I'll throw you a bone on this one. For full disclosure, during my youth I was raised in a Christian home, and even attended a private Christian school in Midwest USA during my formative years. I currently consider myself a philosophical Taoist. In definitive terms, I'm an agnostic atheist.
I'm of the opinion that, if there is a higher power or universal creative force - a god, gods, or otherwise - we humans haven't figured it out yet. In any case, I've not been convinced one way or another of a supernatural creative force that brought us all here, whatever "here" is.
My thoughts on the afterlife are that the concept was introduced to impose obedience on followers in the here and now, so that those in control would have an easier time staying in power.
Kudos to you on questioning your beliefs, and best of luck to you on that.
I don't believe there is anything personally, but I have no problem if someone else chooses to believe in God or something else. I don't believe in heaven, hell or afterlife. I think once you die that's it. But I do hope there is a heaven or afterlife though - that would be awesome!
I just think that science proves more than any religion - but I also know that science could be completely wrong too. We'll probably never know for sure..
I definitely don't believe in any kind of God.
I do tend to believe that good things happen to good people, so I guess that's kind of like Karma? (although it's maybe more because good/kind/charitable people are more likeable, and getting on with people will take you far in life).
Obviously I have my own "moral compass". If I don't do something, it's because I believe it's wrong - not because I'm afraid of going to hell (or jail either, for that matter).
And as long as they don't push their religion on me, or use it to justify acts I believe are wrong (eg. killing), then I don't really care what anyone else believes.
I never really question it, like I don't question alien life, ghosts etc. I do believe man evolved from ape,though. Its rather obvious when you make comparisons. I say this because Ive spoken to a few religious guys who believe God created apes and humans seperately, evolution doesn't really exist blah blah blah, which I believe is nonsense.
"I do tend to believe that good things happen to good people, so I guess that's kind of like Karma?"
I think it's rather the opposite, usually. I believe more in Sod's law than Karma
I don't really believe in god or any other diety but if someone proves he/it exists to me, then I'll probably change my mind.
Until then I can't see anything that would lead me to lead me to believe in anything religion related.
People like to believe in god because it gives them comfort. In sunday school you are taught that if you start to doubt your beliefs you might end up in hell, so I'm also lead to believe that people also believe out of fear, of what will happen to them after they die. Things also work the other way around; preaching and spreading "god's word" puts you in a good position to get you a place in heaven. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying that anyone defending their views on their beliefs do it with that in mind.
Also, I think it's part of human nature to "explain" something we don't understand by saying it was made by the hand of some superior entity. When humanity discovered fire, they thought it was a diving gift, same for the rain and other phenomena we can explain very easily now.
I hope I didn't offend anyone, I'm just trying to express my views on this subject.
Science is great, it can probably explain every worldly phenomena one day. But science isn't set up in a fashion as to be able to say anything about God or an afterlife. Science is meant to explain the physical, measurable world we inhabit. God or an afterlife are not measurable by those means.
Imagine a bucket.
That bucket contains our entire physical world down to the smallest matter.
Imagine another bucket.
This bucket contains God and the afterlife. ( a strange bucket indeed )
In the first bucket we tinker and measure, finding no proof whatsoever of any god or afterlife. But does that say anything about God at all?
We here at TDC, objective viewers as we are, can say:
"Of course you see no measurable proof of God in there! It's the wrong bucket!"
That's the main reason why there won't be any consolidation between say Dawkins and a theologist, they speak of different buckets.
I myself also find this matter interesting, that's why I study it at the University.
I believe in God, because I know there's a God, and Jesus is his name.
I've been going to church all my life. My grandfather was the pastor of our church up until recently when he turned it over to his son.
To be quite honest I don't go to church because I'm afraid I'll go to hell if I don't. I've also never doubted the existence of God, but I don't think doubting will send anyone to hell either. "To much is given much is required" to quote the Bible.
All my life starting from when I was like 4, I don't remember anything before that, I believed in God. Whenever I got scared about something I'd pray about it, and still do to this day. It didn't always make me feel better, and sometimes my prayers weren't answered right away, or at all. But that's the great thing about God. If he gave me what I wanted when I wanted it instead of just forcing me to trust in him no matter what then he would just be a cosmic santa clause, which wouldn't be that great of a God to me anyway.
I've felt God move in church services before, it's like a sweeping feeling that moves from your head to your feet. And I've seen some crazy things happen, like a guy randomly coming in who had never been to church before, but felt something *pull* him in. And another time when a older guy died on the alter but after the church prayed for him his heart started beating again, and he's alive to this day. (that was last year) Sometimes I'll have something on my mind, or be confused about something I read in the Bible, and then the preacher will say something like "I don't know who this is for, but God just spoke to me and told me to tell you ... " and it'll be exactly what I was thinking about! It's happened so many times I can't count.
Anyway, there's lots of reasons I believe in God, not just because I've felt him before, and I know that someone else will explain all that I said away by leaving it to chance or coincidence. You can tell me that if you want, but like I've said, I've never doubted God's existence in my life, and neither does anyone else who goes to my church, so believe me, I've heard everything.
Lot's of people ask me why I believe in Jesus over all the other God's in existence, and trust me I know all about most other religious and I've heard just about all there is to hear from my friends at school (most of which are Atheist or Muslim, go figure)
The Bible (a collection of 2000-3000 year old religious writings) still doesn't conflict with science after all these years even though many scientific books have been proven wrong many years after it was written. (Flat earth and spontaneous generation anyone?) IT in fact contains some scientific facts that weren't widely believed at the time. "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." Circle being translated from the original Greek meaning sphere, and: "For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood..." yet years after that was written many believed that using leeches to suck someones blood would cure them of diseases.
Not to mention the fact that the Bible doesn't even conflict within itself either.
How far science has come eh?
I used to own a Quran, I don't remember how I got it, but I had it none-the-less. I was never Muslim mind you, but...
Many people like to say that Allah is the same God as Jesus/Jehovah
Well that believe conflicts directly with the Quran because it describes Allah as the greatest lier of all:
"...and Allah was deceptive, for Allah is the best of deceivers" S. 3:54; cf. 8:30
However the Bible states that God cannot lie:
Hebrews 6:18: “[I]t is impossible for God to lie.”
Just thought I'd throw that in there for good measure, I would rather God tell me the truth, how am I supposed to trust his word otherwise?
Oh and one more thing, I listen to Holy Ghost Radio on my iphone whenever I can't fall asleep, so if you're curious and want to hear the kinda preaching I hear at my church you can listen here: http://www.holyghostradio.com/
I do believe there's a God, heaven, hell, purgatory, etc. I can't say I believe evolution as a whole... at least not macro evolution. I just think it's kind of corny how a man would come from an ape. There's a remarkable link, but I don't see how an animal could become a man. It just doesn't make sense to me.
I believe there's a God because, first off, something had to have started everything that ever was. If there was no God, then how did the universe get here? It couldn't have been created by something which was created by something which was created by something... you'd have an infinite chain of this-created-that. There would be no end to that chain. If there was a God who always existed and always will, then the chain would have a beginning and an end.
With God: God creates universe, universe does stuff, God destroys universe, then everybody exists in an afterlife.
Without God: This matter creates this matter which creates this matter which creates this matter which creates this matter...
In the end, where did all of that matter come from? It had to have come from a beginning. A God.
The Bible (a collection of 2000-3000 year old religious writings) still doesn't conflict with science after all these years even though many scientific books have been proven wrong many years after it was written. (Flat earth and spontaneous generation anyone?) IT in fact contains some scientific facts that weren't widely believed at the time. "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." Circle being translated from the original Greek meaning sphere, and: "For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood..." yet years after that was written many believed that using leeches to suck someones blood would cure them of diseases.
Not to mention the fact that the Bible doesn't even conflict within itself either.
How far science has come eh?
You should probably re-read the Christian bible, it conflicts with itself plenty of times. As far as science being wrong, you have to consider that modern science hasn't been around too long, and later than the whole "flat earth" garbage, which is mostly attributed to ignorant assumptions, rather than using the scientific method (which had not been developed yet). In modern science, anything is subject to change. If something is proven false, it is replaced by something else, as opposed to the bible which is 100% true despite evidence to the contrary. If you want to claim that the bible is 100% true, you'll have to prove that snakes can talk, burning bushes can talk, people can live in a big fish, and that miracles happen... which they quite obviously do not. Besides, if the events in the bible actually happened as described, God is not the type of guy I'd want to be hanging around with.
One of my favorite arguments from christians is the "out of context" argument, which is detailed perfectly in this video,
Personally, there may or may not be a god, but if there is one, he cannot be described in any "holy book" written by men. Men have not figured out much of how life works, they aren't going to know how god works. And all that garbage about being written by god through men, with all the nonsense and politics and petty emotions, it couldn't have been written by a higher power. Bill Hicks makes some great points on this.
As far as Science not coming far, you might just want to get rid of your computer, and not go to the hospital for that fact, of course, if God can provide better.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Interesting. There ape species that do that as well, they have even adapted to using crude tools. Unfortunately there are also some groups of chimps that are at war with each other as well as hunting human children (although the second being more due to deforestation than a thought process)
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames You should probably re-read the Christian bible, it conflicts with itself plenty of times.
I have read it, about 3 times last year. I took a bible as lit class it my college.
Like I said in my earlier post, I've heard everything, you're not telling me anything new.
You can present some "contradictions" if you like, but trust me, you'd either have to take something out of context or just misinterpret something to make it work.
As far as Science not coming far, you might just want to get rid of your computer, and not go to the hospital for that fact, of course, if God can provide better.
I didn't once say that science didn't come far.
And besides, look at it from this point of view, pretend you believe in God for a second, wouldn't you have to say that God gave humans the ability to use his creation for their own good?
I believe that there is something else out there when you die, I believe in spirits and souls and that your soul eventually moves on to possible another body after you pass.
So yea, cool topic
Be sure to follow us on the twitters for the latest and greatest: @dailyclick
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames You should probably re-read the Christian bible, it conflicts with itself plenty of times.
I have read it, about 3 times last year. I took a bible as lit class it my college.
Like I said in my earlier post, I've heard everything, you're not telling me anything new.
You can present some "contradictions" if you like, but trust me, you'd either have to take something out of context or just misinterpret something to make it work.
As far as Science not coming far, you might just want to get rid of your computer, and not go to the hospital for that fact, of course, if God can provide better.
I didn't once say that science didn't come far.
And besides, look at it from this point of view, pretend you believe in God for a second, wouldn't you have to say that God gave humans the ability to use his creation for their own good?
Yes you did.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk How far science has come eh?
If you can claim that I have taken something out of context or misinterpreted it, who's to say you haven't? Of all the different sects and religions within religions of Christianity that disagree with each other, do you possess the super human power to see better than all of them. The issue is most of these people that claim out of context will only claim that if it does not fit their ideals.
I too have read the bible numerous times, as I was a devout German Lutheran for most of my life. The problem is most Christians tend to make excuses for the "nasty" parts of the bible due to indoctrination. Similar to the video I posted described, in what context does genocide become moral or ethical?
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
I can see how you thought I was saying that science didn't come far though, but that's not what I was saying.
I was referring to the fact that the majority of people used to think that the earth was flat, which we now know is false.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames If you can claim that I have taken something out of context or misinterpreted it, who's to say you haven't?
Well it's easy, if I say something that you're not sure about go check it out for yourself. It's pretty cut and dry. It's not like you have to mumble some magical phrase to understand the Bible, the King James version is in plain English.
That's interesting, out of all the Atheists that I've found most used to be Catholic/Lutheran or their parents were down the line, maybe there a connection.
I've never met a post Muslim or Baptize Atheist however.
I myself am not any of the above..
I don't have to make any excuses, it's easy to understand if you read the beginning of Genesis.
The people that God destroyed in those days sacrificed their infants to their stone statues by burning them alive. Honestly if you think that should be allowed to go on then there isn't much more I can tell you to change your mind.
@Horrendous: You said you were a devout German Lutheran, what made you change your view on life?
I believe in God.
Not the God that usually appears as the target of Atheists, nor the God proclaimed by religious fundamentalists.
I believe that the Bible is full of contradictions if you read it in one way, but I also believe that it is completely non-contradictory if you read it in another way.
I personally read it with an intuative approach, it's easy to spot man-made political details, it's easy to spot what is an example or allegory of something (described in a context that demands that you can look past the subject of the context and see the higher meaning), it's easy to spot what is meant as an historical record, and it's easy to spot what is something else, something more hidden that would need you to really have come to an understanding of the whole concept of religion and faith to get to grips with.
I believe in re-incarnation. Fun fact: the Bible does too! (Elia/John the Baptist)
I believe in the existence of the soul and it's everlasting.
I believe that 2000 years of editing the New Testament was not the wisest approach if you are intent on following the original teachings and ideas of Jesus. Though as I said earlier, I'm sure that you can get a good idea of them by reading the New Testament with your intuition turned up to 11.
I really believe a lot of things.
And I don't believe there has to be a fight between science and religion. In my world they complement each other. I would never use a measuring stick to define God, nor would I use God to define the length of a piece of paper.
One could say that science is "raw" knowledge, and religion is "raw" faith.
Nice to see everyone keep a good attitude and share!
You do realize that the bibles you read are not the originals right? If it's the 100% infallible word of god, why would it need to be changed? And what do you think of the scripture that was left out of the bible? Was that part made up or is it all just a load of crap. Do you think that the book of Morman is fictitious because the credibility of Joseph Smith was pretty bad? Well I've got news for you, it's the same story for the "authors" of the Bible. The most anyone has to an "eyewitness" testimony was some guy that knew some guy that knew some guy. If I went up on a mountain alone and told you God spoke to me and gave me a shoddy list of ten things he did not want people to do, you'd say I was crazy.
The people that God destroyed in those days sacrificed their infants to their stone statues by burning them alive. Honestly if you think that should be allowed to go on then there isn't much more I can tell you to change your mind.<quote/>
Not all of them did that though. There were plenty of people that we're described as doing nothing that could be considered wrong, like not believing in god or having sex or there was those one guys that built a fire incorrectly and got smashed. Clearly you're leaving things out. It is pretty cut and dry, but you can't argue that God was not petty selfish and immoral.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames You do realize that the bibles you read are not the originals right?
+
It is pretty cut and dry, but you can't argue that God was not petty selfish and immoral.
This is a classic problem. You accuse a God that you have already stated is not a true portrait of the original(that does not mean you imply the existance of a god though, misunderstand me right).
Please continue to keep this topic above low. The both of you are in such positions as not needing others help to question your beliefs. So settle at that and keep it nice.
I agree with everything Eternal Man said, but I would like him to explain his fun fact about re-incarnation. It sounds interesting. I would like scripture references if possible.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames You do realize that the bibles you read are not the originals right? If it's the 100% infallible word of god, why would it need to be changed?
There are multiple versions of the Bible. The first 5 books (or Torah, or law as the Jewish people call it) was passed down from Moses and copied by scribes by hand. The Jewish scribes were taught that the world would end if they copied one letter wrong, so therefore they used a checksum to make sure that their copies were accurate. Ancient Hebrew letters can be converted to numbers, so they simply added all the letters and checked if the sum was equal to the last page the copied. If it wasn't they threw the whole section out and started over.
The Dead Sea Scrolls which were found to be at least 1000 years older than the most recent of ancient manuscripts was found to contain the book of Isiah and it matched nearly letter for letter, the only differences being the way God was referenced. Using a different version of the name of God.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames Not all of them did that though. There were plenty of people that we're described as doing nothing that could be considered wrong, like not believing in god or having sex or there was those one guys that built a fire incorrectly and got smashed. Clearly you're leaving things out. It is pretty cut and dry, but you can't argue that God was not petty selfish and immoral.
Can you show me this? In the Bible or otherwise?
I did leave some things out, so I'll add that God wouldn't destroy them if they had repented, as some did, and were spared.
I believe that the Bible is full of contradictions if you read it in one way, but I also believe that it is completely non-contradictory if you read it in another way.
I personally read it with an intuative approach, it's easy to spot man-made political details, it's easy to spot what is an example or allegory of something (described in a context that demands that you can look past the subject of the context and see the higher meaning), it's easy to spot what is meant as an historical record, and it's easy to spot what is something else, something more hidden that would need you to really have come to an understanding of the whole concept of religion and faith to get to grips with.
I really like this statement.
I'm of the opinion that the Bible is yet another collection of metaphors; it is poetry. It has been translated countless times. The King James version cited earlier was a commissioned translation by a Briton, and he 'edited' it later (unless I'm misinformed). But it is, in fact, impossible for someone to understand the words as they were written unless they're fluent in Aramaic. Know anyone, off the top of your head?
One of the books I consider a marginally spiritual & boundlessly philosophical text, the Tao Te Ching, has also been translated innumerable times. Sometimes it's been the work of mystic healers; sometimes Asian history and linguistics scholars; in at least one version, it's been an acclaimed science fiction author. It's remarkable how different one translation can appear from another, although they had the same source material. All have the potential to be illuminating and mind-expanding, should you consider them in the right light.
My point in saying this is that, for all the debunking that occurs, pointing out of contradictions in the bible verses and Books, etc. it is not to be taken literally. It is apparently a spiritual guidebook, not a book of law. That's the disconnect that encourages/encouraged the various sects of Christianity to emerge, and to disagree with one another to this day: how literally shall we take the printed Bible?
And yeah, the Old Testament God was quite a rude bastard. I even made a game about his attitude problem. And if that stuff literally happened, then he wouldn't deserve anyone's respect (and the dude never apologizes...). Chances are, however, that one warring tribe attacked another warring tribe, and they dressed it up with some fanciful fish story about smiting of an entire city.
Originally Posted by s-m-r I'm of the opinion that the Bible is yet another collection of metaphors; it is poetry. It has been translated countless times. The King James version cited earlier was a commissioned translation by a Briton, and he 'edited' it later (unless I'm misinformed). But it is, in fact, impossible for someone to understand the words as they were written unless they're fluent in Aramaic. Know anyone, off the top of your head?
1st 5 books are Hebrew
and Daniel and some other books were written in Aramaic.
Rest was in Greek.
Some of the Bible is poetry, like Psalms or Song of Songs.
Some of it was law, like the first 5 books which contained law.
Originally Posted by -Adam- "I just think it's kind of corny how a man would come from an ape."
"I don't see how an animal could become a man"
No one can, it would take millions of years.
So, why did you say this?
"I do believe man evolved from ape,though"
You believe man evolved from an ape, which is an instance of an animal becoming a man, yet you state that this instance is impossible, when you believe a man evolved from an animal?
I don't know if we're on the same page, but both ideas totally contradict each other. What am I missing here? Please clarify, I'm confused.
@A-W00f: I believe Adam meant to loosely quote your "[...]how a man would come from an ape" when he said "I don't see how an animal could become a man".
@Urbanmonk: Check Matt 11:14-ish and 17:10-ish, also Mark 1:2-ish(-ish meaning around those). They describe John the baptist being the prophet Elia re-incarnated.
@s-m-r: Nice to hear someone else on the same page!
This is one of the main reasons I don't think debates between Atheists and Christians/People of Faith regarding "what the Bible says" are fruitful. Atheists tend to read the Bible in the same way as religious fundamentalists do, i.e "The Bible literally says [insert controversial meaning]!". That's a shallow view of it, nothing more.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames You do realize that the bibles you read are not the originals right?
+
It is pretty cut and dry, but you can't argue that God was not petty selfish and immoral.
This is a classic problem. You accuse a God that you have already stated is not a true portrait of the original(that does not mean you imply the existance of a god though, misunderstand me right).
Please continue to keep this topic above low. The both of you are in such positions as not needing others help to question your beliefs. So settle at that and keep it nice.
Sorry, but I'm lost on your point. I've already stated that I'm open to the concept of a diety, although I disagree that it is a Christian god, who is petty selfish and immoral.
Can you show me this? In the Bible or otherwise?
I did leave some things out, so I'll add that God wouldn't destroy them if they had repented, as some did, and were spared.
Rehab is a good example, wouldn't you agree?<Quote/>
I listed several examples, including a website with various other examples. Hitler exterminated many people, and there were plenty of people that agreed with him and felt it was just. Was it moral for him to commit genocide? It's kind of a stretch comparing death to rehab, don't you think?
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by -Adam- "I just think it's kind of corny how a man would come from an ape."
"I don't see how an animal could become a man"
No one can, it would take millions of years.
So, why did you say this?
"I do believe man evolved from ape,though"
You believe man evolved from an ape, which is an instance of an animal becoming a man, yet you state that this instance is impossible, when you believe a man evolved from an animal?
I don't know if we're on the same page, but both ideas totally contradict each other. What am I missing here? Please clarify, I'm confused.
I'm sorry, but you have a lack of understanding of how evolution works. First of all, it's been said that man evolved from apes, which is in correct, man is an ape, that's the category we all fall in. We didn't evolve from apes, we evolved from a common ancestor.
Basically, evolution never states anything about man evolving from an animation, it states that man is an animal. Evolution states that animals that are born with a trait that gives them an advantage and they are more likely to breed and pass on that trait. Over time, those species become so different that they can no longer breed with the original and thus become a new species. Most creationists like to exaggerate this and try argue that it claims the species instantly change from one to another, or meld together to make a completely different species, for instance the ever so "intellegent" Kirk Cameron and his "crock-o-duck". Here's some more info detailed in one neat package by AronRa:
His entire series on the subject is excellent, although this one really hits home.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Stating that "no one can" more or less implies impossibility, and unless someone actually lives for millions of years, which they clearly won't, it is entirely impossible. The closest anyone ever came to a million that I've heard of was Methuselah, that guy from the bible who lived until 900. That's still 999,100 years till a million.
...Am I still missing something here? We could still be on two totally different pages.
Im aware we share a common ancestor (I watched Walking with Cavemen when it aired back in 2003 ), and Ive already had this discussion with RickyG. My point really is that evolution exists, and its rather obvious in some cases, yet Ive spoken to certain christian people who swear blind it doesn't.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames You do realize that the bibles you read are not the originals right?
+
It is pretty cut and dry, but you can't argue that God was not petty selfish and immoral.
This is a classic problem. You accuse a God that you have already stated is not a true portrait of the original(that does not mean you imply the existance of a god though, misunderstand me right).
Please continue to keep this topic above low. The both of you are in such positions as not needing others help to question your beliefs. So settle at that and keep it nice.
Sorry, but I'm lost on your point. I've already stated that I'm open to the concept of a diety, although I disagree that it is a Christian god, who is petty selfish and immoral.
What I point out is the following;
1.) You lay weight at the fact that the Biblical texts we read today are not the same as the originals/the original situation/the original meaning(all three are applicable depending on passage).
2.) You point out that the God described in the Bible(as we know it) is "petty selfish and immoral".
=
You target an imagery of God that isn't neccessary equal to the God spoken of several thousands of years ago, though you dismiss the entire idea of Christianity from start to finish.
That's what I meant.
Why do you seem so hostile towards faith? I wish you would answer my first question about you instead of being snappy.
No Werewoof, you misunderstand. I meant that people won't see evolution happening in front of them within a life time. Not that people don't see it happening because it doesn't exist. Nice attempt on twisting my words, though.
I seriously doubt we need to bring in Creationism here. No one has stated that they share the Creationist belief.
Though, on an evolutionary note:
One of my favourite authors on religion, John F.Haught, makes an insightful reflection upon evolution in his book God and the New Atheism;
"As the ultimate ground of novelty, freedom, and hope, the Christian God offers the entire universe as well as ourselves the opportunity of ongoing liberation from the lifelessness of perfect design. Evolution, therefore, may be understood, at a theological level, as the story of the world's gradual emergence from initial chaos and monotony, and of it's adventurous search for more intensely elaborate modes of being. The God of evolution humbly invites creatures to participate in the ongoing creation of the universe"
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames You do realize that the bibles you read are not the originals right?
+
It is pretty cut and dry, but you can't argue that God was not petty selfish and immoral.
This is a classic problem. You accuse a God that you have already stated is not a true portrait of the original(that does not mean you imply the existance of a god though, misunderstand me right).
Please continue to keep this topic above low. The both of you are in such positions as not needing others help to question your beliefs. So settle at that and keep it nice.
Sorry, but I'm lost on your point. I've already stated that I'm open to the concept of a diety, although I disagree that it is a Christian god, who is petty selfish and immoral.
What I point out is the following;
1.) You lay weight at the fact that the Biblical texts we read today are not the same as the originals/the original situation/the original meaning(all three are applicable depending on passage).
2.) You point out that the God described in the Bible(as we know it) is "petty selfish and immoral".
=
You target an imagery of God that isn't neccessary equal to the God spoken of several thousands of years ago, though you dismiss the entire idea of Christianity from start to finish.
That's what I meant.
Why do you seem so hostile towards faith? I wish you would answer my first question about you instead of being snappy.
I'm not laying any weight on the bible, but if someone wants to use it as their whole argument, I have to know how to show it's irrelevance.
I'm not being snappy, I'm sorry you're interpreting it that way.
As far as your question is concerned, I apologize, I missed that post as you posted while I was working on my post. When I was a Christian, I came across many things that I knew was ridiculous, but I made excuses for them, and always came up with explanations and rationalizations for them, which of course held no water. Like most Christians, I had plenty of moments and even felt like I was "speaking with god". After a while, I started doing my own research, and actually found out what evolution was, vs. what I was always told it was (which was waaaay off). After learning more about evolution, I eventually started researching some of those doubts I had about the Christian bible and found them plausible enough to not let my life be dictated by a book.
As far as my hostility is concerned, I'm not being hostile, once again, I'm sorry you're interpreting it that way, you would know if I was being hostile.
Im aware we share a common ancestor (I watched Walking with Cavemen when it aired back in 2003 ), and Ive already had this discussion with RickyG. My point really is that evolution exists, and its rather obvious in some cases, yet Ive spoken to certain christian people who swear blind it doesn't.
And I agree. I actually argued with people who try to tell me that dinosaurs lived with humans, that the earth still is flat and that every fossil that has ever been discovered is a fake. Some people just don't understand the concept of peer reviewed documents.
Edited by HorrendousGames
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Ah, okay. And thank you, but I wouldn't say twisting words, just a misunderstanding of what you were saying. Nice try accusing me of something false (the same way you accused me of "trolling" in a newspost and "constantly spamming" (a.k.a. extremely frequent posting) in a trophy which I deleted out of sheer n00bishness about 2 years back), though.
With that cleared up, I turn my attention elsewhere to a less debatable subject. Probably pomegranate and vanilla white tea.
Edit: Once again, in reply to -Adam-. Once again, too late.
I'm not laying any weight on the bible, but if someone wants to use it as their whole argument, I have to know how to show it's irrelevance.
I'm not being snappy, I'm sorry you're interpreting it that way.
As far as your question is concerned, I apologize, I missed that post as you posted while I was working on my post. When I was a Christian, I came across many things that I knew was ridiculous, but I made excuses for them, and always came up with explanations and rationalizations for them, which of course held no water. Like most Christians, I had plenty of moments and even felt like I was "speaking with god". After a while, I started doing my own research, and actually found out what evolution was, vs. what I was always told it was (which was waaaay off). After learning more about evolution, I eventually started researching some of those doubts I had about the Christian bible and found them plausible enough to not let my life be dictated by a book.
As far as my hostility is concerned, I'm not being hostile, once again, I'm sorry you're interpreting it that way, you would know if I was being hostile.
I see your point, though personally I would hardly call the Bible irrelevant to any faith.
It sounds like you had quite a religious upbringing, I truly understand your suspicion towards the kind of faith you describe. Though I don't see it neccessary to dismiss all forms of faith due to those circumstances, as I said, I'm of faith and I share your view you described. An illusion of religion is that you need to conform to a stereotypical type of "religious person" to have faith. You don't, really. You don't need to be a Christian, Jew or Muslim to believe in the God of Abraham. You can do it in your own right. That's what I do.
Sorry for misinterperating you as hostile and snappy.
No. I don't believe in God. If he does exist, then wheres the proof? Also, if God created everything, then who created him? If you say no one created him, then we could have just as easily been created by no one. If you do say someone created him, then who created his creator? If god loves us all then why would he send us to burn forever? That doesn't seem like something that a loving person would do. If God commands us to not do things, then why doesn't he get rid of those concepts from human thought? I have alot of other easons not to believe him but who cares?
And the theory is that humans didn't evolve directly from apes, but both Apes and humans evolved from another species millions of years ago.
Just to clarify a few things: The same way I wouldn't believe in god for what's on the bible, I won't say god doesn't exist based on it. Religion is much more than just a book, and that's how I see and that why I don't feel I need it.
You won't hear me say that god doesn't exist because in the bible it says he made our planet with his bare hands when we know that's definitely not true, even if it makes me wonder what were the intentions and the reasoning behind such a ridiculous statement.
Religiou and faith are what we want them to be.
Before we discovered that we live in a spherical planet, people believed and didn't question the bible's teachings that the earth was flat. Then it was discovered that that was not true, and people started interpreting that part of the bible differently. After that we discovered that what created our planet was the a giant explosion, not god's hands. The world moved on, and interpreted that part of the bible differently, again.
The bible is sometimes subjective, sometimes it's not, but regardless people always find a different meaning for each little bit. The way religious people interpret the bible is the same way they interpret for example an unanswered prayer. As an example, when I was in my early teens I'd study my ass off for my exams and pray for a good result. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. If it didn't I'd find all sorts of explanations. They all made sense and were very similar to some of the stuff I've read in this thread.
The point being, as I got older I started seeing things differently. I realized that perhaps when I had good results it wasn't god helping me but it was my own effort. Perhaps when I had bad results it was simply because I didn't work hard enough. It was simple and so obvious yet I complicated it so much.
I won't convince anyone that I'm right or wrong, it's impossible because it's all about different points of views. Different meanings can be taken from the same thing. The bible is a good example. What for some is a collection of fairy tales, for some its poetry and for other it's the sacred word of god.
btw chrilley, +10000 for the call of cthulhu reference.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Science is great, it can probably explain every worldly phenomena one day. But science isn't set up in a fashion as to be able to say anything about God or an afterlife. Science is meant to explain the physical, measurable world we inhabit. God or an afterlife are not measurable by those means.
Imagine a bucket.
That bucket contains our entire physical world down to the smallest matter.
Imagine another bucket.
This bucket contains God and the afterlife. ( a strange bucket indeed )
In the first bucket we tinker and measure, finding no proof whatsoever of any god or afterlife. But does that say anything about God at all?
We here at TDC, objective viewers as we are, can say:
"Of course you see no measurable proof of God in there! It's the wrong bucket!"
That's the main reason why there won't be any consolidation between say Dawkins and a theologist, they speak of different buckets.
I myself also find this matter interesting, that's why I study it at the University.
God is where people want him to be. Science will never be able to prove god's existence the same way it will never prove that god doesn't exist. The same could be said about any fairy tale. People only need the bucket of god and the afterlife if they believe they exist, if they don't science is enough.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Science is great, it can probably explain every worldly phenomena one day. But science isn't set up in a fashion as to be able to say anything about God or an afterlife. Science is meant to explain the physical, measurable world we inhabit. God or an afterlife are not measurable by those means.
Imagine a bucket.
That bucket contains our entire physical world down to the smallest matter.
Imagine another bucket.
This bucket contains God and the afterlife. ( a strange bucket indeed )
In the first bucket we tinker and measure, finding no proof whatsoever of any god or afterlife. But does that say anything about God at all?
We here at TDC, objective viewers as we are, can say:
"Of course you see no measurable proof of God in there! It's the wrong bucket!"
That's the main reason why there won't be any consolidation between say Dawkins and a theologist, they speak of different buckets.
I myself also find this matter interesting, that's why I study it at the University.
God is where people want him to be. Science will never be able to prove god's existence the same way it will never prove that god doesn't exist. The same could be said about any fairy tale. People only need the bucket of god and the afterlife if they believe they exist, if they don't science is enough.
I think you went past my point there.
I believe faith to hold a bigger reward than an illusion, I believe it adds a depth to our existance that science cannot. I completely understand your view though, it's typical. Though I find it quite blunt to equal religion and fairytales...
Originally Posted by Fish20 No. I don't believe in God. If he does exist, then wheres the proof?
You either believe in a eternal God, or you believe in a eternal universe.
Either everything that's here now always was here (and I'm referring to the matter/energy that makes up everything, not the thing itself) or God always existed then he spoke everything into existence. (The word "spoke" being used to represent information, and not necessarily a audible voice)
I'm not laying any weight on the bible, but if someone wants to use it as their whole argument, I have to know how to show it's irrelevance.
I'm not being snappy, I'm sorry you're interpreting it that way.
As far as your question is concerned, I apologize, I missed that post as you posted while I was working on my post. When I was a Christian, I came across many things that I knew was ridiculous, but I made excuses for them, and always came up with explanations and rationalizations for them, which of course held no water. Like most Christians, I had plenty of moments and even felt like I was "speaking with god". After a while, I started doing my own research, and actually found out what evolution was, vs. what I was always told it was (which was waaaay off). After learning more about evolution, I eventually started researching some of those doubts I had about the Christian bible and found them plausible enough to not let my life be dictated by a book.
As far as my hostility is concerned, I'm not being hostile, once again, I'm sorry you're interpreting it that way, you would know if I was being hostile.
I see your point, though personally I would hardly call the Bible irrelevant to any faith.
It sounds like you had quite a religious upbringing, I truly understand your suspicion towards the kind of faith you describe. Though I don't see it neccessary to dismiss all forms of faith due to those circumstances, as I said, I'm of faith and I share your view you described. An illusion of religion is that you need to conform to a stereotypical type of "religious person" to have faith. You don't, really. You don't need to be a Christian, Jew or Muslim to believe in the God of Abraham. You can do it in your own right. That's what I do.
Sorry for misinterperating you as hostile and snappy.
It's alright.
I didn't mean that the bible was irrelevant for faith, I meant it is irrelevant to their argument that their particular god exists.
For the record again, I do not dismiss all faiths, and I tend to respect people who truly want to make this world a better place, regardless of their faith. However, if someone wants to use their faith as an excuse to extort money, control people, go to war or cause harm to another person, then we've got a problem. Thank you for not blowing up at me like you usually do, I really don't have anything against you.
You either believe in a eternal God, or you believe in a eternal universe.
Either everything that's here now always was here (and I'm referring to the matter/energy that makes up everything, not the thing itself) or God always existed then he spoke everything into existence. (The word "spoke" being used to represent information, and not necessarily a audible voice)
Both conclusions require faith...
Anyone who tells you they know 100% for sure is foolish. Really no one knows for sure. There may very well be a god, just as there very well may not be. It is important to ask yourself if it is worth forming your life around a book based on the evidence given. If you're looking at the Christian bible as a source of morality, you might as well stop it. Christianity does not teach morals, it teaches obedience to authority.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
I figured out morality. There is only 1 right, the right to property. Everything else is a subset of that.
Don't murder, that life is not your property to take
Don't steal, again property
Don't rape, that vagina is not your property
this also means it's immoral to
tell people what they can and cant smoke
forcibly tax
tell people how to run their businesses
tell people who they can sleep with
Going into that "tell people how to run their businesses", I always like George Carlin on Prostitution.
"Selling is legal, F%@$ing is legal, so why isn't selling F%@$ing legal?"
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
For the record again, I do not dismiss all faiths, and I tend to respect people who truly want to make this world a better place, regardless of their faith. However, if someone wants to use their faith as an excuse to extort money, control people, go to war or cause harm to another person, then we've got a problem. Thank you for not blowing up at me like you usually do, I really don't have anything against you.
quote>
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames Going into that "tell people how to run their businesses", I always like George Carlin on Prostitution.
"Selling is legal, F%@$ing is legal, so why isn't selling F%@$ing legal?"
I remember when arguing about legalized marijuana a friend brought that up. But i figured it's better if prostitution is legal. It would be a lot safer for the prostitutes as they can form unions and get protections and what not. My attitude is people are gonna do stuff weather its legal or not, but it's always safer if we make it legal.
The only thing I can believe at this point in my life is that we probably only can know 0,1% of what there really is, and of that 0,1% we have figured about about 10% by now. All the religions I have come across are way too focused on mankind and our own questions for me to be able to believe any of it. They explain how we got here, what we are doing here, how we should behave and what happens to us when we die. It doesn't explain much to me. That said I do realize I grew up in a atheist enclave and sometimes do envy people who do have faith in something.
Interesting thread. I was coming on here expecting, like two replies, to see four whole pages of discussion is good. Keep it up TDC.
The internal doubt I talked about was not me suffering from a lack of faith in God, but the other way round; that I'm starting to believe in that idea. And by God I don't mean a judgmental creator, or some higher image of man but just the 'something else' which we can never fathom.
There are some questions to which we can not, and could never, find the answer. And so to search for 'proof' of God is self-defeating. The idea of God exists entirely within the mind. You can't prove belief. Eternal Man is right with his bucket analogy.
I think the idea of God is co-existent with that of sin. All religions talk about sin. Even atheists talk about sin, except they say that there is none. But if there is no sin, why do we feel guilt? That's why I could never be an atheist (now, at least). We - as humans - have morals and feelings which can't, and could never, be explained by science. And what's more, we are the only beings to have these feelings, it is literally, in my view, what sets us apart from animals.
By the way, anyone believing at face value the creationism of the Bible, and dismissing the theory of evolution because of it, is missing the point. Look at the story of Adam and Eve, and the eating of the forbidden fruit and you'll find it's entirely consistent with us being from, but now seperate to, animals. Adam did not know sin before eating that fruit; so to know sin is what makes us human.
But I'd never follow a religion, or pray to a God, or believe in eternal damnation. I believe religion is personal.
Incidentally Hayo, what more do you need to know other than "how we got here, what we are doing here, how we should behave and what happens to us when we die"? Next week's lottery numbers?
I was born and raised in a Christian household, and while my parents considred me Christian, I don't believe anyone before their teen years and really be of any faith because they can't grasp the idea of a deity, after life, and all the various aspects of religion.
I as I approached my teen years approached, I eventually admitted to myself that I was an atheist, and was quite happy with it for a while.
After many years of being an atheist, I started to regain the idea of faith in a way that works well for me and my life has felt more enlightened as a result.
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman Interesting thread. I was coming on here expecting, like two replies, to see four whole pages of discussion is good. Keep it up TDC.
The internal doubt I talked about was not me suffering from a lack of faith in God, but the other way round; that I'm starting to believe in that idea. And by God I don't mean a judgmental creator, or some higher image of man but just the 'something else' which we can never fathom.
There are some questions to which we can not, and could never, find the answer. And so to search for 'proof' of God is self-defeating. The idea of God exists entirely within the mind. You can't prove belief. Eternal Man is right with his bucket analogy.
I think the idea of God is co-existent with that of sin. All religions talk about sin. Even atheists talk about sin, except they say that there is none. But if there is no sin, why do we feel guilt? That's why I could never be an atheist (now, at least). We - as humans - have morals and feelings which can't, and could never, be explained by science. And what's more, we are the only beings to have these feelings, it is literally, in my view, what sets us apart from animals.
By the way, anyone believing at face value the creationism of the Bible, and dismissing the theory of evolution because of it, is missing the point. Look at the story of Adam and Eve, and the eating of the forbidden fruit and you'll find it's entirely consistent with us being from, but now seperate to, animals. Adam did not know sin before eating that fruit; so to know sin is what makes us human.
But I'd never follow a religion, or pray to a God, or believe in eternal damnation. I believe religion is personal.
Incidentally Hayo, what more do you need to know other than "how we got here, what we are doing here, how we should behave and what happens to us when we die"? Next week's lottery numbers?
On the feelings matter, I have to disagree completely with you. Love, hate, guilt and so on aren't exclusive to humans. If you ever had a pet you'd understand what I'm talking about. Not only they can feel as much as we do, they can see when you are sad or not. The difference is the way they rationalize things, not because we are god creations but simply because we are an intelligent race while dogs and cats are not. Of course, feelings aren't exclusive to pets, I think every living being with a brain has emotions, even they express them differently from us.
The notion of guilt has to do with your conscience. If you did something wrong you know there might be repercussions.
In addition, in specific situations some people feel guilt while some people don't. It's all about your background, your character and the way you were raised. For example, if some mexican drug lord killed someone he wanted wiped out he would be happy about killing said person while in his place I'd probably feel guilty for the rest of my life.
Ironically it's likely that the drug lord is more religious than I am.
By the way, the area of science that studies feelings is called psychology and trust me, not all psychologists believe in god.
"There are some questions to which we can not, and could never, find the answer. And so to search for 'proof' of God is self-defeating. The idea of God exists entirely within the mind. You can't prove belief. Eternal Man is right with his bucket analogy."
I went through that in two different posts. For him or someone else who believes in god he's right, but for everyone else he's not. Different points of views will generate different meanings. It's impossible to prove or deny the existence of something that was created by the imagination of someone. God's existence will never be proven to be true, nor will someone ever find proof that he didn't exist. Of course, if you believe in god, you won't assume it's the product of someone's imagination, but you get the point.
Incidentally Hayo, what more do you need to know other than "how we got here, what we are doing here, how we should behave and what happens to us when we die"? Next week's lottery numbers?
That is not the point at all. I mean those questions are only important to me. Why would there be a god to solve my problems. The problems of mankind? There is so much more. All religions are self-centered and narrow-minded like that.
"There are some questions to which we can not, and could never, find the answer. And so to search for 'proof' of God is self-defeating. The idea of God exists entirely within the mind. You can't prove belief. Eternal Man is right with his bucket analogy."
I went through that in two different posts. For him or someone else who believes in god he's right, but for everyone else he's not. Different points of views will generate different meanings. It's impossible to prove or deny the existence of something that was created by the imagination of someone. God's existence will never be proven to be true, nor will someone ever find proof that he didn't exist. Of course, if you believe in god, you won't assume it's the product of someone's imagination, but you get the point.
I don't see how you can judge it right or wrong for anyone, it's just a stated fact.
Scientifically approved proof of God's existance or non-existance is not to be found through the scientific method, that's what I'm saying. No serious scientist would argue with that.
The important aspect of the question is rather the fact that nothing proves God's existance an impossibility. For a person of belief this can be very important, for a person already mindset on the opposite, it shouldn't be relevant to argue about at all.
A person of belief doesn't utilize the scientific method for his or her conviction, for them there are plenty of other forms of evidence for their faith.
There is nothing to be gained by trying to convince a believer that his or her notion of God is just the product of someone's imagination which they just did the fault of not assuming in the first place, that's merely a form of an insult, the atheistic viewpoint is equally unproven.
So a better way of getting along is respecting each others standpoints and talk about them with a touch of respect and openness.
I'm surprised no insults have emerged. Some time ago, I'd be interested in debating against the existence of such a being. Now, I find it irrelevant to pose the question (because there's no interaction, only supposition). I don't really want to spend time explaining the view, but the conclusion, I didn't get with science. The conclusion shows up (which really leads to more questions) with non-cartesian philosophy and a bit of human anthropology. Eventually, it becomes apparent that even considering the matter of god is very irrelevant and out-of-the-way.
I don't see how you can judge it right or wrong for anyone, it's just a stated fact.
Scientifically approved proof of God's existance or non-existance is not to be found through the scientific method, that's what I'm saying. No serious scientist would argue with that.
The important aspect of the question is rather the fact that nothing proves God's existance an impossibility. For a person of belief this can be very important, for a person already mindset on the opposite, it shouldn't be relevant to argue about at all.
A person of belief doesn't utilize the scientific method for his or her conviction, for them there are plenty of other forms of evidence for their faith.
There is nothing to be gained by trying to convince a believer that his or her notion of God is just the product of someone's imagination which they just did the fault of not assuming in the first place, that's merely a form of an insult, the atheistic viewpoint is equally unproven.
So a better way of getting along is respecting each others standpoints and talk about them with a touch of respect and openness.
Since I don't believe in god, I can only assume that he's the product of one or more people's imaginations so if I insulted someone with that I'm sorry, I didn't mean to. And I already said that I don't want to convince anyone of my point of view, I don't feel the need to and I wouldn't win anything with it.
As whether or not what you said was a fact then I disagree and I already explained why. For me it's no fact, it's a theory and a theory that don't make sense to me since I don't believe in god or the afterlife. Perhaps it makes sense for someone else, but not me.
"The important aspect of the question is rather the fact that nothing proves God's existance an impossibility. For a person of belief this can be very important, for a person already mindset on the opposite, it shouldn't be relevant to argue about at all."
So people believe in god because no one proved he doesn't exist (which you himself said that it's impossible) ?
I don't believe in god but I'm not closed mind about it. Still, I can't see how this makes any sense.
"A person of belief doesn't utilize the scientific method for his or her conviction, for them there are plenty of other forms of evidence for their faith."
What sort of "evidence" exactly ?
By the way I respect everyone's point of views on this matter and I am open minded. I was raised in a christian household, went to sunday school until the end, and believed in everything that was told to me. I did need to ask myself many questions before doubting in what I believed.
The concept of a superior entity watching over us is great, and I really like investigating religion-related stuff even if I don't believe in it. A man's belief can be a really powerful thing, it can change someone, make him see the world differently. I've been in the side of the believer and in the side of the non-believer and I can see for myself how it made me approach life in a different way. This debate has been interesting even if no one told me anything new until now, mostly because I've been there before. The reason why I entered the debate was to see if people told me something new that could change my point of view. For me that's being open minded.
Since I don't believe in god, I can only assume that he's the product of one or more people's imaginations so if I insulted someone with that I'm sorry, I didn't mean to. And I already said that I don't want to convince anyone of my point of view, I don't feel the need to and I wouldn't win anything with it.
As whether or not what you said was a fact then I disagree and I already explained why. For me it's no fact, it's a theory and a theory that don't make sense to me since I don't believe in god or the afterlife. Perhaps it makes sense for someone else, but not me.
"The important aspect of the question is rather the fact that nothing proves God's existance an impossibility. For a person of belief this can be very important, for a person already mindset on the opposite, it shouldn't be relevant to argue about at all."
So people believe in god because no one proved he doesn't exist (which you himself said that it's impossible) ?
I don't believe in god but I'm not closed mind about it. Still, I can't see how this makes any sense.
"A person of belief doesn't utilize the scientific method for his or her conviction, for them there are plenty of other forms of evidence for their faith."
What sort of "evidence" exactly ?
By the way I respect everyone's point of views on this matter and I am open minded. I was raised in a christian household, went to sunday school until the end, and believed in everything that was told to me. I did need to ask myself many questions before doubting in what I believed.
The concept of a superior entity watching over us is great, and I really like investigating religion-related stuff even if I don't believe in it. A man's belief can be a really powerful thing, it can change someone, make him see the world differently. I've been in the side of the believer and in the side of the non-believer and I can see for myself how it made me approach life in a different way. This debate has been interesting even if no one told me anything new until now, mostly because I've been there before. The reason why I entered the debate was to see if people told me something new that could change my point of view. For me that's being open minded.
First of, Yyou clearly misunderstand my post. What I stated a fact was the following (to quote myself) :
"Scientifically approved proof of God's existance or non-existance is not to be found through the scientific method, that's what I'm saying"
But I can rephrase it from
'it's a fact' (since the word is ever so slightly open for interpretation)
to
'it's a matter of well belayed general consencus that scientifically approved proof of God's existance or non-existance is not to be found through the scientific method.'
I stated it a 'fact' since a general concencus between opposing pairs which a vast majority of the observers can agree upon in this kind of issue is usually known as a fact.
Secondly, I was'nt really implying that you had insulted anyone, just stating that wording is a usual source of unneeded bickering and flaming. Nice to hear your approach anyway!
Thirdly, you were too quick in the following quote:
"The important aspect of the question is rather the fact that nothing proves God's existance an impossibility. For a person of belief this can be very important, for a person already mindset on the opposite, it shouldn't be relevant to argue about at all."
So people believe in god because no one proved he doesn't exist (which you himself said that it's impossible) ?
I never stated that people believe in God because no one proved he doesn't exist, I laid my focus on another way of reading the sentence, that nothing proves God's existance an impossibility.
That sense of the argument is what I said could be very important for a person of belief. I don't imply that it's vital for faith in general, I imply that it can be of importance to some people in some situations.
For example, a serious scientist's credability shouldn't be questioned on the grounds of said's belief in God, or a person's mental health shouldn't be questioned on the grounds of his/her belief in God either. But that tends to happen anyway. Do you understand what I'm pointing at?
And lastly, about the evidence.
That which leads someone to true belief in something, or that which strengthens it, is the plentiful evidence abound. One person can claim that God spoke to him, another that the world doesn't make perfect sense without God, a third by intuition. It can really be anything, then it's up to the individual to weigh the evidence and see if it gives him/her enough to stand on for true belief in something science won't ever produce scientifical proof of.
Am I clear? There really is no argument between our standpoints, just textual misunderstanding due to not speaking irl.
The rest of your post deserves a , so here you go:
Johnny Look - I don't believe animals have consciences. I don't believe they feel sad, or happy - they don't love, they don't hate either. And I have had pets. The idea that animals feel guilt is ridiculous - they are not intelligent enough even to understand the concept of guilt, or of love - and that makes the argument fall down. We are unique in that we understand the concept of self, whereas animals do not. Only humans can 'override' their senses; no animal ever committed suicide (on purpose). This - if taken to its full logical conclusion - means we are separate (or at least, I am separate).
Furthermore, I think our consciences are inherent, and not learned. A baby brought up by animals will still feel sad, guilty, happy, and is capable of love.
I think animals can love and feel sadness - dogs are one example, as Adam pointed out. A lot of animals in the wild also care for their children, to an extent were they would risk their lives for them. Love, sadness, anger etc. are all natural emotions which many animals experience - you don't have to understand the concept of emotion in order to feel it.
It's a tricky subject and I'm not sure which of you is right.
Adam, one shouldn't be so quick to interpret a dog's self-preservation feeling of worry at doing something wrong in the pack as having a conscience. What we interpret/translate in animals as human-specific emotions (like guilt) are commonly something else entirely - like knowing they're going to be in trouble with their owner. It's a bit more complicated than that - nothing's definite and unless a human actually become a dog there's little to suggest we currently have the capacity to understand their minds.
Of course we can (and do) project our own emotions onto our pets in a bid to understand them (we do this to the other people that we meet in our day to day life, too), but it is a fact that animals, whether wild or domesticated, have an emotional makeup that is fundamentally differently from a human's. We at least appear to be unique animals in that our level of intelligence gives us easily provable Secondary Emotions (some examples being guilt and shame). Not so with cats and dogs.
I expect the truth is somewhere between the position that Boothman and Adam would argue, with the scientific community more supporting Boothman's post. But we don't really know and it's never a good idea to assume.
(To clarify: I'd personally agree with Adam that dogs feel elation and sorrow, but not that they feel more complex human emotions like guilt and shame.)
Eh. Of course animals don't have those kinds of feelings, EVERYBODY knows that. All they ever think of is eat, sleep and, well, humping. The rest is all in your imagination. Humans are obviously vastly superior and would therefore be the chosen race.
I can confidently say, having had pet dogs since I was born, Ive seen anger, embarassment, sulking behaviours, jealousy, and happiness in them. Not just by how they look, but by how they interact with a human. The one emotion that isnt so obvious is sadness.
Having said that, it also takes a certain type of dog. Not all dogs are the same, facially. For example, an angry dog with dark eyes isn't so obvious, unless its growling (Schnauzer etc). A dog with whites to the eye, or amber eyes becomes more apparent when it is angry.
Originally Posted by Roncho Eh. Of course animals don't have those kinds of feelings, EVERYBODY knows that. All they ever think of is eat, sleep and, well, humping. The rest is all in your imagination. Humans are obviously vastly superior and would therefore be the chosen race.
That is a huge oversimplification. For instance, there is a vast difference between a wild animal and a domesticated one. If that's all they think about, then why do animals bother protecting their young?
Chimps are a great example of animals with feeling and intelligence. For instance, Chimps do not need to eat meat in order to survive, yet they they hunt as often as they can, including other primates. They even divide up the kill based on the social status of their group, and most chimps will give meat to their mate as a gift.
In terms of animals not being able to feel sad or guilty, you must not be paying much attention to your pets. My god father's dog would always get smacked with a newspaper every time he took a dump on the floor. Eventually, if he did and he saw my God father, he would run away into his cage, but only if he had taken a dump on the floor first. There is also a vast difference between getting an animal as a baby, than getting an animal from a shelter. To top if off, before I was in a wheel chair and before I lost my job, I got a beagle named tish. Beagles tend to be very active and love to follow their nose. Before the chair, and even when we picked her up from the shelter, she got out a lot and was able to run around and explore, but once I went into the chair, she wasn't able to run around as much, and was always laying around with a very sad look on her face, there was more but I'm not going to go into it too much.
Granted, my observations aren't as in depth as they could be but, trust me, there are people that study this, and they would probably know a lot better than most people here.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk You know I the biggest diffrence between us and animals is the fact that we can question our existence.
And I think God put that in us so that we would search for him.
The argument that claims that humans are just better animals is just an excuse for people to give when they do something wrong.
"I'm just following my animal desires" is a common quote I hear.
But like Matt said, we as humans can overide these feelings and follow our concience instead, something an animal cannot.
That doesn't come from god, that comes from society. You do realize people used to say the same thing about black people, right? Check that, there are still people that think that. Most of what you're speaking about comes from how we are raised into our society. For instance, many tribes outside of society act similar (yet are still a bit more advance) to the chimp society I mentioned. Are they less human? In terms of animals questioning their existence, how the hell would you know? At least with most feelings you can look at their behavior and facial expressions, but in terms of religion, you can't exactly ask an animal what they are thinking. Ever see an animal get scared of something, like a dog getting scared of a vacuum cleaner or thunder? We know the dog is scared, but how do you know that the dog isn't attributing that to a creator? How do you know that the dog doesn't think of it's owner as a creator? We all know that's a load of hooey, since you and thunder aren't gods, but with decreased intelligence and understanding of the world around you, the more likely you are to attribute something you don't understand to magic or gods, which is not to say intelligent people don't believe in gods.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by Roncho Eh. Of course animals don't have those kinds of feelings, EVERYBODY knows that. All they ever think of is eat, sleep and, well, humping. The rest is all in your imagination. Humans are obviously vastly superior and would therefore be the chosen race.
That is a huge oversimplification. For instance, there is a vast difference between a wild animal and a domesticated one. If that's all they think about, then why do animals bother protecting their young?
Chimps are a great example of animals with feeling and intelligence. For instance, Chimps do not need to eat meat in order to survive, yet they they hunt as often as they can, including other primates. They even divide up the kill based on the social status of their group, and most chimps will give meat to their mate as a gift.
In terms of animals not being able to feel sad or guilty, you must not be paying much attention to your pets. My god father's dog would always get smacked with a newspaper every time he took a dump on the floor. Eventually, if he did and he saw my God father, he would run away into his cage, but only if he had taken a dump on the floor first. There is also a vast difference between getting an animal as a baby, than getting an animal from a shelter. To top if off, before I was in a wheel chair and before I lost my job, I got a beagle named tish. Beagles tend to be very active and love to follow their nose. Before the chair, and even when we picked her up from the shelter, she got out a lot and was able to run around and explore, but once I went into the chair, she wasn't able to run around as much, and was always laying around with a very sad look on her face, there was more but I'm not going to go into it too much.
Granted, my observations aren't as in depth as they could be but, trust me, there are people that study this, and they would probably know a lot better than most people here.
Of course Beagles follow their noses, they belong to the hound family Bassets are also notorious for it.
Dogs just do whatever they want. They learn that doing certain things bring pain, which makes then not want to do that thing, but that's all due to self preservation. Self preservation is something that's in every animal and even humans. The will to live. Running from a vaccum can't be attributed to emotions.
And people in tribes have conscience while the pack of chimps do not.
If you told the tribe about God they would listen, while the chimps would never be able to grasp the concept.
I know this because I personnally met a missionary who talks to these tribes. I seen videos of tribal people praying and crying. Youll never in your lifetime see a gorilla trying to seek God. These people didn't see an example of this. The missionaries didn't tell them to cry or tell them that they were supposed to feel anything. They just did, because God is real and that's what they were feeling.
Did he try talking to the chimps as well? Somewhere in the middle ages, some monks picked up the idea of converting birds, they preached to the birds.
The other day one of my cats got scared by something and jumped up. He then realised it was nothing, looked around if anyone had seen him do that, saw that we did, and then performed some odd little jumps and went back to sleep. True story.
Eternal Man:
I did interpret you post well (I think), but perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
What I meant was that for me, if scientifically it can't be proved then it can't be proved at all, so in my mind what you said couldn't be true, at least not entirely though I understood what you meant.
To be more exact, I believe in what's real, in what I can see, hear, smell and feel. The other side of things you were talking about is something that, in my mind, simply doesn't exist. Feeling protected by god, feeling you are talking with him, interpreting random things as signs from god, from me that's all psychological, something your mind makes up because you want to believe. It feels good to believe there's something out there watching for me, that when I die it's not the end and so on. Of course these things come to a price, which usually involves behaving well but that's beside the point.
I remember feeling like I had those "god moments" more than once, I even convinced myself once I was possessed by some demon because I grew paranoid with that thanks of some horror movie I watched. Then time went by I even forgot about it. Anyway, for a while those "god moments" is what made me still believe, even though I kept asking me more and more questions. Then I started to question if those moments really existed and since then I never felt them again, and that's simply because I stopped believing altogether. The "other side" of things simply disappeared and I started interpreting things simply for what they were, not what they could be and associate them with god, jesus or anything. I felt like I've just been freed from my mental prison. Not saying religion is a prison, but I think you get the point.
I think it's hard to really be an atheist without first going through this, and I think that's why a lot of them just look retarded because they talk about things they don't know anything about. You have to see things from both sides before knowing which one is right.
Like you said it's a bit hard to explain all this without debating this face to face, I tried my best.
Matt: You don't believe animals have conscience and emotions but they do. You need to be used to them to understand their body language. Fear, guilt, happiness, excitement, sadness and other emotions are very easy to see in a dog for example.
And yes they do feel guilty if they know they did something wrong, I can't see how you find this ridiculous if you've had pets yourself. As an example, if my dog(now dead) crapped in the floor or something like that, I'd yell at him and hit him softly in the back to show I was mad at him. Usually, the first reaction he would have was to follow me and try to cheer me up, but in a really human way as if he was sorry for what he did and wanted to make up for that by showing affection. That's an example among many others, things like these are rather common in pets.
I don't know why you're even saying that animals are not intelligent enough to feel love or hate when these feelings can be recognized easily, specially in apes whose body language isn't that different from ours. They even go as far as create rivalries between themselves because of some female they both are fond of. The example of flava with animals risking their lives to save their children is also a rather obvious example.
Their emotions are similar to ours, what change is how they express them.
As for suicide among animals, you can't expect animals to grab a gun and shoot themselves or take a cyanide pill, but there are many reports of animals killing themselves on purpose, including whales mass suicides.
Of course not all animals have enough intelligence to do something like that, but when most of them fight every day for their survival, the last thought they would have would be to just kill themselves. The same can be said for a lot of people in countries plagued by wars, famine and disease.
But all this is beside the point, the reason animals don't feel some more complex emotions while we do why is simply because they aren't as intelligent as we are. That's what set us apart from other animals. I don't think god has anything to do with that, we simply had the luck to be born human and not a bird or an dog. If you want to interpret that has a gift given to you by god that's up to you, for me that's not even up for discussion.
By the way, the example you gave on the conscience part has nothing to do with conscience or the notion of "sin" you spoke about. That's only suppositions, but I'm pretty sure if he was raised by a wolf for example and didn't realize he is human, I'm pretty sure it would be ok for him to kill another human if he felt threatened without feeling guilty. Society is what make us feel that killing another human being is wrong, I can't imagine someone being raised outside an environment without a single human being knowing that stealing, killing and so on is wrong.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk Dogs just do whatever they want. They learn that doing certain things bring pain, which makes then not want to do that thing, but that's all due to self preservation. Self preservation is something that's in every animal and even humans. The will to live. Running from a vaccum can't be attributed to emotions.
And people in tribes have conscience while the pack of chimps do not.
If you told the tribe about God they would listen, while the chimps would never be able to grasp the concept.
I know this because I personnally met a missionary who talks to these tribes. I seen videos of tribal people praying and crying. Youll never in your lifetime see a gorilla trying to seek God. These people didn't see an example of this. The missionaries didn't tell them to cry or tell them that they were supposed to feel anything. They just did, because God is real and that's what they were feeling.
THATS BECAUSE CHIMPS DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH, LOL!
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
A fish cannot grasp the existence of anything above the water. Animals above the water cannot grasp the idea of what it's like to be human. Who is honestly to say that we aren't in a state of ignorance ourselves? We are just one part of the life this whole world is made up of. Something happened in the past, which gave us the advantage of higher intelligence and I think it's very arrogant to believe we are suddenly superior to other animals, just because we gained a new "feature" in our little arsenal of tools. Just in the same way as a lion is no more superior to a gazelle because it possesses sharp claws.
It's just highly unfortunate for our mother earth, that as a result of our new found ability to think on a higher level of consciousness, that we have become such a massive plague to this world. We destroy our existence with the short sightedness of our primitive strive for instant gratification and use our intelligence to aid in that instant gratification instead of using it to be guardians of the world we live in so we always have it.
Whether or not a God or Goddess exists is entirely in the eyes and heart of those who choose to believe they exist. However it seems kind of blind for us to ignore the very divine energy which exists within everything. Electricity was yesterdays magick or divine energy and figuring out how it works doesn't make it any less impressive.
Science is a fantastic tool to aid in learning about our world, but as soon as it becomes more of a destructive tool rather than a proactive tool, is when we need to stop and look back on ourselves and remember what we thought of the world before we came to the conclusion that we had it all figured out. Remember the feelings and emotions we got from something we didn't quite understand.
To try to rely on old and long since dis-proven ideas as a way to explain why your religion is right is more destructive to your heart and the world around you. Instead remember why it is you believe what you believe, and let it help you and guide you. Live on your own path.
Be it Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc, if it works for you then it's right for you.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE To try to rely on old and long since dis-proven ideas as a way to explain why your religion is right is more destructive to your heart and the world around you.
I would have to agree. The largest cause of atheism today is wide-spread false ideas, (from religious people) and that is very destructive.
I don't think I'll ever convert anyone by arguing with them about it. I've never heard of that happening in my life. The only time anyone's ever been converted was when they had a true experience with God themselves.
I'm not talking about "god moments" as Johny put it.
I'm talking about knowing without a shadow of a doubt that what you feel is God.
It's hard to understand if you've never experienced it before.
The best and also the most vulnerable part about religion is that it's so hard to prove, but so easy to attack. So when you see real faith in someones heart, that fuels them and makes them happy, and they aren't trying to use it in major life decisions or as a predictive measure or excuse to do something destructive, it's really quite beautiful.
I think everyone could value from:
"An it harm none do what ye will,"
And really, when you look a lot of religions and different forms of faith, they all sort of agree on that.
Animals do have their own kinds of languages, just simplified. There's a difference between a protective bark, a growl, a happy growl etc. Just as there are differences between bird calls, dolphin and whale calls etc. I would have thought that was common knowledge. And you can say yes, but the human language evolves, or has evolved more so...but then how can you prove animal communication hasn't or won't?
I am not religious and "don't believe" in a God. Well to be completely accurate I don't believe or not believe because I am yet to receive a credible question. I don't know where the idea comes from. I could invent an idea that can or cannot be disproved and I suspect there are people in this world who will believe it. When somebody asks me do you believe in a god, I have to try and take that seriously as someone asking me "do you believe in the Theory of god?". Its quite easy to pass it off as nonsense, but I am open to the idea if it's proposed in a credible way with some tangible evidence. Supposing there was no tangible evidence but in any case it was true, I think it better to stick true to the tangible evidence as a guideline to maintain sanity, and the existence or non existence of a god makes absolutely no difference to anyone. The inifinite set of ideas without tangible evidence would have to be given due credit as well...
So that's my opionion of the existence of a god, and it just goes downhill when you get into the details of organised religion. Most of the time you can simply place the same argument in favour of some other religion and note that they can't mutually coexist, someone has to be wrong somewhere. All those people claiming to have personal relationships with their god don't stop to think there are people in exactly the same position having conversations with their god or gods. It bemuses me to think that this behaviour is observable under many circumstances but those of a religious inclination wouldn't for a second believe that they are a subject of the same psychology. Religion is fascinating to me because it highlights humanities tribal instincts that were vital to our evolution, and it really governs a lot of belief systems. Assigning yourself to a group of people will cause you to defend that group fiercely. No religion really stands above the rest. Note that there is a strong correlation between where you grow up and what religion you follow. If that doesn't inspire the thought of suspiscion I am wasting my breath.
Nice to see a religious thread that didn't burst into an all out flame war, though I suspect the admins will be getting nervous by now
urbanmonk:
"Dogs just do whatever they want. They learn that doing certain things bring pain, which makes then not want to do that thing, but that's all due to self preservation. Self preservation is something that's in every animal and even humans. The will to live. Running from a vaccum can't be attributed to emotions."
I can easily tell you never had a pet. Anyway we already went through this part of the discussion and I thought everyone agreed that dogs feel more than just a basic survival instinct.
