Why do people believe the bible?

[Mr Walker]

On 15/01/2018 at 9:41 AM, Guyver said:

I don’t understand why you’re attempting to promote Judaism.  It should be marginalized.....at least the biblical kind should be in light of the atrocious acts it supports, like rape, slavery, genocide and misogyny.  In any event, biblical Judaism doesn’t even exist anymore, and it hasn’t since 70 AD.

According to Biblical Judaism, I can rape a woman and make her my wife forever, if I’m willing to pay her father 50 shekels of silver.  Is that one of the Judeo/Christian principles you think makes society a better place?

Women were property 

Attitudes to everything were different.  The woman would have been stoned to death  if her rapist did not offer to make her his wife 

The bible shows how  woman could be saved, in the only way possible  in that time.

Pprior to biblical law rape was ALWAYS the woman's fault  (in that it was she who suffered the social and legal consequences the most severely .)   Under judaic law, however, if a woman called out while being raped, in a town or city she was adjudged as not being complicit in the sex.  In the country she did not have to call out  to have a defence because no one would hear her scream.  In general however a woman was expected to do everything she could to avoid tempting a  man and if she was in a house alone with man, and he raped her, then she would be blamed for tempting him by staying there alone with him. 

You couldn't possibly blame the poor bloke for losing control      This attitude was still reflected in European custom and law right into the late  1800s and continues today in  some Islamic countries   

[bigjim36]

31 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I never argued that  morality is lost when societies become secular 

The argument is that secularism and atheism contains no inherent morality whereas a religion does. 

That's your opinion, it's not a fact. The evidence suggests otherwise.

31 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 

 

In a secular society you need to add in values such as those in secular humanism, by which i was raised.

Despite what your latest study shows there remains an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that, in cohorts of like,  those with a religious belief are more compassionate and better citizens than those who are not  

So as I predicted in my last post you chose to ignore a scientific study because it doesn't fit your ideology. I must be psychic! I'm not btw. I just know your ridiculous arguments. Same as how I knew you'd ignore all the questions I posed you because they make you contradict the bible. Please answer them. 

31 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You cannot compare cohorts which are unlike, such as  japan which has an ageing population one cohesive culture and a   very conservative national morality with a nation with a totally different culture and demographics, such as america. 

In order to conduct a world wide study then yes you do and can compare cohorts. Otherwise you have a study that reveals very little. Having a christian nation like America compare to that of a Christian nation like Spain or Italy won't reveal a lot. The study reveals the correlation between antisocial behaviour and religion in different nations around the world. It shows how morality doesn't come from religion. Pretty conclusively. So no wonder you dismiss it. But that's the beauty of science, it's true whether you admit it or not.

31 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 religious belief gives a protective factor against risky sexual behaviour and the health risks from such behaviour This occurs all around the world even in uganda

So the african AIDS epidemic has nothing to do with the catholic churches refusal to allow it's practioners to wear condoms? Seriously? 

31 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023670 

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between sociodemographic and religious factors and their impact on sexual behavior among university students in Uganda.

For those who rated religion as less important in their family, the probability of early sexual activity and having had a high number of lifetime partners increased by a statistically significant amount (OR = 1.7; 95% CI: 1.2–2.4 and OR = 1.6; 95% CI: 1.1–2.3, respectively).

Religion emerged as an important determinant of sexual behavior among Ugandan university students. Our findings correlate with the increasing number of conservative religious injunctions against premarital sex directed at young people in many countries with a high burden. of HIV/AIDS.

Our findings are in agreement with those of previous research performed mainly in settings outside Africa, where it was concluded that religious engagement was a protective factor for risky sexual behavior [25], [26], [27]. Such research has primarily studied the associations between religious engagement and religious affiliation in relation to sexual behavior in general. 

 

 

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, Guyver said:

Again, I think your beliefs are positive in this sense, and I agree with you.  I completely support a healthy manner of living, with proper diet, nutrition, exercise, and spiritual fitness.  I don't necessarily practice it at a high level right now......but I do believe in it.  Anyway, just as a point of fact there is no "biblical dietary" requirements.  I mean, you can make some for yourself, but the dietary restrictions were part of the Old Covenant.  As a Christian, and being under the New Covenant those requirements were done away with and you are no longer required to follow them if you don't wish.  This is supported in the New Testament text by the Apostles Peter and Paul.  Just pointing that out.  

Ah but there is the difference.

In my understanding christ did not come to do away with tne law but fulfil it and reinforce it.

