A few religious questions.

[Minor League Brian]

You know, sometimes... sometimes I see Bill O'Reilly as an intelligent guy. But then he says stupid shit like this, and I... really, just... don't get it.

While he may not have had much behind it, his explanation is one of the better ones of religion.

With the fossil records and things of the such you can't just discredit evolution, or how old the Earth is, and all those grand things. So the concept that the Bible is actually a reference book meant to teach morals instead of literal facts and that a God set up the world to play out its own course is much more "realistic" then to have said everything we know of Science to be false.

I'm an atheist, mind you. Maybe Agnostic depending on the day.

 

[JGlass]

While he may not have had much behind it, his explanation is one of the better ones of religion.

With the fossil records and things of the such you can't just discredit evolution, or how old the Earth is, and all those grand things. So the concept that the Bible is actually a reference book meant to teach morals instead of literal facts and that a God set up the world to play out its own course is much more "realistic" then to have said everything we know of Science to be false.

Yes, but there are tens of, if not hundreds of millions of Christians who do believe the Bible as a literal interpretation of history. I can sort of dig the Bible as a moralistic guide book, but not as a history book.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Er, 200,000 years if you dont belive in the young earth theory.

Also, Xenmas, I invite you to conduct yourself as someone who is older than 14. I bet you have black nail polish on this very moment, dont you. Its ok, the world doesnt understand you.

 

[LSN80]

I was going to ask why you didn't make this a CL thread Mozz. But in retrospect, it was likely a good idea as this type of thing in general doesn't mke for great casual discussion, which is mostly what Ive seen here. Further, it got people to weigh in that may not otherwise because they don't frequent the CL. So nice going.

I don't wish to weigh in on the subject myslf. Most of you know where I stand and as much as Id love for it be 18-1 against LSN, I'm having enough of a handful in the SDL. For those who don't know, I believe the opposite of Xemnas. That should clear any further questions up....

 

[LigerBomb]

Er, 200,000 years if you dont belive in the young earth theory.

Also, Xenmas, I invite you to conduct yourself as someone who is older than 14. I bet you have black nail polish on this very moment, dont you. Its ok, the world doesnt understand you.

RAGE! Rage against that machine… *Shakes fist self-righteously*

Does a female dog in labor shout at the male canine that impregnated her?: "You did this to me, you son of a bitch!"

I actually lol'd. Didn't rotf tho'.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

I was going to ask why you didn't make this a CL thread Mozz. But in retrospect, it was likely a good idea as this type of thing in general doesn't mke for great casual discussion, which is mostly what Ive seen here. Further, it got people to weigh in that may not otherwise because they don't frequent the CL. So nice going.

You're completely right. I find the spam sections to allow more freedom in conversation, while I feel I would have to spell out implied points in order to avoid a spam warning/infraction in the non-spam sections.

Does a female dog in labor shout at the male canine that impregnated her?: "You did this to me, you son of a bitch!

Wait a minute...

 

[Pepe Silvia]

Er, 200,000 years if you dont belive in the young earth theory.

Also, Xenmas, I invite you to conduct yourself as someone who is older than 14. I bet you have black nail polish on this very moment, dont you. Its ok, the world doesnt understand you.

I'd rebut you but I'm too broody to care. :|

 

[Xemmy]

To answer various comments: I acted that way because the questions were basic, it's a spam section, and he didn't make it clear that he wanted serious discusion (not to shove blame off on him).

I generally save my detailed, more respectable posting for my home section. I generally act like an asshole otherwise.

To join this debate and explain my point in the way "I'm suppose to":

Yes, but there are tens of, if not hundreds of millions of Christians who do believe the Bible as a literal interpretation of history. I can sort of dig the Bible as a moralistic guide book, but not as a history book.

The Bible, along with most other books is very whishy washy when it comes to morality. They're usually filled with double standards and sometimes outright cruelty. The very page after the ten commandments says "Though shall not suffer a witch to live." There's the famous story of God sending 2 bears killing 42 children because they made fun Elisha's bald head. This morality just isn't something to bank on- even with the great moral teachings of Jesus Christ. However, it's not like he brought anything new to the table. Jesus didn't invent "turn the other cheek". Those ideas where swimming around a few centuries before that in Buddhism.

The Torah's creation, along with every other holy book's creation myth, were meant to be taken literally. All of them were because they were created before the enlightenment, before we had scientific explanation. People needed different explainations for how the world got there- and what could be better than the infallible word of God. Those hundreds of millions of Christians have a reason to believe the bible literally, because that's how you're suppose to believe in holy books. They're not meant to be taken as fairy tales, even though they should be given our current understand of science. I respect people's right to believe something. I don't respect the belief, even if sometimes I look like an ass mid-not respecting.

Better?

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

Great someone opened up the proverbial religious can of worms.

Y'know..........either Bill O'Reilly is a Genius..............or an idiot.

I'm leaning towards...........STUPENDOUS FUCKING MORON.

I liked that bit at the end of the video, "for more insight from Bill O'Reilly". I think his is the insight I can do without.

Btw I'm firmly agnostic, I'm probably gonna suffer either way.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

To answer various comments: I acted that way because the questions were basic, it's a spam section, and he didn't make it clear that he wanted serious discusion (not to shove blame off on him).

I generally save my detailed, more respectable posting for my home section. I generally act like an asshole otherwise.

No one said you weren't allowed to post like that in this section. You weren't infracted for it. It was just idiotic.

The Bible, along with most other books is very whishy washy when it comes to morality. They're usually filled with double standards and sometimes outright cruelty. The very page after the ten commandments says "Though shall not suffer a witch to live." There's the famous story of God sending 2 bears killing 42 children because they made fun Elisha's bald head. This morality just isn't something to bank on- even with the great moral teachings of Jesus Christ. However, it's not like he brought anything new to the table. Jesus didn't invent "turn the other cheek". Those ideas where swimming around a few centuries before that in Buddhism.

As an atheist, even I can refute these points. You're talking about the Old Testament, which was completely thrown out the window when Jesus Christ came along, and the New Testament was created.

Something atheists need to understand before starting up a religious debate. The Old Testament is invalid.

As for morality in the New Testament - sure, these moral lessons weren't invented by Christianity, but they were certainly spread by Christianity.

The bible's, along with every other holy book's creation myth were meant to be taken literally. All of them were because they were created before the enlightenment, before we had scientific explanation. People needed different explainations for how the world got there- and what could be better than the infallible word of God. Those hundreds of millions of Christians have a reason to believe the bible literally, because that's how you're suppose to believe in holy books. They're not meant to be taken as fairy tales, even though they should be.

You're right, people were taking them literally before the enlightenment, but it's just not interpreted that way anymore, even by the most religious of people. The enlightenment happened. The Pope doesn't even take the Bible literally.

 

[Xemmy]

No one said you weren't allowed to post like that in this section. You weren't infracted for it. It was just idiotic.

Just felt like I need to make a half-assed apology.

As an atheist, even I can refute these points. You're talking about the Old Testament, which was completely thrown out the window when Jesus Christ came along, and the New Testament was created.

The rules and laws are still there, Judism is still a religon last time I check. But that wasn't really my point. These two are suppose to be the same God. The morality is wishy washy, because this God has some kind of bi-polar disorder.

Something atheists need to understand before starting up a religious debate. The Old Testament is invalid.

Plenty of people still follow it. I'm aware the old testament is suppose to be invalid. Tell that to the people that still use it for morality. (Gays are sinners, and whatnot.)

As for morality in the New Testament - sure, these moral lessons weren't invented by Christianity, but they were certainly spread by Christianity.

Yes, Christianity did it's part to spread that moral lesson, AND ignore it. So did Buddhism and Hinduism to their own sections of the world. The point was that it wasn't as special or radical as people make it seem.

You're right, people were taking them literally before the enlightenment, but it's just not interpreted that way anymore, even by the most religious of people. The enlightenment happened. The Pope doesn't even take the Bible literally.

That's fairly intelligent of them. People change the interpretation of the book from what it was meant to be taken as- which is the infallible word of God. What's the point of using it for morality, history, or whatever you're going to use it for, when you just change what it means to suit your own needs? (Poet didn't know it.)
And what's the point of believing it even if you take it literally when it's been proven wrong?

You sure you want to play devil's advocate and keep going? Seems pointless, other than a test of the noggin.

 

[The Doctor]

Why is that picture of Xemnas always squashed vertically in your sig, it pisses me off

Also, much of the Bible is allegorical.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

The rules and laws are still there, Judism is still a religon last time I check. But that wasn't really my point. These two are suppose to be the same God. The morality is wishy washy, because this God has some kind of bi-polar disorder.

So? They're still two completely different religions, and they believe completely different things. Christians don't believe the Jewish people are right, and vice-versa, so it's rather weird of you to make the "bipolar" argument as if both religions are correct.

Plenty of people still follow it. I'm aware the old testament is suppose to be invalid. Tell that to the people that still use it for morality. (Gays are sinners, and whatnot.)

It's specifically written in the Old Testament that the Old Testament would be invalid when the NT came around (for the most part):

"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Then comes the NT. Paul said the Old Law was invalid, Ephesians 2:15 says the Old Law was "put to death", etc, etc. I'd have to go over the NT again to point out more examples.

Yes, Christianity did it's part to spread that moral lesson, AND ignore it. So did Buddhism and Hinduism to their own sections of the world. The point was that it wasn't as special or radical as people make it seem.

So? No one argued that it was an original idea.

That's fairly intelligent of them. People change the interpretation of the book from what it was meant to be taken as- which is the infallible word of God. What's the point of using it for morality, history, or whatever you're going to use it for, when you just change what it means to suit your own needs? Poet didn't know it.

As explained, God said lots of things that people, namely atheists, like to skip over, when they listen to Youtube atheists argue about things. Meanwhile, people bring up ACTUAL issues with the Bible, such as my points in the OP of this thread, or the philosophy and logic behind the existence of ANY god, let alone the Christian god.

 

[Xemmy]

Why is that picture of Xemnas always squashed vertically in your sig, it pisses me off

Also, much of the Bible is allegorical.

...um...blame Theo this time? Lately it seems you just get pissed off for the sake of getting pissed off.

And yes, much of it is, but specific parts, such as creation and direct commands aren't. So why does that matter when that's what we're talking about?

 

[The Crock]

This thread had been brought to you by the Cigar Lounge: Religious topics, beaten like a dead horse!

 

[Xemmy]

So? They're still two completely different religions, and they believe completely different things. Christians don't believe the Jewish people are right, and vice-versa, so it's rather weird of you to make the "bipolar" argument as if both religions are correct.

They aren't two different religions entirely. They're part of a set. Christianity is a sequel to Judism. Christians believe in the God of the Torah too. He's not a different character. And besides, Christians don't deserve all the bad slack, so I'm "spreading the love".
I'm validating my lack of belief and why I said what I said, so when I say that this God is bi-polar, I'm trying to imply that it makes no sense for an all powerful, infallible God to change his tune all of sudden. It makes no sense to go from blood thirsty, to love thy neighbor.

It's specifically written in the Old Testament that the Old Testament would be invalid when the NT came around (for the most part):

The Christians living here in the south don't seem to be aware of that sadly. There'd be a lot less hate. But so few of them actually read their holy book, so it's not suprising.

So? No one argued that it was an original idea.

Some do make that claim, but that wasn't the point.
It was just me pointing out that the teachings of Jesus weren't all that special.

As explained, God said lots of things that people, namely atheists, like to skip over, when they listen to Youtube atheists argue about things. Meanwhile, people bring up ACTUAL issues with the Bible, such as my points in the OP of this thread, or the philosophy and logic behind the existence of ANY god, let alone the Christian god.

Could you clarify this point a bit? I can't tell if it's just a statement, or if your using it to argue against my point. If it's the latter, I don't understand what you're trying to use it for. Though I do agree with your point.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I dont know what allegorical means.


I do know, however that the bible has been re written a gazzillion times.

Did you know, that the pre King James version of the bible used the word "dragon" 75 fucking times to describe animals, and when the new version was written, during the age of science doing all it possibly could to disprove religion, all references besides ones directly to the devil were replaced with the word "jackal"

Yea, go ahead and pick up your brains off the floor now. Go ahead and bust that one out the next time some Kentucky redneck republican bible thumper tells you that you are going to hell becuase you dont follow the biggity bible word for fucking literal word.

Arrogant fucks.

 

[The Crock]

Judaism, Xemnas. Judaism.

 

[The Doctor]

And besides, Christians don't deserve all the bad slack, so I'm "spreading the love".

...whereas earlier you "shit on" the Bible and claimed that all Christians loved war. In other words you "chang[ed] your tune all of a sudden".

 

[Xemmy]

This thread had been brought to you by the Cigar Lounge: Religious topics, beaten like a dead horse!

Blame him, not the CL.

 

[The Crock]

Blame him, not the CL.

I love how defensive you get over the CL.

 

[Xemmy]

...whereas earlier you "shit on" the Bible and claimed that all Christians loved war. In other words you "chang[ed] your tune all of a sudden".

There's a difference when you're intentionally being an ass about it, and then seriously discussing it. Besides, spreading the love is satircal- or did you miss that?

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

They aren't two different religions entirely. They're part of a set. Christianity is a sequel to Judism. Christians believe in the God of the Torah too. He's not a different character. And besides, Christians don't deserve all the bad slack, so I'm "spreading the love".

Okay, maybe you just didn't understand my post...

When I say they're two completely different religions, I'm saying they are two completely different systems of beliefs. The Jewish people believe in the Old Testament, and follow the teachings of the Old Testament. The Christian people believe in the New Testament and follow the teachings of the New Testament. Sure, they believe in the same God. But they disagree on what God is trying to teach.

But by that logic, you can say that EVERY god is THE god.

I'm validating my lack of belief and why I said what I said, so when I say that this God is bi-polar, I'm trying to imply that it makes no sense for an all powerful, infallible God to change his tune all of sudden. It makes no sense to go from blood thirsty, to love thy neighbor.

Did you read the scripture I posted? That was from the Old Testament, where God said he was going to change his tune before he even did it. In plain English, he said, "You gotta follow my rules now, but when the time comes, there will be a new covenant, and it won't be like the covenant I'm giving you now."

Could you clarify this point a bit? I can't tell if it's just a statement, or if your using it to argue against my point. If it's the latter, I don't understand what you're trying to use it for. Though I do agree with your point.

I mean, people tend to cherry pick scripture out of the Bible to comfortably suit their lives. Atheists do it moreso than others.

I was agreeing with you, HOWEVER, I can tell just by having this conversation with you that you've never read the Bible, and it kind of supports the point that you and I agree with, about Christians, and it makes you a hypocrite.

Lots of Christians cherry pick scripture when it's convenient for him.
Lots of militant atheists cherry pick scripture when it's convenient for an argument, or the scripture is taken out of context because they haven't bothered to read the rest of the Bible.

 

[Xemmy]

I love defensive you get over the CL.

It's my little niche on WZ. It's like momma lion protecting the cub.

 

[The Doctor]

There's a difference when you're intentionally being an ass about it, and then seriously discussing it. Besides, spreading the love is satircal- or did you miss that?

Did, uh.

...



I seriously don't know what to say to this. Of all the posts you've made in this thread that you could claim was satirical, you pick the one that couldn't even remotely be construed as satirical. At least if you had picked you "All Christians love war" statement you might have had a shot at people believing you.

gb2wrists