Religion What does religion bring that nothing else can bring ?

[strongvoicesforward]

In my experience my faith has brough peace. I have personally seen the effect in my life and in the lives of believers around me. Christianity is a faith of mercy, empathy, kindness and compassion. I have seen this first hand over almost three decades. It is not a superstition.

Well, we disagree. I think it is a superstition and these forums are a place for people to express their opinions in debate. That is my opinion and I am entitled to it and the right and freedom to express it. You can have your opinion and support it and I can have my opinion and support it. No need for you to try and get opinions shut down just because you don`t agree with them. Stating your opinion that something is a superstition does not make it an insult or wrong, no more than saying the superstitious beliefs held by some people that force women to have clitoral circumcision is also wrong. Both are wrong and it is acceptable to voice your opinion that both are wrong when one believes they are both based on superstitions and in fact believe they are superstitions. It is an opinion and not an attack.

Voicing your opinion in such a manner as you have been doing, demeaning, argumentative, agressive opposition is an attack.

You only view it as an attack because you are sensitive to the topic and have an aversion to witticism that may touch upon some aspects of your beliefs. Thomas Pain and Ingersoll had to face similar outrage when they spoke up against the Bible as well -- like I am being a target of your display here. I have not demeaned you. Argumentative is fine as part of an "argument" so long as it doesn`t devolve into expletives and pajoratives. Being aggressive as it means in prosecuting with zeal and energy is nothing negative. You have not been attacked.

If I went to a foreign nation and walked around judging their language, food and customs...denigrating their most sacred texts in the most disrespectful manner I could think of, refering to their dieties as fairy tale kings, and their belief system as silly superstitions it would be unacceptable...you would be an ethnocentric bigot.

This is not the United Nations where diplomacy often comes over the truth of matters. This is a forum for discussion and everyone, so long as they do not throw expletives and pajoratives at one another in rude and crude put downs meant to purposely insult and degrade, have the right to adopt their own style of debate. You are sensitive to the subject matter and want special consideration because of that. A forum for free and open discussion is a place where no special subject or person is given any special consideration over another. Please respect Maciano's request that we ignore each other on issues of Biblical debate either (a) in toto, or (b) in the thread that you seem most sensitive about. You choose and I will go along with your decision. Which is it?

I fail to see how this assault of yours is any more acceptable. This is not about discussion, debate or capital "T" Truth- it is a shrill, meanspirited, and hateful excersize in intolerance.

Well, you keep repeating that enough, but it is not the fact of the matter. I am not assaulting you. I am discussing and debating the Bible with verse against verse and supporting my opinions. Once in a while I throw some witticism in to liven the mood but you see that witticism as an assault because you are too sensitive when critical examination rests on reason and logic and won`t give way to your view of things. Look at all my posts on the subject matter (not the ones which had been yanked off on diversion) and you will see I have not attacked you. A little witticism here or there, but that is not something to be up in arms over. Many people use some witticism and the Bible is not any special of deserving protection than any other subject matter. To make it more special than another by hobbeling someone`s opinion and debate style against it, then that would be practicing prejudice and intolerance.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

SVF, it might be clearer that you are only stating opinions if you use phrases such as "I think" or "IMO", or, to quote Mycernius "As far as I am concerned all religions are myths". Simply stating something without such disclaimers seems to give the impression that you are claiming it as a fact.

anyone should be free to voice opinions about or against your belief while regarding the right of each to try and change their minds on topics held by each.

I think this is what people are talking about when they accuse you of attacking - you admit that you are trying to change people's minds. I think that's proselytising, which is a form of attack on someone's current beliefs, IMO. Good debate is about presenting the facts as you see them, inviting comment and pointing out errors in the arguments of others. If your argument is strong enough, it will speak for itself.

In answer to the topic, religion doesn't provide anything that can't be found elsewhere. But it is a means of providing those things that for some people is the most accessible and effective.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

SVF, it might be clearer that you are only stating opinions if you use phrases such as "I think" or "IMO", or, to quote Mycernius "As far as I am concerned all religions are myths". Simply stating something without such disclaimers seems to give the impression that you are claiming it as a fact.

