Support NeoGAF

[AntoneM]

So the text is so incredibly unreliable, it must be infallible. Wow.

or infinitely fallible.

 

[hateradio]

"Christianity has never been about the Bible being the inerrant word of God," Ehrman says. "Christianity is about the belief in Christ."

If only it were that easy for some...

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

anyone using quotations from a text that is thousands of years old, and which has been translated through numerous languages with numerous interpretations through several eras by numerous different authorities in order to prove any point is mind numbingly stupid.

Like statistics, I could find a translation of the bible to "prove" any point I wanted to.

Interestingly, you can even use the Bible to debunk Original Sin:

The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

I actually really like that passage.

 

[TheExodu5]

My biggest issue is why people are so against some people believing in these things. I don't disrespect either side, even if I don't agree with either side.

People that have an issue with Christianity, or any other religion, always use extremists as examples. These extremists, honestly, never represent the religion.

Let's take homosexuality for example. Okay, the Bible says it's wrong. Fine. Jesus, however, was accepting of anyone. The Bible also states not to judge. I do not think the Bible condones forcing beliefs onto others and persecuting them.

 

[Banana Kid]

Well, I guess that's it. All religions are gonna shut down now. I guess with the Bible proven to be false, everyone will just accept that there's no god.

This is retarded and means nothing.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I do not think the Bible condones forcing beliefs onto others and persecuting them.

So did you get bored and skip half of the Old Testament?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Speaking as someone who is planning on going into a PhD program for New Testament context/ Second Temple period, I have to say that this professor seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I agree with him that no one believer takes the entire Bible literal as there are verses that do seem to contradict. I.E. the example with women and Paul.
However, one can appreciate the context of the scripture with still holding a faith into the precepts that it contains. What those precepts are will depend on who you ask I suppose.

For instance, you have people who claim that homosexuality is a sin since its condemned in both the Tanak (Hebrew Scriptuers) and New Testament. Yet, these same individuals will ignore that in Leviticus where homosexuality is condemned, three verses before it condemns children who disobey their parents to death. Or in the New Testament where Paul condemns homosexuality he also condemns women wearing short hair and jewelry. Now, I would argue that Paul is speaking to different societies when he tells one about jewelry/long hair since it wasn't his goal to turn the society upside down because of certain cultural norms. However, many would disagree.

I am currently writing a paper trying to show why Paul received so much backlash from the Jewish Christian leaders at the church of Galatia due to him saying circumcision is no longer necessary. A person going to church on sunday might just think it was because those men were against Paul/ Christ/ legalistic, what have you. However, by being familiar with the context of the scriptures one gets a more detailed understanding. For instance, thousands of Jewish men were killed by Antiochus Epiphanes the ruler of the Seleucid Empire due to them receiving circumcision (this is what led to the Maccabean revolt and Hanukkah). So to it was the sign of the covenant made between Abraham and God that was suppose to continue for all generations. Yet without such understanding the conflict between Paul and the Jewish leaders just seems petty.

Regarding the resurrection of Jesus, of course there is no physical proof. However most Christians who believe this understand that its an element of faith. Just as there is no proof God exists or any miracle happened in the biblical record. One doesn't need to throw these faith elements out just to have an appreciation for the context of the biblical record.

rant over

 

[TheExodu5]

I actually really like that passage.

Yeah, me too.

Interestingly enough, that disproves the whole belief that sons were blind because of the sins of their fathers.

rant

For instance, you have people who claim that homosexuality is a sin since its condemned in both the Tanak (Hebrew Scriptuers) and New Testament. Yet, these same individuals will ignore that in Leviticus where homosexuality is condemned, three verses before it condemns children who disobey their parents to death. Or in the New Testament where Paul condemns homosexuality he also condemns women wearing short hair and jewelry. Now, I would argue that Paul is speaking to different societies when he tells one about jewelry/long hair since it wasn't his goal to turn the society upside down because of certain cultural norms. However, many would disagree.

rant

Good read.

That's why I say the Old Testament serves to confuse. The New Testament seems to turn around a lot of the Old Testament. "An eye for an eye" becomes "turn the other cheek". War turns into pacifism.

