[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by Aquataris

HIGH SCORE

JoshuaZ: π

I totally need to take a picture of that and send it into Nintendo Power!

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Anyone who attributes human characteristics to God has a limited way of thinking. Better?

No, not really.

Even in The Bible™ God gets angry, jealous and has feelings of satisfaction. He destroys and kills out of vengeance and punishment, and demands respect and obedience like a crazed Emperor. Are these not human characteristics?

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by smacintush

No, not really.

Even in The Bible™ God gets angry, jealous and has feelings of satisfaction. He destroys and kills out of vengeance and punishment, and demands respect and obedience like a crazed Emperor. Are these not human characteristics?

Very sad human characteristics at that... I'd say you owned him, but I'm sure Railroader will say something like "but but but... it's a metaphor... they weren't really human feelings!" Those crazy religious folk'll always resort to metaphors when the Bible is shown to have blatant contradictions with reality or, in this case, themselves.

[Aquataris]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Very sad human characteristics at that... I'd say you owned him, but I'm sure Railroader will say something like "but but but... it's a metaphor... they weren't really human feelings!" Those crazy religious folk'll always resort to metaphors when the Bible is shown to have blatant contradictions with reality or, in this case, themselves.

I am very religious, but I find the Bible very hard to use as a reference to anything other than morals and virtues. It has been raped and rewritten by emperors and kings for so long that it's nearly impossible to know what should be taken as the actual original intent and what was an added advertisement for a new law that made some unknown person or organization smell like a rose to the people reading it at the time of its new translation.

Also, there are books qualified to be in the Bible that were rejected because they went against what certain churches and orders believed or contradicted writings of a more prominent book already popular among the faithful. What we call the Bible is not a complete work, but merely selections of the interpretations of certain religious men. I say leave the Bible out of this little matter of beginnings and ends because it is not the sum of a man's beliefs... unless that man just decides he is religious because he read a book.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by smacintush

No, not really.

Even in The Bible™ God gets angry, jealous and has feelings of satisfaction. He destroys and kills out of vengeance and punishment, and demands respect and obedience like a crazed Emperor. Are these not human characteristics?

Have you read the New Testament?

EDIT: Also, see my post below. Particularly the second sentence.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Very sad human characteristics at that... I'd say you owned him, but I'm sure Railroader will say something like "but but but... it's a metaphor... they weren't really human feelings!" Those crazy religious folk'll always resort to metaphors when the Bible is shown to have blatant contradictions with reality or, in this case, themselves.

Uh... no.

Those were humans giving human emotions to God. Humans are FAR from perfect. Thank you for allowing me to clarify.

Try again.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Aquataris

I am very religious, but I find the Bible very hard to use as a reference to anything other than morals and virtues. It has been raped and rewritten by emperors and kings for so long that it's nearly impossible to know what should be taken as the actual original intent and what was an added advertisement for a new law that made some unknown person or organization smell like a rose to the people reading it at the time of its new translation.

Also, there are books qualified to be in the Bible that were rejected because they went against what certain churches and orders believed or contradicted writings of a more prominent book already popular among the faithful. What we call the Bible is not a complete work, but merely selections of the interpretations of certain religious men. I say leave the Bible out of this little matter of beginnings and ends because it is not the sum of a man's beliefs... unless that man just decides he is religious because he read a book.

It's certainly respectable to read books in order to see various viewpoints, and to consider adopting virtues such as "Thou Shalt Not Kill" as part of one's essence. However, as you've pointed out, the state of Christianity is that of chaos. Even within their own group they have wars, they completely disrespect the virtues they think they're protecting by killing each other over the disagreements they have in their interpretations.

However, you can't just "leave the Bible out of this" when they were discussing matters of God. The Bible is considered to be the definitive source on all that is Godly by many Christians, and is touted as their reference manual whenever they argue over religious matters.

If, as you say, the Bible has been "raped" by countless human beings, it is obviously not a holy document, but rather a collection of man-made stories, and therefore should not be treated as such. The Bible contains many contradictions within itself, many assertions that have been shown to be simply false, and its followers constantly war amongst each other, all the while claiming to be devout followers of "God".

It's all bullshit. You're not "following" the Bible if you kill someone, it says quite clearly in plain terms with no room for exception that "thou shalt not kill". They do it anyways.