It is not necessary or required that one couches their opening premis with a disclaimer. Some may choose to do so and some may not. Either way, it is at the discretion of the person making their premis. Most would think it strange if someone puts forth a premis like, "I think rape is wrong," or "In my opinion murderers are bad." If someone feels strongly about something, they are quite in the right to make an absolute statement and then follow it up with arguments supporting their premis.

I`ve often seen politicians start a speech, "I am the best man for the job and if you elect me...." They would come off very week if they said, "I think I am the best person for the job..." or "I think my opponent isn`t as good as me..." Sure, they can do it that way, but that is the weaker of the styles and it is all personal choice.

I think this is what people are talking about when they accuse you of attacking - you admit that you are trying to change people's minds.

There is nothing wrong with trying to change peoples minds in debate. Why do you think there is? That is one of the purposes of debate -- to change peoples' minds or to change the minds of people who are not decided yet and who may be looking in. Debate is a means of moving people along the spectrum of their beliefs.

I think that's proselytising,...

Proselytising is done in order to induce someone to change to their faith. I am not doing that -- I am not preaching any particular personal faith of dogma that I want others to adopt. I am supporting my premis that Xianity has a lot of things wrong with it because of the Bible -- or that the Bible could not be the WOG. People after hearing or reading criticisms of the Bible can change their faiths themselves. I am merely providing information about their faith. Your usage of the word in the general sense of how it is typically used is wrong.

...which is a form of attack on someone's current beliefs, IMO.

Yes, and it is the wrong opinion because I am not attacking. I am debating and trying to discuss but "someone" is too sensitive to realize that and wants me to come bowing down to his sensitivities and tip toe around them. No one is under obligation to do that if they do not wish. My style is not one couched in word usage of, "IMO, IMHO, I see your point, you may be right," to only grease and oil the discussion. If I use those phrases, they will be used sincerely, not superficially just because I am worried someone has sensitive feelings.

Good debate is about presenting the facts as you see them, inviting comment and pointing out errors in the arguments of others. If your argument is strong enough, it will speak for itself.

Go back and read the thread from the beginning. I have done that and am continuing to do that. If you would like, I could take you on a point by point tour of each post and point it out to you. Perhaps you can do it on your own.

Now, if you go back and look at the thread, you will see I went 20 some posts before I addressed Sabro. In fact, he had 3 posts before I finally addressed him and his three prior posts came on with witticisms directed at me before I responded to him. He is the one that turned it personal between the two of us. He just assumes that criticising his religion is a direct personal attack on him, which it isn`t. It would better the discussion if he would be mature enough to see that his religion is not granted any special protection due to his personal dislike of a debate syle he may not be so familiar with. He is frustrated and as a result all he can do is throw accusations around.

Why don`t you or others who are piling on for Sabro PM from now on so that we can keep the threads clean from these tangents? I guess you won`t because it is clear you are just seeking more piling on. If not, then you would PM me. Please do so and that would go a long way in helping us all keep the integrity of the threads.

 

[Mycernius]

I am not debating the validity or invalidity or fraudulent claims of the Quran because that is not what this particular thread or the other contentious thread is about, is it? If you make a thread about the Quran and I feel like posting in it showing why I believe it to be false, then I will. It could be that I don`t know as much about the Quran. But, declining to comment on the Quran bears nothing about what I know or the validity of my arguments againts the BWOG. They are separate issues and the only thing that connects them is that they are religions and both were spawned from the Judeic religio culture/stories.

If both have sprung from Judaic law then you are attacking the Books of the Jews and the Muslims. OT is originally a Jewish document. It makes up thier holy book. Attacking the OT is attacking the Jewish faith, as the inconsistances in that are present in both religions. The Q'uran is a re-written version of both Jewish and Christian beliefs along with pre-islamic myth thrown in. Some of the inconsistances have been addressed in the Q'uran, but some of the inconsistances that are in the Bible are also present in the Islamic faith. A direct attack on the Bible is also an indirect attack on Judaism and Islam. You cannot really seperate the three religions from each other. What I would like to know is why you are so aggressive in your comments about Christianity? I am not a fan of Christainity or any religion, but I am not so agressive in my comments. In some ways you are agressive in your posts and can be compared to the fire and brimstone preaching of the faithful. Debate requires to listen and think about what has been said. Instead you do not seem to do that, it is always attack, attack, attack, with no real follow up. You strike me as intolerant of religion, particularly Christianity, and can easily fall into the same group as fundamentalists in the way you 'debate'.

