NationStates Jolt Archive

I mean, it's not as if one can decide what to believe. (at least, I can't...)
Of course you decide what you believe in. That's why it's a belief.

1) What is your background with the religion? (born into, gone to church, currently a christian, etc)
2) If you are now a Christian, why are you?
3) If you are not a Christian, but were previously one, why did you quit being one?

1: Family is not too religious as a whole but is for the most part very tolerant and never actively did anything to prohibit me from experimenting with it. I consider myself to have 'experimented' with religion the same way some people do with drugs.

2: Do you have to go to a church to be a christian? (Some people keep telling me you do)

3: I never got used to the idea of someone telling me what and how to believe, and the services are always terribly boring; I stopped going to any kind of church functions when i was 14, I'm not sure if that qualifies me as not Christian.

I'm probably better classified as agnostic now.

Of course you decide what you believe in. That's why it's a belief.Well yes and no. No matter how much I try, I can't force myself to believe in a god. Likewise, a true believer probably could not force themselves to stop believing in a god.

The semantics of each religion, like the different branches of Christianity might be choices, but the big questions I don't think are.

That's my main problem with Pascal's Wager come to think of it. It's only an effective wager for faking a belief.

So, I have always wondered about people who have come in contact with Christianity. ITT, I have a few questions for NSG about their experience. I assume that most people here have, at some point, been exposed to Christianity, whether being raised in a Christian home, having been one or is now one. So here are my questions:

1) What is your background with the religion? (born into, gone to church, currently a christian, etc)

Mom was raised Lutheran, Dad was raised Catholic...looking back, I think that rather than argue over which I was to be raised, they simply didn't bother. We never really went to church aside from the occasional wedding/funeral, and religion never really factored into any family discussion.

Didnt really start studying the religion in depth until my early teens, and at that point I was contrasting/comparing it to many other religions, and none of them really appealed to me spiritually.

2) If you are now a Christian, why are you?

N/A

3) If you are not a Christian, but were previously one, why did you quit being one?

Well, I was nominally Christian until about middle-school, but after studying various religions, I came to believe that they're all claiming to know the unknowable. For a while I went through an atheistic phase, but it wasn't the "answer" I was looking for.

Eventually, I dedcided that every religion is both completely correct and completely incorrect at the same time. Correct in their search for truth greater than ourselves, incorrect in their exclusionary mindset and confrontational attitudes.

I don't talk about my personal beliefs very much...they're my beliefs and I see little reason to share them unless asked.

I believe in something greater than myself, but I don't pray to it, I don't bow to it, I don't follow any specific rules that it supposedly made up, and I don't worry about what it's going to do to me when I'm dead.

I'll find out soon enough what the real deal is...and that's good enough for me. Until then, I'm going to have fun with the time I've been so generously allotted. :D

Well yes and no. No matter how much I try, I can't force myself to believe in a god. Likewise, a true believer probably could not force themselves to stop believing in a god.

The semantics of each religion, like the different branches of Christianity might be choices, but the big questions I don't think are.

That's my main problem with Pascal's Wager come to think of it. It's only an effective wager for faking a belief.
See, I disagree. You have to choose to believe. Not to say you didn't try, but obviously you weren't really choosing to believe. It would be like saying you can't choose to kill yourself. No, you can, and if you seriously do so you WILL kill yourself. If you have not seriously done so... chances are you won't either go through with it or will do so in such a way as to botch it. But you do have to choose it.

To some degree you are correct. You could also say because Europe increasingly came under the Christian umbrella such divisions were no longer needed. Humanists play a role. Scientists play role. Preachers play a role. Politicians play a role. The list goes on and on. We all play a role.

Actually, as Europe came under the Christian umbrella, the new divisions were created in addition to the old tribal ones.
For centuries, Christianity was the most dividing force in Europe, until it was pushed back to allow for a secular peace process at last.

Actually, as Europe came under the Christian umbrella, the new divisions were created in addition to the old tribal ones.
For centuries, Christianity was the most dividing force in Europe, until it was pushed back to allow for a secular peace process at last.
You have a unique point of view of European history. If memory serves, the most devastating wars in Europe happened not because of Christianity. The peace of Europe also seemed to have very little to do with religion in general and much more to do with having stomped the place flat during the course of WWII.

You are correct we need Intellectual Evolution maybe to get there you need faith in something better, maybe not, maybe you just do it because it the right thing to do. Some say you need God to get there. I believe that. Whatever it takes to get you to "that place" where you begin to break down barriers.

I think given the long history of religions so far on this planet, it's not overall very conductive to breaking down barriers or any sort of peaceful social progress.

One thing I've always wondered, because I hear this sort of reasoning a lot, perhaps somebody could clear it up for me...

I often hear people claim to be Christian (or whatever religion, but, given that I live where I do, most often Christian) because they like the idea of God. But that doesn't make sense to me... I mean, I really like the idea of having no debt, but that won't make my student loans go away. I really like the idea of peace, but that won't cause an end to all wars. There's plenty of things that I would like to be the case that aren't. So why does simply liking the idea convince you in the case of religion? I mean, it's not as if one can decide what to believe. (at least, I can't...)
But where your student loans are facts, there really isn't any evidence for or against God. It's just one of those things you have to decide for yourself.

You have a unique point of view of European history. If memory serves, the most devastating wars in Europe happened not because of Christianity. The peace of Europe also seemed to have very little to do with religion in general and much more to do with having stomped the place flat during the course of WWII.

No, those weren't down to Christianity in particular, although that had helped to pave the way quite a bit.
All 3 world wars (if you want to count the cold war as well, which I tend to do), had their roots in ideologies that were used as pseudo-religions. Substitutes, if you like.

No, those weren't down to Christianity in particular, although that had helped to pave the way quite a bit.
Alright, I'll bite. How? A lot of WWI was about empire. And, yes, Spain did go out for God and Gold, but the British, French, German, and Russian Empires were less interested in the religious aspect of converting heathens and more interested in both colonization and gold.

All 3 world wars (if you want to count the cold war as well, which I tend to do), had their roots in ideologies that were used as pseudo-religions. Substitutes, if you like.
Were people worshiping empires? While Nazism could be considered a cult of personality, it falls short of a religion per se so I do not see how you could apply it to the second. As for the Cold War, well, we can all joke about the worship of the dollar, but again, that was more of a clash of philosophies rather than religions. It still does not address the point Cabra that the peace in Europe came AFTER devastating wars that had nothing to do with religion or Christianity.

Alright, I'll bite. How? A lot of WWI was about empire. And, yes, Spain did go out for God and Gold, but the British, French, German, and Russian Empires were less interested in the religious aspect of converting heathens and more interested in both colonization and gold.

"For king and country" was one of the British slogans, "For god and country" was used quite a bit on the German side during WW I.


Were people worshiping empires? While Nazism could be considered a cult of personality, it falls short of a religion per se so I do not see how you could apply it to the second. As for the Cold War, well, we can all joke about the worship of the dollar, but again, that was more of a clash of philosophies rather than religions. It still does not address the point Cabra that the peace in Europe came AFTER devastating wars that had nothing to do with religion or Christianity.

WW I was about nationalism and imperialism, with each nation holding to the belief that it was destined to rule over "lesser" nations. The polemic back then was very obviously religious in aspect, and evoked religion at any given opportunity.

WW II took it another step further, with the Nazis creating a cult around their nation that had never been seen before. It was to some extend removed from the traditional religions, but not fully. Especially parts of the protestant church was only too happy and eager to play an active role in the new Reich, integrating Nazi ideology into their religious teaching while the Nazi ideology integrated Christian beliefs (claiming that Jesus had been Aryan, etc.)

The cold war was a face-off between believers in Communism and those who didn't believe in it.

People don't fight wars the ferociously over what they consider right (which would imply a philosophy). They fight them because they believe. Because they have the "truth".
Only once this idea of universal truths was dropped from politics was the way open for dialog and peace.

"For king and country" was one of the British slogans, "For god and country" was used quite a bit on the German side during WW I.
It was not, however, a religious war. It was not, "Those damn Germans are worshiping God in a way we don't like". The Germans did NOT attack France because France was Catholic either.

Just because a slogan was used does not make it true or a reason for it, any more than the Allied Powers were actually White Devils.

WW I was about nationalism and imperialism, with each nation holding to the belief that it was destined to rule over "lesser" nations. The polemic back then was very obviously religious in aspect, and evoked religion at any given opportunity.
Cabra, proof. You keep saying it, but you haven't showed it. Yes, people invoked religion, but using religion as an excuse does not make it a religious war. Of course people claimed God to be on their side, but as President Lincoln noted, God is invoked on EVERY side. That didn't make the US Civil War a religious war either.

WW II took it another step further, with the Nazis creating a cult around their nation that had never been seen before. It was to some extend removed from the traditional religions, but not fully. Especially parts of the protestant church was only too happy and eager to play an active role in the new Reich, integrating Nazi ideology into their religious teaching while the Nazi ideology integrated Christian beliefs (claiming that Jesus had been Aryan, etc.)
Ok, you've described nationalism and Nazism, but neither of them are religious. They might share some factors, but that doesn't mean one is another. A cat and dog share factors, but they are not the same. Again, WWII had nothing to do with religion. This was not the wars that took place during the Protestant Reformation when the Holy Roman Empire tore itself apart with the princes attempting to promote their religion over the other. This is not some of the wars that happened during the Middle Ages either.

The cold war was a face-off between believers in Communism and those who didn't believe in it.
Again, what does that have to do with religion? We believe in human rights, does that make it a religious stance?

People don't fight wars the ferociously over what they consider right (which would imply a philosophy). They fight them because they believe. Because they have the "truth".
Only once this idea of universal truths was dropped from politics was the way open for dialog and peace.
No, they fight wars because one wants something the other has. Most of European history has been a war of "I want that" when you guys got done stomping each other on your continent you went to war in the new world, over someone's bloody ear! Europeans wanted a large chunk of the planet and a lot of the wars were either because they wanted the same slice or someone didn't want to give their slice up. Religion was used as an excuse, but the modern wars were not religious in nature. I honestly believe that there was not some great awaking in Europe about religion because, let's face it, this secular Europe is rather new in nature and the ECC/EU comes from the late 50's, which IIRC, still saw a lot of religious activity there. It would seem more that Europeans finally just got tired and incapable of fighting each other rather than decide that religion was a problem.

And it would be nice if Europe did indeed drop the idea of universal truths, but given Europe's work in the UN for universal human rights... obviously that is not true at all.

Of course you decide what you believe in. That's why it's a belief.

Well yes and no. No matter how much I try, I can't force myself to believe in a god. Likewise, a true believer probably could not force themselves to stop believing in a god.

The semantics of each religion, like the different branches of Christianity might be choices, but the big questions I don't think are.

That's my main problem with Pascal's Wager come to think of it. It's only an effective wager for faking a belief.

See, I disagree. You have to choose to believe. Not to say you didn't try, but obviously you weren't really choosing to believe. It would be like saying you can't choose to kill yourself. No, you can, and if you seriously do so you WILL kill yourself. If you have not seriously done so... chances are you won't either go through with it or will do so in such a way as to botch it. But you do have to choose it.


I have to agree with LA, here. I could decide to act as if I believe, and yet, I would remain unconvinced. I can no more choose to believe in God than I can in unicorns. I have not chosen any of the things I think are true; I have been convinced that they are the case. They have chosen me, if you will.

But where your student loans are facts, there really isn't any evidence for or against God. It's just one of those things you have to decide for yourself.

Well, whether God exists or not is a fact as well, just one that is harder to discover. But again, I cannot choose to believe God exists. I either am convinced, or I am not convinced.

I have to agree with LA, here. I could decide to act as if I believe, and yet, I would remain unconvinced. I can no more choose to believe in God than I can in unicorns. I have not chosen any of the things I think are true; I have been convinced that they are the case. They have chosen me, if you will.

Well, whether God exists or not is a fact as well, just one that is harder to discover. But again, I cannot choose to believe God exists. I either am convinced, or I am not convinced.
You have made a mistake however, a belief is not the same as acceptance of, say, a historical theory. You believe regardless of evidence because you will ether have none, it is inconclusive, or you choose to ignore it. YEC people choose to ignore any evidence to the contrary after all. Their belief that the earth is only thousands of years old goes against all accepted evidence. To say "I cannot chose to believe in God because there is no evidence" defeats the purpose of belief. You are not asking for belief, you are asking for proof! If there was proof, why the hell would you need belief?

I'm being divisive on the grounds of pointing that religions divide the world?

No man, do you not even remember what you write? You said that you are only too willing to lay the blame on religion for all of the worlds ills. Can you really not see that by taking such a stance you indulge in this Us vs Them attitude that you are trying to accuse the relgious of?


good for you Peepelonia. Unfortunately not all religious people, not even the majority are like you.

Yet you'll find many of them here?


Somehow I doubt we can compare it to the crusades. Or the european wars of religion or the Shiite-Sunni conflict.


Obviously not, but you know that is quite a way back in human history, how far back do you want to go to make your argument work? Besides that is not the point I am trying to get accross to you. the point is simply that mankind has upt o this point, and I suspect always will, find ways to divide in Us and Them camps.

If you point is that religoun serves to divide mankind instead of bring us together then the same can be said of almost anything. I love curry my brother does not, this causes a divison when we talk about our fave foods.

In my youth, and my fathers youth, and probably the youth of today(in fact in the news last year we had a girl killed for being a Goth) the simple fact of differant musical tastes caused a hell of a lot of fights, do you think we should therefore ban music because of it's ability to cause division?

So really, what is your point?

You are correct in your belief that I don't drink beverages that can make a person drunk. However I would appreciate it if you wouldn't attempt to make fun of my God.

Hehe this mae me laugh.

Two points:

Your God?
Do you really think God cares whether people make fun of God or not?

Are you really going to deny that religion only accepts science when it happens to coincide with their religious dogma? I simply point to the theory of evolution and how "disputed" it is among the religious as my evidence.

Wrong I'm religous, and I think to even attempt to dispute evolution makes one an idiot. There is afterall over whelming evidance.

Of course what you really mean is Christian when you say religous, or at least those Christians who's capacity for thought has been erased by dogma.

You have made a mistake however, a belief is not the same as acceptance of, say, a historical theory. You believe regardless of evidence because you will ether have none, it is inconclusive, or you choose to ignore it. YEC people choose to ignore any evidence to the contrary after all. Their belief that the earth is only thousands of years old goes against all accepted evidence. To say "I cannot chose to believe in God because there is no evidence" defeats the purpose of belief. You are not asking for belief, you are asking for proof! If there was proof, why the hell would you need belief?

I would define belief as something broader than blind faith. I believe certain things because they have evidence to support them, and I believe certain things that are matters of opinion (for example, I believe that pepperoni, italian sausage, and occasionally a bit of onion (depending on my mood) are the best pizza toppings ever.) (I also believe I use entirely too many parentheses)

Some would place God in that second category, but I disagree. God's existence or nonexistence is a fact, just one that is rather more difficult to discover.

1. Born to a strict YEC mother, when to a YEC church for quite some time.
2. Currently a Christian, because I like the thought of an all-loving, all-caring God, who would give up anything for us.
having read the thread to find out what YEC means

if they are right...

does the church bill itself as YEC or is that what you have come to call it? it seems like an odd focus for any christian church to have --it being part of their "advertising" and all-- no matter that they do believe in a literal bible.

It was not, however, a religious war. It was not, "Those damn Germans are worshiping God in a way we don't like". The Germans did NOT attack France because France was Catholic either.

Just because a slogan was used does not make it true or a reason for it, any more than the Allied Powers were actually White Devils.


Cabra, proof. You keep saying it, but you haven't showed it. Yes, people invoked religion, but using religion as an excuse does not make it a religious war. Of course people claimed God to be on their side, but as President Lincoln noted, God is invoked on EVERY side. That didn't make the US Civil War a religious war either.


Ok, you've described nationalism and Nazism, but neither of them are religious. They might share some factors, but that doesn't mean one is another. A cat and dog share factors, but they are not the same. Again, WWII had nothing to do with religion. This was not the wars that took place during the Protestant Reformation when the Holy Roman Empire tore itself apart with the princes attempting to promote their religion over the other. This is not some of the wars that happened during the Middle Ages either.


Again, what does that have to do with religion? We believe in human rights, does that make it a religious stance?


No, they fight wars because one wants something the other has. Most of European history has been a war of "I want that" when you guys got done stomping each other on your continent you went to war in the new world, over someone's bloody ear! Europeans wanted a large chunk of the planet and a lot of the wars were either because they wanted the same slice or someone didn't want to give their slice up. Religion was used as an excuse, but the modern wars were not religious in nature. I honestly believe that there was not some great awaking in Europe about religion because, let's face it, this secular Europe is rather new in nature and the ECC/EU comes from the late 50's, which IIRC, still saw a lot of religious activity there. It would seem more that Europeans finally just got tired and incapable of fighting each other rather than decide that religion was a problem.

And it would be nice if Europe did indeed drop the idea of universal truths, but given Europe's work in the UN for universal human rights... obviously that is not true at all.

Thanks Nervun. I don't know that I could have said it any better. In both cases.

With regard to Europe and later North America. We are just a "sledgehammer" looking for a "spike". Arguably there is no group of people that like to fight more than our group.

If we didn't have Christianity it may have been far worse. We want to feel like we are doing the "right" things maybe more so than any other cultures. We really do look for guidance that we are on the right track.

This is of course a generalization, but I don't see us as sitting around meditating on "higher" purpose or "enlightenment". It works to some degree today but only much after we came to grips with what it meant to be Christian. I don't think we are peaceful by nature.

1. Born papist, baptized, confirmed, schooled, even entered the Management Trainee program (seminary).
3. Several

Discovered the concept of post-conventional morality;
Observed that the physical universe was "eternal, omnipotent, omniscient" in the non-mystical senses
Became a pantheist
Aha: became able to view corporate religions as businesses
Observed corruption in the upper and middle management of the church
Unwilling to trade ethical independence for a sense of belonging
Not willing to be an apologist for child sexual molestation
The singing can be fun, soothing, but I have other things to do

1.
I never had any face to face 'real' contact with Christians until I was in Sixth Form at about 17, I haven't been baptised and was brought up in a loving home by my Mum and a few other family members. Me Mum says that she is a Christian of the CofE, as does my Nan - I don't think my Grandad was Christian as such.

My Mum apparently attended a communal Sunday school type thing although from the experiences she's told me it was much more of a local safety net rather than a place where Christianity was drilled into kiddys. Then again, my Mum has always claimed that she once wanted to be a Nun and have a yellow Mini so... (love you Mum) =P

2.
Don't currently belong to any Church/religion and am more of a humanist I suppose.

3.
Never belonged to a religion so never had a religious belief to give up.

Scientific Realism is a bit more complicated than "the only valid system of truth is that of science". Plus science is a system that depends on evidence. So if you can provide the evidence scientist will change their mind, this is clearly not fundamentalism.

