# Texas church shooter was a militant atheist



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 7, 2017)

http://nypost.com/2017/11/06/ex-friends-say-shooter-was-creepy-atheist-who-berated-religious-people/



> Texas church shooter Devin Kelley was a “creepy” atheist “outcast” who never fit in and berated religious believers on social media, according to former friends and classmates



https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4851812/texas-church-shooting-gunman-devin-kelley-facebook/



> “He was always talking about how people who believe in God were stupid and trying to preach his atheism.”



Presented without comment.


----------



## ky55 (Nov 7, 2017)

*


----------



## Mexican Squealer (Nov 7, 2017)

not surprised....


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> http://nypost.com/2017/11/06/ex-friends-say-shooter-was-creepy-atheist-who-berated-religious-people/
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He was also in the military, does that make you connected to him?


Every individual is labeled as something.
For the most part, they do not represent all.

Don't make us have to show examples of Christians that were killers just to show your hypocrisy.

Most often a killer is a killer and just so happens to also be an atheist, christian, muslim, buddhist, etc.
Much the same as victims are victims who also happen to be an atheist or part of a religious affiliation.

Depending upon how far you want break things down, we can link any individual to a label and erroneously blame that label for their actions. But it is the actions of the individual rhat define them.

Take your constant trouble making posts posts for example.....you must be an atheist,  or christian, or american citizen, or a son, or a father, or a male, or a democrat , or a republican or.................


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 7, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Most often a killer is a killer and just so happens to also be an atheist, christian, muslim, buddhist, etc.
> ..



Very true!!! (Let's just remember this the next time some coward does this in the name of Christianity) 

Sad times for those families and I hate it when political and or religious agendas get pushed because of these tragedies.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> http://nypost.com/2017/11/06/ex-friends-say-shooter-was-creepy-atheist-who-berated-religious-people/
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your point?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 7, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Don't make us have to show examples of Christians that were killers just to show your hypocrisy.



Self identified "Christians" who commit murder do so in direct contradiction to the tenets of Christ and Christianity and are not Christians.  That's non-debatable. So, it's only hypocrisy if one accepts your notably false  straw man presupposition that they are.(intellectually dishonesty ring a bell here.
)      
The same cannot be said of Atheism nor those who hold to it's precepts.  Again, non-debatable. 



bullethead said:


> Most often a killer is a killer and just so happens to also be an atheist, christian, muslim, buddhist, etc..



Wrong again.  Beliefs shape values(or lack thereof) and values dictates actions.  And again, non debatable.

Christianity holds that ALL life, because we are ALL created in the image of a Holy God, has infinite sanctity and infinite value.  People that actually HOLD to that belief don't commit these atrocities.  

Atheism on the other hand ......


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 7, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Your point?



Speaks for itself.


----------



## Mexican Squealer (Nov 7, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Self identified "Christians" who commit murder do so in direct contradiction to the tenets of Christ and Christianity and are not Christians.  That's non-debatable. So, it's only hypocrisy if one accepts your notably false  straw man presupposition that they are.(intellectually dishonesty ring a bell here.
> )
> The same cannot be said of Atheism nor those who hold to it's precepts.  Again, non-debatable.
> 
> ...



Schooled!


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Very true!!! (Let's just remember this the next time some coward does this in the name of Christianity)
> 
> Sad times for those families and I hate it when political and or religious agendas get pushed because of these tragedies.



Now wait, if someone claims to do something In The Name Of..... then it is a different story.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 7, 2017)

Besides being mentally unstable I read he was ticked off royally at his Ma-n-Law. Those two combinations are deadly. 

Besides, why weren't the people in the church carrying firearms? I find it highly hypocritical of any organization that professes to believe in God to restrict the rights to it's people that were endowed to them by God. 

That just makes no sense.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Self identified "Christians" who commit murder do so in direct contradiction to the tenets of Christ and Christianity and are not Christians.  That's non-debatable. So, it's only hypocrisy if one accepts your notably false  straw man presupposition that they are.(intellectually dishonesty ring a bell here.
> )
> The same cannot be said of Atheism nor those who hold to it's precepts.  Again, non-debatable.
> 
> ...


By your logic and with the way you act in here, you are not a Christian, just self identified.

You are your own perfect example.


May i quote mexicansquealer and daffy duck while i say..
TTTHHHKKKOOOOOOLED


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 7, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Now wait, if someone claims to do something In The Name Of..... then it is a different story.



According to some. Remember we had that discussion where we found out that we have rabid Christians and atheist


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Speaks for itself.



He also was white, had facial hair, and man parts. Any other great revelations we should add?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Besides being mentally unstable I read he was ticked off royally at his Ma-n-Law. Those two combinations are deadly.
> 
> Besides, why weren't the people in the church carrying firearms? I find it highly hypocritical of any organization that professes to believe in God to restrict the rights to it's people that were endowed to them by God.
> 
> That just makes no sense.



Take no thought for the morrow...

Turn the other cheek...

God's will be done...

In God we trust...

If God be for us who can be against us?

No need to be armed with that mindset.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Self identified "Christians" who commit murder do so in direct contradiction to the tenets of Christ and Christianity and are not Christians.  That's non-debatable.



Very debatable actually.




SemperFiDawg said:


> The same cannot be said of Atheism nor those who hold to it's precepts.  Again, non-debatable.



There are no precepts of atheism. Atheism is amoral. Christianity is immoral.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 7, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> He also was white, had facial hair, and man parts. Any other great revelations we should add?



Childishness here too?  Like I said, the self degradation one has to employ to be an Athiest, but I understand;  when you can't argue truthfully, all that’s left is miasmas.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Childishness here too?  Like I said, the self degradation one has to employ to be an Athiest, but I understand;  when you can argue truthfully, all that’s left is miasmas.



Thanks for the acknowledgment. We can always depend on you to deliver insightful comments.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Nov 7, 2017)

I think the fact that he was a violent, mentally unstable sociopath is more important in this context than whether he was religious or not. There are too many of those today.


----------



## fullstrut (Nov 7, 2017)

Agreed with NCHillbilly.


----------



## Browning Slayer (Nov 8, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Your point?



That all of these mass murderers lack one thing. And it's the same thing Atheists run from.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 8, 2017)

Browning Slayer said:


> That all of these mass murderers lack one thing. And it's the same thing Atheists run from.



Funny you should post this right after posting on the thread about us being separated out of the Christian forum so they could have their safe space. And the religious are over represented in prisons. Whatever it is they aren't lacking didn't seem to make any difference.


----------



## kmckinnie (Nov 8, 2017)

The movie “ Lonesome Dove” is aperfect example of how we use to weed out this.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 8, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Thanks for the acknowledgment. We can always depend on you to deliver insightful comments.



Thanks for the spellcheck.  I corrected it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 8, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> There are no precepts of atheism. Atheism is amoral. Christianity is immoral.



If you take the meaning of "precepts" to mean a moral code you would be absolutely correct.  There is absolutely nothing in atheism that addresses morality nor would form values to deter an individual from mowing down innocent people.


 If however you take a broader definition to include logical suppositions that must be drawn from the conclusion of "No God", then each atheist abides by certain precepts depending on their individual beliefs to answer the big questions in life like "Where did life come from?", Is there a such thing as morals and if so what are they and how do I live my life accordingly?, etc.  Humanism has it's precepts, Buddhism has it's, Nihilism has it's and Secularism has it's own also.   Everybody has to answer the questions and it's false to say that if one is an atheist that they don't have precepts. Atheism DOES have it's own precepts, to say it doesn't is just a cheap answer akin to saying Atheism isn't a religion.  It IS a world view like any other and if you believe in it then it's your religion.



> Christianity is immoral



Not many sane, intellectually honest people would agree with you regardless of their belief, but again I expect no less and it's sad.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 8, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Thanks for the spellcheck.  I corrected it.



Freudian slip


----------



## oldfella1962 (Nov 8, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If you take the meaning of "precepts" to mean a moral code you would be absolutely correct.  There is absolutely nothing in atheism that addresses morality nor would form values to deter an individual from mowing down innocent people.
> 
> 
> If however you take a broader definition to include logical suppositions that must be drawn from the conclusion of "No God", then each atheist abides by certain precepts depending on their individual beliefs to answer the big questions in life like "Where did life come from?", Is there a such thing as morals and if so what are they and how do I live my life accordingly?, etc.  Humanism has it's precepts, Buddhism has it's, Nihilism has it's and Secularism has it's own also.   Everybody has to answer the questions and it's false to say that if one is an atheist that they don't have precepts. Atheism DOES have it's own precepts, to say it doesn't is just a cheap answer akin to saying Atheism isn't a religion.  It IS a world view like any other and if you believe in it then it's your religion.
> ...



This begs the question: with the "moral code" of Christianity in their brains is the average person more likely, less likely, or no statistical difference when it comes to committing a mass killing?


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 8, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Self identified "Christians" who commit murder do so in direct contradiction to the tenets of Christ and Christianity and are not Christians.  That's non-debatable. So, it's only hypocrisy if one accepts your notably false  straw man presupposition that they are.(intellectually dishonesty ring a bell here.
> )
> The same cannot be said of Atheism nor those who hold to it's precepts.  Again, non-debatable.
> Wrong again.  Beliefs shape values(or lack thereof) and values dictates actions.  And again, non debatable.
> ...





> Self identified "Christians" who commit murder do so in direct contradiction to the tenets of Christ and Christianity and are not Christians.  That's non-debatable.


2 questions -
1. You haven't given this an ounce of thought have you?
2. Which of the tenets of Christ and Christianity can you break and still be a Christian?
I mean if you are a man you are going to sin right? Sinning is breaking a tenet of Christ and Christianity.
So which are the ones that make you "not a Christian" and which are the ones you can repent and be forgiven for and remain a Christian?
You already said murder is non negotiable.
Is there a chart that shows the tenets that are the really important ones like murder and the ones that are not so important?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 8, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If you take the meaning of "precepts" to mean a moral code you would be absolutely correct.  There is absolutely nothing in atheism that addresses morality nor would form values to deter an individual from mowing down innocent people.
> 
> 
> If however you take a broader definition to include logical suppositions that must be drawn from the conclusion of "No God", then each atheist abides by certain precepts depending on their individual beliefs to answer the big questions in life like "Where did life come from?", Is there a such thing as morals and if so what are they and how do I live my life accordingly?, etc.  Humanism has it's precepts, Buddhism has it's, Nihilism has it's and Secularism has it's own also.   Everybody has to answer the questions and it's false to say that if one is an atheist that they don't have precepts. Atheism DOES have it's own precepts, to say it doesn't is just a cheap answer akin to saying Atheism isn't a religion.  It IS a world view like any other and if you believe in it then it's your religion.



I use the dictionary definition of precept. I don't attempt to make words mean things they do not to suit my purpose. That would be intellectually dishonest and as you well know we can't have that.

precept (prēˈsĕptˌ)►
n.	A rule or principle prescribing a particular course of action or conduct.
n.	Law An authorized direction or order; a writ.

The absence of a parent figure in the sky does not create any precepts whatsoever. Rather it leaves a blank slate. All of those questions you posit are not addressed by atheism just as they are not addressed by the lack of a belief in fairies. It's neither moral or immoral. Except perhaps that it has the moral edge of not engaging in wishful thinking and baseless assertions.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 8, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> 2 questions -
> 1. You haven't given this an ounce of thought have you?
> 2. Which of the tenets of Christ and Christianity can you break and still be a Christian?
> I mean if you are a man you are going to sin right? Sinning is breaking a tenet of Christ and Christianity.
> ...



Logic.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 8, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Logic.


Or in SFD's case, when it comes to this stuff, a complete lack there of 
He's actually trampling all over the fundamental component of Christianity's belief in God's choice of who, how and what to forgive.
No sir, its non negotiable. SFD must be a pretty important guy, making those kind of decisions for his god.
Squeeler was impressed though -


> Schooled!


Yeah, I'm not sure which school but ok....


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 8, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Or in SFD's case, when it comes to this stuff, a complete lack there of
> He's actually trampling all over the fundamental component of Christianity's belief in God's choice of who, how and what to forgive.
> No sir, its non negotiable. SFD must be a pretty important guy, making those kind of decisions for his god.
> Squeeler was impressed though -
> ...



Never mind that the bible is replete with commands to kill people.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 8, 2017)

I learn more about the religious side of Christianity on this forum more than the Christianity forum. I can see the Sadducee and Pharisee types down here and compare that with the "salvation by grace" types on the other forum.

The Sadducees and Pharisees (Christians in name only)


----------



## Israel (Nov 9, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> 2 questions -
> 1. You haven't given this an ounce of thought have you?
> 2. Which of the tenets of Christ and Christianity can you break and still be a Christian?
> I mean if you are a man you are going to sin right? Sinning is breaking a tenet of Christ and Christianity.
> ...



Jesus has told us where murder begins.
Jesus has shown us where life is, and has always been.
Something is either unseated in a man to make room for life or he must continue in blindness.
A man will see it. Or not.

Miracles seen "out there" will not do it, great works and prophesies do not secure it. There is nothing a man can offer of himself to assure himself.

All is either gift and being done for him, or he yet spins his wheels. He can tell himself, or others, in as many ways a thing can be spoken (by practice, by word, by ritual or observance) "I am a christian" and still find a something eating at him, and through him, chewing up others. I _know_ this thing. I know _that place_.

A man cannot _forgive himself._ But, if he is given to see, he knows it is the one thing totally and irrevocably beyond his own grasp, that he _must have_. There is no room for any other desire or knowing there, all else is gone, like ashes. He is, and has been wrong about everything else he may have built his house upon. No matter how seemingly fine, noble, or well accepted those things may have _seemed_. He knows only one thing there. He deserves all the terrors of interminable isolation, "where the worm dieth not". This, and only this, he has earned. But, even being made able to see this, is gift.

You would say "prove to me someone reaches out there, in that place, show me His face, this face of rescue, prove He is real". But, I cannot make you go to that place of such needed rescue, no man can. But a man may not lie against the truth if he has been there, he might have a testimony of life out from the dead, and even learn it is both fitting and needful for him that his testimony not be believed. He has seen the carnage of what he has laid waste previously by all the sleight of hand and word he had worked when he sought so to "make himself" believable to a gain from others. The trades he made to "get" for himself. His skill. His trade. His work. His getting.

No, no man goes there willingly. No man can volunteer himself to it, no man is equipped to unearth himself. No man, despite all his word of craft, really wants to know himself. No man wants that rock turned over. None.

It is good one allowed himself. Completely turned over. To man. He alone is able to bear all examination.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 9, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> I learn more about the religious side of Christianity on this forum more than the Christianity forum. I can see the Sadducee and Pharisee types down here and compare that with the "salvation by grace" types on the other forum.
> 
> The Sadducees and Pharisees (Christians in name only)



CINO's. I love it!!!
You are 100% correct sir.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 9, 2017)

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/good-minus-god/


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 9, 2017)

bullethead said:


> https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/good-minus-god/



I have yet to figure out how the article ties in to the thread; but what I find most agreeable is



> The most reliable allies in any moral struggle will be those who respond to the ethically significant aspects of life, whether or not they conceive these things in religious terms. You do not lose morality by giving up God;


the next clause, however, seems to point to what troubles me about the thrust of the article


> neither do you necessarily find it by finding Him.



I find myself inadequate to the task of expressing the thought succinctly, but it hinges on "finding Him".

His general revelation of "Himself" (the Bible) starts out by saying "In the beginning God"; from which can be drawn that what God commands are a revelation of Himself.  The portion of the article that deals with God's commands (as either the source of morals or statements of morals without (outside of) God) deals with God as though He were some sort of Superman; perhaps a man of another realm; rather than that which is reflective of "In the beginning God".  That same conception of God could be said to underlie the whole of the article.

If you find God, you find the beginning, does that not necessarily include morality.

Waite, the tie-in is atheist's morals ... please excuse my denseness.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 9, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> I have yet to figure out how the article ties in to the thread; but what I find most agreeable is
> 
> 
> the next clause, however, seems to point to what troubles me about the thrust of the article
> ...



Post #25


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 9, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Post #25



Certainly could be dense again, but .


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 9, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Post #25



Is this it?
"atheist morals" vs "atheist's morals"
if so, it was unintentional and I fixed it,
and Thanks.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 9, 2017)

The thing I don't understand or get is that if Atheist have no morals, why do believers of the wrong God? This being based on most Christians believing morals come from God. We are all bad and no one is good. A basic Christian concept. Therefore the reason we need God/Jesus. 

If one is totally depraved and without God can one still have morals? I tend to think so. As a Christian I have to assume the Hindu doesn't have God any more than the Atheist. Therefore under the Christian concept they are both depraved to some extent.
Should I collude that just believing in a god at least psychologically, gives one morals? We could say that non-believers in a Christian nation develop the morals of Christianity just by being born into that society. We would also have to conclude that non-believers being born in a "false god" nation would also develop the morals of that nation as well. Where do non-Christian nations get their morals?

It's all that or either humans had to develop morals to live in a communal village or cave from back in the day. If we were to do a test and throw a bunch of toddlers on an island, would they develop morals or kill each other off? Think Lord of the Flies.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 9, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> If we were to do a test and throw a bunch of toddlers on an island, would they develop morals or kill each other off? Think Lord of the Flies.



I would rather throw a bunch of adults from varying beliefs on an island with no provisions. Eventually they would find common ground and stop this childishness.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Nov 9, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> 2 questions -
> 1. You haven't given this an ounce of thought have you?
> 2. Which of the tenets of Christ and Christianity can you break and still be a Christian?
> I mean if you are a man you are going to sin right? Sinning is breaking a tenet of Christ and Christianity.
> ...



god himself flooded the world and killed almost every - living - creature and fully 100 percent of the humans that he considered evil, and this was early in his career. So is that Christian behavior? Of course this is mind blowing because the god who nearly destroyed/killed the world is the father of the son who forgives those who commit sins such as killing.  

Of course the default reasoning is "we can't understand gods ways" and my default response to that would be "maybe you can't understand my ways either." 

If I flood my neighborhood and kill my neighbors because they are evil will god back me up on this? I'm not trying to nit-pick here, just trying to get a grip on what is the watermark for morality.


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 9, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I would rather throw a bunch of adults from varying beliefs on an island with no provisions. Eventually they would find common ground and stop this childishness.



I don't think they would. Sure they might get along to survive but they still would have different beliefs. That wont change until Revelations or the end of your life cycle when you meet your maker. IMO of course. And no provisions as well. It would be a cool experiment. Hopefully no cannibalism.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Nov 9, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> The thing I don't understand or get is that if Atheist have no morals, why do believers of the wrong God? This being based on most Christians believing morals come from God. We are all bad and no one is good. A basic Christian concept. Therefore the reason we need God/Jesus.
> 
> If one is totally depraved and without God can one still have morals? I tend to think so. As a Christian I have to assume the Hindu doesn't have God any more than the Atheist. Therefore under the Christian concept they are both depraved to some extent.
> Should I collude that just believing in a god at least psychologically, gives one morals? We could say that non-believers in a Christian nation develop the morals of Christianity just by being born into that society. We would also have to conclude that non-believers being born in a "false god" nation would also develop the morals of that nation as well. Where do non-Christian nations get their morals?
> ...



good point - thus the "evolution" of religion. Many thousands of years ago (pre-agriculture AKA pre-civilization) human religion was based on what they experienced through nature, and ancestor worship. This makes sense, because until reading & writing were invented all knowledge was passed along from our elders. 
Obviously we wanted to stay in contact with & give reverence to these now dead elders whose skills enabled them to survive. Also with small groups of people (tribes) there was no need to control or organize people. 

Once agriculture kept people stationary and populations grew & advanced, simple animal & ancestor worship would not cut it - religion needed to be formalized & codified to keep everyone on the same sheet of music, to ensure unity to stay strong against their competing societies who were also getting stronger as human population grew. 

So as society grew more complex, religion grew more complex along with it. Religion is a tool for unifying and uniting a society.


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 9, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> 2 questions -
> 1. You haven't given this an ounce of thought have you?
> 2. Which of the tenets of Christ and Christianity can you break and still be a Christian?
> I mean if you are a man you are going to sin right? Sinning is breaking a tenet of Christ and Christianity.
> ...



