The Parallel Bible [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

Rodimus Prime

Nov 7, 2008, 07:27 AM

I think the fact that it's surprising is itself surprising. Anyone who's ever learned a second language knows that languages don't say things the same way and that translations are always imperfect. If you really want to understand any scripture that's not written in your native language, you end up having to do at least some digging into the language in which the scripture was actually written -- whether that's Sanskrit, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, or whatever else.

That being said, although I don't practice Christianity anymore, and I am aware of the differences between translations, to be honest, most of the differences in translation haven't led to gross misinterpretation of the Bible. If you look at places where Scripture is grossly routinely interpreted in a way that's very hard to trace back to the likely intent at the time of writing... for instance, the passage which is typically quoted to give the devil the name "Lucifer" and conclude that he was an angel who fell from heaven... that's not an error in translation. That's a failure to be willing to read in context.

some one pointed that out. I have former friends who believed very firmly that what the bible stated in the translation they used was correct and perfect. They refused accept there could and are errors in translations. I would like to state the friendships ending had nothing to do with the bible or Christianity.

I know translation into another language is a huge part an art because one has to take a word that has a direct meaning but you still have to deal with the other languages grammar rules and have to adjust for those as well.

While I am a Christan and do study the bible I also accept and believe in the fact it is a translations and have errors in it. On top of that the original author way back when had to interpated the events he say and put it in writing. Minor errors occur there and with each translation there are more errors. There is only one truth in the end and that is God's truth. Everything beyond that is human interpenetration of the truth.

.Andy

Nov 7, 2008, 07:28 AM

There is only one truth in the end and that is God's truth.
You guess.

Rodimus Prime

Nov 7, 2008, 07:30 AM

You guess.

not a guess. Your way of putting that is insulting to me. a better way is I believe that very strongly and when it comes to the bible and the truths in it the only interpolation that is exact and completely true is God's

yrsonicdeath

Nov 7, 2008, 07:32 AM

It is already in there...

Romans 12:18 "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." (NASB)

Matthew 7:12 "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (NASB)http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

Bill and Ted did have the ability to time travel.

.Andy

Nov 7, 2008, 07:36 AM

a better way is I believe that very strongly and when it comes to the bible and the truths in it the only interpolation that is exact and completely true is God's
This still says "guess" just in more words. You have no idea the bible comes from god. It's self-referential. It claims to be from god ergo it is from god. You may believe strongly that it's the truth but that by no means makes it any truthier. You are guessing it is true and therefore guessing it is from god.

From Dictionary
guess
Noun
Estimate or suppose (something) without sufficient evidence to be sure of being correct.

smwatson

Nov 7, 2008, 09:29 AM

floyde

Nov 7, 2008, 11:07 AM

I am curious if any members here who quote bible verses have taken a look at this.

I think that most of them have been exposed to this sort of material in one way or another. The reason why that information will never change these people's minds is that we underestimate "human nature's susceptibility to the comfort of irrational thought" (from this (http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,3273,People-say-Im-strident,Decca-Aitkenhead-The-Guardian) article). Why face the cold truth when you can remain beneath the warm blanket of invented cosmic babysitters?

I think it's in our nature to give priority to emotion over logic, simply because it's quicker and easier to deal with life that way. I for one, have given up trying to convince religious people that they are mistaken.

MacDawg

Nov 7, 2008, 11:07 AM

And God's not real. So..

That's just a guess ;)

Woof, Woof – Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

Melrose

Nov 7, 2008, 11:15 AM

Without getting involved in the discussion of whether various members accept it as inspired or not, I will add that there is a marked difference between a version of the bible and translation of the bible.

A bible Translation is rendered using the original documents as a basis for, you guessed it, translation.

Version is one that is rendered from intermediate texts.

Therefore translations tend to be more accurate.

Cleverboy

Nov 7, 2008, 11:22 AM

The Bible app on the iPhone is simply awesome for its corss-referencing of different versions. While I was attending my family reunion ealier this year, I was switching between translations during service. I particularly like the Amplified Bible. It made my mother wonder if she should get an iPhone.

http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=282935706&mt=8

I still like these country code domains. cc, tv, orr nu... it gives people a shot at being seen where they otherwise wouldn't. This site looks like a good example. Good stuff.

~ CB

obeygiant

Nov 7, 2008, 11:31 AM

not a guess. Your way of putting that is insulting to me. a better way is I believe that very strongly and when it comes to the bible and the truths in it the only interpolation that is exact and completely true is God's

Just ignore the insults. It gives the anti-religious a bad name when they don't even know the golden rule.

If you believe in a god thats completely fine. Thats the path that works for you and most people are okay with that. To study the bible as a document and explore its lessons and universal truths is a noble endeavor. Personally I believe that bible is a book written by man to help explain the unseen and to help those who need it through troublesome times in their lives. I prefer to face those times without a crutch such as religion while not diminishing those who's lives it is a part of,

chrmjenkins

Nov 7, 2008, 11:46 AM

Modern English versions of the Bible span over four centuries. The changes that the English language has endured over that time in itself is enormous, so of course the translations will vary greatly :D

redwarrior

Nov 7, 2008, 11:46 AM

Just ignore the insults. It gives the anti-religious a bad name when they don't even know the golden rule.

If you believe in a god thats completely fine. Thats the path that works for you and most people are okay with that. To study the bible as a document and explore its lessons and universal truths is a noble endeavor. Personally I believe that bible is a book written by man to help explain the unseen and to help those who need it through troublesome times in their lives. I prefer to face those times without a crutch such as religion while not diminishing those who's lives it is a part of,
Wow, you tell people to ignore the insults then call religion a crutch; I fail to see the point of your post other than to attempt to mask another insult. I could choose to walk the 8 miles to the grocery store, but using my car as a crutch to get me there, faster and safer, shows that I am a thinking individual.

SLC Flyfishing

Nov 7, 2008, 11:50 AM

This still says "guess" just in more words. You have no idea the bible comes from god. It's self-referential. It claims to be from god ergo it is from god. You may believe strongly that it's the truth but that by no means makes it any truthier. You are guessing it is true and therefore guessing it is from god.

From Dictionary
guess
Noun
Estimate or suppose (something) without sufficient evidence to be sure of being correct.

I'll tell you that I have an absolute certainty that the Bible comes from god. It has been witnessed to me many times in my life, and I have complete faith in it's words and teachings.

I know that there are a lot of different translations of the bible. In general, they all say the same thing, just in different words. There are some who have completely changed the wording of the Bible to fit their interpretations but by and large, it's merely a matter of translating the same passages by different people.

I believe the King James version to be the most complete and perfect translation in existence.

SLC

iShater

Nov 7, 2008, 11:54 AM

When you got three divine books proclaiming the existence of God and those three religions agree on that when they have had more conflict in the last few hundred years, that is one sign they are on to something. ;)

chrmjenkins

Nov 7, 2008, 11:56 AM

Just ignore the insults. It gives the anti-religious a bad name when they don't even know the golden rule.

If you believe in a god thats completely fine. Thats the path that works for you and most people are okay with that. To study the bible as a document and explore its lessons and universal truths is a noble endeavor. Personally I believe that bible is a book written by man to help explain the unseen and to help those who need it through troublesome times in their lives. I prefer to face those times without a crutch such as religion while not diminishing those who's lives it is a part of,

This idea that religion is a crutch is complete nonsense when you take it in the context of the present and not the future (afterlife).

Say your mother dies. Which is more disconcerting, to think it was an occurrence of causality with no greater purpose, or to think that God willed that that person died? The amount of questioning and blame that God endures at these points is monumental. To put it another way, which is more debilitating, to know a loved one died in an accident, or that they were purposefully taken in some way? Intense blame and anger all occur, and to think this is somehow bracing someone in comparison to an accident is preposterous.

arkitect

Nov 7, 2008, 12:00 PM

I'll tell you that I have an absolute certainty that the Bible comes from god. It has been witnessed to me many times in my life, and I have complete faith in it's words and teachings.

Not meaning to sound gratuitously argumentative, but what does witnessed mean exactly?

Is that the same as saying "It has been proved to me…"

Just curious.

floyde

Nov 7, 2008, 12:00 PM

Wow, you tell people to ignore the insults then call religion a crutch; I fail to see the point of your post other than to attempt to mask another insult. I could choose to walk the 8 miles to the grocery store, but using my car as a crutch to get me there, faster and safer, shows that I am a thinking individual.

Red, I don't think that anyone here is trying to insult people. It's hard for us atheists to approach the subject without causing some sort of discomfort. Religion is something that is held very dearly, so inevitably, feelings will get hurt when it is discussed. I still think that it's a necessary discussion, since it has such a huge influence in the world. We need to make sure that such influence is not misguided.

chrmjenkins

Nov 7, 2008, 12:03 PM

Not meaning to sound gratuitously argumentative, but what does witnessed mean exactly?

Is that the same as saying "It has been proved to me…"

Just curious.

In the context of evangelizing, witness is to recount your story of conversion and your reasons for faith to someone who does not believe in the hopes of converting to, or at least getting them to consider, Christianity.

arkitect

Nov 7, 2008, 12:06 PM

In the context of evangelizing, witness is to recount your story of conversion and your reasons for faith to someone who does not believe in the hopes of converting to, or at least getting them to consider, Christianity.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I was not sure that that is what is meant.

floyde

Nov 7, 2008, 12:08 PM

This idea that religion is a crutch is complete nonsense when you take it in the context of the present and not the future (afterlife).

Say your mother dies. Which is more disconcerting, to think it was an occurrence of causality with no greater purpose, or to think that God willed that that person died? The amount of questioning and blame that God endures at these points is monumental. To put it another way, which is more debilitating, to know a loved one died in an accident, or that they were purposefully taken in some way? Intense blame and anger all occur, and to think this is somehow bracing someone in comparison to an accident is preposterous.

Your hopes and desires do not determine reality. You can hope all you want that your loved ones died for some higher purpose (yes, that is a more comforting thought), but reality will still have its own plans. The truth doesn't necessarily have to be comforting. In fact, it hardly ever is. And it is much harder to accept that way. Truth however, has the tendency to remain true whether we accept it or not.

chrmjenkins

Nov 7, 2008, 12:08 PM

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I was not sure that that is what is meant.

No problem. Since it seems as a kind of non-conventional use of the word, I like to think of it as "I have witnessed the glory of God, now let me speak with you about it, if you will allow me."

SLC Flyfishing

Nov 7, 2008, 12:09 PM

Not meaning to sound gratuitously argumentative, but what does witnessed mean exactly?

Is that the same as saying "It has been proved to me…"

Just curious.

Yes, it has been proven to me, through many different things that happened in my life. Things that happened which neither science nor philosophy can explain, and also a very profound feeling of comfort and inner peace that comes from reading its teachings and trying to apply them to my life. So for me, I have a very real and first hand knowledge of it's truth. I'm sure there are many others who have had similar experiences to mine, and even more who haven't. I will say that I know that for this to happen, one has to have faith, and has to believe that god is real and that he wants nothing more than to help each of us through life, lifting our burdens when we can no longer bear them, and guiding us back to his presence.

SLC

Cleverboy

Nov 7, 2008, 12:10 PM

I prefer to face those times without a crutch such as religion while not diminishing those who's lives it is a part of.
Man... that is one ironic sentence, I'll tell ya whut.

~ CB

redwarrior

Nov 7, 2008, 12:12 PM

Red, I don't think that anyone here is trying to insult people. It's hard for us atheists to approach the subject without causing some sort of discomfort. Religion is something that is held very dearly, so inevitably, feelings will get hurt when it is discussed. I still think that it's a necessary discussion, since it has such a huge influence in the world. We need to make sure that such influence is not misguided.
I just felt like the "religion as a crutch" statement was demeaning, somehow stating that because I believe the Bible, I am weaker than those who don't. No worries. I, personally try my best not to accept insults or offense. I just couldn't bring myself to let that one go.:D

I also, apologize for getting off-topic, if I recall correctly this is about translations.:o:)

chrmjenkins

Nov 7, 2008, 12:13 PM

Your hopes and desires do not determine reality. You can hope all you want that your loved ones died for some higher purpose (yes, that is a more comforting thought), but reality will still have its own plans. The truth doesn't necessarily have to be comforting. In fact, it hardly ever is. And it is much harder to accept that way. Truth however, has the tendency to remain true whether we accept it or not.

No, your hopes and desires determine your reality. It is much more difficult to accept a truth when you know it was meant to happen. Sure, we say it is comforting to know God wanted it, but that is never the first reaction. People may come to believe that is what God wanted it, but I believe that offers no more comfort than the dulling effect of time, to most people.

People's reaction to truth is an emotional one. Their treatment of truth is a logical one. One can only come to believe God willed it through use of logic, not emotion.

redwarrior

Nov 7, 2008, 12:14 PM

Yes, it has been proven to me, through many different things that happened in my life. Things that happened which neither science nor philosophy can explain, and also a very profound feeling of comfort and inner peace that comes from reading its teachings and trying to apply them to my life. So for me, I have a very real and first hand knowledge of it's truth. I'm sure there are many others who have had similar experiences to mine, and even more who haven't. I will say that I know that for this to happen, one has to have faith, and has to believe that god is real and that he wants nothing more than to help each of us through life, lifting our burdens when we can no longer bear them, and guiding us back to his presence.

SLC
Yes, you are very right. The problem with this is that it's kind of like having a baby, it's impossible to explain it; one simply has to experience it.:)

SLC Flyfishing

Nov 7, 2008, 12:21 PM

Yes, you are very right. The problem with this is that it's kind of like having a baby, it's impossible to explain it; one simply has to experience it.:)

Yes, exactly! And those who wish not to experience it, never will unfortunately. It's a life changing experience, and the philosophies of men cannot and will not ever take that away.

My personal belief is that those who put their entire faith in Science and what has been learned by people only have half the story. It's not that I think they are wrong, but that they are under-informed. I happen to believe in science, but I believe in it in the context that it was god who created the laws of physics and the universe as manner of governing his creation and creating order in such a vast scope of matter. I also have an understanding that Scientific theory is man's attempt to explain god's order and that often it is imperfectly understood. While it has proven quite valuable to know how the universe works in order to manipulate that knowledge to our advantage and put it to use, that is not the ultimate purpose of our time on earth.

SLC

floyde

Nov 7, 2008, 12:27 PM

People's reaction to truth is an emotional one. Their treatment of truth is a logical one. One can only come to believe God willed it through use of logic, not emotion.

Well I disagree here. At least my logic in such matters points me to an enormous question mark. Trying to get beyond that question mark would implicate abandoning all logic and making use of my imagination. I might even try it, for the fun of it, it's in our nature to fantasize after all. But to base important aspects of my life on that imagined answer would feel a bit irresponsible (for me at least). So I do the only thing I can do with my limited abilities, which is to declare: "I don't know yet. I might never find out".

I don't know if I made sense though :p:o

obeygiant

Nov 7, 2008, 12:31 PM

Wow, you tell people to ignore the insults then call religion a crutch; I fail to see the point of your post other than to attempt to mask another insult. I could choose to walk the 8 miles to the grocery store, but using my car as a crutch to get me there, faster and safer, shows that I am a thinking individual.

Please don't take it the wrong way. This is how I feel toward religion in the events of my life. It has no bering on how you may feel towards the subject. If you prefer to see the world through a belief window such as the bible that's your right.

redwarrior

Nov 7, 2008, 12:40 PM

Please don't take it the wrong way. This is how I feel toward religion in the events of my life. It has no bering on how you may feel towards the subject. If you prefer to see the world through a belief window such as the bible that's your right.
I have to admit I was shocked by your statement, because you have always made very good points and have been respectful of others. Forgive me for reading too much into your statement; I sincerely apologize.:o

Something that I'd like to add to the discussion - this article (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week825/feature.html) is the first one I found on the TNIV translation. I remember when this translation came out, and my church leaders at the time vehemently condemned it.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Don't panic

Nov 7, 2008, 12:41 PM

Yes, it has been proven to me, through many different things that happened in my life. Things that happened which neither science nor philosophy can explain, and also a very profound feeling of comfort and inner peace that comes from reading its teachings and trying to apply them to my life. So for me, I have a very real and first hand knowledge of it's truth. I'm sure there are many others who have had similar experiences to mine, and even more who haven't. I will say that I know that for this to happen, one has to have faith, and has to believe that god is real and that he wants nothing more than to help each of us through life, lifting our burdens when we can no longer bear them, and guiding us back to his presence.

SLC

i don't want to sound argumentative, but the fact that you believe it to be true in no way accounts to any sort of proof. it's your faith that make you believe it, not evidence.

your experience is shared by many other, who happen to have the same 'real proof' of other religions (or of no religions). are they all 'proven' wrong? they would argue the same from their perspective, therefore 'proving' you to be wrong.

faith is fine, but to claim that it was 'proven' to be true just weaken your position

gotzero

Nov 7, 2008, 01:11 PM

What this project shows clearly, to my mind, is that despite some radically different approaches to translations, most verses are strikingly similar.

mt

I am sure that a large % of the scriptures are very similar, I just always noticed huge differences in the passages used to argue against abortion, gay marriage, etc. This has already turned into a flamewar, so I am going to give up.

I think the fact that it's surprising is itself surprising. Anyone who's ever learned a second language knows that languages don't say things the same way and that translations are always imperfect. If you really want to understand any scripture that's not written in your native language, you end up having to do at least some digging into the language in which the scripture was actually written -- whether that's Sanskrit, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, or whatever else.

Again, it is not the entire translation that gets me, but the specific passages that are often used to justify positions on social issues. I understand the difficulties and inherent errors in translations, but it seems to me that some of the versions take a few too many liberties with words. I did not want to come in with specific passages and look like I was trying to beat people up, I was just hoping that maybe some would explore on their own.

SLC Flyfishing

Nov 7, 2008, 01:13 PM

faith is fine, but to claim that it was 'proven' to be true just weaken your position

Only in the eyes of those who refuse to have faith in anything.

And those of other religions or no religion at all are equally entitled to feel the influence of god in their lives. God is no respecter of persons, he loves all of us equally, and he wants us all to be happy. I can not expect god to turn his back on anyone, so it comes as no surprise that those who are not of my faith would have similar experiences, even those of no faith who would chalk it up to something other than god. This still doesn't change my perfect knowledge of the truthfulness of the Bible and in the existence of God and his influence in my life and the lives of others.

SLC

.Andy

Nov 7, 2008, 01:59 PM

Yes, it has been proven to me, through many different things that happened in my life. Things that happened which neither science nor philosophy can explain.
So you're a chosen one? God specifically revealled himself to you through supernatural acts?

redwarrior

Nov 7, 2008, 02:15 PM

So you're a chosen one? God specifically revealled himself to you through supernatural acts?
Yes He did, and me too, for that matter. It's not unusual. God talks to people every day. We are not special or chosen ones; all Christians are entitled to this.:)

mkrishnan

Nov 7, 2008, 02:15 PM

Again, it is not the entire translation that gets me, but the specific passages that are often used to justify positions on social issues. I understand the difficulties and inherent errors in translations, but it seems to me that some of the versions take a few too many liberties with words. I did not want to come in with specific passages and look like I was trying to beat people up, I was just hoping that maybe some would explore on their own.

But I think that's the point I'm trying to make (and you're trying to ignore ;) )... perhaps there have been incidents in history when passages are specifically mis-interpreted in the light of mis-translation that led to a real "position" -- by the Church. But I'm just not aware of many that are attributable to this particular issue today.

Since no one else has brought any up either, if you really believe this to be the case, I think it's time to actually provide an example.

.Andy

Nov 7, 2008, 02:18 PM

Yes He did, and me too, for that matter.
How does god communicate supernaturally with you christians in ways that science and philosophy can't explain?

dukebound85

Nov 7, 2008, 02:22 PM

How does god communicate supernaturally with you christians in ways that science and philosophy can't explain?

