Yet another reason Christianity makes no sense.

[alexander]

we are sort of off the original discussion on this stoning/homosexuality issue. IMHO those parts should be edited, not a huge issue, happens at least once, annually, but the bigger issue is why to this date the actions of the church contradict the clearly written beliefs they are to have (clearly written that they are the beliefs that are to be had)...

also, screw all this, i am taking old an new testament, gospels and all those books and rewriting it into one concise, and interesting book that will be easy to follow and clearly state what one is to do, calling it "harry potter and the order of god" and in the beginning harry potter will receive this book on gelatin tablets on top of mount Olympus, where he is forced to memorize the word of god, and as he carries this book down, he gets caught in the rain and the book melts away, but god gave him photographic memory and already broken glasses, he recites everything in the book, by the end of the book, while battling ignorance and bureaucracy of the modern church with his magical words of truth...

[Moontanman]

The thing about the ass was to show how taking something out of context (like many who preach today do) can be used to say almost anything. If you are going to follow a religion, any religion, you should do the reading and interpreting your self. At least if you get it wrong you did it and not because you were too lazy to look something up and preferred to allow others to think for you.

Cherry picking is pretty much what Christianity is all about, enforce this scripture and ignore this one. Claim this means this and not what it appears to say. Sad really, so many people follow the person who tells them what to believe "religiously" never knowing they are being scammed until the kool-aid begins to twist in their guts.

[Qfwfq]

So Moon it turns out I had actually got your drift! Except I wouldn't say that cherry picking is what Christianity is all about...

I thought the OP was about stoning homosexuals and a few other things. AFAIK Christ disapproved of homosexuality as much as he disapproved of adultery, but he told those guys to examine their own past misdeeds before casting the first stone... My take on the matter is that the Catholic church, like many Christian ones, has a similar stance. The overall matter is however complex and rooted in history and somewhat delicate too.

I think the stance of the Catholic church has always been that gays should not perform the acts but the way they are ain't their fault, it's only a matter of not giving in to this temptation. It is also its long standing tradition that clerics should be celibate and take vows of chastity and I don't know of there having been any rule till quite recently, against gay men becoming priests as long as they stick to the vows; much the same for other deviations, it doesn't essentially differ from resisting the ordinary heterosexual temptation. A priest naturally has temptations, whichever ones, but has vowed to resist them.

Now in past times, it was not very socially acceptable for a person to remain ever celibate, except when a justified by some important and acceptable choice. Many a Good Family in Catholic societies would "strongly encourage" sons and daughters that weren't on the straight path, and refused cover-up marriage, to a monastic or clerical life. By the late middle ages this, along with illegitimate children, became a great source of "vocations" to keep the ecclesiastical institutions staffed.

Of course many clerics and monastics were not resisting their temptations, straight or not, including the more troublesome ones like paedophilia. People were in the habit of knowing but not saying too loud (outside of the rowdier circumstances). In recent times more scandals have been raised, especially concerning cases of child abuse, and this led to the Vatican recently issuing a decree that candidate priests must be carefully scrutinized to filter out those whose orientation isn't quite straight.

Originally Posted by modest

Like in Japan today, in ancient Judea the seat of human emotion was not the heart or the chest, but the belly and the bowels. It you loved someone or showed them compassion the feeling came from the lower stomach.

Gut feeling?

Seems you carried your probing a bit further than mine.

[pamela]

who doesn't cherry pick, Moon? Christianity doesn't have the exclusive rights on that.
Modest, again, its subjective.Any one can pick and choose how they want to apply the meaning of the word cleave for example.If indeed there was more going on in the cases of those people that i mentioned, the point remains that they were lovingly intimate even if not in a physical way.
food for thought

2 Samuel 1:26
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

They were not stoned and God didn't wipe them out as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah. Speaking of, there was a whole lot more of "sins" going on there besides sodomy, so it's not really fair to say that God only chucked out the brimstone in response to that only
Having been raised a Catholic, I have found that there is more tolerance to the typical hate issues that arise.On the one hand incorporating the less tolerant Anglican into the church may diffuse some of the hate, however it can also spread the hate like cancer. It also can in a sense water down those tenets that are being upheld by catholicism

[modest]

Originally Posted by pamela

If indeed there was [no] more going on in the cases of those people that i mentioned, the point remains that they were lovingly intimate even if not in a physical way.

Yes, I agree. I actually agreed in my last post:

Originally Posted by modest

Right, and there's nothing wrong with the love in the bible or in the Church today. The problem (resulting in death) outlined in the bible is the act—the sexual act.

