Do you believe in God?

[Kingland093]

And how would homosexuality be a sin if supposedly God created all of us? Oh that's right, religious people think people CHOOSE to be gay...uh huh..........Even if they did choose to be gay, how in the world is it a sin? Just because they can't bear children? It just boggles my mind and makes my brain hurt.

They choose to act on their desires, and that desire is a sin

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

Invisible dictatorship? Well, those who don't believe, don't believe, those who believe have chosen to believe (or should have).

Those that believe are somewhere between mildy to extremely masochistic.

A flawless book? The world changes. Again, not everything is black and white.

God should be consistant, instead he is capricious.
Especially considering his erratic mood & moral changes during the relatively small time frame he was actively communicating with our iron age ancestors.

We are falling victim to our own 'intelligence' here.
To think we are so important, that we are the one species in the entire universe which God cares about. In reality nature/the universe is indifferent.

 

[Scaff]

They choose to act on their desires, and that desire is a sin

Why is it?

 

[fitftw]

They choose to act on their desires, and that desire is a sin

Heterosexuals choose to act on their desires too, so why is that not a sin? Shouldn't all desires then be a sin? Why is it not ok for homosexuals to act on the same desire as heterosexuals?

Probably because religious heterosexuals have an unwarranted fear of homosexuality which stems from childhood indoctrination. The only other option would have to be an incidence of molestation.

"If you were born in Arkansas and you think Christianity is true and Islam is false, knowing full well that you would think the opposite if you had been born in Afghanistan, you are the victim of childhood indoctrination."
-Richard Dawkins

 

[Kingland093]

there are good desires and bad desires right?

 

[fitftw]

Desire is desire. Whether I desire to be a successful billionaire or feed the poor or kill countless innocent people, it's all the same basic desire to do SOMETHING.

 

[Denur]

there are good desires and bad desires right?

Sure, but there is not much you can do against having a desire. You can choose not to act according to your desires though (call it abstinence if you will).

 

[XoravaX]

Also, if you look at the rules around Kosher (and halal, for that matter), they're basically sensible if you live in a hot climate and are really designed to keep your followers alive and healthy. Adding "god said" added a bit of weight to it all.

One of the issues I have with people taking the bible at face value is that they ignore the time it comes from, which was a time when the commandments made a lot more sense.

Also, they ignore the origins. The abrahamic religions borrow heavily from other religions, with added spin to get across the message the writers want. Even those cornerstones of Christianity, the virgin birth, the Eucharist and the whole Easter thing are basically plagiarised from pagan / earth goddess type "old religions"

That's true.

Also circumcision was viable in a hot climate with the level of hygiene back then (Egyptians also practised it), because clean water sources weren't to be wasted. Also, in the desert, sand was a bit of a problem if it got there.

the Old Testament has always been relevent to Christianity

It is, to know why, how and what the New Testament means, it is important to know large parts of the Old Testament.

It appears to me (and correct me if I'm wrong), that you're trying really hard to separate the OT from Christianity. And if you really believe the OT has no bearing on Christianity, why is it in the Bible? I'm honestly curious.

Separate? Kind of, the writings in the New Testament try to explain what the Old Testament with its conflicting rules means.

I wasn't trying to do anything other than point out the fallacy of the "logic" you've tried using multiple times now -- that the NT is clearly to be believed over the OT because of the name.

In the end, I see no reason to believe anything in the OT or NT, or to value one over the other. Unless you have something more substantial than pointing out the use of the words old/new, then I'm having a hard time seeing how you can be so sure which is right and which is wrong.

Christianity is based on the New Testament, which in turn tries to crystallize the ethics of the Old Testament. Talmud, a Jewish book also has the Golden Rule as the explanation for the deepest meaning of the Law.

You're absolutely right. But one thing in this world that had better be black and white is an omniscient god, if one so exists. (granted, I don't recall you using that word, but I imagine you do hold god as being such?).

Omniscient? I'm not sure. I believe there is a God, but I don't know who he is or what he is or whatever. Incidentally, Yahweh (or YHWH) derives from ancient Hebrew and means "I am what I am". Couldn't get more cryptic?

