Why Man Could Not Have Created Christianity

[frigidweirdo]

What man would create a religion that frowns on promiscuity and promotes monogamy?

Apparently there are men out there who have a problem with sex. Christianity has evolved over time. I believe Augustine of Hippo might have been one of those to push for sex being bad.

 

[DOTR]

I make no such claim. I only make the observation that Christians do interpret the Old Testament literally, when it fits their purpose, and that Christians are, at best, inconsistent about their insistence that the Old Testament "does not apply" to Christians.

You make the observation through ignorance or vindictiveness. As I said earlier you prefer your straw man sophistry “so if you believe this then....”. It’s a formula that comforts you.
If you wanted to learn what Christianity teaches you could have read Part I, Section 1 Chapter 2 3:4 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Specifically para 121
Calvin explained it beautifully in Book 2 chapter 7 of his Institutes.
The Formula of Concord and Smalcad Artcles are the Lutheran explanation.
St Augustine and St Cyril also wrote extensively on the subject.
Or maybe you have just spent too much time arguing with dispensational fundamentalists.

 

[DOTR]

Oh that's funny. It's not that we "don't understand", it's that you guys keep changing the rules:

There are religions out there that live by the Bible, including the. old Testament quite literally.

There are indeed. Czernoborg has decided Christians should. He is still sort of shell shocked that nobody listens to him.

I make no such claim. I only make the observation that Christians do interpret the Old Testament literally, when it fits their purpose, and that Christians are, at best, inconsistent about their insistence that the Old Testament "does not apply" to Christians.

Says the guy who claims Christians have 613 laws they must follow or else.

No clue as to the faith.

No. I said the Bible has 613 laws. Which it does. I thought you said you had read the Bible in its entirety. How did you miss that part? It takes up a rather significant portion. Further, while, as you point out, by Christian dogma, a Christian won't be "judged" by the law, Jesus made it clear that adherence to the law is still morally requisite. No where in the New Testament are the 10 commandments repeated. Would you submit, then, that Christians are not bound buy those commandments, since they are "only in the Old Testament"? Once again, Christians are decidedly inconsistent in their insistence that the Old Testament is not applicable to them.

You are obviously heavily influenced by Islam which has one book, a unified single book, a magical book which is considered so literally the handwritten word of God that it can only be understood in Arabic.
Christians have a different authority. And the Christian Bible is a collection of ceremonial laws, history, prophecy, poetry, letters of instruction and wisdom literature.
Sorry they didn’t check with you first.

 

[DOTR]

No, I didn't. I sad man created a religion that included 613 laws, many of which subjugate women. At no point in time did I, nor the OP, specify Christianity. You presumed that,

Which religion were you speaking of?

 

[Lysistrata]

What man would create a religion that frowns on promiscuity and promotes monogamy?

No religion that supposedly espouses these views has actually ever applied them to the male half of the population. The day on which the "leaders" of these religions become as vocal about the sexual morality of males as they have been about the sexual morality of females is the day on which I might, just might, start considering a return to organized religion. If the Supreme Being has, down through the ages, demanded abstinence until marriage and then complete faithfulness after it as a condition of entering heaven upon death, as "traditional" teaching so says, hell must be really crowded with the souls who have lived their lives as men.

Speaking specifically of the versions of Christianity going around in the U.S. today, if it is so easy to get back in tight with the Supreme Being by asking Jesus to forgive a transgression, why is this option not available to women? In view of the various confessionals that have been given by male politicians caught in the act, can you imagine a female politician stepping up to the mike and saying, "yes, I'm so sorry that I have laid every single attractive man between here and Los Angeles, but it's okay because Jesus has forgiven me"?

 

[Bonzi]

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

 

[Bonzi]

Sounds like this applies to women and men... no?

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts,

It actually sounds like WOMEN are allowed to be homosexual actually....

 

[Bonzi]

And, of course, this one. Clearly not meant for women:

Jesus said “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt 5:27-28).

 

[Bonzi]

What man would create a religion that frowns on promiscuity and promotes monogamy?

Yeahbut it keeps the ladies in the kitchen, cooking, barefoot and pregnant, so I'm not so sure.

Maybe, but, religion tends to make women less sexual, since it talks so negatively about it.

Obviously you have never studied Kundalini Yoga.

Yeah well, I'm specifically talking Christianity here as the OP states...

 

[social philosopher]

What man would create a religion that frowns on promiscuity and promotes monogamy?

One who wants to control women, and relegate them to property. If you'll notice, the bible doesn't actually promote monogamy, nor "frown upon" promiscuity. It only does so for women. Out of 613 laws, the only ones that regulate the actions of men is to dictate that men who "take the maidenhood" of women must pay the "bride price" to the woman's father. The inclusion of men in the "don't **** other people" rules is actually a relatively recent (compared to a 6,000 year history of Abrahamic religions) development, and only two of the three include men in the rules.

