The Museum of Hoaxes
Another biblical theory…
Posted By:
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Apr 29, 2005
 http://www.theindychannel.com/weather/4429774/detail.html

Entertaining theory, but this guy offers NO proof or even hypothetical means... he just states it and seems to think that the bible should be considered "justification."

It will be interesting to see if he ever tries to prove this theory in some way...
Category: Religion; Replies: 303

Comments
Page 2 of 6 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 | 05:04 AM
...Citizen, I didn't quite see if ETL answered this...but God says "Thou shall not tempt the Lord your God." As in...if you are hungry, why not just turn these rocks into bread? If you jump off this cliff, call a host of angels to catch you...
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 | 05:14 AM
...The whole point of faith (not religion, religion can be proven, b/c it is in existence only because of man, who created it to better help him understand, which is totally pointless, b/c if he was REALLY faithful he'd just have faith, and not have to have religion - and that is a super long run-on sentence) is to believe without seeing. Believe without understanding everything.

The whole point of faith, is to HAVE IT. Not to question or dissect it...And I have a ton of work to do today, so I might not get back in here for a while...I'm not ignoring you, just busy!
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 | 10:03 AM
Maegan,
I think the idea that the first chapter of Genesis is a condensed version and the other chapters were supposed to be specific is just another interpetation. It helps prove that not only is the Bible scientifically inacurate but it is also a very sloppy piece of work. It would have been just as easy to get the order of events right in the "condensed version".
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 | 04:16 PM
Maegan, I can understand how unshakable faith in God is good and all, being as he's infalliable, but how can you be sure that that which claims to be a manifestation of God or God's word is what it claims to be? Plenty of faiths in authority-written or otherwise-have led to horrible deeds.

Looks like I'm doing run-on sentences too.
LadyPython
Member
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 | 08:43 PM
just to break the phillisophical/religious debate:


LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA
😊

<b>Post edited b/c the "LALA" was skewing the page.</b>
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 06:00 AM
Captain, I think the condensed/drawn out has something to do with Hebrew story structure. (Haven't really looked into that, though b/c I didn't really think it was that big of an issue.) Someone also used the example that the first chapter is like the blurb on the inside of the jacket of a book. Long book...long blurb.
*-*
I can't explain it, Citizen. It's humanly impossible. Only God can explain himself. Although, he has left a pretty good biography to go on...to help understand along the way.
*-*
And honestly, much as I hate to say it...Satan has done a really great job of making people doubt. After all, he's here walking about earth (according to Job, he's going "here and there"), and he's got 1/3 of an uncountable number of angels with him. (Of course they aren't angelic now.) It's no wonder so many people are in disbelief.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 07:07 AM
Oh...and this *-* was just supposed to be like a page break, I didn't realize till later that it looked like a little face.
David B.
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 07:53 AM
Wow, what a lot of stupid people!

Error of judgement #1:
David B.
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 07:58 AM
Error of fact #1: Evolution is not a theory.

Repeat after me,
David B.
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 08:00 AM
Error of fact #2: Darwin recanted on his deathbed.

ETL said,
David B.
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 08:29 AM
Error of faith #1:
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 09:37 AM
Well said David B. Of course it is futile to convert someone like ETL. We don't do because we enjoy it. (Well, we do enjoy it but that's not the reason.) We just resent having our intelligence insulted. So maybe people like ETL will be a little more careful about doing that in the future.
midlandsea
Member
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 09:49 AM
Faith, by definition, involves a belief in something which cannot be proven.
I was brought up in a religious household (my father was a minister) so have some idea of the Bible,its contents and its followers.
In my experience logic and reason are irrelevant, science and personal experience are mis-interpreted (explained), ignored or cherry-picked. That's how it is - religions, alternative medicines, old-wives tales etc. etc..

Israeli archeologists from Tel-Aviv University have proven by excavation of the tel at Jericho that, when the Israelites arrived, Jericho was an empty town whose first walls were not built until 200 years afterwards. Won't stop millions of people believing that God destroyed the walls when the Israelites blew their trumpets.

For a reasoned, logical approach to the eye I suggest reading The Blind Watchmaker (Richard Dawkins again).
Interesting point is that in the human eye the light receptive cells are the "wrong way round". Each cell's feed to the brain is on the inside of the eye and has to cross the retina before the impulses can escape. Thats why we have a blind spot on the retina. By comparison octopuses (octopi?) have the connections to the cortex on the outside of their eyes.
If it is true that God was only practising when She made man - would it therefore follow that the octopus was a later, superior creation, after all, if not, why give human beings an inferior orb?
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 11:07 AM
I don't think the Pope is infallible.

All humans are capable of error! Even the Pope.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 04:09 PM
I really can't stand the arguement "it just is." I'm reading The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan right now, and it is really driving home in me the superiority of scientific reasoning. It's really a good read, and I'd recommend it to any and everybody.

But I must warn you, Carl Sagan may be a God-hater.
David B.
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 05:00 PM
First, an apology.

I *meant* to say, "Wow, what a lot of SILLY people!"

