Godless Apostate

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

So you get to decide what makes someone a real christian. What are you the pope?

Ya'll neh be bringing the whore of Babylon into here!

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Thing about the Old Testament and religion is it allows any and all amounts of wack doodlry, I have no idea what Jesus meant, don't really care that much frankly, but I know full well idiots calling themselves preachers will find some crap in Leviticus to justify what ever nastiness they wish to preach, it's the nature of man unfortunately.

It is because religion has always been political. Blame the Romans.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

"Law" in the sense of raw material in need of much further explanation and correct application. Moreover in this particular context it is additionally helpful to understand what Jesus meant when he said that the law "would be accomplished." I suspect it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Jesus quoted a tonne of Scripture, but then also instructed his own ethic: "You have heard that it was said, but I tell you ..."

Isn't the point that Jesus, Peter and Paul, Matthew and John, and numerous others in the New Testament, frequently quote from the Old Testament? If that is a fact then how can a true Christian ignore the teachings of the OT. Aren't the two tomes similar to part one and part two, or original and sequel?
Also, as to my above question, how does a Christian who uses the ten commandments suggest that the OT is not applicable any longer?
Contradictions?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

If you are really that interested to know, then perhaps you should pick up a Bible and read it to find out.

Ack, don't tell him that! He'll read it, become an atheist all over again and we'll be right back at square one with this thread.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Isn't the point that Jesus, Peter and Paul, Matthew and John, and numerous others in the New Testament, frequently quote from the Old Testament? If that is a fact then how can a true Christian ignore the teachings of the OT. Aren't the two tomes similar to part one and part two, or original and sequel?
Also, as to my above question, how does a Christian who uses the ten commandments suggest that the OT is not applicable any longer?
Contradictions?

Basically, it comes down to the covenants

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abroga..._Covenant_laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-covenant_theology

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Isn't the point that Jesus, Peter and Paul, Matthew and John, and numerous others in the New Testament, frequently quote from the Old Testament? If that is a fact then how can a true Christian ignore the teachings of the OT. Aren't the two tomes similar to part one and part two, or original and sequel?
Also, as to my above question, how does a Christian who uses the ten commandments suggest that the OT is not applicable any longer?
Contradictions?

In Acts Peter has a dream where God visits him and tells him he doesn’t have to follow the old laws. Something like I will decide what is clean and unclean.

Do you really care about Christian theology though?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Basically, it comes down to the covenants

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abroga..._Covenant_laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-covenant_theology

Yes but its amazing how Churchs can choose to claim 'it's a new covenant' when justifying bacon but loves it some Old Testament sin when it doesn't want to partake of that particular sin.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Basically, it comes down to the covenants

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abroga..._Covenant_laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-covenant_theology

Yup..
Among Christians, there are significant differences on the question of membership in the New Covenant. These differences can be so serious that they form a principal reason for division

[photon]

Late to the simulation theory party, it's an interesting idea but ultimately feels hollow..

Either you end up with an infinite regress, turtles all the way down, who were the first simulators type question..

Or if you say that the simulators might not have things like time or causality in their reality, but then it basically becomes no different than the answer being "God".. It's just a magic thing that doesn't actually explain anything.

I guess unless we can somehow eventually break or exit or otherwise perceive beyond the simulation.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Matata

The gospels are the fundamental teachings of christianity and typically focus on loving oneself, others and god. To this day I still have a lot of respect for much of the content in the gospels. The old testament is less essential and christians have more freedom to pick and choose the parts they like about it.

I gotta tell ya, the Jews pick and choose from the Torah (old testament) quite a bit. Most of the content is viewed as stories to be interpreted, and never, EVER meant to be taken literally.

But the family I married is definitely reform. Orthodox is a whole 'nother story.

Basically, quoting a section of the bible in condemnation of it is pretty stupid in this day and age.






soooo....how about The Good Place? *nervously hoping the conversation takes a lighter tone*

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

soooo....how about The Good Place? *nervously hoping the conversation takes a lighter tone*

You shut your GOD DAMNED FACE!

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by nik-

You shut your GOD DAMNED FACE!

Undeserved anger and blasphemy. Seems appropriate for this thread.

[Flashpoint]

Rolling stone article on why the Christian Right in the US is so strongly behind Trump - 82% support, 99% oppose impeachment. Posting here because it is written by a Christian Evangelical, who returns home to discuss with his family.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-trump-915381/

What constituted that decline, in Falwell’s mind, was the 1971 case Green v. Connally, which had determined that “racially discriminatory private schools are not entitled to the federal tax exemption.” Falwell had founded just such an institution, Lynchburg Christian School, and believing in his God-given American right to exclude African Americans, he teamed up with Paul Weyrich, a religious political activist and co-founder of the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, who had long been searching for an issue around which to forge a Christian voting bloc. Together, they reframed the debate, creating a playbook for a defense of white supremacy. “Weyrich’s genius lay in recognizing that he was unlikely to organize a mass movement around the defense of racial segregation,” argues Randall Balmer, an Episcopal priest and historian of American religion at Dartmouth College. “That would be a tough sell. With a sleight of hand, he recast the issue as a defense of religious liberty.”

Speaking to his mother and aunt about their belief that climate change doesn’t matter because Jesus will be returning soon.

“You cannot base national policy about what is happening to the environment on one group of people’s religion,” I answer.

Finally, my aunt puts her hand on my knee. Her eyes are tender and her voice soft and trembling with emotion. “I just want them to know the truth.”
And it’s moments like this that shut the conversation down because I believe her. I believe — with faith and certainty — that this is what motivates her, politically and otherwise. “All we can do is love them,” she’d told me.

In her mind, this was not about the history of evangelicalism or the Republican Party or American exceptionalism or Christian nationalism or how we got here. This was about her view of love — a tough love that would offer America salvation.

[Yamer]

This definitely isn't the forum for it all, but I think a lot of people would benefit from looking at, say, Christianity as a whole. Focusing just on scripture discounts a full appreciation for even the self discovery that a lot of scholars undertook throughout the past 2000 years to reconcile scripture and theology with modernity.

It's absolutely fascinating to read and witness how theology evolved through religious and secular philosophy and study. It's a grand undertaking, but I think it would give non-theists a broader acceptance and understanding of religion.

As a self-described apostate of Catholicism who began as an aggressive atheist it really helped me understand my anger with the Church, soften my approach with tolerance, and gain a greater understanding of how multitudes of religious thought brought about the world we live in today.

I only took a few interdisciplinary religious courses in University and dabbled a bit with it in my free time. It's actually kind of reassuring to see someone like Textcritic, who has dedicated most of their life to this discipline, still within utter internal and external reflection on the topic. In fact, I was shocked to discover that one of the most critical and unbiased instructors I had on the topic was a devout Christian. Either way I'm thankful to him and all the people that encouraged me to examine my discourse and embrace inclusive conversations.

Perhaps it demonstrates we can't be so rigid in our beliefs and assertions, no matter how foundational they are to our selves. I'm comfortable with what I believe, but not so much as to not listen and learn from others.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Yamer

This definitely isn't the forum for it all, but I think a lot of people would benefit from looking at, say, Christianity as a whole. Focusing just on scripture discounts a full appreciation for even the self discovery that a lot of scholars undertook throughout the past 2000 years to reconcile scripture and theology with modernity.

Quick yes or no question, in the last 2,000 has there been any proof at all of Gods existence?

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Quick yes or no question, in the last 2,000 has there been any proof at all of Gods existence?

That's irrelevant. It's not related to the effort I am encouraging nor the point I'm trying to make.

Personally, I think if you are starting from that baseline as a qualifier for any meaningful discussion or reflection on the significance of religion you're best to divorce yourself completely from the conversation. It will simply circle back endlessly without growth.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Yamer

That's irrelevant. It's not related to the effort I am encouraging nor the point I'm trying to make.

Personally, I think if you are starting from that baseline as a qualifier for any meaningful discussion or reflection on the significance of religion you're best to divorce yourself completely from the conversation. It will simply circle back endlessly without growth.

so...no?

[nik-]

Maybe we should try the mirror test.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Yamer

This definitely isn't the forum for it all, but I think a lot of people would benefit from looking at, say, Christianity as a whole. Focusing just on scripture discounts a full appreciation for even the self discovery that a lot of scholars undertook throughout the past 2000 years to reconcile scripture and theology with modernity.

It's absolutely fascinating to read and witness how theology evolved through religious and secular philosophy and study. It's a grand undertaking, but I think it would give non-theists a broader acceptance and understanding of religion.

As a self-described apostate of Catholicism who began as an aggressive atheist it really helped me understand my anger with the Church, soften my approach with tolerance, and gain a greater understanding of how multitudes of religious thought brought about the world we live in today.

I only took a few interdisciplinary religious courses in University and dabbled a bit with it in my free time. It's actually kind of reassuring to see someone like Textcritic, who has dedicated most of their life to this discipline, still within utter internal and external reflection on the topic. In fact, I was shocked to discover that one of the most critical and unbiased instructors I had on the topic was a devout Christian. Either way I'm thankful to him and all the people that encouraged me to examine my discourse and embrace inclusive conversations.

Perhaps it demonstrates we can't be so rigid in our beliefs and assertions, no matter how foundational they are to our selves. I'm comfortable with what I believe, but not so much as to not listen and learn from others.

Just a thought I'll toss out here, I wonder if there is a course that theists could take that would help them better understand how atheism evolved through religious and secular philosophy and better tolerate atheists, LGBTQs & other religions outside of their own world view?

The reason we have "active atheism" now is because Christians are so rigid in their beliefs and assertions. (note; used Christians here but you can slot any religious belief system into the topic).

Generally speaking it takes 2 to tango, and considering the religious viewpoint has held strong for over 2 millenia it is absolutely no wonder there is such a desire by a great number of people to push back against that with more than "reflection".

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Just a thought I'll toss out here, I wonder if there is a course that theists could take that would help them better understand how atheism evolved through religious and secular philosophy and bettertolerate atheists, LGBTQs & other religions outside of their own world view?

The reason we have "active atheism" now is because Christians are so rigid in their beliefs and assertions. (note used Christians here but you can slot any religious belief system into the topic).

Generally speaking it takes 2 to tango, and considering the religious viewpoint has held strong for over 2 millenia it is absolutely no wonder there is such a desire by a great number of people to push back against that with more than "reflection".

I think this is what the religious call religious intolerance. They should be allowed to discriminate against LGBTQ etc. because god