January 27, 200718 yr alot of people are seeming to forget one key point that keeps him from being able to cure everything sin it's a war between heaven and hell, God attempts to control everything. but sin won't allow it. Not exactly an excuse for everything. Children are born pure, yet somehow many of them are stricken with terminal diseases and disorders. Why in the hell don't they get cured? What about all those kids in the Make a Wish Foundation? I guess when he was making a list up of "Do not heal these people because they have sinned", he must've added a few to the list mistakenly.
January 27, 200718 yr Not exactly an excuse for everything. Children are born pure, yet somehow many of them are stricken with terminal diseases and disorders. Why in the hell don't they get cured? What about all those kids in the Make a Wish Foundation? I guess when he was making a list up of "Do not heal these people because they have sinned", he must've added a few to the list mistakenly. Ah, but you've forgotten about "Original Sin". This fruitcake must be Catholic...
January 27, 200718 yr Well, on here someones sig, (i cant remember who, sry) says something like, Jesus could walk on water but he couldnt find his way off a cross. which is a pretty good reason to believe religion is bullshit. EVO FTW
January 27, 200718 yr Evolution personally. I don't believe Adam and Eve and all that nonsense. How is it possible? Easily, it's not. No contemporary religion endorses the view that the genesis story is completely factual (other than god creating everything as we know it) and the characters involved are more a study of anthropology than anything else. People who believe in creationism are cretins and should be regarded only as such.
January 27, 200718 yr Ah, but you've forgotten about "Original Sin". This fruitcake must be Catholic... Actually I'm an agnostic/athiest when it comes to Catholism (sp?) and Christianity. (Please tell me that you're calling DarkOn3 Catholic...because he so far is for the idea of "sin" and whatnot) My guess is you must be Catholic/Christian. Because applying Original Sin would mean that you believe in this doctrine. Secondly, Christianity being a decendant religion of Judaism (Which is what a majority of the Old Testament, if not ALL of it, is based upon), it would be believed that even the Jews would believe in such a thing as "Original Sin". Yet Judaism rejects the entire concept. So by fault of older generations does God make imperfect beings? Not your so-called "loving" and "caring" god, now is he? Also, it goes against the whole idea of Free Will, which unfortunately god cannot interfere with (assuming he does exist). Also, we're supposedly the image of god. Does that mean that he himself is flawed/imperfect? (Which is why so many dominations of the religion denounce that idea) A lot of stuff contradicts itself in the bible, hence why I am so skeptical about the idea of christianity.
January 27, 200718 yr i'm not catholic either ha. edit: but either way around, there is no way someone is going to start believing another persons ideas straight from myg0t forums and if so that shits insane.
January 27, 200718 yr Refute to (3): I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me. You shall have no other gods before me. The first fucking commandment. Shortened to: "Don't worship anyone else, or face my wrath." I apologize for my lack of specification. The ten commandments were a list of guidelines given to the Jews and the Jews alone (though Christianity also follows them, however this is logical since Chrisitianity evolved out of Judaism). This being so, the understanding of the Bible in this regard is that God intends for the Jews to be a "priestly nation". This meaning, social roles put on the national level. Israel is supposed to be the "priest" to the other nations. Therefore, for the priest to function effectively, the priest must believe in the God he is preaching. God never says those of different religions are damned. In response to your argument regarding the distribution of natural wealth, if humans alone were able to make such scientific advances, then it should follow that humans should be able to distribute the planet's ressources equaly. The point being made here is that God gave humans more then enough to go around then left it up to them to see how it was distributed. Lastly, in response to "why are there incurable diseases lawlz". Because these diseases and suffering are a consequence of life. Imagine a wolrd where these diseases did not exist. Overpopulation would be an even larger problem, and the slow, painful deaths from disease would be replced by slow, painful deaths from starvation. This argument goes back and fourth and eventually boils down to "If there is a God, why isn't life perfect, lawlz". In my opinion, a perfect life is meritted only by a perfect species, which humans are far from being. Lastly, and this is the point I have been trying to get across all thread, anyone in this thread who says "evo>religion" is retarded. Even the Pope has aknowledged that evolution is indeed responsible for the begininngs and changes in life on earth, so there is no argument here, or rather, the argument should be "evolution vs. creationism". Obviously evolution is correct.