But omniscience, can an omniscient being warm a cup of porridge so hot he can't eat it? Omniscience is as difficult an attribute as infinity.

Yet any event that directly relates to Jesus can't be confirmed, up to and including the exact location of Bethlehem (which didn't officially exist until around 200 years after his birth).

Its a little like setting a fictional story during WW2, that WW2 happened is not in question, that doesn't suddenly make the film "Atonement" true.

Oddly enough the Gospel of Mark has been written around 60-70AD, latest-most at 100AD (according to historical research). I'm pretty sure it mentions Bethlehem - it can be located elsewhere though.

But no source that age is unbiased, not even Roman records. Some events that are held facts historically like the war of Troy rely just on Iliad which is just as accountable a source as is the Bible.

We can retain cultural traits without following the religion, plenty of people with no religious convictions at all still celebrate Christmas.

As for ethics, sorry but religion is not required for holding an ethical and moral view on the world, and I would argue that religion removes direct accountability from it, which is not a good idea at all.

"Christ". They celebrate the birth of something they don't believe in. No logic in my eyes, unless they also follow the religious traditions (they don't have to believe in God to do that). If they don't, they should just call it Yule, the Anglo-German pagan midwinter fest (incidentally, in my country it has preserved that name, joulu).

Religion cannot be stripped from culture, so to preserve cultural traits also religious traits have to be preserved. Which is the main struggle for neo-atheists in my country.

Apart from all the people you execute for daft 'crimes', doesn't exactly keep them alive and healthy does it.

Is the death penalty there to kill people or to prevent crimes?

Those that believe are somewhere between mildy to extremely masochistic.

Why? Does the fact that someone believes in God's existence make them masochists? Explain please?

Also, you seem to always stereotype people, I guess you do that to black people too? And Germans and Russians? Or Muslims? Yes, I do mean that you are being racist, or more explicitly trying to limit the freedom of opinion through stereotyping people.

Haven't you noticed most atheists are against stereotyping them as blind socialists or something? That attitude of yours doesn't help their case.

God should be consistant, instead he is capricious.
Especially considering his erratic mood & moral changes during the relatively small time frame he was actively communicating with our iron age ancestors.

We are falling victim to our own 'intelligence' here.
To think we are so important, that we are the one species in the entire universe which God cares about. In reality nature/the universe is indifferent.

Who's said that we are the only species God cares about? I haven't. Who's said God actively cares about anything?

Heterosexuals choose to act on their desires too, so why is that not a sin? Shouldn't all desires then be a sin? Why is it not ok for homosexuals to act on the same desire as heterosexuals?

Probably because religious heterosexuals have an unwarranted fear of homosexuality which stems from childhood indoctrination. The only other option would have to be an incidence of molestation.

Indoctrination? Yes, that's the cause. But who are the people to tell such a thing about others, shouldn't it be left for God to judge - of course the fundamentalists' logic is always pretty weird:

And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

But remember the context. It was a sin because it threatened the birth rate of the Jews, and therefore their survival as a people.

 

[Kingland093]

Sure, but there is not much you can do against having a desire. You can choose not to act according to your desires though (call it abstinence if you will).

Yes, if you have homosexual desires/attractions that's not a sin, acting on those desires is

 

[CodeRedR51]

Yes, if you have homosexual desires/attractions that's not a sin, acting on those desires is

I honestly don't see the difference.

 

[fitftw]

Sure, but there is not much you can do against having a desire. You can choose not to act according to your desires though (call it abstinence if you will).

👍

According to religious folks, homosexuals should abstain from their desire to mate with other homosexuals.

It's only fair for heterosexuals to abstain from their desire to mate with other heterosexuals for as long as homosexuals do not get the same rights in society as heterosexuals.

 

[dylansan]

So why is acting on homosexual desires a sin but acting on heterosexual desires is not? What makes homosexual desires wrong and heterosexual ones right?

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

Why? Does the fact that someone believes in God's existence make them masochists? Explain please?

Well, I'm guessing religious people feel somekind of joy from worshipping?
Worshipping is pain, the sacrifices people make to worship are pain.
Being born into sin is pain, being a servant is pain.

