Support NeoGAF

[appaws]

Why do Jews still keep the sabbath on Saturday and why are books like jasher and Enoch quoted and referenced in the Bible we have today yet are deemed non canon? Did you know revelations was on the chopping block too? Because they thought people wouldn’t understand it? Enoch has some of the first uses of the term “Son of man” well before the New Testament was written, Jasher gives a far more detailed account of what happened around the time of the flood of Noah, jubilees gives more detail of the children Adam and Eve had including daughters but because it’s deemed “non canon” people go around thinking Cain and Abel must have had sex with Eve to produce more offspring.

Sunday was never the lords day. IIRC it was changed to Sunday to make it more convenient for others converting from pagan holy days to catholic ones. Just like Christmas and Easter. “The Church” can’t even count 3 days from Christ’s death on the cross until his resurrection on the third day. Outside of new year which is supposed to be in spring and not winter or fall, many of the Jewish holidays fall on the correct holy days. Ash Wednesday? Good Friday? Nothing good about it. The absolute worst friday in human history. To me it seems like you may as well call the Catholic Church “the church of St. Peter”. God wasn’t looking for a church built with hands anyway. I can be a church in the presence of others.

This is a good, though pretty basic, introduction to the scriptural basis for the authority of St. Peter:

http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/peter.asp

Christ wanted a church to continue the work he started after he went to heaven, so he instituted one. He wanted Christian unity, which you seem to agree is a good thing in other posts.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Good as long as it’s under correct doctrine. Considering there is division now as well as other things that just seem “off” within Catholicism, there’s really no reason to wonder why. God doesn’t waver nor does the Holy Spirit. Because the Holy Spirit is here now, things will continue to become more apparent as time progresses.

 

[Marlenus]

If I will reply to that abortion part, this thread will become a long abortion discussion and I don't think this thread is a place for that. Trust me, I have seen thread after thread after thread after thread completely derailing away from its original subject whenever there has been even one person who takes their time to defend the "pro-life" stance. I have been part of that kind of a thread many many times and, again, trust me, what you just said is not that simple and there are valid answers to all you said about it. It's a subject that should be discussed in its own thread.

But in general I again say objective moral standard does not mean consensus in all subject matters. Even in the Bible where in its context the story has a law giver, God. He is the one that gives objective moral standards. Yet, for example the story of Noah tells how the whole mankind had become evil (except maybe for Noah and his family) and they did nothing else than wrong things. So in that situation 99,9999% of the population had complete different moral standards than what God had set up, yet the idea of absolute objective moral standards still existed. Again, if the current population on Earth would suddenly decide it was morally good to kill all Jews, that wouldn't make killing all the Jews morally good. Even though some people disagree, we seem to have this sense of some actions being morally wrong in any situation. No-one wants to have to witness their children be raped and murdered - and obviously there are crazy people who want to do that but they have mental problems and/or they have lost their conscience. While killing is also often seen as being wrong, there is still this sense of justice where people are able to make the difference between killing someone to save another life and killing someone to steal money from the killed person. There is a reason why the same action has two different words - kill and murder. The Bible in itself has many examples on how a thing is right in certain circumstance and wrong in another. Using killing as an example like that you might as well use sex as the same kind of an example. It is another thing that is both right and wrong in the Bible depending on the circumstances. People who talk about objective moral standards already know all of this.

Okay, let's get away from set examples and try and use the abstract.

What are the objective moral standards? If they are objective then they must be observable or discoverable. If we did discover what looks like objective moral standards how do we know they are genuine?

If we go by what feels right there is now way to test the objective standard. I suppose it boils down to what is the measurement of morality? I do not believe one exists and can't see how one exists.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

This was in my morning listening. Pretty good stuff. Paws and Val0r have a listen. While I don’t agree on everything he says, for the most part there are many nuggets in there.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Who’s saint Augustine? I thought the Catholic Church was the church of saint peter?

 

[appaws]

Who’s saint Augustine? I thought the Catholic Church was the church of saint peter?

Ummm...You know there are lots of saints right? St. Augustine was a doctor of the Church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Seems to have had a big influence on The Church. Protestants gonna protest.

 

[VAL0R]

Sax, not to be offensive, but if you haven't heard of Saint Augustine, clearly you know little of Church history. He's considered to be one of the greatest theologians and Christian thinkers who ever lived and his thought had a great influence on the early Church. I think you would do well to read some Church history to have a more rounded understanding of the faith. I say this especially because I see you making some of the same mistakes that early heretical groups made, who have since been destroyed and relegated to the footnotes of history, while the Church marches on.

That probably sounds like an insult and condescending, but I don't mean it like that. Certainly I have very flimsy areas in my understanding that could be shored up.

 

[the.acl]

I see you making some of the same mistakes that early heretical groups made, who have since been destroyed and relegated to the footnotes of history, while the Church marches on.

Which early heretical groups? And who do you refer to when you say "The Church"?

 

[Bolivar687]

I may be late to this but I think it is demonstrably false to assert that objective moral values exist. If that was the case then there would not be such a wide gamut of socially acceptable behaviour from country to country.

You didn't demonstrate its falsity. The overlap across societies on morality is greater than the differences. If you don't believe premeditated murder, robbery, and rape are objectively wrong, then you're not really fit for participation in a civilization. Your later citations to extraordinary fringe outliers are exceptions which prove the rule.

For there to be an objective moral standard on this we need to have an objective standard for determining when human life begins (we don't have one, it is a continuum and the line each person draws on this continuum is different), we need an objective standard for whose life takes priority in the event there is a complication and the unborn child poses a risk to the mother (there is probably a greater consensus on this but that is not an objective standard).

Embryology does indeed provide that life objectively begins at conception. The zygote contains all of the genetic information of a unique and real human person who will not exist again. It is logically irrefutable that at the moment of conception, a new life begins which did not exist before. Abortion is always indefensible on bioethical grounds, because a) it is the destruction of human life, and b) it posits that a living human being is not a living human being. All bigotry proceeds from these two false premises.