January 27, 200718 yr I apologize for my lack of specification. The ten commandments were a list of guidelines given to the Jews and the Jews alone (though Christianity also follows them, however this is logical since Chrisitianity evolved out of Judaism). This being so, the understanding of the Bible in this regard is that God intends for the Jews to be a "priestly nation". This meaning, social roles put on the national level. Israel is supposed to be the "priest" to the other nations. Therefore, for the priest to function effectively, the priest must believe in the God he is preaching. God never says those of different religions are damned. Wait, this still doesn't answer my argument, you just side-stepped. Are you saying that the ten commandments aren't supposed to be followed by everyone, only a select priestly class? In response to your argument regarding the distribution of natural wealth, if humans alone were able to make such scientific advances, then it should follow that humans should be able to distribute the planet's ressources equaly. The point being made here is that God gave humans more then enough to go around then left it up to them to see how it was distributed. Wait, so are you telling me that instead of making alot more of the earth's land naturally airable to crops, so that peoples in prehistory, antiquity, the middle ages, and even today still starve, while others live in luxury? It is only with the onset of globilization where we have been truly able to move resources around on a massive, massive scale; it is only now that we could cure world hunger if we tried. What about the past 119 centuries of agriculture where certian places like Egypt have lived in a floodplain, a haven for farmers, whereas others have lived in hugely harsh conditions, trying to farm the barren soil, with famine all around? Lastly, in response to "why are there incurable diseases lawlz". Because these diseases and suffering are a consequence of life. Imagine a wolrd where these diseases did not exist. Overpopulation would be an even larger problem, and the slow, painful deaths from disease would be replced by slow, painful deaths from starvation. This argument goes back and fourth and eventually boils down to "If there is a God, why isn't life perfect, lawlz". In my opinion, a perfect life is meritted only by a perfect species, which humans are far from being. I can easily imagine a world where diseases and sudfering aren't a consequence of life. Perhaps I should clarify. I mean diseases like Malaria, and AIDS, things that aren't a consequence of aging. I'm not saying we should be immortal (becuase that's what you seem to imply, as if disease is the only cause of death). People will still die, but they will live longer, and happier lives if disease disappears. Lastly, and this is the point I have been trying to get across all thread, anyone in this thread who says "evo>religion" is retarded. Even the Pope has aknowledged that evolution is indeed responsible for the begininngs and changes in life on earth, so there is no argument here, or rather, the argument should be "evolution vs. creationism". Obviously evolution is correct. Well obviously, but we debate for da lulz.
January 27, 200718 yr Wait, this still doesn't answer my argument, you just side-stepped. Are you saying that the ten commandments aren't supposed to be followed by everyone, only a select priestly class? Well obviously, but we debate for da lulz. He does have a point, you did do a major side-step on that one.
January 27, 200718 yr Actually I'm an agnostic/athiest when it comes to Catholism (sp?) and Christianity. (Please tell me that you're calling DarkOn3 Catholic...because he so far is for the idea of "sin" and whatnot) Good for fucking you. What about when it comes to Buddism or Islam? You still agnostic/athiest? For that matter, which are you? My guess is you must be Catholic/Christian. Because applying Original Sin would mean that you believe in this doctrine. Secondly, Christianity being a decendant religion of Judaism (Which is what a majority of the Old Testament, if not ALL of it, is based upon), it would be believed that even the Jews would believe in such a thing as "Original Sin". Yet Judaism rejects the entire concept. So by fault of older generations does God make imperfect beings? Not your so-called "loving" and "caring" god, now is he? Also, it goes against the whole idea of Free Will, which unfortunately god cannot interfere with (assuming he does exist). You assume that free will exists. How do you know that God doesn't allow us to belive that we have free will, but still contols us? Think of it like The Sims... You can let them act on their own "free will" until you get bored... Also, we're supposedly the image of god. Does that mean that he himself is flawed/imperfect? (Which is why so many dominations of the religion denounce that idea) Ok, take a color photo and place it on a black and white copier. You just made an image of the original. It's not as good, but it's close, and does get the point across usually, right? Then copy the copy, over and over again. Take a look at what you have left. A lot of stuff contradicts itself in the bible, hence why I am so skeptical about the idea of christianity. It was written by man. Even if it's in good intentions, man is imperfect, therefore The Bible is imperfect. Especially in a modern time, when people have evolved into a higher thinking vs. when it was first written. And no, I'm not a biblethumper. You're just full of shit, and your first sentence proved it.
