Actually, the OP was about the teachings of Jesus, not the teachings and practices of Christianity. .
Trying to restrict the conversation to the very narrowest of paths - controlling what people can or cannot introduce into the conversation no matter how natural and appropriate - just indicates that you have an agenda and a narrative that you don't want challenged. It shows that your position is weak.
The more you post and the more you try to control the narrative the more you sound like a cultist. You want to talk about Jesus, what the bible says and the teachings of Jesus but you don't want to talk about Christianity? How does that work - and obviously if we talk about Christianity we will talk about what man has done under the guise of Christianity or in the name of Christianity. I'm not surprised because what's been done under the guise of Christianity is truly horrific. No wonder you'd want to cut that off at the path. And it's no different for any other major religion in the world - the idea that someone (or group) has the inside track on the only real and true god leads to conflict.
I recommend anyone google Christopher Hitchens and watch any one of the dozens and dozens of debates or speeches he gave on Religion, Christianity, God. You might not agree but he makes lots of salient and well educated points of view and observations. Here's a 20 minute sample: LINK
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Actually, the OP was about the teachings of Jesus, not the teachings and practices of Christianity. .
Trying to restrict the conversation to the very narrowest of paths - controlling what people can or cannot introduce into the conversation no matter how natural and appropriate - just indicates that you have an agenda and a narrative that you don't want challenged. It shows that your position is weak.
The more you post and the more you try to control the narrative the more you sound like a cultist. You want to talk about Jesus, what the bible says and the teachings of Jesus but you don't want to talk about Christianity? How does that work - and obviously if we talk about Christianity we will talk about what man has done under the guise of Christianity or in the name of Christianity. I'm not surprised because what's been done under the guise of Christianity is truly horrific. No wonder you'd want to cut that off at the path. And it's no different for any other major religion in the world - the idea that someone (or group) has the inside track on the only real and true god leads to conflict.
I recommend anyone google Christopher Hitchens and watch any one of the dozens and dozens of debates or speeches he gave on Religion, Christianity, God. You might not agree but he makes lots of salient and well educated points of view and observations. Here's a 20 minute sample: LINK
Originally Posted by mgh888
Originally Posted by Stiffarm
Actually, the OP was about the teachings of Jesus, not the teachings and practices of Christianity. .
Trying to restrict the conversation to the very narrowest of paths - controlling what people can or cannot introduce into the conversation no matter how natural and appropriate - just indicates that you have an agenda and a narrative that you don't want challenged. It shows that your position is weak.
The more you post and the more you try to control the narrative the more you sound like a cultist. You want to talk about Jesus, what the bible says and the teachings of Jesus but you don't want to talk about Christianity? How does that work - and obviously if we talk about Christianity we will talk about what man has done under the guise of Christianity or in the name of Christianity. I'm not surprised because what's been done under the guise of Christianity is truly horrific. No wonder you'd want to cut that off at the path. And it's no different for any other major religion in the world - the idea that someone (or group) has the inside track on the only real and true god leads to conflict.
I recommend anyone google Christopher Hitchens and watch any one of the dozens and dozens of debates or speeches he gave on Religion, Christianity, God. You might not agree but he makes lots of salient and well educated points of view and observations. Here's a 20 minute sample: LINK
OK, you all go off topic and talk about people who do not or did not follow The teachings of Jesus and the apostles, And when you do, I will merely say that they did not follow the teachings of Jesus and the thread is about whether or not you believe the teachings of Jesus. And that is my right too, right? Or does post freedom end with you. All? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😉
Of course you can do that. I didn't say you couldn't. I highlighted why you did and do it. As the Cultist you can frame the conversation any way you like. I don't need to join you. I've merely shed some light on how ridiculous you're stance is.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Of course you can do that. I didn't say you couldn't. I highlighted why you did and do it. As the Cultist you can frame the conversation any way you like. I don't need to join you. I've merely shed some light on how ridiculous you're stance is.
Here’s a Good example: suppose I was asking a question about the teachings of Martin Luther, the German reformer. If you were to bring up Philip Melancthon, You would be talking about the teachings of someone who is connected with Martin Luther, BUT would not be talking about the teachings of Martin Luther (UNLESS they were consistent with Luther’s teachings). Which is fine and dandy, But it doesn’t answer the question.
So we understand each other now, I hope.
Now if you want to talk about WHY Christianity in many forms has been or is inconsistent with the teachings of Christ, that might be an interesting conversation.