Walt, you have a sin chart? You have been holding out.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 9, 2017)

oldfella1962 said:


> god himself flooded the world and killed almost every - living - creature and fully 100 percent of the humans that he considered evil, and this was early in his career. So is that Christian behavior? Of course this is mind blowing because the god who nearly destroyed/killed the world is the father of the son who forgives those who commit sins such as killing.
> 
> Of course the default reasoning is "we can't understand gods ways" and my default response to that would be "maybe you can't understand my ways either."
> 
> If I flood my neighborhood and kill my neighbors because they are evil will god back me up on this? I'm not trying to nit-pick here, just trying to get a grip on what is the watermark for morality.




It really comes down to "His ways are not our ways".  If you believe this, everything else is up for grabs as long as God told you to do it.  If God told you to kill your evil neighbor out of love would you do it?  I suppose that would be a hard one for a believer.  At first I imagine they would think that it's Satan trying to get them to kill their neighbor.  Then they might ask for a sign.  Then they might ask "Why me?".  All the while praying.  When they get to the point where they believe that it's the Lord talking to them then I suppose they either do it or they ignore it.  

What if He starts insisting?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 9, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> The thing I don't understand or get is that if Atheist have no morals, why do believers of the wrong God? This being based on most Christians believing morals come from God. We are all bad and no one is good. A basic Christian concept. Therefore the reason we need God/Jesus.
> 
> If one is totally depraved and without God can one still have morals? I tend to think so. As a Christian I have to assume the Hindu doesn't have God any more than the Atheist. Therefore under the Christian concept they are both depraved to some extent.
> Should I collude that just believing in a god at least psychologically, gives one morals? We could say that non-believers in a Christian nation develop the morals of Christianity just by being born into that society. We would also have to conclude that non-believers being born in a "false god" nation would also develop the morals of that nation as well. Where do non-Christian nations get their morals?
> ...





Miguel Cervantes said:


> I would rather throw a bunch of adults from varying beliefs on an island with no provisions. Eventually they would find common ground and stop this childishness.



We've already got all this evolution hardwired into us as babies.  Add to that all the socialization that we've gotten.  I suppose if you somehow blanked everybody's minds even to the point where they forgot language then that might be a fun game.  

They would size each other up by traits and the highest one's on the dominance hierarchy will get the pretty girls.  Some odd weirdo will claim to be getting messages from the ether.  Big dumb ones will stand guard and the weak will either be shunned or protected.  Modern man, straight "out of the box" has all the software to make art and gods and deception.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 9, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> We've already got all this evolution hardwired into us as babies.  Add to that all the socialization that we've gotten.  I suppose if you somehow blanked everybody's minds even to the point where they forgot language then that might be a fun game.
> 
> They would size each other up by traits and the highest one's on the dominance hierarchy will get the pretty girls.  Some odd weirdo will claim to be getting messages from the ether.  Big dumb ones will stand guard and the weak will either be shunned or protected.  Modern man, straight "out of the box" has all the software to make art and gods and deception.



What girls?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 9, 2017)

I guess a lot of morals are to shunt what comes natural from our evolution such as trying to mate with every available female.
Is lust natural?
Are we born bad and have to learn to be good or are we born good and learn to be bad? Good and bad being our society's ideals.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 9, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> I guess a lot of morals are to shunt what comes natural from our evolution such as trying to mate with every available female.
> Is lust natural?
> Are we born bad and have to learn to be good or are we born good and learn to be bad? Good and bad being our society's ideals.



Now your dabbling with independent genome coding.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 9, 2017)

I wonder if the OP was insinuating that the shooter had to be an Atheist or just showing a coincidence that he was? That by being so he could not possess the morals necessary to not kill people?

The killer could have easily have been a Muslim. If the Church was predominately Black, he could  have been a White Christian. 
I would imagine most abortion bombers proclaim to be Christian.

Then where does the Muslims get their morals? The militant Christian? The peaceful Jainismist? The world conquering Catholics? The rebelling Reformists? The native on a Pacific Island that has never heard of any of this?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 9, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Now your dabbling with independent genome coding.



Sounds like a movie plot. We redo Lord of the Flies with all the kids on the island having synthetic human genome coding.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 10, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> What girls?



Some would still make do.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 10, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> I wonder if the OP was insinuating that the shooter had to be an Atheist or just showing a coincidence that he was? That by being so he could not process the morals necessary to not kill people?
> 
> The killer could have easily have been a Muslim. If the Church was predominately Black, he could  have been a White Christian.
> I would imagine most abortion bombers proclaim to be Christian.
> ...




A very famous atheist said "There are some propositions that are so dangerous that people who believe them should be killed".


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 10, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> A very famous atheist said "There are some propositions that are so dangerous that people who believe them should be killed".



Mr. Harris said


> "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them"


Which I quote from a blog where he complains strongly about being taken out of context by those with whom he disagrees and attributes to them a desire to defame.

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defamation


Makes one wonder what he would say about the difference between



> "...may even be ethical to kill..."
> _Clarified by
> _“If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense.”


and


> "… should be killed."



I imply no malice or deceit; I just want to point out that research, accuracy, and attribution matter.
I know that because I have, and do, mess it up regularly, but I have learned to try — and to check sources.

>>edit<<
BTW, I don't think I agree with Mr. Harris (although I have not read his book); from the excerpt which he supplies, he seems to be relying on the connection he has proposed between belief and action to justify defensive action by the potentially offended party.  That, like hate crime, assumes that we can read the heart of the "offender".  But then, if I read his book, he might convince me that his connection is valid, what he has included in the blog does not.


----------



## Israel (Nov 10, 2017)

The notion of "hate crime" is funny. We'd be wiser if we called it "love crime".

"You stand convicted of loving your own opinions, your own judgments, and your own ways to the harm of another."

What are you wearing to court today? I hate these orange jumpsuits. They make us all look just alike.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 10, 2017)

Israel said:


> The notion of "hate crime" is funny. We'd be wiser if we called it "love crime".
> 
> "You stand convicted of loving your own opinions, your own judgments, and your own ways to the harm of another."
> 
> What are you wearing to court today? I hate these orange jumpsuits. They make us all look just alike.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 10, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> 2 questions -
> 2. Which of the tenets of Christ and Christianity can you break and still be a Christian?



If you truly know what Christianity is about and are HONEST, then you know following Christ is not about breaking tenets, but following them by doing one's best to emulate Christ.  


John 13:34-35 

34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

James 1:22

 Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.

As to the rest of your post............well it's pretty much just as misguided.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 10, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> I use the dictionary definition of precept. I don't attempt to make words mean things they do not to suit my purpose. That would be intellectually dishonest and as you well know we can't have that.
> 
> precept (prēˈsĕptˌ)►
> n.	A rule or principle prescribing a particular course of action or conduct.
> ...



Hey, if you say you have no precepts that guide your morality,  your relationships with others, or your outlook on life who am I to argue.  

In fact, you just highlighted my point that there is nothing in Atheism that would deter anyone from slaughtering innocents, absolutely nothing.  It stands in stark contrast to Christianity.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 10, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If you truly know what Christianity is about and are HONEST, then you know following Christ is not about breaking tenets, but following them by doing one's best to emulate Christ.
> 
> 
> John 13:34-35
> ...


You are amazingly (or purposely) oblivious.


----------



## j_seph (Nov 10, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Besides being mentally unstable I read he was ticked off royally at his Ma-n-Law. Those two combinations are deadly.
> 
> Besides, why weren't the people in the church carrying firearms? I find it highly hypocritical of any organization that professes to believe in God to restrict the rights to it's people that were endowed to them by God.
> 
> That just makes no sense.


Has it been said somewhere that no one in the church had a gun? I have not heard that. I can only imagine sitting in church service, more than likely pews are on each side of church, everyones back is to the door and unless the pastor is preaching no one will see him walk in except the preacher. Imagine inside a building, looks like a small chapel as well and someone comes in firing 20 30 50 60 rounds. How much time does one have to pull out a weapon? One with a weapon maybe already shot, he has been to that church so possibility he knows who carries and who doesn't. In the middle of Chaos are you going to pull weapon first or try to get your family down and safe first? We have those who carry at our church.

If you are following the Lord, and you are a true Christian then doing something such as this ya just ain't going to do.

Does blame fall on Atheist, Christians, or our Gooberment that didn't follow proper protocol to prevent this guy from at least being able to obtain a firearm legally, or for not putting him away for his violent acts to begin with?


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 10, 2017)

j_seph said:


> Has it been said somewhere that no one in the church had a gun? I have not heard that. I can only imagine sitting in church service, more than likely pews are on each side of church, everyones back is to the door and unless the pastor is preaching no one will see him walk in except the preacher. Imagine inside a building, looks like a small chapel as well and someone comes in firing 20 30 50 60 rounds. How much time does one have to pull out a weapon? One with a weapon maybe already shot, he has been to that church so possibility he knows who carries and who doesn't. In the middle of Chaos are you going to pull weapon first or try to get your family down and safe first? We have those who carry at our church.
> 
> If you are following the Lord, and you are a true Christian then doing something such as this ya just ain't going to do.
> 
> Does blame fall on Atheist, Christians, or our Gooberment that didn't follow proper protocol to prevent this guy from at least being able to obtain a firearm legally, or for not putting him away for his violent acts to begin with?





> We have those who carry at our church.


So none of my business and maybe this is already being done but....
Those who carry might want to get organized. 
Lots of steps that can be taken to maximize the possibility that they can make a difference... might be the only chance anybody has.
Not to mention people packed into a church is a pretty FRIENDLY target rich environment too.....


----------



## 2bbshot (Nov 10, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> So none of my business and maybe this is already being done but....
> Those who carry might want to get organized.
> Lots of steps that can be taken to maximize the possibility that they can make a difference... might be the only chance anybody has.
> Not to mention people packed into a church is a pretty FRIENDLY target rich environment too.....[/QUOTE My Church has and has had uniformed armed local officers in the lobby that stand at the doors and plain closed armed deputies in the service. It was admittedly a little odd to me at first but things like this are a prime example of why it was the right decision.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 10, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> You are amazingly (or purposely) oblivious.



I answered your question clearly and concisely, although no doubt, not to your liking.  Let me try again. 

 The fact is that if one loves Christ he/she will not want to break any of his precepts and sin and will strive not to.  I know that doesn't fit into the straw man persona of Christianity you are attempting to portray, but I think almost all Christians would agree with me.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 10, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Hey, if you say you have no precepts that guide your morality,  your relationships with others, or your outlook on life who am I to argue.
> 
> In fact, you just highlighted my point that there is nothing in Atheism that would deter anyone from slaughtering innocents, absolutely nothing.  It stands in stark contrast to Christianity.



Sfd, you do not know what atheism is or is not except for the predisposed notions that you have concocted in your own mind.
Atheism is not believing in god or gods. Period. There is no secret handshake. There are no bylaws or rules or guidelines to go by in order to be an atheist.
We have discussed and have shown how morals have evolved and humans no matter of race creed or beliefs all share morals. You just choose to add in another invisible friend into the mix. 

Get off of your Code of Atheism kick. Atheists dont believe in a god or gods. Anything more is what you convince yourself of in order to feel better about yourself.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 10, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I answered your question clearly and concisely, although no doubt, not to your liking.  Let me try again.
> 
> The fact is that if one loves Christ he/she will not want to break any of his precepts and sin and will strive not to.  I know that doesn't fit into the straw man persona of Christianity you are attempting to portray, but I think almost all Christians would agree with me.



What would jesus do is a far cry from what sfd does. Time for you to follow your advice to everyone else.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 10, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> So none of my business and maybe this is already being done but....
> Those who carry might want to get organized.
> Lots of steps that can be taken to maximize the possibility that they can make a difference... might be the only chance anybody has.
> Not to mention people packed into a church is a pretty FRIENDLY target rich environment too.....



Sadly but it's to the point that the church is no longer a safe haven for those that believe. I remember the days when I worked in public utilities that it doesn't matter if you believe what they do or not, before you enter their place of worship on a service call remove your hat, tuck your shirt tail in and show respect. Now it's a target and more and more churches are starting to initiate some type of security.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 10, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Sfd, you do not know what atheism is or is not except for the predisposed notions that you have concocted in your own mind.
> Atheism is not believing in god or gods. Period. There is no secret handshake. There are no bylaws or rules or guidelines to go by in order to be an atheist.
> We have discussed and have shown how morals have evolved and humans no matter of race creed or beliefs all share morals. You just choose to add in another invisible friend into the mix.
> 
> Get off of your Code of Atheism kick. Atheists dont believe in a god or gods. Anything more is what you convince yourself of in order to feel better about yourself.



Are you telling me that you don’t realize that when you state “There is no God.” that you must now determine what precepts you are going to lead your life by given “There is no God” .  Is that what you are telling me?


----------



## Israel (Nov 10, 2017)

There's little or nothing that compares to the substance of transparency.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 10, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Are you telling me that you don’t realize that when you state “There is no God.” that you must now determine what precepts you are going to lead your life by given “There is no God” .  Is that what you are telling me?


We discussed all this before. It has been explained to you. It has been backed up with facts. Humans have had morals long before they worshipped your god. They have morals when they worship other gods, they have morals when they worship nothing.
Morals have been around longer than your god and like gods they change in favor of the people accordingly.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 11, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Sadly but it's to the point that the church is no longer a safe haven for those that believe. I remember the days when I worked in public utilities that it doesn't matter if you believe what they do or not, before you enter their place of worship on a service call remove your hat, tuck your shirt tail in and show respect. Now it's a target and more and more churches are starting to initiate some type of security.


I would imagine/I would hope, that 999 people out of 1000, regardless of what they do or don't believe, still has that type of respect for another's place of worship.
Its the 1 wacko out of 1000 that sees a church/school/workplace etc as lots of targets packed into a small place......


> more and more churches are starting to initiate some type of security


Sad that they would need to but its the responsible thing to do. But if you think about it, pretty much any event that draws in the public to a specific place like a church does, generally has security of some sorts. So if you can separate out the fact that its a church, having security is really more or less a "standard procedure" and is actually required by law in a lot of cases.
But yeah, if there is one place a religious person should be able to go without fear, it should be their place of worship.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 11, 2017)

bullethead said:


> We discussed all this before. It has been explained to you. It has been backed up with facts. Humans have had morals long before they worshipped your god. They have morals when they worship other gods, they have morals when they worship nothing.
> Morals have been around longer than your god and like gods they change in favor of the people accordingly.


All you have to do is turn on the news. Whats his face in Alabama and the 14 year old girl when he was 34 or whatever.
Wasn't long ago there could have been a church wedding, celebration in the community and dreams of building a family together......
Fast forward to present times..
Cowboy Billy Bob or whatever his name is, is screwed because they kissed.
I mean do you need the change in "what is morally acceptable" to literally kick you in the teeth before you'll get it?


----------



## Israel (Nov 11, 2017)

Fair warning?
"The world is a dangerous place"?


----------



## Israel (Nov 11, 2017)

Sorta like this? Airbags on lamp posts to prevent injury to the textwalkers.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 11, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> I would imagine/I would hope, that 999 people out of 1000, regardless of what they do or don't believe, still has that type of respect for another's place of worship.
> Its the 1 wacko out of 1000 that sees a church/school/workplace etc as lots of targets packed into a small place......
> 
> Sad that they would need to but its the responsible thing to do. But if you think about it, pretty much any event that draws in the public to a specific place like a church does, generally has security of some sorts. So if you can separate out the fact that its a church, having security is really more or less a "standard procedure" and is actually required by law in a lot of cases.
> But yeah, if there is one place a religious person should be able to go without fear, it should be their place of worship.


I am seeing that the majority of folks still respect the churches. And for events such as a wedding or funeral, seeing more folks now that will come in with mud on their shoes, throw their candy wrappers in the floor or sit their kid on the carpet with a bunch of cookies and not even bother to try and clean it up. This is stuff that most folks won't do in their own house, but they have no problem doing it a sanctuary. That type of lack of respect is a generational issue. But years ago, even most wacky folks would remove their hat or not vandalize church property, it just seems now that it's become more of a target. I think you got it right in saying people packed in churches are a friendly target. And I would agree with that churches providing security is the responsible thing to do.

Since the target really isn't limited to churches, my wife and I are taking the responsibility portion a step further, we've been getting our daughter and son in the back yard burning up some rounds over the last several months. They know shotguns and rifles, but I want them just as confident with a hand gun. Daughter turns 21 this year and her present from me is paying for her carry permit and a new .380. She's been deadly with a .380 so far! She's also deadly with the 22 mag revolver that my wife carries.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 11, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I am seeing that the majority of folks still respect the churches. And for events such as a wedding or funeral, seeing more folks now that will come in with mud on their shoes, throw their candy wrappers in the floor or sit their kid on the carpet with a bunch of cookies and not even bother to try and clean it up. This is stuff that most folks won't do in their own house, but they have no problem doing it a sanctuary. That type of lack of respect is a generational issue. But years ago, even most wacky folks would remove their hat or not vandalize church property, it just seems now that it's become more of a target. I think you got it right in saying people packed in churches are a friendly target. And I would agree with that churches providing security is the responsible thing to do.
> 
> Since the target really isn't limited to churches, my wife and I are taking the responsibility portion a step further, we've been getting our daughter and son in the back yard burning up some rounds over the last several months. They know shotguns and rifles, but I want them just as confident with a hand gun. Daughter turns 21 this year and her present from me is paying for her carry permit and a new .380. She's been deadly with a .380 so far! She's also deadly with the 22 mag revolver that my wife carries.


As important as it is to understand the meaning of the 3 B's, it is equally as important to empower ourselves with the 3 G's. 

Beans, Bullets and Bandaides

God, Guns and Guts. 

For our Atheist friends, 2 G's will suffice, you pick which 2.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 11, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> As important as it is to understand the meaning of the 3 B's, it is equally as important to empower ourselves with the 3 G's.
> 
> Beans, Bullets and Bandaides
> 
> ...


Lol as my atheist cousin says "I don't have God, Guns and Guts, I have Grit, Guns and Guts"


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 11, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Lol as my atheist cousin says "I don't have God, Guns and Guts, I have Grit, Guns and Guts"



Well, Thank Grits for that.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 11, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Well, Thank Grits for that.



On a good day he adds Glory to it as long as I don't accuse of him of thinking about the Glory land


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 11, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> On a good day he adds Glory to it as long as I don't accuse of him of thinking about the Glory land



That is where the etymology of a word comes in handy. 

https://www.etymonline.com/word/glory


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 11, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> That is where the etymology of a word comes in handy.
> 
> https://www.etymonline.com/word/glory



Yup


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 11, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Hey, if you say you have no precepts that guide your morality,  your relationships with others, or your outlook on life who am I to argue.
> 
> In fact, you just highlighted my point that there is nothing in Atheism that would deter anyone from slaughtering innocents, absolutely nothing.  It stands in stark contrast to Christianity.



I said atheism has no moral precepts. That doesn't mean atheists have no moral precepts. It just means whatever morals they hold are not from atheism. Like I said before, atheism is amoral, Christianity is immoral. Not holding a belief in gods does not preclude one from having good morals, bad morals, no morals at all, or anything in between.

I hope for your sake you aren't really as dense as you are making yourself look.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 11, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> I said atheism has no moral precepts. That doesn't mean atheists have no moral precepts. It just means whatever morals they hold are not from atheism. Like I said before, atheism is amoral, Christianity is immoral. Not holding a belief in gods does not preclude one from having good morals, bad morals, no morals at all, or anything in between.
> 
> I hope for your sake you aren't really as dense as you are making yourself look.



While on the topic of words, I see nothing in the etymology of the word "moral" that has any relativity or foundation in the Bible. To prescribe such a mandate is purely the product of a mind closed to expanded thinking. 

https://www.etymonline.com/word/moral

In all of the worst traits of human beings, it is not their actions that create the greatest conflicts in history, but it is their words. Words have meaning and understanding their origin, intent and implications can bring peace among men or some of the greatest wars one can imagine.

