Jump to content

"God Bless you"


i8hibsh

Recommended Posts

zoltan socrates

Religions are far from harmless, do they really give peace to people's lives or is it false hope, living within a bubble of ignorance, is that healthy? Really?

 

No religious types have,ever answered me but kb being Kb I'm sure someone will try......

 

It is agreed that God is omnipotent and transcends the barrier of time

It is agreed that he knows all past present and future events

It is agree d that he is our creator and is loving and caring

It is agreed that rejecting him will result in your spending eternity in the hell fire, suffering

 

So with that established why, knowing my future, would God create me for my creation will only resul in my eternal suffering, that sounds like a god intent on creating suffering and not a loving caring God at all hence I simply cannot entertain the theory at all as there is no logical consistency.

 

You cannot cite free will as, despite supposedly giving us free will he still already knows our outcome, so can and religious type comment on that?

 

Religion was created to control the uneducated masses, no slight on people as education wasn't freely available 2000 years ago, and that is the point, 2000 years ago people hadn't advanced technologically and scientifically enough to explain the unexplainable.

 

There is no excuse in modern times

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Religions are far from harmless, do they really give peace to people's lives or is it false hope, living within a bubble of ignorance, is that healthy? Really?

 

No religious types have,ever answered me but kb being Kb I'm sure someone will try......

 

It is agreed that God is omnipotent and transcends the barrier of time

It is agreed that he knows all past present and future events

It is agree d that he is our creator and is loving and caring

It is agreed that rejecting him will result in your spending eternity in the hell fire, suffering

 

So with that established why, knowing my future, would God create me for my creation will only resul in my eternal suffering, that sounds like a god intent on creating suffering and not a loving caring God at all hence I simply cannot entertain the theory at all as there is no logical consistency.

 

You cannot cite free will as, despite supposedly giving us free will he still already knows our outcome, so can and religious type comment on that?

 

Religion was created to control the uneducated masses, no slight on people as education wasn't freely available 2000 years ago, and that is the point, 2000 years ago people hadn't advanced technologically and scientifically enough to explain the unexplainable.

 

There is no excuse in modern times

 

The invention of mass printing was seen at the time to be one of the greatest threats to the established church as it meant that for the first time people could read the bible themselves (if they could read of course) rather than have some priest preaching his version of what the bible said which usually meant that if you didn't tow the party line you would burn in hell forever, in other words scaring people into doing as the church said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jam Tarts 1874

Religions are far from harmless, do they really give peace to people's lives or is it false hope, living within a bubble of ignorance, is that healthy? Really?

 

No religious types have,ever answered me but kb being Kb I'm sure someone will try......

 

It is agreed that God is omnipotent and transcends the barrier of time

It is agreed that he knows all past present and future events

It is agree d that he is our creator and is loving and caring

It is agreed that rejecting him will result in your spending eternity in the hell fire, suffering

 

So with that established why, knowing my future, would God create me for my creation will only resul in my eternal suffering, that sounds like a god intent on creating suffering and not a loving caring God at all hence I simply cannot entertain the theory at all as there is no logical consistency.

 

You cannot cite free will as, despite supposedly giving us free will he still already knows our outcome, so can and religious type comment on that?

 

Religion was created to control the uneducated masses, no slight on people as education wasn't freely available 2000 years ago, and that is the point, 2000 years ago people hadn't advanced technologically and scientifically enough to explain the unexplainable.

 

There is no excuse in modern times

 

What absolute garbage!!!

 

Perhaps you should go and find out how Christianity spread 2,000 years ago.  Christianity was most certainly NOT "created" by any authority to control anyone.

 

There is so much ignorance on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riddley Walker

What absolute garbage!!!

 

Perhaps you should go and find out how Christianity spread 2,000 years ago. Christianity was most certainly NOT "created" by any authority to control anyone.

 

There is so much ignorance on this thread.

You're right in that Christianity wasn't created by an authority, but it was certainly used by them to control people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genuine question for the religious people of KB. Do you ever challenge your religion on an intellectual level? Do you not realise that the claims that are made in your respective holy books have absolutely no evidence to support? Not a single shred.

 

Do you not see the link between faith and location of where you were born? If you had been brought up in India, you'd be a Hindu. If you had been brought up in Denmark in the time of the Vikings, you'd be believing in Wotan and Thor. If you were brought up in classical Greece, you'd be believing in Zeus. If you were brought up in central Africa, you'd be believing in the great Juju up the mountain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What absolute garbage!!!

 

Perhaps you should go and find out how Christianity spread 2,000 years ago.  Christianity was most certainly NOT "created" by any authority to control anyone.

 

There is so much ignorance on this thread.