I also find it interesting that you would attribute motive to me. The reason why I would press on teachings of Luther and not Melanchthon is because such argumentation would then have to include the First Methodist church down the street. So we could discuss what Pastor Bill did last week and place blame on Martin Luther and say “ his teachings did it). Which might be true, but you have to show a meaningful and valid correlation. 😀
Like all of you, I too believe in freedom for all to freely live according to their beliefs and convictions. That said, do you believe that the government should allow exemptions for doctors and such who want to CHOOSE not to do abortions based on their convictions? I’ll make it simple by not include life threatening pregnancy abortions from my question
This is a tricky one, because the law has to balance legal vs medical and be able to cover a whole mess of different situations.
I do NOT think that a doctor should be able to stand in the way of a woman receiving an otherwise legal abortion simply because of his/her own beliefs. I feel different from the wedding cake baker because... well... the doc isn't just baking cakes. She/he is a medical professional and a significant portion of his/her mandate as a caregiver lies within the bounds of medicine/science vs religion.
I think if a doctor is going to have strong beliefs on a certain accepted treatment (in specific cases) in a certain specialty of medicine, then they need to think long and hard about which area of medicine in which they should specialize.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
Like all of you, I too believe in freedom for all to freely live according to their beliefs and convictions. That said, do you believe that the government should allow exemptions for doctors and such who want to CHOOSE not to do abortions based on their convictions? I’ll make it simple by not include life threatening pregnancy abortions from my question
This is a tricky one, because the law has to balance legal vs medical and be able to cover a whole mess of different situations.
I do NOT think that a doctor should be able to stand in the way of a woman receiving an otherwise legal abortion simply because of his/her own beliefs. I feel different from the wedding cake baker because... well... the doc isn't just baking cakes. She/he is a medical professional and a significant portion of his/her mandate as a caregiver lies within the bounds of medicine/science vs religion.
I think if a doctor is going to have strong beliefs on a certain accepted treatment (in specific cases) in a certain specialty of medicine, then they need to think long and hard about which area of medicine in which they should specialize.
Originally Posted by oobernoober
Originally Posted by Stiffarm
To everyone.
Like all of you, I too believe in freedom for all to freely live according to their beliefs and convictions. That said, do you believe that the government should allow exemptions for doctors and such who want to CHOOSE not to do abortions based on their convictions? I’ll make it simple by not include life threatening pregnancy abortions from my question
This is a tricky one, because the law has to balance legal vs medical and be able to cover a whole mess of different situations.
I do NOT think that a doctor should be able to stand in the way of a woman receiving an otherwise legal abortion simply because of his/her own beliefs. I feel different from the wedding cake baker because... well... the doc isn't just baking cakes. She/he is a medical professional and a significant portion of his/her mandate as a caregiver lies within the bounds of medicine/science vs religion.
I think if a doctor is going to have strong beliefs on a certain accepted treatment (in specific cases) in a certain specialty of medicine, then they need to think long and hard about which area of medicine in which they should specialize.
Thank you for your reply. Can’t the woman then go to a different doctor or clinic, and then both can have freedom to live according to their beliefs?
Of course you can do that. I didn't say you couldn't. I highlighted why you did and do it. As the Cultist you can frame the conversation any way you like. I don't need to join you. I've merely shed some light on how ridiculous you're stance is.
So then I guess I could ask you if the particular actions of a Christian group or person is consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles when you all bring something up. That might be an interesting conversation. 😀
That's a very easy conversation to have and it strikes at the root problem with any and all religions.
Human fallibility is the concept and notion that as people we are not perfect and are most likely (inevitably will) make mistakes or fail. It's a fundamental fact of the human condition.
followed by this quote from Hitchens himself:
“And since god never actually shows up to talk to us...it is left to human representatives to speak FOR HIM. What could possibly go wrong?”
People can and do claim any/all religion preaches love, acceptance and does not promote violence. Even the Quran does not promote violence, but it does contain passages that are interpreted differently by religious scholars.
The issue is man - but that is a pre-baked in issue with any religion.
