[Guest]

now this will be a friendly argument about atheism verse God

there will be no cussing, funny insults are fine but not just name calling or bashing

I dont know if this topic will survive locking but please keep it open as long as it stays civil as if you dont im afraid this will spill over into other topics, but i understand if you do.

this is a carry over from an arguement in mythical creatures but they asked us to move it

[Izzy]

Okay, cool. This works. Final's turn to say something.

[Guest]

first the guesses at the end was only for izzy i didnt mean all atheists

im sorry for the insults most of them were just small stupid jokes i really didnt mean them to harm (as they didnt)

at this i dont mean offense but i know it will be taken as it. At 14 you shouldnt think your more informed then everyone else just as i dont think im more informed then james (as i assume thats your daughter so your older then me) the longer you live the more you learn

"I just believe theists are either idiots, brainwashed, or ignorant. The brainwashed ones I'll generally have the most sympathy for, and you can still be a theist and a cool person, but yeah, no rational outlook on the world essentially = moron. "

you just cant say that. a good freind of mine (talking to another of my friends whose pretty religious) once said "I wish i was as stupid as you and could believe in more". The point is made he felt superior yet wished he didnt. now obviously you will retort y would i wish i was stupid, but all i mean is saying things like that just reinforce the stereotype. I think i have been a lil childish but hey. also 15 and drinking?

I dont think society has grown up its worse then ever yes there have been good changes such as slavery ending and women getting more rights but now we have to accept everything and talk about nothing. I made a few black friend comments that made fun of white people and i was called a racist. We have to be so pc now that no one is themselves outside of there house. (and those that are are the extremist that give there kind a bad name i.e. that peta lady)

"you know all atheist thats impressive, so could you tell john i wont make it to dinner next weekend, i have a homosexual woman to stone (i hope shes black too)"

this was not an insult it was simply saying i knew some people that... and you said not at all. u dont know them and i wasnt making a general statement so you cant argue about my point just the conclusions i draw from it

So you're saying, hypothetically, if I disprove evolution, that's not evidence for anything and people should go on believing in the 'nonsense'?

no im saying if i prove that one of the fossils that was used to start the evolution theory is just a rock that doesnt mean evolution isnt real

and here it is who i am i am 21, never have tried at anything in my life, played sports untill an "injury" made it impossible but still mess around with them. was a dork till mid highschool when i went into the dabble stage of life. Always been popular with everyone but never really hung out with them too much, but still party with them (just hang with my three best freinds since kindergarden when there in town), alway got great grades in eveything except english and spanish class, got scholarships to college but payed the rest of the way myself (they pay me to go but it doesnt cover all rent and expenses), i dont remember the rest

oh white, low middle when i was a child but lately mid to high middle class, raised in a northern family but living in the south, my parents are republican, but most of the rest of the family is insane democrats (not insane bad just hard core), and i dont know where this comes in but 6'2 180 blue eyes and i like short walks on the beach

this is all for this afternoon ill prolly post again tonight (hopefully izzy will have responded by then)(or james)

[Guest]

wait i just remembered what grade 15 is freshmen or sophomore right? i retract (is that the right word) my previous statement about alcohol obviously i cant say i approve (its illegal oh no), but hey

[Guest]

and here it is who i am i am 21, never have tried at anything in my life, played sports untill an "injury" made it impossible but still mess around with them. was a dork till mid highschool when i went into the dabble stage of life. Always been popular with everyone but never really hung out with them too much, but still party with them (just hang with my three best freinds since kindergarden when there in town), alway got great grades in eveything except english and spanish class, got scholarships to college but payed the rest of the way myself (they pay me to go but it doesnt cover all rent and expenses), i dont remember the rest

See how wrong I was? That is why I hate stereotypes. They are made by people who either A) see how perhaps the majority of a certain group or group of people are acting or thinking, and base all their assumptions on them, and assume that is how it is for all of them. Or B) Know or met only a couple or few people from a certain group and base their assumptions on them few people, and assume that is how it is for all of them. I like the stereotype that some have for Atheists. I've heard alot of people say that they are Devil worshipers, or are Satanic. Well we would'nt be Atheists if we believed in Satan now would we.

As for the rest of your coments, (I basically just skimmed thru them) It seemed like you were just explaining your earlier posts, and reacting to a few others' posts. I'm not sure what to comment on since this is in a new thread about God vs. Atheism. I could write a 100 page book on why I don't believe in religion, so instead of doing that, how bout you(the author of the OP) tell us why you believe. Except only take a few examples at a time. Then I will tell you why I choose not to believe in it. After one example is heard from by all participants we move on to another. As long as we all stay civil it should be a great expierience for everyone . Maybe you could explain your point of view on certain parts of the Bible. (If your religion is based on it I geuss) Who knows maybe you could change my point of view.

If it turns into a bashing war between the two sides I will step on out. I have an open ear to almost anyones point of view on almost any subject. (excluding racists, supremeists, kkk, nazis...all them are just morally wrong no matter what you believe in. I have no tolerance to listen to that trash spoken by them uneducated dumb mfers) So if you are one of those, I won't even acknoledge you. I would rather have words with you face to face, rather than listen to you being a coward behind a computer screen.

So lets get the ball rolling... (if this don't get locked)

[Guest]

fair enough i am prolly not the best person to come for religious inspiration but ill go with how i feel

first please stop calling me a theist its not that it offends me its just a keep reading it as atheist and then keep having to reread the paragraph its plain annoying

also by atheist are you referring to the lack of deity or the lack of theism

yes i hate stereotyping to an extent. but there are plenty of stereotypes that are useful, alot are based on reality. as long as you dont base your whole perception of someone on it and are fully aware that there is a good chance it doesnt fit no harm no foul. for example long bushy haired white kid... prolly likes reefer(especially if half his clothes are hemp).

