What do you Believe??? (Religion)

[LD0506]

On a related note, I rec'd a sternly worded email from my lawyer to the effect that if I posted in this thread he would no longer be able to represent me.

[China]

Ultra-lifelike Jesus Christ 'with real human hair' created using Shroud of Turin

 

A lifelike model of Jesus Christ made of latex and silicon – and real human hair – all based on data collected from the famous Turin Shroud has been unveiled.

 

The sculpture even features all the wounds said to have been inflicted on the Messiah.

 

Some believe the Shroud of Turin, first mentioned in 1354, was the burial shroud that housed the body of Jesus after his crucifixion – although others have argued that it is an elaborate fake.

 

 

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

My daughters comment when she saw it:  "Why is he white?"

[purbeast]

As I've gotten older, I pretty much don't believe in ****.  I'd say it's like 95% I don't, and 5% I do.  Maybe even less.

 

I grew up in a catholic family, went to catholic school up until college, went to church, etc.  I got married in the church as well.  In hindsight, I wish I didn't and wish we did a destination wedding by the beach, but that's neither here nor there.

 

We got our first son baptized but haven't gotten our second one yet and it's bothering my mom.  I think we probably will get him baptized but he was born during covid and it just wasn't something we thought about really.  My wife is definitely more into religion than I am, but neither of us have even been to church in like 3 years.

 

It's kind of strange because it's really when my dad died in 2009 when my belief started to fade quite a bit.  He was the first person in my family to really die, other than grand parents I wasn't close to.  Then more people died in his family, then another.  It was sad but I started to get numb to it and it just made me think about everything.  

 

I believe the teachings of the church and values they instill are great and good way to raise a family and am all for that, aside from hating gays, priests banging little boys, etc.

 

I also believe that religion was just something that was created to control the masses.  We've even seen it big time in the past 6 years with Trump.

 

I don't believe there is a heaven or hell.  There is no magical place when you look up in the sky and see heaven where my dad is hanging out looking over me.  The stories in the bible are all fiction (talking about the miracles and Moses parting the sea, Adam and Eve, etc).  When you die, it's just over and that is a scary thought, which is one of the reasons I believe the concept of heaven was fabricated - to make people feel more at peace with dying, especially when explaining it to kids.

 

I actually struggle with this a bit because my son who is 7 prays and believes in heaven and stuff.  He thinks my dad is in heaven.  And of course I support him and don't steer him away.  Just like I don't tell him Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy aren't real.

 

Oh speaking of that, I had the conversation with my wife about how is us being told God is real any different than us telling our kids Santa Clause is fake?  

 

Anyways, I'm done rambling.  I just saw this thread and wanted to chime in.

[PleaseBlitz]

I have basically taken the tact with my 7 year old when she asks about religious stuff that some people believe in it (like her mom, sorta, and her grandma, a lot) and some people don't (me), and she gets to decide what she thinks.  I don't want being religious to be the default position and I'm certainly not going to lie to her about this.  I do, of course, lie to her about Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and other fictional characters. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, purbeast said:

It's kind of strange because it's really when my dad died in 2009 when my belief started to fade quite a bit.  He was the first person in my family to really die, other than grand parents I wasn't close to.  Then more people died in his family, then another.  It was sad but I started to get numb to it and it just made me think about everything.

 

I've pretty much been an atheist as long as I can remember despite growing up in a Catholic house.  One thing that always struck me as odd and probably one of my biggest hangups is how scared even very religious people are about dying.  Isn't heaven supposed to be so much better than the cesspool we call life?  I'd think they would be glad to pass on in a manner consistent with their beliefs. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

14 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

One thing that always struck me as odd and probably one of my biggest hangups is how scared even very religious people are about dying.  

Because they are sinners and they are afraid of going to hell. 🤷‍♀️

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Because they are sinners and they are afraid of going to hell. 🤷‍♀️

 

Not if they repent and are given final rights at death.  

[skinsmarydu]

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Because they are sinners and they are afraid of going to hell. 🤷‍♀️

We are all sinners.