The old adage "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me" is historically inaccurate and if one chooses to argue this fact from a religious stand point the Bible even reinforces the negative effects of words on a relationship and how damaging they can be.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 11, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Christianity is immoral.



Please elaborate


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 11, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Are you telling me that you don’t realize that when you state “There is no God.” that you must now determine what precepts you are going to lead your life by given “There is no God” .  Is that what you are telling me?



Yes one is left to make that determination. Now make your case that the only moral position one can rationally have in the absence of a god is evil. Maybe you're one of these types that would be out raping and murdering if not for the fear instilled that a sky daddy will punish you? Don't make the assumption that all men are just as morally bankrupt.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 11, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Please elaborate



Vicarious redemption, blood sacrifice for redemption, redemption by way of the murder of an innocent man, the idea that eternal torture or bliss should depend on superstitious belief rather than ones character and actions, the idea of eternal punishment for finite deeds, the idea of original sin, and so on.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 11, 2017)

“The story of the redemption will not stand examination. That man should redeem himself from the sin of eating an apple by committing a murder on Jesus Christ, is the strangest system of religion ever set up.”
— Thomas Paine


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 11, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Vicarious redemption, blood sacrifice for redemption, redemption by way of the murder of an innocent man, the idea that eternal torture or bliss should depend on superstitious belief rather than ones character and actions, the idea of eternal punishment for finite deeds, the idea of original sin, and so on.



Ok aside from your lack of understanding in multiple areas, elaborate on Christianity being immoral. Get to the "so on" part.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 11, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> “The story of the redemption will not stand examination. That man should redeem himself from the sin of eating an apple by committing a murder on Jesus Christ, is the strangest system of religion ever set up.”
> — Thomas Paine



Obviously he is clueless about what he doesn't understand.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 11, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Obviously he is clueless about what he doesn't understand.



Enlighten us about understanding facts compared to using belief as fact.

What is not understood?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 11, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Enlighten us about understanding facts compared to using belief as fact.
> 
> What is not understood?



You really think eating an apple is sin and killing an innocent man is what religion is built on?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 11, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> You really think eating an apple is sin and killing an innocent man is what religion is built on?



What part of christianity does those two events play in christianity?

Take them away and the backbone of the religion changes.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 11, 2017)

Could this, perhaps, be an appropriate place to resurrect the intellectual honesty topic?  Just asking.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 11, 2017)

bullethead said:


> What part of christianity does those two events play in christianity?
> 
> Take them away and the backbone of the religion changes.


Actually if you remove the "apple".....the backbone of the atheist wouldn't exist.
Eating of the forbidden fruit was not the problem. It was the deception that led to disobedience. 

If you don't fully understand and believe the God Head, then you will not grasp anything to do with Jesus and the cross. 

Gentiles do not sacrifice anything. The Jews did a blood sacrifice, through the cross all of that was ended. The Jews rejected Jesus, Gentiles didn't. You can't lump everything into Christianity or religion. At the end of the day, you're either a Jew or Gentile.

There's a lot of Jewish ceremonies still today involving slaughtering something and not eating certain foods. Their refusal to accept what happened at the cross doesn't imply anything that "Christianity" is.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 11, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> “The story of the redemption will not stand examination. That man should redeem himself from the sin of eating an apple by committing a murder on Jesus Christ, is the strangest system of religion ever set up.”
> — Thomas Paine



Some of this should sound familiar to those who visit this forum occasionally.

http://www.deism.com/paine_essay_hall.htm

Just same OLD stuff.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 11, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Actually if you remove the "apple".....the backbone of the atheist wouldn't exist.
> Eating of the forbidden fruit was not the problem. It was the deception that led to disobedience.
> 
> If you don't fully understand and believe the God Head, then you will not grasp anything to do with Jesus and the cross.
> ...



Explain the apple/atheist claim.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 11, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> Could this, perhaps, be an appropriate place to resurrect the intellectual honesty topic?  Just asking.



Yes.
Specifically to what?


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 11, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Yes.
> Specifically to what?



I don't think that my question indicates that I know "Specifically to what?"
Does your responding of "Yes", indicate that you know what?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 11, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Explain the apple/atheist claim.



Eve was decepted by satan. Same ole story that's being told today


----------



## bullethead (Nov 11, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> I don't think that my question indicates that I know "Specifically to what?"
> Does your responding of "Yes", indicate that you know what?



My yes was in reference to this being an appropriate place to discuss it.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 11, 2017)

bullethead said:


> My yes was in reference to this being an appropriate place to discuss it.



Got it.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 11, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Eve was decepted by satan. Same ole story that's being told today


Elaborate in great detail on what that has to do with atheists.

I am getting the feeling that you are linking atheists with devil worshippers.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 11, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Ok aside from your lack of understanding in multiple areas, elaborate on Christianity being immoral. Get to the "so on" part.



What exactly is it I'm not understanding? You've made the assertion, now substantiate it. Be specific.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 11, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Obviously he is clueless about what he doesn't understand.



You seem to hold an authoritative understanding of theology. Must be nice. But the theology he is referring to didn't originate with him.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 11, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I am seeing that the majority of folks still respect the churches. And for events such as a wedding or funeral, seeing more folks now that will come in with mud on their shoes, throw their candy wrappers in the floor or sit their kid on the carpet with a bunch of cookies and not even bother to try and clean it up. This is stuff that most folks won't do in their own house, but they have no problem doing it a sanctuary. That type of lack of respect is a generational issue. But years ago, even most wacky folks would remove their hat or not vandalize church property, it just seems now that it's become more of a target. I think you got it right in saying people packed in churches are a friendly target. And I would agree with that churches providing security is the responsible thing to do.
> 
> Since the target really isn't limited to churches, my wife and I are taking the responsibility portion a step further, we've been getting our daughter and son in the back yard burning up some rounds over the last several months. They know shotguns and rifles, but I want them just as confident with a hand gun. Daughter turns 21 this year and her present from me is paying for her carry permit and a new .380. She's been deadly with a .380 so far! She's also deadly with the 22 mag revolver that my wife carries.


Now that's a good present!
A few years back I gave a female friend a gift certificate to one of those all female defensive carry courses and she thought it was great. Like your daughter she was already a good shot but she said the course helped her with staying calm and reacting properly in a bad situation.
She has a carry permit and carries a nice little Smith&Wesson .38 her dad gave her years ago in her purse.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 11, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Elaborate in great detail on what that has to do with atheists.
> 
> I am getting the feeling that you are linking atheists with devil worshippers.



No that was not my intention. My only point of that was in reference to atheist telling the Christian that God doesn't exist, it's all a fairy tale. The connection for the "the lie" part and nothing else.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 11, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> What exactly is it I'm not understanding? You've made the assertion, now substantiate it. Be specific.



You're substantiating it with your own post.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 11, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> No that was not my intention. My only point of that was in reference to atheist telling the Christian that God doesn't exist, it's all a fairy tale. The connection for the "the lie" part and nothing else.





Spotlite said:


> You really think eating an apple is sin and killing an innocent man is what religion is built on?





bullethead said:


> What part of christianity does those two events play in christianity?



Explain.

You are rambling on about satan and atheists centering around the apple.
So explain how the apple does not play a part of what christianity is built on.

Then we can go onto the killing of an innocent man.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 11, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> You're substantiating it with your own post.



That's not specific. I answered your question with specifics. So far your response amounts to "nuh uh". Pretty weak apologetic response.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 11, 2017)

The fact that you didn't respond with "what's immoral about vicarious redemption, human sacrifice, etc?" proves my point. You can't defend the morality of Christianity and don't attempt to.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 11, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Now that's a good present!
> A few years back I gave a female friend a gift certificate to one of those all female defensive carry courses and she thought it was great. Like your daughter she was already a good shot but she said the course helped her with staying calm and reacting properly in a bad situation.
> She has a carry permit and carries a nice little Smith&Wesson .38 her dad gave her years ago in her purse.


Good deal! Every little bit of help goes a long way.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 11, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> The fact that you didn't respond with "what's immoral about vicarious redemption, human sacrifice, etc?" proves my point. You can't defend the morality of Christianity and don't attempt to.



Why do I have to defend it? You made the claim.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 11, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Why do I have to defend it? You made the claim.



So does the bible.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 11, 2017)

Interesting song about Adam & Eve by Nina Simone.
Forbidden Fruit;


----------



## Israel (Nov 12, 2017)

Perhaps the consideration of the _fruit_ of the _knowledge_ of _good _and _evil_ is best investigated.

What is the fruit that such knowledge may produce? How is it eaten, what "eats" it, and to what effect?

And, if such understanding is seen in the beginnings of man, does there remain a yet (to some) unfulfilled end to be seen, and by its seeing, lead to that fulfillment?

What "undoes" the_ eating of that fruit_? How are its_ effects_...erased? And, if in being erased, with what fruit is it replaced?


One would think that of all men "the christian" should have a working knowledge and understanding of the taste of a fruit that he admits led to his once downfall, and also a knowing of the taste of fruit that has replaced it in his savor.

In other words...if he has had his "taste buds" cleared (so to speak) he should have some understanding of the taste of what is a bitterness and also what is the sweet. If so, how can one man blame another, or not understand how another....with tongue muddied, is unable to distinguish? And what if the exceeding sweetness is of such substance that even what seems righteous blame is now tasted as appalling? The One who "took all the blame" was and is the _only_ sufficient to safely drain its cup.

Something was definitely wronged...and wrong. But this man brought about the end of all complaint _in Himself_, neither to the cursing God and dying, nor the reviling of man, and dying. He simply assigned no blame in His emptying the cup. And in Him, man and God are now reconciled. He willingly stood between "the reproaches of those that reproached Thee, fell upon me". And likewise God's righteous judgment of man, toward man, were meted out there, also.

"As a sheep before its shearers is dumb, so He opened not His mouth"

All of God (let's just for convenience sake call Him the "positive") and all of man (that we might call the negative) had _charges_ against one another. And one was made a willing conductor, a complete and open recipient of each in Himself bringing all that "potential of difference" to ground. What could not "be" together was made one, in a man, and we viewed the result of such a short circuit. That touching of both in one vessel did what it had to do when the uncontainable meets the finitude of flesh.

And a new man was formed. But not with the "frying" of the previous conductor. The believer is a witness of this.

"for the love of the Christ doth constrain us, having judged thus: that if one for all died, then the _whole died_,"

"So that we henceforth have known no one according to the flesh, and even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him no more;"



Having some small knowledge of resistors, I believe I see why some assiduously and instinctually (read "naturally") fear the touching would take place in themself, there's a deep knowing in the creature of its demise if it submits to the touch. Something will manifestly "fry" in their own being. Something that screams "without me, you cannot _even be_"


But the louder that scream against is heard, to a One, the plainer it is (made plain in fury) of its end.

And I think we are all speaking according to matters of our taste.

This place is far more comfortable to me now in seeing "in spirit" those who are quite aware  (even in some residual resistance) that there are far greater ramifications to this "touch" than the popular mumbled canon of so called "christianity" would describe.

Yes, you will know intimately of your own death, but it's been made more than "OK", you will live in a _way_ that life was previously unknown. Not according to the fruit you choose, but the fruit for which you are created, the fruit you are_ given_, as gift.


"Taste and see". The Lord is always and has always been, gracious to you. Resistors come in all shapes and sizes, but only one true Conductor remains. The first born of many brethren.
If christianity has left a "bad taste", I do not doubt your tasting for a moment. Jesus Christ is for the tasting, not "that thing".

Some have, over the years, made quite plain their "issues" with christianity. But Jesus Christ, not christianity, is God's gift to the world. And he already knows of all the _issues_ ("christian" and non) each has with Him. He's not reluctant to explore them. He's not afraid of being reviled. He has even said this:

Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man _will be forgiven_, 


but not without reminding us of this:

but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the one to come.…


We are all, always speaking in behalf...of another. The Holy Spirit bears no testimony of "christianity", but only of that One in whose Name He comes. Jesus Christ. "Christianity" may condemn you, or all of us to the extent it is _allowed_. After all, it is always presenting the "good" christian vs the "bad" one (probably to each of us). But there is only One who is above all comparison, and He is all and only of Whom the Spirit testifies.

Yes, there's really only one place, one stream, in which a man may escape "pigeon holing".
But hating pigeon holing is not enough, one must come to that place of ultimate pigeon holing to find its escape. "I am just a man, like any other". One may fit that hole well enough to hear this:

"Forgive them Father, they know not what they do"

Being the man who "knows better" has a peculiarly hidden hook (for "christian" and non, alike) that can lead to the exquisitely painful lesson of "No, you do not".

And each of us continues in the experiment.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2017)

The absurdity Thomas Paine pointed out isn't reduced by retreating into the metaphorical. And if the fruit wasn't literal then what else in the story wasn't literal?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> What exactly is it I'm not understanding? You've made the assertion, now substantiate it. Be specific.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2017)

atlashunter said:


>



You're not getting any of it. All you understand are commentaries by someone else (e.g. Thomas Paine)

As I said before, your delusional post that misrepresents and falsely claims what redemption is or isn't is indicative that this cricket is all that's there when you read the Bible. You don't believe in it so how could you possibly or remotely understand it???


----------



## Israel (Nov 12, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> Although perceptions are variable—indeed, can not be shown to coincide—and taste is ubiquitous, unperceived taste does not equate to no taste; no taste is necessarily only achieved in nonexistence.  Therefore, can we speak other than from taste.



amen. We speak of what we taste.

For many years I suffered at the dinner table. There was no reconciliation between my father and myself (that I could see). To view it as vignette now, I would be pressed to say there was a man who perceived his son's rejection of green beans as a sort of willfulness, and took it as rejection of this man's wife (by this man's son, also the son of the mother) good efforts to provide for all.
For him it appears (the Father) the son was despising the mother's efforts and provision...out of nothing but spite and willfulness. And, the Father found the taste of green beans..._just fine_. Of course this complicated matters.

Had the son had a way (but alas!) of allowing for the Father's tasting of _green beans_ as they were to the son _himself_, how much strife might have been averted. But, the son is not guiltless, for he was also clever, he was not the lamb he might like to think himself. He could get the other children "to his side", for they all, even if not having his disdain in particular for green beans, they had some issue with a something "else" they found distasteful. This son was clever in division.

And the Father remained rather adamant over all, "you will eat (and appreciate) what your mother has labored over." (It does have some not insignificant bearing that this Father grew up during the depression) But the son was indeed woefully ignorant then to how a soul is formed in disposition toward _things_. All he knew was that to him, the taste was_ evil._

But we are now both of Father and Son. The One who as son tasted the awful weight of the law of sin and death, and how, by the flesh's taking advantage of its natural revulsion (even to what is good, and Holy, and right) was working "through man" in all manner of gross religious concupiscence. The bringing forth of domination instead of humble service. Of bad faith shown, instead of good faith deposited. His taste of God was perfect, even in the law, but his experience as man of "being under it" made Him subject to the grossest of wrong accusation. (You are not tasting rightly what our Father's Abraham and Moses has served us!) You...are the blasphemer!


Which we know he bore with perfect dignity, perfect integrity. Neither despising Moses, nor Abraham for their _some vision_. But he would not deny the truth. One greater than Moses appeared, the One in whom Abraham delighted to see His day.

Of course to the other children (who mistakenly thought themselves...Fathers) the _true child_ appeared as the reviling one, not satisfied with the cooking. It could be no other way to their limits of taste. The limits that were made their own in the fall, and were made their own, in their own "choosing". He was not there to blame them, but to save them. He submitted to the tasting of both...man, and God. He knew the goodness of God, and the revulsion of man to that table.

We get a sense of this taste here:

And Jesus answering said, 'O generation, unstedfast and perverse, till when shall I be with you? till when shall I bear you? bring him to me hither;'

Till when shall I bear you? How long must I suffer you?


(and this was said in response to this):

"I brought him to Your disciples, but they could not heal him.”

How long does Jesus stay? How deeply will he abide with us in all our yet remaining blindness?

I had this dream just barely a few months ago. To you Hummer I share it, though this be an open forum.


There were two men hanging, almost as though on coat hooks...no "religious" iconography of cross or crucifix was evident. They hung, side by side. The man to my left was obviously sickly and pale and I "knew" (as one knows in dreams) he was receiving life support from the man on the right.
Then I _overheard_ these words in conversation between two that were "not me".

How long shall we sustain him? We could stop and "cut our losses". Said the first voice.
The second voice then asked "what will happen to him if we do?"

The first voice answered "He will first go completely blind, and then completely lose his mind"

And the moment this was uttered, I was "in" the experience of that terror. Completely cut off in the blindness of total isolation with the impending and quite real coming of what terrorized me in consequence...and I awoke. 

In terror, and pleadings.

In whatever measure a man knows a thing, I know this of a place where consciousness becomes its own terror to itself, locked in, locked up and turned completely over to "itself" without hope of ever, or any further "communication", communing...with another.

I will not say this is the he11 where the "worm dieth not", but whatever taste of that terror I have been allowed...I know it is not a place a man can manage.

That he hath been _cut off from the land of the living_? By the transgression of My people he is plagued,
YLT


I am just only beginning to appreciate how "cut off" he allowed, and entered, for my sake. And how this question of "how long shall I suffer you" was answered in this:

having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.


I am just beginning to believe.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> The absurdity Thomas Paine pointed out isn't reduced by retreating into the metaphorical. And if the fruit wasn't literal then what else in the story wasn't literal?


The same Thomas Paine that took a radical approach against religion?? 

No one said that the fruit was a metaphor. The downfall was deception by a lie by satan and the disobedience of Eve and Adam. That is still going on today. Trying to understand that story with the burden of disbelief on your shoulders is an impossible task, and evidence that the "lie and deception" tactic is still being carried out. 

Now, when are you going to provide facts that Christianity is immoral?? A retreat to a Thomas Paine quote is not enough. You have to enough about the Bible to condemn it. So get into context in atlas words and not someone else's and validate your claim.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> The same Thomas Paine that took a radical approach against religion??
> 
> No one said that the fruit was a metaphor. The downfall was deception by a lie by satan and the disobedience of Eve and Adam. That is still going on today. Trying to understand that story with the burden of disbelief on your shoulders is an impossible task, and evidence that the "lie and deception" tactic is still being carried out.
> 
> Now, when are you going to provide facts that Christianity is immoral?? A retreat to a Thomas Paine quote is not enough. You have to enough about the Bible to condemn it. So get into context in atlas words and not someone else's and validate your claim.


You ask others to do what you refuse or are incapable of doing yourself.
You have left many direct questions unanswered only to pop back in much later and continue on ignoring the previous questions while only providing meritless claims for answers when you do answer. 

The Paine quote is simple to understand as it gets right to the point of atlas's claim.
If you want to discuss the immoral acts in the bible I am game, but you are going to have to explain in detail why I am wrong instead of coming back with a baseless claim.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 12, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> The absurdity Thomas Paine pointed out isn't reduced by retreating into the metaphorical. And if the fruit wasn't literal then what else in the story wasn't literal?



Only to illustrate that another view is possible.

Following upon “The Age of Reason”, and accounting for the context of the essay, the portion of the essay in question is best understood, not as pointing to absurdity, but as an example of “illustration by taking to the absurd” applying to the point of the essay: that being that “Christianity” is not grounded on human reason (which he claims Deism is).  While that is, for Paine, sufficient reason to reject the faith, it is something with which many, I think most, believers, then and now, would not disagree (although, “not grounded on human reason” does not, so smoothly as some would have it, extend to “is unreasonable”).


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 12, 2017)

Israel said:


> amen. We speak of what we taste.
> 
> For many years I suffered at the dinner table. There was no reconciliation between my father and myself (that I could see). To view it as vignette now, I would be pressed to say there was a man who perceived his son's rejection of green beans as a sort of willfulness, and took it as rejection of this man's wife (by this man's son, also the son of the mother) good efforts to provide for all.
> For him it appears (the Father) the son was despising the mother's efforts and provision...out of nothing but spite and willfulness. And, the Father found the taste of green beans..._just fine_. Of course this complicated matters.
> ...



Thank You Brother 
(a term of which I have yet to imagine the depth)


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> You're not getting any of it. All you understand are commentaries by someone else (e.g. Thomas Paine)
> 
> As I said before, your delusional post that misrepresents and falsely claims what redemption is or isn't is indicative that this cricket is all that's there when you read the Bible. You don't believe in it so how could you possibly or remotely understand it???



