100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Evolution Is it Compatible With THE BIBLE? - part 2 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
This will be my last post here on Mingle2 for a different path has called me in a new direction and I thank everyone who has contributed in answering or replying to the many questions I have posted since I have joined. You'll be sorely missed John. I hope you don't go without at least reading the last email I sent you. I think you'll find it exceedingly interesting. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont really think there are two sides, with two extremes. There are simply those that do not understand evolution. This is true. Religious people try to make out like as if there are different views on evolution when in reality there aren't. There's just evolution, and then there are religious people who don't want to accept it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Tue 03/10/09 06:06 PM
|
|
As I said before it is a given that there are going to be the extreme views on both side that are going to say no matter what the other side is wrong. And personally if some one past the same thing over and over again like they do on these forums it is not going to make it true. Saying I am some what inferior in some way because I don't believe what you do is not going to change my mind. Give me factual evidence that I can see, smell, taste, touch then it will have an effect on me. I believe that most people in the middle who are undecided on this issue would also do the same. There are simply those that do not understand evolution. Exactly! And you're being most gentle on the 'denialists' Bushidobillyclub. There are TWO sides by default, but only ONE irreconcilliable extreme: ... fundamentalism, forcing its members to deny and militantly wage endless wars on 'gravity', 'evolution', 'homosexuality', etc., based on a personal belief in the inerrancy of a book. The other side is nothing other than the rest of the world reminding fundamentalists that reality couldn't care less about their dogma. And unless they wage a 'real' holy war over their dogmatic BS, reality will reamin oblivious to dogma and fundamentalism of any nature. Faith was never intended to mesh with reality, other than as a concept. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's evil in this world - and I don't see the remedy for that existing beyond the choices that man makes himself. Short of turning man into robots - how does God displace man's freedom of choice with exacting His will, and not be contradictory to His nature, or the Creation? That philosophical question has existed through time, and likely will never be resolved. If God was all-wise, God would know how to solve the problem. Cleary God is not all-wise. That's pretty obvious. The wrong assumption is that God is external. If you keep looking to the clouds for God you'll never find the answers. All you'll find is water vapor. If you want to find God you must look within. You got part of it right. If mankind is going to remedy anything it's going need to come from the choices that mankind makes. Period. The sooner we face that truth the better off we'll be.  As long as we keep praying to the clouds and pointing fingers at each other calling each other sinners we'll never achieve anything. Actually - I'm not about pointing fingers and calling someone else a sinner - I'm not their judge, nor their keeper. In terms of God having solved the problem - He has. Jesus is the solution according to the bible. (Not meant to proselytize, just following through on the point) As far as finding God within - what is the criteria for determining what is God - and what is not? One of the difficulties I have with Eastern based religion that I've discussed at length with those who practice them. From New Age to the Extreme Cultists - which I have never had problems finding in my days in the Cafe's of Harvard Square and the Haight/Ashbury. In those days - I was studying those religions. I never found the answer to that question myself, and most of the friends I discussed it with, felt that this was the quest. Anyway. We're a tad off topic - so, I still await some of the questions I ask in sincerity about just why "Evolution" (and I'm not talking about observable mutations within a species - you get the point) is science? To me - it fits all of the criteria of a philosophy, or "religion" if you will, rather than a verifyable, demonstratable scientific theory. OK! So, the Pope and catholicism are not representative of christianity. Protetantism isn't representative of christianity. No - they are not. Here let's seeif I can dumb this down for you so that you can comprehend the point. While it may be true that the Pope is a Christain - he is not representative of christainity. While there may be numerous Catholics who are christains - claiming to be a Catholic does not make one a christain. Ditto for Protestantism. Now - if you would like to demonstrate how that is incorrect - we can carry that discussion on if you wish. Science, the scientific community, all tangible manifestations from scientific research, has absolutely no authority when it comes to holding the scientific theory of evolution, HAS PIECE AND PARCEL OF SCIENCE!!! I didn't say anything about the scientific community being the authority on Evolution - I said I find no basis for evolution to be science. I would expect you to have the same bjections that I would in this matter if I claimed that Priests are the authority on Christianity - so therefore because they say it's true - it is, despite what you think, you're not being a recognised authority in such matters. Does that prove to you that Christianty is true now. Have I convinced you? Think you've convinced me with this statement? Hold on here! All you've been saying for the longest time 'Eljay', is YOU know better. Well - apparently YOU do - and now you're going to attemt to demonstrate this to me now, eH? Let's see how that goes. Since YOU