Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#149 - meteorswarm
Reply -18
(02/05/2013) [-]
The bible is an extremely intolerant piece of religious literature, it promotes slavery, racism and propagates a divine dictatorship.
If you follow the bible, you are a christian.

If you oppose intolerance, ignorance and oppression, you also have to oppose the bible(and other such religious texts).

Bottom line: If you do not support the bible, there is no reason whatsoever to call yourself a christian. If you DO stand behind the bible, you are a bad person.
#159 to #149 - ruinsage
Reply +2
(02/05/2013) [-]
christians =/= fundamentalists.

Also, these things are mostly part of the old testament, christians mostly focus on the new testament.
#178 to #159 - meteorswarm
Reply 0
(02/05/2013) [-]
There is PLENTY of intolerance in the new testament.
#180 to #178 - ruinsage
Reply +1
(02/05/2013) [-]
which is why i said mostly

But that still doesn't change the fact that most Christians are not fundamentalists.

And for the record, i'm not a Christian, i'm a deist, meaning that i believe there is a god, but i don't believe in the bible, nor do i think religion should have any influence in my life.
#186 to #180 - meteorswarm
Reply -1
(02/05/2013) [-]
I get that. But I'm just saying - choosing to believe in something that there is no empirical evidence of, and is, more importantly, being abused to do horrible deeds... that's just irrational. And by supporting religion, even if doing so in a peaceful way, people are still spreading intolerance and ignorance because there will always someone who interprets it in a hateful way.
#187 to #186 - meteorswarm
Reply -1
(02/05/2013) [-]
*always be someone
#156 to #149 - dtox
Reply +2
(02/05/2013) [-]
Except there are resounding themes that permeate throughout the bible, ideas and messages that both add to and contradict each other.

You cannot state definitively what the true meaning of the bible is, only what you speculate and what you personally gather from its text.

If these people want to promote love and understanding, then what is there to complain about?
#177 to #156 - meteorswarm
Reply -1
(02/05/2013) [-]
Look at comment 175
#151 to #149 - anon
Reply 0
(02/05/2013) [-]
literally kill yourself
#152 to #151 - meteorswarm
Reply -12
(02/05/2013) [-]
Prove me wrong.
#164 to #152 - shredmaster
Reply -1
(02/05/2013) [-]
You proved yourself wrong by speaking, ********.
#176 to #164 - meteorswarm
Reply -1
(02/05/2013) [-]
That is not a very convincing argument.
#155 to #152 - thepastryistrue
Reply +5
(02/05/2013) [-]
Only a Sith thinks in absolutes...

"If you follow the bible, you are a christian" is just plain wrong, there is nothing to be proved. The bible contains both the old and the new testament. Christ did something like a revision of the old laws, by exchanging them with only one law: Love! And this one law is far more important then the others, or contains them.

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, just like I have loved you; that you also love one another." That's the only rule christians have to follow. So, you can call yourself a christian, if you love every other creature on earth (with everything that goes with it). That has nothing to do with the bible.

Why do I, an agnostic, have to explain the basics of christianity?
#175 to #155 - meteorswarm
Reply 0
(02/05/2013) [-]
A good and a bad deed do not cancel each other out.
In other words, you're not going to dring even the most delicious juice if someone took a piss in it.
#182 to #175 - meteorswarm
Reply 0
(02/05/2013) [-]
Also, saying that you are a christian but do not believe in the bible is like saying you are a scientist but do not believe in the laws of physics.
People like tradition and they like to fell like they're a part of something greater. Such is the weakness of humans, we want to belong.
#203 to #182 - thepastryistrue
Reply 0
(02/05/2013) [-]
You are trying to compare bananas to apples, because you lack the necessary knowledge about christianity not to utilise different categories to describe a genuinely different concept.

But you are right, people not only "like" tradition, they need it to build up a sense of belonging and constructing an identity. That's the reason we have so many churches and communities. But you talk about defining characteristics of "christians" and not of "communities based upon christian tradition". Unfortunately your arguments are directed towards those communities and not towards christianity.
#212 to #203 - meteorswarm
Reply 0
(02/05/2013) [-]
Now we're at the crux of the problem.
I think religious communities are doing more harm than good. Besides being based on a very primitive notion they are also a detriment to education and rationality.
#215 to #212 - meteorswarm
Reply 0
(02/05/2013) [-]
(and by eliminating a needless and biased religion, we eliminate the spreading of these problems)
#221 to #215 - thepastryistrue
Reply 0
(02/05/2013) [-]
Which is pretty intolerant in itself, isn't it?
#222 to #221 - meteorswarm
Reply 0
(02/05/2013) [-]
By ''eliminating'' I did not mean kill and make illegal.
I meant to educate the people and form actual productive communities so that religion is no longer needed or desired.
This is of course utopic, but one can hope...
#226 to #222 - thepastryistrue
Reply 0
(02/05/2013) [-]
Or religion could be transferred to what it means to be: Something that prevents you from doing harm unto others and encourages you to act "good". That's just as utopic as your suggestion, but it would avoid the necessity to eliminate the basic human need for belonging.
#237 to #226 - meteorswarm
Reply 0
(02/05/2013) [-]
Yes, but why involve religion into morals?
Whether you like it or not, most religions enforce their beliefs by reminding you of supernatural punishment if you disobey.
This makes fear the greatest motivator for religious people, and you really can't say this isn't so. A lot of christians will say they'd act differently if they didn't know god was out to punish them if they misbehaved.
And fear is never a good emotion, especially for upbringing a child. If he lives in constant fear of punishment, that detters creativity and produces a flock of non-thinking sheep.
Why else would anyone want to ban religion? I love fiction, but I know it's exactly that; fictional. The characters still teach me morals. I don't need to fear that they'll torture me in hell.
#248 to #237 - thepastryistrue
Reply 0
(02/05/2013) [-]
Yes. But christianity is, by it's native principles, not one of those religions. What I say is, that christianity should be lived like it's meant to be. Hell, purgatory, fear and hatred are not genuine parts of this religion. I'm aware of what has been made of this religion and I'm not happy about that either. But changing society by reminding it of it's basics and a priori good intentions seems much more preferable then negating basic human needs.
#273 to #248 - meteorswarm
Reply 0
(02/05/2013) [-]
That is a fair observation, but I dissagree with the statement that religion fulfills a need that could not be resolved otherwise.
There are ways to make one feel safe and secure that do not involve fooling oneself.
#283 to #273 - thepastryistrue
Reply 0
(02/05/2013) [-]
There are certainly other ways, but I'm speaking of an obvious need for religion. Or let's call it a need for transcendental experience. If that wouldn't be a basal human need, there wouldn't be that much religion around now, wouldn't it? If you look at history, you see an increase of religious life after every period in which religion was either officially prohibited or denied in any other way. Be it in Europe after the Enlightenment, or in Russia after the Sowjet-Union, or in Germany after the Third Reich. So there must be something more to it, than just "opium for the people".
#303 to #283 - meteorswarm
Reply 0
(02/05/2013) [-]
Well, here we can't debate anymore, I just disagree with that.
There is no ''need'', especially not an intellectual one, to be religious. In most cases (not all of course ) the more educated a community is, the less religion it has.
People just like being fooled.
#306 to #303 - thepastryistrue
Reply 0
(02/05/2013) [-]
alright, let's call it a tie.
#366 to #306 - meteorswarm
Reply 0
(02/05/2013) [-]
very well