Science is not perfect. Science is what has been tested and proven. Science is not a religion or a belief system like Christianity, Islam, or Hindu, etc. Also, science is NOT a person, you can't say "science doesn't know everything". Science happens everywhere even if you don't know what's happening, and whatever is "recorded" will be written on books, encyclopedias, and such.

With the understanding of science, engineers are able to construct things. With computer engineering, along with electrical engineering and computer science, you are able to use your computer, plugged to the internet, and you say that "science doesn't know everything" in a website calling StarEdit Network. Basically the information provided by computer science allowed engineers to manufacture a computer with internet that you use, all of which was made just so you can say "science doesn't know everything" in the internet. The internet is one of the major achievements in computer science and you say that. Interesting.

Humanity would still be messed up even if we understand everything from atoms to the furthest star containing life. Humans are affected psychologically and emotionally, usually we do not rely on reasoning. There are people who wants to see the world burn, and they don't care because they will never be reasoned with, or even negotiated. With the understanding of science, humans are able to create their dangerous weapons against others.

Do you know the title to this thread is? It clearly say, in quotes, "Read the Bible to believe god exists?" Someone clearly said that to others, including me, to try and read the bible to prove the existence of god. There are people who deliberately ask people to read the bible so they can "believe" such "god" exists. The idea behind this topic I made is why are there people trying to convert others.


Edit: Also I have a change of heart. My first post two years ago seems offending, but now I'll try not to offend. Speaking of the word "offend", you know what's cool about science? You cannot be offended at all but changes your opinions about certain individuals. If some aspects in recorded science are wrong, they are always subject to change to see if it is proven. Religion on the other hand, there are people who feel offended when there are explanations that contradicts their religion.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Sep 14 2010, 5:34 pm by KrayZee.

Explain why the god of Christian scriptures has finite patience.

Explain why god needed to fake-kill himself. Why was that the only way an omnipotent being could stand to not roast some of for eternity in hell fire?

Explain how he went from a god of compromise in the old testament, to a god of no compromise in the new. (eg. asking for animal sacrifice because that's what mankind was so used to, and then saying jesus is the 1 and only way)
You could also so, how did he go from understanding us and accepting the way we are, to demanding something no matter what.

Does your god change his mind? Or, can he be affected at all in any sort of way by us?

This questions hinges around how we define patience. This guy gives his take on God and patience.

Good question.

Please expound on this more so I can give you more specific answers (helps to quote passages in the Bible).
But if not, I would assume your questions would be that of one of the many ostensible "differences" between the OT and NT God.
Person sharing his view after hearing his Atheist friend bringing the issue up
Old Testament vs New Testament
Why is God so different in the OT
Again, why is God so different in the OT (also check out some of his other articles on the left)
And more

Broad and evocative questions like this only begs a whole plethora of scholars and apologists to edify us with their takes. This is a good place to start.

What I was attempting to state was that its useless to just tell someone to read the bible we all want facts even religious people but they find their facts through faith rather than through logic.

Telling someone to just "read the bible to believe in God" is indeed what alot of christians do but its a lazy approach. If it was really that easy the entire planet would probably be christian. More or less i'm stating that while christians try to convert they tend to go about it totally wrong the key to converting someone is to show that person the upside to your religion and make them want to follow God rather than brush off their questions and tell them to just go read the bible. This can be contributed to the lack of knowledge many christians have about their own religion. Which is the reason why I walked out of the catholic faith and adopted diesm over theism.

Also I didn't mean to say that science doesn't know everything I ment to state science doesn't explain everything.


Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." Genesis 1:26 God refers to himself as our rather than my this suggests that the trinity always existed.

Post has been edited 7 time(s), last time on Sep 20 2010, 5:27 pm by Kemuel.

Fail. That did not explain anything. Hahaha, check out the first paragraph:
When we ask a question such as this, we must be careful that we are not calling God into question. To wonder why God couldn’t find “another way” to do something is to imply that the way He has chosen is not the best course of action and that some other method would be better. Usually what we perceive as a “better” method is one that seems right to us. Before we can come to grips with anything God does, we have to first acknowledge that His ways are not our ways, His thoughts are not our thoughts—they are higher than ours (Isaiah 55:8). In addition, Deuteronomy 32:4 reminds us that “He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.” Therefore, the plan of salvation He has designed is perfect, just, and upright, and no one could have come up with anything better.

Oh, so look at that, before the argument has even begun - we have already established that God is perfect, just, - and no one could have come up with anything better. This is circular reasoning. One does not assert that which they are trying to prove as a premise for their argument!

I could think up tonnes of better ways, and I would hardly call myself omnipotent. God could have forgiven the sins without having to kill himself to convince himself to change his own rules. He could have forgiven humanity without having to do anything. He could have boomed his voice across the planet "I forgive you of all your sins!". He could have sent Jesus down to go around hugging each person individually, whispering in their ear "I forgive you". He could have detonated hundreds of stars to form the words "I forgive humanity" across the sky. You get the picture...

