What do you Believe??? (Religion)

[The Sisko]

On 10/2/2021 at 11:41 AM, ThomasRoane said:

 

My point is that the Great Isaiah scroll has been scientifically carbon dated at about 150 - 100 BCE.  There are many prophecies about Jesus embedded in Isaiah.  Yet Isaiah 53 is the most powerful.  I hate math but by my calculation, the words that were filled about Christ's crucifixion were at least written down up to 200 years before the crucifixion event.  To say that is just coincidence is to really stretch your faith... 

 

I think science validating Isaiah 53 is pretty powerful.  It was for me.  If I were to tell you today that the WFT would be KC 42 - 17 on October 17th and it happened exactly as I foretold.  Wouldn't you be interested in what I told you would happen to the WFT for the rest of the season?  

You’re conflating two things that don’t necessarily go together. The scroll may in fact be that old, but that has no bearing on the accuracy of it. People “see” things in prophesies all the time. So it could be about their interpretation of it, rather than actual prophesy. The other more likely possibility is that later authors knew of this prophesy and wrote the Jesus story to fit it. It’s not at all unheard of in the OT/NT.

 

One good example of this happening is the Exodus story. This calls the rest of the book into question for anyone willing to look at it objectively.
 

On 10/2/2021 at 4:48 PM, ThomasRoane said:

That said, you'll never catch me sending $ to Creflo Dollar or Joel Osteen! The Lord told us to be wise as serpents, gentle as doves.

I used to live a couple of miles from Creflo $$ previous house. It was large and  spectacular, from the outside anyway, but not nearly enough for a man of “god” like him. After all, god couldn’t have him living with the merely upper middle class, no matter how fancy the diggs.

Aside from that, Creflo, ‘er “the church” owns much of the commercial real estate for a mile or so each way on the road his church sits on. Granted, it’s not the best area in town but it’s still pulling in major cheddar for him.

As the saying goes, i ain’t mad at him. I’m just P.O.’d that I don’t have his charisma because being a pimp preacher is one of the best gigs ever.

Edited October 8, 2021 by The Sisko

[ThomasRoane]

On 10/8/2021 at 2:38 PM, The Sisko said:

 

One good example of this happening is the Exodus story. This calls the rest of the book into question for anyone willing to look at it objectively.

 

 

Evidence for the Exodus - Evidences of the Bible (bibleevidences.com)

 

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/exodus/exodus-fact-or-fiction/

 

We can do this all day and not get anywhere.  The point of Exodus is that God had allowed His people to spend a couple hundred years or so living in the the most advanced civilization of the world during that time period.  They learned about medicine, literature, art, politics, etc.  The problem was that they really didn't have a good relation with their God - Yahweh.  In fact, many of them were worshipping Egypt's gods.  Like Apis the bull god.  The one Aaaron said just popped out if the fire at the foot of Mount Sinai.  God was fulfilling His promise to Abraham to lead them to the land of Canaan.  First though, He need to demonstrate who He was.  He did so by judging the gods of Egypt - showing them who the Most High God really was.  Each of the 10 plagues is associated with an Egyptian god(s).

 

Then, along the way, Yahweh gave Israel an option to follow Him; Mount Sinai.  He outlined what He expected and the people affirmed that they would follow Him.  This was a radical difference from every other culture where their gods never said much to the people.  The people were always guessing what their gods wanted from them.  Yahweh gave clear instructions that came with blessings if they were followed and curses if disobeyed. 

 

There are a lot of very deep themes taking place in the Exodus such as the Reed sea.  Which is far more likely than the Red sea.  There was a great body of water on Egypt's border that was called the Reed sea.  Most likely, the depth was seasonal.  The Egyptians thought that the sun god Ra was reborn each night and came up above the reed sea which was where the souls of the Egyptian dead were thought to reside.  So, Yahweh bringing Israel thru that sea, the land of the dead, demonstrated that He was God of the living and the dead.  Israel, Yahweh's firstborn of all the nations, was reborn as if passing thru the waters of the birth canal.  They were to be a new nation when they came out.  (Matthew highlights the similarity of Jesus - Firstborn of God - when he comes up out of the parted waters during His baptism by John the Baptist)

 

Even being an atheist or whatever, the metanarrative of the Exodus is quite complex and really very clever.  Most of it was a polemic against the gods of Egypt.  It was about Yahweh letting it be known that He was God of Gods, Lord of lords.  King of kings.  While Israel was in Egypt, Yahweh was still being worshipped in the East by the Midianites and Edom (Esau) in Mount Seir.  Moses learned about Yahweh from Jethro the Midianite priest.  The Midianites?  Also descendants of Abraham by the way.  There is archaelogical proof that Egypt heard about Yahweh from eastern traders.  It all connects.  

