-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Social Religion, Politics and absolutely nothing to do with footy
- Thread starter Galaxy
- Start date
- Tagged users None
No need to invite them stuff is being moved around all the time. Oh for the good old days before the intervenionist mod moved in.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #103
Has anybody seriously read this entire thread? Like honestly?
Been out of action for a few days.
Of course I agree. And I have read it many times over. Some parts hundreds of times.
But even if one didn't think the bible was inspired (which I do), it is still worth reading. It's the most influential book in all human history - and continues to be so.
Last edited:
Yep. I believe the bible.
I believe its God's word to us.
I believe one needs to be aware of the type of literature one is reading - i.e. a psalm is a song, Revelation is apocryphal, Luke is a biography, etc, etc.
But I have no problem whatsoever in claiming and holding the bible scriptures as the revealed word of God.
and that the end of that discussion then.. you may as well believe an advert on a product. Its a folder of documents by multiple people that was accumulated , then edited and then some removed , starting some time after the events and up to ... 600 ad?
There are reports in the paper every day that struggle to keep the truth straight about what happened yesterday.
But believe what you want... to debate it..its trying disprove the core of what the house of cards is built on...and in the end , as it is when i have discussed this before , the bible for some is a history book , and for others fodder for a mini series.
Logical discussion... yeah OK.
Well. I believe the bible is Gods word. But it doesn't need me to defend it. It stands head and shoulders above anything else in all history as literature alone. Its influence is profound beyond reckoning. And it is still the most widely published and read book in the world today, influencing billions of lives across the globe. I encourage you to read. To dismiss it with such a blasé attitude does you no favours Turbo.
But at the heart, what it sounds like to me, is we have two different opinions/views. That's not what I would call a reason to end all discussion. If it were, nothing would ever be discussed.
If the bible were the word of God, would you read it? Would you believe it? Would you follow it?
If God appeared to you, or if I could prove to your satisfaction that there is a God, would you follow him?
These questions may get to the heart of what people really think and where they stand.
It is usually more courageous to discuss rather than mock.
It does me no favours fine.... by the way which version do you say is the word of G... just what language did he use. What happened with all those "Books" that were not considered ideal for the the official version. Im no Bible scholar , don't claim to be but I know its hardly the unadulterated words with no pollution ..it has been filtered and shaped to suit needs of the times... even pro religious websites address it.
http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/...ere-so-many-versions-of-the-bible-in-english/
so just how far back is literal truth... Old testament? I have neither the time or the inclination to read it thru cover to cover... but you enjoy what you want . There are plenty that have mined the pages for "What the's".... seem to be quite a few queries on the accuracy of its "history" , to my mind.
http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=499#bible
The IF questions you ask me are almost pointless. Its those sort of justifcations that set bombers to fly planes into buildings. Extreme believes and intolerance is what ardent religion preaches. Anything less is a non believing outlook... called whatever .... Blasé attitude .... infidels ....
Lets put aside "logic" then... Christian faith is fine, and has some great values...but don't say it relies on logic. It relies on faith.
Do we really need to obtain our values through a book? Good people are good people because their core morality dictates who they are, and their values. What does it say about a person who's only "good" through fear of being banished into the eternal flames of the afterlife? For all the "good" that religion has done, it's created a lot more problems in the process. More people throughout history have died in the name or religion than just about any other cause of death.
Religion, I believe, is just a passing phase in the human being's mental evolution. Over time as the scientific evidence continues to stack up favourably for an increasing amount of free-thinking people, religion will one day be consigned to the realms of history. It may take another thousand years, or more - but eventually all religions will be remembered in the way that we currently view the ancient gods of Egypt.
I can tell you now, I would never follow an omniscient and omnipotent god that created this world. It's far to fcuked up for me to give any credit to. If a god created this world, then he's neither omniscient nor omnipotent, or he's perhaps both and just one sick puppy. I'll stick with the former, and cut him/her/it some slack if they put their hand up and say 'I fcuked up'. I'll be happy to help be a part of any solution that betters humanity. But until that happens... the bible will remain nothing more than a 2000 year old troll, to me.
Muslims believe that the Quran is God's word, too. Why are they so far off the money and you're not? What about the thousands of other religions scattered amongst the world? What is the defining component in Christianity that can assure people that it's the true word of God?
Values from a book... well I said the faith has some good values but lets not split hairs. To me the book and its written values as a guide is OK , people need guidance and education. Do not Kill , treat others as you would like to be treated. Alls sounds reasonable to me. Is it different to having SOP procedure assembling something , you take onboard its intent but once familiar we need not strain our eyes reading and applying it. Don't kids need to be educated. It must all start somewhere.
On the passing phases? Maybe..sound like we are just replacing one for another..The religion of Science... gees where have I heard that. Its seems something in our nature has been search for answers for as long as we could put paint on the walls of a cave , and the more we discover them more questions that seem to be raised.
My main gripe is the absolute truth idea. I doubt there is such a thing. To me it has always been more like the blind men and the elephant. The minute people become overly extreme in idea... we start down the path of killing Abortionist Doctors to save lives.
Well. There are a few personal assumptions and opinions in that post. Not much objective evidence either (esp. on the all religions preach intolerance). What if a world view "preached" extreme love? It is myopic to think extremism is the problem - its the content of the extremism that is at issue. Some might say those sorts of accusations and lumping together of "religions" is bigoted and intolerant.
Anyway. The OT was mostly written in Hebrew, and the NT in Koine Greek.
