Religion: If You Don't Believe In It Why Does It Bother You?

1 Peter 3:15
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect....

Romans 2:1
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

The second isn't necessarily a direct answer, but in relation to the whole stereotype of the "hypocritical condemning Christian."

Hence, the answer to your question, "How can you consider Christianity without also considering Christians?" would be that not everyone who professes to being a Christian acts like a Christian, nor, in some cases, believe in true Christian doctrine. Which also explains what I stated earlier: So in your words, I would say that

---

XD I wholeheartedly agree; it was fun! And I wouldn't consider you a "Bible-basher" in the negative connotation that it carries; rather, you've come to the point of realizing it's not what you agree with on a personal level. Again I'm emphasizing that, above all things, being completely honest with yourself is of utmost importance. And I think we definitely see eye to eye on that. :)

---

Dude, post moar <3 I'd really prefer to see more diversity in here! :D

I already responded to this a few posts back:Romans is essentially a good place to start when you want to understand Christian doctrine. What you've done is list Old Testament quotes, which, as I've mentioned, don't apply to us in that we are no longer bound by that law, since "no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin."

YES!!! Don't you think that each person, and each person alone ought to be held accountable for their own faith and their own words?

Yup.


Again, just replace "religious groups" with "humans," and my point will be made clear.

damn religious nuts

I corrupted Anye a long time ago.

She believes in the Church of Anye. Best Church EVAR!

Sleep late, do whatever you want, watch porn all you want, be free of moral duties, watch porn all you want, service involves pudding and bikini-clad women, and you get to watch all the porn you want!

It's common for Christians to disregard old testament verse. Christianity, of course, is based predominately on new testatment verse (since that's when christ came along). Jews don't acknowledge new testatment at all. Most Christians only use old testament for things like Creation, Noah's Ark, Moses and the 10 commandements, that sort of thing. But when you start getting into stoning non-virgin women or burning the village of non-believers, they cite new testament verse which (supposedly) has done away with all that nonsense.

So unless you start quoting some new testament stuff you're going to get more of the same: "That's old testatment."

Exactly, people bashing or talking down on entire religions or atheist over the actions of individuals is no different than people bashing or talking down on entire races, sexes, or nationalities over the actions of individuals. If someone is going to go after entire religions then they might as well be a racist or a sexist too. If people are going to simply taste the icing on a cake, they might as well eat the whole damn thing. (ie: if someone is simple minded enough to hate all christians or atheists because of the actions of individuals, they might as well hate every other group in existence if there are individuals in said group did something to piss them off)

Rather than people having something against an entire group because they don't agree with them or individuals in a particular group, people should be more concerned with individuals who twist things for their own personal gain (ie: people that use those things to preserve a since of self-righteousness, money, political power, etc)

It's not so much "people" that are against gay marriage, but rather "self-righteous individuals" that believe they preserve a sense of righteousness for stopping people from doing something they believe is evil.

It's not really about right and wrong to those individuals, but rather "what can i do to make myself feel more righteous today, oh i can do my part to stop gays from getting married."

I think its the aact that marriage was between a man and a woman....Nothing against it just call it a domestic partnership or a civil union lmfao.

Nope. :) I follow Biblical teaching--it should be considered Christianity, but... like you said, the actions of "Christians" these days don't tend to correspond with the Bible. So I'll be more specific and say "I follow Biblical teaching." -edit- ...as a form of worship. ;)

---

Why not read it for yourself? Because if you really want to know, I can PM you all the verses in the Old Testament that support the New Testament. I would post it here, but it would take up the entire page, even if all I posted were links....

In the New Testament, it comes to this point:The original Greek text of the italicized words, "abolish(ed)" aren't the same word. In Matthew it is "katalusai," meaning "to destroy, to tear down." In Ephesians it is "katargesas" meaning "to render powerless."

To reiterate and fortify what I just said....

