Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Which Christian Behaviors Most Annoy Atheists?


Guest

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, PennySerenade said:

Sometimes, people feel unable to do anything- so prayer is the only thing they can do. if they are able to do something, but do not- that is different. 

 

After a tragedy, people pray for comfort.

 

Yes, it seems really silly to say a person was blessed while the others were not. I think it would be better to say a person was extended time. 

You might be missing the point here Penny.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, PennySerenade said:

But, it is alright if laws overlap, correct? I mean it is popular in the United States for people not to want Christian laws foisted upon society. My point is, that many of these laws overlap. Monogamy is part of Christianity, and it is also the law. It is against the law here, to marry more than one person at a time. 

     Why would a law be a problem if everyone agrees on it?

     Monogamy wasn't uncommon in most societies by the time xianity rolled around so it's not unusual that it was held up as the best sort of marriage as opposed to polygamy (which was still allowed under Judaism but really only practiced, rarely, by the rich/royalty).

 

     To conclude that xianity is responsible for monogamy is incorrect.  It could have endorsed the traditional Judaic polygamy but like a lot of things it went along with what was already happening in the Greco-Roman culture.  It didn't change a world it just copied one.

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2017 at 6:24 PM, mwc said:

     Why would a law be a problem if everyone agrees on it?

     Monogamy wasn't uncommon in most societies by the time xianity rolled around so it's not unusual that it was held up as the best sort of marriage as opposed to polygamy (which was still allowed under Judaism but really only practiced, rarely, by the rich/royalty).

 

     To conclude that xianity is responsible for monogamy is incorrect.  It could have endorsed the traditional Judaic polygamy but like a lot of things it went along with what was already happening in the Greco-Roman culture.  It didn't change a world it just copied one.

 

          mwc

 

Wow, you actually make a pretty good argument that monogamy was kind of around at the beginning. Christians believe God created monogamy, the Jews corrupted it a bit, and the emphasis was placed back on monogamy when Jesus was on the Earth. 

 

I would not say that Christians adopted it so much from other cultures, but that it got reinstated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PennySerenade said:

Yes, I always do miss the point. 

Never mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2017 at 6:03 PM, primaryzero said:

Actually in this case that law is most likely imposed by Christian ethics.

Yes, the laws in Western nations are informed by Judeo-Christian ethics. But what about laws in Eastern nations? Marriage is usually monogamous- world wide. If it were not, then places like China would have a greater percentage of polygamous marriages. I know of one group in China that practices polyandry, but for the most part, marriage tends to be monogamous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PennySerenade said:

Wow, you actually make a pretty good argument that monogamy was kind of around at the beginning. Christians believe God created monogamy, the Jews corrupted it a bit, and the emphasis was placed back on monogamy when Jesus was on the Earth. 

 

I would not say that Christians adopted it so much from other cultures, but that it got reinstated. 

 

Humans aren't naturally monogamous.

 

That idea of marriage of became a thing once property and inheritance became a thing that got passed down to children according to most anthropologists and historians I've heard discuss it. Women were property back then as well, and that contributed to it. Law created that concept when families started to consolidate political power, and the transfer of property and titles becoming decided by blood ties became common. The same kind of thinking is what led to arranged marriages being a thing.

 

That still didn't mean monogamy though. Polygamy was something you had to be able to afford. Wealthy men were expected to have multiple wives in the cultures where Abrahamic religions were established. Having one wife was a sign of poverty and having multiple wives was a sign of wealth and power. Multiple wives were expensive because you had to feed and house them. Only poor women worked.

 

The Bible doesn't ever mention monogamy as a thing that God commanded. "Adultery" does not mean what most Christians think it means. It means not having sexual relations with someone who is married to someone else, full stop. It does not mean keeping one's "purity" until marriage, nor does it have anything to do with having multiple spouses. Having premarital sex is not adultery.

 

It didn't even mean only having sex with your wife if you were a man back then. It just meant hands off other people's wives. If you wanted a prostitute or were sleeping with slaves or servants it "didn't count". Again, a wife was something you owned as a man.