The New Testament would not condemn. The easiest example of this is when Mary the prostitute is about to be stoned, Jesus says "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". The Bible also says that people should not judge.

I really don't know why the Old Testament is still there.

 

[besada]

My biggest issue is why people are so against some people believing in these things. I don't disrespect either side, even if I don't agree with either side.

I don't care what people believe until they start trying to run a political systems by the dictates of their religious beliefs. Then, they're fair game. When they try to redefine Pi based on Biblical literalism, or attack teaching science in schools, then it becomes a problem.

 

[Raist]

anyone using quotations from a text that is thousands of years old, and which has been translated through numerous languages with numerous interpretations through several eras by numerous different authorities in order to prove any point is mind numbingly stupid.

Works both ways

 

[TheExodu5]

I don't care what people believe until they start trying to run a political systems by the dictates of their religious beliefs. Then, they're fair game. When they try to redefine Pi based on Biblical literalism, or attack teaching science in schools, then it becomes a problem.

Yep. And that sort of behavior is completely against what the New Testament has taught anyways. In my opinion, a fantastic and wholesome system of moral beliefs has been used by corrupt leaders to control. That much, I do not deny.

I am really baffled as to how people can claim to follow a religion, but not even know what it's about. It makes no sense to me. I'm not even a practicing Christian, but I know more of it's values than probably 95% of "Christians" out there.

 

[speculawyer]

My biggest issue is why people are so against some people believing in these things. I don't disrespect either side, even if I don't agree with either side.

People that have an issue with Christianity, or any other religion, always use extremists as examples. These extremists, honestly, never represent the religion.

Let's take homosexuality for example. Okay, the Bible says it's wrong. Fine. Jesus, however, was accepting of anyone. The Bible also states not to judge. I do not think the Bible condones forcing beliefs onto others and persecuting them.

Well maybe what they have an issue with is the extremists (or the people who push its tenets on others as cited by Besada), not Christianity. I think a lot of people take attacks on various extremists (pat robertson, dobson, etc.) or issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) as attacks on Christianity. They are really attacks on those extremists pushing their views on other people that don't believe.

Think about it . . . have you EVER heard anyone really complain about the Amish? No. Why? Because they don't bother anyone else, push their views on anyone else, write laws that control anyone else, etc. No one hates the Amish . . . and they are far-out-there fundamentalists! They just don't push it on others.

 

[TheExodu5]

Well maybe what they have an issue with is the extremists (or the people who push it tenets on others as cited by Besada), not Christianity. I think a lot of people take attacks on various extremists (pat robertson, dobson, etc.) or issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) as attacks on Christianity. They are really attacks on those extremists pushing their views on other people that don't believe.

Think about it . . . have you EVER heard anyone really complain about the Amish? No. Why? Because they don't bother anyone else, push their views on anyone else, write laws that control anyone else, etc. No one hates the Amish.

No. People attack the religion. GAFers will say "religion must die" or "lol christianity", not "religion extremists must die" or "lol christian extremists".

Anyways, here's a verse I found interesting:

Brethren, if outsiders should speak against me, or against the Doctrine, or against the Order, you should not on that account either bear malice, or suffer resentment, or feel ill will. If you, on that account, should feel angry and hurt, that would stand in the way of your own self- conquest.

edit: that's why I found it interesting...I chose the wrong verse...that one is Buddhist. I like it though. :lol

Here's the verse, which really goes to show how misled some Christians have been:

Matthew 26.51-52

Then they came up and laid hands upon Jesus and seized him. And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

According to that verse, war should never be fought in the name of Christianity.

 

[Raist]

According to that verse, war should never be fought in the name of Christianity.

Yeah, and there are also a shit ton of verses that would be very extremist, intolerant, etc. So if you can do "selective quoting", and stick with the verses about being good, tolerant etc, I guess other people could do the same with the bad quotesones.

 

[TheExodu5]

Yeah, and there are also a shit ton of verses that would be very extremist, intolerant, etc. So if you can do "selective quoting", and stick with the verses about being good, tolerant etc, I guess other people could do the same with the bad quotesones.

