Yes I feel my point gets ignored.
NO religion should ever side with an oppressor for no reasons. ALL religious people should be pascifists because it would take a lot more effort to wage war if the majority of the people are pascifists.
As a child, it was this notion which simply never added up in my brain and made me turn against any form of religion.
Religious people have done too much evil to still be seen as good because of religion. Being a believer is no guarantee one is a good person. And many believers still want to paint that picture.
Once I was on a datingsite where men can hookup with Filipean women. The most read sentence was: ālooking for a good, godfearing man who wants to build a life with me and my 4 year oldā
The Filipines are a very catholic country. Meanwhile every Filipina over 20 had a child while the (also godfearing) father ran off after she got pregnant.
Anyways, the only Filipean women without kids are ladyboys 
Nice to meet you.
You Baptists split off from us Anglicans. We like to think of you as our prodigal son, and you are welcome home any time. Just joking, I recognise your baptisms as validā¦ thinking about it I probably recognise your Baptisms are higher than you do as I actually believe the sacrament of Baptism is more than just a symbol, haha.
I would say shorts in general should be taboo, everyone should dress nice and smart at all times in my book.
I am looking forward to many discussions to come.
Thank you, that does make things simpler for me as I am new, haha.
I would argue that the death count due to Starlin was much higher, closer to 100 million.
I would however argue against Hitler being an example of an atheistic leader as he chose to take over Churches and use them for his ends, and imprison any clergy who spoke out against his forced indoctrinations.
1 Like
I would say that being a pacifist only works if everyone else is too. Even if most people are pacifists, if a small minority is violent, history has shone us they will win against those who do not defend themselves and seek to stop those who wish to conquer and destroy.
There is not point in being a Christian if you are a good person, being a Christian is only for bad people who have sinned and need redemption. If someone is openly a Christian, then he is openly admitting to having done evil. I am not a good person, nor should you see much as such (nor any Christian), but I and my fellow believers do want to be, that is why we follow Christ, because he has saved us from our misdeeds for free.
Your example again just shows that people are bad and need Jesus. Being surprised that Church is full of sinners is like walking into a hospital and being surprised it is full of sick people.
Jesus did not come for those who claimed to be righteous, but those who new they were sinners.
Accounts of Hitlerās private conversations with his power structure indicate he wanted to eventually eliminate churches in Germany. To your point, he leveraged the churches to gain power and support but his private plans were to eliminate churches and exterminate religious leaders.
I would someone secede to you then, however I would still class him as slightly more pro-religion that the communists who wanted to immediately destroy every previous intuition and they believed they were corrupt.
I canāt say Iāve ever heard Baptists splintered off from Anglicans before, but I also never took Baptist History in college.
You probably do have a higher view of our baptisms than we do in general, as we consider it an ordinance not a sacrament. However, I think I hold a higher view of it than a lot of other Baptists, as Iām continually flummoxed by people who wait years or even decades to get baptized.
Eh, summers get to hot in my neck of the woods to not wear shorts.
I imagine you also hold the Lordās supper in a similar light as being an ordinance rather than a sacrament?
Yes. Both personally and at my church/generally across the denomination. But Iāll be honest, I havenāt done a deep study on it myself, and itās turning into a thing I think warrants study past casually reading the last supper and Paul talking about it in Corinthians.
Iāve been told that anal sex is very popular in Leviticus and Revelation!
Donāt recall it in Revelation at allā¦ As for Leviticus, if memory serves the only anal related prohibition would be anal between two guys. Otherwise, youāre just obliged to wash up afterwards and are āuncleanā until the evening (ie the next day). With particular laws like that, scholars seem to think itās more or less for sanitary reasons, possibly to fold in rest after something strenuous like giving birth (though that is like eight weeks verses a few hours).
Sorry. Iām a devout atheist. My knowledge of the bible could be written on the back of a Penny Black. I just chose books that sounded good.
Actually you managed to hit it spot on with Leviticus if you read the original Hebrew.
ā Leviticus 18:22 in English reads: āYou shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination.ā
However the original Hebrew is this: āwāeth-zƤkhÄr lƶā tiÅ”kav miÅ”kevÄ āiÅ”Å”Ć¢ā
Which literally translates to this: āWith (a) male you shall not lie (the) lyings of a woman. (An) abomination is that.ā
You may notice that ālieā for a man is singular, but for women it is ālyingsā, which is plural. It is God speaking, so what he is saying is that there is one way to lie with a man, but at least 2 ways to lie with a woman. Men and woman are both capable or or*l so we know that that is not in consideration or else ālieā for a man would also be plural. Many, including a lot of Rabbis believe this is God affirming an*l s*x for a man and wife. An*l is actually permissible in Judaism.
Others have translated the verse, slightly differently. Here is an extract from: Halachic Positions: What Judaism Really Says about Passion in the Marital Bed
āThe biblical verses in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 speak of āmishkevei ishah ā a womanās places of intercourse.ā The plural tense of āplacesā implies that, according to G-d, a woman has two recognized places of intercourse, the v*gina and the a*ns, and intercourse in either of these two places is forbidden when the nature of the relationship is illicit.267 However, when a proper relationship has been established, such as through marriage, the man is permitted, and perhaps even expected by nature to crave, penetration in both places.268 269ā - (Page 66)
3 Likes
Thank you for sharing your sage analysis of scripture. I have very little idea as its not something Iāve studied or have the belief to give my time to study. I know another atheist who enjoys studying religious texts as means to challenge his absence of belief in a deity. I tend to focus my reality
1 Like
I havenāt heard that, but thatās awfully interesting! I honestly am never quite sure exactly how much stock to put into rabbinical opinions, but I always feel like I should give it at least a little weight. On this one though, Iām rather liking their opinion and I think I may go with that. 
Thatās a good way of putting it and how I think these days too 
1 Like
I found this interesting as well, and I think you guys might as well:
Well Jesus was a Rabbi so it cannot be all bad, especially the bits that pre-date Christianity.
1 Like
For as interesting of a read that was, having it be āa maleā verses a man, in my mind anyway, given other passages, would make it a wider prohibition rather than a narrower one. As the chapter does immediately pivot to other sexual sins after, if we take just that chapter and ignore the other 65 books our most likely two interpretations of that passage would be donāt have sex with any males (baby through elder) like you would a woman or donāt have sex with related males (baby through elder). If we throw other passages back into play though, I think the stronger support is for the wider prohibition, over all. Thereās several things Paul in particular says throughout his Epistles that seem to strongly indicate either heteronormativity or flat out prohibition of homosexuality (Romans coming to mind). LGBTQ scholars disagree with me on the Romans passage too, but, wellā¦ Iāve been around the theological block enough times to spot a theological construct, and their position is definitely a constructā¦ And not a terribly solid one, Iām sorry to say. It creates more interpretation problems than it solves, and thatās always a red flag to me. Though, for whatever itās worth, thereās isnāt the worst Iāve seen, but that doesnāt make it solid.
No hate to the ones that agree with that interpretation though, Iāll even go so far as to say I think there are gay and gay affirming Christians. Doesnāt mean I have to agree with their conclusions though or think that their theology is sound in this matter. (Iāll take this opportunity to say, I disagree with a whole lot of people in a whole lot of theology and I still call them brother or sister in Christ.) I also sincerely hope Iāve been around here enough that people know Iām not hating on anyone when I say this. I am perfectly capable of disagreeing without hating and Iām certainly not looking down my nose at anyone.
1 Like