First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Christianity and the differences within
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 12/26/11

crunchypibb wrote:

I'll post more relavent information later but seriously there's like so many christian denominations out there it's hard to understand which one is more correct. One church my see the Eucharist as a symbol and ther other might see it as Jesus in the bread. They both can't be right at the same time but people insist that it is okay so long as its from the bible. But how can two contradictory things be right if they're from the same source? This includes other topics that are hot for debate like homosexuality and contraception that every church of christianity has different answers.


the one who is correct are the "apostolic churches" meaning those churches which descended from the first disciples like St. Peter.
Posted 12/26/11

o3oBuddha wrote:

All this time spent studying something that won't benefit you at all.

Teach the blind how to see.
Better idea, help the blind see with science, while observe how they learn to see. Much more practical and efficient than faith healing if you ask me.

Sheila Nirenberg: A prosthetic eye to treat blindness
At TEDMED, Sheila Nirenberg shows a bold way to create sight in people with certain kinds of blindness: by hooking into the optic nerve and sending signals from a camera direct to the brain.

Pawan Sinha on how brains learn to see
Pawan Sinha details his groundbreaking research into how the brain's visual system develops. Sinha and his team provide free vision-restoring treatment to children born blind, and then study how their brains learn to interpret visual data. The work offers insights into neuroscience, engineering and even autism.
Banned
12724 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Seattle
Offline
Posted 12/26/11

DomFortress wrote:


o3oBuddha wrote:

All this time spent studying something that won't benefit you at all.

Teach the blind how to see.
Better idea, help the blind see with science, while observe how they learn to see. Much more practical and efficient than faith healing if you ask me.

Sheila Nirenberg: A prosthetic eye to treat blindness
At TEDMED, Sheila Nirenberg shows a bold way to create sight in people with certain kinds of blindness: by hooking into the optic nerve and sending signals from a camera direct to the brain.

Pawan Sinha on how brains learn to see
Pawan Sinha details his groundbreaking research into how the brain's visual system develops. Sinha and his team provide free vision-restoring treatment to children born blind, and then study how their brains learn to interpret visual data. The work offers insights into neuroscience, engineering and even autism.


Very thorough, thankyou.
Posted 12/26/11

o3oBuddha wrote:



Very thorough, thankyou.
No, I should be thanking you. It's humbling to be received by someone like you who's not glorifying some religious deity with scientific discoveries.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/27/11

alupihan45 wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:

I'll post more relavent information later but seriously there's like so many christian denominations out there it's hard to understand which one is more correct. One church my see the Eucharist as a symbol and ther other might see it as Jesus in the bread. They both can't be right at the same time but people insist that it is okay so long as its from the bible. But how can two contradictory things be right if they're from the same source? This includes other topics that are hot for debate like homosexuality and contraception that every church of christianity has different answers.


the one who is correct are the "apostolic churches" meaning those churches which descended from the first disciples like St. Peter.


So, the only true Churches are the one that can claim descent from the Apostles. Let us consider that for a moment, that would mean that the only True Churches are those that can, either ideologically or physically, trace their ancestry to the Apostles, such as St. Peter, and, yet, all this considering, that would validate almost all Churches, the Catholic can say that the first pope with St. Peter, who founded their Church, the Orthodox can claim much the same, the split between their Churches happening much latter, the various Protestant denomination can claim that, while they aren't able to say they have descended from the Apostles, but that the Apostles' thought and the True Christian Faith is more correctly expounded in their Churches, and two aforementioned Churches have perverted the messages of Christ, and, amongst themselves, may claim that the other's teaching is not biblical. Considering this, we are still trapped in the same dilemma, which Church is true, which Church is not true, which Church can properly be a considered 'descended from the first disciples', and which churches should be anathematized?
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 12/27/11

longfenglim wrote:


alupihan45 wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:

I'll post more relavent information later but seriously there's like so many christian denominations out there it's hard to understand which one is more correct. One church my see the Eucharist as a symbol and ther other might see it as Jesus in the bread. They both can't be right at the same time but people insist that it is okay so long as its from the bible. But how can two contradictory things be right if they're from the same source? This includes other topics that are hot for debate like homosexuality and contraception that every church of christianity has different answers.


the one who is correct are the "apostolic churches" meaning those churches which descended from the first disciples like St. Peter.


