PDA

View Full Version : Religion



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

21Kid
March 13th, 2014, 03:10 PM
thread.

1 In 5 Americans Say Religion Is 'Not That Important' To Them (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/13/religion-poll-nbc-wsj_n_4957886.html)


Americans are losing faith. At least, that's the conclusion of a new poll on religion.

Jointly conducted by NBC and The Wall Street Journal, the poll found that 21 percent of Americans feel religion is "not that important" in their lives.

This, NBC News writes, is the "highest percentage" recorded since the survey was first conducted in 1997.

sandydandy
March 13th, 2014, 03:38 PM
Dooky: Man, look. Do I believe in God? Yeah, I guess I do. How else can you have the sun, moon and stars and shit like that?

Doughboy: Sun, moon, stars, quasars. Motherfucker sound like Elroy Jetson. There ain't no God. If there was a God, why He be letting motherfuckers get smoked every night?

Kchrpm
March 13th, 2014, 05:08 PM
I would expect that number to just keep growing, too. As more and more people grow up without it, and find alternate means to reach out in the community and other support groups and the like to help with their life questions, there won't be major reasons for people to make religion important to them.

If more religious groups, on a micro and macro level, become more open to accepting different demographics and lifestyles, they'll have a chance.

Fogelhund
March 13th, 2014, 05:25 PM
Canadian survey had 42% of people saying religion was important to them.

Godson
March 13th, 2014, 06:54 PM
Speaking from my dealings with Christians and Christianity in a VERY GENERALIZED form and nothing more.


The interesting part for me is that religion is important to them, but when someone says they aren't religious but are spiritual, the religious person tends to go all 20 questions on them how they "don't believe in God."

Rob
March 14th, 2014, 12:32 AM
"The highest percentage of Christians was found in the North East of England, where 1.8 million worshippers represented 68% of residents."

England's Alabama, ladies and gentlemen.

Dicknose
March 14th, 2014, 05:48 AM
Aussies would be close to the other way, with religious being the minority.

Kchrpm
March 14th, 2014, 06:06 AM
http://teaminfocus.com.au/religion-in-australia-statistics/

-About 13 million or 64% of Australians called themselves “Christian.” However, only about 7.5% attend any church services weekly (NCLS Research 2004).
-The main denominations continue to decline slowly, while 19% of Australians claimed “no religion.” Another two million did not state or adequately describe their religion.
Yeah, presumably the "religion is important" number is closer to the number for ones that attend weekly services.

It was my understanding that Australia is pretty closed-minded about certain cultural things despite this, but it came from a Sex Party Member so maybe it's all relative. I haven't looked that much into it.

tigeraid
March 14th, 2014, 07:50 AM
I've always taken these sorts of surveys with a big fat grain of salt.

I've lived both in Northern, relatively rural Ontario, as well as the heart of "modern" Canada in Southwestern Ontario. I can count the number of people I know to be religious on one hand. I have a very, very hard time believing they're even a 42% portion of our population.

The vast majority are agnostic and don't give a shit one way or another, and the rest are atheists like me. Religion plays an incredibly, incredibly small role in Canadians' day to day lives. You rarely see it in the media. You rarely see advertisements or signage for it. It's never, ever mentioned in the workplace for good reason.

Many of our politicians label themselves with a religion, but that's only because while atheists and agnostics will gladly vote for Christians, religious voters will not vote for atheists. I suspect that's true of a lot of other public figures too. So those numbers are also questionable.

And even then, whenever the issue is brought up by the media, our politicians make it VERY clear that "yes, I'm a Christian/Catholic/Whatever, but that's unimportant to my job." Separation of Church and State is virtually absolute here.

The main reason these statistics are absurd, though, is because you cannot use them to gauge a person's "level" of piety. My grandmother identifies herself as a Catholic, because that's what her family indoctrinated her into when she was young. She doesn't give two shits about religion, she doesn't go to church, she observes no rules or regulations, nor does she read the Bible. She might occasionally pray, I suppose. The vast majority of so-called "Christians" have never read more than a few pages of the Bible and don't adhere at all to 90% of the bullshit rules laid out in the thing. The only difference between those Christians and "spiritual" people is that they identify Jesus as being the deity in question.

On the other hand, the statistics of people who have quit bullshit religion, or already identify themselves as atheist or agnostic, generally identify themselves as such clearly and concisely. So those numbers are probably accurate.

EDIT: having said all that, I don't know many Muslims, and there's LOTS of them here.

Kchrpm
March 14th, 2014, 08:07 AM
Tiger - I agree, that's why I think the question "is religion important to you" and asking if you go to church weekly is a more telling stat (when the responses are somewhat private or anonymous).

Crazed_Insanity
March 14th, 2014, 09:06 AM
Yeah, as we've seen time and time again, how you ask the questions can affect the result of your survey too.

Anyway, I think I've mentioned this before, this forgetting about God trend as we achieve better standard of living is even recorded in the bible. People are naturally like that. When we are doing well, we don't need God anymore. Most so called 'believers' don't really love God. They only love God's blessings. Only when time gets tough and after we tried out all options and exhausted..., then perhaps we'll remember that perhaps God can help? Of course, there are also those with hardened hearts probably will only remember to blame God for the bad things that's happening to them... basically believing that there's no God when time's good... and believing God is an asshole when time gets rough.

Anywho, if Christianity is really just the world's most successful ponzi scheme, then I have no doubt it'll eventually come crumbling down just like other mythologies and fall into irrelevance. Nothing bogus can last forever. However, 'religion' itself probably won't ever go away though. Just as the survey showed, people giving up on Jesus don't all become materialistic atheists. There are still a LOT of 'spiritual folks' who can end up believing in whatever else that suits them. A lot of them are probably just sick of organized religion, but far from atheists.

If one day we can get rid of prostitution, drugs, war, etc, then perhaps religion will also eventually go. Now, I'm not implying it's religion that caused all those other things, it's just that those things are part of our human condition. Paradoxically, yes, we're a bunch of fucked up people, and at the same time, wonderful too. At least according to my belief, Jesus saw our redeeming value that's why he came to save us out of our fucked-up-ness. Otherwise, God could've just wiped us all out and cut us off like cancerous tumor. If I were God, yeah, I'd probably give up on humanity long ago. But good thing I'm not God... and I'm still in awe of how amazing this God is.

Kchrpm
March 14th, 2014, 09:36 AM
Random related thought: I think I still use "come to Jesus moment" as a general term of someone having a great realization that will make them decide to change whatever it is about them.

Also: Deathbed Christians, etc.

Also: When people have nothing else they feel like they can believe in, they often find religion so they have *something.*

I would argue, though, that it's more related to so many questions being answered by science, and critical, skeptical thinking being so much more common and celebrated as our society ages, than just the fact that people are doing better. As one of my coworkers put so well, he was growing up in the 60s, where so many powerful figures in the US were being found out to be corrupt/liars/etc. I assume the same thing has happened at some point all over the world, and questioning what you're told just leads to more questioning.

Also: plenty of successful people thank God for their success, if they believed in God on their path to success.

Somewhat off the wall: during the first episode of the new Cosmos series, they talk about Giordano Bruno, one of the first people documented to posit that all the stars were actually suns for other planets like ours. He didn't take that to mean there was no God, but that he wanted to believe in a God that was so infinite that he could create an infinite universe. That mindset, of finding new information and being accepting and welcoming of it, even without yet having the proof needed to fully explain or understand it, is incredibly admirable and sorely missing in most people of all demographics and beliefs.

thesameguy
March 14th, 2014, 09:58 AM
There have been numerous studies done on the biological basis of religion, and I believe it's generally agreed upon that human beings are hardwired to have faith. We are genetically predisposed to believe in things we cannot prove, and that is probably a significant element in our ongoing success as a species. Without the ability to make illogical, unreasonable leaps our development would have been massively hindered and probably cut seriously short. If you cannot act without being able to prove the possibility of success, your species isn't going to get very far.

Some have argued that we were wired this way by an all-powerful being as a way for us to have a relationship with him/her, and some have argued that men/women have intentionally or accidentally identified this capability and used/exploited it for their own gain. The bottom line is, there is a scientifically identifiable part of our brains that allow us to think/feel/behave differently - irrationally - than all other animals. That's special. What you do with that part of your brain is possibly not up to you, but almost certainly influenced by a number of cultural, familial, and environmental factors. It is probably also influenced by other components of our more basic animal psychology - such fear of the unknown or different, the need for basic comfort (food, sleep, etc.), and of course self-preservation.

The balance of all these things varies dramatically from person to person, as does the threshold for concern, worry, and acceptance. I might see an impossible jump to the other side, you might see a difficult but possible leap. I might see another person with two arms and two legs, you might see a monster with different colored skin and eyes. I might see a system of gravities and rotations, you might see an all-powerful being working his or her magic. The part of our brain that is faith plays a significant part in making those determinations - with no evidence of that other person's intentions, no device with which to measure the gap, and no system with which to observe the universe we are still able to form opinions and beliefs about them, because at the core we all have a function which lets us do that.

There are probably a large number of people whose beliefs can be swayed one direction or another, but there are certainly a number of people whose beliefs cannot. And each member of that latter group is absolutely convinced they are right, and there is neither a logical argument nor a discussion of alternate faith that is going to sway them. It doesn't matter what we as a society can prove or disprove, that faith structure is genetic, it's physical, and it's set. We are born able to believe, but we learn how to explain. You're not going to change genetics with explanation. That's my $0.02.

21Kid
March 14th, 2014, 10:04 AM
[ /thread over ]

FaultyMario
March 14th, 2014, 10:10 AM
how you ask the questions can affect the result of your survey too.

Really? Who wouldavethunk it, heh! Certainly not professional researchers I'm guessing.


People are naturally like that. When we are doing well, we don't need God anymore.

Ever heard of a certain Osama Bin Laden?, he was a construction billionaire with ties to the House of Saud. I'd say he was well off and I'm pretty certain he was deeply religious. How about ECyD, you think it's inner city kids enrolled in those programs?
Broad characterizations are seldom something other than a projection of our own fears.


if Christianity is really just the world's most successful ponzi scheme, then I have no doubt it'll eventually come crumbling down just like other mythologies and fall into irrelevance.

Ponzi schemes benefit only those at the top of the pyramid. I'm pretty sure Christianity, the social movement, is far more complex than that.
Did all those other mythologies crumble into irrelevance? The government of the country you call home has pretty much sold itself as the reformation of the Roman Republic and the Greek Senate. And isn't the post-roman Christian religion an amalgamation of really old Mediterranean traditions around a core doctrine of reciprocity that originated in Central Asia thousands of years ago?
Again, there's culture, art, social forms, economic and ethical dimensions to the ponzi scheme. In an effort to grasp all this concepts at once, You oversimplify things that need a lil bit more attention.


If one day we can get rid of prostitution, drugs, war, etc, then perhaps religion will also eventually go. Now, I'm not implying it's religion that caused all those other things, it's just that those things are part of our human condition.

I wasn't born a prostitute nor a soldier. Human condition has nothing to do with that. Social relations do.


we're a bunch of fucked up people

You've got issues if that's how you see the world.


At least according to my belief, Jesus saw our redeeming value that's why he came to save us out of our fucked-up-ness. Otherwise, God could've just wiped us all out and cut us off like cancerous tumor. If I were God, yeah, I'd probably give up on humanity long ago. But good thing I'm not God... and I'm still in awe of how amazing this God is.

I'm still amazed of how awesome my fellow men and women are. After all, they made God in their image.

Crazed_Insanity
March 14th, 2014, 11:06 AM
Ever heard of a certain Osama Bin Laden?, he was a construction billionaire with ties to the House of Saud. I'd say he was well off and I'm pretty certain he was deeply religious. How about ECyD, you think it's inner city kids enrolled in those programs?
Broad characterizations are seldom something other than a projection of our own fears.
Do you really believe Osama Bin Laden is an average believer? That he's the 'average' person that'd follow a certain 'trend'? Why do you think my broad characterization would apply to EVERYONE. Did I also make that claim that one absolutely must be fucking dirt poor in order to have faith?




Ponzi schemes benefit only those at the top of the pyramid. I'm pretty sure Christianity, the social movement, is far more complex than that.
Did all those other mythologies crumble into irrelevance? The government of the country you call home has pretty much sold itself as the reformation of the Roman Republic and the Greek Senate. And isn't the post-roman Christian religion an amalgamation of really old Mediterranean traditions around a core doctrine of reciprocity that originated in Central Asia thousands of years ago?
Again, there's culture, art, social forms, economic and ethical dimensions to the ponzi scheme. In an effort to grasp all this concepts at once, You oversimplify things that need a lil bit more attention.
Greek mythology is gone. Lots of European mythologies are gone. Buddhism is still around and is a well respected religion and had huge influence in China and asia in general. But how relevant is it? Just as relevant as the so called 'Christians' who wouldn't attend church services other than during perhaps Easter and Christmas. However, key difference between Christianity and Buddhism and even Hinduism is that you can see thru history that which God blesses the people more.




I wasn't born a prostitute nor a soldier. Human condition has nothing to do with that. Social relations do.
We're social animals. We are fucked up at times. You cannot acknowledge that?




You've got issues if that's how you see the world.
Is this thread about me? Why don't you express your own view about religion rather than just focusing on me? I also don't expect you to agree with whatever the hell I said. If you got a problem with my issues, wanna help me fix my issues? We all have issues. I don't think I need you to point them out to me unless you're ready to help me.



I'm still amazed of how awesome my fellow men and women are. After all, they made God in their image.
I can certainly agree with you on this one. However, do you disagree with that the Original is superior than the copies? Or do you insist that Jesus your supposed Lord and Savior still have his own issues and just as imperfect as us?

21Kid
March 14th, 2014, 11:22 AM
And heeeeeere we go!!! :lol:

Crazed_Insanity
March 14th, 2014, 11:30 AM
Obviously you started this thread with the hope of seeing me talk about the bible more. I will do my best. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them yourself too. If you're too chicken to participate, then at least have your popcorn ready I guess. Cheers.

LHutton
March 14th, 2014, 12:41 PM
"The highest percentage of Christians was found in the North East of England, where 1.8 million worshippers represented 68% of residents."

England's Alabama, ladies and gentlemen.
Fucking Southerners.

21Kid
March 14th, 2014, 12:47 PM
Obviously you started this thread with the hope of seeing me talk about the bible more. I will do my best. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them yourself too. If you're too chicken to participate, then at least have your popcorn ready I guess. Cheers.
...
At first I was going to say that you've completely missed the point on the entire thread.
...
Then I thought that you were probably just trolling.
...
But now that I think about it, I may be giving you too much credit, and my first thought was probably right all along.

Always believe your first instinct. :popcorn:

Kchrpm
March 14th, 2014, 12:56 PM
There you go again, tsg, saying things that are very smart in a wonderful way. I feel like Morgan Freeman needs to say that on a YouTube video so it will shared everywhere.

FaultyMario
March 14th, 2014, 02:19 PM
Why do you think my broad characterization would apply to EVERYONE.

By definition.


Did I also make that claim that one absolutely must be fucking dirt poor in order to have faith

In fact, you claimed the opposite, and I quote "...this forgetting about God trend as we achieve better standard of living is even recorded in the bible. People are naturally like that. When we are doing well, we don't need God anymore." (Emphasis mine).

You have a twisty way of putting forward your arguments. It becomes difficult to follow your logic.



Greek mythology is gone. Lots of European mythologies are gone.

Not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia).by (https://www.google.com/#q=siegrune).a (https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww&ei=uHQjU4GMOoOdyQH37oHQAw&ved=0CBoQ1S4#q=superhero+squad).long (http://vanishingsouthgeorgia.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/elmodel-ga-baker-county-abandoned-mansion-falling-corinthian-columns-greek-revival-architecture-landmark-mcrainey-pictures-photo-copyright-brian-brown-vanishing-south-georgia-usa1.jpg).shot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras_in_comparison_with_other_belief_systems#Mi thraism_and_Christianity).

If you accept that a mythology is more than just the pantheon of its gods, but it also encompasses other imageries and interactions.

FaultyMario
March 14th, 2014, 02:59 PM
But how relevant is it?

I think that's an individual choice, either as an acceptance of otherness or as a reflection of oneself in the global world, which I think are both different sides to the same coin.


We're social animals. We are fucked up at times. You cannot acknowledge that?

I believe hominidae are something more than just animals.
I believe in equal rights from birth throughout our lives.
You seem to imply that there's an underlying biological or social presumption of difference. I find that notion appalling. I used to find it offensive, but I became a dad, ever since then, I want for my son to have no privilege or disadvantage compared to any child born before or after him.
I believe in autonomy of the will, save for incapacitating disease, thus any person can err, and has every entitletement to error. I believe in personal responsibility, too.
I believe that actions are to be accounted for.
I believe in the power of the community to grant authority to judge upon material disputes.
I believe in the power of the mind to take care of everything else that is neither a creation, an action nor public.


Is this thread about me?

No. You are not that important.


Why don't you express your own view

Just did.


However, do you disagree with that the Original is superior than the copies? Or do you insist that Jesus your supposed Lord and Savior still have his own issues and just as imperfect as us?

I don't consider myself a copy of anything else.
I've been taught that by accepting his body and blood I become one with my God, and that I should respect my worldly presence for He dwells within. I believe in that stuff dude, like, I really do.
I don't consider myself perfect.

FaultyMario
March 14th, 2014, 03:21 PM
As for Osama, that dude was a psychopath. He was like any other mass murderer, diseased. But his life and career gave him access to a lot of resources. I think he was handled for political/economical gains by his associates and later as some sort of trophy by his enemies.

tigeraid
March 14th, 2014, 04:02 PM
When we are doing well, we don't need God anymore." (Emphasis mine).



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfwKMcFNKC8

Dicknose
March 14th, 2014, 04:23 PM
We do have a lot of people who say "I'm Christian" as they were brought up that way and used to giving it as an answer to a question on religion.
That's why these types of surveys don't ask "what religion".

Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country

As for close minded, sure we have some conservative people.
Prostitution is legal, as is abortion.
We don't have gay marriage but gay rights and tolerance is good (but far from great)
Women have had the vote for over 100 years

We have some issues that are bad, but generally compare well to most western societies. Behind Scandinavia, but I'd say well ahead of the US.

sandydandy
March 14th, 2014, 04:27 PM
Billi needs to watch Zeitgeist.

Rare White Ape
March 14th, 2014, 07:57 PM
Yeah we Aussies are kinda Christian by default. It must just be the automatic response when presented with that question.

Interestingly, when presented with the possibility of a horde of a million Muslims invading our shores and seeking to slaughter us and change our values, all of us would side with the "Christians" in the fight. More accurately, we'd be the "not-Muslims" but we would just automatically slip into that Christian category. It's so familiar to us. Whatever version we hold dear is anyway.

I have no idea whether Christianity influenced our Antipodean society more than Commonwealth rule did (it's probably more likely that we could be traced right back to whatever influenced the Romans) but it's fascinating to think about.

LHutton
March 15th, 2014, 09:31 AM
"Think God out of Existence"
The only way you can do that is to be clever enough to be God yourself. It's a total Catch-22.

Crazed_Insanity
March 16th, 2014, 12:58 AM
Anyway, let's go over one thing at a time. If you think my posts are confusing and make no sense, then perhaps we shouldn't try to cover too many points at once. There's one thing I'd like to understand better with your faith...


I don't consider myself a copy of anything else.
I've been taught that by accepting his body and blood I become one with my God, and that I should respect my worldly presence for He dwells within. I believe in that stuff dude, like, I really do.
I don't consider myself perfect.

We're supposedly made in God's image... being copies of God only means that we're not quite the original. We're not God and we'll never be. That's what I meant by 'copy'. Of course you and I are not identical copies... each copy uses different paper and depending on toner level, we may show different shades... We're 'like' God, but you and I are also 'unique' at the same time. so I hope I've cleared this up a bit... and I agree with what you said above, however, one thing that bugged me is that you've said in another thread that you believe Jesus has 'issues'. Just wondering what kind of issues are you talking about?