Bottom line the world would be better off without religion - be it Christianity or any other organized religion. A wonderful example - providing examples of many, many places and faiths all around the world is here:
Of course - I do not expect you to listen to that or any other broad minded alternative perspective.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Any procedure done by a doctor in the hospital requires privileges. To get that you have to apply and demonstrate that you have training and competence. If a doctor doesn't want to perform a procedure it is very simple to not be allowed to do it
Am I perfect? No Am I trying to be a better person? Also no
Bottom line the world would be better off without religion - be it Christianity or any other organized religion. A wonderful example - providing examples of many, many places and faiths all around the world is here:
I have to disagree with that one. IMO The world would be better off with more Spirituality and less religion.
Usually, yes. That's exactly why I phrased it the way I did.
However, many times that's easier said than done. Not only do you have more rural areas where choice of doctor maybe isn't the best, but there's also the patient's specific insurance limiting choice of doctors (sometimes more sometimes less).
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
That's a very easy conversation to have and it strikes at the root problem with any and all religions.
Human fallibility is the concept and notion that as people we are not perfect and are most likely (inevitably will) make mistakes or fail. It's a fundamental fact of the human condition.
followed by this quote from Hitchens himself:
“And since god never actually shows up to talk to us...it is left to human representatives to speak FOR HIM. What could possibly go wrong?”
People can and do claim any/all religion preaches love, acceptance and does not promote violence. Even the Quran does not promote violence, but it does contain passages that are interpreted differently by religious scholars.
The issue is man - but that is a pre-baked in issue with any religion.
Bottom line the world would be better off without religion - be it Christianity or any other organized religion. A wonderful example - providing examples of many, many places and faiths all around the world is here:
Of course - I do not expect you to listen to that or any other broad minded alternative perspective.
I will listen to and respectfully respond always to your perspective. The Fact that there will be Professing Christians that there will be false teachers, false prophets, nominal Christians, Is there would be an apostasy, et cetera was already told us thousands of years ago that it was already foretold in the Bible, so there is no problem there for Christians. . The Bible also tells us that that God works all things together according to the council of his will, Which means everything that happens is already known by him and is not a surprise to him and he works it according to His own good. As someone Once said, I can’t remember who it was, a God that can let people have freedom and still accomplishes purpose even though that freedom is often used to rebel or reject him is greater than a God who micromanages and controls everything
The teachings of Jesus never promoted violence, Enough said on that
People like Christopher Hitchens struggle to understand God‘s word because they do not know God‘s word. They know isolated versus and isolated passages but they do not know the grand design of scripture. They do not know how to interpret scripture in context for example, They say ridiculous things like why don’t you Christians practice dietary laws or why do you cut the corners of your beard? Why do you wear mixed fabrics as if we are under the Old covenant? Jesus did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.
They don’t understand the purpose and scope of covenants and it would take quite a bit of writing for me to explain that to you. I might post a video that explains the purpose And scope of covenants later. Needless to say, Christopher Hitchens critiques something he does not understand. You can choose any argument of his and I will answer and show how it is based on at least one false premise (or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises).
The rest of your post is nothing but subjective opinion so I really don’t need to answer it except to say I agree to disagree with you cheers.
Usually, yes. That's exactly why I phrased it the way I did.
However, many times that's easier said than done. Not only do you have more rural areas where choice of doctor maybe isn't the best, but there's also the patient's specific insurance limiting choice of doctors (sometimes more sometimes less).
I know because I live in a rural area and have to travel a bit to get many of my procedures done.
Trump says he’s ok with abortion in life threatening situations and rape and incest. I won’t give my 2cents on that other than to that other than in those cases, women can greatly reduce their chances of getting pregnant if they don’t want to. And they can hold the man accountable to be responsible as well. Is it 100 percent? No. But it would greatly reduce unplanned pregnancies.
Bottom line the world would be better off without religion - be it Christianity or any other organized religion. A wonderful example - providing examples of many, many places and faiths all around the world is here:
I have to disagree with that one. IMO The world would be better off with more Spirituality and less religion.
I agree, but many atheists don’t believe in Spirit because they are materialists, What would spirituality mean in that case?
People like Christopher Hitchens struggle to understand God‘s word because they do not know God‘s word.
That makes you sound like a cultist. And the rest of that paragraph makes you sound arrogant and is a perfect example of how people of various faiths cry out "Only I know and understand the word of God" - what a crock.
As I said - you trying to couch the conversation in the narrowest of confines is proof you have a weak argument. You asked if the actions of people were consistent with the teachings of Christ and I gave you a perfect example of why that's easy to answer and why - and you say my answer is an opinion ... as is yours. But my opinion is based on the history of the world and the history of Religion upon it and the 30-5o million lives slaughtered in the name of religion .... and if you bothered to listened to the Hitchens clip he expands upon the way in which religion has hindered and held back countries/societies around the world very succinctly - not opinion but facts. On the other hand your opinion is founded on the fairy tale of the Bible.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
If I asked you what is the scope and purpose(s) of the main Covenants in the Bible, would you be able to answer without Google?