What a silly question. Since when does understanding require belief? Can one only understand the story of Santa and Rudolph if they believe it belongs in the nonfiction section?  And if belief precedes understanding why should anyone believe in something they are unable to comprehend in the first place?

You still haven't provided any specifics of what you think I'm wrong about or why. Was Jesus not an innocent man? Was he not murdered? Does Christianity not teach that your wrong doings are paid for by the shedding of his blood? Does it not teach that the only way to be saved is through belief in this doctrine? Does it not teach that nonbelievers face an eternity in a lake of fire? If the best you can do is say "you're wrong" without explaining in detail what I'm wrong about and why all you're doing is making noise. The more it continues the more it appears you have no response except that you don't like what I've said. Which is fine. It's what I expect from the religiously indoctrinated. Just acknowledge you don't like the immorality of Christianity being pointed out (even though you asked for it) but can't show where I'm wrong and move on.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2017)

bullethead said:


> You ask others to do what you refuse or are incapable of doing yourself.
> You have left many direct questions unanswered only to pop back in much later and continue on ignoring the previous questions while only providing meritless claims for answers when you do answer.
> 
> The Paine quote is simple to understand as it gets right to the point of atlas's claim.
> If you want to discuss the immoral acts in the bible I am game, but you are going to have to explain in detail why I am wrong instead of coming back with a baseless claim.



Pretty simple.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2017)

bullethead said:


> You ask others to do what you refuse or are incapable of doing yourself.
> You have left many direct questions unanswered only to pop back in much later and continue on ignoring the previous questions while only providing meritless claims for answers when you do answer.
> 
> The Paine quote is simple to understand as it gets right to the point of atlas's claim.
> If you want to discuss the immoral acts in the bible I am game, but you are going to have to explain in detail why I am wrong instead of coming back with a baseless claim.



Bullet, atlas made the claim that Christianity is immoral. You seem to feel the same way. 

See I'm in the other seat now. Before it was y'all telling me that I'm making the claim that God exist and since I made the claim, the burden of proof is on me. Now, validate YOUR proof without retreating to someone's quote or commentary.

Yea I refuse to answer some questions because the asker doesn't want or will refuse an answer because they've already made their mind up. It's senseless to keep beating a dead horse. I've already stated to you that I can't prove anything to you, what is your point of the repetitious questions?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> What a silly question. Since when does understanding require belief? Can one only understand the story of Santa and Rudolph if they believe it belongs in the nonfiction section?  And if belief precedes understanding why should anyone believe in something they are unable to comprehend in the first place?
> 
> You still haven't provided any specifics of what you think I'm wrong about or why. Was Jesus not an innocent man? Was he not murdered? Does Christianity not teach that your wrong doings are paid for by the shedding of his blood? Does it not teach that the only way to be saved is through belief in this doctrine? Does it not teach that nonbelievers face an eternity in a lake of fire? If the best you can do is say "you're wrong" without explaining in detail what I'm wrong about and why all you're doing is making noise. The more it continues the more it appears you have no response except that you don't like what I've said. Which is fine. It's what I expect from the religiously indoctrinated. Just acknowledge you don't like the immorality of Christianity being pointed out (even though you asked for it) but can't show where I'm wrong and move on.


You don't understand the concept or the purpose of Jesus and you don't fully understand the cross. The Christian didn't decide any of that, God himself chose that. God said without the shedding of blood, there's no remission of sin. The Jews slaughtered goats and birds, and that only pushed their sins aside for a year. You have to understand and believe the God Head to understand that Jesus was the son of God (the flesh part) and was actually God robed in flesh. The blood of Jesus covers our sins. All of that is finished.  And no I don't like what you said about Christianity being immoral because it's degrading. Even my own atheist cousin says that even though god doesn't exist and the Bible is false, it has a good standard of living. Don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat on your wife, etc.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Bullet, atlas made the claim that Christianity is immoral. You seem to feel the same way.
> 
> See I'm in the other seat now. Before it was y'all telling me that I'm making the claim that God exist and since I made the claim, the burden of proof is on me. Now, validate YOUR proof without retreating to someone's quote or commentary.
> 
> Yea I refuse to answer some questions because the asker doesn't want or will refuse an answer because they've already made their mind up. It's senseless to keep beating a dead horse. I've already stated to you that I can't prove anything to you, what is your point of the repetitious questions?



I answered your question _in detail._ You haven't answered mine which should have been easy given your inerrant theological prowess. Here's another one for you.

Is human sacrifice immoral?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> You don't understand the concept or the purpose of Jesus and you don't fully understand the cross. The Christian didn't decide any of that, God himself chose that. God said without the shedding of blood, there's no remission of sin. The Jews slaughtered goats and birds, and that only pushed their sins aside for a year. You have to understand and believe the God Head to understand that Jesus was the son of God (the flesh part) and was actually God robed in flesh. The blood of Jesus covers our sins. All of that is finished.  And no I don't like what you said about Christianity being immoral because it's degrading. Even my own atheist cousin says that even though god doesn't exist and the Bible is false, it has a good standard of living. Don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat on your wife, etc.



In other words what I said was true but I'm wrong about it being immoral because "God said so". Or put more honestly, Christians claim "God said so". You think the immoral can be rendered moral as long as it comes from god. I disagree. If god instructs you to kill your child that doesn't make killing your child a moral act it just makes god an evil monster.

Your atheist cousin is wrong. The defining doctrine of Christianity is not "don't kill and don't steal". Plenty of other religions have that covered and Christianity says those people are doomed to burn. What sets Christianity apart is the gospel and the doctrine that goes with it. According to Christianity the Jews that were shot and gassed by the Nazis are going to the lake of fire because they rejected the divinity of Christ. Their catholic murderers on the other hand who repent and accept the blood of the lamb will go to heaven. Ask your atheist cousin how moral that is.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Bullet, atlas made the claim that Christianity is immoral. You seem to feel the same way.
> 
> See I'm in the other seat now. Before it was y'all telling me that I'm making the claim that God exist and since I made the claim, the burden of proof is on me. Now, validate YOUR proof without retreating to someone's quote or commentary.
> 
> Yea I refuse to answer some questions because the asker doesn't want or will refuse an answer because they've already made their mind up. It's senseless to keep beating a dead horse. I've already stated to you that I can't prove anything to you, what is your point of the repetitious questions?


Slavery.
Do you need specific verses or are you familiar with your bible?

Please explain why you do not own slaves even though your scripture not only thinks it is ok, but commands it.

I asked you to explain how the apple and the killing of an innocent man were not big parts of christianity. You went off on a devil babble and never even remotely touched the question.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> You don't understand the concept or the purpose of Jesus and you don't fully understand the cross. The Christian didn't decide any of that, God himself chose that. God said without the shedding of blood, there's no remission of sin. The Jews slaughtered goats and birds, and that only pushed their sins aside for a year. You have to understand and believe the God Head to understand that Jesus was the son of God (the flesh part) and was actually God robed in flesh. The blood of Jesus covers our sins. All of that is finished.  And no I don't like what you said about Christianity being immoral because it's degrading. Even my own atheist cousin says that even though god doesn't exist and the Bible is false, it has a good standard of living. Don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat on your wife, etc.



So god who is also Jesus, was ok with what the Jews did for a few thousand years to appease him but then god who is also Jesus sent himself down to change things. The prophecy in the OT tells about the messiah and the jews are still waiting for that to be fulfilled, so in essence the god that they worship couldnt even fulfill his own set of rules or else the jews would be christians.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> You don't understand the concept or the purpose of Jesus and you don't fully understand the cross. The Christian didn't decide any of that, God himself chose that. God said without the shedding of blood, there's no remission of sin. The Jews slaughtered goats and birds, and that only pushed their sins aside for a year. You have to understand and believe the God Head to understand that Jesus was the son of God (the flesh part) and was actually God robed in flesh. The blood of Jesus covers our sins. All of that is finished.  And no I don't like what you said about Christianity being immoral because it's degrading. Even my own atheist cousin says that even though god doesn't exist and the Bible is false, it has a good standard of living. Don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat on your wife, etc.



So all of the murder of women and children, rape, incest, taking women as spoils of war, slavery and  genocide are according to the bible and your knowledgeable cousin.....good standards of living?

You need to read the parts of the bible that are not constantly read over and over again at sunday service.

I believed the bible wholeheartedly until I read it all. After a few times reading it I was convinced that these were the writings of ancient men who's values and morals shown through in their attempts to explain their history.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 12, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Bullet, atlas made the claim that Christianity is immoral. You seem to feel the same way.
> 
> See I'm in the other seat now. Before it was y'all telling me that I'm making the claim that God exist and since I made the claim, the burden of proof is on me. Now, validate YOUR proof without retreating to someone's quote or commentary.
> 
> Yea I refuse to answer some questions because the asker doesn't want or will refuse an answer because they've already made their mind up. It's senseless to keep beating a dead horse. I've already stated to you that I can't prove anything to you, what is your point of the repetitious questions?


My .02 cents -


> Bullet, atlas made the claim that Christianity is immoral. You seem to feel the same way.


First, I'm not sure "Christianity", in and of itself, can be immoral. Technically, its just a name for a group of people who worship Christ.
However can/does Christianity have certain elements/stories/beliefs/teachings that one could legitimately claim to be immoral?
Absolutely.
Right off the bat you start off with the Flood story.
I find that story and God's supposed actions in it, to be in fact, what our society deems to be, immoral.
Can I back that up? Easily. 
Bullet and Atlas gave you a number of other examples. 
You will come up with all the standard Christian reasons why those actions aren't immoral so before you type them out, please note what I highlighted in red.
Sooo.... does that make the entirety of Christianity "immoral"? In my opinion no.
Does it have elements that in fact would be considered immoral by todays standards in our culture?
Lots and lots of them.

And of course, yes there are numerous elements of very positive morality too.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 12, 2017)

Along the lines of what I preach to my kid, regarding words in sentences have specific meanings. I had to pause to wonder if the shooter had been a "militant christian" would SFD have bothered to make this same thread in the appropriate forum?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 12, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Along the lines of what I preach to my kid, regarding words in sentences have specific meanings. I had to pause to wonder if the shooter had been a "militant christian" would SFD have bothered to make this same thread in the appropriate forum?



Of course he would. He's intellectually honest.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 12, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> My .02 cents -
> 
> First, I'm not sure "Christianity", in and of itself, can be immoral. Technically, its just a name for a group of people who worship Christ.
> However can/does Christianity have certain elements/stories/beliefs/teachings that one could legitimately claim to be immoral?
> ...


I have no problem with this.....

But to boldly state that "Christianity is immoral" is an ignorant statement when basing it on events of an ancient culture and Jewish laws to today's culture. 

By design, the wicked will always be destroyed. What is immoral about that? Is the death penalty immoral?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 12, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Along the lines of what I preach to my kid, regarding words in sentences have specific meanings. I had to pause to wonder if the shooter had been a "militant christian" would SFD have bothered to make this same thread in the appropriate forum?



Or if he had been a white Christian in an all black Church. What forum would he have used if it was a God believing Muslim who killed the Christians in the Church? That would have been a killer no doubt with the morals instilled by his God.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I have no problem with this.....
> 
> But to boldly state that "Christianity is immoral" is an ignorant statement when basing it on events of an ancient culture and Jewish laws to today's culture.
> 
> By design, the wicked will always be destroyed. What is immoral about that? Is the death penalty immoral?


Pssst, your events of an ancient culture is THE word of god according to christians.
Which is it spotlite?


And hey, since you are back and chatty, can you explain why slavery is not immoral?
How about all the others that I mentioned that you again conveniently skipped over?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 12, 2017)

I can offer an example which I just read in Zechariah 14:2. It entails God  using Gentile nations as his instruments in this trial of his people. I can see even the battle as moral but it also included rape. 
Given this is based on our morals of today as mentioned earlier;

Zechariah 14:2
I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.

This doesn't make Christianity immoral. It just let's us know who owns the ant farm.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 12, 2017)

I was reading about a woman who says her mother & grandmother were mean and abused her back in the Fifties era. She gave some examples such as her grandmother beating her because she wrung the washrag out counterclockwise instead of clockwise.
One response in the discussion was this was normal back in that era. Then we have the example of the politician in Alabama and the 14 year old girl. Back in the Seventies 17 year old boys were still dating 14 year old girls. Moral back then but not now.

My Mom and Dad told me of some of the discipline they received  when they were children that would be considered immoral by today's standards. I even considered it mean myself.

What about how Blacks were treated in the Fifties? Was this really immoral or just the result of our elder's indoctrination? 

Point being morals do change.


----------



## Israel (Nov 13, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> My .02 cents -
> 
> First, I'm not sure "Christianity", in and of itself, can be immoral. Technically, its just a name for a group of people who worship Christ.
> However can/does Christianity have certain elements/stories/beliefs/teachings that one could legitimately claim to be immoral?
> ...


 

Men, of themselves, are extremely poor at seeing the end of their most "noble" impulses. Of course if they imagine their own impulses is toward good, they cannot help but believe the end will be no less.

I love the "But, What About Adolph?" short story. Have you read it? No bother, neither have I.


It's just the trite time travel sci fi kinda thing a juvenile might enjoy. You know, the "we'll fix something" by going back and adjusting events. 

Suffice it to say those dispatched to a mission end up making more of a mess of "their" present by thinking they could monkey with things. They make a present totally untenable to themselves (but of course, perfectly amenable to those "in it") and enter into the horror that can only come to those who "know better".

Wait, I don't think it's begging to be written. Some writer guy already said this:

“You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from.”

Go ahead...seek to "impose" your morals against God. 

Are you gonna skin that smoke wagon, or just stand there bleeding?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 13, 2017)

Israel said:


> Go ahead...seek to "impose" your morals against God.
> 
> Are you gonna skin that smoke wagon, or just stand there bleeding?



Said the slave master to the abolitionist. Perhaps we should bring back the death penalty for witches as well? Man has already moved beyond the morality found in the Bible. Not perfect but we've definitely made progress. If you prefer the morality of the Bronze Age perhaps a one way ticket to Afghanistan would get you a bit closer to that.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 13, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Pssst, your events of an ancient culture is THE word of god according to christians.
> Which is it spotlite?
> 
> 
> ...



Your making the claim lol. You've done nothing but claim and accuse. I don't know of any Christian that remotely even thinks slavery is moral. Since you're an expert on the Bible and Jewish laws, rather than randomly throw dirt,  why don't you explain biblical slavery with a scripture and lets see if you get it right. Your above comment is a really good indicator that you really didn't understand the purpose of the cross and what it did away with that also included a lot of man made laws. I guess 2000 years from now people will still scream Christianity is immoral because the "law" allowed 40 year old male perverts to enter the same restroom with an 8 year old little girl.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 13, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I have no problem with this.....
> 
> But to boldly state that "Christianity is immoral" is an ignorant statement when basing it on events of an ancient culture and Jewish laws to today's culture.



That's what the Christian bible is based on. The crucifixion itself is an ancient event that happened under those Jewish laws and culture. Why shouldn't the doctrine of a religion be scrutinized along with everything in its foundational text? Especially in light of the bold claim of its inerrancy?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 13, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> I answered your question _in detail._ You haven't answered mine which should have been easy given your inerrant theological prowess. Here's another one for you.
> 
> Is human sacrifice immoral?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 13, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Your making the claim lol. You've done nothing but claim and accuse. I don't know of any Christian that remotely even thinks slavery is moral. Since you're an expert on the Bible and Jewish laws, rather than randomly throw dirt,  why don't you explain biblical slavery with a scripture and lets see if you get it right. Your above comment is a really good indicator that you really didn't understand the purpose of the cross and what it did away with that also included a lot of man made laws. I guess 2000 years from now people will still scream Christianity is immoral because the "law" allowed 40 year old male perverts to enter the same restroom with an 8 year old little girl.



Did it do away with slavery?


----------



## Israel (Nov 13, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Said the slave master to the abolitionist. Perhaps we should bring back the death penalty for witches as well? Man has already moved beyond the morality found in the Bible. Not perfect but we've definitely made progress. If you prefer the morality of the Bronze Age perhaps a one way ticket to Afghanistan would get you a bit closer to that.



Hey, have you ever thanked God for the grace toward you that allows for a world in which you can parade your refined sensibilities? It's pretty cool...huh? Here you get to look like the "better" one.

Look everyone a "better" man!


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 13, 2017)

Israel said:


> Hey, have you ever thanked God for the grace toward you that allows for a world in which you can parade your refined sensibilities? It's pretty cool...huh? Here you get to look like the "better" one.
> 
> Look everyone a "better" man!


----------



## Israel (Nov 13, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Of course he would. He's intellectually honest.



I smell blood in the water, have for days.
Or maybe just an invite to a good ole fashioned pile on.

Before SFD posted this thread there was another that appeared. 

It was "Jesus needed them more".

Far as I can tell it was a commentary on the words that came out of several vessels after being pummeled by a "thing" with brickbats of such grief and grievous nature. It appeared the thread starter had some issue with the sounds coming out in such pummeling.

I don't think he opted for a "better theology" or more sound theological statement, but it was fair enough occasion to throw some shade as to his "reason" vs the sounds he heard coming out of them.

Be free y'all. Nothing hidden except to be revealed.

But seriously whose hands are now "clean enough" to judge SFD?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Your making the claim lol. You've done nothing but claim and accuse. I don't know of any Christian that remotely even thinks slavery is moral. Since you're an expert on the Bible and Jewish laws, rather than randomly throw dirt,  why don't you explain biblical slavery with a scripture and lets see if you get it right. Your above comment is a really good indicator that you really didn't understand the purpose of the cross and what it did away with that also included a lot of man made laws. I guess 2000 years from now people will still scream Christianity is immoral because the "law" allowed 40 year old male perverts to enter the same restroom with an 8 year old little girl.



Listen spotty, try not to wallow in your own dishonesty.
According to christians the contents of scripture is the word of god. All the verses that specify slavery come from your commander. Slavery is an immoral act. It certainly was not considered immoral back when the bible was written and that shows that morals are relative to the times. 150 years ago slave owners used to bible to justify their actions. Today, not so much.

Don't try to use a red herring about laws today giving christians a bad rap in the future. Stick to the rape, genocide, slavery, incest, horrible treatment of women and spoils of war that are contained in your bible right now. Look at them. Read the context of them. Then tell me whether or not they are moral or immoral acts.

And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant....Exodus 21:7

Thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you: of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land. And they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bond-man forever.Leviticus 25:44-46

If a man smite his servant or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished; notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money.Exodus 21:20-21

And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.Exodus 21:26-27


If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver.Exodus 21:32


And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.Leviticus 19:20

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.Deuteronomy 20:10-11

But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself.Deuteronomy 20:14


Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.Ephesians 6:5

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.Colossians 3:22

Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.Colossians 4:1

Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise ... he is proud, knowing nothing.... From such withdraw thyself.1 Timothy 6:1-5

Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.Titus 2:9-10

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.1 Peter 2:18


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 13, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Listen spotty, try not to wallow in your own dishonesty.
> According to christians the contents of scripture is the word of god. All the verses that specify slavery come from your commander. Slavery is an immoral act.



Then why does it still exist, to this very day? Certainly it isn't the Bible prescribing it as the justification, especially since it is most prevalent in "non-Christian" countries.

The world is morally bankrupt and I can't believe that one can be blamed on Christianity. But I could be wrong, I was three times in the past, maybe four.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 13, 2017)

Israel said:


> I smell blood in the water, have for days.
> Or maybe just an invite to a good ole fashioned pile on.
> 
> Before SFD posted this thread there was another that appeared.
> ...



A "better theology"? Go back and read it again. I didn't put any words in their mouth. I simply quoted what they said and pointed out the logical implications of the statement. Let's not pretend such nonsensical feel good statements are outside the norm for Christians. The motivation for their statement was not denied. Just one more example showing how religion is the opiate of the masses.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 13, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Then why does it still exist, to this very day? Certainly it isn't the Bible prescribing it as the justification, especially since it is most prevalent in "non-Christian" countries.
> 
> The world is morally bankrupt and I can't believe that one can be blamed on Christianity. But I could be wrong, I was three times in the past, maybe four.



