Why do conservatives ignore Jesus?
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=183566
Printed Date: 03 November 2025 at 3:59pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Why do conservatives ignore Jesus?
Posted By: __sneaky__
Subject: Why do conservatives ignore Jesus?
Date Posted: 09 November 2009 at 10:24pm
|
A woman told me recently, "Its almost impossible to be a Christian and be a democrat anymore." And while I understand that I'm doing a bit of generalizing and stereotyping, I don't mean to imply that this holds true with all Christians/conservatives. Anyways, onto the real topic.
I've been thinking lately and I honestly don't understand something. Why are Christians (typically) republicans? Jesus taught to love your neighbor as yourself (equality). He taught that greed is bad and its much more noble to share your wealth with the poor (socialistic). He taught that even those who are 'sinners' and don't follow Jesus are not to be belittled. In fact, Jesus spent most of his time with people like that. Yet many Christians today are against gays, for free enterprise*, many look down upon other religions, especially atheists. It doesn't make any sense? Why do so many conservatives flock in the complete opposite direction, despite many of them believing Jesus was the greatest/wisest person to ever live?
Thoughts?
*not the forumer
** Also, I know Christian =/= Conservative, but you get my point. ------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Replies:
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 09 November 2009 at 10:37pm
|
Because with the indoctrination towards the political party of choice, religious adults teach their children to think the holy people of their religion would be of their favored party if they were alive today. This is true for damn near all religious people who teach their kids politics before they understand the platforms they're being taught.
------------- 
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 09 November 2009 at 10:40pm
|
understandable, but would'nt you think they'd catch on by now? ------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 09 November 2009 at 10:51pm
|
Basically Christian belief system is in direct competition with Liberal beliefs. Example Christians believe in charity, voluntary giving to the less fortunate, Liberals believe in 'benifit give aways' by taking from the successfull and giving it to the less advantaged. Before the 1964 "Great Society" churches were the primary backers of hospitals, then the state and for profit began. Currently the most successful and not in debt not for profit childrens hospitals are the Shriner's Hospital, and St. Judes (Memphis,TN Danny Thomas Foundation)both run on pure donations and charity. Where the state and private hospitals relie on federal assistance programs with the appropiate strings attached, which end up with some form of government regulators running the hospital.
Right now it is almost a 'crime' to have a belief system other than the state. Christmas programs are 'banned' in schools, based on religious overtones, yet the universal taking of a 'religious' holiday on 25 Dec still exsists even in the atheist community. SO they get the cake and eat it to, where the believer can only wish for the cake (back to tradition). Many of the platforms of Liberal Democrats are in direct conflict with Christian Traditions and Beliefs (Gay MArriage, Abortion, etc), so the bleiver is now in a conflict, between his/her faith, and required political alligience. Indoctronation runs deep both ways. Religion is the Salvation of Mankind, Religion is the curse of Mankind. And the teaching of youth is directly effected, yet the state controls the schools, and teaches a "Religion of No Religion" where the Diety is the State itself. ------------- 
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 09 November 2009 at 11:00pm
Also, what does your post have to do with the OP? ------------- Que pasa? 
|
oldsoldier wrote:Posted By: jerseypaint
Date Posted: 09 November 2009 at 11:02pm
|
Its because many Christians don't even know their own religion. They just go to church and do/say/think whatever the dude from the pulpit tells them the Bible states to do/say/think. They don't bother to read and study the Bible, both content and context. The fault of many Christians is their ignorance of their own religion. ------------- 
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 09 November 2009 at 11:09pm
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 09 November 2009 at 11:18pm
You sir, get a gold star and an A+! I could go on a 20 page single-spaced 10-point font tirade about this, but that is for another thread. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: Ben Grimm
Date Posted: 09 November 2009 at 11:19pm
Or at least "Old Testament Christianity" is particularly strong in the US. What is taught in the conservative churches has less to do with Jesus and more to do with Yahweh; less "turn the other cheek" and more "eye for an eye"; less "let him cast the first stone" and more "shall be stoned to death"; less "the meek shall inherit the earth" and more ... ok, don't have one here; less forgiveness and more abomination; less golden rule and more "my way or the highway."
------------- It's Clobberin' Time! |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 09 November 2009 at 11:20pm
 ------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: FROG MAN
Date Posted: 09 November 2009 at 11:27pm
|
I didn't read any of the reply's but ya, I am christian, and if I was an American I would vote democratic even though I differ greatly with some major issues like abortion.
------------- <1 meg sig = bad> |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 09 November 2009 at 11:33pm
Or rather, Yahweh or no way? (Brought to you by Stephen T. Colbert DFA) ------------- 
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 12:00am
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: Ben Grimm
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 12:05am
I always wanted to post one of these:
 ------------- It's Clobberin' Time! |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 12:07am
| The real answer is: Republicans are slower on the uptake, and haven't figured out the sillyness of religion yet. |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 12:10am
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 12:14am
| Because they know better than jesus what jesus meant when he said love thy neighbour. He meant screw everyone but yourself. |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 12:21am
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 12:34am
| I'm joking, as I know some people will take this supr srs |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 1:09am
Yes, I did steal that [/sarcasm] thing from someone, so sue me. ------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: FROG MAN
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 1:20am
I meant in the most recent election, though I admit its hard for me to really know what candidate i "believe in" when i dont care about American politics. in Canada there really isnt such a big divide in religious and non religious parties. Canada already is pretty far left wing and where I grew up most Christians voted NDP which is very socialist. Though I will be the first to admit I know nothing about politics. ------------- <1 meg sig = bad> |
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 1:54am
|
Lots to say here, but I'll keep it short for now. Firstly, Jersey is damn spot on, and Ben too. Secondly, I would argue that most of the Christians described in this thread are much closer to a political ideology then a religion. Thirdly, it's a sad fact that those Christians who do understand what Christianity is about are drowned out by those who have false ideas. I was brought up Episcopalian, in a church with a gay pastor, and I distinctly remember the best lesson I ever heard was about the birth of Jesus. The speaker (frankly, I don't remember what his title was) talked about the story of the virgin birth, and how any High School student can tell you things don't happen that way. His message was that these stories and allegories aren't meant to be taken as literal fact. They are meant to inspire and guide us. It doesn't matter if Mary was a virgin, or if Jesus turned water into wine, because in the grand scheme of things, such matters are insignificant compared to the message. Fourthly, Religion isn't silly, it's its practitioners who become silly. I've discussed this one at length before (also applicable to Sneaky's comment on Socialism  ). Much like science takes nothing for granted and allows the toppling of old ideas in favor of newer ones, Religion needs to learn to adapt to changing times. For instance, it saddens me that so many people still seem to think that Religion and Science are "sides" in some sort of war.Fifthly, on the topic of Gay Marriage, that is a debate for another thread. I maintain that Marriage should never have been the name of recognized civil unions. Marriage is a spiritual thing, and its meaning varies with each religion. Some sects of Christianity bless Gay unions, some do not. People should be allowed to be married, but the benefits and government recognition should come from a Civil union. Instead, we are now taking a spiritual concept and turning it into a legal title. I don't see any easy fix for both sides on this issue, but the fact of the matter is Gays deserve equal rights. ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 2:15am
I don't really know what to say about that Darur... Church with a gay pastor and doesn't take the bible seriously?