Find me those verses in the New Testament.

Like I've said, the New Testament supports a completely different ideal than the Old Testament, to the point where I do not understand the inclusion of the Old Testament in it's entirety in the Bible. The Old Testament would have the people stone Mary the prostitute, but Jesus would not.

 

[half a moon]

The Thread With A Thousand Faces


no thanks.

 

[empty vessel]

Find me those verses in the New Testament.

Like I've said, the New Testament supports a completely different ideal than the Old Testament, to the point where I do not understand the inclusion of the Old Testament in it's entirety in the Bible. The Old Testament would have the people stone Mary the prostitute, but Jesus would not.

I'm pretty sure that's why they call it the "new" testament. Jesus kind of changed the rules (if you're a Christian).

 

[speculawyer]

No. People attack the religion. GAFers will say "religion must die" or "lol christianity", not "religion extremists must die" or "lol christian extremists".

Well, some of that is joking and some is done just to yank the chain of people.

But most of the time when I see "lol religion" . . . it is a sarcastic post from a believer.

 

[TheExodu5]

I'm pretty sure that's why they call it the "new" testament. Jesus kind of changed the rules (if you're a Christian).

Well I understand that. My point is, the Old Testament seems to do more harm than good. There are a lot of morals and laws I would consider barbaric (stoning someone for prostitution). It would seem to me like a lot of religious extremism takes its ammunition from here.

I should mention my mom is a bit of a religious crazy, though a pacifist one. She thinks Harry Potter is evil. Reading enough witchcraft is gonna unleash spirits or some shit. She knows I don't go to church though, and she doesn't push anything on me. I go to church with her on special occasions out of respect.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Yeah, me too.

Interestingly enough, that disproves the whole belief that sons were blind because of the sins of their fathers.



Good read.

That's why I say the Old Testament serves to confuse. The New Testament seems to turn around a lot of the Old Testament. "An eye for an eye" becomes "turn the other cheek". War turns into pacifism.

The New Testament would not condemn. The easiest example of this is when Mary the prostitute is about to be stoned, Jesus says "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". The Bible also says that people should not judge.

I really don't know why the Old Testament is still there.

I am going to assume you are asking that in jest. However, one reason its there is while people can choose to ignore the verses they choose when it comes to their personal life, we cannot just pick and choose what is there in the text. Not to mention that without the Old Testament there would be no New. Much of what Jesus says is in the Old. Of course Jesus himself only knew the Old Testament (Septuagint) same with Paul and the other apostles. That was Scripture. Obviously they were interpreting the Old through the lens of the resurrection event but never the less ,THAT was Scripture and the only Scripture they knew.

Also historically speaking, without the Old we would have no idea of what the New discusses. While in the Old there is much more discussion of war/ judgment of God in the here and now/ law and the breaking of such laws/ etc... there is never the less an image of a God who has chosen one people. That people's relationship (good and bad) with their deity, the ups and downs. In the end God still is there for them even after ignoring/disobeying/choosing other deities which can be a very comforting/attractive example that people who do believe in God can hold.

 

[Seth C]

It doesn't seem like he knows what he's talking about. He believes the apostles saw visions, and yet there are references of all of them seeing him at the same time, and Thomas not believing it until he touched his stigmata.

I'd like to see these "conflicting" verses as well. I'm not saying they don't conflict...it just seems odd that he would not even present them as evidence here.

Also, it is a fundamental Christian belief that the Bible is the "Word of God".

Just doing a quick check of Romans 16, where he claimed there was conflicting information that cites women as elders and deacons (despite an earlier passage commanding them to "remain silent") there is no such claim. Paul (or the author) cites many women and thanks them for being followers and workers for the Lord, but never assigns any of them a title that could be interpreted as either of those things.

Speaking as someone who is loosely Christian but mostly just spiritual, this guy just seems like another of many people who will "expand" upon what the Bible actually says in an effort to create proof of the points he already decided he wanted to me; to sell books.

Edit - I should note that I am not necessarily disagreeing with the author on many (or all, I've not read them) of his basic points. I'm just disagreeing with his methods and, well, completely carefree transliteration of the Bible.

I think the most confusing part of the Bible, is the fact that the New Testament basically rewrites the Old Testament. The laws and morals taught in the New Testament are completely different. I would like an explanation as to what this serves...is it supposed to symbolize redemption? As it stands, I think the Old Testament only serves to confuse.

The simplest answer I can give you is this. From the perspective of a Christian, the OT isn't for you. It was a promise to the Jews, but the laws and regulations were not for Christians. They were to govern Judaism (and its precursors -- different topic). It is included in the Christian Bible because it DOES serve as a history of how we got to Christianity.

 

[TheExodu5]

I am going to assume you are asking that in jest. However, one reason its there is while people can choose to ignore the verses they choose when it comes to their personal life, we cannot just pick and choose what is there in the text. Not to mention that without the Old Testament there would be no New. Much of what Jesus says is in the Old. Of course Jesus himself only knew the Old Testament (Septuagint) same with Paul and the other apostles. That was Scripture. Obviously they were interpreting the Old through the lens of the resurrection event but never the less ,THAT was Scripture and the only Scripture they knew.

Also historically speaking, without the Old we would have no idea of what the New discusses. While in the Old there is much more discussion of war/ judgment of God in the here and now/ law and the breaking of such laws/ etc... there is never the less an image of a God who has chosen one people. That people's relationship (good and bad) with their deity, the ups and downs. In the end God still is there for them even after ignoring/disobeying/choosing other deities which can be a very comforting/attractive example that people who do believe in God can hold.

Yeah it was in jest. It really is an unfortunate issue...you can't exactly erase history. I just wish Christian leaders, whom Christians foolishly depend upon, would emphasize on the reasons for following the New Testament.

I don't think it's an issue of it being there for selective following anymore. People don't inherently want to condemn others for no reason. It's improper education, simple as that.

edit: then again, I'm probably wrong here. People may naturally seem to dislike people that are different.

Just doing a quick check of Romans 16, where he claimed there was conflicting information that cites women as elders and deacons (despite an earlier passage commanding them to "remain silent") there is no such claim. Paul (or the author) cites many women and thanks them for being followers and workers for the Lord, but never assigns any of them a title that could be interpreted as either of those things.

Speaking as someone who is loosely Christian but mostly just spiritual, this guy just seems like another of many people who will "expand" upon what the Bible actually says in an effort to create proof of the points he already decided he wanted to me; to sell books.

Wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Raist]

Find me those verses in the New Testament.

Like I've said, the New Testament supports a completely different ideal than the Old Testament, to the point where I do not understand the inclusion of the Old Testament in it's entirety in the Bible. The Old Testament would have the people stone Mary the prostitute, but Jesus would not.

Well, a lot of christians still follow the old testament, don't they?

And it's certainly much more subtle in the new testament (not like "ok, so destroy everyone who doesn't agree lulz), but it's there.

Random example:
John 12:48 "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."

Which is basically "Don't listen to me and you shall be judged".
Not exactly tolerant, IMO.

or this

Acts 13:6-11 "...they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Bar-jesus...[who] withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. Then...Paul, filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand."

So yeah, it might be a bit less... violent than the old testament, but the message is basically the same.

Regarding this kind of quotes anywaya. I'm not saying that it's all about threatening people who wouldn't follow the teachings, but some people might focus more on these parts.

 

[Seth C]

Interestingly, you can even use the Bible to debunk Original Sin:



I actually really like that passage.

I'll simply say that for many, MANY Christians there is no "original sin" in the capacity that Catholics or Lutherans (maybe?) believe in. Many, many Christians believe (based on their interpretation of the Bible) that one only needs to be baptized/saved/whatever once you personally are old enough to have awareness of right/wrong and commit a wrong/sin.

Well, a lot of christians still follow the old testament, don't they?

And it's certainly much more subtle in the new testament (not like "ok, so destroy everyone who doesn't agree lulz), but it's there.

Random example:
John 12:48 "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."

Which is basically "Don't listen to me and you shall be judged".
Not exactly tolerant, IMO.

