Christians...why Bother Us?

[rayskidude]

1. God bothers us because of His love for us - Christians bother unbelievers from that same love. 2.We're not threatened by unbelievers, we're grieved about their unbelief - and the resultant destiny of unbelief. Ergo - the zeal for evangelism.

 

1. The OP didn't ask why God bothers us. It asks why you bother us. God being nonexistent cannot bother anyone.

 

2. I call bull shit:

 

Illinois state Rep. Monique Davis’ heated public exchange last Wednesday with atheist activist Rob Sherman over the allocation of $1 million in state funds to repair a church is still going on—fortunately for Sherman, perhaps not so much for Davis—on the Internet, at least.

 

The Chicago Tribune via BoingBoing:

 

Davis: I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy—it’s tragic— when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school.

 

I don’t see you (Sherman) fighting guns in school. You know?

 

I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children…. What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous—

 

Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?

 

Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!

 

I disagree with the decision of former and corrupt Gov Blago (D) to use public $$ to re-build a church. I have lived in Chicagoland for 17 years now - so undoubtedly Monique Davis (D) is most likely fairly corrupy herself.

 

Re: your feedback on #2 >> You are greatly mistaken

[rayskidude]

Our Triune God is infinitlely holy, and even though Mankind has and continues to sin against our righteous Creator, yet He took on human nature to become the God-Man in order to provide a gracious sacrifice for our sins, - and after willingly offering Himself to pay for sin on the cross - He rose victoriously from the dead and ascended back into heaven.

 

But your version of God isn't binding on anyone but yourselves.

You can also advertise your version of God as "Triune", but that contradicts the God defined in the Hebrew scriptures, who repeatedly declared that he was a singular being(no multiple persons), was not a man, and warned his people not to chase after false gods and phony sacrifices.

All you're doing is picking and choosing things about "God" that appeal to you.

Your simply praising your ideas about the object of your worship.

That's the very essence of human vanity and idol worship.

 

Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

Col 2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

Col 2:10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,

Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

Col 2:14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

Col 2:15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

 

All you've got as "proof" are the musings of a character called "Paul", a Jewish apostate that admitted his job was to sell theology by using expediency.

 

SO Christains are those who are spiritually alive, and after our physical death (a consequence of sin) we'll be taken into heaven for an eternity of bliss. Because we deserve this destiny? NO - but only by God's grace to us. We simply acknowledged our separation from God due to our sin, and we humbly sought God's mercy to us in our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

I wouldn't count on being taken to heaven.

"God" doesn't take a liking to those that spit in his face and adopt a feel good religion with candy coated salvation.

Psa 119:155

Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes.

 

Re: Hebrew Scriptures and the Triune nature of God; note the Creation account, esp God's creation of man, the tri-fold benediction in Num 6:24-26; the angels worship a thrice-holy God in Isa 6; the three Persons referred to in Isa 48:12-16; the plural word "Elohim" used for God; And in Deut 6:4 where the Shema says "The LORD is one" the Hebrew word for "one" is "echad" - which carries the sense of a plurality within a singularity. Other examples >> there was morning and evening one (echad) day, the two become one (echad) flesh, many individual curtain units were sown together for the tabernacle to become one single (echad) curtain. The Hebrew term for absolute oneness is "yachid" >> meaning one and only one.

 

All of this is consistent with a Triune God, which was further revealed in the New Testament.

[rayskidude]

Did God bother Saul when he knocked him down on the way to Damascus to persecute Christians - and then called him into Christian missions?

 

You haven't established that it was God that knocked Saul down.

Paul saw a faceless light which he assumed was "Jesus".

According to Paul, Satan also appears as a light being, so you have very little validation for this tale about "God".

Jesus isn't even God, unless you delete all the verses that clearly show him not being God.

 

Did Jesus bother the Pharisees when He condemned their legalism? Did Jesus bother Peter, John, James, and Matthew when He called them to leave their jobs and follow Him? Did Paul bother the Athenians when he told them about the "Unknown God" they had an altar for? And when he told them that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead?

 

Do the Mormons bother people when they knock on doors doing God's work?

How about the Jehovah's Witnesses?

Do they bother you when they come knocking on your door spreading the truth about God?

 

True religion bothers the consciences of sinful men - challenging their pride and informing them that they're sinners by nature - separated from a holy God.

 

You haven't defined what true religion is, you simply assume that you must be the manifestation of it.

Nor have you established what a "holy God" actually is.

 

What would you prefer >> that missionaries reach out to the Amazon peoples (which has proven to decrease intra- and inter-tribal violence and a variety of debauched practices) >> or the drug cartel which will enslave them to harvest their cocaine crop (also proven by history)? You must decide, because someone will indeed reach these people; the idea of a pristine people left alone is quickly disappearing in our "global village."