January 27, 200718 yr Wait, so are you telling me that instead of making alot more of the earth's land naturally airable to crops, so that peoples in prehistory, antiquity, the middle ages, and even today still starve, while others live in luxury? It is only with the onset of globilization where we have been truly able to move resources around on a massive, massive scale; it is only now that we could cure world hunger if we tried. What about the past 119 centuries of agriculture where certian places like Egypt have lived in a floodplain, a haven for farmers, whereas others have lived in hugely harsh conditions, trying to farm the barren soil, with famine all around? People have been throwing the word evolution all over this thread yet you seem to have completely discarded it with this statement. People living in harsher climates evolve and adapt to those climates in order to be able to survive in them. You could argue that it was God gave things the ability to do so. Personally, I believe that the earth was better off before the onset of agriculture, because it is in fact agriculture that is the route cause of all social divisions. I am not saying that i do not personally enjoy the benefits of agriculture, i do very much, but objectively speaking, the planet and all its inhabitants would be better off if it were never invented. Regardless, debating that is a mute point since agriculture is here to stay. Edit: Wait, this still doesn't answer my argument, you just side-stepped. Are you saying that the ten commandments aren't supposed to be followed by everyone, only a select priestly class? The "ideal" is for the 10 commandments to be followed by everyone, but those who do not because they are not even aware of them are not damned. Yes the bible does have sections in which God is supposedly said to "destroy all infidels" but once again, the Bible was written by man, and it is important to look at the overall general message rather than specific extracts. This can be seen with Paul. Some of his letters say women are to be respected and treated as equal to men, while in later letters (obviously by a different author) he is extremely sexist. Since it is obvious that the first letters coincide with the main ideals of the rest of Christianity's moral standarts, the later ones should be disregarded. Lastly, people tend to assume that the 10 commandments were in fact written by God and are therefore an exact expression of His will. Though I believe it is more likely that these were infact given by God, it is entirely possible that these too were written by man.
January 27, 200718 yr God never says those of different religions are damned. I'd like to point out that the judo-christian old testament old testament god slew the priests of different religions for no reason, in droves. He annihilated entire cities because they didn't believe in him.
January 27, 200718 yr Good for fucking you. What about when it comes to Buddism or Islam? You still agnostic/athiest? For that matter, which are you? You assume that free will exists. How do you know that God doesn't allow us to belive that we have free will, but still contols us? Think of it like The Sims... You can let them act on their own "free will" until you get bored... Ok, take a color photo and place it on a black and white copier. You just made an image of the original. It's not as good, but it's close, and does get the point across usually, right? Then copy the copy, over and over again. Take a look at what you have left. It was written by man. Even if it's in good intentions, man is imperfect, therefore The Bible is imperfect. Especially in a modern time, when people have evolved into a higher thinking vs. when it was first written. And no, I'm not a biblethumper. You're just full of shit, and your first sentence proved it. QFT P.S. Omnius children aren't born pure according to the bible, thats why there is babtism, they're born with original sin.
