Do atheists know more about Christianity than Christians?

[Phreakwars]

How do you decide which parts of the Bible is real, and which is not?

That's an easy one. The rice paper the book is usually made from, is real. The monster inside known as God, isn't. The Jesus guy was a philosopher so take his advice any way you want.

.

.

 

[Times]

As usual everything turns to religion bashing, I just love it when the atheists prove their intollerant of anything they personally do not agree with but they claim it is religious people who are intollerant.

I am out, I made my point very well that knowing a religious book and knowing Christianity is something completely different.

 

[Builder]

As usual everything turns to religion bashing,

As opposed to athiest bashing? Or progressive bashing? Or democrat bashing? Or turd bashing?

I just love it when the atheists prove their intollerant of anything they personally do not agree with

One "L" in intolerant. And it's "they're" rather than the possessive "their" genius. You don't personally agree with lots of things, you NPD sufferer. Doesn't stop you from considering the opinion of others when posting fifteen paragraphs about your intolerance.

but they claim it is religious people who are intollerant.

You're a pretend christian, so I don't see how you can group yourself with those people. Doesn't stop you being intolerant of anyone.

I am out, I made my point very well that knowing a religious book

A book that has been translated and transposed dozens of times to suit the captive audience.

and knowing Christianity is something completely different.

You think you know about the people of christianity, and yet you display none of the common traits. Seek help. NPD is a mental disorder, and you have it.

 

[wez]

Hey TJ.. does your faith tell you that whatever is the cause of human existence, it is the same cause for every human that has or will ever exist regardless of what people think/say/do?

It's not a difficult question..

 

[emkay64]

"How can you be a Christian and pick and choose which teachings from the Bible Old and New Testament, to follow and which ones to not? " ~ IWS

Eddo I'm just gonna kiss you for making my point...again and I'm also going to give IWS a big smootch for being a Christian and still getting it.

 

[eddo]

Jesus himself talked about the resurrection before it happened (John 2, Matthew 20, Mark 10.) This is one of his teachings- if you claim to be a follower of the teachings of Jesus, how do you pick and chose which ones to follow and which ones to not?

How can you be a Christian and pick and choose which teachings from the Bible Old and New Testament, to follow and which ones to not?

Thru reading, examination, and understanding. Context is key.

Some of the Old Testament was written to a specific culture. Some of it to a specific group of people. Some of it laws to base a society on. Some of it to give a history lesson. Some of it laws to enter into God's kingdom (which God later made another, better, way to enter His kingdom.)

The New Testament tells the story of Jesus, as a man- and the years immediately following his presence on earth. It is written to believers to help them in their walk with Christ.

To understand the Bible, you have to take more than just a few words and try to make it fit where you want it to. You have to delve into not only what is being said, but to who and why it is being said.

Geeze, even that was one of Jesus teachings...

 

[wez]

....You have to delve into not only what is being said, but to who and why it is being said.

Geeze, even that was one of Jesus teachings...

So.. you're saying one must think critically and be picky and choosy on how they interpret it? You're telling Snaf you don't understand how he can call himself a Christian and not believe someone rose from dead?

TJ is a self proclaimed Christian too.. how bout you 3 discuss specifics and see how much ya agree on..

I think ya just proved emmy's point.. once again.

We could start with you telling me where in the bible it says that "everyone is a hypocrite", as you have said many times.. yet it also says, specifically, woe to hypocrites who will spend eternity "weeping" and "gnashing" their teeth?

You've also said that hypocrisy has nothing to do with judging, yet the bible specifically says...

_________________________________________________________________________________

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

6 ? Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

____________________________________________________

So, why would 6 passages/lessons/whatever label is used for them, that deals specifically with judging, use the word hypocrite if hypocrisy has nothing to do with judging?

Indulge me eddo.. ya know hypocrisy is kinda a passion for me.. hahaha

 

[eddo]

....You have to delve into not only what is being said, but to who and why it is being said.

Geeze, even that was one of Jesus teachings...

So.. you're saying one must think critically and be picky and choosy on how they interpret it?

