On June 13 2012 03:50 guN-viCe wrote: I was raised christian and slowly converted myself to agnostic, and now I'm pretty close to atheist but not quite. If you believe in science and the scientific method, it's hard to ignore the facts. These facts are such:
-The earth is over 6 billion years old. -Humans and our ancestors are millions upon millions of years old. -The universe is HUUUUUUUGE, it's extremely unlikely that other life does not exist out there. -The Bible was written by men who lived in huts, thousands of years ago. -Christianity is the dominate religion out there, but it still has less followers than that of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam combined. -The Bible contradicts itself hundreds of times.
Add all of these up, and one begins to realize that the Bible is not very accurate. It is actually a book of lies and contradictions. Believing in the Bible is akin to believing in the Tooth fairy and Santa Clause; wishful thinking.
Everybody fears death, and the Bible promises "everlasting life". The Bible plays on these fears, and has been quite successful at scaring people into practicing religion. Just look at this thread for proof.
It's pretty easy to list things and say these are facts :\ Please contribute to the discussion
I would like to say, coming from the Christian perspective, I appreciate the way Omni is debating. Good questions, well though out, really challenges me. Just wanted to say thanks.
On June 13 2012 03:50 guN-viCe wrote: I was raised christian and slowly converted myself to agnostic, and now I'm pretty close to atheist but not quite. If you believe in science and the scientific method, it's hard to ignore the facts. These facts are such:
-The earth is over 6 billion years old. -Humans and our ancestors are millions upon millions of years old. -The universe is HUUUUUUUGE, it's extremely unlikely that other life does not exist out there. -The Bible was written by men who lived in huts, thousands of years ago. -Christianity is the dominate religion out there, but it still has less followers than that of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam combined. -The Bible contradicts itself hundreds of times.
Add all of these up, and one begins to realize that the Bible is not very accurate. It is actually a book of lies and contradictions. Believing in the Bible is akin to believing in the Tooth fairy and Santa Clause; wishful thinking.
Everybody fears death, and the Bible promises "everlasting life". The Bible plays on these fears, and has been quite successful at scaring people into practicing religion. Just look at this thread for proof.
From a Catholic perspective, those facts don't really affect religion. Catholics believe that the bible is not totally factually true, but totally theologically true. So the creation stories don't mean fact to them, they mean that everything is good and was started by God. They also believe in evolution, but that God guided our evolution. The bible contradicting itself is, again, not a problem to Catholics, who believe that it is theologically infallible. So although John says that Jesus didn't die on Passover, he is just trying to make a different theological point.
Christianity is dominant in our society, but not in all societies, like in the Middle East and most of Asia. It probably has the most global influence because Europeans used to dominate the world, and now the U.S. and its allies do, most of which are Christian.
And the bible is just a collection of books written thousands of years ago, don't know why it matters that they weren't as advanced as us. In a hundred years, people may make fun of Darwin for living in a wooden boat, but that doesn't necessarily discredit his very important findings.
On June 13 2012 03:50 guN-viCe wrote: I was raised christian and slowly converted myself to agnostic, and now I'm pretty close to atheist but not quite. If you believe in science and the scientific method, it's hard to ignore the facts. These facts are such:
-The earth is over 6 billion years old. -Humans and our ancestors are millions upon millions of years old. -The universe is HUUUUUUUGE, it's extremely unlikely that other life does not exist out there. -The Bible was written by men who lived in huts, thousands of years ago. -Christianity is the dominate religion out there, but it still has less followers than that of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam combined. -The Bible contradicts itself hundreds of times.
Add all of these up, and one begins to realize that the Bible is not very accurate. It is actually a book of lies and contradictions. Believing in the Bible is akin to believing in the Tooth fairy and Santa Clause; wishful thinking.
Everybody fears death, and the Bible promises "everlasting life". The Bible plays on these fears, and has been quite successful at scaring people into practicing religion. Just look at this thread for proof.
It's pretty easy to list things and say these are facts :\ Please contribute to the discussion
I would like to say, coming from the Christian perspective, I appreciate the way Omni is debating. Good questions, well though out, really challenges me. Just wanted to say thanks.
Thanks.
But seriously, you can come join the dark side any time you want. We've planned some Scrabble for later, and I've heard there is going to be cake (though I've been deceived before).
In the meantime, I'll try to put a finer point on what I think guN-viCe was trying to say.
In a lot of ways, it's useful to think of religion as an early attempt to explain the world. Everyone sees this on some level. Polytheism as mostly fallen out of fashion (unless you're certain types of Hindu), but it was the standard for a long time. Off the top of you head, how many sun gods can you name? I've got 3. God of the Sea? Thunder? You get the picture.
We don't have these gods anymore. No one believes in Zeus, Thor, or Ra. Instead, people have settled on one god, and he is responsible for everything not yet explained. This used to mean the motion of the sun, moon, and planets, the weather, and the diversity of life on Earth. But now, we have explanations for all those things. People don't look to religious belief for information about the night sky. They look to an astronomy book, planetarium, or telescope.
But believers are in luck. There are so many wonderful things left to discover. We know why there are so many different species on the planet, but not the exact mechanism through which the first life formed. Bam, god did it. We understand the expansion of the universe and the formation of stars, planets and galaxies, but not what happened right before (in the sense that "before" actually means anything in this context) the Big Bang. God must have done that too.
This idea is called "God of the Gaps." Every time there's a gap in our current understanding, just throw god in there. Or more apropriately, science keeps forcing god out of areas in which he used to be king, with the religious fighting it the whole way. The trouble is, the Gaps keep shrinking. Science keeps filling all the holes, and, to date, god has no victories. People are rapidly running out of excuses for theistic beliefs. The list of things over which God has control is shrinking. Believers are losing.