|
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 2:40am
I'm hoping thats sarcasm, or trolling, but I'll bite anyways. Yes, a gay pastor. As posted before, Jesus made a bit of a point about the whole "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Everyone is a sinner, and Homosexuality is just another sin*. Do you think that your own pastor/priest is flawless? Why rule out only one type of sinner as unworthy? It's silly. And where did I say no one is taking the bible seriously? The bible should be taken seriously, it offers a great deal of insight that's stood the test of time fairly well. The morals and lessons within are some of the very foundations of western society. There's no doubt Jesus left a large impact on the world. His teachings have inspired hundreds of millions. Yes, with all ideologies, sometimes the wrong people get a hold of good ideas and good intentions and turn them into bad ones, but there's no doubt that what he taught was good. So you tell me, which matters more: Inspiring Western civilization for over 2000 years, or turning water into wine? How about walking on water? The stories within the bible are just that. Many of them are inspired by historical events, but these stories carry a meaning which is far more important than the story itself. Does it really matter if God turned people into pillars of salt? Does it take away from the meaning of rebirth and a new beginning if Noah didn't really survive a flood that covered the whole Earth? The Bible is a collection of allegories and messages, inspired by God. * - Personally, I'm not so sure Homosexuality is truly a sin. As far as I'm aware (and I'm not as well read on the Bible as many), Leviticus is the only book which mentions it explicitly, right alongside stoning blasphemers and selling children as slaves. But that's another topic. ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 7:02am
|
I can't speak for everyone, but my religious views, (and I was raised a Catholic) don't really play much into what I vote for. I don't believe for a minute that democrats are the anti-christ, but I do believe that they can often be too accommodating to minorities while ignoring the majority. What do I mean by that? Instances where the ten commandments are pulled from displays, or "One nation Under God" omitted from the pledge of allegiance in an effort not to piss off the handful of people who MIGHT take exception to these things. It just looks to me like they don't want to look like they're offending anyone whose of a different culture, while being perfectly willing to offend the people of their own. (historically) These might seem like trivial examples, but they hold, and they add up. This being said, my stance on abortion has nothing to do with what the church is saying- the final vote might be in line, but the reason isn't. I see a LOT of blanket generalization here, and a real effort made to demonize Christianity and Christians, and I'm a little offended. Not by the jabs against the religion, but by the blatant willingness to lump everyone together. We're not all WBC, we don't all think alike. Hell, do you even know how much is covered under the wide title of "Christianity?" We don't all think the same, we're not all hardline lunatics completely unwilling to accept that things aren't the way they used to be, or even unwilling to embrace change. "Christians are stupid, Christians are ignorant," etc. etc. etc. Really? You guy are the same ones who jump down FE and OS's throat whenever they blanket-statement "Liberals" but you're doing exactly the same thing if not worse. ------------- ? |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 7:24am
|
Actually, it is much worse. I don't go after peoples deeply held spiritual beliefs.
I will respond as usual, but I need some time for research. ------------- They tremble at my name... 
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 8:33am
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 8:56am
|
That is the point. There is a very opinionated view here lumping religion into a 'demon' that society needs to rid itself of. Yet everyone MUST accept thier belief system that religion is bad. Like any belief system the radical element is the most publisized. The anti-religion individual demands the removal of a statue in the public park with the 10 Commandments on it, and recieves all the coverage, yet the 100's that find nothing offensive about it are ignored, because thier belief system is what is being attacked not the statue.
The culture has changed, and so has the belief system. With the power of government behind them the minority or individual feels thier belief system trumps a belief system thousands of years old. And as in 'Bread and Circuses' do all that they can to demonize religion, and to enhance thier views in the public eye. Christianity is fair game, because retribution is limited, Islam is ignored because the few attacks on that belief system has resulted in some pretty ugly issues up to the actual murder of the infidel that attacks Allah. Under the definition of 'Religion" the mass worship of a diety is considered a 'religion'. SO yes by actual definitiion the "Religion of No Religion" is a mass belief system, with a diety (self or state). And now that belief system is the only 'relgion' that the Government should endorse. And any other belief system will be demonized. Also through out history in order for any form of totalitarian rule to take hold, the first target is the organized religion within the culture. From Rome to Chavez each totalitarian state has first attacked the religion, minimalized it and replaced it with the worship of the state and it's leaders. In todays PC world the "Christmas" Pagent in school has been reduced to a "Holiday" Pagent, with no reference to the original reason for the holiday. In some communities public display of any 'religious' display (mangers and or Biblical reference to X-Mas)even on private property is actually illegal. -------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 9:11am
|
In order to respond to the question at hand, the only logical response is to look at the words of Christ himself, to see his perspective. First lets look at Matthew (book of Matthew in the Bible, one of the disciples of Christ, and witness to Christ’s life here on earth) Jesus was very clear about people who cause children to sin. Matthew 18
The Greatest in the
1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" 2He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. 6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7"Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! 8If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell. The Parable of the Lost Sheep
10"See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven. 12"What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? 13And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. 14In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost. According to liberals, there are “levels” of humanity. If someone is a minority, they get special rights, but, if they are unborn, they get no rights?... Why is the unborn killed?... They are the “little children” and if we believe that “all men are Created equal”, then killing some who are innocent is a travesty. The Bible is also clear that the unborn are still “children”. I’m sure we all have heard these verses before as they are part of Christmas. From Luke chapter 1 Mary Visits
39At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Two excellent examples of Babies in their mother’s wombs being referred to not as “tissue” but as Babies, and how they can relate to the outside world they have not yet entered. And blessed babies at that, one is Jesus, and the other is John the Baptist. Imagine how many important men and women that have been killed in the womb, for convenience's sake... One may have figured out how to cure cancer, or bring our society closer together, or some other amazing revelation from their lives... But, now they are killed, before they even had a chance. I talked to my children every night before they were born, and when they were born, as soon as I talked all my kids turned in my direction, as they knew my voice from the womb. To say that they “were tissue” and not babies are ridiculous, and even Planned parenthood directors can see this point. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,571215,00.html - 14In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost. And let’s look at the indoctrination of sin in our culture. It’s pretty clear from the posts on this thread alone, that the indoctrination of the public schools to believe in secular humanism and atheism is the goal of many in the NEA. This is a direct assault on the beliefs of Christ above. The bible is clear that sodomy is a sin. I bolded the part we are discussing for the “tl,dr” crowd, and left the rest in for context. Leviticus 18
Unlawful Sexual Relations