So, the only true Churches are the one that can claim descent from the Apostles. Let us consider that for a moment, that would mean that the only True Churches are those that can, either ideologically or physical
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/27/11 , edited 12/27/11

alupihan45 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


alupihan45 wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:

I'll post more relavent information later but seriously there's like so many christian denominations out there it's hard to understand which one is more correct. One church my see the Eucharist as a symbol and ther other might see it as Jesus in the bread. They both can't be right at the same time but people insist that it is okay so long as its from the bible. But how can two contradictory things be right if they're from the same source? This includes other topics that are hot for debate like homosexuality and contraception that every church of christianity has different answers.


the one who is correct are the "apostolic churches" meaning those churches which descended from the first disciples like St. Peter.


So, the only true Churches are the one that can claim descent from the Apostles. Let us consider that for a moment, that would mean that the only True Churches are those that can, either ideologically or physical


This would be brilliant, I am sure of it, if only I knew what you wrote.
33380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 1/8/12

longfenglim wrote:


alupihan45 wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:

I'll post more relavent information later but seriously there's like so many christian denominations out there it's hard to understand which one is more correct. One church my see the Eucharist as a symbol and ther other might see it as Jesus in the bread. They both can't be right at the same time but people insist that it is okay so long as its from the bible. But how can two contradictory things be right if they're from the same source? This includes other topics that are hot for debate like homosexuality and contraception that every church of christianity has different answers.


the one who is correct are the "apostolic churches" meaning those churches which descended from the first disciples like St. Peter.


So, the only true Churches are the one that can claim descent from the Apostles. Let us consider that for a moment, that would mean that the only True Churches are those that can, either ideologically or physically, trace their ancestry to the Apostles, such as St. Peter, and, yet, all this considering, that would validate almost all Churches, the Catholic can say that the first pope with St. Peter, who founded their Church, the Orthodox can claim much the same, the split between their Churches happening much latter, the various Protestant denomination can claim that, while they aren't able to say they have descended from the Apostles, but that the Apostles' thought and the True Christian Faith is more correctly expounded in their Churches, and two aforementioned Churches have perverted the messages of Christ, and, amongst themselves, may claim that the other's teaching is not biblical. Considering this, we are still trapped in the same dilemma, which Church is true, which Church is not true, which Church can properly be a considered 'descended from the first disciples', and which churches should be anathematized?


It doesn't quite work that way. Here's an article which explains everything: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01634a.htm. So, only Catholic and Orthodox Churches are apostolic. Protestant Churches, which originated in Northern Europe, can in no way be considered apostolic because they were neither founded by the Apostles nor united with the Patriarchal sees of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem or Constantinople, which hold the highest authority in their domains with the Pope having the highest authority because it was founded by St. Peter.
137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 1/9/12

fallen-angelxoxo wrote:


AbyssOfBliss wrote:

Dude who the hell cares about religion? It's just a label, live life and accept what comes after death, doesn't anyone understand this?


Child, your ignorance is showing.

Christianity is a faith not a religion and obviously it is MORE than "just a label" since ones belief shapes and influences their personal and social identity as well as their values, attitudes and consequent behaviour.


Are you a dude or a chick? I'm debating this cause your info says Male but you look like a girl in your photo. Also, last time i checked christianity was a religion and a religion is a faith and your faith is a label of who you are and how you're accepted into your environment. ( For those who care so much about religion. ) So i don't know what else to tell you besides you failed at trolling me and you're wrong.
Besides... if i'm such a child, why am i right while you're wrong?
86517 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Australia
Offline
Posted 1/9/12

AbyssOfBliss wrote:


fallen-angelxoxo wrote:


AbyssOfBliss wrote:

Dude who the hell cares about religion? It's just a label, live life and accept what comes after death, doesn't anyone understand this?


Child, your ignorance is showing.

Obviously it is MORE than "just a label" since ones belief shapes and influences their personal and social identity as well as their values, attitudes and consequent behaviour.


Are you a dude or a chick? I'm debating this cause your info says Male but you look like a girl in your photo. Also, last time i checked christianity was a religion and a religion is a faith and your faith is a label of who you are and how you're accepted into your environment. ( For those who care so much about religion. ) So i don't know what else to tell you besides you failed at trolling me and you're wrong.
Besides... if i'm such a child, why am i right while you're wrong?



Why does that even matter to you? Please stay on topic.
First of all- I wasn't even "trolling". The main point I was making is that it is so much more than a label as it plays an important factor in people's life ["it is MORE than "just a label""] and as you say it can affect "who you are and how're you're accepted into your environment.
(For those who care so much aout religon. )"
So to you, YES, it may be just another "label" but to others it is so much more than that and as I have pointed out it does affect the individuals "who cares so much about religion" in many ways. (sense of identity, values, attitudes and consequent behaviour)


AbyssOfBliss: Besides... if i'm such a child, why am i right while you're wrong?


