LEft out of the Bible is the old and new testament all there is?
#16
Posted 26 February 2006 - 07:26 AM
#17
Posted 26 February 2006 - 07:47 AM
Abolishing religions is rather an extreme point. I would abolish all the interference between religion and state as well as proselytising. I want freedom from religion. I don't know if you know, but in the Guardian there has recently been an article which opposed the notion that some disputes between Muslims in UK should be resolved according to sharia law - I am shocked that anyone in Britain could even consider it - creating a separate law for citizens according to their religious belief. NExt time they will try to intorduce cutting hands for petty thieving and scrubbing women's faces with sponges with broken glass for wearing makeup.
#18
Posted 26 February 2006 - 10:06 AM
I really like the ideas brought fourth in the Gospel of Mary. The idea that women played an important part in early Christianity is great. Makes sense that this would piss a lot of people off and that may be why the church began to subdue their role so quickly. It was a big deal I guess, to see a bunch of women and men walking around together as equals, but Jesus really dug his lady friends.
#19
Posted 26 February 2006 - 11:08 AM
The other gospels are unauthentic enough to dismiss all later apocrypha. COnsider - scholars prettu much agree that so called "gospel according to Mark" was the oldest, because MAtthew and Luke copied extensively from it. However, Mark made so many mistakes when it came to JEwish customs and geography that it is certain that he could not be an eyewitness or someone who actually was there. And when Matthew copied Mark, he embellished the story telling and CORRECTED the errors Mark made, which means that he was a Jew, but by no means an eyewitness.
Some scholars think that the rest of Luke and Matthew was copied from a text now lost, called Q (from German quelle - source), but others doubt it.
They don't even consider John's gospel as written by eyewitness - it is so very different in style and content than the other three, and evidently written aroung 90-110 AD, compared to the earliest date of MArk 70 AD.
SO we have not account from eyewitness of what happened. All authors relied on oral tradition, hence the numerous contractictions in gospels. Again - how come there are contradictions? Again - they all can't be true at once. But they all can be wrong!
#20
Posted 26 February 2006 - 12:37 PM
Actually historians think that women helped finance a lot of the stuff for christains back then. I'll try to dig up some articles so it doesnt seem like im just spouting off nonsense.
They don't even consider John's gospel as written by eyewitness - it is so very different in style and content than the other three, and evidently written aroung 90-110 AD, compared to the earliest date of MArk 70 AD.
SO we have not account from eyewitness of what happened. All authors relied on oral tradition, hence the numerous contractictions in gospels. Again - how come there are contradictions? Again - they all can't be true at once. But they all can be wrong!
Personally I don't buy any of the gosples or even the stuff in th OT, but that is my right to do so. I think the bible is a nice piece of literature, but thats about it.
#21
Posted 26 February 2006 - 01:26 PM
I've also heard a theory that the Gospel of John (The Gospel of the Beloved) was really written by Mary Magdalene. I don't really buy into that one so much, because the evidence they had to back it up was pretty sketch, but it's a nice idea of Mary being the disciple referenced to as "the beloved."
#22
Posted 26 February 2006 - 01:52 PM
Religion works when it's mutable and can adapt to change with the times, and the fundamental principles don't change. Really, they're all just telling ways of people to get along without always killing one another, and explaining unexplainable events and whatnot. It's when they start just being a method to control the masses that it becomes a problem, but it's not the religion itself...
This post has been edited by Slade: 26 February 2006 - 01:55 PM
#24
Posted 26 February 2006 - 09:05 PM
Bible tells falsehoods, scientific falsehoods, and yet a substantial percentage of people still literally believe in that, flood, Adam and Eve and flat Earth. Thank goodness for the recent ruling of this brave American judge to bann intelligent design from that school (forgot which state it was), because he saw what it is - a religious doctrine cleverly disguised as "science".
People do not like to think for themselves, what a stupid thing to say. With that kind of mentality the human race wouldn't get anywheres on its own now would it. One of the biggest parts of being in a religion and having faith is because you recognize that you are not perfect, yet you complain when the people that are in that do the slightest thing wrong. Why do you believe that because people are part of a religion, they ought to be perfect human beings? By the way, people are irrational by nature, its one of the reasons why the world is a fucked up place. You ought to realize that when it comes to faiths such as Christianity, it is actually a hard thing to really try and follow. The basis of the faith, the Bible, has so many ways in which it could be wrong. There are many things you are told to do and not to do in any faith. And, what are you supposed to believe when really awful shit happens?