We are still admonished to follow the old laws but out of love not legalism. the laws wre made for or own good including our god health out of gods love but by Christs time had become legalistic and    followed  from fear

The difference is explained like this,

  in the old testament it was absolutely  forbidden to eat certain foods because they were dangerous and unhealthy, and we were supposed to treat our body like god's temple. 

  In the new testament we a re told that we might do more harm by refusing food from a host, even if it is not   a healthy food to eat  And so we are told to eat the food put in front of us as a guest

Nonetheless,  we should not eat it of our own choice, because it is not good for us. 

Thus i will ea t pork  or crayfish if put in front of me, but not  by choice.

 This applies to all the dietary laws.

MAny health experts have told me that the vegetarian old testament diet, of legumes, nuts and vegetables, with a little grain product, is the most healthy diet for humans  And we know that all the food proscribed in the OT are scavengers, high on the food chain, which tend to accumulate toxins poisons and contaminants in their bodies  While it might not hurt to eat them occasionally,  day to day regular consumption can cause health problems.

 

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, bigjim36 said:

That's your opinion, it's not a fact. The evidence suggests otherwise.

Its a fact. Atheism is simply a disbelief in the existence of gods. In itself it contains no positive principles at all  These have to be added in. 

So as I predicted in my last post you chose to ignore a scientific study because it doesn't fit your ideology. I must be psychic! I'm not btw. I just know your ridiculous arguments. Same as how I knew you'd ignore all the questions I posed you because they make you contradict the bible. Please answer them. 

One smallish study does not counter many studies from all around the world which give different results.  it tends to suggest the re was a specific reason why, in that cohort, those results occurred 

In order to conduct a world wide study then yes you do and can compare cohorts. Otherwise you have a study that reveals very little. Having a christian nation like America compare to that of a Christian nation like Spain or Italy won't reveal a lot. The study reveals the correlation between antisocial behaviour and religion in different nations around the world. It shows how morality doesn't come from religion. Pretty conclusively. So no wonder you dismiss it. But that's the beauty of science, it's true whether you admit it or not.

 You cant compare cohorts with difernt cultural and demographic features and then  argue tha the results show anything. eg rich western countries have excellent health systems Poor countries  have poor health systems 

People in rich countries tend to be less religious  than those in poor ones. You CANNOT use this difference to say that religion causes poorer health outcomes  But if you take people from within a common health system and the religious ones demonstrate a far superior health outcome to the non religious, despite them having access to the same health system then You CAN argue that  some factor in  religiosity makes a positive difference to people's health.  

So the african AIDS epidemic has nothing to do with the catholic churches refusal to allow it's practioners to wear condoms? Seriously?

What did that have to do with any source i provided?  While there was not much difference for men, protestant female university students in uganda  had fewer sexual partners than non religious students  This resulted in significantly superior health outcomes for the religious women There was no detectable difference in the use of condoms between Protestant students and non religious students.

Plus, of course, condom use, by itself, will not prevent the transmission of aids when it is such epidemic proportions . Reducing sexual contact will probably have a significant impact in reducing your risks.    

Ps i think i did answer all your questions.  You are simply wrong in a lot of your assumptions and conclusions and it is not worth while trying to convince you  EG in uganda religiosity improves health outcomes  Thus, clearly it is NOT causing significant mortality etc  because it causes dangerous practices.

   In america teenagers and young adults  with a religious belief are less affected by drugs, alcohol, sexual promiscuity, and  sexual diseases, and also depression Those are the facts. Again religious beliefs are causing people to act in ways which are beneficial to their health not harmful  

You assume that religious belief reduces education levels and common sense  However well educated believers behave more conservatively and thus safely than well educated atheists Their religions influence their behaviours and thus reduce their risks, and improve their outcomes. 

Part of the problem is that many modernists do not want to admit that conservative behaviours and morality reduce the incidence of risk taking and risky behaviours, which cause many health problems in young people. 

Gonorrhoea and syphilis were almost eradicated in Australian cities in the 80s and nineties Now the rates are soaring.  People are no less educated. Indeed sexual education in schools has been increased and  made almost universal .   it seems they are just indulging in riskier sexual activity with more partners.They do not have any beliefs or moralities which prevent them from this behaviour 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4286922/

In the recent decade many studies uncovered the negative relationship between adherence to the religious beliefs and showing certain behaviors such as suicide (1, 2), drug abuse (3-5), alcoholism (4, 5), violence (6), and risky sexual behaviors (4, 7, 8). The positive relationship between religiosity and mental health is demonstrated in some studies, such as that of Ronneberg, (9), while others assume religion as the balancing factor in causal relation of other variables with risky behaviors. For example, the level of religiosity was considered as a balancing factor in a study on the relationship between depression and suicide (10). A limited number of studies have also dealt with the mechanisms by which religion influences delinquent behaviors. The approach used by some studies was to separate internal and external religions (11), while the others considered religion in two categories: personal and social (5).

