Slashdot Mirror

Two infallible people at the same time would have to agree on everything.

The Church has a long history of finding their way around such inconsistencies. The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John clearly aren't identical, yet somehow they're all said to be true. and Luke appear to contradict each other on Joseph's lineage for example.

What I don't understand is is he infallible now? I mean, he admits he can't continue - surely a sign he is not infallible.

I'm not clear on the theology behind it, but I'm guessing it's something along the lines of he speaks for God, when he does that he's infallible as God is infallible. I know the pope does not always invoke infallibility. In other words, he only maintains that he can't be wrong when he says he can't be wrong.

Yes, it is goofy, but it's not quite as simple as you're suggesting.

Two infallible people at the same time would have to agree on everything.

The Church has a long history of finding their way around such inconsistencies. The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John clearly aren't identical, yet somehow they're all said to be true. and Luke appear to contradict each other on Joseph's lineage for example.

What I don't understand is is he infallible now? I mean, he admits he can't continue - surely a sign he is not infallible.

I'm not clear on the theology behind it, but I'm guessing it's something along the lines of he speaks for God, when he does that he's infallible as God is infallible. I know the pope does not always invoke infallibility. In other words, he only maintains that he can't be wrong when he says he can't be wrong.

Yes, it is goofy, but it's not quite as simple as you're suggesting.

Ecclesiastes 4:9-12

9 Two are better than one,
        because they have a good return for their labor:
10 If either of them falls down,
        one can help the other up.
But pity anyone who falls
        and has no one to help them up.
11 Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm.
        But how can one keep warm alone?
12 Though one may be overpowered,
        two can defend themselves.
A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.

[NIV]

Source: BibleGateway.com, Ecclesiastes 4, Holy Bible, New International Version

Translation differences do not usually result in "conflicting advice". If you want to see what a translation difference looks like, here you go:
1 Peter 1:13
KJV: 13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
NIV: 13 Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed.
ESV: 13 Therefore, preparing your minds for action,[a] and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

The differences are minor, and have different "flavor" effects on the text, but have the same meaning. There are in fact bad translations-- for instance ones where the translator eschews translating what the words literally say for translating what he thinks it means (and thereby presents "the Bible according to Joe" rather than "the Bible")-- but translations tend to be clear about how they were done, explaining whether they are word-for-word or thought-for-thought. There are also translations that try to be "modern" by making structural changes to the sentences, for example by removing all references to gender even when it is syntactically incorrect to do so, and they would of course be problematic.

Most big differences you will see in christianity stem from what is seen to be authoritative. The biggest split, the reformation, is over whether the Church's traditions count as "canon" or "God's revealed word"; Catholocism says yes, Protestants say no. Other major splits like libaral chuches will argue that the Bible is symbolic, or prone to error, or in generally not an authoritative source, and so their interpretations vary widely.

Once you find 2 groups of Christians who believe the Bible to be authoritative, you can ask them to explain where they differ and you will find it to be a generally minor or incomprehensible difference. Armineanism vs Calvinism AFAICT hinges on precisely what the effect of the fall was and on how much progress one can make against sin in this life; it is "important" theologically but generally (excepting some harsh words by Jerry Falwell) is not considered to be a salvation issue.

TL;DR, differences tend to either be overblown or else stem from disagreeing with what "the source" is.

Responsibility as in the one responsible, that is the one who committed the sin. It is a non-negotiable of christianity that each person himself is the cause of his broken relationship with God and His threatened condemnation.

All Christianity teaches is that you can do nothing by yourself and you have to rely on Jesus for everything - forgiveness, salvation, knowledge.

That is a strawman and horribly inaccurate. You are supposed to rely on God, but not in a passive "I take no responsibility" sense. The entire new testament with the exception of the Gospels and Acts is a series of letters exhorting believers-- precisely because they DO have a responsibility.

See for example Romans' exhortations to live righteously:
In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness.

Or in Corinthians, to avoid sexual sin:
18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

Or in James, to watch your words and be charitable:
26 Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. 27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

People can claim that Christianity teaches you dont need to take responsibility, but they tend to be ignorant of what Christianity teaches.

Responsibility as in the one responsible, that is the one who committed the sin. It is a non-negotiable of christianity that each person himself is the cause of his broken relationship with God and His threatened condemnation.