I don't know what Scientific realism is, but I know that there are people who only believe that 'which science has proven', or more intelligently, believe only in those things for which there is scientific evidence. If something has no scientific evidence, they either assume that it doesn't really exist, or if it obviously does exist, create a 'scientific' explanation for it. It is a question of having faith that science can and will eventually explain everything

Are you really going to deny that religion only accepts science when it happens to coincide with their religious dogma? I simply point to the theory of evolution and how "disputed" it is among the religious as my evidence.

Darwin was a member of the clergy.

Good points, nicely expressed. I also find that most of my issues with religion are with organized religion, meaning the hierarchical organization of religions and their power structures. When religion is personal, it is seldom a problem, I think. But when it gets involved in society and social rules, Katie bar the door. The power of god(s) is absolute, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I mostly agree with this, but then I see how people like Romero used the power they wielded in organised religions to help others; something that would have been impossible if they were not in a powerful position in a hierarchy. Less dramatic examples include charities run by churches.

I mostly agree with this, but then I see how people like Romero used the power they wielded in organised religions to help others; something that would have been impossible if they were not in a powerful position in a hierarchy. Less dramatic examples include charities run by churches.

Agreed. Even though I have a deep distrust of organised religion, most of the political/social work I've done has been done through various church-run organisations. Most of them are remarkably able to fulfill their mandate without proselytising, and made even someone like me feel comfortable.

I am wondering if it has to do with how big the chiurch is, and how accountable the top of the hierarchy is to those under them.

This would explain why these charities usually are run at the community level, while the abuses of power occur higher up: the higher up you go, the less connection you have with the community. And if the connection with the community is the only thing that would keep the power in check...

my grandparents were catholic....then a child of theirs died....the priest was unsypathetic...and continued to call for money for the church...my grandmother told him to go and never return as she had renounced her faith in the roman church!!....he replied with what you could only of expected ....that they would burn in hell and they would never enter heaven etc.

they turned to the weslyan chapel....a methodist church of a protestant nature.

a nice church and nice people........i was baptised there....and continued to go until i was about 17.

i no longer go.....as im gay......im sure i dont need to fill in the gaps of why did i stop going and why dont i go now...lol.

i still think there is a greater force, but im constantly battling with christian and islamic thoughts........obviously neither accommodates a gay person, but i do believe in many of the other teachings that sort of contradict that.

I was born into a Catholic family, though my father was Anglican and his father was Baptist. Basically I come from a long line of men who said "bugger it, I love this woman and if I have to change my address with God, so be it."

I'm currently an apathetic agnostic. My main reason for not practicing religion anymore is because it seems entirely unnecessary.

I'm currently an apathetic agnostic. My main reason for not practicing religion anymore is because it seems entirely unnecessary.

^This!!!

having read the thread to find out what YEC means

if they are right...

does the church bill itself as YEC or is that what you have come to call it? it seems like an odd focus for any christian church to have --it being part of their "advertising" and all-- no matter that they do believe in a literal bible.

No, no, it's what I've come to call it.

I am wondering if it has to do with how big the chiurch is, and how accountable the top of the hierarchy is to those under them.

This would explain why these charities usually are run at the community level, while the abuses of power occur higher up: the higher up you go, the less connection you have with the community. And if the connection with the community is the only thing that would keep the power in check...

Déjà vu...I think we had this discussion with Dobbs over at UMP, no? I agree that the grassroots nature of many of the organisations under the auspices of church control that I’ve referred to tend to be less likely to be tarnished by the upper levels of corruption.

Also, following your line of thought, the idea of decentralisation of religious organisations so as to ensure community accountability is definitely something I support...and would also gladly apply to any sort of systems of power, political, religious, economic or other. I’m not sure any of that is ‘good for the economy’ though.

I think the major problem I'm seeing here is a widespread "dislike", if not outright hate, of organized religion.

And I think this can be attributed to the fact that organized religion is really just another institution of human origin. I.e. another source of power, perceived or otherwise. In the end, just as the blade rends flesh, so must power scar the spirit.

So, I have always wondered about people who have come in contact with Christianity. ITT, I have a few questions for NSG about their experience. I assume that most people here have, at some point, been exposed to Christianity, whether being raised in a Christian home, having been one or is now one. So here are my questions:

none of the above. i've known a few christains, though. i had two friends at school who were christian, but that's about it. and one of those lost his faith anyway. don't know about the other

1) What is your background with the religion? (born into, gone to church, currently a christian, etc)
2) If you are now a Christian, why are you?
3) If you are not a Christian, but were previously one, why did you quit being one?

1. no background. raised athiest/agnostic, still am. been interested in spirituality, tried to "find god" when i was depressed at university, never found him (or he never found me), had no faith, gave up. now living a largely a-religious life.
2. n/a
3. n/a

well, that settles that :tongue:

I think the major problem I'm seeing here is a widespread "dislike", if not outright hate, of organized religion.

And I think this can be attributed to the fact that organized religion is really just another institution of human origin. I.e. another source of power, perceived or otherwise. In the end, just as the blade rends flesh, so must power scar the spirit.
I think you're right on the button. But I don't think the dislike of organized religion as a human institution is unjustified. A great deal of human suffering is due to the tendency of human beings to section themselves off, and the religious institutions do nothing to help that.

I think you're right on the button. But I don't think the dislike of organized religion as a human institution is unjustified. A great deal of human suffering is due to the tendency of human beings to section themselves off, and the religious institutions do nothing to help that.

You could say the same thing about: police, firefighter, doctors, lawyers

Abuse of power is not confined to the church. It a human phenomenon. The people who do such things will have to answer to civil and a "higher power". What could you possibly say to make amends for those types of activities. Forgive might work

Especially if you are among the clergy, you should be setting the example for the rest of us. The Devil can get to anyone. Poltician, priest, poet you name it none are untouchable.

You could say the same thing about: police, firefighter, doctors...
Well, you couldn't really, because police, firefighters and doctors do help the alleviation of human suffering.

..., lawyers
Fair call on that one though. :D

No, no, it's what I've come to call it.
oh ok. that makes much better sense.

those extremly fundamentalist churches require a bit of doublethink dont they?

See, I disagree. You have to choose to believe. Not to say you didn't try, but obviously you weren't really choosing to believe. It would be like saying you can't choose to kill yourself. No, you can, and if you seriously do so you WILL kill yourself. If you have not seriously done so... chances are you won't either go through with it or will do so in such a way as to botch it. But you do have to choose it.Did you just compare belief in a god to suicide? :p

Seriously though, even when I was under a Methodist household, going to church, reading the Bible and all that, I had this niggling feeling that we were all talking to the ceiling rather than a god. I didn't actively choose to think that, I just did. A similar parallel, (which will open a can of worms) I never actively decided to be attracted to women. I just was. It's the same bit with gods. I never believed it. I enjoy reading up on different religions and beliefs but they never sway me to actual belief which is something that I don't think you can decide.

As to your analogy, killing yourself has very real consequences. Belief in a god doesn't, except in select situations. I could spend the rest of the day telling myself and others that I know believe in god and it wouldn't mean a thing.

I think you're right on the button. But I don't think the dislike of organized religion as a human institution is unjustified. A great deal of human suffering is due to the tendency of human beings to section themselves off, and the religious institutions do nothing to help that.

What I was trying to get at was really a bunch of arguments such as "Christianity/Religion was behind the Crusades" or some other such argument. I don't think it's justified to fault the entire religion. Rather, in a scenario such as this, it was its leaders who were corrupted by the near absolute power they had and who hijacked the faith to use to their own ends.

2. Currently a Christian, because I like the thought of an all-loving, all-caring God, who would give up anything for us.

If you're looking for an all-loving, all-caring God, you won't find him in the Bible. That particular invention is a murderous, torturing, genocidal bastard.

The Devil can get to anyone. Poltician, priest, poet you name it none are untouchable.

So if the Devil is supposedly confined to Hell, how can he get out to hurt us?

I'm curious to know what the OP thinks of what he's read here - do our experiences conform to your expectations? and what were they?

If you're looking for an all-loving, all-caring God, you won't find him in the Bible. That particular invention is a murderous, torturing, genocidal bastard.
You're assuming that I believe that the Bible is the complete truth. Humans wrote it, therefore, it's fallible. Very much so.

You're assuming that I believe that the Bible is the complete truth. Humans wrote it, therefore, it's fallible. Very much so.

though that raises the old problem. If you're going to admit some of it is untrue, why believe any of it...

You're assuming that I believe that the Bible is the complete truth. Humans wrote it, therefore, it's fallible. Very much so.

So you just cherrypick the parts you like and conform to your view, then? How can you tell which bits are wrong and which are right?

What I was trying to get at was really a bunch of arguments such as "Christianity/Religion was behind the Crusades" or some other such argument. I don't think it's justified to fault the entire religion. Rather, in a scenario such as this, it was its leaders who were corrupted by the near absolute power they had and who hijacked the faith to use to their own ends.

So very well said. Kudos!

So if the Devil is supposedly confined to Hell, how can he get out to hurt us?

Who said he has to leave Hell to do that? He has been able to walk around now and then. For whatever reason he has been granted access to us.

So I am told there are these portals that look like an unmoving tornados. Anyway these are the "gateway" to the otherside. I never seen it or anything but that I am told is the deal.

Something along the lines of "border ethereal" would work. No I have never been to Ethereal if I could I would probably be there now.

Who said he has to leave Hell to do that? He has been able to walk around now and then. For whatever reason he has been granted access to us.

How do you know he can walk around? Also, if he's been granted access to us, surely Jehovah's gone and let him do that, otherwise he can't have got out of Hell? Why would God let the Devil out? As a matter of fact, why would he even create him in the first place?

So you just cherrypick the parts you like and conform to your view, then? How can you tell which bits are wrong and which are right?

It's like the news.;)

But with all seriousness, just pick out contradictions, and focus on the Gospels. I think that the preaching of Jesus was relatively uncorrupted, and if you'll notice, he preached love, understanding and tolerance. My big problem is with the rest of the New Testament, which seems to either be more of a historical record, or intolerant rants by Paul. Most notable are 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, which is essentially condemning homosexual men. I'll try to think up of some others from my head, but my Bible is currently in my bookcase, and I don't feel like looking through that mess of unorganized books at the moment.:tongue:

1) What is your background with the religion? (born into, gone to church, currently a christian, etc)
2) If you are now a Christian, why are you?
3) If you are not a Christian, but were previously one, why did you quit being one?


1. Baptised Catholic. That was about it really. Went to Church maybe 4 or 5 times.
3. I was/ am Catholic based solely on my baptism. I'm not a Christian now because honestly, it doesn't make a whole of sense. For some it does, and that's awesome. Go with God my son.

How do you know he can walk around? Also, if he's been granted access to us, surely Jehovah's gone and let him do that, otherwise he can't have got out of Hell? Why would God let the Devil out? As a matter of fact, why would he even create him in the first place?

Jehovah has given him access to this world. Hell is as much a place as a state of being. You are furthest removed from God.


He mentions in the story of Job that

"And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."

It is kind of a little dig at the Boss as well. Like the earth is kind of small and easy to go back and forth in.

He was created perfect. He was the highest angel in God's army and then he grew prideful. He tried to raise his position equal to that of God's. He tried to raise a rebellion in heaven. For this he was struck down. Free will extends to angels as well as humans. Most angels do not exercise their free will but I am told they have it.

though that raises the old problem. If you're going to admit some of it is untrue, why believe any of it...

So you just cherrypick the parts you like and conform to your view, then? How can you tell which bits are wrong and which are right?

Well, some parts can be shown to be objectively (or literally) false, such as the creation story of Genesis. Others, such as the Song of Songs, are unable to be judged according to their literal truth because they speak solely of love and other non-quantifiable phenomena. To cut it short. wherever the Bible makes a claim about the natural world, we can test it with science.

Other parts, such as the ongoing discourse on homosexuality are harder to pin down, as science has nothing to say about the morality of same sex rumpy pumpy. Then you can use different critieria to decide which parts are most likely honest though flawed descriptions of divine events, and which are wholly fabricated.

I use the realpolitik criteria. If the author (or editor or translator or compiler) had something to gain by fudging a detail, the detail was probably fudged.

He was created perfect. He was the highest angel in God's army and then he grew prideful. These two sentences contradict each other. If he were created perfect, then he would not have grown prideful.

It's like the news.;)

But with all seriousness, just pick out contradictions, and focus on the Gospels. I think that the preaching of Jesus was relatively uncorrupted, and if you'll notice, he preached love, understanding and tolerance. My big problem is with the rest of the New Testament, which seems to either be more of a historical record, or intolerant rants by Paul. Most notable are 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, which is essentially condemning homosexual men. I'll try to think up of some others from my head, but my Bible is currently in my bookcase, and I don't feel like looking through that mess of unorganized books at the moment.:tongue:

why would you presume that part is the part that made it through relatively uncorrupted?

These two sentences contradict each other. If he were created perfect, then he would not have grown prideful.

He was created perfect. Started out with everything. Then Lucifer, at the time, grew prideful on his own. This caused himself to fall.

He was created perfect. Started out with everything. Then Lucifer, at the time, grew prideful on his own. This caused himself to fall.But my point is, if he was truly created perfect, he would have never degenerated.

He was created perfect. Started out with everything. Then Lucifer, at the time, grew prideful on his own. This caused himself to fall.

Ah yes, is this following the Irenaeus Theodicy (or is it the Augustinian Thodicy, I forget, or is it neither, I'm just suddenly reminded of them)? Anyway, Lucifer is evil, God created Lucifer, therefore God created evil (nice going God). And evil cannot create itself ex nihilo.

But my point is, if he was truly created perfect, he would have never degenerated.

I guess a better way to put was he started with a clean slate and then fell on his own.


This scenario is not that hard. Titanic, unsinkable ship right? The titanic may have been created perfect but ended up not so perfect. How many entertainers have the "perfect" life only to throw it away?

It is what you do with what you got.

Ah yes, is this following the Irenaeus Theodicy (or is it the Augustinian Thodicy, I forget, or is it neither, I'm just suddenly reminded of them)? Anyway, Lucifer is evil, God created Lucifer, therefore God created evil (nice going God). And evil cannot create itself ex nihilo.

Well said you summarized it nicely.

I guess a better way to put was he started with a clean slate and then fell on his own.


This scenario is not that hard. Titanic, unsinkable ship right? The titanic may have been created perfect but ended up not so perfect. How many entertainers have the "perfect" life only to throw it away?

It is what you do with what you got.I get that he fucked up. My problem is with calling him 'perfect.' The Titanic was sinkable no matter what anyone thought. People may have 'perfect' lives, but they aren't really perfect.

He had a good life, but calling it perfect before the fall causes a major contradiction. If he was perfect, and had a perfect life, he would not have fallen.

Personally, I like the idea of him being God's right hand man rather than his enemy. I think it makes more sense. In reality it's all moot for me, being an atheist, but you know from a literary standpoint.

Well said you summarized it nicely.

Are you agreeing? Hmm, I wasn't expecting you to agree, I thought you were a Christian. :p

Are you agreeing? Hmm, I wasn't expecting you to agree, I thought you were a Christian. :p

No I am just going to counter with Freewill Defense.

No I am just going to counter with Freewill Defense.

You forgot the (tm) at the end!

It almost sounds like a brand of deodorant.:D

You forgot the (tm) at the end!

It almost sounds like a brand of deodorant.:D

Sorry My Mistake. You are right. Free Will Defense(tm)

No I am just going to counter with Freewill Defense.

Ok... well, go on then.... :p

The Devil and all his crew fell because of their own problems. Not because they had any initial flaws. They developed those flaws post creation.

The Devil and all his crew fell because of their own problems. Not because they had any initial flaws. They developed those flaws post creation.

Firstly, do you believe that God created the angels perfect?

The Devil and all his crew fell because of their own problems. Not because they had any initial flaws. They developed those flaws post creation.

So god can wash his hands of anything 'post creation'? "Not my fault Guv, they were already created by then!"?

That implies god either has no power, or no interest, in the world.

The Devil and all his crew fell because of their own problems. Not because they had any initial flaws. They developed those flaws post creation.

Firstly, do you believe that God created the angels perfect?

Duh..... no idea:rolleyes:

Duh..... no idea:rolleyes:

Yeah yeah, all right. Well those two statements contradict each other, since the tendency to strive for evil is a flaw, is it not?

Wait, what? How can you be not and Christian and not not a Christian?
Here's the questions:
2) If you are now a Christian, why are you?
I am not a christian

3) If you are not a Christian, but were previously one, why did you quit being one?
I was never a christian

So god can wash his hands of anything 'post creation'? "Not my fault Guv, they were already created by then!"?

That implies god either has no power, or no interest, in the world.

Well, there can't be "free will" if God is always poking and prodding can there?

something that is perfect can not later develop flaws without an outside influence.

So you just cherrypick the parts you like and conform to your view, then? How can you tell which bits are wrong and which are right?

That's easy: ask someone not attatched to religion "If the bible was written by someone who really WAS omnibenevolent, which lines would still be there?". Parts like "Honor thy mother and father" would remain, while parts like "suffer not a witch to live" would go.

I am wondering if it has to do with how big the chiurch is, and how accountable the top of the hierarchy is to those under them.

This would explain why these charities usually are run at the community level, while the abuses of power occur higher up: the higher up you go, the less connection you have with the community. And if the connection with the community is the only thing that would keep the power in check...
The bolded part is where I think the trouble lies. The principle that absolute power corrupts absolutely comes into play in any organization where the leader is looked upon as infallible or weilding an unassailable power, whether they are given that officially, or by adulation of their followers. When the dynamic of follower/leader is more like worshipper/demi-god, accountability flies out the window. Hierarchical organized religions that claim that their highest clergy have a direct line to the divine are ripe grounds for the kinds of people who crave that kind of power.

1) What is your background with the religion? (born into, gone to church, currently a christian, etc)Christened Catholic, baptised protestant, attended an evangelical Bible college.
2) If you are now a Christian, why are you? n/a
3) If you are not a Christian, but were previously one, why did you quit being one?I decided that the existence of God would be confirmable through logical reasoning because the order of the universe should naturally reinforce the existence of a supreme creator, turns out it doesn't so much

though that raises the old problem. If you're going to admit some of it is untrue, why believe any of it...
If you read a guide book that tells you that the city of Paris is the capitol of Norway, that it was built in 1978, and that the native language there is Swahili, do you conclude from that book's errors that Paris does not exist?

Now, you might say, "Ah, but I can go out and prove the existence of Paris by looking at it with my own eyes," but then we would have only YOUR word for what Paris is like, and how do we know you're less of an idiot than the one who wrote that book? We must each of us go to Paris to prove what it is like, but since our perceptions are subjective, we will always end up cherrypicking from the Big Guidebook the parts that we think describe the "real" Paris, while we ignore what we (each one of us) decide are the "errors."