Religion may decrease risky behaviors both directly and indirectly. The direct way includes setting orders and prohibitions. Orders enforce the followers to practice healthy and riskless behaviors, to serve themselves and the others, to observe peace and humanitarianism and to meet the needs of the people in need. Prohibitions prevent people from doing risky behaviors, for example to avoid playing with dangerous and killing tools, consuming alcoholic drinks and drugs, and violating the others’ rights, which is a source of stress, harming the theirs and the others’ body, and limiting sexual behavior etc. for the indirect process religion limits the proper condition for doing risky behaviors through different ways. Membership in religious communities is a way either to meet the need of belonging to a group, or to find social support, which in turn mitigates stress, improves the mental health (such as Rajaee (14)), and decreases risky behaviors potential in people. Religion contributes to the development of identity and stability in people (14). Identity instability, that its clinical sample can be seen in borderline personality disorder, is effective in occurrence of different harmful behaviors. Adherence to religion and doing rites will limit people’s free time (e.g. five prayers per day) and contributes to self-control (e.g. in a fasting month) and self-organization (timely prayers), which in turn reduces the possibility for risky behavior and those caused by impulses. Quran says “Indeed, prayer prohibits immorality and wrongdoing” (Surah Al-Ankabut, verse 45).

 

Also in respect to American Indian youth,  and protection from  substance and alcohol abuse.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3431460/

This article explored aspects of spirituality and religious involvement that may have a protective effect against substance use among urban AI middle-school students, particularly in delaying or reducing use of substances. The overall hypothesis was confirmed as several of the measures of spirituality and religious involvement were associated with less substance use and stronger antidrug norms. 

 The aspects of spirituality and religion associated most strongly and consistently with lower levels of substance use were adherence to Christian beliefs and affiliation with the NAC. Adherence to AI beliefs was the strongest predictor of antidrug attitudes, norms, and expectancies.

Following beliefs systems – AI or Christian – generally emerged as a protective factor. Those following AI beliefs more strongly reported less adherence to pro-drug attitudes as well as better decision-making skills. Stronger Christian beliefs predicted less use of alcohol and cigarettes, fewer drug resistance strategies, and better decision-making skills. Compared to the seventh and eighth grade students who were not affiliated with any religion, those belonging to the NAC reported significantly less alcohol and polydrug use, and there was a similar sizeable but nonsignificant effect for marijuana use.

Those attending services for religious reasons reported better decision-making skills than those who did not attend or attended for nonreligious reasons.

These findings among urban AI seventh and eighth grade students highlight the importance of having a spiritual or religious belief system and the special salience of the blending of traditional native spirituality and Christianity represented by the NAC. 

 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

7 hours ago, Guyver said:

Yes.....that is Christian speak, if you don't mind me saying so.  It's just that the New Testament is primarily filled with the words of the Apostle Paul and his letters to the churches form the largest part of Christian doctrine as I understand it.  And while I can certainly argue (quite convincingly in my mind) that Jesus and Paul differ on this point......there can be no doubt that the Apostle Paul supports the doctrine of original sin.  It says basically, that all people who exist, except for Jesus, had been cursed as a result of Adam's sin and are the enemies of God doomed to hell.  

It's covered in several places, but Romans chapter 5 states it pretty clearly.  "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. "

"For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification."

"Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life."

So, without taking the time to post all the scriptures pertaining to this.....many Christians believe, and Paul clearly teaches that because of the sin of Adam all men were condemned.  Christians take this to mean that all non-Christians are condemned, that is not saved, and will go to hell unless they are saved by having faith in Christ.   So, it is proper for me to affirm that this is what Christians in fact do believe.  Maybe you don't, but many do.

Therefore, to a Christian, all men are not their brothers.....and they are wicked, unsaved, unrighteous, and unholy people.  The term "children of the devil" is used in the New Testament to refer to non-Christian people.  

I personally have a problem with this theology and this is why I speak against it.  I know that simplybill and others who are Christian may not appreciate this, but I believe that the truth of a thing should be spoken.  

