Christianity

[Watt-Zeefuik]

so he's real but we have absolutely no evidence on this and are just  hypothesizing, "taking a guess"

I really have no idea what you're on about here.  You do realize that the entire field of history is taking scraps of evidence and trying to make them fit together, right?

 

I cannot for the life of me figure out why this "absolutely no evidence" thing keeps coming back up.  What part of "multiple independent sources" is so hard to understand?

[reaths17]

I really have no idea what you're on about here.  You do realize that the entire field of history is taking scraps of evidence and trying to make them fit together, right?

 

I cannot for the life of me figure out why this "absolutely no evidence" thing keeps coming back up.  What part of "multiple independent sources" is so hard to understand?

theres transcripts stating pontious pilot, the same with ramesis but none about jesus, moses and others from a book of fables, cobbled together many years later. these characters are as real as the kraken from greek mythology, your no gonna tell me supermans real because somebody wrote about him.the bible is a mythology, conglomerate of stories, its no more factual than hansel and gretel. the stories do teach a great deal in moral conduct, a way to behave in a decent manor, which i find sadly lacking since it was withdrawn from the educational curiculum but its still nothin more than stories.we can all hypothesis about the great events said to have happened in the book but its hard to believe there is no record of such great feats. until it turns up many years later in a book that is well edited to get to the bible we have now.

[John Frum]

 

Indeed.  But we have multiple copies of many of those documents, copied over the years, and much the same way we can track speciation events over history by shared mutations in "junk" DNA, along with statements they make about other contemporaneous events, we can date these documents pretty well.

 

So we agree. The documents aren't true copies. 

[John Frum]

To wit:

 

 

Bart Ehrman is a former fundamentalist Christian, now agnostic and has written numerous books which have pissed off the Christian right.  He has no problem spitting in the face of orthodox beliefs when he thinks the evidence supports it.

 

It's very convenient if you don't like Christians or Christianity (and Christians have done and continue to do plenty of things to legitimately piss people off) to claim Jesus didn't exist.  But as Ehrman makes clear here, that's not what any serious scholar thinks, and is something a lot of atheists like to think because it makes them feel smug.

You've pulled Ehrman out the hat, I'll raise you Carrier, who doesn't hold back on his opinion of Ehrmans work and his poor scholarship. For creationists promoting bad science, read historian promoting bad history.

 

I could copy and paste but here's the link instead: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/carrier-finally-responds-to-ehrman-on-the-historicity-of-jesus/

 

Those with an interest can click on it, those without are welcome not to. The end times thread is much more entertaining.

[John Frum]

I really have no idea what you're on about here.  You do realize that the entire field of history is taking scraps of evidence and trying to make them fit together, right?

 

I cannot for the life of me figure out why this "absolutely no evidence" thing keeps coming back up.  What part of "multiple independent sources" is so hard to understand?

Yes, but taking fantasies and fitting them together is totally different to fitting together real evidence.

 

I'm interested in the names of these the multiple independent non biblical sources please. I have an interest in middle eastern history - always looking for gaps in my reading list.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

You've pulled Ehrman out the hat, I'll raise you Carrier, who doesn't hold back on his opinion of Ehrmans work and his poor scholarship. For creationists promoting bad science, read historian promoting bad history.

 

I could copy and paste but here's the link instead: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/carrier-finally-responds-to-ehrman-on-the-historicity-of-jesus/

 

Those with an interest can click on it, those without are welcome not to. The end times thread is much more entertaining.

 

I had read Carrier's critique; we also have Ehrman's reply to Carrier and his accusations.  http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/  Needless to say if you read the reply, Carrier certainly seems to be making a lot of noise about very little.

 

I have to draw a parallel between alfajambo's comment:

The age of fossils are directly related to the rock layer they are found in.

And believe it or not rock layers are age specified by the type of fossil found.

You couldn't really make it up. 

 

 

and these:

 

So we agree. The documents aren't true copies. 

 

theres transcripts stating pontious pilot, the same with ramesis but none about jesus, moses and others from a book of fables, cobbled together many years later. these characters are as real as the kraken from greek mythology, your no gonna tell me supermans real because somebody wrote about him.the bible is a mythology, conglomerate of stories, its no more factual than hansel and gretel. 