 

[No-name]

The topic was what does religion bring...I gave you concrete examples from personal experience. I know since crossing the line of faith some twenty five years ago that my life has been filled with joy and purpose- a sense of committment, connection, certainty and significance that I did not ever have before. The people in my life who have crossed this line of faith have found similar benefits- some after years of abuse or addiction. I have seen healing, growth in character, people enlisted in the care of those in need. And I have recieved love and caring and the help I need when I needed it.

Christianity is a faith of mercy, empathy, kindness and compassion. Any reader of the new testament should be able to locate this as the overt overwhelming message. Even most unbelievers recognize this.

Now, if I share my indisputable heart-felt personal experiences I would expect others- such as our Strongvoices brother, to respect that and not in the next post denigrate my faith as a superstition and dismiss it in such a manner.

As to your post SFV- "Law, reason, mercy empathy, kindness and compassion bring peace"... "laws?"...really, laws? When was the last time a law brought any one peace? Reason? Reason might bring understanding, but is just as likely to be used to justify violence as peace...(like people who use reason to excuse the arson of housing under construction or assualt on women wearing furs) Nazi's had laws and used reason. Eventually maybe they would have achied some form of peace, but I really wouldn't want to see what that looked like.

 

[Maciamo]

The topic was what does religion bring...I gave you concrete examples from personal experience. I know since crossing the line of faith some twenty five years ago that my life has been filled with joy and purpose- a sense of committment, connection, certainty and significance that I did not
ever have before.

This is either because of the new relations you've made with your new community, or because your life was particularly unhappy or lonely before. I have noticed that many people who find solace in religion are to be found among the deprived, depressed and people coming from disadvantaged social backgrounds (not to say that this is your case). I also think that the US has a higher percentage of religious people because it has always had more immigrants, and religious communities are one of the best way to integrate fast and well into a new community and culture (maybe that is more your case ?).

The people in my life who have crossed this line of faith have found similar benefits- some after years of abuse or addiction. I have seen healing, growth in character, people enlisted in the care of those in need. And I have recieved love and caring and the help I need when I needed it.

As I was saying, many of the "victims" of religion are people who were in need of love, friends or direction in their lives - so mostly lonely, depressed, deprived or delinquent people. That's why Christianity is doing so well in developping countries (look at Africa, the Philippines, Latin America, the South-Eastern USA...), but is in sharp decline in richer parts of the world (coastal US cities, Europe...) and especially among well-off and well-educated people (there are statistics showing that).

Christianity is a faith of mercy, empathy, kindness and compassion. Any reader of the new testament should be able to locate this as the overt overwhelming message. Even most unbelievers recognize this.

This is naive to think that you need to believe in Christianity to follow the morals of the New Testament. Anybody can do it, even the Atheists. My opinion is that people who need religion to be good or act morally, are those who are not naturally good people.

Now, if I share my indisputable heart-felt personal experiences I would expect others- such as our Strongvoices brother, to respect that and not in the next post denigrate my faith as a superstition and dismiss it in such a manner.

What you don't understand is that Atheist hate superstitions, myths and lies, and think it is lame and hypocritical to follow a religion full of them to be able to become a good person and have a fulfilling life. I tell you, you can be a good person if you want it, and you will all the more fulfilled if you can choose your own path or your own free-will and with your own opinions, than if you live a life dominated by lies and myths, which only bring you the illusion of happiness (but in fact cut you of the real world, make you intolerant of "the others" and ultimately serve the financial and political ambitions of your church's leaders).

Btw, why do you think that almost all born-again Christians are to be found in the former proslavery states, where discrimination (and crimes) against the Blacks persists deeply up to this day, and where poverty is more rampant than in any other part of the developed world ? Many people there are clearly not naturally good people, and even your religion of love and respect has only helped segregation, hatred and organisations like the KKK to survive over the centuries.