Yes in christian doctrine all humans were cursed by original sin but all humans had that curse washed away by  the blood of christs sacrifice and everyone was garbed in robes of righteousness 

The new covenant is between god and every human, and belief in   (even knowledge of ) christ is not needed ALL humans were saved from original sin when christ sacrificed himslef  From that point we became responsible for our own individual imperfections and sins, for which we must  confess, repent, ask forgiveness, make restitution and do our best not to recommit. it is here that the bible is important, as it tells us how to live, and how to gain forgiveness for our own  individual sins.

But it is not essential A good man will try not to sin They will try to make things right, and they will confess and ask forgiveness from those they hurt  this just requires conscience not Christianity    

And so, to me, all humans are equal.  All are saved by Christ's sacrifice and all are clothed in new robes of righteousness.

BUT then each individual decides what sort of people they wish to be, and how to act. It is not my place to judge them as humans, although i may be required to judge their behaviours.

A thief is not the same as an honest man, and a murderer not the same as one who saves lives. I do not have to treat them the same, but i cant judge their souls.   

God judges a mans heart and mind.  Many Christians will not be given eternal life, and many atheists and non Christians will be.  Many humans from before Christ will be given eternal life, many who have never heard of him also 

Yes i know that some Christians and especially traditional Catholics do not read the bible this way That does not make them right and creates a god more evil than good  

Ps this is my reading and understanding of the theology and beliefs of Christianity  it does not mean that i believe it as a reality.

I don't believe in a literal heaven, and certainly not hell, which is not  even biblical .   

I dont have any contact, or experience, personally with the sort of rabid Christianity you speak of, despite many of the Christians  i know being biblical conservatives.  Of course as an  historian and a student of the bible  I am well aware of the form of Christianity you refer to.

To me it is an evil corruption of the true word of the bible, which tends to drive people away from god .

God is love. it is just and merciful , caring and protective.  Thus it CANNOT be the way some people  want to portray it; but more significantly, that sort of portrayal is clearly not intended, because it would drive people from god not bring them towards him.   

[Mr Walker]

ps, big jim, slavery is not always evil or immoral ALL human behaviours ethics and moralities are situational and variable. 

I already explained this in another post, but you might find this article informative 

 

http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2014/01/slavery-and-the-old-testament-law/

The first verse to notice is Exodus 21:16: “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death”. Paul alludes in 1 Timothy 1:10 to this verse when he says that God’s law opposes slave traders. It shows that God’s word was always against the white people who captured Africans to work on American plantations, even though tragically those white people took centuries to realize it. One of the early rumblings of the movement to end the slave trade was a pamphlet published in 1700 called The Selling of Joseph, drawing attention to Exodus 21:16.

 

[bigjim36]

mr walker I've asked you a lot of questions that you have yet to answer. Please answer them before writing another nonsensical post dismissing everything I say.

1. What have been my "contradictions" as you claim I have made?

2. What is the connection between having sex with my sister and eating the flesh of the dead? How do they contradict each other? 

3. Why don't you stone gays to death?

4. Why don't you stone women who have sex outside of marriage to death? 

5. The richest nation in the world is the USA, it's also one of the most religious. Surely that counteracts your argument about poor nations, religion and health?

6. We aren't talking about health we're talking about ethics and morality. I've continually said that religion doesn't play a part in either, I've shown you the latest, most up to date scientific study on the matter and yet you dismiss it because you say you can't compare nations and post some outdated nonsense about Uganda. Stick to the topic at hand. Actual evidence proves you are wrong. Why don't you believe it?

7. I posed you a question about questions 3 and 4. That you ignore the instructions within the bible because you know them to be wrong. If you go against the teachings of the book where you get your morality from then it's not worth using it. If it's not worth using then it is worthless. Explain please how you disagree with this statement.

 

Answer all of these questions, properly and logically without trying to change the subject. Until you do I have nothing more to say to you as I get more sense out of my dog!

 

 

 

[Guyver]

9 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

But that's not the truth, not for the great majority of Christians. That's a straw man and a fallacious and stereotypical lie. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God is what Christians believed, no exceptions, not even themselves. 

Lie?  Poor choice of words.  All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God means you're a lost sinner.  Christians believe the things I said, because the bible says them.

Ephesians 5:8 - "For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord."

Romans 5:10 - "For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."

Ephesians 2:3 - "fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others."

John 8:44 - "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do."

Ephesians 2:12 - "that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world."

