love thy neighbor comes from evolutionary adaptation for cooperation to increase survival probability.
Maybe so. Please then explain this in light of your evolutionary theories :
43 “You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. 44 But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! 45 In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. 46 If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. 47 If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that.
Matthew 5:43-47, emphasis mine.
And before anyone cries "hypocrisy!", I understand that this doesn't seem to happen a lot. But really, everyone needs to keep this in mind:
A lot of people who kill or hate in the name of Jesus/God aren't actually Christians, even though they might claim to be or even sincerely believe that they are. (Cf. Matthew 7:21-23)
Is that your way of not answering ANY of the points raised?
Nope, it's a sarcastic response to a ridiculous trope. The whole "more people have been killed . . . religion" is a silly argument that is dragged out incessantly in these discussions.
Nope, it's a sarcastic response to a ridiculous trope. The whole "more people have been killed . . . religion" is a silly argument that is dragged out incessantly in these discussions.
Silly how?
Everyone's arguments are always silly to you. or intolerant or tropes or misplaced.
How many people have been on the wrong side of the sword due to religious views?
The "silly" argument is that the Church supported Science. Except when it doesn't. The Church supports the law....except when it doesn't. The Church respects women...except when it doesn't.
Maybe so. Please then explain this in light of your evolutionary theories :
43 “You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. 44 But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! 45 In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. 46 If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. 47 If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that.
Matthew 5:43-47, emphasis mine.
And before anyone cries "hypocrisy!", I understand that this doesn't seem to happen a lot. But really, everyone needs to keep this in mind:
A lot of people who kill or hate in the name of Jesus/God aren't actually Christians, even though they might claim to be or even sincerely believe that they are. (Cf. Matthew 7:21-23)
When you quote the Bible you open yourself to people quoting the Bible. You know this right? Want me to quote the Bible?....how about (sticking to new Testament so that I avoid the insane "Old Testament doesn't count" argument :
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
Matthew 10:34
[Jesus] said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one..." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.
Luke 22:36,38
"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."
1 Timothy 2:11-12
"For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands."
The "silly" argument is that the Church supported Science. Except when it doesn't. The Church supports the law....except when it doesn't. The Church respects women...except when it doesn't.
Did you read the Wikipedia article to which you linked? It does go into some detail on why 'religious war' is not an entirely accurate description, especially for modern conflicts. Ethnicity, which is associated but not synonymous with religion, plays a major role.
War happens for a lot of reasons, and quite often religion is involved. But as we all hopefully know, correlation is not causation. How many of the wars would have happened anyway because the root cause was actually land or resources? Impossible to know. But once a war does start, it's almost certain that any and all differences between the two forces will be exploited as a propaganda tool to encourage 'us' to kill 'them'.
When you quote the Bible you open yourself to people quoting the Bible. You know this right? Want me to quote the Bible?....how about (sticking to new Testament so that I avoid the insane "Old Testament doesn't count" argument :
Well, why wouldn't I know that? And more importantly, why would I be afraid or in any way worried that someone would quote the bible?
For the record, anyone who says "the OT doesn't count't" is explaining the relationship of the Law to the New Covenant extremely poorly. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. (2Tim 3:16)
As for the actual verses you mention, I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Do you actually think, in context with the entirety of what Jesus taught - including and especially the words that I quoted above - that the verses pertaining to swords mean he was literally calling for violence? If so, I would commend to you the sermon series Inglorious Pastors.
Re: women remaining quiet/not teaching. All scripture does need to be read in the light of both its original context and its meaning for us today. In the case of Timothy we are talking about a letter written to a particular group of people at a particular time in history. The denomination of which I am a part has ordained women as pastors equal to men since 1889.
I will concede that this is a very contentious topic among christians.
As for 'men head of the household', that's a longer discussion than we can have here. Again, this is an area where christians hardly agree, and historically this has been used to oppress women. Typically though, those who did/do are reading only verses 22-24 and conveniently omitting/ignoring verses 21 and 25-29. Even as you did.
Well, why wouldn't I know that? And more importantly, why would I be afraid or in any way worried that someone would quote the bible?
For the record, anyone who says "the OT doesn't count't" is explaining the relationship of the Law to the New Covenant extremely poorly. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. (2Tim 3:16)
As for the actual verses you mention, I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Do you actually think, in context with the entirety of what Jesus taught - including and especially the words that I quoted above - that the verses pertaining to swords mean he was literally calling for violence? If so, I would commend to you the sermon series Inglorious Pastors.
