God... Christ... The Bible

cornnifer · January 2010

NickGMusic wrote:

One thing that's bothered me though about religion is how religious people ALWAYS try to push their faith on non religious people, yet non religous people don't try to push anything on them, at least that's always happened in my lifetime. I think the next step for mankind will be the real acceptance of all faiths and races.

Some pretty hefty generalizations, don't you think so, John? By "religious people" i assume you mean people of faith. They always try to push their faith onto you? Always? Really? You even emphasized the word by using all caps. I haven't tried to push faith on anyone through my participation in this thread. In fact, i never do. Hmm. ALWAYS. Very interesting. Also interesting is your position that "non religious" folks never push anything on anyone. Have you read this thread? A bunch of "non religious" posters calling those of faith "idiots" and "blind followers". Even your Lennonesque ramblings may be seen as somwhat of a position push by your own standards. No?
The question i have, and its a sincere question, is this. Why so threatened? It seems many (not all, i, unlike some, will not make such generalizations) are so hostile towards people of faith that their very mention of god is seen as a forcing of religious belief. How is that. Because i am of a theistic worldview doesn't mean i'm insisting you should be.

BinFrog · January 2010

cornnifer wrote:

The question i have, and its a sincere question, is this. Why so threatened? It seems many (not all, i, unlike some, will not make such generalizations) are so hostile towards people of faith that their very mention of god is seen as a forcing of religious belief. How is that. Because i am of a theistic worldview doesn't mean i'm insisting you should be.

You are doing the same exact thing. We're trying to have a debate, and you're just rolling your eyes at everything we bring up.

spoonworld · January 2010

BinFrog wrote:

cornnifer wrote:

The question i have, and its a sincere question, is this. Why so threatened? It seems many (not all, i, unlike some, will not make such generalizations) are so hostile towards people of faith that their very mention of god is seen as a forcing of religious belief. How is that. Because i am of a theistic worldview doesn't mean i'm insisting you should be.

You are doing the same exact thing. We're trying to have a debate, and you're just rolling your eyes at everything we bring up.

Yeah that's what I was going to say. Forgive my slang, but I'm not hating on religious people, lol, I was just stating that one issue I have is that with most "people of faith that I have been in contact with", they make me feel like I'm strange for not being affilated with any of it, and numerous times have I been asked why I don't go to church, why don't I accept Jesus as my savior, and I'm sorry, but to me, it's a little uncomfortable, as if they are putting pressure on me or looking down upon me because I don't believe in what they do. This is not some unknown act, Christianty, for example, wouldn't have spread as it did if it wasn't forced on certain groups, at least that's what I've gathered from history. And it would be neat to eventually live in a world where everyone was actually accepted for who they are, what they look like, and what they believe in. That is my opinion, im not saying it's right nor wrong, just participating in the debate.

EddieLedBetter · January 2010

skippybrew wrote:

cornnifer wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

If you disagree, you can't 100% disprove my statement, but we both know from science, fact and knowledge, that it is in fact untrue. And that's religion compared to science. I can't sit here and say 100% that a god/creator doesn't exist although we have plenty of fact and science to disprove that one does.. perhaps it's close to proven, but not 100%. But you can't prove any percent that your particular religion or thought is fact other than that it is what you believe things to be.
]

???

Really? That's news to me. What science are you referring to that "close to proves" the non-existence of God? There is no such science. None at all. i'm not being condescending here. i'd really like to know what science your talking about.

I don't buy in to Christianity, but I have to go along with cornnifer's question... How do you "disprove" God (without bashing in the opposition's skull)?

There are actually a remarkably few things that science can prove. Even "laws" (gravity, for example) are only considered to be accepted rules that stand until someone can disprove them. That's the scientific method. There are a hell of a lot more things that we don't understand than things that we do.

Quite frankly, it's a miracle that we're even here. Cellular biology, cognition, the wacky (and not fully understood) principles of water - we can basically explain what happens, but not why or sometimes even how. Even the chances that we have a planet with all the proper ingredients to sustain life as we know it are staggeringly infinitesimal. Who's to say a higher power didn't orchestrate it all?

For a miracle to exist it has to be based on some intangible correct? God is the intangible. Jesus said he came only to testify to the TRUTH. In which since the fall of man, Satan has been supplying lies for.

People argue; if God exists where did God come from? Yet they find it so easy to believe in the big bang theory which is based on something coming from nothing.

