Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

What do you Believe??? (Religion)


What is your religious affiliation???  

100 members have voted

  1. 1. What does your belief system fall under???

    • Monotheistic
      35
    • Non-Monotheistic
      2
    • Agnostic
      21
    • Athiest
      32
    • I don't know right now
      4
    • I don't care right now
      6


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

The experiment runs every second of everyday.

 

That would be another possible explanation.  I don't think it as good as mine though for various reasons.  But you don't really believe that either so I'm not going to bother debating the point with you.

 

You are also crediting me with a belief that I don't actually believe.

If your experiement is running every single day then by scientific method you can draw NO conclusions until it is over and you can analyze the test results.

You sir are cheating.

1 minute ago, Epochalypse said:

I can't say with certainty why He chooses things to work this way. I can offer some considerations. I'm retired Air Force, and one of our core values is Integrity First...doing what is right even when no one is watching.  It would be hard to measure that if it was established beyond a doubt God is there all the time.

Speaking as a parent, there is an immeasurable joy when you see your child do something selfless without knowing you saw.

To your point, I'd offer it's not really obedience He wants. He wouldn't have given us free will. I think it's trust.

Before we go farther, just know that I'm not going to quit with this, and that will include deconstructing something you trust in.

If you are up for that then ok, but if not, then best just cut it off here.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

If your experiement is running every single day then by scientific method you can draw NO conclusions until it is over and you can analyze the test results.

You sir are cheating.

 

This isn't true.  Scientists run experiments all the time that continue to run and based on the data you have at that time, you draw conclusions.

 

There is somebody that is continually growing E. coli cells passing them from one generation to another to better understand evolution.

 

That hasn't and doesn't prevent him from at certain periods of time taking stock of where things are and drawing conclusions (and publishing papers) based on where things stand at that point in time.

 

All of science is continually and on going process.   The study of physics is an on going process with continual experiments.  Newton was largely wrong.  We take stock of where we are at the time based on the data/evidence we have.

 

Though, I wouldn't actually claim the process of evaluating the existence of god is science or that I am following the scientific method, but not for the reason you are giving.  I used the word experiment loosely not in the context of being an actual scientific experiment.

Edited by PeterMP
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

This isn't true.  Scientists run experiments all the time that continue to run and based on the data you have at that time, you draw conclusions.

 

There is somebody that is continually growing E. coli cells passing them from one generation to another to better understand evolution.

 

That hasn't and doesn't prevent him from at certain periods of time taking stock of where things are and drawing conclusions (and publishing papers) based on where things stand at that point in time.

 

All of science is continually and on going process.   The study of physics is an on going process with continual experiments.  Newton was largely wrong.  We take stock of where we are at the time based on the data/evidence we have.

 

Though, I wouldn't actually claim the process is science or that I am following the scientific method, but not for the reason you are giving.  I used the word experiment loosely not in the context of being an actual scientific experiment.

Fine where is your data for your peer review.

This way we can analyze your results and see if they can be repeated.

 

Oh, I know you used the word experiment loosely because you're trying to win an argument and decided to be cute.

That stuff works in Sunday School and from the pulpit, ask me how I know, but it doesn't work in the real world.

Edited by AsburySkinsFan
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Fine where is your data for your peer review.

This way we can analyze your results and see if they can be repeated.

 

Oh, I know you used the word experiment loosely because you're trying to win an argument and decided to be cute.

That stuff works in Sunday School and from the pulpit, ask me how I know, but it doesn't work in the real world.

 

I've already explained- my data is that every single day that the universe for the most part exist in a state that our senses and brain can gain a better understanding of it without it being strictly deterministic.

 

Actually, I used it because you used it and I was writing my post to mirror your post.

Edited by PeterMP
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Before we go farther, just know that I'm not going to quit with this, and that will include deconstructing something you trust in.

If you are up for that then ok, but if not, then best just cut it off here.

I appreciate the warning, and I'll make the assumption it comes from a place of genuine concern over driving me away from my most core belief and its possible detrimental effect on me.

 

But my own warning would be I will never be able to provide you a satisfactory answer based on the arguments being presented from all parties because I don't think such evidence can or should even exist. But I want to hear your thoughts and use them to strengthen my beliefs as they are tested. As long as we respect each other, you are free to continue this with me ad infinitum.

