if god exists, hes kinda *not very nice*

[00range]

whether or not there is a 'god' we cannot be certain

When the Lone Ranger and Tanto were surrounded by a host of angry indians wanting to scalp the white man, the Lone Ranger said, "What are we going to do, Tanto?!"

Tanto replied, "What do you mean we, pale face?"

You can be uncertain if you want, but if you're going to be uncertain about that, you might as well be uncertain about Thor, Shiva, the Celestial Teapot, Flying Spaghetti Monster; have doubt as to whether or not gravity really exists, and a host of other ridiculous beliefs.

[Petter]

What makes you so sure it´s a man

[thalbergmad]

But really, please don't bash what 40% of the world believes when you don't actually have an understanding of what it is.

It is not important to have an understanding, seeing the effects is sufficient to make a judgement.

Thal

[opus10no2]

I'm sure there is some silly justification laid out in the bible, I'm not ignorant to the whole 'lesson' intended by it and by the preachings of jesus, I simply find it silly.

Many of us naturally think of god as having a personality...indeed the idea of calling it 'him' stems from this.

I'm simply saying I am better than god, not in power, but in intent.

I could do it better.

[thalbergmad]

I could do it better.

You probably could old chap since God allows slow pianists to exist.

Thal

[opus10no2]

Definitive proof of his questionable intentions.

[xxmynameisjohnxx]

Oh please don't get into dawkins with me.  He's a at best a bad philosopher again speaking of things he doesn't understand. And yeah, I've read his book.

I'm sorry that the "Christian" church has left such a bad taste in your mouth.  I hope one day you can give the actual intent of the Bible a shot rather than just the outcome of individuals who simply just didn't get it.

[opus10no2]

As an agnostic, the thing I don't get is why people follow religions.
I can understand a belief in a kind of design, and I can understand the belief in infinite randomness.

...but I seriously question the intelligence of those who follow the primary organised religions, they are a cultural phenomena, from a bygone age, before the era of science.

I'm not saying organised religions havesome merit in teaching morals etc., but it is on such shaky ground.
Do those kids really believe it's wrong to hurt someone because they'll go to hell?

They won't go to hell, and they may even face no negative consequences, but they should feel it is wrong because of basic human empathy and compassion, not religious dogma.

[gyzzzmo]

I'm a Christian and I'm not gonna get into this debate really because I don't see any reason to argue this with you since neither of us would really be willing to change our views....but I have to say that everyone in here who is complaining about God doing or allowing "mean" things obviously has either not read the Bible and is making assumptions based on select verses and what people say, or they do now have an understanding of who the God of the Bible actually is.  This would be a subject I'd need to talk to someone about in person about to really do it justice, so I'm not going to try to do it online.  But really, please don't bash what 40% of the world believes when you don't actually have an understanding of what it is.

Also, don't pull any of the "well the Catholics 400 years ago went on crusades killing muslims" and other evils done in the name of God.  These people really didn't get the entire message of Jesus and the gospel.  The entire Bible boils down to loving people, which anyone doing something unloving in the name of God is not actually acting in God's name...and it gives those of us really trying to live it a bad name.

Well i was raised as a Christian and had to read the bible alot. So dont make assumptions that nobody here knows what he's talking about
Plus i have no idea where you get that '40%' from, you're claiming that 40% of the world population is Christian?
Anyway, if you know more about psychology you would know that its a natural thing for humans to 'believe'. It gives them comfort since with some fantasy a religion is an answer for alot of 'why-questions'. And the fun of religion is that you dont have to understand it, just assume it without any proof. The easy way.
And the biggest psychological origin of religion is probably that people dont want to accept that we're biological nothing more than any other organism, and that life itself doesnt really have a goal or purpose. And what do practically all religions provide? Heaven: The ultimate paradise, filled with hot angels!

And about your 'loving bible'.... the loving part in the bible actually started with Jesus who preached love. In the first half of the bible theres not much love, more like death to the persistant heathens and glory to the believers.

And about those crusading Katholics couple of centuries ago... They were just as convinced about the bible then, as you are now. How can you be so sure that you are the one who interpretated it correctly? (wich is another fun thing about the bible: you can interpretate it any way you wish, for every thought, bad or good, you can quote the bible, something Pianistimo is very good at).

Gyzzzmo

[pianochick93]

They won't go to hell, and they may even face no negative consequences, but they should feel it is wrong because of basic human empathy and compassion, not religious dogma.

Perhaps it was an attempt by organised religion to take a violent and ruthless society to task. If they were ruthless and couldn't care less about other people, then empathy and compassion would not have done much. 'Don't kill people or you personally will suffer' gets through more effectively.

Just my thoughts on the matter. I'm not religious, but nor am I Atheist. As long as religion is doing no harm let it be. People should be able to believe what they would like as long as it does no hurt to others.

[G.W.K]

Well, you do live in Glasgow.

And where do you live?

*There are bad parts everywhere, Glasgow's have just been emphasised by media, etc.