? the same science that cant explain everything even today? and how is philosophy "proof"

you are quick to say that the Bible is fake and offer philosophy as your proof. lol nice

.Andy

Nov 7, 2008, 02:28 PM

? the same science that cant explain everything even today? and how is philosophy "proof"
Science can't explain everything ergo god is real ergo we don't have to answer how god communicates supernaturally with christians? Is this the best you can do?

you are quick to say that the Bible is fake and offer philosophy as your proof. lol nice
When did I say the bible is fake? I have a few versions right here and it feels real to me. I'm just not convinced by it's self-referencing, just as I am when any book claims that it is real. Especially one that makes supernatural claims. lol.

floyde

Nov 7, 2008, 02:29 PM

Yes He did, and me too, for that matter. It's not unusual. God talks to people every day. We are not special or chosen ones; all Christians are entitled to this.:)

What does he have against non-Christians then? And by talk do you mean actual words which you can hear inside your mind?

dukebound85

Nov 7, 2008, 02:32 PM

Science can't explain everything ergo god is real ergo we don't have to answer how god communicates supernaturally with christians? Is this the best you can do?

When did I say the bible is fake? I have a few versions right here and it feels real to me. I'm just not convinced by it's self-referencing, just as I am when any book claims that it is real. lol.

that wasnt my answer to how God communicates. I simply find that you stating "in ways science ans philosophy cant explain" is redicoulous when that same science can not explain the orgin of gravity for instance, yet gravity is real is it not

philosophy is simply the attempt to answer questions. in no way is it "proof" of any sort.

that was all im pointing out as you seem to require that it must be able to be explained by those two criteria for it to be valid

it comes down to this

you cant proof the existance of God with "science" methods today nor can you disprove it either. that is what faith is for imo. you are entitled to your opinion which is fine but your criteria of science having to prove it is absurd when that same science (by todays understanding of science) cant find the origin of many things that we know are real

floyde

Nov 7, 2008, 02:38 PM

you cant proof the existance of God with "science" methods today nor can you disprove it either

Is it not more logical/responsible/honest then to assume that it's false until proven otherwise?

If I claim that there's a microscopic pink mushroom at the core of each of the stars in the Universe, you would never be able to prove me wrong (at least not in this lifetime). I ask you then, is that reason enough to believe that such a thing is true?

.Andy

Nov 7, 2008, 02:39 PM

that wasnt my answer to how God communicates.
Well how does he communicate?

I simply find that you stating "in ways science ans philosophy cant explain" is redicoulous
It was SLC Flyfishing that claimed that god revealled himself to him through ways that science and philosophy can't explain. Not me. Please read the thread. You're making yourself look foolish again.

when that same science can not explain the orgin of gravity for instance, yet gravity is real is it not
What has explaining the origin of something got to do with anything? We can measure gravity and utilise it in predictable ways. If you're attempting to draw the analogy between gravity and god I'm afraid it's as laughable as your attempt to claim incest is a sexuality.

philosophy is simply the attempt to answer questions. in no way is it "proof" of any sort.
Thanks for the epistemology lesson.

that was all im pointing out as you seem to require that it must be able to be explained by those two criteria for it to be valid
Again SLC Flyfishing made the claim. I'm interested in how this supernatural communication is achieved.

Macaddicttt

Nov 7, 2008, 02:41 PM

I believe the King James version to be the most complete and perfect translation in existence.

SLC

Which is funny because there are numerous easily demonstrable errors in the translation, and even the people who translated it admit that it was not done perfectly. The whole "as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death," for example, is a complete mistranslation.

I'd like to throw in my two cents about this whole thing and give the Catholic perspective. Catholics believe that doctrine comes from both Scripture and tradition. Scripture (i.e. the Bible) merely supports teachings and isn't the sole source of them. So the Church keeps one official translation in Latin (which has been redone a number of times), and sanctions translations into other languages. But there is no confusion of difference in translation (in theory) because if you find something in the Bible that you're not sure about, you can always reference other Church writings that will clarify the issue.

Plus, Catholics don't take it all that literally. There are tons of problems with that in and of itself, such as Jesus dying on different days depending if you read the Synoptic Gospels or John's.

Is it not more logical/responsible/honest then to assume that it's false until proven otherwise?

If I claim that there's a microscopic pink mushroom at the core of each of the stars in the Universe, you would never be able to prove me wrong (at least not in this lifetime). I ask you then, is that reason enough to believe that such a thing is true?

That argument doesn't hold water because it isn't useful at all to believe that there is "a microscopic pink mushroom at the core of each of the stars in the Universe." You can believe that all you want, but it's not going to affect your daily life. Religion gives life meaning, and that is useful.

Plus the concept of "God" is a lot more general than "a microscopic pink mushroom at the core of each of the stars in the Universe." The concept of "God" is that the universe cares what you do. That is a starting point, from which various interpretations of what "God" is come.

Yes "a microscopic pink mushroom at the core of each of the stars in the Universe" is equal to "a white haired old man making judgment from the clouds" at a superficial level. But you have to go deeper than that. The original question was, "Does the universe care what I do?" not "Is there a white haired old man making judgment from the clouds?"

redwarrior

Nov 7, 2008, 02:47 PM

What does he have against non-Christians then? And by talk do you mean actual words which you can hear inside your mind?
I'm sure that there are others who could explain this much better than I can, but here goes, in a nutshell.:o

God doesn't have anything against non-Christians; He simply cannot even look on evil, and therefore only can have a relationship with people(spirits) who have been reborn, through acceptance and faith in the blood and resurrection of Jesus.

On the second point, yeah, sometimes God speaks audibly where He can be heard with the ears, but most of the time, it's a thought that we know is not our own.

For instance, at one time in my life my husband and I were working towards getting out of debt. God told us to buy a piece of property on top of a mountain, which sounded absolutely crazy! But God told both of us separately, and we had faith, so we knew what we were supposed to do. We bought the property, $100,000 worth (which i had to get a loan on and make payments on... crazy). Two months later without even putting the property on the market, someone offered us $172,000 for it and we paid off all our debt, including cars and our house. He has led us in our business, which is extremely successful. We would not be where we are now if it were not for the Voice of God.

Take it for what it's worth. There are many more instances, and I don't really expect many here to believe me.:rolleyes:

dukebound85

Nov 7, 2008, 02:48 PM

Well how does he communicate?

It was SLC Flyfishing that claimed that god revealled himself to him through ways that science and philosophy can't explain. Not me. Please read the thread. You're making yourself look foolish again.

What has explaining the origin of something got to do with anything? We can measure gravity and utilise it in predictable ways. If you're attempting to draw the analogy between gravity and god I'm afraid it's as laughable as your attempt to claim incest is a sexuality.

Thanks for the epistemology lesson.

Again SLC Flyfishing made the claim. I'm interested in how this supernatural communication is achieved.

i havent red the whole thread

what i bolded is your lack of undertsanding and its getting rather annoying to say the least.

all i am saying is that to require scinece to be proof for something to exist is absurd when that SAME science can not answer many questions about what we know is REAL

yes we know gravity and can measure it. same with time. but what CAUSES it. you seem to conviently miss the point and attack me saying " we can measure it" . well yea, we can but we still dont know the ORIGINS and what CAUSES gravity.

are you really this blind to what im saying?

back to what SLC is saying, yea i agree with you with how can we know the ways. i simply ask you to accept the fact that while science cant "proove" it today doesnt mean ts not real......like how we cant proove the CAUSE of gravity but we know its there

.Andy

Nov 7, 2008, 02:50 PM

For instance, at one time in my life my husband and I were working towards getting out of debt. God told us to buy a piece of property on top of a mountain, which sounded absolutely crazy! But God told both of us separately, and we had faith, so we knew what we were supposed to do. We bought the property, $100,000 worth (which i had to get a loan on and make payments on... crazy). Two months later without even putting the property on the market, someone offered us $172,000 for it and we paid off all our debt, including cars and our house. He has led us in our business, which is extremely successful. We would not be where we are now if it were not for the Voice of God.
So god is a supernatural financial advisor?

dukebound85

Nov 7, 2008, 02:52 PM

Thanks for the epistemology lesson.

you needed it apparently as philosophy has nothing to merit to it being the truth when attempting to disprove religion

redwarrior

Nov 7, 2008, 02:53 PM

So god is a supernatural financial advisor?
Oh yeah, God is a supernatural everything advisor.

I don't really know that God has not been proven. There are hundreds of instances where doctors have written "miracle" on their patients' charts because they had no reason for their recovery other than prayer. (Both my daughter and I are examples of this.) There have been documented miracles about the founding of the United States, miracles witnessed by our founding fathers. There is so much evidence, besides the voices in my head.:p

.Andy

Nov 7, 2008, 02:54 PM

i havent red the whole thread
That's obvious.

back to what SLC is saying, yea i agree with you with how can we know the ways. i simply ask you to accept the fact that while science cant "proove" it today doesnt mean ts not real......like how we cant proove the CAUSE of gravity but we know its there
I don't care if you can prove it or not that is not what this thread is about. SLC Flyfishing made the claim that god has revealed himself to him through ways that science and philosophy can't explain. Nothing is more interesting to me than things that science and philosophy can't explain so i just wanted to know how these ways are. It's very simple.

Much Ado

Nov 7, 2008, 02:54 PM

God doesn't have anything against non-Christians; He simply cannot even look on evil, and therefore only can have a relationship with people(spirits) who have been reborn, through acceptance and faith in the blood and resurrection of Jesus.

A god that exclusive is not one we should be worshipping.

.Andy

Nov 7, 2008, 02:55 PM

you needed it apparently as philosophy has nothing to merit to it being the truth when attempting to disprove religion
For the umpteenth time. SLC made the claim that god talks to him through ways that science and philosophy can't explain. I made no such claim. You are bolding and attributing words to me that I have not made in this thread. You are making yourself look foolish. Stop banging away angrily at your keys, and take the time to read the thread.

dukebound85

Nov 7, 2008, 02:57 PM

For the umpteenth time. SLC made the claim that god talks to him through ways that science and philosophy can't explain. I made no such claim. You are bolding and attributing words to me that I have not made in this thread. You are making yourself look foolish. Stop banging away angrily at your keys, and take the time to read the thread.

haha i know where you are coming from .Andy.

but can you not see that by asking for proof in forms that we know cant answer all questions is inherently flawed to some degree?

if science could explain everything, then yea there should be evidence that there is a God undoubtedly. but the fact that it cant leaves room that it can be explained but not with science as we know it today

it comes down people who make the claim to provide the burden of proof. all im trying to convey to you is that proof may not be able to be explained by science as we know it today and that is where SLC's proof probably lies

redwarrior

Nov 7, 2008, 02:58 PM

A god that exclusive is not one we should be worshipping.
He's way too good to me for me not to. And He's not exclusive. Would you want to take care of people who denied your existence? He made us in His image; look at yourself and you will see characteristics of The Creator.

floyde

Nov 7, 2008, 02:58 PM

That argument doesn't hold water because it isn't useful at all to believe that there is "a microscopic pink mushroom at the core of each of the stars in the Universe." You can believe that all you want, but it's not going to affect your daily life. Religion gives life meaning, and that is useful.

Well that makes it even more important! A belief in God affects the way you live your life. If you're wrong, you could affect your life adversely. This is very dangerous IMHO, and in my case, I would rather double check before I accepted something that was going to have so much impact in how I live my (only) life and how I relate to others.

Plus the concept of "God" is a lot more general than "a microscopic pink mushroom at the core of each of the stars in the Universe." The concept of "God" is that the universe cares what you do. That is a starting point, from which various interpretations of what "God" is come.

Yes "a microscopic pink mushroom at the core of each of the stars in the Universe" is equal to "a white haired old man making judgment from the clouds" at a superficial level. But you have to go deeper than that. The original question was, "Does the universe care what I do?" not "Is there a white haired old man making judgment from the clouds?"

Ok, so we could rephrase it to "there's a microscopic pink mushroom at the core of each of the stars in the Universe which looks after the inhabitants of the planets of their own star". But how is that useful? That truth is, we all want the Universe to care about us (we truly are helpless little things), but what if it doesn't? Is that going to change just because we believe it does care? It's not going to change, so we'd better be sure to know what the Universe thinks before we go about making decisions based upon that notion.

.Andy

Nov 7, 2008, 03:00 PM

There are hundreds of instances where doctors have written "miracle" on their patients' charts because they had no reason for their recovery other than prayer.
Firstly no there isn't. People do quite commonly get better through no intervention that by no means makes it a miracle.

Secondly if prayer can make people better that are incurable then god and his intervention in the world are a very provable hypothesis by science. Would you accept a study that shows prayer to be a completely useless on patient outcomes as evidence that god does not exist?

SLC Flyfishing

Nov 7, 2008, 03:00 PM

redwarrior

Nov 7, 2008, 03:01 PM

"there's a microscopic pink mushroom at the core of each of the stars in the Universe which looks after the inhabitants of the planets of their own star". But how is that useful?
It's useful as a sig! Mind if I tuck that away for use at a later date?:p

Firstly no there isn't. People do quite commonly get better through no intervention that by no means makes it a miracle.

Secondly if prayer can make people better that are incurable then god and his intervention in the world are a very provable hypothesis by science. Would you accept a study that shows prayer to be a completely useless on patient outcomes as evidence that god does not exist?
No, I have to say that I would not, because I have seen too many scientific studie showing that prayer makes a huge difference in patient outcomes. And, having seen dead people wake up, you can't convince this Christian otherwise. There is really no reason to try after all, now is there?:)

Much Ado

Nov 7, 2008, 03:04 PM

And He's not exclusive. Would you want to take care of people who denied your existence?

I don't deny his existence, but a perfect god wouldn't care if I did.

God is, by definition, perfect. He therefore cannot discriminate between Christians, atheists or believers of other religions.

If there is a real god, he knows that. If there's only the god you say there is, he can ****** right off, the hateful pretender.

.Andy

Nov 7, 2008, 03:05 PM

I never claimed god speaks to me at all. I did claim that I have had experiences which led me to my knowledge of god which science cannot explain. Get it straight.
Ugh you're terrible at reading and comprehension too. I never claimed that god spoke to you at all. I said communicate. "Get it straight".

So again: How did god communicate his existence to you in ways that science and philosophy can't explain? It sounds fascinating.

No, I have to say that I would not, because I have seen too many scientific studie showing that prayer makes a huge difference in patient outcomes.
I'd like to read these. There's not too many for me. This is what I do for a living and if I can make my patients better through prayer when there's no other options for them I'll definitely take it up. Can you provide some links to the studies?

floyde

Nov 7, 2008, 03:10 PM

On the second point, yeah, sometimes God speaks audibly where He can be heard with the ears, but most of the time, it's a thought that we know is not our own.

You might want to take a look at auditory hallucinations (http://www.amazon.com/Muses-Madmen-Prophets-Rethinking-Hallucination/dp/1594201102/ref=tag_tdp_sv_edpp_i). I mean that respectfully. It's quite common, and it's not a sign of mental illness or anything.

From this (http://richarddawkins.net/article,1,Imagine-No-Religion,Richard-Dawkins) article:

"Why do you believe in your God? Because he talks to you inside your head? That is surely not a reliable argument. The Yorkshire Ripper's murders were ordered by the perceived voice of Jesus inside his head. The human brain is a consummate hallucinator, and hallucinations are not good grounds for beliefs about the real world."

He's way too good to me for me not to. And He's not exclusive. Would you want to take care of people who denied your existence? He made us in His image; look at yourself and you will see characteristics of The Creator.

I guess that I wouldn't, but I would really expect an all-loving, omnipotent being to be a lot less vain than that. Besides, it is really not our fault that we deny his existence, he has not talked to us, nor has he given any proof of his existence. If he is real, then I think that he has a strange affection for childish games, no offense. I mean, if he wants us to believe, the proper thing would be to first show us that he does.

And I think I'll take a break, I really need to get back to work.:o

skunk

Nov 7, 2008, 03:11 PM

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I was not sure that that is what it meant.I would like to point out that the Greek for "witness" is "marturos", whence comes our "martyr". Just so you know. :)

floyde

Nov 7, 2008, 03:13 PM

It's useful as a sig! Mind if I tuck that away for use at a later date?:p

Lol :D, I guess that's a use for it. You're free to use it, but I think it's too long for a MR sig

chrmjenkins

Nov 7, 2008, 03:14 PM

I don't deny his existence, but a perfect god wouldn't care if I did.

God is, by definition, perfect. He therefore cannot discriminate between Christians, atheists or believers of other religions.

If there is a real god, he knows that. If there's only the god you say there is, he can ****** right off, the hateful pretender.

So, God can be perfect, but He must adhere to your definition of perfect?

iShater

Nov 7, 2008, 03:15 PM

God exists for everybody, and provides for everybody and helps everybody and punishes everybody.

When it rains on the land, believers and non-believers alike get the rain and benefit from it. Those who look at miracles for something seemingly as simple as rain and contemplate the complexity of how they are delivered can see the miracles in them.

For thousands of years, God sent people to deliver that message. Just cause things happened a couple of thousand years ago doesn't mean we can say "nah, nobody ever sent anything, people were hallucinating as a group across lands and tribes". We are quick to say "big bang theory blah blah blah", etc. and take that as proof of how things are even though they are unproven theories.

There are many examples of "miracles" in simple things in life, as well as events that cannot be explained.

redwarrior

Nov 7, 2008, 03:17 PM

Wow, I could write a book if I stayed here! And I may, at that,:p but I too have got to get back to work, working out to be more specific....

Much Ado

Nov 7, 2008, 03:17 PM

So, God can be perfect, but He must adhere to your definition of perfect?

Nobody's definition of perfect has ever included: "Does not love majoirty of human race".

God is WAY beyond such pettiness. If He exists, he loves everyone, which is great.

Heaven is not a VIP-club for those born in Christian countries, and if it is, I don't want to go there.

Wow, I could write a book if I stayed here! And I may, at that,:p but I too have got to get back to work, working out to be more specific....

Run away, you spineless coward :D

imac/cheese

Nov 7, 2008, 03:18 PM

Can't avoid a good religion thread...

So you're a chosen one? God specifically revealled himself to you through supernatural acts?

You have been chosen too .Andy. You just have to heed the call.

...The whole "as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death," for example, is a complete mistranslation.

Do you mean to tell me that Coolio got it wrong?

A god that exclusive is not one we should be worshipping.

God is not exclusive. He allows all people that want to have a relationship with Him to do so. If you choose to reject Him, He will allow you to.

.Andy

Nov 7, 2008, 03:21 PM

There are many examples of "miracles" in simple things in life, as well as events that cannot be explained.
This is a non-sequitur. We can't explain something ergo god exists. You can use this illogical argument to claim the existence of anything - aliens, yetis, australia.

Much Ado

Nov 7, 2008, 03:22 PM

God is not exclusive. He allows all people that want to have a relationship with Him to do so. If you choose to reject Him, He will allow you to.

God rejects no-one. If you believe he does, you are believing in a petty, thoughtless god, which cannot exist.

God 'aint gonna say no to Ghandi, is he?

Please see my post after the one you quoted.

