A question about the religion you belong to..

[Steven]

i have one thing to say about the x-tian bible...

=(  :whistling

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

my God but this is an old and tired re-quote.

Torn - context context context is all I can say.

What pre-ceded and proceded these text writings - for what purpose were they noted in the scriptural cannon? To just throw this shit out blatently as if it is representative of the beleif system is not really responsible. Thats what the media does with public figures all the time - just snip of context - leave the rest for controversy's sake...... and thats what your doing now with this tired re-tread. It seems to me - that you dont really know the Christian Bible that well outside of knowing how to attack it. At least do your homework Brutha!!!

And Dr. Laura is a fucking wackjob anyway.

[Steven]

um, leviticus, exodus, etc., aren't books in the x-tian bible? now i'm really confused...  :confused

as for the post being relevant, it does give a glimpse into my belief system, insomuch as i don't buy into x-tianity. when i have more time, i'll elaborate on the beliefs i hold...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if you want to do this Torn - in sincerity - I'll walk through it with you, and beleive me I'm no theologian.

But I'll ask you questions along the way. Fair is fair.

I'll answer yours - if you answer mine.

And dont be a pussy and just say "its in the bible" - do your homework when you make your revalatory statements, and bring me the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic supporting facts, as well as be prepared to insert enlightening posts about the times, culture, geography, power structure, etc etc etc as you do because all of these things are relevant to what is written, how it is written, to whom it is meant for, and why its been cannonized.

so far what you've shown me is rather cliche......I've heard it a million times.

Steven

[The_Dark]

I would like to point out that no matter how much you ignore the bullet coming down the barrel aimed at your head... it's still going to kill you.

You can't ignore something into non-existance. Say somehow we prove God's existance. We then somehow prove that the Catholics have everything spot on correct. Are you still going to thumb your nose at the parts you don't like?

[Steven]

Are you saying that the Old Testament is not part of the bible?  Last time I checked it was.  I'm going to assume you're making a distinction between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

I think TA's second post is relevent to the discussion.  He chooses not to be part of any religious faith because of the inability to reconcile his differences of belief with their dogma.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes, but he's a bit irresponsible in his insinuation of what is "biblical".

anybody can pick and choose from the text at will and create a nice fucked up picture.

But most critics are up for checking their facts and the context of the writing. It does bug me when they instead just flippantly throw shit out there with no respect.

and i think thats where Blackmail was going with his reply.

TA's tasty biblical quotations out of context are not the bible.

They are just propoganda when used in this way.

[Steven]

You didn't asky why people aren't part of a religious faith. Did you?  If so that is a whole different topic.  Are you not able to read your own posts Marc?  Because if so, how is asking "a question about the religion you belong to" equate "why you don't beling to a religion" ? 

And since both you and TA do not understand, the Old Testament was written before the birth of Christ.  While Christians see it as part of the story of God, it has nothing to do with Christ.  Christ is not mentioned once in the Old Testament, which is why the jews still read it and how it pertains to the chain mail as Dr Laura being an Orthodox jew, some of Lectivus is rendered irrelevant by the new testament. 

maybe I'll make a post as to why I am not hindu, seeing as this is a thread where we just post random thoughts about religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have to disagree with you here Brutha.

the old and new testament tie togethor very well.

And the Christ of the New is foretold many times in many ways in teh Old testament.

As is the completion of many religious facets of the Hebrews.

You guys sure you want to go here? It could get deep.....