G.W.K

[G.W.K]

What makes you so sure it´s a man

That's a good point. Look at the other religions (Hinduism is a good example), they believe in different gods...many of them are men, but there are still a few who are women (e.g. Shiva).

I only know this because of the tedious lessons of R.E. I had to endure when I used to be at school...

G.W.K

[00range]

Oh please don't get into dawkins with me.  He's a at best a bad philosopher again speaking of things he doesn't understand. And yeah, I've read his book.

First of all, he's a scientist, not a philosopher. His writings and speeches regarding theism pertain mostly to evolutionary biology, a field in which he is eminently qualified.

In any case, ideas stand on their own, and your argument boils down to a simple ad hominem attack. This is understandable, in that it is really your only recourse.

I'm sorry that the "Christian" church has left such a bad taste in your mouth.  I hope one day you can give the actual intent of the Bible a shot rather than just the outcome of individuals who simply just didn't get it.

The Christian church is just one of many faiths that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I do find Catholicism to be a bit more contemptible than the rest, but that's immaterial. This is another simple ad hominem.

Why should I read the bible, and not read the Koran, study Feng Shui, Voodoo, the Vedas, Norse mythology, or the like?

[thalbergmad]

Why should I read the bible, and not read the Koran, study Feng Shui, Voodoo, the Vedas, Norse mythology, or the like?

Very good question sir.

I expect some tambo bangers would tell you that their religion is the only true religion and the only path to eternal life and salvation. All of the others are false.

I also do not know where this "40% of the World believes in" comes from either.

Anyone who dares to speak out against Christianity seems to "not know what they are talking about". Not just Dawkins but perhaps all of us.

Thal

[xxmynameisjohnxx]

Sorry, I heard it was %40, but I guess it's %33. I was close.
https://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Although, 75% of citizens in the US and Canada claim to be Christian.

[00range]

I expect some tambo bangers would tell you that their religion is the only true religion and the only path to eternal life and salvation. All of the others are false.

Yes, these are usually the truly scary individuals.

[thalbergmad]

Sorry, I heard it was %40, but I guess it's %33. I was close.
https://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Although, 75% of citizens in the US and Canada claim to be Christian.

If someone asked me what religion i was, i would say Christian although i have not attended service for years.

I would say Christian, as that is what i was brought up with and that is the religion that was hammered into my brain at School.

I wonder how many that claim to be Christian actually are practicing Christians?

Thal

[general disarray]

Well i was raised as a Christian and had to read the bible alot. So dont make assumptions that nobody here knows what he's talking about
Plus i have no idea where you get that '40%' from, you're claiming that 40% of the world population is Christian?
Anyway, if you know more about psychology you would know that its a natural thing for humans to 'believe'. It gives them comfort since with some fantasy a religion is an answer for alot of 'why-questions'. And the fun of religion is that you dont have to understand it, just assume it without any proof. The easy way.
And the biggest psychological origin of religion is probably that people dont want to accept that we're biological nothing more than any other organism, and that life itself doesnt really have a goal or purpose. And what do practically all religions provide? Heaven: The ultimate paradise, filled with hot angels!

And about your 'loving bible'.... the loving part in the bible actually started with Jesus who preached love. In the first half of the bible theres not much love, more like death to the persistant heathens and glory to the believers.

And about those crusading Katholics couple of centuries ago... They were just as convinced about the bible then, as you are now. How can you be so sure that you are the one who interpretated it correctly? (wich is another fun thing about the bible: you can interpretate it any way you wish, for every thought, bad or good, you can quote the bible, something Pianistimo is very good at).

Gyzzzmo

Gyzzzmo, you're a genius!  Well argued and totally on target.

p.s. @opus10.  Czerny IS God!

[ahinton]

If someone asked me what religion i was, i would say Christian although i have not attended service for years.

I would say Christian, as that is what i was brought up with and that is the religion that was hammered into my brain at School.

I wonder how many that claim to be Christian actually are practicing Christians?

Thal

But hang on a minute, Thal - you appear to have claimed to be one yourself (at least insofar as you "would say Christian" of asked with which religion you identify), yet immediately after you then admit that you "have not attended service for years" you go on to ask "how many that claim to be Christian actually are practicing Christians?" (although you should have written "practising").

Are you by implication seeking consciously to accuse yourself of being one of those who would cite Christianity as their religion but who does not practise Christianity (at least by virtue - if such it be - of regular Church attendance)?

For the record and for what it may or may not be worth to mention it here, I attend Christian Churches for service very occasionally but I openly admit to being quite other than a practising Christian.

Best,

Alistair

[term]

If someone asked me what religion i was, i would say Christian although i have not attended service for years.

I would say Christian, as that is what i was brought up with and that is the religion that was hammered into my brain at School.

I wonder how many that claim to be Christian actually are practicing Christians?

Thal

Doesn't it matter what you actually believe right know that determines whether you're a christian or not? I went to church every sunday as a child and knew the whole text including the prayers by heart, but that doesn't make me a christian today.

