Then please, tell me how you define a terrorist. If some Islamic group (I'm using Islam here because I'm sure as a Christian conservative you have an unhealthy fear of teh muslims!) created a virus that magically killed the first born of every family in the USA except those of other Islamics, would that be a terrorist act?<br>

1. Why would I fear anyone of the Islam faith because of their faith?
2. I would only consider it terrorism if their purpose was to cause fear.

And that right there is the primary thing I find disgusting about the Christian religion and it's zealots. It doesn't matter if you're a good person or not, the only thing that determines whether you go to heaven or not is if you have been "saved" by zombie Jesus. I guess that works for them because there are a lot of Christian who are NOT good people and NOT Christlike in any fashion. They are bigoted homophobes who will not try to understand any concept outside of their narrow world view. Yet they are confident in their place in heaven because they are "saved", while the atheist humanitarian who is dedicating their life to helping others is going to burn in hell for eternity.

For someone so disgusted by zealots, you'd think you'd do your best not to act like one. Practice what you preach man.

There are bad christians. There are bad athiests. There are bad Muslims. There are bad everythings. The majority of christians are not at all that bad. Stop judging everyone by the trash you see on TV. A lot of christians think the christians you see on tv are as crazy or misguided as you think they are.<br><br>In case you were unaware; all Mexicans are not drug lords. All black people are not criminals. Everyone from alabama is not an idiot. Not every american acts like Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian.

Original sin was a brilliant move by the early Church. It's not enough to be a good person, you now have to be a member of the church, and get their forgiveness (often for a fee) before you're given a gold stamp for heaven. If it wasn't there, you wouldn't have to give money to the church, just live your life in a Christ like fashion and you'd be good to go.

Christianity != "the church". The man-made rules and rituals of denominations have nothing to do with Christianity. They're merely attempts by men to "improve" something that didn't need it.


Denominations are what help give Christianity it's bad reputation. It also doesn't help that people equate Christianity with what people, like Catholic priests, do. It's nonsense like this that make me sick to my stomach.

And that right there is the primary thing I find disgusting about the Christian religion and it's zealots. It doesn't matter if you're a good person or not, the only thing that determines whether you go to heaven or not is if you have been "saved" by zombie Jesus. I guess that works for them because there are a lot of Christian who are NOT good people and NOT Christlike in any fashion. They are bigoted homophobes who will not try to understand any concept outside of their narrow world view. Yet they are confident in their place in heaven because they are "saved", while the atheist humanitarian who is dedicating their life to helping others is going to burn in hell for eternity.

Your rant is like being mad at a fan at a football game because the ref enforces the rules. You really think most Christians want to see people go to Hell? If that were the case we'd never talk about it. We'd just sit back and watch.

Yes, there are "Christians" that don't act like Christ. Yes, there are Christians (notice the lack of quotes) that make mistakes (I do many times a day). Neither group are any better than non-Christians.

For all you non-bigoted Christians who know it's not their place to judge other peoples actions, hate the sin, love the sinner, etc... You rock! It takes a lot better person to be accepting of someone you consider to be a sinner and help and befriend them without judgement.

What you're missing is the fact that "helping" them isn't really help if we don't share the gospel. Would you not stop a blind man that's about to step off a cliff?

'Machaira' said:

"innocent" by whose definition?

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

And that right there is the primary thing I find disgusting about the Christian religion and it's zealots. It doesn't matter if you're a good person or not, the only thing that determines whether you go to heaven or not is if you have been "saved" by zombie Jesus. I guess that works for them because there are a lot of Christian who are NOT good people and NOT Christlike in any fashion. They are bigoted homophobes who will not try to understand any concept outside of their narrow world view. Yet they are confident in their place in heaven because they are "saved", while the atheist humanitarian who is dedicating their life to helping others is going to burn in hell for eternity.

