Explain this whole "jesus died for your sins" thing to me..

I never said that... what I wanted to know was how you knew that your intrepertation was correct? I can't think of any single book that has more DIFFRENT intrepertations than the bible.

LOL, for a start, it's funny that you think I'm a fundie... if being a fundie means that you believe what science (which uses a process of evidence, testing and retesting before deeming something "fact" - rather than asking you to use your blind faith).. then sure, i'm a fundie.

Second of all, you say it as if the age of reason is MY bible.... again, you're confused... I suggested that you read it because at the point we were talking about the bible, and most of my evidence had come from AoR... hence me asking you to read it... I don't take my teachings from any one single book (in fact, I don't think AoR has any teachings) but from all over the place.

I don't think I've said anything bad about christ EVER!!! I think he had some very good ideas, and was probally a generally good guy.. I can't say I agree with everything he said, but (as people like to remind me) he was for all about love, forgiveness, peace, etc... and i believe these are good qualities in people... so please don't think I'm in anyway attacking jesus...

For a start... I don't actully believve in sin or evil... so how can I think it's trivial?

Anyway, you totally missed my point, and are trying to read to far into what I said.. lets go back and see what it was I said..

"(just a side point, I don't believe in heaven or hell... but does that mean I go around doing bad things? Well, that all depends on your definition of "bad".. for example.. I've never killed anyone, and I don't plan on killing anyone...... but I also masturbate.. and that's a sin.. according to most christians... am I good dooer or a bad dooer? that's up to you to decide, just remember this... i don't do what I do to try and suck up to god and get into heaven...)"

If you read what I said, rather than try and look for hidden meaning you'll see that I was talking about I lead a good life, I've never killed anyone, I try and forgive people, i'm all for worldwide peace and freedom, etc.. - but I also do something on a regular basis that a lot of christian churches class as sin... am I to be denied heaven because I enjoy pleasuring myself sexually?

Oh, I'm also bisexual, that means I fuck guys and girls... that's also a sin, i'm sure that I commit lots of other "sins" - but in the grand scheme of things, I don't think they are dangerous, none of them are hurting anyone else, and they make me feel better about myself. Am I to be denied heaven?

(of course, I don't believe in heaven, so the whole thing is moot, but you see what i'm getting at I hope).



But, you know what, i'm sure that YOUR "Intrepertation" of what I said must be correct... after all, I'm only the person that wrote it.. what would I know?

 

You know what, I think he gets off on this type of thing:

"HA, take that sinner, I'll show you god if it's the last thing I do... uuurrrggggghhhhhh!!!!!! ah yes, good has won over evil once again, and I have blessed my belly with the holy seed of truth"

(PS, that's a joke... you can take a joke right?)

 

i didn't acctually mean i think im a fool...i just usually don't cross reference things

 

You cant think of many and neither can I.
Thats because there are not many 'different' interpretations of any scriptures among Christians.

For starters... The vasssst majority (almost ALL) Christians completely agree on the basics.
The Trinity
Jesus as Savior
Original Sin
Justification by Faith

These are not based on 'interpretations' either.. this is simply reading and understanding the clear meaning of the text as it presents itself.

Next - When you do find differing interpretations - these are not usually 'different'.
Usually they will be over the 'way' in which a 'part' of a scripture applies to some peripheral concept.

So these are not 'different' interpretations in the sense they are 'not the same'.

People often use a false logic that impunes Christians as having 'So many Different interpretations' that it (illogically) makes you think none of them must be based on any solid understanding.

"If they are all different.. than it must be unreliable??"

In fact - the vast majority clearly agree on all the basics and only disagree on the application of a small handful of 'side issues'.

What I wondered was - you are quick to point out that there are different 'interpretations' of some scriptures.
You seem to think this is 'suspect' or certainly a 'problem'

Now I wonder if you apply this same logic to AoR?