Tell me, if a Roman Catholic priest, a Mormon missionary, a Jehovahs Witness, and an evangelical Protestant all go down to Brazil and butt into the lives of rain forest indians, which ass should the native indian kiss in order to learn how to be saved from their terrible pride and sins?

Who is more prideful, the ones that want to push their version of reality on others, or the ones that are seen as targets for church expansion?

 

God bothers us because of His love for us - Christians bother unbelievers from that same love. We're not threatened by unbelievers, we're grieved about their unbelief - and the resultant destiny of unbelief. Ergo - the zeal for evangelism.

 

This type of "love" is a facade.

Your goal is to expand and your zeal is to dominate.

[Vixentrox]

They HAVE to bother us. They're on a Mission From God™.

Funny that an omnipotent being needs help from puny mortals....

[rayskidude]

Iesus cannot be a sacrifice for humanity. The doctrine of Iesus as a perfect sacrifice demonstrates how far out of touch Christians are with the gospel of Iesus.

 

According to the babble, God desires mercy and not sacrifice:

But go and learn what this is, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Mat 9:13)

 

But if you had known what this is, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," you would not have condemned those who are not guilty. (Mat 12:7)

 

For I desired mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. (Hos 6:6)

 

With all of the scriptures pointing away from Iesus as a perfect sacrifice, how do Christians reconcile the doctrine of sacrifice? This is what I hear most from Christians--the sacrifice Iesus made for our sins. Bullshit!

 

HZ >> have you never heard that "any text without its context is a pretext"?? The issue is that people were sinning with impunity, and then presumptuously thinking; "Hey, I'll just make a sacrifice to God, and this will all just be OK." God is not mocked - so God says that consistent Christian love for God & others is the more important aspect of the Christian life. But that fact does not remove the need of a sacrifice to pay the debt of sin - it rather refers to the heart attitude behind the sacrifce.

[rayskidude]

Thor never existed beyond the quaint little stories people tell themselves in folklore and comic books. And maybe in some operas.

 

Well I don't claim to have hard evidence for the existence of Thor (or Odin, or Freya, or Frigga, or... or...), and even if I had, I probably wouldn't want to try and convince/convert people who are perfectly happy with what they do (not) believe. You however run around in here telling people they are wrong and you are right.

 

Present your evidence for the existence of your four gawds (bubba, daddy, spook and saaataaan) and for the trustworthiness of da wholly babble... or go fuck yourself.

Message understood?

 

My, my - are we touchy. Too much coffee?

[chefranden]

I disagree with the decision of former and corrupt Gov Blago (D) to use public $$ to re-build a church. I have lived in Chicagoland for 17 years now - so undoubtedly Monique Davis (D) is most likely fairly corrupy herself.

 

Re: your feedback on #2 >> You are greatly mistaken

 

Do you disagree with faith based initiatives?

 

Does the fact that Monique Davis is a democrat make her not a Christian, and not a leader? Interesting that you make sure to emphasize the (D) as if the Democrats are the party of atheists.

 

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

 

Bush I: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

 

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

 

Bush I:

No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

 

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

 

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists. (Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987)

 

What the hell has corruption got to do with it?

[centauri]

Re: Hebrew Scriptures and the Triune nature of God; note the Creation account, esp God's creation of man, the tri-fold benediction in Num 6:24-26;

 

Num 6:24-26 gives instructions to Aaron on what he should say to the Israelites as blessings.

It doesn't define God as a triune being nor does it even hint of three persons.

It simply gives three statements, all tied to the Lord.

 

I can do the same thing you did and establish that God is a triune donkey.

 

Num 22:28

And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

 

God is a singular being, there are no others.

Isa 45:21-22

Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

 

The angels worship a thrice-holy God in Isa 6;

 

Isa 6:3

And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

 

Uttering three praises doesn't establish God as three persons wrapped into one being.

The Lord is one, not three.

 

the three Persons referred to in Isa 48:12-16;

 

Isa 48:12-23

Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.

Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.

 

I(singular) He(singular)

Three persons are identified where exactly?

 

the plural word "Elohim" used for God; And in Deut 6:4 where the Shema says "The LORD is one" the Hebrew word for "one" is "echad" - which carries the sense of a plurality within a singularity.

Other examples >> there was morning and evening one (echad) day, the two become one (echad) flesh, many individual curtain units were sown together for the tabernacle to become one single (echad) curtain. The Hebrew term for absolute oneness is "yachid" >> meaning one and only one.

 

There is nothing in Deut 6:4 that establishes a triune God composed of three persons.