Carry on smartly.

 

 

 

Edited October 19, 2022 by skinsmarydu

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, skinsmarydu said:

We are all sinners.

Carry on smartly.

 

 

 

I know, it wasn’t necessarily an accusation.

[Renegade7]

On 10/19/2022 at 12:47 PM, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

 One thing that always struck me as odd and probably one of my biggest hangups is how scared even very religious people are about dying.  

 

I don't know if that's a Catholic thing (as i dont know many Catholics), but I can't say that's been my experience with very religious people at all.

On 10/17/2022 at 3:22 PM, China said:

 

My daughters comment when she saw it:  "Why is he white?"

 

Aye, I believe the Shourd is a fake and agree this here was a waste of time.  

Edited October 21, 2022 by Renegade7

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 hours ago, skinsmarydu said:

We are all sinners.

Carry on smartly.

 

To be clear, I liked your post for the second sentence.

 

4 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I don't know if that's a Catholic thing (as i dont know many Catholics), but I can't say that's been my experience with very religious people at all.

 

 

I haven't been around enough death beds for my evidence to really be based on much. Probaby 8-9 people that were moderately to very religious.  But none of them seemed to welcome their deaths.  All were afraid on more than just a mild level.

 

I've also been thinking about it more the last few days since I just finished a good podcast on Dr. Kavorkian.

[Jabbyrwock]

6 hours ago, skinsmarydu said:

We are all sinners.

 

Some of us are better at it than others.

 

[Renegade7]

14 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

To be clear, I liked your post for the second sentence.

 

 

I haven't been around enough death beds for my evidence to really be based on much. Probaby 8-9 people that were moderately to very religious.  But none of them seemed to welcome their deaths.  All were afraid on more than just a mild level.

 

I've also been thinking about it more the last few days since I just finished a good podcast on Dr. Kavorkian.

 

Gotcha, my Dad's parents were both tired and ready, Grandma kept going to church until one thing after the other she liked to do she jus couldn't do anymore. 

 

Remember talking to her about Christmas one time, said once you get past 80 of them, Ain't much you haven't seen yet and really just about who you want to spend them with.

 

I'd say there's a difference between being afraid of the act of dying versus what comes after death (not saying anyone you describing wasnt afraid of the former or both). Dying, from what I've seen, doesn't look like a pleasant experience at all.  Some are "lucky" and it happens in their sleep, unconscious, or basically instantaneous.

 

Because I'm not convinced I'll ever be back, I don't want to be afraid I left anything on the table of what I wish I had said, and not think about whether my kids will be fine once it's completely out my hands.  Have to to jus empty the clip on that one, I want to say I did what I could and ready for what's next like my Grandma.

 

My Dad's best friend died of lung cancer in his 50s, Dad described him being afraid his final days. Not so much from is there a heaven or hell, but a combination of emotions from going way too young and his kids only being teenagers. Chemo is also a very brutal experience.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Renegade7

[TheGreatBuzz]

17 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

My Dad's best friend died of lung cancer in his 50s, Dad described him being afraid his final days. Not so much from is there a heaven or hell, but a combination of emotions from going way too young and his kids only being teenagers. Chemo is also a very brutal experience.

 

Same thing happened to my dad when I was 14.  He was still religious (Catholic) but was excommunicated due to a divorce earlier in life.  They didn't care that his wife at the time had some major mental health issues and had tried to kill him multiple times.  I think some of his fear was in not "knowing" (in his mind) whether he would be let past the pearly gates or not.

[ClaytoAli]

On 10/17/2022 at 3:22 PM, China said:

Ultra-lifelike Jesus Christ 'with real human hair' created using Shroud of Turin

 

A lifelike model of Jesus Christ made of latex and silicon – and real human hair – all based on data collected from the famous Turin Shroud has been unveiled.

 

The sculpture even features all the wounds said to have been inflicted on the Messiah.