"And people in tribes have conscience while the pack of chimps do not.
If you told the tribe about God they would listen, while the chimps would never be able to grasp the concept. "
That's rather obvious I think. If you spoke to the tribe about some van full of food they would probably listen to you even more closely.
"I know this because I personnally met a missionary who talks to these tribes. I seen videos of tribal people praying and crying. Youll never in your lifetime see a gorilla trying to seek God. These people didn't see an example of this. The missionaries didn't tell them to cry or tell them that they were supposed to feel anything. They just did, because God is real and that's what they were feeling. "
I don't get it, so they pray and cry after the missionaries told them about god, and that basically proves god's existence ? I've seen documentaries of entire tribes doing weird rituals, praying, yelling, going completely crazy and throwing stuff at each other because of a hunt that went well for example. They were thanking their gods, and that's because they were feeling them too.
"Based on that fact it's hard to imagine that language is something we as humans developed as we "evolved." "
I don't understand the point you're trying to make or why evolved is in quotation marks.
"I would have to agree. The largest cause of atheism today is wide-spread false ideas, (from religious people) and that is very destructive. "
What sort of false ideas are you talking about ? I think one of the biggest misconceptions religious people make to justify why so many people stopped believing in god (or never believed in the first place) is because they don't understand what it's all about, which is false in most cases.
"I'm not talking about "god moments" as Johny put it.
I'm talking about knowing without a shadow of a doubt that what you feel is God"
At least in my case, that's the same thing. I had no doubt what I felt was god. I realized later that what I felt was actually nothing, because now I don't believe in god. If I was hindu for example, I would probably have felt ganesha instead. You believe in what you want to believe.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look urbanmonk:
You believe in what you want to believe.
And I believe that as long as people can believe what they want to believe without being intrusive to others around them, it's perfectly acceptable that people believe whatever they want to believe. In fact, it should be encouraged.
I for one am pleasantly surprised to see that this thread pulled it's way to 5 6 pages without any fights. Respective quoting and responding, quoting and responding.
To the people who say that animals clearly have feelings such as happiness, sadness, embarrassment and suchlike - my parents bought a dog at the same time I was born, and I grew up with Cleo until we were both 14, at which point she suffered a stroke and had to be put down. So I do know animals. My point is that humans are unique in that they understand the concept of self, and have a detachment to their feelings and senses. The best way I can put it is that a human can easily say "I am happy", but an animal (presuming he could talk) would not, because have no concept of the I. There is a famous quote about this "If a lion could speak, we still could not understand him". Animals don't know they exist, so they cannot ascribe feelings to themselves. That is my take on it.
Whether this proves God is another matter entirely.
@Johnny: Of course, society is what makes us feels that killing another human being is wrong. But what is society? Society is humans. You talk about society like it was something alien to us, something that has always been there, and it's not, it's just a reflection of us. And morals change in different situations. The baby brought up by wolves might grow up and kill a man and not feel guilty - but only if he was threatened. Your sentence even points to the fact that there is something in the baby's head that tells it not to kill humans for no reason. Animals you could say, also have this, they don't go around killing things for no reason. But humans are the only species that can override this feeling, and kill anyway. That is what sin is - knowing something is wrong, but doing it anyway. Animals can't commit sin.
To those who said I've never had a dog, I've got three..Thanks. (and 2 cats)
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman But what is society? Society is humans. You talk about society like it was something alien to us, something that has always been there, and it's not, it's just a reflection of us. And morals change in different situations.
There are societies that teach that it's ok to kill and eat other humans. (In the Philippines)
Our society (USA) is based on Judio-Christian values, so many ethics/morals come from remnants of a once Christan nation.
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman To the people who say that animals clearly have feelings such as happiness, sadness, embarrassment and suchlike - my parents bought a dog at the same time I was born, and I grew up with Cleo until we were both 14, at which point she suffered a stroke and had to be put down. So I do know animals. My point is that humans are unique in that they understand the concept of self, and have a detachment to their feelings and senses. The best way I can put it is that a human can easily say "I am happy", but an animal (presuming he could talk) would not, because have no concept of the I. There is a famous quote about this "If a lion could speak, we still could not understand him". Animals don't know they exist, so they cannot ascribe feelings to themselves. That is my take on it.
Whether this proves God is another matter entirely.
@Johnny: Of course, society is what makes us feels that killing another human being is wrong. But what is society? Society is humans. You talk about society like it was something alien to us, something that has always been there, and it's not, it's just a reflection of us. And morals change in different situations. The baby brought up by wolves might grow up and kill a man and not feel guilty - but only if he was threatened. Your sentence even points to the fact that there is something in the baby's head that tells it not to kill humans for no reason. Animals you could say, also have this, they don't go around killing things for no reason. But humans are the only species that can override this feeling, and kill anyway. That is what sin is - knowing something is wrong, but doing it anyway. Animals can't commit sin.
I think you misunderstood what I meant.
Firstly, for me society could be defined as the group of people that surrounds you and that somehow influences you. In a barbarian society it would be ok to kill your neighbor if you felt like it, in a modern society it's not.
The baby wouldn't kill another human not because of some voice in his head telling him not to, but because he knows that if he tries to he is putting is life at risk so it's only worth if your life is already at risk- survival instinct. Put a human outside a human society and will behave like the society is in. The baby's behavior would be the same as any wolf in his group. The notion of sin is not present in a wolf society, on the other hand this notion has been present in our heads since the first human societies were created. The same way a wolf wouldn't go on and kill other wolves in his pack, the pre-historic man wouldn't kill another person in his tribe because, once again, he knows there are repercussions. A smaller tribe has less chances of surviving, same for a small wolf pack.
Once the first human societies managed to guarantee survival, they settled down in fixed locations and established laws to guarantee order in the group. Most of these basic laws remain until today (don't steal, don't kill etc..), and are taught to us by society since we were born.´
That notion of sin only exists if you believe. In reality, it's a really practical thing, for any kind of society, including animal societies: it's the fear of repercussions.
By the way, how can anyone claim a dog doesn't know he is happy or that they don't even know they exist? We can't put ourselves in their heads and talk for them. Personally I could easily tell when my dog was happy or not, and truth be told it's not that different from humans. I remembered when my neighbor's dog died. My dog used to play with him all the time, and when he noticed he wasn't around anymore he started acting really strange for a good while. He wouldn't play with me the way he used to, barely moved all day etc... Another good example would be the two canaries I had two years ago or so. When one of them died, the other died the following day. I don't think that was a coincidence.
Bit ridiculous to state that in a Barbarian society 'it would be ok to kill you neighbour' - in no human society ever has it been acceptable to kill without a valid reason. But that's beside the point.
My point is that an animal can't choose to sin - it can't choose to go against the 'rules of the pack'. This is because it has no idea of right and wrong. We do.
I sort of want to believe in God but the fact that bad things constantly happen to good people makes me disbelieve. Like severe illnesses... cancer, motor neurone disease. Anything incurable thats afflicted onto someone who doesn't deserve it, who has worked hard through their lives and always trod the line, only to be struck down and informed by their doctor they only have days to live... it just doesn't wash with me.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
From the greek philosopher Epicurus. The fact that there is an unlimitedly powerful God that supposedly loves us wants us to suffer is just plain insulting.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
You were supposed to post that first, then I was supposed to respond with my previous post.
You know, it's interesting how God allowed all the evil nations that existed back during the time of Genesis when he could have destroyed them outright. He knew they wouldn't repent, but yet he allowed them to live.
God will allow evil to go on as long as it doesn't affect his people, as soon as it does he destroys them.
See Sodom and Gomorrah, a good example of this.
The Sodomites could do what they wanted, but as soon as Lot was in the city that's when God decided to destroy it. Go read it for yourself in Genesis 19.
God isn't a machine, there aren't certain buttons that cause him to react a certain way. He treats every situation differently based on the circumstances.
Which is why Epicurus questions are irrelevant.
These types of things didn't just happen in the Bible mind. Try Googling "miracles of the six day war."
Remember that God always rests on the 7th day.
I believe God loves us all. But then you have to ask yourself... why aren't we all in heaven if he does love us? This dilemma usually leads people into believing God doesn't exist. The way I see it is this: God DOES love us... but do we love him? I don't believe God would take us all into heaven if we don't love him. I think of it like this: why be friends with someone who hates you or doesn't care about you? If he/she ignores you entirely or kicks you in the teeth, then why would you bestow any kind of special gift upon him/her? Apply this to God. Why would He bestow upon us the privilages of heaven if we hate or ignore him?
The reason we aren't in heaven with God, I believe, is that God is testing us. He's testing us to see if we love him in return. And God doesn't make us suffer in our daily lives: he simply allows bad things to happen, the same way he allows good things to happen. Like UrbanMonk said, "It rains on the just and the unjust". It also shines on the just and the unjust.
That's life.
Being tested by God is definitely hard. Sometimes, though not very often, I find myself getting mad at God for something, then I snap back and realize, "God allowed it to happen, don't hate him for it". I could take the easy road by apostatizing then consider myself an ex-catholic or an atheist and go about doing whatever the heck I want, with only the law holding me back... but I don't and won't consider it. Without God I feel like my life is empty. I've often thought up scenarios what life without God would be like: It would be about being born, growing up, going to school, getting a job, going to work, retiring, then dying... if you're lucky you might do something great in your life. That's it. But if that's all I have to live for then I wonder what's the point of living? What am I supposed to do with my life? Help companies grow? Just live my life with no questions asked? Get rich or famous but never be truly satisfied?
Without God my world would be a shell. Cramped and hollow. Plus, I can't fathom the concept of completely ending. My body gets buried (hopefully not incinerated) and my soul ceases to exist. I can't grasp that concept without making myself dizzy... In fact I just can't grasp the concept, period.
My other 2 cents. I think I'm done here, I'm not sure. This thread is pretty interesting, though.
EDIT: I lied. I came back to fix one heck of a typo.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk Umm, you did it backwards.
You were supposed to post that first, then I was supposed to respond with my previous post.
You know, it's interesting how God allowed all the evil nations that existed back during the time of Genesis when he could have destroyed them outright. He knew they wouldn't repent, but yet he allowed them to live.
God will allow evil to go on as long as it doesn't affect his people, as soon as it does he destroys them.
See Sodom and Gomorrah, a good example of this.
The Sodomites could do what they wanted, but as soon as Lot was in the city that's when God decided to destroy it. Go read it for yourself in Genesis 19.
God isn't a machine, there aren't certain buttons that cause him to react a certain way. He treats every situation differently based on the circumstances.
Which is why Epicurus questions are irrelevant.
These types of things didn't just happen in the Bible mind. Try Googling "miracles of the six day war."
Remember that God always rests on the 7th day.
This is why we need to teach religious history in school.
Not creationism, but as a complete and separate class... Religious History. It should be a part of standard curriculum in high school, but it's not. If it were, it would give people a lot more to think about when they consider a form of faith or religion to take up.
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman Bit ridiculous to state that in a Barbarian society 'it would be ok to kill you neighbour' - in no human society ever has it been acceptable to kill without a valid reason. But that's beside the point.
My point is that an animal can't choose to sin - it can't choose to go against the 'rules of the pack'. This is because it has no idea of right and wrong. We do.
Well yes the example itself didn't make sense as I put it, my point being that in some societies it's more accepted to kill for something relatively trivial while in a modern society it's not.
My point is that an animal can't choose to sin - it can't choose to go against the 'rules of the pack'. This is because it has no idea of right and wrong. We do.
A wolf won't go against the rules of the pack the same way a pre historic man wouldn't go against the rules of the group. When survival is at stake everything else is secondary. That was my point in my last post.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk Umm, you did it backwards.
You were supposed to post that first, then I was supposed to respond with my previous post.
You know, it's interesting how God allowed all the evil nations that existed back during the time of Genesis when he could have destroyed them outright. He knew they wouldn't repent, but yet he allowed them to live.
God will allow evil to go on as long as it doesn't affect his people, as soon as it does he destroys them.
See Sodom and Gomorrah, a good example of this.
The Sodomites could do what they wanted, but as soon as Lot was in the city that's when God decided to destroy it. Go read it for yourself in Genesis 19.
God isn't a machine, there aren't certain buttons that cause him to react a certain way. He treats every situation differently based on the circumstances.
Which is why Epicurus questions are irrelevant.
These types of things didn't just happen in the Bible mind. Try Googling "miracles of the six day war."
Remember that God always rests on the 7th day.
"Evil nations" ? Aren't we all supposedly god's sons ? Or only those who believe ?
If I ask god for help against an enemy, will be god be against him ? Even if he is a devout christian himself ?
By the way what supposedly happened in the 6 day war has been known to be a huge exaggeration by israel in order to motivate the troops (which worked superbly) and was denied by the nations that were supposedly afflicted by those "miracles".
Of course it's all very convenient that this happened in israel, the birthplace of the christian religion, which raises another questions: Will be god against me if israel decides to go at war and invade my country ?
All these questions considered, tell me how can't epicurus's questions be relevant, assuming I'm on the side that's supposedly being destroyed by god.
Like horrendous said, it's ridiculous to think that god would destroy me as easily as he would help. Also the idea that non-believers and sinners end up burning in hell forever only makes it all even better.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look "Evil nations" ? Aren't we all supposedly god's sons ? Or only those who believe ?
If I ask god for help against an enemy, will be god be against him ? Even if he is a devout christian himself ?
God created all of us, but that doesn't mean we all chose to honor him.
Proverbs 14:34
"Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin [is] a reproach to any people."
Christans wouldn't be each others enemies.
If these nations would have repented they would be spared, Nineveh was spared.
Sodom was given a chance but they refused, Lot told them over and over, but they mocked him.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look By the way what supposedly happened in the 6 day war has been known to be a huge exaggeration by israel in order to motivate the troops (which worked superbly) and was denied by the nations that were supposedly afflicted by those "miracles".
Of course it's all very convenient that this happened in israel, the birthplace of the christian religion, which raises another questions: Will be god against me if israel decides to go at war and invade my country ?
All these questions considered, tell me how can't epicurus's questions be relevant, assuming I'm on the side that's supposedly being destroyed by god.
Like horrendous said, it's ridiculous to think that god would destroy me as easily as he would help. Also the idea that non-believers and sinners end up burning in hell forever only makes it all even better.
America has all the best war equipment in the world, now tell me how many wars they've fought (and won) in 6 days?
Israel is so small compared to the rest of those countries that attacked them, and yet they destroyed the entire Egyptian army.
You can deny the miracles if you want, but you can't deny the fact that winning such a impossible war isn't a miracle itself!
Originally Posted by Austrian W3R3W00F I guess I'm back to offer my view on things...
I believe God loves us all. But then you have to ask yourself... why aren't we all in heaven if he does love us? This dilemma usually leads people into believing God doesn't exist. The way I see it is this: God DOES love us... but do we love him? I don't believe God would take us all into heaven if we don't love him. I think of it like this: why be friends with someone who hates you or doesn't care about you? If he/she ignores you entirely or kicks you in the teeth, then why would you bestow any kind of special gift upon him/her? Apply this to God. Why would He bestow upon us the privilages of heaven if we hate or ignore him?
So an infinitely wise god has petty human emotions? Even I don't kill or condemn someone to eternal suffering simply because they don't like me, thats the behavior of a cheerleader, not of a "perfectly" supreme being.
Originally Posted by Austrian W3R3W00F The reason we aren't in heaven with God, I believe, is that God is testing us. He's testing us to see if we love him in return. And God doesn't make us suffer in our daily lives: he simply allows bad things to happen, the same way he allows good things to happen. Like UrbanMonk said, "It rains on the just and the unjust". It also shines on the just and the unjust.
That's life.
What about that guy in Germany who chained up his daughter for her entire life in the basement with no human contact and barely any food. When she was found, she didn't live much longer after that. What kind of a chance did God give to her? Are you seriously considering that is a part of life and we should just accept that she'll get a better life in the next? What about the millions of people currently starving, not because food isn't available, but simply because they don't have the money to pay for it? I bet they thank god for the challenge too. This is one of my problems with religion, rather than fix the problems in society and try to prevent them, we just let them happen, because why fix this world if it's just a test and we get to actually start living in the next?
Originally Posted by Austrian W3R3W00F Being tested by God is definitely hard. Sometimes, though not very often, I find myself getting mad at God for something, then I snap back and realize, "God allowed it to happen, don't hate him for it". I could take the easy road by apostatizing then consider myself an ex-catholic or an atheist and go about doing whatever the heck I want, with only the law holding me back... but I don't and won't consider it. Without God I feel like my life is empty. I've often thought up scenarios what life without God would be like: It would be about being born, growing up, going to school, getting a job, going to work, retiring, then dying... if you're lucky you might do something great in your life. That's it. But if that's all I have to live for then I wonder what's the point of living? What am I supposed to do with my life? Help companies grow? Just live my life with no questions asked? Get rich or famous but never be truly satisfied?
Without God my world would be a shell. Cramped and hollow. Plus, I can't fathom the concept of completely ending. My body gets buried (hopefully not incinerated) and my soul ceases to exist. I can't grasp that concept without making myself dizzy... In fact I just can't grasp the concept, period.
This is another problem with religion, it's extremely selfish. It's concerned with where "I" am going to go when "I" die and what happens to "me". A lot of Christians bring up this same issue, and I assure you, it's an argument from ignorance (not saying you're ignorant, that's just what it's called). As an Atheist, I can assure you my life is not empty, in fact when I became an Atheist, that's when I felt that my life had meaning. It kind of a odd to tell people that this life is meaningless and only a test to see if you're in god's "in-crowd", then that your life means more to you than any non-believer.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonkUmm, you did it backwards.
You were supposed to post that first, then I was supposed to respond with my previous post.
You know, it's interesting how God allowed all the evil nations that existed back during the time of Genesis when he could have destroyed them outright. He knew they wouldn't repent, but yet he allowed them to live.
God will allow evil to go on as long as it doesn't affect his people, as soon as it does he destroys them.
See Sodom and Gomorrah, a good example of this.
The Sodomites could do what they wanted, but as soon as Lot was in the city that's when God decided to destroy it. Go read it for yourself in Genesis 19.
God isn't a machine, there aren't certain buttons that cause him to react a certain way. He treats every situation differently based on the circumstances.
Which is why Epicurus questions are irrelevant.
These types of things didn't just happen in the Bible mind. Try Googling "miracles of the six day war."
Remember that God always rests on the 7th day.
But you're claiming that he's a being of infinite wisdom and power, he can't think of a different way to deal with the situation than mass murder? Epicurus's questions are not irrelevant, because it shows the Christian god for what he is, petty, heartless and hypocritical. He claims to love all of his children and wishes he can save them all, but the bible is riddled with instances of God killing whole countries because of the actions of a few of it's inhabitants. Yeah, it really sounds like he was trying.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk You can deny the miracles if you want, but you can't deny the fact that winning such a impossible war isn't a miracle itself!
Really? War isn't a miracle. If god likes war and he can't find an alternative (like so many humans have), then clearly humans are better than this "god". If a big ball of fire appeared in the sky and God said to everyone "don't fight this war" and the war wasn't fought, yeah that might be a miracle.
Which brings up another thing. If god is able to appear to people and groups of people, why doesn't he? You do realize that if God appeared to me and the people around me, that'd be all he'd need to do to convince me, or any skeptic, therefore saving more of his children. But wait, he chooses to only visit the mentally insane, ah. Well that explains it. And how come these people only have visions of the god of their culture?
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
How can you say that he knows right from wrong, that people are "evil", that he knows if people love him back and that he's supposed to love unconditionally, then when everything god does that is considered "wrong" or "immoral" is a different set of logic or non-human characteristics?
Sounds more like that people know the god of Abrahamic religions thinks and acts exactly like an bronze age barbarian (ironic since he was authored during the period), and using the "god is beyond human logic" as a convenient way to convince themselves that he does not.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
"God moves in mysterious ways." so it says. He isn't a man. He is literally beyond our concept. That what makes him a God and not a man. (Just being Devil's Advocate here (now there's irony)).
Just for the record, I'm not a believer in a God like that (in fact, like I've mentioned, I am not sure either way). I think organised religion is daft. Who needs to club together to believe in God?
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk You can deny the miracles if you want, but you can't deny the fact that winning such a impossible war isn't a miracle itself!
Really? War isn't a miracle. If god likes war and he can't find an alternative (like so many humans have), then clearly humans are better than this "god".
Winning the war was the miracle, not the war itself.
God will only let humans go so far. It's part of the free choice that he gave us.
God didn't want a war, that's why he allowed Israel to end it so quickly. 6 days...7th day God rested.
God made us in his image, and so as a result we have the same traits as God. We can feel jealous, we can hate, and we can love.
@Boothman: God ordained having tabernacles when he led Israel through the wilderness. They weren't clubbing together to believe in God so much as they were just obeying him. Many people believe in God that don't go to church, but that doesn't mean they're living right, helping one another is part of being a true Christan. United we stand divided we fall and all that.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk You can deny the miracles if you want, but you can't deny the fact that winning such a impossible war isn't a miracle itself!
Really? War isn't a miracle. If god likes war and he can't find an alternative (like so many humans have), then clearly humans are better than this "god".
Winning the war was a miracle, and it was won in 6 days no less.
God will only let humans go so far. It's part of the free choice that he gave us.
God didn't want a war, that's why he allowed Israel to end it so quickly.
God made us in his image, and so as a result we have the same traits as God. We can feel jealous, we can hate, and we can love.
@Boothman: God ordained having tabernacles when he led Israel through the wilderness. They weren't clubbing together to believe in God so much as they were just obeying him. Many people believe in God that don't go to church, but that doesn't mean they're living right, helping one another is part of being a true Christan. United we stand divided we fall and all that.
Humans cause war and humans end war. Only ignorance on the side who won, claims that God is the reason the other side lost. Do Christians ever think about anyone else's beliefs for anything other then 'wrong'? How do you think your enemy on the battlefield feels about God. Probably pretty similar to you. And that God is on his side, not yours.
And plenty of animals (anyone with truly beloved pets will agree too) have powerful emotions. Even something as seemingly emotionless as a lizard can show emotion if you show it enough attention and learn to understand how it communicates it's emotion. I think it's very arrogant to assume that WE are the image of God.
Does deity exist? Yes. I've seen enough and feel strongly enough to believe it does. But the Christian idea of God just feels so wrong, selfish, arrogant, and I just find it so difficult to believe. It's like walking around with blinders on. You see only what you want to look at, and ignore that everyone else has an idea too, and believes equally as strongly about theirs as you do.
There was an old story originating from India, I read in a book I got some time ago. I wont go into much detail, in fact I'll probably get some details wrong... but it goes something like this:
A number of blind men were asked to walk up to an elephant and describe what it was like and how it related to God.
One of the blind men had held onto the leg and said that the elephant was strong and supportive like a pillar, and that is why it was like God.
Another blind man held onto the tail and said that the elephant was like a rope, and that it would save him from danger, and that is why it was like God.
And another of the blind men who was holding onto the back of the elephant, said that it was like a mortar. Powerful and offensive to anyone who opposed him, and that's how it was like God.
After all of the blind men described their experience with the elephant and why it was correct, they began to fight about who was correct about why the elephant was like God. The man who introduced them to the elephant however stopped them and told them that they were all correct. Confused, he continued to explain that all of the ways they had described and so many more they couldn't even think of, were correct.
Just because you see one aspect of divinity, doesn't mean your way is the only correct way.
Again, this is entirely loose from memory, but I do think it gets the point across quite well.
Have you ever want a stab in your back? Because I don't. So I won't stab you.
Do not murder. Some people need belief as fish need bicycle, and I need war like I need an elephant in my bathroom.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE Humans cause war and humans end war. Only ignorance on the side who won, claims that God is the reason the other side lost. Do Christians ever think about anyone else's beliefs for anything other then 'wrong'? How do you think your enemy on the battlefield feels about God. Probably pretty similar to you. And that God is on his side, not yours.
Agreed, the enemies certainly felt like they're their god would help them. (EDIT: spelling)
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE And plenty of animals (anyone with truly beloved pets will agree too) have powerful emotions. Even something as seemingly emotionless as a lizard can show emotion if you show it enough attention and learn to understand how it communicates it's emotion. I think it's very arrogant to assume that WE are the image of God.
I agree that animals have emotion, I just don't think that have a conscience. They don't have the ability to question why they feel emotion or question whether they exist.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE Does deity exist? Yes. I've seen enough and feel strongly enough to believe it does. But the Christian idea of God just feels so wrong, selfish, arrogant, and I just find it so difficult to believe. It's like walking around with blinders on. You see only what you want to look at, and ignore that everyone else has an idea too, and believes equally as strongly about theirs as you do.
I know about most every other god there is. It's an interesting subject to me.
I see everyone else's ideas, and they think we're wrong.
Does that make them selfish too?
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE There was an old story originating from India, I read in a book I got some time ago. I wont go into much detail, in fact I'll probably get some details wrong... but it goes something like this:
...
Just because you see one aspect of divinity, doesn't mean your way is the only correct way.
Again, this is entirely loose from memory, but I do think it gets the point across quite well.
I've read that story before as well. It was one of those stories my parents used to read to me when I was young.
Yes, everyone knows God in different ways, but the following are incorrect. (And I think you will agree)
-Humans/Animals are God
-God lies
-There are multiple gods (Why would he be in parts?)
I wouldn't say you could logically agree with any of these. If you can, please explain why you think so.
@Urbanmonk: On the grounds of asking you who you think you are for accusing any work of knowing God to be incorrect, I find it absolutely unnecessary to have to try and prove to you why those three methods are incorrect. Why does gravity pull things down? Why do out need an explaination for why we can't just live in a world. Without gravity? To most people, some things just are. Sort of like how you can believe some things are wrong and no one really knows why other than your God said.
So tell me, why is it wrong for someone to believe that God exists in an animal form or that's there are more than one God? I personally believe that God is a divine force which exist which everything and many wiccans will worship many Gods, most common being the living baring eternal Goddess and the sacrificial God and many of my traditions are based around just that. And I don't see anything wrong with believing in and worshiping both a God or Goddess or a divine energy which exists within everything.
Sorry if this message seems a little rushed but I'm typing it out on my phone and I need to head back because I'm at work right now.
But yeah, please explain to me why those three things you mentioned are not covered by the idea that everyone can see God their own way.
God will only let humans go so far. It's part of the free choice that he gave us.
Ouch...! That statement was actually painful to read.
Can you explain how establishing limits enables and/or encourages anyone to act in free choice?
Free choice is neither encouraged nor discouraged, it's just something you do everyday.
This is of course "free choice" in the sense that the only choices you can make are those available to you at any given point.
If you don't have your hand on a door knob you can't turn it.
Our free choice is given to us because God wants us to chose to serve him, like W3R3W00F said earlier.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE But yeah, please explain to me why those three things you mentioned are not covered by the idea that everyone can see God their own way.
Well mostly for the reasons HorrendousGames gave in his post quoting Epicurus.
I'm not saying that those things aren't god's to some people, because in all honesty anyone can make whatever they want be their "god."
We're in agreement there, as we've already established.
I'm talking about that "...unlimitedly[sic] powerful God that supposedly loves us..."
If you want to trace everything back to a *first* beginning, it can only be 1..., not 3, not 100.
To say that your God lies is silly since everything that a perfect God says then becomes truth.
If you think that a human or an animal can be god then we're talking about two different things.
Anything that anyone believes is God, is God to them and if it truly does work for them, and as I said, assuming they are not harming you, then you have no right to say they're wrong. Because to them, you are wrong, and you can't say you'd be too keen to accept someone telling you that you were wrong too.
If your idea of deity is capable of lying, then it is capable of lying.
If your idea of deity is split into many, then it is split into many.
If your idea of deity is in animal form such as totems, it is still a form of deity, just in the form of an animal.
And really, I think that's a better word for it. Because when I say God, I feel like I'm kind of talking about the Christian God, and that's not the case here. I'm really talking about deity in general. So if that's cause for any confusion on my part, I apologize.
I have always beleive in God. Even if I didn't, I would still beleive in a higher power. I don't beleive in coincidences or such, I beleive that something or specifically someone plans out our lifes. I beleive in mild-predestination, I beleive we have choices that we can take to lead us down certain paths.
But despite my relentless beleif in God, I still beleive in science and the theory of evolution. I beleive that the bible is written in a highly coded language during several of the books such as Genesis, and of course the highly debate book of revelation. I think that God would have sent down the cells that evolved into monkeys and eventually us. When the bible speaks of creation in Genisis, it speaks in days. Which may seem absurd, but what is a day to God? Time means nothing to God because he is timeless.
Don't think the bible supports evolution? Look at this little summary from the top of my head!=
God is said to have covered the earth in water during the beginning and then created the creatures of the sea. Next he made the land and creeping creatures of the sea. And then he made man.
Sounds like evolution to me! Science says that the Earth started as a great mass of water. Then the creatures evolved to live on the land. And evolution the creeping creatures, including monkeys and such, evolved into hominids and man kind! Sounds like a pretty close fit to me.
Now see, Wiiman seems to be looking at the bible in an excellent way. He's taking it a lot less literal and seeing more meaning behind it instead of using it like a history book.
Thank you Wiiman, excellent input.
A problem arises in religion when you always have to be right, like most religions proclaim. While the search for the meaning of life should be a personal question, there is constant bombardment from every point of view that claims they are right. I know personally that I do not go out of my way to try to convince people other wise, but if the situation arises I will voice my opinion, which I'm sure (or at least hope) most of everyone involved in this thread does the same. I find it highly insulting when someone preaches to me how bad of a sinner I am and how I'm going to hell. I've mostly received this from Christians and Muslims. I've never been evangelized by Buddhists or Jews... and it's a shame Wicca gets such a bad rap because it's really quite harmless (well, except to Mainstream Christianity, but then again, most fundamentalists hate everyone except their own).
You can't argue that organized religion is for nothing more than money. In terms of Christianity, Jesus himself preached against wealth, yet most churches in America are huge, expensive, and guess what? They pay no taxes. It's kind of insulting to go into a rundown neighborhood and see dilapidated buildings all around while the church stands tall and gorgeous, and is still asking for more money from it's followers. Sure there are plenty of charities, but with how much goes in and how much goes out, it's depressing. Occasionally, I will attend the local church on a mission, the last one I went with was to Gulfport, Mississippi and New Orleans to help rebuild houses, mow lawns and remove damaged problematic trees. Each time I've gone on a mission, I've always had to pay my way, as with every other people attending the mission, I wouldn't be surprised if most churches functioned the same way. On top of that, most of the times I've gone, I've had to deal with ignorant elitist teenagers that think only the fact that they are going means they're doing these people a favor, when it came down to doing actual work it was like trying to organize a pack of wild retarded chickens. It's not a damn vacation, you're here to help, and telling homeless black people about your damn ipod doesn't. Doing missions should be left to people that actually care, not someone trying to get brownie points for their college (which ironically, most colleges and jobs don't care about church missions, especially for that fact).
Point is, organized religion is pointless, and all is is one more institution trying to extort money from people. I have NO problem with religion itself, but the aspect of control, extortion, evangelism and manipulating public agenda just has to go.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
"America has all the best war equipment in the world, now tell me how many wars they've fought (and won) in 6 days? "
The US never attacked one of their neighbors for relatively tiny pieces of land, but if they did I'm pretty sure they would take less than 6 days.
"Proverbs 14:34
"Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin [is] a reproach to any people."
There are hundred more wars, and you could even include civil wars in christian countries.
In addition, allah and god is the same thing yet islamic and christian countries never got along well.
The crusades would be a good example, both believed in the same god but in the end the christians lost the war so perhaps they can claim their victory was a miracle too ?
"If these nations would have repented they would be spared, Nineveh was spared.
Sodom was given a chance but they refused, Lot told them over and over, but they mocked him. "
This shows exactly how ridiculous some supposedly "god interventions" can be and how human god is described in the bible. They mocked him, they got destroyed. Personally if I was god I wouldn't destroy and entire city even if the entire population gathered to mock and insult me in unison, yet god did it. Does it make me more benevolent than him ? It sure looks like it, specially considering every person in that city is supposedly his "son".
"Israel is so small compared to the rest of those countries that attacked them, and yet they destroyed the entire Egyptian army.
You can deny the miracles if you want, but you can't deny the fact that winning such a impossible war isn't a miracle itself! "
What miracle ? It was no impossible war, not even close. Israel can be a small country but they are definitely not weak militarily. They are actually vastly more powerful than any of the other countries involved in the 6 day war, which in addition to the US and england's financial help it's hard not to think of any other winner other than israel.
And no they didn't destroy the entire egyptian army, I'm pretty sure of that.
"Free choice is neither encouraged nor discouraged, it's just something you do everyday. "
"Our free choice is given to us because God wants us to chose to serve him, like W3R3W00F said earlier. "
How can you say that when the bible basically says we will burn forever in hell if we don't honor god ? Not only free choice is discouraged, it comes with a pretty heavy punishment. For god there is no such thing as "free choice", you either believe or you go to hell. That sounds like a pretty ridiculous threat actually.
"Don't think the bible supports evolution? Look at this little summary from the top of my head!=
God is said to have covered the earth in water during the beginning and then created the creatures of the sea. Next he made the land and creeping creatures of the sea. And then he made man.
Sounds like evolution to me! Science says that the Earth started as a great mass of water. Then the creatures evolved to live on the land. And evolution the creeping creatures, including monkeys and such, evolved into hominids and man kind! Sounds like a pretty close fit to me. "
The bible's definition of the creation of earth is exactly the same definition anyone would have at the time the genesis was written, it's plain obvious in some parts and simply wrong in others. We know life without water is impossible, we know we are not the first creatures on earth, and the creatures of the sea weren't the first living creatures on earth. Some slightly more complicated concepts that didn't exist at that time such as micro-organisms for example don't make an appearance in the bible. Coincidence ? I think not.
I actually have some respect for the pagan beliefs because I can see where they are derived from. An appreciation of natural cycles classified by some deity need not be believed as a matter of fact but as a symbolism for the natural processes we rely on to exist, and to give thanks for the equilibrium we exist in.
The god of most other religions appears to be a blip in the self awareness of humanity. You can't deny the attribution of human characteristics. I always feel that the argument about these gods is too far ahead of itself. Start from the bottom and work up to the question. Observe the universe and tell me where the question of such a god comes from. It is mans disbelief of the creation of something from nothing, and the belief that "nothing" exists. There are people who will redefine what the word god means to sound slightly more logical, but I don't see any reason to do that. The universe is made out of some stuff, why call that god? I wouldn't group the two together.
In most conversations I have had with christians, the defence of their religion is often inspired by on-the-spot reasoning. May I remind you that your religion is handed down to you from the teachings and morals as depicted in a holy text, and for every word you say there ought to be a quote for your defence. Allowing yourself to be more malleable than that is clear evidence to my eyes that strong belief fuels a powerful desire to defend the group you attribute yourself to. The bible is the only place where you can discover any notion of the behaviour of the god of the christian religion, so to go beyond that would be inventing it as you go along. You can redefine the nature of god and document it, and that is somehow evidence.
Allow me to make an argument, change the wikipedia page and then reference you to it. It must be right, wikipedia says so.
Not all religions can be right. I would invite a christian, say, to argue why Islam is not the true religion. I suspect the points raised would be like putting him in an argument against himself.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE And really, I think that's a better word for it. Because when I say God, I feel like I'm kind of talking about the Christian God, and that's not the case here. I'm really talking about deity in general. So if that's cause for any confusion on my part, I apologize.
Ok, yeah, we're talking about two different things.
Originally Posted by Wiiman I beleive that the bible is written in a highly coded language during several of the books such as Genesis, and of course the highly debate book of revelation.
Ever heard of "The Bible Code?"
The Original Hebrew text lacked spaces, if you skip letters at certain intervals you can create new sentences. (Only in the Hebrew version)
Originally Posted by Wiiman Sounds like evolution to me! Science says that the Earth started as a great mass of water. Then the creatures evolved to live on the land. And evolution the creeping creatures, including monkeys and such, evolved into hominids and man kind! Sounds like a pretty close fit to me.
Day 1- God create light and darkness (The creation of physics, or all the energy required for the universe)
Day 2- God separates the water from the atmosphere (Water canopy theory, pre-flood earth conditions, (it never rained yet remember?) )
Day 3- God separated the water from the land, and created vegetation
Day 4- Sun, Moon, Stars, Days and Nights
Day 5- Living creatures of the sea and air, blessed them to multiply
Day 6- God Created the Animals to fill the earth (land) and he created man and woman and blessed them to fill the earth, dominion over the animals.
Day 7- Rest.
So let's think about this, if a day isn't 24 hours and the things evolved over thousands of years instead...
How did the plants survive not having sun light for thousands of years?
At what point did the human soul evolve?
God made humans out of dirt according to the Genesis account. How does this tie in with evolution?
I agree that true science and the Bible are in agreement, but macro-evolution has never been observed
, unlike gravity.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames A problem arises in religion when you always have to be right
To me, it's not about being right. Its the fact that I actually believe it.
If you believe that your car will start when you turn the key, then you'll act on it.
Same with me.
I agree, there are lots of churches that are just in it for the money. Most of the mega churches just tell people what they want to hear so they'll get a bigger congregation.
It's a racket.
Originally Posted by s-m-r I just wanted to post this little link here, to aid those who have beef with Fundamentalist Christians:
Looks like the Catholic Church has a beef with them too.
(I removed this comment, I might PM it to you later)
Originally Posted by Johnny Look There are hundred more wars, and you could even include civil wars in christian countries.
In addition, allah and god is the same thing yet islamic and christian countries never got along well.
The crusades would be a good example, both believed in the same god but in the end the christians lost the war so perhaps they can claim their victory was a miracle too ?
"Allah" means "god," but it is certainly not the same god. Please refer back to my first post.
The crusades were not done by true Christians.
That's like those crazy people that kill someone and say that god told them to.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look How can you say that when the bible basically says we will burn forever in hell if we don't honor god ? Not only free choice is discouraged, it comes with a pretty heavy punishment. For god there is no such thing as "free choice", you either believe or you go to hell. That sounds like a pretty ridiculous threat actually.
That's assuming that "free choice" means not following God, which is not it's definition.
"Free choice" means you can chose to server God, or you can chose not to.
Repercussions for your actions are a given, whether you believe in God or not.
Originally Posted by ~Matt Esch~ Not all religions can be right. I would invite a christian, say, to argue why Islam is not the true religion. I suspect the points raised would be like putting him in an argument against himself.
I have debated one of my Muslim friends.
The Qur'an has so many references to the Bible it's not even funny. They ever talk about Jesus.
The biggest difference is that deception is encouraged in the Muslim faith, while Christians are taught that it is a sin.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk but macro-evolution has never been observed
Yeah it has, do some research. The only people that claim it has never been observed are religious types, and usually they seem to think macro evolution equates to "evolution that cannot be observed". Macro Evolution has been observed in many plant and insect species, as well as the fossil record. Simply denying the data does not mean that it doesn't exist. Unlike 'miracles', which equate to a "you should've been there" story, scientific data has to be reproducible so that someone else can test the idea and get the same results, and that stays there until it is proven false.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk The crusades were not done by true Christians.
That's like those crazy people that kill someone and say that god told them to.
There are so many different sects within Christianity that it's disgusting. So much time wasted bickering amongst each other over the meanings of a book. Obviously, they were Christians, just not your kind of Christian.
Who's to say that the bible itself wasn't written by crazy people that thought someone was talking to them? Obviously, people can't get away with that nowadays, but back before modern science, people used to believe almost anything.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk That's assuming that "free choice" means not following God, which is not it's definition.
"Free choice" means you can chose to server God, or you can chose not to.
Repercussions for your actions are a given, whether you believe in God or not.
Actually, "Free Choice" kind of means you are able to make your own decisions, it's not a duality. That's like saying "if you're not a republican, you're a democrat" or more generally "if you aren't with us, you're against us". If anything, "Free Choice" is more about choosing your own path through life, not necessarily about one single belief.
With that said, doesn't you're religion prescribe to a "divine" plan? How are we allowed to choose anything if life has already been preplanned for us? And since that's on the table, what is the point of hell? If God has already planned what we are doing, why should we be punished for what he planned for us to do? And if he has a "divine" plan, couldn't he just plan for us to not have such painful lives or does he just love watching us get punished? I bet he was a big fan of the Colosseum.
It's great that God destroyed the hell out of so many cities in biblical times, but isn't it ironic that you don't see this happen in the modern world? Don't you find it a bit odd that when modern science was developed, the amount of miraculous claims dwindled to near nothing, and those that have been claimed we're either proven fraudulent or is just the nonsensical ramblings of a madman?
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk The Qur'an has so many references to the Bible it's not even funny. They ever talk about Jesus.
LOL, like the Christian Bible has so many similarities to most of the religions that came before it? Same story, different characters, it's called plagiarism.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
But I'm highly skeptical of most religions. Personally, I see a religion as a source of moral values to stick to. I choose a religion where morality is based on motivations rather than actions, one where humanity's role is to learn about the world and protect it from harm, one where usury and gambling are evils (something where you make money without contributing is evil in my book).
I don't see science and religion conflicting, though. If any religion says something that's confidently disproven by science, it's obviously false, and I'll cross it off my list. If any science claims a theory that's difficult or impossible to prove, like what many religions claim, then it becomes a matter of faith.
I believe that one of the religions out there must be true, because people have spent centuries thinking about this kind of thing, and I'm sure someone got it close to the truth before it was stolen by politics. Religion's always been sort of the highest morality, and anything which gives you the moral high ground gives you a strong political advantage.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
No, free choice means free choice. God doesn't give you any free choice. You either serve or you don't. If you don't he sends you to hell. You are therefore forced to believe and serve a god you can't see, can't feel, can't hear and can't touch, who is both sordid and revengeful and never did anything practical for you.
Muz: I'd respond and say that religion is not necessary for moral behaviour. There have been several books written regarding the subject of 'ethics.' Some of the more common ethical tenets include:
Do no harm.
Make things better.
Respect others.
Be fair.
Be loving.
These need no religion to be justified. In fact, one of the foremost minds on ethics indicates repeatedly and throughout his works and public appearances that there is not some religious impetus for ethics, and that even those with a self-centered mindset could adopt ethics and live effectively ascribing to them even if motivated by their own self interest. Let me also say that he does not deny the presence of ethical tenets as part of various and sundry religions, throughout the world, history, and world history.
I'm not going to go so far as to say "religion co-opted ethics," because I'm not certain which came first; maybe someone else did research on that and found conclusive evidence one way or another. There are striking coincidences and overlaps, to be certain. But regardless of its originator, the outcome can be considered the same: religion does not require ethics, and vice versa.
Bruce Weinstein, nicknamed "The Ethics Guy," has published an excellent primer of ethics in his book Life Principles: Feeling Good By Doing Good. Here's a link for more info, should anyone be interested:
@HorrendousGames-
I don't personally believe evolution, all the "evidence" can be taken one way or another way. It depends on how you look at it. None of the "evidence" is surefire proof, and there are hundreds of scientists with different opinions on the matter.
If you want to believe in evolution that fine, but whether it's real or not certainly doesn't disprove God by any stretch. Which is why I feel like this particular argument is a waste of time.
I'll just be repeating myself for the rest of your comments, and you can't back any of them up anyway.
@Johnny Look-
Sure, that's what it means. You make choices in your everyday life that bring you either closer to God or farther away.
You're not forced to do anything, you can live however you want obviously.
@s-m-r-
Maybe the reason morals were given to us by God was for the very reasons ethics were created.
Many of the laws given to the Israelites were there to protect them, even if they may not have understood them completely at the time.
Rules were given regarding sickness and how to tell if someone had leprosy, ect.
These weren't given to just have rules, they were given to protect the people, and most was just common sense.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk I don't personally believe evolution, all the "evidence" can be taken one way or another way. It depends on how you look at it. None of the "evidence" is surefire proof, and there are hundreds of scientists with different opinions on the matter.
No, it's pretty much a landslide consensus, the only people that say otherwise aren't even biologists...
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk If you want to believe in evolution that fine, but whether it's real or not certainly doesn't disprove God by any stretch. Which is why I feel like this particular argument is a waste of time.
Thank you! Just as disproving Evolution does not prove God exists. The only thing that conflicts with creationism is Abiogenesis, something that most of the creationist propagandists lump into evolution.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk I'll just be repeating myself for the rest of your comments, and you can't back any of them up anyway.
Actually, I have been... if you've not been paying attention.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk Maybe the reason morals were given to us by God was for the very reasons ethics were created.
Many of the laws given to the Israelites were there to protect them, even if they may not have understood them completely at the time.
Rules were given regarding sickness and how to tell if someone had leprosy, ect.
These weren't given to just have rules, they were given to protect the people, and most was just common sense.
God never gave ANY morals. Unless you believe that morals are whatever God agrees with, in which case that isn't morality, it is obedience to authority. If God commanded for you to kill someone (which is prominent throughout the bible), would you do it? Even if that person clearly did nothing wrong? What if it were your own child? I'm not asking if he 'would' do it, I'm saying if he did, would you?
What about those rules in the bible to kill entire villages because one family living in the village were pagans or non-believers? Who was that rule supposed to protect?
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by Muz I do believe in a higher power.
But I'm highly skeptical of most religions. Personally, I see a religion as a source of moral values to stick to. I choose a religion where morality is based on motivations rather than actions, one where humanity's role is to learn about the world and protect it from harm, one where usury and gambling are evils (something where you make money without contributing is evil in my book).
I don't see science and religion conflicting, though. If any religion says something that's confidently disproven by science, it's obviously false, and I'll cross it off my list. If any science claims a theory that's difficult or impossible to prove, like what many religions claim, then it becomes a matter of faith.
I believe that one of the religions out there must be true, because people have spent centuries thinking about this kind of thing, and I'm sure someone got it close to the truth before it was stolen by politics. Religion's always been sort of the highest morality, and anything which gives you the moral high ground gives you a strong political advantage.
I completely and entirely agree. You seem to be describing a very pagan view of the world and religion. Interesting. I wonder how many more people think this way. And I use pagan as more of an umbrella term, under which wicca and many other faiths fall under.
Originally Posted by Muz I do believe in a higher power.
But I'm highly skeptical of most religions. Personally, I see a religion as a source of moral values to stick to. I choose a religion where morality is based on motivations rather than actions, one where humanity's role is to learn about the world and protect it from harm, one where usury and gambling are evils (something where you make money without contributing is evil in my book).
I don't see science and religion conflicting, though. If any religion says something that's confidently disproven by science, it's obviously false, and I'll cross it off my list. If any science claims a theory that's difficult or impossible to prove, like what many religions claim, then it becomes a matter of faith.
I believe that one of the religions out there must be true, because people have spent centuries thinking about this kind of thing, and I'm sure someone got it close to the truth before it was stolen by politics. Religion's always been sort of the highest morality, and anything which gives you the moral high ground gives you a strong political advantage.
I completely and entirely agree. You seem to be describing a very pagan view of the world and religion. Interesting. I wonder how many more people think this way. And I use pagan as more of an umbrella term, under which wicca and many other faiths fall under.
Originally Posted by Muz I do believe in a higher power.
But I'm highly skeptical of most religions. Personally, I see a religion as a source of moral values to stick to. I choose a religion where morality is based on motivations rather than actions, one where humanity's role is to learn about the world and protect it from harm, one where usury and gambling are evils (something where you make money without contributing is evil in my book).
I don't see science and religion conflicting, though. If any religion says something that's confidently disproven by science, it's obviously false, and I'll cross it off my list. If any science claims a theory that's difficult or impossible to prove, like what many religions claim, then it becomes a matter of faith.
I believe that one of the religions out there must be true, because people have spent centuries thinking about this kind of thing, and I'm sure someone got it close to the truth before it was stolen by politics. Religion's always been sort of the highest morality, and anything which gives you the moral high ground gives you a strong political advantage.
I completely and entirely agree. You seem to be describing a very pagan view of the world and religion. Interesting. I wonder how many more people think this way. And I use pagan as more of an umbrella term, under which wicca and many other faiths fall under.
By YOUR definition, which just happens to be a marked "official" definition. However the definition of paganism is extremely context based. After the bible started referring to a very specific type of religion as pagans, those people began to refer to themselves as pagans. It eventually evolved to become more of an umbrella term which encompasses a wide variety of these interconnected faiths. We essentially took the name you gave us, intentionally a "bad" word, and turned it into something much better.
I'm not entirely surprised a Christian came up and tried to correct me on that though. Most others would've understood what I meant. No offense.
@silverfire-
Even that definition doesn't cover what he said.
Muz's statements agree with how I feel as well, and it makes perfect sense.
It's the same sentiments my father felt when he was searching for the truth.
My father used to be an atheist, and so was his father.
@silverfire-
Even that definition doesn't cover what he said.
Muz's statements agree with how I feel as well, and it makes perfect sense.
It's the same sentiments my father felt when he was searching for the truth.
My father used to be an atheist, and so was his father.
Okay, do some more research outside of Christianity, make connections, and learn more about things like more modern takes on things such as paganism, because I'm not going to pull open and quote a whole section of a book which describes how what he said can easily fall under the umbrella of pagan theology. I gave you a short description and a link I found which disproves what you were trying to prove. You need to do some homework too, if you're going to try to discuss this kind of stuff.
I do not believe any particular religion can classify anyone as stupid, but when you don't acknowledge or open your mind to other possibilities, you do come across as stupid or ignorant. With all do respect, this is not a personal attack, but merely a heads up. Please look beyond your bible and at many other non-Christian sources before you laugh and tell other people they're wrong. I knew what I was saying when I said it.
There's a difference between saying that you know a lot and have heard everything, and demonstrating that knowledge is available to you. Usually those sentences are coupled with "no one can convince me otherwise". You have, in the course of these 9 pages, used certain misconceptions as fact, which inclines me to agree with Silverfire, although I wouldn't put it as harshly as he did, I would say something more along the lines of that you claim to know more about the subject than you actually do, which saying that won't actually get you anywhere anyways, it's almost like saying "I'm smarter than you, so take my word for it". But it's not your fault, I used to say the same thing when I was a Christian, despite not actually knowing a lot. Often in Christianity, pastors are given a lot of trust, and usually in that position, they'll offer quick distorted views of other religions. Take for instance, Kent Hovind likes to run around and claim that he knows all about evolution because he's a doctor and had been teaching science for 10 years. Go figure his doctorate is in Christian Education and he taught for 10 years at a school he started. That's like those infomercials that sell diet pills and the doctor that endorses it is a chiropractor. When people like this choose to spread their message through indoctrination, it's really tough to shake their propaganda as it's been drilled into your head for so long that it is "the truth".
And we love you too!
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Silverfire was most certainly in his right to use "pagan" as an umbrella term, firstly since he told everyone that he was using it in that way. Secondly, since a whooole lot of people all over the world loosely credit various forms of faith revolving around the same principal ideas as "pagan" (I specifically mean when talking about forms of faith reminiscent of the form Muz posted).
In academic quarters it should have been "neo-pagan", but by glancing at the replies I guess he's off the hook there.
There is no need to steer this thread down into the realm of fire(pun intended).
I pity the FOO who will pat people without washing his hands properly!
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk You have no clue how much I know.
Like I said ealier, I've heard just about everything.
However I've never heard anyone use pagan incorrectly until now.
I've said all there is to say at this point anyhow.
I love you all!
EDIT: don't hate me Brandon..still friends right?
Absolutely, Urban. We're all having a very mature and frankly, fun discussion here. I'm in no position to hold anything you say in here, against you. You've never given me a reason to be upset with you.
I say we continue the discussion. We've gotten this far without a flame war or fighting and on this site, that's pretty impressive.
PS: Yeah, neo-pagan would've probably been a better term. I just haven't done too much research in how the prefix effects the word and was a little nervous to attach it without knowing exactly what it meant or how it could've been perceived. The first thing I think of when I hear neo-[faith here] is the neo-nazi's and ignorant as it may seem on my part, that scared me away from using it because I don't know how many other people might misunderstand me as I did when I first heard it.
You don't have to explain why you didn't, and as I said, it's only viable for opposition in academic quarters, we're on the internet in a standard discussion. Better to use words/pre-/suffixes that you're sure of than those you aren't.
I too, by the by, fit into the umbrella(strange sentence when put out of context!). Though with a slightly more "religious" view/feel/[insert whatever] touch, quite hard to explain, but I don't feel contradictory being passionate about "The God of Abraham" and the "Goddess" at the same time. For me they are both shards, visions in the mist, of the same origin.
Originally Posted by Yami Johnny Look - "God doesn't give you any free choice. You either serve or you don't."
What didn't you understand ?
God doesn't give you a free choice, serving or not is a choice you are giving to yourself. Unless you sagree that saying "you either serve me or go to hell and burn forever" sounds like someone's giving you a free choice ?
Originally Posted by Yami Johnny Look - "God doesn't give you any free choice. You either serve or you don't."
What didn't you understand ?
God doesn't give you a free choice, serving or not is a choice you are giving to yourself.
Unless you agree that saying "you either serve me or go to hell and burn forever" sounds like someone's giving you a free choice ?
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk Yes Horrendous whatever you say.
*pats head*
What's wrong with what he said ? That's this sort of attitude that destroys serious discussions, you just read his post and then tried to make it look so dumb that it's not even worth replying, when we all know the reason is you simply don't have any arguments against what he said.
Also, until now you weren't able to reply a single one of my questions.
EDIT: I didn't see this post.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
"Allah" means "god," but it is certainly not the same god. Please refer back to my first post.
The crusades were not done by true Christians.
That's like those crazy people that kill someone and say that god told them to.
It's not ? Islam and christianity are both called abrahamic religions for a reason, they have the same origins. The abraham episode is in both the bible and quran and told exactly the same way.
Also, why do you say the crusaders weren't real christians ?
It seems to me that, had they won the war, you'd probably call that a miracle, but since they failed it's all very convenient that you brand them as "crazy people".
Originally Posted by Yami Johnny Look - "God doesn't give you any free choice. You either serve or you don't."
What didn't you understand ?
God doesn't give you a free choice, serving or not is a choice you are giving to yourself.
Unless you agree that saying "you either serve me or go to hell and burn forever" sounds like someone's giving you a free choice ?
I think this is just a misunderstanding, your wording kind of made it easy to take out of context. I think you meant to say something along the lines of "God doesn't give you any free choice. According to him, you either serve or you don't."
I got a laugh out of it, though.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
If it doesn't make sense to you, I'll rephrapse.
If you're being robbed and the robber tells you "If you scream, I kill you" is he giving you a free choice ?
If god tells you "you either honor me or I'll send you to hell" is he giving you a free choice ?
If this still doesn't make sense for you then it's not a matter of me not making sense, but of you not wanting to understand.
"Islam and Christianity are called Abrahamic because Arab's and Jew's are both decedents of Abraham, not because their religions have the same origin.
It's very obvious if you read the Qu'ran that it isn't talking about the God of the Bible. "
What ? No offense, but you don't seem to have a clue on what you are talking about or you simply can't accept the truth.
Both religions came from judaism, christ himself was seen as a jew in the bible. Christianity began a sect of Judaism. The abrahamic religions are called this way because they all started with abraham and his supposed message from god, not because "arabs and jews are his descendents".
Islam, judaism and christianity are different branches from the same religion either you want to believe or not.
Judaism started it all, Islam preached Mohammed's teachings and Christianity preached christ and his disciples's teachings and that's how these branches divided into the religions we still know today.
Abraham, Jacob, Moses, all these characters are present throughout all three sacred books, and all of them, supposedly contact with the same god.
"Christian means "Christ-like" although the definition has changed over the years.
Would you assume that the crusaders were "Chirst-like?" "
Why wouldn't they be christ-like ? From what I know, they aren't any different than most christians of today.
"But yes, it's very convenient that people who do wrong like to pin the blame on God. "
What point you are trying to make ? If that's about the crusades you're talking about, they were done in the name of god BEFORE they knew they were going to lose. I thought this was obvious.
Ok, I get what you're saying.
You still have a choice in that circumstance though. You could still scream, or not, or try to run, or whatever.
You feel like discouraging certain actions == no choice.
I don't feel that way though.
You make whatever choices you want everyday, and I believe that God allows us to.
Not everyone seems to be much afraid of the consequence for their actions these days though.
I know what I'm talking about, geez.
Go look back at my first post on this thread...I mentioned it in the first post because I knew someone would bring it up.
I've heard all this before.
Muslims have some of the stories from the Bible, but they have some slight differences.
In the story of Abraham, Ishmael was the chosen son and not Issac. (contradiction)
UPDATE: I'm not one to use wikipedia, but I can varify that this information is correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael
"Ishmael is a biblical person first mentioned in the Book of Genesis and later referenced in the Qur'an."
Judas died on the Cross and not Jesus. (Contradicts many historical documents, not just the Bible)
and some other silly ones...not to mention deception and murder are some of the key components of Islam.
Christ taught forgiveness and truth. (Don't bring up God's destruction of the evil cities again, they could've had forgiveness if they wanted it, this has already been established earlier in the thread. )
When someone says "free choice" it usually means feeling free to chose something. In this case, god strongly discourages not honoring him so he's not giving you a free choice.
I know what you mean, but I strongly disagree. I make my own choices simply because I can, not because "god allows me to".
As for god/allah not being the same... they are, the difference is they are both described differently in both books, the same can be said for some of those passages. If some of what's in the quran can be proven as false, the same can be said for a lot of what's in the bible put people still manage to find subliminal messages or meanings of all sorts.
Not being muslim and understanding their culture and principles, it's probably hard for you to read the quran and say you understand islam perfectly. From what I understood from some of my muslim friends, the islam is the exact opposite of what you said. They advocate truth, peace and forgiveness, not the opposite.
The difference is how the quran is interpreted. You have all sort of islamic sects, some will tell you that dieing for the islam will grant you heaven while some will tell that you'll go straight to hell for doing such a crime in the name of allah for example. Christianity is no different in any aspect from islamism. Islamism is no more correct or wrong than christianity.
Also you keep avoiding my questions, you still haven't answered me why crusaders are not christ-like (not to mention the hundred other questions I asked you but got no reply).
Originally Posted by Johnny Look If that's the case then very few to none christians are actually "christ-like".
Yeah, I know, I wish they'd stop calling themselves Christians when they aren't.
So if it was that easy for you to see, then you should be able to tell when a real one comes along.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look From what I understood from some of my muslim friends, the islam is the exact opposite of what you said. They advocate truth, peace and forgiveness, not the opposite.
Of course they'd tell you that! Their Qu'ran teaches them to lie if it furthers Islam.
That's true. But the strive is encouraged, that should be appreciated. Though it ultimately boils down to your own personal interpretation of what that means('resembling Jesus Christ in actions and spirit' that is).
Also, J-Look is right about the Abrahamic religions. They are all focused on the same God, though their inert interpretation of God and what God want's us to do differ. There is no arguing about that, simple facts.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Also, J-Look is right about the Abrahamic religions. They are all focused on the same God, though their inert interpretation of God and what God want's us to do differ. There is no arguing about that, simple facts.
So to say that they are the same is wrong then.
It's not a different interpretation, they're are total opposites.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk Yes, striving to be Christ-like.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Also, J-Look is right about the Abrahamic religions. They are all focused on the same God, though their inert interpretation of God and what God want's us to do differ. There is no arguing about that, simple facts.
So to say that they are the same is wrong then.
It's not a different interpretation, they're are total opposites.
That does not make them two, separate Gods. It's the same God, the only God. The problem lies in humanbeings' interpretation.
EXAMPLE:
Person A: I'm in the mood for some lovin'!
Person B hurries to the bedroom, person C starts writing a love poem.
Conclusion: They interpreted person A differently. However, person A is still just one person.
Conclusion: They interpreted person A differently. However, person A is still just one person.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk So how would you equate that to be deceitful vs. telling the truth?
God: thou shalt not lie
Allah: Lie
I have no responsability to try and justify differing imageries of God. I haven't read the entire the entire Qu'ran, or lived in Islam since year 600~. It's just the way it is, all three religions are striving towards the same God.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look If that's the case then very few to none christians are actually "christ-like".
Yeah, I know, I wish they'd stop calling themselves Christians when they aren't.
So if it was that easy for you to see, then you should be able to tell when a real one comes along.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look From what I understood from some of my muslim friends, the islam is the exact opposite of what you said. They advocate truth, peace and forgiveness, not the opposite.
Of course they'd tell you that! Their Qu'ran teaches them to lie if it furthers Islam.
You know how ridiculous what you are saying is ? So all muslims like to be lied at, murdered etc.. ? Is that what islam is all about ? They are the bad guies while christians are the good ones ? See, that's exactly why both can't get along, muslims see christians exactly the same way.
I'll say it once again, you can't believe in what you read in the quran, take it word by word and think you know all about it. It's actually much more subjective than the bible. You can't also believe in everything you read in the internet, specially when it's written by people with less-than-clear intentions.
If you think about it for a second, my muslim friends would have little gain by trying to convince me of their religion by lying, once I'd found out it's completely different from what they told me, I'd give up on it and they would lose my trust. Makes no sense at all, it's just...dumb.
Everyone percieves and worships the same divine entity no matter how they perceive it. Even polytheistic Gods are all many names for a single divine entity. Christians seem to have an incredibly hard time grasping this concept.
Just a side-note on the Crusades - they were first and foremost a financial campaign, under the guise of a religious conflict (the religious angle was included to get support for them from Christian Europe). So to talk about them in a purely religious context is a bit misleading. It was a bit like going to war with Iraq under the guise of "a war on terror", which itself has religious overtones, rather than the simple grab power and resources it is.
As regards that hyperlink, the stuff about Muslim lying, I turned off after the sentence, "All but some of the most fundamental Muslims consider the act of Al-taqiyya or lying to non-Muslims to be a good work" - because I know from experience that this isn't the case. From what I gather, al-taqiyya is a concealing of your true faith under extreme duress, like under the threat of torture or persecution, not just 'lying'. I would expect better from you UrbanMonk.
It's true that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all interlinked (monotheistic, same prophets, same events, very similar laws). I'm sure the differences between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and say, for instance, Mormonism, can be as large as the differences between Shia Islam and Roman Catholicism (in some respects). Baha'i is another Abrahamic faith which recognises Judaism, Christianity and Islam but considers those corrupted - look it up. What Islam was to Christianity, Baha'i is to Islam.
That's not true, the crusades were mainly religious wars, but there was of course some financial gain to be had, just like in any other war. Seeing how much money was lost in that war it's hard to think of it as a financial campaign, at least not the in the sort that the so called War on terror was. There were indeed some extra "motivators" to engage such wars, like glory and money but all this is beside the point.
When I say crusaders I'm not referring to the popes and kings who ordered the crusades while seating in their comfy thrones, I'm talking about those who fought and gave their lives in the name of christianity. They didn't risk their lives for financial gain, they did it because they were devout christians and believed god would help them conquer the jerusalem, the "holy land". The muslims won and they attributed the victory to allah's protection. If it was the other way around christians would claim it was god and I highly doubt urbanmonk would say they were not "christ-like".
They were no less christ-like than the israeli soldiers who won the 6 days war, of that I'm pretty sure.
Well we'll agree to disagree here. There's some good stuff knocking around on t'internet about the economics of the Crusades - what I would say about the Crusades is that even if they did start as religious wars (which I very seriously doubt), then they achieved nothing towards that aim. However, the opening and expanding of trade routes through the Middle East did help Europe prosper. Is it coincidence that the famous House of Medici (which produced numerous popes, think it's about four) in the booming trade city of Florence established itself just after the Crusades ended? And the Muslims didn't 'win' the Crusades as much as it's impossible to 'win' a series of largely incontiguous battles over a hundred years - but what's clear is that the Byzantines lost.
But I'll agree with you on the last point - nobody who fights in any war is 'Christ-like'.
At least in theory, it was a religious war. Of course I believe very well that some people involved had their own agendas, the popes themselves being a good example of crooked old men sending the young to war under the false promises of heaven and dieing for a greater good for their own personal gain (very much like the modern "crusades" some islamic fundamentalists such as bin laden organize and support).
As for who won and lost, since ultimately the crusaders didn't reach their objective I'd say they lost and therefore the muslims won. After all who started the crusades were the crusaders not the muslims.
Johnny Look- "If god tells you "you either honor me or I'll send you to hell" is he giving you a free choice?"
God doesn't send people to Hell, so your entire argument is based upon a misconception that completely ignores the entire concept of what it means to have free will. So all that logic really means is that you don't have to face responsibility for your own actions as long as you believe that God isn't giving you a choice. Even though your entire belief system points to you being a living contradiction to that type of thinking.
I think the point UrbanMonk is trying to make is a very simple one. Christians are people who "try" to be like Christ. So if you're going to question Christianity it doesn't make sense to attack Christians, because in truth they can never be just like Christ. There are plenty of people who have become atheist simply because of the actions of a Christian than something that had to do with Jesus. So the issue then becomes being able to make a clear distinction that Jesus is the one who represents Christianity, not Christians.
Moot point there. The Turks moved into the Byzantine Empire and they appealed to the Holy Roman Empire to intervene. So it was a bit of both. It wasn't simply "They have our land, and we want it back", it was more of a natural war due to empire expansion.