[lostinidlewonder]

There is a sort of disease in this modern day world that didn't exist so much 200 odd years ago. That is the freedom on thought. Many people exclaim that having freedom on thought is a great thing, and it sure is! However it has another side to it.

Some people take freedom of though a step too far. In that they believe that the best thing for them is to stand alone and "Do it their way". That they do not listen to advice from people "greater" than themselves, that their experience in life will be based solely on their own devised thought processes. They even take it a step further again by trying to pull down structures of systems of belief where people have a common ideology. This is based on their deep desire to live life in their unique way.

A belief in God however does not brainwash you. It does not make you into an unintelligent person, it does not make you think irrational useless thoughts. However someone who has no reverence for God will flinch at anyone assuming that they make choices in their life which does not come from themselves. It goes against the core principles of the person who wants to live a life their own way. It goes against their unique system, it forces them to defend that they are living life that sings Sanatra's "I did it my Way". Although they will not define their way but rather give reasons why they should not change their ways by ridiculing mainstream ideological stances with their logic (which to them they worship like a God).

Christianity is set apart from all other religions because it is the only one which does not base itself on your ability to follow a Law, i.e: the better you follow a rule the better believer you are.

[timothy42b]

There is a sort of disease in this modern day world that didn't exist so much 200 odd years ago. That is the freedom on thought.

A belief in God however does not brainwash you. It does not make you into an unintelligent person, it does not make you think irrational useless thoughts.

Christianity is set apart from all other religions because it is the only one which does not base itself on your ability to follow a Law, i.e: the better you follow a rule the better believer you are.

Quite an interesting set of three assertions.

Rational thought is new, existing only in the last 200 years.  Perhaps you could cite some evidence for that claim?  Because it would appear there is some counterevidence in the writings of Greek philosophers more than 2000 years ago. 

A belief in God does not make you unintelligent, superstitious and ignorant?  Well, as a believer I would like to agree with you.  However, the sheer volume of counterexamples is about to totally swamp those few of us who try to maintain some respect for scholarship in the face of daily attack.  LIW, you and pianistimo are classic examples, scientifically illiterate and dripping contempt for education, intelligence,  and rational thought with every post.  You do more to drive people away from Christianity than any atheist ever could.

And finally:  Christianity is the ONLY religion different from all the others.  No law, no rules, no requirements.  LIW, that's not writing, that's typing.  do you ever proofread? 

[lostinidlewonder]

Quite an interesting set of three assertions.

Rational thought is new, existing only in the last 200 years,  Perhaps you could cite some evidence for that claim?  Because it would appear there is some counterevidence in the writings of Greek philosophers more than 2000 years ago. 

I am not considering logical thinking or philosophy, you are quoting me then elaborating with your own fantasy of what I mean.. I am considering the freedom to think what you want to think. That freedom has become more and more and rather more recently than in our ancient history. The fact that a woman nowadays can have some say in politics is revolutionary for instance.  But with this freedom comes the traps of arrogance. or full confidence that one can think their entire life away on their own terms.

A belief in God does not make you unintelligent, superstitious and ignorant?  Well, as a believer I would like to agree with you.  However, the sheer volume of counterexamples is about to totally swamp those few of us who try to maintain some respect for scholarship in the face of daily attack.  LIW, you and pianistimo are classic examples, scientifically illiterate and dripping contempt for education, intelligence,  and rational thought with every post.  You do more to drive people away from Christianity than any atheist ever could.

Your final statement seals the fate of your post as being full of opinion driven drivel. You speak as if you are fully confident in what you are talking about. Great fantastic! We all can watch you let off your steam in trying to prove people who are terrible and delusional. But have you taught us anything? Have you opened avenue for discussion? Not that I can see. My stance is neutral, I do not attack anyone, I asset what I believe and put right what I think are misinformation of Christianity. That will annoy some people who are not open to wisdom and knowledge of things they do not understand and it is not my fault. Who says one has to put everything behind rose tinted glass?

You think that just because someone believes in God they are completely irrational, this is irrational thinking on your own behalf. A belief in God is one thing, it does not represent the entire person, so that you think believing in God makes a person totally irrational and delusional is ridiculous thinking. I could imagine you being the type of person in the 16th century burning women for practicing witchcraft. Or perhaps even more modern day, a quack who puts everyone into the loony bin for proclaiming God.

And finally:  Christianity is the ONLY religion different from all the others.  No law, no rules, no requirements.  LIW, that's not writing, that's typing.  do you ever proofread? 

Your uneducated reading of what I say is what confuses you. I didn't say it has no law or no rules, but in the eyes of the Christian God you are not seen as being better or a better follower of Christianity by how well you follow these rules. I elaborated this point enough to avoid confusion but you still have misread my comment. It might be confusing to those who are already in the attacking mode trying to put down Christianity merely with their own opinions that highlight their worship for their logic, their God.

[gyzzzmo]

There is a sort of disease in this modern day world that didn't exist so much 200 odd years ago. That is the freedom on thought. Many people exclaim that having freedom on thought is a great thing, and it sure is! However it has another side to it.