 

The biggest single factor that resulted in the early establishment and growth of Christianity did come from authority.

 

Constantine became the emperor of Rome in 306, and was the most powerful person in his part of the world.

His conversion to Christianity had far reaching effects on the common practice of the religion and on all the factions of Christianity that are present today.

 

So you are correct in that he didn't 'invent' it - but it was propelled forward from Authority and set it on its path ever since.

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riddley Walker

Genuine question for the religious people of KB. Do you ever challenge your religion on an intellectual level? Do you not realise that the claims that are made in your respective holy books have absolutely no evidence to support? Not a single shred.

 

Do you not see the link between faith and location of where you were born? If you had been brought up in India, you'd be a Hindu. If you had been brought up in Denmark in the time of the Vikings, you'd be believing in Wotan and Thor. If you were brought up in classical Greece, you'd be believing in Zeus. If you were brought up in central Africa, you'd be believing in the great Juju up the mountain.

Your 2nd paragraph is something I've always found interesting/baffling. Their belief system is entirely based on which area of the planet they happened to be born in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

zoltan socrates

I

What absolute garbage!!!

 

Perhaps you should go and find out how Christianity spread 2,000 years ago. Christianity was most certainly NOT "created" by any authority to control anyone.

 

There is so much ignorance on this thread.

There is a lot of ignorance and you've volunteered for position one, religion wasn't created? Have a think about what you have said, wasn't there to control the masses? Ditto

Christianity in particular was a *******isation of a number of older religions rehashed into a new packaging

Btw like it or not, religion spreads successfully by the sword and by injecting fear into the willing, and that is how it worked until the enlightenment when the seeds of its death were sown

 

And who, other than you, claimed religion was created by an authority?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

zoltan socrates

Genuine question for the religious people of KB. Do you ever challenge your religion on an intellectual level? Do you not realise that the claims that are made in your respective holy books have absolutely no evidence to support? Not a single shred.

Do you not see the link between faith and location of where you were born? If you had been brought up in India, you'd be a Hindu. If you had been brought up in Denmark in the time of the Vikings, you'd be believing in Wotan and Thor. If you were brought up in classical Greece, you'd be believing in Zeus. If you were brought up in central Africa, you'd be believing in the great Juju up the mountain.

Often you'll find they cite the bible, Torah, Koran etc as the evidence, baffling mindset

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I There is a lot of ignorance and you've volunteered for position one, religion wasn't created? Have a think about what you have said, wasn't there to control the masses? Ditto

Christianity in particular was a *******isation of a number of older religions rehashed into a new packaging

Btw like it or not, religion spreads successfully by the sword and by injecting fear into the willing, and that is how it worked until the enlightenment when the seeds of its death were sown

 

And who, other than you, claimed religion was created by an authority?

 

There is, I don't think one single major event in the Christian Religion that wasn't stolen from an older religion, mainly Egyptian and Mesopotamian Religions and other Pagan Religions and pass them of as unique to Christianity.

 

Of course if it meant the faithful would part with their money then why would the early church tell their Illiterate and largely uneducated followers the truth. 

Very profitable business this Religion malarkey, you only need to look at opulence of St. Peters Basilica in Vatican City.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would normally be responding to a lot more on here, but I have a major project finishing up at work and at school it's getting to be the end of the term with all that means, so I just don't have a lot of time.  But this was a set of specific questions, so...
 
Let's take this one bit by bit.
 

Genuine question for the religious people of KB. Do you ever challenge your religion on an intellectual level?


I spent 10 years after college as basically an atheist/agnostic. I still have doubts, and wouldn't be able to be in a church where I couldn't air those doubts. I taught a Sunday school class last January on faith and doubt, and have been asked to do another January class on faith and science.
 

Do you not realise that the claims that are made in your respective holy books have absolutely no evidence to support? Not a single shred.


This is not factually accurate and is in fact pretty ignorant. The texts themselves, through the secular historical techniques of textual analysis and comparative historical analysis are evidence themselves (well beyond the "it's the Bible, you have to believe it" line). For certain Biblical events (we got into the historical existence of Jesus on one of the other threads) there are non-scriptural, independent artifacts, testimonies, and historical indicators of their occurrence.

One particular frustration for me is that modern secular conversations about religion get hung up on the premise "God exists" vs. "God does not exist." Given that the question of what or who exactly God is remains an incredibly contentious and ambiguous question in any theology, and what exactly existence is remains an incredibly contentious and ambiguous question in philosophy, ontology, and epistemology, it's a pretty poor object of rational analysis. There are other aspects of religion which are much more suited to rational, empirical analysis and where such analysis can be far more illuminating.
 

Do you not see the link between faith and location of where you were born? If you had been brought up in India, you'd be a Hindu. If you had been brought up in Denmark in the time of the Vikings, you'd be believing in Wotan and Thor. If you were brought up in classical Greece, you'd be believing in Zeus. If you were brought up in central Africa, you'd be believing in the great Juju up the mountain.

 

Indeed. I am Presbyterian because I was born in the US to parents of more Scottish descent than anything else. This realization forms the basis for one of my most core beliefs, which is epistemological humility -- God's truth (whatever that is) transcends my understanding. I find help, wisdom, and comfort in a tradition which for thousands of years has done the same, but that's all I can testify to. If God is as immense as we assert, we must realize that the same God is probably moving in other people. Our goal is to try to work to see God as well as we can (which will inevitably be not very well) and to try to serve others according to God's will. We have to try to make some kinds of truth claims along the way, but we have to realize that in so doing we will fall short and miss the mark. (In Greek, harmartia means "fall short" or "miss the mark" and is used throughout the New Testament.  It's usually been translated as "sin" or "transgress" but that loses some of the original Greek context of "failed attempt.") 

Conversely, do you not see the link between your lack of association with religion and the location of where you were born, that you were a raised in a UK society where conflict between two particular branches of Christianity as well as appropriation of the resources and offices of the church by powered interests such as the Crown and British nobility left the church with a particularly bad reputation? Do you not see that if you were raised in a society with a less damaged and problematic church that you could well be arguing against the happy-clappy claims of secular modernist humanism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religions are far from harmless, do they really give peace to people's lives or is it false hope, living within a bubble of ignorance, is that healthy? Really?

 

No religious types have,ever answered me but kb being Kb I'm sure someone will try......

 

It is agreed that God is omnipotent and transcends the barrier of time

It is agreed that he knows all past present and future events

It is agree d that he is our creator and is loving and caring

It is agreed that rejecting him will result in your spending eternity in the hell fire, suffering

 

 

Very briefly, that last one is not agreed universally.  Rob Bell has basically been tossed out of the Evangelical movement for writing a book saying it's wrong, but he's hardly the first one to make the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lot of words to say absolutely nothing

 

Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugly American - I'm talking about the supernatural claims that are made in the Bible. Sure, someone like Jesus probably existed, not debating that, but that wasn't what I was referring to. Take the below bible claims for example:

 

- The creation of the world in 6 days a mere few thousand years ago.

- Virgin births

- Water in Egypt turned into blood

- Noah's ark

- Resurrections

- Talking bushes

- Turning water into wine

 

Do you honestly believe in these claims, of which there is absolutely no credible evidence?

 

Regarding the correlation between where you were born and the religion you believe in, surely this has to make you question things? You've admitted that you are Presbyterian due to your location in the world and who you're parents are. What makes you sure that, out of all the religions, all over the world, past and present, that's yours is the correct one?

 

You've said a lot of words, but you haven't really answered any of the questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.

I have not cello there extra long what because what I have not the leisure of the time extra nice?

 

Ps obviously quarter agrees

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugly American - I'm talking about the supernatural claims that are made in the Bible. Sure, someone like Jesus probably existed, not debating that, but that wasn't what I was referring to. Take the below bible claims for example:

 

- The creation of the world in 6 days a mere few thousand years ago.

- Virgin births

- Water in Egypt turned into blood

- Noah's ark

- Resurrections

- Talking bushes

- Turning water into wine

 

Do you honestly believe in these claims, of which there is absolutely no credible evidence?

 

Regarding the correlation between where you were born and the religion you believe in, surely this has to make you question things? You've admitted that you are Presbyterian due to your location in the world and who you're parents are. What makes you sure that, out of all the religions, all over the world, past and present, that's yours is the correct one?

 

You've said a lot of words, but you haven't really answered any of the questions.

 

I'll try to be more brief.

 

- I don't think the world was created in 6 days. I do not believe in Biblical inerrancy or literalism. 

- In Egypt I think you're referring to the "rain of blood." I don't think it was literally blood. Red rain is a phenomenon that's been observed in modern times.

- Noah's ark is an incredibly old story, far, far older than Jesus. I think there's probably a kernel of truth in a story of a great flood, but I don't think it covered the globe.  Archaeologists have evidence of a number of more localized but still enormous and catastrophic floods that it could refer to.

- Resurrections are a hard one.  I can't answer that briefly with any accuracy.

- Talking bushes - people hearing voices is hardly unheard of. The divine provenance of that voice is a greater question.

- Water into wine - No idea what actually happened at a chemical level there, but it's a tweak to all the tee totaling Baptists, eh?

 

We can talk about whether I "honestly believe" this, but if I'm honest I'm going to give you a long answer you probably won't like about what the word "belief" actually means.  Any other answer would be dishonest.

 

To your final question, I pretty directly answered that one, but I'll try again.  I'm absolutely, positively NOT sure that mine is the right one.  That's what the word "doubt" means.  Certainty is not belief.  In fact I'd go so far to say that certainty when it comes to religion is at least a delusion and quite possibly a sin.  My religion is the ONE I PICKED after a decade of thought, doubt, and searching.  That doesn't make it the right one, it just makes it mine.

 

Clear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not cello there extra long what because what I have not the leisure of the time extra nice?

 

Ps obviously quarter agrees

 

Google translate letting you down?  It's a quote from Pascal -- loosely meaning, "sorry for the long letter, I didn't have time to write you a short one."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so there isn't any real evidence to support the supernatural claims? I only listed a few, there are hundreds more that are even more crazy.

 

I can't comprehend that anyone with a logical thought process could believe in a God. Fair enough a thousand years back when we didn't know anything about the universe, but now we do and continue to find the missing answers through science and rational enquiry.

 

But if you believe in these things, fair play, that's absolutely your choice. It just baffles me that people believe these things on insufficient evidence.

 

Personally, I'm against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world (not my quote, but a bloody good one).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so there isn't any real evidence to support the supernatural claims? I only listed a few, there are hundreds more that are even more crazy.

 

I can't comprehend that anyone with a logical thought process could believe in a God. Fair enough a thousand years back when we didn't know anything about the universe, but now we do and continue to find the missing answers through science and rational enquiry.

 

But if you believe in these things, fair play, that's absolutely your choice. It just baffles me that people believe these things on insufficient evidence.

 

Personally, I'm against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world (not my quote, but a bloody good one).

 

You don't understand why I'm in church because you assumed you knew why I was there in the first place.  That's not a good starting point for understanding.

 

On your second paragraph, scientific and rational inquiry are hardly modern phenomena.  What is a modern phenomenon is a satisfaction that we've got the answers we need now and can ignore everyone who came before us.  I don't find it a terribly empirically sound notion, though.

 

On the last one, I'm also against any religion that teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.  Fortunately, certain wings of every major religion have been passionately committed to trying to foster deeper understanding.  The founder of modern genetics was an Augustinian friar who wanted to understand heredity in pea plants.  The Western churches have founded more institutions of higher learning and inquiry than probably every other Western institution combined. Yes there's a streak of anti-modernism that wants to bury rational inquiry that's currently very powerful and very noisy, but let me assure you they dislike Christians like me at least as much as they dislike atheists.  (You're just heathens who are damned, we qualify as heretics who have to be driven out.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google translate letting you down? It's a quote from Pascal -- loosely meaning, "sorry for the long letter, I didn't have time to write you a short one."

High school French letting me down.

 

C'est la vie.

 

Think I have heard that quote before, some boy was blaise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 For certain Biblical events (we got into the historical existence of Jesus on one of the other threads) there are non-scriptural, independent artifacts, testimonies, and historical indicators of their occurrence.

 

 

Without looking it up for exact wording: Tacitus - appears to confirm the existence of followers of Jesus"Christ" in Rome and claims they were persecuted by Nero. What does it prove - possibly that there were "Christians" in Rome, possibly that they were persecuted. Were they really followers of Jesus Christ or was this inserted by later Christian scribes - those 2 words make a difference and its an established fact that later scribes would insert / redact to fit their agenda. Not just me saying it - plenty of respected historians have come up with this. Not as clear cut as you imply.

 

Josephus - similar. His own words or a later insert? Considering Josephus had a writing style that would explain what he was writing about to gentiles uneducated in the subject matter i.e. If he mentioned Christ he would've mentioned what a Christ was and so on. That detail is missing. Again, plenty of historians will dispute the legitimacy of the 3 passages he's famous for.

 

For the above we'll never know the truth - oldest copies are @ 11th century, with them being mentioned elsewhere in documents from the 3rd century - critically the 3rd century documents don't refer to Jesus. Before you say it, I know theres a handful of others but the same comments apply. No early copies exist and a history of the librarians tampering with documents or people.

 

What other historical indicators, artefacts etc are there ? What are they, who created them and why should we believe them?

 

We can verify the existence of Paul and Peter - there's corroborating evidence but absolutely no indisputable evidence that I've heard of for the existence of Jesus Christ outside the Bible texts / Pauls letters with massive gaps in between - especially when you have doubts over the so called secular evidence (see my comments above). The 4 Canonical gospels - suspend belief - so contaminated with fantasy and allegory its impossible to say whats true or false in them - they certainly aren't history. Trying to create a man out of a myth ? My favourite: Jesus Son of God is crucified while Jesus Barabbas goes free (Barabbas is Aramaic for... you guessed it - son of god) - allegory for the Jewish temple sacrifices and why Christianity could do away with animal sacrifice. It gets better - as we have to believe that a hard nosed Roman Governor would free a guerrilla leader before a guy who's peeved the local Jewish establishment - ignoring all principles of both Roman and Jewish law of the time.

