Religion?

[Krisken]

When you change words, the meaning changes. It's unavoidable. We argue about what our Constitution means and that is only 232 years old.

Dude, they've been arguing about the meaning of the Bible forever, even when it's the same version and the words are the same... that wasn't the point, the point was that the words used don't actually prevent the interpretation from being the same (unless they replace pharisees with liberals, like conservipedia)

I have no idea how to respond to what you remember as a little kid, no matter how distinct it was. I distinctly remember seeing myself as I almost drown in a pool when I was 2 years old. Not sure anyone would believe I actually saw myself.

but unlike your personal experience what i saw could be seen by others, and confirmed or denied...[/QUOTE]
Again, I have no idea how to respond to this. Since I can't do it and remain civil, I'll bow out of the thread.

 

[@Li3n]

@Krisken

Respond to the 1st or 2nd quote?

If it's the 2nd, how exactly is me seeing a physical object once the same as you having an out of body experience or whatever?

Dude, they've been arguing about the meaning of the Bible forever, even when it's the same version and the words are the same... that wasn't the point, the point was that the words used don't actually prevent the interpretation from being the same (unless they replace pharisees with liberals, like conservipedia)

your first sentence contradicts the second and makes me want to impale things.[/quote]

You're looking at it wrong!

Let me try to explain:
- the 1st idea was that even with the same words, interpretations can differ, so it's not just the translating.
- the 2nd idea was that even if the words are different one can use the same interpretation for the same verse.

Think of it as 2 different arguments against the same thing.

Yes, different words might add or subtract possible interpretations (theology is fun like that), but as long as they have some interpretations in common it doesn't make such a difference as claimed.

 

[Krisken]

Kinda all of it. The logical fallacies presented have overwhelmed me. I am at a loss, sir.

 

[@Li3n]

Well it would be helpful if you'd point them out...

 

[JCM]

Dude, the first ecumenical council was created because, among other things, Easter was celebrated on different dates depending on regions... and today we don't celebrate it on the same date as the catholics (of course it doesn't have a fixed date for us, that's why the old and new caledarists don't have it at different dates like it happens with christmas).

But tying it to a date, and telling people that this day something happened (but it didnt happen), is lying.

Adding to the top of lying to the masses, theres misleading the masses as Christian customs were eliminated in exchange of a Pagan one. But then, almost every religion has done this, so its unfair to single out the Catholic church, or blame them.

Weirdly i distinctly remember when i was little seeing somewhere that the nails weren't holding the weight but he was actually tied to the cross with rope around his wrists... so when i saw that argument for the 1st time i was rather unimpressed.

Look at every church, again marketing white lies showing a man's weight being help by two nails on his hands.

Technically, the romans TIED you to the cross, and a nail through the hands would just have torn your hands up, but it hold you long.
Basically, millions are praying to not only a god that had Zeus' appearance slapped on him, but also to statues showing incorrectly the suffering of his son.

Again, little lies in the sake of selling a religion.

Ok, are you talking about differences in the actuall meaning or just them using different words that are near synonims?

The two, and more.

There is editing of a word for another that doesn't correspond to the original text - like for example- in earlier trasnlations, 1 Timothy 3:16 says "God was manifest in the flesh," the strongest sentence in the Bible outside John's Gospel saying that Jesus was God, yet in modern translations it says "He was manifest in the flesh".

There is deletion of parts of sentences - For example, compare the Lord's prayer, from the King James version, which was an almost word-by-word, and a new version-

Exactly one third of the Lord's Prayer is taken out of Luke 11:2-4:

"And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil" (Luke 11:2-32) (KJV)

"He said to them, "When you pray, say: "'Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation" (Luke 11:2-4) (NIV).

One third of it is gone... another note on differences, there are 17 verses that are in the KJV, but are completely omitted from new Bible versions and the words "God", "Lord", "Jesus", "Christ", "blood", "repent", "hell" are omitted many times from the newer translations.

