[electriic_ink]

(Original post by greeneyedgirl)
D'you know the story of Daniel and the lion's den?

Well it all came about because King Darius ordered that no-one could worship anyone but him. Daniel put God's laws first and continued to pray. He got put in the lion's den but no lion touched him because God found him blameless.

This is just another contradiction and doesn't clear things up. How do I know which example to follow: Romans 13 or the one presented in this story?

Think about countries where to practice Christianity or to be found in possession of a bible is illegal (this includes North Korea where it is believed Christians are being used as human guinea pigs for chemical and biological weapon testing). Would God want people living there to stop believing in Him in order to obey the authorities? No.

And this is where the we are reminded about how far the biblical story is removed from reality. God saved the life of Daniel but, as you say, God allows thousands of Christians to be tortured and murdered by the North Korean government. So, there are countless examples of where God has allowed those who disobey the governments he has put in place to be killed, but only one where he sided with the rebel. Doesn't this tell you something?

[greeneyedgirl]

(Original post by electriic_ink)
This is just another contradiction and doesn't clear things up. How do I know which example to follow: Romans 13 or the one presented in this story?

And this is where the we are reminded about how far the biblical story is removed from reality. God saved the life of Daniel but, as you say, God allows thousands of Christians to be tortured and murdered by the North Korean government. So, there are countless examples of where God has allowed those who disobey the governments he has put in place to be killed, but only one where he sided with the rebel. Doesn't this tell you something?

God's law is present throughout the bible as the ultimate law. The Romans passage is merely showing that by submitting to the authority we are serving God. It's just like in 2 Peter it tells us to submit to those in charge at work.

Death isn't really a punishment for Christians, you get to go to heaven, what more could you want?

[electriic_ink]

(Original post by greeneyedgirl)
God's law is present throughout the bible as the ultimate law. The Romans passage is merely showing that by submitting to the authority we are serving God. It's just like in 2 Peter it tells us to submit to those in charge at work.

But not all authority, since Daniel rebelled against the authority of King Darius, whom God made King, and God saved his life for doing so. How do I know which authority I should ignore? This seems like a pretty important issue - I will be "punished" if I get it wrong.

Death isn't really a punishment for Christians, you get to go to heaven, what more could you want?

I don't get what your point is here. It almost looks as though you're trying to condone, or at least play down, the mass slaughter of thousands of practising Christians, but I doubt that's what you meant to say

[greeneyedgirl]

(Original post by electriic_ink)
But not all authority, since Daniel rebelled against the authority of King Darius, whom God made King, and God saved his life for doing so. How do I know which authority I should ignore?

I don't get what your point is here. It almost looks as though you're trying to condone, or at least play down, the mass slaughter of thousands of practising Christians, but I doubt that's what you meant to say

If the authority contradicts God's will then do God's will.

Oh I'm not saying it's a good thing at all trust me it's horrific hearing about what happens in other countries and makes me very grateful I don't face that kind of persecution in the UK. What I was merely saying is that God isn't forgetting them by not saving them, He just knows that there is something very good waiting for them in the form of heaven. Also while of course there are those He doesn't save in this world, there are all those He does save. But in the end He saves all of them for all eternity which is the best thing ever.

[electriic_ink]

(Original post by greeneyedgirl)
If the authority contradicts God's will then do God's will.

How do you know this? It doesn't say that in Romans 13.

[Of course, I'm ignoring the fact that it's also God's will that we submit to authority.]

Oh I'm not saying it's a good thing at all trust me it's horrific hearing about what happens in other countries and makes me very grateful I don't face that kind of persecution in the UK. What I was merely saying is that God isn't forgetting them by not saving them, He just knows that there is something very good waiting for them in the form of heaven. Also while of course there are those He doesn't save in this world, there are all those He does save. But in the end He saves all of them for all eternity which is the best thing ever.

Do you therefore believe that it's a good thing when people die?

[greeneyedgirl]

(Original post by electriic_ink)
How do you know this? It doesn't say that in Romans 13.

Do you therefore believe that it's a good thing when people die?

