More harm being caused by religion:
This is being taught to children in school..
This image is now trying to be removed from facebook..
There is roughly 7 billion people in the world (Man, that figure has risen since Sega Dreamcast "Upto 6 Billion players" online adverts), a chunky percentage of those people are religious. Now, even the most prominent figures of those religions disagree on aspects and we have denominantions. I, as a Christian, still [
very occasionally] get things wrong.
There is clearly going to be a minority of extremities who get it drastically wrong. Drawing attention to these people and blaiming the religion itself, is obviously completely unfair.
If I misread the Bible and decided to stone sexual sinners or something... by your logic the religion itself is to blaim. Nonsensical.
But ricko, I and other posters have explained this about 10 times on this thread now.
You're avoiding common sense, because it does not suit your biasses against religion. You ignore sense and the genuine religious folk, and look to a minority of abusers, then blaim the religion, because this way it suits your biasses.
Rickolasnice said:
BOOM!
Shambles does it again
I find comments like this very childish. I haven't even had a chance to reply to Shamble's post and you're already being his cheer-leader. You've decided his answers are definitive, and declared him winner before I've replied, just because his views coincide with your own. How close-minded. At least let me respond to a post before you get out your pom poms.
As Jess has disappeared, and 1394 has given up on his faith, I'm clearly in the minority here. Taking sides and cheering your buddies is clearly a very easy thing to do.
Shambles said:
Dunno which denomination Raas (or the other Christian EADDers) are but Raas' one is a new one on me. Admittedly there are so many it's impossible for anybody to know the details of more than a few. But have never heard of a denomination that dismisses the OT so completely. Makes no sense really
This is simply lies about me. Perhaps an attempt to demean me as my views contrast your own.
While acknowledging corruption exists in the OT - comparrison of historical texts shows up laws later added by priests for their own political goals - I have always expressed that there is merit within the Old Testament and that Christians should take it seriously:
Post 703
Raas said:
There is stuff in the OT to be listened too, and stuff that shouldn't. And this is exemplified by Jesus who defies the OT in places, and fulfills it in others. Like a load of roses planted amongst thorns... you must be careful what you pick out
____
Shambles said:
Same goes for Exodus. Absolutely fundamental to many Christian concepts. We know it didn't happen - even Israeli archaeologist agree on that now despite decades of trying to find a way round the awkward facts. I see you avoided responding to that part. And also the NT problems. I wonder why that could be...?
Being the only theist responding, I am in a huge minority. I've had many questions from posters that I just do not have the time to answer properly. It actually takes considerable effort to think about these questions and give suitable answers, because I know someone is going to proof-read me and look for any mistake to pounce on.
i've avoided many questions, and will avoid many more in this post... not because i am clueless, or can't answer them...but because it's simply too much to respond too at once. The more I respond the more tl;dr the post becomes, sadly.
I've given many detailed responses in the past to your posts, only to have the whole thing ignored. Do wonder sometimes if you have difficulty yourself defending your views; effected from bias. Though I haven't made a point of it as yet, and accept there may well be other reasons.
StoneHappyMonday said:
All organized religion is a consequence of ego and patriarchy. Ego, because it is all about finding some sort of immortality, the after-life, because we're just tooooo important to only live this insignificant life. I can't imagine dogs sit around wondering about an after-life. Patriarchy because every religion shits on women from a great height. Second class citizens. This is deliberate. Buddhists do it too.
Choose life. Insignificant but a bit more real than fairy stories
Bhuddism places a lot of emphasis on dissociating from material desires and leading a life of compassion to others and animals. I can't see misogyny fitting the bill in this ideal, and am sure a lot of female Bhuddists would disagree with you also.
Though, misogyny has certainly occured in religions in the past, present and will continue to. You ignore the genuine religious folk who use their religion as an outlet for human spirituality, and focus on the abusers, because this suits your biasses against religions. Subsequently, your perception is distorted and not true or applicable to the majority of genuine followers who look to religion to meet their spiritual needs of care/love/respect/peace/compassion.
gayorstraight said:
Yeah, we need a Modern Testament to fix the NT. Actually, I'm not sure what we need...
What are people's take on Buddhism? I don't know much at all, all I know is they believe in treating people as you would like to be treated and karma etc.
If I had to be religious, I'd probably choose Buddhism
You're a woman, aren't you... You don't have to post on the theology thread.... woman.
_________________________
No he didn't. He supposedly was giving us the word of Yahweh (although - as previously discussed the evidence is clear he/they were actually reinterpreting existing pre-Hebrew polytheism and slimming it down to fit the new "atheism" (as also mentioned, Christians were who the term "atheist" was created for as they didn't believe in "the gods" and this presumably also applied to Jews as they also dismissed polytheism at some stage)). Why would he have to make shit up? Especially summat so silly?
Also, the "Genesis days were different to "our" days" argument is a non-starter. It makes no sense if you read Hebrew. The word used for "day" in the original text is the exact same word used throughout the OT (NT being written in Greek). This makes no sense as they obviously had words to describe longer time periods. Also, it makes no sense with that common modern-day interpretation being allegorical as the order of creation in no way matches what is known about the actual history of creation or evolution. Again, it is nonsensical. It does, however, closely tie-in with pre-existing religions that already existed in that area of the world around the time the OT was being composed making it an easy sell.
And, more fundamental to the problem, it also means there is no basis for the Christian concept of "original sin". No original sin, no need for Jesus' death and resurrection. Kinda hard to get around that as far as I can tell...
I'll grant you the other Abrahamic religions - essentially just variations onna theme - but what about Hinduism? That's polytheistic which I'm guessing you don't go along with. Or Buddism? That's atheistic so definitely not your kinda thang. Or what about the hundreds of thousands of animist-type religions? Ancestor worship? Goddess worship/Divine Feminine? Also totally incompatible with your current belief system. Would you burn in hell for being a heathen? Or does your god forgive and forget? That doesn't fit well with much of your bible now does it? Would your god accept these other religions are a result of his own incompetence in getting the message across? Particularly in timely fashion seeing as we - as a species - have existed for at least 100000 years - 250000 by some measures, 20000000 by other measures. Kinda slack leaving it to the last moment, no?
One of the best posts of the thread so far. Very well researched, quoting much factual information, and a lot of awareness of topic. So persuasively written as well... Almost makes me wanna turn atheist... just who was defending this shit anyway, wasn't it Jess?!
Joking aside, in regards to creationalism: I have looked into this topic of creationalism quite deeply and read SO much *shit, by both Christians and atheists on this issue. Both avoiding common sense, for the sake of defending their opinion that they've commited too. Please, let us not be like them but look towards the issue with honesty.
Your views on creationalism I empathise with, because, remember, i too was once atheist. I once too had the fun of embarrassing my Christian mum as she tried to defend Genesis while I quoted the science.
However... Due to religious experiences in my own life, suggesting the religion is real... and finding the Bible strikingly profound in other aspects, I now have the difficult challenge of making sense of these stories I once laughed at.
Because....If my experiences are real, and the religion is true, it must be irrefutable throughout. The Bible must withstand time and be faultless.
There must be a convincing answer to every complaint.
So please, boys... come close to me... as I now attempt the diffcult task of convincingly refuting everything I once believed in, everything that Shambles believes in. To convincingly refute everything that we're told from Dawkins, from Sam Harris, Neil Tyson and of course... the Devil himself. ̶o̶h̶ ̶n̶o̶,̶ ̶I̶ ̶a̶l̶r̶e̶a̶d̶y̶ ̶i̶n̶c̶l̶u̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶S̶h̶a̶m̶b̶l̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶l̶i̶s̶t̶ ̶d̶i̶d̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶i̶.̶.
The 7 Days Story/Evolution - A Christian answer
There are a few hardcore Christians who refuse to accept anything other than the world being created in several days, and will blindly pay no attention to literal science. Though these days, the popular Christian answer is that the story is allegorical.
As of 2006 most Christians around the world accepted evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of species, and did not take a literal view of the Genesis creation narrative [Miller JD, Scott EC, Okamoto S (August 2006).] Leaders of the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches have made statements in favor of evolutionary theory.
Though... I admit, this is a bit of a dull answer
Seems that the Bible told us the world was created in 7 days, science disproved it nearly 2,000 years later, now the only way to keep the religion credible would be to claim it "figurative". Like clutching a straw in the face of scientific demolition.
However, to it's credit, the idea of this story being allegorical was actually argued by Christians (And Jews) long before Darwin and evolution: Examples are Philo of Alexandria, Saint Augustine of the late fourth century. (Thank you Wiki) Both felt uncomfortable with the idea of a seven-day creation because it detracted from the notion of God's omnipotence.
Now from a philosiphical point of view, it makes sense that it is a figurative story also:
If God gave us the choice to ignore him, he deliberately made himself unprovable on a physical basis. Basic Christian theology, right?
So if God is unprovable on a scientific basis, the Bible
can not be a scientific journal. The creation story could only have been non-existant, or figurative... if the Bible is to meet it's goal, in declaring that God is delibrately unprovable (on a scientfic basis). Think about it, if the genesis story was literal and true, the whole world including you would be Christian and no-one could ignore God.
With a bit of thought and research, the idea that this original creational story was intended to be figurative only, seems a bit more credible.
Now, excitingly, with a bit of reading into the Bible there comes a major clue which looks to confirm this...
In Genesis Chapter 1 God it states that on day 4 birds and fish were created. Followed on day 5 by "beasts of the earth".
Genesis Story 1 said:
20Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”21God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.22God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”23There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
24Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so.25God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
26Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”27God created man in His own image
AFTER animals he created man.
Now.... in Genesis 2... the author is now saying the opposite... Now man is created BEFORE animals... and both "beasts" and fish are created at the same time...
Genesis Story 2 said:
18Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.20The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.21So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.22The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
This is a HUGE contradiction.
for such a contradtiction to exist... surely there's only 2 possibilities:
1) The author is extremely stupid, never proof-read his story, and those who produced the bible were too dumb to spot it also
2) The stories are
figurative. And the clashes occur because the external stories never happened.
The latter, to me, seems more sensible.
Considering the philosiphical implications, history of theological thought on the issue, and further reading into scripture, I think that the 7 days story was always - without doubt -
intended to be figurative.
Shambles said:
modern-day interpretation being allegorical as the order of creation in no way matches what is known about the actual history of creation or evolution
In this allegory, it is not referring to scientific knowledge about the creation of the world. For the aforementioned philosophical reasons, the book is not allowed to prove God with science. So the allegory can never allude to the actual process of creation
Rather, the allegory (imo) seems to place more emphasis in demonstrating the abosolute power of God. He can basically, do anything he wants with a click of the finger
18Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky
I'll get back to you on other points, as I fear I'm crossing the TL;DR mark. Would rather like to come to an agreement on this "biggie" before progressin'. Can we agree that this story was most likely to have been an allegory and not an attempt at explaining science? Or would you feel this not the case?
*I'm not really swearing it's figurative
)
