Bible-Thumpers!!! Prepare to be upset

[smeagol]

Sola Scriptura.... you forgot adding a manual to supplement the Bible like the Book of Mormon or the Roman Catechism...

True in the first case

But I won't quarrel with you... we have agreed to disagree.

I would not call it quarreling . . . exchanging POVs. In any case, if our goal is to reunite all Christian denominations, we should continue talking about our differences.

I have utmost respect for you.

Likewise.

[DarkReign]

Sooooooo, youre all debating a fictional book, written mostly by people who were told the original story in an era where literacy certainly wasnt at its highest, then translated from a dead language of over 1000 years, interpreteted thousands of different ways by "scholars of their time" to fine-tune the scripture to their converts with only the most popular being followed "religiously" to this day.

Boy, thats rich. How about this one...everyone knows the difference between the intuitive nature of "right" and "wrong". Follow one more than the other, no matter what happens, you should be good.

Unless youre pompous enough to think people that dont follow what YOU believe are sinners. If thats the case, go yourself with a chainsaw. Literally.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I love it when the usual suspects hijack threads by arguing whose interpretation of scripture is correct. It works wonders for my insomnia.

[smeagol]

Sooooooo, youre all debating a fictional book, written mostly by people who were told the original story in an era where literacy certainly wasnt at its highest, then translated from a dead language of over 1000 years, interpreteted thousands of different ways by "scholars of their time" to fine-tune the scripture to their converts with only the most popular being followed "religiously" to this day.

1) You say it's a fictional book and immediately after you claim the authors weretold the story. So what is it? A work of fiction or is there a story (truth) behind it?

2) Literacy rates in the first century are irrelevant as to the accuracy and veracity of the contents in the Bible.

3) The Bible is the only book written in ancient times were we are fortunate enough to have fragments of it dating from 125 AD. That's only 50 to 75 years after they were actually written. We have in our possesion quasi-complete manuscripts of the new testament dating from the end of the third century, 200 years after the Evangelists, Pauland the thers penned their works. And we have dozens of other authors quoting the Bible starting in the year 90 AD.

The oldest manuscripts of Plato and Aristotles' works, which you probably would not dare to question, are from the 900s AD, about 1,400 years after those dudes wrote them.

[Phenomanul]

Sooooooo, youre all debating a fictional book, written mostly by people who were told the original story in an era where literacy certainly wasnt at its highest, then translated from a dead language of over 1000 years, interpreteted thousands of different ways by "scholars of their time" to fine-tune the scripture to their converts with only the most popular being followed "religiously" to this day.

Boy, thats rich. How about this one...everyone knows the difference between the intuitive nature of "right" and "wrong". Follow one more than the other, no matter what happens, you should be good.

Unless youre pompous enough to think people that dont follow what YOU believe are sinners. If thats the case, go yourself with a chainsaw. Literally.

Way out in left field... where's the pomposity you refer to????

I can only speak of what I know, what I experience. But no matter what I say I can't force people to believe what they don't experience... to each their own.

[smeagol]

I love it when the usual suspects hijack threads by arguing whose interpretation of scripture is correct. It works wonders for my insomnia.

Funny you categorize people's comments on this thread as "hijacking" because they are discussing their interpretations of the Bible when this entire thread is about how a passage of the Bible is interpreted.

Think about this for a second and then try to go to sleep.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Funny you categorize people's comments on this thread as "hijacking" because they are discussing their interpretations of the Bible when this entire thread is about how a passage of the Bible is interpreted.

Think about this for a second and then try to go to sleep.

Funny think is you guys do the same routine with every thread even peripherally related to God or religion. You have pissing contests over who knows more about the Bible. Boooooring!

[DarkReign]

Plato and Aristotle werent claiming to be or even know God.

Big difference. Also, their arguments can be/were either proved or disproved.

I mean, big problem here for all you folks. I have never heard it stated or even mentioned.

Dinosaurs, dude. Youre telling me those reptiles never existed? Egypt's culture pre-dates anything Christian by eons. Explain that.

You cant. Nor can the Bible. Thats a problem. On one side of your mouth, you claim the Gospel in The Word. On the other, you will say most stories are just analogies because they cant explain proven scientific, physical evidence.

Which is it? Because it cant be both.

Just for clarity's sake, I am going to share a post I made on a similar subject on another forum.

[DarkReign]

Funny think is you guys do the same routine with every thread even peripherally related to God or religion. You have pissing contests over who knows more about the Bible. Boooooring!