[Guyver]

9 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

But that's not the truth, not for the great majority of Christians. That's a straw man and a fallacious and stereotypical lie. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God is what Christians believed, no exceptions, not even themselves. They believe everyone who has a good heart, wishing or doing no harm to others, are worthy of love, compassion, respect and the opportunity to hear the Good News, for they who are not saved might brothers or sisters, wives or husband, sons and daughters, all kith and kin. Christianity--especially protestant Christianity, is evangelical in nature and wishes to spread the word of the Salvation of Jesus Christ and will enter any home, any place where they are made welcome. They wish their Faith to grow and spread and not be cloistered away behind walls of sanctimony and intolerance.

Evangelical Protestantism believes that if you're not a saved Christian, you will burn in the fires of hell.  That's why they evangelize.  They got the idea from Jesus in Matthew chapter 25.

"When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy^[c] angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. ³² All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. ³³ And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. "

"“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:"

My bold for emphasis.  

[Guyver]

So, loving Jesus will put you in hell to burn forever if you're not Christian.  Yep.  That's what it says.  

[Stubbly_Dooright]

18 hours ago, simplybill said:

On 1/14/2018 at 5:35 PM, Guyver said:

Thanks, but that doesn’t answer my question.  You said Christianity works in real life.  I think it doesn’t.  I asked you to explain how it works, you didn’t answer.  You also claimed that Judeo Christian values work for society.  I asked you to list the top three principles you’re referencing and you didn’t answer that either.

So that’s no good.  Maybe it would be better for you to just say that Christianity works for you because you believe it and you like going to church?

Guyver,

First off, I apologize for being so blunt yesterday.

Did you ever see the movie, "5 Minutes of Heaven" with Liam Neeson and James Nesbitt? It's one of my all-time favorite movies. James Nesbitt's role as the brother of a murder victim during "The Troubles" in Ireland was the most stunning performance I've ever seen. Anyway, in the opening scene, Liam Neeson says, "For me to talk about the man I've become, you need to know about the man I was."   (I'm telling you that in hopes it will add some gravitas to my post...) Lol

My confidence in the statement "Christianity actually works in real life" is the result of a life-long endeavor. I've always been an avid reader, but I decided at a young age to go out and live the experiences I was reading about. I've been fortunate to have been able to travel and meet interesting people (and fortunate to survive some of those experiences).  

I've had a long-time interest in totalitarian governments. It sounds weird, but I've probably read over 100 books on subjects like the Cultural Revolution in China, the Cambodian Khmer Rouge, Joe Stalin's Russia, Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust, and so on. Many of those books were written by people who escaped from those regimes, which adds the balance of human perspective to textbook history lessons.  

And I've gone in person to see some of those places. My experience in Vietnam opened my eyes to the corruption of government officials and the repression suffered by the citizens. Within 30 minutes of landing in Ho Chi Minh City, my Vietnamese friend, Tuyvan, was threatened into paying a bribe to the Customs Officer who was inspecting our luggage. As we traveled around the country, we were pulled over twice by cops who wanted a bribe. Our Vietnamese driver wouldn't even wait to hear why we'd been pulled over; he just handed the officers a $10 bill, and we were on our way. It was experiences like those that made me pay attention to the results of ideology. I've been able to watch ideology play out in real life, and see with my own eyes the results of ideologies, and I can confidently say, "Judeo/Christian ideology leads to the greatest amount of freedom and justice for the greatest number of people." 

I've observed that same concept in action on a societal level. One day about 30 years ago, I was reading Galatians 5:19-21, which says:

"Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

So, I asked myself, "Why? Why do people who practice those things not inherit the kingdom of God?". So, over the years, I've made a point to observe people (myself included) and draw some conclusions. I'll use myself as an example: I drank a lot in my younger days. Drunkenness was an almost daily event for me. It became such a big part of my personality that even my jokes were about drinking. It wasn't until I stopped drinking that I realized that my constant drunkenness had turned me into a self-centered, self-righteous man. As I said in my earlier  post: at 64 years old, I've lived long enough to see the beginning and the end of people's lives. I've observed that same self-centeredness in people who practiced the behaviors listed in Galatians 5. We had become our own gods. We purposely chose to follow our own inclinations rather than follow in the steps of Jesus. The fruits of our lifestyles led to anger, despondency, and hopelessness.

You asked me:

"Maybe it would be better for you to just say that Christianity works for you because you believe it and you like going to church?"