But i do have trouble with it for example i couldnt get over the stereotype i had for izzy. And earlier i randomly assumed one of the posts was from a middle aged mom. I dont remember which one. but anyway

let me start with I am not completely any religion and have flip flopped a few times. Hard times can make an athiest pray and religious person blame god and leave, its the nature of the beast (not really talking about satan its just an expression tho strangely it does apply here).

I was raised catholic. Catholic school all the way so most of my experience comes from that. I had religion class everyday for 12 years of my life plus church (if your still anywhere near religious after 12 years... wow), so saying i am ignorant about religion isnt possible. and yes i learned of the inquisition, the crusades, and how Dan Brown couldn't be considered a liar because he is really really stupid and believes what he says. but thats another conversation

I was brought up with the one true God, you believe in his begotten son and if you dont immediate hell. new borns that didnt have time to accept jesus in their life purgatory, person that dies with a tainted soul without last rites hell or purgatory for a good while. Confession once a year at least. Popes infallible, yada yada yada

and i believed this for a while then didnt really believe in anything (my favorite activity at this point in my life was pointing at priests and laughing, its what atheists do (for further reference those who in previous posts asked when i was joking this is an example))

anyway eventually i came back but i couldn't accept all of it

So i just decided at this point to become a social catholic (someone that claims Catholicism but doesn't go to church or practice its ritual)

anyway since then I have decided that to accept the christian god there is only one way to go (for me).

1. God got tired of the angels being all good (the yes men), but he couldn't just create a middle ground (humans) in heaven where only good existed, so Lucifer seeing that God needed evil and couldn't create it as he is all good, changed to evil (no part of Christianity explains this part really so hey thought id try), God then created the world and its inhabitants in 7 days (explanation A), so God is ever present in the world and holds the hand of humans and helps them along (by the way i skipped adam and eve its boring and doesnt really apply) cane and able yada yada yada, actually im going to skip alot

by the way the story of joseph is a great story. the guy with the coat that was a slave in Egypt not the other ones

so then exodus happens and God is pissed that he is present, people have seen him, and yet they worship others in front of him so he leaves and mostly abandons his people only to talk through prophets and kings for years. God realized that being with humans all the time and trying to help them didnt work and he ended up killing a bunch of them and trying to start over many times.

now this is my first entry if we ever get over arguing about this one ill have another

Now some will ask how is it possible that God didnt know being perpetually perceptual( i just made that up i think it means what i want) wouldnt work when he knows all. and the truth is i don't know everything, but i do have an attempt.

Think of God as a Father (oh wonder where that reference came from i should call the church and see if they want it) he wants to be with his kids all the time, and even tho he knows they will mess up and eventually rebel against him (teenagers) he wants to try and be ever present, but eventually he must let us grow on our own.

now to people that question y is there evil in the world,

How are we to choose from good and evil if there is only good in the world?

why me?

y not?

or more humanely y somebody else?

why is god not more present?

God wants us to make our own decision. do the right thing to do the right thing, not because God's back in the corner asking you to

explanation a. 7 days is not literal back then it says people lived 300 years too. This is just figurative. The years of life is to show Gods favor and the seven days is just to break up the stages of his work (most priests will tell you this at least the years part).

aggravation a. Someone said that they got tired of the begot begot in a previous post, well maybe you shouldnt be reading the part of the bible about lineage or census. Its like me reading the phone book and then complaining there not enough dialog.

also if you are seriously asking if i am a racist supremest i would guess by the fact that i have made fun of those people in previous posts that the answer is no

and id be right

i would hope (tho i may be wrong) that on a forum for intelligent educated people there wouldn't be any of those (but then again you were prolly hoping there werent any christians)

[Guest]

fair enough i am prolly not the best person to come for religious inspiration but ill go with how i feel

first please stop calling me a theist its not that it offends me its just a keep reading it as atheist and then keep having to reread the paragraph its plain annoying

also by atheist are you referring to the lack of deity or the lack of theism

I just don't believe in any form of religion.

let me start with I am not completely any religion and have flip flopped a few times. Hard times can make an athiest pray and religious person blame god and leave, its the nature of the beast (not really talking about satan its just an expression tho strangely it does apply here).

true for some. for me personally, nah, when hard times find me, I find a way to overcome them.

and i believed this for a while then didnt really believe in anything (my favorite activity at this point in my life was pointing at priests and laughing, its what atheists do (for further reference those who in previous posts asked when i was joking this is an example))

I don't exactly point or laugh (ok sometimes). There is nothing funny about Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, and Pastors taking advatage of children. I'm sure you know what i am refering to. It has gone on for centuries. That has tainted Christianity for thousands of christains.

anyway eventually i came back but i couldn't accept all of it

So i just decided at this point to become a social catholic (someone that claims Catholicism but doesn't go to church or practice its ritual)

Why not practice the way of life set forth by the bible? Some would say you are doomed to go to hell if you are not actively practicing what is written.

1. God got tired of the angels being all good (the yes men), but he couldn't just create a middle ground (humans) in heaven where only good existed, so Lucifer seeing that God needed evil and couldn't create it as he is all good, changed to evil (no part of Christianity explains this part really so hey thought id try),

Actually Satan was a high Angel in heaven, and was cast out down to hell by God, because Satan was too arogant you could say.

so then exodus happens and God is pissed that he is present, people have seen him, and yet they worship others in front of him so he leaves and mostly abandons his people only to talk through prophets and kings for years. God realized that being with humans all the time and trying to help them didnt work and he ended up killing a bunch of them and trying to start over many times.

whats the difference whether he talks directly to Man, or if he talks thru others? If people recognize that as words of God, then he could just speak directly since people know them are his words.

explanation a. 7 days is not literal back then it says people lived 300 years too. This is just figurative. The years of life is to show Gods favor and the seven days is just to break up the stages of his work (most priests will tell you this at least the years part).