It has been translated into 1000s of different languages today, and many "versions" in English, which is needed as modern language changes, or words change their meaning, or different styles of writing (such as a paraphrase) may be easier for some to read and understand.
We have 1000s of manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts over centuries that we can trace back to allow us to be very certain that what we have today, while not the original copies written by the original writers, are very reliable and only vary in a few spelling mistakes or the like from what was originally written.
The OT is the Jewish scriptures. The NT is made up of letters etc, written by disciples and apostles (Peter/John/Paul etc) and were in regular circulation among the churches of the first century.
The works of the bible - by different writers over hundreds of years - were collated by the church leaders and scholars b/c they fit a strict criteria to be considered scripture.
Not sure what you mean exactly here. But the OT is a reliable ancient writing.
Obviously its a couple of 1000s years older than the NT, and we don't have as good info re it, but the questions of its historicity are usually down to absence of evidence, not evidence of absence. BUT if you are unsure - just stick with the NT. Read the gospels for a start and see what sort of man this Jesus was. Its up to God to do the rest, isn't it? If your willing of course.
Well actually the questions I asked to see if someone is really as opened minded and enlightened as they would like to think they are.
If God could be proven to you, would you follow him, or would you still want to be the king of your own life? The questions reveal who or what we really want to believe and follow. It can show that there is more going on in a non-believers mind than just a cold, dispassionate rejection of all the evidence - even though that's what they may claim and project to the world. It is always more complex than that, and our human pride is often in the way of belief.
I think you do "religion" a great disservice by parroting an untruth like they all preach intolerance. It is just lazy or ignorant to lump all world views in together. It is the atheist equivalent of me saying all non-believers are pagan Satan worshippers.
Jesus.
Islam credits Jesus as a prophet of Allah, but they dispute the claim that he is the son of God. Why should I believe that Jesus is the son of God and not just another prophet?
You know that as an intellectual argument, the problem of evil and suffering does nothing to prove there is no God. That is a an emotional argument. That fair enough, but at least acknowledge it as such. Under atheism, there are no grounds at all for evil or pain - its just the way it goes.
Well it is pretty easy to blame God for problems, and not take any responsibility for our own sin. Pretty sure we all fall a long, long way short of perfect.
It should also be said that just because someone cannot think of a reason why suffering should be allowed in the world, doesn't mean God doesn't have a ery good reason for allowing it to be so. You can't disprove God that way.
I think you will find that the minority of care happening in the world has Xian roots. Shame to forget that and suggest God not involved in world through his followers challenging world poverty, slavery, sex trafficking, injustice, addiction, relationship breakdown, education, foreign aid, medical care, etc, etc. You better get on board then matey.
Because that's where the evidence leads. But you would have to read about Jesus, who he was, what he did, how he was treated, what happened to him, etc, etc.
That's why I encourage you to read the NT.
I've read the NT. I've had a Catholic education. I've been spood fed the stuff since I was in nappies. I've also read the Quran. Neither of which provide a skerrick of evidence to prove that anything claimed is factually correct. They're just fanciful stories.
You know that as an intellectual argument, the problem of evil and suffering does nothing to prove there is no God. That is a an emotional argument. That fair enough, but at least acknowledge it as such. Under atheism, there are no grounds at all for evil or pain - its just the way it goes.
Well it is pretty easy to blame God for problems, and not take any responsibility for our own sin. Pretty sure we all fall a long, long way short of perfect.
It should also be said that just because someone cannot think of a reason why suffering should be allowed in the world, doesn't mean God doesn't have a ery good reason for allowing it to be so. You can't disprove God that way.
I think you will find that the minority of care happening in the world has Xian roots. Shame to forget that and suggest God not involved in world through his followers challenging world poverty, slavery, sex trafficking, injustice, addiction, relationship breakdown, education, foreign aid, medical care, etc, etc. You better get on board then matey.
But! But! But! God is supposed to be all merciful and all caring isn't she? Find it hard to equate that with a God who stands by while a baby gets a life sentence with bone cancer.
If a faith helps one get through this earthly existence by giving him/her meaning and purpose, good luck to them. But don't, on the one hand, have people preach about a merciful God then, on the other hand, excuse her for turning a blind eye to such suffering as that mentioned.
Yes, and my point was in the context of a God revealing himself, and my dismissal of said God after the fact.You know that as an intellectual argument, the problem of evil and suffering does nothing to prove there is no God. That is a an emotional argument. That fair enough, but at least acknowledge it as such. Under atheism, there are no grounds at all for evil or pain - its just the way it goes.
Well it is pretty easy to blame God for problems, and not take any responsibility for our own sin. Pretty sure we all fall a long, long way short of perfect.
It should also be said that just because someone cannot think of a reason why suffering should be allowed in the world, doesn't mean God doesn't have a ery good reason for allowing it to be so. You can't disprove God that way.
I think you will find that the minority of care happening in the world has Xian roots. Shame to forget that and suggest God not involved in world through his followers challenging world poverty, slavery, sex trafficking, injustice, addiction, relationship breakdown, education, foreign aid, medical care, etc, etc. You better get on board then matey.
Evil or pain? It's just the way of the world. Nature, I'd say. But if an omnipotent God is truly omnipotent, he could execute his grand plan without the inclusion of unnecessary, painful suffering. That's my opinion, of course. Your response will be that it gives opportunity for good people to do good things. I just can't buy it, sorry.