I say the Muslims didn't win because - like I said - the Crusades weren't a single contiguous war, it was a series of conflicts between various different groups, fighting for different aims and fighting over an extremely long period. Some Muslims won, some lost - Jerusalem was conquered, and won again, but Iberia was lost forever. Even the Mongols fought in the Crusades, and at some points competing Muslim states allied themselves with the Crusaders to conquer neighbours - which I think refutes the idea that they were a religious war between Christianity and Islam; they were a lot more complicated than that.
Originally Posted by Yami Johnny Look- "If god tells you "you either honor me or I'll send you to hell" is he giving you a free choice?"
God doesn't send people to Hell, so your entire argument is based upon a misconception that completely ignores the entire concept of what it means to have free will. So all that logic really means is that you don't have to face responsibility for your own actions as long as you believe that God isn't giving you a choice. Even though your entire belief system points to you being a living contradiction to that type of thinking.
Who does then ? St. Peter ? If god supposedly created everything, that includes hell, the purgatory etc... and it does say in the bible that the unworthy will pay for his sins in hell after death. When you sum up the parts you reach the conclusion that it's not so much of a "misconception".
If free will for you is living believing in god and knowing he will punish you if you stay away from the path he wants you to walk on then great for you. I wouldn't call that free will or free choice but that's just me perhaps.
"Free" for me means just that, being free to choose whether to believe or not. Christians/muslims/jews/whatever know that if they stop believing they will go to hell/be punished/whatever when they die.
Bible: You either believe and venerate god or you go to hell.
Me: I either believe or I don't. I can choose freely=free choice.
If you believe in god you have the choice to believe or not, but that's not a free choice, you're told that you can't go that way or else you face severe punishment. Notice the difference between "choice" and "free choice". What I find a rather astounding is that people feel grateful that god doesn't obliterate someone instantly for not believing in god but that's an entirely different discussion.
Anyway I don't even know why I'm still discussing this I thought this was pretty obvious, sometimes I wonder if people are in denial or if they simply don't understand.
"I think the point UrbanMonk is trying to make is a very simple one. Christians are people who "try" to be like Christ. So if you're going to question Christianity it doesn't make sense to attack Christians, because in truth they can never be just like Christ. There are plenty of people who have become atheist simply because of the actions of a Christian than something that had to do with Jesus. So the issue then becomes being able to make a clear distinction that Jesus is the one who represents Christianity, not Christians. "
The only thing we know about the crusaders is that they went to war in the name of god/christ, everything we might claim to know about them (way of life etc...) is only speculation.
Christ was supposed to be god-like. God destroyed entire cities because the people there chose not to follow him. The crusaders did the same, so I could even say he was christ-like AND god-like.
Also I don't know where you got that idea that people become atheists because they met a christian who acts like a moron. You don't just throw all your beliefs and faith behind your back because of one or two morons who happen to be christians, that's just ridiculous.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Also I don't know where you got that idea that people become atheists because they met a christian who acts like a moron. You don't just throw all your beliefs and faith behind your back because of one or two morons who happen to be christians, that's just ridiculous.
He did say many, not all. That clear distinction is unfortunately quite true. However most atheists came to the conclusion entirely on their own. He left that part out, probably because it didn't make sense to mention it. Regardless, this point specific of his has no real argument against. He's correct. Many Christians do act in a way that can sway some people into a very weak atheistic point of view.
That might happen some times, but that's definitely not common. I never met an atheist who said he started doubting god/christianity/etc because of what one christian did or said. On what do you base your affirmation that he is correct and can't be argued against ? If you were atheist you'd realize how ridiculous what he said was let alone state it's a fact.
I'm pretty sure that's his way of saying that atheists stop believing in god is because they are wrongly lead to, and not because they started asking themselves genuine questions.
Originally Posted by Muz I do believe in a higher power.
I believe that one of the religions out there must be true, because people have spent centuries thinking about this kind of thing, and I'm sure someone got it close to the truth before it was stolen by politics. Religion's always been sort of the highest morality, and anything which gives you the moral high ground gives you a strong political advantage.
I think there is some severe lapse in logic here. Consider the things that we are currently trying to discover. For example, we are still looking for the higgs boson to complete the standard model of particle physics. The proposition of such an idea is fairly recent, yet particle physics dates back to 6th century BC. Does the higgs boson exist? The answer at the moment is we don't know. You couldn't argue that we are close to the answer because we have spent centuries studying it. Indeed our search for the higgs boson might suggest that there is a fundamental and serious flaw in our understanding of matter, which would put to question the model we currently have.
Religion is a hypothesis without foundation. There is a lot of evidence against religion and well founded theories in psychology that suggest how and why humanity acquired this. Those with religious interest don't study the religion. For those of you who think "well I guess there could be a god", could also be thinking "well I guess the psychology of the human brain favours this". Study requires objective criticism. There are people who study religious texts but that is a literary matter, and a book on its own can't act as the foundation of any significant theory that can be taken seriously. I am intrigued as to why you think there might be a "before it was stolen by politics". Perhaps it was invented by politics?
Johnny Look - "When you sum up the parts you reach the conclusion that it's not so much of a 'misconception'."
Johnny Look - "If you believe in god you have the choice to believe or not, but that's not a free choice, you're told that you can't go that way or else you face severe punishment."
Yeah, because one choice is good and the other is bad. haha Look you can either believe or not. God isn't some "robber" that's holding people at gun point telling them to believe. Now if everyone believed in fear of going to Hell you would have a better argument of not having a choice. However, you're a perfect example of that not being the case and whether you believe in God or not does not matter. You do have free will and people should be held accountable for their own actions. Without the concept of judgment, there's the idea of "well I can get away with it".
Johnny Look - "Christ was supposed to be god-like. God destroyed entire cities because the people there chose not to follow him. The crusaders did the same, so I could even say he was christ-like AND god-like."
Christianity is based on the life of Jesus and is presented in the writings of the New Testament. Judaism is based on the Old Testament and is the God you just described. Jesus addresses a lot of issues with the Old Testament.
Johnny Look - "Also I don't know where you got that idea that people become atheists because they met a christian who acts like a moron. You don't just throw all your beliefs and faith behind your back because of one or two morons who happen to be christians, that's just ridiculous."
Whether it's the reason they stop believing or not, there are plenty of people who use Christians as a means to argue against Christianity. Talking about the Crusades is a perfect example. Even though common sense tells us anything can be used for evil through deception.
Johnny Look - "That might happen some times, but that's definitely not common. I never met an atheist who said he started doubting god/christianity/etc because of what one christian did or said. On what do you base your affirmation that he is correct and can't be argued against ? If you were atheist you'd realize how ridiculous what he said was let alone state it's a fact."
All I can do is speak for myself, and through my personal experience. Most Atheists that I talk to were originally Catholic or had some religious background and I find it hard to believe that it's just a coincidence. Especially when I talk to them and see that their reasons have nothing to do with Jesus. During this entire debate no one has really talked about Jesus.
"I'm pretty sure that's his way of saying that atheists stop believing in god is because they are wrongly lead to, and not because they started asking themselves genuine questions."
The funny thing is an Atheist would try to say the same thing to me for believing. That I didn't ask myself genuine questions; however, I don't believe either side should be seen in that light.
"Yeah, because one choice is good and the other is bad. haha Look you can either believe or not. God isn't some "robber" that's holding people at gun point telling them to believe. Now if everyone believed in fear of going to Hell you would have a better argument of not having a choice. However, you're a perfect example of that not being the case and whether you believe in God or not does not matter. You do have free will and people should be held accountable for their own actions. Without the concept of judgment, there's the idea of "well I can get away with it". "
I was specifically talking about christians, people who, I assume, believe in what's in the bible. Therefore they are aware that not believing or not honoring god will send them to hell. I thought this was obvious.
There's no need to hell or final judgment to be punished for your wrong doings. There is law, and there is people. Killing or robbing someone will put you in bad situation if you're not caught. You'll disappoint who cares for you and who you are for and you might be sent to jail. If you're not caught and you don't regret what you did, there's a chance you'll keep doing the same thing which sooner or later will have repercussions. No need to wait until you die to be punishment. Once you're done for there's no need for further punishment, I think being dead is just enough.
Even if you don't look at it that way, the robber example isn't that far off. If you don't do god says, you'll get punishment. If you try ignoring what the robber says there's a pretty high chance of you getting a bullet in your head.
"Christianity is based on the life of Jesus and is presented in the writings of the New Testament. Judaism is based on the Old Testament and is the God you just described. Jesus addresses a lot of issues with the Old Testament. "
So what's in the old testament is meant to be ignored ?
"Whether it's the reason they stop believing or not, there are plenty of people who use Christians as a means to argue against Christianity. Talking about the Crusades is a perfect example. Even though common sense tells us anything can be used for evil through deception. "
That's completely different things, and personally I don't think that talking about christians as a means to bash or elevate christianity is a good argument at all. My point about the crusaders was that they were no less christ-like than the isreali soldiers urbanmonk believed were graced by a miracle.
"All I can do is speak for myself, and through my personal experience. Most Atheists that I talk to were originally Catholic or had some religious background and I find it hard to believe that it's just a coincidence. Especially when I talk to them and see that their reasons have nothing to do with Jesus. During this entire debate no one has really talked about Jesus. "
I was catholic too but that as nothing to do with me losing about my faith because of what one or more christians did or said. If a christian stop believing in god, there could be a hundred reasons, the one you mentioned is probably one of the less likely of them. When you stop believing in god, you stop believing in jesus, mohamed, moses etc... An atheist has nothing against christianity itself, they simply don't believe in religion of any kind. Not mentioning jesus or mohamed is completely irrelevant.
"The funny thing is an Atheist would try to say the same thing to me for believing. That I didn't ask myself genuine questions; however, I don't believe either side should be seen in that light."
My point being, religious people always find all sorts of explanations to explain why so many people stop believing. Not that they are trying to mislead other people by implying atheists stopped believing because they are ignorant, but simply because they can't understand how that process is made without going through it themselves.
"If you're not caught and you don't regret what you did, there's a chance you'll keep doing the same thing which sooner or later will have repercussions. No need to wait until you die to be punishment."
That's a big assumption to make. Point is, it opens the door for that type of thinking. Which to me is a scary thought.
"Even if you don't look at it that way, the robber example isn't that far off. If you don't do god says, you'll get punishment. If you try ignoring what the robber says there's a pretty high chance of you getting a bullet in your head."
This is also under the assumption that God, like the robber is a bad person. The problem with your analogy is that it completely ignores all the good things that God asks of us.
"So what's in the old testament is meant to be ignored ?"
It shouldn't be ignored, but here's a good example of what I'm talking about. In the Old Testament they did animal sacrifices. If you read the New Testament you would know that there's no need to keep doing that, because Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice. Like I said, the Old Testament has issues and Jesus answers them. As far as why do people read the Old Testament and not just the New Testament, well Jesus quotes the Old Testament a lot and it helps to know what he's referencing. Plus I believe the Old Testament has a lot of Jewish history within it that is good to know.
"Not that they are trying to mislead other people by implying atheists stopped believing because they are ignorant, but simply because they can't understand how that process is made without going through it themselves."
I don't necessarily agree with that. Other than it just depends on the person. I know some people who believe blindly and others that don't. I will say that I believe that everybody has or is filled with doubt. To me doubt is good, it means your questioning those ideas and searching for the answers which in turn will make your belief stronger.
The funny thing is an Atheist would try to say the same thing to me for believing. That I didn't ask myself genuine questions; however, I don't believe either side should be seen in that light.
Most people who believe, generally never do ask themselves genuine questions. Just because you do, doesn't mean that the point isn't valid. You can be educated and still believe in something. I just have a difficult time viewing any HIGHLY educated person, as still maintaining a strong interwoven faith with something like Christianity, unless they purposely ignored some very key questions in lieu of not wanting to consider the possible answer.
I was once an atheist, and I know a lot of that viewpoint, because not much has chanced since I became wiccan. I just discovered that even as an atheist, many of the answers to questions I asked, were based upon the biasness of people above me. Scientists are not always right, but their track record is significantly better. There are still many questions however that they're asking and cannot answer, but still continue to build philosophies off of the 'highly assumed' answers of their unanswerable questions. Which leads me to believe that for as logical and rational minded as science is and for as trust worthy and reliable as it has defiantly proven itself, many of us still find ourselves hung in a position of shear trust, not in the science, but in the scientists ability to interpret the science correctly. And I've seen enough scientist misinterpretation to believe that it's more common then people think.
So while I use science as a tool to help explain the world around me, it is not my bible. The universe is my bible and science is only a tool to understand and interpret it. And just like a hammer head falling off, it's not always right, and can sometimes do significant damage if handled incorrectly.
So many walls of text. I'll just respond to the one addressing mine
Originally Posted by s-m-r Muz: I'd respond and say that religion is not necessary for moral behaviour.
I'm not saying that it's necessary for ethics. There's always a black and white area in ethics exactly like what you wrote - make things better, respect, love, etc.
Religion addresses the grey area of morality. Does alcohol cause more harm than help? Abortions? Is theft justifiable? Capital punishment? Some religions prioritize forgiveness as a virtue, others may believe in "an eye for an eye". Religions often split into different sects just because they choose different positions on these things.
Similar to labels like "conservative" and "socialist", religion's also good for identifying what kind of philosophy you follow. A Buddhist will not be too attached to worldly possessions, preferring spiritual attainment. A Christian views the sacrifice of others highly. A Muslim believes in devotion and submission. An atheist shuns those who belief in things without solid facts and force their beliefs on others.
It's in no way a solid representation of anyone's behavior, especially for the non-religious. I mean, you could have a Christian who's completely selfish or an atheist who is superstitious, but it goes against the religious beliefs they claim to follow. But it shows why Christians are likely to crusade, why Muslims are more trusting of authoritative figures, while Confucians believe that the authoritative figure should be loyal to their subjects, or why atheists are more likely to follow a scientific path.
Originally Posted by ~Matt Esch~
Originally Posted by Muz I do believe in a higher power.
I believe that one of the religions out there must be true, because people have spent centuries thinking about this kind of thing, and I'm sure someone got it close to the truth before it was stolen by politics. Religion's always been sort of the highest morality, and anything which gives you the moral high ground gives you a strong political advantage.
I think there is some severe lapse in logic here. Consider the things that we are currently trying to discover. For example, we are still looking for the higgs boson to complete the standard model of particle physics. The proposition of such an idea is fairly recent, yet particle physics dates back to 6th century BC. Does the higgs boson exist? The answer at the moment is we don't know. You couldn't argue that we are close to the answer because we have spent centuries studying it. Indeed our search for the higgs boson might suggest that there is a fundamental and serious flaw in our understanding of matter, which would put to question the model we currently have.
Religion is a hypothesis without foundation. There is a lot of evidence against religion and well founded theories in psychology that suggest how and why humanity acquired this. Those with religious interest don't study the religion. For those of you who think "well I guess there could be a god", could also be thinking "well I guess the psychology of the human brain favours this". Study requires objective criticism. There are people who study religious texts but that is a literary matter, and a book on its own can't act as the foundation of any significant theory that can be taken seriously. I am intrigued as to why you think there might be a "before it was stolen by politics". Perhaps it was invented by politics?
First, I'd assume that the higher power cares about us knowing of its existence, not too much, not too little. If it didn't care, then there's no evidence at all to prove a higher power exists and no point in finding out. If this higher power really cared (e.g. everyone who disbeliefs would be thrown in hell), this higher power would send down angels and other messengers to lead us as despots and law enforcement.
So, I'd assume it's somewhere in between - someone or a group of people being told the truth. It'd have to happen early on in humanity, like the first man or the first communities and would have to be developed in that time. While you can learn science from experiments, the only way to figure out this higher power would be from history.
I'd believe that if the history was told wrong, there'd be some other truth sent down to correct the previous falsehood. So either the truth should be contained in some scripture out there or it'd lie in a new religion linked to the old. Maybe it would be passed down by word of mouth, but I'd think that any divine being would be intelligent enough to at least teach its messiahs to write, but it's not guaranteed.
Religion can't be invented by politics - it's as unlikely to work as if I suddenly said that the President had an affair with his secretary. There has to be some very strong basis to believe in before it can be politicized. It'd have to catch on long before it becomes a part of the state.
Of course, it could be entirely possible that there's no higher power, but then it ruins the fun of the search. There's no harm in searching for something that isn't there, aside from wasted time, but hey, I learn some things along the way.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
"That's a big assumption to make. Point is, it opens the door for that type of thinking. Which to me is a scary thought. "
"This is also under the assumption that God, like the robber is a bad person. The problem with your analogy is that it completely ignores all the good things that God asks of us."
Just because someone robs and threatens people doesn't mean they don't do good things themselves. According to the bible god even committed mass murder just because people wouldn't listen to him, that's nothing compared to a few petty thefts.
"It shouldn't be ignored, but here's a good example of what I'm talking about. In the Old Testament they did animal sacrifices. If you read the New Testament you would know that there's no need to keep doing that, because Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice. Like I said, the Old Testament has issues and Jesus answers them. As far as why do people read the Old Testament and not just the New Testament, well Jesus quotes the Old Testament a lot and it helps to know what he's referencing. Plus I believe the Old Testament has a lot of Jewish history within it that is good to know. "
I know that, but still I always saw the old testament as an integral part of christianity, laying it's early foundations among other things. It's much more than just being a book of references, at least that's what one of the pastors of the church I used to go used to say.
"I don't necessarily agree with that. Other than it just depends on the person. I know some people who believe blindly and others that don't. I will say that I believe that everybody has or is filled with doubt. To me doubt is good, it means your questioning those ideas and searching for the answers which in turn will make your belief stronger."
When I said genuine questions that's what I meant. I'm sure that even the most devout priest out there has doubts, but I highly doubt he would dare to questions his entire faith because of them. The exact reason why there are so many atheists out there is because those doubts became actual questions, and a lot of those questions never got an answer or the answer wasn't satisfactory. When the unanswered questions start to pile on top of each other, more and more questions appear because you start to realize certain things you wouldn't realize otherwise. That's when the "what if" questions start to pop up, culminating in the ultimate question: "what if everything I believed in was a lie ?" That's not an easy question to ask yourself believe me. I was even afraid to ask that myself to be honest because it felt like a huge life change and it's always hard to leave your comfort zone.
Searching for questions with easy answers will always make your belief stronger, and when you strongly believe in something even the most ridiculous answer makes perfect sense.
Not that I want to insult anyone with this, most of you proved to be very mature while in other places everyone would go apeshit because of what I just said. Feels great to be able to express myself freely, I hope it keeps up this way.
Originally Posted by s-m-r Not to reopen a done-and-dusted "discussion," but here's an editorial authored by a rabbi, entitled "An Open Letter to Atheists."
I'd hate to consider this a done and dusted discussion though, because it really is/was a good thread topic and will probably not be brought back up without someone saying "It's already been done."
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk It seems to me that the people who hate religion the most are the ones that are the most immoral.
Nice editorial btw.
Where did you get that idea ? Where I'm from I can tell you right away it's the exact opposite, I can't stand most of the people who goes to the church I used to go as a kid. Phony people with huge egos who have no problem lying and stabbing each other's backs, but hey who cares they go to church every sunday their seat in heaven is more than secured. In the other hand, most of the best persons I know don't believe in god/don't care. I would give my two arms to save their lives and I'm sure they would do the same for me. I can't say the same for any religious person, except for my mother.
Also that article is downright ridiculous, he's basically taking several swipes at atheists (basically calling them ignorant and posers along the way) and then saying "but hey let's discuss this peacefully and please stop trolling religion-related blogs".
I chuckled several times while reading the article, but the part where he says that no one can call themselves "atheists" because they don't know everything and never observed god is pure comedy gold.
Originally Posted by s-m-r Not to reopen a done-and-dusted "discussion," but here's an editorial authored by a rabbi, entitled "An Open Letter to Atheists."
"The first point I'd like to explore is that there really are no true atheists. It seems to me that in order to claim with certainty that there is no God you would have to have knowledge of the totality of the universe - seen and unseen - and I don't think any of you guys are ready to make that claim."
As soon as I read this, I just walked away. Because I knew that I was going to be slapped in the face with a ton of extreme ignorance and arrogance. He couldn't even get the definition of an atheist right. An atheist is a person who does not believe in God, not someone who knows for a fact that he doesn't exist. That's like saying no Christian is truly a Christian because he doesn't know for a fact that God exists... and he doesn't.
Everyones beliefs are just that, beliefs. Whether or not you choose to be ignorant and/or arrogant or you choose to educate yourself and try to figure out what works out best for you, is your choice. But if you're going to set up a discussion, the worst thing you can do is make your first statement completely and utterly foolish.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look I can't stand most of the people who goes to the church I used to go as a kid. Phony people with huge egos who have no problem lying and stabbing each other's backs, but hey who cares they go to church every sunday their seat in heaven is more than secured.
Just because someone goes to church doesn't mean they're not immoral, neither does it mean they're going to heaven.
There are phony people everywhere, so what's new?
I saw a professing atheist praying before.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE As soon as I read this, I just walked away.
I knew you would.
I think it was you that posted something a couple of years back that said you hated it when someone called you an agnostic.
Whether you believe in God or not (unless there is a religion I'm not paying attention to ) then it is pretty much certain pets won't be going to heaven (apparently they don't have souls ).
If you have pets you care about, consider signing up here! http://www.postrapturepetcare.com/ (I think it's a joke, but I found it quite hilarious reading through it )
Have you even been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE As soon as I read this, I just walked away.
I knew you would.
I think it was you that posted something a couple of years back that said you hated it when someone called you an agnostic.
A couple years back is irrelevant though because a couple years back, I was an atheist. A lot can change in a couple of years, but for me, becoming a Christian was not and will not be one of them. But I know what it's like to think like an atheist and despite not being one anymore, it really does piss me off to see people use incredibly weak arguments against them. Most of them really are incredibly intelligent and well thought out people. They just tend to be arrogant, narrow and close minded.
"Just because someone goes to church doesn't mean they're not immoral, neither does it mean they're going to heaven."
Sure, but neither does it mean that atheist people are immoral just because they are atheist.
From what I can see however it seems a lot of people are too confident that believing in god and going to church is all you need to be a good person.
"I think it was you that posted something a couple of years back that said you hated it when someone called you an agnostic. "
Are you saying you agree with what the author of the article said ?
edit:
"What are you now?
A humanist?"
I don't know if you're trying to mock his faith or not, but if you are I hope you're aware that his beliefs are as valid as yours.
Wow, really? I can't tell if you're being ignorant or an asshole.
Either you paid absolutely no attention to anything I've said in my previous posts (reading only what you wanted to respond to) or you're trying to make fun of me. Neither of which, I can assure you, go over well.
This post has gone 13 pages without any real immature fighting or bickering. Don't ruin it now.
And on the off chance that you truly didn't catch yet it... I am Wiccan.
Edit: If you're serious about asking me why I decided on Wicca, please do not just skim through this. I assure you, it's not a painful read. I tried to keep it short and sweet. I separated a lot of my individual thoughts so that it wouldn't seem like one huge paragraph.
Long story short, after being a strong atheist for years, a very good friend who was initially Christian (through family), picked up a book and after reading it, started telling me all about Wicca, what it really was, what it really meant, and how it made so much more sense then anything she's been lead to try and believe in the past. Most notably in her situation, Christianity. The first thing she said about Wicca was that it encompasses the idea that every form of faith, no matter how abstract, is correct. That is of course, if you aren't trying to convince other people that they're wrong, and that you're not using your faith to harm anyone. Also keep in mind that theres a difference between your faith being correct, and using your faith to be correct. If it works for you, it's right. That doesn't mean you can use it to predict or get what you want. If you think that's going to happen, it's not right for you.
I had done my own research into Wicca myself around the same time, coincidentally but I was still very hesitant to believe any of it. The internet is a horrible research for Wicca. I have yet to find a good solid source online.
Eventually after hearing her talk about it for a little bit, it started making a lot of sense. And mind you, she is incredibly intelligent, especially when it comes to the human body, psychology, and is a very deep thinker. Rarely ever makes a fool of herself.
After reading through the book, it didn't take long to realize, that was exactly what I was: Wiccan. It was like finding my name, finding home after being lost my whole life. It was truly amazing.
I continue to read books on it, to expand my knowledge on it, and I'm always asking questions and looking into things. After officially feeling comfortable calling myself Wiccan, I was impressed to find out how many of my friends were actually Wiccan and I never knew it. They were very collective and kept to themselves about their faith.
Both a pro and a con to Wicca is how unlikely a Wiccan is going to approach you and tell you about it. Many Wiccans, including myself, believe that the way people choose to worship divinity is entirely their own so to try to convince someone our way was the "correct" way would be arrogant. This leads a lot of people to either have no idea what it is, or have a lot of misconceptions about it. Most aren't even exposed to it enough to even consider that it might be right for them. Especially since the response from most people is so negative.
PS: It's also important to note that Wicca is only one of many forms of faith which are all encompassed under pagan or neo-pagan theology. Wicca itself is a very new faith and today, has almost no real structure, just a set of idea's that most who consider themselves Wiccan, tend to follow, such as the Wiccan Rede: "An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"
Wicca today, is more or less is a preservation of the rituals, beliefs, and myths, that were held by many pagans before The Burning Times.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE ...has almost no real structure, just a set of idea's that most who consider themselves Wiccan, tend to follow, such as the Wiccan Rede: "An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"
Ok, so I have heard some things about Wiccan, since I know someone who was Wiccan.
She said that Wiccan teaches spells and such, I don't know if it's true or not.
I will refrain from Googling it since I prolly wouldn't get a direct answer.
"The Burning Times" - Are you referring to the book burnings?
I would have to agree with: "An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"
Religions that don't hurt anyone don't bother me.
Religions I have a problem with are one's that teach their followers to harm others, either to convert or just for the heck of it.
Or religions that twist what the Bible says (Writing their own version of the Bible, changing things, ect.)
This may not seem like much, but it's a pain because it creates misconceptions about Christians.
"The Burning Times" - Are you referring to the book burnings?
No, I'm referring to the time whenever the Catholic church convinced the world that witches were evil and anything relating to pagan theology was branded as devil worship.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Ok, so I have heard some things about Wiccan, since I know someone who was Wiccan.
She said that Wiccan teaches spells and such, I don't know if it's true or not.
This is true but it's not the same as what you see in the movies. We do typically use things such as wands, a cauldron, etc but again, not anything like what you see in the movies.
See, how spellcraft works is entirely bent around intent. In a way, it's kind of adjacent to prayer. We may use things such as colored candles, burn specific herbs, or perform special rituals, but it's largely as an aid to help the human psyche. The human mind is a powerful thing. Nothing supernatural is happening however the second you doubt yourself or the spells your performing, the magick is instantly lost and nothing will come of it.
A good example: You can do as many love spells as you want, but nothing will happen if you never actually try and talk to someone with the intent on finding love. And even then, nothing may still happen. Same with if you find a penny heads up and you put it in your pocket or sock or whatever. If you truly believe if will bring you good luck, it will bring you good luck.
In addition, many of the items you find at a Wiccan altar, tend to serve a more symbolic function, rather then literal. Gerald Gardner said it himself, the tools you use for magick are only tools until they're no longer needed.
There are a lot of theories or explanations for why this works, but one thing is certain. It does work. Otherwise we wouldn't continue to do it. Just like prayer. Would you continue to do it, if you honestly didn't believe it were possible? And furthermore, would you continue to pray if it never worked?
Also, contrary to popular belief... Wiccan and Witch are not synonymous. You can be both, but just because you're one doesn't mean you're the other. Typically Wiccans who do perform spell or witchcraft are more likely to consider themselves a witch, which is fine because it's still true and usually opens the opportunity for further investigation by whoever is obviously going to want to know more. And typically Wiccans who don't tend to make spell or withcraft a part of their life, will just refer to themselves as Wiccan.
I personally have tried a little spellcraft but every time I read more, I learn more about how it works, why it works, and what it actually is, and I'm just not confident enough with myself to expect results from anything I do. But then again, no one ever stops learning, we're always trying different things and experimenting. Hence the term practicing witchcraft.
One thing that almost every reliable source will tell you however, is that Wicca is not some kind of fashion statement, role play, or fad. Anyone who treats it as such, is disgraceful and not a true Wiccan. If you see someone walking around with black clothes, white makeup, pentacles handing all over place so they're impossible to miss, and threating to put hexes on everyone, chances are pretty good, they're just an attention whore.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE See, how spellcraft works is entirely bent around intent. In a way, it's kind of adjacent to prayer. We may use things such as colored candles, burn specific herbs, or perform special rituals, but it's largely as an aid to help the human psyche. The human mind is a powerful thing. Nothing supernatural is happening however the second you doubt yourself or the spells your performing, the magick is instantly lost and nothing will come of it.
So are you saying it's just a placebo?
I agree that the human mind is a powerful thing.
There are many mind tricks out there that can help people to overcome emotional stress, or to help one become more confident, ect.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE Also, contrary to popular belief... Wiccan and Witch are not synonymous.
Traditional Witchcraft and the Spellcraft you described above are indeed very different.
Do you consider yourself a Witch as well as a Wiccan?
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE See, how spellcraft works is entirely bent around intent. In a way, it's kind of adjacent to prayer. We may use things such as colored candles, burn specific herbs, or perform special rituals, but it's largely as an aid to help the human psyche. The human mind is a powerful thing. Nothing supernatural is happening however the second you doubt yourself or the spells your performing, the magick is instantly lost and nothing will come of it.
So are you saying it's just a placebo?
I agree that the human mind is a powerful thing.
There are many mind tricks out there that can help people to overcome emotional stress, or to help one become more confident, ect.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE Also, contrary to popular belief... Wiccan and Witch are not synonymous.
Traditional Witchcraft and the Spellcraft you described above are indeed very different.
Do you consider yourself a Witch as well as a Wiccan?
No. Magick is very real in the world, it's just not supernatural.
Think of electricity. Even today, unless you know how it works, it still seems magickal. However before it was even mainstream, electricity was just one of the many things in our world, which could only be described as magick.
Yesterdays magick is todays science. We're always learning more and more about the world and there are so many things just in our every day life that we either cannot or choose not to try to understand. Unlike something such as electricity though, magick in the form of spells and witchcraft, are controlled through intent. Your mind is the tool which manipulates it. It's part of divinity, which exists within everything.
I would highly recommend reading the book I linked to you above. It's very informative and explains it all a lot better then I can. However that's just one source. No single source should be taken for it's word. Like I said, Wicca has very little structure. Ask 5 Wiccans what Wicca is, and you'll get 6 different answers. It's subject to opinion, individuality, and biasness.
Would I consider myself a witch? I don't know if I'm confident enough to call myself a witch. But I am most defiantly a Wiccan. I tend to do more self-meditation at my altar, than spellcraft.
PS: For a Christian to ask if magick is just a placebo effect would be hypocritical, especially after I just got done comparing it to prayer, which I'm sure you would not admit to simply being a placebo effect. Would you?
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE PS: For a Christian to ask if magick is just a placebo effect would be hypocritical, especially after I just got done comparing it to prayer, which I'm sure you would not admit to simply being a placebo effect. Would you?
I were referring to when you said "Nothing supernatural is happening however the second you doubt yourself or the spells your performing, the magick is instantly lost and nothing will come of it."
But since you came back and compared it to electricity I'll take that back.
However there is a difference between prayer and spells.
Prayer is talking to God.
Performing spells makes you the god.
It's really funny that you compared it electricity though, so tell me was that in the book?
I'm asking this question because of something someone told me once. I'm just curious as to where this information came from.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE PS: For a Christian to ask if magick is just a placebo effect would be hypocritical, especially after I just got done comparing it to prayer, which I'm sure you would not admit to simply being a placebo effect. Would you?
I were referring to when you said "Nothing supernatural is happening however the second you doubt yourself or the spells your performing, the magick is instantly lost and nothing will come of it."
But since you came back and compared it to electricity I'll take that back.
However there is a difference between prayer and spells.
Prayer is talking to God.
Performing spells makes you the god.
It's really funny that you compared it electricity though, so tell me was that in the book?
I'm asking this question because of something someone told me once. I'm just curious as to where this information came from.
When performing spells, you're using your mind to basically in a sense, communicate with divinity because divinity exists within everything including yourself. It tends to be a rather hard concept to grasp unless you dedicate a lot of thought to it. That's why most people like to assign either a single God, many Gods or in the case of Wicca and many other pagan faiths, a God and Goddess, which represent the masculine and feminine attributes of divinity.
So to classify yourself as God because you're doing a spell, would also be incorrect. At no point do I ever think of myself as God. If need be, during spells, I'll imagine myself as though I was communicating to the God and/or Goddess, whoever I feel can help me the most. It really varies, not just from person to person, but per situation too.
I don't remember if the comparison to electricity was in the book, or if I thought about it after reading something in the book. I do know that in the section of the book which talks about the Wiccan view on science, that say something very close to what I just said, which was that yesterdays magick is todays science and that nothing in Wicca can necessarily be disproven because we take things as they come. We follow our own path and for the most part, we don't pretend to possess knowledge we don't actually have.
One section of the book when it asks about whether or not Wiccans have a sacred text, describes that Wiccans generally refer to the universe as their sacred text. To that, I add. This is where science can come in - as a tool, a scope or a pair of reading glasses, to help us read what the universe tries to tell us, when traditional or ritualistic magick just isn't working the way we hope.
Which brings me largely to the point of how we live our lives and what we know about the world. Science, in a matter of speaking, when it isn't being used to manufacturer things to destroy others who don't agree with us, in a lot of ways, comes back to what many pagans used to believe about the world. Living in harmony with it, understanding the cycles, understanding that the whole world is in a sense, or at least acts very much like a living thing.
Instead of believing in a single God or deity, Wiccans typically look at divinity as being something neither good nor evil. Completely unbiased and natural. We look at divinity as something a lot more abstract. So much so that in order to understand it, we create an image of either a God or a Goddess, or the many other images of God which many other cultures have used to describe various aspects of life, such as life and death.
In fact, I believe that this is how the Christian incarnation of God probably started out. As being an abstract idea that was given a face to help relate. Over time and many attempts at depicting what the text was saying, and so many passing down their opinions of what the text was saying, that the words of the bible started being taken a lot more literal then symbolically.
Did Jesus exist? Without a shadow of a doubt, he must have. However what we know about him, I feel is extremely vague. He was a man, not born to be great, but grew to become great through his love and passion, his ideas and his messages.
But this isn't about comparing Wicca to Christianity. I'm just saying this because I hope it might help you understand a little more about how Wiccans view the world, and why we are generally very open and unopposed to accepting other faiths for being more or less, just different variations of the same general idea.
Wicca is NOT a 'preservation' of rituals and beliefs held by Pagans many moons ago, and it is arrogant to think it is. Because you are practising Wicca knowing that its myths and legends are hand-me-downs, mixes and matches, and are anachronistic in nature, it becomes less of a living religion and more of a celebration of times before Christianity; times, let's not forget, we have no experience of. Wicca is as synthetic as Scientology. I'm not sure if a fossilised Pagan would consider the Wicca to be a 'preservation' of his beliefs.
That said, I have no beef with anyone practising it. Just don't misrepresent it.
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman Wicca is NOT a 'preservation' of rituals and beliefs held by Pagans many moons ago, and it is arrogant to think it is. Because you are practising Wicca knowing that its myths and legends are hand-me-downs, mixes and matches, and are anachronistic in nature, it becomes less of a living religion and more of a celebration of times before Christianity; times, let's not forget, we have no experience of. Wicca is as synthetic as Scientology. I'm not sure if a fossilised Pagan would consider the Wicca to be a 'preservation' of his beliefs.
That said, I have no beef with anyone practising it. Just don't misrepresent it.
How are you going to try to insult what I know to be Wicca, as a Wiccan and then call it synthetic and compare it to Scientology. Forgive me for coming off blunt here, but your ignorance is very insulting. Do some research before you try to accuse a real religion for being something fake like Scientology, just because it's a more modern incarnation.
Wicca originally started out as a witch coven run by Gerald Gardner and it grew from there, to be something more independent. The believes we have are very close to what pagans believed.
Hell man, present day Christians are a laughing insult to what their faith started out as. Wiccans are a hell of a lot more true to their pagan roots than present day Christians, and they still call themselves Christians. Please do more informed research before you pretend to know Wicca. And like I said, the internet is a horrible source to find any information of Wicca. God forbid you might have to buy a book or two to get any real information.
"I would have to agree with: "An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"
Religions that don't hurt anyone don't bother me.
Religions I have a problem with are one's that teach their followers to harm others, either to convert or just for the heck of it. "
It's ironic that you say that given that you're christian. In case you don't know, a lot of people got tortured and killed for stating they didn't believe in specific parts of the bible, jews and homosexuals were persecuted and burnt alive, etc... History is full of this sort of incidents, ordered by christian bishops and popes.
It's ironic that you say that given that you're christian.
Erm... no. It isn't. Just because others of that religion behaved that way does not mean that behaviour encompasses his own behaviour.
And Silverfire, although I don't believe in spiritual or religious divinity, my mom is Wiccan and the way I see it, it is more or less a placebo. Not that it has no effect, but that the meditation and the belief of what you are doing is going to help you puts you in the correct mindset to help yourself. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy; someone tells you you'll do well so you're more confident and end up doing well, which makes the prophecy true. It's not that there was anything supernatural there, but if the prophecy hadn't been made then it wouldn't be true. A bit recursive, actually. I never get sick because I never get sick; even when I start to develop a cough or runny nose my mindset is determined that I'm not sick because I've convinced myself that I don't get sick, so the symptoms go away very quickly.
Have you even been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
@Silverfire: I do know a little bit about Wicca, and I have read books that touch on the subject; just I have read stuff on the origins of Scientology. I, of course, do not know more than you about Wicca, but I have the advantage of being impartial in disliking all organised religions. What I want to know is; how is Scientology any more fake than Wicca? (As any Wiccan will know, religious tolerance and respect for other people's beliefs is paramount.) Scientology and Wicca were invented at similar times, from similarly humble beginnings, and each have grown to be substantial minority religions - so how is Wicca 'real' compared to the 'fake' Scientology. Is it because Wicca is supposedly ancient and naturalistic? Because that doesn't automatically grant creditability, the same as something being more modern in outlook doesn't have to be automatically debunked. Would you be as immediately insulting to something like the Baha'i faith, which by its own admission, is a modern religion?
If I start to practice the religion of the ancient peoples of Ethiopia, do I get to call your religion a 'fake'? No. And is your religion and more or less valid simply because it's based on practices you deem to be ancient and magical? No. Presumably your "Pagan" beliefs don't extend to animal, or human sacrifice, and tell me, do you still bury your dead in ceremonial mounds, stuffed with treasure?
Forgive me for coming across as overly harsh, but Wicca gets an easy ride from some people because it is seen as 'harmless'. Pagan roots, my arse.
"Erm... no. It isn't. Just because others of that religion behaved that way does not mean that behaviour encompasses his own behaviour."
In case you don't know, those acts weren't isolated incidents, those killings and tortures were ordered by the church's highest ranked religious leaders, namely bishops and popes.
In addition, the bible does speak of a few episodes were people were butchered by god himself because they refused to believe him, like the sodom and gomorrah episodes we talked about earlier.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look In case you don't know, those acts weren't isolated incidents, those killings and tortures were ordered by the church's highest ranked religious leaders, namely bishops and popes.
In addition, the bible does speak of a few episodes were people were butchered by god himself because they refused to believe him, like the sodom and gomorrah episodes we talked about earlier.
The people of Sodom and Gomorrah loved to roast and rape babies. Yeah, let's let them live.
And no, if anyone kills and tortures in the name of Christianity is messed up in the head, and certainly isn't Christian.
And for the record I don't believe Catholicism is a Christian religion at all.
Originally Posted by Jacob! It's not that there was anything supernatural there,
No Wiccan would(under ideal circumstances) admit that their faith is supernatural. I would like to believe that most Wiccans like myself, would consider that it is more or less mental but that the reason it works is in regard to something we don't yet understand. I do believe in divinity but I don't believe it's something supernatural, it's just undiscovered. Sort of like how lavender is used in certain forms of spellcraft to help reduce anxiety, only to have later discovered that there was in fact a reason for why it worked.
There is a significant study to, perhaps not explain or support theories of the external powers of the mind, but the placebo effect has defiantly shown to effect more then simply ones own body, and the fact that science is unable to explain that and a variety of other reasons why our rituals tend to work for us, leads me to believe that something here is real.
If Science can explain it to me, amazing. I love to know more about my world. But if we all lead our lives by what Science told us was true, then Science would be stuck in a linear path of only traversing the knowledge it thinks is true and not the knowledge that it might be expected to challenge.
For example, if we never considered that life existed off of earth, and we simply assumed that through science, it wasn't possible (for some reason), we'd probably never care enough to actually explore it.
At the same time however, in a lot of ways, Science can be more destructive to both the natural world, and the natural imagination we all originally possess. Instead, replacing fascination with expectation. Risk with confidence. Perception is reality. Religion is for you and you alone. So what one person might scientifically call the placebo effect, another person can easily call magick and be absolutely content if not a lot more satisfied with their life, accepting it as such. I'm not admitting to anything here, I'm just hoping I've made a point.
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman What I want to know is; how is Scientology any more fake than Wicca? (As any Wiccan will know, religious tolerance and respect for other people's beliefs is paramount.) Scientology and Wicca were invented at similar times, from similarly humble beginnings, and each have grown to be substantial minority religions - so how is Wicca 'real' compared to the 'fake' Scientology.
Scientology is a company disguised as a church. It manipulates people, acts exactly like a cult, and runs like a business. No faith should operating under money. The simple fact that people are afraid to try to stand up to it because it's got a force of lawyers that sometimes seem to have more funding then the US army itself, seems to say a lot about how much it's got to try to defend itself against obvious truths.
No, being modern does not make you fake. But whenever your religion acts more like a cult/corporation and less like a church, something is seriously wrong there.
Wicca isn't even a church nor is it an organized religion. It's a form of faith that is loosely structured around a set of commonly held beliefs which are largely based on the ideals held by pagans prior to the burning times. It's a more modern interpretation of course, but so is every other faith today. With so much science, it's hard for most structured religion to keep itself relevant. The beauty of Wicca is that it doesn't start back peddling and try to erase it's tracks the next time a big scientific advancement is made. Typically in most creditable writings you find about Wicca, they typically keep themselves very up to date and realistic on current science and help explain how it's helped them better understand.
I have nothing against other religions, but when you have something that bleeds into the lives of others through harassment and destructive behavior like Scientology, and you try to compare it to something completely opposite such as Wicca, and assume that because they're both modern, they're comparable, that's just outright offensive.
In fact, this world needs more modern interpretations of religious history. Religions like Christianity have more bandages ripped and reapplied with every new discovery to disprove their sacred texts then anyone could probably count.
Mind you, I stand up for my own Wiccan beliefs. As I've said in previous posts, Wicca is quite unstructured and varies quite differently from person to person. I cannot speak for every or even most Wiccans, I can only tell you what I've read and picked up from speaking with many friends who are Wiccan. I'm basing my words on the idea that despite how different many Wiccans can be, theres a thin guideline that most Wiccans tend to follow, otherwise they wouldn't put themselves in the potentially harmful spotlight of even calling themselves Wiccan. I take pride in calling myself Wiccan but as many customers at work who see my necklace will try to lead me to believe, it's likely to garnish more ignorance then friendship.
"The people of Sodom and Gomorrah loved to roast and rape babies. Yeah, let's let them live."
LOL according to the bible god wiped the whole city, including babies (which I don't think raped and roasted themselves) and children. Why wouldn't they be allowed to live ?
And I don't recall the bible talking about people "raping and roasting babies".
"And no, if anyone kills and tortures in the name of Christianity is messed up in the head, and certainly isn't Christian."
Does that mean god isn't christian ?
"And for the record I don't believe Catholicism is a Christian religion at all."
Why not ? It's definitely not a muslim or hindu religion as far as I know.
Dang, these kinds of topics always gets walls of text and debates.
I wonder what would happen if I were to do a Politics thread hmmz.
Anyways, to answer the question without actually writing a long, long long text, I'm gonna say I belive in Aum. So that's more a "I believe in a higher power" kind of answer.
Woah, I never knew guys at TDC could think farther then the next GOTW. you have proven Me Wrong, and I am ashamed.
I Believe in God- that He is three unities in one, that He created everything in seven literal days, that Adam was a historical fiure; That we have sinned, That God sent his son Jesus, Fully Man and Fully God, to die for our sin.
I believe that Jesus is coming again To take Christians with him to heaven, and of course, that if you are not saved,
Your sins send you to hell.
those are My core beliefs, and Science actually backs up those Beliefs.
Everyone's entitled to their opinions and stuff, but I just thought it'd be nice for people to know a bit about the people that the Israelites displaced before questioning God's motives:
Some examples of life in Canaan:
Any female child, once she began to menstruate, was required to sacrifice her virginity as a temple prostitute. So every little girl in the entire nation for generations had been sexually abused by law, and every man in the nation was a paedophile. Regarding their bizarre religio-sexual habits, even animals weren't safe. So if you were a cow, and you lived in Canaan, it would have been advisable to moooove (sorry!).
Another charming accent to Canaanite culture: The male firstborn of every family was to be offered as a burned sacrifice. This was generally done via a metal statue with a furnace in its stomach and counterbalanced arms. Child was placed on arms, weight would cause imbalance, statue would push child into open mouth, etc. Now it's also worth noting that metal tends to get fairly hot if you stick a furnace inside it, and it's rumoured that the screams of the babies being placed on the iron statue's arms caused great discomfort for their parents.
...Which is why they had a rule, whereby if the parents showed any emotional reaction to their child's agonised pleas, then their next child would be forfeit... and the next... and the next, until the parents could endure it unflinchingly.
We know this from the archaeologists who've studied the region, and not from the Bible's record. Even those archaeologists have often commented that they're stunned God didn't get rid of the Canaanites sooner.
It's also worth noting that He waited over 400 years for them to get better first. So at least the decision wasn't rushed, I guess.
Originally Posted by Resident-Pyromaniac Woah, I never knew guys at TDC could think farther then the next GOTW. you have proven Me Wrong, and I am ashamed.
Since GOTW is standing so still we had to busy our heads with something.
(We could be making games, but that would mean we wouldn't have full knowledge of the going-ons in the forum)
Listen, if you can prove one thing in the Bible wrong I'll stop believing it.
Good Luck! You're going to need it.
I may be taking things out of context here but...
Weren't you the person who confirmed that part of the bible text was poetry? Are you considering that accurate?
And did that Jonah guy actually live in a big sea-borne animal (mammal, fish, or otherwise) for so long? Three days and nights seems like quite a long time to me.
And I always wondered about Job, and how the "tests" he was forced to endure seem consistent with the alleged atrocities of the Canaanites mentioned earlier in this thread. Were these actually cultural norms of the time, or the myriad "tests" put forth by the divine? Might they instead be attributed to a local ruler testing the loyalty of one of their subjects?
I also noticed that reading and interpretation of the bible appears to be incredibly subjective (owing to - or perhaps responsible for - the existence of several different schools of thought/cults/etc. within the umbrella of the christian faith). Here's a decent explanation of this, essentially attributed to "misinterpretation of biblical truth" but still convincing enough to bring forth a school of thought:
Granted, this does not indicate that anything in the bible is necessarily untrue, but it does point out that the bible can be misinterpreted. This flies in the face of other biblical scholarly work and direct quotes from the bible, stating (in so many words) that "[g]od intentionally made the bible and its teachings to be easily understood by anyone." Here's a link to more info:
There's also some information about how god is infallable, that it is a sin to lie, and yet god encourages others to lie or lies him/itself. Also, the content itself was apparently so riddled with lies and untruths that it inspired Thomas Jefferson to edit his own version of it. Here's a wikipedia link:
I think the fact that one group of Christians can proudly say that 'they' are the ones who are correct, and other groups might have their beliefs but are the ones actually going to hell.. shows some creedence to the legitimacy that not even two groups of Christians can really agree on whose actually got it right.
If Christians can't even agree with each other, how on earth can they expect anyone else to do anything but just sit back and laugh.
@ Silverfire: Not to say I support Christianity (or for that matter, any organized religion), but politicians have been doing the same thing for nearly as long, just in a different arena...Some people still lend them loads of credibility for some strange reason.
But honestly, that's a completely different discussion.
Politicians are also notorious for being liars and are given a very hard time over it by any and everyone, even their supporters. Religious leaders, if compared to politicians, should be granted the same.
"There are two things you should never talk about in public, religion and politics."
It's just unfortunate that politics is kind of necessary to talk about because it's the future of your society and civilization as you know it. Religion however, as long as it's not being allowed to conflict with anyone else's lives but your own, especially in scientific endeavorer, should not be actively spoken about unless it's asked about and further, communicated as a discussion of opinions, facts that could influence opinions, and a topic of curiosity rather then furious debate.
Cenk Uygur of TYT (The Young Turks) gives an excellent speech about this, where in which he believes that we should actually have classes in school where instead of teaching any specific religions beliefs, we should instead have a class similar to History, which teaches strictly religious history. How the bible came to be, how religion formed over the years, and how ideas came to be the way they are today. It's sad to think how few people actually know where the days of the week come from, how the months are divided up, who and where the bible was edited or changed by.
I will admit full heartedly that I am a victim of ignorance when it comes to a lot of religious history and I am astounded by how much the people on this site actually know. I'd like to think that I know a little more than most people who go to church but I for one would love to take part in a class dedicated specifically to religious development across the generations.
If instead of teaching people a specific religion, we teach people the roots of religion itself, I think people would be a lot more intelligent about how they choose their religion and a lot less arrogant toward other peoples choice of religion. Even if this leads to a greater amount of atheism, at least people would be choosing what works best for them - not everyone needs to believe in divinity to have moral fiber or a good grasp on the world. Religion should be something self-beneficial, not a tool of power.
PS: My right ear is clogged and my mind is kind of staggered right now, so I apologize in advance if this post seems kind slapped together.
And, some more explanation of Science, did you know that the compartments of a (normal) conch shell
grow larger precisely according to the fibonacci sequence? it's true; Also, in all the Scientific experiments to "jumpstart" life, Three of the most necessary Amino Acids failed to be made.
Generally used by the more veteran users of games and the internet. Used generally as a parody of stupid users who say plz or pls.
You said science backs up your beliefs, I'm asking for which specific sources/studies back those up. (science not only requires you to provide your conclusion but just as importantly how you came to that conclusion)
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
This is the one thing that gets me with religion. Once they can prove something, I'm totally fine with what ever it is that they've proven. Because it's been proven. Simple enough.
Don't aim for perfection- you'll miss the deadline
'~Tom~ says (16:41):
well why does the custom controls for the keyboard palyer even affect the menu controls at all whats thep oint jsutm ake it so for the keyboard palyer on the menu screens everything is always up down left right enter regardless of the controls they set'
Hm... Do I believe in God... you mean that extremely powerful being that controls everyones lives?
No. I don't. And I still can't understand why people want to believe that they actually don't have any control of their lives and they are just a part of someone's great master plan...
I believe, that every our decision has consequences, everything is relative. Every event is result of our previous actions (and decisons of other people).
I believe that future is flexible but of course predictable.
The afterlife? I believe, that it actually exists, but in other form. Ascending to a higher plain of existence, leaving organic body behind.
Well, If you Really boil it down, We have two choices to make. Who are you Going to follow,(God, or satan/man)
and, far more important; Who will you trust to get you to heaven.(God, or yourself)
A Human Being Naturally wants to serve. And the sense of being rebellious and "finding your own way"
is simply serving The flesh, which works in concert with satan.
Originally Posted by Resident-Pyromaniac Well, If you Really boil it down, We have two choices to make. Who are you Going to follow,(God, or satan/man)
and, far more important; Who will you trust to get you to heaven.(God, or yourself)
A Human Being Naturally wants to serve. And the sense of being rebellious and "finding your own way"
is simply serving The flesh, which works in concert with satan.
A human being naturally wants to serve? I bed to differ. A human being has a natural curiosity beyond his own existence because we are conscious enough to acknowledge that there is a beyond our own existence. This lead us to question how our existence came to be... and well, humans can build stuff, so they took what they knew best and said that we must have been built or 'created', but who has the power to create the builders? An almighty creator. A God.
This is the basic philosophy from which the building blocks of early Christianity was built. It has nothing to do with a natural want to serve. In fact, the entire prospect of hell and Satan was completely devised with an attempt to scare people toward God. In early monotheistic religions, there was only a marked distance from God. You were either very near him, warm, happy, and within the company of his greatness or you very far from him, alone, cold, and scared. How far you were was a result of how well you followed him.
A single all powerful creator is just one of many archetypes that can be used to feel yourself close to divinity as a whole, just as the God and Goddess are two generic archetypes used widely in Wicca and how many other Gods are used in other forms of polytheistic faiths. When you start building a book and try to create literal history (as opposed to metaphorical or symbolic legends and stories) about how and why these mere archetypes came into existence is when you start polluting the entire idea of faith, which is to bring comfort to an always searching human soul for the existence beyond our own existence.
The study of real human psychology does wanders when it comes to explaining and understanding religion and why so many people believe what they believe.
Yes, I meant that we do not Want to serve, but we do serve. however, the fruit of service follow only two paths.
no matter how righteous you are, apart from Christ, the Bible says your works are as "filthy rags".
Only in Christ can anything of eternal value come to fruition. in fact, no matter what I say, the only way any of you will be convinced is if the Holy spirit works through what I post here.
Originally Posted by Resident-Pyromaniac Yes, I meant that we do not Want to serve, but we do serve. however, the fruit of service follow only two paths.
no matter how righteous you are, apart from Christ, the Bible says your works are as "filthy rags".
Only in Christ can anything of eternal value come to fruition. in fact, no matter what I say, the only way any of you will be convinced is if the Holy spirit works through what I post here.
Which probably wont happen, because the entire idea of "The holy spirit" or Jesus Christ, or God, or however your denomination of Christianity decides to perceive all of this - is just that, Christian. Just one among many other faiths: a handful of which are widely more popular in different areas of the world, many even in your own country - but none barely as outspoken since their goal in life typically isn't to try to convert "save" everyone.
I didnt want to involve myself into this topic, but since i am, i just want to say how pointless is to prove God.
You can believe he exist or not. -"it's that simple" -quoted Bob "i know lame" - didnt really cause its not a quote" unquote.
Religion and belief in God are not the same. Some people may believe in God, but at the same time they do not support certain religious beliefs or church as an institution. In many times in history wars were fought because of it (mostly over which laws, political decisions, etc.. should be applied, changed). Thats why today we have catholics, protestants, etc...
Bible has been rewriten many times although the principle of it is basicly the same. The church occassianly added/changed parts as the church through history acted in politics, wars, law, diplomacy and education.
If someone is trying to convert, save you, eat a vaffle and think about it. or don't i don't care.
The good thing today is that at least you don't get killed anymore if you say you dont believe in God. So be happy about that. (though some third world countries still do it)
And personally I don't believe in the stereotypical God. But i do believe in existence of some kind of a higher force. And it would be cool if it had a hammer, now when i think about it.
And the point is it's pointless to argue whetever God can be proven if you can't prove it. So stop doing it.
I think the religious arguments are rather interesting. It eventually boils down to:
- That you don't need to prove God for him to exist
- That God doesn't exist without proof
- derail derail religion is bad atheists go to hells we dont need religion no we need religion it is pointless and ur stupid for believing it in it no if we dont have relagon then we all burn in hell and the world collapses into anarchy and everyone gets sodom'ed
Now if you filter out the 80% of arguments which is that last point, you actually get a good debate. The funny thing is that people, theist or atheist, will actually pick a conclusion first, THEN choose points that support that conclusion.
Also, it's interesting that it eventually boils down between "theist" and "atheist" sides, with all the various monotheist people clumping into the theist group and the agnostic group basically just shaking their heads and walking away.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
I agree, once you boil out the senseless initial "he exists, just believe me" and the "prove it or he doesn't exist" argument, theres generally an interesting discussion. I try to keep an open mind on this discussion and I've improved vastly over the past year. However when someone starts declaring their ideas as facts and more so, dismiss any further discussion by simply stating that their God will eventually give me reason to believe them, it does really irritate me to the point of dismissing their side of the argument entirely and ultimately dismissing them as a narrow-minded fool.
I must say though, Don Luciano made some of the most rational sense I've heard in this discussion so far... and Muz summed it all up pretty damn well in under 160 words.
My logic doesn't revolve around believing God exists because I can't prove he doesn't, that's just silly.
People who use that logic use it because it's a easy one liner.
However, if you're going to say that you *know* he doesn't exist as an atheist I think that argument is equally silly.
-One of the biggest convincing factors is that the Bible agrees with history.
The historical parts of it. (The poetry that's in the Bible is obviously that, poetry)
The cities mentioned in the Bible actually existed,
Archeology has uncovered many of them, as well as the pharaoh that drowned in the red sea.
(His body was covered in salt when he was embalmed, hieroglyphs told the story, ect)
The drowning was caused by God when he closed the sea over the Egyptians after the Israelites escaped.
-Then there are scientific statements (depending on how you look at it) that are completely accurate even though years earlier people thought differently.
There's a scripture that states that "the life is in the blood,"
yet after this was written some thought that it was possible to bleed a person to help cure them.
There is more but it would take up too much space.
Google them if you're interested.
On top of all this I've actually felt God, now one could argue that I was feeling something else and it's easy for someone on the internet to type this.
And to that argument there is nothing I could say to convince you otherwise except that you felt him yourself.
@UrbanMonk: The problem with a Bible scripture is that the things that can be proven from the bible, can also be proven to have been natural disasters that had no hand from God. This is one reason why I really do not like any sort of religious scripture that tries to explain the history of people and then rationalize parts of their lives they couldn't understand as being irrefutably the hand of God. In fact there was a whole show on the History Channel about Noahs Ark and why so many religious texts from that area mentioned a great flood. The area was prone to flash flooding.
So while I believe that faith in God/divinity is true and that people who do believe it need no proof because they can feel or see it around them, it's entirely a matter of perception. One mans perception of God is just an excuse for another man to call him a fool. So to call him a fool is not believing your perception of God, makes you, especially in his eyes, even more of a fool. A religious text is not necessary to believe in God or divinity because it's essentially the story/science book of their time. It's old, it's outdated, and if you like it that's fine, but it's a horrible reference to use in any sort of argument. You'd be better off telling a college professor you used Wikipedia.
The indians that lived in America have a similar flood story.
In fact I don't know of one ancient civilazation that doesnt have some sor of flood story.
The fact that it's so old and yet still agrees with modern science is what makes it even more believable.
And regarding someone thinking anyone's a fool for thinking in a certain way has been around for centuries and doesn't prove a thing. Especially since it could apply to anything and not just the beleif in God.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk What area was prone to flash flooding?
The indians that lived in America have a similar flood story.
In fact I don't know of one ancient civilazation that doesnt have some sor of flood story.
The fact that it's so old and yet still agrees with modern science is what makes it even more believable.
And regarding someone thinking anyone's a fool for thinking in a certain way has been around for centuries and doesn't prove a thing. Especially since it could apply to anything and not just the beleif in God.
In small isolated communities, a big flood would practically be worldwide from what they could tell. Then some elder would find it to be a good story to instill respect of God.
What says the Genesis version of the story is more accurate than any of the other ones? (for example the Epic of Gilgamesh)
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
The Epic of Gilgamesh was written after the Torah.
And The Epic of Gilgamesh was a heavily edited set of ancient poems.
That's not to say that it wasn't inspired by the actual flood that took place though.
I know I mentioned this already but the Torah (which is the Hebrew law, or the first 5 books of the Bible)
was copied letter by letter by Jewish scribes who used a checksum system to make sure they didn't make a mistake when copying.
The Ancient Hebrew "letters" also represented numbers, so the scribes simply added all the letters up at the end and checked if the sum matched. If it didn't they threw the whole thing out and started over.
They also did some other rituals while copying the Torah that I won't get into here, but needless to say they considered their law to be very important. Wouldn't you agree?
On top of that they believed that the world would come to an end if they copied it wrong.
Taking all these facts into account it's not likely that the Torah (which contains the flood story) was changed much since it's original transcription.
And it's quite a feat that if this document has lasted (3500-4000 years) so long without being contested by neighboring communities who might not have experienced any flash flooding. (here's a hint, the neighboring communities drowned so they couldn't. )
Urban, the point I'm trying to make is not that the bible wasn't inspired by real events. It's that the bible is way too quick to judge that God was the soul purpose for every single last thing that they could not explain themselves. Instead of just saying "we don't know yet", they just wrote it in the bible as being "See? Told you God exists" and many people still do this today. And those people are quick to be dismissed as babbling idiots. Yet people like yourself, no offence, worship a book that was written in a time where virtually everyone, especially people of the church, were in a sense, comprised of nothing but what today would consider babbling idiots - not men of science or archiving.
Also, the point I was trying to make about one mans idea of God leading to another mans excuse to call him a fool... was not an attempt to dismiss God all together, as you seem to have taken it. What I meant was that no ones perception of God is going to be the same, nor is anyones perception of God going to be technically wrong since no one truly knows God, nor can anyone truly prove his existence or not. So to try to insist that your idea of God is right and wave around a book as evidence is foolish. Divinity is to each individual, what they decide to perceive it. It's a force that we cannot [yet] comprehend and until then, any and every single view of this force is merely an archetype that we use to emotionally attach ourselves to something that is otherwise too complex for us to understand. So in that sense, everyone's view of God is correct as long as it works for them, because it's helping them emotionally connect with the divine energy that we all perceive as a deity.
Now if you're going to sit there and deny that... I trust you can provide me more meaningful evidence than YOUR religions sacred holy text, the bible. Because like I said, you trying to explain to me (or anyone else whose not Christian) anything you read out of the bible as proof, as as meaningful to any of us, as trying to tell a college professor that you wrote an entire essay off of a Wikipedia page... that you might have adjusted a little bit in your favor.
PS: And this includes not going around saying "Look, this happened and the bible said this so the bible must be accurate," because anyone can take and perceive two things as being similar with the right attitude. That's just like saying "Look, this happened and Wikipedia said it happened too... so Wikipedia must be accurate, right?" No.
That depends on what you mean by "explain"
If you're talking about how things happen (science) or why the system for these things exists in the first place.
And please don't talk about the big bang or any other theory that tries the explain the beginning of everything, because in retrospect someone who proposes such things is just as much a "babbling idiot."
No human observer witnessed the beginning, and besides many of these theories contradict other scientific evidence, and laws.
(assuming any of the other evidence was accurate in the first place, we discover new things everyday)
So to ignore God's existence requires someone to ignore the deficiencies contain within man made scientific guesses, and try to embrace them as an explanation since it's the only alternative.
To me that requires just as much faith if not more than just believing in a God. (A being outside of time and space that existed before anything and created everything)
And if I were to chose a God to believe in I would go for the one whose holy book makes the most sense.
If there is at least one contradiction, or misquotes of known historical facts then I'll dismiss it.
I love logic, which is why I love programming, math, and physics.
I'm a very skeptical person and I question everything, even the Bible, whenever I read something that I think may not be correct I check surrounding scriptures, historical references, and the original Hebrew/Greek meaning. I'm a student of the Bible, I've taken Philosophy classes and Bible lit classes at my University, and I have yet to discover any contradictions (within the Bible itself, not other religious denominations of Christianity), inaccurate historical information, or known scientific information (Discovered through observation).
All that in the midst of other "holy" texts that have contradictions, scientific impossibilities, or historical inaccuracies.
I don't see God as something visible to the human eye or mind, I see God as a being that permeates everything. The reason that everything maintains it's balance. (The laws of physics, electrostatics, quantum physics, optics<-my favorite) God is a spirit, he exists on a different plane of existence than us. Yes I'm a monotheist. I only believe in one God like the Jews, and I believe that Jesus was flesh that was being controlled directly by God, and so in turn *was* God.
Anyway I guess I've laid too many cards on the table at this point, but it doesn't matter. It's rock solid.
I don't see how the Bible and factual correctness are at all relevant to each other. Seriously, it's okay if your book isn't backed up by historical or scientific records, isn't that the point of it?
It has history in it, and where it talks about History it's correct. The events actually happened and archeology backs it up.
I would think that if it were fictional that people wouldn't still be reading it after so many thousands of years. Wouldn't you say?
It still remains relevant, and was created by God to be so.
So with that in mind the Bible and factual correctness are altogether one and the same.
None of the bible is actually split into "what's actually real" and "what's poetry" so that leaves it entirely up to your perception. So while you supported your point well and I applaud you, it's still flawed.
Well first I don't know what you mean by using "real" and "poetry" like they are antonyms.
Secondly the Bible is literally split into history, poetry, letters (the epistles), and prophesy.
So basing your argument on that is entirely useless.
So no, it isn't a perception thing, it's pretty straight forward.
The Bible isn't a single book, it's a collection of books, and most of the time it literally tells you whats going to be in each book on the first sentence.
In Proverbs 1:1 "The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel;"
It lets the reader know that this won't be history, but a list of proverbs that Solomon wrote.
Also if you just read the titles of the books it's pretty obvious.
The book of Psalms, or songs is just that, a book of songs.
If you expect to find a romance novel in the book of songs then I can't help you.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk So no, it isn't a perception thing, it's pretty straight forward.