So that's all great, but there's more. With an ever-shrinking role for god in explaining the natural world, god has also been shrinking in other ways. You can see it all over this thread. People used to say, "Being gay is wrong," but now they equivocate, hedge, or outright reject the Biblical position. You can read back a few pages and see the same thing about hell. "Well hell is just absence from god," they say, or "hell is metaphorical," or "hell doesn't exist."
Hell doesn't exist? Shit, there are about 2000 years of Christians who are going to be shocked to hear that. Sure, just casually redefine your entire religion, leaving in all the juicy "love thy neighbor" parts while tossing out fire and brimstone... It's all there. It's all from the same source. It's hard to have one without the other.
It's a retreat. As god is less and less impressive (i.e. we can explain almost all the things he used to be responsible for), people are less and less willing to tolerate all the ugly stuff.
Sure, you better respect GOD, the father, creator of the universe, who built you in his image, who has dominion over Earth and heaven, and who alone decides your eternal fate. Seriously, do what he says. That bastard will eat your soul.
On the other hand, god, that guy who maybe did a couple of the things we haven't figured out yet, is much less intimidating.
I'm sort of just jumping in here but i think that so many christians reject the idea of hell because it is so obviously immoral of a supreme all-forgiving being to allow such a place to exist. these christians (let's call them liberal christians although I'm not sure if that's totally accurate) have strong moral values that come from secular society, not the bible. they just want to give the bible credit for this sort of stuff and so right off all the horrible things in the bible as metaphors and then only leave the few good bits as correct. but the bible teaches all sorts of horrible things. liberal christians are just afraid of death and what it means to accept that the bible is fiction, and so they cling to the bible and constantly change what it means to reflect their actual values and just call themselves "true christians". sorry but if you actually go by the ENTIRE bible, not just the nice stuff, the westboro baptist church is much closer to the values represented in the bible than the chistians that support gay marriage and the like.
I have a lot of friends that are liberal christians (I used to be one myself before I gave it all up in high school) and I hate how they just create their own version of "god" and make him their ideal by putting all of their morals into him and then claim that is god and that they are christian blah blah blah. that isn't anything. that is just your imagination and you really really wish it is true but it's not. and as long as you go around with the charade and call yourself christian then you are an enabler for the horrible religious fanatics in the world that cause harm and hold back the entire human race from progressing forward.
I guess that was a lot more of a rant than I wanted it to be, sorry :\
And TBH, I don't know much about Catholic beliefs. If what you say is true, it seems to me that they just adapt their beliefs to whatever evidence is out there. I'm happy they don't deny established facts.
To your last point, Darwin had evidence for his theories, and it wasn't just a collection of stories. I mean, that is literally what the bible is. Perhaps those stories are true, but we have no evidence of it.
Just look at my signature. Regardless, you can obviously believe whatever you want. It makes no difference to me, I'm just stating my viewpoint.
On June 13 2012 10:54 guN-viCe wrote: What's the definition of "theologically true"?
And TBH, I don't know much about Catholic beliefs. If what you say is true, it seems to me that they just adapt their beliefs to whatever evidence is out there. I'm happy they don't deny established facts.
To your last point, Darwin had evidence for his theories, and it wasn't just a collection of stories. I mean, that is literally what the bible is. Perhaps those stories are true, but we have no evidence of it.
Just look at my signature. Regardless, you can obviously believe whatever you want. It makes no difference to me, I'm just stating my viewpoint.
Most parts of Christianity adapt to scientific findings. Even those that don't believe the Earth more than 5000 years old still recognize the scientific findings (the smart ones, at least). And there's nothing wrong with this. My pastor told a Bible study several months ago that the study of science is the study of that which causes a sense of awe. "I'm amazed at how this universe works, so I want to learn as much about it as I can". It's quite the romantic way of looking at it.
The Bible is as much a history book as a theological reference. There are many stories, some believed to be literal, some believed to be metaphors, and some downright hard to believe. There's also a huge history of the Jewish people where some of the facts actually check out with archaeological findings. I've known a few, but now that I run the google searches I find quite a number of historical sites attributed to Biblical descriptions. Christians' claim to salvation comes through the divinity of Jesus, and while his existence as an historical figure is not disputes, the claims of his divinity need to be taken on faith.
You can look at it this way - there is a puzzle sitting on a table. It is finished except for one missing piece. Secular perspective would look at the picture and call it incomplete. A person with faith will see a finished product. Omni was talking about "god of the gaps" in reference to religious people translating gaps in scientific knowledge or attributing events like the Big Bang to the mechanism of the hand of God. Ultimately, where faith is concerned, there is always a gap. At this point the question is "are you OK with that?" .
Anywho, I'm glad the discussion has been mostly civil. I suppose if one or two posters come away with a little more respect for the other side then the OP was a success.
On June 13 2012 10:54 guN-viCe wrote: What's the definition of "theologically true"?
And TBH, I don't know much about Catholic beliefs. If what you say is true, it seems to me that they just adapt their beliefs to whatever evidence is out there. I'm happy they don't deny established facts.
To your last point, Darwin had evidence for his theories, and it wasn't just a collection of stories. I mean, that is literally what the bible is. Perhaps those stories are true, but we have no evidence of it.
Just look at my signature. Regardless, you can obviously believe whatever you want. It makes no difference to me, I'm just stating my viewpoint.