I don't think anyone here is stupid (no, not even ETL).

Second, thanks for the tolerence of your replies. And I quite agree with Maegan that all humans are fallible, even the apostles. When or where Jesus was born should not be important to a Christian; who and what he is should.

When sceptics think that some inconsistency is a 'dagger to the heart' of the bible they are making the same mistake that many creationists make when they argue the uselessness of 'half an eye' or 'half a wing', or claim that men can't have descended from apes 'because there are still apes', or that evolution 'breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics'. It's just setting up a particularly narrow and limited target to your own requirements and then laying waste to it; a 'straw man' argument.

And it's very silly!
Eric The Lumberjack
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 | 12:05 AM
My apologies to anyone I may have offended. Usually when I write, I am rather hyper on mountain dew, so I don't really think about exactly what I am saying.

Darwin recanting: Heard it from my pastor when writing a paper for school. Researched it a little, probably not enough, but still a little. Things can easily get started like this and spread. I still don't know if this is true or not (though I do think it is), it just seems to come in handy sometimes.

Lost books and contradictions: I have researched this. A lot. More than anyone in their right mind probably should. There were never any lost books. Anything that is supposedly "lost" from the bible never was a part of it due to contradictions and errors within itself, or lies about simple things such as who wrote it. To date, after studying many of the books and references between books that are in question by skeptics extensively, I do not find any contradictions, nor can anyone that I know, including the higher ups at my church. If you would like me to research a specific contradiction that you may have found, my email address is .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), I will be more than happy to provide a religious view on it. Though, I would appreciate specific verses, otherwise it creates more work for me and I don't really have that much time anymore (hence why it's taken me so long to put this post up).

Regarding judaism: Judaism has changed greatly since old testament times. I don't view that as a viable truth, simply because of the fact that it's prime doctrines were so radically changed after one person (Jesus) was crucified. Also, in my mind, a jewish atheist is a contradiction, but feel free to correct me if that's not the case. Also, I did state that ALMOST every faith contradicts the pluralist statement, not every one.

In regards to me being a "Bible Thumper": Not true. I view the Bible as truth, but I don't yell at people because I think they are wrong. If that's what it seemed like I was doing, that's not the case, but I do see how it could have been interpreted that way. I'm a fairly lax individual and I do have questions of my own at times, to which I research and find answers for. Does this make me a bible thumper? Not in my mind.

Again, I'm sorry if I ticked anyone off. I didn't mean to. Anyone that has been kind and decent in this discussion, a big thank you goes out to you. And also, a big thank you to anyone that even took the time to yell at me for being stupid. Even if I personally believe you are wrong about everything regarding the topic of discussion, you were right about one thing, I was being a pill, I shouldn't have, and I'm sorry.

I'd like to continue this discussion in a civilized manner, because I have been finding this rather fun, though if you all do not want to, that's perfectly fine. If anyone wants to discuss this with me in real time, then my AIM screenname is plungergoat, and I already gave you my email address, so feel free to contact me at any time.

~Eric the Lumberjack
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 | 06:35 PM
Eric, thanks for being so open minded, even though you don't necessarely(sp?) agree.

On being a Jewish atheist, I am a firm believer that Judiasm is both a religion and a culture. I don't eat pork, I go to services (every once in a while), I have visited Israel, and I make sure I celebrate as many holidays and traditions I can, provided they don't get in the way of every day life (can you say college football games on high holy days....I hate the University Sports Administration) However, I also don't believe in God.

I follow the traditions, not because I believe that that is what God wants me to do, but because I believe it is what all my ancestors would want me to do. I fast on Yom Kippur and think about my great grandparents, cousins, etc that were killed in the holocaust and not allowed to celebrate traditions they believed in so strongly. I have a seder on Passover and think about how lucky I am to live in a place with so many freedoms and have come from a good family and be able to recieve a higher education. I follow all the practices, though in the end I have no belief in God.

In fact, no one in my immediate family believes in God either. Neither do many of my Jewish friends. In fact, I heard the man to who is the head of the International Hillel organization speak while I was in Israel, he's atheist too.

To me, Judaism isn't so much my religion as it is my heritage and my culture. This is not an uncommon feeling, especially in America.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 03:50 PM
I'm another kind of "Jewish atheist," although I am not culturally Jewish. I'm simply an "-itz."
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
 Member
Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 | 06:33 PM
80
nicknack
Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 | 01:13 AM
Funny how both matters, religion and evolution have not been proven 100%. One being called a 'fairy tale' and the other a 'theory'. Yet everyone argues that they are right. There is no point in this disucussion, I have participated in several discussions stretching up to 30 pages and it is all so pointless since no one is 100% any way. Why don't we all wait until we die, yah? Then we know's who right and who's not. Meanwhile, just believe what you believe. I being a stubborn Christian like Eric, I refuse to believe in the theory of evolution.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 | 07:19 PM
Um, the only way to know if there isn't an afterlife is to figure it out right now; because once you die, you don't know anything. Why don't we also stop searching for cures for AIDS or cancer or trying to feed the world, since a benevolent God may or may not watch over us? It's too bad, but religion mixes a lot with politics.
Eric The Lumberjack
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 | 11:07 AM
Well, CP, depending on what is the truth, you may either not know anything upon death, or you might know everything. I'm sure theories exist for any number of points between the two extremes.