FaultyMario
March 18th, 2014, 08:04 AM
"Made in god's image" like everything else in any religious text is highly allegorical and open for interpretation. There's the official (insert your preferred organized) religion view, the scholar view, and of course, your view. I believe religion is a matter between the person and his/her creator force/thing/person, thus while all these other interpretations of scripture are to be taken into account, it is ultimately the person's decision how it's taken in.

I believe my creator is unidentifiable, incommensurable and unspeakable. It is everywhere all at once, and while I can experience some of it, Its stimuli goes beyond my senses, overcoming my humanity. I have chosen, based on tradition and acculturation, to have a mental image of him as humanesque. But culture has only gone so far, ultimately the image I have of him is my own construction, not the other way around.

Anyway I looked, my creator would look like. Bearded, blue eyed old man with the body of a greek olympian? Sure, artist's impression.

If we ignore, for the sake of this discussion, the Mary narrative, we'll find that Jeesus was born like any other human, he lived and died a human life. What kind of issues do you think he had?

Brother J came to show us that in spite of our human limits, we can live in love.
Love's possible, in fact, Love's the only way, man.
George Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Your_Mind..._and_Your_Ass_Will_Follow) put it better, perhaps.

Crazed_Insanity
March 18th, 2014, 09:01 AM
I agree with most of what you said, especially the part about love! Now, yes, we all can have different interpretations of the scripture. All Christians are basing their faith on the same text. If that text is bogus, it doesn't matter whatever stimuli you can sense from the supernatural, it's all bogus hallucinations. If that text is true, then all of our various interpretations cannot all be correct, only partially. Now, our salvation isn't logic based. It's not like if only the Baptists got it all correct, then ONLY Baptists are saved and all other Christian denominations can perish in hell. We're not saved by correct interpretation of the bible, but saved by faith in God. We can definitely screw up on our interpretations, and other things as well, because God knows WE all have various 'issues'. We're not perfect; therefore, most likely incapable of truly comprehend what perfection is... or never be able to fully comprehend what God is like. Unlike other creatures on earth, we are like God, we can strive to be more like God, but we'll never be the Original...

So anyway, yes, Jesus was born into this world as a human baby. He was fully human in the flesh, only spiritually God. He can definitely experience the same troubles we experience. Such as hunger, fear, and even death. However, I'm not sure if Jesus had any issues or problems or could really succumb into temptations like Wil Dafoe's protrayal of Jesus.

For one, Jesus' interpretation of the Bible ought to be absolutely correct otherwise what would qualify him as the one and only Son of God if he even doesn't fully understand what his Daddy said?

So, yeah, I don't think Jesus had any issues or problems or capable of doing anything 'unloving'. He was the perfect human living on earth 2000 yrs ago. I was just wondering what you meant by you believe in a Jesus who had 'issues'. What did you mean by that? Do you believe Jesus was imperfect as us? If so, why?

FaultyMario
March 18th, 2014, 10:32 AM
If you could see beyond the narratives of authority, this debate would be much easier.

There is no perfection. No one can judge something to be "x" without also framing reality to scales of value that fall within predetermined parameters. Who is to judge a building? The construction authority, of course! They do so, based on a codified agreement between representatives of public interests and rulemakers. Who could judge whether a person's life is "perfect"? what scales could be agreed upon to do so? whose interests would then be represented? The idea of perfection is thus a representation, but trying to characterize a person's relationship to his or her god in any degree of perfection would be impossible, it is a unique bond, much like the person herself is unique.

Agreed?

Oh, and while on the subject of Proposition 7, that too should be the basis for a secular society.

Crazed_Insanity
March 18th, 2014, 10:58 AM
You meant CA prop 8? Anyway, let's hold off on that for a minute, I think it's more important for us to figure out who Jesus is or what ought to be first.

I can agree with you that there's no perfection in this world at the moment. Nothing is perfect. Nothing lasts forever.

God on the other hand is not of this world though. I believe based on scripture reading that God is perfect and He lasts forever. So God ultimately should be able to judge whether or not this Jesus character is perfect or not, right?

I understand it's impossible for us to 'judge' Jesus. However, do you believe the God who you believe in could judge this Jesus character? Do you believe God the Father sees Jesus his Son as having certain issues?

FaultyMario
March 18th, 2014, 12:29 PM
I can experience a creator. My creator. He lives because I do. Once I die, my creator dies with me. Whatever I can say about him, is limited by my voice, which is in turn limited by the language of my mother's mother. Whatever I can express outside of my head is a mediated presentation (by culture -language and linguistic artifacts- and by nature -the materials and tools I have access to-). To even imply that I could know what's going on in the head of a force so infinite that I can only experience and not properly talk about is beyond presumptuous.

I don't care if Jesus was perfect, miraculous, virtuous, or even awesome. I believe him to be the incarnation of my creator, sent to be a worldly example of love. The rest of his story, I have appropriated thru my own means. My Jesus is different from the Jesus anyone else sees, specially the one the creator can experience. And since I don't have any sort of interaction with god, that is, he hasn't gotten physical with me in any way that can be recorded or registered, there's no way I can reach any sort of accord with him as to what would constitute "perfection". That'd be like being told about Nirvana without the actual experience, right?

Do you have any doubts about any of his worldly activities not told in the gospel? Tough luck, buddy, "You're gonna have to trust me on this one" is going to be the usual answer. Whatever answer you're given, it will be non canonical, so yo better check yo'self before you wreck yo'self, because while I trust God almighty, I don't have such a high opinion of human endeavor.

In essence, Should God be ultimately able to... who the fuck knows! and whoever says he does, is a fucking liar. Those are white lies you say? well, shove em up your asscrack, If you think I'm not mature enough to handle reality without you putting some sort of mask around it, we shouldn't even be having a conversation in the first place. Remember: "Do unto others / Love thy brother as Jesus loved you" is the universal declaration of Christianity. It's how we ALL should aim to treat each other.

Would you lie to Jesus? So why lie to your child about a certain subject, then? To shield him from harm? That's a nefarious view. You can protect without lying/deceiving/abusing.

Would you lie to Jesus? So why lie to your parish about god's plan, then? Why pretend you know things about god that nobody else does? For personal gain. It's the only explanation.

So, Proposition 7, homie, What is committed to you, pay heed to; what is hidden is not your concern.

Crazed_Insanity
March 19th, 2014, 07:30 AM
How do you know your creator dies with you? Are you sure you're telling yourself the real truth or perhaps you're also lying to yourself?

I didn't have the luxury of being born and raised in a Christian culture with Christian families. So I was only exposed to these 'lies' by believers in America and thru the reading of the Bible. Is Jesus perfect? Bible told me he is. I don't understand why you wish to ignore what the bible tells you and insist on believing your own version of Jesus... You can tell me what you 'believe' and you wouldn't necessarily be telling me truth or lies. It'd just be what you believe.

Matter of faith is just not that straight forward. When Steve Jobs envisioned personal computers in every family, his 'dream' at the time was obviously a 'lie' because there were no computers in every family. Computers were also so huge that it'd be impossible to fit into every family. However Jobs the 'liar' had faith and turned his apparent 'lies' into reality over time.

Further, what about Martin Luther King's dream? Claiming not just to his church but to the entire nation that God has taken him to the mountain top as He did with Moses and he SAW the promise land! Was he lying to the Americans? Do you think people at the time could believe that within their life time, a black US president would emerge?

Now, of course I'd concede that lots of dreams are simply day dreams... visions are simply drug induced hallucinations... or perhaps just BS propaganda for their personal gains. For sure God didn't make everyone a Moses or whatever prophet to deliver His Words to people. Most of us are just regular common believers. So how can we tell the differences in a real dream or BS day dreams? Well, if such vision is just so contrary to the bible or to loving God and loving one another, then we can probably safely ignore that. Otherwise, I wouldn't call such dreamers as liars. I'm sure in time, such dreams can become reality.

If Bible is a book of lies, I'm pretty sure in time, people will find out. Only truth can withstand the test of time. Some lies can also last a long time sure, but, in due time, I'm sure it'll be exposed.

I totally agree with you regarding the love part, but I'm still a bit confused with your theological belief... and sounds like you're already made up your mind. Your Jesus is your Jesus. Has nothing to do with my Jesus or anybody else's Jesus. Which is understandable... because I'm sure every Christian has a slight different interpretation/view of Jesus. However, I just believe that these various 'jesuses' aren't really the real Jesus. I'm sure even I don't get 'my Jesus' completely right... so I suppose my 'wrong' Jesus would die with me, but there ought to be a 'real' Jesus who died on the cross 2000 yrs ago and came back to life, right? If the crucifixion story was fiction, then we all got it wrong. Being so called Christians are simply lying to ourselves. We certainly don't have to be Christians to love one another. Don't really need a fictitious Jesus or a perfect or imperfect Jesus to love, right?

Lastly, again, what's prop 7?

Kchrpm
March 19th, 2014, 07:56 AM
I don't understand why you wish to ignore what the bible tells you and insist on believing your own version of Jesus... You can tell me what you 'believe' and you wouldn't necessarily be telling me truth or lies. It'd just be what you believe.
The Bible was written by man, and has been translated and interpreted by man several different times. As a result, everyone tends to have their own version of Jesus, ignores or interprets differently things that the Bible says, etc.

Everyone's religion is just what they believe.

Crazed_Insanity
March 19th, 2014, 08:02 AM
Humans can certainly make mistakes and end up with some transnational errors, but one has to believe that the book is still mostly accurate. If it's so horribly written, and if there really is a God, then I'm sure God would destroy that book and start another revision or something... ;) If there's no God and I honestly believe such a horrible BSing book, then that should've led believers down a wrong path rather than becoming one of the most popular books ever.

Anyway, my point was that if you just cannot believe in that book, that's fine. If that's what I honestly believe in, that bible is BS, then I wouldn't be a Christian. I wouldn't care whether if my mama is a Christian... or my nation is made up of mostly Christians. It's not like I HAVE to be a Christian or else the government would have my head... or I HAVE to be a Christian otherwise I can't love...

It's okay to NOT be a Christian, but I just find it odd that some people can be self pro-claimed Christian but refuse to believe what the bible says. Now, I don't expect believers to take every single word in the bible literally. Even I don't do that. But with regard to the central figure Jesus Christ, why is it so hard for a Christian to believe that Jesus was a sinless perfect man while he roam around earth 2000 yrs ago? Is it necessary to believe that he partied hard, slept around, got into lots of troubles at school while he was young then he started his early ministry later on? ;) Or why must my supposed 'creator' die with me? Why must we refer to our imaginary friend as God or Jesus? I just don't see a need in that.

We could just replace God with love. Yeah, my love dies with me. The way I feel my love can be different from your version of love... and we can still love one another in the best ways that we know how to... We don't really need a book to tell us how to love. Just be a lover! :) But of course even if we replace all religion with 'love', since our version of love may still differ, potential for conflict could still exist. ;)

FaultyMario
March 19th, 2014, 08:37 AM
Have questions? Google has answers.

http://books.google.com.mx/books?id=cHq8YGPjFQIC&lpg=PP1&dq=the%20gospel%20of%20john%20a%20commentary&pg=PA125#v=onepage&q&f=false

Satisfy your curiosity, C_I.

FaultyMario
March 19th, 2014, 08:40 AM
Do you understand Christianity's origin as a reformation of Judaism? The idea of the new covenant?

Crazed_Insanity
March 19th, 2014, 09:08 AM
Yeah.

And my questions are mainly for you, not for google.

Kchrpm
March 19th, 2014, 11:13 AM
Just because a book is fiction doesn't mean the messages it carries aren't still valid.

Similarly, you can believe that Jesus Christ was a real man that walked the earth and taught great life lessons without also believing that he was the son of God and had magical powers.

Crazed_Insanity
March 19th, 2014, 11:37 AM
True. But I guess my main question is: would you consider such a person as a 'Christian'?

It's fine if you were to say I'm not sure if Jesus were really perfect or really the Son of God or really performed any miracles or really came back from the dead and then flew up into heaven..., but I do like his messages so I'll follow his messages, but I don't really believe his claims... or any of bible's claims about him...

A follower of Christ's message is certain very admirable. However, I think christians ought to be followers of Christ, not just his messages. If bible is unbelievable, then it's unbelievable to you. Bible is also very clear that one needs to 'believe'. So I don't think following the message alone makes one a christian. Definitely not a 'believer', right?

I guess Mario is just a follower of Christ's msg? Doesn't really want to deal with any of the unknowable theological stuffs?

FaultyMario
March 19th, 2014, 12:33 PM
I give up. You are unpossible, buddy; unpossible.

Godson
March 19th, 2014, 01:08 PM
Just because a book is fiction doesn't mean the messages it carries aren't still valid.

Similarly, you can believe that Jesus Christ was a real man that walked the earth and taught great life lessons without also believing that he was the son of God and had magical powers.

Ding ding ding ding.


Which is pretty much how I feel. A complete lack of empirical data to support what happened in any of the biblical stories forces me to question the very basis of which Christianity is actually founded on. Simply put, the more I read the bible, the more I question it's true motive. Was it designed as a way to control people, or was it just another person's idea of "the way you should live."


For example (we will follow a very simple and very generalized mindset with this example):

In my coaching, we all want to help kids grow up into strong intellectuals and be good people. Every team in the area wants this. Lets say that an assistant coach doesn't like the way the head coach or board is running the team. Asst. coach leaves and creates a new team with a different philosophy with the same basic goal, to help kids grow up into strong intellectuals and be good people.

The method of which this process is done is ultimately up to the coach. There isn't necessarily a definitive "right or wrong" way to do it. As long as the end goal is achieved, we are all successful.

I kinda feel it is more on a continuum than a hard and fast rule.

Some people need this sport to achieve that while others do not and are able to play by the rules. In this case, religion is that sport. Some of us choose football, rugby, soccer, swimming, auto-racing, etc. Others do not need any sport for guidance and are able to play by the equal moral rules.


What I am ultimately trying to say, is that if the books of the bible are true or not true doesn't matter at all, just that you follow what the (again) generalized message is. To treat others as you would have them treat you. This goes for all religions. End of storey.

Crazed_Insanity
March 19th, 2014, 01:44 PM
Well, I guess my point is that somebody invented this 'sport'. Religion is definitely a kinda 'sport' for the here and now... making you a better human being, but don't forget that it's also a 'sport' prepping you for a future life else where that's not of this world supposedly... If there really is a God who Banged this universe into existence, then it's God who invented this 'sport' and setup all the rules. Yeah, some older and wise folks may become various coaches... hence we end up with various different religions or denominations... yeah, as long as we all love one another, then we have no problem with these variety. Even God Himself doesn't force people to believe in Him, restricting Christianity to be only a single denomination... or restricting world religions to only be one by throwing down fireballs at people of the wrong faith... God doesn't really do that. God supposedly did flood the world, and threw down fireball at Sodom and Gomorrah, but that's not because people there didn't believe, but because people were pretty evil. Regarding faith or participation in this sport of loving one another, if you really think there's a better way, God most certainly wouldn't mind if you wish to try to go that way if you want. Of course He'd rather we go the Jesus' Way, but hey, if you think your way is better than God's way, by all means go for it.

As for a 'Christian' like me, my main concern is to figure out which denomination's got the right Jesus? I know my imaginary version or my interpretation of Jesus could very well be wrong too, I do agree, God or Jesus is ultimately unknowable... just as infinity or perfection can never be reached. Even bible interpretation can vary greatly... who's right who's wrong? Only God knows. All I can do is try to interpret the bible and follow Jesus the best I can and hope for the best.

Mario, I do believe most of what you believe about Jesus, except my version of Jesus is immortal, sinless and perfect. I sincerely don't understand why your Jesus must die with you... and must have issues.

FaultyMario
March 19th, 2014, 03:06 PM
There's four official versions of Jesus' life within the bible itself. In one of them, the author doesn't mention Jesus' mother by name.

Can you grasp the concept of narrative of authority that I mentioned earlier?

Crazed_Insanity
March 19th, 2014, 07:09 PM
So you are doubting if Mary was truly her name because of such ommision?was it that important that Mary be mentioned by name? Or perhaps Mary was so famous that author didn't think it's necessary to mention? Anyway, 4 accounts doesn't mean we have 4 conflicting accounts. Jesus is the same Jesus, had you been one of the disciples, the gospel of Mario would be a slightly different account describing the same Jesus! Will your account be the most authoritative and overriding other gospel stories? No. However, as part of the bible, I'd certainly take your words to be god's word. I know your not perfect and you might not remember every detail perfectly, but I'd trust you overall msg.

It's not like there's a gospel story failing to mention miracles or this Jesus is the sinless lamb of God. I don't believe any of the accounts claimed Jesus would die with them or that Jesus had certain issues.

Kchrpm
March 19th, 2014, 08:41 PM
True. But I guess my main question is: would you consider such a person as a 'Christian'?
Yes, if they do.

tigeraid
March 20th, 2014, 05:55 AM
What I am ultimately trying to say, is that if the books of the bible are true or not true doesn't matter at all, just that you follow what the (again) generalized message is. To treat others as you would have them treat you. This goes for all religions. End of storey.

You COULD do that, by cherry-picking the handful of positive messages in the Bible, most of which came from the character of Jesus. Thomas Jefferson did just that, and wrote several essays and books on the topic.

Of course, you'd have to dance around the misogyny, racism, slavery, domestic abuse, homicide, infanticide, genocide, bigotry and hatred toward non-believers in the very same book. And, of course, figure out some way to avoid the complete logical fallacies like fucking Noah's Ark, a talking snake, and parting the Red Sea, not to mention how Adam and Eve have belly buttons.

Or... You could just raise your children with common decency, respect and rational thought without relying on an ancient tome written by savages.

21Kid
March 20th, 2014, 06:33 AM
Of course, you'd have to dance around the misogyny, racism, slavery, domestic abuse, homicide, infanticide, genocide, bigotry and hatred toward non-believers in the very same book. And, of course, figure out some way to avoid the complete logical fallacies like fucking Noah's Ark, a talking snake, and parting the Red Sea, not to mention how Adam and Eve have belly buttons.Exactly. It's like saying that House of 1000 corpses is a movie about love by ignoring all of the bad scenes.

Kchrpm
March 20th, 2014, 06:38 AM
Yet plenty of people do it, have been doing it for centuries, and are very well adjusted, happy, generous, loving, etc. You can chalk that up to the way they were raised rather than their specific religion, but the trappings that come with being raised in a religion may be a major reason for the way they are raised.

I haven't read the Bible completely, and I've seen none of House of 1000 Corpses, but I'm going to guess that the ratio of good messages/crazy shit is quite different.

21Kid
March 20th, 2014, 06:41 AM
I'm not so sure...


edit: have a look (http://www.evilbible.com/Evil%20Bible%20Quotes.htm)

Kchrpm
March 20th, 2014, 06:45 AM
Ok, but how long is the Bible?

Regardless, in my opinion there are more than enough good messages in the Bible to justify people deciding "I like these messages, I want to share them with other people and go back to them when I'm feeling lost," which is basically what religion does for a person.

21Kid
March 20th, 2014, 06:56 AM
So, it's okay to justify the same book advocating all the stuff that Tigeraid mentioned because it has some good messages?

I'm sure Westboro Baptist has a few good messages too.


I seriously doubt that religion has any significance in a human's ability to be "good people"
There are numerous examples in the animal world of being tolerant, loving, etc... If anything, I think that religion has brought more harm into the world than good. See all of the religious wars, and intolerance that is still alive today mainly due to religion.

