longlostlady
Registered Senior Member
because it was used to suppress, repress and control people's behaviour for hundreds of years?
just a thought. a tool that powerful isn't lightly tossed away.
any creationists about?
- Thread starter longlostlady
- Start date
because it was used to suppress, repress and control people's behaviour for hundreds of years?
just a thought. a tool that powerful isn't lightly tossed away.
C
charles cure
Guest
Jan Ardena said:
god left nothing behind either. not even the bible. there is no proof whatsoever that god has ever directly had any effect on any level of human interaction other than the legacy of violence left by humans who claimed that their concept of god provided the ultimate authority. there is an equal amount of evidence for my ice cream premise as there is for the existence of god. the only difference is that the bible is a more complicated proposition than the one that i laid out.
what i see is actually a lot of atheists and agnostics who know a lot more about scripture than the average lay person who is a member of your local church congregation debating the significance of scriptural points, and whether or not they should be given any credibility based on what can be observed to be true about the world through scientific observation. then i see a whole bunch of fundamentalist christians who call names and threaten eternal damnation when people challenge thier arguments. the fact that there is no way to justify religion through tangible or rational means is antithetical to normal debate. in any normal kind of argument, two opposite sides present the evidence and rationale for their argument and then the pros and cons of each are discussed and sometimes a consensus is reached. this is not the case with the debate baout religion because there is no rationale except for the most simplistic type of "god exists because the bible says so and it is the ultimate truth so it must be correct" argument. that doesnt float as a reason for most people so, maybe try coming up with some real physical fact and religion might fare better in the debate.
no it isnt. i have read the bible many times and i have been to church. i know my history and i study the history and development of the christian religion whenever i get a chance. the difference between you and i is that long ago i began to look at christianity as someone with no vested interest in its success or failure as a religion, and therefore could see its message objectively and its role in world historical and cultural development. after a long period of time i came to certain conclusions about the nature of religion through my study of it and observations of people involved with it as well as the effects of faith and belief on the culture and society in which i live. i understand how people justify their belief in god and their adherence to religious doctrines. i understand the inculcating effect of religious traditions being passed from one generation of a family to the next on a large scale. i think that most people in the US are christian almost "by default" because when you ask a lot of people why they believe a large part of nearly every response is "its just the way i was raised". there is also a large contingent of people who find relief from drug and alcohol addiction, emotional trauma, and poverty, through a fixation on religious belief and the lifestyle framework that it provides. however, none of this has anything to do with whether or not the bible is really the word of god. most people need direction and guidance because they are uncomfortable with the uncertainty involved in thinking and acting independently (especially if this contradicts social norms) and find it comforting to believe that there is a force out there protecting them or looking out for their best interests regardless of how many of their prayers go unanswered or how disgusted they become with the circumstances of their own lives. religion in general provides a convenient mixture of hope and social control that keeps people's behavior in a certain mold while offering a reward better than anything that could ever be obtained on earth. the only problem is that there is no proof at all that this reward will or can ever be received.
ok, how about this. the hebrew epithet often applied to jesus in the bible which was translated as "carpenter" in actuality means either carpenter or "a highly educated man" depending on the context in which it is used. many scholars agree that the latter definition should have been the one that was applied to jesus because of the way in which it was used in the writing. however, due to this mistranslation, the bible lends a populist sense to the character of jesus as he is portrayed as a poor and uneducated nobody who starts a revolution, as opposed to a highly educated rabbi who was politically active in his society and capable of a conniving and deceptive feat of spectacle that could have resulted in the transformation of a hoax into a worldwide religious movement.
do you want another example? how about jesus being from Nazareth when Nazareth as a place name for a town didnt even exist until nearly a century after his lifetime? that mistranslation conveniently obscures jesus's relationship with the Nazarene politico-religious sect that had ties to the violent pro-revolutionary zealots. due to this obfuscation, jesus becomes an innocent victim of persecution by corrupt jewish leaders instead of the harbinger of treason and insurgency that he undoubtedly was viewed as by the Romans in control of Jerusalem at the time. this would shed a lot of light on the reasons for his execution and the glaring inconsistensies between his form of death and normal jewish punishments for violations of torah law.
the bible is literally riddled with these types of tiny flaws that alter the entire way that the document is viewed by anyone who chances to read it. changing the circumstances of a persons life fundamentally alters the meaning of their words and actions. through this, the actual message of the bible is altered from its original form. that is a defect that alters the effectiveness and is a detriment to peoples ability to objectively judge the document as a whole.