If not, you cannot possibly correctly understand the Scriptures
For example, what were the various purposes and the scope of the Old Covenant?
I can rebutt some or most of Hitchens arguments easily, and I’m just a layman.
Do you want to see?
Anytime if I ask you if the words and actions of a person are consistent with the Christ teachings, The answer is either yes or no. No, I’ve already explained that to speak into argue the way you are is a kid to entering a discussion about Martin Luther’s teachings and talking about Philip Melancthon’s teachings. Philip was associated with Martin Luther and worked with him and shared many of the same beliefs, but he was not Martin Luther. Your quotes of Philip would make any sense or relate to the argument or the question would be if they were consistent with Martin Luther otherwise you’re comparing apples and oranges
If I asked you what is the scope and purpose(s) of the main Covenants in the Bible, would you be able to answer without Google?
If not, you cannot possibly correctly understand the Scriptures
For example, what were the various purposes and the scope of the Old Covenant?
I can rebutt some or most of Hitchens arguments easily, and I’m just a layman.
Do you want to see?
Anytime if I ask you if the words and actions of a person are consistent with the Christ teachings, The answer is either yes or no. No, I’ve already explained that to speak or argue the way you are is akin to entering a discussion about Martin Luther’s teachings and talking about Philip Melancthon’s teachings. Philip was associated with Martin Luther and worked with him and shared many of the same beliefs, but he was not Martin Luther. Your quotes of Philip would not make any sense or relate to the argument or the question unless they were consistent with Martin Luther otherwise you’re comparing apples and oranges
(Edited, as I did not answer full post).
I also mentioned the fact that if you do this kind of argument then I need to bring in Pastor Bill down the street from the United Methodist Church and say that because he’s a Methodist, his actions are consistent with the teachings of Martin Luther regardless of what he does That would be silly
Actually, the OP was about the teachings of Jesus, not the teachings and practices of Christianity. .
Trying to restrict the conversation to the very narrowest of paths - controlling what people can or cannot introduce into the conversation no matter how natural and appropriate - just indicates that you have an agenda and a narrative that you don't want challenged. It shows that your position is weak.
The more you post and the more you try to control the narrative the more you sound like a cultist. You want to talk about Jesus, what the bible says and the teachings of Jesus but you don't want to talk about Christianity? How does that work - and obviously if we talk about Christianity we will talk about what man has done under the guise of Christianity or in the name of Christianity. I'm not surprised because what's been done under the guise of Christianity is truly horrific. No wonder you'd want to cut that off at the path. And it's no different for any other major religion in the world - the idea that someone (or group) has the inside track on the only real and true god leads to conflict.
It's really quite simple. He thinks it only matters what people believe but the how and why of what they believe is something he doesn't want to hear. He has to know that how people came to believe what they do is just as, if not more important than what they believe. He doesn't want to hear about the terrible things that have been done in the name of Christianity, God and Jesus by his supposed followers that are the very cause of why so many aren't followers of the word.
To him that should be unspoken and is irrelevant. We both know that's the actual red herring here.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Bottom line the world would be better off without religion - be it Christianity or any other organized religion. A wonderful example - providing examples of many, many places and faiths all around the world is here:
I have to disagree with that one. IMO The world would be better off with more Spirituality and less religion.
Quoted for truth.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Bottom line the world would be better off without religion - be it Christianity or any other organized religion. A wonderful example - providing examples of many, many places and faiths all around the world is here:
I have to disagree with that one. IMO The world would be better off with more Spirituality and less religion.
Quoted for truth.
It would be mostly materialists that would disagree with this quote.
Jesus condemned unspiritual religionists. Did he not?
Bottom line the world would be better off without religion - be it Christianity or any other organized religion. A wonderful example - providing examples of many, many places and faiths all around the world is here:
I have to disagree with that one. IMO The world would be better off with more Spirituality and less religion.
Quoted for truth.
No - not quoted for truth. Quoted as your opinion. Religion has been the cause of so much death, mutilation, torture, subjugation, genocide, displacement of populations .... hard to say Religion has been a greater cause for good than evil based on some 30-50 million deaths.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
That varies from person to person. Some people have been so turned of by the hate, killing and control his so called followers have inflicted on the world they don't believe a word of it.