---

Again, that's just a human bias. Just as Christ rendered Mosaic law powerless, it's no longer a problem regarding whether or not your sexual orientation agrees or disagrees with the law. Instead, it becomes a focus on God-centeredness rather than a focus on self.

That one line alone proves how ignorant you really are.

Atheists that push their beliefs on others are no better than religious believers that do the same.

Fixed ;)

I have read it and studied it at the collegiate level. I was a religion minor before changing to history minor instead.

I'm not interested in old testament verse that supports new testament verse. I could also post all the contradictions between old and new (or old w/ old, new w/ new for that matter). That's not the point. The old testament is full of passages that no sane person would justify as moral or relevant.

Just because you have a couple verses in the old that agrees with the new, do you think that justifies stoning a woman if she is found out after marriage not to have been a virgin?

Deut. 22:13-21

20"But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you," (Deut. 22:13).

My point is that people refer to the new testament and say "Jesus changed all that." Therefore, quoting the old testament (as above) is futile.

You're only quoting the Pentateuch, though, as in what is referred to as "Mosaic law." There's a whole 'nother 34 books you're not referring to.

Therefore I wouldn't consider quoting the Old Testament as futile, as it is still a substantial element of Christian doctrine.

Sure there are. But this is one of them. And it's moronic.

**edit** And that's my point. There are books/passages that are overlooked/ignored because they don't fit the rest of the christian doctrine. The bible is heavily cherry-picked.

I haven't made a post on this site for ages after I was rather anoyed about the "rate the post" system being incorporated, but here goes (I sense a [-] in my future).

As probably one of the few (if any) atheists who posts on here I would like to say that most of us just mind our own business. We are troubled often by one of the 33,000 sects of Christianity trying to A) Save our Souls from Damnation B)Prove to us that Creationism/Intelligent Design is actually a true (sigh) science C)Think that Atheists don't experience the same set of emotions as believers do: "True" Joy, Hope, and Happiness (Only found by accepting God into your heart), D)And the always Irritating question: "How come science only explains the "How" and not the "Why"

If you want to understand how the Atheist thinks read Chapter 1 of Christopher Hitchen's "God Is Not Great. How Religion Poisons Everything"
If you delve further into the book you will glimpse just a portion of a vast array of malicious and horrific events that man-made religions have created to poison societies both past and present.

I'm an atheist too, and I don't care about any of this! Woo.

Generally, this is part of what I think is a legitimate criticism of organized religion in general: cherry-picking some things and ignoring others (as said, the Bible is cherry-picked and doctrine based upon the compilation is as well). But the problem is that there is no "true" Christianity in any meaningful sense of the word. Aside from different branches, there are quite a few "Bible only" folks in addition to those who go to church on Christmas and Easter and figure that's good enough (and I'm not saying they're wrong, either).

But what I will say is that I'd rather people cherry-pick things and come out sounding sensible than swallow something just because it's in the Bible and using it to justify their own small-mindedness.

The contradictory representations of god in the Bible seem irreconcilable to me personally, as does the mythology and mysticism I find in pretty much all religions when compared to the real world, but that irrationality doesn't necessarily mean that people are going to behave deplorably. Every religious person you know who isn't a homophobic, clinic-bombing, pseudo-scientific ticking time bomb is proof of that.

XD Well, take it as you will; I'm not here to convince you otherwise, I just want to make sure that it is abundantly clear that it's not something to be taken lightly ("it" being the entire Bible, including every single book in the OT and NT). And you're right, the Bible IS heavily cherry-picked, but I'd like to believe that one must take the entirety of the Bible into consideration as he or she reads an excerpt.

Take these "moronic" Mosaic laws, for example:
In other words, they're there to make sure that all the glory belongs to God, that whatever happened was the result of God's hand.