LOL...it is a "mine is bigger than yours", e-peen stroking contest, is it not?

[smeagol]

Funny think is you guys do the same routine with every thread even peripherally related to God or religion. You have pissing contests over who knows more about the Bible. Boooooring!

You find it boring. I find it refreshing and interesting.

Let me give you a piece of advice. If you know a religious-related topic will spark a religious discussion, and you find this booooring, don't be so stupid to start threads about religious topics.

[DarkReign]

Posted many moons ago on another forum

I just happened upon this thread, so bear with me...

First off, I am agnostic (if this is an acceptable label for those who enjoy them).

All forms of mass religion are existential beliefs looking to someone/something else for answers/questions/guidance/etc.

It is my opinion that God is not outward, but very much inward.

I dont have the answers for everything (not even a damn shade close), and I would bet nor does any other human.

But, you know that feeling you get when you open that door for a complete stranger just as a simple gesture of good will? Or some form of the cliché "walking an old lady across the street"? Or for giving a little money to the “down on his luck” family member who just lost their job? Or the admiration you see in your child’s eyes and the aspiration to be an example worthy of his praise?

That is the power that binds. That is as close to a God as I will ever need. I dont believe in Christianity, Islam, Muslim, etc. Those are all human machinations created in a veiled attempt to capitulate the masses into subservience and conformity. Really, take a look at the timeline when organized religion came around. Look at the political landscape and the incessant war being waged by fellow countrymen.

It was chaos. The power-brokers (usually warlords and land owners) were in a unique position to see opportunity. Patriotism comes in a distant second to faith. Based upon the rites of the pagans religion before them (ever wonder why Christmas is in December? It is a well known fact that Jesus was never born anywhere near that date, but the pagans already had a major holiday in that moon phase. In a highly effective recruiting tactic, Jesus was suddenly born in that same timeframe. Hmmm...), religion sprung from the deep down longing of the human spirit to believe in something greater than itself.

Obviously, there are exceptions to every rule. People claim they have no belief and I whole-heartedly believe them.

But, what I wont buy is that they feel no innate connection to their fellow man, and even some cases, a much stronger feeling to the Earth and animals.

Let the religious decide amongst themselves whose God is right or wrong.

I walk confidently thru my days knowing as a life-form, I share a bond with all forms of life that is stronger than any faith based, Bible-thumping nitwit could ever claim.

We are all born with a "feeling". A closeness that was/is separate from the rest of the animals because we seen ourselves as superior in some light. In ways, we are. But I will not lose my respect for the life that was, the life that is, and the life that will be.

We all control our own destinies, but in some small way we share our destiny. We arent some single-source creation of some higher being. We are the product of a system that extends well beyond some man-made heaven and .

I have always felt myself separate from the ideologies of those around me my whole life. I was never a classic-religious, "member of the flock", sheep looking for my sheppard skyward. Nor was I a nihilist objecting to any sort of common fabric that binds.

Then, after 15 years of close contemplation, I read a book called Hyperspace. A scientific study explaining the possibilities and impact of string theory. In that book, the authors' attempt to create and analogy that explains what a 4th dimensional being would look like to us ("us" being 3 dimensional beings). It provoked a stunning revelation for me.

The authors' basically said, and I completely paraphrase and will speak in the authors' voice for clarity:

"To understand what it is to even try and wrap the human brain around the appearance or even existence of a 4th dimensional being is impossible. To give humans a vague idea, picture a race of beings existing in 2 dimensions for a moment. Thats right, youre a stick figure on a sheet of paper, with stick buildings and other stick people who inhabit this sheet of paper. You have a society, religion, and economy. Now, imagine a human entering your world. How does a 3-D being enter a 2-D world, you ask? Easy, stick his finger thru the sheet of paper. The effect could be 2 fold. One, you destroy their world creating a rift in the fabric of their existence. Or two (and this is the accepted idea), you pass thru only revealing to those 2-D stick-people the portion of your physical body that sits on their plane of existence (ie the sheet of paper). You would only be perceived as a floating, shape-changing blob of very odd coloration and texture (the cross section of a human finger).

Now, with that analogy in mind and with the empathy you hold for those poor 2-D stick-people, try and imagine what a 4-D being would look like to us. The scientific response to any such hypothesis would of utter disregard. The cold, hard truth is no matter your imagination, no matter your dreams or how smart you are, it is impossible to have any concept of what said being would “look” like.

I could go on and on about what all of this meant to me and how profound the universe became with one chapter, but it would be pointless.