have been deceived by catholicism, the pope and all 1,3 billion catholics around the world are not really christians. I have never been decieved by Catholicism. Apparently you have though - since you think by merely being baptised as an infant into the Catholicism population that one is now a christian. Could you give me the biblical passages that support that - since I must have missed them in my study of it. Since the scientific theory of 'evolution' contradicts or conflicts, depending on your delicate pick of words 'Eljay', with YOUR world view, or beliefs, or faith, or truth seeking experiment, 'evolution' becomes, as declared by YOU, a 'religion'. Actually - since the idea of Evolution as an origin of the species and an "explination of the development of life on this planet" cannot be verified by true science - it is closer to a religion than it is to science. Unless your definition of religion must include some reference to a deity - or deities. I find that an adequate description of religion is represented by what I find inn the Encarta college dictonary: Religion: a set of strongly held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by. Science: The study of the physical world and it's manifistations, especially using systematic observation and experiment. Given these basic understandings - could you please tell me where the claim of man and Ape sharing a common ancester falls? Science - or religion. Youu're response is science - as you seem so adamaent to insist on. I would lie to know when the systematic observation of this took place and the experiments on this - and who they gave the Nobel Prise to for this miraculous EVIDENCE. Tell e when, and by who this was done by, and I'll pick up the evolutionist flag and become a Fundy-Evolutionary like you are. YOU request proof! And you claim fact without it. Even gos as far as claiming it's scientific theory. Yet you put the same demands on Christainity and Creatonism. You're a hypocrit Voile. Else just not too bright. YOU request that the world addresses YOUR capricious and insatiable PERSONAL FAITH BASED CONVICTIONS! No Voile - I ask that they explain their proof so I can believe too. But no one wants me to believe, because all they keep doing is claiming I can't believe because my world view won't let me. Well - when I was an Atheist, I didn't believe it them either, and asked the same quesitons. So what was the excuse then? YOU are convinced about YOUR own convictions, beliefs, experiences. That is good for YOU 'Eljay'! And believe when I say that I am glad that YOU are confortable with YOUR own convictions. But you'll need to acknowledge that YOU are a religion of ONE 'Eljay'. I'm not convinced about MY convictions Voile - I am in extreme doubt about yours. I would love to understand how you can blindly believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old, that we share a common ancester with apes (yet they are pretty sure that common ancester was an ape to begin with - but hey, we aren't decendent from apes.) all of this with no verifyable examples to address the issues. What I happen to believe in does nothing for what I DON'T believe in. I don't believe in pink elephants - but it isn't because I have faith in Christianity. With the humility that I trust you might be able to muster, you'll have to realize that YOUR religion of ONE is supported by nothing other than YOUR personal experiences of ONE, which have no more credibility than the credibility it has for YOU, and have little to no importance above and beyond the personal experiences and convictions of anyoneONE else's. So now that you've built this strawman - what are we to do with it. I find the statement you've just made to be as representative of you - than it is of me. so if you think this is not an accurate picture of you, than obviously you have no idea about how to represent me. The chrisitian world doesn't care much that you do not find it representative of christianity, and the scientific community, as well as the world at large, doesn't care much that you are convinced that 'evolution' is a reilgion. The world will go on without your convictions, and you have the absoulute privilege to hold on to them as you wish. I don't refer to the "christian world's" representation of christainity as false - I claim YOU'RE representation of the Christain world is wrong. See the opening of my post for this explination. To make the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM that ... the pope and 1,3 billion christians are not representative of christianity, and, ... that the scientific rality of the theory of evolution is nothing more than a 'religion', requires EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE, which YOU dear Eljay, with all your personal 'apologetic' studies, and personal biblical word pilgrimages, will never be in a position to establish. Well - I don't know about the Pope - and by the way, neither do you. But if there are 1.3 billion christains - then they represent Christains. If you want to equate Catholism, Mormanism, Jehovah Witness', Christian Scientists, Moonies, Children of God, The Way, The Health and Wealth movement, David Koresh and the Branch Davidians in your all inclusive 1.3 Billion - then I do not stand alone in my disagreement with your analysis of what makes a Christain - and am not a religion of one. But your analysis of what makes a christian brings about a serious concern of semantics, since you don't appear to understand just how to identify a christain in the first place. I also am waiting for someone, anyone to respond to the "scientific reality" of evolution with that demonstratable systematic observation that supports it. To me - it is conjecture. I make no claims about it's validity, or authententicity. Just that it is no more a stretch to claim that God Created the Materialistic Universe - than it is to say that Abiogenesis did, and got us to where we are now. I can't disprove either one, nor could I convince anyone with "fact" and demonstratable