If 300 years is an example of lets say a 75 yr. old man, then what is 7 days? A couple of hours?

also if you are seriously asking if i am a racist supremest i would guess by the fact that i have made fun of those people in previous posts that the answer is no

and id be right

good to know

i would hope (tho i may be wrong) that on a forum for intelligent educated people there wouldn't be any of those (but then again you were prolly hoping there werent any christians)

I don't have a problem with Christains. In my earlier post, I think I was clear on who I would'nt like on here.

You have an interesting view on your religion. I'll be honest, I was a little surprised. I thought you were going to go off about how everything in the Bible is true and stuff like that.

One question, if you mind sharing. What made you go back to being a christain?

I'll try getting back on here to post some of my views hopefully later tonight or tomorrow. Gotta run quick.

[Guest]

first i would like to start with the fact the i started this arguement by saying i am not trying to convince anyone that i am right or they are wrong. The only thing i hope to slash possibley could change is some peoples view of GODies or some people treatment of them.

oh and hey how do you do the quote thing all i got is codebox spoiler and acronym

anyway the social catholic thing is a very dirty word in Catholicism it is worse then being a heathen. You have been taught the religion, believe in the religion (a least some) and yet dont care enough to do anything about it.

true it is taught that lucifer that was a arch angel of 7 or 5 (you have michael, gabriel, the one that talks in the story of sodom and gamora(i just butchered that) and then the rest are unnamed) then the story splits so he

was jealous of man and thought it unfair how angels had been Gods servant and yet these sinners were his favorite so he rebelled and there was a war of angels. God eventually won and the rebel angels were sent to hell. Lucifer their leader and the rest demons.

but then satan is in eden if i remember right

so the other story is he was too arrogant and questioned God and when God snubbed him led an angel war.

but

It is also taught that angels are wholly good so how is this possible.

Some's answer is that angels are wholly evil or wholly good which is just confusing and almost nonsensical in my understanding

But hey no one ever said religion was perfect.

[Guest]

first i would like to start with the fact the i started this arguement by saying i am not trying to convince anyone that i am right or they are wrong. The only thing i hope to slash possibley could change is some peoples view of GODies or some people treatment of them.

oh and hey how do you do the quote thing all i got is codebox spoiler and acronym

anyway the social catholic thing is a very dirty word in Catholicism it is worse then being a heathen. You have been taught the religion, believe in the religion (a least some) and yet dont care enough to do anything about it.

true it is taught that lucifer that was a arch angel of 7 or 5 (you have michael, gabriel, the one that talks in the story of sodom and gamora(i just butchered that) and then the rest are unnamed) then the story splits so he

was jealous of man and thought it unfair how angels had been Gods servant and yet these sinners were his favorite so he rebelled and there was a war of angels. God eventually won and the rebel angels were sent to hell. Lucifer their leader and the rest demons.

but then satan is in eden if i remember right

so the other story is he was too arrogant and questioned God and when God snubbed him led an angel war.

but

It is also taught that angels are wholly good so how is this possible.

Some's answer is that angels are wholly evil or wholly good which is just confusing and almost nonsensical in my understanding

But hey no one ever said religion was perfect.

[Guest]

accidentally hit reply too fast but anyway (wow twice)

"whats the difference whether he talks directly to Man, or if he talks thru others? If people recognize that as words of God, then he could just speak directly since people know them are his words."

its the difference between your parents calling you and your parents following you around

QUOTE (final @ Jun 14 2009, 09:33 PM) *

explanation a. 7 days is not literal back then it says people lived 300 years too. This is just figurative. The years of life is to show Gods favor and the seven days is just to break up the stages of his work (most priests will tell you this at least the years part).

If 300 years is an example of lets say a 75 yr. old man, then what is 7 days? A couple of hours?

alot of the bible is figurative (any preist i swear will agree) armys were vastly over counted to show how awesome the power of god was to overcome this, years were exagerated.

now all priests wont agree with this part

the 7 days is just stages theirs no math formula he followed it could represent billions of years for all i care. I just know its not 7 and i know it happened

i may reveal my whole life later but for now let it suffice that the beginning of my life was easy. Then it got harder then any child should have to deal with. After too much of it I left God. and eventually my life got a little more normal and I came back slowly. No epiphany, no miracle (tho i did survive), i just came back lil by lil

(wasn't raped i know you hear catholic, child, and hard, you think it i know its our stigma but no)

and i dont know if i put this in my earlier post but I don't follow the religion anymore per say but Catholicism has a lot of what i believe and is the closest to what i believe

[Guest]

God i'm forgetting my bible (not a prayer)

the number seven is the number of completeness also. It supposedly is the number of earth 4 (seasons maybe) and the number of the divine 3 (that ones obvious) so 7. It is a fact that is what 7 symbolizes in the bible it is used repeatably.

as in when jesus said to peter not to forgive 7 times but 77 times (or 70 times 7) (or is it 77 times 7)...

anyway so i guess god rested when it was complete or perfect (forgot to mention that its also perfection)

or i guess you could argue he rests when it is done, so not yet

or whatever i could choose one and act like its right but i wont insult your intelligence

[Guest]

Here are just a few reasons why I choose not to follow any sort of religion.

For one, and I'm sure it has been asked hundreds of times. How does anyone know whose religion is the right one? For all anyone knows, the greeks could have been right in that there are multiple Gods, ruling different parts and happenings in the world. Why was there religion so quickly denied? Why is everything about that aspect of greeks considered a myth? The Greeks believed in their Gods just as much as Christains do nowdays. People were quickly executed for not following the faith, just like when the Crusades were going on, and even after that people were murdered for blasphemy. Maybe in the future, say another 1,000 yrs.(if mankind has'nt destroyed each other that is) people will look back on Christianity and other religions as a myth and have a good laugh about what people were believing in.

