
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 10-11-2007, 06:15 AM   #201
Rogue Warrior
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Geelong Australia
Posts: 207
Okay, from the top. A friend of mine goes to church and in a church group there was this girl who they tormented until she was uncomfortable and left. Then the group said that she was bad for the church, a bad person.
Rogue Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2007, 06:19 AM   #202
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,263
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
How did they torment her?


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2007, 06:26 AM   #203
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
How did they torment her?
It seems that her question was rhetorical. She already knows that the church group is practicing intolerance, so I don't know how her post was intended to move the conversation forward...other than to put more distance between her and the staffs' posts.

Yes, Nancy, we already know that christianity is intolerant. So are islam and judaism. Sorry to hear about your friend. Thanks.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2007, 06:28 AM   #204
Rogue Warrior
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Geelong Australia
Posts: 207
You seem to have a great personal stake in me being Nancy. So I leave from being against atheism and come back to promote it? How is that logical?
Rogue Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2007, 07:00 AM   #205
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Warrior
You seem to have a great personal stake in me being Nancy.
On the contrary, I have absolutely no personal stake in it at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Warrior
So I leave from being against atheism and come back to promote it? How is that logical?
This presumes that there is an expectation for logic in your posts.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2007, 07:11 AM   #206
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,263
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
It seems that her question was rhetorical. She already knows that the church group is practicing intolerance, so I don't know how her post was intended to move the conversation forward...
You are spoiling the fun, A-man.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2007, 01:24 PM   #207
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
You are spoiling the fun, A-man.
Sorry. Carry on.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2007, 03:28 PM   #208
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,263
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
How did they torment her?


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-13-2007, 05:53 PM   #209
Rogue Warrior
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Geelong Australia
Posts: 207
She embarrassed herself one time by popping off, farting to put it crassly, and all the time she was tormented about it even when she said she did not like it. After she left, as I said, the church group character assassinated her, saying how she slept around, how she brought a bad influence to other church groups, she was this, she was that. Really tolerant behavior.
Rogue Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-14-2007, 10:02 AM   #210
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,263
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Hm. Pretty childish, huh? But I think that didn't answer my question though.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-15-2007, 08:39 PM   #211
jedispy
 
jedispy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Left side of the coin
Posts: 828
Current Game: Metroid Prime 2
As a Christian I can only speak for Christians. By that I mean I can not properly represent people of other faiths. As an actively participating, born again Christian I am saddened and shamed by the acts of many other people who claim to follow Jesus. I'll explain.

Jesus' main teaching (aside from the subject eternal salvation) was to break down the massive barriers that religion had built. You have to look at it in the perspective of the ancient Roman occupied Middle East. The political control of the tribe of Judah (a.k.a. the nation of Jews) was held by the Romans. This conflicted heavily with the religious control of the tribe of Judah (a.k.a. ancient post-exile Judaism). The conservative Jews of the day wanted to abolish anything non-jewish in their religion. The many centuries prior to that included distortions and perversions of their religion (by this I mean things like the Greek hellenization, the translation of the Torah & Tanakh from the original Hebrew into Koine Greek, the Babylonian & Assyrian captivities, and the inclusion of many non jew religious practices like the Amorites, the Philistines, and so on...). Ancient Judaism had finally reached a point where they desired "purity" in their religion.

Getting back to my point...
Because of this desire for religious purity, the Judaism of the day openly rejected any foreign traditions interfering with their religious practices. Then the Romans took over in 63 BC and the struggle between political and religious power began. To try to appease the people, the Romans kept Herod the Great as their king. Of course what they failed to understand is that the Jews of the day did not fully accept his rule since he was not of the line of David (he was of the Hasmonean dynasty who had power since the days of the Maccabean revolt). Instead the Jews of the day anxiously looked forward to the coming of their Moshiach (where we get the word "Messiah" from). The Moshiach was to be a descendant of David, the second king of Israel. This king was to return the reign of the davidic kingship on Earth, a dynasty that would never end. The religious and political tension was thick, and there had already been several impostors claiming to be the Moshiach.

Then one day a man named Yeshua, who was the son of a Nazarene carpenter, came forward claiming to be the Moshiach. However rather than a political king who would overthrow the oppressive Roman tyranny, he preached about loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, and blessing those who curse you. He preached the Abrahamic concept of "all nations being blessed through Abraham." He taught about tolerance toward the depraved and forgiveness for the sinful. Immediately he was shunned by the religious elite of his day. He spent more time around "sinful people" and less around the self-righteous religious authorities of the time. And of course I think we all know how that story ended up.