I suggest that you check the statistics about poverty, violent crimes and discrimination in the Southern US States, and explain how this unique region composed of almost all the born-again Christians on earth, has ended being what it is.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

A direct attack on the Bible is also an indirect attack on Judaism and Islam. You cannot really seperate the three religions from each other.

That is right. You are correct. They have all spawned from the same superstitions, legends, and myths of the Jews. If the Judeic religion is false, and it is the foundation of the other two, then it goes to stand that those two are equally false as well. Yes, my discussions against the validity of the Bible and the OT bares down indirectly on the others. However, that is a bi-product of my actions and I need not focus on all becuase I choose to do so on one.

What I would like to know is why you are so aggressive in your comments about Christianity? I am not a fan of Christainity or any religion, but I am not so agressive in my comments. In some ways you are agressive in your posts and can be compared to the fire and brimstone preaching of the faithful.

Being aggressive is not prohibited in debate. It is my stylistic choice and I do not utter crude expletives or pajoratives at people. I am well in the bounds of what many public debaters do.

Debate requires to listen and think about what has been said. Instead you do not seem to do that, it is always attack, attack, attack, with no real follow up. You strike me as intolerant of religion, particularly Christianity, and can easily fall into the same group as fundamentalists in the way you 'debate'.

Well, we disagree -- suffice it to say. Please show me an inordinate amount of cases where I have not followed up on comments and questions addressed to me. If you do, I am sure to show you many more where people have not followed up on my comments and questions.

I am quite tolerant. You are "stricken" wrongly.

 

[No-name]

Maciamo- I was a happy 4.0 student in high school. A young republican with a bright future- that seemed rather empty.

I don't doubt that anyone can be a good (or at least a better) person on their own. Certainly you can have good values and morals without Christianity. I was just defining Christianity as a religion. I would sincerely hold Christians to those values, because as humans, we often fail.

Your connection of Born Again Christianity to the deep South and the historical problems of slavery and segregation is a juxtopositional fallacy. The KKK and racial discrimination is far more common in larger cities, and poverty is poverty regardless of your faith. The Southern economies remain quite strong in contrast with the appalacian area, the rust belt and much of the old north east. African Americans in the South have been more successful at garnering political power and economic clout and are probably less likely to face discrimination than in a place like California. (I will consult the DoJ database.)

That's not to say that discrimination and poverty are not significant problems. Christianity is no more responsible for this than country music, mint juleps, black eyed peas, chiltins, or okra- they're far more common in the South also.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

What you don't understand is that Atheist hate superstitions, myths and lies, and think it is lame and hypocritical to follow a religion full of them to be able to become a good person and have a fulfilling life.

Yes. Thanks for stating that. I do, too, hate superstitions, myths, and lies, of which Xtianity is one of. I would have loved to have used the word "hate" like you did Maciamo in this sense, but I would have been accused of being full of hatred and a bigot. Thanks for using this word where it needed to be used.

Religion is a lie, myth, and superstition. Until he who asserts that it is anything more can prove otherwise, all are quite correct in identifying it as such. But, don`t hate the Xtian, just the lies, superstitions, and myths that are the foundations for the peddlers who profit from it all. But, as always, we should show pity to those who have been duped by it.

 

[Maciamo]

I don't doubt that anyone can be a good (or at least a better) person on their own. Certainly you can have good values and morals without Christianity. I was just defining Christianity as a religion. I would sincerely hold Christians to those values, because as humans, we often fail.

Don't forget that the New Testament is 2000 years old, and society at that time was not as it is now, and values and lifestyles have changed enormously. It is therefore judicious to reevaluate moral values to fit this change as well as progress in science. There is nothing that justifies the ban of abortion, stem cell research, homosexuality, etc., which Born-again Christians feel so strongly against.

As for the second part of the Bible (the OT), it is much less interesting from a moral point of view, and much more criticisable for its scientific errors, philosophical nonsense, myths, superstitions and even despotic image of god and religion. Even the fundamental Ten Commandments strike me as old fashioned and throuroughly simplistic and incomplete (compared to the tens of thousands of pages of modern legislation). What does justify the four first commandments nowadays ?

1. "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt..."

=> Brought out of Egypt ? Whom ? People of European descent ? Filipinos ? Coptic Christian Egyptians ? It is not only anachronistic and out of tune with reality, but could even be seen as offensive regarding Egyptians (esp. Christian Egyptians).