 

Y'all, scholarship is hard.  History is hard.  It's upsetting to learn, but we don't have a lot to go on.  Lots of "facts" about the past are made on conjecture about inferences from secondary sources, mentions in books that have nothing to do with the topic, and records of practices, or in the case of geology, of rough correlations between fossils in rock layers and the passage of time.

 

We don't construct what we know of the past from hard, fast, indisputable evidence.  The work of archaeology hangs on tiny nicks in ceramics, small changes in patterning in inscriptions, pictorial references to contemporary events, and so forth.  It's a lot of putting puzzle pieces together.  The only reason we have frameworks and timelines within which to work is because historians and antiquities scholars and paleontologists have put an immense amount of work into trying to make the puzzle pieces fit together as best as we possibly can.  And we treat those as "best theories" until something else comes along.

 

What mythicists like Carrier do to challenge the historical Jesus is point to gaps in documentation they feel should be there but aren't, or note inconsistencies that they feel challenge the enterprise rather than being explained by some other phenomenon.  This isn't simple work, and it can look like a house of cards, the way geology and paleontology look to alfajambo.

 

What Ehrman is effectively saying is that we don't have a theory about the provenance of the mentions of Jesus from antiquity (from Christian sources as well as from Tacitus and Josephus -- seriously, Tacitus, who pretty much hated Christians and Jews) or to explain the emergence of the Christian church in the first century that works better or relies on harder evidence than the historical Jesus.  Yes, there is uncertainty in the historicist perspective, but the holes in the mythicist perspective are bigger.  (Just because you've said that a bunch of people made something up doesn't explain why they did that, en masse, in multiple Roman provinces, even while arguing with each other.)

 

Here's what I see -- for people who dislike or strongly disagree with Christianity (which, I repeat, is not a surprising or unsympathetic position considering), it would make a great arguing point if they could demonstrate that Jesus didn't exist and was just made up.  They start in on the evidence, and find it not nearly as strong as they supposed (a revelation, Ehrman says for him personally, that contributed to him deciding to leave Christianity), and find a very receptive audience with other people who dislike Christianity.  However, it gets trickier beyond this -- you have to start explaining how that happened, and where our early sources came from if not as recordings and interpretations of events.  And doing that without a historical Jesus is a lot harder than people think it is.  So, serious scholars trying to come up with the best explanation fall back to the historical Jesus, which people who dislike Christianity don't like because it leaves them without their arguing point.  So we get people like Carrier and the Ehrman's audience in the video above.

 

And to make my ultimate point in this one more time -- taking the historical Jesus as our best working theory does not mean Christianity is somehow "right."  I have left the church for a decade in the past and it's not beyond the realm of possibility that I'd leave it again, even being married to a minister.  I have doubts and enjoy discussing things like this, which is why I'm so active on this topic.  But the historical Jesus argument is, and continues to be, largely a waste of time.  Historical evidence is more consistent with a historical Jesus than it is with a mythical Jesus, with both claims lacking indisputable supporting evidence -- a state of affairs that satisfies no one who is emotionally invested in the issue.  So, we should spend more time on the far more pressing questions, like, does practicing religion and going to worship lead to a more moral and ethical world?  And if so, what features of religion lead to that? 

[Smack]

Fine, Jesus was real. The Derren Brown of his age. There is quite a lot of hard and fast history available given the Romans propensity to record things. He was a married charlatan, who was probably gay.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Fine, Jesus was real. The Derren Brown of his age. There is quite a lot of hard and fast history available given the Romans propensity to record things. He was a married charlatan, who was probably gay.

 

The recently uncovered "Jesus said, 'my wife . . .'" fragment is really intriguing.  Gay, well, the author of the Gospel of John does go on and on about the "disciple whom Jesus loved" (possibly John himself).  All fun speculation.

[Maple Leaf]

The recently uncovered "Jesus said, 'my wife . . .'" fragment is really intriguing.  Gay, well, the author of the Gospel of John does go on and on about the "disciple whom Jesus loved" (possibly John himself).  All fun speculation.

 

In the immortal words of Jerry Seinfeld, "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

[Watt-Zeefuik]

In the immortal words of Jerry Seinfeld, "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

 

 Nope.  Jesus being gay (or married for that matter) wouldn't stop me from following Him.

[Maple Leaf]

 Nope.  Jesus being gay (or married for that matter) wouldn't stop me from following Him.