Kchrpm
March 20th, 2014, 07:02 AM
You can be tolerant, loving, etc without religion, and you can do a lot of harm with religion. Religion is what you make of it, and lots of people use it a way of bringing together a community to support each other and teach people to think not just of themselves, but of others they know and others they don't. It also tries to give people hope who are in a bad situation, to give them messages they can try to lean on and the idea that if they just press on and be good to other people, even the ones that aren't good to them, that some entity will notice and reward them for it.

Religious wars are not about the religions involved, they are about people who seek power using whatever means they can to gain it and wield it.

Rob
March 20th, 2014, 07:41 AM
You COULD do that, by cherry-picking the handful of positive messages in the Bible, most of which came from the character of Jesus. Thomas Jefferson did just that, and wrote several essays and books on the topic.

Of course, you'd have to dance around the misogyny, racism, slavery, domestic abuse, homicide, infanticide, genocide, bigotry and hatred toward non-believers in the very same book. And, of course, figure out some way to avoid the complete logical fallacies like fucking Noah's Ark, a talking snake, and parting the Red Sea, not to mention how Adam and Eve have belly buttons.

Or... You could just raise your children with common decency, respect and rational thought without relying on an ancient tome written by savages.

With posts like this, I forgive you posting Karl Logan.

Rob
March 20th, 2014, 07:43 AM
"I like these messages, I want to share them with other people and go back to them when I'm feeling lost

Then pass on those messages without all the other horseshit.

21Kid
March 20th, 2014, 08:00 AM
True. I'm just saying it not all love and rainbows (oh wait, that's gay) as some people paint it as.

Not all religious wars are strictly about power though, imo.


In 1095 Pope Urban II proclaimed the first crusade, with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to the holy places in and near Jerusalem.
The Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) was a series of wars principally fought in Central Europe, involving most of the countries of Europe. It was one of the most destructive conflicts in European history, and one of the longest continuous wars in modern history.
Initially, religion was a motivation for war as Protestant and Catholic states battled it out even though they all were inside the Holy Roman Empire.
The French Wars of Religion (1562–98) is the name of a period of civil infighting and military operations, primarily fought between French Catholics and Protestants (Huguenots).

sandydandy
March 20th, 2014, 08:16 AM
Is it true that hardcore Christians believe that dinosaurs didn't really exist? That their bones were just placed on Earth by God to test their faith?

Kchrpm
March 20th, 2014, 08:39 AM
True. I'm just saying it not all love and rainbows (oh wait, that's gay) as some people paint it as.
I agree. Nothing involving humans is.

And I would argue that all wars are power struggles that have little to do with religion/government/whatever and more to do with people that have gained power through those entities and want to use it to take power from someone else. Warring over holy lands? Why not just allow access to everyone. Some other large group doesn't believe what you do? OK, then let them continue to believe that.

Your religion tells you that you should be trying to force or shame people into believing? That's one of the parts you should put in the Ignore file.

FaultyMario
March 20th, 2014, 08:42 AM
So you are doubting if Mary was truly her name because of such ommision?

No, that's not the point.


was it that important that Mary be mentioned by name? Or perhaps Mary was so famous that author didn't think it's necessary to mention?

John doesn't mention the virgin birth either. Think about it. There's intention in that. Still not curious?


Jesus is the same Jesus

No he is not, every Jesus is different. I have tried to explain to you The Problem Of Creation. Which tells us why something, once it leaves the ideal phase as conceived in the mind of its author, and is put out to the world, it is recreated back into the reader's mind in a different way. The material world grants autonomy to every creation.

Yet you seem stuck in what an authority figure has forced you to believe. You repeat "Jesus is perfect" like a personal mantra.
It's like you need him to be perfect or else, it won't click into place in your belief system.


However, as part of the bible, I'd certainly take your words to be god's word.

Why? God wasn't on the editorial committee for the bible, You aren't reading his words, you'd be reading a reconstructed text, corrected by a room full of middle-aged men from the church bureaucracy. Inspired by god, you say. well, so has been every president of the U.S. to date, and their actions don't sound too holy to me.

If you live on this earth, you have earthly motivations. Even if you are Jesus, that's the whole point of the reformation his early followers wanted, a new relationship with god, a more natural one.


It's not like there's a gospel story failing to mention miracles or this Jesus is the sinless lamb of God. I don't believe any of the accounts claimed Jesus would die with them or that Jesus had certain issues.

Not all seven miracles are recorded on all four gospels. They are not always called miracles either.
Are you aware that Jesus died on the cross?

Fogelhund
March 20th, 2014, 08:42 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/20/fred-phelps-dead_n_5000577.html?ir=Canada&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

Phelps is dead.

21Kid
March 20th, 2014, 08:46 AM
Is it true that hardcore Christians believe that dinosaurs didn't really exist? That their bones were just placed on Earth by God to test their faith?
I think the creationists are a completely different bread...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI
Bill Nye depated one just a bit ago... He was far to nice to him, imo.

21Kid
March 20th, 2014, 08:49 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/20/fred-phelps-dead_n_5000577.html?ir=Canada&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

Phelps is dead.

Hopefully his church goes with him... It was mostly his family members anyway, wasn't it?

FaultyMario
March 20th, 2014, 09:08 AM
Most family business have a really hard time dealing with succession if there wasn't a planned transfer of responsibilities. Either they open to new investors or they cease to exist.

sandydandy
March 20th, 2014, 09:09 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/20/fred-phelps-dead_n_5000577.html?ir=Canada&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

Phelps is dead. Don't everybody cry at once.

Crazed_Insanity
March 20th, 2014, 09:19 AM
Is it true that hardcore Christians believe that dinosaurs didn't really exist? That their bones were just placed on Earth by God to test their faith?
Some hardcore christians believe people have walked with the dinos on earth based on passages in Job 40

15 “Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength it has in its loins,
what power in the muscles of its belly!
17 Its tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
18 Its bones are tubes of bronze,
its limbs like rods of iron.
19 It ranks first among the works of God,
yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.
20 The hills bring it their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants it lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround it.
23 A raging river does not alarm it;
it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth.
24 Can anyone capture it by the eyes,
or trap it and pierce its nose?


Behemoth doesn't quite fit the description of elephant or hippo because they have tiny tails, not quite like cedars. I can't think of any gigantic land creatures like that other than dinos.

Next chapter also talked about leviathan..., some sort of sea creature too awesome to just be alligators.

So it does sound like people during Job's time are familiar with such creatures. However, since they're so big or dangerous, I guess they must've all die during the flood because no way Noah could accommodate them? ;)

Rob
March 20th, 2014, 09:32 AM
Wait, you're taking something from the Old Testament as factual? I thought that book was all contradicted by the New Testament? If it wasn't, there's a whole lot of "factual" evil shit your "loving" god has inflicted upon the world.

More likely, the author just invented a giant creature because it made for a more dramatic story.

Crazed_Insanity
March 20th, 2014, 09:48 AM
Rob, since we now have a religion thread, we can talk in here and I'll just ignore you else where in this board if you really enjoy talking to me... ;)

To answer your question, yes, I believe bible is factual. I may not take everything literally, but yeah, by faith, I take the bible stories as factual. Without faith, then of course one must take bible as a work of fiction. This is what religious texts are all about isn't it? If you think a certain religious text is fiction, then chances are you're not a believer of that faith.


No, that's not the point.



John doesn't mention the virgin birth either. Think about it. There's intention in that. Still not curious?
I'm quite slow, it'd be beneficial for both of us if you just tell me your point... otherwise I might think you believe Jesus was born of a slut named Margarita?




No he is not, every Jesus is different. I have tried to explain to you The Problem Of Creation. Which tells us why something, once it leaves the ideal phase as conceived in the mind of its author, and is put out to the world is recreated back into the reader's mind in a different way. The material world grants autonomy to every creation.

Yet you seem stuck in what an authority figure has forced you to believe. You repeat "Jesus is perfect" like a personal mantra.
It's like you need him to be perfect or else, it won't click into place in your belief system.
There were 12 disciples, so there were 12 different Jesuses and each Jesuses died with them as the disciples passed on? Now there are like a billion different Jesuses on earth 2000 years later?

I can agree with that to a point... such as we all have slightly different perspectives, interpretations... these are our slightly different understanding of Jesus, but there can only be one Jesus. Just as there are lots of Christians... lots of different denominations, but the Jesus they believe in must be based off of the same Jesus. Otherwise, why bother naming him Jesus? Why not just invent your own loving religion? Without all the horrible things recorded in the Bible?

To me, yeah, if Jesus isn't the sinless perfect lamb of God, then his death on the cross for me would be pointless. If the central point was a pointless one, what would be the point of me being a Christian? I can certain love without Christ. I don't need a Jesus with issues. I got plenty of my own personal issues. ;)




Why? God wasn't on the editorial committee for the bible, You aren't reading his words, you'd be reading a reconstructed text, corrected by a room full of middle-aged men from the church bureaucracy. Inspired by god, you say. well, so has been every president of the U.S. to date, and their actions don't sound too holy to me.

If you live on this earth, you have earthly motivations. Even if you are Jesus, that's the whole point of the reformation his early followers wanted, a new relationship with god, a more natural one.
Thing is as far as I know, I don't recall the Jews ever wanted to reform their religion. They may forget about God, but I'm not sure if they really want to reform it... not until John the Baptist burst into the scene. And what would be the agenda for John the Baptist and Jesus to start this movement in Israel? It's not even a real country and was under Roman rule. They also were not powerful or rich people. Absolutely nothing to gain even if they succeed and with everything earthly to lose including their lives.

Scripture is obviously written by men. Edited/added/deleted by men. This we have no doubt. What's questionable is whether if these actions were truly inspired by God or not. If you're doing God's will, your book would be a success and God will help make your book a success because after all you are representing His Words, right? When things start to go wrong, surely I believe God can intervene and do something about it. Rising up prophets or sending Jesus or rising up whoever willing to do his will. Besides reform Judiasm, it's obvious God had also reformed the Catholic church too... and resulted the Protestants. When a supposedly God's church leading folks into the Dark Ages, com'on, God's gotta rise His faithful up to do something.

With all these different authors spanning thousands of years, bible authors all have a common msg. God loves us and wants to save us, but we're a bunch of stiff-neck stubborn people.

Hey, I'm sure you'd all agree I'm somebody with issues and I can also be very stubborn. I see myself in bible stories but I just don't wish to repeat those horrible history. Besides the bible, I also plainly see how folks in the past who've followed Jesus end up receiving more blessings than non-christian nations. Maybe it's just a coincidence? Maybe some even really believe white Europeans are really superior? Or maybe some believe it's just luck that Europeans were the first to figure out guns and steel and had also luckily had germs in their favor? There are # of theories for how our recent history had transpired, but from my perspective, I clearly see the hand of God in all this. I think unbelievers tend to see the evils of God or religion... when good stuffs happen, then it's all humanity's awesome efforts. Where as for believers, we tend to see the opposite.

Mexico didn't get as much help from Jesus probably because there are just too many imaginary Jesuses there, but not the real one. The real Jesus should last forever, not die with you. If you wish to stick to imaginary Jesus, that's certainly your choice. I certainly have my version of imaginary Jesus, I'm sure I don't know Jesus fully and most likely have it wrong somewhere with my theological belief..., but point is I believe there is a real Jesus up in heaven somewhere.



Not all seven miracles are recording on all four gospels. They are not always called miracles either.
Are you aware that Jesus died on the cross?
Yes.

Are you aware that Jesus came back to live 3 days later?

Anyway, when you ask me these question, can you spell out your point? What exactly are you trying to say. Be specific and to the point please. Because I can often miss your points.

sandydandy
March 20th, 2014, 09:56 AM
I think the creationists are a completely different bread...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI
Bill Nye depated one just a bit ago... He was far to nice to him, imo. That's gonna take some time to watch, but I'm excited. I wanted to watch it live that day, but we live in the third world when it comes to TV in Canada.

FaultyMario
March 20th, 2014, 10:00 AM
So you're saying that you wouldn't love your god if he'd come to this world from the womb of a prostitute?

Way to contradict Jeebus' teachings, man. It all becomes moot if we're stuck there.

LHutton
March 20th, 2014, 10:31 AM
You COULD do that, by cherry-picking the handful of positive messages in the Bible, most of which came from the character of Jesus. Thomas Jefferson did just that, and wrote several essays and books on the topic.

Of course, you'd have to dance around the misogyny, racism, slavery, domestic abuse, homicide, infanticide, genocide, bigotry and hatred toward non-believers in the very same book. And, of course, figure out some way to avoid the complete logical fallacies like fucking Noah's Ark, a talking snake, and parting the Red Sea, not to mention how Adam and Eve have belly buttons.

Or... You could just raise your children with common decency, respect and rational thought without relying on an ancient tome written by savages.
We dance around things that shouldn't be tolerated all the time in regular society for the good of law and order*, so I see absolutely no reason why the same school of thought shouldn't be applied to religion.

*Just to mention a few recent ones in the UK - police cover-ups in the Hillsborough tragedy and Stephen Lawrence inquiries. The whole Jimmy Saville is magically discovered to have abused over 100 children just shortly after he dies..... ditto for an MP but with less victims.

Rob
March 20th, 2014, 10:37 AM
We dance around things that shouldn't be tolerated all the time in regular society for the good of law and order*, so I see absolutely no reason why the same school of thought shouldn't be applied to religion.

Yeah yeah, those other things are as bad as religion so religion shouldn't be criticised. We get it, Z07.

Except this is the religion thread, so introducing these other factors is a simple attempt to derail and deflect. As per fucking usual for you.

Rob
March 20th, 2014, 10:39 AM
"Rob, since we now have a religion thread, we can talk in here and I'll just ignore you else where in this board if you really enjoy talking to me... "

It really is amazing how consistently you perceive things as real that don't actually exist.

LHutton
March 20th, 2014, 10:57 AM
Yeah yeah, those other things are as bad as religion so religion shouldn't be criticised. We get it, Z07.

Except this is the religion thread, so introducing these other factors is a simple attempt to derail and deflect. As per fucking usual for you.
I'm just pointing out that we shouldn't be hypocritical and I don't really see it as fair or logical to pick something apart without any benchmark to measure it against.

If someone were to select any given minority group for criticism and post a whole shed-load of negative information about them whilst ignoring the fact that they are no exception in the overall combined demography of the country, would that be fair?

Rob
March 20th, 2014, 11:00 AM
Oooh so you're playing the minority victim card now?

FaultyMario
March 20th, 2014, 11:01 AM
Like the United States Republican Party?


There's a thread for that.

tigeraid
March 20th, 2014, 11:03 AM
With posts like this, I forgive you posting Karl Logan.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/2547243/karl-logan-o.gif

Rob
March 20th, 2014, 11:04 AM
DAMNIT

tigeraid
March 20th, 2014, 11:30 AM
Wait, did Z07 just equate the average citizen's inability to find corruption in government to a religious person's hen-picking of rules and regulations from a holy text while ignoring all the evil shit? Am I missing something here?

Crazed_Insanity
March 20th, 2014, 11:52 AM
So you're saying that you wouldn't love your god if he'd come to this world from the womb of a prostitute?

Way to contradict Jeebus' teachings, man. It all becomes moot if we're stuck there.

Stuck where? BTW, just so you know, if you look at Jesus human genealogy in Matt, you can see the mentioning of prostitutes. Yes, Jesus had couple whores as great-great-great-grandmas. However, at least those women have repented and remained faithful to God. Faith is more important than anything else. One can be very sinful, but if you repent and have faith in God, then God sees you as righteous. Anyway, so Jesus' human ancestors really are not my major concern. I don't expect all of his human family to be perfect. Mary also doesn't have to be a virgin, but it's vitally important for me to know that Jesus also has a heavenly ancestry.

Love God and love one another. 2 of the most important commandments are distinct and different. Do you know the difference?

If there's no God, I have no problem forgetting about the 1st commandment. If Jesus were really just like any other... I can certainly love him as one another, but don't expect me to love him as a supposedly perfect God and obey His every will. Who knows what kind of secret evil agenda He has?

Do you understand my point?

If Jesus Christ were indeed just another man, I can still love him as I love other people. I just don't think I'd call myself a Christian anymore. I'd probably go back to being a Buddhist, because I'd respect Buddha more than other typical human beings. Just as I wouldn't call myself a Marioian. You wouldn't have to call yourself a Billian. We're all just be human and have our own strengths and weaknesses. Learn from each other's strength and help one another in areas of weakness... Seriously, we should retire the word Christian if we know that Jesus is only an imperfect human or if Jesus doesn't exist.

LHutton
March 20th, 2014, 12:07 PM
Wait, did Z07 just equate the average citizen's inability to find corruption in government to a religious person's hen-picking of rules and regulations from a holy text while ignoring all the evil shit? Am I missing something here?
Ah I see you're playing the Z07 card. If by 'inability', you actually mean 'ability' then yes. Two of the 3 examples I gave have been proven and finally admitted after 20-25 years, the third highly likely. Then you have the expenses scandal, again proven with several MPs even getting sentenced for fraud.


Oooh so you're playing the minority victim card now?
Hate is hate. Continuously harping on about the detriments of one specific thing, whilst ignoring all positives and dismissing any comparison as an attempt to 'derail' and 'deflect' is a pretty sound definition of bigotry and is a common feature in many racist internet threads.

FaultyMario
March 20th, 2014, 12:12 PM
And here I thought that the three virtues spanning from the grace of god were faith, hope and charity.
And not just this convoluted version of faith you seem to possess.

Why do you have to mix and match everything?
Where in the 10 commandments is there a mention to specifically "love thy neighbour"?
There is none. The so called eleventh commandment is supposed to be complementary under certain interpretations.
There's a reason why one is the old testament and the other is the new testament. It's not just names.
It's the same with the four gospels, each carries a different weigh. The theological virtues, the cardinal virtues, the Paulian "fruit of the spirit". They're all different. They're designed as teaching tools, each touching on a different dimension of spirituality.

For fuck's sake, when you open the hood of your car and you see a hanging hose end from the radiator, do you connect it to the fuse box?

Rob
March 20th, 2014, 12:13 PM
I love how Z07 starts using phrases that he sees others use almost immediately before. Billi pulls the same shit. Must be a deficiency of some kind.

FaultyMario
March 20th, 2014, 12:17 PM
Who knows what kind of secret evil agenda He has?

If you've placed your hope in him, You have to believe everything in evil Jesús, you've put your faith in him. If he turns out to be the antichrist you are fucking doomed, it's eternal torment for you. That's the binding force in christianity. If you want to backtrack and repent you can, the forever loving god will forgive you for that. You'd just be putting your faith that this time you haven't made the same mistake again and are now worshiping a different kind of evil.

Rob
March 20th, 2014, 12:18 PM
Hate is hate.

Gotcha. It's clearly bigotry to hate an institution responsible for thousands of years of indoctrinated subjugation, murder, torture etc etc when it makes some halfwit feel a little less scared of everything outside their front door.

Crazed_Insanity
March 20th, 2014, 12:21 PM
And here I thought that the three virtues spanning from the grace of god were faith, hope and charity.
And not just this convoluted version of faith you seem to possess.
I didn't realize we were talking about grace. I thought we're still discussing whether if Jesus is perfect or not. Faith is faith. I have my faith in my convoluted Jesus and you have your faith in your imaginary Jesus. Why can't we all just get along? At least I'm trying to base my faith on the ENTIRE bible. What do you base your faith on, which book or passage of the bible?


Why do you have to mix and match everything?
Where in the 10 commandments is there a mention to specifically "love thy neighbour"?
There is none.
Dude, if you honestly practice loving God and loving thy neighbors, there's NO FUCKING way you can violate the 10 commandments. Open your eyes! Talk about who's being umpossible. :smh:

1st half of the 10 is about loving God. 2nd half is about loving thy neighbors. Jesus simply condense the 10 into 2 simpler versions. Jesus didn't come to reform the former by abolishing the former.


The so called eleventh commandment is supposed to be complementary under certain interpretations.
Never heard of the 11th commandment. Is that a catholic thing?