 

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/trinity.html

"...The word echad in the Hebrew language functions in precisely the same manner as the word "one" does in the English language. In the English language it can be said, "these four chairs and the table constitute one dinette set," or alternatively, "There is one penny in my hand." Using these two examples, it is easy to see how the English word "one" can mean either many things in one, as in the case of the dinette set, or one alone, as in the case of the penny.

...The question that immediately comes to mind is: If the Hebrew word echad can signify either a compound unity or one alone, how can one tell which definition is operative when studying a verse? The answer is: In the exact same way the word "one" is understood in the English language, that is, from the context. "Four chairs and a table make up one dinette set" is a compound unity, and "Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one" is unsullied monotheism."

 

All of this is consistent with a Triune God, which was further revealed in the New Testament.

 

It's all consistent with your desire for God to be triune, but nothing that you provided specifically defines God as three persons wrapped inside one being.

You've projected your desire into the scripture.

There is nothing in the following that even hints of a triune God.

 

Isa 45:5

I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

[hereticzero]

Iesus cannot be a sacrifice for humanity. The doctrine of Iesus as a perfect sacrifice demonstrates how far out of touch Christians are with the gospel of Iesus.

 

According to the babble, God desires mercy and not sacrifice:

But go and learn what this is, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Mat 9:13)

 

But if you had known what this is, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," you would not have condemned those who are not guilty. (Mat 12:7)

 

For I desired mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. (Hos 6:6)

 

With all of the scriptures pointing away from Iesus as a perfect sacrifice, how do Christians reconcile the doctrine of sacrifice? This is what I hear most from Christians--the sacrifice Iesus made for our sins. Bullshit!

 

HZ >> have you never heard that "any text without its context is a pretext"?? The issue is that people were sinning with impunity, and then presumptuously thinking; "Hey, I'll just make a sacrifice to God, and this will all just be OK." God is not mocked - so God says that consistent Christian love for God & others is the more important aspect of the Christian life. But that fact does not remove the need of a sacrifice to pay the debt of sin - it rather refers to the heart attitude behind the sacrifce.

Nope, there is no sin. There is no sacrifice for sin cuz it does not exist except in the minds of the religious. Sin is a religious concept. Man did not fall from grace and he needs no repentence or sacrifice.

[Arctic]

What I don't understand, is that I was taught from the bible that you should hang with the good Christian crowd and avoid people like us, I mean I understand you have to go out and preach the good word but am not sure about reading and hanging around us,

 

but yet there are Christians on this board trying to defend or convert is beyond me, I remember outreach in real life was hard enough let alone on the Internet and to come to a site were most stand against the beliefs of the Christian is once again hard for me to understand,

 

if I was still a Christian I would never come to a site like this, because these people take sermons and turn them inside out and examine them and expose clear problems and that makes ministry almost impossible once your messages are shown to have error or believed errors.

[rayskidude]

I disagree with the decision of former and corrupt Gov Blago (D) to use public $$ to re-build a church. I have lived in Chicagoland for 17 years now - so undoubtedly Monique Davis (D) is most likely fairly corrupy herself.

 

Re: your feedback on #2 >> You are greatly mistaken

 

Do you disagree with faith based initiatives?

 

Does the fact that Monique Davis is a democrat make her not a Christian, and not a leader? Interesting that you make sure to emphasize the (D) as if the Democrats are the party of atheists.

 

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

 

Bush I: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

 

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

 

Bush I:

No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

 

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

 

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists. (Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987)

 

What the hell has corruption got to do with it?

 

The action of those in Chicago politics to rebuild this particualr church with $1,000,000 in public funds had nothing to do with a faith-based initiative, it was a blatant move to buy votes - thus the opposition from many in Chicago for this plan. So corruption had everything to do with it. Since 1980, 27 Chicago alderman have been convicted - and just yesterday another one was indicted. We've had 3 former governors imprisoned - and now with Blago, it may be 4.

 

Yes, I support faith-based initiatives - any time that religion and gov't can work togther to accomplish benefits for people - I would be in favor of that.

[rayskidude]

Re: Hebrew Scriptures and the Triune nature of God; note the Creation account, esp God's creation of man, the tri-fold benediction in Num 6:24-26;

 

Num 6:24-26 gives instructions to Aaron on what he should say to the Israelites as blessings.

It doesn't define God as a triune being nor does it even hint of three persons.

It simply gives three statements, all tied to the Lord.

 

I can do the same thing you did and establish that God is a triune donkey.

 

Num 22:28

And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

 

God is a singular being, there are no others.

