How Much Do You Know About Christianity?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
822

[quote]Oleena wrote:

IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
Well that’s a huge relief. So what is your system for deciding truth regarding ultimate questions?

that’s it? - you go from mocking my answers to “that’s a huge relief”? I deal with every issue, objection and comment you post and you never manage to acknowledge it. Instead you jump off into a new topic like nothing ever happened.The fact that you consider this a new topic and do not see what it has to do with our previous discussion or why I was frightened of your original answers to the_clamp_downs questions is simply amazing>>So what is your system for deciding truth regarding ultimate questions?

Go bother someone else . . . Buddy, you answered my thread and I have been responding to you for that reason. I guess this is another example of your weird reasoning. If you feel bothered by me, why engage in my thread?

[/quote]

You posted questions for a supposedly honest and open discussion. I posted some answers to your open line of questions, and then you tell me you don’t care what I think - all I am saying is if you really do not care what I think - stop asking me questions. If you ask me a question (indicating that you do want to know what I think) - I will tell you what I think.

I never said your questions are unrelated but that you keep jumping to new topics without acknowledging that any progress or understanding has been accomplished . . . why keep moving to new topics if we have not come to an understanding or some sort of agreement on the original ones?

823

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:

inquisition, which everyone loves to forget and make escuses for.

Are you out of your dolphin-wannabe head? WHO in the name of chickens and bonobos everywhere is making excuses for the Inquisition? The perpetrators of the Inquisition are locked in chains awaiting Judgment Day as we speak and they aint got themselves a good enough lawyer to get ‘em off. Holy Headstocks, Batmanoleeme, I can’t believe you lobbed this hand grenade. Those men weren’t Christians. They were evil, despicable, black-hearted fiends. You have got to snap out of it. You’re trippin’, sweetheart.[/quote] My point is that religion is a tool of society and it’s practice is a product of the times. Had you been born 600 years ago I would bet my life that you would be singing a different tune about what the bible had to say about men in relation to women.

[quote]Most women of the Middle Ages were totally dominated by men. Any man in the family could order a woman to do as he wished. If a woman refused, she was beat into submission, as disobedience was considered a crime against God.

If a man did that he was following his sinful heart not Christianity. Quit attaching the sinful practices of man to what Christ set out for his followers.

[/quote] See above.

824

[quote]Oleena wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
How many history and sociology college texts and articles are you going to throw out the window with your own version of history? Are you going to claim that christian women were not mistreated in the middle ages in the name of god? Are you going to pretend that the inquisistion is not a part of christian history because it doesn’t match your belief of the correct way to apply the bible?

I know personally know christian women who have been encouraged to stay in abusive relationships by their christian church, and not just one church/denomination, or one woman. It has gotten better, but it’s still happening today. Islam is 600 years younger, so one can only guess that it’s going to take them at least a few more years to figure out the “correct translation” of their texts concerning women. Hopefully it doesn’t take nearly as long as it did for the christians or we may not survive that.

sunshine - i’ve read the histories, I have the texts, i’ve studied the accounts - you simplified thousands of years, hundreds of societies, many religious movements, uncountable individual lives down to a horrible generalization of history to try to prove your point - now who’s throwing out histories and texts? That would be you - just in case you missed it.

People with my Christian beliefs were being tortured and killed by other Christians The fact that you know this and still don’t have a problem with christianity is mindboggling just a few centuries ago - so don’t try to lecture me on what evil men can do in the name of a religion. My point was that the plain teaching of Christianity (as taught by Christ and the apostles - you know, in the beginning?) had to be grossly altered in horrible ways to even try to justify the mistreatment of women, not that it didn’t happen. It doesn’t have to be altered that far. Which is the opposite of what occurs in Islam - how plain do I have to say that for you to be able to understand it? And how clear do I have to make it that some Islamics argue the same thing that you do about christianity- that much of their society is miscontruing their texts and that the texts do not mean to condone the mistreatment of women?

You say you have personal experience with Islamic religion and that their relgion does condone the abuse of women and that their society is based off of that religion.

I say that I have personal experience with christian religion and that I have personally witnessed that the religion condones the abuse of women and that not current society, but past society has been based off of christianity.

Then you tell me that the two are different because the many christians have mistinterpreted christiantiy. I point out that some Islams feel the same way about other Islams. You then get pissed and point out that you have personal experience with Islam and your vantage point is that the society is based off the religion and that therefore the society must have correctly interpretted the Islamic texts. At which point this discussion repeats itself.

Nice effort to skip (once again) the points I raised for you . . .

Like I said above - go bother someone else . . . .<<Once again you act like a persecuted victim who lacks the free will to get the fuck out of my thread :smiley:

[/quote]

I don’t blame Christianity for the actions of man - as you do.

825

O - you are right - organized religion is a tool of the society which organized it - happy now?

826

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
How many history and sociology college texts and articles are you going to throw out the window with your own version of history? Are you going to claim that christian women were not mistreated in the middle ages in the name of god? Are you going to pretend that the inquisistion is not a part of christian history because it doesn’t match your belief of the correct way to apply the bible?

I know personally know christian women who have been encouraged to stay in abusive relationships by their christian church, and not just one church/denomination, or one woman. It has gotten better, but it’s still happening today. Islam is 600 years younger, so one can only guess that it’s going to take them at least a few more years to figure out the “correct translation” of their texts concerning women. Hopefully it doesn’t take nearly as long as it did for the christians or we may not survive that.

sunshine - i’ve read the histories, I have the texts, i’ve studied the accounts - you simplified thousands of years, hundreds of societies, many religious movements, uncountable individual lives down to a horrible generalization of history to try to prove your point - now who’s throwing out histories and texts? That would be you - just in case you missed it.

People with my Christian beliefs were being tortured and killed by other Christians The fact that you know this and still don’t have a problem with christianity is mindboggling just a few centuries ago - so don’t try to lecture me on what evil men can do in the name of a religion. My point was that the plain teaching of Christianity (as taught by Christ and the apostles - you know, in the beginning?) had to be grossly altered in horrible ways to even try to justify the mistreatment of women, not that it didn’t happen. It doesn’t have to be altered that far. Which is the opposite of what occurs in Islam - how plain do I have to say that for you to be able to understand it? And how clear do I have to make it that some Islamics argue the same thing that you do about christianity- that much of their society is miscontruing their texts and that the texts do not mean to condone the mistreatment of women?

You say you have personal experience with Islamic religion and that their relgion does condone the abuse of women and that their society is based off of that religion.

I say that I have personal experience with christian religion and that I have personally witnessed that the religion condones the abuse of women and that not current society, but past society has been based off of christianity.

Then you tell me that the two are different because the many christians have mistinterpreted christiantiy. I point out that some Islams feel the same way about other Islams. You then get pissed and point out that you have personal experience with Islam and your vantage point is that the society is based off the religion and that therefore the society must have correctly interpretted the Islamic texts. At which point this discussion repeats itself.

Nice effort to skip (once again) the points I raised for you . . .

Like I said above - go bother someone else . . . .<<Once again you act like a persecuted victim who lacks the free will to get the fuck out of my thread :smiley:

I don’t blame Christianity for the actions of man - as you do.[/quote] But you do blame Islam for the actions of man?

827

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
I want know the parts I’ve asked you about, not the parts you’ve already written over and over again. Sorry that’s too complicated a distinction for you. Now answer my questions.

sorry that you can’t read or think . . . I already answered your control question.[/quote]

No you haven’t. If alcohol can interfere with the control my ‘soul’ has over my mind and body, then why not testosterone, or dopamine, or serotonin. Since the last three chemicals I’ve named are ALWAYS in the brain, but ALWAYS in flux, how can you say the soul ever has control of the mind and the body. You keep ducking this question b/c you know that if you answer it, your religious beliefs will fall apart in a storm of absurdities and logical fallacies right here on the internet. Also, clever how you refrain from re-posting my remarks. Do you feel more comfortable ignoring most of them when you do that?

828

[quote]pushharder wrote:
BTW, mumble693, I have a proposal for you:

You and me, bra…weeez gonna add a lil drama to dis heh thread…ready?

We beez a-gonna get our web camz out…ya with me? And I’m gonna go huntin’ up all that there “evidence” you be a-talkin’ 'bout over on talkorigins…OK?

But here’s the deal…AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME…youz a-gonna be huntin’ up all the “evidence” on answersingenesis.org or icr.org.

And we’re gonna git Lowfatmatt to set up an official T-Nation simulcast soz all da fair-minded folks heh can watch each one of us a-perusin’ the opponents pet website.

Deal?

Shake on it?

You in?

Pussy out?

BTW, there is a way for you to get me to quit pickin’ on you. Post a pic and prove to me that you are remotely as cute as the Brasilian Berry and that you’re packin’ a beautiful little V between your legs. I will instantly become chivalrous, amiable, and friendly (and might even try and get into your pants)

[/quote]

Awwww, him too dumb to address any of my arguments so him is trying to be cute.

I’m going to take the liberty of re-posting the last round of comments between us… you know, since you’re obviously retarded and probably forgot about them. Go ahead and try to make a response with substance this time. I believe in you. I mean… you learned to wipe your own ass recently, you can do anything.

pushharder wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

You link talkorigins and I’ll link “Darwin’s Black Box.” Impasse be we at.

Link away. You’d have to find some pretty fantastic lying to explain away the actual examples of macro evolution at talkorigins. Please realize, just linking to something that says "macro evolution has never been found’ is not in any way refuting the actual examples I linked to.

  1. You are foolish in pursuing this. You don’t know your Bible and you don’t understand “reading in context.” No errors have been pointed out on this board. Not one. Misunderstandings are not errors. You really should have known better.

You keep saying its a misunderstanding, but you never address how it is a misunderstanding. You just declare victory and then say something sarcastic. It’s kind of sad.

  1. The reason we bring this up is because is seems ridiculous. First you posit an all powerful, all knowing being with no evidence. Then you insist that he, for no reason at all, made the universe appear much older than 6000.

Just like he did with Adam and Eve. Does Genesis say Adam was created as a fetus or a sperm in the act of fertilizing an ovum? Or does He create him fully mature and aware?

It seems ridiculous to you because your closed mind has dismissed everything your Faith requires it to.

I left my comment in here so everyone can see how your response doesn’t have ANYTHING TO DO with my comment. Please work on your reading comprehension and logic skills before posting in a public place. You’ve made us all dumber on more than a few occasions.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This always reminds me of the tower of babel. God knocks down a tower b/c people are getting close to heaven and then scrambles their languages, but then allows America to actually orbit the earth and fly to the moon? See number

You don’t know or understand the Bible so you look silly trying to recount the story of the Tower of Babel and its meaning. Shhhhhhhh…stay with what you know.

Really? What did I get wrong? See, I’d already know, but you just assumed you had the high ground and quit arguing. This is really sad.

  1. These standards are hardly consistent.

  2. Really? Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You’ll notice that I try to address your objections with links to reliable websites. I would appreciate the same courtesy from you.

Done this several times. Go read the whole thread. You showed up to the game during the 7th inning stretch.

I read the other pages before I weighed in. You might have linked ONE time, but mostly, you just make statements with nothing to back them up.

I don’t see how 99% of all the species that ever existed being extinct bodes well for a creator.

There’s a lot you don’t know.

Like what? Do you have any counter example or reasoning, or are you just typing b/c you like to hear the keys click?

  1. DNA doesn’t scream out for a creator. It’s full of junk like inactive genes, many of which are hold overs from our previous evolutionary forms. Again, if this is the work of a designer, he’s not very good.

Study The Fall and its many possible implications.

He designed it great. Man’s sin caused perfection to derail. It’s still a beautiful world out there though, isn’t it? If you don’t think so you haven’t been to Montana.

Really, so TWO little old people can totally derail god’s awesome creation? Seems like he should have built something a little more stable to me. Again, if there is a designer at work here, he sucks.

830

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
O - you are right - organized religion is a tool of the society which organized it - happy now?[/quote]

Nearly. One last point: what are the characterists of all societies that adopt a monotheistic religion?

831

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
mbm693, you originally said:
mbm693 wrote:
PS. I’m not sure why you think you’re insulting me, or demeaning my arguments, by saying things like ‘You are not a thinking individual with a self-identity, you are merely a random set of parts acting in a pre-determined way.’ That is actually what I think,

I asked: “who is it then who’s doing the thinking?”

You responded:

This is a pretty ignorant question, but I’ll answer it anyway. I am a collection of chemical processes. Thinking is a chemical process. Therefore, I (the flimsy chemical consciousness between my ears) am still doing the thinking.

Do you really not understand that you’ve put yourself in a corner here? [/quote]

I suspect that your definition of ‘I’ is too rigid to follow my thinking.

But I’ll ask anyway:
How have I painted myself into a corner?

and b/c I think it’ll be relevant in your answer,

What is your rigorous definition of ‘I’?

833

And Push,

Just to really grind you into the ground about the whole macro-evolution/micro-evolution ignorance you’re peddling:

"What you have to understand is that the concept of macroevolution came first, although it wasn’t called that; it was just called evolution or transformation theory, among other things (“evolution” was a term that actually became popular relatively late). Darwin himself examined biology largely on a grand scale, looking at biogeography and populations and fossils, and making an argument on the basis of what we would now call macroevolutionary phenomena for changes in form of species over geological time. He wasn’t alone, either; many other authors preceded him in seeing that the evidence supported a history of evolutionary change. What made Darwin particularly persuasive, though, is that he coupled the evidence of changing species to a hypothetical mechanism, natural selection. He didn’t have the tools or the details to work out how heritable change was accomplished, however; that took the discovery of genetics and molecular biology to allow us to see how this ‘microevolution’ actually worked.

When creationists argue that they believe in microevolution, but that macroevolution is dubious, they’ve got it backwards. Large scale historical change was confirmed and thoroughly documented in the 19th century! Darwin was a bridge, who explained how small scale, natural processes could produce the known variation between species, and the triumph of 20th century biology was to confirm and expand upon our understanding of how those changes occurred. Neither macro nor micro evolution are speculative. Neither one is lacking in evidence."

-PZ Meyers (an actual living, breathing, biologist)

834

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:

My point is that religion is a tool of society and it’s practice is a product of the times.

I thought this thread was about Christianity? Now you’re asking me questions about religion? There is a difference. Christianity is diagrammed out in the Bible. Religion is something man came along and twisted to meet his purposes from time to time.[/quote] This is all well and good, except that part of christianity as spelled out in the bible is that you have to share the “word” with other people. Thus, there are many different versions of the “word” floating around out there doing whoever’s will, and just saying that they have it wrong according to your interpretation of the bible doesn’t dimish the link between the bible telling them to spread the word, and them spreading their interpretation of the bible. [quote] NOW…before you porpoise out of the water with a retort I want you to sit down, take a good long pull on your bottle of Boone’s Farm and contemplate what I just said. Sssshhhhhh…don’t say nuttin fer a bit.

Had you been born 600 years ago I would bet my life that you would be singing a different tune about what the bible had to say about men in relation to women.

And maybe you’re not quite the gambler you think you are.

Most women of the Middle Ages were totally dominated by men. Any man in the family could order a woman to do as he wished. If a woman refused, she was beat into submission, as disobedience was considered a crime against God.

If a man did that he was following his sinful heart not Christianity. Quit attaching the sinful practices of man to what Christ set out for his followers.

See above.

I get it. Another reason YOU, Oleeme, are mad at God…right here in 2009…is because of the mistreatment of women in the Middle Ages, right? Sinful men in 790 A.D. mistreated women, claimed their right to do so by the Bible, and now “The Enlightened One” of the 21st century is givin’ God the bizness, huh?

[/quote] Once again you make the illogical leap that my being mad at christianity as spelled out in the bible is the same thing as being mad at god. I’m guessing you’re repeating that because, even though I’ve mentioned several times before that it’s merely christianity’s description of god, and not an actual god if there is one, that I’m upset with, you feel it will gain you the sympathy of other christians who poke their noses in here.

836

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
And Push,

Just to really grind you into the ground about the whole macro-evolution/micro-evolution ignorance you’re peddling:

"What you have to understand is that the concept of macroevolution came first, although it wasn’t called that; it was just called evolution or transformation theory, among other things (“evolution” was a term that actually became popular relatively late). Darwin himself examined biology largely on a grand scale, looking at biogeography and populations and fossils, and making an argument on the basis of what we would now call macroevolutionary phenomena for changes in form of species over geological time. He wasn’t alone, either; many other authors preceded him in seeing that the evidence supported a history of evolutionary change. What made Darwin particularly persuasive, though, is that he coupled the evidence of changing species to a hypothetical mechanism, natural selection. He didn’t have the tools or the details to work out how heritable change was accomplished, however; that took the discovery of genetics and molecular biology to allow us to see how this ‘microevolution’ actually worked.

When creationists argue that they believe in microevolution, but that macroevolution is dubious, they’ve got it backwards. Large scale historical change was confirmed and thoroughly documented in the 19th century! Darwin was a bridge, who explained how small scale, natural processes could produce the known variation between species, and the triumph of 20th century biology was to confirm and expand upon our understanding of how those changes occurred. Neither macro nor micro evolution are speculative. Neither one is lacking in evidence."

-PZ Meyers (an actual living, breathing, biologist)[/quote]

Here’s a nice little video about fruit flies to demonstrate your point

838

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:

You did not follow instructions. I told you to wait awhile. You swigged some strawberry wine around for about two seconds and went to typin’ as fast as you could.

[/quote]

Here you are giving instructions to other people after telling me that you weren’t going to listen to my request for you to logically answer a question with a simple “yes” or “no” because you didn’t want anyone else telling you how to do things. Now go watch this:

840

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:

Here’s a nice little video about fruit flies to demonstrate your point

So an intelligent designer uses common parts in His design of different life forms.

Hmmmmm…not so sure about that “consummate proof” claim. Try again. That was a big, fat lazy one right in the center of the strike zone. I sent it 475 feet to the upper deck and made a little kid happy when he took that one home.

[/quote]

Okay, we’re going off topic. Hold old is the earth according to what you know?