God created man perfect but left free will to man to chose to follow him or the lies of the world and Satan, and we chose poorly.
The bible teaches unlike other teachings that we are now of our father while we are in our worldly bodies, which is Satan. This explains why evil exists. This is so since the fall. Jesus came to bring truth to the lies that have been veiling our eyes for centuries. What would be the point of Him coming to lie about an already existing lie that we are so blindly following?

As for the above comment... Man many men who are faulty, speaking of todays christians, view Gods teachings wrongly further leading people away from God.

EddieLedBetter · January 2010

BinFrog wrote:

cornnifer wrote:

A humorous quote? Absolutely. A lot behind it? Meh.

Actually there is a LOT of truth behind it

cornnifer wrote:

You're going to have to explain to me the millions of Christians in China, Russia, Afghanistan and other places of the world where such faith is not only not the cultural norm and in fact very frowned upon, but the practice of which is illegal and carries a punishment up to and including death.

Non sequitor but I'll oblige. These people truly believe in their faith for whatever reason: it gives them hope, or their family and close circle all practice, etc etc.

cornnifer wrote:

You're going to have to explain to me all of the Muslims, Buddhists, Jews etc. in the united states where such faiths are not the cultural norm.

And where do most of them originate from? We're a country that is relatively open to religious freedom. What's your point?

(And as you said in another reply, there are always exceptions so don't bring up random individuals that convert)

cornnifer wrote:

You're going to have to explain to me someone like me who was not raised with my Christian faith and who, throughout adolescence was rather hostile towards it yet came to it completely independent of culture and parental upbringing.

Exceptions. You're in the vast, vast minority.

cornnifer wrote:

Your going to have to explain to me the large number of individuals with no faith at all come to faith through their truly scholarly approach to such matters within many different disciplines. Its not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.

For every one person that comes to a new faith based on intense scholarly research, I'll show you 10,000 who do so because of coercion, proselytizing, peer pressure, lack of eduction & the pressure from missionaries, etc. There is no mass movement of people arriving at beliefs after spending years reading all of the holy books and delving into religious theory and doctrines. Again, there may be a handful here or there, but if you are trying to rule out exceptions, then this is invalid too.

But above all: this argument is a complete change of subject. I don't think anyone here is saying anything that contradicts what you just brought up...so why do I/we have to "explain" anything. There's nothing you said that needs explaining. What you just said in your post does nothing to even remotely give substance to your whole (previous) point. People converting to Christianity doesn't make me "see" that the story of Jesus must be real and absolute. People convert to Islam all the time. Possibly more so than Christianity. What does that prove?

What is truth? Can you explain that to me? What do you believe to be truth?

So many that are brought to faith by coercion as you say often turn away because of their lack of personal faith or willingness to see the actual lie.

i dont have faith because it gives me hope or a close circle of practice. I believe because i have searched for truth my entire life in all these aspects that are being brought up and nothing worldly gives me a good enough explaination as to the unexplainable like God does. I seek him and he gives me answers.

BinFrog · January 2010

EddieLedBetter wrote:

What is truth? Can you explain that to me? What do you believe to be truth?

So many that are brought to faith by coercion as you say often turn away because of their lack of personal faith or willingness to see the actual lie.

i dont have faith because it gives me hope or a close circle of practice. I believe because i have searched for truth my entire life in all these aspects that are being brought up and nothing worldly gives me a good enough explaination as to the unexplainable like God does. I seek him and he gives me answers.

I don't believe in any truth per se. I just don't put my faith in something as intangible as a "God" to make the unknown much more easy to digest. My view: I realize the universe is beyond my comprehension. There are some things I will never understand (existence, time, etc). That's not to say I don't have my own theories, but I'm not going to believe in some omnipotent, omnipresent deity to help 'explain' the unexplainable. To me, "God" was invented by humans to help explain things they could not comprehend. I find that idea strikingly easy to digest. It's just part of human history. You choose to believe in a God, for whatever reason, and that's fine by me. Who am I to say you are right or wrong? I don't mean this in an insulting way, but I think the belief in "God" is the easy way out:

"Why does x, y and z happen?"
"God."
Done.

I know there's a lot more to it than that. Religion can give people a sense of ancestry and community. It's a way to belong and it can be there for moral support & guidance. I'm not saying there are not redeeming qualities to belonging to a religious organization. I don't believe in God. I don't believe in Jesus as the son of God. I don't think spending 4 hours every Sunday in a stained-glass filled building repeating the same words over and over has any relevance on my life or any possible after-life. You can't deny that there is no possible way for humans to EVER know what the "truth" is, if there even is one at all. You have your beliefs, and they are all tied up in folklore and stories handed down over centuries and finally written down. There is absolutely no denying that, and to say to the contrary is just being stubborn.