Also, you seem to always stereotype people, I guess you do that to black people too? And Germans and Russians? Or Muslims? Yes, I do mean that you are being racist, or more explicitly trying to limit the freedom of opinion through stereotyping people.

Who said I was an atheist?
I just think it's highly-highly unlikely (like any other myth in a book),
you sterotyped me there.

Haven't you noticed most atheists are against stereotyping them as blind socialists or something? That attitude of yours doesn't help their case.

If I was anything I would be 'in favour of reason'.

Christianity/Judaism/Islam are hardly a paradises of reasonability,
instead they are inconsistant, immoral, barbaric.

 

[fitftw]

What is the underlying reason for being a religious person? Is it a lack of empathy? Is it a fear of letting go of childhood indoctrination? Is it a fear of the possibility of hell?

Why would you be afraid of what happens after life when you should be afraid of what happens during life? There's not a person alive who has not sinned in his life. Why can't we accept our sinful nature? Why should we atone for something we don't really have a choice about? Society has set up rules and guidelines that make sinning inevitable.

Is driving your car a sin? Think about it. The gas you fill it with came from the Middle East where lots of people were bombed and killed so that you could drive to work. Would it not be a sin to drive your car with this knowledge? Or is God just cool with murdering people for resources? It's a sin to be dependent on foreign resources. We should be coming up with our own, like hemp biodiesel fuel for example.

 

[Kent]

What is the underlying reason for being a religious person? Is it a lack of something inside your soul? Is it a fear of letting go of childhood indoctrination? Is it a fear of the possibility of hell?

Why would you be afraid of what happens after life when you should be afraid of what happens during life? There's not a person alive who has not sinned in his life. Why can't we accept our sinful nature? Why should we atone for something we don't really have a choice about? Society has set up rules and guidelines that make sinning inevitable.

Is driving your car a sin? Think about it. The gas you fill it with came from the Middle East where lots of people were bombed and killed so that you could drive to work. Would it not be a sin to drive your car with this knowledge? Or is God just cool with murdering people for resources?

You ask people to think but put down a blanket statement that gas comes from the middle east where people were bombed just to get their gas... Come on man, put your thinking cap on and try all that "there is no god and the sky is falling" stuff again.
Oh btw, try to blame America while you're at it, that always makes discussions about the existence of a super natural entity much more believe-able.

 

[Scaff]

Oddly enough the Gospel of Mark has been written around 60-70AD, latest-most at 100AD (according to historical research). I'm pretty sure it mentions Bethlehem - it can be located elsewhere though.

But no source that age is unbiased, not even Roman records. Some events that are held facts historically like the war of Troy rely just on Iliad which is just as accountable a source as is the Bible.

Historical research doesn't to place the town of Bethlehem in the location claimed by the bible in regard to the birth of Jesus until well after the apparent period of his birth.

Actual evidence for Jesus as a single individual from that period is absent given the claims made for him. No one doubts that large amounts of the supporting events have been proven to be based on actual people and events, but oddly the same is not true for the players in the main event.

"Christ". They celebrate the birth of something they don't believe in. No logic in my eyes, unless they also follow the religious traditions (they don't have to believe in God to do that). If they don't, they should just call it Yule, the Anglo-German pagan midwinter fest (incidentally, in my country it has preserved that name, joulu).

Religion cannot be stripped from culture, so to preserve cultural traits also religious traits have to be preserved. Which is the main struggle for neo-atheists in my country.

Do you seriously want to get into how much of Christmas is lifted from other religions and festivals?

If you celebrate it close to the winter solstice I can level the exact same accusation at you, given that Shepard's do not tend flocks in December in teh Middle East, but from March onward.

To be blunt no single religion has a claim on Christmas at all, its is rather the perfect example of a cultural and religious mish-mash that can be claimed by pretty much anybody.

Christianity certainly doesn't have exclusive rights at all, regardless of name.

Is the death penalty there to kill people or to prevent crimes?

Is the death penalty a valid punishment for being rude to your parents, going through the wrong door, being gays, not shouting loud enough when being raped?

I would love to know you answer?

