Do you believe in God?

[Pako]

Does it really support the accuracy of the Bible, or does it only show all religions follow 1 common trait, to follow the word of their god?

Are not the people behind the writing of the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah, or the Vedas of different times & cultures? I believe they are, and yet, they aren't writing the same thing.

Not sure I follow what you are asking. Are you saying that since I pointed out that the writers of the Bible are from different times and cultures yet they write about the same thing which gives credence to the Bibles origins should also mean that the Qur'an, Vedas should also have the same writings as the Bible, and thus give the same validity to those other teachings based solely on the fact that they are writtings from different times and cultures, but since they don't it discredits the Bible's divine origins?

I guess I'm saying I don't quite follow your question.

 

[McLaren]

Ok, in spirit of studying other religions, what do you believe in?

The only religion that I prefer to look at is Hinduism as it is not really a religion in the same sense as many people are accustomed to.

Other than that, I am agnostic. I do not follow any religion.

 

[TofuStoreDrift]

I was asking because you said you believe in a higher power. What power do you believe in?

 

[McLaren]

Not sure I follow what you are asking. Are you saying that since I pointed out that the writers of the Bible are from different times and cultures yet they write about the same thing which gives credence to the Bibles origins should also mean that the Qur'an, Vedas should also have the same writings as the Bible, and thus give the same validity to those other teachings based solely on the fact that they are writtings from different times and cultures?

I guess I'm saying I don't quite follow your question.

From my understand, you used divine inspiration as a way to confirm the Bible because people from different times & cultures were writing the same thing. By technicality, were people of other religions also writing the same thing, i.e. the teachings & messages of their god?

I was asking because you said you believe in a higher power. What power do you believe in?

Look up Agnosticism. I believe that spiritual beings or other such claims can not be proven or dis-proven. I think there is something above us in short (higher power/God/etc.), but I don't necessarily believe that it has any relationship to earth or its creation, or see the term in the same light as you might.

 

[Pako]

From my understand, you used divine inspiration as a way to confirm the Bible because people from different times & cultures were writing the same thing. By technicality, were people of other religions also writing the same thing, i.e. the teachings & messages of their god?

To my knowledge, those other writings make no mention of Christ as the Messiah, the Savior, or that Christ is God even though there is mention that Christ might be a prophet, or an all around nice guy.

So to answer your question, I would say no.

The New Testament is the basis of Christianity and the core of my belief and it was also written by men that knew Christ personally.

Those other writings offer no such accounts as written in the Gospels.

Edit:
I enjoy our conversation and would love to continue but I have to wake up in 5 hours and have a long day ahead of me so I must say good night.

 

[McLaren]

The New Testament is the basis of Christianity and the core of my belief and it was also written by men that knew Christ personally.

True, but again, were those people not writing the same thing? The only difference is in the details. Your religion bases Jesus as the Son of God, or Messiah. The reason other religions don't use that term is because they don't believe he was the Son of God (as they already their own view of God), or use the term "Messiah" for other purposes such as priests, or prophets. The Savior, from my understanding, is just another term for Son of God/Jesus, and as before, other religions do not see him as such.

I just don't see it as divine inspiration, esp. when Christianity itself, is divided into multiple groups.

 

[Famine]

Greed and some of these so-called religions that teach their followers to kill in the name of their god, so they can have their 72 virgins, do cause alot of strife across the planet. 72 virgins, this to me sounds like a earthly lust, but my God promised me so much more. Not once has my God told me to kill, if I remember correctly, he told me that I shall not kill. He also told my not to steal, or commit adultery, so whats wrong with that?

A little later on he tells you not to eat prawns and that if a guy likes other guys you should stone him to death...

To my knowledge, those other writings make no mention of Christ as the Messiah, the Savior, or that Christ is God even though there is mention that Christ might be a prophet, or an all around nice guy.

So to answer your question, I would say no.

Almost all religious works claim, self-referentially so, to be the undiluted word of one god or another (or several). They can't all be right and there's no empirical way to determine which are wrong.

The New Testament is the basis of Christianity and the core of my belief and it was also written by men that knew Christ personally.

Which version of it?

 

[Christhedude]

I finally start to post into this thread.

I've been living in muslim countires almost my whole entire life. 18 out of 21 years.

With all respect to everyone and their religion/believes i dont believe in "god".

I wasnt raised with the believe in god, neither my parents are religious.
Being surrounded my muslims everyday, also my girlfriend is muslim, i just cant get it why.
Fine like i said, i wasnt raised this way ok, but i'm a person who needs always proof for things. Ok now a few people here are going to tell me things about proofs and non proofs, but that really doesnt do it for me.

For example CERN, i believe everyone knows what about talking about, if not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN

Once they proof that the big bang is really the creation of the universe, then i am confirmed that there is no such a "god". Its all evolution.

For example. When i watched the movie Angels and demons here in the cinema, so many muslims jumped up during the movie and starting shouting cause they got offended by CERN.

Again, with all respect i dont wanna cause any offence or hurt anyone here, i am just posting my opinion without wanting to harm anyone!

Chris

 

[TofuStoreDrift]

A little later on he tells you not to eat prawns and that if a guy likes other guys you should stone him to death...

I don't remember the Bible saying you should stone homosexuals, I remember the Bible saying that one man shall not lay with another. Granted, I haven't read the whole Bible, so I could be wrong. Now ask yourself this question, why are all creatures here? To go forth and multiply. How do two men, or two women, multiply? It goes against all things natural. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a gay basher.

 

[Famine]

I don't remember the Bible saying you should stone homosexuals, I remember the Bible saying that one man shall not lay with another. Granted, I haven't read the whole Bible, so I could be wrong.

13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

So you're not to kill, but you can put homosexuals to death. Smooth.

Do you eat prawns at all? If you do, just give up with the Ten Commandments tripe.