I honestly know of nothing in either church doctrine or their canon that would prohibit, or even make improper, an emotionally intimate relationship between members of the same sex. If anything, that kind of kinship is strongly advocated in many of the old and new books of the bible—John and Jesus being a great example.

Originally Posted by pamela

food for thought

Yes... again you reference David and Jonathan. I think there's a kind of cultural gap going on here. In a large part of the western world men do not openly express love for their best friends and when they do our minds immediately attach a kind of erotic insinuation to it. This is one aspect of a larger cultural reserve that western society and the U.S. in particular shows.

Think, for example, men don't commonly kiss other men in this country. If someone from the U.S. who wasn't aware of even the most basic cultural differences read this about David and Jonathan:

Originally Posted by 1 Sam. 20:41

After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side [of the stone] and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together--but David wept the most.

1 Samuel 20:41

it might seem to insinuate something physically erotic. But, we have to remember that it is common for men to kiss in a platonic way in other cultures. Likewise, if you go to any funeral in the united states you see people standing around with their heads bowed showing really no emotion at all. If you go to the middle east or southeast Asia you see a whole different affair with people throwing themselves on the ground and wailing and all that.

There's nothing in the story of David and Johnathan that implies a sexual relationship. What it shows is something you find all throughout the bible—a culture where "tender love" can be openly expressed between two men when it is entirely platonic. To support this I'll quote a rather large section of wikipedia speaking to it:

A platonic interpretation for the relationship between David and Jonathan has been the mainstream view found in biblical exegesis, as led by Jewish and Christian writers. This argues that the relationship between the two, although strong and close, is ultimately a platonic friendship. The covenant that is made is political, and not erotic; while any intimacy is a case of male bonding and homosociality.

David and Jonathan's love is understood as the intimate camaraderie between two young soldiers with no sexual involvement. The books of Samuel do not actually document physical intimacy between the two characters. Nothing indicates that David and Jonathan slept together. Neither of the men are described as having problems in their heterosexual married life. David had an abundance of wives and concubines as well as an adulterous affair with Bathsheba, and suffered impotence only as an old man, while Jonathan had a five year-old son at his death.

The story was being told after the Holiness Code had been put into practice, with its commands and prohibitions of sexual contact between males which regulated the Israelites' sexual morality. Some traditionalists who subscribe to the Documentary Hypothesis, note the significance of the lack of censoring of the descriptions at issue, in spite of the Levitical injunctions against homoerotic contact. Gagnon notes, "The narrator’s willingness to speak of David’s vigorous heterosexual life (compare the relationship with Bathsheba) puts in stark relief his (their) complete silence about any sexual activity between David and Jonathan."

Presuming such editing would have taken place, Martti Nissinen comments, "Their mutual love was certainly regarded by the editors as faithful and passionate, but without unseemly allusions to forbidden practices ... Emotional and even physical closeness of two males did not seem to concern the editors of the story, nor was such a relationship prohibited by Leviticus." Homosociality is not seen as being part of the sexual taboo in the biblical world.

David and Jonathan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You seem to be implying that their relationship was sexual and therefore would have been punished by God if such a thing were a sin. The bible, however, does not describe their relationship as sexual. Nowhere in the bible will you find reference to homosexuality except for its condemnation or to illustrate God's anger toward such a sin (and the same, by the way, cannot be said of incest). The bible, by any reasonable interpretation, is more tolerant of incest than homosexuality.

The conservative protestant outrage at the Episcopal church and some of the other progressive movements such as with women priests in the church of England—that outrage makes sense to me given the fundamental theology on which these churches are supposedly found. And, sure, that theology includes not trowing the first stone and Paul made his case for eating meat sacrificed to idols, but even in the new testament books:

Originally Posted by Jude 1:7 (NIV)

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Jude 1:7

It is inherently hypocritical to ordain women and gay priests while claiming the bible as an absolute source of divinity or even inspired by divinity.

And, speaking as an atheist, it does no good. When a conscious effort is made to hide the truth and the intent of the text in favor of social reform while claiming the book is flawless it gives legitimacy to fanatics who take their own license to interpret the book the way it's actually written. God does hate fags... at least, in that book he does. It does no good to obfuscate that fact. Women speaking in church is forbidden—explicitly. No point in hiding it.