 

Some believe the Shroud of Turin, first mentioned in 1354, was the burial shroud that housed the body of Jesus after his crucifixion – although others have argued that it is an elaborate fake.

 

 

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

My daughters comment when she saw it:  "Why is he white?"

need some explaining to people that have lived in that region of the world for thousands of years.

[The Sisko]

On 2/24/2022 at 7:23 PM, PeterMP said:

 

That people ran afoul of other people doesn't make the answer a bad answer, not the truth, and isn't really evidence that it isn't logical.  Any time your attack an argument is that some people didn't like it or it makes some people mad, that's a weak argument.  And isn't good evidence that the argument isn't true, reasonable, or logical.

 

But especially in the context of your argument, this is nonsensical.  I think all Christians are wrong and that God doesn't exist.  Oh but your argument is flawed because it makes some Christians unhappy.  How does that logic make any sense?

 

For centuries most cultures allowed and accepted some form of slavery.  People's concise didn't bother them with enough to end slavery.  If you showed up essentially anywhere on the planet in 1000 AD going back into ancient history from the start of human civilization and said that slavery is inherently wrong, essentially all of the population would have disagreed with you.  Things started to change when people started to look at religious text (in the west the Bible via Quakers) and said this is wrong.  What is largely self-evident to us today (that slavery is inherently wrong) was not self-evident to people for millennia.  And the fact that it is largely self-evident to us today is the work of people acting based on religious text, including the Bible.  It is easy to sit here today in world that has been shaped by religious texts and people thinking about the right things to do in the context of religious texts and say that people don't need religious text to do the right thing.  But history suggest otherwise.

 

The history of the Quran is different than the Bible, especially the OT.  The Quran is much more recent so there has simply been less time to accumulate differences, been much more in control of a central authority, and in an area and time where communication has been more seamless.  Keeping it constant didn't really require negating people's free will by God

 

(And this is where I honestly have to ask.  Can you not really see that yourself?  Can you really not look at the history of the Quran and the history of the Bible, especially the OT and not see why the Bible is likely to have accumulated changes that the Quran hasn't or are you just making stupid arguments without thinking?  Do you actually put any thought into what you are writing or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?)

 

There are lots of questions that remain unanswered about our universe.  That doesn't make the claim that our universe exist an extraordinary claim.  And you've simply repeated yourself.

 

If I went around and started saying that I'm 50 years old and never played a lick of professional basketball but I could still go score 50 in an NBA game, most people would say that doesn't seem true.  Most people would say the claim is likely false.  Then I could seeing I made an extraordinary claim.

 

The claim that there is a higher power is a claim that most people alive today and in history accept (I believe). 

 

I wouldn't claim that the existence of the Hindu gods is an extraordinary claim.  It isn't something that I personally believe.  But I wouldn't claim that everything that I don't believe in is an extraordinary claim.  Which is what you seem to be doing.

The Bible was used on both sides of the argument about slavery. What we can say for certain is that the people that wrote the Bible lived in a time when slavery was pretty much considered normal so of course the god they made up would agree with it. Those using the Bible to argue against slavery were extrapolating from other general ideals like like love and equity, but there are several passages in the Bible that explicitly tell slaves to obey their masters. However, if god really was all about love, equity, and the other Biblical reasoning the abolitionists used, you'd think he'd have simply commanded the faithful to not have slaves. It wouldn't have been popular, but it's not like a lot of the stuff god forbade or required followers to do were things people of the time found odd or off-putting. Besides, he's god and you've gotta do what he says...or else! To save you time, I'll add in the de rigueur response of "Well, that was probably on the tablet Moses broke".

 

And here's where I have to honestly ask whether you thought at all about your contention that the reason the Quran wasn't changed is it's age. The Quran was written roughly six or seven hundred years after the NT. Many of the Bible's forgeries, contradictions and changes came about long before seven hundred years had passed. In other words, seven hundred years after the Quran was written, all things being equal, we'd expect it to have as many changes and other issues as the NT in its seven hundredth year, right?. The reasons the Quran wasn't changed and the Bible was IMO had to do with the culture that grew up around each faith, not simply due to the passage of time.