evidence. I doubt you can either. Else you would be on the reciepient of Nobel Prizes. The profound lack of crediblity, confusion, conflict, contradictions, mixed perspectives, EXTREME subjectivity, and just being ONE whom has faith which is founded on NO EVIDENCE, just like everyone else, should convince you to regroup, declare yourself whole and happy in your personal convictions, and leave these insane and unwinnable arguments alone, for the benefit of exchanges that might have a REAL chance of making a difference. This is EXACTLY what I have done since Krimsa and Bushio have embarked me on an extensive study of evolution. I have a much better understanding of science - which I haven't had since I studyed chemistry in my youth - and I have even less faith in Evolution than when I first started, since I have been researching Biology and Geology. It's only brought forth more questions that no one is asnswering. I'm told that the more I learn about evolution the more that I do not understand it. So by the time I memorize it - I'll be completely ignorant of it. I guess the idea of it - according to Bushi, is the less you research it - the better you'll understand it. And ignore the idea of asking questions. Let's not confuse this issue by having unanswered questions. Just have faith. No wait. It CAN'T be about FAITH!!! That was the point of my 'scope trial' post earlier: '... How otherwise smart and articulate people whom could make a difference in the world, can come across as rather ingnorant and disingeneuous when hypnotized and posessed by dogma, which as a result, would throws them compulsively in endlessly waging 'LOST BATTLES'!!!...' But what has the Scopes trial done to demonstrate that Evolution is a viable explination to our origins? There was even LESS facts about Evolution at the time of the scopes trial as is presumes and conjectured today. So what was the point of it? And what was the direct verdict of the Scopes trial? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually - I'm not about pointing fingers and calling someone else a sinner - I'm not their judge, nor their keeper. It really doesn't matter what you do personally. Christianity is a finger-pointing religion that denounces anyone who doesn't accept that the Bible is the word of God. And that's the bottom line. What you do personally is a moot point. The Bible is the book that claims that God hates heathens. If you disagree with that, then you disagree with the Biblical God. Period. In terms of God having solved the problem - He has. Jesus is the solution according to the bible. (Not meant to proselytize, just following through on the point) Clearly no problems have been solved by that. The world is apparently just as evil as it is today as it's ever been. The real TRUTH is that mankind is not the source of sin. The world was dog-eat-dog and filled with disease and death long before mankind ever came onto the scene. Jesus clearly did not solve anything. In fact, more atrocities have been carried out in Jesus name than in any other religion. So where you get the idea that Jesus solved any problems is beyond me. There's just no evidence for that at all. As far as finding God within - what is the criteria for determining what is God - and what is not? Well, clearly you seem to be equating God with GOOD and anything that is 'Evil' is not God. So just look inside and try to find GOOD and you'll find God. This is going by your own standards since you seem to equate GOOD with God and Evil with something other than God. I'm only going by what you seem to be obcessed with. One of the difficulties I have with Eastern based religion that I've discussed at length with those who practice them. From New Age to the Extreme Cultists - which I have never had problems finding in my days in the Cafe's of Harvard Square and the Haight/Ashbury. In those days - I was studying those religions. I never found the answer to that question myself, and most of the friends I discussed it with, felt that this was the quest. Well, you can't go by what any one particular group has to say. After all, you denounce Catholics as not being "Christians". I'm sure there are many Christian 'organizations' and churches that you'd disagree with. So just becasue you found a bunch of kooks who claim to be practicing Eastern based religions doesn't mean a thing. In fact this is a huge problem with religions in general. Any hardcore fundamentalist can stand up and claim to speak for Jesus holding a Bible in his hand and claiming that it denoucnes Gays, Evolution, "heathens" (or non-believers) and a host of other horrible things. So is that Christianity?  Clearly you have a huge problem if you're going to just use some religious group to be representative of a religion. You denounce that Catholics for Christ's sake! That's extremely arrogant of a protestant to do since Protestantism was based on the idea that no many can speak for God, yet you're claiming that Catholisim isn't representative of Jesus. Isn't that nothing more than claiming to be a self-appointed Pope who speaks for what is and isn't from Jesus? I think your whole approach to religion is self-destructive. Anyway. We're a tad off topic - so, I still await some of the questions I ask in sincerity about just why "Evolution" (and I'm not talking about observable mutations within a species - you get the point) is science? To me - it fits all of the criteria of a philosophy, or "religion" if you will, rather than a verifyable, demonstratable scientific theory. As far as I'm concerned it's incorrect to call it a 'theory'. That's old hat. Sure there is a theory of evolution, but today we no longer need the theory because we have evidence. Today we can actually speak about the evidence of evolution. No theory required. We still call Realtivity a 'Theory' too, but time dilation has been proven to occur in our universe, and atomic power plants, (not to meantion the bomb) have proven E=mc^2 too. Yet we still call it a 'theory'. Well, it's the same way with