 

His sexual orientation or marital status is irrelevant to me too, but I suspect that there are lots of people in Virginia (and further south) who would have a major issue with the first part.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

His sexual orientation or marital status is irrelevant to me too, but I suspect that there are lots of people in Virginia (and further south) who would have a major issue with the first part.

Indeed there are (and not just south of me, plenty to the north and west as well), and we disagree on a whole lot more than that particular point.

 

This is kind of a theme for me.  Dawkins et al. criticize "Christians" as if we're all the same, or accuse some of us for "running interference" for the others.  This is kind of silly, as Christians have been in intense, heated rhetorical and often violent conflict with each other since Mary Magdalene went running to the Apostles with the news that the tomb was empty.  I fully agree with some of the critiques that the New Atheists (particularly Hitchens) level at Christianity, but keep finding myself lumped in with the people I'm in the middle of disagreeing with because we fall on the other side of the line that the New Atheists have decided to draw about who's Correct and who's Incorrect.  

 

The Presbyterian Church (USA) is in the last phases of a particular schism as a bunch of people have decided that despite the fact that no church or presbytery has been forced to adopt the policy, removing the prohibition on churches and presbyteries ordaining openly and non-celibate gay clergy and marrying same sex couples is more than they can take and they can't stand to be in communion with us anymore.  The same thing happened 35 years ago when a previous schism between northern and southern church was reversed, but that meant allowing the wiminfolk to be clergy.  And so it goes -- "Christian unity" is an ideal that's never been reached, and seems more remote than ever at the moment.

[Jambo 4 Ever]

How old is the earth? The bible suggests it is only several thousand years old but others say it is millions...

Any evidence to say the earth is millions of years old?

[Ray Gin]

Any evidence to say the earth is millions of years old?

Yes. Carbon/radiometric dating.

[Norm]

How old is the earth? The bible suggests it is only several thousand years old but others say it is millions...

Any evidence to say the earth is millions of years old?

Shedloads.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

How old is the earth? The bible suggests it is only several thousand years old but others say it is millions...

Any evidence to say the earth is millions of years old?

 

The world revolves around me.  Therefore it turns 40 next week.

[Pans Jambo]

So God made Lucifer (Satan), he was a bad angel & he chucked him oot heaven. Hes now causing havoc on earth which God created. Destroying man (created in God's image) unyet he cant even be bothered to kill him! Really? God could with ease destroy Lucifer but choses not to. Why?
I have the answer...ITS BECAUSE THEY DONT EXIST AND NEVER HAVE!!!

[deesidejambo]

So God made Lucifer (Satan), he was a bad angel & he chucked him oot heaven. Hes now causing havoc on earth which God created. Destroying man (created in God's image) unyet he cant even be bothered to kill him! Really? God could with ease destroy Lucifer but choses not to. Why?

I have the answer...ITS BECAUSE THEY DONT EXIST AND NEVER HAVE YOU mod edit!!!

You are entitled to your views but your last sentence is out of order.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

How old is the earth? The bible suggests it is only several thousand years old but others say it is millions...

Any evidence to say the earth is millions of years old?

 

You say that according to the bible the Earth is only 7000 years old, give or take a couple of thousand years or so.

 

Recorded written history is somewhere around about 5000 years old, so that would leave us only 2000 years or so for which the Earth to form, the Dinosaurs to rule the Earth, for the appearance and evolution of early man (but that didn't happen as God made us according to the bible).

An awful lot of things are supposed to have happened in this tiny time span of a few thousand years.

[Unknown user]

How old is the earth? The bible suggests it is only several thousand years old but others say it is millions...

Any evidence to say the earth is millions of years old?

NOW you're demanding evidence??

 

Talk about selective!

[Pans Jambo]

You are entitled to your views but your last sentence is out of order.

& you are entitled to yours but the point stands!

[Pans Jambo]

At new Hymn for all the god botherers next time you are in your tax free gang hut on Sunday mornings:

 

"And They're coming to take me away Ha Ha
They're coming to take me away ho ho he he ha ha
to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time, and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats
and they're coming to take me away ha ha".

 

[Nookie Bear]

At new Hymn for all the god botherers next time you are in your tax free gang hut on Sunday mornings:

 

"And They're coming to take me away Ha Ha

They're coming to take me away ho ho he he ha ha

to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time, and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats

and they're coming to take me away ha ha".

 

 

 

Well, that's a bit embarrassing.