 

Theres also all the gaps - if you've read anything of the available historic evidence its clear there are many - one strong and compelling theory (for me anyway) being that the early texts didn't tie in with the desired story - were destroyed as heresy. You can't deny the church doesn't have form for that. The book of Isaiah (several hundred years before the new testament) could almost be a template for the new testament and especially the book of hallucination revelation.

 

Anyway - just saying - not as clear cut as you want to present it. We can quote authors / web sites at each other all day. I'm comfortable with my disbelief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't understand why I'm in church because you assumed you knew why I was there in the first place.  That's not a good starting point for understanding.

 

On your second paragraph, scientific and rational inquiry are hardly modern phenomena.  What is a modern phenomenon is a satisfaction that we've got the answers we need now and can ignore everyone who came before us.  I don't find it a terribly empirically sound notion, though.

 

On the last one, I'm also against any religion that teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.  Fortunately, certain wings of every major religion have been passionately committed to trying to foster deeper understanding.  The founder of modern genetics was an Augustinian friar who wanted to understand heredity in pea plants.  The Western churches have founded more institutions of higher learning and inquiry than probably every other Western institution combined. Yes there's a streak of anti-modernism that wants to bury rational inquiry that's currently very powerful and very noisy, but let me assure you they dislike Christians like me at least as much as they dislike atheists.  (You're just heathens who are damned, we qualify as heretics who have to be driven out.)

You say that scientific and rational enquiry is not new 'hardly a modern phenomina'.

 

True, but, and its a huge but science has grown expodentially in modern times, a linear progression NO.

we know more in the last 140 years than the preceding 1400.

 

To be a Theist you would have to belive that there is deity fiddling and twiddling around with molecules, answerring prayers, altering outcomes down here at ground level.

if this were true science may aswell pack up and go home. How could we ever trust a medical experiment if we had to factor in the fact that God had shuffled a few molecules to cure, or mitigate, Mrs Miggins cancer?

No, the uncomfortable truth for Theists is that for this, and a host of other reasons, belief (of the traditional kind) is directly oppossed to scientific laws.

 

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say that scientific and rational enquiry is not new 'hardly a modern phenomina'.

True, but, and its a huge but science has grown expodentially in modern times, a linear progression NO.

we know more in the last 140 years than the preceding 1400.

To be a Theist you would have to belive that there is deity fiddling and twiddling around with molecules, answerring prayers, altering outcomes down here at ground level.

if this were true science may aswell pack up and go home. How could we ever trust a medical experiment if we had to factor in the fact that God had shuffled a few molecules to cure, or mitigate, Mrs Miggins cancer?

No, the uncomfortable truth for Theists is that for this, and a host of other reasons, belief (of the traditional kind) is directly oppossed to scientific law.

.

In your worldview, why does the material universe obey immaterial laws?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your worldview, why does the material universe obey immaterial laws?

In your world view is immaterial synonymous and interchangable with imaginary.

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't comprehend that anyone with a logical thought process could believe in a God. Fair enough a thousand years back when we didn't know anything about the universe, but now we do and continue to find the missing answers through science and rational enquiry.

 

So how do you account for the laws of logic? Where did the immaterial, unchanging, abstract laws originate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Not quoting John Frum's long post on historical Jesus)

 

I don't claim that the historical Jesus argument is "straightforward" -- we went into this in some depth on the Christianity thread.  But the mythicists are very happy to point at gaps in evidence and mistake that for an argument.  In the absence of a historical Jesus, it basically requires a massive conspiracy of incompetent document-doctoring and the authoring of four different mutually contradictory narratives about a fictitious person (and also inventing a big first century argument about what it all meant), all of this done for reasons that are unclear.  It's a far simpler explanation that there was an actual person who was at some level inspirational to a number of people and threatening to authorities, that he was executed, and that a religious movement exploded in the aftermath.  Anything else requires dreaming up Da Vinci Code-levels of weird cloak-and-dagger silliness.

 

I find Bart Ehrman, no apologist for Christianity, very convincing on this matter.

 

Jesus' divinity is a different argument, of course.

 

You say that scientific and rational enquiry is not new 'hardly a modern phenomina'.

True, but, and its a huge but science has grown expodentially in modern times, a linear progression NO.
we know more in the last 140 years than the preceding 1400.