All Christianity teaches is that you can do nothing by yourself and you have to rely on Jesus for everything - forgiveness, salvation, knowledge.

That is a strawman and horribly inaccurate. You are supposed to rely on God, but not in a passive "I take no responsibility" sense. The entire new testament with the exception of the Gospels and Acts is a series of letters exhorting believers-- precisely because they DO have a responsibility.

See for example Romans' exhortations to live righteously:
In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness.

Or in Corinthians, to avoid sexual sin:
18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

Or in James, to watch your words and be charitable:
26 Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. 27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

People can claim that Christianity teaches you dont need to take responsibility, but they tend to be ignorant of what Christianity teaches.

Responsibility as in the one responsible, that is the one who committed the sin. It is a non-negotiable of christianity that each person himself is the cause of his broken relationship with God and His threatened condemnation.

All Christianity teaches is that you can do nothing by yourself and you have to rely on Jesus for everything - forgiveness, salvation, knowledge.

That is a strawman and horribly inaccurate. You are supposed to rely on God, but not in a passive "I take no responsibility" sense. The entire new testament with the exception of the Gospels and Acts is a series of letters exhorting believers-- precisely because they DO have a responsibility.

See for example Romans' exhortations to live righteously:
In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness.

Or in Corinthians, to avoid sexual sin:
18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

Or in James, to watch your words and be charitable:
26 Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. 27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

People can claim that Christianity teaches you dont need to take responsibility, but they tend to be ignorant of what Christianity teaches.

Romans 6
1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?....
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Yea, Im not seeing this "irresponsibility". A better example is a freely offered pardon issued from the judge who happens to also be the offended party as well as the head of state.

If god actually exists, then let it appear to everyone and speak for itself.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NIV

Okay, what about the notion that rape is what god intends?

Who has analytical problems? That is not what Mourdock said.
"I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it[life] is something that God intended to happen"
God is the great redeemer, and creates great things out of the fertile crap we humans turn the world into.

• King David sends his friend and general to his death so that David can sleep with Bathsheba. King Solomon was the eventual result. Bad actions on human side, good actions on God's side.
• A friend asked me why we call Good Friday "Good". The Romans executed Jesus. God used this as a perfect sacrifice to atone for the sins of any who request absolution. Bad actions on human (Roman) side, good actions on God's side.
• The Jewish state of Israel was recreated after a madman in Germany started executing Jews. Bad actions on human (German) side, good actions on God's side.

It's part of the whole "free will" thing. We're allowed to be as evil and terrible as we want, God won't stop us, but He is going to use it for good, like making new life during a horrible act of violence.

And for anyone who thinks that we should kill unborn babies because their fathers are rapists: "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge" is a mockery of justice.

That the female body just shuts down in case of rape?

That is an example of ignorance, not poor logic. Faulty premises and faulty logic are separate things.

What about all the people who believe the earth is 6000 yrs old?

How does that affect their actions in the world?

they insist on less government EXCEPT when it comes to enforcing their moral beliefs and dogma on everyone else

Yeah, like abortion. The problem here is again one of premises. They happen to believe that an unborn baby (or fetus/embryo) is a distinct human who should at least have the right to life until it is born and legally becomes a person (gaining liberty and the right to pursuit of happiness). Once they believe that, you can then see why they think killing a fetus/embryo/baby for anything other than the health of the mother (equiv. to self defense) is wrong, and essentially murder. From that logical progression from the initial premise, they then become emotional.

Please explain then 1 Corinthians 15 :

"Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. [Christ died for our sins and was raised from the dead.] But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. [..] you are still in your sins. [..] Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain."

Believe or else.

TL;DR; God kills a dude for using the pull out method.

Verse 18: "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law..."

The role of the mosaic law in the new testament is something that a lot of people find difficult to grasp at first, but you might find it helpful to read the book of Romans - particularly chapters 1-8. There are numerous passages in the gospels that appear to be contradictory when taken out of context, but Romans shows how they piece together. Also, read "The Normal Christian Life" by Watchman Nee.

Did you not read Matthew 5:17-20?

It's Jesus speaking and he's pretty clear about what happens to people who choose to ignore the Old Testament rules/regulations.

(ie. They don't go to heaven...)