evolution. The evidence is in. The facts are crystal clear that evolution occurred on this planet over billions of years. To continue to claim that it's "just a theory" is to ignore the facts. That's an old cliché that simply isn't valid any longer. It's an utterly weak argument that is no longer applicable. The evidence is in and it's overwhelming. Life evolved on planet Earth. That's a fact. Reject it until you're blue in the face, but claiming that it's "Just a Theory" is truly outdated. Wake up and look at the EVIDENCE! My flow of logic is not the same as yours as far as God=good, and what you define as "sin". We don't have an equal footing on semantics, so that chess game will always be a draw. As to the board being set up with the pieces of Evolution. You state this: Well, it's the same way with evolution. The evidence is in. The facts are crystal clear that evolution occurred on this planet over billions of years. To continue to claim that it's "just a theory" is to ignore the facts. What is the evidence? These "facts" that are chrystal clear - what are they. I'm not "ignoring" the facts - I'm asking what they are. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YOU are convinced about YOUR own convictions, beliefs, experiences. That is good for YOU 'Eljay'! And believe when I say that I am glad that YOU are confortable with YOUR own convictions. But you'll need to acknowledge that YOU are a religion of ONE 'Eljay'. With the humility that I trust you might be able to muster, you'll have to realize that YOUR religion of ONE is supported by nothing other than YOUR personal experiences of ONE, which have no more credibility than the credibility it has for YOU, and have little to no importance above and beyond the personal experiences and convictions of anyoneONE else's. The chrisitian world doesn't care much that you do not find it representative of christianity, and the scientific community, as well as the world at large, doesn't care much that you are convinced that 'evolution' is a reilgion. The world will go on without your convictions, and you have the absoulute privilege to hold on to them as you wish. This is true. I have no problem with your beliefs Eljay other than to say that I personally don't accept them. You MAIN PREMISE appears to be that science is nothing more than faith-based conjecture. Here - let me clear this up for you. When you state what I believe to be "conjecture" please refer to Evolution - not science. Don't mis-represent me by painting with too broad a brush here. My objections are specific to Evolution as an origin of the species and Abiogenesis as a viable scientific theory. I find no other objections to any other branch of science - though I find some observations of geologists a bit far fetched as well - but I do not denuce all of geology. I hope you aren't confused by this. You appear to be. I totally disagree with your premise, so I guess we're dead in the water at that point. Well - since you've mis-represented my premise - I'll leave the choice to you to reconsider since Ive clarified my point. Also, when it comes to religion you're confusing because you speak of Jesus and the Bible but denounce Catholicism as not being "Christian". You probably disagree with a lot of protestant fundamentalists as well, in fact you have indicated that you don't agree with much of what they have to say either. Let's correct this premise as well. There are plenty of Catholics who are christains - not all Catholics are christains, simply because they are Catholic. Going to church nce or twice a year, confession every ten or so years, and obeying the mandates of the Pope are not what i would call requirements of being a christian. Being a Catholic - maybe, but that's as far as it goes. The same goes with ANYTHING in life. I have sited this example before. Everyone who walks into my auditions call themselves actors. Examining the evidence of their audition - proves some right - others wrong. There are certain expectations of the profession that need to be demonstrated before one can lay claim to being an example of it. So it is with Christainity. Hitler and Stalin may have been born Catholics - but you'd be hard pressed to convince me either one of them were Christains. So in-short, I have no idea what your 'religion' is all about. You'd have to write the King Eljay's version of the Bible and have it published so people can see your point of view. There doesn't need to be a King Elsjay's bible. Pick up any version of the bible (well - maybe not ANY version. I wouldn't use Isaac Asamov's version.) and it can be determined who and what a christian is. A quick scan of John 1, James, and Peter's letters will give a general Idea. Romans pretty much sums up the path one needs to take to comprehend what makes an individual a Christian. This is not a deep and dark secret. Otherwise we're back to square one with just yet another individual Paper Pope trying to claim that his personal interpretation of scriptures represents TRUE Christianity. When someone's definition of what a christain is is in direct conflict to the context of the bible, personal interpretation does not become difficult. It is actually - pretty obvious. But if that's true then our souls depend on seeking out Eljay's wisdom rather than the wisdom of the Holy Bible. Because we might MISINTERPRET IT! God forbid! It has nothing to do with what I think or say. It's easily within anyone's ability to read the bible and determine for themselves if their a christain. But to call oneslef one without having ever read it - would cause anyone to have doubts. They don't need me pointng that out for them. You'd do the same if i told you i was a physicist - but never got past Algebra one. What would be your response to that I wonder? This is the problem with Protestantism. Everyone thinks that they are the only person in the world to hold the correct interpretation of the Bible.  