That verse is simply Jesus explaining that he is God in the flesh, and that his words are also the words of God, who will be the judge. I don't think that's terribly threatening. It's the basic concept of belief in the Judeo-Christian God, really. It's certainly a far cry from demanding that Christians kill unbelievers themselves. Rather, Jesus seemed to be suggesting the opposite for his followers, but warning them that it didn't mean there would be no eventual judgment.

According to that verse, war should never be fought in the name of Christianity.

It shouldn't be, according to the Bible, not by Christians (hebrew/Jewish law would be different). I'm reasonable certain that those who waged wars in the name of Christ were well aware of this. The people wielding the swords most likely believed in their cause, but the Kings and Emperors just perverted it to serve their purpose of uniting people under their flag.

 

[TheExodu5]

Well, a lot of christians still follow the old testament, don't they?

And it's certainly much more subtle in the new testament (not like "ok, so destroy everyone who doesn't agree lulz), but it's there.

Random example:
John 12:48 "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."

Which is basically "Don't listen to me and you shall be judged".
Not exactly tolerant, IMO.

or this

Acts 13:6-11 "...they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Bar-jesus...[who] withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. Then...Paul, filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand."

So yeah, it might be a bit less... violent than the old testament, but the message is basically the same.

Regarding this kind of quotes anywaya. I'm not saying that it's all about threatening people who wouldn't follow the teachings, but some people might focus more on these parts.

Saying that someone will be judged in the afterlife is not intolerant. That second bit is certainly...weird.

 

[NotWii]

The Bible was channeled from higher density spirits/aliens
As with any channeled material, there are inaccuracies when the channeler tries to make sense of the channeled information rather than just objectively recording the information.

Anyone who takes the Bible literally is an idiot, but anyone who dismisses what the Bible describes is just as stupid, because it all makes sense from a certain point of view.
You're going to see a convergence of science and spirituality (do not confuse this with religious dogma) in the next few years.

 

[TheExodu5]

Anyone who takes the Bible literally is an idiot, but anyone who dismisses what the Bible describes is just as stupid, because it all makes sense from a certain point of view.

Thanks for turning this into such a black and white affair.

-_-

I wouldn't fault someone for believing in a literal Bible, neither would I lack the understanding in how someone might believe it's fictitious. I would only fault someone for applying the teaching incorrectly, to the point of harming others.

 

[Raist]

Saying that someone will be judged in the afterlife is not intolerant. That second bit is certainly...weird.

Why would one be judged just because he rejects one of jesus' followers? That's certainly not tolerant.
And "being judged" doesn't exactly sound like a pleasant experience when they usually used that term.
Especially when you consider (if I'm not mistaken) that "if you don't judge, you won't be judged yourself" or something along these lines.

 

[TheExodu5]

Why would one be judged just because he rejects one of jesus' followers? That's certainly not tolerant.
And "being judged" doesn't exactly sound like a pleasant experience when they usually used that term.
Especially when you consider (if I'm not mistaken) that "if you don't judge, you won't be judged yourself" or something along these lines.

Those words are being spoken as if they're Jesus'. That seems pretty clear to me.

Like the poster above said:

That verse is simply Jesus explaining that he is God in the flesh, and that his words are also the words of God, who will be the judge.

God is the only one who can judge. Jesus/God/Holy Spirit are one entity.

 

[Eteric Rice]

From what I understand, hell wasn't even originally in the bible. And in fact, it's actually dissapearing from it all together.

 

[legend166]

Find me those verses in the New Testament.

Like I've said, the New Testament supports a completely different ideal than the Old Testament, to the point where I do not understand the inclusion of the Old Testament in it's entirety in the Bible. The Old Testament would have the people stone Mary the prostitute, but Jesus would not.

If someone said to you "Hey, I'm here to save you" wouldn't you want to know why you were being saved?

 

[NotWii]

Thanks for turning this into such a black and white affair.

-_-

But I'm saying that you should stay in the grey area.
That is the way to stay grounded, to not get swept up in the misinterpretation, mistranslation and editing of channeled information, and not totally shut off your brain from acknowledging supernatural 'mythologies' since they may have a grain of truth to them.

I wouldn't fault someone for believing in a literal Bible, neither would I lack the understanding in how someone might believe it's fictitious. I would only fault someone for applying the teaching incorrectly, to the point of harming others.

I guess saying that they're idiots or stupid is uncalled for (there are definitely many smart people on both sides), perhaps 'limited in view' would be better way to describe it.

 

[TheExodu5]

I guess saying that they're idiots or stupid is uncalled for (there are definitely many smart people on both sides), perhaps 'limited in view' would be better way to describe it.

Fair enough.

 

[NotWii]

From what I understand, hell wasn't even originally in the bible. And in fact, it's actually dissapearing from it all together.

Heaven and hell are figurative, they are states of mind, and everyone has been to both at times in their lifetimes.

 

[Raist]

Those words are being spoken as if they're Jesus'. That seems pretty clear to me.

Like the poster above said:



God is the only one who can judge. Jesus/God/Holy Spirit are one entity.

And?
It doesn't matter who judges you. Why would you have to be judged just because you don't listen to jesus or one of his disciples. That's what I'm saying. It's like it would be a sin or something.

 

[TheExodu5]

And?
It doesn't matter who judges you. Why would you have to be judged just because you don't listen to jesus or one of his disciples. That's what I'm saying. It's like it would be a sin or something.

Well of course it's not considered Christian. The Bible says you need to believe in Jesus to be saved. Just because someone who does not will be judged in the after life, it does not mean that Christians should be intolerant of such people.

Why would it be considered intolerance anyways? If you don't believe in Christianity, then you don't believe you will be judged in the afterlife. No harm, no foul.

edit: heck, if some people are so offended about being judged in the after life, maybe they should stop worrying about judging religious folk.

 

[Eteric Rice]

Heaven and hell are figurative, they are states of mind, and everyone has been to both at times in their lifetimes.

No, no, I mean the idea of it being a place with fire and brimstone and all that shit. From what I understand, they only place with any kind of firey lake was in Revelations.

Then there's the whole thing "forever and ever" not making any sense. It's supposed to be "for the age of ages" or "ages of ages" or something.

 

[bbsting120]

According to the ad in this thread, we should all take a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. "Visit Israel. You'll never be the same!"

 

[speculawyer]

I'll simply say that for many, MANY Christians there is no "original sin"

What about poking a badger with a fork? I bet no one has done that.

 

[SuperSonic1305]

Here we go again.

 

[TheExodu5]

Here we go again.

Hm? This discussion has been largely civil, well perhaps except my last comment.

 

[Seth C]

What about poking a badger with a fork? I bet no one has done that.

I have no idea what you're getting at.

No, no, I mean the idea of it being a place with fire and brimstone and all that shit. From what I understand, they only place with any kind of firey lake was in Revelations.

Then there's the whole thing "forever and ever" not making any sense. It's supposed to be "for the age of ages" or "ages of ages" or something.

Plus there is Matthew 10:28: "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

If body and soul have been destroyed, I question what would be left burning in Hell, forever and ever.

 

[Raist]

Well of course it's not considered Christian. The Bible says you need to believe in Jesus to be saved. Just because someone who does not will be judged in the after life, it does not mean that Christians should be intolerant of such people.

Why would it be considered intolerance anyways? If you don't believe in Christianity, then you don't believe you will be judged in the afterlife. No harm, no foul.

edit: heck, if some people are so offended about being judged in the after life, maybe they should stop worrying about judging religious folk.

Yes, that's the whole point behind this. Only if you believe in Jesus, you will be saved.
I guess you don't get it, nevermind

 

[NotWii]

No, no, I mean the idea of it being a place with fire and brimstone and all that shit. From what I understand, they only place with any kind of firey lake was in Revelations.

Hell can very well exist in the physical (fire and brimstone) if it exists in the mind.
If your mind is in hell, then you can definitely create it on Earth (with nuclear bombs)
To me, that would still be considered hell and the Bible's description would still be pretty accurate

As for the hell that you go to after death for sinning, I believe that is made up by man as a way to force people to choose positive behavior (but there is a fundamental problem, since they won't learn unless they experience the pain firsthand and will still be prone to negative choices), or referring to future incarnations where you may create or experience hell, since your negative behavior will get you into trouble, perhaps much bigger trouble than you had in this lifetime.

Or maybe there really is a hell that you go to after death, inbetween lives, whatever.
Is it important for us to know about in this life? Possibly, since one's choices now determines where they will be in the future.
Does it matter if you believe it or not? No, and that's why atheists shouldn't judge theists and why theists shouldn't judge atheists.

 

[speculawyer]

Jesus/God/Holy Spirit are one entity.

Something as 'simple' as that just makes no sense. Jesus is the son of God but is god? I know that one person can be a mother and a sister to someone (Chinatown!) but a son cannot also be his father. I know, that is biology and not really applicable but that is the way we understand those terms . . . so how else to understand Jesus/God/Holy Spirit are one entity.

And if you blaspheme the Holy spirit that means you are locked out of heaven . . . and most people blaspheme Jesus or God at some point . . . but since they are all the same does that mean virtually no one can get to heaven?

It just dissolves into nonsensical stuff . . . and that is what happened to the guy in the thread's title.

I just have a bit more respect for a god than someone that would give some creatures an inconsistent text and then disappear leaving us all to fight over it. Especially when other such magical texts appear at other times & places around the planet. I think if a god wants us to know something, he/she/it could make it clear. After all, we are talking about an entity that created EVERYTHING. A clear message should be do able.

 

[speculawyer]

I wouldn't fault someone for believing in a literal Bible, neither would I lack the understanding in how someone might believe it's fictitious.

I'd fault that. There are complete contradictions and fallacies in the Bible. You absolutely have to at least assume some errors in there and somethings are metaphorical/allegorical. You just cannot logically do otherwise. Pi is not 3.

I would only fault someone for applying the teaching incorrectly, to the point of harming others.

How does anyone know what is 'correct' . . . there are hundreds (or thousands?) of different denominations of Christianity. And it is not like everyone in those different denominations agrees.

 

[Seth C]

Yes, that's the whole point behind this. Only if you believe in Jesus, you will be saved.
I guess you don't get it, nevermind

Yes well, "If you don't believe God will judge you and decide your salvation and if we're wrong you have nothing to worry about" is a far cry from "If you don't agree with us we will kill you, right now."

 

[TheExodu5]

I'd fault that. There are complete contradictions and fallacies in the Bible. You absolutely have to at least assume some errors in there and somethings are metaphorical/allegorical. You just cannot logically do otherwise. Pi is not 3.



How does anyone know what is 'correct' . . . there are hundreds (or thousands?) of different denominations of Christianity. And it is not like everyone in those different denominations agrees.

If they're not doing any harm, why would you care?

 

[Seth C]

I'd fault that. There are complete contradictions and fallacies in the Bible. You absolutely have to at least assume some errors in there and somethings are metaphorical/allegorical. You just cannot logically do otherwise. Pi is not 3.

Oh boy! Here is a fun challenge for you. In your infinite wisdom, do show us the specific scripture in the Bible where it is claimed, clearly, that pi is 3.

When you can't find it, because it doesn't actually exist, perhaps you can sit about in your library and remember that when ancient people spoke of cubits and hand breadths they were obviously not exist measurements (lol, because everyone's hand is exactly the same length!) and perhaps in your (or those like you) vast desire to invalidate the Bible you will slow down, take a breath, and use some of that common sense those same people proudly proclaim Christians don't have.

I mean really.

Let's not even get in to the fact that the scripture used to make this (fantastic and thoughtful) point isn't even claiming to be God divining pi to people, but rather a description of a guy talking about how to make a bowl.

 

[NotWii]

Something as 'simple' as that just makes no sense. Jesus is the son of God but is god? I know that one person can be a mother and a sister to someone (Chinatown!) but a son cannot also be his father. I know, that is biology and not really applicable but that is the way we understand those terms . . . so how else to understand Jesus/God/Holy Spirit are one entity.

Multiple personalities, you might be one of God's personalities!