 

Finally, regarding religion not making extraordinary claims, because so many believe in it makes no sense. So you expect me to believe that an omniscient, omnipotent, being decided he needed to break himself into three entities, one of which had to die and become a zombie so that he could atone for the sins of humanity is not an extraordinary claim simply because a bunch of people actually believe it? If religion isn't making extraordinary claims, why the need for faith then?  The idea that the number of adherents should give religious or any other ideas any degree of validity is obviously without merit. If that were the case, the stuff Tя☭mp, Q, and a host of others lay down could credibly be considered as being true.

 

On 2/24/2022 at 8:23 PM, Renegade7 said:

@The Sisko I saw your post with this in It and want to make time to address it:

 

 

Absolutely not. That is not what I'm saying at all.

 

I am sorry for your losses, I truly am.  Both my Dad's parents died from complications with cancer and went to church as much as they could all the way to end, and it didn't change that one bit.

 

We are humans, not immortals, we all know this and Bible even says that.  It is terrible what happened to your SIL and MIL, but i dont agree with implying that they died because God didn't care about them or they weren't Christian enough.

 

Let me know if you still don't understand my point you were quoting, and I noticed you have some of the same questions concerning human suffering with respect to God doing something (or "nothing") about it as @d0ublestr0ker0ll

 

Epicurus said it better than I ever could. “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?”

I've said this before but it bears repeating. I don't know whether there is a god or not but if you read the Bible, god did and commanded some pretty effed up stuff, e.g. the flood, the Job bet with Satan, killing up Egyptian babies, command to slaughter the Canaanites, etc. Mind you, all this came before the big U-turn into being all about love in the NT. So if it exists, I don't see how the fickle genocidal maniac god of the Jews/Xtians/Muslims has any moral standing to tell anyone how to live their lives. Besides, who would want to spend all eternity with a bunch of Eddie Haskells constantly praising god. The cool kids and the party will be down in hell.

[PeterMP]

6 hours ago, The Sisko said:

The Bible was used on both sides of the argument about slavery. What we can say for certain is that the people that wrote the Bible lived in a time when slavery was pretty much considered normal so of course the god they made up would agree with it. Those using the Bible to argue against slavery were extrapolating from other general ideals like like love and equity, but there are several passages in the Bible that explicitly tell slaves to obey their masters. However, if god really was all about love, equity, and the other Biblical reasoning the abolitionists used, you'd think he'd have simply commanded the faithful to not have slaves. It wouldn't have been popular, but it's not like a lot of the stuff god forbade or required followers to do were things people of the time found odd or off-putting. Besides, he's god and you've gotta do what he says...or else! To save you time, I'll add in the de rigueur response of "Well, that was probably on the tablet Moses broke".

 

And here's where I have to honestly ask whether you thought at all about your contention that the reason the Quran wasn't changed is it's age. The Quran was written roughly six or seven hundred years after the NT. Many of the Bible's forgeries, contradictions and changes came about long before seven hundred years had passed. In other words, seven hundred years after the Quran was written, all things being equal, we'd expect it to have as many changes and other issues as the NT in its seven hundredth year, right?. The reasons the Quran wasn't changed and the Bible was IMO had to do with the culture that grew up around each faith, not simply due to the passage of time.

 

Finally, regarding religion not making extraordinary claims, because so many believe in it makes no sense. So you expect me to believe that an omniscient, omnipotent, being decided he needed to break himself into three entities, one of which had to die and become a zombie so that he could atone for the sins of humanity is not an extraordinary claim simply because a bunch of people actually believe it? If religion isn't making extraordinary claims, why the need for faith then?  The idea that the number of adherents should give religious or any other ideas any degree of validity is obviously without merit. If that were the case, the stuff Tя☭mp, Q, and a host of others lay down could credibly be considered as being true.

 

Epicurus said it better than I ever could. “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?”

