Near slavery is still alive in SC bible college

[tinselwolverine]

I'm not agreeing with him. Just challenging the all-or-nothing approach. If finding something wrong or finding some element of hypocrisy means rejecting the whole thing, then it follows that you should also be against America, the University of Michigan, and humanity. I don't know what you should be for in that case.

Hell, in that line of thinking, I guess I would have to be against myself.

Although 50% of the time I don't claim to be divinely inspired or claim to any moral superiority.

 

[KAWDUP]

I'm not agreeing with him. Just challenging the all-or-nothing approach. If finding something wrong or finding some element of hypocrisy means rejecting the whole thing, then it follows that you should also be against America, the University of Michigan, and humanity. I don't know what you should be for in that case.

I think I believe as you do - it is not all-or-nothing. My world view allows for common sense to play a roll in my belief system. I think that is part and parcel of the whole free will gig.

You quoted me - so I thought you were saying I did that. I disagree with the blanket statements made about biblical prophets, prophesying in general, and nearly all comparisons to cults. You can't tell me that the early believers, who were willing to give up their life to have a belief in the resurrection of Jesus, continued because they were scared into that belief.

How about that Sudanese Christian woman willing to die for not recanting her faith? What makes that belief so strong? Is anyone going to stand there and tell me it is fear?

 

[Gulo Blue]

well, those things don't claim to be divinely inspired, with their judgment as to moral matters and religious dogma beyond question. and humanity... to err is human, by definition. we're a product of the chaos natural evolution... we should be impressed we even managed to stay extant in the climates we evolved in, let alone live in others. take a walk, eh?

Then complain about hardliners that question nothing. I'm questioning the "how could you believe ANY of it?" part. It's a reoccurring theme here; any wrong -> throw the whole institution under the bus because I think it should be homogeneous and perfect. Even if you don't believe in divine inspiration, a group that big is bound to have a few insightful people with good intentions that stumble on a couple of things that are true.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Hell, in that line of thinking, I guess I would have to be against myself.

Although 50% of the time I don't claim to be divinely inspired or claim to any moral superiority.

A Tinsel divided against himself cannot stand.

 

[Monster]

A perfect book? Please point to where I have ever said that at any time in any post I have made? It isn't tainted "so badly" just because you say it is. I think there is way more in the Bible that is good and worth believing than things taken out of context and valid only for the times they were in. Something on the order of 100:1+. I don't understand your blind hatred of everything in it, just because you found something that you believe is wrong or full of hypocrisy.

Look, I have no hatred toward your bible in the sense that it's just a fictional book to me. However, I do take issue when you blindly ignore all of the disgusting acts committed by God, allowed by God, and inspired by God in the bible. And then people turn around and say, "Oh! But that was the old testament. It doesn't matter anymore because of Jesus!"

And I'm sorry, but if I am going to believe in a god that I have never seen, heard, or witnessed, I need something solid. If a book is supposed to be all the proof I need, then it damn well better be perfect. When I read through it, I don't want to see a genocidal god. I don't want to see prophecies that never came to pass. I don't want to see slavery being condoned and then modern people give the excuse that it was meant for that time period. No. I completely reject that! If a book is divinely inspired and meant to spread the truth of god, I want that god to lay down HIS law, not man's law for the time being. I want him to come down and say, "Don't own people against their will! It's not okay!"

You may not believe the bible is perfect and that's okay. I just couldn't keep faith in something so imperfect when there is no outside proof.

And you say there's way more good in the bible than bad. That's half true. I'll agree with that statement when talking about the New Testament. But not the old testament. The OT is disgusting. No amount of good in that book could possibly erase or negate the evil acts it contains.

I have no hatred for Christians in general, but I will not tolerate the ones who use this book to discriminate against others. I find that many Christians pick and choose what they want to believe in the book, what they want to completely ignore, and what becomes an absolute law in their life.

Most Christians that I know are good, kind hearted people and we get along fine. But the moment one stands up and says that the problems in the world right now are signs that God is coming, I'm going to laugh at them. Which is what I did with jwlcosu when this discussion first started.

 

[Monster]

I would like to see a list of things it's ok to support based on this line of thinking. How about America, or the University of Michigan, or humanity?

Well, you should want the thing that you base your life on to be perfect, or at the very least, moral and honorable. When you take a religion and it becomes your faith, you should want it not to have incredibly huge holes in it. You should want to know that the God you believe in isn't a homicidal maniac.

If the University of Michigan decided that most of Ann Arbor's people were greedy, vicious, and unusually lustful and then killed every single citizen, including animals and unborn children the next day, I doubt very much that you would ever support the school again. It wouldn't matter how many good things they've done.

If the United States decided that unwed mothers should be killed, I'm almost certain you and most sane men and women would revolt. People would march on Washington and demand that change happens or a revolution would be coming.

Let me put it like this. Say that I write an autobiography about myself. In it, I give you a bunch of stories that are so amazing that they're called miracles. Most of them are difficult to prove, a few have evidence that they could have happened, and many are completely proven to never have happened. Would you put faith in my word?

Faith needs evidence. This is true for all things. This is why I am agnostic atheist and not gnostic atheist.