I really shouldn't get into this with you, as you never want to actually learn anything about religion, you just want to attack (as your post right here already shows...) and we established long ago that your definition of "hypocrite" is different than what the dictionary says.

but fine:

Yes, that is what I am saying. It's easy to pull a verse out and use it to dictate your life (it's even easier to pull a verse out and try to apply it to someone elses life.) It's much harder (and thus more rewarding) to actually understand that verse. Understand who is saying it. When they are saying it. Who they are saying it to. What the rest of the letter says in conjunction to that verse.

Example:

I can take two verses, and put them together:

"Judas hung himself from a tree."

"Jesus says, go and do likewise"

and make it give a message that neither verse ever intended to say. Context is so important.

Jesus was asked by his disciples why he spoke in parables. his answer? So people would have to search for the truth of what he was saying. they would have to dig. They would have to care about what they were searching for.

Much like TJ was saying earlier, you can't fully grasp Christianity from just reading the Bible. The Bible is only part of the experience. The understanding, the spiritual aspects, the contentment, the immense joy I feel when I am around other like minded folks- those come from living it.

You're telling Snaf you don't understand how he can call himself a Christian and not believe someone rose from dead?

TJ is a self proclaimed Christian too.. how bout you 3 discuss specifics and see how much ya agree on..

I think ya just proved emmy's point.. once again.

I can stand in a bank lobby and proclaim I am a sack of one hundred dollar bills. Doesn't make it true...

Nothing against Snaf and TJ, but I honestly have no idea what they believe. Both claim to be Christian, as do I, but I have never sat down with either to discuss it. However, claiming to be a follower of Jesus while disregarding one of the more important parts of his life seems a bit odd to me. I was asking for clarification from Snaf, not trying to attack or belittle him.

I don't deny that Christianity has many different forms and structures of beliefs. That is where "religion" gets in the way. as I said earlier: that comes from man's fallibility getting in the way of an infallible God.

We could start with you telling me where in the bible it says that "everyone is a hypocrite", as you have said many times.. yet it also says, specifically, woe to hypocrites who will spend eternity "weeping" and "gnashing" their teeth?

Romans 3:23: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Everyone has sinned. Everyone. Everyone at some point in their life tells someone not to do something that they themselves have done. Everyone expects others to behave better than themselves. This includes me, and this includes you.

The difference there is the forgiveness factor. Hypocrites who will spend eternity apart from God (weeping and gnashing of teeth) are content in their hypocrisy, and live in it. Hypocrites who seek forgiveness will spend eternity with God. Context there is the whole New Testament and God's plan of love and forgiveness.

You've also said that hypocrisy has nothing to do with judging,

I don't remember ever saying that. If you have a link, I would be interested in what the conversation was at that point.

I do, however, remember pointing out many times that you get upset when someone judges you or someone else, while you judge people all the time- in essence being a hypocrite yourself while being upset that others are doing the same thing.

Definition of HYPOCRITE

1

: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2

: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

? hypocrite adjective

?noun

1.

a person who pretends to have virtues' date=' moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2.

a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

[/quote']

 

[wez]

I think the dictionary has a different meaning than it's used in the bible.. I thought we were talking about the bible, not a dictionary..and it's not just judging.. it is judging, labeling, and looking down on someone and condemning/punishing them for what you in fact, are.

and no.. I don't do that.. Nor do I expect anyone on this Earth to behave better than I behave myself.. not a one.

And the fact that it says "everyone sins" does not equate to "everyone is a hypocrite". Is hypocrisy the only "sin"?

Here's a link and a few paragraphs from it.. see what ya think..

Thou hypocrite

....By definition, then, a hypocrite is someone pretending to be something they are not. However just pretending doesn't make someone a hypocrite. If this wasn't the case, then every actor could rightly be accused of being a hypocrite. More than that, every time we tell a lie, we are pretending that something is true when it isn't. Since all of us occasionally tell "white lies" that means every person has, at one time or another, pretended to tell the truth so as to give a false appearance of virtue (honesty). And if that's our definition, then everyone is a hypocrite, not just insincere Christians. But this is not the kind of hypocrisy Jesus strongly condemned. The behavior He spoke against is more than mere acting or pretending. It's the kind that concerns the intent of one's heart. Someone may ask, "But isn't pretending to be something you're not always a matter of the heart?" The answer to that depends on how fine or how broad we want to define the word hypocrite. In the board sense, all of us are hypocrites, but the more accurate definition is more specific than that.