Re: women remaining quiet/not teaching. All scripture does need to be read in the light of both its original context and its meaning for us today. In the case of Timothy we are talking about a letter written to a particular group of people at a particular time in history. The denomination of which I am a part has ordained women as pastors equal to men since 1889.
I will concede that this is a very contentious topic among christians.
As for 'men head of the household', that's a longer discussion than we can have here. Again, this is an area where christians hardly agree, and historically this has been used to oppress women. Typically though, those who did/do are reading only verses 22-24 and conveniently omitting/ignoring verses 21 and 25-29. Even as you did.
Is your argument that "some" parts of the Bible are interpreted incorrectly and differently by different people? NO SHIT! (inherent problem with religion) I admit that I picked specific lines....which many Christians do all the time....Keep in mind the bible as we know it was created by a bunch of men who voted things in and out. (and which contradicts even the events of Jesus' life) Read the accounts of the events of the resurrection (in each different Gospel) and they are factually different. WHY? Because men wrote the bible and they couldn't keep the stories straight. What else did they screw up?
Part 2:
So you know then. Please tell me. Which parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which not? I am of course joking. People say the bible is God's word. THen why does it contradict itself so much? Because humans wrote the Bible...not God. Either that or you think slavery is fine right? Killing innocents cool? Bible says it is. God killed the ENTIRE WORLD because some people in 1 city weren't very nice. Sounds pretty fucked don't it? Babies died by God's hand and no other. Though shalt not kill....unless you happen to be against the armies of Isrealites....in which case you're to kill them all. Take slaves and rape them? Cool. But if not all of the Bible is God's word...you might as well chuck the whole thing because it is up to opinion to decide what is the correct interpretation.
Is your argument that "some" parts of the Bible are interpreted incorrectly and differently by different people? NO SHIT! (inherent problem with religion) I admit that I picked specific lines....which many Christians do all the time....Keep in mind the bible as we know it was created by a bunch of men who voted things in and out. (and which contradicts even the events of Jesus' life) Read the accounts of the events of the resurrection (in each different Gospel) and they are factually different. WHY? Because men wrote the bible and they couldn't keep the stories straight. What else did they screw up?
Given that the most recent parts of the bible were written about 1900 years ago, and that thousands and thousands of people have read and interpreted it over that time, how could we expect anything less than conflicting interpretations? The US Supreme court can't agree on what the constitution meant and that is only 250 years old. We try to impose our own versions of what laws that were written 5 years ago mean!
I see this as a problem with human nature, not so much with the material.
As for the accounts in each gospel being different, I don't know that there is significant contradiction in them. Different events being recorded, sure.
Imagine you, me, Milo and another guy all writing an account of the 9/11 attacks. The other guy was an eyewitness, actually in New York at the time. Think about how different our various accounts of the event would be, and that's WITH having seen TV coverage and reading about it for the past 13 years. We wouldn't get anything major wrong (we'd all say there were 4 planes involved, for example) but exact time, places, names, number of people involved? No chance we'd all be identical. The eyewitness guy would understandably focus almost exlusively on the NYC attacks. One of us might take a historical/factual approach giving attention to all facets. Still another might focus on the emotional impact it had on the country. None of us would be wrong, but all very different.
....Keep in mind the bible as we know it was created by a bunch of men who voted things in and out. (and which contradicts even the events of Jesus' life) Read the accounts of the events of the resurrection (in each different Gospel) and they are factually different. WHY? Because men wrote the bible and they couldn't keep the stories straight. What else did they screw up?
... Because humans wrote the Bible...not God....
Of course humans wrote the bible.
As for the bible being created by a bunch of men who voted things in and out? What else should they have done? Just compiled absolutely everything that had been written about Jesus, slapped it together and said "good luck" to anyone who tried to read or follow it?
If an all-knowing, all-powerful God exists, then surely he was able to have these men put the best writings together to form what we now call the Bible.
People say the bible is God's word. THen why does it contradict itself so much? Because humans wrote the Bible...not God. Either that or you think slavery is fine right? Killing innocents cool? Bible says it is.
Does the bible say it IS, or does the bible say it WAS?
God killed the ENTIRE WORLD because some people in 1 city weren't very nice. Sounds pretty fucked don't it? Babies died by God's hand and no other. Though shalt not kill....unless you happen to be against the armies of Isrealites....in which case you're to kill them all.
