Hey how ya doing, yeppers that'd be Wisconsin. Trade ya for that southern place, anyday.Originally Posted by The Diabolical Mr. Lieman
Hey how ya doing, yeppers that'd be Wisconsin. Trade ya for that southern place, anyday.
It was actually supposed to be a joke that I was Jorn, or whatever the Wolf God was....but it really didnt come off well at all. Oh well.
Yeah, I dont know. You got lakes and shit. As long as Im on the coast, Im cool, which Im not, so....
This is actually common for most atheists. While I myself haven't read the entire bible cover to cover I've read a good deal of it and I'm familiar with most of the stories. But it seems that the deeper people study religion especially from different points of view is what generally leads to atheism. It's like the human mind can only hold so much bullshit before it implodes. But I haven't read the entire bible because it's a lousy read. Most boring work of fiction I've ever tried to read. Trying to read it as effective as popping a sleeping pill. Perfect cure for insomnia.
I'm no christian, but I've heard that bullshit time and time again, and I've watched, listened to, and read debates, and almost 100% of the time, the atheists who've read it from cover to cover don't know it a fraction as well as the Christians, who have read it from cover to cover over a hundred fucking times, lofl.
That "I've read it too" stuff is tired old shit, and frankly, it gets boring.
JFC. This thread is still active?
It's like I was never gone up in here.
Here's Raptor Jesus for your time:
I don't believe most Christians actually read the book cover to cover. They tend to cherry-pick what supports their arguments or beliefs and ignore everything else. Those that do read it cover to cover don't do so with an open mind because the bible is the complete opposite of the moral compass Christians claim it to be. It's a horrible book full of inappropriate sex, violence, subjugation of women, slavery, child abuse... etc. When that shit is pointed out Christians become apologetics and make bullshit excuses for it like, "It was just how people lived back then" My ass. The god of the OT is a like a spoiled sociopathic child that resorts to genocide when he doesn't get his way. This god CONDONED rape, murder, slavery, and child abuse. It wasn't just how people lived. They lived that way because they claimed their god accepted it.
Reading the OT I don't feel loved by this god. Not one fucking bit.
Forgive me for quoting old shit here. I'm new to this site and this thread. A good friend of mine recommended me.
Anyway, the burden of proof lies on those who make extraordinary claims, not on those who don't believe in them. Disproving the existence of a supernatural being for which no evidence for the existence of said being exists in the first place is an impossibility. Asking an atheist to disprove the existence of any god is like asking someone disprove the existence of the Tooth Fairy.
I certainly know that, in my experience, the Christians who've read the Bible in its entirety are pretty dramatically outnumbered by those who haven't.
Furthermore, simply reading the Bible does not guarantee understanding and retention anymore than a child reading a physics text book might understand and retain it. Studying it, like Swivel did, in an objective atmosphere (as I expect he did) trumps your standard, hyper-idealized Bible study any day of the week in terms of genuine knowledge.
I also agree with Lieman, though - that particular argument is pretty stale and redundant. If a person knows a shitload about the Bible, it will be obvious. Then again, swivel's always been like the basketball player who runs around telling people he's tall. Hopefully, the success with the book will knock some of that out of him.
"Now that ceaseless exposure has calloused us to the lewd and the vulgar, it is instructive to see what still seems wicked to us. What still slaps the clammy flab of our submissive consciousness hard enough to get our attention?"
Hi,,,may I ask a question please in re: The Bible ?
(I have never sat down & read the bible, just raised Catholic, that was only exposure)
I thought it was generally accepted that the OT is just a bunch of stories & fables used to scare people straight, it is not to be taken word for word, and
The NT was put together by King Constantine of Greece when converted to Christianity some 300 years after Jesus died. He relied on writings of people's memories of Christ, that he deemed important, making it very iffy; so it's not to be taken word for word either.
I have never discussed the bible with anyone, mostly because it doesn't interest me because I basically think of it as a work of fiction,,,,,,
My question is Am I wrong to think of the bible they way I do? Am I missing something?
I hope I explained that right, I don't mean to sound so ignorant but reading this thread made me want to ask, Thanks.