"A child becomes an adult when he realises that he has a right not only to be right but also to be wrong." - Thomas Szasz


Posted 1/11/12 , edited 1/11/12

fallen-angelxoxo wrote:


AbyssOfBliss wrote:




Why does that even matter to you? Please stay on topic.
First of all- I wasn't even "trolling". The main point I was making is that it is so much more than a label as it plays an important factor in people's life ["it is MORE than "just a label""] and as you say it can affect "who you are and how're you're accepted into your environment.
(For those who care so much aout religon. )"
So to you, YES, it may be just another "label" but to others it is so much more than that and as I have pointed out it does affect the individuals "who cares so much about religion" in many ways. (sense of identity, values, attitudes and consequent behaviour)



"A child becomes an adult when he realises that he has a right not only to be right but also to be wrong." - Thomas Szasz
However, when their religious dogmas and superstitions are consist with the teaching methods and behavioral patterns on how to always be self-righteous, as opposed to them self-correcting through themselves being aware of and changing their own wrongdoings. Are they delusional adults or misunderstood children, or both?

Alison Gopnik: What do babies think?
"Babies and young children are like the R&D division of the human species," says psychologist Alison Gopnik. Her research explores the sophisticated intelligence-gathering and decision-making that babies are really doing when they play.

Michael Shermer: The pattern behind self-deception
Michael Shermer says the human tendency to believe strange things -- from alien abductions to dowsing rods -- boils down to two of the brain's most basic, hard-wired survival skills. He explains what they are, and how they get us into trouble.
Case in point:

Ezekiel 9 (New Living Translation)
1 Then the LORD thundered, "Bring on the men appointed to punish the city! Tell them to bring their weapons with them!" 2 Six men soon appeared from the upper gate that faces north, each carrying a battle club in his hand. One of them was dressed in linen and carried a writer's case strapped to his side. They all went into the Temple courtyard and stood beside the bronze altar. 3 Then the glory of the God of Israel rose up from between the cherubim, where it had rested, and moved to the entrance of the Temple. And the LORD called to the man dressed in linen who was carrying the writer's case. 4 He said to him, "Walk through the streets of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of all those who weep and sigh because of the sins they see around them." 5 Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! 6 Kill them all -- old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. 7 "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told. 8 While they were carrying out their orders, I was all alone. I fell face down in the dust and cried out, "O Sovereign LORD! Will your fury against Jerusalem wipe out everyone left in Israel?" 9 Then he said to me, "The sins of the people of Israel and Judah are very great. The entire land is full of murder; the city is filled with injustice. They are saying, 'The LORD doesn't see it! The LORD has forsaken the land!' 10 So I will not spare them or have any pity on them. I will fully repay them for all they have done." 11 Then the man in linen clothing, who carried the writer's case, reported back and said, "I have finished the work you gave me to do."
I know that by today's standard and the Universal Human Rights Charter, what the Lord just ordered back then was nothing other than ethnic genocide as a form of hate crime, no different than the genocide at Rwanda back in 1994. And I don't think since genocide can't be justified by secular humanists' standard, just because the Christian God ordered it in the past would make it right. But then again that didn't stop them from their own biblical self-righteousness.

And don't even get me started on their "intelligent designer" nonsense. When evolution is imperfection, hence why it's the only way to make sense of it.


As an afterthought, two political scientific terms can either fits rather well to describe this kind of institution, give or take a monotheistic deity: 1)in the case if the Christian God does exist, then Christianity would be a form of fascism, or 2)in the case if the Christian God doesn't exist, then Christianity would be a form of totalitarianism.
33380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 1/11/12

DomFortress wrote:


fallen-angelxoxo wrote:


AbyssOfBliss wrote:




Why does that even matter to you? Please stay on topic.
First of all- I wasn't even "trolling". The main point I was making is that it is so much more than a label as it plays an important factor in people's life ["it is MORE than "just a label""] and as you say it can affect "who you are and how're you're accepted into your environment.
(For those who care so much aout religon. )"
So to you, YES, it may be just another "label" but to others it is so much more than that and as I have pointed out it does affect the individuals "who cares so much about religion" in many ways. (sense of identity, values, attitudes and consequent behaviour)



"A child becomes an adult when he realises that he has a right not only to be right but also to be wrong." - Thomas Szasz
However, when their religious dogmas and superstitions are consist with the teaching methods and behavioral patterns on how to always be self-righteous, as opposed to them self-correcting through themselves being aware of and changing their own wrongdoings. Are they delusional adults or misunderstood children, or both?

Alison Gopnik: What do babies think?
"Babies and young children are like the R&D division of the human species," says psychologist Alison Gopnik. Her research explores the sophisticated intelligence-gathering and decision-making that babies are really doing when they play.

Michael Shermer: The pattern behind self-deception
Michael Shermer says the human tendency to believe strange things -- from alien abductions to dowsing rods -- boils down to two of the brain's most basic, hard-wired survival skills. He explains what they are, and how they get us into trouble.
Case in point:

Ezekiel 9 (New Living Translation)
1 Then the LORD thundered, "Bring on the men appointed to punish the city! Tell them to bring their weapons with them!" 2 Six men soon appeared from the upper gate that faces north, each carrying a battle club in his hand. One of them was dressed in linen and carried a writer's case strapped to his side. They all went into the Temple courtyard and stood beside the bronze altar. 3 Then the glory of the God of Israel rose up from between the cherubim, where it had rested, and moved to the entrance of the Temple. And the LORD called to the man dressed in linen who was carrying the writer's case. 4 He said to him, "Walk through the streets of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of all those who weep and sigh because of the sins they see around them." 5 Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! 6 Kill them all -- old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. 7 "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told. 8 While they were carrying out their orders, I was all alone. I fell face down in the dust and cried out, "O Sovereign LORD! Will your fury against Jerusalem wipe out everyone left in Israel?" 9 Then he said to me, "The sins of the people of Israel and Judah are very great. The entire land is full of murder; the city is filled with injustice. They are saying, 'The LORD doesn't see it! The LORD has forsaken the land!' 10 So I will not spare them or have any pity on them. I will fully repay them for all they have done." 11 Then the man in linen clothing, who carried the writer's case, reported back and said, "I have finished the work you gave me to do."
I know that by today's standard and the Universal Human Rights Charter, what the Lord just ordered back then was nothing other than ethnic genocide as a form of hate crime, no different than the genocide at Rwanda back in 1994. And I don't think since genocide can't be justified by secular humanists' standard, just because the Christian God ordered it in the past would make it right. But then again that didn't stop them from their own biblical self-righteousness.

And don't even get me started on their "intelligent designer" nonsense. When evolution is imperfection, hence why it's the only way to make sense of it.


As an afterthought, two political scientific terms can either fits rather well to describe this kind of institution, give or take a monotheistic deity: 1)in the case if the Christian God does exist, then Christianity would be a form of fascism, or 2)in the case if the Christian God doesn't exist, then Christianity would be a form of totalitarianism.


Let me just quote this paragraph from http://forgottenancestry.org/Charles_Darwin,_and_the_Theory_of_Evolution/Birds_%26_Whales.html:

"The next round of absurdity is a good example of why teaching evolution involves leaving some facts untaught. Evolutionists say that whales "to this day have vestigial leg bones!" How cute! There are two tiny bones, near the whales reproductive organs, that evolutionists refer to as vestigial legs out of ignorance. In reality, whales use these bones during reproduction, and the bones are indeed attached to muscles. The bones are even shaped differently for males and females. By learning evolution, you fail to learn what the functions of certain body parts actually do! That doesn't sound like science, does it?"

So, there appears to be a function for those bones after all.

But, let me talk about what happened in Ezekiel. This situation is nothing at all like genocide. Note well that God separates the people who are causing injustice from those who are distressed and weeping over Israel's crimes. Note that these people who are being slain feel that they can commit crimes with impunity since they believe God doesn't notice. Does anyone feel that it is a crime to kill criminals? Those who murder? Those who rape? Those who defraud laborers of their wages? I could go on and on. Read the passage carefully and you'll see that God spares those who mourn over these crimes, i.e. the innocent and the repentant. All those criminals had to do was feel sorry and try to atone for their sins and God would have spared them. Is it too much to ask that someone needs to feel sorry before they can be forgiven?