Another is of course the so called Virgin Mary. I reject the whole story about that. It is not possible for a woman to have a baby without her egg being fertilized by sperm. Another thing, she was married at the time. Are we led to believe that her and Joseph did not do the business at all before God supposedly had sex with her?

Jesus performed miracles...hmmm...why did he only perform these miracles in front of his followers? Why not display a miracle in front of the high priests of the Jewish community?

There were hundreds of people before Jesus who rode into town on a donkey claiming to be the Mesiah. To me it sounds like Jesus and his followers planned it out better.

People of faith claim that God is not a vengeful God. Really? The book of Job is a good example of God being vengeful. He allows Satan to accuse Job of only following because that is how he should live his life, and to try to back his accusation he basically torments Job to try to get him to curse God. All the while God allows Satan to do this. Nice.

The biggest problem about the bible I have is the last book, Revalation.

It was almost entirely written metaphorically. It just so happens that most of his metaphors can be directly connected to the Roman Empie. "John the Devine" as people refer to him as, was exiled to a tiny island, and that is where he wrote revalation. One striking thing is that people in those times would often take names and make a number out of them(don't ask how, but you could probably look it up somewhere), just so happens the ruler at the time was Nero Ceasar, and his name in number form is 666. There are plenty more, but it has been so long since I checked them out.

Oh yeah and before I forget...

Why are their books of the Bible left out of the Bible? Who decided that? Should'nt everything that was written be included in the Bible? Why has the Bible been changed and retranslated soo many times? Is todays version the way it was originally intended to say? I do know for a fact that translators often argued over certain meanings of certain words. One that comes to mind is, more and more people believe the word for slave was mistranslated<not sure thats a word> and actually means workers. I'm sure you can see the huge discrepency with that....Moses....Egypt....slaves(but now supposedly workers).

There is a whole lot more, but I hav'nt dove into it in quite a while.

[Guest]

as in when jesus said to peter not to forgive 7 times but 77 times (or 70 times 7) (or is it 77 times 7)...

I could be wrong, but are you refering to when Jesus tells Peter that he(Peter) will deny him(Jesus) 3 times?

Also to do the quote thing, just hit reply under whosever post, and it shows up in the text box. If you want to pick it apart and comment on seperate parts, you have to put this, quote name='final' date='Jun 15 2009, 01:44 AM' post='178115', but with the brackets, at the beginning of what you want to be highlighted and put this, /quote (again need the brackets) at the end of what you want highlighted.

as in when jesus said to peter not to forgive 7 times but 77 times (or 70 times 7) (or is it 77 times 7)...

as in when jesus said to peter not to forgive 7 times but 77 times (or 70 times 7) (or is it 77 times 7)...

like that.

You can also quote multiple posts by clicking the Quote button instead of the reply button under their post, and then hit reply, then go thru and delete anything and quote anything you want.

If anyone knows an easier way please share your knowledge with the class, thats just how I do it.

Edited June 15, 2009 by James8421

[Guest]

hey im about to go to bed so ill make this quickish

first thanks for the quote thing its too late to learn it now but ill try tommorow

first

most people will say theirs is the true religion, but im different i believe in mine but acknowledge all beliefs as valid i admit i have trouble acknowledging some not to offend but Mormon and Scientology and the such but i try

second

the virgin mary is hard for everyone of faith or not, you either accept that the birth was a miracle or deny jesus and Mary, having a child without sperm isnt the issue as miracles arent possible without God thats the definition.

jesus performed many miracles out in the open and around others (women even it was blasphemous at the time) and there are texts that have jesus in them that are anti religion like historians of heathen nations i think maybe. ill try and find them. there were two main ones ill have to think.

oh and yes others claimed to be prophets and were false and others claimed to be jesus and weren't

theres not much to say except if you accept the historical value of the bible (i believe its been proven the man jesus existed but either way alot of the history in it is validated) then youd think chief politicians and higher ups in the government of the time wouldnt have believed him especially because it was against there interests i.e. pontius pilot (not too sure i spelled that right)

third

there are two different versions of god in bible the vengeful wrathful god that helped his people but abandoned them when they left him (and some times slayed hundereds even children for worshiping a golden calf, but then again how stupid do you have to be to have just seen the red sea parted and have God and say u know what a golden calf would be nice) , and the new testament golden rule God. You will often hear of religious people refer to the god of the new testament or old testament. Now its kind of hard to combine them into one God which was one of my main problems and why I had to invent my interpretation

fourth

revelation is a toughy Catholics ignore it more then the inquisition it seems like sometimes. I havent read it yet all the way through but hears what i think. yes its relatively general Its about as right as davinci drawing a parachute or tank. prolly less. but anyway it is eery how it refers to the three devils of the Armageddon (fun fact its a city). ( or the demons with long hair and screechy sounds, that could be helicopters or the devil in a wig but definitely one of them)

oh and chrisitians acknowledge 666 is nero it is the devils number as if im right nero was really really evil

fifth

and the books is also a hard topic

the books of mary magdeline for example

or even of the 4 gospels chosenm one of them is retarded (i forget which one) the rest all agree on eveything they say and have some unique stories of there own and then the last one messes up eveything. I mean not completely just weirdly like the sermon on the mount happens in a valley and weird complete opposites like that.

but the point is the council of trent (i think) decided what was in or out

the only thing i can say if they included them all the bible would be years thick. and they only could include ones with divine inspiration. (not too sure what the requirements were they might of had to have signed by deos at the end)

oh and no i am talking about the sermon on the mount maybe i think, when peter says how many times must i forgive my neighbor

and jesus says something like some say 7 but i say not 7 but 70 times 7

wow that was not brief at all

[Guest]

hey im about to go to bed so ill make this quickish

first thanks for the quote thing its too late to learn it now but ill try tommorow

No problem. Don't forget to hit the Preview Post button to make sure it looks like the way you want it to. If it looks all funky, you probably did something wrong.

jesus performed many miracles out in the open and around others (women even it was blasphemous at the time) and there are texts that have jesus in them that are anti religion like historians of heathen nations i think maybe. ill try and find them. there were two main ones ill have to think.