wow do you know anything about history? the people living at the time the bible was written had either an extremely simplistic, flawed and rudimentary understanding of or no idea at all about the existence of genetics, germ theory, weather patterns, the effects of personal and public hygiene, geothermal activity, comets, solar wind, electricity, anatomy and physiology, etc... they were at a loss to explain many events and phenomena that you and i understand fully from a very young age. they INVENTED a framework in which to explain and understand the chaos of their world based on exaggerated and fallacious accounts of of human acts, and a range of motifs and doctrines pilfered from other pre-existing religious sects. you can actually see this in the bible if you compare its message and ideas with those of other religions in the region that were much older.
i would also point out that you were not there when these things were being written, edited, or assembled either so you also have no idea what the people actually thought when they were writing. there are however, historical accounts of events and conditions existing in the area that eventually produced the stories in the bible, and these accounts can be used to piece together a more accurate conception of the time period and assess the probable truth or falsity of bible portrayals. whose fault is it that history often comes down on the side of contradicting what is little more than a glorified and exaggerated folk tale? is it a conspiracy perpetrated on good christians all over the earth by evil atheist scientists, or is it the one great failure of the christian faith that it could not forsee an era where knowledge would be prized above blind faith?
how do you explain the longevity of primitive pagan religions existing today in micronesia and polynesia that predate christianity by about 10,000 years with little or no change? does this imply that they are correct and this is why the people accept them so easily, or is it just that they are culturally isolated enough to have not developed a society technologically complex enough to render their belief system obsolete? the ancient egyptian, greek and roman religions all enjoyed sustained eras of longevity and popularity comparable with christianity, yet they fell by the wayside eventually and were replaced with something else. islam has had a period of comparable longevity to the judeo christian belief system, does this point to its righteousness as well? each of these religions and their texts and dogmas have been respected, revered, and fiercely defended in their time, but that has not ever meant that any of them provided any more absolute truth or salvation than the christian religion purports to offer.
i wouldent count it as impossible for something to have created the planet earth. its so perfect, like the other planets they are works of art, but its also possible for it all to be random aswell.
It wasn't only possible - it was inevitable!
oh and when did christians live in caves?
They still do.
It wasn't only possible - it was inevitable!
oh and when did christians live in caves?
They still do.
longlostlady said:
The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
The probability against that happening by chance is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit the keys at
random. The probability against his being able to type a small library full of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible.
Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are forced to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone.
In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that these complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is extremely small. It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power. The probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small, that you may as well consider it to be impossible. This means that the probability that the living cell is created by an intelligent creator, that designed it, is extremely large. The probability that God created the living cell is 10 to the 4,478,296 power to 1.
Example: 10 to the 6th power is one million, 10 to the 7th power is 10 million, 10 to the 8th power is 100 million, 10 to the 9th power is a billion; each time the power goes up by one, the number goes up by ten times as much. 10 to the 4,478,296 power, is a tremendously large number.
[The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer and mathematician.]
There are no existing physical rules, that have been observed by science, that indicate that ordered complexity can evolve by random chance occurences. In Science there is an observed law of entropy. In all natural occurences in science, the amount of disorder increases. In other words, the physical laws that are observed in nature lead to more disorder; they do not lead to ordered complexity.
The only thing observed to cause more complexity is an intelligence, of some sort deliberately assembling something together.
Example: A pile of building materials stacked in a pile is hit by a tornado. When the pieces come down, they do not assemble themselves into a house. They just fall into a more disordered pile of building materials. An intelligence must deliberately assemble the materials into a house to get ordered complexity.
God created the ordered complexity in the universe. There are no observed scientific processes that can account for it happening by itself.
Why evolution, for the origin of the species, is false:
Natural selection will weed out inferior members of a species according to environmental requirements. But, this only leads to a species changing to another variety of the same species known as a subspecies; that is all that is observed in nature. [Crickets in dark caves become white with no eyes; also fish in caves.] But natural selection has not been observed to cause one species to change into another new species. Fish do not change into amphibians; amphibians do not change into reptiles; reptiles do not change into mammals. Natural selection cannot account for the origin of the different species. There are a million missing links in the fossil record as it has been found. The intermediate stages that would be necessary for fish to become amphibians, and reptiles to become mammals, have not been found in the fossils. The fossils show evidence that all of the species were originally created by God and they did not evolve into one another.
Quotes:
"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3
"No matter how large the environment one considers, lfe cannot have had
a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough
to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
attempts. The same is true for living material"
Ibid., p.148
"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in
(10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could
not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If
one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by
chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea
entirely out of court"
Ibid., p.24
"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one
part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The
theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a
probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40000 of being the correct
explaination of the many curious facts discussed in previous chapters.
Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
rather than scientific."
Ibid., p.130
"All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
- Lee Spetner, "Not by Chance"(Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica
Press,Inc.) p.138
"It appears that the neo-darwinism hypothesis is insufficient to explain
some of the observations that were not available at the time the
paradigm took shape. ...One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm
does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual
information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather
may be rooted in human nature"
- Christian Schwabe "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution", Trends in
Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p.282
"The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the
proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them
in any sort of evolutionary series" - Ibid. p.289
"Thousands of different sequences, protein, and nucleic acid, have now
been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any
sequnces been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor
of any other sequence." - Ibid. pp. 289-290
"Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by
intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the
elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology." - Ibid
p.290
"There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been
available one century ago it would have been seized upon with
devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and
Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been
accepted." - Ibid pp.290-291
"In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed
'intermediate', 'ancestral' or 'primitive' by generations of
evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in
nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status" - Ibid
p.293
Duane T. Gish, The Origin of Mammals : If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and classified?Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms.
Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled. ---
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species:
the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].
Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, "Missing, Believed Nonexistent", Manchester Guardian, 26 November 1978
"The search for 'missing links' between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless?because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures?If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory."
Lyall Watson, "The Water People", Science Digest, May 1982:
"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans?of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings?is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
Dr. Collin Patterson, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in Britain, when asked why he hadn't included any illustrations of transitional forms in his book, Evolution, he replied in a letter: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them?I will lay it on the line?there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in the organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." S.J.Gould. "Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin", 1982, p. 140
Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution is speculated to have occured."
Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31
They’ve also found human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock strata, in places like Turkmenia, in Nicaragua and near the palaxi river in the US.
Disorder always increases overall, in any observed scientific processes. It is an established law of entropy in physics. Small areas of order can happen that is not very complex in small parts of any system, but the overall disorder of the system must increase.
Heat is disordered energy.
Something as simple as a refrigerator, which produces more order in the cooling sections, must be designed to function that way, and will not happen by chance. And a refrigerator is no where near as complex as a living cell.
Overall disorder in the refrigerator function still increases.
> the innumerable,highly complex systems and intricate structures of the
> universe offer exceptionally strong evidence of a creator.
> The probability of getting hit by lightning is about 1 in 600,000.The
> probability of winning the lottery is about 1 in 5.2 million.
> The likelihood of just spelling the word evolution by randomly selecting
> nine letters from the alphabet is only 1 in 26 to the 9 power or 1 in
> 5,429,503,679,000.
> Twenty cards numbered 1 through 20 thoroughly shuffled and laid out in
> numerical order from 1 to 20 is 1 in 2,432,902,008,176,640,000.
> The probability of accidentally generating Genesis 1:1 is 1 chance in 26 to
> the 44 power trials.
> This is equivalent to 1 chance in 1.81479392 x 10 to the 62 power trials.
> In other words,the chance of randomly producing Genesis 1:1 is 1 in
> 181,479,392,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
> A simple system composed of only 200 integrated parts (simple compared with
> living systems) is a 1 in 200 factorial, or 1 chance in
> 788,657,867'364,790,503,552,363,213,932,185,062,295,135,977,687,173,363,294,742,533,244,254,86,525,693,548,253,221,223,563,458,754,215,467,377,195,357,468,174,235,875,421,256,424,222,563,85
> 445,447,777,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
> This colossal number can be written more simply as 10 to the 375 power.Thus
> there is only one chance in 10 to the 375 power of selecting the proper
> arrangement for a simple 200-part system on the first trial.
> This renders a mathematically impossible even for the most elementary form
> of life to have arisen by mere chance.
> Life is no accident.It is not even something that brilliant scientists can
> synthesize.The bewildering complexity of even the most basic organic
> molecules completely rules out the chance of life originating apart from a
> super intelligent designer.The most logical and reasonable conclusion that
> can be reached based on mathematical analysis is that complex,ordered
> systems,which so characterize the world,never happened by mere chance.
>
> Great is our Lord, and of great power:his understanding is infinite.
> (Ps. 147:5)
ghost:
Get some original material, or piss off. Quoting Hoyle, and blathering on about how apparent design = creator, really is quite a pathetic argument.
Get some original material, or piss off. Quoting Hoyle, and blathering on about how apparent design = creator, really is quite a pathetic argument.
charles cure,
How do you know?
How do you know there is no proof?
And what kind of proof would cause you to change your mind?