Ah... you're right. That is an issue with Protestantism - I couldn't agree with you more. A week or two attending a Church of Christ will make that obvious. But I don't claim "adherance" to any denomination if it means I have to believe the interpretations of their heirarchy. I've been disfellowshipped from enough denominations to know that holds true. That - to me - is not biblical. I don't claim that has to be true for everyone - it just is for me. You're just another example of how it can't possibly work as a WORLD RELIGION. I have no clue what you're talking about. According to you all of Catholicism would need to convert to Eljay-ism in order to be saved by Christ. This is just another example of Christianity versus Christianity. It's a religion that can't even get along with itself.  No - according to me, you can't examine an all inclusive body of adherants and make a general claim as to what and how they all believe. A clai you hold fast to yourself, as you claim Christains can't even agree amoungst themselves. But that is because I wonder if you know what a christain is? For instance, Mary Baker Eddy - founder of Christain Science; Joseph Smith - founder of Mormanism - Peter - supposedly the first Pope (Have you ever wondered if He knew this himself) Calvin, are they all "Christains" to you? Mother Teresa and Stalin were both Catholics. Both Christians to you? To be honest - I really don't know if you think all of these people I've listed are Christians or not. Knowing what you think about this would leave me to believe that perhaps you have a better understanding of why someone is a christian than what you're leading me to believe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Wed 03/11/09 09:03 AM
|
|
Eljay wrote: No - they are not. Here let's seeif I can dumb this down for you so that you can comprehend the point. While it may be true that the Pope is a Christain - he is not representative of christainity. While there may be numerous Catholics who are christains - claiming to be a Catholic does not make one a christain. Ditto for Protestantism. Now - if you would like to demonstrate how that is incorrect - we can carry that discussion on if you wish. You're going to dumb this down for us?  All you're staying here Eljay is that you are the most arrogant person in the world. You claim that while everyone else may actually be a Christian, you're the ONLY ONE who has the actual low-down on how Christianity SHOULD BE DEFINED. All you're saying is that YOU DECIDE what Christianity should be. I think you've just lost all credibility from every possible sector. Christians and non-Christians alike. I would also advise that you start your own religion if that's truly how you feel. I have no idea why you bother using the label "Christianity" when you claim to disagree with how most other people use the religion. Also, you say: My flow of logic is not the same as yours as far as God=good, and what you define as "sin". We don't have an equal footing on semantics, so that chess game will always be a draw. Abviously not. You don't require that God=good. I most certainly do and my reasoning is quite simple. If God is not Good then it's not a God! All you're basically saying is that you allow that the creator of this universe might actually be a madman. And of course, to believe in the Bible you defininely need to leave the door open to that option because the Bible basically demands that it's so. So yes, we'll never agree. I require that God is GOOD. Otherwise it wouldn't be a God at all as far as I'm concerned. I mean, I would actually AGREE WITH YOU if Christians allow that God is not Good. Then the Bible makes SENSE! But they refuse to agree that God is anything BUT Good! Clearly you have an extremely different view of God than most Christians. My argument with the Bible is that God can't be SIMULTANEOUSLY good, AND still fit the Biblical description. You seem to actualy be in AGREEMENT WITH ME! You also seem to recognize that if the Bible is true God cannot be GOOD. You handle that problem by just accepting that God isn't GOOD. I handle the problem by simply rejecting the Bible as having been written by God, and recognize that it is the made-up thoughts of men. So I think we are both coming from the very same place. You just refuse to give up the Bible, you'd rather accept that God is bad. I'd rather believe that the Bible is not the word of God. Finally we recognize our major differences in thought. But you are unlike MOST CHRISTIANS because most Christians demand that God is PERFECTLY GOOD (and that the Bible represents God's will). I believe that those two concepts are incompatible. You seem to simply accept that God is not Good. No wonder you can accept the Biblical Picture so easily!  The Bible would be easy to believe if I was willing to believe that God is not good. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Wed 03/11/09 12:58 PM
|
|
YOU request proof! And you claim fact without it. Even gos as far as claiming it's scientific theory. Yet you put the same demands on Christainity and Creatonism. You're a hypocrit Voile. Else just not too bright. Well before making personal attacks 'Eljay', and declaring ME a 'hypocrite', or '... just not too bright...', it would be important for you to first address the point I am making. In the case above, you are completely missing the point I am making, ... which might evoke the 'not too bright' epithet to which you are referring, or maybe you are conciously avoiding the point, ... which might evoke yet the 'hypocrite' epithet you have also coined. Anyhow, personal attacks simply don't work 'Eljay'. Attacking, or offering counter arguments of caustic genre to ideas, observations, beliefs, or convictions that we do not agree upon is to be expected, ... but let's stay away from personal attacks. Especially when those personal attacks are based on misunderstood or misinterpreted claims. They end-up backfiring on the attacker, and I don't enjoy seeing that happen to you 'Eljay'. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think people totally misunderstand the concept of religion.
It is indeed a faith-based concept. Yet in the case of heavily dogmatic religions such as the Bible there is a 'book' to defend. The book claims what God must be like. People get all bound up in trying to defend to the book to the point where they basically even denounce what it says in order to salavage it, which is totally paradoxical. The bottom line is that the Bible is a story about a creator who created a bunch of pathetic beings and then somehow holds them responsible for being pathetic. I think the very premise is untenable. Moreover, the very idea that a God would be mean to people who don't believe such incredulous stories is even more untenable. Here we have an example of a believer in the Bible who feels the need to 'dumb down' things for people and claim that they aren't too bright because they think the Bible is nuts. Yet it shouldn't take a very bright person to recognize that it would be totally irrational as well as immoral for a God to be mean to people who don't want to beleive that God hates heathens where a "heathen" is simply defined as someone who doesn't believe in the Bible. It's seriously ridiculous. It's ludicous. It's truly so absurd that I can't believe that any intelligent person would believe it. In fact, I don't. I think people who believe it are either totally confused, or totally scared that God might really be that mean. I know that I'm a good person yet I can't bring myself to believe the Bible. Why would that be? It makes absolutely no sense at all that good people would find the Bible so extermely absurd. A God who tells people to stone other people to death for totally lame, and often egotistical reasons? Please! God would need to be seriously lame to be like that. Someone once listed all the places in the Bible where God told people to stone other people to death. There were TONS of verses like that and many of them were seriously lame (like stoning someone to death for not attending church on Sunday or some such nonsense) Sorry. The Bible is clearly made up by truly crude and rude men. To expect me to believe that God is that lame as the people who wrote the Bible is truly an insult to my intelligence. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Wed 03/11/09 02:38 PM
|
 There is nothing MORE ridiculous and MORE sad... than someone denouncing the Bible for over 2 years now on this forum..... day in and day out... over and over and over...ad nauseum...... ESPECIALLY when it is SOOOOO VERY OBVIOUS TO US CHRISTIANS..... that this person has NEVER EVER even taking the time to READ the Bible IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!! .(maybe bits and pieces only) The FACT that he can't even COMPREHEND some of the SIMPLE BASIC TRUTHS of the Book ... CLEARLY REVEALS The sad truth to the rest of us...... that he knows NOTHING about the Bible AT ALL . Yet, this person will still continue to come on this forum....daily.... DENOUNCING the Bible. I weep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's just to counter the proseltyzing of bigotry and hatred of non-believers MorningSong.
If Christians were so bigoted and hateful of people who don't believe like them there would no reason to point out the obviously flaws in their hateful dogma. That's just a fact of life MorningSong. You've chosen a religion that hates non-believers and is truly bigoted and degrading toward them. That's your choice. I'm sick of humanity being bashed in the name of a bigoted hateful dogma. When the proseyltizers stop, so will I. But you know as well as I do that that's never going to happen. YES I agree with you. It's truly SAD that Christians spread so much HATRED against people who don't believe in their bigotry. And that's PRECISELY WHAT IT IS MorningSong. Even the Christians are bigoted toward each other. The Catholics and Protestants never got along. And the hatred between the Jews and the Muslims is apparent to the WHOLE WORLD. It all comes from the VERY SAME hateful dogma MorningSong. You think that it's wrong to denounce this horribile cancer of the human spirit? Personally I think the people who support it on the people who are doing a horrible thing. Just read how hateful the Biblical God is MorningSong: This is the God that you worshiop: What the Biblical God says about stoning people to death For touching Mount Sinai Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death. Exodus 19:13 For taking "accursed things" Achan ... took of the accursed thing. ... And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. ... So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Joshua 7:1-26 For cursing or blaspheming And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16 For adultery (including urban rape victims who fail to scream loud enough) If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24 For animals (like an ox that gores a human) If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned. Exodus 21:28 For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 For worshiping other gods If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... tone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 13:5-10 For disobeying parents If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 For witches and wizards A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27 For giving your children to Molech Whosoever ... giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. Leviticus 20:2 For breaking the Sabbath They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-56 For cursing the king Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die. 1 Kings 21:10 For cursing the King? I can't imagine anyone supporting this book as the 'word of God'. It's clearly the work of horrible men. No decent supreme being would demand that people MURDER in his name. Is this supposed to be the same God that said, "Thou shalt not kill?" You want to talk about RIDICULOUS? How can you support this kind of bigtory? You KNOW it didn't come from any GOD. Come on! Surely you don't believe that God is this hateful and jealous. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll tell you what's sad MorningSong. What's said are people who denounce brotherly love in the NAME of JESUS! That's what's truly sad MorningSong. And to denounce people based on what the bible says is truly hateful and it needs to stop. Using Jesus as a battering RAM to denounce people who don't agree with the horrors of "Christianity" is truly sad. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abra wrote: "There were TONS of verses like that and many of them were seriously lame (like stoning someone to death for not attending church on Sunday or some such nonsense) .." Just another example right there..that makes it GLARINGLY OBVIOUS, that you Abra, know NOTHING of the bible at all. Jewish people kept the sabbath...and did not even go to a church on a sunday
