RunUO Community
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Athiests will enjoy this
- Thread starter Maynza
- Start date
shrundowr
Lord
I love this. I love how certain over the top Christians think they are so superior to other religions. You basically just accused Jews of not following their own doctrines... a few weeks ago you called Islam evil... And don't forget In my I hate Lindsay Lohan thread you said it was impossible for a Christian to be a slut.
Courageous
Wanderer
Consider the idea that people understand your beliefs but reject them anyway.
Is your supposed creator-whatzit saying... "Pleeeeeeeease forgive me for ordering you to kill gay people?" Because if you are not supposing it is, you should be, and if you are, the answer is: "no".
C//
TMSTKSBK
Lord
@AB:
Jews - I said I do not know why they do what they do. There probably is some justification for it, but I don't know what it is.
Islam - It is. Study it and you'll understand.
LL - Blah.
@C: Consider the possibility that you don't know what you're talking about. The second statement makes no sense, so I'm not going to answer that one... (are you drunk or high?)
...and the thread is misspelled...argh.
Jews - I said I do not know why they do what they do. There probably is some justification for it, but I don't know what it is.
Islam - It is. Study it and you'll understand.
LL - Blah.
@C: Consider the possibility that you don't know what you're talking about. The second statement makes no sense, so I'm not going to answer that one... (are you drunk or high?)
...and the thread is misspelled...argh.
Courageous
Wanderer
On the grounds that if one has read it, and finds it contemptible, it must be misunderstood? Now there's logic for you! Let's play around with some Latin: Argumentum Non Beneficium, perhaps? The position that if the interpretation is not good, the proposition is false? LOL.
As per previous, sometimes it is a problem of the reader. But allow me to explain: in your mythology, your creator-whatzit used to advocated klilling people, and yet you accept this at face value, without rancor. This is like being good buddies with Hitler years later, on the grounds he admitted it was all a big mistake.
C//
TMSTKSBK
Lord
Allow me to rephrase:
You did not understand what you read, as evidenced by what you have written. I have no problems with you rejecting what you have read, if you understand it. However, I would like you to understand Christian theology before you write it off as "contemptible".
As I wrote in above posts, there is reasoning for this. Homosexuality is still a sin in Christian theology/morality. However, since the covenant is now open to all people (not just the Jews), and because man is now under grace, homosexuals that renounce their sin and turn to Christ shall be forgiven. You probably find this offensive in and of itself. That's fine. We're not out to please everyone.
Really, I'm not trying to give an exhaustive exegesis on Christian theology. That would take too long, and there are mountains of books that do just that. I'm just pulling out the answers to the various points you make. If you want to actually learn about Christianity, I'd greatly appreciate a more civil tone.
You did not understand what you read, as evidenced by what you have written. I have no problems with you rejecting what you have read, if you understand it. However, I would like you to understand Christian theology before you write it off as "contemptible".
As I wrote in above posts, there is reasoning for this. Homosexuality is still a sin in Christian theology/morality. However, since the covenant is now open to all people (not just the Jews), and because man is now under grace, homosexuals that renounce their sin and turn to Christ shall be forgiven. You probably find this offensive in and of itself. That's fine. We're not out to please everyone.
Really, I'm not trying to give an exhaustive exegesis on Christian theology. That would take too long, and there are mountains of books that do just that. I'm just pulling out the answers to the various points you make. If you want to actually learn about Christianity, I'd greatly appreciate a more civil tone.
Courageous
Wanderer
This is nothing but a logical non-sequitur, as evidenced by everything YOU have written. Never once have you questioned my understanding of those elements of Leviticus, but rather you have attempted to weasel out by invoking the new testament (never once citing a thing against my reading of L at all). I assure you, I am acquainted with the new testament as well... however I reject its ideas that this Yahweh fellow gets a get out of jail free card for the ideas presented therein to be entirely laughable.
To wit:
A wishy washy mythological creator entity who first espouses murder and then later changes its mind about it, hoping we little mortals won't notice, is nothing but contemptible, and about as interesting as our good buddy Adolf. He, too, liked killing gays, hint, hint.
If you're not yet understanding me clearly, allow me to elaborate further: the idea that this supposed immortal entity of yours once advocated murdering homosexuals is evil.
C//
TMSTKSBK
Lord
You do not understand the background of the elements of Leviticus. If you want to understand anything, you need to know how you got there, and where you went from there.
Your understanding even of the elements is indeed flawed. However, it is not necessary for you to understand how your conception of the elements is flawed, because they are no longer relevant.
You contest that they are relevant, because ignoring them is like being buddies with Hitler at a later stage. This is not the case. While homosexuality, as an example, is reprehensible under both Covenants, the Old and New Covenants are categorically different in their treatment of sin. This is the point that you are missing entirely.
Homosexuality is just one of a myriad of sins that merited death under the Old Covenant. Under the New Covenant, however, those sins are no longer subject to immediate capital punishment. This is because the Old Covenant was not only spiritual, but also civil law -- it was the sum totum of law in the nation of Israel. The New Covenant is solely spiritual. Civil authorities will deal with criminal punishment as they see fit.
Since Christians do not have a commission to go out and create the law of the land, it behooves us to live at peace with our neighbors, whether we find their actions to be reprehensible or not. The New Covenant does not address civil matters.
Now on to your objections about "wishy-washy"-ness on the part of God, and His supposed evil-ness. Any sin -- ANY sin -- is worthy of immediate death and eternal damnation. This, obviously, includes homosexuality, murder, rape, theft, greed, lust, lying, pride, (and the list goes on). Saying that all sins are worthy of damnation is not to state that there are not degrees of sin, but that's another discussion entirely. That any sin is worthy of damnation is true under both covenants.
The Old Covenant is rather more immediate in its administration of temporal punishment. Again, this is because it is written as the moral code AND civil law of the nation of Israel. The Old Covenant does not make allowances for repentance. The New Covenant, since it is written under grace, does not dispense temporal punishment on sinners. Instead, believers (and unbelievers) are given the chance to confess and repent, whereupon their sins, no matter how massive, will be forgiven.
Therefore, saying that God is evil because He condemns a certain sin to death is laughable. All sins, great or small, are worthy of death. The only way out is to perfectly conform to the moral code laid out in the Ten Commandments, and all the ramifications and derivatives from the Ten Commandments. This, as I'm sure you'll find, is completely impossible. God does not deal in half-measures. The only possible way is to have a perfect atonement for the sin you have committed. This atonement comes in the form of Jesus, who conformed perfectly to the moral code and civil law, and then sacrificed himself for all who believe. At the same time, the New Covenant was formed, placing men (mankind) under Grace, instead of under the law. The law was satisfied by the life and death of Jesus.
This is, I am sure, quite alien to your way of thought. But the crux of the matter is: There is right. And there is wrong. And, postulating an omnipotent being, who are we to say He is wrong? Should we not, given the chance at salvation, instead thank Him?
Your understanding even of the elements is indeed flawed. However, it is not necessary for you to understand how your conception of the elements is flawed, because they are no longer relevant.
You contest that they are relevant, because ignoring them is like being buddies with Hitler at a later stage. This is not the case. While homosexuality, as an example, is reprehensible under both Covenants, the Old and New Covenants are categorically different in their treatment of sin. This is the point that you are missing entirely.
Homosexuality is just one of a myriad of sins that merited death under the Old Covenant. Under the New Covenant, however, those sins are no longer subject to immediate capital punishment. This is because the Old Covenant was not only spiritual, but also civil law -- it was the sum totum of law in the nation of Israel. The New Covenant is solely spiritual. Civil authorities will deal with criminal punishment as they see fit.
Since Christians do not have a commission to go out and create the law of the land, it behooves us to live at peace with our neighbors, whether we find their actions to be reprehensible or not. The New Covenant does not address civil matters.
Now on to your objections about "wishy-washy"-ness on the part of God, and His supposed evil-ness. Any sin -- ANY sin -- is worthy of immediate death and eternal damnation. This, obviously, includes homosexuality, murder, rape, theft, greed, lust, lying, pride, (and the list goes on). Saying that all sins are worthy of damnation is not to state that there are not degrees of sin, but that's another discussion entirely. That any sin is worthy of damnation is true under both covenants.
The Old Covenant is rather more immediate in its administration of temporal punishment. Again, this is because it is written as the moral code AND civil law of the nation of Israel. The Old Covenant does not make allowances for repentance. The New Covenant, since it is written under grace, does not dispense temporal punishment on sinners. Instead, believers (and unbelievers) are given the chance to confess and repent, whereupon their sins, no matter how massive, will be forgiven.
Therefore, saying that God is evil because He condemns a certain sin to death is laughable. All sins, great or small, are worthy of death. The only way out is to perfectly conform to the moral code laid out in the Ten Commandments, and all the ramifications and derivatives from the Ten Commandments. This, as I'm sure you'll find, is completely impossible. God does not deal in half-measures. The only possible way is to have a perfect atonement for the sin you have committed. This atonement comes in the form of Jesus, who conformed perfectly to the moral code and civil law, and then sacrificed himself for all who believe. At the same time, the New Covenant was formed, placing men (mankind) under Grace, instead of under the law. The law was satisfied by the life and death of Jesus.
This is, I am sure, quite alien to your way of thought. But the crux of the matter is: There is right. And there is wrong. And, postulating an omnipotent being, who are we to say He is wrong? Should we not, given the chance at salvation, instead thank Him?
Why did he give us "free will" if we have to all conform to his standards... Who is He to tell us that we are wrong? God? Well big deal.
There is a chance at salvation, but there is also a chance at hell. Why should we thank him for giving us free will and then not providing any real proof that he exists?
Let me use this analogy. Your on a gameshow where you have to pick a door, if you get the door with the prize behind it you win. Would it be better to be on a gameshow where there was only one door, and you knew the prize was behind it? Or would you rather have a choice of doors even though only one held the prize?
It's the same thing with free will. If He had not given us free will, then we would all be just as He wanted us to be. Thus we would all go to heaven. Instead, He gives us this "gift" of free will so we have a chance to go to hell.
Uhhh... Thanks?
That is the point.... Free will isn't a gift. There is no point to it. Free will simply gives us chances to make mistakes, and mistakes are punished by eternity in hell.
The gameshow thing was an analogy. Of course there isn't a gameshow with one door, you would always win. You want to win though. And without free will, we would act the way God made us and told us to. So we would all win. With free will, we have a chance to lose. So what does free will give us? Does it have any benefits? No.
shrundowr
Lord
Actually he has, and also his arguments are better formed. That being said, I don't like this, "Let's bash Christianity" thing this thread has become, Even though I personally think Christianity is a farce, thats no reason to force that feeling on someone else. But the fact that you so casually called another religion "evil" takes away all sympathetic feelings I had towards you regarding that, because you are doing the same thing to Islam as he is doing to Christianity. EDIT: Actually what you're doing is worse, as he is just criticizing your beliefs, whereas you are calling theirs evil.