Isa 45:21-22

Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

 

The angels worship a thrice-holy God in Isa 6;

 

Isa 6:3

And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

 

Uttering three praises doesn't establish God as three persons wrapped into one being.

The Lord is one, not three.

 

the three Persons referred to in Isa 48:12-16;

 

Isa 48:12-23

Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.

Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.

 

I(singular) He(singular)

Three persons are identified where exactly?

 

the plural word "Elohim" used for God; And in Deut 6:4 where the Shema says "The LORD is one" the Hebrew word for "one" is "echad" - which carries the sense of a plurality within a singularity.

Other examples >> there was morning and evening one (echad) day, the two become one (echad) flesh, many individual curtain units were sown together for the tabernacle to become one single (echad) curtain. The Hebrew term for absolute oneness is "yachid" >> meaning one and only one.

 

There is nothing in Deut 6:4 that establishes a triune God composed of three persons.

 

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/trinity.html

"...The word echad in the Hebrew language functions in precisely the same manner as the word "one" does in the English language. In the English language it can be said, "these four chairs and the table constitute one dinette set," or alternatively, "There is one penny in my hand." Using these two examples, it is easy to see how the English word "one" can mean either many things in one, as in the case of the dinette set, or one alone, as in the case of the penny.

...The question that immediately comes to mind is: If the Hebrew word echad can signify either a compound unity or one alone, how can one tell which definition is operative when studying a verse? The answer is: In the exact same way the word "one" is understood in the English language, that is, from the context. "Four chairs and a table make up one dinette set" is a compound unity, and "Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one" is unsullied monotheism."

 

All of this is consistent with a Triune God, which was further revealed in the New Testament.

 

It's all consistent with your desire for God to be triune, but nothing that you provided specifically defines God as three persons wrapped inside one being.

You've projected your desire into the scripture.

There is nothing in the following that even hints of a triune God.

 

Isa 45:5

I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

 

No one goes to the OT to show that God exists as a Trinity, we simply state that God's nature as a Triune Being (which is amply revealed in the NT) is foreshadowed and consistent with OT teachings. And to my previous post I would add the fact that Psalm 2 shows God's Son will rule the world, and in Daniel 7, we see one like the Son of Man who approaches the Ancient of Days, and whose kingdom with everlasting dominion.

 

Re: the Hebrew word "echad" >> from the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament by Harris, Archer, and Waltke - "It is related to "yahad" meaning "to be united" and "ro'sh" meaning "first, head"... It stresses unity while recognizing diversity within that oneness... The concept of unity is related to the tabernacle, whose curtains are fastened together to form one unit (Ex 26:6,11; 36:13). Adam & Eve are described as "one flesh" (Gen 2:24)... IN Gen 34:16, the men of Shechem suggest inter-marriage with Jacob's children in order to become "one people."... Ezekiel predicted that the fragmented nation of Israel would someday be reunited, as he symbolically joined two sticks for one nation (Ezek 37:17,22)... In the famous Shema of Deut 6:4... Some scholars have seen that though "one" is singular, the usage of the word allows for the doctrine of the Trinity."

 

This word can also mean "same" or "only" depending on the context.

 

So in "echad" we have a word that describes Yahweh Elohim as the only God, He who is God alone - and yet within the Godhead, there are three Persons. God is complex beyond our understanding - is this surprising?

[rayskidude]

Iesus cannot be a sacrifice for humanity. The doctrine of Iesus as a perfect sacrifice demonstrates how far out of touch Christians are with the gospel of Iesus.

 

According to the babble, God desires mercy and not sacrifice:

But go and learn what this is, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Mat 9:13)

 

But if you had known what this is, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," you would not have condemned those who are not guilty. (Mat 12:7)

 

For I desired mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. (Hos 6:6)

 

With all of the scriptures pointing away from Iesus as a perfect sacrifice, how do Christians reconcile the doctrine of sacrifice? This is what I hear most from Christians--the sacrifice Iesus made for our sins. Bullshit!

 

HZ >> have you never heard that "any text without its context is a pretext"?? The issue is that people were sinning with impunity, and then presumptuously thinking; "Hey, I'll just make a sacrifice to God, and this will all just be OK." God is not mocked - so God says that consistent Christian love for God & others is the more important aspect of the Christian life. But that fact does not remove the need of a sacrifice to pay the debt of sin - it rather refers to the heart attitude behind the sacrifce.

Nope, there is no sin. There is no sacrifice for sin cuz it does not exist except in the minds of the religious. Sin is a religious concept. Man did not fall from grace and he needs no repentence or sacrifice.

 

Then how do you account for all the evil in the world? Is it good folks just having a bad day?

[DarthOkkata]

Well, since you brought it up. This question was brought up in another topic, I'll give you the same answer.