Here's how your link puts it: "Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven".

"least in the kingdom of heaven" != "not in heaven".

Well, I'm a Christian and believe in sola scriptura, and I can go toe to toe with your arguments. I know I'll get belittled and modden down for this, but here goes. First, Jesus doesn't say to give away all your possesions.

Yes he does.

nb. He's addressing a crowd of people there, not a single rich man.

Second, I'm not sure what problem you have with Exodus 34. God punishes people, some to an earlier death than they would have via "natural" causes. God sometimes uses people to punish other people.

The problem is ... you haven't read it. It's to do with the Ten Commandments, nothing to do with punishment or death.

With Jesus being the fulfillment, the law is put aside, not abolished, and we now have a new law...

Verse 18: "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law..."

Also Luke 12:23 - addressing a large crowd of people.

Mathew 19:21-24

Go after the Bible.... "that's just taken out of context, only relevant in the context of an ancient civilization, only an interpretation of God's word, no longer applies because Jesus, etc."

Did you not read Matthew 5:17-20?

It's Jesus speaking and he's pretty clear about what happens to people who choose to ignore the Old Testament rules/regulations.

(ie. They don't go to heaven...)

You can take the Bible as the word of God without considering it as being a literal truth. It's educational material. I'm not the one saying this, Jesus did several times, for instance Mark 10:5 (see http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2010:4-9&version=ASV):

And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. But Jesus said unto them, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh: so that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

If your dad told you that the square of something is always positive when you were 3, and then told you that the square of i is -1 when you were 6, then (putting aside the fact that you are a math genius) do you believe that he was wrong the first time? Or that you need to stretch his interpretation based on your newly acquired knowledge? I don't think so. Rather, you think that he adapted his wording based on your capabilities.

For the Bible, I think it's not a stretch to claim that Genesis, for example, is about as good a description of how the world evolved that anybody could give to the tribes who lived 2000BC. Actually, put in context, it's remarkably good at identifying the key inflection points, in particular when you consider that "day" in that context is not a precise duration, you could say "period".

First, earth has no shape, it's not yet formed, it's just stuff floating around. Then light, sun and stars. Then planets form, only then is there a "sky". Then dry land and seas separate (Wikipedia says "Over time, such cosmic bombardments ceased, allowing the planet to cool and form a solid crust. Water that was brought here by comets and asteroids condensed into clouds and the oceans took shape.", not that different). Then vegetation (and there's no obvious reason at all for people at the time to infer that vegetation would appear first). Then the moon and the stars. It's the one big anachronistic description in the list, but I've always wondered if it was possible to see stars or the moon in the sky before vegetation cleared the atmosphere. Then living creatures, animals, but in two periods: fish, birds and insects first (period of the dinosaurs), then a second "day" with stock animals (mammals). And finally man.

So overall, this creation myth is pretty good in terms of teaching power, at least compared to various other myths of the same era, see here for a few examples: http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html.

I presented no logical fallacies. The reason appropriate relative association between the actions and the worldview is that mass-killing is -directly contrary- to the principles of Christianity, and therefore, by definition, -not Christianity-.

This is not at all clear.

If you are referring to the tenth commandment (often translated as "Thou shalt not kill") then this doesn't seem to apply to this case; it is clearly referring to unlawful deaths, and lawful deaths are considered OK. For instance, Deuteronomy 20:12-15 is very clear about commanding the killing of people that would involve innocents of other origins (and, incidentally, it also establish women and children as spoils of war.) And before you say that "This is bypassed by the new testament", there are clearly a lot of people that call themselves Christians that disagree with this - often quoting Matthew 05:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.".

You can of course say "That's not real Christianity" - but there certainly seems to be a large number of people that believe this way and call themselves Christians.

By contrast, mass-killing is -directly compatible- with Darwinian Naturalism, by reference to what it -is-, rather than by the standard rhetorical references to what Christianity -is not-, definitionally, as representative. The question remains open as to in what respect Darwinian Naturalism is incompatible with mass-killing if that's the optimal DNA-propagation strategy for a given context.