You believe this because you are an atheist, and are no doubt partial to the naturalistic ideas put foreward by humanists and evolutionists.
Your proposition has nothing to do with the point of the bible (as I pointed out), only in your mind, which seems to be hopelessly bias.
First of all, what does this have to do with what we are discussing (i.e., the flaw in the bible). And secondly; so what? The point is, you have shown that you have no understanding of the scripture, and that you choose to put them in the category of fantasy. This is not knowledge.
Here is another bogus claim.
Can you show me anywhere on this forum where atheist and christian discuss the scriptural points of the bible?
You are an atheist, which is why you believe that knowledge can only be had through the findings of scientific observation. There are those who do not hold this belief as all in all, and I AM quite willing to bet that your everday life is not ruled by this simplistic notion of life.
What does this have to do with the aparent flaws in the bible?
That is just your opinion. But then you have not demonstrated any real understand of the scripture, and you appear to be anti-religious and anti-God, so I take your opinon very lightly.
Exactly what is this argument about?
You claim the bible is flawed, yet you don't understand the point of the bible, in fact you claim the bible has no point. So where is your rationale? The bible must have some point, otherwise it would not have stood the test of time the way it has. It is impossible for us to reach a consensus when your position is one of stubborness and ignorance.
This is my point. You insist that you know why people believe in the words of the bible, aN extremely complex set of workS, which is; they "believe god exists because it says so in the bible". With all due respect, you are either very small-minded, or you have convinced yourself that your analysis is correct. Either way it is un-healthy.
Religion is a physical fact. Every person on earth is religious to some degree or other. Your religion is based on humanism, the idea that everything is a result of natural means, and as such there is no need of any supernatural explanation.
And the racist says....."some of my best friends are black people"....and...."I have some Bob Marley in my record collection".
We're not discussing the christian religion, we are discussing the apparent flaws in the bible which render it useless and meaningless, a claim you made.
The difference between you and I (in this debate), is that you make wild claims, which you cannot back up (such as this), even with a substantial reason.
And does this mean that the bible is not the word of God?
Okay, putting aside the attempted subtle put down of theists, don't you find your point a little contradictory? You say people who feel socially uncomfortable seek comfort believing that there is some force out there looking after their interest. Is this not a materialistic way of thinking? Do you not seek some kind of insurance, or invest money, in the hope of recieving interest? Why do you want interest, is it not for comfort in the long term? Some people steal, or beg, borrow, or murder for some measure of comfort.
Then you contradict yourself by saying they carry on regardless of there actually not being a force out there. Would you invest your money in a bogus company or bank?
Do you think all people who believe in God are really this stupid?
Religions may do, that is agreed, then that means they are flawed, not the biblical scripture they claim aspire to.
The fact is that every person dies, and once they are truly dead, there is no coming back, and as such, there is no proof of anything to the living, beyond that veil. The scriptures do not offer a reward, they state what happens after the body is anihilated. If you understood scriptures you would know this.
So what?
How does this make the bible flawed? The basic points of Jesus, which justifies his position (according to creationsts) was that he was born from a virgin, he healed the sick, raised people from the dead, was crucified, and rose again. The reason being, he was a divine son of God, or God incarnate.
So I ask again; How does the mistranslation flaw this point?
Ah! so Jesus was a trickster. I'll have to read the bible again, as it must have slipped right by me.
What??
Any links.
I'm afraid they are not enough to interfere with the point of the bible, which is why people believe in God. If it had been written that Einstein loved woolly jumpers, but then it became known that he hated them, would that have an effect on his theory of relativety? I doubt it.
Not in the way you have demonstrated (aside from your own personal inference), neither in the way I demonstrated above. Both are the same type of error.
The message of the bible is to be believe in God for the purpose of your own salvation. That is not altered.
The document does not need to be understood as a whole, one only needs to understand the point which is to love the Lord God with all thy heart. If you can do that then you understand everything. Everything else is preperation for that, and aids the point.
Science means knowledge, and these subject matters you mention are different branches of "knowledge". They would not have understood genetics because they didn't have the technology, just like we didn't have the technology only a few years ago. It does not mean they were unscientific.
They said to each other, "Come, let us make oven-fired bricks." They had brick for stone and asphalt for mortar.
How did they do that without science and it method?
Why would people of such artistic capability, art which surpasses anything we have to offer, use their ability to invent something to explain something they didn't understand? It doesn't follow.
Oh! so this was a trend? Other communities indulged in this sort of behaviour to explain that which they were incapable of having the ability, to explain there surroundings?
This is great stuff.
What makes you think the bible is/was a religion?
