UBC study finds believers distrust atheists as much as rapists

[photon]

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

I would first test it against what Jesus said, that is the best one

This is the first problem though, we don't know what Jesus said, he never wrote anything down. All we have is accounts from a) anonymous authors who didn't know Jesus (the gospels) b) someone who explicitly says he didn't know Jesus (Paul), and c) forgeries (which a number of the letters attributed to Paul are).

So you're really not comparing it to what Jesus said, you're comparing it to what some other people said Jesus said, or what Paul said, or other people said in the name of Paul

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

some of these books include prophecies regarding things that would happen 600 years later

It's very easy to make fulfilled predictions when you are writing both the "prophecy" and the actual event at the same time.

I've never read anything that would qualify as an actual unambiguous fulfilled prophecy, and I've tried.

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

today if someone says they heard from God about something, I can't jump forward and see if it came true etc, so if they don't have a history of saying nonsensical things, I guess the only test is the bible.

Why not? I presume God would be capable of speaking to people about events in the near future so they can be tested.

[photon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I'm not sure if I find it sad or hilarious whenever someone has the capacity of critical thinking to dismiss the Mormon faith as nonsense but can't apply that same standard of logical reasoning to other branches of Christianity (or other faith-based religions, for that matter).

That's one thing that started me on my current path, applying the same standards to my own belief that I was told to apply to other faiths.

Now one guy calls it the "Outsider Test for Faith", testing your own faith by the standards that an outsider would.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

believe whoever you want Cheese. I know you want me to pick just one but some of those believe mostly the same things about what Jesus actually said, or have interepreted similar things, and dissimilar things.
baptists, mennonites, evangelicals - the 4 gospels say what Jesus said, and these three groups would have similar interperetations.
the catholics have some different interperetations, and its interesting to note that they started the church, but went the wrong way with some things (like saying if you paid the church xx amount they would get you into heaven...) and thats where others like the lutheran, evangelical, baptists etc stood up and said it was wrong. but they still had the same words of Jesus.
now I don't know much about the orthodox, maybe someone else can answer that, but they have the same words of Jesus.
mormonism was started in the 1700s, 1700 years after Christ based on Gold tablets found in the forest. I'm sorry but after looking into what they believe, I think there are some false beliefs there, i mean thier leader (Joseph Smith) decided a number of years after the experience that God had said he could have multiple wives. hmm, sounds like personal benefit to me.... also thier book includes various quotes from the holy bible. I think what the believe of the bible is what Jesus said, they just have some extra added on centuries later, which I personally don't agree with. JWs have some interesting beliefs and seem to have taken some things to an extreme and have some cultish tendencies.
however, of all the groups you mentioned, I don't know that any of them would disagree with what Jesus said in the old king james bible (although I prefer the NIV myself, easier to read and understand in todays english). it is good to look at the various translations when studying a passage of scripture in case a different word is used. I would test what someone says against the bible before I would go to a pastor of a church.
cheese I am curious if you have looked into each of those sects of Christiandom and your thoughts on each? do you think some are closer than others to what Jesus said? or do you believe Jesus even existed?

I have spent a considerable amount of time firmly entrenched in various religions. At this point in my life I firmly believe that Jesus Christ did not exist or was typical to the "man on the bus" as presented earlier. There is no evidence of his existence that satisfies my curiosity and surprisingly none provided by any of the major denominations. "Have faith my son". There is also no difference between any religion, they all espouse to have divine knowledge yet cant come up with any comprehensive proof of "his" existence outside of allegorical or thematic representations. No different than what I mentioned earlier....it is the same as Aesop's Fables, Shakespearean sonnets, Cat in the Hat, etc.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Makarov

So what exactly is the time-honoured test for when to believe someone claiming to hear the voice of God? I must be an idiot because I have no idea.

I wonder if the ol' virgin Mary story would fly in this day and age.

"Honey, I can't be pregnant, I've been faithful to you, and so am still a virgin. It must be the work of God!"

[Cheese]

or the Whale story...or the Ark story...or ...wait...

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I wonder if the ol' virgin Mary story would fly in this day and age.

"Honey, I can't be pregnant, I've been faithful to you, and so am still a virgin. It must be the work of God!"

I have a sincere question about Mary. Was she impregnated against her will, or did god get her "okay" in some way before using her as the vessel for his seed? Also, is Jesus half human (like is Mary's DNA a part of him) or did god fertilize an egg then implant it into her womb so it's 100% god; 0% Mary?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Knalus

You guys are idiots if you think that people in the past believed everyone that claimed to hear the voice of God. It shows how little you know about the past, and human nature.

Go Knalus! Shouting down the opinion of the person who doesn't exist in this thread, you tell 'em.



