ex-preacher

As if all Christians agree on exactly what Christ taught. There are six major schools of interpretation on the Sermon on the Mount, alone.

Tell us, AJ, what exactly did Jesus teach on the following subjects:

1. capital punishment

2. pacifism

3. Christian involvement in a secular government

4. homosexuality

5. self-defense

6. divorce and re-marriage

7. abortion

8. whether or not one should save money for retirement

9. whether or not it is ever right to borrow money

10. drinking alcoholic beverages

11. how the church should be organized

12. whether multiple denominations were in his plan and whether or not their existence is sinful (IOW, is there just 1 true church - which is it?)

13. whether celibacy is preferred to marriage

14. whether or not one should sell everything and give the money to the poor

15. whether or not he was serious when he advised people to cutt off an offending hand, foot, eye

16. hell

17. the second coming

18. works (Matt 25) vs. grace

19. whether Christians should try to keep the law

20. whether or not he claimed to be the Son of God and if so, what exactly that means

21. the Holy Spirit

22. baptism


Once you clarify these matters, please explain why honest and intelligent Christians disagree with each other on each item.

Philosoft

I wrote: AJ responded:<strong> Well, that's the first time I've heard that. This is a very naive position and even an anecdote would be nice. Got anything to support this wackiness?


<strong> Not trying to be rude, but I'm not the least bit concerned with your intentions. If you truly want to have a bigoted opinion of atheists then I can't stop you. But when you appeal to bigotry to make an argument on a discussion forum, all bets are off.

<strong> I have used that phrase, to be sure, but what I mean when I start a sentence that way is, "I know this is going to offend you, but I'm going to say it anyway..."


<strong> Obviously, I don't think your entire motivation was to piss me off but it certainly occured to you that you might.


<strong> Translation: I must ascribe to a fictional being my own desires to shun another fictional being's arbitrary moral code so my head doesn't explode from cognitive dissonance overload.

<strong> I don't make a habit of blaming an absence of beliefs for the apparent changes in a person's moral behavior, no. Not without evidence that this is what actually happens.

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

beachbum

Greetings one and all

1. I have not read all the responses to this thread so if I am repeating something already in evidence, mea culpa.

2. I read (someplace in the far distant past) a study that showed that if all thought of gods could be erased from existance; i.e. we start from scratch - no gods. PERIOD. That within a few generations gods would reappear, primarily due to man's inability to accept his finality or to explain those things he can't like where does the other sock go when you know you put a pair in the washer and dryer, or where exactly are your keys.

AJ113

It depends on the history. If an individual goes through life condoning homosexuality from the beginning, and acts out homosexuality himself, then there is no re-definition of morals.

We know that Christians do not condone homosexuality, so a homosexual who renounces his Christian faith, and then acts on his sexual desires, may well be re-defining his morals in order to justify his behaviour.

AJ113

Maybe, but the basics are accepted. For example, there is no disagreement afaIk concerning acceptance of paedophilia, or mass genocide.

It may be "kill" or it may be "murder," either way, I'm sure we can all understand the underlying intention.

Such as?

Philosoft

You need to give up these black/white knowledge claims about Christianity. All Christians do not condemn homosexuality. It is not necessarily true that a Christian who engages in homosexual behavior is renouncing previously held morals.

brighid

AJ – You demonstrate a very poor understanding of Judaism and the commandments God laid out for the tribes of Israel. The Thou Shall Not Kill Commandment IS most accurately translated Thou Shall Not MURDER an Israelite, but you may kill or murder any one else as evidence by the extensive examples of God’s chosen people murdering innocent men, women and children as directed to them by their God. You may even KILL an Israelite if he or she has transgressed the Laws. The Laws of the Old Testament DO NOT, in ANY, WAY, SHAPE or FORM applies to the Gentile – that means YOU. The Judaic laws only apply to the tribes of Israel – PERIOD!

Jesus came to uphold the JUDAIC laws, not to change them – not even “ONE iota!” Therefore all the extraneous additions of the New Testament are a sacrilege. A Jew is not allowed to add to, or take away from the original laws laid down by the Judaic God – oh, but wait a second Jesus is that Judaic God! He came to redirect the Jews, to prevent them from breaking those laws and he DID NOT come for the GENTILE! Paul added that crap later. Furthermore Jesus does not fulfill the JUDAIC prophecies as defined by Judaism – even if Christianity says he does. The Jews are your God’s Chosen people and unless he lied to them and they are no longer his chosen people the covenant He made with them lasts FOREVER, including every word of every law given to them – the JEW. You are a gentile and you have SEVEN laws to follow ONLY and this is how you become a righteous gentile – this is how it has been since the time of NOAH! You are either a Jew, a Noahide, or a Gentile in the eyes of YOUR GOD!

Now mind you, I don’t believe any of this mumbo-jumbo but if you are going to assert that YOUR God Savior is a Jewish King, born of Jews, under the laws of Judaism set forth by the God of Abraham (same god as this Jesus) then you have to abide by the original rules. It is doubtful that the same God that said you may not add to or take away from the LAW EVER, would then come and change his mind, forget about all the prophecies He has previously told His Chosen people, break that covenant AND add many, many new ADDITIONS to HIS LAW! Unless of course He was a liar in the 1st place, therefore nullifying any possibility that He is a God!

So, you silly, little GOYIM – know from whence you and your God came and quite muddying the waters with your BS!


Brighid

Philosoft

Now these are basics? I have news for you, there is no disagreement because these things offend our sensibilities. Unless you would care to indicate which biblical passages specifically prohibit these actions?

I said: AJ replied:<strong> Catholicism, Lutheranism, Baptism, Methodism, Calvinism, Presbyterianism, Episcopalianism...

Shall I continue?

free12thinker

AJ113,

Philosoft Says:
Christians disagree tremendously over the interpretation of much of the moral code.
You Reply:
Maybe, but the basics are accepted. For example, there is no disagreement talk concerning acceptance of paedophilia, or mass genocide.

------------------------------------------------
Are you really claiming that genocide and pedophilia are Christian based morals? Or are you simply noting that they are condemned universally by Christians. If you are claiming the second part, than that would sure make Christianity the most organized religion in the world. Right! Okay, that was sarcasm.

Here's the thing. Genocide and pedophilia are not just agreed as bad by Christians, they are considered bad an overwhelming majority of the world. And it's immoral roots go nowhere near Christianity, or any other religion for that matter. As philosoft put it, we are able to deem them bad because of our sensibilities as humans. Unlike, say...homosexuality, gambling, casual sex and the like. These are the things that Christians cannot agree with, and never will. Why? Because there isn't a definite fault in their actions. No one can point out an evil or a wrong within them. But genocide, murder and the like negatively impact others, and are therefore universal immoralities. The rest are victimless 'sins' deemed immoral by Christians (among others) who are offended or threatened by the sins, but only in mind and values.

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: free12thinker ]</p>

AJ113

Oh dear, so many replies!

I would like to tackle all the issues raised, but I'm sure you can appreciate that this will take more time than I have available.

How would you like me to proceed?

Please advise!

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: AJ113 ]</p>