[torn asunder]

honestly, i'm not knowledgable enough on a technical, scholarly level to come anywhere close to keeping up with you two. (steven & ted) i freely admit that i can't quote scripture, that i don't know the history, going all the way back to the aramaic (sp?) translations. based on the small amount of knowledge i do have, i'm of the opinion that the present-day bible is corrupt, and was corrupted both by accident, and intentionally, at various points in time, for various purposes. believing that as i do, i don't feel any kind of comfort or ease in saying something like "it's in the bible, so that's the way it is". i don't feel comfortable citing passages that may or may not be actual, direct, and "accurate" translations. seriously, (because i don't know) how many versions of the bible are on the market now? are they all the same, or do they contradict each other in some ways? logically speaking, i think they must be fundamentally different enough that someone, somewhere felt the differences warranted publishing a new/different version. so which one is correct? which one should you follow? you don't know (generally speaking) and so you choose one to follow/believe. this is wonderful, if it gives you fulfilment, and/or a sense of purpose/peace. i don't claim to understand how you can reconcile the differences, but i don't need to - i'm simply expressing my thoughts, as limited and "uneducated" as they may be. personally, i've already made the decision that organized religion isn't my path, and i freely admit i have neither the time, nor the inclination, to devote myself to studying it, just to appease some other people who would like me to "back up" the point i'm trying to make.

i expressed myself, and will continue to do so. if you would prefer not to directly engage me in this discussion, ignore my posts, otherwise, i will debate in the only way i am able.

my apologies if i'm coming across too harshly - my patience level isn't terribly high today...

[Blackmail]

Have to disagree with you here Brutha.

the old and new testament tie togethor very well.

And the Christ of the New is foretold many times in many ways in teh Old testament.

As is the completion of many religious facets of the Hebrews.

You guys sure you want to go here?  It could get deep.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See this is exactly why I didn't like TA's post. This could have been a good thread byt now we're delving into different interpretations of the bible. I thought this was about "YOUR RELIGION" as the titles suggested, and not why you don't believe in "OTHER PEOPLES RELIGIONS".

The old and new testament may very well tie together well. But TA made quotes from a book that was written before the birth of Christ, did not mention Christ and then used it as why he didn't like Christianity. So while the Old Testament is certainly part of the Christian faith, he made quotes that had nothing to do with Christ or his teachings.

Now we are way off topic. I wish I was a moderator.

[torn asunder]

well, then - my apologies for derailing this thread...

please, carry on with your discussions. =)

[Steven]

See this is exactly why I didn't like TA's post. This could have been a good thread byt now we're delving into different interpretations of the bible.  I thought this was about "YOUR RELIGION" as the titles suggested, and not why you don't believe in "OTHER PEOPLES RELIGIONS".

The old and new testament may very well tie together well.  But TA made quotes from a book that was written before the birth of Christ, did not mention Christ and then used it as why he didn't like Christianity.  So while the Old Testament is certainly part of the Christian faith, he made quotes that had nothing to do with Christ or his teachings. 

Now we are way off topic.  I wish I was a moderator.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ok, I can see where your going here.....makes sense to me.....

I just didint like TA's cheap shot.

And his rebuttals that amount to "its in the bible". Seems a little unfair and alot half assed to me. Sure get's people going though, have to give him a nod on that one.

I mean hey now - what if I tried to close every argument by stating that the subject is in the encyclopedia? Boy oh boy would I be a super credible mo fo.

[Blackmail]

well, then - my apologies for derailing this thread...

please, carry on with your discussions.  =)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you don't have to apologize, it's still a good thread and it appears more people are interested in the way you took rather than what I wanted it to be.

The Dark and HH both went in the direction I wanted to see this thread go. But I don't run DGN so it's not my place to moderate.

[torn asunder]

ok, I can see where your going here.....makes sense to me.....

I just didint like TA's cheap shot.

And his rebuttals that amount to "its in the bible".  Seems a little unfair and alot half assed to me.  Sure get's people going though, have to give him a nod on that one.

I mean hey now - what if I tried to close every argument by stating that the subject is in the encyclopedia?  Boy oh boy would I be a super credible mo fo.

out of curiosity, which rebuttals? (if we're going to pursue this...)

i know the dr. laura bit is old, i only was using it as an *example* of my view of the hipocrisy in the religion. would it help if i were to remove that portion of my post, and point it towards my second?

[torn asunder]

you don't have to apologize, it's still a good thread and it appears more people are interested in the way you took rather than what I wanted it to be.

The Dark and HH both went in the direction I wanted to see this thread go.  But I don't run DGN so it's not my place to moderate.

i guess i didn't pick up on exactly how you wanted this to go - for me, would you be specific? and i'll try to keep my comments more to your intent, than the way i rad them...

[Guest Megalicious]

Is there a reason you don't seek a congregation or faith where you fully embrace their doctrine rather then picking and choosing? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It all goes back to .. "you can't please everyone". No matter where you go, your going to find shit you don't like. And though you may hold true to most of the believes or values your congregation may have as a group, you are still an induvidual.

I think it is good that people think for themselfs, rather then just following the rest of the herd. Do what feels right to you, how ever you can feel close to God if you feel it is the right path for you ... DO it. Who care if the rests of the world sees it as unconvetional .. the only thing that matters is that God knows that you are there, that you believe, that you have faith.

What about your faith don't you agree with?

I have no faith to disagree with. and Im happy like this. But to thosse who have a particular faith, if it makes you feel good, feel happy and loved , good for you =)

[The_Dark]

I would like to make a small point thats on topic.. I think... feel like I'm talking to stoners.. What were we talking about?

Anyway...

People pick and choose what parts of the religion to follow based on thier own persanel Faith. The part that I think they are all missing is that what they are doing really amounts to what sins they are willing to burn for/commit. You can't say "I'm a Catholic" and not beleive in Confession. Thats translates into.. "I would rather burn in hell than admit to doing anything wrong." Pride goeth before the Fall.

Whats sins are you willing to commit?

[torn asunder]

Whats sins are you willing to commit?

at that point, it seems to me it would come down to "what do you consider a sin", or, who's definition of sin do you abide, wouldn't it?

[Steven]

out of curiosity, which rebuttals? (if we're going to pursue this...)

i know the dr. laura bit is old, i only was using it as an *example* of my view of the hipocrisy in the religion. would it help if i were to remove that portion of my post, and point it towards my second?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

your "give me a break" flavored answers to Blackmail's statemetns abotu what is biblical (your naming of biblical books).

maybe rebuttal was a bad description, but you get it.

And dude if you dont like soemthing fine.

But think about how you present an idea en masse.

The Dr, Laura thing - pisses me off and makes you look like an a-hole.

I dont like it - but besides that - I think your smarter than that.

Respect me ("me" being symbolic) and you'll have my attention.

[Steven]

I would like to make a small point thats on topic.. I think... feel like I'm talking to stoners.. What were we talking about?

Anyway...

People pick and choose what parts of the religion to follow based on thier own persanel Faith. The part that I think they are all missing is that what they are doing really amounts to what sins they are willing to burn for/commit. You can't say "I'm a Catholic" and not beleive in Confession. Thats translates into.. "I would rather burn in hell than admit to doing anything wrong." Pride goeth before the Fall.

Whats sins are you willing to commit?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

this was good....

[Steven]

i guess i didn't pick up on exactly how you wanted this to go - for me, would you be specific? and i'll try to keep my comments more to your intent, than the way i rad them...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

by the way I'm not angry anymore....we're cool....

[The_Dark]

But to stay in the Theme of the thread...

I'm not a Pagan because.. well... being Pagan isn't a religion in my book. Being a pagan to me means you practice just about every religion except Christian, Jewish or Muslim. Also, modern paganism is a mish-mash of a dead religions. Nordic, Greek, Druidic and half a dozen others smashed together anyway a person wants. I don't see Faith as an All you can Eat Buffet. Pick a religion and stick with it. I don't really care which one. Picking portions of different faith systems that appeal to your world view and smashing them together is well... disrespectful to the people who truly believed in the Gods you're mocking.

[torn asunder]

your "give me a break" flavored answers to Blackmail's statemetns abotu what is biblical (your naming of biblical books).

this, i understand, and it was a bit petty of me, but i really was incredulous that someone would theink the old estament wasn't a part of x-tianity...