 

Women who intended to marry were expected to remain virgins, men were not. The concept of the "male virgin" is a relatively new one in Abrahamic religions.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PennySerenade said:

Yes, the laws in Western nations are informed by Judeo-Christian ethics. But what about laws in Eastern nations? Marriage is usually monogamous- world wide. If it were not, then places like China would have a greater percentage of polygamous marriages. I know of one group in China that practices polyandry, but for the most part, marriage tends to be monogamous.

 

You can't say it's worldwide. It's not, point blank. A brief study of different cultures will show you this, there is a whole HOST of relationship/parenting methods that do not include monogamy, they just aren't considered "first world" or "civilized." Monogamy currently has a lot to do with laws in place, not preference. It's all just social rules. Plus you have to consider why monogamy would be helpful in furthering the species when we were little baby humans. I know you're getting at Adam and Eve, but that's not scientifically relevant.

 

Also, I guess incest was only morally okay for a little bit? Until God got tired of watching and monitoring the same family members having sex with each other and outlawed it? Weird, I thought He (and his morality) was unchanging...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ag_NO_stic said:

 

You can't say it's worldwide. It's not, point blank. A brief study of different cultures will show you this, there is a whole HOST of relationship/parenting methods that do not include monogamy, they just aren't considered "first world" or "civilized." Monogamy currently has a lot to do with laws in place, not preference. It's all just social rules. Plus you have to consider why monogamy would be helpful in furthering the species when we were little baby humans. I know you're getting at Adam and Eve, but that's not scientifically relevant.

 

Also, I guess incest was only morally okay for a little bit? Until God got tired of watching and monitoring the same family members having sex with each other and outlawed it? Weird, I thought He (and his morality) were unchanging...

I think it is interesting that monogamy is world wide- not universal, but world wide. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

You can't say it's worldwide. It's not, point blank. A brief study of different cultures will show you this, there is a whole HOST of relationship/parenting methods that do not include monogamy, they just aren't considered "first world" or "civilized." Monogamy currently has a lot to do with laws in place, not preference. It's all just social rules. Plus you have to consider why monogamy would be helpful in furthering the species when we were little baby humans. I know you're getting at Adam and Eve, but that's not scientifically relevant.

 

Also, I guess incest was only morally okay for a little bit? Until God got tired of watching and monitoring the same family members having sex with each other and outlawed it? Weird, I thought He (and his morality) were unchanging...

 

Adam and Eve weren't monogamous. Eve was sleeping with her sons because there were no other girls for a while. The whole family was incestuous for a while until there were a fair number of humans.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PennySerenade said:

I think it is interesting that monogamy is world wide- not universal, but world wide. 

 

Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ContraBardus said:

 

Adam and Eve weren't monogamous. Eve was sleeping with her kids because there were no other girls at the time.

 

Technically, the bible says there were other sons and daughters. But why should the sons limit themselves from just the sisters? I guess Mommy is available too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ag_NO_stic said:

 

Technically, the bible says there were other sons and daughters. But why should the sons limit themselves from just the sisters? I guess Mommy is available too...

 

There was also that whole thing with Adam and Lilith too. Eve was his second wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ContraBardus said:

 

There was also that whole thing with Adam and Lillith too. Eve was his second wife.

 

Wait. WHAT?! I know the Bible pretty well, not familiar with that bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PennySerenade said:

Wow, you actually make a pretty good argument that monogamy was kind of around at the beginning. Christians believe God created monogamy, the Jews corrupted it a bit, and the emphasis was placed back on monogamy when Jesus was on the Earth. 

 

I would not say that Christians adopted it so much from other cultures, but that it got reinstated. 

     There's all the godly people in the OT that were polygamists.  And god should have talked with Moses about monogamy then since he supposedly wrote all them rules.  I guess it slipped it his mind?  Too busy worrying about foreskins and whatnot.

 

     I mean you do have Exodus 20 with the Ten Commandments.  Everyone loves them.  They go crazy for those.  They just forget god kept talking.  So in the next chapter, Exodus 21, god comes up with: "10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights."  So god, himself, puts his seal of approval on polygamy.  He doesn't set things straight.  He doesn't reboot back the Genesis.  He doesn't nothing except say multiple wives are a-okay if you follow the rules.  (This is all in the same place where god sets up rules about buying/selling servants and all that wonderful stuff he supposedly doesn't like.)