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'I am the LORD your God. 3 You must not do as they do in 6 " 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD. 7 " 'Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her. 8 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father. 9 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere. 10 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you. 11 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister. 12 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative. 13 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative. 14 " 'Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt. 15 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her. 16 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother. 17 " 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness. 18 " 'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living. 19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period. 20 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her. 21 " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed #fen-NIV-3273a - a ]'>[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018&version=NIV#fen-NIV-3273a#fen-NIV-3273a - a ] to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. 22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. 23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion. 24 " 'Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. 29 " 'Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.' " To promote this “lifestyle” as acceptable when it is in clear contradiction with Christianity (as it is a sin according to the Bible), is an example of “woe to the man through whom they come!” as in schools liberals are teaching this sin as an acceptable “lifestyle” when it is in fact an abomination to God. http://wwww.examiner.com/x-2359-Evangelical-Examiner~y2009m4d14-Schools-that-promote-the-gay-lifestyle - So, if the schools are teaching this “lifestyle” and this is the first time the student (aka little children) is hearing about it, wouldn’t they be in direct assault on Jesus teachings? Of course, picking out the sin of homosexuality and placing it on a pedestal as if it is any different than other sins is just as bad. All sin separates us from God, and we are all guilty of sin. We were born with a sin nature, and our struggle with this sin nature daily is part of life. Some religious people like to harp on specific sins, but to God, they are all the same. The proud religious types that like to demean others for their sins are just as guilty as the ones they are picking on. The following is from Romans 3, and even in Biblical times, there were discussions like this, as back then the “religious” ones felt that only circumcised men would be worthy of God. Here are Paul’s writings on this subject. (the same Paul who before he changed his name was Saul, and he was one of the chief prosecutors of people that followed Jesus, and had many of them killed… I think that is much worse of a sin, but again, God doesn’t view sin in “better or worse” sins, they are all the same, and he forgave Saul/Paul and built his church on his teachings about Jesus… The same guy who had other Christians murdered for their beliefs in Jesus… Yet another example of how God loves each and every one of us, even though we sin daily, and He wants a relationship with us.
Romans 3
God's Faithfulness
1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God. 3What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? 4Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: 5But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" 8Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved. No One is Righteous
9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better #fen-NIV-27986b - b ]'>[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%203&version=NIV#fen-NIV-27986b#fen-NIV-27986b - b ]? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written: 19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. Righteousness Through Faith
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. 27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. As a child of God, I realize that I have made a ton of mistakes in my life, and each day I strive to get closer to God. Does that mean I will be perfect?... Nope, I can guarantee that I won’t be, but it doesn’t mean I don’t try. The Bible talks about how important it is to have a good work ethic, and to daily try and bring the lost to him. I try and do that, and I have seen Gods hand in my life, the direction He gives me is the strength I need to continue, as I was once in the same position many of you on this board are in. I used many of the same arguments that you present… As I was there, I remember the hurt and pain of that time in my life. Personally I blamed God for a long time. Until the scriptures that were in my brain finally started to make sense. “ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. Not some, ALL, by putting our “faith” in man, we are destined to be disappointed. Hence the constant struggle with politicians that say one thing and do another. The liberal/conservative debate is based on a world view that is either moving, or constant. Liberals are typically more ethically relative, while conservatives believe in a firm foundation of principles that are constant and don’t vary with time. And since Christianity is based on a constant (the Bible) it makes since that most conservatives have a Christian, or religious background. And attempts to make our country more “morally relative” will find the greatest conflict with these people as they see our country as founded on a series of principles based on constant time tested beliefs. Like “One nation under God”… ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 9:34am
|
It is interesting that the conservative/liberal arguement is so trivialized by those on the left. According to the Liberals or Left Leaning in our culture even the Constitution is a 'living' document that must conform to the views only they see as important to society. Seperation of Church and State, is never mentioned in the Constitution, but the Left seldoms adheres to the part of the Constitution that is in writing, part of the 1st Amendment, that does not conform to thier agenda, and is found inconvienient to thier beliefs, the simple statement of "or prohibit the free exercise thereof".
Conservatives are by nature resistant to change, Liberals demand change as thier personal desires see fit. Nature of the Beast. -------------
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 10:19am
|
Ohhh!!!
Here comes the FUN part! This is where every single thing in FE's post gets discredited by his own bible!!!! YAY!!!!!!!
Follow that old testament reading up with (and this is very very very important) the NEW TESTAMENT (basis of christian belief here folks) readings from the following:
So, in short, it is the absolute foundation of true Christian beliefs that Christ's sacrifice on the cross threw out the old covenant made with the Israelites on Mount Sinai and threw out the old laws and replaced them with the covenant through Jesus which guarantees eternal life to those who follow his teachings. This is the problem with modern Christians, they only read the message that they want to hear rather than the message Christ taught us. Anyone who argues Leviticus and hasn't set their own house on fire because of mildew in the tub has broken a law which is considered every bit as horrible to God as lying with another man as one would lie with a woman and deserves the same punishment if Leviticus is the standard to which they are holding people. Heck, forget about eating bacon, or mixing meat and dairy if you're going to cite Leviticus there folks. Once you break one law, you've broken them all as far as the old testament is concerned. Now, quit being hypocrites and get busy loving thy neighbors and doing unto others as you would have them do unto you as Jesus Christ told you. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 10:26am
How does that not fit? Some of the founding fathers were religious, but they secularists above all else. That clause in no way supports your stance. I realize it says congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, which is perfectly fine. Practice your religion all you want. But it also says congress cannot make any law respecting any religion. If you wan't to pray to Thor, congress cannot make any law against that. That does not mean in any way at all that your religion is a part of our government. Whether you are a christian, a muslim, or a viking.
People came to this country to get away from a country who could'nt seperate church and state. Do we really want to revert to that? ------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 10:38am
|
Problem is that communities are passing laws prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The manger display on private property being seen as a public nuisance because someone took offense, actually prohibited the property owner from the free exercise therein. The Fremont, NE case of the Veterans memorial having the name of "God" on it in a public place, and the Judge who oredered it's removal. (and the 80 year old WW2 vet standing there in Uniform defending the monument and his right of free exercise therein. And the college student who took the case up the courts system because she was offended by the name "god" in public place, hense forcing her individual beleifs on the community.)