This Jewish carpenter, turned Rabbi, taught a message of compassion and love. His earliest followers formed a new sect of Judaism, following all of the religious traditions of the old covenant sects, but also adopting the teaching of eternity and earthly compassion and peace. The Romans called named them Christians.

Now some 2,000 years later a lot has changed for this former sect of Judaism. They have grown exponentially in numbers and have set up political governments (a.k.a. the Church-state governments throughout Europe). Sadly many of the people who make the claim to be "followers of Christ" seem to miss what He was actually teaching about. Jesus never preached about political power, or how to solve the "homosexuality problem." Does the Bible teach that homosexuality is wrong? Technically yes, but it preaches more about the evils of intolerance and hatred.

Now as a Christian, I am firm in my beliefs. I may seem liberal in some areas, and quite conservative in others. Whatever. You can feel free to put whatever label on me you wish. I am what I am, and Jesus loves me for it. Now going back to the original post about the son tempted with homosexuality (or whatever) and the mom fearing he was going to lose his salvation. Honestly I think that's ridiculous. I know this sounds bad, (and please please forgive me for making such a comparison...I'm only trying to make a point) but who do we Christians claim Jesus died for?

Did Jesus just die for the alcoholics, the pornographers, the murders, the slanderers, the rapists, and the thieves, but not the homosexuals? Is homosexuality somehow a worse sin than any of the others? Those are rhetorical questions of course.

(Again please forgive me for the comparison...I'm only trying to make a point. At no point here am I implying that I'm judging anyone. I'm simply stating what the Bible labels as sins.) I personally believe that you can be addicted to drugs, and be "saved." I believe that you can be addicted to lust and pornography and be saved. I believe you can have deep bitterness in you, so much that you wish a person was dead, and still be saved. I believe that you can have sex outside of a marital relationship (premarital sex, adultery, etc...) and still be saved. Lastly, I believe you can be homosexual and be saved. Now I believe that it's God's desire for us to abstain from sins. However the Christian belief is that once Jesus saves your soul, then as sin increases, His forgiving grace increases all the more. This doesn't mean that it's o.k. to go on sinning. However when we do sin (and yes, EVERYONE sins every single day) Jesus pardons those who He has saved. Again this is the Christian belief. I'm not making judgment on anyone here, and like I said at the start I can only represent Christians.

So I apologize if I have offended anyone. It is surely not my desire. I only seek to become more "christ-like" and practice what He preached.

Peace be with you.


Jedispy - SOTE Mod Administrator, server/technical administrator, mod author, forum admin/moderator, web administrator, programmer.
Click to read the latest SOTE MOD news
jedispy is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-22-2007, 09:03 PM   #212
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Jedispy,

I really like your interpretation of christianity. No doubt that the world would be a very different place if more people shared the same vision of the religion as you did.

I do think it is unfortunate that there is no one, clear, objective interpretation that everyone can look to and say "yes, this is clearly Jesus' message and any other interpretations are incorrect". While your take on christianity focuses on acceptance, it is clear that there are other versions that are very intolerant and are just as valid as yours.

Take care!
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-09-2007, 05:17 AM   #213
Mr. Kennedy
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 7
Looking through the
forums here I found a
quote on how not
believing in god is logical,
okay? Not believing in
god is logical. A logical
life is an ethical life, this
atheist contests, and
atheists play the morality
card, claiming to be
more moral than religious
folk. The problem I have
with that is atheists have
shown to be unethical.
They have shown to be
immoral. How can
atheists drone on about
being in some way
superior when they are
guilty of things such as
intolerance?
Mr. Kennedy is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-09-2007, 07:08 AM   #214
Mike Windu
Je suis l'agent du chaos.
 
Mike Windu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stars Hollow
Posts: 3,562
That syntax blew my mind.




That's the last time I buy anything just because it's furry!

Mike Windu is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-09-2007, 06:10 PM   #215
Tinny
 
Tinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,188
But who is to say which interpretations are more valid? I would say someone who's studied the Bible for a whole for quite some time without biasing to particular passages taken out of context would be closer to having that authority than say the average Joe who hates someone and uses the Bible to "justify" it. In the end you can take any work and make it say anything you want it to say.


