Maybe it was a Jesus Lizard.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Maybe it was a Jesus Lizard.
Well they can walk on water. So maybe.
Forget about dinosaur bones... there are actual human bones older than 6000 years.
Don't be fooled.
There's a Jennifer Lopez joke to be made here.
It is written in the book of Job:
There shall in that time be rumours of things going astray, erm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia-work base, that has an attachment. At that time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer, and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock.
There shall in that time be rumours of things going astray, erm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia-work base, that has an attachment. At that time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer, and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock.
I believe God created a mature Universe in the blink of an eye, yes. Of course, a blink of an eye can look like a million years, or even 13.6 billion years, dare I say it, looking back towards the point of creation from our viewpoint.If you want to accuse me of doing something wrong because I really do believe God can do all things, then fire away. Just bear in mind that even the secular scientists rely on hyperinflation to explain the thermal connections throughout the Universe that shouldn't be there in a Universe less than 14 billion years old, according to the speed of light.
There are intractable problems at the heart of all scientific theories that have attempted to explain origins of life and the Universe without belief in God.
Imo using the Bible or the popular religions to explain the origins of the Universe is like looking in the bible for instructions on changing an iPhone screen. That's not what why they're there.
And the reverse is true. Not many people use the hard sciences to figure out where their life went wrong, how to deal with the loss of a loved one or to understand how some people maintain kindness in a seemingly hostile world.
Its not like the two are mutually exclusive after all, at least for non-fundamentalists (of every persuasion).
And the reverse is true. Not many people use the hard sciences to figure out where their life went wrong, how to deal with the loss of a loved one or to understand how some people maintain kindness in a seemingly hostile world.
Its not like the two are mutually exclusive after all, at least for non-fundamentalists (of every persuasion).
You can't use a scientific explanation for how the supernatural created the natural, but you can believe it did. The problem for scientists today is that there is more reason to believe that a supernatural intelligence created the Universe and life than there ever has been before. Looking at the same evidence set before us today, the apostles would have stood in wonder at the inner workings of the cell and the magnitude of the Universe. They would not have become materialists; they would have praised God.
Paul makes it very clear that God is made known by the things that are made. Science has only demonstrated just how true this is over the centuries. For all that heaven is mocked, how much more is materialism mocked in heaven?
Romans 1:20 "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
Indeed.
So because it sounds nice it's true basically.
They may well have done, though I suspect their beliefs would have moved from a personal God to a far more pantheistic outlook.
A blink of an eye takes between 100 and 400 milliseconds. And trying to legitimise Young Earth Creationism by hinting at time dilation is one of the more ludicrous things you have said in this thread. And that is saying something.
I think you must be nuts to believe that.
I know I'm going to regret asking this but what are you on about? I know you will be misinterpreting our current understanding combined with a god of the gaps argument but I want to hear the specifics.
No there aren't.
Why didn't he create a mature Jesus?
There is? do tell.
Or burnt you at the stake for being a witch and/or blasphemer/heretic.
Amen
Only if you doubt they walked with, learned from and ultimately saw the glory of the risen Lord. Based on their testimony, which is all you can attribute to them, they would have sung praises to this very same Lord.
It's a mistake to think the Christian profession of faith is one so easily erased.
Why answer a fool according to his folly?
Are you implying Christianity today still exclusively believes in a personal God? Surely not.
Anyway I think we're talking of different things. I was thinking of the reaction of the apostles if they lived in today's world, with today's common views on science. You seem to be thinking about the apostles of then, but with today's science presented to them.
I always kinda figured it was more the taking on the sins of all of mankind and being wholly separated from God for the first time ever that was the hard part, more than the pain and death of his physical body anyway.
I'd definitely agree that tolerance isn't as big in the Bible as some people make out. But while the term "join us or suffer" is incidentally correct, it doesn't accurately reflect the correct attitude of a Christian, or God himself. If a man in a big lifeboat rowed through the wreckage of ship trying to pull people in lest they drown or freeze in the ocean, would we say of him that "he has a join me or die" policy? No, even though technically, we should join him or we'd die. Similarly, Christians see themselves as the lucky ones who got onto the lifeboat, and it's important they do what they can to get others on too. They aren't actively throwing people into the water when they decline the boat, but rather their current predicament makes the water their default. God isn't "sending" people to hell so much as people are going there because they haven't been saved, and I believe that's a small yet important distinction.
Obviously the metaphor is flawed; it doesn't address why the ship had crashed in the first place. Not to mention anyone in their right mind wants to get out of the ocean and into a lifeboat, whereas it's pretty logical to see why one would deny religion. The point of the metaphor is just to show how the term "join us or suffer" is true and yet very misleading at the same time.
We can only get to heaven precisely because of him dying for our sins. Whether or not you believe the story is a fairy tail, at least get the plot correct
We kill each other a lot sure, but religious ideology often isn't the cause.
Yes. The apostles of their own time period with the knowledge of science today.