So, their argument stemmed from badidea's statements that "God got bored". Railroader, whose psyche depends on the notion of there being a "greater" being who "knows all", was hurt because his favorite idol was being described in mere "human terms". Perhaps Railroader is not a believer in the Bible, or perhaps he claims to be but doesn't take it literally anyway, essentially meaning the same thing. All that smacintush was doing was showing him that a book considered by virtually all Christians, including the Pope, to be the divine "Word Of God", disagreed with him. It was a fair argument to make, and frankly, it's perfectly reasonable to assume God, if such a figure exists, got bored.

[Aquataris]

Originally Posted by itistoday

It's certainly respectable to read books in order to see various viewpoints, and to consider adopting virtues such as "Thou Shalt Not Kill" as part of one's essence. However, as you've pointed out, the state of Christianity is that of chaos. Even within their own group they have wars, they completely disrespect the virtues they think they're protecting by killing each other over the disagreements they have in their interpretations.

However, you can't just "leave the Bible out of this" when they were discussing matters of God. The Bible is considered to be the definitive source on all that is Godly by many Christians, and is touted as their reference manual whenever they argue over religious matters.

If, as you say, the Bible has been "raped" by countless human beings, it is obviously not a holy document, but rather a collection of man-made stories, and therefore should not be treated as such. The Bible contains many contradictions within itself, many assertions that have been shown to be simply false, and its followers constantly war amongst each other, all the while claiming to be devout followers of "God".

It's all bullshit. You're not "following" the Bible if you kill someone, it says quite clearly in plain terms with no room for exception that "thou shalt not kill". They do it anyways.

So, their argument stemmed from badidea's statements that "God got bored". Railroader, whose psyche depends on the notion of there being a "greater" being who "knows all", was hurt because his favorite idol was being described in mere "human terms". Perhaps Railroader is not a believer in the Bible, or perhaps he claims to be but doesn't take it literally anyway, essentially meaning the same thing. All that smacintush was doing was showing him that a book considered by virtually all Christians, including the Pope, to be the divine "Word Of God", disagreed with him. It was a fair argument to make, and frankly, it's perfectly reasonable to assume God, if such a figure exists, got bored.

I agree with much of what you said. I simply said what I said because I have been reading this thread and decided to try and disuade it from being a jihad of derailing Bible verses, and or arguments concerning things other than Genesis, but then again, the thread topic was doomed to lead it into such a discussion anyways.

As an extension to both what I said earlier and what you just mentioned, and as a further derailment , whenever religion becomes the weapon of a highly powerful government, the situation and all involved go nucking futs.

BTW, the Bible has been in the hands of men too long to remain holy anyways, if in fact it ever were.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Have you read the New Testament?

Yep.

The stuff in the old testament is the same God last time I checked.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Uh... no.

Those were humans giving human emotions to God. Humans are FAR from perfect. Thank you for allowing me to clarify.

Try again.

Once again this comes up. The Bible™ is supposed to be the Word of God™. If it IS the Word of God™ then you can't deny what I've said. If it is not the Word of God™ then how can you know WHAT to believe in it? I guess SOME of it is and some of it isn't, right? No wait. It is through the imperfect interpretation of it that we are supposed to learn about the nature of ourselves…

The Bible™ is such a flawed object in and of itself it is hard to believe that sane rational people can even take it seriously. Let alone pattern their life after it.

[Railroader]

Obviously you read the Bible as a literal document.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by itistoday

It's certainly respectable to read books in order to see various viewpoints, and to consider adopting virtues such as "Thou Shalt Not Kill" as part of one's essence. However, as you've pointed out, the state of Christianity is that of chaos. Even within their own group they have wars, they completely disrespect the virtues they think they're protecting by killing each other over the disagreements they have in their interpretations.

However, you can't just "leave the Bible out of this" when they were discussing matters of God. The Bible is considered to be the definitive source on all that is Godly by many Christians, and is touted as their reference manual whenever they argue over religious matters.

If, as you say, the Bible has been "raped" by countless human beings, it is obviously not a holy document, but rather a collection of man-made stories, and therefore should not be treated as such. The Bible contains many contradictions within itself, many assertions that have been shown to be simply false, and its followers constantly war amongst each other, all the while claiming to be devout followers of "God".

It's all bullshit. You're not "following" the Bible if you kill someone, it says quite clearly in plain terms with no room for exception that "thou shalt not kill". They do it anyways.