Oh and its off-topic, but in answer to your question, the death penalty in my opinion isn't an effective method of crime prevention.

Who's said that we are the only species God cares about? I haven't. Who's said God actively cares about anything?

Genesis does if I recall correctly. Or does that not count for you as its OT?

Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Quick side question as well, exactly who is the us that's creating things in this existence with just one god?


I do also like how you have utterly bypassed the quote from Matthew that cites Jesus validating the OT laws, etc.

Yes, if you have homosexual desires/attractions that's not a sin, acting on those desires is

Now its is strictly speaking off topic, but could you actually answer the question I asked.

Which is why its a sin?

Post your answer here to keep things on-topic:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17868&highlight=homosexuality

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

Or is God just cool with murdering people for resources?

God is cool with pretty much anything bro!
He just wants you to love him & his son.

In return you just have to obey the demands of the men that he communicated with... lol & give money to religious leaders... lol.

I can rape & murder loads of people, and whether or not they forgive me is of no consequence.
I just need to love Jesus! to be forgiven by God (Only his judgement matters) <3

Is this real life?

Did you know, that Jordan(Site Creator) had to kill his own son to forgive all the bad posts on GTP?

 

[Pyle_PMG]

After quite a few months off of here, spending a lot of time with my friends and family just working on keeping my life going, I come back with a changed perspective.

I believe in god.

I have my reasons, some of them being that there have been quite a few events in my life where strange, unexpected, and somewhat improbable things have occurred, and I've always had this feeling that I'm being guided by a presence I cannot see, among other reasons. Maybe it's just my insanity, but that's just my opinion on that question.

You can disagree, or pick apart my reasons, go ahead, I also understand why people don't believe in a God, or Gods etc. and am perfectly fine with it. People are free to believe whatever they want to be true, even if it isn't, again that being my opinion.

 

[huskeR32]

Omniscient? I'm not sure. I believe there is a God, but I don't know who he is or what he is or whatever. Incidentally, Yahweh (or YHWH) derives from ancient Hebrew and means "I am what I am". Couldn't get more cryptic?

But omniscience, can an omniscient being warm a cup of porridge so hot he can't eat it? Omniscience is as difficult an attribute as infinity.

I think you're confusing omniscience with omnipotence (a separate trait also often attributed to the Abrahamic god).

Omniscience means unlimited knowledge. I've never met a Christian who didn't believe that God was omniscient. After all, if god is not omniscient, then the question of his existence becomes pretty irrelevant. Why blindly believe in and obey a being who is fallible?

 

[fitftw]

Vandenal, that's cool bro, BUT, do you now also believe in any of the religions too, or just God in general? Huge difference.

 

[XoravaX]

Well, I'm guessing religious people feel somekind of joy from worshipping?
Worshipping is pain, the sacrifices people make to worship are pain.
Being born into sin is pain, being a servant is pain.

I see. That Catholic society isn't healthy.

Good thing that I'm a Protestant.

Who said I was an atheist?
I just think it's highly-highly unlikely (like any other myth in a book),
you sterotyped me there.

Well, I did.

You are right that it's highly unlikely that everything is as in the Bible, but it doesn't have to be that for God to exist.

If I was anything I would be 'in favour of reason'.

Christianity/Judaism/Islam are hardly a paradises of reasonability,
instead they are inconsistant, immoral, barbaric.

They're conflicting too, but not necessarily barbaric, at least Christianity as what the New Testament has to offer isn't any more barbaric than Judaism (now even if we consider the Old Testament's word still as viable as the Great Commandment). Judaism has some cruel punishments, but the core, in which is the Golden Rule, isn't barbaric. Islam has the Golden Rule too.

According to religious folks, homosexuals should abstain from their desire to mate with other homosexuals.

It's only fair for heterosexuals to abstain from their desire to mate with other heterosexuals--

And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

Yeah, if they think that homosexuality is sin.

"Gay marriage" on the other hand is a different matter, because the historical convention is that the term "marriage" is used for a union between a man and a woman only. I don't think "gay marriage" should be called marriage due to cultural and historical reasons though, but instead a union of some sort.
There is a "gay marriage" thread though, for that matter.

