Here’s a short test for Christians (and anyone who wants to understand them). Just answer the following questions, in your mind, with a “yes” or a “no”.
- Do you believe homosexuals should be killed? Not just “they’re going to hell”, but actually executed?
- Do you believe women are inferior to men, should remain submissive, and can never be allowed to teach men or have authority over them?
- Do you believe slavery is OK?
- Do you believe disobedient children should be killed?
- Do you believe that, when waging war, it is proper to commit genocide, killing every man, woman and child in the enemy nation — except for, in some particular cases, female virgins, who can be taken as “spoils”?
- Do you believe that anyone who suggests to a Christian that he follow other gods should be killed?
- Do you believe that an old grandmother, who lived a life of caring for others, bringing joy to dozens, will be condemned to an afterlife of eternal suffering if she didn’t accept Jesus as her savior?
- Do you believe that there are cases in which a raped woman should be killed along with, or even instead of, the rapist?
If you answered “no” to even one of the above, you’re not a real Christian. You believe you know more than the God you say you worship (and you call atheists “arrogant”?!?). You’re guilty of picking and choosing from your divinely inspired holy book, ignoring more than half of it. You only follow the teachings you already agree with. In effect, you’re creating your own religion.
If you answered “yes” to even one of the above, then you are a repulsive, evil monster. Please never visit this blog again, and go play in traffic, or at least don’t reproduce.
A virtual cookie to the first who spots and identifies the implication of combining the previous 2 paragraphs. 
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
Yep, there are very very very few true Christians out there.
Maybe that’s another one of the thousand reasons I’m an atheist.
Is the implication of combining the two that you become an arrogant evil monster?
Let me first say that I really enjoy this post. You have a great way of presenting something that really put’s people on their toes. Honestly, your first paragraph about the saying “no” part is one I’m going to have to think about.
I want to engage in more conversation about this, but I think I’ll have to read your picking and choosing post first to better understand your views.
I would only say though, that I’m interested in seeking the truth, and I think you are too. Maybe you can help me find it.
[quote comment="6792"]Is the implication of combining the two that you become an arrogant evil monster?[/quote]
Not quite, but close.
And I didn’t mention “arrogant” anywhere. There are much greater evils in the world than arrogance, anyway.
EDIT: oh, I did mention “arrogant”, sorry. But that’s not part of the implication; it’s just about the fact that theists tend to say atheists are “arrogant” because they look at the facts and decide what’s more likely, when a Christian who ignores part of the Bible is, in effect, saying that he knows better than his god. What’s more arrogant: saying that there are no gods, or saying that there is a god but more than half of what he said or inspired can be ignored?
The #1 reason people claim to be Christian has to be that their parents indoctrinated them. For many, their exposure to their so-called holy book has been so minimal that I’m not even sure they know what is in it outside of the Christmas story.
Although i think your simply preaching to the converted my praise shall still ensue. My personal condemning of the morbid Christian faith shall have to wait until i’ve read the bulk of your religious posts, else i’m afraid ill simply be iterating something you have previously said.
So until such time i shall leave you with this.
i shall have to be a frequent visitor from now on
*Clap clap* -
This litmus test deserves is hardly indicative of a true Christian. Have you ever tried reading things in CONTEXT, especially since much of what you misquote has to do with judiciary law in the OLD testament (Israel’s law at that time). There’s a difference between personal lifestyle and laws. If you’re as familiar with the Bible as you repeatedly insist you are, I’m sure you would have discovered that by now.
I guess I could twist what I wanted to make my points about atheists if I wanted to as well, so this post didn’t offend me in the slightest.
“If you answered “yes” to even one of the above, then you are a repulsive, evil monster. Please never visit this blog again, and go play in traffic, or at least don’t reproduce.”
And people of religion are the only hateful ones when you see nothing wrong with posting remarks like that?
Steve: whatever you agree with, “is the word of the LORD”. Whatever is monstrous and evil, “is being taken out of context”, “isn’t literal”, “is just a parable”, “should be interpreted according to its time period”, “is a late edition to the Bible”, “is an error in translation”, and so on.
Picking and choosing. Very convenient.
When Christians stop taking the bible literally when it helps their views (homosexuals are “an abomination”), I’ll stop pointing out the parts they conveniently ignore. Not before.
I remind you that I am talking about rapists, pedophiles, homophobic bigots, men who treat women as property, child-killing parents, mass murderers, pro-slavery people, and so on.
I don’t subscribe to the relativist credo that “everything is just a matter of opinion”. The creatures listed above are monsters, and anyone who believes I’m being “too harsh on them”, or that I should “listen to their point of view”, should simply wake up from their dreamy state, and grow up.
Naturally, I would say “no” to all of the above questions.
Does that make me a non-true Christian?
Must the bible be taken literally? What does “literally” mean?
Jesus himself condemned following these rules, and broke the Old Testament Law himself. Why? Because he didn’t believe it applied. He took the bible “literally”, and yet knew how to read literature correctly.
Sometimes books list facts (like a genealogy, or a history of political development). These facts are not normally taken to be rulebooks. Why should we read the bible any differently than we do other literature?
If you read the bible, you see that this Old Law was just a listing of the local political laws that applied to a specific people at a specific time, not a “Universal Moral Law” at all.
If a intelligent approach to reading literature means that one is not “taking the bible literally”, then so be it.
-micah
http://emergentchristian.blogspot.com/
This is plain silly. Jesus never tells us that homosexuality would be ok. But. What He sais is that you are only allowed to kill a homosexual, or any person, if you are without sin. That is, if, in some weird way, you would have achieved holiness.
The christian message is love, the message of the law (old testament) is revenge for not following Gods word.
Now are we christians or do we follow the Old testamente?
Sry bout the poor english. It’s my third language.
Pedro, I understand that being most knowledgeable in Christianity you use it as a universal example for religion anywhere. This, however, has drawbacks here.
What if you and I sat down one night and edited a holy book that is without moral flaw by today’s standards. It would contain a message of peace and love and justice etc. without the dark genocide and persecution bits. Then we found a new religion based on that.
Now, is that new very moral religion more valid than Christianity? Of course not, since it’s the principle of blind faith and uncritical acceptance of rituals — as well as horde mentality — that’s to be opposed in all beliefs.
_______
And the commenters are right pointing out that the bible is both (1) a belief guidebook and (2) the historical portrayal a different time. The problem is the twine are so far interwoven into each-other, they leave it a book that’s hardly ideal at delivering either function.
[quote post="202"]And the commenters are right pointing out that the bible is both (1) a belief guidebook and (2) the historical portrayal a different time. The problem is the twine are so far interwoven into each-other, they leave it a book that’s hardly ideal at delivering either function. [/quote]
I would say that it’s mostly a historical portrayal. The bible is a collection of different books by different authors, collected with the intention of showing the overall movement of history, the progression of humanity as reflected and spurred on in the life of a particular tribe.
The end result and purpose is to show us something about human consciousness, to demonstrate the results of good and evil, to show the downfall of using Law as a basis of human life, and to point the way towards a non-religious, non-hierarchical, love-centered way of living.
-micah
http://emergentchristian.blogspot.com/
Actually, it would be more accurate to say if you’re a practicing Jew you would say yes to these things since most of it is Levitical law. Jesus came to fulfill the law, and we’re not bound to it anymore. But I know that’s not your point.
_INTRO_
This is my first post here, hopefully my attempts at formatting will be legible.
I’ve read a bit and from what I can tell, most of the people who read/post opinions here are either A) dogmatic about their beliefs (and are probably looking for someone to argue with) or B) seekers, with a few fundamental beliefs, but always searching for the truth. Both types are probably interested in answers to arguments they haven’t yet answered for themselves.
I’m one of the latter, and I’m not looking for an argument, so I probably won’t reply to anyone who attempts to argue with me. I might reply to someone asking a sincere question though, since I myself am a ‘seeker.’
Please note, I’m answering these questions based on biblical Christian teachings,
assuming 100% inspiration of the Bible, etc. Answering from any other perspective would not address the main question: Does a Christian believe this? By definition, being a Christian (‘like Christ’) includes believing the same things that Christ believes, and most probably already know, that means being unpopular with everyone who doesn’t have that same set of beliefs. I can’t pretend to answer this question for Catholics or anyone claiming any other creed (protestant denominations).
_GENERAL NOTES ON CHRISTIANITY_
Several of these questions reference items in the Jewish law, which is not entirely carried over as-is Christianity. Christianity is a development of Judaism, thus the Old Testament is included in the Bible as a basis of understanding Christianity, and the proper practice of Christianity includes this understanding. During the “dispensation of the law,” the Jewish law was given with the purpose of defining the nature of God, what he expects from mankind, and to prove that humans can’t please God on their own accord. Christianity is God’s next phase in his plan to make a race of his “best buddies” out of humans, and we commonly call this the “dispensation of grace.” Under this set of playing rules between God and humans, while the expectations (law) may still exist, the penalties for violating the law are not always placed on the disobedient humans… thus the whole concept of Christ being a Savior, scapegoat, etc. This explanation applies particularly to #1, #4, #6, and #8.
Take note also, that Christianity teaches that, to be acceptable to God, a human’s actions must be either commanded by God, or permitted by God and human authority figures (such as the government, parents, masters, husbands, etc.):
Forgive me, but when making logic statements, I like to write them out like I would in a computer language…
Acceptable = (commanded_by_God).or.(permitted_by_God .and. permitted_by_authority_figures)
_ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS…_
1. Do you believe homosexuals should be killed? Not just “they’re going to hell”, but actually executed?
Yes – as in, they deserve death. This is derived from the overall belief that all men have sinned, sin deserves death.
No – as in, it is not the duty of Christians (individually or corporately) to render punishment to sinners. This doesn’t mean that a Christian could never administer the death penalty if it was required by the secular, human government.
2. Do you believe women are inferior to men, should remain submissive, and can never be allowed to teach men or have authority over them?
Yes – inferior in some aspects, as everything which is different from something else will be inferior in some aspect or another. However, not totally inferior. A better description would be “different.”
Yes – women should remain be submissive. This general rule is part of (and should only be applied within) the hierarchy of humanity as presented in Christian teachings (e.g. God is above man, governments are created by God to rule over their citizens, a master is above their slave, parents above their children, etc.)
No – the ‘never’ is the key word here – there are plenty of favorable instances of women teaching or having authority over men in Christian teachings.
3. Do you believe slavery is OK?
Yes – OK but not desirable. It’s permissible both for a person who is a slave to be a Christian, and for a Christian to be a master of someone else. These people relate to God in a different way than the free man who does not own slaves.
4. Do you believe disobedient children should be killed?
Yes – same detailed answer as for question #1.
5. Do you believe that, when waging war, it is proper to commit genocide, killing every man, woman and child in the enemy nation — except for, in some particular cases, female virgins, who can be taken as “spoils”?
Yes – Christianity doesn’t say much about war, generally advocating peace instead. However, war can be an act of God (as when God decides to have one nation fight another nation), sanctioned by God (as when a nation gets permission from God to fight another nation), or a sin (obviously, something God didn’t want anyone to do). When God is conducting the war, it’s usually with the purpose of destroying a culture he doesn’t like – that’s OK because after all, it’s “God” and he can do whatever he wants. In this case, yes, some things we humans consider disgusting are proper and righteous. Shocking, eh?
When God conducts (or sanctions) the war, he may give specific instructions about what is permissible or not. And when the war is out of God’s will, every act of the attacking nation is sinful…
6. Do you believe that anyone who suggests to a Christian that he follow other gods should be killed?
No – this is a part of Jewish law that is not to be performed by Christians – in this case, the responsibility for the Christian is different for the Jew… instead of killing, simply, “let him be accursed” and “from such withdraw thyself.”
7. Do you believe that an old grandmother, who lived a life of caring for others, bringing joy to dozens, will be condemned to an afterlife of eternal suffering if she didn’t accept Jesus as her savior?
Yes – that’s the way the rules read.
8. Do you believe that there are cases in which a raped woman should be killed along with, or even instead of, the rapist?
No – again, this is a part of Jewish law that is not to be performed by Christians. However, I must comment, this question doesn’t even understand the Jewish law correctly. Per Judaism, in cases that could be considered rape, the following considerations applied:
* if the victim’s chastity was violated by their own consent, they were to be put to death, along with the assailant. Consent was presumed if the act was done where the victim could have cried out for and received help.
* if it were no one could be expected to hear a cry for help, it was presumed that the victim cried out, but there was none to save them. Under this case, only the assailant was to be killed.
You deny the progressive revelation of God, so you blame all Christians for not towing the line with those in the Bible who believed differently about the subjects you list. By doing that, you do not allow for personal growth century by century or man by man throughout the centuries.
If only atheists ideas can change through the centuries and Christians cannot, it is you who is the “repulsive evil monster” who wishes to eat up the logic of all you debate against because you are using an unfair ploy.
Why don’t you use only the arguments used by atheists in the first century with first century Christians? That would be fair.
Oh, but they could not debate as well, could they. Well, Christians then or anybody then could not debate as well either and they all had primitive beliefs, bu not as primitive as those l,000 years prior to the first century.
While you research Darwin, research the school of Higher Criticism in Biblical thought and you will see not all think the way the people think which you use as your backboard to lay your shots.
The liberal Biblical scholars do not:
1. believe in the virgin birth of Jesus
since “virgin” was used in two ways. The one chosen was not a girl whose hymen was in tact, but “one who was young and of marriageable age.”
2. believe in supernatural interference with the enemy
since supernatural intervention denies the perfection of
the creator from the very beginning.
3. believe in miraculous intervention by God
same reason as 2.
And instead, liberal Biblical scholars believe in the progressive revelation of God,given go man as he is willing and able to receive it and it happens every day and is only received as man chooses to look for it and accept it.
So your debate at this moment is relevant only with First Century Christians and for the most part, I agree with you as long as you identify your remarks as relevant only with first century Christians. But most of what you debate is irrelevant with what I believe and so outdated for 21 century Christians or any other person who chooses to think for themselves rather than limit themselves to the thought of first century Christians.
Unitarians would have a fighting chance with you. Southern Baptists haven’t got a leg to stand on. The Church of God denomination shouldn’t even read your blog.
Madeline O’Hare, God Bless Her Soul” would be able to debate both sides of you. I had more respect for her than any living human being in religious thought, but she fought fairly and without the hostility of the likes of you. I cried when they found her body, yet I knew that God loved her for her attempts and if there is a heaven of any sort, I hope to meet her and hug her neck. She’s probably done far more for Christianity or any religious thought than anyone.
Her son, once a hostile atheist like yourself, became a hostile Christian and died with her. I don’t criticize him on either side of him, but to point out that he was trying to arrive at the threshold of his own understanding just like you and me and it is a progressive one and goes on forever.
Were you to believe that, you would still be able to debate, but you would also be able to respect anyone’s point of view and deal with it with grace.
Pedro, Pedro, Pedro …
You look back to one of the oldest books of the Bible to paint a picture of Christian faith without even the common decency to study deeply enough to realize that things changed with time, in fact many things were changed by the coming of Christ.
Look, if you read the whole book with an open mind you might have a different opinion.
In the mean time, if you’re just going to hate Christ, Christianity and believers because you want to, do the rest of us a favor. Stop acting like you actually have logical reason to based on our faith.
One more thing, you have no understanding at all about the relationship between me and God and never could. Don’t be so conceited as to think you do.
Daryl: that reply happens to be very rude. Interesting to see that “basic respect” still isn’t a part of Christianity.
I’ve replied to your comments in other posts, but this one is really unacceptable. I’m perfectly fine with disagreements, but not with this kind of rude insults. You don’t like what I write? Nobody forces you to stay here.
And, yes, I’m too “soft” on these matters; a comment like the above should simply be deleted. But I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. Once.
Pedro,
I’m sorry that my comments were rude. The rudeness is a trait within myself that I am still working to remove and not a part of “Christianity”.
My point was simply this. This post does not come across as being from a logical and rational person that hates stupidity and ignorance and has thought this thing through very much at all. In other words, I think you could do much better but have such a little opinion of us on the other side of this discussion that you thought it unnecessary. So, I thought the whole posting, along with other poorly thought out ones, to be rude also.
It is fine to have your views, whatever they are. But, if you walk around slapping others for their views with a smirk on your face then someday one of them will slap you back, with a smirk on his face, and you will have both been wrong for slapping and smirking.
Pedro,
One more thing. I think your being “soft” on these matters shows a strength of character that I admire in you. I am sorry, I just want to make sure the discussion is intellectually honest and that both views are challenged.
Hey Pedro, seems like you are looking for a fight, or at least looking to piss people off. Am I wrong here?
[quote comment="7975"]Hey Pedro, seems like you are looking for a fight, or at least looking to piss people off. Am I wrong here?[/quote]
Yup, you are.
Pedro,
That’s a great answer!!! I love you man !!
Those who have said that the laws pertaining to the ancient Jews of the old testament changed with the arrival of Jesus are mistaken. There are several places in the gospels where Jesus specifically states that he did not come to abolish the law. He also said that anyone who breaks the commandments and teaches others to do the same should be drowned with a millstone around his neck . He also said that not a single pen stroke would be erased from the law until the end of time. The law Jesus was speaking of was the 613 mitzvahs that the Jews observed…the laws about killing children and raped women are a part of them, as well as other completely ridiculous commands. Jesus most definitely preached obedience to the law. It is Paul…who I always say was a crazy bastard…. who was the first to teach lenience as far as the law went…and that was for the sole reason of winning gentile converts…..
….so all you Christians….start killing homosexuals….
Wendy,
Fantastic, I’m sure your translation and beliefs about what He meant is in total alignment with your purposes and beliefs. Now, how about the proof for what you say.
Daryl,
Matthew 5:17-20, Matthew 18:6
These are all verses in which Jesus states the absolute importance of the law. The law being the 613 mitzvahs that every Jew was required to memorize and obey their entire lives.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/mitzvot.html
http://www.aish.com/literacy/mitzvahs/The_613_Commandments.asp
Wendy,
The very beginning of Matthew 5:17 states that Jesus came to fulfill the law. That sounds a little changed to me. It is not so much the law that has changed but the punishment and judgement for breaking them and who is to judge/punish. Put this in the context of the woman whom was caught cheating on her husband, a crime punishable by death. Jesus didn’t stone here. “Let He who has not sinned cast the first stone.” Then He did not.
“But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin….” You wish to cause children to do wrong things?
Daryl,
Definition of fulfill: ”to make full, to put into effect, execute, to meet requirements of, to satisfy, …”
Jesus basically said that he came to make sure that the law would be kept.
As for your reference to the story of the adulteress… if you look at the footnotes in your bible, you’ll see that the story is not found in the earliest documents we have. Which means that the disciples definitely didn’t write it down, even if you want to argue that they wrote the original manuscripts….which is pretty much futile anyway.
Now, as far as I know, there is not actually a point in the gospels in which Jesus says that faith alone is supposed to save you. Yes, he does say ‘believe in me, and you will be saved.’ but believing in him entails believing everything he said…and as you can see there are several places where I referred you to (as well as others) in which he says to obey all the law.
I realize that this could be a translation issue, and that the original wording could be different (that is something I have not looked into yet), but that’s not the point. The point I’m trying to make is the scripture that the average person has at their disposal is so convoluted, contradictory, and interpretive, that it’s just about impossible to figure out what it’s actually supposed to mean. Are Christians supposed to follow the mitzvahs? Is it faith alone that saves? Did Jesus ever even mean for gentiles to become Christians?
…I see nothing particularly inspired in this so-called ‘word of god.’ All I see is confusion, contradiction, no originality, and most of all, dubious– but most definitely human— origins.
Wendy,
I don’t agree that faith alone can save you - not exactly anyway. I also don’t agree with your interpretation of “believe in me,…”. I believe the Bible has translation issues within it.
As for the average person, I don’t think they are willing to truly look with an eye to finding anything. Most people decide what something means within seconds of reading it. Only a precious few take a minute or more and even fewer put their understanding on a probablility scale. “I think that meant this and I would say I’m about 56% certain”.
So long as people believe they understand any complex thing completely the fullest extent of its meaning will remain hidden from them.
I’m sorry to hear that you see nothing particularly inspired in the Bible. That doesn’t mean it isn’t there though. I wish you all the best and hope that you come an understanding of reality that meets your needs. Understand reality, that is what we should be trying to do. Not defending our perceptions or beliefs but looking deeper and deeper.
Strangely enough, I responded yes to a few: the slavery one, and genocide.
Enslaving or destroying another society is simply competition between those societies: the winner does as it wants to, for its benefit. The losing society is subject to the winner.
Fang,
Survival of the fittest, eh?
Tells me all I need to know.
That is NOT survival of the fittest, but rather is simply might makes right. The two are worlds apart…
TX… I was commenting on the argument that Fang seemed to be suggesting. At least that was the way I read his post. I agree with you as to what it really means.
It’s interesting that a might makes right attitude — thought I thought of it more as a “brutal dictator” way of thinking… hmm, that’s not so different afer all — gets 2 “yes” answers out of 8, while a true Christian (that is, one who doesn’t believe he knows better than the word of his god, and therefore doesn’t “pick and choose” from it) would get 8 out of 8…
Sorry but this post was really stupid. As a Bible-believing and Bible-studying Christian, I say no to all 8 points. Finding that a lot of Christians don’t know what they’re talking about has no impact on Christ. Your ignorance of the biblical narrative as well as your arrogance has produced nothing more than a tautology (ancient Greek for a “waste of time”).
JJ: So, what makes you “know” that it’s OK to ignore that 8 points in the Bible? Wasn’t it supposed to be the word of God, anyway?
By the way, I notice that, instead of disputing my points, you’d rather be rude and insulting. So, is your rudeness just one more example of bad behavior by a Christian that “has no impact on Christ”?
Rev I cannot help but notice the similarity between your response and that of the xn bible. It takes up a lot of space but fails to address the issues, it is mostly empty space, and it is completely disconnected from reality.
I’ve just deleted that comment. Sorry, but posting in that annoying way (to everyone else, it was a post in which there was only 1 or 2 words per line, and several blank lines between each, so that the post appeared ridiculously long… and it was just quoting from the Bible) is too much like trolling.
I would think the bible allows the conclusion that it is better to forgive than to stone someone; and it’s better to stone yourself than your neighbor, because you wouldn’t want your neighbor to stone you, but rather to offer you forgiveness. If you do choose to stone someone, watch out, because you will reap what you sow.