A friend of mine says exactly the same thing, and this argument perplexes me to no end. You're talking about a relationship with God. The one in the bible. You follow, I assume, a system of belief. The one in the bible.* You are therefore religious, and follow a religion, by definition. If you want to make a distinction between organized religion vs. your own personal "take" on Christianity, so be it, but it seems to me that telling people "religion is bad, god is good" is just a convenient loophole you can use to distance yourself from all the horrible atrocities that have occured over history as a result of the belief in your god.

You should listen to your friend. Religion is simply the traditions of men. Christians worship God in spirit and in truth. Foremost, it is a personal relationship with God, and we have direct experience by the Holy Spirit, who dwells within us.

Hebrews 4:12

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

It isn't an institution we're following, or a set of rituals and regulations, but rather the experiential relationship we have with God through His word and Spirit.

* You cherry pick the things from the Bible you like, and discard those you don't, of course. And this is good, because otherwise you'd be executing your children for disobeying you and beating your slaves on a regular basis.

You assume I would do so, because you don't understand the bible. You're referring to the mosaic law, which were for Israel in that time and place. Jesus fulfilled the law and brought us under a New Covenant. There was a change of priesthood, and so christians follow the law of Christ.



>> ^offsetSammy:
>And no, I am not defending religion. Jesus hated religion. Christianity is a relationship with God, not attending church and saying grace.
A friend of mine says exactly the same thing, and this argument perplexes me to no end. You're talking about a relationship with God. The one in the bible. You follow, I assume, a system of belief. The one in the bible. You are therefore religious, and follow a religion, by definition. If you want to make a distinction between organized religion vs. your own personal "take" on Christianity, so be it, but it seems to me that telling people "religion is bad, god is good" is just a convenient loophole you can use to distance yourself from all the horrible atrocities that have occured over history as a result of the belief in your god.
You cherry pick the things from the Bible you like, and discard those you don't, of course. And this is good, because otherwise you'd be executing your children for disobeying you and beating your slaves on a regular basis.

Actually there is a whole wikipedia entry on Matthew 5:17 and the contention around it, so to say that there is no debate and never has been is clearly false. A quick google search shows that there's actually quite a bit of debate about it within the christian community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:17

Also from wikipedia:

---------------
New Covenant Theology is an Evangelical position,but within evangelicalism there are divergent views on a number of topics. One of those topics is how the salvation history fits together, and the relationship of the covenants within salvation history.
Some logical deductions of New Covenant Theologians and advocates have been that since "the whole Old Covenant is obsolete", "none of the commands of the Mosaic Law are binding on believers today." Covenant Theologians, on the other hand, believe that at least portions of the Old Testament law is binding on Christians, though there is some variation on which parts and how they apply.

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

Sure looks like there is some debate going on to me. This is hardly the only issue that is under contention in the christian faith.




>> ^shinyblurry:

That is plainly false, there is no such contention or contridiction. There may be Christians out there who aren't sure, but within the church there is no debate about it, nor has there ever been. The bible itself clarifies the issue, because there were many jews who still wanted to keep the law of Moses. Read Galatians for an overview. The verse you quoted is exactly right..Jesus did not destroy the law, but rather fulfilled it..the ceremonial requirements are no longer necessary in the era of the New Covenant, as this was given to the jews for the time prior to the coming of the Messiah. Jesus fulfills those obligations of the law, so by following Him, we are justified. >> ^LiquidDrift:
Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.
If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

That is plainly false, there is no such contention or contridiction. There may be Christians out there who aren't sure, but within the church there is no debate about it, nor has there ever been. The bible itself clarifies the issue, because there were many jews who still wanted to keep the law of Moses. Read Galatians for an overview. The verse you quoted is exactly right..Jesus did not destroy the law, but rather fulfilled it..the ceremonial requirements are no longer necessary in the era of the New Covenant, as this was given to the jews for the time prior to the coming of the Messiah. Jesus fulfills those obligations of the law, so by following Him, we are justified. >> ^LiquidDrift:
Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.
If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

