Originally Posted by HorrendousGames You should probably re-read the Christian bible, it conflicts with itself plenty of times.
I have read it, about 3 times last year. I took a bible as lit class it my college.
Like I said in my earlier post, I've heard everything, you're not telling me anything new.
You can present some "contradictions" if you like, but trust me, you'd either have to take something out of context or just misinterpret something to make it work.
As far as Science not coming far, you might just want to get rid of your computer, and not go to the hospital for that fact, of course, if God can provide better.
I didn't once say that science didn't come far.
And besides, look at it from this point of view, pretend you believe in God for a second, wouldn't you have to say that God gave humans the ability to use his creation for their own good?
I believe that there is something else out there when you die, I believe in spirits and souls and that your soul eventually moves on to possible another body after you pass.
So yea, cool topic
Be sure to follow us on the twitters for the latest and greatest: @dailyclick
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames You should probably re-read the Christian bible, it conflicts with itself plenty of times.
I have read it, about 3 times last year. I took a bible as lit class it my college.
Like I said in my earlier post, I've heard everything, you're not telling me anything new.
You can present some "contradictions" if you like, but trust me, you'd either have to take something out of context or just misinterpret something to make it work.
As far as Science not coming far, you might just want to get rid of your computer, and not go to the hospital for that fact, of course, if God can provide better.
I didn't once say that science didn't come far.
And besides, look at it from this point of view, pretend you believe in God for a second, wouldn't you have to say that God gave humans the ability to use his creation for their own good?
Yes you did.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk How far science has come eh?
If you can claim that I have taken something out of context or misinterpreted it, who's to say you haven't? Of all the different sects and religions within religions of Christianity that disagree with each other, do you possess the super human power to see better than all of them. The issue is most of these people that claim out of context will only claim that if it does not fit their ideals.
I too have read the bible numerous times, as I was a devout German Lutheran for most of my life. The problem is most Christians tend to make excuses for the "nasty" parts of the bible due to indoctrination. Similar to the video I posted described, in what context does genocide become moral or ethical?
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
I can see how you thought I was saying that science didn't come far though, but that's not what I was saying.
I was referring to the fact that the majority of people used to think that the earth was flat, which we now know is false.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames If you can claim that I have taken something out of context or misinterpreted it, who's to say you haven't?
Well it's easy, if I say something that you're not sure about go check it out for yourself. It's pretty cut and dry. It's not like you have to mumble some magical phrase to understand the Bible, the King James version is in plain English.
That's interesting, out of all the Atheists that I've found most used to be Catholic/Lutheran or their parents were down the line, maybe there a connection.
I've never met a post Muslim or Baptize Atheist however.
I myself am not any of the above..
I don't have to make any excuses, it's easy to understand if you read the beginning of Genesis.
The people that God destroyed in those days sacrificed their infants to their stone statues by burning them alive. Honestly if you think that should be allowed to go on then there isn't much more I can tell you to change your mind.
@Horrendous: You said you were a devout German Lutheran, what made you change your view on life?
I believe in God.
Not the God that usually appears as the target of Atheists, nor the God proclaimed by religious fundamentalists.
I believe that the Bible is full of contradictions if you read it in one way, but I also believe that it is completely non-contradictory if you read it in another way.
I personally read it with an intuative approach, it's easy to spot man-made political details, it's easy to spot what is an example or allegory of something (described in a context that demands that you can look past the subject of the context and see the higher meaning), it's easy to spot what is meant as an historical record, and it's easy to spot what is something else, something more hidden that would need you to really have come to an understanding of the whole concept of religion and faith to get to grips with.
I believe in re-incarnation. Fun fact: the Bible does too! (Elia/John the Baptist)
I believe in the existence of the soul and it's everlasting.
I believe that 2000 years of editing the New Testament was not the wisest approach if you are intent on following the original teachings and ideas of Jesus. Though as I said earlier, I'm sure that you can get a good idea of them by reading the New Testament with your intuition turned up to 11.