Agreed, people fail in remaining consistent with their claimed worldview, both theist and atheist alike. That is not the issue, nor is that a productive point for either side. The issue is what does the worldview logically support arguments -for-, and -against-. We are here to evaluate the worldviews qua worldviews, anything else is useless. Formally defining an entire society as atheistic, stating as a formal goal the elimination of religion, and ending up in mass-killings of both atheists and theists, for the objective, in actuality, of (who would have guessed) social power, and power perfectly consonant with Darwinian expectations, could not have provided us with a better test-case of the philosophy, as -actually applied-. We have that test case, as historical fact rather than Dawkins' fanciful musings, and you cannot evade the evidence.

I presented no logical fallacies. The reason appropriate relative association between the actions and the worldview is that mass-killing is -directly contrary- to the principles of Christianity, and therefore, by definition, -not Christianity-.

This is not at all clear.

If you are referring to the tenth commandment (often translated as "Thou shalt not kill") then this doesn't seem to apply to this case; it is clearly referring to unlawful deaths, and lawful deaths are considered OK. For instance, Deuteronomy 20:12-15 is very clear about commanding the killing of people that would involve innocents of other origins (and, incidentally, it also establish women and children as spoils of war.) And before you say that "This is bypassed by the new testament", there are clearly a lot of people that call themselves Christians that disagree with this - often quoting Matthew 05:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.".

You can of course say "That's not real Christianity" - but there certainly seems to be a large number of people that believe this way and call themselves Christians.

By contrast, mass-killing is -directly compatible- with Darwinian Naturalism, by reference to what it -is-, rather than by the standard rhetorical references to what Christianity -is not-, definitionally, as representative. The question remains open as to in what respect Darwinian Naturalism is incompatible with mass-killing if that's the optimal DNA-propagation strategy for a given context.

Agreed, people fail in remaining consistent with their claimed worldview, both theist and atheist alike. That is not the issue, nor is that a productive point for either side. The issue is what does the worldview logically support arguments -for-, and -against-. We are here to evaluate the worldviews qua worldviews, anything else is useless. Formally defining an entire society as atheistic, stating as a formal goal the elimination of religion, and ending up in mass-killings of both atheists and theists, for the objective, in actuality, of (who would have guessed) social power, and power perfectly consonant with Darwinian expectations, could not have provided us with a better test-case of the philosophy, as -actually applied-. We have that test case, as historical fact rather than Dawkins' fanciful musings, and you cannot evade the evidence.

Well, actually, that's (tattoos) in the Jewish national law, which doesn't apply to Christians today. Though you will find a few Christians who disagree with me on that point.

Basically, this is based on Romans 7:1-6 where it says that Christians died (or partook of the death of) Christ, and so the old law no longer applies.

Oh, that is wonderful. My first child is due next month. You commented on the difference between a just-about-to-be-born fetus and a just-recently-born baby; would you also comment on the difference between a blastocyst and a baby? In my experience as an expectant father, there seems to be a big difference between a blastocyst and a near-term fetus, so there must be an even bigger one compared to a fully born baby. For me, the important distinction is that when it's inside a woman, it's part of the woman, literally and figuratively and legally; and women are empowered to do as they choose with their bodies.

It's not really a religious issue, though, from my perspective -- not for Christians anyway. The Bible defines life as beginning with breath, while tattoos are explicitly prohibited. It's not clear to me why Christians get so bothered about abortion, which is not prohibited in their holy book, but never seem to spend much energy picketing tattoo parlors.

Matthew 5:17-20

Read your own link. Jesus states in his most famous address that the Old Testament rules still bind Christians, on pain of losing their eternal reward. Liberal interpretations try to define this passage out of existence, but any conservative/fundamentalist reading will absolutely hammer this verse home.

About six verses later he says that it's the rulers' and authorities' job. Nothing wrong with asking our rulers and authorities to do their job, is there?

According to Paul of Tarsus, revenge is someone else's job, not ours (Romans 12:19).

In the ear? The right hand or forehead would be more appropriate.

The fact that there has been a big meeting and they decided once and for all which was the Real Word of God (TM) does not lend more credibility to Christianity

You're free not to believe it if you so choose. Why do you begrudge me and the millions of Christians who do choose to believe it the right to do so?

The scriptures are ambiguous (are you saved by works or by faith?)

