Finally, a religion/anti-religion thread.

[Sufjan Stevens]

And Narbus is the kind of person that makes people think that all Christians are assholes. Pat yourself on the back buddy, you make religion look bad.

[Axtech]

Rob, I'll say this once more.

The Bible is the foundation for Christianity. It is the wellspring from which Christianity flows. It is the source of the religion. It defines what the religion is. I CAN say that I'm right and they are wrong because of this.
And reading into a document, such as the Bible, and coming away with a message totally contradictory to what the Bible says is not interpretation. Such lines are drawn by the bounds of the language, not the interpreter.

If I write, "I like ice cream," could you take that to mean I want desperatly to shag Holly Marie Combs? No.
If I write, "I want desperatly to shag Holly Marie Combs," and someone reads that and says, "Hey, I should call the police, he hates Holly Marie Combs and is planning to kill her!" then would you say that person is correct and I should be arrested?

Once again your examples are way too extreme. No religion is proven fact, therefore what "evidence" that is there (ie; the bible) is up for interpretation. Things like whether Jesus is God or the son of God. Things in the bible can be taken as metaphores. It is up to the individual to decide what they believe is literal and what they believe isn't.

[Narbus]

And Narbus is the kind of person that makes people think that all Christians are assholes. Pat yourself on the back buddy, you make religion look bad.

And you're kind of person who makes people think everyone who posts on internet forums is an illiterate 12 year old.

I've said many times in this thread I don't know what I believe. I came out and specifically said that I'm NOT a christian at least twice.

Pat yourself on the back buddy. As soon as you have someone sound out the big words in this post.

[Henrietta]

Rob, I'll say this once more.

Promise?

[Narbus]

Don't get bitchy at me about this. The reading level, or lack thereof, of other people is hardly my fault.

[Axtech]

Give it a rest, Narbus. This has nothing to do with reading level. You're completely ignoring our points about interpretation. Yes, you've given evidence from the bible that supports YOUR INTERPRETATION. That has nothing to do with the interpretation of others.

[mosaik]

what does interpretation have to do with black and white print language like the kind that appears in the bible?

[Axtech]

What doesn't it have to do with it? Everything about belief is dependant on the individual.

[Sufjan Stevens]

Ohhh, look at me. I can't sound out the really long words. Oooh, I am sooo stupid. I just came into this thread asshole. I read what you're saying and when it comes down to it, most non-Christians read the new fucking testament of the bible, yet you have and you're talking about it. Face it Narbus, I could run circles mentally, but as I see it, this is a messageboard for people to post on and have fun, and I don't try to sound all intelligent and high and mighty, because who wants to read anything like that? All you do is come on here, flame up topics, get everyone pissed off, never see their point of view, and move on. God, you're such an asshole. I hope you realize that.

[Henrietta]

Don't get bitchy at me about this.

Well I think I have the right to be bitchy at you when you are an asshole to others, and myself.

And as far as I can see, everyone on this board has just as high of a reading level as you. So stop being so condescending.

[Narbus]

Well I think I have the right to be bitchy at you when you are an asshole to others, and myself.

And as far as I can see, everyone on this board has just as high of a reading level as you. So stop being so condescending.

Ok. Then please, for the love of all things good and dear, explain how God could both create the world, and have to live a mortal life upon the world, which would be before he had the power to create the world.

I have asked this I don't know how many times this thread. If there are areas open to interpretation, then show me. Actually form an arguement for your side, consisting of thought out points that both address the issues I've raised, as well as establishing your own side firmly.

Explain, to me, how these contradictions could be recitified.

Ohhh, look at me. I can't sound out the really long words. Oooh, I am sooo stupid. I just came into this thread asshole. I read what you're saying and when it comes down to it, most non-Christians read the new fucking testament of the bible, yet you have and you're talking about it. Face it Narbus, I could run circles mentally, but as I see it, this is a messageboard for people to post on and have fun, and I don't try to sound all intelligent and high and mighty, because who wants to read anything like that? All you do is come on here, flame up topics, get everyone pissed off, never see their point of view, and move on. God, you're such an asshole. I hope you realize that.

http://www.clumsymonkey.net/phpBB2/view ... 9&start=40

Yes, you are one to be talking about flaming and being an asshole on this board.

PS: In all seriousness, what did you mean by, "most non-Christians read the new fucking testament of the bible, yet you have and you're talking about it."