EddieLedBetter wrote:

I seek him and he gives me answers.

What people thousands of years ago claimed he said gives you answers.

EddieLedBetter · January 2010

FiveB247x wrote:

In one hand you ask why someone is only critical of Christianity, yet follow your comment with a comment warranting that kind of response. There's been thousands of religions throughout the history of the world, and if a persons' stance is to believe theirs' is the right way and everyone has that decision to make and think on their own, so be it and leave it at that, but don't be so brazen to say yours is a proven, more right or somehow the only way. For me personally, this is why I hate religion, because it is not kept to thy-self, it's spoken as fact or knowledge when it is nothing of the sort. I can believe pink unicorns walk the earth today and say I wholeheartedly belive this and anyone who doesn't is wrong. If you disagree, you can't 100% disprove my statement, but we both know from science, fact and knowledge, that it is in fact untrue. And that's religion compared to science. I can't sit here and say 100% that a god/creator doesn't exist although we have plenty of fact and science to disprove that one does.. perhaps it's close to proven, but not 100%. But you can't prove any percent that your particular religion or thought is fact other than that it is what you believe things to be.

What about Muslims, Hindus and so on? What about about what they teach? Can you stand them?
Some people have no problem bashing Christians or denying Jesus, it's a shame. I feel sorry for you.

There is only one way and thats throught Jesus.[/quote][/quote]

That factual science is the same as the factual science that believed the world to be flat or that everything revolved around the earth. Its only what man has been so lucky enough to prove up to this point. One puting their faith in that is just as silly as me putting my faith in the intangible. Thousands of years from now if God came down and said I am the way the the truth and life in human form, again for that matter, people would still not be able to believe. The truth is what we cant see and cant prove.

Pepe Silvia · January 2010

god didn't write the king james version, which replaced other versions at that time and is still a widely accepted version among christianity.

In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, a faction within the Church of England.[7]

James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. The translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.

Instructions were given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. The Bishop of London added a qualification that the translators would add no marginal notes (which had been an issue in the Geneva Bible). King James cited two passages in the Geneva translation where he found the marginal notes offensive:[25] Exodus 1:17, where the Geneva Bible had commended the example of civil disobedience showed by the Hebrew midwives; and also II Chronicles 15:16, where the Geneva Bible had criticized King Asa for not having executed his idolatrous grandmother, Queen Maachah. Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England. Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church. For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word "church" were to be retained and not to be translated as "congregation". The new translation would reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about ordained clergy.

so, is that really the word of god or the word of those in power?

they didn't like some of the messages so they changed it, NOT god

EddieLedBetter · January 2010

EddieLedBetter wrote:

I seek him and he gives me answers.

What people thousands of years ago claimed he said gives you answers.[/quote]

No i pray for things, wisdom, insight, and guidance for example and see them manifested in my life in lessons brought to me through experience. The mountains and valleys I'm sure you've heard. The bible was human composed but God breathed and I cant deny that when I am in the word and praying and seeking answers that they manifest in my life and still uphold so much truths to what are written even though thousands of years down the road. Its unexplainable to someone who wont give it a shot. I've realized that "me" is nothing. That everything i touch see and feel is a direct result of the energy that God has given me. I came into being because of him, not by my own accord or some random chance. I evolved from a monkey like a mechanical pencil evolved from a wooden one... by creative intelligent design.

EddieLedBetter · January 2010

Pepe Silvia wrote:

god didn't write the king james version, which replaced other versions at that time and is still a widely accepted version among christianity.

In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, a faction within the Church of England.[7]

James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. The translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.

Instructions were given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. The Bishop of London added a qualification that the translators would add no marginal notes (which had been an issue in the Geneva Bible). King James cited two passages in the Geneva translation where he found the marginal notes offensive:[25] Exodus 1:17, where the Geneva Bible had commended the example of civil disobedience showed by the Hebrew midwives; and also II Chronicles 15:16, where the Geneva Bible had criticized King Asa for not having executed his idolatrous grandmother, Queen Maachah. Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England. Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church. For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word "church" were to be retained and not to be translated as "congregation". The new translation would reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about ordained clergy.

so, is that really the word of god or the word of those in power?

they didn't like some of the messages so they changed it, NOT god

sounds like another scheme of the enemy to stray those from God/Jesus' teachings. God and Satan both add influence to a mans decision. Jesus said test everything and ask the Father and not rely on me. Thats where many christians and non believers alike fail. They take the bible to literally or take certain instances and only give those reverance.