I'm all for the hope of seeing God in the end. That's what I believe. I know that if I'm wrong and we end up just rotting in the ground, then it really doesn't matter what I do when I'm alive. I just choose to believe what I do, and I just have faith that I'm right. That's all anyone can do.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 | 11:41 AM
Just a thought...if there's nothing in the end and you just die - and you no longer exist...what's the harm in believing? If you're right, you'll end up the same. As nothing. If you're wrong though...Hm. Not as pleasant to think about.
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 | 11:55 AM
As I think I mentioned earlier, if there is a God, and he's unhappy with me not believing in him most of my life and doesn't let me into heaven, or wherever I'm suppose to go, just because I didn't believe in him, then he's not a God I want to believe in anyway. If he/she was truly so great, he/she would understand and encourage questioning our lives. God would understand that some people don't believe just because we are using our brains and questioning our environment, and that there is no proof in a God.

Personally, I think if he were so great, he would take unbelievers before believers who only believe in him for the supposed devine rewards. Besides, if I were God, I would just take everyone, I mean, everyone has done good in their lives, just some people make mistakes or have crazy mental issues or what have you.

I think the whole idea of heaven and hell is fundamentally flawed. Even if there is a God, the idea that after death we are judged and either sent to a happy place with clouds and music, or a horrible place with fire and what, is just rediculous. Seems a bit over the top. People are not just good or bad.

So what else would decide which you went to? Does just believing in God get you in heaven, even if you did bad things in your life? Would a philanthropist who spent his/her whole life helping others, but never believed in God get to go to heaven. What about someone who grew up in a place where there were no Christians, and never even had a chance to change religions or what have you. Would that person be punished for being ignorant? A God that would do things like that is no God I'd want to believe in.

If there is a God and he's so wonderful, or whatever, he wouldn't be vain enough to even care if we believed in him or not.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 | 12:21 PM
Maegan, your agument has been touted for centuries. It's still as flawed now as it was then. What should I believe? If I accept your argument (something about gambler's choice or dilemma or something, I don't remember what it's called) then I should believe in EVERYTHING equally. After all, what if it turns out that I created the universe? Shouldn't you worship me as well? Just in case? There is no descrimination - it can be used to justify any belief at all. Even opposites.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 | 12:43 PM
I wasn't using it to debate...Just rhetoric.
skepticality
Member
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 | 01:07 PM
I've just always said that... IF there is a God, he put me here to do whatever it is I'm supposed to do. So, I'm doing it.

If he 'created' me then it's all his fault, and I better go to a good place for doing what he programmed me to do.

If he didn't create me then, at least I had fun on Sundays.
Eric the Lumberjack
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 | 02:46 PM
It's not a simple matter of who's good and who's bad. According to scripture, God only lets those without sin enter heaven. Every single last one of us has sinned. Therefore, no one should be getting into heaven. However, it's stated that God sent his own son Jesus to die as a sacrifice (in the Old Testament, sacrifices were required to erase sin) so that we can be saved. In my bible it says that only those who confess with their mouth and believe with their heart that Jesus is lord will be saved, and only they will enter heaven.

In my faith, you can do whatever good you want and it wont get you anywhere. A murderer who repents will be let into heaven, but a benevolent man who doesn't accept Jesus and denys God will be cast into the flames.

Razela, somehow, that makes no sense to me. If it could be proven to everyone that God exists and I'm right, and the way to get into heaven is as I stated above, then regardless, I'd do whatever it takes to not burn forever. Also, I'm not in this for any reward. There is a reward at the end, (provided I am right, of course), but I have other reasons, too. I believe this to be truth, and I don't want to live a lie. If I were an atheist, then I wouldn't think my life has any meaning (atheists correct me if I'm wrong about you on that). This path tells me that everything I do has meaning. I want to make a difference and live a life I can be proud of. If I just rot in the earth in the end without anything happening, then at least I die with the satisfaction that I am proud of the way I lived.

Charybdis, that is exactly how I feel about that statement. It's pointless, and it can be interpreted many different ways. I mean, if I was wrong and the Muslims are right, then I'm screwed. If I'm wrong and the Mormons are right, then I have another chance after death. It can go many different ways, and I don't think it's a very useful statement, simply because it CAN be used to justify all beliefs, but it still does work sometimes.

And skepticality, that statement is illogical. If you were the creator of the universe, would you put people here with the sole purpose of denying your very existance?
skepticality
Member
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 | 04:05 PM
I never said deny... I just said... I'm doing whatever he made us to do...

Saying that we aren't supposed to do whatever we want to do, is like saying God keeps making bad versions of his machine.

Oh wait, that goes back to that whole 'free will' thing. I love how it always comes down to some great and powerful God, that screws everything up on purpose.

