Oh cool. Religion again.

Let's rip on Hinduism for a change.

I agree with zawmbee.

We get that Christianity is retarded when you take the bible literally and when people stick to it so seriously and that people are atheists.

Let's explore by hating other religions.

Bring me a religious viewpoint and I will deny it but like I said, I won't deliberately search for them just to make the proponants of that religion feel like idiots.

Quote from Zed

Hinduism doesn't try and convince us that evolution never happened.

...Neither does Christianity, the actual religions don't try to disprove anything, its the believers, which should tell you something.

Alright. I amend my statement to - "The Hindus never try and tell me that evolution never happened or that the process was directed by magic"

I'll attack the believer's beliefs rather than the beliefs that they claim to subscribe to in future.

Quote from Zed

I'll attack the believer's beliefs rather than the beliefs that they claim to subscribe to in future.

If only the other atheists on this site would do this.



ASH.

"Hey, Bill, are you a republican?"

"Yeah."

"Why do you think the government should stay small?"

"How DARE you assume I think the government should stay small! Not all Republicans think that!"


Jeremy, if you claim to be a Christian and don't specify that you are only a Christian in an extremely narrow sense, that you dont' buy into the bible, that your basis of belief is something other than religious texts, then it's NOT wrong to assume that you believe that Jesus died and was ressurected, is it? It's not wrong to assume you beleive Jesus was the son of god, is it?



It's the same as assuming that a Republican thinks government should stay small: it's not a bad thing to assume that they agree with the vast population of republicans.

You are forgetting the different interpretations, completely different mindsets of the old and new testaments, not to mention the different sects inside of Christianity. Like zed said, you should debate the believers beliefs. Not the belief as a whole, lumping everyone into one group and generalizing, just because its easier doesn't make it right. Christianity is pretty diverse.

And its pretty uncommon for someone to enter a debate just to say "I'm a christian, come assume I'm the majorities accepted version of it." They come and speak on their PERSONAL beliefs.

And I don't understand how someone can be "narrowly christian" I love how you have the right to judge what is and what is not christian. Beyond accepting Christ as your personal savior, what right do you have to judge?

I could, of course, attack the faith itself for being so open to interpretation. Why try to follow a religion which proclaims both "an eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek"?

Why try to, not and. That only works when you're speaking aloud in the colloquial.

Jeremy, Ash is saying it's up to the defender to explain what exactly that is. He's not being ignorant, he's using his experience with talking to the majority of believers to argue against someone. If he's wrong about something they believe, it's their responsibility to speak up and correct him, which I'm sure he'd actually appreciate. He's doing his part and it's not his fault if they don't do theirs.

Quote from Jeremy

You are forgetting the different interpretations, completely different mindsets of the old and new testaments, not to mention the different sects inside of Christianity. Like zed said, you should debate the believers beliefs. Not the belief as a whole, lumping everyone into one group and generalizing, just because its easier doesn't make it right. Christianity is pretty diverse.

And its pretty uncommon for someone to enter a debate just to say "I'm a christian, come assume I'm the majorities accepted version of it." They come and speak on their PERSONAL beliefs.

And I don't understand how someone can be "narrowly christian" I love how you have the right to judge what is and what is not christian. Beyond accepting Christ as your personal savior, what right do you have to judge?

Christianity is indeed the acceptance of Jesus as their personal savior.

One has to believe that Jesus actually existed to accept him as their personal savior.

Jesus is a figure of the bible, and aside from the bible, we only have a very loose idea of his actual life, so loose in fact that he would hardly merit a footnote in the Bethlaham Gazette because we are so unsure of any details about him.

The versions of the bible vary so much and have so much inconsistancy, both internal and historically, that we have no way to determine even biblically the life of Jesus with any consistancy, or even if he claimed divinity.

If one uses the bible as the source of their belief in Jesus, then they have to do a few things. Either they accept the whole thing as truth, or they pick and choose what to believe.

Picking and choosing what to believe begs the question of what their criteria for judgement of the things they read. This criteria is arbitrary by definition, imposed by the interpreter.

Truth is ALWAYS absolute: either something happens or it doesn't. It cannot be open to interpretation, because that would mean that soemthing would be "in two places at once" or "in two states at once", a logical impossiblity. If the person intepreting the bible chooses that certain bits about Jesus, are true, like his teachings and life, but that his claims to divinity were false, you have to ask about his criteria, which goes back to what I was saying earlier. Normally history books are sourced and you can cross reference them to find a more accurate story, but if you only have one book, albeit one that has changed much over the millenia, then it is "take it all or leave it", because otherwise you are choosing by yourself what is true, and that is all faith.

If the person does NOT pick and choose, but opts to accept the whole bible, then they are stuck with the whole thing.


I do think that it is impossible to, in honesty, pick and choose what parts of the bible are true and which are false or alegorical. To do so is self-delusion.



So as Ogrilla says, if you say you are a Christian, but base your acceptance of Jesus' existance, what other than the BIble do you have to use as the basis of your faith? All of my arguments are pretty consistant, at least int he sense that they point towards each other, not neccessarily int he sense that they are in any way perfect.

Quote from Ash

If the person does NOT pick and choose, but opts to accept the whole bible, then they are stuck with the whole thing.


I do think that it is impossible to, in honesty, pick and choose what parts of the bible are true and which are false or alegorical. To do so is self-delusion.

You are talking about the old and new testament here right? Its not "picking and choosing what to believe" The old testament is where Jesus comes and redeems sinners for their sins, the old testament is where god kills them for their sins. Its a transformation, not one or the other.

Hell, if I remember correctly Jesus says to forget the old ways. As it was all sacrificial based, and as he was the ultimate sacrifice when didn't need to do all of that anymore.