Are you religious? If so, what religion? Why?

[Thanatos 2,847]

"Agnostic" is new to me. lol.

 

What I'm wondering is if you have views that their is a deity form, or possibly their is, then what are your thoughts (whoever has Agnostic views) on the afterlife?

 

 

 

A lot of it has to do with the fact that many Christian groups believe the Bible is open for interpretation once you are "saved". So instead of having one universal interpretation, you have different groups of people who decide to interpret it differently. That's the one thing that allows for Catholics to be so universally united under the same principles, but Christian groups to be so far spread.

 

Its a pretty easy thing to do when you consider that some believe the stories in the Bible are real, and others believe they are just parables. And some believe only some parts apply to them and other parts don't.

 

Also Christians draw a lot of the roots for their words from the Greek and Hebrew language, and the Catholics do so from Latin and Hebrew (I believe). So when we translate a word, and try to put it in perspective of the root language and culture, it changes views.

 

If you were to compile a book full of pictures from artists that some believe to be open for interpretation, it'd probably result for a lot of different views on it as well (my awful attempt of trying to put it in perspective ).

 

The Catholics don't go back to Greek? So they take the interpretation of people like Jerome over the original language it was written in? That's rather odd.

[Maverick 791]

DMac and I are probably the most similar on here....

 

I'm a Born-again Christian. I believe that Jesus was the son of God, died on the cross, and rose again. I haven't been into my faith recently as much as I should, so if I'm off with some of this info I apologize but: What separates born-again Christians from other Christian denominations is the only way to get to Heaven is through Christ and Christ alone. Not completing the seven sacraments, not being a good person, etc. It doesn't hurt to be a thoughtful person that doesn't break the laws though lol.

 

However, I really don't like to be aligned with a specific denomination and I agree with a lot of you that religion just causes trouble. I grew up Roman Catholic, but stopped going when I was about 12. Everything in the church just seemed so routine and it wasn't genuine. A church isn't a building we all flock to on Sunday morning; it's a fellowship - the church is the people.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

I grew up in a Baptist Christian family in backwoods Arkansas, where an extreme concentration of religious people live. We used to attend church every Sunday and sometimes on Wednesday nights. As a kid I tried to get into the religion thing but, and this may seem ridiculous, I was skeptical of the it all even as a child. The concept of God was unfathomable for me and when things weren't going well or I wanted something to change, I would pray and then things subsequently got worse. I look at that now and obviously it's just coincidence but combined with my skepticism as a child my thought process at worsening conditions despite prayer was "Fuck all of this."

 

After growing up and starting to see some of the glaring discrepancies and just outright ridiculous principles I disagree with that stem from Christianity (and most religions in general) combined with what I've learned through philosophy and astronomy (yes, I'm serious about the astronomy part) I went from agnostic to full-blown atheist. It just all seems completely ludicrous to me, the concept of religion or Gods or what have you.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Phailadelphia

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

The Catholics don't go back to Greek? So they take the interpretation of people like Jerome over the original language it was written in? That's rather odd.

 

I could be wrong on that, I heard it from a preacher when I was watching TV a couple months ago. The word catholic I'm pretty has Greek roots as well.

 

The Guy was saying they compare a lot of words to possible Latin based prefixes. I know from first hand experience that most Christians go back to Greek word meanings.

[Piggly Wiggly 960]

Satan Worshipper.

[Tridentdawgpound 1,043]

Satan Worshipper.

 

:beerchug:

[Omerta+ 1,206]

My biggest question about this whole thing is that if a person does not believe in god and then leads a good life anyway, why does he still go to hell ? Why is it that because people who are willing to do good things out of fear of reprisals get a pass and someone who was just a good person to be one not worthy of going to heaven or at least another chance to not be in eternal damnation forever for leading a life as good as or better than the one who was coerced by fear ? How is that fair ? I think it is more impressive that the person who does good things without any ulterior motive other than it being the right thing to do a worse person than someone who is doing it because they fear going to hell ? That is something that has always bothered me.

 

Another thing is the bible. How much of this are we supposed to take as the true word of god ? I understand that that is the premise but for me it all comes down to how much do I trust Gutenberg and others who could have easily manipulated it and probably maid a fortune at that time when religion and its content was the end all be all and there was no freedom of information it is whatever said monarch said it was and that is how it was. And then lets take into consideration how much the church had power over the world at that time so if something needed to be altered the 14-1500's would have been the critical juncture when something could have been altered. And seeing as how at that time almost the entire population was illiterate except for the people with money this could have easily been a viable scenario.