I didn't necesarily mean just his few main followers, but also the crowds of people that came to be a witness to his miracles. But still once again, why not perform some in front of the people who are doubting you(Jewish high priests)?

oh and yes others claimed to be prophets and were false and others claimed to be jesus and weren't

theres not much to say except if you accept the historical value of the bible (i believe its been proven the man jesus existed but either way alot of the history in it is validated) then youd think chief politicians and higher ups in the government of the time wouldnt have believed him especially because it was against there interests i.e. pontius pilot (not too sure i spelled that right)

Pontius Pilate is kind of a bad example in this sense. He wasn't Jewish so of course he would most likely disbelieve the claims. Most likely disbelieved the ways of the Jewish people too. All he was, was a Govenor of the land at that time, sent by the Roman Empire to keep people in line. He did not order Jesus to be executed because of him breaking any sort of Roman law. He ordered his execution to keep the Jewish people from uprising against his decision not to do so.(after reading your comment again, maybe I misunderstood, oh well)

third

there are two different versions of god in bible the vengeful wrathful god that helped his people but abandoned them when they left him (and some times slayed hundereds even children for worshiping a golden calf, but then again how stupid do you have to be to have just seen the red sea parted and have God and say u know what a golden calf would be nice) , and the new testament golden rule God. You will often hear of religious people refer to the god of the new testament or old testament. Now its kind of hard to combine them into one God which was one of my main problems and why I had to invent my interpretation

God should be God should'nt he? Or did he change his ways from one Testament to the other? Thats exactly why it's hard to follow, people come up with how it is meant so it satisfies what they believe. How he is viewed in the Old should be the same as in the New.

fourth

revelation is a toughy Catholics ignore it more then the inquisition it seems like sometimes. I havent read it yet all the way through but hears what i think. yes its relatively general Its about as right as davinci drawing a parachute or tank. prolly less. but anyway it is eery how it refers to the three devils of the Armageddon (fun fact its a city). ( or the demons with long hair and screechy sounds, that could be helicopters or the devil in a wig but definitely one of them)

Davinci drew drawings of possible inventions. It was later people who tried making some sort of meaning out of it. Obviously I don't believe in the Davinci code, but niether should any Christain.

oh and chrisitians acknowledge 666 is nero it is the devils number as if im right nero was really really evil

I think you missed what I was getting at. Yes 666 is the sign of the devil, and yes Nero was considered evil by the people he was ruling over. My point was, in the book of revalation is when the number first appears as the sign of satan, but it was funny to see that Nero Ceaser (the ruler of the Empire that exiled the author of revalation) has the same number attributed to him.

fifth

and the books is also a hard topic

the books of mary magdeline for example

or even of the 4 gospels chosenm one of them is retarded (i forget which one) the rest all agree on eveything they say and have some unique stories of there own and then the last one messes up eveything. I mean not completely just weirdly like the sermon on the mount happens in a valley and weird complete opposites like that.

but the point is the council of trent (i think) decided what was in or out

the only thing i can say if they included them all the bible would be years thick. and they only could include ones with divine inspiration. (not too sure what the requirements were they might of had to have signed by deos at the end)

Well I don't know that it would be that huge, but if it was written, it all should be included I would think. It should'nt matter what the requirements are for the ones that are included. If it was written (and like you mentioned earlier they are Gods words spoken by prophets) I'm sure God meant it all to be included, otherwise why bother saying/writing it?

Edited June 15, 2009 by James8421

[Guest]

Another is of course the so called Virgin Mary. I reject the whole story about that. It is not possible for a woman to have a baby without her egg being fertilized by sperm. Another thing, she was married at the time. Are we led to believe that her and Joseph did not do the business at all before God supposedly had sex with her?

I believe this was written so that Jesus would seem different than the normal person, so people could believe he really was a miracle if his mother gave birth to him without having intercourse.

Jesus performed miracles...hmmm...why did he only perform these miracles in front of his followers? Why not display a miracle in front of the high priests of the Jewish community?

This actually was done, but not in front of the Jewish community... Moses performed many miracles in front of thousands of Egyptian people, including the Pharaoh himself.

Oh yeah and before I forget...

Why are there books of the Bible left out of the Bible? Who decided that? Should'nt everything that was written be included in the Bible? Why has the Bible been changed and retranslated soo many times?

A quote comes to mind: "History is recorded by the winners". Meaning the bible was recorded by the followers of Jesus, maybe some other books could have been placed in the bible long ago, but were taken out later because of their "blasphemy".

EDIT: I actually am an atheist, but want to keep this arguement equal on both sides.

Edited June 15, 2009 by RainThinker

[Guest]

James, you posted comments explaining why you "don't believe in any religion". But virtually all your comments addressed Christianity. Have you looked into other religions? Buddhism, for example, denies the existence of a creator god, or any absolute being. Instead this religion, sometimes called a 'spiritual philosophy', depends upon the personal practice of ethics, meditation, and wisdom. Some Mahayana Buddhists, however, began to revere Guatama Buddha himself as a divine and supernatural being, so look into Theravada Buddhism first.