We are no where near the formnation of a state religion, other than the official state religion of "The religion of No religion". -------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 10:38am
|
Exactly how was I discredited? Of course there is the new covenant. That is why I posted Romans 3. The old law is gone, but that doesn’t make the old “sins” not sins… The only difference is we don’t have to kill animals to shed their blood to cover our sins, Now we use the blood that Jesus shed on the cross for that atonement. What if we sin on purpose over and over and over?... Are we still Christians if in our heart we don’t care if we sin or not? Or does the Holy Spirit convict us of our sins… The goal of Christians is to be “Christ” like, and remember he threw out the thieves and money changers in the temple… Matthew 21 10And when he was come into 11And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee. 12And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 13And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. 14And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them. 15And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the son of David; they were sore displeased, 16And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise? He also fought against the “religious” who were manipulating people for their own increased power and control. What exactly has changed in our society?... Now we have science and politicians that manipulate people to increase their power and control, instead of religion/government that our founding fathers were fighting against. Man still has a sin nature, unless it is politically incorrect to label it as such… ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 10:46am
|
Quoting scriture to the phylisophically blind is like peeing into the wind. Those of us who understand scripture as part of our faith system will allways be suspect by those who only take the parts of scripture they can manipulate to further thier personal goals.
We of faith understand mans failings: "And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves". Those without a belief or faith only see the faith or belief as a failure, not man, for to see man as the weak link in the equation is to admit thier own weaknesses. -------------
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 11:01am
w00t! for us actually using the court system for what they were designed it to do.------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: Ben Grimm
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 11:42am
Where does it say that?
And even if that were the case - tallen's point still stands that there is tremendous cherrypicking amongst OT sins. You yourself said that homosexuality is no more of a sin than other sins, yet I don't see any constitutional amendments being proposed to prohibit wearing two different kinds of linens at the same time, or requiring that women be locked up during (and following) their menstrual periods.
BUT - more to the point: OP asked about JESUS, and (with one exception) you quoted everybody BUT Jesus. Mostly OT, even. Which really reinforces his point.
------------- It's Clobberin' Time! |
Posted By: Ben Grimm
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 11:45am
This is an amazing post - as in it is an amazing display of just how thoroughly American hardcore evangelical christianity has managed to take over the entire religion, and define it in their own image (at least to Americans).
------------- It's Clobberin' Time! |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 12:08pm
I vote for this one! ------------- 
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 12:09pm
|
My point, FE is that quoting old testament scripture has no bearing on true Christian faith. The whole point of the new covenant was that God understood what it meant to be human and how temptation worked. If you truly believe in the holy trinity, then you'd understand that. Jesus wasn't some human suit that God chose to wear around for the day like some celebrity in a fat suit. He was human in every aspect. He could die as a mortal on the cross, he could be tempted by sin, he could feel as a human does because he was human in every aspect. This is why the resurrection of Christ is so comforting to those of the Christian faith. It is the witnessing of a promise of everlasting life fulfilled in the most vivid of ways. Having known what it was to be human, and knowing that he was still part God and thus able to better withstand temptation, Christ forgives us of all of our sins if we ask forgiveness.
You are right about one thing though FE, being Christ-like is a tenant of Christianity and a very important one at that, so why then do so many self-proclaimed "christians" out there like to cast stones? Why do these same people who claim to read the bible where Jesus says "Let him without sin cast the first stone" quote Leviticus when according to that same book of Judaic law they too have sinned just as gravely as others? That isn't being Christ-like at all. It's the opposite of Christ, it is (in every definition of the word) being an Antichrist. The fact of the matter is that Jesus taught us that the kingdom of Heaven would only come when people treated each other as they wished to be treated. THIS is the ONLY WAY in which the kingdom of Heaven will be established on the Earth. Jesus himself alludes to that in his parables and all of his teachings. Jesus was arrested and crucified not for following Judaic law and teachings to the letter, he was arrested and crucified because he chose to question those who would pervert the message of love for one another and love for God for their own benefit. Finally, you can't compare the story of the moneychangers in the temple with the progress of science and political aspirations of today. That's perverting the account of a man's rage over the desecration of his father's physical house. You have to remember that the Hebrews believed that God physically resided in the Temple on the Mount in Jerusalem. If any kind of parallel can be drawn today, it would be evangelicals who have perverted Christ's teachings for their own benefit. People like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are today's moneylenders using the house of God to benefit themselves. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 12:24pm
|
Why do people like to cast stones?... It's in our nature.
As a human, we compare and contrast everything in our lives. If the Jones next door have a better car we think about it. If we think the Jones house is better we think about it. ect, ect.
It's part of human nature, no matter if your a "Christian" or not.
Just like people that are Christians get divorced. It happens, doesn't make it right... but, that kind of thing happens.
I don't agree with your statement "The fact of the matter is that Jesus taught us that the kingdom of Heaven would only come when people treated each other as they wished to be treated. THIS is the ONLY WAY in which the kingdom of Heaven will be established on the Earth."
Many people much smarter than me have argued the different aspects of this discussion for centuries. In my youth I attended many theological discussions on the different beliefs in Christianity about this. And personally, I wouldn't make a blanket statement like that.
I think that after Jesus returns and the new kingdom takes over, that sin will be gone from the earth, and if that is what you are referring to, then I understand, but I certainly don't believe we will get there on our own. Jesus will have to return and the things in revelation have to happen before all that happens.
And most will die during those times.
My point in posting the sins in the old testament were to point out that many of the "sins" in the old testament are still sins today. They didn't change when Jesus came to earth.
Thou shalt put no other gods before me still stands... ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Ben Grimm
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 12:43pm
And which OT sins exactly stand today? There are so many - how am I to know?
------------- It's Clobberin' Time! |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 12:53pm
|
Religion has been the foundation of culture, civilization and law since man crawled from the caves, and formed into social groupings. A comman belief system ruled and controled society, and became the foundation of many cultures base laws. In the middle east where food storage is an issue, those who consumned pork not properly stored or prepared quickly died a painfull death from tricanosis(sp), so in order to create a safer food supply the consumption of pork based on a religious edict was prohibited. The Imans preached it as a sin, and the word spread till it became a 'law' within the culture. That simple solution to a middle age health issue continues within the cultures of the mid-east today.