There is deletion entire sentences that were in the earlier manuscripts (or adding footnotes casting doubt) - Like the deletion of "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost" (Matthew 18:11). This verse shows a rather clear Christian doctrine that Jesus Christ came to save the lost, yet has been ommited from a few Bible versions. Then we look at "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (Acts 8:37). By removing the previous verse, the eunuch's confession of faith in the Son of God is gone, and one can be misled into thinking he ass saved by baptism instead of faith in Jesus.

More deleted, or highlighted sentences relegated to footnotes -"But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses" (Mark 11:26)
-"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (I John 5:7) (Ironically, this is the clearest verse on the Trinity)
-"Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting". (Matthew 17:21) Like this sentence, any sentence showing obligatory prayer/fasting prayer was deleted. Prayer is also omitted in Mark 12:33, and fasting in Mark 9:29, Acts 10:30, and 1 Corinthians 7:5.
-"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:44,46), one of the three sentences describing punishment in Hell deemed too graphic, and deleted.

Check and see if your Bible has the following, without footnotes casting doubt on their validity - Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, and Romans 16:24). If you have a Bible with footnotes at these verses, they make the verses debatable.

Mind you, Im not singling out Christianity, heck there are countless differences between English translations of the Q'ran, but in Arabic it has remained unchanged from 200 years after the Muhammed's death, however, there is so much contradiction among the commentarists that its pretty much useless for it to have remained unchanged. As for the Jewsih texts, they dont even follow the Old Testament, so its not a problem of Christianity, but of religion.

---------- Post added at 10:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 AM ----------

Jesus, Luiza is wondering why I just spend 1 hour looking through three Bibles.
I love this forum

 

[Pojodan]

My belief system in a single sentence: I don't know.

A little more detailed: I believe that there is a force incomprehensible to us that drives our conscious... The best analogy I've come up with is the steam in a train. It does not dictate what we do or why we do it, but it allows us to do it. I don't have a name for it as 'God' suggests a being separate from us and I don't feel that's the case.

Religion, as it is, is simply humankind's means of rationally explaining the irrational in a way that we can feel comfortable with.

 

[@Li3n]

But tying it to a date, and telling people that this day something happened (but it didnt happen), is lying.

Dude, the changing (and imprecise over long stretches of time) calendars alone make setting a fixed day celebration ridiculous, so i always took it to be more symbolic then anything (the old calendarists who know that their calendar is not objectivly correct anymore, but they thing celebrating on the same calendar day of the same calendar as the original church is more important).

But i keep forgetting that you guys are more legalistic about it.

Adding to the top of lying to the masses, theres misleading the masses as Christian customs were eliminated in exchange of a Pagan one. But then, almost every religion has done this, so its unfair to single out the Catholic church, or blame them.

Some of that stuff isn't so much lying as allowing the converted to keep some some of their old customs, and those customs catching on with society at large. So IMO only the customs that happen in some sort of official church ceremony should count for criticism (i'm sure you'll find some even then - google/wiki old believers, though that might not qualify as they might not have been pagan customs).

Look at every church, again marketing white lies showing a man's weight being help by two nails on his hands.

Actually over here he's standing with his feet on something:

Plus, does anyone argue that those painting are supposed to be a perfectly accurate depiction of what happened? Coz over here there is a big difference between what the masses think and the official church stance because unless it's different enough to be heresy the church doesn't see it as an impediment to salvation.

But apparently the pictures i remember with the hands tied are more recent (but older then me i guess).

There is editing of a word for another that doesn't correspond to the original text - like for example- in earlier translations, 1 Timothy 3:16 says "God was manifest in the flesh," the strongest sentence in the Bible outside John's Gospel saying that Jesus was God, yet in modern translations it says "He was manifest in the flesh".

Well He with a capital H always refers to God here, and that could easily be what i mentioned about synonyms with variant meaning. Of course it could also be an attempt as changing the meaning depending on who made the change/translation. Schism have happened for a lot less (there's a church that separated around 500AD because they felt the wording condemning one heresy wasn't strong enough)

There is deletion of parts of sentences - For example, compare the Lord's prayer, from the King James version, which was an almost word-by-word, and a new version-

Exactly one third of the Lord's Prayer is taken out of Luke 11:2-4:

"And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil" (Luke 11:2-32) (KJV)

"He said to them, "When you pray, say: "'Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation" (Luke 11:2-4) (NIV).