Regarding the virgin birth of Jesus to Mary. There are several ways that a woman can become pregnant while still a virgin. She can produce a mutant egg with a full double set of chromosomes that could spontaneously grow into a baby. But this child would be an identical clone of the mother, and MUST be a female. So this couldn't explain Jesus' birth. But sperm accidentally coming in contact with a woman without her knowing about it can, although it's a long shot, successfully make the journey up to fertilize the egg. Finally, if Jesus was a male and if God was the father, that pretty much settles the question of God's gender. At least he was playing the role of a human male at the moment of Mary's conception.

About God's change from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. There is a school of thought that says that God was providing man with an imperfect view of his full self because that's all that men could understand. At first men thought that the way to satisfy God was to offer animal sacrifices--literally trying to feed god human food. They didn't know any better, so back then God "dumbed down" his message and gave people the impression that he was vengeful, etc. in order to hold their attention. As time went on, men got more sophisticated and were able to comprehend deeper concepts about God, so God began to feed them more information. In other words, it's not God that changed, but his "sales pitch".

[Guest]

About God's change from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. There is a school of thought that says that God was providing man with an imperfect view of his full self because that's all that men could understand. At first men thought that the way to satisfy God was to offer animal sacrifices--literally trying to feed god human food. They didn't know any better, so back then God "dumbed down" his message and gave people the impression that he was vengeful, etc. in order to hold their attention. As time went on, men got more sophisticated and were able to comprehend deeper concepts about God, so God began to feed them more information. In other words, it's not God that changed, but his "sales pitch".

I would say that that view is inherently dangerous to the religiously-minded as it means that the texts that we do have do not always present the full truth. Of course, I come at it from a logical perspective, so maybe my rose-tinted lenses allow me to see the insanity of simultaneously believing the infallibility of a text while also saying that the subject of the text can change as our ability to understand changes. That could mean that the texts regarding the New Testament are also only an example of what people understood 2000 years ago and shouldn't be relied upon now...it's a very slippery slope and I don't know how one might avoid sliding down it (though it seems possible for some ).

Job is actually a good example of the controversy. Examining the people who first told the story (probably orally), we find a very different Jewish culture from even the one in the time of Jesus. They didn't believe in the afterlife, so there was an understanding that those who were good were rewarded and those who were bad suffered. Hence the fascination with Job, a good man who had done no wrong being punished by God. Since only bad men are punished, his friends were certain that he had done wrong and had to repent. Job knew better and thus refused.

Another interesting fact about the people of the time is that Satan was not the "Devil" as he has come to be known. He was the original "devil's advocate." He merely questioned God's authority without the malicious intent that has since been attributed to him. This difference in understanding of the underlying structure of the society would lead very nicely into seeksit's point, but as I said, to believe that the revelation of the nature of God can change based on the understanding of humanity, opens the door to saying that it is humanity that is dictating the nature of God, not the other way around. Such a thought could be deadly for many religions (in that it may be the death knell for that religion ).

And that's the main reason that I fell away from religion. To accept the beliefs of any one sect, you have to tie yourself into so many knots and as a "reasonist," to use the term favored by others on this forum, I'm not flexible enough to tie my limbs in such a fashion. The changing times caused many of the stories in the religious texts to have changing virtues and vices and since the virtues and vices of today are different yet again from the virtues and vices of even 50 years ago, how can we justify binding ourselves to virtues and vices stipulated in a book written 2000 years ago?

[Guest]

James, you posted comments explaining why you "don't believe in any religion". But virtually all your comments addressed Christianity. Have you looked into other religions? Buddhism, for example, denies the existence of a creator god, or any absolute being. Instead this religion, sometimes called a 'spiritual philosophy', depends upon the personal practice of ethics, meditation, and wisdom. Some Mahayana Buddhists, however, began to revere Guatama Buddha himself as a divine and supernatural being, so look into Theravada Buddhism first.

I have not looked into that religion enough to know exactly what I don't believe about it. Is that the one that believes in Reincarnation?, and good Karma/bad Karma? I reject that belief. Also you are the first to bring up another religion. I wrote in an earlier post we should take the discussion a few examples at a time. So far (until now) it has been me and final discussing. I believe he is some sort of Christain.

Regarding the virgin birth of Jesus to Mary. There are several ways that a woman can become pregnant while still a virgin. She can produce a mutant egg with a full double set of chromosomes that could spontaneously grow into a baby. But this child would be an identical clone of the mother, and MUST be a female. So this couldn't explain Jesus' birth. But sperm accidentally coming in contact with a woman without her knowing about it can, although it's a long shot, successfully make the journey up to fertilize the egg. Finally, if Jesus was a male and if God was the father, that pretty much settles the question of God's gender. At least he was playing the role of a human male at the moment of Mary's conception.

I'm not buying that argument. Besides I still find it hard to believe that she and Joseph did not have sex after they were married. Or they did have sex out of marriage, which was against Jewish Law, so they quickly got married, and had Jesus and said it was God..........hahahaha.

About God's change from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. There is a school of thought that says that God was providing man with an imperfect view of his full self because that's all that men could understand. At first men thought that the way to satisfy God was to offer animal sacrifices--literally trying to feed god human food. They didn't know any better, so back then God "dumbed down" his message and gave people the impression that he was vengeful, etc. in order to hold their attention. As time went on, men got more sophisticated and were able to comprehend deeper concepts about God, so God began to feed them more information. In other words, it's not God that changed, but his "sales pitch".

There are examples in the New that would (to me anyway) suggest a vengeful God. I would have to look into it again, which I probably won't feel like doing. Not sure if that is an answer, but I know what I mean, and it is hard to write everything the way you mean it.

Would you care telling what your religion is that you follow?

[hugemonkey]

You guys crack me up.