I've said this before but it bears repeating. I don't know whether there is a god or not but if you read the Bible, god did and commanded some pretty effed up stuff, e.g. the flood, the Job bet with Satan, killing up Egyptian babies, command to slaughter the Canaanites, etc. Mind you, all this came before the big U-turn into being all about love in the NT. So if it exists, I don't see how the fickle genocidal maniac god of the Jews/Xtians/Muslims has any moral standing to tell anyone how to live their lives. Besides, who would want to spend all eternity with a bunch of Eddie Haskells constantly praising god. The cool kids and the party will be down in hell.

 

So I see your reading comprehension and ability to follow or make an argument hasn't improved over time.  The most obvious case is how you've responded to my comments on the Koran.  You make it sound like I said the only difference is the age.  Having not remembered the post, I initially thought did I really write something so stupid.  However, going back and looking, it turns out that I didn't:

 

" The Quran is much more recent so there has simply been less time to accumulate differences, been much more in control of a central authority, and in an area and time where communication has been more seamless.  Keeping it constant didn't really require negating people's free will by God"

 

I've listed 3 differences where age is just one piece of it.

 

As for the Bible supporting slavery, with respect to my point, it doesn't really matter.  My point still stands in the context of the conversation.  Modern western moral and ethical values have been shaped by Christian moral and ethical values to the point where it is at best extremely difficult to know what modern and western values would look like if Christianity hadn't become the dominant religion in the west.

 

However, I will make a few points related to yours:

1.  The Bible clearly isn't meant to be communicate the correct moral/ethical behavior in any situation.  That would take an infinite text.

 

2.  It is clear in the Bible that God adapts his communication of proper moral/ethical behavior based on what people at the time and place are capable of.  This most directly comes in the Bible when Jesus is asked about why divorce was allowed in the Mosaic Law.  Jesus says it was related to the "hardness" of their hearts. i.e. that the people were communicated an ethical and moral code different than God was have liked because it was what was possible for them to follow it.

 

3.  You are undervaluing what the Bible says about slavery, and the value it had in ending slavery.  Yes, it says slaves should obey their master, but it also says maters should treat their slaves the same way. 

 

https://biblehub.com/nlt/ephesians/6.htm

 

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

 

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way."

 

In a situation where the slave must obey the master and the master must obey the slave, who is the slave?

 

So just saying that it says slaves should obey their masters is woefully incomplete.  It also goes further.  It says slaves should gain their freedom if they can:

 

"Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so."

 

Under such guidance things like running away and assisting run away slaves becomes a moral activity.

 

It also calls a list of groups of people lawless and disobedient, ungodly and sinners, the unholy and profane and then includes slave traders, murders, and others.

 

Are you really comparing the number of people that believe in the Q-anon stuff to the number of people that historically and globally been theist?

Faith is simply the belief in something without proof, which is something that we all do regularly and realistically daily on other issues.

 

I'll also go ahead and respond to some of your response to @Renegade7.  It has long been understood by anybody that thinks much about it, including Christians, that the concept of God's omnipotence is at best a vague idea and not clear what it actually means in to us and practically.

 

The historically and classically the point is made through the question "Can God make a rock that he can't lift?"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

 

Either yes or no indicates a God that isn't omnipotent.  If yes, then there's something that he can't left.  And if there's something he can't lift, he's clearly not omnipotent.  If the answer is no, then he's not omnipotent (there's something that he can't make.)

 

That God has created a situation where he's not "able" to intervene to stop evil (e.g. we have free will), I think is something most Christians who think much about faith and religion accept.  God's omnipotence is limited because he's also granted us freewill.

Edited October 21, 2022 by PeterMP

[Renegade7]

Feel like this has come up multiple times in regards to why does God "allow" terrible things to happen (and i am sensitive to it given the mass and personal examples we all see or have), so I want to add something that is strictly my opinion to this as food for thought:

 

God has shown capable of being very heavy handed with dealing with mass-scale evil and or sin.  Although some of the more famous examples are Old Testament, Pre New Covenant, the Book of Revelation lays out the prophecy for His plan to deal with pretty much every "evil" thing Himself.

 

And though I know a lot of Christians that can't wait for that to happen, I'm not one of them.  I'd rather us have the chance figure some of our **** out on our own then Him to come down and "figure it all out for us" like that.

 

TL;DR - be careful what you wish for...

Edited October 21, 2022 by Renegade7

[The Sisko]

11 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

So I see your reading comprehension and ability to follow or make an argument hasn't improved over time.  The most obvious case is how you've responded to my comments on the Koran.  You make it sound like I said the only difference is the age.  Having not remembered the post, I initially thought did I really write something so stupid.  However, going back and looking, it turns out that I didn't:

 

" The Quran is much more recent so there has simply been less time to accumulate differences, been much more in control of a central authority, and in an area and time where communication has been more seamless.  Keeping it constant didn't really require negating people's free will by God"

 

I've listed 3 differences where age is just one piece of it.

 

As for the Bible supporting slavery, with respect to my point, it doesn't really matter.  My point still stands in the context of the conversation.  Modern western moral and ethical values have been shaped by Christian moral and ethical values to the point where it is at best extremely difficult to know what modern and western values would look like if Christianity hadn't become the dominant religion in the west.

 

However, I will make a few points related to yours:

1.  The Bible clearly isn't meant to be communicate the correct moral/ethical behavior in any situation.  That would take an infinite text.

 

2.  It is clear in the Bible that God adapts his communication of proper moral/ethical behavior based on what people at the time and place are capable of.  This most directly comes in the Bible when Jesus is asked about why divorce was allowed in the Mosaic Law.  Jesus says it was related to the "hardness" of their hearts. i.e. that the people were communicated an ethical and moral code different than God was have liked because it was what was possible for them to follow it.

 

3.  You are undervaluing what the Bible says about slavery, and the value it had in ending slavery.  Yes, it says slaves should obey their master, but it also says maters should treat their slaves the same way. 

 

https://biblehub.com/nlt/ephesians/6.htm

 

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

 

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way."

 

In a situation where the slave must obey the master and the master must obey the slave, who is the slave?

 

So just saying that it says slaves should obey their masters is woefully incomplete.  It also goes further.  It says slaves should gain their freedom if they can:

 

"Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so."

 

Under such guidance things like running away and assisting run away slaves becomes a moral activity.

 

It also calls a list of groups of people lawless and disobedient, ungodly and sinners, the unholy and profane and then includes slave traders, murders, and others.

 

Are you really comparing the number of people that believe in the Q-anon stuff to the number of people that historically and globally been theist?

Faith is simply the belief in something without proof, which is something that we all do regularly and realistically daily on other issues.

 

I'll also go ahead and respond to some of your response to @Renegade7.  It has long been understood by anybody that thinks much about it, including Christians, that the concept of God's omnipotence is at best a vague idea and not clear what it actually means in to us and practically.

 

The historically and classically the point is made through the question "Can God make a rock that he can't lift?"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

 

Either yes or no indicates a God that isn't omnipotent.  If yes, then there's something that he can't left.  And if there's something he can't lift, he's clearly not omnipotent.  If the answer is no, then he's not omnipotent (there's something that he can't make.)

 

That God has created a situation where he's not "able" to intervene to stop evil (e.g. we have free will), I think is something most Christians who think much about faith and religion accept.  God's omnipotence is limited because he's also granted us freewill.

Three things. First, you're correct that I missed the second and third reasons you cited. I'm not sure how I did, but it happened. Second, you and I both know there's a huge difference between a manufactured paradox and an entity choosing whether to do something within its power or not. Finally, I hope you don't talk that way to your family and friends.

[PleaseBlitz]

On 10/19/2022 at 5:30 PM, Renegade7 said:

Aye, I believe the Shourd is a fake and agree this here was a waste of time.

 

I don't "believe" the shroud of Turin is a fake, I "know" that it is a fake.  In addition to the whole story behind it being obvious nonsense, the Vatican stupidly allowed it to be radiocarbon dated in the late 80's and, surprise surprise, it was found by 3 different testers, to date to 1260–1390 AD, which is obviously over a thousand years after Jesus was around. 

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I don't "believe" the shroud of Turin is a fake, I "know" that it is a fake.  In addition to the whole story behind it being obvious nonsense, the Vatican stupidly allowed it to be radiocarbon dated in the late 80's and, surprise surprise, it was found by 3 different testers, to date to 1260–1390 AD, which is obviously over a thousand years after Jesus was around. 

 

Fair, plenty of documentaries blowing holes in that artifact over the years...

[PeterMP]

I did want to make the point that any point related to the violence of God in the OT has to be taken into account in the context of for many Christians that the whole Bible is not meant to be taken literally.

 

The idea that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and should be taken literally as a main stream idea among many Christians is relatively recent.

 

If Exodus didn't happen as described in the Bible and the book of Job didn't literally happen and was meant in a proverbial sense, it doesn't really change my beliefs.

 

Most secular historians don't think Exodus happened as described in the Bible. I'm fine with that.

 

That the point of the Book of Job isn't to give an accurate historical record on the life of an actual human called Job but is instead to teach some lessons doesn't bother me.

 

I'll even go further.  I expect that the Bible has "errors" and false additions and even likely some subtractions.  God not allowing that to happen would require the violation of people's freewill.  Which then runs into issues with a basic premise of Christianity.  Given the time and situations over the content of the Bible were collected, people were going to make mistakes.  God allows us to make mistakes and even do bad things as part of allowing us to have free will.

Edited October 21, 2022 by PeterMP

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Dang, for some reason when I went to the website I pictured the people behind the “He Gets Us” campaign to be progressive church leaders and minorities. Turns out it’s the same grifters as before trying to repackage the same **** in a more appetizing box. I don’t know why i was surprised.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/11/us/he-gets-us-super-bowl-commercials-cec/index.html

 

The campaign has connections to anti-LGBT and anti-abortion laws 

The chain of influence behind “He Gets Us” can be followed through public records and information on the campaign’s own site. The campaign is a subsidiary of The Servant Foundation, also known as the Signatry. 

According to research compiled by Jacobin, a left-leaning news outlet, The Servant Foundation has donated tens of millions to the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group. The ADF has been involved in several legislative pushes to curtail LGBTQ rights and quash non-discrimination legislation in the Supreme Court. 

 

[Renegade7]

On 2/11/2023 at 9:28 AM, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Dang, for some reason when I went to the website I pictured the people behind the “He Gets Us” campaign to be progressive church leaders and minorities. Turns out it’s the same grifters as before trying to repackage the same **** in a more appetizing box. I don’t know why i was surprised.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/11/us/he-gets-us-super-bowl-commercials-cec/index.html

 

The campaign has connections to anti-LGBT and anti-abortion laws 

The chain of influence behind “He Gets Us” can be followed through public records and information on the campaign’s own site. The campaign is a subsidiary of The Servant Foundation, also known as the Signatry. 

According to research compiled by Jacobin, a left-leaning news outlet, The Servant Foundation has donated tens of millions to the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group. The ADF has been involved in several legislative pushes to curtail LGBTQ rights and quash non-discrimination legislation in the Supreme Court. 

 

 

I'm glad you posted this, because I was about to look in to them.

 

The commercials are still helpful in opening dialog concerning what Jesus was "like" versus constantly trying to ban stuff because "Jesus wouldn't like it".

 

Still a net positive, i guess, but It's like finding out the Koch Brothers donate tons of dollars to PBS in reverse...😒

[PleaseBlitz]

It's the Hobby Lobby guy.  So on the one hand, he's using his money to force his religious beliefs (primarily concerning gay people and abortion) on everyone through lobbying and litigation, and then at the same time, he's using his money to try to put a positive and upbeat gloss on it.