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is nothing MORE ridiculous and MORE sad... than someone denouncing the Bible for over 2 years now on this forum..... day in and day out... over and over and over...ad nauseum...... ESPECIALLY when it is SOOOOO VERY OBVIOUS TO US CHRISTIANS..... that this person has NEVER EVER even taking the time to READ the Bible IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!! .(maybe bits and pieces only) The FACT that he can't even COMPREHEND some of the SIMPLE BASIC TRUTHS of the Book ... CLEARLY REVEALS The sad truth to the rest of us...... that he knows NOTHING about the Bible AT ALL . Yet, this person will still continue to come on this forum....daily.... DENOUNCING the Bible. I weep. Though you arent refering to me, I have never read the bible and im not gonna waste my time with it. There are people here that demounce the bible daily and have clearly read it. Such as Abra, who has clearly studied it as well as read it. His denouncements make complete logical sense. Whereas people who argue in favour of the bible argue with no logic at all, mostly. You dont have to have read the book to understand thats its not the word of God. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whereas people who argue in favour of the bible argue with no logic at all, mostly. You dont have to have read the book to understand thats its not the word of God. That is true. All a person needs to do is read the arguments given for the Bible from Christians to see that they have no merit. No need to read the book at all really. The fact that Protestants even exist at all is proof positive that the religion has fallen apart. The fact that Protestants themselves have fallen into countless opposing denominations says it all. No two people agree on what the Book says, not even the believers. And let's not forget that Judaism and Islam are basically the SAME RELIGION based on the very same folklore and look at how different they interepret it. Trying to discredit someone by claiming that they never read the Bible is truly a lame stab when even the believers can't agree on what it says. If there's one thing we can know with absolute certainty it's that the Bible is totally ambigious and confusing to the point where even the people who want to believe in it can't agree on what it says. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stubborn believers will NEVER denounce the word of God, no matter what. You could show them a hand written note by GOD HIMSELF that the bible is false...and they still wouldnt believe it.
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stubborn believers will NEVER denounce the word of God, no matter what. You could show them a hand written note by GOD HIMSELF that the bible is false...and they still wouldnt believe it. Well, not only that, but I'm not even an atheist. I'm not denouncing "god". I actually believe that there is a spiritual essence to existence. I just denounce that the Bible is the 'word of God'. I think it's obviously that's it's the word of men who were trying to get people to do their dirty work for them (i.e. murder anyone who doesn't agree with the authors of the book). Of, course the New Testament is a whole different story. I've voiced my beliefs on what that was all about. I think it's crystal clear even from reading the Bible itself that Jesus couldn't possibly have been the son of the God of Abraham, nor did he even claim to be. On the contrary, if the bible has him claiming to be anything at all, it has him claiming to be the primordial creator of all humanity himself ("Before Abraham was I AM). Although, that's only if you take that in the realm of Mediterranean thinking where they can only imagine God's being ego-like creatures, like Zeus, or the God of Abraham. I personally think that if Jesus said anything like that he most likely meant it in the Eastern sense of that we are all eternal spirit. In any case, I see Jesus denouncing the ways of the Old Testament, and certainly not claiming to be the son of the God of Abraham specifically. Moreover, we all know that the gospels were very BELATED heresay and not the verbatim words of Jesus anyway. So I think I can believe in a historical Jesus much like I can believe in a historical Buddha. It appears that Jesus actually tried to denounce the Old Testament and got crucified for it. But claiming that he came to PAY for the sins of man as a sacrifical lamb of the God of Abraham. No way. So yes, I denounce the Bible in the way way that the ancient Christians denounced Zeus. And they were quite mean about that too! I make no apologies for denoucing a religion that clearly denounces all other religions. Why should I? That's no different from what the religion itself is doing! They claim that it's SAD when someone denounces their religion, but their religion expects everyone to rejoice in the fact that THEY denounce all other religions. What a hypocritical religion to begin with! If you denounce our religion it's called "bashing". But our religion IS ALL ABOUT DENOUNCING ALL OTHERS!!! How does that make any sense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Filmfreek
on
Wed 03/11/09 04:03 PM
|
|
I hear ya Abra. I refuse to believe in the biblical God, simply because I refuse to believe that any God could be that cruel and judgemental.