 

With all those questions I do believe in some sort of higher power that is there to reel us in when we get to out of control. As far as the minor things I am not sure he keeps a Santa Clause list of every deed or misdeed you have ever done. I think he judges you by the content of your character and heart. I dont think it is going to skull drag you for every thing you have ever done. That and I think it is also something that people have a misconception of what is really at the end not that I know better than anybody else just a personal belief.

 

I also believe that if we have free will then how can everything be known ahead of time. If he knows what choices we make and still allows them to do it then how is that kind or merciful. I dont know I just have a lot of questions but I am still open if someone can come up with some good answers that make sense to me.

[Thanatos 2,847]

My biggest question about this whole thing is that if a person does not believe in god and then leads a good life anyway, why does he still go to hell ? Why is it that because people who are willing to do good things out of fear of reprisals get a pass and someone who was just a good person to be one not worthy of going to heaven or at least another chance to not be in eternal damnation forever for leading a life as good as or better than the one who was coerced by fear ? How is that fair ? I think it is more impressive that the person who does good things without any ulterior motive other than it being the right thing to do a worse person than someone who is doing it because they fear going to hell ? That is something that has always bothered me.

 

It's not about good works, or some sort of balancing of scales, that if you only do more good than evil, you're golden.* This is also an interesting philosophical argument, namely is it even possible to do something good without any ulterior motive, but that is a different subject.

 

The issue I have always had with the idea of hell is that of an infinite punishment for a finite sin. I don't care if you're Adolf Hitler, it seems to me that eventually you would have paid the price for whatever you did on earth, even if it is a billion years down the road.

 

I will freely admit that there are things that puzzle me about Christianity. Still trying to work through everything myself, which is why I love talking about these things.

 

*With a caveat- read Matthew 25:31-46, if you've got some time.

 

Another thing is the bible. How much of this are we supposed to take as the true word of god ? I understand that that is the premise but for me it all comes down to how much do I trust Gutenberg and others who could have easily manipulated it and probably maid a fortune at that time when religion and its content was the end all be all and there was no freedom of information it is whatever said monarch said it was and that is how it was. And then lets take into consideration how much the church had power over the world at that time so if something needed to be altered the 14-1500's would have been the critical juncture when something could have been altered. And seeing as how at that time almost the entire population was illiterate except for the people with money this could have easily been a viable scenario.

 

I know that what you describe didn't take place because of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found back in 1946, and they are 99% the same as the texts we are using to translate the Old Testament, yet they had been buried for the entirety of "church" age. (And the 1% is nearly all grammatical issues or words changing their spelling. I think that there is not a single theological/doctrinal difference between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text, but I'm not 100% sure.)

 

The NT being altered just doesn't work due to the vast amount of copies that we had, (still have a lot), that were created within 50-60 years of the proceedings actually taking place. The church altering things in them would have had to have been a *massive* cover-up, due to the fact that they would have needed to alter the original manuscripts, which would be a monumental task in and of itself, but then the large part of it would be having to find the majority of the early church's writings on that particular passage and alter them as well. And it's pretty easy to tell when a text has been altered drastically, and if this were the case, and all the documents showed signs of tampering at the *same points*, we would have figured this out rather easily.

 

I'm not sure why trusting Gutenberg comes into it at all, we aren't using printed documents of a scroll we no longer have.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

My thoughts are pretty bold, and I feel very strongly about them. I will not apologize for offending anyone, but I will say that I harbor no ill will against any religious persons (with the exception of Scientologists), so long as you don't try to push it in my face.

 

I believe religion is an aged concept that primitive humans created in order to give their lives a sense of purpose, as a meaningless existence was beyond their ability to grasp.

 

I am puzzled by the fact that religion allegedly teaches people not to judge, yet in my personal experiences, devout religious people are among the most judgmental I have ever met.

 

Over the course of human history, more people have been killed in the name of god than for any reason. That is an indisputable fact.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

It's not about good works, or some sort of balancing of scales, that if you only do more good than evil, you're golden.* This is also an interesting philosophical argument, namely is it even possible to do something good without any ulterior motive, but that is a different subject.

 

The issue I have always had with the idea of hell is that of an infinite punishment for a finite sin. I don't care if you're Adolf Hitler, it seems to me that eventually you would have paid the price for whatever you did on earth, even if it is a billion years down the road.

 

I will freely admit that there are things that puzzle me about Christianity. Still trying to work through everything myself, which is why I love talking about these things.

 

*With a caveat- read Matthew 25:31-46, if you've got some time.

 

The Sheep and the Goats

 

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

 

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

 

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

 

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

 

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

 

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

 

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

 

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

 

 

 

Ok so I have read those and a few things come to mind.

 

1st. All of those are great sentiments and hard to argue that those would be principles that every man regardless of the walk of life could willingly except.

 

2nd. Those are all wonderful in theory but how practical are they. I mean I try to help my fellow man as much as most. Not trying to be pious but I believe that sharing goodwill and fortune will allow all of us to have some sort of personal satisfaction of knowing we helped somebody. however to a point I am not going to help every HOPELESS person who is pretending to be HELPLESS. There are so many con artists out there now trying to get ahead under the cloak of desperation. SO to the sheep reference I would be a goat because I will help my friends and those I truly believe to need help, but that is where it ends.

 

3rd. Exodus 21:24-25 says, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Does that mean that if we are burned once that we should be scornful forever from then on ? I cant see where being kind to one another would allow room for this kind of sentiment. I believe context is important so Exodus 26-29 state "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye, /And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth, /If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible,/ If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death." So for forgiving and helping your fellow man that all seems to be pretty harsh towards each other.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Ok so I have read those and a few things come to mind.

 

1st. All of those are great sentiments and hard to argue that those would be principles that every man regardless of the walk of life could willingly except.

 

Agreed.

 

2nd. Those are all wonderful in theory but how practical are they. I mean I try to help my fellow man as much as most. Not trying to be pious but I believe that sharing goodwill and fortune will allow all of us to have some sort of personal satisfaction of knowing we helped somebody. however to a point I am not going to help every HOPELESS person who is pretending to be HELPLESS. There are so many con artists out there now trying to get ahead under the cloak of desperation. SO to the sheep reference I would be a goat because I will help my friends and those I truly believe to need help, but that is where it ends.

 

There is an issue with taking that passage and applying it to everyone. That's why I said, with a caveat. I don't think this is a general principle- i.e., do good works and you will get into heaven. This applies to a specific set of people, those who are here after the "Rapture" takes place. (I hate that word, because it isn't used in the Bible and the Left Behind series absolutely was false as to what happens and just sensationalized the whole thing, but I can trust that you know what I mean if I use it.)

 

For 99.99% of the human race, whether or not you get into heaven will depend on whether you accepted Christ. That said, if someone is truly a Christian, there will be good works evident in their life, (you shall know them by their fruits). If someone says they are a Christian, but doesn't show it, then I'd wager they really are not.

 

3rd. Exodus 21:24-25 says, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Does that mean that if we are burned once that we should be scornful forever from then on ? I cant see where being kind to one another would allow room for this kind of sentiment. I believe context is important so Exodus 26-29 state "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye, /And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth, /If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible,/ If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death." So for forgiving and helping your fellow man that all seems to be pretty harsh towards each other.

 

It's good that you think context is important. One of the most important principles when trying to interpret a given passage is "text without context is just pretext." It's cliche, but easy to remember, and it is so true. One of the biggest things people are always talking about is "Judge not, lest ye be judged." This is nothing more than pretext. If you look at the context, it is very clear that Christ is saying, "Do not judge *if* you yourself are also suffering from sin in the same area. You cannot help your brother out of sin without first helping yourself out of sin."

 

On the subject of the verse you quoted: Exodus 21, (and the following chapters, if my memory serves me correctly)- and much of the first five books- is mostly ceremonial or civil law. There are moral principles that we can follow in some of it, but not always. So you're correct that context is important, but you didn't go far enough out. It's a very complicated subject, but the short version is that most of the old law is showing us what we would be like/have to do without Christ- thus the animal sacrifices, the harsh laws, etc.

 

I hope that didn't get too "preachy", I do tend to get carried away talking about these things.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Thanatos19

[NaTaS+ 958]

I consider myself a spiritual person and really identify with Buddhism and it's philosophy. I do not consider it a religion, at least not how I follow it - it's more of a way to live with no supernatural being.

[PackIsBack 124]

I was born and raised Catholic and went through baptism, communion, reconciliation, and confirmation when I was younger. As a child I went to church every weekend with my parents and most of my extended family does as well. Religion is very important to most of my family and most of them are Catholic.

 

It was when I got to college that religion stopped being important to me and I rarely ever went to church. Even though I went to a Catholic private college, the professors were very open about different religions and the one nun I had for a professor didn't believe in purgatory which is a very Catholic belief lol. Living in a sheltered household, my undergrad opened my eyes to being able to question what was being taught to me throughout my life about how religion is supposed to be.

 

Currently I'm still unsure about organized religion. I still believe in God, Jesus Christ, all of that but all I've seen recently is that organized religion is a bunch of various perceptions on the same source. It's difficult for me to be objective so I find it impossible for someone else to be completely objective about deciphering the "true" meanings of the Bible. As far as being religious, I'll pray at night but I don't define my relationship with God based on what an organized religion tells me.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

I know I'm kinda late to the dead party but just my $.2

 

I also believe that if we have free will then how can everything be known ahead of time. If he knows what choices we make and still allows them to do it then how is that kind or merciful. I dont know I just have a lot of questions but I am still open if someone can come up with some good answers that make sense to me.

 

If God knows that you are going to do something bad in the future, (and he does know), and lets you do it its because we have free will. Its still our choice being made by ourselves.It'd kinda be against God's own words to stop us from doing bad.

 

And about the whole, eye for an eye thing, that's one of those laws that Jesus stopped, and changed, and that the New Testement prophets preached... The new rule being when someone slaps you on one cheek, you turn and give them your other (that's a paraphrase, lol).

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

My thoughts are pretty bold, and I feel very strongly about them. I will not apologize for offending anyone, but I will say that I harbor no ill will against any religious persons (with the exception of Scientologists), so long as you don't try to push it in my face.

 

I believe religion is an aged concept that primitive humans created in order to give their lives a sense of purpose, as a meaningless existence was beyond their ability to grasp.

 

I am puzzled by the fact that religion allegedly teaches people not to judge, yet in my personal experiences, devout religious people are among the most judgmental I have ever met.

 

Over the course of human history, more people have been killed in the name of god than for any reason. That is an indisputable fact.

 

You say religion is an "aged concept" created by "primitive humans". However, they did so to give their lives purpose or meaning.

 

The concept of yearning for a purpose in life may be old, but it is one wired into the human psyche. It will never become "aged", dated, or become "primitive". It is something humans felt thousands of years ago and will feel thousands of years from now. Nothing short of the humans being eviscerated by a cyborg race will stop that.

 

Is yearning or looking for a purpose an aged concept created by primitive humans? People use god and religion as a crutch a lot in today's world as well. I am not so convinced that having a crutch is a bad thing.

 

If God or their faith in God (are any similar religion) is what gets people through a tough day or a rough part of their life, who am I or anyone else to judge them for that? Good for them for digging deep and finding the motivation to get up the next morning or finding ways to improve their lifestyle or work towards becoming a better person. Touche, I say.

 

On the other side of the spectrum, if you can get through those tough moments or make yourself better on your own accord with out the help of God or some such being, again... Touche. But that is no reason to frown upon those that do need the extra umph provided by believing in God. (Not saying you frown up those people).

 

I've told this story here before, but entertain me regardless. I will keep it short.

 

A family member of mine, my mothers cousin, was diagnosed with breast cancer. The doctors told her that it was in the later stages and they were fearful that it was dangerously close to spreading to other vital areas of her body. She became a regular at the doctors office, getting treatments while trying to stay positive. Her mother, my great aunt I suppose, is a fairly religious person. She goes to church every Sunday and obviously she was devastated by this news. One of the cruelties of this world is a parent having to bury their child... She prayed and prayed, hoping for some kind of miracle.

 

My aunt, she prayed that this retched disease would dissipate... For God to spare her daughter, and to let her go through the pain and suffering instead.

 

A week or so later, her daughter goes to a routine checkup and by some kind of miracle, the news was not only good.. But great. They told her that her body had all but defeated the cancerous cells, and soon after she was completely cancer free.

 

However, we weren't about to throw a party. My aunt had suddenly developed breast cancer. I am not going to bore you with a sob story. After months and months of chemo and a surgical procedure to remove her breasts... My aunt is alive, well, and cancer free.

 

Now, I don't tell you this expecting you to all of a sudden believe in God. Nor do I offer this as proof that God exists. Science is a wonderful thing.

 

However, I offer this story as but an example that accepting God into your life (general "your"), isn't a bad thing. A lot of people are better because of their belief in God.

 

Whether He exists or you believe He exists is completely irrelevant.

[Phins4life 271]

I have some questions for those who take the Bible literally, word for word:

 

-Do you truly believe that man just came into existence, as is, less than 10,000 years ago? That is essentially the agreement that most Abrahamic religious text comes to. If so, how do you explain the overwhelming similarity we bear to the other great apes of the world today? If we are indeed God's chosen people, what would be the point of bearing resemblances to lesser creatures?

 

-Where do you stand on dinosaurs, and the evidence indicating that they existed far beyond the timeline presented by the Bible?

 

-Do you believe carbon dating is flawed? If so, why?

 

-Concerning Noah's Ark, do you truly believe it was a global flood? If so, how would you explain the number of animal species in existence today, versus the dimensions of the ark given in the Bible? How would 2 of every species fit in a boat that small? How would the penguins in Antarctica get there, or the polar bears of the north pole? Wouldn't genetic bottle-necking occur on a massive scale if only 2 of every creature on Earth were left alive? Have you considered the enormous impact on the world's ecosystems from a rain event that would considerably alter the salinity of every body of water in the world?

 

-Do you really think a human being sat in the belly of a whale/giant fish for 3 days and survived, only to be vomited out on the land?

 

 

 

I will certainly have more later on, but these are jut the tip of an iceberg of queries.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I have some questions for those who take the Bible literally, word for word:

 

-Do you truly believe that man just came into existence, as is, less than 10,000 years ago? That is essentially the agreement that most Abrahamic religious text comes to. If so, how do you explain the overwhelming similarity we bear to the other great apes of the world today? If we are indeed God's chosen people, what would be the point of bearing resemblances to lesser creatures?

 

First off, there are very very few people who take the Bible literally, word-for-word. The Bible has clear genres, hyperboles, metaphors, and examples scattered throughout. This does not mean that I do not believe the Bible is 100% inerrant. But there are clearly poetic passages that are not meant to be taken literally, and to take them literally is to interpret them incorrectly. It would be like going into Shakespeare's poetry and trying to decipher it as if it had a literal meaning.

 

I do believe man was specially created by God, and I tend to believe it was recent, but I have no problem if someone disagrees on that point, theologically or scientifically.

 

I also believe the earth to be very old, ditto the universe.

 

We are not God's chosen people, not sure where you're getting that from. That would be Israel, and that would also be an OT thing. If you mean simply that humans are chosen by God whereas apes are not, I do not see the argument that similarity = relation.

 

The whole idea comes from misapplying the technique of translation to try to translate the Hebrew word yom as strictly meaning a 24-hour day. I mean, the very first time the word is used, it doesn't mean a 24-hour day: "God called the light day." Same word. And then in chapter 2, "And this is the account of the heavens and the earth, in the day they were created..." Again, same word. In neither case is it possible that it means a 24-hour day. Those who insist on interpreting the six days of Genesis as being 24-hour days are pushing an strict English translation on a very flexible Hebrew word.

 

This entire issue is made way too much of. The text is ambiguous, it doesn't matter to salvation, and no one should be dogmatic on the issue.

 

The one thing I have a problem with is man evolving from apes, and that is something that I don't see myself changing. (Evolution in general is a different matter, it is simply man's evolution that I believe would conflict with the ideas presented in Genesis.)

 

-Where do you stand on dinosaurs, and the evidence indicating that they existed far beyond the timeline presented by the Bible?

 

Where does the Bible present a timeline? This is young-earth creationists who are trying to present a picture as literal fact that the Bible simply does not present in that manner.

 

I have no problem with dinosaurs. I love dinosaurs. I tend to think a lot of our models are off, given the mixing and matching of bones that sometimes takes place, but its still pretty cool.

 

-Do you believe carbon dating is flawed? If so, why?

 

Nope, I have no problems with carbon dating. Just to inform you, though, carbon dating is only useful back to about 50,000 years, if I recall correctly. I guess that is a flaw, but it is one which is common knowledge. It is other forms of radioactive dating that goes further back than that.

 

And this is where it gets thorny. Again, I have no problem with an old earth, I even believe that the earth is very old. I just think we need to be very careful being dogmatic and superior about this particular issue.

 

My dad is an engineer with several differing degrees. While this is not his particular area of expertise, the way he explained it makes sense. Basically, you are dealing with a absolutely miniscule amount of material, assuming that none of the material was in the element you are testing when it was formed, and assuming that no extra material was added prior to you getting your hands on it. (You are also assuming the speed of light has remained constant, but that seems to be a pretty solid assumption.)

 

If you make the slightest of errors, your calculations will be off by a staggering amount.

 

He also believes in an old earth, he is simply scientific about it- we could easily be wrong- rather than dogmatic about it.

 

-Concerning Noah's Ark, do you truly believe it was a global flood? If so, how would you explain the number of animal species in existence today, versus the dimensions of the ark given in the Bible? How would 2 of every species fit in a boat that small? How would the penguins in Antarctica get there, or the polar bears of the north pole? Wouldn't genetic bottle-necking occur on a massive scale if only 2 of every creature on Earth were left alive? Have you considered the enormous impact on the world's ecosystems from a rain event that would considerably alter the salinity of every body of water in the world?

 

Well this is really quite simple. I'm not entirely sure I believe in a global flood, but the question of Noah's ark has always been a ridiculously easy one to answer, and not at all my problem with the flood.

 

Quite simply, there weren't two of every species in existence. Noah takes, for example, two wolves on the ark, and we get the amount of dogs that we have today. The boat is ginormous, and more than capable of holding 2 of each species you would need for adaptation to give us the rest.

 

I do believe most people who think that Noah's flood was global tend to believe that it was during this time that the continents broke up, and when most of the seas were formed. Thus, there would not be many bodies of water to change salinity.

 

-Do you really think a human being sat in the belly of a whale/giant fish for 3 days and survived, only to be vomited out on the land?

 

I think God is more than capable of performing such an act, yes. There's nothing hard to believe about an all-powerful God letting Jonah survive that long- the question that is behind this question is whether or not there is an all-powerful God who is interested in this world.

 

Whether or not this story literally occurred is actually irrelevant to the larger story of Jonah. There are some who believe that he died and was resurrected, in order to link him to Christ more firmly, as Jesus uses his example in the NT as the only sign that will be given to "this generation." I see nothing wrong with either view, the language appears to be intentionally ambiguous in the original Hebrew throughout Jonah.

 

I will certainly have more later on, but these are jut the tip of an iceberg of queries.

 

By all means. Like I said, I love discussing these things.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Thanatos and I don't see eye to eye on the Bible in every regard, but I tend to agree with his opinions regarding the silly questions often posed by non-believers (this is not a jab at you, Phins, you actually presented these questions without looking like an idiot).

 

Quite frankly, I think most of the people who do take the time to ask these questions have reasons based more in rebellion than actual curiosity. This is absolutely an opinion, but I find most extremely adamant Bible bashers to be the kinds of people who have their minds made up before they ask the question. I find it refreshing to see somebody pose these questions in an intelligent way.

 

Props to both of you, Phins and Thanatos, for going about that discussion in a civil way.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Thanatos and I don't see eye to eye on the Bible in every regard, but I tend to agree with his opinions regarding the silly questions often posed by non-believers (this is not a jab at you, Phins, you actually presented these questions without looking like an idiot).

 

Quite frankly, I think most of the people who do take the time to ask these questions have reasons based more in rebellion than actual curiosity. This is absolutely an opinion, but I find most extremely adamant Bible bashers to be the kinds of people who have their minds made up before they ask the question. I find it refreshing to see somebody pose these questions in an intelligent way.

 

Props to both of you, Phins and Thanatos, for going about that discussion in a civil way.

 

There is a very simple reason for many non-Christians approaching these questions kind of abrasively.

 

That reason being that most Christians they ask give them a Sunday-school answer: "You have to have faith," or "You can't question the Bible," or "Because God said so," rather than actually discussing the issue, so they end up believing that there are no answers to questions that honestly should be able to be answered rather easily, (not saying that there are not difficult questions, but they never get around to those because the typical Christian can't even answer the obvious ones).

 

Too many Christians never progress in their knowledge of the Bible. They know the Sunday school basics, but they don't go any deeper, and then they wonder why their kids leave the religion when they go to college, or why their non-Christian friends tend to dismiss them. People aren't looking for the shallow Christianity that is found in a large number, (dare I say the vast majority?) of typical Christians in America.

 

My best friend is a non-Christian, and we had all sorts of awesome discussions. We got along so well that we roomed together for 2 and a half years in college, (he was gone to Japan for a semester, otherwise would have been 3). As long as both sides actually debate and are willing to admit when they may not know the answer, I have no problem talking about anything.

 

I truly believe the Bible is the truth, and if that is the case, I welcome people to question it, because if it really is the truth, then it should be able to stand up to any questioning. I am not a person who takes things on blind faith merely because the Bible says so. Asking me questions also sharpens my ability to defend things, which is something we are commanded to do, (always be ready to give an answer for the faith that is within you), so I am always open to any questions, so long as both sides remain civil and actually want to discuss things.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Thanatos19

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

For what it's worth I think that the flood was global. And their were species of dinosaurs on the earth before/after the flood, and dinosaurs just ended up dying out from various reasons.

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

As...asshole-ish as their tone is about the subject/blunt as they are about it, I feel Penn and Teller's Bullshit series explains a lot of the flaws in the bible extremely well. Worth a watch:

 

Edited October 22, 2012 by .AirMcNair.

[BwareDWare94 723]

There is a very simple reason for many non-Christians approaching these questions kind of abrasively.

 

That reason being that most Christians they ask give them a Sunday-school answer: "You have to have faith," or "You can't question the Bible," or "Because God said so," rather than actually discussing the issue, so they end up believing that there are no answers to questions that honestly should be able to be answered rather easily, (not saying that there are not difficult questions, but they never get around to those because the typical Christian can't even answer the obvious ones).

 

Too many Christians never progress in their knowledge of the Bible. They know the Sunday school basics, but they don't go any deeper, and then they wonder why their kids leave the religion when they go to college, or why their non-Christian friends tend to dismiss them. People aren't looking for the shallow Christianity that is found in a large number, (dare I say the vast majority?) of typical Christians in America.

 

My best friend is a non-Christian, and we had all sorts of awesome discussions. We got along so well that we roomed together for 2 and a half years in college, (he was gone to Japan for a semester, otherwise would have been 3). As long as both sides actually debate and are willing to admit when they may not know the answer, I have no problem talking about anything.

 

I truly believe the Bible is the truth, and if that is the case, I welcome people to question it, because if it really is the truth, then it should be able to stand up to any questioning. I am not a person who takes things on blind faith merely because the Bible says so. Asking me questions also sharpens my ability to defend things, which is something we are commanded to do, (always be ready to give an answer for the faith that is within you), so I am always open to any questions, so long as both sides remain civil and actually want to discuss things.

 

I know what you mean about most Christians knowing nothing more. I know a lot of Catholics who don't even realize what Sacrilege is, and that they're committing it on a weekly basis. It's sad, the things people choose to hear because most priests mention it at least once a month.

 

I'm not saying I'm any better than these people, but to approach God and the responsibilities within their faith with such ignorance is beyond me.

Edited October 23, 2012 by BwareDWare94

[Thanatos 2,847]

As...asshole-ish as their tone is about the subject/blunt as they are about it, I feel Penn and Teller's Bullshit series explains a lot of the flaws in the bible extremely well.

 

Having watched the video, here are my responses. (This is going to be a long post). (Also Dr. Myers is an idiot.)

 

I also feel compelled to point out that if they did the same thing with the Qu'ran, the Muslims would be placing a jihad on them.

 

1. Shurmur's point about Genesis 1 and 2 is a classic point brought up by many people that believe the Bible is contradictory. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 do appear to be contradictory on the surface, but this is another case of a mixup between Hebrew and English.

 

Not, this time, because of a translational error, but because simply of how the Hebrews read and write their stories.

 

In English, when we write a story, we write it from start to finish, most of the time. Events occur in chronological order. This is not the case for a Hebrew. (Just as a sidenote, any conservative biblical scholar could have informed Penn and Teller of this rather easily, so I tend to believe that they didn't really try to get someone who could properly defend the Bible). A Hebrew, when he writes, finishes his idea.

 

The main idea of chapter 1 is the creation story. The entire story is told, albeit not completely, but a good outline, in chapter 1. Having finished his idea, the writer goes back to discuss the creation of man specifically. There is no contradiction needed at all. There is not two authors at work here, Dr. Myers is the liberal interpretation of four sources for the books of the Torah, (the first five books). I don't have time or space to go into why the 4-source theory is bunk, but it is.

 

One of the other points people bring up is Adam naming all the animals- surely that can't happen in a 24-period, thus either Adam didn't name all the animals, or Eve's creation didn't occur on the 6th day. Either way, a contradiction, right?

 

This one is a translational issue. The Hebrew word used is nefesh, which is incorrectly translated as animals. It is the opposite problem of the one with yom. We are translating nefesh as if it means animals. It does not. It generally means soul or life, but in this case it refers to a specific class of animals- most interpreters believe it to be animals which are useful to humans, such as cows, horses, etc. Given what I said earlier about there not being every species on the earth, and the better translation of nefesh, Adam could have named all the animals in a short time. There is no contradiction or impossibility here.

 

2. Regarding Elvis' chicken: What if the books that were written about his chicken all agreed on 99% of everything about Elvis' life? What if the points under dispute were miniscule things like the exact recipe used? Could we not easily conclude that A) Elvis existed, B) he was a great rock-and-roll artist C) he ate fried chicken D) his recipe was some combination of the ingredients listed.

 

3. Noah's ark. I already answered the question about being able to fit the animals in the ark in the previous post.

Again, Dr. Myers is an idiot. Ignore him.

 

Shurmur's point is the problem I have with the idea of the flood being global. How did the animals get all spread out from Turkey, (where we think Mt. Ararat), over the entirety of the globe?

 

4. Regarding the Hebrews being in Egypt: There are two problems with Penn and Teller's attack. First off, given that liberal biblical scholars dominate the global scene, they are giving the wrong time period to look in.

 

Secondly, while the evidence is scantier than what I would like, there is indeed evidence that the Israelites were in Egypt. First there are two inscriptions mentioning the "Habiru" people, which many scholars believe to be the Hebrews. Secondly, there is archaeological evidence at the sites of Jericho, Hazor, Lachish, Bethel, and Debir for the occurrence of the Exodus. The main issue is that biblical scholars are divided on a date for the exodus, which is because we in no way have a concrete list of when Egpytian kings rules and what dates they ruled, (their dating system is extraordinarily confusing, due to the fact that some kings appear to have ruled concurrently, rather than consecutively).

 

5. The Egpytian plagues do not occur concurrently, as far I can tell. Not sure if they're being serious or just trying to be funny here.

 

I'll be upfront and say that the killing of the Egyptian first-borns has always struck me as something hard to swallow. Pharoah obviously needed something beyond the plagues to get him to release the Israelis, but I would think there would be other ways.

 

6. The Red/Reed Sea is the standard liberal interpretation of the verse. I agree with Penn. Myer is pissing on his own feet. It was a miracle. There is nothing hard to believe about a miracle occurring if there is an all-powerful God, again, the question is the one behind this one: is there an all-powerful God concerned with the world?

 

7. Shurmur is correct that there were a lot of people claiming to be Messiah, but only a few ever gained a large following. Appolonius was not one of them- and he was around *after* Jesus, I believe.

 

8. The Resurrection: Not sure what the attack was here. There wasn't a discussion. You want an actual good demonstration of the Resurrection's proof, read the Case for Christ.

 

9. The Canon: No. Dear god, where did they found this guy? The way the canon developed was from the leaders of the churches getting together and putting together a list of the the gospels that met the requirements: 1. The authored by an apostle, or by a known associate of an apostle. (Apostle being one of the Twelve, or Paul). 2. It did not contradict already revealed Scripture.

 

Those that were not able to be verified as meeting these two requirements were tossed.

 

10. The passages in Leviticus and in Exodus is applicable only to the Israelis. So are the surrounding passages. If someone is using this passage, then they are missing the difference between ceremonial/civil/moral laws, which I guess I need to lay out. I shall do so in another post. The passage that is the problem occurs in Romans 1, yes, the New Testament, not in Levicitus.

 

I will point out that the "near" thing about a woman being on her period is talking about sexual relations, not proximity. The reason for that is because of the Israelis treated someone that is bleeding as unclean. Probably because of health reasons.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Thanatos19

[blotsfan 2,112]

I'll be upfront and say that the killing of the Egyptian first-borns has always struck me as something hard to swallow. Pharoah obviously needed something beyond the plagues to get him to release the Israelis, but I would think there would be other ways.

Honestly, I hate that part since it says something along the lines of "Pharaoh agreed to let the Jews go, but God then hardened Pharaoh's heart to get him to change his mind." Basically meaning that it was God wanting to make it suck for the Egyptians.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Honestly, I hate that part since it says something along the lines of "Pharaoh agreed to let the Jews go, but God then hardened Pharaoh's heart to get him to change his mind." Basically meaning that it was God wanting to make it suck for the Egyptians.

 

What happened was that Pharoah was going to let the Israelites go, but he wasn't going to let them take any of their possessions with them. He wanted them out, and he wanted them out as fast as he could possibly get them out.

 

Moses said that they must be allowed to take their possessions with them, including their livestock, and that the Egyptians would not take any of their livestock. (Most likely because the Israelites would not survive long in the desert without any cattle to eat.)

 

At that point, Pharoah refused to let them go.