Not all Christians believe in the same thing. Many contend the points of "Salvation by Grace" versus "Salvation by Works". Consider for example, James 2:15-17 which says:

[font=&quot;Arial&quot;]15. If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,<br /> 16. And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be <span style="font-weight:bold;">ye</span> warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what <span style="font-weight:bold;">doth it</span> profit?<br /> 17. Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.<br /> <br /> I&#39;m sure that God won&#39;t go &quot;You&#39;ve been a bad boy your whole life, but because you decided to say &quot;Lord, Lord&quot; just before you died, you&#39;re saved&#33;&quot;, He&#39;d go &quot;You&#39;ve been a bad boy your whole life, and saying &quot;Lord, Lord&quot; does nothing since you didn&#39;t prove it&quot;. If your kids have been misbehaving all day, then when the dessert comes, and you&#39;ve told them that they will be punished by not having dessert, would you give them dessert if they said &quot;Pretty pretty please?&quot;<br /> <br /> On the other hand, if a person has been good regardless of his beliefs, why shouldn&#39;t he be awarded for his good deeds?<br /> <br /> <br /> <blockquote class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-username="tstrimple">[font=&quot;arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif&quot;]<br /> You&#39;re forgetting that the bible is an &quot;infallible&quot; document and since it was divinely inspired, it cannot possibly be wrong. You&#39;re trying to use reason on a zealot, it&#39;s simply not going to work.

'way2lazy2care' said:

I agree that he is not as forgiving as in the new testament, but he is not a sadomasochistic blood thirsty terrorist. Anybody who has actually read the Bible instead of listening to someone talk about the Bible would know this.

Then please, tell me how you define a terrorist. If some Islamic group (I'm using Islam here because I'm sure as a Christian conservative you have an unhealthy fear of teh muslims!) created a virus that magically killed the first born of every family in the USA except those of other Islamics, would that be a terrorist act? If a human did all of the actions that the god of the old testament did, would he accurately fit the description provided by Dawkins?
<br /> <br /> Yes, if a human commits that, he&#39;d be labelled a terrorist. But consider this from God&#39;s perspective:<br /> <br /> If the pharaoh was simply killed, would people accept it that it was an act of God? Or would people suspect that someone killed him in order to ascend to his throne? The next person to take the throne will simply deny the Hebrews their freedom. And non-believers won&#39;t have a reason to fear God.<br /> <br /> If the Hebrews were teleported magically to their promised land, what would be the people&#39;s reaction? They&#39;d lose their grips on reality and go crazy because they can&#39;t cope with the idea of teleportation (we have technology and education today that enables us to understand the concept). And the people who&#39;ve been observing them wouldn&#39;t understand what happened without some explanation, so it&#39;d fail to focus the attention on God.<br /> <br /> Now if God did what he did, sent the plagues, this serves more than one purpose. It shows that God has the power, and the plagues are from him, and not from anything else. It instills a fear of God&#39;s people, because if you mess with them, you&#39;ll suffer the wrath of God, which wouldn&#39;t be there if the people were simply teleported. It shows the people of God that God is watching over them, and does exist.<br /> <br /> One other thing, some churches, like the one I&#39;m in, believes that children are innocent until a certain age, because they&#39;re not accountable for their mistakes, while some are never accountable (like mentally handicapped people). If they die before they reach this age, they&#39;re innocent and can go back to heaven. Now, if this is the case, wouldn&#39;t killing the firstborns of Egyptians be considered an act of mercy since they&#39;re taken back to heaven? But from our perspective, this can be considered cruel and acts of terrorist.<br /> <br /> I think this is a matter of perspective. Some people consider all Muslims terrorists because of some extremists, but if you study their beliefs and culture, you&#39;d understand that they are mostly good people, with some oddballs here and there. Christians aren&#39;t free of their own oddballs either (Ku Klux Klan for example, committed acts of terrorisms against other races), but this don&#39;t mean all Christians are terrorists.