 

However, I just got home from work and I'm about to play catch with my son so I make no guarantees on timely responsiveness...

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

(for like the 5th time in the last few pages) History is full of cases where we couldn't explain an explanation, but the explanation turned out to be correct.  That the explanation can't be explained is not good evidence that the explanation isn't true.

IT IS WHEN THE PERSON’S ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS THAT A THING CAN’T EXIST WITHOUT EXPLANATION!!!

 

For like the 5th time in this thread, an argument that something amazing can’t possibly just come from nothing makes no sense In a discussion of whether God exists. If that were true, God couldn’t exist. Nothing could exist.

 

And yes, it was used as proof. “The universe can’t be explained without God” is what was said. It makes no sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I didn’t make it up. You said the universe can’t be explained without God.

 

No I didn’t. Quote me where I said that.

 

Quote

Ok, well how do you explain God then.

 

if an omnipotent being exists, he could choose to make himself invisible from us. 

 

Quote

 

If something as amazing as a God can exist with no explanation, then why can’t the universe do the same?

 

It sure could.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

IT IS WHEN THE PERSON’S ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS THAT A THING CAN’T EXIST WITHOUT EXPLANATION!!!

 

For like the 5th time in this thread, an argument that something amazing can’t possibly just come from nothing makes no sense In a discussion of whether God exists. If that were true, God couldn’t exist. Nothing could exist.

 

And yes, it was used as proof. “The universe can’t be explained without God” is what was said. It makes no sense.

 

You need to take a step back and work on your reading comprehension.  The quoted phrase literally does not appear in at least the last 10 pages (since she joined the conversation) other than in your post.  She's making a more subtle point that doesn't actually include what you are saying.

 

One thing not being able to exist without explanation isn't good evidence that something else can't.  And I haven't seen anybody claim that God can exist without explanation in this thread either.

 

Nobody has said what you've quoted much less that to go further to say the universe can't exist without an explanation so there must be a god, but god can exist without an explanation.

Edited by PeterMP
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

And we can work with this through Occam's Razor, all things being equal the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. So which is more likely 1) an all powerful god and conscious god created everything, set it all in motion and then hid himself through purposeful blinding of intelligent minds and is now off somewhere entertaining himself or 2) an as of yet undiscovered process brought the universe into being and is only hidden because the limits of our scientific exploration

 

Occam’s razor is fine. But you shifted from “simplest” to “most likely” when presenting  your options.

 

So which is simpler, an omnipotent force created everything we know (similar to, for instance, characters in a video game) or that the universe is the result of some unknown infinitely complex (from our perspective) process we don’t understand?

 

simpler?

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

No I didn’t. Quote me where I said that.

You didn’t. I had to go back and re-read. My bad.

 

51 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

You need to take a step back and work on your reading comprehension.  The quoted phrase literally does not appear in at least the last 10 pages (since she joined the conversation) other than in your post.

You’re right. My fault.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

This right here is why I no longer believe. I have no reason to believe that god exists. And you can argue first mover, you can argue gaps, you can argue sunsets, you can argue love, you can argue complexity; I know them all. I've tasted the goodness of the word of god and I have fallen away. Those faith commitments I once held as true no longer are sufficient. I don't see god working in this world, I see people. I don't see the church as an alternative, in fact I see the church is exactly the same as everyone else only in denial through their delusion that they are exempt because they said a cosmic "I'm sorry". It doesn't even bring me pain to write this because it's not like I've lost something.

 

 

I dont want to like or sad face this, jus saying I'm glad you shared this.  I can understand you being numb to it now and that at one point you probably weren't. 

Edited by Renegade7
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@TheGreatBuzz I want to give you a bigger post before your question gets lost in the thread, but I won't be able to until this weekend. 

 

In short, I believe Obama opened us up for different demographics as president by not running to be the first black president, just president for everyone.  It's why I forget Mayor Pete is gay, he's not running to be first gay president, he's running to be president.  Also, Trump has lowered the bar so much in what we will accept as president that I think this country is ready for more then it lets on or willing to admit to. 