 

The idea of universal or intrinsic morals is provably false.

 

There are still places in the world where you can buy a wife, where stealing is seen as a positive [from a rival or enemy], where you can get away with murder [providing it's the right 'sort' of person or even an 'honor killing'], where rape is okay, and women are treated as property. In some places, eating your relatives, having sex with children, committing genocide, marrying your sister, human sacrifices, and owning slaves are all considered perfectly moral.

 

The idea of 'absolute or intrinsic morals' is a myth. It's depends on where you are in the world and what culture you're dealing with.

 

The 'shared' morals of civilized society has to do with the interactions between large nations spreading ideas that became largely accepted over time. Not an invisible sky man's 'programing' or some sort of 'genetic predisposition' to certain rules.

 

In some places, eating certain foods, or having the wrong hair length, or even shaving is considered immoral.

 

The world has always been like this. There are numerous places in human history with cultures that hold vastly different moral systems that conflict and contradict each other at every level.

 

Talking about 'universal morals' is just taking our free first world country lifestyle for granted.

 

Do you think that Nazi Germany thought they were being immoral when they committed the Holocaust?

 

No. They really thought they were doing 'God's Work' and that they had the moral high ground.

 

Just like the Spanish Inquisition, and the Crusades, and numerous other religious inspired atrocities throughout history, both Christian and otherwise.

 

They all thought they were being 'moral'. They all really believed they were doing the right thing.

 

It's all about culture and context.

 

There's really no such thing as 'universal moral' and right and wrong are entirely subjective learned behaviors.

 

There are social instincts, but a human child is an entirely selfish creature. They have to be taught morals so they can properly interact with society. There's noting intrinsic or universal about it.

 

Morals have evolved, they aren't static or natural. It's an abstract, that our comfort and control of our environment has allowed us to develop.

 

There is no proof that lack of faith was a direct contributing factor to the evil acts of anyone.

 

To my knowledge, no one has ever committed an evil act -because- they were an Atheist. Nor has Christianity ever prevented one.

 

Christian monsters:

 

Adolph Hitler. Well, you should know this one. The final solution justified as 'revenge killing' for the death of Jesus at the hands of the Jews. Fond of stating that 'God was on his side' and invoking Christianity and Christian values in his speeches. Attended Seminary school, nearly became a priest, very spiritual person, personal friends with Pope Pius XII [Who often showed up to celebrate his birthday.]

 

Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile, Pope Lucius III. The architects of the Spanish Inquisition.

 

Richard I of England. Richard promised to leave noncombatants unharmed if the city of Acre surrendered. When the city surrendered Richard proceeded to massacre everyone, despite his earlier promise.

 

Pope Innocent III. Initiated the Fourh Crusade, which ended up sacking and pillaging Constantinople. Also initiated the 'Children's Crusade' which sent tens of thousands of Children to their doom in an attempt to use an -army of children- to retake the Holy Land.

 

Also note, these people were -motivated by religious reasons- and/or directly used religion and religious beliefs to support and enact their evil goals. It's also just the tip of the Iceberg.

 

There is a logical path from Religion to evil deeds, there is no logical path from Atheism to evil deeds.

 

Murder, torture, and cruelty are generally considered immoral in modern society because they cause people to suffer. Most religious people think they are immoral, just like almost all none religious people, almost all religions sanction all of them under some circumstances, this includes Christianity. Most of the people who said in a recent poll conducted in the US that said 'torture is okay' were hard line Christian Fundamentalist.

 

Note that this is despite it being fairly common knowledge that Torture is ineffective, and that information gained through such techniques is unreliable and often dangerously incorrect.

 

By way of another religious example, take the Taliban. Their repression and bullying of women, their sanctimonious hatred of open sexuality in both women, and homosexuals, their violence, their bigotry, their hatred of education, their cruelty, are all as close to pure evil as you can get. Within their own religion they are supremely righteous, even saintly virtues. The 9/11 bombers, and the 7/7 bombers [England] are considered Martyrs and heroes within most of the Islamic world.

 

Once you understand that they truly believed, so much that they were willing to die, that it was their God Allah's will that they commit these acts, it becomes easy to understand indeed.

 

Steven Weinberg said "With or without [religion] you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.”

 

Being a decent human being doesn't come from belief in God at all. There's no evidence that supports that this is true at all. In fact, the opposite is true.

 

Being a decent human being comes from fostering the simple and human ideas of charity, kindness, and empathy. Things the God of the Bible wouldn't know a thing about.