No, your entire religion, in fact, you're entire division of your religion, the entire bible, is one single perception of the real thing. Just because you think it's the only truth, does not mean that it is. It's only a very small fragment of a much bigger picture, the likes of which absolutely no one in the world can actually perceive. Which is why we use archetypes and stories/myths behind those archetypes. To help us to perceive something far greater than ourselves, not in a way that's accurate, but in a way that's comfortable.
The second you start declaring your religion as being the one true religion, you've immediately lost any and all credibility from me. No offense to you personally, it's more a broad statement that you just happen to, at the moment, be falling into.
Btw, I hope we're not killing the topic or anything with these back and forth debates. I personally think the topic, though brought back from the dead, is pretty healthy and I hope none of what we're saying is sending a red flag to the admins and making them consider locking it. Admins? How're we doing?
Also, Urban. I would like to point out once more, just to make sure we're on the same page here... that this discussion/debate is entirely based around the topic at hand, not personal. Nothing I'm saying is reflecting what I think of you personally, and I hope nothing I say will influence what you think of me personally. I just formally but strongly disagree with you on this particular topic.
You're correct, even the Bible states that "... we see through a glass, darkly;..." 1 Corinthians 13:12
The Bible only scratches the surface of what God is, but it scratches deeper than any other religious text while staying historically, and scientifically accurate at the same time.
Now with regards to the "only truth" I'm not sure what you are referring to.
Certainly the Bible is true, and there are of course other truths, and none of them disagree with the Bible. Otherwise they wouldn't be called a truth.
Now if you want to make the "entire bible" and "single perception" interchangeable then just swap "the Bible" with "this perception" in my earlier posts and that's pretty much my argument.
What parts of the bible are you so positive are actually true? Especially since a lot of the stories told in the bible, are taken from other pre-Christian myths. In fact, the whole idea of Jesus (God) being born by the virgin Mary sounds like a completely transformed version of the myth which the Goddess gave birth to God after he sacrificed himself for the fall harvest. In fact, the timing is conviniently almost in perfect sync with the myth, and the myth is in sync with the natural season cycles. In fact, if you distiled everything that wasn't rooted in pagan faith, from Christianity or the bible, you wouldn't be left with much. The bible just adjusted the stories and changed names and re-associated it with a single all knowing God.
I would suggest reading some books that had no Christian affiliation, about paganism and also broaden your horizon to other faiths. You might quickly discover how Christianity is just one of many other religions that all make just as much sense (complete sense to those who believe, and no sense to people who don't believe).
The idea of Christianity didn't come about until after Jesus was born, and his birth was prophesied in many other ancient texts prior to the ones included in the Bible itself.
Jesus's birth fulfilled over 400 prior prophesies that existed in texts much older than the Gospels contained in the New Testament.
Mary didn't stay a virgin her whole life, she had other children with Joseph after Jesus was born, and she wasn't the mother of God. God existed before Mary, and in fact created Mary. She was a human just like the rest of us. She was overshadowed by the God and allowed her to conceive a child which was then simply a manifestation of God. All of this information is in the books Matthew and Mark.
His name was Jesus because Jesus is also God's name.
John 14:8-10
"Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. "
Those passages pretty much speak for themselves.
Remember that other pre-Christian myths were created by people who were descendents of Noah and thus heard the same stories that had been passed down from generation to generation. It's not too difficult to imagine that these pre-Christain myths were heavily influenced by them.
I've said this at least three times now, so maybe I should be a little more straight forward. Unless you can cite me a source besides the bible, it wont mean anything to me and wont support your argument at all. Like I've said many, many times in the past few pages... your bible references are as valuable to me as Wikipedia is to a college professor. It's sourced material edited many times from other sources and edited limitless times by too many people. I don't really care how historically accurate it is. I will not take anything you say as credible unless you can cite it outside of the bible. If the bible is so historically accurate, than you shouldn't have too hard a time finding me real, unbiased, historical evidence or records.
Forgive me if I come across as an asshole, but I assumed I was pretty clear before. Unless you can find me an unbiased source of everything you're telling me, outside of the bible, I'm not going to take anything you say as credible. I do not believe in the bible, I don't care how historically accurate you claim it is. I simply do not believe in it. It's not a history book, it's not a science book. Of course cities written about it, actually existed. We have movies about aliens attacking New York. New York is real, does that mean the aliens are? Don't answer that, it's just a vague example - not a direct challenge.
My point is... the bible is NOT a credible source, so please stop referring to it, at least when you're trying to discuss this with me. Surely someone with such a strong faith can find a source that's unbiased toward your specific religion, to actually support what you believe, and not be easily dismissed through some other, potentially more rational explanation. Right?
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE I've said this at least three times now, so maybe I should be a little more straight forward. Unless you can cite me a source besides the bible, it wont mean anything to me and wont support your argument at all.
When I cited the Bible I was correcting your false statement about Jesus's birth that you mentioned in the quote below.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE In fact, the whole idea of Jesus (God) being born by the virgin Mary sounds like...
So to make things more clear next time you chose to use a story in the Bible as an example to compare to something else make sure you quote it too.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE It's sourced material edited many times from other sources and edited limitless times by too many people.
This is false, as I've already showed a few posts up. The Bible was not edited. Please show me where it was edited and give solid proof and I might be inclined to agree, and please don't cite the History channel, they're bias against any kind of religious worldview, so that "source" is as credible as Wikipedia as you like to put it.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE Of course cities written about it, actually existed. We have movies about aliens attacking New York. New York is real, does that mean the aliens are?
Ok this made me laugh,
Jericho an actual city that existed was found. The walls of the city were found underground, so not only was the city real, but the destruction of the city existed as well and matches the Bible's description exactly.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE My point is... the bible is NOT a credible source, so please stop referring to it, at least when you're trying to discuss this with me.
I don't see any reason not to refer as long as no inaccuracies have been found. At what point does something qualify as "credible?" I'm sure your answer will be something along the lines of anything that agrees with your worldview, or something about being un-bias which by the way is a matter of opinion.
ANYONE can write about stuff that ACTUALLY HAPPENED... that DOES NOT MEAN that everything that's written, also happened too. ESPECIALLY when it talks about encounters or stories about God. You want a better example? Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, but God came before us and provided us with the technology of nuclear weapons... so we bombed them, twice. Sure, the evidence of all three bombings actually exists, but that does not mean Gods intervention had absolutely anything to do with it.
Also, your references to the bible and how Jesus was born, is exactly what I'm talking about. You trust so well that your bible is telling you the truth all the time, that the instant you read it in the bible, it must be true. And yes, I will cite the History Channel, because the history channel is about as unbiased to any religion as you can get. Why? Because they need to be so that they can tell as much of the whole story as they can.
In fact, your complete unwillingness to stand in front of an argument made by the History Channel, single handedly proves to me how weak your argument is. The History Channel explains religious history, not bible history... but you don't like that, do you? Because it might actually mean that your bible isn't as perfect as you thought it was. It might be a blemish on your religion's credibility. I've watched enough of The History Channel to know for a fact that what they talk about in their shows, though biased toward attracting the ignorant mainstream watcher into questioning things so they sit through commercial breaks, is extremely reliable to someone who actually knows and see's past the commercial tricks and cares to learn the information - and I've learned a lot of information.
I mean hell, if you're going to dismiss The History Channel as being too biased against any kind of religious worldview, you mid-as-well dismiss Discovery Channel's Planet Earth as being too biased against the world logging and petroleum organizations, since they show the beauty of the real world and try to convince people to stop destroying it. Oh no! That's biased!
"I don't see any reason not to refer as long as no inaccuracies have been found." Then you, my friend, won't have any problem... delivering me the information from which the bible was checked against, to be found for potential inaccuracies, and proven to be so right. Because unless you can find me information outside of the bible, I don't care. I do not believe in your bible, it's as simple as that. Prove to me what you're saying, without using the bible.
Also, your stab at the History Channel is making it increasing, if not impossible to feel like I can continue on with this discussion because it single handedly proves to me that you're completely dismissing an extremely rational, very credible source of information, simply because it spits the truth right in your face.
anyways then thats something people are already doing for hundreds of years and guess what they wont stop so this might as well get 500 pages. all of which i won't read a single word of so i just post a somewhat related cartoon that might offend people
Remember that other pre-Christian myths were created by people who were descendents of Noah and thus heard the same stories that had been passed down from generation to generation. It's not too difficult to imagine that these pre-Christain myths were heavily influenced by them.
This blows my mind. Every pre-Chrisitan myth was seeded by a descendant of Noah?
I'll give you one example of a non-Christian faith that was co-opted by Christian converters. The Norse mythos. This is the short, short version:
For generations, the Norse believed that one day, there would be a great battle that would shake the heavens, rattle the earth, and change the world as they knew it. Christians come along, study the Norse religion, and then introduce another character named Gimle, or light. Then the Christians convinced the holdouts that Ragnarok (the end of the world) already happened, and that Gimle arose from the world's ashes. Those who did not believe attempted to defend their faith, but were suppressed by the Christians through militaristic means.
How does that coincide with your explanation that "it's not too difficult to imagine" Noah's descendants first coming up with the Norse mythos, then centuries later re-writing it to suit their own ends?
In other words, Gimle was completely fabricated by Christians to co-opt the Norse faith. The only equivalent to this occurring for Christianity is if there was suddenly a race of Greek god-worshiping people that somehow erupted from the earth itself and presented a heretofore undiscovered book of the bible stating that, in fact, the world had already experienced Armageddon and that from the ashes the Greek gods emerged, like seedlings from the soil, and ascended to Mount Olympus to rule over the world, unseen.
I'll re-state my opinion again: religion was created to keep the masses in check. It is a "happy idea" that rationalizes some things of historical significance as acts of divine retribution. By persuading or coercing people to adopt the belief system, religious leaders gain prominence and influence in their respective civilizations; their own beliefs of "what is right" are combined with common-sense doctrine to lend legitimacy and become adopted as fact. It is not legitimized coincidentally because some of the beliefs "make sense" or are "the right thing to do." Rational thought is blended with the magical thought of those who want to advance the religion to make it more appetizing to the masses. Those who resist have historically been marginalized and/or subjugated through militaristic means.
Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have experienced success and proliferation due to their access to resources. Other belief systems have been crushed under their heel for not having the resources to "spread the word" and simultaneously defend themselves from religious invasion.
You want my opinion? It's "not too difficult to imagine" that the truth of the world (in whatever shape it may come or have come) has long since been crushed by invasive faith systems such as Christianity, and the earth's inhabitants have been robbed by the imperialistic maneuvering of humanity.
...I really should have written off this thread back when I said I did.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE ANYONE can write about stuff that ACTUALLY HAPPENED... that DOES NOT MEAN that everything that's written, also happened too. ESPECIALLY when it talks about encounters or stories about God
I also contains prophesy which were written prior to the actual events occurring.
Danial received visions from God about our modern war machines before they even existed, but of course he didn't know what they were so he had to explain them using terms he knew.
Revelations 9:13
"And thus I saw the Horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone."
A horse as in the animal doesn't issue "fire and smoke and brimstone" out of it's mouth.
Modern-day war "horses" refer to tanks or transport vehicles.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE Also, your references to the bible and how Jesus was born, is exactly what I'm talking about.
You're still misunderstanding me. When I referenced to when Jesus was born I was correcting your original statement about what you thought it was about. If you're going to try and compare a passage in the Bible to a mythical story then at least make sure you know what the passage actually says and not what you think/remember it saying. So yes, if you incorrectly recall a passage in the Bible and try to use that to justify your argument, then of course I'm going to quote what it actually says. Just so we're clear.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE In fact, your complete unwillingness to stand in front of an argument made by the History Channel, single handedly proves to me how weak your argument is.
What argument are you referring to?
There was no argument, just a misrepresentation of history.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE Also, your stab at the History Channel is making it increasing, if not impossible to feel like I can continue on with this discussion because it single handedly proves to me that you're completely dismissing an extremely rational, very credible source of information, simply because it spits the truth right in your face.
Ok well go ahead and cite it if you must. If you really need it that badly.
EDIT:
Originally Posted by s-m-r I'll give you one example of a non-Christian faith that was co-opted by Christian converters. The Norse mythos. This is the short, short version
Very good. There are countless other mythical stories, and religious rituals that have been modified by "Christian" believers.
Such as replacing gods of other religions with "saints" that believers could pray to...ect. This was all done to help them convert people of other religions.
I however do not agree with, or support such nonsense, and to make it clear I don't believe that praying to a dead person will do any good.
Ecclesiastes 9:5
"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing..."
This thread was a very good thread through most pages! Too bad that it had to boil down to wall-to-wall-nyeha-I'm-right-your-not-because-[non-sensical babble].
Urban: I hold the bible in very, very, high regards. However, you won't catch me trying to prove the vast majority of the world's view on history wrong by ONLY referring to one source. That, plus the fact that the bible is indeed a heavily edited scripture (claiming otherwise is simply proving a serious lack of facts) makes your argumentation very weak to readers of this thread. Regarding pointing to the Jewish way of copying the Torah; that doesn't apply to the bible you hold in your hands. The old testament was not treated with the same respect by early Christians, it is indeed also edited.
I for one won't engage in this thread, but just believe me when I say I know what I'm talking about. I've spent the last several years at uni studying these things with the aim of becoming a lecturer on the subject, so I wouldn't say things I'm not 100% sure off.
With that said, can we let this thread move on now? TDC has got quite a clear view of your opinion on the subject. Perhaps others would like to enter and share their views instead?
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Urban: I hold the bible in very, very, high regards. However, you won't catch me trying to prove the vast majority of the world's view on history wrong by ONLY referring to one source
I haven't tried to prove any history wrong. To what are you referring?
I've simply showed that the Bible agrees with the history we already know, quite the opposite from what you've stated I've tried to do.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] That, plus the fact that the bible is indeed a heavily edited scripture (claiming otherwise is simply proving a serious lack of facts) makes your argumentation very weak to readers of this thread. Regarding pointing to the Jewish way of copying the Torah; that doesn't apply to the bible you hold in your hands. The old testament was not treated with the same respect by early Christians, it is indeed also edited.
They match our modern Bible by %99 and they're significantly older than any known copy of the Bible.
Not only that but the Jewish method of reproducing the Torah does indeed apply to the Bible we hold in our hands because the Torah is in fact the first 5 books of our modern Bible, which is what contains the history that we've been talking about this whole thread.
So it sounds to me sir that you're just making things up off the top of your head, so I'll have to carefully examine any father claims from you.
At least Brandon (silverfire) researches his replies.
First off, I have to say that your tone is quite reeking with the thick headed discussion approach common for most self-appointed, elitist, religious zealot would-be's.
Secondly, before replying in an overly rude manner, make sure you have COMPREHENDED the post you're replying to. Twisting words and implying other intentions =
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Urban: I hold the bible in very, very, high regards. However, you won't catch me trying to prove the vast majority of the world's view on history wrong by ONLY referring to one source
I haven't tried to prove any history wrong. To what are you referring?
I've simply showed that the Bible agrees with the history we already know, quite the opposite from what you've stated I've tried to do.
Worlds view on historical event = A
The bible's view on same historical event = B
A<>B
You: A<B
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] That, plus the fact that the bible is indeed a heavily edited scripture (claiming otherwise is simply proving a serious lack of facts) makes your argumentation very weak to readers of this thread. Regarding pointing to the Jewish way of copying the Torah; that doesn't apply to the bible you hold in your hands. The old testament was not treated with the same respect by early Christians, it is indeed also edited.
Me: "The bible is indeed a heavily edited scripture" (bible>OT)
Me: "The old testament [...] is indeed also edited" (edited<>heavily edited)
They match our modern Bible by %99 and they're significantly older than any known copy of the Bible.
Not only that but the Jewish method of reproducing the Torah does indeed apply to the Bible we hold in our hands because the Torah is in fact the first 5 books of our modern Bible, which is what contains the history that we've been talking about this whole thread.
This whole thread has not been about the bible, this thread is about people's view on the matter of God. And that statement is inaccurate, OT, Torah and the bible are not interchangeable words. Stop using them in such a manner. Read my post again.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] First off, I have to say that your tone is quite reeking with the thick headed discussion approach common for most self-appointed, elitist, religious zealot would-be's.
You're tone is quite the same, so I don't know why you even made such a statement.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Worlds view on historical event = A
The bible's view on same historical event = B
A<>B
You: A<B
Please quote me where I did this and I might be inclined to agree.
You won't be able to find any good quotes however since I've yet to make any statements that disagree with history.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Me: "The bible is indeed a heavily edited scripture" (bible>OT)
Me: "The old testament [...] is indeed also edited" (edited<>heavily edited)
So, what's your point?
Whats the difference between heavily edited, and simply edited?
%5 ? %10 ?
Regardless it wasn't edited, so this is a moot point.
If you can't prove any of your claims and back them up with evidence, as I have, then why make them?
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] This whole thread has not been about the bible, this thread is about people's view on the matter of God. And that statement is inaccurate, OT, Torah and the bible are not interchangeable words. Stop using them in such a manner. Read my post again.
And?
The Old Testament and the Torah are contained in the Bible.
The Old Testament is the first 39 books, and the Torah is the first 5. Happy?
I figured you would already know such a thing, so I didn't think I'd have to clarify it for you.
The first 5, of which I've been referring to the majority of this thread, and of which were copied by the Jewish scribes.
The New Testament wasn't edited either, and are significantly younger since some of the original documents still exist.
It's pointless of me to answer your first bit, I'll let the public decide that on their own.
For your second bit, see-->[insert almost entire latter dialog with Silver] and apply what I actually said, not your misinterpretation of what I mean.
FYI: Editing=editing to some degree, heavy editing=editing to the degree that it has impact on the actual context of the contents. And if you, as a Christian, don't even know how your holy book has come to be in the state you find it in your hands, then you have homework to do.
Your last bit is incohesive and incorrect.
But rest assured, I won't spend my time arguing to a self-blind brick wall, so you'll get the last word.
Urban, those men and women you typically see in between cuts, being interviewed during shows on the History Channel? Those are REAL scholars who actually know what they're talking about. They study the bible in aways you couldn't even imagine, make connections you couldn't have ever seen, and dig up truths you wish didn't exist.
"Brandon Cassata I find the History Channel very enlightening and entertaining. Especially when they focus on religious subjects only because it gives me more perspective on things. But you did say "most," and sadly I think you might have it right there. There are too many Christians who are just ... stupid."
A Christian friend of mine even whole heartedly admits that not only was the bible edited, but that the History Channel is a very reputable place to get information. And no, I'm not saying cite "The History Channel", you obviously need to go deeper and cite the people that The History channel got their information from... but I can tell you right now, the information I get from The History Channel is going to be a hell of a lot more accurate than your interpretation of history. The fact that you single handedly refuse to acknowledge the bible was edited, is a major red flag of your ignorance - and the first real red flag I've seen from you. Sure I've disagreed with you and I was willing to work with you to find out an agreement, but this is just a major red flag and you have no idea how wrong you are.
"Tell him to read about King James and how he just decided to edit out what he didnt like and put in what made it look better. Some say all he did was translate it, but im sure he did more than that. Plus, if you translate something enough times, information will be lost anyway." Another friend of mine, also religious, who disagrees with you.
You can't even agree with other people of your own faith, how in the world can you expect me to believe you?
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] FYI: Editing=editing to some degree, heavy editing=editing to the degree that it has impact on the actual context of the contents. And if you, as a Christian, don't even know how your holy book has come to be in the state you find it in your hands, then you have homework to do.
Your last bit is incohesive and incorrect.
But rest assured, I won't spend my time arguing to a self-blind brick wall, so you'll get the last word.
Good day to you.
Sir, you just won the conversation. I don't care how much further it goes on, and I'll put my two cents in edge wise simply because I'm not here to win an argument, I'm here to make points which I see as valid, and hopefully learn from points I thought were valid but might not be. But you sir, have managed to single handedly step in, sucker punch, and walk out with pride.
Shame on me for not holding up to my decision to leave this derailing topic, but I would like to clarify something.
The common rule for providing a source is if the statement made is not selfevident or common knowledge.
The Bible, in it's entirety (meaning I include every text ever to be associated to what is commonly known as "The Holy Bible"), as ALL documention preceding the computer(and even those fault at times!), is in varying degrees edited(i.e more or less edited, meaning different states of being true to the original - if such a thing ever existed in the same composition - in letter, word and meaning. Do you understand or shall I continue?).
This is common knowledge.
Even with the Torah and the scribes meticulous copying rituals there is a room for error, however slight.
And since you so badly need a source to understand this I'd recommend The Secular Bible by Jacques Berlinerblau, you can check him out here--> http://explore.georgetown.edu/people/jdb75/
I recommend you read the entirety but with special attention to the term "supplementation". If you need specific pagenumbers then I suggest p.62, 67 and 75-77 to name a few.
The fact that I use a self-proclaimed non-believer as source should add some creditability to the source since my major inclination in religious studies have been the criticism of atheism.
So why do I use Berlinerblau as source?
Simply because he puts aside every aspect of belief(in any inclination, be it faith or non-belief) and scientifically approaches the subject. He wants to straighten it out for real, partly due to the fact that atheists commonly aren't that well-versed on the different aspects of the Bible. Read it, you would benefit.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Shame on me for not holding up to my decision to leave this derailing topic, but I would like to clarify something.
The common rule for providing a source is if the statement made is not selfevident or common knowledge.
The Bible, in it's entirety (meaning I include every text ever to be associated to what is commonly known as "The Holy Bible"), as ALL documention preceding the computer(and even those fault at times!), is in varying degrees edited(i.e more or less edited, meaning different states of being true to the original - if such a thing ever existed in the same composition - in letter, word and meaning. Do you understand or shall I continue?).
I think what the big misunderstanding here between SiLVERFIRE and I is his definition of edited.
Technically the books of the Bible in the New Testament (is that exact enough for you?) are still in their original form as they were originally written.
However since they had multiple authors (Peter, James, John, Mark, Matthew all wrote their own experiences with Jesus from *their* point of view) most people take that as meaning that the New Testament was modified to have a different meaning, which isn't so.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE "Tell him to read about King James and how he just decided to edit out what he didnt like and put in what made it look better. Some say all he did was translate it, but im sure he did more than that. Plus, if you translate something enough times, information will be lost anyway." Another friend of mine, also religious, who disagrees with you.
Your friend is wrong, and him being religious doesn't make him any more of a source of information than you.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Your last bit is incohesive and incorrect.
That's what someone says when they can't stand up to a solid argument.
Since you know I'm right you have no other choice than to simply resort to insults.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonkTechnically the books of the Bible in the New Testament (is that exact enough for you?) are still in their original form as they were originally written.
What about the ending to the gospel of Mark?
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
The gospel of Mark was originally made to be oral, however since it matches the stories in the other gospels it's perfectly reliable.
There are a couple of differences between the gospels in the way that they are worded and their descriptions, but as SiLVERFIRE has said those are all separate perspectives of the same events (or in this case the same God).
EDIT: The upside to these fun little debates is that I've earned some dc points!
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk The gospel of Mark was originally made to be oral, however since it matches the stories in the other gospels it's perfectly reliable.
1. I was referring to the oldest copies of Mark lacking the last 12 verses.
2. The gospels of Matthew and Luke are generally considered to be based on Mark (and a second lost source)
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by Phredreeke 1. I was referring to the oldest copies of Mark lacking the last 12 verses.
2. The gospels of Matthew and Luke are generally considered to be based on Mark (and a second lost source)
That because as I said the book of Mark was oral, and so many scholars listening to it being preached by Mark simply copied it as *they* heard it.
There are hundreds of Greek manuscripts with slight changes in wording of the story contained in Mark.
This is something that was taught in my Bible lit class at my University.
For your 2nd point I just don't believe it. There are far too many differences, and there are no inconsistencies in prospective.
At least in the original Greek translations, which you can read word for word (using cross references) in PC Study Bible.
There are 5600+ copies of the New Testament in existence.
They are 99.5% accurate to one another, and only have a 100 year span from when the originals were written to when the copies were made.
And from those manuscripts the translation to English to the Geneva Bible was made.
And then the 51 years later King James commissioned the King James Bible to be written, 54 men were chosen to translate it and to follow a strict set of rules for translation. Many of them were proficient in ancient Hebrew and Greek.
Do you ever read any information that isn't affiliated with your religion? Better yet, have you ever considered the possible accuracy of skeptics or do you just try to find something wrong in everything they're telling you. Do you ask your church every question you have or do you consider asking a real scholar or scientist? I know a lot of Christians and absolutely none of them are as close minded as you are. You swear by a book that's NOT that's been changed, tweaked, adjusted, translated, you name it, it's been done. It's like saving a JPEG over and over and over again, it's going to lose quality and accuracy every single time.
Look, with your dismissal of The History Channel, a very reputable source of information, you've proven how bias you are against skeptical information that might prove your religion wrong. You're just being ignorant and close minded.
Yes I read all about all different types of religious, and of course science. Although I wouldn't look to a scientist as a source of moral insight.
The facts about the origins of the Bible come from many sources, and to be quite honest is something I've picked up on my own and didn't learn from my church.
Basing your argument on whether I agree with *some* of the History Channel's programming is hardly any kind of solid proof aginst my argument.
Tell me, what makes you think so high and mighty of your religion that you believe you're the only one right. Especially when many Christian churches can all look at the same bible and perceive it differently. Who are you? I mean really, who are you to say that you're RIGHT about all of this? At any point in your life, do you ever sit back and suggest to yourself that maybe these could just be your individual beliefs, that they you don't truly know (because you don't) the truth, and this is just what you believe?
Because I'll tell you right now, one of the biggest differences between you and me is that my beliefs can't be debunked. Why? Because I don't try to claim facts. I don't wave a book around swearing by my perception of it. I tell you what I believe, why I believe it, and I'm willing to admit when I might be wrong about something, but you dig up information from your bible, or from sources that are biased toward you bible, and ignore sources that tell you that your bible might not be entirely as accurate as you think it is.
You claim you've heard all the arguments. Have you? Have you actually heard a word and invested a moment of your time to think about it? Or spend all your time thinking about comebacks or information that all connects, hoping that whoever argues with you doesn't care enough to invest time in researching and debunking you. You remind me of Ray Comfort right now.
And the reason I've stopped facing your arguments head on is because like I said, the very instant you turned down a good reliable source of information that's not biased toward your religion as being biased against it, you lost my respect in this particular discussion. People whose ideas are conceived through irrational thought processes are impossible to convince with rational means. Until you start accepting information that you don't particularly like to hear, you will always be close minded. And that my friend, is my last word of this discussion.
Take your last word and let someone else argue you on it, because I cannot continue frustrating myself by arguing with, as EE so well put it, a self-blind brick wall.
Please don't leave just yet, I want to hear all your arguments.
You can quote the History channel if you want, but please use their sources and not just them as a source.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE Especially when many Christian churches can all look at the same bible and perceive it differently.
It's funny you should say this, fact is most "Christian" churches don't read the Bible at all. They just simply listen to their priest or pastor and take his word for it.
This is a sad state when people can't think for themselves. If someone tells me something I want them to show me why they believe that way.
I've already explained why I put so much faith in the Bible, and so I see it as a credible source for moral insight as should you. Even EE agrees that the Bible deserves some respect.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Urban: I hold the bible in very, very, high regards.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE Because I'll tell you right now, one of the biggest differences between you and me is that my beliefs can't be debunked. Because I don't try to claim facts. I don't wave a book around swearing by my perception of it.
It's funny that you say that your beliefs can't be debunked, and then turn around and say that you can't be sure that what you believe is true. Of course if don't have any kind of solid stand then no one can disagree since you aren't sure yourself.
Now as soon as someone actually believes in something it makes you upset, but yet you claim to be open-minded towards anyone's beleifs.
I know exactly why you're getting so mad, because unlike most people who claim to be a particular religion I actually believe what I say.
I don't just say I believe in it but go off and do what I want. I actually follow the Bible as close as I can, and pray to God to give me wisdom to do what's right.
So please don't take what I say the wrong way, I don't feel like I'm better than anyone else, and I certainly don't think I'm perfect, but what I am doing is striving to do what's right.
You can quote the History channel if you want, but please use their sources and not just them as a source.
I actually agree with that.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
It's funny you should say this, fact is most "Christian" churches don't read the Bible at all. They just simply listen to their priest or pastor and take his word for it.
This is a sad state when people can't think for themselves. If someone tells me something I want them to show me why they believe that way.
And I really agree with that. It made sense hundreds of years ago when hardly anyone could read. Nowadays it just speaks of laziness and apathy.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
To stand your ground and claim to be absolutely sure about something you have zero proof for, is stupid. However I do have beliefs and ideas about the world, about divinity, that can't be debunked because for as much as we discover, there will always be a chance the divinity is just outside of our lines of discovery or just around the corner, always alluding science.
And you telling me to quote the sources on The History channel is exactly like me telling you to quote the sources of the bible, and you seemed pretty reluctant, so forgive me if I do too. I haven't seen the show that I gathered all this information from, nor do I even know the particular name or even the particular show it was from, so for me to gather my sources - though possible, would be way too much effort for someone who's not going to return the effort but instead just run his finger down the bible and quote it.
And no, I'm not getting upset the second someone else expresses a different believe. I'm getting upset that in the face of an argument, you're using irrational points to debate rational idea's. Not all the time, but half the time and it's frustrating.
The bible deserves as much respect as any other book, it's a good book when it comes to describing the histories of people, the troubles they faced, etc. It's basically an autobiography of the people, by the people, at their present time of living. That much I am not disagreeing with. What I'm disagreeing with is the stories they claim are absolutely true. At no point has a hard core Christian ever admitted to me that the stories they live their moral lives by, could be symbolism for how they should live their lives, and that while they can believe in a heaven and hell as their after life or an almighty God, that's fine... you cannot let this book derail your grasp on the reality. It may be accurate, but the people who wrote it were ignorant of anything beyond what they knew at the time, so you need to admit that their ideas on reality could be skewed and that anything they couldn't explain and claimed to be God, could have actually been something completely natural and rational. From what I gather, you've not admitted any of this.
You still seem to claim that these are all works of God. Funny God's name being placed as the cause for things happening, decreased as fast as science and understanding grew. I'm sure you've heard this argument before but do you understand what it means? I mean truly understand. It does not mean science is leading more people away from religion. It means that people are more inclined to believe something that can be proven to them, because to prove it's existence, shows us that it actually existed beyond speculation. If we still based our lives entirely on speculation and incorrect coloration between two things which really weren't connected at all, we'd still be drilling into peoples heads to release pressure on their brain, in an attempt to cure depression - instead of a much more proven sound method of anti-depressants.
Do you really think the whole world flooded? Do you really think that God had anything to do with any flooding at all that might have caused, particularly in area's where in which the stories actually derive?
And you'll have to excuse me, but my discussion with you started, probably a lot earlier than you realized. It started back when you first dismissed a need to believe in more than one God. Much earlier in the discussion. So if it seems as though I've been blindly swatting debate toward you, it's really been quite consistent and focused on you in particular. I've said a few things here and there, but I don't typically go out and start disagreeing with people with faith - anymore, I used to when I was an atheist. So I've not really been necessarily close minded or sensitive in this topic, I've just been discussing the topic of faith with you for longer than you probably knew, especially since in the beginning, my voice was just one of many people who were talking and replying to you.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE To stand your ground and claim to be absolutely sure about something you have zero proof for, is stupid.
Oh I agree.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE And you telling me to quote the sources on The History channel is exactly like me telling you to quote the sources of the bible, and you seemed pretty reluctant, so forgive me if I do too. I haven't seen the show that I gathered all this information from, nor do I even know the particular name or even the particular show it was from, so for me to gather my sources - though possible, would be way too much effort for someone who's not going to return the effort but instead just run his finger down the bible and quote it.
Yep and the History channel knows this, they can tell you what ever they want and you'd believe it.
You can get anyone to believe anything as long as you mix a little truth in it too.
I know you'll prolly try to use this argument against the Bible too, but here's something to think about.
In the book of Revelations Danial had a vision that foretold of Modern war machines, tanks, helicopters, and other predictions. This was thousands of years before they existed, so explain to me this. If God didn't give him the vision who did? I quoted one of the scriptures a few posts up for your reference.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE So if it seems as though I've been blindly swatting debate toward you, it's really been quite consistent and focused on you in particular. I've said a few things here and there, but I don't typically go out and start disagreeing with people with faith - anymore, I used to when I was an atheist.
No it's fine, I'm glad you're interested. You're one of the more knowledgeable people on this subject on this thread anyway.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE you cannot let this book derail your grasp on the reality.
I have quite a grasp on reality thank you very much. lol.
But on a more serious note, I cannot honestly say that the stories in the Bible aren't or could not be true. You see, I know too much. I've seen too much. I saw a man die on the alter, and he was dead for 10 minutes, according to the paramedics. The church who had all seen him dead began to pray, as soon as the noise of prayer went up his heart monitor came to life. It was the craziest thing that I ever witnessed. I can still see the look on his face, he was white as a sheet and blood was coming from his mouth. It was hard to sleep for a little while after that.
He's still alive today.
Another time, in fact 3 days ago, a friend of mine was healed of lupus. She was diagnosed with it a year ago, we prayed and prayed for her, and three days ago she text me that after going to the doctor to do blood tests they called her and said that they couldn't find the lupus anywhere, nor where the anti-bodies present. The doctor doesn't know what's going on.
Now I'm not saying it happens like this all the time. Certainly there have been times where a healing didn't happen. I don't know why, and I don't question God, that's up to him.
In the book of Revelations Danial had a vision that foretold of Modern war machines, tanks, helicopters, and other predictions. This was thousands of years before they existed, so explain to me this. If God didn't give him the vision who did? I quoted one of the scriptures a few posts up for your reference.
The book of Revelation can be interpreted in many different ways.
Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
Neron Kaisar, when transliterated into hebrew, has the number 666.
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Guess whos face and name was on the roman coins?
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
The scripture I posted has no alternate interpretation.
In fact most didn't understand a lot of it up until recently. Now that the prophesies are coming true.
What are you trying to say with the rest of your post?
Yep and the History channel knows this, they can tell you what ever they want and you'd believe it.
You can get anyone to believe anything as long as you mix a little truth in it too.
That is EXACTLY what I'm saying about you with the bible. Thing is though, it makes a lot more sense to believe that a book, over hundreds of years old, has been edited and changed many times to suite the needs of the current day society at the time, than it does to believe that the word of the bible is absolutely positively the word of God, spoken through the mere morals who wrote it.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE Thing is though, it makes a lot more sense to believe that a book, over hundreds of years old, has been edited and changed many times to suite the needs of the current day society at the time, than it does to believe that the word of the bible is absolutely positively the word of God, spoken through the mere morals who wrote it.
Brandon, the Bible hasn't been edited.
Every known copy of the individual books of the Bible from the Torah(1312 BCE) to the New Testament (AD 50) to the Geneva Bible(1599 AD) to the KJV(1604 AD) are %99.9 accurate of one another. The only differences being the wording of the same information. This is more or less a condensed form of the information, but the point is that the information itself hasn't been changed. No sign of editing anywhere.
On top of that the dead sea scrolls ( http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/ ) are %99.9 accurate to the Bible we have today. And according to carbon-14 dating they are dated to originate from the third century B.C.E. to 68 C.E.
There is absolutely no sign of editing anywhere in any known copies of any of the books contained in the Bible.
The only thing you seem to have a problem with is the existence of the God mentioned in these books.
Originally Posted by Phredreeke That Nero was the beast.
Nero was dead when John wrote the Revelation, wasn't he?
By the way, there could be many explanations for a prophecy. The first can be found in the age of the formation of the prophecy (for example: the beast was Nero).
The interesting thing is that there are better explanations for many prophecies that happen(ed) in the far future. Like Isaiah 53.
The prophet thinks that he made a statement about a man, about his age, or about the society. He did not know that he'd got a forecast from the future.
Sorry for my poor English! This's an interesting thread, by the way!
As I said, it can be interpreted in many ways. That applies to any prophecy and not just Revelations. For example here's a bit from Nostradamus
Beasts ferocious from hunger will swim across rivers:
The greater part of the region will be against the Hister,
The great one will cause it to be dragged in an iron cage,
When the German child will observe nothing.
The treaty of Versailles put post-WWI Germany in huge debts, which allowed Hitler to come to power.
Hister sounds like Hitler. GREAT Britain was one of the first countries to declare war on Germany after the invasion of Poland.
Iron Cage could refer to the bunker in Berlin where Hitler killed himself. Alternatively, after WWII many eastern european countries became soviet satellite states, placing them behind the IRON curtain.
The germans were blinded by Hitler's propaganda.
Edited by Phredreeke
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by Phredreeke For example here's a bit from Nostradamus
Yeah, that's an interesting thing with Nostradamus. As I know, he has made so many predictions, that there SHOULD be some of them that could be interpreted as a fulfilled prophecy. I am not quite learned in this topic, so I could be wrong.
By the way, prophets in the Bible and Nostradamus are quite different. In the age of Nostradamus and also in our thinking are prophets people who can make predictions. That's not so simple in the Bible.
That wasn't an objection on your reply, it's only a comment.
The reason for multiple explanations could be the nature of predictions. They aren't concrete. But sometimes one explanation fits the best. That's because I mentioned Isaiah 53. In this case there are many interpretations. Somebody says: that's about Isaiah. Others say: it's about Israel. But there's always something that calls the association into question. I think the New Testament answered the question the best.
The bible is so subjective people will find countless meanings for the same thing and use that as an answer to almost everything you'll throw at them. I even read in here someone talking about tanks and helicopters in the bible, wtf ?
People even manage to take subliminal meanings from the genesis, the adam and eve story and other stories which are now clearly proved as false.
Having lived and been taught sunday school in two countries with distinct cultures but following the same faith, I've heard completely different interpretations of the same stories. Muslims have one interpretation, jews another, christians another etc...
This discussion was interesting until people started bringing the bible to the table constantly. It's pointless and that's why some people feel like they are discussing with a wall. I gave up on this thread because either no one wasn't able to answer any of my questions or answered with the bible. There's got to be something else that leads someone to believe in god other than what's written in the bible, so I think this would be a much nicer and healthier discussion for both sides if the bible wasn't constantly being brought up.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look People even manage to take subliminal meanings from the genesis, the adam and eve story and other stories which are now clearly proved as false.
Nothing in the Bible has ever been proven false. Anything supernatural that happened doesn't need to be explained since God can control has creation anyway he likes.
As for everything else such as history, and true science there are no contradictions.
As long as you discuss God with anyone that actually knows God you're going to hear about the Bible.
And yes, there are multiple meanings to most everything in the Bible, that's what's so great about it.
No matter how many times you read it you'll always find something you didn't notice before, or something that's relevant to what you might be going through.
Originally Posted by SoftWarewolf the fact that people are still religious, astonishes me..
Even in China where religion isn't allowed, they still have underground churches, there's more to this that just "heaven insurance."
(ignoring the state sponsored church, which is a joke)
Originally Posted by SoftWarewolf i wouldn't really get involved here.. but what exactly is god supposed to be?
God is a spirit, a being beyond time and space that existed before anything and created everything.
Originally Posted by SoftWarewolf and what does "higher force" mean? is it similar to any other force?
"higher force" is one of those silly politically correct terms that people use when they talk about religion.
Originally Posted by SoftWarewolf if god or that force disappeared right now, how would the world be different?
I don't know, but I'm sure the answer to that question would be the same as the answer to this question:
What if no one had any morals, or a conscience?
"Nothing in the Bible has ever been proven false. Anything supernatural that happened doesn't need to be explained since God can control has creation anyway he likes.
As for everything else such as history, and true science there are no contradictions."
I really didn't want to enter this discussion again but... how can you even say that ?
You can't just deny evidence when it's in front of everyone's eyes.
For instance, god didn't create adam and eve, humanity evolved from the monkeys during millions of years we didn't just pop out from nowhere. God didn't create earth with his bare hands either, earth and every planet on the universe was formed through accretion. The bible states earth is immovable and flat, we know both theories are clearly false.
No contradictions between the bible and science you say ?
"I don't know, but I'm sure the answer to that question would be the same as the answer to this question:
What if no one had any morals, or a conscience?"
I don't believe in god or religion in general, does that mean I have no morals or conscience ?
The question softwarewolf asked and yours have nothing to do with each other. We have morals and conscience because we are an intelligent race, even pets have a small dose of both.
If everything was created by God what created God? And If God is the only exception to the rule that God created everything why is God the only exception to the rule?
Originally Posted by AndyUK If everything was created by God what created God? And If God is the only exception to the rule that God created everything why is God the only exception to the rule?
The idea of a creator isn't applicable to God, since that idea is inherent to our universe. For the notion of a creator to be of interest one must first assume that God is inherent to our universe too, in turn going against the very presumptions of the initial question, i.e God being the creator of the universe.
God doesn't need a creator since the very idea of a creator was created by God, to speak theologian.
Originally Posted by Jon C-B kind of late to the party, but om kind of interested as to specifically why people dont believe in God.
One might as well ask why people believe in just one god.
Let's think about this.
Using the standard definition of God, a being that permeates everything, set's everything into motion, existed before time, and basically makes the rules.
If you're to believe that the existence of God is absolutely true, then you must also believe in absolutes. And that the idea of perfection exists in such a being. And that idea is the only true one, since after all this being is God.
Now let's just say there are two of such beings,
Now let's say they disagree, but if they're both all powerful ect. what happens then?
And how could they disagree if they are both perfect?
So then let's just say they both agree on the same things, and they both are exactly the same, and they both exist in the same places.
Why not just call these "two" God's one, since they are essentially "one."
I do believe that their exists other "gods," but they are not the God, and they only have the power God allows them.
Originally Posted by Jon C-B kind of late to the party, but om kind of interested as to specifically why people dont believe in God.
One might as well ask why people believe in just one god.
Let's think about this.
Using the standard definition of God, a being that permeates everything, set's everything into motion, existed before time, and basically makes the rules.
If you're to believe that the existence of God is absolutely true, then you must also believe in absolutes. And that the idea of perfection exists in such a being. And that idea is the only true one, since after all this being is God.
And why would god be absolutely powerful ? Why would he be perfect ?
In antiquity people believed in that idea because they thought of god as an answer to all their biggest mysteries and attributed their creation to a god (I'm not necessarily talking about the christian god, curiously every religion, pagan or not has a superior figure who supposedly created us and the world) so to us, it made sense to worship him and see him as a powerful figure since he was our creator supposedly.
But nowadays, now that we know it wasn't some superior entity who created us or the world, what would lead me to think he's a powerful being ?
Because in the bible it says he wiped two entire cities because they didn't believe in god ?
Actually I don't believe because I don't see any reason to. Lack of evidence doesn't help but you could ask the question "why don't you believe in allah ?" "Why don't you believe in Ganesha?" "Why don't you believe in Zeus ?" and the answer would be similar.
I used to believe in god, but I grew tired of making excuses and justifications to myself to justify my beliefs, in the end I realized whatever religion you pick doesn't make sense. They are so different yet so similar but you will never find any kind of proof of it's existence. I can understand why people would follow a religion, specially if they were raised by religious people but I've grown to realize in the end it's just a mental prison you refuse to leave for no reason at all.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look And why would god be absolutely powerful ? Why would he be perfect ?
We're not talking about the same thing here, you're defining something else. It might be your "god," but it's not God.
Perfection is in the sense that he created everything, and even created our very plane of existence.
God isn't something that is confined to physical constrains.
This is the very definition of God.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look But nowadays, now that we know it wasn't some superior entity who created us or the world, what would lead me to think he's a powerful being ?
And we know this how? Have we seen every dimension? Have we been everywhere in space? Did we have an eye witness who saw the beginning of everything? Do tell.
Sorry but science isn't the answer to these questions. It's only our human explanation for the origins of the evidence we find.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Because in the bible it says he wiped two entire cities because they didn't believe in god ?
This isn't true.
Care to specify your source rather than making things up?
Firstly, to make it clear. I've been catholic/christian before for quite some time. And I always thought “well, if God's got this infinite goodness and justice they all say, what's up with all the uneven opportunity on the world different people experience? I couldn't accept the fact everyone's going to either heaven or hell and stay there forever, not if there's a God who's infinitely just”
So I started going after some explanation and came across spiritsm. I was skeptical in the beginning thinking it would be just another “me too!” religion. But no, just to start with, it's not a religion but a study and finding of facts. It by far explains better all the things we don't quite know when it comes to the afterlife matter. Make yourself a favor and read the ‘book of spirits' no matter what your religion is, whether you believe in God or not. You will find it to be interesting. The book answers several question written by advanced spirits. After searching and reading it all you'll be convinced it is not invented by men.
I'm no expert on the matter but have read all the basic work of Allan Kardec(he didn't invent spiritsm, only put together what spirits from different levels have said) The doctrine is formed by the spirits. And all the ritual, candle, black chicken whatever you hear about it. Forget it! Then it's not it!) If you don't believe in spirits(we're spirits/souls), just search on Chico Xavier to start with. Hell! Even Arthur Conan Doyle(Sherlock Holmes creator) went ahead and tried to unmask spiritsm and became a believer himself. And by studying the whole thing you will understand why many spirits communications aren't phony!
believe me when I tell you there's WAY too much proof out there about mediumship, psychographics therefore spirits!
Ok, just to summarize my opinion on what I've concluded so far after reading A LOT on this.
-There's a God, he's the primary cause of everything.
-Incarnation exists, we evolve (spiritually) through many incarnations (not only on earth)
-We ‘pay' for everything we do, be it here or afterlife or in the next incarnation or even later. Thus, learning from our experiences.
-Do all those good things Jesus have said. Love the next person! Forgive etc. Which we all know is the right thing but we still fail to do so quite often.
-That men pride gets in the way of believing what he doesn't understand yet.
-You religion doesn't matter. It's all about your intentions, what you do(gets judged on your current ignorance/circumstance of course).
There's just way too much that could be discussed about it. I just want to throw these little out there and make one curious enough to go after it. You won't regret.
We're not talking about the same thing here, you're defining something else. It might be your "god," but it's not God.
Perfection is in the sense that he created everything, and even created our very plane of existence.
God isn't something that is confined to physical constrains.
This is the very definition of God.
And who choose that definition, god himself ?
And we know this how? Have we seen every dimension? Have we been everywhere in space? Did we have an eye witness who saw the beginning of everything? Do tell.
Sorry but science isn't the answer to these questions. It's only our human explanation for the origins of the evidence we find.
This isn't about science or religion this is about facts, about what's real not about stuff from some other dimension or some ridiculous garbage like that. And why do you need a eye witness for that when there are ways even more accurate than that to take information as a fact ?
This isn't true.
Care to specify your source rather than making things up?
What if instead of accusing people of making stuff up you just did your little investigation ?
How many cities did god destroy in the bible exactly?
In any case I was talking about sodom and gomorrah.
I have known many gods. He who denies them is as blind as he who trusts them too deeply. I seek not beyond death. It may be the blackness averred by the Nemedian skeptics, or Crom's realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains and vaulted halls of the Nordheimer's Valhalla. I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look And who choose that definition, god himself ?
It's just the best way to describe God in human terms. It wasn't so much chosen as it was an attempt to describe the being that created everything.
Nothing chooses it's own definition since the definition relies on what the thing actually is.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look This isn't about science or religion this is about facts, about what's real not about stuff from some other dimension or some ridiculous garbage like that. And why do you need a eye witness for that when there are ways even more accurate than that to take information as a fact ?
You're right, it is about facts, so what's your point?
I don't need an eye witness, but some people seem to think I should.
Feeling God, and seeing his effects is enough for me, just like feeling the wind is enough for me to believe it's real.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look In any case I was talking about sodom and gomorrah.
Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't destroyed because they didn't believe in God.
How do you know they didn't believe in God?
Do you agree with how the Sodomites lived?
It's just the best way to describe God in human terms. It wasn't so much chosen as it was an attempt to describe the being that created everything.
Nothing chooses it's own definition since the definition relies on what the thing actually is.
Then who created that definition of what god is supposed to be?
You're right, it is about facts, so what's your point?
I don't need an eye witness, but some people seem to think I should.
Feeling God, and seeing his effects is enough for me, just like feeling the wind is enough for me to believe it's real.
Thing is, "feeling god" is a psychological thing and isn't really a solid proof of anything while feeling the wind is very much a physical and a real thing. I used to "feel god" pretty intensely when I believed, now I don't because I don't believe anymore. Every religious person "felt" their deities, regardless of whether they were roman, egyptian, hindu, christian or whatever, that doesn't necessarily mean they actually exist.
Of course, I'm sure you'll feel many effects because that's how the brain works. A prayer works a lot like a song, it messes with your spirit, make you more motivated/feel better about something/feel like you're not alone/etc...
I know of a lot of people who cried listening to a song or watching a movie, so that gives you an idea of how much your feelings and psychological state is moldable.
Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't destroyed because they didn't believe in God.
How do you know they didn't believe in God?
Do you agree with how the Sodomites lived?
Regardless of whether I agree or not, I wouldn't kill someone just because I disagree with his way of life, let alone massacre two entire cities and wipe out a good lot of innocents in the process.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Then who created that definition of what god is supposed to be?
No one in particular, it's just the definition that formed from experiences with God that were recorded over the ages.
Regardless of the origin it's irrelevant since this definition is exactly what's being debated here.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Thing is, "feeling god" is a psychological thing and isn't really a solid proof of anything while feeling the wind is very much a physical and a real thing. I used to "feel god" pretty intensely when I believed, now I don't because I don't believe anymore.
Have you ever thought that "not feeling God" was psychological since you don't want him to be real? Food for thought on your part.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Every religious person "felt" their deities, regardless of whether they were roman, egyptian, hindu, christian or whatever, that doesn't necessarily mean they actually exist.
Maybe their "god" does exist. Who are you to say they don't?
I believe they exist, just that they aren't the God. They're just spirits.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Of course, I'm sure you'll feel many effects because that's how the brain works. A prayer works a lot like a song, it messes with your spirit, make you more motivated/feel better about something/feel like you're not alone/etc...
I know of a lot of people who cried listening to a song or watching a movie, so that gives you an idea of how much your feelings and psychological state is moldable.
I agree, God made our brains to work this way.
Song's can move me emotionally too, and I believe God created music for this reason. Sometimes music can speak to a person more than just mere words can.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Regardless of whether I agree or not, I wouldn't kill someone just because I disagree with his way of life, let alone massacre two entire cities and wipe out a good lot of innocents in the process.
And what does this prove?
Does this mean that God doesn't exist?
Or does this mean you just don't like God?
No one in particular, it's just the definition that formed from experiences with God that were recorded over the ages.
Regardless of the origin it's irrelevant since this definition is exactly what's being debated here.
It is relevant. The definition of god was created by ourselves, I think there is something to take from that.
Have you ever thought that "not feeling God" was psychological since you don't want him to be real? Food for thought on your part.
Who told you I don't want him to be real ? I do want but I just can't see myself believe in a (beautiful)lie just for the sake of making myself feel better.
I'm pretty sure almost everyone would want god to be real. You for instance want him to be real, am I right or wrong ?
Maybe their "god" does exist. Who are you to say they don't?
I believe they exist, just that they aren't the God. They're just spirits.
Funny, so their god are mere spirits but your god is the real one. Do you realize they probably think (thought) the same way you do?
I agree, God made our brains to work this way.
Song's can move me emotionally too, and I believe God created music for this reason. Sometimes music can speak to a person more than just mere words can.
Oh man... this is like discussing religion with a religious nutjob.
God didn't created music, we did. God didn't "make our brains work that way", natural evolution did.
And what does this prove?
Does this mean that God doesn't exist?
Or does this mean you just don't like God?
It just proves I'm a better and more merciful person than the god portrayed in the bible. At least in the real world, I don't know how stuff works in "the other dimensions".
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Who told you I don't want him to be real ? I do want but I just can't see myself believe in a (beautiful)lie just for the sake of making myself feel better.
I'm pretty sure almost everyone would want god to be real. You for instance want him to be real, am I right or wrong ?
No you don't want him to be real, you wish he wasn't with all your heart.
But somehow you know he is, and people like me remind you of him.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Funny, so their god are mere spirits but your god is the real one. Do you realize they probably think (thought) the same way you do?
No in fact they don't.
Most people who claim to be something aren't. They just say it to give themselves a title. I've never met a person of another faith that actually believes in it except for those of the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim faith.
All it takes is a serious look at the origins of their faith and it falls apart. Not to mention their "holy" books are full of inconsistencies.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Oh man... this is like discussing religion with a religious nutjob.
Weak arguments are often supplimented with insults because that's the only way you can feel "right."
Originally Posted by Johnny Look God didn't created music, we did. God didn't "make our brains work that way", natural evolution did.
God created physics, God created sound, God created music.
You talk about "natural evolution" like it's some sort of being. I'll give you a hint, it is. It's God.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look It just proves I'm a better and more merciful person than the god portrayed in the bible.
Like I said in earlier posts, that nation burned their babies alive. Archeology backs this up. The nations actually existed as well.
So you would let babies be burned alive eh? Guess that pretty much sums you up.
Weak arguments are often supplimented with insults because that's the only way you can feel "right."
[...]
So you would let babies be burned alive eh? Guess that pretty much sums you up.
Proves something about your argumentation.
Edit:
You know, he really was right though. You aren't discussing with people in this thread, you are preaching. You are supposed to share thoughts, and welcome others.
You don't do that.
Your whole persona actually screams of two things.
Fanatiscm.
Fundamentalism.
But don't take my word for it! Take The Oxford Dictionaries' word for it!
Fanatic:
Pronunciation:/fəˈnatɪk/
noun
a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause.
No you don't want him to be real, you wish he wasn't with all your heart.
But somehow you know he is, and people like me remind you of him.
...
Seriously, don't put words in my mouth specially when you know next to nothing about me. There is a reason why I once believed in god, and there's also a reason why I stopped believing.
If anything people like you put me off from religion even more, but thankfully I can use my own head to make my own judgements.
No in fact they don't.
Most people who claim to be something aren't. They just say it to give themselves a title.
What are you trying to say with this ? I swear I don't get it.
I've never met a person of another faith that actually believes in it except for those of the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim faith.
Are you trolling ?
All it takes is a serious look at the origins of their faith and it falls apart. Not to mention their "holy" books are full of inconsistencies.
You do realize the abrahamic religions (including christianity) start with the genesis, which, like we discussed before, is full of glaring inconsistencies ?
Weak arguments are often supplimented with insults because that's the only way you can feel "right."
It wasn't really an insult. If you take a look at what you've been writing with an open mind you'll realize what I said isn't that far off from the truth. But even if it was an insult, it doesn't necessarily mean my arguments are weak, your erratic answers prove just that.
God created physics, God created sound, God created music.
You talk about "natural evolution" like it's some sort of being. I'll give you a hint, it is. It's God.
Now I understand why the church says religion and science aren't enemies.
Like I said in earlier posts, that nation burned their babies alive. Archeology backs this up. The nations actually existed as well.
So you would let babies be burned alive eh? Guess that pretty much sums you up.
Actually, whether those cities even existed was never proven so I have my doubts they managed to find evidence that they used to burn babies in there.
So you would let babies be burned alive eh? Guess that pretty much sums you up.
I'd probably just punish whoever did that, locking them away for life not necessarily killing them. I don't think wiping out two entire cities, killing a good share of innocents in the process is the way to go.
I have the opinion that murdering an innocent because someone else did something wrong isn't right.
Sums me up pretty well yeah.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Seriously, don't put words in my mouth specially when you know next to nothing about me. There is a reason why I once believed in god, and there's also a reason why I stopped believing.
If anything people like you put me off from religion even more, but thankfully I can use my own head to make my own judgements.
You're just as put off now as you were before, and your reasoning involves my aforementioned statements.
I had/have nothing to do with it and you know it.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look What are you trying to say with this ? I swear I don't get it.
Don't hurt yourself, just read it. I'm not "trying" to say something else. I'm saying exactly what it says.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Are you trolling ?
If I am you are too. Short answer, "no."
Originally Posted by Johnny Look You do realize the abrahamic religions (including christianity) start with the genesis, which, like we discussed before, is full of glaring inconsistencies ?
Please point out these inconsistencies, and if you do please quote the King James Bible as your reference.
Basicly prove what you're saying is true and it might hold some weight.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look It wasn't really an insult. If you take a look at what you've been writing with an open mind you'll realize what I said isn't that far off from the truth. But even if it was an insult, it doesn't necessarily mean my arguments are weak, your erratic answers prove just that.
Nope, it's just an opinion, and there are plenty of people who disagree with you. My answers are just as erratic as yours, I'm simply debating on the same level as you. I would put some thought into it, but I know you wouldn't read it since you're just throwing out random statements without proving any of them, so I'll do the same. You've been repeating the same lines over and over this whole thread, go re-read your other posts and you'll see what I mean.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
God created physics, God created sound, God created music.
You talk about "natural evolution" like it's some sort of being. I'll give you a hint, it is. It's God.
Now I understand why the church says religion and science aren't enemies.
Who do you mean "the church?" I'm not catholic if that's what you're implying, but I'll agree.
Science doesn't "create" anything, all it does is examine the things that are already here.
God created the things that science examines, so yeah it's not too hard to understand.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Like I said in earlier posts, that nation burned their babies alive. Archeology backs this up. The nations actually existed as well.
So you would let babies be burned alive eh? Guess that pretty much sums you up.
Actually, whether those cities even existed was never proven so I have my doubts they managed to find evidence that they used to burn babies in there.
Not only is it Biblical, but the other nations in that area that were found during archeological digs had the same culture.
Those other nations are also in the Bible. All of them. Some still exist today. Like Damascus, which is prophesied to be destroyed completely in the Bible.
So look out for that happening. lol
"The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from [being] a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap. " -Isaiah 17:1
Originally Posted by Johnny Look
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk So you would let babies be burned alive eh? Guess that pretty much sums you up.
I'd probably just punish whoever did that, locking them away for life not necessarily killing them. I don't think wiping out two entire cities, killing a good share of innocents in the process is the way to go.
I have the opinion that murdering an innocent because someone else did something wrong isn't right.
Sums me up pretty well yeah.
The Bible says that they couldn't find even ten righteous men in all the city. (The word "men" being used to refer to any human)
So you're assuming there were innocent people, when there wasn't.
So back to my previous question:
Would you allow people who burned babies alive to live?
You're just as put off now as you were before, and your reasoning involves my aforementioned statements.
I had/have nothing to do with it and you know it.
Of course you have nothing to do with me not believing in god, that's not the point.
What I meant to say is that you're not defending your beliefs/religion very well, on the contrary. Like eternalman put it, you're not discussing, you are preaching. You can't answer anything with solid arguments, only incredibly ambiguous and erratic "arguments" (if I could call them that) and passages from the bible.
Don't hurt yourself, just read it. I'm not "trying" to say something else. I'm saying exactly what it says.
So if I understood it right, everyone except christians, just say they are believers to give themselves a title ?..
Please point out these inconsistencies, and if you do please quote the King James Bible as your reference.
Basicly prove what you're saying is true and it might hold some weight.
You can't be serious, we just discussed about this and no I surely won't be quoting the king james bible as reference (what was the point of this, exactly ?). Most of the inconsistencies I pointed out (there are more, those were just some of the most obvious ones) are common knowledge and scientifically explained phenomenas, I don't know what more proof you want me to bring to you.
If I am you are too. Short answer, "no."
Ok then. So you are basically implying only people who follow one of the abrahamic religions actually believe on them ?
Basically, egyptians, romans, hindus and so were religious just for the sake of it ?
Nope, it's just an opinion, and there are plenty of people who disagree with you. My answers are just as erratic as yours, I'm simply debating on the same level as you. I would put some thought into it, but I know you wouldn't read it since you're just throwing out random statements without proving any of them, so I'll do the same. You've been repeating the same lines over and over this whole thread, go re-read your other posts and you'll see what I mean.
I don't think you don't quite realize what I was talking about. I just find it ironic that you're talking to me about not bringing proof to the table when that's what I've been doing all along. It's just that you don't accept well known and scientifically explained facts and reply with nonsensical phrases about god being the creator of this and that. Where's the proof of that ?
Who do you mean "the church?" I'm not catholic if that's what you're implying, but I'll agree.
Science doesn't "create" anything, all it does is examine the things that are already here.
God created the things that science examines, so yeah it's not too hard to understand.
Here we go again...
Sciences also examines how these things were created actually, which most of the time conflicts with the "scientific findings" of the bible. i.e god creating earth flat and immovable, god creating earth in 7 days etc...
By the way by church I meant christian people as a whole (believers, priests, etc...).
Not only is it Biblical, but the other nations in that area that were found during archeological digs had the same culture.
Those other nations are also in the Bible. All of them. Some still exist today. Like Damascus, which is prophesied to be destroyed completely in the Bible.
So look out for that happening. lol
"The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from [being] a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap. " -Isaiah 17:1
Yes, some real nations/cities are in the bible which is to be expected since whoever made the writings knew about their existence and it's also expected neighboring nations/cities to have a similar cultures, what's that supposed to prove ?
No one ever found ruins that could be related to sodom and gomorrah, now this is a fact.
The Bible says that they couldn't find even ten righteous men in all the city. (The word "men" being used to refer to any human)
So you're assuming there were innocent people, when there wasn't.
So back to my previous question:
Would you allow people who burned babies alive to live?
Ahahah way to distort the story. So everyone in those cities had a thing for burning babies alive ? I'm pretty sure that when they said they couldn't find less than ten righteous men they didn't mean they couldn't find ten persons who didn't have the habit of burning babies.
But answering your question and pretending almost everyone burnt babies, no I wouldn't kill 10 or less innocents because of what others did.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
Originally Posted by Johnny Look .
I second that!
Ahaha sorry about that, I accidentally clicked on the post reply button and had to edit the post just in case someone posted something afterwards.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look You can't answer anything with solid arguments, only incredibly ambiguous and erratic "arguments" (if I could call them that) and passages from the bible.
My statements have neither been ambiguous nor erratic.
Sounds again like all you can do is insult to try and make yourself feel more "right."
Originally Posted by Johnny Look So if I understood it right, everyone except christians, just say they are believers to give themselves a title ?..
I didn't say that, so I'll quote myself to clarify:
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk Most people who claim to be something aren't. They just say it to give themselves a title. I've never met a person of another faith that actually believes in it except for those of the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim faith.
So I included Jewish and Muslim in there also...and I didn't say "everyone" just the people I've met, and I've met alot. I talk to everyone. lol
I'm sure there might be someone else of another faith somewhere that actually believes it, but it's usually because they've never been exposed to anything else.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look You can't be serious, we just discussed about this and no I surely won't be quoting the king james bible as reference (what was the point of this, exactly ?). Most of the inconsistencies I pointed out (there are more, those were just some of the most obvious ones) are common knowledge and scientifically explained phenomenas, I don't know what more proof you want me to bring to you.
I was/am serious, and why not? If you're going to say that there are inconsistencies you need to give the quotes where they are, but I know you won't because they don't exist.
You have yet to state an inconsistency. All you can do is repeatedly misconstrue the events of Sodom and Gomorrah as if your (incorrect) recall of the events holds any weight.
And please don't use evolution as proof, because you know as well as I do that it can't explain the beginning of everything. All it can do is offer a suggested theory.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Sciences also examines how these things were created actually...
What things? Where did all the matter come from that makes all these things? What set the physics in motion, who created the scientific laws that govern our universe? Did those "evolve" too? Please, do tell.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look ..., which most of the time conflicts with the "scientific findings" of the bible. i.e god creating earth flat and immovable, god creating earth in 7 days etc...
"flat and immovable?" Please point me to that scripture. lol.
The Bible doesn't say the Earth is flat once. Not in the original Hebrew or otherwise.
Not only that, but most ancient people by this time knew the earth was a sphere, and a Greek by the name of Eratosthenes calculated its circumference in 240 BC.
Then there's this:
"[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, ..." -Isaiah 40:22
Of course you can take it anyway you want.
It's easy to make excuses for it if you don't want to believe it.
Which I'm sure you'll do a good job of in your next post.
EDIT: whoa! Forgot the 7 days bit.
This is my theory:
God created everything in 7 days according to the Genesis account, then
When he created Adam and Eve they had to be at least old enough to take care of themselves.
He couldn't have created babies, at least that wouldn't make any sense.
So he must have created them fully grown.
So with that in mind, why couldn't God create a old Earth as well?
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Yes, some real nations/cities are in the bible which is to be expected since whoever made the writings knew about their existence and it's also expected neighboring nations/cities to have a similar cultures, what's that supposed to prove ?
No one ever found ruins that could be related to sodom and gomorrah, now this is a fact.
They found the ruins to all the other cities, so what makes you think Sodom and Gomorrah would be an exception?
I guess if you want to hold out until it's found you can do that if it'll make you feel better, but I think it's just another excuse you're making for yourself.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Ahahah way to distort the story. So everyone in those cities had a thing for burning babies alive ? I'm pretty sure that when they said they couldn't find less than ten righteous men they didn't mean they couldn't find ten persons who didn't have the habit of burning babies.
But answering your question and pretending almost everyone burnt babies, no I wouldn't kill 10 or less innocents because of what others did.
Ok, good I'm glad you wouldn't kill any innocent people.
Now looking back at what God did, and thinking about it logically, do you really think he killed any innocent people?