To be a Theist you would have to belive that there is deity fiddling and twiddling around with molecules, answerring prayers, altering outcomes down here at ground level.
if this were true science may aswell pack up and go home. How could we ever trust a medical experiment if we had to factor in the fact that God had shuffled a few molecules to cure, or mitigate, Mrs Miggins cancer?
No, the uncomfortable truth for Theists is that for this, and a host of other reasons, belief (of the traditional kind) is directly oppossed to scientific laws.

.

 

Here's a question that alfajambo is also getting at -- where did we get this idea that there were laws that governed the universe?  If we're interested in the historical record, how did we first start talking about "natural laws?"

 

I haven't seen an authoritative source, but I believe the first use of it is, wait for it, Thomas Aquinas.  In addition to being the foundation of modern Catholic theology, his writings on these "natural laws" that governed bodies in motion were heavily drawn on by Kepler in developing his laws of motion.  Kind of funny that a fundamental principle in modern atheism was invented by a major Christian theologian.  (No this doesn't prove theism by any means, but it's awfully funny to hear atheists demand of me how theism and laws of nature can co-exist.)

 

As to your comment saying, "to be a Theist you have to believe..."  all I can say is I'm very glad you have no authority on what I have to believe to be a theist, because I'd be in a lot of trouble otherwise.  I think it was the immensely awesome Nadia Bolz-Weber who said, "let's talk about this God you don't believe in, because there's a good chance I don't believe in that God either."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Not quoting John Frum's long post on historical Jesus)

 

I don't claim that the historical Jesus argument is "straightforward" -- we went into this in some depth on the Christianity thread.  But the mythicists are very happy to point at gaps in evidence and mistake that for an argument.  In the absence of a historical Jesus, it basically requires a massive conspiracy of incompetent document-doctoring and the authoring of four different mutually contradictory narratives about a fictitious person (and also inventing a big first century argument about what it all meant), all of this done for reasons that are unclear.  It's a far simpler explanation that there was an actual person who was at some level inspirational to a number of people and threatening to authorities, that he was executed, and that a religious movement exploded in the aftermath.  Anything else requires dreaming up Da Vinci Code-levels of weird cloak-and-dagger silliness.

 

I find Bart Ehrman, no apologist for Christianity, very convincing on this matter.

 

Jesus' divinity is a different argument, of course.

 

The gaps in the history are fact. The lunatics were in charge of the asylum for close on 2000 years - doctoring records, making redactions, burning books and burning heretics all happened - do you deny that? If you want incompetence - look at the actions of the Christian church via the surviving documents - filled with contradictions, historic inaccuracy and hagiography to feed the illiterate masses. Christianity was no more than any other mystery cult of the time with an added dose of messianic apocalypsism based on Jewish myth - the Jews couldn't defeat the Romans or their own detested aristocracy, so invented an imaginary kingdom where the could win - the kingdom of heaven. As you allude, the real question is whether "JC" was real or myth. As there was no personal history of the man for close on 100 years, I'll side with the mythisists. If you want parallels - Nedd Ludd, King Arthur and so on - none real, yet we know all about them - in the case of Arthur, even his family name, his wife's name and his best pals names. Beyond that we also have Haile Selassie and even Prince Phil - both declared gods by their followers within their own lifetimes - even though they strenuously denied it (continuing to deny in the case of Phil)

 

The Da Vinci code levels of conspiracy are entirely with you and your fellow fantasists I'm afraid - age of miracles, hallucinations (probably induced by hunger, thirst etc - well known techniques of the time for reaching revelatory states - these days we'd do acid or mushrooms - sorry ecstasy (showing my age)). You want to make the case for something that goes against all logic and experience, go ahead, but the evidence needs to be good and indisputable. Now that argument is no longer enforced with the threat of death (at least not in this country), the arguments not so compelling.

 

The gospels are allegory, there's no historical evidence for any of the nonsense in there. Of course, if you can provide evidence of the claims in your previous post, I'll gladly retract that statement, providing the evidence holds up to scrutiny. Your problem is that as soon as doubt creeps in to any of your fantasy, the whole lot falls about your ears. You've already tried to present the gospels as real history - plenty of evidence they aren't

 

Ehrman - read his stuff and his conclusions just don't add up for me and he squeals loud and long when he's challenged / caught out. Sorry, I disagree with you. Each to their own, as I said, I'm happy in my disbelief. 

 

At least this time you haven't tried to add legitimacy to your fantasy by using scientific terms such as DNA - pathetic creationist straw clutching if you ask me (Christianity  thread - I missed your post but have responded now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies if I ha

 

 

 

 

 

Apologies if I have a case of mistaken identity here but are you not the guy that used to pinch womens knickers of washing lines?