 

An atheist candidate would do fine, imo, as long as they don't run as trying to be the first atheist president.  A lot of people are desperate for things to turn around that the threshold for who does it has changed very rapidly in just the last couple years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Occam’s razor is fine. But you shifted from “simplest” to “most likely” when presenting  your options.

 

So which is simpler, an omnipotent force created everything we know (similar to, for instance, characters in a video game) or that the universe is the result of some unknown infinitely complex (from our perspective) process we don’t understand?

 

simpler?

Some process we don't understand or a divine being.

Simpler is the process we don't understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Epochalypse said:

I appreciate the warning, and I'll make the assumption it comes from a place of genuine concern over driving me away from my most core belief and its possible detrimental effect on me.

 

But my own warning would be I will never be able to provide you a satisfactory answer based on the arguments being presented from all parties because I don't think such evidence can or should even exist. But I want to hear your thoughts and use them to strengthen my beliefs as they are tested. As long as we respect each other, you are free to continue this with me ad infinitum.

 

However, I just got home from work and I'm about to play catch with my son so I make no guarantees on timely responsiveness...

I think that is a fair assumption to make about my concern. My process is my own, and I'm just recently at the point where I am sharing in places like this, I don't know that I'll ever come out of the closet in my public life. But at the same time I don't want to break someone else who is just wanting some dialogue. Other guys on here I know through experience and feel comfortable with some full contact engagement on this front.

 

I seriously doubt any of the challenges I bring on this issue will strengthen your beliefs.

 

You focus on your kids, they are far more important. If we choose to pick this up later then so be it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I dont want to like or sad face this, jus saying I'm glad you shared this.  I can understand you being numb to it now and that at one point you probably weren't. 

I wrestled with it for the last five years or so, at first I wanted to hang on, but then as I stopped the reinforcing efforts I noticed some things more clearly in my mind. I like the idea of god but I'm pretty sure I'd be classified as an atheist at this point. I wanted to be an agnostic but when the idea of the Judeo-Christian god fell away, anything else just felt false too. I don't know for how long it's been since I haven't truly believed, and I can't honestly point to one thing even now. It's really been a process where I discovered just how much I was reinforcing the idea of god on my mind and now it's just not there. 

Oddly enough, I think it was guys like Hitchens that pushed me back into the fold for awhile since their arguments were always full of holes and partial truths built more for shock value than enlightening.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

@TheGreatBuzz I want to give you a bigger post before your question gets lost in the thread, but I won't be able to until this weekend. 

 

In short, I believe Obama opened us up for different demographics as president by not running to be the first black president, just president for everyone.  It's why I forget Mayor Pete is gay, he's not running to be first gay president, he's running to be president.  Also, Trump has lowered the bar so much in what we will accept as president that I think this country is ready for more then it lets on or willing to admit to. 

 

An atheist candidate would do fine, imo, as long as they don't run as trying to be the first atheist president.  A lot of people are desperate for things to turn around that the threshold for who does it has changed very rapidly in just the last couple years.

I'll wait for your weekend post but I just want to say this; Obama didn't run for first black and Pete isn't running as first gay.  But the media is doing that for them.  I don't believe an atheist would fare well through the media's spotlight. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my personal experience, it is people that have the strictest beliefs that are most heavily based on special revelation rather than natural revelation that are more likely to have a "crisis" of faith. (Don't really like the use of the word crisis there because IMO it overly implies a negative out come).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

I wrestled with it for the last five years or so, at first I wanted to hang on, but then as I stopped the reinforcing efforts I noticed some things more clearly in my mind. I like the idea of god but I'm pretty sure I'd be classified as an atheist at this point. I wanted to be an agnostic but when the idea of the Judeo-Christian god fell away, anything else just felt false too. I don't know for how long it's been since I haven't truly believed, and I can't honestly point to one thing even now. It's really been a process where I discovered just how much I was reinforcing the idea of god on my mind and now it's just not there. 

Oddly enough, I think it was guys like Hitchens that pushed me back into the fold for awhile since their arguments were always full of holes and partial truths built more for shock value than enlightening.

I agree with you that it is difficult to look around our current environment and find God. I find that's all the more reason to believe in Him. He has made abundantly clear that this is not our home. He has made it clear that the life He asks of us will not be easy, quite the opposite in fact. But the reason this world suffers so is because of the lack of adherence to His basic principles. At the very core of Christianity are two tenets: No other gods before Him and love your neighbor as yourself. The second should be self-evident as to how a world practicing that would be much improved. With everyone genuinely concerned for everyone else around them, putting others first and serving their needs makes for a better world. The first tenet I think is critical in that it allows the second to occur. You have to trust that God's plan is perfect and that in serving others there is reward. If we fail to put God first, then those other "gods": money, fame, power, sex, etc prevent us from fulfilling our calling to love. And believe me it's not easy. I'd love to throat punch some folks who are convinced they are Christians and support non-Christian ideals. It then forces me to rely on the knowledge that God is in control that frees me to focus back on what I can do to help alleviate the hurt in this world.

Edited by Epochalypse
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Epochalypse said:

It then forces me to rely on the knowledge that God is in control that frees me to focus back on what I can do to help alleviate the hurt in this world.

 

How do you reconcile the idea that God is in control with free will?  Or do you not believe people have free will?  I have a hard time saying that God is in control and people are making choices.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2019 at 9:25 PM, Renegade7 said:

I dont like the answers I get on that either, but I try to keep the time period in context as well. In terms of linear reading, I've been advised that there are too many connections to explain things to start that way.  So I'm moving around but on Joshua, which I dont expect to get better because holy land was conqueored.

 

I don't really understand what you're saying here. I take it that you also don't like some of the instructions given in the old testament, but are trying to reconcile them by way of historical context. But surely they are direct instructions from God, and if God is unchanging, then he still feels the same way now?

If Moses had somehow misrepresented the word of God, then why didn't Jesus clarify this. He could have easily said something like 'owning people as slaves is immoral, homosexuality isn't', 'men and women should be treated equally' or 'sorry about that tenth plague thing, my bad', but he didn't.

 

On 4/15/2019 at 9:25 PM, Renegade7 said:

With all due respect you read the same story four times in a row when you could gone to Acts to see what the disciples did after Jesus died.  Another reason why going at it linearly isn't advised, but what did you think of first half of Matthew and advise given that wasn't supernatural?  He said stuff like dont pray at top of your lunges in middle of the street to show off, that you can go in your closet in private and pray that God already knows what you gonna pray about anyway.  You sound like the supernatural stuff turned you off but I can't see how or if you absorbed anything that wasn't supernatural, and there's plenty of it. There's a verse in Romans about how these are supposed to be examples of faith to give us hope, that's means a lot to me.

 

Just because some of the bible doesn't have supernatural stuff in it, doesn't really excuse the parts that do. I mean how can you believe stories that include; talking serpents, magic fruit trees, rods that turn into serpents, people turning into salt, angels (wtf are angels!?!) and people coming back to life after being dead for three days (George A. Romero would approve).

It all just seems like the words of a superstitious people who were ignorant of reality, not an all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipotent being.

 

On 4/15/2019 at 9:25 PM, Renegade7 said:

Many have a primary creation God.  It's not my place to say which one's are real or not, but it's seems God didn't reach to societies much outside his chosen people.  So it makes sense for some societies to see the evidence of his work but not have the same relationship.

 

This is a most bizare statement. You say that It's not your place (?) to say which one is real, but then follow that with the assertion that God (the one that you are saying is real) doesn't reach out to everyone.

I would think that if you care what you believe is actually true, then you would want to discern; (A) if there was a God and (B) which God is the real one.

I honestly can't see the difference (in terms of which one is the most real) between any of the Gods. Allah seems just as likely as Brahma, the christian God seems just as likely as Shiva, Ra seems just as likely as Zeus. It seems like the one that most people believe in is the one that they've been indoctrinated to believe from childhood. This is obviously not always the case and I am at a loss to explain why people adopt a religion in latter life.

 

On 4/15/2019 at 9:25 PM, Renegade7 said:

There's no completion to the understanding of Christianity from my understanding.  If there's anything id want you to get from this religion is there's more to it then the supernatural stuff that is good life advice and wisdom to live by.  I had to choose between going to church for Easter with my gf or picking up little sister from her "need to get away" vacation and I picked my sister.  This whole thing has its place.