Not following your logic on this one.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Then why does it still exist, to this very day? Certainly it isn't the Bible prescribing it as the justification, especially since it is most prevalent in "non-Christian" countries.
> 
> The world is morally bankrupt and I can't believe that one can be blamed on Christianity. But I could be wrong, I was three times in the past, maybe four.


I am not blaming christianity as the source.
What I am trying to show is that the bible is nothing more than man made and it's contents reflect the values and morals and actions of the times. It is no greater or lesser than the men that wrote it. 
But many christians ,and people within all religions are no different,  try to pass the contents of the bible as being the word of god.  They say the morals of humans come from this god. I think that I can make a good case that  IF  in fact the bible is the work of god, then according to today's society(at least in predominantly christian countries) the followers are more moral than the god that they follow.
What I really think is that the bible is a product of the culture of the time and the contents reflect the morals of those times.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Then why does it still exist, to this very day? Certainly it isn't the Bible prescribing it as the justification, especially since it is most prevalent in "non-Christian" countries.
> 
> The world is morally bankrupt and I can't believe that one can be blamed on Christianity. But I could be wrong, I was three times in the past, maybe four.


If the god that christians follow condones slavery, why don't christians continue on with it?

I can see why they wouldn't follow man made morals that evolve according to culture, society, situation.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Your making the claim lol. You've done nothing but claim and accuse. I don't know of any Christian that remotely even thinks slavery is moral. Since you're an expert on the Bible and Jewish laws, rather than randomly throw dirt,  why don't you explain biblical slavery with a scripture and lets see if you get it right. Your above comment is a really good indicator that you really didn't understand the purpose of the cross and what it did away with that also included a lot of man made laws. I guess 2000 years from now people will still scream Christianity is immoral because the "law" allowed 40 year old male perverts to enter the same restroom with an 8 year old little girl.


Tell me why you don't know a christian that even remotely thinks slavery is moral.

If your god does why don't you?

It says a lot about what you and most christians really think of scripture. Chery pick the nice stuff and ignore the things that do not go along with the claims.
You have higher morals than your god. Think about that.
You reject slavery but your god not only condones it but gives instructions on how badly a master can beat his slave.


----------



## Israel (Nov 13, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> A "better theology"? Go back and read it again. I didn't put any words in their mouth. I simply quoted what they said and pointed out the logical implications of the statement. Let's not pretend such nonsensical feel good statements are outside the norm for Christians. The motivation for their statement was not denied. Just one more example showing how religion is the opiate of the masses.



Right. Make your hay while the sun shines.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 13, 2017)

Israel said:


> Right. Make your hay while the sun shines.



"I'm praying for you."

"Everything happens for a reason."

"God doesn't give us more than we can handle."

"Just turn it over to God."

"We all have our cross to bear."

"They are in a better place now."


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 13, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Then why does it still exist, to this very day? Certainly it isn't the Bible prescribing it as the justification, especially since it is most prevalent in "non-Christian" countries.
> 
> The world is morally bankrupt and I can't believe that one can be blamed on Christianity. But I could be wrong, I was three times in the past, maybe four.



My thoughts as well. It only further demonstrates the lack of understanding, which is ok.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 13, 2017)

bullethead said:


> I am not blaming christianity as the source.
> What I am trying to show is that the bible is nothing more than man made and it's contents reflect the values and morals and actions of the times. It is no greater or lesser than the men that wrote it.


If it is merely a man made source then how different is that from what the Atheist is following for their moral compass? 


bullethead said:


> If the god that christians follow condones slavery, why don't christians continue on with it?


I'm not certain, as I don't know ever inch of scripture, plus my Cranial RAM isn't such that has the recall capacity for such that well, but I do believe that was in the Old Testament. There are many things in the Old Testament that were done away with and are no longer followed. 

Does that explain why followers of other faiths / religions do continue on with slavery in their countries? Furthermore does their doctrine condone it in writing? or is it just a cultural thing that they never managed to let go of?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 13, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Tell me why you don't know a christian that even remotely thinks slavery is moral.



None that I have ever met even knows anyone that thinks slavery is moral. Most, I included wont even listen to your vomit about it. Listening to an atheist try to explain scripture is like listening to an English speaking only person try to explain Spanish.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 13, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> None that I have ever met even knows anyone that thinks slavery is moral. Most, I included wont even listen to your vomit about it. Listening to an atheist try to explain scripture is like listening to an English speaking only person try to explain Spanish.



I take offense to that.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> If it is merely a man made source then how different is that from what the Atheist is following for their moral compass?


It is not any different. That is how to tell that no god is involved. 



Miguel Cervantes said:


> I'm not certain, as I don't know ever inch of scripture, plus my Cranial RAM isn't such that has the recall capacity for such that well, but I do believe that was in the Old Testament. There are many things in the Old Testament that were done away with and are no longer followed.


I posted scripture from both the OT and the NT.
Good old Paul had some pro slavery morals.



Miguel Cervantes said:


> Does that explain why followers of other faiths / religions do continue on with slavery in their countries? Furthermore does their doctrine condone it in writing? or is it just a cultural thing that they never managed to let go of?


I would say that other religions continue with slavery because it is cultural and they still follow their holy books that condone it unlike christians who have somehow gained more morality than the god they worship.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 13, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Does that explain why followers of other faiths / religions do continue on with slavery in their countries? Furthermore does their doctrine condone it in writing? or is it just a cultural thing that they never managed to let go of?



Islam condones it in writing. Nobody said christianity was the only immoral religion.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 13, 2017)

bullethead said:


> It is not any different. That is how to tell that no god is involved.
> 
> 
> I posted scripture from both the OT and the NT.
> ...





atlashunter said:


> Islam condones it in writing. Nobody said christianity was the only immoral religion.



Not to begrudge you gentlemen, but would you both mind posting those scriptures from the Bible (NT) and Quran that cite these beliefs?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> None that I have ever met even knows anyone that thinks slavery is moral. Most, I included wont even listen to your vomit about it. Listening to an atheist try to explain scripture is like listening to an English speaking only person try to explain Spanish.


Comprehension is not your speciality.
Of course you dont know any christian that thinks slavery is moral. You and they know it is not. But you and they continue to use the bible that condones it and within the scripture contained in the bible your god commands it and sets ground rules for it. 

The vomit that comes from my mouth is scripture.
I used what it printed in your bible as proof that the religion you follow was pro slavery. Dont cry like it is my fault that the words you worship are immoral. You ASKED me to post the scripture and now you are shocked and in denial that it is in there. 

You can throw a hissy fit and throw your fingers in your ears all you want. It doesn't change the fact that what is contained in scripture promotes slavery. I even gave you the verses. Go look them up.  Then throw a tantrum in the corner and come back in here and pretend that they dont say what they really say and continue on in here avoiding giving honest answers.
You have showed your true colors.

And,for the 1000th time, I am not an atheist. I am well versed and obviously way more well schooled in the bible than you are. You don't even know it's contents. 
Falso creyente dishonesto, comprende?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Not to begrudge you gentlemen, but would you both mind posting those scriptures from the Bible (NT) and Quran that cite these beliefs?



Post 151. 
Spotlite is blind to it.

I know you are more honest.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 13, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Post 151.
> Spotlite is blind to it.
> 
> I know you are more honest.



Fair enough, though the definition of "servant" as a remunerated employee vs. slave as one forced into labor without compensation could definitely be argued among all of those scriptures, but I have neither the time nor the energy to parse down the anthropological differences of the two books. Perhaps there is none, perhaps there is a lot? 

It does bring the Haitians into the mix of countries engaged in this practice, when considering the selling of daughters. I couldn't tell you what their main religion is but do suspect their practice of the same is born more out of cultural indigence than their religion most likely.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Fair enough, though the definition of "servant" as a remunerated employee vs. slave as one forced into labor without compensation could definitely be argued among all of those scriptures, but I have neither the time nor the energy to parse down the anthropological differences of the two books. Perhaps there is none, perhaps there is a lot?


I guess if you beat your servants,  keep their wives and children, sell them to others....sure maybe in biblical times it was accepted if they were paid. Idk, doubful though.
It all sounds like slavery to me.

I had never taken the time either and it made my beliefs much easier.
Once I took the time.....things changed.



Miguel Cervantes said:


> It does bring the Haitians into the mix of countries engaged in this practice, when considering the selling of daughters. I couldn't tell you what their main religion is but do suspect their practice of the same is born more out of cultural indigence than their religion most likely.



Agreed morals are a result of situation, culture, society, and evolution. They certainly are not universally. moral. The actions in scripture certainly are not gifts given to us by any god, in fact, some gods should take some moral lessons from us lowly humans.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2017)

Copied from:  https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Bible



The New Testament makes no condemnation of slavery and does no more than admonish slaves to be obedient and their masters not to be unfair. Paul, or whoever wrote the epistles, at no time suggested there was anything wrong with slavery. One could speculate that this might have been because he wanted to avoid upsetting the many slave owners in the early Christian congregations or to keep on good political terms with the Roman government. Or, more probably, he simply thought slavery was an acceptable fact of life as did practically everyone else at the time.

Ephesians 6:5-8(NASB):5Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men,knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.

Christian slaves were told to obey their masters "for the sake of the cause" and be especially obedient to Christian masters:

1 Timothy6:1-2(NASB):All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.

There are instructions for Christian slave owners to treat their slaves well.

Ephesians6:9(NASB):And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

Colossians4:1(NASB)Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven.[6]

One passage often cited by apologists as supposed evidence for New Testament condemnation of slavery is1 Timothy 1:10. However, as the King James Version accurately translates, this condemnation is of "men stealers"(Greek:andrapodistais),[7]i.e. slave raiders who kidnapped and sold people as slaves, not slave traders or slave holders in general. So Paul only singled out slave raiders to be considered "lawless and rebellious", and to be categorized with murderers,homosexuals,liarsCand oath breakers.

The rather bland admonishment to slave masters by Paul is more than balanced by the demands for absolute obedience made of slaves. It is also rather telling that the masters are likened to God andJesus, while the masters are simply told that they have a higher lord. So much for Jesus as the embodiment of the underdog — Paul could have pointed to Jesus' imprisonment and death as a cautionary tale to slave masters that even humble(d) characters can be important.[8]

Before the apologist plays the "but Jesus didn't condone slavery"-card, following all these Pauline examples, try reading Matthew18:25, where Jesus uses slaves in a parable and has no qualms about recommending that not only a slave but also his wife and family be sold, while in other parables Jesus recommends that disobedient slaves should be beaten (LukeC
12:47) or even killed (Matthew24:51).


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 13, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Not to begrudge you gentlemen, but would you both mind posting those scriptures from the Bible (NT) and Quran that cite these beliefs?



https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/slavery.aspx


----------



## Israel (Nov 13, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> "I'm praying for you."
> 
> "Everything happens for a reason."
> 
> ...





> Let's not pretend such nonsensical feel good statements are outside the norm for Christians.



Looks like the pump was already primed.

All I saw was a guy willing to take a shot in advantage taken of a situation that, in probably other circumstances, the Westboro Baptist's would be excoriated.

But hey, we'll all get to hear what comes out of our windbag when the rock and hard place are shown to have no space between them.

(BTW, I have no issue with the statements that are enumerated as "nonsensical")


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 13, 2017)

Israel said:


> Looks like the pump was already primed.
> 
> All I saw was a guy willing to take a shot in advantage taken of a situation that, in probably other circumstances, the Westboro Baptist's would be excoriated.
> 
> ...



You did say make hay so I obliged. 

I have no doubt you take no issue with any of those statements which proves my point that platitudes are the norm for the flock. Of all the posters on this forum you have the greatest knack for coming up with original christian memes. Could have dug some up but decided to pick the low hanging fruit instead.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 13, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/slavery.aspx



Thanks for the link. Interestingly enough I found this link that supports your link but states that Sharia Law is found nowhere in the Quran. I can't read their translations and don't 100% trust any translation to english of any book, especially religious ones. For the Bible I use an interlinear dictionary that translates from Greek and Aramaic. I doubt one exists for Arabic to English, but I could be wrong. 

https://www.quora.com/Is-Shariah-law-followed-by-all-Muslims

What sections of translations I have read from the Quran seem to be very closely drawn from the Torah / Old Testament. Which would explain a lot of their antiquated ways of thinking. Even down to the men being allowed to take women outside of their household harem. But don't dare let a woman do that.

But all of this is another Topic for another thread.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Thanks for the link. Interestingly enough I found this link that supports your link but states that Sharia Law is found nowhere in the Quran. I can't read their translations and don't 100% trust any translation to english of any book, especially religious ones. For the Bible I use an interlinear dictionary that translates from Greek and Aramaic. I doubt one exists for Arabic to English, but I could be wrong.
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Is-Shariah-law-followed-by-all-Muslims
> 
> ...


Since Jesus said that the OT should be followed as he too was Jewish, why did Jews start a religion based around Jesus if he clearly did not want that?

I think that Paul was the main influence on starting a new religion and used Jesus as his base.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 13, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Thanks for the link. Interestingly enough I found this link that supports your link but states that Sharia Law is found nowhere in the Quran. I can't read their translations and don't 100% trust any translation to english of any book, especially religious ones. For the Bible I use an interlinear dictionary that translates from Greek and Aramaic. I doubt one exists for Arabic to English, but I could be wrong.
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Is-Shariah-law-followed-by-all-Muslims
> 
> ...



While the author is technically correct I think they are being disingenuous. Sharia literally translates to divine law and as such it is derived from the Quran and Hadith. So while the Quran may not say "this is sharia" when it says in verse 4:89 that apostates should be put to death is it accurate to say sharia is in the Quran when sharia prescribes the same punishment?


----------



## Israel (Nov 13, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> You did say make hay so I obliged.
> 
> I have no doubt you take no issue with any of those statements which proves my point that platitudes are the norm for the flock. Of all the posters on this forum you have the greatest knack for coming up with original christian memes. Could have dug some up but decided to pick the low hanging fruit instead.



"I'm praying for you" is no platitude at all...if one is actually praying for that one.

"God doesn't give us more than we can handle""...well, I've already admitted I'm just a man who needs things measured to me...can't see in total blackness anymore than I can see in too much light. Yeah, I'm counting on someone aware of my frailty.

"Everything happens for a reason" Well, yeah! The obverse of that even an atheist can't abide. Otherwise all the "reasonable" men would have to do something else with their time besides come here.


"Just turn it over to God" well...until it's everything, I'm not sure any piecemeal approach (which could be construed in "it") is anything but helpful in finally seeing what the "it" is. Or who the "it" is. "It" is all His, anyway. But, He'll take small beginnings. He doesn't despise the small.


"We all have our cross to bear" yeah, what a great rallying cry! There's only one place anyone can rally to to see how it's been done.


"They are in a better place now" If they are, well, of course. Now is the only place anything is. It's just so big it looks like then...and soon (or eventually). It's the place of "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." That's all the is-ing, there is. Right now.

Just don't allow yourself taken out of the now...but face it, we all need help with that. Something will be trying to pull you out of it. Take heart. He's been defeated...soundly. By the very One who alone can keep you...now.

The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 13, 2017)

Israel said:


> "God doesn't give us more than we can handle"".



I read a very good article by a pastor on that saying. He stated it is the most inaccurate quip that a Christian can make. His logic is that God will give us more than we can handle to take us out of our comfort zone, to expand our potential and help us grow in order for him to use us for His purpose. 

But then again, that is one man's opinion. I've heard all kinds in my lifetime.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 13, 2017)

Israel, look up the definition of platitude and try again.


----------



## Israel (Nov 13, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Israel, look up the definition of platitude and try again.



Uh oh, the Webster's card's been played.

Anyone got trump?

C'mon man, you know all dem werds been made up.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 13, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Listen spotty, try not to wallow in your own dishonesty.
> Slavery is an immoral act. *It certainly was not considered immoral back when the bible was written and that shows that morals are relative to the times*


bully (no pun intended) ............very interesting statement..........I would agree that slavery is immoral. But it is interesting that one can view Christianity as immoral for something that was certainly not immoral when the Bible was written. Do you know any Christians that teach that slavery is acceptable? Don't count the "rabid"...we have already established that in every club.    



bullethead said:


> And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant....Exodus 21:7
> 
> Thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you: of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land. And they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bond-man forever.Leviticus 25:44-46
> 
> ...





Aside that Exodus was just that......an exit from bondage.......All of these have one thing in common..........they`re laws of Moses........ the first 5 books; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are attributed to the writing of Moses. Nothing in them is a foundation to build on for Christianity. Slavery was a way of life for the Jews how many years B.C.? And as you have already stated, "certainly not considered immoral when the Bible was written" 




bullethead said:


> Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.Ephesians 6:5
> 
> Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.Colossians 3:22
> 
> ...



These do nothing but teach obedience to those that have rule over you, those that are under yoke, children to their parents, etc. There is nothing in here that promotes owning slaves and slavery as a foundation for Christianity. Again, "certainly not considered immoral when the Bible was written"

Sorry that it took a while to get back, I was being a good servant to my company


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 13, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I take offense to that.



you should lol


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 13, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Is human sacrifice immoral?


----------



## Israel (Nov 14, 2017)

Ask the two guys on either side of Michael Monsoor.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> bully (no pun intended) ............very interesting statement..........I would agree that slavery is immoral. But it is interesting that one can view Christianity as immoral for something that was certainly not immoral when the Bible was written. Do you know any Christians that teach that slavery is acceptable? Don't count the "rabid"...we have already established that in every club.


What is interesting is that your god, who's words are supposedly contained in the bible, could not see into the future and more specifically convey back then that slavery was immoral.
Which tells me that no god had anything to do with the bible.  The contents reflect man morals and actions at the time.







Spotlite said:


> Aside that Exodus was just that......an exit from bondage.......All of these have one thing in common..........they`re laws of Moses........ the first 5 books; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are attributed to the writing of Moses. Nothing in them is a foundation to build on for Christianity. Slavery was a way of life for the Jews how many years B.C.? And as you have already stated, "certainly not immoral when the Bible was written"
> [


You are obviously not well versed in history. The Jews were never enslaved like what was told in the bible. The Exodous. Never Happened.

Not immoral when the bible was written = morals of man. 
Laws that man has made have been revised over the years. Updated.
The contents of the bible stay the same. The same bible that you can buy hot off the press today contains the same immoral acts as it did a thousand years ago.
Is your god unwilling to change?
Is there really a god involved?

So where did ol Moses get his laws from? According to the bible....god.
And going by that story, your god gave specific instructions all throughout the books of the bible(not just Exodous) regarding slavery. 





Spotlite said:


> These do nothing but teach obedience to those that have rule over you, those that are under yoke, children to their parents, etc. There is nothing in here that promotes owning slaves and slavery as a foundation for Christianity. Again, "certainly not immoral when the Bible was written"


Are you cherry picking again? You totally missed the quotes that justify beatings, the selling of wives and children of "servants", and can sell your "servants" to others.
No matter how hard you try to not acknowledge slavery, it is in there for all to see.




Spotlite said:


> Sorry that it took a while to get back, I was being a good servant to my company


I bet if you got home and your family was sold off you'd keep wearing the servant tshirt huh?

Take the time to read the other posts that I made about "servants". Knowledge is not a bad thing.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite conveniently left out the word "considered". Just because people considered slavery moral that doesn't mean it was.

Spotlite also just proved the Bible is not his source of morality.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 14, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I read a very good article by a pastor on that saying. He stated it is the most inaccurate quip that a Christian can make. His logic is that God will give us more than we can handle to take us out of our comfort zone, to expand our potential and help us grow in order for him to use us for His purpose.
> 
> But then again, that is one man's opinion. I've heard all kinds in my lifetime.


Seems like its kind of an open ended statement anyway.
"Handling it" can mean anything.
From jumping off a bridge to leading a model life is "handling it".
Not sure "more than you can handle" is actually possible.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Spotlite conveniently left out the word "considered". Just because people considered slavery moral that doesn't mean it was.
> 
> Spotlite also just proved the Bible is not his source of morality.