>> ^messenger:
This raises more questions than it answers. There must be things that are sins, and things that aren't. How do we know?>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, this is something plainly spoken by Jesus and His disicples, as well as Paul and others. It isn't a list, but it does require an understanding of the mission of the Savior, the law, and the old and new covenants. Basically, when Jesus came He fulfilled the law in its entirety. When He went to the cross the law was nailed to it along with Him. Previously you could only receive forgiveness for sin by following the tenants of the law. Now Christians are justified by faith and not by the law, because Jesus has already made propitiation for all sin. We are merited by our faith in Him because it is through Him that we are forgiven, because of His substitutionary atonement.
The law was given to the jewish people to govern them in their covenant relationship with God. Jesus established a new covenant with the entire world, which is not by law but by grace. That anyone who believes in Him will have their sins forgiven and receive eternal life.
So, although Christians do not have a free pass to sin, we operate under the grace of God rather than the Mosaic law.

This raises more questions than it answers. There must be things that are sins, and things that aren't. How do we know?>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, this is something plainly spoken by Jesus and His disicples, as well as Paul and others. It isn't a list, but it does require an understanding of the mission of the Savior, the law, and the old and new covenants. Basically, when Jesus came He fulfilled the law in its entirety. When He went to the cross the law was nailed to it along with Him. Previously you could only receive forgiveness for sin by following the tenants of the law. Now Christians are justified by faith and not by the law, because Jesus has already made propitiation for all sin. We are merited by our faith in Him because it is through Him that we are forgiven, because of His substitutionary atonement.
The law was given to the jewish people to govern them in their covenant relationship with God. Jesus established a new covenant with the entire world, which is not by law but by grace. That anyone who believes in Him will have their sins forgiven and receive eternal life.
So, although Christians do not have a free pass to sin, we operate under the grace of God rather than the Mosaic law.

Well, this is something plainly spoken by Jesus and His disicples, as well as Paul and others. It isn't a list, but it does require an understanding of the mission of the Savior, the law, and the old and new covenants. Basically, when Jesus came He fulfilled the law in its entirety. When He went to the cross the law was nailed to it along with Him. Previously you could only receive forgiveness for sin by following the tenants of the law. Now Christians are justified by faith and not by the law, because Jesus has already made propitiation for all sin. We are merited by our faith in Him because it is through Him that we are forgiven, because of His substitutionary atonement.

The law was given to the jewish people to govern them in their covenant relationship with God. Jesus established a new covenant with the entire world, which is not by law but by grace. That anyone who believes in Him will have their sins forgiven and receive eternal life.

So, although Christians do not have a free pass to sin, we operate under the grace of God rather than the Mosaic law.


>> ^messenger:
Which parts of the bible do apply today?
How did you determine which parts of the bible apply today and which ones don't apply today? Is there a formula, or a list? Where did this list or formula come from?>> ^shinyblurry:
@messenger
It doesn't preach any of those things. Yes, I will admit male homosexuality was condemned under Mosaic law within the Hebrew society. That doesn't apply today. There is no sex outside of marriage condoned in the bible at all. All men are equal under God according to Jesus:
•There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)
Incest was rather unavoidable in the case of Adam and Eve and Noahs family. As far as women go, there isn't a single right that woman have today which is opposed in the bible. Although the bible does say that a woman should submit to their husband, that is between her and God, ie, it is her choice. It also says for the husband to love his wife like Christ loved the church. The bible absolutely does not condone the holocaust.

Human rights are the most well meaning of political machinations that the West uses to assert its dominance over the rest of the world. Based on Western ideals of politics, freedom and welfare it embodies the "we know best" attitude that kept colonialism alive for so long. Ignored locally, as witnessed by Australia's refugee policy, the USA's refusal to ratify the Social and Economic Rights Covenant and Geneva convention, it is used by Western powers both left and right to assert their interests in international relations. This was witnessed in Afghanistan where we saw ex-post facto arguments concerning women's "right" to education as defense for invasion, an excuse not used in any other patriarchal nations where there is not a national interest at stake, and Saddams' torture chambers, only to be occupied and used in the same albeit lesser manner by the Coalition of the Willing. Human rights are demanded by the populace but exploited by the powerful all under the pretense of spreading "freedom". However, this freedom is liberalism and with it comes all the pitfalls of liberalism.