There's a reason why one is the old testament and the other is the new testament. It's not just names.
It's the same with the four gospels, each carries a different weigh. The theological virtues, the cardinal virtues, the Paulian "fruit of the spirit". They're all different. They're designed as teaching tools, each touching on a different dimension of spirituality.
I can agree to that, but I can't agree each is talking about a different God. They're suppose to be complimentary, not make you doubt whether if Jesus' mom's name is really Mary because one book's author chose not to mention it!


For fuck's sake, when you open the hood of your car and you see a hanging hose end from the radiator, do you connect it to the fuse box?

What is your point? Be clear for fucks sake. if you truly believe I'm that dumb and can't be bothered, then perhaps you should save yourself some time and move on. If you really want to help me connect my hanging hose properly, be specific and show me how I'm doing it wrong and how to do it right.

From my perspective, situation now is that I have a car that runs fine and you insist something is wrong with my car... or my car is way too convoluted. Okay... so would you show me how to find this imaginary Jesus in me if you think the current Jesus I believe in is just wrong? Or let's do a bible study. Teach me stuffs that I don't know. Such as the 11th commandment. You keep on pointing out my errors, yet refuse to be clear how I can go about fixing it. Be more straight forward please... or else just forget it.

LHutton
March 20th, 2014, 12:30 PM
Why do you have to mix and match everything?
Have you ever elected a politician whose policies were completely in line with yours?



Gotcha. It's clearly bigotry to hate an institution responsible for thousands of years of indoctrinated subjugation, murder, torture etc etc when it makes some halfwit feel a little less scared of everything outside their front door.
Just to be clear, are we talking about religion or the British establishment?

FaultyMario
March 20th, 2014, 12:48 PM
Billi, you suck at preaching. You wouldn't pass religious test for kids.

It's The first 3 commandments that are about God, not "the first half". They teach you that when you're a child! Unless you consider 3 to be the half of 10.

"Love each other as I have loved you", "Love your brother like you love me", the eleventh commandment, the principle of reciprocity, whatever you want to call it, It is a cornerstone of the new testament. It's specifically discussed in the doctrine books. "Love yourself for you are the new temple" is also there. You can't just mention it in the context of the Tanakh. or the Quran. or the Sruti.


Jesus didn't come to reform the former by abolishing the former.

Seriously?

I am the Lamb of God
I am the Son of man
I am the Resurrection
I am the Ark of the New Covenant

Do not drink before church, vato. Or alternately, learn about you own religion.

tigeraid
March 20th, 2014, 12:54 PM
Ah I see you're playing the Z07 card. If by 'inability', you actually mean 'ability' then yes. Two of the 3 examples I gave have been proven and finally admitted after 20-25 years, the third highly likely. Then you have the expenses scandal, again proven with several MPs even getting sentenced for fraud.


Just assuming that Rob has used rational thought to determine who you are. Monkey see, monkey do. I don't even know the back story. "Z07" is quicker to type than "LHutton."

I have no idea how you can equate a society's inability to root out corruption in government, to religious people picking a handful of good stuff out of a largely evil book that purports to teach you how to live a good life. Apples, oranges.

Godson
March 20th, 2014, 12:56 PM
Fred phelps is dead. I shouldn't rejoice a persons death or even give that 'church' he created any acknowledgement, but this is a special case.



I will definitely celebrate when his POS daughter dies of AIDS secondary to a syphilis infection.

Rob
March 20th, 2014, 01:38 PM
Rejoicing (or even mourning) a person's death has no impact. It's entirely for your benefit. I will say that the world just got a little bit better though.

Crazed_Insanity
March 20th, 2014, 01:40 PM
Billi, you suck at preaching. You wouldn't pass religious test for kids.

It's The first 3 commandments that are about God, not "the first half". They teach you that when you're a child! Unless you consider 3 to be the half of 10.

"Love each other as I have loved you", "Love your brother like you love me", the eleventh commandment, the principle of reciprocity, whatever you want to call it, It is a cornerstone of the new testament. It's specifically discussed in the doctrine books. "Love yourself for you are the new temple" is also there. You can't just mention it in the context of the Tanakh. or the Quran. or the Sruti.



Seriously?

I am the Lamb of God
I am the Son of man
I am the Resurrection
I am the Ark of the New Covenant

Do not drink before church, vato. Or alternately, learn about you own religion.

I was only trying to discuss the issues with you and wasn't preaching... and God does not require me to pass religious tests for kids. All He wants is me to love him and to love the folks around me.

Mat5:17, Jesus specifically said: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

So I take that as Jesus' reform 2000 yrs ago was literally not to abolish the old but fulfill the old. If you wish to argue with your imaginary Jesus about it, go ahead. I'm sticking to Jesus' words. He didn't come to abolish the Old covenant.

Further, like I said, there's no need for an 11th commandment. 10 can be summarized into 2. Jesus didn't invent any new commandments.

Old requires people to sacrifice animals to atone their sins. Jesus as the lamb of God took care of it. We don't need to bring animals to church nowadays. Jesus willingly be that sacrificial 'animal' for us.

Psalm 80 (in the Old Testament)
16 Your vine is cut down, it is burned with fire;
at your rebuke your people perish.
17 Let your hand rest on the man at your right hand,
the son of man you have raised up for yourself.
18 Then we will not turn away from you;
revive us, and we will call on your name.

So you see he didn't come to abolish his Father's previous laws/covenant, but to fulfill them.

Jesus is the new tree of life. Eat of his fruits, you too can be resurrected and have eternal life! Be inside his ark, you won't get drown when God's final judgment comes.

So exactly what was your question when you asked 'seriously?'

How would you teach little children at your sunday school?

Rob
March 20th, 2014, 02:11 PM
I'd teach them skills that are at least useful. Bo staff skills, nunchuck skills, anything except bible.

FaultyMario
March 20th, 2014, 02:29 PM
Critical reading works fine too.

Rob
March 20th, 2014, 02:38 PM
Mario, are you suggesting that they discover books?! You goddamn READER.

Crazed_Insanity
March 20th, 2014, 04:13 PM
Critical reading works fine too.

Yeah, Sunday school teachers must not act too authoritatively... Just flip the pages of the bible and encourage kids to constantly challenge what the bible says, and only trust in your inner imaginary Jesus!

Anyway, so after reading my bible quotes, you still cannot believe bible Jesus didn't come to abolish the old covenant? So what is you inner Jesus telling you? How is Mario flexing his critical reading muscles? What are you seeing that I failed to see?

sandydandy
March 20th, 2014, 05:54 PM
I think the creationists are a completely different bread...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI
Bill Nye depated one just a bit ago... He was far to nice to him, imo. Well I just finished watching this, and was not disappointed. A lot of information was presented...a lot to absorb.

One thing goes without saying: Bill Nye owned him - clearly.

I was satisfied with the majority of his case, as he presented factual information based on compelling evidence and sound reasoning...while at the same time always maintaining a sense of wonder, curiosity, and open-mindedness to new information.

I appreciated Bill's honesty in admitting he didn't know what came before the Big Bang, and that he didn't know where consciousness really comes from...but that he's motivated and driven to find out. The joy of discovery is what makes him tick...it's the engine that drives him, and I respect that.

Ken Ham on the other hand...I don't think he's a bad person. Misguided? Umm, yeah...grossly. Arrogant? Sure. I was more than a little irritated at some of his cheap cop-out answers of "it's in the book" or "God said this, that and the other thing" instead of answering the question. Bullshit non-answers on his part made me blurt out "what the fuck" on many occasions. Bill looked like he wanted to punch him in the face a few times.

I think there's merit to both sides of the debate of creationism vs evolution...but seriously, the universe is only 6000 years old? Really? You can say that with a straight face? I'm glad, and relieved, that such nonsense is staying the hell out of school textbooks....for now.

Bill said something that intrigued me...about having a bottom up view of life, rather than a top down view. I disagree a little, because I think you can have both a top down universal structure, with bottom up human consciousness always looking to expand its awareness and discover what's out there.

I think you can be perfectly religious and spiritual, yet still love the wonder and joy of discoveries made by modern science. I have a problem with people's egos and the rigidness in their approaches and beliefs, on both sides.

It's okay to believe in a higher power...call it God, Allah, Buddha, Universal Intelligence, whatever. I prefer not to give it a brand-name, and just stick with Nature, (the Universe works too).

Crazed_Insanity
March 21st, 2014, 04:27 AM
I think there's merit to both sides of the debate of creationism vs evolution...but seriously, the universe is only 6000 years old? Really? You can say that with a straight face? I'm glad, and relieved, that such nonsense is staying the hell out of school textbooks....for now.


I agree creation shouldn't be part of science class. However, it is possible to use science to back up the roughly 6000 year old universe. Not sure if you've read any of the discussion I've had with DN a while back in another forum... A Jewish physicist figured out that since our universe is expanding and so based on Einstein's theory of relativity..., depending on where you are, age of the universe may vary! Yes, if you're inside this expanding universe, it may seem like billions of year had gone by..., but if you're outside of it... in some sort of static non-expanding state... then all those billions of years may only seem like thousands of years. So the universe is BOTH billions of years and thousands of year old. Bible 'time frame' was originally outside of the universe prior to its creation... and God only switch that time frame to earth when Adam and Eve were created.

Anyway, based on scientific evidences, it's obvious we have an old earth/universe. I used to believe either the 'days' in the creation story's not really 24hr days(since a day can be like a thousand years and a thousand years can be like a day for God and earth really wasn't created on day 1 so how could time be measured in earth days?) or perhaps God simply created us and made us look older than we really are... just as Adam wasn't created a baby, but as a fully grown adult... But anyway, I now think that Jewish physicist claim is probably closest to the real truth regarding the creation story. Still not 100% sure of course. However, point of the creation story is that God created us. I find it hard to believe that we BANGed into existence for no reason and all the physical laws and things just developed and progressed 'naturally' without any outside intervention or predetermination. Mother nature/universe is pretty awesome for sure, but I believe there must be more than that. Something that predates the universe/mother nature/Big Bang. Of course nobody knows exactly what this thing is. It is ultimately unknowable unless He reveals Himself to us. I just believe Bible is one of His revelations.

tigeraid
March 21st, 2014, 07:57 AM
http://galeri3.uludagsozluk.com/138/facepalm_227785.jpg

sandydandy
March 21st, 2014, 08:40 AM
However, point of the creation story is that God created us. I find it hard to believe that we BANGed into existence for no reason and all the physical laws and things just developed and progressed 'naturally' without any outside intervention or predetermination. Mother nature/universe is pretty awesome for sure, but I believe there must be more than that. Something that predates the universe/mother nature/Big Bang. Of course nobody knows exactly what this thing is. It is ultimately unknowable unless He reveals Himself to us. I just believe Bible is one of His revelations. I prefer to think of what you're talking about as pure man-made fairy tale. Organized religion mostly serves as a control mechanism to prevent people from seeking knowledge and truth on their own. Fear of reprisal (ie. going to hell) is a powerful tool to keep people in line, mostly as economic slaves, and it's sad.

As far as the origin of the the universe is concerned, I prefer the universe/multiverse sponge theory. Our universe being created as a bubble creates in a sponge. No special, mystical, spiritual meaning behind it. It just happened. I know this goes into the realm of quantum physics...which is still considered quackery, but I'll take that over some white-bearded God declaring "let there be light!"

I also prefer to think we're products of aliens. :P

LHutton
March 21st, 2014, 09:08 AM
Just assuming that Rob has used rational thought to determine who you are. Monkey see, monkey do. I don't even know the back story. "Z07" is quicker to type than "LHutton."

I have no idea how you can equate a society's inability to root out corruption in government, to religious people picking a handful of good stuff out of a largely evil book that purports to teach you how to live a good life. Apples, oranges.
The equation is easy. It's obvious the corruption runs deep and we see only the tip of the iceberg and only after a 20, 30 or 40 year cooling off period as determined suitable. We know this and yet we largely choose to play along for the benefit of society.

21Kid
March 21st, 2014, 11:18 AM
I agree creation shouldn't be part of science class. However, it is possible to use science to back up the roughly 6000 year old universe. No, no it's not. There are human remains that are over 6000 years old. And other things that are millions of years older than that, on our planet. That we have physical proof of. You have ZERO proof of your theory.


Not sure if you've read any of the discussion I've had with DN a while back in another forum... A Jewish physicist figured out that since our universe is expanding and so based on Einstein's theory of relativity..., depending on where you are, age of the universe may vary! Yes, if you're inside this expanding universe, it may seem like billions of year had gone by..., but if you're outside of it... in some sort of static non-expanding state... then all those billions of years may only seem like thousands of years. So the universe is BOTH billions of years and thousands of year old. Bible 'time frame' was originally outside of the universe prior to its creation... and God only switch that time frame to earth when Adam and Eve were created.They can vary by a few % sure. But, not from 6 billion to 6 thousand years. That's a 1 Million percent difference. Literally. And we aren't 'somewhere else' in the universe. From where we are. right now. It's billions of years old.

#bibletime. :lol: I'm going to have to remember that. :lol: That is so fitting of something that's so made up.


However, point of the creation story is that God created us. I find it hard to believe that we BANGed into existence for no reason and all the physical laws and things just developed and progressed 'naturally' without any outside intervention or predetermination. Mother nature/universe is pretty awesome for sure, but I believe there must be more than that. Something that predates the universe/mother nature/Big Bang. Of course nobody knows exactly what this thing is. It is ultimately unknowable unless He reveals Himself to us. I just believe Bible is one of His revelations.
You find the Banging into existence, which we again have physical proof of, hard to believe... Yet, you'll believe a book written by a bunch of farmers a few thousand years ago, that got a lot of stuff wrong mind you, as acceptable evidence of your god?

Crazed_Insanity
March 21st, 2014, 11:46 AM
I prefer to think of what you're talking about as pure man-made fairy tale. Organized religion mostly serves as a control mechanism to prevent people from seeking knowledge and truth on their own. Fear of reprisal (ie. going to hell) is a powerful tool to keep people in line, mostly as economic slaves, and it's sad.

As far as the origin of the the universe is concerned, I prefer the universe/multiverse sponge theory. Our universe being created as a bubble creates in a sponge. No special, mystical, spiritual meaning behind it. It just happened. I know this goes into the realm of quantum physics...which is still considered quackery, but I'll take that over some white-bearded God declaring "let there be light!"

I also prefer to think we're products of aliens. :P

So where do aliens come from? We can always go further back and ask where that Big Bang came from?

God is perhaps ultimately unreachable just as infinity is unreachable. It's not of our realm, but we know what infinity represents. We can't get to it, but we have an abstract idea of what it is. Same goes with the concept of God. Ultimately the buck stops with God. There's nobody and nothing before God. He was is and forever will be.

"Let there be light" or the Big Balla Bang are both equally mystifying. We don't know how it happened. Perhaps someday scientists will be able to figure out. Perhaps someday I'll be able to ask God about in heaven. For now, we just don't know. You are free to believe what you want... and nobody can prove you wrong. ;)

Religion can definitely be misused, just as anything in this world could be misused or abused..., but just because something could be misused, then we ought to ban it? If that's the case, we need to ban pretty much everything man made! So while I acknowledge the evils of organized religion, can we also examine the good part of religion?

Did Jesus Christ really came here to keep people in line as economic slaves? Even as the world has became less and less religious, do you really see us as less of economic slaves? The 99% are still slaving away for the 1%... it's just that we don't call them "slaves" anymore. Workers willingly enter into slave shops to work with very low pay and harsh environments. So yipee, we've abolished slavery! Anyway, one can't really blame the modern day "slaves" working in sweat shops in US or Mexico or China on religion now, right? Surely all those corporations are not all Christian owned, right?

Some form of powerful organization will always be able to find ways to control the mass... if religion as a tool no longer works.

Kchrpm
March 21st, 2014, 11:46 AM
You find the Banging into existence, which we again have physical proof of, hard to believe...
To be fair, we have physical proof of the Big Bang that's only physical proof in a tangential way that's barely understandable to the average person and not at all measurable by them. Doesn't mean it isn't true, but it's very easy to decide not to believe it because there are so many links in the chain between "our test was successful" and it being proof of something that happened 13 billion years ago.

Crazed_Insanity
March 21st, 2014, 11:49 AM
But to be fair to scientists, they do have way more tangential proofs than the Bible. Bible offers no proofs. Everything's faith based. ;)

Crazed_Insanity
March 21st, 2014, 12:00 PM
No, no it's not. There are human remains that are over 6000 years old. And other things that are millions of years older than that, on our planet. That we have physical proof of. You have ZERO proof of your theory.
No proof, but that Jewish physicist used Einstein's theory of general relativity to show that our universe could be BOTH billions and thousands of years old... depending on where you are relative to the expanding universe. The expansion makes you feel like you're in an old universe..., but if you're outside of that expansion, that expanding universe is only thousands of years old. He didn't just used the bible and said God said so. The guy actually used scientific theory and made calculations to show people that it is possible.



They can vary by a few % sure. But, not from 6 billion to 6 thousand years. That's a 1 Million percent difference. Literally. And we aren't 'somewhere else' in the universe. From where we are. right now. It's billions of years old.

#bibletime. :lol: I'm going to have to remember that. :lol: That is so fitting of something that's so made up.
Remember time is relative. Inside it, everything seems old. Outside the expanding universe, not quite so. God is somebody outside of our universe for He supposedly created it.



You find the Banging into existence, which we again have physical proof of, hard to believe... Yet, you'll believe a book written by a bunch of farmers a few thousand years ago, that got a lot of stuff wrong mind you, as acceptable evidence of your god?
By faith, yes.

Look, scientific theories had been evolving over the ages. People used to think universe is static and had no beginning.

However, Bible always claimed universe had a beginning... and it began with 'light'. Matches pretty will with the Big Bang theory, when our universe just burst in out of nowhere started off with just pure energy... and then everything fell into place. Remember, this Bang couldn't be too weak or too powerful... if it didn't bang in the way that it banged... our universe wouldn't form properly. Somebody controlling it or pure luck? Whatever you want to believe.

LHutton
March 21st, 2014, 12:23 PM
Rejoicing (or even mourning) a person's death has no impact. It's entirely for your benefit. I will say that the world just got a little bit better though.
I'm going to agree with that. Someone who pursues something so trivial with such malice is of no benefit.

FaultyMario
March 21st, 2014, 12:36 PM
billion years ago.

Is that 10 the 9th or to the the 12th?

FaultyMario
March 21st, 2014, 12:49 PM
scientists, they do have proofs
Yes,

Bible offers no proofs. Everything's faith based.
Yes, and


Some people worship science
No, no one did, ever.


science and religious faith shouldn't have to be mutually exclusive.
As per your own definitions, yes they should.

21Kid
March 21st, 2014, 01:08 PM
No proof, but that Jewish physicist used Einstein's theory of general relativity to show that our universe could be BOTH billions and thousands of years old... depending on where you are relative to the expanding universe. The expansion makes you feel like you're in an old universe..., but if you're outside of that expansion, that expanding universe is only thousands of years old. He didn't just used the bible and said God said so. The guy actually used scientific theory and made calculations to show people that it is possible. Again, we have been here for billions of years. We are not outside the expansion. Time is relative to location. We have been in the same "location" for billions of years. Not thousands.

Remember time is relative. Inside it, everything seems old. Outside the expanding universe, not quite so. God is somebody outside of our universe for He supposedly created it. Since when is god outside of our universe? Where does it say that in the bible? I don't even think the people that wrote the bible knew anything about the universe.


However, Bible always claimed universe had a beginning... and it began with 'light'. Matches pretty will with the Big Bang theory, when our universe just burst in out of nowhere started off with just pure energy... and then everything fell into place. Energy =/= light.

Somebody controlling it or pure luck? Whatever you want to believe. Evolution is still happening today. We have evidence of it. No one is controlling anything. There are roughly 10000000000000000000000 stars in the universe. Of course we came into existence due to chance.