[Governor Tarkin]

You are entitled to your views but your last sentence is out of order.

No it's not. It's his views and he's entitled to them.

[Governor Tarkin]

At new Hymn for all the god botherers next time you are in your tax free gang hut on Sunday mornings:

 

"And They're coming to take me away Ha Ha

They're coming to take me away ho ho he he ha ha

to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time, and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats

and they're coming to take me away ha ha".

 

 

Now you're being a bit of a dick, but still well within your rights.

 

[tian447]

I'm still amazed there are people out there that believe the Earth is only 6000 years old,

 

Like actual people with responsibilities.

 

****ing hell

[Norm]

You say that according to the bible the Earth is only 7000 years old, give or take a couple of thousand years or so.

 

Recorded written history is somewhere around about 5000 years old, so that would leave us only 2000 years or so for which the Earth to form, the Dinosaurs to rule the Earth, for the appearance and evolution of early man (but that didn't happen as God made us according to the bible).

An awful lot of things are supposed to have happened in this tiny time span of a few thousand years.

There's traces of people living in Jericho around 7000BC. So folk were living there 2000 years before the Earth appeared. That's damn impressive.

[Maple Leaf]

How old is the earth? The bible suggests it is only several thousand years old but others say it is millions...

Any evidence to say the earth is millions of years old?

Archbishop James Ussher of Ireland read through the Bible and tracked back all the "begats" and other information, and calculated that the moment of creation was in 4004BC.  On October 23.  At Noon.  If nothing else, he was precise!!  It has to be said that Ussher started out his work with the preconceived idea that the world was about 6,000 years old, and he almost certainly manipulated the data to fit his ideas.

 

You can accept the calculations of Ussher or ....

 

You can pick up almost any book on geology or cosmology or astronomy, and read the scientific evidence that proves the earth is about five billion (not million) years old.

 

Another interesting point is that Edinburgh man James Hutton is considered to be the founder of modern geology.  I've read that he was wandering around Holyrood Park one day, looked up at Salisbury Crags, and said the equivalent of "Och, wait a wee minute, there's nae way that that thing's is only 6,000 years old".  He started the earth-is-ancient idea.  Although that was in the mid-1700s, I'm sure he was a PHM!

[tian447]

I just think the religious idea that the Universe revolves around human beings is stupid and incredibly arrogant.  The place is massive on a scale that no-one can comprehend, and even trying to deal with the sizes is frightening.  We are the most irrelevant little pin prick, yet everything was made for us?

 

Here's the question for you religious types.  If the Universe was created for us, why go to all that bother?  Why all that wasted space?  Why not just make what we need?

[Watt-Zeefuik]

So God made Lucifer (Satan), he was a bad angel & he chucked him oot heaven. Hes now causing havoc on earth which God created. Destroying man (created in God's image) unyet he cant even be bothered to kill him! Really? God could with ease destroy Lucifer but choses not to. Why?

I have the answer...ITS BECAUSE THEY DONT EXIST AND NEVER HAVE!!!

 

You're citing Milton, not the Bible.  Common mistake.  

 

 

Archbishop James Ussher of Ireland read through the Bible and tracked back all the "begats" and other information, and calculated that the moment of creation was in 4004BC.  On October 23.  At Noon.  If nothing else, he was precise!!  It has to be said that Ussher started out his work with the preconceived idea that the world was about 6,000 years old, and he almost certainly manipulated the data to fit his ideas.

 

You can accept the calculations of Ussher or ....

 

You can pick up almost any book on geology or cosmology or astronomy, and read the scientific evidence that proves the earth is about five billion (not million) years old.

 

Another interesting point is that Edinburgh man James Hutton is considered to be the founder of modern geology.  I've read that he was wandering around Holyrood Park one day, looked up at Salisbury Crags, and said the equivalent of "Och, wait a wee minute, there's nae way that that thing's is only 6,000 years old".  He started the earth-is-ancient idea.  Although that was in the mid-1700s, I'm sure he was a PHM!

 

Hutton did more than start the old earth idea, he founded modern geology and established the doctrine of uniformitarianism, which was a critical insight for Darwin.  Hutton was one of Darwin's biggest influences, who enjoyed geology almost more than he enjoyed natural history.  Hutton was a stone-cold badass.  PHM for sure!

