Misconceptions of Christianity

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
801

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Hey wait. Fuck you.

Your “literal” translation uses the word water, REPEATEDLY. Now, when I call that to task, suddenly you want to play the “Well, um, they just mean liquid of some sort.”

If the bible is -word for word- infallible, there should be no need for creative interpretations such as “Well, by water they actually meant matter which includes water, and other liquids, and solids, and gasses, etc.”

So, is it water, or were they incorrect in calling it water? [/quote]

inerrant =/= infallible

802

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Actually, the firmament IS a dome that does divide the waters into two. There’s no abuse of text. It’s a cosmological view reflective of the times. [/quote]

Oh I love this part.

Even Christians can’t agree on how to interpret their “perfect” book.[/quote]

Okay, I am sure all Muslims are exactly the same. And by the way, this is why the Pope wants to unify all the different Christian denominations.

And if you want to talk to Christians that actually have their own scientists, talk to Catholics.

[quote]
Brings me to another point: How can a christian of one sect be ok with a christian of another sect which is substantially different?[/quote]

We aren’t, who said we are (I guess some are).

However, we still have Charity for one another as long as they still follow basic tenets of the Catholic faith.

803

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Then you must damn your Deity more than mine. [/quote]

Why do you say that? My concept of a Deity that might possibly exist (and I’m saying one way or the other) doesn’t pretend to love humans yet makes all 6 billion of them live in some form of suffering because of something that two people did on the advice of a talking snake. Oh, I don’t damn your Deity - I just don’t believe your Deity exists.[/quote]

Because your concept of a Deity is completely indifferent to his creation. So while you might hate mine for asking for obedience to his law and what he judges right, in the end an offer of salvation is still present.

For your idea of a Deity, he doesn’t care. Rape could please your Deity no less or no more than loving thy neighbor. That’s fine if you hate mine (as a concept), but your concept is far worse.[/quote]

But as practical matter, whether there is an Abrahamic God, a Deistic God, or no God at all, the result is the same. Rapes still happen, and God allows evil. The explanation for this is that God does not wish to interfere with free will, and preventing a person from committing an evil act would be interfering with free will. I get that part. But as a practical matter, the result is that people do evil things to one another, and your God allows this to happen. I somehow doubt that the possibility of future retribution for the evildoer or the fact that all this is allowed in the name of free will brings much comfort to the victims of bad acts.[/quote]

I am sorry, strawman on G-d letting evil happen. You haven’t proved that yet, and that is definitely not in any theology.

804

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Because if the bible is wrong about anything, than we cant use the circular, tautological argument that “The bible is right because the bible says its right and the bible is right about everything because the bible is perfect and it says its perfect and it must be right because it’s always right…” Ad nausem.

[/quote]

Yes and no one has proved anything in it wrong, after looking at the evidence. So, therefore God of Abraham is real.

805

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If the bible the catholics use is perfect, then the bible the others use is imperfect for its omissions. If the bible the others use is perfect, then the ones catholics are using is imperfect for its additions.

[/quote]

You just figure this out? I mean, fella, you don’t have to point out the sectarian fissures to us. That’s why we have refer to these things we like to call ‘denominations.’ Christians have been aware of this long before you or I were born.[/quote]

Hey, I know this: If I believed in either bible, I’d be more pissed at the people parading around with a bastardized version of my perfect text, claiming theirs to be so, than the poor fools who didn’t believe at all.

Yet christians dont seem to care at all. [/quote]

I do, but guess what at the end of the day, they still have to get their Bibles from my Church, so I am satisfied in a little way.

806

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Don’t pretend objectivity.[/quote]

Take your own advice.

807

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Hey wait. Fuck you.

Your “literal” translation uses the word water, REPEATEDLY. Now, when I call that to task, suddenly you want to play the “Well, um, they just mean liquid of some sort.”

If the bible is -word for word- infallible, there should be no need for creative interpretations such as “Well, by water they actually meant matter which includes water, and other liquids, and solids, and gasses, etc.”

So, is it water, or were they incorrect in calling it water? [/quote]

inerrant =/= infallible[/quote]

Semantics =/= good debate

808

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So, sloth, which denomination of christianity actually uses the “right” version, do you think? And why?[/quote]

As to why, I’d rather not. Feel free to look through Catholic sites, but I foresee a sectarian 20 page debate I have no interest in starting. The history, the claims, the counterclaims would involve a whole lot more time than I’m willing to give on this forum. My protestant cousins can feel free to have a one sided debate over my offering of a Catholic bible. I’m just not going to put that kind of time into this forum, on one singular subject.[/quote]

LMAO!!

Ok. Fair enough.[/quote]
He actually made an entirely legitimate point. One which is understandably lost on you. For the record, I don’t accept the apocryphal books, however accepting them or not falls this side of fatal (barely, in my view). In other words the gospel is not fatally compromised in either case by itself. And no I’m not havin this debate here either. I just thought I’d throw that in after watching you jump and down and howl as if you were saying something of actual substance. Also, if you want clarification on anything I said go ahead and ask. I stand by everything I’ve said here and while you won’t care, I WILL establish that it is biblical.

809

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Thats why christians dont join the armed forces or go to war. Thats why america, a nation comprised mostly of christians, doesn’t have the most wars for a country its age. Because christians disagree in peace.

Oh, wait, they disagree with other christians in peace. Others, they bomb. Gotcha.[/quote]

Yes, but we still believe in Justice. Nice try, straw-man builder.

810

[quote]StrawmanAndPlanIt wrote:
More importantly: If the bible was perfect, there wouldnt be two versions. There would be one. The perfect one.[/quote]

What? Straw-man again. The originals are inerrant and so are official Bibles from the Catholic Church. How does that translate that someone can’t freely change the Bible to be wrong.

811

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So, sloth, which denomination of christianity actually uses the “right” version, do you think? And why?[/quote]

As to why, I’d rather not. Feel free to look through Catholic sites, but I foresee a sectarian 20 page debate I have no interest in starting. The history, the claims, the counterclaims would involve a whole lot more time than I’m willing to give on this forum. My protestant cousins can feel free to have a one sided debate over my offering of a Catholic bible. I’m just not going to put that kind of time into this forum, on one singular subject.[/quote]

LMAO!!

Ok. Fair enough.[/quote]
He actually made an entirely legitimate point. One which is understandably lost on you. For the record, I don’t accept the apocryphal books, however accepting them or not falls this side of fatal (barely, in my view). In other words the gospel is not fatally compromised in either case by itself. And no I’m not havin this debate here either. I just thought I’d throw that in after watching you jump and down and howl as if you were saying something of actual substance. Also, if you want clarification on anything I said go ahead and ask. I stand by everything I’ve said here and while you won’t care, I WILL establish that it is biblical.[/quote]

LMAO!!

What seems lost on you is that I was being sincere when I said “Fair enough.”

I’m just abusing the LMAO since jackass over there started it with me.

812

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If the bible the catholics use is perfect, then the bible the others use is imperfect for its omissions. If the bible the others use is perfect, then the ones catholics are using is imperfect for its additions.

[/quote]

You just figure this out? I mean, fella, you don’t have to point out the sectarian fissures to us. That’s why we have refer to these things we like to call ‘denominations.’ Christians have been aware of this long before you or I were born.[/quote]

Hey, I know this: If I believed in either bible, I’d be more pissed at the people parading around with a bastardized version of my perfect text, claiming theirs to be so, than the poor fools who didn’t believe at all.

Yet christians dont seem to care at all. [/quote]

I’m sorry, are you disappointed we’re living closer to Christ these days, and not indulging in man’s sectarian warfare? We disagree in peace.
[/quote]

LMAO

Sure. You disagree in peace. Christians. Peaceful. Good one.[/quote]

Ok…So you go from taunting us because we can abide each other’s differences…to this. You’re trolling at this point.[/quote]

Wasn’t taunting, was pointing out a lack of consistency.

You claim that those who do not follow your perfect book are going to eternal damnation. Ghandi is going to hell for not being christian.

Yet you dont apply these rules to other christians who are not using your exact same book.

Or do catholics believe the rest are going to hell, and vice versa? At least that would be consistent.[/quote]

That was Tirib that said that about Ghandi, and if you knew Catholic Doctrine and Cannon Code Law, and the CCC you would know that well saying anyone is going to Hell will get you excommunicated. However, those that know the Truth and are not part of the one true Church, they’ll go to Hell. Now, whoever is included in that, it is not my duty to judge, as only G-d can Judge.

813

I’ve stated my case enough and all you’ve done is proven me right: Christians aren’t good at being right, they’re good at forcing evidence to fit predetermined conclusions.

If I flip heads…

814

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

You claim that those who do not follow your perfect book are going to eternal damnation. Ghandi is going to hell for not being christian.

[/quote]

If you’re going to troll, you’re going to have to do a better job. You quote me. I will never judge that any person, for any reason, is going to hell. As a Christian I understand there are sins, and I can recognize that. I can understand that the gates are narrow, even. But, I make no judgment as to who goes to hell. So, you either quote me, showing that I’ve just lied, or you yourself stand as a liar. Don’t back-track on this, you’ve made a clear and serious charge.
[/quote]

LMAO!!

I like how Tirib says Ghandi is going to hell IN THIS THREAD, then when I use that as an example of things christians say, you get all uppity as though I put the words directly in your mouth.

Sorry bro, its true that “You christians” say things like that. [/quote]

Even though I like Tirib, “You Christians” is like saying “You Jews.” We don’t all believe the same thing.

815

Anyone who would worship a god that would send ghandi to hell is a sick person.

Just my humble opinion.

816

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< What seems lost on you is that I was being sincere when I said “Fair enough.” >>>[/quote]
Then I misunderstood you to be accusing him of copping out. A thing you must admit would not be unreasonable. In any case “fair enough”

817

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
More importantly: If the bible was perfect, there wouldnt be two versions. There would be one. The perfect one.[/quote]

What? Or, gee, there could be one perfect one, and more imperfect ones. Leave the atheistic arguments to someone else.

Forget the bible for a second. There could one true ‘thing,’ and many imperfect (though some might get very close) versions of that thing. Come on…[/quote]

Then the christians using the imperfect version have lost all legitmacy in saying that their bible is right because it says so and is perfect.[/quote]

Hi, welcome to something we’ve been aware of–sectarian/denominational disagreement…
[/quote]

Nice place.

Also grounds for my stance that neither are perfect and the circular tautological argument is bs and should be rejected.[/quote]

Your argument is fallacious, just because one is wrong does not make evidence that the other is wrong since they are not the same thing.

818

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

You claim that those who do not follow your perfect book are going to eternal damnation. Ghandi is going to hell for not being christian.

[/quote]

If you’re going to troll, you’re going to have to do a better job. You quote me. I will never judge that any person, for any reason, is going to hell. As a Christian I understand there are sins, and I can recognize that. I can understand that the gates are narrow, even. But, I make no judgment as to who goes to hell. So, you either quote me, showing that I’ve just lied, or you yourself stand as a liar. Don’t back-track on this, you’ve made a clear and serious charge.
[/quote]

LMAO!!

I like how Tirib says Ghandi is going to hell IN THIS THREAD, then when I use that as an example of things christians say, you get all uppity as though I put the words directly in your mouth.

Sorry bro, its true that “You christians” say things like that. [/quote]

Even though I like Tirib, “You Christians” is like saying “You Jews.” We don’t all believe the same thing.[/quote]

Which just serves to discredit all of you.

If it was “The truth” like you’re saying, then all the christians would agree on it.

Since your “truth” has no more firm ground than Tiribs “truth”, I see no reason to believe either.

But…but… MY bible says this… and mine is the right one…NO MY bible says THIS and MINE is the right one…

819

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< What seems lost on you is that I was being sincere when I said “Fair enough.” >>>[/quote]
Then I misunderstood you to be accusing him of copping out. A thing you must admit would not be unreasonable. In any case “fair enough”[/quote]

I dont blame you. I’m just not in the mood to be an asshole tonight. :slight_smile:

820

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< What seems lost on you is that I was being sincere when I said “Fair enough.” >>>[/quote]
Then I misunderstood you to be accusing him of copping out. A thing you must admit would not be unreasonable. In any case “fair enough”[/quote]

I dont blame you. I’m just not in the mood to be an asshole tonight. :)[/quote]

Hate to see you when you are in the mood! Ziiiiiiiing!