Your reference to life forming on a continuum is a pre-scientific misunderstanding, which informed the original legalization of abortion in the United States, which the very same Supreme Court justices who confirmed it later backed away from as the data and evidence got better. In ancient Greece, philosophers believed that ensoulment began at some arbitrary date. In the era of eugenics preceding Roe v Wade, abortionists incorrectly believed that the fetus was a mass of the mother's own cells that later became a different person at some unspecified time. Science has destroyed the misconception that abortion is solely a mother's choice over her own body.

The other point is that life is far too grey with far too many edge cases for an objective standard to be applied at all times. Let's say the objective standard is it is wrong to kill, are there exceptions to this standard? If yes it's not very objective, if no then edge cases like catching someone molesting your child and beating them to death is as morally wrong as killing in cold blood for the lulz, that does not sit right with me.

You're conflating nuance with subjectivity. By definition, the very existence of exceptions validates the objectivity of the ordinary standard. It's not the act of killing itself that changes across scenarios but the objective application of your state of mind that determines criminal culpability.

 

[Airola]

Okay, let's get away from set examples and try and use the abstract.

What are the objective moral standards? If they are objective then they must be observable or discoverable. If we did discover what looks like objective moral standards how do we know they are genuine?

If we go by what feels right there is now way to test the objective standard. I suppose it boils down to what is the measurement of morality? I do not believe one exists and can't see how one exists.

Yeah, here we run into a problem as things that concern morals are usually emotion based in a way or another. So whatever there is to observe or discover is just people feeling a thing to be something. Maybe when we get into the territory of feelings things cannot be measured anymore in ways that other less abstract things can be measured. The materialist and the naturalist would probably want to try to measure feelings and maybe even morality by observing how chemicals fly around our brains and bodies while we feel things, but I don't think things like a thought or an emotion can really be mixed with the same type of measurable things as, say, blood flow or reaction time.

Things like feeling pride or feeling love or a thought I'm not thinking right now but remember 10 minutes from now go beyond the regular measurable things. I think a sense of morality goes there too. Now, you could say those things I mentioned are all subjective things because every person have their own ways and reasons to feel those things and every person have their own thoughts. But still, the idea of pride or love or a thought is still objectively the same. So at least we could say the idea of morality in general is objective. We could say that even if people might have different views on what is moral and what is immoral, we still have to admit we have morality instead of it being just an illusion.

So then we would ask is there some kind of an unifying line where the sense of morality of most people meet. At least to me it seems there are certain things that are way too deep inside most of us to just make the claim that it is a cultural thing. Like, there is a sense of justice in most people. The way to deal with the sense of justice varies - some feel vigilantism is justice and some feel justice should be dealt only by the police. And sometimes people don't care much about if justice is served or not because for example they don't know the person or the family who have encountered injustice, so they just don't think about it. But most of them still absolutely can feel the need for justice when injustice comes too close to their personal space. It is a sense of keeping order, and at least to me it feels people in general seem to have the same type of core in the sense of order. A person causing other's death when the victim hasn't done anything harmful to anyone, be it himself or another person or their society, and when it's not because of an accident but purely from the other person causing the death out of malevolence is thought to be immoral in any society that tries to uphold the sense of order. Some anarchists for example could obviously hold different view but that type of thinking is happening in people who aim for one sort of a chaos instead of order.

That said, obviously one could then say people have different views on what makes that order happen so that would make the whole thing be all about subjective views, but I don't think it is that simple. There still is the idea of unjustified death in every society out there. A thief would still think that even if he steals from others there is something wrong happening when another thief steals from him. A murderer understands the wrongness of murder when a murder happens to someone he wouldn't want that would get murdered. We all have our threshold of when we don't care and when we start caring. There of course are mentally ill sociopaths and psychopaths who don't care about anything in any situation no matter who is the victim, but those people are anomalies. So, depending on the situation we might all have individual reaction levels and reaction times to morality and immorality, but it seems at least some of the things to react to are the same no matter what the culture is.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Sax, not to be offensive, but if you haven't heard of Saint Augustine, clearly you know little of Church history. He's considered to be one of the greatest theologians and Christian thinkers who ever lived and his thought had a great influence on the early Church. I think you would do well to read some Church history to have a more rounded understanding of the faith. I say this especially because I see you making some of the same mistakes that early heretical groups made, who have since been destroyed and relegated to the footnotes of history, while the Church marches on.

That probably sounds like an insult and condescending, but I don't mean it like that. Certainly I have very flimsy areas in my understanding that could be shored up.

This is the problem. I don’t need to know “church history” to know God especially when “the church” doesn’t seem to have many things right to begin with. That history becomes null and void to me and scripture can stand fine on its own. Especially when you’re led by the spirit instead of corrupt men. Who represents the church of laodecia today? All church history is going to show me is who messed up. I suppose that’s a good thing. I spoke to a pastor today and he said that we have to trust that those men were led by the spirit. My reply was is it not true that Christ said he’d send the spirit to lead us to truth? That truth isn’t going to be given to a select group of a few people in Rome if the spirit is to be POURED out. Also wisdom is useless without understanding as I don’t think it’s possible to make use of wisdom without understanding. You’d be hearing but never seeing.

You know there’s another “church” out there called the world mission society church of god? Preaching that some guy named ahn sang hong was the 2nd coming of Christ, that there’s a god the mother, and the Passover is what gets you into heaven or some garbage? Churches all over the place, credited by the UN, and the stuff they preach is utter nonsense. You suppose I delve deeper into that church too? There’s no reason. If a tree is bearing rotten figs it’s bearing rotten figs.

 

[Paasei]

Can I make a special request to our atheist posters? I welcome you here to debate these supremely important ideas. But please don't deliberately fill this thread with needless mean-spirited blasphemy or sacrilege as a means to insult believers. I only politely ask, you are of course free to act as you wish according to the rules of the forum.

As your invitation states I am allowed to discuss/debate as long as I do not spreas blasphemy and being rude when there's no reason to be. I respect and honor this, and will simply leave what I think of religion.

But first, the artwork in your OP is beautiful.

Religion to me, and the respective (holy) books that come with it, are nothing more than story based ideals to how to live a good/decent live. Basically a code of conduct about life back in the early days of civilization. And that is where it ends to me. Some things, like going to church and praying, are two examples that are out of this time as we are more modern. Or well, that is what I like to think.

Most of the wars have been based around religion, some are not very friendly to women and/or homosexuals, it's easy for some to hide behind the "unexplainable".
I lost all contact with my older brother because he decided to convert to Christianity, so his wife's family would accept him (better). Raised to treat everyone fair, no matter what, is now unacceptable to him. He no longer accepts gay people and think they have a mental illness. Doesn't feel like seeing me and my mother, because we do not share his beliefs. And even now I could go on and on.

 

[bad guy]

In this thread we discuss the world's greatest religion, Christianity.

How is Christianity the greatest religion? I don't understand why.

 

[RokkanStoned]

Just wanted to check the thread out. I'm pro-choice, but I'm not one who does it from a position of moral certainty. In fact I do sympathize with the pro-life position and dislike my fellow pro-choicers absolutism in it.
I'm unsure if I ever was Christian, but I'm probably one of the few in my country, outside of Christian sects, to go to Sunday School until I was 15 years old. I remember that me and a muslim friend of mine used to troll and debate christians in high school. I'm pretty athetistic, more so even misotheistic, as I dislike the concept of a God as anything other than a natural force. That said, I've always had appreciation for the symbols, the stories in the Bible and iconography of Christianity. Christianity as a historical force, that is.

Also, what are Christians perception of Paul? I've always viewed his parts as the lesser parts of the Bible.

 

[Marlenus]

Yeah, here we run into a problem as things that concern morals are usually emotion based in a way or another. So whatever there is to observe or discover is just people feeling a thing to be something. Maybe when we get into the territory of feelings things cannot be measured anymore in ways that other less abstract things can be measured. The materialist and the naturalist would probably want to try to measure feelings and maybe even morality by observing how chemicals fly around our brains and bodies while we feel things, but I don't think things like a thought or an emotion can really be mixed with the same type of measurable things as, say, blood flow or reaction time.

Things like feeling pride or feeling love or a thought I'm not thinking right now but remember 10 minutes from now go beyond the regular measurable things. I think a sense of morality goes there too. Now, you could say those things I mentioned are all subjective things because every person have their own ways and reasons to feel those things and every person have their own thoughts. But still, the idea of pride or love or a thought is still objectively the same. So at least we could say the idea of morality in general is objective. We could say that even if people might have different views on what is moral and what is immoral, we still have to admit we have morality instead of it being just an illusion.

So then we would ask is there some kind of an unifying line where the sense of morality of most people meet. At least to me it seems there are certain things that are way too deep inside most of us to just make the claim that it is a cultural thing. Like, there is a sense of justice in most people. The way to deal with the sense of justice varies - some feel vigilantism is justice and some feel justice should be dealt only by the police. And sometimes people don't care much about if justice is served or not because for example they don't know the person or the family who have encountered injustice, so they just don't think about it. But most of them still absolutely can feel the need for justice when injustice comes too close to their personal space. It is a sense of keeping order, and at least to me it feels people in general seem to have the same type of core in the sense of order. A person causing other's death when the victim hasn't done anything harmful to anyone, be it himself or another person or their society, and when it's not because of an accident but purely from the other person causing the death out of malevolence is thought to be immoral in any society that tries to uphold the sense of order. Some anarchists for example could obviously hold different view but that type of thinking is happening in people who aim for one sort of a chaos instead of order.

That said, obviously one could then say people have different views on what makes that order happen so that would make the whole thing be all about subjective views, but I don't think it is that simple. There still is the idea of unjustified death in every society out there. A thief would still think that even if he steals from others there is something wrong happening when another thief steals from him. A murderer understands the wrongness of murder when a murder happens to someone he wouldn't want that would get murdered. We all have our threshold of when we don't care and when we start caring. There of course are mentally ill sociopaths and psychopaths who don't care about anything in any situation no matter who is the victim, but those people are anomalies. So, depending on the situation we might all have individual reaction levels and reaction times to morality and immorality, but it seems at least some of the things to react to are the same no matter what the culture is.

Things that are based on personal feelings or emotions are subjective. The simple fact that multiple people can look at the same situation and have different opinions on the morality of it shows it is subjective. Some situations will have a large consensus of agreement and others will have a split consensus but that is all it is, consensus.

Let's for the sake of argument say that there is an objective moral standard. Each action has a property that says if it is moral or immoral. If the only way to see that property is to be God then what use is it to us? If we cannot see what that standard is and if we cannot measure ourselves against this set standard then it might as well not exist.

You didn't demonstrate its falsity. The overlap across societies on morality is greater than the differences. If you don't believe premeditated murder, robbery, and rape are objectively wrong, then you're not really fit for participation in a civilization. Your later citations to extraordinary fringe outliers are exceptions which prove the rule.

In some religions the penalty for apostasy is death. Is that a moral position? Do you think that if someone converts from Christianity to some other religion that person should die? Are those religions wrong? Are those religions objectively immoral? Would their adherents say the same thing as you?

I think that is an immoral stance but I am pretty sure 5hat believers of those religions would disagree and find it moral.

Embryology does indeed provide that life objectively begins at conception. The zygote contains all of the genetic information of a unique and real human person who will not exist again. It is logically irrefutable that at the moment of conception, a new life begins which did not exist before. Abortion is always indefensible on bioethical grounds, because a) it is the destruction of human life, and b) it posits that a living human being is not a living human being. All bigotry proceeds from these two false premises.