January 27, 200718 yr Good for fucking you. What about when it comes to Buddism or Islam? You still agnostic/athiest? For that matter, which are you? You assume that free will exists. How do you know that God doesn't allow us to belive that we have free will, but still contols us? Think of it like The Sims... You can let them act on their own "free will" until you get bored... Ok, take a color photo and place it on a black and white copier. You just made an image of the original. It's not as good, but it's close, and does get the point across usually, right? Then copy the copy, over and over again. Take a look at what you have left. It was written by man. Even if it's in good intentions, man is imperfect, therefore The Bible is imperfect. Especially in a modern time, when people have evolved into a higher thinking vs. when it was first written. And no, I'm not a biblethumper. You're just full of shit, and your first sentence proved it. Oh here we go again, another one of those dumb ass people who try to shove religion down people's throat. First of all, if I'm Agnostic, it means I wouldn't know. Secondly, if I'm an athiest, it means I don't believe in that certain god. It doesn't matter what I am, esp. if I've stated before that I came from a Christian family. Don't go spouting off non-sense bullshit to me, all I was looking for is true reason. Secondly, when it DOES come to Islam and Buddhism, I am agnostic/athiest, as for I don't know and I cannot truly believe in everything I don't know. Therefore I ask questions and actually test the word. Don't go spouting off stuff you don't even understand. Look up the definition of Agnostic seriously before trying to throw salt in an arguement. As least those religions aren't trying to shove their religion onto other people, or at the very least, take a stance for something and then say they aren't. (Hint, Hint) Thirdly, what point have you proven? That the bible was copied so many times and transliterated that what it says isn't exactly what was the original. Pfft, as if I didn't know that. Besides, even if it was copied and copied, and copied again, who are you say you yourself know if what's written in the bible is the direct translitteration? (Which with that point makes it already sound like you're a biblethumper, just a hypocritical one or one who's trying to hide his religion) And you say I'm full of shit? At least I'm taking a straightforward stance as to what I believe/wanted to know. You may not exactly be what we call a biblethumper, but you still believe enough that in order to get your point across, like most christians do, you result to name-calling. Finally, if you aren't a christian, yet you throw out quotes in there, doesn't that make you "Agnostic"??? Come correct and try to answer my questions rather than to throw obvious information at me and empty name-calling. And tell me at what point am I full of shit my so called "non-biblethumping believer"? I gave full details on where I stood and what I believed in. You on the other hand are just being an asshat with typically nothing to say but rather than throw empty thoughts with name-calling (something a typical zealot would do...). Ok, take a color photo and place it on a black and white copier. You just made an image of the original. It's not as good, but it's close, and does get the point across usually, right? Then copy the copy, over and over again. Take a look at what you have left. Please do not try to say things you DON'T yourself understand. First of all, if you were a christian who actually read the bible, you'd know that God's power (as well as god himself) is transcendential and unchanging over time (past, present, future, etc.) So is your answer to that question is "Yes, the Christian God is flawed because he's simply an old asshole who's been making copies of himself and now he can't because he's done it too many times from one perfect idea."? And that question was towards the idea of Original Sin. Read the thread before trying to say something. And you yourself don't even know what the hell you're talking about, which makes you agnostic. Don't try to shove your opinions down my throat, Mr. Agnostic Biblethumper.
January 27, 200718 yr QFT P.S. Omnius children aren't born pure according to the bible, thats why there is babtism, they're born with original sin. BTW, if all have Original Sin, and they aren't baptised because they don't know of the religion (Like the Buddhist Asians, or tribal people for South America and other places), does that mean that by default they can't enter the kingdom of heaven? But the bible is wrong because it's changed so many times, based on what he said, am I right? How can one use the bible as a valid point if he himself says things are wrong in it because of changing times and multiple copying? Oh, and like "megafighterx" says, it's written by men and men are imperfect, blah blah", how can one announce that the bible as valid proof and what it speaks of is true? And that's the Christian bible you speak of. Jewish people denounce that. So do Islamics, and supposedly, they all have the same stories as to what Original Sin is and how it came to play here. Now, for those (like megafighterx) who believe that I don't believe in a god, I said I'm agnostic/athiest when it comes to christianity. That doesn't mean I don't believe in a higher power. All those other religions I am agnostic to as well. The thing that which he, nor you may not understand is the simple fact that you throw Bible facts into the arguement, yet you yourselves say that it's written by men and men are imperfect, or it's been copied too many times and some of the translitterations aren't true. All I'm doing is questioning those facts..