There are bad christians. There are bad athiests. There are bad Muslims. There are bad everythings. The majority of christians are not at all that bad. Stop judging everyone by the trash you see on TV. A lot of christians think the christians you see on tv are as crazy or misguided as you think they are.<br><br>In case you were unaware; all Mexicans are not drug lords. All black people are not criminals. Everyone from alabama is not an idiot. Not every american acts like Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian.

I never claimed all Christians were like that, so I'm not clear on what you're ranting about.

On the other hand, if a person has been good regardless of his beliefs, why shouldn't he be awarded for his good deeds?

Because the vast majority of Christians believe that salvation is only through Jesus. In other words, being a good person doesn't matter.

If the pharaoh was simply killed, would people accept it that it was an act of God? Or would people suspect that someone killed him in order to ascend to his throne? The next person to take the throne will simply deny the Hebrews their freedom. And non-believers won't have a reason to fear God.
So you admit the whole Egyptian Plagues were just a pissing contest? The Pharaoh could be killed in some divinely dramatic fashion so that there could be no question as to God's power.

If the Hebrews were teleported magically to their promised land, what would be the people's reaction? They'd lose their grips on reality and go crazy because they can't cope with the idea of teleportation (we have technology and education today that enables us to understand the concept). And the people who've been observing them wouldn't understand what happened without some explanation, so it'd fail to focus the attention on God.
This is quite possibly the stupidest argument I've heard. Making people disappear would cause people to lose their grip on reality, but 12 supernatural plagues of an angry god won't?

One other thing, some churches, like the one I'm in, believes that children are innocent until a certain age, because they're not accountable for their mistakes, while some are never accountable (like mentally handicapped people). If they die before they reach this age, they're innocent and can go back to heaven. Now, if this is the case, wouldn't killing the firstborns of Egyptians be considered an act of mercy since they're taken back to heaven? But from our perspective, this can be considered cruel and acts of terrorist.

What says the first born child has to be young? Wouldn't it make more sense to take the last born since they are the most likely to be under the age of accountability?

I think this is a matter of perspective. Some people consider all Muslims terrorists because of some extremists, but if you study their beliefs and culture, you'd understand that they are mostly good people, with some oddballs here and there. Christians aren't free of their own oddballs either (Ku Klux Klan for example, committed acts of terrorisms against other races), but this don't mean all Christians are terrorists.

I've never said all (or even some) Christians are terrorists. I said the God as described by the old testament is a terrorist. By your words he did actions deliberately to instill fear in people and as a method of coercion. That is BY DEFINITION terrorism.

Christianity != "the church". The man-made rules and rituals of denominations have nothing to do with Christianity. They're merely attempts by men to "improve" something that didn't need it.

Except it does. The bible is a construct of the Church. If you're only point of reference on Christianity is the bible, then you're version of Christianity was defined by the Church. If you're willing to admit that the bible is assembled by men, and that there are other texts relating to Jesus that tell a different story than that portrayed in the bible, then maybe there is hope for ration discourse. The construction of the bible is well studied and documented. There were political reasons for the Church to include some documents and exclude others.

'Zeraan' said:

On the other hand, if a person has been good regardless of his beliefs, why shouldn't he be awarded for his good deeds?

Because the vast majority of Christians believe that salvation is only through Jesus. In other words, being a good person doesn't matter.

I supposed this is where my church have a different view of the heavens than the other denomiations (I'm a Latter-Day Saint, or Mormon for some). We believe that there's varying degrees of heaven, where the grandest one is granted to those who believe in Christ, and shows it, not just lip service. Good people can still enter heaven, but not where people who believed in Christ can go.

If the pharaoh was simply killed, would people accept it that it was an act of God? Or would people suspect that someone killed him in order to ascend to his throne? The next person to take the throne will simply deny the Hebrews their freedom. And non-believers won't have a reason to fear God.

So you admit the whole Egyptian Plagues were just a pissing contest? The Pharaoh could be killed in some divinely dramatic fashion so that there could be no question as to God's power.



That's true, I can't explain why God does what he did.

If the Hebrews were teleported magically to their promised land, what would be the people's reaction? They'd lose their grips on reality and go crazy because they can't cope with the idea of teleportation (we have technology and education today that enables us to understand the concept). And the people who've been observing them wouldn't understand what happened without some explanation, so it'd fail to focus the attention on God.

This is quite possibly the stupidest argument I've heard. Making people disappear would cause people to lose their grip on reality, but 12 supernatural plagues of an angry god won't?


They were not so supernatural in their form (aside from turning water into blood), but supernatural in their numbers and ferocity. This is to work with systems that they do understand.

One other thing, some churches, like the one I'm in, believes that children are innocent until a certain age, because they're not accountable for their mistakes, while some are never accountable (like mentally handicapped people). If they die before they reach this age, they're innocent and can go back to heaven. Now, if this is the case, wouldn't killing the firstborns of Egyptians be considered an act of mercy since they're taken back to heaven? But from our perspective, this can be considered cruel and acts of terrorist.

What says the first born child has to be young? Wouldn't it make more sense to take the last born since they are the most likely to be under the age of accountability?


That may be true. But usually firstborns are the ones who inherit their parents' fortunes during this time. So you could say that God is destroying their "inheritance". Another thing that we do believe is that people who've died without knowledge of God are given a chance to learn about him and choose whether or not to accept him in the after life, before their judgement day. It wouldn't be fair if someone who had no knowledge of God be doomed to Hell just simply because he didn't know. So those firstborns, from our perspective, aren't necessarily doomed.

I've never said all (or even some) Christians are terrorists. I said the God as described by the old testament is a terrorist. By your words he did actions deliberately to instill fear in people and as a method of coercion. That is BY DEFINITION terrorism.

Those people lived in a time where "Might is Power" not "Human Rights and Freedom is Power", so it may be a case where God is working within their limitations. Again, I cannot talk for God, just providing a different perspective.

The quoting system is messed up

Zeraan, does your Church view the bible as infallible? Is the bible the only true source of information on Jesus and completely accurate?

To me, the bible makes a lot more sense as a collection of stories from different people with different experiences and outlooks on life. For instance, it's clear to me that Paul represents all of the things I dislike about most modern Christians. He comes across as a bitter misogynist with a strong holier than thou attitude. The anti-women teachings and original sin crap comes from him, while others have more respect for women and have no mention of original sin.

Zeraan, does your Church view the bible as infallible? Is the bible the only true source of information on Jesus and completely accurate?

Actually, no. One of our beliefs are this:

[font="Georgia,"]"We believe the bible[font="Georgia,"] to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."
[font="Georgia,"]
[font="Georgia,"]This is the reason why we're called the Mormons. If God spoke in the past, what's stopping him from speaking today? But this is off topic, my purpose was to say that not all Christians believe in the same "perspective" of God, and to give some examples of it.
[font="Georgia,"]
[font="Georgia,"]

[font="Georgia,"][size=2]To me, the bible makes a lot more sense as a collection of stories from different people with different experiences and outlooks on life. For instance, it&#39;s clear to me that Paul represents all of the things I dislike about most modern Christians. He comes across as a bitter misogynist with a strong holier than thou attitude. The anti-women teachings and original sin crap comes from him, while others have more respect for women and have no mention of original sin. <br /> [font=&quot;Georgia,&quot;][size=2]<h3></blockquote><br /> [font=&quot;Georgia,&quot;][size=2]<h3><br /> <br /> [font=&quot;Georgia,&quot;][size=2]<h3>I agree, we view the Bible as a collection of books written by different people, not as &quot;The Book Authored Directly by God&quot;. We accept that those people are human, and prone to human weaknesses and mistakes. Regardless of this, we believe that Bible is inspired by God and written for our benefit. Too many people point to the Bible as &quot;The Authority&quot;, and miss the mark. God is the authority, not a collection of paper and ink.