Furthermore, to call them rights means that there must be someone you can appeal to when they are violated. As the video said, there are 26 million people in slavery. We know where most of them are yet do nothing to rectify the situation as they are in poor Eastern European and West African nations that have no profitable resource to entice the powers that be. Is the West not violating their human rights by not intervening when they have the capacity to do so? Are you not violating the human rights of starving people when you buy that 2nd television? The argument might be given that they are not within your jurisdiction. To that I say the declaration is UNIVERSAL. The obligation is also universal. Chances are that there are people in your very city that are going hungry, with no shelter. To what extent are you violating their human rights?

Another example of the Westernisation of the human rights regime is article 23 and 24 of the charter. 23:Everyone has the right to work, for equal pay, for just renumeration and join trade unions.
How often are these violated in nations that are the bastion of rights such as the USA and France? Women still get 75% of the pay FOR THE SAME JOB. This is hard to get your head around as it wont occur in the same workplace but read into it and you will find out it works.
24: Everyone has the right to paid leave.
USA .. no such right despite signing on. So, you are violating human rights. Furhtermore, how does an agrarian society conform to this type of system? How can there be paid leave when there is no wage system? This is further evidence of the Westernisation of the human rights system.

So, despite these criticisms human rights are crucially important to the wellbeing of millions of vulnerable populations. But don't for a second think that there is no work to be done nor is the concept anywhere close to a "truth" about the world. It is a Westernised, historically contingient set of principles that are only adhered to when it is convenient to the powers that be. Adherence to human rights can liberate many but also enslave.

Not true. Do what thou wilt is directly from the Book of the Law which Crowley wrote and which he said he received from a spirit, ie a demon..perhaps even from Satan himself.

As far as "true hearted" rebellion goes, Satan is the original rebel and all of this so-called freedom of thought is systemic from his desire to usurp Gods position and authority. It isnt at all restrictive to follow the moral law of God, its in fact the only real fredom, and its provided to liberate us from slavery to sin and to the devil. It's the forbidden fruit redux, where humanity is yet again not trusting God but seeking after the knowledge himself, which the devil happily provides, leading the children as the pied piper into the pits of hell.

Yes, not everyone fears God, but not everyone has the common sense not to stick their finger in an electric socket either. There is a concise explanation for sin, and accepting Christ isn't a license to sin. Disobedience to God is never a moot point, saved or not. This video is speaking to the heart of the deception, which is the satanic lie of "do your own thing". It's relative versus absolute truth. It's at the roots of this wicked and perverse generation, which rejects Gods moral authority and seeks only to glorify itself.

I have had personal experience with demons and demon possession, and know they are working to deceive every person about the truth; to lead people away from God. What the bible says about this world being under dominion of Satan is not an exaggeration..it is the horrifying truth of this place, that there is deception working against you on every conceivable level. It really comes down to what kind of person you are..if you are content with the lie, if it suits your moral character, if you love the world instead of the one who made it, then you have already earned your reward and will seek nothing further. Unless this wickedness offends you and unless you want something better, the lie will be all you see. Mick and all the rest of these delusionals are working to spread the satanic lie, many willingly and knowingly. Selling your soul in rock and roll isn't just a popular expression but a literal truth.



>> ^enoch:
crowley was a reknowned occultist and mystic.
he created his own tarot deck based on the egyptian god THOTH but he did not write the satanic bible,that was anton zandor levy a particularly self involved douchebag.
"do what thou whilt,may it harm none" is a wiccan edict drawn from the amalgamation of druidic,celtic and nordic theosophy and was adopted by crowley but was not created by him.wicca was brought to the states in 1952 by brent gardner from england and the secretive coven,which had remained so from the eyes of the church for years,ex-communicated him for his revealing of their ways.
i would not call the artist and musicians who balked at the churchs authoritarian ways as demonic philosophy but rather a true hearted rebellion against the stranglehold the church represented on many who may see things different.
not everyone is god-fearing and the church has never truly established a concise and singular explanation concerning original sin and even if it DID succeed in doing that,chirst died for the forgiveness of those sins.so the point is moot if you have accepted jesus as savior.
again i find videos such as these highly manipulative using imagery and cherry picked material to promote a narrative and for the layman this video may be seen as informative but it is more akin to propaganda meant to frighten those who may not know the facts.
be scared of mick jagger..booga booga!


>> ^enoch:
crowley was a reknowned occultist and mystic.
he created his own tarot deck based on the egyptian god THOTH but he did not write the satanic bible,that was anton zandor levy a particularly self involved douchebag.
"do what thou whilt,may it harm none" is a wiccan edict drawn from the amalgamation of druidic,celtic and nordic theosophy and was adopted by crowley but was not created by him.wicca was brought to the states in 1952 by brent gardner from england and the secretive coven,which had remained so from the eyes of the church for years,ex-communicated him for his revealing of their ways.
i would not call the artist and musicians who balked at the churchs authoritarian ways as demonic philosophy but rather a true hearted rebellion against the stranglehold the church represented on many who may see things different.
not everyone is god-fearing and the church has never truly established a concise and singular explanation concerning original sin and even if it DID succeed in doing that,chirst died for the forgiveness of those sins.so the point is moot if you have accepted jesus as savior.
again i find videos such as these highly manipulative using imagery and cherry picked material to promote a narrative and for the layman this video may be seen as informative but it is more akin to propaganda meant to frighten those who may not know the facts.
be scared of mick jagger..booga booga!

crowley was a reknowned occultist and mystic.
he created his own tarot deck based on the egyptian god THOTH but he did not write the satanic bible,that was anton zandor levy a particularly self involved douchebag.
"do what thou whilt,may it harm none" is a wiccan edict drawn from the amalgamation of druidic,celtic and nordic theosophy and was adopted by crowley but was not created by him.wicca was brought to the states in 1952 by brent gardner from england and the secretive coven,which had remained so from the eyes of the church for years,ex-communicated him for his revealing of their ways.

i would not call the artist and musicians who balked at the churchs authoritarian ways as demonic philosophy but rather a true hearted rebellion against the stranglehold the church represented on many who may see things different.
not everyone is god-fearing and the church has never truly established a concise and singular explanation concerning original sin and even if it DID succeed in doing that,chirst died for the forgiveness of those sins.so the point is moot if you have accepted jesus as savior.

again i find videos such as these highly manipulative using imagery and cherry picked material to promote a narrative and for the layman this video may be seen as informative but it is more akin to propaganda meant to frighten those who may not know the facts.

be scared of mick jagger..booga booga!

The thing is people belive in this dumb fuck mith that people with lots of money worked for that money.

they allso belive that fincail succsess is a skilled or something that good people achive , they are totaly ignorent to the fact that the biggest fincail rewards are for people that work out how to best Game the system not people that best contribute to socity.

the perpouse of money in our modern system is to allow for the ruling few to remain in absalut comfort and power , Not as a covenant bartering tool as it was intended.

>> ^peggedbea:

1. the lower income brackets DO pay something. sales tax, excise taxes, property taxes. and disproportionately so. the lower/middle income families spend a greater portion of their monthly incomes on taxable goods and services, where the higher income brackets have a higher rate of savings... they're saving a greater portion of their income, therefore not spending it on taxable goods and services.
states that have no state income tax (like texas) and rely solely on sales, excise and property taxes typically have a regressive taxation system... meaning the bulk of the burden of the state and municipal operating budgets are placed disproportionately on lower/middle income families.
2. i'm a working single mom with 2 kids. i work my ass off. i don't live beyond my means. i take care of my things. if a 15% flat tax rate were implemented guess who'd be (back) on government assistance??? i don't have 15% of my income left over at the end of the month. i typically can put 10-12% of my income back, split between a retirement account and a rainy day fund. a flat tax rate would create more problems than it would solve for the working poor with families to care for. and for 2 years i couldnt even dream of doing that. (i got laid off in 09 and JUST NOW got back to full time work that also pays a living wage)
>> ^bobknight33:
So is you issue with large corporations ( like GE ) not paying any tax due to loopholes or that their tax bracket is or is not high enough?
Would it not make since to cut all loopholes and give a relativity flat tax based on quarterly statements?
I agree with Qm The rich are pitching way more then anyone else. Still they stay filthy rich. But should they pay more? Should not the lower income bracket also pay something? If they would at least pay some tax they would have a better understanding of what is going on with respect to taxes.
Personally I would like a flat tax. I would even say ok to a excessive rate of 23% just to keep politicians from bitching and moaning that the children/ elderly will starve if we go to a flat tax.
Every thing I'm getting at is really for a smaller Government with a Keep it simple stupid mentality.
There is no reason for a person to spend 40 hours in figuring out their federal taxes each year.
And there is no reason for GE to post 14 Billion in profits (would wide) and not pay any taxes in the USA.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^quantumushroom:
The "evil rich" pay 38% of all taxes already. The 'bottom' 50% pay less than 2% of taxes yet slurp up plenty of government "services".
Dismissing the moral component for a moment, you could tax the rich at 99% and it wouldn't matter. There isn't enough money to cover a perpetually expanding government and the endless wants of the wish-to-haves.