Similarly with an experience of god(s). A person may reject the Bible outright, but still believe in that god because of a personal experience of him, just like you would "know" the "real" Paris because you went there and saw it. So the religious person "saw" or otherwise experienced something they call "divine", and yes, they will tend to place their own personal experiences above the say-so of some writers they've never met. Human beings will edit a standard to fit what they experience as reality, and that means that even "holy texts" will be cherrypicked to make them fit with what the worshipper thinks is right.

Well, some parts can be shown to be objectively (or literally) false, such as the creation story of Genesis. Others, such as the Song of Songs, are unable to be judged according to their literal truth because they speak solely of love and other non-quantifiable phenomena. To cut it short. wherever the Bible makes a claim about the natural world, we can test it with science.

Other parts, such as the ongoing discourse on homosexuality are harder to pin down, as science has nothing to say about the morality of same sex rumpy pumpy. Then you can use different critieria to decide which parts are most likely honest though flawed descriptions of divine events, and which are wholly fabricated.

I use the realpolitik criteria. If the author (or editor or translator or compiler) had something to gain by fudging a detail, the detail was probably fudged.
This. ^^ As long as one can keep in mind that the books were written by human beings, then understanding human nature is the best guide for separating religion from propaganda. If a person had something to gain by telling a certain story, that story is far more likely to be a secular fiction than an honest description of a spiritual experience, observation, or insight.

I would define belief as something broader than blind faith. I believe certain things because they have evidence to support them, and I believe certain things that are matters of opinion (for example, I believe that pepperoni, italian sausage, and occasionally a bit of onion (depending on my mood) are the best pizza toppings ever.) (I also believe I use entirely too many parentheses)

Some would place God in that second category, but I disagree. God's existence or nonexistence is a fact, just one that is rather more difficult to discover.
On the contrary, belief in God is a matter of faith alone. God if, of course, supernatural and therefore forever beyond proof or disproof. In the end, you just have to take it on faith and that means choosing to believe it or not.

A more earthly example. What if I told you that in my area of Japan, elementary and junior high school kids parade around with large wooden penises, some of which they carved themselves. Do you believe me? I offer no proof except to say that I have seen it.

You would have to choose to accept my statement as true, or reject it as false.

Now because it is an earthly example, I could provide proof if I felt like it, pictures or the like and again you would have to decide if that proof merits acceptance or not, but again it would be YOUR choice.

BTW, they DO actually parade around with large wooden penises. Just in case you were wondering.

Did you just compare belief in a god to suicide? :p
Why not? :tongue:

Seriously though, even when I was under a Methodist household, going to church, reading the Bible and all that, I had this niggling feeling that we were all talking to the ceiling rather than a god. I didn't actively choose to think that, I just did. A similar parallel, (which will open a can of worms) I never actively decided to be attracted to women. I just was. It's the same bit with gods. I never believed it. I enjoy reading up on different religions and beliefs but they never sway me to actual belief which is something that I don't think you can decide.
You didn't make a conscious choice, but you did make a choice. How could it be otherwise? I didn't chose to get dressed this morning, I just did... Well, no. Obviously I did decide to dress myself though my only really thought out choice was what to wear. As for sexuality, I would argue that is a biological issue, one where we really do have very little choice in attraction (Though we have great choice in action).

As to your analogy, killing yourself has very real consequences. Belief in a god doesn't, except in select situations. I could spend the rest of the day telling myself and others that I know believe in god and it wouldn't mean a thing.
I'm sorry, this has what to do with the price of beans?

You didn't make a conscious choice, but you did make a choice. How could it be otherwise? I didn't chose to get dressed this morning, I just did... Well, no. Obviously I did decide to dress myself though my only really thought out choice was what to wear. As for sexuality, I would argue that is a biological issue, one where we really do have very little choice in attraction (Though we have great choice in action).If it isn't conscious, is it a choice?

Do you choose to breathe?

If it isn't conscious, is it a choice?
Just means your choice was made without struggle.

Do you choose to breathe?
You can't hold your breath?

Just means your choice was made without struggle.


You can't hold your breath?I don't think that would be considered a choice.

You can't choose to stop breathing. Hold it for a while sure, but outright stop, no.

I don't think that would be considered a choice.

You can't choose to stop breathing. Hold it for a while sure, but outright stop, no.
Sure it is. I can chose to breathe fast or slow. I can take control over my breathing if I want to. It's just that most of the time we leave it on autopilot.

But getting back to the topic at hand, when you first got told about God, you either chose to believe it or not. I already posted about the large wooden penises. You either accept this as true or you don't. It's a yes, no, maybe decision but I can't MAKE you believe me or not believe me.

Good points, nicely expressed. I also find that most of my issues with religion are with organized religion, meaning the hierarchical organization of religions and their power structures. When religion is personal, it is seldom a problem, I think. But when it gets involved in society and social rules, Katie bar the door. The power of god(s) is absolute, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Thanks, nice to know others think like me (for a change)--I feel less isolated. :)

Damn fine post. Here's a cookie, enjoy!
Thanks, "crunch crunch" I love coconut chocolate chip!

Sure it is. I can chose to breathe fast or slow. I can take control over my breathing if I want to. It's just that most of the time we leave it on autopilot.

But getting back to the topic at hand, when you first got told about God, you either chose to believe it or not. I already posted about the large wooden penises. You either accept this as true or you don't. It's a yes, no, maybe decision but I can't MAKE you believe me or not believe me.

Ah, but it being a yes, no or maybe thing doesn't make it a choice. Now, my thought process, on reading about the wooden penises, would lead me to think that, since 1) You don't really have any interest in lying about such a thing, 2) it's something that is independently verifiable-- I could go check other sources if I wanted-- and 3) It's not really any stranger than many things I have come across in other cultures (the benefits of having to take Anthropology courses to study archaeology), it's probably true. But I didn't choose to believe it, I just immediately thought those things and thus concluded that it's probably the case. I could not force myself to think "it's probably not true." Now, if I saw evidence that you were lying, I would begin thinking it likely that your account is not true, but not by my choice.

And going back a bit, your post that belief in God is all about faith does not negate the fact that God's existence (or non-existence) is still a fact. God either exists or does not exist, whether it is within our ability to discover the fact.

If I could choose to believe or not believe things, my beliefs would be rather different. There are many things that I want to be true that I do not think are true. That would not be the case if I could choose my beliefs.

...when you first got told about God, you either chose to believe it or not.

When I first got told about god, I was teeny tiny. I believed everything, because I hadn't yet learned enough about the world to know that 'belief' and 'reality' could be different things.

I certainly can't claim I 'chose' to believe.

When I stopped believing, I would have still believed if I could. I wanted to. Right now - if I could believe, I would. I'm certainly not a non-believer because I want to be.

I cant claim to have 'chosen' to not-believe, either.

So - I'm going to have to totally disagree with this 'choice' argument. Why do people keep insisting it's a choice?

1) My family is 90% Southern Baptist Christian.
3) Praying to a magic sky fairy and hoping that it will fix my problems is a waste of my time.Who is this sky fairy you speak of?

I was born into a Very Christian family...just look at meh location, lol...

But, due to actual Scientific and Logical Knowledge.....And the refusal to think there are people that are better or worse than other people....Ive left Christianity behind...

Im still a little Spiritual, but in the context of Governmental Politics, im effectively very Secular/Atheist....

When I first got told about god, I was teeny tiny. I believed everything, because I hadn't yet learned enough about the world to know that 'belief' and 'reality' could be different things.

I certainly can't claim I 'chose' to believe.

When I stopped believing, I would have still believed if I could. I wanted to. Right now - if I could believe, I would. I'm certainly not a non-believer because I want to be.

I cant claim to have 'chosen' to not-believe, either.

So - I'm going to have to totally disagree with this 'choice' argument. Why do people keep insisting it's a choice?

To be honest, I think it's for a similar reason that many fundies insist that homosexuality is a choice. This is all conjecture, but it seems to make sense to me:

That is, it feels more justifiable for them to have their God punish somebody as a result of that person's own choice. Thus, in the case of the fundies, homosexuality must be a choice-- after all, if it wasn't, it might not be fair to send all gay people to hell.

Similarly, if belief is not a choice, then it is harder to justify sending all non-Christians to Hell. (Not that I think it's justifiable anyway, of course, but I'm talking about Christian dogma.)

Now, in many cases, people believe that you can choose belief because that belief has filtered down to them from those who claimed it for the above reason, so even people with non-standard Christian beliefs (such as the ability of non-Christians to avoid Hell) might have picked it up.

I've seen discussion on the Bible and its degree of...accuracy...brought up too many times to quote everyone.

So, a blanket post on this subject.

What we must keep in mind when referencing the bible is that it is not, in any degree, a continuous book. Rather, it is a collection of different books, scrolls, oral history, and general preaching. What would be included in the modern incarnation of the Bible was chosen from a huge selection of texts.

NOW. The question after this statement should be "who chose what went into the Bible?"

That's a very good question, and if you've followed this thread, you'll figure quickly that it was mortal men, not a divine being, who chose what went in. And as its been brought up on the previous two pages, these selections were subject to the purposes and agendas of the individuals on the committees that chose the books of the Bible.

So, what does this mean? This means that the Bible will have varying degrees of accuracy across it and that yes, we can cherry pick items out of the Bible. I've mentioned before in my previous posts that I think faith on a personal basis is a very good thing ((as opposed to the corrupted tendencies of organized religion)), thus I say this: the Bible should be, and is, open to the individual for interpretation based upon said individual's previous personal experience and knowledge.

=========================================================

Additionally, I'd like to comment on something else, and to do this I will, unbelievably, cite Futurama. In the episode in which Bender is cast adrift in space, a small civilization of miniature beings springs up on him and worship him as a god. In actively trying to intervene, he inevitably destroys them altogether. At the end of the episode, Bender meets the real God ((in the form of a giant, shining nebula)) and asks Him "How do I know if I've done things right?" God replies, "You will know you have done things right if people aren't able to tell if you've done anything at all." SO, what I am trying to get at here is this: just because it isn't obvious that God is intervening, He may very well be. This is the sort of thing that should at least stay open as a possibility in the mind.

So, why isn't God helping the situation in, say, Darfur? Well, for all we know, He may be acting through adjusting political forces in the US, or the EU, or the UN. Or perhaps He is behind the spark that created the new student movements that have sprung up in the last couple years. What I am trying to say is: don't look for the smoking gun.

===========================================================

Next, I will try my hand at the argument about Lucifer/Satan that occurred a page or two back, mostly cause it struck my attention as I am still reading ((i.e. struggling through)) Paradise Lost. God created angels to be as close in His image as possible, without fully creating equals. In doing so, he left them with free will. Free will allows one to respond to outside stimuli. Let's put forth this: God was greater in power than Lucifer. Thus, free will allows Lucifer to make his own decisions upon how to respond. He can either accept this, and serve under God. OR, he could respond negatively and become jealous. In this manner he can then rise up against God, and realize that he will never be as powerful. At this point there is another juncture. He can either accept defeat with humility, or be defiant and strive to undo all that God has done and will do, thus ushering in "evil" as the counter-balance to God.

So, did God create evil? Indirectly. Being all-knowing, he knew that in creating Lucifer this would all come to pass. But who is to say, then, that God didn't have his greater purposes in creating Lucifer and allowing evil into this world. Somethings are, perhaps, beyond human comprehension and best left to His own designs.

In this subject, I would very strongly suggest reading Paradise Lost, or at least the first several books in it. It is exceedingly difficult language, but offers possible insights that both Christians and non-believers will find intriguing.

So, I have always wondered about people who have come in contact with Christianity. ITT, I have a few questions for NSG about their experience. I assume that most people here have, at some point, been exposed to Christianity, whether being raised in a Christian home, having been one or is now one. So here are my questions:

1) What is your background with the religion? (born into, gone to church, currently a christian, etc)
2) If you are now a Christian, why are you?
3) If you are not a Christian, but were previously one, why did you quit being one?

I think that covers the basics. Just interested in seeing what everyone says. :)
1. My parents raised me as a Christian, or tried to, anyway, as they did with my other immediate siblings. (Resulting in a Wiccan, someone whose religious affiliation I am unsure of, and my little brother who I am confused about.)
2. N/A
3. I stopped being a Christian after the brief period where I was one because it never truly meant anything to me. Even as a Christian I didn't get much meaning from it. I was one because I was part of a Youth Group, but the real fun I had in the group was hanging out with everyone...whenever we did Bible Study or hymn singing activities--which we suddenly started to do a whole lot more of shortly before I moved to Colorado--I didn't really enjoy it at all.

I'm pretty sure I've always been as I am: an atheist, essentially. Someone who prefers to look at the universe empirically rather than holding specific beliefs about its origin, etc.

Was born into a family that never really thought seriously on Christianity.
(Feh, even my dad joked about starting our own religion so we don't have to pay taxes.) I was baptized and went to something similar to sunday school though... but, as I was a child back then I believed whatever was told to me.


Not a christian today, because I have seen no evidence of some divine omnipotence existing that simultaneously wants us to care for our fellow beings and kill them for believing in another religion.
Oh, and because the "holy" book of christianity is riddled with evil.
Yes, yes, there might be some good things tucked away in there, but the evil things overshadow the good ones.

EDIT: I want to learn about nature and all it's wondrous things too.

1) What is your background with the religion? (born into, gone to church, currently a christian, etc)

Born in a "we go to church once a year, not counting weddings" type of family. When young, I had great respect for Christians, especially monks.

That... "not so much" anymore now - it has been replaced by pity.

2) If you are now NOT a Christian, why are you?

Not added by me ;)

Basicly because I consider being Christian similar to being a pedophile: yes, you probably cannot help feeling that way, yes you can be a pillar of the community doing all sort of wonderful things, possibly even inspired by that aspect of your personality - but it still is NOT something to be proud of, nor
something you should endeavour to make "the norm" for society.

EDIT for the dimwitted: no, I am not saying Christians are pedophiles. I said that I treat pedophiles and Christians the same way.

I've seen discussion on the Bible and its degree of...accuracy...brought up too many times to quote everyone.

So, a blanket post on this subject.

What we must keep in mind when referencing the bible is that it is not, in any degree, a continuous book. Rather, it is a collection of different books, scrolls, oral history, and general preaching. What would be included in the modern incarnation of the Bible was chosen from a huge selection of texts.

NOW. The question after this statement should be "who chose what went into the Bible?"

That's a very good question, and if you've followed this thread, you'll figure quickly that it was mortal men, not a divine being, who chose what went in. And as its been brought up on the previous two pages, these selections were subject to the purposes and agendas of the individuals on the committees that chose the books of the Bible.

So, what does this mean? This means that the Bible will have varying degrees of accuracy across it and that yes, we can cherry pick items out of the Bible. I've mentioned before in my previous posts that I think faith on a personal basis is a very good thing ((as opposed to the corrupted tendencies of organized religion)), thus I say this: the Bible should be, and is, open to the individual for interpretation based upon said individual's previous personal experience and knowledge.

=========================================================

Additionally, I'd like to comment on something else, and to do this I will, unbelievably, cite Futurama. In the episode in which Bender is cast adrift in space, a small civilization of miniature beings springs up on him and worship him as a god. In actively trying to intervene, he inevitably destroys them altogether. At the end of the episode, Bender meets the real God ((in the form of a giant, shining nebula)) and asks Him "How do I know if I've done things right?" God replies, "You will know you have done things right if people aren't able to tell if you've done anything at all." SO, what I am trying to get at here is this: just because it isn't obvious that God is intervening, He may very well be. This is the sort of thing that should at least stay open as a possibility in the mind.

So, why isn't God helping the situation in, say, Darfur? Well, for all we know, He may be acting through adjusting political forces in the US, or the EU, or the UN. Or perhaps He is behind the spark that created the new student movements that have sprung up in the last couple years. What I am trying to say is: don't look for the smoking gun.

===========================================================

Next, I will try my hand at the argument about Lucifer/Satan that occurred a page or two back, mostly cause it struck my attention as I am still reading ((i.e. struggling through)) Paradise Lost. God created angels to be as close in His image as possible, without fully creating equals. In doing so, he left them with free will. Free will allows one to respond to outside stimuli. Let's put forth this: God was greater in power than Lucifer. Thus, free will allows Lucifer to make his own decisions upon how to respond. He can either accept this, and serve under God. OR, he could respond negatively and become jealous. In this manner he can then rise up against God, and realize that he will never be as powerful. At this point there is another juncture. He can either accept defeat with humility, or be defiant and strive to undo all that God has done and will do, thus ushering in "evil" as the counter-balance to God.

So, did God create evil? Indirectly. Being all-knowing, he knew that in creating Lucifer this would all come to pass. But who is to say, then, that God didn't have his greater purposes in creating Lucifer and allowing evil into this world. Somethings are, perhaps, beyond human comprehension and best left to His own designs.

In this subject, I would very strongly suggest reading Paradise Lost, or at least the first several books in it. It is exceedingly difficult language, but offers possible insights that both Christians and non-believers will find intriguing.

Well said! It is nice to know that others "get it".

I'm a spirit filled Atheist :D

(although perhaps not of the same spirits as you)

I'm a spirit filled Catholic and yes the same spirits as you.

Are you really going to deny that religion only accepts science when it happens to coincide with their religious dogma? I simply point to the theory of evolution and how "disputed" it is among the religious as my evidence.

So KOL because some religious people will try and deny evolution that means that all religion holds back all science. Neat I must remember that.

'Young Earth Creationist' I believe.

What there is actually a church on that? I thought it was just a term used to describe people who were actually YEC's not as a member of a church.

Basicly because I consider being Christian similar to being a pedophile: yes, you probably cannot help feeling that way, yes you can be a pillar of the community doing all sort of wonderful things, possibly even inspired by that aspect of your personality - but it still is NOT something to be proud of, nor
something you should endeavour to make "the norm" for society.

EDIT for the dimwitted: no, I am not saying Christians are pedophiles. I said that I treat pedophiles and Christians the same way.

That's a very good comparison. :)

Well said! It is nice to know that others "get it".

get what?

All I see here is yet more rehashing of the kind of blurb found in Christian apologetic pamphlets - a longwinded* way to say "God moves in mysterious ways" as an evasion of some pretty big questions (e.g. Whence cometh evil? Where is God now? How can God allow x,y,z? et cetera).

It begins well enough, with an acceptance that 'the' Bible is just a collection of old writings, and that it was collated by men, with all the fallibility that that entails, but I see no recognition that there is no shred of evidence to suggest that any of it is of divine origin, rather than having been written by men, too; no acknowledgement that the gist of many of the stories contained in its many versions can be found in other, older mythologies; nothing beyond the old trope that there's an omnipresent, omniscient Creator power that, for ineffable reasons of its own, is getting off on watching humanity scurry around in some great big world sim game it's playing, and that we shouldn't be asking questions.

That just doesn't cut it for me.

There's an old thought experiment (it probably has a name, but I don't know it if it does) that I've seen used by some atheists in debates like this one... Consider a world, a reality, in which there is no God... what does it look like? Does it look like the real world around you, with all of the inequities and iniquities that we're all so damned familiar with? It does to me. Now consider a world in which there is an all-powerful deity who's actively involved in the whole thing... should it not look 'better', in some noticeable way? By the arguments made in Pschycotic Pschycos' post we're supposed to accept that the world is as it is despite the involvement and attention of a God, yet I can see no convincing reason to believe that to be the case, and so I apply Occam's Razor. (I recognise that this only applies to the argument against an 'involved' deity, and that maybe the Deists are right, after all).

Paradise Lost is rightly revered as a classic piece of literature but it, like Bosch's paintings before it and Dante's Divine Comedy before them, has skewed a lot of people's thinking. There's a certain amount of putting the cart before the horse involved... people read or view these works, or are dimly aware of them through multiple cultural references involving them, and they incorporate them into the rest of the mythology presented by their individual Church denomination until it becomes as much a part of their faith as the words of the Bible itself. Too many people (and this is just a general observation, I'm not interested in pointing fingers at anyone in this thread) fail to realise that many of the ideas or subplots contained within them (The Circles of Hell spring to mind) have no Biblical pedigree whatsoever, and it all just gets a little frustrating sometimes.




*hypocrite, moi? :p

Born in a "we go to church once a year, not counting weddings" type of family. When young, I had great respect for Christians, especially monks.

That... "not so much" anymore now - it has been replaced by pity.



Not added by me ;)

Basicly because I consider being Christian similar to being a pedophile: yes, you probably cannot help feeling that way, yes you can be a pillar of the community doing all sort of wonderful things, possibly even inspired by that aspect of your personality - but it still is NOT something to be proud of, nor
something you should endeavour to make "the norm" for society.

EDIT for the dimwitted: no, I am not saying Christians are pedophiles. I said that I treat pedophiles and Christians the same way.



This I find disturbing on many levels. This we need to hold up to the light. Pity is an interesting emotion? So it is not our fault we are misinformed, we couldn't help ourselves? We are all just deluded?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pity
Pity implies tender or sometimes slightly contemptuous sorrow or empathy for a person or people in misery, pain, or distress.

From your statement is sounds like outright contempt.

get what?

All I see here is yet more rehashing of the kind of blurb found in Christian apologetic pamphlets - a longwinded* way to say "God moves in mysterious ways" as an evasion of some pretty big questions (e.g. Whence cometh evil? Where is God now? How can God allow x,y,z? et cetera).

Well to some degree it is rehashing. People have been asking the same questions since we can remember. It appears the will not accept the answers that are given.


It begins well enough, with an acceptance that 'the' Bible is just a collection of old writings, and that it was collated by men, with all the fallibility that that entails, but I see no recognition that there is no shred of evidence to suggest that any of it is of divine origin, rather than having been written by men, too; no acknowledgment that the gist of many of the stories contained in its many versions can be found in other, older mythologies; nothing beyond the old trope that there's an omnipresent, omniscient Creator power that, for ineffable reasons of its own, is getting off on watching humanity scurry around in some great big world sim game it's playing, and that we shouldn't be asking questions.

We have to trust that when the man said he heard a voice coming from a "burning bush" he was telling the truth. Was anyone else there to see this event. Likely not but that does not mean it didn't happen. Why would he make something up like that?


That just doesn't cut it for me.

There's an old thought experiment (it probably has a name, but I don't know it if it does) that I've seen used by some atheists in debates like this one... Consider a world, a reality, in which there is no God... what does it look like? Does it look like the real world around you, with all of the inequities and iniquities that we're all so damned familiar with? It does to me. Now consider a world in which there is an all-powerful deity who's actively involved in the whole thing... should it not look 'better', in some noticeable way? By the arguments made in Pschycotic Pschycos' post we're supposed to accept that the world is as it is despite the involvement and attention of a God, yet I can see no convincing reason to believe that to be the case, and so I apply Occam's Razor. (I recognise that this only applies to the argument against an 'involved' deity, and that maybe the Deists are right, after all).

There many conflicting forces at work in the world today. There are humans acting it what they perceive is there own "best" interest. There are force both natural and supernatural at work. Just because you can't see the "steps" being taken doesn't mean they are not happening. Occam Razor does apply. The simplest answer must be the truth. If we can figure out a "good reason" why the "story" or account is a lie then maybe it happened? What would the storyteller have to gain by saying for example that a bunch of Israelites walked up to a Sea. I guy lifted up his hands and the Sea parted. When they got the other side. The sea came crashing in around a bunch of Egyptians. There may be little evidence that it happened. What evidence would you expect to find. If it exists at all it is at the bottom of the Sea. Keep in mind it happened a long, long time ago.


Paradise Lost is rightly revered as a classic piece of literature but it, like Bosch's paintings before it and Dante's Divine Comedy before them, has skewed a lot of people's thinking. There's a certain amount of putting the cart before the horse involved... people read or view these works, or are dimly aware of them through multiple cultural references involving them, and they incorporate them into the rest of the mythology presented by their individual Church denomination until it becomes as much a part of their faith as the words of the Bible itself. Too many people (and this is just a general observation, I'm not interested in pointing fingers at anyone in this thread) fail to realise that many of the ideas or subplots contained within them (The Circles of Hell spring to mind) have no Biblical pedigree whatsoever, and it all just gets a little frustrating sometimes.


*hypocrite, moi? :p

To some degree this might be case. How much of what we think we know came from other sources. When you think of Hell, if you ever do, do you think of rings or just a big burning pit. Those stories have made their way into our culture. If you look at them for the point. Dante and even Milton are not trying to provide a "map of Hell". They are trying to show what might get you to that place.

If you look at the character you get the picture pretty quickly. The fact is we identify with Satan. Why? Because he is flawed like us. He made mistakes like us. He put his own "best" interests ahead of what was best for humanity, ahead of everything else. We would call that selfish. Don't read these things as Guide to Hell. Look for the intended purpose of the writings. We are just examining different aspect of the human condition.

So you just cherrypick the parts you like and conform to your view, then? How can you tell which bits are wrong and which are right?

Really though this must be the most logical approach to a thing have no idea wheter it is or not?

Well to some degree it is rehashing. People have been asking the same questions since we can remember. It appears the will not accept the answers that are given.
I'm glad that you accept that it's rehashing, but you seem to be under the impression that the questions have been satisfactorily answered. The reason that so many people do not accept them as an answer is that they dismiss the questions without addressing them. Thus, "God moves in mysterious ways" comes across as being like a jedi hand-wave -- "These aren't the droids you're looking for" -- and frankly, outside of a completely scripted environment like a movie, it simply won't wash.

We have to trust that when the man said he heard a voice coming from a "burning bush" he was telling the truth. Was anyone else there to see this event. Likely not but that does not mean it didn't happen. Why would he make something up like that?
Why must we trust it? I can think of several reasons that someone might like to make something like that up, especially someone surrounded by credulous peers who might be willing to accept it at face value, or who might be likely to treat the receiver of such a miraculous revelation with additional deference. The same can be said for the story regarding the parting of the Red Sea that you mention later.

I'm not a big fan of invoking the "uneducated Bronze Age nomads" line of attack in these things but it's true, up to a point - the audience might well have been raised for generations on stories of supernatural events and interventions by local deities, and might have no real understanding of the laws governing the physical world. Seriously, of all the defences of Biblical miracles, "Why would they lie?" ranks amongst the weakest.

There many conflicting forces at work in the world today. There are humans acting it what they perceive is there own "best" interest. There are force both natural and supernatural at work. Just because you can't see the "steps" being taken doesn't mean they are not happening. Occam Razor does apply.
Show me an example of a supernatural force at work in the world today, or apply the Razor and accept fairly simple and coherent explanations that do not rely on anything outside of our ken. Don't add an unnecessary layer of complexity by positing supernatural forces at work where none are evident.

get what?

All I see here is yet more rehashing of the kind of blurb found in Christian apologetic pamphlets - a longwinded* way to say "God moves in mysterious ways" as an evasion of some pretty big questions (e.g. Whence cometh evil? Where is God now? How can God allow x,y,z? et cetera).

I can justifiably apply the idea of "mysterious ways" to scientific matter as well. However, the scientific community has a very good, specific term for this sort of thing. That term is a "theory". All of your questions, "where is God now?", or "How can God allow x,y,z?" are no more fully and 100% explainable than, say, the relationship between quantum mechanics and general relativity. In this scenario, one of the theories put forth is "String Theory", or the idea that all matter and energy is comprised of vibrating strings. Saying that "God moves in mysterious ways" is not an evasion of any question. In this, saying that God works in the background to adjust differing conditions of the universe is a theory. And even if we just leave it at "God moves in mysterious ways", we are doing nothing more than acknowledging that we do not, in fact, know or understand what exactly is happening. This is the first step in developing a theory; recognizing the unknown.

Many people ask of me, and of my faith-based friends "Where is your God?" or "Why isn't He doing more?" This question is as open, and perhaps as unanswerable ((for the moment)) as is "how are quantum mechanics and General Relativity related?" We can only use what knowledge we have at the moment to take educated guesses.

It begins well enough, with an acceptance that 'the' Bible is just a collection of old writings, and that it was collated by men, with all the fallibility that that entails, but I see no recognition that there is no shred of evidence to suggest that any of it is of divine origin, rather than having been written by men, too; no acknowledgement that the gist of many of the stories contained in its many versions can be found in other, older mythologies; nothing beyond the old trope that there's an omnipresent, omniscient Creator power that, for ineffable reasons of its own, is getting off on watching humanity scurry around in some great big world sim game it's playing, and that we shouldn't be asking questions.


Perhaps what I said was taken out of context. My post was in reference to the idea that many people will take the Bible to be either completely true or completely false. In doing so, they treat it as though it is one continuous book. What happens is it is treated like a history book. If you picked up a history book that said France was founded in 1902 by the flying spaghetti monster using his sauce-based powers, you would most certainly throw it down and never pick it up again. I know this would be my reaction. However, now imagine that you are reading some sort of magazine or other conglomerate of different articles and/or sources. If you came upon the same idea in such a publication you would likely flip the page to a truthful article. Thus it is possible for that publication to contain both factual/truthful material, and utter bullshit. This is what happens in the Bible. Much bullshit found its way through because it supported an idea, true or not, that the men editing it wanted to include. This is not to say, however, that none of it is of divine origin. I did not, and will not deny that. Some will do so, but then again, this is where the idea of "faith" and "belief" and indeed the basis for religion comes into being. Whether or not one will believe that God is God because He said so and someone wrote that down, or whether or not one will believe that Jesus is the son of God because They said so and someone wrote it down is up to that one individual.

Now, Longhaul mentions the idea that many things in the Bible show up in earlier mythologies. Yes, they do. Most notably Genesis and early parts of Exodus. Now with early Genesis, I've never believed in that, I want to make that clear. There is just no way that is possible due to overwhelming scientific data. However, many different Near/Middle East cultures at that early point in history shared similar creation stories. This could be attributed to similar cultures. However it is interesting to note that the Genesis stories ((yes, plural. There are, in fact, two distinct stories)) stands alone in the idea that it is monotheistic and that there was nothing previous to creation, whereas other stories had earlier things in existence that were altered to form the world. Am I using such an example to support and/or back the Genesis stories? No. I'm merely pointing out a very interesting literary occurrence. The writing styles of the two stories would and should lead one to believe that they share more in common with "the stork brings babies" than they do with "The Big Bang Theory". As for early Exodus, there is a distinct parallel between Moses in the reed basket and the Birth Legend of Sargon. What could this mean. Well, there are two equal possibilities. One, Exodus ripped off Sargon. Likely. Two, the people in Exodus read and knew Sargon ((which was written anywhere from five hundred to fifteen hundred years earlier)) and thus decided to copy it figuring "if it worked for Sargon, it'll work for us". Equally as likely. There isn't enough data to really give either side an edge. Now these are just two examples that readily came to mind.



There's an old thought experiment (it probably has a name, but I don't know it if it does) that I've seen used by some atheists in debates like this one... Consider a world, a reality, in which there is no God... what does it look like? Does it look like the real world around you, with all of the inequities and iniquities that we're all so damned familiar with? It does to me. Now consider a world in which there is an all-powerful deity who's actively involved in the whole thing... should it not look 'better', in some noticeable way? By the arguments made in Pschycotic Pschycos' post we're supposed to accept that the world is as it is despite the involvement and attention of a God, yet I can see no convincing reason to believe that to be the case, and so I apply Occam's Razor. (I recognise that this only applies to the argument against an 'involved' deity, and that maybe the Deists are right, after all).

I don't actually believe in an actively involved deity. I do believe in a passively-involved deity, much like a SimCity player you mentioned earlier. One who's content with sitting back and minimally adjusting things as He sees fit. However, we should also keep in mind the idea that the world, and Humanity, is a work in progress. Will the two scenarios you put forth in this section become equal in the end? Possibly. If there was an actively involved deity, your experiment would be 100% logicial. I honestly can't really comment on it further as it is something I don't really believe in, and thus never actually put any thought into/researched.

Paradise Lost is rightly revered as a classic piece of literature but it, like Bosch's paintings before it and Dante's Divine Comedy before them, has skewed a lot of people's thinking. There's a certain amount of putting the cart before the horse involved... people read or view these works, or are dimly aware of them through multiple cultural references involving them, and they incorporate them into the rest of the mythology presented by their individual Church denomination until it becomes as much a part of their faith as the words of the Bible itself. Too many people (and this is just a general observation, I'm not interested in pointing fingers at anyone in this thread) fail to realise that many of the ideas or subplots contained within them (The Circles of Hell spring to mind) have no Biblical pedigree whatsoever, and it all just gets a little frustrating sometimes.

This is also a very good section that highlights something I failed to. These books are, ultimately, a work of fiction and are not actually endorsed/accepted by any religious field ((yet, there is always that slim possibility of a yet)). However, in reading them, it allows a reader to gain insight into the ideas and belief of another person. Both books deal with a realm of thought never truly mentioned/explained by religion: Heaven, Hell, and the relationship thereof. What these books do is offer an idea, one individual's idea of what it might possibly be like. Just as in the scientific community an individual may put forth an idea on an unknown subject and people may fall behind that individual and support his idea, the same happens on a religious level with these books.

However, you are right, these are not religious scriptures and as such they should never be treated as such. All sides of the debate, and even the authors themselves, can agree to this.

Well to some degree it is rehashing. People have been asking the same questions since we can remember. It appears the will not accept the answers that are given.

Nobody gets answers though. The just get "Have faith" or "God works in mysterious ways."

Why would he make something up like that?

He didn't make it up. The people that wrote the Bible did.

What would the storyteller have to gain by saying for example that a bunch of Israelites walked up to a Sea. I guy lifted up his hands and the Sea parted. When they got the other side. The sea came crashing in around a bunch of Egyptians.

It's all part of a long story, and that story was written to give the Jews an excuse to live in Israel, kicking out the Canaanites.

1. Raised in it, had my first baptism, went to church weekly, volunteered several hours a week of my time, made friends, etc.

2. Because I've had real experiences that the rational part of me cannot explain without the existence of a deity, and I've yet to find anything in the Bible or in my church's teachings that makes me doubt.

The answers to other people's #3s are most interesting! Apparently Christians are the #1 cause of Atheism. :D

1. Raised in it, had my first baptism, went to church weekly, volunteered several hours a week of my time, made friends, etc.

2. Because I've had real experiences that the rational part of me cannot explain without the existence of a deity, and I've yet to find anything in the Bible or in my church's teachings that makes me doubt.

The answers to other people's #3s are most interesting! Apparently Christians are the #1 cause of Atheism. :D

Just like marriage is the #1 cause of divorce.

1. Born in a catholic family.
2. I read the book "The Case for Christ." I also think it makes allot of sense.

Well to some degree it is rehashing. People have been asking the same questions since we can remember. It appears the will not accept the answers that are given.

Maybe because they don't acceptably answer the question. The problem with some believers is the dogged insistance that their belief has some rational, objective reason for it.

I'm fine with you believing however you will, but let's not try and kid ourselves into protending that there's some objectively good reason for believing it.

We have to trust that when the man said he heard a voice coming from a "burning bush" he was telling the truth. Was anyone else there to see this event. Likely not but that does not mean it didn't happen. Why would he make something up like that?

Begs the question. How do you know HE made it up? How do you know there was a he anyway? There's not a single shred of historical or archeological evidence to support the existance of this "Moses" character.

Just like marriage is the #1 cause of divorce.

I've heard of people divorcing from reality... :D

So KOL because some religious people will try and deny evolution that means that all religion holds back all science. Neat I must remember that.

I seem to recall Galileo being threatened with death, if you would like another example.

1) What is your background with the religion? (born into, gone to church, currently a christian, etc)

Raised in SE Texas, surounded by Xians.
Dedicated in a UU church.
Went to Presbetarian Sunday School and youth group.
Have been to a wide variety of services ranging from Baptist/borderline Pentacostal to Lutheran, Catholic, and several others in between.

3) If you are not a Christian, but were previously one, why did you quit being one

No answers there, to put it bluntly. Buddhism "jives' much better with a rational world view.

God says time and time again. Your ways are not my ways and my ways are not yours.

When you evaluate the Bible it several aspect put into one book.

The creation of man and how Sin first came to the world. Why man is the way he is today or at least how he started and where he was going.

Then comes the Birth of the Nation we call Israel, It started from one man. From the most humblest of beginnings. It then shows how they came into captivity in Egypt. They weren't conquered, they went into Egypt voluntarily because there was a sever famine. Then the Pharaoh and the leadership change and things change. Now become the nation of Israel essential slaves to the new pharaohs. This goes on for 400 years. Moses comes along and with God's help he brings them out of Egypt. At this point we enter the Nation building phase. Now we have to make a country out of nothing. Most of the rest is about them fighting amongst their neighbors for the next long while. Just after they left Egypt they start hearing about someone who will come to deliver us from Sin. They make prophesies regarding this occurrence.

It explains their customs, the rules they live by. Some of the consequences of not listening to God and doing your "own" thing.

They continue getting bigger until they are a kingdom. They ask God to appoint a king. Basically saying we will take it from here.

People take the religion and run with as people tend to do. Some make changes to it, some on purpose and some that were not on purpose.


The rules grow to be very complex. People fall away because they are not lawyers and don't want to be that way.

The Jesus came and the whole game changed. Jesus and his Apostles changed some of the rules to make them easier to follow. He gave up his life so that sins may be forgiven. To give us a fresh start. Then the story takes a turn. The religion being to sepearte itself from it origniators and come to a new people the Gentile. They explain it to the Gentiles and bam it goes like gangbusters. Like putting a match to dynamite.

The world begins to change.

Which pretty much brings us to today.

Begs the question. How do you know HE made it up? How do you know there was a he anyway? There's not a single shred of historical or archeological evidence to support the existance of this "Moses" character.

Alright, I'll flog a dead horse and open up a can of worms here (cliches, don't ya love 'em).

As a professional archaeologist, I quite agree that there's not a shred of archaeological evidence for the existence of a Moses.

As a historical archaeologist, I'd put forward that the historical evidence issue is slightly more problematic and nuanced.

Let's look at the issue from the perspective of Herodotus' History.

Is Herodotus a biased source? Yes.

Does he write to a historical research standard that a modern would find acceptable? No.

Are large sections of his book fantastic and unreliable? Undoubtedly.

Does this invalidate all of his book as a historical source? No.


Look at it this way.... just because Herodotus describes giant gold-digging camel-eating ants in India doesn't invalidate his proto-ethnography of Egypt, like that famous bit about pulling the brains of the deceased out through the nose with special hooks. With the passage of time, it's become difficult - perhaps impossible - to separate fact from fiction for large sections of Herodotus, but that doesn't mean other large sections can't be used for genuine historical enquiry.



So, is the Bible a biased source? Yes.

Is it written to a historical research standard that a modern would find acceptable? No.

Are large sections of the Bible fantastic and unreliable? Undoubtedly.

Does this invalidate all of the Bible as a historical source? No.

And that's the mistake some people (not necessarily yourself) make - that just because they believe, often with good reason, that large sections of the Bible are biased and unreliable as history, that all of the Bible is unreliable as history, and should be unconditionally rejected as a historical source. Those who do so perhaps misunderstand the extent to which the scarcity of written records for much of the pre-medieval past forces both historians and archaeologists to make conclusions on the basis of parsing circumstantial evidence.


Which returns us to Moses. It's entirely fair to say that there's no independent historical evidence for his existence, and it's certainly fair to question and perhaps reject his historicity on that basis. But I think it's problematic to entirely reject the Bible as a historical source, which you implicity (perhaps not intentionally) do in this case by stating that there's not a single shred of historical evidence.



Oh, and recent research suggests that the giant ants might have been marmosets (though that doesn't explain the camel eating)

Which returns us to Moses. It's entirely fair to say that there's no independent historical evidence for his existence, and it's certainly fair to question and perhaps reject his historicity on that basis. But I think it's problematic to entirely reject the Bible as a historical source, which you implicity (perhaps not intentionally) do in this case by stating that there's not a single shred of historical evidence.

conceded, I suppose I should have said "non biblical". The bible is a source. Not a very good one, but it's one. Especially since, as an archeologist, I"m sure you appreciate the value of multiple sources.

There's an oft trotted out argument that "there's as much evidence of Caesar as there is for Christ". Of course, the problem with this is, while it's true we may not have ORIGINAL works from Caesar just as we don't have originals for Christ, there's a width and breath of stuffs out there that discusses, notes, and comments upon Caesar. From numerous societies that he encountered (or, I suppose, that encountered him).

One would think, giving the rather earth shattering details described int he Exodus, the egyptians would have recorded some of that, somewhere. We have contemporanious records from that period, one would think that mass death , rivers parting, and the like would be made note of, since we have other, less remarkable, records.

Maybe because they don't acceptably answer the question. The problem with some believers is the dogged insistence that their belief has some rational, objective reason for it.

I'm fine with you believing however you will, but let's not try and kid ourselves into pretending that there's some objectively good reason for believing it.



Begs the question. How do you know HE made it up? How do you know there was a he anyway? There's not a single shred of historical or archeological evidence to support the existence of this "Moses" character.


Good and bad are a matter of opinion and perspective.

Objectivity is also a matter of perspective. It also depends on what evidence you will accept as proving or disproving whatever happening. Moses was a common name we find any instances of the name in Egyptian accounts. We can't say for certain which is "The Moses". There were no newspaper, Moses didn't keep a dairy, there was no one else except the people in question who witnessed the event.

So we have a trial and 10 people claim they saw a Sea part. The jury says "well that is unusual, we do not see that every day, but since a few people say they saw it, something must have happened" I don't have an explanation for it but something unusual must have happened?

If it is a "natural occurrence" it might happen again. So far it hasn't. Good luck with Darkness 3 days long.

The point is that they do not happen every day.

One would think, giving the rather earth shattering details described int he Exodus, the egyptians would have recorded some of that, somewhere. We have contemporanious records from that period, one would think that mass death , rivers parting, and the like would be made note of, since we have other, less remarkable, records.

It is also worth pointing out that the period of time in which Exodus most likely happened is the most well documented period of Egyptian history.

Objectivity is also a matter of perspective.

By definition, no it is not.

Moses was a common name we find any instances of the name in Egyptian accounts.

Where? Which?

So we have a trial and 10 people claim they saw a Sea part. The jury says "well that is unusual, we do not see that every day, but since a few people say they saw it, something must have happened" I don't have an explanation for it but something unusual must have happened?

Except we don't have 10 people who claim to saw it. We have a book, that says people saw it. A book, that was written down hundreds, if not thousands, of years, after the supposed event, from a story told by oral tradition, in a foreign language, translated and retranslated, with no original copies, about stories people who may or may not have existed may or may not have seen, all of whom were long dead, and with no corroboration.

If it was a trial, no way that gets in as evidence. It's hearsay. It's worse than that, it's hearsay within hearsay within hearsay.

Now, if you choose to believe it then fine, that's your choice. You are free to believe it if you want to. But don't act like it's in any way convincing enough that I should believe it.

It is also worth pointing out that the period of time in which Exodus most likely did not happen is the most well documented period of Egyptian history.

Fixed.
You know, given the contents of the documents in question.

Objectivity is also a matter of perspective.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th Century Russian-American philosopher, Ayn Rand.


Wow, that was actually kind of relevent.

Fixed.
You know, given the contents of the documents in question.

A fair correction, but had I said that, my point may have been lost :p

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th Century Russian-American philosopher, Ayn Rand.


Wow, that was actually kind of relevent.

Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th Century Russian-American philosopher, Ayn Rand.


Wow, that was actually kind of relevent.

holy crap, yeah, that actually sorta worked.

Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice.

holy crap, yeah, that actually sorta worked.

*bows* Im here all week.

Now, if you choose to believe it then fine, that's your choice. You are free to believe it if you want to. But don't act like it's in any way convincing enough that I should believe it.

That's really the heart of this matter. I'm sure a lot of Christians would like everyone else to stop questioning them, because this same sequence happens each time.

It's faith, we're going to believe it whether it's 100% logical or not. Whether or not we can provide a "good" answer to everyone else. I wish, whole heartedly, that everyone else would let us just believe what we wish, and then, in return, that we would not try and push our views on those who don't believe.

That's really the heart of this matter. I'm sure a lot of Christians would like everyone else to stop questioning them, because this same sequence happens each time.

It's faith, we're going to believe it whether it's 100% logical or not. Whether or not we can provide a "good" answer to everyone else. I wish, whole heartedly, that everyone else would let us just believe what we wish, and then, in return, that we would not try and push our views on those who don't believe.

The problem, of course, is that most Christians believe that they have a duty to push their views on people, given that Christian theology states that non-Christians go to Hell to suffer unimaginable torment that is without end. ;)

But even where that not the case, I would keep asking those questions because I seek the truth. I currently think that there probably is not a God and find many Christian ideas very silly, but I might be wrong! And if I am, if God (or gods) exists, I would very much like to find this out, even if he's/she's/it's/they're not the sort that will punish me for being wrong-- knowledge is its own reward to me.
And so I ask questions, so that I might better understand.

That's really the heart of this matter. I'm sure a lot of Christians would like everyone else to stop questioning them, because this same sequence happens each time.

It's faith, we're going to believe it whether it's 100% logical or not. Whether or not we can provide a "good" answer to everyone else. I wish, whole heartedly, that everyone else would let us just believe what we wish, and then, in return, that we would not try and push our views on those who don't believe.



Tell you what. What you stop forcing your views on us and enshrining your backwards religion into law, we'll stop questioning some of the nonsensical claims it makes, k?

That's really the heart of this matter. I'm sure a lot of Christians would like everyone else to stop questioning them, because this same sequence happens each time.

It's faith, we're going to believe it whether it's 100% logical or not. Whether or not we can provide a "good" answer to everyone else. I wish, whole heartedly, that everyone else would let us just believe what we wish, and then, in return, that we would not try and push our views on those who don't believe.

but that's the thing. I do respect your right to believe it. It's one of the most important rights we have, the right to think and believe as we wish. And I'm not going to call you up at night and berate you for believing it.

On the same token however, I think it would behove some to recognize that it is faith, nothing more.

That's really the heart of this matter. I'm sure a lot of Christians would like everyone else to stop questioning them, because this same sequence happens each time.

It's faith, we're going to believe it whether it's 100% logical or not. Whether or not we can provide a "good" answer to everyone else. I wish, whole heartedly, that everyone else would let us just believe what we wish, and then, in return, that we would not try and push our views on those who don't believe.

You worship one of the evilest and most repugnant creatures ever described. Not out of pure fear, but because you have actually twisted your mind so badly you actually believe the vile beast is the embodiment of love.

People capable of thinking like that are obviously dangerous. What if tomorrow they decide that repulsive action X is also fine and dandy ?

You must be saved. For your and our own good.

By definition, no it is not.



Where? Which?


The Bible Unearthed of which you are citing even if you are not aware of it.


Except we don't have 10 people who claim to saw it. We have a book, that says people saw it. A book, that was written down hundreds, if not thousands, of years, after the supposed event, from a story told by oral tradition, in a foreign language, translated and retranslated, with no original copies, about stories people who may or may not have existed may or may not have seen, all of whom were long dead, and with no corroboration.

If it was a trial, no way that gets in as evidence. It's hearsay. It's worse than that, it's hearsay within hearsay within hearsay.

Now, if you choose to believe it then fine, that's your choice. You are free to believe it if you want to. But don't act like it's in any way convincing enough that I should believe it.

As you mentioned it is an oral tradition. Do you think the story was important if people are almost forced to remember it. Memorize it, repeat it, and finally write it down. We westerners do not have an oral tradition. Ask a native American you may get a different answer.

Could there be embellishments? Sure it is possible but I would think at least some of the story happened in the way they said it did. If it was a only a "fairy tale" we would have had dragons and ogres and who knows what else. The other option would be that Moses fought the Egyptian and won single handed. You would get the idea that they are making it up.

How come most "Alien" accounts are dismissed today? Because people largely do not believe in them. Some do. Maybe the Egyptians were not proud of the story. Maybe they see it as a failure of some sort. Maybe they were trying to downplay the event. Not to mention that weird things happened to them that they could not explain. Would you publicize that? I might think twice if I was the pharaoh. I might even try to cover it up lest our enemies think we are nuts or weak.

As you mentioned it is an oral tradition. Do you think the story was important if people are almost forced to remember it. Memorize it, repeat it, and finally write it down. We westerners do not have an oral tradition. Ask a native American you may get a different answer.

You made an equally good argument for Zeus, I hope you realize.

If it was a only a "fairy tale" we would have had dragons and ogres and who knows what else. The other option would be that Moses fought the Egyptian and won single handed. You would get the idea that they are making it up.

Wait, wait, lemme get this straight. Your argument is that a story about plagues of locusts, rivers of blood, hail of fire, unhealable wounds, three days of darkness at the equator, an angel of death, waters mystically parting, a magic burning, talking bush, food decending from heaven, and stone tablets delivered, literally, by hand of god must be true because...it's not fantastical enough to be made up?

Seriously? This is your argument?

Are you fucking shitting me?

How come most "Alien" accounts are dismissed today? Because people largely do not believe in them. Some do. Maybe the Egyptians were not proud of the story. Maybe they see it as a failure of some sort. Maybe they were trying to downplay the event. Not to mention that weird things happened to them that they could not explain. Would you publicize that? I might think twice if I was the pharaoh. I might even try to cover it up lest our enemies think we are nuts or weak.

so you're telling me a society that is literally chock full of stories involving direct intervention by gods, chalking everything from floods to draughts as divine intervention, as well as one that fairly accurately and honestly chronicled its victories AND its losses, found this too weird?

For fuck's sake...

You made an equally good argument for Zeus, I hope you realize.

Zeus lives at the top of Mount Olympia in Greece. Climb up to the top an take a look. Which does not minimize the importance of the story either.



Wait, wait, lemme get this straight. Your argument is that a story about plagues of locusts, rivers of blood, hail of fire, unhealable wounds, three days of darkness at the equator, an angel of death, waters mystically parting, a magic burning, talking bush, food decending from heaven, and stone tablets delivered, literally, by hand of god must be true because...it's not fantastical enough to be made up?

Seriously? This is your argument?

Are you fucking shitting me?

Oh sure, manna from Heaven, walking on water, a guy stuck in the belly or a whale for 3 days. In the stories themselves. You don't get the sense that they are making them up. You get the sense that they really believe what they were seeing even though they could not explain it. Much like a Ghost story today. Of course some are made up. You don't get that feeling when reading them. Maybe God had better writers? In the ones where they are making up details tend to get a little fuzzy. Moses could 7 feet tall in one story and 4'6" in another. The stories seem to coincide with one another.



so you're telling me a society that is literally chock full of stories involving direct intervention by gods, chalking everything from floods to droughts as divine intervention, as well as one that fairly accurately and honestly chronicled its victories AND its losses, found this too weird?

For fuck's sake...

Have we ever heard of the Red Sea parting before or since? Is there any reason it didn't part?

Proof works both ways

Is there any reason it didn't part?

Gravity and fluid dynamics, I would think.

Oh sure, manna from Heaven, walking on water, a guy stuck in the belly or a whale for 3 days. In the stories themselves. You don't get the sense that they are making them up. You get the sense that they really believe what they were seeing even though they could not explain it.

Who is "you"?

The stories seem to coincide with one another.

What stories? There's one story.

The Canaanites would have largely saw it as a bad thing so would any of the other tribe. Sadly we don't have any of there documentation either. Egypt would have probably viewed as a series of unexplained occurrences.

Try to put yourself into that position you have witnessed all this weird stuff. You probably would not be sending word to every other nation on the planet. Not likely.

They would say lay off the wine or maybe you have been in the sun too long. They would laugh at you. Sure, right, darkness 3 days long, maybe you just forgot to look at the sundial. Oh sure fire falling from the sky well I saw a star fall the other night is that what you are talking about. Maybe you just had some kind of weird influx of frogs and gnats.

Much they way we do with Loch Ness or abominable snow men etc.


The rest of the world would think that you are out of your mind.

Tell you what. What you stop forcing your views on us and enshrining your backwards religion into law, we'll stop questioning some of the nonsensical claims it makes, k?

Because obviously all Christians are hiveminds, believing in the exact same doctrine, and all possess the exact same political views.

so you're telling me a society that is literally chock full of stories involving direct intervention by gods, chalking everything from floods to draughts as divine intervention, as well as one that fairly accurately and honestly chronicled its victories AND its losses, found this too weird?


Of course. Its not like Egypt ever chronicled their defeats too. Thats why we believe they were never militarially defeated.


Oh, wait...

Because obviously all Christians are hiveminds, believing in the exact same doctrine, and all possess the exact same political views.

It works like this. Some people, some very influential, powerful people, have forced your religion and beliefs into the spot light, be it through basing laws off it, mandating prayer time, or some other such nonsense.


Youre religious ideas are now part of the public square of debate town. And that means they are open to critisim.

Sucks, doesnt it?

It works like this. Some people, some very influential, powerful people, have forced your religion and beliefs into the spot light, be it through basing laws off it, mandating prayer time, or some other such nonsense.


Youre religious ideas are now part of the public square of debate town. And that means they are open to critisim.

Sucks, doesnt it?

There is nothing wrong with criticism, I was merely commenting on the idiocy of blaming Pschycotic Pschycos for the actions of other people simply because he called himself a Christian.

Yeah we are all part of the collective and we are trying to indoctrinate you. I am talking right now to Pschycotic Pschycos mentally. We are having a full conversation. How weak this planet is and how soon it will fall.

There is nothing wrong with criticism, I was merely commenting on the idiocy of blaming Pschycotic Pschycos for the actions of other people simply because he called himself a Christian.
I never blamed him for their actions. My original point stands. When your religion is no longer a driving force for dictating policey, he wil get what he wants, everyone to not critisize his beliefs.

EDIT: Ah, I see the confusion. The "you" in my original post was a general "you", not at all directed at specific people. Entirely my fault. Apologies.

I never blamed him for their actions. My original point stands. When your religion is no longer a driving force for dictating policey, he wil get what he wants, everyone to not critisize his beliefs.

EDIT: Ah, I see the confusion. The "you" in my original post was a general "you", not at all directed at specific people. Entirely my fault. Apologises.

Oh, okay, my bad. I took the "you" to be personal because of the tone, but I guess I just haven't read enough of your material to pick up on your style.

Crisis averted. :P

1) What is your background with the religion? (born into, gone to church, currently a christian, etc)
Indoctrinated at school as a kid, but it didn't last.

3) If you are not a Christian, but were previously one, why did you quit being one?
I learned critical thinking as I got older and didn't see any reason to believe what I had been told. Then I came to NS and saw the pro-Christian 'arguments' and that finalised it for me.

This just feels relevent to me:
http://i558.photobucket.com/albums/ss30/Trve_photos/ChristianityDoinitwrong.jpg?t=1233176116

conceded, I suppose I should have said "non biblical". The bible is a source. Not a very good one, but it's one. Especially since, as an archeologist, I"m sure you appreciate the value of multiple sources.

There's an oft trotted out argument that "there's as much evidence of Caesar as there is for Christ". Of course, the problem with this is, while it's true we may not have ORIGINAL works from Caesar just as we don't have originals for Christ, there's a width and breath of stuffs out there that discusses, notes, and comments upon Caesar. From numerous societies that he encountered (or, I suppose, that encountered him).

One would think, giving the rather earth shattering details described int he Exodus, the egyptians would have recorded some of that, somewhere. We have contemporanious records from that period, one would think that mass death , rivers parting, and the like would be made note of, since we have other, less remarkable, records.

You might have added to my argument that there's historical and archaeological corroboration for 'pulling brains out of noses' as listed in Herodotus.

Though we're coming at the question from slightly differently directions, I fully agree with you that the "there's as much evidence of Caesar as there is for Christ" argument is fatuous. However, I'd go even further in that, assuming we're talking about Julius, he did leave original works. I can't be the only person to have been force-fed Caesar's Gallic Wars in Latin class. Omnis Gallia est divisa in tres partes, and all that.

However, I'd offer a slightly different perspective on the Christ/Caesar issue. Caesar was a major patrician-class political figure who had a major impact on the late Roman republic. Jesus, son of Joseph, was a carpenter and convicted criminal from one of the more remote provinces of the Roman Empire. It's hardly surprising that the former left behind a far more coherent historical record than the latter.

What strikes me in my professional capacity as a historical archaeologist isn't the lack of corroborating contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus - in that, he's no different from 99.99% of convicted Judean tradesmen of the first century AD. What strikes me is that within three decades of the rough date of his death, so much was being written, whether biased or not, about someone who should have been invisible to contemporary historical records. That's, if not entirely unprecedented in contemporary historiography, then certainly extremely unusual. That suggests to me that something remarkable happened in first century Judea, even if many will probably respectfully (I hope) disagree on what the nature of that something remarkable was.

Stating that the lack of corroborating precisely contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus disproves his existence is, in my professional opinion, a misreading of the nature of classical-era historical evidence. Doubting that Jesus was what his followers said and say he was strikes me as eminently fair. Point blank stating clearly that this lack of contemporary evidence is sufficient proof that he didn't exist at all (which I concede you didn't do) is, to my mind, as misguided as accepting every word in the Bible as literally true.


Oh, and while I lack the time to go into the discussion in detail (I have to start getting ready for bed, sorry), I regret to say that I don't think Truly Blessed understands the reliability of oral tradition as historical evidence some 3000 years down the line. Just as I don't think that the fact that Moses is only mentioned in the Bible is sufficient evidence to disprove his historical existence, I don't hold that the hypothetical oral traditions of first millenium Canaan are sufficient to prove his existence either.

Maybe Moses should be considered Schrodinger's historical figure.

http://www.fanpop.com/spots/atheism/videos/2746304

Might be on youtube somewhere too.

Honestly, I personally wish that religion would back off on government, especially in the United States, which is supposed to be secular. Abortion? Let science figure out when a person is a "living person" and then adjust said laws to avoid murder ((that is, allow abortion up until the point that it would be murder under the new scientific classification)). Homosexual marriage? Sure, legalize it. Equal rights in and under the government.

Just because I have a belief doesn't mean everyone else holds it. Abortion and homosexuality according to religion are radically different than under government, especially one that is secular. All restrictions, thus far, come from a religious stand point, not a legitimate legal one. Therefore, they're not truly legitimate arguments. The bible itself does say that we shouldn't infringe upon our neighbor's right to live and make his or her own choices ((I would cite, but am far too tired. If pushed, I'll look for it)). How folks twist this part up so badly is honestly beyond me.

And to The Alama Mater: I will put things a different way for you. If you go out and do good things, make some other folks feel good about their lives, be a generally nice person, and avoid doing some really, really stupid things ((i.e. rape, murder, etc...)) that you probably wouldn't do anyway, I will give you forty-two trillion dollars. How does that sound?

I honestly have no real idea where you get the logic basis for your claims and descriptions. God has asked no more of believers than to do good things, to do nice things, and to help other people. Men have asked believers to kill, pillage, rape, and conquer in "God's name". Organized religion has asked its followers to do insane things, to do horrible things, and to do things that should never have been even thought of, not God. Yes, I believe in a God who asks us to coexist peacefully. Yes, I believe in a God who asks us to be firm in our faith, even around people who do not believe or who would belittle us or who would goad us into violence. Does He also ask us to preach his Word and message? Yes, to those who are willing to accept it and believe it. Not to bang people over the head with it, even when they've shown they have no intention of believing it.

If the pope himself came to me tomorrow and said "take up arms, God has told me to eliminate Group X," I would give him a quarter for making me laugh. ((Generally that happens every day, but that's another matter)) I say this because I know that God will not ask this of us. Men will, God won't.

I am proud to be a believer of such. And if you think that I am wrong for believing in a being that promotes peace and cooperation, if you should take pity on me for believing in such, and if you think His message of caring for others is horrible and despicable and repulsive, than you, sir, are the one who needs to be saved, for your and our own good, for I should hate to live in the sort of world you must be imagining.

Good Day.

http://www.fanpop.com/spots/atheism/videos/2746304

Might be on youtube somewhere too.

You would enhance your credibility if you had chosen a comedian who wasnt a complete tool.

http://i558.photobucket.com/albums/ss30/Trve_photos/Bible.jpg

http://www.fanpop.com/spots/atheism/videos/2746304

Might be on youtube somewhere too.

Fucking fails, and completely ignores real atheist arguments.

Fucking fails, and completely ignores real atheist arguments.

Everything Dane Cook does is a big steaming bowl of fail.

Fucking fails, and completely ignores real atheist arguments.

errrr, that's because it's comedy, and not theology or philosophy lectures?

As you mentioned it is an oral tradition. Do you think the story was important if people are almost forced to remember it. Memorize it, repeat it, and finally write it down. We westerners do not have an oral tradition. Ask a native American you may get a different answer.

I would just like to point out that the West does indeed have an oral tradition.
Legends, fairy tales and the like are part of that tradition, although some of them got written down during the last 2 centuries. But they did start out as oral tradition.

I hope you don't try and claim that this must mean that Rumpelstilzchen is roaming the earth and that people occasionally fall asleep for 100 years?

You would enhance your credibility if you had chosen a comedian who wasnt a complete tool.

http://i558.photobucket.com/albums/ss30/Trve_photos/Bible.jpg

Why is this man still on the internets?

You might compare Moses to say Johnny Appleseed. Have the storeis been built up to almost mythic proportions. It is possible. Johnny was a real guy and really did like apples. In America it is like we do with our Founding Fathers you build them up until they are almost not human. Paul Revere was a Silversmith who rode on horse back saying the "British are coming". Yet now he is the great patriot, blah,blah,blah.

George Washington and "can not tell a lie" and "cherry tree thingy". Somewhere down there is the real story. It hard to figure out what was embellished if there was any.

It doesn't mean the events didn't happen loosely as described.

I would just like to point out that the West does indeed have an oral tradition.
Legends, fairy tales and the like are part of that tradition, although some of them got written down during the last 2 centuries. But they did start out as oral tradition.

I hope you don't try and claim that this must mean that Rumpelstilzchen is roaming the earth and that people occasionally fall asleep for 100 years?

Wait...Rumpelstilzchen is fake?

...then who was that guy I had coffee with last week?

Why is this man still on the internets?

Because for some reason people think Dane Cook is funny.

We call those people "frat boys".

Because for some reason people think Dane Cook is funny.

We call those people "frat boys".

Alcohol poisoning = Proof that there is a god, and he is benevolent. <.<

You might compare Moses to say Johnny Appleseed. Have the storeis been built up to almost mythic proportions. It is possible. Johnny was a real guy and really did like apples. In America it is like we do with our Founding Fathers you build them up until they are almost not human. Paul Revere was a Silversmith who rode on horse back saying the "British are coming". Yet now he is the great patriot, blah,blah,blah.

George Washington and "can not tell a lie" and "cherry tree thingy". Somewhere down there is the real story. It hard to figure out what was embellished if there was any.

It doesn't mean the events didn't happen loosely as described.

So...what youre saying is the Bible is nothing but propaganda?

I can agree with that.

The difference between your examples and Moses? We have other accounts that they actually existed. Like I said, Moses supposidly did all this during what is the most well documented era of Egyptian history. Ramses had his reign chronicled very well.

Yet there is not a single mention of any of the events. Youd think they would at least mentioned that all their first borns died one night.
EDIT: Hell, its not even mentioned that the Pharoh's first born son even died. Thats a big fucking deal. You dont omitt details like that if your a historian or the royal chronicaler.

Honestly, I personally wish that religion would back off on government, especially in the United States, which is supposed to be secular. Abortion? Let science figure out when a person is a "living person" and then adjust said laws to avoid murder ((that is, allow abortion up until the point that it would be murder under the new scientific classification)). Homosexual marriage? Sure, legalize it. Equal rights in and under the government.

Just because I have a belief doesn't mean everyone else holds it. Abortion and homosexuality according to religion are radically different than under government, especially one that is secular. All restrictions, thus far, come from a religious stand point, not a legitimate legal one. Therefore, they're not truly legitimate arguments. The bible itself does say that we shouldn't infringe upon our neighbor's right to live and make his or her own choices ((I would cite, but am far too tired. If pushed, I'll look for it)). How folks twist this part up so badly is honestly beyond me.

And to The Alama Mater: I will put things a different way for you. If you go out and do good things, make some other folks feel good about their lives, be a generally nice person, and avoid doing some really, really stupid things ((i.e. rape, murder, etc...)) that you probably wouldn't do anyway, I will give you forty-two trillion dollars. How does that sound?

I honestly have no real idea where you get the logic basis for your claims and descriptions. God has asked no more of believers than to do good things, to do nice things, and to help other people. Men have asked believers to kill, pillage, rape, and conquer in "God's name". Organized religion has asked its followers to do insane things, to do horrible things, and to do things that should never have been even thought of, not God. Yes, I believe in a God who asks us to coexist peacefully. Yes, I believe in a God who asks us to be firm in our faith, even around people who do not believe or who would belittle us or who would goad us into violence. Does He also ask us to preach his Word and message? Yes, to those who are willing to accept it and believe it. Not to bang people over the head with it, even when they've shown they have no intention of believing it.

If the pope himself came to me tomorrow and said "take up arms, God has told me to eliminate Group X," I would give him a quarter for making me laugh. ((Generally that happens every day, but that's another matter)) I say this because I know that God will not ask this of us. Men will, God won't.

I am proud to be a believer of such. And if you think that I am wrong for believing in a being that promotes peace and cooperation, if you should take pity on me for believing in such, and if you think His message of caring for others is horrible and despicable and repulsive, than you, sir, are the one who needs to be saved, for your and our own good, for I should hate to live in the sort of world you must be imagining.

Good Day.

Well said. Bravo! Sign me up to.

Because for some reason people think Dane Cook is funny.

We call those people "frat boys".

*waves* Okay, I'm not a frat boy, but I laugh at just about anything meant for someone with an IQ equivalent to that of a shovel. Why? Dunno, I just enjoy sophomoric comedy.

Alcohol poisoning = Proof that there is a god, and he is benevolent. <.<

You win a series of tubes.

I would just like to point out that the West does indeed have an oral tradition.
Legends, fairy tales and the like are part of that tradition, although some of them got written down during the last 2 centuries. But they did start out as oral tradition.

I hope you don't try and claim that this must mean that Rumpelstilzchen is roaming the earth and that people occasionally fall asleep for 100 years?

Also doesn't mean you should dismiss it outright. Many traditions use the oral tradition. Not all of them are for or about Myth and fantasy.

1. Born Catholic, still Catholic (but I'm only 17)

2. Have grown up with it. I can't see myself not believing it, really. I mean, I've thought about not believing, but Catholicism just feels right to me.

I've seen discussion on the Bible and its degree of...accuracy...brought up too many times to quote everyone.

So, a blanket post on this subject.

What we must keep in mind when referencing the bible is that it is not, in any degree, a continuous book. Rather, it is a collection of different books, scrolls, oral history, and general preaching. What would be included in the modern incarnation of the Bible was chosen from a huge selection of texts.

NOW. The question after this statement should be "who chose what went into the Bible?"

That's a very good question, and if you've followed this thread, you'll figure quickly that it was mortal men, not a divine being, who chose what went in. And as its been brought up on the previous two pages, these selections were subject to the purposes and agendas of the individuals on the committees that chose the books of the Bible.

So, what does this mean? This means that the Bible will have varying degrees of accuracy across it and that yes, we can cherry pick items out of the Bible. I've mentioned before in my previous posts that I think faith on a personal basis is a very good thing ((as opposed to the corrupted tendencies of organized religion)), thus I say this: the Bible should be, and is, open to the individual for interpretation based upon said individual's previous personal experience and knowledge.

=========================================================

Additionally, I'd like to comment on something else, and to do this I will, unbelievably, cite Futurama. In the episode in which Bender is cast adrift in space, a small civilization of miniature beings springs up on him and worship him as a god. In actively trying to intervene, he inevitably destroys them altogether. At the end of the episode, Bender meets the real God ((in the form of a giant, shining nebula)) and asks Him "How do I know if I've done things right?" God replies, "You will know you have done things right if people aren't able to tell if you've done anything at all." SO, what I am trying to get at here is this: just because it isn't obvious that God is intervening, He may very well be. This is the sort of thing that should at least stay open as a possibility in the mind.

So, why isn't God helping the situation in, say, Darfur? Well, for all we know, He may be acting through adjusting political forces in the US, or the EU, or the UN. Or perhaps He is behind the spark that created the new student movements that have sprung up in the last couple years. What I am trying to say is: don't look for the smoking gun.

===========================================================

Next, I will try my hand at the argument about Lucifer/Satan that occurred a page or two back, mostly cause it struck my attention as I am still reading ((i.e. struggling through)) Paradise Lost. God created angels to be as close in His image as possible, without fully creating equals. In doing so, he left them with free will. Free will allows one to respond to outside stimuli. Let's put forth this: God was greater in power than Lucifer. Thus, free will allows Lucifer to make his own decisions upon how to respond. He can either accept this, and serve under God. OR, he could respond negatively and become jealous. In this manner he can then rise up against God, and realize that he will never be as powerful. At this point there is another juncture. He can either accept defeat with humility, or be defiant and strive to undo all that God has done and will do, thus ushering in "evil" as the counter-balance to God.

So, did God create evil? Indirectly. Being all-knowing, he knew that in creating Lucifer this would all come to pass. But who is to say, then, that God didn't have his greater purposes in creating Lucifer and allowing evil into this world. Somethings are, perhaps, beyond human comprehension and best left to His own designs.

In this subject, I would very strongly suggest reading Paradise Lost, or at least the first several books in it. It is exceedingly difficult language, but offers possible insights that both Christians and non-believers will find intriguing.

I have to advise you againt basing your arguments on "Paradise Lost". I mean - if canonisation is a slap-dash method of selection at best, drawing in 'evidence' from fiction seems to be stretching the envelope beyond breaking point.

Lucifer, scripturally, is not Satan - indeed, neither of those things is even a name. Both are descriptors - Lucifer is a comparison to relative ascendence and descendence based on astronomical observations (the star that rises before the sun, and sets before the sun) and is used to describe an entirely mortal king of Tyre, who finds out the hard way that - no matter how high you climb, you'll still end up in a mighty dark plot. Satan is a job description for the angel in the heavenly courts who acts as prosecution - trying HUMANS. Satan is not the 'adversary' of God, but of man.

Did God create good and evil? The scripture says so.

It's interesting to see you discuss the relative reliability of canonical texts, though - that's not something that gets considered often by the 'Christian side' of the debate, where it is instantly assumed that every word of the scripture is necessarily entirely right and true.

1) Went to a catholic school, attended catholic church, been to a pentacostal church, live in FUCKING AMERICA, get harassed on a daily basis by Mormon elders.
2) Not a christian
3) God is a myth, the bible is illogical and full of the cruelty of 'god,' and it is time for humanity to come out of its infancy. If not, then why not go back to owning slaves and human sacrifice? Let's all go biblical!

All this talk on my part about Ramses and Moses has gotten Metallica's Creeping Death stuck in my head.

I have to advise you againt basing your arguments on "Paradise Lost". I mean - if canonisation is a slap-dash method of selection at best, drawing in 'evidence' from fiction seems to be stretching the envelope beyond breaking point.

Lucifer, scripturally, is not Satan - indeed, neither of those things is even a name. Both are descriptors - Lucifer is a comparison to relative ascendence and descendence based on astronomical observations (the star that rises before the sun, and sets before the sun) and is used to describe an entirely mortal king of Tyre, who finds out the hard way that - no matter how high you climb, you'll still end up in a mighty dark plot. Satan is a job description for the angel in the heavenly courts who acts as prosecution - trying HUMANS. Satan is not the 'adversary' of God, but of man.

Did God create good and evil? The scripture says so.

It's interesting to see you discuss the relative reliability of canonical texts, though - that's not something that gets considered often by the 'Christian side' of the debate, where it is instantly assumed that every word of the scripture is necessarily entirely right and true.

I actually did review in a later post about Paradise Lost not being scripture, but the only relation between Lucifer and Satan I've come across has been inside PL, so thanks for shedding light on that subject.

As to the canonical texts, I'm in a Jewish/Christian Foundations course this semester, and it's been teaching us to read and think critically. To see what the purpose and genre is of what was written and to recognize what is, is not, and might be fact; and is to be regarded as true, that is, not necessarily the details of a story, but rather the message that it's trying to convey.

Thus in reading elements of the Bible this way, it becomes pretty clear what was actually going on behind the scenes and you can take the messages that it was meant to convey, without having to accept the series of details as exact and fact.

And to The Alama Mater: I will put things a different way for you. If you go out and do good things, make some other folks feel good about their lives, be a generally nice person, and avoid doing some really, really stupid things ((i.e. rape, murder, etc...)) that you probably wouldn't do anyway, I will give you forty-two trillion dollars. How does that sound?

Pretty good. But that is not the deal your God is offering, is it ?

I honestly have no real idea where you get the logic basis for your claims and descriptions. God has asked no more of believers than to do good things, to do nice things, and to help other people.

The Bible disagrees with you. Perhaps you should read it - some Christians consider it an important part of their faith.

You will discover God promotes rape. Slavery. Genocide. Murder. Mindfucks. Oppression. Unbridled hatred. Intolerance. Hypocrisy. Blind obedience. Ignorance. Lying. The Biblical God is not fair nor just. It is a being that had a son for the explicit purpose of having him hunted his whole life, to die a horrible death for a silly pretext called "original sin" some people are actually moronic enough to believe. It is a being that slaughters thousands of innocent living beings to make a point to their parents or owners. It is a being that once drowned almost all humans and animals living at the time because he disliked how they lived. It is a being that enjoys the smell of burning flesh, proudly admits to be jealous, considers women nothing more than sperm recepticles for their husband, could not care less if one kills the kid of a nonbeliever, does not want people with glasses to come near to him, wishes to control who we love and what we do in the bedroom and so forth and so forth.

The sad thing is - you have devoted your life to believing He is not vile, but Good and working in mysterious ways. And that is why I both pity and fear you.

You lay the blame with men. I lay the blame with the Being that gave the orders. The vision of God you paint directly contradicts the most fundamental of Christian writings -so if you believe in a friendly noble being you can NOT be a Christian.

It is time for humanity to come out of its infancy. If not, then why not go back to owning slaves and human sacrifice? Let's all go biblical!

False Dilemma fallacy, there are more than just those two options.

We have to trust that when the man said he heard a voice coming from a "burning bush" he was telling the truth.



We have to trust no such thing.

People have been writing heroic and fantastic literature for thousands of years, if not longer. Imagination, suspension of disbelief, honest attempts to explain the world... drug-addled fantasies... theft of someone else's story - ALL of those are entirely plausible explanations for 'burning bushes' or 'parted seas' that don't have ANYTHING to do with a person 'telling the truth', per se... and also don't have ANYTHING to do with a necessary 'creator god'.


There many conflicting forces at work in the world today. There are humans acting it what they perceive is there own "best" interest. There are force both natural and supernatural at work. Just because you can't see the "steps" being taken doesn't mean they are not happening. Occam Razor does apply. The simplest answer must be the truth.


The simplest answer is that the world really is as it seems.


If we can figure out a "good reason" why the "story" or account is a lie then maybe it happened? What would the storyteller have to gain by saying for example that a bunch of Israelites walked up to a Sea. I guy lifted up his hands and the Sea parted. When they got the other side. The sea came crashing in around a bunch of Egyptians. There may be little evidence that it happened. What evidence would you expect to find. If it exists at all it is at the bottom of the Sea. Keep in mind it happened a long, long time ago.


If you can't figure out a good reason why the story is a lie... no, you don't accept it. You should never accept that a (let's face it, fantastical) story is true JUST because there's not DIRECT evidence against on. On the contrary - every account should be considered unreliable until it is corroborated.

The sad thing is - you have devoted your life to believing He is not vile, but Good and working in mysterious ways. And that is why I both pity and fear you.

Isn't being fearful of someone for having a belief in God just as bad as being fearful of someone who doesn't have a belief, even though in both cases neither people have proven to be dangerous?

More along the lines of say "Robin Hood". There is every indication that Robin was based on a real man. Was he as good with a bow as everyone claims. Well the English were pretty good with the long bow. Still are today.

How about Maid Marion? Why not
Friar Tuck? Why not
Little John? Why not

So maybe they were built up some. Maybe they were just opportunists, maybe they were Guerrilla warriors.

There are elements which we can prove in the story.

Isn't being fearful of someone for having a belief in God just as bad as being fearful of someone who doesn't have a belief, even though in both cases neither people have proven to be dangerous?

Really? People who believe in God havent proven to be willing to kill for it?

Wait...Rumpelstilzchen is fake?

...then who was that guy I had coffee with last week?

Jesus, probably. Although I think he's more into Chai tea these days.

Pretty good. But that is not the deal your God is offering, is it ?

My metaphor is a cheap example of what He is offering.



The Bible disagrees with you. Perhaps you should read it - some Christians consider it an important part of their faith.

You will discover God promotes rape. Slavery. Genocide. Murder. Mindfucks. Oppression. Unbridled hatred. Intolerance. Hypocrisy. Lying. The Biblical God is not fair nor just. It is a being that had a son for the explicit purpose of having him hunted his whole life, to die a horrible death for a silly pretext called "original sin" some people are actually moronic enough to believe. It is a being that slaughters thousands of innocent living beings to make a point to their parents or owners. It is a being that once drowned almost all humans and animals living at the time because he disliked how they lived. It is a being that enjoys the smell of burning flesh, proudly admits to be jealous, considers women nothing more than sperm recepticles for their husband, could not care less if one kills the kid of a nonbeliever, does not want people with glasses to come near to him, wishes to control who we love and what we do in the bedroom and so forth and so forth.

The sad thing is - you have devoted your life to believing He is not vile, but Good and working in mysterious ways. And that is why I both pity and fear you.

You lay the blame with men. I lay the blame with the Being that gave the orders. The vision of God you paint directly contradicts the most fundamental of Christian writings -so if you believe in a friendly noble being you can NOT be a Christian.

As I've pointed out, time and again, the Bible is not absolute fact. I have been reading the bible, in fact, and no, I don't think that things you've said are fact and what He actually intends.

Do not assume that, because I am Christian, I take every word in the Bible for one hundred percent fact. Do not put me in the same cookie-cutter mold as many other Christians who would believe in such things.

Take a look at the difference between the Gospels and the Old Testament. There is a radical difference in the preachings of Jesus and what is written in the Old Testament.

I have explained my faith to you. I have explained what I do and do not believe. I have explained what I see is fact and what is not fact. Do I nitpick my religion? Yes. This is due to critical thinking and reason and logic, seeing which pieces of this puzzle fit smoothly, and which are the extras. And I will tell you something: the parts that have God being extremely vengeful, promoting cruel things, etc...., those are the extra pieces.

More along the lines of say "Robin Hood". There is every indication that Robin was based on a real man. Was as good with a bow as everyone claims. Well the English were pretty good with the long bow. Still are today.

How about Maid Marion? Why not
Friar Tuck? Why not
Little John? Why not

So maybe they were build up some. Maybe they were just opportunists, maybe the Guerrilla warriors.

There are elements which we can prove in the story.

The difference is, the story of Robin Hood doesnt require us to ignore logic, science and believe in magic powers.

And there is some sort of chronicalization that Robin Hood might exist outside of the original story. Moses has no such thing. Nor does Christ.

Really? People who believe in God havent proven to be willing to kill for it?

I said someone who merely believes in God. He/she has not shown any willingness to kill anyone.

Oh, and the majority of people I have met personally aren't willing to kill people in the name of God.

More along the lines of say "Robin Hood". There is every indication that Robin was based on a real man. Was he as good with a bow as everyone claims. Well the English were pretty good with the long bow. Still are today.

How about Maid Marion? Why not
Friar Tuck? Why not
Little John? Why not

So maybe they were built up some. Maybe they were just opportunists, maybe the Guerrilla warriors.

There are elements which we can prove in the story.

Ok. I think if you are capable to believe that Robin Hood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_hood) existed as a person in any way similar to the commonly known story, you can probably believe anything you choose to.

The difference is, the story of Robin Hood doesnt require us to ignore logic, science and believe in magic powers.

And there is some sort of chronicalization that Robin Hood might exist outside of the original story. Moses has no such thing. Nor does Christ.

Actually, it is accepted by historians that Christ did exist, as there are Roman records that mention Christ. The only debate is over whether or not he was God like he said.

Actually, it is accepted by historians that Christ did exist,

Actually, no its not.

as there are Roman records that mention Christ.

There are scant few. And those that do exist have had doubts cast in regards to their validity.

We have to trust no such thing.

People have been writing heroic and fantastic literature for thousands of years, if not longer. Imagination, suspension of disbelief, honest attempts to explain the world... drug-addled fantasies... theft of someone else's story - ALL of those are entirely plausible explanations for 'burning bushes' or 'parted seas' that don't have ANYTHING to do with a person 'telling the truth', per se... and also don't have ANYTHING to do with a necessary 'creator god'.


I might be made up but then you would think the Israelites would still be in Egypt. Maybe it didn't happen at all. To my knowledge I have never heard of the Egyptians saying "It absolutely did not happen at all"


The simplest answer is that the world really is as it seems.


It might be no rhyme or reason to anything.


If you can't figure out a good reason why the story is a lie... no, you don't accept it. You should never accept that a (let's face it, fantastical) story is true JUST because there's not DIRECT evidence against on. On the contrary - every account should be considered unreliable until it is corroborated.

What would we corroborate it with? Few can put forward anything in this area? There are an abundance of theories. No solid evidence either way. Proof is a two edged sword.

Actually, no its not.



There are scant few. And those that do exist have had doubts cast in regards to their validity.

May I see your source?

No solid evidence either way. Proof is a two edged sword.

Now, I am a Christian, but your point is false. The burden of proof lies more heavily on those who practice a faith than it does on athiests, because it is more reasonable to not accept something to be true because there is no proof than to accept it.

Also doesn't mean you should dismiss it outright. Many traditions use the oral tradition. Not all of them are for or about Myth and fantasy.

Of course they're not.
But do you seriously believe that there are or ever were giants, just because they're mentioned in fairy tales?
What about pixies? Leprechauns? Trolls (the bridge variety, not the online one)? Witches? Talking animals?

Well the English were pretty good with the long bow. Still are today.
Err?

I'm as English as the smell of steak and willow trees, and I'm rubbish at archery.

Err?

I'm as English as the smell of steak and willow trees, and I'm rubbish at archery.

What do willow trees smell like?

What do willow trees smell like?
Lakes in the countryside, with people rowing boats on.

Of course they're not.
But do you seriously believe that there are or ever were giants, just because they're mentioned in fairy tales?
What about pixies? Leprechauns? Trolls (the bridge variety, not the online one)? Witches? Talking animals?

The point that Truly Blessed is making is that just because oral tradition doesn't always pass down truths doesn't mean it can't pass down truths. To assume such is an Association fallacy.

Ok. I think if you are capable to believe that Robin Hood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_hood) existed as a person in any way similar to the commonly known story, you can probably believe anything you choose to.

Why not?

A thief
An outlaw
Good with a bow and arrow
Good at hiding in a forest
Picks off travelers through the Forrest to finance his operation and Gives some money to the poor to gain their support and hiding places and to win recruits.
Hates the new king
Has many fights with their version of police.

Many crooks would fit this bill. Many revolutionaries would fit this bill. You may have to switch King for Leader. Osama Bin laden is everything except good with a bow. I have never seen him use a bow. Switch forest for mountains or caves.

Lakes in the countryside, with people rowing boats on.

*has attack of synaesthesia and mixed metaphors*

Actually, no its not.
Actually, yes it is. This whole "Jesus didn't exist" cult is not made up of historians.

There are scant few. And those that do exist have had doubts cast in regards to their validity.
There are as many records as you would expect. MOST people that we know about from ancient times are only mentioned a handful of times.

*has attack of synaesthesia and mixed metaphors*
An Englishman's two favourite things.

The point that Truly Blessed is making is that just because oral tradition doesn't always pass down truths doesn't mean it can't pass down truths. To assume such is an Association fallacy.

Giants there were a few. One we know of Goliath.

Fairies & leprechauns > None mentioned in the bible best you get are a type of angel or evil spirit.

Witches -> Are just females that practice magic

Any unexplained science can actually look like magic to a primitive person or better one who does not understand how the science works.

Giants there were a few. One we know of Goliath.

Goliath is still a questionable figure in history as to his existance. I wouldn't use him as an example.

Giants there were a few. One we know of Goliath.
... what?

Hey, in Space 1999 they fought a furry monster with rocket launchers that set it on fire before they stuck it in a vacuum chamber thing. That shit got written down, so in 1999 this must have been the case. Right?

Giants there were a few. One we know of Goliath.

Fairies & leprechauns > None mentioned in the bible best you get are a type of angel or evil spirit.

Witches -> Are just females that practice magic

Any unexplained science can actually look like magic to a primitive person or better one who does not understand how the science works.

Additionally, it's been all but proven that "giant" at that time, in that place, would've amounted to a man who was mid six-foot range, seven feet at most.

... what?

Hey, in Space 1999 they fought a furry monster with rocket launchers that set it on fire before they stuck it in a vacuum chamber thing. That shit got written down, so in 1999 this must have been the case. Right?

Yeah, don't you remember? It was all over the news.

Yeah, don't you remember? It was all over the news.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8DF9nDJZrdA

At least it had a better soundtrack than the old testament.

I was born into Christianity. I left for awhile because I thought I was smart and edgy and cynical.
I later discovered that the actions of "Christians" are rarely in accordance with the words of Christ. The words of Christ seem to be pretty good ones to live by.
To me, the existence of a Creator or higher power makes more sense than the absence of one.
I don't take the Bible literally, most especially the Old Testament. I think Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, and yes, David and Goliath, are all folk tales. I strongly disagree with many laws presented in the Old Testament.

And before someone very clever asks, no, I did not fight in the Crusades :)

I was born into Christianity. I left for awhile because I thought I was smart and edgy and cynical.
I later discovered that the actions of "Christians" are rarely in accordance with the words of Christ. The words of Christ seem to be pretty good ones to live by.
To me, the existence of a Creator or higher power makes more sense than the absence of one.
I don't take the Bible literally, most especially the Old Testament. I think Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, and yes, David and Goliath, are all folk tales. I strongly disagree with many laws presented in the Old Testament.

And before someone very clever asks, no, I did not fight in the Crusades :)

You, my good sir, deserve a rather large cookie.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8DF9nDJZrdA

At least it had a better soundtrack than the old testament.

Man, with that funky synthesized bass line, I bet it won tons of Emmys for music and sound, right?

Err?

I'm as English as the smell of steak and willow trees, and I'm rubbish at archery.

Okay that is you but some of countrymen are pretty damn good. Do you guys have ESPN?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow

A Welsh or English military archer during the 14th and 15th Century was expected to shoot at least ten "aimed shots" per minute.[12] An experienced military longbowman was expected to shoot twenty aimed shots per minute. A typical military longbow archer would be provided with between 60 and 72 arrows at the time of battle, which would last the archer from three to six minutes, at full rate of shooting. Thus, most archers would not loose arrows at this rate, as it would exhaust even the most experienced man. Not only are the arms and shoulder muscles tired from the exertion, but the fingers holding the bowstring become strained; therefore, actual rates of fire in combat would vary considerably

Okay that is you but some of countrymen are pretty damn good. Do you guys have ESPN?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow

A Welsh or English military archer during the 14th and 15th Century was expected to shoot at least ten "aimed shots" per minute.[12] An experienced military longbowman was expected to shoot twenty aimed shots per minute. A typical military longbow archer would be provided with between 60 and 72 arrows at the time of battle, which would last the archer from three to six minutes, at full rate of shooting. Thus, most archers would not loose arrows at this rate, as it would exhaust even the most experienced man. Not only are the arms and shoulder muscles tired from the exertion, but the fingers holding the bowstring become strained; therefore, actual rates of fire in combat would vary considerably

This proves the existence of God how?

Okay that is you but some of countrymen are pretty damn good. Do you guys have ESPN?
We have Eurosports, which shows incredibly weak sports like archery and wrestling with family masks and stuff.
*blahblah longbows*
Aye aye I know about all this stuff. Still didn't win the Hundred Years' War, mind.

This proves the existence of God how?

We're on a waaaaaaaaay off tangent.

Man, with that funky synthesized bass line, I bet it won tons of Emmys for music and sound, right?
I think it won minus-awards somehow for its dubious science and laughable budget.

I can justifiably apply the idea of "mysterious ways" to scientific matter as well. However, the scientific community has a very good, specific term for this sort of thing. That term is a "theory". All of your questions, "where is God now?", or "How can God allow x,y,z?" are no more fully and 100% explainable than, say, the relationship between quantum mechanics and general relativity. In this scenario, one of the theories put forth is "String Theory", or the idea that all matter and energy is comprised of vibrating strings. Saying that "God moves in mysterious ways" is not an evasion of any question.


It absolutely is an evasion... it's just a very old one. But being old doesn't make it true.


In this, saying that God works in the background to adjust differing conditions of the universe is a theory.


No, it isn't.


And even if we just leave it at "God moves in mysterious ways", we are doing nothing more than acknowledging that we do not, in fact, know or understand what exactly is happening. This is the first step in developing a theory; recognizing the unknown.


And here's why - recognising the unknown is NOT the first step in developing a theory. The first step is OBSERVATION.

And that's why 'mysterious ways' is an evasion, not a theory. What it starts with, is an assumption, that there IS a god, and that he/she/they move(s) in some way hidden behind the curtain of the world. The observation (i.e. nothing) is thus a second or third stage, at best, to the already assumed conclusion - the observation is fitted to the theory, rather than vice-versa.


Many people ask of me, and of my faith-based friends "Where is your God?" or "Why isn't He doing more?" This question is as open, and perhaps as unanswerable ((for the moment)) as is "how are quantum mechanics and General Relativity related?" We can only use what knowledge we have at the moment to take educated guesses.


The difference is, the scientific answer is "you know? We really don't know... but it could be..." while the religious answer starts from a claim of authority, and assesses new data in that light.


This is not to say, however, that none of it is of divine origin.


Which doesn't mean any of it is.


However it is interesting to note that the Genesis stories ((yes, plural. There are, in fact, two distinct stories)) stands alone in the idea that it is monotheistic and that there was nothing previous to creation,


First: not strictly true - the OT scriptures contain numerous references to other gods, even in the English... and this is even more obvious in the Hebrew. Similarly, again - the OT - you can read Genesis 1:1 as saying 'first' rather than 'in the beginning' (the traditional interpretation). 'First' doesn't have to mean an absolute beginning - it can just mean the first detail in a list.

Second: The Genesis texts seem to have been recorded over quite some time, by a number of different sources. Most likely, what hit the page was a thousand years of retellings of the same story. The fact that there is still evidence of polytheism even in this oral-tradition-transcribed is pretty good evidence that the Hebrew mythology started out polytheistic.

Additionally, it's been all but proven that "giant" at that time, in that place, would've amounted to a man who was mid six-foot range, seven feet at most.

When compared to the people around he was a "Giant". He was actually a tall man. Shaq could be considered a giant by today's standards. Now imagine him standing in armor with a big spear. Goliath

This proves the existence of God how?

Because God is an Englishman, naturally.

That explains why he doesn't intervene directly in the world, he's too polite and reserved.

When compared to the people around he was a "Giant". He was actually a tall man. Shaq could be considered a giant by today's standards. Now imagine him standing in armor with a big spear. Goliath
Or maybe it's a metaphor for the large powers in the Levant vs. David The Jewry.
Because God is an Englishman, naturally.

That explains why he doesn't intervene directly in the world, he's too polite and reserved.
Quite.

I think it won minus-awards somehow for its dubious science and laughable budget.

So it is like the bible?

So it is like the bible?
Nah, it has less fans despite is special effects.

...With the passage of time, it's become difficult - perhaps impossible - to separate fact from fiction for large sections of Herodotus, but that doesn't mean other large sections can't be used for genuine historical enquiry...

...And that's the mistake some people (not necessarily yourself) make - that just because they believe, often with good reason, that large sections of the Bible are biased and unreliable as history, that all of the Bible is unreliable as history, and should be unconditionally rejected as a historical source...

Both sources are unreliable. Both need corroboration before you start accepting ANY of the data. And vouchsafing ONE article says nothing to anything else detailed - in either source.

It's hard to find corroboration for OT scripture or for Herodotus, yes. But that doesn't mean it's okay to hold those sources to less exacting standards.

You, my good sir, deserve a rather large cookie.

Well that's nice of you.
I have to disagree with you on the "theory" issue, though.
A theory requires a considerable deal of evidence, otherwise it's just a guess.

Not that I don't appreciate the cookie. ;)

Actually, yes it is. This whole "Jesus didn't exist" cult is not made up of historians.

I found one.

All four gospels are anonymous texts. The familiar attributions of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century and later and we have no good historical reason to accept these attributions.

-Steve Mason, professor of classics, history and religious studies at York University in Toronto (Bible Review, Feb. 2000, p. 36)

If it was a only a "fairy tale" we would have had dragons and ogres and who knows what else.

Does this mean that if Dragons are discovered on earth, you will accept that the bible is nothing but a fairy tale?

Personally, while I am a devout Catholic, my favorite bible is the one proposed by AC/DC:

In the beginning, back in 1955, man didn't know about rock 'n' roll, and all that jive. The white man had the smaltz, the black man had the blues. But no one knew what they was gonna do but Tchaikovsky had the news, he said, "Let there be light!"

And there was light.

"Let there be sound!"

and there was sound.

"Let there be drums!"

There were drums.

"Let there be guitar!"

There was guitar.

"OH, LET THERE BE ROCK!"

It absolutely is an evasion... it's just a very old one. But being old doesn't make it true.



No, it isn't.



And here's why - recognising the unknown is NOT the first step in developing a theory. The first step is OBSERVATION.

And that's why 'mysterious ways' is an evasion, not a theory. What it starts with, is an assumption, that there IS a god, and that he/she/they move(s) in some way hidden behind the curtain of the world. The observation (i.e. nothing) is thus a second or third stage, at best, to the already assumed conclusion - the observation is fitted to the theory, rather than vice-versa.



The difference is, the scientific answer is "you know? We really don't know... but it could be..." while the religious answer starts from a claim of authority, and assesses new data in that light.



Which doesn't mean any of it is.



First: not strictly true - the OT scriptures contain numerous references to other gods, even in the English... and this is even more obvious in the Hebrew. Similarly, again - the OT - you can read Genesis 1:1 as saying 'first' rather than 'in the beginning' (the traditional interpretation). 'First' doesn't have to mean an absolute beginning - it can just mean the first detail in a list.

Second: The Genesis texts seem to have been recorded over quite some time, by a number of different sources. Most likely, what hit the page was a thousand years of retellings of the same story. The fact that there is still evidence of polytheism even in this oral-tradition-transcribed is pretty good evidence that the Hebrew mythology started out polytheistic.



The Israelites were polytheistic. God was trying to cure them of that. "Strange gods" and all that.

History and science don't always go together. There isn't proof for everything. Can we find any evidence that Hannibal crossed the Alps with Elephant. Oh sure we have Roman accounts but maybe they had all been drinking too much wine. How do we know Hannibal existed? They can barely prove Hannibal was a real guy.

The Israelites were polytheistic. God was trying to cure them of that. "Strange gods" and all that.

History and science don't always go together. There isn't proof for everything. Can we find any evidence that Hannibal crossed the Alps with Elephant. Oh sure we have Roman accounts but maybe they had all been drinking too much wine. How do we know Hannibal existed? They can barely prove Hannibal was a real guy.

There is tons of historical evidence, beyond that of records.

History and science don't always go together.
As a History student, I can honestly say that they really, really ought to.

There is tons of historical evidence, beyond that of records.
Like what?

(I'm not disagreeing here, just curious)

It absolutely is an evasion... it's just a very old one. But being old doesn't make it true.

For starters, as a person of faith, I will be basing theories off the assumption that there is a God. Second, the question was about how God works. Saying that He works behind the curtains, in the background, is a theory to explain the question. Not necessarily the existence of God, but how He works


And here's why - recognising the unknown is NOT the first step in developing a theory. The first step is OBSERVATION.

Recognizing the unknown and an observation are both technically equal steps in developing a theory. That is, recognizing the unknown is questioning why we aren't seeing something we expect to see.

And that's why 'mysterious ways' is an evasion, not a theory. What it starts with, is an assumption, that there IS a god, and that he/she/they move(s) in some way hidden behind the curtain of the world. The observation (i.e. nothing) is thus a second or third stage, at best, to the already assumed conclusion - the observation is fitted to the theory, rather than vice-versa.

Again, I'm not trying to prove the existence of God. Nobody will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of God until death, when it's a little late anyway. The question was something to the effect of "where is God now?" or "Why has he allowed x to happen?" These questions in and of themselves assume the existence of God. Therefore, to say that He is working in the background to make changes is not a fallacy or a bad theory. Some people expect to see something. Why aren't we seeing something? Insert theory here. Not seeing something is as much of an observation as is seeing something.

When I code problems for my computer science courses, we are sometimes left to our own devices to develop how to get the computer to do something. Often times, I will write a code and expect to see an answer. However, when I run it, what I expect to see does not actually show up. So then I make a theory to answer why it didn't show up. Of course, the metaphor ends here because with code I can go back and find it myself. Here, not so much, I'd have to die first, and I kind of like living.



The difference is, the scientific answer is "you know? We really don't know... but it could be..." while the religious answer starts from a claim of authority, and assesses new data in that light.

Objects will always fall towards a body. This is a claim of authority, based on observation. What religion does is similar, somewhere along the line, somebody observed something to make the believe that a God exists, and that, thus far, science hasn't been able to really explain. Thus we go to "We really don't know...but it could be..."


First: not strictly true - the OT scriptures contain numerous references to other gods, even in the English... and this is even more obvious in the Hebrew. Similarly, again - the OT - you can read Genesis 1:1 as saying 'first' rather than 'in the beginning' (the traditional interpretation). 'First' doesn't have to mean an absolute beginning - it can just mean the first detail in a list.

Second: The Genesis texts seem to have been recorded over quite some time, by a number of different sources. Most likely, what hit the page was a thousand years of retellings of the same story. The fact that there is still evidence of polytheism even in this oral-tradition-transcribed is pretty good evidence that the Hebrew mythology started out polytheistic.

You may be referencing the fact that the Genesis creation stories actually refer to God as God and Lord (rough translations). They're not referencing separate deities, rather the same one in two different instances. It's not necessarily evidence for polytheism.

My purpose in bringing that up was merely to point out an interesting instance.

If it was a only a "fairy tale"...

Only?

"Fairy Tales" are often based entirely on real events. The succession of colonists to the place we now call 'Ireland' are documented in 'fairy tale' form as a series of wars between succeeding 'fairy' folk, and their assimilation into the land is described in picturesque metaphor as literally disappearing into the earth.

Try looking up Fir Bolg and Fomorian, Tuatha de Daanan and Daione Sidhe - what you're looking at, in 'fairy' history, is REAL history, distorted by centuries of oral tradition. (And often, distorted again, more recently, by it's translation into written 'history' by such collectors as the Grimms).

Example: Cinderella. One of our commonly accepted 'fairy tales', although it's not of the same KIND as the Arthurian Sagas that are a better example.

What are the origins of the Cinderella story? The earliest European examples (where the story was collected and written, primarily) are only a few hundred years old - and have some weird story concepts... the glass slippers, for example. Most readers are unaware that the earliest extant accounts of the Cinderella story are actually Chinese, and something like a thousand years OLDER than the earliest European concepts. And in that context (where a 'royal' bride would be identifiable by the size of her feet, because of the binding) the recognition of the protagonist through the trying-on of shoes, is entirely logical. Indeed - it lets is be pretty sure about the ORIGINS of that story.


The problem is - you speak in fairly derogatory terms of 'fairy tales' but - truth be told - if you allow for the metaphorical nature of the source, "fairy tales" are actually at LEAST the equal of scripture, as historical sources.

Oh sure, manna from Heaven, walking on water, a guy stuck in the belly or a whale for 3 days. In the stories themselves. You don't get the sense that they are making them up. You get the sense that they really believe what they were seeing even though they could not explain it.


The problem here - it is extremely likely that NONE of the Biblical books were actually written by anyone who ever saw any of the things written.

This is especially true in the Old Testament - where the texts were 'written' up to a thousand years after they are supposed to have happened.

I do want to make it known, again, that I don't put much faith in the Old Testament, just in case there was any confusion.

Maybe you just had some kind of weird influx of frogs and gnats.


Just have to comment on this one - the 'plagues' of Egypt described in Exodus... why assume they are 'miracles'?

You're talking about a nation primarily built on floodplains - plagues of locusts, frogs, bugs... even plagues of... plague... are expected.

You win a series of tubes.

:fluffle:

The problem here - it is extremely likely that NONE of the Biblical books were actually written by anyone who ever saw any of the things written.

... that's not the only problem here.

Someone else believing something is true is not reason enough for me to believe it.
That said, I think that the Old Testament is a collection of history, fable, and law. The history is often biased, the fables are often grim, and the laws are often immoral by my standards.

Actually, it is accepted by historians that Christ did exist, as there are Roman records that mention Christ. The only debate is over whether or not he was God like he said.

No. There is a strong acceptance of Jesus (he wasn't Christ) as a literal figure, but there is also an ongoing debate (that has been running strongly for a century) as to whether that 'acceptance' has any real merit.

All the independent sources, are written SUBSTANTIALLY after the Jesus-figure is supposed to have lived, by people that weren't 'there'.

It's not just a question of his divinity, at all. There really is question of his even existing.

It's not just a question of his divinity, at all. There really is question of his even existing.
There's also that Scorsese documentary.

Like what?

(I'm not disagreeing here, just curious)


Although written records are the main source of documentation, Hannibal's men left behind a large number of weapons and siege equipment, built a number of bridges to cross gorges and rivers, and a number of the elephants died, and due to the icy conditions, they were probably preserved decently enough for archeologists.

I might be made up but then you would think the Israelites would still be in Egypt. Maybe it didn't happen at all. To my knowledge I have never heard of the Egyptians saying "It absolutely did not happen at all"


Why would the 'Israelites still be in Egypt'? You;'re assuming that based on the fact that the SAME source says they were imprisoned there?

There is actually a very good answer to this question - Exodus is a revisionist history, written to try to make an invader look like a victim. The Hyksos pharaohs conquered half of Egypt, and maintained an empire for several hundred years, before they were vioently overthrown by the 'native' Egyptians.

There is evidence the Hyksos pharaohs were semitic, and didn't make monuments, not even to their god/gods.

'Exodus' could well be a retelling of this history. Except, in the Hebrew version... they're not the bad guys, they're the victims... and they're not the overthrown warlords chased from the picture, but the 'heroes' freed by miraculous intervention.


It might be no rhyme or reason to anything.


Why does there need to be? You mentioned Occam. According to the razor, the story that asks us (basically) to presuppose the LEAST qualifiers, is probably true. Well 'it is as it seems' requires no presuppositions..


What would we corroborate it with? Few can put forward anything in this area? There are an abundance of theories. No solid evidence either way. Proof is a two edged sword.

No, it isn't.

If there's no evidence, there's no reason to believe it really happened. Not only that - but you don't believe it in application to any other text.

Or are you going to tell me you really believe there is a Hogwart's Academy?

... what?

Hey, in Space 1999 they fought a furry monster with rocket launchers that set it on fire before they stuck it in a vacuum chamber thing. That shit got written down, so in 1999 this must have been the case. Right?

Kudos on "Space 1999" ref.

History and science don't always go together. There isn't proof for everything. Can we find any evidence that Hannibal crossed the Alps with Elephant. Oh sure we have Roman accounts but maybe they had all been drinking too much wine. How do we know Hannibal existed? They can barely prove Hannibal was a real guy.

Seems fair.

I basically assume anything without good evidence is faction. Maybe based ona germ of truth, but otherwise... invention.

Until good evidence comes to light.

That is, recognizing the unknown is questioning why we aren't seeing something we expect to see.


'We' don't expect to see anything. YOU expect to see something, because you are arriving halfway through the scientific method - you've got your theory all in place before anything is observed.

And then you're claiming that NOT seeing what YOU expect to see, based on your theory-without-observation - is, in itself - an observation.

Talk about circular.


These questions in and of themselves assume the existence of God.


No, quite the opposite. They are another way of saying 'where's the evidence for God?' which is closer to an assumption of indifference - maybe even skepticism - than one of belief.


What religion does is similar, somewhere along the line, somebody observed something...


Maybe. Or made it up. There's the problem.


...to make the believe that a God exists, and that, thus far, science hasn't been able to really explain. Thus we go to "We really don't know...but it could be..."


But religion doesn't DO that. Especially Biblical Christianity. Science says 'well, maybe...' but Biblical Christianity says 'here's how it went down, motherfucker'.


You may be referencing the fact that the Genesis creation stories actually refer to God as God and Lord (rough translations). They're not referencing separate deities, rather the same one in two different instances. It's not necessarily evidence for polytheism.


But the plurality of 'elohim', the fact that the 'creation' story limits to finite bounds, the fact that the old testament actually several times refers to other gods, even by name, etc - there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the earliest form of Judaism was polytheistic.

Satan is a job description for the angel in the heavenly courts who acts as prosecution - trying HUMANS.

So, in other words...Satan is a prosecutor.

A lawyer.

Of divine porportions.

....

How, again, does this argue against his evil nature?

'We' don't expect to see anything. YOU expect to see something, because you are arriving halfway through the scientific method - you've got your theory all in place before anything is observed.

And then you're claiming that NOT seeing what YOU expect to see, based on your theory-without-observation - is, in itself - an observation.

Talk about circular.



No, quite the opposite. They are another way of saying 'where's the evidence for God?' which is closer to an assumption of indifference - maybe even skepticism - than one of belief.



Maybe. Or made it up. There's the problem.



But religion doesn't DO that. Especially Biblical Christianity. Science says 'well, maybe...' but Biblical Christianity says 'here's how it went down, motherfucker'.



But the plurality of 'elohim', the fact that the 'creation' story limits to finite bounds, the fact that the old testament actually several times refers to other gods, even by name, etc - there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the earliest form of Judaism was polytheistic.

Yeah, I'm just gonna throw in the towel on this one. I really don't have anything left. I left some holes in my argument, and you pwn'd me pretty freaking badly, lol.

At this point, I'm just going to abandon logic, say "I believe what I believe, I'm not going to interfere with you, but I'd like a little respect in return," and show myself out the door. :tongue:

So, in other words...Satan is a prosecutor.

A lawyer.

Of divine porportions.

....

How, again, does this argue against his evil nature?

Clearly he's the prosecutor in Phoenix Wright's super-secret ultra-hidden sixth case. :p

Seriosuly, though, I have yet to see evidence for satan existing. I also have yet to see Truly Blessed respond to my challenge (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14453030&postcount=465) :(

Dude, if dragons showed up on Earth, that'd be frigging awesome.

So, in other words...Satan is a prosecutor.

A lawyer.

Of divine porportions.

....

How, again, does this argue against his evil nature?

Errr... he does pro bono work?

...I'm just going to abandon logic, say "I believe what I believe, I'm not going to interfere with you, but I'd like a little respect in return,"...

To be honest, (speaking for myself) that's all I've ever asked.

If people didn't start wars in the name of their religion, claim it as a mandate for government, use it to set laws that will apply to me - etc.... I'd have no problems with religion. Like, ever.

Born in a "we go to church once a year, not counting weddings" type of family. When young, I had great respect for Christians, especially monks.

That... "not so much" anymore now - it has been replaced by pity.



Not added by me ;)

Basicly because I consider being Christian similar to being a pedophile: yes, you probably cannot help feeling that way, yes you can be a pillar of the community doing all sort of wonderful things, possibly even inspired by that aspect of your personality - but it still is NOT something to be proud of, nor
something you should endeavour to make "the norm" for society.

EDIT for the dimwitted: no, I am not saying Christians are pedophiles. I said that I treat pedophiles and Christians the same way.
Number three! Seriously, what is with you people? Do you really mean to tell me that you did not mean to insult Christians with that comparison? Does that mean you won't complain when some fundamentalist Christian compares gays to pedophiles or pro-choice people to murderers, as long as they try to hide behind "Oh, I'm not comparing the two groups, I'm just saying that I treat them the same"?

1) What is your background with the religion? (born into, gone to church, currently a christian, etc)

Born into.

2) If you are now a Christian, why are you?

Because I have faith, that's all there is to it. There's a great stigma about being an ethnically Jewish Christian, but I feel that Christ is the fulfillment of the prophets of the Old Testament.

<snip>

Oh, and recent research suggests that the giant ants might have been marmosets (though that doesn't explain the camel eating)
Maybe it was a typo or a mistranslation. :D

Oh, and your post was brilliant, by the way. Bravo and thanks.

conceded, I suppose I should have said "non biblical". The bible is a source. Not a very good one, but it's one. Especially since, as an archeologist, I"m sure you appreciate the value of multiple sources.

There's an oft trotted out argument that "there's as much evidence of Caesar as there is for Christ". Of course, the problem with this is, while it's true we may not have ORIGINAL works from Caesar just as we don't have originals for Christ, there's a width and breath of stuffs out there that discusses, notes, and comments upon Caesar. From numerous societies that he encountered (or, I suppose, that encountered him).

One would think, giving the rather earth shattering details described int he Exodus, the egyptians would have recorded some of that, somewhere. We have contemporanious records from that period, one would think that mass death , rivers parting, and the like would be made note of, since we have other, less remarkable, records.
In my view, that is an argument based on assumption, nearly as much as any religious argument is. You assume that a level of documented reference would have survived, yet how can you possibly know how much information we have lost over the centuries? You are saying that, because we don't know something now, that means it was never true; because we don't have information now, that means that information never existed. Unless you have a time machine, you cannot possibly know that. This foundation in assumption undermines your argument against the religious view for being unsupported by evidence. Just like them, you are insisting on the factuality of something you cannot possibly know.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th Century Russian-American philosopher, Ayn Rand.


Wow, that was actually kind of relevent.


Good one. :D

You made an equally good argument for Zeus, I hope you realize.



Wait, wait, lemme get this straight. Your argument is that a story about plagues of locusts, rivers of blood, hail of fire, unhealable wounds, three days of darkness at the equator, an angel of death, waters mystically parting, a magic burning, talking bush, food decending from heaven, and stone tablets delivered, literally, by hand of god must be true because...it's not fantastical enough to be made up?

Seriously? This is your argument?

Are you fucking shitting me?



so you're telling me a society that is literally chock full of stories involving direct intervention by gods, chalking everything from floods to draughts as divine intervention, as well as one that fairly accurately and honestly chronicled its victories AND its losses, found this too weird?

For fuck's sake...
Yeah, okay, I have to give you this one. TB's post was pretty fucking wtf. This is what makes it so hard to argue for religious tolerance. You spend a whole thread yellow carding people for being rude, and then one of the people you're trying to nominally defend says some crazy-ass BS like that. :facepalm:

Or are you going to tell me you really believe there is a Hogwart's Academy?

We-...eh....erm?.....uh....


Maybe.

Errr... he does pro bono work?

A prosecutor? If he was a defence attorney, maybe.

Why would the 'Israelites still be in Egypt'? You;'re assuming that based on the fact that the SAME source says they were imprisoned there?

There is actually a very good answer to this question - Exodus is a revisionist history, written to try to make an invader look like a victim. The Hyksos pharaohs conquered half of Egypt, and maintained an empire for several hundred years, before they were vioently overthrown by the 'native' Egyptians.

There is evidence the Hyksos pharaohs were semitic, and didn't make monuments, not even to their god/gods.

'Exodus' could well be a retelling of this history. Except, in the Hebrew version... they're not the bad guys, they're the victims... and they're not the overthrown warlords chased from the picture, but the 'heroes' freed by miraculous intervention.

Wait, what? Are you trying to say that Exodus is a bias book? The shock is setting in.

Or are you going to tell me you really believe there is a Hogwart's Academy?

And there was no Trojan War.

yeah, i'm just gonna throw my 2 cents in

1. I was raised in the church of jesus christ of latter day saints and i went to a catholic school. a quarter of my family is LDS, another quarter catholic, and the rest i'll just put various, which ranges from pentecostal to atheist. i fall square in the first quarter

2. i think its something that you need to find out for yourself. i do think that any religion, followed properly and tolerantly (yes, it is possible) makes people better. I stick with my religion because i believe it's true and it's got nothing to do with being brainwashed or anything. i just decided that i would have to find out for myself one day, so i prayed, and i waited and eventually i got an answer. and before i get called a loony, i didn't start hearing voices telling me to kill john lennon or anything, i just felt within me that it was right. so thats my story

And there was no Trojan War.

Seriously?
I'm sad now... :(