 

he Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics on religious affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of inmates per religion category: Response, Number, and %

 

Catholic 29267 39.164%

 

Protestant 26162 35.008%

 

Muslim 5435 7.273%

 

American Indian 2408 3.222%

 

Jewish 1325 1.773%

 

Buddhist 882 1.180%

 

Atheist 156 0.209%

 

Hindu 119 0.159%

 

Judeo-Christian Total 62594 83.761%

 

Total Responses 74731

 

The evidence does not support the assertion that Christianity or any other religion is in any way the 'Guardian of Morals', or even that it has any positive effect upon them at all. In fact, the opposite seems true according to the actual data, both Historical and otherwise.

 

There is no reason to believe the people who do good things would not be good people without Jesus. In fact, there's plenty of reason to believe that is the case, and that their empathy and charity comes from their Humanity, not their God.

 

Being a decent human being doesn't come from belief in God at all. There's no evidence that supports that this is true at all. In fact, the opposite is true.

 

Being a decent human being comes from fostering the simple and human ideas of charity, kindness, and empathy. Things the God of the Bible wouldn't know a thing about.

[DarthOkkata]

Faith based initiatives? Are you Fucking crazy?

 

No. Fucking. Way.

 

You're not screwing up my Secularist country.

 

I find myself doubting you'd be so supportive if it was Muslim initiatives, or Hindi initiatives trying to worm their way into the Government.

 

You'd be up in arms in an instant, loudly decrying it and waving the Constitution about to prevent it as best you could. You'd be willing to stop it by force of arms if it came down to it.

 

Expect no less from the rest of us.

 

The United States of America was not founded upon Christian values. In fact, it was specifically set up to prevent such idiocy from getting it's claws into the Government.

 

George Bush doesn't think that Abraham Lincolin, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, James Madison, Mark Twain, John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, William H. Taft, or Thomas Paine are citizens and patriots? [Just to name but a few.] What a moron.

 

'In God We Trust' wasn't added to our money, and 'Under God' wasn't added to the Pledge until the 1950s.

 

The words 'Freedom of Religion' do not appear in the US constitution -anywhere-.

 

This is what it says:

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 

Jefferson said it was entirely intended to put "a wall of separation between church and State." Not to protect anyone's religious rights, but to protect the US Government from your faith, and to protect the Church [not personal faith] from the Government.

 

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded upon fables and mythologies. The Christian God is a being of terrific character -- cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust..." -Thomas Jefferson.

 

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." - Thomas Paine

 

"Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." - James Madison

 

There existed no controversy about this from our Founding Fathers.

 

"to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." - The Declaration of Independence.

 

Which does mention God, but was written before the institution of law [The Constitution] and only in the formal introduction, giving the date in the same manner as was the formal custom at the time. "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." - Declaration of Independence.

 

Note the complete lack of any description of a Christian God, but rather a very Agnostic Deistic description of 'God'. This is not accidental.

 

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - Treaty of Tripoli.

 

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . .

 

This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.

 

. . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law...

 

And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that 'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that 'The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law.

Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Priscot's, or on one another, or nobody." - Thomas Jefferson.

 

The idea that faith based initiatives aren't dangerous or potentially harmful to both the Church and the Government is pure idiocy.

 

You don't know the line you're walking, and how dangerous it can be for both your church, and the Government you live under.

 

Your church has no place in this Government, in fact, it's specifically designed to keep your church out of it. Not just for the protection of the Government itself, but for the protection of the church as well.

 

Supporting such lunacy is Unpatriotic, Unamerican, and just plain fucking dangerous.

 

Think about how you, and your religious buddies would react if another faith was trying to pull the same crap? You'd be up in arms and ranting at the top of your lungs.

 

Don't go there, don't support such crap, and don't expect to not get the shit kicked out of you if you try. Both figuratively, and if you persist too much, literally.

 

Not every American is fat, lazy, and stupid enough to just swallow it without a fight.

 

I am a Patriot who has served his Country.

 

I did not serve God or any religious ideal in doing so.

 

This is not a Christian Nation.

 

Nor will it be while I still live.

[hereticzero]

Iesus cannot be a sacrifice for humanity. The doctrine of Iesus as a perfect sacrifice demonstrates how far out of touch Christians are with the gospel of Iesus.

 

According to the babble, God desires mercy and not sacrifice:

But go and learn what this is, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Mat 9:13)

 

But if you had known what this is, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," you would not have condemned those who are not guilty. (Mat 12:7)

 

For I desired mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. (Hos 6:6)

 

With all of the scriptures pointing away from Iesus as a perfect sacrifice, how do Christians reconcile the doctrine of sacrifice? This is what I hear most from Christians--the sacrifice Iesus made for our sins. Bullshit!

