By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Common misconceptions about Christianity.

sapphi_snake on 28 June 2010
richardhutnik said:
sapphi_snake said:
richardhutnik said:
sapphi_snake said:
 


The fact that you think sex ed teaches kids that they aren't able to abstain from sex shows how little you understand sex ed in the first place. Then again you probably have some twisted views regarding sex so I shouldn't be surprised.

Don't presume what I have or don't have, based upon stereotypical thinking.  I put this issue in the case of parental rights, and explain WHY you get the flak.  I fully understand the base biological function of sex is to extend a species and is wired to be pleasurable in the body, so that the species will continue to procreate.  Beyond this are other elements needed for the raising of offspring, to create bonding between partners, so they provide guardians over the offspring so they grow up.  This is beneficial to the species surviving, and having healthy future generations.  And if you think this is twisted, then I am not sure what basic biology books you are reading.

In regards to sex education, there is the basics of the biological side.  But human beings are more than just biological beings, and to discuss sex is to involve the entire social aspect to, and also to look to take into account what can or will happen.  You do inform about STDs, and you also can inform about protection.  In this, a parent can get concerned that a school isn't conveying enough the wishes of the parents the kids abstain until they are old enough to be able to be providers for childrens, and are established.  Because you drag religious parents who feel that their kids need to abstain and are able to, into a system that doesn't believe this, they will impose their values on others.

Again you fail to understand what sex ed is about. What people learn in sex ed is information that will be usefull throughout they're entire lives (yes, the overwhelming majority of people will eventually have sex and they won't magically know about safe sex either). Abstinence only programs do nothing more than spread lies and misinformation. If religious parents want ignorant clueless children that have a negative view of sex than fine, but they should not drag down other people's children.

When will people get that their religious "values" (I use this term loosesly) are private and have no place in the public sphere?

No set of values stays only in private areas.  Every value a person has shapes their worldview and causes an impact on what they want.  The idea of truth, value of science, compassion for the needy, freedom, character, integrity, and so on are all things that are needed in the public sphere to be discussed because it shapes everything regarding the nature of laws, and whether or not laws are even needed.  It is also important to know the meaning of religion, before you say that.  Religion is meant to be that which one is anchored to, and it shapes everything about a person.  Unless you want the public sphere to consist of absolutely no values, barring the exchange of goods and services in a marketplace, how then is it going to remain private?

Consider the case of the poor in a nation vs the right to own property.  What if there is a desire to help the poor, but insufficient funds are being voluntarily donated to do this, and the poor remain?  If the public sphere has no values, then how can you justify there either be a right to private property, or end up using coersive taxes to take money from people with it, and help the poor?  The private values do have an impact in this area. 

Ok, I can detect you put "values" in quotes, because you consider the values of religious people either dangerous or a complete waste of time, so thus, stick them in quotes.  Values such as loving God, avoiding sin, and raising one's childern in a way that is seen as honoring God, wouldn't be important to you, but they are to the parents of religious kids.  Well, here is the kicker.  Unless you don't believe parents ultimately are responsible for their kids being raised right, but it belongs to the state, you are going to deal with parents who want to teach their kids stuff you disagree with and which could be counterproductive in your eyes.  Well, because you would value parental rights, then you have to put up with this.  The only way to NOT have this is to enable people to have proper fund to raise their kids and enable them to be able to be taught wherever, outside of public school systems, so they don't push abstinence.  Get the parents and their kids out of the school system, and you will be able to avoid what you want to.  But so long as the parents are forced to have their kids in the school system, you will get them arguing about this.

The values present in the public sphere should be based on ration, debate and consesnsus, not on irrational religious beliefs. Forcing anyone to follow values and mores based on religious beliefs is undermining their right to religious freedom.

As for parents being responsible for their children being raised right, you went by the premise that I agree with such a thing. However I don't think parents can be trusted with such a task (This abstinecne only nonsense that creates ignorant kids that have a negative view about sex is a perfect example of why parents can't betrusted to raise their children right). This is an unfortunate compromise as (curently) there's no better alternative. Hopefully this pesky impediment will eventually be rectified.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Around the Network
richardhutnik on 28 June 2010
sapphi_snake said:

As for parents being responsible for their children being raised right, you went by the premise that I agree with such a thing. However I don't think parents can be trusted with such a task (This abstinecne only nonsense that creates ignorant kids that have a negative view about sex is a perfect example of why parents can't betrusted to raise their children right). This is an unfortunate compromise as (curently) there's no better alternative. Hopefully this pesky impediment will eventually be rectified.

Exactly WHAT are you going TO trust parents with?  What do you think of a society where parents can't be trusted to raise their kids?  It sounds like you want the state to raise kids.  Well, more power to you, if you do.  Sorry you see that parents raising kids is a "pesky impediment" to your belief on how society should be structured.



kaneada on 28 June 2010
thanny said:

There are a couple of things that have been mentioned in the creation thread (and also, things that i have heard before in quite a few places) that i think need to be cleared up. I am sure that many of you are aware of this, or do not care. I am also sure that there are some people that need to learn some more before they argue about Christianity.

One thing is that many seem to think (and i can see how they get that impression) that Christianity is a religion based on deeds; ie, following all the rules of the bible so you are good enough to get into heaven. This is what every other religion i have studied is based on, but is not what Christianity is based on. Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and believing in him is solely sufficient to have eternal life in heaven.

This of course brings up the question 'Then why do good things if you are a christian'. The answer to this is that if you truly believe in God, you will love him, and wanting to do good things will stem from this. A simple example is that if you really love your wife, you would not treat her badly every day, but instead work to please her and make her happy.

The other thing is that many people condemn christianity and christians for the laws of the old testament. By this i mean the arguement of 'You can't believe in some of the bible and not all of it'.

The old testament is the law before Jesus Christ.

God cannot be near sin. This means that for a person to be with God they must be completely without sin. This is why the old testament has many laws or whatever about animal sacrifice. The sacrifice pays for the sins, and thus the individual can be in the presence of God. Jesus Christ dying on the cross was a sacrifice for the sins of everyone, making these laws obsolete.

The arguement that can then be brought up following this is that there is no reason to, now, follow the ten commandments as a christian. This is not the case, because while Jesus essentially rewrote the laws of how we should live, he completely covered for all 10 commandments with 2 laws: Love your neighbour as yourself, and love the Lord your God with all you heart, soul and mind.

Ultimately, if you actually read the bible, this stuff is pretty clear. Also I would be happy to try and explain anything else like this if anyone is actually interested. I do not want to, however, argue about whether or not God is real. This thread isn't intended be any sort of Christianity V Athesiam debate, nor am I attacking anyone.

I'm not sure how up on the Bible I am, but I can state that it has all been said long before the Christians claimed it. A simple intrepretation of Plato's early philosophical statements will demonstrate that he was the first written realization of the majority of the beliefs in monotheistic relgions. So in short to believe in any God I would have to believe in Plato, which I wholly disagree with.

Being 1/3 existentialist and 2/3 objectivist I could go rounds with you all day long, especially on the evil of sacrifice (i.e. doing good deeds to justify ones self in the eyes of others), but I'll leave that one alone. I'll also leave alone the idea that religions are self referencing.

The only truth about God is, I don't know and neither do you, which is my biggest problem with religion; the people that claim they do.



-- Nothing is nicer than seeing your PS3 on an HDTV through an HDMI cable for the first time.

kaneada on 28 June 2010
richardhutnik said:
sapphi_snake said:
 

As for parents being responsible for their children being raised right, you went by the premise that I agree with such a thing. However I don't think parents can be trusted with such a task (This abstinecne only nonsense that creates ignorant kids that have a negative view about sex is a perfect example of why parents can't betrusted to raise their children right). This is an unfortunate compromise as (curently) there's no better alternative. Hopefully this pesky impediment will eventually be rectified.

Exactly WHAT are you going TO trust parents with?  What do you think of a society where parents can't be trusted to raise their kids?  It sounds like you want the state to raise kids.  Well, more power to you, if you do.  Sorry you see that parents raising kids is a "pesky impediment" to your belief on how society should be structured.


I don't agree with the government or the society at large raising kids and ultimately I think it is souly the parents obligation, but the truth of the matter is that some parents think that raising a child and sheltering them is synonimous. There is little truth in that. I can understand a parent not wanting their child having sex, however, it is important to realize that a proper education about sex does deter unwanted pregnancy. As a matter of fact most studies show that properly educated kids are less likely to have sex early due to the scare tactic that comes with full discloser about sex.

I'm not sure where the shift conversation occured, can someone produce some clif notes to catch us newcomers up?



-- Nothing is nicer than seeing your PS3 on an HDTV through an HDMI cable for the first time.

richardhutnik on 28 June 2010
kaneada said:
richardhutnik said:
sapphi_snake said:
 

As for parents being responsible for their children being raised right, you went by the premise that I agree with such a thing. However I don't think parents can be trusted with such a task (This abstinecne only nonsense that creates ignorant kids that have a negative view about sex is a perfect example of why parents can't betrusted to raise their children right). This is an unfortunate compromise as (curently) there's no better alternative. Hopefully this pesky impediment will eventually be rectified.

Exactly WHAT are you going TO trust parents with?  What do you think of a society where parents can't be trusted to raise their kids?  It sounds like you want the state to raise kids.  Well, more power to you, if you do.  Sorry you see that parents raising kids is a "pesky impediment" to your belief on how society should be structured.


I don't agree with the government or the society at large raising kids and ultimately I think it is souly the parents obligation, but the truth of the matter is that some parents think that raising a child and sheltering them is synonimous. There is little truth in that. I can understand a parent not wanting their child having sex, however, it is important to realize that a proper education about sex does deter unwanted pregnancy. As a matter of fact most studies show that properly educated kids are less likely to have sex early due to the scare tactic that comes with full discloser about sex.

I'm not sure where the shift conversation occured, can someone produce some clif notes to catch us newcomers up?

My argument comes from, and while I wouldn't necessarily agree with what parents want in this case, that a free society needs parents to be competent at raising their kids, or the society is going to be facing problems.  I have also argued that certain parents should be enabled to take their kids out of system, if need be, so they don't end up putting influence on it that bothers others. 

I would also argue that sex education be part of it, and accurate facts be given.  The full disclosure of what can happen with pregnancy, and disease, speaking also of the outrageous rate of STDs about (this has spiked heavily since the sexual revolution), and arming the kids against the garbage that the media dumps, is important here.  I believe what matters in this, is parents are enabled to make decisions, AND it is the job of the school system to get parents on board with their education.  YES, school systems need to sell the parents on what their kids are taught.

As far as the shift in the conversation, it happened when people started to object to some thing, and then the clarifications became rambling points.  The fact that there is a need for cliff notes says this thread has rambled too much.  The focus is mean to be on what the Christian faith is about.  Beyond this is noise.  Due to this rambling I have agreed with someone else that the thread has come to an end here pretty much. 



Around the Network
garvey0 on 28 June 2010

-

Last edited by garvey0 - on 05 August 2022

richardhutnik on 28 June 2010
thanny said:

God cannot be near sin. This means that for a person to be with God they must be completely without sin. This is why the old testament has many laws or whatever about animal sacrifice. The sacrifice pays for the sins, and thus the individual can be in the presence of God. Jesus Christ dying on the cross was a sacrifice for the sins of everyone, making these laws obsolete.

Ok, this is one thing I think I may of ignored, or at least requires me to address again:

1. In what way is a debt that is forgiven is "paid for".  Where does it say in the Bible that sin needs to be "paid for"?    There is a debt of RIGHTEOUSNESS that people own.  Paul even writes to owe no man nothing, except love.  One can argue that the death and resurrection of Christ fullfilled God's demands for righteousness (that and also the Holy Spirit in a person).  But to pay for sin?  The debt of righteousness is eternal.

2. As I see it, forgiveness is like bankruptcy.  If anyone disagrees, explain why. I went through bankruptcy, and the creditors I owed, no longer could lay claim for their money.  The debt was forgiven and no one is paid.  So, how exactly were they paid?

3. In the Old Testament, you see that animal sacrifices were done to establish a covanent with God.  They were done at the START, not afterwords.  What you do see is sacrifices done over and over as people sinned and broke the covanent.  They fell out of the covanent with God, and to reestablish the relationship, the sacrifices were done.  How does this reflect paying for sin?  I don't see it.  If I am wrong, show otherwise.

Anyhow, it looks like this "pay for sin" comes from the "satisfaction theory of atonement":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_theory_of_atonement



IvorEvilen on 29 June 2010
richardhutnik said:
IvorEvilen said:
richardhutnik said:
 

It is increasingly NOT about Christianity, and there is an excess amount of issues that need to be laid out, in order to answer the question about what involves the Christian faith.  What I saw in this thread is a mix of ridicule of the Christian faith, and individuals on the evangelical side, who want to try to convert people to be Christians in it. 

I will also say, if I am one of the top people to get into the Christian faith on here, this thread has problems.  For answers to the Christian faith, it is a lot better to go elsewhere on the web for that, and ask people who know more.

I agree with the above post... although there will always be different interpretations and beliefs, even among experts.

I will say this though: 

Believing that being a good person and doing the right thing will eventually get you into heaven is a dark road.  You have to truly believe that Jesus died for everyone, because he loves us all, and only through his blood are we saved.  If you really believe in Him, then you will want to do good things.

I can't remember who brought it up, but someone said something about how Christianity goes against their personal values...  Those would be "worldly" values in the eyes of a Christian, lies created by Satan to trick you into not believing the Truth.  Believe what you will, my job as a Christian is to spread the Truth to those who will listen, not to "convert" people to Christianity.  No Christian is called to actually convert people, they are called to spread the Truth.  This reality has been twisted by so many... and many feel that they must make others be Christian to get to heaven, and this is simply false.  You speak the Truth so that as many people as possible have a chance to hear it and in fear of the lives of those who have not accepted it.  In the end though... it is a choice made by every individual person:  to listen or ignore.

The job of a Christian is to be a disciple of Christ, and do what Christ says.  This includings being a workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, for works prepared ahead of time.   This is on a personal level.  There is also the job of the Church collectively, to do things.  I could go into a multitude of scriptures that can show that it isn't the job of EVERY Christian to always open their mouths and "share the gospel".  Christians are called to live the live and be examples, act as salt and light.  You can make yourself a quiet witness.  Of course, individuals of the Evangelical camp believe it is the job of every Christian to "witness" to others, rather than bear the witness to the truth.  A key to being a witness is that you actually experience what you talk about, and then give testimony IN THE RIGHT CONTEXT.

As far as what you believe has been twisted, it is a dicotomy set up in Evangelical theology that makes life more simple than it really is.

Consider this video, "Seen and Not Heard" by Petra:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZUdLCE6EIg

 

----

As far as faith goes, I believe the faith that matters is one of trust, more than intellectual affirmation.  To trust counts, while understanding people can do and still it make no difference. 

I think you just misinterpretted what I was saying.  I totally agree with you.



hatmoza on 29 June 2010
novasonic said:

Here's another commen misconception. God is real. Your parents remembered to tell you that Santa Claus isn't real, so why not god? This is a videogame forum, not a religion one. Take your views elseware. They offend me.


This is how far I got into the thread before I got sick to my stomach... and I'm not even christian.

Just because you have a different religion (or don't follow any religion) doesn't give you the right to disrespect or derail another peron's belief.

This is why I avoid religion topics as much as possible, because this kind of ignorance. And in ignorance I mean lack of understanding.



I am the black sheep     "of course I'm crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong."-Robert Anton Wilson

Scoobes on 29 June 2010

There are so many issues with trying to interpret the scriptures and deciphering the bible that it's impossible to truly make sense of it all in the space of a single thread. And to all those who started quoting scripture, you do realise that the bible is anchient and has been manipulated by humans over time. Oddly, this picture should help to put it in some perspective:

http://atheistetiquette.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/bible_origins.jpg




Get your Portable ID!