Some people take freedom of though a step too far. In that they believe that the best thing for them is to stand alone and "Do it their way". That they do not listen to advice from people "greater" than themselves, that their experience in life will be based solely on their own devised thought processes. They even take it a step further again by trying to pull down structures of systems of belief where people have a common ideology. This is based on their deep desire to live life in their unique way.

A belief in God however does not brainwash you. It does not make you into an unintelligent person, it does not make you think irrational useless thoughts. However someone who has no reverence for God will flinch at anyone assuming that they make choices in their life which does not come from themselves. It goes against the core principles of the person who wants to live a life their own way. It goes against their unique system, it forces them to defend that they are living life that sings Sanatra's "I did it my Way". Although they will not define their way but rather give reasons why they should not change their ways by ridiculing mainstream ideological stances with their logic (which to them they worship like a God).

Christianity is set apart from all other religions because it is the only one which does not base itself on your ability to follow a Law, i.e: the better you follow a rule the better believer you are.

A disease of free thinking past decades? Not recognising 'Greater persons'?
To my opinion the last centuries/millenia people have taken things for granted too easily because they didnt new better, in other words, 'the lack of information disease'.
People of wich you still think as 'greater' persons could always make up whatever they wanted, because people would accept it anyway, not realising those 'greater' persons are also JUST HUMANS.

And believe me or not, but getting raised as a believer DOES brainwash you. From the nipplesuck age till puberty parents, churches and other people around you keep hammering that there is a God, that he created world, bible and whatever, while its something that doesnt have to be true at all.
And it is really hard to start realising that all that stuff that parents have been telling you doesnt have to be true!

And sorry, but your arguments about living your way dont make sense at all. Christians live their way by making choises just as non religious people do, theres no difference.

Gyzzzmo

[morningstar]

And believe me or not, but getting raised as a believer DOES brainwash you. From the nipplesuck age till puberty parents, churches and other people around you keep hammering that there is a God, that he created world, bible and whatever, while its something that doesnt have to be true at all.
And it is really hard to start realising that all that stuff that parents have been telling you doesnt have to be true!

Gyzzzmo

If that is the case why do those who did not grow up as Christians come to the church? Are they desperate for a way out of their problems or are they merely stupid?

[javacisnotrecognized]

Science is overrated.

[timothy42b]

You think that just because someone believes in God they are completely irrational, this is irrational thinking on your own behalf. A belief in God is one thing, it does not represent the entire person, so that you think believing in God makes a person totally irrational and delusional is ridiculous thinking.

No, I don't.  A belief in a Supernatural Being for whom no objective evidence exists is not something I consider irrational in and of itself.  I can see where some people might come to that conclusion, but it is not a position I have ever taken.  I've been clear about that here, I think, but you choose to misunderstand me. 

What I observe is that SOME people who have that belief ALSO exhibit superstitious and ignorant behaviors in the rest of their lives.  I'm not sure what produces this.  Some people who believe in any god, and more narrowly some who are Christian, are perfectly rational with their other patterns; some are not.  Unfortunately the ones who are not tend to be quite vocal and give Christians in general a bad name. 

Christian is a pretty broad term.  It encompasses a wide variety of denominations ranging from the liberal end to what I call the Fundagelics.  I would note that the liberal end generally considers everybody Christians and puts the differences down to preference in worship style, while the fundagelic end (where LIW and pianistimo reside) generally consider anyone not in their camp to be not Christian at all, and in fact probably agents of Satan and his demons.

I think the fundagelic end has trained themselves not to notice things.  Here are some examples.  Much is made of apparent contradictions in the Bible by both skeptics and TrueBelieverInerrantists.  Skeptics think there are errors and even forgeries, TBIs believe these are all completely explainable.  The people who do the explaining are called "apologists."  The interesting thing though is not whether there is a possible explanation, but that some believers have trained themselves to not notice any possible problem.  The apologists look for explanation in response, and only in response to skeptic attack;  there is no recognition that some things are pretty far fetched.  Noah's Ark and a Global Flood is a classic case.  There is no part of that story that is not far fetched and fabulous.  How does it happen that this never occurred to you, LIW?    You've gone to the apologists, people like Woodmorappe, Hamm, Strobel, etc., and been given answers you like, and I don't object to that.  That doesn't make you irrational.  But the fact that you can't notice problems on your own does.  A casual glance around will show any intelligent person the Earth is older than 6,000 years.  You don't have to be a scientist or mathematician, just look at some mountain ranges, a globe, a star 15 billion light years away, etc.  Why doesn't that occur to you? 