 

There's really a lot going on if you're curious enough to do more digging than just a couple of opinion pieces on the internet.  You're missing out on a lot of fascinating information.  

 

Dr. Heiser has a whole Podcast series where he brings in all of the scholarly positions and research on the book.  Starts here.  Introduction (nakedbiblepodcast.com)

 

 

[Renegade7]

There's no doubt in my mind exodus really happened.

 

Was watching a documentary a couple years that explained how despite the limited evidence there is for exodus being rejected for being found at incorrect points in history, if you shift the entire Egyptian history a certain direction all that evidence lines up in the correct spots in time.

 

But no one wants to do that because Egyptian history is yardmark for other civilizations history.  Having said that, most of the plagues make sense in cause and effect concerning the previous plague.  Between that and mistranlation concerning Reed Sea and Red Sea, its reasonable even if you don't believe in God to believe this was a description of an actual historical event.

 

I'll try to find the documentary when I get back in town, heading to Niagara. 

[PeterMP]

13 hours ago, ThomasRoane said:

 

Evidence for the Exodus - Evidences of the Bible (bibleevidences.com)

 

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/exodus/exodus-fact-or-fiction/

 

We can do this all day and not get anywhere.  The point of Exodus is that God had allowed His people to spend a couple hundred years or so living in the the most advanced civilization of the world during that time period.  They learned about medicine, literature, art, politics, etc.  The problem was that they really didn't have a good relation with their God - Yahweh.  In fact, many of them were worshipping Egypt's gods.  Like Apis the bull god.  The one Aaaron said just popped out if the fire at the foot of Mount Sinai.  God was fulfilling His promise to Abraham to lead them to the land of Canaan.  First though, He need to demonstrate who He was.  He did so by judging the gods of Egypt - showing them who the Most High God really was.  Each of the 10 plagues is associated with an Egyptian god(s).

 

Then, along the way, Yahweh gave Israel an option to follow Him; Mount Sinai.  He outlined what He expected and the people affirmed that they would follow Him.  This was a radical difference from every other culture where their gods never said much to the people.  The people were always guessing what their gods wanted from them.  Yahweh gave clear instructions that came with blessings if they were followed and curses if disobeyed. 

 

There are a lot of very deep themes taking place in the Exodus such as the Reed sea.  Which is far more likely than the Red sea.  There was a great body of water on Egypt's border that was called the Reed sea.  Most likely, the depth was seasonal.  The Egyptians thought that the sun god Ra was reborn each night and came up above the reed sea which was where the souls of the Egyptian dead were thought to reside.  So, Yahweh bringing Israel thru that sea, the land of the dead, demonstrated that He was God of the living and the dead.  Israel, Yahweh's firstborn of all the nations, was reborn as if passing thru the waters of the birth canal.  They were to be a new nation when they came out.  (Matthew highlights the similarity of Jesus - Firstborn of God - when he comes up out of the parted waters during His baptism by John the Baptist)

 

Even being an atheist or whatever, the metanarrative of the Exodus is quite complex and really very clever.  Most of it was a polemic against the gods of Egypt.  It was about Yahweh letting it be known that He was God of Gods, Lord of lords.  King of kings.  While Israel was in Egypt, Yahweh was still being worshipped in the East by the Midianites and Edom (Esau) in Mount Seir.  Moses learned about Yahweh from Jethro the Midianite priest.  The Midianites?  Also descendants of Abraham by the way.  There is archaelogical proof that Egypt heard about Yahweh from eastern traders.  It all connects.  

 

There's really a lot going on if you're curious enough to do more digging than just a couple of opinion pieces on the internet.  You're missing out on a lot of fascinating information.  

 

Dr. Heiser has a whole Podcast series where he brings in all of the scholarly positions and research on the book.  Starts here.  Introduction (nakedbiblepodcast.com)

 

 

 

Essentially none of what is described is really evidence for Exodus.  It might be evidence that Joseph existed and lived in Egypt, but that isn't the Exodus story.  Many people think there is some authenticity to the story and that some Jews lived in Egypt for sometime and some of them were even potentially influential in Egyptian.