There may appear to be ambiguities, though your example isn't really a good one -- faith comes first; works demonstrate the faith and if there is no works to demonstrate the faith, there never really was any faith ... it was dead). A better one, which has resulted in heretical teaching arises from the apparent conflict between the loving nature of God and His just nature. Emphasis on the former lead to the Health and Wealth Theology which essentially says God is my sugar daddy who won't let me suffer. Emphasis on the latter in the early to mid-twentieth century lead to emphasis on God's punishment (Fire & Brimstone), which lead followers to fear God's wrath, rather than accept His love... they therefore followed out of fear, not love. The results of each need to be measured against the relevant metrics in the Bible; both come up short. There is a balance which is perfected in God in a way we cannot completely understand nor can we attain.

"Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe."

Now who's selectively choosing quotes to confirm a belief system? Have you read any of his other quotes? Which of them have you rejected?

My reading on this: I have faith Jesus is my Savior; my reward is that I will one day see Him. I suspect your interpretation is somewhat more cynical. I wonder whose is closer to St. Augustine's original intent...

The fact that there has been a big meeting and they decided once and for all which was the Real Word of God (TM) does not lend more credibility to Christianity

You're free not to believe it if you so choose. Why do you begrudge me and the millions of Christians who do choose to believe it the right to do so?

The scriptures are ambiguous (are you saved by works or by faith?)

There may appear to be ambiguities, though your example isn't really a good one -- faith comes first; works demonstrate the faith and if there is no works to demonstrate the faith, there never really was any faith ... it was dead). A better one, which has resulted in heretical teaching arises from the apparent conflict between the loving nature of God and His just nature. Emphasis on the former lead to the Health and Wealth Theology which essentially says God is my sugar daddy who won't let me suffer. Emphasis on the latter in the early to mid-twentieth century lead to emphasis on God's punishment (Fire & Brimstone), which lead followers to fear God's wrath, rather than accept His love... they therefore followed out of fear, not love. The results of each need to be measured against the relevant metrics in the Bible; both come up short. There is a balance which is perfected in God in a way we cannot completely understand nor can we attain.

"Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe."

Now who's selectively choosing quotes to confirm a belief system? Have you read any of his other quotes? Which of them have you rejected?

My reading on this: I have faith Jesus is my Savior; my reward is that I will one day see Him. I suspect your interpretation is somewhat more cynical. I wonder whose is closer to St. Augustine's original intent...

Which is why ever since christians don't have to worry about sin anymore... oh wait... not quite...

The Apostle Paul has perhaps the best response to this.

So, should I still stone my neighbors to death because they are having sex without being married? Should I suffer the witch at the local occult store to live or not? Tricky decisions indeed...

Jesus taught on this subject, and practiced it. Unrepentant sin should be removed from the Church so the work of the Church will not be hindered. If a member of the Church is engaged in sexual immorality, or is practicing witchcraft, and they are unwilling to repent when confronted, they are to be removed from the Church, but are also to be welcomed back if they do repent. If the society requires additional action taken against such people, there is the civil and criminal justice system. So, you seem to be confusing the civil / criminal justice system and the responsibility of the Church to police itself so it may effectively minister to the community.

That's not to say there haven't been instances where sin has been tolerated in the Church; it has. But that tolerance is contrary to the Biblical doctrine on proper Church governance.

What does it take to change your mind?

Interesting question, and I took a while to think about how to respond. So, I think I have to start at the beginning.

I consider as axiomatic two articles of faith:

1) There is an objective reality which exists independent of my ability to sense it; that is, it exists whether or not I can sense it.

2) My senses, either directly, or indirectly (through artificial means or through the observations of others) relay to me meaningful information about some portion of that objective reality.

From these initial articles of faith, there is a sound chain of logic, supporting my belief in objective moral standards, God as creator not only of the physical universe and laws of nature, but that objective moral standard as well, and the necessity of a Savior. The Bible is the only document which is consistent with that train of logic and I therefore believe it to be revealed Truth. There's obviously more to the argument than this. Still it raises the issue of how I should deal with apparent contradictions between what the Bible says and observations within the physical realm. What I have concluded is that there is no contradiction, only lack of understanding either of the meaning of the observations recorded (assuming they were reliably recorded) or a lack of understanding on the meaning of the applicable Biblical passages, or most often a mix of the two.

So, back to your question. I suppose what you're going to have to do to convince me that I'm wrong is to convince me that my initial articles of faith are fundamentally flawed. Without them, my entire belief system dissolves into nothingness.

Which is why ever since christians don't have to worry about sin anymore... oh wait... not quite...

The Apostle Paul has perhaps the best response to this.

So, should I still stone my neighbors to death because they are having sex without being married? Should I suffer the witch at the local occult store to live or not? Tricky decisions indeed...

Jesus taught on this subject, and practiced it. Unrepentant sin should be removed from the Church so the work of the Church will not be hindered. If a member of the Church is engaged in sexual immorality, or is practicing witchcraft, and they are unwilling to repent when confronted, they are to be removed from the Church, but are also to be welcomed back if they do repent. If the society requires additional action taken against such people, there is the civil and criminal justice system. So, you seem to be confusing the civil / criminal justice system and the responsibility of the Church to police itself so it may effectively minister to the community.

That's not to say there haven't been instances where sin has been tolerated in the Church; it has. But that tolerance is contrary to the Biblical doctrine on proper Church governance.

What does it take to change your mind?

Interesting question, and I took a while to think about how to respond. So, I think I have to start at the beginning.

I consider as axiomatic two articles of faith:

1) There is an objective reality which exists independent of my ability to sense it; that is, it exists whether or not I can sense it.

2) My senses, either directly, or indirectly (through artificial means or through the observations of others) relay to me meaningful information about some portion of that objective reality.

From these initial articles of faith, there is a sound chain of logic, supporting my belief in objective moral standards, God as creator not only of the physical universe and laws of nature, but that objective moral standard as well, and the necessity of a Savior. The Bible is the only document which is consistent with that train of logic and I therefore believe it to be revealed Truth. There's obviously more to the argument than this. Still it raises the issue of how I should deal with apparent contradictions between what the Bible says and observations within the physical realm. What I have concluded is that there is no contradiction, only lack of understanding either of the meaning of the observations recorded (assuming they were reliably recorded) or a lack of understanding on the meaning of the applicable Biblical passages, or most often a mix of the two.

So, back to your question. I suppose what you're going to have to do to convince me that I'm wrong is to convince me that my initial articles of faith are fundamentally flawed. Without them, my entire belief system dissolves into nothingness.

Which is why ever since christians don't have to worry about sin anymore... oh wait... not quite...

The Apostle Paul has perhaps the best response to this.

So, should I still stone my neighbors to death because they are having sex without being married? Should I suffer the witch at the local occult store to live or not? Tricky decisions indeed...

Jesus taught on this subject, and practiced it. Unrepentant sin should be removed from the Church so the work of the Church will not be hindered. If a member of the Church is engaged in sexual immorality, or is practicing witchcraft, and they are unwilling to repent when confronted, they are to be removed from the Church, but are also to be welcomed back if they do repent. If the society requires additional action taken against such people, there is the civil and criminal justice system. So, you seem to be confusing the civil / criminal justice system and the responsibility of the Church to police itself so it may effectively minister to the community.

That's not to say there haven't been instances where sin has been tolerated in the Church; it has. But that tolerance is contrary to the Biblical doctrine on proper Church governance.

What does it take to change your mind?

Interesting question, and I took a while to think about how to respond. So, I think I have to start at the beginning.

I consider as axiomatic two articles of faith:

1) There is an objective reality which exists independent of my ability to sense it; that is, it exists whether or not I can sense it.

2) My senses, either directly, or indirectly (through artificial means or through the observations of others) relay to me meaningful information about some portion of that objective reality.

From these initial articles of faith, there is a sound chain of logic, supporting my belief in objective moral standards, God as creator not only of the physical universe and laws of nature, but that objective moral standard as well, and the necessity of a Savior. The Bible is the only document which is consistent with that train of logic and I therefore believe it to be revealed Truth. There's obviously more to the argument than this. Still it raises the issue of how I should deal with apparent contradictions between what the Bible says and observations within the physical realm. What I have concluded is that there is no contradiction, only lack of understanding either of the meaning of the observations recorded (assuming they were reliably recorded) or a lack of understanding on the meaning of the applicable Biblical passages, or most often a mix of the two.

So, back to your question. I suppose what you're going to have to do to convince me that I'm wrong is to convince me that my initial articles of faith are fundamentally flawed. Without them, my entire belief system dissolves into nothingness.

That the Old Testament does not apply to modern Christian is YOUR interpretation and not the one of many modern Christian.

I didn't say the Old Testament no longer applied... what I said is that its primary value was to place in context the events and philosophy described in the New Testament.

ALL my Muslim friends are fantastic, nice and tolerant people, not unlike most Christian you may meet in, say, Italy. The problem, is that religion can be easily used for political agendas and there are crazy Muslims, not unlike the Christians you may meet in the US.

I won't dispute your experiences; you are after all closer to them than am I. I will say that if we don't influence political processes based on what we value, then what's the point in having the values in the first place? We can bicker over who's values are "better" but don't tell me you don't vote to support positions consistent with your values any more or less than I vote to support positions I value.

If one chooses the bible, I expect them to tell me which book of the bible.

Ecclesiastes. Pretty much everybody, believer or not, should read Ecclesiastes.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+1&version=NIV

... how they pick & choose from their supposedly "holy book", ignore the stuff that's no longer considered acceptable and focus on the stuff that still is.

It's not a matter of picking and choosing; it's putting things into their proper context and perspective. That which God defined as sin is still sin; what has changed is the manner in which it is atoned for. Jesus says He is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets and He specifically says He's not abolishing the Law. He took upon Himself the punishment of the sins we have committed so the eternal separation from God we deserve will not come to pass for those who have trusted in Jesus as their Savior.

If there is stuff in the "holy book" that does not apply anymore - why has it not been removed?

Well, a couple of issues here. The most practical is who is to going to judge which of Gods Words are no longer applicable? Another issue is that orthodox Christianity has never proclaimed that any of the canonical Old Testament is in any way no longer applicable (though I suppose you could argue that the Apocrypha may be a non-canonical portion of the Old Testament which different groups of Christians view with different degrees of authority). Still, when Moses penned the Torah, he did it for the Israelites God led out of captivity in Egypt as a manual for how they were to live their lives in service to Him. The Old Testament is filled with references to the decedents of Jacob as God's chosen people... they were chosen to be a holy people through whom the Messiah would come to benefit not just Jews, but all people. From that perspective, there is every reason to keep that content in so we know the context into which Jesus came and how He fulfilled the Law.

... the bible has been reworked several times throughout history ...

So, you have extensively studied this, or is this just what you've heard from your friends? If the former, perhaps you would be willing to cite some reputable sources.

Sorry, but I'm not kidding. When I read the Bible, I see things like the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus admonishes Christians to love their enemies. Christian orthodoxy requires adherents to spread the gospel, but to do so through teaching and preaching the Word in love, as the Apostle Paul did throughout the Book of Acts and more recently as Martin Luther King did during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. There have been times in history when this approach was not used, when violence and intimidation were instead used. Use of violence and other forms of coercion is not supported anywhere in the New Testament and historical uses of it have consistently demonstrated its failure to bring about any meaningful conversion.

God's commandments in the Old Testament for the descendents of Israel to enter and occupy the Promised Land were to the Jews, not to Christians, and are therefore not part of how a Christian should spread Christianity.

Serious question, something I'm struggling with in my own spiritual life: Without regularly meeting with other believers, how is one supposed to get spiritual "food at the proper time" (Matthew 24:45)?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2031:10-31&version=KJV

im hoping you were trying to be funny but just in case read and get back to us (its even in KJV for you)

You are right! I meant 1 Corinthians 5: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+5&version=NASB

I can't find the reference I am seeking...but Biblically capital punishment is provided for long before the Torah even (which wasn't for another 600+ years after the Flood). That said, there is also a reference (the one I couldn't quickly find) where it mentions being punished by man is better than being punished by God - that is, escaping punishment by man under the law leaves one to punishment directly by God. That is not to say in neither case may Forgiveness, Grace, and Mercy be applied - they very well may be; but that appropriate punishment must be wielded.

I dont intend anything in this post to offend, but to provoke thought; please do not take it as anything else.

I would say that your notion is attempting to create an easy way out, when in fact there is not one. If God does in fact exist, and is in fact as powerful as believed, then your relationship to him is, bar none, the most important thing in the world-- whether or not you recognize it. If you are in opposition to Him, there would be no power that could protect you from His ire.

There are many views on theism, and (by necessary truth) all of them save one are wrong. I think the view that "it does not matter" manages to be the most wrong-- because it doesnt just get the answer wrong, it gets the question wrong too. I would challenge you to consider on what grounds you consider the question "irrelevant"-- I would wonder if there were not some reason you avoid the question.

Being Christian I can not simply leave the question here-- It is my belief that there is in fact a God, and that he is so opposed to wrongdoing and to upholding justice as to place all of us who have ever committed a wrong in deed or thought in a terrible bind; I would contend that this includes you, me, and every other person who has lived. I would urge you to read through the book of Romans and determine whether you could still say that the question is irrelevant.

Christian men are more likely to be circumcised

Which is quite insane, when you take in account that Christianity is strongly OPPOSED to circumcision:

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. -- Galatians 5

Go read Genesis 3. It explains how humans were originally created to live forever, without disease. After they sinned, God cursed them. This is where women's painful labour, misogyny, hard and painful toil for food, and death come from. The Christian viewpoint (unrelated to creationism) is that the human condition is a result of the Fall of Man (sin), not the way God originally created man.

Yes, I think the poor are entitled to live a long life.
Consider Matthew 25:31-46. Not a good argument for an atheist necessarily, but it works for a lot of people.

Jesus was all about tearing families apart and seemed generally against marriages (although being sort of weaselly about it and saying that as much as it should be avoided, it wasn't outright a sin or anything)

I think most of that sentiment was attributed to Paul (or the forgeries in his name). Jesus did say a few things that, when taken out of context, can be thought of as anti-marriage or anti-family, but most of those were metaphors for other things

Although I'd readily admit Jesus' talk about tearing families apart was metaphorical (in the sense that to accept Christianity at that time would be to stop being Jewish and hence this new sect of Christianity would produce strife/problems), the point about marriage was well considered. Read Matthew 19 which, interestingly enough was anti-divorce (as your comment strays into discussing about Jesus) by being anti-marriage; that is, the best way to avoid a divorce is to not to become married in the first place.

Peter and Andrew's family let the deciples stay with them on at least one or two occasions. Also, consider that the first miracle attributed to Jesus was to supply wine for a wedding.

Which only goes to show that Jesus was a lover/drinker, not a fighter... :) Seriously, though, Jesus went forth trying his best to teach people to be better according to the rules he laid out. He didn't go about damning people; instead, he sought to join groups that could be viewed as damnable and try to teach them why they should change through simple talk and parable, not through threats or acts of violence. That is, btw, a major reason why most Christians aren't Christ-like. Having said that, it's also one reason Christ (and some of his followers) comes across as a politician or a diplomat who wishes to subvert from within. It's one of the reasons why the idea of Jesus always speaking in metaphors to cloud his true meaning has so much weight.

Paul believed that the world would end in his lifetime or shortly after. The way he saw it, there wasn't any point in marrying or starting a family, because your children would never get to grow up. It was better to stay celibate and devote yourself to God (although, if you couldn't keep it in your pants, it was better to marry than to commit fornication).

Golly, it's almost as if he was following his master's teachings:: "there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Having said that, it's not really clear to me that Jesus wasn't a VHEMT supporter.

Armagedon is not that old at all.. uhmm.. ohmm...

Fuck, get of my lawn

If you are talking about the original Armagedon it is most certainly a case of "get off my lawn".

Speaking of a church...

Jesus taught against self-defense:

But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.

The ten commandments are in Exodus 20:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020%20&version=KJV

I think you are confusing the commandments with the covenant god made with the people of Israel. The covenant spells out what things they should do ceremonially.

Matthew 6:14-15 ...

What do you think you are doing? You don't bring evidence to a argument here!

Try for an ad-hominem. Those are totally acceptable.

The gist of the bible is "God cant forgive, therefore Jesus had to die, therefore we invented Christianity to thank Jesus for getting voluntarily punished instead of us."

Whan the theological central pillar of the whole religion is based on non-forgiveness, it doesnt matter that forgiving is mentioned as a side note on page 843.

It's not a side note, it's central to the message. As for saying God can't forgive, that's easily rebutted:

Hebrews 8:12
12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.