"My kid was born with a defect!" / That's not gods fault

"My wife pulled through her terrible disease" / Oh, that's 'blessings'

Yea, it's illogical, that's my point...

You can't apply logic to the manner in which God operates within the context of the majority of established religions. It doesn't work. So, we have to drive the train back to 'faith-town'. Where logic doesn't exist anyway.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 | 05:30 PM
As an atheist, I still find meaning in my life, helping my friends and family, having fun, learning, exploring nature. Also, there's the joy of knowing that there isn't any belief I can't question; scientists expect the tough questions, while priests and whatnot discourage interrogation (theists, correct me if I'm wrong).
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 | 07:02 PM
Erica says: "A murderer who repents will be let into heaven, but a benevolent man who doesn't accept Jesus and denys God will be cast into the flames."

Does that not seem unfair to you? It does to me. I'd rather burn for all eternity and know that I lived my life well, then spend my time praying to an unfair and cruel God like that.

Plus, think about the logic of the whole Jesus thing. What did people do before Jesus, just go to hell no matter what? That's a crappy deal. And, if God is so wonderful, why would he make this wonderful place for us to go after we die, but then design us in a way that makes it impossible to get there.

Oh, and second, Erica says, "If I were an atheist, then I wouldn't think my life has any meaning"
You are so wrong in that statement. Just because you find meaning in God doesn't mean that an atheist such as myself can't find meaning in something else. Plus, just because a person doesn't believe in God doesn't mean he/she is spiritual is some way.

I have my own belief set and consider myself a spiritual person, yet it is grounded in life, not in the devine. I don't know what will happen to me after I die, maybe I'll just rot away, or maybe I'll go to heaven, or maybe be reincarnated. Frankly, I don't really care.

I find meaning in my life by the way I react and affect the world. I create music (as you can probably tell by my avater) because I want to be able to move my audiance emotionally. I want them to feel the music and the meaning and think about the way it reflects our world. I also do some dance for the same reasons, and I also sing. I study public administration in college so I can learn how to best serve my community and the people in it, as well as people all over the world. I want to learn how I can use my skills and abilities that I was born with to help others. Is that not meaning?
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 | 07:04 PM
By the way Eric, thank you for coming into this forum and debating in a respectful manner. Many people (on both sides of the faith argument) use the "I'm right, your wrong" statement and do not even listen to the other side. The only way anyone can learn anything from a debate is to actually debate rather then argue.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 | 07:58 PM
You called him Erica! For shame.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 | 08:04 PM
I have another question about Christianity; why is it that many Christians (including one famous talk show host whose name I can't remember) say that Islam is more widespread? Haven't they seen statistics? Christianity leads with over 2.1 billion members. Is it just the desire (that we all have sometimes) to feel like the righteous oppressed?
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 | 08:06 PM
OOOOOPS!!! So sorry Eric!!! (You can kick my ass now if you want) I think I'm going to go hide in shame =(
Eric The Lumberjack
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 | 09:02 PM
Yeah, I learned my lesson about the decent debating thing...

Anywho. I never said that what you do isn't meaningful, although I see how that could have been misinterpreted... It just wouldn't be meaningful to me. I grew up with a Christian family (sorta), but I never really became a Christian until I was 17. So, I spent a very long time as an Agnostic. I always felt there was something, I just never really knew what it was, until now (I hope I'm right, and I have faith that I am). As I feel right now, if I found proof that God did not exist and became atheist, I kinda would feel as though I lost something, like meaning or purpose. Does that make more sense?

I have fun with my friends, I help them out. I play in a band. I write music. I want to do a lot of the same things that you all want to do. It's just a little more difficult for me, because I have to be thinking "What would Jesus do?" all the time for everything. And I still mess up. And then I ask for forgiveness. It's the whole thing of forgiveness that makes this worthwhile to me. That no matter how much I mess up, no matter how many people I offend or make angry at me, someone still loves me.

I also get the joy of being able to question any belief, just instead of questioning Christianity I get to question atheists, agnostics, and skeptics.

I don't think it's that unjust to cast the unforgiven away. If you think about it, God made you. You deny His existance. People have told you about God and Jesus, and you still choose to ignore and keep telling others that He doesn't exist. If I was God, that would be ample reason for me. He offered someone forgiveness as a free gift to anyone that asks and accepts Jesus as lord, and he/she refused it and continued to say He didn't exist.
I do think it's kinda unfair to those that never heard about God or Jesus, but that's why we send missionaries all over the world. We try.

Also, faith doesn't have to make sense. I don't even understand it... The Bible describes God in four dimensions, height width depth and breadth. We are three dimensional, so it's hard even for a believer to envision it. It's just that when I pray for something, it usually happens. People born with defects... that's a difficult situation. Many things can happen while a baby is developing. Although I believe God is perfect, no human is. And also, the only people that these people are defective to are us humans, in God's eyes, they're still perfect (perfectly made, that doesn't mean they're perfect people).

