Thank God this doesn't apply to the Catholic Church!

[mburbank]

Anti-War Sermon Brings IRS Warning
By Patricia Ward Biederman and Jason Felch
The Los Angeles Times

Monday 07 November 2005

All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena risks losing its tax-exempt status because of a former rector's remarks in 2004.

The Internal Revenue Service has warned one of Southern California's largest and most liberal churches that it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status because of an antiwar sermon two days before the 2004 presidential election.

Rector J. Edwin Bacon of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena told many congregants during morning services Sunday that a guest sermon by the church's former rector, the Rev. George F. Regas, on Oct. 31, 2004, had prompted a letter from the IRS.

In his sermon, Regas, who from the pulpit opposed both the Vietnam War and 1991's Gulf War, imagined Jesus participating in a political debate with then-candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry. Regas said that "good people of profound faith" could vote for either man, and did not tell parishioners whom to support.

But he criticized the war in Iraq, saying that Jesus would have told Bush, "Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster."

On June 9, the church received a letter from the IRS stating that "a reasonable belief exists that you may not be tax-exempt as a church ..." The federal tax code prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from intervening in political campaigns and elections.

The letter went on to say that "our concerns are based on a Nov. 1, 2004, newspaper article in the Los Angeles Times and a sermon presented at the All Saints Church discussed in the article."

The IRS cited The Times story's description of the sermon as a "searing indictment of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq" and noted that the sermon described "tax cuts as inimical to the values of Jesus."

[ziggytrix]

So the IRS can revoke tax-exempt status on the basis of a newspaper article? Fascinating.

[mburbank]

Only if it's a liberal church. Don't you understand the law at all?

[ziggytrix]

No don't. I went to some Methodist Church this morning to cast my vote in Texas elections. So strange.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Actually, a similar piece of legislation has been introduced by a Democrat in Congress that would do the same thing to Churches that speak out against abortion and gay marriage on the pulpit.

At least, that's what the little propaganda flyer in my Church said.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

p.s.-- Pope John Paul II opposed the war, too. >:

[ziggytrix]

So, what's the real deal here?

Fuck, it's not like the Churches are gonna all go bankrupt if they were taxed. Let them be taxed, all of them! Render unto Caeser, you hypocrites!!!

Maybe there can be provisions for poor churches, like we have for people who don't make enough money to be taxed, if we're really concerned with placing an unfair burden. But come on, Jesus is a pretty big business in America. How can the IRS establish which Churches are REALLY religious, as opposed to tax-sheltered PACs (now with flavored sacraments!) without violating the establishment clause themselves?

[Baalzamon]

All churches should be taxed, period.


Its absolute bullshit that that much money can flow through a religious institution 100% tax free.


If your not willing to tax churches, then me and all my athiest friends should be able to create a private club where we donate all of our money to write it off, and then keep it because we own the club.


I dont have a problem with giving individuals who want to donate money to a church the ability to write it off on their taxes, but the money should still be taxed eventually.

If people really like their church that much they will just donate more to make up for the tax. Free market for the WIN!!!!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

So should we tax non-profits?

A lot of money "flows" through those, too.

[ziggytrix]

If we were to start taxing Churches - which I feel I must point out is a hypothetical almost as ridiculous as the maximum occupancy of a nightclub for angels on the head of a pin - if we're taxing Churches, then I see no reason for any charitable donation to be a tax write-off either.

[kellychaos]

Perhaps someone should examine the beginning of this tax-exempt status. Was it because, in the early stages, the church honored the "separation of church and state" and, recently, are getting too politically involved? I would do this but I am too lazy.

[Immortal Goat]

We can't start taxing churches if we want to make any headway in the church and state issue. If the government were to start meddling in church affairs, then they could start meddling in national affairs, pressuring the government to make laws that benefit only them and.... wait a second...


>: FUCK >: That already happened, didn't it?

[Royal Tenenbaum]

So should we tax non-profits?

A lot of money "flows" through those, too.

I'd say that depends on what the non-profit is doing. If the non-profit is systematically discriminating against 50% of the population like the Catholic Church is, then, yes, we should tax non-profits. Churchs get away with breaking all sorts of equal opportunity laws etc. that no other groups could break. I just can't wait until someone sues the shit out of the Catholic Church and they win. It won't happen in God's own US of A but maybe it'll happen in Canada. I need to buy some champagne for that day, because I'll be celebrating along with many others who are sick and tired of religion and churches ruining the world.

[ziggytrix]

:lol Damn, and I thought I was disenchanted with organized religion!

I mean, sure it often serves to institutionalize faith, which should by it's very nature be personal. And sure, numerous religious authorities have abused their stations throughout history, but a case for religion ruining the world? That's a stretch.

Religious (or anti-religious in the case of China) intolerance is what ruins this world, IMO.

[FartinMowler]

In my area there are so many different kinds of churches I'm boggled to understand how someone chooses a church and why these grouping of cultist type people get special status. There is a Church in my area that has a three-car garage and the parking lot is empty most of the time. Could I buy a property and claim I'm the church of Blasphemy and live there and not pay taxes?

[Sethomas]

Umm. Who are these 50% against whom the Catholic Church discriminates?

[Big Papa Goat]

I'm assuming women, who aren't allowed to be priests

[Immortal Goat]

Women, and to a smaller perceentage, homosexuals.

[Big Papa Goat]

And to a larger percentage, heterosexuals
celibacy

[Immortal Goat]

Didn't think of that one. Touche'

[Sethomas]

Priesthood is a vocation, not a job. Women are allowed to become nuns if they wish to live a consecrated life, and they commonly receive paid positions within Church administration. So, you can argue the theological basis to the men-only-priesthood rule, but it's just as legal as a strip joint in terms of how they allocate their employment.

And at present, they don't discriminate in the least against homosexuals. There's paperwork in the mill arguing whether or not confessed homosexuals can become priests, but again that's a moot point.

[Big Papa Goat]

We can't start taxing churches if we want to make any headway in the church and state issue. If the government were to start meddling in church affairs, then they could start meddling in national affairs, pressuring the government to make laws that benefit only them and.... wait a second...


>: FUCK >: That already happened, didn't it?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v85/BigPapaGoat/graaave.jpg

PAGANS FOR SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

[Big Papa Goat]

fag

[El Blanco]

The other thing is that homosexuals aren't barred from the Church. The act is considered a sin, though.

But, the whole point of the mass is to acknowledge we are all sinners and we are trying to improve.

How can homosexuals be barred from the priesthood if no priests are supposed to be having sex?

[Spectre X]

How can homosexuals be barred from the priesthood if no priests are supposed to be having sex?


...


Brilliant!

[Big Papa Goat]

Wearing clothes woven of two fabrics is a sin too (leviticus 19:19)
Also, a woman must not wear the clothing of a man, nor a man the clothing of a women, for the LORD detests this (deuteronomy 22:5)
Women who get married without being virgins are to be stoned to death in front of their fathers houses (deuteronomy 22:20) and a man who sleeps with another mans wife is to be killed, as with the wife. (deuteronomy 22:21) If a man sleeps with a woman who is betrothed to be married, death to both, but if he rapes her, then death to him UNLESS the woman wasn't betrothed to be married, in which case the penalty for rape (read: the stealing of reproductive potential from the man [since men are the only ones who actually have reproductive/property rights] who is married/going to be married to the woman :biopolitics) the penalty will be a fine of fifty shekels of silver (approximately a kilogram) and must MARRY the woman and NEVER DIVORCE her. (deuteronomy 22:25-29) It's amazing how... we need a thread about biopolitics, but damned if I'm starting it =/

Homsexual relationships are to be punished with death (leviticus 20:13), and its interesting that it is originally mentioned between the prohibition against sacrificing babies to pagan gods and bestiality,(leviticus 18:21-23) so maybe its considered more serious then say, having sex with some non-blood relative. It's pretty much all death or exile in the punishments chapter, leviticus 20 though.

Bit of a tanget, but what I'm basically trying to say is that Christians seem kinda choosy about their obeying of Mosaic law, and not just the silly rules about shellfish and pork.

So anyway, don't tax non-commercial institutions like churches. It's a dumb idea, churches aren't there to make money, and as for revoking their tax exempt status because of political involvment, they're an important part of a pluralist democracy and shouldn't be supressed. I don't think its neccesarily that bad a thing for priests to be politicking from the pulpit, it's a good way for an ethical perspective to get some influence on political agendas. Even if they don't have perfectly consistent morality, they are still entitled to express their values in the public sphere, like anyone else. Thats what politics, and democratic politics is about. Ya, people trying to get laws passed to "benefit" them. Democracy.

[kellychaos]

I saw a Crusades documentary on the History Channel over the weekend. I found it very interesting that a number of modern banking practices were derived from the "protection" services offered by Templar knights to the pilgrims. :lol

[KevinTheOmnivore]

So anyway, don't tax non-commercial institutions like churches. It's a dumb idea, churches aren't there to make money, and as for revoking their tax exempt status because of political involvment, they're an important part of a pluralist democracy and shouldn't be supressed. I don't think its neccesarily that bad a thing for priests to be politicking from the pulpit, it's a good way for an ethical perspective to get some influence on political agendas. Even if they don't have perfectly consistent morality, they are still entitled to express their values in the public sphere, like anyone else. Thats what politics, and democratic politics is about. Ya, people trying to get laws passed to "benefit" them. Democracy.

Good point, and for that matter, who is the preacher really going to be converting anyway? I mean, ya know where the old saying of preaching to the choir comes from, right?

[kahljorn]

People in a religious atmosphere are more likely to adopt opinions they don't understand or believe in it. It's sort of like a, "if you vote for bush you'll go to hell" or, "If you don't vote for bush you'll go to hell" type of thing. Church and state should remain as far seperate as possible for this reason. Political psuedo-apathy is what makes a "Church" different from a "Cult".

[kellychaos]

Lobbying Activity

In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.
Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.

An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

Measuring Lobbying Activity: Substantial Part Test

Whether an organization’s attempts to influence legislation constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.

Under the substantial part test, an organization that conducts excessive lobbying activity in any taxable year may lose its tax-exempt status, resulting in all of its income being subject to tax. In addition, a religious organization is subject to an excise tax equal to five percent of its lobbying expenditures for the year in which it ceases to qualify for exemption.

Further, a tax equal to five percent of the lobbying expenditures for the year may be imposed against organization managers, jointly and severally, who agree to the making of such expenditures knowing that the expenditures would likely result in the loss of tax-exempt status.

LINKY (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=120703,00.html)

[KevinTheOmnivore]

"Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status."

This is what many, many non-profit organizations do to dance around the "L" word. It would apply to churches, too.

[Sethomas]

I made a thread about the Crusades special, but they didn't talk about the Templar banking system. At any rate, the Templar attribution of "inventing" banking is largely exaggerated, since they didn't do anything the Jews weren't doing already. Jews were the de facto bankers since charging interest on loans was condemned by the Church, but it was popular from the consumer side through the Middle Ages regardless. As I understand the Templars just charged interest on currency exchange, which was legal for Christians. As far as their raking in the cash from protection money, that was legitimate so far as it wasn't abused. I don't know of any abuse that occurred until the time of Baldwin IV, and that was all targeted against the infidel anyways.

[Big Papa Goat]

People in a religious atmosphere are more likely to adopt opinions they don't understand or believe in it. It's sort of like a, "if you vote for bush you'll go to hell" or, "If you don't vote for bush you'll go to hell" type of thing. Church and state should remain as far seperate as possible for this reason. Political psuedo-apathy is what makes a "Church" different from a "Cult".

People always have a limited understanding of political issues. And are you saying that cults are political and churches aren't? I don't get it. Heavens Gate wasn't really political, and the catholic church is. I can't really think of a politically active group thats really been called a cult actually.

I guess that it's reasonable that if churches should be treated like interest groups in terms of their right to participate in politics, that they should be treated the same as interest groups in terms of taxation.

[kellychaos]

Examine the definition on "education" versus "lobbying", n'est-ce pas? Arrive at something definitive and apply harshly to deserving examples while taking no prisoners. The laws are akready in place. It's just a matter of application/execution. What (votes?) or who are they are they afraid of?

I'm truly tired of a few well-organized, yet small, religious groups speaking for the masses in annoying "form letter wars" to politicians, newspapers/radio managers and their advertising customers, ect in an attempt to speak for us all.

Sadly, I agree with the anti-war/Bush sentiment. I don't; however, agree with the method.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'm not really sure what the heck you're saying.

People go to church for education, inspiration, direction, and guidance. To you they're a small minority, but that's what the Left has tried to say about the Christian Right in general. The Christian Right didn't all by themselves give the Republicans control of Congress. Voters had a bit of a part in that.

If your point is that people are sheeple because they listen to their priest, well, then end of discussion.

Regardless-- I don't think political discussion on the pulpit is in violation of the law.

[Preechr]

I think we should have government agents sitting in every church service whenever they happen. When I invite assorted neighborhood rednecks over to my front porch for beers on random nights, the subject of religion invariably arises and I have heard it said more than once that the Bible clearly states that whenever two or more people discuss God, that is church, so I'm figuring my plan will require something in the order of 1984 but with kick ass UAV drones and spy satellites.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I thought there were UAV drones in 1984. :(

[Sethomas]

Probably more like Fahrenheit 451 :/

[ziggytrix]

Regardless-- I don't think political discussion on the pulpit is in violation of the law.

"An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation. "

So, hypothetically, if a priest says "it is sinful to vote pro-choice" he's not "advocating the adoption or rejection of legislation"?

I would disagree.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The federal government legislates on everything. Resoutions are passed in order to recognize the signifigance of humming birds in Southern Virginia.

I could say to you "Ziggy, this town's night life fucking sucks," and it could be in conflict with federal legislation.

While necessary, many laws regarding lobbying are silly. My friend has to put a little disclaimer at the end of every e-mail he sneds me, basically stating that he isn't trying to influence legislation or "lobby" me in any way.

[Big Papa Goat]

legal positivism is fuggin dumb anyway
just because some 'legislater' said so, doesn't make it the law :rolleyes
plus, that legislation is only there to define lobbying, which is emphatically not against hte law, and if the government wants to call a politically active chuch a lobbying group and tax them accordingly, (taxing the expenditures used for the purposes of lobbying only, if I read that legislation correctly, and on a basic level, it doesn't cost much for a priest to talk to his congregation, so the taxation on that might not be an issue at all anyway) but just because a church is doing these things and is not being taxed doesn't mean its in violation of the law, it just means the law is failing to be fully applied. Basically, there's nothing saying that it is against the law for a priest to tell people how to vote.

[kellychaos]

Agreed. The law isn't properly enforced ... but why and by whose leave?

[ziggytrix]

I don't really take issue with it, Kevin. But if they're going to take away one Church's tax exempt status for putting politics in their religion, then they need to do it to ALL of them.

Tax em all, or tax none of them. I don't give a damn which, personally.

[Sethomas]

What about Scientology?

[kahljorn]

Religious people act like their political feelings are dictated from the outside, while cultists feel their opinions come from the inside. Inspiration versus mere belief.

[neojester12]

What we have to keep in mind through ALL of this is that Bible wasn't written by god/jesus/holy spirit. It was infact written by man.

White men.

White married men.

Probably racist white married men

Probably homophobic, racist, white, married men.

I do truly belive, that because God is pure love, and because she was persucuted against, she represents who is persucuted today:
a black lesbian. Truly. I think God is a black lesbian.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

:suicide

[Royal Tenenbaum]

"White men. "

yeah, no, you're retarded. it was in fact written by jews and potentially arabs. the bible was later edited into what it is by white men in the catholic church, but almost none of the bible, if not none of it, was written by "whites." jesus wasn't white either. fuck people are stupid.

[kellychaos]

this thread had such potential :/

[El Blanco]

"White men. "

yeah, no, you're retarded. it was in fact written by jews and potentially arabs. the bible was later edited into what it is by white men in the catholic church, but almost none of the bible, if not none of it, was written by "whites." jesus wasn't white either. fuck people are stupid.

psst. King James wasn't Catholic.

[kahljorn]

the reason I make the comparison between churchs and cults is because I've met cultists, they have a bit of crazy in their eyes and they believe nonsense. Whether it's political or religious nonsense, they somehow manage to grasp onto it no matter how ridiculous it is and believe it. I think it's because they have such a personal connection with it, it all seems to make them feel special; like they are a part of something important by obeying some crazy idea(the attraction i think is how 'complete' it is, like a 101 ways to get to heaven type thing.. the wholesome and successful by God's will feeling is probably what drives them).
That's why I think politics and religion should stay seperate, to keep that "Special" feeling away. That association with a life-style of perfection(politically, religiously, spiritually, morally and physically). Personally, I find religious stupors much more comfortable than enlightened obsession in those cases. I actually find religion to be quite successful in the fact that while it may create dogmatists, it rarily creates a full-blown zealot.

this one lady i met who was an ex-cultist was nuts. She's obsessed with my girlfriend and stalked her, including getting a job at the same place as her and going to her favorite bars. She was apparantly now some kind of S&M freak instead of a cultist, and would tie herself up next to my girlfriend in social situations so she'd dominate her or something. Scary :(
Which brings up another point: People who practice S&M(for the most part) are disgusting sick motherfuckers, and if being tied up alot can create those kinds of personalities and attract crazy ass cultists than I fear it. Avoid it like the plague, their 'community' is disgusting. Filled with the seven sins.

[Royal Tenenbaum]

"White men. "

yeah, no, you're retarded. it was in fact written by jews and potentially arabs. the bible was later edited into what it is by white men in the catholic church, but almost none of the bible, if not none of it, was written by "whites." jesus wasn't white either. fuck people are stupid.

psst. King James wasn't Catholic.

psst. He just edited a version of the Bible. The New Testament existed long before he did, and the Catholic Church had a hand in it.

[Sethomas]

All the books of the NT were written by individuals. What the Catholic Church did was sort through a huge collection of books and decided which ones were canonical.

[kellychaos]

For our own good, of course.

Keep drinkin' the kool-aid, people. :lol

[Spectre X]

It was Flavor-Aid. Geez.

[Royal Tenenbaum]

All the books of the NT were written by individuals. What the Catholic Church did was sort through a huge collection of books and decided which ones were canonical.

That was my point. Shouldn't the fact God wrote all those books through people make them all canonical? No, becuase religion is a stupid shame.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

It's a good thing we have Royal here to clarify things for us. Hey, what's your take on peace in the Middle East? How about ending poverty? The world needs you, man!

[Spectre X]

I think Royal is okay. You just need to ignore some of the dumb things he says, much like how you would do with most people you know.

[Big Papa Goat]

You just need to ignore some of the dumb things he says, much like how you would do with most people you know.
I for one never ignore dumb things anyone I know says.

All the books of the NT were written by individuals. What the Catholic Church did was sort through a huge collection of books and decided which ones were canonical.

That was my point. Shouldn't the fact God wrote all those books through people make them all canonical? No, becuase religion is a stupid shame.

If God saw to it that the books were written, I think the argument would go that he wouldn't let them go uncanonized, or allow some other nonsense to be written in His name.
What a shame that there are so many other supposedly canonical writings of other religions, all written in the name of God. Although other then the Koran, there aren't really alot that aren't widely considered to be crazy.

[Spectre X]

I guess I worded that very badly.

Let's pretend I just said "You just have to ignore some of the stupid things he says."

[Royal Tenenbaum]

"Hey, what's your take on peace in the Middle East? How about ending poverty?"

Easy. Cut taxes. And cut taxes.

[kahljorn]

The sad thing about this topic is that the seperation of church failed, and they are coddling eachother lovingly. There's plenty of this around(marriage laws) and if you look at the election process you can see a few more bouts of pre-marital sex.
During the election process you are generally bound to see two extremely religious people(and I use that brief description with as much infelicity as possible) facing eachother, one saying the other's not religious because he supports unreligious things, and another supporting them to impress people.
You're also bound to see media coverage of one of them being ousted by the church. How will this effect elections? Why should it under seperation of church and state?

And as a brief side-note: The occurance of these things may arise because of democracy. In it's very nature the Government is the 'people', even if they are a bunch of delusional religious nuts. The nature of the world seems to latch onto religion in it's natural state.
Which makes you wonder, how much progress has humanity really made that it's still in a delusional fixation?

[Royal Tenenbaum]

"The nature of the world seems to latch onto religion in it's natural state. "

That's because people are weak. They will grab onto whatever fairy tales make them feel better and quell the pain of reality.

[kahljorn]

I guess so. The more you involve politics into the matter, the more debased it gets.
Also, I might add, religion is actually a good thing. It's just not practiced.

[Big Papa Goat]

Seperation of church and state is incoherent anyway, since liberalism and rationality are just as much religions as religions are.

[kahljorn]

I don't think religions are very religious at all, so I can see your point.

[kellychaos]

This thread has reached am impass. Who amongst you can save it?! :eek

[sadie]

I don't think religions are very religious at all, so I can see your point.
to me, "religion" signifies more the rules and rituals associated with belief in a higher power, so religions are very religious. and i suppose what you are referring to, i would call "spiritual."

[kellychaos]

comfort in dogma?

[sadie]

just saying.

[kahljorn]

When was the last time you saw a christian loving everybody, or giving a helping hand like jesus would? Remember, the word christian means "Christ-like". What more is there? If religion is a lifestyle, the lifestyles are clearly bullshit, underlined by the fact that they don't generally follow their religion.
However, I'm only talking about western religion. I really can't formulate an opinion on the lifestyles of muslims or jews, though the few muslims I've met were awesome.

*edit* I just want to emphacize that I'm talking mostly about western religion.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

When was the last time you saw a christian loving everybody, or giving a helping hand like jesus would?

yesterday.


Remember, the word christian means "Christ-like". What more is there? If religion is a lifestyle, the lifestyles are clearly bullshit, underlined by the fact that they don't generally follow their religion.

You have an incredibly jaded and dogmatic view of Christians.

[kellychaos]

What is your modern observations of "christians" lately:

People who are accepting, loving and "Christ-like".

or

Pious, close-minded, cliquey assholes who are as diametrically opposed to anything Christian values represent

in an ideal world, right?

[kahljorn]

"yesterday. "

Maybe I should've said: When was the last time you saw Christianity as the mass religion it is dolling out help to mankind? What percentage of christianity do you think is christ like?

My views on christianity are jaded? I don't hate them or even have any dislike for them, I just happen to know that the lifestyle they are supposed to acheive isn't acheived by them in their lifetime(or even really strived for). If you want to argue that maybe we should continue this conversation in one of the iraq war threads.
Are you seriously arguing that all, or even a majority(even a handful), of christians are capable of living up to the standards they set for everyone else?
Besides, there's plenty of other ignorant western religions, and plenty of people in eastern countries that follow a religion but aren't religious. What is your definition of religious? Tea time with the Engles?
Religion is supposed to have some kind of purpose(if not, than what's the point?), and that purpose isn't supposed to be to destroy and spite everything around us(although I'm sure there's a few religions that teach that).
People acting like the church isn't corrupt is kind of funny though, kevin, I'll give you that. Also, thinking that the corrupt nature of the church and Worshipping god are somehow the same practice is inherently flawed and pointless. Maybe being religious is being a corrupt asshole who can throw entire countries into a rage just by saying some other country doubts their belief? That's a great quality to strive to and hold to be true to god's name!

If you want to turn this into a cultural debate and argue what role, if any, religion serves(under god of course) and if religion(or christianity) is achieving that role, let's do it.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You described a "Christ-like" act as "loving everybody, or giving a helping hand like jesus would."

Do you think Christians across this country, every day, don't spend countless hours helping the homeless, the poor, and hte needy?

" If religion is a lifestyle, the lifestyles are clearly bullshit, underlined by the fact that they don't generally follow their religion."

What would qualify as compliance with one's religion? Are you sure it isn't your definition rather than the Bible's???

[kahljorn]

"Do you think Christians across this country, every day, don't spend countless hours helping the homeless, the poor, and hte needy? "

Again, is this the vast majority, or a small handful? Because I can tell you a few things right off the bat before we debate stupid topics like this: No matter what the topic, if it's about people there's always going to be some anomaly. In this case it's a matter of good people being everywhere, not a matter of all christians being good people. You act like I said everybody who's a member of the christian religion is a serial killer.

"What would qualify as compliance with one's religion? Are you sure it isn't your definition rather than the Bible's???"

Clearly if your religion is "Christianity" and Christian means to be christ-like then ham sandwich, right? Of all people Sadie should know this since the suffix IAN means, "Of, relating to, or resembling".
If it was compliance with the bible, then we would be taking into account all the rules. The ten commandments? Seven deadly sins(those aren't actually in the bible, though)? Do you want me to start naming off examples of people who have broken these? If it's about anything beyond that, than that is the topic I am discussing.

My question is: If the job of Christianity was to teach you how to be a certain person, what kind of person does it create, and is that creation exempliary of the Religion's mold?
If we're just talking about believing in god, than whooptifuckingdoo. I'll have you know, if that's the point you're trying to make I'll be disappointed in you.
If it's about worshipping god, than what better way to worship God than to follow the guidelines he set for you? Yea, we'll sing to him! that will make him forget about all the times I pissed on his shoes. It says that in the bible 482075 times: Sing praises to my name and piss upon my shoe. You know that's really just an old joke about them carving urinals in the figure of jesus christ, though.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You're right about one thing-- this is a stupid discussion, and it will go nowhere.

[kahljorn]

I'm pretty sure that could be said for 99.95% of the threads on this board, though. I doubt petty squabbling on a message board will cure world hunger.

[kellychaos]

I just hate the hypocrisy. Certainly, it would be impossible to emulate Christ and to follow all the rules but, at the same time, I can't tolerate those that don't and piously pretend they do ... you know, a little humility ... and I'm not talking the Falwell type after you've been caught red-handed ... so to speak.

[kahljorn]

Most christians don't even try to be christ-like. If you tell a christian the goal of the christian teachings is to become like jesus, they'll call you a blasphemer(This is from experience with people of distinct character, so I'm sure some would say 'damn right' or something of the sorts). They've deified it all to the point of lazyness and filth. They use God and Jesus as a weakness, a crutch, to satisfy their gluttonous ways. That's why I was saying they weren't religious.

Basically, they don't even try. It's like calling yourself a farmer, but you never grow any crops. I'd like to see you become spiritually rich in that sense. [/simpleexplanation]

And for sadie who may respond with "Spiritual and religious are different".. sure they are. But the goal of religion is to make people spiritual.[/i]

[ItalianStereotype]

make sweeping generalizations much, kahl?

I've always wondered why non-Christians feel the need to criticize Christians so heavily. if you don't want in the treehouse, fine, but stop throwing mudballs at us.

[ziggytrix]

You'll find that vocal critics of Christianity tend to be jilted former Christians, or people who have been harrassed by Christians.

It's kinda like anything else. A few assholes create a negative association for a whole group.

[kellychaos]

os simply, observers of society ... pick up a paper .. whatever

[kahljorn]

I wasn't criticizing christians, this is a topic of discussion right? Not a topic of personal opinion throwmybeliefsintotheblederism. I was criticizing the rat bastards who call themselves christians. I consider myself a christian in many ways, so fuck off the gravy train cocksucker. Just because I'm able to talk about something from a non-discriminatory view doesn't mean I'm actually discriminate towards it. If you want to pretend like the christian religion is doing the world alot of good, go the fuck ahead, but while that's happening think of the bastardizations that have occured because of it. If I actually have to discuss them, I may feel disgusted by you.

This behavior is exactly what I'm talking about, though, the people within a religion who are afraid to take responsibility for what other people do within it. Don't you have some kind of responsibility to make yourselves look good? Part of that might be accepting the bad and not hiding in lala pretend land. Pretending problems aren't there generally doesn't help, or haven't you learned that moral from fairy tales and after-school specials. If you want to fix a problem, you need to accept it's there. Hell, as a decent human being who's not a moron and an adult you should learn to accept it's there. Then maybe you can begin to improve things.
If you were religious that would be part of how you feel; but instead you consider it more like your favorite band or something: "Hey man, don't talk shit on Korn, they are my favorite band and you know what they try really hard to put out quality artistic music for our enjoyment okay and hey I wear the spiked necklace because it's a representation of my personality not to look cool or something....
P.S. Jocks suck"
Grow up, venerable fuckface.

There's been multiple occasions where I've defended christianity on this message board, from an actual scriptural stance, which for whatever reason none of the "Real christians" who were taking part couldn't muster up. So leave me alone, my opinions are obviously based on some kind of factual event.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

It's kinda like anything else. A few assholes create a negative association for a whole group.

Which I think sums up the problem with this discussion in a nutshell.

[kahljorn]

"also the only reason korn sucks is because people always talk shit on them and you know what it brings them down and it brings their fans down. My rock solid faith in the musical talents of korn is being moved by some jerk insulting me on the internet. Also, I won't discuss the fact that korn fans call themselves, "Maggots". So what, we like a little degradation, we like to be dirty. Our Sub-culture is so perfect nothing you say can change that! I throwup in my mother's panty drawer because I'm a rebel and I've detached from all that oral shit and I've proved it by vomiting her breastmilk out. Now I just fuck that's all we need is fucking, and making ourselves feel good. Fuck the music man, that's all I want. I want to feel goooooood."

the end.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I was criticizing the rat bastards who call themselves christians.

Which you insinuated as being 99.99% of Christians.

[ItalianStereotype]

This behavior is exactly what I'm talking about, though, the people within a religion who are afraid to take responsibility for what other people do within it. Don't you have some kind of responsibility to make yourselves look good? Part of that might be accepting the bad and not hiding in lala pretend land. Pretending problems aren't there generally doesn't help, or haven't you learned that moral from fairy tales and after-school specials. If you want to fix a problem, you need to accept it's there. Hell, as a decent human being who's not a moron and an adult you should learn to accept it's there. Then maybe you can begin to improve things.
If you were religious that would be part of how you feel; but instead you consider it more like your favorite band or something: "Hey man, don't talk shit on Korn, they are my favorite band and you know what they try really hard to put out quality artistic music for our enjoyment okay and hey I wear the spiked necklace because it's a representation of my personality not to look cool or something....
P.S. Jocks suck"
Grow up, venerable fuckface.

uh, so basically, ANSWER THE QUESTION

am I right?

:oao

[kahljorn]

I thought I said 99.95%. I don't know why you guys act like my numbers are correct, do you think I ran a poll or something? If it's not clear that I'm making up bullshit numbers to express the magnitude of something(and it is a magnitude) I suggest some kind of common sense meter being built into your computer. How many christians do you actually consider christ like? How many of them do you daily call a "Good reflection of jesus christ and his eternal soul". I'd say, for how many christians are actually christ-like, that's a decent estimation. Maybe knock it down a knotch or two. What do you think a good number would be for the number of Sons of God on this message board? How about on this planet?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I know many, many Christians who devote their entire lives to being "Christ like." They live below poverty in orderto be "Christ like."

And even if they didn't, so what? Your problem is that every outspoken Christian is Pat Robertson to you. When you see the word "Christian" you see in your head an old man in a suit banging his secretary on a desk over a few lines of cocaine. THAT is the anomaly, not the other way around.

Plus, your argument that people aren't really practicing Christians because they aren't like Christ tells me that you lack a fundamental understanding of Christianity. There can't be redemption without fucking up. Church isn't a place for saints, it's a place for sinners. And according to God, that's all of us.

[kahljorn]

Yea, well I did just talk about "Accepting problems" didn't i? That's what i was talking about, people who know they live in sin but do nothing productive to help it. "Oh, hey, I sin, I'll repent and pray, god will forgive me and i won't have to do anything". I think repentance might have a little to do with the progressive act of trying to make yourself a better person. But hey, what do i know. I'm the type who makes empty apologies to God.

In one of my previous posts I called myself a christian. So obviously I don't have some kind of presdisposition. Somehow it remains impossible for you to discuss the bad things of a religion(or anything else you favor) without it being discriminatory. So like i said: Fuck off the gravy train. I'm one of you guys.

While alot may try, not many actually attain any useful state. I never said that was a damnable sinful bad thing(unless to note their own beliefs), but I didn't say it was a good thing either. Quit playing the, "We christians are insulted all the time but we're not all bad" card, it's so lame. Nobody fucking cares, I was discussing this from a culturally relevant angle. Everybody knows that some people are good and some people are bad(the nature of culture.. and the world, maybe). The catch is that religion is supposed to help people get better. How successful is it? How many does it make bad? How many hate Gays and blacks? What the fuck do you want from me? I can't make you accept that there's evil in the world, you'll just have to stop being a pussy. It's a progressive movement, maybe you should progress instead of living withinin your childish nature so that you don't have to accept how fucked up you are and everybody you know. You lazy fucking animal. Sloth is a sin, remember.
Also, the argument that "Jilted former christians only insult christians" is old and tired, and everybody knows that as well. But thanks for filling us in guys. It's mostly jilted christians and jilted intellectuals trying to deliver a coupe de grace that say shit like that(Oh I want to be a hero a knight in shining armor who protects people and shit, you've impressed everybody). The funny thing is that you're wrong. Like i said, I consider myself a christian in many ways.

Also, how many christians(or again, people in general) who help do you think are doing it selfishly as some kind of martyrdom symptom (for example; the reason you guys are arguing this)? How many do you think do it for God's grace? How many do you think do it to actually make the world a better place for everyone and not just themselves or favored group. All people are afflicted with this type of bullshit, sorry for targetting your favorite(again, protecting your favorites and yourself). The fact that there's enough rich religious people in the world to help all the poor people pretty much outlines my point on how unreligious religion is.

I can't believe how often people argue common sense with, "Your numbers aren't correct". Just accept the fucking fact, put whatever number you want to in there with your administration powers, then reread my argument and continue this conversation in a useful fashion. Perhaps how this cultural corruption(that stems from all kinds of things, and all institutions, not just christianity) could be helped?
I don't know. Do something useful, not this defensive nancy girl shit you're playing. I don't enjoy your vagina monologues.

P.S. I was reading through this thread and realized i forgot to mention something: The political thing(and i mean this by government politics) i was talking about wasn't necessarily the dig, just a possible outcome based on the potential of weak willed people and what would happen if they were targetted with more politically viable thoughts. Whether or not they(the cults) had any personal feelings towards the government, they had an internal politic that was accepted like the dogmas of church. Furthermore, since the dogma of the church(which is a sort of politic) doesn't necessarily involve any kind of "Crazy ideas"(like maybe burning people at the stake for thinking the earth is round) it doesn't seem as zealous, however if more and more political views were inserted(not that there aren't any, still.. most of the views the church would take part in is morality, but that usually interferes, eventually, with politics since morality is essentially the foundation of politics; the strive for a moral law and world) then the weak willed people of limited political AND religious knowledge would be more likely to succomb to it as an inevitable crutch without any benefit of reasoning or logic because it is God's will. Hence, a necessary line that divides the manipulated with extremely manipulated and crazy.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Yea, well I did just talk about "Accepting problems" didn't i? That's what i was talking about, people who know they live in sin but do nothing productive to help it. "Oh, hey, I sin, I'll repent and pray, god will forgive me and i won't have to do anything". I think repentance might have a little to do with the progressive act of trying to make yourself a better person.

God forgives and judges. If a person sins and doesn't ask to be forgiven, it may be unchristianly, but it doesn't necessarily make them bad or faux Christians.

It's rare that you would ever hear one of these "hypocritical" Christians saying they are without sin, btw. in fact, they'll probably tell you 100 times that they're sinners "just like you" if you let them.


While alot may try, not many actually attain any useful state. I never said that was a damnable sinful bad thing(unless to note their own beliefs), but I didn't say it was a good thing either. Quit playing the, "We christians are insulted all the time but we're not all bad" card, it's so lame. Nobody fucking cares, I was discussing this from a culturally relevant angle.


I think then you should at least try to be "relevant." Talking in these big generalizations with no factual backing makes you sound foolish. You sound like the guy who watches the 700 Club one night and decides that all Christians are evil Republicans.

BTW, the "hey guys, I'm actually a Christian too" argument is also pretty lame. I don't care if you're an atheist or an evangelical, if you're not making a real point I'm going to call you out on it.


The catch is that religion is supposed to help people get better. How successful is it? How many does it make bad? How many hate Gays and blacks?

WHERE is this written? Where is it written that religion as a cultural institution is supposed to help everybody? Are we talking to a jew, a muslim, or a Christian?

We're talking about Christianity, so let's stick with Christianity. It pains me as a Roman Catholic to say this, but Church's, structures, and people are not the first resource for anybody. GOD is. If you want to get better, you look to God. If you want to be Christ-like, you read the Bible, and you do as it says. You're focusing far too much on religion as a cultural pacifier, which is a lame sociological thought dug up from the letters of the founding fathers.

To some, if five Christians get together in a room that's your church. To others, it's St. Patrick's Cathedral. What obligation do either of those entities have to society, OTHER than what's written in the Bible and spoken by God?


Also, how many christians(or again, people in general) who help do you think are doing it selfishly as some kind of martyrdom symptom (for example; the reason you guys are arguing this)?



Alright, you are becoming a bit of a goof ball. Please remind me one more time that you consider yourself a Christian, I need to see it again so that i remember you're actually making a point.

WHO CARES IF PEOPLE DO GOOD THINGS FOR SELFISH REASONS!? We ALL do good and altruistic things that are pleasing to us in some PERSONAL way, so who cares?


that there's enough rich religious people in the world to help all the poor people pretty much outlines my point on how unreligious religion is.


What is the point here? Huh??? I need to start seeing some Bible citations, otherwise I'm going to dismiss this as rambling.


Do something useful, not this defensive nancy girl shit you're playing. I don't enjoy your vagina monologues.


Seriously, you're close to getting your own sticky thread right under Vince's.

[kahljorn]

You know the vagina monologue part was funny.

I don't really feel I have to show that alot of christians are fucked up. You've already conceeded it multiple times. Why do I need to argue it? "Everybody's a sinner" hurray! Now all you need is the stretch to, "alot of people don't even try". Is repentance truly deserving by someone who asks for it from God on their death bed because they are afraid of dying(see:going to hell), but they've been sinful murderous bastards their entire life? The church can pretend like they can give that, but on any decent human being the pain of that sin would be outrageous. Personally, if I lived a life of bullshit I couldn't honestly see myself allowing myself into heaven. But that's just me, and i have standards for myself. Thank God there's people like you to save everyone.
If i remember right this thread was about religion in general, but we can quote some stupid bible verses, but I know your response will be, "That's just y our perception".

We'll start it out with a beaut:
1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
The verses after that are good too.

Acts 4:12 ( a verse basically saying you can't reach heaven without jesus: kind of similar to what i said, huh? You can't reach heaven without becoming christ-like, and having Christ's intentions in your heart. there's the old popular "way the truth and the light" thing too that would support this)
1 Cori. 15:22-24 (verse 2 is also good, especially.. By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain) Maybe you should just read the chapter, or hell, read the bible?
Timothy 6:12 (read the whole chapter, if you will, i enjoy it)

Eph. 3:7 : Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. That's KJV, I like that one because it really expresses what I'm trying to express.

1 Kings 3:11 And God said unto him, Because thou hast asked this thing, and hast not asked for thyself long life; neither hast asked riches for thyself, nor hast asked the life of thine enemies; but hast asked for thyself understanding to discern judgment;

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness. I hope you enjoy that one.
While you're in romans, read romans two(chapter two, also try verse 5-6 of chapter one). All that wrath of God for judgement might seem a bit ironic.

2 Cor. 5:13-21 I especially like: Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
To me the previous verse sort of expresses that when you are truly following the teachings of christ, you change. There was another chapter that i posted above where coming to christ initiates change. Most christians don't change except in an arbitrary way.

Jeremiah 8:6 I have listened attentively, but they do not say what is right. No one repents of his wickedness, saying, "What have I done?" Each pursues his own course like a horse charging into battle.

Revelations 2 is good especially if you understand the symbolism.

I also reccomend a few books that aren't in the bible, namely the story of Ezekiel, including ezekiel 2 and 3. You might also want to consider investing some time in the study of Elisha.


I guess in the end it still comes down to if you think lazy people are truly following God. I know plenty of christians, tons actually, so don't try to tell me that they are all absolute reflections of Jesus Christ because I've seen the way they use his name(even alot of the good christians are poor representations of chrisianity). But then, maybe things here are different than wherever you are from. I do live in california.
Do you think repetence is hollow apologies? "Hey God, I'm sorry for stealing that candy, I'll never do it again don't send me to hell please" then going out the next day and doing it again? No. Repetance is PROGRESSIVE, it's a constant thing. Want the dictionary definition? "Remorse or contrition for past conduct or sin". How many places in the bible does it say that you can't go to heaven unless you repent your evil ways? Tons, I won't even bother to quote them. So, essentially, simple apologizing means nothing. It is an actual progressive state where you try to improve yourself constantly. And it doesn't mean improve yourself by buying a bigger house and car, it means to improve yourself as a human being. Somehow most christians don't catch onto that, which is clearly elucidated by your ignorances.
You don't even know the definition of repentance :lol

A few more things in response to your direct quaries:
"If a person sins and doesn't ask to be forgiven, it may be unchristianly, but it doesn't necessarily make them bad or faux Christians. "

I think what you mean is that it doesn't make them a bad person, but it does make them a bad christian. If being christian is the following of christ, than whenever you don't follow him you're being a BAD CHRISTIAN. You're SINNING that's BAD(this is how language generally works, especially adjectives in case you didn't know). Now what would be good would be "Repenting" and accepting that you were bad and attempting to change it(Remorse and contrition?). No, wait, we'll pretend like it was okay and continue with our lives.

"they'll probably tell you 100 times that they're sinners "just like you" if you let them. "

Conceeding you sin means absolutely nothing, and the fact that you assume it does makes you a fucking moron. The idea that everyone has sin is something commonly preached by the church's, believing in a dogma isn't spectacular, kevin. And what does admitting you have a problem solve? That's the FIRST step in aa, there's 12.

"I think then you should at least try to be "relevant." Talking in these big generalizations with no factual backing makes you sound foolish."

No factual backing? Excuse me. I forgot that the world is a perfect place full of loving christians the world is great hey you know what I have a closet full of puppies and no matter how many i take out there's still some there. Are you saying that every christian is an exact representation of christ? If not, then shut the fuck up. Are you saying that a large amount of christians is an exact representation of christ? If not, shut the fuck up.
You can talk all big and bad about generalizations like you never do it, "Republicans!" "BUSH!" "Democrats" "We" "Chrisians". You do it as much as anyone else, and it's done because it can be. Keep pretending like you've never generalized, though, and then argue that because I'm generalizing my argument is flawed, but the fact of the matter is that not many people are perfected images of christ. Do you want to argue that? If not, than accept my generalization and knock it off with your gradeschool debating.

"if you're not making a real point I'm going to call you out on it."

Good job doing that. Really, I applaud your Heroic deeds.

"WHERE is this written? Where is it written that religion as a cultural institution is supposed to help everybody?"

You're right, the church on a whole is supposed to damn everybody and not help people find God. Touche, salesman.
Which begs the question, what is the purpose in finding God? What happens when you find him? What religion doesn't teach this? Hindu does. Buddhism does. Christianity does. That's just shit they naturally do, this isn't a matter of what it's supposed to do it's a matter of what it does; the inherent function of religion is to help people, or guide them at the very least... but you don't often hear of religion's purpose to guide you into DAMNATION but to guide you into HEAVEN or BLISS. For some reason I have this strange understanding that guiding someone to bliss or heaven is a helpful thing. But god, I'm so stupid!!!@@!@!@!@
Think of everything I say like this: If God set religion on this planet, to what end?

"You're focusing far too much on religion as a cultural pacifier, which is a lame sociological thought dug up from the letters of the founding fathers. "

As human beings, what else could we consider it as? What angle do you take this conversation from, exactly, flushed debris from a toilet, or as a human being? Also, I'm not treating it as a pacifier, I'm treating it as an enhancer(though it seems others treat it as a pacifier). I don't understand how anyone can have a conversation about Politics or even Religion without considering cultural relevancy. But you know what, politics and culture have nothing to do with eachother; and religion wasn't founded by a conglomeration of people coming together to create stuff which could be called culture. Again, touche salesman.(religion is a result of culturization).

"What obligation do either of those entities have to society, OTHER than what's written in the Bible and spoken by God? "

None, I suppose. Just the fact that they are human beings living in the society. They really have no obligation, per se, but it's not exactly like they have a choice in the matter(you can prove me wrong on this topic by changing your species). Whether or not you like it, you're a part of this society, and everything you do reflects upon it.
My conversation never fully rested on obligation, in fact I never mentioned it at all. However, morally and ethically, we have a responsibility and an obligation-- but obligations can always be ignored. If you want to be a decent person, though, you will take that responsibility. Without it you get corrupt politicians and corrupt people, considering the consequences your actions might have is not a bad thing. Whoever taught you that was a fucking moron.
Please though, argue that foresight is a worthless trait for a person to have. In fact, continue to argue with me that trying to be good human being is a bad thing. Idiot.

"What is the point here? Huh??? I need to start seeing some Bible citations, otherwise I'm going to dismiss this as rambling. "

I believe i posted a chapter above that contained information about the rich not being rich of heart, and that they should lavish humanity with gifts... however, here's a few more: Psalm 37:16, psalm 52:7, psalm 62:10.. here's a popular one, kevin: Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:23(mark has tons of versus about it), luke 8:14(so does luke).. there's plenty more. The one I mentioned previously is a great one, and I like it. It was one of the versus I mentioned before, unless I deleted it. Look them up. There's another one about the poor not giving less, as well.
I think you took this statement wrong, I was showing how various sub-cultures all disobey their religion and I found rich people to be an easy representation of this idea.

On my end note: Gal. 1:10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ. That's the NIV version because it is prettier and easier to understand.. you can always check the KJV version if you like, though

I hope you enjoyed all that, and I should have you know I'm still tired because i didn't get a full nights rest, sorry if parts are hard to understand. Good day.

[ziggytrix]

good grief

[kahljorn]

That was my secret strategy. It's so long no one will read it, but then, your team asked for it.

[ziggytrix]

my team?

[kahljorn]

I was being a defensive jerk, clearly.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I don't really feel I have to show that alot of christians are fucked up. You've already conceeded it multiple times. Why do I need to argue it? "Everybody's a sinner" hurray! Now all you need is the stretch to, "alot of people don't even try". Is repentance truly deserving by someone who asks for it from God on their death bed because they are afraid of dying(see:going to hell), but they've been sinful murderous bastards their entire life?


Who knows whether or not these people have truly been sinful? YOU?

Do you truly believe that Christians should be perfect people? I know you can try to fracture together some things written by Paul to assert that claim, but do you truly believe that?


Personally, if I lived a life of bullshit I couldn't honestly see myself allowing myself into heaven. But that's just me, and i have standards for myself. Thank God there's people like you to save everyone.

No, thank God that GOD decides who has sinned and who hasn't, as well as who shall be forgiven and not forgiven, rather than some pissant on the internet.

This aspect of Christianity still seems very hard for you to grasp.

If i remember right this thread was about religion in general,

When was the last time you saw Christianity as the mass religion it is dolling out help to mankind? What percentage of christianity do you think is christ like?


We'll start it out with a beaut:
1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Does this imply to you that people who sin will not go to Heaven?


Maybe you should just read the chapter, or hell, read the bible?

Or better yet, maybe i should google a bunch of passages from a random assortment of testaments that I feel will substantiate my point. I mean, they really don't, because of my lack of an actual, viable point. But hey, all I need to do is throw them in there and make my post "so long no one will read it"


Eph. 3:7 : Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. That's KJV, I like that one because it really expresses what I'm trying to express.

WHAT!!? WHAT THE HELL DOES IT EXPRESS!!???


Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness. I hope you enjoy that one.

Not nearly as much as i'm enjoying this post, but it came close. Once again, how does this reinforce your point? What, Kahl, IS your point?

The point I have taken away from this is that most Christians lie, most Christians are selfish, and most Christians don't really mean it when they say they're sorry (which is the REAL irony in you posting this scripture).

I'll ask you again-- Does God expect that Christians will never sin? Answer that in 5 or less sentences.

All the wrath of God stuff is quite real, and in fact Christ mentions hell far more often than it gets mentioned in the OT. That being said, Christ offered himself up as a sacrifice for us, so that we may be saved for our sins.

Let's review, Kahl. Maybe you can google a scripture to support you on this: Who determines and either condemns or forgives one's sins?


To me the previous verse sort of expresses that when you are truly following the teachings of christ, you change. There was another chapter that i posted above where coming to christ initiates change. Most christians don't change except in an arbitrary way.

:lol

You're amazing.


I also reccomend a few books that aren't in the bible, namely the story of Ezekiel, including ezekiel 2 and 3. You might also want to consider investing some time in the study of Elisha.

I'll just let that stand on its own in bold.


I guess in the end it still comes down to if you think lazy people are truly following God. I know plenty of christians, tons actually, so don't try to tell me that they are all absolute reflections of Jesus Christ because I've seen the way they use his name(even alot of the good christians are poor representations of chrisianity).

Have you decided that those people aren't good Christians? Now who's job is that, Kahl?



A few more things in response to your direct quaries:
"If a person sins and doesn't ask to be forgiven, it may be unchristianly, but it doesn't necessarily make them bad or faux Christians. "

I think what you mean is that it doesn't make them a bad person, but it does make them a bad christian. If being christian is the following of christ, than whenever you don't follow him you're being a BAD CHRISTIAN. You're SINNING that's BAD(this is how language generally works, especially adjectives in case you didn't know). Now what would be good would be "Repenting" and accepting that you were bad and attempting to change it(Remorse and contrition?). No, wait, we'll pretend like it was okay and continue with our lives.

Who forgives, Kahl???


You can talk all big and bad about generalizations like you never do it, "Republicans!" "BUSH!" "Democrats" "We" "Chrisians". You do it as much as anyone else, and it's done because it can be. Keep pretending like you've never generalized, though, and then argue that because I'm generalizing my argument is flawed, but the fact of the matter is that not many people are perfected images of christ. Do you want to argue that? If not, than accept my generalization and knock it off with your gradeschool debating.

Who can be a perfected image of Christ, Kahl? 20 points.

And there's a difference between generalizations in politics and in spirituality. If I say "African-American males in DC are inclined to vote Democratic," there's hard data to support me on that. You seem to be arguing more so off of perception, and in doing that you are playing judge, jury, and executioner of every Christian on Earth.


I believe i posted a chapter above that contained information about the rich not being rich of heart, and that they should lavish humanity with gifts... however, here's a few more: Psalm 37:16, psalm 52:7, psalm 62:10.. here's a popular one, kevin: Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:23(mark has tons of versus about it), luke 8:14(so does luke).. there's plenty more. The one I mentioned previously is a great one, and I like it.

What about Matthew 25: 14-30? Do your 10 scriptures smash my 1? I don't think it truly matters, because I don't think anything you've posted helps you articulate your point.

Maybe you should get some sleep. Asshole.

[kahljorn]

"Who knows whether or not these people have truly been sinful? YOU?"

Didn't you, in one of your previous posts, say christians admit they and everyone are sinful? Jesus.

"Do you truly believe that Christians should be perfect people?"

No, I don't believe that at all, and in all honesty I doubt that it could be accomplished. However, I do believe at least a strive for your full potential isn't something to complain about. Do you? Do you like wasted potential? "What about Matthew 25:14-30? " :Lol jackass. Remember, he's slothful because he does not use his talents out of fear.

"No, thank God that GOD decides who has sinned and who hasn't, as well as who shall be forgiven and not forgiven"

Everybody sinned, remember? We've been living on adams sin since he sinned, duh :rolleyes
This was distinctly about myself, and my own standards. Hence the usage of the word PERSONALLY before hand. I think that type of judgement comes from within, anyway. How could God be satisfied with you if you're not satisfied with yourself? I think it's a noble trait to have. I'm still not satisfied with myself, however, i think the state at which we receive god's grace or whatever is when we've attained some form of satisfaction. How do you gain that, though? I think that may apply.

"Does this imply to you that people who sin will not go to Heaven? "

Nope.

"WHAT!!? WHAT THE HELL DOES IT EXPRESS!!??? "

That the grace of God comes through attempting to make yourself a better person, like christ, who's personality and lifestyle are at least on a path that attempts to avoid sin(This can be HARD), rather than just floating along doing whatever, actually THINKING ABOUT IT, and attempting to change. Try that, for once. Remember, repentence means Seeking CONTRITION.

"Does God expect that Christians will never sin?"

No, but does he expect that they will try not to?
That's one sentance.


"You're amazing."

Definition of Arbitrary: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.

"I'll just let that stand on its own in bold. "

And oh how my ego shakes in it's torrent. :rolleyes

"Have you decided that those people aren't good Christians? Now who's job is that, Kahl?"

Who's job? I don't know, the pope or something? I've heard of people being excommunicated from the church before, doesn't that mean they don't get their last rights so they can't go to heaven? It's plain to my eyes that they aren't good christians if they aren't at least trying not to sin. Again, that's what REPENTANCE is. And again, I know ALOT OF THEM try, at the very least, which I think is noble enough not to deserve hell. But does it deserve heaven?

"Who forgives, Kahl???"

Keep saying this, but despite all that, I'm condemning no one. Rather, I'm merely expressing the guidelines God himself expressed in his Holy God's Word as to what he needs to forgive someone. Forgiveness is more self-forgiveness, again, how could God forgive you if you can't forgive yourself? Ever notice how some people self-perpetuate themselves into bad situations? Self-perpetuate themselves into sin and more sin?
How can god forgive you if you don't honestly ask for forgiveness? Wanting forgiveness means you DIDNT WANT TO DO IT and you WONT DO IT AGAIN which demands, inherently, some kind of CHANGE.

"Who can be a perfected image of Christ, Kahl?"

Christ, ezekial, Isiah, Esther.. um.. Osiris, balder... I don't expect every human being to be jesus christ, but to at least try. Who knows, then it may become possible to become jesus christ if enough people tried to be decent.

"And there's a difference between generalizations in politics and in spirituality. If I say "African-American males in DC are inclined to vote Democratic," there's hard data to support me on that."

"People who believe in christianity are more likely to be hypocrites" "people who believe in christianity are more likely to not live to their own standards"
"People who believe in christianity are more likely to feel that everything they do is okay because they have God's forgiveness"
lol, hey, as long as we have god's forgiveness in the end let's go kill some people with that in mind God will love us for that.

"What about Matthew 25: 14-30? "

That's a story about using what's given to you if I remember right. That fits into exactly my point: "People, especially christians, are incredibly likely" to not even TRY to be christ-like(except at arbitrary points). If you used your abilities as a human being, like reasoning and rationality, eventually you could decipher what's right and wrong, and try to make yourself adhere to them. THAT is being Christ-like, and that is what i have been talking about all this time.
The fact that every once in a while even bad people try to be good means nothing. There's more I could say, but i need to start cooking lunch.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Didn't you, in one of your previous posts, say christians admit they and everyone are sinful? Jesus.

Yes, but it was in response to this "hypocricy" nonsense that gets thrown around.

However, I do believe at least a strive for your full potential isn't something to complain about. Do you?

I'm not saying people shouldn't strive for it. I'm also not saying that people can be bad Christians. I am however saying that it isn't my job, nor is it yours, to pass that judgement.

If you want to rip on people who do contradict the word of God and then go and judge others, I'm all for it. Pointing out hypocricy isn't a bad thing. Saying that "most" Christians are bad Christians because they mess up sometimes is a whole other thing, and it's wrong.


"WHAT!!? WHAT THE HELL DOES IT EXPRESS!!??? "

That the grace of God comes through attempting to make yourself a better person, like christ, who's personality and lifestyle are at least on a path that attempts to avoid sin(This can be HARD), rather than just floating along doing whatever, actually THINKING ABOUT IT, and attempting to change. Try that, for once. Remember, repentence means Seeking CONTRITION.

Something you are terribly unqualified to assess. Again-- how do you TRULY know that people who contradict God, or who sin and then ask for forgiveness, are doing so in an "arbitrary" fashion? Who are you, the sinner, to make that judgement?



It's plain to my eyes that they aren't good christians if they aren't at least trying not to sin. Again, that's what REPENTANCE is. And again, I know ALOT OF THEM try, at the very least, which I think is noble enough not to deserve hell. But does it deserve heaven?

John 8:7?




How can god forgive you if you don't honestly ask for forgiveness? Wanting forgiveness means you DIDNT WANT TO DO IT and you WONT DO IT AGAIN which demands, inherently, some kind of CHANGE.

And what has helped yu determind that a majority of Christians don't do this? I think this is what I'm truly tryingto get at.

"Who can be a perfected image of Christ, Kahl?"

Christ, ezekial, Isiah, Esther.. um.. Osiris, balder... I don't expect every human being to be jesus christ, but to at least try. Who knows, then it may become possible to become jesus christ if enough people tried to be decent.

none of them were Christ, but anyway....

I think you are right about the pursuit of Christ-like behavior. You are wrong however about the way "most" Christians fail to meet that challenge.


"People who believe in christianity are more likely to be hypocrites" "people who believe in christianity are more likely to not live to their own standards"
"People who believe in christianity are more likely to feel that everything they do is okay because they have God's forgiveness"
lol, hey, as long as we have god's forgiveness in the end let's go kill some people with that in mind God will love us for that.

But what's your proof? My argument is that there is no bulk of good and bad Christians. There are Christians trying to follow the word of God, yet still failing to reach that goal every single day.

Your argument is that most are hypocrites and don't care. Both views are based off of personal experience and assumptions, but i think yours is a much tougher sell.

"What about Matthew 25: 14-30? "

That's a story about using what's given to you if I remember right.

Yes, it's a parable about using your GOD GIVEN talent in order to achieve. But the parable is appropriate because it also highlights the absurdity in looking at a wealthy person today and saying that they are by default going to hell.

Some Christians have used this very story to argue that God wants you to work hard and do well in life. After all, if you were really smart and did really well in life and made lots of money, it's all because of God, isn't it? How could he then send you to hell for that?

I know the wealthy weren't the focus of your point, but they seem like the most likely example, because I think every bad Christian to you is an old, white man living in Georgia somewhere.


The fact that every once in a while even bad people try to be good means nothing.

God set the standards for us to follow, not to use against each other. This is often the problem with the Jerry Falwell types, and it's the problem with what you're saying right now.

The reason Conservatives go after gays is not because they want those gays to know they're going to hell.....they've already heardthat a million times. It's because if society accepts it, then you create a culture of sin, one that becomes pervasive throughout everything......dare I say Sodom & Gomorrah? They don't see themselves as violating the word of God, because they're trying to create a supposedly more Christian environment.

Right now, i don't see you as being very different from the hypocrites you're ranting on about.

[kellychaos]

I can see where my comments became inflammatory in nature due to my generalization. I would like to amend my comments by qualifying my charges of hypocrisy to "most" and NOT, of course, "all". Though this may seem a token and pointless acquiesence to some, it is what I believe. While not necessarily in love with organized religion, I can see value and wisdom in the teachings of Christ. There are many people who try to uphold christian values and that is good. Many may see it as a bail-out to say I'm agnostic and; therefore, do not have to maintain a level of christian values and, in the attempt, a pretense of piousness. So be it. This would feel false to me and, if anything, a level of truth to others about who I am is a big priority to me.

[kellychaos]

If you want a prime example of the aforementioned, check out the obese, gap-toothed, trailer-trash woman on "Trading Spouses" that claimed to be a "christian warrior". She is diametrically opposed to anything I would think of a christian. She represents a vast demographic of middle-america that I hear and see on a daily basis ... there are millions of THEM out there. Deny it.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

i don't deny it.

I do however deny that that one person is A. A fair representation of all Christians, and B. That I am qualified to condemn her as a bad Christian.

That's not my job, my job is to be a better Christian, and to try to convince my neighbors to do the same. It's not to condemn her to hell.

[kahljorn]

"but it was in response to this "hypocricy" nonsense that gets thrown around. "

I didn't really say they were hypocrites for sinning, but sinning without true repentence. Remember, sinning without trying to change? I think I kind of consider repentence and change the same way.

"I'm not saying people shouldn't strive for it. I'm also not saying that people can be bad Christians. I am however saying that it isn't my job, nor is it yours, to pass that judgement. .... etc."

You are misunderstanding me, I'm not "Ripping" on them, just discussing their general psychology. You see, that's why I said you guys are wrong in assuming I'm a "Jilted former christian". I'm not doing this because I want to give christianity a bad name, I'm actually doing it for good reasons, and with those thoughts in mind, I'm doing it to improve the christian religion, and subsequently the world on at least some pointless level that probably won't occur...

"Saying that "most" Christians are bad Christians because they mess up sometimes is a whole other thing, and it's wrong. "

They are poor representations of christ, wouldn't you agree? Compare them on a side-by-side basis. It's like elvis impersonators, some are good, some are bad. Again, I'm not damning anyone to hell or even claiming that they will be sent to a firey death, I don't believe in that shit anyhow. What I am saying is that there's a discernable level of how good someone is, and as far as the grand scale goes they are mostly average, and in this world average generally means "ON the bad side".
I'm not saying they are all murderers and rapists, more so I'm saying they don't understand the functions of their own religion because they have never bothered to consider it. Which to me is like being a child, and it's not very adult-like. Do you think God would want you to accept his word(being spoken through a human beings mouth) without question? And not questioned in a bad way, just questioned so you can receieve the true answer from God or whatever silly shit you want to say. We all have a potential, and not living up to it is throwing away the gifts of God.
Wouldn't you say that strive for understanding is something that as any religious person you should be attempting to find out? It's like being a literary expert who never has, and never will, read a piece of literature.

"Something you are terribly unqualified to assess. Again-- how do you TRULY know that people who contradict God, or who sin and then ask for forgiveness, are doing so in an "arbitrary" fashion? Who are you, the sinner, to make that judgement?"

Personal experience? Psychological knowledge? The idea that, 95% of the time they are doing "Me" things(Which isn't bad, you need some "Me" things or you'll shit your pants and simotaneously starve/dehydrate to death) makes me think that. The other times it's ON A WHIM or LACKING JUDGEMENT OR PRINCIPLE. They treat it like another me thing, "This way I'm assuring my admintance into heaven" or some other dilusion.
What I'm suggesting isn't attempted moments of "Christ-likeness" but everyday, every hour full of it. Even if it's just attempted, because attempts(generally speaking) lead to success, and in a case like this the successes will be frequent and grand for everyone, especially "Me". What better way to live for yourself..? I consider anything else perpetuating a sinful personality. In the same respect, living like christ is a perpetuating experience.

"John 8:7? "
I haven't thrown any stones, quite the contrary, I've been saying they don't deserve bad. In that very statement. I've also mentioned on multiple occasions that I even hold myself to the statements I make, that much should be clearly relevant. This isn't personal perception that excludes me, fucko, that's why you appear a jackass to me. This is on the whole, including me and the pope and whatever other fucking martyrs want to throw their two cents in. To me, this is the most important underlying foundation.
I'm not damning anyone.

"And what has helped yu determind that a majority of Christians don't do this?"

Personal experience, personal observations. It's a very pure event, and it can't really be cluttered with personal feelings and such, which is why although alot may change and focus on the path, few seek to understand. Without understanding, the path they are walking is unknown to them, so who knows if they are heading in the right direction? Like i said, at least they try, but all the same, what does it matter?
Put it this way, kevin: If everybody was living these ideals, then idealy the world would be ideal, correct? However, clearly these ideals aren't being lived, and that's why the world is not ideal.
That is all I need to know, really, and on a whole I haven't really noticed society changing much in the past few thousand years. That's another indication, to me, that religion isn't very religious along with most other social institutions.
Let me ask you another question, why do you think most people don't try harder? We both agree that sometimes people do try, but to what extent? What is holding them back? Laziness, fear of change? Fear of themselves, fear of what others will think? Fear of being alone? List some more reasons you think people don't try hard enough, than consider that with what they are trying.
Is it things they don't fear? Things their friends won't care about? Things they can brag about? What is it, and what relation does it have to them? In that true nature, not it's outwardly nature, does it remain christ-like or even remotely selfless in some sense?

"none of them were Christ, but anyway"

I'm going to look up some historical data on, I believe, Balder for you. You see, when greece or some such place was raided they declared that statues of Balder were not to be harmed for he is the likeness of Christ and should be worshipped as such. Like I said, I'll find it.
Ezekiel ascended to heaven in a firey chariot to join God, that makes him a son of man in christ's image. Again, read ezekiel two and three. It's like enoch, how can you not consider him on the same level of jesus? From what some people believe, enoch was raised to the position just under God, the human representation of perfection: Metatron(A scribe much on the level of hermes or thoth). Anything else is church propaganda, it's like how alot of people really reveer the virgin mary and others don't really pay her much mind.
Don't take the metatron thing too seriously(it's not in the bible, but it is relevant elsewhere in certain talmudic circles), I merely mention it as an example.

"But what's your proof? My argument is that there is no bulk of good and bad Christians."

Sure. Human beings on a whole have a bulk of "Good and bad people", of course most social institutions are going to follow suit. Keep pretending the world is perfect, though.

"Both views are based off of personal experience and assumptions"

What else would it be based on, God-like clairvoyance? What the hell else could anything anybody is saying be based upon. That point is clearly moot.

"But the parable is appropriate because it also highlights the absurdity in looking at a wealthy person today and saying that they are by default going to hell. "

The other verse i read said, "A wealthy person entering heaven is about as likely as a camel passing through the eye of a needle". Sure, it happens, like I said: When it involves people, there's always anomalies. You should really adopt some of the last two things I'm saying as some kind of permanant reality, I think it would be helpful for you.

"After all, if you were really smart and did really well in life and made lots of money, it's all because of God, isn't it?"

How many people become rich in an honest fashion without hurting alot of people? How many people continue to do dishonest things in order to stay rich? How many people are so rich that they could help ALOT of people without it barely even scratching them that don't, or do for some kind of publicity or tax cut? I'm sure some people do, but I'm sure there's some that don't, too.
The bible pretty much calls money the base of all corruption for humanity, so you know. I could prolly find that verse if you want, too.

"It's because if society accepts it, then you create a culture of sin, one that becomes pervasive throughout everything"

That's very true and I accept that, I didn't say they would goto hell for it I just said it's probably wrong of them to do. Do you think living in fear is an excuse you could use with God? Consider it like that, when they go before god and say, "Well, I was going to donate money to charity but i wanted to buy a TV?" God will go, "Okay, that's fine come on up to heaven where we bought you twenty big screen televisions so you can be in a room with walls made of televisions! But no couch, you impetious humans are not allowed to sit(true story, humans actually AREN'T allowed to sit in heaven :O )"

In the end, the world is still a horrible place that hasn't changed much over the last 7,000 years or so of recorded history. There's still massive wars and corruption at every turn. Oppression still reigns supreme. If religion as a cultural device was there to develop culture, than it has failed horribly. This of course isn't without exception, but overall as far as the grand eye can see, since the christian religion has come into power the world has not become a better place.
As such, religion has failed to attain it's purpose, and the human beings engulfed by it have remained the same.

"i don't see you as being very different from the hypocrites you're ranting on about"

Hypocricy doesn't really bother me very much, honestly. But, point away at my hypocricy. I suppose you're discoursing on how I'm "Judging"? I'm judging no one, just putting together the pieces that are already apparant just by looking outside or reading the news.

Remember, you should try to be christ-like every day and every second. That's the path to God.

[kahljorn]

"That's not my job, my job is to be a better Christian, and to try to convince my neighbors to do the same. It's not to condemn her to hell."

No, but it's God's job, and without recogizing why God would damn someone to hell you can't really help them, can you? I hope you're caught up. Ignorance won't help anyone.

[kahljorn]

It wasn't balder, balder's one of odin's bitches. His connection to Jesus is rather interesting. He had 12 disciples, and one of them was a betrayer. Betrayal resulted in joy vanishing from the earth, and so odinic followers would try to ressurect balder. There's more, but who cares.
It was serapis, my mistake. The person who declared this was emperor Hadrian in ad 134 while traveling to egypt. There's alot of information on that, but it's pointless to mention, really. Suffice it to say the "Sun God" exists in more than one religion.

[kahljorn]

Here's something I was looking for earlier I managed to find:

Written by st. augistine:
"Adam sleeps that eve may be formed: Christ dies, that the church may be formed. While Adam sleeps, Eve is formed from his side. When Christ is dead, his side is smitten with a spear, that there flow forth sacraments to form the church. Adam himself was the figure of Him that was to come."

I feel that supports some of what I was saying. Consider it before you post negative responses about not understanding, but I feel you should be fully capable.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I didn't really say they were hypocrites for sinning, but sinning without true repentence. Remember, sinning without trying to change?

here we go again-- How do we know they don't truly repent? How do YOU know this????


I'm not damning anyone to hell or even claiming that they will be sent to a firey death, I don't believe in that shit anyhow. What I am saying is that there's a discernable level of how good someone is, and as far as the grand scale goes they are mostly average, and in this world average generally means "ON the bad side".

John 8:7? As far as i can discern, you're a condescending and moronic prick, but is that a fair assumption to make simply by encountering you on this message board and talking about Christ?


Do you think God would want you to accept his word(being spoken through a human beings mouth) without question? And not questioned in a bad way, just questioned so you can receieve the true answer from God or whatever silly shit you want to say. We all have a potential, and not living up to it is throwing away the gifts of God.


I don't disagree.

How do YOU have the right to measure and judge that potential??? The teachings in the Bible, particularly the teachings of Christ, tell you how to be a good Christian, and essentially how the whole deal works. It isn't a manual on how to condemn your fellow man. Once again, that is NOT your responsibility on this planet.

You can say you aren't doing that and that you don't believe in hell, but by saying most Christians aren't good Christians, then yes, you are in fact judging and condemning them.


Personal experience? Psychological knowledge? The idea that, 95% of the time they are doing "Me" things(Which isn't bad, you need some "Me" things or you'll shit your pants and simotaneously starve/dehydrate to death) makes me think that. The other times it's ON A WHIM or LACKING JUDGEMENT OR PRINCIPLE. They treat it like another me thing, "This way I'm assuring my admintance into heaven" or some other dilusion.
What I'm suggesting isn't attempted moments of "Christ-likeness" but everyday, every hour full of it. Even if it's just attempted, because attempts(generally speaking) lead to success, and in a case like this the successes will be frequent and grand for everyone, especially "Me". What better way to live for yourself..? I consider anything else perpetuating a sinful personality. In the same respect, living like christ is a perpetuating experience.

Look at the world's population. Then look at the % that considers itself to be Christian of some sort. Then look atthe overall total in America. Then look at the overall total in your state. Then look at the overall total that you actually know.

Would you say that this is a terribly fair sample for you to judge how good or bad most Christians are? Again, do you think it is your role as a "Christian" to decide that?

"John 8:7? "
I haven't thrown any stones, quite the contrary, I've been saying they don't deserve bad.

Huh? You have said that most Christians are bad Christians. You don't need to assault or accostthem to violate what Christ was teaching here.

God knows the worth of a human being. A person that you look at and may think is a great, shining example of a Christian might go home at night and get off to kiddie porn. Neither of us is in the position to make that judgement.


Put it this way, kevin: If everybody was living these ideals, then idealy the world would be ideal, correct? However, clearly these ideals aren't being lived, and that's why the world is not ideal.
That is all I need to know, really, and on a whole I haven't really noticed society changing much in the past few thousand years. That's another indication, to me, that religion isn't very religious along with most other social institutions.

This isn't what's taught in the Bible. The "church" structure is a device of people, sinners. God didn't invent religion, he merely left us the free well to follow him as we please, as long as we play by the rules.

The world will never be without sin, and Christians will never stop sinning. i think you're into the wrong religion.


How many people are so rich that they could help ALOT of people without it barely even scratching them that don't, or do for some kind of publicity or tax cut? I'm sure some people do, but I'm sure there's some that don't, too.
The bible pretty much calls money the base of all corruption for humanity, so you know. I could prolly find that verse if you want, too.

Money isn't always the bad guy in the Bible. What can make it bad is that the pursuit of it could replace God as your idol (and with it goes all that you said, how many were stepped on, harmed, etc.).

Many wealthy Christians do give until it hurts. You live in a country with the most charitable Christians on the planet. is their a quota mentioned somewhere in the Bible? Does God always side with labor and the poor in the Bible?

Many Christians don't give enough, and don't do enough. They certainly aren't a small number, but they can't be called the norm either.


In the end, the world is still a horrible place that hasn't changed much over the last 7,000 years or so of recorded history. There's still massive wars and corruption at every turn. Oppression still reigns supreme. If religion as a cultural device was there to develop culture, than it has failed horribly. This of course isn't without exception, but overall as far as the grand eye can see, since the christian religion has come into power the world has not become a better place.
As such, religion has failed to attain it's purpose, and the human beings engulfed by it have remained the same.

Find me the word religion in the Bible. How often does Christ use it? Is the Church supposed to be the UN? Christians do countless works around the globe, and spend millions and millions of dollars fighting disease, poverty, famine, and even war. You're saying that most Christians suck because we still have these things? That's ridiculous.

In Revelation, does God say "ok guys, once you're all perfect and the world is awesome I'm going to come down"?

The world will never be without sin. Everyone sins. You can say that people should try to sin less, and you'd be right, but you'd also be a terribly obvious jackass. If every person who called themselves Christian tried their best, there'd still be war, and famine, and poverty, and misery.


No, but it's God's job, and without recogizing why God would damn someone to hell you can't really help them, can you? I hope you're caught up. Ignorance won't help anyone.

You're a scumbag, I hope you know that. I'm certain you do.

You can tell them the Word, you can point them in the right direction, but you will never truly be able to know what's in their heart. you will also never truly be able to know their own fate comapred to yours.

Granted, you know some Christians in the small part of California you live in. That powerful factoid aside, you still can't make that judgement based off of mere perception. Nor is it your responsibility to do so.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Written by st. augistine:
"Adam sleeps that eve may be formed: Christ dies, that the church may be formed. While Adam sleeps, Eve is formed from his side. When Christ is dead, his side is smitten with a spear, that there flow forth sacraments to form the church. Adam himself was the figure of Him that was to come."

I feel that supports some of what I was saying. Consider it before you post negative responses about not understanding, but I feel you should be fully capable.

Very pretty, but how does this prove that most Christians are bad Christians? Hmm??

And do you think that even St. Augustine should speak for every Christian on Earth?

[kahljorn]

"here we go again-- How do we know they don't truly repent? How do YOU know this????"

If they did repent they would change, right? If they changed the world would change, if the world changed we would notice. Same argument for every religion. Thanks.

"As far as i can discern, you're a condescending and moronic prick, but is that a fair assumption to make simply by encountering you on this message board and talking about Christ? "

I hope so since, clearly, that is the type of personality I try to portray here constantly.

"How do YOU have the right to measure and judge that potential???"

Magic markers.

"The teachings in the Bible, particularly the teachings of Christ, tell you how to be a good Christian, and essentially how the whole deal works. It isn't a manual on how to condemn your fellow man. Once again, that is NOT your responsibility on this planet."

How do you know what my responsibility on this planet is?
I'm not condemning fellow man, I'm saying they are condemning themselves. Clearly, look around. There's plenty of poor, suffering people. Jesus fucking christ, I admit the weak, horrible parts of my race and of MYSELF. Foremost, I admit and suffer through MY fucking falling points, how could I not? Everything else is outside of me, but by knowing myself well enough I can discern them well enough. You don't even try that, along with the majority of people in this world.
Aren't you a human being?
Quit acting like I'm not throwing my ego into this. I've expressed this multiple times by saying I TRY TO FOLLOW THAT PATH TOO. You're acting like none of this involves me which I find personally heinous of you because you try to hide from conversations like this(so do most christians, mostly because you're afriad, partly because you don't know). I don't give a fuck if you think what I say is wrong, it's the damned truth and you know it.
Even if I was measuring and judging, do you see me handing out punishments? All I'm presenting is the truth that is plain to see, human nature dictates that you hide that side of ourselves. I consider that evil and sinful, and am instead choosing to magnify the evil points so people can notice them. Primarily myself. This is not such a bad thing, and if you care to call it a bad thing that's find. Let's move on, I'm a bad bad man.

"but by saying most Christians aren't good Christians, then yes, you are in fact judging and condemning them. "

Yea, to what hell am I condemning them? As far as I know I don't even have the power to do that(you're the one who keeps saying that God does it), which is exactly why it's safe for me to do it. And even if I did have the power to condemn them, I wouldn't. But the church does. That's pretty unreligious of religion, isn't it? ;)
Hell, you're saying I'm judging people which is in fact a judgement on your part, and you are in fact condemning me. What the fuck? Knock it off with this boring line of thought, kevin. You certainly have highpoints, but that's not one of them.

"Would you say that this is a terribly fair sample for you to judge how good or bad most Christians are?"

Generally when, even political, polls are done it's not every single black male in america, or even every single black male in dc, is it?

"Again, do you think it is your role as a "Christian" to decide that? "

Yes. It's plainly obvious that the world could improve alot.

"You don't need to assault or accostthem to violate what Christ was teaching here. "

So, jesus called the clergy bad on multiple occasions. And he wouldn't have been there to help people in the first place if there wasn't some kind of problem. What logic that is, huh? People wouldn't need religion or to latch onto jesus unless there was some kind of problem. But again, thanks for trying to hide problems, the world is perfect. Hold on while I eat a pez that supplies a full days worth of nutrients without the negative effects of a multi-vitamin. Cheapass.
You and italian stereotype are pretty much my prime examples of Bad christians because you refuse to admit that there's problems with the world, with yourself and with other people, and if you did admit all of that we wouldn't be having this conversation. The only reason you refuse to admit it is because it's insulting to your religion, and it's only really insulting to your religion because it's insulting to you. You're afraid to admit your own problems and downfalls. Fuck off with your ego.

"God knows the worth of a human being. A person that you look at and may think is a great, shining example of a Christian might go home at night and get off to kiddie porn."

Well, uh, thanks. That's sort of part of what I've been saying. :lol

"Neither of us is in the position to make that judgement. "

I'm not making a direct judgement on people, but rather on the state of society, culture and of the world. Since society is essentially everyone on earth put together, it's a rather good example as to how the whole of humanity is doing. It's sort of like realizing that if the car doesn't start, there's probably something wrong with it.

"The world will never be without sin, and Christians will never stop sinning. i think you're into the wrong religion. "

Thanks for the breakthrough. I'm sure the world could improve quite a bit though, right? If not, then why jesus' sacrafice? why the bible at all?

"Money isn't always the bad guy in the Bible. What can make it bad is that the pursuit of it could replace God as your idol"

Yea. That's basically what the bible says about it, it's the base of corruption for humanity. The base, foundation.

"is their a quota mentioned somewhere in the Bible?"

Yep. Where it says that the "Poor shall not give less" it also says the "Rich shall not give more". That's mostly dealing with contributions to the church, though.(doesn't modern catholic church demand a percentage? I just thought of that afterwards. I think the amount the bible said was half a Shikra or something like that, I'm not sure of that amount but i could look it up. Maybe a shikra is the percentage they use? I don't know.)

"Does God always side with labor and the poor in the Bible? "

Look it up, God says there's nothing more fulfilling than laboring under the sun.

"In Revelation, does God say "ok guys, once you're all perfect and the world is awesome I'm going to come down"?:

Actually, I think he says something that could be interpreted that way(and probably has been). That might not have been revelations, though.

"If every person who called themselves Christian tried their best, there'd still be war, and famine, and poverty, and misery. "

Maybe, but there could also potentially be alot less. And as far as famine and poverty: that's not necessarily true. It could potentially be possible for something like that to occur.

"That powerful factoid aside, you still can't make that judgement based off of mere perception."

I did, and you've been mentioning that I did it for the last 20 minutes. Isn't telling me what I can and can't do a judgement?

"you will also never truly be able to know their own fate comapred to yours. "

I will never truly care. I don't care about things like that.


Let's end this conversation though, Kevin. You've already admitted that some christians are bad. Even if it's not all, it's enough for me. You've admitted they will never be christ(although you are the one deifying him here, he was supposed to be a human, that was his importance as God's human son, there's some instances in the bible where he sinned so you were really kind of showing off your own knowledge of the bible) and all you're really doing in this argument is resorting to saying I'm discriminating and judging which is wrong according to the bible. Who cares? All christians judge. Weeeeeeee. Who cares if it's, "Not my job" obviously it's not, that's why I feel confident in doing it because what i say will have no effect on them or their lives. That isn't judgement, that's just opinion. You need to learn to discern the two.
I don't know why you feel the need to pretend like this stuff doesn't happen, i think it's you desperately trying to make a point. Does you saying there's problems within our government come as a sin? Huh? No. You say that shit all the time, I've never called you a sinner. I think it's a good thing that you at least look at things rather than just believing whatever you hear. Why is it different with your faith? Too personal? Don't feel up to the task? Granting the last two options, you shouldn't even be involved in a debate about it. You clearly have no knowledge on the topic.
I'm sure somewhere in the bible it says that the human race as a whole is partly evil. I'm sure Jesus himself said that the CLERGY was corrupt, I'm sure that the people Jesus was trying to save were partly responsible for his death. I'm sure that shitty christians who refuse to accept that there are bad things are a poor reflection of jesus christ, and i have judged you to be a poor reflection. Now I will piss in the water your figure shines so glummly in and drink moonshine in hell.
This shit isn't to be believed unerringly, you are pathetic and small for thinking so just because they have threatened you with damnation. You seem to believe God enjoys ignorance(and he might if we all ignored eachother's downfalls enough to not make us act horrible towards eachother) I think God would have us live to our full potential and know the truth of things by actually finding him and knowing him. I find you pathetic in that regard, but still respect you the same as I did before this discussion, you are really only belittling yourself. I have no actual negative feelings for you, just conceptual models and notions built up around you.
That's all, Good evening.

[kahljorn]

"Very pretty, but how does this prove that most Christians are bad Christians? Hmm??"

Very simply and lucidly, that our goal is to become christ?
If Adam is the principal human, and he was to become jesus christ, than that should be our goal. That jesus was a man who attained Christhood through effort and not bullshit, and still suffered through sin(he sort of suffered through the ultimate form of Sin, in effect he is the most sinful man man has ever known)? That using that as an example, we should be sacraficing ourselves for fellow man? How many do that? I instantly have respect for anyone who does that, even if in an arbitrary respect, even if what they did was incredibly stupid. I love that human beings are capable of that, but loathe that they instead choose to find scape goats like you have been doing. You use jesus christ as your scape-goat, throwing all your sin onto his back. You killed jesus, you fucking animal. I hate you.
That really wasn't the point I was trying to make, though, not everything is about that kevin. I don't even care about Christians being bad, I care about christians being better, along with everyone else. I was just connecting Dots.

"And do you think that even St. Augustine should speak for every Christian on Earth?"

I quote the bible and it's not enough. I quote St augestine and it's not enough. I quote jesus, God and whoever else. Clearly, no amount of people who were influential to your religion will convince you of anything. For all you know I've been copy pasting the convinctions of Christ and God(which is practically what I've been doing, seriously. All those versus and shit, remember?) and you have been calling him judgemental and a scumbag. Good job you blasphemer.

I really don't want to have this conversation anymore. After this I'm going to probably not respond. But who knows, I sure get emotionally involved in things, and I love momentum.

[kahljorn]

Ah, interesting:
For the part above where i mentioned the catholic church takes more than it's supposed to:
It's a SHEKEL, not a shirka or whatever, I'm pretty stupid.

shek·el Audio pronunciation of "shekel" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (shkl)
n.

1.
1. Any of several ancient units of weight, especially a Hebrew unit equal to about a half ounce.
2. A gold or silver coin equal in weight to one of these units, especially the chief silver coin of the ancient Hebrews.

Exodus 30:15
The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.

That's hilarious to me. More unreligious religion(even though it's not really relevant unless you're being really dogmatic and literal; but that's what catholicism is known for).

[Sethomas]

Catholics are allowed to believe in the big bang and evolution. And we're too... literal? And posting the Old Testament is a moot point. Ten Commandments- grand. But selling your daughter into slavery and detaining women while in menstruation? What exactly do you want us to accept as literal and what not?

[kahljorn]

Anything in the bible that's taken literally I would consider literal. I was hoping your post would be more better :( I have absolutely no suggestions for you, though. I just found it funny that the bible says how much money should be given. I'm sure it doesn't really go against it, though, because through some matter of literacy they could claim it's only when you're seeking atonement for your soul.
The catholic church is horribly literal on alot of things in the bible: so are christians. In this instance, catholics demand a certain amount, and christians don't so they won an appearance in my post.
I find that Catholics being allowed to believe in the big bang to be quite literal, since no where in the bible does it say you can't believe in them.

I thought up something funny guys while i was doing the dishes check this out it's so cool your eyes will fall out of your head;

so like, okay, if people continue through their lives sinning the earth becomes like hell and like when we um stop being like so evil we become good and the earth becomes a better place and it becomes like heaven wow that's kinda crazy they say God is where heaven is that's cool.

[Sethomas]

I actually believed that when I was 11.

In the Old Testament, you have Ten Commandments and several hundred laws, mostly in the Book of Leviticus. Christ said, Honor the Commandments, but add to them "love your neighbor as yourself". The laws? They're for Hobbesian proto-society, so screw them. I find that to be a very consistent, cogent outlook. And that's what the Catholic Church has been teaching since St Peter.

[kahljorn]

at the begining of this argument i suggested something along those lines. I must have the wrong idea of catholicism from someone else, or maybe I was just flat mistaken about them being "literal" and "Dogmatic". All i know is i have relatives who don't eat meat on fridays and all kinds of other weird stuff(My girlfriends mom was barely able to even become a member of the catholic church for some reason or another), I realize that's more choice than anything but still.
My family is funny in that sense that, some of them are protestant and some of them are catholic. They often have interesting conversations, and for the most part I've actually found those who are catholic to be more well-read in biblical terms than christians.
So don't take what I said personally or anything. I was merely commenting that, for the most part, Catholics seem to be more literal and ritualistic than protestants, especially when you consider the rockn'roll music they play for worshipping. Do they ask for money when you make a confession(I'm guessing that would be considered atonement for your soul, but I'm not sure)?

P.S. I don't think anyone should have to pay money for atonement, but I suppose it's a good method for repentance.

[Immortal Goat]

How do YOU have the right to measure and judge that potential??? The teachings in the Bible, particularly the teachings of Christ, tell you how to be a good Christian, and essentially how the whole deal works. It isn't a manual on how to condemn your fellow man. Once again, that is NOT your responsibility on this planet.

You can say you aren't doing that and that you don't believe in hell, but by saying most Christians aren't good Christians, then yes, you are in fact judging and condemning them.
I think the whole point of his argument is that it ISN'T a manual on how to condemn your fellow man, but the most vocal of Christians out there (note how I said the most vocal, not the majority) believe that they DO have the responsibility to condemn the rest of us to a firey pit of despair for all eternity. Of course, I could be wrong about this, but there's my two cents.

[Sethomas]

Paying for atonement is a type of indulgence that prevailed in the Middle Ages. Indulgences still exist, but the Council of Trent forbids selling them. That was in the 1540s. There were several bad priests back then who demanded a fee for their magic, id est reconciliation and transubstantiation. There you go, if you want an argument for literalism, go for "this is my blood". I buy it.

The Friday fast and abstinance (from meat, you perv) was restricted per necesitas to Lent by Vatican II. So, I ate lamb for lunch today.

There are few things more dangerous to Catholicism than an ill-informed Catholic.

The thing about the Bible is that it's recited systematically at mass, that is, all parishes worldwide are supposed to go in the same cycle. What I hear in English, Spanish, or Latin on Sunday, other people hear in French or German or Zulu that very day. So, scripture is considered a priori. Therefore, a good Catholic spends her time reading the Catechism, which digests meaning from Scripture into morality, theology, and life. That's the ground for why Protestants accuse Catholics of not being bible-thumpers, even though we have to hear the fire and brimestone shit once every two and a half years while they just recite the happy stuff every sunday.

[kahljorn]

Yea, i know what lent is, my grandma usually ate fish. Which was nice because we'd goto long john silvers or something lame like that.
I remember Indulgences as well, just wasn't sure if they were the same thing as atonement.

"which digests meaning from Scripture into morality, theology, and life."

That's how I feel it should be, but it generally doesn't absolve that way. Morality(which kind of goes hand in hand with life), in my opinion, should be the greatest lesson learned from religion, really. Regardless of if theological lessons are learned, morality is more real and active than anything else you can gain through the bible.
Generally when you gain some kind of theological knowledge you gain some kind of moral lesson as well, though.

"I think the whole point of his argument is that it ISN'T a manual on how to condemn your fellow man"

Yea, that was part of it i guess. I did point out the irony on second cor. being about judging while I was judging. I can't remember if this was before the tirade about judging people or not, but either way I found it hilarious.
I was also trying to express that I *do* feel a lot of responsibility for what other people do, as I feel we all should. Not in a condemning way, but in a loving way. When you feel responsible because your child spilled punch on someone's sofa, you're not condemning them. When you say they are clumsy, you aren't saying they are worthless bastards who are going to hell to live in pain and you hope they do because they deserve it. The only thing being responsible for your child can do is to show you to be more careful about them, to take better care of them and teach them how to be more careful about things. In the same respect I feel that responsibility towards the afairs of humanity, whether christian, american or satanic. I feel that it helps me be both a better person, and to treat people more fairly than they often deserve.
I don't consider that a bad thing, do you? Think of the implications, for now we vote assholes like bush into office who start wars(crappy example, sort of). How many people do you think feel responsible for that? I do, personally. I feel responsible for crazy people, and sometimes serial killers because they are often a result of outside influences(outside influences that may be me, or could at least be a result of something i or someone i know did) and society(which is a result of all of us). Which serial killer was it that thought he was a vampire, and when he was found covered in cows blood saying his blood was drying up and the only way to moisturize it was to get new blood? After that, they released him from the institution with barely a slap on the wrist, and he went out and killed a bunch of people. I feel responsible for that, and feel the doctors should as well. There's tons of examples like that, and I'm sure you can think up your own.

I guess I was trying to express that we should feel responsible for what other people do without condemning them? I was merely quoting what was considered condemnable in the bible since he was asking for scriptural references, and I found that some of the scriptural references sort of complimented the idea I was getting across. The others I threw in because they made people look already condemned which i found kind of hilarious in a juvenile way.

I'm actually a horribly peaceful person in real life, even if i do like to talk shit for entertainment purposes. I'll probably be gone for the rest of the night, and possibly for the weekend. I have to do assessment testing for a community college tomorrow. I'm moving up in the world :rolleyes So, sorry if i don't respond to you guys before then.
Any classes at a community college you would reccomend, seth?

[Sethomas]

Pre-Calculus. :rimshot

[kahljorn]

I took that in a past life, in fact invented it, bitch.

[sadie]

thank god this doesn't apply!

[kellychaos]

God knows the worth of a human being. A person that you look at and may think is a great, shining example of a Christian might go home at night and get off to kiddie porn. Neither of us is in the position to make that judgement.


I find both truth and sadness in this remark. :(

And Kahl,

Strive for the succinct. :)

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Kahl likes to use emoticons.

And Kahl, have no fears. I think just as little of you, and we should end this conversation (which I think I said a long time ago, before your numerous, rambling polemics).

[kellychaos]

Good day, Kevin! :)

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Was that a "hello" good day or a "goodbye" good day??? It's hard to tell over the internet....

[ziggytrix]

the smilie makes me think "hello"

[kahljorn]

"And Kahl, have no fears. I think just as little of you"

I didn't say I thought little of you, I said I still respect you just the same as before(I did however say you were belittling yourself). But then, I have this strange ability to not take things seriously on the internet. I love you, kevin :)