 

You are conflating evidence for one thing with another.

 

The other problem is your two links even disagree.  Your one link is essentially arguing that Exodus happened prior to 13 century BCE, but your other link is actually 11-13th century BCE.  They both can't be accurate.  Any time you are arguing that X happened but with 2 different dates, you have problems.

 

The fundamental problem with Exodus is what is described are civilization/empire collapsing events.  An empire that loses its slaves, has its army destroyed, loses a year of crops, loses the first born, etc. is going to have big issues.  It is likely to have a revolution, it is going to lose prestige compared to its neighbors and likely is going to be invaded and lose land, etc.

 

And there's nothing that seems to match that in the time period of Egyptian history whether you say 11-13th century BCE or if you move it back a couple of hundred years.

 

If you want to argue that Exodus happened, the first thing you have to do is come up with a reasonable time frame that it happened.  Posting links that are arguing for two different times doesn't help you.

Edited October 11, 2021 by PeterMP

[The Sisko]

On 10/10/2021 at 10:32 AM, ThomasRoane said:

There's really a lot going on if you're curious enough to do more digging than just a couple of opinion pieces on the internet.  You're missing out on a lot of fascinating information.  

 

I'd suggest you take your own advice. This is a lot more than an isolated opinion piece on the internet. This has been a scholarly controversy for years.  My understanding of the info I've read about it is that there's no archeological evidence in the Sinai or Israel. Only in Egypt have a few pieces of minor evidence been found. However, Peter makes a great point that, depending on the numbers of slaves and soldiers lost, there would have been some effect on Egyptian society and to my knowledge there's no evidence of anything along those lines during the time periods in question.

In fairness, I'll point out that at one point I read a paper or article in which the author contended that the Exodus did in fact happen, but in a very different manner. His theory was that it was a more gradual exodus over time that over the years of re-telling, re-writing and additions became exaggerated into the modern Exodus story. This is a plausible and reasonable explanation but it presents a couple of problems for the inerrant Bible folks. First, if true, it implies that they didn't go through a parting in the Red or Reed sea with Pharoah's men hot on their heels, but by more traditional methods. That would mean at least parts of the story were made up for dramatic effect or for whatever reason. Second, his theory accepts the idea that much of the Torah/Bible narrative and by extension church dogma have possibly morphed into something very different from the faith the original Jewish adherents would recognize or possibly agree with were they to see it today.

FWIW, I'm no Biblical scholar, but I don't just take things at face value from random internet sites.

[PeterMP]

On 10/10/2021 at 11:15 AM, Renegade7 said:

There's no doubt in my mind exodus really happened.

 

Was watching a documentary a couple years that explained how despite the limited evidence there is for exodus being rejected for being found at incorrect points in history, if you shift the entire Egyptian history a certain direction all that evidence lines up in the correct spots in time.

 

But no one wants to do that because Egyptian history is yardmark for other civilizations history.  Having said that, most of the plagues make sense in cause and effect concerning the previous plague.  Between that and mistranlation concerning Reed Sea and Red Sea, its reasonable even if you don't believe in God to believe this was a description of an actual historical event.

 

I'll try to find the documentary when I get back in town, heading to Niagara. 

 

Right.  There's good evidence that Exodus happened but historians all over the world, which would include many Christians, have lied about it for some unclear reason (what does it mean that Egyptian history is a "yardmark"?  Different sites and artifacts are dated independently through radioistopoic dating) that nobody actually (financially, etc.) benefits from.

 

And I'll bet this secret conspiracy has been happening for decades.  Generations of historians have probably been lysing for no clear benefit to themselves.

Edited October 12, 2021 by PeterMP

[Renegade7]

3 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Right.  There's good evidence that Exodus happened but historians all over the world, which would include many Christians, have lied about it for some unclear reason (what does it mean that Egyptian history is a "yardmark"?  Different sites and artifacts are dated independently through radioistopoic dating) that nobody actually (financially, etc.) benefits from.

 

And I'll bet this secret conspiracy has been happening for decades.  Generations of historians have probably been lysing for no clear benefit to themselves.