We say the Islam is more widespread, and it is. There are more of us Christians right now, but Islam is the fastest growing religion (as of 1999, that is. I don't know if that's true after 9/11). There seem to be Muslims almost everywhere. In the arab nations Christians are often killed (The quran actually says that killing us is a good thing, in fact, killing any non-muslims is a good thing). There were more martyrs for Christianity in the 20th century than all the other previous centuries combined. We don't really say it just to make it look like we're oppressed... we already are farily oppressed. In america, the only thing anyone can tell us is to shut up (Satanists like to curse us and kill us in rituals, but that's quite rare. And then there's the Colombine massacre... but that's another story), but in many other parts of the world, we're killed just for walking into a makeshift church. We have our bibles confiscated when entering some foreign nations. Some people hunt us down and kill us just for the fun of killing a Christian. This stuff really does happen.

And as for calling me Erica, I've certainly been called worse. In fact, some people spell my name Erick, Erik, even Aerick. It doesn't really matter that much to me.
skepticality
Member
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 | 09:21 PM
Also, it depends on how you break down the 'statistic' of Christianity.

If you lump ALL Christians together, and ALL Islamic religions together, I think it's actually pretty close.

The issue that a lot of people have with that number is the wide range of groups that count in either camp.

Statistics are a funny animal, I think 'statistically' when you add up all the 'mainstream' Christian 'organized' followers, with the same types of Islamic followers, Islam is ahead.

Last I saw, the discrepancy was that folks often just claimed 'anyone' that said they were Christian as 'Christian', even though, most of those folks, never go to church or really even close to practice a religion at all.

Not sure that statistic matters much though, from a theology standpoint Christians have far more in common with their Islamic brothers, than their Jewish counterparts...

Far, far more, in true practice.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 | 11:09 PM
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Christianity is listed as a clear majority (regardless of whether they meet your standards of a good Christian). It's a shame Christians are persecuted in any place in the world, but it's true of all religions and atheism.

You say "I do think it's kinda unfair to those that never heard about God or Jesus"--isn't "kinda unfair" too meek when you're talking about people being tortured for all eternity? If I believed that people were going to hell, I would spend all my free time doing everything I could to save my brothers. I don't understand how people can believe in such absolutes and still take their lives lightly.

And why doesn't faith have to make sense? I can "just believe" in anything, the tooth fairy or that the world is made of snow, and that's nothing special. Why is it special when one says "God" or "Jesus?"

You also say you "question atheists, agnostics, and skeptics." Do you mean you never question Christianity?

I'm not trying to question you harshly, but it's hard to talk about someone's most valued belief system in a polite manner. But it seems you agree it's worthy of discussion.
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 12:27 AM
Heh, I can say I sincerely understand what you mean about feeling persecuted and oppressed. I'm Jewish remember?

And, I understand about you finding meaning for your life in religion. People are so different from one another and have different needs. Some people need religion and faith to find meaning in their lives, some need other things instead.

I just don't agree with the whole heaven, hell, God, Jesus thing, but you've heard my whole argument there. Oh, and since I
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 12:33 AM
Skepticality, you are definitely right about the flaws in statistics. Sometimes, it is especially hard to say what constatutes being a member of a certain religion.

Is a catholic who doesn't attend church more "Christian" than a mormon who attends every day?

Is a messionic Jew (commonly known as a Jew for Jesus though most attest the term) considered Jewish, or are they counted as Christians? What if they call themselves a Christian Jew as a friend of mine does (hey, if I can call myself an Atheist Jew, why can she say she's a Christian Jew?)

What about the Bedouin's (sp??) they consider themselves Islamic, though they are not recognized by other forms of Islam.
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 12:41 AM
Oh, and one more thing, Eric writes, "The quran actually says that killing us is a good thing, in fact, killing any non-muslims is a good thing"

Actually, that's not true at all, however everyone interprets religious text vastly differently (as you should know believing in the New Testiment). Islam is actually an inherently peaceful religion, though there are always the bad apples. Though most people now-a-days see terrorism as in line with Islam, they are much mistaken. It is not Islam that breeds terrorists, but the poverty and political unrest that is common in many (though not all) mid-eastern countries. That the terrorists are Islamic is only because it is the most common religion in most of those countries. Most murderers in America are Christian, though that is only because it is the most common religion in America, it has nothing to do with the murderers themselves. You always get a few crazies in every religion.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 12:49 AM
No, I do remember a line about cutting the heads off of people who say bad things about the Koran. My Arab friends have attested to this. Likewise, Christianity doesn't let us go without killing a witch (or maybe poisoner-but that's old Christianity).
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 05:36 AM
Maybe Eric can shed some more light on this but as for what is "Christian"...It's the belief we have fallen short of Glory (b/c of our sin) and that Jesus was the sacrifice for our sin.

Catholic is a religion. It has doctrines and rules other than stipulated by Christ. (Who only gave 2 commandments in the New Testament.)

Baptist is a religiona. It has doctrines and rules other than stipulated by Christ.