Notice that the exact opposite rules apply to men and women. In men your reputation is enhanced by the number of female conquests you can claim. In women it is the lower number that prevails. In men, in general, the main motivator for actions is the conquest of *****. All thoughts and actions are dependent upon this.

 

[Bonzi]

What man would create a religion that frowns on promiscuity and promotes monogamy?

One who wants to control women, and relegate them to property. If you'll notice, the bible doesn't actually promote monogamy, nor "frown upon" promiscuity. It only does so for women. Out of 613 laws, the only ones that regulate the actions of men is to dictate that men who "take the maidenhood" of women must pay the "bride price" to the woman's father. The inclusion of men in the "don't **** other people" rules is actually a relatively recent (compared to a 6,000 year history of Abrahamic religions) development, and only two of the three include men in the rules.

Notice that the exact opposite rules apply to men and women. In men your reputation is enhanced by the number of female conquests you can claim. In women it is the lower number that prevails. In men, in general, the main motivator for actions is the conquest of *****. All thoughts and actions are dependent upon this.

Men are designed to reproduce with many females. In such an anti-Christian society, I do not understand why this is an issue. It's true throughout much of nature (but not all). Humans are clearly not monogamous by nature.

 

[Czernobog]

I make no such claim. I only make the observation that Christians do interpret the Old Testament literally, when it fits their purpose, and that Christians are, at best, inconsistent about their insistence that the Old Testament "does not apply" to Christians.

I know how to translate “literally”. But how do you “interpret literally”?

Really? Now you're going to wander off into a debate about semantics? Fine. Here lemme restate my case to your satisfaction:

I make no such claim. I only make the observation that Christians do translate the Old Testament literally, when it fits their purpose, and that Christians are, at best, inconsistent about their insistence that the Old Testament "does not apply" to Christians.

Now, would you like to address the actual content, or do you have some other distraction that you would prefer to deflect with?

 

[DOTR]

I much prefer a literal translation. Dynamic equivalence works for me as well so long as it is the known. I do not like paraphrase translation like the Living Bible.
I really don’t see what difference the translation technique makes here though.
As I said, Christianity is not ambiguous about the Old Testament as can be seen in their writings both ancient and modern. It is God breathed.
But you are still looking at it wrong with your Islam influenced bias. It would help if you tried to understand and familiarize yourself with religions you want to attack.
And with Biblical translation techniques. A literal or word for word translation still has to be read and understood.

“John 10:9 I am the door, through me if any one may come in, he shall be saved, and he shall come in, and go out, and find pasture.”

That is an extremely literal translation. Are you going to now try “so, if you believe Jesus has a doorknob in his chest....”?

Sophistry and you know it. The rabid religious types did the same thing to Jesus when they surrounded Him and threw questions at Him in order to trap him. They weren’t interested in learning what He thought. They were only interested in springing a trap of sophistry.
Liberalism and fanaticism never change.

 

[ScienceRocks]

This god was made by a very evil monster that likes to see people in fear as the god of the bible is truly evil.

God is far more evil then satan
-He made satan
-He ordered the slaughter of millions of people(25-50 million people lived 6-7k ago.)
-He ordered babies to be slaughtered
-Rape victims would have to marry their rapist
-Incest all throughout the book
-He wanted other tribes to slaughter each other and take the other as slaves
-He knew everything and allowed it to happen
-He uses fear and threats of torture to demand worship

Satan in truth didn't kill 1/1,000,000th as many people and is just a tool more or less for the real evil.

The book is such a mish mash of crap one could argue that no all powerful god would be so ******* dumb as to piece this piece of shit together.

 

[Czernobog]

I much prefer a literal translation. Dynamic equivalence works for me as well so long as it is the known. I do not like paraphrase translation like the Living Bible.
I really don’t see what difference the translation technique makes here though.
As I said, Christianity is not ambiguous about the Old Testament as can be seen in their writings both ancient and modern. It is God breathed.
But you are still looking at it wrong with your Islam influenced bias. It would help if you tried to understand and familiarize yourself with religions you want to attack.
And with Biblical translation techniques. A literal or word for word translation still has to be read and understood.

“John 10:9 I am the door, through me if any one may come in, he shall be saved, and he shall come in, and go out, and find pasture.”

That is an extremely literal translation. Are you going to now try “so, if you believe Jesus has a doorknob in his chest....”?

Sophistry and you know it. The rabid religious types did the same thing to Jesus when they surrounded Him and threw questions at Him in order to trap him. They weren’t interested in learning what He thought. They were only interested in springing a trap of sophistry.
Liberalism and fanaticism never change.