What is the underlying reason for being a religious person? Is it a lack of something inside your soul? Is it a fear of letting go of childhood indoctrination? Is it a fear of the possibility of hell?

Why would you be afraid of what happens after life when you should be afraid of what happens during life? There's not a person alive who has not sinned in his life. Why can't we accept our sinful nature? Why should we atone for something we don't really have a choice about? Society has set up rules and guidelines that make sinning inevitable.

I am not afraid of what happens when I die. I am not afraid of death either, everyone has to face it, but to say it I'm not too fond with the thought of dying.

The reason I believe I think has to do with my personality, that I'm conservative and nationalist, to the extent that I want to carry on the tradition and culture of my nation.

I think you're confusing omniscience with omnipotence (a separate trait also often attributed to the Abrahamic god).

Omniscience means unlimited knowledge. I've never met a Christian who didn't believe that God was omniscient. After all, if god is not omniscient, then the question of his existence becomes pretty irrelevant. Why blindly believe in and obey a being who is fallible?

Whoops. But anyway, omniscient, does that require knowing what will happen when he lets things run on themself? Couldn't God be surprised by someone's choice? I don't question God's omniscience, I don't know him.

I remember some scientists hypothesising that actually every possibility of every choice exist, just in different planes of reality. Some events that didn't happen in this reality might happen if we "ran it again" and vice versa.

In this sense God can be omniscient, knowing every possibility but there would still be randomness and freedom of choice.

Do you seriously want to get into how much of Christmas is lifted from other religions and festivals?

If you celebrate it close to the winter solstice I can level the exact same accusation at you, given that Shepard's do not tend flocks in December in teh Middle East, but from March onward.

To be blunt no single religion has a claim on Christmas at all, its is rather the perfect example of a cultural and religious mish-mash that can be claimed by pretty much anybody.

Christianity certainly doesn't have exclusive rights at all, regardless of name.

Indeed, there was a midwinter festival, Yule, before the Christmas. But over the years, the elements have gained more and more Christian tone. Christmas tree is a Christian-era invention (from Germany), as are Christmas presents (remember Saint Nicholas' legend, it originally was December 6th but it transferred to Christmas). Only the Christmas feast and the foods can quickly be attributed to pagan Yule.

Is the death penalty a valid punishment for being rude to your parents, going through the wrong door, being gays, not shouting loud enough when being raped?

I would love to know you answer?

Oh and its off-topic, but in answer to your question, the death penalty in my opinion isn't an effective method of crime prevention.

Again, the context. The Israelites were almost all the time in a war against the neighbouring peoples, so order had to be kept through merciless judicial system, and the birth rate had to be kept as high as possible.

It's a valid punishment if it is necessary for the nation to survive. A bit brutal example, but it's worse if other peoples enslave them than that they have an authoritarian system led by their own people.

Genesis does if I recall correctly. Or does that not count for you as its OT?

Quick side question as well, exactly who is the us that's creating things in this existence with just one god?

I do also like how you have utterly bypassed the quote from Matthew that cites Jesus validating the OT laws, etc.

Fine:

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

If everything was good, why would he care only of us humans? Why wouldn't he care about the other beings too, if they were "good" (as "not evil")?

"Us". Old language, kings used plural to address themselves. Or that's what I think unless it's a translation error, after all, Hebrew -> Aramaic -> Ancient Greek -> Old English -> Modern English is a pretty long way for a text to stay unchanged.

I didn't bypass anything:

This is also from the New Testament:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Indeed.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Law and the Prophets refer to Torah, the Jewish law, in which Leviticus belongs.

The Law and Prophets "hang", 'are based on' those two commandments that together make for the Great Commandment.

Now its is strictly speaking off topic, but could you actually answer the question I asked.

Which is why its a sin?

Post your answer here to keep things on-topic:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17868&highlight=homosexuality

Nah, I don't know why it is a sin nowadays (the New Testament doesn't say that it's a sin; hence the Swedish, Danish and Norwegian Lutheran (Protestant) churches have allowed gay "marriage"). The old context is no longer valid in current western (or any) society.

In return you just have to obey the demands of the men that he communicated with... lol & give money to religious leaders... lol.