January 27, 200718 yr BTW, if all have Original Sin, and they aren't baptised because they don't know of the religion (Like the Buddhist Asians, or tribal people for South America and other places), does that mean that by default they can't enter the kingdom of heaven? But the bible is wrong because it's changed so many times, based on what he said, am I right? How can one use the bible as a valid point if he himself says things are wrong in it because of changing times and multiple copying? Oh, and like "megafighterx" says, it's written by men and men are imperfect, blah blah", how can one announce that the bible as valid proof and what it speaks of is true? And that's the Christian bible you speak of. Jewish people denounce that. So do Islamics, and supposedly, they all have the same stories as to what Original Sin is and how it came to play here. Now, for those (like megafighterx) who believe that I don't believe in a god, I said I'm agnostic/athiest when it comes to christianity. That doesn't mean I don't believe in a higher power. All those other religions I am agnostic to as well. The thing that which he, nor you may not understand is the simple fact that you throw Bible facts into the arguement, yet you yourselves say that it's written by men and men are imperfect, or it's been copied too many times and some of the translitterations aren't true. All I'm doing is questioning those facts.. We throw bible facts into the argument because its a "Evolution vs Religion" debate. what else would we throw in? so you're saying that you're agnostic/atheist to every religion but believe in a higher power? so wouldn't that just mean you are agnostic, atheist's don't believe in a higher power.
January 27, 200718 yr I'd like to point out that the judo-christian old testament old testament god slew the priests of different religions for no reason, in droves. He annihilated entire cities because they didn't believe in him. Spooned's right. Yes, he did, Da_Goat. BTW, have you seen the movie of the Ten Commandments? He kills the Pharoah's son during Passover. Also,I'm not sure, but when people start worshiping a golden idol does God slain them all. I will look up what part of this is exactly in the bible.
January 27, 200718 yr We throw bible facts into the argument because its a "Evolution vs Religion" debate. what else would we throw in? so you're saying that you're agnostic/atheist to every religion but believe in a higher power? so wouldn't that just mean you are agnostic, atheist's don't believe in a higher power. Oh I know that, but the thing is, they say the bible isn't correct because man wrote it, not god, and it's been copied into different languages many times over many years. What I'm asking is, if that statement is true, how can one use the bible if they themselves don't believe it to be the real word of god? And no, based on the bible, I'm athiest when it comes to Christianity, as I've stated before. I'm agnostic in the terms of "I am without knowledge", which is why I seek it. I don't believe that just one religion is right and all the others are wrong (which is why I say athiest), and I won't know which one IS right until I'm dead, should there be a right one (which is why I say agnostic). Now should trying to find out which one is right grants me a one-way ticket to hell (should that realm exist), then I guess that's where I'm going for trying to find out the truth. I guess I am just agnostic...lmao
January 27, 200718 yr Also,I'm not sure, but when people start worshiping a golden idol does God slain them all. I will look up what part of this is exactly in the bible. Yes, the Bible does portray God as destorying other religions on occasion. It is likely that this is there because some natural disaster befell another group and those writting the Bible said it was God because this would ensure the growth of the religion. However, the general impression and understanding among scholars of the Old Testament is the God is understood to be the God of all peoples. In referance to the Golden Calf which the Jews start worshipping, this occurs when Moses descends from Mount Sinai with the commandments, he sees them worshipping the calf and smashes the tablets. He returns to the summit of Mounth Sinai where God says he will destroy them and begin anew, however, Moses argues with God and He agrees to spare them. God also gives Moses new tablets. Tid Bit of info: There are in fact not 10 commandmnets but 613. All 613 are contained throughout the Torah and each commandment would be for example in Genesis "multiply and be fruitful" etc. However, only 10 were gievn to Moses on tablets because after 10 the Jews were horrified because there was thunder and lightning and all that jazz. So God revealed the other 603 to Moses alone, and they were later recorded in the Bible when it was written. Edit: To those wondering I am Christian, not Catholic and not Jewish, though I am probably more familiar with the Old Testament with than I am with the new one. 2nd Edit: In regards to the question of man being made in God's image. Man said man was made in God's image simply because he could do so to glorify himself. Man is made in God's image in the sense that man is the most dominant creature on the planet with the largest intellectual capacity, in the same way that God is the dominant power in the universe with the greatest intellectual capacity. Personally, I enjoyed the analogy used that compared man to a photocopy of God.