The "Church" has always made benifit of thier position within any culture. The "Pope" ran Europe in the middle ages and the Kings and Queens were appointed based on his whims, and how much was contributed to the Church. Even in Shinto, Japan placed the Monks on a pedistal within thier culture, and the Emporer must pay homeage to the Monks for guidance. The Monks and the Temples were then funded to excess by the Emporer as tradition required. Civilization as we know it would not be as we know it if it was not for the rules that religion placed on the populace long before the true man made "rule of law" applied to cultures. The Church of the society acted as Judge, Jury and yes executioner if and when the rules of the Church and the Culture were violated. As man turned to a secular rule of law, the line between Church and State became blurred or was eliminated all together. France during the Revolution tried the Catholic Church as well as the aristocray, replacing established law based on Catholic belief to a random set of man made laws that varied by location and individuals in charge throughout France. In 1921 The Soviet Union outlawed the Russian Orthodox Church, and when Stalin took maters into his hands a few years later, replaced the Church with the Commisariate, and God with himself, and re-wrote the laws of the entire Russian culture to fit his needs. Hitler challenged the Catholic as well as Protastant Church, replacing all belief and Law to that of National Socialism and Himself. China from 1949-1968 outlawed any and all religion except for communist ideals, replacing the Bible and Chinese religious cultures with the Red Book of Mao. Equating the Church to Wealth is not a new concept, as we are told not to equate Government with Wealth, where over 40% of those in Congress are millionaires, and the rest pretty well skilled at hiding thier wealth. The differance now is the Church has no power to confiscate wealth, where the government enpowers itself to confiscate wealth. The Church was very good at getting voluntary contruibutions through guilt, the State has no such thing as voluntary contribution, it enriches itself and those within by a tax (confiscation) system enforced by physical power. In the US today the "Church" is dieing, becomming the target of those who again wish to replace religion and those beliefs with a belief solely in the State as the Savior. The local Methodist Church has a vast and successfull 'thrift shop' where the "Church" and members donate clothing and household items for sale pennies on the dollar to the less fortunate in the community, the 'profit' used to pay the clergy and to maintain the Church since attendance is fading, and costs are rising. There is a group now that sees this as evil, the "Church" is profiting off the poverty of others. Yet if the State outright gives items to the same individuals the State is not seen in the same light, since the money to initially purchase these items were taxed and the State profits from this exchange in more ways than just economically. That is the hyprocracy, those who see alliance to one faith system (Religion)as evil, demanding pure faith and blind alligence to thier faith and in thier system (The State). -------------
|
Posted By: Ben Grimm
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 12:58pm
|
^^^^^ That's a pretty good argument for simply abandoning all the sins in the Bible altogether.
------------- It's Clobberin' Time! |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 1:00pm
Before I continue reading the thread I just wanted to comment on this.
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 1:32pm
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 1:37pm
And if you take Revelation literally, you're not paying attention to what has been said in the new testament again and again and again. How did Jesus teach? He used parables How did the Apostles teach? They used parables How do modern ministers teach? They use sermons, which in essence are stories used to relate the tenants of Christianity to everyday life which (cue the trumpet fanfare) is EXACTLY what parables are. So, what should the book of Revelation be examined as? Here's a hint, we've seen a running theme here.... That's right! A PARABLE! Jesus never told us that he'd return and magically make everything alright. What he alluded to was that it was up to us, to humanity, to make him return through our actions towards one another. The goal of Judeo-Christian actions since the beginning have been to bring about a return to Eden. A place where the is no sin, no hurt, no pain, no disease, in short, perfection. The garden was destroyed by the selfish actions of mankind, those same actions are the root of pain and suffering today. The sins that cause us so much pain and suffering are the sins that we commit against one another, the selfsame sins that are addressed in the Ten Commandments of God given to Moses, and by Jesus Christ who said:
So, in short, Jesus is telling us two things. The first is that the Ten Commandments are really just TWO commandments if you think about it. If you love God with all your heart, you cover: "I am the Lord your God, You shall have no other gods before me You shall not make for yourself an idol You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy" Then, if you love your neighbor as yourself you cover the following: "Honor your father and mother You shall not murder You shall not commit adultery You shall not steal You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor You shall not covet your neighbor's wife You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor" After all, no one would want someone else to disregard these commandments in reference to themselves. Finally, if you look at the last part of Matthew 22:34-40 where Jesus says, "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" you can understand that he is saying, quite literally, that those two commandments cover EVERYTHING important and that everything else doesn't matter. If you love God and cherish what He has given you in this life and you treat others as you would wish to be treated, then it covers the path to the kingdom of heaven. Jesus' message is so simple so pure, that it should be impossible to muck up, but somehow, not 100 years after his departure, humanity managed to twist his teachings to their own use. Jesus taught us that God is within all of us and all around us. But he also taught us that Satan is within all of us as well, and only by being good to ourselves and our neighbors, and only through our love of our one true God can we be rescued from Satan. I mean, seriously, how much more simple can it be than "Salus per Christom" meaning "Salvation through Christ." It doesn't mean that Jesus weighs our sins against our good deeds, it means that the salvation of mankind, of the entire world, is attainable only if we quit committing sins against each other. This includes the sin of casting stones, physical or theoretical, against others. Forgiveness is what Jesus taught us, not a sin for a sin retaliation. FE. To simply blame the casting of stones on human nature is a cop out. If you were truly trying to be more Christ-like, you'd work to quit casting said stones and concentrate on forgiving others of their weaknesses the same as you would wish to be forgiven of yours. That very act of copping out and defending your actions by saying "it's only human nature" is exactly what Christ taught us wasn't acceptable. It goes against his teachings and the gifts that God has given us. That, in a nutshell, is what the OP was saying. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: jerseypaint
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 2:47pm
John 1: 29 "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, 'Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!'" Jesus was called the Lamb of God because like the lambs that were sacrificed during passover for sins, Jesus was to be sacrificed for our sins. And just saying, the laws in Leviticus were for cleanliness so that the Jews wouldn't die off from disease and would reproduce so that the Word of God would continue to live and be spread among the Middle Eastern tribes. -------------
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 3:21pm
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 3:36pm
|
Yes, because clearly he didn't create them. Your argument, flaws it has. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 3:49pm
------------- 
|
Posted By: jerseypaint
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 4:02pm
I love how people don't understand free will. -------------
|
Posted By: Ben Grimm
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 4:31pm
If you take Revelations literally, you are smoking something. Even the most ardent biblical literalists suddenly start talking about what this or that "represents" when discussing Revelations.
Where does it say that? And does it also say that those laws therefore don't count anymore? And does that mean that homosexuality, masturbation, rape, and incest are now ok? (And sowing different seeds in the same field?) ------------- It's Clobberin' Time! |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 4:44pm
God created a bunch of people that never in the slightest asked to be created, was never asked if they wanted to be created, and yet, were in fact (according to the bible), created. Now because they are here, they are given a choice. Obey and worship the almighty spirit who forced them into existence, or suffer forever, without ceasing in the eternal hell fire.