 

     No need to wait for a jesus moment to set things straight when you can simply tell people the rules right here when you're literally telling people the rules.

 

          mwc

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

Wait. WHAT?! I know the Bible pretty well, not familiar with that bit.

 

It's really old Hebrew stuff, and really weird.

 

It's some of that stuff that got left out of the Bible, but is still considered canon by many denominations.

 

She was created from the same dirt as Adam as his companion. They apparently didn't get along very well. It made Adam sad, so God made Eve to console him and banished Lilith. She's kind of a monster or demon in a lot of Abrahamic lore, and does get mentioned in Isaiah 34:14 among "Unclean animals".

 

An alternate way of saying Lilith is Lamia/Lamya. Yes, as in what eventually became the half-snake half-woman monster.

 

There's also text that say she hooked up with Cain after he murdered Able and was with him as his wife for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ContraBardus said:

 

It's really old Hebrew stuff, and really weird.

 

It's some of that stuff that got left out of the Bible, but is still considered canon by many religions.

 

She was created from the same dirt as Adam as his companion. They apparently didn't get along very well. It made Adam sad, so God made Eve to console him and banished Lilith. She's kind of a monster or demon in a lot of Abrahamic lore, and does get mentioned in Isaiah 34:14 among "Unclean animals".

 

There's also text that say she hooked up with Cain after he murdered Able and was with him as his wife for a while.

 

Wow. Now I'm SUPER pissed, because maybe Lilith, this sexually wanton little harlot, would not have screwed up all of humanity. She likes the eggplants of her sons, not forbidden apples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

Wow. Now I'm SUPER pissed, because maybe Lilith, this sexually wanton little harlot, would not have screwed up all of humanity. She likes the eggplants of her sons, not forbidden apples.

 

 

An alternate translation of Lilith is Lamia/Lamya. Yes, as in what eventually became the half-snake half-woman monster. She's also the origin of Vampires as a concept.

 

Lilith is mentioned directly in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Talmud, the Zohar, and the Kabbalah. So she's about as old as it gets in relation to Christian mythology.

 

As "evil" beings go she's interesting, because she didn't really do anything evil outside of not satisfying Adam as a companion, though what that entailed isn't exactly clear. The concept of her being a monster didn't really happen until later, and it's never really explained exactly what she did wrong to end up that way. She's just mentioned as "unclean" later, and that kind of got the ball rolling.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
12 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

Wow. Now I'm SUPER pissed, because maybe Lilith, this sexually wanton little harlot, would not have screwed up all of humanity. She likes the eggplants of her sons, not forbidden apples.

 

This kind of mythology is probably where the concept of sex being a sin first started.

 

Also the Book of Enoch is not in the bible, even though its referenced in Jude. I've read parts of it... its... interesting :D

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/

 

"7. And on that day were two monsters parted, a female monster named Leviathan, to dwell in the abysses of the ocean over the fountains of the waters. 8. But the male is named Behemoth, who occupied with his breast a waste wilderness named †Dûidâin†, on the east of the garden where the elect and righteous dwell, where my grandfather was taken up, the seventh from Adam, the first man whom the Lord of Spirits created."

 

Incidentally as you read through it you'll realise that Revelations is based on it, as are other books like Daniel, and they all feed into each other as the authors read the other works and incorporate them into their own.

 

Compare this verse in Chapter LXII

 

4. Then shall pain come upon them as on a woman in travail,
[And she has pain in bringing forth]
When her child enters the mouth of the womb,
And she has pain in bringing forth.

 

To Revelations 12:

 

And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

 

There is a lot that is left out of the bible because its 'not inspired'. Essentially people over the years have compiled a bunch of writings that are internally consistent to a degree. This is not surprising in the same way that the entire Star Wars universe is internally consistent... to a degree.