Originally Posted by pamela

...it's not really fair to say that God only chucked out the brimstone in response to that only

No, that wouldn't be fair to say nor did I say it. But, look at what Jude said in epistle I quoted above. You are dealing with a God who wants to torture people eternally for having homosexual relations. If you believe in that God then how could you reconcile belonging to a church with a gay priest or a church that preached equality for couples of a gay lifestyle. It's hypocritical and makes no sense. It bothers me immensely that every Christian I know makes God into their own social sensibilities then have the gall to say that fundamentalists are misinterpreting the bible. It's like worshiping the Nazi party and claiming that the persecution of the Jews is a misinterpretation of the Nazi platform. It makes far more sense to me to just reject the platform entirely and neither Jesus did that nor does any Christian denomination I know of today.

These are my thoughts on the issue in any case. Not being religious I can't say it affects me much, but I must admit that when I hear the Wilmington diocese is filing bankruptcy and the Catholic church is forced to drastic measures to shore up its numbers... I get a little grin.

~modest

[pamela]

hmmmnnn okay Modest, you state your case well
I had my reservations about the action actually taking place, as there are some contradictions in the Old Testament. You have only pointed out the vengeful mean god though, and there are many places, especially in the psalms, where god is portrayed as a loving god.So there are both sides to the deity described in the Bible just as their are both sides to the man.

No, that wouldn't be fair to say nor did I say it.

true, i merely thought you inferred that by your choice of words

But, look at what Jude said in epistle I quoted above. You are dealing with a God who wants to torture people eternally for having homosexual relations. If you believe in that God then how could you reconcile belonging to a church with a gay priest or a church that preached equality for couples of a gay lifestyle. It's hypocritical and makes no sense. It bothers me immensely that every Christian I know makes God into their own social sensibilities then have the gall to say that fundamentalists are misinterpreting the bible. It's like worshiping the Nazi party and claiming that the persecution of the Jews is a misinterpretation of the Nazi platform. It makes far more sense to me to just reject the platform entirely and neither Jesus did that nor does any Christian denomination I know of today

Seems like ego and religion go hand in hand from my perspective. People will pick and choose and mislead to further their cause or belief.

These are my thoughts on the issue in any case. Not being religious I can't say it affects me much, but I must admit that when I hear the Wilmington diocese is filing bankruptcy and the Catholic church is forced to drastic measures to shore up its numbers... I get a little grin.

now you are echoing my sentiment in my first post

[Boerseun]

This whole cherrypicking business invalidates the entire concept of "Christianity", in my mind.

You get different takes on the belief in God, with a heady mix of what you attach any value to in both the old and new testaments. Catholics have a completely different approach to the whole matter than Methodists, for instance. Catholics make a big thing about the transmutation of a piece of crackerbread into the actual flesh of Christ, whilst the Protestants believe that the bread eaten at communion is merely symbolic of the flesh of Christ. A big, big difference, right there (and a bit cannibalistic on the catholic side - think about it).

There are so many different takes on the entire thing, and each one of them claim to be authorative. They are also incompatible. Two churches, both supposedly Christian: The first find homosexuality an abomination, and cherrypicks the OT bit about stoning them. The second church attach more value (cherrypicks) to Jesus's words of forgiveness and love, and will welcome homosexuals into their fold. They are totally and completely incompatible. Various issues from birth control to abortion come to mind, and totally diverse opinions and beliefs are all justified using the same source - the Bible.

Yet, we all talk about "Christians" as if there's one big huge homogeneous group qualifying as such. I will ask you to show me a real, true and proper Christian. The best you will be able to do, is to point me towards a member of a sect which will be mostly incompatible with the bulk of other sects claiming to be "Christian". I think this points to a big truth regarding the issue:

There is no such thing as a "Christian", and claiming so is disingenuous. A "Christian", according to you, will be someone who share your particular flavour of Christianity. A Catholic will never say that Protestants are true Christians and Catholics not.

The classic definition that will now be thrown my way, is that a Christian is somebody who believes in the Holy Trinity and accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as his/her saviour.

And I agree with that - that makes for a very, very basic definition of what a Christian is, but that is the totality of what all these different sects seem to have in common. A certain sizable lot of so-called Christians will find birth control an abomination, and another sizable lot will find it okay - and both will use the same God and the same Bible as authoritative of their stance, and perfectly justify it through scripture. Both groups perfectly qualify as "Christians".

This means to me that seeing as there is no universally agreed-upon set of thoughts, guidelines, rules, opinions etc. that might be ascribed to God, which a "Christian" can live by (shall I kill this prostitute or not? - half the Christians say I should, the other half says I shouldn't), it makes for a very poor religion, at best.