I was in exactly your shoes several years ago. I was raised partly in the north and later in the south (GA) and have had just about every relationship toward religion from being a VERY religious Christian to being more of a Deist then agnostic (weak) then to wannabe Buddhist to Agnostic (strong) then eventually to happy atheist.

No magic no mumbo jumbo and everything became much more...clear.

That being said ask yourself "Does a book have to be 100% true in order for it to have value." This is how I see the Bible. I would recommend that every one read it only because it is an amazing piece of literature. Almost every other piece of literature ever written (in western culture) makes allusions to it. It is worth reading if only to make your understanding of other works of fiction richer (Star Wars, The Matrix or Lost just two name a few).

For the same reasons it couldn't hurt to read the Koran, Rig Veda, or The Iliad, too.

Thinking critically about the world around you and questioning EVERYTHING is the surest path to happiness that I can think of.

[Guest]

I have not looked into that religion enough to know exactly what I don't believe about it. Is that the one that believes in Reincarnation?, and good Karma/bad Karma? I reject that belief. Also you are the first to bring up another religion. I wrote in an earlier post we should take the discussion a few examples at a time. So far (until now) it has been me and final discussing. I believe he is some sort of Christain.

The reincarnation and karma thing is Hinduism. You're right that it's probably not a good idea to ramble all around and lose focus. One topic at a time. Sorry.

I'm not buying that argument. Besides I still find it hard to believe that she and Joseph did not have sex after they were married. Or they did have sex out of marriage, which was against Jewish Law, so they quickly got married, and had Jesus and said it was God..........hahahaha.

It's not clear from the bible that Joseph and Mary were married until after Jesus was conceived. There is a difference between Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 2:1-7 but neither of them are very clear on the precise timing of the marriage. Still, I always found it interesting that all the prophecies were that the messiah would be "of the house of David" and that all the listed genealogy traces the lineage of Jesus from David through Joseph. Hmmmm ....

Would you care telling what your religion is that you follow?

I'm an active member of a Unitarian Universalist congregation here in Maryland. It's a very open-minded, non-credal, liberal religion. I'd be happy to discuss it at length.

[Guest]

wow lost the internet connection mid stream cant imagine how frustrating this is

I didn't necesarily mean just his few main followers, but also the crowds of people that came to be a witness to his miracles. But still once again, why not perform some in front of the people who are doubting you(Jewish high priests)?

I meant to say anyone in the region saw it if you believe it happened. Anyone could come see jesus and often disbeleivers would come and hastle jesus. just for example jesus repaired a soldiers ear that one of his disciples had cut off against jesus's orders. at the garden of (dont remember right before he was crucified)

Pontius Pilate is kind of a bad example in this sense. He wasn't Jewish so of course he would most likely disbelieve the claims. Most likely disbelieved the ways of the Jewish people too. All he was, was a Govenor of the land at that time, sent by the Roman Empire to keep people in line. He did not order Jesus to be executed because of him breaking any sort of Roman law. He ordered his execution to keep the Jewish people from uprising against his decision not to do so.(after reading your comment again, maybe I misunderstood, oh well)

i meant pontius pilot believed jesus and in jesus. So much so that he risked being killed by the ruler of the time to save jesus. He offered the jewish people the chance to save a prisoner and the jews chose a murdering rapist (barnabis maybe) instead of jesus. At this point pilot could do no more.

God should be God should'nt he? Or did he change his ways from one Testament to the other? Thats exactly why it's hard to follow, people come up with how it is meant so it satisfies what they believe. How he is viewed in the Old should be the same as in the New.

I agree which is weird and why i think my idea of God fits better then most Christians. the only thing is maybe the peoples perception of God changed but that is a little of a cop out.

Davinci drew drawings of possible inventions. It was later people who tried making some sort of meaning out of it. Obviously I don't believe in the Davinci code, but niether should any Christain.

Im confused. obviously no one should beleive the davinci code but are you saying christians shouldnt believe in the the davinci code or revelation.

I think you missed what I was getting at. Yes 666 is the sign of the devil, and yes Nero was considered evil by the people he was ruling over. My point was, in the book of revalation is when the number first appears as the sign of satan, but it was funny to see that Nero Ceaser (the ruler of the Empire that exiled the author of revalation) has the same number attributed to him.

no i understand

it has been my understanding that 666 was Nero's number but nero represented the devil to John and so eventually the whole christian communtiy associated 666 with the devil.

Well I don't know that it would be that huge, but if it was written, it all should be included I would think. It should'nt matter what the requirements are for the ones that are included. If it was written (and like you mentioned earlier they are Gods words spoken by prophets) I'm sure God meant it all to be included, otherwise why bother saying/writing it?

Its a debate of what is divine inspired so what books are inspired should be in. But the arguement is what was inspired. plus anything with mary magdeline as jesus's wife or girlfriend was out. Then anything that mentioned jesus's borthers (mary's perpetual virginity) and so on and so on. But yah kind of arbitrary.

There are examples in the New that would (to me anyway) suggest a vengeful God. I would have to look into it again, which I probably won't feel like doing. Not sure if that is an answer, but I know what I mean, and it is hard to write everything the way you mean it.

there isnt much. except for when jesus asked god why have you forsaken me and god said shut up. other then that not much other then compassion. except he kind of influenced judas iscariot to kill himself and then didnt try and stop him.

oh and i meant to say this earlier when peter denies jesus three times. I beleive it means deny him as God. or deny all three of him (personas of God).

um and joseph and marys marriage is immaterial. It is said that they had not had sex and Joseph was to leave her quietly until angels came to him. I dont think whether they were marrried at the time matters.

also how the virgin birth could possibley happen doesnt matter. It either was a miracle or didnt happen. You dont have to figure out how God did the miracle.

and someone said something about a fair fight. Were just discussing ideas here were not really trying to persuade or dissuade eachother.

also it can never be a fair fight all i have to do is describe what i feel and beleive, atheist have the curse of actually having to make logical sense

thats all i got for now I

quotes didnt work exactly right but a lil better

edit: gesemeny i knew i would think of it right after i poster (the garden i mean tho i still spelled it wrong)

Edited June 15, 2009 by final

[Guest]

The reincarnation and karma thing is Hinduism. You're right that it's probably not a good idea to ramble all around and lose focus. One topic at a time. Sorry.