A lot of the "religion" that comes in to people's beliefs are really more that someone has interpreted 'this' scripture to mean 'this'. As an example, my Father-In-Law was a pastor of a church. HIS belief was that ALL Christians can have ALL spritual gifts b/c of a single verse. I do not believe that is the case. If EVERYONE has those gifts then we wouldn't need anyone else! I can't remember the particular verse...(much to my Sunday School Teacher's dismay). A lot of it is context.

Another example: Catholics pray "The Lord's Prayer"; Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be they name. Thy kingdom come, they will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom, glory, and power, now and forever. Amen.

BUT...other denominations take this as a TEMPLATE, and say whatever words they want in their prayer...and their prayer is more like this: Dear God (Our Father-address your prayer) above (which art in Heaven), You are glorious (hallowed be they name-praise to God) Please do your will in my life (thy will be done-asking for guidance) ... And so on.

So Jews for Jesus are Jewish. And in the Bible, 'Jewish' is not just a faith or religion. It's the PEOPLE. Like people in the U.S. are Americans. The Jews were Israelites. So just like Jewish Atheist...you've got Christian Jews as well.

I dunno if that really explains it. Eric seems to be more of a theologian than I am...He might have a better perspective on it.
Eric the Lumberjack
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 10:54 AM
Razela: A Catholic regardless is more christian than a Mormon no matter what. Mormons like to think they are christians, many of them argue that point endlessly just trying to be accepted, yet when we tell them why they are not considered as such, they go and prove us right by telling us we're all wrong and we'll go straight to hell for our insolence. We don't consider them such because they're main holy text, the book of mormon, apart from being completely rewritten at least five time with over 3000 changes other than spelling, grammar, and punctuation, contradicts my bible in everything that defines my faith, yet they claim to believe the bible too. The good thing is, however, IF they are right, after we die we get another chance to repent (unbiblical, but whatever).

Yes, Catholics say the lord's prayer. So do I. Occasionally in my Church (though I haven't taken the time to memorize it... shame on me, I just think it's too old fashioned). The only thing I do not like about their faith, although they are technically, very barely christian, is that they did add books to the bible after we came up with what would and would not be considered scripture, and many practices are contradictory to the bible (just not necessarily wrong). Confessional, for instance, is not described anywhere in the Bible (the Bible states that we can talk to God ourselves at any time to confess our sins), they just do it because it's a tradition. What I don't like about it is they follow tradition more than actual biblical principals.

As for what is and is not Christian, Maegan is correct that that's what we believe, but that's not what makes a Christian. For instance, even Satan believes in God and Jesus, that doesn't make him on our side. Satanists believe we are right, too, they just choose to work against us (and kill us, curse us, and cast spells on us, for that matter). A Christian is anyone who not only believes that with their heart, but confesses it with their mouth as well. If you say that Jesus is lord and ask him to come into your life and forgive you of your transgressions, AND believe it with your heart, then you are a Christian. So it is a little more complex that just believing it.

When I said a little unfair, I really meant very unfair. But we do send out a lot of missionaries (my church is sending an entire team to costa rica this week, later in the summer some people are going to tennessee). A group called Global Expeditions sends teenagers out around the world, even to places barely seen by anyone but the natives.

I do question Christianity, but not in the sense you would think. If I see someone who claims to be a Christian yet doesn't act like it at all, I will question them and try to get them on the right track.

As for killing witches, yes, it is biblical. Do we do it anymore? No. Why? I'm really not sure on that one.

And yeah, I know exactly how annoying some people trying to convert others can be. If they continue to bother you after you ask them to go away, then they are doing it wrong. Some of them are more concerned with having a large number of people that they brought to Christ than they are with the actual people they are converting. This is wrong, and it's appalling to me.

On your little side note, Razela. As for what instruments I play, Guitar, Bass, Mandolin, Banjo, Piano/keyboard, Drums, Recorder (yes, that thing they teach you in fifth grade), learning Violin. I've made it my goal in life to play every instrument at least once, and fully learn as many as I can.
Eric The Lumberjack
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 10:59 AM
And I usually write rock music, I've played in three semiprofessional Christian rock bands in the past. I also enjoy writing classical style, I'm working on a symphony right now. My favorite composer is Nobuo Uematsu, who's done the music for EVERY Fianl Fantasy.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 11:01 AM
And I finally remembered my darned password...
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 11:20 AM
grrrr...I just had a whole thing written up, and then I did something stupid and my computer restarted before I could press submit! Grrrr...stupid computer (ok ok ok, stupid me because I was the one that restarted the computer). Maybe I'll come back on later today and re-type it.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 12:13 PM
See, I knew Eric would get more technical than I did. 😝

And about the confess thing, it does say to confess OUT LOUD. I think that's where the Catholics got hung up...I dunno, just guessing.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 12:18 PM
Oh...and I've said the Lord's prayer in church too...I didn't mean that it's NOT okay to say, I was just using it as an example.

My grandmother is Catholic...So I learned all the prayers that you're sposed to say over and over an over again.
Winona
in USA
 Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 02:36 PM
what I wanna know is - who gives anyone the right to judge what religion (or not) some other peson is?
skepticality
Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 02:48 PM
Winona,

I'd say that's a good point. Some would say that right now, *most* people only believe the product of what their parents exposed them to.