12: Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus is full of kooky little rules like this and is probably part of the reason most modern sects of Christianity ignore the Old Testament (including the Ten Commandments) completely and prefer to concentrate only on the New Testament - what with Jesus being the central figure of the religion, nothing that came before is considered relevant, as he's supposed to have forgiven all prior sin. It doesn't stop some of them quoting the part about homosexuals being put to death when it suits them though.

Of course the Old Testament itself is central to other religions - notably Judaism. The Qu'ran retells the stories of the Old and New Testaments, saying that, though the stories are largely true, they have been corrupted by Jews and Christians and that it, as the perfect word of God, is the real chronicle of those events.

Now ask yourself this question, why are all creatures here? To go forth and multiply. How do two men, or two women, multiply? It goes against all things natural.

So any activity which doesn't result in procreation is unnatural? Come on.

(not to mention the fact we've covered, several hundred times before, homosexuality in other animals)

 

[nk4e]

According to history, didn't Crusaders fight the holy war in the name of god?

 

[homeforsummer]

Multiple writters from different times and cultures writting the same thing? Sounds like divine inspiration.

Verbal stories, that at the time, were not treated as loosely as we treat virbal stories today. They were taught to upcomming generations with the upmost of care and strictness to acuracy of the non-written word.

I feel like you contradicted yourself a little in those two paragraphs. Divine inspiration? No, verbal tradition. The people who wrote the gospels commonly followed today are said to have done so 80-100 years after the life of Jesus (or more) and have apparently enjoyed many subsequent edits, as well as the Church picking and choosing the gospels that made Jesus sound divine.

80-100 years is enough of a gap for the stories to be vaguely accurate, but I've always believed that things like Jesus' miracles were largely symbolic - more metaphors for what he did rather than the actual events that took place.

There's no "divine inspiration" to writing about something that didn't happen too far in the past and many people can give accounts of, but if you imagine that these accounts have been given by people perhaps a little over-enthusiastic about a particularly helpful and inspired Prophet, it's easy to see that stories might have been exaggerated a little (think about a young child giving an account of something they thought was exciting... or a fisherman claiming he caught a fish <-------THIS---BIG------>...), and then perhaps embellished further when they were written.

Oh, have I upset you? I do agree that media is too liberal, but I don't need to look at the Qur'an to tell me anything. I know God, he knows me, I talk with him everyday and he answers my prayers. I don't know what I'd do without him. I have no reason to study other beliefs. I already know my name is written in the Lambs Book of Life. If you can't understand this, maybe its because you haven't been shown the light, and for that, I'll pray for you. I will forever stand behind my beliefs.

I know this post was directed at Rev, but I'd kindly ask you not to pray for those of us who do not believe in your God, and please do not suggest that we have not been shown the light. Both statements mark you out as ignorant and myopic, presuming that anyone who doesn't share your religious beliefs is somehow incomplete and that they are just waiting for the right moment to "find God".

Personally I am not religious, and I never will be. I do not need prayer, I do not need belief in a character that, as far as I am aware, does not exist, and I certainly do not need anyone feeling sorry for me because I don't share their beliefs.

Now ask yourself this question, why are all creatures here? To go forth and multiply. How do two men, or two women, multiply? It goes against all things natural.

All creatures aren't here for the sole purpose of breeding. Breeding is just something that happens in order to continue the advancement of a species. Personally I believe that we're actually here for pretty much no reason at all, other than that the conditions on our planet happen to be right for supporting life. At the same time on a more human level, I think that the gift of life is something to be enjoyed, and if some people are homosexual I see absolutely nothing wrong with that as it's much more "unnatural" to try and be something you aren't.

And as Famine mentioned, humans aren't the only creatures on the planet that display homosexual behaviour. Here are a few more:
- Apes (no surprise there. Apparently most Bonobos are bisexual)
- Dolphins (who have been observed in heterosexual and homosexual oral sex)
- Penguins (who actually develop lasting homosexual bonds - two penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo spent six years "paired" and actually tried to hatch a rock Their keepers gave them an egg which they managed to hatch, and interestingly, their daughter is now paired with another female)
- Ducks (often form lesbian couples).

So the "unnatural" arguement just doesn't stand, if creatures apparently without the "choice" that humans have can still be homosexual. And there is much evidence to suggest that homosexuality is genetic too, so I suspect that many have no more choice in their sexual preference than they do about the colour of their skin.

 

[Joey D]

If you can't understand this, maybe its because you haven't been shown the light, and for that, I'll pray for you. I will forever stand behind my beliefs.

Only pray for me if it's to Thor or Odin please.

This is one thing I never understood about some many Christians, why or why do you feel like you need to pray for me to help me see your way? It's been this way for centuries too. If I need Christian prayers I'll ask a priest.

 

[Pako]

According to history, didn't Crusaders fight the holy war in the name of god?

Ask yourself, were they acting as Christ did? The answer is no. Where they Christians? The answer would be no.

A little later on he tells you not to eat prawns and that if a guy likes other guys you should stone him to death...



Almost all religious works claim, self-referentially so, to be the undiluted word of one god or another (or several). They can't all be right and there's no empirical way to determine which are wrong.



Which version of it?

You are correct that one religion cannot prove the other wrong. Moses did show, however, that my God can beat up their god.

Remember that Christ did away with the old law (The Old Testament), He became the ultimate sacrifice of our sins so the old law was no longer required. You can imagine what kind of stir this would have caused the church. Ever wonder why his own people crucified him?

True, but again, were those people not writing the same thing? The only difference is in the details. Your religion bases Jesus as the Son of God, or Messiah. The reason other religions don't use that term is because they don't believe he was the Son of God (as they already their own view of God), or use the term "Messiah" for other purposes such as priests, or prophets. The Savior, from my understanding, is just another term for Son of God/Jesus, and as before, other religions do not see him as such.

I just don't see it as divine inspiration, esp. when Christianity itself, is divided into multiple groups.

True, there are some similarities, but the Bible is the only written word that documents Christ as the risen Savior fullfilling the prophecy of the Messiah as written in the Old Testament.

So you're not to kill, but you can put homosexuals to death. Smooth.

Do you eat prawns at all? If you do, just give up with the Ten Commandments tripe.



Leviticus is full of kooky little rules like this and is probably part of the reason most modern sects of Christianity ignore the Old Testament (including the Ten Commandments) completely and prefer to concentrate only on the New Testament - what with Jesus being the central figure of the religion, nothing that came before is considered relevant, as he's supposed to have forgiven all prior sin. It doesn't stop some of them quoting the part about homosexuals being put to death when it suits them though.

Of course the Old Testament itself is central to other religions - notably Judaism. The Qu'ran retells the stories of the Old and New Testaments, saying that, though the stories are largely true, they have been corrupted by Jews and Christians and that it, as the perfect word of God, is the real chronicle of those events.



So any activity which doesn't result in procreation is unnatural? Come on.

(not to mention the fact we've covered, several hundred times before, homosexuality in other animals)

Again, old law versus new law, Old Testament vs. New Testament.

I feel like you contradicted yourself a little in those two paragraphs. Divine inspiration? No, verbal tradition. The people who wrote the gospels commonly followed today are said to have done so 80-100 years after the life of Jesus (or more) and have apparently enjoyed many subsequent edits, as well as the Church picking and choosing the gospels that made Jesus sound divine.

80-100 years is enough of a gap for the stories to be vaguely accurate, but I've always believed that things like Jesus' miracles were largely symbolic - more metaphors for what he did rather than the actual events that took place.

There's no "divine inspiration" to writing about something that didn't happen too far in the past and many people can give accounts of, but if you imagine that these accounts have been given by people perhaps a little over-enthusiastic about a particularly helpful and inspired Prophet, it's easy to see that stories might have been exaggerated a little (think about a young child giving an account of something they thought was exciting... or a fisherman claiming he caught a fish <-------THIS---BIG------>...), and then perhaps embellished further when they were written.

I don't see it that way. The "word" wasn't tradition, but rather the strict nature of preserving the word was tradition and therefore see no contradiction in my understanding.

To what benefit is there for the disciples to exaggerate or lie about the events of Christ? Stand in the shoes of one of the disciples of Christ, place yourself in the time of Christ. You just saw your beloved friend and teacher crucified, buried, and come back to life....later to ascent into heaven. You were given the task to spread the good word and share what you have learned at the expense of being hunted down and killed for what you were teaching others. The most effective way to do this is not with written word, as most people of that time couldn't even read. Such skill was reserved for the most scholared of people. Fast forward 65-80 years of this kind of persecution, you finally find a place where you can settle down and reflect of the events of your life knowing that you are one of the lucky ones to have not been killed for your beliefs and are in a safe place where you can begin to document the events for future generations. Given the miraculous nature of the life of Christ, those memories would be as vivid then as they were when it happened.

Only pray for me if it's to Thor or Odin please.

This is one thing I never understood about some many Christians, why or why do you feel like you need to pray for me to help me see your way? It's been this way for centuries too. If I need Christian prayers I'll ask a priest.

I pray for people all the time, but don't feel the need the tell them. I can see how someone saying, "I will pray for your soul" would come off as arrogance, and in some cases it is. It other cases, it's a true act of compassion whether or not you feel you need it. If I pray for someone, it's because I truly care for that person and sometimes, prayer is the only way to express that.


I want to note that I am not here to persuade anyone’s thinking or to change any one’s belief or lack there of. It’s easy to get defensive when you are talking about what someone believes to be true or have come to an understanding based on scientific fact. It is not my intent to ruffle any feathers here but rather to provide some insight into why I believe what I believe and how it has benefited my life and the lives around me. It is my testament of faith and nothing more.

I base my belief on this:
Philosophically and Scientific - Humans having an born and instinctual sense of right and wrong. Being able to appreciate beauty and to feel emotions with no evolutionary response to "survival" leads me to believe that were given these gifts of insight from a higher being. It has been argued that higher brain development accidentally connected and developed parts of the brain to give us such abilities as love, empathy, compassion, appreciation of a sunset, the sensation of pleasures, but there is no evolutionary motivation for this. In looking into the cosmos, I get a sense of not being along, I can't have faith that we are it, there has got to be more....

Biblical, Faith and life experience - The Bible provides the architecture for my lifestyle and provides purpose beyond my own personal attention. Interestingly enough, a selfless lifestyle provides much self peace and contentment as personal growth that the self benefits are worth noting. Fellow Christ followers also provide examples of "what I want" with how they live and the peace of mind that they have that no matter what the circumstance, they will be take care of. Eternal life also has its benefits. After all, if I'm wrong and there really is no God, I still will have lived a full and complete life and when I die, I won't know the difference. However, if I picked the right team, the benefits are unimaginable.

 

[Famine]

Remember that Christ did away with the old law (The Old Testament),

Again, old law versus new law, Old Testament vs. New Testament.

Indeed - I covered that:

most modern sects of Christianity ignore the Old Testament (including the Ten Commandments) completely and prefer to concentrate only on the New Testament - what with Jesus being the central figure of the religion, nothing that came before is considered relevant, as he's supposed to have forgiven all prior sin

Which is why I find it interesting when some "Christians" will stick rigidly to Creationism (OT), espouse the Ten Commandments (OT) and are anti-gay (OT) but look at you wild-eyed when you suggest they don't have any shellfish or pork (OT).

If you accept the creation account, it makes little sense to reject shellfish-shunning. Hence the question

You are correct that one religion cannot prove the other wrong. Moses did show, however, that my God can beat up their god.

In the case of Judaism, Moses' God IS your God. Same in the case of Islam - where the major work claims that the Biblical account has been corrupted by man and it tells the real story. Indeed it's mainly written in the first person...