The problem is when you start trying to apply those same interpretive tools to events in the Old testament. The list is long. Every event that occurs in the Old Testament mythology is redefined as "allegory", or mistranslation.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If god wrote the bible and yes the old testament is part of the bible then he is truly evil
If man wrote the bible then there's no god
And if man wrote the bible for god then man fucked up! And we wouldn't know the real god anyways. So we're all going to ******* hell.

That is our choices

 

[Political Junky]

What man would create a religion that frowns on promiscuity and promotes monogamy?

One who wants to control women, and relegate them to property. If you'll notice, the bible doesn't actually promote monogamy, nor "frown upon" promiscuity. It only does so for women. Out of 613 laws, the only ones that regulate the actions of men is to dictate that men who "take the maidenhood" of women must pay the "bride price" to the woman's father. The inclusion of men in the "don't **** other people" rules is actually a relatively recent (compared to a 6,000 year history of Abrahamic religions) development, and only two of the three include men in the rules.

It was a joke, but, that being said, the Bible indicates throughout the New Testament that God prefers monogamy and, even, originally created one man and one woman

I mean, wouldn't most men who created a religion have written about Adam, Eve, Scarlett, Jennifer and Beyonce?

Again, the New Testament does no such thing. It speaks very little, if at all, about monogamy. And all of the admonitions against adultery were directed towards women, not men.

"You shall not commit adultery"

Here on planet earth we fail to see any segment of mankind immune from this commandment.

Read the Old Testament.

 

[Weatherman2020]

What man would create a religion that frowns on promiscuity and promotes monogamy?

One who wants to control women, and relegate them to property. If you'll notice, the bible doesn't actually promote monogamy, nor "frown upon" promiscuity. It only does so for women. Out of 613 laws, the only ones that regulate the actions of men is to dictate that men who "take the maidenhood" of women must pay the "bride price" to the woman's father. The inclusion of men in the "don't **** other people" rules is actually a relatively recent (compared to a 6,000 year history of Abrahamic religions) development, and only two of the three include men in the rules.

It was a joke, but, that being said, the Bible indicates throughout the New Testament that God prefers monogamy and, even, originally created one man and one woman

I mean, wouldn't most men who created a religion have written about Adam, Eve, Scarlett, Jennifer and Beyonce?

Again, the New Testament does no such thing. It speaks very little, if at all, about monogamy. And all of the admonitions against adultery were directed towards women, not men.

"You shall not commit adultery"

Here on planet earth we fail to see any segment of mankind immune from this commandment.

Read the Old Testament.

Do tell us the verse that says men but not women can have adultery!

 

[Bonzi]

What man would create a religion that frowns on promiscuity and promotes monogamy?

One who wants to control women, and relegate them to property. If you'll notice, the bible doesn't actually promote monogamy, nor "frown upon" promiscuity. It only does so for women. Out of 613 laws, the only ones that regulate the actions of men is to dictate that men who "take the maidenhood" of women must pay the "bride price" to the woman's father. The inclusion of men in the "don't **** other people" rules is actually a relatively recent (compared to a 6,000 year history of Abrahamic religions) development, and only two of the three include men in the rules.

It was a joke, but, that being said, the Bible indicates throughout the New Testament that God prefers monogamy and, even, originally created one man and one woman

I mean, wouldn't most men who created a religion have written about Adam, Eve, Scarlett, Jennifer and Beyonce?

Again, the New Testament does no such thing. It speaks very little, if at all, about monogamy. And all of the admonitions against adultery were directed towards women, not men.

"You shall not commit adultery"

Here on planet earth we fail to see any segment of mankind immune from this commandment.

Read the Old Testament.

Read the New Testament

 

[Czernobog]

One who wants to control women, and relegate them to property. If you'll notice, the bible doesn't actually promote monogamy, nor "frown upon" promiscuity. It only does so for women. Out of 613 laws, the only ones that regulate the actions of men is to dictate that men who "take the maidenhood" of women must pay the "bride price" to the woman's father. The inclusion of men in the "don't **** other people" rules is actually a relatively recent (compared to a 6,000 year history of Abrahamic religions) development, and only two of the three include men in the rules.

It was a joke, but, that being said, the Bible indicates throughout the New Testament that God prefers monogamy and, even, originally created one man and one woman

I mean, wouldn't most men who created a religion have written about Adam, Eve, Scarlett, Jennifer and Beyonce?

Again, the New Testament does no such thing. It speaks very little, if at all, about monogamy. And all of the admonitions against adultery were directed towards women, not men.

"You shall not commit adultery"

Here on planet earth we fail to see any segment of mankind immune from this commandment.

Read the Old Testament.

Do tell us the verse that says men but not women can have adultery!

Ple3ase demonstrate for us the consequences dictated for men who commit adultery.