Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Ummm am i sinner because i am not a christian"because they all just want to sin!!!"
isn't it obvious?
are you a sinner because you are an atheist Not nessesary
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
More opinions
- Thread starter actsfourthirty
- Start date
are you a sinner because you are an atheist Not nessesary
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
WITCH!
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Very wrong."because they all just want to sin!!!"
isn't it obvious?
Christianity was a poison to my soul. A toxin that was rotting my emotional wellbeing. It was killing me, spiritually, emotionally, and eventually it may have been physically from the psychological toll it had wrought. By the end of it, I was begging and pleading with god to let me die, as I had no desire or will to live. I was filled with the Spirit, but it rotted me from the inside out. I was miserable, and yearned for it all to end. Baptism was black magic, communion some bad voodoo, and prayer was my soul being stolen from me.
And as for wanting to sin? I have my nasty sides, but it's not that I want them there or to happen. And I don't sin anyways. I haven't been a sinner or sinned in about 20 years now. I'm a human. That's about almost all I can deal with and handle.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I was being sarcastic.
And yes, christianity, imo, is a philosophy that is rotten to the very core and psychological poison.
I am thinking your problem is more deliberate ignorance than irrationality.
When new evidence superceeds the old then of course the science should be updated. After all you are so very fond of using the updated science you are griping about such as you computing device and high speed internet.
So perhaps not only deliberate ignorance but complete hypocrisy.
Pride and self-interest have their place. The problems arise with excessive pride and excessive self-interest ─ a point the ancient Greeks used to make.
I think it's fair to acknowledge the role the church played in the keeping of learning and literacy in the latter first millennium. But it's also fair to remember how many aspects of Christianity are from classical Greek culture ─ the NT is written entirely in Greek, the idea that Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God, and created the material universe (found in Paul and John but not in Mark, Matthew or Luke) is from Gnosticism, the idea of the soul (as distinct from the resurrection of the body), the idea that the soul is impartially judged and sent to heaven or hell, the Eucharist is from Greek practice, the Trinity doctrine and the RCC idea of transubstantiation are explained by ideas from from Aristotle, the influential teachings of eg Aquinas, like much else, is drawn from Neoplatonism, and so on.
I fear that idea won't stand up to examination. Without the Greeks there would be no Western culture. Their influence is found in poetry and literature, architecture, engineering, esthetics, philosophy, mathematics, theology, medicine, physics, astronomy, and more.
The conclusions of science are based on empiricism and induction and are never final. And since they answer to an objective standard of correctness, they're constantly retested as new circumstances arise, and if necessary amended, their emphases shifted, or as required, including replacement.
In stark contrast, the claims of theology do not answer to any objective standard of correctness and can say whatever anyone pleases to say ─ which is why there are so many Christian sects, and Muslim sects, and why there are thousands of religions around the world ─ but only one science.
That's the romantic view, yes. But in fact humans have evolved as gregarious primates, and the evolved aspects of their morality are appropriate to that. Our evolved moral tendencies are child nurture and protection, dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial. Also on the evolved side are human conscience and human capacity for empathy. The rest of our morality we get from our upbringing, culture, education and experience ─ how to encounter your family, strangers, authority figures, people of lower status, how to eat together, the rules of excretion, the relationship of the sexes, the observations of birth, coming of age, marriage, and death, how to dress, groom, and so on.
What you say is partly correct. One of the important moments in Church history was the time of the Schoolmen at the University of Paris, and the teaching of Aquinas that it was necessary to demonstrate the correctness of one's claims about God and not to rely simply on the prestige of old printed words. From them a strand of natural science began which flowered into the Enlightenment in the 17th century. Indeed some of the leaders of the Enlightenment were churchmen; but nearly all the opponents of the Enlightenment were too,
What do you mean by "the eternal moral law"? Every society in our records has had its morality, and above I listed the evolved aspects found in all human cultures. That happened long before Yahweh came to exist in about 1500 BCE.
Oh dear, not this old nonsense! Atheism does not have a purpose. You yourself, I dare say, are an atheist when it comes to An, Osiris, Ahura Mazda, Zeus, Venus, Krisha, the Great Spirit, on and on and on. My own view is that there's no coherent concept of any real god, one with objective existence, that is, one who can be found in nature, described and so on, and that the only gods that exist, exist as concepts / things imagined in individual brains. After all, no objective test will distinguish the supernatural, the spiritual, the immaterial, from the conceptual / imaginary.
I try sharing the street with oncoming traffic, but they don't appreciate my efforts. Looking in my rear view....if they can't stay on the road, they really shouldn't drive if they're going to end up in a ditch.
Divine revelation is defective, if it never happened. But, if it did happen, then it is not defective. The question is, can we trust psychics? The governments (Federal, and county law enforcement) often hire psychics. Would they spend tax money on this if it didn't work? Dr. Jessica Utts says that psychic things are real.