Haha, over the years that story has grown legs. I used to have a women's pantie collection yes but never once stole them of washing lines. I was always given them from bursd at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What absolute garbage!!!

 

Perhaps you should go and find out how Christianity spread 2,000 years ago. Christianity was most certainly NOT "created" by any authority to control anyone.

 

There is so much ignorance on this thread.

You have as little clue as every human being that has ever existed on the origins of the Christianity story so please stop calling people ignorant and trying to make people look stupid.

 

I GUARANTEE you that you do not know how this bullshit started as no-one does.

 

What I guarantee is that every single word in the bible is bullshit. If you know otherwise then please prove it. I would love to see a talking snake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frum: whatev.  I believe in careful scholarship and historical evidence not pop theorizing.  Some of your first paragraph points to interesting discussion topics regarding historical techniques and flawed evidence but it's frankly overloaded with a lot of hyperbolic noise that I can't see how any kind of reasonable conversation would be possible.

 

Now, because this seems to be so hard for some people to understand, I'll repeat -- I'm not a creationist so quit pinning that on me.  I have a degree in environmental biology and could probably teach most people here a fair few things about evolutionary theory that have nothing to do with religion or theism.  The Gospels are four separate, self-contradictory accounts written decades after the events in question to try to collate them into one coherent narrative, and each has a perspective which argues with or competes with the others.  If they're allegory, whoever wrote them did a terrible job, in that there are clearly sections that the authors have to go to pains to explain why Jesus said something and then later changed his mind.  Any semi-competent fiction writer could have put together a far more coherent narrative, and one would think that if the church were as all-powerful and cavalier in doctoring documents that they might have fixed the obvious conflicts and disagreements between them.

 

The church has been chock full of unsavory actors for millennia, sure, but the church has been fighting with itself ever since Paul wrote his first letter to Christians in Corinth around 55 AD primarily to tell them to knock off all the squabbling.  Even if the only church in the world were the Roman Catholic church, power wasn't strongly consolidated to Rome until the mid to late medieval period, and that ignores the records kept in all of the eastern churches, who in addition to feuding with Rome were bickering among themselves.  Part of how we can actually analyze ancient documents is precisely by the differences between copies of them kept in broadly disparate geographical places, which highlight the various ways churches tried to redact or edit the narratives.  So if you actually want to argue that the whole thing is a post facto mockup, you have to imagine some super-conspiracy across the fragments of the broken Roman empire, which by the way also includes digging up things like the Dead Sea Scrolls to edit those too.  It would make an awesome paperback novel, I'm sure, but pardon me if I don't take it as a serious critique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have as little clue as every human being that has ever existed on the origins of the Christianity story so please stop calling people ignorant and trying to make people look stupid.

 

I GUARANTEE you that you do not know how this bullshit started as no-one does.

 

What I guarantee is that every single word in the bible is bullshit. If you know otherwise then please prove it. I would love to see a talking snake.

 

So are we seriously just abandoning the entire study of ancient history because it's hard and involves uncertainty?  Are we also going to say we have no idea how Socratic thought got started just because it's possible Plato made it all up?

 

You know, if people don't want to be Christians or find God a problematic concept, that's one thing, but where the hell is this anti-historicism coming from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frum: whatev.  I believe in careful scholarship and historical evidence not pop theorizing.  Some of your first paragraph points to interesting discussion topics regarding historical techniques and flawed evidence but it's frankly overloaded with a lot of hyperbolic noise that I can't see how any kind of reasonable conversation would be possible.

 

Now, because this seems to be so hard for some people to understand, I'll repeat -- I'm not a creationist so quit pinning that on me.  I have a degree in environmental biology and could probably teach most people here a fair few things about evolutionary theory that have nothing to do with religion or theism.  The Gospels are four separate, self-contradictory accounts written decades after the events in question to try to collate them into one coherent narrative, and each has a perspective which argues with or competes with the others.  If they're allegory, whoever wrote them did a terrible job, in that there are clearly sections that the authors have to go to pains to explain why Jesus said something and then later changed his mind.  Any semi-competent fiction writer could have put together a far more coherent narrative, and one would think that if the church were as all-powerful and cavalier in doctoring documents that they might have fixed the obvious conflicts and disagreements between them.

 

The church has been chock full of unsavory actors for millennia, sure, but the church has been fighting with itself ever since Paul wrote his first letter to Christians in Corinth around 55 AD primarily to tell them to knock off all the squabbling.  Even if the only church in the world were the Roman Catholic church, power wasn't strongly consolidated to Rome until the mid to late medieval period, and that ignores the records kept in all of the eastern churches, who in addition to feuding with Rome were bickering among themselves.  Part of how we can actually analyze ancient documents is precisely by the differences between copies of them kept in broadly disparate geographical places, which highlight the various ways churches tried to redact or edit the narratives.  So if you actually want to argue that the whole thing is a post facto mockup, you have to imagine some super-conspiracy across the fragments of the broken Roman empire, which by the way also includes digging up things like the Dead Sea Scrolls to edit those too.  It would make an awesome paperback novel, I'm sure, but pardon me if I don't take it as a serious critique.

