religion...a waste?

[eddo]

Well isn't that a convenient and utterly stupid thing to do. Why the fuck would He "build age" into the earth? For what possible purpose?

 

For immediate habitation. God made the earth, then put animals and people on it right away. What good would be starting a planet if you had to wait to put anything on it?

 

 

 

No, but you can observe the changes to compounds by applying external controlled pressure and apply the principals to different compounds of the same molecular structure... or does God do that too right in front of you? For what purpose? To tempt you away from Him? Or is it the devil? WIIIIIIIIIIIIIITCH WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITCH...

Thanks for adding to the conversation...

 

 

 

 

 

You confused little lemming. That is PRECISELY what you are doing.

 

Hear a whole lot about the holy shroud of Turin lately? Here is the problem... the FIRST problem with your rationale, which is different than logic...

You cannot prove a negative. You can use facts to discount claims... you know... unless you change the rules of the known universe to "fix" the gaping fucking holes in your philosophy... I mean... if I prove that the earth is more than 10,000 years old, you jump up with "God built age into the earth." There is no CONVINCING YOU, that does not mean that nothing can be discredited.

 

Better?

wow dude, I hear Midol works wonders....

[phreakwars]

wow dude, I hear Midol works wonders....

eddo recommends Midol to everyone. It's what works best for his bitch ass.

.

.

[eddo]

eddo recommends Midol to everyone. It's what works best for his bitch ass.

.

.

 

I sais I HEAR it works wonders, DAMMIT!!!

[phreakwars]

sure.. sure...

.

.

[Jhony5]

I duno if I have ever heard of Christianity called a "civilized religion" from someone who doesn't follow it. Christians are well known for being "behind the times" in relation to beliefs, moral code, and political issues.

I'm not a Christian but I can be non-biased and rational enough too understand that Christianity in-particular, has done well to change with the times. Look at how Catholicism has perpetuated the AIDS epidemic with its fervent stance against condoms. Or it's inability too acknowledge human sexuality which has caused many a buggering of young boys. Christianity understands that the key to survival is adaptation.

 

Fact is- if you don't start off with a piece of coal and wait tens of thousands of years and watch that very piece of coal become a diamond, you really can't be exactly sure where that particular diamond came from.

To prove this one does not need to wait tens of thousands of years. Much the same we don't have to actually travel to Venus to know its exact distance. Boil it down and its a matter of mathematics. We know that to create a diamond from coal it requires X amount of compression. We also know that the earth cannot provide X amount of compression unless it applies this pressure over Y amount of years.

 

I believe that when God created the earth, he built age into it (or even that the "age" markers were created during formation of the planet.) Thus he created the rocks, the diamonds, and all else that we see that we think are millions and millions of years old.

Why the hurry though? Why the trickery? Was it just an oddity in Gods plan? It would seem to me that the best interest of the X-tian faith would be too concur with known fact. Ahhh, but they can't, as it was written from the word of God so long ago by the ignorant men whom desired to describe all that is, was and ever will be. Every culture did this. Long ago they had 'wise men' whom preached the truth to the others and offered them a reason for their existence.

 

My point being, why would God tell man the age of the earth? What would the point of that be? Just throwing it out there I suppose.

 

So we have two sides. One says "No way. We have sedimentary layering and a litany of other scientific fact too support the fact that the earth is millions of years old, not a few thousand".

 

Its what the other side has to say that sheds light on their own blind following. Quite simply the explanation is MAGIC. Yes its true. Call it what you want. A miracle of God, a magic trick, whatever. You cannot argue the age of the earth with a Christian. All they have to do is claim 'Magic did it' and your argument fails. They say "When god said he built the earth in days, he really did it in millions of years because God hadn't created time yet. So what he called days, was really millions of years". I say WTF? This is a failure of logic. Time is a constant, not subject to a change of parameters. God told the apostles of the purported time span of the creation of the Earth long after he created time. So why still refer to it as days, and not the factual report of millions of years?

The answer is convoluted by X-tian rhetoric. In reality men created God. With this they created his divine word, not subject too alteration with the revealing of fact. Fact is the apostles had no fuckin idea that one day man would learn facts that countered the bibles claims. They didn't know their secret would dissolve by something as rudimentary as a dinosaur bone.

[ClassyMissFancy]

In biblical debate, anyone who asserts they believe the God of the Christian Bible created the earth as is stated in Genesis must not attempt to justify those beliefs with things that are not stated in the Bible.

 

Why?

 

Revelation 22, Verse 18: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book

 

To say "I believe God made the earth appear to be millions of years old" is adding to the bible in order to be able to believe what the Bible says.