Precisely x2


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 14, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Spotlite conveniently left out the word "considered". Just because people considered slavery moral that doesn't mean it was.
> 
> Spotlite also just proved the Bible is not his source of morality.


I'm going to play on both sides here -


> Just because people considered slavery moral that doesn't mean it was.


Doesn't mean it was.... by todays standards of morality.
Spotlite has a valid point in that judging using todays standard of morality is akin to comparing apples and oranges.


> Spotlite also just proved the Bible is not his source of morality


And that's the side of Spotlite's argument that he doesn't fully grasp because that is a 5 gallon bucket of worms....


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm going to play on both sides here -
> 
> Doesn't mean it was.... by todays standards of morality.
> Spotlite has a valid point in that judging using todays standard of morality is akin to comparing apples and oranges.
> ...



Walt, wouldnt a god know about what is moral and what is not? Nevermind man.
Wouldn't a god telling his flock that slavery is immoral be compelling, even if it took a couple thousand years for society to catch up?
Instead, the supposed  word of god condones and commands it, with rukes to go about it!!


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 14, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm going to play on both sides here -
> 
> Doesn't mean it was.... by todays standards of morality.
> Spotlite has a valid point in that judging using todays standard of morality is akin to comparing apples and oranges.
> ...



But apples and oranges is precisely the point. If you're claiming to have an inerrant and objectively perfect moral code provided by an infallible deity you don't get to progress to oranges. You're stuck with what you got and it's open to scrutiny just as all other moral standards are. Secular moralists don't make that claim for themselves. They readily admit the human source of their morality with all its imperfections and leave the door open to improvement.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 14, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Walt, wouldnt a god know about what is moral and what is not? Nevermind man.
> Wouldn't a god telling his flock that slavery is immoral be compelling, even if it took a couple thousand years for society to catch up?
> Instead, the supposed  word of god condones and commands it, with rukes to go about it!!



Does the god of the old testament, a god that is credited with wiping out an entire city because of sodomy and other forbidden activity strike you as one to look the other way on immoral behavior to accommodate cultural norms? Don't you dare work on the sabbath or eat shrimp! But your slaves are yours to keep. You can even beat the tar out of them with impunity as long as they survive a day or two.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 14, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Walt, wouldnt a god know about what is moral and what is not? Nevermind man.
> Wouldn't a god telling his flock that slavery is immoral be compelling, even if it took a couple thousand years for society to catch up?
> Instead, the supposed  word of god condones and commands it, with rukes to go about it!!


Ok lets pretend gods exist 


> Walt, wouldnt a god know about what is moral and what is not?


I would assume an Omni-everything god would know everything there was to know about "morals" past, present and future.
Which would mean any morals that was communicated by him to us would be the ones he approved of out of all the possible morals past, present and future.


> Wouldn't a god telling his flock that slavery is immoral be compelling, even if it took a couple thousand years for society to catch up


If he actually told them that yes I would think it would be compelling.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 14, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> But apples and oranges is precisely the point. If you're claiming to have an inerrant and objectively perfect moral code provided by an infallible deity you don't get to progress to oranges. You're stuck with what you got and it's open to scrutiny just as all other moral standards are. Secular moralists don't make that claim for themselves. They readily admit the human source of their morality with all its imperfections and leave the door open to improvement.


Yes those are the worms crawling all over the floor now that he tipped that bucket over 
His point is a valid one.
It just also happens to completely clash with the rest of the story.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 14, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Yes those are the worms crawling all over the floor now that he tipped that bucket over
> His point is a valid one.
> It just also happens to completely clash with the rest of the story.



I think it's acceptable to contrast the morals of different places and times and say "they got it wrong on that point". I wouldn't expect anything other than that from future generations in looking at ours. Morals are subjective but that doesn't mean they are all of equal merit. Humanity can't progress if it can't look itself in the mirror both past and present.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 14, 2017)

Maybe God foresaw the ever changing morals, folkways and mores and knew that man still could never be righteous.

Considering that each nation has different morals as Christianity would be spread, his plan included a way out.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 14, 2017)

We could say the Bible got it wrong as it pertains to women's and racial equality. 
Maybe it got it right by the time Paul came around when there no longer was male or female, free or slave, Jew or Gentile. Perhaps this only pertains to who could then receive salvation from not being able to live by the set morals of the day. Even way after Paul was dead we still have male & female, free & slave, Jew & Gentile.

I think about my parents and grandparents and how they viewed equality back in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. I hope that I have advanced past them in that respect. It doesn't make me any more moral or them any less. I don't even think it was related to their belief in God or my belief in God. Just the changing times.

Maybe my generation is getting something wrong about equality even today because we are using the Bible to set those standards. Either the bible changes or it doesn't. Perhaps it was just explaining the way it was at the present time. Maybe we are suppose to understand that and apply it today as to what Paul said concerning there is no longer male & female, free or slave, Jew or Gentile.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 14, 2017)

If a god condones something he knows is immoral what does that make him?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 14, 2017)

I think it makes him the owner of the ant farm.

If a big part of it is related to discipline then maybe it's not whether God is moral or not. Such is the case when a parent beats a child or when a country bombs another. It could appear to be bad or mean when really it's not. I used to get hit for hitting someone. Did that make my mom immoral?

I imagine in the future as morals change parents of yesterday will be considered mean and immoral. I time when a mother whips her child could be frowned upon.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 14, 2017)

bullethead said:


> What is interesting is that your god, who's words are supposedly contained in the bible, could not see into the future and more specifically convey back then that slavery was immoral.
> Which tells me that no god had anything to do with the bible.  The contents reflect man morals and actions at the time.
> 
> 
> ...


Never said slavery wasn't mentioned or spoken about bullet. The context of it the way you chose to view it is where we disagree. I'm ok if you view Christianity as immoral. I don't expect you to believe anything good about it. As long as you can be ok with me saying that I believe you're wrong, there's nothing immoral about Christianity.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 14, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Spotlite conveniently left out the word "considered". Just because people considered slavery moral that doesn't mean it was.
> 
> Spotlite also just proved the Bible is not his source of morality.



Ok the "play on words" lol. So does that not apply today? Just because you consider something immoral today, does that mean it was immoral then? And I didn't conveniently leave anything out, I just restated what bullet said.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 14, 2017)

Poor analogy. If your mom knows a sibling is sexually abusing you and not only looks the other way but condones it that makes her complicit in the immoral behavior. Her authority over her children and perhaps even her freedom from accountability to any higher authority is irrelevant to that point.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Ok the "play on words" lol. So does that not apply today? Just because you consider something immoral today, does that mean it was immoral then? And I didn't conveniently leave anything out, I just restated what bullet said.



It's not a play on words. It's saying two different things. The fact that you dropped that word when you quoted him with quotation marks shows that you recognized the different meaning and chose to misquote him to make it appear he said something he did not. Some might call that intellectually dishonest. Where is SFD when you need him?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Never said slavery wasn't mentioned or spoken about bullet. The context of it the way you chose to view it is where we disagree. I'm ok if you view Christianity as immoral. I don't expect you to believe anything good about it. As long as you can be ok with me saying that I believe you're wrong, there's nothing immoral about Christianity.



Is there anything immoral about human sacrifice?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 14, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Poor analogy. If your mom knows a sibling is sexually abusing you and not only looks the other way but condones it that makes her complicit in the immoral behavior. Her authority over her children and perhaps even her freedom from accountability to any higher authority is irrelevant to that point.


I would agree with that. I guess the question should have been "something that you consider moral today can never be considered immoral"?


atlashunter said:


> It's not a play on words. It's saying two different things. The fact that you dropped that word when you quoted him with quotation marks shows that you recognized the different meaning and chose to misquote him to make it appear he said something he did not. Some might call that intellectually dishonest. Where is SFD when you need him?



I actually quoted it in the first part. But if it makes you feel better, I went back and fixed it. It doesn't change a thing. They considered it moral then, you consider it immoral now, and I would agree that shavers, raise, and all the examples given are immoral. I'm just saying that that's not the foundation of Christianity. The Christian does not promote any of that. We recognize that it happened in an era where it was or may have been considered moral. If we did, I would multiple wives lol.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 14, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Is there anything immoral about human sacrifice?



Certainly. What human sacrifice are you speaking about?? Jesus??? That was not a sacrifice offered by man. God chose to rob himself in flesh and pay the ultimate price for us. We didn't ask for that or demand it to happen. Crucifixion was capital punishment. Were the two thieves sacrificed or punished? For the Jews, Jesus was "punished" for his actions along with the two thieves. Jesus chose to bear that cross. Even saying forgive them for they know not what they do. Would you lay your life down for your family? In a sense you're "sacrificing" yourself to save them, but it is not a human sacrifice that you are eluding to. 


Or are you speaking about Abraham?? He was told to offer his son as a sacrifice. The Christian views this as a test of faith. Can we prove that Abraham did not have enough faith to trust that God will supply? No human sacrifice would have taken place anyway. One or two things can only happen, Abraham would doubt God and not go. Or, God would supply as Abraham believed he would. In the end, it was not in any intent to sacrifice a human.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I would agree with that. I guess the question should have been "something that you consider moral today can never be considered immoral"?
> 
> 
> I actually quoted it in the first part. But if it makes you feel better, I went back and fixed it. It doesn't change a thing. They considered it moral then, you consider it immoral now, and I would agree that shavers, raise, and all the examples given are immoral. I'm just saying that that's not the foundation of Christianity. The Christian does not promote any of that. We recognize that it happened in an era where it was or may have been considered moral. If we did, I would multiple wives lol.



It changes the meaning completely between saying what people thought was immoral and what actually was immoral. It's two different things. People are fully capable of being wrong on moral questions. I think we can agree on that. The question is, were they wrong at that time? Is it your view that slavery really was moral at that time but not today? Has the morality of slavery changed? Or has it always been immoral and human understanding changed? If the former when exactly did it go from being right to being wrong and by what mechanism? If it was immoral then and your holy book says otherwise then it seems to me that's a problem.

I agree it's not foundational to Christianity although it is a problem with the foundational text. That's why I didn't use it. Too easy for an apologist to look past. Not so easy for the immorality at the core of the gospel. Which takes us to your next post...


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 14, 2017)

I once related to my baby sister (18 yr. younger, 6 when Dad died and 13 when Mom died), when she was in her early thirties, an event which I consider a wonderful act of loving mentoring toward me.  Her response was "He was really mean to you."  I will never forget his actions; or her response.


----------



## Israel (Nov 14, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> I once related to my baby sister (18 yr. younger, 6 when Dad died and 13 when Mom died), when she was in her early thirties, an event which I consider a wonderful act of loving mentoring toward me.  Her response was "He was really mean to you."  I will never forget his actions; or her response.



!!!yes!!!

What things of need to ourselves (and revealed value) are so easily viewed in a different light by another.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Certainly. What human sacrifice are you speaking about?? Jesus??? That was not a sacrifice offered by man. God chose to rob himself in flesh and pay the ultimate price for us. We didn't ask for that or demand it to happen. Crucifixion was capital punishment. Were the two thieves sacrificed or punished? For the Jews, Jesus was "punished" for his actions along with the two thieves. Jesus chose to bear that cross. Even saying forgive them for they know not what they do. Would you lay your life down for your family? In a sense you're "sacrificing" yourself to save them, but it is not a human sacrifice that you are eluding to.
> 
> 
> Or are you speaking about Abraham?? He was told to offer his son as a sacrifice. The Christian views this as a test of faith. Can we prove that Abraham did not have enough faith to trust that God will supply? No human sacrifice would have taken place anyway. One or two things can only happen, Abraham would doubt God and not go. Or, God would supply as Abraham believed he would. In the end, it was not in any intent to sacrifice a human.



You start by acknowledging human sacrifice is immoral and then proceed to attempt to justify the instances of it in the Bible. Of course we didn't ask for Jesus to be sacrificed. It's the norm for people engaged in human sacrifice to claim their god requires it. The act itself was carried out by human hands on a human being. Redemption through murder, through the shedding of blood. And not the blood of the one whose wrong must be made right. The blood of the innocent. This is moral? Christians love to claim our laws are founded in Christianity but no where in our laws would this pass for justice. If human sacrifice is immoral then why would a moral god demand it as in the case of Abraham? Why would a moral god accept it as in the case of Jephthah? Why would a man in whom god found favor believe that his god would accept the burnt offering of his own daughter so strongly that he actually went through it? No mention that god rejected this sacrifice. Yet he rejected Cain's sacrifice of fruit. Stop and think about that.

What is it with this bloodlust? Jesus we are told was the ultimate sacrifice. The blood that would finally quench the thirst of a god who up to that point was unwilling to forgive without some bloodshed even if it wasn't the blood of the guilty. This cannot pass for morality and any system of justice that would be set up on the same principles would be rejected as incredibly unjust and immoral.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 14, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> You start by acknowledging human sacrifice is immoral and then proceed to attempt to justify the instances of it in the Bible. Of course we didn't ask for Jesus to be sacrificed. It's the norm for people engaged in human sacrifice to claim their god requires it. The act itself was carried out by human hands on a human being. Redemption through murder, through the shedding of blood. And not the blood of the one whose wrong must be made right. The blood of the innocent. This is moral? Christians love to claim our laws are founded in Christianity but no where in our laws would this pass for justice. If human sacrifice is immoral then why would a moral god demand it as in the case of Abraham?.


You're trying to turn an act that was done completely as capital punishment into human sacrifice. Those hands that did that only done it as punishment. Nothing in it was considered "sacrifice" for them.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> You're trying to turn an act that was done completely as capital punishment into human sacrifice. Those hands that did that only done it as punishment. Nothing in it was considered "sacrifice" for them.



I'm not speaking to the intent of the killers I'm speaking to the intended purpose claimed by Christians. It's your bible that declares it a human sacrifice. It's your religion that turned it into human sacrifice, not me.


----------



## Israel (Nov 14, 2017)

13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith.  In that case, we are also exposed as false witnesses about God. For we have testified about God that He raised Christ from the dead, but He did not raise Him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised.  And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If our hope in Christ is for this life alone, we are to be pitied more than all men. 

It all is inextricably linked to this one thing. And one has either  encountered the resurrected Jesus Christ, or not. 

Apart from the resurrection the instructions, admonitions, warnings, and assurances mean absolutely nothing.

But, because of the resurrection...


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 14, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> I'm not speaking to the intent of the killers I'm speaking to the intended purpose claimed by Christians. It's your bible that declares it a human sacrifice. It's your religion that turned it into human sacrifice, not me.



For the Christian, the purpose is to cover our sins. The only way to the Father is through the blood of Jesus. If Christianity is immoral for going through the blood of Jesus, we will just have to continue being immoral. We didn't set or choose that path. I see what you're getting at, but it's not as you're saying it to be. This is the same as what I asked you before, would you lay down your life to save your family? You are indeed sacrificing yourself but you are not a "human sacrifice" in the sense of just slaughtering a human. A better word than "sacrifice" might have should been considered, but I didn't write it. 

For the non believer, it is just a matter of how they understand it when they study it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 14, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> I said atheism has no moral precepts.




To be exact you said


> There are no precepts of atheism.


which is not one in the same.  My entire point is, saying atheism has no precepts is patently false BECAUSE presupposing there is no God doesn’t alleviate the Athiest believer from having to answer the BIG questions of life.
If creation isn’t true then evolution must be.  Evolution in turn has it’s own precepts.  

Another is the moral law.  If there is no Moral Law Giver then there is no moral law.  The consequences of that frees the Athiest to determine his own moral, amoral, or 
immoral precepts for living his life , but precepts they are.  Make no mistake about that.  In fact it could be accurately said that the only precepts That cant flow from Athiest are those that necessitate a God for their presupposition.  Sorry if I was too dense to convey this more clearly.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> For the Christian, the purpose is to cover our sins. The only way to the Father is through the blood of Jesus. If Christianity is immoral for going through the blood of Jesus, we will just have to continue being immoral. We didn't set or choose that path. I see what you're getting at, but it's not as you're saying it to be. This is the same as what I asked you before, would you lay down your life to save your family? You are indeed sacrificing yourself but you are not a "human sacrifice" in the sense of just slaughtering a human. A better word than "sacrifice" might have should been considered, but I didn't write it.
> 
> For the non believer, it is just a matter of how they understand it when they study it.


And how is it for believers? Different somehow?
Consider ~35,000 denominations....

You seem to be under the impression that "believing" somehow allows you to understand it. As though there is some particular understanding that has been proven to be the correct one and if you would just believe well then you could understand it too.
That is just not supported by the facts.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Never said slavery wasn't mentioned or spoken about bullet. The context of it the way you chose to view it is where we disagree. I'm ok if you view Christianity as immoral. I don't expect you to believe anything good about it. As long as you can be ok with me saying that I believe you're wrong, there's nothing immoral about Christianity.


If you persist at using your own context, please explain the verses and what they mean to you.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 14, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> To be exact you said
> 
> which is not one in the same.  My entire point is, saying atheism has no precepts is patently false BECAUSE presupposing there is no God doesn’t alleviate the Athiest believer from having to answer the BIG questions of life.
> If creation isn’t true then evolution must be.  Evolution in turn has it’s own precepts.



Here is the exact quote of what I said:



atlashunter said:


> There are no precepts of atheism. Atheism is amoral. Christianity is immoral.



I clearly was speaking in the context of moral precepts hence the later statement concerning moral precepts but I stand by the exact phrasing used.

Let's revisit the definition of the term precept.

*precept (prÄ“ËˆsÄ•ptËŒ)â–º
n.	A rule or principle prescribing a particular course of action or conduct.
n.	Law An authorized direction or order; a writ.*

Atheism prescribes no particular course of action or conduct. There is no atheist rule book. It is by definition the absence of a particular belief. Nothing more.




SemperFiDawg said:


> Another is the moral law.  If there is no Moral Law Giver then there is no moral law.



That's your opinion. My opinion is men have made up many moral law givers and attributed moral laws to them in an effort to make them authoritative, which none of them are. Some might call that fraud. Others might call it intellectual dishonesty. 




SemperFiDawg said:


> The consequences of that frees the Athiest to determine his own moral, amoral, or
> immoral precepts for living his life , but precepts they are.  Make no mistake about that.  In fact it could be accurately said that the only precepts That cant flow from Athiest are those that necessitate a God for their presupposition.  Sorry if I was too dense to convey this more clearly.



Thank you! That was exactly my point in post #83.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Ok the "play on words" lol. So does that not apply today? Just because you consider something immoral today, does that mean it was immoral then? And I didn't conveniently leave anything out, I just restated what bullet said.



What bullet said was it was immoral back then because the bible is totally man made and the writings reflect the morals of the times. No god involved.
Are you agreeing with that?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 14, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> And how is it for believers? Different somehow?
> Consider ~35,000 denominations....
> 
> You seem to be under the impression that "believing" somehow allows you to understand it. As though there is some particular understanding that has been proven to be the correct one and if you would just believe well then you could understand it too.
> That is just not supported by the facts.


 I'm simply talking about a spiritual discernment that a believer should have where a non believer is not expected to have......due to lack of belief only and nothing to do with ability to learn. If you have that discernment, you should understand spiritual what the scripture means. 

I'm well aware that every believer doesn't agree on a scripture 100%, but who's right and wrong is a separate topic.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 14, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> To be exact you said
> 
> which is not one in the same.  My entire point is, saying atheism has no precepts is patently false BECAUSE presupposing there is no God doesn’t alleviate the Athiest believer from having to answer the BIG questions of life.
> If creation isn’t true then evolution must be.  Evolution in turn has it’s own precepts.
> ...





> If creation isn’t true then evolution must be


Well then you just proved creation false because its a proven fact that things have evolved.
Thats quite an accomplishment and you did it so easily. Even us A/As haven't been able to do that.


> If there is no Moral Law Giver then there is no moral law


.
Which is why man set up systems and guidelines/laws of what is morally acceptable action as determined by the society they live in. You know how you disagreed with the whole bakers being fined for not baking gay folks a wedding cake? That was it in action.


> The consequences of that frees the Athiest to determine his own moral, amoral, or
> immoral precepts for living his life


See above.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> For the Christian, the purpose is to cover our sins. The only way to the Father is through the blood of Jesus. If Christianity is immoral for going through the blood of Jesus, we will just have to continue being immoral. We didn't set or choose that path.