I bet I can find you an English class or two where some students of AoR have differing interpretations of certain sections, assertations or theories put forward in AOR.

So.. hehe.. I guess Age of Reason doesnt really mean what it says.. and is unreliable because once again.. "Its got different interpretations".

Im right though.. according to YOUR strict fundamental standards - If there are differing interpretations of Age of Reason, then it goes to show how flawed and unreliable it is?

No, but you are attacking the idea that Jesus was Christ (the messiah)

Please stop escaping your own premise.

If we are starting with a 'What If?' question.. its entirely unhelpful for you to cancel the 'premise' when ever its inconvenient.

We were discussing a 'What if there is Sin or Evil' premise.

We already established that in Christianity (IF it is true) you can not be entering or not entering Heavenly Salvation based on anything you do.

On a personal note - that is one of the saddest bloody things I have heard.

Again - you are never 'denied' Heaven and you wont enter based on what Sins you did or did not commit.

I have to keep ramming you back onto our premise - 'Suppose there is a Heaven and a Jesus Christ.."

IF that is the case.. then you will either deliberately choose NOT to take your free pass or you will deliberately choose to take Jesus free pass.

 

please stop calling me a fundamentalist, i find that term highly insulting... The fact that I'm here talking about my views does not make me a fundamentalist, it just means that I enjoy a good debate from time to time. I'm no diffrent from you in that reggard, so why do you choose to insult me?

I can't believe you're denying the fact the bible has so many diffrent intrepertations. For a start there are lots and lots of diffrent english translations of the bible, and translation is a form of intrepertation. Second of all, I can list out lots of religous orginisations that all class themselves as followers of the bible:

Catholic
Conservative Protestants
Liberal Protestants
Eastern Orthodox
Latter-day Saints (Mormons)
Christian Scientists
Jehovah's Witnesses
Liberal Quakers
Orthodox Quakers
Seventh-day Adventists

And that's just the beliefnet, I've no doubt there are many many more, and even diffrent intrepertations within each of these churches - oh, and lets not forget Islam... they also look upon the bible with their own intrepertation. So don't tell me that there are not diffrent intrepertations, because there are.

(Oh, and exactly what was "the saddest bloody thing" you've ever heard? The fact I'm bisexual?)

 

Anyway, how about we get back to the topic... explaining to me why god had to kill himself to abolish sin.

 

So.. you pasted different denominations and somehow this means what?

Here is the facts - Almost everyone calling themselves Christians today will agree on all the basics. We are talking any of the premise doctrines its based on.
Roman C's
Orthodox
Lutherans
Evangelicals
Puritans
Baptists

Almost all Christians on Earth fit under the 'Mere Christianity' banner.

Mormons have a different Bible
So do Muslims.

What do you find 'hard to believe'?
That they all agree the Bible is reliable and inspired by God
That there is a Trinity
That Jesus is the Messiah
That there is very little confusion between Christians?

Sorry but your hoping that scriptures that mean 'everything' must mean 'nothing'.
Thats simply not the case.

As I explained. .. there are other 'side issues' in which there are differing views - but not 'different' interpretations.

Example: Christians all agree there is Baptism.

Some insist its full immersion and others insist sprinkling is just as good.

So its even agreement on the whole concept.. its just differences over how to apply the concept.

------

Regarding translations... there are not 'different' english translation (in the sense they are saying two different things).
Greek is translated into English.

Since there is not always a 'word for word' translation - Translators can put it in differing ways.
Not 'two different' ways.
[in the sense they are two different meanings]

The english language (especially) is very dynamic and likes to change and morph.
Not surprisingly, new translations will be made to 'keep up' with the English language or even what type of English.

Im sure Age of Reason has been translated into different languages too.
Its ok.. its not a problem.

At worst.. there are a few words which provide some difficulty when translated into English.
Btw.. At last count the Bible has been translated into virtually every known language on the planet, not just English.

 

In all seriousness.. that made me feel sad inside when I read that.

[bold mine]

 

I give up... You're refusing to see because you're so stuck up your own ass as to what you believe... You refuse to acknowledge what's right in front of your eyes... why do you think so many diffrent churches are fighting over issues such as homosexuality...

(go on, explain that one away)

 

again, you misread what I said... lets go over it again, this time quoting EVERYTHING that I said:

"Oh, I'm also bisexual, that means I fuck guys and girls... that's also a sin, i'm sure that I commit lots of other "sins" - but in the grand scheme of things, I don't think they are dangerous, none of them are hurting anyone else, and they make me feel better about myself. Am I to be denied heaven?"

I didn't say that fucking makes me feel better! That's you twisting (intreperting) what i said.

I said that I'm bisexual, and as a result of that, I have casual sex with both guys and girls (I've had also propper full relationships with people, and I found them very rewarding, but right now I don't have time for a relationship, so I'm happy with some casual sex). I then continued to say that I commit other things that I'm sure lots of people disagree with, and I've no doubt that some of them are sins... but I do them all because they make me happy... everything I do i do because it makes me happy.

So, please, why not try and listen to what I'm saying, rather than intreperting what I'm saying... (although, if truth be told, we both know that you're doing it on purpose to try and wind me up).

 

I know what Im talking about.
Im involved in e[size=-1]cclesiastical[/size] groups. This IS what we talk about.
Like I say.. there is very little disagreement between the vast majority of scriptures fundamentals.

These are the important things.

Peripheral Issues = We agree on the vast majority of those too (even though in most cases they are of little consequence)

In some cases (Baptism for one) there is only a disagreement on how to apply these.
Its not like one thinks Baptism is good and another bad lol!

I strongly suggest that you dont know what you mean when you say 'interpretation', why that is important (or not).

Homosexuality is not well covered in Christian teachings.
You have situations where the most 'liberal' of Churches (or their most liberal members) do not believe homosexual behavior is 'deliberate' and therefore not considered defiance of Church teachings.

Stressing this - just because some Christians have decided to introduce this idea does not 'therefore' mean we can be certain about God, Christ and the clear things taught about Salvation.

This is what critics (illogically) hope to achieve by making a lot out of the handful of debates about peripheral issues.
They hope the unwitting observer will say "wow.. they themselves cant understand anything .. how can anyone?"

Its a cute trick but it doesnt fly when you know better

 

"again, you misread what I said... lets go over it again, this time quoting EVERYTHING that I said:"

No, I did not misread you.

My response was for the whole quote
(I just edited for brevity, but i see how it changes meaning if you didnt know what I was quoting)

Either way.. that made me feel sad for you.

 

You sound like Brocktoon

 

I see you brought up the issue of Baptism again, I was going to leave this alone before, but seeing as you've brought it up again, I might as well put this forward..

Baptism is the symbolic washing away of sin with jesus blood, correct? But it's just symbolic... I'm sure that some people need this symbolism to function, but others do not... a hell of a lot of christians are happy just knowing christ, following his teachings, and intreperting his word the best they can... Are you saying that these people won't get into heaven if they are not baptised?

(Oh, and I'm fairly sure that I've seen a christian group who have states that baptism is not required, however I need to find them again before I post about that)

 

Funny that... because I feel sad for you... Seriously tho, i'm good... My path fits me very well...

 

I very much agree...

 

Did you have something to add to the conversation?
Some comment, opinion, new facts?

 

(did you see that, it got his back up.. maybe you're a bit closer to the truth that he'd like to admit...

I'm just joking around, helps to lighten the mood... though I do truly believe you are Brocktoon, i have for a while now... but don't worry - we're not all who we seem (take that how you like).

 

For all we know.. Skip and EllisDtrip are the same person!!

 

I don't think "who" a person is, is important.. it's what they have to say (and to an extended view, how they live their life) that's important...

Anyway, this is WAY off topic...