Most parts of Christianity adapt to scientific findings. Even those that don't believe the Earth more than 5000 years old still recognize the scientific findings (the smart ones, at least). And there's nothing wrong with this. My pastor told a Bible study several months ago that the study of science is the study of that which causes a sense of awe. "I'm amazed at how this universe works, so I want to learn as much about it as I can". It's quite the romantic way of looking at it.
The Bible is as much a history book as a theological reference. There are many stories, some believed to be literal, some believed to be metaphors, and some downright hard to believe. There's also a huge history of the Jewish people where some of the facts actually check out with archaeological findings. I've known a few, but now that I run the google searches I find quite a number of historical sites attributed to Biblical descriptions. Christians' claim to salvation comes through the divinity of Jesus, and while his existence as an historical figure is not disputes, the claims of his divinity need to be taken on faith.
You can look at it this way - there is a puzzle sitting on a table. It is finished except for one missing piece. Secular perspective would look at the picture and call it incomplete. A person with faith will see a finished product. Omni was talking about "god of the gaps" in reference to religious people translating gaps in scientific knowledge or attributing events like the Big Bang to the mechanism of the hand of God. Ultimately, where faith is concerned, there is always a gap. At this point the question is "are you OK with that?" .
Anywho, I'm glad the discussion has been mostly civil. I suppose if one or two posters come away with a little more respect for the other side then the OP was a success.
I don't want to get into it too much, because it's really not that iteresting, but you should know that the historicity of Jesus is, in fact, in dispute. If you're interested, it's not hard to find information about it. Lets just say the historical record is very thin, and most sources (including the gospels themselves) post-date the events described in the gospels by several decades or longer.
For our discussion, it doesn't really matter. I'm happy to concede the question of historicity, as it doesn't really bring the believer any closer to making his/her case. It's necessary, but nowhere near sufficient. As you note, Jesus could have easily lived, but not been divine. You could even believe most stories about him (virgin birth, some of the healing business/"miracles," apparent resurection), and it still wouldn't demonstrate his divinity.
On June 13 2012 10:44 Ideas wrote: I'm sort of just jumping in here but i think that so many christians reject the idea of hell because it is so obviously immoral of a supreme all-forgiving being to allow such a place to exist. these christians (let's call them liberal christians although I'm not sure if that's totally accurate) have strong moral values that come from secular society, not the bible. they just want to give the bible credit for this sort of stuff and so right off all the horrible things in the bible as metaphors and then only leave the few good bits as correct. but the bible teaches all sorts of horrible things. liberal christians are just afraid of death and what it means to accept that the bible is fiction, and so they cling to the bible and constantly change what it means to reflect their actual values and just call themselves "true christians". sorry but if you actually go by the ENTIRE bible, not just the nice stuff, the westboro baptist church is much closer to the values represented in the bible than the chistians that support gay marriage and the like.
I have a lot of friends that are liberal christians (I used to be one myself before I gave it all up in high school) and I hate how they just create their own version of "god" and make him their ideal by putting all of their morals into him and then claim that is god and that they are christian blah blah blah. that isn't anything. that is just your imagination and you really really wish it is true but it's not. and as long as you go around with the charade and call yourself christian then you are an enabler for the horrible religious fanatics in the world that cause harm and hold back the entire human race from progressing forward.
I guess that was a lot more of a rant than I wanted it to be, sorry :\
What do you mean it is immoral of God to allow Hell to exist? You seem to forget that he let his Son die a painful death so that people wouldn't need to go to Hell. All the people are sinners and deserved to go to Hell for it but Jesus Christ made a way for all Man to be saved through him.
And yeah, the "Christians" who say " disregard the book of genesis", "no such thing as Hell", and support gay stuff are not really abiding by the Holy Book. I would say that they aren't really Christians but they think they are. Its really sad that they do this.
On June 13 2012 03:50 guN-viCe wrote: I was raised christian and slowly converted myself to agnostic, and now I'm pretty close to atheist but not quite. If you believe in science and the scientific method, it's hard to ignore the facts. These facts are such:
-The earth is over 6 billion years old. -Humans and our ancestors are millions upon millions of years old. -The universe is HUUUUUUUGE, it's extremely unlikely that other life does not exist out there. -The Bible was written by men who lived in huts, thousands of years ago. -Christianity is the dominate religion out there, but it still has less followers than that of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam combined. -The Bible contradicts itself hundreds of times.
Add all of these up, and one begins to realize that the Bible is not very accurate. It is actually a book of lies and contradictions. Believing in the Bible is akin to believing in the Tooth fairy and Santa Clause; wishful thinking.
Everybody fears death, and the Bible promises "everlasting life". The Bible plays on these fears, and has been quite successful at scaring people into practicing religion. Just look at this thread for proof.
-Carbon dating is extremely inaccurate. -whether extraterrestrial life exists or would not mean anything for/against the case for Christianity -The Bible was written by God through men who lived, not in huts, but in a variety of areas including but not limited to: tents, palaces, houses , prison. -I don't see your point of saying "Christianity is the dominate religion out there, but it still has less followers than that of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam combined." . What are you trying to say? Are you saying If Christianity was real then it would have more followers than buddhism, hinduism, and islam combined? -The Bible does NOT contradict itself hundreds of times. Atleast provide one hundred examples if you want to prove this.
Add these all up, and one begins to realize that your post is a completely useless contribution to an otherwise thoughtful discussion.
And by the way, "everybody fears death" is utter garbage. You may be able to describe yourself, but atleast do some research before throw out random arguments like that.
