313 replies to this topic

[scowl]

Ugly1, on 26 October 2012 - 11:27 PM, said:

I definitely think that the sword is a metaphorical sword. I was using the mention of the literal sword to show that Jesus did not mean that as a sword to murder with when he said that I come to bring the sword.

The metaphor Jesus was using was a sword for battle, since he was declaring he did not come to bring peace.

Quote

Where did I say that, or the bible say that you are not allowed to love your Atheist child?

Matthew 10:35-37. It says that members of your family who don't accept Christ are your foes and further says that's because Jesus demands you love him more than them.

Quote

Jesus taught that you shall love your neighbor. I never read love your Christian neighbor only anywhere in the bible.

Love thy neighbor is a actually a law from the Old Testament (Leviticus 19:18). Jesus just repeated it. Since Christians never read the Old Testament, they assume Jesus came up with it.

It's generally accepted that the Jews considered "neighbors" to be their fellow Israelites. For example God commanded them to exterminate or enslave all Moabites, Canaanites, and any other "foreigners" they found in the Promised Land.

I haven't found anything in the New Testament that says non-believers are neighbors. There are verses that say they are foes.

Quote

Regarding the other Christian scolding you; Who cares? I can call myself a doctor but it doesn't mean I am one or should be performing brain surgery on you. Christian is a pretty lose term these days.

I didn't really care! I'm just amazed at how some Christians drill the "You're going to HELL!" aspect of their religion yet others say "That's just a small part of Christianity. Don't worry about it." It looks to me like the idea of people suffering for all eternity for not having their Christian beliefs is exciting to some yet embarrassing to others.

[Bling]

I guess I should at this stage ask our atheist members.....

Do you personally feel you get a hard time for being an atheist?

Do you feel discriminated against in a world filled with religion?

Has this thread been helpful, interesting, or not?

[scowl]

Bling, on 29 October 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

Do you personally feel you get a hard time for being an atheist?

Yes, mostly from Christians. My Jewish friends don't seem to care.

Quote

Do you feel discriminated against in a world filled with religion?

Yes. People who aren't "spiritual" are pitied as if they were bodies with no souls who have no faith in anything.

Quote

Has this thread been helpful, interesting, or not?

I haven't read any experiences similar to mine. Maybe I'm more of a jerk atheist.

[OverSword]

Bling, on 02 October 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

Why do you feel the need to say they probably aren't right? Do you know for sure there has been no alien visitation?

No, I don't know for sure, and I also feel that athiests cannot know for sure there is no God.  They can only know what they believe.  In that way atheism is like a religion, it operates at some level on nothing but faith.
Edited for:

Maybe I should point out that at some level everything is based on faith at some level, IMO.

Edited by OverSword, 29 October 2012 - 09:44 PM.

[Ugly1]

scowl, on 28 October 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

The metaphor Jesus was using was a sword for battle, since he was declaring he did not come to bring peace.



Matthew 10:35-37. It says that members of your family who don't accept Christ are your foes and further says that's because Jesus demands you love him more than them.



Love thy neighbor is a actually a law from the Old Testament (Leviticus 19:18). Jesus just repeated it. Since Christians never read the Old Testament, they assume Jesus came up with it.

It's generally accepted that the Jews considered "neighbors" to be their fellow Israelites. For example God commanded them to exterminate or enslave all Moabites, Canaanites, and any other "foreigners" they found in the Promised Land.

I haven't found anything in the New Testament that says non-believers are neighbors. There are verses that say they are foes.



I didn't really care! I'm just amazed at how some Christians drill the "You're going to HELL!" aspect of their religion yet others say "That's just a small part of Christianity. Don't worry about it." It looks to me like the idea of people suffering for all eternity for not having their Christian beliefs is exciting to some yet embarrassing to others.

Someone who tries to drag you away from Christ is your spiritual foe, yes. I don't see anywhere that it says not to love your children though, atheist or not.
The verse you are quoting is talking about putting father against son as you have to choose god over your family. God, Family, whatever else. You are putting in your own words to fit your agenda.  First you said that the gospel was only for Jews and that the Romans or Gentiles weren't to be taught the gospel. (Paraphrasing). I don't guess you have read the book of Romans, huh? How about Acts 28:28, Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and they will hear it.

The metaphor come to bring the sword once again is not meaning to do battle. Jesus commanded legions of angels, he doesn't need a sword. This is a spiritual battle. Having to put something you love and can hold, behind something you have to have faith in causes strife.

Christians never read the Old Testament? Your losing credibility rapidly. Hey, how about you just quote me the same verse for the third time and try to break it down without having read the book associated with said references.

Here I'll do more bible study for you since you cannot take the time to read before you cast away your salvation. Let's go to Matthew since you seem to spend most of your time in this book.
Matthew 5:43. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.