2. "You shall have no other gods besides Me...Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."

=> The first sentences prones intolerance toward other beliefs, and especially intolerance toward polytheists and atheists. The second sentence prones the destruction of religious works of arts of any religion that would depict god(s), like Greco-Roman, Buddhist or Hindu sculptures. We have seen that the Talibans in Afghanistan got the message in a way that made they destroy old and valuable Buddhist statues.

3. "You shalt not swear falsely by the name of the Lord..."

=> Not sure what it means. If it means not being allowed to say "Damn it !" or such religion-related expressions of anger, it is outdated, and I don't see how that could be a major sin.

4. "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy" (the version in Deuteronomy mentions "Keep" rather than "Remember")

=> Christians keep Sunday holy, not the Sabbath day (Saturday). It is incidentally one of the obvious contradiction of the bible which I never really understood. If the Jews and Christians share the OT, why should they have a different "Sabbath day" ? Anyway, this is highly outdated now. Why shouldn't we be able to work or do anything we want any day of the week ?

Your connection of Born Again Christianity to the deep South and the historical problems of slavery and segregation is a juxtopositional fallacy.

Is it ? Well, prove it then.

The KKK and racial discrimination is far more common in larger cities

There are also large cities in the South (New Orleans, Birmingham, Memphis, Atlanta...). Have you ever heard of the Jim Crow law ? After the loss of the Civil War, the South managed to keep segragation of the Blacks, and this up to several decades after the above-mentioned law was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1915. I suppose you have heard of the fight of Martin Luther King Jr, born and raised in Atlanta, then campaigning in Alabama and other places in the Deep South in the 1950's and 60's, because Blacks in the Deep South were still treated as subhumans. Then what about the Alabama Constitution (not just a law, but a Constitution !), which originally it outlawed interracial marriage (only ammended in 2000 !) and still requires racially segregated education in the state.

Then, if you chekc carefully about White supremacists and the KKK, you will see that they have very intimate, and even fundamental connections with Conservative Protestants of the Deep South. The KKK was founded in Tennessee in 1865, dissolved by President Grant in 1871, then re-founded in 1915 by William J. Simmons in Atlanta, Georgia, and has been mainly active in the South. KKK members are required to be white Protestants, by the way, and also attack other fellow Christians, like Catholics.

and poverty is poverty regardless of your faith. The Southern economies remain quite strong in contrast with the appalacian area, the rust belt and much of the old north east.

Well, let's check Gross State Products (GSP) per capita to verify if there is a link. Let's start by the bottom, it's easier : The 51st in ranking (poorest state) is Mississippi. Good start. Let's see the other Southern States (let's take those with high densities of Baptists, like on this map, so I add Missouri and Kentucky) :

51st : Mississippi
50th : West Virginia
49th : Arkansas
47th : Oklahoma
46th : Alabama
43th : South Carolina
42th : Kentucky
40th : Louisiana
39th : Florida
36th : Missouri
30th : Tennessee
24th : Georgia
20th : Texas

Cool, 10 states in the bottom 15, and not one above 20 out of 51 (or did I forget Virginia in 10th position ? It is the South, but, Florida, it has less Baptists than the others). No matter how you look at it, I don't see how one could say that the South is not one of the poorest region of the USA.

That's not to say that discrimination and poverty are not significant problems. Christianity is no more responsible for this than country music, mint juleps, black eyed peas, chiltins, or okra- they're far more common in the South also.

That's always what they say. We are not responsible. Like for the wars of religions, crusades, jihad or whatever. There is no denial of the relation between the KKK, Black segregation and Born-again Christians.