Redeemed!

An old school mod for jedi academy.
Tinny is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-10-2007, 11:24 PM   #216
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinny
But who is to say which interpretations are more valid? I would say someone who's studied the Bible for a whole for quite some time without biasing to particular passages taken out of context would be closer to having that authority than say the average Joe who hates someone and uses the Bible to "justify" it.
Right, but you're making an individual value judgment to get to that conclusion. Someone else might make an equally valid value judgment that could be in direct conflict with yours. So even the context for defining subjectivity is subjective.

Using your criteria, should I put more faith in Bart Ehrman or William Craig?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinny
In the end you can take any work and make it say anything you want it to say.
While there is probably some truth to this statement, I don't think that should excuse any works that claim to be extant or the supreme word of a supreme being. Kinda hard to be "perfect" and "imperfect" at the same time. Seems like that would be one of those "either/or" things.

Take care!
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-11-2007, 01:37 PM   #217
Tinny
 
Tinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,188
Not sure where you are coming from in the last statement.


Redeemed!

An old school mod for jedi academy.
Tinny is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-11-2007, 02:29 PM   #218
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Only that books that claim to be the perfect word of god should be exempt from the "it's ok to be open to interpretation" clause that you suggested. I'm ok with Jane Austin or William Shakespeare or Homer or JK Rowling being open to interpretation, but not god. I don't think it's acceptable that our supreme creator only communicates to us via texts and then forgets to create a commandment that requires that we preserve them (and their languages) for all time (completely ignoring the question of why a perfect being cannot create a perfect book, impervious to age or destruction and capable of translating itself into modern languages).
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-11-2007, 08:21 PM   #219
Tinny
 
Tinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,188
I don't see that as a requirement, but even if that was true how it allows two positions of Christianity to be equally valid even when there are clear passages that are really hard to interpret another way.


Redeemed!

An old school mod for jedi academy.
Tinny is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-11-2007, 10:24 PM   #220
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
I'm having difficulty deciphering that. Is it possible that you may have missed a word or two in your response? Anything you can do to help clarify is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-12-2007, 05:49 PM   #221
Tinny
 
Tinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,188
Hey man, I don't think I was missing any words but I think I was missing some punctuation. It was late and I was tired, sorry :P. What I meant was how can a person objectively say that two positions are equally valid?


Redeemed!

An old school mod for jedi academy.
Tinny is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-12-2007, 07:17 PM   #222
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinny
Hey man, I don't think I was missing any words but I think I was missing some punctuation. It was late and I was tired, sorry :P.
No worries whatsoever

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinny
What I meant was how can a person objectively say that two positions are equally valid?
I guess I would have to know more to answer that intelligently. At face value though, I would state that if all other things were equal, that it would be quite easy to say that two positions are equally valid. Generally speaking though, situations in which all other things are equal are difficult to come by. Presuming that you're referring to scripture, since the source is the same, then we have to look elsewhere for that "something else" (which kinda takes away from that whole 'The Word' thing).
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-21-2007, 10:51 AM   #223
RobQel-Droma
Blah
 
RobQel-Droma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Up yours. X0
Posts: 2,216
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Warrior
Okay, from the top. A friend of mine goes to church and in a church group there was this girl who they tormented until she was uncomfortable and left. Then the group said that she was bad for the church, a bad person.
That is definitely not what Jesus taught. There aren't "bad people" for the church. "All have sinned" says the Bible, so I don't understand why some so-called Christians view it as some kind of an exclusive club.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
I don't think it's acceptable that our supreme creator only communicates to us via texts and then forgets to create a commandment that requires that we preserve them (and their languages) for all time (completely ignoring the question of why a perfect being cannot create a perfect book, impervious to age or destruction and capable of translating itself into modern languages).
I'm not sure where exactly you're coming from here; it sounds as though you are saying that you believe that, if the Bible is truly the Word of God, then it is a perfect book and shouldn't be "open to interpretation" by whoever.... in which case I would agree with you. But I'm kinda confused as to the context, I haven't been in this discussion.