PPS: I'd like to see you try to run circles around me mentally.

Give it a rest, Narbus. This has nothing to do with reading level. You're completely ignoring our points about interpretation. Yes, you've given evidence from the bible that supports YOUR INTERPRETATION. That has nothing to do with the interpretation of others.


What doesn't it have to do with it? Everything about belief is dependant on the individual.

Yes. It is. And when those beliefs venture outside a belief system, that person is no longer part of that belief system.
Here's another example.
A person states, "I am a Randian, that is, I believe in Ayn Rand's ideals and principles." They then go on to state, "Logic and reasoning are for the birds."

Would you say they're a Randian?

Fine. What are these other interpretations? How do they allow Mormons to be Christians? This is ENGLISH. There are rules and guidelines that are followed in the language. You "interpret" only so far before you're just making stuff up.

[Sufjan Stevens]

Leave it to Narbus to notice I left a word out and to attack me on it. I meant that most non-Christians don't read the new testament. Why would someone not interested in the religion spend his or her time reading about it? Do you just read it to pick out certain quotes to attack people with or something? Is that how you spend your free time? I know if I was a Muslim, Jew, or didn't believe in organized religion or God, I wouldn't take time out of my day to read something saying that Jesus existed nearly 2000 years ago. I'd rather find something else to do.

[Narbus]

1. I didn't attack, I asked for clarification.
2. I said I didn't know what I believed. I would like to find a belief system that fits me, be it an existing one or one that I cobble together myself. However, the only way to find a belief system is to actually look into them. While looking into Christianity, I decided it wasn't for me. If nothing else, I want to make an educated decision on something as important as the soul and my purpose for being.
3. Religion and philosophy are interesting to me. That doesn't mean I believe in all religions or philosophies, that means they are interesting to me.
Music is interesting to you, correct? Does that mean you like every single song and genre you come across? No, of course not. But you don't know until you hear it.

[Brooklin Matt]

i believe that all religions are boxes in which people live to categorize their beliefs with others that narrows their focus........I find them to be constricting and not very flexible to social change and to the growth needed for an individual.

I took a religion test and was categorized under unitarian universalist. I suppose I believe that believing in a higer being is useless and demeans humans into thinking God runs the show. I believe that the world and its environment are the "sacred" aspect...........that's something that is overlooked in my view. I'll keep it that for now.

Narbus......quit being so logical butthead

[Axtech]

1. I didn't attack, I asked for clarification.

Actually, you have attacked people many times over.

Yes. It is. And when those beliefs venture outside a belief system, that person is no longer part of that belief system.
Here's another example.
A person states, "I am a Randian, that is, I believe in Ayn Rand's ideals and principles." They then go on to state, "Logic and reasoning are for the birds."

Would you say they're a Randian?

Fine. What are these other interpretations? How do they allow Mormons to be Christians? This is ENGLISH. There are rules and guidelines that are followed in the language. You "interpret" only so far before you're just making stuff up.

You take an apple. You say "This is a fruit!" That is true. I give you a banana. You say "This round red thing is a fruit. Therefore, this banana can not be a fruit. It doesn't have the same properties of the apple. It is not round, it is not red, it has a thick skin. It is not a fruit as I have defined fruit." While in reality, they are both fruits. Yes, they have different properties, but they still fall under the same category.

As for interpretation... I realize that this is the English language. However, it is ambiguous. And faith is based entirely on one person's beliefs. As I said before (and you chose to ignore) many things in the bible can be taken metaphorically. Such as i) God creating the earth and ii) living on earth before becoming God. Either one of those could be taken metaphorically depending on their context in the bible. Either one could be part
of a hypothetical story used to help people govern their actions and live a "pure" life.

[Narbus]

Narbus......quit being so logical butthead

You get a kodama for being peachy.
And to hopefully distract you while I'm logical a bit more. Look at 'im. Isn't he the cutest?

You take an apple. You say "This is a fruit!" That is true. I give you a banana. You say "This round red thing is a fruit. Therefore, this banana can not be a fruit. It doesn't have the same properties of the apple. It is not round, it is not red, it has a thick skin. It is not a fruit as I have defined fruit." While in reality, they are both fruits. Yes, they have different properties, but they still fall under the same category.