The Inglorious Pastors series I referenced earlier has some good answers for these questions. There is a wealth of biblical scholarship on the issue. A quick intro would be to make the point that the verse is correctly "thou shalt not murder". Even today we have various forms of killing people that are granted various levels of legality and social sanction (for soldiers, police officers, in self defense, as execution, etc.), right?
But if not all of the Bible is God's word...you might as well chuck the whole thing because it is up to opinion to decide what is the correct interpretation.
Did you read the Wikipedia article to which you linked? It does go into some detail on why 'religious war' is not an entirely accurate description, especially for modern conflicts. Ethnicity, which is associated but not synonymous with religion, plays a major role.
This lends itself to one of my problems I have with religion....
Ethnicity (aka "regional differences" at the time of non-global travel) resulted in differing religions. If there is "god", why would everyone not have come to the same religion? Why are there different religions if god is the one and only? Why do people not consider the bible on the same plane as say, Superman being an icon of pop culture in North America, and Akira in Japan? Why is Katie Perry one of the top selling artists in North America and in the UK it's Adele or someone (I'm not good with music post 1970).
This, among other things, suggests to me again that the Bible is clearly fictional. I don't mean "literal vs. interpretation" discussions. I mean, those arguments are the same as "Was Dumbledore gay?" conversations (though at least JK is around and told us the answer - Jesus trolled his fans).
Ethnicity (aka "regional differences" at the time of non-global travel) resulted in differing religions. If there is "god", why would everyone not have come to the same religion?
Mark
If you look at the foundations of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, they all have more than a few things in common. Most notably they all share the philosophy of "the Golden Rule".
So one could argue that any differences are simply variations on a theme caused by those ethnic or regional differences.
Sort of like Catholics and Protestants, or Lutherans. We'll leave the WBC out of it.
If you look at the foundations of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, they all have more than a few things in common. Most notably they all share the philosophy of "the Golden Rule".
So one could argue that any differences are simply variations on a theme caused by those ethnic or regional differences.
Sort of like Catholics and Protestants, or Lutherans. We'll leave the WBC out of it.
One could argue... funny phrase that.
A much more likely thing one could argue, is that people in general all came to the same conclusion / agreements on how to live in societies, and religion was just a helpful way to convey these stories. As a practice, science says we follow a theory until it is disproved and replaced by something that fits better. I would argue that my interpretation of the commonality of religion - and religion / the need for it - comes from humans being humans, and not divinity. It is far more likely to me that people created religions to explain the (then) unexplainable, and to more easily govern the masses than a magic wizard in the sky...
I wonder how many other religions say their various deities obliterated the world in a flood? Wouldn't that be pretty consistent across them all since it's a big enough part of Christianity to justify a Russel Crowe flick? Superstition and a desire to be part of something big is a better explanation than "god". I wonder if religion would back that kinda scientific theory...
I wonder how many other religions say their various deities obliterated the world in a flood? Wouldn't that be pretty consistent across them all since it's a big enough part of Christianity to justify a Russel Crowe flick? Superstition and a desire to be part of something big is a better explanation than "god". I wonder if religion would back that kinda scientific theory...
Mark
If you think that the flood is common. Wait till you hear about the prophet who was born of a virgin, turned water to wine...healed the sick...returned from the dead...and did it all before Jesus! Coincidence?
For but the luck of the draw it could be Appollonius Christ. WWAD? Doesn't have the same ring does it?
If you think that the flood is common. Wait till you hear about the prophet who was born of a virgin, turned water to wine...healed the sick...returned from the dead...and did it all before Jesus! Coincidence?
For but the luck of the draw it could be Appollonius Christ. WWAD? Doesn't have the same ring does it?
First, Hollywood only cares about making money and will take any story line that will put people in the seats and write their own version of truth. There are plenty of movies coming out this year, some good and some very bad.
Second, I don't know who is more angry, Nik or Mark. Lately I'd say Nik. I'd love to sit down for dinner and discuss why you have such hostility toward Christianity. No judgments, just to listen.
Third, there will always be false "prophets" and Jesus was more than a prophet or teacher, He has to be in order for Christianity to work. (And that is what separates Christianity from all other religions.)
Fourth, have you ever wonder why the comparison is always made to Christ Jesus? Why not Appollonius and John the Baptist or pick anyone else? There must be a reason, no?