 

[KAWDUP]

Look, I have no hatred toward your bible in the sense that it's just a fictional book to me. However, I do take issue when you blindly ignore all of the disgusting acts committed by God, allowed by God, and inspired by God in the bible. And then people turn around and say, "Oh! But that was the old testament. It doesn't matter anymore because of Jesus!"

And I'm sorry, but if I am going to believe in a god that I have never seen, heard, or witnessed, I need something solid. If a book is supposed to be all the proof I need, then it damn well better be perfect. When I read through it, I don't want to see a genocidal god. I don't want to see prophecies that never came to pass. I don't want to see slavery being condoned and then modern people give the excuse that it was meant for that time period. No. I completely reject that! If a book is divinely inspired and meant to spread the truth of god, I want that god to lay down HIS law, not man's law for the time being. I want him to come down and say, "Don't own people against their will! It's not okay!"

You may not believe the bible is perfect and that's okay. I just couldn't keep faith in something so imperfect when there is no outside proof.

And you say there's way more good in the bible than bad. That's half true. I'll agree with that statement when talking about the New Testament. But not the old testament. The OT is disgusting. No amount of good in that book could possibly erase or negate the evil acts it contains.

I have no hatred for Christians in general, but I will not tolerate the ones who use this book to discriminate against others. I find that many Christians pick and choose what they want to believe in the book, what they want to completely ignore, and what becomes an absolute law in their life.

Most Christians that I know are good, kind hearted people and we get along fine. But the moment one stands up and says that the problems in the world right now are signs that God is coming, I'm going to laugh at them. Which is what I did with jwlcosu when this discussion first started.

Look, it is good that you have high standards necessary for your belief in a supreme being. You are welcome to those beliefs. I just bring you back to the multitudes who believe whole-heartedly and with every fiber of their being without needing the proof you desire.

Also, intolerance is wrong from anyone, whether they use the Bible to justify it or not. I don't accept it any more than you do, but I am a believer, and I imagine you know already, but no matter how much you disparage the Bible in front of me - it is not going to make me a non-believer, or someone who doesn't believe in the prophets. Lastly, I will continue to argue that you are rather short-sighted, and do not have a full understanding of prophesying in general, which is one of the reasons you don't believe.

It is great to say - I will never you convince you, and you will never convince me, so there comes a point where you just have to admit it and move on. I am not 100% sure we have reached that point, but it seems this particular subject may be exhausted.

 

[KAWDUP]

Well, you should want the thing that you base your life on to be perfect, or at the very least, moral and honorable. When you take a religion and it becomes your faith, you should want it not to have incredibly huge holes in it. You should want to know that the God you believe in isn't a homicidal maniac.

Let me put it like this. Say that I write an autobiography about myself. In it, I give you a bunch of stories that are so amazing that they're called miracles. Most of them are difficult to prove, a few have evidence that they could have happened, and many are completely proven to never have happened. Would you put faith in my word?

Faith needs evidence. This is true for all things. This is why I am agnostic atheist and not gnostic atheist.

This statement - "you should want" begs the question. Why because that is what you want? But on top of all that, what if you are wrong that God is a homicidal maniac? You base your disagreements entirely on your own interpretations. You really can't see the difference? The interpretations gathered throughout the last millennium of study on the subject couldn't possibly hold a little more sway for most believers than yours?

Would I put faith in your word - no, you aren't God.

Faith needs evidence? I beg to differ - I suspect you really aren't understanding the definition of faith. Does this really need an answer? I can provide one, but it would certainly involve semantics of the word "faith".

 

[Monster]

Then complain about hardliners that question nothing. I'm questioning the "how could you believe ANY of it?" part. It's a reoccurring theme here; any wrong -> throw the whole institution under the bus because I think it should be homogeneous and perfect. Even if you don't believe in divine inspiration, a group that big is bound to have a few insightful people with good intentions that stumble on a couple of things that are true.

With this way of thinking, Zeus, Allah, Thor, Vishnu, Shiva, Joseph Smith's version of God, Ra, and every Native American God could be true despite all of the flaws in their stories.

But you do dismiss them. Why do you dismiss them when their stories have as many flaws as yours? Is it because you want your side to be right? A natural bias? If you were an outsider, you'd see it exactly as I do. Every man made religion that has ever existed has holes in it. Every single one.

And again, I like most Christians. Most of you are generally good people. I judge people solely on their actions. I judge religion on what it does and says.

 

[tinselwolverine]

...what if you are wrong that God is a homicidal maniac?

There is just something intrinsically funny in this statement...

 

[Gulo Blue]

Well, you should want the thing that you base your life on to be perfect, or at the very least, moral and honorable.

So how do you reconcile you understanding of the world including people like me, with your interpretation of where we're going wrong? Do you think I just don't care about whether or not something is moral and honorable? Or do you think I am ignorant of some facts that would change my perception? Or am I too stupid to properly interpret the facts I do know? When you lay out your objection with terms that are difficult to have a problem with, why is it there are so many of us that don't feel the same way?

I think it's significant that you slipped the word "most" into your scenario involving U of M. When the shoe was switched to the other foot, you went from your typical, "any flaw means throw the whole thing out" to a position involving weighing the fraction of good vs. bad.

 

[Gulo Blue]

With this way of thinking, Zeus, Allah, Thor, Vishnu, Shiva, Joseph Smith's version of God, Ra, and every Native American God could be true despite all of the flaws in their stories.

But you do dismiss them.

Who ever said I dismiss them? Where religions have incompatible differences, sure, at least one of them is wrong. But many have much in common. I think mine is most correct, they think theirs is most correct, and you think your own set of beliefs is most correct.

 

[Monster]

This statement - "you should want" begs the question. Why because that is what you want? But on top of all that, what if you are wrong that God is a homicidal maniac? You base your disagreements entirely on your own interpretations. You really can't see the difference? The interpretations gathered throughout the last millennium of study on the subject couldn't possibly hold a little more sway for most believers than yours?

Would I put faith in your word - no, you aren't God.

Faith needs evidence? I beg to differ - I suspect you really aren't understanding the definition of faith. Does this really need an answer? I can provide one, but it would certainly involve semantics of the word "faith".

Name one thing in your life that you have faith in that has no evidence to back up your faith.

I get that you're defending your beliefs. I really do. God killed (or commanded the deaths of) huge numbers of people in the bible. Entire cities and villages were completely wiped out because of his actions or commands. I don't see how that's not the definition of homicidal maniac. He gets jealous or angry and boom, everyone's dead. But, this is the point in which you would normally say that I am judging God and I have no right to do so.

Bullshit. I absolutely refuse to follow someone who throws a temper tantrum and kills because of his own anger. If I believed in God, I would never pray to Him. I would never praise Him. To do so would go against my morality. Maybe I was fooled by the pretty words in the bible as a younger man, but I won't let that happen again.

If the God of the bible was just, yeah, I could follow him. But, he's not. And you know that, but you'll never admit it. So I won't argue that point anymore.

Way to completely ruin my analogy with the typical, "You aren't god" argument. Well done, sir. Instead of saying what you actually would say, you came up with the most typical defensive answer. How about saying, "Yeah Monster, it'd be hard to believe you if so much of your evidence about your life turned out to be false."?

 

[Gulo Blue]

Name one thing in your life that you have faith in that has no evidence to back up your faith.

I'm not just a brain-in-a-jar living in a Matrix-style simulated world.

 

[Thumb]

I'm not just a brain-in-a-jar living in a Matrix-style simulated world.

Are you sure?

 

[KAWDUP]

God killed (or commanded the deaths of) huge numbers of people in the bible. Entire cities and villages were completely wiped out because of his actions or commands. I don't see how that's not the definition of homicidal maniac. He gets jealous or angry and boom, everyone's dead. But, this is the point in which you would normally say that I am judging God and I have no right to do so.

It isn't that you have no right to do so - it is that you are accusing God of sins that he has not committed. You are using your interpretations of what you read, and how you judge actions attributed to Him, to make significant statements about His imperfections. I think, of course, that you are wrong. Jealously, anger, and murder - are exactly the sins man would be guilty of. God - not so much.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Are you sure?

You gotta have faith-uh-faith-uh-faith-AH!

 

[Monster]

So how do you reconcile you understanding of the world including people like me, with your interpretation of where we're going wrong? Do you think I just don't care about whether or not something is moral and honorable? Or do you think I am ignorant of some facts that would change my perception? Or am I too stupid to properly interpret the facts I do know? When you lay out your objection with terms that are difficult to have a problem with, why is it there are so many of us that don't feel the same way?

I think it's significant that you slipped the word "most" into your scenario involving U of M. When the shoe was switched to the other foot, you went from your typical, "any flaw means throw the whole thing out" to a position involving weighing the fraction of good vs. bad.

I apologize if you think I am saying you're stupid. That's not the case at all. I do think that you ignore things because you do not want to put cracks in your beliefs. This is natural. It's very human. Again, this is why I am agnostic. I don't believe there is evidence to rule out some sort of supreme being. Likewise, there is no evidence to support one. If cracks appear in my beliefs, then I have to go with the evidence. I can't just go with the popular story that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

I'm not arrogant enough to think I have all the answers. But since I do not have your biases about your religion, I can see the whole picture. I see the flaws. I see the obvious attempts to keep people from leaving the religion or even doubting it. Not just your religion, but all of them.

If there is a god or creator, he/she/it/they have never made their presence known. I am satisfied living my life unselfishly, with love and respect for people who deserve it. If for some reason your God is real and he sentences me to burn in Hell, I think that says more about him than it does me.

"Oh, you gave to charity your entire adult life, mentored young at risk kids, took care of your family and friends, made mistakes as a young adult and matured into a positive role model? Well, you didn't believe in me, so go to hell!"

Yes, that makes sense.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I don't see how that's not the definition of homicidal maniac.

And be careful with the word "definition". It gives me an opportunity to derail threads.

 

[Monster]

I'm not just a brain-in-a-jar living in a Matrix-style simulated world.

lol ok ok ok.

nice one.

Not something realistic, but I get it. haha.