From what I can understand Jesus was against the "religion" of his day, so please explain what religion Jesus espoused. Or Abraham and Moses for that matter.
That's fair enough, we are both in the same position.
What do you think the historical account of the early 21st century will be?
And do you think the account of official american history will concur with the official iraqi history? If not why not?
What is your source of history. and why does it conveniently point to the idea that the bible is not what it is meant to be?
History=His-story. The answer to your question is; because it suits.
Knowledge is always prized above blind-faith, but faith isn't always blind.
WhO mentioned religion?
I'm talking about the bible.
JAN.
How do you know?
How do you know there is no proof?
And what kind of proof would cause you to change your mind?
You believe this because you are an atheist, and are no doubt partial to the naturalistic ideas put foreward by humanists and evolutionists.
Your proposition has nothing to do with the point of the bible (as I pointed out), only in your mind, which seems to be hopelessly bias.
Jan said:
First of all, what does this have to do with what we are discussing (i.e., the flaw in the bible). And secondly; so what? The point is, you have shown that you have no understanding of the scripture, and that you choose to put them in the category of fantasy. This is not knowledge.
Here is another bogus claim.
Can you show me anywhere on this forum where atheist and christian discuss the scriptural points of the bible?
You are an atheist, which is why you believe that knowledge can only be had through the findings of scientific observation. There are those who do not hold this belief as all in all, and I AM quite willing to bet that your everday life is not ruled by this simplistic notion of life.
What does this have to do with the aparent flaws in the bible?
That is just your opinion. But then you have not demonstrated any real understand of the scripture, and you appear to be anti-religious and anti-God, so I take your opinon very lightly.
Exactly what is this argument about?
You claim the bible is flawed, yet you don't understand the point of the bible, in fact you claim the bible has no point. So where is your rationale? The bible must have some point, otherwise it would not have stood the test of time the way it has. It is impossible for us to reach a consensus when your position is one of stubborness and ignorance.
This is my point. You insist that you know why people believe in the words of the bible, aN extremely complex set of workS, which is; they "believe god exists because it says so in the bible". With all due respect, you are either very small-minded, or you have convinced yourself that your analysis is correct. Either way it is un-healthy.
Religion is a physical fact. Every person on earth is religious to some degree or other. Your religion is based on humanism, the idea that everything is a result of natural means, and as such there is no need of any supernatural explanation.
And the racist says....."some of my best friends are black people"....and...."I have some Bob Marley in my record collection".
We're not discussing the christian religion, we are discussing the apparent flaws in the bible which render it useless and meaningless, a claim you made.
The difference between you and I (in this debate), is that you make wild claims, which you cannot back up (such as this), even with a substantial reason.
And does this mean that the bible is not the word of God?
Okay, putting aside the attempted subtle put down of theists, don't you find your point a little contradictory? You say people who feel socially uncomfortable seek comfort believing that there is some force out there looking after their interest. Is this not a materialistic way of thinking? Do you not seek some kind of insurance, or invest money, in the hope of recieving interest? Why do you want interest, is it not for comfort in the long term? Some people steal, or beg, borrow, or murder for some measure of comfort.
Then you contradict yourself by saying they carry on regardless of there actually not being a force out there. Would you invest your money in a bogus company or bank?
Do you think all people who believe in God are really this stupid?
Religions may do, that is agreed, then that means they are flawed, not the biblical scripture they claim aspire to.
The fact is that every person dies, and once they are truly dead, there is no coming back, and as such, there is no proof of anything to the living, beyond that veil. The scriptures do not offer a reward, they state what happens after the body is anihilated. If you understood scriptures you would know this.
So what?
How does this make the bible flawed? The basic points of Jesus, which justifies his position (according to creationsts) was that he was born from a virgin, he healed the sick, raised people from the dead, was crucified, and rose again. The reason being, he was a divine son of God, or God incarnate.
So I ask again; How does the mistranslation flaw this point?
Ah! so Jesus was a trickster. I'll have to read the bible again, as it must have slipped right by me.
What??
Any links.
I'm afraid they are not enough to interfere with the point of the bible, which is why people believe in God. If it had been written that Einstein loved woolly jumpers, but then it became known that he hated them, would that have an effect on his theory of relativety? I doubt it.
Not in the way you have demonstrated (aside from your own personal inference), neither in the way I demonstrated above. Both are the same type of error.
The message of the bible is to be believe in God for the purpose of your own salvation. That is not altered.
The document does not need to be understood as a whole, one only needs to understand the point which is to love the Lord God with all thy heart. If you can do that then you understand everything. Everything else is preperation for that, and aids the point.