Remember, this Bang couldn't be too weak or too powerful... if it didn't bang in the way that it banged... our universe wouldn't form properly. The universe formed the way it did because of how the Big bang happened, not the other way around. Only someone derived enough to think that the universe revolves around them would think that it had to form the way it did, in order for us to exist.

Rob
March 22nd, 2014, 03:30 AM
We are special/chosen/made in his image/unique...we are evil and flawed by default.

Cognitive dissonance.

FaultyMario
March 22nd, 2014, 09:38 AM
Cognitive dissonance does not even begin to explain it.

Crazed_Insanity
March 22nd, 2014, 12:15 PM
Yes,

Yes, and


No, no one did, ever.


As per your own definitions, yes they should.

Just as hardcore Muslims probably want to kill all Christians and hardcore Christians probably want to wipe out all Muslims because they don't believe the 2 can mix, they must be mutually exclusive...

Reasonably minded Muslims and Christians will be able to co-exist peacefully in a land where there's religious freedom.

Similarly reasonably minded scientists won't really have a problem with religion... and reasonably minded religious folks won't have a problem with science.

If one thinks religion ought to be wiped away using the name of 'science', then that person's most likely a 'worshiper' of science and thinks there should be absolutely no room for religion... a scientific extremists if you will. ;)

Crazed_Insanity
March 22nd, 2014, 12:26 PM
Again, we have been here for billions of years. We are not outside the expansion. Time is relative to location. We have been in the same "location" for billions of years. Not thousands.
Since when is god outside of our universe? Where does it say that in the bible? I don't even think the people that wrote the bible knew anything about the universe.

Dude, I'm not arguing that we've only been here for thousands of years. Yes, based on what we know, universe is billions of years old. I'm not arguing against that.
Now, according to the Bible, God supposedly created everything, that' includes this universe. Universe had a beginning, God doesn't. So however old or big the universe is, God is older and bigger. So as He create our universe, does it make sense for God to be inside of it the whole time? If you create a sandwich, can you be inside of that sandwich? Now of course God can be anywhere and everywhere. I'm just saying the reference frame during the creation 'days' was probably outside of our universe at the time. The reference frame then moved to earth after creation of Adam and Eve.

Whoever wrote the bible for sure didn't know what he's talking about, but just writing it down supposedly because of divine inspiration. Based on how the star chart seemingly remained constant, human scientists and scholars long believed we had a static universe with no beginning. Bible's claim of a beginning used to be ridiculed by the wise men of the past.


Energy =/= light.
Evolution is still happening today. We have evidence of it. No one is controlling anything. There are roughly 10000000000000000000000 stars in the universe. Of course we came into existence due to chance.
The universe formed the way it did because of how the Big bang happened, not the other way around. Only someone derived enough to think that the universe revolves around them would think that it had to form the way it did, in order for us to exist.
You don't think Big Bang began with a big flash of light? BTW, here's a quick explanation of what light is: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130106141832AALPfsd Feel free to believe you're here by chance if you want, but I wish to believe I'm here with a purpose. We can't really prove each other wrong.

Perhaps we're both correct, just as our universe can be both 6000 yrs old and 13 billion years old at the same time depending on how you look at it. Depending on how one looks at his or her life, perhaps you're just here by chance... and I'm just here with a purpose? :p

Crazed_Insanity
March 22nd, 2014, 12:42 PM
We are special/chosen/made in his image/unique...we are evil and flawed by default.

Cognitive dissonance.

Adam and Eve were not created with flaws or evil. They were good.

They simply took a wrong turn by making a poor choice and fell into a pit of sin.

Kinda like the prodigal son's story. If you think life with Daddy is boring and wish to leave and make a better life, God the Father will certainly allow you to leave rather than forcing you to stay in Eden the paradise. If you're really happier else where, great. If you wish to return, all you need to do is eat from the new Tree of Life called Jesus Christ. Then you'll be able to return home. God wants children who really want to be His Children by choice. If you don't want to then I guess you don't have to. If a single mortal life on earth is good enough for you, ain't nothing wrong with that. But if you want more and if you wish to be with God, Jesus has opened up a Way for us. Choice is ours.

FaultyMario
March 22nd, 2014, 01:21 PM
Just as hardcore Muslims probably want to kill all Christians and hardcore Christians probably want to wipe out all Muslims because they don't believe the 2 can mix, they must be mutually exclusive...

You lying cunt, we're not talking about religions being pitted against each other. You made one of your idiotic questions, which was simple enough to answer, even with your own words. Own that up before you introduce new elements foreign to that debate.

You are a lying sack of shit. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but it's become impossible to justify.

You are a hater. You hate truth and you hide behind literalism to shelter from it..

Crazed_Insanity
March 22nd, 2014, 02:21 PM
It was analogous to pitting science against religion. only the very extremists cannot be opened minded enough to allow both.
anyway, what is the truth? Based on what were you able to make the determination that I hate it?

Fiat500
March 22nd, 2014, 02:30 PM
Bible's claim of a beginning used to be ridiculed by the wise men of the past.

How interesting. Can you back this up with links?

These "wise men of the past" (who are they?), why did they not ridicule Mesopotamian mythology, which influenced Genesis, instead?

Or did you really think that Christianity is the only religion with a creation myth? Or even the earliest religion with a creation myth?

...

Also, what Mario said. If being a good person means spending eternity in the presence of people like Crazed_Insanity, well hello Evil! *wears linen and wool and eats an owl*

Dicknose
March 22nd, 2014, 03:18 PM
Whoever wrote the bible for sure didn't know what he's talking about

That is probably the best description.
Which is surprising when it's meant to be words from the omniscient.



You don't think Big Bang began with a big flash of light?

Definitely not.
It's a well established part of the theory that light couldn't travel any distance in the early universe.
It was opaque.
Only later if expanded did light have a chance to travel, we see that today as the cosmic background radiation.



Perhaps we're both correct, just as our universe can be both 6000 yrs old and 13 billion years old at the same time depending on how you look at it.
That 6000 years old is rubbish, a parkour trick.
I explained in the other thread it is a pointless trick as you could make it come up with any number you like.

Time inside our universe only has meaning inside the universe. It is a property of the universe itself.
You can't take it out, freeze it and then drop it back in and say "look time moved differently"

Even so, how do you explain human cultures that are more than 6000 years old?
They are pre Adam and Eve.
Of cause the bible could be right and us poor man got the calc wrong and the 7 days of creation actually ended 50,000 years ago.
Wouldn't it be so helpful if this very busy god sent down a memo to clarify some big mistakes that millions of his followers have perpetuated for many hundreds of years.
Hello god, anyone home? When did you take that day off?
Why are kangaroos only in Australia?
How come you reused so much ape DNA in Adam?

Godson
March 22nd, 2014, 04:10 PM
I grow tired of a certain persons bullshit.

FaultyMario
March 22nd, 2014, 04:27 PM
It was analogous to [an unsolved analogy]

That's dishonest, once.
But when your analogies form a systemic denial of reason, that's evil man. Wicked evil.

Rob
March 22nd, 2014, 06:33 PM
Adam and Eve were not created with flaws or evil. They were good.

They simply took a wrong turn by making a poor choice and fell into a pit of sin.

So they were made in the image of the perfect being but were able to make "poor choices".

Not very well made then, were they?

Crazed_Insanity
March 22nd, 2014, 07:10 PM
So they were made in the image of the perfect being but were able to make "poor choices".

Not very well made then, were they?
Allowing His creations to have freewill was just part of the design. God created images of God, not perfect little Gods. I can agree God didn't make us to be perfect, but I think we're pretty well made. Even from a secular point of view, we're at least more well made than other life forms on earth, right?

Rob
March 22nd, 2014, 07:34 PM
You're still making claims without a shred of evidence. Prove there was a design without referring once to any book written by men purporting to be relaying the words of a god you have no evidence for.

KillerB
March 22nd, 2014, 08:05 PM
My life improved immeasurably when I stopped getting involved in political and philosophical arguments on the Internet.

Rob, you should be on XBL playing GTA. It's a more productive use of your time than wasting brain cells on Billi.

Crazed_Insanity
March 23rd, 2014, 01:26 PM
You're still making claims without a shred of evidence. Prove there was a design without referring once to any book written by men purporting to be relaying the words of a god you have no evidence for.

Yes, I'm merely stating my belief, so my claim is faith based. I'm not trying to prove anything. I do agree that I have no rock solid evidence. You don't have to believe what I believe or whatever the bible's saying if you don't want to.

Crazed_Insanity
March 23rd, 2014, 01:36 PM
How interesting. Can you back this up with links?

These "wise men of the past" (who are they?), why did they not ridicule Mesopotamian mythology, which influenced Genesis, instead?

Or did you really think that Christianity is the only religion with a creation myth? Or even the earliest religion with a creation myth?

...

Also, what Mario said. If being a good person means spending eternity in the presence of people like Crazed_Insanity, well hello Evil! *wears linen and wool and eats an owl*

http://www.sps.ch/artikel/geschichte_der_physik/from_static_to_expanding_models_of_the_universe_4/

From static to expanding world models

Until about 1930 almost everybody believed that the Universe was static, in spite of the two fundamental papers by Friedmann [12] in 1922 and 1924 and Lemaître's independent work [13] in 1927. These path breaking papers were in fact largely ignored. The history of this early period has - as is often the case - been distorted by some widely read documents. Einstein too accepted the idea of an expanding Universe only much later.

As you can see pretty much the entire scientific community believed universe was static and doesn't have a begining until early 1900s. How do you think people in the scientific community would view the Christian view of an universe with a beginning back then?

Now, I'm not saying Judeo-Christian religion is the ONLY religion with creation 'myths'. Just telling you that a universe with a beginning was probably a laughable idea to a lot of scholars and intellectuals up until early 1900. Only a dumb ass Christian would believe the bible's claim of universe having a beginning.

And it's real interesting that I'm being painted as 'evil' simply for my belief. But I suppose God can also see me a 'righteous' simply because of my belief too. I think how God sees me is probably more important of how other people see me...

overpowered
March 23rd, 2014, 06:29 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1.0-9/1978621_845596582133657_1827565745_n.jpg

overpowered
March 23rd, 2014, 07:10 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmdGFWS0m54


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPT5B3OqbVI

Kchrpm
March 23rd, 2014, 07:11 PM
I bet there's a quote from a science professor somewhere in the world saying something crazy, too.

Crazed_Insanity
March 23rd, 2014, 11:45 PM
That is probably the best description.
Which is surprising when it's meant to be words from the omniscient.
What is so surprising? Einstein could be dictating his thesis to me to type it out. I may be able to type everything out but that doesn't mean I must absolutely understand everything Einstein said. Likewise, bible authors inspired by God may not fully understand what they're writing. Just writing down things as told.


Definitely not.
It's a well established part of the theory that light couldn't travel any distance in the early universe.
It was opaque.
Only later if expanded did light have a chance to travel, we see that today as the cosmic background radiation.
I'm saying the remnant of that 'light' is the cosmic background radiation. As our universe began to 'bang', it must be expanding, right? Thus there was light. I don't interpret it as God turn on the 'light' and then the universe began to bang. Prior to the 'expansion', as you said, there can be no light. Our universe began at a time of expansion, at the same time when light becomes possible... One cannot see the expansion of space/time, but one can see that light.



That 6000 years old is rubbish, a parkour trick.
I explained in the other thread it is a pointless trick as you could make it come up with any number you like.
I also explained to you why he picked a starting time when our universe first began to form matter(quark confinement). It was the moment when our universe became 'physical'. And yes, by picking that starting time, the numbers worked out beautifully. Yes, it could be a nice trick, but at least to me his explanation is the most feasible.


Time inside our universe only has meaning inside the universe. It is a property of the universe itself.
You can't take it out, freeze it and then drop it back in and say "look time moved differently"
Time does move differently depending on your speed or how space-time continuum is being compressed or stretched by gravity or by the expansion of the universe. Depending on your relative locations, clocks will move differently even inside the same universe.


Even so, how do you explain human cultures that are more than 6000 years old?
They are pre Adam and Eve.
I don't think 6000 yrs is an exact #, but should be a ballpark #. Bible just wasn't that exact, but it shouldn't be off by more than +/- 1000 yrs.
Known ancient human civilizations all pretty much started after such a time frame... except perhaps some discoveries of earlier stone age 'people'...

Now, if that Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder's 'trick' is indeed what happened..., then I suppose there probably were 'pre-humans'. Adam and Eve were simply the 1st ones who were truly the images of God (with God's breath breathed into them). This can actually help Adam and Eve's children avoid incestuous relationships..., they could be mating with other similar 'sub-humans'. Bible just wasn't that clear how A&E's children were able to find mates. So it's all speculation. Either incest or having sex with other DNA compatible 'people'.



Why are kangaroos only in Australia?
I don't know. However, if you're also wondering how did Kangaroos reach Australia from Noah's Ark, well, although I don't know the answer, but my guess is that men and kangaroo probably got there together. I don't think evolution is claiming that Australian aborigines
originally evolved from the continent of Australia, right? They must've moved there somehow, right? So how ever the moved there, surely the kangaroos could follow? I also don't find humans that look like Australian aborigines anywhere else in the world? Why is that? I don't know. Do you?


How come you reused so much ape DNA in Adam?
God obviously like to recycle things. Quarks, Electrons, atoms, molecules, it's all like lego building blocks... Why must ape DNA be completely different in order for God to prove that He is God? We do look kinda like apes too, so I'm not that surprised that we share quite a bit of our DNA.

Dicknose
March 24th, 2014, 04:12 AM
Light was not the first thing.
Space, time and energy were the first things.
It was later than matter and light happened.

And no, water was not the first thing. As much as Genesis likes to talk "the deep" and the waters of earth (which would struggle with a molten earth, especially after the pre-moon smashed into it)
How is the earth without form? Was it all water and no land? Then god made some dry land.
Hard to believe a planet with volcanism was without form.

And this whole "in the beginning god created heavens and the earth" kind of skipped a few billions years.
And your light is after the earth. although the light was in the first seconds of the universe.
But hey it's hard to get time right when measuring it outside the universe, maybe god forgot he did universe, light, then sat back for a few billion years or was it hours, before making the earth.
Easy mistake, I tend to forget the steps when I'm making a universe!


If kangaroos travelled with humans, how come that they didn't settle anywhere else?
Why are other similar marsupials also almost exclusively in Australia, while no other large mammals came there?
Wow it's almost like they evolved and thrived here, while elsewhere they were dying out a long time ago and being replaced by placentals. Hmm, how would you explain that mr Noah. Devine guidance knew exactly where send the related marsupials, but SE Asian cats didn't come along for a good feed.

Aboriginals look different for the same reason other races look different, they had been isolated for some time.
And there is evidence for aboriginals being here for over 20k years. So that's pre Adam and Eve, well pre Noah.
So did they survive the flood (on the lowest continent), were they still this pre-man?
If they had come in the last 6000 years wouldn't they look more south East Asian? And share linguistic traits?
You can find plenty of Christian aboriginals, but I doubt you would find many young earth creationists, since it goes against the timeline of their culture in this country.

While time can be different if you are moving at different speeds, it makes no sense to talk about time outside the universe.
Once you do that you are just making up your own numbers, it means nothing. Pick a number, any number.
You could make his number match anything from hours to billions of years.
But of cause it's perfect for "faith"
Requires not proof, doesn't mean enough to be disproved, has some cool looking pseudo science to it, and presto has exactly the answer we wanted.
It's not science.

That's the issue when it comes to clashes between science and religion.
Some religious folks will ignore facts and logic, give crazy explanations and say "but god must of done it that way because god" and think that it's proof. Throwing in untestable pseudo science doesn't make it any better.

Science is what happened with the static universe assumption.
Almost no scientists had studied it. Einstein doing theoretical physics put a component into his equation to fit a model (static universe) that wasn't a scientific model, just a plain old assumption.
There was some basic understanding about stars, including that they must have a finite life span. But no real theories on how the universe stayed static, where new stars came from or how it worked on the time scale of billions of years.

This lead to people actually thinking about it, measuring, postulating, competing theories, more measurements and where did it lead?
Not only a model of an expanding universe, but a very good understanding of how it expanded from the first moments of its existence.
That is science!

The science of cosmology didn't really start until scientists started in the 1930s looking into these issues. It came a long way in a very short time and is still making interesting discoveries.

21Kid
March 24th, 2014, 08:46 AM
You know he's just going to make up some random bs for all of that logical, factual information...

Fiat500
March 24th, 2014, 09:18 AM
http://www.sps.ch/artikel/geschichte_der_physik/from_static_to_expanding_models_of_the_universe_4/

From static to expanding world models

Until about 1930 almost everybody believed that the Universe was static, in spite of the two fundamental papers by Friedmann [12] in 1922 and 1924 and Lemaître's independent work [13] in 1927. These path breaking papers were in fact largely ignored. The history of this early period has - as is often the case - been distorted by some widely read documents. Einstein too accepted the idea of an expanding Universe only much later.

As you can see pretty much the entire scientific community believed universe was static and doesn't have a begining until early 1900s. How do you think people in the scientific community would view the Christian view of an universe with a beginning back then?

Now, I'm not saying Judeo-Christian religion is the ONLY religion with creation 'myths'. Just telling you that a universe with a beginning was probably a laughable idea to a lot of scholars and intellectuals up until early 1900. Only a dumb ass Christian would believe the bible's claim of universe having a beginning.


So there were theories of a static universe.

You stated that:


Bible's claim of a beginning used to be ridiculed by the wise men of the past.

I was more interested in evidence about this "ridicule" from these "wise men of the past", but it seems like that is all conjecture on your part, inventing stuff (i.e lying!) to suit your own blinkered agenda. Again.

Speaking of martyr complexes:



And it's real interesting that I'm being painted as 'evil' simply for my belief. But I suppose God can also see me a 'righteous' simply because of my belief too. I think how God sees me is probably more important of how other people see me...


You're the one who divides the world into "good" and "evil".

I used to think that you used Socratic irony in your discussions, and played the ignorant fool to get your points across.

Turns out you actually are an ignorant fool, and that is the absolutely kindest and gentlest way to describe you. I have long since lost all respect for you.

You are ill-informed, smarmy and condescending.
You invite to discussion, but ignore what doesn't fit with your world view, and mangle and twist anything else so that it does.
Intelligent members of this community have responded thoughtfully and honestly to you, your responses have been the equivalent of taking a dump on them.

You pick and choose from the bible to prop up some of your frankly unhealthy convictions, attitudes and actions.

You probably have a mental disorder.

I find you repulsive.

As for how God sees you, he most likely thinks you're an annoying little asshole. I imagine there's been many divine facepalms and rolleyes.
Satan, on the other hand, probably wants your autograph.

These words, like all others, will most likely have been wasted. But at least your martyr complex should be good and throbbing by now, you should go and play with it.

Crazed_Insanity
March 24th, 2014, 09:44 AM
Light was not the first thing.
Space, time and energy were the first things.
It was later than matter and light happened.
Bible doesn't have all the technical nomenclatures. 'Let there be light' also wasn't the very first thing of the bible. Was that 'light' literal the kind of light you're talking about? Were the creation days really literal 24 hr days? Bible wasn't really all that clear and therefore opened to interpretation. Bible is not a book of exact science in case you didn't notice?


And no, water was not the first thing. As much as Genesis likes to talk "the deep" and the waters of earth (which would struggle with a molten earth, especially after the pre-moon smashed into it)
How is the earth without form? Was it all water and no land? Then god made some dry land.
Hard to believe a planet with volcanism was without form.
You really expect some goat herder to come up with the exact names that modern scientists would use nowadays? Yes, that'd be impressive for DN, but people in the past thousands of year would be even more clueless as to what the heck Bible's talking about.



And this whole "in the beginning god created heavens and the earth" kind of skipped a few billions years.
And your light is after the earth. although the light was in the first seconds of the universe.
But hey it's hard to get time right when measuring it outside the universe, maybe god forgot he did universe, light, then sat back for a few billion years or was it hours, before making the earth.
Easy mistake, I tend to forget the steps when I'm making a universe!
'Let there be light' to me denotes the flash of the Big Bang (which we can see now as the background radiation), not the light from the sun. Yes, according to a clock that doesn't sit in our expanding universe, right now is probably still day 6 or perhaps it's now day 7. I don't know exactly, it's all approximate. So perhaps when next Monday comes, Jesus will then come back to work during Judgment day? This whole week would feel like billions of years in our universe. Einstien's theory at least is showing that this 'trick' is possible. Believe it or not is entirely up to you.



If kangaroos travelled with humans, how come that they didn't settle anywhere else?
Why are other similar marsupials also almost exclusively in Australia, while no other large mammals came there?
Wow it's almost like they evolved and thrived here, while elsewhere they were dying out a long time ago and being replaced by placentals. Hmm, how would you explain that mr Noah. Devine guidance knew exactly where send the related marsupials, but SE Asian cats didn't come along for a good feed.

Aboriginals look different for the same reason other races look different, they had been isolated for some time.
And there is evidence for aboriginals being here for over 20k years. So that's pre Adam and Eve, well pre Noah.
So did they survive the flood (on the lowest continent), were they still this pre-man?
If they had come in the last 6000 years wouldn't they look more south East Asian? And share linguistic traits?
You can find plenty of Christian aboriginals, but I doubt you would find many young earth creationists, since it goes against the timeline of their culture in this country.
Look, if aboriginals can now be quickly converted to speak English, you think it'd be hard for them to develop their own culture being isolated in Australia for thousands of years? Also, I'm sure Chinese people don't look like Noah. Could our skin color and physical features change that much over the thousands of years? I guess so.

Noah was just taksed to build a boat. Initial gathering and subsequent redistribution of the animals must also involve God too? Anyway, bible doesn't have all the details and I don't have all the answers. Scientists don't have all the answers either. Scientists may think they have MORE compelling evidences, but as I've demonstrated with the static universe example, scientists could be wrong too. But that doesn't mean it's the end of science. As we gather more evidences and know more things, we can move even further. Whereas if Bible also claimed specifically that the world is as eternal as He is, then we can safely know that bible is bullshit. For now, there are still lots of unknowns and while I don't have all the answers, I'm just not convinced the bible is full of BS.



While time can be different if you are moving at different speeds, it makes no sense to talk about time outside the universe.
Once you do that you are just making up your own numbers, it means nothing. Pick a number, any number.
You could make his number match anything from hours to billions of years.
But of cause it's perfect for "faith"
Requires not proof, doesn't mean enough to be disproved, has some cool looking pseudo science to it, and presto has exactly the answer we wanted.
It's not science.
I understand we don't know what's going on outside of our universe, but this is indeed a mathematical game/trick... illustrating that how the clocks would move different inside an expanding universe... and assuming God is outside of our expanding universe inside a static space time continuum. Based on the rate of our expansion and if you start both clocks at the t during quark confinement to today... you'd get roughly 6000 yrs and ~15billion years. Yes, it's a nice 'trick' perhaps, but it's not like that physicist just invented a new and bogus mathematical/scientific theory. If God created our universe, it makes perfect sense that He's outside of our expanding universe. If He goes in and out of our universe, the clock is going to tick differently. This time difference is proven by sciences. By using science, he was able to show that creation story's claim may be possible that's all.


That's the issue when it comes to clashes between science and religion.
Some religious folks will ignore facts and logic, give crazy explanations and say "but god must of done it that way because god" and think that it's proof. Throwing in untestable pseudo science doesn't make it any better.
Einstien's theory of general relativity isn't pseudo science. You just don't agree with his assumptions, which I understand.


Science is what happened with the static universe assumption.
Almost no scientists had studied it. Einstein doing theoretical physics put a component into his equation to fit a model (static universe) that wasn't a scientific model, just a plain old assumption.
There was some basic understanding about stars, including that they must have a finite life span. But no real theories on how the universe stayed static, where new stars came from or how it worked on the time scale of billions of years.

This lead to people actually thinking about it, measuring, postulating, competing theories, more measurements and where did it lead?
Not only a model of an expanding universe, but a very good understanding of how it expanded from the first moments of its existence.
That is science!

The science of cosmology didn't really start until scientists started in the 1930s looking into these issues. It came a long way in a very short time and is still making interesting discoveries.
And it is wonderful. I'm not here preaching against science. Just saying even Einstein could get it wrong too... when his math was showing him of an universe that was expanding, he allowed popular opinion to add a fudge factor so that it showed a static universe. So I'm just unwilling to allow popular opinion to force me into jumping the gun believing that bible must be wrong and science is always right.

tigeraid
March 24th, 2014, 09:50 AM
What is so surprising? Einstein could be dictating his thesis to me to type it out. I may be able to type everything out but that doesn't mean I must absolutely understand everything Einstein said. Likewise, bible authors inspired by God may not fully understand what they're writing. Just writing down things as told.

What's easier to understand?

"If your wife cheats on you, you should beat her to death"

or

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/f/5/3f50fd206f2fe543a6a8a3e687cf74c3.png

Crazed_Insanity
March 24th, 2014, 10:02 AM
So there were theories of a static universe.

You stated that:



I was more interested in evidence about this "ridicule" from these "wise men of the past", but it seems like that is all conjecture on your part, inventing stuff (i.e lying!) to suit your own blinkered agenda. Again.

What do you think my agenda is?

Anyway, like I said in my post above, even Einstein caved under popular scientific opinion that universe must be static... so even when his mathematical model actually showing him an expanding universe, he ended up adding a fudge factor in order to comply with the static universe model. Why did he do that? Probably because he himself thought an expanding universe was a ridiculous idea!


Speaking of martyr complexes:





You're the one who divides the world into "good" and "evil".

I used to think that you used Socratic irony in your discussions, and played the ignorant fool to get your points across.

Turns out you actually are an ignorant fool, and that is the absolutely kindest and gentlest way to describe you. I have long since lost all respect for you.

You are ill-informed, smarmy and condescending.
You invite to discussion, but ignore what doesn't fit with your world view, and mangle and twist anything else so that it does.
Intelligent members of this community have responded thoughtfully and honestly to you, your responses have been the equivalent of taking a dump on them.

You pick and choose from the bible to prop up some of your frankly unhealthy convictions, attitudes and actions.

You probably have a mental disorder.

I find you repulsive.

As for how God sees you, he most likely thinks you're an annoying little asshole. I imagine there's been many divine facepalms and rolleyes.
Satan, on the other hand, probably wants your autograph.

These words, like all others, will most likely have been wasted. But at least your martyr complex should be good and throbbing by now, you should go and play with it.

You really don't believe there's good AND evil in this world? I don't see why I can't separate good and evil out.

I'm for sure not a wise man, so I am an ignorant fool, so what? That's justification enough to hate me? Don't get me wrong, we all have our preferences, not saying you're not allowed to hate me, but I don't see why I must agree with everyone else in order to gain respect from you. My belief is mine alone. I don't see the need to change it because you guys disagree with it. Can't we just agree to disagree? Why must we all agree on everything? Is that even possible?

I've also consistently avoided topic of religion, but people always find it an interesting topic to talk about. Maybe I should just shut up so that I can allow you atheists and agnostics to enjoy talking about religion? ;)

Seriously, don't read my posts if they're that offensive to you. Whatever my agenda is, I'm not here to please you. I'm also not here to piss you off either. Just that if my posts really bother you, then you should try to ignore them. If you think discriminating against or hating dumbasses like me is okay, so be it. If you're also like Rob thinks that I abuse my kid and hates gay people and loves enslaving others, so be it too. I know who I am and what I'm doing. I'm of course not perfect and have plenty of issues I need to deal with, but I am striving to be more Christ-like and that's the main agenda I try to achieve with my life. I hope you'll really think about what kind of hatred is justifiable. I really don't understand what have I done to deserve being hated. People really need to learn to agree to disagree.

Crazed_Insanity
March 24th, 2014, 10:09 AM
What's easier to understand?

"If your wife cheats on you, you should beat her to death"

or

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/f/5/3f50fd206f2fe543a6a8a3e687cf74c3.png

What is your point? You think it's hard to doodle equations? And you really think such a law is what caused billions of folks to flock to God? ;)
And so if the Bible authors doodled these equations out from the visions that they've seen... what benefit would it be to goat herders living thousands of years ago? Yeah, perhaps it'd benefit DN thousands of years later, but it'd be useless to most of humanity of the past.

As for stoning sinners to death, at least it can hopefully be some sort of deterrent for adulterers. Even with such seemingly harsh religious laws in place, Bible's not saying you absolutely HAVE to follow it. God knows we such at obeying His laws that's why it was necessary for a Savior to come.

Further, when Mary was pregnant with God's baby, Joseph could've stoned her to death too. But he loved her enough to not do that..., but initially just want to quietly divorce her and move on...

If you honestly cannot agree with what the Bible, you don't have to do it if you don't have to. Today, Jesus has allowed himself to be beaten and nailed to death for all of us so that nobody had to be killed because of their sins. So Christians really can't practice that particular law anymore.

21Kid
March 24th, 2014, 10:29 AM
Logic won't work Tigeraid. He's already said he's all for child beating and slavery because the bible says it's okay.

Crazed_Insanity
March 24th, 2014, 10:36 AM
I don't think that's not what I said.

I do discipline my kid and yes I've spanked her when she' really way out of line. Chinese people had been doing such disciplining even by not reading the bible... and I don't consider such disciplining as child abuse.

I also believe consensual SM love should be fine, why should govt tell me what to do in my bedroom? Just because they've abolished slavery, but if I were to have consensual SM sex, what's it to you? Seriously, my point was never to promote slavery, but to illustrate a point that love can even workout fine in a master-slave relationship.

FaultyMario
March 24th, 2014, 10:40 AM
All the great minds haven't worked on him.
I tried some Wittgenstein and some Chomsky as a conciliatory measure between faith and reason, but to no avail.

Billi is more interested in coming across as a fervent Christian than in discussing with, or learning from others.

21Kid
March 24th, 2014, 11:07 AM
It's all part of The System R

Kchrpm
March 24th, 2014, 11:08 AM
And very often you guys are more interested in villainizing him than understanding him.

Crazed_Insanity
March 24th, 2014, 11:21 AM
All the great minds haven't worked on him.
I tried some Wittgenstein and some Chomsky as a conciliatory measure between faith and reason, but to no avail.

Billi is more interested in coming across as a fervent Christian than in discussing with, or learning from others.

Not that I have a great mind or anything. I openly admit I probably only have average intelligence... nor do I have vast amount of knowledge.

Still, as you were discussing religion with me, what did you learn from me other than that I'm a fervent/crazy Christian who's unreasonable?

Why do you believe my bible interpretation must be lousier than yours? My Jesus must be lousier than your Jesus? Do we have anything in common at all other than we consider ourselves as 'Christians'? How can we be that different? What the fuck is wrong with Billi?!?!? Help save me great minds of GTXF!

Just stay out of this thread if my comments are that repulsive to you. Go start a atheism thread or something. I also won't be posting here if you guys quit talking shit about my faith or religion in general.

FaultyMario
March 24th, 2014, 11:50 AM
1.- Don't make yourself a martyr. This discussion board is far from a lynching hoard.
2.- I specifically avoided saying "The pope says..." or "Aquinas wrote.." because I wanted to not have that become a wall in our discussions.
3.- You take issue with anything authoritative, I literally asked you to acknowledge what was a narrative of power, and what were your choice of philosophies. You never did. You'd mix and match your personal views and passages from the bible when it was not appropriate to the discussion.
4.- Religious texts (written or from oral tradition) are open to interpretation. That's why there are Pastors, Rabbis, Gurus, Chamanes, to guide and answer questions from their respective parishes. Regarding the bible, we're presented the 4 gospels as the classic example of one event viewed from four angles. They're all right. Which is more right to YOU? You never answered. See point #3.
5.- Most of the times, you go about these discussions, making some absurd assumptions, absurd because they contradict what you've previously stated. If you know that science and religion come from different philosophical traditions, methods and they hope to achieve different goals, why do you insist to answer one with the other? They are ridiculous views to both scientists and religious scholars alike.

Godson
March 24th, 2014, 12:15 PM
:popcorn:

Crazed_Insanity
March 24th, 2014, 12:18 PM
1.- Don't make yourself a martyr. This discussion board is far from a lynching hoard.
Jesus Christ cannot crucify himself on the cross. It takes 2 to tango. If I have to be a martyr, so be it. If not, that's fine too. My goal isn't to become a martyr here. I no longer initiate religious discussion if you hadn't notice. If you want to bad mouth my faith, too bad I'm not like Jesus... he'd just hush up and let himself be crucified, but I felt compelled to speak out against that or answer whatever questions people might have in religious threads.


2.- I specifically avoided saying "The pope says..." or "Aquinas wrote.." because I wanted to not have that become a wall in our discussions.
That's your choice. I can respect that, but not necessarily agree with that. I don't see any problems with quoting or using references.


3.- You take issue with anything authoritative, I literally asked you to acknowledge what was a narrative of power, and what were your choice of philosophies. You never did. You'd mix and match your personal views and passages from the bible when it was not appropriate to the discussion.
God is authoritative and I have no issues with God. I was discussion my faith, so I don't see any problems with including my personal views. I wasn't talking about any narrative power or philosophies. Remember, ask your questions plainly and to the point. I will try my best to answer. To you, I either missed the point and refuse to answer. So basically, this is just a communication problem. I don't fully understand your faith(because you've also dodge some of my questions), and you also don't really want to understand my faith. Naturally we'll get to nowhere.


4.- Religious texts (written or from oral tradition) are open to interpretation. That's why there are Pastors, Rabbis, Gurus, Chamanes, to guide and answer questions from their respective parishes. Regarding the bible, we're presented the 4 gospels as the classic example of one event viewed from four angles. They're all right. Which is more right to YOU? You never answered. See point #3.
What kind of fucking question is that? Here we have 4 witnesses in a court of law. All telling the truth based on what they've seen. Some gave longer testimonies, some shorter. Unless we can figure out some of the witnesses told lies, then how can you make a determination who's MORE right? Right is right.

So basically you must believe some gospels must have more wrongs in order to determine which one is more right, right? Some gospel writers must've included certain wrong info or lies? Is that what you believe? Well, that's not what I believe.

Or do you believe not including the name Mary is enough to warrant a gospel less right? I'm sure all gospel stories missed some info here and there. It'd be too much of a hassle to count all the omitted info IMHO. If that's the logic to use, then I guess the longest gospel is probably most right then?

Anyway, to answer your question, I think all 4 qospel stories are right. I'd like to hear which one do YOU think is more right and why?


5.- Most of the times, you go about these discussions, making some absurd assumptions, absurd because they contradict what you've previously stated. If you know that science and religion come from different philosophical traditions, methods and they hope to achieve different goals, why do you insist to answer one with the other? They are ridiculous views to both scientists and religious scholars alike.
If bible is true, science will be able to prove it in time. Similarly, if bible is false, then science will also be able to figure that out one day. A lot of you believe the day is today that science has already prove how absurd most of the bible is... so in order to be any respectable Christian, one must only pick and choose portions of the bible that's more politically correct and not as absurd. Well, if I'm going to believe, I'm going to believe all the way. If I cannot believe all the way, then I'm not going to waste time believing.

Like I said, even Einstein thought expanding universe was an absurd idea at first even after his work was telling him this truth. So he ended up adding a fudging factor to comply with what's seemingly less absurd.

It's like relativity, how absurd something seems is really all depending on where you're looking at it.

If you think I'm too absurd and don't wish to waste anymore time, then don't. Can you give me a reasonable explanation for hating me for my absurd belief? Can I really become a martyr all by myself?

Dicknose
March 24th, 2014, 01:23 PM
Science doesn't prove that time dilation.
If anything it shows it's wrong, since the whole dilation concept works on time depending on space.
Hence outside of space, time as we know it does not exist.
When he came up with the equation, he also came up with Space-Time.

That's why it's pseudo science, it's applying an equation in the very way that it was not meant to be used.

Incorrectly using an equation is NOT "proved by science"

Crazed_Insanity
March 24th, 2014, 01:38 PM
Again, let me reiterate, that Jewish physicist did not try to PROVE by science that bible is correct. It's just an illustration of reconciling the billions of years and 6 24hr days of creation. He's not planning to publish a scientific paper about it. Yes, a lot of assumptions were made and those could be wrong. His interpretation of the bible could be wrong too. It's just that to me, his interpretation seems to make the most sense to me at the moment. I don't believe universe is really that young... and I am perplexed why God had to use 'days' as unit to measure passage of time during creation. Yeah, all I can explain away with before was bible verses that stated that 'a day is like 1000 years and a 1000 years is like a day for the Lord' and leave it at that. But with this scientific 'trick', it makes more sense now. Who knows, as scientists know more, maybe we can make even more sense out of it. Just as I'm sure virgin birth seems out right ridiculous 2000 yrs ago, but today, we could medically impregnate a virgin, right? Yes, medical science can do it doesn't really PROVE Jesus was really born of a virgin, but modern medical know how certainly made virgin birth more believable, no? If we can do it, why can't God who supposedly created all of us do it 2000 years ago?

You have to agree that what he did was far better than the usual 'because bible said so...' approach, right? He's trying to reconcile his theological understanding with his scientific knowledge.

I know you think it's ridiculous and unbelievable. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I can't say that you're wrong either. Most of the time you are correct, but I do think sometimes you're too anal about things. Bible and faith based stuffs really usually are not that precise or exact. It's just that I'd prefer to give bible the benefit of the doubt whenever in doubt. There are a lot of things in the bible that seems crazy or ridiculous, but at least it really hasn't led humanity wrong so far.

Yes, there were the Dark Ages and Westboro Baptist Churches along the way, but I don't think those things happened because of Christians faithfully following God's Words. In most cases, they were twisting God's words for their own personal benefit... simply using religion as a tool for personal gains rather than truly worshiping and following God. A Godly church should be the light of the world rather than cause the world to go dark. God also doesn't hate fags or any other sinners for otherwise Jesus would just kill us all rather die for us sinners with the hope of saving us.

Yes, I could be twisting God's words too, my interpretations could be wrong too, but at least you know I get no benefit out of doing that. My interpretation of the scripture has been changing over the years and GTXF has also been part of the contributors believe it or not. My main agenda is really just to try to figure out the real truth. Besides learning theological stuff from church and other believers, I do also want to hear what non-believers outside of church have to say...

Whatever I end up choose to believe of course will be up to me. If I end up being committed to a mental institution, so be it! :p

Dicknose
March 24th, 2014, 01:40 PM
Gravity would have a contracting universe, not expanding.

It doesn't take much to see that there are no stable static models of how to have a universe with gravity.
Things would start "falling" together.
Einstein added a factor to balance gravity.

That's why it was very surprising that the universe was expanding.
And that from that finding it's lead to us being able to measure an age for the universe.

And to say "science was wrong" is misleading. A better description is "the science had not been done"
You can't compare that to other areas of science that are active and investigated and say "they might be wrong"

tigeraid
March 24th, 2014, 04:55 PM
What is your point? You think it's hard to doodle equations?

Your post indicated that the idiot savages who wrote the Bible got the info from God, and wrote it down, without understanding what it meant. I know they were idiot savages, but there's no fucking way they misunderstood "beat your wife to death for adultery" or "men having buttsex is not okay." It's pretty clear on that.

Idiot savages writing down Einstein's equations, on the other hand, would absolutely not have the slightest clue what they were writing. That is my point. Your defense of "writing down but not understanding God's word" is useless.

Crazed_Insanity
March 24th, 2014, 07:16 PM
DN, science is done by humans; therefore it can be wrong. I understand in areas where scientists have gained great insight, chances of being wrong becomes less and less. I am not trying to argue that bible is always right and science is always wrong. Actually bible doesn't have the luxury of being wrong... Science on the other hand can always learn from mistakes and become better! My position had always been that if there's a God, bible and science should eventually agree. If not, then I'm sure eventually people will realize how full of crap the bible is. Perhaps I'm just slow to come to that realization. My static universe example was not meant to prove that science suck, but to show that bible could be ahead of science at times.

Tiger, DN and I were talking about creation story, not Gods laws. Those laws are usually pretty straight forward... That the wage of sin is death. Either you die or some sacrificial animal dies at your expense. Somebody has to pay. Christians no longer practice that because Christ has died for our sins. Creation story maybe open to interpretation, but laws really should be as clear as possible. Don't do X, if you do, then Y is the consequence.

Rob
March 25th, 2014, 12:35 AM
That's justification enough to hate me? Don't get me wrong, we all have our preferences, not saying you're not allowed to hate me

You respond to his accusation of you being a martyr by inventing even more persecution?

Directly quote where he said he hates you.

Of course....you can't. Because he didn't say that and you are a total fucking liar.

Crazed_Insanity
March 25th, 2014, 05:24 AM
So how much do you love me Rob?

Rob
March 25th, 2014, 05:28 AM
Not even going to try answering my request then?

You seem to be really quite pleased with yourself managing to alienate even the most reasonable members of this community. If this is your intention, just cut to the chase and go do it elsewhere.

And fwiw, we weren't discussing/criticising YOUR faith in this thread (you merely opted into an already established set of nonsense stories, after making previous dodgy belief choices, you have absolutely no ownership here) so you should probably follow the rules, turn the other cheek and fuck off.

21Kid
March 25th, 2014, 06:16 AM
...if bible is false, then science will also be able to figure that out one day. A lot of you believe the day is today that science has already prove how absurd most of the bible is... so in order to be any respectable Christian, one must only pick and choose portions of the bible that's more politically correct and not as absurd. Well, if I'm going to believe, I'm going to believe all the way.

That pretty much sums it up.

Crazed_Insanity
March 25th, 2014, 06:51 AM
I see how you'd skip the part when I said 'if bible is true...'. So if the going in position is that Bible is false, then naturally our discussions won't go anywhere and people like me would end up being annoying... and as time drags on, annoyance probably will turn into hatred.

This is just like politics. Whether a liberal or conservative, going in position is that the other side is wrong, so we need to convince the other side to join our side. If they don't join... if they're not with us, then they must be against us... and it'd be easier to turn them into enemies... because that's be easier than considering the possibility of self being wrong.

Life in this world is full of uncertainties. I can't be 100% certain that I am right, I can't be 100% certain that I can achieve certain things, but I can choose to believe(that I can do it) and just go for it. If I'm wrong and things didn't turn out as I believed, then I'll regroup and try again another way. Capitalism isn't all right and socialism isn't all wrong. Liberals aren't always right and Conservatives aren't all dumbasses.

So what about atheists and theists? Who's right and who's wrong? Well, that all depends on if there's a God or not. Some believe so and some not quite so..., but we all should be able to agree to disagree and still be able to love one another. I don't think we disagree on the loving one another part, right?

Yes, there had been religious assholes who didn't follow Jesus' command to love other people. Those horrible actions definitely were not Jesus' fault for that's not what Jesus has taught. Being hateful is part of human nature. It wasn't because of religion that made people do evil.

Rob
March 25th, 2014, 07:01 AM
Well, if I'm going to believe, I'm going to believe all the way.

I do hope you're not wearing clothing of mixed fibres.

EDIT: Better yet, I notice that you aren't exactly "believing this all the way":

Corinthians 6:14-15
"Believers must not commune with unbelievers. What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, light with darkness, believers with infidels?"

Even your own stupid book of bullshit rules is telling you to stop posting.

Crazed_Insanity
March 25th, 2014, 07:21 AM
You obviously never bother to listen to any of my religious explanations.

But hopefully you will read other people's explanations?
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BQA/k/192/Should-Christian-Wear-Clothing-of-Mixed-Fibers-Leviticus-1919.htm

I usually like 100% cotton anyway. Even if I do own some mix fiber clothing because I'm not very wealthy... and even if that is truly considered as a sin, remember, Jesus has died for my sins once and for all! Being a Christian isn't really about obeying the OT laws. If I were a Jew, then of course that's what I should be doing, but please know that I'm not practicing Judaism. I'm a Christian.

Rob
March 25th, 2014, 07:53 AM
Total bullshit because the vast majority of christians think it's a stupid and easily avoided rule that would otherwise cause them inconvenience.

“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material."

Likewise eating prawns:

"10 But anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. 11 You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. 12 Everything in the waters that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you."

And pork:

"7 And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. 8 You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you."

It's very clearly prescribed there, if you reinterpret it to avoid having to conform then you are being dishonest and not "believing all the way". You are picking and choosing and failing to present a coherent display of religion.

This is why nobody trusts your word. Well, at least one of the reasons why...

Rob
March 25th, 2014, 07:57 AM
And again, for the slow readers and fundie bullshitters.....

Stop communing with the unbelievers. Your book makes it very clear. Myself, Dicknose, RWA, tigeraid, Kid21....your god has told you to stop talking to all of us.


Being a Christian isn't really about obeying the OT laws.

Good thing Corinthians is New Testament then, yeah?

Crazed_Insanity
March 25th, 2014, 08:43 AM
I can give you guys the credit for being the 'great minds' of GTF. For sure I'm not super brainy nor do I know as much as most of the folks here. There are a LOT Of things I can learn from you guys here.

However, what I can't understand is why do some of the folks here who don't really believe in God or the Bible also tend to believe that they know the scripture better than me. Don't you find that idea laughable? I don't believe in God, but I can teach you the Bible? Even if you're the Pope, I'd still rather interpret the meaning of bible myself thank you very much.

Bible for sure doesn't teach that believers gotta run away and hide whenever they see unbelievers around.

Further, as much as I love you Rob, do you really think we're 'communing'? What makes you think I'm communing with you? Are we exchanging anything on a spiritual level? Do you consider telling each other to fuck off as communing? It'd be impossible to commune with you dude! :p However, I can answer a few of your posts every once in a while. If you really feel threatened by me, I can certainly leave you alone and not bully you anymore even in this thread.

Let me know what I should do with you here. I'll do as you wish. With regarding to leaving this forum, I'll do it when I want to do it thank you very much. :)

Rob
March 25th, 2014, 08:56 AM
You're splitting hairs again (and really, what is all that fucking drivel about love and me feeling threatened?). You have no 'fellowship' here by the rules laid down in the bible. If unbelievers wish to extend any courtesy to you, they do it entirely because they don't subscribe to the bullshit rules you claim to. You do not have that freedom. The Corinthians quote is very specific. You are breaking the rules of the new testament (whilst claiming it overrides the old testament so you can ignore that too) because you feel like you need to be part of a community that is steadily realising that you are nowhere near as nice and friendly as you try and present as.

See also Z07. Strange how that works out, isn't it?

But then we get it, you're too dishonest to do what you claimed you only ever do a couple of posts back. Look at how the other religious members ridicule and have no respect for you.

TBH, I'd put money on the fact that you were blissfully unaware of the Corinthians bit even existing, and that you were trying to pass it off as old testament without one of us actually knowing.

Because it is readily apparent that you haven't read as much of the bible as you'd like us to think you have.

Crazed_Insanity
March 25th, 2014, 11:28 AM
It's readily apparent to me that you don't understand what you've read.

Exactly what made you such an expert on the Bible that you can presume to teach it to believers? ;)

And for the last time, the Christian 'religion' is NOT about the rules, but about God's grace. No, Jesus' not here to abolish all the previous rules, but to help us sinners fulfill them rules. Not to stone us rule breakers to death, but to help us become more righteous and be able to live to the fullest. If you really absolutely need a set of rules to live by, then love God and love one another are the only rules one really need to know. Regardless of Billi's limitations, at least God loves you unconditionally. Billi is trying too!

Since you don't feel threatened by me, then I'll just continue to pray for you rather than responding to your drivels. Have a good day! :)

21Kid
March 25th, 2014, 11:44 AM
:lol:

FaultyMario
March 25th, 2014, 11:58 AM
Exactly what made you such an expert on the Bible that you can presume to teach it to believers? ;)


God did, I'm a witness to that. Unfortunately there's no physical proof of the authority granted to him, so you're going to have to trust the lord almighty, and us your beloved brothers, that he did. Faith, homes. Make that leap.

Crazed_Insanity
March 25th, 2014, 12:12 PM
But you told me your Jesus would die with you. According to my bible interpretation, Jesus was is and forever will be... so I'm not sure we even believe in the same Jesus. Can you show me where in the bible does it teach that our own little Jesuses die after we die? Do you honestly believe you know the Bible better than me? Then you have to show me verses that can support your claims.

Rob
March 25th, 2014, 12:14 PM
Exactly, Mario. His stupid argument literally fucks its own face.

Sadly, I have professional experience with people who employ such a twisted outlook on their purported faith and I'd be lying if I said that this kind of reinterpretation of scripture wasn't in some way connected to a multitude of sexual offences (against adults and children) and, in two cases that I remember, murders. :|

Crazed_Insanity
March 25th, 2014, 12:18 PM
So can I hear your own argument regarding how you are more of an expert of Bible than Billi? Nobody asked you guys to stoop to my level. Show me how good you guys are at studying the bible please? Or you guys are just as dishonest as Billi? Only making empty claims that you guys know the bible?

Rob
March 25th, 2014, 12:19 PM
Reading it as it stands, in plain English, without applying any twisted attempt to make it fit my motives. Pretty simple assuming you're not retarded or a cunt.

Again, drop the passive/aggressive shit, Billi. It contradicts your constant whining and attempts at appearing to be a martyr. Constantly trying to turn our questions back on us is textbook dishonesty and avoidance.

It's a book you claim is the word of god....burden is on you to prove its true. We've been through this many times because you refuse to acknowledge how that works.

The real irony appears when you give it the "faith requires no proof" bullshit...because it requires you to explain why you don't automatically possess faith in every other possibility that also lacks any evidence. Which you've never managed to do because anything that lacks evidence, lacks credibility.

Crazed_Insanity
March 25th, 2014, 12:23 PM
Why are you avoiding my question? What/who made you such an authority of scriptures? How can you be so sure that your interpretation is closer to the real truth than mine? Answer the question Rob... or Mario or whoever else think my bible interpretation skill sucks. I don't mind being a retard or cunt actually, as long as I'm not misunderstanding my Creator.

Anyway, after another session of name calling, I hope you guys can eventually answer my question.

Crazed_Insanity
March 25th, 2014, 12:27 PM
Just reply Rob, your editing is only going to confuse the thread... I only edit to correct my stupid typos, please don't add stuff after I've already responded.

anyway, nobody's asking you to prove whether if Bible is true or not.

For the sake of argument, let's assume bible is false.

Why are you such an expert on such falsehood?

And for Mario, why are you even a Christian?

Rob
March 25th, 2014, 12:30 PM
What/who made you such an authority of scriptures? How can you be so sure that your interpretation is closer to the real truth than mine? Answer the question Rob...

The English language and a reasonable level of education therein gave me the skills, I apply no interpretation beyond what happens when letters are strung into words, and words into sentences. So yes, I'm reading what it says, you, by your own comments, are interpreting it.

Godson
March 25th, 2014, 12:31 PM
Perhaps yes or no questions should be supplied by both parties to reduce the chance of interpretation.

Crazed_Insanity
March 25th, 2014, 12:33 PM
Fine Rob. It's not like I really was looking forward to hear from you. Now I can have some peace and quiet. :p

Again, have a nice day. If you want me to bully you again, feel free to just respond in this thread and I'll be happy to come back to love you as much as I love myself! :)

FaultyMario
March 25th, 2014, 12:33 PM
I can't give you an answer that will satisfy you.

Because you don't think I'm qualified enough to make an interpretation of scripture.
You have previously stated that more than God, you place your faith in authority.

Which is an answer that minimizes debate.

Rob
March 25th, 2014, 12:34 PM
please don't add stuff after I've already responded.

I'll stop editing posts when you stop attempting to commune or have fellowship with unbelievers.

Crazed_Insanity
March 25th, 2014, 12:35 PM
The English language and a reasonable level of education therein gave me the skills, I apply no interpretation beyond what happens when letters are strung into words, and words into sentences. So yes, I'm reading what it says, you, by your own comments, are interpreting it.

I thought you didn't plan on answering, what a liar you are!

Anyway, your explanation doesn't prove that your interpretation is superior to mine.

FaultyMario
March 25th, 2014, 12:37 PM
Good God, I answered that a few pages ago, ACCULTURATION, you twat!

Crazed_Insanity
March 25th, 2014, 12:37 PM
I can't give you an answer that will satisfy you.

Because you don't think I'm qualified enough to make an interpretation of scripture.
You have previously stated that more than God, you place your faith in authority.

Which is an answer that minimizes debate.

Huh?

Anyway, seriously, I just cannot get over what you said about your Jesus will die after you die. Can you at least let me know what gave you that idea?

Bible or ACCULTURATION with bunch of atheists now?

Rob
March 25th, 2014, 12:38 PM
I can't give you an answer that will satisfy you.

Because you don't think I'm qualified enough to make an interpretation of scripture.
You have previously stated that more than God, you place your faith in authority.

Which is an answer that minimizes debate.

No, Mario. You got that wrong. You aren't as qualified as him to interpret scripture. He's even dropped a passive/aggressive No True Scotsman in there about you being a christian.

He's now parroting some shit about bullying me or loving me or something equally nauseating, further demonstrating how he doesn't understand how words work.

Rob
March 25th, 2014, 12:41 PM
Bible or ACCULTURATION with bunch of atheists now?

Heh heh heh.

He googled it and still doesn't know what it means.

Crazed_Insanity
March 25th, 2014, 12:43 PM
I was just wondering why you guys think you can presume to teach me about something you don't really believe in.

In your professional opinion, why do you think that is Rob?

It's okay, even if you're a cunt, God still loves you.

You really want me to continue to bully you like this?

Rob
March 25th, 2014, 12:50 PM
Wait, are you suggesting that I don't "believe in" the existence of the words that make up the bible? Of course I believe the words exist. On paper in a book.

You're the one forcing these plain and highly simplistic statements of an intellectually and socially obsolete society into modern meanings, devoid of any contemporary relevance.

If you have to force an interpretation, then you haven't read it properly. If you're happy with the words as they sit, you will have spotted all the horrible stuff it tries to suggest aren't a seriously barbaric set of throwback shit. Dishonest liar or despicably barbaric. Choose your side.

Or just read the words and reject the whole cunt-pile for what it actually is.

Rob
March 25th, 2014, 12:58 PM
You really want me to continue to bully you like this?

I don't think that word means what you think it does. For a couple of reasons....

Bullying is very much in the eye of the victim. I get to decide what's bullying me. You aren't.

If you are in some way trying to cause suffering....well....there's that whole "you are a terrible example of a christian" thing again.

What's happening is that you've got a new word in your head and are going to misuse it hundreds of times before you latch on to another, potentially irrelevant, word.

Just like "Adam and Steve" and all those other English phrases you don't quite understand.

Crazed_Insanity
March 25th, 2014, 01:02 PM
You are certainly free to reject a cunt pile and go for your penis pile if you want. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just saying you ought to learn to respect people who share different faith orientations than you.

Further, your explanation doesn't really show how you are subject matter expert on whatever you read.

You really want me to continue to bully you like this? I think I'm going to give up now. Maybe I'll bully you again tomorrow. Cheers. :)

Rob
March 25th, 2014, 01:06 PM
Has Russ implemented a filter changing every instance of "lie and whine at" to "bully"?

Rob
March 25th, 2014, 01:09 PM
Just to be sure, I've reported this claimed intentional bullying.

Is this just like a teenager trying to sound notorious by inventing a tough sounding nickname for themselves? Or just something your wife has called you? :?

Crazed_Insanity
March 25th, 2014, 01:18 PM
You little snitch. Like I said, feel free to continue to lie and whine at Billi tomorrow. I gotta run.

Rob
March 25th, 2014, 01:20 PM
Where did you say that? In your head?

21Kid
March 26th, 2014, 08:51 AM
:popcorn:


I was hoping cunt-pile would be his new word.

Rob
March 26th, 2014, 08:56 AM
I reckon Billi having a full-on catastrophic mental collapse, probably preceded by an incoherent blabbering meltdown isn't too unrealistic.

It's the part where he displays (even more) violence that I hope gets intercepted by the authorities.

21Kid
March 26th, 2014, 09:01 AM
I hope that doesn't happen...

LHutton
March 27th, 2014, 12:10 PM
I reckon Billi having a full-on catastrophic mental collapse, probably preceded by an incoherent blabbering meltdown isn't too unrealistic.

It's the part where he displays (even more) violence that I hope gets intercepted by the authorities.
Yes it's good that the authorities should monitor internet chats and intercept all references to violence and take them seriously.

FaultyMario
March 27th, 2014, 01:19 PM
I was under the impression you had been the victim of some intrusive authoritarian action yourself. Or was it just your desk?

My memory's vague.

Rob
March 28th, 2014, 02:24 AM
Don't forget the family cars tailing him.

Godson
March 28th, 2014, 10:36 AM
A thread is started to discuss religion, turns into generalized shit show...

Kchrpm
March 28th, 2014, 11:19 AM
That's what happens when people would rather win than try to truly understand.

LHutton
March 28th, 2014, 12:45 PM
I was under the impression you had been the victim of some intrusive authoritarian action yourself. Or was it just your desk?

My memory's vague.

Don't forget the family cars tailing him.
Perhaps one of you 'two' Faith Nazis could offer an explanation.

Godson
March 28th, 2014, 12:51 PM
Oh for fucks sake.


Quit with the childish bullshit finger pointing and posturing. If you can't openly and equally debate something, stay the fuck out of it or keep it back channel.

LHutton
March 28th, 2014, 01:08 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if-UzXIQ5vw

Rob
March 28th, 2014, 02:37 PM
Oh for fucks sake.


Quit with the childish bullshit finger pointing and posturing. If you can't openly and equally debate something, stay the fuck out of it or keep it back channel.

He can't even use the quote function. I'm not exactly worried.

LHutton
March 28th, 2014, 02:51 PM
He can't even use the quote function.

Yes I can.

Jason
March 28th, 2014, 04:30 PM
Hey guys, what's going on?

FaultyMario
March 28th, 2014, 04:35 PM
Robario


http://charlatecnica.cl/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/romario-de-souza.jpg

:?

Rob
March 28th, 2014, 06:42 PM
That's what happens when people would rather win than try to truly understand.

When one side insists upon posting fabricated bullshit, there's not a whole lot to understand.

Godson
March 28th, 2014, 08:10 PM
He can't even use the quote function. I'm not exactly worried.



Yes I can.

This is what I am talking about.

WHAT THE FUCK RELEVANCE DOES THIS HAVE TO THE TOPIC 'BEING DISCUSSED'

You guys are adults, so fucking act like it and cut the childish responses out.

LHutton
March 28th, 2014, 11:50 PM
You guys are adults, so fucking act like it and cut the childish responses out.
But he started it.






























;)

Rob
March 29th, 2014, 02:57 AM
Oh good. Another god-bothering nutcase who thinks wink emoticons are funny.

Rob
March 29th, 2014, 03:17 AM
So it seems that some vocal christians are claiming that Russell Crowe's Noah movie isn't like the "real events"...

Fiat500
March 29th, 2014, 08:47 AM
That's what happens when people would rather win than try to truly understand.


When one side insists upon posting fabricated bullshit, there's not a whole lot to understand.