Hey if you are talking to Christians that say don't worry about going to Hell then I can see why you question your faith.  It isn't the fact that you don't have Christian beliefs that sends you to hell. The reason that you are on the fast track to hell is that you have heard the word, and choose to deny it. You know better, yet still choose to tempt god with your ignorance. The difference between me and you is that if I was wrong (Which I'm not), it wouldn't matter. I just die, and am dead. When it turns out that you are wrong, you are without the presence of god for eternity.

If you take the time to read the bible a bit and actually come up with a response other than Matthew 10:35 which we have discussed twice now then let me know.

[Arbenol68]

Ugly1, on 30 October 2012 - 03:04 AM, said:

It isn't the fact that you don't have Christian beliefs that sends you to hell. The reason that you are on the fast track to hell is that you have heard the word, and choose to deny it. You know better, yet still choose to tempt god with your ignorance. The difference between me and you is that if I was wrong (Which I'm not), it wouldn't matter. I just die, and am dead. When it turns out that you are wrong, you are without the presence of god for eternity.

In one short paragraph, you've just encapsulated why so many atheists get pissed off with the 'faithful'. And you even managed to throw in the irrational nonsense of Pascal's wager.

So. Do atheists get a hard time? Difficult to deny when you know that all good christians think you're going to hell. You talk about ignorance but demonstrate your own extremely well. Try talking to an atheist instead of preaching. You'll never change each others' minds, but you'd be amazed what a bit of mutual understanding can achieve.

[The Silver Thong]

It depends where one lives. Im an atheists and very comfy being one a to where I live I live.

Edited by The Silver Thong, 30 October 2012 - 06:03 AM.

[scowl]

Ugly1, on 30 October 2012 - 03:04 AM, said:

Someone who tries to drag you away from Christ is your spiritual foe, yes. I don't see anywhere that it says not to love your children though, atheist or not.

Do I have to read Matthew 10:35-37 to you again?

" For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Quote

The verse you are quoting is talking about putting father against son as you have to choose god over your family. God, Family, whatever else. You are putting in your own words to fit your agenda.  

How do you get "choose god [I assume you mean Jesus] over your family" when it clearly says "turn a man against" his family? That means oppose them. If your children are non-believers then you must "turn against" them. Period.

Read the entire context of that chapter of Matthew. It is all about why Jesus came to the Earth, who will oppose him, and how believers must react to his enemies.

Quote

First you said that the gospel was only for Jews

Yes, the Old Testament is only for Jews.

Quote

and that the Romans or Gentiles weren't to be taught the gospel. (Paraphrasing). I don't guess you have read the book of Romans, huh? How about Acts 28:28, Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and they will hear it.

The New Testament is for anyone who wants to become a Christian. It has to be because Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah as defined by the Old Testament.

Quote

The metaphor come to bring the sword once again is not meaning to do battle. Jesus commanded legions of angels, he doesn't need a sword. This is a spiritual battle.

First you say "not meaning to do battle" then you say "This is a spiritual battle". If you think "a spiritual battle" doesn't lead to physical battles, you need to learn more history. Start with the Crusades.

Quote

Christians never read the Old Testament? Your losing credibility rapidly. Hey, how about you just quote me the same verse for the third time and try to break it down without having read the book associated with said references.

My experience is that Christians do not read the Old Testament. I have found they know almost nothing about it beyond the first part of Genesis that says we shouldn't teach Evolution to our children. They regularly make mistakes like saying that Jesus came up with "Love thy neighbor" when it was written hundreds of years before Jesus.

Quote

Here I'll do more bible study for you since you cannot take the time to read before you cast away your salvation. Let's go to Matthew since you seem to spend most of your time in this book.

Yes, Matthew contains the greatest number of errors, contradictions and things that make Christians uncomfortable. I don't know how Christians get past the very first book in the New Testament.

Quote

Matthew 5:43. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.

Now take that concept and try to apply it all the way through Matthew. Jesus is damning his nonbelievers and selecting places in Hell for them, calling them serpents and vipers, is that really "love your enemies"? When Jesus repeatedly calls his generation "serpents" and even calls Peter "Satan", is that "love your enemies"? In Matthew 23-24 when Jesus does his long long "Woe unto them" speech to all that oppose him, does it sound like Jesus loves these people? It doesn't to me.

Jesus's teachings are agonizingly inconsistent. Sure, he'll say some nice things like Matthew 5:44 which Christians will put on billboards and bumper stickers, yet when Jesus is insulting people calling them serpents and vipers and damning them to various levels of Hell those kind words sound very empty and hypocritical to me.