 

[No-name]

1. The Old Testament as you know is Jewish scriptures. Those commandments are what the NT refers to as the old covenant. Christians are not under the old law.
2. The sabbath is not really Saturday. Jewish days start at sundown- so it is Friday night- Saturday sundown.
3. I know where the KKK started and where the civil rights movement fought Jim Crow laws. That was then. This is now. Today however you are more likely to find outright discrimination in large cities than the rural South. You will also find African American mayors, judges, congressmen and governors in Southern States, and the only African American CEO's of any fortune 500 companies are in the south.
4. I never said Southern states are not poor. I said their economics remain strong. If you look at population and economic growth- you see that many companies are relocating their production to states like Florida, Texas and Tennessee.
5. Racial segregation in any public school has been illegal since 1954. It doesn't much matter what the Alabama constitution says, the US Supreme court ruled against this in Brown v Board of Ed.
6. I don't know what they say, but something is a juxtapositional fallacy if it links two unrelated facts to suggest a corallary or cause effect relationship. Although the KKK was made up of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, not all whites are members of the Klan, nor are all Anglo-Saxon, nor are they all protestant. And a great number of those that you are basically blaming because they are Baptists are African American.

 

[bossel]

1. The Old Testament as you know is Jewish scriptures. Those commandments are what the NT refers to as the old covenant. Christians are not under the old law.

Not to disrupt your wonderful exchange with Maciamo, but this point is interesting. Why would your god give out commandments only to recall them a few hundred years later? If he is as omniscient & omnipresent as is believed, it should be easy for him to write fundamental moral laws that are not subject to change.
Another question: If "Christians are not under the old law", do these commandments have lost all validity & it is no sin for "Christians" to break them? ("" because IIRC in my Catholic education I still had to learn them & it was told that breaking them was a sin).

 

[strongvoicesforward]

1. The Old Testament as you know is Jewish scriptures. Those commandments are what the NT refers to as the old covenant. Christians are not under the old law.

How utterly disrespectful! Hijack a peoples' religion, take their sacred teachings and books, SLAP the word OLD on it and then slap NEW on yours and then proclaim everything those people who believe the OLD stuff will not find their way into Heaven until after they come around and accept some nefarious character in their NEW And Improved Better Version, of which whose central character was murdered by those in the OLD book.

Is that the height of arrogance, or what!?

HIJACKING-STEALING-DEGRADING-ACCUSING.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

2. The sabbath is not really Saturday. Jewish days start at sundown- so it is Friday night- Saturday sundown.

Sabro, on what day was Jesus crucified and died? What day did he resurrect?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

2. "You shall have no other gods besides Me...

=>The first sentences prones intolerance toward other beliefs, ...

Good point, Maciamo.

Yes, it is intolerant, isn`t it? And it lends itself to people implying, "You shall have no other debate style besides those that do not insult my sensitivities."

 

[strongvoicesforward]

What do you have agains Zeus?

Nothing, so long as there aren`t those pushing his fictional character as a True existing Being with offers of rewards for following him.

Zeus is quite welcome on the book shelf of any library under the fiction or myth/legend category -- next to the open space reserved for the Bible once it, too, is disregarded as Zeus was.


-----------------------------------
An Aside Musing:

Maybe we should keep the Bible and it falsehoods going just because so much of the economy runs on it. What is a little pain to those duped for the good of the economy and people making their livelihood off it.

Kind of like maybe we should keep the fur industry runnings just because so many people have livelihoods based on it. What is a little pain to those who have their skins ripped off of them for the good of people making their livelihood off it.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

As to your post SFV- "Law, reason, mercy empathy, kindness and compassion bring peace"... "laws?"...really, laws? When was the last time a law brought any one peace? Reason? Reason might bring understanding, but is just as likely to be used to justify violence as peace...(like people who use reason to excuse the arson of housing under construction or assualt on women wearing furs) Nazi's had laws and used reason. Eventually maybe they would have achied some form of peace, but I really wouldn't want to see what that looked like.

Good point. Neither reason, law, or religion/superstitions(here after from time to time referred to as RESUP) can stand alone in order to bring peace. They have to be tempered with compassion, mercy, and empathy.

Law and reason on the other hand do not have the gasoline of an angry God to throw onto the flame of human nature (which may be a naturally violent one). RESUP is gasoline which is thrown on this flame and makes it larger and more volatile. So, a Hitler who has a sprinkling of RESUP indoctrination, enough so to use it dangerously, is more dangerous as he uses Reason or Law which are perverted by his corrupt RESUP world view.

Now, if a Hitler did not have RSUP indoctrination, then he wouldn`t have known to use a prejudice towards jews based on RESUP to affect the population or his army and convince them to kill the Jews by appealing to their RESUP. In that case, his killing may have been less effective and efficient. In fact, reason and law may have been a bulwork to stand up againt reason and law. RESUP is the outside factor that upsets the balance.