The reason the comparisons are being made to Jesus Christ is not because the Jesus myth is special or unique. It is because it is the current dominant myth that supersedes all other myths currently running due to their larger membership and the incredibly powerful religious political lobby. Christianity is not powerful because of divinity. It is powerful because throughout the ages it's purveyors have worked very effectively to sway the masses and brutally squash and silence their opposition. The main reason it is losing sway now is because it cannot use it's brutal tactics and atheists like Nik, Mark and I are able to speak our minds and question christian leaders' authority. For most of Christianity's history, we would have been put to death for this simple debate. Similar to what is happening in fundamentalist muslim countries now. Also a major reason (but not the only reason) Islam is the fastest growing religion today.
Nik and Mark are not angry, per se. They might be frustrated by the typical form these types of debates with spiritual minded persons takes. They argue using logic, proof and facts and their points are countered with "evidence" such like the bible or statements like "I don't want to live in a world where this is all there is". Basically statements where the point is that the debater is using their own wishes or desires to justify their reasoning because they feel that what they want to be true is so powerful a concept to them it must be true.
With the exponential change in technology going to be very interesting how society evolves next 10 / 100 years.
Indeed it will. It might even be that society turns to a more spiritual outlook because of technologies omnipresence in our lives. Won't be around for all of it, but at least I will see where we're heading
The reason the comparisons are being made to Jesus Christ is not because the Jesus myth is special or unique. It is because it is the current dominant myth that supersedes all other myths currently running due to their larger membership and the incredibly powerful religious political lobby. Christianity is not powerful because of divinity. It is powerful because throughout the ages it's purveyors have worked very effectively to sway the masses and brutally squash and silence their opposition. The main reason it is losing sway now is because it cannot use it's brutal tactics and atheists like Nik, Mark and I are able to speak our minds and question christian leaders' authority. For most of Christianity's history, we would have been put to death for this simple debate. Similar to what is happening in fundamentalist muslim countries now. Also a major reason (but not the only reason) Islam is the fastest growing religion today.
Nik and Mark are not angry, per se. They might be frustrated by the typical form these types of debates with spiritual minded persons takes. They argue using logic, proof and facts and their points are countered with "evidence" such like the bible or statements like "I don't want to live in a world where this is all there is". Basically statements where the point is that the debater is using their own wishes or desires to justify their reasoning because they feel that what they want to be true is so powerful a concept to them it must be true.
I really don’t understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying that Jesus Christ is a myth? I really don’t need to go into the history here, I can let the following excerpt answer this question.
Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
Paperback by Dr. Bart D. Ehrman University of South Carolina - (Atheist/Agnostic by the way.)
In Did Jesus Exist? Historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman confronts the question, "Did Jesus exist at all?" Ehrman vigorously defends the historical Jesus, identifies the most historically reliable sources for best understanding Jesus’ mission and message, and offers a compelling portrait of the person at the heart of the Christian tradition.
Known as a master story teller with deep knowledge of the field, Bart Ehrman methodically demolishes both the scholarly and popular “mythicist” arguments against the existence of Jesus. Marshaling evidence from within the Bible and the wider historical record of the ancient world, Ehrman tackles the key issues that surround the mythologies associated with Jesus and the early Christian movement.
In Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Ehrman establishes the criterion for any genuine historical investigation and provides a robust defense of the methods required to discover the Jesus of history.
I will answer the question for you. Why the comparison always comes back to Jesus
Jesus makes the claim that He is God. He accepts worship, He forgives sin, He states that if you don’t believe in Him you will be dammed for all eternity, He makes the claim that one day every knee will bow and confess that He is God, and He makes the claim to one day rule this earth again and you and I will be accountable. All true, all statements from the Bible.
So if I don't want to believe that I won't. I will try to explain it all away by saying Jesus was a myth. Destroy Jesus and you destroy God. Make the Bible irrelevant, untrue, deny that it is the word of God given to us through man and you take apart the Christian faith. Which is why the Bible itself is under attack. God promises that He word cannot be destroyed but will stand the test of time.
The arguments for the existence for God go beyond the Bible we’ve (Big Mike and Milo) have tried to make arguments through reason and understanding to the questions that have been asked for centuries. God has been defended well. (Not that He needs defending). In the end, we learn about God through creation and His word, the Bible. Like it or not it is one of the sources in understanding who God is. It is the number one selling book of all time for a reason.
