Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

cant stand religion bashers watch

Announcements
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You missed the bit about pinning the servant to the door, then?
    No, I didn't. You again confuse ancient cruelty and calls to violence
    And killing people who worship other gods?
    I can say you even more: ancient jewish communities didn't permit gay parades. It's disgusting, isn't it?
    If an injunction to kill people who curse their parents isn't a call to violence (and for a trivial reason) then I don't know what is.
    According to your logic the decalog also calls to violence, because the commandment "Honor your mother and father" preceeds the commandment "You shall not murder" and consequently is more important.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    No, I didn't. You again confuse ancient cruelty and calls to violence

    I can say you even more: ancient jewish communities didn't permit gay parades. It's disgusting, isn't it?

    According to your logic the decalog also calls to violence, because the commandment "Honor your mother and father" preceeds the commandment "You shall not murder" and consequently is more important.
    You asked for a commandment that calls for violence. I gave you several.

    I can't help it if you choose to obey only a few of the laws that are several thousand years old, hold them to reverence even, and illogically ignore all the others your god handed down at the same time.

    Why do you dismiss some as being disgusting and ancient but hold the others sacred? They come from the same source, at the same time, and none is time limited.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW22)
    Sorry I didn’t realise you asked me more than the first.

    What would happen if everybody follow my advise? Basically what you’re implying is that if everyone followed my advise there would be anarchy? I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of it but there is something called the Law which defines our rights in society so that we can do what we like in an equal and fair manner that it doesn’t affect others. Those who don’t abide by the law are punished.

    What if the rich followed my advise and resulted in what you have said? Revolution, that’s what democracy is about.I never said religion caused all the problems you state, I was saying religion puts barriers in the way of your decisions based on the religious doctrine which will adversely affect the experiences you can have in your life.
    What I was showing is that there are limits to what everybody can do. People cannot just live for themselves, and do whatever they enjoy. We are highly restricted actually. Paedophiles are not free to do what they enjoy doing. And indeed, the freedom that the rich have is the main cause of continual poverty in our world. There is enough money and resources for all people on the earth, yet, some have nothing. Why? Partly because certain people are far away, enjoying their life with their offspring.

    And indeed there are laws. Indeed there are rights. But what I'm proposing is that God made the world. So he set the laws.

    Also because of the inconsistencies in the Bible you cannot trust any of it. Genesis claims God created the earth and the heavens and then he created light (the sun). This is obviously written by someone who wasn’t aware of how the Universe works, e.g a man (not the word of God) alive before the 14th century. The Copernican revolution proved that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around so Genesis should start something like first God created the Universe, then the sun, then the earth and the planets otherwise it doesn’t make sense. If you can’t trust the first few lines of the bible how can you trust any of it, even if it has somehow predicted future events. If you throw enough **** some of it will stick.
    So you think the inconsistency in Genesis is the order in which the bible says God made the Sun, the earth and the planets? Why is the order stated in the bible implausible? How specifically does it not make sense? I mean, we're talking about a supernatural being creating these things from nothing... I would have thought that makes no sense. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    The comedic value of this statement is difficult to overstate.
    Your views do not stand up to my scrutiny. The bible stands up to my scrutiny.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    So you are now claiming that your god is not omnipotent after all. You will have to make your mind up one day.

    This reversion to claiming faith is all-important is ridiculous. It is the very thing that proves that the religion is derived from charlatanism - the emperor's new clothes.
    This is not about omnipotence. This is not about being powerful enough to offer more convincing evidence. This is about choice.

    People can choose to follow God, or they can choose not to. You'll remember that God roamed among Adam and Eve, so they definitely believed in his existence. But they were given a tree that they were not allowed to eat from, so that they always had the choice to not follow what God wanted. Faith in God is equated to choosing to serve and love him, according to the bible.