January 27, 200718 yr Yes, the Bible does portray God as destorying other religions on occasion. It is likely that this is there because some natural disaster befell another group and those writting the Bible said it was God because this would ensure the growth of the religion. However, the general impression and understanding among scholars of the Old Testament is the God is understood to be the God of all peoples. In referance to the Golden Calf which the Jews start worshipping, this occurs when Moses descends from Mount Sinai with the commandments, he sees them worshipping the calf and smashes the tablets. He returns to the summit of Mounth Sinai where God says he will destroy them and begin anew, however, Moses argues with God and He agrees to spare them. God also gives Moses new tablets. Tid Bit of info: There are in fact not 10 commandmnets but 613. All 613 are contained throughout the Torah and each commandment would be for example in Genesis "multiply and be fruitful" etc. However, only 10 were gievn to Moses on tablets because after 10 the Jews were horrified because there was thunder and lightning and all that jazz. So God revealed the other 603 to Moses alone, and they were later recorded in the Bible when it was written. Edit: To those wondering I am Christian, not Catholic and not Jewish, though I am probably more familiar with the Old Testament with than I am with the new one. See? I like Da_Goat, he actually brings the facts. And yeah, I don't think any of us will be getting into heaven. I heard about those 613 commandments... and I was like "wtf?". Most of us don't even follow the first10, lmao. BTW, quick question. Does the seven deadly sins tie into the bible??? I always hear of gluttony and stuff like that.
January 27, 200718 yr See? I like Da_Goat, he actually brings the facts. And yeah, I don't think any of us will be getting into heaven. I heard about those 613 commandments... and I was like "wtf?". Most of us don't even follow the first10, lmao. BTW, quick question. Does the seven deadly sins tie into the bible??? I always hear of gluttony and stuff like that. 1. One does not need to follow all 613 commandments to get into heavan. Especially since most people are not aware of them. This goes back to my talking of Israel as a "priestly nation". Israel is "expected" to follow all 613, but many of these no longer apply in the modern world. The general consensus is that provided you act "righteously" the majority of the time you should get into heavan. 2. The 7 deadly sins. I'm not 100% sure on this, but like pretty much every aspect of Christianity, it does originiated from issues discussed in the Bible. I am almost entirely sure that there is no passage in the Bible where the 7 deadly sins are listed along with the virtues (I forget the exact number). The 7 deadly sins referance things that would get in the way of you and God. For example, there is much confusion about the sin of pride. I thin kit shold be renamed the sin of arrogance, because that is the intended meaning which has been tainted through translation. There is nothing wrong with being proud of one's achievements, but it warns against being so proud that you refuse to accept the opinions or achievements of anyone other than yourself, including God.
January 28, 200718 yr Okay, rather than arguing back and forth, I'm going to try and lay this thread to rest. Evolution is right. 100% of scientists agree (with maybe a few discredited exceptions) It might not have happened exactly the way we believe it does today, but it happens. That's the important part. We do not know how life started. Life could have come from random chemicals intermixing in the primordeal ooze, or it could have come off an asteroid. We don't know at this point, but the theories are much more sound than a creator god, but you can choose to believe whatever you want to believe. Now, to the more important issue of the bible itself. The overall message in the bible is conflicted. It ranges from socialist tract to facist manifesto. The bible's message has been re-interpreted over generations, each generation changing the bible's interpretation. What people fail to see is that the bible is nothing but a reflection of the reader. We see in the bible (and other holy books), exactly what we want to see; what we expect. The message read out of the bible is a reflection of the world it's being read in. So if you live in urban North America, or Western Europe, and you happen to be middle-class, you might be more inclined to help the needy, rather than to be ultra-dogmatic about the christian faith. However, if you're born into considerable wealth, you might see this wealth as a gift from god, and go about investing the wealth as you so choose (e.g. as in the Parable of the Talents, Master punishes a servant for not investing his wealth), while not helping the poor at all, and those infidels be damned if they're going to take your wealth away from you. People use the bible as a cart-blanche to justify their actions. Some people read that only certain ecclestial laws are proper, and live their lives righteously (according to today's secular moral code), this is not because of the bible, this is because they were already willing to live within the moral confines of today's society. The bible is nothing but a reflection of the man (or woman) who reads it.