Natural Selection and an unguided processes do not explain everything we can see or the unknown. How can it? How can Natural Selection account for morality, good, evil, a conscience? How does Natural Selection deal with free will of mankind? Because in truth, if Natural Selection is it, if that is all we have – survival of the fittest, then anything is up for grabs, and there can’t be morality or good or evil. There is just life, without purpose or design. Because the line is ever changing. "The truth is you can’t have morality apart from religious principles."
Wow this thread is long lol. that man obeying god video was funny.
I could understand like 100 years ago if the vast majority of people still really believed in a god, the overall basic education of an average human was pretty awful. (Its not much better now hence its continued existance...)
With the absolutely knowledge of nearly everything on earth and the understandings of how it works and why/how it exists, the explanations we have for nearly everything that exists on this planet (except death obv, no one knows that and if they claim to do they are lying to your face) it makes sense to improve your intellect and perhaps move on to something more feasible?
It just seems incredibly archaic socially. To discuss it with other people is always super awkward and weird, the silent vibe I get with people my age when someone start a serious converation is basically "lol school failed you"
Unless you are an old, does anyone even go to church anymore? Last talk I had with my friends about religion was about the old pope was looking a lot like an evil sith lord, or perhaps some sort of vampire demon. That and the constant child molestation jokes that seems to be prevalent always with those priests.
None of my friends who I have known from school for 15+ years are remotely religious and its a pretty big group of tight nit younger people. Its hard not to laugh at people in sports who thank jesus and stuff for helping them win, logically it makes zero sense. Its like thanking god for making rain happen on your crops which sounds like something that should happen in 1824.
Actually that is kind of the only thing that pisses me off a little, like thank your fucking elite trainers and the athletes around you, thank your new 2014 vicious training regiment or your actual family that sacrifices so much so you can football or whatever. So many things make infinitely more sense.
All I can do is laugh and make jokes, trying to explain to something that their beliefs are hilarious never goes down well i'd imagine. Trying to explain to someone who is adamantly trapped mentally in a box that their beliefs are akin to a childs storybook is like trying to teach calculus to a cat. So I dont try to explain, it will hurt me too much, to care and change some stupid carbon that will be dust in 65~ years.
re. cant have morality without religion lol that's absurd. All atheists are immoral? I for one have standards and morals and im pretty sure most do. Why is that? Maybe morality is a human construct that has helped us survive. Survival of fittest does not always mean competition sometimes its cooperation ie society. Maybe morality based on increasing knowledge might lead to less suffering from more tolerance and understanding.
If religion isn't required for morality...there's no reason for religion...hence religion's defenders asking how we can have morality without it. It's actually quite funny. Prophet....would you kill if you'd never read the Bible? Would you know it's wrong? You need a piece of paper to tell you what is right and wrong, or do you know it inside yourself? If so...morality is outside religion. It is based on man's decisions. We decide what is moral. Not paper. Or we have to go back to believing slavery is fine.
With the absolutely knowledge of nearly everything on earth and the understandings of how it works and why/how it exists,
Well I'm not going to get into this religious argument as no one can win as there are just too many assumptions either way.. but this statement really intrigues me... Do you really believe it?
It's sounds like the statement attributed to Bill Gates (incorrect by the way) made, circa 1981 that 640k would be all we would need for a long time, or "Everything that can be invented has been invented." -- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899."
There are dozens of these and I think that we as humans know so little about reality both here on earth and elsewhere that to think otherwise is completely naïve. Our grandchildren (well maybe not mine as they are already here:) ) will look back at 2014 and think how primitive we really were...
Comments
What deity did Stalin worship? Or Mao, or Pol Pot? How about the Austrian paper hanger?
Any killings done in the name of (insert deity here) have a fair ways to go to top the numbers of those anti-theists
And no, you don't get to claim that they worshipped themselves.
Maybe so. Please then explain this in light of your evolutionary theories
43 “You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. 44 But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! 45 In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. 46 If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. 47 If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that.
Matthew 5:43-47, emphasis mine.
And before anyone cries "hypocrisy!", I understand that this doesn't seem to happen a lot. But really, everyone needs to keep this in mind:
A lot of people who kill or hate in the name of Jesus/God aren't actually Christians, even though they might claim to be or even sincerely believe that they are. (Cf. Matthew 7:21-23)
Nope, it's a sarcastic response to a ridiculous trope. The whole "more people have been killed . . . religion" is a silly argument that is dragged out incessantly in these discussions.
Silly how?
Everyone's arguments are always silly to you. or intolerant or tropes or misplaced.