You didn't, but someone did. _Maybe_ it has something to do with the origins of this deity you're worshiping.




Spotlite said:


> I see what you're getting at, but it's not as you're saying it to be. This is the same as what I asked you before, would you lay down your life to save your family? You are indeed sacrificing yourself but you are not a "human sacrifice" in the sense of just slaughtering a human. A better word than "sacrifice" might have should been considered, but I didn't write it.
> 
> For the non believer, it is just a matter of how they understand it when they study it.



We would have to flesh out the analogy in more detail to make it truly comparable but I doubt it would get us anywhere.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I'm simply talking about a spiritual discernment that a believer should have where a non believer is not expected to have......due to lack of belief only and nothing to do with ability to learn. If you have that discernment, you should understand spiritual what the scripture means.
> 
> I'm well aware that every believer doesn't agree on a scripture 100%, but who's right and wrong is a separate topic.


Just a thought -
You know how its common practice to get advice/councel/judgements etc from people who are NOT involved..... because when you ARE involved (believe) you often can't discern the situation clearly...........


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 14, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Just a thought -
> You know how its common practice to get advice/councel/judgements etc from people who are NOT involved..... because when you ARE involved (believe) you often can't discern the situation clearly...........



Nonsense Walt. And I don't get advice either. I just call it as I see it and share my experiences. I do agree with Atlas for once though. I doubt any analogy on this thread is going to get us anywhere.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 14, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Just a thought -
> You know how its common practice to get advice/councel/judgements etc from people who are NOT involved..... because when you ARE involved (believe) you often can't discern the situation clearly...........



Yah; and just as true when the parenthetical is unbeliever.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 14, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Just a thought -
> You know how its common practice to get advice/councel/judgements etc from people who are NOT involved..... because when you ARE involved (believe) you often can't discern the situation clearly...........



And should we reverse the roles, not involved (non believer) would the same concept apply? 

In most cases I would think so, but when it comes to spiritual discernment, I feel like the believer and the non believer both have no areas where they would reasonably council with one another.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> And should we reverse the roles, not involved (non believer) would the same concept apply?
> 
> In most cases I would think so, but when it comes to spiritual discernment, I feel like the believer and the non believer both have no areas where they would reasonably council with one another.


Christian spiritual discernment? Or all spiritual discernment?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 14, 2017)

bullethead said:


> What bullet said was it was immoral back then because the bible is totally man made and the writings reflect the morals of the times. No god involved.
> Are you agreeing with that?



Partially, I agree that the writings reflect the morals of the times. I disagree with no God involved.


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Partially, I agree that the writings reflect the morals of the times. I disagree with no God involved.



Of course. That is logical. Men can only write what they understand. Based on learning and experience.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Partially, I agree that the writings reflect the morals of the times. I disagree with no God involved.



So those writings are NOT the literal word of god?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 14, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Christian spiritual discernment? Or all spiritual discernment?



Good point, considering that worshippers of God and satanic worshippers are both spiritual events. But for this discussion, the example would be Christian and the atheist. When it comes to spiritual discernment, I don't feel that there are any areas where the two could reasonably council with one another. And I'm basing that solely on the idea that in order to council, you're seeking advice and the two groups do not share a common ground, spiritually. And this is just my opinion only.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Of course. That is logical. Men can only write what they understand. Based on learning and experience.



I'll say it again, so those writings are NOT the literal word of god?


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 14, 2017)

bullethead said:


> I'll say it again, so those writings are NOT the literal word of god?



Men cannot ever totally understand the word of God. As we are of the flesh.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Good point, considering that worshippers of God and satanic worshippers are both spiritual events. But for this discussion, the example would be Christian and the atheist. When it comes to spiritual discernment, I don't feel that there are any areas where the two could reasonably council with one another. And I'm basing that solely on the idea that in order to council, you're seeking advice and the two groups do not share a common ground, spiritually. And this is just my opinion only.


Makes me wonder if your spiritual discernment agrees with all christians spiritual discernment.
I mean it would HAVE to being that an outside force that is SPIRITUAL would be giving you all the same mesaage and obvious discernment capabilities.
Right??


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 14, 2017)

bullethead said:


> So those writings are NOT the literal word of god?



Those words are God inspired.


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 14, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Makes me wonder if your spiritual discernment agrees with all christians spiritual discernment.
> I mean it would HAVE to being that an outside force that is SPIRITUAL would be giving you all the same mesaage and obvious discernment capabilities.
> Right??



No. Its a personal relationship. Everyone is different.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I'm simply talking about a spiritual discernment that a believer should have where a non believer is not expected to have......due to lack of belief only and nothing to do with ability to learn. If you have that discernment, you should understand spiritual what the scripture means.
> 
> I'm well aware that every believer doesn't agree on a scripture 100%, but who's right and wrong is a separate topic.



If your claim that belief confers some special discernment was true then one would expect that discernment to unify believers under a common understanding. Yet we don't see that. I think that was Walts point.

The problem is not that I don't understand the claims of Christianity. I do understand. I just don't find them persuasive or moral. You think the murder of someone who lived 2,000 years ago absolves you of your wrongdoings and me of mine if we but believe in Jesus. I find that claim absurd and morally reprehensible. Not because I don't understand it but because I do.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Nov 14, 2017)

the writings are_ inspired _by god. Thus if things are embellished or inaccurate it's only because the enthusiasm of the writers got a little out of hand. But they meant well, and if it wins more converts in the long run, mission accomplished. 

You think I'm kidding, research how inspired by god is pretty much a license for writing whatever you want and nobody has a problem with it. This makes it easier to say "well the details aren't really the point of the story" when the logic falls apart. Brilliantly bullet-proof when you think about it, especially considering it was developed several thousand years ago (Judaism) and almost two thousand years ago for Christianity.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 14, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Makes me wonder if your spiritual discernment agrees with all christians spiritual discernment.
> I mean it would HAVE to being that an outside force that is SPIRITUAL would be giving you all the same mesaage and obvious discernment capabilities.
> Right??



Absolutely there's plenty of room for disagreement. I've already stated that that's a topic of its own, and that would fill up several pages lol. Man will justify his ways. It's a black eye for Christianity but it happens. You hear stories all the time "God told me to do it". Not an exact quote, but everyone that says Lord will not enter in.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 14, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> If your claim that belief confers some special discernment was true then one would expect that discernment to unify believers under a common understanding. Yet we don't see that. I think that was Walts point.
> 
> The problem is not that I don't understand the claims of Christianity. I do understand. I just don't find them persuasive or moral. You think the murder of someone who lived 2,000 years ago absolves you of your wrongdoings and me of mine if we but believe in Jesus. I find that claim absurd and morally reprehensible. Not because I don't understand it but because I do.


See below for Walts point. 
I am fairly confident that you're well versed in understanding the claims of Christianity, but if it took the inspiration of God to write them, it takes it to understand them.


Spotlite said:


> Absolutely there's plenty of room for disagreement. I've already stated that that's a topic of its own, and that would fill up several pages lol. Man will justify his ways. It's a black eye for Christianity but it happens. You hear stories all the time "God told me to do it". Not an exact quote, but everyone that says Lord will not enter in.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Men cannot ever totally understand the word of God. As we are of the flesh.



So what about the contents of the bible?

If it is the word of god, why do you keep trying to pass off to us that you (and all christians) understand it?

And, if you can understand it...it cannot be the word of god.

Which is it ?

Spotlite is rambling on about that he can understand it because of spiritual discernment, yet everyone that claims to have spiritual discernment seems to be getting different messages because very few agree on anything.

You are telling me that the word of god cannot be fully understood, yet you have an excuse to explain what god wants, what god says, how the bible should be interpreted etc etc.

The forums above should be filled with 100% agreement if there is such a thing as spiritual discernment, yet god is incapable of getting 5 or 6 of you in here the same messages.

I am beginning(since day one) to think that a couple of you are full of carp.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Those words are God inspired.



Oh! So like someone who attends a concert and then decides to take up playing the guitar.
They were inspired...but Eddie VanHalen is not really channelling himself through them....
God didnt really channel his thoughts through the authors, they just made up specific conversations between people and wrote down what they felt god MIGHT say and wrote down what god MAY have done......

This good to know


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 14, 2017)

bullethead said:


> So what about the contents of the bible?
> 
> If it is the word of god, why do you keep trying to pass off to us that you (and all christians) understand it?
> 
> ...



 I have no excuse brother. All I know about what God wants is you.  I am just passing along my experience.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Absolutely there's plenty of room for disagreement. I've already stated that that's a topic of its own, and that would fill up several pages lol. Man will justify his ways. It's a black eye for Christianity but it happens. You hear stories all the time "God told me to do it". Not an exact quote, but everyone that says Lord will not enter in.



YOU have got it all correct though, am I accurate?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> I have no excuse brother. All I know about what God wants is you.  I am just passing along my experience.



Boy O boy, you get very vague when pressed to back up your claims or explain your claims, but then you come right back out with another absolute doozie.
You know what god wants, yet fleshy Rich told ne he is unable to understand god.

I do not know how you can keep up with the whoppers you tell.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 14, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite is rambling on about that he can understand it because of spiritual discernment, yet everyone that claims to have spiritual discernment seems to be getting different messages because very few agree on anything.
> 
> The forums above should be filled with 100% agreement if there is such a thing as spiritual discernment, yet god is incapable of getting 5 or 6 of you in here the same messages.
> 
> I am beginning(since day one) to think that a couple of you are full of carp.


For my part in this since you seem to throw me in whenever you can....don't ask me questions and then post about rambling. See below about what Spotlite said. You seem to think that everyone that claims to be Christian is in fact Christian and everyone that claims it is inspired by God.......well that would be nice. If you were as well versed in scripture as you claim, you would know it isn't the case. So your cop-out with dealing with reality is that all Christians are wrong?? 



Spotlite said:


> Absolutely there's plenty of room for disagreement. I've already stated that that's a topic of its own, and that would fill up several pages lol. Man will justify his ways. It's a black eye for Christianity but it happens. You hear stories all the time "God told me to do it". Not an exact quote, but everyone that says Lord will not enter in.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> For my part in this since you seem to throw me in whenever you can....don't ask me questions and then post about rambling. See below about what Spotlite said. You seem to think that everyone that claims to be Christian is in fact Christian and everyone that claims it is inspired by God.......well that would be nice. If you were as well versed in scripture as you claim, you would know it isn't the case. So your cop-out with dealing with reality is that all Christians are wrong??


Well I Am well versed in scripture.  I just also happen to think it is fiction so there is no way that I would take it seriously. 
I am also told that scripture is inspired so I cannot believe that a god is involved innit.
I am also told that fleshy humans cannot understand god so you telling me that you can must be a lie. 
I am also told that not everyone who claims to be a christian is a christian and although there is spiritual discernment not everyone who claims to be a christian can really discern it.
I get the feeling that people who claim to be more christian than other christians seems to talk the most smack about others pretending to be christians, YET....I am also getting some spiritual concernment and it is telling me that spotlite thinks he is a REAL christian moreso than most and his rules really do not apply to himself.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> See below for Walts point.
> I am fairly confident that you're well versed in understanding the claims of Christianity, but if it took the inspiration of God to write them, it takes it to understand them.



How so? Are they not written in a language comprehensible to humans without divine intervention? The KJV was written in english last I checked.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 14, 2017)

bullethead said:


> YOU have got it all correct though, am I accurate?


You'd be wrong. I never claimed that. 


bullethead said:


> Well I Am well versed in scripture.  I just also happen to think it is fiction so there is no way that I would take it seriously.
> I am also told that scripture is inspired so I cannot believe that a god is involved innit.
> I am also told that fleshy humans cannot understand god so you telling me that you can must be a lie.
> I am also told that not everyone who claims to be a christian is a christian and although there is spiritual discernment not everyone who claims to be a christian can really discern it.
> I get the feeling that people who claim to be more christian than other christians seems to talk the most smack about others pretending to be christians, YET....I am also getting some spiritual concernment and it is telling me that spotlite thinks he is a REAL christian moreso than most and his rules really do not apply to himself.


Have a nice day bullet. You have proven more than once that you're incapable of carrying on an adult conversation.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> For the Christian, the purpose is to cover our sins. The only way to the Father is through the blood of Jesus. If Christianity is immoral for going through the blood of Jesus, we will just have to continue being immoral. We didn't set or choose that path. I see what you're getting at, but it's not as you're saying it to be. This is the same as what I asked you before, would you lay down your life to save your family? You are indeed sacrificing yourself but you are not a "human sacrifice" in the sense of just slaughtering a human. A better word than "sacrifice" might have should been considered, but I didn't write it.
> 
> For the non believer, it is just a matter of how they understand it when they study it.



With all due respect spotlite, and I appreciate the willingness you've shown to respond to these questions, I don't see any evidence of special discernment in the answer above (spiritual or otherwise). 



"If Christianity is immoral for going through the blood of Jesus, we will just have to continue being immoral. We didn't set or choose that path. ... A better word than "sacrifice" might have should been considered, but I didn't write it. "

^This looks more like a shrugging of the shoulders than discernment.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> How so? Are they not written in a language comprehensible to humans without divine intervention? The KJV was written in english last I checked.



Yeah, it would make sense to make it understandable to people without divine intervention in order to help them better follow along and have the messages within spread.


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 14, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Boy O boy, you get very vague when pressed to back up your claims or explain your claims, but then you come right back out with another absolute doozie.
> You know what god wants, yet fleshy Rich told ne he is unable to understand god.
> 
> I do not know how you can keep up with the whoppers you tell.



I love U2 brother.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Those words are God inspired.



Which god inspired the words found in Deuteronomy 32 8:9? Was it Elyon? Or Yahweh?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> You'd be wrong. I never claimed that.
> 
> Have a nice day bullet. You have proven more than once that you're incapable of carrying on an adult conversation.



I am listening to you talk in circles, make claims that you are unable to back up, talk about spirits and invisible friends.
I have to sit at the little tables and speak in high pitched voices in order to fit in with the crowd.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> I love U2 brother.



You cannot discern me.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> You'd be wrong. I never claimed that.



Again I have to ask you, which is it?

Are you a christian that is able to discern spiritual contact? Are you a christian that is able to understand the bible as it is intended to be understood? Are you a christian that claims to be a christian and actually fulfills the necessary actions to be a christian?
Or aren't you?


I got the impression that you were separating yourself from christians who claim to be christians but really are not.

Are you not the top tier christian but more christian than a little bit but way more christian than fake christians?

Break it down for me. 
I thought you were a model christian from your posts, but you said I was wrong. 
Explain please.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 14, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> How so? Are they not written in a language comprehensible to humans without divine intervention? The KJV was written in english last I checked.



1 Corinthians 2: 13-14


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> 1 Corinthians 2: 13-14



Talk about self aggrandizement. 

I guess you always have that out when confronted with difficult questions you dare not answer. "I believe so I understand better than those who do not." Can you really convince yourself that is true? Or do you only wish it to be true and deep down know better?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 14, 2017)

To break it down, I do separate myself from fake Christians. Who wouldn't? Fake Christians tell on their selves, you don't have to look for them. As I said before, they quote scripture on Sunday and steal your horse on Monday. As far as top tier, I never suggested that. I readily admit that I could be wrong about something, and I pray daily for guidance.    



bullethead said:


> I got the impression that you were separating yourself from christians who claim to be christians but really are not.
> 
> Are you not the top tier christian but more christian than a little bit but way more christian than fake christians?
> 
> ...


I am not sure how you could think I am a model Christian and make the comment below.


bullethead said:


> ....I am also getting some spiritual concernment and it is telling me that spotlite thinks he is a REAL christian moreso than most and his rules really do not apply to himself.





bullethead said:


> YOU have got it all correct though, am I accurate?





Spotlite said:


> You'd be wrong. I never claimed that.





bullethead said:


> Makes me wonder if your spiritual discernment agrees with all christians spiritual discernment.





Spotlite said:


> Absolutely there's plenty of room for disagreement. I've already stated that that's a topic of its own, and that would fill up several pages lol. Man will justify his ways. It's a black eye for Christianity but it happens. You hear stories all the time "God told me to do it". Not an exact quote, but everyone that says Lord will not enter in.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 14, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Talk about self aggrandizement.
> 
> I guess you always have that out when confronted with difficult questions you dare not answer. "I believe so I understand better than those who do not." Can you really convince yourself that is true? Or do you only wish it to be true and deep down know better?



Hey every man has his go to card lol 

BTW, I never said I understand better than those who do not believe. If that is the message that you got from me, it was misunderstood or either I delivered it wrong. Does it sound better if re-worded to say that I don't understand how it is possible for the non believer to understand the spiritual aspects of the scripture, if the non believer does not believe that the spiritual aspect exist?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 14, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Hey every man has his go to card lol
> 
> BTW, I never said I understand better than those who do not believe. If that is the message that you got from me, it was misunderstood or either I delivered it wrong. Does it sound better if re-worded to say that I don't understand how it is possible for the non believer to understand the spiritual aspects of the scripture, if the non believer does not believe that the spiritual aspect exist?



That's fine. I don't want to put words in your mouth or misrepresent your position. You have indicated if I understood correctly that belief imparts an understanding that is simply unavailable to those who don't believe. I disagree with that but let me ask you this. Can understanding of scripture once gained, be lost? I'm not talking about discernment in how to live or what choice to make that maybe prayer helped you make. I'm talking about understanding what the bible says. Your response to the human sacrifice questions seemed to amount to "You don't get it". If you can explain why you think that I'd be interested. Your explanation of how Jesus blood covered your sins I think was what I had been saying all along. And keep in mind I was a believer at one time. That should have given me discernment unavailable to the nonbeliever. From where I stand now I am confident that wasn't at all the case nor is it the case that I have lost special powers of discernment that I once had. To the contrary I know much more about christianity and its origins now than I did then.

John 3:16 is not a difficult verse to understand. It doesn't take special discernment to comprehend its message. And it's entirely reasonable that someone could understand it, not believe it, and not find it moral.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> That's fine. I don't want to put words in your mouth or misrepresent your position. You have indicated if I understood correctly that belief imparts an understanding that is simply unavailable to those who don't believe. I disagree with that but let me ask you this. Can understanding of scripture once gained, be lost? I'm not talking about discernment in how to live or what choice to make that maybe prayer helped you make. I'm talking about understanding what the bible says. Your response to the human sacrifice questions seemed to amount to "You don't get it". If you can explain why you think that I'd be interested. Your explanation of how Jesus blood covered your sins I think was what I had been saying all along. And keep in mind I was a believer at one time. That should have given me discernment unavailable to the nonbeliever. From where I stand now I am confident that wasn't at all the case nor is it the case that I have lost special powers of discernment that I once had. To the contrary I know much more about christianity and its origins now than I did then.
> 
> John 3:16 is not a difficult verse to understand. It doesn't take special discernment to comprehend its message. And it's entirely reasonable that someone could understand it, not believe it, and not find it moral.


People walk away from it every day. 

It's not a "special power". It is nothing more than faith for those that are seeking God. I don't know your circumstances in its entirety, but somewhere that faith turned to doubt for whatever reason that only you know. Considering  your point that my response eluded to "you don't get it", it is not that you don't get it because of the lack of intelligence, it has nothing to do with that. In order to get the full depth of the cross (death, burial and resurrection), it was more than just an event, it was symbolic as well and requires faith and trust in God. Death was conquered, our sins are covered, we are buried with Christ, and we have the hope of resurrection and eternal life. You can very well read and comprehend that, but when you have faith to believe that, it's a different ball game.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 15, 2017)

> ... Christianity’s ﬁrst systematic adversary, ridiculed the Christian conversion method.  He claimed that Christians only approached the ignorant and uneducated, women and children as dim-witted as themselves.





> …and subsequently claimed to have established that the Apostles, who inspired awe in all Christians, were deceptive individuals. As a result of these disciples’ malicious practices, he argued, the Christian scriptures were naturally unreliable and contradictory as well.





> ‘certain persons [Christians] who do not wish either to give or receive a reason for their belief, keep repeating, “Do not examine, but believe!” and, “Your faith will save you!”’