Oh, and Achilles: to go back to the start of your post, I would say this. Christianity is not a religion of tolerance, if it is the tolerance that you seem to advocate. In otherwords, I wouldn't accept someone as a Christian who went out and murdered/raped people every night, so would you say I was "untolerant"? That's not saying that I wouldn't gladly have them repent and follow God, regardless of their past mistakes.
RobQel-Droma is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-21-2007, 12:48 PM   #224
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
I'm not sure where exactly you're coming from here; it sounds as though you are saying that you believe that, if the Bible is truly the Word of God, then it is a perfect book and shouldn't be "open to interpretation" by whoever.... in which case I would agree with you. But I'm kinda confused as to the context, I haven't been in this discussion.
Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Oh, and Achilles: to go back to the start of your post, I would say this. Christianity is not a religion of tolerance, if it is the tolerance that you seem to advocate. In otherwords, I wouldn't accept someone as a Christian who went out and murdered/raped people every night, so would you say I was "untolerant"? That's not saying that I wouldn't gladly have them repent and follow God, regardless of their past mistakes.
Many christians claim that their religion promotes love, tolerance, acceptance, peace, etc, etc, etc. The purpose of this post was to show that this is not the case. Those that interpret the bible literally (aka "Fundamentalists") are clearly unloving, intolerant, unaccepting, non-peaceful, etc, etc, etc people around.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-22-2007, 07:06 AM   #225
jedispy
 
jedispy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Left side of the coin
Posts: 828
Current Game: Metroid Prime 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
The purpose of this post was to show that this is not the case. Those that interpret the bible literally (aka "Fundamentalists") are clearly unloving, intolerant, unaccepting, non-peaceful, etc, etc, etc people around.
Fallacious straw man rhetoric. You are making a claim based on your opinion, and not on facts. You are making claims regarding a small portion of a population, and claiming it is representative of the whole. I gotta say that's pretty closed minded and intolerant of you. Please take the plank out of your own eye before picking the specks of dust out of other people's eyes.

Your argument is fallacious in another way too. Literary translation and interpretation is broken down into two camps. They are exegesis and eisegesis. Exegetical interpretation means to draw the meaning out, and basing one's understanding on the text alone without presupposition. Eisegetical interpretation is the opposite. It means to put meaning in (aka putting words into another person's mouth) by basing one's interpretation of a text filtered through their own presuppositions. This type of interpretation is of course unfavorable as it does not reflect the author's original meaning and intent, nor does it accurately capture the context in which it was written. To clarify, the distinction between these two methods is applied to all literary interpretation, not just the Bible.

What you are claiming is that those who exegetically interpret biblical scripture are "unloving, intolerant, unaccepting, non-peaceful, etc, etc, etc." This is of course a fallacy. I postulate to you that the REAL Christians are highly tolerant, caring, and charitable people. (I'm talking about born-again, believing individuals with transformed lives, who not only read the Word but desperately cling to Christ's teachings of love, compassion, charity, sacrifice, etc.... What I am not talking about are people who just go to church regularly and have a dusty bible somewhere in their house, who do things that they think are right because some legalistic religious leader tells them that's how things have to be). I guarantee you that Westboro Baptist Church does not represent me, and the Jesus Christ I know does not condone their hypocrisy. Real Christians care for widows and orphans. Real Christians provide for the sick and the homeless. Real Christians are not perfect. Yes we sin. Yes we are capable of things like intolerance, hatred, deceit, prejudice, etc..., just like everyone else in the whole world. Although we are capable of such things, real Christians, though still sinful due to a fallen human nature, desire to do what is right, to have a Christ-like attitude toward life and our fellow human race.

Regarding your arguments:
Look, I could write volumes about my perception of proper professional body building technique, or how only unintelligent troglodytes would get into such an occupation. However since I am not a professional body builder (I'm not even an amateur one), what I would be writing would be nothing more than fallacious theory based on my presupposed opinions. Now if I were to make such claims, how useful would my testimony be? That is exactly what your testimony is of Christianity.