Pepe Silvia · January 2010

EddieLedBetter wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

god didn't write the king james version, which replaced other versions at that time and is still a widely accepted version among christianity.

In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, a faction within the Church of England.[7]

James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. The translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.

Instructions were given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. The Bishop of London added a qualification that the translators would add no marginal notes (which had been an issue in the Geneva Bible). King James cited two passages in the Geneva translation where he found the marginal notes offensive:[25] Exodus 1:17, where the Geneva Bible had commended the example of civil disobedience showed by the Hebrew midwives; and also II Chronicles 15:16, where the Geneva Bible had criticized King Asa for not having executed his idolatrous grandmother, Queen Maachah. Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England. Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church. For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word "church" were to be retained and not to be translated as "congregation". The new translation would reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about ordained clergy.

so, is that really the word of god or the word of those in power?

they didn't like some of the messages so they changed it, NOT god

sounds like another scheme of the enemy to stray those from God/Jesus' teachings. God and Satan both add influence to a mans decision. Jesus said test everything and ask the Father and not rely on me. Thats where many christians and non believers alike fail. They take the bible to literally or take certain instances and only give those reverance.

so are you saying to not believe the bible because it has been corrupted?

EddieLedBetter · January 2010

NickGMusic wrote:

One thing that's bothered me though about religion is how religious people ALWAYS try to push their faith on non religious people, yet non religous people don't try to push anything on them, at least that's always happened in my lifetime. I think the next step for mankind will be the real acceptance of all faiths and races.

Not true. Look at the heap of people on here in argument against. The shoe fits both feet. From my side it would seem that the opposition is greater.

Most religious people who are truely saved by christ's teaching were the non religious people before they came to know him. Granted many fail at understanding the right way to do go about it. All they are doing is trying share what they were given. Dont take such offense to it. Wheres that john lennon love when they try to convey to you what they've experienced? People put up a wall of hate at the mention of God.

EddieLedBetter · January 2010

In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, a faction within the Church of England.[7]

James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. The translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.

Instructions were given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. The Bishop of London added a qualification that the translators would add no marginal notes (which had been an issue in the Geneva Bible). King James cited two passages in the Geneva translation where he found the marginal notes offensive:[25] Exodus 1:17, where the Geneva Bible had commended the example of civil disobedience showed by the Hebrew midwives; and also II Chronicles 15:16, where the Geneva Bible had criticized King Asa for not having executed his idolatrous grandmother, Queen Maachah. Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England. Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church. For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word "church" were to be retained and not to be translated as "congregation". The new translation would reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about ordained clergy.

so are you saying to not believe the bible because it has been corrupted?

I'm saying test the bible through prayer and meditation. God will provide the truths.

Pepe Silvia · January 2010

EddieLedBetter wrote:

I'm saying test the bible through prayer and meditation. God will provide the truths.

so then how do you know it's YOUR god? how do you know it isn't Buddha or Mohamed? how do you know they aren't all the same god but with different names? what if this 'MY god is the only true god' stuff is your devil trying to separate people and cultures or those in power trying to keep their power?

Pepe Silvia · January 2010

TheBeach wrote:

he still stands wrote:

EddieLedBetter wrote:

Only one story can be true right?

oh boy... another person who thinks there is one immutable, concrete, and unquestionable "reality" that 100% of the world should agree upon. How medieval of you...

"I don't mind the idea of Christianity, I just can't stand christians." - can't remember who... :roll:

What about Muslims, Hindus and so on? What about about what they teach? Can you stand them?
Some people have no problem bashing Christians or denying Jesus, it's a shame. I feel sorry for you.

There is only one way and thats throught Jesus.

actually, the Koran says if you encounter a nonbeliever or someone with different beliefs as long as they are a good person treat them as you would a Muslim...does the christian bible say that? i doubt king james and those in power would approve of such a message or if it did they changed it like they changed congregation to church, rape to lie with....

hell, the Koran even mentions Jesus, though, only as a prophet of god, not the son of god but on another hand according to christianity we are all the children of god, right? maybe christians are taking the son of god thing too lieterally?

Hugh Freaking Dillon · January 2010

Pepe Silvia wrote:

what if this 'MY god is the only true god' stuff is your devil trying to separate people and cultures or those in power trying to keep their power?