 

FACT: The bible and all other such like books is complete and utter bullshit. The 3,000 Gods that people believe in do not exist and never have.

 

I would like to be proved wrong. Can you do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are we seriously just abandoning the entire study of ancient history because it's hard and involves uncertainty?  Are we also going to say we have no idea how Socratic thought got started just because it's possible Plato made it all up?

 

You know, if people don't want to be Christians or find God a problematic concept, that's one thing, but where the hell is this anti-historicism coming from?

I do not deny history. Clearly people have been deluded for 2,000 years. Does not make it real tho eh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FACT: The bible and all other such like books is complete and utter bullshit. The 3,000 Gods that people believe in do not exist and never have.

 

I would like to be proved wrong. Can you do that?

 

What, you want historical evidence that one thing in the Bible is true?  (You do realize it's a pretty big collection of books, right?)  If I do that do I get a prize?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not deny history. Clearly people have been deluded for 2,000 years. Does not make it real tho eh.

 

So all of the people, including Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists, who have spent years pouring over historical evidence, looking at potshards, comparing extant versions of documents, scanning Roman records, all to try to piece together the history of the time period which includes but is far from limited to the founding of the Christian church are all "deluded," so "no-one" knows how all "this bullshit" started?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, you want historical evidence that one thing in the Bible is true?  (You do realize it's a pretty big collection of books, right?)  If I do that do I get a prize?

 

There is no prize great enough to reward that.

 

Can I ask. Do you ever just stop and think rationally and say, seriously wtf? This seriously can't be real and if it is why is it so important to worship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all of the people, including Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists, who have spent years pouring over historical evidence, looking at potshards, comparing extant versions of documents, scanning Roman records, all to try to piece together the history of the time period which includes but is far from limited to the founding of the Christian church are all "deluded," so "no-one" knows how all "this bullshit" started?

In a word, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no prize great enough to reward that.

 

Can I ask. Do you ever just stop and think rationally and say, seriously wtf? This seriously can't be real and if it is why is it so important to worship?

 

As I said at least twice above, yes, I have.  And do on a regular basis.

 

 

In a word, yes.

 

Oooookaaaayy...

 

Yeah, I'm done.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christians are fanbloodytastic at diverting every debate towards being able to prove certain points; "that person was real, do you know how many scholars" etc etc

 

Anything to get away from having to debate this: God isn't real, no matter what some people two thousand years ago said or thought or wrote down. God isn't real. Prove jesus was a person, prove that strange things happened. Doesn't matter. God isn't real. Sorry dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

right back on topic, this god bless you crap is running wild among the street folk, center of town they've all started it the last couple of weeks. to me this sudden use of the statement is more than likely due to xmas and it's supposed connection to the big man, probably the latest buzz phrase at begger school as well.

 

I'm fine with it, doesn't stop my progress in the slightest anymore than some of the dogs abuse I've had from the same beggers in the past, still see most in the pub/bookies after they've finished work as usual

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alwaysthereinspirit

Grinds my gears when someone says 'bless you' after I sneeze. I don't want blessed by your imaginary friend, thanks.

I read somewhere years ago that one of the first signs of possibly having the bubonic plague was sneezing. Thus the use of the "God Bless You" after a sneeze.

Thank god we dont jump to that conclusion right away now for a sneeze.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read somewhere years ago that one of the first signs of possibly having the bubonic plague was sneezing. Thus the use of the "God Bless You" after a sneeze.

Thank god we dont jump to that conclusion right away now for a sneeze.

 

Reason being because God would have been seen as your only hope of survival back in 1500/1600's as there certainly wasn't much else which would help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really shouldn't get steamed up about stuff like that.  There are bigger, more important things that need your emotional energy.

 

If you think the person is being sincere, simply say 'thanks'.  If you think it's just a lazy habit, ignore it.

 

Recently, an acquaintance of mine learned that I had a granddaughter in hospital, and she said to me, "I'll include her in my prayers."  I happen to believe that praying to a deity is a complete waste of time, but my reply was "Thanks, I appreciate your thoughtfulness."

 

No need to get angry or offended, imo.

I hope your grandkid is ok.

 

The idea that a "God" could help if I or you prayed would insult me.

 

I think there is a need to get angry and insulted when our children are taught this pish at supposedly non denominational schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...