There is deletion entire sentences that were in the earlier manuscripts (or adding footnotes casting doubt) - Like the deletion of "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost" (Matthew 18:11). This verse shows a rather clear Christian doctrine that Jesus Christ came to save the lost, yet has been omitted from a few Bible versions. Then we look at "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayst. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (Acts 8:37). By removing the previous verse, the eunuch's confession of faith in the Son of God is gone, and one can be misled into thinking he ass saved by baptism instead of faith in Jesus.

More deleted, or highlighted sentences relegated to footnotes -"But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses" (Mark 11:26)
-"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (I John 5:7) (Ironically, this is the clearest verse on the Trinity)
-"Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting". (Matthew 17:21) Like this sentence, any sentence showing obligatory prayer/fasting prayer was deleted. Prayer is also omitted in Mark 12:33, and fasting in Mark 9:29, Acts 10:30, and 1 Corinthians 7:5.
-"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:44,46), one of the three sentences describing punishment in Hell deemed too graphic, and deleted.

Check and see if your Bible has the following, without footnotes casting doubt on their validity - Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, and Romans 16:24). If you have a Bible with footnotes at these verses, they make the verses debatable.

Mind you, Im not singling out Christianity, heck there are countless differences between English translations of the Q'ran, but in Arabic it has remained unchanged from 200 years after the Muhammed's death, however, there is so much contradiction among the commentarists that its pretty much useless for it to have remained unchanged. As for the Jewsih texts, they dont even follow the Old Testament, so its not a problem of Christianity, but of religion.

Sound more like a problem of different denominations trynng to modify the Bible for their own ends (see conservipedia's nice little Bible translation project)... which has happened a lot from the get go (and is one of the reasons for the ecumenical councils plus it's called heresy).

And the Jewish text don't follow the Old Testament because [STRIKE]what went into it from the jewish books was decided after christianity and jewdaism where different things for over 300 years[/STRIKE] the Septuagint that the christians where using was a greek translation of an older jewish text, and then i understand that you westerners changed it to be closer to more contemporary jewish text some time before we split, while the [STRIKE]Torah[/STRIKE] Tanakh was officialised around 450 wiki tells me.

But apparently the Dead Sea Scrolls are closer to the Septuagint, but the differences are great enough to change the meaning of the sentences, which was my argument.



ANYHOW, there are plenty of good criticism to be made, but for some reason everyone seems to add to that with rather tortured arguments or taking stuff out of context, which is one of the reasons why i couldn't go atheist... people are crazy either way, so Pascal's Wager has little downside.

Jesus, Luiza is wondering why I just spend 1 hour looking through three Bibles.
I love this forum

And the forums are always impressed on how much effort you put into this stuff...

 

[elph]

Athiest. My dad was raised Lutheran (as far as I can tell) but he follows some native american belief now (can't really name it since I haven't had any contact with him in over 10 years) and my mom, well, I'm not sure what she was raised <insert some Christ based faith here> I'm sure, but she's wiccan now.

My dad was a theologian though (not by profession - he just had a lot of books on different religions, even those deemed occult / satanic).

I see religions as a crutch really (not really a bad thing, it is what it is). Something to explain away the complexities that the human mind just cannot understand or put into words. Which is odd, because most people can't pin down the exact reason they follow religion A over religion B when, for the most part, the messages are the same.

I used to claim agnostic because, in my logical mind, there must be something out there 'higher' on the spiritual food chain then us. Then I look at all the technology we create, and the imagination we have and figure we can reach 'those' heights too someday.

Another item that 'switched' my thought on the agnostic / atheist level was this below. Personally, I just don't believe anyone (anything) is sending me messages (in any form) on how to live my life.

 

[Silver Jelly]

If my works of fiction were published, you would know my stance on the whole "kill your children" thing.

You DON'T do it. If what god asks you to do doesn't sound sensible, then screw him. After all, he created a universe that can work on it's own. Too bad (for this stupid god that asks you to kill your children, or whatever other thing you don't find to be sensible) we don't need him to do anything after that.