That's always been my issue, that people don't step back and look at the fact that, just because you've only heard one message when you were young, can't possibly mean that you 'won the religious lottery' and that's the only possible answer.

I only say this because, almost everyone that is fanatical about their belief is only 'believing' the one option they had when they were raised.

So, it *could* be said that the true people that are 'choosing' religion are the parents of children. And the question is then, should you really expose people to religion until they are old enough to explore all their options?

Wonder how many religious people there would be then?
Winona
in USA
 Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 03:21 PM
I think I was really lucky - growing up, my Mum exposed me to religion - lots of them. I've gone to almost all the varieties of Christianity, to a Sikh gurdwara, Hindu temple, Synagogues, etc. So, she avoided making the choices for us, but instead gave us the exposure to make our own choices. Her three kids - one became Buddhist, one became Revelationist Christian, and me, I do to a Unitarian Universalist church, and still am not sure where I am headed.
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
 Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 03:31 PM
Great discussion going on here...

But again I have to ask...

How can a commandment given by God as "Thou shall not kill." be meshed with a directive to kill witches or anyone else for that matter?

As stated by Eric... "As for killing witches, yes, it is biblical. Do we do it anymore? No. Why? I'm really not sure on that one."

How about this Eric... because God said, "Thou shall not kill?" No matter how evil any one person is, isn't it Gods' place to judge them? So what business would ANY human have ever of passing judgement and ending someone's life? I've been reading with a careful and open mind so as to try and possibly contribute to what has become an interesting conversation at least. But through it all I'm drawn back to the beginning of this thread when Eric stated that the bible contains NO contradictions. It's chock FULL of them... and just out of curiosity I would like to know what Eric thinks about them.

Also, I'm not trying to single anyone out by asking Eric what he thinks. It's just that he seems to be representative of that particular group and earlier made the statement about lack of contradictions.

However, when Eric said..."Do we do it anymore? No. Why? I'm really not sure on that one." and revealed that he wasn't really sure on that one, I found that kind of scary. Because, there was a day when anyone who doubted the existence of a creator might be considered as such. And Eric, an intelligent, modern-day theologian isn't sure why the killing of such types has ceased! That kind of makes me think that if they could legally get away with it, the theologians would just kill us as opposed to debating us!
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 08:27 PM
Actually, that particular verse has always confused the crap outta me. I wasn't thinking too clearly when I responded to that one the first time. However, no contradiction is in effect. Everyone keeps saying that the commandment reads "Thou shalt not kill." The exact wording is "Thou shalt not murder." Murder is defined in the Bible in two ways. According to the dictionary, murder is the act of killing a person on purpose. An accidental killing is called manslaughter. (You could argue that war is murder). In the Bible, murder is more broad, stating that just hating a person is like murdering them. As for us being told to "not suffer a witch to live," I've never quite understood it. I've always assumed they just killed them, but I'm really not quite sure of what it means. Taking the law way too literally can spawn incredibly annoying police officers (fining you for the most obscure laws imaginable and holding to every last detail), just as taking a verse like that one too literally results in the salem witch trials. I personally think, since I'm a Christian, not a historian (I have no earthly idea whether they killed witches or not way back then), that many of the things in the Bible are to be taken more as a metaphor when read by themselves. Reading one of the books front to back gives you a story, a lesson in the history of the time, things all these important people said. However, when reading individual verses, you can get deeper meanings, sometimes they make sense, sometimes they are confusing as crap, such as that one. Contradictions that people claim to have found result from people misunderstanding the meaning of the specific verses in question (that's at least all the contradictions I've been presented with).

It's true, most people believe what their parents believe. My mom was Christian, but rarely went to Church because my dad only claims to be Christian (He's kinda a faker, but he's still my dad). My brother's a Christian too. He and I never grew up learning ANY of the Bible, but I always sorta felt that there was a God out there. 17 years later, I became a Christian. I know people from Christian families who join wiccan churches, some became satanists (though mainly out of rebellion, they don't really follow the rituals). The final decision is always up to the person, but parents can influence.
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
 Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 08:51 PM
OK Eric... not trying to chap your butt... but you seem willing to answer questions so here's the ones that resulted from reading your response...

IF the bible / commandment is... "Thou shall not murder" then I'm left wondering... What's the difference? Murder or Kill either way, it seems to me that we still shouldn't be murdering / killing / not suffering to live anyone, witch or otherwise. Now my religious knowledge is WAY below that of yours obviously but doesn't it also say something in the bible about judgement being His domain and that we aren't to undertake it? So... witch or not, evil or not, unless we "love" them (according to the bible and it's definition of murder) aren't we guilty of "sin?"
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 08:52 PM
But if your dad is a faker, doesn't that exclude him from heaven? Are you going to be able to spend eternity in heaven while your dad is in hell?
If you ask me, there is no true heaven when other go to hell.
The Yankee Clipper
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 09:39 PM
Eric -

Just started reading this thread, and I want to jump back to something that everyone else got off of about three pages back: the Carbon-14 dating thing. Eric, Carbon-14 dating CAN'T be used to determine the age of the Earth, or ANYTHING that wasn't: A-once alive, and B- now dead.