Because you can't just take one verse from the bible and expect it to say everything. You've got to read the bible as a whole.

Well that's not a loaded question at all No, I don't think people dying is a good thing. Yes I can be happy when Christians die because I know they've gone to heaven. Like for example if anything ever happened to my parents I would be absolutely distraught, but at the same time I'd be happy that they were with God. In the same way I don't dread death. Yes of course there are many things I want to do in my life before I die but the thought of dying isn't a sad one.

[charliecrucis]

I would have to say that it isn’t. And here’s why:
I would first point out that I have, in no way, any problem with a person’s individual beliefs, whilst those beliefs don’t impact on the happiness of others. In fact I would be inclined to say that I would actively support your right to believe whatever you want, be it a religion or otherwise, but as soon as your beliefs have a negative impact n other people, this is when I have a problem with it.
So I shall base this with regard to religious authorities. And it would perhaps be appropriate to start with the Pope, in my opinion one of the worst of the religious leaders, and certainly one that can indicate my point best.
Concerning the most recent revelations about the steady complicity of the Vatican in the ongoing—indeed endless—scandal of child rape, a few days later a spokesman for the Holy See made a concession in the guise of a denial. It was clear, said the Rev. Federico Lombardi, that an attempt was being made "to find elements to involve the Holy Father personally in issues of abuse." He stupidly went on to say that "those efforts have failed."
Now, many religious people would hold the belief that due to the lack of any sort of written moral guidance, those ‘without God’ must be immoral and evil. But, speaking as an atheist, I feel that the most immoral acts come from those who are able to manipulate biblical scripture in order to justify their hideous acts against human kind, namely child rape and the cause of HIV/Aids throughout Africa; and the constant aim to reduce everyone’s ‘free will’ to the absolute minimum. Rather akin to the Animal Farm quote “We are all equal; just some are more equal than others” which suggests in terms of this debate (forum) that the Pope feels somewhat ‘more equal’ that the rest of human kind, which I think has been commonly described as blasphemy, albeit very well disguised.
There are two separate but related matters here: First, the individual responsibility of the pope in one instance of this moral nightmare and, second, his more general and institutional responsibility for the wider lawbreaking and for the shame and disgrace that goes with it. The first story is easily told, and it is not denied by anybody. In 1979, an 11-year-old German boy identified as Wilfried F. was taken on a vacation trip to the mountains by a priest. After that, he was administered alcohol, locked in his bedroom, stripped naked, and forced to suck the penis of his confessor. (Why do we limit ourselves to calling this sort of thing "abuse"?) The offending cleric was transferred from Essen to Munich for "therapy" by a decision of then-Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, and assurances were given that he would no longer have children in his care. But it took no time for Ratzinger's deputy, Vicar General Gerhard Gruber, to return him to "pastoral" work, where he soon enough resumed his career of sexual assault. All very much encouraged and approved by the Pope, as well as the (old) Archbishop.
The second story is more complex, but shows that as an institution the religion has become both ridiculous and completely unacceptable. I don’t need a sort of holy book to know that acts of this kind are wrong. It also shows that enough propaganda and, dare I say it, brainwashed support, can cause a man with inhuman, bigoted views and supernatural claims to be able to control an entire organization simply on the grounds of one religion (this would therefore mean that all other religions are false, or that he is a despicable liar).
Not at all dissimilar to a dictator ship, and to use the most awful of all examples: Hitler. Hitler gained power by making very large claims, promises and giving people something to revere or look up to. Propaganda also played a massive part, and, of course, the covering up of what really happened through use of television, posters and spokesmen.
Now, I am not unaware that the Pope has done some good in his life, in that he gives to charity and prayers everyday for people who are suffering (although I don’t believe that prayer will help anything, at least he is doing something which he thinks may help), but let us not forget that Hitler too gave to charity, and was an enthusiastic environmentalist. I still feel he is one of the most despicable men to have ever lived.
If a criminal came u to you in a court of law, you would not expect him to say “oh, you would mention that burglary, I’ve done so many good things too”, because the point still stands, the criminal is still a criminal.
I shall right no more, partly to avoid boredom and partly because I’m sure the last 10 minutes of y life have been in vain. But there you have it, a brief summary of why I feel that religion is NOT a force for good in this world.