You're assuming there were 10 or less. How do you know?
Fact is, you don't. So there goes that argument. Whoops.
I haven't actually read any of these, however, they serve to prove the point, being that there are quite a few people in the world that feel that there are inconsistencies in the bible.
These are six of the first ten results out of ~1 540 000 results for "inconsistencies in the bible" on google.
My statements have neither been ambiguous nor erratic.
Sounds again like all you can do is insult to try and make yourself feel more "right."
Read what eternalman wrote on your "argumentation" of sorts. He also believes in god if I'm not mistaken btw so it's not really about taking sides or making myself feel more right or wrong.
So I included Jewish and Muslim in there also...and I didn't say "everyone" just the people I've met, and I've met alot. I talk to everyone. lol
I don't know what point you were trying to make then ?
I'm sure there might be someone else of another faith somewhere that actually believes it, but it's usually because they've never been exposed to anything else.
Not only this is an incredibly ridiculous and ignorant thing to say, this is also insulting to anyone who follows a different faith from yours. Just let me tell you, you're wrong.
I was/am serious, and why not? If you're going to say that there are inconsistencies you need to give the quotes where they are, but I know you won't because they don't exist.
Didn't god create earth ? Didn't he create us humans ?
Do I really need to quote the bible, aren't these passages well known enough ?
You have yet to state an inconsistency. All you can do is repeatedly misconstrue the events of Sodom and Gomorrah as if your (incorrect) recall of the events holds any weight.
I've mentioned quite a few inconsistencies, you either can't see them or you don't want to.
As for sodom and gommorrah, you still insist that everyone in those two cities used to burn babies ?
And please don't use evolution as proof, because you know as well as I do that it can't explain the beginning of everything. All it can do is offer a suggested theory.
Evolution doesn't prove how everything was created, it just proves we evolved from other species.
Therefore god didn't create us, and adam and eve never existed.
And it's not just a theory, it's a fact.
"flat and immovable?" Please point me to that scripture. lol.
The Bible doesn't say the Earth is flat once. Not in the original Hebrew or otherwise.
Are you sure ?
Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Not only that, but most ancient people by this time knew the earth was a sphere, and a Greek by the name of Eratosthenes calculated its circumference in 240 BC.
Actually, the knowledge that the Earth was spherical only became widespread in the rest of the world by 300 a.c
Early christians for instance didn't accept that theory and it took several centuries before it became widely accepted.
Then there's this:
"[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, ..." -Isaiah 40:22
Circle, not sphere- therefore flat.
Of course you can take it anyway you want.
It's easy to make excuses for it if you don't want to believe it.
Which I'm sure you'll do a good job of in your next post.
Your theory being, I hate god and everything related to him and I don't believe because I don't want to even though I know he exists.
Shows how much you know about me and my past. If you make a site search I'm sure you can find the last big thread we had here on religion and perhaps you'll be surprised to see in which side I was.
When you refer my arguments as excuses or desperately try to make me look I'm some god hater or something you are only digging yourself a bigger hole.
God created everything in 7 days according to the Genesis account, then
When he created Adam and Eve they had to be at least old enough to take care of themselves.
He couldn't have created babies, at least that wouldn't make any sense.
So he must have created them fully grown.
So with that in mind, why couldn't God create a old Earth as well?
None of what you wrote in there made sense. Earth took about 15 million years to be created, not 7 days. Adam and eve couldn't have existed since according to the bible they were made in one day (the sixth if i'm not mistaken) while we took another few million years to evolve into what looks more or less like a human. Even the races that preceded us took more than one day to to evolve to their final form.
They found the ruins to all the other cities, so what makes you think Sodom and Gomorrah would be an exception?
I guess if you want to hold out until it's found you can do that if it'll make you feel better, but I think it's just another excuse you're making for yourself.
They found the ruins of all the other cities, except sodom and gommorrah. Sodom and gommorrah were the exception because they probably never existed in the first place.
Seriously, just read what's on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Historicity
Perhaps not the best source of reliable information in the world, but I looked everywhere and none of the articles and sites I found conflict with what's in there.
Now looking back at what God did, and thinking about it logically, do you really think he killed any innocent people?
You're assuming there were 10 or less. How do you know?
So you still insist that every single person in those two cities burned babies ?
edit: didn't see this bit.
What things? Where did all the matter come from that makes all these things? What set the physics in motion, who created the scientific laws that govern our universe? Did those "evolve" too? Please, do tell.
From what we know, everything started with the big bang; physics, matter, etc..
I can see your next argument being something along the lines of "but it was god who created the big bang!".
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I haven't actually read any of these, however, they serve to prove the point, being that there are quite a few people in the world that feel that there are inconsistencies in the bible.
I checked the first link and cracked up laughing:
"
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
"
This assumes the only source of light is the sun. Which it isn't, God's a source of light as well.
And besides the "light" God created was just energy, not literal light.
So it was the creation of physics.
Please EE if you're going to try and link dump check them out first.
All the rest of the quotes are the same, they're either taken out of context, or they're misconstrued.
Nice try.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Read what eternalman wrote on your "argumentation" of sorts. He also believes in god if I'm not mistaken btw so it's not really about taking sides or making myself feel more right or wrong.
Regardless if eternalman claims to believe in God or not, that doesn't make his statements anymore or less valid.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Not only this is an incredibly ridiculous and ignorant thing to say, this is also insulting to anyone who follows a different faith from yours. Just let me tell you, you're wrong.
Actually I'm not wrong.
No other faith in the world can prove themselves, and they know it.
If you think I'm wrong please name another faith and prove it's true.
Give me an hour to talk with anyone and they'll be on God's side.
Trust me, I do it all the time, and our church is growing rapidly.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Didn't god create earth ? Didn't he create us humans ?
Do I really need to quote the bible, aren't these passages well known enough ?
Of course he did, but that's not what you were misquoting, so please next time you feel like mentioning something from the Bible quote it too so people will believe your statement.
Otherwise you could just be making it up, which you did.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look I've mentioned quite a few inconsistencies, you either can't see them or you don't want to.
As for sodom and gommorrah, you still insist that everyone in those two cities used to burn babies ?
No you haven't, your so called "inconsistencies" are misquotes, so as I said before quote the Bible and give me chapter and verse if you want your argument to hold any weight.
And yes, everyone in those cites were required to burn their first born baby because it was their government sanctioned religion, but God stopped it.
Not only that but if the parents showed any kind of remorse they had to sacrifice their 2nd born and so on. This isn't from the Bible, this is from archeology of cities in that region.
It's also in the Bible in the book of Leviticus as well.
"And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD." - Leviticus 18:21
A few more lines down it says this:
"(For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled" - Leviticus 18:27
If you read the whole section it names to the tee everything wrong the nations in that area did, and it lines up completely with archeology.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Evolution doesn't prove how everything was created, it just proves we evolved from other species.
That's right! Good you're going in the right direction.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Therefore god didn't create us, and adam and eve never existed.
You just said that evolution doesn't prove how everything was created, so you contradicted yourself.
Nothing in this world can go from low complexity to high complexity on it's own.
It needs an input of energy and a mechanism for channeling that energy to be used constructively.
Not only does this violate the second law of thermodynamics, but it also violates logical thinking.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look And it's not just a theory, it's a fact.
It is a theory, although people like you wish it were true.
It's a "beautiful lie" to those who need an alternative to God.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Are you sure ?
Yes I'm sure. The Earth is obviously not flat, so the Bible wouldn't say that, and as suspected it doesn't.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
None of these scriptures say that the Earth is flat, so you misquoted as always when you said:
Originally Posted by Johnny Look ... i.e god creating earth flat and immovable, god creating earth in 7 days etc...
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Actually, the knowledge that the Earth was spherical only became widespread in the rest of the world by 300 a.c
Early christians for instance didn't accept that theory and it took several centuries before it became widely accepted.
You might be right about this, but it doesn't prove a thing.
Especially since the Bible doesn't say it.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Then there's this:
"[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, ..." -Isaiah 40:22
Circle, not sphere- therefore flat.
The imagery is all that's important, God "sitting" is anthropomorphic, not literal.
The very fact that the word "circle" is used should tell you something.
If it said square or any other shape I might be inclined to believe you,
but regardless the Bible never says the Earth is flat so your argument is invalid.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Your theory being, I hate god and everything related to him and I don't believe because I don't want to even though I know he exists.
Shows how much you know about me and my past. If you make a site search I'm sure you can find the last big thread we had here on religion and perhaps you'll be surprised to see in which side I was.
I don't remember what side you took, so what happened? Did someone in church hurt your feelings?
Originally Posted by Johnny Look None of what you wrote in there made sense.
Don't you wish, lol.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Earth took about 15 million years to be created, not 7 days.
Did it take 15 million years to form? Or was it created instantly as a 15 million year old Earth?
(If the Earth is even that old in the first place, science can't prove it based on present evidence alone,
to make that assumption would require that the conditions of the current Earth is the same as it was 15 million years ago,
and you know as well as I do that it's impossible to know for sure)
Originally Posted by Johnny Look They found the ruins of all the other cities, except sodom and gommorrah. Sodom and gommorrah were the exception because they probably never existed in the first place.
Seriously, just read what's on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Historicity
Ohh, it's on wikipedia! It must be right!
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Perhaps not the best source of reliable information in the world, but I looked everywhere and none of the articles and sites I found conflict with what's in there.
Prolly because it isn't true, and someone like you made it up.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look From what we know, everything started with the big bang; physics, matter, etc..
We don't know that, it can't be proven. Nor will it be.
Not only that but the idea of a big bang has already been proven false,
the universe is accelerating not slowing down as the big bang theory suggests.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
I don't think that necessarily says the earth is flat, sounds more to me that it suggests the earth is stationary, which of course is also false. How about this though?
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; Matthew 4:8 (KJV)
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I haven't actually read any of these, however, they serve to prove the point, being that there are quite a few people in the world that feel that there are inconsistencies in the bible.
I checked the first link and cracked up laughing:
"
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
"
This assumes the only source of light is the sun. Which it isn't, God's a source of light as well.
And besides the "light" God created was just energy, not literal light.
So it was the creation of physics.
Please EE if you're going to try and link dump check them out first.
All the rest of the quotes are the same, they're either taken out of context, or they're misconstrued.
Nice try.
I see now that you are actually as unintelligent as you appear.
You can't discuss. You don't understand the concepts of interaction between people.
You make me very upset with your ever-present "I-have-to-twist-their-words-since-I-can't-hold-up-to-the-actual-argument"-ways of replying. Your patronizing, extreeeeeeemely-holier-than-thou approach to this is repulsive.
Of course, you don't understand what I mean. You actually believe that your way of discussing is correct, and that you inhabit some sort of universal truth that is applicable, and also must be applied(perhaps you'll go to hell otherwise? Go ask your minister), to everyone who wants to share their thoughts on belief in this forum.
1. As you can see in your own reply, I said I hadn't read them, cause their contents wasn't the issue or point to be proven. However, seeing as your distasteful ways of trying to display yourself in 'God's white gleam' would be erradicated by actually focusing on my actual meaning, you simply didn't. Instead, you take one example, give YOUR opinion on it, then re-impose your opinion on it by claiming God to be a lamp, topping it off with your blessed assurance that EVERY quote in those links are "the same", i.e not subjecting to YOUR opinion of thought. Effectively having it so, that any person casually just visiting this thread and simply going to the last page(since no one is interested in reading UrbanMonk's wall-o'-magic that has imposed itself on this once fruitful thread for sharing thought) is at risk of believing your sad reply to hold weight, when it in fact, is as paper-thin as your arguments, which leads me to my second point.
2. The contents of the links was not of importance, my post served to prove the point that A WHOLE LOT of people in the world see inconsistencies in the Bible. What that really means is that there are, for those people, inconsistencies in the Bible. And since those people(for example including the church and all respectable religious scholars) can claim an absolute majority over the boastful dimwit's who actually believe that there aren't(i.e you for one), it is safe to say the following:
The Bible is riddled with inconsistencies.
The majority of your actual species agree on this. Do you see how dumb it looks to claim them to be ignorant and wrong because you and your church think otherwise?
No sane person tries to claim that the Bible, read in it's context(i.e historical books being historical books), is true to fact and can be interpreted literally. Because it cannot. Simple as that.
I don't need to quote anything to prove it, since my opinion is with the scholars and the majority of the world.
Your argument however, needs only ONE inconsistency to crumble like an old cracker.
And since there are [insert shitload of numbers here] inconsistencies to be found that anyone(meaning the extreme majority) can agree upon, you only portrait yourself as a lunatic.
Now, to sum it up.
The Bible is great.
But you can't go around reading it like a scientific report, cause it isn't one.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Read what eternalman wrote on your "argumentation" of sorts. He also believes in god if I'm not mistaken btw so it's not really about taking sides or making myself feel more right or wrong.
Regardless if eternalman claims to believe in God or not, that doesn't make his statements anymore or less valid.
And just to point it out to you again, you can't read.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I see now that you are actually as unintelligent as you appear.
Oh my, another insult. Everything else you say must be right!
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] You can't discuss. You don't understand the concepts of interaction between people.
um what?
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] You make me very upset with your ever-present "I-have-to-twist-their-words-since-I-can't-hold-up-to-the-actual-argument"-ways of replying.
I haven't twisted anyone's words.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Your patronizing, extreeeeeeemely-holier-than-thou approach to this is repulsive.
I'm not any better than anyone else, nor have I implied as such.
You're just mad because you're wrong.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Of course, you don't understand what I mean. You actually believe that your way of discussing is correct
So what? Are you saying I have to discuss this by your rules? lol
You're basicly saying as long as I don't agree with you I'm "wrong." That's pretty funny, I'd say you're effectively "grasping at straws."
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] 1. As you can see in your own reply, I said I hadn't read them...
That much was evident. Please read them next time.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] 2. The contents of the links was not of importance, my post served to prove the point that A WHOLE LOT of people in the world see inconsistencies in the Bible...
I don't care if everyone in the world feels this way, it doesn't mean it's true. Nor is it.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] The Bible is riddled with inconsistencies.
No it isn't. Please point one out. If it's "riddled" with them it should be east to find right?
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] No sane person tries to claim that the Bible, read in it's context(i.e historical books being historical books), is true to fact and can be interpreted literally. Because it cannot. Simple as that.
I don't need to quote anything to prove it, since my opinion is with the scholars and the majority of the world.
Every sane person knows that the Bible (read in it's context) is true, and history and science proves it.
And of course you won't try to prove it because you can't. "Simple as that" as you like to say.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Your argument however, needs only ONE inconsistency to crumble like an old cracker.
I agree, go ahead point out that inconsistency. One that's undeniable.
I love how you prove all of my points with your reply. <3
But just to humour you, I'll give you four!
(First off though, definition)
Pronunciation:/ɪnkənˈsɪst(ənsi/noun (plural inconsistencies)
[mass noun]
the fact or state of being inconsistent:
the inconsistency between his expressed attitudes and his actual behaviour[count noun] an inconsistent aspect or element:
a book riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions
(By the by, these are all from King James version)
Deuteronomy 6:5
5And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Deuteronomy 6:13
13Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.
1 John 4:18
18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
We shall love God, but also fear him, but there is no fear in love..?
Proverbs 30:5
5Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Ezekiel 14:9
9And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Every word of God is pure, but God also decieves and lies..?
Genesis 4:4-5
4And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
2 Chronicles 19:7
7Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.
Abel vs. Cain: 1-0, even though God doesn't deal in respect and weighing of gifts..?
Genesis 11:7-9
7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
Proverbs 6:16-19
16These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
God hates "he that soweth discord among brethren", but as long as it's God it's ok then..?
Now, of course you'll answer this 'with all ye might and smite me down' with contexts and such-if's and what-not's. However, you do have to realize that all you will be giving me is an interpretetation of the inconsistencies, you won't change the fact that they are inconsistencies. If they weren't, you wouldn't need to hand me an interpretation, we could just read it of the bat.
I must admit that when I saw your well thought out post I got excited!
Thank you so much!
The main reason I'm discussing this here is so people like you can give me really good arguments against my faith, that way I can "sharpen my sword" so to speak.
Now lets do this!
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Now, of course you'll answer this 'with all ye might and smite me down' with contexts and such-if's and what-not's. However, you do have to realize that all you will be giving me is an interpretetation[sic] of the inconsistencies, you won't change the fact that they are inconsistencies. If they weren't, you wouldn't need to hand me an interpretation, we could just read it of the bat.
First you'll notice I quoted your "prediction" about my next move, so I'll address this first:
Ok, I'll play by this, I won't give you an interpretation, rather I'll give you what the original text says (Hebrew and Greek) rather than the English translation.
You are right, in these cases we can't just read it in English and accept it's direct meaning at face value. We've got to check the original Hebrew and Greek words and make sure there aren't multiple versions of each word that was translated into English.
So in your first comparison:
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Deuteronomy 6:5
5And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Deuteronomy 6:13
13Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.
1 John 4:18
18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
We shall love God, but also fear him, but there is no fear in love..?
First you should know that there are multiple words in Hebrew that translate to "fear" in English because there isn't an English equivalent.
The would fear used here in Deuteronomy in the Hebrew is "yirah" which means respect or reverence, not terror.
http://yirah.com/ <- found through a google search, funny!
Therefore 1 John 4:18 isn't in conflict since it's talking about a different type of fear.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Proverbs 30:5
5Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Ezekiel 14:9
9And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Every word of God is pure, but God also decieves and lies..?
So yes, God "lies" but he's sending a deceiving spirit, or allowing a deceiving spirit much like he allowed Satan to curse Job in the Book of Job.
Not lying himself.
So nope, these aren't in conflict either.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Genesis 4:4-5
4And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
2 Chronicles 19:7
7Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.
Abel vs. Cain: 1-0, even though God doesn't deal in respect and weighing of gifts..?
In Genesis these "gifts" (The word gift isn't used, but that's stretching it) are used for a specific purpose, the atonement of sins.
So no, God would not accept Cain's gift since blood needed to be shed in order to roll back his sins.
However you know as well as I do that this is no longer required since Jesus died on the cross, so all that's required now is to ask for forgiveness when you pray.
This is not a "interpretation" this is looking at the scripture in context, and it's very clear that there was a purpose for their sacrifice by reading the whole book of Genesis.
It's not ambiguous.
So the "gifts" talked about aren't the same, so therefore these scriptures aren't in conflict.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Genesis 11:7-9
7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
Proverbs 6:16-19
16These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
God hates "he that soweth discord among brethren", but as long as it's God it's ok then..?
Yes, actually. If it's God he can do whatever he wants. This isn't a conflict in scripture, it's a conflict of interests on your part. lol
Sorry couldn't help it.
But truly, those spoke about in Proverbs was meant for man. There are lots of commandments for man in the Bible that couldn't apply to God, and this is in every religion, it's not just unique to the Bible in this case.
Thanks so much for your well thought out reply,
I honestly had never seen some of those comparisons besides the first one.
The first one you mentioned is rather popular among atheists, at least at my school. lol
I stated a definiton of what I was about to point out, inconsistencies. Passages do not need to be in direct conflict or self-contradictory to be inconsistent. Both conflicting imagery and contradictions are indeed inconsistencies, but an inconsistency is not neccessarily a conflict or contradiction.
So my main point still stands, can you give the King James version to someone completely oblivious to it's contents and tell them "everything in here is true, science backs this up, it doesn't contain any inconsistencies at all" as you so whole-heartedily have put it to us many times in this thread?
It is also contradictory to claim the King James version as 'un-edited'(as you did earlier with quite the zeal), when you yourself point out that you have to go back to the original hebrew and greek scriptures to gain the information that should have been obtainable in the first one, seeing as it is 'un-edited'.
Secondly, I think it be quite saddening that you 'use' this thread to 'sharpen your sword', since it was meant as an open and peaceful sharing of thought, to invite everyone in this forum to give their opinion and share their beliefs. Most people steer clear of sharing very personal ideas if they are bound to be targetted as unfaithful heretics by rabid Christians. That's really why I'm upset, your opinion does not hold any weight to me, since you fubar-ed your credability quite som pages ago.
But on to your reply, the first thing I reacted towards was this:
"So yes, God "lies" but he's sending a deceiving spirit, or allowing a deceiving spirit much like he allowed Satan to curse Job in the Book of Job.
Not lying himself."
If you read more of the surrounding passages it's quite clear that there is no spirit involved, but rather God directly.
Ezekiel 14:7-10
7For every one of the house of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth in Israel, which separateth himself from me, and setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to a prophet to enquire of him concerning me; I the LORD will answer him by myself:
8And I will set my face against that man, and will make him a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him off from the midst of my people; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
9And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
10And they shall bear the punishment of their iniquity: the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him;
I can't see how anyone but God is involved in this situation.
Next:
"Therefore 1 John 4:18 isn't in conflict since it's talking about a different type of fear."
Sad to say, that's beyond the point. The point was if the Bible (KJV) contained inconsistencies. Even though an earlier, more un-edited version, makes sense KJV is in fact a bible that contains inconsistencies. You agreed on your entire argument crumbling if I could find one inconsistency in the bible using KJV.
Next:
"In Genesis these "gifts" (The word gift isn't used, but that's stretching it) are used for a specific purpose, the atonement of sins.
So no, God would not accept Cain's gift since blood needed to be shed in order to roll back his sins.
[...]
So the "gifts" talked about aren't the same, so therefore these scriptures aren't in conflict."
Oh rly? One expects that such a specific purpose and modus operandi for an offering should be mentioned somewhere around the happening right?
Genesis 4:3-5
3And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
As you can see, sin is not even mentioned. They are portraited as offerings to the Lord, without the specific purpose of atonement. Actually, the concept of 'sin' isn't even introduced in the Bible at this point. The first mentioning of the word 'sin' in KJV is AFTER Cain has killed Abel. So it's quite hard to picture them atoning for something that isn't yet available for them, right? Of course, they could simply be bearing gifts to God, but then it would be in conflict yet again, right? How troublesome.
And lastly:
"Yes, actually. If it's God he can do whatever he wants. This isn't a conflict in scripture, it's a conflict of interests on your part. lol
Sorry couldn't help it."
You really are treading on dangerous grounds with that statement, you shouldn't so hap-hazardly portrait God as a spoiled brat that can put his pet on fire if he wants to just because it's God.
"But truly, those spoke about in Proverbs was meant for man. There are lots of commandments for man in the Bible that couldn't apply to God, and this is in every religion, it's not just unique to the Bible in this case."
Of course, but it is indeed an inconsistency to condemn something you are doing yourself, and that was the point.
So, where we at?
Ah yes, you didn't manage to subdue any of the inconsistencies satisfactory to anyone, rather, you introduced even more inconsistencies. So here, have a cookie since your whole argument crumbled.
Actually I'm not wrong.
No other faith in the world can prove themselves, and they know it.
If you think I'm wrong please name another faith and prove it's true.
I don't really believe in any of them, but I can respect them seeing as I used to follow a religion.
You on the other hand you follow a religion but don't respect in what others believe.
Where's the proof of your god's existence ?
Give me an hour to talk with anyone and they'll be on God's side.
Trust me, I do it all the time, and our church is growing rapidly.
Let me tell you, so far you've failed miserably with any of us here. With the kind of arguments you are using, I can easily see how you could convert a weak minded or ignorant person, the same way I was taught the christian ways and beliefs as soon as I could speak.
Of course he did, but that's not what you were misquoting, so please next time you feel like mentioning something from the Bible quote it too so people will believe your statement.
Otherwise you could just be making it up, which you did.
Right, could you point out what parts of the bible did I make up ?
And yes, everyone in those cites were required to burn their first born baby because it was their government sanctioned religion, but God stopped it.
Not only that but if the parents showed any kind of remorse they had to sacrifice their 2nd born and so on. This isn't from the Bible, this is from archeology of cities in that region.
So all surviving children in the city had babies to burn ?
"And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD." - Leviticus 18:21
A few more lines down it says this:
"(For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled" - Leviticus 18:27
If you read the whole section it names to the tee everything wrong the nations in that area did, and it lines up completely with archeology.
I'll say it again, their neighbors habits or existence don't prove anything about the actual existence of sodom and gommorrah. Whoever wrote those parts in the bible could very well have based the story on what was going on in those cities.
That's right! Good you're going in the right direction.
LOL So adam and eve were monkeys ?
You just said that evolution doesn't prove how everything was created, so you contradicted yourself.
Nope. Read my posts again, I never said evolution explained how everything was created. It just proves how we, humans, were created.
Nothing in this world can go from low complexity to high complexity on it's own.
It needs an input of energy and a mechanism for channeling that energy to be used constructively.
And god is that energy, right ? Like you kept saying, bring the proof into the table then. Or at least a good reason to lead me to believe in that.
It is a theory, although people like you wish it were true.
It's a "beautiful lie" to those who need an alternative to God.
There is scientific evidence, it's a fact, not a theory.
You're incredible, and not in a good sense. Not only you refuse to accept facts you also think people who refuse to believe in god do it because they seek a way to disprove him. I've met a few fanatics in my lifetime, but you're in such a state that makes any sort of discussion impossible.
Yes I'm sure. The Earth is obviously not flat, so the Bible wouldn't say that, and as suspected it doesn't.
It does, I forgot to put the quotes about it:
Isaiah 11:12 "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. "
Revelation 7:1 "And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth., holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. "
Job 38:13 "That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?"
Jeremiah 16:19 "O Lord, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.
Daniel 4:11 "The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ends of all the earth"
I don't remember what side you took, so what happened? Did someone in church hurt your feelings?
Nope, I started to question my beliefs. Also provocation will lead you nowhere, it will only make you even look worse.
I'll talk about the other points later, I'm in a hurry right now.
It should be obvious that the Bible is speaking metephorically, Saying the Ends of the earth to imply vast distance.
also, there is a verse in the bible that says the earth is a circle.
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in...
So, hundreds of years before man knew of earth's shape, the Bible said it was circular in shape.
A disc is circular too. But I suppose we can give the authors the benefit of a doubt and assume they didn't know the difference between a circle and a sphere.
Now, I'm going to bring up Matthew 4:8 again.
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; Matthew 4:8 (KJV)
It is impossible to see the entire surface of a sphere from a single point.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by Phredreeke A disc is circular too. But I suppose we can give the authors the benefit of a doubt and assume they didn't know the difference between a circle and a sphere.
Now, I'm going to bring up Matthew 4:8 again.
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; Matthew 4:8 (KJV)
It is impossible to see the entire surface of a sphere from a single point.
It's obvious that the bible is speaking metaphorically, and it was also an 'exceeding high mountain', who knows how far you can see from them?
Originally Posted by Phredreeke A disc is circular too. But I suppose we can give the authors the benefit of a doubt and assume they didn't know the difference between a circle and a sphere.
Now, I'm going to bring up Matthew 4:8 again.
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; Matthew 4:8 (KJV)
It is impossible to see the entire surface of a sphere from a single point.
It's obvious that the bible is speaking metaphorically, and it was also an 'exceeding high mountain', who knows how far you can see from them?
(note the sarcasm)
Maybe all of the kingdoms were quite close to the mountain. Or uh he sheweth'd him a map.
I think that this life is heaven, and that dreams are being alive.
Don't aim for perfection- you'll miss the deadline
'~Tom~ says (16:41):
well why does the custom controls for the keyboard palyer even affect the menu controls at all whats thep oint jsutm ake it so for the keyboard palyer on the menu screens everything is always up down left right enter regardless of the controls they set'
Resident-Pyromaniac: I think the "four corners of the earth" part is very clear, it does imply to say the least that the earth is flat.
Also sitting in the circle of the earth could mean many different things, not necessarily that the earth is circular. Plus, like I said, circular doesn't mean spherical, and circular=flat.
urbanmonk:
Did it take 15 million years to form? Or was it created instantly as a 15 million year old Earth?
(If the Earth is even that old in the first place, science can't prove it based on present evidence alone,
to make that assumption would require that the conditions of the current Earth is the same as it was 15 million years ago,
and you know as well as I do that it's impossible to know for sure)
Whaaaat ?
All I can tell you is that there is scientific evidence that the earth is 15 million years old, usually that means that earth didn't pop out from nowhere already being 15 millions years old. To prove how earth was formed, scientists had to discover what processes were part of the creation and how long each one lasted. As in, we do know for a fact that earth didn't take 7 days to be created and it surely wasn't how it's described in the bible.
Why I'm even responding to that is surprising to me even.
Prolly because it isn't true, and someone like you made it up.
Right, I forgot how every article in the internet is fabricated to disprove god.
We don't know that, it can't be proven. Nor will it be.
Not only that but the idea of a big bang has already been proven false,
the universe is accelerating not slowing down as the big bang theory suggests.
The idea of a big bang has been proven false?..
I don't in what world you live in, but in mine the big bang is still the most likely theory to explain how everything begun. Then again, it's a theory, not all of it has been proven and there's a chance some of it might be inaccurate but we do have a firm grasp on how things started and we do know for a fact that it wasn't god or any other supernatural force.
Regardless of whether or not the universe is accelerating now or slowing down doesn't disprove the big bang theory,at all.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look I don't in what world you live in, but in mine the big bang is still the most likely theory to explain how everything begun. Then again, it's a theory, not all of it has been proven and there's a chance some of it might be inaccurate but we do have a firm grasp on how things started and we do know for a fact that it wasn't god or any other supernatural force.
Regardless of whether or not the universe is accelerating now or slowing down doesn't disprove the big bang theory,at all.
Thank you for being honest.
So you admit that it's a theory, and that it's got some inaccuracies.
The big bang theory violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, and the law of conservation of angular momentum
1st law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, so to say that everything came from nothing and stating it as a fact of science contradicts the very science that it claims to be a part of.
If the big bang "spinning dot" exploded then The law of conservation of angular momentum would have everything in the universe spinning in the same direction, but this isn't the case.
Macro Evolution (species evolves into other species) violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
2nd law of thermodynamics states that everything goes from a state of high concentration to a state of low concentration (or from high order to disorder), so to claim that life evolved from non-life at the beginning would require that matter became more ordered on it's own by disorderly means (i.e random chance.) And to make the theory even more convenient (so it can't be proved/disproved) they claim all of the this happened over "billions of years."
So no matter how many gorillas start walking on the hind legs that doesn't mean a thing if the origin of the species can't be explained. Fossils don't prove a thing either, all that proves is that something died.
Religion- a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.
So I think that the evolutionary religion takes more faith than God.
If you want an alternative to God I suggest you look elsewhere. I mean really, Scientology is more believable.
I don't hold a Ph.D in physics, but I have always been under the impression that the circumstances revolving a situation as 'intense' as what would be the case during the moment prior to the big bang doesn't neccessarily abide to our normal laws of physics.
I've also always been under the impression that our theories on the laws of physics, including the laws of thermodynamics, were constructed after the big bang. So they shouldn't neccessarily have to be accurate at that moment.
I hope you people understand how I mean. My point is that calling on the laws of thermodynamics(which the person in question has already stated to not believe in an absolute way, since God would have power to override them) to disprove a situation as 'super-sized'(to speak hamburger) as the big bang is kind of misleading, since we haven't yet been able to analyse how the laws of thermodynamics act during a big bang.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I don't hold a Ph.D in physics, but I have always been under the impression that the circumstances revolving a situation as 'intense' as what would be the case during the moment prior to the big bang doesn't neccessarily abide to our normal laws of physics.
I've also always been under the impression that our theories on the laws of physics, including the laws of thermodynamics, were constructed after the big bang. So they shouldn't neccessarily have to be accurate at that moment.
Exactly, it can't be proven either way, so my point still stands.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk Religion- a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.
So I think that the evolutionary religion takes more faith than God.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I don't hold a Ph.D in physics, but I have always been under the impression that the circumstances revolving a situation as 'intense' as what would be the case during the moment prior to the big bang doesn't neccessarily abide to our normal laws of physics.
I've also always been under the impression that our theories on the laws of physics, including the laws of thermodynamics, were constructed after the big bang. So they shouldn't neccessarily have to be accurate at that moment.
Exactly, it can't be proven either way, so my point still stands.
Well, no. You claim that the big bang theory isn't valid due to the laws of thermodynamics, I say that the laws of thermodynamics doesn't impose on the big bang theory. Stop twisting my words as you always do.
//EE
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Well, no. You claim that the big bang theory isn't valid due to the laws of thermodynamics, I say that the laws of thermodynamics doesn't impose on the big bang theory. Stop twisting my words as you always do.
//EE
It isn't valid regardless.
I didn't twist anything, I just pointed out what was already there.
So please, if you really want to put your faith into this theory, prove that the law's of physics didn't exist before the big bang, or were different at some point in time.
You can't, no one can
,SO
You must admit that this takes a whole lot of faith, and is indeed a religion by definition.
So it's pretty clear. You either believe everything came from God, or you believe everything came from nothing.
I know that one day, scientists will look back at the theory of evolution and laugh.
"Mrs. Robinson, you mean they actually believed Man came from a rock?"
"Yes Jimmy, they did."
You know, similar to the way we laugh at the Flat Earth theory.
Everyday, scientists are understanding things that they just tossed to evolution. Athiests accuse Christians of calling it the God-Factor when Christian scientists don't understand things. They claim that Christians don't understand it so God did it.
Well I say this. Whenever you don't understand something... Evolution did it.
"What is the Coccyx for?"
"Oh I don't know... I'll just say it's left over from evolution. Yeah that'll be believable."
fortunately, the "Evolution-Factor" is being thrown out everyday as we gain actual understanding of things like Biological systems.
let's have an intelligent conversation here; I'll talk, and you'll listen.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE Originally Posted by Phredreeke Well, I guess Satan could have placed mirrors to allow Jesus to see the opposite side of Earth.
Love.
what's funny about this idiotic picture, is that it puts Jesus somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. lol.
let's have an intelligent conversation here; I'll talk, and you'll listen.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look
Whaaaat ?
All I can tell you is that there is scientific evidence that the earth is 15 million years old, usually that means that earth didn't pop out from nowhere already being 15 millions years old. To prove how earth was formed, scientists had to discover what processes were part of the creation and how long each one lasted. As in, we do know for a fact that earth didn't take 7 days to be created and it surely wasn't how it's described in the bible.
Why I'm even responding to that is surprising to me even.
Actually, there is more and more evidence that the Earth isn't so old.
Here are a few examples. You can research for more.
1.Sahara Desert is fairly small considering the rate of desertification
2.Oil Pressure is extremely high, why haven't the Oil Fields burst yet? People who study rocks say that they can't handle that kind of pressure for long
3.Population Growth. Why isn't the earth over populated?
4.Magnetic Field Decline. New Research is showing the the Poles aren't reversing. The belief was due to folds in the rock around the trench that was actually showing strong then weak then strong areas of magnetic field strength.
5.Erosion Rates. At the rate of Erosion, why aren't the continents flat?
6.Moon getting farther away. Scientists estimate that the Moon and The Earth would have made contact about 1.4 Billion years ago.
There are many others such as Comets, Star Death (No star formation has ever been witnessed), Human made objects found in coal deposits, etc.
A lot of things could be explained by a Global flood. For example: Coal and Oil deposits. Fossils. varying rock strata. Plate Tectonics. etc.
let's have an intelligent conversation here; I'll talk, and you'll listen.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE Originally Posted by Phredreeke Well, I guess Satan could have placed mirrors to allow Jesus to see the opposite side of Earth.
Love.
what's funny about this idiotic picture, is that it puts Jesus somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. lol.
Shouldn't be a problem considering he can walk on water.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
urbanmonk:
First off, there is a chance that there might be inaccuracies in the big bang theories since not all of it have been proven, but a good lot of it has and obviously possible inaccuracies don't disprove what's been proven before. And notice that I said "there might be inaccuracies", I didn't say there were. Until today no inaccuracies have been found and proven otherwise the theory would cease to exist and an alternative theory would have taken it's place.
There is a huge lot more to it than you or me know, so saying it conflicts with the thermodynamics because of this or that is wrong. You are making assumptions and diving in a subject you don't have a full grasp on.
All life begun on earth begun with micro-organisms and it took several billions for them to evolve into the creatures we know today.
The bible doesn't mention them (not surprising since they were first discovered in the XVII century, coincidence?), and portraits the beginning of humanity as two human beings created in one day.
I don't know why you are even attempting to explain something that is obviously false to anyone except yourself.
And to make the theory even more convenient (so it can't be proved/disproved) they claim all of the this happened over "billions of years."
So no matter how many gorillas start walking on the hind legs that doesn't mean a thing if the origin of the species can't be explained. Fossils don't prove a thing either, all that proves is that something died.
I mean, what the hell ?
You believe blindly in something that has no proof of whatsoever and simply deny the existing proof because it conflicts with what you believe in.
Saying things such as the ones you said above only reinforce the idea that you are in denial which makes it impossible to discuss anything with you. I don't know if you really believe in what you said, if you said it for the sake of the discussion or if you are simply ignorant but either way I strongly advise you to rethink your point and your overall way of thinking, for your own sake. You sound like someone who's been completely brainwashed at a early age, you can't even think logically when it comes to discuss religion. I mean this in a friendly way, I don't want to be offensive and I'm sure you'll realize that sooner or later.
edit:
"So it's pretty clear. You either believe everything came from God, or you believe everything came from nothing. "
Just saw this. Just to remind you there is no proof of god's existence, let alone that he created everything, while we do have some proof on how things begun. It's not enough yet to explain everything but enough to be sure that it wasn't some superior force who made everything in a few days.
But even if we didn't know anything, just because we can't explain something yet doesn't mean it's god's work or witchcraft. That's the logical thinking of someone who lived in the medieval era. Our knowledge is growing everyday and we can safely say we know a lot more now that we did two centuries ago.
It isn't valid regardless.
I didn't twist anything, I just pointed out what was already there.
Of course, you saying that it isn't valid obviously makes it so. Could you please tell me how it isn't valid regardless?
So please, if you really want to put your faith into this theory, prove that the law's of physics didn't exist before the big bang, or were different at some point in time.
I don't 'put my faith' into this theory. My worldview does not stand or fall with the big-bang theory. However, it serves a much more plausible view on the beginning of time than the book of Genesis(interpreted in your classic creationist way) does.
You can't, no one can
,SO
You must admit that this takes a whole lot of faith, and is indeed a religion by definition.
You're straying from the point, and according to the Oxford Dictionary, it is not by definition a religion.
So it's pretty clear. You either believe everything came from God, or you believe everything came from nothing.
Do you believe everything came from nothing EE?
Ha ha, it's not pretty clear! You narrow it down to a strict materialistic view or a classic Christian creationist view. I was under the impression that the world held a lot more views on the beginning of existance than just two. Every form of belief holds a view on it, but perhaps they don't count? Maybe they are just pretending to believe like you said about other religions faith in the divine?
However things are with that, you're just sounding silly.
So leave this issue for a moment and anwser my reply on the bible. I'm much more intrigued about how you are going to tackle that.
(to end my reply in your attitude-ish manner)
How are you going to tackle that, UrbanMonk?
Originally Posted by Johnny Look First off, there is a chance that there might be inaccuracies in the big bang theories since not all of it have been proven, but a good lot of it has and obviously possible inaccuracies don't disprove what's been proven before.
What exactly has been "proven" about the big bang theory?
I read this rest of your post Johny Look, but all you did was state assumptions based on your trust in the big bang theory, so until you can show why you believe that theory the rest of your post is useless.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I don't 'put my faith' into this theory. My worldview does not stand or fall with the big-bang theory.
Enlighten us, what exactly IS your "world view?"
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Ha ha, it's not pretty clear! You narrow it down to a strict materialistic view or a classic Christian creationist view. I was under the impression that the world held a lot more views on the beginning of existance[sic] than just two.
And those views usually involve some sort of deity, whether it be one or a thousand.
So my original point still stands.
If you don't believe in God you believe everything came from nothing (big bang)
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] So leave this issue for a moment and anwser my reply on the bible. I'm much more intrigued about how you are going to tackle that.
(to end my reply in your attitude-ish manner)
How are you going to tackle that, UrbanMonk?
I will...it's just so much to type, so I'll save that for later. Remind me.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
So leave this issue for a moment and anwser my reply on the bible. I'm much more intrigued about how you are going to tackle that.
//EE
I'm just curious. What was the reply that you are referring to?
let's have an intelligent conversation here; I'll talk, and you'll listen.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Enlighten us, what exactly IS your "world view?"
What difference does it make? Your arguments are equally weak independant of my or any other's faith. And by now you really should be able to tell a few things about my "world view" anyways.
Though I'll humour you and tell you I'm neither a strict materialist nor a Christian creationist.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Ha ha, it's not pretty clear! You narrow it down to a strict materialistic view or a classic Christian creationist view. I was under the impression that the world held a lot more views on the beginning of existance than just two.
And those views usually involve some sort of deity, whether it be one or a thousand.
So my original point still stands.
Now you're confusing me. Your original point tend to take on a different shape everytime you call it. A view 'involving some sort of deity, either one or a thousand' does not equate to believing in the Christian creationist view as seen in the Genesis.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] So leave this issue for a moment and anwser my reply on the bible. I'm much more intrigued about how you are going to tackle that.
(to end my reply in your attitude-ish manner)
How are you going to tackle that, UrbanMonk?
I will...it's just so much to type, so I'll save that for later. Remind me.
So you have to write a short novel to manage twisting and turning something completely logic and clear into an ambiguous puddle that supports your opinion?
Says something about the strength of your argument.
Also, it's not my burden to remind you. It should be of your interest to reply to it in a timely manner, otherwise one'll just assume you couldn't.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
So leave this issue for a moment and anwser my reply on the bible. I'm much more intrigued about how you are going to tackle that.
//EE
I'm just curious. What was the reply that you are referring to?
That's the downside of bursting into a discussion guns blazin'. You tend to miss out on crucial facts. Jump back to page 21-22 or something and read from there.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] So you have to write a short novel to manage twisting and turning something completely logic and clear into an ambiguous puddle that supports your opinion?
lol, I'll admit that was pretty funny, but no, my reply will be as much a novel as yours was.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] What difference does it make?
I'm honestly curious. What is your world view?
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Now you're confusing me....A view 'involving some sort of deity, either one or a thousand' does not equate to believing in the Christian creationist view as seen in the Genesis.
That's because we're 2 posts removed from my original statement:
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk You either believe everything came from God, or you believe everything came from nothing.
I'm not referring to the "Christian creationist view," I'm referring to the existence of God in general.
Alright, let's go back a few posts before the big bang discussion started. Back when you were trying to show contradic..er.."inconsistencies."
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I stated a definiton of what I was about to point out, inconsistencies. Passages do not need to be in direct conflict or self-contradictory to be inconsistent. Both conflicting imagery and contradictions are indeed inconsistencies, but an inconsistency is not neccessarily a conflict or contradiction.
I find it funny that you suddenly "clarify" your original post of "inconsistencies" after I tore your so-called inconsistencies to shreds. That's mighty inconsistent of you.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] So my main point still stands, can you give the King James version to someone completely oblivious to it's contents and tell them "everything in here is true, science backs this up, it doesn't contain any inconsistencies at all" as you so whole-heartedily have put it to us many times in this thread?
Your "main point" is rather silly since you're basing it on a lie. I never once said that I could "give the King James version to someone completely oblivious to it's contents and tell them..." blah blah blah. Nor do I assume that. Of course this person has to have some prior knowledge, much like they would need to have with anything else. Knowing how to read is a start.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] It is also contradictory to claim the King James version as 'un-edited'(as you did earlier with quite the zeal), when you yourself point out that you have to go back to the original hebrew and greek scriptures to gain the information that should have been obtainable in the first one, seeing as it is 'un-edited'.
I never once said that the King James version is unedited, but since you pointed that out I will. The King James version is indeed unedited since the original manuscripts that it is a translation of are.
You don't have to go back to the original Hebrew and Greek to gain the information, the information is there in English.
I used it to prove that there were no inconsistencies, but it's not required to understand what it means.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] If you read more of the surrounding passages it's quite clear that there is no spirit involved, but rather God directly.
God is directly involved, yes, he allows a spirit to deceive that prophet. It is accepted practice in Hebrew culture to attribute God to everything since he is the one who allows anything to take place. This view is also in the Bible itself if you'd bother to read the whole thing and not just try to disprove single sentences with "zeal."
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] As you can see, sin is not even mentioned. They are portraited as offerings to the Lord, without the specific purpose of atonement. Actually, the concept of 'sin' isn't even introduced in the Bible at this point. The first mentioning of the word 'sin' in KJV is AFTER Cain has killed Abel. So it's quite hard to picture them atoning for something that isn't yet available for them, right? Of course, they could simply be bearing gifts to God, but then it would be in conflict yet again, right? How troublesome.
The concept of sin is indeed introduced, and it starts in Genesis 3:6, although it had existed since man was created even though it hadn't ever been committed.
After they committed their first sin God killed animals and clothes them, and that's where the concept of the shedding of blood to cover sins starts. (Gen 3:21)
Of course it's all explained later on in the book of Genesis and the other books of the Bible, but that hardly means that it wasn't in effect.
If you want to prove that you'll have to show a scripture that states that rather than just assuming that based on the "first mentioning" of particular words.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] You really are treading on dangerous grounds with that statement, you shouldn't so hap-hazardly portrait God as a spoiled brat that can put his pet on fire if he wants to just because it's God.
I hardly implied such a thing, much less even came close. It might have such a meaning if you're looking at it from your "world view," but for everyone else it simply meant that God is confined to our human restraints.
To use your own words:
So, where were we at?
Ah yes, you didn't manage to subdue any of the consistencies satisfactory to anyone, rather, you introduced even more consistencies. So here, have a cookie since your whole argument crumbled.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] So my main point still stands, can you give the King James version to someone completely oblivious to it's contents and tell them "everything in here is true, science backs this up, it doesn't contain any inconsistencies at all" as you so whole-heartedily have put it to us many times in this thread?
Just one of many examples that sound like he's attacking a Straw Man.
let's have an intelligent conversation here; I'll talk, and you'll listen.
urbanmonk: I won't go into every piece of evidence we have on the big bang, but with a quick google search you can find about it all in every little detail.
Of course most of the details on the evidence are almost useless to you or me since we don't really have a firm grasp on astrophysics, but knowing it exists should be enough, I think.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look urbanmonk: I won't go into every piece of evidence we have on the big bang, but with a quick google search you can find about it all in every little detail.
Of course most of the details on the evidence are almost useless to you or me since we don't really have a firm grasp on astrophysics, but knowing it exists should be enough, I think.
Or you saying that we should just... accept things that we don't understand. Whether we know them to be true or not, we should believe them because somebody wrote a paper about it?
let's have an intelligent conversation here; I'll talk, and you'll listen.
Drewish Philosopher: I'm sorry, I didn't see your post until now.
Earth's age is not exact, it could be slightly older or younger but that's irrelevant. Most of the points you brought have a rather simple explanation each and assume earth never changed a single bit in comparison to what it is today, they are no evidence that earth is significantly younger than the estimated else the accepted norm wouldn't be around 4 billions.
I could go into more detail on each but it's pointless since it's not really relevant to this discussion as urbanmonk's initial point was on how long it took for earth to be created but things kind of derailed from there.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Drewish Philosopher: I'm sorry, I didn't see your post until now.
Earth's age is not exact, it could be slightly older or younger but that's irrelevant. Most of the points you brought have a rather simple explanation each and assume earth never changed a single bit in comparison to what it is today, they are no evidence that earth is significantly younger than the estimated else the accepted norm wouldn't be around 4 billions.
I could go into more detail on each but it's pointless since it's not really relevant to this discussion as urbanmonk's initial point was on how long it took for earth to be created but things kind of derailed from there.
I see. I apologize. Well, not to stay off-topic much longer, If the Earth changed in any significant way (I know there are theory about Earth as a molten rock at one period and so forth, what I consider major changes in the theoretical realms) it had to be roughly 6-10 thousand years ago. And that's what those limiting factors say to me.
let's have an intelligent conversation here; I'll talk, and you'll listen.
Very interesting, I love this kinda stuff actually.
Anyway here's an interesting quote:
"From quantum field theory, we know that something does indeed come from nothing: to wit, "vacuum fluctuations". In the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy."
First I would like to know if they are violating the first law of thermodynamics.
2nd, this part is interesting:
"leaving no net creation of mass or energy."
I know about photon coming "out of nowhere" since I study quantum physics for fun, but as they said, there is no creation of mass or energy, so where does the mass and energy come from?
It doesn't explain, since there is no explanation besides saying that it comes from nothing, or that it comes from God.
Then it goes on to say this:
"the BBT is not about the origin of the universe"
and this:
"You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began.""
I guess that about wraps it up. It can't explain the origin of the universe.
All it can do is examine whats already here, and for that I'll have to agree with them.
Yes the universe seems to be expanding, and yes it seems to be evolving (changing).
So that would suggest some sort of starting point, all of which I can agree with.
This article is relatively old though (2006), and it doesn't take into account the new accelerating universe theory.
It also doesn't disprove God which is what I think you were trying to do.
Drewish Philosopher:
Do you need to know how a toaster works to make a toast ?
You don't, you just need to know it works.
What's in those articles can be found pretty much everywhere, and you could ask any scholar or more knowledgeable person and I'm almost certain they will tell you the same.
urbanmonk:
Just to clarify, I'm not trying to disprove god. Even if I wanted to it's impossible, the same way it's impossible to prove he exists.
You can't prove or disprove something that never existed in the first place, and in my mind that applies to god or anything that is the product of someone's imagination. Of course you'll disagree with me and that's normal since you believe in god.
My point is, you can't base your faith on what's in the bible. There are some obvious discrepancies between the truth and what's written in there so no christian should see it as the book of all facts. Also I think it's bad when people try to put god in almost everything that is in some way unknown to us and use it as some sort of excuse for themselves as some sort of way to "cover the holes" so to say of their beliefs. Not to prove god's existence to others, but to prove god's existence to themselves. I'm saying this because when I believed I did it more times that I'd like to admit.
The idea of a superior entity out there watching for us is a good thing, it's a comfort feeling you are not alone and that there is life after death and I believe that's what makes most people believe in a god, be it god, allah, ganesha, zeus or anubis. That's the basis of every religion and that's why they are so different but at the same time so similar.
Also religion is a subject I love to dig into and when done properly can make for a really nice and interesting discussion. I think respect is the key in every discussion but in religion it's importance is doubled. I think to claim you really believe in something you have to go through other people's point of views and beliefs and in my opinion it's a really interesting experience. And that's coming from someone who doesn't follow any faith.
I find it funny that you suddenly "clarify" your original post of "inconsistencies" after I tore your so-called inconsistencies to shreds. That's mighty inconsistent of you.
You're equally funny as are you bright.
You seemed to be in need of clarification since you obviously didn't know what the word meant. I based that on the fact that I had already stated a definition of the word inconsistency, and as I said, the latter was a clarification since you didn't understand the original definition.
Your "main point" is rather silly since you're basing it on a lie. I never once said that I could "give the King James version to someone completely oblivious to it's contents and tell them..." blah blah blah. Nor do I assume that. Of course this person has to have some prior knowledge, much like they would need to have with anything else. Knowing how to read is a start.
If one would look at my "main point" it never stated that "give the King James version to someone completely oblivious to it's contents and tell them[...]" was the direct quote of something you had said. The quote was the next part, I thought it was clear since it was the only thing inside the "":
"everything in here is true, science backs this up, it doesn't contain any inconsistencies at all"
Though I probably should have put [...] instead of commas since you'll just say: "point me to the sentence were I said exactly that, preferably with some scripture sauce"
The first part of it is a sum of collected statements from you, like these:
"Well it's easy, if I say something that you're not sure about go check it out for yourself. It's pretty cut and dry. It's not like you have to mumble some magical phrase to understand the Bible, the King James version is in plain English."
Please point out these inconsistencies, and if you do please quote the King James Bible as your reference.
Basicly prove what you're saying is true and it might hold some weight.
Every sane person knows that the Bible (read in it's context) is true, and history and science proves it.
You don't have to go back to the original Hebrew and Greek to gain the information, the information is there in English.
I used it to prove that there were no inconsistencies, but it's not required to understand what it means.
"You are right, in these cases we can't just read it in English and accept it's direct meaning at face value. We've got to check the original Hebrew and Greek words and make sure there aren't multiple versions of each word that was translated into English."
I don't know if I understand your logic here. Do you mean that regardless of what information we get out of the bible in english we should just shut up and say 'it is not needed of us to understand this, I'm sure the meaning is clear in the hebrew/greek scriptures'
Then KJV must be the worst bible ever, since we can't actually rely on it to tell us anything. We should then preferably move over to hebrew/greek bible quotes, since that's the only way we can discuss anything.
God is directly involved, yes, he allows a spirit to deceive that prophet. It is accepted practice in Hebrew culture to attribute God to everything since he is the one who allows anything to take place. This view is also in the Bible itself if you'd bother to read the whole thing and not just try to disprove single sentences with "zeal."
Here's two bible commentaries for you:
Do you even know what a commentary is? It's a personal interpretation, usually shared to clarify certain pieces of text. You've always stated that the bible doesn't need interpretation, so why should I bother with this?
I had really intended to reply on your commentaries, but I suspect it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever anyways, so I saved myself some time!
Of course it's all explained later on in the book of Genesis and the other books of the Bible, but that hardly means that it wasn't in effect.
If you want to prove that you'll have to show a scripture that states that rather than just assuming that based on the "first mentioning" of particular words.
You are either as brainwashed as you appear to be, or you're trying to out-manouver the point I made. Sin did not exist in the mind of man before it was introduced to man, so how are man to know about sin and it's proper rituals before that, and why should man be punished for a crime that the whole of mankind(4 at the moment) did not even know about? That's the point. I don't care how many times you try and elude the answer by vaguely pointing to somewhere else in the bible, your logic makes out God as the biggest a** ever.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] You really are treading on dangerous grounds with that statement, you shouldn't so hap-hazardly portrait God as a spoiled brat that can put his pet on fire if he wants to just because it's God.
I hardly implied such a thing, much less even came close. It might have such a meaning if you're looking at it from your "world view," but for everyone else it simply meant that God is confined to our human restraints.
I presume you meant 'is not confined'(though I'll not smear your reply with [sic], it's quite childish since this is a forum, not a report).
Me: "God hates "he that soweth discord among brethren", but as long as it's God it's ok then..?"
You: "Yes, actually. If it's God he can do whatever he wants."
So if it was God who(just an example since it was so highly debated) roasted and murdered the children of Sodom it would have been ok and 'plain super'? Cause that's what your highly dubious presentation of God implies.
Anyway, this is sooooo tiresome, but I'll hand you another one of those inconsistencies, Cain wanders to the land of Nod, east of Eden. Later;
"17And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."
His wife must have been some sort of ape since there were no other humans on earth at the time.
I can continue to state these all day long, to claim that the bible does not contain any inconsistencies at all is just so very ignorant and brain washed.
@Drewish Philosopher: Have you actually read this thread or are you just jumping in cause it's fun to cause a ruckus? I had very good grounds for my premise and do not understand why you should, put plain, butt in on it and try to debunk me? Could you post some sort of explanation to why you feel my point is so thin? Otherwise I'd rather you stayed out of it.
//EE
EDIT: I re-read some of the 'dialog' that has passed and realized that it is a clear waste of time for my part. I don't in any part of my body think that you, UrbanMonk will listen to reason or even be able to believe something you haven't been taught by your parents/minister/parish, so it's fruitless for me to try and change your mind when it's already set in stone. You haven't answered any question to a satisfactory degree, like the mentioned inconsistencies for one, it'd be sad if you thought you had, so I'm just telling you.
Do you know why atheists and agnostics etc. bash and mock the bible so hard? It's simply because there are actually people, like yourself, that can without making a face, claim and cling to that the bible in it's entirety is the flawless work of God and should be read as such, literally, and I don't need to explain to you once more why this is not the case. In my opinion you foul the Bible, you see it in this strange barbaristic fashion and treat it as such. I'm ever so happy that I don't feel the need to read it in the same way.
Anywho, one part of me really wants to point out the serious flaws in your reasoning, the other part realizes that the only result is precious, wasted time. So I'll once again try and leave this thread. Hopefully I'll make a better job at it this time.
On a last note, I seriously hope, for your sake, that you one day will see things unmuddled, God knows you need it.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] [...] was the direct quote of something you had said. [...]
I never once said anything of the sort.
The Bible is a collection of manuscripts that make it up.
And the King James Translation of the Bible is the closest most accurate translation to English that exists.
It's pretty clear that you make up stuff to try and support your side.
Whatever that side might be, you have yet to tell us exactly what you believe.
You seem a bit scared to reveal it.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I don't know if I understand your logic here. Do you mean that regardless of what information we get out of the bible in english we should just shut up and say 'it is not needed of us to understand this, I'm sure the meaning is clear in the hebrew/greek scriptures'
Nope.
The King James translation is perfectly understandable.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Then KJV must be the worst bible ever, since we can't actually rely on it to tell us anything. We should then preferably move over to hebrew/greek bible quotes, since that's the only way we can discuss anything.
Nope.
It's the best translation of the Bible.
There are no contradictions or inconsistencies in the original, nor are there any in the translation of the original.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Do you even know what a commentary is? It's a personal interpretation, usually shared to clarify certain pieces of text. You've always stated that the bible doesn't need interpretation, so why should I bother with this?
The commentaries that I gave you did not contain personal interpretations, rather it gave cross references to other scriptures in the Bible and references to Hebrew culture.
The Jewish people have taught this for years, and it's right there in black and white.
It's less of an interpretation and more like direct truth.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I had really intended to reply on your commentaries, but I suspect it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever anyways, so I saved myself some time!
It would be a waste of everyone's time. They speak for themselves.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] You are either as brainwashed as you appear to be
An insult eh?
I understand that your pride is on the line here, but if you're wrong just admit it. I'm sure people here would forgive you.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] , or you're trying to out-manouver the point I made. Sin did not exist in the mind of man before it was introduced to man,
Right! So can you prove that it wasn't introduced before they gave their sin offerings to God?
Showing when the word 'sin' first appeared in the Bible doesn't prove that it didn't exist before then.
It did exist, God didn't just make it up when he felt like it. It was designed from the start, and so was blood sacrifice for sins.
Of course as I've stated before, this is no longer necessary since Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Anyway, this is sooooo tiresome, but I'll hand you another one of those inconsistencies, Cain wanders to the land of Nod, east of Eden. Later;
"17And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."
His wife must have been some sort of ape since there were no other humans on earth at the time.
I don't even know how I should reply to this, I can't tell if you are serious or not.
Where does the Bible say there were no other humans on the earth?
Since it says that he had a wife then he did, so what's your point?
So yet again you have nothing. All of your so-called inconsistencies are the same. They aren't inconsistencies at all.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] [...]Hopefully I'll make a better job at it this time.
On a last note, I seriously hope, for your sake, that you one day will see things unmuddled, God knows you need it.
Ha ha!
I can't tell if you are being honest or just giving up.
But either way thanks for your sentiments.
I know what I believe, and you've figured that out finally.
So tell us, what do you believe? Your "world view" if you will.
I really should realize that there is a reason so many fail when quitting something cold-turkey
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] [...] was the direct quote of something you had said. [...]
I never once said anything of the sort.
You misunderstood my post(hopefully), so I'll post it again:
If one would look at my "main point" it never stated that "give the King James version to someone completely oblivious to it's contents and tell them[...]" was the direct quote of something you had said. The quote was the next part, I thought it was clear since it was the only thing inside the "": "everything in here is true, science backs this up, it doesn't contain any inconsistencies at all"
Though I probably should have put [...] instead of commas since you'll just say: "point me to the sentence were I said exactly that, preferably with some scripture sauce"
The first part of it is a sum of collected statements from you, like these:
"Well it's easy, if I say something that you're not sure about go check it out for yourself. It's pretty cut and dry. It's not like you have to mumble some magical phrase to understand the Bible, the King James version is in plain English."
Please point out these inconsistencies, and if you do please quote the King James Bible as your reference.
Basicly prove what you're saying is true and it might hold some weight.
Every sane person knows that the Bible (read in it's context) is true, and history and science proves it.
Do you understand my post now?
The Bible is a collection of manuscripts that make it up.
And the King James Translation of the Bible is the closest most accurate translation to English that exists.
It's pretty clear that you make up stuff to try and support your side.
Whatever that side might be, you have yet to tell us exactly what you believe.
You seem a bit scared to reveal it.
It's wonderful how you try and turn my pointing out your statements into me making stuff up and being scared to share my worldview.
I understand that your pride is on the line here, but if you're wrong just admit it. I'm sure people here would forgive you.
My pride isn't on the line here!
That has to be one of the most lame attempts at provocation yet!
Right! So can you prove that it wasn't introduced before they gave their sin offerings to God?
Showing when the word 'sin' first appeared in the Bible doesn't prove that it didn't exist before then.
It did exist, God didn't just make it up when he felt like it. It was designed from the start, and so was blood sacrifice for sins.
Of course as I've stated before, this is no longer necessary since Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice.
If you would stop trying to disarm the argument by pointing at Jesus and instead actually look at it.
In your world, The book of Genesis is a historically accurate documentation of the creation of the world, right?
Well, if I was to document an era of such importance I'd make sure not to include loose ends. Especially if it was supposed to be a document that would remain unchanged for the entirety of mankind, since obviously someone is going to get hung up on the loose end.
The concept of sin is quite the important one, so I'd make sure that it was appropriately mentioned were it influenced major happenings, so people wouldn't start to question the underlying decisions in those happenings.
The bible's failure to mention that Adam, Eve, Abel & Cain was already introduced to and familiar with the concept of sin and sin offerings prior to God's approving of Abel's gift but not Cain's indicates one out of five(off the top of my head) things:
1.) That God does indeed deal in respect and judges "gifts" differently(meaning that the Bible is contradictory).
2.) That the concept of sin(regardless of if it was in effect or not) was not familiar to Adam, Eve, Abel & Cain at the time(meaning that God demanded something impossible of the two sons, making God unjust, which couldn't be the case if it was to be God).
3.) That the idea of Abel and Cains "gifts" being sin offerings is just that, an idea made up by theologians to excuse an obvious contradiction in the bible(meaning that the bible once again is proven to contain inconsistencies).
4.) That Moses was tired and wrote something just to get on with it(meaning that the bible shouldn't be read in a literal fashion).
5.) That Moses didn't write it at all. (I believe I don't have to clarify what that would mean)
Where does the Bible say there were no other humans on the earth?
Where does the bible say it does?
Since it says that he had a wife then he did, so what's your point?
May I ask if you are serious?
Adam and Eve were, according to the bible, the first humans on earth. How can Cain, being the son of the first two humans on earth, wander off and find himself a wife?
If you do not call that contradictory then you are void of rational thought.
However, if one simply acknowledges the bible not suited for literal interpretation, then there is no problem.
All of your so-called inconsistencies are the same.
You flatter me, they aren't my inconsistencies. They are inconsistencies of the world's most prominent thinkers. However, they are so obvious, and trying to be blind of them is so delusional, that they needn't even be mentioned in serious debate.
I can't tell if you are being honest or just giving up.
But either way thanks for your sentiments.
I know what I believe, and you've figured that out finally.
So tell us, what do you believe? Your "world view" if you will.
I give up on seeing you as material for rational discussion. There is no sense for me wasting time trying to show you things since you block out any attempt at conveying information. That only makes you look sad, not me.
I start talking to people with the hopes of them being sincere, rational and interested in understanding and in search of truth. You are very obviously not a person of that category, so I give up on you, so to speak.
The only downside to my part in this conversation is that yet another seemingly intelligent person was shown to be just a well trained monkey, and I've wasted much of my precious time thinking I could talk to that monkey.
Lastly, my worldview is irrelevant to our little communication, you just need something to try and attack and provoke with, you are not the least interested in what I would have to say. I believe in God, I believe that the bible isn't to be interpreted literally, I'm more sane than to claim every other form of faith false, what more could you possibly need to know?
And by the by, I was serious. I really hope you some day 'snap out of it' and realize what you're saying.
May I ask if you are serious?
Adam and Eve were, according to the bible, the first humans on earth. How can Cain, being the son of the first two humans on earth, wander off and find himself a wife?
If you do not call that contradictory then you are void of rational thought.
Maybe she was the offspring of the nameless human couple mentioned in Genesis 1:27?
Edited by Phredreeke
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Seriously though, urbanmonk stop pretending this is a political debate and that there is someone backing you up. I can say for sure there isn't. If I'm wrong, may that person or persons step forward.
Don't you think that it's a coincidence that every person who discussed with you in this thread said the same things ?
In addition to your irrational way of thinking, you keep provoking, saying people are making stuff up when everyone can see they don't, boldly claiming what's in the bible has to be true and should be seen as a fact etc...
That's not the right way to do it. Like I said respect is the key and believe me it takes a lot of patience not to lose it and keep a rational discussion, if we could call it that.
I'm back. Sorry I took so long, I had exam's this week. Now for summer classes. ugh.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] You misunderstood my post(hopefully), so I'll post it again: [...]
Ok, well anyway it doesn't matter since I never once made the claim you said I made.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] If you would stop trying to disarm the argument by pointing at Jesus and instead actually look at it.
In your world, The book of Genesis is a historically accurate documentation of the creation of the world, right?