Then you have people that would disagree with what "unspiritual religionist" means. It's a very vague term that will not be widely agreed upon from person to person. Do you think anyone actually believes that is what they're doing other than maybe the head of that religion or church? Open ended terms leave much to interpretation.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
And you just described the difference. Spirituality is not based in religion. It's actually the rejection of religion and based on one's own personal beliefs. We view religion in very much the same light. That's why I refuse to be affiliated with a religion. Mankind has bastardized Christianity through religious teachings. They have used it as a tool and twisted it to where it has been misused just as you have described.
I don't believe we actually disagree here.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I can rebutt some or most of Hitchens arguments easily, and I’m just a layman.
No - you really couldn't. And I guess once again you are demonstrating your Trollness and your arrogance.
Hitchens debated at Harvard, Oxford and many great locations - he debated against world leaders, world renowned philosophers, Rabi's, Bishops, Politicians, Educational elites .... and roundly he was considered to have held his own or owned the debates. Your contrite belief or statement that despite all these great minds and world religious leaders you could best Hitchens where they could not .... I guess it says everything. I' can't tell if you are overwhelmingly, blindingly ignorant, a troll or a Russian Bot .... but the outcome is the same: Ciao.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
I can rebutt some or most of Hitchens arguments easily, and I’m just a layman.
No - you really couldn't. And I guess once again you are demonstrating your Trollness and your arrogance.
Hitchens debated at Harvard, Oxford and many great locations - he debated against world leaders, world renowned philosophers, Rabi's, Bishops, Politicians, Educational elites .... and roundly he was considered to have held his own or owned the debates. Your contrite belief or statement that despite all these great minds and world religious leaders you could best Hitchens where they could not .... I guess it says everything. I' can't tell if you are overwhelmingly, blindingly ignorant, a troll or a Russian Bot .... but the outcome is the same: Ciao.
An argument from authority because Hitchens expertise clearly isn’t the Bible or the teachings of Jesus. 😀.
. We view religion in very much the same light. That's why I refuse to be affiliated with a religion. Mankind has bastardized Christianity through religious teachings. They have used it as a tool and twisted it to where it has been misused just as you have described.
I don't believe we actually disagree here.
You are probably correct. The problem is Man ... man is flawed and ultimately no matter what the religion, man will corrupt it, abuse it, use it as a way to control people or war with peoples and commit untold monstrosities in the name of God. The history of the world is irrefutable with these facts.
Richard Bach - author of 'Jonathon Livingston Seagull' which is quite a famous book of sorts ... wrote another book called 'One' - the premise was someone finding the true and only real, authentic word of God. What would happen? How would it unite mankind? To final know the word of God written by God as opposed to by Man... It's a very good book if you want an interesting read.
I think Religion can be good for individuals. It can be a guiding light. It can be a crutch. it can get people through tough times. It can provide people who need it a compass. But as soon as anyone takes what they believe and want to impose that on others - whether through laws or even simply social constructs and values ... it loses any value to me.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
OK I just went and randomly searched “Christopher Hitchens contradictions in the Bible” on YouTube and listened to a video for like less than a minute and I already found a fallacy in one of his arguments. I’m gonna start with this one and then I’m gonna take some time and dig into some of his arguments and respond to some of them in a single post later, But in this debate, he listed a few events of things that were only recorded in one gospel and he called them contradictions. This is a non sequitur. Different accounts of the same event will often differ in details that are not contradictions For example, when you have an eyewitness accounts from several people, They have different vantage points and they will not tell exactly the same story if they tell the exactly the same story exactly the same in every detail indicates collusion Slight differences in accounts and hopaxes Are not contradictions.
So his argument is a non-sequitur.
Really easy. Found a fallacious argument in the first video within a single minute.
We agree completely. Just a few examples Jesus taught are that you should treat the immigrant as one of your own. He taught that accumulating wealth wasn't a good thing."Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth " He taught that if you do not give freely to the poor you are destined to hell.
These are not the messages you hear being taught by Christianity. These are not the values being endorsed by who they want to lead our nation. Religion has gone off the rails.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
That sounds like what trump would do. I mean he became the "Father of IFV" because a woman explained it to him in two minutes so now he thinks he knows everything about it! I don't think this thread any longer qualifies as a debate.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