 

*insert eyeroll 

 

It's not a conspiracy theory and its relatively new on the block

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Rohl)

 

Think this the doc i was talking about, bee. A while since I watched it:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Patterns-Evidence-Exodus-Kevin-Sorbo/dp/B010X3MV78

[PeterMP]

8 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

*insert eyeroll 

 

It's not a conspiracy theory and its relatively new on the block

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Rohl)

 

Think this the doc i was talking about, bee. A while since I watched it:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Patterns-Evidence-Exodus-Kevin-Sorbo/dp/B010X3MV78

 

Did you read the wikipedia link you posted?  The book was published in the 1995.  Rohl has been pushing his ideas since the 1980s, his ideas are a modification of even earlier ideas, and weren't based on any new data, but just a re-interpretation of the existing data.

 

I graduated from high school in 1990.  The people that educated me in college were all essentially the greatest generation and baby boomers.  Academics that studied ancient civilizations would have been aware of ideas related to Rohl's.  Those people are almost all dead or retired.  I'm even a youngish Gen-X.  Leaders in academic circles today are heavily Gen X.  Young academics today are millennials.

 

His ideas don't even get a mention on the wikipedia page on the origin if Israelites, were never popular, and aren't gaining popularity with younger generations of ancient civilization academics.

 

So yes, his ideas have been out there for decades and have been rejected by generations of historians.

 

If his ideas are reasonable and good (and even a non-expert like you can see that), what would you call the continued rejection of his ideas in larger main stream academic circles?  How is that not a conspiracy?

 

If you believe there is good historical evidence for the Exodus as described in the Bible, you believe that for decades generations of academic historians have ignored that evidence for reasons that are not at all clear.  Own that.

 

(The truth is since the beginning of the study of Egyptian history by Europeans, there has been an effort to align Egyptian history with Biblical history.  And for the most part, it doesn't work.  As I've already stated, what is described in Exodus is an empire ending event.  It would be something that would cause the collapse of an ancient civilization.

 

And there's nothing close to that in the relevant time period of ancient Egyptian history and shifting things a few hundred years in either way doesn't help.)

Edited October 12, 2021 by PeterMP

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

Did you read the wikipedia link you posted?  The book was published in the 1995.  Rohl has been pushing his ideas since the 1980 and his ideas are a modification of even earlier ideas.

 

I graduated from high school in 1990.  The people that educated me in college were all essentially the greatest generation and baby boomers.  They are almost all dead or retired.  I'm even a youngish Gen-X.  Leaders in academic circles today are heavily Gen X.  Young academics today are millennials.

 

His ideas don't even get a mention on the wikipedia page on the origin if Israelites, were never popular, and aren't gaining popularity with younger generations of ancient civilization academics.

 

So yes, his ideas have been out there for decades and have been rejected by generations of historians.

 

If his ideas are reasonable and good (and even a non-expert like you can see that), what would you call the continued rejection of his ideas in larger main stream academic circles?  How is that not a conspiracy?

 

I did read the wiki I posted, and if you go down to reception many people respect the work, some even agree an adjustment needs to be made, but not the full 350 years.  1995 is not as long ago as I took you post to mean.

 

You know how science works, it takes a lot for a scientific community to change its mind on something, that doesn't make its collusion or a conspiracy of malicious intent.  Astronomy didn't gang up on Pluto out of spite for example.

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

If you believe there is good historical evidence for the Exodus as described in the Bible, you believe that for decades generations of academic historians have ignored that evidence for reasons that are not at all clear.  Own that.

 

They arent ignoring a 26 year old theory, they don't have enough evidence via radiocarbon dating to support the full 350 year shift nor do they agree on how to deal with raised conflicts. This is in the reception section of the wiki I posted.

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

(The truth is since the beginning of the study of Egyptian history by Europeans, there has been an effort to align Egyptian history with Biblical history.  And for the most part, it doesn't work.  As I've already stated, what is described in Exodus is an empire ending event.  It would be something that would cause the collapse of an ancient civilization.

 

Egypt had a couple ups and downs throughout its history and got passed around between different empires leading to its true end, that doesn't mean something like this has to completely collapse the empire out of existence.  Theres a lot of different attempts to explain the plagues as natural causes that actually happened, and another one I found interesting was the idea that Bible was describing the fall of a specific city in Egypt called Pi-Ramseses after its part of the nile delta started to dry up coinciding with the Sontarini eruption. Curiosity Stream has a three part documentary called Biblical Plagues that goes into this.