 

I obviously respect your right to your own beliefs and think that you are almost certainly a good person, but wouldn't you still be a good person without the beliefs? I have to ask the question; why do you believe, and do you care if what you do believe is true? If you believe just because you want to believe, then great, but the bible (and the whole God thing) seems too far removed from reality to be taken seriously. I can see no reason or need for any of it to be true.

 

Added: I have to admit that I have re-written these replies several times because I didn't want to come across as too confrontational or a sarcastic jackass. I decided just to type my thoughts (my beliefs?) and leave it there. I have no desire to offend anyone and hope that this can be read as just my honest opinion, with no hidden agenda attached. :cheers: 

Edited by London Kev
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, London Kev said:

 

I don't really understand what you're saying here. I take it that you also don't like some of the instructions given in the old testament, but are trying to reconcile them by way of historical context. But surely they are direct instructions from God, and if God is unchanging, then he still feels the same way now?

If Moses had somehow misrepresented the word of God, then why didn't Jesus clarify this. He could have easily said something like 'owning people as slaves is immoral, homosexuality isn't', 'men and women should be treated equally' or 'sorry about that tenth plague thing, my bad', but he didn't.

 

 

Just because some of the bible doesn't have supernatural stuff in it, doesn't really excuse the parts that do. I mean how can you believe stories that include; talking serpents, magic fruit trees, rods that turn into serpents, people turning into salt, angels (wtf are angels!?!) and people coming back to life after being dead for three days (George A. Romero would approve).

It all just seems like the words of a superstitious people who were ignorant of reality, not an all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipotent being.

 

 

This is a most bizare statement. You say that It's not your place (?) to say which one is real, but then follow that with the assertion that God (the one that you are saying is real) doesn't reach out to everyone.

I would think that if you care what you believe is actually true, then you would want to discern; (A) if there was a God and (B) which God is the real one.

I honestly can't see the difference (in terms of which one is the most real) between any of the Gods. Allah seems just as likely as Brahma, the christian God seems just as likely as Shiva, Ra seems just as likely as Zeus. It seems like the one that most people believe in is the one that they've been indoctrinated to believe from childhood. This is obviously not always the case and I am at a loss to explain why people adopt a religion in latter life.

 

 

I obviously respect your right to your own beliefs and think that you are almost certainly a good person, but wouldn't you still be a good person without the beliefs? I have to ask the question; why do you believe, and do you care if what you do believe is true? If you believe just because you want to believe, then great, but the bible (and the whole God thing) seems too far removed from reality to be taken seriously. I can see no reason or need for any of it to be true.

 

Added: I have to admit that I have re-written these replies several times because I didn't want to come across as too confrontational or a sarcastic jackass. I decided just to type my thoughts (my beliefs?) and leave it there. I have no desire to offend anyone and hope that this can be read as just my honest opinion, with no hidden agenda attached. :cheers: 

 

1.  Jesus actually explicitly  states the law of Moses is incomplete and was adjusted for the people at the time based on their nature.  It is done with respect to divorce, but it isn't hard to see where/how the same logic applies to other cases.  You also see Jesus practically adjust the law when it comes to stoning people.  We also see changes in the law in the New Testament where Jesus teachings become open to the larger community (beyond the Jewish community).

 

2.  It was recognized before the advent of science in the west that some of the Bible might not be a literal.  That there were parts of the Bible that were more allegorical or as a parable in nature.

 

3.  That God would give people information, rules, and judge based on their nature/state seems rather logical to me.  We do it.  Why wouldn't a god?  

 

4.  How much do you know about any of the gods that you listed?

 

Edited by PeterMP
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

How do you reconcile the idea that God is in control with free will?  Or do you not believe people have free will?  I have a hard time saying that God is in control and people are making choices.

It's funny I did a paper on this in college.  I couldn't tell you what I wrote then but I'll offer my thoughts on it now.