On June 13 2012 03:50 guN-viCe wrote: I was raised christian and slowly converted myself to agnostic, and now I'm pretty close to atheist but not quite. If you believe in science and the scientific method, it's hard to ignore the facts. These facts are such:
-The earth is over 6 billion years old. -Humans and our ancestors are millions upon millions of years old. -The universe is HUUUUUUUGE, it's extremely unlikely that other life does not exist out there. -The Bible was written by men who lived in huts, thousands of years ago. -Christianity is the dominate religion out there, but it still has less followers than that of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam combined. -The Bible contradicts itself hundreds of times.
Add all of these up, and one begins to realize that the Bible is not very accurate. It is actually a book of lies and contradictions. Believing in the Bible is akin to believing in the Tooth fairy and Santa Clause; wishful thinking.
Everybody fears death, and the Bible promises "everlasting life". The Bible plays on these fears, and has been quite successful at scaring people into practicing religion. Just look at this thread for proof.
From a Catholic perspective, those facts don't really affect religion. Catholics believe that the bible is not totally factually true, but totally theologically true. So the creation stories don't mean fact to them, they mean that everything is good and was started by God. They also believe in evolution, but that God guided our evolution. The bible contradicting itself is, again, not a problem to Catholics, who believe that it is theologically infallible. So although John says that Jesus didn't die on Passover, he is just trying to make a different theological point.
Christianity is dominant in our society, but not in all societies, like in the Middle East and most of Asia. It probably has the most global influence because Europeans used to dominate the world, and now the U.S. and its allies do, most of which are Christian.
And the bible is just a collection of books written thousands of years ago, don't know why it matters that they weren't as advanced as us. In a hundred years, people may make fun of Darwin for living in a wooden boat, but that doesn't necessarily discredit his very important findings.
I don't think Catholics are Christians. The Christian religion takes its teachings from the Bible alone. Catholics use some parts of the Bible and add a lot of other stuff like Popes, purgatory, lent. Catholics say that you have to visit a priest to get forgiveness for sins but Christians believe they can just pray to God for forgiveness.
So, i think what Catholics believe is not really Christianity.
On June 13 2012 03:50 guN-viCe wrote: I was raised christian and slowly converted myself to agnostic, and now I'm pretty close to atheist but not quite. If you believe in science and the scientific method, it's hard to ignore the facts. These facts are such:
-The earth is over 6 billion years old. -Humans and our ancestors are millions upon millions of years old. -The universe is HUUUUUUUGE, it's extremely unlikely that other life does not exist out there. -The Bible was written by men who lived in huts, thousands of years ago. -Christianity is the dominate religion out there, but it still has less followers than that of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam combined. -The Bible contradicts itself hundreds of times.
Add all of these up, and one begins to realize that the Bible is not very accurate. It is actually a book of lies and contradictions. Believing in the Bible is akin to believing in the Tooth fairy and Santa Clause; wishful thinking.
Everybody fears death, and the Bible promises "everlasting life". The Bible plays on these fears, and has been quite successful at scaring people into practicing religion. Just look at this thread for proof.
-Carbon dating is extremely inaccurate. -whether extraterrestrial life exists or would not mean anything for/against the case for Christianity -The Bible was written by God through men who lived, not in huts, but in a variety of areas including but not limited to: tents, palaces, houses , prison. -I don't see your point of saying "Christianity is the dominate religion out there, but it still has less followers than that of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam combined." . What are you trying to say? Are you saying If Christianity was real then it would have more followers than buddhism, hinduism, and islam combined? -The Bible does NOT contradict itself hundreds of times. Atleast provide one hundred examples if you want to prove this.
Add these all up, and one begins to realize that your post is a completely useless contribution to an otherwise thoughtful discussion.
And by the way, "everybody fears death" is utter garbage. You may be able to describe yourself, but atleast do some research before throw out random arguments like that.
I LOVE people discussing beliefs. I was raised a "spiritual" Athiest by my mother but slowly turned completely evidence favouring as I aged. Regardless of this, I enjoy hearing about other peoples understanding of the unobservable universe. Talk about intense food for thought.
Anyways, I'd like to point a few things out SuperBarnie. The Carbon used in Radiocarbon dating only has a half life of around 6,000 years and the limits of its measurement falls around 10 times that. If the bible's literal interpretation were true, we'd actually have shockingly accurate measurements of the earth's age using that method. As it is now, they use the radioactive half life of far longer lived elements. The oldest samples of Uranium-Lead dating techniques stand around the 4.5 billion year mark. Yes they can be imprecise in the range millions of years, but on a scale of 4.5 billion years, or 4,500 million years: small potatoes.
To be quite honest, I don't understand the intent of your post. You attacked gun-vice in both an inappropriate and ironic manner. You hardly added anything to this thread yourself, and when contradicting his points, you didn't provide any evidence that you are, in fact, right to do so.
On a different subject, Thank you Omnipresent for your patient Socratic method of questioning. Also thank you all civilized contributors so far, it's been a delightful read!
On June 13 2012 10:54 guN-viCe wrote: What's the definition of "theologically true"?
And TBH, I don't know much about Catholic beliefs. If what you say is true, it seems to me that they just adapt their beliefs to whatever evidence is out there. I'm happy they don't deny established facts.
To your last point, Darwin had evidence for his theories, and it wasn't just a collection of stories. I mean, that is literally what the bible is. Perhaps those stories are true, but we have no evidence of it.
Just look at my signature. Regardless, you can obviously believe whatever you want. It makes no difference to me, I'm just stating my viewpoint.
Most parts of Christianity adapt to scientific findings. Even those that don't believe the Earth more than 5000 years old still recognize the scientific findings (the smart ones, at least). And there's nothing wrong with this. My pastor told a Bible study several months ago that the study of science is the study of that which causes a sense of awe. "I'm amazed at how this universe works, so I want to learn as much about it as I can". It's quite the romantic way of looking at it.