Jedispy - SOTE Mod Administrator, server/technical administrator, mod author, forum admin/moderator, web administrator, programmer.
Click to read the latest SOTE MOD news

Last edited by jedispy; 12-22-2007 at 07:18 AM.
jedispy is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-22-2007, 01:55 PM   #226
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jedispy
Fallacious straw man rhetoric. You are making a claim based on your opinion, and not on facts. You are making claims regarding a small portion of a population, and claiming it is representative of the whole.
Well, yes and no. I am only applying it to the people that it applies to, but obviously I'm not being very clear with my distinction in my writing. I appreciate the correction and shall endeavor to do better in the future. Thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jedispy
I gotta say that's pretty closed minded and intolerant of you.
First, I'm not quite sure how you got to this conclusion (except by generalization). Second, my comments aren't intolerant at all. I'm not calling for religious persecution or the hampering of anyone's rights to free religious expression. Apparently I'm not the only guilty of fallacious straw man rhetoric in this thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by jedispy
Your argument is fallacious in another way too. <snip>

What you are claiming is that those who exegetically interpret biblical scripture are "unloving, intolerant, unaccepting, non-peaceful, etc, etc, etc." This is of course a fallacy.
Not when the argument is applied to those that actually do exegetically interpret the biblical scripture in an unloving, intolerant, unaccepting, non-peaceful, etc, etc, etc way. Are you arguing that these people do not exist? If they do not, then yes, my argument would indeed be fallacious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jedispy
I postulate to you that the REAL Christians are highly tolerant, caring, and charitable people. (I'm talking about born-again, believing individuals with transformed lives, who not only read the Word but desperately cling to Christ's teachings of love, compassion, charity, sacrifice, etc.... What I am not talking about are people who just go to church regularly and have a dusty bible somewhere in their house, who do things that they think are right because some legalistic religious leader tells them that's how things have to be). I guarantee you that Westboro Baptist Church does not represent me, and the Jesus Christ I know does not condone their hypocrisy. Real Christians care for widows and orphans. Real Christians provide for the sick and the homeless. Real Christians are not perfect. Yes we sin. Yes we are capable of things like intolerance, hatred, deceit, prejudice, etc..., just like everyone else in the whole world. Although we are capable of such things, real Christians, though still sinful due to a fallen human nature, desire to do what is right, to have a Christ-like attitude toward life and our fellow human race.
Well, that's all great, but you haven't presented an argument for why your interpretation of what it is to be "real christian" is any more valid or true than any other. It's certainly nice and promotes lots of admirable characteristics, but again, it's only one interpretation among many.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jedispy
Regarding your arguments:
Look, I could write volumes about my perception of proper professional body building technique, or how only unintelligent troglodytes would get into such an occupation. However since I am not a professional body builder (I'm not even an amateur one), what I would be writing would be nothing more than fallacious theory based on my presupposed opinions. Now if I were to make such claims, how useful would my testimony be? That is exactly what your testimony is of Christianity.
No, not "exactly" at all. You seem to be presuming that my comments are not based on (and cannot be based on) observation. In other words, you seem to think that "fundies" are some sort of boogie man that I've invented in my head and can't be found anywhere outside of my imagination. The reality is quite different. While you are correct in pointing out that I need to be more cautious about distinguishing between fundamentalists that cherry-pick for good and those that cherry-pick for everything else, this doesn't mean that my comments regarding the latter do not apply to those that deserve them.

Thanks again for the great post.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-22-2007, 05:03 PM   #227
Tinny
 
Tinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,188
Ofcourse those types of people exist, there are people that will pervert anything. Christ's (the founder of this religion) commandments are pretty much clear and override any other vague rules that others may "interpret". I think Jedispy and I had a problem with this statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
The purpose of this post was to show that this is not the case. Those that interpret the bible literally (aka "Fundamentalists") are clearly unloving, intolerant, unaccepting, non-peaceful, etc, etc, etc people around.
Not sure how you arrived at this conclusion and people like Jedispy and I do interpret those commandments literally and still consider ourselves peaceful, loving etc.


Redeemed!