 

(And the consensus answer is 4.6 billion years if memory serves, which it does less and less these days.)

 

 

I know this is an old post but........

 

Your position is one I find very confusing. If Christianity is based on the whole idea of belief in Jesus and his reincarnation, then how do you get to choose to believe that but choose not believe other new testament teachings? It kind of makes religion and especially different sects of the same religion like political parties, in that you choose to follow the one that aligns with your personal outlook, rather than it actually being something more spiritual.

 

This is perhaps a fairly American take on the denominations, but I'm rather happier with a situation where people find the religion that most resonates with them, rather than the one which is most closely associated with the state locally.  People have wildly different takes on the process of sorting this out, but there's massive thought dedicated to "discernment" of God's Truth.  But again, the problem is not new, nor did it begin with Christianity.

 

The Bible contradicts itself immensely throughout scripture (sometimes within the same books, particularly in the first 6 which are generally thought to be merged and edited from prior texts), which is why there has to be some kind of sensible hierarchy about what the most important bits are.  The Gospels are generally accepted as the most central, with the other New Testament texts as being critical but lesser, the Pentateuch being somewhat more important in the Old Testament, the major prophets as bigger than the minor, and so on.  All that said, homosexuality was barely discussed anywhere in the church before Aquinas.  (He basically played a big part in inventing both modern science and the church's obsession with sexuality. Win some, lose some.)  It's barely mentioned in passing in two of Paul's epistles, and the prohibition in Leviticus appears next to the ban on cotton/wool blends, tattoos, shaving, make-up, and all sorts of other Levitican law that only strictly Orthodox Jews pay attention to now. By contrast, divorce is condemned in all four Gospels -- it's a MUCH bigger scriptural problem than homosexuality.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

There's traces of people living in Jericho around 7000BC. So folk were living there 2000 years before the Earth appeared. That's damn impressive.

 

Gobekli Tepe in Turkey is reputed to be over 12,000 years old, even older than Jericho.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/150120-gobekli-tepe-oldest-monument-turkey-archaeology/

[TheTeamForMe]

At new Hymn for all the god botherers next time you are in your tax free gang hut on Sunday mornings:

 

"And They're coming to take me away Ha Ha

They're coming to take me away ho ho he he ha ha

to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time, and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats

 and they're coming to take me away ha ha".

 

 

HALLELUYAH

 

all together now,

 

They're coming to take me awaaaay......

[Irufushi]

I'm still amazed there are people out there that believe the Earth is only 6000 years old,

 

Like actual people with responsibilities.

 

******* hell

It's actually disturbing. Brainwashed from a young age.

[i8hibsh]

Christianity

 

 

Religion

 

 

Believing in that shit

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

It's actually disturbing. Brainwashed from a young age.

 

Don't know what it's like in school nowadays but when I was at secondary school back in the early-mid 70's Religious Education was part of the curriculum, however it was Christian propaganda because that was the only religion which was taught.

In my year there was at least one Sikh, one Hindu and a couple of Muslims, but even they had to attend Christian Education (RE) as it was part of the curriculum, even when their parents complained they got told that their children had to attend and learn about Christianity.

The parents pointed out quite rightly that as it was called Religious Education then other Religions should also be taught not just Christianity.

 

As I said, I don't know what it's like nowadays, but certainly in my day it was nothing more than Christian propaganda rammed down your throat.

[N Lincs Jambo]

At new Hymn for all the god botherers next time you are in your tax free gang hut on Sunday mornings:

 

"And They're coming to take me away Ha Ha

They're coming to take me away ho ho he he ha ha

to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time, and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats

and they're coming to take me away ha ha".

 

 

 

Well that's a blast from the past! Did a wee search on YouTube and found this...

 

 

Amazing to think it got to the top 5!

[maroonlegions]

So if god created MAN in his own image,(very handy concept if you want to  control and manipulate  a species), then why no mention of extraterrestrial life  in the bible, why no sniff of even the possibility of it??  Surely such divine vehicles or "receptors" of Gods divine word and creation could not fail to mention life outside his creation?? 

 

Remember that these so called learned men, "son of god", "saints", "Christian scholars" and the whole  religious shebang  contained in the bible overlooked one important point and that was  the  future discovery of any possible extraterrestrial life and more so if  that life is advanced and more intelligent than man himself.

 

 

The final nail in the coffin of  all Christianities  credibility and believable stakes will come at the discovery of intelligent life outside the earth.  

[maroonlegions]

Christianity

 

 

Religion

 

 

Believing in that shit

 

 

 

This;

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Have they tried using that as justification for not marrying homosexuals? "We are only trying to save them from the sin of divorce"

 

No, because most of the people who are fervently opposing gay marriage don't have any problem with divorce any more.    There are still hold-outs who oppose both (like a subset of Catholic bishops), but they're in the minority, at least in the US.  The divorce issue is done and dusted in the US, with a strong majority of Catholics supporting it, but gay marriage was behind it a bit.

 

At this point, it's just cultural reactionaries using the church as a channel and a justification for their opposition.  The scriptural case against homosexuality is paper-thin.

[maroonlegions]

Man in his present understanding or man"s capability to perceive such a notion of a supreme creator is non existent i feel.

 

 Just as his capability to perceive or understand this universe and possibly others is nowhere near the understanding required to form a FINAL thesis or doctrine on why we are hear, were are we going and the true meaning  or origin of life itself.

 

This is why Christianity and religions in general have failed to offer anything but blind FAITH .... 

 

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

So if god created MAN in his own image,(very handy concept if you want to  control and manipulate  a species), then why no mention of extraterrestrial life  in the bible, why no sniff of even the possibility of it??  Surely such divine vehicles or "receptors" of Gods divine word and creation could not fail to mention life outside his creation?? 

 

Remember that these so called learned men, "son of god", "saints", "Christian scholars" and the whole  religious shebang  contained in the bible overlooked one important point and that was  the  future discovery of any possible extraterrestrial life and more so if  that life is advanced and more intelligent than man himself.

 

 

The final nail in the coffin of  all Christianities  credibility and believable stakes will come at the discovery of intelligent life outside the earth.  

 

You know those religious types whom usually come to your door in pairs.

 

Well one day I asked them if they believed in the bible, every word in the bible, to which they answered yes because it's god's words.

So I asked them what colour God was because the bible states that God made man in his own image, so was God White, Black or Yellow, because all 3 are distinctly different visually from each other, we might all be the same inside but the bible clearly states that man was created in God's image, now the word image to me relates to a visual thing, so what colour was God I repeated.

 

Of course they couldn't answer as there was no correct answer.

[Irufushi]

Don't know what it's like in school nowadays but when I was at secondary school back in the early-mid 70's Religious Education was part of the curriculum, however it was Christian propaganda because that was the only religion which was taught.

In my year there was at least one Sikh, one Hindu and a couple of Muslims, but even they had to attend Christian Education (RE) as it was part of the curriculum, even when their parents complained they got told that their children had to attend and learn about Christianity.

The parents pointed out quite rightly that as it was called Religious Education then other Religions should also be taught not just Christianity.

 

As I said, I don't know what it's like nowadays, but certainly in my day it was nothing more than Christian propaganda rammed down your throat.

Had a Muslim when I was in school, he didn't need to go to RE.

 

The class should be optional. I took no notice of it.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

You know those religious types whom usually come to your door in pairs.

 

Well one day I asked them if they believed in the bible, every word in the bible, to which they answered yes because it's god's words.

So I asked them what colour God was because the bible states that God made man in his own image, so was God White, Black or Yellow, because all 3 are distinctly different visually from each other, we might all be the same inside but the bible clearly states that man was created in God's image, now the word image to me relates to a visual thing, so what colour was God I repeated.

 

Of course they couldn't answer as there was no correct answer.

 

I'm of the firm opinion that even if you're not religious, biblical literacy is great for trolling overzealous door-to-door evangelists.  My grandmother was an all-time master of it -- would invite them in and serve coffee and cookies and play stupid until they really stepped in it, then take them to school. (She taught Sunday school for quite literally almost 80 years.)

[chuck berrys hairline]

.

[Sidelight]

You're citing Milton, not the Bible.  Common mistake.  

 

 

 

Hutton did more than start the old earth idea, he founded modern geology and established the doctrine of uniformitarianism, which was a critical insight for Darwin.  Hutton was one of Darwin's biggest influences, who enjoyed geology almost more than he enjoyed natural history.  Hutton was a stone-cold badass.  PHM for sure!

 

(And the consensus answer is 4.6 billion years if memory serves, which it does less and less these days.)