Your reference to life forming on a continuum is a pre-scientific misunderstanding, which informed the original legalization of abortion in the United States, which the very same Supreme Court justices who confirmed it later backed away from as the data and evidence got better. In ancient Greece, philosophers believed that ensoulment began at some arbitrary date. In the era of eugenics preceding Roe v Wade, abortionists incorrectly believed that the fetus was a mass of the mother's own cells that later became a different person at some unspecified time. Science has destroyed the misconception that abortion is solely a mother's choice over her own body.

If you remove a zygote from its support system (it's mother) it will die, if you remove a brain dead person from a ventilator they will die.

Why is one okay and the other not?

You're conflating nuance with subjectivity. By definition, the very existence of exceptions validates the objectivity of the ordinary standard. It's not the act of killing itself that changes across scenarios but the objective application of your state of mind that determines criminal culpability.

No. There is no objective standard. If there were one there would be consensus on petty stuff, not just the big stuff like murder, rape, theft. And let's be honest here there isn't even consensus on rape. The number of people who victim blame or cultures where being raped is punished as adultery, which is immoral in my mind, shows this to be the case.

If there was a global objective standard that was imbued in to humans by GOD there would not be whole societies whose moral standards would subvert the objective standard. There might be individuals who do but societies as a whole would not.

 

[Croatoan]

I am trying to find my way back to God and Jesus after years of thinking I knew better. Even though I flirted with atheism, or more closely agnosticism, I never really could stop believing fully. I sure as heck tried to convince myself I had though.

I still have problems with the bible, but have recently been reading some interpretations that explain why the more troubling parts are in there, which is helping. Also reading a lot blogs from scientists that are Christian's has been beneficial.

That said I fear He may never accept me again. I will keep trying for the rest of my life though.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

How is Christianity the greatest religion? I don't understand why.

Because Buddha didn’t send his son, nor did Brahma, nor did Mohammad, nor did shiva, nor did Joseph Smith, nor did Odin, nor did Zeus, nor did Thoth. All those gods/prophets have counterfeit creation stories and again, no salvation. Actually when you look into pretty much any of those stories besides Buddhism, they’re pretty much filled with chaos and war. Fitting as that’s who the father of all of those parts of the story is.

 

[VAL0R]

How is Christianity the greatest religion? I don't understand why.

Greatest can mean "largest in size," which is a fact of Christianity. I made it clear I was leaning on this sense of the definition when I described the Christian Bible as the most studied book in history and nearly 1 in 3 of the world's population as Christian. But also, to me as a Christian, it is most glorious, most beautiful, most awe-inspiring, etc., and "greatest" in this sense as well.

 

[the.acl]

This is the problem. I don’t need to know “church history” to know God especially when “the church” doesn’t seem to have many things right to begin with.

You're very wrong, ignorance of any history, especially our history is vey sad. Early church history doesn't belong to The Catholic Church, it belongs to all of us who believe in Christ. A lot of what Christians in general believe come from these early church fathers like Agustine, and Jerome, etc.

If you're serious about scripture, and theology you'll even consider going to seminary school and they cover a lot of church history. I personally am thinking about going to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in the future.

 

[VAL0R]

That said I fear He may never accept me again. I will keep trying for the rest of my life though.

God will always accept sinners back, even at the hour before death. Remember the prodigal son? Read the story about him and picture yourself as the returning son. Seriously, read it in Luke chapter 15. This is how God feels about his children who have gone astray, but return.

While the temptation to sin and leave God is at hand, Satan will try to convince you that your pricked conscience is all nothing but the concerns of a foolish ignorant child. Then when you have committed the sin and are ashamed for what you've done, Satan then tries to convince you that your sin was too terrible and you are too far lost to ever be be awarded forgiveness from such a good God, evil as you are. These are diabolical lies. Satan is the "Accuser" and he is hunting for your soul. Take Christ for his word, that he will forgive you! Be bold to confess your sins to God and humble seeking repentance. Never be ashamed to confess sin because confessing sin is an act of holiness. It's been said that the sinner who repents with a broken heart is nearer to God than the holy man who proudly declares his piety.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

You're very wrong, ignorance of any history, especially our history is vey sad. Early church history doesn't belong to The Catholic Church, it belongs to all of us who believe in Christ. A lot of what Christians in general believe come from these early church fathers like Agustine, and Jerome, etc.

If you're serious about scripture, and theology you'll even consider going to seminary school and they cover a lot of church history. I personally am thinking about going to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in the future.

It’s been proven over and over again that “history” isn’t accurate but meant to push man’s own agendas for one. (The Church of laodicea wanted revelations removed because it spoke against them) And for two if I’m focusing on all of these saints I’m not focusing on Christ and his kingdom. Not sure why thats so difficult to understand. Scripture says to seek the kingdom. Not men, not Rome.

 

[the.acl]

It’s been proven over and over again that “history” isn’t accurate but meant to push man’s own agendas for one. (The Church of laodicea wanted revelations removed because it spoke against them) And for two if I’m focusing on all of these saints I’m not focusing on Christ and his kingdom. Not sure why thats so difficult to understand. Scripture says to seek the kingdom. Not men, not Rome.

How is being educated on church history seeking men or rome? I don't get you dude. I'm protestant and I believe it's important to know your history. Keyword: Know. Doesn't make it an idol lmao. You're taking things to extremes lmaooo

So question, what denomination are you, or are you non-denominational?

Position on Easter and Christmas?

Do you believe in a Triune God?

Stance on The Lords day vs. Sabbath?

I'm trying to figure you out.

 

[Airola]

Things that are based on personal feelings or emotions are subjective. The simple fact that multiple people can look at the same situation and have different opinions on the morality of it shows it is subjective. Some situations will have a large consensus of agreement and others will have a split consensus but that is all it is, consensus.

I don't think this is that simple.

Consensus can be built with both calculations and conscience. Consensus on some moral thing could've been built by just calculating the pros and cons of the subject without thinking at all how people's conscience would relate to the subject. Like for example a law for having to use seat belts in a car is something like that.

But then there is the issue of conscience. People might lack the sense of conscience but when people do have the sense of conscience it often deals with the same things. No-one would have his or her conscience mocking for not succeeding on rape or not being able to murder for a thrill. When conscience hits for rapists and murderers, it's also usually based on regret and knowing they did a wrong thing. And not just because they realize the police might catch them, but because of "moral hangover" about knowing the wrongness of whatever they did.

Christianity and Judaism (and I believe Islam also) teaches we have the moral law written in our hearts. That is often understood to be what conscience is all about. People might ignore it or forget it - it's relatively easy to slowly suppress the conscience and not care anymore about a thing one cared a lot a while ago and even completely stop caring, and that conscience might later also come back and hit the person like a brick wall.

Let's for the sake of argument say that there is an objective moral standard. Each action has a property that says if it is moral or immoral. If the only way to see that property is to be God then what use is it to us? If we cannot see what that standard is and if we cannot measure ourselves against this set standard then it might as well not exist.

Obviously in that situation there would be an authority for the objective moral standard, so a god would exist. At least in the major three monotheistic religions there would be 'conscience' or 'law written in our hearts' and what has been written about it. So in Christianity we would, along with our conscience, have whatever is recorded of what Jesus told.

So it's not as if there wouldn't be any way to see the standard. In Christianity Jesus Christ is the standard.

That said I fear He may never accept me again. I will keep trying for the rest of my life though.

You can read the parable of the prodigal son to give you hope in this subject. It's in Luke 15:11-32.


And there is this parable of the lost sheep:

Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus.
But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”

Then Jesus told them this parable:
Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them.
Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it?
And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home.
Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’
I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
Luke 15:1-7


I admit that knowing myself a thing like this is actually often hard to accept.
We think so harshly of ourselves - and often with good reasons - that it's hard to understand someone wanting to spend an ounce of thought for us.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

How is being educated on church history seeking men or rome? I don't get you dude. I'm protestant and I believe it's important to know your history. Keyword: Know. Doesn't make it an idol lmao. You're taking things to extremes lmaooo

So question, what denomination are you, or are you non-denominational?

Position on Easter and Christmas?

Do you believe in a Triune God?

Stance on The Lords day vs. Sabbath?

I'm trying to figure you out.

I’ve answered all of these questions already but somehow can’t get answers for the questions I ask other than refer to theology and Catholic history.

Raised in the baptist church, Easter and Christmas have nothing to do with Christ and the church knows this especially Christmas yet they still roll with it which makes absolutely no sense as God is truth, I believe in the trinity but as 3 individual spirits but Christ and the Holy Spirit can only do the will of God as all 3 are in agreement, I believe Christ is the son of God and was sent as salvation for humanity, I believe that the sabbath is Saturday and not Sunday and man had no authority to change it among other days they changed. Scripture says our new year is springtime yet we celebrate it in winter.

Because the Catholic Church is responsible for some if not all of these changes, I can’t accept its teachings or history as valid as God doesn’t mix lies with truths nor would He mix pagan with Holy. Scripture that Peter used himself ended up being deemed “non canon”. When you read stuff like Jashar, jubilees and Enoch, it’s pretty obvious that it belongs. You know it says that in the end times things that were hidden would come to light and here we are. Back to “history of the church” Trust in the Lord with all your heart. Never rely on what you think you know. Remember the Lord in everything you do, and he will show you the right way.

Something else just came to mind. The very churches that the Catholics use. Look at the architecture. It’s Gothic. Another pagan holdover. When they knocked down the pyramids in South America they could have built traditional temples but instead we still have buildings with pagan origin. More bad fruit.

Here is interesting “history”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_paganism

 

[Kenpachii]

As your invitation states I am allowed to discuss/debate as long as I do not spreas blasphemy and being rude when there's no reason to be. I respect and honor this, and will simply leave what I think of religion.

But first, the artwork in your OP is beautiful.

Religion to me, and the respective (holy) books that come with it, are nothing more than story based ideals to how to live a good/decent live. Basically a code of conduct about life back in the early days of civilization. And that is where it ends to me. Some things, like going to church and praying, are two examples that are out of this time as we are more modern. Or well, that is what I like to think.

Most of the wars have been based around religion, some are not very friendly to women and/or homosexuals, it's easy for some to hide behind the "unexplainable".
I lost all contact with my older brother because he decided to convert to Christianity, so his wife's family would accept him (better). Raised to treat everyone fair, no matter what, is now unacceptable to him. He no longer accepts gay people and think they have a mental illness. Doesn't feel like seeing me and my mother, because we do not share his beliefs. And even now I could go on and on.

Most of those wars would have been fought even without religion.

Then your brother just lost it and married into a cult of extremists christians.

You don't need to read a 2000 year old book, or visit church ( church is a dead concept same as the bible reading in my country ) to be a christian. There is a reason why christian already splitted up ages ago in different factions. Christian is just lumping everybody together that don't even relate towards eachother for the sake of numbers.

Put four christians together from different enviroments and see how fast one calls the other out for not being a "real christian".

I know people that are christians and are gay.

Religion is what you make out of it. In the netherlands you will learn on schools that it's all about the festivals and respect eachother nothing else gets learned. Unless you go out of your way to extremists sunday religion indoctrination schools ( kuch Urk ).

 

[AngularSaxophone]

My view on Christ almost the same as Arius but mine differs as he thought that it was referring to Christ in proverbs 8:22-25. I believe it was referring to Wisdom or Sophia who is different than Christ or the Holy Spirit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

 

[AngularSaxophone]

I am trying to find my way back to God and Jesus after years of thinking I knew better. Even though I flirted with atheism, or more closely agnosticism, I never really could stop believing fully. I sure as heck tried to convince myself I had though.

I still have problems with the bible, but have recently been reading some interpretations that explain why the more troubling parts are in there, which is helping. Also reading a lot blogs from scientists that are Christian's has been beneficial.

That said I fear He may never accept me again. I will keep trying for the rest of my life though.

Christ paid for your sins already. Of course God would accept you back. There’s that one parable of the two sons and the father where there’s the good son and the other who wasted money on getting drunk and prostitutes or something and when that son finally returns home he’s thrown a huge party and the other son is confused because he always did right yet the one who wasted his life partying got the huge reception. The angels of heaven rejoice when one returns. He’s waiting for you.

 

[TrainedRage]

Thought you guys may like this....
Atheist debates a Christian. (its smart, not a gotcha interview, very informative)

 

[Bolivar687]

In some religions the penalty for apostasy is death. Is that a moral position? Do you think that if someone converts from Christianity to some other religion that person should die? Are those religions wrong? Are those religions objectively immoral? Would their adherents say the same thing as you?

I think that is an immoral stance but I am pretty sure 5hat believers of those religions would disagree and find it moral.

Of course I believe murder for apostasy is objectively wrong, whether perpetrated by a religious authority or by the secular and atheist regimes of post-revolutionary societies.

Don't you?

If you remove a zygote from its support system (it's mother) it will die, if you remove a brain dead person from a ventilator they will die.

Why is one okay and the other not?

A zygote is not a permanently braindead human being - one has an entire lifetime of possibility and value ahead of her while the other does not. Surely you must recognize why these circumstances would warrant completely different reactions.

The number of people who victim blame or cultures where being raped is punished as adultery, which is immoral in my mind, shows this to be the case.

Do you honestly believe that the only thing making rape victim-blaming mistaken are your own personal feelings and nothing else? I very much hope you respond to this questions because I am incredibly interested in your answer.

Arguments do not begin and end with feelings. Logic and critical reasoning are objective measurements of the validity of arguments. We also know that we subjugate our feelings when it is personally convenient or politically expedient to do so.

------------------------------

S Sàmban I wanted to answer your questions because I think they're fantastic questions that deserve honest answers and are a great launching pad for discussions in this thread.

What makes you so sure that you picked the right religion and the right subset of that religion?

I find the message of the crucifix to be incredibly compelling and ultimately true - you should tell the truth and stand up for justice, tolerance, and support of others, even at the expense of yourself, that is, even if it means persecution by the state (his execution by Rome), ostracization from society (his persecution by the Sanhedrin), or even the forfeiture of your physical safety.

I believe anyone who follows Christ must be a Roman Catholic because Christ created a priesthood with the right to forgive sins and commissioned to create more disciples.

The story of Adam and Eve has a lot interesting conclusions. They were supposedly created in god’s image, with no knowledge of good or evil. Yet, both were tricked to sin by the devil (remember, they had no knowledge of good/evil and were in god’s image). Why did an omnipotent being choose to let the devil near the social equivalent of naive children? Either god is an asshole or this is all part of his plan. The various acts of prophecy throughout the Bible suggests the latter. If so, then it suggests life is predetermined and there is no free will. So what’s the point?

God gave humanity the greatest gift, that of free will. Eating the fruit was an act of disobedience towards God. The connective tissue between Judaism and Christianity is that original sin was reconciled by an act of supreme submission to the will of the Father.

Why did god have a chosen people? Doesn’t that seem a bit petty for an omnipotent being? Clearly this was not what god ultimately wanted as Jesus would later come and change that.

The idea was to have one people who could shine as a beacon to all other nations.

Why was there an Old Testament and then a New Testament with a pretty drastic change in tone and laws? However you spin it, it implies something changed which then implies god has limits and is not omnipotent. Heck, the very existence of Jesus implies that god has limits (he wouldn’t need Jesus to save man; he should have had the foresight to create a “Jesus mechanism” from the start of creation).

The Old Testament was revealed to nomadic tribes, the Gospel says that these laws were structured this way "because your hearts were hard." (Mark 10:5). As humanity progressed, we no longer need harsh legalistic rules and draconian punishments to act rightly but, at the same time, we're capable of living up to higher standards, such as limited divorce, which was the topic Mark 10:5 is addressing.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

I believe anyone who follows Christ must be a Roman Catholic because Christ created a priesthood with the right to forgive sins and commissioned to create more disciples.

What is this? No. No you must not be a Roman Catholic. That's a denomination. Why even call it Catholicism instead of Christianity? Christ didn't even create a priesthood. What were his disciples of the order of Melchizedek too? He said we were all brothers. Thirdly Catholics nor priests aren't the only ones with the right to forgive sins. Where do you guys get this stuff?

 

[Bolivar687]

Christ didn't even create a priesthood. What were his disciples of the order of Melchizedek too? He said we were all brothers. Thirdly Catholics nor priests aren't the only ones with the right to forgive sins. Where do you guys get this stuff?

John 20:23

 

[AngularSaxophone]

that doesn't answer anything nor is it uniquely catholic. That just goes with the whole forgive and be forgiven and judge not and you won't be judged thing. I don't know how else to put this but the Catholic Church is fishy as heck. The word catholic itself means universal. Wanting to be the religion of the world is one thing but I highly HIGHLY doubt that Catholicism exists in heaven let alone any other parts of the "universe". Because the "Abrahamic religions" of Islam, Judaism and Catholicism don't even agree with one another I'm almost inclined to call it the UNholy trinity.

 

[VAL0R]

Sax, how many people share your bizarre theology? Seriously, do you know anyone?

Some of your, let's call them doctronal distinctives:

1) Non-Trinitarian (You see God as 1 person [Father] who is very closely associated with 2 lesser, created spirits [Son and Spirit] that serve Him)
2) Arian (Christ is a mere creature, albeit a glorious one)
3) Books that are basically universally understood as non-canonical are actually authoritative scripture and belong in the Bible (Enoch, and others [how many, which!?])
4) A nearly complete skepticism of modern science / scientific claims are a conspiracy
5) The Virgin Mary is not Jesus' mother. His real mother is instead a completely different woman described in Revelation.
5) And on and on...

There are others I can't remember and many more, I'm sure, I haven't heard (heresy always comes in packages). But my point is, you are neither Protestant nor Catholic. You are arguably not a Christian, because you don't believe Jesus is God. What are you? What do you call your religion? I submit we call it "Saxology"? How can you possibly believe Saxology is true, when you alone believe this hitherto unknown hodge podge of weird ideas? Does God love you more than all the other believers in history, that he denied the billions of them this secret wisdom, only to give it to you? Does the Holy Spirit guide you alone?

It's supreme arrogance to think your personally invented religion and largely unheard of interpretations are somehow, finally, true Christianity. It's nonsense. All heretical innovators that invent new nonsense think they knew better than the entirety of the Church for two millennia. And they are wrong to the man, usually win only a handful of gullible converts, and then are lost to the ash heap of history with their so-called innovations exposed as straw.

 

[the.acl]

Sax, how many people share your bizarre theology? Seriously, do you know anyone?

Some of your, let's call them doctronal distinctives:

1) Non-Trinitarian (You see God as 1 person [Father] who is very closely associated with 2 lesser, created spirits [Son and Spirit] that serve Him)
2) Arian (Christ is a mere creature, albeit a glorious one)
3) Books that are basically universally understood as non-canonical are actually authoritative scripture and belong in the Bible (Enoch, and others [how many, which!?])
4) A nearly complete skepticism of modern science / scientific claims are a conspiracy
5) The Virgin Mary is not Jesus' mother. His real mother is instead a completely different woman described in Revelation.
5) And on and on...

There are others I can't remember and many more, I'm sure, I haven't heard (heresy always comes in packages). But my point is, you are neither Protestant nor Catholic. You are arguably not a Christian, because you don't believe Jesus is God. What are you? What do you call your religion? I submit we call it "Saxology"? How can you possibly believe Saxology is true, when you alone believe this hitherto unknown hodge podge of weird ideas? Does God love you more than all the other believers in history, that he denied the billions of them this secret wisdom, only to give it to you? Does the Holy Spirit guide you alone?

It's supreme arrogance to think your personally invented religion and largely unheard of interpretations are somehow, finally, true Christianity. It's nonsense. All heretical innovators that invent new nonsense think they knew better than the entirety of the Church for two millennia. And they are wrong to the man, usually win only a handful of gullible converts, and then are lost to the ash heap of history with their so-called innovations exposed as straw.

He claims to be Protestant, but the majority of his beliefs are unorthodox, and heretical. The fathers of the reformation would disagree with essentially everything he believes. Honestly, he seems like the type to study theology in the interwebs lol

 

[AngularSaxophone]

I never claimed to be Protestant. Theology is going to be as good as its source and considering pretty much everything all of the churches follow comes from the Catholic Church it’s all going to be garbage. And no I don’t believe Christ is God. He’s not. He’s the Son of God sent by God, his Father to do the will of his Father. The woman he was born of wasn’t Mary as Christ existed before Mary. Are you that blind? Have you ever heard of the Shekinah? God’s glory? His feminine counterpart? She’s the mother of Christ. The wife of God. The heavens were built for her. Call me whatever you want but if you aren’t able to see through the errors of the Catholic Church then you clearly aren’t operating in the spirit nor letting Him guide you. Merry Christmas.

 

[the.acl]

Are you that blind? Have you ever heard of the Shekinah? God’s glory? His feminine counterpart? She’s the mother of Christ. The wife of God. The heavens were built for her.

You sound like those guys from World Mission Society Church of God who believe in God the Father and god the mother lol

Jesus Christ is God;

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. - John 1:1 NASB

26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” - John 20:26-28 NASB

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple. - John 8:56-59 NASB

 

[AngularSaxophone]

The world mission society is awful. They say that Christ came back already. Their concept of god the mother isn’t what I’m referring to. In Judaism God has a feminine counterpart. That is the true mother of Christ. Not Mary. When Christ said before Abraham, I am, it’s the same thing that I was just talking about when I said that Christ was before Mary therefore how could she be his true mother? She’s not. She just provided a way for his birth in the flesh. As far as John goes, I’ve said this many times in this thread. Was WITH God and WAS God meaning the WILL of God. The WORD is the manifestation of the will of God. Being with God means that God has a “something” (sorry to put it in such simple terms) along WITH Him. God isn’t physical. Christ wasn’t physical before his birth through Mary.

If you say you’re with yourself, how silly does that sound? You’re alone. Even if you separate your spirit from your physical person, you’re still within yourself. As revelation 12 states, Christ was taken up TO God and His throne, and as Christ stated many times, he was doing the will of his Father or his Father’s work HERE in the physical while his father was still in heaven although His will was done through Christ.

As far as John 20 goes, Thomas was expressing himself and belief in what he was seeing by praising God. He wasn’t calling Christ God. When you keep reading that very chapter it goes on to say this.
“Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
‭‭John‬ ‭20:30-31‬ ‭NIV‬‬

 

[the.acl]

As far as John 20 goes, Thomas was expressing himself and belief in what he was seeing by praising God. He wasn’t calling Christ God. When you keep reading that very chapter it goes on to say this.
“Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
‭‭John‬ ‭20:30-31‬ ‭NIV‬‬

When in doubt, revert back to the original Greek.

apekrithē - Thōmas - kai - eipen - autō , HO - Kyrios - mou - kai - ho - Theos - mou
ἀπεκρίθη - Θωμᾶς - καὶ - εἶπεν - αὐτῷ , Ὁ - Κύριός - μου - καὶ - ὁ - Θεός - μου
answered - thomas - and - said - to him , the - Lord - of me - and - the - God - of me

He's literally saying "to him" (Jesus) "the Lord of me and the God of me". Not like the "OMG" me and you use.

 

[appaws]

When in doubt, revert back to the original Greek.

apekrithē - Thōmas - kai - eipen - autō , HO - Kyrios - mou - kai - ho - Theos - mou
ἀπεκρίθη - Θωμᾶς - καὶ - εἶπεν - αὐτῷ , Ὁ - Κύριός - μου - καὶ - ὁ - Θεός - μου
answered - thomas - and - said - to him , the - Lord - of me - and - the - God - of me

He's literally saying "to him" (Jesus) "the Lord of me and the God of me". Not like the "OMG" me and you use.

the.acl points out one of the big problems here with the Protestant idea that everybody can be their own biblical scholar. You cannot just take a modern translation of 2000 year old scripture, flip open a page, and do your own "interpretation" of it. That is where we get weird stuff like what Sax proposes, or vegans and death penalty opponents citing "thou shall not kill."

Studying ancient texts is serious business, and people devote their entire lives to it. It is the height of arrogance to think that your own "interpretation" 2 millennia later (of imperfect translations, no less) is suddenly so much better than all the fathers of the Church, men like Irenaeus and Polycarp who studied with the Apostle John himself, and all the doctors of the Church over the centuries.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

The problem with that is that you’re not believing what Christ said when he said come to him as a child. He didn’t say come to him as a scholar. I’d say he had a problem with the teachers who he was around. As far as God and Lord, I think those are two different descriptors. A lord is a King. Christ is my King. His Father is my God. I think this is a good scripture on that.

“But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭10:6-9‬ ‭NIV‬‬

Did Christ raise himself from the dead? No. God did.

 

[nani17]

hmm is it ok for me to comment on my perspective as an atheist?

 

[the.acl]

hmm is it ok for me to comment on my perspective as an atheist?

Don't see why not

 

[VAL0R]

hmm is it ok for me to comment on my perspective as an atheist?

Yep

 

[AngularSaxophone]

hmm is it ok for me to comment on my perspective as an atheist?

Most definitely.

 

[nani17]

Well here's what I don't understand.

It all starts with the story of Moses freeing the slaves. It clearly shows God can and did intervene. We all know the story of how Moses parted the red sea which helped free the salves.

So why did God not intervene when the ships left Africa with all those men, women, and children. It just ignored it altogether.

Why did he/she ignore the concentration camps during WWII? Over 10 million dead. Another here in Ireland why did he/she ignore all the children who were being molested by the very people who spread his word? He's proven from the Moses story and plenty of other stories he can intervene. Not only were the children molested but some mothers who were pregnant at a young age or unmarried had their children were taken from them and killed while the mothers were taken into forced labor.

These are just some of my reasons why I refuse to pray to him/her. I can not thank someone for everything while they ignored the fact children were being molested. Even though they have proven in the past the can intervene and stop or help these people. Funny thing is my uncle is a priest and I don't have an issue with it nor do I have issues with people believing in God.

The way I see it is A: they don't exist. B: They did but somehow died. or C: They do and gave up years and years ago.

I hope I haven't offended anyone it's not my intention to do so. Just telling you how I feel about it. Thanks for letting me express my feelings

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Well here's what I don't understand.

It all starts with the story of Moses freeing the slaves. It clearly shows God can and did intervene. We all know the story of how Moses parted the red sea which helped free the salves.

So why did God not intervene when the ships left Africa with all those men, women, and children. It just ignored it altogether.

Why did he/she ignore the concentration camps during WWII? Over 10 million dead. Another here in Ireland why did he/she ignore all the children who were being molested by the very people who spread his word? He's proven from the Moses story and plenty of other stories he can intervene. Not only were the children molested but some mothers who were pregnant at a young age or unmarried had their children were taken from them and killed while the mothers were taken into forced labor.

These are just some of my reasons why I refuse to pray to him/her. I can not thank someone for everything while they ignored the fact children were being molested. Even though they have proven in the past the can intervene and stop or help these people. Funny thing is my uncle is a priest and I don't have an issue with it nor do I have issues with people believing in God.

The way I see it is A: they don't exist. B: They did but somehow died. or C: They do and gave up years and years ago.

I hope I haven't offended anyone it's not my intention to do so. Just telling you how I feel about it. Thanks for letting me express my feelings

This is an excellent question. I believe the slaves that were brought here were of Hebrew lineage. In the past, their ancestors turned from God and in anger, God put them under a curse that was supposed to go for a certain amount of time (generations) and certain things had to happen. Think of it as a chess match. Certain moves have to be made and certain pieces in place for the endgame. Those Hebrews are now being given the opportunity to be restored as God promised. Either they’ll hear his call and turn to him or they won’t.

As far as the concentration camps, this could be the same thing. The Jews haven’t accepted Christ. If he sent his son and they refuse to accept him as such, they may have been denying themselves salvation. I wouldn’t view death as permanent. This is a tool of the evil one. Fear and anger. When Christ came and conquered hell, he freed those who didn’t even know him as he made himself known to them and preached to them while there. In the very end When everyone is awaken and brought up at judgement it’ll be the same. Either you’ll accept Christ or you won’t.

 

[the.acl]

This is an excellent question. I believe the slaves that were brought here were of Hebrew lineage. In the past, their ancestors turned from God and in anger, God put them under a curse that was supposed to go for a certain amount of time (generations) and certain things had to happen. Think of it as a chess match. Certain moves have to be made and certain pieces in place for the endgame. Those Hebrews are now being given the opportunity to be restored as God promised. Either they’ll hear his call and turn to him or they won’t.

I knew it! I knew you were a Black Hebrew Israelite, I just didn't wanna say anything until I was sure.

 

[nani17]

I like your replay but it does not answer the fact he/she, not nothing. Are we to say those children did not pray for it to stop. The hard truth does God decided who was worthy of saving and who isn't?

I cannot "support" the decision to ignore those three things I mentioned above. I ask those here If you knew a child was being molested would you do nothing?

 

[AngularSaxophone]

I think that goes back to the generational thing. Somewhere in scripture it says the sins of the father are visited on his children or something to that effect. So it isn’t God not answering, it’s events playing out due to past events. I’ve had many things happen to me as a child that have made me the adult I am now. Do I blame God? No. I thank Him for allowing me to understand these things so history doesn’t keep repeating.