But no, what does he decide to do? Gut a fucking human in Bronze Age Palestine. Anyone of you today who would be witnessing that same event would try to stop such a barbaric display, but that would have been going against his wishes. He wanted to have a human sacrifice. Honestly, it's laughable you can consider this God loving or just.

And there are further inconsistencies. It's supposed to be a sacrifice, but then Jesus comes back to life??? ROFL. What kind of sacrifice is that? And he was omniscient, so he already knows what dying feels like, what being crucified feels like, without having to actually get crucified and die. This magnitude of nonsense is what prevents me from taking Christianity seriously.

Thank fuck there is no evidence for his existence. And shame on all you fools who actually believe such a monstrous thing be true.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Feb 22 2011, 8:44 am by private_parts.

/facepalm

If you aren't God, and you aren't omniscient (I assume you mean omniscient, not omnipotent), then how do you know those ways are better than God's way?

Think about it this way. If you know absolutely nothing about surgery, would you call a surgeon into question for his methods of cutting someone open?

Human sacrifice? Jesus was both God and man. It wasn't a sacrifice that God sent, as such. Rather, it was God sacrificing HIMSELF. No greater love is there, than a man giving his life for his friends. And yes, it was barbaric the way the Romans killed those they considered criminals. Romans were pretty barbaric.

As for coming back to life; how is that not a sacrifice? Do you want to die in a miserable way, go to hell for 3 days (or go bathe in a pool of lava in which you can't die but can feel pain for 3 days), then come back to life and go HEH THAT WAS EZY MON, LET'S DO IT AGAIN?

As for Jesus being omniscient, it's pretty debtable as to how omniscient He was, as He was human AND God. A human can't experience omniscience. So no, He didn't know what dying felt like.

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire."
olol Bible no liek you verra much.

Odd thread to necro after all this time. Unfortunately I feel another flame war coming along. Its like Pinky 2.0. Oh wait...
LOL IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE PRIVATE_PARTS IS PINKY

Private_parts, you seem to be baffled about how anyone can consider this God loving or just.


- God made very clear to Adam and Eve not to eat from a certain tree, otherwise they will be banished from the Garden. They ended up eating an apple from that tree, and as a result that is where sin entered the world. It's so simple: do. not. eat. from the tree or you WILL suffer the consequences, that is a Just God. Do not get "just" and "cruel" confused.

- The Egyptians enslaved the Israelites for years. Treated them like shit, beat them up, killed many of their babies. Horrible stuff. God sent Moses to tell the Pharaoh to put an end to all this atrocity, otherwise they will be punished. Pharaoh refused. So the first plagued happened, Pharaoh still refused, then the second came, it took ten to wake Pharaoh up and realize what he was doing is wrong. This is the work of a Just God, all the guy had to do was follow a simple and very doable thing, but no he chose to do it the hard way.

- Ok, since we "chose" to sin, that means we're all doomed to hell and we're going to suffer like no other? How malicious! No, like Jack said, sending His son to take our punishment for us is a sign of love.

I could give more examples, but I don't want to waste any more time.

"But wait, why didn't he just simply say 'you are all forgiven' and be done like that?"
Because he wants us to choose to love him, to have a relationship with him. Otherwise, we'd be like robots who do everything as he commands. That's not love, love is a choice. And do not get "just" and "malevolence" mixed up. He is a just God in that he makes it clear what the ramifications are if we choose not to accept him. "Wait so God is blackmailing us into having to believe in him!" No, he just asks us to do something so simple. I could go on, but I highly doubt you'll read or care any further.

God prefers Atheists. She told me herself.

And now to justify my argument. If you think I am wrong - then you need to re-evaluate what religion and love mean to you. Religion by definition is subjective. And as such there is no wrong or right, since there are no objective, empirical cold-hard facts.

We are allowed a certain level of free speech and propagation of our own ideas - but my opinion is that organised religion cross this boundary, to such an extent that religion is drilled into the masses as a standard way of life. We are all free to choose our own paths in life, yet certain religions wrap us up in tradition and put us on a pre-ordained path. Bar Mitzvah, circumcision, baptism, confirmation etc are all rites of passage with more in similarity to tribal neologisms than 21st century living - yet these practices are extremely common. I think its wrong to simply adopt a religion because it is what your family practices and they assume you to undergo the same teaching they did.