Well, if I was to document an era of such importance I'd make sure not to include loose ends. Especially if it was supposed to be a document that would remain unchanged for the entirety of mankind, since obviously someone is going to get hung up on the loose end.
Ha ha! There isn't any loose ends! That's what's so funny!
No one else in the world would even care whether or not the word 'sin' was mentioned because it's easy to see if you keep reading.
No one has ever gotten "hung up" on a "loose end," and neither have you.
I'm sure you knew the answer to your question when you asked it.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] The concept of sin is quite the important one, so I'd make sure that it was appropriately mentioned were it influenced major happenings, so people wouldn't start to question the underlying decisions in those happenings.
Yes it sure is. If someone starts asking that question because they really want to know, then all they have to do is read a little bit to find the answer.
The same place the question came from will be the same place the answer comes too.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] The bible's failure to mention that Adam, Eve, Abel & Cain was already introduced to and familiar with the concept of sin and sin offerings prior to God's approving of Abel's gift but not Cain's indicates one out of five(off the top of my head) things:
Off the top of your head indeed!
None of those suggested idea's hold any water either.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] 1.) That God does indeed deal in respect and judges "gifts" differently(meaning that the Bible is contradictory).
Well we know this is false since the Bible already says that he doesn't, and since it isn't contradictory that's the conclusion.
If your interpretation contradicts another part of the Bible then it's false. Come on now EE you know this stuff!
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] 2.) That the concept of sin(regardless of if it was in effect or not) was not familiar to Adam, Eve, Abel & Cain at the time(meaning that God demanded something impossible of the two sons, making God unjust, which couldn't be the case if it was to be God).
On what are you basing this assumption? Can you give me some scripture sauce for this?
One could just as easily assume that it was familiar, and knowing God, it prolly was.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] 3.) That the idea of Abel and Cains "gifts" being sin offerings is just that, an idea made up by theologians to excuse an obvious contradiction in the bible(meaning that the bible once again is proven to contain inconsistencies).
You'll notice all throughout the Bible God deals with man the same way for a period of time until he decides to change things.
(Such as dying on the cross changed the way being forgiven was done)
So no, nothing was made up, and in fact it is completely Biblical.
There is more to this answer actually, but I'll leave it at that for now.
Your last two points are the same.
Since God is real and he want's his word to be known, then he wouldn't allow anything to happen to it.
Which is why the Bible is the most translated Book in the world.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Where does the Bible say there were no other humans on the earth?
Where does the bible say it does?
Ha ha! Ok I'll play this game!
The Bible says it in the very same scripture you were trying to use to claim that there wasn't.
See my below quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Since it says that he had a wife then he did, so what's your point?
May I ask if you are serious?
Adam and Eve were, according to the bible, the first humans on earth. How can Cain, being the son of the first two humans on earth, wander off and find himself a wife?
If you do not call that contradictory then you are void of rational thought.
The first part of your statement is true.
Adam and Eve were the first humans on Earth.
And yes Cain was one of the son's of the first two humans on Earth.
But please, point me to where it states that Adam and Eve had no other children, or that Cain wasn't married before he was exiled by God.
Both are perfectly reasonable possibilities.
Not only that, but you'll also notice that the Bible only mentions 3 of Adam and Eve's children. (Abel, Cain, and Seth)
Does that mean they only had 3? By your logic it does.
They had other children, perhaps even a daughter or two before or in-between the births of Abel and Cain.
And both Abel and Cain had wives. Cain could have even been married before he was cast out.
So no, not even close to being a contradiction, conflict, or "inconsistency."
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] world's most prominent thinkers.
They need to think harder haha!
I find that hard to believe though, who are these "thinkers" exactly, besides someone like you writing on Wikipedia in hopes that someone will believe it.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] However, they are so obvious, and trying to be blind of them is so delusional, that they needn't even be mentioned in serious debate.
They are obvious, which is why I wonder why you mentioned them since they're obviously not contradictions.
Please find me a real one. Just one, that's all I ask.
The more you try to point out, the more you'll prove the Bible's truth.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I give up on seeing you as material for rational discussion. There is no sense for me wasting time trying to show you things since you block out any attempt at conveying information. That only makes you look sad, not me.
Sounds like you're giving up to me.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] [...] yet another seemingly intelligent person was shown to be just a well trained monkey [...]
And let me guess, if I agreed with you that makes me smart right?
You're logic is so funny, but no I'm not as dumb as other "Christians" you've talked to. Sorry to disappoint you.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I believe in God, I believe that the bible isn't to be interpreted literally, I'm more sane than to claim every other form of faith false, what more could you possibly need to know?
People don't want your in-congruent philosophies, people want something that's real.
Everyone who's commented on this thread already knows what they believe, and what you're saying isn't anything anyone hasn't already heard.
But for the rest I'll just keep replying to their PM's and emails
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] And by the by, I was serious. I really hope you some day 'snap out of it' and realize what you're saying.
The only thing I'll be "snapping out of" is this present world, and believe me I can't wait for the day!
Originally Posted by Johnny Look
Whaaaat ?
All I can tell you is that there is scientific evidence that the earth is 15 million years old, usually that means that earth didn't pop out from nowhere already being 15 millions years old. To prove how earth was formed, scientists had to discover what processes were part of the creation and how long each one lasted. As in, we do know for a fact that earth didn't take 7 days to be created and it surely wasn't how it's described in the bible.
Why I'm even responding to that is surprising to me even.
Actually, there is more and more evidence that the Earth isn't so old.
Here are a few examples. You can research for more.
1.Sahara Desert is fairly small considering the rate of desertification
2.Oil Pressure is extremely high, why haven't the Oil Fields burst yet? People who study rocks say that they can't handle that kind of pressure for long
3.Population Growth. Why isn't the earth over populated?
4.Magnetic Field Decline. New Research is showing the the Poles aren't reversing. The belief was due to folds in the rock around the trench that was actually showing strong then weak then strong areas of magnetic field strength.
5.Erosion Rates. At the rate of Erosion, why aren't the continents flat?
6.Moon getting farther away. Scientists estimate that the Moon and The Earth would have made contact about 1.4 Billion years ago.
There are many others such as Comets, Star Death (No star formation has ever been witnessed), Human made objects found in coal deposits, etc.
A lot of things could be explained by a Global flood. For example: Coal and Oil deposits. Fossils. varying rock strata. Plate Tectonics. etc.
Personally, I'm gonna agree that the Earth is in fact old. But that in no way disproves God. I had an earlier post where I talked about how the bible is written in a coded language during many parts, mainly just parts such as earlier parts of genesiss and almost all of Revelation. I don't beleive the earth was literaly created in 7 days, BUT I beleive the earth was created in seven days. May sound a little confusing, well it is a little bit... I pose the simple question, what is a day to God? Peter once said that 'A day is a thousand years to God.' Once again, I do not beleive that a day is literally a thousand years when the bible says a day, this is merely Peter's way of saying that a day means nothing to God. Also, I haven't read up on the big bang theory, but if say the sun did not exist at that time, how could we judge a day anyway?
As a stated earleir, I still beleive in Evolution and such, all while still beleiving in the Bible. I'm not quite opinated on the origin of the world and universe, but I'm open for the big bang theory. I am a firm beleiver that it all goes back to being set in motion by God though.
Why is it that it's ok to assume things regarding Cain when it's not ok to assume things in other parts? Your whallowing is just as inconsistent as the bible, in one sentence you go bananas and cling to your "the bible doesn't say that anywhere so it isn't true", in the next you start rambling about how "it's plausible that Cain laid with his sister, the bible doesn't have to outright say it". It's just the most stupid thing I've ever heard from a person.
And believe me, you are even more arrogant and ignorant than the usual fanatic christian, they often actually realize that you can't just play blind when someone is showing facts in your face. But you just keep on going like the energy bunny from hell.
Also, giving up on something indicates that it is doable in the first place, seeing as you just ignore proof, lie and try to provoke it isn't worth spending one second on talking to the likes of you. You can go have a quickie with your minister so he can help you continue obscure your mind from what's right in front of you instead, I won't waste my time anyway.
You'd have been a hoot in the dark ages, but in the present you really should seek help, OUTSIDE YOUR CHURCH that is.
EDIT: Seriously, you can't be serious. Can you really stand by all the crap you've been spewing troughout this thread? DO YOU really think like that? It's amazing, it sure is. You have like -650hp and you still stand there saying '1337 Mwin.kewl!'
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Why is it that it's ok to assume things regarding Cain when it's not ok to assume things in other parts?
What did I assume? The Bible said he had a wife, so he did. No assumptions there baby!
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] in one sentence you go bananas and cling to your "the bible doesn't say that anywhere so it isn't true"[...]
And as I said above, the Bible did say he had a wife, so I didn't assume a thing. I just read it and took it's word for it.
You're the only one making any assumptions, like saying he couldn't have had a wife, and now you're mad because I showed you that he could.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] But you just keep on going like the energy bunny from hell.
YESS! Epic quote! lol "energy bunny from hell" I love it!
But I think you meant "energizer bunny from hell"
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Also, giving up on something indicates that it is doable in the first place, seeing as you just ignore proof, lie and try to provoke it isn't worth spending one second on talking to the likes of you. You can go have a quickie with your minister so he can help you continue obscure your mind from what's right in front of you instead, I won't waste my time anyway.
Yes, certainly lying and provoking will get you no where will it?
But I understand you actually believe what you are saying sometimes, so I'll let you off there.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] You'd have been a hoot in the dark ages, but in the present you really should seek help, OUTSIDE YOUR CHURCH that is.
Oh please, you're trying to hard.
You're not right, and since you can't prove it you try to insult me instead.
If you had a strong argument it would speak for itself, and shouldn't require insults or emotion to speak for it.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] EDIT: Seriously, you can't be serious. Can you really stand by all the crap you've been spewing troughout this thread? DO YOU really think like that? It's amazing, it sure is. You have like -650hp and you still stand there saying '1337 Mwin.kewl!'
I love how you constantly have to reinforce that you feel that you're right,
who are you trying to convince? Me or yourself?
Or... Abel, Cain and Seth married the daughters of the unnamed couple in chapter 1 on Genesis. It's a lot less creepy than the idea of them marrying their SISTERS.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
What did I assume? The Bible said he had a wife, so he did. No assumptions there baby!
And as I said above, the Bible did say he had a wife, so I didn't assume a thing. I just read it and took it's word for it.
You're the only one making any assumptions, like saying he couldn't have had a wife, and now you're mad because I showed you that he could.
I don't know why I even bother.
Don't flatter yourself, the only thing you did was tell us that you trust the bible's word to the degree of whipping up some holy incest story with people who aren't even there to explain how Cain could have a wife.
You didn't by your own logic show anything. You assumed that there were more people there even though the bible doesn't in any sense indicate that to begin with. Do you see(who am I kidding) how you twist the rules every time you answer? Of course you don't, but just so you know, everybody else does.
You're not right, and since you can't prove it you try to insult me instead.
But you see, I already have proven it, multiple times.
If you had a strong argument it would speak for itself, and shouldn't require insults or emotion to speak for it.
Again, it does, you are the sole person not understanding that.
I love how you constantly have to reinforce that you feel that you're right,
who are you trying to convince? Me or yourself?
I'm not reinforcing that, I'm over and over questioning if you actually believe what you say or if you're just the worst troll ever.
I seriously believe you are mentally deficient, and I'm not trying to insult you with that, but it's the only explanation to the bucketloads of crap coming out your mouth.
Originally Posted by Phredreeke Or... Abel, Cain and Seth married the daughters of the unnamed couple in chapter 1 on Genesis. It's a lot less creepy than the idea of them marrying their SISTERS.
THERE IS NO UNNAMED COUPLE IN THERE THEY ARE NOT REAL SHUT UP HEATHEN LACKEY OF SATAN YOU
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Don't flatter yourself, the only thing you did was tell us that you trust the bible's word to the degree of whipping up some holy incest story with people who aren't even there to explain how Cain could have a wife.
I didn't "whip up" anything, it's the only logical possibility.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] You didn't by your own logic show anything. You assumed that there were more people there even though the bible doesn't in any sense indicate that to begin with. Do you see(who am I kidding) how you twist the rules every time you answer? Of course you don't, but just so you know, everybody else does.
The Bible does indicate this.
You'll see throughout the Bible that it only points out the most important births, and sometimes these births aren't even in chronological order. Why? Because it doesn't matter, all that matters is that the event happened.
You have the wrong impression about the Bible, you assume that it must abide by your rules (no matter how silly they may be)
All your so-called inconsistencies are completely based on your own bias opinion of how the Bible should be, not how it actually is.
Originally Posted by Phredreeke Or... Abel, Cain and Seth married the daughters of the unnamed couple in chapter 1 on Genesis. It's a lot less creepy than the idea of them marrying their SISTERS.
Please Phredreeke, point out what you are talking about.
Quote and explain rather than making unproven statements.
Eternalman and everyone else you all surely noticed by now it's pointless to discuss with urbanmonk, so I'd recommend you to just let this discussion die.
It's like trying to discuss with a statue, it will only lead to hair loss, whoever tutored him when he was young did an incredible job and no matter what you tell him his mind won't change a bit nor will change anytime soon so just let him have the last word and move on to more interesting things.
Originally Posted by Phredreeke Or... Abel, Cain and Seth married the daughters of the unnamed couple in chapter 1 on Genesis. It's a lot less creepy than the idea of them marrying their SISTERS.
Please Phredreeke, point out what you are talking about.
Quote and explain rather than making unproven statements.
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Genesis 1:27 (notice how male and female are created at the SAME TIME, also they are not mentioned by name)
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.", Genesis 2:7-8
"And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." Genesis 2:18-13 (Man is created FIRST, then God creates Woman from Adam's rib)
Now, either one of the verses are incorrect since they contradict eachother OR God created two human couples.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Wiiman: Sorry I only saw your post now.
I said it before, it's not about disproving god, it's about disproving the genesis or at least disproving whoever (urbanmonk, to be more exact) still takes each word of it as a fact which is plain ridiculous in modern days. I don't really agree with your interpretation of the genesis for several reasons but at least it's rather plausible and makes a degree of sense. I don't buy it firstly because well, I don't believe in god and secondly because it has quite some inconsistencies that are hard to get around even if you read it in a subjective way. In addition it only talks about things we knew at the time which is rather suspicious to say the least. ie. no mention of micro organisms, other planets, the universe as whole, etc... and states earth is flat and immovable among the other inconsistencies I brought in this topic.
To throw what I think could be an interesting question, who wrote the genesis and how did he know how god supposedly created earth ?
@Phredreeke: Not that I'm saying the Bible isn't full of contradictions, but nowhere in the first sentence does it mention that God created man and woman at the same time. It just said he created them. The first sentence is a pre-amble to the story.
@Johnny: You're looking at the Bible the wrong way around - it was a belief system first, a book second. The Bible is a recording of that which was taught and practised by teachers through story-telling and preaching.
I'm all for people criticising and questioning things in science- that is, after all, how we learn. But I can't for the life of me understand why religious people don't apply the same scrutiny and logic when questioning their own beliefs.
Science doesn't have the answer for everything, though of course more is being discovered and explained all the time. But to use that as an excuse to claim that everything that science doesn't prove can be explained with 'God did it' doesn't make sense to me.
Don't aim for perfection- you'll miss the deadline
'~Tom~ says (16:41):
well why does the custom controls for the keyboard palyer even affect the menu controls at all whats thep oint jsutm ake it so for the keyboard palyer on the menu screens everything is always up down left right enter regardless of the controls they set'
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Wiiman: Sorry I only saw your post now.
I said it before, it's not about disproving god, it's about disproving the genesis or at least disproving whoever (urbanmonk, to be more exact) still takes each word of it as a fact which is plain ridiculous in modern days. I don't really agree with your interpretation of the genesis for several reasons but at least it's rather plausible and makes a degree of sense. I don't buy it firstly because well, I don't believe in god and secondly because it has quite some inconsistencies that are hard to get around even if you read it in a subjective way. In addition it only talks about things we knew at the time which is rather suspicious to say the least. ie. no mention of micro organisms, other planets, the universe as whole, etc... and states earth is flat and immovable among the other inconsistencies I brought in this topic.
To throw what I think could be an interesting question, who wrote the genesis and how did he know how god supposedly created earth ?
Woohoo, finally mature discussion returns to the topic
I've been doing a bit of research on that last question, can't find too awful much, and you can't trust the internet, especially when it comes to religion. Some sites seem to suggest it being the works of Moses who lead the Israelites from Egypt. If I could only remember where I set my bible... It is most likely that the beginning parts of the world's origin would have been told to Moses or the unknown author by God, as God talked to him before. Where as the rest, or majority of the rest, may be history passed down from stories from the Israelite people.
Where as Genesis being written on what was known at the time, well I totally agree with that But at the same time, if Genesis were to come out and say 'and then God sendeth microrganisms to earth which multiplied asexually and eventually evolve into human beings,' nobody at the time would understand it. So as stated earlier about the origins being told to Moses from God, how could he explain such issues as microorganism when talking a human being with no concept of science? Perhaps even concepts such as evolution were hard for God to explain?
Though perhaps such issues are included, but remain coded? I've been reading some text, haven't found anything to great, but a couple of particular excerpts: 'And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man' This makes me think of the early micro organisms that would have to reproduce asexually at first. After becoming more evolved creatures though, they would reproduce normally as humans do. They may sound a little far out there and like I'm stretching my resources a bit, but it's like I said, the Bible is coded.
Also, do not recall anything about the Earth being flat, even though most people beleived it at the time.
All this talk about Genesis has me thinking about the wrong Genesis!
matt: Right, but where did those teachings come from ? Did god supposedly speak with someone whose name doesn't figure in the bible ? I couldn't find any concrete information on who wrote the book of genesis and where he took that information from, only suppositions.
wiiman: I don't think it makes much sense not to mention something because people didn't know what it was at the time and wouldn't understand, no one knew what micro organisms were until they were discovered. Also, a lot of people at the time already a strong notion of science, but even if didn't if someone could explain them how earth was created in 7 days and all the details that came with the genesis they could understand the concept of living beings so small they couldn't be seen. Also whether or not moses wrote the genesis is only a theory, no one really knows for certain.
The excerpts you posted don't seem to have absolutely nothing to do with micro organisms and I don't think the bible is coded. Originally people interpreted what is on the book of genesis objectively, but as the centuries passed and science evolved the inconsistencies became too glaring to be ignored and people were forced to read it in a subjective way.
When people have to twist what's in there until it has nothing to do with it's original meaning for it to make some sense then something isn't right. I'm not saying the entire bible is like that, but no offense to christians the genesis is a load of nonsense imo.
@Johnny: Who is to question the authorship of any myth, folk-story or indeed religious text, as if every idea has a single originator? There is no single source. The Bible's teachings are thousands of years old, and spoken before they were written. It's like Chinese whispers - one person tells somebody something, and that gets changed, and before you know it you have a mish-mash of sometimes contradictory, misleading and interconnected stories. As much as some people, Christians included, believe the whole of Christianity is recorded in that book, the Bible isn't all of the religion, just a part. Unless you believe that the Bible is literally the word and deed of God - in which case you are arguing from the same reference point as any literalist Christian, and aren't using your own logic.
This I think is the crux of the matter: you say the Bible is contradictory, ridiculous and illogical, but yet at the same time you seek concrete evidence in it and act as if it were a reliable source in itself. You say "The Bible is false - but it doesn't say inside who wrote it". What does it matter who wrote it, if you believe it's false? Would you believe it even if it told you?
Originally Posted by Johnny Look matt: Right, but where did those teachings come from ? Did god supposedly speak with someone whose name doesn't figure in the bible ? I couldn't find any concrete information on who wrote the book of genesis and where he took that information from, only suppositions.
wiiman: I don't think it makes much sense not to mention something because people didn't know what it was at the time and wouldn't understand, no one knew what micro organisms were until they were discovered. Also, a lot of people at the time already a strong notion of science, but even if didn't if someone could explain them how earth was created in 7 days and all the details that came with the genesis they could understand the concept of living beings so small they couldn't be seen. Also whether or not moses wrote the genesis is only a theory, no one really knows for certain.
The excerpts you posted don't seem to have absolutely nothing to do with micro organisms and I don't think the bible is coded. Originally people interpreted what is on the book of genesis objectively, but as the centuries passed and science evolved the inconsistencies became too glaring to be ignored and people were forced to read it in a subjective way.
When people have to twist what's in there until it has nothing to do with it's original meaning for it to make some sense then something isn't right. I'm not saying the entire bible is like that, but no offense to christians the genesis is a load of nonsense imo.
Oh and genesis, the band, are awesome.
Well, at least we could agree on what thing, the quality of the band Genesis
I see your points, but it is also important to note the the book of revelation is meant to be 100% coded. Even majority literal beleivers beleive this, though of course some such as the Jehovah's witness do take it literal. I beleive it to be in apocalyptic, figurative language about the end of the world. Even much of the early catholic church is known to take it figuratively not literally. Some examples of such are when it speaks of the ark of the covenant being in heaven. Why would the ark be in heaven? According to bible history it was last seen in the control of Nebuchanezzer, on earth of course. Another part speaks of Jesus reining over earth for 1000 years. This is contradictory to what is said; that he shall return, judge the dead then the living, then the earth shall end in fire. I think if perhaps Genesis isn't coded, again in my personal opinion it is though, that it is still most likely that revelation is intended to be coded as by the author coded. And if one book can be coded, why not another?
I don't think the book of revelations is meant to be a "coded book", more like it's meant to be read in a subjective manner. For instance if one of the books, like the genesis for example was meant to be coded then it wouldn't make sense to say that god didn't talk about micro organisms because people wouldn't understand. If they can't understand such a simple concept how would they be able to decode an entire book or at least take a meaningful interpretation from it?
I think we should broaden our focus, instead of just speaking of the bible and Jehovah, as the topic has turned to, let's focus simply as the basic question.
Is there something else out there?<
Is there a such thing as fate?
Do you beleive there are no coincidences?
Perhaps the last two questions do not apply, but I would like to hear some responses to the first one. Is there something else out there that may watch over us all, or perhaps govern silently? Say there is no after life, could something exist regardless?
I say yes to all of those questions. But what do you guys think?
So you're saying it's just coincidence that Neron Kaisar (greek for Emperor Nero), one of history's biggest persecutors of christians, has the numerical value 666?
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
It could be a coincidence, but please note that there are many antichrists.
The sprite of the antichrist never dies, it just moves on to another willing vessel to put it simply, but I don't even know why you brought that up again.
As Johnny Look said the book of revelations isn't meant to be a "coded book" neither are any of the other books of the Bible, who came up with such an idea?
The book of Revelations does seem a little cryptic at first, but if you understand that the imagery used was based what John knew at the time it's easier to figure out.
And Matt Boothman already answered your so-called "unnamed couple", even those who read the Bible as a literary work acknowledge that much.
@Wiiman:
I've often heard people claim to believe in the Bible and (macro) Evolution at the same time, and they've never been able to explain that one to me.
The first problem with this idea is directly with Macro Evolution itself. Before you can go around trying to convince someone that Macro Evolution is in the Bible you have to prove that Macro Evolution even exists. Which according to the theory itself is impossible since it takes "billions of years" conveniently enough. So even if you try to somehow say that God created everything over a period of a billion or even a thousand years would require proof of the existence of such a phenomena in the first place.
Secondly why would God even do this? Isn't he capable of creating everything all at once? God usually has a purpose behind his actions, I've never seen/read of God doing something without one.
Thirdly how did each individual species survive for so long without the other interdependent species they relied on? Evolution tends to claim that interdependent species evolved at the same time, not one by one. Which makes more sense no matter how you look at it assuming Macro Evolution exists.
Basically prove that macro evolution exists before trying to use it in conjunction with anything else.
I live in England and I'm a Christian. I've read a few of these posts and its very interesting to see what people have written.
It surprises me that some God believing people ask: "I wonder why people don't think there's God?". Where I live Christians are the minority with Atheists and agnostics making up most of the population, especially at my university. Are these people from parts of america where almost everyone believes in some kind of God? Just wondering.
I was struck by the video about "look at the context", It seems fair to get annoyed at people who try to explain away all those parts of the bible.
I sincerely believe I deserve to face the kind of punishment I see in those passages, Most of my life I've rejected God, not to mention rejecting parents, friends - Just seeking to live life for my own gain, as if it intrinsically was mine to do with as I will.
When I go home at the holidays, home is often a great place to be. I love sharing my life with my family. Sometimes however it can be quite lonely- Sometimes its just like we're separate entities that don't really touch eachothers lives in meaningful ways- I don't know. I can see that I'm partially responsible for that, by deciding that my life and dreams were too important and as a result neglecting the relationships I have with my parents and siblings. I guess I mention that to give a little example of what I mean.
I never really post on things like this, but thought I should say something after looking at all your hard forum posting work.
Have a good one,
you don't have to be masochistic to klik, but it helps.
A little late yes, but I haven't had time to reply.
@Urbanmonk: (Regarding your last reply on mine) I just need to clarify that all of my responses regarding the bible where I have quoted KJV, pointed out inconsistencies, contradictions etc. have been made using a literalist rule-set on how to approach the bible, i.e your way. I personally don't interpret the bible literally, so it isn't a problem for me. I have only shown that when using a consistent, literalist approach to the bible you end up with inconsistencies. Our discussion on that point is now over since I lack the time and energy to discuss it with you.
I'm astonished to see you being credited with such punchy titles as 'Defender of the Faith' and such, I would title you 'Agressor of the Faith' instead, seeing as you have such a ridiculing approach to faith other than your own. I wish your fanclub would do their homework too, hopefully they'd grasp a better approach to faith in general. But whatever.
On to the 'new' topics!
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
And Matt Boothman already answered your so-called "unnamed couple", even those who read the Bible as a literary work acknowledge that much.
I suppose you mean this;
@Phredreeke: Not that I'm saying the Bible isn't full of contradictions, but nowhere in the first sentence does it mention that God created man and woman at the same time. It just said he created them. The first sentence is a pre-amble to the story.
If you skip down four passages you see that God did indeed create them at the same time(at least the same day):
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
So I don't see how that fixes the whole unnamed couples thing.
And on the Genesis note, they are an awesome band! Return of the Giant Hogweed FTW! And on the second Genesis note, according to the bible it was written by Moses, according to most people it was a mash-up of several sources. I won't however stay on that topic seeing as literalists become so very upset by the outlook of it.
@david-clarke: What made you feel so passionate about Christendom and why would different kinds of eternal torture be proper punishment for bad behaviour? Should children and animals be tortured for 'bad behaviour' too? (I'm not being sarcastic btw, I'm just asking)
Just stumbled across this thread and thought i would throw my two penneth in.
I am a stout disbeliever(?) in any form of Religion. I, mistakenly or not, subscribe to the theory of Evolution. Science has been able to prove links between species that show some form of evolutionary process.
If we are to believe that a Higher Power creeated the Earth and all Life in 7 Days then we are to believe that Humans and Dinosaurs co-existed. We know this not to be true however.
Not intended to offend anyone who believes the idealogies of Christianity but if we are to believe that Adam and Eve were the First Man and Woman on the planet then we are ALL related. Does this not in it's rawest form mean that we are all committing incest?
Another argument for me that steers me clear of believing in any religion is that if there was a Higher Power then the bad things that occur on this planet would not actually happen at all!?!
How can an all seeing entity such as a God allow such atrocities as War and Earthquakes? You may well think that this is God's way of punishing the inhabitants of the planet or that He does not always get involved as it is upto us to live our lives however does the bible not condemn acts of violence?
Matthew 7:12:
12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Again, I am not intending for my comments to aggravate people, I just cannot believe in a Centuries old idea that has no grounded proof.
Don't get me wrong, Science is flawed too. I believe, contrary to popular belief, that there exists other entities of intelligence either elsewher in our Solar System or outside of it but that is a whole other discussion.
Those are my thoughts however wrong or right you feel they may be.
Hey everyone, I popped back in to throw in Jim Jeffries.
And now the conversation is over.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] @Urbanmonk: (Regarding your last reply on mine) I just need to clarify that all of my responses regarding the bible where I have quoted KJV, pointed out inconsistencies, contradictions etc. have been made using a literalist rule-set on how to approach the bible, i.e your way. I personally don't interpret the bible literally, so it isn't a problem for me. I have only shown that when using a consistent, literalist approach to the bible you end up with inconsistencies. Our discussion on that point is now over since I lack the time and energy to discuss it with you.
Regardless of what "rule-set" you use (whether literalist or otherwise) there still isn't any inconsistencies, contradictions ect. and you have yet to show one.
And besides I think it's silly to even form distinctions between "rule-sets" and "approaches" to reading the Bible.
If you believe the Bible is the truth and you believe in the God of the Bible then you have to read it literally, because if God didn't literally create us, love us, and die for us then the Bible wouldn't be useful at all.
There isn't a distinction there, so I think it's rather redundant to even mention it.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] If you skip down four passages you see that God did indeed create them at the same time(at least the same day):
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
So I don't see how that fixes the whole unnamed couples thing.
Firstly there was nothing to fix in the first place.
Secondly I don't see how that quote proves anything, how exactly does it show that he created both man and woman on the same day?
Sounds to me like you're grasping again.
Originally Posted by lembi2001 If we are to believe that a Higher Power creeated the Earth and all Life in 7 Days then we are to believe that Humans and Dinosaurs co-existed. We know this not to be true however.
How exactly do we "know" this isn't true?
I'm not going to try and prove it either way. I can't.
But if you're just going to accept that belief as fact based strictly upon your faith in evolution, then I guess that's your religion.
Originally Posted by lembi2001 Not intended to offend anyone who believes the idealogies of Christianity but if we are to believe that Adam and Eve were the First Man and Woman on the planet then we are ALL related. Does this not in it's rawest form mean that we are all committing incest?
No we are not all committing incest.
Incest would have to involve a close relative, and doesn't involve a very distant one.
I'm sure you knew the answer to this one when you asked it.
If we are to believe that God created Adam and Eve as the first humans than we can also believe that they had perfect genetic compositions since they were originally designed to live forever. Which means when their children had children then incest wouldn't affect them negatively at all.
Now obviously this didn't last, as you very well know God later gave a law that strictly prohibited incest, but this in no way contradicts the fact that he used it in the beginning to populate the Earth.
Originally Posted by lembi2001 How can an all seeing entity such as a God allow such atrocities as War and Earthquakes? You may well think that this is God's way of punishing the inhabitants of the planet or that He does not always get involved as it is upto us to live our lives however does the bible not condemn acts of violence?
I've already talked about this a few pages back, so I guess this will just be a rehash.
First on your point about the Bible condemning acts of violence; certainly violence is a vague statement, so what kind of violence are you talking about, and what scripture(s) are you referring to exactly?
As for war, it is caused by humans, who have free choice.
I don't think anyone can argue with that.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames Hey everyone, I popped back in to throw in Jim Jeffries
YouTube is blocked where I am right now, can you give me a quote or something from it that convinces you so much?
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman @Johnny: Who is to question the authorship of any myth, folk-story or indeed religious text, as if every idea has a single originator? There is no single source. The Bible's teachings are thousands of years old, and spoken before they were written. It's like Chinese whispers - one person tells somebody something, and that gets changed, and before you know it you have a mish-mash of sometimes contradictory, misleading and interconnected stories. As much as some people, Christians included, believe the whole of Christianity is recorded in that book, the Bible isn't all of the religion, just a part. Unless you believe that the Bible is literally the word and deed of God - in which case you are arguing from the same reference point as any literalist Christian, and aren't using your own logic.
This I think is the crux of the matter: you say the Bible is contradictory, ridiculous and illogical, but yet at the same time you seek concrete evidence in it and act as if it were a reliable source in itself. You say "The Bible is false - but it doesn't say inside who wrote it". What does it matter who wrote it, if you believe it's false? Would you believe it even if it told you?
Sorry to reply only now, I only saw your post now.
Firstly I didn't say the entire bible was illogical, ridiculous or false, just that the genesis is full of nonsense.
Secondly I wasn't questioning the entire bible, my question was made out of curiosity. I didn't ask for "who wrote the bible" either, only who wrote the genesis.
Thirdly questioning whatever is in the bible is a necessity imo, either you are a believer or not. I don't think you can really say you believe or you don't in something without first questioning those beliefs. Since the christian beliefs and values are based on what's in the bible it makes sense to question what's in there. Not necessarily question the entire bible as a whole like I think you thought I was doing. Also to question something you have to assume/pretend it's true initially, even if you don't believe so. Kind of a confusing statement I know but I think you know what I mean.
Originally Posted by Phredreeke Who was Joseph's father?
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli
Luke 3:23
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Matthew 1:16
Both Jacob and Heli were Joseph's father by Hebrew tradition.
However Jacob was Joseph's biological father, and Heli (abbreviation of Hebrew name Heliachim) was Joseph's father-in-law, aka Mary's father.
This follows the Hebrew tradition of replacing a women with her husband in recorded genealogical tables.
If you're curious to know more about this just do some research on the Genealogy of Jesus.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Firstly I didn't say the entire bible was illogical, ridiculous or false, just that the genesis is full of nonsense.
I'm sure you meant to say "in your opinion" since millions disagree with you.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Secondly I wasn't questioning the entire bible, my question was made out of curiosity. I didn't ask for "who wrote the bible" either, only who wrote the genesis.
The first five books of the Bible (the Torah) were written by Moses. This is a core belief that the Jewish people hold, True Christians, and as well as most Muslims.
And if you believe in the God of the Bible you also believe this to be true since Moses was someone who had direct communication with God, and was the leader of the Israelite during the history that was recorded in the Torah.
The first five books of the Bible (the Torah) were written by Moses. This is a core belief that the Jewish people hold, True Christians, and as well as most Muslims.
And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.
Deuteronomy 34:7
Originally Posted by Johnny Look
I didn't ask for "who wrote the bible" either, only who wrote the genesis.
Regardless of what "rule-set" you use (whether literalist or otherwise) there still isn't any inconsistencies, contradictions ect. and you have yet to show one.
Correction, yet to show one that you approve. However, I believe you wouldn't approve of any since your world's foundation rests on the bible being literal truth.
And besides I think it's silly to even form distinctions between "rule-sets" and "approaches" to reading the Bible.
If you believe the Bible is the truth and you believe in the God of the Bible then you have to read it literally, because if God didn't literally create us, love us, and die for us then the Bible wouldn't be useful at all.
You do realize that you are talking complete nonsense right? If 99.99999999% of the bible's mentioning of God was proven horsecrap but 0.00000001% proven true, that would surely be the most astonishing revelation in human history since it would prove God's existence. Everything in the bible doesn't have to be true for it to be helpful.
And by the by, if you are intent on discussing something on a higher level than forum-crap you need to have guidelines so it all doesn't boil down to differing opinions on semantics.
Firstly there was nothing to fix in the first place.
Yes there was, Phredreeke had a problem with the unnamed couple and you failed to give him a satisfying answer.
Secondly I don't see how that quote proves anything, how exactly does it show that he created both man and woman on the same day?
Sounds to me like you're grasping again.
Ok, a last try to do this your way. Note how you a few lines up said:
"If you believe the Bible is the truth and you believe in the God of the Bible then you have to read it literally"
So let's read it literally;
KJV Genesis 1:23-31 (I included 1:23 just to give us a firm starting point in time)
23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
How does that equate to grasping? Have you even read the bible? Or are you going to tell me that God did not create the world in seven(six) days? Or is one not supposed to read Genesis 1 literally? Or will you show me a tree-diagram of cross references spanning hundreds of hundreds of years apart that actually shows that Darth Vader created the death star on day six? Or are you going to point out how the greek letter of the hebrew alphabet combined with potates equates tomatoes and that Moses grew tomatoes that Noah cast out the Ark by command of God and that this clearly proves that God did not create man and woman at the same time?
I'm sure you meant to say "in your opinion" since millions disagree with you.
Billions disagree with those millions.
The first five books of the Bible (the Torah) were written by Moses. This is a core belief that the Jewish people hold, True Christians, and as well as most Muslims.
And if you believe in the God of the Bible you also believe this to be true since Moses was someone who had direct communication with God, and was the leader of the Israelite during the history that was recorded in the Torah.
On what do you base the underlined part? Is that how you have been taught to believe in the literal truth of the bible?
You see, the God of Abraham is supposed to be The God, like The ChrisStreet. If you hold a belief in a/the one true God like Abraham did you don't automatically have to believe in the bible. The bible is merely a book, written by human hands, which claims to hold the truth about for instance a/the one true God, but that doesn't lend it any factual qualitees. So you don't have to tell people what they believe in, they usually know that for themselves.
Originally Posted by Predreeke
And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.
Deuteronomy 34:7
Supposedly Moses wrote that seeing as he wrote the 'Five books of Moses', but you will also find that the same people who tell you that will point out that any israelite could have added it after Moses death, but Moses is the sole author of it so he wrote it, but he isn't the sole author, though he is the sole author. (Note that I intended it to be confusing. This is what I mean by inconsistency, claiming two opposing truths at the same time)
The first five books of the Bible (the Torah) were written by Moses. This is a core belief that the Jewish people hold, True Christians, and as well as most Muslims.
And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.
Deuteronomy 34:7
I knew someone would bring this up.
But as I mentioned earlier also according to Hewbrew tradition, these records were given by God directly to Moses, so this isn't a problem since God would know when Moses was going to die, or if you prefer added later by the high priest when he died.
Genisis is part of the first five books of the Bible, and therefore answers the question.
I didn't read the wiki article. Is there something in particular you would like me to know?
EDIT: EE's post just showed up. I'll get to it next.
Ok... To sum up Documentary Hypothesis. The idea is that the Pentateuch is written by multiple authors. These different authors can by distinguished by writing styles, the name used for God (Yahweh or Elohim) and the focus of the text. This also explain inconcistencies and redundancies.
And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.
And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.
Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?
Genesis 17:15-17, priestly source
And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.
Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.
Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?
Genesis 18:10-12, Jahwist source
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
I've read about and heard this hypothesis before, and it was one of the things talked about in the Bible as literature class.
There are many points that are made in this hypothesis that are used to back it up, but many of them are false.
-None of the "doublets" contradict each other, and I can say this for a fact because we analyzed each of them, and no contradictions were found.
-Most of the "doublets" were from a character repeating the story to someone else, slight differences exist because it's an exact recording of what that person said rather than just a mere rendition.
-Yahweh and Elohim are both describing words to refer to God, another one that is used is Jehovah.
Each of these words simply describe God and are used interchangeably throughout the Torah, and they are also used interchangeably by the Jewish people today.
You'll notice that none of the statements made on that page are backed up in any way.
However, I've seen first hand the scriptures that they claim causes the theory to exist, and I can see how someone who knows nothing about Hebrew culture, or the Bible itself could come to such incorrect conclusions. Much like the examples given by Phredreeke were a result of ignorance on his part on how genealogy was recorded by the ancient Hebrews.
And now on to the example Phredreeke gave. The differences are due to the fact that in Genesis 17:15-17,, God is speaking to Abraham, but in Genesis 18:10-12,, a man from the group of 3 men is speaking to Abraham.
So of course there will be a difference, because the Bible is an exact recording of history, and this further suggests the accuracy and inspiration that the Bible is.
You'll also notice that all these other so-called "sections" from "different writers" have the same property. Each time a story is repeated in a different way, it is spoken by a different person in the actual text.
Thanks for bringing this up though, I was wondering when you would.
EDIT: and now to get to the rest of EE post
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Correction, yet to show one that you approve.
Regardless of whether or not I approve shouldn't make a difference.
If it's really there then it'll speak for itself, but since it isn't...
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] You do realize that you are talking complete nonsense right?
I realized it when you said it the first time, which is why I pointed it out.
Basically if you believe in the God of the Bible, and you decide to pick in chose what *you* deem is correct, and incorrect then your religion is a joke.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Yes there was, Phredreeke had a problem with the unnamed couple and you failed to give him a satisfying answer.
Phredreeke never replied to my or Boothman's statements. Are you Phredreeke too?
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] [...]Or will you show me a tree-diagram of cross references spanning hundreds of hundreds of years apart that actually shows that Darth Vader created the death star on day six?[...]
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] If you hold a belief in a/the one true God like Abraham did you don't automatically have to believe in the bible. The bible is merely a book, written by human hands,
Who physically wrote it isn't as important as who authored it. It was God that spoke to many of the men who wrote about their experiences with God, the history of their people, and the experiences they had with Jesus (who is God manifest in the flesh).
Of course if you don't think that's very important to someone who wants to know that God they spoke about that's your problem, but just because someone wrote about my God doesn't change him in the least. And of course since it's the same God I believe in I'll gladly read about him, wouldn't you?
Apparently not, you'd rather live in your world were god can be whatever *you* imagine him to be. I'll give you a hint, my God actually exists.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] which claims to hold the truth about for instance a/the one true God, but that doesn't lend it any factual qualitees. So you don't have to tell people what they believe in, they usually know that for themselves.
They sure do, and I didn't tell anyone that, they already knew, I was just making sure you did.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Supposedly Moses wrote that seeing as he wrote the 'Five books of Moses', but you will also find that the same people who tell you that will point out that any israelite could have added it after Moses death, but Moses is the sole author of it so he wrote it, but he isn't the sole author, though he is the sole author. (Note that I intended it to be confusing. This is what I mean by inconsistency, claiming two opposing truths at the same time)
Exactly, which is why I don't believe that. I believe God foretold Moses of his own death. And being God he can do that sort of thing.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk I've read about and heard this hypothesis before, and it was one of the things talked about in the Bible as literature class.
There are many points that are made in this hypothesis that are used to back it up, but many of them are false.
-None of the "doublets" contradict each other, and I can say this for a fact because we analyzed each of them, and no contradictions were found.
Your analytical skills are quite questionable, so that really doesn't mean a thing. I tend to use a wide source of scholars when making absolute claims.
You'll notice that none of the statements made on that page are backed up in any way.
However, I've seen first hand the scriptures that they claim causes the theory to exist, and I can see how someone who knows nothing about Hebrew culture, or the Bible itself could come to such incorrect conclusions.
The page is not the author of the hypothesis, it merely gives a good description of it, and also point you in different directions if you wish to check it out more thouroughly. And again, your academic claims are as thin as air, so I'd rather put my money on the real scholars. But by all means, keep believing that you are superior to the rest of the world.
[...]the Bible is an exact recording of history, and this further suggests the accuracy and inspiration that the Bible is.
That's quite the bold claim, do you realize that?
Regardless of whether or not I approve shouldn't make a difference.
If it's really there then it'll speak for itself, but since it isn't...
Well, at least those sentences shows that you are aware of your own ignoring of facts.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] You do realize that you are talking complete nonsense right?
I realized it when you said it the first time, [...]
Well, that's a relief.
Apparently not, you'd rather live in your world were god can be whatever *you* imagine him to be. I'll give you a hint, my God actually exists.
Once again, a bold statement. And I don't understand why you keep talking about me and what I suppossedly think.
They sure do, and I didn't tell anyone that, they already knew, I was just making sure you did.
Come on, are these kind of pot-shots the best argumentation you are capable of?
Why do you bother fuzzing around so much instead of replying to the main point of my post which took up about 70% of it? You really come across as a little confused to say the least.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Your analytical skills are quite questionable, so that really doesn't mean a thing. I tend to use a wide source of scholars when making absolute claims.
My analytical skills will be questionable to you as long as I don't agree with you I've come to realize, so your opinion is worthless.
However for your info these scriptures weren't analyzed by me in particular as they were analyzed by my professors who have a doctorates in philosophy and literature, but of course you don't want to believe this since you've put so much faith in your silly theories, so you prolly won't be rationally honest with yourself.
More scholars agree with us than those that don't.
This hypothesis has been proven false multiple times, and it's rather old.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] The page is not the author of the hypothesis, it merely gives a good description of it, and also point you in different directions if you wish to check it out more thouroughly.
Even the description contains inaccuracies, shows how valid this hypothesis is doesn't it?
And besides, those problems with the theory I pointed out are true, care to prove me wrong?
-None of the "doublets" contradict each other.
-Most (or all, I don't remember an example where they weren't) of the "doublets" were from a character repeating the story to someone else, slight differences exist because it's an exact recording of what that person said rather than just a mere rendition.
-Yahweh and Elohim are both describing words to refer to God, another one that is used is Jehovah.
Each of these words simply describe God and are used interchangeably throughout the Torah, and they are also used interchangeably by the Jewish people today.
-All these other so-called "sections" from "different writers" have the same property. Each time a story is repeated in a different way, it is spoken by a different person in the actual text.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] That's quite the bold claim, do you realize that?
It's as true as it is bold. As I've said before, history, archeology, and true science backs it up.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Well, at least those sentences shows that you are aware of your own ignoring of facts.
Surly there are facts that I'm not aware of in this world, and I'm sure the same is true for you. However you have yet to state any facts about the Bible, or back up your silly claims.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Apparently not, you'd rather live in your world were god can be whatever *you* imagine him to be. I'll give you a hint, my God actually exists.
Once again, a bold statement. And I don't understand why you keep talking about me and what I suppossedly[sic] think.
And it's truth is reveled when you claim that
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Everything in the bible doesn't have to be true for it to be helpful.
but yet you seem to think that other things aren't. You picking and choosing what you like and what you don't like is a prime example of that type of thinking.
"[...]but of course you don't want to believe this since you've put so much faith in your silly theories, so you prolly won't be rationally honest with yourself."
To put it plain, right back at ya.
You seem to be under the impression that you know me and what I think, believe etc.. However, I wouldn't give a rat's tail if the DH was proven completely and utterly wrong. On the contrary, it would be interesting to know who(in pluralis) actually authored the Torah if DH is wrong.
You see my good fiend, DH being wrong does not equal you being right.
The only thing that would prove is that DH is not the correct hypothesis in this case.
"More scholars agree with us than those that don't."
Just because that line cracks me up everytime I try and read it, I'd <3 to see what you base that on. And it's nice to see that you've adopted a healthy 'us against them' mentality.
"Even the description contains inaccuracies, shows how valid this hypothesis is doesn't it?"
Actually no, but it's nice to see you try.
"And besides, those problems with the theory I pointed out are true, care to prove me wrong?"
No, I'm not into that. However, you could always try and actually prove some of your claims without quoting the bible.
"It's as true as it is bold. As I've said before, history, archeology, and true science backs it up."
No, creationist 'science' backs it up.
"And it's truth is reveled when you claim that"
I believe all forum viewers would like to know how you mean. I know I do!
"but yet you seem to think that other things aren't. You picking and choosing what you like and what you don't like is a prime example of that type of thinking."
I'm sorry, you lost me. I get that you dislike people picking and choosing from the bible, but what are you rambling on about? I seriously can't understand what you are trying to convey.
And I know it makes you feel special, but please, lay off with the sics.
Firstly, your own posts would be littered with them.
Secondly, I think people understand the text without your grammatical crusade.
Thirdly, you do realize that you are communicating with people of other languages than your own, so it really just makes you look like a grammar-rascist anyways.
Fourthly, it's so unbelievably pretentious to sic people in an internet forum so it makes it awfully hard to try and take you seriously. Even more so than it already is.
//EE
(by the way, you still haven't replied to my post about the unnamed couple, is it really that hard to whip up something?)
EDIT:
I just want to make something clear. I wouldn't have a problem with your beliefs if you didn't prance about, throwing around your absolutisms, claiming science backs them up. Your problem is that you can't separate faith and critical analysis. I can, and do, separate my faith from my critical analysis. So does most other posters in this thread. That is why what I personally believe is irrelevant.
Faith is one thing.
Fact is another.
If you're lucky, your faith tend to overlap the facts. If they don't, that doesn't mean anything, cause it's your own beliefs, and in your heart they should outweigh your doubts. However, that does not mean that your own beliefs are more true than the facts, they are simply your personal beliefs, so it's not ok to go around and spread lies based on your personal beliefs just because you can't stand the outlook of the facts.
If your statements were not backed up with God-told-me-so's and The-Bible-says-so's, but with unbiased sources, no one would have a problem with your arguments. You'd might even get someone to actually listen to you if you approached them in a professional, academical way instead of a medievil preaching manner.
Can you understand what I'm talking about?
I'm quite sick of having to spend this much time arguing with a brickwall, and would much rather see this thread evolve into something more meaningful than UrbanMonk vs Everyone. The only reason I even bother with you is cause apparently, at least two other posters in this thread believe your claims on science are true. I would really like for them to stop listening to your irrational absolutisms and actually research these things for themselves, and hopefully they'd realize that people like yourself are decieving them. Resulting in this world being spared two more fanatics.
One can only hold a personal opinion on the subject. Absolutisms in either way are just unneccessary and often quite insulting.
In my opinion, the only accurate way of expressing it, is that according to the findings of natural science using the scientific method and the current paradigm there are no evidence pointing in the direction of the existance of a 'supernatural entity'(however you define that) conforming to man's view of a so called 'god' in our universe.
urbanmonk seriously keep your thoughts to yourself you are only ruining this thread.
And eternalman, who agreed with him ? I don't think anyone here is dumb enough to take him seriously, let alone agree with his "views".
Also someone please delete the posts that emurom character made, if we wanted lame trolling attempts we'd call gamester.
Thanks for the link phredreeke btw, I'll have a look.
To play the devil's advocate, this is probably where the belief that Moses wrote the Torah stems from.
Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.
Deuteronomy 31:26
Now UrbanMonk is gonna disagree with me, but even if we take the bible for absolute truth this doesn't mean Moses wrote the entire Torah, he could just have written part of it. Or it could be an entirely different text, that was lost along with the ark when the babylonians destroyed Jerusalem in the 6th century BC.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
@Johnny Look: Well, true, I can't say I know they agree with his views, but dubbing him "Defender of the Faith" in appreciative terms with trophies kinda' implies it.
And to any admin considering locking this due to trolling, please just delete unuseful posts like the above instead.
@emurom: We all have opinions on charismatic christian meetings, however, simply posting vids like that without using it to convey a further message simply equates to trolling, which we don't want here.
I'll return on the subject of the Torah a bit later!
Sorry for the double-post again, but it would be quite downletting to see my edit dissipate due to any further posts made.
So.
The reason why I asked about sources for believing in the mosaic authorship of the Torah is due to an interesting read in The Secular Bible by Jaques Berlinerblau.
For anyone intent on dismissing it on the grounds of J.B not being credible: He holds two seperate PhD's, Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Literatures, New York University and Sociology, The New School of Social Research. He is currently an Associate Professor and Director of the Program for Jewish Civilization at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.
He is proficient in reading, speaking and writing Hebrew.
In his book, he points to a fact that is well known, but not widely known. Namely that the Hebrew Bible never states that Moses wrote the five books accredited with his name i.e the five books of Moses.
What it does do is make reference to a wide range of (to quote J.B)"ambiguous, shifting and maddeningly imbricated terms" such as "Torah", "the Book of Moses", "the Torah of Moses", "Book of the Torah of Moses", "Book of the Torah of Elohim" and "Torah of Yahweh" to name a handful.
It is only later, in postbiblical times, that many commentators and scribes make the two overlapping assumptions;
1.) The word "Torah" equates to the stretch of five documents that runs from Genesis to Deuteronomy.
2.) That Moses was the author of "Torah"(i.e the five books)
Surmise no.1 is not at all clear. J.B gives an example from Genesis 26:5 were Yahweh expresses to Isaac his appreciation for Abraham who had kept "My commandments, My Laws and My Torah(plural)."
What Torah?
If the word Torah does indeed refer to the first five books in their entirety, how could Abraham(his death is reported in Genesis 25:8 ) faithfully have observed the forthcoming "Torah" contained in the remainder of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy?
For surmise no.2 J.B quotes the biblicist Joseph Blenkinsopp; "Here and there in the Pentateuch Moses is said to have written certain things, including laws and the vow to expatriate the Amalekites, but nowhere is it affirmed that the Pentateuch was authored by Moses, or indeed by anyone else. One would therefore think that what calls for an explanation is not why most people stopped believing in the dogma of Mosaic authorship, but rather why anyone believed it in the first place."
So once again, forgive me for misinforming you all with my statement; "Supposedly Moses wrote that seeing as he wrote the 'Five books of Moses'"
I'm sure UrbanMonk will rush to the task of explaining why all this is complete BS (mind you, he took a Bible lit class at uni) but I can really recommend Jaques Berlinerblau and especially his book The Secular Bible to anyone interested in seeing the current dichotonomy of atheists contra believers, examplified by UrbanMonk and our trolling emurom, evolved into something more fruitful.
This has to be my favorite troll. Have some food troll!
I remember watching that video, it's astounding that those people actually think they're decent human beings. It's people like that that makes progress so difficult.
It reminds me of this song,
How far did we did we get when religion was in complete control? We had a flat world, night was a blanket and stars were holes poked in it, lightning meant god was pissed, the crusades and the dark ages. Right, humanity was better off then. Since Science has become more accepted we know better how the world works, life expectancy is up, and most dull repetitive tasks have been automated, allowing humans to create and explore more. Unfortunately, since religion, politics, culture and money still have a firm foundation in society we have to still have to worry about a mass excess of waste, racism, wage slaves, scarcity and power hungry douchebags.
Which makes me want to go off on an insane rant because I'm really pissed at some news I heard recently, brought to you by your neighborhood "Christian soldier" trying to do good by forcing everyone else to think exactly like them.
You can say what you want, but the only thing that has EVER stood in the way of equal rights has been religion and the fact that it brings people up to believe that certain people are unfavorable in the eyes of their religion and it also brings people up to believe they should be squeamish and ashamed of natural bodily functions.
It's happened with almost every non-white race in America since it started (Blacks, Native Americans, the Japanese during WWII), it's happening recently with Athiests and Gays, and if you think any of these were bad (which most of these groups are "accepted" and it is a terrible crime to discriminate against any of them), you should take the time to look at how the world treats transsexuals.
When it comes to transsexuals, most people's opinions of them is the goofy caricature that is typically portrayed in the media (blatantly male in a skanky outfit and clown make-up), but most people don't understand exactly what a transsexual is. When you have a fetus, no one starts with a particular pair of genitals. At some point there is some brain development that determines the fetus to be male or female, and at some point afterwards a signal is to be shot down to determine what genitalia to make the gonad into. With most people, this signal is just fine, but with a small percentage of people, the incorrect signal is sent (and even rarer, two signals are sent, creating an inter-sexed individual). This is one of the theories of how transsexualism occurs. When it comes to a male and female child from there, there is no physical difference with the exception of the genitalia until puberty occurs and the secondary sex characteristics begin to develop.
Despite the fact that this is a birth defect, it is treated like the worst kind of abomination, and many are treated as if they were inhuman. It is commonly referred to as a severe mental illness, when in fact it only causes severe mental illness if left untreated, things like severe depression, anxiety and panic disorders. On top of that, transsexuals have about a 5x higher rate of suicide than the average human being. It is still considered perfectly fine in society to fire, humiliate, assault, torture, rape and even murder a transsexual. There are many transsexuals who have been murdered, the killer goes free and the victim is labeled as "an unknown transsexual" or "an unknown man wearing dress". When it comes to one of these people telling their friends and family about their condition, a majority will be disowned, their friends will stop talking to them and in certain cases will be attacked or even killed.
When it comes to telling the people they work for, most of the time they will be fired on the spot, and they can't do a damn thing about it. In most states Gender Identity is not protected when it comes to employees and tenants, and even if it was, most judges will and have thrown the cases out. There is a reason why a majority of transsexuals are prostitutes or go into porn (where they are demeaned and labeled as "shemales" "he-shes" and "chicks with dicks"), it's because most of them have nowhere else to go, they either have to keep it a secret and suffer, go though their transition and suffer, maybe get lucky, and if any of them do manage to complete their transition, most of them will leave that world behind out of fear and not help any other people trying to transition.
When it comes to the LGBT (Lesbians, Gays, Bixsexuals and Transgender) the "T" is pretty much just tacked on, most of the LGBT could care less about Transsexuals, since society hates them so much, any potential legislation raised for their rights is thrown out simply because of that "T" at the end. And honestly, it's not even right to toss the "T" in there, since Transsexualism has nothing to do with sexuality, it is completely separate. On top of that, all of them get their pride week and junk and it's all happy and crap, guess what the Transsexuals get? The Transsexual Day of Remembrance, a somber day where they list all the transsexuals who died that year, and the people they list didn't die of old age or from an accident, these are people who were murdered for being a transsexual. This year actually has doubled from last year, but even though it's nice for these people to have a day, it's not exactly a big celebration, is it?
Most of this "hate" has to do with the law in the old testament that says it is a sin for a man to wear womens clothing and a women to wear mens clothing. This law had to do with War, as women could not fight in a War, men would try to dodge going into battle by wearing womens clothing, and on the other side, a woman might put on mens clothing to be able to fight in war. Despite all this, didn't Jesus do away with the old law? If all this were so bad, don't you think Jesus would've said something about it? The other part had to do with mutilating your body. When a transsexual transitions, most (not all) might take hormones of the opposite sex, by doing so will put them into almost a second puberty (unless they catch it before puberty which is most favorable, in that case just a single puberty) and they will begin to develop many of the opposite sex's characteristics with the exception of skeletal structure and vocal chords in male to female transitions. Male to Female transitions might elect to have breast augmentation if the breasts do not develop enough, a tracheal shave to cut down the Adam's apple, plastic surgery in the face to cut down the masculine features of the face, and electrolysis to permanently remove the hair from the face and chest. In the case of Female to Males, the will have top surgery to reduce the size of the breasts and might have hair implanted on their face and chest. After at least a year of living as the opposite sex and at least 2 referrals from psychologists they can go through Sex Reassignment surgery, which is the part everyone has a big freaking problem with. In the case of MTFs, the genitals are inverted to create a cavity, most of the sensitive tissue is also used and the surgery is sophisticated enough to form a complete working set of female genitals, with the exception of the ovaries (so for you guys out there, dating a post-op female is fantastic since you don't have to worry about her getting pregnant or have to deal with PMS). With FTM, the surgery isn't as sophisticated, it can be done and the formed male genitals is sensitive and I believe can also achieve erections, but the won't necessarily be very pretty or have even a decent length or girth, which is sadly why most Female to Male transitions don't opt for the surgery. With all that said, why would you tell someone who has survived their transition and is finally happy for once in their life that they have made a horrible mistake and they have mutilated themselves? Sounds like a dick move to me.
Sorry, I get passionate about this. I have been helping many of these people recover for quite sometime, and just recently a lot of really good legislature that might finally get these people help in the workplace was stopped, guess who pushed for it to stop? Bitchy fucking ignorant douchebag Christians who claimed (with no evidence) that having transsexuals around children was dangerous. Because every transsexual is a pedophile and an axe murderer or buffalo bill (which if they had been paying attention wasn't really a transsexual, but just really screwed up, oh yeah and HE'S A FICTIONAL CHARACTER). That legislature also included the Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals, and guess what they said? "We don't have a problem with them, it's the transsexuals we are worried about". In other words "It's not socially expectable to hate those people, but since it's still okay to discriminate against them, they're going to be our scapegoat!". These are the same group of "family" oriented Christians that were speaking out against desegregation claiming it was dangerous to let those uppity black folk hang around their white children.
With all this shit happening, it's a wonder that any non-white, any women, any homosexual or transsexual would still want to be religious. Keep in mind, these people hate you, have hated you (or at the very least are secretly disgusted by you) and were rather you be dead based on their shoddy interpretation of their 2000 year old desert scribblings.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames
You can say what you want, but the only thing that has EVER stood in the way of equal rights has been religion and the fact that it brings people up to believe that certain people are unfavorable in the eyes of their religion and it also brings people up to believe they should be squeamish and ashamed of natural bodily functions.
It's a humongous generalization, but I see your point and I mostly agree with it. Though, I'd personally put the focus on how distortion of ideas, practiced through group control through human history, (among other things) tend to lead to such results.
When it comes to the LGBT (Lesbians, Gays, Bixsexuals and Transgender)[...], any potential legislation raised for their rights is thrown out simply because of that "T" at the end.
I totally agree on the hypocracy shown towards LGBT individuals contra others. I'm happy to say that I live in a country were LGBT individuals equal rights is very prominent(both in legislation and reality) in contrast to most other countries.
Despite all this, didn't Jesus do away with the old law?
Not per se. He specifically pointed out that he had not come to do destroy the law, but to fulfill it. One can see it as a revision. Though, since Jesus didn't sit down bespectacled and write a book of the law, followers were forced to interpret laws through his life and action so to speak, technically boiling down to subjective, agreed upon, interpretations.
(so for you guys out there, dating a post-op female is fantastic since you don't have to worry about her getting pregnant or have to deal with PMS)
With all this shit happening, it's a wonder that any non-white, any women, any homosexual or transsexual would still want to be religious. Keep in mind, these people hate you, have hated you (or at the very least are secretly disgusted by you) and were rather you be dead based on their shoddy interpretation of their 2000 year old desert scribblings.
It's important to remember that it's not a polemic. The examples of religious views you gave are akin to fundamentalists, and rest assured that the absolute majority of religious people(I'm tempted to say only fundamentalists constitute the rest) strongly disagree with fundamentalist religious beliefs, and are equally occupied with seeing fundamentalism not having power in public areas like legislation.
Cudos to your active support of a vulnerable group in society.
Not per se. He specifically pointed out that he had not come to do destroy the law, but to fulfill it. One can see it as a revision. Though, since Jesus didn't sit down bespectacled and write a book of the law, followers were forced to interpret laws through his life and action so to speak, technically boiling down to subjective, agreed upon, interpretations.
Early christians did a way with most of the laws in the old testament to make the religion more attractive to non-jews (what do you mean I can't eat pork? what do you mean I can't sleep with my wife for seven days after she menstruates? you want me to do WHAT with my penis?)
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by Phredreeke
Early christians did a way with most of the laws in the old testament to make the religion more attractive to non-jews (what do you mean I can't eat pork? what do you mean I can't sleep with my wife for seven days after she menstruates? you want me to do WHAT with my penis?)
Very nice heathen c.a 50 ad imitation you got there!
But it's true, Paul the Apostle(Saul of Tarsus) made some major(read crazy f00 straight contradictory) changes to Jesus teachings. Kinda stupid that the entirety of modern Christianity cherishes good ol' Saul to the extent that it does.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames
You can say what you want, but the only thing that has EVER stood in the way of equal rights has been religion and the fact that it brings people up to believe that certain people are unfavorable in the eyes of their religion and it also brings people up to believe they should be squeamish and ashamed of natural bodily functions.
It's a humongous generalization, but I see your point and I mostly agree with it. Though, I'd personally put the focus on how distortion of ideas, practiced through group control through human history, (among other things) tend to lead to such results.
You are absolutely correct, it was a huge generalization. I personally see most modern religions as a means of control, and it's kind of a circle. The ruling class puts up these scapegoats as a means to get the population arguing amongst themselves, the sheep (not always religious types, which is where my generalization was) will use these as justifications for their ignorance, and the politicians will swoop in and pretend to be on everyone's side (except those filthy communists). There are many parts to play in trying to create a "controlled" society, it was a bit unfair to point at religion as the only driving force behind it, although I do have to say it is quite a huge part.
When it comes to the LGBT (Lesbians, Gays, Bixsexuals and Transgender)[...], any potential legislation raised for their rights is thrown out simply because of that "T" at the end.
I totally agree on the hypocracy shown towards LGBT individuals contra others. I'm happy to say that I live in a country were LGBT individuals equal rights is very prominent(both in legislation and reality) in contrast to most other countries.
Well, I actually have a big beef with the LGBT as well. They have a huge priority towards the LGB, but most of them could care less about transsexuals. They treat them kind of like the annoying little brother your mom makes you take along with your friends because he's got no friends of his own. It's to the point where it's almost as if they don't even understand the condition themselves, not helping where they need it and often helping when no help is needed. Especially in terms of the GLAAD going after Seth MacFarlane for that family guy episode about Quagmire's Dad. Yes, that's just what these people need GLAAD, to make them look like a bunch of whiny babies that can't take a joke.
With all this shit happening, it's a wonder that any non-white, any women, any homosexual or transsexual would still want to be religious. Keep in mind, these people hate you, have hated you (or at the very least are secretly disgusted by you) and were rather you be dead based on their shoddy interpretation of their 2000 year old desert scribblings.
It's important to remember that it's not a polemic. The examples of religious views you gave are akin to fundamentalists, and rest assured that the absolute majority of religious people(I'm tempted to say only fundamentalists constitute the rest) strongly disagree with fundamentalist religious beliefs, and are equally occupied with seeing fundamentalism not having power in public areas like legislation.
I'm also going to half agree with you on this one. It's true that most of the 'voice' comes from the most outrageous end, but they don't just get what they want being a small minority, someone has to back them up. Part of this is as you said before, distortion of ideas. The media likes to play a lot of 'dualities' when it comes to deciding things. "You're either for us or against us, democrat or republican, patriot or communist/socialist, etc". So it usually comes down to "Those unruly darkies that want to rape and kill you or these pious champions of good, the Christians" or "Those disgusting AIDS ridden gender bending prostituting shemales or the children. You can't vote against children can you?"
Cudos to your active support of a vulnerable group in society.
