This is why Christianity is made fun of

Kishi · Post by **Kishi** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:32 pm

Plorpus III wrote:One thing I simply can't understand is why Christians are so faithful to the current New Testament, considering it has been confirmed that entire passages have been erased or modified. At least in the Torah, everything is the same as it was several thousand years ago.

Christians are not inclined to provide disclaimers about the sketchiness of their sacred text when they're trying to indoctrinate their kids.

Baba O'Reily · Post by **Baba O'Reily** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:14 pm

Fuck God, believe in people!

Or Buddha. He's a righteous dude.

Madamluna · Post by **Madamluna** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:56 pm

Baba O'Reily wrote:Fuck God, believe in people!

Or Buddha. He's a righteous dude.

I think we all have a little bit of Buddha in us.

Post by **Delphine** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:40 pm

Locit wrote:As long as I've been able to ask nobody has ever given me a convincing answer as to why Christians have accepted the end of kosher (among other things) and not the end of said other practices.

Because it's convenient.

Wooduck51 · Post by **Wooduck51** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:26 pm

My problem with the Romans, and many other denominations is that they have added so many requirements for being a Christian, the only requirement in the Bible you must fulfill to be saved, born again,etc.
is this:

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

That's it, that is all, you don't even have to go to Church

Light Speed · Post by **Light Speed** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:43 pm

Baba O'Reily wrote:Fuck God, believe in people!

Or Buddha. He's a righteous dude.

My knowledge on Buddhism is a little sketchy, but wasn't the first Buddha a person named Siddartha? And isn't the Dhali Lama(sp?) just a reincarnation of that guy, meaning he is Buddha? Or at least something kind of sorta like that.

Omni Hunter · Post by **Omni Hunter** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:49 pm

Wooduck51 wrote:That's it, that is all, you don't even have to go to Church

I don't even have to believe in religion to be what I want to be.
Ayway, on the confessing part, is that part of the Christian doctrine of confessing sins, or is that a totally different part? Just to clarify because olde english can be a bit disorientating to some.
And are the 10 Commandments requirements too, or just guidelines?

Light Speed · Post by **Light Speed** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:52 pm

The Ten Commandments were from the Old Testament, so that could probably be debated.

Omni Hunter · Post by **Omni Hunter** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:58 pm

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Also, the above quote is from the Old Testament, isn't the New Testament going against that quote?
I know it's an obvious contradiction that a few people have probably been thinking, but it's ben bugging me most of the while now.
I mean, according to Judaism, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all being plagued like fuck.

Light Speed · Post by **Light Speed** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:00 pm

Yeah, that is pretty much the reason I stopped being Catholic. Not that quote, but the fact that there are tons of contradictions like that. Also I took a European History class in highschool.

smiths32 · Post by **smiths32** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:30 pm

Omni Hunter wrote:Anyway, on the confessing part, is that part of the Christian doctrine of confessing sins, or is that a totally different part? Just to clarify because olde english can be a bit disorientating to some.
And are the 10 Commandments requirements too, or just guidelines?

As long as you believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins and acknowledge in your heart that you are a sinner, you are considered "saved." The 10 Commandments are guidelines to living, they may be in the Old Testament but they still are very relevant to livng.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Also, the above quote is from the Old Testament, isn't the New Testament going against that quote?

That quote's actually from the New Testament, my guess is that it applies to stuff like the Gap theory.

Omni Hunter · Post by **Omni Hunter** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:43 pm

Ah, my bad, I admit that. I did a bit more research and realised my mistake. But yeah, I hear of bits missing from the New Testament but that could be wrong. I also remember from R.E. that the New Testament conflicts itself at points though, especially in the acounts from the M, M, L and J on Jesus' life events.

Thanks for the clarification on the confessions and commandments anyway, I was genuinely trying to get my head around them.
I'm guessing that the confessing of sins is part of Catholic doctrine?

smiths32 · Post by **smiths32** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:54 pm

The bible encourages you to confess your sins to God in prayer and ask him to help you to repent. It's a custom that the Christians I know do and we're Protestant. I suppose the only difference there between Protestant and Catholic there is that in Catholic you confess them to a priest.

Omni Hunter · Post by **Omni Hunter** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:56 pm

Yeah, that's what I was referring to, confessing to priests with the hail-Marys. Cheers for that Smiths.

smiths32 · Post by **smiths32** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:59 pm

Not a problem, is this a bad time to ask what the status with that book is?

Edit: Just checked my PMs, cheers for that Omni.

gr4yJ4Y · Post by **gr4yJ4Y** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:24 pm

I just caught up with this debate after a good hour long read. I wish I had the time to keep up with this debate because outside of a small time frame when Wooduck posted the 3 links, most of it has been pretty much all of it has been slightly off from truth, just plain wrong, or off topic. I kinda wish we could go back to focusing on one thing, like we were at the beginning, when we were debating about faith in particular. There's a lot of questions unanswered, things and ideas misrepresented and counterdictions throughout. Too bad I don't have the time nor care to sit here and disprove or support every single post. So I'll focus on one area for the moment that sticks out in my mind.

Popcorn (and I'm sorry to direct this so personally towards you with other individuals also supporting your stance) said (or was hinting towards) that it would be best to only follow reason and forget feeling and whatnot. Previously Popcorn had sourced Hume and I will too. Hume said that we should not simply obey what reasoning tells us, but that we also have to take into account things like care and emotions.

There I'm done. Continue with this entertaining debate!

Post by **Popcorn** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:53 am

gr4yJ4Y wrote:
Hume said that we should not simply obey what reasoning tells us, but that we also have to take into account things like care and emotions.

Oh, absolutely, that's definitely true. But that doesn't mean you can then go around doing and believing anything you fuckin' like.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:06 pm

Yeah, caring and emotions aren't the same thing as taking fables and fairy tales as literal dogma. There's human emotion, and then there's just plain delusion.

Omni Hunter · Post by **Omni Hunter** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:00 am

True, the Christian faith would ostracise Zeta, just because of his sexual prefence. I don't doubt that Zeta has feelings and emotions for his partner, but the faith that is supposed to be a "Basis for emotion" just disregards them.

Religion has fuck all to do with emotion, just masochistic power and paranoia that are mistaken for emotions.

Post by **Esrever** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:14 am

I can't believe I missed it, but three pages ago someone asked me "where the bible said that insects have only four legs" and wondered if I was just making stuff up.

For the record, I'm not. It's in Lev. 11.

"All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest."

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:48 am

. . . I don't think there IS a winged creature with four legs. Unless maybe you count Unicorns, Dragons, or Griffins.

I guess God can't count. Maybe we were all really supposed to have 3 penises?

Omni Hunter · Post by **Omni Hunter** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:06 am

Oh shit, we can't eat Gal Gryphon! I'm going to hell I guess.

mad_cat_42 · Post by **mad_cat_42** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:04 pm

The rules presented in Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers were given to a near-anarchic nation of slaves who didn't even have a home yet. Therefore, said laws are useless in the modern world.

Post by **Esrever** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:35 pm

So? Who cares about the law. I only care about the legs. Why does it say that locusts, katydids, crickets and grasshoppers have four legs? It doesn't matter who it was being said to, it is categorically and unequivocally wrong. I thought God was infaliable.

Frieza2000 · Post by **Frieza2000** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:57 pm

Maybe they didn't consider the back two to be legs.

Because, come on, even if the whole book is a lie the people who wrote it apparently knew what a cricket is and I assume they'd seen one. If they were going to fabricate a story they'd try to make it believable and counting the number of appendages on such common bugs doesn't take much effort.