Ahhh, so you Christians want to eat your cake and have it too?

Tell you what, if the motivation is 'really' to give equal consideration to 'all' theories and 'worldviews' being taught, then include all the other religious 'teachings' in your churches, as well as the sciences (both good and bad sciences).

Ya, 'Teach The Controversy' is really a misnomer for trying to get Intelligent Design (aka 'God') taught in public schools, to breed the next generations of bronze age automatons in a world where science and technologies gives a clear advantage to individuals and countries.

No. It's a method.

There's no obligation to study anything.

That's hyperbole.

How could anyone possibly claim that they have ruled out any other possibility with our limited knowledge of reality?

Really?

Really??

How many Nobel prizes were awarded for proven and verified miracles, and can you link to the white papers and data?

 

 

 

double post

1: Aha, but there wasn't ONE christian burning cities and libraries, and forcing their beliefs on people in undeveloped nations; the MAJORITY of christians were involved. ARMIES of christians, with the support of the church. That makes it a christian fault.

1.5: Then why has the church split a hundred times over? Why have christians disagreed with other christians so much as to kill each other over it? Clearly the bible is insufficient to even hold the religion itself in one piece, let alone bind humanity entire.

2: I'm the opposite. If an all powerful all knowing christian god really existed, then all meaning and joy in my life would end. Your god knows everything, so I have no choice in life. All is predetermined. I am reduced to less than a lab rat. I become irrelevant, as does all human progress. As does humanity itself. Nothing matters except choosing between heaven and hell, so to speak.

I discover by searching that the above is a response to BobSpence. JonB, please use the "quote" button so we know to whom you are replying in each instance.

The above answer ignores the fact that the same ideas of washing were prevalent in other cultures at the time. That is, there was nothing new or unique about the bible. It simply reflected existing terms of knowledge, as you would expect.

If god were truly omniscient, don't you think god might have had more to say about curing leprosy than sprinkling pigeon blood about the place? Might not god understand that people get leprosy, houses do not? You will find those absurdities, with many others, in Leviticus. I mentioned a couple of other bible absurdities like the number of legs on an insect, and whether a rabbit chews the cud. God does not know much, does he?

I also asked (amongst other questions) in response to your claim about scientific inspiration in the bible:

That is, I am looking for something clearly in advance of natural knowledge of the era, something scientific only god would know, and which then specifically inspired one or more scientists to a related discovery. Got anything?

Normal 0

"As for purpose in life.  Does god/s/dess text you every day - or even monthly - with updates?  'Dude, there is a soul needing your testimony four blocks north of your current street preacher stake out.'   Didn't think so. You are also wandering around in the dark.  There is no light.  No one out there leading you.  You are leading yourself."

The truth is, he does. I have talked to many people (including my dad) who have had God tell them something they had no way of knowing, or to go somewhere for seemingly no reason at the time, but ending up in touching someone’s life. One person, a pastor, was involved in a youth event where groups of youth would hop into a car and have someone start driving them around while they prayed. Suddenly, one would get a street name from God, and tell the driver. Soon, another would get a house number from God, and tell the driver again. Someone else would get knowledge about problem, or issue, like cancer, from God. They would then knock on the door and ask if they had heard right, and if so, if they could pray for the person. They usually had heard right, and the person was really touched. Another time, my dad was in church when he received information about the lady in front of him, and he felt called to tell her. When he relayed this information to her, she was completely shocked because no one had known about it. Yet another time, he received information about his mother (my grandmother). It was some interesting stuff, and he prayed along time about it before he got up the courage to call her to talk to her about it. Sure enough, the knowledge was accurate, and absolutely no one had known about it. They cried, and worked through it. These are merely a few examples, and I don't think I could disprove these instances if I wanted to.

"Now, is this all that terrible?  Why would you think so?  I am perfectly capable of leading myself.  I am very capable of enjoying this life.  I have friends and family I love.  I enjoy rainbows, rain on the roof, waterfalls, sunsets and so on.  (Hm, the water theme is because I grew up in the desert.  Water is precious.)  There is joy in every day I manage to wake up."

I think it is perfectly possible to enjoy life without God; it is just that the joy one has with God is far more complete and lasting. Anyone, regardless of his beliefs, can enjoy life when all is going well, but only God in someone's life can give joy in the hard and tragic times as well.

“Attempting to "save" me from hell accomplishes nothing in making this a better world to live in.  And I'm not interested in being "saved" - just ask that JW sister of mine.”

My main motive in witnessing to you is that you might begin to think about accepting Christ as your personal savior, and that God would change your heart. However, it is also true that saving you would indeed make this a better world to live in. A true Christian is an upright, joyful, law-abiding, caring, and compassionate citizen. As Christians are supposed to be Jesus’ examples in this world, every person who truly comes to Christ benefits the world in his doing so.

“Every one leaves a legacy when they die - even the poorest and least apparently significant people.  With their family, their neighborhood, their friends and sometimes further afield such as this forum. …So you are wasting time you could be using to restore natural habitat in your neighborhood.  Or raising your children.  Or cleaning your room - which is a valid and good purpose for making the world a better place to live.  This is my purpose - that where I live will be at least not dirtier, maybe cleaner, maybe happier, at least not sadder.  That my family will remember me with fondness, and will go on to do good and be bright.  What more could anyone ask for?”

I know I personally want my life to be so much more than a good influence or memory. I certainly want to have an impact in my world and in the lives of the people around me, but I want so much more than that. I want to be able to walk with God, so to speak. I want to be able to have a relationship with him. Even more amazing is the eternal life with him after this world, given to whoever accepts Christ as his redeemer. God cannot stand for anything less than perfection, and as he knew that we could not even come close, he sent his son, Jesus (really God himself), to die as a way to pay for our imperfection. Jesus’ perfect life followed by his ultimate sacrifice paved over our inability to be perfect. His death allows all who believe in him to have their “ticket into heaven” paid for them, as we could not possibly pay for it ourselves. If we admit we are sinners (we all sin), believe that Jesus was God’s son (God), and confess that we are sorry for our sins, Jesus enters into our lives, and gives us the ability to not sin. Not that Christians immediately become perfect, or won’t ever mess up in the future, but that they are no longer bound and unable to break away from sin. This way, we are able to change, and, when we die, God overlooks the imperfection of all who believe in Jesus. I believe it is our responsibility to make our world a better place, but the majority of our time and efforts should be used to accept his gift, draw close to God, and share this amazing prospect with others.

 

 

Did you read my tag line.  The first one is my very own -

I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

This is not a lie.  It is not an exaggeration.  I have attended church, I have tried - very hard and very sincerely - to believe and be a good christian.  And it just isn't there for me.  Witnessing to me is a waste of your time.  A true christian may be all the things you have mentioned.  But I have never met a true christian, so I wouldn't know.  The world will be a better place when we get off our duffs and work to make it a better place.  No god required.

 

Self contradictory. If the christian god is real, then you cannot have influence, good or bad. You have no choices and no impact. You are nothing and you mean nothing. Instead, god takes all the credit and all the blame. It takes and is everything you are, have been, and will be for itself, because it made humanity knowing what everyone and everything would ever do. All existence becomes the predetermined delusions of an insane superbeing.

I'd much rather my life mean something.

Christians are simply masochists with self loathing defending their 'master's' arbitrary malevolence.

Both the masochistic and self loathing tendencies, as well as the attempts to justify their 'master's' malevolance are patently and severely dysfunctional. Add to that the delusional and irrational fears of an invisible 'being' that others cannot see, is also dysfunctional.

 

 

 

The whole original sin bs is an obvious tie to an ancient and disproved/abandoned, but once and currently a cornerstone of justice systems of primitive cultures, concept that a son is responsible for the crimes of the father. The religion simply outlasted the culture.

I'm not wrong. The majority of primitive cultures that prevailed and we can say one way or the other used the system I gave, and it has been abandoned by the majority of advanced cultures today. That there are exceptions to a standard does not disprove the standard is a standard.

You also contradict yourself, by first claiming it wasn't prevalent in ancient history only to later claim judaic credit for abolishing it in one of the most populated regions of the time, before the "son/father" relationship in christianity (and christianity itself) even existed.

In short, you didn't discredit anything I said, you merely provided me with evidence that I was right in the first place while attempting to suggest that I wasn't.

 Jon, do you consider it discourteous for someone to ask you questions? You made clear claims about the bible advancing knowledge and science, were asked about it and have delivered nothing since but preaching and your oddity just above. Might it not be courteous of you to support your claims, or to withdraw them?

Apart from crying hurt fawn, with general claims of insult which you make no attempt to substantiate, your latest post is in fact an excellent description of the pointlessness of the god notion. You tell us yourself that your god led armies to massacre when that was a common activity among humans and has done rather less of it as humans themselves localised the habit rather than keeping it general. Sounds very human, your god, who even stops his attack when faced with iron chariots. Such a human level of power, so human a path of moral development.

Why did your god not simply leave his son dead, if it was to be a sacrifice (barbaric as that practice may be)? Your god seems to like get-out-of-jail-free cards. How terrible was this death, that was meted out also to thousands of others, a habit of the day? You have a pretty standard religious tale to tell, with a pretty standard lack of evidence or even a rationale.

I'm sorry if I didn't answer some of the comments that have been given: frankly, there have been too many to answer each individually. Please point me to the ones you want me to answer, and I will gladly do so.

And, no, I don't consider it discourteous for someone to ask me questions. I was not trying to whine, just steer the debate towards a more positive approach (I didn't really appreciate being called a bastard [not by you, Pacioli, I know]). And, like I said, my previous statement was very general; many on the site have been very mature in their approach to the debate.

"You tell us yourself that your god led armies to massacre when that was a common activity among humans and has done rather less of it as humans themselves localised the habit rather than keeping it general."

Like I said, I am not completely certain of the reason why; it does seem odd for a God of righteousness to do so. However, another possibility is that, at that time, there was no way for the gentiles to be reconciled to him. I know you are going to ask, "But why did God slaughter them?" Once again, I have no definite answer.

"How terrible was this death, that was meted out also to thousands of others, a habit of the day?"

The main difference here was that God, totally innocent, died in our place. True, there were many others who, on today's standards, did not deserve death. Yet humans are all sinful, and "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). God did not deserve it, yet He died in our place anyway.

"Your god seems to like get-out-of-jail-free cards."

Not really. As you mentioned in your comment, His son had to die for it. It wasn't very free.

One analogy I heard (though with analogies, nothing can completely describe it) is that of a young lady who was caught speeding. She showed up in court, and the judge fined her two hundred dollars. Then, the judge got off of his bench, took off his judicial robes, and paid the money. The judge was the lady's father; he couldn't look the other way, or he wouldn't have been just. However, he loved her enough to pay the price for her. One can look at that as foolishness, or marvel at it and be thankful.

"Why did your god not simply leave his son dead, if it was to be a sacrifice (barbaric as that practice may be)?"

Many claiming to be divine have died, but they haven't risen from the dead. Jesus stands alone on this point. His death took our sin and displayed His holiness and justice; His resurrection displayed his power and glory.

As to the barbaric-ness of it all, someone always has to pay for forgiveness. If someone graffiti's your home, you can forgive him, but you still have to clean it off. As mentioned above, "the wages of sin is death". Instead of making us pay for it, God did it Himself.

Let me see now, there would be #32, no answer there, or three questions at the end of #43, substantially reiterated in #57 because there had been no answers, and still no answers. All in all, the bible has already been shown here to hold less scientific knowledge than was generally around at the time and to offer nothing new. This is the word of god, to look exactly like the word of less educated men? 

 

A rational answer is that they were the actions of people who happened to believe in this god rather than that god or some other god. There are and were always thousands from which to choose, all of them equally ineffective or human-like in their behaviour. Alternatively, you can keep the god-belief and realise you are without an explanation or rationale. Have you considered ditching the god, the one which can not face iron chariots but sends bears to maul children for impertinence and approves the murder of unarmed royal prisoners?

No, it was no sacrifice. He popped off for three days then toddled off to heaven, according to the mutually inconsistent myths in the gospels. Some sacrifice.

What is it with blood sacrifice to atone for sins anyway? Is that the extent of your god's morality, to behave as ancient tribes and primitive civilisations did, boasting how he loves to smell burning flesh, while non-Jews were already working out that gods were really pretty useless and unlikely to exist?

Then the same judge heard of another person speeding but they did not come to court so the judge ordered that they be captured and have their finger and toe nails ripped out one by one to be followed by other tortures forever. How is your god's justice going? Don't you think the judge rather stupid to allow his daughter not to face the monetary consequences of her actions anyway, to the extent of civil law rather than ancient goat-herder's law?

The morally nescient may think that but the fact is nobody did pay, not even in your god's barbaricly primitive terms. You can not say on the one hand it was wonderful that it was a sacrifice and on the other that it was wonderful that it was a piece of cake for an omnipotent god.

If someone puts graffiti on my home, I do not consider it rational to condemn them to eternal torture.  Apparently, your god does. Why would you agree with such a being, an ignorant sociopath, or is that why you believe so fervently, fear of a capricious, immoral killer?

 

You are contradicting yourself:

 

*********************************

 

Any and all.

Like you said you'd be more than happy to do.

Ask God for the strength...

 

He's asking about the various wars the Israelites were involved in.  The bible gives fairly clear explanations, including explanations of who the Israelites =weren't= to make war on.  This has nothing to do with forgiveness.

"Humans are all sinful" is a Christian invention and the bible does record that there were others who were "blameless before G-d".

Nor can =anyone= (as the Atheists here will also explain) pay for our sins.  A sin is nothing more than a mistake, or an action which harms another.  If you harm someone, you make restitution.  If you sin against G-d, well, there's a way to solve that one as well.  But the key is that you have to learn from your mistakes.  Christianity takes that away.

It's a nice story, but unless she learned some kind of lesson, I suspect she'll be back to speeding.  What the nice story doesn't tell is whether or not her father made her repay the money.  When my son wrecked one of my vehicles, he had to work off the deductible.  Which child do you think learned the better lesson?

Ignoring, for a moment, that human sacrifice isn't permitted in the Hebrew Bible, and that the sacrifice of an animal with even a single physical blemish is absolutely forbidden, and that polytheism is absolutely forbidden, if (l'havdil) Jesus was G-d, his death is completely meaningless -- G-d doesn't experience pain or any other human feeling or emotion.  G-d isn't a person.

Nor would any of this have been any kind of news.  The entire "My G-d, My G-d, why have you forsaken me?" comment is theater of the worst sort.  A deity which, as John says, was there at the moment of Creation, already knows how this is all going to play out.  The Romans are going to put on a show trial, beat the snot out of him, drive nails through him, then leave him to die.  He already knows this.  And, supposedly, he even knows he's going to be dead for about 30 hours, then pop out of the tomb Saturday night and say "Hi" to a few close friends.

Most of Passion Week isn't supported in any sort of history.  No record of a trial, or execution, or renting of the Temple veil, or mass resurrection of people in Jerusalem.  The recorded events are completely inconsistent with the claimed prophecy =and= the claimed prophecy has no basis in any actual prophecy.  The entire theology is a complete fabrication.

Finally, the only sacrifice on which this could be based is the Scape Goat from Yom Kippur, but the trial and execution of Jesus doesn't fit that one either.  In the Yom Kippur ritual, there were two goats.  One was taken outside the city and set free.  Jesus wasn't set free.  The other was slaughtered and turned into smoke.  Jesus wasn't turned into smoke.

Personal transformation---No. they're no different then anyone else

Preservation of the western world- Some what but on the grand scale---No.

Art- OK, but that don't make anyone a Christian.

Some -yes

some -yes

More some

Understanding of human nature---0

Enough already.

The guy isn't a Christian.

I bet that it would hurt like a sonofabitch.

Ya, the 'Material Virgin and the Immaterial Magic Sperm' story.

I'm with ya...lol

For the sake of argument, I'll have to grant this, since my WTF meter is all blowed up...

Of course not, he's a spirit occupying a physical meatsuit. He doesn't have to actually plug in to the brain where the pain resides.

I'm not going to take anything on 'faith'.

It seems to me that at least one of the bodies from the many men who got tortured and executed around that period could have gotten lost after their death.

Tie together another bunch of myths and legends about men 70 yrs after this missing body story and you could convince enough superstitious folk that the missing corpse, the Magic God Sperm man, the turning water into wine, walking on water, prophet man were all one and the same, and you could start a cult, assemble a 'New Law' and supersede the Old Testament, and create a rival following because the Magic Sperm Prophet's price of admission into an eternal land of Milk and Honey was so 'Low Maintenance'.

Nah....that kind of hoax could never get pulled off back then.

The record keeping was too good then and the average famished desert mouthed dust sucker was too smart for dat!!

Because of entropy, we've been getting dumber and dumber, yanno?