Why don't you wonder about some strange things in the Bible?  What about the Christmas story?  Of the four gospels, two (Matthew and Luke) know about the miraculous birth events, two (Mark and John) don't know, and Paul who wrote most of the Bible hadn't heard about it.  Understand that I'm not asking if there's an explanation - of course there could be.  I'm asking why you didn't wonder.  Why you didn't notice that the two stories we do have don't match up.  In one the couple travels to Bethlehem for a census and has a baby in a stable; in the other they live there already, no census,  and have a baby in the house.  One has wise men, one doesn't; one has trip to Egypt one doesn't, one has shepherds and angels and one doesn't, etc.  The Christmas story and the Easter story are the two most important events in all of Christianity, but the different accounts we have can't easily be reconciled, and the average Christian hasn't noticed.  (It is a surprise to most Christians that there are two creation stories in Genesis as well as two flood stories.) 

I don't say that these problems prove the biblical events didn't happen; I do say that the inability to notice these problems is evidence for a level of irrationality.  I predict you will totally miss that point and leap into an apologetic defense of scripture and accusations of persecution. 

[opus10no2]

merely stupid

[timothy42b]

If that is the case why do those who did not grow up as Christians come to the church? Are they desperate for a way out of their problems or are they merely stupid?

Not merely stupid.  However, we have to admit that these cases are really, really rare, and many cases turn out to be fraudulent or misunderstood. 

We have many many claims of atheists investigating religion in an attempt to disprove God (always the particular Christian version for some odd reason) and turning themselves into believers instead.  We don't actually have a single verified case, but we do have a lot of stories!  (Two classic cases:  CS Lewis, often held up as an atheist who converted, was actually a lifelong Anglican and theology professor whose faith strengthened from lukewarm to fervent;  Josh McDowell often claims to have been an atheist, but attended Bible college and seminary before "converting.")

Demographics tell us is that by and large, people who were raised in a church and had good experiences as children tend to fall away from regular worship as young adults, then later on try to recapture those good feelings and return to church as they are starting families, getting comfortable in careers, etc.  They often change their denomination for one more emotional or less emotional, more contemporary or more traditional music, etc., but never change from Yahweh to Odin for example. 

The same demographics tell us people who did not have good early relationships tend to remain unchurched all their lives.

The opposite happens, of course.  Most people start out with the religious upbringing of their parents.  Virtually all atheists started out as theists and abandoned faith by Thanksgiving of freshman year in college. 

[thalbergmad]

Why don't you wonder about some strange things in the Bible? 

I don't think the staunchest believers are capable of wondering and the ones that are capable, are perhaps frightened of finding something that might affect their beliefs.

Thal

[gyzzzmo]

I don't think the staunchest believers are capable of wondering and the ones that are capable, are perhaps frightened of finding something that might affect their beliefs.

Thal

Well, at least we must admit that Lostinwonder at least has a better way of reasoning and approaching the bible than Pianistimo had

Btw, many of the non-believers have just an irrational way of disagreeing with the bible than Pianistimo agreed with it...

[thalbergmad]

Well, at least we must admit that Lostinwonder at least has a better way of reasoning and approaching the bible than Pianistimo had

Yes, and i do enjoy reading his posts.

I note Pontius Pa was online over the weekend, but i assume she is unable to post since the urge to infest this thread would have been too much to resist.

Thal

[gyzzzmo]

Yes, and i do enjoy reading his posts.

I note Pontius Pa was online over the weekend, but i assume she is unable to post since the urge to infest this thread would have been too much to resist.

Thal

....and now His Glory (and peace) shall reign freelly over this thread.

Finally, for christ' sake!

[G.W.K]

I note Pontius Pa was online over the weekend...

I thought she was banned? Or is there an actual member called "Pontius Pa"? LOL I assume you were referring to another religious member...

G.W.K

[morningstar]

I thought she was banned? Or is there an actual member called "Pontius Pa"? LOL I assume you were referring to another religious member...

G.W.K

Assuming that it's the one you are thinking of, people who are banned can still log in and view posts but can't post themselves. Or something like that.

[G.W.K]

Assuming that it's the one you are thinking of, people who are banned can still log in and view posts but can't post themselves. Or something like that.

No they cannot. They can be a guest, nothing more. I know banned people's permissions. They cannot sign in until the ban is lifted.

G.W.K

[morningstar]

No they cannot. They can be a guest, nothing more. I know banned people's permissions. They cannot sign in until the ban is lifted.

G.W.K

Well assuming it's pianistimo how is she signing in then?

[thalbergmad]

From her profile....


Name:  pianistimo
Posts:  12217 (10.147 per day)
Position:  PS Silver Member
Reputation:  -
Date Registered:  August 10, 2005, 05:57:43 PM
Last Active:  Today at 09:35:54 PM

Looks like she can log in but not post.

I cannot believe she is able to post and has decided not to.

Thal

[morningstar]

From her profile....


Name:  pianistimo
Posts:  12217 (10.147 per day)
Position:  PS Silver Member
Reputation:  -
Date Registered:  August 10, 2005, 05:57:43 PM
Last Active:  Today at 09:35:54 PM

Looks like she can log in but not post.

I cannot believe she is able to post and has decided not to.

Thal

Thank you!
12217? Far out.

[thalbergmad]

Looks like our self imposed moderator and part time traffic warden has got this one wrong.