 

[elph]

I always looked at the 'kill your children' example in the video as an example out of extremism. However, there are some extreme things in many religions that are just as crazy. Limiting eating habits and giving spiritual importance to things for oddball reasons.

 

[JCM]

But tying it to a date, and telling people that this day something happened (but it didnt happen), is lying.

Dude, the changing (and imprecise over long stretches of time) calendars alone make setting a fixed day celebration ridiculous, so i always took it to be more symbolic then anything (the old calendarists who know that their calendar is not objectivly correct anymore, but they thing celebrating on the same calendar day of the same calendar as the original church is more important). [/quote]So the birth of Jesus, ressurection and celebrating it the way it was originally celebrated means shit, as long as we can get some people to enter our religion by making our religion be like theirs?

But i keep forgetting that you guys are more legalistic about it.

We are just not stupid to call a lie by another name, because its a priest saying it. Another side effect of religion.

Now tell me, when a book/priest says "Jesus was born today", isnt it a lie? No justifications, mumbo jumbo I heard from Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhsists, etc, just a simple yes or no.

Is it a lie?

One image, out of Against how many billion crosses with just the nails in churches, homes and illustrated Bibles, showing only nails?



Again, use religious excuses all you want, if I tell billions of christian children that that´s how Jesus suffered, and thats what he looked like, is it a lie?

Yes or no, no text that I just skip over, as Ive heard the same tired stuff over and over.

Ok, are you talking about differences in the actuall meaning or just them using different words that are near synonims?

The two, and more.

There is editing of a word for another that doesn't correspond to the original text - like for example- in earlier trasnlations, 1 Timothy 3:16 says "God was manifest in the flesh," the strongest sentence in the Bible outside John's Gospel saying that Jesus was God, yet in modern translations it says "He was manifest in the flesh".

There is deletion of parts of sentences - For example, compare the Lord's prayer, from the King James version, which was an almost word-by-word, and a new version-

Exactly one third of the Lord's Prayer is taken out of Luke 11:2-4:

"And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil" (Luke 11:2-32) (KJV)

"He said to them, "When you pray, say: "'Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation" (Luke 11:2-4) (NIV).

One third of it is gone... another note on differences, there are 17 verses that are in the KJV, but are completely omitted from new Bible versions and the words "God", "Lord", "Jesus", "Christ", "blood", "repent", "hell" are omitted many times from the newer translations.

There is deletion entire sentences that were in the earlier manuscripts (or adding footnotes casting doubt) - Like the deletion of "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost" (Matthew 18:11). This verse shows a rather clear Christian doctrine that Jesus Christ came to save the lost, yet has been ommited from a few Bible versions. Then we look at "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (Acts 8:37). By removing the previous verse, the eunuch's confession of faith in the Son of God is gone, and one can be misled into thinking he ass saved by baptism instead of faith in Jesus.

More deleted, or highlighted sentences relegated to footnotes -"But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses" (Mark 11:26)
-"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (I John 5:7) (Ironically, this is the clearest verse on the Trinity)
-"Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting". (Matthew 17:21) Like this sentence, any sentence showing obligatory prayer/fasting prayer was deleted. Prayer is also omitted in Mark 12:33, and fasting in Mark 9:29, Acts 10:30, and 1 Corinthians 7:5.
-"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:44,46), one of the three sentences describing punishment in Hell deemed too graphic, and deleted.

Check and see if your Bible has the following, without footnotes casting doubt on their validity - Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, and Romans 16:24). If you have a Bible with footnotes at these verses, they make the verses debatable.

Sound more like a problem of different denominations trynng to modify the Bible for their own ends (see conservipedia's nice little Bible translation project)... which has happened a lot from the get go (and is one of the reasons for the ecumenical councils plus it's called heresy).

So, the word of God is something one can easily edit, and change? Anyway, on your theory, nope

All the examples came from Bibles used by the same (aka catholic) church, all of them being sold, and used, by it.

And the forums are always impressed on how much effort you put into this stuff...[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]ItWell, I´d hate to put forth just personal opinion, an image and excuses, and not facts.