Do you see how ↑this↑ last one could so easily be a misunderstanding of “Examination alone will not lead to a believing faith that will save you” (salvation by the grace of faith)?

These quotes are from the late second century A.D., maybe early third — all Roman I think.
Attribution is available in the source document.
http://www.academia.edu/2519819/Inc...nti-Christian_Imputations_in_the_Roman_Empire

Same OLD stuff; but the AA’s here may be missing an opportunity in the incest and cannibalism angles — infanticide, pretty much, falls down in the chute before the gate opens.


----------



## Israel (Nov 15, 2017)

Atlas,

John 3:16 states a fact. The truth of the matter in Jesus appearance among us. Even in reference to the "why" of it.

But I have never met any believer that finds it "not difficult to understand" in the terms in which a man might think he understands anything.

To love what is so firm in opposition to that love and to be so undeterred by all the resistance such opposition can muster and manifest; epithets, heaping of scorn, the complete and utter disregard and seeking of separation from the "proposer" to the most violent and final imposition of the most ignominious execution possible to it, never leaves me without wonder.

Yes, wondering about it. "How can it be?" How can a someone be? How _is_ that someone in their being? Of what constitution are "they" that such a profound sticking to purpose in the face of all opposition can prevail, and not for the purpose of dominance (which is easily and perhaps all too often inferred), but to the very end of "making friends"?

Men understand the doing of a thing to a personal gain of a something, but who of us truly understands the plan and full purpose of doing a thing solely in behalf of another...and another not presenting as friend or ally, but staunchest of enemy?

If you "have that", if you _are that_ in your being, one who not only can claim to love, but manifestly make it plain to no resistance by yourself against the most grievous insult to the purity of such love (and truth) you are master in a thing I seek.

But if, in some way, like me, you easily see or have seen in yourself an easy turning away of friend in need, let alone the easy casting of despite upon an assumed "enemy", then like me, you may see a need of salvation. 

If people appear (more often than we may care to admit) a bother, a source of troublesome disquiet to the soul, intruders into what one may prefer to "set up" as universe, whose coming of need asks more in measure than we may measure to our own benefit, then, you are not unlike me at all. 

But, if you are sufficient to all, for all, in no matter of what weariness you may find your frame or personal disposition, then, I salute you.

If I may add, the particulars and experience of discovery in that place, that moment of "seeing" the need of salvation can be of such deep terror and grief it is no place a man has any right (or even ability) to impose upon another, it is of no man to "make another" go there. 

But one having gone or been has every right secured to speak of the face he has seen come shining in that blackness. Indeed, he cannot "help himself", nor, having been there, in that place to which all "helping of himself" must lead does he care much for making choices, anymore. If he has been to the place he knows. He knows his own choices are themselves the illusions invented to cast a light toward a mirror of the face he has come to love above all, his own. But in such darkness he must fail, cannot but see his own failing. He is stripped of all "matches" in his bag to light a way for him to see his own face, and then invent a new one, a better one, to escape. But here, he may see a face. It is not the face of religion, nor of doctrines dusty bound, of practice nor ritual. It is the face of a man who has gone before to carry light where no light was, nor can be seen till entered. One face. And the beholding of that face of light that is to a purpose gone there, to light a man's way out...and it, that face, in all eclipses what is "else". There is no need to tell a man "find the blackness" so you can find the way out. God appears, and no man can withstand that darkness unless he find it be turned to light toward him. Our proud words and thoughts are ample invitation to Him. Our choicest of them.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> To break it down, I do separate myself from fake Christians. Who wouldn't? Fake Christians tell on their selves, you don't have to look for them. As I said before, they quote scripture on Sunday and steal your horse on Monday. As far as top tier, I never suggested that. I readily admit that I could be wrong about something, and I pray daily for guidance.
> 
> 
> I am not sure how you could think I am a model Christian and make the comment below.



"I do separate myself from fake christians"


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 15, 2017)

bullethead said:


> "I do serarate myself from fake christians"


We've heard this "fake Christian" thing from a number of different Christians now.
I cant help but wonder how many "real" Christians there actually are.
There might only be like 2 or 3 of these dudes from the sounds of it


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 15, 2017)

Israel,

I realize you think John 3:16 is a fact but that doesn't make it so. Whether it is or not, the truth of the claim doesn't change the morality of the claim.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 15, 2017)

Spotlite,

I understand what you are saying. You have faith and nonbelievers obviously don't. But many of them at one time did. We've been where you are. We've established that human sacrifice is immoral. I would extend that to the idea of vicarious redemption and scapegoating through any blood sacrifice. These ideas have their origins in ancient near east religions that practiced human sacrifice including the Canaanite religion from whose pantheon your god came. It's a vestige of a time when people would slay their first born to their god to gain a victory in battle. This is the origin of the god you worship and blood sacrifice, human sacrifice is one of the vestiges that come with it culminating in what Christians believe was the ultimate sacrifice of a god in human form.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> We've heard this "fake Christian" thing from a number of different Christians now.
> I cant help but wonder how many "real" Christians there actually are.
> There might only be like 2 or 3 of these dudes from the sounds of it



1 John 1:6
The correct term would be hypocrite.

I don't know how many there are out there, but you and both know they are. 

As far as anyone posting in here.......Unless you know the life they're living.....I don't know how anyone can make a determination of who's fake. Whoever has that ability really does have special powers


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Spotlite,
> 
> I understand what you are saying. You have faith and nonbelievers obviously don't. But many of them at one time did. We've been where you are. We've established that human sacrifice is immoral. I would extend that to the idea of vicarious redemption and scapegoating through any blood sacrifice. These ideas have their origins in ancient near east religions that practiced human sacrifice including the Canaanite religion from whose pantheon your god came. It's a vestige of a time when people would slay their first born to their god to gain a victory in battle. This is the origin of the god you worship and blood sacrifice, human sacrifice is one of the vestiges that come with it culminating in what Christians believe was the ultimate sacrifice of a god in human form.


Interesting. But I do have to consider the historians in the matter.


----------



## Israel (Nov 15, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Israel,
> 
> I realize you think John 3:16 is a fact but that doesn't make it so. Whether it is or not, the truth of the claim doesn't change the morality of the claim.



What morality would that be?
One that is subject to change? 

Or a righteousness that is not?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 15, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Interesting. But I do have to consider the historians in the matter.



"When you are studying any matter or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed, but look only and solely at what are the facts."
~Bertrand Russell

How about a consideration of the facts?


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 15, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> 1 John 1:6
> The correct term would be hypocrite.
> 
> I don't know how many there are out there, but you and both know they are.
> ...


Well hypocrite and "fake" are definitely different things.
In my opinion, there are no "fake" Christians.
There are just Christians.
And they act all kinds of different ways. Some of them break every tenet there is at some point or another.
Some of them do their honest best not to break any of them ever. Some fall in between there.
But they ALL fall under the blanket of "Christian".
Not real. Not fake. Just Christian.
Your own Christian beliefs acknowledge that man CANT HELP but sin. That you WILL sin. That if you follow the rules you can be FORGIVEN for those sins.


> The correct term would be hypocrite.


Hypocrisy is just one of those sins. Doesn't make a Christian "fake". 
It makes them a sinner.
Which according to Christianity.... ALL men are. Which includes all Christians.
So actually... its the sinner that is "real".


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 15, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> So actually... its the sinner that is "real".



That has always been the case, sans redemption, and what separated them from the Pharisees. Jesus didn't go in search for Scribes and Pharisees and Leaders of the Church during his travels. 

He sought out, talked to, and taught "sinners" and occasionally healed them. My rub with Christians, which I am one of, is they don't spend any effort speaking to strangers on a ground level basis outside of the walls of the church, ie. they can't relate to them, feel uncomfortable around them, and most of the time take an attitude of spiritual superiority over them. 

Jesus's life was fairly well documented in the Bible and nothing I've read in the NT suggest that he ever acted that way with the common man. He made specific efforts to speak to them on their level. 

However the few times he did speak with the leaders of the church, the Pharisees, I found he was quite stern and even condescending to them for their blatantly obvious ignorance and tunnel vision if you will. Yet when speaking with the leader of a nation, he spoke to him as a common man. 

Oh what a tangled web we humans weave. Arrogance, hypocrisy, being judgmental, lying (gasp) and flat out intolerance. If Jesus had all of our personality traits, as Christians we wouldn't be having this conversation.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Well hypocrite and "fake" are definitely different things.
> In my opinion, there are no "fake" Christians.
> There are just Christians.
> And they act all kinds of different ways. Some of them break every tenet there is at some point or another.
> ...


Ok so for the sake of clarification, anything that I ever referred to as fake should have been hypocritical.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 15, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> That has always been the case, sans redemption, and what separated them from the Pharisees. Jesus didn't go in search for Scribes and Pharisees and Leaders of the Church during his travels.
> 
> He sought out, talked to, and taught "sinners" and occasionally healed them. My rub with Christians, which I am one of, is they don't spend any effort speaking to strangers on a ground level basis outside of the walls of the church, ie. they can't relate to them, feel uncomfortable around them, and most of the time take an attitude of spiritual superiority over them.
> 
> ...


Sometimes I cant help but wonder if Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua (yes I believe the man existed) could see what all this turned into, he would do a


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> However the few times he did speak with the leaders of the church, the Pharisees, I found he was quite stern and even condescending to them for their blatantly obvious ignorance and tunnel vision if you will.
> 
> Oh what a tangled web we humans weave. Arrogance, hypocrisy, being judgmental, lying (gasp) and flat out intolerance. If Jesus had all of our personality traits, as Christians we wouldn't be having this conversation.


Agreed!


----------



## Israel (Nov 15, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Sometimes I cant help but wonder if Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua (yes I believe the man existed) could see what all this turned into, he would do a what all this turned into:



This part:


> Sometimes I cant help but wonder if Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua (yes I believe the man existed) could see



Yes. Jesus well understood the need of salvation/redemption...

Because he sees/saw clearly



> what all this turned into



Really, what men, if abandoned to themselves, cannot help but doing.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 15, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Sometimes I cant help but wonder if Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua (yes I believe the man existed) could see what all this turned into, he would do a



Yeah considering a bulk of the theology came from a man who never knew Jesus I suspect it wouldn't go the way christians think it would.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 15, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Yeah considering a bulk of the theology came from a man who never knew Jesus I suspect it wouldn't go the way christians think it would.



Did you ever know Epicurus?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 15, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Did you ever know Epicurus?



What are you trying to say? I may have a few gray hairs but I'm not that old.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 15, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> What are you trying to say? I may have a few gray hairs but I'm not that old.




And yet you ascribe to assign credibility to hoards of books and documents drawn from his beliefs by people that never met him, but are only attracted to his philosophy. 

This puts Christians and Atheist in the same boat, concerning their beliefs, and I don't see either one sinking anytime soon.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2017)

Didn't Epicurus have about 300 works, all written by himself?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 15, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Didn't Epicurus have about 300 works, all written by himself?


And now, the rest of the wiki paragraph.



> Epicurus (/ËŒÉ›pÉªËˆkjÊŠÉ™rÉ™s/ or /ËŒÉ›pÉªËˆkjÉ”Ë�rÉ™s/;[2] Greek: á¼˜Ï€Î¯ÎºÎ¿Ï…Ï�Î¿Ï‚, Epíkouros, "ally, comrade"; 341–270 BC) was an ancient Greek philosopher who founded the school of philosophy called Epicureanism. Only a few fragments and letters of Epicurus's 300 written works remain. Much of what is known about Epicurean philosophy derives from later followers and commentators.



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

Google is a wonderful tool.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 15, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> And yet you ascribe to assign credibility to hoards of books and documents drawn from his beliefs by people that never met him, but are only attracted to his philosophy.
> 
> This puts Christians and Atheist in the same boat, concerning their beliefs, and I don't see either one sinking anytime soon.



What matters is not the authenticity of the origin of the ideas but the ideas themselves. Not so with Christianity. If Epicurus could see the words attributed to him and said "this is bunk" it would do nothing to reduce the merit of the ideas. They stand on their own regardless of origin. On the other hand if Jesus could see the words attributed to him and said "this is bunk", then what?

You didn't think it would really be that easy did you?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> And now, the rest of the wiki paragraph.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'll have to try it


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 15, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> What matters is not the authenticity of the origin of the ideas but the ideas themselves. Not so with Christianity. If Epicurus could see the words attributed to him and said "this is bunk" it would do nothing to reduce the merit of the ideas. They stand on their own regardless of origin. On the other hand if Jesus could see the words attributed to him and said "this is bunk", then what?
> 
> You didn't think it would really be that easy did you?



Merely a perspective. From a believers standpoint, despite which side of the wall you are on, this works both ways.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2017)

Diogenes Laertius researched Epicurus and used writings personally made by Epicurus to write his own book called Life of Epicurus which gave accurate information directly from the source. Laertius was the curator of Epicurus works.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 15, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Merely a perspective. From a believers standpoint, despite which side of the wall you are on, this works both ways.



How so? The origin and authenticity of the claims made about Jesus is central to the theology is it not? If Jesus didn't do what he was claimed to have done and say what he was claimed to have said, if the christian religion was a later distortion of who he was then what are you left with? But with Epicurus or Socrates it doesn't matter if the attributions are accurate or if they even ever existed at all. The ideas would still remain.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 15, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Diogenes Laertius researched Epicurus and used writings personally made by Epicurus to write his own book called Life of Epicurus which gave accurate information directly from the source.





atlashunter said:


> How so? The origin and authenticity of the claims made about Jesus is central to the theology is it not? If Jesus didn't do what he was claimed to have done and say what he was claimed to have said, if the christian religion was a later distortion of who he was then what are you left with? But with Epicurus or Socrates it doesn't matter if the attributions are accurate or if they even ever existed at all. The ideas would still remain.



Both were still basically a "philosophy" evidenced by nothing more than one man's opinion. 

I could write volumes on the belief in purple flying elephants and back them up by my own personal accounts. The saddest part about that, in today's modern society and with the tools available to spread this word on the internet, I would immediately get a following of faithful believers.


----------



## Israel (Nov 15, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Yeah considering a bulk of the theology came from a man who never knew Jesus I suspect it wouldn't go the way christians think it would.




If you are speaking of Paul...he "got it".
Profoundly in implication "is there something that is happening when perfect righteousness and the need for expression of perfect mercy are brought into _perfect _proximity ...even in One?"





He saw...and found for himself what takes place, especially "in the flesh" when this is revealed to be Who He is.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 15, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Both were still basically a "philosophy" evidenced by nothing more than one man's opinion.
> 
> I could write volumes on the belief in purple flying elephants and back them up by my own personal accounts. The saddest part about that, in today's modern society and with the tools available to spread this word on the internet, I would immediately get a following of faithful believers.



If Jesus didn't do what he was claimed to have done and say what he was claimed to have said, if the christian religion was a later distortion of who he was then what are you left with?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 15, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> If Jesus didn't do what he was claimed to have done and say what he was claimed to have said, if the christian religion was a later distortion of who he was then what are you left with?



Who is going to disprove it. 

I know of very few belief systems based on "If's", even yours.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Both were still basically a "philosophy" evidenced by nothing more than one man's opinion.
> 
> I could write volumes on the belief in purple flying elephants and back them up by my own personal accounts. The saddest part about that, in today's modern society and with the tools available to spread this word on the internet, I would immediately get a following of faithful believers.


Agreed, but the point is YOU would be writing it, the authors who wrote about Epicurus wrote it based off of his own personal writings. Jesus......he didn't write a thing. The authors, who tell of intricate details of conversations that took place between Jesus and one other person, were not there to hear these conversations.
Had the writers referenced Jesus' personal diary or the personal writings of Jesus, then it is a different story.
Contemporary historians talk of Epicurus and many other ancient people in great detail using the works of those people as evidence.
Jesus, he doesn't exist anywhere outside of scripture which was written by people who never knew him, never met him, and never had so much as a single letter of the alphabet written by Jesus to go by.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 15, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Agreed, but the point is YOU would be writing it, the authors who wrote about Epicurus wrote it based off of his own personal writings. Jesus......he didn't write a thing. The authors, who tell of intricate details of conversations that took place between Jesus and one other person, were not there to hear these conversations



Not according the red highlighted area of the link I provided.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Not according the red highlighted area of the link I provided.



Those fragments are what is left today.
The authors/commenters had more of his works to go by.

I guess another good thing about google is that a person can read multiple links about one subject and also research people who wrote about that subject in order to see where they got their information from.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 15, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Who is going to disprove it.
> 
> I know of very few belief systems based on "If's", even yours.



Probably no one but that is beside the point. The hypothetical is what you were responding to in the first place.


----------



## j_seph (Nov 15, 2017)

From a little reading I do not see where the bible condones slavery. Slavery I read about is not as it was where blacks were captured and forced into slavery. Slavery was a means of getting money by selling yourself to cover a debt or take care of family. The bible even states in the OT Exodus 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. Then move over into the NT 1 Timothy 1:8-10
8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For *****mongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for *menstealers*, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 
I just do not see slavery in the bible as slavery that we know of and understand in 2017


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2017)

j_seph said:


> From a little reading I do not see where the bible condones slavery. Slavery I read about is not as it was where blacks were captured and forced into slavery. Slavery was a means of getting money by selling yourself to cover a debt or take care of family. The bible even states in the OT Exodus 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. Then move over into the NT 1 Timothy 1:8-10
> 8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
> 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
> 10 For *****mongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for *menstealers*, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
> I just do not see slavery in the bible as slavery that we know of and understand in 2017



Do a lot of reading instead of just a little. 

So if you were killed in battle and your wife and children are taken, are you confident that the bible instructs their new masters to treat them as working servants?

Or

Will somethings more sinister happen to them regularly?

Oh and maybe read the verses that have been posted in this thread that deal with slavery.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 15, 2017)

j_seph said:


> From a little reading I do not see where the bible condones slavery.



The verses have already been quoted in this thread.




j_seph said:


> Slavery I read about is not as it was where blacks were captured and forced into slavery. Slavery was a means of getting money by selling yourself to cover a debt or take care of family.



This is a particularly ignorant claim to make considering the bible contains stories of Israelites taking virgin sex slaves as the spoils of war when they didn't murder every man, woman, and child in a city they conquered as a sacrificial offering to Yahweh.





j_seph said:


> The bible even states in the OT Exodus 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. Then move over into the NT 1 Timothy 1:8-10
> 8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
> 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
> 10 For *****mongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for *menstealers*, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
> I just do not see slavery in the bible as slavery that we know of and understand in 2017



Exodus 21 is putting forth the rules for holding and treatment of slaves. Rather than being a prohibition of enslavement the verse you just quoted is a legal protection for slave owners against the theft of their human "property".

Chapter 6 of Timothy instructs slaves to respect and serve their masters.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> The verses have already been quoted in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Its hard to find when a person refuses to look.
Cherry picking at it's finest for jseph


----------



## Israel (Nov 16, 2017)

A man_ must_ obey that to which he is a slave. Otherwise he is a rebel.

How can a man know who he is unless he is made to see what he does not want to be?


As Moses lifted the serpent in the wilderness, so must the son of man be lifted up.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 16, 2017)

Israel I don't know if you have offspring but if you do I really hope your advice to them would not be that if they are ever kidnapped they must be respectful and obedient to their captors lest they be a rebel.


----------



## Israel (Nov 16, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Israel I don't know if you have offspring but if you do I really hope your advice to them would not be that if they are ever kidnapped they must be respectful and obedient to their captors lest they be a rebel.




How much a man shows of himself, _must show of himself_ even in all he deems hypothetical.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 16, 2017)

Israel said:


> How much a man shows of himself, _must show of himself_ even in all he deems hypothetical.



How masterfully inane.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Both were still basically a "philosophy" evidenced by nothing more than one man's opinion.
> 
> I could write volumes on the belief in purple flying elephants and back them up by my own personal accounts. The saddest part about that, in today's modern society and with the tools available to spread this word on the internet, I would immediately get a following of faithful believers.





..And no matter how many times you tell them that flying purple elephants don't resurrect from the dead they won't listen.  What does that tell you about people who have faith based beliefs?


----------