 

Remember in Genesis Chapter 6 in talks about the Sons of God came in to the daughters of men (Basically Gods had sex with humans?) Here is a portion from Enoch

 

"

4. The name of the first Jeqôn: that is, the one who led astray all the sons of God, and brought them down to the earth, and led them astray through the daughters of men. 5. And the second was named Asbeêl: he imparted to the holy sons of God evil counsel, and led them astray so that they defiled their bodies with the daughters of men. 6. And the third was named Gâdreêl: he it is who showed the children of men all the blows of death, and he led astray Eve, and showed the weapons of death to the sons of men the shield and the coat of mail, and the sword for battle, and all the weapons of death to the

p. 90

children of men. 7. And from his hand they have proceeded against those who dwell on the earth from that day and for evermore. 8. And the fourth was named Pênêmûe: he taught the children of men the bitter and the sweet, and he taught them all the secrets of their wisdom. 9. And he instructed mankind in writing with ink and paper, and thereby many sinned from eternity to eternity and until this day. 10. For men were not created for such a purpose, to give confirmation to their good faith with pen and ink. 11. For men were created exactly like the angels, to the intent that they should continue pure and righteous, and death, which destroys everything, could not have taken hold of them, but through this their knowledge they are perishing, and through this power it is consuming me†. 12. And the fifth was named Kâsdejâ: this is he who showed the children of men all the wicked smitings of spirits and demons, and the smitings of the embryo in the womb, that it may pass away, and [the smitings of the soul] the bites of the serpent, and the smitings which befall through the noontide heat, the son of the serpent named Tabââ‘ĕt."

 

Note at the end the serpent named Tabaaet - perhaps the same serpent as the Babylonian Tiamat?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

 

 

An alternate translation of Lilith is Lamia/Lamya. Yes, as in what eventually became the half-snake half-woman monster. She's also the origin of Vampires as a concept.

 

Lilith is mentioned directly in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Talmud, the Zohar, and the Kabbalah. So she's about as old as it gets in relation to Christian mythology.

 

As "evil" beings go she's interesting, because she didn't really do anything evil outside of not satisfying Adam as a companion, though what that entailed isn't exactly clear. The concept of her being a monster didn't really happen until later, and it's never really explained exactly what she did wrong to end up that way.

 

Apparently she also refused to be subservient to Adam, my kinda woman lol.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
Just now, ag_NO_stic said:

 

Apparently she also refused to be subservient to Adam, my kinda woman lol.

 

The bitch! That's where all this equality trouble started I'm telling you! Right there in the garden. Adam said get me some fruit woman and she screamed fuck you! :D 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gotta say, I prefer a woman who is more Lilith than Eve. :wicked:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LogicalFallacy said:

 

The bitch! That's where all this equality trouble started I'm telling you! Right there in the garden. Adam said get me some fruit woman and she screamed fuck you! :D 

 

No wonder god made Evie-poo subservient next time. He got no rest from the woman he made on par with Adam, so he had to re-do it. That kind of a mistake apparently dooms humanity, though....must be part of the plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, mwc said:

     There's all the godly people in the OT that were polygamists.  And god should have talked with Moses about monogamy then since he supposedly wrote all them rules.  I guess it slipped it his mind?  Too busy worrying about foreskins and whatnot.

 

     I mean you do have Exodus 20 with the Ten Commandments.  Everyone loves them.  They go crazy for those.  They just forget god kept talking.  So in the next chapter, Exodus 21, god comes up with: "10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights."  So god, himself, puts his seal of approval on polygamy.  He doesn't set things straight.  He doesn't reboot back the Genesis.  He doesn't nothing except say multiple wives are a-okay if you follow the rules.  (This is all in the same place where god sets up rules about buying/selling servants and all that wonderful stuff he supposedly doesn't like.)

 

     No need to wait for a jesus moment to set things straight when you can simply tell people the rules right here when you're literally telling people the rules.

 

          mwc

 

 

I think what had happened was that people were doing the wrong things anyway, but God put limits. This is going to sound crazy, but it is as though He is saying “you are imperfect people- doing the wrong things, so in my mercy, I will set limits”- not that polygamy is good or sanctioned by God. If the people were doing as they thought was right, God was giving them borders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.