Christianity that is based on the testimony of the apostles. That is to say, Christianity which preaches what the apostles preached, believing what the apostles believed, exclusively believes in a personal God. If people want to redefine Christianity with word salad, that is up to them, but I have no interest in it.
Let me clarify, any Christian that doesn't believe in the personal God is not in fact a Christian but something different?
I always kinda figured it was more the taking on the sins of all of mankind and being wholly separated from God for the first time ever that was the hard part, more than the pain and death of his physical body anyway.
I'd definitely agree that tolerance isn't as big in the Bible as some people make out. But while the term "join us or suffer" is incidentally correct, it doesn't accurately reflect the correct attitude of a Christian, or God himself. If a man in a big lifeboat rowed through the wreckage of ship trying to pull people in lest they drown or freeze in the ocean, would we say of him that "he has a join me or die" policy? No, even though technically, we should join him or we'd die. Similarly, Christians see themselves as the lucky ones who got onto the lifeboat, and it's important they do what they can to get others on too. They aren't actively throwing people into the water when they decline the boat, but rather their current predicament makes the water their default. God isn't "sending" people to hell so much as people are going there because they haven't been saved, and I believe that's a small yet important distinction.
Obviously the metaphor is flawed; it doesn't address why the ship had crashed in the first place. Not to mention anyone in their right mind wants to get out of the ocean and into a lifeboat, whereas it's pretty logical to see why one would deny religion. The point of the metaphor is just to show how the term "join us or suffer" is true and yet very misleading at the same time.
We can only get to heaven precisely because of him dying for our sins. Whether or not you believe the story is a fairy tail, at least get the plot correct
We kill each other a lot sure, but religious ideology often isn't the cause.
Well then what about the billions of people before that? Did they get denied heaven?
And there's still nothing to suggest the religion itself has anything to do with getting to heaven, by their own words we can choose to accept HIM and get there right?
You quoted a big post of mine, not sure what you're replying too, presumably the comment about Jesus dying for mankind's sins? I've always understood it to be that Christ died for all sins, past and present.
Well sure, a relationship with Jesus himself is what saves a soul, not "religion". Religion is just a word, it's what people call living a life believing in a god or gods.
Yes.
Yeah, and that's all my point has been. I can believe in a god and be a good person, but I don't need something man has written and likely twisted to do it.
So im just going to wade into the 163rd page of this thread having not read any of the previous comments;
I am an atheist, in that I believe that there is not a god.
I regard religion for many people as being an escape - a vague notion that it doesnt matter that the human race is largely fecking up the planet and that within about 100 years, most (if not all) natural resources will be gone.... that basically we are arguably approaching the end days of the human race. I say that not in the sense of doom and gloom, but with the inevitability of nuclear conflict, I cant see "modern" civilization lasting more than a couple hundred more years.
Religion is an escape, its a thought that there is some divine being who has a plan for us, and that there will be some panacea by the end that will save the human race, and that there is an afterlife to look forward to.
I do think however that several religions represent much more of a way of life than simply a set of beliefs about a divine being. I take buddhism as an example of this and how you can use the core tenets of any religion or ideology, to create what is largely a peaceful and happy life. This is the good side of religion, but most of these beliefs and ideologies do not need to be associated with any sort of belief in a divine being.
Basically, Religion minus God = a decent way of life, for the most part. (Thats a bit of a generalisation but thats the jist of it).
I am an atheist, in that I believe that there is not a god.
I regard religion for many people as being an escape - a vague notion that it doesnt matter that the human race is largely fecking up the planet and that within about 100 years, most (if not all) natural resources will be gone.... that basically we are arguably approaching the end days of the human race. I say that not in the sense of doom and gloom, but with the inevitability of nuclear conflict, I cant see "modern" civilization lasting more than a couple hundred more years.
Religion is an escape, its a thought that there is some divine being who has a plan for us, and that there will be some panacea by the end that will save the human race, and that there is an afterlife to look forward to.
I do think however that several religions represent much more of a way of life than simply a set of beliefs about a divine being. I take buddhism as an example of this and how you can use the core tenets of any religion or ideology, to create what is largely a peaceful and happy life. This is the good side of religion, but most of these beliefs and ideologies do not need to be associated with any sort of belief in a divine being.
Basically, Religion minus God = a decent way of life, for the most part. (Thats a bit of a generalisation but thats the jist of it).
Which version(s) of the bible do you read?
Belief in a personal God is central to Christian faith. Otherwise it is just a variant or a cult based on Christianity (which is true of a lot of Mainstream churches)
Hmm, might need to go and polish up my understanding of what is meant by personal God. Certainly what I understood of the term couldn't be applied to most of the views of the priests and bishops I've talked to about the subject. (In an ironic quirk of fate, despite being an atheist, I'm friends with many).
Unless you consider the anglican church to be a cult? Not the biggest arm of Christians, but pretty mainstream as I understood it.
However it could very well be my understanding of the term that's faulty.
not a cult that was more of a bait. but yeah the Anglican church is quite liberal in its interpretation and application of the Bible. However, the issue of a personal God is quite central and without it the whole basis of Christianity collapses. So it can't be the Anglican church, it is more likely that interpretation is quite easy to get wrong and to twist
You should do weddings and Bar Mitzvas.