 

Faith requires that you read it and, regardless of how ridiculous it appears, you accept it as 100% accurate so that it is KNOWLEDGE to you in the same way your gender is knowledge... and you do so without having to believe it could possibly have happened... because when you KNOW something did happen, you have no need to invent scenarios under which it may have been possible.

 

If you can not accept the things the Bible says simply because the Bible says them, without attempting to interject scenarios under which these things seem possible to you, then you have no faith.

 

If you can not defend the words of the Bible with the words of the Bible.. you should not attempt to defend them at all. Anything else violates Revelation 22:18.

[hugo]

Of course, Revelation 22, Verse 18 was written before the Bible was compiled. Therefore the book being referred to in Rev 22:18 was not the Bible. It seems the author of Revelation is simply referring to not adding to the prophecies in the Book of Revelation.

[snafu]

Religion is a double edged sword.

It has killed more people than any other reason. (Big negative!)

But on the other hand it has brought sanctity and relief. It answers questions that can never be answered any other way. It puts time and space in perspective for the mortal man (alpha, omega) . It gives us morals to abide by.

[Jhony5]

It answers questions that can never be answered any other way.

Like what?

 

You can't qualify most biblical "answers" as answers at all. For example.

 

My question: How did the first woman come too be?

Biblical answer:God made her from the rib of Adam.

 

Thats not a fucking answer. Thats a god dammed silly ancient fairy tale.

 

Religion isn't all bad. Many people are utterly lost without a leader or some divine meaning to life.

Everybody wants too live forever. Religion gives this to us. Eternal soul insurance.

[Phantom]

You can't qualify most biblical "answers" as answers at all. For example.

 

My question: How did the first woman come too be?

Biblical answer:God made her from the rib of Adam.

 

Thats not a fucking answer. Thats a god dammed silly ancient fairy tale.

 

Religion isn't all bad. Many people are utterly lost without a leader or some divine meaning to life.

Everybody wants too live forever. Religion gives this to us. Eternal soul insurance.

 

DISCLAIMER: I am using a Hebrew-English lexicon, The Jewish Talmud, and Christian Theology as my source for the following answer. (I love being a smartass).

 

Many have interpreted the "rib" story not as being a literal narration of events but as a spiritual metaphor. God didn't need physical matter to create life. Some feel He spiritually divided the man to make the woman- his spiritual counterpart. Again, with the hunter vs. gatherer and protector vs. nurturer mumbo jumbo. As in, a man and a woman make a whole. Being that he took it from the rib (the man's side) showed original equality of the sexes until the fall of man. Not saying it is dogma- just another way to see things.

[snafu]

Like what?

 

Like alpha omega.

Can you tell me how time started? Can you tell me when it will end? What gave it the first push?

There has to be a higher power. Like Phantom said, the rib was a metaphor. And so is the whole damn bible. I Know that there is a higher power. And that higher power has the answers. But even the answer is beyond our comprehension. Knowing that there is a higher power brings peace or sanctity to the unknown.

[Jhony5]

DISCLAIMER: I am using a Hebrew-English lexicon, The Jewish Talmud, and Christian Theology as my source for the following answer. (I love being a smartass).

 

Many have interpreted the "rib" story not as being a literal narration of events but as a spiritual metaphor. God didn't need physical matter to create life. Some feel He spiritually divided the man to make the woman- his spiritual counterpart. Again, with the hunter vs. gatherer and protector vs. nurturer mumbo jumbo. As in, a man and a woman make a whole. Being that he took it from the rib (the man's side) showed original equality of the sexes until the fall of man. Not saying it is dogma- just another way to see things.

Very interesting Phanny.

 

I feel it was Draknar the great spider who used his magic elixir to transform the blessed ankh of Zantor into a fine powder. This fine powder was consumed by a thousand lizards and regurgitated up as a black man. The black man then climbed the tree of Inifess and called to Draknar. Draknar then smited the black man with a plague that lasted ten thousand years. After the plague receded, Draknar used his divine web to create the first woman.

 

 

Christianity has lost all credibility due mainly too the vast number of ways biblical text can and is translated. For an infallible, omnipresent and omnipotent being, God sure can fuck up something as simple as passing a message.

 

No sense can be salvaged from such a convoluted text as the bible. Many people say exactly what you have. That the interpretation has been confused. I say, if the interpretation in so many biblical passages cannot be believed, than the whole thing must be dismissed as fraudulent. If one part of the bible is shown too be untrue, than the entire text MUST not be believed.

[Jhony5]

Like alpha omega.

Can you tell me how time started? Can you tell me when it will end? What gave it the first push?