Quote

Hey if you are talking to Christians that say don't worry about going to Hell then I can see why you question your faith.  It isn't the fact that you don't have Christian beliefs that sends you to hell. The reason that you are on the fast track to hell is that you have heard the word, and choose to deny it.

I deny it because the New Testament itself tells me to.  In Matthew 24:34 Jesus said in regards to everything in Matthew 23-24, that "this generation shall not pass, til all these things be fulfilled." Hundreds of generations have passed yet these things have not been fulfilled, thus Jesus was a false prophet.

Quote

You know better, yet still choose to tempt god with your ignorance. The difference between me and you is that if I was wrong (Which I'm not), it wouldn't matter. I just die, and am dead. When it turns out that you are wrong, you are without the presence of god for eternity.

I'm familiar with Pascal's Wager. The difference is that you have chosen to live your life around false teachings that are internally contradictory and externally falsified, yet I have the ability to read, understand, and evaluate the very same teachings and make my own decision about them. This has freed me to live my life without fear of a supernatural creature punishing me after I die.

Quote

If you take the time to read the bible a bit and actually come up with a response other than Matthew 10:35 which we have discussed twice now then let me know.

I have found that Christians will want to discuss another verse when the meaning of a particular verse starts to bother them.

[Ugly1]

scowl, on 30 October 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:

Do I have to read Matthew 10:35-37 to you again?

" For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."



How do you get "choose god [I assume you mean Jesus] over your family" when it clearly says "turn a man against" his family? That means oppose them. If your children are non-believers then you must "turn against" them. Period.

Read the entire context of that chapter of Matthew. It is all about why Jesus came to the Earth, who will oppose him, and how believers must react to his enemies.



Yes, the Old Testament is only for Jews.



The New Testament is for anyone who wants to become a Christian. It has to be because Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah as defined by the Old Testament.



First you say "not meaning to do battle" then you say "This is a spiritual battle". If you think "a spiritual battle" doesn't lead to physical battles, you need to learn more history. Start with the Crusades.



My experience is that Christians do not read the Old Testament. I have found they know almost nothing about it beyond the first part of Genesis that says we shouldn't teach Evolution to our children. They regularly make mistakes like saying that Jesus came up with "Love thy neighbor" when it was written hundreds of years before Jesus.



Yes, Matthew contains the greatest number of errors, contradictions and things that make Christians uncomfortable. I don't know how Christians get past the very first book in the New Testament.



Now take that concept and try to apply it all the way through Matthew. Jesus is damning his nonbelievers and selecting places in Hell for them, calling them serpents and vipers, is that really "love your enemies"? When Jesus repeatedly calls his generation "serpents" and even calls Peter "Satan", is that "love your enemies"? In Matthew 23-24 when Jesus does his long long "Woe unto them" speech to all that oppose him, does it sound like Jesus loves these people? It doesn't to me.

Jesus's teachings are agonizingly inconsistent. Sure, he'll say some nice things like Matthew 5:44 which Christians will put on billboards and bumper stickers, yet when Jesus is insulting people calling them serpents and vipers and damning them to various levels of Hell those kind words sound very empty and hypocritical to me.



I deny it because the New Testament itself tells me to.  In Matthew 24:34 Jesus said in regards to everything in Matthew 23-24, that "this generation shall not pass, til all these things be fulfilled." Hundreds of generations have passed yet these things have not been fulfilled, thus Jesus was a false prophet.



I'm familiar with Pascal's Wager. The difference is that you have chosen to live your life around false teachings that are internally contradictory and externally falsified, yet I have the ability to read, understand, and evaluate the very same teachings and make my own decision about them. This has freed me to live my life without fear of a supernatural creature punishing me after I die.



I have found that Christians will want to discuss another verse when the meaning of a particular verse starts to bother them.

You continue to take things out of context to try to fit your point.

I will not be a liar about saying that I understand what is being said in all parts of the bible. I don't. I'm not a scholar by any means.

I was trying to get you away from Matthew 10:35 because you keep repeating the same nonsense when taking that verse out of context.  I can keep copying and pasting my last response and change a few words around and we can do this until we are blue in the face. So realize that I am not trying to change the verse being discussed because it is bothering me, I am changing it because you do not understand what is being said, and cannot be told different on said verse. Somewhat like how I feel.

If you have hardened your heart to where you cannot be saved, then that is on you to change, not me. The only one out of us that has anything to lose is you. Not me.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Its funny that atheists get a hard time by the religious groups in the USA, when in the rest of the westernized world its generally the other way around.

I heard that atheism is statistically linked to education and intelligence level. The more you study and the smarter you are, the less religious you are. The average differance between an atheist and a dogmatic believer is almost 6 IQ points.

However, i am a deist. I dismiss both atheism and religion as superfluous and fanciful as religions seem to me like a fairytale and atheism denies any spiritual realm at all.

This is my belief, but i am open to change if any further evidence comes to hand (which is not likely)

[Mr Walker]

Professor Buzzkill, on 31 October 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

Its funny that atheists get a hard time by the religious groups in the USA, when in the rest of the westernized world its generally the other way around.

I heard that atheism is statistically linked to education and intelligence level. The more you study and the smarter you are, the less religious you are. The average differance between an atheist and a dogmatic believer is almost 6 IQ points.

However, i am a deist. I dismiss both atheism and religion as superfluous and fanciful as religions seem to me like a fairytale and atheism denies any spiritual realm at all.

This is my belief, but i am open to change if any further evidence comes to hand (which is not likely)

The opposite is true in Australia for a variety of logical, sociological reasons. The better educated you are the more likely you are to be religious and belong to a religious group. This reflects both the differnt nature of religion in australia (very little of it is fundamentalist and even less accepts creation as true) and our social structure  including our education system.

The richest people in australia send their children to private schools, most of which are also religious based . But also, religion in australia is a social positive  and perceived as such. It works with govt., and runs all sorts of businesses which care for people, and employ  many more. Religion in australia can also be an important part of social networking for advancement in business, and "old boy" networks from those private schools count for a  lot.

[scowl]

Ugly1, on 30 October 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

You continue to take things out of context to try to fit your point.

I am not alone in my interpretation so you'll have to accept that people don't accept your feel-good interpretation.

Quote

I was trying to get you away from Matthew 10:35 because you keep repeating the same nonsense when taking that verse out of context.  I can keep copying and pasting my last response and change a few words around and we can do this until we are blue in the face.

That "nonsense" I was saying is actually a common interpretation of the verse. It's not popular among Christians because it's one of the many cases where the Bible says things that conflict with how we choose to live our lives today. Christians have made a science out of skipping over things in the Bible that make them uncomfortable or would make them unpopular (Jews generally confront these things). That's why there are 1,600 Christian sects today -- each has pulled out whatever they like from the Bible and thrown the rest of it into the trash.

Quote

If you have hardened your heart to where you cannot be saved, then that is on you to change, not me. The only one out of us that has anything to lose is you. Not me.

If you have hardened your brain to where you cannot understand words from your Bible which conflict with what you want to believe and what science has proved then you have already surrendered a part of what makes living in our modern age so much better than in the past.

OK forget Matthew 10:35. How about Matthew 8:28-32? This was one of the cases where Jesus "cured" people by removing demonic spirits from them. In this case the spirits then asked Jesus to be put into pigs (Luke says there were approximately 2,000 of them) which jumped off a cliff and drowned in the sea. To be a Christian I must believe in demonic possession because the Bible tells me it exists. Furthermore I must believe that talking demons can be placed into the bodies of animals. I must also believe that there are people who are sick right now because they are possessed by evil or "unclean" spirits and could be instantly cured when these spirits (some who talk!) are extracted.

It isn't my hardened heart that's rejecting this hogwash.

[scowl]

Mr Walker, on 31 October 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

The opposite is true in Australia for a variety of logical, sociological reasons.

In 2009, 15% of Americans reported to have no religious beliefs.

In 2011, 22.3% of Australians reported to have no religious beliefs.

[Professor Buzzkill]

scowl, on 31 October 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

In 2009, 15% of Americans reported to have no religious beliefs.

In 2011, 22.3% of Australians reported to have no religious beliefs.

These are from the census figures and therefore have no basis in real religious terms.

As part of a protest, in my last census i put my religion as "Jedi Knight" so therefore would be counted as having a "religious belief"

People who were baptized put themselves down as Anglican or Catholic whether or not they have ever seen the inside of a church since baptism

Edited by Professor Buzzkill, 31 October 2012 - 07:37 PM.

[Mr Walker]

scowl, on 31 October 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

In 2009, 15% of Americans reported to have no religious beliefs.

In 2011, 22.3% of Australians reported to have no religious beliefs.

Non sequitor
The point was that in australia the more educated you are, the more you tend to have religious beliefs. Ps in 2006 18% of australians reported no religious belief, which is an equally chronologically comparable  statistic.

However the census changed the way it asked this question, prompting more people to say no, if they did not actually attend a church. Before this one could have only a nebulous religious belief, or simply a family heritage of belief, and the question would expect you to  answer it as a positive. eg you were baptised or confirmed as a child ,made you a christian..

I think this change reflects a more accurate, if narower, interpretation of "religious."

Ps from memory last census they no longer counted jedi knight as a legitimate answer to the religon question, although they did for at least a couple of  census. and it got up to 75000 or so members

Edited by Mr Walker, 02 November 2012 - 10:21 AM.