I have come to conclusion that there are 4 kinds of people (I hate labels, but they seem to give better perspective for those that need them):

a) Those that think they have it all figured out and seek no more introspection on the subject. They accept only the “faithful” and vilify the “unfaithful” as heathens. Their existential lives dedicated to the furthering of their agenda.(religious zealots)

b) Those that admit their shortcomings in the eyes of a societal God and seek endless introspection as to why. Their existential lives are spent in a small or large capacity to the furthering of their religious beliefs/affiliation. (religious people in general)

c) Those that adhere to no consensus standard but admit to the same feeling the religious people experience but do not hold it to any specific idols, and seek introspection on the basis of personal well-being and understanding of oneself. Their existential lives are spent in solitary refinement and only share their ideals when provoked. (agnostic or whatever label is placed upon them by those who don’t understand)

d) Those that have no care for the mysteries of life that science cannot explain and spend very little time concerned with introspection on the dynamic human/nature/life relationship. Their existential lives will either never develop or be hastened when confronted with death. (atheists)

x) by no means does one or the other make this person “bad” or criminally lenient. It just is. Those factors are completely dependant upon individual decisions.

Maybe you don’t fall into a category. I say good for you! Be different. Be harmonious and thoughtful. Experience this gift to its fullest and enjoy the time spent with the world and its beauty.

I am as close to “God” now than I have ever been. I find fulfillment not from a book or a building, I find it in life. I hope you do too.

[Spurminator]

The problem with all belief systems is that most of their followers are stupid. Which makes sense because most people are stupid.

Something Science and Religion can agree on.

[DarkReign]

The problem with all belief systems is that most of their followers are stupid. Which makes sense because most people are stupid.

Something Science and Religion can agree on.

Agree completely.

[DarkReign]

Way out in left field... where's the pomposity you refer to????

I can only speak of what I know, what I experience. But no matter what I say I can force people to believe what they don't experience... to each their own.

I never said either you or Smeagol were pompous. I said 'if you are pompous enough', using the word 'you' as the reader.

If I were referring to either of you, I would have quoted you.

[smeagol]

Plato and Aristotle werent claiming to be or even know God.

I never said they did. I was simply pointing out that their works have gone through the same process as the Bible (books being hand-copied for generations) and that the oldest manuscripts we posses from their works are roughly from 1,400 years after they originally wrote those books.

Nevertheless, you accept The Republic or Politics as true at face value.

With the Bible, the same hand-copying process ocurred, with a number of witnesses to Christ's life writting his story, but in this case, we posses manuscripts that are only 200 years appart from the date when the originals where written, but you dub their works as fiction.

12 dudes (plus Paul) that have decided to decieve others in their time with fictional stories about a guy who claimed to be God, and this big deciept has converted billions to Christianity.

I guess my point is you will believe the works of antiquity when they fit your beliefs.

Also, their arguments can be/were either proved or disproved.

Plato and Aristotle wrote about philosophy. Nothing to prove or disprove.

Dinosaurs, dude. Youre telling me those reptiles never existed? Egypt's culture pre-dates anything Christian by eons. Explain that.

I believe the Bible cannot be taken literally all the time. There are plenty of allegories in it. So no need to explain anything.

[smeagol]

Needles to say, DR, I don't agree with whoever wrote the article you posted. But as he states at the beginning, it's just his opinion:

It is my opinion that God is not outward, but very much inward.

I disagree, but it's simply my opinion, that God is outward and independant from us. He is also a personal God.

I dont believe in Christianity, Islam, Muslim, etc.

Islam = Muslim.

Those are all human machinations created in a veiled attempt to capitulate the masses into subservience and conformity.

Do you know how Christianity started?

12 scared guys and the Virgin Mary on the second floor of house in Jerusalem deciding what to do after the Resurrection. So you contend that these 12 uneducated fishermen decided to decieve the entire world by inventing Jesus' deeds, or better still, making up this Jesus character entirely out of thin air?

These 12 Jews created a religion so powerfull that they themselves, and hundredths of others, were willing to die for, as early as a couple of years after the so called "Ascention" (Stephen was martyred shortly after Jesus was crucified). Furthermore, people who never saw Jesus alive were willing to die for this Faith as early as the year 110 (St Ignatius, for example).

I share a bond with all forms of life that is stronger than any faith based, Bible-thumping nitwit could ever claim.

How does he know?