Yes Keith, what is it that is not truly understood? Please elaborate if you have seen something that has eluded the rest of the posting population.

If you are interested in my own understanding, it is that Billi is not remotely interested in anything resembling a discussion, he just wants to preach his own extremely narrow - minded, misanthropic and self - serving interpretation of things he finds in the bible.

FaultyMario
March 29th, 2014, 10:43 AM
So it seems that some vocal christians are claiming that Russell Crowe's Noah movie isn't like the "real events"...

Riiiiight, I'm just going to go ahead and say that real events and Darren Aranofsky do not go hand in hand. mk?


Read it in Lumberg's voice.

Rob
March 29th, 2014, 10:57 AM
Good job he's not making a movie based on real events then.

If he was, it'd be like this:

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/133/668/68.gif

LHutton
March 29th, 2014, 12:23 PM
So it seems that some vocal christians are claiming that Russell Crowe's Noah movie isn't like the "real events"...
Quick, to the bat cave!

Crazed_Insanity
March 29th, 2014, 02:32 PM
Yes Keith, what is it that is not truly understood? Please elaborate if you have seen something that has eluded the rest of the posting population.

If you are interested in my own understanding, it is that Billi is not remotely interested in anything resembling a discussion, he just wants to preach his own extremely narrow - minded, misanthropic and self - serving interpretation of things he finds in the bible.
Such as what exactly?

Fiat500
March 29th, 2014, 02:41 PM
:lol: :rolleyes:

Jason
March 29th, 2014, 02:43 PM
Plenty of people bitch about inaccuracies when novels or comic books are brought to the screen. Why can't Bible readers?

sandydandy
March 29th, 2014, 04:32 PM
Fanboyism is a big problem when it comes to works of fiction.

Crazed_Insanity
March 29th, 2014, 06:07 PM
If you guys have a bone to pick with "me", you gotta be more specific. Not saying you can't be critical of the bible. If you have a problem of me actually believing the bible, care to list out the reasons why it's dangerous to believe it? So far, we have clearly proven that it doesn't take religion to ignite a flame war on the Internet. Atheists can also hold a very radical and hateful view. The lack of faith clearly doesn't make one a better human being.

Can you guys judge me by what I have done?

Even if I choose to believe in Santa or whatever fiction, that's justification enough for hate?

Kchrpm
March 29th, 2014, 07:02 PM
If you are interested in my own understanding, it is that Billi is not remotely interested in anything resembling a discussion, he just wants to preach his own extremely narrow - minded, misanthropic and self - serving interpretation of things he finds in the bible.
That is pretty much my understanding of it, too. He has a very deep seated belief that works for him, and as far as I can tell lives a happy life that doesn't involve hating or trying to reduce the rights of others. To me, that shouldn't draw all the anger and vitriol that gets thrown around. Accept that he's stuck in his ways and wait for him to actually try to really harm someone before you take offense to it.

LHutton
March 30th, 2014, 01:45 AM
There's disagreeing with religion and responding with anger at every opportunity, whilst also designing those opportunities. It's a form of intolerance and I see other intolerances manifest in exactly the same way on other forums.

21Kid
March 30th, 2014, 10:29 AM
That is pretty much my understanding of it, too. He has a very deep seated belief that works for him, and as far as I can tell lives a happy life that doesn't involve hating or trying to reduce the rights of others. To me, that shouldn't draw all the anger and vitriol that gets thrown around. Accept that he's stuck in his ways and wait for him to actually try to really harm someone before you take offense to it.

He voted against gay rights, because of his religious beliefs.
He condones the owning of slaves, because of his religious beliefs.
He thinks it's okay to abuse children, because of his religious beliefs.
He believes women are inferior to me, because of his religious beliefs.

Kchrpm
March 30th, 2014, 11:40 AM
Then you can have a discussion on those topics, and if he refuses to budge and his only justification is a belief that you don't share and can't break him of, then the discussion is over and you move on, because nothing can be done about it.

All I'm saying is that's it's obvious that it's a brick wall, progress isn't being made and it's just turning to personal attacks. Nothing is being gained, unless the whole point of this thread is to use each other as punching bags.

But that's why I don't like religious or political discussions in general, they're almost always just "I believe this" vs "I believe that" and there's no meeting in the middle, just lobbing shots from both sides. Whoever you agree with, nothing really is gained aside from cathartic reasons.

Godson
March 30th, 2014, 06:10 PM
http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120803223535/random-ness/images/3/3f/Joker_slow_clap.gif

Rob
March 31st, 2014, 02:34 AM
Plenty of people bitch about inaccuracies when novels or comic books are brought to the screen. Why can't Bible readers?

390

Rob
March 31st, 2014, 02:37 AM
as far as I can tell lives a happy life that doesn't involve hating or trying to reduce the rights of others.

Are you as fucking ignorant as that post suggests? There comes a point when your old sig about being ignorant to keep things easy becomes a little bit silly if you're going to post outright bullshit.


He voted against gay rights, because of his religious beliefs.
He condones the owning of slaves, because of his religious beliefs.
He thinks it's okay to abuse children, because of his religious beliefs.
He believes women are inferior to me, because of his religious beliefs.

Exactly.

Rob
March 31st, 2014, 03:50 AM
if he refuses to budge and his only justification is a belief that you don't share and can't break him of, then the discussion is over and you move on, because nothing can be done about it.

1960s America called, they want their Civil Rights Movement back.

Kchrpm
March 31st, 2014, 04:06 AM
Are you as fucking ignorant as that post suggests? There comes a point when your old sig about being ignorant to keep things easy becomes a little bit silly if you're going to post outright bullshit.
No, I've just never seen him give those opinions, I didn't read through the entire old thread or most of his long posts here. I don't agree with his opinions on things, and I know him well enough to know that he's too far dug in to his own beliefs to think there's any chance of changing them on a forum.


1960s America called, they want their Civil Rights Movement back.
I find a big difference between one guy at a forum that you guys just want to yell at and call names, and people actually trying to make civil changes to a society and its laws. Especially considering much of the civil rights movement was driven by religious leaders, who could dispute any theological reason that might have been given, instead of just saying "well your religion is dumb and you're an asshole."

But hey, I thought the religious thread could actually be used for discussion of topics that come up, not just Billi-bashing again. I guess I was wrong, so have at it! He seems to revel in it, and it's obvious you do as well.

Rob
March 31st, 2014, 04:16 AM
No, I've just never seen him give those opinions

You genuinely never once saw him post about Prop 8? You never saw any of his conversations with Taimar back at the really old places? In that case I suggest that you research the positions of those involved in a conversation before passive/aggressively fence sitting (shitting?) on it.

The Civil Rights comment was relating to your constant whining about how people should do nothing if they feel they can't change anything. That is, do nothing, except whine about how everyone else should do nothing if you're leading by example.

Kchrpm
March 31st, 2014, 04:29 AM
You genuinely never once saw him post about Prop 8?
I saw that he didn't support it, but I could have guessed that. If his only justification is his religious belief, and that's more than enough for him to not budge, it's just a big dumb wall that you aren't going to break,


The Civil Rights comment was relating to your constant whining about how people should do nothing if they feel they can't change anything. That is, do nothing, except whine about how everyone else should do nothing if you're leading by example.
I think plenty of people are lost causes on certain things, including you. I've pretty much given up on ever having a reasonable discussion with you where you don't just attack people, where you actually listen and change your opinion on something. I've experienced you doing it exactly once, and you were too drunk to remember it the next day.

I try to abandon lost causes. Obviously there were enough reasonable people in the civil rights movement for slow progress to be made and major changes to go through. If it was just a bunch of Billis, who raised nothing but new Billis, then we would have been screwed.

Rob
March 31st, 2014, 05:31 AM
I saw that he didn't support it, but I could have guessed that. If his only justification is his religious belief, and that's more than enough for him to not budge, it's just a big dumb wall that you aren't going to break

That's exactly the issue though. If you look at the horrible shit he's spouted for years, it's not about him "budging" it's about him spreading a disease that humanity needn't put up with. Plenty of us have tried dealing with these attitudes before and in some cases you CAN make a real difference and get somebody to realise just how fucking stupid they have been.

But if a person constantly refuses to engage with anything other than a twisted "BECAUSE BIBLE" (and the associated delusional mental gymnastics), then they are figuratively hanging themselves because THEY are what is wrong with society and they need to learn that their bullshit justifications for cuntish behaviour just end up with them being treated cuntishly.

Want nicer treatment? Be nicer.

Godson
March 31st, 2014, 06:23 AM
Want nicer treatment? Be nicer.

Golden rule, something to live by.


Now back to the talk of religion.


So being raised Christian - Lutheran, hanging out with a bunch of Baptists, I have learned to look for variety in my life. I started following the Dalai Lama on facebook, and some of the things he is quote dare simply impressive to read. I really look forward to his various messages.

Crazed_Insanity
March 31st, 2014, 06:37 AM
He voted against gay rights, because of his religious beliefs.
He condones the owning of slaves, because of his religious beliefs.
He thinks it's okay to abuse children, because of his religious beliefs.
He believes women are inferior to me, because of his religious beliefs.

1) You guys don't ever seem to remember that I've changed my mind regarding gay marriage after lengthy discussions and extensive scripture reading..., I've since discovered that "love can cover multitude of sins". I don't believe God really wants Christians to fight about marriages like that. Better to just to fight and make sure my own marriage is a good one. Anyway, if my 'repentance' in this issue doesn't matter, I think you should still consider if it's really justification enough to hate 51% of the Californians just because of the way they voted?

2) Modern day society still condones slave like work conditions. We feel better about ourselves by not calling them slaves and pretended that it's okay simply because those poor people willing choose to work to make cheap clothing or iphones or whatever. In the old days, people had similar practices... and the main difference is that it's actually called slavery. It's actually also practiced throughout the world with or without the bible's help. There's really no need to blame the whole thing on the bible. Bible simply included some laws to regulate this practice. I also do believe if we truly 'love' one another, even master slave relationship can work out. Slavery isn't absolute/pure evil. Masters don't HAVE to always abuse their slaves. It's just that Masters DO often end up abusing slaves that's why we eventually ended the practice. I'm pretty sure God does NOT condone abusing slaves. It's just that when one's poor enough, it's probably better to be sold as a slave than starving to death. Same as sweat shop workers. Yeah, the work condition isn't great, but better than starvation.

3) 1st of all, I've never supported or said that it's okay to abuse children. Thanks for twisting my words. So physical disciplining kids always equal to child abuse with no exceptions? What about time outs(solitary confinement)? Is that also abusive? What about verbal discipline? That could also be a form of emotional abuse, right? So we just cannot discipline our children and must allow them to be spoiled rotten?

4) I don't recall I've ever said women are inferior to kids or men or whatever. In fact, I do remember saying Adam is dumb as dirt because he's made out of dirt, but at least Eve was made with higher grade raw material... so she's probably superior than Adam. She's also God's latest and greatest of all creation. That's why she's so beautiful!

21Kid
March 31st, 2014, 06:38 AM
Golden rule, something to live by.


Now back to the talk of religion.


So being raised Christian - Lutheran, hanging out with a bunch of Baptists, I have learned to look for variety in my life. I started following the Dalai Lama on facebook, and some of the things he is quote dare simply impressive to read. I really look forward to his various messages.
I follow and enjoy his quotes also.

It's amazing how so few Christians actually follow the "golden rule", when that's supposed to be one of their guiding principles.

Godson
March 31st, 2014, 06:42 AM
I follow and enjoy his quotes also.

It's amazing how so few Christians actually follow the "golden rule", when that's supposed to be one of their guiding principles.


I don't know if it is Christians in general, or because we a privy to having the majority of our populations being Christians.

21Kid
March 31st, 2014, 06:52 AM
True, I generally tend to think of "christians" by default. It could be applied to the entire population.

I guess it is just like anything else. Where the "louder" ones like WBC or people who speak out against things get more attention and I forget that there are many many good ones out there.

Godson
March 31st, 2014, 06:59 AM
A phrase I hear a lot around here is "the shallowest creeks make the most noise."

Crazed_Insanity
March 31st, 2014, 07:43 AM
I follow and enjoy his quotes also.

It's amazing how so few Christians actually follow the "golden rule", when that's supposed to be one of their guiding principles.

Lousy Christians don't prove that Christ is lousy too. Christianity isn't about Christians, but about Christ. Also, Christ isn't here just to save the Dalai lamas, but all sinners. The transformation isn't always instant, may last a life time... So its natural to see a lot of lousy Christians IMHO.

I have a lot of respect for Buddhism philosophy, but don't you think it a bit unfair to compare what Dalai Lama said to what typical Christian would do?

I still think it's important to consider how a religion transforms a culture over extended period of time. If it makes little or no difference or harmful to a society, then I'd agree it's probably a good idea to give up on that religion.

21Kid
March 31st, 2014, 07:57 AM
Never said christ was lousy... you just love to make stuff up, don't you... I guess you have to when your entire religion is based in fiction.

Where did you get that I was comparing them?

So you're going to give up on christianity because of the harm it has caused society, then?

Crazed_Insanity
March 31st, 2014, 08:18 AM
This is where I read it from...


I follow and enjoy his quotes also.

It's amazing how so few Christians actually follow the "golden rule", when that's supposed to be one of their guiding principles.

I can see now that perhaps you were just responding to Godson's post and not really making a direct comparison of Dalai Lama and typical Christians.

Nevertheless, there are also only very few Buddhists who are like Dalai Lama. So is it really that shocking to you that so few Christians are as perfect as Christ? What's more important to judge is whether this person after following Christ is moving toward the Christ-like direction or not. When you don't know a person that well, it's really difficult to make that judgment... so it's probably better to not judge and just love them as who they are at the moment. Of course again, it's much easier said than done.

So I hope this explained the misunderstanding of word twisting?

Now, can we resolve you twisting of some of my words?

For one, do you really believe I'm a child abuser or in support of child abuse?

Crazed_Insanity
March 31st, 2014, 08:21 AM
So you're going to give up on christianity because of the harm it has caused society, then?

If I've come to the realization that Christianity is no good, naturally I won't be a Christian.

If I were living in the Dark Ages, I definitely won't continue to attend the Catholic Church at the time. It'll either have to reform and I'll have to protest! ;)

Anyway, you guys tend to think all Christians attend the Westboro Baptist Church or something.

This is this week's sermon, if you have some time to kill, feel free to take a look and see what kind of hatred pastor was spewing.... I really couldn't find any. Am I just totally brainwashed?

http://www.go2faith.com/video-on-demand.html

FaultyMario
March 31st, 2014, 08:39 AM
Tyler, try to find "how to see yourself as you really are (http://www.spiritualityandpractice.com/books/excerpts.php?id=17595)" by t, I take it from george's lo-fi attitude posts, that you can borrow audiobooks from the public library, if so, get it! there's nothing better to exercise to.

Try telling yourself "I'm not attached to this body, this body isn't permanent" after a serious calorie burning session.

21Kid
March 31st, 2014, 09:45 AM
Anyway, you guys tend to think all Christians attend the Westboro Baptist Church or something.
Just keep making stuff up. Even when it directly opposes what was actually said just a few hours ago. :smh:

I guess it is just like anything else. Where the "louder" ones like WBC or people who speak out against things get more attention and I forget that there are many many good ones out there.

Crazed_Insanity
March 31st, 2014, 09:59 AM
I was basically trying to remind you that not all Christians attend WBC and I'm not an attendee of that church. Your statement is a confession of being overwhelmed by the loud obnoxious christians that you forget about the normal ones.

So can you name some good Christians? Do you know any good Christians? I rarely hear about them from you. (Please don't tell me the only good christians are the ones we don't believe in Jesus Christ! ;))

Or did you hear anything good from me? Or is Billi pure evil?

Lastly, I most certainly wasn't the one trying to get attention by starting religious threads. Yes, I've done my preaching in the original board, but all other subsequent religious threads were all started by others. If you can't stand the opposition view, you probably shouldn't start a post about that something.

What you and Rob are doing is effectively raising picket signs saying "Forum hates Billi! Forum hates believers of fiction!!!"

You are certainly entitled to your belief, but it's clear not the entire board agree with you guys that I ought to be rounded up and shot.

If this topic is too sensitive to you, then don't talk about it... and don't read about it. Especially don't start a thread about it.

21Kid
March 31st, 2014, 11:07 AM
I don't know whom you are referring to when you ask if it's too sensitive...

Sounds like you're making stuff up again.

Crazed_Insanity
March 31st, 2014, 11:30 AM
Great! If you're not too sensitive, then you should be able to agree to disagree with me regarding our views on faith, religion or God. There also shouldn't be a need to demonize me as a gay basher, slave lover, child abuser and womanizer. Try to understand that 51% of Californians who voted for prop8 are not all evil Christians.

Billi bashing without any attempt to try to understand me is pretty much the same as what the WBC people do when they bashed gays. Both are using religion to justify hatred of the other side.

Surely Dalai Lama would not approve of such hatred.

You don't have to love me, but my point is that you also don't have to hate me. But of course what you want to do with your emotions is entirely up to you. All I can say is that Jesus loves you and I do love the folks in this forum. Of course I don't love you on a sexual level, I just enjoy reading some of the stuffs people post. Good day. :)

Rob
March 31st, 2014, 12:17 PM
1) I've since discovered that "love can cover multitude of sins".

That is still judging somebody else by a set of bullshit they don't necessarily subscribe to.

sin1
sɪn/
noun
1.
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
"a sin in the eyes of God"
synonyms: immoral act, wrong, wrongdoing, act of evil/wickedness, transgression, crime, offence, misdeed, misdemeanour, error, lapse, fall from grace;

Divine "law" is not a thing in modern civilised society. So you don't get to claim that homosexuality is a "fall from grace" or "wicked".

So there's your cuntish behaviour again.


2) Modern day society still condones slave like work conditions.

You've traditionally had a problem with how you employ the word condone. The UK has a minimum wage. That completely contradicts your paper-thin suggestion that we are condoning anything approaching slavery. I don't doubt that Chinese manufacturing plants push their employees to pretty inhuman standards but I defy you find any suggestion that these "slaves" are property that can be killed so long as they survive a few days first. Remember how you tried to dispute that translation and then promptly discovered that the Chinese language bible clearly says it? That is the slavery detailed in your bible that you constantly clamour to reinterpret and that also constitutes totally cuntish behaviour.


3) 1st of all, I've never supported or said that it's okay to abuse children.

Physically disciplining a toddler "out of love" and so as "not to cause permanent injury" (your fucking words) is immensely creepy, fetishistic and obviously abusive. You wouldn't have used the word abuse because you are twisting your own words to mean something other than how the vast majority of people would define it. Cuntish behaviour? Yup.


Thanks for twisting my words.

When the day comes that you don't routinely make a bunch of shit up, you can suggest that people are doing this to you. Until then; suck it up, bullshitter.


4) I don't recall I've ever said women are inferior to kids or men or whatever.

Hundreds of years of the history of the religion you converted to by choice have very definitely said that. You want to support something "the whole way" or whatever stupid wording you used, you wholeheartedly have to support the bad with the good. Otherwise you are a cherry-picking, cowardly cunt.

21Kid
March 31st, 2014, 12:33 PM
There also shouldn't be a need to demonize me as a gay basher, slave lover, child abuser and womanizer. Again you're making stuff up. I merely presented your previous stance on the subjects. If you feel that your own stance on these items equtes to you being bashed, then maybe you need to re-evaluate your own morals.


Try to understand that 51% of Californians who voted for prop8 are not all evil Christians.You're right. It was largely funded by mormons. So, it's 1/2 evil christians and 1/2 evil mormons.


You don't have to love me, but my point is that you also don't have to hate me. But of course what you want to do with your emotions is entirely up to you. All I can say is that Jesus loves you and I do love the folks in this forum. Of course I don't love you on a sexual level, I just enjoy reading some of the stuffs people post. Good day. :)WTF are you getting on about?!? :erm: