Don't wanna make polemics or something but

[MuadDib85]

I respect (perhaps the word I should have used to begin with instead of tolerate) you as well as everyone else (including gay people and unwed parents). Which is the difference between us, you do not.

When I feel like my family is being put down in any way by anyone at any time especially by some arrogant, moronic kid I will make known that it doesn't impress me.

As I said, usually I don't comment on such (continued) pettiness and obviously shouldn't have bothered this time either.

No matter what other rubbish you come up with, this will be my last post in this thread.

[Gil-Estel]

Too bad, my whole post gone. Will respond later...

[legolas3333]

It is my belief that right and wrong do not exist outside of human perception. One person's idea of right is another person's idea of wrong.

I personally find this the most interesting, Kev-La, you don't think that there are at least some absolute rights and wrongs?

[ket_the_jet]

I am disappointed that you are not responding to my posts, Gate Troll. I feel like you are masking your inability to create an original fact with a strong foundation with your "humorous arrogance." Unfortunately, that adds even less to the conversation than your misguided* thoughts.

I would still appreciate your rebuttal to this and you must've just glanced over my more recent post here.
-wtk




*In my opinion.

[hrcho]

...you don't think that there are at least some absolute rights and wrongs?

Such as? I don't think there is anything absolute in this world. It all pretty much depends on a given situation and perception of the given situation. While killing another person might be wrong in so many situations, it may be right in many others. "For the greater good" people like to say. You can now try to counter me with the fact that probably every "villain" that ever existed did bad things for the greater good and from their perception they did. You can't know if your perception of things is right or wrong until all is done and then it's too late.

Only one sacrifice was needed to redeem our sins, and only a true faith and commitment to follow Jesus is needed to gain salvation.

This is one of the biggest problems I have with Christianity. How can a god be good if IT dooms you from the start and makes you fight to be saved. I can accept the possibility of existence of a higher being, but I cannot accept that that higher being has anything to do with bible or any other man-made book. Do you really think your god is as cruel as that?

God: Here, man, have free will, do what you want, but you can only be saved if you do this, this and this and don't do this, this and this, otherwise, you're screwed.

[Gil-Estel]

Well, Ket, I try to respond now. I think you forgot 1 step. You linked the Bible to christianity. As you have pointed out, there are a lot of different opinions about the Bible. Imho the first step is whether you believe in an allmighty God. Otherwise the whole point of the Bible is lost. You can say the Bible has great moral, but there are plenty examples in which 'human' ethics are no where to be found. Manslaugther, and so on and so forth.
However, if you believe in an allmighty God, I think there is a part surrender. If I start to cut in the bible, and only believe those parts I can accept, how fake is that? I am creating my own God, but the whole point is that I believe in somerthing bigger than me. Something I can not comprehend, but is needed for salvation. Narrow minded? Well....maybe more open minded than anything else
That said, I want to emphasize the thing that there is a lot I don't comprehend, I cannot grasp. The whole debate, whether going on for ages, or in your own circle of trustees, about the Bible, as well as the points well highlighted by you Ket, shows me that a certain amount of modesty is in order.

Yet I do believe some 'basic-principals' if you will, can be drawn from the Bible.

- God has a good future in mind for us people
- Jesus taught that those who call them selves christian, should be like God
- Hence we should look after one and other, since that is what God did
- Hence we should serve one and other, because that is what Jesus did
- Hence we should be modest, because Jesus was modest in every aspect of his live
- Hence we should be very reluctant to judge, because the judgement is not ours.....

My 2 cents, for biblical support of the 'principals' just pm me....

[ket_the_jet]

I don't disagree with the points you raise Gil. But I don't think you addressed mine. If you report that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, then I would think that you also have to believe that a woman shouldn't have the right to vote and should be bound to her household or that there is no moral problem with slavery as long as you treat your slave well.
-wtk

[Gil-Estel]

Point well made, but what I wanted to say is that especially those subjects are subject of a lot of debate. What is cultural bound, what is lasting, in the 'natural order', and what is timebound...values have the tendency to change due to place and time.
What is God given, and what is for example Paul's own opinion? In Corinthians 7 Paul clearly stated he has no Godly commandment and thus he gives his own opinion. 