Well, blame your Catholic priests & the Pope. If I recall correctly, Luther called the Pope "The old satanic foe" in his hymn A Mighty Fortress Is Our God.
The Protestants' believe that priests have no special connection to God, and one of Luther's main theses against the Catholic church and the Pope were the indulgences.

I support the church because they continue the culture of our fathers, not because of belief. I can believe in God without any priests or church.

Did you know, that Jordan(Site Creator) had to kill his own son to forgive all the bad posts on GTP?

Didn't he have a daughter instead?

 

[Scaff]

Good thing that I'm a Protestant.

Who still believe in original sin, otherwise why baptise babies.

Indeed, there was a midwinter festival, Yule, before the Christmas. But over the years, the elements have gained more and more Christian tone. Christmas tree is a Christian-era invention (from Germany), as are Christmas presents (remember Saint Nicholas' legend, it originally was December 6th but it transferred to Christmas). Only the Christmas feast and the foods can quickly be attributed to pagan Yule.

Pagan worship of trees, particularly evergreens (seen as a symbol of immortality - particularly important during the winter) predates Christianity.

The festivals of Saturnalia (from Dec 17th to 25th) and Kalends (New Year) both involved the exchange of gifts.

So many festivals exist around the time of year and almost all of them have interwoven traditions and practices that its simply not a Christian 'owned' event. Christianity may have put its name to it and be the current public face of it, but the simple truth is that its not a simple history. What is accepted is should the Bible verse about Jesus' birth be accurate in terms of activity at the time it most certainly was not in December.

Again, the context. The Israelites were almost all the time in a war against the neighbouring peoples, so order had to be kept through merciless judicial system, and the birth rate had to be kept as high as possible.

It's a valid punishment if it is necessary for the nation to survive. A bit brutal example, but it's worse if other peoples enslave them than that they have an authoritarian system led by their own people.

A very debatable point (and not one that would validate pulling one bit of it into the 21st century), its also counterproductive to enforce a birth rate and then impose death as a penalty for a wide range of minor infractions that can't be effectively policed (killing children for cursing parents). Infant mortality rates would see a massive number of those born dies before the second year, to then kill anyone after than for using the wrong door or being rude is counter productive to than logic.

Fine:

If everything was good, why would he care only of us humans? Why wouldn't he care about the other beings too, if they were "good" (as "not evil")?

I'm not saying good or evil hear, Genesis clearly states that man has dominion over everything else, which clearly indicates control and superiority.

"Us". Old language, kings used plural to address themselves. Or that's what I think unless it's a translation error, after all, Hebrew -> Aramaic -> Ancient Greek -> Old English -> Modern English is a pretty long way for a text to stay unchanged.

Strange that it still says Us in the Koran and Torah then, so its not a translation issue. Royalty used Us or We to mean the royal line (i.e. to enforce that its a continued line), God doesn't have that (Jesus is still a way off) and to be honest it sounds like your guessing.

I didn't bypass anything:
The Law and Prophets "hang", are based on those two commandments.

Hang, which doesn't dismiss them, in fact nothing you have posted states that it overrides the OT Laws.

 

[huskeR32]

Whoops. But anyway, omniscient, does that require knowing what will happen when he lets things run on themself? Couldn't God be surprised by a choice of someone? I don't question God's omniscience, I don't know him.

I stopped reading after the bolded words, because the answer is yes. Omniscience, by it's very definition, means that the being in question knows everything.

If you don't believe that god is omniscient (and again, you'd be the first Christian I'd ever met who said that), then what makes him god at all? Why blindly obey him if he doesn't, without any shadow of a doubt, know everything there is to know?

I mean, I thought that was the whole point. If god expects everyone to believe in him without evidence, to obey his every word, to never doubt that his commands are the best way to live, etc., etc.,... then he'd better be all-knowing, or the whole thing gets really shaky in a hurry.

 

[XoravaX]

Who still believe in original sin, otherwise why baptise babies.

Well, the sin aspect is not very loudly preached here. The priests mostly talk about doing good.

Pagan worship of trees, particularly evergreens (seen as a symbol of immortality - particularly important during the winter) predates Christianity.