 

There is a consistent narrative throughout the Bible and Christianity that we have a choice.  Jesus died for you but you must choose to believe in him.  The Great Commission wouldn't make sense if God already had a board of who was "in" or who was "out".  Why conducts missions to gain believers when God already knows who makes the list?  

 

But there is also a consistent narrative that God knows how this all turns out, down to even short term instances such as Peter's denial of Jesus, a matter of hours.  So how do these counterarguments mesh?

 

I think it goes back to what I posted earlier in that God wants to see us make the right choices.  It would have been very easy to make us all mindless adherents but it doesn't really allow Him to evaluate us.  It helps explain why a God that doesn't want us to sin puts a tree in the Garden of Eden that teaches of sin.  Why do that unless He needed to present a choice to His creations?  He knew we were going to dork it up but it had to happen for His plan.  So maybe it is a case where things always turn out the way God intends it to, but along the way there is room for us to choose the path to get there.  Take Jonah for example.  God says go to Nineveh, Jonah says screw that noise, I'm out.  To spoil the ending Jonah ends up in Nineveh.  There likely was an easier way to get there then the route Jonah took, but Jonah's choice affected what that journey looked like and what both God and Jonah took away from how it went.

 

So my interpretation of free will then becomes I have the choice as to how to represent myself to God, whether He already knows that path or not.  And like everyone else, I am not always proud of the choices I make along the way, but I know they got me here.  That then gives me an opportunity to assess how those choices got me here and I can determine if I need to make different choices going forward to either improve my situation or not, based on those past decisions.  The good news is we are always given the comfort that at any given moment we can choose to turn to God and He will accept us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, PeterMP said:

In my personal experience, it is people that have the strictest beliefs that are most heavily based on special revelation rather than natural revelation that are more likely to have a "crisis" of faith. (Don't really like the use of the word crisis there because IMO it overly implies a negative out come).

I've had all of it, formative and engaging general revelation as well as intense and transformational moments of special revelation. I can tell you from own experience that there was no "crisis of faith", my process was more like healing after an injury, one day you didn't need the sling another you stopped taking pain meds. You can't remember exactly when you stopped but looking back...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

1.  Jesus actually explicitly  states the law of Moses is incomplete and was adjusted for the people at the time based on their nature.  It is done with respect to divorce, but it isn't hard to see where/how the same logic applies to other cases.  You also see Jesus practically adjust the law when it comes to stoning people.  We also see changes in the law in the New Testament where Jesus teachings become open to the larger community (beyond the Jewish community).

 

2.  It was recognized before the advent of science in the west that some of the Bible might not be a literal.  That there were parts of the Bible that were more allegorical or as a parable in nature.

 

3.  That God would give people information, rules, and judge based on their nature/state seems rather logical to me.  We do it.  Why wouldn't a god?  

 

4.  How much do you know about any of the gods that you listed?

 

 

Thanks, this is all new to me and I don't claim to have read the entire bible, just the first 4 or 5 parts of each testament.

 

1: I notice that you call them the laws of Moses but surely they are Gods' laws as told to Moses.

So Jesus changed the law on divorce and you say it isn't hard to see where/how the same logic applies to other cases. Where are the other cases? Does Jesus denounce slavery and why did God sanction it in the first place? Also being stoned to death for cursing your parents/commiting adultery/being gay/etc, is also a tad extreme IMO. Did Jesus say that God/Moses had got them wrong too, or only divorce?

 

2: This is the crux of the matter for me. Some parts of the bible are allegorical; lots of metaphors and symbolism. But the question is; which parts? Which bits, if any, can one be sure are true and actually happened?

 

3: If a God existed, then yes, I can imagine that God giving instructions on how he (she/it?) wants his creations to behave. But surely he could devise a better method to relay these instructions than text written in a language that he knew would change, get added to and be awkwardly translated. Why couldn't he come up with a set of concise, unambiguous instructions (with pictures :silly:) that would stand the test of time.

 

4: Lol, very clever.

I know as much about them (and the christian God) as I do about ghosts, leprechauns, unicorns and the tooth fairy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, see this is the type of stuff I'm talking about. The cross is still on the altar, never mind that the church just burned and will cost massive amounts of money and decades to restore, but yeah a rock didn't land there, so that's proof of god. Where was god when the fire started?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...