Which still stands today--Redemption is not about the Christian, it's about Christ--GOD being glorified. Isaiah 48 speaks about this, as do the previous and following chapters, regarding God's sovereignty.
If you think I'm really just pulling these all out of my ***, but consider for a moment how I know where all these passages are, and how I know where to find them, within the correct context and everything. Check my sources--read the verses and chapters before and after my quotes, I dare you. If you can't tell by now, I take the Bible very seriously, I study it through and through, and these passages aren't merely cherry-picked. They're there for a reason, confirming and supporting the belief in its entirety. I could list so much more if space wasn't an issue.

Personally I'm not into organized religion, nor to I believe that the bible is the infallible word of god. I believe the bible is a collection of stories, parables, and symbolism. There are some good things that can be taken from the bible, there are also things i don't agree with in the book as well. Those are just my beliefs, and i have nothing against those who don't agree. There are many others who also think the same way i do.

I personally believe people that believe in a higher power, should find that power for themselves rather than sponging it off individuals (ie: pastor, priest, pope, deacons, elders, etc) You know, the powers that be in a church, but then again those are my beliefs.

I didn't say all that to preach, but rather to let you know where I stand personally.

Why was gods word changed? If there is any other reason besides a small group within the whole trying to control the whole or a society, then honestly i really don't know.

Anytime you have people that belong to that list you quoted from me, you are dealing with hidden agendas. They aren't really concerned about a god or his word, fellow believers, or anyone aside from themselves. While helping those who support their cause and cutting them down once they have what they want.

I agree with your post, at the same time, I cant pretend to be able to answer all the questions you have. Though they are good questions.

Though most of what you say is correct, u missed the point i was making.

1. individuals and people are plural, and a group is simply a collective of 2 or more people.

I will just make my point in this example, since i used to be a church go-er many moons ago. You have the giant umbrella of christianity, under that you have all the different interpretations of christianity, and that can be divided into further sub groups.

To further expound upon this example; I will use the sect of christian church I attended when I was younger. I was apart of "church of christ," there are people in this group believe that regardless of how much a christian loves jesus, unless said person gets baptized, they can't get salvation. There is also people in this group that believe instruments should not be used in church. Does everyone agree; no, but regardless of what "everyone" feels, that is the way things are done. You have another sect of christianity, baptist. They believe in salvation through faith and baptism is not required, and that instruments are ok in the church setting. There you have differing ideals, yet they are under the collective umbrella of christianity.

On to political power, someone who used christianity as apart of their campaign, W. Bush. Yeah, he also had supporters that also said they were christians. That's all great. So does that make 100% of all christians accountable for the ***he did, no. There are many, many christians that can't stand Bush and never wanted him in office ever.

point being: individuals (plural)........(ok fine, a subgroup of the whole) does not represent the whole.



*just to address the end of the quote*
You don't think that other groups you mentioned can't get a following, funding, direction, goals. Gays are bad group: I guess the laws about gays that used to be in Texas never actually existed. Kill all jews group: nah, nazis are a myth. People who want to take over the government: Whats that French Revolution thing again.

@Anye that's great and all, but if I want some clear cut set of ethics and morals and life learning lessons I'll go to Socrates

The shortest and surest way to live with honor in the world, is to be in reality what we would appear to be; and if we observe, we shall find, that all human virtues increase and strengthen themselves by the practice of them.

Socrates Greek philosopher in Athens (469 BC - 399 BC)

The problem with religions is that they just keep rehashing the same old lines with new twists or different interpretations. Its easier to delve ethic and moral values from an episode of Dora the Explorer then the bible. Point being mankind has never needed man-made religions to guide us in life, we have everything we need around us (Literature, Science, and each other).

Not alot of people know that Christianity is not its own religion, but a bunch of religions mixed up in one. Very interesting.

I am vaguely aware that it's a nice mix of Judaism and Buddhism. Speaking of which, has anyone ever read Christopher Moore's Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff? Great stuff--and you don't have to be a Christian to laugh at it, it wasn't really written FOR Christians. It's actually something some might call "sacrilegious" but I personally love it. <3

I have! Fun book! :)