An old school mod for jedi academy.
Tinny is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-22-2007, 05:53 PM   #228
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinny
Ofcourse those types of people exist, there are people that will pervert anything.
Book ABC makes statement X. Book ABC also makes statement Y. How do we determine which statement (X or Y) is a "perversion"? Certainly we can't rest on the (artificial) authority of the text itself, since it makes both statements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinny
Christ's (the founder of this religion) commandments are pretty much clear and override any other vague rules that others may "interpret".
Without knowing which of "jesus'" (not really his, since everything he says is someone else quoting him in third person) commandments you're referring to, I can't address this argument directly. I will state in a very general way that much of "jesus" does "say" is contradicted elsewhere in the new testament (sermon on the mount is pretty cut and dry, but then again so is the book of revelations). Either by him or someone speaking on his behalf. People that make statements such as yours typically do so at the expense of showing just how unfamiliar they are with the bible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinny
I think Jedispy and I had a problem with this statement.
<snip quote>
Yes, I've already thanked Jedispy for reminding me that not all Fundamentalists are blatantly hateful. Some are merely judgmental and disapproving (to varying degrees). I accept that by using the term "Fundamentalist" in that post in such a general way, I made the mistake of grouping everyone into one category. I personally have never met or heard from a Fundamentalist that said that homosexuality (to use an example) was ok in the eyes of god, but Jedispy did make me realize that people like these may exist nonetheless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinny
Not sure how you arrived at this conclusion and people like Jedispy and I do interpret those commandments literally and still consider ourselves peaceful, loving etc.
Which commandments are you referring to? Going with the homosexuality example (used in the first post and above), you accept the bible's statement that homosexuality is sin, correct? But you do not hate homosexuals right? You don't commit hate crimes, etc, against them right? In fact, you would probably pray that god would take their affliction away from them so that they might be saved, etc, correct? Well that's intolerance. You might be able to keep your "peaceful" label and your "loving" label (but not really since loving something means accepting it as it is), but you certainly don't get to keep your "tolerant" label. I hope that helps to clarify.

One last thing: My apologies in advance for the assumptions made in the argument above. Regardless of whether or not they apply to you directly, I do hope that they can stand on their own as an argument against Fundamentalist thinking and behavior. Thanks for reading!
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-22-2007, 06:13 PM   #229
Tinny
 
Tinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,188
I think we have different labels of what love and tolerance is then. I could have a son that was a terrorist and not accept what he was doing yet still love him and wish he would return to a moral life. I think you might also define your terms differently from how the Bible would define them, hence take differing passages as contradictory.


Redeemed!

An old school mod for jedi academy.
Tinny is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-22-2007, 06:26 PM   #230
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinny
I think we have different labels of what love and tolerance is then. I could have a son that was a terrorist and not accept what he was doing yet still love him and wish he would return to a moral life without accepting what he was doing.
Poor analogy, as terrorism is a choice. A more accurate analogy would be to ask if your son was left handed rather than right handed. Homosexuality isn't wrong, it is merely different. I know that the bible says differently, but unfortunately I am not persuaded.

I do have a son (whom I love very much) and if he one day grew up to become a terrorist, I would still love him, even though it would pain me greatly to know that my sweet little boy grew up to become an immoral killer. But there is no denying that acts of terrorism are immoral. Big difference between something that is clearly immoral by every objective test for morality available and something that is consider to be immoral based on nothing more than popular value judgments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinny
I think you might also define your terms differently from how the Bible would define them, hence take differing passages as contradictory.
Like "love thy neighbor as you would love yourself" as compared to "stone your neighbor to death with stones at the edge of town for picking up sticks on the sabbath". Yes, clearly this misunderstanding is based entirely upon my failing to "accurately" define the terms as they were intended to be taken. Thank you for clearing that up.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-22-2007, 06:28 PM   #231
Tinny
 
Tinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,188
Now I think others have pointed out the rules of the Old Testament were meant for a different purpose, the Church in general have a different purpose on this Earth than what the nation of Israel was intended to accomplish. You pointed out earlier that I think you also understood this (I think?) and therefore was trying to avoid rules from the Old Testament. Now as to the analogy, the point wasn't whether or not homosexuality is wrong (we have our own defense of this which is whole another debate), but how I could not accept certain things of a person's actions and or character yet still love them. Hope this clarifies some of the things a bit.


Redeemed!

An old school mod for jedi academy.
Tinny is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-22-2007, 06:48 PM   #232
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinny
Now I think others have pointed out the rules of the Old Testament were meant for a different purpose, the Church in general have a different purpose on this Earth than what the nation of Israel was intended to accomplish.
I understand that this argument has been raised, but jesus himself is quoted as saying that the old laws still apply. Can't have it both ways. Regardless, the word of god is the word of god. If you wish to argue that he changed his mind, you are certainly welcome to do so, however we will then have to determine why an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being would need to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinny
You pointed out earlier that I think you also understood this (I think?) and therefore was trying to avoid rules from the Old Testament.
I would need to see the post in order to comment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinny
Now as to the analogy, the point wasn't whether or not homosexuality is wrong (we have our own defense of this which is whole another debate), but how I could not accept certain things of a person's actions and or character yet still love them. Hope this clarifies some of the things a bit.
Unfortunately, I think that is puts us back right were we were a few posts ago. There's a difference between not liking someone's behavior and not liking them (part of being a good boss is addressing someone's behavior without making any judgments about them as a person). In this example though, we're not talking about behavior. Terrorism is behavior. Wanting your children to have good table manners is about behavior. Not wanting them to be blond, or right handed, or homosexual is another animal altogether. If you cannot accept someone as they are, then you don't love them (again, not talking about behavior). I hope this helps to clarify. Thanks for reading.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-22-2007, 08:00 PM   #233
RobQel-Droma
Blah
 
