Is Chrfistianity against moral relavitism?

1) "simply and utterly destroyed". and you think this stuff is just ticketty boo and chock full of love n hugs?
2) we don't have a problem with 'what god has done', because he's done sweet FA. we have a problem with folk who believe an old book full of genocide and torture is a good thing. we have a problem with grown adults who believe that if they can worship in JUST the right way, they'll become immortal.
3) there is nothing winning about your mythology - it's putrid.

finally, I'm disappointed to hear there is no red devil with pitchfork tail. dave grohl sure looked convincing.

 

So, then in your belief, anyone who don't believe as you believe, are considered psychopaths? Wouldn't that be the equivalent of a personal opinion?

 

1) It's certainly more justifiable than torture for eternity... and more importantly it's accurate according to the doctrines of Jesus Christ set forth in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
2) I'm not jewish... I believe in the doctrines of Jesus Christ... therefore I am a Christian. There is no genocide within the doctrine of Jesus Christ. In fact his doctrine is exactly the opposite. And why would you care if someone wishes to worship in "just the right way" so that they can become immortal...as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, what's the problem?
3) Tell me exactly how the doctrine of Jesus Christ is putrid. Also, if you would use context... the win/win situation I was referring to is the situation we are put in by God according to christianity. You are created from nothingness, offered the opportunity for eternal life. If you want it you can do the will of God. If you don't want it, you can reject it and live however you want to.

Again... what's the problem?

 

1) it's not justifiable in any way, shape or form. you're evidently so indoctrinated that you can't see how much ill will is in this.
2) your bible is chock full of genocide and torture. perhaps you haven't read it? if you're one of these "that's the old book, we only read the new book" apologists, you'll have to do better. you can't have your cake and eat it. and I maintain that spending your life worshipping imaginary beings in the hope of becoming immortal is utterly nuts. I'm sorry, but that's actually the hard psych on the matter.
3) see above. genocide, torture, et al.

 

Which of the following definitions are you using?

psych also psyche (sk) Informal
v. psyched, psych·ing, psyches
v.tr.
1.
a. To put into the right psychological frame of mind: The coach psyched the team before the game.
b. To excite emotionally: The children were psyched to see the circus.
2. To undermine the confidence of by psychological means; intimidate: "Depending on whose personality is stronger, one can more easily psych the other" (Harold C. Schonberg).
3.
a. To analyze, solve, or comprehend.
b. To anticipate or guess the intentions of: "Most others could never approach [his] ability ... to psyche out the opposition's thinking so consistently" (Steven Brill).
4. Informal To analyze and treat by psychoanalysis.

 

1) Of course it is. You're so indoctrinated in your belief that the God of Jesus Christ does not exist, that you're not willing to look logically upon the subject because you're too emotionally invested. I don't think torturing someone in the way that you and the rest of these people are talking about is justifiable. However, I think it's much more justifiable if an entity created you from NOTHING and then offered you the opportunity for eternal life if you simply loved God and loved your neighbor as Jesus loved you... if you didn't want eternal life then you could simply live however you want and you would be sent back to the nothingness from whence you came. How is that anything but "just"?

2)I have read the bible. I am, as I pointed out earlier, a Christian. I follow the doctrines, teachings and examples set forth by Jesus Christ. If anyone or anything contradicts Jesus Christ, they are incorrect. For instance, when Jesus pointed out that Moses was wrong for allowing a certificate of divorce for any reason other than sexual immorality. Either Moses was wrong or Jesus was wrong. Christ was the only individual in the bible who had the duty to bring the perfect word of God to man. Therefore anytime someone, including Moses, contradicts Jesus Christ... they are incorrect.

Now addressing the genocides that were "directed by God" in the OT.... these are completely against the representation of God that Jesus Christ provided us. Therefore, they cannot be correct. They are simply men who used God and religion to achieve their own objectives.

3) Jesus never taught you to commit genocide. In fact he told you to love your enemies and do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.

 

1) au contraire, logic is precisely the tool I use when looking at the world. I can't logically support the existence of your jesus god thing, any more than I can logically support the flying spaghetti monster. the other part of your #1 response was gibberish to the non-believer, so I'll refrain from responding.
2) so you DO want your cake and eat it? which other bits of your faith have you rejected as being 'incorrect'? and to this "they are simply men who used god and religion to achieve their own agendas"... thanks for saving me the trouble of spelling it out in greater detail.
3) whatever jesus may or may not have taught YOU, I have read lots of really bad shiite in your bible. that's one seriously dodgy book.

 

1) No you refuse to acknowledge any possibility outside of what your position entails. You hold that belief so tightly that you are even incapable of having a discussion about a theoretical subject because you don't like what it says.... as you just stated in your last reply. And I don't care if you want to believe in a flying spaghetti monster... have at it. We are not discussing your spaghetti monster though. We were having a discussion in the context of what Christians believe. If you want to have a discussion about your belief in a spaghetti monster we can certainly do that afterwards.

I didn't ask you to logically support Jesus Christ or God. I simply asked you a theoretical question which you were incapable of answering because of your extreme bias.

2) I have not rejected any portions of my faith. As I said, my beliefs coincide with the doctrines, teachings and examples set forth by Jesus Christ. You don't like that because you're incapable of arguing against his doctrine.

3) I'm still waiting for you to provide one example of bad doctrine coming from Christ.

 

you didn't read my response, did you.

1) jesus/god/FSM all have equal evidence for existence. if any of them show up and demonstrate supernatural powers in a way that can be verified and is tangible, I'll sign up immediately. if you consider that an intractable position, then you're clearly operating on a different level of reality. in contrast, show me a theist prepared to drop god upon presentation of tangible evidence it's all made up.
2) your boy says the lot is correct, inerrant, etc etc. that's new and OLD. you choose to reject this in order to live with the reality of what's in the old book. and perhaps you're demonstrating more humanity than some of your fellows in doing so - at least you do acknowledge how hideous the old book is!
3) see above.

 

1) You're going off on a tangent. I never asked you to believe in Jesus or God. I could care less if you believe in them or not. You made the statement that the idea of destruction is as indefensible as torture in regards to punishment after you're dead. Whether you believe in the afterlife or not is irrelevant in regards to whether or not you could theoretically justify one of those positions over another. You then tried to turn this into some thing about me wanting you to believe in God. I don't care what you believe. It's your life and you're more than welcome to make poor decisions if you want.

2) No Jesus does not state that. Have you even read the bible? I seriously doubt it. The entire chapter of Matthew 5 is dedicated to Jesus Christ correcting OT teachings. The OT is in no way, shape or form inerrant. Jesus contradicted doctrines from the OT time and time again because they were incorrect.

3) I'm still waiting for you to provide one example of bad doctrine coming from Christ.

 

The moral absolute is that Sexually Prudent morals build natural two parent families that are the foundation of human societies that can last.


Sexually promiscuous societies destroy families and abuse the bastards that will appear in ever larger numbers as the society weakens within and is vulnerable to neighboring nations.

 

How many parents murder their unruly children?

How many men banish their menstruating women to the woods?

Anyone who claims Christianity is not morally relativistic either hasn't read their holy book, or is being intentionally dishonest.

- - - Updated - - -

 

Proverbs 19:5 - A false witness shall not be unpunished, and [he that] speaketh lies shall not escape.

Proverbs 19:9 - A false witness shall not be unpunished, and [he that] speaketh lies shall perish.

Revelation 21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Ephesians 4:25 - Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

John 8:44 - Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

There are many more, but it seems like any kind of lying is frowned on, and I am pretty sure that is what the commandment is all about. Seems like it should be consistent with the rest of scripture, unless you believe that scripture is inconsistent.
Then we might agree.

 

Anyone who wishes o argue on behalf of Christianity that the only kind of lying that is a no-no is one narrowly defined from You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
is most welcome to do so to their discredit.

 

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

This is from the NT in 2 Timothy. The scripture being referred to is the OT, as the NT doesn't yet exist. Is this considered part of the scripture you find valid, or are you strictly a "red letter" Christian?

 

As I told you. I follow the doctrines, teachings and examples set forth by Jesus Christ. Anything that contradicts the doctrines of Jesus Christ are incorrect. You want to categorize someone as a "red letter Christian" so that you can attempt to label them which makes them easier to vilify. The truth of the matter is you don't like "red letter Christians" because you have no argument against the doctrines, teachings and examples of Jesus Christ.

As far as your point. While I don't disagree with the scripture in 2 Timothy, I think you misunderstand the meaning. Your interpretation of 2 Tim and Jesus' teachings are mutually exclusive.

Jesus taught, "You have heard that it was said you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I tell you love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you..."

This is clearly a direct contradiction between OT scripture and the doctrines of Jesus. Now either, 2 Tim is lying or Jesus is lying or your interpretation of 2 Tim is incorrect. Considering you're an atheist and you're attempting to use them to attack Christianity and religion, I'm going to say the most likely answer is C.

 

Chrfistiantity? Cute. What, no animation to go with that? I'm sure there's a "gay Jesus" funny out there somewhere you could've used.

 

Well, first of all, you are making assumptions that make you look like a churlish schoolboy.
1) I'm not an atheist.
2) "Red Letter Christian" is not meant to vilify. Quite the opposite. It is pretty much the only category of Christian I give any credit to, though typically they are not quite so wrapped up in doctrine as you seem to be.
3) What "interpretation" of the 2Timothy verse are you referring to? All I said is it refers to the OT and it is a NT verse. Where do we disagree on that?

You see, I'm not against Christianity, per se.
I am against weak argumentation.
There are plenty of atheists on the forum who will tell you that I don't give them a free pass.

 

For some here, being a real Christian means they have a pass to simply make up anything they like (what you charitably refer to as "assumptions") and then state them as facts.

 

1) It was not an assumption. It was a mistake. I thought you had said in a previous thread that you were an atheist. If I misunderstood then I apologize.
2) I can only go by what I've experienced in regards to how you've interacted with me. Didn't seem as though you were using "red letter Christian" in any positive light whatsoever.
3) We do not disagree on that. We disagree on what his point was.

I look forward to seeing you battle the weak atheist positions as fervently as you've battled against Christianity.

 

You won't have to look far. I just defended you in a clumsy and inaccurate attack by Burzmali.
You're welcome.

 

Christians aren't bound by the mosaic law.

 

Alright, only proving my point.

But lets do NT for kicks, women speak in authority over men, women do not cover their heads.... yep... relativism.