Those who might come to the defense of the morality as set out by the Bible, saying that we shouldn't kill homosexuals and rather live according to Jesus's words of love and reconciliation, tend to forget that the Ten Commandments is slap-bang in the Old Testament. Once you stop killing homos because it's in the OT and you're now living exclusively by the NT, you should, by the same logic, scrap the Ten Commandments as well. The reason you don't do this, is because morality is actually imposed upon the Bible and imposed upon "Christianity" from outside. Five hundred years ago, it was perfectly morally justifiable to burn witches and heretics at the stake - because the societal norms of the day allowed it. As society goes through changes that might be imposed upon it by technological advances or anything else, the changed morality gets imposed on the church and the church better adapt itself in order to survive. The entire Protestant rising is symptomatic of this. But where the dispensing of morality is concerned, the church is sucking at the hind teat. You will cherry-pick lines in the Bible to justify your lifestyle, in other words, the Bible is not the source of your morality, rather, the morality imposed on you by society (in which you grew up) is used as a filtering mechanism by which you pick and choose those verses in the Bible which might resonate with your individual lifestyle - and then you take those lines you've picked (using your societal moral filter) as the source of your morality. This is ass-backwards and dishonest.

So - as to the thread title, stating "another reason Christianity makes no sense", what "Christianity" are you talking about? 'Cause none of the sects claiming to be Christians make any sense to begin with.

Reading the Bible is the best cure for Christianity. It's just a pity so few "Christians" actually bother to do so. In the immortal words of Winston Churchill's son (who, as an atheist, read the bible on a bet that he couldn't do it in two weeks during 1944): "Bloody hell! This God guy is a right shit!"

[pamela]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

This whole cherrypicking business invalidates the entire concept of "Christianity", in my mind.

You get different takes on the belief in God, with a heady mix of what you attach any value to in both the old and new testaments. Catholics have a completely different approach to the whole matter than Methodists, for instance. Catholics make a big thing about the transmutation of a piece of crackerbread into the actual flesh of Christ, whilst the Protestants believe that the bread eaten at communion is merely symbolic of the flesh of Christ. A big, big difference, right there (and a bit cannibalistic on the catholic side - think about it).

I believe this all boils down to interpretation.Some take the Bible as literal and others metaphorically. In Catholicism, being a very ritualistic religion in nature, receiving the "host" is of extreme importance. This can be compared to being "born again" , a term commonly used in the more charismatic sects of Christianity. Try being 16, raised by devote Roman Catholics, and stating that it is a snack and not the actual body and blood of Christ. Now I didn't see the wrath of God that day, but I sure as hell saw the wrath of mom. Thirty years later, i can still see the look on her face, when she called me a heretic.

There are so many different takes on the entire thing, and each one of them claim to be authorative. They are also incompatible. Two churches, both supposedly Christian: The first find homosexuality an abomination, and cherrypicks the OT bit about stoning them. The second church attach more value (cherrypicks) to Jesus's words of forgiveness and love, and will welcome homosexuals into their fold. They are totally and completely incompatible. Various issues from birth control to abortion come to mind, and totally diverse opinions and beliefs are all justified using the same source - the Bible.

Seems to me that a Christian of any denomination or sect, should strive to be Christ-like, afterall, it's what the title implies. To date, I think I have met 3 people, out of the thousands that I have met, that actually tried and emulated Christ's attributes in their lives. I imagine that alot of Christians actually attempt to do this, but anger, hatred and unforgiveness, muddies the water

Yet, we all talk about "Christians" as if there's one big huge homogeneous group qualifying as such. I will ask you to show me a real, true and proper Christian. The best you will be able to do, is to point me towards a member of a sect which will be mostly incompatible with the bulk of other sects claiming to be "Christian". I think this points to a big truth regarding the issue:

There is no such thing as a "Christian", and claiming so is disingenuous. A "Christian", according to you, will be someone who share your particular flavour of Christianity. A Catholic will never say that Protestants are true Christians and Catholics not.

Childish really, it's like your church is better than my church, to the tune of a prepubescent rant

The classic definition that will now be thrown my way, is that a Christian is somebody who believes in the Holy Trinity and accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as his/her saviour.

And I agree with that - that makes for a very, very basic definition of what a Christian is, but that is the totality of what all these different sects seem to have in common. A certain sizable lot of so-called Christians will find birth control an abomination, and another sizable lot will find it okay - and both will use the same God and the same Bible as authoritative of their stance, and perfectly justify it through scripture. Both groups perfectly qualify as "Christians".