.Andy

Nov 7, 2008, 03:23 PM

You have been chosen too .Andy. You just have to heed the call.
And you have been chosen to be a muslim you just need to heed the call. You'll one day reject your false religion and accept the one true path to enlightenment and the lord.

dukebound85

Nov 7, 2008, 03:28 PM

This is a non-sequitur. We can't explain something ergo god exists. You can use this illogical argument to claim the existence of anything - aliens, yetis, australia.

we say

"We can't explain something ergo God exists"

you say

you cant explain/prove God so he doesn't exist

sounds just as illogical to me depending on which side one's views lie

skunk

Nov 7, 2008, 03:29 PM

The very idea that a god would give real estate advice while letting innocents be slaughtered is just too bizarre to be taken seriously. The whole concept of monotheism is odious, arrogant, proprietary and entirely arbitrary. Was the mountain deity of the Midianites who morphed into the god of the Jews (or gods, depending on how seriously you interpret elohim) simply nobody's god before the Midianites realised he was there? It's nonsensical.

iShater

Nov 7, 2008, 03:29 PM

This is a non-sequitur. We can't explain something ergo god exists. You can use this illogical argument to claim the existence of anything - aliens, yetis, australia.

Incorrect. These are things that God asked us to look at as examples of creation. And who said yetis, aliens don't exist?

Heck I think Australia exists cause I read about it from people, but I have never been there ;)

I think because of the middle ages and how the church called everybody a heretic for coming up with any new idea that challenged the authority, a lot of science was treated as the enemy of religion.

I think the two compliment each other nicely.

imac/cheese

Nov 7, 2008, 03:29 PM

And you have been chosen to be a muslim you just need to heed the call. You'll one day reject your false religion and accept the one true path to enlightenment and the lord.

I just wanted you to know that we Christians do not think we are superior because we have been chosen by our God. All people have been chosen. Christ died for the sins of every person.

.Andy

Nov 7, 2008, 03:31 PM

we say

"We can't explain something ergo God exists"

you say

you cant explain/prove God so he doesn't exist
Where did I say this?

iShater

Nov 7, 2008, 03:33 PM

And you have been chosen to be a muslim you just need to heed the call. You'll one day reject your false religion and accept the one true path to enlightenment and the lord.

Did you know the word Islam means submitting to God? :p

The very idea that a god would give real estate advice while letting innocents be slaughtered is just too bizarre to be taken seriously. The whole concept of monotheism is odious, arrogant, proprietary and entirely arbitrary. Was the mountain deity of the Midianites who morphed into the god of the Jews (or gods, depending on how seriously you interpret elohim) simply nobody's god before the Midianites realised he was there? It's nonsensical.
The Royal "We".

Is that back to the argument about suffering? life and death?
This life and the afterlife is a big part of the equation.

floyde

Nov 7, 2008, 03:34 PM

we say

"We can't explain something ergo God exists"

you say

you cant explain/prove God so he doesn't exist

sounds just as illogical to me depending on which side one's views lie

Nope, that's not what we say. We say that there's no evidence for the existence of God, so we assume that he doesn't exist, until proven otherwise (just like we do with everything else that we don't have evidence for). Once the evidence comes in, we'll re-evaluate our conclusions.

In other words, he may exist, but it is highly improvable and there's no evidence. So we go with that for now.

dukebound85

Nov 7, 2008, 03:35 PM

Where did I say this?

i thought you implied it pretty well when you ask for for scientific and philosophical proof that there is a God and how he is communicating with us

You cant really be in the middle and only "somewhat believe"

Am I wrong with that assumption? If so my apologies

iShater

Nov 7, 2008, 03:36 PM

I just wanted you to know that we Christians do not think we are superior because we have been chosen by our God. All people have been chosen. Christ died for the sins of every person.

Not to take this off topic again (since we already complete took this thread all over the place), but what about the people who died before Christ? and isn't this an opt-out for people to do whatever they want as long as they believe?

floyde

Nov 7, 2008, 03:38 PM

This is a non-sequitur. We can't explain something ergo god exists. You can use this illogical argument to claim the existence of anything - aliens, yetis, australia.

You can even use it to prove my pink mushroom theory ;):p

.Andy

Nov 7, 2008, 03:41 PM

i thought you implied it pretty well when you ask for for scientific and philosophical proof that there is a God and how he is communicating with us
Good grief. We've gone over this. SLC Flyfishing made the claims that god communicated his existence to him in ways that science and philosophy can't explain. He made the claim and I asked him what these ways were. I didn't ask for any scientific or philosophical proof at all.

I merely have questioned the "proof" provided by the religionists that god is real. i.e. that he provides real estate advice, that prayer to him cures terminal illness, that miracles are proof of his existence.

If so my apologies
Apology accepted.

You can even use it to prove my pink mushroom theory ;):p
I've already subscribed to it :D

skunk

Nov 7, 2008, 03:44 PM

The Royal "We".Too inconsistent by far.

Is that back to the argument about suffering? life and death?
This life and the afterlife is a big part of the equation.The fairytale of an afterlife is a feeble attempt to justify the inexplicable anomaly, that the omniscient and omnipotent god of love should permit the wonder of his creation to be obscenely disfigured on a routine basis by disease, spontaneous abortion, disability and war.

Besides, you have not addressed my principal question: where was god before anyone dreamt him up? Just kicking his heels in the waiting-room?

imac/cheese

Nov 7, 2008, 03:47 PM

Not to take this off topic again (since we already complete took this thread all over the place), but what about the people who died before Christ? and isn't this an opt-out for people to do whatever they want as long as they believe?

Father Abraham died before Christ and he is in Heaven according to several scriptures including the Parable of Lazarus and Dives. I am not sure if it is clear what happened to those dying before Christ, but it is obvious from the bible that some are in heaven.

It is by no means an opt-out. If you only use it as an opt-out, did you really ever believe in the first place? Faith in God includes repenting or turning from your old way of life.

Besides, you have not addressed my principal question: where was god before anyone dreamt him up? Just kicking his heels in the waiting-room?

Adam saw God as soon as God created him.

themoonisdown09

Nov 7, 2008, 03:51 PM

God is WAY beyond such pettiness. If He exists, he loves everyone, which is great.

He does love everyone. The Bible says in John 3:16:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

skunk

Nov 7, 2008, 03:52 PM

Adam saw God as soon as God created him.Adam did not write the bible.

imac/cheese

Nov 7, 2008, 03:53 PM

Adam did not write the bible.

We can both agree on that.

iShater

Nov 7, 2008, 03:54 PM

Too inconsistent by far.

The fairytale of an afterlife is a feeble attempt to justify the inexplicable anomaly, that the omniscient and omnipotent god of love should permit the wonder of his creation to be obscenely disfigured on a routine basis by disease, spontaneous abortion, disability and war.

Besides, you have not addressed my principal question: where was god before anyone dreamt him up? Just kicking his heels in the waiting-room?

Just like the fairytale of your existence? what are we before we are born? a spec of two cells merging, that can't happen again cause we haven't seen it yet?

And who dreamt up God?

Father Abraham died before Christ and he is in Heaven according to several scriptures including the Parable of Lazarus and Dives. I am not sure if it is clear what happened to those dying before Christ, but it is obvious from the bible that some are in heaven.

It is by no means an opt-out. If you only use it as an opt-out, did you really ever believe in the first place? Faith in God includes repenting or turning from your old way of life.
So then what did Abraham, Moses, Solomon, Noah, etc. call people to believe in?

Unfortunately a big number of "believers" behave like hypocrites across the board. So either they misunderstood it, or they are doing cause they think they are all covered. :rolleyes:

Folks, I gotta leave Madison to Chicagoland before the rest of the snow arrives here. I have hope that God will spare me, but I want to work and make sure I prepare ;)

See ya from home, or in the after life! :D

imac/cheese

Nov 7, 2008, 03:57 PM

So then what did Abraham, Moses, Solomon, Noah, etc. call people to believe in?

Unfortunately a big number of "believers" behave like hypocrites across the board. So either they misunderstood it, or they are doing cause they think they are all covered. :rolleyes:

They called people to obey God's Law and there is a very intricate sacrifical system that was used to forgive people of their sins.

Hypocrites have always been a problem in the church. Reading through the bible, Jesus had a lot to say to hypocrites.

skunk

Nov 7, 2008, 04:01 PM

Just like the fairytale of your existence? what are we before we are born? a spec of two cells merging, that can't happen again cause we haven't seen it yet?My existence? I am in all probability the end result of a particular chain of more or less random mutations and duplications. I have no purpose save what I invest in my existence. When my physical organism ceases to be viable, I shall cease to exist. That is all.

And who dreamt up God?Someone trying to explain the inexplicable, I expect.

ZiggyPastorius

Nov 7, 2008, 04:26 PM

So, God can be perfect, but He must adhere to your definition of perfect?

Man, I never thought being perfect meant creating people who will never believe in you (that you know will never believe in you), then sending them to eternal damnation.

Can't avoid a good religion thread...

Me, neither :D

God is not exclusive. He allows all people that want to have a relationship with Him to do so. If you choose to reject Him, He will allow you to.

So the God who knows everything, including everything that happened in past, happens in the present, and will happen in the future, willfully rejects those who reject him because he has chosen for them to? God has his plan, and either people are going to believe in him or they aren't...and since he makes us, he decides that. If he decides we won't believe, we won't, because then he would be wrong in his divine plan.

we say

"We can't explain something ergo God exists"

you say

you cant explain/prove God so he doesn't exist

sounds just as illogical to me depending on which side one's views lie

Nope, that's not what we say. We say that there's no evidence for the existence of God, so we assume that he doesn't exist, until proven otherwise (just like we do with everything else that we don't have evidence for). Once the evidence comes in, we'll re-evaluate our conclusions.

In other words, he may exist, but it is highly improvable and there's no evidence. So we go with that for now.

Seems like this has been answered pretty well.

Much Ado

Nov 7, 2008, 04:37 PM

See ya from home, or in the after life! :D

We'll all be there, whichever form it takes :)

Counterfit

Nov 7, 2008, 04:46 PM

Why does every thread about the Bible turn into God vs. no god?

God told us to buy a piece of property on top of a mountain, which sounded absolutely crazy!
Sound pretty good to me. Property on a hill is a good investment.

gotzero

Nov 7, 2008, 04:57 PM

But I think that's the point I'm trying to make (and you're trying to ignore ;) )... perhaps there have been incidents in history when passages are specifically mis-interpreted in the light of mis-translation that led to a real "position" -- by the Church. But I'm just not aware of many that are attributable to this particular issue today.

Since no one else has brought any up either, if you really believe this to be the case, I think it's time to actually provide an example.

http://bible.cc/romans/1-28.htm

Here is the first one I found. What is the ultimate message from this passage? The 1:26 and 1:27 parts have been mentioned repeatedly to me lately to justify how awful homosexuality is. After reading the various translations, I do not walk away with the same interpretation.

I am sure there are plenty more to be found, but the Roman stuff was what led me to google the parallel bible.

OutThere

Nov 7, 2008, 06:35 PM

PcBgone

Nov 7, 2008, 10:20 PM

Not to take this off topic again (since we already complete took this thread all over the place), but what about the people who died before Christ? and isn't this an opt-out for people to do whatever they want as long as they believe?

According to Scripture, before Christ transcended to Heaven, He went into Abraham's Bosom(what the Jews believed to be Hell) and told them the news. For those who believed they ascended up into Heaven along with Christ. For those denying Him, they remained.

Regarding Hypocrisy, the Bible questions the salvation of those who claim to be saved yet do not Repent(turn away from) their sins. A True believer has turned from their sin of greed, lust, envy, fornication, drunkeness, laziness, and many others, and have accepted Love into their life. Christ commanded us to love God with all our mind, body and soul. And if you do that, you are changed and will not do these things that the world does. You will be an outsider.

chrmjenkins

Nov 7, 2008, 10:35 PM

Some of the anecdotes in this thread made me laugh out loud. Good reading. :D

I generally avoid arguing in this kind of threads as it is so incredibly easy to poke a million logical holes in an argument for a 'Christian God'....and then be countered with a "BUT I HAVE SEEN TEH MIRACLES". :rolleyes:

Sometimes it is just so had to resist though...

Haha, good one! :confused:

Firstly no there isn't. People do quite commonly get better through no intervention that by no means makes it a miracle.

Secondly if prayer can make people better that are incurable then god and his intervention in the world are a very provable hypothesis by science. Would you accept a study that shows prayer to be a completely useless on patient outcomes as evidence that god does not exist?

Ok, but if you can't prove the cause of them getting better, you can't prove it was not a miracle.

It's not a provable hypothesis. Since the cause is supernatural, you'd have to eliminate every probable natural cause. Since we don't have a complete medical knowledge, that would be impossible.

Nobody's definition of perfect has ever included: "Does not love majoirty of human race".

God is WAY beyond such pettiness. If He exists, he loves everyone, which is great.

Heaven is not a VIP-club for those born in Christian countries, and if it is, I don't want to go there.

Run away, you spineless coward :D

God does love everyone. It's sin He hates.

God rejects no-one. If you believe he does, you are believing in a petty, thoughtless god, which cannot exist.

God 'aint gonna say no to Ghandi, is he?

Please see my post after the one you quoted.

You are right, it is people that reject God. If you don't believe, you reject Him.

The very idea that a god would give real estate advice while letting innocents be slaughtered is just too bizarre to be taken seriously. The whole concept of monotheism is odious, arrogant, proprietary and entirely arbitrary. Was the mountain deity of the Midianites who morphed into the god of the Jews (or gods, depending on how seriously you interpret elohim) simply nobody's god before the Midianites realised he was there? It's nonsensical.

If they are innocents, and we can't be absolutely certain of a certain individual's ascension to heaven, who is to say they all didn't go to heaven?

Too inconsistent by far.

The fairytale of an afterlife is a feeble attempt to justify the inexplicable anomaly, that the omniscient and omnipotent god of love should permit the wonder of his creation to be obscenely disfigured on a routine basis by disease, spontaneous abortion, disability and war.

Besides, you have not addressed my principal question: where was god before anyone dreamt him up? Just kicking his heels in the waiting-room?

The sin of man brought death, disease, etc. into this world. God created a perfect world.

calculus

Nov 8, 2008, 03:42 AM

Well, I guess I can't be totally sure whether god exists or not but, given some of her advocates, I'm not sure I'd like her...

mkrishnan

Nov 8, 2008, 10:04 AM

Here is the first one I found.....

I don't think this passage is really discussing homosexuality so much as ... what would traditionally be called... "debauchery." But it doesn't seem to be an error of translation to me -- just an error of context. You have to look at "those people" about whom the author is writing and think about what they did and didn't do as a society. But I don't see anything that gets lost in translation.

As for the broader issue, even if that passage isn't about homosexuality, of trying to prove that the authors of the Bible were not saying in various places that homosexuality is wrong, I think you have an uphill battle. I don't think it's wrong, but I find it very hard to believe that they didn't think it was wrong, and weren't saying, here and there, that they thought it was wrong.

The biggest complicating factor is that the concept of sexual orientation as we know it today was not really well understood until very recently. And I think an argument that these passages discuss something completely different from the modern concept of sexual orientation is highly valid, but there's no translation error underlying the failure to do this. On the other hand, I don't see a lot of historical evidence that would support the idea that the church has ever accepted the idea of homosexuality, or that the dominant interpretation of these scriptures has ever coincided with that idea, at their time of writing or any other time.

This idea is revisionist. It might be good, but it's still revisionist. And it's an abuse of the translation fidelity issue to try and use it opportunistically in the process of revising Christianity, whether or not that revision is necessary.

skunk

Nov 8, 2008, 10:17 AM

The sin of man brought death, disease, etc. into this world. God created a perfect world.Are you suggesting that dinosaurs never became ill? Are you suggesting that there were no carnivores before man?

redwarrior

Nov 8, 2008, 10:50 AM

Are you suggesting that there were no carnivores before man?
1 day before:)

skunk

Nov 8, 2008, 10:57 AM

1 day before:)Seriously, though...
:rolleyes:

Much Ado

Nov 8, 2008, 11:02 AM

God does love everyone. It's sin He hates.

God can't hate.

If he does, he is neither a god, nor the sort of being we ought to worship.

If you don't believe, you reject Him.

My two year old cousin does not believe in god, but he does not reject him.
Similarly, I do not have reason to believe that you ate toast this morning, but I do not reject the possiblity that you did.

redwarrior

Nov 8, 2008, 11:08 AM

God can't hate.

If he does, he is neither a god, nor the sort of being we ought to worship.

God is love, the opposite of hate. To say that He hates sin, is simply the best way the authors felt would convey the message. And the reason He hates sin is because of the pain it causes His creation.

Much Ado

Nov 8, 2008, 11:18 AM

God is love, the opposite of hate.

So, God = opposite of hate...

the reason He hates sin...

and God hates sin...

This is all very convoluted, and doesn't really address why this god would exclude those who happened not to believe in him. I don't like the sound of this god.

redwarrior

Nov 8, 2008, 11:23 AM

So, God = opposite of hate...

and God hates sin...

This is all very convoluted, and doesn't really address why this god would exclude those who happened not to believe in him. I don't like the sound of this god.
God is opposed to hate. Is that easier to understand?

God can only accept those who come to him through the blood of Jesus. It's not that he chooses to deny anyone. But spiritually understood concepts are not understood by the mind, so I don't expect you to understand this.:)

Much Ado

Nov 8, 2008, 11:32 AM

God can only accept those who come to him through the blood of Jesus. It's not that he chooses to deny anyone.

This implies a lack of omnipotence, and a lack of love.

But spiritually understood concepts are not understood by the mind, so I don't expect you to understand this.:)

Yes, so I believed for the years I was a Christian. "The mind can't understand but the soul can". I've been there, and it's nonsense.

As I say, if god is exclusivist, woe betide those who weren't born as Christians, and woe betide you for not being a Roman Catholic, should this turn out to be the particular denomination god had in mind for us.

"Terribly sorry, heaven is shut for you all, except for those from the Eastern Orthodox Church. All others are God-rejecters and will burn in hell."

skunk

Nov 8, 2008, 11:49 AM

God is opposed to hate. Is that easier to understand?Not really. If your god is opposed to hate, how does he feel about sin?

It's not that he chooses to deny anyone.Whose rules is he playing by?

66217

Nov 8, 2008, 01:14 PM

Well that makes it even more important! A belief in God affects the way you live your life. If you're wrong, you could affect your life adversely. This is very dangerous IMHO, and in my case, I would rather double check before I accepted something that was going to have so much impact in how I live my (only) life and how I relate to others.

What I don't see, is how believing in God (even if at the end God doesn't exists) may affect your life in a way you may repent later? I believe in God, and the outcome of it is that I make an extra effort to behave better and be a better person. So the truth is that I am only getting positive change.

And the big diference when you compare this with the tiny little pink dot inside stars, is that that little pink dot won't change anything. Or when you compare God with a spaghetti monster floating above, it's also useless. Now, if a Buddhist monk come and tells me his god (or superior being they believe in) is the true one, I'll respect him and accept that we have different beliefs.

This is a non-sequitur. We can't explain something ergo god exists. You can use this illogical argument to claim the existence of anything - aliens, yetis, australia.

You're missing one point about religion: FAITH. We don't intend to prove God exists with science, nor do I think it would ever be possible.

This is the reason for which asking to scientifically prove God is absurd.

Just like what happens with emotions. Love for example, science can tell you that when you see the person you love your heart starts going faster and you get happier, etc. But it would never be able to explain the inner connection that happens within those two persons. The same happens with religion and God, you can see the results (happier persons, etc), but you can't really explain scientifically what is happening.

Nope, that's not what we say. We say that there's no evidence for the existence of God, so we assume that he doesn't exist, until proven otherwise (just like we do with everything else that we don't have evidence for). Once the evidence comes in, we'll re-evaluate our conclusions.

In other words, he may exist, but it is highly improvable and there's no evidence. So we go with that for now.

Yet, if everyone lived by this principle we will still live in caves. I don't know why non-religious people can't be opened to accept that God may exist, and accept that some people will believe it so deeply that will even tell you they can talk with him when praying.