 

HZ >> have you never heard that "any text without its context is a pretext"?? The issue is that people were sinning with impunity, and then presumptuously thinking; "Hey, I'll just make a sacrifice to God, and this will all just be OK." God is not mocked - so God says that consistent Christian love for God & others is the more important aspect of the Christian life. But that fact does not remove the need of a sacrifice to pay the debt of sin - it rather refers to the heart attitude behind the sacrifce.

Nope, there is no sin. There is no sacrifice for sin cuz it does not exist except in the minds of the religious. Sin is a religious concept. Man did not fall from grace and he needs no repentence or sacrifice.

 

Then how do you account for all the evil in the world? Is it good folks just having a bad day?

Yep, bad days for everyone. There is crime and there is punishment for crimes, not for sins committed. The law deals with crime, not sin.

[Robbobrob]

Um, trinity is not foreshadowed or consistant with OT....ask a Jew, they will be happy to tell you that One God is One God.....Period.

[chefranden]

The action of those in Chicago politics to rebuild this particualr church with $1,000,000 in public funds had nothing to do with a faith-based initiative, it was a blatant move to buy votes - thus the opposition from many in Chicago for this plan. So corruption had everything to do with it. Since 1980, 27 Chicago alderman have been convicted - and just yesterday another one was indicted. We've had 3 former governors imprisoned - and now with Blago, it may be 4.

 

Yes, I support faith-based initiatives - any time that religion and gov't can work togther to accomplish benefits for people - I would be in favor of that.

 

Are you really this dense? You said Christians don't fear or hate atheists. I gave you a quote and then another from Christian leaders that show Christians do indeed hate and fear atheists, and you think I'm talking about Chicago Politics? Are you stupid or are you just trying to change the subject?

[chefranden]

1. This word can also mean "same" or "only" depending on the context.

 

2. So in "echad" we have a word that describes Yahweh Elohim as the only God, He who is God alone - and yet within the Godhead, there are three Persons. God is complex beyond our understanding - is this surprising?

 

FYI I'm an ex-minister as well as an ex-Christian. Ancient Language was my major.

 

1. The word in the above context (Deut 6:4) means one. You are practicing isogesis in this case at least. Just because a word can mean something doesn't mean it does mean it in a given context.

 

2. This is also incorrect. It means that you have a god that is one. Interestingly the goat herders could count, unlike Christians. What ever you choose to read into the text, the writer meant one. All you have to do to prove me wrong is show where the redactor of Deuteronomy wrote that אֶחָֽד means a bunch or something like that.

[rayskidude]

Um, trinity is not foreshadowed or consistant with OT....ask a Jew, they will be happy to tell you that One God is One God.....Period.

 

1) There is only One God

2) God had revealed Himself as existing as Father, Son, & Holy Spirit

3) There is a three-in-oneness in Scripture

 

The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is only One God, who exists as three Persons who are co-equal and co-eternal.

 

Trinity does not mean three gods.

[florduh]

FYI I'm an ex-minister as well as an ex-Christian. Ancient Language was my major.

 

Silly Chef! All your fancy book learnin' don't mean squat to a True Believer™ who knows what God REALLY meant when he wrote the Bible.

 

Your knowledge has made you unknowledgeable, your smarts become foolishness before swine, fool me once, uh, you can't fool me again. Whatever - I know they have some pat answer to refute your misunderstanding of the ORIGINAL FUCKING TEXT!!!!!

[DarthOkkata]

Um, trinity is not foreshadowed or consistant with OT....ask a Jew, they will be happy to tell you that One God is One God.....Period.

 

1) There is only One God

2) God had revealed Himself as existing as Father, Son, & Holy Spirit

3) There is a three-in-oneness in Scripture

 

The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is only One God, who exists as three Persons who are co-equal and co-eternal.

 

Trinity does not mean three gods.

 

Then why does Jesus talk to him? He refers to him as a separate person on numerous occasion, speaks to 'Father' directly, and asks him to change his mind. If they're the same person, why would he do that? Wouldn't he not need to ask, talk to, or otherwise communicate with himself if they're all one in the same being?

 

Trinity Tri = 3 it's literally what the word means.

 

You're jumping through hoops to try to find a loophole that isn't there for your explanation. Your logic doesn't fit what's written in the Bible, which isn't logical to begin with.