The festivals of Saturnalia (from Dec 17th to 25th) and Kalends (New Year) both involved the exchange of gifts.

So many festivals exist around the time of year and almost all of them have interwoven traditions and practices that its simply not a Christian 'owned' event. Christianity may have put its name to it and be the current public face of it, but the simple truth is that its not a simple history. What is accepted is should the Bible verse about Jesus' birth be accurate in terms of activity at the time it most certainly was not in December.

Weichnachtsbaum tradition was established in a society that had been Christian for almost 1500 years, it doesn't have a straight line to pagan worship. Especially when the trees the Germanic tribes worshipped were usually oaks (oak is a holy tree in many pagan religions) or other monumental, usually broad-leaved trees. It's true that in every country Christianity has expanded to it has been mixed with local traditions, somewhere more, elsewhere less. The gift tradition was also discontinued for a long time before it began again. Of course it might have taken influence of festivals from the past, but the current is associated with Saint Nicholas (which over time became Santa Claus).

It's however true that Christianity has taken a lot of influence from pagan traditions; the original Sabbath is Saturday, while the Christians' resting day on Sunday, because Sunday was a Roman resting day and it was more convenient to continue the old tradition in Rome.

A very debatable point (and not one that would validate pulling one bit of it into the 21st century), its also counterproductive to enforce a birth rate and then impose death as a penalty for a wide range of minor infractions that can't be effectively policed (killing children for cursing parents). Infant mortality rates would see a massive number of those born dies before the second year, to then kill anyone after than for using the wrong door or being rude is counter productive to than logic.

To this day, children and teenagers are pretty obedient in the Middle East (minus Israel, because it's mainly influenced by the West). The people there aren't practically allowed to rebel almost at all in their teen years, and they don't usually do it. Cultural context, again.

As an example of the cultural context difference, during the war (WWII) here in Finland people could be trialled and executed for a theft - crimes were really rare during the war because even a small crime could result in execution. Soldiers who disobeyed orders in combat were shot without trial, and general disobedience resulted in prison camp. Even though the strict rules, very few were executed or imprisoned.

Not all cultures are based on freedom and reasonability. If such strict rules are possible and obeyed under war just 70 years ago in a western society, wouldn't pretty insane rules be possible 2500 years ago?

I'm not saying good or evil hear, Genesis clearly states that man has dominion over everything else, which clearly indicates control and superiority.

Nowhere it says that God cares only of us humans. After all, according to Genesis everything is his creation, if that's true, why wouldn't he care for those other creatures on Earth?

Strange that it still says Us in the Koran and Torah then, so its not a translation issue. Royalty used Us or We to mean the royal line (i.e. to enforce that its a continued line), God doesn't have that (Jesus is still a way off) and to be honest it sounds like your guessing.

Qu'ran's original language is Arabic. Torah is originally in Ancient Hebrew. They have been translated to English too.

We and us, the royal plural, weren't used only to enforce the line, they were also used to express the multiple titles the monarchs had, and also new monarchs from new bloodlines used that. Also, some high noblemen used it to address their high position.

Also, even though trinity was introduced later, God still was "God and the Holy Ghost". That would be enough to say "us". But what are you trying to acquire from this? The time Leviticus was written Judaism was clearly monotheistic, and Islam has always been strictly monotheistic, Allah means "[the] only God".

Hang, which doesn't dismiss them, in fact nothing you have posted states that it overrides the OT Laws.

Now you are again being black and white. If all the law is based on that, what is the supreme law? The Great Commandment. The Law and Prophets are just to keep people in line with the Great Commandment, as pre-emptive action to prevent people from doing wrong. It might not work nowadays, but who is to say it didn't work back then?

Whoops. But anyway, omniscient, does that require knowing what will happen when he lets things run on themself? Couldn't God be surprised by someone's choice? I don't question God's omniscience, I don't know him.

I remember some scientists hypothesising that actually every possibility of every choice exist, just in different planes of reality. Some events that didn't happen in this reality might happen if we "ran it again" and vice versa.

In this sense God can be omniscient, knowing every possibility but there would still be randomness and freedom of choice.

I stopped reading after the bolded words, because the answer is yes. Omniscience, by it's very definition, means that the being in question knows everything.

If you don't believe that god is omniscient (and again, you'd be the first Christian I'd ever met who said that), then what makes him god at all? Why blindly obey him if he doesn't, without any shadow of a doubt, know everything there is to know?

I mean, I thought that was the whole point. If god expects everyone to believe in him without evidence, to obey his every word, to never doubt that his commands are the best way to live, etc., etc.,... then he'd better be all-knowing, or the whole thing gets really shaky in a hurry.

I meant that if God knows every possible future, wouldn't he presume that we do what is most likely for us? Or actually, would he wonder his head at all with those things if he is omniscient? Or would he just watch and think "well, I could've made it go another way"? I don't know.

What I think the most logical answer is that God knows what every choice will lead to (as every possible future) but has given us the freedom to make our choices ourselves along with allowing things to be chosen randomly. Of course that is just speculation.

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

Good thing that I'm a Protestant.

It doesnt really matter, It's magical thinking that is the problem.
If we allow magical thoughts to creep into us, some people take them to seriously, (extremists) when truly believing means it is not an insane thought to think that death is better than life.

Moderates are providing a shade under which an extremist can be taught and cultivated.

Just being consistently reasonable would be a much better idea.
"A group of reasonable extremists didn't hurt anybody today"
Could be a future headline.

Didn't he have a daughter instead?

I have no idea.

"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good."

&#8220;The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.&#8221;

Surely he saw this coming?

 

[fitftw]

Why would God give us free will? Why would he test us? Do parents test their children? I think it's more that children test their parents...

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

Because God is a tyrant, he advocates child murder, child abuse and abortion.
Sick thing to preach.

Btw, I'm talking about the God of Abraham, Not the Creator of the Universe.
Which you could have an interesting discussion about, still a highly un-likely existance.

 

[ScouserInExile]

Not ignoring them at all, I've mentioned them on a number of occasions, all they do however is further undermine the entire thing.

Kinda my point. People will say that Jesus rose from the dead to save us all from our sins and they know so because it says so in the bible, which is the word of god. All without knowing or considering that the same basic story was told for thousands of years by older religions as a metaphor for the passing of the seasons. Its no coincidence that Easter happens in spring.

 

[Joey D]

After quite a few months off of here, spending a lot of time with my friends and family just working on keeping my life going, I come back with a changed perspective.

I believe in god.

I have my reasons, some of them being that there have been quite a few events in my life where strange, unexpected, and somewhat improbable things have occurred, and I've always had this feeling that I'm being guided by a presence I cannot see, among other reasons. Maybe it's just my insanity, but that's just my opinion on that question.

You can disagree, or pick apart my reasons, go ahead, I also understand why people don't believe in a God, or Gods etc. and am perfectly fine with it. People are free to believe whatever they want to be true, even if it isn't, again that being my opinion.

It's called the force, you just happen to finally discover your midi-chlorians.

But seriously though, I'm the same way. Sometimes it takes some life events and soul searching to figure out where you stand on an issue like this.

 

[Joel]

It's called the force, you just happen to finally discover your midi-chlorians.

But seriously though, I'm the same way. Sometimes it takes some life events and soul searching to figure out where you stand on an issue like this.

I don't have enough of an understanding of physics or evolutionary science to wholeheartedly say my lack of belief in God is from science. I do try to look into the scientific arguments, and I have a general idea of what the arguments for and against belief are, but I'm by no means an expert nor will I claim to have anything more than a basic understanding of these theories. For me it was a similar thing but to a different conclusion, soul searching and some life events that led me from being a Catholic to a non-believer. Just as life events turned me away from God (not to say that I "turned my back on him" as I often hear), I can see how they can turn people to God. The biggest thing for me was how much better my life was once I stopped praying and stopped believing in God. Some pray and turn to God for strength in tough times, and I did the same, but it got too far for me and I wasn't taking any responsibility for myself and was just hoping to pray away my problems. When I stopped praying and stopped believing in God I began to take more responsibility for my own life. Consequently, I started studying and stopped praying to God that I'd do well on a math test