So lets put this into perspective. If I decided to have a whole bunch of kids, and I told them all rules that they had to follow, no matter how absurd the rule, if they disobeyed, I got to set them on fire. But I would put it out before it killed them! Then set them on fire again. Repeat steps.
Now see, that even gives the kids in my analogy an advantage, they can see that I'm real. They know for sure. We have 0 evidence for god, yet we have to follow anyways. And we have to follow him specifically, when there are a couple thousand religions we could pick from throughout history, each of which having the same amount of supporting evidence, and if you pick the wrong one, even with the best of intentions... hellfire.
I have a big problem with religious free will. Free will seems so black and white... Obey God or follow sin and go to hell.
Free will implies that we know the bible is the truth. Gotta tell ya, those guys that strap 40 pounds of high explosives to themselves, or fly jets into skyscrapers, they have some pretty intense convictions. Do you really think Christianity is the only religion where you will ever feel any real internal conviction? If we don't even know which holy book is the right one (if any actually were) and we are given no evidence to say which one is right, that kinds complicates the system. Why give us free will, and then leave us with no earthly idea with which path the real one is? ------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 4:45pm
well he personally healed FE's broken arm, soooo you're wrong ------------- 
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 4:48pm
 ------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 4:59pm
*cough* that's not free will *cough* Free will in relation to Judeo-Christian beliefs is the idea that what happens in this world isn't "God's will" In short, those who don't subscribe to the free-will theory believe that everything that happens is solely because God wanted it to happen. Someone is killed by a drunk driver? God made the person behind the wheel go get drunk for the specific reason of killing that other person which would then be done to precipitate further events. Free will is the idea that we are created by God, but given our own free will to do with our lives as we so wish. In short, it's a question of puppet strings vs individual action. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: jerseypaint
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 5:20pm
Again, you have no clue what free will is. All of God's creations are given unlimited choices, and what they choose to do is not chosen or denied by God. And though many Churches teach your view of "believe or burn", I don't believe in such a malevolent God. Anyone that is good to his/her fellow person does good to God; love for God's creations is equal to love for God will be able to be with Him after death. Hell is for those who have separated themselves from God and are truly evil. And God is not a trickster either, trying to fool you with 10000 religions. As I see it, the many religions we have only help reaffirm what God really wants for us and that is to be good to one another. -------------
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 5:32pm
Okay, so at what point do you stop publicly removing symbols of Christianity just so someone isn't offended? Should Churches remove crosses from their spires because a Jew might become offended? Perhaps the Marquis bearing the star of David outside the synagogue should be removed too, just in case a Muslim becomes incensed at the sight of it? Maybe roaside sales of Christmas trees should be banned as well, Its the same premise isn't it? At what point do we ban any and all public display of what we believe in? Equality is an awesome thing, it really is, but there's a difference between that and being too much of a candy ass that you can't accept the fact that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE is going to be annoyed at you for SOMETHING and being able to embrace your beliefs in spite of that. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Ben Grimm
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 5:35pm
|
^^^ Those are all private enterprises, free to do as they choose. ------------- It's Clobberin' Time! |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 5:42pm
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 6:18pm
 ------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 6:39pm
Do you think Catholics eat Fish on Friday because God commanded it? Ben, you do realize in these threads, when you discuss religion, people will explain that many of these ideas have changed over time and you flap them down with "but how can you just change that?!". Then you go on and imply that religion needs to adapt to the modern world and in it's current state is wrong. Just sayin' And Sneaky, as posted before, I don't think you understand the notion of Free Will. Or what Hell is. ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: jerseypaint
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 6:49pm
I haven't read it front to back, but I've studied both the text and context. And really, the OT is just stories and parables. I really don't think God placed a bet on Job nor did he kill off all people except Noah and his family. That was just the storytellers' interpretations. -------------
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 6:57pm
Sheesh, you haven't paid attention to a single one of my posts have you? Otherwise you'd see that "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" is the chief tenant of Christs teachings which would make all of the things you mentioned in the second part of your post out of the question. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: jerseypaint
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 7:04pm
No, it means you have to look at the context that these laws were written in. Beyond the Bible is the context, so these things aren't written within the text but wrote about by those who study the Bible and its history. -------------
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 7:23pm
| Sounds like some wild stereotyping you have going. If statistics back up your statement it could be as simple as values and priciples. |
Posted By: Ben Grimm
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 7:36pm
So... in other words, I get to (and in fact should) INTERPRET what the bible says, rather than read it literally, and should apply MY own judgement as to which rules apply to my circumstances, rather than simply obey everything in the bible?
In other other words, just because the bible says something is a sin, doesn't necessarily mean that it really is a sin for me, here and now?
Is that about right? ------------- It's Clobberin' Time! |
Posted By: Ben Grimm
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 7:38pm
Don't you think reading the holy text of your religion is a good idea? ------------- It's Clobberin' Time! |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 7:44pm
Well I have read it front to back. Since when do we get to pick which ones are parables and which ones actually occured? Granted it was a boring read, so I might have missed it, but I'm pretty sure it never specifies. If it's the 'word of god' you don't really get to give it your own meanings, you take it for what it is.------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: jerseypaint
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 7:59pm
First, you're twisting my words, but I'll play ball. When you take the Bible for face value and literally you are taking it wrong. Its not picking and choosing. Its correctly understanding what is written and why it is written and how we are supposed to understand it.
I've read the text, just not in full length front to back. I've read the first five solidly, but the rest I've read story by story, jumping around. And reading it is only half the equation. I've studied the OT in numerous religion classes (and on my own) and was lucky enough to have very learned and open minded teachers who didn't preach but taught. -------------
|
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 8:08pm
Yes and No. Why do you think there are so many sects and branches and revisions and forms of churches in Christianity? Do you think they are all interpreting the bible the same way? Of course not. Each person can read the Bible and find a different meaning in it and how it applies to their life. A person's relationship with God is supposed to be personal. The Bible merely provides a framework for that relationship. I find it supremely silly that someone with a legal background, who deals with laws where everything is spelled out plainly and STILL there is room for interpretation, would think that a 2000 year old book written by a series of prophets could be taken word for word and literal fact. That doesn't mean you get to say "ehh, I don't think killing is bad anymore" and kill someone, then when their relations come for revenge "oh wait! killing is totally a sin now!". It means that you're supposed to try to understand the spirit of the word (no pun intended). We reach that understanding through prayer and reflection. It doesn't mean you get to decide what sin is.
