Condemn or Approve?

[Leonard James]

Of course, if the Bible god approves, then the slaughter of an entire nation is a wonderful thing!

Which only goes to show what rubbish all this "God" stuff is. 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Khatru,

All depends

Slavery, we are all slaves, slaves to the man, bloody Tories.
Genocide, a bit harsh, but rounding them up for a damn good thrashing, bloody Tories.
Incest, well that lovely Mr Cameron is a Mother******
Killing homosexuals, harsh again, but if they are Tories, then a damn good thrashing is in order.
Killing people who have sex outside of marriage, praise the Tories, well don't you pay less tax.
Killing people who opt for freedom of religion, well you can't be a Tory and a Christian, one of those poxymorons.
Killing brides who aren't virgins on their wedding night, no such thing as a virgin, we are all F***** by the Tories.
Killing your children if they curse or strike you, are these children standing with you in the queue for the foodbank, bloody Tories.
Killing people who blaspheme against your god, blaspheme, blasforyou, blasforeveryone, is Eddie Izzard a Tory.
Killing people who work on a Saturday, well if they are a meter reader and they appear at your door at 8 o'clock on a Saturday morning and you have a hangover, oh! and they happen to be a Tory.

Gonnagle.

[Brownie]

It's a simple enough question but it seems to cause you problems.

What is it with believers and their reluctance to answer questions?

Unlike the believers, I think most unbelievers will always try to answer a question posed by another person, regardless of the question, or indeed, who is posing it.

Will we always answer it to complete satisfaction?

Sometimes we will, sometimes not at all and sometimes never.  However, as a believer, I for one really dislike walking away from a question without at least trying to answer it.  Seems that this is a personal standard shared by many unbelievers and not-so-many believers.  It's a good quality.

Sure, we can be seen as arrogant at times; even forceful in our pursuit of accountability.  Unlike believers, we  have no problem being scrutinised and we are also able to elucidate in a way that can be understood by anyone willing to apply the same effort at understanding that we place ourselves out there to be scrutinised.

What I notice with theists is they like to jut the chin out and challenge.  However, try asking them a question that requires them to inspect what they think and you'll find they will try to shift the point of discussion to some sort of "only I can understand it" slant.

Looks as though seven people have answered the question Khatru so not that much reluctance.  The majority do not approve of the 'Bible God's' actions which is to be expected.  Of course there is more to it than that but you wanted a simple answer and you got it.

I agree that sometimes believers do not give a straight answer to a straight question.  I experienced that myself when I was younger and searching.  I clearly remember asking a couple of Christian people, friends, if they believed non-Christians - more precisely, people of non-Christian faith - would not go to Heaven.  They went all round the houses rather than answer me but I stuck to my guns.  Still didn't get a straight answer.

Just in case you are wondering, I'm a believer and I believe people of non-Christian faith will go to Heaven.

[Rhiannon]

And people of no faith?

[Brownie]

Why not?    A non-believer cannot be judged in the same way as a believer.

[Rhiannon]

Why not?    A non-believer cannot be judged in the same way as a believer.

According to what criteria?

[Owlswing]

Owl, cop-outs involve refusing to face the issues.  Over the years, we have discussed the very examples Khatru has given on numerous occasions - often, as I pointed out, instigated by OPs from Floo - and seen that within nomadic tribes that were seeking to retain their identity such things were commonplace.  It is interesting that, like Floo, Khatru has chosen examples that date to an era that the Jewish people were nomadic and small in numbers, compared with the other 'tribal nations' around them.  Furthermore, he then tries to get Christians, especially, to judge the behaviour of people is such vastly different situations.  Its a bit like asking 21st century atheists to condemn or condone Roman attitudes to women.

When, oh when, are you going to realise that "the examples" chosen are what people in the present day, like Floo, Khatru, and I, see as the state of Christianity and Christians as they are TODAY! Not as it and they were 2,000 years ago.

I for one can, on some subjects, see absolutely no change between the attitudes and opinions posted here and those of the bible. Antiquated, outdated, mysogynistic, sexist, homophobic, vindictive, etc, and, until you and others like you get this fact throiugh your skulls, the same things are going to be brought up agian and again.

The ball is firmly in the Christian/Christians court - do something about this or continue to be maligned as now.