Western civilization developed despite the church. Artists existed, and were hired by the church (Michaelangelo, et al). Artists were drafted into involuntary service, and forbidden to disagree with the church.
Science theories have been continually updated and corrected, but they were close to right in the first place. It is only through the scientific process of testing them and finding ways that they fail that we are able to make progress. For example, the minute that Newton discovered ytivarg, the the apple rebounded from his head and was traveling upward, he figured out how gravity works on earth and largely figured out how planets are held to the sun. Sure, he missed a lot. But, for example, gravitational resonances between the planets and moons, and relativistic effects at speeds approaching the speed of light. But, eventually, the more advanced sciences are learned and added to what we already know.
Once we learn new things in science (such as Global Warming is accelerated by mankind, and
Actsforthirty wrote: "Pagan barbarism is a result of fallen human nature corrected by the Christian cilivilization, Grace, and virtues."
Have you been paying attention to history? What about Hitler, or the various cheating preachers? What about boy-raping priests and Boy Scout of America troop leaders? Isn't it the other way around? Christians need correction.
Evolution is proven by DNA. DNA is sufficient proof for courts of law.
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It very much is. Just the very idea of not being held accountable for your own misdeeds because someone else was held responsible just is not a good lesson to teach or learn.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
I strongly suggest you don't believe anything from any scientist. You can start by turning off your computer and staying off the internet.
The ^ above ^ about science theories being updated made me think the same about self-help books.
Those self-help books are always being updated whereas the Bible's standards always stays the same.
I never heard that a priest originated the Big Bang theory ?
However, I read at Isaiah 40:26 B that when God sends forth His Power, His Strength things are created -Psalms 104:30.
So, Isaiah 40:26 is Not out of harmony with known science because it was God who supplied the abundantly needed dynamic energy to start to create the visible material world.
Yes, paying attention to man's history has proven the Bible's words to be true.
After the apostles died off the scene an apostasy set in as found at Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30.
That apostasy became known as ' Christendom ' ( so-called Christian but mostly in name only )
'Christendom' is the MANY who call Jesus as Lord but prove false according to Matthew 7:21-23.
After the first century ended the genuine 'wheat' Christians grew together with the fake 'weed/tares' Christians.
They would grow together until the Harvest Time or the coming 'Time of Separation' as found at Matthew 25:31-33.
So, Hitler, corrupted preachers, boy-raping priests, troop leaders, human trafficing, etc. is Not by Christian Bible standards.
Jesus' New commandment found at John 13:34-35 set the standard to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has. In other words, Jesus was teaching to Now love neighbor MORE than the Golden Rule - Leviticus 19:18.
Disobeying what Jesus taught does Not make his teachings as wrong, but the wrong teachings of fake 'weed/tares' Christians as being wrong.
God could have used evolution in lower forms of life, but where man, where Adam was concerned God formed or fashioned Adam from the already existing dust of the ground. So, DNA does Not disprove that.- Genesis 2:7.
Jeremiah Ames
Well-Known Member
ah, yes, a multitude?
let me see, I call myself a Christian, and I want to murder my neighbor, because he doesn’t water his lawn frequently enough, but I just can’t kill him, because the Bible says murder is a sin.
but I really want to badly, because every day I awake, my neighbor irritates me
if it’s not one thing it’s another. just this morning he waved at me. the audacity of the guy.
he is very irritating
maybe I should check my Bible again
aha, I knew it, there is a loophole in 1 Peter 4:8
(there’s always a loophole if you prooftext hard enough)
I can now murder my neighbor (it’s only ONE sin, not a multitude)
then I will donate $5 to the girl scouts
alas, my sin is covered
seems like a win win win
thanks
Scientists were tortured if they didn't recant science in favor of religion.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
So, then Jesus must have lied when he said he would guide the Church until the end of times.
BTW, when you quote from the Bible, you are quoting from the canon selected by the Church in the 4th century that your JW's claim is part of "Christendom". Therefore, I do tend to believe that maybe JW's should give their Bibles to someone who really accepts them and the Church, and then the JW' can just listen to their Governing Body and blindly follow the directions they mandate.
I don't understand why you would think that a Christian would Not believe Jesus would guide the Congregation ( the church is the building ) until the end of times. ( Harvest Time is an end time to rid Earth of badness )
I usually use the KJV ( just as common ground ) but I find in the Douay Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30 says the same.
Jesus' illustration about the genuine ' good seed ' and the fake ' weeds ' of Matthew 13:36-43 shows Jesus would always be with the Christian congregation til the end of this world of badness.
(Not the end of Earth - Ecclesiastes 1:4 B - for the world forever stays. Earth Not to be moved Psalms 104:5 (Douay 103:5 )
Jesus was informing that both 'wheat' and 'weeds' would grow together over the centuries until the Harvest Time.
As we know, a harvest comes at the end of a long growing season, Not earlier.
I find Matthew 25:31-33 is that coming 'Harvest Time' of separating the genuine from the fake.