Thanks, if you watched that video I posted not too long ago, Jim Jeffries, one particular bit he said "The bible is too wordy, all the stories are too wordy, the ten commandants are a load of S#$%, you don't need these things. The bible should be one sheet of paper, and on that piece of paper it should say 'Try not to be a cunt'. And if you do that everyday, you'll be a good person." I've always tried to think like that, and it's nice that someone has put those thoughts into such an elegant few sentences.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
[...] it was a bit unfair to point at religion as the only driving force behind it, although I do have to say it is quite a huge part.
I absolutely agree that religion is very much(although not in the slightest exclusively) used as a means for "crowd control" all over the world.
In my book that's a very serious offence, to exploit individuals innermost beliefs in the ways we see around the globe.
I'm also going to half agree with you on this one. It's true that most of the 'voice' comes from the most outrageous end, but they don't just get what they want being a small minority, someone has to back them up. Part of this is as you said before, distortion of ideas. The media likes to play a lot of 'dualities' when it comes to deciding things. "You're either for us or against us, democrat or republican, patriot or communist/socialist, etc". So it usually comes down to "Those unruly darkies that want to rape and kill you or these pious champions of good, the Christians" or "Those disgusting AIDS ridden gender bending prostituting shemales or the children. You can't vote against children can you?"
I definately agree on the media's role as major opinionator, they are the absolutely biggest reason imho for fueling the belief that religion and secular society is a polemic. Religion in the media is either
.a) "Look at these crazy religious people! Theys gone m-a-d!"
or
.b) "[...] good, Christian values."(Whenever an election or the ilk is coming up)
That's mostly due to that a balanced, normal, person that also holds some religious belief is not exactly headline news. It's just a balanced, normal, person like any other, with the exception that s/he holds some religious belief in her/his heart. I mean, it's no alien or something.
'Try not to be a cunt'. And if you do that everyday, you'll be a good person."
Maybe not my choice of wording, but the principle is absolutely true.
I think the experience is different in the UK to the US. You would not catch a politician coming up for election going on about Christian values, or religion in general. Tony Blair waited until his prime-ministry was over before 'coming out' as a Catholic. Christians are seen as lepers over here. Like the other day, at work, a female colleague pointed out a man she thought was attractive, and I just said simply "Oh yeh, Paul, he's a Christian", and she responded with "Eurgh..." and turned her face up.
That's because most American's aren't capable of critical thinking due to our education system that has to be watered down to make it look like more kids are doing better. It's like they've come to equate religiousness with responsibility.
I don't know what it's like in the UK, but most Christians seem to think that they don't have it easy because of their beliefs, even though their beliefs don't really cause any kind of hindrance...? It's usually their group that causes the hindrance on everyone else. They kind of act like Eminem in this parody (which was spot on, by the way).
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
I don't think it's anything to do with levels of education. (Trust me, the average child in the UK today is not very bright). But we - speaking as an English person born in 1988 - were not brought up with any kind of religious education beyond 'Jesus died on a cross' and 'heaven is nice'.
The young people of England do not even think of religion. God just doesn't figure at all. It is not an issue with the importance of, say, who Katie Price is shagging, or what colour should I paint my nails. Celebrities are the religion of the idiots. But that's a whole nother debate.
I have kind of abstained from this thread as I generally do not discuss religion or politics much these days, but I still have my opinions.
Although I will soon have a PhD in a science/engineering field I would like to believe there is a God, Heaven et al because I hope something exists after our very brief time on this planet.
I am not overly religious, I try not be a bad person as I do not want to upset the man upstairs. That is pretty much my life philosophy.
And Matt is correct on the state of a lot of UK's young (Celebrities etc) and brightness. I was shopping in a small family owned hardware store some time ago, and the girl at the counter needed a calculator to work out what 15% was of £10 (we had a 15% Value Added Tax rate for a while). Best part is she did not believe that I had worked it out in my head...
Personally I can't stress enough the need to look into stuff yourself. Lots of people let their opinions be determined by documentaries, based on the principle that the people who made them must have done all the research they needed.
I've actually found that's often not the case.
That's one of the reasons why I do what I do, going door to door and talking to people about this. Even your average vicar lacks some of the most basic Bible knowledge, it's terrifying that these people are then interviewed on TV and actually treated like experts. It's purely based on the fact that 'they're a vicar, so they must know!... right?'
There've been situations, for instance, where a vicar will complain when we don't call him 'Father so and so'. You show him Matt 23:8-12 where Jesus talks about religious titles like Rabbi, Leader and Father and says Christians shouldn't use such titles, because they're all brothers. And the vicar says "Oh... I didn't know it said that"
If you just go back to scripture a lot of stuff becomes clearer. One good example is Hell. If Hell is a lake of fire where the evil go to burn forever, why does Revelation 20:14 say Hell itself is cast into the lake of fire? And verse 13 says Hell gives up those dead in her, which isn't consistent with it being the permanent home of the wicked dead. Once you figure that out you can trace it back through scripture and it becomes clear that Biblical Hell is actually the common grave of man - everyone who dies goes to hell, good or bad, it's just the state of deadness. Jesus indicated the 'lake of fire' is called Gehenna, not Hell. The two, which the churches consider to be words for the same thing, are actually clearly distinct when you take them back to scripture.
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman I don't think it's anything to do with levels of education. (Trust me, the average child in the UK today is not very bright). But we - speaking as an English person born in 1988 - were not brought up with any kind of religious education beyond 'Jesus died on a cross' and 'heaven is nice'.
The young people of England do not even think of religion. God just doesn't figure at all. It is not an issue with the importance of, say, who Katie Price is shagging, or what colour should I paint my nails. Celebrities are the religion of the idiots. But that's a whole nother debate.
Originally Posted by ..::hagar::.. And Matt is correct on the state of a lot of UK's young (Celebrities etc) and brightness. I was shopping in a small family owned hardware store some time ago, and the girl at the counter needed a calculator to work out what 15% was of £10 (we had a 15% Value Added Tax rate for a while). Best part is she did not believe that I had worked it out in my head...
Great points, but I can guarantee that the education level of education in America is waaaay worse. The story you mentioned hagar, at least she knew what she had to do to get that, a small handful of people in this country wouldn't be able to. It's also to the point where one of the top technical schools in the country, MIT, is only getting about 5% of it's students from America, and the majority of scientists and doctors are from foreign countries. I'm sure it seems pretty bad from where you're at, but really, it's much worse over here.
I'm not saying that only stupid people believe in God (though it's very rare for an intelligent person to have these beliefs) but it makes them more susceptible to it. Another part of it has to do with indoctrination. Regardless of thinking that UK isn't very religious, it still is one of the most religious countries in the world.
Originally Posted by Phredreeke Yes, Boothman is right. There are manu stupid atheists as well as many brilliant religious people.
Of course. I'm not trying to say that, and of course that would be a duality (if all atheists are smart then all religious people are idiots.) Go onto a religious or anti-religious video on youtube and take a look at the comments section, swing a bat and you'll hit an idiot, regardless of "which team their playing for".
Originally Posted by DeadmanDines Personally I can't stress enough the need to look into stuff yourself. Lots of people let their opinions be determined by documentaries, based on the principle that the people who made them must have done all the research they needed.
You can usually point out people who do this, especially if they're talking about a subject you're familiar with (for example, the creationists that hate evolution so much but still think the theory states we evolved from monkeys, a person can live for millions of years, and say other stupid crap like "if we evolved from monkeys how come there are still monkeys?", and of course the fact that evolution and religion does not disprove one another and that they fight it tooth and nail simply because they've been brought up that way.)
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
And on the notion of UK contra USA religiousness of politics, Theology PhD Tina Beattie has some good points for the equation in her book The New Atheists. She notes that "America is a relatively young nation, founded on secular ideals underpinned by a deistic notion of God, and it's religious identity primarily influenced by Protestant Christianity. Britain on the other hand, like the rest of Europe, has a longer, more complicated and more bloody religious history, and it has also developed a more thoroughly secular political ethos. [...] Whereas a confession of atheism miht still damage them seeking office in American public life, British politicans are viewed with suspicion if they give the impression of allowing their personal religious beliefs to inform their political decisions."
How one interprets causality in this is anyone's guess. I personally tend to find my attention pointed toward how british legislation is potentially self-aware of it's history and has direct experience of the transformation from intolerance to tolerance. Remembering it's past, it instinctively reacts towards potential religious influence of state. Whereas American legislation is based on equality/tolerance from it's initiality, it hasn't been forced to fight it's inner demons regarding religious influence, making it - in a sense - naive.
This is a fairly blunt, generalizing and reductive perspective, but you get the point.
Sorry for the wall o' text, but I think it makes an interesting read.
On the matter of Biblical interpretation and it's potential usage in politics, one of the most interesting aspects I've come across is looking into the bible's(foremost the hebrew bible) history, composition and original language. For instance, calling upon the bible against gay rights. If one were to look objectively and freed from socio-historic imposition, one would find that the bible is at it's best vauge on the subject of homosexuality.
Actually, in the entire Old testament there are only two verses that explicitly address the legality of sexual relations with the same sex. One of those verses has been cited to death, Leviticus 18:22;
(KJV)
22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination
Other translations are typically "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abbhorrence".
However, these translations are interpretive, not literal. Jacques Berlinerblau, whom I mentioned in a previous post, offers us an undogmatized view on the verse;
"A literal, secular translation of Leviticus 18:22 might read something like this: And with a male you will not lie lying downs of a woman (miskebe 'isa) It is an abomination."
He goes on to show the second verse were miskebe 'isa makes an appearance, Leviticus 20:13;
(KJV)
13If 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.
He once again offers a more accurate - though not neccessarily more clear - translation:
"And a man that will lie with a male lying downs of a woman (miskebe 'isa), the two of them have committed an abomination. They will die. Their blood is upon them."
As he notes, it is fairly plausible to assume some type of sexual encounter between two males is considered abhorrent. The problem lies in that no one actually knows what lying downs of a woman actually entails. Scripture is silent on the matter, so scholars - convinced that scripture is always coherent and universally true - have made suggestions ranging from all homosexual acts to solely anal sex. Another detail that has intrigued interpreters is that there is no reference to the age or social status of the participants. Both points being crucial variables in Greek and Roman thinking on the matter.
Another point is that these verses have nothing to say about same-sex relations between women, so I guess all the closet lesbians of fundamentalist christianity can take a chill-pill and come out into the open, Jesus certainly has nothing to say against them.
To solve the puzzling phrase, "lying downs of a woman", it is obvious that interpreters have leaned on the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, where the unruly mob of men demand that the male guests be brought out so they "may know them". Everyone knows how the story goes. Though an intriguing fact, noticed by Anglican Derrick Sherwin Bailey in a 1955 study, is that the sins of Sodom is never associated to sodomy. A few examples of associated sins are arrogance, adultery and lying.
So it is amazing and horrifying that the lying downs of a woman, unclear as they are, has managed to hold it's role as cornerstone for the persecution and demonizing of gay people.
Any good Christian will now object and point to the New Testament and (supposedly)Paul's words in Romans 1:26-27(which is one of the three passages in the entirety of the New Testament that bears directly on same-sex relations):
(KJV)
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Jacques Berlinerblau shows on various ways how these verses are problematic(if you do not agree feel free to read pages 106-109 in his book The
Secular Bible). One of the most technical problems is the fact that investigation of the wording only implies that this refers to what we call "bisexuals". It is shown that the men is only at error after abandoning their natural lust of women and proceeding with same-sex honky-tonks. To quote John Boswell, Paul derogates "homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons." So technically, Paul has nothing to say about those whom we might call "natural" or "biologically" gay.
A loophhole, yes, but orthodoxy as throughout history made use of an abundance of loopholes for their matter, so why shouldn't we?
The two remaining passages supposedly regarding homosexuality in the New Testament is 1 Timothy 1:8-10:
(KJV)
8But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
The underlined part is the one in question, often directly translated to just "homosexuals". The problem that once again rises is that the greek word translated as "homosexuals", "sodomites" and the ilk is arsenokoites. Berlinerblau points to New Testament scholar Dale Martins research on the word using contemperaneous Greek documents. The contexts in which it appears suggest to him that sins of an economic nature are being discussed. He wonders if arsenokoitein "refers to some kind of economic exploitation, probably by sexual means: rape or sex by economic coercion, prostitution, pimping, or something of the sort."
He states:"I am not claiming to know what arsenokoites meant, I am claiming that no one knows what it meant."
The term makes another apperance in 1 Corinthians 6:9:
(KJV)
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
The two keywords used are malakoi(effeminate) and arsenokoítai(abusers of themselves with mankind), some translations even jam em' into one big "homosexuals".
It is noted that effeminate men of the time are not by definition homosexuals, and as seen earlier, arsenokoítai has a very uncertain meaning. So it's not truthful to hold the bible against the right and orderly of homosexual individuals, only dogma is against it, not the actual source for the dogma.
As I said: Sorry for the wall o' text, but I think it makes an interesting read.
Which reminds me, I've heard a few things a while back that suggested Jesus was actually gay himself. Whether the argument holds water or not, it's still kind of interesting.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman Of course he wasn't gay. You ever seen a gay guy with a massive unkempt beard, going round in a brown robe?
Actually the bible depicts his beard to be clean and braided, and he wore a shiny pink silk robe. OMG Haaaalaaay loo yaaaaaaaaaaaaah boys!
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames Actually the bible depicts his beard to be clean and braided, and he wore a shiny pink silk robe. OMG Haaaalaaay loo yaaaaaaaaaaaaah boys!
No where in the Bible does it mention Jesus wearing a pink robe, nor does it say it was silk (most likely it was not, Jesus wasn't rich in worldly wealth)
The Bible does say Jesus was clean shaven, or at least that he shaved.
If you would like to prove any of your false claims go ahead and give scripture references.
Sounds to me like you're just typing a bunch of nonsense.
Much like you enjoy DC mailing yourself.
I would highly scrutinize anything else you type, most of it is nonsense by the looks of it. Sounds like you enjoy using stereotypes as well since you used appearance to try and prove Jesus's intentions. Even though your claim was false, the "proof" you used makes it very clear that your opinion should be taken with grain.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames I don't know what it's like in the UK, but most Christians seem to think that they don't have it easy because of their beliefs, even though their beliefs don't really cause any kind of hindrance...?
"most Christians" eh? Another stereotype. You obviously don't know many "Christians." (I put it in quotes because claiming Christianity doesn't mean a thing if they aren't living it)
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames That's because most American's aren't capable of critical thinking[...]
Not everyone is like you.
Originally Posted by Phredreeke Early christians did a way with most of the laws in the old testament to make the religion more attractive to non-jews
This isn't true. If you read the epistles you'll see why. (or Paul as EE said)
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] But it's true, Paul the Apostle(Saul of Tarsus) made some major(read crazy f00 straight contradictory) changes to Jesus teachings. Kinda stupid that the entirety of modern Christianity cherishes good ol' Saul to the extent that it does.
Can you please point out these "changes", or "contradictions." Sure some of the ceremonial laws held by the Jews were abolished when Jesus died on the cross, but nothing was changed by Paul by any stretch. In fact one of the big ones that was abolished by Jesus was the ability to come to God as in individual instead of having the priest pray for you. When Jesus died the curtain that separated the average person from the Holiest of Holies was rent, and that ended the necessity of ceremonial laws, and it also removed the necessity of performing certain acts to stay within the Jewish Covenant.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] It is only later, in postbiblical times, that many commentators and scribes make the two overlapping assumptions;
1.) The word "Torah" equates to the stretch of five documents that runs from Genesis to Deuteronomy.
2.) That Moses was the author of "Torah"(i.e the five books)
And the entire argument is based upon the first assumption, but let's make it clearer.
Even though the first 5 books of the Bible are referred to as the "Torah," the word "Torah" literally means "law." So before THE Torah was written the word "Torah" just meant "law."
So the whole argument falls apart once again. Good luck trying to glue it back together.
There are more reasons why that argument is incorrect, but I'll just wait for you to bring them up yourself as you always do.
Why won't anyone read the book of spirits and its related stuff? So much proof out there about life on the other side. Proof about Jesus and God. I’m Christian and after studying spiritism I can only confirm the Bible/Jesus is a true gift to mankind with its messages and teachings and people need to realize it was written according to its time and not take things literally.
Just go love each other or something. We all have much to learn!!
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames Actually the bible depicts his beard to be clean and braided, and he wore a shiny pink silk robe. OMG Haaaalaaay loo yaaaaaaaaaaaaah boys!
No where in the Bible does it mention Jesus wearing a pink robe, nor does it say it was silk (most likely it was not, Jesus wasn't rich in worldly wealth)
The Bible does say Jesus was clean shaven, or at least that he shaved.
If you would like to prove any of your false claims go ahead and give scripture references.
Sounds to me like you're just typing a bunch of nonsense.
Much like you enjoy DC mailing yourself.
I would highly scrutinize anything else you type, most of it is nonsense by the looks of it. Sounds like you enjoy using stereotypes as well since you used appearance to try and prove Jesus's intentions. Even though your claim was false, the "proof" you used makes it very clear that your opinion should be taken with grain.
LOL calm down dude, it was a joke. JOOOOKE! I thought it was pretty obvious that comment wasn't serious, sarcastic even. Lighten up, would you?
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames I don't know what it's like in the UK, but most Christians seem to think that they don't have it easy because of their beliefs, even though their beliefs don't really cause any kind of hindrance...?
"most Christians" eh? Another stereotype. You obviously don't know many "Christians." (I put it in quotes because claiming Christianity doesn't mean a thing if they aren't living it)
The bible states that Christians will be persecuted and had been at some point, though history shows that they've done more persecution than they have received. Sure there might be some occasions where someone is singled out, harmed or whatever just for being a Christian (as with all other groups), but it is just about non-existent in America, which ironically happens to have the most complaints. Take right now for instance, Chicago has now started allowing same sex marries, and it's freaking pandemonium. "The homosexuals are taking over Chicago" is something I've been hearing quite a bit lately, like those uppity queer folk are breaking into peoples houses with guns and stuff. Take yourself for instance. You're whining that I'm stereotyping your group, so what? This is why I hate "anti-defamation" groups, most of the time they worry about stupid pointless words. That's all they are is words, they should bother defending people from losing work, being denied housing, being hurt or being killed based on who they are as a person, or against people trying to enact legislature based on the same thing, which ironically again is carried out by Christians and other religious types more than any other group. I can see you getting upset if I said "All Christians", but I said "Most", indicating that if you weren't most Christians, that wouldn't apply to you. And what did I say, most Christians whine? GTFO man, I hardly said anything like most Christians are moronic animal rapists.
We've been over this. Most of the opinions of "Christian Americans" are actually only the views of a small minority with a large voice, however, they don't get anywhere by being a small majority, someone has to back them up to allow them a majority, which I don't care who you are but if you back someone up for being ignorant, that doesn't make you any different, regardless if you state otherwise. It bothers the heck out of me when someone says one thing then does another.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames That's because most American's aren't capable of critical thinking[...]
Not everyone is like you.
You've never been to the city, have you? Better yet, just go out driving somewhere. 9 times out of 10 you'll run into a moron in this country, unless you are a moron, then everyone else looks smart.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames You've never been to the city, have you? Better yet, just go out driving somewhere. 9 times out of 10 you'll run into a moron in this country, unless you are a moron, then everyone else looks smart.
Ha ha! What are you talking about!
I live just outside of New Orleans, I go to the city almost everyday, and yes, I've met "Christians."
And I've met those who are sincere. The people who are sincere you won't notice as much as those who are just crazy.
Come on didn't you go to a church at one time?
Don't you know that there are people who just go to church to feel good about themselves, and then there are people who actually live the life.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames You've never been to the city, have you? Better yet, just go out driving somewhere. 9 times out of 10 you'll run into a moron in this country, unless you are a moron, then everyone else looks smart.
Ha ha! What are you talking about!
I live just outside of New Orleans, I go to the city almost everyday, and yes, I've met "Christians."
And I've met those who are sincere. The people who are sincere you won't notice as much as those who are just crazy.
Come on didn't you go to a church at one time?
Don't you know that there are people who just go to church to feel good about themselves, and then there are people who actually live the life.
It's probably just a matter of perspective, but no Christian who would actually follow the teachings of Jesus would be caught dead in most churches nowadays, considering Jesus spoke out against the large churches that take in mountains of profit. So no, just about everyone their was either dragged there against their will (i.e. children), we're there just in case, went there to make themselves feel better than those heathens that don't, or as George Carlin said "Gather once a week to compare clothing". The most phony people I have EVER met, especially the pastors.
And what's also a pretty neat fact is that actually I still go to church from time to time.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] But it's true, Paul the Apostle(Saul of Tarsus) made some major(read crazy f00 straight contradictory) changes to Jesus teachings. Kinda stupid that the entirety of modern Christianity cherishes good ol' Saul to the extent that it does.
Can you please point out these "changes", or "contradictions."
There are a multitude of small, small, additions, subtractions, modifications etc. littered throughout NT after the four gospels, which makes it hard to point out any given "one" since they are intertwined and referative(is that even a word?) to each other. But a good practice to see what I mean is to read the NT from start to finish in a short timespan. When you have the gospels in fresh memory you'll notice the slight transformations that in the end sums up to large - albeit hard to pin-point - differences.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] It is only later, in postbiblical times, that many commentators and scribes make the two overlapping assumptions;
1.) The word "Torah" equates to the stretch of five documents that runs from Genesis to Deuteronomy.
2.) That Moses was the author of "Torah"(i.e the five books)
And the entire argument is based upon the first assumption, but let's make it clearer.
Even though the first 5 books of the Bible are referred to as the "Torah," the word "Torah" literally means "law." So before THE Torah was written the word "Torah" just meant "law."
Also a part of the problem. "Torah" does not literally mean "law", more accurately it translates to "teaching", "doctrine" or "instruction". An interpretive translation could give you "law", but an interpretive translation is a fuzzy thing since it rests on subjective assumptions.
I included a few of the terms used when refering using the word Torah. And as Berlinerblau points out; "What each term meant to biblical scribes living in different times is by no means easy to discern."
And onwards, "So before THE Torah was written the word "Torah" just meant "law"."
What is your base for the assumption that there is A Torah? Where is the information conveyed that "now Torah means Genesis through Deuteronomy as opposed to just "law"(your wording, not mine)" Please give me the information that you base it upon, cause when you really look there isn't any.
There are more reasons why that argument is incorrect, but I'll just wait for you to bring them up yourself as you always do.
I don't expect you to listen or reevaluate your stand in the question, so don't bother. I'm aiming at non-fundamentalists who have the integrity to dare examine it critically.
@game guy: Fundamentalists on both sides are viciously adequate at not seeing the socio-historic context of scripture(their loss imo), that's the main reason for the fundamentalism.
Btw, what is "the book of spirits and it's related stuff"? (just curious)
@game guy: Fundamentalists on both sides are viciously adequate at not seeing the socio-historic context of scripture(their loss imo), that's the main reason for the fundamentalism.
Btw, what is "the book of spirits and it's related stuff"? (just curious)
I see. Well, I hope they come to agree someday on the same thing which will benefit everyone hehe.
book of spirits was put together by Allan Kardec(written by a bunch of spirits)
The doctrine(not religion) has scientific bases and religious consequences. It’s rational, doesn’t accept preconceived idea or dogmas. Quite an interesting read for anyone whether you believe it or not and independent of your religion.
I said “releated stuff” because that book alone may not convince someone, and definitely doesn’t explain it all in details, but if you read all the other basic works by Allan Kardec and research on all the spiritism thing(manifested in the whole world) you’ll see what I mean. I was skeptical at first about the spirits thing. Read it, you won’t regret! The intro is kind of long but once you start reading the questions and answers by spirits you won’t stop reading it!
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames It's probably just a matter of perspective, but no Christian who would actually follow the teachings of Jesus would be caught dead in most churches nowadays, considering Jesus spoke out against the large churches that take in mountains of profit. So no, just about everyone their was either dragged there against their will (i.e. children), we're there just in case, went there to make themselves feel better than those heathens that don't, or as George Carlin said "Gather once a week to compare clothing". The most phony people I have EVER met, especially the pastors.
And what's also a pretty neat fact is that actually I still go to church from time to time.
Well you're right about this, and I feel the same way about those large churches.
I can't say that every large church is this way, but it seems to me that pastors that run thousands on Sunday morning aren't really preaching what the Bible says, but just saying what people want to hear.
A good church seems to be rare to find these days, but I think that if you can't find one you should just go to the best you can find. If anything to just have a place where you focus on God exclusively, and meet like-minded people.
And beyond that just pray for God to lead you to the right one.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I don't expect you to listen or reevaluate your stand in the question, so don't bother.
Fine, it won't benefit anyone either way anyhow.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] When you have the gospels in fresh memory you'll notice the slight transformations that in the end sums up to large - albeit hard to pin-point - differences.
They're pretty easy to find actually, but the point is that they don't contradict each other. One of the most popular differences is the story about when Jesus curses the fig tree that wasn't bearing fruit. The explanation is slightly different in two of the Gospels, but the information is still the same, and that's all that's important, and I think that lends more validity to the story to get two different perspectives.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Also a part of the problem. "Torah" does not literally mean "law", more accurately it translates to "teaching", "doctrine" or "instruction". An interpretive translation could give you "law", but an interpretive translation is a fuzzy thing since it rests on subjective assumptions.
Right, so if you knew this much, then you see that J.B's observation is incorrect since the word Torah means more than just the first 5 books of the Bible, especially if used in the plural since "The Torah" isn't plural.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] What is your base for the assumption that there is A Torah? Where is the information conveyed that "now Torah means Genesis through Deuteronomy as opposed to just "law"(your wording, not mine)" Please give me the information that you base it upon, cause when you really look there isn't any.
Oh, it isn't an assumption, that's just what the Jewish people call it now since it contains law. It's just another name for it. It's also called the "Pentateuch," and that's another name for it too. More often than not though using "Pentateuch" refers to the oral version of the first 5 books, so I don't use it since I'd rather rely on the written version copied by the scribes. The written version would be read aloud every 7 years to the people because not many of them could read, and so that's the origin of the oral version.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] When you have the gospels in fresh memory you'll notice the slight transformations that in the end sums up to large - albeit hard to pin-point - differences.
They're pretty easy to find actually, but the point is that they don't contradict each other. One of the most popular differences is the story about when Jesus curses the fig tree that wasn't bearing fruit. The explanation is slightly different in two of the Gospels, but the information is still the same, and that's all that's important, and I think that lends more validity to the story to get two different perspectives.
You misunderstood me, I'm not meaning contradictions between the four Gospels and I'm not questioning the validity of their combined story. I meant that Paul(Saul from Tarsus) "morphs" the Gospels' witness throughout his missions and letters.
So "When you have the gospels in fresh memory you'll notice the slight transformations that in the end sums up to large - albeit hard to pin-point - differences" in Paul's teachings contra those of Jesus as portraited in the four Gospels.
Hope I made it clearer.
Oh, it isn't an assumption, that's just what the Jewish people call it now since it contains law. It's just another name for it.
Ok, I'm almost giving up here since I always get answers from you that are completely beside the question.
Once again, even more basic this time.
You believe Moses wrote the Torah.
My question:
Why Moses?
Let's take it from there.
//EE
Edit: And what was that about the oral Torah? You have clearly missed some fundamentals if you think that is what it means. Damn, even wikipedia has it more right.
I've noticed that this thread throws a error when I'm not logged in due to the Poll that was added. Ugh!
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] You misunderstood me, I'm not meaning contradictions between the four Gospels and I'm not questioning the validity of their combined story. I meant that Paul(Saul from Tarsus) "morphs" the Gospels' witness throughout his missions and letters.
I'm interested in seeing these differences then.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Ok, I'm almost giving up here since I always get answers from you that are completely beside the question.
Once again, even more basic this time.
You believe Moses wrote the Torah.
My question:
Why Moses?
Let's take it from there.
Because his name was on it, and has been for as far back as anyone can find. Until some sort of proof to the contrary comes up there is no reason to doubt Moses as the writer since he was the one who lead the Israelite's out of Egypt, and had direct communion with God.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Edit: And what was that about the oral Torah? You have clearly missed some fundamentals if you think that is what it means. Damn, even wikipedia has it more right.
First off what makes you think wikipedia is right?
Second where was I wrong? Can you point it out. Admittedly I just spoke from memory.
One thing is for certain though, Torah refers to the first 5 books, and so does the word Pentateuch.
I forgot the exact name for the Oral version, but in any case I've often heard it referred to as the Pentateuch as well.
It doesn't really matter though all things considered since this isn't really what's being discussed.
Because his name was on it, and has been for as far back as anyone can find. Until some sort of proof to the contrary comes up there is no reason to doubt Moses as the writer since he was the one who lead the Israelite's out of Egypt, and had direct communion with God.
It wasn't uncommon to attribute writings to famous people, either as homage or a way to attract readers.
But lets say Moses did write it, why would he refer to himself in third person?
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Try to do what I said then; Read the entire NT in a short timespan, with the Gospels in fresh memory you'll notice small small changes and alterations to Jesus' teachings as according to Paul the (selfproclaimed) Apostle. In the end theology of Paul, these minor tweaks change the big picture of Jesus' teachings.
I don't know your posture towards Paul, so I wouldn't be surprised if you don't notice a thing. But do yourself a favour and try to read it with special attention to Paul's theological teachings.
Because his name was on it, and has been for as far back as anyone can find. Until some sort of proof to the contrary comes up there is no reason to doubt Moses as the writer since he was the one who lead the Israelite's out of Egypt, and had direct communion with God.
First, take note of what Phredreeke said, that is absolutely true. Take for instance the book of Isaiah, Song of songs and Ecclesiastes; rabbinic tradition give authorship of these to Hezekiah and his colleagues, whilst the bible in itself "seems to give some type of credit for these works to Isaiah, Solomon, and Koheleth, respectively."(J.B-Secular Bible)
In this section he's talking about the difference about ideas in hebrew scripture, and ideas about hebrew scripture.
An idea about hebrew scripture is that Moses wrote the Torah which he recieved directly from God on mt.Sinai, however, that is not an idea in hebrew scripture. Do you get the picture?
You are basing every last of your assumptions on what you see as an infallible script, the Bible. The base for your seeing the infallibility of the Pentateuch, Torah, Books of Moses etc. is that it is directly communicated from God to Moses, however, that is not a part of the infallible script, it's an idea about it. The earliest written mentionings about that idea that I know of are all past 50 BCE, and even then they are ambigous to one another regarding the details.
Moses is supposed to have written down the Torah either in 1312 BCE or 1233 BCE. If one is supposed to keep that knowledge orally for atleast 1000 years - together with all the goings on during the time - don't you see it quite plausible that the details risk being distorted?
First off what makes you think wikipedia is right?
Because on the subject it mostly is.
Second where was I wrong? Can you point it out. Admittedly I just spoke from memory.
One thing is for certain though, Torah refers to the first 5 books, and so does the word Pentateuch.
I forgot the exact name for the Oral version, but in any case I've often heard it referred to as the Pentateuch as well.
According to rabbinic tradition, Moses - except for receiving the written Torah - also recieved an oral Torah on how to apply the laws found in the written Torah on any given situation throughout time. The oral Torah was a dialog between God and Moses, this knowledge that Moses received was passed down to the leader of the next generation, Moses to Joshua and so on through time. Starting ca.200 CE(!) this oral material was written down and became known as the Talmud - the written oral Torah(however it's not the entire oral Torah, the entirety is 50 times the written Torah in size).
So the Pentateuch has nothing to do with the oral Torah.
It doesn't really matter though all things considered since this isn't really what's being discussed.
It matters since it shows that you lay forth as well underbuilt facts things you know nothing about! Creating a hugh pointing finger on the reason why it's almost impossible to discuss with you!
Creating a hugh pointing finger on the reason why it's almost impossible to discuss with you!
ROAR!
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Try to do what I said then; Read the entire NT in a short timespan, with the Gospels in fresh memory you'll notice small small changes and alterations to Jesus' teachings as according to Paul the (selfproclaimed) Apostle. In the end theology of Paul, these minor tweaks change the big picture of Jesus' teachings.
There isn't anything contradictory in Paul's teachings. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
If you're absolutely sure about this since you keep clamoring for me to read the NT again then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to point out to these "minor tweaks."
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Moses is supposed to have written down the Torah either in 1312 BCE or 1233 BCE. If one is supposed to keep that knowledge orally for atleast 1000 years - together with all the goings on during the time - don't you see it quite plausible that the details risk being distorted?
Sure, if something is passed down orally for 1000 years, it absolutely will get distorted. It would be distorted beyond what it really meant wouldn't you agree?
However since the history recorded in those books matches archeological findings, and other written records kept by the Jewish people it's highly unlikely that it was passed down orally, and in fact...wasn't.
SO what we hold in our hands, the first five books, were copied from the originals by scribes during that time, and as you know all known copies match 99.5%
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] First, take note of what Phredreeke said, that is absolutely true. Take for instance the book of Isaiah, Song of songs and Ecclesiastes; rabbinic tradition give authorship of these to Hezekiah and his colleagues, whilst the bible in itself "seems to give some type of credit for these works to Isaiah, Solomon, and Koheleth, respectively."(J.B-Secular Bible)
You'll notice that J.B said this. I suggest you do some research on your own and stop relying on his "findings." I can't verify his version of "rabbinic tradition," so I wouldn't rely on it.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] An idea about hebrew scripture is that Moses wrote the Torah which he recieved directly from God on mt.Sinai, however, that is not an idea in hebrew scripture. Do you get the picture?
You are right, this is an idea about the Torah, and yes it's not in the scripture itself.
And I agree that outside sources can't be relied upon as much as the scripture itself.
However I won't be quick to dismiss God and Moses as the Author since he was Israelite's leader at the time. I also won't dismiss him as the Author just because someone else might have helped "physically" write it. The thoughts and ideas certainly came from Moses, who was in direct communication with God, so he is the Author.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] It matters since it shows that you lay forth as well underbuilt facts things you know nothing about!
I just mixed up "Talmud" and "Pentateuch." I knew it was one of those that was the oral version. Sorry you feel as though I know nothing about this just because I mixed up one word, but I'll have to insist that you would be wrong. ROAR!
EDIT: oh and to add to that, I just want to make it clear that I don't agree with the Talmud, but I'm sure you know that since Jesus taught against it.
It was not the law of Moses, it was changed so much that it wasn't anything like the original, and was just invented to control the people.
If you're absolutely sure about this since you keep clamoring for me to read the NT again then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to point out to these "minor tweaks."
I'm sorry, I won't waste my time analysing the entire NT for you. If I ever write a paper or an essay on it I'll make sure to post it in this thread though.
Sure, if something is passed down orally for 1000 years, it absolutely will get distorted. It would be distorted beyond what it really meant wouldn't you agree?
However since the history recorded in those books matches archeological findings, and other written records kept by the Jewish people it's highly unlikely that it was passed down orally, and in fact...wasn't.
Once again you misunderstood. I was not talking about the contents of the Torah(Torah Shebikhtav). I was talking about the ideas about it; that Moses received(wrote/authored/received a hard copy/whatever you believe) the Torah from God on mt.Sinai in 1312/1233 BCE, that Moses also received the oral Torah at the same time and that the contents of the oral Torah was passed down through time.
That is the 'knowledge' that has been passed down orally.
SO what we hold in our hands, the first five books, were copied from the originals by scribes during that time, and as you know all known copies match 99.5%
I've always wondered where you derive those statistics from.
The first I have to say about that is that the one's compared are the canonized Hebrew Bible(i.e from as early as ca.100 CE) and the collection of scrolls and fragments found in Qumran(generally dated from 150 BCE and 70 CE).
If you believe that hebrew scripture was 'untouched' after it's canonization(which you have admitted that you do) that makes the comparative age ~30 to ~250 years.
I admit that's a long time, but it's not nearly as bold a claim as 1300(!) uncanonized years.
And about the matching%;
According to the Oxford Companion to Archeology(atleast in my world a trustful source);
"The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around 100 CE." (my underline)
The most common percentage I've come across is 35% of the Qumran biblical manuscripts belonging to the Masoretic tradition and 5% each to the Septaguint and the Samaritan. The remaining 55% ranging from not agreeing with any known type and significally diverging with any known reading. I don't see how one plucks 99.5% out of that. The only place that I've ever come across it are those amature, neon colored, flashy devoted christian sites which use CAPITALS-ONLY FOR IMPORTANT STATEMENTS FOLLOWED BY TOO MANY EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please share your sources on the subject, t'would be enlightening.
You'll notice that J.B said this. I suggest you do some research on your own and stop relying on his "findings." I can't verify his version of "rabbinic tradition," so I wouldn't rely on it.
His 'findings' are not just random comments. The part i've been refering to is dedicated the better part of a chapter containing bible passages, references to 'rabbinic tradition'(in this case the Baba Bathra tractate) and logically deduced conclusions which the reader can follow.
You know, he is a serious researcher. 60 of the book's 200 pages are reference notes with further reading, explanations and possible objections. Don't assume that I like yourself simply write 'from memory' or convey - as facts - things 'I've heard'. I do my research, the problem is that you mostly don't.
However I won't be quick to dismiss God and Moses as the Author since he was Israelite's leader at the time. I also won't dismiss him as the Author just because someone else might have helped "physically" write it. The thoughts and ideas certainly came from Moses, who was in direct communication with God, so he is the Author.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. If you are not 100% certain that every last jot of the Hebrew bible is directly from God, would you rely on the text to, let's say, sentence a person to death? Cause that's what the 'infallible' part makes a reality, using specific wordings to legitimate the destruction of human beings' lives.
For example, how many gay people in the history of the world do you think have been persecuted due to 'Godly commands' that are more ambiguos than this entire thread!?
ROAR!
By claiming infallibility to something that we cannot in any way be sure of is to sanction an overwhelming abuse of life. And for every last person who ensures someone else of the 'Godly creditability of literal Scripture' this abuse of life will reside for atleast another generation.
Do you think you are doing 'the right thing' by aiding that?
It was not the law of Moses, it was changed so much that it wasn't anything like the original, and was just invented to control the people.
Problem though, the same tradition that claims Moses authored the Torah is the same tradition that claims Moses received the Oral Torah.
Read the bible all day long if you wan't to, but read between the lines, don't think that the text is infallible, filter out humanity and gain some of the true wisdom that's in there.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I'm sorry, I won't waste my time analysing the entire NT for you. If I ever write a paper or an essay on it I'll make sure to post it in this thread though.
Where did you get that idea about "minor differences" then?
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] [...]that Moses also received the oral Torah at the same time and that the contents of the oral Torah was passed down through time.
That is the 'knowledge' that has been passed down orally.
Oh ok, that's correct.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] And about the matching%;
According to the Oxford Companion to Archeology(atleast in my world a trustful source);
[...]
The most common percentage I've come across is 35% of the Qumran biblical manuscripts belonging to the Masoretic tradition and 5% each to the Septaguint and the Samaritan. The remaining 55% ranging from not agreeing with any known type and significally diverging with any known reading.
Please share your sources on the subject, t'would be enlightening.
Right, 40% *belonged* to the biblical manuscripts, which means that only 40% of the originals was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. And these matches their respective books up to 95.5% from what I've read about them.
The rest of the manuscripts were just religious documents for particular groups, and weren't part of our Bible.
"The texts from Qumran proved to be word-for-word identical to our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted primarily of obvious slips of the pen and spelling alterations" - http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=357
At the bottom of the page are the sources.
Enjoy!
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] His 'findings' are not just random comments.[...]
Of the little you've posted about his theory they've been false, and the answers to his queries about the mention of the word "torah" in Genesis have been obvious.
It's an easy statement to take a word from the Torah that had a different meaning in ancient Hebrew and point to it as "evidence," or even use quotes from people in the Bible itself and try and claim separate authorship. You don't have to do much "research" to make up those claims. All I'm saying is that there are better conclusions from the same evidence.
I don't doubt that he's a good researcher, I just don't think he's being intellectually honest with himself.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Ok, now we're getting somewhere. If you are not 100% certain that every last jot of the Hebrew bible is directly from God[...]
Wow, you jumped from talking about the Torah, to talking about the whole Bible.
Let's go back to the Torah, I believe that Moses is the Author of it, and that he received word from God as was recorded in the Books themselves.
As for the rest of the Bible, some of it's poetry, some of it's teachings, and some of it's History ect.
And all of it was written by men who had a relationship with God.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] By claiming infallibility to something that we cannot in any way be sure of is to sanction an overwhelming abuse of life. And for every last person who ensures someone else of the 'Godly creditability of literal Scripture' this abuse of life will reside for atleast another generation.
Trust me, I've been around long enough to know that those who get in church, and get right with God are much better off.
Rehab can't even get these people off drugs, and they come to church and get filled with the Holy Ghost, and they change.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Do you think you are doing 'the right thing' by aiding that?
Yep I sure do!
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Problem though, the same tradition that claims Moses authored the Torah is the same tradition that claims Moses received the Oral Torah.
And yes, Moses did received the oral Torah, but as you've already said something oral changes overtime. So good luck explaining your way out of that one.
Where did you get that idea about "minor differences" then?
I first noticed it when I re-read the NT in a short time-span, just like I told you to try. Since then I've come across the same idea several times in course literature, from professors, friends, on the internet etc.
Right, 40% *belonged* to the biblical manuscripts, which means that only 40% of the originals was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Your grammar eludes me. 40% of the findings at Qumran comprized biblical manuscripts(i.e the books you'd find in the hebrew bible, all accounted for but perhaps Esther)
Of those manuscripts 45% matched known sources i.e Masoretic, Samaritan and Septaguint sources. The remaining 55% were all from known biblical scripts(that's why they're included in 'biblical manuscripts'), but their matching to either of the sources range from not agreeing with any known type(of source) and significally diverging with any known reading(i.e different meaning).
And these matches their respective books up to 95.5% from what I've read about them.
"The texts from Qumran proved to be word-for-word identical to our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted primarily of obvious slips of the pen and spelling alterations" - http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=357
You do realize that the 95% match in your quote is refering specifically and only to Isaiah right? That is not the same thing as claiming;
"SO what we hold in our hands, the first five books, were copied from the originals by scribes during that time, and as you know all known copies match 99.5%"
And secondly, Apologetics Press is hardly an unbiased source, and since there is quite the debate about the DSS you'd be better off finding a more objective one.
I don't doubt that he's a good researcher, I just don't think he's being intellectually honest with himself.
That was one of those lmfaoroflol moments.
Read the book.
Wow, you jumped from talking about the Torah, to talking about the whole Bible.
Let's go back to the Torah, I believe that Moses is the Author of it, and that he received word from God as was recorded in the Books themselves.
As for the rest of the Bible, some of it's poetry, some of it's teachings, and some of it's History ect.
And all of it was written by men who had a relationship with God.
Oh my God, we've been over this a million times by know, we are both clear about what parts of the bible comprizes what, and I thought we were both clear about what books contains laws/rules applicable in the same manner as the rest of my post stated, which you conveniently left out.(i.e The Torah, since that's where you'll find the laws)
Why won't you just answer my question? Are you not capable to?
Trust me, I've been around long enough to know that those who get in church, and get right with God are much better off.
Rehab can't even get these people off drugs, and they come to church and get filled with the Holy Ghost, and they change.
So you're comparing a number of local addicts 'who found Jesus' to all homosexuals that have been harassed, beaten, tortured, murdered and executed, all in accordance with infallible scripture?
The homosexual are only one example of groups persecuted by either the church itself or pious believers, like yourself.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Do you think you are doing 'the right thing' by aiding that?
Yep I sure do!
I am actually quite disgusted by how you pull my statement out of its very serious context, just so you can answer it smirking. Re-read my question and answer, or I'll just assume that you're a narrow minded, abusive bigot as most other fundamentalists.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Problem though, the same tradition that claims Moses authored the Torah is the same tradition that claims Moses received the Oral Torah.
And yes, Moses did received the oral Torah, but as you've already said something oral changes overtime. So good luck explaining your way out of that one.
I don't get you. It's actually you who should try and explain to us why part of a 1000 year old oral tradition is correct, but not the rest.
So, right back at'cha!
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Trust me, I've been around long enough to know that those who get in church, and get right with God are much better off.
Rehab can't even get these people off drugs, and they come to church and get filled with the Holy Ghost, and they change.
They substitute one drug for another
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Re-reading some of the latter posts, I think I should clear up what Jacques Berlinerblau meant regarding the Torah and Mosaic Authorship. (mostly directed to UrbanMonk since it seems you misunderstand the point of the observation)
Moses, according to Jewish tradition, is said to have received the Torah(i.e the Pentateuch, Five books of Moses, etc.) directly from God(in some way leading to him possessing Genesis through Deuteronomy in script during his lifetime) at mt. Sinai in either 1312 or 1233(we'll not focus on the oral Torah for the sake of the argument)BCE.
That makes the Torah(i.e the five books) God's unfiltered words(we'll not focus on who actually wrote down the words, suffice to say is that many people believe that the Torah is God's exact words). Lending them an infinite amount of truth, if this is the case.
The crux of the matter is that there is nothing in the Torah that indicates this turn of events. There is no scriptural evidence that Moses received what we know as the Torah, from God. There is no claim from Moses of this, there is no witnessing in the Torah of it, and the Torah does not even in any way indicate that it is a 'whole' made up of these five separate documents.
The only thing we do know is that according to jewish oral tradition, this is how it happened, and that's why the Torah is the Law. Because supposedly it's God's direct message to his creation.
Seeing as this claim is quite a powerful one, it's of major interest to know where this idea comes from.
J.B wants people to realize that it is a very reasonable idea that it is a rabbinic 'invention', either conciously or unconciously.
That's the observation. That the Torah doesn't claim itself to be a single 'entity'(i.e five books that make up a deliberate whole), and nowhere is there any indication that Moses has authored these five documents.
The idea of it is simply oral tradition, with the earliest written indications of it(the idea) residing in the latter part of the first century BCE(that I have come across).
J.B's point on the word "Torah" has nothing to do with this initial observation, it is used in the further argumentation of the matter.
I hope I was clearer this time.
And to those of you who already understood the first time; srry
Of course I chose to believe this part of the oral tradition because it's a fundemental part of why these documents are important. Otherwise I these documents wouldn't have survived this long, and would have died out a long time ago.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk You pretty much summed it up.
Of course I chose to believe this part of the oral tradition because it's a fundemental part of why these documents are important.
Hit the nail there! All the better reason to scrutinize their integrity. Though I think it's quite lame how you rigorously detest any information that's been kept orally for atleast 1000 years 'cept for the part you like.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Hit the nail there! All the better reason to scrutinize their integrity. Though I think it's quite lame how you rigorously detest any information that's been kept orally for atleast 1000 years 'cept for the part you like.
Well it seems to me that if any part of the oral tradition would be the most reliable it's this part, especially since as I said it's the source of the tradition itself!
Moses is their leader at the time they are taken out of Egypt, so he is one most likely responsible for the documents.
Originally Posted by Fordom Christians are my enemy's.
I loath them.
That's just a retarded thing to say in a postmodern society. What are you supposed to be, norse or something?
@UrbanMonk: Really, it all boils down to you using circular arguments. But let's end this discussion-arch, we have both sort of agreed on things anyway, down to the point where we simply believe different things.
Originally Posted by Fordom Christians are my enemy's.
I loath them.
That's just a retarded thing to say in a postmodern society. What are you supposed to be, norse or something?
@UrbanMonk: Really, it all boils down to you using circular arguments. But let's end this discussion-arch, we have both sort of agreed on things anyway, down to the point where we simply believe different things.
How I wish I had the 2nd post in this thread so it could read "Inb4 shitstorm"
To answer your question briefly, no I don't believe in god. It all boils down to this book full of fiction, and christians don't even follow it. (Fundamentalists do, don't get me started on them)
I don't know what is worse really, being hypocritical christian by not following the bible, or be a full christian and follow all the, quite honestly, idiotic things it says.
"Are you a christian? Have you ever depicted a human or animal? Oh wait according to this, you're going to hell!"
Just remembered creationism.... Have to cover it aswell:
I've heard that dinosaur fossiles are either planted by God to test our faith, or by Satan to ruin our faith.
I_MEAN_REALLY_?
One to each own though, as long as your religion don't affect people outside your religion.
(Like islamic extremists who think non-muslims aren't worth anything and free to kill)
Originally Posted by Coca-Cola Man How I wish I had the 2nd post in this thread so it could read "Inb4 shitstorm"
To answer your question briefly, no I don't believe in god. It all boils down to this book full of fiction, and christians don't even follow it. (Fundamentalists do, don't get me started on them)
I don't know what is worse really, being hypocritical christian by not following the bible, or be a full christian and follow all the, quite honestly, idiotic things it says.
"Are you a christian? Have you ever depicted a human or animal? Oh wait according to this, you're going to hell!"
Just remembered creationism.... Have to cover it aswell:
I've heard that dinosaur fossiles are either planted by God to test our faith, or by Satan to ruin our faith.
I_MEAN_REALLY_?
One to each own though, as long as your religion don't affect people outside your religion.
(Like islamic extremists who think non-muslims aren't worth anything and free to kill)
You know, belief in God, or as the OP also stated "to put it a slightly different way, do you believe there is 'something else'" does not just apply to Christians.
And also, all extremists see outsiders that way, islamic extremists are no different to others.
@Fordom: Since you whine more than most babies, why don't you share these religious traditions instead of just being hateful, so people can decide for themselves. I have studied Ancient Scandinavian Religion, have you? Do you even know what you are talking about? If you're just here to toss in hateful OT comments please do leave this thread.
Yeah I was refering more to Christianity in my post (and Islam in the last lines)
Sorry that I didn't make that clear. However, the idea of one God (or "something else") comes from the Jews. Christians came from Jews. Jesus was Jewish. It's pretty much the same story except "No, you see there's also this: blahblah"
Although, the "higher power" thing isn't even really debateable. Either you're atheist or agnostic.
(It's really an agnostic who leans towards theism)
You're still just covering the three major Abrahamic religions. That's a classic, faulty, reductive perspective on the notion of religion.
How would you fit in, say, Hinduism into your equation?
And why is the "higher power" thing not debatable? Once again you reduce it in a way that is highly incorrect and reeks of modernist thought, might one assume that you yourself are an atheist/rationalist? Cause most people nowadays, that are actually really unfamiliar to the subject tend to answer in that way after reading some Dawkins/Hitchens or the ilk.
Don't try and explain something you are not familiar with.
And btw, did I ever mention Jacques Berlinerblau's second title to the book The Secular Bible? Kind of fits into this reply - Why nonbelievers must take religion seriously.
If you had read my post, you wouldn't be asking about Hinduism. Hinduism has loads of gods, you were talking about one higher power. The only reason I chose those three are because they're the most well-known religions that focus on one god.
You don't understand my post and go right into attack mode like any religious person I've encountered do when I question their faith. That's a classic, faulty, reductive perspective on the notion of atheism.
I say it's not debateable because you cannot possibly prove it or disprove it.
If you point at a cat and say "That cat has five legs", I can examine the cat and we can agree that no, it does indeed have four. However, if you say "Somewhere in the universe there's a cat with 5 legs." How could I possibly disprove that?
Your post makes me sick, the way you attack me makes we wonder if it's not possible to have a sensible conversation with a theist.
Originally Posted by Coca-Cola Man You don't understand my post and go right into attack mode like any religious person I've encountered do when I question their faith. That's a classic, faulty, reductive perspective on the notion of atheism.
How hypocritical of you. Especially since a few posts up you said:
Originally Posted by Coca-Cola Man I don't know what is worse really, being hypocritical christian by not following the bible, or be a full christian and follow all the, quite honestly, idiotic things it says.
I think you're just reading his post with the wrong tone, since you're reading it based on your own bias.
You're expecting someone to "attack" you so you read every post that disagrees with you that way.
I'd say based on his response that he understood your post quite clearly, whether you're talking about polytheism or monotheism. They are *all* forms of theism which is what you said in your post.
Originally Posted by Coca-Cola Man (It's really an agnostic who leans towards theism)
You have some valid statements presented in a sensible manner. However there is a distinct difference between me saying that the Bible contains things that most people (yes also theists and christians) would find absurd, like not to depict people or animals, and someone saying "No you're wrong" "You know nothing about religion" and especially "Don't try and explain something you are not familiar with. "
Any way, this is kinda pointless. The thread's title is "Do you believe in God?" And I answered that with ("no") and stated a few reasons why I do not in my post. I didn't mean to offend anyone (well not anyone I'd expect to find here anyway)
@Coca-Cola Man: As Urban said, you read my post in the wrong tone. I'm in no attack mode, but since you lay your opinion forth as something self-evident, I simply question your insight in the matter, and the grounds for it.
Originally Posted by Coca-Cola Man If you had read my post, you wouldn't be asking about Hinduism. Hinduism has loads of gods, you were talking about one higher power. The only reason I chose those three are because they're the most well-known religions that focus on one god.
I did read your post, and that is exactly why I asked about Hinduism. If you are familiar to hinduism(atleast to the degree of looking it up in an encyclopedia before answering) you'd know that it is a hugh collection of different religions, stretching from polytheist to monotheist in belief(I wouldn't be surprised if you found atheist belief there too). It's such a pluralistic definition that there isn't even a consensus on what defines a hindu.
That's why I called you.
You don't understand my post and go right into attack mode like any religious person I've encountered do when I question their faith. That's a classic, faulty, reductive perspective on the notion of atheism.
No offence, but you haven't questioned my faith. If your post intended to, it was misdirected.
As I've shown, I did understand your post. And not to be mean, but I don't understand how you fit my questioning of your informaty on the subject with a reductive perspective on atheism.
A reductive perspective on atheism would rather be to say that "an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the Christian God", or in any other way reduce atheism to something that only distrusts certain beliefs, when rather - in our day - atheism is thought of as synonym to rationalism or secularism. A firm 'no-no' to any belief that is not supported by the scientific axiom.
Though rationalism nowadays usually includes a desire to see a world free of religion "and other superstitious beliefs", secularism focuses on a tolerance of religion as long as it is something contained in the private sphere of life.
I say it's not debateable because you cannot possibly prove it or disprove it.
Not to sound mean again, but do you by this statement claim that the abrahamic religions are more proveable than say, Sikhism?
One quality that stands as an inseparable partner of belief, is faith. All beliefs that does not - in a world biased towards the scientific method(no attack intended, just stating) - have rational(once again from the perspective of natural science) grounds rests on faith.
Beliefs that rest on faith is equally unprovable, wheter it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Santería or Wicca. Otherwise they wouldn't be associated with faith, rather, fact.
If you point at a cat and say "That cat has five legs", I can examine the cat and we can agree that no, it does indeed have four. However, if you say "Somewhere in the universe there's a cat with 5 legs." How could I possibly disprove that?
Sorry if I'm provoking you, but that statement is equally on par with post graduates of the 'Dawkins school'. You reduce faith-bound beliefs to the scrutiny of the scientific method, i.e 'show me the atoms that make up your superior, material entity formerly known as Prince er.. God!'
Faith seldomly works in that way. Most religious/believing persons won't agree that God or any other supra-material notion is applicable to scientific (dis)proving.
That's one of the main fit's between religion and rationalism. Religion speaks of 'out-of-this-world' ideas, rationalism demands that religion proves this via the scientific method, which is only applicable to 'in-this-world' ideas, i.e material, 3 dimensional manifestations.
Your post makes me sick, the way you attack me makes we wonder if it's not possible to have a sensible conversation with a theist.
I'm sorry if I made you sick, but as I've tried to explain, I did not intend to attack you. Rather question if you were answering in a routine non-believing fashion, or if your answers were grounded in an actual thinking process, unbiased and taking into consideration different perspectives on the matter.
If you have read some posts in this thread, you'd notice that my input in the discussion is far from biased towards any specific belief(be it theist or not), rather, I try as hard as possible to retain my educated opinion in discussions like this, even if it differs from my personal opinion on the same matter.
Like the example with Moses and the Torah. My educated opinion is that which I have stated in this thread, but personally my view on the subject differs from it quite drastically. But I'm not inclined to shove my personal opinion down your throats, I'd rather relay that which is evident when you take all sides in to consideration.
Sorry for my abuse of the word 'rather', but in my defense, it's a pretty word.
Again, your post is full of valid statements, however I don't really feel like replying to that wall of text with another wall of text. That's not who I am. I respect you for writing that much on this matter, you must really be devoted to it,
though I still think your posting is somewhat condescending.
I don't think this discussion would go anywhere even if I did write a post on 1000 words +, the whole idea of god or whatever you like to call it is just simply illogical to me. It bares no place in my life.
I do hope I don't need to post in this thread again.
Originally Posted by Coca-Cola Man Again, your post is full of valid statements, however I don't really feel like replying to that wall of text with another wall of text. That's not who I am. I respect you for writing that much on this matter, you must really be devoted to it,
I am, I've focused my last 7~8 years of education toward working with it.
though I still think your posting is somewhat condescending.
Yup, it sure is.
Though it's only in reply to the condescendance of your post, so nothing personal.
I don't think this discussion would go anywhere even if I did write a post on 1000 words +, the whole idea of god or whatever you like to call it is just simply illogical to me. It bares no place in my life.
Well actually, this thread has had some good momentum by sharing our own view's on the matter. Like for example, Silverfire showed us a good deal of Wicca from an inside-perspective(to bad he has stopped posting) and UrbanMonk has shown us the innerworkings of a devote Christian(regardless if our opinions were the same).
So by all means, please post your thoughts on the subject. I will surely not object, the only thing I ask for is a respectful tone towards oters beliefs, whaever they may be.
Originally Posted by Fordom Doesn't matter. In a few years their will be no christians left.
But I must say that I hate muslims more than christians.
Sorry for my late reply, I've been busy.
I can safely say that there will be plentiful of Christians and Muslims throughout your lifetime and for unforseeable generations to come. So don't you worry!
But besides that, you should seek professional help. You have a complex, and you project your complex, with furious hatred, on religious believers. That's not very productive. Instead, you should try and figure out why religious believers make you react the way you do.
Originally Posted by Fördom We will never believe! Never!
A few posts back you urged us to embrace the old Scandinavian religion, make up your mind.
//EE
In Christ...
K, no one asked you to though, so I don't see your need to bark about it.
//EE
now do you see it?
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by Codemonster every time I see this post on the front page "Do you believe"
I think of the most annoying song of all time made by the piece of plastic named "Cher"
No way! I keep thinking the same exact same, but I didn't want to sound like an idiot, thanks for taking that bullet. Now my mind can be at ease.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
It's difficult to imagine we're the only thing that exists.
We're part of the physical world, we're a set of rules, and those rules must have had a creator, that's how a physical creature like me would reason, at least.
But nevertheless our logic seems to go beyond what's physical. Our mind is something more than just "physical atoms". We must have a connection to a place beyond this universe, and perhaps there, we'd be able to think beyond individuality.
And between all of us we conform a single being, and that being is what's giving us that feeling so called "faith", and thereby we can conclude that this being is the true god, and we must bow to him, and kill everyone who opposes it.
Religious Gods are abstracts invented by men. I don't believe in a God but I can't rule out the possibility of something like a higher power somewhere in the universe flying around creating stuff.
I strongly believe every single religion is wrong however.
Originally Posted by phanto Religious Gods are abstracts invented by men. I don't believe in a God but I can't rule out the possibility of something like a higher power somewhere in the universe flying around creating stuff.
I strongly believe every single religion is wrong however.
My thoughts exactly. Any atheist that claims they know there is no higher power is also acting on faith and is no different than their opposition. The idea that the human-like characters that have been passed down through history are even less likely to exist, and there is no logical reasoning to believe in them, not to mention to base your life according to their beliefs.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
That's kind of what I've been focusing my studies on; removing the "clothing" and taking a peep on what's beneath so to speak. ^^
Focusing on the mechanism of faith(every person holds a faith - it's their meaning based contextualization apparatus) and why it's so deeply cheerished by people.
Further focusing on the stupidity of arguing about "who's book is right". Humans hold faith, it's an integral part of being human, some cloth it in scientific symbols, some in religious, but at the core it's the same gurkhin. That's my thingamajig.
The Philistine leaders didn't trust David, even though David had committed many genocides for them. They had heard about how the Israelite dancing girls used to sing about David's killings, singing, "Saul has killed his thousands, and David his tens of thousands." So they worried that David could not be trusted to kill his own people. But they were wrong about that. David was always willing to kill anyone at anytime for any reason whatsoever. That's why God loved him so much.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
The Philistine leaders didn't trust David, even though David had committed many genocides for them. They had heard about how the Israelite dancing girls used to sing about David's killings, singing, "Saul has killed his thousands, and David his tens of thousands." So they worried that David could not be trusted to kill his own people. But they were wrong about that. David was always willing to kill anyone at anytime for any reason whatsoever. That's why God loved him so much.
Oh laff, I quite enjoyed that read.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
I had been reading that Sceptics Annotated Bible on the link that someone posted early, and I've gotta say... What a waste of someone's time! What person would actually waste their life reading a thousand plus page religious document they don't even beleive in? And all simply to attempt to prove their opinions Which after all, being an opinion cannot be proved. But the person who wrote lacks common sense as well. Like during the contradiction page, they simply ignore the fact that more than one person can have the same name, then at the same time they embrace it in during sections of the website where they want to make themselves seem like experts. They contradict themselves in attempt to make the bible contradict http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/judas.html There's more than one Judas, duh
I just wonder why a person would waste their life creating this site still. I am assuming they are atheist, so they don't beleive in the afterlife, so what sort of award are they supposed to receive upon dieng by creating this? Actually they receive no benefit while living, as well. Are they gonna walk down the street and some other random aetheist pats them on the back and says "Good job man, I love your website!" Christians at least beleive they might receive some sort of heavenly 'browney points', so to speak, by fighting for God and Jesus, but this is just pointless. The bible is the only book I've read over 200 pages to be honest Why would an aetheist even read it? And then create his commentary on each one of the thousands of verses of it. Wow, no life
Originally Posted by Wiiman I had been reading that Sceptics Annotated Bible on the link that someone posted early, and I've gotta say... What a waste of someone's time! What person would actually waste their life reading a thousand plus page religious document they don't even beleive in? And all simply to attempt to prove their opinions Which after all, being an opinion cannot be proved. But the person who wrote lacks common sense as well. Like during the contradiction page, they simply ignore the fact that more than one person can have the same name, then at the same time they embrace it in during sections of the website where they want to make themselves seem like experts. They contradict themselves in attempt to make the bible contradict http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/judas.html There's more than one Judas, duh
I just wonder why a person would waste their life creating this site still. I am assuming they are atheist, so they don't beleive in the afterlife, so what sort of award are they supposed to receive upon dieng by creating this? Actually they receive no benefit while living, as well. Are they gonna walk down the street and some other random aetheist pats them on the back and says "Good job man, I love your website!" Christians at least beleive they might receive some sort of heavenly 'browney points', so to speak, by fighting for God and Jesus, but this is just pointless. The bible is the only book I've read over 200 pages to be honest Why would an aetheist even read it? And then create his commentary on each one of the thousands of verses of it. Wow, no life
If you're going to mock someone, at least be a little less ignorant about it.
It is just plain downright ignorant to criticize anything you have no knowledge of, if anything Atheists should read the bible, because according to Christians, it is hands down proof of God's existence. Simply writing off a book we haven't read would be childish and ignorant, those Atheists that do (like the one's who claim 100% that there is no God) might as well be thrown in the same boats as a person who bases their life on faith.
I should start by pointing out that the fact that anyone claims that the bible is the 100% true word of a deity is just downright foolish, and should take the time to study early Christian history and how the bible was put together. I could go more into it, but it's best for you to research on the subject yourself and draw your own conclusion from there.
Though there are many people who still shrug off this argument, so for those that do, we have to show that even though they believe their bible that they hold is the 100% unshakable word of God, the messages in there are contradictory and morally repugnant.
It would be a good idea for you to look up the scientific method. Anyone can just claim that the bible is full of contradictions and a crazy nut job God who murders random people, but in order to confirm that, you'll have to have evidence to back up your claim, hence, we have a dedicated person or group of dedicated people who have taken the trouble to point these things out. What they have there is more than just an opinion, they at least have a leg to stand on. Stating that the writer has no life is just plain insulting, especially for someone who's done something that (even though you refuse to see it) has a genuine point. Do you consider every person who undergoes intense research a person who has no life? There are people who devote years, decades, even a majority of their life to intense research that helps advance mankind, did they all just waste their life?
Your thoughts on the Atheist lifestyle are also just plain offensive, a typical Christian view of "an Atheist has no purpose, and a less meaningful life". Granted, you didn't just come right out and say that, but you hinting at it quite hard. Right from the get-go you say "so what sort of award are they supposed to receive upon dieng by creating this?" which is completely missing the point. First of all, people who believe in an Afterlife don't have to worry as much about the life they live now, after all, you believe you're going somewhere better (which in itself makes your life on earth more pointless, don't you think?). Atheists don't have that, we instead know that this life is the only one we've got so life is better spent trying to improve life here on earth, part of which is trying to get people to stop killing each other.
One of my major qualms with religion is that most of the popular outspoken evangelist ones tend to have a philosophy of "Man is basically evil", which is just like the life on earth issue, it puts it in a state of "why bother?". Psychology already demonstrates that there has to be a reason for someone to do something, if there isn't, that person is either withholding information, or they have a mental illness. Modern society, fueled by politics, ignorance and religion don't seem to grasp this concept, and instead of treating the cause, they go after the effect. Jailing a person accomplishes nothing, it may function as a weak deterrent, but if the conditions are right a person will commit a crime regardless of the consequences.