Consider the Creation story in Genesis. There's been a lot of discussion about the topic, but I truly believe people are missing the point: God started us out in a Garden, not a Church. Adam and Eve were given a job to do. Right there, in the first book of the Bible, God made it clear that we're meant to be active doers, not sedentary pew-sitters. It's a theme that runs throughout the entire Bible, like in Luke 6:48: "He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation upon the rock." There's a sense of action involved, contrary to the misconception of many people who think: "He is like a man sitting in Church on Sunday, listening to a good sermon."

So, to answer your question about the benefits of Christianity from that perspective, I'll give an example of one way in which following the Bible has benefitted me, and it involves action, not merely time spent in church:

 Towards the end of my drinking days I was becoming angry and bitter. I was missing so much work that I was literally 3 minutes  from being fired. One day my Boss approached me about something I'd done, and we ended up in a face-to-face yelling match. I could see that I had frightened him, and it made me feel deeply ashamed. I went home that night, dusted off my Bible, and searched for a specific verse: Colossians 3:23: "Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men."  I wrote down that verse on a piece of paper and took it to work with me the next morning. I made a commitment to begin living my life that way.

A year later, the same boss I'd had the shouting match with walked up to me and said, "Bill, I just wanted to tell you that you've been voted Employee of the Year." I was given a nice, framable letter on the Company letterhead, and 4 extra days of vacation. It was the first time ever that the Company presented an Employee of the Year award. They had begun the award to give it to me. I suppose it was at that point I said to myself, "Wow, this stuff really works". Let me know tell you, that award looks good on a resume!

That's just one example, but I chose that particular one because, when I started following that Biblical advice, I had no idea it would change my life. In other words, it wasn't just confirmation bias, it was a fundamental change in my attitude and my life.

I know this a long post, but Sherapy and Stubbly Dooright encouraged me to give you a proper answer, and so I did. And again, I apologize for yesterday's bluntness.

 

Hi Guyver

Hi Simply

I hope I can say something that I feel is relevant to both of you. 

I think you have asked very good and understandable questions, Guyver.   And what you said to Simpley, along with his experience, probably helps to see that though one cannot expect everyone to follow what they follow one should follow, others should expect the same as well. Meaning, and to my point of view, I view religion and spirituality as a personal thing, so I want it protected as everyone’s right to express it and to live it, as non-religious have that right to not to do so. Proselytizing, I feel, is wrong, ( and she’ll, yeah, my point of view on that ) and that while those who don’t believe, wouldn’t be able to follow it, and still does well with out it, those who need it, should still be able to understood to use it for their needs. 

I think, that it can’t be said that one or the other is the universal way and it works just like that. I see too much different results to assume that myself. I don’t think a total Atheist society doesn’t work, (my observation and point of view) because of some societies seem to rebel against that. I think of the former U.S.S.R. As my own example. *shrugs* 

My own example, probably I could use. Grew up secular, and have felt I have been raised correctly to not break the law, and be a good contributor and sympathetic person. One could argue how non-religion is best. Yet, I have my own religion, and I feel, that has helped me in my adult life. So, in a sense, religion does help those, who need it. 

I think in the end, the main point though, is probably not say over all one one thing over another, is best. Because I feel, the results of that would not be consistent. Let’s just say, in my own opinion, I think you’re both right.     

 

[GoldenWolf]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I don't believe in a literal heaven, and certainly not hell, which is not  even biblical .   

http://biblehub.net/search.php?q=hell

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

10 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

But that's not the truth, not for the great majority of Christians. That's a straw man and a fallacious and stereotypical lie. 

Which part was a straw man?  That original sin is a concept that lots/most Christians believe in?

10 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God is what Christians believed, no exceptions, not even themselves.

I always thought the correct phrase was 'All have a sinful nature', which covers infants and children too young to actually 'have sinned' as a verb tense.

[+Sherapy]

11 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

But that's not the truth, not for the great majority of Christians. That's a straw man and a fallacious and stereotypical lie. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God is what Christians believed, no exceptions, not even themselves. They believe everyone who has a good heart, wishing or doing no harm to others, are worthy of love, compassion, respect and the opportunity to hear the Good News, for they who are not saved might brothers or sisters, wives or husband, sons and daughters, all kith and kin. Christianity--especially protestant Christianity, is evangelical in nature and wishes to spread the word of the Salvation of Jesus Christ and will enter any home, any place where they are made welcome. They wish their Faith to grow and spread and not be cloistered away behind walls of sanctimony and intolerance.

Where is the straw man Hammerr?