Please notice Matthew 25:34,37 because the humble sheep are separated from the haughty goats at Jesus' Glory Time.
So, since Pentecost Jesus has been with the Christian congregation no matter where located on Earth.
Do you also have Galileo in mind__________
Remember: that was in favor of ' apostate religion ' as we are forewarned at Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30.
GardenLady
Active Member
What "christianity"? There are thousands of them in the US alone. Most of the fundamentalist and pentacostal ones I have experienced (through friends, not membership) left me shaking my head and shocked by their attitudes toward anyone who wasn't them and their treatment of women. Personally, I left the Roman Catholic church for the ELCA Lutheran church and am very happy where I am. I do not find rot and poison where I am now.
McBell
Unbound
What is the name of his other leg?
I would argue that reason, while defective, is far superior to anything else we have.
And that Christian values have often shown themselves to be lacking (slavery, misogyny, homophobia). What I would suggest is *humanist* values. They are far superior in my mind.
Many wrong statements in a single sentence. Western civilization was stated by the (pagan) ancient Greeks and continued into the (pagan) ancient Romans. Much of what defines western culture is directly descended from those two cultures.
Yes, all ancient societies were barbaric by our standards. But this was just as true, if not more so, of middle ages Europe, which was dominated by Christianity. The decrease in barbarism came when the ancient ideas were rediscovered and *humanist* ideas replaced the Christian ones.
Corrected? How long did that take after Christianity took over? A thousand years? A bit more? Funny, but the real moral progress stated when Christianity stated to decline.
Again, a lot of stuff wrong in just a couple of sentences. Scientific theories are always subject to revision when new evidence is discovered. And the *way* they change is instructive: anything described accurately by the previous theory has to *also* be described accurately by the new one.
So, when Newtonian physics was overturned about a century ago, the motion of the planets didn't change: the actual differences in the predictions of the two systems were quite small for anything in the solar system. Newtonian ideas are still used because they are a very good approximation.
And this is how scientific theories change: the new ones are more accurate than the old ones. The old ones may still be 'good enough' for many purposes because they are still pretty accurate.
What *doesn't* happen in modern science is a revolution where the old ideas are seen as so wrong they have no use at all. Instead, we add more accuracy over time. We change when the *evidence* says we need to change.
And that is a good thing. Religion fails even this basic test: it changes while denying it is changing and refusing to admit it was wrong.
Yes, scientists are by nature cautious: since any new idea has to be verified and tested repeatedly, all major conclusions are provisional. New evidence always has the potential to require us to modify our views.
Again, that is a *good* thing: we admit we do not know everything. But we change our views to encompass new evidence.
Tell that to astronomers, who were the first scientists. Some aspects will always be testable in the lab (Galileo doing his experiments with gravity), but other aspects won't be (Newton testing his ideas using the motion of the moon).
The crucial thing about a scientific idea is that it is testable: if it is wrong, there is some possible observation that would *show* it to be wrong. Any ideas that are not testable in this way are and should be, ignored.
This is why most religious ideas are ignored by science: they are inherently untestable. Those that are can be tested. But the record has not been kind to those religious ideas that can be tested: there was no global flood, there is no solid dome (firmament?) over the earth, the earth is older then 10,000 years old, etc. Religious ideas have a very poor track record in this regard.
Why do you think that is required? it seems to me that for a creator to exist, there has to be a structure allowing that existence, some underlying laws of physics that allow that creator to exist at all. And that negates the possibility of the laws being the result of a creator.
A nice claim, but one that doens't have much historical backing. In fact, religious views have often, even usually, lead to less justice, more falsehoods, and more immorality than the humanistic values that have largely replaced them.
Morality gets better when religious doctrines are done away with. Of course, a humanistic view has to replace them (which is why political religions like totalitarianism often leads to poor results).
This partly depends on what you label as science. The ancient Greeks certainly started the process of rational investigation of the universe. The first experimental scientists was probably al haytham, who conducted important experiments in optics.
The scientific revolution of the 17th century was often done by religious figures, that is true. But that is also because anyone who wasn't religious was condemned and often put to death. Even those who were skeptical were often silent about that skepticism because of the prevailing intolerance.
But, and this is important, the new scientific ideas did NOT rely on the religious doctrines. If anything, they contradicted the religious doctrines in many cases, requiring the scientists to be cautious about revealing their results.
Piltdown man was a fraud committed by a religious figure for nationalistic reasons. it was uncovered by scientists who realized it didn't fit into the rest of the data that was being discovered.
Peking man (not peeking man) was not a fraud. The original skull was lost in the war, but there have been many subsequent finds of the same species. Homo eractus does stand at a sort of cross roads for the evolution of humans, but the idea of a 'missing link' betrays poor understanding of how evolution works in the real world.
So is any human endeavor. Religion is as well. But science is built to correct itself over time.
Because of the evidence.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Uhu.
Or the idea that you are guilty by default, just for being a human.
That merely being a human, somehow makes you deserve an eternity of torture.