 

We're talking about an event that happened thousands of years ago.  I do believe that not everything in the Bible is true in its exactness and many times is merely building on actual events, like Sodom being destroyed by a meteor airbrust or the great flood being a description of the rapid rise of the black sea.  If we take the route of trying to prove the Bible happened exactly as described knowing the tendency for hyperbole,  parables, and analogies, we won't get far.

 

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

And there's nothing close to that in the relevant time period of ancient Egyptian history and shifting things a few hundred years in either way doesn't help.)

 

Debatable, but thats why we're here.

[PeterMP]

41 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

They arent ignoring a 26 year old theory, they don't have enough evidence via radiocarbon dating to support the full 350 year shift nor do they agree on how to deal with raised conflicts. This is in the reception section of the wiki I posted.

 

It isn't a 26 year old theory.  That's when he published the book.  That wasn't when the idea was come up with  He was pushing his ideas before that and the general idea is even older.

 

He published a small paper on his ideas in 1993:

 

http://www.newchronology.org/fullt/65.txt

 

It has been cited a whole 6 times (and twice by the same person so his work has been cited by 4 people).  That's something being ignored.

 

(His 2001 book does better in terms of numbers of citations, but it almost all other books or things like Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal.  There are only a few citations by main stream academic history journals, and they are all how he's wrong.

 

His work is being ignored by main stream historians.)

 

There isn't an ancient civilizations textbook out there that mentions it.  It isn't mentioned at all in the main wikipedia page on the history of the Israelites.  

 

Also, successful massive slave revolts that lead to the destruction of the countries army don't generally lead to the empire/country continuing.  And that doesn't even get into the first born being killed.  That's enough to cause a collapse in any other case in history.

Edited October 12, 2021 by PeterMP

[China]

A priest incorrectly performed thousands of baptisms for decades – by changing one word

 

A priest in Arizona resigned after he incorrectly performed baptisms for decades, possibly derailing the rite for thousands of people.

 

The Catholic Diocese of Phoenix on its website confirmed Fr. Andres Arango used the words “we baptize you in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit,” instead of the correct phrase “I baptize you in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit” in English and Spanish.

 

The diocese explained that the single incorrect word matters for worshippers because “it is not the community that baptizes a person and incorporates them into the Church of Christ; rather, it is Christ, and Christ alone, who presides at all sacraments.”

 

“Therefore, it is Christ who baptizes,” the diocese said. “If you were baptized using the wrong words, that means your baptism is invalid, and you are not baptized.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Recovering_Spaz]

I believe mankind is too stupid and self destructive to have gotten this far without some outside assistance. Now is that assistance divine? Is it a cheat code in a sim? Aliens? Take your pick.

 

I also believe there are 5000+ religions on this planet that claim to know the divine truth, and every single one of them is full of ****. 

 

 

[The Sisko]

21 hours ago, Recovering_Spaz said:

I believe mankind is too stupid and self destructive to have gotten this far without some outside assistance. Now is that assistance divine? Is it a cheat code in a sim? Aliens? Take your pick.

I assume you've heard the old adage that ________ works...until it doesn't. We might very well be in the "it's working" phase right now, just heading toward the "until it doesn't" phase. Besides, if we blow up the planet tomorrow and make ourselves extinct, does that in any way prove that there's no god? I could easily argue that assuming god is good, just, etc. that us blowing ourselves up proves he does exist because the human race is evil, wicked, disobedient, etc.

 

On 10/11/2021 at 9:39 PM, PeterMP said:

Right.  There's good evidence that Exodus happened but historians all over the world, which would include many Christians, have lied about it for some unclear reason (what does it mean that Egyptian history is a "yardmark"?  Different sites and artifacts are dated independently through radioistopoic dating) that nobody actually (financially, etc.) benefits from.

 

And I'll bet this secret conspiracy has been happening for decades.  Generations of historians have probably been lysing for no clear benefit to themselves.

