Soldato
That's the difference between drinking and been an alcoholic, am I missing something seems to be different to this.I can take a sip of whisky or drink a bottle. It is the same level of sin... So I might as well have the bottle!
That's the difference between drinking and been an alcoholic, am I missing something seems to be different to this.I can take a sip of whisky or drink a bottle. It is the same level of sin... So I might as well have the bottle!
after reading this thread im glad I don't let fairy tales decide what I can wear / eat / live / ect.
That said as I've posted before something that is intrinsically abhorrent to God doesn't suddenly become not so just because Jesus didn't command it. Also I see none of the love and light talked about by Jesus in any of God's work - when you boil it down everything is a means to an end and not for man's benefit.
after reading this thread im glad I don't let fairy tales decide what I can wear / eat / live / ect.
** not a dig at any one person , but until I see any proof ill continue to refer to religion as a fairly tale regardless of which religion it is. **
It's not picking and choosing pretty much all of the ot laws like Leviticus are explicitly referring to Jews.
The funny thing is when Christians think they apply to them.
There's only one commandment ever given by Christ
"Love one another as i have loved you"
Which means to have a divine love for each other not the previous human love.
Ie forgiveness turning the other cheek and not judging each other.
Something Christians near universally fail at.
That's the difference between drinking and been an alcoholic, am I missing something seems to be different to this.
So genius he thought "alternative therapy" for cancer was a good idea.
There's plenty of scope for argument about how much OT laws apply to Christians. For example, one verse in the NT has Jesus stating that every single one of the OT laws applies absolutely in every detail until the end of time.
So at one end there's the argument that all of them apply to Christians and at the other end there's the argument that none of them apply to Christians. Far more common is the argument that some of them apply and others don't. So I stand by my position that it's picking and choosing, a pick 'n' mix system.
Trivia...a typesetting error in a print run of the bible resulted in it containing a direct command from god stating that all married Christians should have sex with other people. Absolutely required, direct order from god. It caused quite a fuss at the time. But maybe that was the original order and the other version was a scribing error.
Why do you feel the need to refer to religion as a fairy tale?
Well the OT laws could apply till the end of time, still only affects the tribes of Israel
But there's the new covenant and stuff which is why Christians can eat anything
There's some theological dispute about that. Here, for example, is a christian website's brief summary of an answer to the question "Why don't Christians follow all the old testament laws?":
https://answersingenesis.org/christ...christians-follow-all-the-old-testament-laws/
I think there are 3 basic positions:
1) The new testament completely replaces the old one. A complete new covenant position - new deal with god, old one no longer applies at all.
2) The new replaces the old but there are unspecified universal bits that always apply.
3) The new replaces the old only when it specifically states that it does.
I don't think any christians go with (1), given how much of christianity is wholly or partly based on the old testament. It's an internally consistent position, but it removes loads of stuff from christianity. Most christians I've spoken with go with (2), which is by far the most "pick 'n' mix" approach because you have to choose which bits of the old still apply and which don't. (3) has much less wiggle room, although there's still some from interpreted new testament stuff.
I think this is why Jewish and Islamic people are much more strict in thier belive as they are required from a young age to actually read thier holy books and even memorize parts.
Most Christians have never read the bible and have no clue what's in it and instead operate on a weird cultural perception of Christianity.
I think this is why Jewish and Islamic people are much more strict in thier belive as they are required from a young age to actually read thier holy books and even memorize parts.
Most Christians just know fractured bits of
Earth made in 7 days
Noah
The nativity,
Feeding the 5000
Crucifixion
Rising again
And that's pretty kuch it with most of thier knowledge coming from film or tv or word of mouth.
It's incredible really that people can belive in what for them is as well known as old horse mythology
Exactly.Fair point, but I think that the difference isn't caused by reading and memorising because, as Rroff has pointed out, that isn't the same as understanding. Jews and Muslims are, essentially, still following what they're told by the religious authority figures who tell them what the words mean. I think that's the key difference - the amount of power held by religious authority figures.
Consider mid and high medieval England, for example. Very few Christians read their holy books because few people in England could read and even fewer could read Ecclesiastical Latin or Koine Greek (which all Christian holy books were written in at that time - other translations were illegal to the extent that making one could be punished by death) and were able to afford a bible. Yet many Christians were very devout and strict in their beliefs. The common factor is the power of the religious authority figures.
On a silly tangent...I think Christians today know a bit more about their religion than they know about horse mythology. Who knows what horses believe?
When we are dealing with the Abrahamic religions we are dealing with texts that assert that things like Genies, winged horses and witches exist so making analogies between religion and fairy tales does not seen that far off the mark
That wasn't the point of my question. ozaudio said "not a dig at any one person" and then proceeds to call religion a fairy tale. Why call it a fairy tale instead of the word "religion"? Why specifically choose not to use the actual name for something instead choosing to use the name for something else?
It's motive I was interested in rather than a basis for the statement.
So Jedi, sci-fi or religion?
Scientology, religion or sci-fi?
Scientology is clearly a cult. At least everyone agrees on who made it all up, so it's not all bad.
The only difference between a religion and a cult is the amount of power it has.
The only difference between sci-fi/fantasy and religion is how many people believe the stories are true. If it's not enough, then they are considered mentally ill. If it's enough, they are considered religious.
There is no difference at all between religion and fairy stories except for power. Although some fairy/fantasy/sci-fi stories are more plausible than religions.