The Bible is as much a history book as a theological reference. There are many stories, some believed to be literal, some believed to be metaphors, and some downright hard to believe. There's also a huge history of the Jewish people where some of the facts actually check out with archaeological findings. I've known a few, but now that I run the google searches I find quite a number of historical sites attributed to Biblical descriptions. Christians' claim to salvation comes through the divinity of Jesus, and while his existence as an historical figure is not disputes, the claims of his divinity need to be taken on faith.
You can look at it this way - there is a puzzle sitting on a table. It is finished except for one missing piece. Secular perspective would look at the picture and call it incomplete. A person with faith will see a finished product. Omni was talking about "god of the gaps" in reference to religious people translating gaps in scientific knowledge or attributing events like the Big Bang to the mechanism of the hand of God. Ultimately, where faith is concerned, there is always a gap. At this point the question is "are you OK with that?" .
Anywho, I'm glad the discussion has been mostly civil. I suppose if one or two posters come away with a little more respect for the other side then the OP was a success.
I don't want to get into it too much, because it's really not that iteresting, but you should know that the historicity of Jesus is, in fact, in dispute. If you're interested, it's not hard to find information about it. Lets just say the historical record is very thin, and most sources (including the gospels themselves) post-date the events described in the gospels by several decades or longer.
For our discussion, it doesn't really matter. I'm happy to concede the question of historicity, as it doesn't really bring the believer any closer to making his/her case. It's necessary, but nowhere near sufficient. As you note, Jesus could have easily lived, but not been divine. You could even believe most stories about him (virgin birth, some of the healing business/"miracles," apparent resurection), and it still wouldn't demonstrate his divinity.
What demonstrates divinity? Not trying to sound critical, I'm interested in what you have to say.
On June 13 2012 10:44 Ideas wrote: I'm sort of just jumping in here but i think that so many christians reject the idea of hell because it is so obviously immoral of a supreme all-forgiving being to allow such a place to exist. these christians (let's call them liberal christians although I'm not sure if that's totally accurate) have strong moral values that come from secular society, not the bible. they just want to give the bible credit for this sort of stuff and so right off all the horrible things in the bible as metaphors and then only leave the few good bits as correct. but the bible teaches all sorts of horrible things. liberal christians are just afraid of death and what it means to accept that the bible is fiction, and so they cling to the bible and constantly change what it means to reflect their actual values and just call themselves "true christians". sorry but if you actually go by the ENTIRE bible, not just the nice stuff, the westboro baptist church is much closer to the values represented in the bible than the chistians that support gay marriage and the like.
I have a lot of friends that are liberal christians (I used to be one myself before I gave it all up in high school) and I hate how they just create their own version of "god" and make him their ideal by putting all of their morals into him and then claim that is god and that they are christian blah blah blah. that isn't anything. that is just your imagination and you really really wish it is true but it's not. and as long as you go around with the charade and call yourself christian then you are an enabler for the horrible religious fanatics in the world that cause harm and hold back the entire human race from progressing forward.
I guess that was a lot more of a rant than I wanted it to be, sorry :\
What do you mean it is immoral of God to allow Hell to exist? You seem to forget that he let his Son die a painful death so that people wouldn't need to go to Hell. All the people are sinners and deserved to go to Hell for it but Jesus Christ made a way for all Man to be saved through him.
And yeah, the "Christians" who say " disregard the book of genesis", "no such thing as Hell", and support gay stuff are not really abiding by the Holy Book. I would say that they aren't really Christians but they think they are. Its really sad that they do this.
1) what a horrible reality we would live in where the supreme being creates a world where the vast majority of humans ever born are never christian (millions lived and died before jesus allegedly lived). billions of people today will never be christian simply due to where they were born (much like how 99% of christians were "lucky" enough to be born to a christian family). some here of christianity and shrug it off like the 1000s of other religions created by man over the millenia. others like myself reject it due to disbelief. still others never even have the chance to learn that it even exists (die too young, live in a remote village, etc). sure send me to hell FOR FOREVER AND EVER because I refuse to believe such farfetched claims that completely lack evidence. but to sentence the billions of ignorant, innocent folk who never had a chance to "accept the word of god" or whatever to an eternity of unrelenting suffering? that is pure evil. I would never worship such a being even if given undeniable evidence that it existed.
2) I'm glad we agree that those people are not true christians. they obviously know better than what the bible teaches but for whatever reason (most likely the fear of death) delude themselves into continuing their biblical "belief" so that they will not have to confront those reasons. they then guise their own beliefs and morals as biblically-inspired (although clearly it is from their own morality, not the will of the god yahweh) and parade around as chistians, thus enabling "true christians" to appear more acceptable in society. it all needs to end. these people need to face their fears and give up these delusions so that society can progress (gay rights, women's rights in muslim culture, no more religious-fueled antagonism to scientific discovery, an end to superstition-fueled scams (such as faith-healing), etc).
On June 13 2012 03:50 guN-viCe wrote: I was raised christian and slowly converted myself to agnostic, and now I'm pretty close to atheist but not quite. If you believe in science and the scientific method, it's hard to ignore the facts. These facts are such:
-The earth is over 6 billion years old. -Humans and our ancestors are millions upon millions of years old. -The universe is HUUUUUUUGE, it's extremely unlikely that other life does not exist out there. -The Bible was written by men who lived in huts, thousands of years ago. -Christianity is the dominate religion out there, but it still has less followers than that of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam combined. -The Bible contradicts itself hundreds of times.