 

 

 

This is perhaps a fairly American take on the denominations, but I'm rather happier with a situation where people find the religion that most resonates with them, rather than the one which is most closely associated with the state locally.  People have wildly different takes on the process of sorting this out, but there's massive thought dedicated to "discernment" of God's Truth.  But again, the problem is not new, nor did it begin with Christianity.

 

The Bible contradicts itself immensely throughout scripture (sometimes within the same books, particularly in the first 6 which are generally thought to be merged and edited from prior texts), which is why there has to be some kind of sensible hierarchy about what the most important bits are.  The Gospels are generally accepted as the most central, with the other New Testament texts as being critical but lesser, the Pentateuch being somewhat more important in the Old Testament, the major prophets as bigger than the minor, and so on.  All that said, homosexuality was barely discussed anywhere in the church before Aquinas.  (He basically played a big part in inventing both modern science and the church's obsession with sexuality. Win some, lose some.)  It's barely mentioned in passing in two of Paul's epistles, and the prohibition in Leviticus appears next to the ban on cotton/wool blends, tattoos, shaving, make-up, and all sorts of other Levitican law that only strictly Orthodox Jews pay attention to now. By contrast, divorce is condemned in all four Gospels -- it's a MUCH bigger scriptural problem than homosexuality

 

You?re good at presenting your view as fact when in reality many scholars hold an opposed view.

However that?s not my point for question.

So my questions to you then are:

Who has the right to determine what is good or bad, who determines what is morally acceptable in the culture?

Further, who has the say on whether marriage as an institution should be preserved, and if so, who sets the rules?

If the populous majority agrees on a set of standards, what happens when they are replaced by a new majority with new standards?

By example many majorities are now advocating ?gay marriage?.

Where is the line drawn ? How long before polygamous, or paedophiliac relationships are promoted? Perhaps some want this allowed now.

Who is to say that they are wrong, if the majority are on their side?

 

[Riddley Walker]

 

You?re good at presenting your view as fact when in reality many scholars hold an opposed view.

However that?s not my point for question.

So my questions to you then are:

Who has the right to determine what is good or bad, who determines what is morally acceptable in the culture?

Further, who has the say on whether marriage as an institution should be preserved, and if so, who sets the rules?

If the populous majority agrees on a set of standards, what happens when they are replaced by a new majority with new standards?

By example many majorities are now advocating ?gay marriage?.

Where is the line drawn ? How long before polygamous, or paedophiliac relationships are promoted? Perhaps some want this allowed now.

Who is to say that they are wrong, if the majority are on their side?

 

 

Are you saying letting gay adults who love each other marry sets a precedent for padeophiliac marragies in the future?

 

You are stuck in the dark ages. You are wrong. You are awful.

[Sidelight]

 

Are you saying letting gay adults who love each other marry sets a precedent for padeophiliac marragies in the future?

 

You are stuck in the dark ages. You are wrong. You are awful.

 

No - I asking, who makes the rules, who sets the standards.

[Riddley Walker]

 

 

 

Are you saying letting gay adults who love each other marry sets a precedent for padeophiliac marragies in the future?

 

You are stuck in the dark ages. You are wrong. You are awful.

 

No - I asking, who makes the rules, who sets the standards.

The standard is that consenting adults are allowed to make their love official, regardless of sexuality. How you could think this sets a precedent for an adult marrying a child is what's really wrong with certain parts of religion.

[Adam Murray]

The standard is that consenting adults are allowed to make their love official, regardless of sexuality. How you could think this sets a precedent for an adult marrying a child is what's really wrong with certain parts of religion.

 

I think the point here is, that somethings that are deemed acceptable nowadays would have been unheard of 100 or maybe even 50 years ago. The point that you are rightly putting down just now, may not seem so ludicrous in another 100 years, who knows?

[Riddley Walker]

I think the point here is, that somethings that are deemed acceptable nowadays would have been unheard of 100 or maybe even 50 years ago. The point that you are rightly putting down just now, may not seem so ludicrous in another 100 years, who knows?

I don't accept his comparison in any way. One of the main reasons gay marriage wasn't acceptable 100 years ago is because religion does/can make people mental. Thankfully a lot of secular countries have wriggled free from this.

 

We don't need a book to tell us having sex with kids is wrong, it just is. This won't change in 100 years and to compare it to a change in attitudes towards gay marriage is outrageous, to be honest.