Post by thegooddoctorwho on Oct 18, 2008 1:19:11 GMT -5
Not sure if this goes here, but whatever. I wanted to see what you all (including you if you ever post here, Jess ;D) think of the Christians who argue with Open Air preachers like Jesse when they're doing their thing.
For example, on homosexuality. Personally I don't believe it is wrong, but seeing as I'm not a Christian, my holy book doesn't tell me that it's wrong either. What kills me (with laughter) is the fact that Christians will vehemently deny that the Bible has anti-gay verses in it, and I found it rather impressive that Jesse was able to point them out.
The point is, if the book says "gay = bad" and you believe the book, there is really no room to argue with Jesse when he tells you what the book says. On the other hand, if you don't believe the book, then it could say "monkeys are made of cheese" and it wouldn't matter to you.
What I don't understand is how people choose a religion, once they've decided that atheism/agnosticism are out of the question. What more observable evidence is there for the existence of God than there is for, say... Zeus? Granted, very very few people worship Zeus anymore, so I guess you could say that... but even among the more contemporary gods, how do you choose which one?
It seems to me that it's all a matter of which one you like. Going back to the previous example, let's say you're not exactly comfortable with the idea that God hates homosexual activities. But, lo and behold, your holy book says that he does hate them. Why not find (or invent) a personal religion in which he doesn't? Hell, you can still call him God (with a capital Gee) if you want to, all it requires is conceding that some parts of the Bible may be wrong. Not because your God is ever wrong (unless you want to think he is...?) but because the Council of Nicaea hated homosexuals and spliced a few words in. Perhaps that part of the Bible was not divinely inspired but was mistaken as being so. Who cares?
The fact is, none of the statements in the Bible or any other religious book (statements that pertain to the nature of divine beings, anyway) can be individually fact-checked. The only thing you have to compare them to are other statements in the same religious book, some of which COULD be mistaken or subtly errored as well. If you're going to believe something without any physically observable evidence that it is true, why believe certain things and not others?
Wow. I've really de-railed my own thread here, but... the point still stands. If you're going to believe that the Bible is true, you can't choose to ignore some verses just because you don't like what they say. If you're going to do that, why go around claiming that you believe in the Bible as the 100% infallible word of God?
By the way, in case anyone was wondering where I get off claiming to know what the Bible says:
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (King James Version)
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)
13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
------------
/Bible. There you go. Admittedly, the 1 Corinthians one is a little vague (effeminate? Does that mean straight guys who like to accessorize are on the highway to Hell?) but I think the 2nd one pretty much wraps it up.
I've rambled on long enough. Let me know what you think, and if you can point out some inconsistencies between the average Christian's belief and the "infallible word of God", preferrably aside from views on homosexuality, then by all means post them!
(Bible verses courtesy of BibleGateway.com)
For example, on homosexuality. Personally I don't believe it is wrong, but seeing as I'm not a Christian, my holy book doesn't tell me that it's wrong either. What kills me (with laughter) is the fact that Christians will vehemently deny that the Bible has anti-gay verses in it, and I found it rather impressive that Jesse was able to point them out.
The point is, if the book says "gay = bad" and you believe the book, there is really no room to argue with Jesse when he tells you what the book says. On the other hand, if you don't believe the book, then it could say "monkeys are made of cheese" and it wouldn't matter to you.
What I don't understand is how people choose a religion, once they've decided that atheism/agnosticism are out of the question. What more observable evidence is there for the existence of God than there is for, say... Zeus? Granted, very very few people worship Zeus anymore, so I guess you could say that... but even among the more contemporary gods, how do you choose which one?
It seems to me that it's all a matter of which one you like. Going back to the previous example, let's say you're not exactly comfortable with the idea that God hates homosexual activities. But, lo and behold, your holy book says that he does hate them. Why not find (or invent) a personal religion in which he doesn't? Hell, you can still call him God (with a capital Gee) if you want to, all it requires is conceding that some parts of the Bible may be wrong. Not because your God is ever wrong (unless you want to think he is...?) but because the Council of Nicaea hated homosexuals and spliced a few words in. Perhaps that part of the Bible was not divinely inspired but was mistaken as being so. Who cares?
The fact is, none of the statements in the Bible or any other religious book (statements that pertain to the nature of divine beings, anyway) can be individually fact-checked. The only thing you have to compare them to are other statements in the same religious book, some of which COULD be mistaken or subtly errored as well. If you're going to believe something without any physically observable evidence that it is true, why believe certain things and not others?
Wow. I've really de-railed my own thread here, but... the point still stands. If you're going to believe that the Bible is true, you can't choose to ignore some verses just because you don't like what they say. If you're going to do that, why go around claiming that you believe in the Bible as the 100% infallible word of God?
By the way, in case anyone was wondering where I get off claiming to know what the Bible says:
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (King James Version)
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)
13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
------------
/Bible. There you go. Admittedly, the 1 Corinthians one is a little vague (effeminate? Does that mean straight guys who like to accessorize are on the highway to Hell?) but I think the 2nd one pretty much wraps it up.
I've rambled on long enough. Let me know what you think, and if you can point out some inconsistencies between the average Christian's belief and the "infallible word of God", preferrably aside from views on homosexuality, then by all means post them!
(Bible verses courtesy of BibleGateway.com)