(Edited for typo's)

[Nearly Sane]

Owl, cop-outs involve refusing to face the issues.  Over the years, we have discussed the very examples Khatru has given on numerous occasions - often, as I pointed out, instigated by OPs from Floo - and seen that within nomadic tribes that were seeking to retain their identity such things were commonplace.  It is interesting that, like Floo, Khatru has chosen examples that date to an era that the Jewish people were nomadic and small in numbers, compared with the other 'tribal nations' around them.  Furthermore, he then tries to get Christians, especially, to judge the behaviour of people is such vastly different situations.  Its a bit like asking 21st century atheists to condemn or condone Roman attitudes to women.

In what way is it like asking atheists about what i presume is Ancient Rome? It's supposedly the actions approved of in your holy book that are the issue. Your analogy makes no sense .

[Owlswing]

Dear Khatru,

All depends

Slavery, we are all slaves, slaves to the man, bloody Tories.
Genocide, a bit harsh, but rounding them up for a damn good thrashing, bloody Tories.
Incest, well that lovely Mr Cameron is a Mother******
Killing homosexuals, harsh again, but if they are Tories, then a damn good thrashing is in order.
Killing people who have sex outside of marriage, praise the Tories, well don't you pay less tax.
Killing people who opt for freedom of religion, well you can't be a Tory and a Christian, one of those poxymorons.
Killing brides who aren't virgins on their wedding night, no such thing as a virgin, we are all F***** by the Tories.
Killing your children if they curse or strike you, are these children standing with you in the queue for the foodbank, bloody Tories.
Killing people who blaspheme against your god, blaspheme, blasforyou, blasforeveryone, is Eddie Izzard a Tory.
Killing people who work on a Saturday, well if they are a meter reader and they appear at your door at 8 o'clock on a Saturday morning and you have a hangover, oh! and they happen to be a Tory.

Gonnagle.

[/quote}

Even this load of pathetic crap will not get that commie arse Corbyn elected!

It is the fact that there are only the two extremes - Tory and Labour - from which to chose that make this country like a pendulum from good to bad regardless of which side you support.

Come the revolution ALL politicians (including the amateur ones if vocal enough) will be the first against the wall! Any ideas of who will be second!

Gonners, i like you on every subject except politics.

(edited for omitted "end quote" marker)

[Nearly Sane]

Tory and Labour are not extremes.

[Owlswing]

Tory and Labour are not extremes.

Then WTF are they? This has got to be one of the silliest comments posted here.

[Brownie]

According to what criteria?

To me it makes sense Rhiannon. 

[Nearly Sane]

Then WTF are they? This has got to be one of the silliest comments posted here.

They are both fairly centrist mixed economy parties.

[Shaker]

To me it makes sense Rhiannon.

Doubtless, but she's asking why you think it does.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Owlswing,

 Antiquated, me, young folk nowadays.

 outdated, me again, although I would never want a return to flair trousers.

 mysogynistic,misogynistic, ( think that is the right spelling ) no not me, I love women, I worship the ground they walk on, well you have to.

sexist, don't think so, but I do love a good dumb blonde joke.

homophobic, most people say I am not, but I think there are varying degrees, it's icky, then again most sex is icky, is wiping your todger on the curtains allowed, so many rules.

vindictive, most definitely not, being vindictive takes time and effort, I am a lazy bar steward.

etc, what's etc? Tory bashing, now I would join any Church that preached this from the pulpit.

Am I bored, yes, where have all the great threads gone.

Gonnagle.

[ad_orientem]

Am I bored, yes, where have all the great threads gone.

Down the khazi with the rest of this forum.

[Shaker]

Down the khazi with the rest of this forum.

Unsurprising - the standard of debate has been atrocious lately:

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11565.msg589792#msg589792

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11565.msg589788#msg589788

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11565.msg589580#msg589580

[Gonnagle]

Dear Owlswing,

Come the revolution ALL politicians (including the amateur ones if vocal enough) will be the first against the wall! Any ideas of who will be second!

Is it Christians, bet you it's Christians, well you will have to catch me first, if the ehoose polis failed, you have no chance pal.

Gonnagle.

[ad_orientem]

Unsurprising - the standard of debate has been atrocious lately:

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11565.msg589792#msg589792

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11565.msg589788#msg589788

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11565.msg589580#msg589580

What it is is atheists and pagans destroying every thread on this board. There hasn't been a decent thread on this board for years.

[Shaker]

What it is is atheists and pagans destroying every thread on this board.

That may very well be what the pagans think and certainly at least one atheist thinks of your "Only Christianity interprets the seasons correctly" bullshit on the Pagan sub-forum.

There hasn't been a decent thread on this board for years.

I've seen lots of superb threads. Perhaps it's just you.

Doubtless you are in need of a forum where everybody thinks as you do, using the word loosely of course, believes as you do (what a horrendous prospect!) and never criticises or challenges you on anything, ever.

[Brownie]

Doubtless, but she's asking why you think it does.

I realise that Shaker, I'm trying to find the words.  I don't set myself up as an authority but it seems to me that only God can judge and he will not judge non-Christians in the same way as he will judge Christians.  We cannot walk in the shoes of another and, if we believe in God, we'll believe that only He (or She if you like) can see into their hearts.  This is a topic that I found very difficult at one time, I could not understand why or how some Christians - and it is only some - really thought that non-believers were somehow lost.  It didn't fit in with my idea of a loving Father, or with the mercy of Jesus.

There's also the fact that people who practice a different religion are just as convinced of its validity as Christians.  Generally, they don't try to convert us (radical Islam is an exception but not all Muslims are so radical), they are happy for us to be Christians so why can we not leave them alone.

Occasionally I've been labelled a ''Universalist'' (and sometimes wishy washy with it).  That doesn't bother me, all I can say is, for me, Christianity works and others can seek God in their own way.  There must be room for all.  I would be arrogant if I thought I had all the answers just because I'm a Christian and surely God would chastise me for that.

We've gone a bit off the point of the thread though.

[floo]

What it is is atheists and pagans destroying every thread on this board. There hasn't been a decent thread on this board for years.

If you believe that why bother to post on the forum? I doubt too many would weep buckets if you left!

[ad_orientem]

If you believe that why bother to post on the forum? I doubt too many would weep buckets if you left!

I doubt it too but then I wouldn't lose any sleep over it either. Bless you, but you're just not very bright and Shaker is a poor excuse for a human being, so what either of you think (if indeed you do think) is neither here nor there.

[Rhiannon]

I realise that Shaker, I'm trying to find the words.  I don't set myself up as an authority but it seems to me that only God can judge and he will not judge non-Christians in the same way as he will judge Christians.  We cannot walk in the shoes of another and, if we believe in God, we'll believe that only He (or She if you like) can see into their hearts.  This is a topic that I found very difficult at one time, I could not understand why or how some Christians - and it is only some - really thought that non-believers were somehow lost.  It didn't fit in with my idea of a loving Father, or with the mercy of Jesus.

There's also the fact that people who practice a different religion are just as convinced of its validity as Christians.  Generally, they don't try to convert us (radical Islam is an exception but not all Muslims are so radical), they are happy for us to be Christians so why can we not leave them alone.

Occasionally I've been labelled a ''Universalist'' (and sometimes wishy washy with it).  That doesn't bother me, all I can say is, for me, Christianity works and others can seek God in their own way.  There must be room for all.  I would be arrogant if I thought I had all the answers just because I'm a Christian and surely God would chastise me for that.

We've gone a bit off the point of the thread though.

When I was a Christian I was a universalist (small u in my case) as it was the only thing that squared with a loving god. But then that brought into question - why the cross, and the only answer that made sense for me was that a Jewish rebel was put to death by the Romans. And without a meaningful explanation for the Crucifixion Christianity loses its meaning and I lost my faith. 

What puzzles me is why you think non-believers will be judged differently to believers. For non-belief or for their behaviour?

[floo]

I doubt it too but then I wouldn't lose any sleep over it either. Bless you, but you're just not very bright and Shaker is a poor excuse for a human being, so what either of you think (if indeed you do think) is neither here nor there.

Whilst I might not be in the top drawer intelligence wise, I have been around those who are all my life, so I know who is, and who isn't. Sorry to tell you dear, you don't make it into the bottom drawer.

Anyway we had better stop this banter, or Gordon will spank our bottoms!