You need only a cursory knowledge of political history and power-struggles of the last 800 years to understand that religion is a tool - used to control, subdue and organise the masses. Modern day Christianity (most denominations) are evolved from the Holy Roman Empire which stemmed from the fall of the Roman Empire which required a unification of the provinces which were losing faith in the long line of incompetent emperors. So paganism was stamped out of what is today Europe and monasteries, churches, cathedrals were constructed. Then look in another direction and ask what is Fine Art? How many 'classic' paintings involve religious iconography? How many also contain 'royalty' and 'nobility' and how much are these paintings worth? To continue this, think about wine and viticulture, which is now a multi-billion dollar industry - operating globally. Wine was sanctioned by the church and almost all production during the 1100s to at least the 1600s was controlled through the church. Wine was a luxury commodity and was strategically denied from enemies - through vineyards being uprooted and burnt during conquests. Why is the Vatican city as wealthy as it is.

Bring this up to date and look at what's happening in Palestine / Israel right now? How about the War on Terror? What is Terror? Are all suicide bombers Islamic? Are all Muslim's Islamic extremists? Terror is these questions, the doubt and the fear in which we live.

So, if religion is truly 100% subjective, and everyone's opinion is inherently correct and incorrect at the same instant in time. And that there is nothing truly factual or empirically known about religion... Why have there been wars? pogroms? crusades? How many people have died in the name of 'religion'? And what did the Vatican do, during the Holocaust?

But, yes, (all) religion does contain valuable teachings of morality and ethics, it's just a shame that these are glossed over and religion only serves as a further denomination in identifying yourself in the 21st century.

I wouldn't call religion subjective - religion is usually a set of rituals or guiding principals. Faith and spirituality though, I find much more subjective. The latter two are more of a journey or experience, you can change as time goes on, for example, how you practice or pray or what have you, even though you are worshiping the same deity you were before - the deity being set by a religion. And then if you change deity, you probably change religion as well.

You say at one point that organized religion teaches morals and ethics - and then you chastise people for defining themselves by these morals and ethics. I mean, I guess its only 6AM but I fail to see why that's a bad thing. The human perspective is based on personal morals and ethics.

I can't be bothered arguing about the rest of your post but I gotta call you up on this point at least.

Le wrong. Most denominations are a result of the Reformation, which was a return to the original Christianity (as in, the first 100 years after Jesus died Christianity). The first "denomination" to come out of the Reformation was probably the Lollards, although the period generally considered the Reformation was started with John Calvin, Martin Luther etc. and the Reformed denomination, Lutheran denomination (which has significantly deteriorated in general). Presbyterianism is very similar to the reformed denomination. Baptists came along a fair bit later (not to be confused with the anabaptists), and the pentecostals are even more recent.

The reformed denominations are a total turn around from the roman catholic church. That's far from "evolved from the Holy Roman Empire". (I assume you actually mean catholic church, not Roman Empire in that quoted bit, w/e).

Yea, pretty much. Being a good [insert name of religion here] doesn't necessarily make you a good person. I'm sure all these members of the priesthood would say that they are good Christians.

[quick edit:] My idea of a utopian religion would simply be that one has only to say that they are a practising member of said utopian legend and they would instantly be rewarded with respect and gratitude from their fellow countrymen. There would have to be a counter-religion in place which would punish people severely for saying they are practising members of said religion, but are merely doing so to gain power/respect/gratitude.

The underlying theme here is of freedom of choice, and restriction of freedom. Muslim states and ex-pats are being subjected to laws which contradict their religion (for example, the wearing of the Burka was banned in France, as was the wearing of crosses for children in School). How can a religion be followed strictly and faithfully when there are man-made law standing in direct opposition and contradiction to how you 'should' be living your life?[/quick edit]



Okay, thanks for correcting me. But my point still stands that religion only serves as a tickbox on a census in which you affiliate yourself within a group. The problem is that a lot of people simply don't care about religion (sorry, but science has been around for a while now). And while I have nothing against those who practice any religion, or have faith or beliefs - I myself, find it to be borderline incomprehensible, how people can believe so blindly in this day and age.

My main argument is that religion is a tool which creates power. And all organised religions do this in the same way, through preaching a moral consciousness that is somehow attainable if you follow a set of routines, observe certain rituals and obey certain rules. I am by no means qualified to speak about the intricacies of religion, but I can argue my case quite comfortably with a few examples - ranging from most Christian (sorry, I don't do the whole denomination business), to Hare Krsna movements, to denominations of Judaism, and even Buddhism. In fact, all religions operate in the same way, they act as a looking-glass from the 'real' (mortal) world, in which we live, breed and die - to the 'other' (heaven/hell/supernatural) world, in which we supposedly exist after death. Christainity, Judaism, Islam - heaven, hell and purgatory etc. Buddhism, Hare Krsna - reincarnation, enlightenment etc. As long as you live by certain rules; Five Pillars of Islam, the Ten Commandments, the Eight-Fold path etc. The minutiae and details of the codes and laws observed, and the methodologies practised do not matter. Religion binds people together with a so-called common cause and false sense of 'brotherhood', and it only takes a few politically-minded individuals to set this community rolling on or against any issue they deem important.