Thal

[lostinidlewonder]

And believe me or not, but getting raised as a believer DOES brainwash you. From the nipplesuck age till puberty parents, churches and other people around you keep hammering that there is a God, that he created world, bible and whatever, while its something that doesnt have to be true at all.
And it is really hard to start realising that all that stuff that parents have been telling you doesnt have to be true!

And sorry, but your arguments about living your way dont make sense at all. Christians live their way by making choises just as non religious people do, theres no difference.

It might be true it might be false. When we see it in action in our life we see its positive effects on our life. If we think it is false, then this thinking has no positive effect on our life. It is neutral, it is worshiping your own logic. Which is fine, that is your God. I am not here to change peoples thinking, but I am here to say that when you say Christianity is without basis and is foolish, you are only presenting your marginalized opinion. There is some fear that a belief in a God will strip you of who you are.

No, I don't.  A belief in a Supernatural Being for whom no objective evidence exists is not something I consider irrational in and of itself.  I can see where some people might come to that conclusion, but it is not a position I have ever taken.....

Thankyou for making your stance more obvious. In previous posts you didn't reflect this stance for me.

What I observe is that SOME people who have that belief ALSO exhibit superstitious and ignorant behaviors in the rest of their lives.

Who are we to judge what other people do? Why are we so interested in what other people do? Do we have to prove to them something, to correct them so they see things in our logic? Or do we observe how people live, consider why we ourselves wouldn't do it, and even perhaps secretively laugh behind their back to ourselves and others about it?

Some people who believe in any god, and more narrowly some who are Christian, are perfectly rational with their other patterns; some are not.  Unfortunately the ones who are not tend to be quite vocal and give Christians in general a bad name. 

Your first sentence is something you find in everything in life. There are some this, some that, what are you trying to say? It is also a rash generalization that those that are vocal tend to give Christianity a bad name, perhaps in your eyes, but what would be a vocal Christian who gives their faith a good name? That might be an interesting answer to hear from you and perhaps even why I break your model of a Christian giving their faith a good name.

....the fundagelic end (where LIW and pianistimo reside) generally consider anyone not in their camp to be not Christian at all, and in fact probably agents of Satan and his demons.

Some people in this world have great glee in tagging, generalizing and categorizing people into little groups. Character assassination always tastes great in your mouth, but it is so bitter within your stomach. If your logic holds true, then I think 1/2 of my family are Satan worshipers, since 1/2 of my family are Chinese mostly worshiping otherwise than Christianity. Please! A quote I hear from Jerry Springer Show all the time is "YOU DON'T KNOW ME!!!" lol

I think the fundagelic end has trained themselves not to notice things.  Here are some examples.  Much is made of apparent contradictions in the Bible by both skeptics and TrueBelieverInerrantists.  Skeptics think there are errors and even forgeries, TBIs believe these are all completely explainable.  The people who do the explaining are called "apologists."  The interesting thing though is not whether there is a possible explanation, but that some believers have trained themselves to not notice any possible problem.  The apologists look for explanation in response, and only in response to skeptic attack;  there is no recognition that some things are pretty far fetched.

Noah's Ark and a Global Flood is a classic case.  There is no part of that story that is not far fetched and fabulous.  How does it happen that this never occurred to you, LIW?   

If you understand the historical context of what is written you will not be fooled in thinking that the flood was the entire world. Just think, when did the world realize that it was round? So what they defined as the great flood was indeed of their world, but that is because they only knew the bounds in which they lived within. It is not confusing at all.

If you measure the amount of writing there is on the great flood to the entire bible you will see it constitutes a very small part of it. Even if you take all the miracles in the bible and delete them (except for the resurection), the teachings of the bible remain. I do not think of the great flood to support my faith in Christ and God, nor do I think about any of the other disasters or even miracles (bar the Resurrection) performed. Whoever draws inspiration to connect to God through these are certainly unorthodox.

When people ask for proof of the resurrection there is of course no hard evidence to point to this fact. However the circumstantial evidence is quite strong, and to this day people are convicted by our judicial systems on such evidence.

A casual glance around will show any intelligent person the Earth is older than 6,000 years.  You don't have to be a scientist or mathematician, just look at some mountain ranges, a globe, a star 15 billion light years away, etc.  Why doesn't that occur to you? 

It is your assumption that you believe I think the earth is only 6,000 years old. If you can find one quote on pianostreet or anywhere else where I have said this, I will be completely amazed and baffled. The time that passes in Genesis is unknown. God said he created the world in 7 days, but the unit "days" is very ambiguous. It could be any amount of time. If you consider the order in which things where created however it follows in line which how the earth was formed, that is, earth probably was a water world to start with, then the lands where formed etc.