And before you accuse Christians of being self-righteous, I encourage you to read about Mother Teresa, Padre Pio, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Faustina, St. Gertrude, Ven. Solanus Casey, St. Joseph of Cupertino, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Therese of Lisieux, Ven. Louis Martin, St. Bernard of Clairvaux or any saint you like. You will see that they are far from self-righteous. Instead, they are among the humblest of people. And if you have met a self-righteous Christian, know that they are far from the goal. If you want to know what a true Christian wants to be like, read about one of their heroes: the saints.
Posted 1/11/12 , edited 1/12/12

Canute wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



Let me just quote this paragraph from http://forgottenancestry.org/Charles_Darwin,_and_the_Theory_of_Evolution/Birds_%26_Whales.html:

"The next round of absurdity is a good example of why teaching evolution involves leaving some facts untaught. Evolutionists say that whales "to this day have vestigial leg bones!" How cute! There are two tiny bones, near the whales reproductive organs, that evolutionists refer to as vestigial legs out of ignorance. In reality, whales use these bones during reproduction, and the bones are indeed attached to muscles. The bones are even shaped differently for males and females. By learning evolution, you fail to learn what the functions of certain body parts actually do! That doesn't sound like science, does it?"

So, there appears to be a function for those bones after all.


But, let me talk about what happened in Ezekiel. This situation is nothing at all like genocide. Note well that God separates the people who are causing injustice from those who are distressed and weeping over Israel's crimes. Note that these people who are being slain feel that they can commit crimes with impunity since they believe God doesn't notice. Does anyone feel that it is a crime to kill criminals? Those who murder? Those who rape? Those who defraud laborers of their wages? I could go on and on. Read the passage carefully and you'll see that God spares those who mourn over these crimes, i.e. the innocent and the repentant. All those criminals had to do was feel sorry and try to atone for their sins and God would have spared them. Is it too much to ask that someone needs to feel sorry before they can be forgiven?

And before you accuse Christians of being self-righteous, I encourage you to read about Mother Teresa, Padre Pio, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Faustina, St. Gertrude, Ven. Solanus Casey, St. Joseph of Cupertino, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Therese of Lisieux, Ven. Louis Martin, St. Bernard of Clairvaux or any saint you like. You will see that they are far from self-righteous. Instead, they are among the humblest of people. And if you have met a self-righteous Christian, know that they are far from the goal. If you want to know what a true Christian wants to be like, read about one of their heroes: the saints.
What observable and empirical evidence is there to clearly demonstrate just such function(in other words, a video record about whales having sex)? What were the names of those so called "muscles"? Where are they anatomically inserted and attached themselves to? Or is that just another pseudoscience without factual proof, when the fact is those aren't just mere "two tiny bones", but an entire set of pelvis, lschium, plus femurs.

Those are legs not for walking, just like how the human men's nipples aren't for breast feeding. But it sure feels good(no, better make that FANTASTIC) when they get stimulated(try molested, all you sexy people out there) during both foreplay as well as actual intercourse(adventurous heterosexual women, bisexual individuals, and homosexual men take notes). Furthermore, your source had this rather condescending remark disregarding the lack of fossil evidence showing an evolutionary progress in between the modern whales and those from the past.

First of all, evolutionary belief claims that these yet unproven adaptations happen out of BENEFICIAL mutations. Beneficial, information gaining mutations on a large, morphological scale have never been observed of course, but we'll let that slide for now.
---- from "Whales"(such an oversimplifying, dull, and thus uninspiring title)
I mean, whoever bothers to really study evolutionary biology with old fossil records anymore? When nowadays it's all done through genomics sequencing. Is there no limit to their degree of ignorance for these pseudoscience wash-offs? They're more pitiful than confused and suicidal beached whales, IMHO.

That includes women and children, who aren't even allowed to own and operate a business back then? How do women and children commit rape? What about those who didn't even know about those "crimes", simply because they've got nothing to do with them and thus, couldn't feel sympathy even if they tried? And what about crying crocodile tears, do those even counts? And finally, whatever happened to criminal rehabilitation and restorative justices? Surely God must knew about those humanitarian correctional methods that actually work, doesn't He?

Damon Horowitz: Philosophy in prison
Damon Horowitz teaches philosophy through the Prison University Project, bringing college-level classes to inmates of San Quentin State Prison. In this powerful short talk, he tells the story of an encounter with right and wrong that quickly gets personal.

Nalini Nadkarni: Life science in prison
Nalini Nadkarni challenges our perspective on trees and prisons -- she says both can be more dynamic than we think. Through a partnership with the state of Washington, she brings science classes and conservation programs to inmates, with unexpected results.