------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: Ben Grimm
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 8:12pm
Nope - not twisting. Going the exact same place you are.
What exactly does it mean to "correctly understand what is written?" How do you know when you are correctly understanding it? How can you know how you are "supposed" to understand it?
What exactly does studying the bible entail? What exactly do your teachers know that you do not? Do they have the special "teachers' edition" bible?
------------- It's Clobberin' Time! |
Posted By: Ben Grimm
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 8:15pm
Darur, before you hurt yourself - you should have realized by now that my earlier post was merely a rhetorical device, which I used to force jerseypaint into committing to a firmly stated position.
No need to try to dissuade me further.
------------- It's Clobberin' Time! |
Posted By: jerseypaint
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 8:21pm
Can we truly know the correct interpretation? No, thats silly. But as long as you take what you read and apply it to better yourself and do good onto others, then you are probably on the right track. And can we please stop being so facetious about Christianity, since I have yet to attack any of your beliefs with such sarcasm. Of course there are no "teacher's edition" Bible, but there is the study of God, theology. And these teachers are theologians that have degrees in theology and are educated in the Bible and the Christian faith. -------------
|
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 8:40pm
I'm well aware, part of that was me seeking to point out the fallacies in the reasoning, part was me having my fun : ) However, whatever you may have meant by it, those are questions and views that many still have. ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 8:49pm
There are some things i'm willing to bend but this is something. Sure pastors can't be perfect but they have to be an example for the people they teach. Since when is being a gay pastor okay? I'm not saying that some sins are worse than others, but pastors usually try to get away from all sin (they can't but they do a good job). It's hard to explain, but its not OMG EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY FIRE & BRIMSTONE!!!!!111one1! Almost every church I've been to does not accept gay marriage especially in the form of the head of a church. Its like they preach against sin but they have sin in them when they preach it. All of this is on the basis that homosexuality is a sin, and it is something I believe. But it also doesn't mean that I can't be accepting them as a person (as I could care less) but I don't like them as head of a church. |
Posted By: Ben Grimm
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 8:56pm
|
My actual point, of course, was that gay pastors and non-literal bible-reading has been ho-hum in much of the world for decades and/or centuries, and you need to get out more.
You may disagree with the underlying theology, but the real issue is how little American Baptists (and their various spritiual cousins) know of religion outside of their own little bubble. ------------- It's Clobberin' Time! |
Posted By: Ben Grimm
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 9:04pm
I personally agree that doing good unto others is a noble goal, but how can we know that this is the right track?
I am being neither facetious or sarcastic, nor am I attacking your beliefs. I am merely making a point, in a slow, meandering, Socratic kind of way. No insult intended at all.
What exactly do these theologians study? For christian theologians, I believe the answer is "the bible." Not all religions do this, but christianity conveniently is pretty self-contained. The bible is the word of god; everything else is not the word of god. Therefore, because I own a bible I have access to the exact same information as the theologians do. More importantly, since there is no teachers' edition, there is no way of verifying whether any given interpretation of the bible is the correct one.
Therefore, my personal interpretation of the bible is just as valid as that of any theologian, and the theologian doesn't really have anything to teach me.
Therefore, of course, the bible means whatever I think it means. Or whatever you think it means. Or whatever. Who knows.
------------- It's Clobberin' Time! |
Posted By: jerseypaint
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 9:24pm
Haha. Well though you may go about this in a Socratic fashion, I think we all know Socrates was the ulitamate troll. 
Can we really know we are on the right track? No, simply because God doesn't really send people e-mails on how they are doing in terms of how the live their life. But I don't think such a loving God would want us to do wrong to one another, so we can rule that out as how we live our lives. In the end, I just don't think you can do wrong by trying to be good and do good for others. And a theologian is not just one who studies Christianity but all religions. And they don't just study the Bible, but the history behind it, as well as other religious texts. Most of the knowledge is well beyond the text of the Bible. You can loosely relate this to the U.S Constitution and political science majors. They don't just read the text and take it as it is, they interpret and look at the time period, the politics behind it, and the people that wrote it. But the Bible is thousands of years old and is the Word of God written and told through people. -------------
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 10:07pm
This has been custom for centuries before to disagree with those two points. Show me some proof that there have been gay pastors before 100 years ago. Ive moved from Canada to Florida and every church I've been to disagrees with gay pastors and not taking the Bible literally. This has been the biggest thing for non-Christians; to generalize them as all southern Baptist and in their own little Bible-loving bubble. Not all Christians are Baptist and neither am I, just stop. Just because you probably had one bad experience in a Baptist church when you were younger does not mean they represent all of Christianity.* There are many different denominations that interpret the Bible differently and to generalize all into one is irresponsible. *This is the case with a lot of non-Christians, if not, they get this perception from other people's experiences.** **Sorry mack for taking your little (*), its really useful. |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 10:11pm
Ben, You and I are gunna get along.
Really, if you can't even know if the bible is to be taken as fact or as analogy, why follow it as gods word. Wouldn't you think that if your eternal damnation was on the line, it'd be pretty clear and simple? ------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 10:28pm
 I lol'd when I saw this.------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 10:32pm
|
Given all of the different ways to interpret the bible and also that only one of them is correct, chances are, you're doing it wrong.
-------------
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 11:20pm
| The only correct denomination is if you believe that Jesus is the Christ, He is the Son of God and that he died on the Cross for the sins of all mankind and if you believe in that and Him than you are saved. So there is no one correct denomination, and there is nothing wrong with interpreting the Bible differently than the other, but you have to watch out for certain groups that don't teach that and teach something else, because that is called a cult. Waco was a cult, Jonestown was a cult, Mormon is a cult, Jehovah's Witness is a cult, ect, ect. |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 10 November 2009 at 11:24pm
Also, I"m not sure you know Grimm's past with regard to experiencing other religions which has been posted before under other names. And exactly what denomination are you a part of? Just a random guess, I'm going methodist. *rolls dice* ------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 11 November 2009 at 12:08am
|
Yeah, Catholics are a lot different than Protestant Churches. I'm undenominatinal. |
Posted By: Ben Grimm
Date Posted: 11 November 2009 at 12:19am
All the way from Canada to Florida, you say... wow. (now THAT was sarcasm)
You insist on further reinforcing my point - that American christians as a group, and the evangelicals more than most, have little concept of the rest of the world.
Ask a christian from Peru what they were taught, or from India, or from Norway, or from Congo, or from Scotland - you will get different stories from all of those, and some just might include gay pastors/priests/what-have-you.
And what many of them will have in common is the wide-eyed disbelief at what passes for "christianity" in the USA. Because in much of the world, christians are the pacifists, the gentle souls, the left-wingers, the socialist do-gooders, the environmentalists, the big-tenters, the open-minded accepters. And it is this odd dichotomy of christianity that leads people to start threads like this.
------------- It's Clobberin' Time! |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 11 November 2009 at 12:38am
| Okay, think what you want. |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 11 November 2009 at 12:44am
EDIT: what denominaion is your pasture? -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: jerseypaint
Date Posted: 11 November 2009 at 1:19am
This is the reason I believe you should follow the pillars and principles of Christianity rather than the beliefs of whatever Christian sect you associate with. Because the organization of the sects are inherently un-Christain. Jesus preached unity, and that his Church be one body, not 400. And the reason we have so many sects is because people like to pick and choose and use whatever they choose to believe to gain power and suppress others. Organized religions are the demise of Christianity. I still laugh when someone asks me "what religion are you" and I say "Christian*" and they ask "what type?". * I'm actually still battling with my Faith, so to say for certain is hard. -------------
|
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 11 November 2009 at 7:21am
Sarcasm? |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 11 November 2009 at 9:54am
|
I have found that small town American is a little less receptive to any change in fundimental belief than more urban areas like NYC. In Lincoln, NE the Lutherans from the Missouri Synot are a really tight old school form. The pastor that did our wedding was run out on a rail because he dared to have a comtemporay service, and the 'biddie committee' took it way to personal. And boom he was gone. Here in Davenport NY the local Methodist Church that my Mom attended is a real basic grass root church. They too resist the change to a contemporary service, and the attendance shows. The 'biddie committee" of elderly resent any suggestion to change. The Pastor is trying to adapt, but she too feels the pressure. Even the subliminal attitude towards younger un-married couples that attend was enough to chase them away, and the younger married families have difficulty with a 1950's styled service.
I have had to takes classes on religion and it effects on populations while I was in Group. Dealing with the "Church" in Central America was an exercise in tolerance. The more pure bred Spanish and Metztiso (half indian half sppanish) had no problems with the "Church" yet the "Church" saw the native indian peoples as less than a pauper class and were restricted in seating and participation. In Honduras the "Church" was a dominant force in the Counter Communist movement, and the 'Church' was targeted by both the guerillas and the Government, something I really could not understand since the 'Church' was pro-government. In Vietnam and Korea the western 'Church' was not a dominant force, but the local religion Monks were revered in the society. The self sacrifice (dousing themselves with gasoline and setting themselves alight to protest Governmant policies of Diem)of the Buddist Monks in 1961-63 in Vietnam was well documentated. Religion has always been used as a unifier for military needs, "Got Mit Uns" (God is with Us) was prominant on the Wehrmacht belt buckle, in a 'Godless' society. Napoleon called upon the 'Christians' in his Army to come to the front, as the Campaign in Russia turned, many devout 'Christians' in the French Army having survived the Revolution fervor against the 'Church' and Aristocracy were not too anxious to come to the front, just in case the persacution returned. American fundimental belief is just as resistant to change, and the culture has taken the 'sabbath' and turned it into just another work day. The Blue Laws are almost gone, and even in Judism the sabbath has been transformed. Now Hassidim Jews still close thier jewelry stores at sunset on friday in NYC, not to open again till Monday. One of the reasons I use the term "Religion of No Religion",is that the only differance in exchanging of one mass belief system to another in our Society. And yes I do believe the whole intent is to change the Diety from 'God" to 'The State', each providing a 'benifit' to the believer. Forcing a view of No Religion in Society has the exact same effect as the 'Church' attempting to force thier religion on Society. Each side intolerant to the other, each trying to claim the high ground, and each demonizing the other. Personally I find solace in 'Christian" beliefs, though I am not a 'Church' goer anymore. Having been raised Roman Catholic, and now 'divorced' a sin in the 'Church' I am welcome but must obey the restrictions placed upon me for having 'sinned'. I have attended out of respect for my Mother, Methodist Services, and again out of respect my wife's, Lutheran services. And I am more interested in the differances in the approach of each 'Christian' Church, than the actual message. I do believe based on expierience, and that is my preference, and I will cover my bases as my father did and return to the 'Church' as the inevitable approaches. As a soldier I really have a unique understanding of the 'Church' and what I had to do in contrast to the fundimental belief system of the 'church'. It is hard to explain when you have taken a life, and sometimes the last gasp of that individual would have been how did 'God' allow this to happen to him a believer. -------------
|
Posted By: Ben Grimm
Date Posted: 11 November 2009 at 10:49am
There is no "thinking what I want" here - I am stating simple objective fact: Christians in much of the world are what FE would dismiss as "liberals." Republican Jesus exists abroad as well, but is not the dominant figure. The cheek-turning Jesus is the leading Jesus in many countries and cultures. This is not my opinion, but simple fact.
And if this is news to you, then yes - you need to get out more.
------------- It's Clobberin' Time! |
Posted By: Ben Grimm
Date Posted: 11 November 2009 at 11:00am
How do you that there is a loving god? Maybe god is just messing with you? Even this starting point is based on your subjective interpretation of the bible.
Ask Job (either the biblical Job or the Heinleinian Job) is Yahweh is a loving god.
That depends on the theologian...
One fundamental and qualitative difference between the bible and the constitution: The latter does not claim to be absolute inviolable truth and the word of god. There is a single objectively correct interpretation of the bible (whatever god meant it to mean), which is not true of the constitution.
And that type of interpretive research makes perfect sense when researching the constitution or Homer. Not so much the word of god. The bible is the word of god; nothing else is the word of god. Therefore, whatever Thomas Aquinas (for instance) thought of the bible is no more insightful into the word of god than what I think of the bible.
The thoughts of Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, do provide actual insight into the intent of the constitution.
Understanding the historical context of the constitution is essential - it was a product of the time.
Understanding the historical context of the bible is irrelevant - it is the word of god. ------------- It's Clobberin' Time! |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 11 November 2009 at 12:05pm
No? And I'm done with this thread because no good can come from it. |
Posted By: FarSeer
Date Posted: 11 November 2009 at 1:31pm
|
http://charterforcompassion.org/ - http://charterforcompassion.org/
I think this website sums up everything discussed here. They release the Charter tomorrow. I'll be watching. ------------- http://tbish.webs.com/tippy.html - My E-Bolted 98 |
Posted By: jerseypaint
Date Posted: 11 November 2009 at 2:00pm
-------------
|
Posted By: Tical3.0
Date Posted: 11 November 2009 at 2:47pm
|
ROCK ME SEXY JESUS ------------- I ♣ hippies. |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 11 November 2009 at 2:48pm
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |