[Split] Bible discussion split from Iranian woman to be stoned for adultery [Archive] - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Reggie Dunlop

07-07-2010, 12:07 AM

I quite reading after 6 pages so please forgive me if I'm repeating something.

Adultery defined by Judeo-Christian tradition is the breaking of the marriage covenant. That covenant is the vows the couple made to each other before God. A person sleeping with someone under such a covenant is committing adultery even though they didn't make the covenant. They are participating in the breaking of the covenant. Islam might see things different though.

Also one big reason why female adultery has been traditionally dealt with so harshly around the world is the birthright. Until recent times you had to be able to trust the virtue of your wife to know the children she produced was actually yours. In our 21st century culture birthright and inheritance isn't as important because for most of us we are more concerned with creating our own wealth. We also, live fairly long lives and aren't too worried about what we leave behind.

Traditionally a birthright determined your station in life and what standard of living you and your future children would enjoy. It was very difficult to move up from whatever station your birth placed you in. Wealth was passed down through inheritance rather than earned. Short life spans made producing a male heir and seeing that the family inheritance was passed down uncorrupted as one of the most important duties a man had to his family. An unfaithful wife put everything in doubt. Her betrayal wasn't just against you but, against your whole clan.

The Christian Bible says stoning disobedient children is okay.

oilyfan

07-07-2010, 08:17 AM

The Christian Bible says stoning disobedient children is okay.

I am no defender of the the bible. But despite what it says nobody stones their children for disobedience based on it.

So why is it ok for muslims to use the teachings of the Koran to justify barbaric acts envisaged in the medieval days? :confused:

Cheese

07-07-2010, 08:54 AM

I am no defender of the the bible. But despite what it says nobody stones their children for disobedience based on it.

So why is it ok for muslims to use the teachings of the Koran to justify barbaric acts envisaged in the medieval days? :confused:

Better yet...why believe any book that suggests anything of a barbaric nature?

Pinner

07-07-2010, 09:25 AM

So why is it ok for muslims to use the teachings of the Koran to justify barbaric acts envisaged in the medieval days? :confused:

They might think we are barbaric for what we have done to the people of Iraq.

Just wait, there will be a reason someday to wage war with Iran, like the Strait Of Hormuz...

peter12

07-07-2010, 09:27 AM

They might think we are barbaric for what we have done to the people of Iraq.

Just wait, there will be a reason someday to wage war with Iran, like the Strait Of Hormuz...

Relativism helps most people sleep at night, but the world is worse off for it.

Finny61

07-07-2010, 12:59 PM

The Christian Bible says stoning disobedient children is okay.

Is that according to the New Testament?

puckluck

07-07-2010, 01:01 PM

Is that according to the New Testament?

What do you mean by new testament? Did god write a updated version of the bible?

You'd think by now there would be a app for that.

Finny61

07-07-2010, 01:10 PM

What do you mean by new testament? Did god write a updated version of the bible?

You'd think by now there would be a app for that.

Perhaps you should consider researching it before posting comments. Were you not banned awhile ago? Is there an app to keep you banned?

oilyfan

07-07-2010, 01:14 PM

Better yet...why believe any book that suggests anything of a barbaric nature?

Agreed wholeheartedly

puckluck

07-07-2010, 02:09 PM

Perhaps you should consider researching it before posting comments. Were you not banned awhile ago? Is there an app to keep you banned?

Actually I know exactly what I'm talking about. It just makes no sense to me how the new testament can over ride the old testament. The old testament is harsh so did god just all of a sudden soften up with the new testament? or is it just written by man to soften up the old testament?

And yes I was sinbinned a while ago, but I don't see what that has to do with anything. And there is a app for that: It's called the ignore button.

Knalus

07-07-2010, 04:07 PM

Traditional_Ale

07-07-2010, 04:29 PM

The Old Testament is a Stick. The New Testament is a Carrot. They are both attempts to show the right path to a person. In the New Testament it was frequently mentioned that it wasn't the Old Testament that was wrong, but that people weren't reading it right (A point of view that Islam also appears to share, but has made a different conclusion). Having both the Old and the New Testaments actually help to illuminate the direction a person's life should go.

^ Shouldn't the person decide what direction their life should go?

normtwofinger

07-07-2010, 04:50 PM

^Why not have a little guidance along the way. There's a manual for everything, why not a manual for life?

Reggie Dunlop

07-07-2010, 04:55 PM

The Old Testament is a Stick. The New Testament is a Carrot. They are both attempts to show the right path to a person. In the New Testament it was frequently mentioned that it wasn't the Old Testament that was wrong, but that people weren't reading it right (A point of view that Islam also appears to share, but has made a different conclusion). Having both the Old and the New Testaments actually help to illuminate the direction a person's life should go.

The Christian religion is every bit as barbaric and repressive as the Islamic religion. Maybe even more so.

Traditional_Ale

07-07-2010, 04:59 PM

^Why not have a little guidance along the way. There's a manual for everything, why not a manual for life?

Because someone had to write that manual, and I am an autonomous being. Just not for me. No biggie to me if others are into it.

normtwofinger

07-08-2010, 06:37 AM

So then by being an autonomous being, you are not controlled by others or outside forces.

So it must be pretty cool being above the laws of Canada (others), and not be affected by gravity (outside force). What's it like to fly?

GreenTeaFrapp

07-08-2010, 07:33 AM

Because someone had to write that manual, and I am an autonomous being.

Is that anything like being a freeman on the land?

Resolute 14

07-08-2010, 08:01 AM

^Why not have a little guidance along the way. There's a manual for everything, why not a manual for life?

In this context, the Bible is no better a manual than any self-help book you can find at Chapters: Man's opinion expressed to other men. All things considered, I'd say How to Win Friends and Influence People is more relevant to today's society than the Bible.

Traditional_Ale

07-08-2010, 11:03 AM

Is that anything like being a freeman on the land?

No.

normtwofinger

07-08-2010, 01:48 PM

In this context, the Bible is no better a manual than any self-help book you can find at Chapters: Man's opinion expressed to other men. All things considered, I'd say How to Win Friends and Influence People is more relevant to today's society than the Bible.

Well if you actually have read the bible, you'll know that it's not man who wrote it.

"Man's opinion expressed to other men." This sounds like CP.

I know this is a discussion that could go on forever. You have your opinion and I have mine. We both feel strongly about them, and neither opinions are going to change. From experience, I can say that I feel the bible is a good thing to have in your life. I know the meaning of life, why we are here, what happens to us when we die, what is going to happpen to this world in the future. I have completeness in my life. Can you say the same?

oilyfan

07-08-2010, 02:14 PM

troutman

07-08-2010, 02:17 PM

I know the meaning of life, why we are here, what happens to us when we die, what is going to happpen to this world in the future.

These things are unknowable.

DuffMan

07-08-2010, 02:22 PM

. From experience, I can say that I feel the bible is a good thing to have in your life. I know the meaning of life, why we are here, what happens to us when we die, what is going to happpen to this world in the future. I have completeness in my life. Can you say the same?

Please tell me, what is the meaning of life. i've always wondered.

Rockin' Flames

07-08-2010, 02:48 PM

If you want to live in a make believe construct where everything you do is counted either in the positive or negative column so that it can be added up in the end, by an loving and forgiving god, to send you to eternal damnation or eternal bliss, go ahead.

This shows that you actually don't quite understand what Christianity is about. It's about grace not keeping track of the positive or negative things that a person does in their life.

Daradon

07-08-2010, 02:50 PM

Well if you actually have read the bible, you'll know that it's not man who wrote it.

"Man's opinion expressed to other men." This sounds like CP.

I know this is a discussion that could go on forever. You have your opinion and I have mine. We both feel strongly about them, and neither opinions are going to change. From experience, I can say that I feel the bible is a good thing to have in your life. I know the meaning of life, why we are here, what happens to us when we die, what is going to happpen to this world in the future. I have completeness in my life. Can you say the same?

The only problem with your opinion on the quote is there is not a shred of proof to back it up. Where there is strong historical, logical, scientific, and circumstantial (in context I guess, looking at the claims and the situation) proof of the other opinion.

As for knowing the meaning of life, well that's different for everyone anyway isn't it? Everyone needs to figure out their own meaning. Even if one did believe in God one could argue that there are different plans for all of us, and different meanings.

Plus too, many a wise man and fool has proclaimed to know the meaning, and there is no way to verify it.

That goes too for what happens when we die.

I completely believe you THINK you know these things, but I doubt anyone else here would agree. Even most of the religious followers here are humble enough not to proclaim they know these things to a certainty.

It is however a little boring and depressing to hear people go on about all this knowledge they have when it's 1. impossible to prove to a certainty, and 2. what proof there is is definitely not in your favour.

Maybe not boring and depressing. Maybe just funny.

Azure

07-08-2010, 02:52 PM

I think a better way to explain it would be to say he has 'faith' that the path he has chosen is the correct one.

Traditional_Ale

07-08-2010, 02:59 PM

From experience, I can say that I feel the bible is a good thing to have in your life. I know the meaning of life, why we are here, what happens to us when we die, what is going to happpen to this world in the future. I have completeness in my life. Can you say the same?

From experience, I can say that I feel "Traddy's Book of Telling Others How To Live Their Lives" is a good thing to have in your life. I know the meaning of life, why we are here, what happens to us when we die, what is going to happpen to this world in the future. I have completeness in my life. Can you say the same?

Daradon

07-08-2010, 02:59 PM

I think a better way to explain it would be to say he has 'faith' that the path he has chosen is the correct one.

Which is fine, if it was said that way. Nothing wrong with that at all.

But it wasn't said like that. Having faith that your personal views are correct, and proclaiming to have all the answers are very different things. And the second has proven to be very dangerous thinking, both for the individual and for society. Especially when it's used to act against others. Not saying anyone here would do that, but many people and organizations do.

If you just start with the simple difference above, that becomes a lot less likely.

Azure

07-08-2010, 03:07 PM

I think even the most devout Christian SHOULD have moments where they have to sit down and seriously question their faith, and their belief in God.

But thats just me.

I fail to understand how people can have such a strong belief in their faith without it having been challenged.

Daradon

07-08-2010, 03:14 PM

^^^ Everyone should really. I'd like it if atheists gave other belief systems more look too. (some do, not saying all don't, but many don't)

And even getting away from the obvious benefits to the world if everyone behaved like this, isn't that what life is supposed to be all about anyway? Figuring things out and making your own opinion? Listening and learning from other viewpoints? Exploring your own life and the spirituality that connects you to the higher questions? And finally coming up with your own (enlightened because you've searched) view.

It's such a waste when one just listens to their family, or their community, or what they've been told (often indoctrined). Or blindly follow one set of rules or one book.

photon

07-08-2010, 03:30 PM

Well if you actually have read the bible, you'll know that it's not man who wrote it.

Which Bible?

Azure

07-08-2010, 03:33 PM

Thanks for splitting this off. :)

DuffMan

07-08-2010, 03:36 PM

Speaking of religion,,, I got home from work the other day after midnight sometime and was flicking the channel up to thescore, and on a channel or 2 below it was a religous guy, who said God wanted me to be debt free. I watched it for a bit as I love these guys and the gist was, if you got his Miracle Spring Water and Debt cancellation Kit, God would make me debt free, supernaturally. The testimonials had me believing, if a person owed 48,000 on credit card debt, they unexpectedly got a cheque in the mail from an unknown source for 48,000, say hallelujah. How Peter actually put it, was you would be debt free supernaturally, he actually said that.
So anyhow, if anyone wants to be debt free, because God wants you to be debt free, go to his website and get the Miracle Spring Water, hallelujah.
http://www.peterpopoffministries.com/index.php

Azure

07-08-2010, 03:39 PM

Getting it right now. Sweet.

chemgear

07-08-2010, 03:41 PM

please tell me, what is the meaning of life. I've always wondered.

42.

photon

07-08-2010, 03:47 PM

Peter Popoff is the guy that got caught red handed using a radio transmitter to defraud people attending his meetings. He would have "supernatural" words about people there, when in fact it was just his wife reading info from prayer request cards and transmitting that to a small radio on Popoff. He went bankrupt after that, but is back now.

J pold

07-08-2010, 03:49 PM

Peter Popoff is evil.

Thor

07-08-2010, 04:10 PM

Well if you actually have read the bible, you'll know that it's not man who wrote it.

You are right its "men" since Biblical scholars are in agreement on at least 3-4 writers, since they each used unique writing styles. Its also why there are so many contradictions in the gospels (especially if you have had a chance to read the gospels that didn't make the cut.)

I know this is a discussion that could go on forever. You have your opinion and I have mine. We both feel strongly about them, and neither opinions are going to change. From experience, I can say that I feel the bible is a good thing to have in your life. I know the meaning of life, why we are here, what happens to us when we die, what is going to happen to this world in the future.But thats if your one book is the correct one, assuming the other 100's of Gods that have existed or still exist today in people's beliefs, how do you know yours is the true one God? Its amazing that you can feel so certain and based your whole life on that, to me its hard to understand and someone who grew out of belief at a young age. But anyhow besides the point.

I have completeness in my life. Can you say the same?And people call Atheists arrogant :D Why is it you think in order to have completeness some belief has to tell you comforting stories about and afterlife and give you rules on how to live, since apparently you'd murder/rape and do such vile things if a book didn't say so.

So am I complete, such a strange question. For me I'm in awe of discovery and of learning. I'm an absolute nerd when it comes to science news, especially when it comes to anything space related. Every week theres something exciting and wonderous, the unknown to me is something I cherish.

Wondering what will be, having this amazing curiosity we humans have, to me its so wasted thinking the final truth has already been given by people 2000 years ago. To think oh this universe is mysterious is infinitely more exciting than "oh god did it."

So yes as for being complete, I love this one life I have, I cherish the family/friendships and care about keeping our future safe from destroying our environment to fighting against backwards ideology like anti-gay positions and the radical elements of all religions which seek to destroy secular human values which are vastly superior to any Bible or Koran and their hideously bad morals on how to treat slaves, how to punish children, murdering whole cities because of sin, etc..

There are millions of books written since then, so many of them are much better at guiding morality, I'm sure peter12 could offer up a bunch, and you can bet that morality based on secular values, liberty and freedoms will always lend you the way to morals that modern societies thrive on.

Cain

07-08-2010, 04:11 PM

Well if you actually have read the bible, you'll know that it's not man who wrote it.

"Man's opinion expressed to other men." This sounds like CP.

I know this is a discussion that could go on forever. You have your opinion and I have mine. We both feel strongly about them, and neither opinions are going to change. From experience, I can say that I feel the bible is a good thing to have in your life. I know the meaning of life, why we are here, what happens to us when we die, what is going to happpen to this world in the future. I have completeness in my life. Can you say the same?

Perhaps it is not the intent, but I love how condescending this comes off as.

It is like me saying: "I am basically the most awesome individual ever and I constantly have threesomes with supermodels, can you say the same?"

Point being, those of us who do not base our beliefs on the bible or similar teachings cannot conclusively answer any of those questions that you claim to be able to. However, this does not rule out "completeness" in our lives either which you seemingly receive from your supposed knowledge.

Additionally, you do know "know" any of those things you claim to either. You think you do, but really, you are just speculating like the rest of us...and feeling pretty high and mighty while doing it.

I don't mean to come off as venomous or looking for a fight. I am actually quite tolerant on all levels, something in this post just irritated me.

And if god wrote the bible, he isn't as good a writer I would have pegged him to be.

Delthefunky

07-08-2010, 04:20 PM

[QUOTE=normtwofinger;2586764]^Why not have a little guidance along the way. There's a manual for everything, why not a manual for life?[/QUOTE

there's some great teachings in the bible, but I don't think we'd be hopeless savages without it.

An eye for an eye leaves us both blind, but the bible doesn't preach that...

Resolute 14

07-08-2010, 05:08 PM

Well if you actually have read the bible, you'll know that it's not man who wrote it.

Anyone can claim their words are the words of God. Doesn't change the fact that the words are their own regardless of whether those words were written today or 2000 years ago.

IMO, God does not require someone to write a book to express his will. That is already inherent in every person, and every religion reflects the same central concepts: murder is bad, live with honour and strive to be a good person, work hard, seek happiness, etc.

Mankind does not need a book to tell it these things. Religion, and the tools it uses, are made by man and very often exist to control other men. Indeed, Mankind's two greatest religions have been used to justify wars and atrocities on a scale without comparison. Inevitably you will see rich and powerful men seeking to become richer and more powerful are the ones behind it all.

To Be Quite Honest

07-08-2010, 05:18 PM

evman150

07-08-2010, 05:57 PM

Peter Popoff is a genius.

FYP.

He's still an ass though.

normtwofinger

07-08-2010, 06:01 PM

ernie

07-08-2010, 06:20 PM

RougeUnderoos

07-08-2010, 06:29 PM

when a business man/woman dictates a letter to his assistant, is it the business person's words in the letter or is it the assistant's words? Sure the assistant is 'penning' it, but it's the business person's thoughts and words.

Assuming the "business man" dictated in the first place, how accurate do you think his message would be after it's gone through generations of edits, translations, revisions, retractions, removals, additions...

You ever play that game "Pass it On" when you were a kid?

Purple monkey dishwasher.

Cheese

07-08-2010, 06:34 PM

Any man can write a bible that people will follow....

Joseph Smith
L. Ron Hubbard
Charles Taze Russell

It just takes a few followers to create a religion

What we know about the Christian Bible?

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and some Aramaic
The New Testament was written in Greek with some Aramaic
No original manuscript of any book in the Bible has survived intact
The books of the New Testament are not listed in chronological order
Several books referenced in the Old Testament are missing
There is a list of books which have been omitted from both the Old Testament and the New Testament for various reasons. These books are called the Apocrypha

Thor

07-08-2010, 06:54 PM

when a business man/woman dictates a letter to his assistant, is it the business person's words in the letter or is it the assistant's words? Sure the assistant is 'penning' it, but it's the business person's thoughts and words.

So a God came up with the bible, seriously, thats the best an all knowing, all powerful and often petty God can come up with.

The 10 commandments? A 5yr old can come up with 10 good ones, I mean the first few for a jealous god.

MacGr3gor

07-08-2010, 07:12 PM

http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1805812

A comedic take on switching form old to new testament

Thor

07-08-2010, 07:42 PM

Hack&Lube

07-08-2010, 07:46 PM

Christian apologists/apologeticists just need to accept and explain that the Biblical canon is a haphazard work by commitee, with input and changes by hundreds of authors, word of mouth transcribers, and whose books were picked, chosen, and even thrown out by councils of people living in the dark ages with a dark age education and cultural mentality which in and of itself was over one or two millenia separated from the culture and region that spawned these works in the first place. It is a work compiled over thousands of years and a product of the specific culture of the times. Holding every word, ordinance, or cultural story as divinely inspired and chosen and eternally applicable will only cause you complications and contradictions with the modern day living out of the religion in a vastly much more liberalized and intellectual world. If you are a thinking person, either religious or not, there must be massive amounts of cognitive dissonance going on in your brain to try to rationalize any literal interpretation. Trying to apply it to your daily life in a world and culture 3000 years apart is even more absurb. It's also absurd to say that something is justified or advocated to be practiced in modern day living by a religion because of an occurance of it within the Bible.

Islam needs to understand this as well and get out of the dark ages of brutality and oppression, unfortunately, the Qur'an and other works in the Islamic canon (Sunnah, Hadith, Fiqh, Sharia, etc.) is even more literally enshrined in their religion when most of them are again word of mouth cultural remembrances or a record of cultural law for a specific group from 1500 years ago.

Stoning for adultery is nothing more than cultural barbarism stemming from our neolithic cave-man intincts regarding violence, domination over the female sex, and community/tribe order.

Cheese

07-08-2010, 08:17 PM

The Story of Suzie

sd7iXASIOdA

Morality without God

hCovYF51qHE

T@T

07-08-2010, 10:25 PM

Well if you actually have read the bible, you'll know that it's not man who wrote it.

If there was a god I'm pretty sure he would be smart enough not to write fairy tales to adults.
From experience, I can say that I feel the bible is a good thing to have in your life.
I hear this alot but so far have never had it explained...please do!

I know the meaning of life
Do you know the meaning of mine?

I know why we are here
So do I, but I would love to hear your version.

I know what happens to us when we die
Assuming I'm talking to a human being how could you possibly know this?

I know what is going to happen to this world in the future.
Everybody knows this, about 5 billion years from now the Sun will become a red giant and engulf the earth...don't worry we'll be dead long before the flames.

Oh wait! your not talking far future, you read Nostradamus!

I have completeness in my life. Can you say the same?
Very much so...thank you for asking.

troutman

07-08-2010, 10:27 PM

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC12/Campbell.htm (http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC12/Campbell.htm)

Tom Collins: I gather you're not terribly fond of the Bible.

Joseph Campbell: Not at all! It's the most over-advertised book in the world. It's very pretentious to claim it to be the word of God, or accept it as such and perpetuate this tribal mythology, justifying all kinds of violence to people who are not members of the tribe.

The thing I see about the Bible that's unfortunate is that it's a tribally circumscribed mythology. It deals with a certain people at a certain time. The Christians magnified it to include them. It then turns this society against all others, whereas the condition of the world today is that this particular society that's presented in the Bible isn't even the most important. This thing is like a dead weight. It's pulling us back because it belongs to an earlier period. We can't break loose and move into a modern theology.

One of the great promises of mythology is, with what social group do you identify? How about the planet? To say that the members of this particular social group are the elite of God's world is a good way to keep that group together, but look at the consequences! I think that what might be called the sanctified chauvinism of the Bible is one of the curses of the planet today.

Joseph: the imagery that has to be used in order to tell what can't be told, symbolic imagery, is then understood or interpreted not symbolically but factually, empirically. It's a natural thing, but that's the whole problem with Western religion. All of the symbols are interpreted as if they were historical references. They're not. And if they are, then so what?

mikey_the_redneck

07-08-2010, 10:38 PM

DuffMan

07-08-2010, 10:47 PM

always loved this one...

http://www.tn-atheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/christianityexplained.jpg

photon

07-08-2010, 11:04 PM

Christian apologists/apologeticists just need to accept and explain that the Biblical canon is a haphazard work by commitee, with input and changes by hundreds of authors, word of mouth transcribers, and whose books were picked, chosen, and even thrown out by councils of people living in the dark ages with a dark age education and cultural mentality which in and of itself was over one or two millenia separated from the culture and region that spawned these works in the first place. It is a work compiled over thousands of years and a product of the specific culture of the times. Holding every word, ordinance, or cultural story as divinely inspired and chosen and eternally applicable will only cause you complications and contradictions with the modern day living out of the religion in a vastly much more liberalized and intellectual world. If you are a thinking person, either religious or not, there must be massive amounts of cognitive dissonance going on in your brain to try to rationalize any literal interpretation.

Most people don't know this though.. I mean pastors are taught it at seminary, but when they get to churches they seem to teach mostly from a devotional point of view, they don't touch anything that the past 300 years of Biblical scholarship has worked out.

So most don't have any cognitive dissonance, because they haven't read the gospels horizontally, or struggled with the discrepancies, or know that many of the books were written fraudulently (many of the Pauline letters weren't authored by Paul), etc etc. As far as they know the Bible is inerrant because they haven't seen any different.

HOZ

07-09-2010, 12:08 AM

OOo....another Christian bashing thread. Even a few, passing, limp wristed shots at Islam. Exciting.

Huntingwhale

07-09-2010, 01:36 AM

http://loltheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/mary-jebus-lam-bwt.jpg

Thor

07-09-2010, 05:32 AM

OOo....another Christian bashing thread. Even a few, passing, limp wristed shots at Islam. Exciting.

http://g.imagehost.org/0503/christian_hypocrisy.jpg

Cheese

07-09-2010, 07:29 AM

OOo....another Christian bashing thread. Even a few, passing, limp wristed shots at Islam. Exciting.

dX_PfBuyR6E

normtwofinger

07-09-2010, 10:07 AM

I guess being here by accident, just to live for 70-80 years, in a crime ridden and poluted world sounds pretty appealing...

Azure

07-09-2010, 10:10 AM

Guys, you're not really helping your 'position' that much by posting a bunch of ridiculous comics that do nothing but to bash Christianity.

But why am I not surprised that its happening? Again....

Cheese

07-09-2010, 10:19 AM

I guess being here by accident, just to live for 70-80 years, in a crime ridden and poluted world sounds pretty appealing...

So we dont resort to posting links to various Christian bashing sites or comics, why dont you expand on what you mean by this post.
Please be as thorough as possible. There is simply no way anyone can respond to this post without information backing up your statements.

DuffMan

07-09-2010, 10:19 AM

I guess being here by accident, just to live for 70-80 years, in a crime ridden and poluted world sounds pretty appealing...

explain please, I'm not following your point.

normtwofinger

07-09-2010, 10:25 AM

if i do, i just get bashed

Traditional_Ale

07-09-2010, 10:29 AM

if i do, i just get bashed

If you're not going to even try, don't bother posting.

MacGr3gor

07-09-2010, 10:30 AM

if i do, i just get bashed

"I have often regretted my speech, never my silence." - Xenocrates

If you want to contribute, please do. If you're civil, we all will be.

DuffMan

07-09-2010, 10:32 AM

get bashed? come on, it's not like you are being fed to the lions, you can handle a bit of bashing, no?

Azure

07-09-2010, 10:53 AM

Honestly, I don't blame him. Most of you have demonstrated the inability to be civil without resorting to bashing something you don't agree with.

I had a slight problem with his original post too. I think he came across a bit in an arrogant way, and he didn't really talk about 'faith' and the importance that faith has for his belief.

But I'm not intentionally being obtuse either, which some of you are.

photon

07-09-2010, 11:01 AM

I guess being here by accident, just to live for 70-80 years, in a crime ridden and poluted world sounds pretty appealing...

I don't think the nature of reality much cares for what we find appealing. This is a logical fallacy called appeal to consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences). Fallacy meaning the logic is flawed and the argument invalid.

And I wasn't an accident, my parents were planning on having a kid :D

Thor

07-09-2010, 11:04 AM

I guess being here by accident, just to live for 70-80 years, in a crime ridden and poluted world sounds pretty appealing...

Wow, so cynical for such a 'complete' person :D

The fact our existence is so special, is exactly why I and you should cherish this life, this ONE life and do with it the best we can, especially by being good caretakers of our time on earth for future generations.

Santa was appealing too, but you know how that went.

Doctordestiny

07-09-2010, 11:16 AM

Cheese

07-09-2010, 11:18 AM

I guess being here by accident, just to live for 70-80 years, in a crime ridden and poluted world sounds pretty appealing...

I guess we should ignore all the positives that exist on the planet in favor of the crime and pollution?
Science has made AMAZING discoveries, your health care and longevity is significantly improved from the days the bible was written.
Children dont have to worry about being beaten for their ideas, women can vote and there is now a black President.
Slavery in the western world is pretty much non existent and all of us have the right to decide who we want to govern.
The best thing is atheists have the right to speak..speak out loud as a matter of fact...without fear of death or banishment.

MacGr3gor

07-09-2010, 11:32 AM

Thor

07-09-2010, 11:48 AM

I think it's impossible that this wonderful body of mine (granted I could lose a few pounds) could exist in such a complex, delicately balanced world that seems perfectly created for us.

Because it seems so, doesn't mean it is so. I'm not sure how much you've learned in biology, and especially astro physics since you have trouble with the idea of something from nothing. Lawrence Krauss did a nice talk about exactly this, a universe from nothing:

7ImvlS8PLIo

In fact I think much of the top physicists have an easier time with this idea than you have against it. As I explained to my teenage niece about infinity, I told her to stop thinking of the universe has having a beginning and an end by our earthly definition, its very difficult to comprehend a never ending existence because of how evolution has hardwired us to understand this in our own environment.

That all of this could come essentially from nothing seems to me to be a greater leap of faith than the possibility that there could be a creator who is responsible for all of this. Look around you (or in the mirror) at the enormous complexity of the world, all of the creatures that occupy it and the enormous vastness of space around this world and maybe you'll see my point. How else could this have come about?

There is lots of evidence for evolution, abiogenesis (start of life on earth) has a number of strong theories gaining ground on how life began. As I said something from nothing in physics is normal thinking.

I do think that God and science can exist in harmony. I believe in evolution as God's tool for creation.

No other possibility makes more sense to me than that.

I do expect to be blasted for this. Be gentle. :D

Its interesting you say you believe in evolution yet you can't understand how we get all this complexity? Thats evolution ;)

But as to designed and how wonderful things are in nature, the human body is a mistake filled body if it was designed, not to mention all kinds of other examples.

But Neil deGrasse Tyson does this with humour so let him speak for me:

xRXp3eae_iU

and welcome to the debate, we might sound mean at times but most of us love to debate this and try also not to be jerks about it :D

DuffMan

07-09-2010, 12:04 PM

The Earth has been brewing for 6.5 billion years + sh1t happens = evolution.

Traditional_Ale

07-09-2010, 12:09 PM

Rockin' Flames

07-09-2010, 12:16 PM

Traditional_Ale

07-09-2010, 12:22 PM

After looking at some of the posts on this board I can say that it's too bad Christians are not afforded the same luxery. Not that the Christians on this board are being killed or banished but certainly ridiculed. It's a shame how a discussion about religion can be turned into Christian bashing.

And I'm sure I'll be bashed for even posting this.

Its because athiests aren't bound by morals and ethics that aren't intrinsic to humanity. I don't kill, rape, steal, etc, but I can have as many sex partners as I want and I don't feel the slightest bit guilty about it. Nor not going to a church on Sundays; it doesn't bother me. I eat meat on "Good Friday" and don't care. I don't feel the white bearded guy in the sky is sending me to eternal damnation for not donating money to his cause. I would also use a Bible/Koran/whatever page to roll a smoke and not care, although that is bordering on hyperbole. Lol.

Doctordestiny

07-09-2010, 12:23 PM

Its interesting you say you believe in evolution yet you can't understand how we get all this complexity? Thats evolution ;)

If not for a God I would agree that the two seem inconsistent. However, I believe there is a God who used evolution as his tool for creation, which would explain the complexity.

Hack&Lube

07-09-2010, 12:30 PM

Most people don't know this though.. I mean pastors are taught it at seminary, but when they get to churches they seem to teach mostly from a devotional point of view, they don't touch anything that the past 300 years of Biblical scholarship has worked out.

So most don't have any cognitive dissonance, because they haven't read the gospels horizontally, or struggled with the discrepancies, or know that many of the books were written fraudulently (many of the Pauline letters weren't authored by Paul), etc etc. As far as they know the Bible is inerrant because they haven't seen any different.

It's too bad most of the posters aren't like you and in these threads we always degenerate into simple Christian/Atheist bashing from people who have little knowledge of the other side. It'd be nice if we could have an intellectual discussion on things like this and the discrepancies between synoptic gospels and John, apocryphal gospels, Paulism, discussions of the Torah, etc. I miss Textcritic in these threads, he was the only real scholar on these matters that I know of in CP.

Rockin' Flames

07-09-2010, 12:31 PM

Its because athiests aren't bound by morals and ethics that aren't intrinsic to humanity. I don't kill, rape, steal, etc, but I can have as many sex partners as I want and I don't feel the slightest bit guilty about it. Nor not going to a church on Sundays; it doesn't bother me. I eat meat on "Good Friday" and don't care. I don't feel the white bearded guy in the sky is sending me to eternal damnation for not donating money to his cause. I would also use a Bible/Koran/whatever page to roll a smoke and not care, although that is bordering on hyperbole. Lol.

So these are good reasons to bash and ridicule Christianity? Just because Christians believe something different than athiests?

Hack&Lube

07-09-2010, 12:38 PM

I'm not sure what Norm meant and some of his posts do seem a bit arrogant to me, but as a Christian this is my belief. Not sure if this is what he meant.

I think it's impossible that this wonderful body of mine (granted I could lose a few pounds) could exist in such a complex, delicately balanced world that seems perfectly created for us. That all of this could come essentially from nothing seems to me to be a greater leap of faith than the possibility that there could be a creator who is responsible for all of this. Look around you (or in the mirror) at the enormous complexity of the world, all of the creatures that occupy it and the enormous vastness of space around this world and maybe you'll see my point. How else could this have come about?

I do think that God and science can exist in harmony. I believe in evolution as God's tool for creation.

No other possibility makes more sense to me than that.

I do expect to be blasted for this. Be gentle. :D

Even when I was 15 years old in Church when people would tell me about how perfect our bodies were or how majestic the mountains and the natural world was around us as evidence of creation, I could never buy it. I saw only fragile, imperfect biology in a pretty grotesque body full of strange features and vestigial organs that we only find beautiful due to evolution (even though I am pretty handsome :bag:). I saw the mountains as a process of tectonic chaos as well as all of nature and the world around us stemming from life gone wild through mutation and breeding taking over the world in chaotic and random processes. We are only conditioned to see things as beautiful because of evolution.

I could accept religion and worshipped for other rationales, but I couldn't for this one. It seemed far too simplistic, short-sighted, and all too human.

You could never convince me of God's existence by fiat, by the fact that our world and the universe exists and to our eyes, it appears to be wonderful and perfectly ordered. Science has shown us that it is in fact, usually the opposite. That doesn't preclude the existence of God, just I could never maintain faith for those reasons.

photon

07-09-2010, 01:14 PM

I think it's impossible that this wonderful body of mine (granted I could lose a few pounds) could exist in such a complex, delicately balanced world that seems perfectly created for us. That all of this could come essentially from nothing seems to me to be a greater leap of faith than the possibility that there could be a creator who is responsible for all of this. Look around you (or in the mirror) at the enormous complexity of the world, all of the creatures that occupy it and the enormous vastness of space around this world and maybe you'll see my point. How else could this have come about?

Well strictly speaking this is simply an argument from personal ignorance.. "I think it's impossible" does not equate to "It is impossible". So while poetic it's not really a valid argument.

I do think that God and science can exist in harmony. I believe in evolution as God's tool for creation.

No other possibility makes more sense to me than that.

I do expect to be blasted for this. Be gentle. :D

And that's fine, if people want to think of evolution as a tool of god's, that's fine. In the same way that gravity is also a tool.. god doesn't sit around moving the planets around by hand, god created gravity to do it. God doesn't sit around creating each lifeform by hand, god created evolution to do that.

But as has been pointed out, that is more like a deist than a theist. The idea that humans evolved from earlier life forms kind of goes against the whole Adam/Eve/original sin idea (unless you take that as a metaphor). Though Catholics have the idea of ensoulment.. life evolved and eventually a species got to the point that god gave them souls. To try and bridge the two together I guess.

That would make it easier to explain the terrible design you see in nature as well, and the huge amounts of suffering and pain and death in the animal world... I find it very difficult to say god specifically created all the species as they are and resolving that with the pain and death and bad design (almost makes god into a sadist), whereas a god that just created evolution and let it run its path makes more sense with what's observed.

After looking at some of the posts on this board I can say that it's too bad Christians are not afforded the same luxery. Not that the Christians on this board are being killed or banished but certainly ridiculed. It's a shame how a discussion about religion can be turned into Christian bashing.

And I'm sure I'll be bashed for even posting this.

I don't do much bashing myself, but it goes with the territory.. believe something and someone else is going to bash it. Like the Flames? Too bad, other fans bash you. Liberal? Get ready to read liberal bashing in the paper, and see political cartoons that target liberals.

I guess my question is do you think all of that should be gone? No bashing Canucks Fans? Can't bash NDP party members? Nerds can't bash jocks? Pirates and Ninjas have to live in harmony? :D

I think it's just a case of not taking the bashing too seriously..

photon

07-09-2010, 01:17 PM

It's too bad most of the posters aren't like you and in these threads we always degenerate into simple Christian/Atheist bashing from people who have little knowledge of the other side. It'd be nice if we could have an intellectual discussion on things like this and the discrepancies between synoptic gospels and John, apocryphal gospels, Paulism, discussions of the Torah, etc. I miss Textcritic in these reads, he was the only real scholar on these matters that I know of in CP.

*flex*

I'm just too much of a wimp to get into confrontations is more the case :D

Yeah, I miss Textcritic in these threads too, but really it's so much of a waste of time, especially since making well researched and supported arguments takes 100x the amount of time it takes to make a frivolous claim.

Reggie Dunlop

07-09-2010, 01:30 PM

Rockin' Flames

07-09-2010, 01:37 PM

I don't do much bashing myself, but it goes with the territory.. believe something and someone else is going to bash it. Like the Flames? Too bad, other fans bash you. Liberal? Get ready to read liberal bashing in the paper, and see political cartoons that target liberals.

I guess my question is do you think all of that should be gone? No bashing Canucks Fans? Can't bash NDP party members? Nerds can't bash jocks? Pirates and Ninjas have to live in harmony? :D

I think it's just a case of not taking the bashing too seriously..

I do think when it comes to certain things like peoples beliefs, lifestyles, etc. there should be some respect and a civil conversation. I don't think everything should fall into the bashing entitled category. For instance I think it's inappropriate to bash people who are gay just as much as I think it's inappropriate to bash someone because of their religion.

I'm not saying you bash much some some of the posts on here really don't lend themselves to an intelligent discussion. But asking for some people to behave more civilized is too much to ask for I guess.

photon

07-09-2010, 01:47 PM

I do think when it comes to certain things like peoples beliefs, lifestyles, etc. there should be some respect and a civil conversation.

Sure, but it's not a one or the other proposition.. There's a time for civility, and there's a time for getting a little rowdy.

I don't think everything should fall into the bashing entitled category. For instance I think it's inappropriate to bash people who are gay just as much as I think it's inappropriate to bash someone because of their religion.

But how do you choose then what gets excluded from bashing? The two things you've compared are vastly different.. bashing someone for being gay is closer to bashing someone for being black than it is bashing religion. And bashing religion is closer to bashing political leaning than it is bashing someone for being gay. One you choose, the other is just something you are.

Plus there's a fine distinction between bashing someone and bashing something. Just because someone is bashing a religion (or a specific belief of a specific religion), doesn't mean they're bashing the people. Hate the sin, love the sinner kind of thing.

I'm not saying you bash much some some of the posts on here really don't lend themselves to an intelligent discussion. But asking for some people to behave more civilized is too much to ask for I guess.

Maybe, maybe not. Try asking. Start an intelligent discussion and see what happens. There'll always be people of any opinion that simply want to shout their opinion as loud as they can, but that shouldn't dissuade a good discussion IMO.

Traditional_Ale

07-09-2010, 01:47 PM

The best thing is atheists have the right to speak..speak out loud as a matter of fact...without fear of death or banishment.

After looking at some of the posts on this board I can say that it's too bad Christians are not afforded the same luxery. Not that the Christians on this board are being killed or banished but certainly ridiculed. It's a shame how a discussion about religion can be turned into Christian bashing.

And I'm sure I'll be bashed for even posting this.

Its because athiests aren't bound by morals and ethics that aren't intrinsic to humanity. I don't kill, rape, steal, etc, but I can have as many sex partners as I want and I don't feel the slightest bit guilty about it. Nor not going to a church on Sundays; it doesn't bother me. I eat meat on "Good Friday" and don't care. I don't feel the white bearded guy in the sky is sending me to eternal damnation for not donating money to his cause. I would also use a Bible/Koran/whatever page to roll a smoke and not care, although that is bordering on hyperbole. Lol.

So these are good reasons to bash and ridicule Christianity? Just because Christians believe something different than athiests?

I don't recall personally bashing Christians in this thread. But I do consider all organized mainstream religions to be the greatest cancer of the human race. While it has some good points, the negatives far outweigh the positives. It is responsible for the vast majority of death, war, hate, fear mongering, bigotry, and oppression in this world today and throughout history. I will not have any part of it.

And I went Catholic School my whole life.

Hack&Lube

07-09-2010, 01:56 PM

I don't recall personally bashing Christians in this thread. But I do consider all organized mainstream religions to be the greatest cancer of the human race. While it has some good points, the negatives far outweigh the positives. It is responsible for the vast majority of death, war, hate, fear mongering, bigotry, and oppression in this world today and throughout history. I will not have any part of it.

And I went Catholic School my whole life.

What is responsible for the vast majority of death, war, hate, fear mongering, bigotry, and oppression in this world today and throughout history is humanity and human nature being violent, warlike, selfish, ignorant, superstitious, etc. It's another evolutionary remnant of barbarous times and short and cruel life for our ancestors. Religion is often used as a justification or rationale for these things but it is not the sole cause of these things. People kill people, religion does not kill people...but it can talk them into it or make them blind to empathy for the beliefs and practices and lifestyles of other people.

I have too many Christian, Morman, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. family members and close friends in whom I see such happiness and joy that they take out of their religion that I cannot catagorically call it a cancer although the way many people live and practice religion and cause harm to others in it's name is deplorable and makes me as angry with it all as it does to you.

Finny61

07-09-2010, 02:16 PM

DuffMan

07-09-2010, 02:25 PM

so anyways, I prefer the women I am adulterizing with, to be drunk and not stoned. More fun that way.

Thor

07-09-2010, 02:32 PM

So these are good reasons to bash and ridicule Christianity? Just because Christians believe something different than athiests?

I don't fight Christianity as a whole, I fight against the religious thinking pervasive in this world in all religions. Its a outdated idea created by humans and still exists today because of the centuries of church doctrine and in many instances state control by church and state.

My problem always lies in the actions of Christians and any other religious group, when you tell me a gay/lesbian is a sinner and deserves no rights by the state, when you tell me that a soul enters a zygote and therefore stem cell research had to be held back..

Theres countless examples, but if you kept those beliefs out of the voting booth I'd have nothing to bitch about, but you and I both know thats an impossibility, especially in America.

The reason you hear so much more these days from non believers is because finally we have a safe place to talk without fear of all kinds of punishment and social shunning, the internet. Christians play the "why so mean to us" while your religious leaders say atrocious things about us, and politicians in the US proudly say hateful things about non believers because they like to play to your divine place on earth.

So can we seriously end this 'why so mean' to Christians nonsense, if you can't handle the logical debate of how your bronze age beliefs affect our modern day lives then there is always the bliss of being told weekly by some guy that everything is gonna be alright and god loves you unless you're gay, or non Christian, or a cheating spouse, or the 100000's of other things your god likes to punish and kill people for. :D

peter12

07-09-2010, 02:52 PM

http://www.animalpicturesarchive.com/animal/Animated_GIF/Dinosaur/Tyranosaurus2.gif
Ha Ha! STUPID JESUS!

Jeezus, you're a moron.

Traditional_Ale

07-09-2010, 02:56 PM

Reggie Dunlop

07-09-2010, 03:06 PM

http://www.die-space.com/Images/Humor/Funny_Animated_Graphics/images/jesus.gif

Reggie Dunlop

07-09-2010, 03:12 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v173/VividBoy/d375a4e775f84117274427c06cbcc07e.jpg

Reggie Dunlop

07-09-2010, 03:19 PM

Afsa5gkvmlU

arloiginla

07-09-2010, 03:28 PM

I don't fight Christianity as a whole, I fight against the religious thinking pervasive in this world in all religions. Its a outdated idea created by humans and still exists today because of the centuries of church doctrine and in many instances state control by church and state.

My problem always lies in the actions of Christians and any other religious group, when you tell me a gay/lesbian is a sinner and deserves no rights by the state, when you tell me that a soul enters a zygote and therefore stem cell research had to be held back..

Theres countless examples, but if you kept those beliefs out of the voting booth I'd have nothing to bitch about, but you and I both know thats an impossibility, especially in America.

The reason you hear so much more these days from non believers is because finally we have a safe place to talk without fear of all kinds of punishment and social shunning, the internet. Christians play the "why so mean to us" while your religious leaders say atrocious things about us, and politicians in the US proudly say hateful things about non believers because they like to play to your divine place on earth.

So can we seriously end this 'why so mean' to Christians nonsense, if you can't handle the logical debate of how your bronze age beliefs affect our modern day lives then there is always the bliss of being told weekly by some guy that everything is gonna be alright and god loves you unless you're gay, or non Christian, or a cheating spouse, or the 100000's of other things your god likes to punish and kill people for. :D

That is a fantastic post. It really sums up what I think a lot of atheists/agnostics or basically "unbelievers in Christ" feel when it comes to Christianity and religions as a whole.

Frankly, it really is too bad that Christianity in general has such a bad rap like this. It is an example of some ruining it for everyone.

Christ did not intend this for his church. As Christians we are to love the Lord with all our hearts, and to love our neighbour as ourselves. That basically means denying ourselves and wants and acting out in love, in whichever form that may be. It's being selfless.

Where most go wrong is here: We follow Jesus' commands BECAUSE he loved us and saved us, not IN ORDER to earn salvation and "be a Christian."

That's where you hear the abominable preaching of: "Thou shalt not be gay, or thou shalt not do stem cell research, or thou shalt not commit adultery." Unfortunately, the belief here is that as long as you follow everything the Bible says and follow a bunch of rules, you will go to heaven and be saved from hell.

It doesn't work that way. Commands in the Bible are there to help Christians live the life that God intended them to. You follow them because you were saved and your eternity secured, not in order to earn it.

When you become saved, God gives you a brand new heart and attitude, and the Holy Spirit guides you and helps you to make the right decisions as you go through life. It's like a horse that is broken, you WANT to follow Christ's commandments and you desire to do the right thing.

That's where true Christianity differs from other religions in the world, or the "Christianity" that you hear preached especially in America. Other religions are a set of rules that you must follow in order to win favour with the god. Christianity was not meant to be like that, and it is truly unfortunate and disappointing that so many have given the world this negative perception.

Preachers, especially television preachers, should be preaching that unbelievers give their hearts to the Lord first and then follow His commands later as the Spirit convicts us in order to clean up the parts of our lives that God sees as non-beneficial. Instead, they are doing it backwards and telling people that they can earn their salvation by doing good works and "not being gay" and such, and then maybe God won't be so angry with them and make them rot in hell.

Hack&Lube

07-09-2010, 03:41 PM

That's where true Christianity differs from other religions in the world, or the "Christianity" that you hear preached especially in America. Other religions are a set of rules that you must follow in order to win favour with the god. Christianity was not meant to be like that, and it is truly unfortunate and disappointing that so many have given the world this negative perception.

This is the only thing I really disagree with from where you are coming from. Christianity is not that exceptional among world religions in terms of the nature of salvation or rules or lack thereof and Christians need to stop perpetuating misconceptions like that if they want to be ernest and forthcoming.

I am curious about what you define as "true" Christianity? Every religion in every form and iteration preached or worshiped by every person often claims it is the true religion. Is a Christian conservative redneck zealot in Alabama not going to recieve the same salvation as someone who worships "true" Christianity whatever it is that you are trying to convey?

Reggie Dunlop

07-09-2010, 03:47 PM

"No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.

You see, Cheese is an Orthodox Darwininan whilst Thor is a Branch Dawkinsian. I myself am an adherent of Latter Day Schopenhauer (which is the true path).

Therefore, it's not mockery but statements of fact when one is correct.

Rockin' Flames

07-09-2010, 03:52 PM

That is a fantastic post. It really sums up what I think a lot of atheists/agnostics or basically "unbelievers in Christ" feel when it comes to Christianity and religions as a whole.

Frankly, it really is too bad that Christianity in general has such a bad rap like this. It is an example of some ruining it for everyone.

Christ did not intend this for his church. As Christians we are to love the Lord with all our hearts, and to love our neighbour as ourselves. That basically means denying ourselves and wants and acting out in love, in whichever form that may be. It's being selfless.

Where most go wrong is here: We follow Jesus' commands BECAUSE he loved us and saved us, not IN ORDER to earn salvation and "be a Christian."

That's where you hear the abominable preaching of: "Thou shalt not be gay, or thou shalt not do stem cell research, or thou shalt not commit adultery." Unfortunately, the belief here is that as long as you follow everything the Bible says and follow a bunch of rules, you will go to heaven and be saved from hell.

It doesn't work that way. Commands in the Bible are there to help Christians live the life that God intended them to. You follow them because you were saved and your eternity secured, not in order to earn it.

When you become saved, God gives you a brand new heart and attitude, and the Holy Spirit guides you and helps you to make the right decisions as you go through life. It's like a horse that is broken, you WANT to follow Christ's commandments and you desire to do the right thing.

That's where true Christianity differs from other religions in the world, or the "Christianity" that you hear preached especially in America. Other religions are a set of rules that you must follow in order to win favour with the god. Christianity was not meant to be like that, and it is truly unfortunate and disappointing that so many have given the world this negative perception.

Preachers, especially television preachers, should be preaching that unbelievers give their hearts to the Lord first and then follow His commands later as the Spirit convicts us in order to clean up the parts of our lives that God sees as non-beneficial. Instead, they are doing it backwards and telling people that they can earn their salvation by doing good works and "not being gay" and such, and then maybe God won't be so angry with them and make them rot in hell.

This is exactly it. Unfortunatly there are some that tend to give Christianity a bad name and as a Christian I've been disappointed by some of those people. However, there are a lot of others who are not in the spot light that are teaching what Christianity is really about.

Hack&Lube

07-09-2010, 03:53 PM

Hack&Lube

07-09-2010, 03:56 PM

This is exactly it. Unfortunatly there are some that tend to give Christianity a bad name and as a Christian I've been disappointed by some of those people. However, there are a lot of others who are not in the spot light that are teaching what Christianity is really about.

That disappointment that you feel for people who are not "true" Christians and judgement is one of the things that turn people off religion. Tell me then, what is it really about? What makes those people who are teaching that more correct than others? Look at all the schisms in the Church and the millions of groups and denominations out there all claiming that some are right, some are wrong, some are cults, etc. It's just human nature playing out. What gives you or anyone else the right to say which is true and everyone else is condenmed?

arloiginla

07-09-2010, 03:57 PM

This is the only thing I really disagree with from where you are coming from. Christianity is not that exceptional among world religions.

I am curious about what you define as "true" Christianity? Every religion in every form and iteration preached or worshiped by every person often claims it is the true religion. Is a Christian conservative redneck zealot in Alabama not going to recieve the same salvation as someone who worships "true" Christianity whatever it is that you are trying to convey?

No, and I apologize that it came across that way. I am not trying to be holier than thou and saying that my form of Christianity is the "true" one. Everyone thinks that of course.

I just feel that for the past few hundred years Biblical doctrine has commonly held that salvation was earned or retained by works. Based on this, it makes a lot of sense that the angle preachers have taken is that "clean up your life or you are going to hell!" Yet the Bible speaks a lot about love and a loving God who shows mercy and compassion. Together, those two trains of thought contradict each other.

No wonder non-Christians take such a dim view of Christianity. When you witness blatant hypocrisy like that it's pretty hard to believe in.

Lately, the idea that salvation is a gift of God, and that the commandments follow voluntarily rather than as a means of obtaining salvation, has become more prevalent in Christian circles. The Bible supports this doctrine as far as I understand it and it freed me from great amounts of bondage. You have no idea how difficult it is to live life thinking that God hates you and that you have to choke the joy out of life in order to follow a bunch of pre-set rules in order to get to heaven. No wonder no one wants a part of it!

At the end of the day, I think it is a personal thing. God will look at each Christian's heart and based on that person's knowledge of right and wrong and what that person feels the Lord convicted them to do and not do in life, will determine that person's eternal destiny. Basically, did that person truly love the Lord with all their heart, seek to do the Spirit's will in everything, and love others as much as themselves?

So then, phrasing it as "true Christianity" was not the best way to do it. But following this particular doctrine as a Christian is going to be a much better way to experience joy in life, do God's work, and most importantly - win souls over for Christ instead of turning them off and disgusting them.

Cheese

07-09-2010, 03:58 PM

Rockin' Flames

07-09-2010, 04:00 PM

This is the only thing I really disagree with from where you are coming from. Christianity is not that exceptional among world religions in terms of the nature of salvation or rules or lack thereof and Christians need to stop perpetuating misconceptions like that if they want to be ernest and forthcoming.

I am curious about what you define as "true" Christianity? Every religion in every form and iteration preached or worshiped by every person often claims it is the true religion. Is a Christian conservative redneck zealot in Alabama not going to recieve the same salvation as someone who worships "true" Christianity whatever it is that you are trying to convey?

Christianity is about accepting Gods gift of salvation. It's not about going around and judging other people and what they are doing. What a person does is ultimately between him/her and God and it's not my place to lay judgement. So your question about the redneck in Alabama it really depends on whether they have accepted Christ into their life and asked for forgiveness of there sins and I don't know that.

Reggie Dunlop

07-09-2010, 04:02 PM

Praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster (sauce be upon him).

Rockin' Flames

07-09-2010, 04:02 PM

No, and I apologize that it came across that way. I am not trying to be holier than thou and saying that my form of Christianity is the "true" one. Everyone thinks that of course.

I just feel that for the past few hundred years Biblical doctrine has commonly held that salvation was earned or retained by works. Based on this, it makes a lot of sense that the angle preachers have taken is that "clean up your life or you are going to hell!" Yet the Bible speaks a lot about love and a loving God who shows mercy and compassion. Together, those two trains of thought contradict each other.

No wonder non-Christians take such a dim view of Christianity. When you witness blatant hypocrisy like that it's pretty hard to believe in.

Lately, the idea that salvation is a gift of God, and that the commandments follow voluntarily rather than as a means of obtaining salvation, has become more prevalent in Christian circles. The Bible supports this doctrine as far as I understand it and it freed me from great amounts of bondage. You have no idea how difficult it is to live life thinking that God hates you and that you have to choke the joy out of life in order to follow a bunch of pre-set rules in order to get to heaven. No wonder no one wants a part of it!

At the end of the day, I think it is a personal thing. God will look at each Christian's heart and based on that person's knowledge of right and wrong and what that person feels the Lord convicted them to do and not do in life, will determine that person's eternal destiny. Basically, did that person truly love the Lord with all their heart, seek to do the Spirit's will in everything, and love others as much as themselves?

So then, phrasing it as "true Christianity" was not the best way to do it. But following this particular doctrine as a Christian is going to be a much better way to experience joy in life, do God's work, and most importantly - win souls over for Christ instead of turning them off and disgusting them.

Once again you are able to phrase it so much better than I.

Rockin' Flames

07-09-2010, 04:08 PM

That disappointment that you feel for people who are not "true" Christians and judgement is one of the things that turn people off religion. Tell me then, what is it really about? What makes those people who are teaching that more correct than others? Look at all the schisms in the Church and the millions of groups and denominations out there all claiming that some are right, some are wrong, some are cults, etc. It's just human nature playing out. What gives you or anyone else the right to say which is true and everyone else is condenmed?

That's not what I meant. I'm not judging those people, however, have felt that some peoples actions who proclaim to be Christians are harmful to Christianity as a whole. I would say I'm more saddened when that happens. Once again I'm not judging. I'm sharing my belief which I have faith is correct. If someone chooses not to have the same belief as I that is there choice and it isn't my place to judge.

Hack&Lube

07-09-2010, 04:08 PM

Lately, the idea that salvation is a gift of God, and that the commandments follow voluntarily rather than as a means of obtaining salvation, has become more prevalent in Christian circles. The Bible supports this doctrine as far as I understand it and it freed me from great amounts of bondage. You have no idea how difficult it is to live life thinking that God hates you and that you have to choke the joy out of life in order to follow a bunch of pre-set rules in order to get to heaven. No wonder no one wants a part of it!

What you said is just more evidence for the fact that Christianity has been evolving and changing for the past 2000 years and it's interpretation and application changes with every generation and culture. What Christianity is to you then, seems to be what you take for yourself as applicable doctrine and that's no different from all those people who have taken it upon themselves to re-define their faith for themselves over 2000 years...many of them starting new religions themselves.

That's fine and religion is great as a personal thing. What secular or irrreligious people want is the same thing, for religion to be a personal thing, not an organized beast that imposes it's beliefs or practices and judgements upon state and society as a whole, or even on a personal level between people interacting in daily life.

I used to enjoy making fun of mormon beliefs and culture (thanks South Park) but then I met a few and became close friends with some and I've developed an enourmous respect for what they have and what they've built or what holds them together or what brings them happiness. Even if I still believe deep down that everything they believe is totally 100% absurd, it's their way of life and I can't help but respect that and it is the same toward any religion for me, as long as they don't impose their beliefs on others.

photon

07-09-2010, 04:18 PM

I just feel that for the past few hundred years Biblical doctrine has commonly held that salvation was earned or retained by works. Based on this, it makes a lot of sense that the angle preachers have taken is that "clean up your life or you are going to hell!" Yet the Bible speaks a lot about love and a loving God who shows mercy and compassion. Together, those two trains of thought contradict each other.

Well both trains of thought do come from the Bible ;)

Lately, the idea that salvation is a gift of God, and that the commandments follow voluntarily rather than as a means of obtaining salvation, has become more prevalent in Christian circles.

But a soft sell is still a sell. Salvation may be a gift, but the message still is that everyone is insufficient, everyone is irredeemable, everyone falls short, and only by believing this one particular belief can you hope to find value and attain salvation, otherwise you are doomed to an infinite punishment for a finite infraction.

If I tell the girl I love that if she loves me back and accepts me as her husband I'll give her a beautiful life, and if I tell her that if she doesn't accept me that I'll lock her in the basement for the rest of her life, my "gift" of a beautiful life may be a gift, but it's hard to see it that way from her point of view.

At the end of the day, I think it is a personal thing. God will look at each Christian's heart and based on that person's knowledge of right and wrong and what that person feels the Lord convicted them to do and not do in life, will determine that person's eternal destiny. Basically, did that person truly love the Lord with all their heart, seek to do the Spirit's will in everything, and love others as much as themselves?

What about non-Christians? If a non-Christian lives an identical life, loved others as much as themselves, but without the loving the Lord part, they get eternal punishment for it? The billions who never heard of Jesus? Or those who did but made the best decision they could based on what they knew but just happened to be the wrong one? Any god that would eternally punish someone for making an honest decision but the wrong one is no god at all.

So then, phrasing it as "true Christianity" was not the best way to do it. But following this particular doctrine as a Christian is going to be a much better way to experience joy in life, do God's work, and most importantly - win souls over for Christ instead of turning them off and disgusting them.

And they hope that their particular doctrine isn't actually the wrong one, that by going by the soft sell they aren't damning millions to an eternal punishment.

That's the thing, there is no way to choose between any doctrine and another.. judging them by what turns people on and off isn't a good measure, since what people like and don't like changes over time.

Hack&Lube

07-09-2010, 04:22 PM

MfA6mTgl7tU

This is a great video, I want to read that Lincoln the Freethinker book now.

photon

07-09-2010, 04:26 PM

Christianity is about accepting Gods gift of salvation. It's not about going around and judging other people and what they are doing. What a person does is ultimately between him/her and God and it's not my place to lay judgement. So your question about the redneck in Alabama it really depends on whether they have accepted Christ into their life and asked for forgiveness of there sins and I don't know that.

So salvation is about a gift and not about what people do, but then you say it IS about what they do (since they asked for forgiveness for their sins).

But if we're fallen creatures with a sinful nature, then we cannot help but sin.

It's like a doctor offering the gift of a cure for a disease the doctor gave you in the first place.

arloiginla

07-09-2010, 04:31 PM

Well both trains of thought do come from the Bible ;)

If I tell the girl I love that if she loves me back and accepts me as her husband I'll give her a beautiful life, and if I tell her that if she doesn't accept me that I'll lock her in the basement for the rest of her life, my "gift" of a beautiful life may be a gift, but it's hard to see it that way from her point of view.

You are basing that on human equality. If you created everything in the world including the girl, that would be completely acceptable, especially if the girl was perfect when you created her but defied you purposely and rejected you.

What about non-Christians? If a non-Christian lives an identical life, loved others as much as themselves, but without the loving the Lord part, they get eternal punishment for it? The billions who never heard of Jesus? Or those who did but made the best decision they could based on what they knew but just happened to be the wrong one? Any god that would eternally punish someone for making an honest decision but the wrong one is no god at all.

Completely true. I have no doubt whatsoever that those who have never heard of Jesus or Christianity, or salvation, will be judged on what they do know and not what they don't. The God I believe in would do no such thing, because it would be contrary to His just nature.

And they hope that their particular doctrine isn't actually the wrong one, that by going by the soft sell they aren't damning millions to an eternal punishment.

Wrong. It has nothing to do with a soft or hard sell. Those who are offered God's gift of salvation and do not accept it, will face eternal punishment apart from God, since they chose to be apart from Him during life. That doesn't change. But telling people their problems rather than offering them a gift that will change them forever, is not the best way to find converts IMO. In today's society we don't like to be spoken to in that way. 200 years ago that approach might have won many souls for the Lord. But in today's Western society I think it's a safe assumption that it doesn't go over very well.

That's the thing, there is no way to choose between any doctrine and another.. judging them by what turns people on and off isn't a good measure, since what people like and don't like changes over time.

I didn't judge one doctrine and say that those who believe in the "old" way of thinking (you're going to hell! stop being gay!) aren't really Christians. I think it is personal - each of us will be accountable to God Himself and it won't matter what doctrine we held, it will only matter whether or not we accepted His gift of salvation and strove to follow His will in our lives.

I wasn't judging which doctrine turns people on and off being right or wrong. Rather, I simply said that one doctrine is more likely to win over unbelievers and therefore acting in love in todays society, than the other, which seems to be doing more harm than good.

jammies

07-09-2010, 04:35 PM

The problem is that it's pretty hard to "respectfully" argue someone's belief system. These are core values you are challenging, and there is really no polite way to say "Your premises are entirely wrong and your delusions fatally cloud your thinking."

arloiginla

07-09-2010, 04:36 PM

So salvation is about a gift and not about what people do, but then you say it IS about what they do (since they asked for forgiveness for their sins).

But if we're fallen creatures with a sinful nature, then we cannot help but sin.

It's like a doctor offering the gift of a cure for a disease the doctor gave you in the first place.

God did not give us sin like a disease. He created us perfect, not fallen creatures. But He gave us a free will, so that we aren't forced to follow him.

But Adam and Eve messed up and chose to reject that perfection and God. They separated themselves from God and therefore gave birth to a people that were born fallen from God. Hence the need for a Savior, someone who could make things right again.

This is why so many people make the argument of "How can a loving God create so much evil in the world?" Simple. God didn't create evil, he allowed it to happen. It was us humans that created it.

Once you become a Christian, the Holy Spirit lives in you. You are reconciled to God and are no longer a fallen creature. This Spirit guides you in order to live a perfect life worthy of the Lord and doing His work. That being said, we still have a free will and oftentimes this comes into play, when we choose to do what we know is displeasing in the Lord's sight. The Spirit will convict us if that is the case and we can always ask for forgiveness which is freely granted. The Holy Spirit is supernatural and the more time we spend with the Lord in devotions and whatnot, the closer we become to His spirit and the less likely we are to get sucked into the making wrong decisions.

Hack&Lube

07-09-2010, 04:39 PM

You are basing that on human equality. If you created everything in the world including the girl, that would be completely acceptable, especially if the girl was perfect when you created her but defied you purposely and rejected you.

And if that is the true nature of the creator, that is not someone I want to associate with. If you created a beautiful person full of life and vigor but who simply wanted freedom to live the way she wanted and she rejected you, how can you claim to love her if your reaction is to condemn her to eternal unending excruciating punishment?

Wrong. It has nothing to do with a soft or hard sell. Those who are offered God's gift of salvation and do not accept it, will face eternal punishment apart from God, since they chose to be apart from Him during life. That doesn't change. But telling people their problems rather than offering them a gift that will change them forever, is not the best way to find converts IMO. In today's society we don't like to be spoken to in that way. 200 years ago that approach might have won many souls for the Lord. But in today's Western society I think it's a safe assumption that it doesn't go over very well.

It never goes over well to tell people they are doomed because you are right and they are wrong. It's fear mongering. What about those billions and billions of people throughout human history that lived full and loving and good lives accomplishing great things within their community, building great familes and great societies...but were not privy to Christianity because they lived in other parts of the world where it is not part of the state or culture? I guess they were condemned from birth then to suffer for eternity.

But Adam and Eve messed up and chose to reject that perfection and God. They separated themselves from God and therefore gave birth to a people that were born fallen from God. Hence the need for a Savior, someone who could make things right again.

So two people from the beginning of time got curious (one of those most important human traits) and therefore the over hundred billion people that have lived in human history are therefore judged by their actions?

arloiginla

07-09-2010, 04:42 PM

It never goes over well to tell people they are doomed because you are right and they are wrong. It's fear mongering. What about those billions and billions of people throughout human history that lived full and loving and good lives accomplishing great things within their community, building great familes and great societies...but were not privy to Christianity because they lived in other parts of the world where it is not part of the state or culture? I guess they were condemned from birth then to suffer for eternity.

Wrong, I think I already explained that those who were not privy to Christianity and simply lived their lives to the best of their abilities based on what they knew, would go to heaven. No just God would condemn someone from birth. We all have a chance to secure heaven as an eternal destiny. We will be judged based on what we do know, not based on what we don't.

Hack&Lube

07-09-2010, 04:45 PM

Wrong, I think I already explained that those who were not privy to Christianity and simply lived their lives to the best of their abilities based on what they knew, would go to heaven. No just God would condemn someone from birth. We all have a chance to secure heaven as an eternal destiny. We will be judged based on what we do know, not based on what we don't.

But this is simply your interpretation or one commonly expoused by modern day Christian apologists. Where did this come from? What is the basis of this belief? I have studied the Bible and even the Torah and Talmud and there is nothing to justify any of this. If anything, if you read the ancient Jewist texts in context, there may not even be a "hell" in terms of how the Christian Church adopted that theology.

This is simply a way to rationalize your own beliefs with a rigid belief system. Human compassion and empathy is not compatible with Biblical punishment. You have to go back to your explanation in the god who creates a beautiful girl but then condemns her to eternal torture simply because she rejected him wanted her own freedom as being "perfectly acceptable".

arloiginla

07-09-2010, 04:47 PM

But this is simply your interpretation or one commonly expoused by modern day Christian apologists. Where did this come from? What is the basis of this belief? I have studied the Bible and even the Torah and Talmud and there is nothing to justify any of this. If anything, if you read the ancient Jewist texts in context, there may not even be a "hell" in terms of how the Christian Church adopted that theology. This is simply a way to rationalize your own beliefs with a rigid belief system. Human compassion and empathy is not compatible with Biblical punishment. You have to go back to your explanation in the god who creates a beautiful girl but then condemns her to eternal torture simply because she wanted her own freedom.

There is scripture to support this in an indirect way, although this is more of a belief of mine than an absolute statement. Frankly only God knows for sure, but based on the kind of God he is (just) I have a hard time buying that he would condemn from birth those who will never hear the gospel.

photon

07-09-2010, 05:07 PM

You are basing that on human equality. If you created everything in the world including the girl, that would be completely acceptable, especially if the girl was perfect when you created her but defied you purposely and rejected you.

What, just because I created something that means I can do things that would be completely immoral if I hadn't created it?

So I can lock my kids in the basement if they defy and reject me? This line of reasoning is probably where the whole idea of stoning disobedient children comes from.

When my son defies me, I don't damn him and all his children and grandchildren to a lifetime of hardship and an eternity of suffering if they don't happen to make the right choice thousands of years later.

Let me ask this, if you had been in the garden, would you have partaken of the apple?

Completely true. I have no doubt whatsoever that those who have never heard of Jesus or Christianity, or salvation, will be judged on what they do know and not what they don't. The God I believe in would do no such thing, because it would be contrary to His just nature.

Judged on what they know? What knowledge are they judged on? Like a game of trivial pursuit? ;) I hope it's science or computers, cause then I'll get in for sure.

Wrong. It has nothing to do with a soft or hard sell. Those who are offered God's gift of salvation and do not accept it, will face eternal punishment apart from God, since they chose to be apart from Him during life.

This is presuming that a person has knowledge of what they are choosing, but they don't. Lots of gods offer salvation according to their followers.

You are offered salvation from Allah, you choose not to accept it and face eternal punishment.

In order to make an informed decision, you have to be informed. Someone telling someone else that they have to accept their god or face eternal punishment isn't being informed, that's just a assertion with nothing to substantiate it.

A just god would allow for informed decisions.

I didn't judge one doctrine and say that those who believe in the "old" way of thinking (you're going to hell! stop being gay!) aren't really Christians. I think it is personal - each of us will be accountable to God Himself and it won't matter what doctrine we held, it will only matter whether or not we accepted His gift of salvation and strove to follow His will in our lives.

Well even the nature of salvation is in itself doctrine, the view of how to attain it according to the author of Matthew is very different than the author of John.

But I see what you mean. And this would more closely fit the early church I think. The problem is it didn't work out, it couldn't be sustained. The wide proliferation of doctrines and views in the early church combined with the lack of an "in your lifetime" return by Christ eventually resulted in 300 years of wrangling to establish correct doctrine, to separate orthodoxy from heresy.

If it shouldn't matter what doctrine is held, there can't be exceptions to that.. "It doesn't matter what doctrine you hold except you have to believe X" will just result in differences in what X should be. The writings that became the Bible have varying views on something as basic as the nature of Jesus.. Resulting in many different groups in early Christianity: Man but not god, god but not man, both man and god in varying percentages, man but infilled by the Christ spirit right before crucifixion, etc.

I wasn't judging which doctrine turns people on and off being right or wrong. Rather, I simply said that one doctrine is more likely to win over unbelievers and therefore acting in love in todays society, than the other, which seems to be doing more harm than good.

Fair enough, I just wanted to point out that there are Christians that would disagree with that.

Thor

07-09-2010, 05:17 PM

Sorry for spamming your post...but these comments made this the perfect opportunity for these vids becuase they say it as well as anyone...

vk8EANdpAj0

and this...

MfA6mTgl7tU

I know so many will skip over those, sad. But man those 2 are amazing, ty for posting them.

photon

07-09-2010, 05:25 PM

God did not give us sin like a disease. He created us perfect, not fallen creatures. But He gave us a free will, so that we aren't forced to follow him.

But we are forced to follow him, because if we don't then we're given eternal punishment. That's not free will, that's coercion. Does the girl I'm going to lock in my basement because she doesn't choose to be my wife have free will?

And that's assuming that the decision to follow or not can be made, but there simply isn't enough information to make a well informed decision in that regard.

Adam and Eve lacked the knowledge of good and evil, so they weren't even equipped to understand the consequences of what they did.

But Adam and Eve messed up and chose to reject that perfection and God. They separated themselves from God and therefore gave birth to a people that were born fallen from God. Hence the need for a Savior, someone who could make things right again.

Should you go to jail for the crimes of your grandfather? Is that just?

This is why so many people make the argument of "How can a loving God create so much evil in the world?" Simple. God didn't create evil, he allowed it to happen. It was us humans that created it.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
"Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?"
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"

How does one go about creating evil? If it was created back then, can I still create it now?

If it was through an act of disobedience, then when my 6 year old disobeys me is that evil?

And allowing evil to happen when you have the ability to stop it is also evil.

If you are in a room with a mother and her child, and the mother puts the child in the microwave, is it not evil to stand aside? You would violate her free will by intervening. But she's violating the free will of the child already.

Once you become a Christian, the Holy Spirit lives in you. You are reconciled to God and are no longer a fallen creature. This Spirit guides you in order to live a perfect life worthy of the Lord and doing His work. That being said, we still have a free will and oftentimes this comes into play, when we choose to do what we know is displeasing in the Lord's sight. The Spirit will convict us if that is the case and we can always ask for forgiveness which is freely granted. The Holy Spirit is supernatural and the more time we spend with the Lord in devotions and whatnot, the closer we become to His spirit and the less likely we are to get sucked into the making wrong decisions.

That's the theory anyway, but if there was actually any validity to this I think you would see it, but rather than being exceptional in every measurable factor, Christians seem to have the same problems and make the same wrong decisions as everyone else. If the US is an example of a society where there are more Christians so should be less likely to get sucked into wrong decisions, then the should be the envy of the world with respect to social and physical health, but it's quite the opposite.

Resolute 14

07-09-2010, 05:37 PM

If man is created in God's image, then man's evil is God's evil.

People get too caught up in the theology of it, imnsho. Chances are we are to our god what an ant farm is to a six year old.

Reggie Dunlop

07-09-2010, 06:03 PM

I sprayed a couple of door-to-door Mormons with the garden hose. Didn't know them fellers could run so fast.

HOZ

07-09-2010, 07:51 PM

http://g.imagehost.org/0503/christian_hypocrisy.jpg

Haha You slay me....

We had this conversation in Christian bashing thread 145,938! When I said all these threads, like the Iraqi threads, just turn out the same. People should save time and keep the links to their previous posts! Especially Cheese.

I mean really...this new thread came about because of Iran threatening to stone a woman for adultery. (Now apparently pardoned) Any chance to take a swing right? Keep the links people, save CP the bandwidth!

Cheese

07-09-2010, 08:17 PM

Haha You slay me....

We had this conversation in Christian bashing thread 145,938! When I said all these threads, like the Iraqi threads, just turn out the same. People should save time and keep the links to their previous posts! Especially Cheese.

I mean really...this new thread came about because of Iran threatening to stone a woman for adultery. (Now apparently pardoned) Any chance to take a swing right? Keep the links people, save CP the bandwidth!

and so sayah the Hoz! all on your knees now!

Reggie Dunlop

07-09-2010, 08:25 PM

http://toppun.com/Gay-Lesbian-Pride/Jesus-Has-Two-Daddies.gif

GGG

07-09-2010, 08:27 PM

Hack&Lube

07-09-2010, 08:31 PM

http://toppun.com/Gay-Lesbian-Pride/Jesus-Has-Two-Daddies.gif

Two daddies and a mommy and it was more surrogate birth via sperm donation.

GGG

07-09-2010, 08:32 PM

when you tell me that a soul enters a zygote and therefore stem cell research had to be held back..

I always find this interesting. When does life began if not from conception. I sit on the religious side but eventually science will be able to grow life without a womb. So the question becomes at what point when the zygote divides to you call it life and protect it.

Heat beat? Brain activity? Conception to me really is the only cut and dry point. Any other point becomes an agrument akin to when is the soul installed during evolution.

RougeUnderoos

07-09-2010, 08:38 PM

Do you know what bugs me about these evangelical Athiests. Its that they won't let us crazy christians have our beliefs.

You got any examples of anyone not letting you have your beliefs?

Non-believers have been vilified, persecuted, and hell, even crucified for their beliefs for, well, forever.

We're maybe two decades into non-believers voicing their opinion and suddenly the believing majority is whining about the evil atheists ruining everything.

Have your beliefs all you want. Keep 'em to yourself and I guarantee the "evangelical atheists" will do the same.

Reggie Dunlop

07-09-2010, 08:47 PM

Do you know what bugs me about these evangelical Athiests.

I think you're probably refering to the Branch Dawkinsians. They give the rest of us a bad name, unfortunately.

GGG

07-09-2010, 08:55 PM

You got any examples of anyone not letting you have your beliefs?
Non-believers have been vilified, persecuted, and hell, even crucified for their beliefs for, well, forever.
We're maybe two decades into non-believers voicing their opinion and suddenly the believing majority is whining about the evil atheists ruining everything.
Have your beliefs all you want. Keep 'em to yourself and I guarantee the "evangelical atheists" will do the same.

Dawkins is evangelical as any religious group. His mantra is not to get religion out of influencing politics his mantra is to discredit religion and eliminate belief. His focus is on pointing out the logical flaws in religion then essentially calling everyone who believes stupid is very similar to the believer or you are going to hell pitch of the southern evangelical christians.

I will also ask the question to you. When have you ever been persecuted for your non-belief. In canada this does not happen and when the discussion turns to Africa or even the Muslim world just blaming religion is a gross over simplification of the issue.

This board is a good example of the passive attack that occurs on idvidual christians. It really isn't socially acceptable to be religious outside of a religious group. Which is why most people just don't talk about it.

Reggie Dunlop

07-09-2010, 09:07 PM

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg294/vicious_rellik/FUNNY%20STUFF/whoresjesus.jpg

Cheese

07-09-2010, 09:10 PM

Dawkins is evangelical as any religious group. His mantra is not to get religion out of influencing politics his mantra is to discredit religion and eliminate belief. His focus is on pointing out the logical flaws in religion then essentially calling everyone who believes stupid is very similar to the believer or you are going to hell pitch of the southern evangelical christians.

I will also ask the question to you. When have you ever been persecuted for your non-belief. In canada this does not happen and when the discussion turns to Africa or even the Muslim world just blaming religion is a gross over simplification of the issue.

This board is a good example of the passive attack that occurs on idvidual christians. It really isn't socially acceptable to be religious outside of a religious group. Which is why most people just don't talk about it.

It doesnt have to be me thats persecuted. There are millions of cases of atrocities by the Christian faith, so many in fact that without these happening it would be highly likely you wouldn't even know about Christianity other than from your history class.
Why should we perpetuate a lie?

Some of the atrocities (http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm)

oh and...Dawkins speaks the facts, thats what pisses off the Christians, they have no answers for him, so the best thing that they can offer is "he is an atheist zealot" or evangelical atheist. We need thousands more just like him, and we are getting them.

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
Richard Dawkins (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richarddaw141335.html)

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.
Richard Dawkins (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richarddaw130970.html)

Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time.
Richard Dawkins (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richarddaw363337.html)

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity.
Richard Dawkins (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richarddaw402124.html)

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Richard Dawkins (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richarddaw402494.html)

AND THE BEST..

We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
Richard Dawkins (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richarddaw363342.html)

MelBridgeman

07-09-2010, 09:17 PM

Cheese

07-09-2010, 09:23 PM

With regards to these atrocities, is it your belief that they would of never of happened if religion was out of the equation?

What Im saying is that Christianity is responsible for these atrocities. What MAY have happened otherwise is pure speculation and we can never know where we would be now if left to grow naturally and with an open mind.

Reggie Dunlop

07-09-2010, 09:27 PM

jxDEBOi0F3o

Shoes of Peace!

MelBridgeman

07-09-2010, 09:59 PM

peter12

07-09-2010, 10:16 PM

Reggie Dunlop

07-09-2010, 10:20 PM

TYMuhN7OZgM

puckluck

07-09-2010, 10:22 PM

I cringe to even think about a world without religion. I would be one bad mutha effa.

GGG

07-09-2010, 10:32 PM

It doesnt have to be me thats persecuted. There are millions of cases of atrocities by the Christian faith, so many in fact that without these happening it would be highly likely you wouldn't even know about Christianity other than from your history class.
Why should we perpetuate a lie?

Some of the atrocities (http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm)

oh and...Dawkins speaks the facts, thats what pisses off the Christians, they have no answers for him, so the best thing that they can offer is "he is an atheist zealot" or evangelical atheist. We need thousands more just like him, and we are getting them.

What lie are we perpetuating. I don't think anyone is in denial about the past attrocities of church's.

Are the attrocities you refer to in the link actual products of the religion itself or are they means of enforcing political control over a group of people through fear and violence.

The crusades is one of the best examples. They had nothing to do with religion. These were political wars. Religion was used to get people to sign up but those at the top weren't fighting for God.

The one thing I do agree with Dawkins is that organized religion's heirarchy does cause problems with the world but instead of Dawkins attacking the institutuions directly he attacks the individual who believe. Even on that front Dawkins wasn't the first to attack organized religion. Jesus started that right from the start attacking the Sadducies and Pharisies.

Reggie Dunlop

07-09-2010, 11:02 PM

The one thing I do agree with Dawkins is that organized religion's heirarchy does cause problems with the world but instead of Dawkins attacking the institutuions directly he attacks the individual who believe.

I'm not sure why that's a problem.

RougeUnderoos

07-09-2010, 11:08 PM

Dawkins is evangelical as any religious group. His mantra is not to get religion out of influencing politics his mantra is to discredit religion and eliminate belief. His focus is on pointing out the logical flaws in religion then essentially calling everyone who believes stupid is very similar to the believer or you are going to hell pitch of the southern evangelical christians.

I'm not in the business of defending Richard Dawkins, but you seem to be saying that "pointing out the logical flaws" is a bad thing. Poking holes and exposing the flaws in powerful, international organizations and movements is a good thing.

And even if he does say that people who believe are stupid, it's a far cry from that saying (and enforcing) the idea that they shouldn't be afforded the same rights as non-believers.

I will also ask the question to you. When have you ever been persecuted for your non-belief. In canada this does not happen and when the discussion turns to Africa or even the Muslim world just blaming religion is a gross over simplification of the issue.

You are the one that brought it up. You said you, as a Christian, weren't allowed to have your beliefs, and then you didn't explain how.

Anyway, I've never been persecuted for my beliefs. But I've had "Christian values" pushed on me all my life, even in public school. I've never had an atheist tell me what to believe.

This board is a good example of the passive attack that occurs on idvidual christians. It really isn't socially acceptable to be religious outside of a religious group. Which is why most people just don't talk about it.

Now come on, this just isn't true. Our political leaders are always religious/Christian. We hear all the time that the majority of Canadians identify themselves as religious (and mainly Christian). There are churches in every community, and religious organizations are given a mighty favorable status by the tax man.

The most popular guy in town is a smiley-faced hockey playing hero who is openly Christian, and everybody, even the atheists, love him.

arloiginla

07-09-2010, 11:12 PM

Do you know what bugs me about these evangelical Athiests. Its that they won't let us crazy christians have our beliefs.

You know what we all know if you use only logic and reason and the scientific method that religion doesn't make sense. We don't care. We have developed a system of belief that gives us comfort and enjoyment in our lives. What is it that athiests find so threatening about this.

The answer always is that organized religion is a scourge and the organized religion is at fault for all of the worlds problems. While this may be true the individual religious person who gets lambasted by athiests has no control over what the top of the religion does. It is like holding a low level BP employee responsible for the oil spill just because they work there.

Beyond that organzied religion is used as a means of control. In the past we have had Nationalism, Racism, Communism and so on have all been used as a means to control people and deliver power to a small group of people. So if you got rid of religion and left the poverty in this world in place other means of control would develop that would give hope to the oppressed. The real solution to the moderation of religion is to lift people out of poverty. The attacking mentality of the evangelical athiests only serves to piss off moderates and galvanize the zealots. It may convert those on the fringe but they aren't the problem and the more you remove the moderates from the fold the more extreme the religion will become.

Fantastic post. Not too dissimilar from Nero blaming the fire of Rome on all the Christians and having them randomly burned at the stake.

We speak out against being racist and being mad at all Asians because some of them are bad drivers. But because organized religion is supposedly responsible for all the world's problems, we don't miss a chance to make fun of the next guy's religious beliefs because they aren't completely atheistic.

I'm likely being way too melodramatic here, but you have to admit this is true to some degree. Frankly, I think the incessant bashing gets in the way of what is some awesome discussions on religion both on this forum and in general.

jammies

07-09-2010, 11:24 PM

The crusades is one of the best examples. They had nothing to do with religion. These were political wars. Religion was used to get people to sign up but those at the top weren't fighting for God.

Sorry, this is just not true. "Nothing to do with religion"? Indulgences offered for crusading against the Saracen were a powerful motivator for many that went; do you really believe hundreds of thousands of men went to try to conquer a tiny bit of land of no strategic importance and little wealth for exclusively "political" reasons?

And what about fighting monastic orders like the Templars and the Hospitallers? Do they not count as religiously inspired?

Hack&Lube

07-09-2010, 11:33 PM

Sorry, this is just not true. "Nothing to do with religion"? Indulgences offered for crusading against the Saracen were a powerful motivator for many that went; do you really believe hundreds of thousands of men went to try to conquer a tiny bit of land of no strategic importance and little wealth for exclusively "political" reasons?

And what about fighting monastic orders like the Templars and the Hospitallers? Do they not count as religiously inspired?

Religion was the motivation and justification for many in the Crusades but as is all wars in human history, it was politically and economically motivated at the highest levels. It's like how ficticious African yellow cake and WMD was the justification for the Iraq war and religion or anti-muslim feeling motivated many to engage in that war but it is almost certainly political.

Popes were political and economical manipulators of the highest degree. The crusades first began because the eastern empires were concerned with the political and territorial expansion of Turks into their land.

There were almost a dozen crusades, you cannot paint them all with the same brush. Almost every major conflict in human history is ultimately politically or economically motivated.

Do these threads always have to degenerate into Reggie Dunlop posting irreverant youtube videos and pictures, Cheese blaming Christianity for every war in human history, Richard Dawkins thrown about, etc. It's all getting tired people. The atheists spouting absurb hyperbole like how religion is the cause of all mankind's ills are just as blind and ignorant to reality as the religious people who do not question their faith or challenge their beliefs.

jammies

07-09-2010, 11:52 PM

Popes were political and economical manipulators of the highest degree.

Leaving the rest of your dubious claims aside, why exactly were the popes powerful enough to do any political and economic manipulation if not because of their religious authority? No God = no pope = no call to Crusade = no crusades.

GGG

07-09-2010, 11:55 PM

I'm not in the business of defending Richard Dawkins, but you seem to be saying that "pointing out the logical flaws" is a bad thing. Poking holes and exposing the flaws in powerful, international organizations and movements is a good thing.

And even if he does say that people who believe are stupid, it's a far cry from that saying (and enforcing) the idea that they shouldn't be afforded the same rights as non-believers.

I'm not going to defend church's in the same way you shouldn't have to defend Dawkins. What the church does and what the individual christian does are two completely different things. I for one believe all people should be afforded the same rights.

My problems with Dawkins is he attacks individuals with his Mantra not the organizations. His Mantra does nothing more then entrench extremists and alienate moderates.

You are the one that brought it up. You said you, as a Christian, weren't allowed to have your beliefs, and then you didn't explain how.

Sorry I think I wasn't clear. Its not that you are not allowed to have you beliefs without ridicule.

Anyway, I've never been persecuted for my beliefs. But I've had "Christian values" pushed on me all my life, even in public school. I've never had an atheist tell me what to believe.

Christian values shouldn't be pushed on people and to a large degree especially in public schools this has been eliminated. Athiesm has definately become a stronger voice over the past 5 years. Somehow the debate has become either you are a creationist or an athiest and anyone who declares that they believe all of a sudden becomes a creationist. The middle ground of being a quiet christian who believes has disappeared to a large degree.

Now come on, this just isn't true. Our political leaders are always religious/Christian. We hear all the time that the majority of Canadians identify themselves as religious (and mainly Christian). There are churches in every community, and religious organizations are given a mighty favorable status by the tax man.

The most popular guy in town is a smiley-faced hockey playing hero who is openly Christian, and everybody, even the atheists, love him.

Look at the 30 an under demos on religion. Here is as close as I can find

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Canada#Age_and_religion

(i didn't even change the numbers)

Athiests 31.8 Canada 37.3 with Catholics being 38 and the other christian religions over 40. So amoung the younger crowd religion is not prominant at all outside of religious groups.

Religous organizations are no more favoured by the tax man then any other non-profit community or charitable organization and essentially that is the purpose they serve.

Anyway the real way to get rid of the organzational consequences of religion is just to increase standard of living and access to information a wait. Demographics will take care of the problem on its own. The biggest thing is that you probably don't want to come on hear and read how great Jesus is and how to be saved and I don't particularly want to read how stupid everyone who believes in religion is. Simple respect of people's beliefs goes a long way. If I like my Spegehtti Monster you shouldn't care.

Hack&Lube

07-10-2010, 12:04 AM

Leaving the rest of your dubious claims aside, why exactly were the popes powerful enough to do any political and economic manipulation if not because of their religious authority? No God = no pope = no call to Crusade = no crusades.

You cannot distill it down to such a ridiculously simple explanation and then explicate and blame the whole upon the common denominator. Papal authority of course is religiously derived but we are arguing from two points of the same side of the argument.

If you have ever studied the history of Europe you would know that the root causes of the crusades are countless. Due to political and economic stabilization of Europe, there was a large yet lay warrior class that had nothing to do. Furthermore, the eastern Byzantium empire was facing territorial expansion by Muslim armies. With this large force of restless soldiers and the political and military threat of Islamic expanion, this was a good opportunity to vent that building frustration as well as to take advantage of a large swelling up of religious fervor as a further motivating factor for both peasant class soldiers to perform a pillgrimage and find a livelihood and for landless nobles to make a name for themselves and hopefully be rewarded with land and property upon their return.

You are arguing that religious inspiration or pious motivation are completely the causes and to be blamed for the Crusades. I'm pointing out that your explanation is too simple and ignoring many facts of history. Religion was the justification and motivation for many but politics and economical reasons are always chief among the arbiters of human endeavor, especially among those in power.

If you want to convince someone to question the validity of religion, challenge the core tenets of their faith, not point out examples of how people historically behaved or did things (at the core, this is just the nazi argument, find something bad associated with something and then pin it all on that). As much as religion needs to get out of the dark ages, people need to stop pointing to the dark ages as criticism of contemporary religion.

GGG

07-10-2010, 12:10 AM

Leaving the rest of your dubious claims aside, why exactly were the popes powerful enough to do any political and economic manipulation if not because of their religious authority? No God = no pope = no call to Crusade = no crusades.

Some other means of control would have been used. Say nationalism for example. Look at the spread of communism.

How would wars for resourses and land been fought without religion as a motivator? How would excess population be eliminated that posed a threat to the ruling monarch if people began to starve moreso then they already were. Religion was the tool that was chosen to be most effective. That it was chosen doesn't make it inherantly bad no more then a gun murdurs people.

Now if God isn't real and religion is a human construct that effectively got our society to where it is now shouldn't survival of the fitest be aloud to prevail. If religion is an evil to humanity that doesn't help us survice shouldn't it slowly disappear as its need disappears or does religion ensure the propagation of humanity by increasing birth rates and therefore will ever expand its influence. And if religion does survive and help to propagate humanity then hasn't evolution showed religion to be a good thing?

photon

07-10-2010, 12:27 AM

Conception to me really is the only cut and dry point. Any other point becomes an agrument akin to when is the soul installed during evolution.

There is no point, it's like having a spectrum of billions of colours and saying "at what point does green start". Or asking at what point does a child become a teen? Or a teen an adult? Just because we like to make clear cut lines doesn't mean reality will play along.

I cringe to even think about a world without religion. I would be one bad mutha effa.

I don't think so, if you look at actual statistics for things like crime, murder, teen pregnancy, suicides, etc, first world democracies with low religiosity have a distinct advantage over the same with a higher religiosity.

I don't see any indication that religion leads to a better society overall.

Now if God isn't real and religion is a human construct that effectively got our society to where it is now shouldn't survival of the fitest be aloud to prevail. If religion is an evil to humanity that doesn't help us survice shouldn't it slowly disappear as its need disappears or does religion ensure the propagation of humanity by increasing birth rates and therefore will ever expand its influence. And if religion does survive and help to propagate humanity then hasn't evolution showed religion to be a good thing?

"Survival of the fittest" is for animals, we're people, we think and consider our actions and circumstances and make decisions beyond immediate survival. Things change, society changes, at some point humanity may grow out of religion. Or it might not, the roots of belief are very deep.

jammies

07-10-2010, 12:32 AM

You are arguing that religious inspiration or pious motivation are completely the causes and to be blamed for the Crusades.

Really? Where did I say that?

Religion was a *necessary* cause of the Crusades, but not by any means the only cause. If you read back and look at what I actually say as opposed to what you assume I am saying, I took issue with the idea that Crusades had, and I quote, "nothing to do with religion." No where have I claimed that religion was the only cause of this, or any other war. On the other side, YOU have claimed that almost all wars are politically or economically motivated, and then you accuse me of being overly simplistic? How ironic.

Religion has been a contributing factor to many wars, from the Jewish revolts against the Romans, to the Crusades, to the European conquests in the New World, to the Arab-Israeli wars of the last 60 years. Anyone claiming it's the only factor in any particular war is a fool, agreed, but anyone claiming it is not a contributing factor throughout history is equally deluded.

jammies

07-10-2010, 12:34 AM

Some other means of control would have been used. Say nationalism for example. Look at the spread of communism.

Maybe, but so what? That religion is a handy means of control to commit evil is enough in itself to condemn it; the "well other things are bad too!" defence isn't very convincing.

Hack&Lube

07-10-2010, 02:08 AM

Really? Where did I say that?

Religion was a *necessary* cause of the Crusades, but not by any means the only cause. If you read back and look at what I actually say as opposed to what you assume I am saying, I took issue with the idea that Crusades had, and I quote, "nothing to do with religion." No where have I claimed that religion was the only cause of this, or any other war. On the other side, YOU have claimed that almost all wars are politically or economically motivated, and then you accuse me of being overly simplistic? How ironic.

Religion has been a contributing factor to many wars, from the Jewish revolts against the Romans, to the Crusades, to the European conquests in the New World, to the Arab-Israeli wars of the last 60 years. Anyone claiming it's the only factor in any particular war is a fool, agreed, but anyone claiming it is not a contributing factor throughout history is equally deluded.

Then if I have mischaracterized your comments, you have mischaracterized mine as I have never said that it was not a contributing factor. The Jewish revolts (fighting against occupation), Arab-Isreali wars (Survival of relatively new Isreali state in the middle of an Arab dominated region) however are all great examples of overtly politically motivated conflicts. The European conquests of the New World were also economically motivated for but religion plays a big part of this as the riches of the new world were used to fund the wars of religion before the Peace of Westphalia.

Reggie Dunlop

07-10-2010, 02:40 AM

I've been reading Richard Dawkins' latest The Greatest Show On Earth on my iPad. Quite engrossing. He's quite an engaging person in print. Absolutely slays Creationists with surgical precision.

MelBridgeman

07-10-2010, 02:56 AM

Maybe, but so what? That religion is a handy means of control to commit evil is enough in itself to condemn it; the "well other things are bad too!" defence isn't very convincing.

meh. not sure why you need something that is stretching it to prove a point against religion, when there is plenty of ammo available.

as far as dawkins goes, i agree with him, i like him, but he really does come across as a baffoon and maybe even a hypocrite when he gets into his child like rants and name calling. He talks about religion eliminating the need for understanding, well so does name calling as your conclusion.

The bible may be full of a lot of exaggeration, but it is one of the earliest forms of scientific observationtional evidence of major events in human/earths history. There is archaeological evidence that supports noah's flood, genetic evidence that supports adam and eve etc...just it's a bit more sophiscated then how it is presented in the bible. In fact one theory states that a noahs flood actually started in Canada..interesting stuff...Scientists are now turning to some biblical accounts and native american folklore as not just fictional stories, but as evidence that backs up some scientific theories.

HOZ

07-10-2010, 03:08 AM

What Im saying is that Christianity is responsible for these atrocities. What MAY have happened otherwise is pure speculation and we can never know where we would be now if left to grow naturally and with an open mind.

Well... Likely Muslim since it was Charlemagne's Grandfather that turned them back in Southern France.

That said.....what about the Muslim faith Cheese and their atrocities?

What about the Romans? Europe and Carthage really took a beating from them!

Greeks? Persians?

Chinese? - How many people are truly buried under that wall?:eek:

A whole whack of killing NOT in the name of Christianity.

jammies

07-10-2010, 03:16 AM

Then if I have mischaracterized your comments, you have mischaracterized mine as I have never said that it was not a contributing factor.

Almost every major conflict in human history is ultimately politically or economically motivated.

That second quote doesn't really jibe with the first. You are saying that the "ultimate motivation" for war is either political or economic quite plainly and unambiguously - I don't see how I'm misconstruing your comments at all, it's more like you're contradicting yourself.

There is no such thing as an "ultimate" cause for any war or other complex chain of events. The idea that there is such a thing is an illusion fostered by our limited human capacity for reason. There are proximate causes that are necessary for certain events, but every war ever waged had many causes, among which almost always include political, cultural, ethnic, religious and economic. In certain cases - including the Israeli wars which I think you've mentioned before, and repeatedly incorrectly identify as a mostly secular conflict - religion IS that proximate cause, as differences in religious belief act as a catalyst in turning peace into war.

starseed

07-10-2010, 03:59 AM

Gas pains? First I burst out laughing, and then I became turned on by your candour.

*sigh* Unattainable men.

Hack&Lube

07-10-2010, 04:30 AM

That second quote doesn't really jibe with the first. You are saying that the "ultimate motivation" for war is either political or economic quite plainly and unambiguously - I don't see how I'm misconstruing your comments at all, it's more like you're contradicting yourself.

There is no such thing as an "ultimate" cause for any war or other complex chain of events. The idea that there is such a thing is an illusion fostered by our limited human capacity for reason. There are proximate causes that are necessary for certain events, but every war ever waged had many causes, among which almost always include political, cultural, ethnic, religious and economic. In certain cases - including the Israeli wars which I think you've mentioned before, and repeatedly incorrectly identify as a mostly secular conflict - religion IS that proximate cause, as differences in religious belief act as a catalyst in turning peace into war.

And you keep characterizing my comments in the absolute. I stand by my assertion that in most cases, the ultimate and underlying causes for the majority of human conflicts are political or economic. Religious tensions execerbate and often provide motivation and rationale for conducting these conflicts. On the balance, some factors will usually outweigh others. I don't see how a limited capacity to reason precludes you from reaching reasonably accurate conclusions about the main causes of human behavior and conflict in recorded history as long as there is sufficient and reliable information. People will kill in the name of religion but their underlying motivations are usually better framed in terms of political or economic motives even if they do not recognize this themselves. They want to exert dominance over other peoples, they want economic gain, they are territorial, they want to accumulate wealth and exercise power, etc.

I never said the Arab Isreali wars were mostly secular. I said that it was about about the survival of the relatively nascent Jewish state in the middle of Arab territory. This was exacerbated by the remnants of the Ottoman Empire jockeying for power and the effects of a Jewish territory being artifically created in territory the Arabs considered their own. The proximate cause is the ages old conflict between Arabs and Jews. Yes, these groups are often largely defined by their respective religions but in the bigger picture, this is a battle of competing cultures with centuries old animosity that is much larger than religion itself. This continues with the territorial wars of today in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, etc. Is Isreal really creating settlements in the name of Yahweh as the main factor in this? (though Zionism does play a part) Or is it their own way of creating living space for the expansion of their state? Isreal's motivations are about survival of their state. If it were mainly about religion, Isreal would not allow the Temple Mount to remain a mosque or have ceded control to a Muslim authority in land which is rightfully within their territory won in 1967.

I don't know why we are arguing, I've said over and over again that religion is used as a motivation and justification for many wars. That is exactly the same as being the catalyst that is the tipping point into war as you say. We are arguing over semantics. My definition of political is one of social relationships regarding authority and power and group decision making. That includes religious, racial, cultural aspects. It is intended to be a much broader umbrella than simply governance or state actions as you may interpret it.

What I am trying to get at, is that it is human nature to act in this manner, to seek power and to dominate what they see as different. Even if you took away religion in historical times, humanity would not be any less war-like. We would have found other ignorant ideas and superstitions to act around such as differences in race, culture, or how to order society. The greatest global wars civilization has ever seen were secular and largly among people that obstensibly shared the same religious heritage and backgrounds in a time where we were considered englightened by civilization, scientific knowledge, and liberalization. In the end, western civilization was only talked out of their tendancy for all-out war by the fact that for the first time, the risks of war far outweighed the potential gains...ie: total annhilation through mutually assured destruction.

Cheese

07-10-2010, 05:19 AM

How? This is such a ridiculous and historicist naive statement. How is it responsible?

read the link

Hack&Lube

07-10-2010, 05:26 AM

read the link

http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

Dude, I am "on your side", but wow, what a classy, professional, and totally scholarly and balanced website. :bag:

This sort of brutality was practiced by every culture in their respective times, even ones totally alien to Christianity. Read up on Asian history and you can see some of the attrocities and genocides that occured. The numbers probably dwarf those victims of Christianity.

Can you say Christianity killed 6,000,000 people in the span of only 5 years? And if you try to equate Christianity with Nazism, you pretty much give up all credibility (as much as religious advocates try to equate Nazism with atheism are also absurd). Brutality and attrocities are a common trait of all our ancestors throughout human history regardless of religion or culture.

Read the end of my post above yours.

Thor

07-10-2010, 05:39 AM

To me the historical death toll is irrelevant, its all about today and how religion affects the world's discourse.

I still can't get over calling atheists religious, its ludicrous.

Cheese

07-10-2010, 05:40 AM

Well... Likely Muslim since it was Charlemagne's Grandfather that turned them back in Southern France.

That said.....what about the Muslim faith Cheese and their atrocities?

What about the Romans? Europe and Carthage really took a beating from them!

Greeks? Persians?

Chinese? - How many people are truly buried under that wall?:eek:

A whole whack of killing NOT in the name of Christianity.

I am equally appalled at the atrocities of all religions, we are stuck in a Christian world so my focus is largely on their faith. As to whether we'd be Muslims if the Christian faith didn't exist? Doubtful as that religion stemmed from Christian influence.

Yes there are many examples of atrocities from other groups as well, equally as horrifying, but what has that to do with the question at hand?
A diversion? The list I provided, and an extensive one at that, caused millions of deaths in the name of religion and the propagation of that religion. Other religions have their own manifestations as well.

Are you suggesting that is the path humans would have taken had their been no Christianity? Are you suggesting it was ok for millions to lose their lives, and continue to do so in order for that or other religions to survive?

I have no idea on the likely path we as humans would have taken without the Christian influence, one thing I can be pretty sure about is that science may not have been gagged for the last two thousand years.

Cheese

07-10-2010, 05:43 AM

http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

Dude, I am "on your side", but wow, what a classy, professional, and totally scholarly and balanced website. :bag:

This sort of brutality was practiced by every culture in their respective times, even ones totally alien to Christianity. Read up on Asian history and you can see some of the attrocities and genocides that occured. The numbers probably dwarf those victims of Christianity.

Can you say Christianity killed 6,000,000 people in the span of only 5 years? And if you try to equate Christianity with Nazism, you pretty much give up all credibility (as much as religious advocates try to equate Nazism with atheism are also absurd). Brutality and attrocities are a common trait of all our ancestors throughout human history regardless of religion or culture.

Read the end of my post above yours.

read post above...and my apologies if that link didnt appeal to you. The fact is the information in it, is accurate.....dude;)

Hack&Lube

07-10-2010, 05:47 AM

To me the historical death toll is irrelevant, its all about today and how religion affects the world's discourse.

I still can't get over calling atheists religious, its ludicrous.

They've been using the wrong semantics and terminology (call atheists evangelical) but many atheists are as fervent about prosetylizing their beliefs as the most zealous religious evangelical...or your average global warming dude on either side :w00t: We're lucky we can all be internet tough guys today and not get beheaded or stuck in an iron maiden or burned at the stake for all our discussions and disagreements.

Hack&Lube

07-10-2010, 06:09 AM

read post above...and my apologies if that link didnt appeal to you. The fact is the information in it, is accurate.....dude;)

The information is accurate but I am saying you can bring up any list of any powerful culture, society, state, or religion in human history and come up with a similar litanty of attrocities that we in the modern world would view as morally reprehensible. You are assigning complete blame to Christianity for something that I believe to be a trait of human nature. If the world were without religion, mankind would find some other ignorance or superstition to kill each other over until the point where we realize that killing each other becomes so devastating that it's better to hold back (mutually assured destruction).

What is the point of even making hypothetical guesses at what the world would be like? It'd probably be unrecognizable. Without unifying forces like Christianity in western europe, western society would probably be overrun by muslims and mongols and the Renaissance and the Enlightenment would have never happened and we'd probably be in a much more backward and barbarous society today. It's fun conjecture I guess. If only you could guarantee the Roman Empire didn't fall apart (whether that is due to Christianity or total mismanagement by Imperial rule after the fall of the Republic is something else to be debated).

Alright, I agree with you that religion impeded science in certain ways, but I think that the critical mass of societal and economic development was simply not good enough to foster enough of an educated class to really create the educated and liberal world that we have today. I would agree with you that superstitious and religious Europe (along with political and economic factors such as the decline of the Roman Empire) probably killed off scientific advancement for 2000 years where it was left to Muslim scientists to provide any applicable science of today. That said, Christianity and science existed side by side throughout the important scientific advances of the 17th-19th centuries where the political and religious atmosphere of those times were especially more tolerant and fostering than most other societies of the world.

In the end, I agree with Thor's statement. I don't care much for the historical death toll or the historical tragedies or delay of science and "enlightened" society. That's crying over spilt milk. Sure I'd rather that we'd be 2000 years ahead and have flying cars and space ships and live for hundreds of years, etc. but we have what we've got. Like Thor, I don't the only relevant thing to discuss is how religion affects modern day society and discourse.

Thor

07-10-2010, 06:11 AM

Hack&Lube

07-10-2010, 06:17 AM

Oh I agree on the fervent part, but thats a whole different idea than suggesting they are a religious group as is often suggested by annoyed believers.

So 2 rules we've decided to go forward with now, #1 Stop playing the "your so mean to us christians/muslims/etc and #2 Fervent Atheists are NOT like a Religion, nor is atheism a religion.

Oh and militant atheist, lol, again part of #2.

And the #1 Rule of Bible Discussion Club is...There is no Bible Discussion Club.

What Messiah died and made you boss? ;)

As for actual rules I'd like:

1. stop reposting pictures and videos from all the other religious threads, they are probably hilarious and enlightening but they get tiring

2. stop bringing up the trope that religion is the root cause of all wars/bloodshed/suffering/ills of society, etc.

3. Photon should post more because he sounds smarter than me and he wears the forum administrator belt of invulnerability to critcism

4. Talk more about the actual religion and beliefs and practicies and debate the plausibility or applicability of those in our contemporary world with contemporary knowedge in a critical manner instead of fighting over evolution/big bang/dawkins/intelligent design/spaghetti monsters ad nauseam as always. Challenge and discuss actual beliefs held by people, stop arguing about semantics and the metaphysical which never goes anywhere.

Thor

07-10-2010, 06:20 AM

Thor

07-10-2010, 06:22 AM

But if anyone needs a break, both sides will find this funny as hell, one of the best standups on religion.

Warning language, definitely not safe for work.

LZJ-_OTvsqo

Hack&Lube

07-10-2010, 06:35 AM

Oh and for honesty and full disclosure there is definitely a part of the new atheist movement which favors soft sell approach rather than the more in your face ways of PZ Meyers, Hitchins and of course Dawkins.

I think both ways are inevitable, just as you had Malcolm X and Martin Luther King in the civil rights movement.

Everyone expresses their frustration differently, both sides, and to waste time and energy pointing that out or focusing on this as a debate point really wastes the time we could be spending on real worthwhile discussions.

I mean I think from even a few years ago I mellowed out on my religion sucks attitude on these boards and am more mild mannered (usually.)

But really, and again in point of honesty even though there are what you'd call accomidationists in the non believer camp (you'll find many of them don't like being called atheists), they still hold the viewpoint religious people are dead wrong, they are just nicer to them about it. :D

I always believe in compassion, empathy, and tolerance and don't deny the existence of things I will never have knowledge of. I am in the camp of "I don't care anymore if certain religions or people are dead wrong" and I will go out of my way to accomodate them because I am a humanist and whatever makes you happy will float my boat. Almost all my close family and friends are religious in some way whether it is Christian, Muslim, Buddist, Hindu, Mormon (no Scientologists thank Xenu!) and I cannot deny the benefit of faith in their lives. Honestly, I wish all atheist vs. religious debates were instead between the apostates and the religious trying to convert them back. That'd be much more entertaining and intellectually stimulating to me. You need to have common ground to have any gripping discussion or any good argument that will keep my interest otherwise it's just cat fighting.

Thor

07-10-2010, 06:36 AM

And the #1 Rule of Bible Discussion Club is...There is no Bible Discussion Club.

What Messiah died and made you boss? ;)

Odin obviously! :w00t:

As for actual rules I'd like:

1. stop reposting pictures and videos from all the other religious threads, they are probably hilarious and enlightening but they get tiring

Mainly agree, some images/videos are appropriate at times, but spamming the same ones over and over isn't that great.

2. stop bringing up the trope that religion is the root cause of all wars/bloodshed/suffering/ills of society, etc.

Agree, add to that Stop saying Atheism was responsible for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and their atrocities.

3. Photon should post more because he sounds smarter than me and he wears the forum administrator belt of invulnerability to critcism

lol yup agree, and be nice to see Textcritic more often, but I'm sure he's on another level in regards to biblical knowledge, he's probably have more fruitful conversations with theologans (probably frustrate even them.)

4. Talk more about the actual religion and beliefs and practicies and debate the plausibility or applicability of those in our contemporary world with contemporary knowedge in a critical manner instead of fighting over evolution/big bang/dawkins/intelligent design/spaghetti monsters ad nauseam as always. Challenge and discuss actual beliefs held by people, stop arguing about semantics and the metaphysical which never goes anywhere.

Couldn't agree more, if we find anyone claiming they don't believe in evolution however Id suggest its fair to ask them what points and debate them, but again if we try to keep it more focused on specific issues rather than god vs no god we'd all be better off I think.

Also add maybe one more, people posting "Oh no here we go again, bashing religion thread" can also stop, its not hard to not click on a thread if you are bothered by the discussion.

I'd give you some thanks but I'm all out, so here's a picture instead:

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/1/28/633687430971532560-Religion.jpg

Thor

07-10-2010, 06:39 AM

Oh and since I'm bored, a few more for laughs.

http://imjustlooking.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/religion-demotivational-poster-1216727967.jpg

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0811/baby-jesus-butt-plug-religion-demotivational-poster-1226702428.gif

And who doesn't love hot nuns?
http://www.lessthanmotivational.com/images//2009/05/nuns-demotivational-poster.jpg

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/5/17/633781665651174690-ReligionLetyourreligionbelessofatheoryandmoreofalo veaffair.jpg

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0810/religious-freedom-religion-freedom-demotivational-poster-1225473742.jpg

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/5/28/633791259531513940-Religion.jpg

Kk time to go camping, see you kids Sunday.

Hack&Lube

07-10-2010, 06:42 AM

Thor, you are really Loki aren't you? Could you set me up on a date with Frejya? Man, I wish the global religion fight wasn't between Christianity and Islam but it was the Norse vs. Roman Pantheons. That would be so much more awesome and less boring.

Don't you have a volcano to plug up or a shattered banking system to rebuild or something?

Thor

07-10-2010, 06:48 AM

lol 1 week after I arrived the volcano stopped, and as for banks, our currency actually has recovered a bit since I got here and food costs even went down for the 1st time since the collapse.

Iceland, your welcome.

Cheese

07-10-2010, 07:51 AM

The information is accurate but I am saying you can bring up any list of any powerful culture, society, state, or religion in human history and come up with a similar litanty of attrocities that we in the modern world would view as morally reprehensible. You are assigning complete blame to Christianity for something that I believe to be a trait of human nature. If the world were without religion, mankind would find some other ignorance or superstition to kill each other over until the point where we realize that killing each other becomes so devastating that it's better to hold back (mutually assured destruction).

Nowhere have I laid the blame ENTIRELY on Christianity or religion. I am suggesting that it holds a great deal of blame, and I also suggest we would likely have been better off without it. Yes there have been atrocities eleswhere, but that is not part of this discussion. Create a separate thread for those discussions, Im all for it.
Again, what may have happened without is a guess, but I'll bet we would be better off in regards to science and likely the advancement of women and people of different color. Speculation of course.
As I have ALWAYS said, I think man is inherently good, we are taught to be otherwise, with the exception of those who have the misfortune of bad genetics or familial exposure.
Man is also born atheist, we are simply taught the religious flavor of the day dependent on where we are raised.

Cheese

07-10-2010, 07:57 AM

I always believe in compassion, empathy, and tolerance and don't deny the existence of things I will never have knowledge of. I am in the camp of "I don't care anymore if certain religions or people are dead wrong" and I will go out of my way to accomodate them because I am a humanist and whatever makes you happy will float my boat. Almost all my close family and friends are religious in some way whether it is Christian, Muslim, Buddist, Hindu, Mormon (no Scientologists thank Xenu!) and I cannot deny the benefit of faith in their lives. Honestly, I wish all atheist vs. religious debates were instead between the apostates and the religious trying to convert them back. That'd be much more entertaining and intellectually stimulating to me. You need to have common ground to have any gripping discussion or any good argument that will keep my interest otherwise it's just cat fighting.

I think we all would...but Im sure you are well aware that when the argument, or discussion as you would have it, comes down to "FAITH" or "He Did It", it quickly falls apart from there. When your education on something is based simply on a book of fiction then you simply cannot have that type of discussion. Thats why everyone loves Textcritic, including myself, he can argue religion based on the history of it, knowing the foibles of current thinking.

Cheese

07-10-2010, 08:05 AM

The bible may be full of a lot of exaggeration, but it is one of the earliest forms of scientific observationtional evidence of major events in human/earths history. There is archaeological evidence that supports noah's flood, genetic evidence that supports adam and eve etc...just it's a bit more sophiscated then how it is presented in the bible. In fact one theory states that a noahs flood actually started in Canada..interesting stuff...Scientists are now turning to some biblical accounts and native american folklore as not just fictional stories, but as evidence that backs up some scientific theories.

CccaGaKOlSI

ah5xFMYbP4s

Hack&Lube

07-10-2010, 09:10 AM

I'll bet we would be better off in regards to science and likely the advancement of women and people of different color. Speculation of course.
As I have ALWAYS said, I think man is inherently good, we are taught to be otherwise, with the exception of those who have the misfortune of bad genetics or familial exposure.
Man is also born atheist, we are simply taught the religious flavor of the day dependent on where we are raised.

This happens to be completely and utterly opposite of everything I believe about human nature but to each his own.

I believe we all have a bit of inherent misogeny, racism, selfishness, and great capacity for great good or evil depending on what your social construct of the day is. We all also possess deep yearning for understanding of the universe and a bigger in life purpose for our existence within us which often leads people to seek it out through religion.

I think we all would...but Im sure you are well aware that when the argument, or discussion as you would have it, comes down to "FAITH" or "He Did It", it quickly falls apart from there. When your education on something is based simply on a book of fiction then you simply cannot have that type of discussion. Thats why everyone loves Textcritic, including myself, he can argue religion based on the history of it, knowing the foibles of current thinking.

You are just selling the religious short. There are many more accomplished biblical scholars who are religious than otherwise. Likewise, even without the credentials, there are many religious people who have deeply examined their faith in the context of theology and history and science and have managed to reconcile them. I'd like to hear those points of views. There's no need for this condescending attitude. It is what always spoils these discussions.

GGG

07-10-2010, 09:25 AM

"Survival of the fittest" is for animals, we're people, we think and consider our actions and circumstances and make decisions beyond immediate survival. Things change, society changes, at some point humanity may grow out of religion. Or it might not, the roots of belief are very deep.

I disagree that evolution stops when people developed the ability to think. The same concepts still prevail. Those traits and belief systems which cause the greatest amount of genetic material to passed on the ones that will continue. Now the Social Darwinism aspect may be a stretch that beliefs are passed down in a darwinistic manner but at some point if religion has no benefit it should disappear on its own.

GGG

07-10-2010, 09:30 AM

To me the historical death toll is irrelevant, its all about today and how religion affects the world's discourse.

I still can't get over calling atheists religious, its ludicrous.

I don't use the word evagelical to imply that it is religion.

e·van·gel·i·cal (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gifvhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/abreve.gifn-jhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ebreve.giflhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-khttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifl, http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ebreve.gifvhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifn-) also e·van·gel·ic (-jhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ebreve.giflhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifk)adj.1. Of, relating to, or in accordance with the Christian gospel, especially one of the four gospel books of the New Testament.
2. Evangelical Of, relating to, or being a Protestant church that founds its teaching on the gospel.
3. Evangelical Of, relating to, or being a Christian church believing in the sole authority and inerrancy of the Bible, in salvation only through regeneration, and in a spiritually transformed personal life.
4. Evangelicala. Of or relating to the Lutheran churches in Germany and Switzerland.
b. Of or relating to all Protestant churches in Germany.

5. Of or relating to the group in the Church of England that stresses personal conversion and salvation by faith.
6. Characterized by ardent or crusading enthusiasm; zealous: an evangelical liberal.

n. Evangelical A member of an evangelical church or party.

I am impplying definition 6 of evangelical. The Zealous, Ardent, and Crusading aspects of the word. Not the religiosity of the word. It is the method used to spread their tennants which becomes similar.

Cheese

07-10-2010, 09:30 AM

This happens to be completely and utterly opposite of everything I believe about human nature but to each his own.

I believe we all have a bit of inherent misogeny, racism, selfishness, and great capacity for great good or evil depending on what your social construct of the day is. We all also possess deep yearning for understanding of the universe and a bigger in life purpose for our existence within us which often leads people to seek it out through religion.

You are just selling the religious short. There are many more accomplished biblical scholars who are religious than otherwise. Likewise, even without the credentials, there are many religious people who have deeply examined their faith in the context of theology and history and science and have managed to reconcile them. I'd like to hear those points of views. There's no need for this condescending attitude. It is what always spoils these discussions.

condescending? cmon....nice try, my points are no more condescending than Thor's or anyone elses.
If you dont like my "opinion" put me on ignore.
I would think that based on the comments I respond to from many of the religious on this board, education of their particular choice is based solely on the bible or the word of their pastor, the historicity of their choice is largely unknown.
You are entitled to believe what you want, your choice, just as with the religious.

Hack&Lube

07-10-2010, 09:43 AM

condescending? cmon....nice try, my points are no more condescending than Thor's or anyone elses.
If you dont like my "opinion" put me on ignore.
I would think that based on the comments I respond to from many of the religious on this board, education of their particular choice is based solely on the bible or the word of their pastor, the historicity of their choice is largely unknown.
You are entitled to believe what you want, your choice, just as with the religious.

I think we have some decently smart people in this thread and you aren't giving them any credit and the condescension is not condusive to any useful discourse. Your opinions seem chosen for shock value. They don't bother me but they turn these threads into the usual thing.

At least SmellyFred isn't here :)

GGG

07-10-2010, 09:44 AM

As I have ALWAYS said, I think man is inherently good, we are taught to be otherwise, with the exception of those who have the misfortune of bad genetics or familial exposure. Man is also born atheist, we are simply taught the religious flavor of the day dependent on where we are raised.

I disageen I think with both of these tennats. Man is born inherantly self-serving caring only about his own survival and the survival of his genetic code. The evolutionary instinct is too strong. Our whole society is set up on doing what is best for yourself. Instances of Commune style living fail once group is large enough so that all indviduals don`t know eachother. Concepts like altruism are taught.

Man is also born with a great propensity for belief and a longing to belong. These traits lend people to some form of belief. We are naturally pre-disposed to belief.

CaptainCrunch

07-10-2010, 10:02 AM

Hack&Lube

07-10-2010, 10:05 AM

I think that you missed the alpha dog part of your theory though.

That at some point in commune living, people will look to someone with the most charisma to take the mantle of leadership and the person who's willing to make the decisions. And once that person is followed, the rest of the commune is willing to follow him without argument or complaint straight to hell.

No, there will always be challengers to the top dog, but if he's strong enough, he can beat them down. M******d must have been one badass hardcore gansta mofo. He defintely got da bitches. 11 hos.

CaptainCrunch

07-10-2010, 10:13 AM

No, there will always be challengers to the top dog, but if he's strong enough, he can beat them down. M******d must have been one badass hardcore gansta mofo. He defintely got da bitches. 11 hos.

Its funny though, you look at the alpha dog theories and some of the largest despots of their time, and for the most part it reads of a who's who of either natural deaths, suicides or destruction by outside sources.

Its rare that they're taken down by their own commune.

Hack&Lube

07-10-2010, 10:28 AM

Its funny though, you look at the alpha dog theories and some of the largest despots of their time, and for the most part it reads of a who's who of either natural deaths, suicides or destruction by outside sources.

Its rare that they're taken down by their own commune.

Except for pretty much every Roman Emperor but they were too civilized and learned to fall for the ol' commune and cult of personality trick. They don't like their Emperor, they stabbed and poisoned him by committee even if he named is Julius Caesar.

Oh and that other guy who's name starts with a J got sold out by his own man too.

CaptainCrunch

07-10-2010, 10:35 AM

Except for pretty much every Roman Emperor but they were too civilized and learned to fall for the ol' commune and cult of personality trick. They don't like their Emperor, they stabbed and poisoned him by committee even if he named is Julius Caesar.

Oh and that other guy who's name starts with a J got sold out by his own man too.

Except the Roman Emperors always allowed too much power to their underlings, supported a system of government that distributed power, and allowed for too much education to the masses.

In terms of communal living with a strong leadership cult head, the best example would still probably be North Korea and its allowance of dynastic succession.

Hack&Lube

07-10-2010, 10:41 AM

Except the Roman Emperors always allowed too much power to their underlings, supported a system of government that distributed power, and allowed for too much education to the masses.

In terms of communal living with a strong leadership cult head, the best example would still probably be North Korea and its allowance of dynastic succession.

Iran too with Grand Ayatollah Khamenei grooming his son to be the next supreme ruler too. Every top dog tries to get his son in there.

Azure

07-10-2010, 11:11 AM

The most popular guy in town is a smiley-faced hockey playing hero who is openly Christian, and everybody, even the atheists, love him.

He is?

photon

07-10-2010, 11:32 AM

as far as dawkins goes, i agree with him, i like him, but he really does come across as a baffoon and maybe even a hypocrite when he gets into his child like rants and name calling. He talks about religion eliminating the need for understanding, well so does name calling as your conclusion.

Is this an actual opinion of Dawkins, or of people's perception of Dawkins? Because these rants and name calling are mostly mythical, on the contrary I've seen Dawkins respond to people ranting and calling religious people names with rational and balanced responses.

Unless you have some actual examples of this behaviour.

The bible may be full of a lot of exaggeration, but it is one of the earliest forms of scientific observationtional evidence of major events in human/earths history.

Simple observation isn't science, and the Bible is no different in its observation of events.. some it gets right, some it gets wrong, some it makes up out of whole cloth, each depending on the author's goal when they wrote whatever book they did.

There is archaeological evidence that supports noah's flood

A global flood? No there isn't, and there's tons against it. The whole account is nonsense.

genetic evidence that supports adam and eve

Genetic evidence supports evolution completely not adam and eve. Unless you're talking about Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, but those are just names, those two people didn't live at the same time.

etc...

Etc like this?

http://www.conclave.ru/ipsum/ancient-hebrew-cosmology-545x770.jpg

just it's a bit more sophiscated then how it is presented in the bible. In fact one theory states that a noahs flood actually started in Canada..

I think you mean made up idea with no support, not theory.

I disagree that evolution stops when people developed the ability to think.

I never said it did. I was responding to your comment that "now shouldn't survival of the fitest be aloud to prevail". My point was that the basic survival of the fittest is the only factor in animal survival, in humans we minds and society, so while evolution still occurs, we make choices beyond the simple dictates of evolutionary pressures.

(Evolution is not survival of the fittest by the way, it's change of frequency of alleles in a population.. descent with modification through natural selection)

The same concepts still prevail. Those traits and belief systems which cause the greatest amount of genetic material to passed on the ones that will continue. Now the Social Darwinism aspect may be a stretch that beliefs are passed down in a darwinistic manner but at some point if religion has no benefit it should disappear on its own.

But just because a concept or social trait or whatever has benefit doesn't mean it should be allowed to propagate. Or sometimes a change should be actively pursued rather than just allow it to change slowly. Or even a change forced onto the majority against their will because it is the right thing to do. Slavery, women's rights, equality of races, etc.

I'm not saying that religion is that case; while I think some religions are harmful I also think limiting the freedom to have a religion is more harmful. Religion might disappear on its own, it certainly does the more stable and prosperous a society becomes.

I'm just saying that our society is (and should me) far more than just a simple survival of the fittest social construct.

Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwin incidentally.

Hack&Lube

07-10-2010, 11:32 AM

He is?

http://www.calgarychristian.com/articles/2004/406-jarome_iginla.htm

RougeUnderoos

07-10-2010, 11:35 AM

He is?

He is.

Azure

07-10-2010, 11:35 AM

http://www.calgarychristian.com/articles/2004/406-jarome_iginla.htm

Oh cool.

I do recall years ago about reading that he was religious, but I've never actually seen those quotes.

Good for him though. If he's found peace, I'm glad for him.

Hack&Lube

07-10-2010, 11:37 AM

Oh cool.

I do recall years ago about reading that he was religious, but I've never actually seen those quotes.

Good for him though. If he's found peace, I'm glad for him.

You make it sound like he lived the life of Theo Fleury.

Azure

07-10-2010, 11:37 AM

He is.

Honestly, I had no idea.

He's probably the most friendly person in the world and a great human being, but I honestly had no idea that he was so religious. Which is probably because he's not arrogant about it, nor does he constantly talk about it in the media.

The way he acts is the perfect example of how I think a real Christian should act. Through actions, and not words.

Azure

07-10-2010, 11:38 AM

You make it sound like he lived the life of Theo Fleury.

Uhhh, did you read the article? That is all I'm talking about.

HOZ

07-10-2010, 11:40 AM

I am equally appalled at the atrocities of all religions, 1. we are stuck in a Christian world so my focus is largely on their faith. As to whether we'd be Muslims if the Christian faith didn't exist? Doubtful as that religion stemmed from Christian influence.

Yes there are many examples of atrocities from other groups as well, equally as horrifying, but what has that to do with the question at hand?
A diversion? The list I provided, and an extensive one at that, caused millions of deaths in the name of religion and the propagation of that religion. Other religions have their own manifestations as well.

2. Are you suggesting that is the path humans would have taken had their been no Christianity? Are you suggesting it was ok for millions to lose their lives, and continue to do so in order for that or other religions to survive?

I have no idea on the likely path we as humans would have taken without the Christian influence, 3. one thing I can be pretty sure about is that science may not have been gagged for the last two thousand years.

1. Depends where you are living. Islam it a Abraham rooted religion....hence it's beginnings are Jewish just like Christianity. And yes history is on my side. Charlemagne's Grandfather stopped the mot advanced army in the world. So yes, unless your ancestors are from China....you would be Muslim.

2. Yes. Fascism and Communism have proven that. Not that you needed to have those two as the Chinese regularly committed genocide against others since the First Emperor. They were killing million before Mao made it a sporting event.

3. I really think you should read your history a little better. The Dark Ages were called that because literacy had simply vanished by 700AD. The history, the science, the knowledge was kept alive by the very religion you despise because they were they only ones literate. Check this video out. From 3:44 will tel you what the "Church" did for knowledge. Actually the entire series is quite "enlightening" and I recommend all to watch it. Science wasn't gagged by Christianity. Hence the reason why we have the knowledge to send someone to another planet.
w-mFcbc0M8E

MelBridgeman

07-10-2010, 12:11 PM

Is this an actual opinion of Dawkins, or of people's perception of Dawkins? Because these rants and name calling are mostly mythical, on the contrary I've seen Dawkins respond to people ranting and calling religious people names with rational and balanced responses.

Unless you have some actual examples of this behaviour.

Fair enough, but it has been talked about his use of the term idiot as to describe people who believe in faith. Like i said I am a fan of Dawkins.

Simple observation isn't science, and the Bible is no different in its observation of events.. some it gets right, some it gets wrong, some it makes up out of whole cloth, each depending on the author's goal when they wrote whatever book they did.

Last time i checked observation is part of the scientific method

A global flood? No there isn't, and there's tons against it. The whole account is nonsense.

No not a global flood. Again what you read in the bible can be passed has merely exaggeration or perception, the latter being the more likely. But at the end of the last ice age, plenty of evidence of major flooding. See this as an example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

Genetic evidence supports evolution completely not adam and eve. Unless you're talking about Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, but those are just names, those two people didn't live at the same time.

Yes that is all correct. I am not advocating taking the bible literally. But the concept of everyone originating from one man and one women is true.

photon

07-10-2010, 12:31 PM

Fair enough, but it has been talked about his use of the term idiot as to describe people who believe in faith. Like i said I am a fan of Dawkins.

The only time I've seen him use the word idiot was in specific reference to Ray Comfort, who is an idiot when it comes to evolution and science. I don't think he would describe all people who have faith as idiots; his book demonstrates that he thinks otherwise. Just because people talk about what someone says doesn't mean they're right.

Last time i checked observation is part of the scientific method

Observation is part of brain surgery, but that doesn't make all observation the precursors of brain surgery.

The point is that the Bible is decidedly mundane with respect to science and history.

No not a global flood. Again what you read in the bible can be passed has merely exaggeration or perception, the latter being the more likely. But at the end of the last ice age, plenty of evidence of major flooding. See this as an example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

Right, we live on a planet with lots of water flowing everywhere, and people tended to settle near large bodies of water when they could, so floods have been part of peoples lives for forever. So it's not surprising that writings have floods in them. Just not a global flood, I wasn't sure because you said "evidence that supports noah's flood", and that usually means a global flood around these parts.

Yes that is all correct. I am not advocating taking the bible literally. But the concept of everyone originating from one man and one women is true.

It is, but it's also not a very insightful or deep observation, since all we observe is people coming from one man and one woman.

Some things the Bible says that could be taken in a scientific context that it does get right, it gets right in the sense that a stopped clock is right twice a day.. right but randomly right, not right for the right reasons.

Mr.Coffee

07-10-2010, 01:11 PM

Traditional_Ale

07-10-2010, 01:42 PM

I've never understood the passion with which people debate over religion. I tried my best on this, the latest religious debate thread, to truly read the posts and respective positions but wow... it just gets so boring after awhile.

People believe what they want to believe, and that's that. At the end of the day, who cares? I don't get it. Why do people care so much?

What's your favourite colour? Oh really? Huh...alright...

Its because it affect everyone wether you believe or not.

Roast Beef

07-10-2010, 05:20 PM

I've never understood the passion with which people debate over religion. I tried my best on this, the latest religious debate thread, to truly read the posts and respective positions but wow... it just gets so boring after awhile.

People believe what they want to believe, and that's that. At the end of the day, who cares? I don't get it. Why do people care so much?

What's your favourite colour? Oh really? Huh...alright...

People care so much because it a fundamental belief. It shapes and guides their lives. It's nothing like having a favorite color or a favorite hockey team. It's much deeper than that.

GGG

07-10-2010, 07:14 PM

Its because it affect everyone wether you believe or not.

I don't know if this is true anymore if you live in a first world country and are not homosexual. So for some people the effect is quite great but for the majority someone elses religion and religious institutions does no affect their day lives.

I think it is akin to discussing politics. Really if you vote conservative and support them or you vote liberal it doesn't make a difference especially if you never change who you vote for as elections are decided on the margin. And really whoever is in power doesn't affect our day to day lives. I might pay $50 a month more or less in taxes and the economy might grow by 1% more or less but the direct effect on my life is rather minimal.

The reason I think it is discussed so much is that everyone thinks they are right and that the views is ardently defended. It is not so much the effect on people's lives but the percieved attack on a person's way of life.

Cheese

07-10-2010, 08:25 PM

I don't know if this is true anymore if you live in a first world country and are not homosexual. So for some people the effect is quite great but for the majority someone elses religion and religious institutions does no affect their day lives.

I think it is akin to discussing politics. Really if you vote conservative and support them or you vote liberal it doesn't make a difference especially if you never change who you vote for as elections are decided on the margin. And really whoever is in power doesn't affect our day to day lives. I might pay $50 a month more or less in taxes and the economy might grow by 1% more or less but the direct effect on my life is rather minimal.

The reason I think it is discussed so much is that everyone thinks they are right and that the views is ardently defended. It is not so much the effect on people's lives but the percieved attack on a person's way of life.

Nope, I tend to disagree. I think that people are passionate about this discussion because it does effect our every day lives. (Moreso outside of Canada, but here nonetheless)
The US has a large group of passionate Christians who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.
Canada and Europe have their own issues with a large influx of Muslims starting to push their influence. (moreso Europe, but making inroads here)
No one would care one iota if they kept to themselves, if they practiced what they preached, and did not attempt to force their views on the rest of society.
Unfortunately religions have a job to do, bring more people into its confines, or perish. The Mormons do a great job of this and others work in their own mysterious ways.
None of this is percieved...its out in the open and quite clear.

HOZ

07-10-2010, 10:28 PM

The US has a large group of passionate Christians who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.

This is such a sorry overused trope to make Christians out to be manipulative and evil. Take out Christian and add any other group. Go figure that it all of a sudden doesn't look so horrendous but rather very matter of fact.

The US has a large group of passionate Liberals who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.

The US has a large group of passionate Conservatives who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.

The US has a large group of passionate Democrats who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.

The US has a large group of passionate Republicans who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.

The US has a large group of passionate Artists who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.

Cheese

07-11-2010, 08:18 AM

This is such a sorry overused trope to make Christians out to be manipulative and evil. Take out Christian and add any other group. Go figure that it all of a sudden doesn't look so horrendous but rather very matter of fact.

The US has a large group of passionate Liberals who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.

The US has a large group of passionate Conservatives who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.

The US has a large group of passionate Democrats who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.

The US has a large group of passionate Republicans who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.

The US has a large group of passionate Artists who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.

well once again you have clearly missed the point. First off Ive never had a group of artists trying to push The Group of 7 on me or come knocking on my door espousing the benefits of Gauguinism. I am forced to stomach politicians every 4 years or so and I have the benefit of using my vote to ouster a group I don't like.
This is about religion, if you want to make a separate post about the effects of artists and politicians feel free.

Calgaryborn

07-11-2010, 09:14 AM

Actually I know exactly what I'm talking about. It just makes no sense to me how the new testament can over ride the old testament. The old testament is harsh so did god just all of a sudden soften up with the new testament? or is it just written by man to soften up the old testament?

Exo 19:4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
Exo 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
Exo 19:7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.
Exo 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

The Mosaic covenant was giving to the nation of Israel alone.

Exo 24:3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.

Exo 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
Exo 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

The people of Irsrael willingly entered into this covenant with God. They did this fully aware of the requirements of the law.

What you will see by reading the other 37 books of the Old Testament is that the Israelites again and again failed to keep those 300+ laws. Apparently it was a lot harder than they imagined. Even Israel's heroes of faith failed in keeping the whole law. In fact there is no record a Mother or Father ever gave up a disobedient child to be stoned. I don't even recall a an instance where a women was stoned for adultery. Judging by the account in John I would suggest it wasn't practiced:

Joh 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
Joh 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Joh 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
Joh 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
Joh 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

If stoning was a common accepted practice for adultery why would they used these circumstances to test Jesus? Wouldn't they just expect Him to affirm the law. They brought this women to him because they knew if Jesus followed the law he would have been seen as barbaric and heartless. But, if he forgave and freed this women he could be accused as a law breaker.

The law was given in order to demonstrate the need for a Saviour. Through it any honest man would see firstly his inability to measure up to God's standard and secondly God's judgement against sin. Galatians calls the law our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ:

Gal 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

This is the new covenant with God:

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Devils'Advocate

07-11-2010, 09:24 AM

This is such a sorry overused trope to make Christians out to be manipulative and evil. Take out Christian and add any other group. Go figure that it all of a sudden doesn't look so horrendous but rather very matter of fact.

And I'm willing to take on the beliefs and values of the Christians the same way that I take on the Conservatives and Republicans (though the three overlapping circles would hardly be distinguishable).

To get back to Mr. Coffee's question, I have no problem with people having their faith, be it Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or Jewish. I, myself, am Pastafarian. To each their own.

My issue, as per above, is when they try to influence policy. Last week we had two gay marriage threads. Most of those opposed to giving gays the same rights as heterosexuals were by and large religious people. And their primary justification has nothing to do with reason or logic. It's "this book written thousands of years ago says these people are sinners". You can't debate that. It's virtually impossible to reason with those that have built their values solely around an old book.

Favorite colours or favorite flavour ice creams do not impact public policy on the environment, human rights or social justice. Therefore I don't care.

T@T

07-11-2010, 02:57 PM

No not a global flood. Again what you read in the bible can be passed has merely exaggeration or perception, the latter being the more likely. But at the end of the last ice age, plenty of evidence of major flooding. See this as an example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

Every ice age had major floodings, you don't have to be a scientist to figure out why either! and the last ice age ended long before christianity and likely before any form of religion. The great flood in the bible is bogus BS and just a fairy tale. no different than talking snakes, living in a whale and parting the red sea.

I suppose the next version of the bible will have the dec 26,2004 tsunami that killed 230,000 people be gods punishment for not enough people going to midnight mass.

MelBridgeman

07-11-2010, 06:04 PM

Every ice age had major floodings, you don't have to be a scientist to figure out why either! and the last ice age ended long before christianity and likely before any form of religion. The great flood in the bible is bogus BS and just a fairy tale. no different than talking snakes, living in a whale and parting the red sea.

I suppose the next version of the bible will have the dec 26,2004 tsunami that killed 230,000 people be gods punishment for not enough people going to midnight mass.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/11/071120-noah-flood.html

The flood that is said to have inspired the story of Noah's Ark may also have sparked the rapid rise of agriculture in Europe, a new study says.

Scientists have speculated for some time that the biblical account of Noah's flood was rooted in a real event thousands of years ago.

Why live your life having your bias close your mind?

CaptainCrunch

07-11-2010, 06:08 PM

I remember reading about the flood in the ice age. Perceptions of the concept of world wide was certainly different back then because the average persons perception was within square miles of themselves. so a flood that size that wiped out everything within a mans life was perceived as world wide.

I remember about reading about the mis-interpretation of the Red Sea as the Reed sea, where Moses lead his enemies into a swamp that people of feet could successfully navigate, but people in heavy war chariots probably drowned.

The events in the bible were probably loosely interpreted around real world events based of perception and interpretation.

Hack&Lube

07-11-2010, 06:12 PM

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/11/071120-noah-flood.html

Why live your life having your bias close your mind?

Nobody is saying that floods don't happen. It was a common occurance for communties and tribes to be flooded out and thus, those events spark cultural memory that is passed down via word of mouth and writings through many millenia of the telephone game. Many cultures and religions have flood stories that parallel the Biblical one. The point where divergence happens is whether you believe that the flood story is a divinely inspired chronicle of supernatural power that changed the world and still has relevance and applicability to this day...or if it is just a thousands of years old cultural memory.

Devils'Advocate

07-11-2010, 06:48 PM

The events in the bible were probably loosely interpreted around real world events based of perception and interpretation.

But that would negate it being the word of God. Isn't it an infallible text of pure truth from God's mouth to man's ear? If it isn't exactly the word of God, but rather human interpretations of God's word, then gee, can't all of it be a misinterpretation?

Azure

07-11-2010, 06:53 PM

GGG

07-11-2010, 06:56 PM

Nope, I tend to disagree. I think that people are passionate about this discussion because it does effect our every day lives. (Moreso outside of Canada, but here nonetheless)
The US has a large group of passionate Christians who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.
Canada and Europe have their own issues with a large influx of Muslims starting to push their influence. (moreso Europe, but making inroads here)
No one would care one iota if they kept to themselves, if they practiced what they preached, and did not attempt to force their views on the rest of society.
Unfortunately religions have a job to do, bring more people into its confines, or perish. The Mormons do a great job of this and others work in their own mysterious ways.
None of this is percieved...its out in the open and quite clear.

Their is a perception that Muslims are taking over Europe and eventually NA. But I don't think that is the case. Every country has rejected the implementation of Islamic law and terrorism has been minimal to non-exsitant. A better statement would be that politicians in the west have used a percieved Muslim threat in order to consolidate votes and increase the power of governments.

As for religions job of recruiting I don't see any issue with that. Mcdonalds advertises, Walmart recruits, Door to Door Salesmen sell security systems, electricity contracts and religion. What is the difference (assuming there is no god) between the religious product that is being sold door to door and a security system. Both are unnecessary, both cost you money and both groups annoy you by trying to sell you something you don't need.

Other than the Gay/Lesbian issues religion just doens't effect people in the first world.

HOZ

07-11-2010, 07:10 PM

And I'm willing to take on the beliefs and values of the Christians the same way that I take on the Conservatives and Republicans (though the three overlapping circles would hardly be distinguishable).

To get back to Mr. Coffee's question, I have no problem with people having their faith, be it Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or Jewish. I, myself, am Pastafarian. To each their own.

My issue, as per above, is when they try to influence policy. Last week we had two gay marriage threads. Most of those opposed to giving gays the same rights as heterosexuals were by and large religious people. And their primary justification has nothing to do with reason or logic. It's "this book written thousands of years ago says these people are sinners". You can't debate that. It's virtually impossible to reason with those that have built their values solely around an old book.

Favorite colours or favorite flavour ice creams do not impact public policy on the environment, human rights or social justice. Therefore I don't care.

1. Marriage is not a right
2. Threads are not policy.
3. Grow up. People form policy ON THEIR BELIEFS. Go figure. Disqualifying someone due to their beliefs is a far greater crime than debating same sex marriage from a Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Atheist/Zoroastrian perspective.

Cheese

07-11-2010, 07:13 PM

Their is a perception that Muslims are taking over Europe and eventually NA. But I don't think that is the case. Every country has rejected the implementation of Islamic law and terrorism has been minimal to non-exsitant. A better statement would be that politicians in the west have used a percieved Muslim threat in order to consolidate votes and increase the power of governments.

As for religions job of recruiting I don't see any issue with that. Mcdonalds advertises, Walmart recruits, Door to Door Salesmen sell security systems, electricity contracts and religion. What is the difference (assuming there is no god) between the religious product that is being sold door to door and a security system. Both are unnecessary, both cost you money and both groups annoy you by trying to sell you something you don't need.

Other than the Gay/Lesbian issues religion just doens't effect people in the first world.

I noted that there was a larger "influence" of Muslims in Europe and Canada, that doesn't necessarily mean taking over or terrorism. It does mean they are trying to change laws or perceptions, which could in time lead to a society that is based more on their values than the one we have today.
France has had significant issues with Muslims in the last few years, so much so that their leader stood out by suggesting they could not wear the Hajib in public. Britain has had struggles as well and the well documented cartoon issue of a few years ago certainly caused strife as well.
Canada has seen the Muslim population recently try to introduce Sharia law, and Quebec has had its own issues with the Hajib.
All of these issues will only grow as the Muslim population grows and begins to take larger voting blocks. In Canada there are at least 6 or 7 full ridings that can affect the vote at this time. Not enough to sway a vote, but those 6 or 7 "could grow" much more significantly as Muslim families continue to have larger families and the average North American family shrinks.
Again...Walmart, Artists, Door to Door salesmen or dildo salesmen dont bother anyone...they dont want to change anything more than how much we spend, hang on our walls or how much fun we have with sex.

The ONE thing both have in common..Gay rights, one group shuns them, the other kills them.

CaptainCrunch

07-11-2010, 07:20 PM

But that would negate it being the word of God. Isn't it an infallible text of pure truth from God's mouth to man's ear? If it isn't exactly the word of God, but rather human interpretations of God's word, then gee, can't all of it be a misinterpretation?

I really think that people are confusing fundamentalist Christians and evangelical Christians who believe that the bible is the word of god, and the run of the mill Christian who probably believes that the bible is not the word of god or written by god but is inspired by events that could be interpreted as linked to Gods actions.

T@T

07-11-2010, 07:41 PM

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/11/071120-noah-flood.html

Why live your life having your bias close your mind?

Closed mind...:rolleyes:

Any bias that I have comes from facts not fantasy's. the story of Noah is just that..a story. Genesis says every last animal on the planet died except for the ones on Noah's Ark. this was brought on because except for eight people every other person on the planet were evil and needed to be killed. Holy jumpin Jesus! If anyone believes this crap their dumber than the paint on the wall in front of them.

Fact: there has been no global flood that threatened life on this planet since humans evolved.

Fact: Local floodings such as the Black sea flooding are documented long before christianity even existed, the Sumerians, the egyptians..etc.

MelBridgeman

07-11-2010, 08:01 PM

Any bias that I have comes from facts not fantasy's. the story of Noah is just that..a story. Genesis says every last animal on the planet died except for the ones on Noah's Ark. this was brought on because except for eight people every other person on the planet were evil and needed to be killed. Holy jumpin Jesus! If anyone believes this crap their dumber than the paint on the wall in front of them.

If you want to take a document filled with details passed on from generation to generation (much like Native American folklore), by much more primitive humans literally, all the more power to you.

Fact: there has been no global flood that threatened life on this planet since humans evolved.

True, but like i have said and others, it is about perception. All this account tells us is that a great flood took place the effected a large range of our ancestors. The rest is just filler by our ancestors who didn't know any better.

[/QUOTE]
Fact: Local floodings such as the Black sea flooding are documented long before christianity even existed, the Sumerians, the egyptians..etc.[/QUOTE]

Right and like it has been said the bible is merely just a collection of accounts from human history passed down from generation to generation and eventually put into written form. This quote suggest to me that you think i a group of people got together in a few days and wrote a book. Not true.

You have to distinguish from what is just filler by primitive humans trying to fill in the blanks.

spiteface

07-11-2010, 08:28 PM

You have to distinguish from what is just filler by primitive humans trying to fill in the blanks.

Fill in the blanks eh? Tell me how come the Holy Quran states that the universe is expanding, 1400 years before this idea came into the forefront of science? Amongst numerous other "blanks" the human is coming to realize only now...

T@T

07-11-2010, 08:29 PM

Right and like it has been said the bible is merely just a collection of accounts from human history passed down from generation to generation and eventually put into written form. This quote suggest to me that you think i a group of people got together in a few days and wrote a book. Not true.

You have to distinguish from what is just filler by primitive humans trying to fill in the blanks.

Totally agree.

I have no problem thinking of the bible in these terms because that's exactly what it is, a bunch of twisted up tales passed down for thousands of years.

What I do have a problem with is people using old fairy tale gospel as truth and killing people over it. I personally believe human kind has evolved enough that religion should be a non factor in a good clean life.

T@T

07-11-2010, 08:40 PM

Fill in the blanks eh? Tell me how come the Holy Quran states that the universe is expanding, 1400 years before this idea came into the forefront of science? Amongst numerous other "blanks" the human is coming to realize only now...

Are you talking about the one small sentence of the prophet Muhammad?

and the heaven we created with might, and indeed we are (its) expander
Sorry I have a hard time believing he was talking about galaxys moving away from each other considering he also thought everything revolved around this flat earth. He probably thought the moon was made of cheese as well.

spiteface

07-11-2010, 08:45 PM

Are you talking about the one small sentence of the prophet Muhammad?

Sorry I have a hard time believing he was talking about galaxys moving away from each other considering he also thought everything revolved around this flat earth. He probably thought the moon was made of cheese as well.

Very nice of you to make assumptions. You seem like a neutral person to converse with... But allow me to reply to you:

"The heavens, We have built them with power. And verily, We are expanding it" (51:47). This is not just a small sentence, and if you think so, then so be it.

The Holy Quran states too, that the earth is roundish in shape. Flat? No, it states this earth is vast and spread for the humans, but it specifically states the shape of the earth as almost egg-shaped, which is in fact true.

Cain

07-11-2010, 08:56 PM

Their is a perception that Muslims are taking over Europe and eventually NA. But I don't think that is the case. Every country has rejected the implementation of Islamic law and terrorism has been minimal to non-exsitant. A better statement would be that politicians in the west have used a percieved Muslim threat in order to consolidate votes and increase the power of governments.

As for religions job of recruiting I don't see any issue with that. Mcdonalds advertises, Walmart recruits, Door to Door Salesmen sell security systems, electricity contracts and religion. What is the difference (assuming there is no god) between the religious product that is being sold door to door and a security system. Both are unnecessary, both cost you money and both groups annoy you by trying to sell you something you don't need.

Other than the Gay/Lesbian issues religion just doens't effect people in the first world.
I have missed a lot in this thread after going away for the weekend, but here is a response to a a few things you said.

The recruiting bothers me because of how they do it a lot of the time. Walmart recruits for people to work in their stores. Horror stories aside regarding their policies, they are recruiting to function and provide a service.

A religion recruiting comes in different forms than an advertisement in the wanted ads. Often it comes as a string attached to aid directed at vulnerable peoples via charities. Sometimes it comes door to door. Sometimes it is very benign at heart.

What bothers me is when there is a sting attached with aid, or when they prey on other vulnerabilities such as fear, insecurity or providing a false sense of hope. That especially is despicable to me. To capitalize and recruit based on offering answers to what happens after death, and basically saying that you get a grand eternal life if you follow us, hell if you don't, is disgusting. It is disguised as a much nicer thing, but that is essentially what it is. Oh, and perhaps you can meet your loved ones too. The emotions that it preys on do in fact sicken me, because good people can be taken in so easily. All this just to sustain the machine that is organized religion, and feed the bank account.

Every sell is people trying to convince you that you need their product. Religion is no different, except that their product is nothing. It is the biggest con job of all time. There is nothing substantial other than perhaps the community that comes with it (which is full of many good people), and that community does not exist because of the church. It could just as easily exist outside of it.

Savvy27

07-11-2010, 09:02 PM

http://s1.hubimg.com/u/2928052_f248.jpghttp://unchealthcare.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/egg.jpg

The earth is not shaped like an egg. Get your science from science books, not holy books.

The shape of the Earth is very close to that of an oblate spheroid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblate_spheroid), a sphere flattened along the axis from pole to pole such that there is a bulge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_bulge) around the equator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator).[59] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#cite_note-68) (Wikipedia)

Original topic: people who throw rocks at other people until they die are insane, especially over something like adultery.

spiteface

07-11-2010, 09:19 PM

T@T

07-11-2010, 09:20 PM

Very nice of you to make assumptions. You seem like a neutral person to converse with... But allow me to reply to you:

"The heavens, We have built them with power. And verily, We are expanding it" (51:47). This is not just a small sentence, and if you think so, then so be it.

The Holy Quran states too, that the earth is roundish in shape. Flat? No, it states this earth is vast and spread for the humans, but it specifically states the shape of the earth as almost egg-shaped, which is in fact true.
My understanding of the Quran shows me it's written by people a lot smarter than the Christians Bible. In the Quran there are a lot of multiple meanings, for instance the "egg-shaped" earth is construed threw calling the earth an egg for human kind.

As far as the expanding heavens, if you take those words as the expanding universe why did the Quran also say it'll shrink back again? Science shows this will not happen, at least in human kinds existence on this planet.

All in all though the Quran is brilliant if you want a book to suck in people to take up a religion, 10x better than the Holy Bible :)

frinkprof

07-11-2010, 09:25 PM

The Holy Quran states too, that the earth is roundish in shape. Flat? No, it states this earth is vast and spread for the humans, but it specifically states the shape of the earth as almost egg-shaped, which is in fact true.The earth is not ovular in shape like an egg is. The "regular" shape that most closely approximates the earth is an ellipsoid, albeit one with a relatively small flattening.

In reality, the earth is actually not flat, spherical, ovular or ellipsoidal. It is what it is, the geoid. An irregular shape that some people spend their careers trying to measure as accurately as possible which in turn has an impact on a wide range of applications.

spiteface

07-11-2010, 09:27 PM

My understanding of the Quran shows me it's written by people a lot smarter than the Christians Bible. In the Quran there are a lot of multiple meanings, for instance the "egg-shaped" earth is construed threw calling the earth an egg for human kind.

As far as the expanding heavens, if you take those words as the expanding universe why did the Quran also say it'll shrink back again? Science shows this will not happen, at least in human kinds existence on this planet.

All in all though the Quran is brilliant if you want a book to suck in people to take up a religion, 10x better than the Holy Bible :)

I think to make an assumption of how this universe shall end is not fair as we cannot say with 100% certainty what can or will happen, when it does happen.

T@T

07-11-2010, 09:28 PM

Oblate spheroid is similar to egg-shape...
http://www.gma.org/surfing/imaging/bulge.gif

There are numerous scientific findings beyond these such as embryology and advanced physics.
True, but lets face facts, the earth is more round than egg-shaped. that's like arguing if a baseball if perfectly round.

spiteface

07-11-2010, 09:29 PM

The earth is not ovular in shape like an egg is. The "regular" shape that most closely approximates the earth is an ellipsoid, albeit one with a relatively small flattening.

In reality, the earth is actually not flat, spherical, ovular or ellipsoidal. It is what it is, the geoid. An irregular shape that some people spend their careers trying to measure as accurately as possible which in turn has an impact on a wide range of applications.

Its more of a similitude. Obviously scientists will continue to evolve their nomenclature based on their most accurate data.

spiteface

07-11-2010, 09:35 PM

I should add, it refers to an ostrich egg I believe.

oilyfan

07-11-2010, 09:37 PM

Very nice of you to make assumptions. You seem like a neutral person to converse with... But allow me to reply to you:

"The heavens, We have built them with power. And verily, We are expanding it" (51:47). This is not just a small sentence, and if you think so, then so be it.

The Holy Quran states too, that the earth is roundish in shape. Flat? No, it states this earth is vast and spread for the humans, but it specifically states the shape of the earth as almost egg-shaped, which is in fact true.

The word "expanding" only appears in the English translation, read it in arabic and it is nowhere near that connotation. Are you just spouting information that you have been told by somebody, maybe try to do some original research?

Also if Mohammed had this information so much earlier than anyone else how come it did not come to light till scientists proved? He didnt do a very good communicating the word of god then.

T@T

07-11-2010, 09:40 PM

I think to make an assumption of how this universe shall end is not fair as we cannot say with 100% certainty what can or will happen, when it does happen.
Nothing is apsolute certainty but I live my life under things that I can see, are probable and most likely. I believe there is a .99999% chance that there's a smart alien race out there but I give it very little chance of me meeting one.

I just feel sorry for people who live there lives for religious gods because there's a .99999% chance you'll never meet one dead or alive.

spiteface

07-11-2010, 09:44 PM

The word "expanding" only appears in the English translation, read it in arabic and it is nowhere near that connotation. Are you just spouting information that you have been told by somebody, maybe try to do some original research?

Also if Mohammed had this information so much earlier than anyone else how come it did not come to light till scientists proved? He didnt do a very good communicating the word of god then.

I believe it comes form the arabic root word Wa-Sa-'Aa, meaning space or create space.

Islam believes that there are different layers of meaning in the Quran, which contain different depths of knowledge. Some of this knowledge is starting to show now with the improvement in technology.

oilyfan

07-11-2010, 10:01 PM

I believe it comes form the arabic root word Wa-Sa-'Aa, meaning space or create space.

Thanks for making my point.

Islam believes that there are different layers of meaning in the Quran, which contain different depths of knowledge. Some of this knowledge is starting to show now with the improvement in technology.

No offense to your faith, and it is called faith for a reason, but this is very convenient. Do you really think an omnipotent god needs to sit and devise a book that will be unveiled in "layers" just so that he can test your devotion to him. Wake up, you are being conned.

spiteface

07-11-2010, 10:11 PM

No offense to your faith, and it is called faith for a reason, but this is very convenient. Do you really think an omnipotent god needs to sit and devise a book that will be unveiled in "layers" just so that he can test your devotion to him. Wake up, you are being conned.

It has meanings beyond us as humans, and if you believe in God, thats not inconceivable. After all, we are only human. We are limited in what we can learn, see, and judge. Even when we acquire more knowledge, we realize how little we have scratched the surface. The philosophers of times past have said "The more I learn, the more I learn how little I know". No one is a superhuman as evidenced from history.

Now what connotation were you referring to earlier regarding the word expansion in Arabic, as opposed to the English translation?

oilyfan

07-11-2010, 10:22 PM

It has meanings beyond us as humans, and if you believe in God, thats not inconceivable. After all, we are only human. We are limited in what we can learn, see, and judge. Even when we acquire more knowledge, we realize how little we have scratched the surface. The philosophers of times past have said "The more I learn, the more I learn how little I know". No one is a superhuman as evidenced from history.

Now what connotation were you referring to earlier regarding the word expansion in Arabic, as opposed to the English translation?

I can see where this goign so I will save you some time. You believe that there is complex and "higher" meaning to everything in the Quran. So no matter what I say you will come back with something like "you can't comprehend the meaning of this because there are many things about this world that we don't understand". That my friend is not the scientific method, so lets not try and pretend that a book written by a man who believed that eating pork is going to make you "unclean" actually wrote a prescient book.

Lets move on, if you want to live in your fantasy world, go ahead.

frinkprof

07-11-2010, 10:23 PM

I should add, it refers to an ostrich egg I believe.Apparently an ostrich egg will average 15 centimeters long and 13 centimeters wide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrich_Egg#Reproduction

This gives an relative flattening of ~13%.

The World Geodetic System reference ellipsoid (the 1984 version of which is used by GPS) has a relative flattening of ~0.335%. That's a pretty big difference depending on which standard you're holding the ostrich egg comparison up to.

If an ostrich egg is what you're comparing the shape of the earth to, it would be much more accurate to just call it a sphere.

spiteface

07-11-2010, 10:34 PM

I can see where this goign so I will save you some time. You believe that there is complex and "higher" meaning to everything in the Quran. So no matter what I say you will come back with something like "you can't comprehend the meaning of this because there are many things about this world that we don't understand". That my friend is not the scientific method, so lets not try and pretend that a book written by a man who believed that eating pork is going to make you "unclean" actually wrote a prescient book.

Lets move on, if you want to live in your fantasy world, go ahead.

Move on? Where are you going? :P

Serioulsy, why not just answer my question? You initiated the debate between us regarding the meaning of expansion and now you will not clarif your statement.

Your reply about the knowledge contained in the Quran is not pertinent to the argument at hand. But you spin it to sound like I have some brainwashed automated response anyways. Respectfully debate instead of "seeing" where this is going...