I really believe a lot of things.
And I don't believe there has to be a fight between science and religion. In my world they complement each other. I would never use a measuring stick to define God, nor would I use God to define the length of a piece of paper.
One could say that science is "raw" knowledge, and religion is "raw" faith.
Nice to see everyone keep a good attitude and share!
You do realize that the bibles you read are not the originals right? If it's the 100% infallible word of god, why would it need to be changed? And what do you think of the scripture that was left out of the bible? Was that part made up or is it all just a load of crap. Do you think that the book of Morman is fictitious because the credibility of Joseph Smith was pretty bad? Well I've got news for you, it's the same story for the "authors" of the Bible. The most anyone has to an "eyewitness" testimony was some guy that knew some guy that knew some guy. If I went up on a mountain alone and told you God spoke to me and gave me a shoddy list of ten things he did not want people to do, you'd say I was crazy.
The people that God destroyed in those days sacrificed their infants to their stone statues by burning them alive. Honestly if you think that should be allowed to go on then there isn't much more I can tell you to change your mind.<quote/>
Not all of them did that though. There were plenty of people that we're described as doing nothing that could be considered wrong, like not believing in god or having sex or there was those one guys that built a fire incorrectly and got smashed. Clearly you're leaving things out. It is pretty cut and dry, but you can't argue that God was not petty selfish and immoral.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames You do realize that the bibles you read are not the originals right?
+
It is pretty cut and dry, but you can't argue that God was not petty selfish and immoral.
This is a classic problem. You accuse a God that you have already stated is not a true portrait of the original(that does not mean you imply the existance of a god though, misunderstand me right).
Please continue to keep this topic above low. The both of you are in such positions as not needing others help to question your beliefs. So settle at that and keep it nice.
I agree with everything Eternal Man said, but I would like him to explain his fun fact about re-incarnation. It sounds interesting. I would like scripture references if possible.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames You do realize that the bibles you read are not the originals right? If it's the 100% infallible word of god, why would it need to be changed?
There are multiple versions of the Bible. The first 5 books (or Torah, or law as the Jewish people call it) was passed down from Moses and copied by scribes by hand. The Jewish scribes were taught that the world would end if they copied one letter wrong, so therefore they used a checksum to make sure that their copies were accurate. Ancient Hebrew letters can be converted to numbers, so they simply added all the letters and checked if the sum was equal to the last page the copied. If it wasn't they threw the whole section out and started over.
The Dead Sea Scrolls which were found to be at least 1000 years older than the most recent of ancient manuscripts was found to contain the book of Isiah and it matched nearly letter for letter, the only differences being the way God was referenced. Using a different version of the name of God.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames Not all of them did that though. There were plenty of people that we're described as doing nothing that could be considered wrong, like not believing in god or having sex or there was those one guys that built a fire incorrectly and got smashed. Clearly you're leaving things out. It is pretty cut and dry, but you can't argue that God was not petty selfish and immoral.
Can you show me this? In the Bible or otherwise?
I did leave some things out, so I'll add that God wouldn't destroy them if they had repented, as some did, and were spared.
I believe that the Bible is full of contradictions if you read it in one way, but I also believe that it is completely non-contradictory if you read it in another way.
I personally read it with an intuative approach, it's easy to spot man-made political details, it's easy to spot what is an example or allegory of something (described in a context that demands that you can look past the subject of the context and see the higher meaning), it's easy to spot what is meant as an historical record, and it's easy to spot what is something else, something more hidden that would need you to really have come to an understanding of the whole concept of religion and faith to get to grips with.
I really like this statement.
I'm of the opinion that the Bible is yet another collection of metaphors; it is poetry. It has been translated countless times. The King James version cited earlier was a commissioned translation by a Briton, and he 'edited' it later (unless I'm misinformed). But it is, in fact, impossible for someone to understand the words as they were written unless they're fluent in Aramaic. Know anyone, off the top of your head?
One of the books I consider a marginally spiritual & boundlessly philosophical text, the Tao Te Ching, has also been translated innumerable times. Sometimes it's been the work of mystic healers; sometimes Asian history and linguistics scholars; in at least one version, it's been an acclaimed science fiction author. It's remarkable how different one translation can appear from another, although they had the same source material. All have the potential to be illuminating and mind-expanding, should you consider them in the right light.
My point in saying this is that, for all the debunking that occurs, pointing out of contradictions in the bible verses and Books, etc. it is not to be taken literally. It is apparently a spiritual guidebook, not a book of law. That's the disconnect that encourages/encouraged the various sects of Christianity to emerge, and to disagree with one another to this day: how literally shall we take the printed Bible?
And yeah, the Old Testament God was quite a rude bastard. I even made a game about his attitude problem. And if that stuff literally happened, then he wouldn't deserve anyone's respect (and the dude never apologizes...). Chances are, however, that one warring tribe attacked another warring tribe, and they dressed it up with some fanciful fish story about smiting of an entire city.
Originally Posted by s-m-r I'm of the opinion that the Bible is yet another collection of metaphors; it is poetry. It has been translated countless times. The King James version cited earlier was a commissioned translation by a Briton, and he 'edited' it later (unless I'm misinformed). But it is, in fact, impossible for someone to understand the words as they were written unless they're fluent in Aramaic. Know anyone, off the top of your head?
1st 5 books are Hebrew
and Daniel and some other books were written in Aramaic.
Rest was in Greek.
Some of the Bible is poetry, like Psalms or Song of Songs.
Some of it was law, like the first 5 books which contained law.
Originally Posted by -Adam- "I just think it's kind of corny how a man would come from an ape."
"I don't see how an animal could become a man"
No one can, it would take millions of years.
So, why did you say this?
"I do believe man evolved from ape,though"
You believe man evolved from an ape, which is an instance of an animal becoming a man, yet you state that this instance is impossible, when you believe a man evolved from an animal?
I don't know if we're on the same page, but both ideas totally contradict each other. What am I missing here? Please clarify, I'm confused.
@A-W00f: I believe Adam meant to loosely quote your "[...]how a man would come from an ape" when he said "I don't see how an animal could become a man".
@Urbanmonk: Check Matt 11:14-ish and 17:10-ish, also Mark 1:2-ish(-ish meaning around those). They describe John the baptist being the prophet Elia re-incarnated.
@s-m-r: Nice to hear someone else on the same page!
This is one of the main reasons I don't think debates between Atheists and Christians/People of Faith regarding "what the Bible says" are fruitful. Atheists tend to read the Bible in the same way as religious fundamentalists do, i.e "The Bible literally says [insert controversial meaning]!". That's a shallow view of it, nothing more.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames You do realize that the bibles you read are not the originals right?
+
It is pretty cut and dry, but you can't argue that God was not petty selfish and immoral.
This is a classic problem. You accuse a God that you have already stated is not a true portrait of the original(that does not mean you imply the existance of a god though, misunderstand me right).
Please continue to keep this topic above low. The both of you are in such positions as not needing others help to question your beliefs. So settle at that and keep it nice.
Sorry, but I'm lost on your point. I've already stated that I'm open to the concept of a diety, although I disagree that it is a Christian god, who is petty selfish and immoral.
Can you show me this? In the Bible or otherwise?
I did leave some things out, so I'll add that God wouldn't destroy them if they had repented, as some did, and were spared.
Rehab is a good example, wouldn't you agree?<Quote/>
I listed several examples, including a website with various other examples. Hitler exterminated many people, and there were plenty of people that agreed with him and felt it was just. Was it moral for him to commit genocide? It's kind of a stretch comparing death to rehab, don't you think?
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by UrbanMonk
Please clarify, I'm confused.