... seriously, no one has actually claimed to hold this position. We've already got our hands full talking about a supposed creator, you're only going to make matters worse by starting fights with the imaginary poster in this thread.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I have a sincere question about Mary. Was she impregnated against her will, or did god get her "okay" in some way before using her as the vessel for his seed? Also, is Jesus half human (like is Mary's DNA a part of him) or did god fertilize an egg then implant it into her womb so it's 100% god; 0% Mary?

Or option c) the "virgin birth" is an artifact of misreading the OT and gospel authors trying to write so that an event fits into their misreading of the OT.

If God suggests a plan of action to you, are you even morally able to consent? It's like an adult and a child; children can't consent because of the authority and power adults have.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by photon

Or option c) the "virgin birth" is an artifact of misreading the OT and gospel authors trying to write so that an event fits into their misreading of the OT.

If God suggests a plan of action to you, are you even morally able to consent? It's like an adult and a child; children can't consent because of the authority and power adults have.

I guess I was asking the question hoping for an answer from the perspective of somebody who believes in the virgin birth.

[Reaper]

Can: open.

Worms: everywhere.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I guess I was asking the question hoping for an answer from the perspective of somebody who believes in the virgin birth.

Oh. Well Luke 1:30-38 gives the story, the angel tells Mary that she'll be "overshadowed" and give birth despite being a virgin.

Mary says "Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word."

So yeah she consents.

Unless you're catholic, then Mary had an immaculate conception which means she was chosen before she was born.. which doesn't violate her free will somehow (foreknowledge mumble mumble), or something like that, I was never Catholic.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Go Knalus! Shouting down the opinion of the person who doesn't exist in this thread, you tell 'em.



... seriously, no one has actually claimed to hold this position. We've already got our hands full talking about a supposed creator, you're only going to make matters worse by starting fights with the imaginary poster in this thread.

I was responding to a specific point made, and even followed up on that point in a following post. I know that sometimes if something isn't quoted, some people have trouble following that part of a conversation. I can see why you have your hands full following what's going on.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Knalus

There isn't one - which is the point. Some arbitrary "cutoff date" for when people went from "being brainwashed idiots to rational smartypants" is just ######ed. You can guarantee that if someone started ranting in the past, people backed away even then. The "loose collection of people hearing voices" wasn't as loose as you make the claim it was. Hearing voices was NOT the litmus test in the past the people on here seem to think it was. Making the claim that it was is moronic.

So you agree with me that there is no time-honoured test for distinguishing between the crazy people hearing voices and the prophets hearing voices? So then do you also agree with me that rational thing to do would be pretty much lump them all together?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I wonder if the ol' virgin Mary story would fly in this day and age.

"Honey, I can't be pregnant, I've been faithful to you, and so am still a virgin. It must be the work of God!"

Get thyself to the Maury Povich show!

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by photon

Oh. Well Luke 1:30-38 gives the story, the angel tells Mary that she'll be "overshadowed" and give birth despite being a virgin.

Mary says "Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word."

So yeah she consents.

Unless you're catholic, then Mary had an immaculate conception which means she was chosen before she was born.. which doesn't violate her free will somehow (foreknowledge mumble mumble), or something like that, I was never Catholic.

Thanks. I've been wondering that for a little while - I didn't want to ask any religious people I know in real life because it sort of puts them on the spot and seems like a trap.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Thanks. I've been wondering that for a little while - I didn't want to ask any religious people I know in real life because it sort of puts them on the spot and seems like a trap.

well...Ill bet you most if not all of your "religious friends" couldn't quote you the passages where this is mentioned, nor accurately and intelligently discuss how it happened. Thus the trapped feeling.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I wonder if the ol' virgin Mary story would fly in this day and age.

"Honey, I can't be pregnant, I've been faithful to you, and so am still a virgin. It must be the work of God!"

My moms an ER/post-natal nurse and has heard plenty of girls say "I can't be pregnant, I've never had sex!" Which is just them fishing for someone to say something like "oh well then, you must have gotten pregnant because of x" to which they would respond "that must be it then!" except that never happens.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Cheese

well...Ill bet you most if not all of your "religious friends" could quote you the passages where this is mentioned, nor accurately and intelligently discuss how it happened. Thus the trapped feeling.

Yeah, which is why I didn't want to ask them.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Makarov

So you agree with me that there is no time-honoured test for distinguishing between the crazy people hearing voices and the prophets hearing voices? So then do you also agree with me that rational thing to do would be pretty much lump them all together?

Yes, there is no specific "time-honoured" test. Not the way you are suggesting. But no, you can't lump them all together. Even you have to admit there is a big difference between the Dalai Lama and that guy on the bus who hasn't washed in awhile.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Yes, there is no specific "time-honoured" test. Not the way you are suggesting. But no, you can't lump them all together. Even you have to admit there is a big difference between the Dalai Lama and that guy on the bus who hasn't washed in awhile.

why? Seriously? Maybe the guy on the bus has invested as much of his life into believing whatever he believes in as the Dalai Lama.
Maybe the guy on the bus has spent 1000s of hours researching and reading his specific belief.