To gain a better understanding of what constitutes a true hypocrite, let's compare several attitudes and actions.

A person who knows they are doing wrong but doesn't want to embarrass themselves by having others seeing their faults isn't pretending to be living a virtuous life. They just don't go around broadcasting their faults. Therefore, others assume the person is living properly. This is not the definition of a hypocrite.

A person who knows they are doing wrong but deliberately takes steps to hide their faults to keep from being embarrassed by their inappropriate behavior is only a hypocrite in the broadest sense of the term. This kind of person knows when they are doing something wrong and feels ashamed for not having the strength of character to do what is right. When their wrong behavior is discovered they usually have the courage to admit their faults.

On the other hand, a true hypocrite feels no sense of remorse for their inappropriate actions. When some unacceptable behavior of theirs is pointed out, they angrily defend their action, while displaying an attitude that they have done nothing wrong. Thus, a true hypocrite is one who thinks that no matter what they do, it is always right.

However, rather than boldly letting others see their real behavior, a hypocrite doesn't have the courage of their so-called "convictions." Therefore, they not only deliberately hide their unacceptable actions from the knowledge of others, but they also maintain an "I'm always right" attitude. As such, this is the highest form of pretending because they are actually deceiving themselves more than anyone else. Even worse, a real hypocrite is someone who also actively seeks the praises of others for living a virtuous life.

Furthermore, a true hypocrite is someone who condemns others for doing the very things they excuse in themselves. In their mind, it's okay for them to do the very thing they criticize others for doing. As such, a hypocrite is someone who uses a double standard. They judge the actions of others by a different set of rules than they use for themselves.

On the other hand, a person who is aware of their weakness uses the same standard to judge themselves as they do others. As such, they often tend not to condemn others because they are too painfully conscious of their own weaknesses and are aware that when they condemn others they are likewise condemning themselves.

Quite a bit more involved than a standard Websters definition as far as Jesus was concerned I think..

 

[eddo]

"Hypocrisy", as used in the bible, roots from the word of the time used for actor: someone on stage putting on an act for others.

the word itself has little to do with punishing, condemning, judging, or labeling. It is pretending to be something you are not. Which is pretty close to what Webster says. (people, however, love to interpret it differently)

The LDS site goes further into that definition, and that is fine. I don't necessarily agree with the breakdown of different "levels" of hypocrisy (I'm only kinda a hypocrite! ummm no....) but do agree with the part about the hypocrites attitude. It is this attitude that leads this brand of hypocrite away from seeking forgiveness and repentance, and towards the "Weeping and gnashing teeth." One that does not "need" forgiveness won't get it, 'cause they aren't in a place where they think they need to ask for it.

This attitude (and it doesn't just relate to hypocrisy) feels no need for a savior, no need for forgiveness, no need for making their life better.

 

[IWS]

Thru reading, examination, and understanding. Context is key.

Some of the Old Testament was written to a specific culture. Some of it to a specific group of people. Some of it laws to base a society on. Some of it to give a history lesson. Some of it laws to enter into God's kingdom (which God later made another, better, way to enter His kingdom.)

The New Testament tells the story of Jesus, as a man- and the years immediately following his presence on earth. It is written to believers to help them in their walk with Christ.

To understand the Bible, you have to take more than just a few words and try to make it fit where you want it to. You have to delve into not only what is being said, but to who and why it is being said.

Geeze, even that was one of Jesus teachings...

So, your claim is that the writings aren't literal, and are subject to interpretation?

 

[eddo]

So, your claim is that the writings aren't literal, and are subject to interpretation?

Which writings?