Not quite what I'm saying. I take the apple, and say, "this is a fruit." That is true. Then someone takes that apple, and makes a wonderful Roasted Ham with an Apple Glaze. If I were to say, "Look, this is an apple," then that would not be true. It has hints of apple, yes, but it's not an apple.
In the same way, Joe Smith created a new religion using the Bible. I'm not saying this is bad. For all I know, the Bible existed only so Joe could write up his new religion based upon the it (yet separate from) and actually preach the Truth to a finally ready world. I have no idea.
But to claim to be religious without understanding what your religion is? That makes no sense to me. And to not understand, yet simply dismiss anyone who challenges you, rather than try and understand? That makes even less sense.

As for interpretation... I realize that this is the English language. However, it is ambiguous. And faith is based entirely on one person's beliefs. As I said before (and you chose to ignore) many things in the bible can be taken metaphorically. Such as i) God creating the earth and ii) living on earth before becoming God. Either one of those could be taken metaphorically depending on their context in the bible. Either one could be part
of a hypothetical story used to help people govern their actions and live a "pure" life.

Yes, there are things that can be taken metaphorically. I never denied this. There are things in the Bible, however, that taken metaphorically destroy the religion for the individual. If someone chooses to take the resurrection of Christ as a metaphor, as something that never really happened, then they are not Christian. I have studied the religion, I understand what it's about. I understand there are certain things that Christians believe. If you don't believe these things, you aren't Christian. I'm not saying this is bad, or wrong, or you're less of a person. But you aren't a Christian.

I know that most people have a much more nebulous idea of what Christianity is; that it's a sort of catch-all that encompasses all these other religions. I had the same idea before I actually looked into it. Christianity is a religion unto itself, it's not the catch-all. They believe in the Bible as the immuatable word of God, and they study it to more fully understand it.

Yes, the Bible is chock-full of parable and metaphor. It also sets forth, in no uncertain terms, what it is to be a Christian. Those verses earlier. To believe other wise means you are not Christian. Again, this isn't good, it isn't bad, it just is. You can only stretch the language so far before it breaks. When the Bible says "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.' " (John 14:6) there isn't room for metaphor and truth at the same time. Either you believe, or you don't.

[Sufjan Stevens]

Ya know what Narbus? That's perfectly alright. I did the same thing last year that you are doing now. I looked around at the different religions because Catholicism didn't seem right for me. I wound up choosing to be non-denominational for a while, until I am more mature and more prepared to follow God. So if you're just looking around, more power to ya buddy.

[Narbus]

Ya, I was Catholic too. I'm acutally a knight of Columbus, have the card and everything, heh. But it just didn't work. A combination of some rude clergy, some questionable antics in the Church's past, and just learning stuff in general kinda made the whole thing just seem like it wasn't what I wanted. So, here I am, all religion-less.

[mosaik]

i love fruit examples. Let's do yours again, Rob.

I have an apple. I say "this is an apple!"

That's a true statement. Now say you come along with a banana. You say "this is an apple!"

Now we have a contradiction. According to logic, we can't have contradictions. We must check our premises. One of us two is wrong. The round, red fruit can't be an apple if the long, yellow one is.

This is what we have here. Narbus has made it crystal clear that according to the bible, christians are people who believe that the only way into heaven is through Christ. "only" is not a subjective term open to intrepretation. "only" does not mean 'this thing plus some other things'. Only is finite, without anyone or anything else.

From my understanding, Mormons believe that you need more then just faith and love for Jesus to get into heaven. They believe that you need to live a certain way. According to the BIBLE, this isn't true.

So: how can people who believe in just Christ's forgiveness and people who believe in more then that be classified as the same religion? They can't! It's like apples and banana's, folks.

[Axtech]

Yes, but Narbus is using examples only if everything in the bible is taken literally. Mormans are Christians who don't take it all literally (among other changes). However, their beliefs are dirived directly from the teachings of Christ, just interpreted differently. Therefore, they are Christians.

Really, there should be a different classification for anyone who believes in Christ, but does not necessarily believe that Christ is the only way into heaven. The problem is that "Christian" is used for both people who believe in Christ and those who believe in Christ as the only way into heaven.

If we had two different terms, this discussion would make more sense. I mean, that way you could use evidence from the bible to say why you don't think Mormans are following the bible they way they should be, instead of arguing whether or not they fall under a certain category.