You didn't define "evil rich", but the bottom 80% only control 15% of the wealth in this country, while the top 1% alone controls over 40% of the wealth.
I'd also disagree on who gets more out of government services. The rich mostly get their payoffs in the form of tax loopholes so they don't show up on lists of "government spending". For example, see how GE got $3.2 billion from the government for filing their taxes this year. That's a hell of a tax credit, and it doesn't show up in anyone's federal budget proposal!

>> ^Grimm:

>> ^Shepppard:
They actually forgot my favourite "One Liner"
It came from the episode where they tested out the ancient battery, The build team (Then Tori, Scottie, and Kari) made a replica of the ark of the covenant, and hooked it up to a car battery.
Adam went in and touched it, got zapped, and Kari just stood there and said "Do you feel god?"
I seem to remember that was one of the very few times were Adam was shown being very pissed off. I think there is video somewhere of him in a Q and A were he mentions the producer that had put them up to that prank had been fired.


I actually remember the episode well, All of the build team actually tried it out hooked up to the car battery and each basically said "That's WAY too dangerous" and agreed not to use it on Adam.. however, for some reason, they decided last minute to use the battery, and Adam even said "You didn't hook this up to a car battery, did you?", to which they all reply "Oh..no.. I wish we had thought of that".

So he touched it, got zapped hard, and he did get REALLY pissed off. It's just that he swears, backs away, glares at them all, and Kari just smiles and says "Do you feel god?"

He then reemed them all the hell out, but for that brief moment it was hilarious.

>> ^Shepppard:
They actually forgot my favourite "One Liner"
It came from the episode where they tested out the ancient battery, The build team (Then Tori, Scottie, and Kari) made a replica of the ark of the covenant, and hooked it up to a car battery.
Adam went in and touched it, got zapped, and Kari just stood there and said "Do you feel god?"


I seem to remember that was one of the very few times were Adam was shown being very pissed off. I think there is video somewhere of him in a Q and A were he mentions the producer that had put them up to that prank had been fired.

They actually forgot my favourite "One Liner"

It came from the episode where they tested out the ancient battery, The build team (Then Tori, Scottie, and Kari) made a replica of the ark of the covenant, and hooked it up to a car battery.

Adam went in and touched it, got zapped, and Kari just stood there and said "Do you feel god?"

[redacted]

"The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest." (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

I can't find the spot where it says they should be stoned to death at the moment. Is killing them enough to satisfy you?

>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
If all of your morality comes from the bible, why aren't you out stoning the cashiers who work at Wal-Mart on Sundays? That's what the bible tells you to do after all.
If you question it, or make up your own mind then your morality doesn't really come from the bible at all does it?

As Toshley said, that is a pretty poor attempt. I don't have the Bible memorized to know what quote or implied idea you are talking about, but I'm pretty sure cashiers were never intended to be stoned. Not to mention the complete difference in the old and new testaments.
I do, however, disagree with morality comes from God. Here are the two possibilities that seem plausible to me: Morality was an evolutionary occurrence, as in creatures and animals had to make decisions that would further them among a species. Naturally as animal societies grow more complex so do choices, and as such you often have a "moral" and "immoral" choice to make. The second one is that morality was a result of sin entering the world. Naturally, if sin had not entered the world all would be perfect, and as such no choices would need to be made because it would be the only instinctive choice. However, when sin corrupted the world it opened up the ability to make "immoral" choices.

In fact, I'm really interested to hear why you think the Bible "tells us" to stone Wal-Mart cashiers.