How many people have been on the wrong side of the sword due to religious views?
Catholics/protestants
Christians/Jews
Jews/Islam
Christians/Moslems
Religious war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The "silly" argument is that the Church supported Science. Except when it doesn't. The Church supports the law....except when it doesn't. The Church respects women...except when it doesn't.
When you quote the Bible you open yourself to people quoting the Bible. You know this right? Want me to quote the Bible?....how about (sticking to new Testament so that I avoid the insane "Old Testament doesn't count" argument :
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
Matthew 10:34
[Jesus] said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one..." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.
Luke 22:36,38
"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."
1 Timothy 2:11-12
"For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands."
Ephesians 5:23-24
Did you read the Wikipedia article to which you linked? It does go into some detail on why 'religious war' is not an entirely accurate description, especially for modern conflicts. Ethnicity, which is associated but not synonymous with religion, plays a major role.
War happens for a lot of reasons, and quite often religion is involved. But as we all hopefully know, correlation is not causation. How many of the wars would have happened anyway because the root cause was actually land or resources? Impossible to know. But once a war does start, it's almost certain that any and all differences between the two forces will be exploited as a propaganda tool to encourage 'us' to kill 'them'.
Well, why wouldn't I know that? And more importantly, why would I be afraid or in any way worried that someone would quote the bible?
For the record, anyone who says "the OT doesn't count't" is explaining the relationship of the Law to the New Covenant extremely poorly. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. (2Tim 3:16)
As for the actual verses you mention, I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Do you actually think, in context with the entirety of what Jesus taught - including and especially the words that I quoted above - that the verses pertaining to swords mean he was literally calling for violence? If so, I would commend to you the sermon series Inglorious Pastors.
Re: women remaining quiet/not teaching. All scripture does need to be read in the light of both its original context and its meaning for us today. In the case of Timothy we are talking about a letter written to a particular group of people at a particular time in history. The denomination of which I am a part has ordained women as pastors equal to men since 1889.
I will concede that this is a very contentious topic among christians.
As for 'men head of the household', that's a longer discussion than we can have here. Again, this is an area where christians hardly agree, and historically this has been used to oppress women. Typically though, those who did/do are reading only verses 22-24 and conveniently omitting/ignoring verses 21 and 25-29. Even as you did.
Is your argument that "some" parts of the Bible are interpreted incorrectly and differently by different people? NO SHIT! (inherent problem with religion) I admit that I picked specific lines....which many Christians do all the time....Keep in mind the bible as we know it was created by a bunch of men who voted things in and out. (and which contradicts even the events of Jesus' life) Read the accounts of the events of the resurrection (in each different Gospel) and they are factually different. WHY? Because men wrote the bible and they couldn't keep the stories straight. What else did they screw up?
Part 2:
So you know then. Please tell me. Which parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which not? I am of course joking. People say the bible is God's word. THen why does it contradict itself so much? Because humans wrote the Bible...not God. Either that or you think slavery is fine right? Killing innocents cool? Bible says it is. God killed the ENTIRE WORLD because some people in 1 city weren't very nice. Sounds pretty fucked don't it? Babies died by God's hand and no other. Though shalt not kill....unless you happen to be against the armies of Isrealites....in which case you're to kill them all. Take slaves and rape them? Cool. But if not all of the Bible is God's word...you might as well chuck the whole thing because it is up to opinion to decide what is the correct interpretation.
Messed-Up Bible Stories - 6 - Sodom and Gomorrah - YouTube
If Man Obeyed God - YouTube
Given that the most recent parts of the bible were written about 1900 years ago, and that thousands and thousands of people have read and interpreted it over that time, how could we expect anything less than conflicting interpretations? The US Supreme court can't agree on what the constitution meant and that is only 250 years old. We try to impose our own versions of what laws that were written 5 years ago mean!
I see this as a problem with human nature, not so much with the material.
As for the accounts in each gospel being different, I don't know that there is significant contradiction in them. Different events being recorded, sure.
Imagine you, me, Milo and another guy all writing an account of the 9/11 attacks. The other guy was an eyewitness, actually in New York at the time. Think about how different our various accounts of the event would be, and that's WITH having seen TV coverage and reading about it for the past 13 years. We wouldn't get anything major wrong (we'd all say there were 4 planes involved, for example) but exact time, places, names, number of people involved? No chance we'd all be identical. The eyewitness guy would understandably focus almost exlusively on the NYC attacks. One of us might take a historical/factual approach giving attention to all facets. Still another might focus on the emotional impact it had on the country. None of us would be wrong, but all very different.
Of course humans wrote the bible.
As for the bible being created by a bunch of men who voted things in and out? What else should they have done? Just compiled absolutely everything that had been written about Jesus, slapped it together and said "good luck" to anyone who tried to read or follow it?
If an all-knowing, all-powerful God exists, then surely he was able to have these men put the best writings together to form what we now call the Bible.
Does the bible say it IS, or does the bible say it WAS?
The Inglorious Pastors series I referenced earlier has some good answers for these questions. There is a wealth of biblical scholarship on the issue. A quick intro would be to make the point that the verse is correctly "thou shalt not murder". Even today we have various forms of killing people that are granted various levels of legality and social sanction (for soldiers, police officers, in self defense, as execution, etc.), right?
Well, we agree on this at least!
This lends itself to one of my problems I have with religion....
Ethnicity (aka "regional differences" at the time of non-global travel) resulted in differing religions. If there is "god", why would everyone not have come to the same religion? Why are there different religions if god is the one and only? Why do people not consider the bible on the same plane as say, Superman being an icon of pop culture in North America, and Akira in Japan? Why is Katie Perry one of the top selling artists in North America and in the UK it's Adele or someone (I'm not good with music post 1970).
This, among other things, suggests to me again that the Bible is clearly fictional. I don't mean "literal vs. interpretation" discussions. I mean, those arguments are the same as "Was Dumbledore gay?" conversations (though at least JK is around and told us the answer - Jesus trolled his fans).
Mark
If you look at the foundations of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, they all have more than a few things in common. Most notably they all share the philosophy of "the Golden Rule".
So one could argue that any differences are simply variations on a theme caused by those ethnic or regional differences.
Sort of like Catholics and Protestants, or Lutherans. We'll leave the WBC out of it.
God wants your stack?
One could argue... funny phrase that.
A much more likely thing one could argue, is that people in general all came to the same conclusion / agreements on how to live in societies, and religion was just a helpful way to convey these stories. As a practice, science says we follow a theory until it is disproved and replaced by something that fits better. I would argue that my interpretation of the commonality of religion - and religion / the need for it - comes from humans being humans, and not divinity. It is far more likely to me that people created religions to explain the (then) unexplainable, and to more easily govern the masses than a magic wizard in the sky...
I wonder how many other religions say their various deities obliterated the world in a flood? Wouldn't that be pretty consistent across them all since it's a big enough part of Christianity to justify a Russel Crowe flick? Superstition and a desire to be part of something big is a better explanation than "god". I wonder if religion would back that kinda scientific theory...
Mark
If you think that the flood is common. Wait till you hear about the prophet who was born of a virgin, turned water to wine...healed the sick...returned from the dead...and did it all before Jesus! Coincidence?
For but the luck of the draw it could be Appollonius Christ. WWAD? Doesn't have the same ring does it?
First, Hollywood only cares about making money and will take any story line that will put people in the seats and write their own version of truth. There are plenty of movies coming out this year, some good and some very bad.
Second, I don't know who is more angry, Nik or Mark. Lately I'd say Nik. I'd love to sit down for dinner and discuss why you have such hostility toward Christianity. No judgments, just to listen.
Third, there will always be false "prophets" and Jesus was more than a prophet or teacher, He has to be in order for Christianity to work. (And that is what separates Christianity from all other religions.)
Fourth, have you ever wonder why the comparison is always made to Christ Jesus? Why not Appollonius and John the Baptist or pick anyone else? There must be a reason, no?
Nik and Mark are not angry, per se. They might be frustrated by the typical form these types of debates with spiritual minded persons takes. They argue using logic, proof and facts and their points are countered with "evidence" such like the bible or statements like "I don't want to live in a world where this is all there is". Basically statements where the point is that the debater is using their own wishes or desires to justify their reasoning because they feel that what they want to be true is so powerful a concept to them it must be true.
Indeed it will. It might even be that society turns to a more spiritual outlook because of technologies omnipresence in our lives. Won't be around for all of it, but at least I will see where we're heading
Overturn? I think you might mean "disprove", right? If so, how do you disprove Faith?
I really don’t understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying that Jesus Christ is a myth? I really don’t need to go into the history here, I can let the following excerpt answer this question.
Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
Paperback by Dr. Bart D. Ehrman University of South Carolina - (Atheist/Agnostic by the way.)