 

[strawman]

Let's be respectful on such a touchy subject

QFT.

-Adam

 

[JCM]

QFT? I´d say, Amen

BTW, I´ll be off to the cold plains of Campos de Jordão for a three-day seminar, so you guys please behave

@Li3n, should you want to continue the subject, feel free to pm me and when I return, I´ll answer you promptly.

 

[tegid]

figment and JCM should discuss about the changes in bibles, and translations, and whatever. Seriously, I think I could get a lot of interesting info compressed, if they were both serious about fonts and such.

 

[JCM]

The best way to do so is have three copies of different Bible translations, it can be even different editions of the same Bibles, google up the diffreneces, and check for yourself (sadly, most people miss this step and end up saying BS, like Major Khaos in the old image forums who insisted that a sentence was added to the Qran because a website said so, when all he needed to do was check that edition freely online and see nothing was added.

I do find interesting that over the years, the Bible has been edited to downplay the prohibition of eating pork, the obligation of prayer and fasting, but then again, every religion does that, for example, Koran is edited to make sure that the bunch of conditions after "you can marry four wives" is on a separate page in Arabic, and translated into lesser conditions in English translations.

For those who are curious, one can only marry 4 in a)times of war, to b)marry a widow/orphan because c)you want to care for her, but you dont want people to slander her and accuse her of being unvirtuous, but even then d)you have to be 100% equal and fair between wives, otherwise e)you will go to the worst of hells, thus f)God advises you NOT to marry four.

Guess how many marriages in the Islamic world fit the conditions, a)to C)? I could pull out a number of my arse, like, 90%, and I´d be too kind.

Anyway, thats it, gotta travel soon, but the damn $%#@ taxi hasnt arrived. Should anyone want a complete list of changes in the most popular eidtions, or withing different revisions of the same Bible, I´d be glad to send it.

 

[HoboNinja]

I believe in God, lately I have been thinking about what to define myself as. I have always said I was Catholic because thats what I was raised but now I think I am agnostic with strong catholic undertones.

I have my doubts every once in awhile but I overcome them and my faith is stronger, doubt is not a bad thing. Doubt can build faith or change it into something different. They aren't doubts in the existence of a higher power, just doubts about some of the bullshit dogma of the Catholic church.

I can't really explain to someone else how I know there is a God, I just know, I can feel his presence in the world and in myself. I also believe in Jesus, I believe he sent his son to die for us, I just feel his presence too. The problem I have with Catholic dogma is that it's basically FOLLOW US OR BURN! I think my God, the God that created us is a loving God and would not condemn a good person to hell, even if they don't believe in him.

Also yeah evolution, it's real folks duh! I see it as the tool God used to shape us. I also love Physics, I love seeing how things work, I don't see science and religion as two clashing titans. Like what was said on the first page, science is the how, religion is the why. I believe God set these rules for the universe and used them to create us.

I don't think the world was created in 7 days, we have proof that it has been around for about 4-5 billion years. I think maybe the 7 days was either a different measurement of time for him or possibly he created humans in 7 days, maybe it took him 7 days to put in motion the the mutations in our DNA to create us.

 

[Cajungal]

The true Catholic Catechism never states that anyone goes to hell. They state what is and is not a sin, and then it states that it is the duty of Catholics to pray for people.

Sorry, not tryin to pick on you, that just still bothers me. It's mostly Protestants who say, "_________ are going to hell," and even then, mostly just the nutty types.

(I know that something being in the formal teachings doesn't stop people from doing it... but it IS discouraged by any Catholic worth his/her salt.)

I get ya, though. The good old Catholic guilt is deeply rooted in me and will probably never leave.

 

[SpecialKO]

I don't think the world was created in 7 days, we have proof that it has been around for about 4-5 billion years. I think maybe the 7 days was either a different measurement of time for him or possibly he created humans in 7 days, maybe it took him 7 days to put in motion the the mutations in our DNA to create us.

Maybe it took him 7 days to work out the bugs in the OS.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I believe in God,...I am agnostic

You directly contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. Do you know what "agnostic" means at all?