The Mad Hatter:
Have I gone mad?
Alice:
I’m afraid so. You’re entirely bonkers. But I’ll tell you a secret. All the best people are.
Nice post DA, Yeah I never cared much for the OT God, to much fear based worshiping. Who wants a God you have to be scared of 24/7 ????
Some people are like Slinkies. They aren’t really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to my face when I push them down a flight of stairs.
Meh. Argument is invalid, because nobody believes in the Tooth Fairy, but lots of people believe they've had personal experiences with God. Belief in a higher power is far from an extraordinary claim - in fact, if majority rules, then lack of belief in a higher power is extraordinary given the definition of the word.
Personal experience is not evidence, but it forms the basis of belief, whether one believes in residual hauntings or psychic energy or Ra or that Red Bull gives you wings. You can't prove faith - you either have it, or you don't.
When science progresses to the point that the origin of the universe is both discoverable and provable, then one can prove or disprove God. Until then, it's not possible to do either. (Yeah, I just agreed with Lieman. Somebody screenshot.)
The majority of people in the world believe in a higher power and an alternate reality after death. While not scientific, the very common threads in near-death experiences indicate that either the human brain is wired to experience an afterlife at the moment of clinical death, or there's something there. I guess I'll find out when I'm dead. Until then I'm not going to closet myself into one belief set.
Last edited by impqueen; September 3rd, 2009 at 12:35 PM.
But I don't say it is fact. I never claim to KNOW there is a Creator, a God, or whathaveyou. I'm not saying all atheists claim to know there is NOT one either.
But there have been plenty who speak of it as fact, and it isn't. You don't know it to be, I don't know it to be, and that's the bottom line. The burden of proof would be on me, if I claimed I KNEW anything to be true, just like the burden falls on an atheist who claims otherwise.
Previous post....as for the Bible, I completely agree, it's not a very loving book, and sure doesn't make me feel all cozy inside about Jesus. But to say you think most Christians cherry pick sounds to me, jaded. Maybe plenty do, but the christians I have known have read it more than a bunch. Some of them, it's all they know. It's disturbing, but I won't take that away from them.
I wouldn't call that 100% accurate groovy135, but thats a good place to start, to really understand what its saying. But that just my opinion.
Last edited by Tazzzz; September 3rd, 2009 at 12:41 PM.
Some people are like Slinkies. They aren’t really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to my face when I push them down a flight of stairs.
I believe most devout Christians believe the Old Testament is the literal word of God. The whole creationist ideology comes from the book of Genesis of the bible. There's a $27 Million monstrosity erected in honor of it down in Kentucky. These people actually believe the earth is about 6,000-10,000 years old and there was a global flood that wiped out humanity which is all Old Testament stuff
That would be Emperor Constantine of Rome actually and you're referring to the Nicean Council. First one was in 325 AD. There are no writings of people's memories of Christ. The earliest gospels were written nearly a century after Christ's alleged death. The Council of Nicea decided which books would make up what we today know of as the bible. Several books didn't make the cut. The whole thing was to shape an ideology, not about historical accuracy.The NT was put together by King Constantine of Greece when converted to Christianity some 300 years after Jesus died. He relied on writings of people's memories of Christ, that he deemed important, making it very iffy; so it's not to be taken word for word either.
I don't think so. Although I think it is odd to consider yourself a Christian or Catholic if you don't believe your religious text is factual.I have never discussed the bible with anyone, mostly because it doesn't interest me because I basically think of it as a work of fiction,,,,,,
My question is Am I wrong to think of the bible they way I do? Am I missing something?
I hope I explained that right, I don't mean to sound so ignorant but reading this thread made me want to ask, Thanks.
No, you're not wrong, any more than people who choose to take it as the inspired Word of God are wrong.
If the Old Testament is taken literally, then we are all fucked, because our sins include eating the wrong food. There is no age of legal consent in the Bible, so many pedophiles would see their victims killed for their sin. God as protrayed in the OT is often vicious, wrathful, and oblivious to justice.