In Did Jesus Exist? Historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman confronts the question, "Did Jesus exist at all?" Ehrman vigorously defends the historical Jesus, identifies the most historically reliable sources for best understanding Jesus’ mission and message, and offers a compelling portrait of the person at the heart of the Christian tradition.
Known as a master story teller with deep knowledge of the field, Bart Ehrman methodically demolishes both the scholarly and popular “mythicist” arguments against the existence of Jesus. Marshaling evidence from within the Bible and the wider historical record of the ancient world, Ehrman tackles the key issues that surround the mythologies associated with Jesus and the early Christian movement.
In Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Ehrman establishes the criterion for any genuine historical investigation and provides a robust defense of the methods required to discover the Jesus of history.
I will answer the question for you. Why the comparison always comes back to Jesus
Jesus makes the claim that He is God. He accepts worship, He forgives sin, He states that if you don’t believe in Him you will be dammed for all eternity, He makes the claim that one day every knee will bow and confess that He is God, and He makes the claim to one day rule this earth again and you and I will be accountable. All true, all statements from the Bible.
So if I don't want to believe that I won't. I will try to explain it all away by saying Jesus was a myth. Destroy Jesus and you destroy God. Make the Bible irrelevant, untrue, deny that it is the word of God given to us through man and you take apart the Christian faith. Which is why the Bible itself is under attack. God promises that He word cannot be destroyed but will stand the test of time.
The arguments for the existence for God go beyond the Bible we’ve (Big Mike and Milo) have tried to make arguments through reason and understanding to the questions that have been asked for centuries. God has been defended well. (Not that He needs defending). In the end, we learn about God through creation and His word, the Bible. Like it or not it is one of the sources in understanding who God is. It is the number one selling book of all time for a reason.
Natural Selection and an unguided processes do not explain everything we can see or the unknown. How can it? How can Natural Selection account for morality, good, evil, a conscience? How does Natural Selection deal with free will of mankind? Because in truth, if Natural Selection is it, if that is all we have – survival of the fittest, then anything is up for grabs, and there can’t be morality or good or evil. There is just life, without purpose or design. Because the line is ever changing. "The truth is you can’t have morality apart from religious principles."
I could understand like 100 years ago if the vast majority of people still really believed in a god, the overall basic education of an average human was pretty awful. (Its not much better now hence its continued existance...)
With the absolutely knowledge of nearly everything on earth and the understandings of how it works and why/how it exists, the explanations we have for nearly everything that exists on this planet (except death obv, no one knows that and if they claim to do they are lying to your face) it makes sense to improve your intellect and perhaps move on to something more feasible?
It just seems incredibly archaic socially. To discuss it with other people is always super awkward and weird, the silent vibe I get with people my age when someone start a serious converation is basically "lol school failed you"
Unless you are an old, does anyone even go to church anymore? Last talk I had with my friends about religion was about the old pope was looking a lot like an evil sith lord, or perhaps some sort of vampire demon. That and the constant child molestation jokes that seems to be prevalent always with those priests.
None of my friends who I have known from school for 15+ years are remotely religious and its a pretty big group of tight nit younger people. Its hard not to laugh at people in sports who thank jesus and stuff for helping them win, logically it makes zero sense. Its like thanking god for making rain happen on your crops which sounds like something that should happen in 1824.
Actually that is kind of the only thing that pisses me off a little, like thank your fucking elite trainers and the athletes around you, thank your new 2014 vicious training regiment or your actual family that sacrifices so much so you can football or whatever. So many things make infinitely more sense.
All I can do is laugh and make jokes, trying to explain to something that their beliefs are hilarious never goes down well i'd imagine. Trying to explain to someone who is adamantly trapped mentally in a box that their beliefs are akin to a childs storybook is like trying to teach calculus to a cat. So I dont try to explain, it will hurt me too much, to care and change some stupid carbon that will be dust in 65~ years.
Well I'm not going to get into this religious argument as no one can win as there are just too many assumptions either way.. but this statement really intrigues me... Do you really believe it?
It's sounds like the statement attributed to Bill Gates (incorrect by the way) made, circa 1981 that 640k would be all we would need for a long time, or "Everything that can be invented has been invented." -- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899."
There are dozens of these and I think that we as humans know so little about reality both here on earth and elsewhere that to think otherwise is completely naïve. Our grandchildren (well maybe not mine as they are already here:) ) will look back at 2014 and think how primitive we really were...