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

I guess I'm agnostic because when it comes down to it I have no idea and don't think there is any way for us to know or understand the big questions like "Why is there something instead of nothing" but to me, the existence of a God or Gods is so unlikely that you might as well call me an atheist.

 

[HoboNinja]

I believe in God,...I am agnostic

You directly contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. Do you know what "agnostic" means at all?[/quote]

I couldn't think of the proper phrase, agnostic is when you don't think there can be proof of God and therefore don't rule it out but don't believe either.

I guess I could have said spiritual with Catholic undertones/ideas?

 

[@Li3n]

So the birth of Jesus, resurrection and celebrating it the way it was originally celebrated means shit, as long as we can get some people to enter our religion by making our religion be like theirs?

There's a difference between how it's celebrated in most home and how it's celebrated if you go to the churches over here... and people in rural areas have different way to celebrate it at home too.

What i meant is that only the stuff that goes on in churches matters when it comes to this stuff, unless you think that one region having a tradition serving pork meat on Christmas while another region veal has some sort of theological implications.

But i keep forgetting that you guys are more legalistic about it.

We are just not stupid to call a lie by another name, because its a priest saying it. Another side effect of religion.

I meant western christians/theologists. You guys take some of the more esoteric stuff way too literally.

Now tell me, when a book/priest says "Jesus was born today", isn't it a lie? No justifications, mumbo jumbo I heard from Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhsists, etc, just a simple yes or no.

If someone from 2000 years ago was born on the 1st of June as time was reckoned back then and you say on the 1st of June in today's calendar that this is the day he was born on you'd be wrong... and even if you used the same calendar you'd also be wrong because over time you lose days each year, which is why the russians celebrate Christmas on the 9th of January (which is 25th December in the Julian calendar).

If you're gonna take any approximation as a lie then all dates are lies, as all calendars are inexact.

One image, out of Against how many billion crosses with just the nails in churches, homes and illustrated Bibles, showing only nails?

Actually the majority, if not all of the images in our churches are like that...

Again, use religious excuses all you want, if I tell billions of christian children that that´s how Jesus suffered, and thats what he looked like, is it a lie?

Yes or no, no text that I just skip over, as Ive heard the same tired stuff over and over.

Are you saying there where no nails or what? Because whether or not he was held up by ropes seems like a rather unimportant factor in the suffering.

So, the word of God is something one can easily edit, and change?

Yeah, that's the whole point of Heresy... the text can be edited and changed easily, that doesn't actually make it dogma.

Anyway, on your theory, nope

All the examples came from Bibles used by the same (aka catholic) church, all of them being sold, and used, by it.

Well they are Catholics... still, i wonder how they justify that...

---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------

I believe in God,...I am agnostic

You directly contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. Do you know what "agnostic" means at all?[/QUOTE]

Dude, agnostics can be both theists and atheists... all that's needed is saying that those stuff are unknown, and unknowable if you're really into it. Then you can choose to believe one side, even if it's not proven in your opinion.


@JCM

Dude, i can't PM you for some reason, says you have it turned off...

 

[tegid]

I don't think the world was created in 7 days, we have proof that it has been around for about 4-5 billion years. I think maybe the 7 days was either a different measurement of time for him or possibly he created humans in 7 days, maybe it took him 7 days to put in motion the the mutations in our DNA to create us.

Or maybe it' just a metaphor of some kind? Or a myth with no real implications?
My point is, it doesn't need to make any sense, does it? Because it's unimportant to the real message, to me at least!

 

[@Li3n]

Nah dude, ancient people and/or God always wrote stuff literally... and you're supposed to take everything at face value (btw, peas have feelings).

@Hobo

Dude, being omnipotent means He could have faked everything... i mean an omnipotent deity as a premise makes it immune to any counter arguments. If someone did invent it they where a genius.

 

[Krisken]

Nah dude, ancient people and/or God always wrote stuff literally... and you're supposed to take everything at face value (btw, peas have feelings).

@Hobo

Dude, being omnipotent means He could have faked everything... i mean an omnipotent deity as a premise makes it immune to any counter arguments. If someone did invent it they where a genius.

Wait, this isn't a dinosaur bones thing, right? Cause I'll have to go with Bill Hicks' opinion on that one.

 

[Denbrought]

Dude, being omnipotent means He could have faked everything... i mean an omnipotent deity as a premise makes it immune to any counter arguments. If someone did invent it they where a genius.

The problem with using the omnipotent argument is that you can get trapped into discussing the problem of evil, a pretty effective counter to that stuff. ~_~

 

[fade]

Dude, being omnipotent means He could have faked everything... i mean an omnipotent deity as a premise makes it immune to any counter arguments. If someone did invent it they where a genius.

The problem with using the omnipotent argument is that you can get trapped into discussing the problem of evil, a pretty effective counter to that stuff. ~_~[/QUOTE]

Huh, I don't see any "counterargument" to free will in that wiki as an effective one. They all just seem to be casting free will on the wrong entity. Or the misdefine evil. Since when is a tsunami evil?

 

[Silver Jelly]

Dude, being omnipotent means He could have faked everything... i mean an omnipotent deity as a premise makes it immune to any counter arguments. If someone did invent it they where a genius.

The problem with using the omnipotent argument is that you can get trapped into discussing the problem of evil, a pretty effective counter to that stuff. ~_~[/QUOTE]

Huh, I don't see any "counterargument" to free will in that wiki as an effective one. They all just seem to be casting free will on the wrong entity. Or the misdefine evil. Since when is a tsunami evil?[/QUOTE]

Since it started EATING BABIES FOR BREAKFAST

 

[ZenMonkey]

Regarding out-of-body experiences, a very recent article I found fascinating:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427291.100-out-of-your-head-leaving-the-body-behind.html

Also, "agnostic" is not just a middle ground between theism and atheism.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427291.100-out-of-your-head-leaving-the-body-behind.html

 

[Silver Jelly]

Hhhm... this makes me think I'm an Agnostic Theist? I believe because I want to, because it seems more sensible to me, but... Do I KNOW god exists? I know it exists like I "know" much stuff I don't know KNOW...

Interesting... I'll have to think about this.

 

[tegid]

Heh, I was trying to place myself and thought 'True Neutral/Neutral Agnostic', a la D&D.

Seriously though, I think I'm an agnostic on that axis and I lean to the side of atheism on the other. But more of the kind of not believing in god than the one of believing he doesn't exist. Or is that included in the agnostic part?

Anyway, thanks for the useful chart, Zen. Saved for future reference.

 

[@Li3n]

Dude, being omnipotent means He could have faked everything... i mean an omnipotent deity as a premise makes it immune to any counter arguments. If someone did invent it they where a genius.

The problem with using the omnipotent argument is that you can get trapped into discussing the problem of evil, a pretty effective counter to that stuff. ~_~[/quote]

Or one could just read Genesis... life is punishment.


And on a more serious side, that has little to do with omnipotence as it simply disproves the existence of a good omnipotent God (if you assume it to be right, there are counterarguments like evil = absence of good, or reading Genesis, or that story where Satan gets free reign on that guy who's name i always forget)

Wait, this isn't a dinosaur bones thing, right? Cause I'll have to go with Bill Hicks' opinion on that one.

Nah, those are put there by time travellers from the future to get us ready for the shock when the reptilian aliens invade...

Regarding out-of-body experiences, a very recent article I found fascinating:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...dy-behind.html

And while we're at it, here's some interesting stuff that relates to the Big Bang thing discussed earlier: 13 things that do make sense - Short Sharp Science - New Scientist

 

[Espy]

Or one could just read Genesis... life is punishment.

You know, I've tried to stay out of this, but... what? Do you really think that is the message of Genesis?

 

[figmentPez]

That sure ain't the standard definition of gnosticism. Gnosticism has historically referred to a group of religious beliefs that centered around the belief that salvation came through secret knowledge, and that by knowing certain things you gained power. It holds that the physical world was inherently evil, and that only by gaining spiritual knowledge could one overcome the world. Or, at least, that's my rough understanding of the concept. It's been around in many forms for quite a long time, and has been mixed with Christianity more than once, and to varying degrees.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Gnosticism has historically referred to...

Exactly.