 

[Touring Mars]

If you accept the creation account, it makes little sense to reject shellfish-shunning. Hence the question

I believe Richard Dawkins discusses this in his book, "The Shellfish Gene"...?



edit: Interesting post Pako, and I would like to pick up on a couple of points in more detail later...

 

[Exorcet]

Ask yourself, were they acting as Christ did? The answer is no. Where they Christians? The answer would be no.

I think the entire church supported the Crusades.

You are correct that one religion cannot prove the other wrong. Moses did show, however, that my God can beat up their god.

And if Constantine didn't make Christianity legal, and paganism won in the end, there could have been a story Baal defeating the non existent god of a crazy guy with a staff. I don't think Moses was actually the one who challenged the followers of Baal, but the point is Moses is only correct because the people who wrote the book wanted him to be correct.

Ever wonder why his own people crucified him?

Rome probably crucified him, thinking he was trying to start a political revolt.

True, there are some similarities, but the Bible is the only written word that documents Christ as the risen Savior fullfilling the prophecy of the Messiah as written in the Old Testament.

That could be the Bible's error then, maybe the other religions were right. You were saying that's it's amazing how so many people wrote the same story, implying that numbers = correctness. Yet here you side with the minority.

To what benefit is there for the disciples to exaggerate or lie about the events of Christ?

Fast forward 65-80 years of this kind of persecution, you finally find a place where you can settle down and reflect of the events of your life knowing that you are one of the lucky ones to have not been killed for your beliefs and are in a safe place where you can begin to document the events for future generations. Given the miraculous nature of the life of Christ, those memories would be as vivid then as they were when it happened.

To gain followers

Christians were still persecuted long after Jesus' death. They were considered the scum of Roman society, and there are accounts of official Roman persecution of Christians during the reign of Emperor Trajan (~ 100 A.D) and beyond. It wasn't until Constantine (~300 A.D) that Christianity was legalized. Even then there was still occasional killings. Safety didn't come 65 years later (ironic that you use that date, as 64 AD was the great fire of Rome, and Nero blamed and killed Christians for it). As for the claim of vividness, I'm more inclined to believe that the stories would be exaggerated since no one writing them down would have witnessed them. It was oral tradition, and that can't easily change over time.

It has been argued that higher brain development accidentally connected and developed parts of the brain to give us such abilities as love, empathy, compassion, appreciation of a sunset, the sensation of pleasures, but there is no evolutionary motivation for this. In looking into the cosmos, I get a sense of not being along, I can't have faith that we are it, there has got to be more....

Biblical, Faith and life experience - The Bible provides the architecture for my lifestyle and provides purpose beyond my own personal attention. Interestingly enough, a selfless lifestyle provides much self peace and contentment as personal growth that the self benefits are worth noting. Fellow Christ followers also provide examples of "what I want" with how they live and the peace of mind that they have that no matter what the circumstance, they will be take care of. Eternal life also has its benefits. After all, if I'm wrong and there really is no God, I still will have lived a full and complete life and when I die, I won't know the difference. However, if I picked the right team, the benefits are unimaginable.

Emotions developed as "motivation". Love is an easy example, it promotes mating, which promotes the continuation of humanity. Pleasure causes you to do things that you find pleasurable, so it's motivation to live and keep the species going, etc.

"if I'm wrong and there really is no God, I still will have lived a full and complete life and when I die, I won't know the difference. However, if I picked the right team, the benefits are unimaginable."

The first part is pretty true. However, you exaggerate the second part. You act as if your chances of being right are 50%. But there are various other religions. And there are infinite ways for all religions to be partially or totally wrong. Saying that Christianity has a 1% chance of being totally right is being extremely generous.

Also, God does not imply eternal life (A Christian God does however). Eternal life does not imply God. You can have one without the other.

 

[Pako]

Indeed - I covered that:



Which is why I find it interesting when some "Christians" will stick rigidly to Creationism (OT), espouse the Ten Commandments (OT) and are anti-gay (OT) but look at you wild-eyed when you suggest they don't have any shellfish or pork (OT).

If you accept the creation account, it makes little sense to reject shellfish-shunning. Hence the question



In the case of Judaism, Moses' God IS your God. Same in the case of Islam - where the major work claims that the Biblical account has been corrupted by man and it tells the real story. Indeed it's mainly written in the first person...

Sorry about that...I missed that section.

Indeed, you are correct. Personally I find some things in the Old Testament that support the more current teachings of Christ, other than that, it's an entertaining read (sometimes) while other times I feel like stabing myself in the eye reading the geneology of Abraham.

I can certainly apply Christ's teachings to my life today, whereas, the Old Testament doesn't offer a lot of "life examples" that will change the way I live.

I think the entire church supported the Crusades.
You are missing my point, if you are calling yourself a Christian but going against Christ's teachings (in the case of the Crusades) to gain power, you are in fact, not a Christian in the true sense of being a Christ follower.

And if Constantine didn't make Christianity legal, and paganism won in the end, there could have been a story Baal defeating the non-existent god of a crazy guy with a staff. I don't think Moses was actually the one who challenged the followers of Baal, but the point is Moses is only correct because the people who wrote the book wanted him to be correct.
That would be your opinion, which differs from mine.


Rome probably crucified him, thinking he was trying to start a political revolt.
It was actually a Roman official that tried to spare Jesus' life by giving the people (namely Jews) the option to trade a murder's spot for Christ on the cross. The people choose to let the murder free so they could crucify Christ.

That could be the Bible's error then, maybe the other religions were right. You were saying that's it's amazing how so many people wrote the same story, implying that numbers = correctness. Yet here you side with the minority.
I was merely implying that independent sources came up with the same story, thereby providing validity to it.






To gain followers
At the expense of their life? With no personal gain of power or wealth by gaining said followers? I don't think so. Wasn't Peter decapitated after being thrown in prison multiple times? (I could have the wrong disciple here) That should have sent a very strong message to the rest of the disciples.

Christians were still persecuted long after Jesus' death. They were considered the scum of Roman society, and there are accounts of official Roman persecution of Christians during the reign of Emperor Trajan (~ 100 A.D) and beyond. It wasn't until Constantine (~300 A.D) that Christianity was legalized. Even then there was still occasional killings. Safety didn't come 65 years later (ironic that you use that date, as 64 AD was the great fire of Rome, and Nero blamed and killed Christians for it). As for the claim of vividness, I'm more inclined to believe that the stories would be exaggerated since no one writing them down would have witnessed them. It was oral tradition, and that can't easily change over time.

By then, written word was taught and was being used. Hence where the Gospels came from. I think you missed the picture I was painting for you.



Emotions developed as "motivation". Love is an easy example, it promotes mating, which promotes the continuation of humanity. Pleasure causes you to do things that you find pleasurable, so it's motivation to live and keep the species going, etc.
I will kindly disagree that love came out of the need to propagate. I love a lot of things that I have no intention to mate with. The fact that you might be implying that such feelings and awareness of our surrounds are a mere bi-product of higher levels of brain development do not support the evolutionary process in my estimation. Drinking to death, although may be pleasurable, does not promote species continuation. What of my other examples I gave? How does appreciation for a sunset or a snow capped mountain range promote the continuation of humanity?

"if I'm wrong and there really is no God, I still will have lived a full and complete life and when I die, I won't know the difference. However, if I picked the right team, the benefits are unimaginable."

The first part is pretty true. However, you exaggerate the second part. You act as if your chances of being right are 50%. But there are various other religions. And there are infinite ways for all religions to be partially or totally wrong. Saying that Christianity has a 1% chance of being totally right is being extremely generous.

Yes, Christ is very generous, I would agree. As to other religions, see my previous points.

Also, God does not imply eternal life (A Christian God does however). Eternal life does not imply God. You can have one without the other.
Not according to what I believe. We have different beliefs in regards to your statement.

See replies in red.

I believe Richard Dawkins discusses this in his book, "The Shellfish Gene"...?



edit: Interesting post Pako, and I would like to pick up on a couple of points in more detail later...

Looking forward to your read, as always.

 

[Touring Mars]

I base my belief on this:
Philosophically and Scientific - Humans having an born and instinctual sense of right and wrong. Being able to appreciate beauty and to feel emotions with no evolutionary response to "survival" leads me to believe that were given these gifts of insight from a higher being. It has been argued that higher brain development accidentally connected and developed parts of the brain to give us such abilities as love, empathy, compassion, appreciation of a sunset, the sensation of pleasures, but there is no evolutionary motivation for this.

I would argue that there was a great evolutionary motivation for these abilities - survival. I doubt, however, that humans possess the capabilities you mention because they were "gifts" from God, but rather that these abilities may confer survival advantages. But let's not forget that all of these "positive" attributes also have "negative" counterbalances that are just as prevalent in human society - love and hate, care and neglect, brotherhood and rivalry, altruism and greed, beauty and ugliness etc. - but even these corollaries can, in certain circumstances, confer a survival advantage... none are inherently good and none are inherently evil, but are relative. Family, kinship and brotherhood may give me a greater chance of living to adulthood, but these notions also compel me to consider taking the food from the mouth of a starving child and giving it to my starving child in order for him to survive. Just because we can enjoy a Dali painting (see avatar!), or create symphonies, or express love for our fellow man, doesn't mean that we are inherently "good", let alone "divine" in our behaviour. One thing is painfully obvious from observing nature, which is that it can be brutal and harsh - and we are no exceptions, despite our ability to behave otherwise when required.

As to why we humans currently enjoy the role of dominant species on the planet, I would argue that this isn't because we were merely plonked on our throne by an invisible hand and 'gifted' dominion over all we survey, but rather that we got here because our abilities (both "good" and "bad", as defined above) have been honed through millions of years of relentless competition (i.e. a battle for survival), and have made us the ultimate superpredators of our times - equally fierce in both love and hate. One major reason why I support this view and not the "divine coronation" view is a simple one - that humanity didn't always rule the roost... not because we weren't good enough before, but simply because we weren't even here! The evidence for life prior to humanity is overwhelming and totally compelling - hence my view is that whether God exists or not, we aren't so much the "chosen ones" as the "current champions".

 

[McLaren]

True, there are some similarities, but the Bible is the only written word that documents Christ as the risen Savior fullfilling the prophecy of the Messiah as written in the Old Testament.

Again, that's because only the Bible sees him as such, while other religions regard to him as something else.

If all religions saw him as the Savior, it would make the whole concept of religions easier to understand, though.

 

[Richardrfo]

From the 'Missing Link' thread

I'm going to shut up on for now, but I will leave you with this. Scientists will study cave paintings and listen to what they have to say, yet the one book thats been handed down for generations, on stone tablets, on scrolls, and in books that have been published more than any other, they throw it out the window. If natural selection weeded off certain primate features so we could exist, how come we still have monkeys? Shouldn't they evolved to humans aswell? I'm mean, aren't we the perfect species, since we conquered the whole planet? Any piece of land humans desire, we take it, either be force or technology. Let me ask you this, why were we chose to be the smartest creature on Earth? I'd like to believe it is because Eve ate the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. That to me explains why us human have been able to one thing no other known creature has ever been able to do, argue with someone else on the other side of the planet. Now I'm not trying to push my views on you, I'm just trying to open your eyes to other possiblies. God bless.

Oh, have I upset you? I do agree that media is too liberal, but I don't need to look at the Qur'an to tell me anything. I know God, he knows me, I talk with him everyday and he answers my prayers. I don't know what I'd do without him. I have no reason to study other beliefs. I already know my name is written in the Lambs Book of Life. If you can't understand this, maybe its because you haven't been shown the light, and for that, I'll pray for you. I will forever stand behind my beliefs.

Practice what you preach?

 

[StrokerAce]

I cant wait, even after I pass on that religion will die. Religion sects are slowly dying its shown.

But I dont even prefer to be called agnostic or atheist I am in no sect. I just cant stand what religion has done to this world. It really has ruined it.

 

[McLaren]

I cant wait, even after I pass on that religion will die. Religion sects are slowly dying its shown.

But I dont even prefer to be called agnostic or atheist I am in no sect. I just cant stand what religion has done to this world. It really has ruined it.

Agnosticism isn't a religion. It's the way of thinking that spiritual beings can not be proven or dis-proven. It's something like Hinduism.

 

[Pako]

I would argue that there was a great evolutionary motivation for these abilities - survival. I doubt, however, that humans possess the capabilities you mention because they were "gifts" from God, but rather that these abilities may confer survival advantages. But let's not forget that all of these "positive" attributes also have "negative" counterbalances that are just as prevalent in human society - love and hate, care and neglect, brotherhood and rivalry, altruism and greed, beauty and ugliness etc. - but even these corollaries can, in certain circumstances, confer a survival advantage... none are inherently good and none are inherently evil, but are relative. Family, kinship and brotherhood may give me a greater chance of living to adulthood, but these notions also compel me to consider taking the food from the mouth of a starving child and giving it to my starving child in order for him to survive. Just because we can enjoy a Dali painting (see avatar!), or create symphonies, or express love for our fellow man, doesn't mean that we are inherently "good", let alone "divine" in our behavior. One thing is painfully obvious from observing nature, which is that it can be brutal and harsh - and we are no exceptions, despite our ability to behave otherwise when required.

As to why we humans currently enjoy the role of dominant species on the planet, I would argue that this isn't because we were merely plonked on our throne by an invisible hand and 'gifted' dominion over all we survey, but rather that we got here because our abilities (both "good" and "bad", as defined above) have been honed through millions of years of relentless competition (i.e. a battle for survival), and have made us the ultimate super predators of our times - equally fierce in both love and hate. One major reason why I support this view and not the "divine coronation" view is a simple one - that humanity didn't always rule the roost... not because we weren't good enough before, but simply because we weren't even here! The evidence for life prior to humanity is overwhelming and totally compelling - hence my view is that whether God exists or not, we aren't so much the "chosen ones" as the "current champions".

Oh yes, I completely agree that there are two sides to it. Good and evil maybe?

I understand what you are saying, and for me, it takes equal faith with no life changing event to come to a belief that I can appreciate the beauty around me as a means of a evolutionary trigger for survival. Equally so, the compassion of a mother or the sacrifice of ones own life for another that is not the dominant surviver of the two. The survival instinct would let the other person die without self sacrifice. Although this action would further promotion of the the "compassion" gene (for the sake of a evolutionary mechanism), it in no way would promote the survival of the species. Yet why do we do it? How can we, as a species, express non-survival tendencies? Is it a way for evolution to attempt to weed out the weak ones in the species? Are we such a dominate species that we can cheat evolution itself? It's an interesting thought, but I don't think so. There is no doubt in my mind that there were species before man, the Bible, long before our current Scientific knowledge supports this claim as well.

I respect your views and thank you for your reply.

If I am going to have faith in something and have a belief where I have to make certian assumptions, I would rather have faith in something with a little more return for my investment.

Again, that's because only the Bible sees him as such, while other religions regard to him as something else.

If all religions saw him as the Savior, it would make the whole concept of religions easier to understand, though.

It certainly would be. I find it amazing that there are different religions that mention Christ at all, really. Even most non-believers "believe" that Christ was a real person, although it seems more people these days are even trying to refute that.

 

[StrokerAce]

Agnosticism isn't a religion. It's the way of thinking that spiritual beings can not be proven or dis-proven. It's something like Hinduism.

Um... You called it a religion, not me, I called it a sect. There are atheist gatherings, not quite churches but meetings if you will. Trust me,I know what being an agnostic is too, I was one for quite awhile. 👍

 

[Exorcet]

You are missing my point, if you are calling yourself a Christian but going against Christ's teachings (in the case of the Crusades) to gain power, you are in fact, not a Christian in the true sense of being a Christ follower.

OK

That would be your opinion, which differs from mine.

How was it my opinion? Do you mean when I said I was unsure if Moses was the one who challenged Baal? I meant that to be taken as "I don't remember if Moses was the one who challenged Baal in the Bible". Other than that, I don't see what's opinion. I presented a possibility.

It was actually a Roman official that tried to spare Jesus' life by giving the people (namely Jews) the option to trade a murder's spot for Christ on the cross. The people choose to let the murder free so they could crucify Christ.

But you have to realize the circumstances under which the Bible was written. Rome ruled most of the known world, and the monotheistic religions were on thin ice with pagan Rome. If the Jews condemned the Roman government, it could have lead to a mass killing. It's also strange that a Roman governor would give in to a random crowd of people. Someone with better knowledge on this might be able to explain better.

I was merely implying that independent sources came up with the same story, thereby providing validity to it.

It's not really independence if it's just passed from generation to generation.





At the expense of their life? With no personal gain of power or wealth by gaining said followers? I don't think so. Wasn't Peter decapitated after being thrown in prison multiple times? (I could have the wrong disciple here) That should have sent a very strong message to the rest of the disciples.

By then, written word was taught and was being used. Hence where the Gospels came from. I think you missed the picture I was painting for you.

Language was around before Jesus. Rome had both home schooling and public schools. The delay in writing the gospels wasn't due to literacy as far as I know.

I will kindly disagree that love came out of the need to propagate. I love a lot of things that I have no intention to mate with. The fact that you might be implying that such feelings and awareness of our surrounds are a mere bi-product of higher levels of brain development do not support the evolutionary process in my estimation. Drinking to death, although may be pleasurable, does not promote species continuation. What of my other examples I gave? How does appreciation for a sunset or a snow capped mountain range promote the continuation of humanity?

OK, different love. That's the development of Social bonds, which allowed people to group into civilization and increase the chance at survival. Feelings and awareness fit perfectly with evolutionary theory. As long as there is a driving force that makes a certain characteristic or trait beneficial to an organism, there's a good chance that trait will be passed on.

Your drinking example doesn't disprove that feelings came from evolution. Pleasure didn't evolve to make people like drinking (which I don't happen to like), it evolved to make people live for things they like (these things being life necessities like food). This doesn't mean it can't backfire, so to speak. Evolution does not "look" into the future, it only sees what's going on in the present and addresses present needs.

The sunset example could be related to curiosity, the drive to learn is what lead people to develop modern technology, which increased the survival rate and standard of living.

Yes, Christ is very generous, I would agree. As to other religions, see my previous points.

You misunderstood. I didn't say that Jesus was or was not generous, I said that it is overly optimistic to think that Christianity is totally correct even with 1% confidence. As far as we know, it's more likely to be wrong than right. You seemed to be saying that it has a 50% chance of being correct.

"Also, God does not imply eternal life (A Christian God does however). Eternal life does not imply God. You can have one without the other."
Not according to what I believe. We have different beliefs in regards to your statement.

What I said is not a belief, it's a logical statement. God and the afterlife are separate things. Thus they can theoretically exist separately. It's only in Christian/religious doctrine that God and the afterlife must coexist. I did not say that it is certain that God does not exist but the afterlife does, or vice versa. I said that the concept of an afterlife is completely independent of the concept of a god.

Oh yes, I completely agree that there are two sides to it. Good and evil maybe?

Equally so, the compassion of a mother or the sacrifice of ones own life for another that is not the dominant surviver of the two. The survival instinct would let the other person die without self sacrifice. Although this action would further promotion of the the "compassion" gene (for the sake of a evolutionary mechanism), it in no way would promote the survival of the species. Yet why do we do it? How can we, as a species, express non-survival tendencies? Is it a way for evolution to attempt to weed out the weak ones in the species?

This can be a topic in and of itself. The brain is a complex thing. However, I can still cite instances in nature where evolution leads to these situations. I'm sure you've seen two animals fighting for territory. Sometimes it ends with one dying. Likewise, the desire to continue the species leads an organism (at least certain ones) to protect their offspring. Sometimes this can conflict with the organism's will to survive. Just as there are cases of parents dying for their children, I'm sure there are cases of parents who gave into fear. Then there are even worse cases, such as abuse. Evolution does not mean all errors are flushed away, that would mean that evolution was perfected, and no longer be able to continue.

 

[Joey D]

It certainly would be. I find it amazing that there are different religions that mention Christ at all, really. Even most non-believers "believe" that Christ was a real person, although it seems more people these days are even trying to refute that.

It's because there isn't any evidence that suggests Jesus was a real person as far as I know. Also there are several life-death-rebirth stories throughout various world religions which means Jesus could have easily been invented to help pursued others to follow Christianity.

 

[Pako]

OK


How was it my opinion? Do you mean when I said I was unsure if Moses was the one who challenged Baal? I meant that to be taken as "I don't remember if Moses was the one who challenged Baal in the Bible". Other than that, I don't see what's opinion. I presented a possibility.


But you have to realize the circumstances under which the Bible was written. Rome ruled most of the known world, and the monotheistic religions were on thin ice with pagan Rome. If the Jews condemned the Roman government, it could have lead to a mass killing. It's also strange that a Roman governor would give in to a random crowd of people. Someone with better knowledge on this might be able to explain better.


It's not really independence if it's just passed from generation to generation.





At the expense of their life? With no personal gain of power or wealth by gaining said followers? I don't think so. Wasn't Peter decapitated after being thrown in prison multiple times? (I could have the wrong disciple here) That should have sent a very strong message to the rest of the disciples.


Language was around before Jesus. Rome had both home schooling and public schools. The delay in writing the gospels wasn't due to literacy as far as I know.


OK, different love. That's the development of Social bonds, which allowed people to group into civilization and increase the chance at survival. Feelings and awareness fit perfectly with evolutionary theory. As long as there is a driving force that makes a certain characteristic or trait beneficial to an organism, there's a good chance that trait will be passed on.

Your drinking example doesn't disprove that feelings came from evolution. Pleasure didn't evolve to make people like drinking (which I don't happen to like), it evolved to make people live for things they like (these things being life necessities like food). This doesn't mean it can't backfire, so to speak. Evolution does not "look" into the future, it only sees what's going on in the present and addresses present needs.

The sunset example could be related to curiosity, the drive to learn is what lead people to develop modern technology, which increased the survival rate and standard of living.


You misunderstood. I didn't say that Jesus was or was not generous, I said that it is overly optimistic to think that Christianity is totally correct even with 1% confidence. As far as we know, it's more likely to be wrong than right. You seemed to be saying that it has a 50% chance of being correct.



What I said is not a belief, it's a logical statement. God and the afterlife are separate things. Thus they can theoretically exist separately. It's only in Christian/religious doctrine that God and the afterlife must coexist. I did not say that it is certain that God does not exist but the afterlife does, or vice versa. I said that the concept of an afterlife is completely independent of the concept of a god.

I'll have to wade through the plethora of misunderstandings we are having in this conversation. I am misunderstanding you and likewise, you are misunderstanding me. I'll try to address this barrier we call the internet and get back to ya.

It's because there isn't any evidence that suggests Jesus was a real person as far as I know. Also there are several life-death-rebirth stories throughout various world religions which means Jesus could have easily been invented to help pursued others to follow Christianity.

Do we have a wrapped up mommy of Jesus? No, he ascended into Heaven remember? Convenience or fact?

Do we know where the tomb of Christ was? Yes.

Do we know when Jesus lived? Yes.

Do we have documented eye witness accounts of his life? Yes.

Is this the best evidence we have? Yes.

Will we ever have a photograph or finger prints, video tape, or other modern media? Of course not.

Has this man called Jesus changed millions of lives around the world? Yes.

Do we have cloths from Christ? Maybe, Google the Shroud of Turin.

Even people who don't think he was the Son of God, still think he was a real person. You decide.

 

[homeforsummer]

I don't see it that way. The "word" wasn't tradition, but rather the strict nature of preserving the word was tradition and therefore see no contradiction in my understanding.

Apologies then, I misunderstood so I take back the contradiction remark.

To what benefit is there for the disciples to exaggerate or lie about the events of Christ?

No benefit, but then they likely weren't acting with that in mind, and I certainly doubt that they were expecting people 2000 years in the future to be repeating and discussing the stories.

Think about it - if one of your mates did great good for a great many people (even if these events weren't actual miracles in the same style as the miracles that Jesus supposedly performed were), you'd probably rave about it down the pub, and even from that first-hand experience, the story might be slightly exaggerated from the truth. It's only natural if you're excited about something. This is why I mentioned about the archetypal fisherman exaggerating the size of the fish he caught, or the youngster excitedly telling an adult about what they did at school and making it sound much more interesting than it actually was.

Now think about that same story being told 80-100 years later when the gospels we commonly use today were being written, and have a think about how accurate you think those accounts might be, regardless of the importance of messages passed on orally. They're hardly going to write about how Jesus was "alright" at what he did - in all likelihood, the gospels that did just that have likely been pushed to the side many hundreds of years ago in order to make Christ look divine rather than just an ordinary person doing extraordinary things.

You just saw your beloved friend and teacher crucified, buried, and come back to life....later to ascent into heaven.

Clearly, this is a particular part of Jesus' life that I struggle to believe.

Fast forward 65-80 years of this kind of persecution, you finally find a place where you can settle down and reflect of the events of your life knowing that you are one of the lucky ones to have not been killed for your beliefs and are in a safe place where you can begin to document the events for future generations.

Here we have two major problems - firstly, and I don't mean to be ageist at all, but generally the elderly (and I suspect if anyone was in the situation you mention they'd likely be pretty old) are not demographic most known for remembering things. Sure, I've met some older people whose minds are as sharp as a dagger but in general your memory tends to fade a little the older you get.

The second flaw is life expectancy. Do you really think that those living in the same time as Jesus would likely be the same people writing it 100 years later? Life expectancy must only have been around 50 years old back then (at a guess) and with that in mind the message may well have already been passed on once or twice, which again leaves questions about the accuracy of events. Chinese Whispers, I think the commonly-used term is.

Given the miraculous nature of the life of Christ, those memories would be as vivid then as they were when it happened.

This again comes down to your beliefs, I guess. But despite the importance they apparently placed upon the accuracy of storytelling, there are always limits and we aren't just talking about the accuracy of one story told by one man, we're talking about the accuracy of several people all with different perspectives, trying to relay the story of a person's entire life. In those conditions I'd suggest that it's impossible for an accurate account to still be accurate one hundred years later.

Oh, and with regard to your post above, I'm only too happy to accept that he was a real person - I'm just happier believing, as Judaism does, that he was simply a prophet who had a particular impact on the lives of those around him

 

[Joey D]

Do we have a wrapped up mommy of Jesus? No, he ascended into Heaven remember? Convenience or fact?

Your myths say he ascended into heaven, whether he did or not is another story. There is no scientific evidence to support that a human being can magically levitate into the clouds, so for the time being I'm going to say Jesus. To me it sounds like a cleaver way for the church to cover up a mythical person.

Do we know where the tomb of Christ was? Yes.

Seems to me there is debate over which is the tomb of Jesus. If Jesus existed I think there is probably a good chance the tomb that was profiled in the James Cameron's The Lost Tomb of Jesus is probably the correct one.

Do we know when Jesus lived? Yes.

We sort of know there is about a 100 years it seems in which he could have lived, although in an archaeological time scale that's not really anything major. I'll give you that one.

Do we have documented eye witness accounts of his life? Yes.

How accurate are they though? We have documented eyewitness accounts of flying saucers and even alien abductions, but how believable are those? Plus the eyewitness, recorded documentation has gone through 2,000 or so years of translation which I'm guessing means they were exaggerated a tad.

Is this the best evidence we have? Yes.

I agree, but it's not very sound or compelling evidence to say without a doubt Jesus existed. I often quote Carl Sagan when he said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." To me the claim that Jesus was the son of god is a pretty extraordinary claim which seems to be lacking some extraordinary evidence.

Will we ever have a photograph or finger prints, video tape, or other modern media? Of course not.

I'm trained as an archaeologist, I don't suspect there to be anything like that. About the only thing we could find is a finger print in a ceramic vessel, but there would be no way to link it to Jesus.

Has this man called Jesus changed millions of lives around the world? Yes.

Has a god name Zeus done a similar thing? Or Odin? Or Vishnu? Or even the Earth goddess? Many gods have affected the world or known world in many different ways. It's hard to argue which one has had the most impact since they have all been strong in different parts of the world at different times. Depending on your culture you could easily argue that one of your gods is the most important.

Do we have cloths from Christ? Maybe, Google the Shroud of Turin.

It's to hotly debated and to strongly questioned for it to really be considered to prove the existence of Jesus. When more research is done on it then I believe it can come into play.

Even people who don't think he was the Son of God, still think he was a real person. You decide.

I'm not disagreeing with that, however there isn't much in the way that proves he was real.

There are several deities throughout religious mythology that have a similar story to that of Jesus such as Baldr, Odin, Osiris, Adonis, Dionysus and others. My point is the church could have easily fabricated the story of Jesus to pull pagans away from their religion. I know especially when dealing with the Roman Empire and the ages following in places like Saxon England this would hold true.

I can't say one way or another if Jesus was real or not. Right now there isn't enough evidence to prove that he was so I am going to remain sceptical. I can respect that you believe Jesus was real, I was merely just commenting on why there are people who don't think he was.