I know you're just making a point, but it brings up something I've found find interesting for some time. Academic biblical scholars know that much of the book is forged, mistranslated, misinterpreted in standard dogma, etc. They go about their work quietly, writing papers, books and having scholarly arguments with others who differ with them on minutiae but with a shared understanding/agreement about the huge flaws in the basic premises of the bible and the faith. Pastors that go to seminary must read and learn some of this stuff and yet, they don't AFAIK seem to bring any of this up to their flocks. It's almost as if there's a scholarly pursuit of truth with a dual yet unrelated track of a faith-based pursuit of, well, money and power. I'd imagine there are certain seminaries that avoid such things in their teachings, but even then, one would expect that at least some students would run across some of these facts in the course of their research and ask difficult questions of their professors. Or perhaps those students know that's a quick way to get bounced, so they keep quiet to protect their investment in their education.

 

Quite frankly, I find it fascinating that such an open "secret" has been kept for so long. Maybe most people just don't care or don't want to know.

 

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

I'd like to thank "God" (or Him) [have to capitalize "Him" of course] for all the raping, pillaging, kidnapping, burning and other forms of torture.  "Here you go, here's billions of lives lost early due to stupid ass wars!"

 

Thanks God!

 

And thanks for giving my son cancer!

Edited February 17, 2022 by d0ublestr0ker0ll

[Riggo-toni]

If I had known this thread would devolve into a debate over the exodus, I would have jumped in sooner.

If you want a reasonable scholarly support of the exodus, read Hoffmeier's books.  Other good resources for alternate theories are Dever's Who were the Israelites and where did they come from, as well as Finkelstein's The Bible Unearthed.  Finkelstein's chronology on the monarchic period I think has been upended by the discovery of Khirbet Khiyafa (sp?), but he is still a reputable archaeologist. If you are a complete skeptic, go with Redford's book Ancient Egypt, Israel and Canaan.

Hoffmeier believes in the timeline that puts the exodus in the 12th century Ramses era (I forget the dynasty number), whereas Finkelstein and others point to the expulsion of the Hyksos at the end of the second intermediate period (as did Josephus).  There are problems with both - the Hyksos storyline matches up more closely with circumstances described in the Bible, but there is no evidence of migration/settlement in the fifteenth century; there does seem to be evidence for increased settlements in the 12th.

 

The supposed conquest in the Joshua narrative, on the other hand, contradicts both archaeology as well as other biblical narratives, particularly Judges. It is almost certainly a 7th century invention, probably sponsored by Josiah as propaganda to reconquer the north after the decline of Assyria.

[Jabbyrwock]

On 2/15/2022 at 10:42 AM, Recovering_Spaz said:

I believe mankind is too stupid and self destructive to have gotten this far

 

I believe mankind is not only stupid and self destructive, but insanely arrogant to think its gotten far at all.  Don't let the bits of shiny tech we've invented fool you: we are just a few mutations from hurling poop at each other as a form of self expression.  And hell...some of us still do...though I guess we call it "tweeting". 

[zCommander]

On 2/15/2022 at 12:42 PM, Recovering_Spaz said:

I believe mankind is too stupid and self destructive to have gotten this far without some outside assistance.

 

 

Biology and evolution says otherwise. The human brain kept on developing to better adjust to our surroundings for survival. No different than other species who do the same. Monkeys have been here longer than humans. Humans evolved from monkeys. We share 98.8% of the DNA with monkeys. Humans have evolved to what we are today and it has taken the human race over 300 million years to do so. Religion on the other hand is only couple of thousands years old. Religion is made by man to explain the unexplainable and the unseen. Back in the day humans didn't know where they came from and more important why they are here.. We all need a purpose. Religion was created to give us that purpose or at least tried to. 

 

This is how the religious believe things work: My wife prays for stuff and when they happen she says God listened to her prayer and it happened. It didn't matter that I was the one who actually got the client to sign an IT contract instead. My efforts are meaningless and wouldn't have happened if God didn't wanted to happen. We all need to believe in something to keep our brains cell sane or insane for some people. If praying for stuff was an actual reality then there would be no famine or poverty or diseases, or cancer, just to name a few, in the world.

 

Most of the kids these days don't believe in religion anyway like their parents do. Religion will become extinct in another couple of thousands years if not sooner. 

[The Sisko]

3 hours ago, zCommander said:

 

Biology and evolution says otherwise. The human brain kept on developing to better adjust to our surroundings for survival. No different than other species who do the same. Monkeys have been here longer than humans. Humans evolved from monkeys. We share 98.8% of the DNA with monkeys. Humans have evolved to what we are today and it has taken the human race over 300 million years to do so. Religion on the other hand is only couple of thousands years old. Religion is made by man to explain the unexplainable and the unseen. Back in the day humans didn't know where they came from and more important why they are here.. We all need a purpose. Religion was created to give us that purpose or at least tried to. 