There has to be a higher power. Like Phantom said, the rib was a metaphor. And so is the whole damn bible. I Know that there is a higher power. And that higher power has the answers. But even the answer is beyond our comprehension. Knowing that there is a higher power brings peace or sanctity to the unknown.

Thats great. I understand and concur almost fully.

 

 

BUT WHY???

 

Why believe what some fucking guy tells you about all these things? Why believe what some fucking guy tells you about creation, mortality and the ever after? Thats all any religion is. Some fucking guy telling you he knows the answers too all that is, was and ever will be. Some fucking guy tells me that ima burn in hell if I don't believe him. Fuck that guy.......and the fucking guy that told him....and the fucking guy that told him........fuck them and their lies and their bullshit.

 

 

Its all fucking madness. Metaphors and translations and mysteries and riddles. What the fuck gives? Whats the point of the bible if it is so flawed that the followers of this text cannot agree on what the fuck it means? SERIOUSLY. Answer that.

 

If you ask 1,000 Christians to give their interpretation of any given passage, I bet you'll get about 750 different viewpoints. Same with the preachers. All confused about what the hell they're reading every Sunday.

 

 

 

 

(I'd like to congratulate myself on using the word 'fuck' 11 times in one short post....HUUUURAHHHH!)

[Phantom]

For an infallible, omnipresent and omnipotent being, God sure can fuck up something as simple as passing a message.

 

But that is the clincher. The core message has not been tampered with (in the broadest sense). The basic message of the Bible is MAN was created sinless. MAN fucked up royally. MAN needs salvation. MAN can either choose to take that salvation or leave it. MAN's salvation is Jesus.

 

That's it. Nothing more. Anything else is "filler" in my opinion. Although anyone can base their entire life around studying and dissecting the Bible, the core message can be paraphrased in one sentence.

 

God was not fallible nor did He distort His message- we did. But just like a parent who buys their child a new toy for Christmas knowing it will be broken by the end of the week, God will still give gifts to His children even though our own infallibility will screw things up. Just my personal take on things. Not trying to get preachy.

[Jhony5]

God was not fallible nor did He distort His message- we did.

We who? We me? You? The fellas responsible for writing the books of the bible? The dudes that translated it?

 

None of it makes sense too me.

 

But that is the clincher. The core message has not been tampered with (in the broadest sense). The basic message of the Bible is MAN was created sinless. MAN fucked up royally. MAN needs salvation. MAN can either choose to take that salvation or leave it. Man's salvation is Jesus.

The core message is fine. Easy nuff. But why all the incorrect scientific info? Why the errors? Why the fairy tale stories that make God seem so horrible and vengeful? At the same time making claims that are so far from factual they are pure comedy?

 

Heres my viewpoint. Its not that man has "messed up the translation". Its that the bible was written by MAN to explain what could not be explained. Thats why the errors. The errors have become apparent, even too the believers. Thats why the injection of this idea of "mistranslation" has occurred. Too explain away errors that once were held as law. As indisputable fact. We live in a far more civilized world than did the originators of the biblical text. Now these "facts" aren't facts anymore. They are "mistranslated". Some people hold fast too the idea that the Earth is only 2,000 years old. Blind faith conquers reason.

[Phantom]

We who? We me? You? The fellas responsible for writing the books of the bible? The dudes that translated it?

 

You, J5. You messed it up for everyone.

 

Really though, for a book with sections as old as 4,000 years old, errors have seeped in through translation, scribal copyists, age, misinterpretation, etc. So yes, A LOT of skeptics use this as their main ammunition against dismissing the Bible- and I can't blame them. From their perspective they think a perfect and truly infallible God would protect His own word from distortion. That is an understandable opinion that I cannot fault them for.

 

But why all the incorrect scientific info? Why the errors? Why the fairy tale stories that make God seem so horrible and vengeful? At the same time making claims that are so far from factual they are pure comedy?

 

Yes, some passages in the Bible seem obscenely outrageous. And although I know you probably don't want to get into it here on this thread, if you want to point out specifics in regards to scientific errors and fairy tale stories I would be happy to help.

 

Thats why the injection of this idea of "mistranslation" has occurred. Too explain away errors that once were held as law. As indisputable fact. We live in a far more civilized world than did the originators of the biblical text. Now these "facts" aren't facts anymore. They are "mistranslated". Some people hold fast too the idea that the Earth is only 2,000 years old. Blind faith conquers reason.

 

Again, you would need to offer me some of the examples you are referring to. And I sincerely hope no Christians think the world is only 2,000 years old. Jesus was still alive on this earth 2,000 years ago. Rome was a major empire 2000 years ago. I don't recall Tiberius Caesar being Adam's Roman name. Might want to point that out to whoever told you that lol.

[Jhony5]

Correction. 10,000 years old is what I meant to type. I'll leave it be and not edit it. I'm a retard so I'll just leave it at that.

 

You, J5. You messed it up for everyone

You're not the first woman to tell me that.

 

Again, you would need to offer me some of the examples you are referring to.

I will have too get back to you on that. I'm heading to bed. I need to dig through my past postings on biblical errors and it will take some time.

[snafu]

I think Johny is right in that man wrote the bible. It is full of very hard to swallow stories. Also being 4,000 years old and changed dialect a shit load of times the stories changed, grew and is perceived different in every body's eyes. The moral of the story is like Phantom said.

I believe that Jesus lived. I don't think anybody can deny that. Was he the son of God? I think so. Was his whole body resurrected? I don't think so. And will I go to hell for not believing in the material resurrection? Boy I hope not.

 

But in my heart I know Jesus. I know God. My temple or church is my body. I don't walk around parroting what some preacher deciphered out of the bible.

But I believe that I will meet my maker. Jesus will be there. He won't have a human body.

Knowing this brings peace to me as my friends and family pass away, as I wait for my turn.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

My opinions, in general:

 

 

- God exists in so much as there is obviously a self-creating paradox at the beginning of everything. As Aristotle observed, you can't have an infinity of things that came before. Of course, since nothing can create itself, this makes no sense. Technically, our existence makes no sense. The only possible way we can exist is if something was first, and thus was a self-creating paradox. Even if you beleive that paradox to be time itself. Time can be God, if that's how you choose to put it. I'm more for the Big Bang theory myself.

 

-In quantum mechanics, we've seen that paradoxical probabilities actually do have a tangible existence, and at that level seem to pretty much be like magic. Likewise, some scientists theorize that consciousness is a quantum feild. I personally beleive that the quantum level is where we see the closest traces of God, and possibly of the soul, if that's something you beleive in.

 

-I view religions as interpetations of God, and while I tend to favor Christianity as my interpetatation, given my upbringing, I don't read everything literally. "One day with God is unto a thousand years" and all. Beyond that, I beleive in some cases it's not so much the letter of the law as the spirit. For instance, I sort of view Christianity's take on sexuality as a rebellion from Roman sluttiness. I think the message is in moderation, although for the time, their extreme limits probably seemed an appropriate counter to the Roman orgies.

 

 

Anywho, that's just my take. I think you can both be religious and open-minded. Likewise, I've known a lot of closed-minded atheists. IMO, stating there is no God in itself is retarded. You can say that God is not the God of religious prophecy, or like humans, or even sentient, but to deny that God, as in a self-creating paradox at the beginning of everything exists, is in a sense to deny that anything exists.

[snafu]

My opinions, in general:

 

 

- God exists in so much as there is obviously a self-creating paradox at the beginning of everything. As Aristotle observed, you can't have an infinity of things that came before. Of course, since nothing can create itself, this makes no sense. Technically, our existence makes no sense. The only possible way we can exist is if something was first, and thus was a self-creating paradox. Even if you beleive that paradox to be time itself. Time can be God, if that's how you choose to put it. I'm more for the Big Bang theory myself.

 

-In quantum mechanics, we've seen that paradoxical probabilities actually do have a tangible existence, and at that level seem to pretty much be like magic. Likewise, some scientists theorize that consciousness is a quantum feild. I personally beleive that the quantum level is where we see the closest traces of God, and possibly of the soul, if that's something you beleive in.

 

-I view religions as interpetations of God, and while I tend to favor Christianity as my interpetatation, given my upbringing, I don't read everything literally. "One day with God is unto a thousand years" and all. Beyond that, I beleive in some cases it's not so much the letter of the law as the spirit. For instance, I sort of view Christianity's take on sexuality as a rebellion from Roman sluttiness. I think the message is in moderation, although for the time, their extreme limits probably seemed an appropriate counter to the Roman orgies.

 

 

Anywho, that's just my take. I think you can both be religious and open-minded. Likewise, I've known a lot of closed-minded atheists. IMO, stating there is no God in itself is retarded. You can say that God is not the God of religious prophecy, or like humans, or even sentient, but to deny that God, as in a self-creating paradox at the beginning of everything exists, is in a sense to deny that anything exists.

 

This was very well said.

 

And I guess to sooth the mind, religion explains what happens to our energy.

 

See You On The Other Side

[Jhony5]

I think you can both be religious and open-minded. Likewise, I've known a lot of closed-minded atheists. IMO, stating there is no God in itself is retarded.

Thats what Atheism is. Closing your mind to any and all supernatural or spiritual possibilities. Which is absolutely worse than someone subscribing too a particular religion.

I find religious beliefs too be silly and presumptuous, but to discount any possibility of spirituality in our universe is unforgivably arrogant.

 

I'd like to believe in something of supernatural consequence. No proof of this exist. So instead of completely discounting such things, I leave room for any possibility.

 

I rant alot about religion, but I respect it as long as it remains outside of any fanaticism. State your beliefs and I'm fine with it. Push your beliefs and I push back.

[snafu]

Bubblin UP

[ClassyMissFancy]

Of course, Revelation 22, Verse 18 was written before the Bible was compiled. Therefore the book being referred to in Rev 22:18 was not the Bible. It seems the author of Revelation is simply referring to not adding to the prophecies in the Book of Revelation.

Yes... The entire Bible was written before it was canonized. That is stating the obvious. Christians believe God controlled the translation and arranging of the bible; what books went in and which ones were left out, in which order the books would be placed, etc. If this is the case then they must believe Revelations was placed at the end for a reason, and the Bible does not say that the verses are ONLY in reference to Revelations. Therefore, by saying "It seems the author intended..." you are again adding your own notions to it.

 

If you believe the Bible is the true word of God... why would you assume it is OK to add your own suppositions and notions to it?

 

A better question may be... Why would you NEED to? Why are the words of the Bible, the supposed "Word of God" so nonsensical that one must "suppose" this and "hypothesize" that in order for it to be believable?

 

Can you defend the Bible using only the words of the Bible? If so, why do you interject other notions into the debate? If you can not defend the Bible using only the words of the Bible...

 

Well...

 

Ever wonder why?

[ClassyMissFancy]

Thats what Atheism is. Closing your mind to any and all supernatural or spiritual possibilities.

 

 

Not at all.

 

In fact, "Atheism" is a misnomer. Atheists do not have an "ism".

 

All the term "Atheist" means is that one lacks a belief in deities.

 

When you say "closing your mind to all supernatural possibilities"... you should understand it doesn't mean atheists do not believe things happen for which we have no explanation. It only means that atheists believe that all things happen naturally and have a natural explanation, and so the fact that we do not know why certain things happen does not mean we do not believe it is possible that they do happen. It only means we follow 'I don't know' with 'so I will study, research, test, and learn until I do know'... instead of simply settling with 'God did it' and walking away.

 

We see "God did it" as the lazy way out. We see the "God did it" people as being closed minded to everything that has been learned about anything that was once attributed to their God of choice.

 

 

"There are hundreds of gods of hundreds of religions being worshipped on this planet at any given time. I submit to you that you and I are both atheist. I simply believe in one less god than you do. When you fully understand why you dismiss all of the other claimed gods... You will understand why I dismiss yours."

 

~ Stephen F. Roberts

[Jhony5]

True secular Atheism rejects anything that requires spiritual presence. Be it ghosts, specters, apparitions, miracles.

 

When you say "closing your mind to all supernatural possibilities"... you should understand it doesn't mean atheists do not believe things happen for which we have no explanation.

True, but they believe these unexplained occurrences can only be answered through theoretical quantum physics. Or scientific guesswork for those of you who don't follow.

 

The presence of a spirit is wholly rejected by true secular atheist. Anything that is unexplainable by modern science is deemed by atheist as simply an occurrence that hasn't yet been accounted for by physics.

 

This is what my understanding of Atheism is. I used too consider myself an Atheist because I thought that it was simply a term applied to one whom doesn't believe in God.

 

 

It only means that atheists believe that all things happen naturally and have a natural explanation, and so the fact that we do not know why certain things happen does not mean we do not believe it is possible that they do happen.

 

I used the term supernatural for a reason.

 

SUPERNATURAL

 

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

 

The term supernatural is never used by Atheist. You said it. all things happen naturally and have a natural explanation OK,,,,,,,whats that mean? Supernatural = not natural.

 

Your incorrectly stating the parameters of a true secular Atheist. It is not that they do not believe in a God. It is that they believe there IS NO God or any other force that occurs outside of nature.

 

 

Are you sure you're really an Atheist?

 

 

BTW. You are guilty of playing a game of semantics with this terminology.

In fact, "Atheism" is a misnomer. Atheists do not have an "ism".

Atheism is the practice of an Atheist.

 

Don't believe me? Go here>>> http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=81

 

There is no greater authority in the realm of ATHEISM. Look around a little and learn what the fuck it is that you think that you are.