Add all of these up, and one begins to realize that the Bible is not very accurate. It is actually a book of lies and contradictions. Believing in the Bible is akin to believing in the Tooth fairy and Santa Clause; wishful thinking.
Everybody fears death, and the Bible promises "everlasting life". The Bible plays on these fears, and has been quite successful at scaring people into practicing religion. Just look at this thread for proof.
-Carbon dating is extremely inaccurate. -whether extraterrestrial life exists or would not mean anything for/against the case for Christianity -The Bible was written by God through men who lived, not in huts, but in a variety of areas including but not limited to: tents, palaces, houses , prison. -I don't see your point of saying "Christianity is the dominate religion out there, but it still has less followers than that of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam combined." . What are you trying to say? Are you saying If Christianity was real then it would have more followers than buddhism, hinduism, and islam combined? -The Bible does NOT contradict itself hundreds of times. Atleast provide one hundred examples if you want to prove this.
Add these all up, and one begins to realize that your post is a completely useless contribution to an otherwise thoughtful discussion.
And by the way, "everybody fears death" is utter garbage. You may be able to describe yourself, but atleast do some research before throw out random arguments like that.
maybe not 100 examples, but a good and entertaining start
On June 13 2012 10:54 guN-viCe wrote: What's the definition of "theologically true"?
And TBH, I don't know much about Catholic beliefs. If what you say is true, it seems to me that they just adapt their beliefs to whatever evidence is out there. I'm happy they don't deny established facts.
To your last point, Darwin had evidence for his theories, and it wasn't just a collection of stories. I mean, that is literally what the bible is. Perhaps those stories are true, but we have no evidence of it.
Just look at my signature. Regardless, you can obviously believe whatever you want. It makes no difference to me, I'm just stating my viewpoint.
Most parts of Christianity adapt to scientific findings. Even those that don't believe the Earth more than 5000 years old still recognize the scientific findings (the smart ones, at least). And there's nothing wrong with this. My pastor told a Bible study several months ago that the study of science is the study of that which causes a sense of awe. "I'm amazed at how this universe works, so I want to learn as much about it as I can". It's quite the romantic way of looking at it.
The Bible is as much a history book as a theological reference. There are many stories, some believed to be literal, some believed to be metaphors, and some downright hard to believe. There's also a huge history of the Jewish people where some of the facts actually check out with archaeological findings. I've known a few, but now that I run the google searches I find quite a number of historical sites attributed to Biblical descriptions. Christians' claim to salvation comes through the divinity of Jesus, and while his existence as an historical figure is not disputes, the claims of his divinity need to be taken on faith.
You can look at it this way - there is a puzzle sitting on a table. It is finished except for one missing piece. Secular perspective would look at the picture and call it incomplete. A person with faith will see a finished product. Omni was talking about "god of the gaps" in reference to religious people translating gaps in scientific knowledge or attributing events like the Big Bang to the mechanism of the hand of God. Ultimately, where faith is concerned, there is always a gap. At this point the question is "are you OK with that?" .
Anywho, I'm glad the discussion has been mostly civil. I suppose if one or two posters come away with a little more respect for the other side then the OP was a success.
I don't want to get into it too much, because it's really not that iteresting, but you should know that the historicity of Jesus is, in fact, in dispute. If you're interested, it's not hard to find information about it. Lets just say the historical record is very thin, and most sources (including the gospels themselves) post-date the events described in the gospels by several decades or longer.
For our discussion, it doesn't really matter. I'm happy to concede the question of historicity, as it doesn't really bring the believer any closer to making his/her case. It's necessary, but nowhere near sufficient. As you note, Jesus could have easily lived, but not been divine. You could even believe most stories about him (virgin birth, some of the healing business/"miracles," apparent resurection), and it still wouldn't demonstrate his divinity.
What demonstrates divinity? Not trying to sound critical, I'm interested in what you have to say.
No, that's fair. I was actually thinking about that while writing that. To be honest, I'm not sure it's possible. The first thing you would need to do would be to prove the existance of god. You can't have a divine Jesus is there's no god. Proving that is a pretty tall order on its own. If you somehow managed to do that, the rest is probably pretty easy.
But for fun, lets say we had proof of god and a historical Jesus. The next question would be about sourcing. All the important events relating to Jesus supposedly happened two thousand years ago. We can barely tell what happened 200 years ago. There are serious doubts about events 20 years ago. We're talking about orders of magnatude in difference, and I suspect facts become exponentially more difficult to discern over time (not that I have any clue how you'd measure that).
But again, lets say we had some really solid accounts. At this point, we're in a pretty foggy area. What could demonstrate divinity? For starters, I'd want answers to the kinds of questions I've been asking in this thread. "Miracles" would be nice, but probably not enough on their own. Professional magicians routinely perform much more awe inspiring feats than anything attributed to Jesus, and they manage to fool a much more sophisticated audience. The other big thing I'd want is predictions - prophecy. I'm not talking about the kind of ultra-vague, astrology-esque stuff in the Bible. Nostradamus doesn't cut it either. I'd want specifics. A divine Jesus should have no problem predicting the winner of the next 50 presidential elections, for example. Anything specific and difficult/impossible to fake would be nice. Obviously, the more specific the better. The harder to fake the better.
I want to go back to miracles, though. There's one particular miracle that gets talked about a lot - healing amputees. It gets talked about because god gets credit for healing all kinds of ailments. "God cured my cancer," or "god fixed my hearing/eyesite/joint pain." Well we already know that cancer goes into remission all the time, sometimes for completely unknown reasons. It happens to people of all faiths, and yes, non-believers too. The other stuff is pretty subjective. Is you joint pain really less than it was yesterday? Are you sure? Could it have cleared up on its own?