You keep trying to say "logical" arguments to demonstrate that God doesn't exist, but by doing this you are just showing more and more your lack of understanding in what religion is. Religion is not a science, and it would never be.

redwarrior

Nov 8, 2008, 01:33 PM

Not really. If your god is opposed to hate, how does he feel about sin?

Whose rules is he playing by?
Ok Skunk, you're a thinking man, so work with me here. Hate is an emotion, so I think it is silly when the term is used to refer to a feeling about another feeling, an action, or an object. It's kinda like saying you love hamburgers or something; I mean, come on, does anyone really love a food like they do their spouse or children? No. So in this case, to say God hates sin is just used to make a point as to how much he dislikes it, is opposed to it. But in reality, it's like my saying I hate to be a cat, I can't do it anyway. God can't even look at sin, it's like me being a cat.

And He's not playing by any rules that can be changed as he chooses. That's like saying He's God now but can choose not to be tomorrow.

Of course, this is beyond reason, so to try to convince someone is really a waste of time. So I think I'm about done here.:cool:

.Andy

Nov 8, 2008, 01:45 PM

You're missing one point about religion: FAITH. We don't intend to prove God exists with science, nor do I think it would ever be possible.
Please read the thread I'm not missing anything. It's as if you religionists have two or three set defenses for your religion and bang them out without thought. As you bought it up a reminder that there is absolutely no virtue in faith at all (except as a tool by those trying to mislead), and from your post it's obvious that faith is not enough for you.

This is the reason for which asking to scientifically prove God is absurd.
Nobody is asking for scientific proof of god, certainly not me. SLC Flyfishing claimed that god has communicated his existence to him in ways that science and philosophy can't explain. I merely asked what these were. I'm also taking issue with the complete lack of logical though put forward by christians to rationlise their belief in god.

Just like what happens with emotions. Love for example, science can tell you that when you see the person you love your heart starts going faster and you get happier, etc. But it would never be able to explain the inner connection that happens within those two persons. The same happens with religion and God, you can see the results (happier persons, etc), but you can't really explain scientifically what is happening.
Again another pre-prepared argument that has nothing to do with anything in this thread. What you are trying to do here is rationalise your belief in god by pretending that it is more than faith. You are now giving it organic connotations. This is no proof at all. We can fall in love with all sorts of concepts and ideas - that does not make them supernatural or any more real. People of all religions might elicit the same organic emotions - this doesn't make their god(s) more real. To claim so is absolutely absurd.

You illustrate the very problem with a number of "christians" in this thread. They can't stop at just saying that their belief in god is faith. They are rational beings and obviously intelligent, so faith isn't enough for them. They have to justify it to themselves and pretend that there are things that make their choice rational and logical. From Redwarrior claiming that there are "too many" medical miracles (which includes her children) that can be due to nothing more than prayer to god (not to mention her real estate claims), SLC Flyfishing claiming that he has had experiences in his life that definitively reveal god (but of course immediately places these outside of science and philosophy to avoid criticism), iShater claiming that miracles are proof of god, and yourself claiming that a very real emotions like love and happiness provide evidence of god.

These arguments put forward by "chrsitians" clearly demonstrate that the claim of religion being "Faith" is a nothing but a retreating defense.

OutThere

Nov 8, 2008, 01:52 PM

1 day before:)

Does this mean you subscribe to the "earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs lived peaceably alongside humans in the garden of eden and Adam and Eve were plopped down onto earth on Saturday" school of thought?

redwarrior

Nov 8, 2008, 01:57 PM

Does this mean you subscribe to the "earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs lived peaceably alongside humans in the garden of eden and Adam and Eve were plopped down onto earth on Saturday" school of thought?
Pretty much, yes. But I've never gotten into that debate, because it is pointless to me. I believe in Intelligent design and a timetable as explained in Genesis. Now, whether or not the "days" it took to create everything are literal or representative ("1 day is as 1,000 years"), I'm not convinced either way.

skunk

Nov 8, 2008, 02:11 PM

And He's not playing by any rules that can be changed as he chooses.But, but, but...surely he made the rules?

redwarrior

Nov 8, 2008, 02:16 PM

But, but, but...surely he made the rules?
He doesn't break rules or change them mid-stream, like us fallible humans.:rolleyes:

66217

Nov 8, 2008, 02:29 PM

It's as if you religionists have two or three set defenses for your religion and bang them out without thought.

I'm not defending religion, I'm just pointing out how confused you are about things.

You add nothing extra to the conversation except critics and "logical" arguments that are just targeted to either ridiculize others beliefs or to claim what has already been told a million times. If you find religious people saying the same again and again is because people keep telling us how ridiculous our beliefs are, and yet they don't say anything apart than a simple "I can't see God therefore you are stupid to believe he exists".

I'm also taking issue with the complete lack of logical though put forward by christians to rationlise their belief in god.

And were is the illogical part in believing in something which is helping you become a better person?

Again another pre-prepared argument that has nothing to do with anything in this thread. What you are trying to do here is rationalise your belief in god by pretending that it is more than faith. You are now giving it organic connotations. This is no proof at all. We can fall in love with all sorts of concepts and ideas - that does not make them supernatural or any more real.

I don't intend nor ever intended to prove God existence by comparing it to love. I just stated that not being able to explain something scientifically doesn't makes something to be non-existent.

And the last time I checked, love wasn't something organic. So I'm not sure what you mean with "organic connotations".

Also, you speak of pre-prepared arguments. But then you do just the same. Don't expect me to write a long post when I know that what I am going to receive is just a superficial comment that has no intention to add something of value to the conversation. A good conversation is when both parts agree to let the other ones share their points, then discuss them and try and add valuable things that might help the other one to understand better what the person in front of him believes.

Apparently you are closed to have a conversation like this, if you are not tell me and I'll be glad to have one.

People of all religions might elicit the same organic emotions - this doesn't make their god(s) more real. To claim so is absolutely absurd.

And I never claimed that.

...and yourself claiming that a very real emotions like love and happiness provide evidence of god.

And again, where did I claimed this? I just stated that just as you can't ask for scientific proof of love, you can't ask for scientific proof of the connection someone feels with God.

skunk

Nov 8, 2008, 02:30 PM

Apparently he changed the rules when he turfed Adam and Eve out of Eden, Red, and changed them again when he declared that people could eat animals after the flood.

.Andy

Nov 8, 2008, 02:42 PM

I'm not defending religion, I'm just pointing out how confused you are about things.
Stop being dishonest. You are defending religion and attributed arguments to me which weren't mine. You were wrong and now you're trying to cover it up.

You add nothing extra to the conversation except critics and "logical" arguments
How is this a bad thing? Are you seriously saying criticism of illogical arguments is adding nothing?

"I can't see God therefore you are stupid to believe he exists".
Strawman 1. No one ever said this.

And were is the illogical part in believing in something which is helping you become a better person?
Strawman 2. This is even more terrible than number 1. This deserves a rolleyes :rolleyes: and a reference for you to go and read the astounding religious bigotry in any of the prop 8 threads. Christians are no better than anyone else.

And the last time I checked, love wasn't something organic
You should check more often (you've never checked have you?). Love has organic manifestations. We know what part of the brain is invovled and we know what neurotransmitters is involved. There are parts of it that are psychological granted but love is not some curiosity to science that is more analagous to the supernatural as you are positing.

Also, you speak of pre-prepared arguments. But then you do just the same.
Where?

And I never claimed that.
Yes you did. Otherwise why bother with your little "love" analogy?

And again, where did I claimed this? I just stated that just as you can't ask for scientific proof of love, you can't ask for scientific proof of the connection someone feels with God.
Firstly why can't you ask for scientific proof of love? Why isn't this a valid scientific question?

gotzero

Nov 8, 2008, 03:43 PM

This idea is revisionist. It might be good, but it's still revisionist. And it's an abuse of the translation fidelity issue to try and use it opportunistically in the process of revising Christianity, whether or not that revision is necessary.

Fair enough. Maybe I am not voicing where I am coming from accurately.

It seems like I would be stepping into a circular argument about debating the interpretation/translation cause/effect of using the passages to condemn activities. I still think it is worth taking a look at the parallel translations when someone is quoting scripture for justification of anything, just to satisfy curiousity if nothing more.

It seems that a calm discourse did come of part of this thread... ;)

Sky Blue

Nov 8, 2008, 05:44 PM

So god is a supernatural financial advisor?

I spat my drink over my keyboard.

ZiggyPastorius

Nov 8, 2008, 05:54 PM

This one quote stuck out to me a bit...

And were is the illogical part in believing in something which is helping you become a better person?

So, if you found out ten years ago that God wasn't real, you would cease to have the ability to be a better person? Seems kind of wrong to me. What was the word someone got so wrapped about earlier. . . oh, yeah, a crutch.

66217

Nov 8, 2008, 07:02 PM

This one quote stuck out to me a bit...

So, if you found out ten years ago that God wasn't real, you would cease to have the ability to be a better person? Seems kind of wrong to me. What was the word someone got so wrapped about earlier. . . oh, yeah, a crutch.

I said helps, never said that it is the only thing that makes me become a better person.

63dot

Nov 9, 2008, 02:25 AM

I am curious if any members here who quote bible verses have taken a look at this. It is very interesting, and often shows that many of the most common versions of the bible have incredible differences in passages.

Many of the passages often used as justification of prohibited activities are rather radical translations from the rest of the pack.

The clarity this project provides leads me to ask, is the version you quote right sometimes? All of the time? How do you choose?

http://bible.cc/

Usually NIV, Open, Am Std, New Am Std or anything in modern English. Clarity is key to me.

While I love Shakespeare and the English language of that time, I don't read the King James version.

mysterytramp

Nov 9, 2008, 08:46 AM

So, if you found out ten years ago that God wasn't real, you would cease to have the ability to be a better person? Seems kind of wrong to me. What was the word someone got so wrapped about earlier. . . oh, yeah, a crutch.

It surprises how often a thread that shouldn't interest atheists draws them like flies ... as if they have a need to prosletyze.

But let's talk about crutches .... Let's say when I die I find out there's an afterlife, but it's not the one I've been expecting. I've made honest choices about God. If I've been wrong, I'll be a man about it.

But what if I find nothingness ... That means I don't feel disappointment that I wasted my life believing in God. But even if there's a something/nothingness out there where you get to tell me, "I told you so," I'll have no regrets. God has been a nontoxic addition to my life filled with fellowship and respect for others.

And the alternative? Rationality? Check the stock market over the last couple of months. Rationality is taking a big hit in the crutch department.

mt

Blue Velvet

Nov 9, 2008, 08:50 AM

But what if I find nothingness ...

I guess you won't be thinking of it too much. Bit like having general anesthetic, or trying to imagine a state of being before you were born. Best not to worry about it.

And the stock market has absolutely nothing to do with rationality.

skunk

Nov 9, 2008, 08:59 AM

I'll have no regrets. God has been a nontoxic addition to my life filled with fellowship and respect for others.No harm in that. It's only when a belief in a god has a negative impact on those of a different persuasion that problems arise.

Applespider

Nov 9, 2008, 09:14 AM

we say

"We can't explain something ergo God exists"

And just because human knowledge can't currently explain it doesn't mean that it has to be a miracle.

Let's face it, eclipses, thunderstorms, earthquakes and eruptions were all seen as powerful portents of godly disapproval or change since human science at that stage couldn't explain them any better. Now we understand the science behind the physical world so they're less mysterious. Who knows whether going forward, some of the current 'miracles' will end up having a more mundane explanation.

God has been a nontoxic addition to my life filled with fellowship and respect for others.

Good. Although not believing god hasn't made me respect others any less nor has it stopped me enjoying the fellowship of my fellow man. Following a religion doesn't automatically make you a better person. It's quite possible to be non-religious and still not steal, covet, murder or do others harm.

63dot

Nov 9, 2008, 09:51 AM

While the dumbest people I have ever met tend to throw themselves at religion, there are plenty of smart, compassionate, innovative, Mac using believers in God. Religion brings in all types, even a PhD in Anthropology from the best school in the world. Even Einstein believed in a higher power that brought order to physics on a level beyond quantum physics.

Yes, there is that KKK rally shown on the History Channel showcasing people saying they believe in God and burn crosses and preach hate, but don't let that be a representation of religion. Sure, there is someone who claims they believe in Islam but will strap a bomb to themselves and kill a building full of children. But again, they don't represent religion.

Think about he countless educators, former yuppies turned missionaries who gave up their cushy MBA or Law Partner job to help people in poor neighborhoods or the third world and work for Catholic Charities, the Salvation Army,the Anglican Church, or a whole host of other religious entities. There are many smart and/or educated people in religion.

Anuba

Nov 9, 2008, 09:55 AM

63dot

Nov 9, 2008, 10:13 AM

"Religion is violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children." - Christopher Hitchens

The deeper the United States sinks into the evangelical quicksand, the more it will come to resemble the Islamic world where science is considered a commodity and innovation has long since died. All they do is freeload on research and innovation driven by the western world, specifically the parts of the western world that spend more time in the laboratory and less time in church. The American brain trust is quickly eroding, and if it weren't for the fresh blood coming in from all around the globe acting as a counterweight to the forces that are trying to pull America back into the dark ages, America would be 20 years behind everyone else by now.

Moderate and secular Christians are good people (heck, even the Pope supports the Big Bang theory), and agnostics are in good company (with Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein), but this fire-and-brimstone, Rapture business has just got to stop. It's 2008, dammit.

Who says the Christian right, as allied with a political cause or hate, is a religion?

They are a political action group. Their God is Money. Big difference between them and real Christians. There are political action groups that push guns, teachers, nurses, choice, non-choice, gay rights, battered women's rights, right for polygamists, rights for wives of police officers, rights for animals, rights for endangered species, etc but not one of those is a religion, per se.

If there is a Christian moral majority, they are not the Fred Phelps types of the world, they are the Christians who do their work in private and spread the Gospel, help people, live a good example, and avoid the pitfalls of huge money and fame, such as Phelps, Jim Bakker in the 80s, and Jim Jones before him.

Much Ado

Nov 9, 2008, 10:20 AM

Who says the Christian right, as allied with a political cause or hate, is a religion? Big difference between them and real Christians.

Real Christians, eh? Not these pretend Christians, oh no.

MacDawg

Nov 9, 2008, 10:24 AM

"Religion is violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children." - Christopher Hitchens

The deeper the United States sinks into the evangelical quicksand, the more it will come to resemble the Islamic world where science is considered a commodity and innovation has long since died. All they do is freeload on research and innovation driven by the western world, specifically the parts of the western world that spend more time in the laboratory and less time in church. The American brain trust is quickly eroding, and if it weren't for the fresh blood coming in from all around the globe acting as a counterweight to the forces that are trying to pull America back into the dark ages, America would be 20 years behind everyone else by now.

Moderate and secular Christians are good people (heck, even the Pope supports the Big Bang theory), and agnostics are in good company (with Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein), but this fire-and-brimstone, Rapture business has just got to stop. It's 2008, dammit.

Can you not hear the same rhetoric, hate and venom in the words you use to condemn the so called religious right? A straw man, caricature is created of the fundamentalist... whether Christian or Muslim and they are accused of hate, intolerance, bigotry and vitriolic tirades... and yet they are subjected to the very same attitude they are condemned for by the extreme left.

Before you pick the splinter out of their eye... don't over look the 2X4 in your own.

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

Blue Velvet

Nov 9, 2008, 10:24 AM

Real Christians, eh? Not these pretend Christians, oh no.

We've heard it said here on these forums that you cannot be gay and be a real christian. Which must come as a surprise to Bishop Otis Charles, Bishop Gene Robinson and Bishop Derek Rawcliffe, to name a few.

63dot

Nov 9, 2008, 10:27 AM

Real Christians, eh? Not these pretend Christians, oh no.

A Christian is a person who believes in Christ and when talking about religion, talks about Christ. They do not preach hate like Rev. Wright or Rev. Phelps.

People claim they worship the Lord, but they worship money and absolute power. For atheists and agnostics out there, it is really easy to see the difference. If you belong to a church that hates white people or black people or Clinton or Bush and that's the crux of their sermon, then that place of worship is not a church, imho. When your savior is Obama, McCain, Bush, or Clinton, it does not matter how much you go to church or read the Bible. Your savior has to be Christ.

Where I went to college for the first two years of college, the head of the religion department was a renowned Biblical scholar, and an atheist. His D.Div/PhD did not make him a Christian. He was famous and got paid a lot of money, but he never believed in Christ. He is one of many pretend Christians. He is a theologian of world class order and people assume he is a super Christian. And then you sit in his class and he says, "Hello, I am Professor XXXX, and I am here to teach you about the myth that is called the Bible." He loves that he is famous in religious circles, because that's what pays him the big bucks. He can write stellar books on any subject of Christianity but he is convinced that the Bible is one BIG myth.

iJohnHenry

Nov 9, 2008, 10:27 AM

"Real Christians" need not have any church affiliation, at all.

Was He around?? Probably.

Was He Heaven-sent from God?? Probably not.

But His teachings live on.

Much Ado

Nov 9, 2008, 10:29 AM

A Christian is a person who believes in Christ and when talking about religion, talks about Christ. They do not preach hate like Rev. Wright or Rev. Phelps.

See Blue Velvet's post ;)

Blue Velvet

Nov 9, 2008, 10:34 AM

...and yet they are subjected to the very same attitude they are condemned for by the extreme left.

Atheism and rejection of religion is not an automatic extreme-left position. Only in the US is fundamentalist Christianity so closely identified with the right. There are plenty of left-leaning Christians; Christ's Sermon on the Mount was hardly a call to fascism.

Besides, let's be honest. Judging by the last eight years of Republican rule, the left was completely right about a helluva lot of things.

skunk

Nov 9, 2008, 10:39 AM

the left was completely rightIn which case, I'm tempted to ask why it's called the left. But I won't.

63dot

Nov 9, 2008, 10:39 AM

We've heard it said here on these forums that you cannot be gay and be a real christian. Which must come as a surprise to Bishop Otis Charles, Bishop Gene Robinson and Bishop Derek Rawcliffe, to name a few.

You can be anything and be a real Christian. There is no prerequisite to asking or wanting to believe. What is key is your belief or non-belief in God.

There are plenty of atheists out there who worship the Republican party and loved Jerry Falwell, not because of his religious beliefs, but that he was a great proponent of the Republican party. Now if Jerry Falwell had been a liberal Democrat, I would be convinced that there would be legions of atheist Democrats who would worship Falwell. Christians, as stated before, should not worship a political party, political candidate, or monolithic political agenda. Those are things of the world. God transcends those mere, temporary things.

Christians are members of every political party out there.

Anuba

Nov 9, 2008, 10:41 AM

If there is a Christian moral majority, they are not the Fred Phelps types of the world, they are the Christians who do their work in private and spread the Gospel, help people, live a good example, and avoid the pitfalls of huge money and fame, such as Phelps, Jim Bakker in the 80s, and Jim Jones before him.
Even if the majority of American Christians aren't crazy, the fact remains that 20% of the population believes that the sun revolves around the Earth. While it may appear comforting that the remaining 80% know better, 20% of 304 million is still 61 million people, equivalent to the entire population of Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Ireland, Greece, Hungary and Bulgaria. If you then add the millions of creationists who aren't quite as dumb as the aforementioned 20%, but still belong in the hateful, bigoted, judgmental, anti-intellectual, anti-science, fire-and-brimstone category of so-called "Christians", what you have is a gargantuan army of people who are against progress, evolution and equal rights.

MacDawg

Nov 9, 2008, 10:44 AM

Atheism and rejection of religion is not an automatic extreme-left position. Only in the US is fundamentalist Christianity so closely identified with the right. There are plenty of left-leaning Christians; Christ's Sermon on the Mount was hardly a call to fascism.

Besides, let's be honest. Judging by the last eight years of Republican rule, the left was completely right about a helluva lot of things.

Left/Right - politically
Left/Right - religiously
Conservative/Liberal - politically/religiously

The terms are all subject to definition and discussion in every context and every society

Regardless... I think my point is valid

To vilify one group for the same characteristics (not positions) that you exhibit (regardless of which side you are on) is hardly praiseworthy

I don't feel the need to defend the last 8 years at all... I disagreed with much... just as I will disagree with much the next 4 as well.

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

63dot

Nov 9, 2008, 10:45 AM

Atheism and rejection of religion is not an automatic extreme-left position.

Very, very true. One of my closest friends is a hard core Republican and pure atheist. Every political persuasion has many atheists among their ranks and their atheist nature is not something they tend to parade around since it's neither here nor there for most of them.

I know. I was an atheist almost all throughout school. Religious people didn't bother me or impress me. They lived in different circles and to me, it was like someone who was into ballet or raising show horses, things I had no interest in during school.

Today I have a faith but I don't automatically assume that atheists will have the same spiritual curiousity that I have.

Much Ado

Nov 9, 2008, 10:48 AM

Between Anuba's polemic, MacDawg's generalisations and 63dot's explanations of real and unreal Christians, I'm now completely lost :o

MacDawg

Nov 9, 2008, 10:49 AM

Between Anuba's polemic, MacDawg's generalisations and 63dot's explanations of real and unreal Christians, I'm now completely lost :o

Unfortunately, I don't think the thread bears much resemblance to the OP's premise :(

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

skunk

Nov 9, 2008, 10:50 AM

I'm now completely lost :oQuick, join a church!

Blue Velvet

Nov 9, 2008, 10:53 AM

To vilify one group for the same characteristics (not positions) that you exhibit (regardless of which side you are on) is hardly praiseworthy

People are getting justifiably pissed off (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6576986&postcount=647) by being pushed around by self-appointed moralists that want to extend their religious beliefs into law, hence the pushback.

Dawg, with 1 in 4 biology teachers in Texas believing in the co-existence of dinosaurs and humans at the same time, only 26% believing in evolution by natural selection, an ostrich-like position towards climate change and stem cell research; this is not a long-term recipe for a nation's progress and development in the sciences and humanities.

63dot

Nov 9, 2008, 10:57 AM

Between Anuba's polemic, MacDawg's generalisations and 63dot's explanations of real and unreal Christians, I'm now completely lost :o

My advice, then, is to ignore this thread, and just buy a parallel Bible. :)

MacDawg

Nov 9, 2008, 11:08 AM

Dawg, with 1 in 4 biology teachers in Texas believing in the co-existence of dinosaurs and humans at the same time, only 26% believing in evolution by natural selection, an ostrich-like position towards climate change and stem cell research; this is not a long-term recipe for a nation's progress and development in the sciences and humanities.

Those who hold these positions do so with the same conviction, fervor, determination and belief as those who oppose them. Yes, they are at the polar opposite ends of the spectrum, but they believe firmly they are right and the other view is wrong just as strongly as the other side does. They aren't stupid, ignorant, uneducated folk... they just draw different conclusions from the research and data, and they don't share the same worldview.

Climate change for example (since it has less religious ties)... has its proponents and detractors... and for those who are passionately convinced they know the truth, the other side is dead wrong. These are not stupid folk either... they have a worldview, presuppositions and agendas... and they draw different conclusions. We all know that data and statistics can be made to prove anything.

I'll be honest enough to admit that I don't feel qualified to draw any conclusions about climate issues... I would just be taking someone else's word for their research and conclusions and I do so based on my confidence and trust in them. I am not versed enough in the issues, the data, what is real, what is spin... and I doubt most of the vocal proponents here are as well. Do both sides have an agenda. Yes... in my opinion.

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

Anuba

Nov 9, 2008, 11:10 AM

To vilify one group for the same characteristics (not positions) that you exhibit (regardless of which side you are on) is hardly praiseworthy
Right, and we should give speeding tickets to cops who are trying to catch up with a getaway drivers, because hey, the cops are driving just as fast, right?

*facepalm*

These aren't two football teams, you know. They are NOT at polar opposite ends of the spectrum, because they are not on the same spectrum, period. Christianity is a highly specific belief system with a fixed set of rules and an imagined moral authority that it wants to impose on everybody else. Atheism/agnosticism is a non-belief system that strives to safeguard society from having rules or moral authority imposed on it. Do you not understand the difference? There is no agnostic "Bible". That's the whole point. It's an inclusive, neutral position. Christianity and Islam are exclusive and hostile positions. Atheists/agnostics want society to live by the rules that humans have agreed upon. That's a democratic approach. Christianity wants society to live by rules that are outlined by a 2000 year old book that nobody who is alive today has had a say in. That's a fascist approach.

63dot

Nov 9, 2008, 11:17 AM

Atheists/agnostics want society to live by the rules that humans have agreed upon. That's a democratic approach. Christianity wants society to live by rules that are outlined by a 2000 year old book that nobody who is alive today has had a say in. That's a fascist approach.

Some Muslims and some Christians are fascists. But many are not. Jesus was not a fascist but he was opposed by the fascist force of that time, the Roman Empire.

Blue Velvet

Nov 9, 2008, 11:17 AM

Those who hold these positions do so with the same conviction, fervor, determination and belief as those who oppose them.

Incorrect and a false equivalence. Those who believe in truth and facts will rely on logic and verifiable and testable scientific method, there is no appeal to belief or conviction in atheism and those who stand for humanist principles want to see an expansion and realisation of the innate potential of all people in a society, not just the self-chosen few.

You see an 'agenda' where there is none, except one of problem-solving and dialogue. We're not going to solve global problems by praying while the house burns down.

MacDawg

Nov 9, 2008, 11:20 AM

Atheists/agnostics want society to live by the rules that humans have agreed upon. That's a democratic approach.

I suppose then if a majority of these humans agrees that homosexuals should all be put to death, that blacks should all be slaves, and the world is flat... that will be OK with you.

Or is it only those enlightened atheist/agnostics that agree with your worldview that should make those elitist decisions?

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

skunk

Nov 9, 2008, 11:22 AM

I suppose then if a majority of these humans agrees that homosexuals should all be put to death, that blacks should all be slaves, and the world is flat... that will be OK with you.Such views are almost exclusively propounded by those who would use their holy writ to reinforce an otherwise untenable position.

MacDawg

Nov 9, 2008, 11:27 AM

Such views are almost exclusively propounded by those who would use their holy writ to reinforce an otherwise untenable position.

I agree skunk, and I do not support their views, but will we exclude them from that "human" category and disallow their voice? And if we do, by what criteria? And what prevents the same ones who define that criteria for coming after us later?

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

Anuba

Nov 9, 2008, 11:30 AM

Some Muslims and some Christians are fascists. But many are not.
Yes, but that's only because they're cherry-picking from their respective holy books. If they all followed the Bible and the Quran exactly to the letter (which they arguably should do, if they were serious believers), humankind would no longer be around. Religions should be judged by the projected consequences of the entirety of the belief system.

Anuba

Nov 9, 2008, 11:36 AM

I suppose then if a majority of these humans agrees that homosexuals should all be put to death, that blacks should all be slaves, and the world is flat... that will be OK with you.
Skunk beat me to it.

Or is it only those enlightened atheist/agnostics that agree with your worldview that should make those elitist decisions?
It's funny that you should arbitrarily sneak "elitist" in there, since democracy is pretty much the polar opposite of elitism. Elite means chosen. I don't recall atheists or agnostics ever referring to themselves as the chosen ones, as through their non-beliefs they are inherently non-chosen. It's Christians and Jews who consider themselves chosen, by an invisible deity and his son, Joe the Carpenter.

MacDawg

Nov 9, 2008, 11:39 AM

Skunk beat me to it.

It's funny that you should arbitrarily sneak "elitist" in there, since democracy is pretty much the polar opposite of elitism. Elite means chosen. I don't recall atheists or agnostics ever referring to themselves as the chosen ones, as through their non-beliefs they are inherently non-chosen. It's Christians and Jews who consider themselves chosen, by an invisible deity and his son, Joe the Carpenter.

You answered neither of my questions, you talked around them

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

Blue Velvet

Nov 9, 2008, 11:39 AM

those elitist decisions?

Dawg, you seem hung up in talk-radio definitions and a mind-set of the cold war, where atheism is equated with communism, and intellectual and scientific thought is disparaged. This has led to a devastating and destructive approach to effective governance.

Don't forget who the real elites in this world are; they're running Wall Street, and will pick up, use and drop cultural groups like a hat in order to retain power. You think the real powers behind the Republican Party care about abortion?

Read up about the Southern Strategy and think how it's been updated because the potency of racism has diminished over the years... Rove's plan was to turn out the churches, ensuring in his vision 'a permanent Republican majority'. To keep this show on the road, you ensure that God is inserted wherever possible into the public and political sphere, and grant churches generous tax-exemptions. Good trick, eh? ;)

Unfortunately, this leads to figureheads being promoted at the cost of effective managers. Cue political figures like G.W. Bush and Sarah Palin, both in thrall to big oil and religion, both with serious ethical questions over their heads. Not good.

mysterytramp

Nov 9, 2008, 11:45 AM

Although not believing god hasn't made me respect others any less nor has it stopped me enjoying the fellowship of my fellow man. Following a religion doesn't automatically make you a better person. It's quite possible to be non-religious and still not steal, covet, murder or do others harm.

Never once have I expressed superiority of belief over nonbelief. I am curious, however, that when a thread starts out in a Christian direction, atheists show up to express their superiority (read: the crutch comment. Maybe you respect believers enough to see the disrespect in such a comment. If so, feel free in repudiating it.)

mt

Dawg, with 1 in 4 biology teachers in Texas believing in the co-existence of dinosaurs and humans at the same time...

Did you watch Nova (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/microraptor/program.html) this week? Birds ARE dinosaurs. The fact that only 25 percent believe humans and dinosaurs coexist is rather sad.

::), believe it or not.

mt

Blue Velvet

Nov 9, 2008, 11:56 AM

Birds ARE dinosaurs.

Not in modern biology and taxonomy. Alligators are not considered dinosaurs either. Thanks for proving my point.

mysterytramp

Nov 9, 2008, 11:59 AM

Christianity ... wants to impose on everybody else. ... That's a fascist approach.

(Edits merely for brevity's sake. Apologies in advance if someone think something was taken out of context)

I'm sorry, Anuba, but you're using loaded words like "fascist" in trying to denigrate Christianity. You are DEFINITELY trying to impose your belief system on everyone else. That, by your definition, is FASCISM.

mt

skunk

Nov 9, 2008, 12:03 PM

Birds ARE dinosaurs.Oooh, dangerous ground. Dinosaurs evolved into birds. Or is that a dirty word?

Anuba

Nov 9, 2008, 12:11 PM

You answered neither of my questions, you talked around them
:rolleyes:

I suppose then if a majority of these humans agrees that homosexuals should all be put to death
You don't need the bible to tell you that it's wrong to kill people, you can figure that out by asking yourself if you want to live or not. A majority of people isn't going to come to that decision. Not even a majority of Christians have come to that decision, even though they live by a book that says homosexuality is punishable by death. That, if anything, proves that human instinct and common sense trumps any book.

that blacks should all be slaves
Yet another instance where common sense has prevailed without following a book. In fact, those who insisted that slavery was a good thing sought support in the Bible:

"Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God ... it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation ... it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." - Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." - Rev. Alexander Campbell

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." - Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

and the world is flat... that will be OK with you.
Again, it is only thanks to those who dared rebel against religious doctrines that we even know the Earth isn't flat. Galileo was handed over to the inquisition for even suggesting it, and to this day there are still religious kooks who insist that it's indeed flat:

"The Earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment" -- Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz (Ibn Baz), the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, 1993.

He was physically blind, by the way. How convenient.

Religion has been the foremost enemy of progress since the dawn of time, and it remains its foremost enemy today. Just think of how many potential Stephen Hawkings and Albert Einsteins there are out there who could be contributing to progress right now, but don't even know their potential because they've been hammered throughout their formative years with the idea that humans don't know *****.

MacDawg

Nov 9, 2008, 12:22 PM

<snip>

You totally took that in a different direction to benefit your view.

There was NO implication in my questions about the Bible, or defending religion, I purposely made it that way, it was purely based on your assertion of majority rule. And I was not trying to defend those defenseless positions, so attacking them does nothing for me.

Your reasoning that the majority would never think that way (with or without a book) is pure speculation. The majority can and does make decisions that others feel are ludicrous. Are you OK with majority votes against gay marriage? Most on the board are up in arms over that, but according to your original assertion they should shut up and abide by what the humans said. What about a vote against abortion? Would you be willing to take a vote and let the humans speak instead of the Supreme Court? You claim to be the enlightened one that knows the answers and that you are the majority, but you are not. And in the end... the majority can be wrong... and we all know it.

Disenfranchisement is just as wrong when it excludes the Christian right as it is when it excludes blacks, gays or anyone else.

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

floyde

Nov 9, 2008, 12:25 PM

What I don't see, is how believing in God (even if at the end God doesn't exists) may affect your life in a way you may repent later? I believe in God, and the outcome of it is that I make an extra effort to behave better and be a better person. So the truth is that I am only getting positive change.

In general, it is dangerous to base once choices on false premises, but here's a random list of possible harm in this particular case: (Note: I'm not saying that any of these apply to you, I'm just listing situations where religious belief could be harmful)

You could believe that there's something wrong with homosexuality and be so passionate about it as to go out of your way to spread discrimination, violence and hatred toward these individuals.
You could believe that you are superior to other animals and that all creation is yours for the taking. This would result in a completely irresponsible interaction with the environment and its creatures, much like what is happening in the world today.
You could believe in an afterlife. This could also have an adverse effect on how you interact with this world (why take care of the environment if I'm just passing through?) and could lead to a procrastinative (not sure that's a word:o) approach to life.
You could believe that sex is a sin (as opposed to the most natural, intrinsic behavior of primates and almost every other species on the planet), and go out of your way to teach only abstinence, while condemning more realistic (and effective) methods of birth control, thus effectively contributing to the spread of STD's and teen pregnancy.
You could believe that those who do not adhere to your faith are evil heathens, effectively and unnecessarily contributing to the segregation of the human race, which is the source for a great percentage of the world's conflicts.
You could go out of your way to teach that condoms are sinful in Africa, and by doing so, aid the spread of AIDS and misery in an already devastated continent.
You could believe that males should have more privileges or are superior to females.
You could be so blinded by the irrational side of your beliefs that you would have trouble with several aspects of your education (such as those dealing with science).
You could be so passionate about the irrational side of your beliefs as to go out of your way to discredit perfectly good, useful and well-proven scientific facts in order to support illogical, potentially harmful, imagination-based claims.
You could prefer the scientifically dismissed "power of prayer" over the more effective and proven medicine.
You could go out of your way to diminish the role of science, thus ruining progress even for those who do not adhere to your faith.
The list goes on...

But hey, why bother to double-check our core beliefs? As long as it's other people who suffer because of them...:rolleyes:

And the big diference when you compare this with the tiny little pink dot inside stars, is that that little pink dot won't change anything. Or when you compare God with a spaghetti monster floating above, it's also useless. Now, if a Buddhist monk come and tells me his god (or superior being they believe in) is the true one, I'll respect him and accept that we have different beliefs.

It's a mushroom, and it does change things. It looks after us. The microscopic pink mushroom in the core of the Sun loves you ;). All you have to do is accept him as your saviour.

You're missing one point about religion: FAITH. We don't intend to prove God exists with science, nor do I think it would ever be possible.

This is the reason for which asking to scientifically prove God is absurd.

I agree here, except that I don't see how that is a good thing. I accept something "just because", base my whole life upon it without taking the trouble to verify that it's true, and that's supposed to be virtuous?

Just like what happens with emotions. Love for example, science can tell you that when you see the person you love your heart starts going faster and you get happier, etc. But it would never be able to explain the inner connection that happens within those two persons. The same happens with religion and God, you can see the results (happier persons, etc), but you can't really explain scientifically what is happening.

No, but it could explain why your brain thinks that there's an "inner connection". And it could also explain the psychological processes that lead a believer to experience feelings of euphoria.

Yet, if everyone lived by this principle we will still live in caves. I don't know why non-religious people can't be opened to accept that God may exist, and accept that some people will believe it so deeply that will even tell you they can talk with him when praying.

Read my post about auditory hallucinations. And I strongly disagree here, it's precisely because people don't live by this principle, that we live in a society with the moral rules and social development of cavemen. Skepticism keeps thing healthy. It prevents us from basing our behavior on false notions for too long. If only it had been applied at the time the bible was written, we wouldn't have sacrificed the last several thousand years of human progress.

You keep trying to say "logical" arguments to demonstrate that God doesn't exist, but by doing this you are just showing more and more your lack of understanding in what religion is. Religion is not a science, and it would never be.

That's absolutely not what I said. We can't disprove the existence of God, simply because we can't really disprove anything. Not being able to disprove something is not reason enough to believe in it. And I understand perfectly what religion is. It is precisely because it works in ways opposite to science, that I don't adhere to it.

Blue Velvet

Nov 9, 2008, 12:27 PM

Are you OK with majority votes against gay marriage? Most on the board are up in arms over that, but according to your original assertion they should shut up and abide by what the humans said.

There is no sound argument against gay marriage except a religious one.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

It's so simple an argument, that even I get it. Same with abortion. This is not disenfranchising Christians, it's ensuring that law is not written on religious grounds.

MacDawg

Nov 9, 2008, 12:39 PM

There is no sound argument against gay marriage except a religious one.

It's so simple an argument, that even I get it. Same with abortion. This is not disenfranchising Christians, it's ensuring that law is not written on religious grounds.

Sorry BV, I love you to death and I hope you know that, and I respect you more than you will ever know, but we are discussing apples and oranges... and both of you are projecting your presuppositions of what you think I mean (or believe) and you are answering something I am not even addressing.

It is like the political debates when the moderator asks a question and the candidate's answer has nothing to do with the question but is rather a forum for them to espouse their views.

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

63dot

Nov 9, 2008, 12:40 PM

Not in modern biology and taxonomy. Alligators are not considered dinosaurs either. Thanks for proving my point.

This is way off topic, but biologists now only consider a small cadre of sometimes semi-upright lizards as actual dinosaurs, based on certain skeletal features like skull structure and angle of limbs (man made designations). Birds are similar but different enough to have their own classification. What is amazing about biology is that new stuff is discovered and re-classified all the time.

Also the Panda bear was considered similar to a raccoon, but now biologists liken them more to a bear based on many characteristics thanks to long hours of observation.

Dogs and wolves, in Darwin's time, were clearly separated, but not so today. There are some species of wild dogs recently discovered, again through observation of examples in captivity, that are neither dog nor wolf.

Blue Velvet

Nov 9, 2008, 12:46 PM

we are discussing apples and oranges... and both of you are projecting your presuppositions of what you think I mean

All I can do is address your words, and when you talk of disenfranchising Christians, that seems pretty clear to me. Nothing of the sort is happening.

Melrose

Nov 9, 2008, 12:47 PM

we say

"We can't explain something ergo God exists"

you say

you cant explain/prove God so he doesn't exist

sounds just as illogical to me depending on which side one's views lie

Word. I believe you've just summed up the majority of the posts in this thread. Kudos for putting the bulk of everything so succinctly.

MacDawg

Nov 9, 2008, 12:48 PM

There are some species of wild dogs recently discovered, again through observation of examples in captivity, that are neither dog nor wolf.

dog+ wolf = dawg ;)

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

Anuba

Nov 9, 2008, 12:51 PM

You totally took that in a different direction to benefit your view.
No, because you keep bringing up examples (slavery, flat earth, kill all homosexuals) where religion is the only thing proven to have driven people to crazy positions, or prevented them from moving to a more rational position. On the topic of the pros and cons of religion having a great influence in society, I'm not "taking it in a different direction" if I use your very examples to illustrate the bad influence that religion has.

Your reasoning that the majority would never think that way (with or without a book) is pure speculation.
That's right, but the fact that religion has driven a majority to think that way (with a book) isn't speculation, it's a fact. So in the choice between two paths where one *may* lead to disaster, but hasn't yet, and the other is *known* to have had disastrous consequences (need I list the billions of atrocities that religion and dictatorship -- the two greatest non-democratic influences on society), which path is the more rational and safe choice?

The majority can and does make decisions that others feel are ludicrous. Are you OK with majority votes against gay marriage?
I hate to use your examples against you yet again, but religion is the only factor that has resulted in such a majority vote so far. If you know of any context in which a majority of atheists and agnostics have voted against gay marriage, let me know.

What about a vote against abortion?
Um... you really excel at picking examples where religious beliefs are known to be the determining factor in a vote against something.

You claim to be the enlightened one that knows the answers and that you are the majority, but you are not.
What kind of left field comment is that. I have claimed neither. Agnosticism is by definition about NOT claiming to know the answers. There is nothing remotely "elitist" about that. And agnostics are clearly not in the majority in the world or in America, so where'd you get the idea that I claim to represent a majority?

And in the end... the majority can be wrong... and we all know it.
Yes they can, but what are the alternatives to a majority rule?

A) Dictatorship -- EPIC FAIL
B) Theocracy -- EPIC FAIL

So you have two alternatives that have always ********* everything up, and one that's been working well so far but MAY ****** everything up one day. Well, call me crazy but I'm passing on A and B.

mysterytramp

Nov 9, 2008, 12:51 PM

Oooh, dangerous ground. Dinosaurs evolved into birds. Or is that a dirty word?

Apparently the modern thinking, if you can believe that bastion of right-wing intemperate thinking, PBS, is that birds are dinosaurs. That the current thinking that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago is just plain wrong. Or at least that was the takeaway from Nova. ... if you can trust them.
::)

mt

floyde

Nov 9, 2008, 12:56 PM

Word. I believe you've just summed up the majority of the posts in this thread. Kudos for putting the bulk of everything so succinctly.

We had already discussed why the atheist view was misrepresented by that post. Read my response to it please.

skunk

Nov 9, 2008, 01:01 PM

Apparently the modern thinking, if you can believe that bastion of right-wing intemperate thinking, PBS, is that birds are dinosaurs.Birds are neither "terrible" nor "lizards", so whichever taxonomy you adhere to, you know perfectly well what BV means.

Anuba

Nov 9, 2008, 01:03 PM

we say

"We can't explain something ergo God exists"

you say

you cant explain/prove God so he doesn't exist

sounds just as illogical to me depending on which side one's views lie
Right, so how about the third position:

We can't prove or disprove the existence of God, so therefore it makes no sense to commit to a belief in his existence or non-existence. But what we can prove beyond doubt is the existence of humankind, so let's go with believing in ourselves until further notice.

MacDawg

Nov 9, 2008, 01:03 PM

<snip>

Unfortunately, you hear what you want to hear in my posts
Not everything is a religious issue, but you see that as the easier target

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

Blue Velvet

Nov 9, 2008, 01:03 PM

...a random list of possible harm in this particular case: (Note: I'm not saying that any of these apply to you, I'm just listing situations where religious belief could be harmful)

Excellent and emphatically clear post, especially the notes about condoms in Africa. It's one of the first things that Obama is set to overturn, these ridiculous religious conditions on aid.

Anuba

Nov 9, 2008, 01:22 PM

Unfortunately, you hear what you want to hear in my posts
Not everything is a religious issue, but you see that as the easier target

Look, here's what happened in chronological order:

1. I wrote a post about why I feel that religion is harmful to society because it leads to bigotry and hampers progress.

2. You responded that non-religious people are just as hateful and bigoted as the religious ones, and that these two camps are polar opposites on the scale.

3. I argued that I think that's a false equivalency, for many reasons, one being that one side wants an old book to dictate our lives, while the other wants to live by rules that we ourselves determine.

4. You then listed examples of the supposed craziness that might ensue if we were to apply majority rule to everything, yet all the examples you gave are classic cases where religion, not majority rule, has resulted in craziness.

5. When I pointed this out, you apparently felt that I was dodging your questions, when I was in fact not only addressing your questions but also using them for proving the case I made in #1 (see above).

.Andy

Nov 9, 2008, 01:28 PM

Look, here's what happened in chronological order:

1. I wrote a post about why I feel that religion is harmful to society because it leads to bigotry and hampers progress.

2. You responded that non-religious people are just as hateful and bigoted as the religious ones, and that these two camps are polar opposites on the scale.

3. I argued that I think that's a false equivalency, for many reasons, one being that one side wants an old book to dictate our lives, while the other wants to live by rules that we ourselves determine.

4. You then listed examples of the supposed craziness that might ensue if we were to apply majority rule to everything, yet all the examples you gave are classic cases where religion, not majority rule, has resulted in craziness.

5. When I pointed this out, you apparently felt that I was dodging your questions, when I was in fact not only addressing your questions but also using them for proving the case I made in #1 (see above).
This couldn't have been any clearer for anyone reading your and MacDawg's posts Anuba. It's unfortunate that you have to spell it out.

MacDawg

Nov 9, 2008, 01:49 PM

This couldn't have been any clearer for anyone reading your and MacDawg's posts Anuba. It's unfortunate that you have to spell it out.

Sigh... it is like you guys just put your fingers in your ears and go "la, la, la, la, la" when someone posts something here that doesn't fit your worldview. Then you just restate your tired, worn out criticisms and high five each other.

I will say it again, just for the sake of completeness, and then I will let it go... I believe BOTH ends of the spectrum express themselves with the same narrow minded bigotry, disenfranchisement, and rhetoric, just on opposite sides of the issues. In that regard, neither has a leg up on the other.

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

66217

Nov 9, 2008, 01:54 PM

In general, it is dangerous to base once choices on false premises, but here's a random list of possible harm in this particular case: (Note: I'm not saying that any of these apply to you, I'm just listing situations where religious belief could be harmful)

SNIP

Rest in peace. I don't consider myself to fall in any of those situations.;)

It's a mushroom, and it does change things. It looks after us. The microscopic pink mushroom in the core of the Sun loves you ;). All you have to do is accept him as your saviour.

So you basically believe there is some kind of being that looks after us?:p

I agree here, except that I don't see how that is a good thing. I accept something "just because", base my whole life upon it without taking the trouble to verify that it's true, and that's supposed to be virtuous?

If you do it "just because" it would be wrong, I agree. But I am not Catholic just because, I have really though about it and for me it makes sense, and seems perfectly real. Again, as in any religion, there's faith involved.

No, but it could explain why your brain thinks that there's an "inner connection". And it could also explain the psychological processes that lead a believer to experience feelings of euphoria.

But we still do such unexplainable things because of love. I think it was Steve Jobs that said that you should let your heart and your passion guide you, because deep inside there resides what truly makes you happy. With religion is kind of the same, you first feel attracted to it because you fell whole with it, you truly believe that that is the truth and it makes you happy.

.Andy

Nov 9, 2008, 01:55 PM

Sigh... it is like you guys just put your fingers in your ears and go "la, la, la, la, la" when someone posts something here that doesn't fit your worldview. Then you just restate your tired, worn out criticisms and high five each other.
Ad hominem.

I will say it again, just for the sake of completeness, and then I will let it go... I believe BOTH ends of the spectrum express themselves with the same narrow minded bigotry, disenfranchisement, and rhetoric, just on opposite sides of the issues. In that regard, neither has a leg up on the other.
False equivalency.

But we still do such unexplainable things because of love. I think it was Steve Jobs that said that you should let your heart and your passion guide you, because deep inside there resides what truly makes you happy. With religion is kind of the same, you first feel attracted to it because you fell whole with it, you truly believe that that is the truth and it makes you happy.
Love is most certainly not unexplainable. You're in the dangerous situation again where you're drawing an analogy that will most likely fall apart in the future. Love (as all human emotion) is 100% a valid scientific question. As we're told time and time again god is apparently not something that can not be proven with science (although he does interfere with real estate decisions and save people's lives which confuses me because this would be testable) then you're own analogy is junk.

If and when science determines 100% the cause of love and can replicate it will you throw out your god hypothesis or shift your reasoning to other grounds? (hint: you'll do the latter)

Blue Velvet

Nov 9, 2008, 01:59 PM

Just for a laugh, this is where religion gets you. :D

Israeli police have had to restore order at one of Christianity's holiest sites after a mass brawl broke out between monks in Jerusalem's Old City.
Fighting erupted between Greek Orthodox and Armenian monks at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the traditional site of Christ's crucifixion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7718587.stm

floyde

Nov 9, 2008, 02:14 PM

Rest in peace. I don't consider myself to fall in any of those situations.;)

Well, you're on the healthier side then. Unfortunately, your church and its authorities do participate actively in several of those activities. When I was a Catholic, that notion made me question their whole establishment, including their beliefs.

So you basically believe there is some kind of being that looks after us?:p

Nope, I'm just saying that with the proper wording, the pink mushroom can have the same importance as any other supernatural being. That still doesn't make it true.

If you do it "just because" it would be wrong, I agree. But I am not Catholic just because, I have really though about it and for me it makes sense, and seems perfectly real. Again, as in any religion, there's faith involved.

To me faith is another way of saying "just because". When we are brought up in a religion we are constantly reminded that faith is a virtue. If you can be honest with yourself, a simple reflection will help you find out that this is completely false. There's absolutely nothing virtuous about faith, and that notion is painfully evident too. The only reason that anyone believes that faith is a virtue, is because we are told that at an age in which questioning authority could be dangerous for our survival (and thus as children we never question our parents).

But we still do such unexplainable things because of love. I think it was Steve Jobs that said that you should let your heart and your passion guide you, because deep inside there resides what truly makes you happy. With religion is kind of the same, you first feel attracted to it because you fell whole with it, you truly believe that that is the truth and it makes you happy.

Human beings rely on emotion a lot (even very talented people, such as Steve), it's very useful for making decisions in an emergency (i.e. your child is trapped in a burning building). I feel, however, that matters that will affect humanity for a long time are better dealt with logic and reasoning.

dukebound85

Nov 9, 2008, 02:22 PM

And just because human knowledge can't currently explain it doesn't mean that it has to be a miracle.

Let's face it, eclipses, thunderstorms, earthquakes and eruptions were all seen as powerful portents of godly disapproval or change since human science at that stage couldn't explain them any better. Now we understand the science behind the physical world so they're less mysterious. Who knows whether going forward, some of the current 'miracles' will end up having a more mundane explanation.

Funny, you use that argument to discredit "miracles" whereas i used the same argument and was told its redicoulous to make...meaning, thats what i have said in regards to SLC and how God communicates. However, many on these boards can't seem to accept that science doesnt not explain everything currently so it must be as many who disagree say...."absurd" when science is unable to explain God's actions:rolleyes:.

All I am saying is that how God communicates with us now may not be able to be explained yet doesn't rule out as YOU said "current 'miracles' will end up having a more mundane explanation"

.Andy, give us some links to back up your "claim" love is organic ok instead of us just having to take you at your word

skunk

Nov 9, 2008, 02:23 PM

I have really though about it and for me it makes sense, and seems perfectly real.Just what is it about the idea of three gods in one which makes sense? :confused:

Anuba

Nov 9, 2008, 02:27 PM

Sigh... it is like you guys just put your fingers in your ears and go "la, la, la, la, la" when someone posts something here that doesn't fit your worldview. Then you just restate your tired, worn out criticisms and high five each other.
That is so totally not what happened here. Did you even follow the thread?

I will say it again, just for the sake of completeness, and then I will let it go... I believe BOTH ends of the spectrum express themselves with the same narrow minded bigotry, disenfranchisement, and rhetoric, just on opposite sides of the issues. In that regard, neither has a leg up on the other.
Yes, both sides are angry.

The religious side is angry because the other side won't live by rules set forth by an ancient book. The non-religious side is angry because they don't want the rules of an ancient book enforced on themselves, nor anyone else.

The religious side is angry because they're telling the other side how to run their lives, but they won't listen. The non-religious side is angry because they're being told how to run their lives.

One side wants to prohibit the other from having abortions. That's force.
The other side wants to allow both sides to have abortions. That's freedom. Force would be to drag the other side to the abortion clinic and have abortions performed on them.

One side wants to prohibit the other from marrying people of the same sex. That's force.
The other side wants to grant both sides the option of same-sex marriage. That's freedom. Force would be to drag the other side to the altar and force every religious Steve to marry every religious Bob.

So, one side advocates force. The other advocates freedom. After all, they're being told from cradle to grave that they live in the bastion of freedom, but when they come to claim this freedom they're advised to move to one of those countries where people supposedly aren't as free? So... you have to leave the bastion of freedom to acquire freedom elsewhere? "The land of the not so free" doesn't fit well rhythmically in the anthem, huh?

What part of this very fundamental distinction don't you understand? I have to ask, since you're now repeating the exact same false equivalency that's already been blown to smithereens, and *we're* the ones going "la, la, la, la, I can't hear you"??

Hell yes one side has a leg up on the other.

skunk

Nov 9, 2008, 02:31 PM

However, many on these boards can't seem to accept that science doesnt not explain everything currently so it must be as many who disagree say...."absurd" when science is unable to explain God's actions:rolleyes:. What actions? :confused:Give us some links to back up your "claim" love is organic ok instead of us just having to take you at your wordAre you excluding monogamous animal species? Is a lifelong partnership between penguins based on divinely-inspired love too? Or is that different?

Divinity is superfluous.

Bobdude161

Nov 9, 2008, 02:41 PM

floyde

Nov 9, 2008, 02:43 PM

However, many on these boards can't seem to accept that science doesnt not explain everything currently so it must be as many who disagree say...."absurd" when science is unable to explain God's actions:rolleyes:.

I've heard this over and over and it makes absolutely no sense, seriously. Who ever said that science explains everything? Who ever said that it has to? So religion gets more points because it "explains" everything? I can make up explanations too, I have a very vivid imagination. In fact, I can make up explanations that are clear for everyone and are not as convoluted as the ones in the Bible. Does that make my explanations better than those of science simply because they are more complete? Absolutely not.

Science doesn't explain everything, we deal with it. We realize it's the best thing we can do for now. That's the humble approach. There's no point in filling the gaps with imagination, what use could that be?

-Sin is sin and doesn't matter how much you sin it's all the same to God. It's all or nothing. A murdering crack dealer who had 27 abortions is no better than a lifelong follower of Christ. No matter what you've done, no matter who you are you can come to Him for forgiveness.

Add this to my previous list.

skunk

Nov 9, 2008, 02:56 PM

All are created in the image of God at the moment of conception.What colour is your god?

redwarrior

Nov 9, 2008, 02:58 PM

What colour is your god?
You can't be serious!:p

skunk

Nov 9, 2008, 03:01 PM

You can't be serious!:pJust as serious as you are about the age of our planet... :)

Anuba

Nov 9, 2008, 03:01 PM

I agree whole heartedly that religion is divisive. So many times political and religious leaders use Christianity as a tool for their own agendas. The Bible speaks of false prophets, teachers who use the Bible not for God's glory but for their own. And we have seen many people throughout our time who have fit that title.

Religion creates rules, oppresses freedoms and causes judgement. This is not what the teachings of Jesus Christ has encouraged. The Gospel is this: We are all fallen. No one is better than anyone else, Christians included! No where does it say in the Bible that Christians are more moral than non-Christians, they just have a way of reconciling with God through Jesus Christ. I am no better than any of you.

And here are my stances if you were wondering:
-As a Christian, I am to love and not hate the people in this world.
-As God has instructed we are to tend to this earth and it's inhabitants and not abuse it/them.
-All are created in the image of God at the moment of conception. Now does this mean we need to create laws to discourage abortions or bomb a abortion clinic? no way! But we certainly shouldn't have laws that encourage. The best that we Christians can do is be there for people who need help with their child. Instead of having a campaign of hate for those who are choosing to abort, we need to have a genuine love and care for those who are going through that tough time.
-Sin is sin and doesn't matter how much you sin it's all the same to God. It's all or nothing. A murdering crack dealer who had 27 abortions is no better than a lying teenager to his parents. No matter what you've done, no matter who you are you can come to Him for forgiveness.
Now there's a true Christian who has actually read the New Testament all the way through.

It seems that a lot of so-called Christians are content with reading the Old Testament. You know, the "vengeful God" part where he keeps killing everything in sight. The part where bats are listed as a species of birds. The part where everything a woman touches during menstruation is defiled and must be thrown away, and if she has sex with her husband less than one week after menstruation ends, he must be apprehended and killed. It's not entirely clear why God, who supposedly created women, is such a clumsy creator. I mean, would you buy a car with an operation manual that reads: "The gas tank will need refilling occasionally. After you have refilled the tank, you must wash your hands and your clothes, and not touch the car for 14 days. Then you must take two turtles or pigeons to the car dealer, so that he may burn them. If you attempt to drive the car before the 14-day period has ended, you must kill yourself".

Bobdude161

Nov 9, 2008, 03:02 PM

What colour is your god?

Is clear a colo[u]r? :D

Blue Velvet

Nov 9, 2008, 03:04 PM

Is clear a colo[u]r? :D

If Apple says it is, then it is. ;)

redwarrior

Nov 9, 2008, 03:11 PM

Is clear a colo[u]r? :D

If Apple says it is, then it is. ;)
At least something good has come of this thread. I'm really glad we got that cleared up, cause it was a question I've been pondering for much of my adult life.:p

Applespider

Nov 9, 2008, 04:49 PM

Never once have I expressed superiority of belief over nonbelief. I am curious, however, that when a thread starts out in a Christian direction, atheists show up to express their superiority (read: the crutch comment. Maybe you respect believers enough to see the disrespect in such a comment. If so, feel free in repudiating it.)

I didn't say that you were being superior and nor am I claiming superiority. I'm simply saying that a belief or not in God doesn't make either of us the better human being and we're both equally capable of enjoying fellowship and good life.

So far as a crutch goes, it may be to some but then drink is a crutch for some drinkers and we don't tar everyone who goes to the pub with the 'alcoholic' brush.

66217

Nov 9, 2008, 05:53 PM

Love is most certainly not unexplainable. You're in the dangerous situation again where you're drawing an analogy that will most likely fall apart in the future. Love (as all human emotion) is 100% a valid scientific question. As we're told time and time again god is apparently not something that can not be proven with science (although he does interfere with real estate decisions and save people's lives which confuses me because this would be testable) then you're own analogy is junk.

Love is not unexplainable? I have to strongly disagree with you here.

This is getting out of the central discussion, but let me just explain it a little further. My analogy started because I mentioned just an example of how something that we consider real is not necessarily in need to be proven by science for us to accept it as real. Then I said that something similar happens in religion. But I didn't intended to prove with this single analogy that God exists.

If and when science determines 100% the cause of love and can replicate it will you throw out your god hypothesis or shift your reasoning to other grounds? (hint: you'll do the latter)

I don't think that would be ever possible. Because love is much more than chemical reactions and mathematical equations. And again, this is not my hypothesis for the existence of God. Just as you said, an analogy to explain a previous argument.

Well, you're on the healthier side then. Unfortunately, your church and its authorities do participate actively in several of those activities. When I was a Catholic, that notion made me question their whole establishment, including their beliefs.

I disagree in some situations with the Church. And yes, I do recognize they had made many errors, just as humans normally do. But regarding beliefs and faith, I'm certain of those and wouldn't change them because of some human mistakes.

Tho, I respect your decision.

Nope, I'm just saying that with the proper wording, the pink mushroom can have the same importance as any other supernatural being. That still doesn't make it true.

I know, I was just being funny. Maybe I need to improve there.:)

But nonetheless, I don't see anything in common between the pink mushroom and the other religions (Christian, Buddhist, etc.). It doesn't matter the word or how it is explained, the background of all of it is far from being a religion. If you were really and deeply believer of that, and you started forming a way of life around it, then well, I must say it would seem rather unusual to me, but I would nonetheless respect you.

I think this is just what must religious people ask for. To not be portrayed as lunatics that believe in something that has 0% chance of being real.

To me faith is another way of saying "just because". When we are brought up in a religion we are constantly reminded that faith is a virtue. If you can be honest with yourself, a simple reflection will help you find out that this is completely false. There's absolutely nothing virtuous about faith, and that notion is painfully evident too. The only reason that anyone believes that faith is a virtue, is because we are told that at an age in which questioning authority could be dangerous for our survival (and thus as children we never question our parents).

I have always liked the way that Saint Thomas (in Summa Theologica) views religion, here is a link (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3004.htm) which talks about faith. It is interesting.

I think you are stating that faith is soemthing which is not morally good or desirable in a person, which is the definition of virtue. I disagree.

Human beings rely on emotion a lot (even very talented people, such as Steve), it's very useful for making decisions in an emergency (i.e. your child is trapped in a burning building). I feel, however, that matters that will affect humanity for a long time are better dealt with logic and reasoning.

I believe it is a mixture of both. I would say logic is very important, and so is intelligence, and so are many more things.

Just what is it about the idea of three gods in one which makes sense? :confused:

Hmmmm, should I answer the long or short way?:)

The short answer is that I believe in God.

The long, well, is long.;) I don't have much time right now, but you can get a pretty good idea of what more or less I think by readin this regar in the Summa Theologica, I tend to agree in most thinks with what is said there.

skunk

Nov 9, 2008, 07:03 PM

you can get a pretty good idea of what more or less I think by readin this regar in the Summa Theologica, I tend to agree in most thinks with what is said there.Circularity, thy name is Augustine. I'm afraid the old boy doesn't do it for me, neither on Faith nor on the Trinity.

.Andy

Nov 9, 2008, 07:07 PM

Love is not unexplainable? I have to strongly disagree with you here.
The only reason you're asseting that love is unexplainable is that it suits your argument. Love, like anger, jelously and any other human experience is bounded by your nervous system. It's an organic organ - there is nothing supernatural happening when you are in love (sorry to ruin the poetry). There's plenty about emotion that we can't currently explain scientifically, but your assetion that love is unexplainable by it's very nature is a baseless assertion. There's plenty we already know about love from pheremones, to symmetry, to neurotransmitters, to the regions of the brain invovled. Love is not an unknown scientific black box. Unless you can come up with a reason why we can't explain where and why emotions emanate you're on a lost course I'm afraid.

This is getting out of the central discussion, but let me just explain it a little further. My analogy started because I mentioned just an example of how something that we consider real is not necessarily in need to be proven by science for us to accept it as real. Then I said that something similar happens in religion. But I didn't intended to prove with this single analogy that God exists.
Well you're stuck there by your own analogy. You cannot on the one hand claim that belief in god is all about faith and then try and rationalise belief in god through empirical concepts. If god can help people chose real estate god is very testable scientifically. If god performs miracles god is very testable scientifically. If god speaks to people audibly and gives them insights god is very testable scientifically. These are all assertions made in this thread by the very people that turn around and claim that god is above being scientifically proven.

Belief is god is like belief in unicorns or the Loch Ness monster. You've no evidence at all that either exists but their existence is comforting and convincing to some. As you said it's all about faith, and blind faith has no virtue to it period.

OutThere

Nov 9, 2008, 07:57 PM

Love is not unexplainable? I have to strongly disagree with you here.

We're learning more all the time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love#Chemical_basis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_(scientific_views)
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/articles/article/clairemcloughlincolumn1.htm/
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro02/web2/mwhite.html

It is very strange to think that mothers nurture and care for their children mainly due to the release of a hormone at the moment of birth. We tend to believe that the relationship between a mother and a child goes beyond biology - that there is something much deeper than merely instinct or the release of chemicals that causes a mother to love. However, there is very convincing evidence that proves that hormones like oxytocin are largely the cause of maternal behavior.

63dot

Nov 9, 2008, 08:09 PM

It seems that a lot of so-called Christians are content with reading the Old Testament.

I think very few Christians, whether so-called church members who think God is no more valid than the tooth fairy, or true believers, no matter what denomination, usually don't spend a lot of time reading the OT.

The OT is a time of judgment and historical/political chaos to set up the stage for the NT, a time for forgiveness and redemption. There is meant to be a huge contrast between the two halves. Even many readings of the OT does not give the big message that hate is the key issue.

One Kaballah expert said after reaching 40, and then studying the OT for many years that the OT is about two things:

1) Love God
2) Love your neighbor

and the rest is commentary.

God's duty was to bring up Isreal as a nation so full of God's love that the nation would be a beacon of light to the rest of the world who would become curious and want to join and worship Jehovah, the one true God.

floyde

Nov 9, 2008, 08:29 PM

One Kaballah expert said after reaching 40, and then studying the OT for many years that the OT is about two things:

1) Love God
2) Love your neighbor

and the rest is commentary.

I guess that it was either that or admitting that he had wasted many years studying a bronze age text with little to no substance in it (aside from its anthropological value). It has always perplexed me why the Word of God needs so much justification, interpretation and filler content. Perhaps it's His way of saying that clarity is also a sin.

God's duty was to bring up Isreal as a nation so full of God's love that the nation would be a beacon of light to the rest of the world who would become curious and want to join and worship Jehovah, the one true God.

Yes and that turned out wonderfully. We can all thank God for the bright Utopia we now live in, after the world found out about the rather jealous and slightly intolerant true God.

.Andy

Nov 9, 2008, 08:33 PM

God's duty was to bring up Isreal as a nation so full of God's love that the nation would be a beacon of light to the rest of the world who would become curious and want to join and worship Jehovah, the one true God.
Not one of god's best efforts is it :D?

63dot

Nov 9, 2008, 08:47 PM

Not one of god's best efforts is it :D?

Thus the coming of the messiah Jesus Christ. But man being a mess morally, would find that beacon and distort his message. What many saw as a pure message, others (the ones in power) saw it as a great justification to travel around the world and kill people in search of gold and other treasures.

Much of what you see in some sections in today's Christian right is just modern day Conquistadors highly funded coming in with tanks and jets instead of horses. The flag now has the stars and stripes instead of the flags of Spain, Russia, Portugal, England, or France. If the Democrats had that type of power over religious "industrialists", the bad effects would be just the same. Unfortunately, Republican or Democrat, there are powerful members on both sides that would gladly use Christianity as an excuse to further America's power in the world, instead of spreading the Gospel. Did we go into Iraq to avenge 9/11? Nope, no Iraqis in on the plan. Did we go into Iraq to spread the Gospel? Nope, no evidence of that. Did we go into Iraq to go after gold and other riches? Yes, especially since oil is today's gold. No asset on this planet has the sheer power of oil, or promises of unimaginable wealth.

mysterytramp

Nov 9, 2008, 08:55 PM

Birds are neither "terrible" nor "lizards", so whichever taxonomy you adhere to, you know perfectly well what BV means.

You should check out that Nova show. China has found four-winged dinosaurs and the thinking now is that feathers were far more common among dinosaurs than scales. God ... er, the Supreme Creator ... er, Chance Mutation follows its own path, regardless of human's grasp of Latin derivatives.

BTW, this is probably heresy among my Christian brothers and sisters, but I always felt this passage (http://bible.cc/genesis/3-7.htm) was a biblical basis for evolution. And I think the whole story dovetails nicely with some of Jaynes' theories in "The Origin of Consciousness ..."

Just what is it about the idea of three gods in one which makes sense? :confused:

I don't think many Christians can figure this one out either. Jesus clearly refers to God as His Father, not Himself, which seems odd if He had a grasp of God in Three Persons. I always figured the Triune God was cooked up to help the pagans switch to Christianity. Paul could call it a multi-theistic religion when the apostles weren't around.

mt

floyde

Nov 9, 2008, 09:08 PM

BTW, this is probably heresy among my Christian brothers and sisters, but I always felt this passage (http://bible.cc/genesis/3-7.htm) was a biblical basis for evolution. And I think the whole story dovetails nicely with some of Jaynes' theories in "The Origin of Consciousness ..."

Hmm, that whole book is as much a case against the existence of gods as it is a theory of consciousness. How could it fit with the creation story? :confused:

mysterytramp

Nov 9, 2008, 09:18 PM

Hmm, that whole book is as much a case against the existence of gods as it is a theory of consciousness. How could it fit with the creation story? :confused:

It's been years since I read it (and only parts of it at that) but if you read the end of the Creation story, Adam and Eve "know" they are naked, in essence they became self-aware. That is, at least I think it is, what Jaynes was driving at, the origin of self-awareness. Only his book is "how" it happened. The Bible is "why" it happened. Maybe.

Or maybe not.

mt

ZiggyPastorius

Nov 9, 2008, 09:30 PM

It surprises how often a thread that shouldn't interest atheists draws them like flies ... as if they have a need to prosletyze.

But let's talk about crutches .... Let's say when I die I find out there's an afterlife, but it's not the one I've been expecting. I've made honest choices about God. If I've been wrong, I'll be a man about it.

But what if I find nothingness ... That means I don't feel disappointment that I wasted my life believing in God. But even if there's a something/nothingness out there where you get to tell me, "I told you so," I'll have no regrets. God has been a nontoxic addition to my life filled with fellowship and respect for others.

And the alternative? Rationality? Check the stock market over the last couple of months. Rationality is taking a big hit in the crutch department.

mt

Oh really? Because checking back through the thread, it seems the atheist vs. theist part had already begun before I joined in.

I made no attacks on the beliefs; more power to you. I simply found the wording of that post interesting. "Why is it so bad that Christianity helps me become a better person" sounds about the same (to me) as the people who say "without religion, we'd all be raping and killing people." Yes, I give the poster of that original comment credit in that he didn't say it was the only thing that made him a better person, but the inference is that if he found out there was no God, however much better of a person he'd have been, he wouldn't have been. So, say belief in God prevented him from killing someone (Not saying that's the case, just using an example), that would mean that if he didn't believe in God, he'd have killed that person. I just find that a bit scary.

floyde

Nov 9, 2008, 09:34 PM

It's been years since I read it (and only parts of it at that) but if you read the end of the Creation story, Adam and Eve "know" they are naked, in essence they became self-aware. That is, at least I think it is, what Jaynes was driving at, the origin of self-awareness. Only his book is "how" it happened. The Bible is "why" it happened. Maybe.

Or maybe not.

mt

Oh I see. Well the book is about something very different. Jaynes pretty much asserts that gods first came into existence as the hallucinated voices (originating in the right temporal lobe) of deceased patriarchs or kings.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameral_mind):

"According to Jaynes, ancient people in the bicameral state would function in a manner similar to that of a modern-day schizophrenic. Rather than making conscious evaluations in novel or unexpected situations, the person would hallucinate a voice or "god" giving admonitory advice or commands, and obey these voices without question. Others have argued that this state of mind is recreated in members of cults"

In fact, I think that the creation story is actually mentioned in the book, but it was presented as a sort of description of the breakdown of the bicameral mind by the authors of The Bible who, Jaynes theorizes, had only recently become aware. But if you read it again you'll see that, in Jaynes view, the god(s) of the authors of the bible were hallucinated.

66217

Nov 9, 2008, 09:43 PM

Yes, I give the poster of that original comment credit in that he didn't say it was the only thing that made him a better person, but the inference is that if he found out there was no God, however much better of a person he'd have been, he wouldn't have been. So, say belief in God prevented him from killing someone (Not saying that's the case, just using an example), that would mean that if he didn't believe in God, he'd have killed that person. I just find that a bit scary.

OK, being the original poster of the comment I think I can say this. Saying that believing in God makes me be a better person doesn't means part of my actions depend solely on that. All around, it just makes me to try even harder to be a better person that I already was or was trying to be.

And in the example you said were I founded out God doesn't exist, then I'll just act as a grown-up and try and be the same person I was before. But that doesn't mean I would instantly become less of a better person. The person I was, God or no God, is whom I am, how I've been formed.

I hope I explained myself.

ZiggyPastorius

Nov 10, 2008, 12:14 AM

OK, being the original poster of the comment I think I can say this. Saying that believing in God makes me be a better person doesn't means part of my actions depend solely on that. All around, it just makes me to try even harder to be a better person that I already was or was trying to be.

And in the example you said were I founded out God doesn't exist, then I'll just act as a grown-up and try and be the same person I was before. But that doesn't mean I would instantly become less of a better person. The person I was, God or no God, is whom I am, how I've been formed.

I hope I explained myself.

Yes, don't worry, I am not completely blind ;). This is something I understand pretty well. Realistically, I am positive the majority of people would not become maniacal under such circumstances. However, that type of wording is really a common statement, and just the fact that most people don't realise what they are actually saying kind of scares me. And there are some people who really believe things like that. I guess it's just odd for me, since I can't see anything better coming out of my life had I stayed the religious person I was when I was younger. Quite the opposite, actually.

fleshman03

Nov 10, 2008, 12:41 AM

What colour is your god?

What color is middle eastern? Arab? Does that count as a color and what does it matter?

Few fast comments:

Quoting Christopher Hidgens as a source is like quoting the bible to prove it's real. Just don't do it. He has zero credibility here.

There is a difference between real Christians and those who hijack the name. Real Christians believe in Jesus as the son of G-D. They wish to follow his teachings. I wish to ask those who claim the name of Christian, where in the bible (NT) does it say that you need to throw stones at Gays? Surely a better way would be to welcome them into the flock and show them brothership/sistership. How do you have the right to condemn anyone?

For those who wish to know what Christianity is all about, I suggest you read the Sermon on the Mount. Here is an excet:
3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

I feel some of use should read those words daily.

I personally am a Jew who is Christian. (Born Jewish with full rights and believe that Jesus is the Savior.) I didn't give up the OT completely. There is a lot of great lessons that shed great light on the NT and Jesus.

I do think is it completely possible that the bible has been corrupted and should not be taken 100% literally. Take the spirit of the word. Believe in Christ, help the poor and use our life as an example. Do not condemn. You will only lead to discussions such as this. People will feel alienated.

Take for example Liquid Church in NJ. They went to a Gay Pride parade not to yell and cast stones, but to hand out water and serve people. If asked then they told them that they are a church. How is that not taking the word of G-D literally and benefiting your fellow man?Take a read (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/nyregion/06ministry.html).

As for those who say the Church as lead towards groups like the KKK, I have a comment. Yes it has. However it has lead to groups such as the civil rights movement, human rights movement, Salvation Army and many many others. As with any group, we have those who wish to do harm. But do not group all of us in there. There are plenty of us who feel our mission is to do good and improve life for others - regardless of their creed.

skunk

Nov 10, 2008, 04:08 AM

What color is middle eastern? Arab? Does that count as a color and what does it matter?Presumably, if the first man came out of Africa, he should be a "god of colour".
There is a difference between real Christians and those who hijack the name. Real Christians believe in Jesus as the son of G-D. They wish to follow his teachings.No, real Christians believe that Jesus is indivisible from G-D.

Sesshi

Nov 10, 2008, 05:45 AM

Just have one line.

"Be excellent to each other."

Ahh... so much better.

Unfortunately it still contains sufficient ambiguity to allow a schism to start almost the moment the 'Church of Bill & Ted' is set up.

'to each other' defines that the excellence is reciprocal. There are no recommendations on what to do if one side is a toerag - and I'm sure someone will work it into a war.

yellow

Nov 10, 2008, 06:36 AM

you cant proof the existance of God with "science" methods today nor can you disprove it either. that is what faith is for imo. you are entitled to your opinion which is fine but your criteria of science having to prove it is absurd when that same science (by todays understanding of science) cant find the origin of many things that we know are real

Which is why I worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

http://web.as.uky.edu/Biology/faculty/cooper/UKSHIFT/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg

fleshman03

Nov 10, 2008, 08:58 AM

Presumably, if the first man came out of Africa, he should be a "god of colour".
No, real Christians believe that Jesus is indivisible from G-D.

This is one of those cases where any people disagree. It is called the "Great Chasm." The Greek Orthodox split with the Catholic church over this issue. For me, I'm not 100% sure so I don't spend my time being bogged down by dogma. I prefer to take a more practical approach to faith.

As for G-D of Color, who cares? Do you really think G-D is limited to our contrived notions of race? Last I checked, there are multiple colors of people in Africa. Take Egyptians and South Africans.

djellison

Nov 10, 2008, 09:13 AM

you can come to Him for forgiveness.

Where do I go? Is there queue? Does it have those timed tickets and you turn up at a particular time.?

Seems like as good a thread as any to ask this.

Can any god-loving Christian explain to be why a belief in God, and a belief in Santa, are any different?

redwarrior

Nov 10, 2008, 09:16 AM

Where do I go? Is there queue? Does it have those timed tickets and you turn up at a particular time.?

Seems like as good a thread as any to ask this.

Can any god-loving Christian explain to be why a belief in God, and a belief in Santa, are any different?
Maybe, if you can explain to us why we would want to?:rolleyes:

imac/cheese

Nov 10, 2008, 11:05 AM

I lifted this quote from several pages back out of a much larger post, but I still wanted to comment:

...Christians are no better than anyone else...

I agree completely. I do wish to say that I am a better person than I was before I was a Christian. I am a lot less selfish and a lot more loving.

...Yet another instance where common sense has prevailed without following a book. In fact, those who insisted that slavery was a good thing sought support in the Bible:

"Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God ... it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation ... it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." - Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." - Rev. Alexander Campbell

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." - Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

Again, it is only thanks to those who dared rebel against religious doctrines that we even know the Earth isn't flat. Galileo was handed over to the inquisition for even suggesting it, and to this day there are still religious kooks who insist that it's indeed flat:

"The Earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment" -- Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz (Ibn Baz), the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, 1993.
...

One can pick and choose verses out of the Bible and use them out of context to back many things that people want. No where in the Bible does it say we should have slaves. Just because a bunch of slave owners wanted to use the Bible to justify there own desires doesn't mean that the Bible is wrong. In actuality, if people would have followed the whole book instead of following their own desires, they would have gotten rid of slavery many years before. It wasn't the common sense of people that led to abolishing slavery in England, but instead the evangelical beliefs of William Wilberforce and his desire to serve God. He also read the Bible himself and didn't blindly follow what the church told him.

Galelio was also a devout christian. The church and the bible are two different things. The Bible actually has some evidence of declaring long before Galelio that the earth is not flat. In Job 26:7 we learn that the earth hangs on nothing as in it is poisitoned in space and in Job 26:10 a circle is used to depict the horizon instead of a straight line.

In general, it is dangerous to base once choices on false premises, but here's a random list of possible harm in this particular case: (Note: I'm not saying that any of these apply to you, I'm just listing situations where religious belief could be harmful)

You could believe that there's something wrong with homosexuality and be so passionate about it as to go out of your way to spread discrimination, violence and hatred toward these individuals. The bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin but it also requires us to love our neighbors as our selves. We should not be spreading such discrimination, violence, and hatred.
You could believe that you are superior to other animals and that all creation is yours for the taking. This would result in a completely irresponsible interaction with the environment and its creatures, much like what is happening in the world today. We are called upon to be good stewards of what God has given us, including our earth and the environment.
You could believe in an afterlife. This could also have an adverse effect on how you interact with this world (why take care of the environment if I'm just passing through?) and could lead to a procrastinative (not sure that's a word:o) approach to life. See above comment for the environment. As for procrastinating, I do not see at all how believing in an afterlife has anything to do with procrastinating. The Bible goes on quite a bit about not being lazy. Proverbs 6:6, 20:4, 13:4 and Col 3:23 are all great examples.
You could believe that sex is a sin (as opposed to the most natural, intrinsic behavior of primates and almost every other species on the planet), and go out of your way to teach only abstinence, while condemning more realistic (and effective) methods of birth control, thus effectively contributing to the spread of STD's and teen pregnancy. Sex is not a sin. It is a beautiful joining of two people. Fornication is however a sin as is adultery. Keeping people in the dark about sex is not at all what the Bible suggests. Proper education is a good thing.
You could believe that those who do not adhere to your faith are evil heathens, effectively and unnecessarily contributing to the segregation of the human race, which is the source for a great percentage of the world's conflicts. The Bible calls upon us all to love one another. The story of the woman at the well is a great example of how Jesus did not follow society's beliefs about segregation or social status. He simply showed love to another.
You could go out of your way to teach that condoms are sinful in Africa, and by doing so, aid the spread of AIDS and misery in an already devastated continent. The bible calls on us to help the people not add to their suffering.
You could believe that males should have more privileges or are superior to females. The Bible never states that men are superior to women. Jesus was an example of that. He showed great respect to women in a time when they were considered by most to be little more than property.
You could be so blinded by the irrational side of your beliefs that you would have trouble with several aspects of your education (such as those dealing with science). The bible directs us to examine everything and to hold onto the truth. The bible does not say we should fear science or that science is the work of the devil.
You could be so passionate about the irrational side of your beliefs as to go out of your way to discredit perfectly good, useful and well-proven scientific facts in order to support illogical, potentially harmful, imagination-based claims. Challenging any scientific fact is a good thing. Examining how science fits into your beliefs is a good thing. We are called not to provide false witness so people are making up claims in order to discredit science are not following the Bible.
You could prefer the scientifically dismissed "power of prayer" over the more effective and proven medicine. Prayer should be our first reaction to all situations, but I don't see anything in the Bible that says we shouldn't use medicine.
You could go out of your way to diminish the role of science, thus ruining progress even for those who do not adhere to your faith. See above comments about science and lying.
The list goes on...

But hey, why bother to double-check our core beliefs? As long as it's other people who suffer because of them...:rolleyes:...

Your list might go on, but it is not a list that is biblically based. It is a list of what some people have done in the name of religion, not a list of what the religion is actually based upon.

If you took away religion from these people, they would find something else to use to gain their selfish desires. Following the Bible would not lead to any of the situations that you listed.

floyde

Nov 10, 2008, 11:14 AM

As for G-D of Color, who cares? Do you really think G-D is limited to our contrived notions of race? Last I checked, there are multiple colors of people in Africa. Take Egyptians and South Africans.

I think that's the point, if we were created in God's image, which image is that? It also raises some other dumb, yet important questions :p:

Does God have an appendix?
What does God breathe?
Why does God need a stomach? What does he eat?
Why does God have opposable thumbs if he has no need for tools?
Why does God need all these body parts that are fine tuned for life on earth if he lives elsewhere?

But of course you're just gonna say that we shouldn't take that literally :p So I guess we'll just keep discussing in circles for a while

obeygiant

Nov 10, 2008, 11:29 AM

I think that's the point, if we were created in God's image, which image is that? It also raises some other dumb, yet important questions :p:

Does God have an appendix?
What does God breathe?
Why does God need a stomach? What does he eat?
Why does God have opposable thumbs if he has no need for tools?
Why does God need all these body parts that are fine tuned for life on earth if he lives elsewhere?

But of course you're just gonna say that we shouldn't take that literally :p So I guess we'll just keep discussing in circles for a while

The point that "We are made in God's image," has never referred to opposable thumbs, race, or even gender. It's referring to human's consciousness, self-awareness, and of freely giving ourselves and entering into communion with other persons. Christians believe that God is a trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, people were created in that image as mind, body, and spirit respectively.

floyde

Nov 10, 2008, 11:32 AM

One can pick and choose verses out of the Bible and use them out of context to back many things that people want.

And yet the omnipotent God did nothing to prevent the defiling of his holy word.

The Bible never states that men are superior to women. Jesus was an example of that. He showed great respect to women in a time when they were considered by most to be little more than property.

What is the name of your favorite female pastor?

Your list might go on, but it is not a list that is biblically based. It is a list of what some people have done in the name of religion, not a list of what the religion is actually based upon.

Well there's enough material in the Bible for people to justify a lot of the actions on that list. You're a good person so you chose the good interpretation of it. I really wish more Christians thought like you do, but there's plenty who are quite the opposite. As long as we accept the bible as the holy word of God, these people have something to justify their harmful actions with.

If you took away religion from these people, they would find something else to use to gain their selfish desires.

True, but without religion they wouldn't have a justification or legal protection (in some cases) for their actions. People from other faiths wouldn't have to just "respect" these harmful actions.

Following the Bible would not lead to any of the situations that you listed.

Following your interpretation wouldn't lead to such things. Others may vary, but they're equally valid since the only authority that can give the proper interpretation currently resides in heaven and cannot be reached for comment.

The point that "We are made in God's image," has never referred to opposable thumbs, race, or even gender. It's referring to human's consciousness, self-awareness, and of freely giving ourselves and entering into communion with other persons. Christians believe that God is a trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, people were created in that image as mind, body, and spirit respectively

But how do you know this? Does the bible say "take this part metaphorically and this is what the metaphor means". How do you know that your interpretation of "in God's image" is correct?

obeygiant

Nov 10, 2008, 11:49 AM

And yet the omnipotent God did nothing to prevent the defiling of his holy word.

Floyde, unless you're just being argumentative here, you couldn't possibly make that statement without having a basic understanding of religion.

What is the name of your favorite female pastor?
I don't have a favorite pastor at all, but female pastors are the norm in many denominations.

You're a good person so you chose the good interpretation of it. I really wish more Christians thought like you do, but there's plenty who are quite the opposite.

As with this thread and forum the general impression of christians is that they are bad, whereas in reality and contrary to what makes news, most christians are good people.

floyde

Nov 10, 2008, 11:57 AM

Floyde, unless you're just being argumentative here, you couldn't possibly make that statement without having a basic understanding of religion.

I really think that it's a good argument. Why would God present his word in a format that was so susceptible to abuse, and that was open to all kinds of interpretations? It's not only bad people who interpret it in a harmful way. He should have thought about the "not so bright" Christians also.

I don't have a favorite pastor at all, but female pastors are the norm in many denominations.

I didn't know that. I used to be a Catholic, so I was exposed to a lot discrimination towards women. But good for you people then :)

As with this thread and forum the general impression of christians is that they are bad, whereas in reality and contrary to what makes news, most christians are good people.

Christians are as good or bad as any other group of people. My problem is that bad Christians get a certain amount of justification (from themselves and from society) for their bad actions because it's "their religion" and we're supposed to "respect" that.

obeygiant

Nov 10, 2008, 12:06 PM

But how do you know this? Does the bible say "take this part metaphorically and this is what the metaphor means". How do you know that your interpretation of "in God's image" is correct?

This is not my interpretation and this is not a new idea. If you need to be educated on the subject there is a wide variety of resources available. I'm really not the one to go into the depth that you may require.

"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.' So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:26-27)

floyde

Nov 10, 2008, 12:14 PM

This is not my interpretation and this is not a new idea. If you need to be educated on the subject there is a wide variety of resources available. I'm really not the one to go into the depth that you may require.

Hmm ok, I'll explain my point further. The Bible is a book written in a human language (several of them, actually). An early, imperfect, ambiguous human language (just like any human language). It is by no means absolute in meaning, and thus it is always open for interpretation. It doesn't matter if someone with greater authority than you came up with that interpretation, or even a group of people. The interpretation was made by imperfect humans and therefore cannot be 100% percent reliable. Jesus or God is the only one who can give the correct meaning, but he is not currently available.

imac/cheese

Nov 10, 2008, 12:53 PM

And yet the omnipotent God did nothing to prevent the defiling of his holy word.

The omnipotent God gave His people free-will to defile whatever they want. The Bible says He can control all things, but what is the point of having individual minds and spirits if we are all simply controlled by our God.

As long as we accept the bible as the holy word of God, these people have something to justify their harmful actions with.

You state this as if the Bible is responsible for the harmful actions of these people and that we must rid the world of the Bible to return these people to the wonderful loving people they should be. In my opinion, the best way to show these people that their actions are harmful is to show them the portions of the Holy Word of God that they are obviously missing. A lot of these people are believers that the Bible is inerrant. Simply showing them what the Bible says will help them see things differently. You cannot blame the Bible because people twist and manipulate what it says to achieve their predetermined goals. The root of the problem is not the Bible but the selfishness and hatefulness of people.

True, but without religion they wouldn't have a justification or legal protection (in some cases) for their actions. People from other faiths wouldn't have to just "respect" these harmful actions.

What harmful actions are you talking about that legally protected because of religion?

Following your interpretation wouldn't lead to such things. Others may vary, but they're equally valid since the only authority that can give the proper interpretation currently resides in heaven and cannot be reached for comment.

It is not that my interpretation of the Bible is different from others', it is that people do not actually read the Bible. They make a bunch of assertions based on a few verses out of context and think they are doing God's work. Yes, there are areas that have a variety of different interpretations but none of those interfere with the message that Jesus gave us or the way we should conduct our lives. This is why teaching people the true message of Christ and teaching people what the Bible says is so very important.

I really think that it's a good argument. Why would God present his word in a format that was so susceptible to abuse, and that was open to all kinds of interpretations? It's not only bad people who interpret it in a harmful way. He should have thought about the "not so bright" Christians also.

The Bible is not that difficult to interpret; it is difficult to actually read. There are parts that are hard to understand and there are parts that have some many layers of meaning it is hard to understand them all, but the general message is much like Bill and Ted's: Love God. Love your neighbor.

Christians are as good or bad as any other group of people. My problem is that bad Christians get a certain amount of justification (from themselves and from society) for their bad actions because it's "their religion" and we're supposed to "respect" that.

The Bible does not justify bad actions. If I do bad actions and tell you my beliefs stem from the Constitution and I am justied in what I do, would you assume the problem was the Constitution or would the problem be me? Just because people use something to justify their actions doesn't mean that they have any idea what they are talking about. I don't feel we should ever respect the bad actions of others. We should respect all people, but if they do bad actions, they should be held accountable.

Hmm ok, I'll explain my point further. The Bible is a book written in a human language. An early, imperfect, ambiguous human language (just like any human language). It is by no means absolute in meaning, and thus it is always open for interpretation. It doesn't matter if someone with greater authority than you came with that interpretation, or even a group of people. The interpretation was made by imperfect humans and therefore cannot be 100% percent reliable. Jesus or God is the only one who can give the correct meaning, but he is not currently available.

The Holy Spirit is available, as He dwells within us that have accepted Jesus as our savior. He is there to help us and guide us through our lives.

skunk

Nov 10, 2008, 02:01 PM

The point that "We are made in God's image," has never referred to opposable thumbs, race, or even gender. It's referring to human's consciousness, self-awareness, and of freely giving ourselves and entering into communion with other persons. Christians believe that God is a trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, people were created in that image as mind, body, and spirit respectively.Not all Christians believe in the Trinity: the followers of Arius, the Cathars, the Gnostics, Jehovah's Witnesses and others hold with no such nonsense. The whole idea was a late interpolation, never mentioned in the bible. Secondly, why would your god make you in his own image in the sense that you claim, only to lose his rag when you become like gods, knowing good and evil? It makes no sense. On the contrary, the biblical verses: "Then God said, "Let us make a human being in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created the human being in his own image, in the image of God he created him: male and female he made them" (Gen. 1:26-27) make it crystal clear that what the writer has in mind is a physical likeness, both male and female. The elohim are clearly "the gods" (plural) both male and female. The whole of the bible is a poorly-disguised revisionist text containing several different and conflicting narratives which have never been reconciled.
As with this thread and forum the general impression of christians is that they are bad, whereas in reality and contrary to what makes news, most christians are good people.People who follow the basic principle of "loving thy neighbour as thyself" are generally "good people", but as soon as doctrinal discussions and competing sects enter the frame, the "goodness" seems to go to blazes.
You state this as if the Bible is responsible for the harmful actions of these people and that we must rid the world of the Bible to return these people to the wonderful loving people they should be. In my opinion, the best way to show these people that their actions are harmful is to show them the portions of the Holy Word of God that they are obviously missing. A lot of these people are believers that the Bible is inerrant. Simply showing them what the Bible says will help them see things differently. You cannot blame the Bible because people twist and manipulate what it says to achieve their predetermined goals. The root of the problem is not the Bible but the selfishness and hatefulness of people.No, the root of the problem is that the bible was compiled a long time ago as a largely bogus history by which a ruling class in exile could lay a divinely-sanctioned claim again on their return to a land which they occupied originally after massacring the inhabitants.This is why teaching people the true message of Christ and teaching people what the Bible says is so very important. Teaching people the true message of Christ and teaching people what the Bible says are two very different things.

The Bible does not justify bad actions. The bible is replete with stories of vile actions, prejudices and injustices perpetrated in the name of god.

imac/cheese

Nov 10, 2008, 02:27 PM

...
No, the root of the problem is that the bible was compiled a long time ago as a largely bogus history by which a ruling class in exile could lay a divinely-sanctioned claim again on their return to a land which they occupied originally after massacring the inhabitants.

Regardless of your personal opinion of the Bible, how can it be blamed for the horrible actions of the people who use it out of context to justify their horrible actions?

Your description is not the root of the problem at all. The root of the problem is sin. Acting in ways contrary to God's standard. People who are selfish, hateful, bigoted, lustful, and hypocritical.

skunk

Nov 10, 2008, 02:31 PM

Regardless of your personal opinion of the Bible, how can it be blamed for the horrible actions of the people who use it out of context to justify their horrible actions?

Your description is not the root of the problem at all. The root of the problem is sin. Acting in ways contrary to God's standard. People who are selfish, hateful, bigoted, lustful, and hypocritical.Massacring men, women, children and animals, laying waste to cities, stoning people to death, discriminating against those who are different, keeping slaves and exploiting women are all fully in accord with "god's standard" according to the bible.

floyde

Nov 10, 2008, 02:35 PM

I'm a bit busy so I can't answer everything, but here it goes.

The omnipotent God gave His people free-will to defile whatever they want.

That doesn't make sense. Communicating a clear message doesn't violate free-will. If I choose to follow God, and God made it so that anyone can modify his message, how on earth am I to know what it means to "follow God"? I'm not free to follow God's rules simply because he didn't take the trouble to make them reach me. If I am a good man, is it my fault that an evil person edited The Bible for his own gain? Must I suffer because of it?

God could've communicated his word through an immutable and crystal clear (i.e. only 1 interpretation) means, and I could've still been free to abide by it or ignore it. Except that in this scenario, I would be completely certain that I was going through the path that I chose.

The Bible says He can control all things, but what is the point of having individual minds and spirits if we are all simply controlled by our God.

There's not point to that, just like there is no point in creating beings with "free-will" only to expect them to abide by a certain set of rules. Except, of course, if one has a weird sense of humor.

The Holy Spirit is available, as He dwells within us that have accepted Jesus as our savior. He is there to help us and guide us through our lives.

Well I don't think that he is doing such a good job then. You forget about the Catholics and the dozen other Christians denominations. All of them have accepted Jesus as their savior, and yet they don't seem to agree about his message. I really don't know what else would make it more evident that there's no such thing as a universal interpretation of The Bible.

imac/cheese

Nov 10, 2008, 02:52 PM

Massacring men, women, children and animals, laying waste to cities, stoning people to death, discriminating against those who are different, keeping slaves and exploiting women are all fully in accord with "god's standard" according to the bible.

Christ left us with some pretty simple instructions. Love God. Love your neighbor. Spread the Good News about salvation.

skunk

Nov 10, 2008, 04:36 PM

Christ left us with some pretty simple instructions. Love God. Love your neighbor. Spread the Good News about salvation.There's a whole lot else besides. Is only some of it for real?

iShater

Nov 10, 2008, 04:46 PM

OMG, like 5 pages since Friday? How am I supposed to even catch up! :D

redwarrior

Nov 10, 2008, 05:17 PM

OMG, like 5 pages since Friday? How am I supposed to even catch up! :D
Honestly, you haven't missed anything. It's like dogs talking to cats.;)

If anyone is tempted to ask which group is the dogs and which is the cats, wait until you graduate kindergarten and ask again!:D

smwatson

Nov 10, 2008, 06:01 PM

Honestly, you haven't missed anything. It's like dogs talking to cats.;)

If anyone is tempted to ask which group is the dogs and which is the cats, wait until you graduate kindergarten and ask again!:D

Really? Not missed anything?
It's a great debate.

I would wade in but reading is much more fun and relaxing.

I don't understand your dogs/cats group thing...

floyde

Nov 10, 2008, 06:04 PM

Really? Not missed anything?
It's a great debate.

I would wade in but reading is much more fun and relaxing.

I don't understand your dogs/cats group thing...

It's kind of circular, no one's really changing their minds. I suppose it helps to vent out frustrations about the opposite group though :)

mysterytramp

Nov 10, 2008, 07:44 PM

That doesn't make sense.

Well, duh! Of course it doesn't make sense. If it did, you'd still be a Catholic! ::) (BTW, if you want to channel your Christian-bashing to Catholic-bashing, there are probably a few of us Protestants who'd like to join in. Maybe then, we'd be catdogs.)

Communicating a clear message doesn't violate free-will. If I choose to follow God, and God made it so that anyone can modify his message, how on earth am I to know what it means to "follow God"?

Imac/Cheese is doing a pretty good job in this debate. The one point I'll add, and it fits nicely here, is that the practitioner also needs faith. It is hard to be a Christian and your questions (and skunk's) expose those difficulties. But imac/cheese and I agree on one very important point. To follow God, you love him, you love your neighbors. And he's right about spreading the good news, but being a Lutheran, I'm by definition rather shy, so I leave that part to more extroverted denominations.

But let faith be your guide. Have faith in yourself that what you do is what God wants. Have faith in your family to help guide you. Have faith in your friends to support you when you falter. And for Christians, have faith in your fellow believers to help light the dark passages.

God could've communicated his word through an immutable and crystal clear (i.e. only 1 interpretation) means, and I could've still been free to abide by it or ignore it. Except that in this scenario, I would be completely certain that I was going through the path that I chose.

But what would that one message be? Give me one sentence that can't be interpreted in multiple ways. Heck, even a=b; in C it's an assignment, but in BASIC, it could be a conditional.

There's not point to that, just like there is no point in creating beings with "free-will" only to expect them to abide by a certain set of rules. Except, of course, if one has a weird sense of humor.

Here's a fundamental question for any believer ... Why create the Garden of Eden with the Tree of Life? Why not leave that out? Why should we have free will? We'll never get a good answer, just one that comes from a lot of meditation, prayer, study, consultation, and in the end, probably one that is unsatisfactory. But that's why faith exists.

You forget about the Catholics and the dozen other Christians denominations. All of them have accepted Jesus as their savior, and yet they don't seem to agree about his message.

And you thought human beings are somehow agreeable ... that we come to the same conclusion based on incontrovertible evidence? Man, that's more faith than I have!

mt