It's not clear from the bible that Joseph and Mary were married until after Jesus was conceived. There is a difference between Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 2:1-7 but neither of them are very clear on the precise timing of the marriage. Still, I always found it interesting that all the prophecies were that the messiah would be "of the house of David" and that all the listed genealogy traces the lineage of Jesus from David through Joseph. Hmmmm ....

Ok fair enough, lets say they were not married. See anything wrong with her being pregnant without being married. As far as I remember I think that went against Jewish Law.(could be wrong, but pretty sure).

Also as much as I try to stay away from asking for proof, but what other indications were there that suggest Jesus was a decendant of David, besides his claims, and/or his followers or his mother? Also did the Jewish priests only deny his claims to be the King of Jews? Or did they also reject his claims to be "Son of Man", "Son of David", or "Son of God"?(actually I am asking that because I'm not sure if it is clear if they denied all, or just the King of Jews part.) Besides, since it was written that the mesiah would be of the house of David, of course that would be part of his plan to say he was decendant of David. If it is somewhere in there that he was an actual blood decendant of David, then I will stand corrected. (but will still reject it )

Basically I am discrediting the claims Jesus had that he was the mesiah (not because I'm Jewish) and that leads me to discredit everything else that was written. There were only a small handful of his follows that survided, and they managed to spread his word and got enough people to believe. If them few people did not persue in the plan, then Jesus would never have been heard of. He would have been just one more guy to claim he was the mesiah. It's like trial and error, eventually you are going to find one that fits. Just so happened to be Jesus Christ.

As for the rest of my reasoning for rejecting the whole faith around the Bible(Jews,Christains,and Muslims) most is just matter of opinion, but some are actually different views of what really could have went on, and those make more sense to me.

[Guest]

oh and i meant to say this earlier when peter denies jesus three times. I beleive it means deny him as God. or deny all three of him (personas of God).

Jesus tells Peter, that he(Peter) will deny him (Jesus) 3 times. That much you can watch in "The Passion Of Christ". By deny he means he will deny his faith in Jesus basically. And he does this in the final days leading up to Jesus' crucification.

um and joseph and marys marriage is immaterial. It is said that they had not had sex and Joseph was to leave her quietly until angels came to him. I dont think whether they were marrried at the time matters.

also how the virgin birth could possibley happen doesnt matter. It either was a miracle or didnt happen. You dont have to figure out how God did the miracle.

I'm more less arguing the scientific facts (or lack of) behind the whole notion. The belief part about it is just a matter of opinion. You either believe or you don't.(which I suppose could be said about everything, but hopefully you see where I'm coming from regarding that particular part)

also it can never be a fair fight all i have to do is describe what i feel and beleive, atheist have the curse of actually having to make logical sense

not exactly...I could end any argument by saying I don't believe because that is not what happened, just like you could end it by saying I know that is what happened and I have faith, and that's all I need. I don't try making logical sense out of everything that is not logical to me. (that would be a lifes work)

i meant pontius pilot believed jesus and in jesus. So much so that he risked being killed by the ruler of the time to save jesus. He offered the jewish people the chance to save a prisoner and the jews chose a murdering rapist (barnabis maybe) instead of jesus. At this point pilot could do no more.

Thats not entirely correct. Pontius Pilate, found no guilt in Jesus because he had'nt broke any Roman Laws. The only charges brought against him were by the Jews, saying he was a blasphemer. It wasn't that he believed in him. (Actually it mentions his wife having some dreams, or visions about jesus, and she tries reasoning with Pilate or something like that) That is why he offered the other prisoner instead. The Jews were so demanding that Jesus be crucified, that they allowed Pilate to set the rapist free, so that Jesus could be punished. Pilate agreed to have him beaten, nearly to death, but that did not satisfy the Jews. So in order to keep from an uprisng by the Jews, he finally ordered Jesus to be crucified. He was already on thin ice over the uprisings in his section he governed, so he basically had to put out the order.

[Guest]

i think with alot of these things were saying the exact same thing but arguing over how to see it. and the logical sense thing was just a reference to a comic (dane cook i hope not i hate him but maybe) who said no man can win a fight in a relationships because men have to actually make sense

The one thing i do want to say is y is "the passion of christ" more believable then the bible (i mean mel gibson did it, that like believing something michael moore produced or tom cruise)

I was just suggesting that maybe it wasn't the number of times peter would deny him, but the completeness of his betrayal by denying 3(the number of the gods in the bible)

,but it is more accepted that it was the number

and yah i understand what your saying about mary if it wasnt immaculate conception then mary would have been stoned to death i beleive in the law at the time. So it is convenient that she had that excuse but as you said you believe it or you dont.

[Guest]

i think with alot of these things were saying the exact same thing but arguing over how to see it.

Agreed, maybe someone could give a few other examples or something.?

The one thing i do want to say is y is "the passion of christ" more believable then the bible (i mean mel gibson did it, that like believing something michael moore produced or tom cruise)

alot of religious figures and others agree that the movie was very accurate, also Mel Gibson is highly religious, and tried making it as accurate as possible. I thought it to be accurate from what I read before the movie even came out. I don't know.

Next set of subjects. Anyone?