http://www.godhatesfundies.com
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6bf89/6bf89679b7fcb332a395f2eca52c45cdbd04db98" alt="Twisted Evil :twisted:"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6bf89/6bf89679b7fcb332a395f2eca52c45cdbd04db98" alt="Twisted Evil :twisted:"
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
Strafe wrote:It's people like Jack Chick who butcher Christianity into a mockery of it's ideals of compassion, and social justice...(Tho I do realize that much evil has been done in the name of Christianity...)
Ofcourse he does, he is after all a stupid fundie fuck, wouldn't expect anything better of him.Strafe wrote:The really disturbing part is that he probably thinks he's doing the right thing by attacking science, liberal Christians, and so on...
Oh I have. It's obvious that the Bible has been translated many times over, with new things added or taken away thus changing it's meaning many times over. That is where literalists get into a lot of trouble when they try and reconcile such contradictions.Sir Sirius wrote:Have you ever read the bible? It is one of the most intolerant, hatefilled, biggoted books ever writen. The biblical Yahweh is FAR from the kind, loving, benevolent god he is often made out to be
The NT where God threatens to burn all non-believers in hell for eternity? You call that "compassionate"?Strafe wrote:In any case Christianity is based on the NT, not the OT, which as is fairly obvious to see is far more compassionate than the OT.
Which I honestly believe to be a gross misinterpretation thrown in there by people wishing to exercise political control and increase the power of the pope/Church. (Which English king was it that upon being excommunicated, went to the Vatican and basically begged to be let back in?)Darth Servo wrote:The NT where God threatens to burn all non-believers in hell for eternity?
Oh, so parts of the NT are BS and others aren't. Precisely how do you pick and choose which irrational parts to believe in and which not?Strafe wrote:Which I honestly believe to be a gross misinterpretation thrown in there by people wishing to exercise political control and increase the power of the pope/Church. (Which English king was it that upon being excommunicated, went to the Vatican and basically begged to be let back in?)Darth Servo wrote:The NT where God threatens to burn all non-believers in hell for eternity?
And is described in the canon scripture. If you want to claim that the NT descriptions of hell are figurative, fine, but don't try and claim that the concept of hell is not biblical.In addition to which Hell was taken from Norse mythology in the first place. (Hel, goddess I believe of the underworld or some such thing. Same thing with Christmas, taken from an ancient Roman cult of Mithraism...)
Of course not. I never claimed to hold that position. To believe in something simply because "the Bible says so" is stupid. I can demonstrate however that the whole concept of hell fire and eternal damnation is quite Biblical and to quote YOU: "In any case Christianity is based on the NT, not the OT, which as is fairly obvious to see is far more compassionate than the OT." YOU are the one claiming the scriptural authority of the NT, not me.You can't say Christianity advocates a certain position merely because the Bible says so.
Thats funny. My KJV Bible has all those condemnations of homosexuality.It is necessary, but by no means sufficient. You have to deal with the fact that the Bible was written by man, and is thus quite open to fundie-esque additions. For instance the whole part of the Bible being against homosexuals specifically was added by fundamentalists for the NIV version. It never existed before that.
Which is why the NT writers put it in there in the first place. They apparently didn't want the warmongering bloodshed of the OT, but still needed to keep followers in line.What better way then to get the populace to support you than to say they are all going to hell?
It was a German king, Henrich the Fourth. He got pissed after pope Gregory the Seventh imposed his dictate around 1075, and went to Rome to abolish him. Henry was excommunicated, and the opposition used this fact to question his right to the throne. He then went to the vatican gates at night, stood there wearing a simple bag (i don't know how to translate it's name into English) with his sword's sheathe hanging from his neck, begging forgiveness from the pope. The pope let him back into the church. Henrich then went back to Germany, kicked his opposition's ass, and then went back to rome and abolished the pope anyways(Which English king was it that upon being excommunicated, went to the Vatican and basically begged to be let back in?)
What I mean was explicitly stating homosexuality. Usually it states something else, which while having the same meaning, isn't stated as homosexuality. The point is moot either way as I don't support the persecution of homosexuals.Darth Servo wrote:Strafe wrote:Which I honestly believe to be a gross misinterpretation thrown in there by people wishing to exercise political control and increase the power of the pope/Church. (Which English king was it that upon being excommunicated, went to the Vatican and basically begged to be let back in?)Darth Servo wrote:The NT where God threatens to burn all non-believers in hell for eternity?That's basically the deal, there is no established method. However there are guidelines in a sense. i.e. don't follow the path destined to result in the persecution of "insert name here", or the path ending with "You're all going to hell"Oh, so parts of the NT are BS and others aren't. Precisely how do you pick and choose which irrational parts to believe in and which not?
Interpretation of the Bible is extremely difficult given the social context in which it was written. It's not like we can go back and interpret in it's proper context, but we can still try.
In addition to which Hell was taken from Norse mythology in the first place. (Hel, goddess I believe of the underworld or some such thing. Same thing with Christmas, taken from an ancient Roman cult of Mithraism...)That is what I claim tho, that it is figurative/allegorical. I seriously doubt the existence of a fire and brimstone pit.And is described in the canon scripture. If you want to claim that the NT descriptions of hell are figurative, fine, but don't try and claim that the concept of hell is not biblical.
Many of the OT stories that Christians claim are legitamate seem to come from ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Much of the bible (NT and OT) was copied from "heathen" legends and folklore.
And indeed much of Christianity has elements borrowed from previous religions. It's all a part of the way it grew in popularity. Assimilate the culture and people are more apt to join you.
You can't say Christianity advocates a certain position merely because the Bible says so.Admittedly it was a generalized statement to say "the NT is fairly obvious...etc" But I still think with some study it is possible to note the clear differences in tone and message. One large difference being eye for an eye being replaced with "Turn the other cheek"Of course not. I never claimed to hold that position. To believe in something simply because "the Bible says so" is stupid. I can demonstrate however that the whole concept of hell fire and eternal damnation is quite Biblical and to quote YOU: "In any case Christianity is based on the NT, not the OT, which as is fairly obvious to see is far more compassionate than the OT." YOU are the one claiming the scriptural authority of the NT, not me.
But as noted earlier, interpretation is difficult.
It is necessary, but by no means sufficient. You have to deal with the fact that the Bible was written by man, and is thus quite open to fundie-esque additions. For instance the whole part of the Bible being against homosexuals specifically was added by fundamentalists for the NIV version. It never existed before that.Thats funny. My KJV Bible has all those condemnations of homosexality.
And that's why scholars don't use KJV. The translators didn't understand Greek or Hebrew properly, and mistranslated a good 3-4% of the Bible entirely. I'm working on a paper on the Book of Hosea, and I've already given up on the KJV. NRSV I'll use, KJV I won't touch with a ten foot pole. It's just a bad translation to English.Darth Servo wrote:The concept of hell may occur in the Bible, but the description of it originates in Zoroastrianism. As does Satan, and the idea of resurrection.Strafe wrote:And is described in the canon scripture. If you want to claim that the NT descriptions of hell are figurative, fine, but don't try and claim that the concept of hell is not biblical.In addition to which Hell was taken from Norse mythology in the first place. (Hel, goddess I believe of the underworld or some such thing. Same thing with Christmas, taken from an ancient Roman cult of Mithraism...)Eternal damnation? That's not anywhere in my Bible. NRSV is rather clear that Hell is destroyed at the end of Revelation, meaning that suffering is not eternal. KJV might not be, it's widely recognized by scholars as a shitty translation.Of course not. I never claimed to hold that position. To believe in something simply because "the Bible says so" is stupid. I can demonstrate however that the whole concept of hell fire and eternal damnation is quite Biblical and to quote YOU: "In any case Christianity is based on the NT, not the OT, which as is fairly obvious to see is far more compassionate than the OT." YOU are the one claiming the scriptural authority of the NT, not me.You can't say Christianity advocates a certain position merely because the Bible says so.Thats funny. My KJV Bible has all those condemnations of homosexuality.It is necessary, but by no means sufficient. You have to deal with the fact that the Bible was written by man, and is thus quite open to fundie-esque additions. For instance the whole part of the Bible being against homosexuals specifically was added by fundamentalists for the NIV version. It never existed before that.
BattleTech for SilCoreStanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
I agree completely. ignoring the racist christ, there's still revelation 20:10, burning the devil's supporters for ever, and john 14:6, where no one gets to god (and presumably heaven) except through christ. . . which leads to hellfire for quite a lot of people.Ghost Rider wrote:Not really compassionate as in he doesn't have such direct involvment.
Still I don't believe I have yet to see a warm and all loving God anywhere in the Bible.