[hrcho]

Has any of you ever questioned the actual existence of Jesus Christ? I found a very good article about that question and I suggest reading it. The guy who wrote it was quite objective, even though it's obvious which side he takes.

The article is a bit lengthy, but I liked it.

[FM]

As a person, I believe the is historical evidence of his existence, is there not? However, I, for one, do not believe he was the son of God and that he in fact did miracles. I believe he may have had a very advanced mind for the time in which he was born, and that led people to perceive him as something different and could explain some of his miracles as "tricks" (needed to get their attention). Also, he may have had the ability to tap into the potential most human beings can't use, which could explain some of the OTHER miracles. Also, I find it rather funny that HE was the son of God, but we are all also sons of God (by the same Book, I might add), so he's nothing special for having died for our sins (or, to say, in the name of Religion). For this matter, for instance, a while back a stupid pries from my country decided to make an interstate trip sitting on a chair attached to baloons, as a faith thing. Needless to say, he was found more than a month later, dead. Since he died for his Religion (doing religious work), I suppose he is Jesus Christ reborn, being a son of God and all that.
As a final note, an explanation on the expression "trick" I used above: I'm not saying Jesus might have used tricks to fool people and take advantage of them, but sometimes, you need a visual component to make words really sink in. For instance, in Brasil, while rare, we have homicide cases where no body was found (the law states that if the evidence is irrefutable, it's ok to start investigations, and if the investigation finds something, like a prime suspect, he can at least be prosecuted). However, because of that, sometimes our authorities go a little too far with that, and we end up havin a Jury judging someone based on the slight piece of evidence. Even though, people on jury duty are drawn from every segment of society, and as so, they are not familiar with legal implications, terms and have no depth in it. A common practice, in these cases, is for the defese attorney to actually state that "Not only there is no body, but said 'victim' is entering through those doors right now!" (or something to this effect). Then, after a moment of awkward silence, he proceeds to say "See, even you, from the Jury, looked to see if he was in fact coming in, which goes to prove that there is no certainty that there even was a crime in the first place!" Believe it or not, it works a fair amount of time, when the evidence is, in fact, feeble. He's not taking advantage of people, but rather using a trick to stress a point that really matters, when words do not seem to do the trick alone.

[Gate Troll]

I am disappointed that you are not responding to my posts, Gate Troll. I feel like you are masking your inability to create an original fact with a strong foundation with your "humorous arrogance." Unfortunately, that adds even less to the conversation than your misguided* thoughts.


*In my opinion.

Forgive me ket, but I've been waging several debates here, and I'll try to make a good rebuttal.

I will warn you that Rule #11 is quite true, and despite all of my attempts to convey my position to MuadDib, he just ducks my points and flings insults. That 'battle' seems hopeless, and doomed to degenerate into name-calling, so I'll attempt to address your points only from hereon out.

I would still appreciate your rebuttal to this...

The Bible also says to emulate Jesus, watch what you say, and love the sinner wile hating the sin. Then again, the Bible also says that Jesus cursed a fig tree, God killed children for calling Elijah "bald," and that if a group of guys want to rape a man, offer the man's hooker who will be  raped repeatedly, left on a porch to die, cut into twelve pieces, and sent to the corners of Israel. I forgot the moral of that one.

Can't wait until TheJord gets his hands on this one.
-wtk

Certainly. I will admit it's a weakness of mine to use words too freely, and guarding my mouth is something I do put effort into.
That said, I find it strange how you see my condemnation of racist slurs and use of the word 'gay 'in a pejorative sense to be hypocritical.
I, however do not afford the same respect to a race of people and a group of people with a certain sexual orientation. I'm not gay-bashing, and I haven't once called them f*gs or any other such slur, and I do not have an irrational fear of same-sex couples, I simply find acceptance of their lifestyle at odds with what I believe.

As for 'God killing children for calling Elijah bald', I believe they were yelling 'Old Baldhead'! at him and trying to stone him, and they were not children, but youths.
Not sure about your last example, I will have to research that one.