Here's (as I understand it) the way that it works: Carbon, like many other elements) exists in various isotopes determined by the number of neutrons in their nuclei. Carbon-12 and Carbon-13 (12 and 13 neutrons, respectively) are stable, Carbon-14 (with 14) is not. Over a period of time, a certain (statistically predictable) number of C-14 atoms will decay into a stable mode. All of our lives, we ingest carbon, of all isotopic forms. When we die, we stop eating, breathing, etc., hence we stop bringing new carbon atoms into our corpus. At this point, the C-12 and -13 remain as they were, butr the C-14 starts decaying. By measuring the ratios of Carbon-12 and -13 to Carbon-14 in a biological sample, and knowing how long it takes the C-14 to decay, we can fairly accurately date the time at which that particular piece of biology died. Now, since we can't measure extremely tiny differences in the ratio, something has to have been dead for a while before we can carbon-date it and, conversely, after about 40,000 years, we can't measure the remaning tiny amount of C-14 to a sufficient precision to say anything other than "It's older than we can measure". Remember, this ONLY works for a biological entity that was alive and is now dead.

So you can see from this that, since the Earth is still basking in carbon isotopes and hasn't died, we cannot use Carbon Dating to measure its age.

I'm going to be a pig (particularly since I'm a newbie here), since I want to make another point and I've been told that this post is tooo long. So I'm going to break here and immediately post another long-winded exposition.

My apologies for taking up so much space on my first day here.

The Yankee Clipper
The Yankee Clipper
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 09:40 PM
<! Long-winded exposition continues ->


On another point. I have to agree with the poster (forget who, and too lazy to scroll back, my apologies!) that most Christians who argue against the scientific method, really either don't understand it, or willfully CHOOSE not to understand it.

The method (again, as I understand it) is as follows:
1 - I OBSERVE a set of facts.
2 - I try to IMAGINE a rule that would account for these facts.
3 -I TEST this rule by seeing if it PREDICTS something I don't already know.
4 - I LOOK for the predicted result.
5 - I either:
A - Find it and CONFIRM the rule.
B - Fnd something slightly different than expected and :
i: REFINE the rule and repeat 4, or:
ii - THROW OUT that rule and try to find the rule that explains the new, more inclusive set of observations,
or;
C - Find something that completely REFUTES my original hypothesis and go back to step 1.

The key to any scientific theory is "Does it make a testable prediction?" If it does not then, whatever else it is or does, it is NOT science. This is the problem with so-called Creation Science. To the best of my knowledge, it makes no testable predictions. Here is the fundamental difference between Science and Religion: Religion claims to have The Truth - and since only it is The Truth, then anything else is Un-Truth. And Un-Truth is evil; therefore anything that is not This Religion is Evil. True Science does not claim to have The Truth. It only claims to be the most accurate model and best predictor of the observable world.

Personally, I have nothing against faith. I know that I DON'T have enough faith to be either a Theist or an Atheist. I can't accept ANY religious work as The Truth, because (it seems to me) ALL say "This Book is The Truth. You knoiw that it's The Truth because it SAYS SO RIGHT HERE, and it COULDN'T say that if it WASN'T THE TRUTH. And anything that ISN'T in this Book ISN'T The Truth because, if it WAS, IT WOULD BE IN HERE!"

I'm sorry if you feel that I'm twisting your words with regard to the Book of Enoch and the other texts that you believe aren't part of the Real Bible, but can you see how someone might get that impression? These aren't part of the "Real" Bible because the council who decided what the Real Bible is said they weren't. Why did they say so? Because they contradicted the Real Bible. Which parts are the Real Bible? The parts that we said are real. Which parts are those? The REAL PARTS!

Can you see how some might see this as circular reasoning and not terribly convincing to those people who don't ALREADY believe in the same "Real Parts" as you?

BTW, I was raised in a New England Congregational (UCC) family; I don't know whether this qualifies me as having had a "Christian" upbringing by your definition or not. Currently, I define myself as a Laissez-Faire Zen Christian Agnostic: I try to act in a christian manner and do the right thing whether Anyone is watching or not, treat others with the same respect that I treat myself, and expect others to do the same. Of course, since I often take my beliefs/behavior with a hearty dose of humor and skepticism, I treat others' exactly the same way. As Robert Heinlein said:"One man's religion is another man's belly-laugh".

BTW II - In the interests of full disclosure, I should point out that I am not a professional scientist, nor do I have a degree in any science. In fact, I am a professional graphic artist, but consider myself a lifelong student.

The Yankee Clipper
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 11:40 PM
Very correct on the Carbon dating thing Yankee. And also, carbon dating can't be used to date the earth because its half-life is too short. It would have been through so many half-lifes that it would have dissopeared. There are other elements that are used to test the age of the earth. I'm not sure, but I think an isotope of Argon is used. I could look it up, but I'm sure someone else here knows and could save me the time.
Page 2 of 6 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›

 Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.