I ain’t come frum no munkey.😉

I’d beg to differ about evolution. Organisms do adjust to their surroundings via mutations and natural selection but that takes way more time than the effects from our newfound capabilities will set in. I think we’re in a race against extinction now and we’re two or three lengths behind and doing our best to make it worse.

As for religion, I hope you’re right but I suspect as things get worse, more younger people will turn to religion to cope. 

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

Thank you God for the private schooler kid who prayed to you, who got run over today.  And the non-believer, who shuns you, and commits horrific crimes, for having it made.

 

Praise God.

Edited February 18, 2022 by d0ublestr0ker0ll

[Renegade7]

14 hours ago, zCommander said:

If praying for stuff was an actual reality then there would be no famine or poverty or diseases, or cancer, just to name a few, in the world.

 

 

Praying is not expected to protect everyone from every possible bad thing that could happen to us from happening to us.  This is Earth, not Heaven, bad things comes with the territory at minimum.

 

Anyone is welcome to believe what they want to believe, but I don't agree with holding religion to unrealistic standards like this jus for the sake of saying they are unrealistic. 

 

There are plenty of fair criticisms of religion, many I agree with, but what you are claiming here, this isn't one of them. 

 

As for religion going away, not buying it, if for any reason it's also unrealistic to say that everything will eventually be explained with science.  Science is predicated on what it can prove via scientific method with the humble admission to what it can't or hasn't yet. 

 

The observable universe is expanding, but that sphere of observability is finite, what is beyond that we may never know thus impossible for science to prove.  I'm not saying it has to or will be filled with religion, but that gap won't be able to be filled by science, and that's not the only place where that will be true.

 

Edit:    I remember praying for God to fix my previous most serious relationship, was doing step-daddy thing and all that, and he didn't.  If he did. I wouldn't of met nor married my wife. I can go every further as to why I don't believe the way my wife and I met was jus random chance of unrelated molecules just happening to be in the same place at the same time.

 

Bruce Almight starring Jim Carey also has an excellent parody of the "reply all yes" scenario you are proposing, and I totally agree that it would be chaos.

Edited February 18, 2022 by Renegade7

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

I "get" the praying thing.  I get caught in it too.

 

"Please...please, anyone, anything out there...make this better."

 

It's a desperation attempt to soothe your own emotions in a situation that is decided by reality.

 

Praying is useless, otherwise.  It's a selfish, albeit harmless, act.

Edited February 18, 2022 by d0ublestr0ker0ll

[Fresh8686]

When I pray, I ask god how their doing and if they need any help and if they have some spare time to look after my family. Does anybody else ask God how their doing and actually try to have a connection or do they only pray to ask for ****?

 

I don't know about other people, but I feel super loved and connected spiritually. I feel like I have a whole family of spirits watching over me and rooting for me. When I pray, I don't ask for crazy ****, because I understand how things have to have a natural process and the structural damage to the fabric of reality if we were to dramatically derail that process isn't worth it.

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

9 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

 When I pray, I don't ask for crazy ****, because I understand how things have to have a natural process and the structural damage to the fabric of reality if we were to dramatically derail that process isn't worth it.

 

Thats the crux of it.

 

It's a Universe of percentages.  Period.

 

Somebody will die from a piano falling on them.

 

Somebody will survive a horrific situation where everyone else died.

 

Must be God...

 

Give me a ****ing break.

[Renegade7]

27 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

When I pray, I ask god how their doing and if they need any help and if they have some spare time to look after my family. Does anybody else ask God how their doing and actually try to have a connection or do they only pray to ask for ****?

 

I don't know about other people, but I feel super loved and connected spiritually. I feel like I have a whole family of spirits watching over me and rooting for me. When I pray, I don't ask for crazy ****, because I understand how things have to have a natural process and the structural damage to the fabric of reality if we were to dramatically derail that process isn't worth it.

 

Especially in the early years of accepting and treating my bipolar disorder, yes, I was doing more then jus praying for stuff, I sometimes jus needed someone to talk to.  Sometimes talking it out can be jus as effective as being given a solution.

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

Man, I hate "jus"

 

Put the T in there.