    The question is not does God exist? According to the bible, the answer is obvious - the existence of God is evident in his creation (Romans 1). The question is do I want to humble myself and admit that I need God (and therefore, will I allow God to reveal himself to me?), or do I want to reject his offer? It's just like in human relationships, the other party requires the ability to choose to be there (otherwise it isn't love).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    The question is not does God exist? According to the bible, the answer is obvious
    The Bible is not to be taken as evidence of the existence of deities. It is just a bunch of fairy stories, with no more reason to be taken as evidence than Harry Potter is for magic and Lord of the Rings is for talking trees and elves.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    If anything, religion is just hopeful ignorance: complete certainty, without any basis of concrete knowledge or proof.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    So you think the inconsistency in Genesis is the order in which the bible says God made the Sun, the earth and the planets? Why is the order stated in the bible implausible? How specifically does it not make sense? I mean, we're talking about a supernatural being creating these things from nothing... I would have thought that makes no sense. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
    For the sake of argument I'm assuming that a supernatural being created the Universe to show how implausible it is, and what evidence is there to show it did happen? If it doesn't mean it didn't happen please show me the evidence to show it did happen?

    The reason that it is implausible is the way the earth is is dependent on the sun, so it seems logical for an omnipotent and omniscient being who isn't affected by time, space or limited knowledge to have the entire plan of the Universe planned out and create it in the simplest way possible. To create the earth first, then the sun, to have to then redesign the earth and planets to be work with the sun, then create all of the other galaxies is just a stupid way to create the Universe. If a omnipotent and omniscient God was to create the Universe he would do it much more logically, which would include creating the universe and the galaxies then the sun and then the planets not the other way around. An all knowing God wouldn't need to rethink and build on the spot, he would just know what to do.

    Another reason it disproves the bible is because it shows a lack of understanding about the Universe. God created the earth and the heavens then light (sun), from the point of view of a pre Copernican Revolutionary thinking man this makes perfect sense as we used to think the Sun revolved around the Earth, and creating the sun second seemed more plausible. However as we now know the Earth revolves around the sun so it seems illogical to create the sun second and referring back to the paragraph above, an omnipotent and omniscient God is unlikely to create the Universe in such a stupid way, if the Earth is the main reason for the Universe why did he go to all the trouble to make an entire Universe with other Galaxies that we're probably never going to even witness. This makes it so much more likely that it is not the word of God, it is a man prior to the 15th Century thinking that the Sun revolves around the Earth and writes Genesis in a way that would make sense to people of the time who also believed that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW22)
    Also because of the inconsistencies in the Bible you cannot trust any of it. Genesis claims God created the earth and the heavens and then he created light (the sun). This is obviously written by someone who wasn’t aware of how the Universe works, e.g a man (not the word of God) alive before the 14th century. The Copernican revolution proved that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around so Genesis should start something like first God created the Universe, then the sun, then the earth and the planets otherwise it doesn’t make sense. If you can’t trust the first few lines of the bible how can you trust any of it, even if it has somehow predicted future events. If you throw enough **** some of it will stick.
    Two points.

    Firstly, you seem adamant to make Genesis a science textbook or a journalistic account of the material creation or the universe and subsequently our solar system, without studying the literature to see what it was written to be and how it was read.

    Its clearly a theological book. Let's take a look at a part where even ancients would have had problems with Genesis. Creation is separated into days with morning and evening, yet the sun and the moon weren't made until the fourth day. There's no revolutionary discovery or lack of knowledge to appeal to here. People of all times would have seen this as iffy - had it be meant to be read as a science book.

    Rather, it suggests that the writer had theological reasons for putting the sun on the fourth day, it was trying to say something. One popular response is that it was to respond to those who worshiped the sun, it was demoted to lessen it's importance, as simply a creation by God rather than an obstacle to worship.

    Secondly, how do you justify not trusting the rest of the bible even if granted that the first few lines have faults? The bible is a library, not a single book. Are you not going to 'trust' the poetry of psalms? The ancient biography of the gospels? The Apocalyptic book Revelations?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You asked for a commandment that calls for violence. I gave you several.
    And no one of them calls for violence.
    I can't help it if you choose to obey only a few of the laws that are several thousand years old, hold them to reverence even, and illogically ignore all the others your god handed down at the same time.
    It's about understanding biblical text and historical background. That is important. How much violence can you find in Old Testament after the period of Moses? According to you, people adopting such religion should be blood thirsty beasts. Do ancient Jews or Jews today look like that? Is it applied to king David? Or maybe to king Solomon? Both were very religious.
    Why do you dismiss some as being disgusting and ancient but hold the others sacred? They come from the same source, at the same time, and none is time limited.
    You mean gay parades? It was sarcasm.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    And no one of them calls for violence.

    It's about understanding biblical text and historical background. That is important. How much violence can you find in Old Testament after the period of Moses? According to you, people adopting such religion should be blood thirsty beasts. Do ancient Jews or Jews today look like that? Is it applied to king David? Or maybe to king Solomon? Both were very religious.

    You mean gay parades? It was sarcasm.
    The text of the commandments calls for death or nailing people's ears to the door: you say this is not violence. You and I must be writing in different languages.

    You have ignored my questions.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Pride)
    Your views do not stand up to my scrutiny. The bible stands up to my scrutiny.
    That would explain why that long list of apparent flaws and contradictions in my views has yet to materialise... Or the fact that you've not responded to my rebuttal to your 'scrutiny.'

    The Bible stands up to your scrutiny because you suffer from a confirmation bias. It does not stand up to the scrutiny of anyone whose unconditional belief in it does not predate their attempts to 'scrutinise' it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    It does not stand up to the scrutiny of anyone whose unconditional belief in it does not predate their attempts to 'scrutinise' it.
    Seems like a very strong claim. If an atheist/hindu/Muslim converts without 'confirmation bias' prior to their conversion I guess your statement is put into question?



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    The text of the commandments calls for death or nailing people's ears to the door: you say this is not violence.
    No, I don't. Of course it is violence. Every punishment is sort of violence. But it is not call to violence as you asserted. Death penalty still is used in the US. Is it a call to violence? Absurd.
    And what is this nonsense "nailing people's ears to the door"? The door was used to pierce ears of slaves. Do you understand the difference? It's about your mother tongue, not mine.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    People can also use probability (Antony Flew) and logic (Descartes) and game theory (Pascal's Wager) to derive an existence of a god (or rather, a rational need to believe in one).
    Pascal's Wager is flawed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    This assumes that something shouldn't be judged unless it's detrimental to somebody's well-being, and that judgement = intervention. I don't see why that should necessarily be the case.

    Not in this particular parable, but the Bible is otherwise rife with plenty of non-hidden messages telling people to kill each other and commit acts of violence. The Bible doesn't seem to care about hiding its calls to violence.
    No, what I am implying is that perhaps you feel the need to judge and scrutinise because to the "threat" you may feel towards the effect of society's development due to the influence of the Bible (which you shouldn't be). You can in fact conclude that intervention is required when a system causes detriment, so maybe to meet at equal ends, you could say that the flaws in religion (i.e. the misinterpretation of scripture and practice by PEOPLE) should be addressed rather than the actual message of peace, God/Allah/etc, self sacrifice for thy neighbour itself etc.

    If in fact you are referring to many old testament messages, then perhaps you should realise that modern day Christianity is based off of the "New Covenant" established by the coming, death and resurrection of Jesus, where He revitalised the message of God and called for a more peaceful and inclusive society. "Blessed are the peacemakers" in Beatitudes states that we must become instigators of peace. some Christians take the old testament with a pinch of salt, but never the less, it is a source of inspiration to live by.

    Some scripture with violence actually is put in place to warn Christians about the detriment of violence. "Those who live by the sword die by the sword" takes a pacifistic tone. So yes it may have violence in some scripture, but it never condones killing. "Those without sin, cast the first stone" said by Jesus in Mark's Gospel looks at the morality of execution. The message at face value says that if you do not have sin, we can kill sinners. The overall and better interpretation of the message is that no one can kill sinners because we all are; nobody is without sin.

    Also the history of the Gospel is actually quite beautiful. Take Mark's Gospel for example: in 64AD, Christian's were being persecuted for their faith. The evangelist Mark wrote Mark's Gospel as a means to give a written account of Jesus' life and teachings. It was used by the persecuted to provide comfort and show other people that the religion was not a threat. You can imagine in a time where persecution takes place, reading about "living by the sword" and "dying by the sword" would give courage to people to practice the art of pacifism, and the example of Jesus' death as inspiration to die as martyrs and be true to Christ's teachings.

    Instead of trying to point out flaws, why cannot you consider the benefits of such scripture? You may come to conclude that it is a really noble way to live by setting yourself moral goals and trying to live a good life.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You missed the bit about pinning the servant to the door, then? And killing people who worship other gods? If an injunction to kill people who curse their parents isn't a call to violence (and for a trivial reason) then I don't know what is.

    How violent are the righteous in their insensitivity to what is civilized.
    You can interpret this is two ways: literal and spiritual. These passages are looking at the issues of some relationships, and maybe calling for justice to be performed (face value approach).

    OR you can say that "put to death" is a term to describe spiritual death of the soul/ a self detriment of one's spiritual body and mind. You're forgetting what you're quoting here and what you're dealing with. Your approach to reading the bible is really literal and perhaps narrow minded in this respect, and this is why people do not understand it.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by StudentInSociety)
    You can imagine in a time where persecution takes place, reading about "living by the sword" and "dying by the sword" would give courage to people to practice the art of pacifism, and the example of Jesus' death as inspiration to die as martyrs and be true to Christ's teachings.
    And this is a good thing in your view?

    Instead of trying to point out flaws, why cannot you consider the benefits of such scripture?
    Because none of the so-called benefits are worth throwing away my ability to critique the dangerous nonsense perpetuated by such scripture. It's not a very good argument anyway to say that I shouldn't point out flaws 'just because.'

    You may come to conclude that it is a really noble way to live by setting yourself moral goals and trying to live a good life.
    And I can't do this without scripture?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Believing it is not, in itself a problem. Worthy of adverse judgement, yes, but not a problem.

    It becomes a problem when, as is so often the case, people who believe it harm others by, for instance, indoctrinating their children to believe it or by insisting it should be taught as part of science or history courses in schools alongside science and history, as part of the creation hypothesis.
    Things are passed on all the time. It's not detrimental to pass on religion if it's not a lifestyle put in place to harm, just as science is not passed on and taught to cause harm. People fall out of belief of things all the time, it doesn't mean it's bad, it means it's not for everyone.
    I've been in Catholic education all my life and I'm not ignorant of the Evolution theory even though I've been taught about the story of Adam and Eve. It literally is up to individuals to decide for themselves if they want to believe or not. Look at it like this: if you were not taught about religion, how could you decide that it is not right for you?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    And this is a good thing in your view?
    You're from Britain right? We just had Remembrance day, celebrating the loss of life of people in the first world war for dying for their country. Soldiers can be viewed as martyrs, yet we remember them and applaud them for it. Didn't Martin Luther King Jr. die a martyr for the civil right's cause? Galileo died as a martyr of science. The concept of being a Martyr is more common than you think, and we all take inspiration from it whether we are aware or not.

    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Because none of the so-called benefits are worth throwing away my ability to critique the dangerous nonsense perpetuated by such scripture. It's not a very good argument anyway to say that I shouldn't point out flaws 'just because.'
    True, but it gets irritating when you hear people criticising you for just trying to live your life the way you want to be honest.

    (Original post by Hydeman)
    And I can't do this without scripture?
    You can do it without scripture just as you can pass a test without tuition. What is different is the fact that religious people try to dedicate everything to their faith to make the world a better place. We're making the decision for ourselves to follow God to humble ourselves and appreciate virtues of God. This doesn't make an atheist any less righteous than a Christian. In fact, we're acknowledging that we are all flawed and we all need a lot of work. We're all in the same boat
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 1, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.