Science means knowledge, and these subject matters you mention are different branches of "knowledge". They would not have understood genetics because they didn't have the technology, just like we didn't have the technology only a few years ago. It does not mean they were unscientific.
They said to each other, "Come, let us make oven-fired bricks." They had brick for stone and asphalt for mortar.
How did they do that without science and it method?
Why would people of such artistic capability, art which surpasses anything we have to offer, use their ability to invent something to explain something they didn't understand? It doesn't follow.
Oh! so this was a trend? Other communities indulged in this sort of behaviour to explain that which they were incapable of having the ability, to explain there surroundings?
This is great stuff.
What makes you think the bible is/was a religion?
From what I can understand Jesus was against the "religion" of his day, so please explain what religion Jesus espoused. Or Abraham and Moses for that matter.
That's fair enough, we are both in the same position.
What do you think the historical account of the early 21st century will be?
And do you think the account of official american history will concur with the official iraqi history? If not why not?
What is your source of history. and why does it conveniently point to the idea that the bible is not what it is meant to be?
History=His-story. The answer to your question is; because it suits.
Knowledge is always prized above blind-faith, but faith isn't always blind.
WhO mentioned religion?
I'm talking about the bible.
JAN.
longlostlady said:
It may have been used to supress, repress and control peoples behaviour for hundreds of years, but doesn't that show how powerful it is. Why does it make the bible a flawed document?
Economic development is used to control, supress and repress peoples behaviour, does that mean money is flawed?
Jan.
longlostlady
Registered Senior Member
i wasn't referring to it's flaws directly, i was merely proposing an answer to your comment upon it's longevity. the fact that something has lasted beyond being a "fad" does not necessarily make it true or good.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I don't think that argument is going to fly, longlostlady. You are using logic, reason and a measured approach. A Darn Jane does not recognise such cheap debating tricks. She far prefers an unconscionable agnostic, such as myself, who becomes enraged by her intransigent stupidity, and can therefore be looked down upon and ignored.
C
charles cure
Guest
Jan Ardena said:
because it clearly isnt there. its not out in the open and despite years and years of looking, no one has ever found it.
see the above answer. even on the off chance that there is some proof somewhere, it is currently unavailable.
definitive, tangible proof outside of say, people's ridiculous recountings of near death experiences that no one else witnessed or could verify and schizophrenic episodes where they believed they have conversed with a deity.
wrong, i dont believe it, i know it. it is apparent to most people. i am partial to the theory of evolution because it makes sense and is independently verifiable on several levels, i dont have to take some idiots word for it, i can go into the world and study it and eventually come to a similar conclusion. its not just some ramblings in a book that i either have to accept as completely true or reject as completely false without being able to test or observe them for myself.
you clearly dont understand the meaning of analogy. in addition to that, let me point out that the word youre looking for is BIASED, not BIAS. usually thats kind of petty but your misuse of it in the past 3 posts has kind of begun to annoy the shit out of me.
first of all this was born out of your stupid little point about how christianity doesnt get "fair hearing time" on the forum. i could care less about that because i dont even think it is close to true. however, when i see a debate in this forum about christianity and over points of scripture, i often see a pretty in depth understanding of the scripture on the part of the non-religious people who post here. they understand it and can debate it from an academic standpoint. that is knowledge of scripture. belief in scripture is totally different.
look at nearly any thread on here where christianity is discussed, there are always christians quoting scripture and always rebuttals by atheists or agnostics. theyre everywhere. you cant debate all of the points of scripture at the same time. i doubt there is a thread here thats called "Lets Debate the Scriptures" but the debate happens nonetheless.
first of all, you could not be more wrong. i understand that the only knowledge that is of practical use in everyday life can be gained through scientific though and analysis, and that is why i am an atheist, not the other way around. everything else is just philosophy, opinion, and speculation. i value those things in proportion to how pragmatic and possible their main premise is, but until proven as useful and correct in actuality, they remain just ideas with no real factual support, and as such should not be given more weight than they deserve.
how does an understanding of scripture provide either proof of or justification for the bible's main premises? what you are doing is saying that if you understand the bible then you understand that it is true by virtue of the fact that to truly understand it you must accept its veracity. there is no more circular argument in the entire world. the bible claims that christianity is the correct way of life and to adhere to its doctrines will guarantee salvation. then christians claim that the existence of the bible alone is proof that its claims are accurate. well, guess what retard, thats not proof, thats just idiocy. i cant take out a piece of wood and say its a 100$ bill and then when you dont believe me say well thats just because you dont understand how money works.
