Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
31
At various times I have seen this presented as an argument in support of atheism.

Is that logical?

I could see merit in the 'God of the gaps' argument if God had only ever been described vaguely or ambiguously, but that isn't the case.

Doesn't the sheer, incredible level of detail contained in the bible ever give you pause? They are clearly not the ramblings of half-wits trying to make sense of the world around them. How do you explain that?

funny how the "sheer incredible level of detail" is full of contradictions and even Christians don't agree on what their god is, what it wants or how it should act.   It's the rambling of the ignorant and the xenophobic trying to make sense of the world around them, just like the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, Indus River civiliation, ancient Chinese, etc.   So, MM, do you want to claim that those gods of those peoples are just as valid as yours, because that's what we have here.

What does God look like?  Moses only saw his rear end right?  Am I remembering that correctly?  What does Jesus look like?  Is that given in very specific detail?

They needed I-Phones back then, all this stuff would have been documented and we wouldn't be debating any of this stuff.
32
General Religious Discussion / Re: People have always belived in some sort of God
« Last post by jetson on May 18, 2018, 12:40:07 PM »
At various times I have seen this presented as an argument in support of atheism.

Is that logical?

I could see merit in the 'God of the gaps' argument if God had only ever been described vaguely or ambiguously, but that isn't the case.

Doesn't the sheer, incredible level of detail contained in the bible ever give you pause? They are clearly not the ramblings of half-wits trying to make sense of the world around them. How do you explain that?

funny how the "sheer incredible level of detail" is full of contradictions and even Christians don't agree on what their god is, what it wants or how it should act.   It's the rambling of the ignorant and the xenophobic trying to make sense of the world around them, just like the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, Indus River civiliation, ancient Chinese, etc.   So, MM, do you want to claim that those gods of those peoples are just as valid as yours, because that's what we have here.

What does God look like?  Moses only saw his rear end right?  Am I remembering that correctly?  What does Jesus look like?  Is that given in very specific detail?

Google images is your friend.  ;D
33
Chatter / Re: Another day, another shooting in the USA
« Last post by stuffin on May 18, 2018, 12:30:55 PM »
All the people here in the center where I work are shocked :o!!!

Yes they all voted Republican.

You get what you vote for........
34
General Religious Discussion / Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Last post by stuffin on May 18, 2018, 12:28:28 PM »
If god wrote, or directed a human (s) to write the bible, why would any thing in it ever become obsolete? Everything god gave us humans by way of the bible should stand the test of time. Forever and to infinity.
The bible should never need interpretation or modification.

"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever." - Isaiah 40:8

As we know, that's Old Testament - but apparently it didn't stand forever.

Thanks, I knew those 4 times I did go to Sunday School would pay off.
35
At various times I have seen this presented as an argument in support of atheism.

Is that logical?

I could see merit in the 'God of the gaps' argument if God had only ever been described vaguely or ambiguously, but that isn't the case.

Doesn't the sheer, incredible level of detail contained in the bible ever give you pause? They are clearly not the ramblings of half-wits trying to make sense of the world around them. How do you explain that?

funny how the "sheer incredible level of detail" is full of contradictions and even Christians don't agree on what their god is, what it wants or how it should act.   It's the rambling of the ignorant and the xenophobic trying to make sense of the world around them, just like the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, Indus River civiliation, ancient Chinese, etc.   So, MM, do you want to claim that those gods of those peoples are just as valid as yours, because that's what we have here.

What does God look like?  Moses only saw his rear end right?  Am I remembering that correctly?  What does Jesus look like?  Is that given in very specific detail?
36
General Religious Discussion / Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Last post by YouCantHandleTheTruth on May 18, 2018, 12:10:39 PM »
If god wrote, or directed a human (s) to write the bible, why would any thing in it ever become obsolete? Everything god gave us humans by way of the bible should stand the test of time. Forever and to infinity.
The bible should never need interpretation or modification.

"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever." - Isaiah 40:8

As we know, that's Old Testament - but apparently it didn't stand forever.
37
Chatter / Re: Another day, another shooting in the USA
« Last post by One Above All on May 18, 2018, 11:56:05 AM »
I heard that one just minutes ago while I was at the barber shop.
38
I think it would be more logical if JST showed something in the Bible that could not have been invented by philosophers of the time.

I keep offering the golden rule.  You guys just keep pointing to things about reciprocity.  Jesus may have had some of these things in mind.  But he did not just merely reproduce their work.  He improved it.  He did do this at certain points for sure.  That's why some of his statements are preceded by "You have heard it said, but I tell you......."

You just don't want to give credit where credit is due.
It has already been proven to you that. Jesus' comments are a tarnished rule. (Of which you agreed by your replies) So why you still think it is his only. And that his is better. Is beyond us.  You cant expect credit for something that isn't credit worthy.

It's also simply not original, as I pointed out in my earlier post.  That's problematic - it alters slightly what was stated in the Silver Rule 500 years plus earlier.  It's like me taking credit now for inventing the internet.  I know Al Gore already did that, but it was really me.
39
Should I continue my higher education?

Should you be able to vote?  Should you be in the workforce, potentially making more money than men in your field?  Should you be able to be president?  Can you love another woman?

The other thing I never understand is that Christians just assume everything good in the Bible is original.  As is pointed out on kyroot.com, the Jesus Seminar convened from 1985 to 2006, off and on.  It was a group of 200 highly trained specialists in the field of religion, each required to have a Ph.D. or equivalent in religious studies.  What did they determine after 21 years of research?

"The principal finding was that the quotes and deeds of Jesus as written in the Gospels are mostly mythical.  In fact, only 18% of the sayings and 16% of the deeds attributed to Jesus were thought to be authentic.  The scholars used cross-cultural anthropological studies to set the general background, narrowing in on the history and society of first-century Palestine, and used textural analysis along with anthropological, historical, and archaeological evidence."

We know there were many proposed Gods well before Jesus, and many Eastern philosophies pre-dating him.  So why give the Bible and Jesus all the credit for the seemingly good principles?  As this research team determined, the fast majority of these principles were not original.  Wouldn't a God be more profound and original than telling you to love your neighbor, and wouldn't this have existed before?  This adds to the argument that Jesus was just another philosopher that may well have studied Far East culture.  Stealing the Golden Rule from the earlier Silver Rule is certainly a clue that this was likely the case.
40
General Religious Discussion / Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Last post by velkyn on May 18, 2018, 10:54:36 AM »
Yes sorry.  I overlooked this reply.

The golden rule is not teaching reciprocity.  Jesus may have had some of these things mind when he gave the golden rule, but the golden rule does not teach reciprocity as these others do.  On more than once occasion, Christians are taught to give without expecting anything in return.  It's just like giving to the poor.  You don't give to the poor so they will give back.  The same thing is taught when Christ said, "There is more happiness in giving that there is in receiving."  This is not teaching reciprocity.  Turning the other cheek is not teaching reciprocity.

But I agree with your other point.  It doesn't really matter if Christ was the original author.  I think some of the things Christ taught are just a matter of common sense.  It's not like he just completely reinvented the wheel.  If Christ is not the original author of the golden rule then it doesn't really matter.  But on the other hand I am not going to credit people for the golden rule who were teaching reciprocity.  That is not what Christ taught and I don't thing it is the best way.

It is true that giving can encourage others to give, but that is not the focus of the golden rule.  The golden rule means "you do good", period.  "And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that." (Lk 6:33)

Christ was teaching agape, not reciprocity.  Not only is reciprocity not in the golden rule, it's not in any of Christ's teachings.

it certainly does matter since this would indicate that Christians repeatedly lie about the origin of the thought.   And they don't care.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10