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

12 hours ago, Guyver said:

Yes.....that is Christian speak, if you don't mind me saying so.  It's just that the New Testament is primarily filled with the words of the Apostle Paul and his letters to the churches form the largest part of Christian doctrine as I understand it.  And while I can certainly argue (quite convincingly in my mind) that Jesus and Paul differ on this point......there can be no doubt that the Apostle Paul supports the doctrine of original sin.  It says basically, that all people who exist, except for Jesus, had been cursed as a result of Adam's sin and are the enemies of God doomed to hell.  

It's covered in several places, but Romans chapter 5 states it pretty clearly.  "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. "

"For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification."

"Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life."

So, without taking the time to post all the scriptures pertaining to this.....many Christians believe, and Paul clearly teaches that because of the sin of Adam all men were condemned.  Christians take this to mean that all non-Christians are condemned, that is not saved, and will go to hell unless they are saved by having faith in Christ.   So, it is proper for me to affirm that this is what Christians in fact do believe.  Maybe you don't, but many do.

Therefore, to a Christian, all men are not their brothers.....and they are wicked, unsaved, unrighteous, and unholy people.  The term "children of the devil" is used in the New Testament to refer to non-Christian people.  

I personally have a problem with this theology and this is why I speak against it.  I know that simplybill and others who are Christian may not appreciate this, but I believe that the truth of a thing should be spoken.  

I went back and reread this, and feel, again someone else, has defined this thing about sin and it's point of views on all, very well. (Being, I was raised secular with no religious upbringing.) And that is why I view a universal or maybe a personal subjective point of view of this, having sin or being a sinner, is really frustratingly confusing!     So, we are all evil, based on one individual in the past, who may have or may not have existed?!?! (I say that, as a personal observation, considering the Adam and Even thing was coming into my observation later and among subjecting groups and individuals among my later in life.) That really gets me.   

I have no relevancy toward this point of view, considering it's iffy existence, and that I feel it's being judgmental toward others. And, I think, it's not just the fact, you're considered alright if you 'believe' what others feel you should believe, but the fact, you're labeled negatively from the get go. And in my feeling, illogically wrong. I may feel, that what other religions sees as sin or original sin, I see it as the human condition, what we are born with, and not something we inherited from some individual, whose existence could be put into doubt. I am now beginning to think, our thoughts on our human condition is different to what maybe perceived as original sin. 

I can't help but feel, (and this is just my personal point of view, fueled by my secular upbringing) that this is very narrow minded thinking. Granted, I might not have all the background on it, considering my upbringing. I wouldn't say everyone else has to believe and think like I do. And I'm not going to say, objectively I'm right, or even subjectively right, but I will feel, that this is something that really doesn't make sense to me, and it seems very wrong to me.   

I guess, I finally get it now, and boy it really doesn't seem right to me. But for me and my life and how I live it. 

11 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

But that's not the truth, not for the great majority of Christians. That's a straw man and a fallacious and stereotypical lie. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God is what Christians believed, no exceptions, not even themselves. They believe everyone who has a good heart, wishing or doing no harm to others, are worthy of love, compassion, respect and the opportunity to hear the Good News, for they who are not saved might brothers or sisters, wives or husband, sons and daughters, all kith and kin. Christianity--especially protestant Christianity, is evangelical in nature and wishes to spread the word of the Salvation of Jesus Christ and will enter any home, any place where they are made welcome. They wish their Faith to grow and spread and not be cloistered away behind walls of sanctimony and intolerance.

And there is something here, that doesn't resonate with me as well. Even if those who judged as good, but still need to hear the 'good news'? Aren't they already good to begin with, so they don't need to hear it? 

I feel, that still holds a judgmental attitude towards how some want others to live. I don't think that's right. And on the point of them wishing it to spread, so does proponents of other religions and none religions. I'm not saying you are thinking this or not, Hammie, but that you are explaining it to another. In which, this is informative as well.  

[Stubbly_Dooright]

57 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

11 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God is what Christians believed, no exceptions, not even themselves.

I always thought the correct phrase was 'All have a sinful nature', which covers infants and children too young to actually 'have sinned' as a verb tense.

  Kind of close to my thinking of 'human nature'.   

 

[+Sherapy]

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

ps, big jim, slavery is not always evil or immoral ALL human behaviours ethics and moralities are situational and variable. 