...and you must've just glanced over my more recent post here:

The way I see it, there are exactly two options when it comes to Christianity.

Option 1: Bind your life to every word written in the Bible. Acknowledge that it is completely correct, infallible, and the way to live your life. Curse homosexuality as being immoral and an affront to God, deny women the right to have opinions (Timothy 2:11, among others), keep obedient slaves (several of Paul's epistles), and paint sticks and force sheep to look at them before copulating if we want to beat science and have striped ewes (late Genesis 30).

or:
Option 2: We can understand that the Bible is a fantastic moral guideline for society; however, as instructions are historically bound to a different time period and culture, some of the stories may not apply to modern life except when viewed as a historical case. The overarching themes of loving one's neighbor and living like Jesus are fantastic themes, but you don't have to be a circumcised Anglo-Saxon who washes every inch of his body every time he "spills his seed" and slaughters a goat every time he sins.

Of course, there is also Option 3: Neither of the above.
-wtk

Yes, though my question that proceeded your post was actually addressed to Kev'La.

Both #1 and #2 are not options I would choose. I am not sufficiently verbose to outline my position well, but I will say that both 'choices' only cover the letter of the law, and say nothing about the law's spirit. The Bible doesn't say that you should 'Bind your life to every word written in the Bible. Acknowledge that it is completely correct, infallible, and the way to live your life.' in order to be saved, it says 'Believe in Christ, and honor him as LORD and savior, and you shall be saved.' The Bible is not one document but a collection of 66 books, with the Old Testament mainly made up of histories, such as Kings I and II, and collections of the Israelite Law, such as Deuteronomy and Leviticus. The New Testament details the life of Christ as well as the Apostles, and contains many of their letters and writings. Christ said many times that having strict laws for their own sake alone was pointless, and condemned the Pharisees for their self-righteousness. Jesus is the fulfillment of the old law, and many of the old laws, such as not eating 'unclean animals' were revoked after his coming. I believe Paul did not instruct masters to keep slaves, but instead instructed slaves to obey their masters. Your second example seems to entail rejecting the Bible's key principles altogether and simply enjoying the morals found in the stories.
 
Here's the options ket gives Christians:

#1: Keep outdated Israelite law in direct violation of what Jesus said, and twist the Bible in strange ways,
 
or,

#2: Acknowledge that its all outdated anyway, and simple enjoy the nice generic morals to be found in some of the stories.

or

#3: Become an Atheist or Agnostic.

Might I suggest option #4?

#4: Accept Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior and believe in him alone for salvation, love your neighbor, treat your wife and children with fairness. Obey the spirit of the Old Testament Law and obey the laws of your country while doing your utmost to follow the Golden Rule and Ten Commandments and lead a life glorifying to YHWH. Spread the gospel, share Jesus' message, and do your best to mirror Christ's example in your life.

[Gate Troll]

That said, I implore a mod to split this thread several ways.

This thread now entails:

A discussion of a racist website,

Discussion of possible hypocrisy in GT's beliefs.

Christianity in General, and

Christ's Existence

[FM]

Yeah, I'm having a bit of trouble trying to break it down. I will, though.

[hrcho]

Yeah, I'm having a bit of trouble trying to break it down. I will, though.

Why not leave it as it is? I think it will be much easier for everyone who wants to keep on discussing. Breaking will most probably end it altogether.

[Kev-La]

Do you think there is a universal ethics though? And do people have the right to correct one and other? Sincere curiousity here.....

I believe that there might be a universal ethics code, but I do not know whether or not there definitely is. I would first need a reason to have belief (as opposed to my current state of neither belief nor disbelief) in a supreme being who determines such things. With this in mind, I function on the basis of what I do feel I know: that the ideas of good and evil exist within the realm of individual human perception.
And yes, I do believe that any given person has the right to correct any other given person. I just don't believe that either person is somehow fundamentally correct. In other words, I think that arguing is all fine and dandy (as well as unavoidable), but brings no one closer to being truly "good", "right" or "correct".
Thank you, most sincerely, for your sincere curiosity, Gil-Estel.