So, their argument stemmed from badidea's statements that "God got bored". Railroader, whose psyche depends on the notion of there being a "greater" being who "knows all", was hurt because his favorite idol was being described in mere "human terms". Perhaps Railroader is not a believer in the Bible, or perhaps he claims to be but doesn't take it literally anyway, essentially meaning the same thing. All that smacintush was doing was showing him that a book considered by virtually all Christians, including the Pope, to be the divine "Word Of God", disagreed with him. It was a fair argument to make, and frankly, it's perfectly reasonable to assume God, if such a figure exists, got bored.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Once again this comes up. The Bible™ is supposed to be the Word of God™. If it IS the Word of God™ then you can't deny what I've said. If it is not the Word of God™ then how can you know WHAT to believe in it? I guess SOME of it is and some of it isn't, right? No wait. It is through the imperfect interpretation of it that we are supposed to learn about the nature of ourselves…

The Bible™ is such a flawed object in and of itself it is hard to believe that sane rational people can even take it seriously. Let alone pattern their life after it.

Yup... you're a literalist. BORING!

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Yup... you're a literalist. BORING!

Well, we can't all live in your exciting fantasy land.

[Railroader]

You should join me. It's very peaceful and calming.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Railroader

You should join me. It's very peaceful and calming.

I hope you'll understand if I decline your invitation, I'm not a big fan of white sheets and having to be tied to my bed at night.

[ryaxnb]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Well, we can't all live in your exciting fantasy land.

I believe what he is saying is that if you don't take the book literally how can you claim to be a believer: After all, WHAT PART do you believe in?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by itistoday

I hope you'll understand if I decline your invitation, I'm not a big fan of white sheets and having to be tied to my bed at night.

Sounds like you're experienced in that regard. I'll have to take your word for it.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by ryaxnb

After all, WHAT PART do you believe in?

Is this question directed towards me? I believe in a very small part of it, only the historical figures.

[JoshuaZ]

Man, did someone find an old horse around here? He ran away because someone was beating him to death, and I don`t know where he went.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by macaddict0001

If you are interested in this you should watch "what the *bleep* do we know" and read "Gods Debris".

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

God's Debris, written by Dilbert creator Scott Adams, is a thought experiment which challenges the reader to separate the scientifically accepted theories from "creative baloney" or as most would call it pure bullshit. You can read it for free here.

Thanks for the link. So far I've read several chapters and skipped through to the end, and I've gotta say I'm not impressed. It seems like a big waste of time, the author basically tells you to "read a bunch of bullshit, and then see if you can explain what it was". Sorry, I don't have time for that.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Yup... you're a literalist. BORING!

Oh, on the contrary. I definitely am not one who thinks that The Bible™ should be read literally. I believe that most of it should be ripped out and thrown away as so much useless trash (like the entire old testament and much of the new) and that the teachings of Jesus have somethings worth reading and learning from in spite of the fact that he was no more the son of God than I am.

[Uriel]

since god is a concept thought of by man, if there was no universe and no humans inhabitng whatever was there, than how did god (a man made concept) make the universe??

This can't be a serious argument...

I'll assume it's flamebait.

Is this seriously going to go anywhere the other threads haven't gone?

[Monique]

I do not understand why Christians cannot distinguish between spiritual reality and scientific reality. The earth and universe cannot be only 6,000 years. I would be very curious how you count all the historical facts within only 6,000 years.

As for the big bang it makes sense but we do not know enough about the universe; but it is a good beginning.

[Uriel]

I do not understand why Christians cannot distinguish between spiritual reality and scientific reality. The earth and universe cannot be only 6,000 years. I would be very curious how you count all the historical facts within only 6,000 years.

Not all Christians believe that...

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Monique

As for the big bang it makes sense but we do not know enough about the universe; but it is a good beginning.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, simply that the universe existed before it.

[Monique]

So if you believe the big bang happened, you cannot believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Monique

So if you believe the big bang happened, you cannot believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

lol, of course I don't. When did I say that???

[Uriel]

I'm just saying that not all Creationist believe in the "New Earth" idealology.

[ironknee]

the universe has always been hereand always will...no need for a creator god.

the ONLY reason the bible/god is popular is because there's this thing called death. these people NEED some feeling that they have control over their lives/deaths rather than the reality of the sword of damocles.

[Aquataris]

Originally Posted by ironknee

the universe has always been hereand always will...no need for a creator god.

the ONLY reason the bible/god is popular is because there's this thing called death. these people NEED some feeling that they have control over their lives/deaths rather than the reality of the sword of damocles.

So, let me get this straight... people make life hard for themselves by doing the right thing and following their ideas and morals only because they want there to be an afterlife where even if you are a good person, most religions say you need an incredibly high degree of focus on spirituality to transend to instead of going to hell?

Frankly, it would be easier to just do what you want and then relax in nothingness and non-existance for all eternity.

My point?

That the opposite dumb argument of fear can be used for Atheists. That they are afraid of consequences for their actions and would rather believe there aren't any permanent consequences, therefore they believe in nothing for that reason alone.

Will some agree with my statement... yes.

Will some disagree... yes, because it is an easy answer to come too. It's also a narrow minded and false idea.

There is not just one reason why somebody would be either.

To blow a big hole in your assumption... I believe in God. Why I believe in him I won't disclose in a public forum. It's too personal a reason to expose. However, I don't have any problem with dying and simply becoming nothingness. This can only mean there is more than one reason.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Aquataris

So, let me get this straight... people make life hard for themselves by doing the right thing and following their ideas and morals only because they want there to be an afterlife where even if you are a good person, most religions say you need an incredibly high degree of focus on spirituality to transend to instead of going to hell?

Frankly, it would be easier to just do what you want and then relax in nothingness and non-existance for all eternity.

My point?

That the opposite dumb argument of fear can be used for Atheists. That they are afraid of consequences for their actions and would rather believe there aren't any permanent consequences, therefore they believe in nothing for that reason alone.

Will some agree with my statement... yes.

Will some disagree... yes, because it is an easy answer to come too. It's also a narrow minded and false idea.

There is not just one reason why somebody would be either.

hi Aquataris,

i am sorry i said everyone, I respect your beliefs...that was a bad way to express myself and i re-track it. i was wrong to say it at all....let me just try to express my thoughts:

the universe has always been here and always will...no need for a creator god.

ok i think that is my big picture view on this...i still think this

the ONLY reason the bible/god is popular is because there's this thing called death. these people NEED some feeling that they have control over their lives/deaths rather than the reality of the sword of damocles.

i should restate this:

one of the reasons many people need a "religion"--from early man-kind cave paintings depictions of "gods" as the nature around them to the egyptians to the hindu concept of re-incarnation to even the bible/god believers--is because there's this thing called death.

Seems like most people NEED some feeling that they have control over their lives/deaths rather than the reality of the sword of damocles.

To blow a big hole in your assumption... I believe in God. Why I believe in him I won't disclose in a public forum. It's too personal a reason to expose. However, I don't have any problem with dying and simply becoming nothingness. This can only mean there is more than one reason.

again...i never meant to assume. i think that idea is cool. like eugene o'neil in a long day's journey into night about being the sun, the sea ie nature...

again i believe in the science that energy returns to energy...we are all energy separated by birth...

[Aquataris]

Originally Posted by ironknee

hi Aquataris,

i am sorry i said everyone, I respect your beliefs...that was a bad way to express myself and i re-track it. i was wrong to say it at all....let me just try to express my thoughts:



ok i think that is my big picture view on this...i still think this



i should restate this:

one of the reasons many people need a "religion"--from early man-kind cave paintings depictions of "gods" as the nature around them to the egyptians to the hindu concept of re-incarnation to even the bible/god believers--is because there's this thing called death.

Seems like most people NEED some feeling that they have control over their lives/deaths rather than the reality of the sword of damocles.



again...i never meant to assume. i think that idea is cool. like eugene o'neil in a long day's journey into night about being the sun, the sea ie nature...

again i believe in the science that energy returns to energy...we are all energy separated by birth...

It's no problem. I see now that you are much more intelligent than the original post lead me to assume. I respect your views and apologize for getting more worked up than I should have.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Aquataris

It's no problem. I see now that you are much more intelligent than the original post lead me to assume. I respect your views and apologize for getting more worked up than I should have.

right on...np...

[Uriel]

An awesome example of some maturity from both of you ;-)

[ApplCmptrDood]

Don't know, and the brain hurts thinking about it. 'Nuff said.