Did you know that through evidence collected by various contraptions on Mars that scientists believe that the whole planet was once covered in water? Yet now, there is a small amout of water frozen at it's polar ice caps. So, how hard is it to believe that a planet that is 3/4 covered in water could have possibly been almost completely covered in it? Where might that water have come from and gone to? Did you know that Antartica is covered by a sheet of ice miles thick, and that the continent is kinda freaking big (and that's not even talking about the Northern Polar area or anything else)? Now, how about that evolutionary theory? First of all, let me remind you that it is scientific theory, not law. To believe the fact that all of these micro-organisms somehow organized themselves into higher lifeforms is absolutely ridiculous. I don't have all of the information infront of me, but the chances of all of the neccessary things coming into contact with eachother defies the Law of Probability many times over (I can have this info in a couple of days). And that isn't all, there are several other scientific laws that disprove evolutionary theory, such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Flat earth, people believed the world was flat way before Judism even started. Hell, for example the Egyptians and the Chinese believed that they were the center of the Earth and that everything outside of that was not really part of the planet.
So thinly disguised because it actually is religous, so ... "no shit, really?" If you want to get into seperation of church and state, consider the fact that they meant putting a wall in the House of Congress so that everyone could be heard over the church music. Don't believe me, tell it to my Aunt who has her Master's degree in US history.
Here is an example of something, because I feel like proving a point and being a little bit of an ass:
Z: Doctor Lecter, stop being such a shithead.
MC: *gasp of suprise* You're not allowed to talk like that, your a religious type person. See that inherantly proves that his religion is crap.
Z:No, Dr. Lecter is being a real stupid ass, and quite insulting at that. By the way, did you know that part of the reason that I am in my religion is because I recognize the fact that I am not a perfect human being? Therefore, since I am not perfect, I tend to do things that are wrong and bad every so often.
MC: *puts fingers in ears* La la la la la la la la la la!
(okay so I was really being an ass, but still. Oh, and please don't take that too personally MC. Dr. Lecter on the other hand, go and take it however personally you feel like it. Why, I don't go around telling atheists they are full of shit even though I think they might be)
"And the Evil that was vanquished shall rise anew. Wrapped in the guise of man shall he walk amongst the innocent and Terror shall consume they that dwell upon the Earth. The skies will rain fire. The seas shall become as blood. The righteous shall fall before the wicked! And all creation shall tremble before the burning standards of Hell!" - Mephisto
Kurgan X showed me this web comic done with Legos. It pokes fun at all six Star Wars films and I found it to be extremely entertaining.
<a href="http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/cast/starwars.html" target="_blank">http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/cast/starwars.html</a>
#25
Posted 27 February 2006 - 01:31 AM
etc. etc.
It's not that stupid, actually. You might have noticed a little gap between intellectual and not so intellectual people, but even so, people like having decisions made for them. There are those who are good soldiers, and those who are good commanders. This life is more than some can take, so a religion that takes care of that is often very welcome, thus causing some people to think less for themselves.
Yes.
Space and Space. It's all a matter of the atmosphere's ability to hold the water. Scientists know that since... phew... let me think... it was before 1970, of that I'm sure.
I think your data is not sufficient to make such a statement. Just look at one cm˛ on your desk. And think of all the micro-organisms which are assembled there. Furthermore, think of their lifespan and reproduction rate. Further furthermore, think of the huge intervals of time... boy, that raises the probability quite good.
Apart from that, I do wonder why Christians don't like the idea of life on other planets - okay, it would make sure that the bible is a product of humans and thusly wrong, but they could still believe that god created that too. And god could have created evolution, too.
Eh... entropy... is in my opinion... the perfect basis for a thing like evolution...
Eh... I don't really know where you're aiming at with this and the following points, so I guess it's for the better if I stay quiet now.
This post has been edited by Gobbler: 27 February 2006 - 01:36 AM
Quote
#26
Posted 27 February 2006 - 01:43 AM
Oh, and I do think that there is a good possibility of there being life on other planets. To believe that we are the only one out there seems quite silly to me. I mean what was the point of making an entire universe for anyways otherwise? For us to discover and explore over who knows how long.
Oh, and I should have been a little clearer. I should have said proteins and ammino acids and such. Well, I'll get to it.
"And the Evil that was vanquished shall rise anew. Wrapped in the guise of man shall he walk amongst the innocent and Terror shall consume they that dwell upon the Earth. The skies will rain fire. The seas shall become as blood. The righteous shall fall before the wicked! And all creation shall tremble before the burning standards of Hell!" - Mephisto
Kurgan X showed me this web comic done with Legos. It pokes fun at all six Star Wars films and I found it to be extremely entertaining.
<a href="http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/cast/starwars.html" target="_blank">http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/cast/starwars.html</a>
#27
Posted 27 February 2006 - 02:23 AM
I think your views are pretty much muddled. The whole tone of post speaks fury and belligerence. There is no need. I have heard your and similar arguments before, and frankly, they do not hold water. And no, I am not taking them personally.
I beg to differ. Quite a lot of progress (most of it) has been made because people started to think and question. Organised church and religion opposed progress, because it undermined their authority. Think about Giordano Bruno, Galileo, Spinoza. Think how prosecuted was the doctor who invented anaesthetics during birth - poor guy was so ostracised that he ended up in an asylum. And who ostracised him - why, organised religion, because women had to suffer during childbirth, because of the "curse of Eve", and because "God wanted them to suffer". And FIY - those who abolished slavery in America in 19th century were mostly secular himan rights advocates - Church condoned slavery because it was in the Bible. Please counter my arguments with some examples when organised religion supported progress in science.
I do not remember ever saying this - why would I - what do you mean by that? What did you want to say?
Now this is a curious quote. You actually support my view that religion is irrational and pretty pointless. Why would any supposedly wise God give us a religion which is so hard to follow? I don't get it.
Now I heard that argument before, too. The other would be "if there is no God, what stops you going round and murdering people". Now, do I really have to believe anything if bad things happen to me? They happen alike to those who are believers and die-hard atheists like me. It is called staticstics. I do not have to believe in statistics - I have been taught it at college.
I do not need to believe in anything when bad things happen to me. If you feel that need, fine, but do not tell me that you are somehow better than me because when in distres, you pray.
I would like to know also what did you have in mind about that Mars thing and Antarctica. Are you trying to say that GOd removed all the water? Gee, with so many sufferings on Earth surely God should have other things to do than remove water from a bit of rock. Unless it was what remained of the punishment that God administered to MAsians for their sins.
No, it is not. Here:
http://www.talkorigi...ions.html#proof
Forgive me that for the lack of space I direct you to a source. If you do not feel convinced, do more search, there are hundreds of good sources on the theory of evolution and refutals of it (and ID too)
Now what is that supposed to prove? If Bible was indeed written under God's guidance, whouldn't the all wise God corrected the error? Unless the God wanted to protect and spead lies. Now what kind of GOd is that? It only proves that Bible was a creation of people, because it reflects the status of human morality and knowledge at that time.
I am afraind that my grasp of English is failing me. What do you mean?
OK, ask your Anut when the sign " In God we trust" first appeared on American currency. This is just about as relevant to our discussion as what you have written above.
Oh no, you are allowed to talk like that only I would not consider it valid arguments. It only proves that you have not thought much about what you have just written. I suspect you are merely repeating someone else's beliefs and take them as your own. It proves that when somebody bases his/her personal beliefs on religion it is not very rational. Well, if God really wanted me to believe in all this, he should have made me less rational. Otherwise, sorry God, I just can't believe because it all falls apart.
Oh no, I am all ears. To rational discussion, rational arguments, facts, logical proofs. The problem is, with religion you can't provide these. You can talk about your own personal religious experience, you are perfectly entitled to. You can say how you met Jesus, how he revelead the truth about the universe to you, but these arguments mean nothing to me. They are by definition subjective.
#28
Posted 27 February 2006 - 02:32 AM
#29
Posted 27 February 2006 - 09:12 AM
"As fas as east is from the west" does not necessary mean infinite. I do not think ancient Jew at all had a notion what "infinite" is . "As far as east is from the west" for them was just the longest possible conceivable distance.
Isaiah 40:22
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
I think it is pretty obvious - "circle of the earth" - earth is flat like a pancake and covered by heaven which is a canopy or a tent. Circle does not mean "sphere", BTW. Sphere cannot be covered by the "tent". Sorry, but those words denote the knowlege of people at that time - and also what we see every day - that earth is flat and covered by "a dome" of heaven.
Also, please remember how Joshua told sun to stand still during the battle. This clearly speaks of geocentric point of view of those people. Again, here is the excellent source:
http://www.geocities.../astronomy.html
#30
Posted 27 February 2006 - 02:55 PM
Are you trying to tempt me to write an explanation of why I hate Christianity, organised religion and the idea of God? If that's what you want then, I will, but it may take a while, I've already reached 4 paragraphs and I'm not even half way through explaining my hate of Christianity.