The Dr, Laura thing - pisses me off and makes you look like an a-hole.

I dont like it - but besides that - I think your smarter than that.

in all honesty, i didn't realize posting that would make me look like an asshole - without researching it, i took it at face value, and it works very well for me as a quick way to express an example of the reaasons for my dislike of the religion. if this is how i come across by using it, i will refrain from doing so in the future...

[Guest Megalicious]

But to stay in the Theme of the thread...

I'm not a Pagan because.. well... being Pagan isn't a religion in my book. Being a pagan to me means you practice just about every religion except Christian, Jewish or Muslim. Also, modern paganism is a mish-mash of a dead religions. Nordic, Greek, Druidic and half a dozen others smashed together anyway a person wants. I don't see Faith as an All you can Eat Buffet. Pick a religion and stick with it. I don't really care which one. Picking portions of different faith systems that appeal to your world view and smashing them together is well... disrespectful to the people who truly believed in the Gods you're mocking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe the theme of the thread is, things you disagree with your religion, and why. Not the path the other people choose to take. Though I am not religious in any sense, but just saying that paganism is not a "religion" is taking it a bit far and it's disrepectful. It's one thing to say 'hey I dont agree with this religion and this is why" it another thing when you discribe someone elses faith as "an all you can eat buffet".

I know you are stong in your faith mark, thats great, but everyone worships differently. Just because its in a differnt way doesnt mean its the WRONG way. I believe there is no wrong way to worship when it comes to faith, because it a personal choice, and no one knows you like you know yourself. So do what feels rigth to you. Screw everyone else and just because I dont happen to agree with it doesnt mean I go out and slander it. To each his own .. you know?

[torn asunder]

I believe the theme of the thread is, things you disagree with your religion, and why. Not  the path the other people choose to take.

oops :blushing i guess i have nothing constructive to add, since i only accept what i believe...

please disregard everything i've posted in this thread!! :laughing :laughing :whistling

[The_Dark]

I was making a point. Noone was talking about thier own Faith, only what they disliked about mine.

and um.. look up the word Pagan. It's a word coinded by Christians to describe country folk who were not Christian, Muslim or Jew and who still practiced what ever reginal religion there was. The Neo-pagans of today... well... my above description is accurate.

[Blackmail]

I would like to make a small point thats on topic.. I think... feel like I'm talking to stoners.. What were we talking about?

Anyway...

People pick and choose what parts of the religion to follow based on thier own persanel Faith. The part that I think they are all missing is that what they are doing really amounts to what sins they are willing to burn for/commit. You can't say "I'm a Catholic" and not beleive in Confession. Thats translates into.. "I would rather burn in hell than admit to doing anything wrong." Pride goeth before the Fall.

Whats sins are you willing to commit?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah sort of what I was thinking.

Like if someone says "I'm catholic, I have unprotected premarital sex with several different people. I follow the rest of the religion word for word though."

Well you have every right to lead that sort of life, but are you really still a catholic?

I am not saying that people shouldn't do it. But I wonder if they are really following the path that their religion outlines.

It's like a Hindu who eats hamburgers but believes everything else.

[Guest Megalicious]

Noone was talking about thier own Faith, only what they disliked about mine.

Thats because people can't stay on topic.

It's a word coinded by Christians to describe country folk who were not Christian, Muslim or Jew and who still practiced what ever reginal religion there was.

Yes exactly, coined by christian's. That would be like if I was pagan .. and our defenition for Christian was a bag of flaming dog poo. It would probably come up in the dictionary under slang .. and say something like:

Christian -slang-bag of flamming dog poo.

That doesnt make by anymeans a right deffintion at least to the people that believe in it, that follow that belief system.

If it said the deffintion of christianity was a bag of flaming dog poo would you believe it ? would you stop worshiping ? I highly doubt it.

You know I wasn't trying to be an asshole to you. I was just stating that there are pagan ppl on this board, and its just disrepectful to call their religion "a all you can eat buffet" .