In fact, all religions are so inherently similar in what they preach, but differ so vastly in what they practice - which is why we see such 'denominations' and 'reformations' and quite frankly, 'conflicts' between religions. What sort of god-loving, peaceful and sane individuals would willingly submit themselves to a religion (or organisation) which can say on the one hand 'love thy neighbour', and turn a blind eye during crusades, holocausts, world-wars, pogroms and genocides?

Certainly not myself - and just to re-iterate, I find all religion to be farcical and time-wasting. There are much more educational books to be reading and which are easier to interpret than certain 'holy books'. But, it is a free world and you can be the most devout scientologist under the sun and I wouldn't care - so long as I wasn't forced to obey the rules and taboos associated with your religion.

Being a 'good' [insert most religions here] would actually make you a good person - because most religions teach love and humility. If you aren't following it, you aren't a 'good' [insert religion again]. And to be fair, you can't judge the hearts of men - only God can. So you - or anyone - determining what makes a 'good' [same religion] is probably not a factor to most theists.

If I'm not mistaken, the unofficial stance on evolution by the Church is basically God exists, that God created the material universe and all life within, and also that biological evolution is a natural process within that creation. Evolution is a tool that God employed to develop human life. Science and faith are not conflicting...

Stop using examples of fake catholics to criticize a good religion that consists of so many virtuous people, Don Bosco, Mother Theresa, St. Therese...

Both of these are good points.

1) Science and faith are not conflicting. Now, I don't believe evolution is real science, in that it's a theory and far from proven, and has some serious flaws which have yet to be overcome. The stopgap theory doesn't really fix those flaws either. For everything else, in general Christians and scientists can agree quite easily. Many notable scientists of the past have been Christians.

2) Not everyone in a religion is a good follower of that religion. E.G. a whole pileload of popes, terrorist muslims, (well, it's debatable as to whether they were being good followers of their religion.), the crusaders, the inquisition, the dodgy Catholic priests in the modern world, etc. Now I know several Catholics who I'd say are also Christians, but there's a WHOLE lot of Catholics and Christians out there who are pretty clearly not ACTUALLY true believers. If they were, they wouldn't behave in the ways that they do.

I don't know of any God-loving, peaceful, sane individuals who have turned blind eyes to crusades, holocausts, world-wars, pograms, genocides and abortions.

This does make me curious...does Cardinal believe I turn a blind eye to things such as war, crusades, and holocausts?

The Reformation was an evolution of Catholicism. Martin Luther and every single one of the others were at one point Catholic. Renouncing most Catholic tenants does not suddenly make you never in the past Catholic.

All denominations of Christianity today can have a root drawn to Catholicism.

Catholicism was an "evolution" of the early Christian church. The Reformation was a return to the ways of the early Christian church. It was not an evolution of Catholicism. And what has Martin Luther being an ex-Catholic got to do with anything? That's like saying that Christianity is an evolution of Buddhism because a Buddhist converts to Christianity.

If that Buddhist started a new christian church, your comparison might have worked.

Catholicism took what it liked from the mysterious and unknowable "early christian church" (that was about as uniform as a tie-dye shirt) and literally had EVERY single other christian derivative KILLED. All them them died no exceptions. All Luther did, as a Catholic, was see certain Catholic dogmas as not having any grounding in the bible, and he made a stink about it. He didn't magically reclaim the first church.

And some of the things he pointed out, the church agreed with when he dragged it into the light - like the bible being the inerrant word of god. Or that the bible is "more cannon" (best way I can describe it) than what they decide on in their councils.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Feb 24 2011, 4:30 am by ClansAreForGays.

Science and reason are the opposites of religion and faith. Or at least, the LITERAL WORD of religious texts. The Bible said the Sun stood still, and humans believe the Sun revolves around the Earth, even after seeing overwhelming proof that the Earth is NOT the center of the Universe. Religion prevents progress.

I could go on and on about Evolution, the age of the Earth, and more, but I won't (unless you really require more proof).

Of course, the Bible (and all other religious texts) were written by mere mortals. Who's to say they didn't inject some personal beliefs into the so-called "word of God," or that the true meaning has not been corrupted over the centuries of revisions and misinterpretations?

Faith says God exists. Reason says God cannot exist. Logic disproves the perfect, omnipotent God. Yet there is still room in the logician's universe for a lesser deity. A being that, perhaps, operates in higher dimensions. A being that does not have complete control over the universe, nor completely understands it.

Most prophets were people who (for the most part) were trying to improve their world. It's such a shame these days, that fundamentalists take the exact "word of God" so seriously. Life would be a better place if everyone remembered the kindness, honesty, and virtue of the prophets, rather than the hate created by their followers.