NICE!

Hugh Freaking Dillon · January 2010

EddieLedBetter wrote:

NickGMusic wrote:

One thing that's bothered me though about religion is how religious people ALWAYS try to push their faith on non religious people, yet non religous people don't try to push anything on them, at least that's always happened in my lifetime. I think the next step for mankind will be the real acceptance of all faiths and races.

Not true. Look at the heap of people on here in argument against. The shoe fits both feet. From my side it would seem that the opposition is greater.

Most religious people who are truely saved by christ's teaching were the non religious people before they came to know him. Granted many fail at understanding the right way to do go about it. All they are doing is trying share what they were given. Dont take such offense to it. Wheres that john lennon love when they try to convey to you what they've experienced? People put up a wall of hate at the mention of God.

I can't speak for everyone, but people don't take offense to the message, we take offense to the arrogant stance that many christians take. The "let me save you,too" BS. The "I know the truth, and one day, you will too". I don't need saving, and I can be grounded enough that NONE of us know the truth. NONE. ZILCH. There is no knowledge in faith. Have faith in knowledge.

the opposition is greater? 95% of the world believes in God and you think the 5% who don't are a greater force? The church is duping you into believing there is actually a cause out there for you. When you have no cause, you lose your purpose, and heaven forbid the church loses its purpose.

Hugh Freaking Dillon · January 2010

EddieLedBetter wrote:

They take the bible to literally or take certain instances and only give those reverance.

this is what I find so hypocritical. how can you possibly, not only believe "the book", but also purport to know which passages are to be taken literally and which ones are mere metaphor? you can't have your cake and eat it too. either you believe it, or you don't.

And to answer your initial question "Why is it so unbelievable?", it is unbelieveable that we, as a species are so ignorant, arrogant, and weak, yes, I said weak, that we basically take everything that was "learned" and thought to be known as recently as 50 or 60 years ago, and called it false. Yet, we take this book, which was written 2000 years ago, by several different people, has evolved several different times, in a time where they thought any number of laughable beliefs, and say "yeah, but this book is good".

Why don't we still believe that the earth is flat?
Why don't we still believe that the universe revolves around the Earth?
Google the phrase "once believed to be...", and you'll come up with millions of scenarios where something which was once thought to be factual was in fact false.

Why do we hold up the Bible as still believable? Because we NEED to. People need faith to get by. If they don't think there's an afterlife, they see no point in this life. And on and on we could go.

EddieLedBetter · January 2010

I meant the opposition on this particular thread.

I didnt say I didnt believe in the book. I said I test it. We are allowed to question and test God.

A desire to share what they've attained isnt such a bad thing. I agree many christian believers views or methods screw up the true message.

If there is no purpose to life, meaning we are just here by random chance with no purpose, then why is evil such a bad thing? Why cant we have wars? Why cant I kill my neighbor for strealing something from me or have sex with his wife because I want to? Why cant I kill millions of animals to help my race survive? Why cant I just live and be a drug addict and have fun without any consequence? A purposeless life is more silly to me than the one I've been presented.

Why do people that dont believe in God hate him so much? Why does it offend one in such a way that they think me to be silly?

BinFrog · January 2010

EddieLedBetter wrote:

If there is no purpose to life, meaning we are just here by random chance with no purpose, then why is evil such a bad thing? Why cant we have wars? Why cant I kill my neighbor for strealing something from me or have sex with his wife because I want to? Why cant I kill millions of animals to help my race survive? Why cant I just live and be a drug addict and have fun without any consequence? A purposeless life is more silly to me than the one I've been presented.

I don't need the fear/belief in god to know what is morally right, or at least what I think is sound judgment. Sure, the ten commandments are a great basis for a moral code, but that doesn't mean I think they originated from some divine being. Again, these are hand me down stories.

EddieLedBetter wrote:

Why do people that dont believe in God hate him so much? Why does it offend one in such a way that they think me to be silly?

I don't hate God. Non-belief does not equal hatred. And I also don't think you are silly for believing in something that I don't. We can't all be like-minded: Earth would be a very boring place to live.

The only thing that offends me about some believers is when they claim that they "just know" their way is the only right way. That attitude has been the basis for millions of deaths, war and misery on this planet for thousands of years now and it's time we move past that. No-one knows ANYTHING about God or the afterlife for sure. Period. There is no discussion to be had there. Your faith is a guess.

God... Christ... The Bible

Comments

Categories