Kiran Bedi: A police chief with a difference
Kiran Bedi has a surprising resume. Before becoming Director General of the Indian Police Service, she managed one of the country's toughest prisons -- and used a new focus on prevention and education to turn it into a center of learning and meditation. She shares her thoughts on visionary leadership at TEDWomen.
Whatever happened to curiosity, understanding, kindness, and compassion for all those who need help and saving form sins? Did God just decided to gave up right there and then?

And you're nothing but a delusional adult, or a misunderstood child, or both. Whenever you're boasting while yourself are standing on the shoulders of giants(which BTW none of them were real scientists by profession). You self-righteous fool with the right to be wrong.
48255 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / dawsonville GA,
Offline
Posted 1/12/12
it really comes from what translation your using or how you want to approach your faith. an answer to all this is very simple god's knowledge is infinite while our knowledge is finite and putting that in comparison form we know nothing compared to god. now going from there is my belief and many philsophers beliefs of that alot of the judgement god will pass on us is how we act on what we know and now how we act on what we don't. i think alot of it is keeping with your beliefs and not straying away from them and what you know is to be sinful or not. if i had time right now i would go further into this issue
Posted 1/12/12

Anded991 wrote:

it really comes from what translation your using or how you want to approach your faith. an answer to all this is very simple god's knowledge is infinite while our knowledge is finite and putting that in comparison form we know nothing compared to god. now going from there is my belief and many philsophers beliefs of that alot of the judgement god will pass on us is how we act on what we know and now how we act on what we don't. i think alot of it is keeping with your beliefs and not straying away from them and what you know is to be sinful or not. if i had time right now i would go further into this issue
You can't mistranslates a religious faith that condones and justifies ethnic genocide, no matter how hard you try to spin it.

Ezekiel 9 (New Living Translation)<--- *audio record for those reading impaired
1 Then the LORD thundered, "Bring on the men appointed to punish the city! Tell them to bring their weapons with them!" 2 Six men soon appeared from the upper gate that faces north, each carrying a battle club in his hand. One of them was dressed in linen and carried a writer's case strapped to his side. They all went into the Temple courtyard and stood beside the bronze altar. 3 Then the glory of the God of Israel rose up from between the cherubim, where it had rested, and moved to the entrance of the Temple. And the LORD called to the man dressed in linen who was carrying the writer's case. 4 He said to him, "Walk through the streets of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of all those who weep and sigh because of the sins they see around them." 5 Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! 6 Kill them all -- old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. 7 "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told. 8 While they were carrying out their orders, I was all alone. I fell face down in the dust and cried out, "O Sovereign LORD! Will your fury against Jerusalem wipe out everyone left in Israel?" 9 Then he said to me, "The sins of the people of Israel and Judah are very great. The entire land is full of murder; the city is filled with injustice. They are saying, 'The LORD doesn't see it! The LORD has forsaken the land!' 10 So I will not spare them or have any pity on them. I will fully repay them for all they have done." 11 Then the man in linen clothing, who carried the writer's case, reported back and said, "I have finished the work you gave me to do."
I know that by today's standard and the Universal Human Rights Charter, what the Lord just ordered back then was nothing other than ethnic genocide as a form of hate crime, no different than the genocide at Rwanda back in 1994. And I don't think since genocide can't be justified by secular humanists' standard, just because the Christian God ordered it in the past would make it right. But then again that didn't stop them from their own biblical self-righteousness. While in the mean time I'll settle for the social psychological theory called "death anxiety/terror management".

Sheldon Solomon - Ernest Becker & The Denial of Death
Terror Management Theory (TMT) was proposed in 1986 by social psychologists Jeff Greenberg, Tom Pyszczynski, and Sheldon Solomon. The theory was inspired by the writings of cultural anthropologist, Ernest Becker, and was initiated by two relatively simple questions: Why do people have such a great need to feel good about themselves?; and Why do people have so much trouble getting along with those different from themselves?

The basic gist of the theory is that humans are motivated to quell the potential for terror inherent in the human awareness of vulnerability and mortality by investing in cultural belief systems (or worldviews) that imbue life with meaning, and the individuals who subscribe to them with significance (or self-esteem). Since its inception, the theory has generated empirical research into not just the nature of self-esteem motivation and prejudice, but also a host of other forms of human social behavior. To date, over 300 studies conducted in over a dozen countries have explored such topics as aggression, stereotyping, needs for structure and meaning, depression and psychopathology (e.g., phobias), political preferences, creativity, sexuality and attraction, romantic and interpersonal attachment, self-awareness, unconscious cognition, martyrdom, religion, group identification, disgust, human-nature relations, physical health, risk taking, and legal judgments.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.