The other examples of contradictions you have presented must be read in context to one another. Even though they might be different they still echo the same message. Nothing has changed, there is not two opposing ideas throughout the entire passage. People cannot read small lines and scrutinize it, you must read entire passages. I could even add the differences in how Judas died after he betrayed Christ, but both stories show his downfall, the exact detail is unimportant, if people want to go into the exact details you can see how one story differs because it aims to highlights what falls in line with OT scripture. Perhaps it didn't actually happen but they are reflecting the dammed man giving the money he stole to a temple which was then given for the burial of other people. This has a spiritual teaching, that repentance to God leaves us with no regret, but repentance to the human world leaves us with regret and despair, which is why after giving the money back Judas commits suicide anyway and in the other story he uses the money to buy land where he also ends up dying terribly. Either way it highlights hardly a repentant person. Worshiping the world will not make you repentant for the wrong you have done in this world, that is the message taught through both of the stories.

But this gets confusing and is unimportant even for the Christian. Like I said before it is blasphemous to say that any follower of Christ is a better follower by the amount of research they have done. Not everyone in this world has the physical or mental capability to do so.

If contradictions occur they still have yet to misconstrue ANY doctrine of Christianity. They are very small details which do not have impact on the final statement.

[kelly_kelly]

I've been thinking quite a bit about my views on religion lately, so I have to reply. Personally, I feel that it shouldn't matter whether God exists or not.  It's not going to change who I am as a person or the way I live my life, because I will follow my own moral compass regardless of whether a *greater being* is looking over my shoulder. Neither do I look to a supreme being to solve my problems in hard times, because clearly the aforementioned supreme being is okay with horrible things happening in this world. I do hope and wish for things sometimes, but that's basically addressing the universe in general. To me, the laws of the physics are the most fundamental, beautiful, and essential component in our creation, so I guess these laws are my personal "God".

[gyzzzmo]

It might be true it might be false. When we see it in action in our life we see its positive effects on our life. If we think it is false, then this thinking has no positive effect on our life. It is neutral, it is worshiping your own logic. Which is fine, that is your God. I am not here to change peoples thinking, but I am here to say that when you say Christianity is without basis and is foolish, you are only presenting your marginalized opinion. There is some fear that a belief in a God will strip you of who you are.

I didnt say Christianity is foolish, dunno where you got that from.
And if i see Christianity in action, i see its positive and its negative effects on a life.
And what does 'belief in a god that will strip you of who you are' have to do with anything?

When people ask for proof of the resurrection there is of course no hard evidence to point to this fact. However the circumstantial evidence is quite strong, and to this day people are convicted by our judicial systems on such evidence.
It is your assumption that you believe I think the earth is only 6,000 years old. If you can find one quote on pianostreet or anywhere else where I have said this, I will be completely amazed and baffled. The time that passes in Genesis is unknown. God said he created the world in 7 days, but the unit "days" is very ambiguous. It could be any amount of time. If you consider the order in which things where created however it follows in line which how the earth was formed, that is, earth probably was a water world to start with, then the lands where formed etc.

Instead of realising that certain parts of the bible were just made up by people who didnt know better, you try to twist facts of the bible so they do match up with current science.
A day is a day, not 500 million years.

About your Judas passage....  There is evidence of another book about Judas where he wasnt the 'bad guy' at all, that the betrayal was an agreement between Jesus and Judas. But the pope of that time didnt want it added to the bible, because it would contradict the rest too much (again) and they got used to Judas as the bad guy.

[thalbergmad]

It is a shame, but not all Christians show an interest for writings that somehow did not make it into the Holy Book, or were edited out.

Thal

[gyzzzmo]

It is a shame, but not all Christians show an interest for writings that somehow did not make it into the Holy Book, or were edited out.

Thal

Wich is not strange since Christians tend to think that those 'Greater Persons' like popes got a message (SMS, e-mail?) from God himself to delete those passages.

[lostinidlewonder]

I didnt say Christianity is foolish, dunno where you got that from.
And if i see Christianity in action, i see its positive and its negative effects on a life.
And what does 'belief in a god that will strip you of who you are' have to do with anything?

Instead of realising that certain parts of the bible were just made up by people who didnt know better, you try to twist facts of the bible so they do match up with current science.

A day is a day, not 500 million years.

About your Judas passage....  There is evidence of another book about Judas where he wasnt the 'bad guy' at all, that the betrayal was an agreement between Jesus and Judas. But the pope of that time didnt want it added to the bible, because it would contradict the rest too much (again) and they got used to Judas as the bad guy.

I am sorry that you refuse to be open to reading what a day was in the creation of the earth mentioned in Genesis. If you want to take the literal meaning for everything in this world you are bound to get yourself confused in cases. I am not here to argue that the day mentioned in the creation of the earth was greater than 24 hours, I think it is unintelligent. However I will happily use this logic if someone wants to use the logic that Christians believe the earth is only a few thousands years old.

The evidence of "another book" about Judas, which I assume you are considering the Apocrypha, is not reliable. These books if you are interested to study their reliability where often written by random people and with random ideas with random political/religious ideologies. If you consider these on par with the Bible you need to reconsider how to measure the reliability of ancient texts.