[The_Lonely_Goatherd]

(Original post by charliecrucis)
I would have to say that it isn’t. And here’s why:
I would first point out that I have, in no way, any problem with a person’s individual beliefs, whilst those beliefs don’t impact on the happiness of others. In fact I would be inclined to say that I would actively support your right to believe whatever you want, be it a religion or otherwise, but as soon as your beliefs have a negative impact n other people, this is when I have a problem with it.
So I shall base this with regard to religious authorities. And it would perhaps be appropriate to start with the Pope, in my opinion one of the worst of the religious leaders, and certainly one that can indicate my point best.
Concerning the most recent revelations about the steady complicity of the Vatican in the ongoing—indeed endless—scandal of child rape, a few days later a spokesman for the Holy See made a concession in the guise of a denial. It was clear, said the Rev. Federico Lombardi, that an attempt was being made "to find elements to involve the Holy Father personally in issues of abuse." He stupidly went on to say that "those efforts have failed."
Now, many religious people would hold the belief that due to the lack of any sort of written moral guidance, those ‘without God’ must be immoral and evil. But, speaking as an atheist, I feel that the most immoral acts come from those who are able to manipulate biblical scripture in order to justify their hideous acts against human kind, namely child rape and the cause of HIV/Aids throughout Africa; and the constant aim to reduce everyone’s ‘free will’ to the absolute minimum. Rather akin to the Animal Farm quote “We are all equal; just some are more equal than others” which suggests in terms of this debate (forum) that the Pope feels somewhat ‘more equal’ that the rest of human kind, which I think has been commonly described as blasphemy, albeit very well disguised.
There are two separate but related matters here: First, the individual responsibility of the pope in one instance of this moral nightmare and, second, his more general and institutional responsibility for the wider lawbreaking and for the shame and disgrace that goes with it. The first story is easily told, and it is not denied by anybody. In 1979, an 11-year-old German boy identified as Wilfried F. was taken on a vacation trip to the mountains by a priest. After that, he was administered alcohol, locked in his bedroom, stripped naked, and forced to suck the penis of his confessor. (Why do we limit ourselves to calling this sort of thing "abuse"?) The offending cleric was transferred from Essen to Munich for "therapy" by a decision of then-Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, and assurances were given that he would no longer have children in his care. But it took no time for Ratzinger's deputy, Vicar General Gerhard Gruber, to return him to "pastoral" work, where he soon enough resumed his career of sexual assault. All very much encouraged and approved by the Pope, as well as the (old) Archbishop.
The second story is more complex, but shows that as an institution the religion has become both ridiculous and completely unacceptable. I don’t need a sort of holy book to know that acts of this kind are wrong. It also shows that enough propaganda and, dare I say it, brainwashed support, can cause a man with inhuman, bigoted views and supernatural claims to be able to control an entire organization simply on the grounds of one religion (this would therefore mean that all other religions are false, or that he is a despicable liar).
Not at all dissimilar to a dictator ship, and to use the most awful of all examples: Hitler. Hitler gained power by making very large claims, promises and giving people something to revere or look up to. Propaganda also played a massive part, and, of course, the covering up of what really happened through use of television, posters and spokesmen.
Now, I am not unaware that the Pope has done some good in his life, in that he gives to charity and prayers everyday for people who are suffering (although I don’t believe that prayer will help anything, at least he is doing something which he thinks may help), but let us not forget that Hitler too gave to charity, and was an enthusiastic environmentalist. I still feel he is one of the most despicable men to have ever lived.
If a criminal came u to you in a court of law, you would not expect him to say “oh, you would mention that burglary, I’ve done so many good things too”, because the point still stands, the criminal is still a criminal.
I shall right no more, partly to avoid boredom and partly because I’m sure the last 10 minutes of y life have been in vain. But there you have it, a brief summary of why I feel that religion is NOT a force for good in this world.

Think you posted in the wrong thread

[charliecrucis]

yes, i did, so sorry

[The_Lonely_Goatherd]

Not to worry! Just thought I should point it out

[electriic_ink]

Sorry for taking a while to reply and thanks for your answers so far.

(Original post by greeneyedgirl)
Because you can't just take one verse from the bible and expect it to say everything. You've got to read the bible as a whole.

So, what you're saying is that the general impression you get from the Bible is we should only submit to authority when that authority is telling us what God wants us to do? If so, in which parts of the Bible does it say this? (apart from the story of King Darius, which seems to be quite a specific example of something God did once, as opposed to the passage I gave, which is clearly a command). If it doesn't say this anywhere specifically, how do you know the impression you got about this issue is infallible?

It all seems a little ridiculous that God would put someone in authority who he knows would tell people to not do his will and put a passage in the Bible that tells them to submit to every authority (presumably including those who don't do God's will) or face punishment, when, what he really means is "rebel against authority if they aren't doing what I would want". Why didn't the writers of Romans 13 proofread what they'd written and add that important clarification? They must have known that the document they were writing was pretty important so it must have been worth their while to proofread it.

[Mazzini]

(Original post by charliecrucis)
I would have to say that it isn’t. And here’s why:
I would first point out that I have, in no way, any problem with a person’s individual beliefs, whilst those beliefs don’t impact on the happiness of others. In fact I would be inclined to say that I would actively support your right to believe whatever you want, be it a religion or otherwise, but as soon as your beliefs have a negative impact n other people, this is when I have a problem with it.
So I shall base this with regard to religious authorities. And it would perhaps be appropriate to start with the Pope, in my opinion one of the worst of the religious leaders, and certainly one that can indicate my point best.
Concerning the most recent revelations about the steady complicity of the Vatican in the ongoing—indeed endless—scandal of child rape, a few days later a spokesman for the Holy See made a concession in the guise of a denial. It was clear, said the Rev. Federico Lombardi, that an attempt was being made "to find elements to involve the Holy Father personally in issues of abuse." He stupidly went on to say that "those efforts have failed."
Now, many religious people would hold the belief that due to the lack of any sort of written moral guidance, those ‘without God’ must be immoral and evil. But, speaking as an atheist, I feel that the most immoral acts come from those who are able to manipulate biblical scripture in order to justify their hideous acts against human kind, namely child rape and the cause of HIV/Aids throughout Africa; and the constant aim to reduce everyone’s ‘free will’ to the absolute minimum. Rather akin to the Animal Farm quote “We are all equal; just some are more equal than others” which suggests in terms of this debate (forum) that the Pope feels somewhat ‘more equal’ that the rest of human kind, which I think has been commonly described as blasphemy, albeit very well disguised.
There are two separate but related matters here: First, the individual responsibility of the pope in one instance of this moral nightmare and, second, his more general and institutional responsibility for the wider lawbreaking and for the shame and disgrace that goes with it. The first story is easily told, and it is not denied by anybody. In 1979, an 11-year-old German boy identified as Wilfried F. was taken on a vacation trip to the mountains by a priest. After that, he was administered alcohol, locked in his bedroom, stripped naked, and forced to suck the penis of his confessor. (Why do we limit ourselves to calling this sort of thing "abuse"?) The offending cleric was transferred from Essen to Munich for "therapy" by a decision of then-Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, and assurances were given that he would no longer have children in his care. But it took no time for Ratzinger's deputy, Vicar General Gerhard Gruber, to return him to "pastoral" work, where he soon enough resumed his career of sexual assault. All very much encouraged and approved by the Pope, as well as the (old) Archbishop.
The second story is more complex, but shows that as an institution the religion has become both ridiculous and completely unacceptable. I don’t need a sort of holy book to know that acts of this kind are wrong. It also shows that enough propaganda and, dare I say it, brainwashed support, can cause a man with inhuman, bigoted views and supernatural claims to be able to control an entire organization simply on the grounds of one religion (this would therefore mean that all other religions are false, or that he is a despicable liar).
Not at all dissimilar to a dictator ship, and to use the most awful of all examples: Hitler. Hitler gained power by making very large claims, promises and giving people something to revere or look up to. Propaganda also played a massive part, and, of course, the covering up of what really happened through use of television, posters and spokesmen.
Now, I am not unaware that the Pope has done some good in his life, in that he gives to charity and prayers everyday for people who are suffering (although I don’t believe that prayer will help anything, at least he is doing something which he thinks may help), but let us not forget that Hitler too gave to charity, and was an enthusiastic environmentalist. I still feel he is one of the most despicable men to have ever lived.
If a criminal came u to you in a court of law, you would not expect him to say “oh, you would mention that burglary, I’ve done so many good things too”, because the point still stands, the criminal is still a criminal.
I shall right no more, partly to avoid boredom and partly because I’m sure the last 10 minutes of y life have been in vain. But there you have it, a brief summary of why I feel that religion is NOT a force for good in this world.

I got lost a few lines in, what with the wall of text.

Paragraphs please!

[greeneyedgirl]

(Original post by electriic_ink)
Sorry for taking a while to reply and thanks for your answers so far.

So, what you're saying is that the general impression you get from the Bible is we should only submit to authority when that authority is telling us what God wants us to do? If so, in which parts of the Bible does it say this? (apart from the story of King Darius, which seems to be quite a specific example of something God did once, as opposed to the passage I gave, which is clearly a command). If it doesn't say this anywhere specifically, how do you know the impression you got about this issue is infallible?

It all seems a little ridiculous that God would put someone in authority who he knows would tell people to not do his will and put a passage in the Bible that tells them to submit to every authority (presumably including those who don't do God's will) or face punishment, when, what he really means is "rebel against authority if they aren't doing what I would want". Why didn't the writers of Romans 13 proofread what they'd written and add that important clarification? They must have known that the document they were writing was pretty important so it must have been worth their while to proofread it.

Ephesians 1:21 states that Jesus is "far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come." Matthew 28:18 corroborates this: "Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."" Colossians 2:10 also shows this "Christ, who is the head over every power and authority." This means that God is above earthly authority.

Acts 4:18-19 "Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God." and Acts 5:28-29 "“We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men!" show how that when authority defies God, we must defy authority, because overall it is God we serve.

[charliecrucis]

(Original post by Mazzini)
I got lost a few lines in, what with the wall of text.

Paragraphs please!

There are paragraphs - just it took out the tabs.

[killa78]

Was the new testament written by Paul the apostle?
And was he alive to follow Jesus around?

If not, where did he get his information from?

Also, who wrote the old testament originally?

Thanks you

[greeneyedgirl]

(Original post by killa78)
Was the new testament written by Paul the apostle?
And was he alive to follow Jesus around?

If not, where did he get his information from?

Also, who wrote the old testament originally?

Thanks you

Some of it is authored by Paul (although not necessarily written by Paul if that makes sense). The gospels clearly were not written by Paul but by four different people.

Paul was alive while Jesus was around but he was not a follower of Jesus until after Jesus' death.

[killa78]

(Original post by greeneyedgirl)
Some of it is authored by Paul (although not necessarily written by Paul if that makes sense). The gospels clearly were not written by Paul but by four different people.

Paul was alive while Jesus was around but he was not a follower of Jesus until after Jesus' death.

So where did he get the information from?

From the other apostles or from what he heard?

[greeneyedgirl]

(Original post by killa78)
So where did he get the information from?

From the other apostles or from what he heard?

Sorry I don't have time to reply this, literally losing internet in a few minutes so please can someone else reply?

[killa78]

(Original post by greeneyedgirl)
Sorry I don't have time to reply this, literally losing internet in a few minutes so please can someone else reply?

Lol. Hope everything works out OK!

And someone please

[Politricks]

(Original post by greeneyedgirl)
Paul was alive while Jesus was around but he was not a follower of Jesus until after Jesus' death.

Actually Paul was born 5 years after Jesus' death, in Turkey.