Libertas Sumptus

... and appeared to many people. I'm interested in hearing the Biblical literalist's explanation for why only Matthew, and not any of the other Gospel writers, mentioned this spectacular event, and why no other contemporary non-Biblical source records it. I would have thought that if such an event occurred it would rate a mention from other writers, whether they believed it was due to the Christian god or some other unearthly power.

Source: Matthew 27

How do you reconcile this stance with 1 Peter 3:15?

(For those unfamiliar with the passage)

http://bible.cc/1_peter/3-15.htm

I was taught that Jesus was called the Lamb of God because he is the sacrifice for our atonement in the eyes of the Lord. This doesn't match the Old Testament descriptions, which are cited as prophecy of Jesus.

The sacrifice of the Lamb is to commemorate Passover, referring to the day the Jews painted their doors with a cross of lamb's blood to indicate to the Angel of Death that God's people dwelled there, telling him to pass over their house. It has nothing to do with Atonement.

Atonement in the Old Testament is linked to Yom Kippur, an event which takes place leter in the year. It is marked by the sacrifice of a bull and the transfer of the people's sins to the scapegoat - the people would lay hands upoon the goat, placing their sins upon it, and it would be sent out into the wilderness.

The book of Leviticus makes it quite clear that this ritual is "forever", not a temporary measure until the Messiah comes. So why does Christianity teach that the Messiah is the fulfillment and eternal replacement of the atonement ritual? Moreover, why does it teach that Jesus is the Lamb, when the lamb has nothing to do with atonement?

...than religious people. They very closely beat out Jews and Mormons, but surpassed all included forms of Christian. The questions ask general religious knowledge as well as the role of religion in public life.

According to the executive summary:

"This survey and previous Pew Forum studies have shown that Jews and atheists/agnostics have high levels of educational attainment on average, which partially explains their performance on the religious knowledge survey. However, even after controlling for levels of education and other key demographic traits (race, age, gender and region), significant differences in religious knowledge persist among adherents of various faith traditions.

"Atheists/agnostics, Jews and Mormons still have the highest levels of religious knowledge, followed by evangelical Protestants, then those whose religion is nothing in particular, mainline Protestants and Catholics. Atheists/agnostics and Jews stand out for high levels of knowledge about world religions other than Christianity, though they also score at or above the national average on questions about the Bible and Christianity.

"Holding demographic factors constant, evangelical Protestants outperform most groups (with the exceptions of Mormons and atheists/agnostics) on questions about the Bible and Christianity, but evangelicals fare less well compared with other groups on questions about world religions such as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism. Mormons are the highest-scoring group on questions about the Bible."

Source: http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-...

My question: What is your opinion on these differences? Does it reflect what you already believed, or does it surprise you? Knowing this now, do those of a religious persuasion feel the need to improve their knowledge?

What do you think about the historical evidence that Christianity allowed gay marriage up until the past few hundred years?

Quote:

"Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led scholars to believe they were lovers. The most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrdom describes them in New Testament Greek as "erastai,” or lovers. In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by early Christian church historians.

"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and ritual.

...

"While homosexuality was technically illegal under Roman civil law from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same-sex unions continued to take place.

"At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. "

http://www.colfaxrecord.com/detail/91430.html

Danish researchers used MRI to monitor the executive network - the part of the brain that monitors rationality and judgement. Decreases in executive function indicate increased suggestibility - in neurological and psychological terms, this is a hypnotic state, not to be confused with the fictional trance state you see depicted in movies and television programs.

The subjects were split into two groups: Secular and Christian. They were told they would be hearing three speakers reciting prayers. The first would be a secular speaker. The second would be a Christian. The third would be a Christian faith healer. The responses were as follows:

SECULAR SPEAKER

Secular group: No change in executive function

Christian group: No change in executive function

CHRISTIAN SPEAKER

Secular group: No change in executive function

Christian group: Decrease in executive function

CHRISTIAN FAITH HEALER

Secular group: No change in executive function

Christian group: Greater decrease of executive function

The Christian group also claimed that they couldn't feel the presence of God in the secular speaker's recital.