You can believe it, but you don't have good reasons for doing so.
No there isn't.
I think that is part of it but in my opinion a larger part is down to the difficulty of comprehending a finite life and
consciousness. That is a very difficult thing to deal with for many, to think that one day you are here interacting, thinking, feeling, but the next "you" are simply... gone. It is a thought that can be a little disconcerting at times and one that grows as you age and mortality becomes "more real".
It is much simpler to believe your soul/consciousness/whatever just goes on to your final reward as long as you believe hard enough. Of course a cessation of consciousness may not be the case as consciousness itself is still a fairly large mystery but there isn't any evidence that we can point to that tells us we continue on after our physical body is gone.
It's so nice to be alive (for a lot of people in the west) that no-one wants it to end but you have to come to terms with the fact that it will. It's tough but you owe it to yourself to be honest and not try to escape your fear of extinction with a load of old bollox.
No, this theory has been used as an example of God's existence for millennia. We can't explain things, therefore god did it. It doesn't hold up. Science can't explain these things. That's fine. We'll get closer and closer to explaining them and maybe eventually get there. Why does the sun go down at night and rise in the morning? God did it. That used to be a theory. Now we know it doesn't and why we get the illusion that it does. We must have angered god, this rainy season/drought has gone on longer than usual. Nope. Just the unpredictability of the climate.
There are a million things scientists can't explain right now. Say that god is the reason for them all and come back in 100 years and god will be doing a hell of a lot less of those things. The fact that they can't explain the thermal connections throughout the universe isn't evidence for god I'm afraid.
True enough.
I find this to be fairly common these days. I'm a christian and some of the best friends I've ever had (growing up and currently) are agnostics or atheists right.
I always kinda figured it was more the taking on the sins of all of mankind and being wholly separated from God for the first time ever that was the hard part, more than the pain and death of his physical body anyway.
I'd definitely agree that tolerance isn't as big in the Bible as some people make out. But while the term "join us or suffer" is incidentally correct, it doesn't accurately reflect the correct attitude of a Christian, or God himself. If a man in a big lifeboat rowed through the wreckage of ship trying to pull people in lest they drown or freeze in the ocean, would we say of him that "he has a join me or die" policy? No, even though technically, we should join him or we'd die. Similarly, Christians see themselves as the lucky ones who got onto the lifeboat, and it's important they do what they can to get others on too. They aren't actively throwing people into the water when they decline the boat, but rather their current predicament makes the water their default. God isn't "sending" people to hell so much as people are going there because they haven't been saved, and I believe that's a small yet important distinction.
Obviously the metaphor is flawed; it doesn't address why the ship had crashed in the first place. Not to mention anyone in their right mind wants to get out of the ocean and into a lifeboat, whereas it's pretty logical to see why one would deny religion. The point of the metaphor is just to show how the term "join us or suffer" is true and yet very misleading at the same time.
We can only get to heaven precisely because of him dying for our sins. Whether or not you believe the story is a fairy tail, at least get the plot correct
We kill each other a lot sure, but religious ideology often isn't the cause.
I always think that you could get away with this kind of logic about some kind of god but you can't use this line of argument for a benign all powerful god. Simply put he placed everyone in the sea, wrecked the ship and hasn't distinguished which is the correct life boat very well. You are ducking the responsibility for creating the threat while trying to lay claim for giving a promise of a way out for some.
It's not a promise for just some, it's for all who would call upon His name and be save. However you have a a good point; this goes into a different area of theology, namely why are we going to hell in the first place. Disclaimer: I'm a Christian but I ain't no Biblical Scholar so if you're interesting more in the subject then look up works by people who have studied Biblical Theology for many years. This however, is my opinion.
The way I see it, it's that God created man with all the luxuries they could want. I don't take Adam and Eve in the Garden Of Eden as a literal story, but rather as a metaphor for the Fall Of Man. God creates humans, with all the food they could want, in a beautiful and natural habitat, gives them companionship with each other, and intimacy with himself, but also gives them something that would make life and joy worth having in the first place; free will (something that I think God values a lot more than people think He does). Tempted by Satan, humans use free will to disobey God, bringing sin into this world. Now humans are born into sin, and must accept Jesus and His sacrifice to fellowship with God again.
Keep in mind too, that sending us to hell isn't a decision that God is making, as if He could just choose not to if He were so inclined. Rather the Bible makes it clear that His perfect and holy nature (His very personality and being) is incompatible with sin, which means that we couldn't spend an eternity with him because we have sin in us. He wants everyone in heaven, but He can't just make it so, not without our consent. In that way, Hell is a prison locked from the inside.
And as for just making everyone good so that no one suffered, this comes back to another part of God's personality; He values free will. It's a contentious point for some, the fact that God lets us do what we want and leaves us with the consequences. There would be no pain without it, sure, but there would also be no true happiness, no lasting joy. Some people think it's not worth it. I guess God thinks it is.