James Cameron is debunking Christianity!

[crawfish]

if you weren't, what does Romans 8:29-30 mean?

*sigh*.

Back up, read it in context. It takes a different meaning in light of the stuff around it (at least from my study, it's obvious).

Heading home now. You're on your own. :texan:

[Widescreen]

You know what's really great about this thread? Nobody's threatened to behead or otherwise kill anyone else for disagreeing with them. I love America (and Thailand, for CB).

[Frozen Sooner]

You know what's really great about this thread? Nobody's threatened to behead or otherwise kill anyone else for disagreeing with them. I love America (and Thailand, for CB).

Meh. You guys are coming out of the woodwork. All that route gets you is obese lions.

;)

[Widescreen]

Meh. You guys are coming out of the woodwork. All that route gets you is obese lions.

;)
Or cheap lighting. Don't forget that.

[Ike]

You know what's really great about this thread? Nobody's threatened to behead or otherwise kill anyone else for disagreeing with them. I love America (and Thailand, for CB).

I just mumble those things under my breath so nobody hears them...that kind of stuff will get you indefinitely detained these days. ;)

[Frozen Sooner]

Or cheap lighting. Don't forget that.

Cheap?

You know how much kindling you need to get a pile of soggy Christians to light?

[Widescreen]

Cheap?

You know how much kindling you need to get a pile of soggy Christians to light?
Christians are NOT soggy. I'm going to behead you. :mad:

[Frozen Sooner]

Just remember that for some people El Guapo is illiteracy, or fear of heights. For us, El Guapo is a large Mexican man who wants to kill us.

[TopDawg]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TopDawg again.

Thank you! I was beginning to wonder if anybody saw it.

I thought it was brilliant. The fact that it bordered on blasphemy probably kept some from commenting on it. I made me think twice before posting it.

[Widescreen]

Just remember that for some people El Guapo is illiteracy, or fear of heights. For us, El Guapo is a large Mexican man who wants to kill us.
Yes, you will die like dogs.

[Scott D]

*sigh*.

Back up, read it in context. It takes a different meaning in light of the stuff around it (at least from my study, it's obvious).

Heading home now. You're on your own. :texan:

Hamhock just doesn't appreciate the fear of being in the gumbo. He thinks the pot of Jambalaya is as bad as it may get ;)

[Stoop Dawg]

Which things, in your opinion, make being a Christian hard?


Depending on what part of the world you live in being killed for your faith comes to mind.

Things like not conforming to the world around you and caving in to the opinions/wishes of others. Living a life of honesty and respect and not reverting back to our old habits. Helping others less fortunate. Being a good witness for Christ. It's not all fun and games.

This is a slippery slope that leads off into a completely different debate, but I'll go ahead and contend that those things you listed as being "hard" are not the exlusive domain of Christians. In fact, I'll go so far as to say they are shared by all "right thinking" humans regardless of their religion - or lack thereof.

[Okla-homey]

I wonder if anybody ever did this...

"Gee, I'm not so keen on the whole killing the Jews thing, but those armbands sure are snazzy. Where do I sign up to get one?"

I'll grant you, the Nazis (and fascists as a class) have always been very snappy dressers. E.g. the black SS dress uniform with the Totenkopf on the peaked cap, Sam Brown belt, jodhpurs, high black boots, ceremonial dagger was just about the coolest get-up of WWII.

[Hamhock]

*sigh*.

Back up, read it in context. It takes a different meaning in light of the stuff around it (at least from my study, it's obvious).

Heading home now. You're on your own. :texan:


how about the first 5 verses of Ephesians?

first verse of Titus; 1 Peter?

i miss the "obvious" point of Romans 8:29. please fill me in

[Sooner_Bob]

So you're saying that I shouldn't join a church just because I want to play in their softball league?


Only if you've got a shot at winning the church league title.

[Sooner_Bob]

The amount of faith that would cause you to risk your and, even more difficult, your family's life for your faith is asking a lot. But , as with other Christian tenets, being forgiven for shortcomings is a part of the deal. If you fail but have accepted Christ then you continue to get stronger in your faith. It's not like one day you wake up and you are as strong as one of the martyrs in the New Testament. Even the Apostles denied Christ but they grew in their faith and didn't denyhim later on. If you stumble and start thinking you're not worthy and that there's no use in even trying then you have made a tragic mistake.



Again, growing in faith is a journey and everybody progresses at different speeds on that journey. Now I agree that if you really haven't accepted the grace of God through Christ then your actions will reflect that. But if you have really accepted what Christ offers then you keep growing and trying to become more Chrisitian through your actions. Those who don't continue to grow will eventually fall away and get tired of going through the act.




Again, true Christians fall short of God's expectations just like non-Christians do. What matters is if you accept forgiveness and try to grow in grace and as you do your actions reflect that.

I'm sure my view of faith sounds pretty contrived to some and I don't disagree with what your saying about deeds reflecting your faith, but I think too many people shut the door and give up too quickly because they think it's too hard and that they can't possibly live up to the standards God sets. In reality it only matters that God knows the intent of your heart and whether your professions of faith are truly motivated by an acceptance of Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter whetehr I or any body else approves of your actions. If you expect to never come up short of God's expectations you're setting yourself up for failure.


I understand and don't find any fault in your viewpoint at all. Sometimes it just comes more naturally for some than others.

[Sooner_Bob]

This is a slippery slope that leads off into a completely different debate, but I'll go ahead and contend that those things you listed as being "hard" are not the exlusive domain of Christians. In fact, I'll go so far as to say they are shared by all "right thinking" humans regardless of their religion - or lack thereof.


Maybe so, but applying it to christians is the context I think most folks would understand best. Especially since roughly 500 christians are killed each day due to their belief in God.

[Sooner_Bob]

how about the first 5 verses of Ephesians?

first verse of Titus; 1 Peter?

i miss the "obvious" point of Romans 8:29. please fill me in


Romans 8:29

29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

To me, this speaks to God's plan for His people as a whole, not that he preselected who would believe and who wouldn't.


If we were all predestined to do something, why would so many people who claim to be christians behave in such a different manner than others? Why wouldn't we all just be in this one big 'ol happy church or something?

[mdklatt]

Things like not conforming to the world around you and caving in to the opinions/wishes of others.

In the US, doesn't that mean being a non-Christian?




Living a life of honesty and respect and not reverting back to our old habits.


Whose old habits? I've never been in the habit of being dishonest.

A question for all those who think Christianity (or simply a belief in God) is the only path to morality: Why do you think this? Is it because the Bible teaches you this, or do you know for a fact you'd be a drug-dealing theiving rapist who votes Democrat if you didn't have religion to reign you in? Do you have any evidence that non-Christians commit more immoral acts than people who go to church every Sunday? In fact, you'd have to show that all non-Christians commit more immoral acts.

I'd wager that I've done less "immoral" things than a good number of self-proclaimed Christians. I consider myself agnostic, so what's keeping me on the straight and narrow?

[yermom]

you're a wuss?

;)

[mdklatt]

you're a wuss?

;)


'Tis true. :O

[SoonerGirl06]

I consider myself agnostic, so what's keeping me on the straight and narrow?

Out of curiousity, since you consider yourself agnostic, what is keeping you on the straight and narrow? For most Christians they base their values/morals/rights and wrongs on the Bible... what about others that don't believe in the lessons of the Bible or Christianity? How do they determine what is moral/immoral/right and wrong?

[Frozen Sooner]

Out of curiousity, since you consider yourself agnostic, what is keeping you on the straight and narrow? For most Christians they base their values/morals/rights and wrongs on the Bible... what about others that don't believe in the lessons of the Bible or Christianity? How do they determine what is moral/immoral/right and wrong?

Logical consistency and the effect my actions have on myself and others.

[mdklatt]

Out of curiousity, since you consider yourself agnostic, what is keeping you on the straight and narrow?

I think the Golden Rule sums it up. I treat others the way I expect them to treat me. No more, no less. I don't steal from others because I know how I would feel if they stole from me. Ditto for lying, killing, etc. This is just plain old empathy, which is a normal part of pschological development.



For most Christians they base their values/morals/rights and wrongs on the Bible... what about others that don't believe in the lessons of the Bible or Christianity? How do they determine what is moral/immoral/right and wrong?

First of all, it's not that I don't believe some of the stuff in the Bible, I jost don't believe all of it. Murder is wrong. Premarital sex? Not so much; no victim, no problem. Adultery is wrong if the cheated-on party is upset; i.e., swinging is not wrong. Again, it's all about the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is common to most religious and secular morality codes, it's just that a lot of them add stuff that I don't think is important. I think The Truth is to be found in what all religions agree on, not what they disagree on.

But why do we even need religion of any kind to tell us how to behave? Don't we all have a conscience? Do you really need the Ten Commandments to tell you that killing is wrong? I imagine that there's nothing that feels more wrong than killing somebody else, regardless of your religious beliefs. We're hard-wired that way. There are certainly people who can overcome that instinct due to a completely messed-up upbringing or whatever, or perhaps they never had the instinct in the first place because they're a pyschopath. But that is the exception.

I don't claim to know the nature of empathy or conscience. Perhaps it's nothing more than a chemical reaction in our brains resulting from millions of years of evolution. Or perhaps it's the voice of God that we all carry around with us. Whatever it is, Christians don't have a monopoly on it.

[def_lazer_fc]

Out of curiousity, since you consider yourself agnostic, what is keeping you on the straight and narrow? For most Christians they base their values/morals/rights and wrongs on the Bible... what about others that don't believe in the lessons of the Bible or Christianity? How do they determine what is moral/immoral/right and wrong?
i think christians are just taught to believe that god IS the only way to live a well adjusted, straight and narrow existence. as an atheist, it's tough to resist the urge to slaughter everything that comes near me. but let me tell you...i manage. but i'm not saying that there still aren't those days when the blood of the innocent is just so tempting. ;)

[crawfish]

But why do we even need religion of any kind to tell us how to behave? Don't we all have a conscience? Do you really need the Ten Commandments to tell you that killing is wrong? I imagine that there's nothing that feels more wrong than killing somebody else, regardless of your religious beliefs. We're hard-wired that way. There are certainly people who can overcome that instinct due to a completely messed-up upbringing or whatever, or perhaps they never had the instinct in the first place because they're a pyschopath. But that is the exception.

Problem is, left to themselves *everybody* would have a different set of "morales" that tell them how to behave. For some, murder is wrong altogether. For some, murder of people they deem "immoral" might be OK. Certainly, there might be a vast difference in what behaviors people deem "immoral".

There has to be a basis for morality or there will be no societal morality, which pretty much invalidates our personal morality.



how about the first 5 verses of Ephesians?

first verse of Titus; 1 Peter?

i miss the "obvious" point of Romans 8:29. please fill me in

Bob has this right. Those verses are referring to the "church" as being predestined by God. You'll admit - according to Calvinism, you can't "know" if you're one of the elect or not; therefore, according to Calvinist doctrine, either the authors had knowledge we don't have when addressing these churches, or they were just guessing.

It's just very hard to justify given the evangelistic bent of the NT. Why go out and preach to the masses if the elect are going to come and find you anyway? Verses have to be evaluated in the context of the text around them. Chapters need to be evaluated in the context of the book they are in. And books need to be evaluated in the light of the entire Bible - if the thing is truly inspired, then any answers we seek will need to be evaluated on a holistic sense.

Please, always keep in mind: I love ya and all your Calvinist buddies as brothers and sisters in Christ. Even if I don't agree with you on this. God's grace trumps all. :)

[Xstnlsooner]

I think part of the problem people who are not Christians have with
Christianity is the idea that they are "sinners and lost" and that
they need a savior. Also, giving up their will and desires to follow
God's is hard to swallow. Sha'ul said that the cross is foolishness
to the Greeks and an offense to the Jews. Still is...

[C&CDean]

I'll grant you, the Nazis (and fascists as a class) have always been very snappy dressers. E.g. the black SS dress uniform with the Totenkopf on the peaked cap, Sam Brown belt, jodhpurs, high black boots, ceremonial dagger was just about the coolest get-up of WWII.

Yeah, but only if you're a member of General Gaylord's Light-in-the-Loafers Rumphumpery Brigade.

[picasso]

somebody tell MD that you don't have to be a Christian to be a good person.

[Scott D]

Problem is, left to themselves *everybody* would have a different set of "morales" that tell them how to behave. For some, murder is wrong altogether. For some, murder of people they deem "immoral" might be OK. Certainly, there might be a vast difference in what behaviors people deem "immoral".

There has to be a basis for morality or there will be no societal morality, which pretty much invalidates our personal morality.




Bob has this right. Those verses are referring to the "church" as being predestined by God. You'll admit - according to Calvinism, you can't "know" if you're one of the elect or not; therefore, according to Calvinist doctrine, either the authors had knowledge we don't have when addressing these churches, or they were just guessing.

It's just very hard to justify given the evangelistic bent of the NT. Why go out and preach to the masses if the elect are going to come and find you anyway? Verses have to be evaluated in the context of the text around them. Chapters need to be evaluated in the context of the book they are in. And books need to be evaluated in the light of the entire Bible - if the thing is truly inspired, then any answers we seek will need to be evaluated on a holistic sense.

Please, always keep in mind: I love ya and all your Calvinist buddies as brothers and sisters in Christ. Even if I don't agree with you on this. God's grace trumps all. :)

I've always felt that followers of Susan Calvin were vastly overrated.

[crawfish]

I've always felt that followers of Susan Calvin were vastly overrated.

Herbie would disagree.

[Scott D]

Herbie is just afraid of the Zeroth Law.

[mdklatt]

somebody tell MD that you don't have to be a Christian to be a good person.

I'm not the one that needs to be told that.

[picasso]

I'm not the one that needs to be told that.
I get your point but you've obviously put a lot of time into this silly thread.

it's not just trying to be "good." it's trying to be like Christ (we all fall short, even Benny the Hinn). and have a relationship with him.

it's really easy. you just ask him.

[imjebus]

Maybe so, but applying it to christians is the context I think most folks would understand best. Especially since roughly 500 christians are killed each day due to their belief in God.


Do you happen to have a link to show where you got that number? I would be interested to see it.

[def_lazer_fc]

Yeah, but only if you're a member of General Gaylord's Light-in-the-Loafers Rumphumpery Brigade.
that's odd, i've never heard this brigade mentioned on the history channel. is it because they were just too FABULOUS!

[Boarder]

that's odd, i've never heard this brigade mentioned on the history channel. is it because they were just too FABULOUS!
It's probably on Bravo.

[Okla-homey]

that's odd, i've never heard this brigade mentioned on the history channel. is it because they were just too FABULOUS!

But there was a show on the History channel about General Gaylord's Royal Air Force. It was called "Queer Fly for the Brown Eye";)

[def_lazer_fc]

It's probably on Bravo.
well played sir

[Stoop Dawg]

Problem is, left to themselves *everybody* would have a different set of "morales" that tell them how to behave. For some, murder is wrong altogether. For some, murder of people they deem "immoral" might be OK. Certainly, there might be a vast difference in what behaviors people deem "immoral".

There has to be a basis for morality or there will be no societal morality, which pretty much invalidates our personal morality.

Societal morality is determined by majority rule. This is true even for Christianity. Do not attempt to claim that the morality espoused by Christianity has not changed & evolved over the last 2000 years. Actually, don't even try to claim that there is one moral code espoused by "Christianity". There are hundreds of flavors of Christianity floating around out there each with their own moral code.

[crawfish]

Societal morality is determined by majority rule. This is true even for Christianity. Do not attempt to claim that the morality espoused by Christianity has not changed & evolved over the last 2000 years. Actually, don't even try to claim that there is one moral code espoused by "Christianity". There are hundreds of flavors of Christianity floating around out there each with their own moral code.

There is a pretty generic moral code to Christianity. I'd argue that it's been a big part of our wide acceptance of democracy and desire for freedom. I say this because a huge part of Christianity is the concept of free will, that God has given us choices. (As opposed to Islam, which does not place a similar value on free will, but on obedience.)

Sure, it's changed, but in more small ways than big ways.

[yermom]

you know, like you don't burn heretics anymore ;)

and the Earth is round...

[OklahomaRed]

James Cameron is best known for directing 'Titanic,' which went on to become the top-grossing film of all time, with a worldwide gross of over $1.8 billion. Along with 1950's All About Eve (another 20th Century Fox film), Titanic also holds the record for most Academy Award nominations. It won 11 Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Director.

So, one can easily say Titanic would be the peak of anyone's career. That's exactly where it all probably started. I wouldn't be surprised if James Cameron, who somewhat faded from the limelight in recent years, was sitting around thinking:

What is bigger than Titanic?

Supposedly, Cameron decided quite quickly for the biggest possible subject of all: Jesus. What can possibly be the biggest story about Jesus? Well, that's already taken, it's in the Bible. What would then be the second biggest story? Jesus himself, his body that is.

James Cameron is primarily a sci-fi director, that's why, being primarily thought of as a genre filmmaker, he did not receive any major mainstream filmmaking awards prior to Titanic. Cameron received the Bradbury Award from the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America in 1991.

'The Lost Tomb of Jesus,' his filmmaking project to air on Discovery Channel Sunday, was probably the result of Cameron's fading mainstream fame. I think this is the most reasonable explanation as to why he would try to pull this off, now in the light of the dismissal of the documentary's assertions by, basically, the entire academic community.

Let's review again some of the problems with the 'Tomb of Jesus'

1. Per Joe Zias: "the James Ossuary, it seems to migrate from time to time and place to place" as it's convenient. Eastern historian Eusebius, from 4th century, makes quite clear that the body of James, the brother of Jesus, was buried alone near the temple mount and that his tomb was visited in the early centuries, making very unlikely that the Talpiot tomb was Jesus' 'family tomb'."

"It gets messier as they now contend that the so called 10Th missing ossuary, from Talpiot was stolen from either the tomb itself in 1980 of from the offices of the IAA sometime after 1980. Well so far so good time wise until the owner of the James Ossuary which the IAA declared to be forged, produced a few days ago a photo of the James Ossuary with a time stamp from 1976. Difficult to explain, not when one of the co-authors writes books entitled the Ghosts of the Titanic, Ghosts of Vesuvius, etc."

2. Mary Magdalene was a woman (probably wealthy) out of whom seven demons were exorcized and became a follower of Jesus. Any relation between her is illogic and doesn't fit at all with the data in biblical and extra-biblical sources. There is no historical evidence that Jesus was ever married or had a child.

3. There are millions of remains of people around such places as Jerusalem. They get dug up during construction, as was Talpiot, and many times they are covered up covertly by the construction companies, which don't want their project stopped by the authorities (per someone who witnessed that). Ossuaries apparently appeared during the Maccabees, when caring for martyrs became more preeminent.

4. The tomb of Jesus was always thought of to be where the Church of the Holy Sepulcher now lies, there's evidence to that from the 1st century. The pagan Roman emperors and then the Muslims have covered it or damaged it because of its importance. The so-called "Garden Tomb" nearby is just a hoax set up for tourists.

5. The researcher who was enlisted by Cameron, James Tabor, "now reversed himself not just on one or two minor points, but on several major ones," according to Prof. Ben Witherington.

6. Virtually all leading scholars with previous research on the subject, some with direct contact to the Talpiot tomb, have unanimously rejected the documentary's allegations. Prof. Kloner said after watching the documentary: "It's a waste of money." He probably wasn't referring to Cameron.

7. There is no DNA evidence that this is the historical Jesus of Nazareth, and there can't be one.

8. "Jesus" was a popular name in the first century, appearing in 98 other tombs and on 21 other ossuaries.

9. Jesus was not called "Jesus, son of Joseph".

10. The tomb lacks any special religious symbols.

11. Jesus is considered to have been "a marginal Jew" who could not possibly afford a stone-cut tomb.

12. The much-hyped statistical work was already labeled as misleading.

13. There is nobody called Matthew known to have been in Jesus' family.

14. It makes no sense that Mary Magdalene's ossuary would have a Greek inscription and that of her alleged husband an Aramaic inscription.

15. Mary Magdalene is called ‘Maria’ constantly in first century Christian literature, and well into the second century as well. She is never called Mariamene.

16. The second word on the Mariamene ossuary is Mara which is short for Martha another female name. It is not a reference to her being a master or teacher.

17. The Talpiot tomb was not a covert tomb. The successful proclamation of the Resurrection would have required:

(1) that the actual tomb was unknown, or;
(2) that Crossan is correct and that Jesus was simply left on the cross to be eaten by the birds like most others who were crucified, or;
(3) that Jesus was actually raised from the dead. (Steve Black of the Toronto School of Theology)

18. "The form of the name on the ossuary in question is Mariamenou. This is a Greek genitive case, used to indicate that the ossuary belongs to Mary (it means 'Mary's' or 'belonging to Mary'). The nominative would be Mariamenon. Mariamenon is a diminutive form [...] It is better to suppose that the bones of two women (or perhaps a woman and her child, the diminutive Mariamenon being used for the latter) were placed in the same ossuary (this would not be not unusual)." - Prof. Richard Bauckham per Ben Whiterington's blog.

People would always rather believe in the ridiculous than the miraculous, it seems. And it also seems James Cameron has rather found the tomb of his professional reputation.

"It's time the Discovery Channel discovered ethics and stopped with the sensationalism," Catholic League president Bill Donohue told Variety Tuesday.

"If the Discovery Channel fails to cancel this slanderous documentary, it will have to explain why it is intentionally misleading the public," Brent Bozell, president of the conservative watchdog group Media Research Center, told the trade, per E!. "They should be embarrassed by this plunge into sensational speculation masquerading as science. The Discovery Channel will have dug its own grave if it doesn't pull this documentary."

[Ike]

words...lots of words
so you're saying you aren't buying it then?

[OklahomaRed]

so you're saying you aren't a leftist clone?


:D

[Ike]

:D

So you (probably) got all that stuff from a link...care to share it?

most of the points it makes concern things I really have no expertise in and can't address, but there are a couple of points that are misleading there:


5. The researcher who was enlisted by Cameron, James Tabor, "now reversed himself not just on one or two minor points, but on several major ones," according to Prof. Ben Witherington.

This really doesn't mean anything. Any good scientist will reverse himself when confronted with convincing evidence. Whether that's the case here, I can't say, but there really is no conclusion you can draw from saying this. He's either a very good scientist who reversed his conclusion in the face of new and convincing evidence, or he just wanted the payday. Either is possible, and the fact that he has reversed himself is immaterial.



12. The much-hyped statistical work was already labeled as misleading.
care to elaborate? Statistics are always the first thing people go after when they don't like someones conclusion, because few people understand them. Maybe this is correct, but it's easy for people to say "the statistics are misleading" and get people to believe them when in fact the statistics may not be misleading. (Think W. in the 2000 Presidential debates when he declared Gore's math to be "fuzzy". I guarantee you that if he had been required to elaborate on that proclomation, he would have been unable to do so.) So, more information is needed.



2. Mary Magdalene was a woman (probably wealthy) out of whom seven demons were exorcized and became a follower of Jesus. Any relation between her is illogic and doesn't fit at all with the data in biblical and extra-biblical sources. There is no historical evidence that Jesus was ever married or had a child.

Now, I'm by no means a religous or historical scholar, but it is my understanding that the historical evidence is curiously mute on the subject of Jesus and marriage. If that is indeed the case, as I believe it to be, then drawing the conclusion that Jesus never married is equally as fallacious as drawing the conclusion that he did.

[Okieflyer]

Now, I'm by no means a religous or historical scholar, but it is my understanding that the historical evidence is curiously mute on the subject of Jesus and marriage. If that is indeed the case, as I believe it to be, then drawing the conclusion that Jesus never married is equally as fallacious as drawing the conclusion that he did.

Not quite Ike. There is more evidence that he did not marry. Plus without going into a bunch of that I'll just say this. Why would his closest followers all allow themselves to die horrific deaths (except one, John) if it was all a made up fairy tale?:confused: All they would have had to do is renounce what they had said, but they were willing to die for a lie? I don't think so.

[Ike]

Why would his closest followers all allow themselves to die horrific deaths (except one, John) if it was all a made up fairy tale?:confused: All they would have had to do is renounce what they had said, but they were willing to die for a lie? I don't think so.


That was discussed several pages ago.


But the long and the short of it is that this is not as uncommon as you think. People have died, sometimes horribly, for fairy tales in the past...but they all believed the fairy tale.

[Stoop Dawg]

Sure, it's changed, but in more small ways than big ways.

I think you're painting with a pretty broad brush, there. Getting into a discussion of individual events/doctrine changes would set off a firestorm that I don't have the time or energy to follow. Let's just say that there sure were a lot of wars fought over those "small" changes.

[Stoop Dawg]

Plus without going into a bunch of that I'll just say this. Why would his closest followers all allow themselves to die horrific deaths (except one, John) if it was all a made up fairy tale?:confused: All they would have had to do is renounce what they had said, but they were willing to die for a lie? I don't think so.

In the true spirit of the SO, I'll go ahead a quote someone else, who has taken the time to construct a much more comprehensive answer than I ever would.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/05/die-for-lie-wont-fly.html

[Widescreen]

Now, I'm by no means a religous or historical scholar, but it is my understanding that the historical evidence is curiously mute on the subject of Jesus and marriage. If that is indeed the case, as I believe it to be, then drawing the conclusion that Jesus never married is equally as fallacious as drawing the conclusion that he did.
To me, if something's not mentioned it makes it more likely that it didn't happen. It just strikes me as odd that no one seems to have even mentioned it anywhere.

[Ike]

To me, if something's not mentioned it makes it more likely that it didn't happen. It just strikes me as odd that no one seems to have even mentioned it anywhere.


Sure...however, you have to consider that the bible is not meant to be solely a historical document. It is meant to be the sacred texts of a religious community, with some historical stuff thrown in. That difference is important when considering questions such as this one, because the writers (and editors!) of historical documents and of religious documents have inherently different motivations.

But even if you throw that out, just that it makes it more likely that it didn't happen because it wasn't recorded does not mean that one is accurate to assume that it didn't happen. Lots of things happen that never get recorded for various reasons.

Nobody recorded whether or not I went to the bathroom last week. However, it's probably safe to assume that I did.

[Boarder]

Societal morality is determined by majority rule.


This is totally true. One of the "problems" here lately is that people are complaining about Christian Morality being pushed upon them. It's actually society's morality that is determined by majority. Just because it happens to be a lot the same as Christian Morality doesn't mean that it IS Christian Morality.

For example, gay marriage (just an example, don't start any gay marriage discussions or anything). The majority seems to not want it. People who do want it try to blame it on Christian Morality being thrust upon them. When in reality it's just the morality code of the majority of people in society.

See what I'm saying? That may be why a lot of people feel as though they are being hammered with Christian Morality trying to take over thier life. Maybe they are being fed some Bible teachings, but when you couple that with the majority rule, it seems double what it really is.

Make any sense?


I like Titanic and The Terminators but I'm boycotting them now.






not really. :D

[TopDawg]

Nobody recorded whether or not I went to the bathroom last week.

...that you know of.

[Ike]

...that you know of.


crap...is the NSA bugging my john again?

[Frozen Sooner]

People. When you quote a big whack of text, could you please credit the author or link it or whatever? Please don't attempt to pass it off as your own.

[sanantoniosooner]

Seriously people. When you quote a big whack of text, could you please credit the author or link it or whatever? Please don't attempt to pass it off as your own.

[Sooner_Bob]

In the US, doesn't that mean being a non-Christian?




Whose old habits? I've never been in the habit of being dishonest.

A question for all those who think Christianity (or simply a belief in God) is the only path to morality: Why do you think this? Is it because the Bible teaches you this, or do you know for a fact you'd be a drug-dealing theiving rapist who votes Democrat if you didn't have religion to reign you in? Do you have any evidence that non-Christians commit more immoral acts than people who go to church every Sunday? In fact, you'd have to show that all non-Christians commit more immoral acts.

I'd wager that I've done less "immoral" things than a good number of self-proclaimed Christians. I consider myself agnostic, so what's keeping me on the straight and narrow?

I'd wager there's tons of folks out there just like you who feel superior to those who believe in a higher power and don't feel the need for religion. There are probably drug-dealing thieving rapists who would consider themselves a christian. Just like there are people like yourself who consider yourself to be a good moral person.

Nothing I say in any thread around here that turns religious is ever going to change your opinions or viewpoint towards christianity so I'm not even going to bother.

[Frozen Sooner]

I'd wager there's tons of folks out there just like you who feel superior to those who believe in a higher power and don't feel the need for religion. There are probably drug-dealing thieving rapists who would consider themselves a christian. Just like there are people like yourself who consider yourself to be a good moral person.

Nothing I say in any thread around here that turns religious is ever going to change your opinions or viewpoint towards christianity so I'm not even going to bother.

I generally feel superior to people I think are wrong. It's not a big deal-I still think they're OK people. Just human nature to think that you've got something over people who think differently than you do.

[Ike]

I generally feel superior to people I think are wrong. It's not a big deal-I still think they're OK people. Just human nature to think that you've got something over people who think differently than you do.

I just generally feel superior to everyone. The people who think differently than I do are obviously wrong, and the people who think similarly to me are obviously just sheep who want to be like me ;)

[Frozen Sooner]

Pretty much. Though I have a hard time feeling superior to people who are working on PhDs in physics.

Damn you. :(

One of these days, I'm going to go back and get those math and physics degrees and do something that's actually beneficial for a living.

[Ike]

Pretty much. Though I have a hard time feeling superior to people who are working on PhDs in physics.

Damn you. :(

One of these days, I'm going to go back and get those math and physics degrees and do something that's actually beneficial for a living.
eh...if you want to do something beneficial, you should learn to MAKE ME A SMALLER IPOD!!! ;)

[Frozen Sooner]

I'm so disappointed in you, Ike. My mental picture of you would just tear the damn thing apart and build a smaller one himself out of some leftover tinfoil and balsa wood.

[sanantoniosooner]

You people who act superior really irritate those of us who are.

[Sooner_Bob]

Do you happen to have a link to show where you got that number? I would be interested to see it.


A group that made a presentation at church a couple of weeks ago mentioned this number. I'm looking on their site for a link, but can't find anything that specifically mentions it.

The only things I can find is the estimated number of christians held in various countries and some news releases on individual attacks.

I'll see if I can find a link that specifically backs that up.

Here's a link (http://www.persecution.org/suffering/press_release.php) you may or may not want to look at.

[Sooner_Bob]

I generally feel superior to people I think are wrong. It's not a big deal-I still think they're OK people. Just human nature to think that you've got something over people who think differently than you do.


Hence the reason I made the comment. Around here there are at times folks who come across as feeling superior because of their claim to not believe in any form of religion.

[Ike]

I'm so disappointed in you, Ike. My mental picture of you would just tear the damn thing apart and build a smaller one himself out of some leftover tinfoil and balsa wood.

I don't have time for that. Which is why it would be beneficial for you to do so.

[crawfish]

I don't push my superiority. I believe in humility, and there's few people around who do that better than I do.

[Frozen Sooner]

Hence the reason I made the comment. Around here there are at times folks who come across as feeling superior because of their claim to not believe in any form of religion.

And there are also at times folks who come across as feeling superior because of their claim to belive in God.

Human nature. When we choose to believe something, we necessarily think that others are wrong if they don't believe the same. If it wasn't better to be right than wrong, then there'd be no reason to BE right. Therefore, being right is superior to being wrong.

Now there's no real reason to be an a-hole about it, of course, but the fact remains that people tend to think their own beliefs are superior to those of others-otherwise, why would you believe them and not what the other guy believes?

[Fugue]

Sure...however, you have to consider that the bible is not meant to be solely a historical document. It is meant to be the sacred texts of a religious community, with some historical stuff thrown in. That difference is important when considering questions such as this one, because the writers (and editors!) of historical documents and of religious documents have inherently different motivations.

But even if you throw that out, just that it makes it more likely that it didn't happen because it wasn't recorded does not mean that one is accurate to assume that it didn't happen. Lots of things happen that never get recorded for various reasons.

Nobody recorded whether or not I went to the bathroom last week. However, it's probably safe to assume that I did.

i'm confused, so even with no evidence you assume something happened? is that technique ever used in science?

[Stoop Dawg]

This is totally true. One of the "problems" here lately is that people are complaining about Christian Morality being pushed upon them. It's actually society's morality that is determined by majority. Just because it happens to be a lot the same as Christian Morality doesn't mean that it IS Christian Morality.

For example, gay marriage (just an example, don't start any gay marriage discussions or anything). The majority seems to not want it. People who do want it try to blame it on Christian Morality being thrust upon them. When in reality it's just the morality code of the majority of people in society.

See what I'm saying? That may be why a lot of people feel as though they are being hammered with Christian Morality trying to take over thier life. Maybe they are being fed some Bible teachings, but when you couple that with the majority rule, it seems double what it really is.

Make any sense?

Perfect sense. However, if I may......

The most outspoken oppenents of gay marriage seem to be Christians (from my experience). I think that's why that group is targetted in debates. When you take a stand, you put a target on yourself. That's just the way it is. Also, I certainly don't begrudge Christians pushing their own morality. I'll tell them they are wrong, and many will take it as a personal offense, but I'm really not doing anything they aren't doing themselves. I'm trying to sway opinion in favor of my morality - to make it the majority. Granted, I have much less influence than, say, the paster of Life Church, but you do what you can.

And since you mention gay marriage, I'd like to make one more point related to my responses to Crawfish. I'm not trying to pour kerosene on a smouldering thread here, but Christian morality is subject to change. At one point, the majority of Christians thought slavery was okay (at least in the south). Now most Christians believe it is wrong. Right now most Christians think gay marriage is wrong. I suspect that stand will continue to soften and perhaps eventually change as well, though probably not in our lifetime. Treatment of women is another area that is currently undergoing radical change among many denominations (allowing them into positions of power within the church, etc.). So not only do I believe that morality is determined by majority rule, I also believe it is subject to radical shifts over time. I think that's probably a good thing.

[Frozen Sooner]

Problem is, left to themselves *everybody* would have a different set of "morales" that tell them how to behave. For some, murder is wrong altogether. For some, murder of people they deem "immoral" might be OK. Certainly, there might be a vast difference in what behaviors people deem "immoral".

There has to be a basis for morality or there will be no societal morality, which pretty much invalidates our personal morality.


You've given a variation on this argument several times over the years and I have yet to see a really coherent argument backing it up, which surprises me out of a mind like yours.

In order to debunk this claim, it's easy to point to the countless people who subscribe to the supposedly-objective morality found in the Bible who differ on both moral and ethical grounds.

It's also easy to point to the writings of numerous philosophers from Immanuel Kant (who was a Christian) to John Stuart Mill (who wasn't) and their stabs at non-religious objective morality.

Sorry, I think I answered a claim that you weren't making-I jumped ahead a bit and assumed that you're moving towards the argument that without religion there can't be an objective morality-I know you and I have gone down that road before, so pardon the assumption if you weren't heading in that direction.

[Ike]

i'm confused, so even with no evidence you assume something happened? is that technique ever used in science?

I'm not assuming that anything happened (except that I did use the bathroom at least once last week). I was merely pointing out that assuming that something didn't happen just because there is no evidence to say it did is exactly the same as assuming something did happen because there is no evidence to say it didn't.

[Frozen Sooner]

Perfect sense. However, if I may......

The most outspoken oppenents of gay marriage seem to be Christians (from my experience). I think that's why that group is targetted in debates. When you take a stand, you put a target on yourself. That's just the way it is. Also, I certainly don't begrudge Christians pushing their own morality. I'll tell them they are wrong, and many will take it as a personal offense, but I'm really not doing anything they aren't doing themselves. I'm trying to sway opinion in favor of my morality - to make it the majority. Granted, I have much less influence than, say, the paster of Life Church, but you do what you can.

And since you mention gay marriage, I'd like to make one more point related to my responses to Crawfish. I'm not trying to pour kerosene on a smouldering thread here, but Christian morality is subject to change. At one point, the majority of Christians thought slavery was okay (at least in the south). Now most Christians believe it is wrong. Right now most Christians think gay marriage is wrong. I suspect that stand will continue to soften and perhaps eventually change as well, though probably not in our lifetime. Treatment of women is another area that is currently undergoing radical change among many denominations (allowing them into positions of power within the church, etc.). So not only do I believe that morality is determined by majority rule, I also believe it is subject to radical shifts over time. I think that's probably a good thing.

It's worth noting that although many Christians were defenders of slavery, the abolitionist movement was founded by ordained ministers and spread through the churches.

[Stoop Dawg]

It's worth noting that although many Christians were defenders of slavery, the abolitionist movement was founded by ordained ministers and spread through the churches.

Indeed. And they were often ridiculed for it. They were noble men (and women) who stood up for what they believe. I can respect that.

[Sooner_Bob]

And there are also at times folks who come across as feeling superior because of their claim to belive in God.


No arguements from me on that . . .




Human nature. When we choose to believe something, we necessarily think that others are wrong if they don't believe the same. If it wasn't better to be right than wrong, then there'd be no reason to BE right. Therefore, being right is superior to being wrong.

Now there's no real reason to be an a-hole about it, of course, but the fact remains that people tend to think their own beliefs are superior to those of others-otherwise, why would you believe them and not what the other guy believes?

I guess my whole point is that some folks seem to feel that because they have this level of IQ or scored a high mark on the ACT/SAT or got this scholarship or that scholarship, seem to feel that they're "too smart" to believe in religion.

[Fugue]

I'm not assuming that anything happened (except that I did use the bathroom at least once last week). I was merely pointing out that assuming that something didn't happen just because there is no evidence to say it did is exactly the same as assuming something did happen because there is no evidence to say it didn't.

yeah but you have to go to the bathroom while marriage is a choice.

[Ike]

yeah but you have to go to the bathroom while marriage is a choice.
yeah...didn't you see that I said I wasn't assuming anything...


I don't assume Jesus was married...I don't assume that he wasn't. As far as I'm concerned, either is possible.

[Fugue]

yeah...didn't you see that I said I wasn't assuming anything...


I don't assume Jesus was married...I don't assume that he wasn't. As far as I'm concerned, either is possible.

I thought you assumed you took a crap last week. :D

[Frozen Sooner]

No arguements from me on that . . .



I guess my whole point is that some folks seem to feel that because they have this level of IQ or scored a high mark on the ACT/SAT or got this scholarship or that scholarship, seem to feel that they're "too smart" to believe in religion.

Hm. I think you may have that backwards.

There is a correlation between high IQ and atheism, but that in and of itself is an appeal to authority which is invalid-and someone of supposedly high IQ should be able to recognize that it's a fallacious argument (If so many smart people believe something, then they must be right.) There have been plenty of things that plenty of smart people have been wrong about. Please note that the correlation that I mention isn't a STRONG correlation, nor does the existence of such a correlation imply that only stupid people believe in religion or only smart people don't-this would be a statement that is demonstrably false.

[Fugue]

oh and Ike, if you did, don't provide any evidence. I trust you. :texan:

[crawfish]

You've given a variation on this argument several times over the years and I have yet to see a really coherent argument backing it up, which surprises me out of a mind like yours.

In order to debunk this claim, it's easy to point to the countless people who subscribe to the supposedly-objective morality found in the Bible who differ on both moral and ethical grounds.

It's also easy to point to the writings of numerous philosophers from Immanuel Kant (who was a Christian) to John Stuart Mill (who wasn't) and their stabs at non-religious objective morality.

Sorry, I think I answered a claim that you weren't making-I jumped ahead a bit and assumed that you're moving towards the argument that without religion there can't be an objective morality-I know you and I have gone down that road before, so pardon the assumption if you weren't heading in that direction.

I think I've been insulted. :mad:

I personally believe that each person is made in God's image, which is a spiritual image; thus, because we are all connected to our maker, we will all have an ingrained level of morality even if the faith in God is non-existent. Thus, you find truth in Buhddism; you find truth in Islam; you find truth in atheist writers espousing a moral code. I believe that Christ is the ultimate archetype of God's morality, and Christians, as emulators, have a deeper commitment to those truths. Or should.

It's absolutely true that some "Christians" engage in immoral behavior, and some nonbelievers or believers in other faiths have an exemplary moral code. I have many explanations for that, but the truth is that I don't understand how somebody can say they emulate Christ and then do things completely opposite to what he stood for.

As a Christian, though, I don't believe that salvation is connected to our implementation of the moral law in any way. God's grace comes to all who accept him; "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". We are all equal in God's eyes because we all require Him to be saved; both the best and the worst of us.

p.s. - ;) on the :mad:

To yermom - I understand that the "church" has been supportive of some pretty nasty behavior during its history. Even now there are things I'm uncomfortable with. Personally, I attribute these things to politics and greed more than Christianity; some people will use the tools available to get what they want. I do believe that "true" Christianity - the moral law passed on by God through the Bible - is what eventually overcomes these evil rulers and has led us, inevitably, to the free society we have today, and will continue to lead us down a more and more moral path, despite a few setbacks. It's the spine of democracy - it may bend, ache and swell from time to time, but in the end it carries us all.

Sorry for the bad analogy. I'm tired. :)

[Frozen Sooner]

OK, cool beans. I think I've understood you to say in the past that an atheist, by definition, could not subscribe to an objective moral code. Maybe I have you confused with someone else from the Old Folks' Home.

[crawfish]

Hm. I think you may have that backwards.

There is a correlation between high IQ and atheism, but that in and of itself is an appeal to authority which is invalid-and someone of supposedly high IQ should be able to recognize that it's a fallacious argument (If so many smart people believe something, then they must be right.) There have been plenty of things that plenty of smart people have been wrong about. Please note that the correlation that I mention isn't a STRONG correlation, nor does the existence of such a correlation imply that only stupid people believe in religion or only smart people don't-this would be a statement that is demonstrably false.

Personally, I think "smart" people are more likely to be anti-establishment, and non-intellectuals are more likely to follow the norm. Christianity is definitely the establishment right now. I know more than a few people who go to church because it's good for business, or their political career, or their social life, and plainly their belief is either weak or nonexistent.

Inevitably, as atheism takes a stronger foothold and becomes more establishment, I believe it will attract more and more stupid people. And it won't make 'em any smarter. :D

[crawfish]

OK, cool beans. I think I've understood you to say in the past that an atheist, by definition, could not subscribe to an objective moral code. Maybe I have you confused with someone else from the Old Folks' Home.

I just checked. I am cleared for negspek. I'm holding off...for now. :mad:

[Frozen Sooner]

?

Dude, you're good in my book.

[TopDawg]

I'm not trying to pour kerosene on a smouldering thread here, but Christian morality is subject to change.
[EXAMPLES HERE]
So not only do I believe that morality is determined by majority rule, I also believe it is subject to radical shifts over time. I think that's probably a good thing.

Let me just throw this out there and I'm not sure if this is something we disagree on or if it's just a matter of semantics...but I'd say that Christian morality does NOT change and that the examples you listed were merely those times when Christians realized they were not in compliance with Christian morality and changed their beliefs and/or actions.

In other words, it's not as if Christian morality allowed for slavery until the 1860's and then the moral code changed. It was always a bad thing and it finally happened in the 1860's that many (but certainly not all) American Christians realized slavery was not in line with Christian morals.

[mdklatt]

I'd wager there's tons of folks out there just like you who feel superior to those who believe in a higher power and don't feel the need for religion.

I don't feel superior to religious people. I'm just trying to figure out why so many of them feel superior to everyone else. Particularly since their religious preference is more than likely an accident of birth.



Nothing I say in any thread around here that turns religious is ever going to change your opinions or viewpoint towards christianity so I'm not even going to bother.

That's not true at all. If I thought I knew all the answers I wouldn't even bother participating in threads like these; I'm not a total masochist.

[mdklatt]

I'd say that Christian morality does NOT change and that the examples you listed were merely those times when Christians realized they were not in compliance with Christian morality and changed their beliefs and/or actions.


Is morality what we practice or what we preach? Isn't that the dividing line between morality and ethics?

[TopDawg]

I don't feel superior to religious people. I'm just trying to figure out why so many of them feel superior to everyone else. Particularly since their religious preference is more than likely an accident of birth.


I think you'll find about the same number on each side of the issue that feel superior to those on the other side. I think it's more of a result of personality than of belief system.

And the "accident of birth" thing can be said for both sides as well.

[TopDawg]

Is morality what we practice or what we preach? Isn't that the dividing line between morality and ethics?

Well, Merriam-Webster defines "ethic" as "a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values" (definition 2A).

They may not be exactly the same, but I don't think they're different enough that one means practice and the other means preach.

It seems like they both refer to belief systems since you usually see the word "conduct" or "behavior" tied to them in order to describe actions.

[Stoop Dawg]

I personally believe that each person is made in God's image, which is a spiritual image; thus, because we are all connected to our maker, we will all have an ingrained level of morality even if the faith in God is non-existent. Thus, you find truth in Buhddism; you find truth in Islam; you find truth in atheist writers espousing a moral code.

Extremely well said.

Similarly: http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8585

Unfortunately, there was too much agreement in that thread and it never took off. :mad:


I understand that the "church" has been supportive of some pretty nasty behavior during its history. Even now there are things I'm uncomfortable with. Personally, I attribute these things to politics and greed more than Christianity; some people will use the tools available to get what they want. I do believe that "true" Christianity - the moral law passed on by God through the Bible - is what eventually overcomes these evil rulers and has led us, inevitably, to the free society we have today, and will continue to lead us down a more and more moral path, despite a few setbacks.

The Bible was specifically used to condone slavery. And what is generally now considered unfair treatment of women. I get what you're saying (I think), that the truth was always there and people just misinterpreted it. But how can our instruction book be so wide open to rampant misinterpretation? To me, that de-values the instruction book. In my profession (software development), we have to "idiot-proof" things as much as possible. Of course, it's impossible to over-estimate the idiocy of humans. Perhaps the Bible suffers this same affliction?


I'd say that Christian morality does NOT change and that the examples you listed were merely those times when Christians realized they were not in compliance with Christian morality and changed their beliefs and/or actions.

In other words, it's not as if Christian morality allowed for slavery until the 1860's and then the moral code changed. It was always a bad thing and it finally happened in the 1860's that many (but certainly not all) American Christians realized slavery was not in line with Christian morals.

I'm not sure I'm buying this line of reasoning from Craw and TD. However, if it *is* true, do you conceed that it must be exceedingly difficult to actually decipher this moral code? I mean, this moral code didn't start with Jesus, did it? It started with the creator, when man was first created. So why did it take thousands and thousands of years for mankind to finally "get it"? And, even more disturbing, what do we not "get" at the present time?

I think that in the end, it really doesn't matter whether the "true" moral code changes or simply our interpretation of it. The result is the same: A new set of laws.

[crawfish]

The Bible was specifically used to condone slavery. And what is generally now considered unfair treatment of women. I get what you're saying (I think), that the truth was always there and people just misinterpreted it. But how can our instruction book be so wide open to rampant misinterpretation? To me, that de-values the instruction book. In my profession (software development), we have to "idiot-proof" things as much as possible. Of course, it's impossible to over-estimate the idiocy of humans. Perhaps the Bible suffers this same affliction?

It wasn't really a matter of misinterpretation, but of blatantly ignoring some scripture. It's very clear that, although the Bible doesn't call for an end to slavery, it does subvert it. If a master must treat his slave like a brother in Christ, it eliminates many of the unethical practices (most old-style Jewish slavery, essentially indentured servitude, wasn't truly unethical in its time).

I have my thoughts on why it is so complicated in some ways, but that would take a lot of time. Maybe I'll write it out someday. :)


I'm not sure I'm buying this line of reasoning from Craw and TD. However, if it *is* true, do you conceed that it must be exceedingly difficult to actually decipher this moral code? I mean, this moral code didn't start with Jesus, did it? It started with the creator, when man was first created. So why did it take thousands and thousands of years for mankind to finally "get it"? And, even more disturbing, what do we not "get" at the present time?

I think that in the end, it really doesn't matter whether the "true" moral code changes or simply our interpretation of it. The result is the same: A new set of laws.

My thoughts are a little complicated here, too. It would involve my thoughts on the nature of God, His purpose and the way He interacts with the world.

[Ike]

My thoughts are a little complicated here, too. It would involve my thoughts on the nature of God, His purpose and the way He interacts with the world.


Just because I'm a bastard that likes to nitpick on details and semantics....

You say "His purpose"....this would imply that God has a reason to exist. Now, I don't know about you and your relation to this argument, but one of the things that I get thrown at me a lot when I tell people I'm not so sure that God even exists, is that they often tell me how purposeless my life is if God isn't in it (I couldn't disagree more, but this is what they tell me)...So, if God has a purpose, then by the logic I get from some people, that would have to mean that God has someone he has to answer to...a creator...so is there a higher power than the higher power?


Anyway, that just stuck out at me, and was a fun train of thought for about 15 seconds.

[crawfish]

Just because I'm a bastard that likes to nitpick on details and semantics....

You say "His purpose"....this would imply that God has a reason to exist. Now, I don't know about you and your relation to this argument, but one of the things that I get thrown at me a lot when I tell people I'm not so sure that God even exists, is that they often tell me how purposeless my life is if God isn't in it (I couldn't disagree more, but this is what they tell me)...So, if God has a purpose, then by the logic I get from some people, that would have to mean that God has someone he has to answer to...a creator...so is there a higher power than the higher power?


Anyway, that just stuck out at me, and was a fun train of thought for about 15 seconds.

Except you misunderstood me. :)

Not the purpose of God's existence, but God's purpose for our existence (and His creation).

Assuming that God is a being outside of time and space - unbound by either - you make the assumption that he's somehow outside of the universe as we know it. It's a tough concept to explain. "Flatland" by Edward E. Abbot does the best job IMO, explaining how a 3-dimensional being acts in a "Godlike" way in a 2-dimensional world. However, the truth is that many concepts we take for granted (like creation) may have very little meaning to a being like God.

I'm not claiming to know the answer, but I do claim that it's essentially impossible to know the answer, or even know what the right questions are to ask, concerning how God "is" in his own personal existence. Personally, I had some fun evaluating the nature of God in light of string theory's eleven dimensions, but it's all just blind speculation.

I better quit before I lose it completely. I'm not a PhD in physics. ;)

[Scott D]

Personally, I think "smart" people are more likely to be anti-establishment, and non-intellectuals are more likely to follow the norm. Christianity is definitely the establishment right now. I know more than a few people who go to church because it's good for business, or their political career, or their social life, and plainly their belief is either weak or nonexistent.

Inevitably, as atheism takes a stronger foothold and becomes more establishment, I believe it will attract more and more stupid people. And it won't make 'em any smarter. :D

The old "You can lead a jackass to water, but you can't make him drink" argument eh? :D

[Sooner_Bob]

I don't feel superior to religious people. I'm just trying to figure out why so many of them feel superior to everyone else. Particularly since their religious preference is more than likely an accident of birth.



That's not true at all. If I thought I knew all the answers I wouldn't even bother participating in threads like these; I'm not a total masochist.


Well I guess some of us could be confused about whether or not that's true by the way you make your comments about religion and christians in the various long threads that we had on here about said topics.

I guess I personally see some of your comments as more adding fuel to the fire rather and sitting back to see who blows up first. If I'm wrong I apologize.

[Scott D]

Well I guess some of us could be confused about whether or not that's true by the way you make your comments about religion and christians in the various long threads that we had on here about said topics.

I guess I personally see some of your comments as more adding fuel to the fire rather and sitting back to see who blows up first. If I'm wrong I apologize.

that's more Widescreen's job.....the bastard ;)

[TopDawg]

I'm not sure I'm buying this line of reasoning from Craw and TD. However, if it *is* true, do you conceed that it must be exceedingly difficult to actually decipher this moral code? I mean, this moral code didn't start with Jesus, did it? It started with the creator, when man was first created. So why did it take thousands and thousands of years for mankind to finally "get it"? And, even more disturbing, what do we not "get" at the present time?

I think crawfish kinda touched on this a little, but I'll also throw out my thoughts. First, I do conceed that it could be exceedingly difficult to decipher the moral code, but it's also exceedingly difficult to follow it. Even when people "get it" you may not be able to tell by their actions. The Bible seems to have several examples of those people.

So let me get to your other quote:


The Bible was specifically used to condone slavery. And what is generally now considered unfair treatment of women. I get what you're saying (I think), that the truth was always there and people just misinterpreted it. But how can our instruction book be so wide open to rampant misinterpretation? To me, that de-values the instruction book. In my profession (software development), we have to "idiot-proof" things as much as possible. Of course, it's impossible to over-estimate the idiocy of humans. Perhaps the Bible suffers this same affliction?

How can our instruction book be so wide open to rampant misinterpretation? Because it's not all instructions, and some of it is out-dated. Jesus came to re-write (and live) the instructions, but some people still refer to the out-dated instructions that conflict with Jesus' more up-to-date and (presumably) more perfect instructions.

So, yeah, I think the Bible suffers the same affliction that any other text for humans would suffer. Pretend you're writing an intruction book for a new type of software and you decide to put a little history in there. You told the tale of the old software and some of the laws at the time that regulated that software. But then you say "But I have designed this particular software and the machine that you run it on, so forget how you used to be told to do things, this is the best way to run this software on this machine." Well, it's possible that someone who still wanted other people to use his machine or his software could use your own instruction book against you by referring and putting more empahsis on the stuff you put in the beginning.

I could draw the analogy out a little further, but I think you catch my drift. I think it's easy to find the Christian moral code in the Bible. Jesus gives it to us in plain-enough terms. The problem mankind has run into when interpreting that moral code is that it's freakin challenging to actually put it into play in everyday life and so sometimes it's easier to go with something else...and, hey, if you can justify it by quoting some other scripture in the Bible then you can maybe convince someone else that it's still the Christian moral code.

Apologies if this is a little jumpy. I had to step away a few times while writing it.

[Stoop Dawg]

TD, I'm with ya. I can see where you're coming from.

Problem is, I think you may be a little on the fringe w.r.t. other Christians. Maybe "fringe" is the wrong word. You may not even be a minority, but it's safe to say that there are a signficant number of Christians who take a much more rigid line on the Bible. For example, words and phrases like "out-dated" and "more perfect" would ruffle feathers in my parent's church. To them, the Bible is God's Word. It's perfect. It can never be "out-dated" or "more perfect". It's the same unchanging, eternally relevant, perfect book that it's always been. Period. That's the "take" that I have a little more problem with, I guess. And that "take" has been espoused by more than one poster on these boards on more than a few occasions as well.

[TopDawg]

TD, I'm with ya. I can see where you're coming from.

Problem is, I think you may be a little on the fringe w.r.t. other Christians. Maybe "fringe" is the wrong word. You may not even be a minority, but it's safe to say that there are a signficant number of Christians who take a much more rigid line on the Bible. For example, words and phrases like "out-dated" and "more perfect" would ruffle feathers in my parent's church. To them, the Bible is God's Word. It's perfect. It can never be "out-dated" or "more perfect". It's the same unchanging, eternally relevant, perfect book that it's always been. Period. That's the "take" that I have a little more problem with, I guess. And that "take" has been espoused by more than one poster on these boards on more than a few occasions as well.

Oh yeah. Definitely. I have a problem with that "take" as well. The most frustrating thing is that even Jesus himself basically said "that stuff is out-dated" and, if you believe he's the Son of God, then how can his words NOT be "more perfect" than Old Testament words?

I think you're right...probably minority, but probably not "fringe." Postmodern almost certainly.

If you like reading about this subject, may I suggest A Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren. I'm currently reading that book and I love it. I've already finished one of his other ones, A New Kind of Christian.

That second title would probably ruffle feathers too.

[Fugue]

The old "You can lead a jackass to water, but you can't make him drink" argument eh? :D

This explains why sometimes I find myself wandering up to ponds and streams, I'm a jackass.

[Sooner_Bob]

that's more Widescreen's job.....the bastard ;)


Actually its probably safe to say we're all guilty of that. :D

[Scott D]

Actually its probably safe to say we're all guilty of that. :D

hey now Bob, we're not all admitted 3rd generation bastards. :D

[Ike]

Except you misunderstood me. :)

Not the purpose of God's existence, but God's purpose for our existence (and His creation).

Assuming that God is a being outside of time and space - unbound by either - you make the assumption that he's somehow outside of the universe as we know it. It's a tough concept to explain. "Flatland" by Edward E. Abbot does the best job IMO, explaining how a 3-dimensional being acts in a "Godlike" way in a 2-dimensional world. However, the truth is that many concepts we take for granted (like creation) may have very little meaning to a being like God.

I'm not claiming to know the answer, but I do claim that it's essentially impossible to know the answer, or even know what the right questions are to ask, concerning how God "is" in his own personal existence. Personally, I had some fun evaluating the nature of God in light of string theory's eleven dimensions, but it's all just blind speculation.

I better quit before I lose it completely. I'm not a PhD in physics. ;)

I figured I did misunderstand you, but as I said, I nitpick on details, and the way it was said translated that way in my mind...and as I said, it was a fun little thought experiment to ask the question "does God have a purpose for His existence?"

oh, and with string theory's 11 dimensions, if they exist, we too would exist in those 11 dimensions...just that those dimensions are very very very small and "curled up" so that we cannot percieve any movement in those dimensions. I wouldn't recommend thinking about them too hard as it can tend to make one's head explode...and of course, we have no evidence that any such extra dimensions exist.

[Skysooner]

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Non-Religious-John-Shelby-Spong/dp/0060762071/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0115620-7228932?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1172892632&sr=8-1