This means to me that seeing as there is no universally agreed-upon set of thoughts, guidelines, rules, opinions etc. that might be ascribed to God, which a "Christian" can live by (shall I kill this prostitute or not? - half the Christians say I should, the other half says I shouldn't), it makes for a very poor religion, at best.

funny, the New Testament actually states that perfect religion is looking after the widows and the poor. People use religion and a belief set to satisfy themselves.

Those who might come to the defense of the morality as set out by the Bible, saying that we shouldn't kill homosexuals and rather live according to Jesus's words of love and reconciliation, tend to forget that the Ten Commandments is slap-bang in the Old Testament. Once you stop killing homos because it's in the OT and you're now living exclusively by the NT, you should, by the same logic, scrap the Ten Commandments as well. The reason you don't do this, is because morality is actually imposed upon the Bible and imposed upon "Christianity" from outside. Five hundred years ago, it was perfectly morally justifiable to burn witches and heretics at the stake - because the societal norms of the day allowed it. As society goes through changes that might be imposed upon it by technological advances or anything else, the changed morality gets imposed on the church and the church better adapt itself in order to survive. The entire Protestant rising is symptomatic of this. But where the dispensing of morality is concerned, the church is sucking at the hind teat. You will cherry-pick lines in the Bible to justify your lifestyle, in other words, the Bible is not the source of your morality, rather, the morality imposed on you by society (in which you grew up) is used as a filtering mechanism by which you pick and choose those verses in the Bible which might resonate with your individual lifestyle - and then you take those lines you've picked (using your societal moral filter) as the source of your morality. This is ass-backwards and dishonest.

I do not know of too many people religious or non, that live honestly.
I think that we have a tendency to place a higher expectation on the religious to behave in a more moral and upright manner, however, we all behave at times in a both good and bad fashion. We are emotional beings and religion does not magically remove that.

So - as to the thread title, stating "another reason Christianity makes no sense", what "Christianity" are you talking about? 'Cause none of the sects claiming to be Christians make any sense to begin with.

Reading the Bible is the best cure for Christianity. It's just a pity so few "Christians" actually bother to do so. In the immortal words of Winston Churchill's son (who, as an atheist, read the bible on a bet that he couldn't do it in two weeks during 1944): "Bloody hell! This God guy is a right shit!"

even if you were to read the Bible in it's entirety, each individual would still have their own take on it's meaning. Religion and belief are subjective

[Qfwfq]

One could neither fully call it one single religion, neither a collection of distinct ones. The core is what that character in the Gospels said and his take on the tenets of the OT. Distinct religions? OR, rather, distinct churches? Some of these add tenets and rites that the man did not teach, and some also scorn those who don't add the same ones; this is very much a matter of history though and politics.

He did not introduce an aut-aut between stoning homosexuals and allowing them to be priests. AFAIK he disapproved of commiting the act, but no "Christian" that would stone them is a true one. The exact stance of a given Christian church toward them is mere detail, if you ask me.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

He did not introduce an aut-aut between stoning homosexuals and allowing them to be priests. AFAIK he disapproved of commiting the act, but no "Christian" that would stone them is a true one. The exact stance of a given Christian church toward them is mere detail, if you ask me.

Jesus Christ said that the Word is the Truth, and the Entire Truth. He was, of course, referring to the Old Testament, there was no other Word - the New was still in the making. The Old Testament says that you should stone homos and hookers.

Jesus Christ once condemned an olive tree to eternal barrenness for not bearing olives when he strolled by, knowing full well that it was not olive season yet. Was he so inflated with self-importance? Was he a nice guy? Is this the act of a kind, gentle and forgiving New Testament deity?

Clearly not.

But according to Jesus, the Old Testament is valid. Assuming that the New replaces the Old in full is subjective, and not according to the will of God (assuming the Godliness of Jesus in the Trinity). Who's to say what a "true" Christian is? Somebody of your same sect, I suspect.

The thing is, the Bible is so full of self-contradictions, that using it as the main tool to shape your worldview and morals with is foolish at best. Based on what would you do this, in any case? Based on what would you attach any value to the bible and/or Christianity?

Carefully studying the Bible reveals it for what it is: A largely incoherent set of mostly non-related books that covers everything from history to soft porn. Like the Q'uran, it is not a well-written book, either - regardless of what the followers might claim.

Read the Bible carefully, and consider the arguments raised by the religious in favour of Christianity, and you will see how little sense any of it makes, as per the OP title.