Poster of naked Virgin Mary sparks unholy row

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You being an Atheist I understand you believe your existence will be brief and has no purpose. That obviously makes you a little bitter. But if you must spread your bile to a thread about things you don't believe in could you at least be original?

This is a classic.

You believe there is a global conspiracy to deny all of reality and that there is a Master of the Universe out there judging you on your very thoughts, and he's the bitter one?

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Credited By who? Some 21 century academic who thinks the Bible is a collection of myths? Acts is the history book of the first century church. It is an eye witness account. According to Acts it was first revealed to Peter that salvation was extended to the Gentiles(see Acts ch 10-11). The Jerusalem church upon hearing Peter's testimony of the circumstances of the first Gentile coverts glorified God:

Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Paul actually went to the Jerusalem church for confirmation of his understanding that Gentiles didn't have to live under the Jewish law in order to be saved. They agreed with him and gave him a letter stating that fact(Acts 15:1-31). The only thing your historian got right was that Paul clashed with Jews who wanted Gentile converts to practice elements of Judaism. Both the book of Acts and Paul's letters testify to that. I find it ironic that you an Atheist are siding with them.

Actually, a number of "21 century academics" have put forward the argument that the early church was split between the Jewish "Jesus Movement" led by James and the Gentile "Christ Movement" led by Paul. The meeting in Jerusalem that is written about in Acts is curiously not mentioned in any of Paul's writings. Many bible scholars - both Christian and non-Christian - are of the opinion that Acts (written by the same author as the book of Luke) is questionable historically. Discrepancies between Acts and the letters of Paul are impossible to overlook. It has been suggested that the purpose of the book of Acts - and the reason for its inclusion into the canon - was to bridge the gap between the Jesus Movement and the Christ Movement.

Books on this subject include How Jesus became Christian by Barrie Wilson and Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman.

And, it should be pointed out that a lot (possibly most) of the research into the historical accuracy has been done in the past century - partly due to discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hamadi manuscripts.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk

Actually, a number of "21 century academics" have put forward the argument that the early church was split between the Jewish "Jesus Movement" led by James and the Gentile "Christ Movement" led by Paul. The meeting in Jerusalem that is written about in Acts is curiously not mentioned in any of Paul's writings. Many bible scholars - both Christian and non-Christian - are of the opinion that Acts (written by the same author as the book of Luke) is questionable historically. Discrepancies between Acts and the letters of Paul are impossible to overlook. It has been suggested that the purpose of the book of Acts - and the reason for its inclusion into the canon - was to bridge the gap between the Jesus Movement and the Christ Movement.

Books on this subject include How Jesus became Christian by Barrie Wilson and Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman.

And, it should be pointed out that a lot (possibly most) of the research into the historical accuracy has been done in the past century - partly due to discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hamadi manuscripts.

No scholar worth a salt would take the testimony of the Nag Hamadi manuscripts over the testimony of the church Fathers and the accepted canon. They're of late origin and come out of Egypt which was the center of gnosticism. As far as the Dead Sea scrolls go; I don't know what Barrie and Bart wrote but, they are a collection Jewish texts by a Jewish break away sect. They don't address Christian history at all.

Maybe Barrie and Bart would do better to read a little less pseudepigrapha and a bit more of the accepted canon. Paul did mention the meeting in Jerusalem. It's found in the second chapter of Galatians. Paul also mentions Luke as a companion in 2Tim 4:11. Paul never mentions a rift with the Jerusalem church.

What Paul doesn't do in his writings is address Gnostic heresy. That was addressed mainly by James,John and Jude when they wrote later in the first century. The latter half of the first century is when Gnostic heresy first became a problem in the earliy church. We know this from the writings of the church fathers and the subjects of the epistles. Paul's writings were prefered by Gnostics because firstly and foremostly they weren't written to refute them.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Maybe Ernie and Bert would be a better read

Fixed!!

Seriously dude...it's all crap.

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

No scholar worth a salt would take the testimony of the Nag Hamadi manuscripts over the testimony of the church Fathers and the accepted canon. They're of late origin and come out of Egypt which was the center of gnosticism. As far as the Dead Sea scrolls go; I don't know what Barrie and Bart wrote but, they are a collection Jewish texts by a Jewish break away sect. They don't address Christian history at all.

Maybe Barrie and Bart would do better to read a little less pseudepigrapha and a bit more of the accepted canon. Paul did mention the meeting in Jerusalem. It's found in the second chapter of Galatians. Paul also mentions Luke as a companion in 2Tim 4:11. Paul never mentions a rift with the Jerusalem church.

What Paul doesn't do in his writings is address Gnostic heresy. That was addressed mainly by James,John and Jude when they wrote later in the first century. The latter half of the first century is when Gnostic heresy first became a problem in the earliy church. We know this from the writings of the church fathers and the subjects of the epistles. Paul's writings were prefered by Gnostics because firstly and foremostly they weren't written to refute them.

Perhaps you would do better to maybe read something other than Christian apologetics and look at other viewpoints. You are very dismissive of books that you admit you know nothing about. I mentioned them as examples of historians and biblical scholars who counter the literalist orthodoxy - they are by no means the only ones out there. In the case of Bart Ehrman, he had a born-again experience in his teens and took up biblical studies as a result of this. He went into school as a biblical literalist, but that view changed with learning.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk

Perhaps you would do better to maybe read something other than Christian apologetics and look at other viewpoints. You are very dismissive of books that you admit you know nothing about. I mentioned them as examples of historians and biblical scholars who counter the literalist orthodoxy - they are by no means the only ones out there. In the case of Bart Ehrman, he had a born-again experience in his teens and took up biblical studies as a result of this. He went into school as a biblical literalist, but that view changed with learning.

No I wouldn't be better off. Guys of this ilk produce garbage. They are of the same pedigree as the historians who fawn over the writings of Nostradamus and try to bend history to fulfill his prophesies. They're equivalent to historians who deny the holocaust except(at least in the western world) it isn't politically correct to question the holocaust but, popular to question Orthodox Christianity. Your Bart Ehrman probably got sucked into some Comparative Religions study course when he first went to college and without any critical thinking skills bought into what he was being fed. Obviously he still hasn't gained any skills if he is taking the word of a gnostic cult who was geographically and doctrinally far removed from the Canon over the supportive testimony within the canon itself and from without through the church Fathers.

Paul warned of this:

2Ti 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

[Reaper]

Personally, I take comfort in the notion that my life isn't some kind of test or phase that I have to endure for some mystical reward after I'm dead. But then again, I don't subscribe to the flat earth theory either.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Paul warned of this:

2Ti 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

I think it's time for a new testament, I consider myself fairly literate but I have to read this pile of crap 3 times to understand it..even then I'm not 100% sure what it means.

Must be tough going threw life following scripture written in hebrew that was clearly badly translated to english.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Maybe you should define what you think a debate curtails. Usually around here it involves a lot of cutting and pasting from atheist sites by two or three of you atheists with a few others chiming in with little pot shots. A person would have to be here full time in order to answer half the volume. Hardly a favorable environment for an exchange of ideas.

Hmmm

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

No I wouldn't be better off. Guys of this ilk produce garbage. They are of the same pedigree as the historians who fawn over the writings of Nostradamus and try to bend history to fulfill his prophesies. They're equivalent to historians who deny the holocaust except(at least in the western world) it isn't politically correct to question the holocaust but, popular to question Orthodox Christianity. Your Bart Ehrman probably got sucked into some Comparative Religions study course when he first went to college and without any critical thinking skills bought into what he was being fed. Obviously he still hasn't gained any skills if he is taking the word of a gnostic cult who was geographically and doctrinally far removed from the Canon over the supportive testimony within the canon itself and from without through the church Fathers.

Paul warned of this:

2Ti 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Good to see that you have an open mind to other viewpoints.

I guess I've got nothing more to add to this...

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Doctordestiny

Let me tell you the kind of Christian I am. I've commented behind your point.

• Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry - I don't believe homosexuals should be allowed to legally marry. If they want a union ceremony, fine. Just don't marry them. I think it threatens the family. I am tolerant of homsexuals and have some as friends and business associates, by the way.
• Stem cell research is wrong - I don't know. Don't know enough about it. If it doesn't destroy a life, I'm fine with it.
• A woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child into the world. - I'm opposed to abortion for the reason you've stated. I consider it taking a human life. I don't think we should take a human life for any reason, except self defence or equivalent.
• The natural world exists to serve man - I think it does.
• Humanity is the center of the universe - I think we are, although I don't discount the possibility of there being other races created by God.
• Don't question the bible/word of God - I don't question the word of God, but don't believe the Bible is entirely to be taken literally.

It's insulting when we're called stupid for believing as we do. I think our beliefs are valid and make total sense. I happen to believe that the theory of all this around us happening randomly makes little sense. There are some very intelligent people (including some of the greatest scientific minds of our time) who are Christians. A book I read by one of those brilliant scientists who was athiest and became Christian through his research is what turned me from a fence-sitter into a believer. It is the most amazing book I've ever read, so I read it twice in succession. I guess my point is that I feel that Christian ideas make sense and it insults when we're discounted as idiots for having those beliefs. We're not idiots; we just happen to disagree with you.

And yes I realize that there are also some great scientific minds who are not believers. Please don't bring that up as a rebuttal to my point.

Thanks for your frank and thorough response.

Your answers have demonstrated precisely why so many people have issues with not just Christianity, but organized religion as a whole. You posted that you felt Christianity had morals and values that improved life. Then you replied to my post exactly as I feared you might - intolerance, selfishness (on the part of humanity, not an a personal level), and willfull blindness dressed up as "faith".

The beliefs of your faith are causing harm to others, and I hope you will take pause to examine them. I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but hopefully we can all occasionally take a breath and ask ourselves why we believe what we do.



The fact you don't believe homosexuals should have the right to marry means that you don't believe in equality. The word "bigot" is really really ugly - but if you think an adult in our society shouldn't have the same rights as any other of our adults, then I'm afraid that is what you are. It's nothing new - 50 years ago lots of people felt that interracial marriage was wrong. Now such an idea is considered racist. And rightly so.

Given that opposition to equal rights for homosexuals breaks starkly down generational lines, its pretty clear 50 years from now opposition to marriage based on sexuality will be similarly viewed. Most of the developed world recognizes it now anyway. It certainly hasn't threatened anyone's marriage so far.

A personal question - If you have a child - don't you want that child to have the same rights as every other child, regardless of what their personal circumstance is?

My layman's understanding of stem cell research - cells taken from unused embryos used for invitro fertilization (most fertility clinics create many potential embryos, but once conception occurs, don't need the extra ones). Great potential for developing treatments for degenerative diseases like Alzheimers or MS. Opposition stems from the belief that life begins at the moment of conception, and even a few cells in a test tube constitute a human life.

Abortion - I think there is a far greater harm in bringing unwanted children into the world and abandoning them, then there is for a woman to recognize she isn't ready for motherhood, and having an abortion. If you don't support abortion, then I hope you are doing your part and have adopted a few unwanted kids.

And since I live in Texas - please write a letter to our governor expressing how important it is to stop killing inmates, and another to our president (and your Prime Minister) asking to bring the troops back home - because lives are being lost there too.

The natural world exists to serve man - That is one of the most selfish, self centered tenants of faith, and it really blows my gaskets. We've done quite a number on this planet thanks in part to that very misguided belief. Greed also plays a huge role, but at the end of the day, this world got along just fine for a long time before us, and will continue to do so long after humanity is dust. Surely you recognize what a minute speck we are in the universe? Do you think it revolves around us?

Nature is a complex system, and we are but a tiny part of that system. We are doing our very best to knock it out now though - thanks to overpopulation, and horrifically bad resource management. It would be far better for humanity to be aware that not everything is about us, and it's more important to have trees for cleaning the air, than as firewood.

As to the bible - how do you pick what parts are true and what parts aren't? And how do you trust the "true parts", when you know there are (apparently) lies in there too?

I don't know how anyone can expect not be ridiculed when their beliefs are in conflict with enlightened progressive society. Nobody likes to be made fun of. You get to believe whatever you want in our society - which is great! But when you start telling others (homosexuals, pregnant women) what they should and shouldn't do... well now your beliefs are in conflict with what we should all strive for.

Back to my original post - I believe in equality, tolerance, and understanding of this world through the pursuit of knowledge. Any religion that promotes (or at least does not attempt to impede) those values is ok by me.

Sadly - your version of Christianity doesn't appear to hold those values as important.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by driveway

When Christians can all agree on how their faith is to be practiced, I'll sit down and listen.

I know where you're coming from, but that's like saying you'll get a drivers license when all motorists agree on who makes the best car. Don't hold your breath....

I (essentially) abandoned my faith because of the constant "Here's how you do it, these are the requirements, you must follow the script" mentality being pushed by my particular denomination. After 10+ years, I finally walked into a non-denominational assembly and found my faith rekindled. A focus on faith instead of pageantry made all the difference, and I'm a better man for it (although still not perfect!). My lifelong experience has proved two things for certain.....man can (and usually will) screw up everything, and that faith is what you make of it.

[Thor]

Another sighting!

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Thor

Another sighting

Atheists lack empathy.

Selective morality at its best.

You are a good argument why an atheist should never be put in charge of people.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You are a good argument why an atheist should never be put in charge of people.

Yeah, because theists with power have never done anything bad.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Atheists lack empathy.

Selective morality at its best.

You are a good argument why an atheist should never be put in charge of people.

Wow, so toast with her is fine to joke about and a condom isn't?

Both are ludicrous, deal with it.

[Thor]