 

[No-name]

Boy, there is too much to respond to. Revenant said more than what I could say about slavery, and I have nothing to add about masturbation.

Bossel- I guess breaking a commandment- any of those not specific to the Jewish preisthood or to dietary laws would still be considered a sin. Luckily, you sins are forgiven. (Should we continue in sin so that grace shall abound?)

The use of Old and New is practiced widely. About OT law and New covenant: The Book of Romans says that we are not under the law, but under grace, but that we should follow the law as much as we can. Paul says in Ephesians that we are saved by grace through faith...and not by works-- so you can try to follow the law and fail, or you can live under grace. One of the first debates among the early Church leaders in Acts was how much of the Law did non-Jewish believers have to follow-- particularly when it came to circumcision: Acts 15:28-29 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell. It was also shown to Paul in a dream that he did not have to keep Kosher, but that he was to eat and fellowship with Gentiles.

According to the Gospel accounts that were already discussed in length on Mars Man's thread: Jesus was crucified on Friday, died and was buried Friday night and rose on Sunday. (Which is why Catholics celebrate a mass every Sunday. There are other masses throughout the week. Protestants can hold corporate worship services on any given day- usually Sunday but not with every group.)

Neither Hitler nor Stalin needed religion as an excuse for the slaughter of millions. Hitler mixed in whatever Christian, animistic, Occultic, or imaginative story to suit his needs. His goal was a more scientific state "religion." In practice both men were athiests and epitomise religious intolerance.

 

[Maciamo]

1. The Old Testament as you know is Jewish scriptures. Those commandments are what the NT refers to as the old covenant. Christians are not under the old law.
2. The sabbath is not really Saturday. Jewish days start at sundown- so it is Friday night- Saturday sundown.

It goes more into the thread Born-again Christians. but as you said you were one of them, how do you justify this "laxism" (outdated mentioned of Egypt, different Sabbath for Jews and Christians...) from God, if the Bible is inerrant (i.e. the exact words of God, without any errors), as Baptists and Evengelicals believe ?

For me, exigent as I am as a mere mortal, this is already not "perfect" enough for a human being to write, so how could it be the words of god ? My point of view on this is that, as many contemporary human beings could have done a better a job in writing a "holy book", the Bible, with all its laxism, outdated, ambiguous or scientifically wrong content, cannot possibly be the words of god, and therefore is man-made, and anybody who believes that it is inerrant or really the word of god must be very lax intellectually and morally. That is partly why I have a low esteem for people claiming that the Bible is inerrant.

I am ready to accept that some people need religion or the support of religious communities to improve their lives. I am however opposed to the Catholic system for the same reasons as the Protestants (corrupted, money-making pseudo-political organisation, with old-fashioned traditions, more emphasis on the sacraments than on real faith, and a lot of nonsense added by the Church over the centuries - that's about it, isn't it). But I am also opposed to Conservative Protestants for being so intolerant and claim high and strong that the Bible cannot contain mistakes as it is the word of god. If I had to sanction a form of "fool-proof" Christianity that anybody who needs it can follow, I would go for some liberal kinds of Protestantism (e.g. Quakers), and insist that some parts of the Bible be dropped or rewritten (mostly in the OT, which is as old-fashioned as its names suggests).

6. I don't know what they say, but something is a juxtapositional fallacy if it links two unrelated facts to suggest a corallary or cause effect relationship. Although the KKK was made up of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, not all whites are members of the Klan, nor are all Anglo-Saxon, nor are they all protestant. And a great number of those that you are basically blaming because they are Baptists are African American.

I never said that all WASP were KKK members, but all KKK members are WASP (usually Baptist or Evengelical), and it is a requirement to join. Let's say that the most hardliner WASP are the one who think like or atcually join the KKK. The KKK is just a more extreme version of their beliefs, but it's still the same basic beliefs. In other words, the KKK wouldn't exist without Conservative Protestantism, and probably not without the large Black population of the South-East USA either.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Really, I haven't enjoyed reading the religious threads as much since you entered them.

You're welcome.