The New Testament is written from who lived within a hundred odd years of the resurrection. Most people say that this is too much time and people will forget after so many years what happened, but they are ignoring how news was passed down in Ancient times. In normal ancient history accounts are considered somewhat reliable written even 500+ years after the event. You might be surprised that there is more historical evidence that Jesus existed and did what did he than there is of Julius Caesar or Cleopatra having existed. Yet the world accepts the existence of these Roman figures without question. Very interesting.
 The Apocrypha however is riddled with problems which I am sure you can google and read about. It just does not stand up to the reliability of the Bible. This is not a matter of belief or faith, it is an academic research.

[gyzzzmo]

I am sorry that you refuse to be open to reading what a day was in the creation of the earth mentioned in Genesis. If you want to take the literal meaning for everything in this world you are bound to get yourself confused in cases. I am not here to argue that the day mentioned in the creation of the earth was greater than 24 hours, I think it is unintelligent. However I will happily use this logic if someone wants to use the logic that Christians believe the earth is only a few thousands years old.

The evidence of "another book" about Judas, which I assume you are considering the Apocrypha, is not reliable. These books if you are interested to study their reliability where often written by random people and with random ideas with random political/religious ideologies. If you consider these on par with the Bible you need to reconsider how to measure the reliability of ancient texts.

The New Testament is written from who lived within a hundred odd years of the resurrection. Most people say that this is too much time and people will forget after so many years what happened, but they are ignoring how news was passed down in Ancient times. In normal ancient history accounts are considered somewhat reliable written even 500+ years after the event. You might be surprised that there is more historical evidence that Jesus existed and did what did he than there is of Julius Caesar or Cleopatra having existed. Yet the world accepts the existence of these Roman figures without question. Very interesting.
 The Apocrypha however is riddled with problems which I am sure you can google and read about. It just does not stand up to the reliability of the Bible. This is not a matter of belief or faith, it is an academic research.

Its not about whether to take literally or not, its about 'interpretation' of things to an extend that it gets rediculous and how people are always changing facts (and have always changed facts) in a way that it becomes convenient to them and so that it makes more sense.
Because instead of 'interpretating' things like that you should just be able to say like "that part of the bible is not correct and although i do not know what happened, i do believe that God created it". That would make alot more sense than doing it the way like you're talking it right now.

Those other books about Judas for example are just as unreliable as the current books in the Bible. Theres not really a reason why to deny 1 unreliable book and accept another unreliable one.

How you compare evidence for Caesar with evidence for Jesus doesnt make sense either.
In the first place, nobody with at least some brains denies that Jesus or Caesar did exist, or where they traveled/conquered to. Jesus though claimed he was the son of god (those people go into mental hospitals these days) and his followers claimed he did miracles. And THAT is the the part we're doubting.

Gyzzzmo

[timothy42b]

The evidence of "another book" about Judas, which I assume you are considering the Apocrypha, is not reliable. These books if you are interested to study their reliability where often written by random people and with random ideas with random political/religious ideologies. If you consider these on par with the Bible you need to reconsider how to measure the reliability of ancient texts.

Why would you assume that?  And you would be quite wrong, of course.  The apocrypha are books that were accepted at the Council of Nicaea as part of the canon, but later (much later) rejected by some denominations.  Jesus read and quoted some of those that you reject, by the way.  (Jesus had only the OT, in the form of the Septuagint.) 

No, we're talking about various gospels that did not become part of the canon but were widely used by various early Christian congregations in the first century.  More reliable copies of these and the synoptic gospels have turned up and are available.  I recommend a book called The Complete Gospels which includes 20, the 4 we normally read but with far better preserved text, and 16 additional ones that the early Christians used. 

I've made this suggestion several times;  I suspect you will never dare to open that or similar books.  If you do I have lots more suggested texts. 

[thalbergmad]

The evidence of "another book" about Judas, which I assume you are considering the Apocrypha, is not reliable. These books if you are interested to study their reliability where often written by random people and with random ideas with random political/religious ideologies. If you consider these on par with the Bible you need to reconsider how to measure the reliability of ancient texts.

This is a heavily biased remark that destroys some of your credability.

Will you use the same paragraph for any work that was not included in your "reliable" book.

Thal

[opus10no2]

In the womb
A sea of vomit
Nurturing the false prophet
His mouth of blasphemy
Spreading forth the creed of the infidels

His spit on the flaking emblem of Solomon
A schism of confusion weaken the trinity
Foresee the death of the holy alliance
The withering corpse of Christ

Mock the cross
Mock the cross

Thieving throughout the ages of man
He has come to claim eternal prize
Antichrist of flesh and blood
Overseeing his domain with tender care

The foul taste of deceit
Lingering upon his lips
Fools entranced by divine intellect
Enslaved and scorned for eternity
The long awaited rise of the usurper
A new world order taking form

Hordes rejoiced in eternal solstice
Honoring the true kingdom
Possession of the gullible souls
Mass death in the name of dog

Mock the cross
Mock the cross
Mock the...cross
Mock the f***ing cross

Some evidently dislike christianity.