Again, this goes back to the context. Is the verse in the OT that tells me not to mix types of thread together open to interpretation? No, it's pretty straight forward. don't mix cotton and wool. But what is open to interpretation is the reason why that verse is in there.

Back in the day, clothing had to last. Mixing thread types back then would severely shorten the lifespan of you clothing. It isn't a directive meant to keep folks from wearing polyester leisure suits (although, you could make that argument...,) instead it is there to help set up a community that didn't have unlimited means and a Kohl's on every corner.

Does this mean that I am going against God's wishes by wearing the polyester leisure suit? well.... it's a leisure suit, so bad example... But no, it was a cultural rule, not a spiritual one- so it's not relevant today, as cultures have changed.

Is the creation account in genesis literal?

No. I do believe that it only took 7 days for an all powerful God to create the universe, but the creation account isn't an eye-witness account of creation. If you watched an instant replay, there is likely a lot of stuff left out. heck, Genesis wasn't even the first book of the bible written.

Is the story of Jesus life open to interpretation?

I would say no. The life of Jesus is told Biblically by 4 eye-witnesses of his life. People nowadays have been executed on flimsier evidence than that.

His teachings though? To a point. Interpretation may not be the right word to use here, but like I said: He spoke in parables so that folks would have to really listen to what he was saying in order to get what he meant. His message doesn't change, but the way we read/hear it most definitely can- depending on our mood, what is going on in our lives, our level of spiritual maturity. I can read a passage of his teachings and get something out of it that I never saw before. heck, I was reading the account of Jesus turning water into wine the other night and got a totally different meaning out of it than I ever had before. The message didn't change, but the way 'I' interpreted it did.

This is what leads to so many different denominations and churches- man reading and interpreting things differently.

That goes back to fallible man getting in the way.

 

[IWS]

So, your claim is that the writings aren't literal, and are subject to interpretation?

Which writings?

Again, this goes back to the context. Is the verse in the OT that tells me not to mix types of thread together open to interpretation? No, it's pretty straight forward. don't mix cotton and wool. But what is open to interpretation is the reason why that verse is in there.

Back in the day, clothing had to last. Mixing thread types back then would severely shorten the lifespan of you clothing. It isn't a directive meant to keep folks from wearing polyester leisure suits (although, you could make that argument...,) instead it is there to help set up a community that didn't have unlimited means and a Kohl's on every corner.

Does this mean that I am going against God's wishes by wearing the polyester leisure suit? well.... it's a leisure suit, so bad example... But no, it was a cultural rule, not a spiritual one- so it's not relevant today, as cultures have changed.

Is the creation account in genesis literal?

No. I do believe that it only took 7 days for an all powerful God to create the universe, but the creation account isn't an eye-witness account of creation. If you watched an instant replay, there is likely a lot of stuff left out. heck, Genesis wasn't even the first book of the bible written.

Is the story of Jesus life open to interpretation?

I would say no. The life of Jesus is told Biblically by 4 eye-witnesses of his life. People nowadays have been executed on flimsier evidence than that.

His teachings though? To a point. Interpretation may not be the right word to use here, but like I said: He spoke in parables so that folks would have to really listen to what he was saying in order to get what he meant. His message doesn't change, but the way we read/hear it most definitely can- depending on our mood, what is going on in our lives, our level of spiritual maturity. I can read a passage of his teachings and get something out of it that I never saw before. heck, I was reading the account of Jesus turning water into wine the other night and got a totally different meaning out of it than I ever had before. The message didn't change, but the way 'I' interpreted it did.

This is what leads to so many different denominations and churches- man reading and interpreting things differently.

That goes back to fallible man getting in the way.

I think you know what I meant. The New Testament isn't as much as a problem as the interpretations of the Old Testament.

 

[snafu]

I think Eddo just made my point.

ha, not so fast.

Jesus himself talked about the resurrection before it happened (John 2, Matthew 20, Mark 10.) This is one of his teachings- if you claim to be a follower of the teachings of Jesus, how do you pick and chose which ones to follow and which ones to not?