 

It's the story about a God who makes something that he knows is going to disobey him, because he wants something to worship him, to fill a need he doesn't have, because he's perfect, and perfect things don't have needs, get's mad at that something and curses it, but promises himself to forgive it, by killing himself, to appease himself and his own temper, and then raise himself from the dead in three days and nights by his own word, even though the actual number of days between his death and resurection don't add up to three days and nights, so he can ascend into heaven to be with himself, and allow his creations to enter the other realm he made himself, because the rules he made up wouldn't allow him to let them into his realm, because he'd upset himself, made a pact with himself, and repeatedly punished the creation for his own mistakes, that he couldn't have made because he's perfect, yet has a bad temper, and an insecurity complex. and says that he'll come back someday in the lifetimes of the people that he met while he was down there, to end the world he created, even though he didn't, and save a few of his creations, while sending the rest into a pit of fire to burn for eternity, for crimes that could not have been committed over the course of more than say about 65 years on average, and call it just and fair, all while rewarding people for just thinking he was real, as opposed to actually spending their lives doing good things, because of magic forgiveness boxes that he installed in the houses he never needed to live in, or because they told him they were really sorry. While all the other good people who did nice things for their entire lives get to spend all their time roasting forever with the worst of the believers for no good reason whatsoever.

 

How does any of that make any sense to you at all?

 

None of it is wrong either. That's Christianity in a nutshell.

 

You can't claim Jesus is God without realizing that he was schitzophrenic to a disturbing degree either. He talks to himself, a lot, as if he's talking to a completely different person.

 

Either they're one being, or they're not. Don't try and pull this 'they're three separate beings, but the same thing' crap. The New Testament, and Jesus's interaction with God the 'Father' clearly shows that's not true at all.

 

Total BS.

[Ouroboros]

A "three-ness" in the OT Bible?

 

Hmm... there's also a 12-ness, 6-ness, 5-ness, 7-ness, 13-ness, and many other #-nesses.

 

Perhaps God is a tetranity?

[Robbobrob]

Um, trinity is not foreshadowed or consistant with OT....ask a Jew, they will be happy to tell you that One God is One God.....Period.

 

1) There is only One God

2) God had revealed Himself as existing as Father, Son, & Holy Spirit

3) There is a three-in-oneness in Scripture

 

The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is only One God, who exists as three Persons who are co-equal and co-eternal.

 

Trinity does not mean three gods.

 

Still not there, ask a Jew, they can tell you.....God, by OT definition, is not 3-in-1.....and the Messiah is certainly not supposed to be part of any Godhead. Again, ask the original owners of the OT, the Jews.

[centauri]

No one goes to the OT to show that God exists as a Trinity, we simply state that God's nature as a Triune Being (which is amply revealed in the NT) is foreshadowed and consistent with OT teachings.

 

That was the point, you don't have confirmation of it in the Hebrew scriptures.

Nor is your Trinity consistent with the Hebrew scriptures.

It contradicts a key teaching that God is not a man nor a son of man.

It contradicts the premise that God will not give his glory to another savior.

There are no other parts of God that were formed after God, yet your construct promotes one member of the Trinity being younger than the original part and is also his heir.

Only a Trinitarian could try to milk a three person, multiple savior God from the following:

Isa 43:10-11

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

 

It's not even consistent with some NT teachings.

In the NT one of the alleged members of the Trinity claims that he has a God and the NT also claims that this member is subservient to God.

 

And to my previous post I would add the fact that Psalm 2 shows God's Son will rule the world, and in Daniel 7, we see one like the Son of Man who approaches the Ancient of Days, and whose kingdom with everlasting dominion.

 

The son in Psalm 2 is David.

I don't see anything in Dan 7 about a triune God.

 

Re: the Hebrew word "echad" >> from the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament by Harris, Archer, and Waltke - "It is related to "yahad" meaning "to be united" and "ro'sh" meaning "first, head"... It stresses unity while recognizing diversity within that oneness... The concept of unity is related to the tabernacle, whose curtains are fastened together to form one unit (Ex 26:6,11; 36:13). Adam & Eve are described as "one flesh" (Gen 2:24)... IN Gen 34:16, the men of Shechem suggest inter-marriage with Jacob's children in order to become "one people."... Ezekiel predicted that the fragmented nation of Israel would someday be reunited, as he symbolically joined two sticks for one nation (Ezek 37:17,22)... In the famous Shema of Deut 6:4... Some scholars have seen that though "one" is singular, the usage of the word allows for the doctrine of the Trinity."

 

And the fact remains that there is no confirmation in the Hebrew scriptures of the three person in one God Trinity.

 

So in "echad" we have a word that describes Yahweh Elohim as the only God, He who is God alone - and yet within the Godhead, there are three Persons. God is complex beyond our understanding - is this surprising?

 

But it's not complex beyond your understanding!

You go to great lengths to specifically promote the "three person Godhead".

You do it over and over and over again.

However, you can't validate it from the "Old Testament", which is supposed to be God's word long before Christianity came along and morphed God into three persons.