[jochhejaam]

Unless youre pompous enough to think people that dont follow what YOU believe are sinners. If thats the case, go yourself with a chainsaw. Literally.

God's Son Jesus Christ says "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through me".

^^^That's what I believe DR. Does that qualify me as a target of your profane missile?

[DarkReign]

"Unless youre pompous enough to think people that dont follow what YOU believe are sinners."

I think you highlighted the wrong sentence. I couldnt care less about what you, or anyone else believes, honestly.

[smeagol]

Funny you say this:

I couldnt care less about what you, or anyone else believes, honestly.

after posting:

I share a bond with all forms of life that is stronger than any faith based, Bible-thumping nitwit could ever claim

So you share a bond with all forms of life (I pressume humans are included), which is stronger than whatever religious people feel, but on the other hand you "honesty care less about what joch or anyone else believes" (this said in a " you" kind of way).

I say that's some bond you share there. Keep it up!

[Guru of Nothing]

I can only speak of what I know, what I experience. But no matter what I say I can't force people to believe what they don't experience... to each their own.

Does not sound like the over-confident hegamboa I have come to know.

[scott]

I think this is well blown out of proportion (the scientists merely presented an possible, albeit unlikely, explaination - to my knowledge they are not out to try to "prove" there is no God), but still rather wreckless.

It isn't so much the scientists behind this study, but people who wrongly hold it up as some shining example of the idiocy of believers, who give non-believers a bad name. Personally, I'm beyond the stage of having to try to "convert" people to not believing. They have faith, something I don't share with them, and I have my own logical processes, something (my rendition, not logic) they don't share. I'm perfectly happy with just ending the conversation there (although I'm always willing to engage in a good discussion/debate as long as it can remain civil and both parties are in it for the sake of intellectual stimulation).

I'm rather intrigued by all matters of religiosity (is that even a word?) - especially the sociological and economic aspects (you have to remember I'm an economist... my brain can't help it). But when I do a study that shows theists more likely than atheists to be incarcerated - it is not try to "disprove" anything. Just as I've gotten misplaced negativity from my work, I think these scientists are receiving the same all because of some over zealous readers willing to grab on to anything they can find to say "HA! I told you there was no God!"

[Phenomanul]

I think this is well blown out of proportion (the scientists merely presented an possible, albeit unlikely, explaination - to my knowledge they are not out to try to "prove" there is no God), but still rather wreckless.

It isn't so much the scientists behind this study, but people who wrongly hold it up as some shining example of the idiocy of believers, who give non-believers a bad name. Personally, I'm beyond the stage of having to try to "convert" people to not believing. They have faith, something I don't share with them, and I have my own logical processes, something (my rendition, not logic) they don't share. I'm perfectly happy with just ending the conversation there (although I'm always willing to engage in a good discussion/debate as long as it can remain civil and both parties are in it for the sake of intellectual stimulation).

I'm rather intrigued by all matters of religiosity (is that even a word?) - especially the sociological and economic aspects (you have to remember I'm an economist... my brain can't help it). But when I do a study that shows theists more likely than atheists to be incarcerated - it is not try to "disprove" anything. Just as I've gotten misplaced negativity from my work, I think these scientists are receiving the same all because of some over zealous readers willing to grab on to anything they can find to say "HA! I told you there was no God!"

That assumes that those who claimed to have theistic beliefs were genuine in that conviction... more than 75% of them don't practice their beliefs...

[scott]

That assumes that those who claimed to have theistic beliefs were genuine in that conviction... more than 75% of them don't practice their beliefs...

The merits of my research are a topic for another discussion. The point I'd like to make is that people want to read more into some research than they should - and it gets both sides riled up and researchers who put a lot of effort into their work end up with the short end of the stick. First, the point of the research gets overlooked, and then they are attacked by people responding to other people who missed the point.

And somehow you picked out the most irrelevant part of my post to respond to, ironically providing evidence to what I was trying to get across.

[jochhejaam]

I think you highlighted the wrong sentence. I couldnt care less about what you, or anyone else believes, honestly.

Yep, just curious.

[smeagol]

And somehow you picked out the most irrelevant part of my post to respond to, ironically providing evidence to what I was trying to get across.

Most irrelevant according to you. I also thought your study did not consider that people claiming to be Christians, were "name only" Christians.

In any case, I don't think the point of this research (Jesus walking on ice)was overlooked. Efforts to explain away miracles done by Jesus with natural events (he did not walk on water, there was ice; he did not raise people from the dead, they were not really dead, the were napping) make little sense.