I don't go to church and I don't read the bible but I believe in God. I don't really even belive in the reserection of Jesus Christ but I do belive in Jesus Christ. I am a Christian.

How can one be a Christian and not believe in the resurrection of Jesus?

Snaf, what do you believe about Jesus?

I believe he is the son of god and was brought to earth to cleanse our souls and give us direction to god. I don?t see why he would need a material body in the after life and being that he was mortal then the body he was in also died and rotted away like all the rest of us.

I think the resurrection would be a metaphor for his retuning to god not literally.

So the eye witness accounts of Jesus are metaphorical, but him being the son of God is not? How do you decide which parts of the Bible is real, and which is not?

Eye witnesses saw him die and was laied to rest. There were no i witnesses of the resurerrection itself. I'm still trying to figure out why he would need a body in heaven.

John 3:16 does this make me agnostic?

 

[snafu]

Wouldn' t then picking and choosing the passages you want to beleive make us all agnostic?

 

[eddo]

Eye witnesses saw him die and was laied to rest. There were no i witnesses of the resurerrection itself. I'm still trying to figure out why he would need a body in heaven.

John 3:16 does this make me agnostic?

Ahhh, but there were eye-witnesses that saw him in person after he died.

Wouldn' t then picking and choosing the passages you want to beleive make us all agnostic?

Interesting question Snaf.

For me, I believe the entire Bible. I believe it is true, I believe it is factual and applies to my life today. Having said that, I do understand that not all of it was written to me, where I am today (that falls under the cultural aspects of the writings.) The fun is figuring out which parts fall where.

 

[eddo]

I think you know what I meant. The New Testament isn't as much as a problem as the interpretations of the Old Testament.

sorry, I guess I missed what you meant then. I did use a couple of Old Testament examples. Was that not what you meant? If not, would you mind elaborating on what you mean?

 

[jokersarewild]

Hm. I quite like Eddo's explanations here. The Old Testament shouldn't be taken as something to be applied to us today.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html

The link is, to some extent, what Eddo is trying to say. The Old Testament Laws weren't for Christians. They were for the Israelites.

IWS, I'm somewhat confused as to what you're asking Eddo for. Are you saying everything SHOULD be interpreted literally? If so, people should start stoning their children for disobeying. Oh, and you can't touch your girlfriend/wife for about half the month, as you can't touch her when she starts bleeding, then for a week after. So minimum of like 10 days, max of 14, or so.

I don't know, maybe that's not what you're getting at. I dunno.

 

[IWS]

Hm. I quite like Eddo's explanations here. The Old Testament shouldn't be taken as something to be applied to us today.

http://www.gotquesti...istian-law.html

The link is, to some extent, what Eddo is trying to say. The Old Testament Laws weren't for Christians. They were for the Israelites.

IWS, I'm somewhat confused as to what you're asking Eddo for. Are you saying everything SHOULD be interpreted literally? If so, people should start stoning their children for disobeying. Oh, and you can't touch your girlfriend/wife for about half the month, as you can't touch her when she starts bleeding, then for a week after. So minimum of like 10 days, max of 14, or so.

I don't know, maybe that's not what you're getting at. I dunno.

My question is, if the Old Testament should be interpreted and not taken literal, then it is subject to opinion. If it's subject to opinion then the opinions and interpretations of anyone, can't be wrong. Whether it be eddo, or Phreakwars, David Koresh or Pope Benedict, who is right? There can be no absolute.

How is that any different than the difference of moderate and radical interpretations of the Koran in Islam?

How is it different than than traditionalists and progressives on interpretations of the Constitution?

Either it's taken as the authors wrote and intended or it's infinite in it's applicability.

Conservative or radical. Nothings right and nothings wrong.

 

[outlaw2747]

Wow, I would miss all the fun in this topic wouldn't I? LOL

As far as the title, it doesn't surprise me. It seems that a lot (not all) of "religious" folks are bandwagoners. They just do it because they are sheep and see everyone else doing it. Or they were raised to be something instead of having a choice. It seems that when a question is asked about certain aspects of a religion, you get multiple answers. I think that alone throws a lot of people off.