The spiritual God I believe in loves everything and everybody unconditionally. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I condone the actions of some people (murder, rape, theivery, abuse, etc...). They should certainly be punished in some way. I'm just saying it's pretty harsh, to condemn someone to hell based solely on their belief. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hear ya Abra. I refuse to believe in the biblical God, simply because I refuse to believe that any God could be that cruel and judgemental. The spiritual God I believe in loves everything and everybody unconditionally. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I condone the actions of some people (murder, rape, theivery, abuse, etc...). They should certainly be punished in some way. I'm just saying it's pretty harsh, to condemn someone to hell based solely on their belief. Absolutely. And other religions don't exactly let people off of the hook for doing bad things. In the Eastern Pantheistic religions Karma is all about getting what you DESERVE (good or bad) you get what you dish out. The only real difference there is that the 'judgment' is automatically built-in to the system. There's simply no need for a single godhead to keep track of who's been naughty or nice. Even humans have build automated systems. The idea that a supremem divine creator wouldn't have thought of that or couldn't implement it is silly. Of course god could build in karma and keep things SIMPLE. And like you say, what sense does it make for a God to get peeved at people for not beliving in a particular book that they need to GUESS "might" be his word? Especially in the face of the fact that even the clergy who keep those books can't even agree amoungst themselves how to interpret them! If my creator is going to send me to hell because I thought he was NICER than what the Bible claims then so be it. All that creator will have done is prove that I was WRONG! He's NOT NICER than that Bible claims!  I'm convinced that in order for God to be like the Bible says, then God must NOT be nice. Period. To believe in the Bible is to believe that God is NOT NICE! There's just no way around it. That's why I became an 'ex-Christian'. The Bible is NOT compatible with a NICE God. That's all there is to it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay wrote: No - they are not. Here let's seeif I can dumb this down for you so that you can comprehend the point. While it may be true that the Pope is a Christain - he is not representative of christainity. While there may be numerous Catholics who are christains - claiming to be a Catholic does not make one a christain. Ditto for Protestantism. Now - if you would like to demonstrate how that is incorrect - we can carry that discussion on if you wish. You're going to dumb this down for us? All you're staying here Eljay is that you are the most arrogant person in the world. You claim that while everyone else may actually be a Christian, you're the ONLY ONE who has the actual low-down on how Christianity SHOULD BE DEFINED. All you're saying is that YOU DECIDE what Christianity should be. I think you've just lost all credibility from every possible sector. Christians and non-Christians alike. I would also advise that you start your own religion if that's truly how you feel. I have no idea why you bother using the label "Christianity" when you claim to disagree with how most other people use the religion. Also, you say: My flow of logic is not the same as yours as far as God=good, and what you define as "sin". We don't have an equal footing on semantics, so that chess game will always be a draw. Abviously not. You don't require that God=good. I most certainly do and my reasoning is quite simple. If God is not Good then it's not a God! All you're basically saying is that you allow that the creator of this universe might actually be a madman. And of course, to believe in the Bible you defininely need to leave the door open to that option because the Bible basically demands that it's so. So yes, we'll never agree. I require that God is GOOD. Otherwise it wouldn't be a God at all as far as I'm concerned. I mean, I would actually AGREE WITH YOU if Christians allow that God is not Good. Then the Bible makes SENSE! But they refuse to agree that God is anything BUT Good! Clearly you have an extremely different view of God than most Christians. My argument with the Bible is that God can't be SIMULTANEOUSLY good, AND still fit the Biblical description. You seem to actualy be in AGREEMENT WITH ME! You also seem to recognize that if the Bible is true God cannot be GOOD. You handle that problem by just accepting that God isn't GOOD. I handle the problem by simply rejecting the Bible as having been written by God, and recognize that it is the made-up thoughts of men. So I think we are both coming from the very same place. You just refuse to give up the Bible, you'd rather accept that God is bad. I'd rather believe that the Bible is not the word of God. Finally we recognize our major differences in thought. But you are unlike MOST CHRISTIANS because most Christians demand that God is PERFECTLY GOOD (and that the Bible represents God's will). I believe that those two concepts are incompatible. You seem to simply accept that God is not Good. No wonder you can accept the Biblical Picture so easily! The Bible would be easy to believe if I was willing to believe that God is not good. Here - let me dumb this down for you too. Rather than you presume how I interpret things - I figured I'd save you the trouble of attempting to guess at it - since you and Voile have such a hard time getting it right - and simply tell you. This way you could stop being confused by your imaginiation of what I was trying to say - and simply witness exactly what my point was for yourselves. |
|
|
|
|