Later, during or after the phenomenal rise of the Christian faith, theology had to change to accommodate non-Jews who did not observe the Law. The New Testament Jesus is quoted as saying that there is no more old Law; that the New Covenant of faith is all that's required except to those who are called by God into further service. (That's a passage in Matthew, I think, and most Christians choose to ignore it.)
Further, there are many similarities between ancient texts from Sumer circa 10,000 BC and stories told in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. Most evangelical Christians don't like that.
I think that a healthy way to look at spirituality and belief is from an introspective standpoint. Read the common spiritual guides of many faiths, extract the similarities, and then decide what, if anything, you choose to believe.
I know a fair number of Christians, and with very few exceptions, the culture even of evangelicalism is not that extreme. Many Christians believe in both evolution and creation, whether they'll admit it in church or not. Generally the seven days of creation is explained by stating that "God's time is not our time", and that the origin of the Hebrew word "days" as written in Genesis can be translated loosely as "time periods". This allows them to believe both science and their faith. Creation science has been such a bear for moderate and liberal Christians that even my alma mater, a huge Baptist university, fired a professor who was teaching it.
Granted. The Apocrypha makes for some really interesting reading, because one of the books discusses Jesus' siblings. That whole book was cut to accommodate the belief that Mary remained a virgin after marriage. And that's just the beginning of the fun stuff.
That would be Emperor Constantine of Rome actually and you're referring to the Nicean Council. First one was in 325 AD. There are no writings of people's memories of Christ. The earliest gospels were written nearly a century after Christ's alleged death. The Council of Nicea decided which books would make up what we today know of as the bible. Several books didn't make the cut. The whole thing was to shape an ideology, not about historical accuracy.
Which is a little like saying that just because you don't like the iPhone user manual, haven't read it, or think some of it is poorly done, you won't buy the product. :)Although I think it is odd to consider yourself a Christian or Catholic if you don't believe your religious text is factual.
Last edited by impqueen; September 3rd, 2009 at 01:02 PM. Reason: clarity. The Apocrypha is not ~one book.
(I have never sat down & read the bible, just raised Catholic, that was only exposure)Not to be nitpicky , but I don't think groovy135 was claiming to be a Christian or Catholic, only that she was raised that way. I was raised in a Pentecostal church but I am more or less a pagan.
Last edited by Tazzzz; September 3rd, 2009 at 01:04 PM.
Some people are like Slinkies. They aren’t really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to my face when I push them down a flight of stairs.
I was simply making a point. But if you want to put it that way then I'll say that asking an atheist to disprove in a god is the same as asking a Christian to disprove the existence of a Hindu god. And yes belief in a god is indeed an extraordinary claim. Just because many people believe in a false idea it's still a false idea. Consider how many religions there are in the world. They can't all be right can they? So there are literally millions if not billions of people who have false ideas and this makes their claims extraordinary. What makes the "personal experience" a Christian has with their god any more valid than the "personal experience" a Hindu believer has in theirs?
As an atheist I don't subscribe to absolute certainty. Not many atheists do. While I don't believe any gods exist I don't claim to know they don't. I just refuse to live my life as if a god does exist especially if we don't know which god it is or if there more than one until I have evidence supporting the existence of a god.The majority of people in the world believe in a higher power and an alternate reality after death. While not scientific, the very common threads in near-death experiences indicate that either the human brain is wired to experience an afterlife at the moment of clinical death, or there's something there. I guess I'll find out when I'm dead. Until then I'm not going to closet myself into one belief set.
Last edited by DeafAtheist; September 3rd, 2009 at 01:54 PM. Reason: Needed to close a quote tag.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
1 Member(s) liked this post
Good point. I shouldn't have assumed. I too was raised Catholic. Became an atheist by choice as a teenager.
Ironically shortly after embracing my atheism I fell in love with a devout Christian. Long story short... we broke up, she married her college boyfriend who became a church pastor, 15 years later had an affair with me that resulted in a son I have full custody of and after her divorce couldn't hold a relationship together with me between us because of...
Religious differences.
I didn't mean to imply that most do, just a great many do. I do know that most Christians accept the theory of evolution, but the point I was trying to make is that a good number of Christians do believe the bible is the literal word of God.
It certainly does. If I remember correctly wasn't Jesus supposed to have been married in one of them too?Granted. The Apocrypha makes for some really interesting reading, because one of the books discusses Jesus' siblings. That whole book was cut to accommodate the belief that Mary remained a virgin after marriage. And that's just the beginning of the fun stuff.
You called my Tooth Fairy argument invalid then threw this at me? This is apples and oranges. The entire Christian theology is based on the bible. Particularly the NT. If one thinks the entire book is fiction then they are basically believing in the divinity of a fictional character in a fictional book. That would be akin to someone deciding that the Wizard of Oz was a real god despite the book being a work of fiction.Which is a little like saying that just because you don't like the iPhone user manual, haven't read it, or think some of it is poorly done, you won't buy the product. :)
See, this is where people get into all kinds of silliness. You can't definitively say it's false when the majority says it's true simply because your personal belief system subscribes only to science. I would never deign to disprove the existence of a Hindu god, because how would I know? For all I know there is a divine spaghetti monster with many tentacles. There may not be, but that doesn't give me the right to say that there isn't one when I have no quantifiable evidence other than personal experience either way.
Put it this way, just for fun. Say someone who is a virgin tells you s/he's gay. Do you believe that they know it, regardless of personal experience, based solely on their belief? Or do you think s/he's crazy because s/he can't prove it with quantifiable evidence of homosexuality? Do you believe that a virgin can be straight or gay without any physical evidence either way? Or do you instead take the view that whatever they know in themselves to be true is true for him or her, and let it ride?
That's why spirituality is difficult to quantify - because it's based in personal opinion, faith, and experience. But someone can believe they are Christian (or Hindu, or Jewish, or whatever) with little or no personal experience. They just know in themselves, and that feels true to them. It doesn't make them wrong or false or necessarily even misguided. Their truth is simply not yours, that's all. In the absence of evidence one way or another it makes no sense to proselytize for atheism any more than it makes sense for Westboro Baptist Church to hold up their hateful signs. All it does is piss reasonable people off.
Personally, I'm not ready to tell anyone that his or her belief system is wrong unless it hurts people. And even then - they can believe whatever, as long as they are able to control their behavior to societal norms. However, I think you're overlooking the possibility that a bigger truth might be located in the study of religious pluralism - that most monotheistic religions ascribe to essentially similar belief systems. They just call them different names. Even polytheistic religions are not dissimilar from the Trinity concept of Christianity. In the end, most moderate, sane people who ascribe to a religion believe similar things, regardless of the window dressing. It's when people become extreme in their views that wars happen and people get hurt.Consider how many religions there are in the world. They can't all be right can they? So there are literally millions if not billions of people who have false ideas and this makes their claims extraordinary. What makes the "personal experience" a Christian has with their god any more valid than the "personal experience" a Hindu believer has in theirs?
Then you are living by your truth, and that's admirable. I'll admit your truth looks more like agnosticism than hard-line atheism to me, but that's not my call.As an atheist I don't subscribe to absolute certainty. Not many atheists do. While I don't believe any gods exist I don't claim to know they don't. I just refuse to live my life as if a god does exist especially if we don't know which god it is or if there more than one until I have evidence supporting the existence of a god.
I do think it'll be really interesting to die. I think I'm likely to be quite surprised.
:)
Yep. In fact, after reading the Apocrypha as a child I found the entire Jesus thing way more believable and realistic than before I read it. I haven't read it since I was eleven. I should probably go back and give the books another look.
Ah, but see there you go thinking in black and white again. A person can believe that the modern Bible is not literal, and even wrong in places, without throwing out the manuscripts on which they are based. This is why people get into translation from the earliest possible texts - to see what, if any, truth can be gleaned from works much closer to the original than King James or even the Nicean Council had in mind.You called my Tooth Fairy argument invalid then threw this at me? This is apples and oranges. The entire Christian theology is based on the bible. Particularly the NT. If one thinks the entire book is fiction then they are basically believing in the divinity of a fictional character in a fictional book. That would be akin to someone deciding that the Wizard of Oz was a real god despite the book being a work of fiction.
I think there is reasonable historical evidence for the existence of a guy named Joshua who was born in the Bethlehem area sometime during the summer in a three-year period of the reign of one of the Herods. I think it's reasonable to say that his mother got knocked up as a minor, that his dad was older and a widower who had been an Essene at one point, and that there were Jews who believed Josh fulfilled prophecies written before his birth. There are multiple early sources talking about this guy, and that he pissed off both the Jewish leaders and the Romans who were occupying much of the Middle East at that time, and that he was executed for it.
But faith doesn't require the total abandonment of common sense. It's entirely possible to say "I like many of the tenets of the Bible, but some of them are stupid, and I like that Josh guy, but many of his followers are asshats". That's kinda where I come out on the faith scale. I'm also a big fan of Christopher Moore's take on the whole thing.
And actually, if I was gonna go to the Church of L. Frank Baum I'd probably be in the modern, liberal Elphaba Reformed Movement, because fictional or not, I like what she has to say about stuff. It's just a matter of interpretation.
I'm not saying all theists are false. Nor am I saying specific ones are. Maybe the Christians are right. Maybe the Muslims. Maybe the Hindus. Maybe the Jews. The point is they can't all be right and therefore that would make those who aren't right false yet they believe it so that would make their beliefs false regardless of the number of people who hold it. So the original point I was making is that just because the majority of people share a common idea that doesn't make the idea true.
Once again apples and oranges. Sexual orientation isn't a belief. It's based on a person's sexual preference. A straight person or gay person isn't straight or gay based on who they've shagged. It's based on who they're attracted to. So yes. A virgin saying he or she was gay would be stating a fact, regardless of the fact that they've never shagged anyone. They are gay for the simple fact they are ATTRACTED to the same sex. Even if a gay person had sex with a member of the opposite sex and enjoyed it doesn't mean it would change their preference for the same sex even if they also had sex with a member of the same sex and it sucked. Because sexual orientation isn't about how enjoyable sex is with one or another gender. It's about which gender you're physically attracted to.Put it this way, just for fun. Say someone who is a virgin tells you s/he's gay. Do you believe that they know it, regardless of personal experience, based solely on their belief? Or do you think s/he's crazy because s/he can't prove it with quantifiable evidence of homosexuality? Do you believe that a virgin can be straight or gay without any physical evidence either way? Or do you instead take the view that whatever they know in themselves to be true is true for him or her, and let it ride?
I disagree. People believe what they believe because of exposure to the belief mainly by being indoctrinated to the belief as an impressionable child. So they've had PLENTY of personal experience with it. In the cases of people who changed their beliefs from what their parents instilled in them like myself who became an atheist by choice despite being raised a Catholic is I branched out and tried experiencing something else because the Catholicism didn't seem right to me. But the point is it was a personal experience. No one chooses a religion without it.That's why spirituality is difficult to quantify - because it's based in personal opinion, faith, and experience. But someone can believe they are Christian (or Hindu, or Jewish, or whatever) with little or no personal experience. They just know in themselves, and that feels true to them. It doesn't make them wrong or false or necessarily even misguided. Their truth is simply not yours, that's all. In the absence of evidence one way or another it makes no sense to proselytize for atheism any more than it makes sense for Westboro Baptist Church to hold up their hateful signs. All it does is piss reasonable people off.
But like I said all the religions can't be right so even if one of them is that makes the rest of them wrong and therefore false. If none of them are real then they all are false. We just have no way of knowing at this point which of them if any is real so we resort to choosing one or none based on our own personal experiences or opinions.
I don't proselytize atheism. I don't expect to deconvert anyone. If I was I'd have been working on deconverting my son's mother for the past 16 years. As Pat Condell said, "Evangelizing to people who don't want to hear it is such a tasteless thing to do. It's like exposing yourself in public." However, I DO enjoy debating religion. I see it as an exchange of opinions, not trying to convince anyone they're wrong or that I'm right. It's simply a disagreement.
I won't tell anyone they're wrong either. I don't know that they are. I simply believe they are, but unless I know something to be a fact I won't express it as truth. But that's the difference between an atheist and a theist. A theist will assert that their beliefs are factual when they are based on a belief. An atheist won't give any degree of certainty to their beliefs because they know there's a possibility that they are wrong.Personally, I'm not ready to tell anyone that his or her belief system is wrong unless it hurts people. And even then - they can believe whatever, as long as they are able to control their behavior to societal norms. However, I think you're overlooking the possibility that a bigger truth might be located in the study of religious pluralism - that most monotheistic religions ascribe to essentially similar belief systems. They just call them different names. Even polytheistic religions are not dissimilar from the Trinity concept of Christianity. In the end, most moderate, sane people who ascribe to a religion believe similar things, regardless of the window dressing. It's when people become extreme in their views that wars happen and people get hurt.
You're right Jews, Muslims, and Christians are Abrahamic religions... that is they all believe in the God of Abraham. But most Christians will adamantly deny that their god is the same god the Muslims call "Allah". The only difference between them is Jews and Muslims simply see Jesus as a wise teacher and prophet, not a divine god or son of a god. Muslims have a different prophet that Jews and Christians don't recognize. But you're wrong about the Holy Trinity being similar to polytheism. Most Christians don't even subscribe to the Holy Trinity. It's mainly a Catholic thing. But the Trinity represents an individual god that basically takes 3 different forms, but it's all the same god to them. The closest Catholics get to polytheism is their near worship of their saints and the Virgin Mary.
The difference between me an actual agnostic is that while I don't claim to be certain no gods exist. I believe they don't exist. I've taken an position of belief. An agnostic hasn't done that. An agnostic sits on the fence and says they don't know what to believe. They are more willing to accept the possibility of a god... possibly even on faith. An atheist will not. An atheist requires nothing short of rational, logical empirical evidence. Not only am I an atheist, I'm an anti-theistic atheist. I despise all religions and have no respect for them. This doesn't mean I despise or disrespect religious people. I just hate the organizations. I find them to be a plague on humanity that do more harm than good.Then you are living by your truth, and that's admirable. I'll admit your truth looks more like agnosticism than hard-line atheism to me, but that's not my call.
I think it's more likely you'll simply be quite dead.I do think it'll be really interesting to die. I think I'm likely to be quite surprised.
:)
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
1 Member(s) liked this post
Welcome to the boards DeafAtheist, I'm really enjoying your posts. We used to have a thanks button to demonstrate agreement; instead I will take the time to type out the fact that I haven't disagreed with you so far.
Just kind of wishing more theists would chime in to offer their opinions....
I died 2 times so far, well more than that but clinically dead 2 times. My experiences at thoughs times, had a big effect on my spiritual beliefs, in life after death and reincarnation. Well that and the one time at the dentist, when the assistant accidentally cranked the gas up to far and it gave me a out of body experience. When death comes and takes your ass, you tend to see things a little different after that.DeafAtheist says: I think it's more likely you'll simply be quite dead.
Some people are like Slinkies. They aren’t really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to my face when I push them down a flight of stairs.
Tazzz,
You were absolutely right LOL, I no longer practice any religion, I just try to live by the golden rule; Do unto others as you would do to yourself> I must thank all of you for your deep insight and vast knowledge. This thread is much food for thought, you all just blow me away, again thanks to you all!
Wow, DeafAtheist, I'm sorry for that. I never had that experience,,,that's one of the reasons I don't go for religion, it rips too many people up in the name of God. It's cool you have a son :)
The Mad Hatter:
Have I gone mad?
Alice:
I’m afraid so. You’re entirely bonkers. But I’ll tell you a secret. All the best people are.
More believable? Really? The canonized bible alone is so riddled with contradictions that I can't imagine the Apocrypha clearing it up any better. But if you want to read it again you can find it online here:
http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/
Personally I don't believe an historical Christ ever existed. Why? Because there are no sources outside of the bible and other religious texts that document it. The period of time Jesus Christ allegedly lived is one of the most well-documented periods in history. The time of Julius Caesar and the rise of the Roman Empire. So I find it hard to believe that a man who was as controversial and influential as Jesus allegedly was completely escaped historical record.
You're right, a person can believe the bible isn't literal and still believe in the context of it. Not believing it's literal and taking it figuratively instead is still very different from believing it to be simple fictional folklore.Ah, but see there you go thinking in black and white again. A person can believe that the modern Bible is not literal, and even wrong in places, without throwing out the manuscripts on which they are based. This is why people get into translation from the earliest possible texts - to see what, if any, truth can be gleaned from works much closer to the original than King James or even the Nicean Council had in mind.
The earliest possible text would be the Codex Sinaiticus and even that can be found online Here: http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/
And where may I ask is this historical evidence?I think there is reasonable historical evidence for the existence of a guy named Joshua who was born in the Bethlehem area sometime during the summer in a three-year period of the reign of one of the Herods. I think it's reasonable to say that his mother got knocked up as a minor, that his dad was older and a widower who had been an Essene at one point, and that there were Jews who believed Josh fulfilled prophecies written before his birth. There are multiple early sources talking about this guy, and that he pissed off both the Jewish leaders and the Romans who were occupying much of the Middle East at that time, and that he was executed for it.
You're right it is possible to admire and want to emulate a person from a book even a fictional one. Even to build an entire religion off the fictional person. Humans have been doing just that for centuries. Once upon a time people worshiped Thor, Apollo, Mithra, Horus, etc, but today we consider all of those to be mythological. We even dismiss the gods and religions of other people that still worship them today. Mythology is simply whatever the church down the street from yours is teaching.But faith doesn't require the total abandonment of common sense. It's entirely possible to say "I like many of the tenets of the Bible, but some of them are stupid, and I like that Josh guy, but many of his followers are asshats". That's kinda where I come out on the faith scale. I'm also a big fan of Christopher Moore's take on the whole thing.
What you said there reminded me of a Gandhi quote: "I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. Your Christians are very unlike your Christ."
One can admire something without deciding it's divine and worshiping it and praying to it. When you get to worshiping a book that is well known to be a work of fiction then you're obviously delusional.And actually, if I was gonna go to the Church of L. Frank Baum I'd probably be in the modern, liberal Elphaba Reformed Movement, because fictional or not, I like what she has to say about stuff. It's just a matter of interpretation.
Thanks. Nice to be debating religion on a board where It's appreciated. I was doing it in the Facebook polls most recently but stopped with Christians started complaining about me. Apparently some people can't handle an opposing viewpoint without being offended by it. I always try to remain tactful and respectful even in the face of pure willful ignorance.
1 Member(s) liked this post
I'm sorry but an NDE isn't evidence of a soul or spiritual existence. Nor is it evidence of any afterlife or reincarnation. Being clinically dead and totally dead are 2 different things. The human brain continues to function until it deprived of oxygen even in the event of someone's heart stopping. This is why there's a frame of time where a person can generally be revived. So with your brain still being functional you're capable of subconscious thought which is in all likelihood what an "out of body" experience really is.
1 Member(s) liked this post
Personally I don't believe an historical Christ ever existed. Why? Because there are no sources outside of the bible and other religious texts that document it. The period of time Jesus Christ allegedly lived is one of the most well-documented periods in history. The time of Julius Caesar and the rise of the Roman Empire. So I find it hard to believe that a man who was as controversial and influential as Jesus allegedly was completely escaped historical record.
Yosef Ben Matityahu aka Titus Flavius Josephus did document or write about the existance of "John the Baptist" some said he mentioned Jesus, but I think it was added in later on. Ok , they say he mentioned John , Jesus brother but the name Jesus was a very common name at the time as much as it is in Mexico today.
The other passage simply mentions a Jesus as the brother of a James, possibly James the Just, but later in the same passage refers to a Jesus, son of Damneus. Most scholars consider this passage genuine
Some people are like Slinkies. They aren’t really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to my face when I push them down a flight of stairs.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks