Religion

[Aislein]

I've...  Never actually met a person who assumes that being Christian means you're perfect.

 

 

I have, however, seen a large number of Christians who think that being Christian makes them perfect.  That could be why people assume you think that way.

I've met a few and trust me they aren't very nice people.

 

well those "christians" are idiots and not really christians because that's not what it says in the bible, in fact according to the bible nobody is perfect in the eyes of the lord and even though we've given our lives over to him WE STILL ARE GOING TO SCREW UP

 

I'm not attacking anyone I'm just stating my opinion

[KageSora]

That is true, and many of us understand that.

 

But I can also understand those people who think that way IF (and only if) their only experience with Christians are those who are Doing It Wrong. I mean, if you only have one sample to draw from, your possible conclusions are pretty limited, right?

 

But if they get to know other, decent Christians and are still thinking that way, they're just as wrong in their own right.

[potterwolf]

I'm a christian and the one thing I don't like is that if your a christian everyone automatically assumes your perfect and don't make mistakes which isn't true because I make lots of mistakes and he forgives me everytime I screw up, in fact my favorite christian bumper sticker says and if I remember it correctly "I'm not perfect, just saved".

I think what's probably going on is that people are more likely to judge you for making mistakes if you're christian because there's some sort of perceived moral 'standard' that christians are supposed to live by. If a christian does something wrong, people are liable to say "that wasn't very christian of you" or "you're not a good christian", whereas that doesn't happen so much to non-religious people.

 

I know that my Mormon friends have to suffer through a lot of people telling them that if they do something wrong they're being a bad Mormon. I think it's just easy to judge people when there's a clear notion that they're meant to be morally superior to the rest of society in some way.

[Aislein]

That is true, and many of us understand that.

 

But I can also understand those people who think that way IF (and only if) their only experience with Christians are those who are Doing It Wrong. I mean, if you only have one sample to draw from, your possible conclusions are pretty limited, right?

 

But if they get to know other, decent Christians and are still thinking that way, they're just as wrong in their own right.

I'm in complete agreement with you

 

another religion whose people I myself have had a bad experience with are catholics I'm sure they are nice catholics out there but the one catholic church I actually went near they were awful people they asked me if I was a christian and of course I answered yes and they told me to get the [blank] off of church property, I was never so shocked in my life

[KageSora]

another religion whose people I myself have had a bad experience with are catholics I'm sure they are nice catholics out there but the one catholic church I actually went near they were awful people they asked me if I was a christian and of course I answered yes and they told me to get the [blank] off of church property, I was never so shocked in my life

o_O But... But Catholics ARE Christian--Catholicism is a branch of Christianity. WTF?!

 

 

 

Also, figured I'd post this here. Curious for the takes others have on this (especially those with any knowledge of the Hebrew or Greek texts in the Bible and Jewish tradition, as I admit I know nothing of such things).

 

 

Linked for lots of text.

 

Post discussing the idea of homosexuality and the Bible. (Also, a small warning for language, discussion of sex in a non-graphic and historical/Biblical context, and some discussion of rape in a Biblical context.)

[NobleOwl]

Also, figured I'd post this here. Curious for the takes others have on this (especially those with any knowledge of the Hebrew or Greek texts in the Bible and Jewish tradition, as I admit I know nothing of such things).

 

 

Linked for lots of text.

 

Post discussing the idea of homosexuality and the Bible. (Also, a small warning for language, discussion of sex in a non-graphic and historical/Biblical context, and some discussion of rape in a Biblical context.)

*cracks knuckles*

 

Okay -- Middle Eastern hospitality crash course! Your duty as a host is to protect our guests, to offer them the best of everything you have. You even give up your own bed, your last food, your own life to protect your guests, because the climate was so dangerous.

 

Sodom and Gomorrah were notorious for not showing hospitality, thus sentencing people to death in the wilderness. Did they want to rape them? Yes. Did it have anything to do with homosexuality? No. It was a power play to run them out of town.

 

Ezekiel 16: 49 -- Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fulness of bread, and careless ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

 

They're right about Moloch and Asherah -- Levitical laws regarding sexuality refer to temple prostitutes or anal sex. Not all gay people have anal sex.

 

Their view on arsenkoitoi is very interesting, and accurate representation of Hebrew, most definitely. However, as a point, that has been translated in many different Bibles many different ways -- Martin Luther felt it referred to masturbation -- but linguistically, it most likely refers to married men who sleep with prostitutes -- all of those words prior in Greek, have some tie to sexual slavery. Might it be temple prostitution" Doubtful, it was never common in that area of the Empire, but possible.

 

I agree with most of the rest of it.

 

[Kestra15]

You can't definitely prove it either way. That said, the burden of proof is on the theists, not the atheists.

I would say the burden of proof really is on both sides of the argument.

[potterwolf]

I would say the burden of proof really is on both sides of the argument.

I think it depends on the way the issue comes up and the positions are stated.

 

If a theist says "God is real" and an atheist says "I don't believe you", the burden of proof is on the theist.

 

If an atheist says "God is not real" and a theist says "I don't believe you", the burden of proof would be on the atheist, but I don't think that situation occurs very often.

 

If a theist says "God is real" and and atheist replies by saying "No, he isn't", then both of them would have the burden of proof, because they're both making claims.

 

Right?

[Princess Artemis]

Yes, it's a public school. I forgot to say that I was also saying that it shouldn't be shown in school, because of religious messages.

If you are a US citizen, quick facts for you: Public schools are not there to insulate you from all religious thought. It is unconstitutional for the government to establish any official religion. Showing a comedy with watered-down "religious messages" such as Evan Almighty is so far away from establishing an official religion that it beggars my belief that you would believe they 'should not' show it in a school. It gives me the idea that you would think an art history course should not be taught in public school because they have "religious messages" all over in there. That Shakespeare should not be read in public school because there are "religious messages".

 

I think it depends on the way the issue comes up and the positions are stated.

 

If a theist says "God is real" and an atheist says "I don't believe you", the burden of proof is on the theist.

 

If an atheist says "God is not real" and a theist says "I don't believe you", the burden of proof would be on the atheist, but I don't think that situation occurs very often.

 

If a theist says "God is real" and and atheist replies by saying "No, he isn't", then both of them would have the burden of proof, because they're both making claims.

 

Right? 

 

That sounds like the long way of saying the burden of proof is really on both sides, as opposed to always on the theist.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[potterwolf]

If you are a US citizen, quick facts for you: Public schools are not there to insulate you from all religious thought. It is unconstitutional for the government to establish any official religion. Showing a comedy with watered-down "religious messages" such as Evan Almighty is so far away from establishing an official religion that it beggars my belief that you would believe they 'should not' show it in a school. It gives me the idea that you would think an art history course should not be taught in public school because they have "religious messages" all over in there. That Shakespeare should not be read in public school because there are "religious messages".

Um...the school probably wouldn't be legally required not to take them to the movie, but they probably could have made a smarter, more neutral decision. There had to have been other PG movies showing. Also, isn't it a slightly different situation with art and literature? Those are historically relevant. There're good, non-religious reasons to discuss art and literature that contains religious references. There's no good reason to show Evan Almighty when it might be sensitive to some people.

 

That sounds like the long way of saying the burden of proof is really on both sides, as opposed to always on the theist.

 

No. The atheist doesn't have the burden of proof unless they make the claim that God does not exist. Which a lot of atheists, like myself, would hesitate to do for that very reason. You can't prove that God doesn't exist. And I don't claim to know that he for sure doesn't exist. But I also don't share in the faith that he does. There's a difference between that and claiming that God for sure does not exist.

[Walker]

That being said, if you were old enough to express your distaste for the religious message, you were old enough to make the choice to opt out of the trip so you didn't have to go see a movie you thought was distasteful. Unless they didn't tell you what movie you were going to see beforehand or you were completely unaware about the premise of the movie before going to see it...

 

Most field trips are optional, not forced. Unless your parents made you go or something...

 

I also happen to agree about Princess Artemis on that facet of religion. When you're studying history, you can't ignore religion. You can't ignore how it shaped civilizations and led to certain events. How it STILL does that. It's just as important to know as anything else out there.

 

Also, I agree they shouldn't have butted into your conversation then. Still not of the opinion it's a movie worth the effort of getting worked up over but... *shrugs*

[Princess Artemis]

Just because it is "watered-down" doesn't mean it does not portray religion. Like I previously said I don't think it was right for me to have to sit through a religious movie.

I would not even have thought about art history and Shakespeare, nor do I know anything about them, because I am only going into 9th grade, so I have not had it yet.

You're going into 9th grade...so, basically, it's too late. You've already had a ton of subjects taught to you that contain religious messages. History, for one. And there is not a thing wrong with that, because you've had a whole bunch more that have contained a-religious and even anti-religious messages. You've been inundated with messages.

 

Wait, you've moved from saying that Evan Almighty contained religious massages to Evan Almighty is a religious movie? O_o It's a fictional movie set in a world where a god absolutely exists. That doesn't make it a religious movie. Bruce Almighty didn't portray any religion's god, and I'd be surprised if its sequel changed that. I've seen Happy Feet. It portrays a fictional religion.

 

Um...the school probably wouldn't be legally required not to take them to the movie, but they probably could have made a smarter, more neutral decision. There had to have been other PG movies showing. Also, isn't it a slightly different situation with art and literature? Those are historically relevant. There're good, non-religious reasons to discuss art and literature that contains religious references. There's no good reason to show Evan Almighty when it might be sensitive to some people.

 

They probably could have made a better choice, yes, but it wasn't wrong or immoral of them to chose it. After all, there are good, non-religious reasons to watch a comedy movie with religious references.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[potterwolf]

Bruce Almighty didn't portray any religion's god, and I'd be surprised if its sequel changed that.

I'm just going to point out that Evan Almighty is specifically about the story of Noah's Ark. It also contains references to specific Bible verses. So, it sort of does portray a specific religion.

[Princess Artemis]

I'm just going to point out that Evan Almighty is specifically about the story of Noah's Ark. It also contains references to specific Bible verses. So, it sort of does portray a specific religion.

Sounds more like it takes a story shared by many religions and makes a movie out of it. Or are you suggesting it is a Jewish comedy?

 

Makes me wonder if the Far Side comic where the dinosaurs forgot to get on the Ark is "religious" :/

Edited July 19, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[potterwolf]

Sounds more like it takes a story shared by many religions and makes a movie out of it. Or are you suggesting it is a Jewish comedy?

 

Makes me wonder if the Far Side comic where the dinosaurs forgot to get on the Ark is "religious" :/

...It's specifically about the Biblical version of the Noah/flood story. It has Bible verses. It's not about many religions. It's a somewhat clever, funny way of bringing a well-known Biblical story into the modern day.

 

...I don't even know what else to say.

[Princess Artemis]

So, you are saying that it is a Jewish comedy?

 

Anyhow, meant to add, I don't intend to belittle the offensiveness of some things. It would make more sense if this particular movie were offensive because it portrayed atheists badly or something like that.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[hazeh]

Just because it's about religion doesn't make it a religious movie. ._. Now I would understand if someone protested watching The Invention of Lying, since it's a direct blow to Christianity, but Evan Almighty is just taking a religious story and making it fun to watch. Nothing actually religious about it.

 

Wait, what religious story in Happy Feet? o_o

 

Also:

 

Perhaps someone can clarify for me? My moms both gave me different answers and my girlfriend did too.

 

My girlfriend is slightly naive when it comes to other faiths, and I believe is a little prejudice against Jews. Since I'm apparently "technically" Jewish due to my great grand mother being Jewish, and because one of my moms just finished her conversion (the rainwater bath was really something!) my girlfriend got a little weird about it. She said it was because the Jews killed Jesus.

But I always thought it was the Romans that killed Jesus. My mom who just converted said that too, but my other mom said it was the Jews.

 

...So who was it?!

[St. Jimmy]

Wait, wasn't Jesus a Jew? O_o

[prairiecrow]

Perhaps someone can clarify for me? My moms both gave me different answers and my girlfriend did too.

 

My girlfriend is slightly naive when it comes to other faiths, and I believe is a little prejudice against Jews. Since I'm apparently "technically" Jewish due to my great grand mother being Jewish, and because one of my moms just finished her conversion (the rainwater bath was really something!) my girlfriend got a little weird about it. She said it was because the Jews killed Jesus.

But I always thought it was the Romans that killed Jesus. My mom who just converted said that too, but my other mom said it was the Jews.

 

...So who was it?!

Jesus was a Jew, and the Romans pronounced sentence on him (for breaking Roman law) and carried out the execution.

 

The whole "Jews killed Jesus!" libel is just a miserable excuse for anti-Semitism, if you ask me. When someone brings it up I pretty much write them off as a bigot of the worst kind right then and there.

[hazeh]

I knew Jesus was Jewish, but from the viewpoint that the Jews killed Jesus it was supposed to be some giant betrayal on their part.

 

Yeah, I was pretty sure it was the Romans. I didn't understand how the Jews would have killed him. Thanks for letting me know!

 

[KageSora]

Wait, what religious story in Happy Feet? o_o

I do recall... What's the name... The Great 'Guin, IIRC? is like, the god of the penguins. When Mumble tries to explains about the "aliens" taking the fish, one of the elders rejects the idea of such as possibility because only the Great 'Guin has the power to take the fish away, just as the Great 'Guin is the one who gave them fish in the first place.

[Princess Artemis]

Just because it's about religion doesn't make it a religious movie. ._. Now I would understand if someone protested watching The Invention of Lying, since it's a direct blow to Christianity, but Evan Almighty is just taking a religious story and making it fun to watch. Nothing actually religious about it.

 

Wait, what religious story in Happy Feet? o_o

That's kinda what I was thinking.

 

I didn't say Happy Feet had a religious story, I said it had a fictional religion in it, since the complaint about Evan Almighty morphed from "it contains religious messages" to "it portrays a religion". There was a fictional religion in Happy Feet. Mumble went to see a guru at the suggestion of some of his new friends at one point; the guru claimed some mystical...somethings...had given him his necklace (which was really the plastic rings from a six-pack of soda).

 

Trying to find a movie that is religious-message free or that doesn't portray a religion is tough.

 

And yeah, Gentiles killed Jesus.

[potterwolf]

So, you are saying that it is a Jewish comedy?

 

Anyhow, meant to add, I don't intend to belittle the offensiveness of some things. It would make more sense if this particular movie were offensive because it portrayed atheists badly or something like that.

I don't know what you mean by "Jewish comedy". It's a comedic movie about a story from the religious text of Judaism/Christianity. Does that make it a Jewish comedy?

 

My girlfriend is slightly naive when it comes to other faiths, and I believe is a little prejudice against Jews. Since I'm apparently "technically" Jewish due to my great grand mother being Jewish, and because one of my moms just finished her conversion (the rainwater bath was really something!) my girlfriend got a little weird about it. She said it was because the Jews killed Jesus.

But I always thought it was the Romans that killed Jesus. My mom who just converted said that too, but my other mom said it was the Jews.

 

I don't really understand why people blame the Jews for killing Jesus for a couple reasons.

 

1. You can't blame Jewish people now for what a group of Jewish people may have done two thousand years ago.

2. Jesus' death and subsequent resurrection supposedly enabled the salvation of the world, so shouldn't Christians thank the Jews? Without the Jews killing Jesus, wouldn't everybody going to hell according to your doctrine anyway?

[Alpha1]

I knew Jesus was Jewish, but from the viewpoint that the Jews killed Jesus it was supposed to be some giant betrayal on their part.

 

The story goes that Caiaphas (Jewish high priest) turned Jesus over to Pilate. The authors made it look like Pilate was reluctant and that the blame was squarely on the Jews.

 

This is just part of it.

 

Matthew 27:22-26

 

Pilate responded, "Then what should I do with Jesus who is called the Messiah?" They shouted back, "Crucify him!"

 

"Why?" Pilate demanded. "What crime has he committed?" But the mob roared even louder, "Crucify him!"

 

Pilate saw that he wasn't getting anywhere and that a riot was developing. So he sent for a bowl of water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood. The responsibility is yours!"

 

And all the people yelled back, "We will take responsibility for his death--we and our children!"

 

[prairiecrow]

The story goes that Caiaphas (Jewish high priest) turned Jesus over to Pilate. The authors made it look like Pilate was reluctant and that the blame was squarely on the Jews.

 

This is just part of it.

 

Matthew 27:22-26

 

Pilate responded, "Then what should I do with Jesus who is called the Messiah?" They shouted back, "Crucify him!"

 

"Why?" Pilate demanded. "What crime has he committed?" But the mob roared even louder, "Crucify him!"

 

Pilate saw that he wasn't getting anywhere and that a riot was developing. So he sent for a bowl of water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood. The responsibility is yours!"

 

And all the people yelled back, "We will take responsibility for his death--we and our children!"

All of which sounds an awful lot like the anti-Jewish faction of Jesus' followers trying to smear the Jewish people LONG after the fact. (Don't forget that none of the Gospels were written, IIRC, much before 70 or so years after Jesus' supposed death.)

 

And doesn't this version of the "death of Jesus" story appear in only one of the Gospels?