We've seen a lot of unusual shit in medicine. No one's arm grows back. Sure, people sometimes regrow fleshy portions of a finger tip (I knew a girl who had an unfortunate incident with a meat slicer), but no one with an amputated arm is going to grow a new one. It's definitive. Everyone can see that you're missing an arm. Everyone could see the results of the miracle. You may or may not have cancer. It's hard to tell sometimes. We still accidentally buried people alive well into the late 19th century. Missing limbs are a little easier to spot.
Healing the blind... Raising the (allegedly) dead... These are fun.
Regrowing someone's arm with your mind... That would interest me.
edit: Also, any major and obvious violations of natural laws. Temporary reversal of cause and effect would be kind of cool, especially if Jesus were willing to repeat the action enough times that we could properly study it. Yeah, I want effects before causes. That would be pretty sick.
On June 13 2012 10:54 guN-viCe wrote: What's the definition of "theologically true"?
And TBH, I don't know much about Catholic beliefs. If what you say is true, it seems to me that they just adapt their beliefs to whatever evidence is out there. I'm happy they don't deny established facts.
To your last point, Darwin had evidence for his theories, and it wasn't just a collection of stories. I mean, that is literally what the bible is. Perhaps those stories are true, but we have no evidence of it.
Just look at my signature. Regardless, you can obviously believe whatever you want. It makes no difference to me, I'm just stating my viewpoint.
Most parts of Christianity adapt to scientific findings. Even those that don't believe the Earth more than 5000 years old still recognize the scientific findings (the smart ones, at least). And there's nothing wrong with this. My pastor told a Bible study several months ago that the study of science is the study of that which causes a sense of awe. "I'm amazed at how this universe works, so I want to learn as much about it as I can". It's quite the romantic way of looking at it.
The Bible is as much a history book as a theological reference. There are many stories, some believed to be literal, some believed to be metaphors, and some downright hard to believe. There's also a huge history of the Jewish people where some of the facts actually check out with archaeological findings. I've known a few, but now that I run the google searches I find quite a number of historical sites attributed to Biblical descriptions. Christians' claim to salvation comes through the divinity of Jesus, and while his existence as an historical figure is not disputes, the claims of his divinity need to be taken on faith.
You can look at it this way - there is a puzzle sitting on a table. It is finished except for one missing piece. Secular perspective would look at the picture and call it incomplete. A person with faith will see a finished product. Omni was talking about "god of the gaps" in reference to religious people translating gaps in scientific knowledge or attributing events like the Big Bang to the mechanism of the hand of God. Ultimately, where faith is concerned, there is always a gap. At this point the question is "are you OK with that?" .
Anywho, I'm glad the discussion has been mostly civil. I suppose if one or two posters come away with a little more respect for the other side then the OP was a success.
I believe the God of the Gaps principle would be described from an atheistic point of view as two different ways to solve a puzzle with one set of pieces. While the attribution of all physical objects, their origins, and their machinations was placed to the God puzzle, the science puzzle had few pieces. Every time humans discover how something, that was previously believed to be God's work, was created or functions, they take a piece from the God puzzle and place it into its rightful spot in the science puzzle. As our knowledge of science grows, the pieces in the science puzzle grows too.Therefore, as our knowledge of the physical world grows, and fewer and fewer things are attributed to the work of God, the God Puzzle shrinks. The gaps not yet solved in the science puzzle are the pieces left in the God puzzle specific examples include the origin of life, the origin of the universe, why hot dog buns come in packs of 8 but hot dogs come in packs of 12 etc.
The Age and Size of the Universe has been estimated by scientists, it could possibly be a supremely massive yet still finite thing. If this is the case, then it is THEORETICALLY possible that everything about the universe could be known. This is not me suggesting that we will ever know everything, that is silly and less likely than most possible occurrences. It is, however, a philosophical argument that there may not be a gap for God to occupy. If the universe has an end, an edge, a boundary constantly expanding though it may be, then it is theoretically possible for God to be completely dis-proven.
What would you do if that occurred? If God was proven false, because a finite quantity of information satisfied and explained all of the universe, would you specifically make a gap for God? Would you choose to go with the information that contradicted your belief? I address this question to any person who believes because it provides a glimpse at my understanding of atheism. I say a glimpse because I don't need to know everything in the universe to believe that God does not exist. This is in a sense a perfect world assumption but it's an interesting thought experiment and I'm curious how a theist would approach it.
On June 13 2012 10:54 guN-viCe wrote: What's the definition of "theologically true"?
And TBH, I don't know much about Catholic beliefs. If what you say is true, it seems to me that they just adapt their beliefs to whatever evidence is out there. I'm happy they don't deny established facts.
To your last point, Darwin had evidence for his theories, and it wasn't just a collection of stories. I mean, that is literally what the bible is. Perhaps those stories are true, but we have no evidence of it.
Just look at my signature. Regardless, you can obviously believe whatever you want. It makes no difference to me, I'm just stating my viewpoint.
Most parts of Christianity adapt to scientific findings. Even those that don't believe the Earth more than 5000 years old still recognize the scientific findings (the smart ones, at least). And there's nothing wrong with this. My pastor told a Bible study several months ago that the study of science is the study of that which causes a sense of awe. "I'm amazed at how this universe works, so I want to learn as much about it as I can". It's quite the romantic way of looking at it.