I already explained this in another post, but you might find this article informative 

 

http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2014/01/slavery-and-the-old-testament-law/

The first verse to notice is Exodus 21:16: “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death”. Paul alludes in 1 Timothy 1:10 to this verse when he says that God’s law opposes slave traders. It shows that God’s word was always against the white people who captured Africans to work on American plantations, even though tragically those white people took centuries to realize it. One of the early rumblings of the movement to end the slave trade was a pamphlet published in 1700 called The Selling of Joseph, drawing attention to Exodus 21:16.

 

Slavery is not acceptable under any circumstances. 

[bigjim36]

20 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Slavery is not acceptable under any circumstances. 

I agree. Mr walker doesn't though. But then again he thinks incest and baby killing are ok under certain circumstances. No matter what I've asked him he's dodged the question. He's exactly the type of person this thread was aimed at, the answers are right it's the questions that are wrong! Let's see if he actually answers my last post, honestly and truthfully or if he ignores it as he knows it'll expose his hypocrisy. I'm willing to stake money on the latter haha 

[Truthseeker007]

2 hours ago, Guyver said:

So, loving Jesus will put you in hell to burn forever if you're not Christian.  Yep.  That's what it says.  

I used to be a Protestant Christian and you are correct on that. They had an answer to that though you could take Jesus in your heart  that way you can do whatever you want and be forgiven.

[Truthseeker007]

28 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Slavery is not acceptable under any circumstances. 

Would we be slaves to the all mighty dollar?

[+Sherapy]

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

ps, big jim, slavery is not always evil or immoral ALL human behaviours ethics and moralities are situational and variable. 

I already explained this in another post, but you might find this article informative 

 

http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2014/01/slavery-and-the-old-testament-law/

The first verse to notice is Exodus 21:16: “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death”. Paul alludes in 1 Timothy 1:10 to this verse when he says that God’s law opposes slave traders. It shows that God’s word was always against the white people who captured Africans to work on American plantations, even though tragically those white people took centuries to realize it. One of the early rumblings of the movement to end the slave trade was a pamphlet published in 1700 called The Selling of Joseph, drawing attention to Exodus 21:16.

 

From your link:

OUR MISSION

We seek to persuade all Christians of the truth of God’s purposes in Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible, and equip them with high-quality resources, so that by the work of the Holy Spirit they will:

• abandon their lives to the honour and service of Christ in daily holiness and decision-making
• pray constantly in Christ’s name for the fruitfulness and growth of his gospel
• speak the Bible’s life-changing word whenever and however they can—in the home, in the world and in the fellowship of his people.

 

 

In other words, this is an apologetics cite created to dismiss, deny, and minimize the horrors of slavery, amoungst other things.

 “slavery is not always evil and immoral it depends on the circumstances” ( Walker).

I just hope this is not what you really think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Sherapy

[Stubbly_Dooright]

12 minutes ago, Truthseeker007 said:

2 hours ago, Guyver said:

So, loving Jesus will put you in hell to burn forever if you're not Christian.  Yep.  That's what it says.  

I used to be a Protestant Christian and you are correct on that. They had an answer to that though you could take Jesus in your heart  that way you can do whatever you want and be forgiven.

I have noticed that can get relative. I have seen those, who claim to take Jesus into their heart, (they actually boast it) and it seems their life and behavior seems to reflect the opposite of that. If that behavior is forgiven, I'm not sure I wan't to consider that for me to believe in. 

11 minutes ago, Truthseeker007 said:

Would we be slaves to the all mighty dollar?

Does the all mighty dollar beat the crap out of you for disobeying? 

 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Stubbly_Dooright

[Truthseeker007]

9 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

 

• abandon their lives to the honour and service of Christ in daily holiness and decision-making
• pray constantly in Christ’s name for the fruitfulness and growth of his gospel
• speak the Bible’s life-changing word whenever and however they can—in the home, in the world and in the fellowship of his people.

In other words, this is an apologetics cite created to dismiss, deny, and minimize the horrors of slavery, amoungst other things.

 “slavery is not always evil and immoral it depends on the circumstances” ( Walker).

I just hope this is not what you really think.

 

It sounds like a cult to me especially when it says to abandon their lives.

[Truthseeker007]

3 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Does the all mighty dollar beat the crap out of you for disobeying? 

I guess it depends on the job. I know some jobs will do a number on people's bodies. Especially factory jobs.

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

Where is the straw man Hammerr?

 

Lumping all Christians in with the few that preen themselves on their exceptionalism and eschew contact with any but themselves. It's as false a premise as calling all atheists Communists and Bolsheviks because of their one common assumption.