There are many factors which go into creating these conditions, the major ones have to do with poverty, social status, history, 'love', feeling accepted, ignorance, etc. For instance, if a person isn't desperate for money to live, would they need a reason to steal? In some cases, yes, but there still is a reason. Celebrities, like Winona Ryder, might steal as a career move (as it gave her quite a bit of press, and even some roles after the fact as well), other well to do people might do it to make themselves look 'cool' in front of their friends, or as a way to get attention or they might even just plain enjoy the activity and view it as a game of sorts (in which case, they might need help [especially for more serious crimes like murder, though I don't necessarily even regard stealing as a crime in most cases {I tend to ignore stealing in the case of desperation, vs. haves taking from have nots, like taxes} and it's possible with a little learning and guidance these people might be able to find ways to practice their activity within the law]).
Jailing has also been known to cause more problems than good. Granted, the Jailing companies get quite a marvelous amounts of profit, but the cost on the people is outrageous. Aside from monetary problems, many non-violent offenders and wrongful imprisonment cases that are jailed have a higher chance of committing a violent crime when they get out. Also, going back to conditions, if someone commits a crime due to anxiety or poverty, locking someone up for a period of time, taking away a hefty portion of their money(freedom) and vastly decreasing their chance of finding decent work they can live off of, essentially you're creating the same situation they were in, if not worse. Great job, now you've got a repeat offender.
I care very deeply about the world I live in, it breaks my heart to see so many people suffering because other people don't seem to care about it too. Some people will say that there will always be poverty, there will always be crime, there will always be a large amount of the earths population that are starving, and most of the people who say this have the means to help do something about it. Hence, unless you change my view on that, I can never accept/tolerate Religious notions of original sin or "Man is inclined to evil". It blows my mind that religious nuts preach that this life is only a test to get to heaven, then the next second they want to run the world.
Another issue I have with religion is tolerance for human rights, as I've touched on earlier in this thread and stated how religious groups have been the forefront opposition to every minority seeking equal rights, be it blacks, women, homosexuals and transsexuals. Is it really that difficult for you to accept that we aren't animals, and is it really that difficult for us to ask to be treated like equals?
But that's just my struggle, I'm sure if you've talked to any other Atheists, they might tell you they are struggling for something else, but to equate it just fighting back because other people might think we're keen, well, I'll just say if you're going to trash the opposition, please try to understand what the opposition is.
I was in a debate with someone not too long ago, the subject of homosexuality came up, of course, him being a Christian he condemned it. I had already hit him hard on his religion, and he had brought up that he doesn't let his religion dictate his beliefs. He constantly called me close minded and that I would never see past my own opinion, despite me telling him several times that if he can come up with the evidence, I'll agree with him. So I asked him, "Why do you feel homosexuality is wrong?". I asked him this question at least 15 times in the debate, instantly he would say "Why does it matter? No matter what you say is going to convince me, so what's the point in trying?"/irony, but that was only to that specific question, every other question he would answer. First of all, pot calling the kettle black moment when he said I was close minded, second, if you can't think of a reason to justify your beliefs (especially ones dealing with hate, in which case, it's a phobia), then why believe it? Third, if I don't know your argument, how do you know if I am not going to agree with you? What if your reason actually is compelling enough for me to agree with you? Same goes for you, if you take the time to learn what our argument is, who knows, maybe you'll agree with it. And look at it in more ways than one, maybe someone might say the same thing a different way only this time it makes sense to you, that's how it worked for me. I ran into an old friend who had heard me debate a creationist, in which my friend stated afterwards "Weren't you the one who told me that scientists were satanic conspirators that were trying to detract people from God, and that dinosaur fossils were fake/put on the planet as a test of faith?". Shows you what kind of moron I used to be.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
@Horrendous: For the record, Christians must try very hard to help the world while we are here, because we do not beleive "we are going to somewhere better." We all like to imagine that, but that's not ours to judge. But it is our choice, by living a good life and loving one another as we have been told, we might be allowed in the kingdom of heaven. Christians must be very motivated as to what kind of person to be so that they might pass unto heaven after the judgement. I christian must do much more than beleif and be baptized, they must conduct themselves in a christian life afterward, and follow the doctrine. Truth is, I don't know if I'm going to heaven or hell after the judgement. I would like to think heaven, but it's not for me to judge. I've committed several sins in this lifetime, and will probably commit many more. All I can do is try to learn from my lessons and attempt to perfect my life(unsuccessfully of course, but hopefully I learn from my mistakes and become one step closer to God's kingdom.) Perhaps this agrees with the 'Man is basically evil' concept, but in some ways that concept is completely true. Man is the most intelligent life form; man is concious of his decisions, yet he still sins.
And I don't beleive that the bible is a 100% word for word(of God.) As stated in my earlier post, I beleive many of the books to be coded, such as Genessis and Revelation. If we were to cast out certain books and go "Naw that one's fake man, it's just basic bible mumbo jumbo", we would be filled with the constant question of which ones are real and which aren't. The bible is completely intended to be coded it seems to indicate as well. "And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee." Matthew 18:19 Is this verse say that if I view pornography I should literally pluck out my own eye and throw it away? Of course not, it means that I should repent for my sins after I have committed them, and try to learn from my mistakes.
And to be honest-
"It blows my mind that religious nuts preach that this life is only a test to get to heaven, then the next second they want to run the world." I competely agree with this!(Oh geeze I must be quite the open minded fellow, perhaps I am overcoming this ignorancy they speak of ) I am against what some might call "Organized Religion" I don't support how catholism ran the world during mideval times and beyond and now tries to control all the people under the catholism sect of the religion. But at the same time do I hold anything against Catholics or treat them any different? No of course not! Man is man. I harbor no hatred or phobia to homosexual, even if I dislike the choice of lifestyle they have taken. The new testament speaks of love and forgiveness. The new testament is the law to be followed, where as the old testament still remains guide lines to our lives, but is not the law anymore. I think all men were created equal straight, gay, transvistite, different ethnicity, different relgions, aetheist, and many more. Again, the old testament is in facts ways to follow in living your life, but it is no longer the law since the coming of christ and his new testament.
Also, that was more of a personal attack on Steve Wells the creater of Sceptics Annoted bible than on aetheism in general, though I see how it interpretted that way
I understand the opposition completely. Inside every christian is a constant battle between faith and doubt. I know I in fact fight this battle every day. Many christians try to publicize their faith in several ways simply to prove to themselves they have it. Unless an aetheist was a previous christian during a time in their life when they were grown enough that they could question they ways of the world(ex. teenage years), then I do not think any of the aetheist understand the opposition, and that is what I call ignorant. Everyday I have thoughts asking me why I want to go out of my way to help someone else when I'm not 100% sure whether there will be an afterlife and God, but my faith always prevails. It is human to doubt, and it is christian to doubt. I won't sugar coat it, if I was an aetheist I would be in jail by now simply because I would have no reason to do good. What more justice do you need?
In the end, your opinion is your opinion, and I respect that.
Edit:
Oh and in regards to your extremely false assumption "But that's just my struggle, I'm sure if you've talked to any other Atheists", which I'm assuming was a false assumption that I've never come across an aetheist before in my life When in fact I had this conversation and arguement with Aetheist multiple times before and was even successful in converting one Though I could not convert him to christianity, I was capable of getting him to agree that the benefits of actually beleiving in something out there is far superior to beleiving the beleif of not beleiving anything. He now very devoted into the jewish religion I'm positively happy that he decided to stand for something in his life.
Religion is the thing that keeps me going
I beleive I heard the Dalli Llama say something like this once in a video we watched World Religions Class, something similair to this, "I don't care if you're Hindu, Christian, Jewish, or whatever, just beleive in something!" Why make your beleif the beleif that you don't beleive in anything?
And speaking toward this guy being helpful for the other aetheist out there, well basic common sense stuff like I said about the two Judas's is overlooked, so I don't consider this guys opinion to be very useful at all.
Originally Posted by Wiiman @Horrendous: For the record, Christians must try very hard to help the world while we are here, because we do not beleive "we are going to somewhere better." We all like to imagine that, but that's not ours to judge. But it is our choice, by living a good life and loving one another as we have been told, we might be allowed in the kingdom of heaven. Christians must be very motivated as to what kind of person to be so that they might pass unto heaven after the judgement. I christian must do much more than beleif and be baptized, they must conduct themselves in a christian life afterward, and follow the doctrine. Truth is, I don't know if I'm going to heaven or hell after the judgement. I would like to think heaven, but it's not for me to judge. I've committed several sins in this lifetime, and will probably commit many more. All I can do is try to learn from my lessons and attempt to perfect my life(unsuccessfully of course, but hopefully I learn from my mistakes and become one step closer to God's kingdom.) Perhaps this agrees with the 'Man is basically evil' concept, but in some ways that concept is completely true. Man is the most intelligent life form; man is concious of his decisions, yet he still sins.
When you have a flawed concept of what is wrong and right, trying to be a good person doesn't really work. There are many Christians who believe that they are doing good by trying to condemn and deny rights to people for what they consider sinful behavior, and sadly these people feel justified by hiding behind God saying "I don't hate you, I hate your sin" or "I don't hate you, God does". That has to do with the evangelist nature of mainstream and cult Christianity, got to be the watchdogs and saviors of humanity. It's also good to mention that someone who takes the Bible literally does not have any sort of 'moral compass'. They believe that God is perfect and anything he does is good, regardless of if it is immoral or not. I usually like to ask fundamentalists if God commanded them to kill their children (or someone else) would they do it? Usually they respond with "he wouldn't do that" (despite the fact that he has done so in the bible itself, as well as people who have killed their children and claimed it was Gods will. Christians will usually also condemn these people, despite the fact that they have as much evidence that God was speaking to these people as they do for God speaking to them). If you answer the hypothetical question with a "yes" then you are indeed an immoral person, for it is immoral to kill anyone without a legitimate reason (for instance, self defense), if you answer "no" then you are moral, and might as well stop calling yourself a Christian. Notice how I say, stop calling yourself a Christian and not stop believing in God. I've stated many times that I do not have an issue with people believing as they want on a personal level, the line is crossed when they start trying to enact laws, cause physical and emotional harm, spread ignorance and collect funding in the name of their deity. Getting someone to follow your religion should be based on how you act as a person, and if you paint yourself up to be a greedy, ignorant, bigoted whiner, then I don't want anything to do with it. I myself am open to the concept of a God, but it's more likely to be some other force we have no discovered yet, and more likely to be much more spectacular than the nonsensical ramblings listed in the bible.
As far as your commentary on man being evil, well, that's not exactly convincing evidence. The fact that yourself and other people have done bad things doesn't necessarily constitute everyone being evil. It also has a lot to do with what you consider evil. Personally, dishonesty, greed, willful ignorance and useless violence are the only things I can honestly consider to be bad. sex, sexual orientation, adultery, shell fish, masturbation, pornography, incest, anxiety, mental illness, birth defects, 'Bad' language and menstral periods are some of the things Christians might consider evil (depends on the Christians, feel free to pick and choose which parts of the bible you want to interpret, follow) that do not cause any real harm to anyone, and in the case of anxiety and mental illness, aren't something people have the capability of having control over without experienced/dedicated help, and in the case of incest, it's only immoral if a heterosexual couple attempts to produce a child, and in that case it's not even as bad as drinking/smoking while pregnant (we're all a little bit incestuous anyways, as we are all related in some way), there's no sense in condemning a loving relationship between two people if they are careful, and if they can tolerate their siblings in that way, more power to them.
Originally Posted by Wiiman And I don't beleive that the bible is a 100% word for word(of God.) As stated in my earlier post, I beleive many of the books to be coded, such as Genessis and Revelation. If we were to cast out certain books and go "Naw that one's fake man, it's just basic bible mumbo jumbo", we would be filled with the constant question of which ones are real and which aren't. The bible is completely intended to be coded it seems to indicate as well. "And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee." Matthew 18:19 Is this verse say that if I view pornography I should literally pluck out my own eye and throw it away? Of course not, it means that I should repent for my sins after I have committed them, and try to learn from my mistakes.
Hence why I mentioned you should do some research on early Christianity, there are several related books to the bible that were left out when it was assembled, and the bible itself wasn't assembled until long after the stories were written. There were many common Christian practices that have died out around that time, especially when the central church began to develop and label anyone it didn't agree with as heretics. And since no one knows the actual authors of any of the Bible, the credibility of the whole thing is pretty much shot.
You should also know that the bible doesn't mention anything about pornography. The actual sin is lust, supposedly the work around is that you can look at pornography and masturbate, so long as you aren't lusting, which is just ridiculous. Adultery is a cause for panic in Islam, and there are plenty of loopholes that are acceptable in Islam. For instance, men can purchase sex slaves to temporarily marry, so therefore they will not be committing adultery. Women are not allowed to be in the company of men who are not related or married to them, but a woman can breast feed any man she is with to technically relate herself to that man. Are these behaviors moral? It's just ridiculous.
Originally Posted by Wiiman And to be honest-
"It blows my mind that religious nuts preach that this life is only a test to get to heaven, then the next second they want to run the world." I competely agree with this!(Oh geeze I must be quite the open minded fellow, perhaps I am overcoming this ignorancy they speak of ) I am against what some might call "Organized Religion" I don't support how catholism ran the world during mideval times and beyond and now tries to control all the people under the catholism sect of the religion. But at the same time do I hold anything against Catholics or treat them any different? No of course not! Man is man. I harbor no hatred or phobia to homosexual, even if I dislike the choice of lifestyle they have taken. The new testament speaks of love and forgiveness. The new testament is the law to be followed, where as the old testament still remains guide lines to our lives, but is not the law anymore. I think all men were created equal straight, gay, transvistite, different ethnicity, different relgions, aetheist, and many more. Again, the old testament is in facts ways to follow in living your life, but it is no longer the law since the coming of christ and his new testament.
Thank you for keeping an open mind. With that I would almost say why label yourself a Christian? The bible doesn't list any specific label that you carry, so long as you believe in God.
That is always what urks me the most about Christians. If God can forgive anything you do, except disbelief, then why would you consider anything to be wrong? I always though that if God was all powerful, how come there is a hell? And if there is a hell, and people go there and repent, is God powerless to save them? After all, the only thing I seek to believe in a deity is evidence or proof. For an all powerful omnipotent being, this should be the easiest thing. Except we only have a 2000 year old book with flimsy credibility, anecdotal stories from people who have even flimsier credibility, and lame examples of miracles (which ironically aren't even spectacular in the least). Obviously, being in hell would be more than enough evidence for me that God exists, does he stop loving you once you get there? Despite all that, there is nothing you can do that should be rewarded with eternal punishment. That's just bottom line insane. Anyways, that all goes back to that quote by Epicurius:
"If god is willing but not able to destroy evil, then he is not omnipotent.
If god is able but not willing to destroy evil, then he is malevolent.
If god is both able and willing to destroy evil, then why is there still evil?
If god is neither willing nor able to destroy evil, then why call him god?"
Originally Posted by Wiiman Also, that was more of a personal attack on Steve Wells the creater of Sceptics Annoted bible than on aetheism in general, though I see how it interpretted that way
I'm not one for political correctness, but it always helps to clarify your argument. If you're going to throw yourself into the argument, the opposition can only argue based on what you give them.
Originally Posted by Wiiman I understand the opposition completely. Inside every christian is a constant battle between faith and doubt. I know I in fact fight this battle every day. Many christians try to publicize their faith in several ways simply to prove to themselves they have it. Unless an aetheist was a previous christian during a time in their life when they were grown enough that they could question they ways of the world(ex. teenage years), then I do not think any of the aetheist understand the opposition, and that is what I call ignorant. Everyday I have thoughts asking me why I want to go out of my way to help someone else when I'm not 100% sure whether there will be an afterlife and God, but my faith always prevails. It is human to doubt, and it is christian to doubt. I won't sugar coat it, if I was an aetheist I would be in jail by now simply because I would have no reason to do good. What more justice do you need?
When you say things like that, I don't buy it that you actually know much about the atheism. If your entire reason for not doing things you consider immoral is because you're afraid of being punished, then you've got some mental issues, seriously. Do you find it ironic that atheists make up about 10% of America's population, yet still make up about less than 1% of the nations prison population (they're right down there with the Buddhists). Christianity is all about restricting natural human behavior to an extent that it causes damage to a persons psyche. Sex is probably the most common one. You have any idea why most marriages fail? Stress is a big one, which most of the time has do with the fact that not many humans can handle monogamy (it can also be caused just by a lack of sex, monetary issues, inexperience with dealing with children, the lack of freedom[which also has a lot to do with monogamy], etc). I find it ironic for someone to talk about taking their relationship seriously and still buy into the term "cheating". Cheating implies that your relationship is a game, so obviously if you consider your relationship a game, you aren't really taking it seriously (or maybe you take your games too serious). If you have a homosexual and force them to be straight, if they cannot adapt (which most won't) it will cause severe mental anguish if you continue to force them against themselves. Transsexuals are even worse. Nothing worse than being trapped in the wrong body. There are still some that are content with what they are, and only have loose ties to it, but for those that can't do that, they run the risk of a vast increase in their chance of committing suicide and other mental illness (also due to the fact that transitioning is extremely expensive and difficult due to ignorance on the subject). If you have a strong desire to kill/hurt someone, then you need to seek help, often times it is a mental illness causing the desire for violence, and sometimes you just need to find another avenue to release those feelings. Seriously, if you have any desire to cause someone harm (and are only being held back by a spooky father figure) please seek help, odds are if you aren't just blowing smoke out your ass trying to prove a point, that concept of religion won't hold you back for long (and might even be fuel for that fire).
Originally Posted by Wiiman In the end, your opinion is your opinion, and I respect that.
Edit:
Oh and in regards to your extremely false assumption "But that's just my struggle, I'm sure if you've talked to any other Atheists", which I'm assuming was a false assumption that I've never come across an aetheist before in my life When in fact I had this conversation and arguement with Aetheist multiple times before and was even successful in converting one Though I could not convert him to christianity, I was capable of getting him to agree that the benefits of actually beleiving in something out there is far superior to beleiving the beleif of not beleiving anything. He now very devoted into the jewish religion I'm positively happy that he decided to stand for something in his life.
Religion is the thing that keeps me going
I beleive I heard the Dalli Llama say something like this once in a video we watched World Religions Class, something similair to this, "I don't care if you're Hindu, Christian, Jewish, or whatever, just beleive in something!" Why make your beleif the beleif that you don't beleive in anything?
I never meant to imply that you've never talked to an atheist. It was a statement to demonstrate that atheists typically have different philosophies apart from one another.
If your main reason for believing something is "just in case" or because you feel that believing is the only way to have a purpose, then you obviously haven't read anything I've said.
The lack of belief isn't a belief, and it doesn't mean that I have a void in my life. I simply choose not to base my life around unreliable sources just because I'm threatened with eternal torture to do so. Instead I choose to try to get along with people and try to do my part to make the world a better place for future generations, so that they don't have to suffer and waste their lives like so many of us do nowadays. Based on what evidence we have in this world, there is no reason to consider that there is another life we're waiting to live. There's nothing worse than watching someone waste their life here just because they feel their going to have a better one later. If you ever catch me saying "I know 100% that there is no god and no afterlife" then you can say it's a belief.
Originally Posted by Wiiman And speaking toward this guy being helpful for the other aetheist out there, well basic common sense stuff like I said about the two Judas's is overlooked, so I don't consider this guys opinion to be very useful at all.
Something tells me you're either just denying everything he's written because you don't agree with it, or your skimming it over. I know I did the same thing when I was a Christian. If you go in with the conclusion that what he's writing is going to be wrong, of course you're going to ignore it. It's not healthy to do that. You don't start with a conclusion and grab your evidence based on the conclusion, you grab the evidence and you form a conclusion based on that.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Gods requirements for becoming a christian are to beleive and be baptized and follow his word. So why should I not label myself as a christian? I am one afterall, even if I do faulter from time to time. By supporting equal rights does that make me even less of a christian even though the new testament speaks of forgiveness and endorses my beleifs? Just because someone sins doesn't mean I must dislike them. Even if in Romans and Corrinthians of the New Testament spoke out against homosexuals, it in no way said we should persecute them.
Not all christians are homo, trans, metro, bi, everyone else hating people. This is a terrible misconception, similair to my previous misconception that all aetheist had no purpose whatsovever and were 100% sure something else didn't exist.
Oh and I've read up on my church history actually I'm actually much more educated then you seem to assume But this bible is all we've got to hear God's message from, so we must assume it is all creditable, for we cannot rule out one book and then consider the others 100% true; it's either beleive all or none. So I beleive all to be true, even if some are coded documents.
I'm aware that the bible didn't mention pornography actually...I did read it afterall...And I don't think pornography had quite caught on back then But that was just an example, a better one would have been David and Bethsheba. When David saw Bethsheba bathing, he was filled with lust through want his eyes saw(they offended him) and made sure her husband was killed in battle so he could marry her.
Also regarding people wasting their lives beleiving they will reach something better, I agree that is quite terrible. But as stated early, a christian should be aware that "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle."
Yes it is true I was drawing conclusions about Sceptics Annoted Bible before observing the evidence, simply because being a christian, it is impossible to do otherwise. Ex. If your dad tells you that your new car is gonna be green, then a random guy off the street says it'll be yellow; which one do you beleive? Obviously the one you trust the most even though you've never seen your new car before. But you disregarded what I was pointing at though, he has obviosly done his research, but he ignores commen sense facts simply to prove his point. He talks about how terrible it is that the killing of Cane and Able was in the bible, when it was good that it was included to show that what cane did was wrong.
Maybe I do live in fear, but it's not fear of punishment as much as fear of not being rewarded in heaven, and not as much that as just fear of living without a beleif; which has given me(again me, may not apply to someone else) a sense of self worth and purpose. But the bottum line is I'm happy with my life, and that's all that matters. I've never been an aetheist, so maybe I'll never understand what it is to live without a beleif, but my doubtful moments are always rejected because I cannot imagine a life without a beleif. If God is not real, I still want to live this life like he is because of the better person my faith has made me. As stated, I harbor no hatred for anyone, so I don't see how having faith would have made me a worse person. It has only provided me benefits. I'm actually quite interested in seeing your response this I must say, just keep in mind what I said earlier in regards to forgiveness towards other people.
Is the constant quest for the (supposed)truth worth the loss of: the best thing that happened to me, my set of morales, and ideology?
I say no.
(Insert William Wallace giving epic speech hear.)
Originally Posted by Wiiman Gods requirements for becoming a christian are to beleive and be baptized and follow his word. So why should I not label myself as a christian? I am one afterall, even if I do faulter from time to time. By supporting equal rights does that make me even less of a christian even though the new testament speaks of forgiveness and endorses my beleifs?
That's not what I said, you don't understand what I mean by the label of Christianity. Christianity is just a name, being baptized and believing in God does not mean you have to be a Christian. If you aren't going to adhere to Christian beliefs, then why use that name? Why not a different name? It's the strange concept that Christians, Jews and Musilims as well as all the little sects they are divided all worship the exact same God, yet they claim that if you don't have the label of the Church you are going to hell, which isn't in the bible. The bible doesn't say you have to be a Christian, it just says you need to believe in God (and in your case, you claim baptism, fine). Christianity is not the belief, it is the religion (or the institution). There is a big difference between religion and your personal beliefs.
Originally Posted by Wiiman Just because someone sins doesn't mean I must dislike them. Even if in Romans and Corrinthians of the New Testament spoke out against homosexuals, it in no way said we should persecute them. Not all christians are homo, trans, metro, bi, everyone else hating people. This is a terrible misconception, similair to my previous misconception that all aetheist had no purpose whatsovever and were 100% sure something else didn't exist.
See, this is the issue. You say you do not hate those people but you still believe it to be wrong.
Originally Posted by Wiiman Oh and I've read up on my church history actually I'm actually much more educated then you seem to assume But this bible is all we've got to hear God's message from, so we must assume it is all creditable, for we cannot rule out one book and then consider the others 100% true; it's either beleive all or none. So I beleive all to be true, even if some are coded documents.
I doubt your claim that you are educated beyond the average Christian perspective. There's a reason why those books were left out of the cannon. So is it that anything nasty that's in the bible is coded, and all the good parts are straight forward?
And just because it is all you have to go on does not make it a credible source. You can call it faith that you believe it true, but that doesn't make it credible.
You're also contradicting yourself. You just claimed in your last post that you didn't believe that the bible was the word of God, now you're saying that's the only thing you've got to go on, so it must be his word. What is it?
Originally Posted by Wiiman Yes it is true I was drawing conclusions about Sceptics Annoted Bible before observing the evidence, simply because being a christian, it is impossible to do otherwise. Ex. If your dad tells you that your new car is gonna be green, then a random guy off the street says it'll be yellow; which one do you beleive? Obviously the one you trust the most even though you've never seen your new car before. But you disregarded what I was pointing at though, he has obviosly done his research, but he ignores commen sense facts simply to prove his point. He talks about how terrible it is that the killing of Cane and Able was in the bible, when it was good that it was included to show that what cane did was wrong.
You'll have to do better than that. Give me some better examples why you feel he lacks common sense, grab a few quotes and demonstrate why you feel he is incorrect.
Originally Posted by Wiiman Maybe I do live in fear, but it's not fear of punishment as much as fear of not being rewarded in heaven, and not as much that as just fear of living without a beleif; which has given me(again me, may not apply to someone else) a sense of self worth and purpose. But the bottum line is I'm happy with my life, and that's all that matters. I've never been an aetheist, so maybe I'll never understand what it is to live without a beleif, but my doubtful moments are always rejected because I cannot imagine a life without a beleif. If God is not real, I still want to live this life like he is because of the better person my faith has made me. As stated, I harbor no hatred for anyone, so I don't see how having faith would have made me a worse person. It has only provided me benefits. I'm actually quite interested in seeing your response this I must say, just keep in mind what I said earlier in regards to forgiveness towards other people.
All I can say is don't knock it until you've tried it.
This is a fantastic source of information, they'll shed some light on what atheism is all about, try to watch it without concluding that they are wrong from the start. As a bonus, I grabbed one of their videos on the early Christian history subject.
I don't have time for a clear complete response since I have to skedaddle, I kind of haphazardly worked on those responses, so I apologize if anything came off as douchebaggish or incorrect.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Quite the interesting video I must say. Though while in this time would early jews(eventual christians) choose to be montheistic? It seems in ancient cultures such as Egypt and Crete, that the more Gods the better was going around. Even if Jehovah was the God that represented your city,like how in Greece Athena represented Athens, but why would you still just have one God? So correct me if I'm wrong, but Aetheism is the constant quest for the truth and thinking scientifically(the concept that if something cannot be proven or disproven it is not scientific)? Would that be the adequate response?
As pertaining to the title christian, off the top of my head I cannot think any verses, but I know it is said that one should say 'I am of christ' which is interpretted as calling your self a christian. Now I can definitely say though that the bible talks about the use of names throughout it for churches, though unfortunately I am unable to find the verses concerning this. I do not have a bible in immediately grasp so I can't search for the verse. I realize this totally ruins my reliability of my respones, and for that I humbly apologize But I know for sure that there is a couple verses pertaining to this, I beleive them to be in Corinthians, though perhaps it was Acts. I am almost certain it was the words of Paul that said it. Anyway, Paul spoke of how the congregations must say that they are of christ. This is saying as that say; (EX)the church that calls itself simply the 'Lutheran church' is not following this rule. These verses are to say that the congregation should be titled after christ like 'Church of Christ.' Once again I'm sorry I don't have the paticular verse, I'll try and look for it when it's not so late at night(12:37 now my time)
As to what I mean by coded books, I would suggest reading some of my earlier post. When you spoke earlie about your previous thoughts on fossils and scientist that you now consider moronic, truth is I don't beleive those beleives either. I beleive in all science has told, I beleive in evolution, I beleive in dinosaurs(ROOOAAARRRR!!!!), I'm not quite sure about what to think of Big Bang theory(I think Hallies Bible handbook actually endorsed the beleive of the Big Bang theory), and after some discussion earlier-I think I beleive Micro-Evolution(As always have previous), but I am definitely open to suggestion on that matter, I'm starting to actually have some disbeleif of that theory creep in, its so long ago its hard to tell what all happened back then. But I beleive all of these because I beleive God set them in motion.
And now back to the coded concept, no it's not that the nasty parts are coded, it's that the parts about discussed early, science are coded. Mostly the coded parts are those of early Gennissis and pretty much all of Revelation. Though there are a couple other books throughout the old testament that are coded. I don't actually beleive that God created the earth in 7 24hour days, after all, What is a day to God? "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" 2 Peter 3:8 I beleive that each 'Day' so to speak, can be coordinated with a different stage of God's creation. Once again, Halley's does a very good job of describing this down hardening of earth's crust and etc. I must find where I put it And I find the stages of creatures to very very similair to evolution, down to order in which it happened. Revelation is written Apocalyptic language. It is not meant to be taken literrally but sympollically, it is similar to the pharoahs vision of seven good fish and seven bad, it means something else, and that something will happen.
I would prefer not to argue on the topic of symbollism and coded books though because I had discussed this with Johnny Look and multiple other people previously in the thread, and we should probably keep conversation rolling instead of letting it repeat
"See, this is the issue. You say you do not hate those people but you still believe it to be wrong."
What is wrong with that? you think it is wrong I am a christian, but I am sure that you have christians friends and family members. How are you any different? I do not dislike those people for what they've done. Do you dislike people for beleiving in christ? I assume not. How are you any different?
I am posing this question to anyone in the thread:
If there is a religion that harbors no hatred to anyone at all and teaches the beleivers to do good, is there any disadvantage in people beleiving it?
I am not saying Christianity is this way, afterall there are some really bad interprettations of it, but if people beleive in any religion like this at all, is there any disadvantages? I really say no, and that it is essential that man kind beleives in something.
Originally Posted by Wiiman Quite the interesting video I must say. Though while in this time would early jews(eventual christians) choose to be montheistic? It seems in ancient cultures such as Egypt and Crete, that the more Gods the better was going around. Even if Jehovah was the God that represented your city,like how in Greece Athena represented Athens, but why would you still just have one God? So correct me if I'm wrong, but Aetheism is the constant quest for the truth and thinking scientifically(the concept that if something cannot be proven or disproven it is not scientific)? Would that be the adequate response?
While that's a concept most atheists try to adhere to, that's not specifically an atheist phenomenon, that's just thinking analytically, which anyone is capable of doing (however, usually when it is applied to beliefs, it tends to dismantle them). Matt, in that video, is a perfect example of that, as he was actually in seminary when he became an atheist.
Originally Posted by Wiiman As pertaining to the title christian, off the top of my head I cannot think any verses, but I know it is said that one should say 'I am of christ' which is interpretted as calling your self a christian. Now I can definitely say though that the bible talks about the use of names throughout it for churches, though unfortunately I am unable to find the verses concerning this. I do not have a bible in immediately grasp so I can't search for the verse. I realize this totally ruins my reliability of my respones, and for that I humbly apologize But I know for sure that there is a couple verses pertaining to this, I beleive them to be in Corinthians, though perhaps it was Acts. I am almost certain it was the words of Paul that said it. Anyway, Paul spoke of how the congregations must say that they are of christ. This is saying as that say; (EX)the church that calls itself simply the 'Lutheran church' is not following this rule. These verses are to say that the congregation should be titled after christ like 'Church of Christ.' Once again I'm sorry I don't have the paticular verse, I'll try and look for it when it's not so late at night(12:37 now my time)
If you can find a verse that says 'Christian' specifically, then you've got me, I don't recall seeing it. You could call yourself any word, call your self a 'Jabbers' for all I care, makes more sense than to group yourself in with a half-assed concept that's already been tainted to infinity and beyond.
Originally Posted by Wiiman As to what I mean by coded books, I would suggest reading some of my earlier post. When you spoke earlie about your previous thoughts on fossils and scientist that you now consider moronic, truth is I don't beleive those beleives either. I beleive in all science has told, I beleive in evolution, I beleive in dinosaurs(ROOOAAARRRR!!!!), I'm not quite sure about what to think of Big Bang theory(I think Hallies Bible handbook actually endorsed the beleive of the Big Bang theory), and after some discussion earlier-I think I beleive Micro-Evolution(As always have previous), but I am definitely open to suggestion on that matter, I'm starting to actually have some disbeleif of that theory creep in, its so long ago its hard to tell what all happened back then. But I beleive all of these because I beleive God set them in motion.
Careful using that word believe with evolution. That's what the vocal Christians like to throw around with scientific terms to try to catch people off guard. When it comes to theories, they are not believed, they are accepted. Unlike religion, science has no ego, and if someone presents sufficient evidence that something is incorrect, that idea is no longer accepted. It's important to remember that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of species on the the planet, nothing more (as many fundamentalists who don't actually know what they're talking about lump evolution in with origins), but you seem to grasp that concept already. Kudos.
Originally Posted by Wiiman "See, this is the issue. You say you do not hate those people but you still believe it to be wrong."
What is wrong with that? you think it is wrong I am a christian, but I am sure that you have christians friends and family members. How are you any different? I do not dislike those people for what they've done. Do you dislike people for beleiving in christ? I assume not. How are you any different?
I messed up my terms, I apologize, I meant to say 'you still believe it to be bad'. I do not think it is wrong (by which I mean 'incorrect') for someone to believe in a deity, or god, or be a Christian(despite that I feel that if you're going to stray from what they consider correct, why not call yourself something else?). I support everyone's right to do what they please, so long as they do not harm anyone else. I've stated my reasons for what parts of the religion that I do not like, and I do feel that the idea that there is specifically an Abraham god is incorrect, based on the lack of evidence for the claim.
But claiming these people are bad because of their orientation, birth defect or how they look is getting into dangerous territory. Christians like to spread nonsense that sexual orientation is a choice (if thats the case, try being gay for a while, see how well that works out. If the same sex doesn't attract you, it doesn't attract you, end of story), transsexualism is "gender confused" (which indicates that they just need a little guidance to forget they have a severely dangerous birth defect), and they forget that judging a person based on their looks is a sin. This kind of thinking can lead to horrible things, including how you decide to raise your children. What happens if one of your children had one of these problems? Would you accept them and protect them from people trying to change them, would you allow it but let them know that what their doing is wrong, or would you just flat out try to prevent them from even thinking like that?(I know some families that might even try to perform an exorcism).
There is nothing more insulting than to go up to someone and let them know they are going to suffer for an eternity because of who they are. It's one thing to say this to someone who has committed a heinous crime (although it's extremely insane to even think that there is anything that anyone could do that deserves eternal torture), but for someone who lives a good life? It's hurtful and just plain evil, and might as well be just as bad as doing physical harm to them.
Originally Posted by Wiiman I am posing this question to anyone in the thread:
If there is a religion that harbors no hatred to anyone at all and teaches the beleivers to do good, is there any disadvantage in people beleiving it?
I am not saying Christianity is this way, afterall there are some really bad interprettations of it, but if people beleive in any religion like this at all, is there any disadvantages? I really say no, and that it is essential that man kind beleives in something.
That would be Buddhism, which there is no disadvantage to that (also considering Buddhism teaches that you should do what you please, so long as you believe it is good, the only ones with restrictions are those that teach). It also teaches that regardless of what anyone believes, they are still Buddhist whether they accept it or not, and there is no penalties for not accepting Buddhism. Buddhism is also one of the few religions that lacks a deity, as the Buddha is not considered a God.
But once again, you're advocating believing for the sake of believing, or "just in case". To my knowledge, that would not be believing with your whole heart, and would not be any different than disbelief.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
The word christian appears 3 times in the bible actually-
1 Peter 4:16, "but if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify God."
Acts 11:26, "and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came about that for an entire year they met with the
church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch."
Acts 26:28, "And Agrippa replied to Paul, "In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian."
It was originally coined by the people of Antioch to describe the disciples, then later became universal. It came from the greek word 'christianos' followers of christ, and when the bible was translated to hebrew, and later English by King James, the word was essentialy kept only without the 'o' on the end. I assume the disciples would have been first called christians at Antioch because a large part of the population spoke Greek(again assuming, haven't done research on the native tongue of Antioch.) In no way does it say I must call myself a Christian, but Christian means follower of christ; so therefore I will call myself that. Then again I do really like the sound of Jabber...
As for the 'you still beleive it to bad' I mixed up my terms as well, or at least need to choose one with different connotation than 'wrong.' What I meant by that, is that you don't beleive in God(even if you're not 100% certain there is none) yet you still accept christians as friends. There are certain people I don't agree with their policies, yet I still accept them as friends. You beleive that christians will be proven wrong in the end, I think that certain peoples life styles will be proved wrong in the end. And what is all of this talk of birth defects and how they look? Can you find some verses to back that up? You sound like whatever church you went to back in the day must have been really radical on their policies O_o Just keep in mind, just because one church somewhere may be against something doesn't mean that they all are. Even though the apostle Paul spoke against diversion of the church, it happened; and some of them out there don't quite follow the scriptures. Again try and find some NEW TESTAMENT verses on birth defects; I would be interested in seeing those.
As for orrientation being a choice, I am mostly unopiniated on the matter. I think if it is a choice, it was chosen by their subconsciousness. I think it should best be observed through the Psychoanalysis Perspective of psychology. I would probably say through the theories of Sigmund Freud and how the events in a child's life between 3 and 5 define their personality would probably be the best way of explaining sexual orientation. Though as someone being born say, 'genatalia mix up', er being born part man and woman, or heshe, whatever you wanna say, well that's just a confusing subject to get into.
Also, I had thought about mentioning Buddhism, but I wasn't sure if it counted as a religion or just as guide lines. I am actually really fond of concept, I think it sounds like a great religion/guidelines for someone to beleive But in no way did I indicate 'just in case' concept at all! I am just challenging someone to think of disadvantages of this. I consider it beleiving for the sake of beleiving, not because you fear eternal damnation, but because it has given you morals and good values and way to live your life by. Yes I admit, unless you do have the fear of damnation, you may not be able to have your full heart in the matter.(Remember I'm not saying this is how I beleive, just throwing this out there) But that is not the point of that question. Is the quest for the truth really worth your loss of moral guidelines and values? Atheist will never know about the existance of God until it's too late; so why if you've got a religion that endorses love would you forsake it even though it gives you everyday values to live by? Even if you don't beleive it with your whole heart, would you forsake something that makes you a better person?
I am posing this question also, because as I discussed, my interprettation of the God's message in the bible(I still consider it his word sorry), does not call for harm to anyone, and it is all supported by the scriptures. It still endorses the acceptance and value of scientific, and it provides with a set of morals and values and life lessons to base my life on. I am so much better off being a christian than an atheist. And you know what, my whole church also has come to interpret the bible this way, we do get fuzzy on some of the scientific stuff like origins discussed genessis, but we've all generally accepted the bible's message of love; and we have become better people because of it.
Originally Posted by Wiiman And what is all of this talk of birth defects and how they look? Can you find some verses to back that up? You sound like whatever church you went to back in the day must have been really radical on their policies O_o Just keep in mind, just because one church somewhere may be against something doesn't mean that they all are. Even though the apostle Paul spoke against diversion of the church, it happened; and some of them out there don't quite follow the scriptures. Again try and find some NEW TESTAMENT verses on birth defects; I would be interested in seeing those.
Thing is, if you got an old testament verse on anything, some nutjobs are gonna use that and justify it by the new testament not speaking out directly against it.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by Wiiman The word christian appears 3 times in the bible actually-
1 Peter 4:16, "but if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify God."
Acts 11:26, "and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came about that for an entire year they met with the
church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch."
Acts 26:28, "And Agrippa replied to Paul, "In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian."
It was originally coined by the people of Antioch to describe the disciples, then later became universal. It came from the greek word 'christianos' followers of christ, and when the bible was translated to hebrew, and later English by King James, the word was essentialy kept only without the 'o' on the end. I assume the disciples would have been first called christians at Antioch because a large part of the population spoke Greek(again assuming, haven't done research on the native tongue of Antioch.) In no way does it say I must call myself a Christian, but Christian means follower of christ; so therefore I will call myself that. Then again I do really like the sound of Jabber...
Never knew that, but you're correct, it still says nothing about you having to use the term.
Originally Posted by Wiiman As for the 'you still beleive it to bad' I mixed up my terms as well, or at least need to choose one with different connotation than 'wrong.' What I meant by that, is that you don't beleive in God(even if you're not 100% certain there is none) yet you still accept christians as friends. There are certain people I don't agree with their policies, yet I still accept them as friends. You beleive that christians will be proven wrong in the end, I think that certain peoples life styles will be proved wrong in the end. And what is all of this talk of birth defects and how they look? Can you find some verses to back that up? You sound like whatever church you went to back in the day must have been really radical on their policies O_o Just keep in mind, just because one church somewhere may be against something doesn't mean that they all are. Even though the apostle Paul spoke against diversion of the church, it happened; and some of them out there don't quite follow the scriptures. Again try and find some NEW TESTAMENT verses on birth defects; I would be interested in seeing those.
That's the point, there is none, yet a majority of the mainstream vocal Christians like to think so. Part of the reasoning is just pure ignorance. For instance, it's common for people to lump Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation into one category, despite the fact that they have nothing to do with one another. The irony is that you can find more bible verses in favor of Gender Identity than you can find against it. Of course, they like to argue (again from the old testament which fundamentalists like to pick and choose from), the verse which states that it is a sin for a male to dress as a female and vise versa, as men presenting at women could get out of war and women presenting as men would upset god's delicate balance of male dominance over women. It's ridiculous, I know, and I don't have a problem with Christians who want to pick and choose their beliefs, and interpret it as such. The problem arises when these people feel they have an authority given to them by a higher power.
Originally Posted by Wiiman Also, I had thought about mentioning Buddhism, but I wasn't sure if it counted as a religion or just as guide lines. I am actually really fond of concept, I think it sounds like a great religion/guidelines for someone to beleive
Yes it is a religion, because it does contain superstitious phenomenon that relies on zero evidence and requires faith to believe, not to say that is a bad thing necessarily. In order to create a theory, you have to start somewhere with an idea, you can only advance the idea by doing tests, which when regards to death and the afterlife, we do not have the ability to do so, yet.
Originally Posted by Wiiman But in no way did I indicate 'just in case' concept at all! I am just challenging someone to think of disadvantages of this. I consider it beleiving for the sake of beleiving, not because you fear eternal damnation, but because it has given you morals and good values and way to live your life by. Yes I admit, unless you do have the fear of damnation, you may not be able to have your full heart in the matter.(Remember I'm not saying this is how I beleive, just throwing this out there) But that is not the point of that question. Is the quest for the truth really worth your loss of moral guidelines and values? Atheist will never know about the existance of God until it's too late; so why if you've got a religion that endorses love would you forsake it even though it gives you everyday values to live by? Even if you don't beleive it with your whole heart, would you forsake something that makes you a better person?
Here's where I disagree with you. Your bible DOES NOT teach morality, it teaches obedience to authority, as whatever God does/commands is considered moral, no matter if it actually is immoral or moral. I suppose when god barbecued those two kids because they didn't start a fire correctly, that was moral right? I suppose that when God decided to hurl boulders at enemy soldiers fleeing the Israelites, that was moral too? As an Atheist, I am free to determine what is good/bad based on the reaction of the people around me. Obviously, if I go around killing people, eventually (if not right off the bat) I will be caught/killed by the humans around me. You think that if we never had religion, we wouldn't be able to stop killing each other? Please, read the bible, believers and God were the #1 cause of death in that book. Once again, your 'opinion' is 100% false on the subject, as I stated before, atheists make up around 10% of the population in America, yet they take up less than a percent of the prison population (again, right down there with the Buddhists.) Earlier in this thread I quoted Comedian Jim Jeffries when he said:
"Now, I'll tell you this last thing about you think you're a good person because you have Christian values. You wanna know what Christian values are? Christian values are a load of shit. What are Christian values? The ten commandments. What are the ten commandments? Very sensible rules to live your life by. You know what's a load of shit about them? THE FACT that you had to have them written down. The fact you couldn't figure out internally not to kill people. Don't steal *thunk* really? You should just know these, they should be internal in you. The bible is too wordy, all the stories are too wordy, the ten commandments are a load of shit, you don't need all these things. The bible should be one sheet of paper, and on that sheet of paper it should say 'Try not to be a cunt. And if you do that every day, you'll be a good person.'"
While I don't agree that the Ten Commandments are sensible rules to live your life by, or that Christians draw all their values directly from the Ten Commandments, he makes a perfect point about what morality is, and it's not as complicated as Theist like to claim. Do no harm to those around you and try to help out when you can, that's really all you need. All this nonsense about who has sex with who, who believes in what, it's all irrelevant as these are personal choices that do no harm (and yes, rape counts as harm).
A similar message can be found by George Carlin's quote about rights:
(I'll post the entire video)
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
I agree that some christians feel they have an authority given to them by a higher power. But, the religion as a whole cannot be blamed for this. Especially since some of the open minded and multi-interpretation and science tolerant views are on the rise.
Now about this 10% Athiest and 1% Athiest in prison, please present a site where the study was conducted about this. And not just a person stating this but the actual study. It has come up twice now so please present some sources.
You also appear to be routinely avoiding my question 'I am just challenging someone to think of disadvantages of this.' As I said earlier, 'If there is a religion that harbors no hatred to anyone at all and teaches the beleivers to do good, is there any disadvantage in people beleiving it?' I have already explained how this is not a 'just in case' sort of beleiving. I did speak of my interpretation of christianity.(but you began to speak of general christians regardless), yes, but it is more of a general religion question Please I challenge anyone to this one.
Also one last note on calling myself a christian, if the word means 'follower of christ' then by saying I'm not a christian, I'm saying I'm not a follower of christ. The word may be connotated with the standard jew hating homophobic christian, but it still applies to me as well. So I will always go by it.
Also, I have not took time watch all the George Carlin video, but the Jim Jeffries monologue I find rather pointless. How can you diss a religion for writing something down? Then again I'll give him a break because he was just trying humerous.
Originally Posted by Wiiman Now about this 10% Athiest and 1% Athiest in prison, please present a site where the study was conducted about this. And not just a person stating this but the actual study. It has come up twice now so please present some sources.
Unfortunately most of the sources apparently have been removed, ironic how that happened.
Except this one, of course.
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
Most of the rest are unintelligent responses from morons, including one extremely bright individual who claimed that anyone in jail, regardless of what religion they claim to be, are atheist anyways, because being in jail isn't Christ like.
Originally Posted by Wiiman You also appear to be routinely avoiding my question 'I am just challenging someone to think of disadvantages of this.' As I said earlier, 'If there is a religion that harbors no hatred to anyone at all and teaches the beleivers to do good, is there any disadvantage in people beleiving it?' I have already explained how this is not a 'just in case' sort of beleiving. I did speak of my interpretation of christianity.(but you began to speak of general christians regardless), yes, but it is more of a general religion question Please I challenge anyone to this one.
Yes. You don't need a belief system to tell you to be a good person, and any religion claiming that they are the only way to do that denies that person the opportunity to learn where morality and good deeds really come from. I find the notion of a religion claiming that morality cannot be found without it is ignorant, and believing in something that spreads ignorance is a major disadvantage.
You've obviously been brainwashed into thinking that a person cannot be moral without having a religion. You shouldn't have to do good things because you're afraid of being punished or you think it's going to get you a reward, doing good things because of that reason taints the deed you've done, and you might as well just call it work, or whoring yourself if you will. You seriously need to take some time to give it some deep thought and learn to do good things for the sake of being good.
If you still think that atheists can't possibly have a moral compass, try doing some research on atheist charities. If atheists have no morals, then they shouldn't exist. I, myself, volunteer quite often, and I do it because I know it helps, and I know these people need help. I mentioned earlier some of the church groups I've gone with, there were a few good eggs there, but most of the mastheads there were simply there because their parents told them too, they think it'll look great on a resume, or they think they're going to get 'brownie points' in heaven. And I had to teach some of these kids how to use a chainsaw, ended up doing it all myself.
Originally Posted by Wiiman Also, I have not took time watch all the George Carlin video, but the Jim Jeffries monologue I find rather pointless. How can you diss a religion for writing something down? Then again I'll give him a break because he was just trying humerous.
You should really watch it when you get a chance. George is a brilliant man, has tons of great information and he never forgets to be funny. And it figures you'd find Jeffries quote pointless because you obviously missed his point. If you can't figure out for yourself that you shouldn't kill people, you probably need to seek help.
And the bible really does not need to be as lengthy as it is. Like I stated before, an all powerful being shouldn't have to rely on stories that may or may not have been what actually happened, he could you know, just show us some of the things he can do. It's completely idiotic to believe that there is a being with limitless power that supposedly loves you and the only thing that he requires of you is that you love him back or he'll send you to burn for an eternity and the only thing that he has to show his existence is a bunch of lengthy stories that pretty much say "God can do this and do this and do this and do this, my god can beat up your god, and do this and this...". If one of 'his children' ever doubt he exists, all he'd need to do is appear before them and go "yeah I do", thus saving another child that he apparently loves. Ironic, that when people began being able to record, document and verify miraculous claims, they stopped happening.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Beleive it or not I thought Atheist actually had a moral compass, and I for the main part still do. Like I said earlier, those first remarks were a personal attack to the creator of that website.
I actually did some research on this subject myself, and I must say...you're supporting information is rather invalid. Not because it is untrue, but because when atheist speak of this study they are in fact manipulating the results to make them sound as though they agree with them. Notice that the unknown makes up almost 20%? People who are not aware of their religion are obviously atheist as they do not beleive in anything. By the time you add in the Atheist percentage it is only 0.059 away from 20%. I will say I am quite shocked on the high percentage of catholics, but it is a rather radical church, and an 'organized religion.' But I still am even more shocked that Atheist make up only 10% But fill 20% of the nations prisons! This is quite terrible! I wonder how much of the atheist population is currently imprisonned? I expect it to be quite high!
Observe this source, I found-
http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html
"None/Atheist/Unknown 18,537 19.908%"
Holy cow!
Multiple studies from multiple time periods in this article all say that Atheist dominate prisons! (The glory of this mostly being that your source supported this claim.)
A lot of sites also spoke of why we had so many chrisitians and religious people in jail. Many had an explanation similair to this=
"Prisoners may need to "prove" they will be good if released and may believe that the parole board will think better of them if they read the bible.
Or, prisoners with lots of time on their hands read the bible and find god."
Because they let you out of your cell to go to chapel and Bible study and prayer meetings. Why be an athiest in your cell when you can get some perks for having religion."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080226173812AApM54e
"I worked at a women's prison and many of the 'religious' women had ulterior motives.
-looks good to the parole board
-chance to get out of their rooms for event's
to relieve boredom
to grope girlfriend(s)
substitute addiction for the drugs they can't get
to feel superior
social connection
to fit in and allow someone/something else be responsible for running their lives."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=263x24145
I like the fact the last one said many. I wonder how many is many? Perhaps even 10%? If that was so then 30% of people jailed from crimes were atheist at the time. I must say, this is quite reviting information. I would like to know how many people enter prison as Athiest, that would be interesting. I bet many of those people who classified themselves as athiest actually later became religious, which means an even higher percentage commiting crimes.
So like I said at the beginning of this post-"Beleive it or not I thought Atheist actually had a moral compass, and I for the main part still do." The reason I said for the main part is because after you motivated me to do some research, I must say I am in question. I still don't hold any sort of hatred for athiest like I said earlier, everyone in this world deserves respect, but don't claim that they are less likely to commit crimes
Edit:
Also, I can tell by your site that the report is a rather bias one, by the way it speaks of 'nasty christians' and all. None of the sites I used were biased(to my knowledge, but I haven't took time to check that under democrats or whatever site, yet it appears not to be a biased site). And all of the athiest responses to the overwhelming christians were something like 'Bcuz we're smarter.' Which is funny seeing as their population fills prisons But unbiased sites point toward athiest filling prisons, and turns out pro-athiest biased sites do as well
Originally Posted by Wiiman Beleive it or not I thought Atheist actually had a moral compass, and I for the main part still do. Like I said earlier, those first remarks were a personal attack to the creator of that website.
I actually did some research on this subject myself, and I must say...you're supporting information is rather invalid. Not because it is untrue, but because when atheist speak of this study they are in fact manipulating the results to make them sound as though they agree with them. Notice that the unknown makes up almost 20%? People who are not aware of their religion are obviously atheist as they do not beleive in anything. By the time you add in the Atheist percentage it is only 0.059 away from 20%. I will say I am quite shocked on the high percentage of catholics, but it is a rather radical church, and an 'organized religion.' But I still am even more shocked that Atheist make up only 10% But fill 20% of the nations prisons! This is quite terrible! I wonder how much of the atheist population is currently imprisonned? I expect it to be quite high!
Observe this source, I found-
http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html
"None/Atheist/Unknown 18,537 19.908%"
Holy cow!
Multiple studies from multiple time periods in this article all say that Atheist dominate prisons! (The glory of this mostly being that your source supported this claim.)
A lot of sites also spoke of why we had so many chrisitians and religious people in jail. Many had an explanation similair to this=
"Prisoners may need to "prove" they will be good if released and may believe that the parole board will think better of them if they read the bible.
Or, prisoners with lots of time on their hands read the bible and find god."
Because they let you out of your cell to go to chapel and Bible study and prayer meetings. Why be an athiest in your cell when you can get some perks for having religion."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080226173812AApM54e
"I worked at a women's prison and many of the 'religious' women had ulterior motives.
-looks good to the parole board
-chance to get out of their rooms for event's
to relieve boredom
to grope girlfriend(s)
substitute addiction for the drugs they can't get
to feel superior
social connection
to fit in and allow someone/something else be responsible for running their lives."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=263x24145
I like the fact the last one said many. I wonder how many is many? Perhaps even 10%? If that was so then 30% of people jailed from crimes were atheist at the time. I must say, this is quite reviting information. I would like to know how many people enter prison as Athiest, that would be interesting. I bet many of those people who classified themselves as athiest actually later became religious, which means an even higher percentage commiting crimes.
So like I said at the beginning of this post-"Beleive it or not I thought Atheist actually had a moral compass, and I for the main part still do." The reason I said for the main part is because after you motivated me to do some research, I must say I am in question. I still don't hold any sort of hatred for athiest like I said earlier, everyone in this world deserves respect, but don't claim that they are less likely to commit crimes
Edit:
Also, I can tell by your site that the report is a rather bias one, by the way it speaks of 'nasty christians' and all. None of the sites I used were biased(to my knowledge, but I haven't took time to check that under democrats or whatever site, yet it appears not to be a biased site). And all of the athiest responses to the overwhelming christians were something like 'Bcuz we're smarter.' Which is funny seeing as their population fills prisons But unbiased sites point toward athiest filling prisons, and turns out pro-athiest biased sites do as well
All I have to say is that's a big fat LOL. If you fell for that blatant misrepresentation of facts that easily, then it's no wonder that you are a Christian.
Not answering the religious question, not having a religion or not knowing which religion they are DOES NOT make someone an atheist. The website that claims that IS biased and unreliable as all they did was take the same statistics of the website I posted and lumped the categories to prove a point. That is completely dishonest, and I'm appalled that you actually fell for such an obvious attempt at statistical distortion. They might as well do this
INNOCENT CHRISTIAN : ||\||| 30.3%
GODLESS ATHEIST: ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 0.209% !!!!! OMGZ THE BARS BIGGER
Anyways, an Atheist is someone who believes specifically that there most likely is not a God. Someone who is 'nonreligious' can mean anything, there are many systems of beliefs that do not practice a religion but still hold a belief, such as Buddhism, Agnosticism, Gnosticism, etc. There are also many people of other religions that claim to be nonreligious. More often than not, they are people who choose to not have any kind of label. Someone who doesn't answer the question does just that, doesn't answer the question, they can be of any religion, they simply don't care about the study, don't want to be a statistic, or have a fear they might be discriminated against because of their answer. If someone does not know which religion they are, that also does not make them an Atheist, because obviously being an Atheist would be an answer, once again, they could be leaning towards any religion.
There is more of a basis to combine the Abrahamic religions (which would be about 83.761% of the prison population) then there is to combine categories that don't have anything in common.
Also, if there wasn't a difference, then why the hell would they have posted the original stats with the separated categories?
As far as your claim that people simple stop being Atheists just because it looks better, that is a completely unsubstantiated claim with which you have ZERO evidence for. You can't just proclaim something like that and take it as a fact with nothing to go on. If someone 'jumps ship' once again there is no telling what they were before, most likely they fell into the no answer/nonreligious/unknown category.
Thank you for at least attempting to do the research, but remember what I told you, you can't go in with a conclusion and grab your evidence based on your conclusion, you have to grab your evidence and form a conclusion from that. ALSO you have to be able to use your critical thinking skills to deduce who is providing legitimate information, and who is trying to distort the truth.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
I notice that your responses are become increasing desperate.
And you are viewing the information with your mind already made up Athiest are superior, whether you admit it or not.
Just because a site displays information as it is doesn't make it a biased site. And your link was very biased by the way. And this discussion was more toward people with religion vs people with religion, and studies show that those unopionated about a religion are just as likely if not more to commit crimes. Face the facts.
Take a look at this pertaining to the difficulty in disovering what percent is truly athiest-
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm
"Some Atheists, when asked what their religion is, will answer, simply, "Atheist." Others will say that they "have no religion, they are an Atheist." Still others will use terms like Humanist, Agnostic, Freethinker, religious skeptics, etc. This makes public opinion polls almost useless on this topic."
This is a very non biased site as one of the people that runs it is athiest.
You just happen to be using your definition, but different athiest use different defintions. You just happen to be using your own very srict defintion. Either way, the battle for who is more likely to commit crimes was religious vs nonreligious; and nonreligious is just as likely if not more. I think it is completely safe to assume that at least half of that 20% is nonreligious, which I think it would be much more as not 10% of the US population part of some estranged cult or something. That is still 10%. Christian fill around 75% of the world and commit around that many percent in crimes.
So the final verdict, people with a religion are not any more likely to commit crimes than those with.
Be an athiest I expect you to accept this evidence, because after all athiest beleive what they see and what is proven.
Originally Posted by Wiiman I notice that your responses are become increasing desperate.
Is it me, or is someone here not reading my posts? Just because you choose to not agree with or understand my posts does not make them desperate.
Originally Posted by Wiiman And you are viewing the information with your mind already made up Athiest are superior, whether you admit it or not.
Just because a site displays information as it is doesn't make it a biased site. And your link was very biased by the way.
Really now? You might want to look at how you phrased that sentence. I don't care if the site is biased or not HE STILL DID NOT ALTER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM.
Originally Posted by Wiiman Take a look at this pertaining to the difficulty in disovering what percent is truly athiest-
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm
"Some Atheists, when asked what their religion is, will answer, simply, "Atheist." Others will say that they "have no religion, they are an Atheist." Still others will use terms like Humanist, Agnostic, Freethinker, religious skeptics, etc. This makes public opinion polls almost useless on this topic."
This is a very non biased site as one of the people that runs it is athiest.
That quote is correct to a certain point. Agnosticism does not belong in that list, as atheism is the lack of belief in any deity, and Agnosticism is to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not. Besides, it does not prove your point that Atheism, Nonreligious, People who are unsure and People who refuse to answer are all Atheists.
Originally Posted by Wiiman I think it is completely safe to assume that at least half of that 20% is nonreligious, which I think it would be much more as not 10% of the US population part of some estranged cult or something.
No, it's not completely safe to assume anything, especially that. That is called a logical fallacy (if you can't explain something, then it must be something that demonstrates my point). If I have a room full of people who can't make up their mind about what they want to eat for dinner, should I assume that half of them are vegetarians?
Originally Posted by Wiiman So the final verdict, people with a religion are not any more likely to commit crimes than those with.
Yeah, when you distort the facts it isn't. If someone refuses to answer the question, you cannot accept their answer as ANYTHING, because since they don't answer it, it can be ANYTHING. If someone isn't sure what religion they belong to, that doesn't mean they don't believe in anything, that just means they have no religious affiliation. It's not rocket science. Assuming that any of them might be atheist is a HUGE stretch.
Originally Posted by Wiiman Be an athiest I expect you to accept this evidence, because after all athiest beleive what they see and what is proven.
The only proof I'm seeing on your end is that your entire argument is based on leaps and bounds to prove your ultimate point.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
To be truthful I want to argue with you, as I have plently of responses(especially to that last bit.) But after a typed that last post, I had to go to town. On the way to town I was thinking to myself; hmm I wonder his reply will be this time. Then I kinda stopped; Why I am getting so steamy from some guy off the internet I don't even know? Why am I continually locking myself in a never ending arguement with someone who will not conform his thoughts; and nor will I? What's the point of argueing? We've been argueing for 2 maybe 3 days? So I decided that I'm gonna do the mature thing.
I'm done. There is no point in this. We are both adults, yet we are bickering like children. We both beleive and don't beleive what we choose, and we've reached a point in our lives when that will not change for anything. When Boothman first created this topic he hoped it off being a friendly opinion thread; yet we have both gone as far as to even to personal on one another based on preferences; along with more broader general attacks. The Daily Click community has slowly been turning into a hostile enviroment. Possibly one reason why we don't see as many new recruits showing up? We have both been members of the site for a fair amount of time, and probably contributed quite a bit back in they day, and have contributed greatly during our time here. Yet, when new clickers get on this topic and see us acting like five year olds fighting over toys; what will they think?
Anyhow, I'm done, if you feel as though you must persist, please TDC mail me instead of filling this 35 page thread. Nowone is gonna win, that's how it is. I'm sure others will claim that I'm doing this only because I don't have a response, let them think that if they want. As I said I have quite a few. But I tire of this pointless struggle bound to go nowhere.
Originally Posted by Wiiman To be truthful I want to argue with you, as I have plently of responses(especially to that last bit.) But after a typed that last post, I had to go to town. On the way to town I was thinking to myself; hmm I wonder his reply will be this time. Then I kinda stopped; Why I am getting so steamy from some guy off the internet I don't even know? Why am I continually locking myself in a never ending arguement with someone who will not conform his thoughts; and nor will I? What's the point of argueing? We've been argueing for 2 maybe 3 days? So I decided that I'm gonna do the mature thing.
I'm done. There is no point in this. We are both adults, yet we are bickering like children. We both beleive and don't beleive what we choose, and we've reached a point in our lives when that will not change for anything. When Boothman first created this topic he hoped it off being a friendly opinion thread; yet we have both gone as far as to even to personal on one another based on preferences; along with more broader general attacks. The Daily Click community has slowly been turning into a hostile enviroment. Possibly one reason why we don't see as many new recruits showing up? We have both been members of the site for a fair amount of time, and probably contributed quite a bit back in they day, and have contributed greatly during our time here. Yet, when new clickers get on this topic and see us acting like five year olds fighting over toys; what will they think?
Anyhow, I'm done, if you feel as though you must persist, please TDC mail me instead of filling this 35 page thread. Nowone is gonna win, that's how it is. I'm sure others will claim that I'm doing this only because I don't have a response, let them think that if they want. As I said I have quite a few. But I tire of this pointless struggle bound to go nowhere.
I'm sorry you felt like I was being negative and bickering with you, I wasn't. I didn't assume you were being negative or bickering either. For some reason I don't get why when people argue it always seems like they are imagining the opposite party is sitting there with a knife and pitchfork swearing at the top of their lungs as they are pounding ferociously on the keyboard. I wasn't trying to be hostile, I'm sorry you took it that way, and I'm sorry you got 'steamed' about it, I can assure you, I wasn't.
"We both beleive and don't beleive what we choose, and we've reached a point in our lives when that will not change for anything."
Don't throw me in the same boat as you. I'm constantly changing who I am and what I consider relevant. If you want to live in a box, be my guest, the most I can do is offer you a different way of looking at things.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Rational idea's cannot be understood by those with irrational thought processes about an acquired faith that they're convinced is the only possible truth.
If light shining through a glass of wine is red, and everyone else is convinced the light is blue... there's no way you can convince them that the light is red if they refuse to accept that the glass is full wine and not Kool-Aid.
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman The thread title is the question I am posing.
Do you believe in God? Or to put it a slightly different way, do you believe there is 'something else'.
I am having a bit of internal doubt and wondering about stuff (nature of the world, meaning of 'God', afterlife and probability thereof).
Let's have a bit of adult debate; no "Christians are stupid" and no "atheists are going to hell" business.
So this is a old thread.
I personally don't believe in god.
my family is agnostic so yeah.
I've celebrated Jewish/Christian traditions with friend's and it's fun.
I have had full respect for people who go to churches, synagogues, mosks.
Funny thing I've never went to these holy area's that were newer then the 1800's cool this is a funny weird story about religion.
So I was in kindergarden quite young. Around 6, so I and some friends are playing. Some stuff happens then a friend mentions god and how he saved his mom from a shark attack. So as the young mind I had I filled in the god and until I was around 9 I thought "god" was a lifegaurd. Another story was some Jewish kids made me frightened of "adonai" which if translated to english is god They said some stuff and he was born of a eye and I was pretty scared of that but still had no idea.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by Sketchy
)
Do no harm.