None of the subjects were informed that in fact none of the speakers were Christian - they were all atheists.

What conclusions do you draw from these results?

http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/...

Right from the beginning of Christianity there have been a variety of views on what being Christian means. Some saw Jesus as entirely allegorical, others took him as fact. Some thought he was entirely human, others thought he was entirely God, others still thought he was both man and God.

This variety of views persists today. My personal view is that if you don't accept Jesus as the Christ (a being whose purpose was to bring a message spiritual salvation to the people of Earth) you shouldn't call yourself a Christian. Others I know simply say following the positive aspects of the faith is all you require, whether you believe in the supernatural or not.

I'm wondering what the people of Y!A:R&S use as their basic definition of "Christian".

People like Matt Dillahunty, whose faith was destroyed by the study involved in becoming a minister?

http://www.atheist-experience.com/people/matt_dill...

...they've blasphemed against the Holy Spirit? As per matthew 12:31, blashphemy against the Holy Spirit is the one unforgivable sin (not pedophilia, not rape or muder - just this), meaning once someone has done this there's no point in trying to save them because they're irrevocably damned?

A factual example: I believe that the claim that Jesus healed people at ll, let alone through divine power, that he is the Son of God or God Incarnate, is total BS. Utter hogswash. I have thereby blasphemed against the Holy Spirit and so cannot be saved by any amount of preaching or proselytizing.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/04/09/vide...

Why is it secular institutions are lambasted for trying to keep discussions of evolution in science class and religion in theology/philosophy/comparative religion class, yet no-one gives a second thought when a proffesor in a religious learning institution is fired for voicing acceptance of the science?

http://teapartyjesus.tumblr.com/

It's a site that juxtaposes images of Jesus with quotes from prominent figures in the Tea Party movement.

Even after memos signed by then Cardinal Ratzinger (concerning the case of a priest who confessed to and was convicted of tying up and sexually abusing children) show that he was more concerned with the image of the Church than protecting those under the Church's care?

This particular priest confessed, was convicted, served three years and yet was stil allowed to be put in charge of children.

Article on how Ratzinger stalled the Canon trial of a priest already convicted of sexually abusing children:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/04/ap_e...

Translated text of the memo, clearly showing Ratzinger's primary concern was the image of the Church, not the safety of the flock:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8612596.stm

If one truly believes that the wages of sin is death, that going against God's word results in an eternity in hell, how does one rationalize the commission of sin? If you truly believe such a dire punishment awaits you, wouldn't you be too scared to slip?

To put it in perspective: If you knew you were being followed around by a sniper at all times, too skilled to ever be seen, who said "Sin and I shoot you", only those who truly want death would sin. The rest of us would be too scared to ever do anything we know the sniper would dislike. How can you have a 'heavenly sniper' ready to shoot your soul into Hell if you die in your sins, yet still sin?

That just doesn't make sense to me. It appears to be the behaviour of someone who doesn't truly believe they'll be punished, kind of like people who commit murder in death penalty states.

What's the rationalization behind this apparent contradiction?

Inspired by this question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aqe96...

Just thought I'd get a little more specific.

What if the Bible or Koran stated explicitly that you have no soul, there is no afterlife, and God did not interfere in the physical world? Would you still follow God's commandments?

"I would much rather be a rising ape than a falling angel."

~ Terry Pratchett

It's an argument none of the people in my social and family circles (be they Christian, atheist or anything else) takes seriously. They all see the major flaw: The fact that people of EVERY faith have died for their beliefs. For example, if "They died for it!" was a reliable indicator of veracity, wouldn't this mean that the 9/11 hijackers were evidence that their violent extremist interpretation of Islam was true?

...the children in this video have a stronger grasp of the basics of evolution than so many of the adult Creationists on Y!A:R&S?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMn4KsRXgGA

What social/cultural/religious factors are at play here?

...certain people who promote your stance use deception and manipulation to make their point? For example, this exchange from Ben Stein's movie "Expelled":

-------------------------------

STEIN: Well, then, WHO did create the heavens and the earth?

DAWKINS: Why do you use the word “who”? See, you immediately beg the question by using the word “who”

STEIN: Well, then, how did it get created?

DAWKINS: Umm, well, by a very slow process.

STEIN: Well, how did it start?

DAWKINS: NOBODY KNOWS HOW IT GOT STARTED. We know the kind of event that it MUST have been. We know the sort of event that MUST have happened for the origin of life.

STEIN: And what was that?

DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.

STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?

DAWKINS: I told you, WE DON’T KNOW

STEIN: So, you have NO idea HOW it started?

DAWKINS: No, no, nor has ANYBODY.

STEIN: Nor has anyone else. What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution.

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, by probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very very high level of technology, and DESIGNED a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's POSSIBLE that you might find EVIDENCE for that IF YOU LOOK at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a SIGNATURE of some sort of DESIGNER

STEIN NARRATION: Wait a second! Richard Dawkins thought that intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?

DAWKINS: Mm, and that DESIGNER could well be a higher INTELLIGENCE from elsewhere in the universe. That higher INTELLIGENCE would, itself, have HAD to have come about by some explicable, ultimately explicable, process. It COULDN’T have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That’s the point.

STEIN NARRATION: So, Professor Dawkins was NOT against intelligent design, just certain “TYPES” of designers… such as God.

--------------------------------------------------------------

It's clear that Dawkins is saying that if an intelligent designer exists,

a) It would have left evidence, even unintentionally, and

b) It does not automatically follow that should ID be true, it was therefore the deity you believe in.

Yet here Ben Stein's narration attempts to distract from these points to make it seem as though Dawkins both believes in ID and only accepts evolution to deny God!

How do deceptions such as this make you feel? How would you prefer your ID/Creation hypothesis be promoted?

In the beginning, God not only allowed but commanded many things that we today find morally repugnant. He ordered genocide, told his followers to take the wives and daughters of enemies as the victors' property (most often as slaves, wives and concubines, against the will of those subjuagted people), allowed for his followers to take the goods and welath of their enemies. Today we find these things to be entirely unethical.

Some say that it was right at the time, but if good is absolute then what is right now had to have been right in the past. Otherwise, morality is subjective, defined purely by the will of God and not by any eternal standard of good He holds.

Some say that making such changes to the primitive societies would be too big a change at once, aat which I must point out such things as dietary restrictions and circumcision. Vast portions of available food sources were made taboo to the Israelites, which is a massive cultural change. Imagine if today God commanded that all must live by a Vegan diet - that's the size of the change the Israelits underwent with their God-given dietary restrictions. And circumcision! Then entire nation had to begin removing a part of their bodies, a painful procedure made extremely dangerous by the lack of sanitation and medical knowledge of the time. This are enormous changes to a society's ways, yet God thought that saying "Slavery is bad," Genocide is wrong" or "It's bad to force the wives and daughters of the people you've killed to marry and have sex with you" was too much to expect?

How can the morality of God be absolute when it allowed such atrocities in the past while demanding scores of arbitrary, ethically neutral cultural changes? How is the morality commanded by God not relative when it seems to depend entirely on His whim?

How do you reconcile what is a clear example of Euthyphro's Dilemma?

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington is threatening to withdraw all of their social services programs in protest of a proposed same-sex marriage law. This law would not force them to perform gay ceremonies. It would not force them to accept homosexuals as part of their flock. So why are they protesting it?

Because their social service arms, which include shelters that house 1/3rd of the homeless in Washington, would not be allowed to refuse to give aid to homosexuals.

That's right. They're preparing to deny aid to roughly 70,000 people because they don't want gays to be among those helped. They have willingly and cheerfully given aid to multitudes of sinners in the past - alcoholics, spousal abusers, people who've been convicted of crimes ranging from theft to rape and murder - but have decided that it's going too far now that they have to include homosexuals among that number.

Spiritually speaking, do you believe this is the right thing to do? If so, why? If not, why not?