RobQel-Droma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Up yours. X0
Posts: 2,216
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
There's a difference between not liking someone's behavior and not liking them (part of being a good boss is addressing someone's behavior without making any judgments about them as a person). In this example though, we're not talking about behavior. Terrorism is behavior. Wanting your children to have good table manners is about behavior.
Of course, there is a difference between dealing with behavior and hating someone. Simply because there is a point of conflict between you and a person doesn't mean you don't love them. You may not love the behavior, but you love the person. Its something Jesus taught.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Not wanting them to be blond, or right handed, or homosexual is another animal altogether.
I would actually classify homosexuality as a behavior, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
If you cannot accept someone as they are, then you don't love them (again, not talking about behavior).
If you go and look up love in the dictionary, there is no "accepting everything they do." It usually says something like "feelings of affection for someone." It doesn't say that, in this case, we have feelings of affection for their homosexuality (hope you know what I mean by this), but feelings of affection for *them*, as their person. I don't see the two interconnected - I guess I just don't view a person's sexuality like you do, maybe.

However, would you disagree that someone could feel affectionate for their brother after he committed a crime, even though they know he did wrong?
RobQel-Droma is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-22-2007, 08:44 PM   #234
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Of course, there is a difference between dealing with behavior and hating someone.
I think "hating someone" is taking the point to the extreme. I don't think you have to bear hatred toward someone to be intolerant of their beliefs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Simply because there is a point of conflict between you and a person doesn't mean you don't love them.
*shrugs* I don't know how one says that they love someone without accepting who they are. What they do is something completely different, but I think that we're probably going to end up going round and round on that one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
You may not love the behavior, but you love the person. Its something Jesus taught.
He and many others, both before and after his alleged life and death

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
I would actually classify homosexuality as a behavior, though.
As would many other participants in this thread I presume. Would you classify heterosexuality as behavior also? If so, why? Also, if sexuality is a matter of behavior, what makes one behavior "moral" and another "immoral".

Note to moderator: Could we split this tangent out into a new thread please (or merge it with an existing homosexuality thread)? TIA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
If you go and look up love in the dictionary, there is no "accepting everything they do."
Before we get too far on this point, please realize that we're talking about behavior again (i.e. "everything they do").

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
It usually says something like "feelings of affection for someone." It doesn't say that, in this case, we have feelings of affection for their homosexuality (hope you know what I mean by this), but feelings of affection for *them*, as their person. I don't see the two interconnected - I guess I just don't view a person's sexuality like you do, maybe.
Probably not. I view a person's sexuality as their business and not mine

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
However, would you disagree that someone could feel affectionate for their brother after he committed a crime, even though they know he did wrong?
This is a behavior.

The brother can be disappointed by the behavior and still love his sibling. If the brother did the crime because he was criminally insane and the other brother chose not to love him, then his love is clearly a conditional thing and therefore, not genuine.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-22-2007, 10:23 PM   #235
Tinny
 
Tinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,188
I believe the definitions you've used for behavior and love are not necessarily universal, maybe to you it isn't love, but many others would still conclude it is but I won't debate this point anymore as it seems heavily subjective.

You are right, Jesus did say He did not come to abolish the law but He also said He came to fulfill it and whatever the purpose of the law was was gratified. Now you've brought up a good question of the Omniscience of God and why He would need to change His mind about the rules. I should have mentioned this earlier as it would have cleared up many things. One thing to keep in mind is that in the Bible there are many ages or even stages of history. From the creation of man till the law was handed, there was little guidance, I can speak a bit for the different sections of the Bible after that:

First there was the law handed down by Moses --> during this time the Hebrews fled out of Israel, they were a struggling nation as they were mostly slaves and they were almost a paramilitary organization due to the harsh conditions and harsh cultures around them. They were given extreme measures and penalties to meet the law as things such as promiscuity, over working yourself, touching carcasses, and diet would greatly influence the survival of this struggling group of people.