The Bible is as much a history book as a theological reference. There are many stories, some believed to be literal, some believed to be metaphors, and some downright hard to believe. There's also a huge history of the Jewish people where some of the facts actually check out with archaeological findings. I've known a few, but now that I run the google searches I find quite a number of historical sites attributed to Biblical descriptions. Christians' claim to salvation comes through the divinity of Jesus, and while his existence as an historical figure is not disputes, the claims of his divinity need to be taken on faith.
You can look at it this way - there is a puzzle sitting on a table. It is finished except for one missing piece. Secular perspective would look at the picture and call it incomplete. A person with faith will see a finished product. Omni was talking about "god of the gaps" in reference to religious people translating gaps in scientific knowledge or attributing events like the Big Bang to the mechanism of the hand of God. Ultimately, where faith is concerned, there is always a gap. At this point the question is "are you OK with that?" .
Anywho, I'm glad the discussion has been mostly civil. I suppose if one or two posters come away with a little more respect for the other side then the OP was a success.
I believe the God of the Gaps principle would be described from an atheistic point of view as two different ways to solve a puzzle with one set of pieces. While the attribution of all physical objects, their origins, and their machinations was placed to the God puzzle, the science puzzle had few pieces. Every time humans discover how something, that was previously believed to be God's work, was created or functions, they take a piece from the God puzzle and place it into its rightful spot in the science puzzle. As our knowledge of science grows, the pieces in the science puzzle grows too.Therefore, as our knowledge of the physical world grows, and fewer and fewer things are attributed to the work of God, the God Puzzle shrinks. The gaps not yet solved in the science puzzle are the pieces left in the God puzzle specific examples include the origin of life, the origin of the universe, why hot dog buns come in packs of 8 but hot dogs come in packs of 12 etc.
Yeah, that's a good way to put it. I'm going to steal that for sure. + Show Spoiler +
The point of "theologically true" is that it grants access to some question of ultimate concern once you have controlled for the variables of historical moment, culture, and weltaunshuung.
The text of scripture is a signifier for the transcendental signified. The multiplicity of possible signifiers doesn't really say anything about the signified.
edit: the only way to understand religion is to put yourself in the shoes of a REALLY, REALLY smart person who believed in that religion (and for every religion, there are lots) and try to figure out WHY that person believed in that religion. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty, and so called "scientific atheists" are particularly guilty of this.
On June 13 2012 16:46 sam!zdat wrote: The point of "theologically true" is that it grants access to some question of ultimate concern once you have controlled for the variables of historical moment, culture, and weltaunshuung.
The text of scripture is a signifier for the transcendental signified. The multiplicity of possible signifiers doesn't really say anything about the signified.
edit: the only way to understand religion is to put yourself in the shoes of a REALLY, REALLY smart person who believed in that religion (and for every religion, there are lots) and try to figure out WHY that person believed in that religion. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty, and so called "scientific atheists" are particularly guilty of this.
the smartest christians that I know respond to "why?" with "because I just know". every single time.
On June 13 2012 10:54 guN-viCe wrote: What's the definition of "theologically true"?
And TBH, I don't know much about Catholic beliefs. If what you say is true, it seems to me that they just adapt their beliefs to whatever evidence is out there. I'm happy they don't deny established facts.
To your last point, Darwin had evidence for his theories, and it wasn't just a collection of stories. I mean, that is literally what the bible is. Perhaps those stories are true, but we have no evidence of it.
Just look at my signature. Regardless, you can obviously believe whatever you want. It makes no difference to me, I'm just stating my viewpoint.
Most parts of Christianity adapt to scientific findings. Even those that don't believe the Earth more than 5000 years old still recognize the scientific findings (the smart ones, at least). And there's nothing wrong with this. My pastor told a Bible study several months ago that the study of science is the study of that which causes a sense of awe. "I'm amazed at how this universe works, so I want to learn as much about it as I can". It's quite the romantic way of looking at it.
The Bible is as much a history book as a theological reference. There are many stories, some believed to be literal, some believed to be metaphors, and some downright hard to believe. There's also a huge history of the Jewish people where some of the facts actually check out with archaeological findings. I've known a few, but now that I run the google searches I find quite a number of historical sites attributed to Biblical descriptions. Christians' claim to salvation comes through the divinity of Jesus, and while his existence as an historical figure is not disputes, the claims of his divinity need to be taken on faith.
You can look at it this way - there is a puzzle sitting on a table. It is finished except for one missing piece. Secular perspective would look at the picture and call it incomplete. A person with faith will see a finished product. Omni was talking about "god of the gaps" in reference to religious people translating gaps in scientific knowledge or attributing events like the Big Bang to the mechanism of the hand of God. Ultimately, where faith is concerned, there is always a gap. At this point the question is "are you OK with that?" .
Anywho, I'm glad the discussion has been mostly civil. I suppose if one or two posters come away with a little more respect for the other side then the OP was a success.
I believe the God of the Gaps principle would be described from an atheistic point of view as two different ways to solve a puzzle with one set of pieces. While the attribution of all physical objects, their origins, and their machinations was placed to the God puzzle, the science puzzle had few pieces. Every time humans discover how something, that was previously believed to be God's work, was created or functions, they take a piece from the God puzzle and place it into its rightful spot in the science puzzle. As our knowledge of science grows, the pieces in the science puzzle grows too.Therefore, as our knowledge of the physical world grows, and fewer and fewer things are attributed to the work of God, the God Puzzle shrinks. The gaps not yet solved in the science puzzle are the pieces left in the God puzzle specific examples include the origin of life, the origin of the universe, why hot dog buns come in packs of 8 but hot dogs come in packs of 12 etc.
Yeah, that's a good way to put it. I'm going to steal that for sure. + Show Spoiler +
EPT