your "argument" defies logic. you are saying that in order for a document to be accepted and "stand the test of time" that it has to be true and have a focused and cohesive message. this is completely incorrect. what you can see from a study of history is that the more watered-down and open ended a document is, the wider the range of interpretations can be made from it. when a document is so complex as to have no point, so contradictory as to be able to justify any premise which is read into it, it becomes flexible enough for anyone in authority to use its acceptance among the population as justification for nearly any action that can be taken, either good or bad. the bible has "stood the test of time" as you put it, because it means nothing except what the reader wants it to mean. it has no hard and fast rules that cannot be ignored due to contradictory rules in other parts of it. it has no point whatsoever until a person gives it one.
what you are saying is that your interpretation of the bible is right and to not understand it that way is to not understand its message. well, welcome to the real world Janny, every single person interprets the thing differently and there are a ton of people out there who would think that you dont get it probably even worse than you think that i dont get it. interpretation is all that matters, because the message is not readily apparent.
i didnt say that. dont put words into my mouth. i said that the most common counter argument you hear from christians generally is that "god exists because it says so in the bible" or something equally non-evidenciary and circular. i didnt say that this was the reason that they believed. im sure there are a variety of reasons and justifications that christians and other religious people have for their beliefs.
dont continue to extrapolate unintented meanings from my statements or you will make yourself look even stupider.
look at this:
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective
i do not have a religion. i do not hold a set of values for which my only justification is faith and belief in a foundational truth that cannot be proved. you are speculating about what i believe and in doing so are attempting to show me that i am just like you. this is wrong without equivocation. regardless of what you may think i think, you are mistaken. i do not believe in things. i try to know about things. i often wonder or speculate or try to figure out things that are not explained, but if i cant come up with facts, i dont cling to these assumptions as though they are inalienable truths.
that being said, i do not feel the need to know every aspect of existence from genesis to death. i have experienced birth, and everything that i know about humanity tells me that at some point i will also experience death. all i can know and control is what happens in the time that seperates those two events. i understand that at this stage of humanity's development and knowledge of the world, it is futile to attempt to guess at the origins of the universe with any degree of certainty, and it is equally futile to attempt to address the question of what happens after death, although from a physical standpoint, the answer seems apparent. religion's claims to provide answers to these questions are just as potentially correct or erroneous as any other explanation, no matter how ridiculous it may seem, so why cling to a premise that has no support and perpetrate it as a clear cut truth?
im not a racist. and i dont own any bob marley. whats your point? oh, right, you dont have one.
the bible IS the christian religion. without it, there would be no such thing. prior to the writings that now comprise the bible, christians thought of themselves as a sect of jews. i didnt claim that the flaws of the bible rendered it meaningless, you claimed that despite its flaws in composition, interpretation, and translation, that the message of god was still manifest in it in a clear and perfect way. we may very well be discussing two different things here.
i have made no claim. i have challenged your assertion that the bible remains unflawed by attempting to discuss how mistranslations in it constitute alterations of its essential message. the biggest problem here is that when you are backed into a corner, you pretend that the other person has made the claim and that you have done nothing but skillfully refute it, when in reality all you have done is try to deflect your own inconsitency and change the subject when you have no coherent response.
people are attracted to religion because it provides imagined comfort. there is a set of rules to live by, a set of behaviors to follow, and all you have to do is adhere to them and you are told that you can expect comfort at some point, if not in this life, then in an eternity in god's presence. this promise of comfort is like the stick with a piece of meat on it that is held out in front of racing dogs at the track. it is incentive to get them to run in a certain direction as fast as they can, but during the race, it is impossible for them to catch it. it is an elusive prize that can be visualized but not obtained. that is the eternal promise of religion. it allows some people to rationalize their trudgery through existence, their depression, bad luck, traumatic experiences, weakness, and perversions as an essential flaw in all of humanity and not just themselves, and urges them forward with the knowledge that having lived their lives, they can renounce their evil acts and intentions on their deathbed, embrace god, and be saved. or alternatively, having already embraced god, all they must do is confess their evils and promise to guard against future transgressions and ostensibly, they will still receive their reward.
the problem with this whole framework is that there never has been and in all likelihood never will be a single person who can attest to the veracity of this promise after having received it. the person who believes something like this isnt necessarily stupid by nature, but is often indoctrinated into such beliefs at a very young age, usually by people who are trusted, loving, and supportive elements in their life. this creates a special place in the hearts of people for religious belief, because they associate it with other positive formative experiences. people often find it very difficult or undesireable to question their own beliefs in right or wrong if they arent required by the nature of a situation or circumstance to do so.
there are also people who are attracted to religion after undergoing horrifying physical or mental abuse, and seek comfort that despite the fact that their temporal life is more or less ruined beyond salvage, they will recieve the comfort of heaven. this is because people find it extremely difficult to accept that many things are completely beyond their control and are the product of nothing more than the chaotic nature of life. they would rather subscribe to a view that at least promises the illusion of being able to take part in their own salvation.
belief in religion is not a material investment for the most part, rather it is an emotional one. a crucial condition of making the investment in the first place is knowing that when you do, the ultimate fruits of it cannot be obtained until death. therefore, despite the bad things that happen to you now, you can always keep in mind your spiritual nest egg, off in the land of ether somewhere, awaiting you at death, growing with every ounce of righteous suffering, bad luck, self-abdication, guilt, and heartache that you endure.
if religion, and thus, human interpretation of scripture is flawed by nature, than scripture is flawed in that it fails to present a clear enough message as to be beyond the scope of hundreds of different interpretations. if scripture were to be truly effective, it would provide the axiomatic absolutes that you spoke of 5 posts ago, but it doesnt. whole sects within christianity itself cannot agree on certain points of the message or how they should be implemented as lifestyle choices in order for a person to receive redemption and salvation. this is a result of a flawed document with a cloudy and uncertain set of messages.
but there is more than one resultant scenario after death. hell is punishment. heaven is reward. these are doled out (supposedly) according to a judgement made about the moral rightness or wrongness of your life. is there a different way to understand that, scripturally? or is it that that is your only defense when you are wrong?
first of all, jesus's backstory was clearly not so apparent to people living at the time of the writings that now comprise the bible as there were people who did not believe that jesus was the son of god, or even divine, but instead endowed with supernatural knowledge or the subject of divine revelation. in fact the council of nicea officially established that it would forever be christian doctrine that he was divine and the son of god and a part of the holy trinity. this concept was in dispute prior to that. so if it was so obvious to everyone that he was the son of god after his death and miraculous resurrection, why were people still arguing about it in 325 ad? how come the popular alternative views of jesus's life and history are not expressed in the bible?
Ah! so Jesus was a trickster. I'll have to read the bible again, as it must have slipped right by me.
he sure was a trickster. read Jesus the Magician by Morton Smith. i know its not the bible, but its a lot more believable. it even presents some facts and history with its claims. you know what those are right?
i know youre confused.
read The Templar Revelation by Clive Prince and Lynn Picknett. its in there. or i'll just go find a link and give it to you later. its pretty easy info to find actually if youre trying to study the bible in the context of actual history and not fantasy land.
it is only not altered when you refuse to take into account the validity of any evidence to the contrary.
if the document does not need to be understood as a whole, then why isnt it only one sentence long. you seemed to have summed it up succinctly? do you not think that a crucial flaw in the document is its 1000 page belaboring of a point that can be made in a single breath? if what youre saying is right, whats the point of everything else in the bible? preperartion and aid to the point? nonsense. its a farce.
they did it with method but not science. theres a difference between knowing that something works and knowing how and why it works. people knew that bread rose and baked well under certain conditions but it took them forever to figure out that it was yeast that made it happen. people could have come up with a million erroneous theories and stories to explain why bread rises up until it turned out to be yeast and could be demonstrated and replicated consistently. that is what religion is, a way to explain why the bread rises without knowing that its yeast and not god.
im done with this bullshit for now, arguing with you is a lot like wasting time, i'll just let you find out for yourself how delusional you are. thanks for playing.
longlostlady said:
You are quite right.
But it means something.
Jan.
Sarkus said:
So what could the meaning of the bible equate to, in your opinion?
Jan.
Sarkus said:
Could you give a brief example of "self-help" guidance found in the bible?
Why didn't the authors make themselves or someone else great, as they certainly must have had the literal skills (by your reckoning), to pull it off.
It just seems a long arse way of going about things, knowing that an entity like God had never been heard of before.
Jan.
longlostlady
Registered Senior Member
the concept of a God was hardly unfamiliar to those who wrote the bible. i have yet to hear of an ancient race which did not believe that there was something out there which was "above" themselves...so i'm not quite understanding that point to be honest....
that's what i would have thought....any truth or not, it's undeniably a guide book on How To Live Life. ten commandments etc, and rather a lot of Exodus as i remember.
that's what i would have thought....any truth or not, it's undeniably a guide book on How To Live Life. ten commandments etc, and rather a lot of Exodus as i remember.