Then came the time when Israel was a kingdom --> Now survival was not as paramount as keeping society together, penalties for breaking the law were not as harsh as even God Himself would deal out less than what Moses had recommended. Remember King David was forgiven for his adultery (an act punishable by death under Moses), he repented but he still had to face the consequences of his actions.

From the period the law was handed down to the birth of Christ, the purpose of the law was to help the nation of Israel. For what reason this kingdom was built i'm not very clear about, some purposes I do know is that it helped bring about the the prophecies and lineage of the Messiah Christ.

Next we have the coming of Christ and the age of the Church --> The Old Testament law was fulfilled and the job of the Church to to help heal the world of its many problems and to bring many people to God ultimately via Christ. This is why in Christianity we are called to love, be compassionate, yet also stand on certain issues and the importance of these ideals help us bring many people to Him.

Way after this comes the antichrist and then the revealing of God to all of humanity --> Mankind divides into two camps, one that unites under God and the rest who follow Satan for whatever reasons. Since God has revealed Himself openly to humanity, people are now without excuse and the time for compassion and such ideals are over for those who choose to separate themselves from Him.


Its not so much that the Bible contradicts itself on rules or that God changes His mind on them because He feels He initially messed up. He has a set plan for all of humanity which are composed of stages and different allowances. Hope I clarified some stuff up.


Redeemed!

An old school mod for jedi academy.
Tinny is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-22-2007, 11:48 PM   #236
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Well that certainly is one possible explanation. Another is that as parts were added, edited, or removed, zeitgeist influenced the decision. The first explanation doesn't do much to address attitudes toward women, slavery, human sexuality, etc, etc. Nor does it do much to explain why such decisions were made by men (and not god himself). Or why there hasn't been an update in ~1800 years (translations don't count). If I make a policy change at work, I draft memos, hold meetings, talk about it in one-on-ones, etc. Surely god's capable of at least shooting off an email.

Think about it: roughly 986,000 years with no word at all. Then a book which took about 10,000 years to put together. Then nothing for 2,000 more years. Then another book. Then nothing again for 2,000 years.

God didn't love the cavemen, or the Romans, or the Greeks, or the Japanese, or the Mesopotamians (etc, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum)? He only loved the Jews? Kept his mouth shut until they came around (couldn't "omnipotence" them into existence sooner?)? Then decided he love the christians more several thousand years later? Really?

Sorry. I'm not buyin' it.

But thanks for your post!
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-22-2007, 11:53 PM   #237
Tinny
 
Tinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,188
I don't think anyone knows fully what He's up to or why He does things the way He does. Most of is just faith when He says that He loves the world that He works out things for the best for all of humanity.


Redeemed!

An old school mod for jedi academy.

Last edited by Tinny; 12-23-2007 at 12:04 AM.
Tinny is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-23-2007, 12:43 AM   #238
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
I fully understand that this is good enough for you and millions of others. It still sounds like a cop-out to me. I have just as much justification for putting my faith into invisible pink unicorns as I do god. If forced to make a choice, I'll go with the unicorns because none of them have ever instructed me to murder my children for any reason.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-23-2007, 01:15 AM   #239
Tinny
 
Tinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,188
I understand, I told you in another thread exactly how I feel about this and I mentioned the dream I had that initiated my faith. I see without any shred of evidence why its hard to believe, don't get me wrong. I just hope everyone here receives the evidence they need eventually . By the "commandment" about killing children are you referring to Abraham's test?


Redeemed!

An old school mod for jedi academy.
Tinny is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-23-2007, 02:06 AM   #240
RobQel-Droma
Blah
 
RobQel-Droma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Up yours. X0
Posts: 2,216
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
*shrugs* I don't know how one says that they love someone without accepting who they are. What they do is something completely different, but I think that we're probably going to end up going round and round on that one.
Yea - I think our difference of opinions on what is behavior, and what that person is, are probably just going to hold back the discussion going in circles.

I'm going to let this one go, unless you want to pursue this part of the discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Probably not. I view a person's sexuality as their business and not mine
I would hope so.
RobQel-Droma is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Christianity is a religion of tolerance and other assorted myths

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:15 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.