Do you believe in God?

[SuperCobraJet]

@SuperCobraJet, the Holy Spirit didn't seem to know much about the universe, but I'm sure you can find words to avoid that issue.

What are you referring too?

So let's just deal with the requirement to put people to death if they work on the sabbath.

Doesn't this require you to kill people? I mean, we don't have laws which ensure this requirement is acted upon, so shouldn't you, as a good Christian, step in and obey the words of your god?

Hardly.
I'm not under the law, but under grace.
You need to read the new testament.

@SuperCobraJet, the first point was that western society changed in line with Christian beliefs, so there's no surprise that it matches up with what you see of society.

Undoubtedly, western society has been influenced by Christianity.

The second part, which part did you mean? The first sentence states the obvious, as does the second. I'll elaborate on the second by saying that they demonstrably knew nothing about science (all science) or history, and couldn't even hide their plagiarism or prevent the many logical inconsistencies in "the word of God" as they wrote it.

Obviously, they weren't writing about science. History only as it relates to events listed.

Of course, if you mean the way I typed "He", firstly you could have bolded it, secondly that sort of nonsense (God is a man, He can only be a man) should be considered a relic of an unenlightened age. Why does God even need gender? So "He" can masturbate?

God is referred to as "He" for purely authoritative-associative reference.
However, obviously he is not a man, as we are.
Otherwise, as far as charachterization, he has both male and female nature. But his actual form is somewhat sketchy. According to the Bible, no man has ever seen him, other than the reference of when he passed his glory by Moses on Mount Sinai and allowed him to see his back. I'm not sure whether that reference is just for our association, or if he actually has a form similar to ours.
BTW, I believe the Jews never referred to God as "he", but had other names which they used.

One could argue Christianity also perpetuated slavery for many, many years..

Yes, you could argue that.
At least the interpretation of it surly did.

In early Christian cultures and Christian Rome, slavery was part and parcel of everyday life. While it was practiced in all known civilised cultures at the time, 'Christianity' certainly did not do much to counter it. Slavery in the early United States was rife in areas of high religious worship, and many abolitionists did so out of a philosophical or moral principle rather than a religious one.

I'm not sure as far as the abolitionist, you can really separate the moral from the religious, but certainly their percieved concept was in line with Gods.

But, I would argue that individuals helped to end slavery, not a religion as a whole. And I feel the same about those who institutionalised it; some Christians were in favour of slavery, others were against.

Yes, one could certainly argue that.
However, the vast majority of those in the North who actually fought against it were influenced by their Christian beliefs.
Those in the South relied upon the Biblical references you mention below as grounds for its continuance, as well as Constitutional grounds.
The history of slavery is very unique in many respects, as far as Biblical reference, and particularly in regaurd to the established foundations of the United States.
I would argue that if not for the Christian faith, we would likely still be living with it.

I feel it is only fair to talk about religion and slavery if the religion is part of a theocracy or in some way influences the laws of the land. Christian theocracy is the Catholic church, certainly historically, and therefore stands to take the rap for what the Bible says on slavery.

To some extent, I agree.

The Old Testament acknowledges slavery as a fact of life and does not prohibit or discourage it.

Yes and no.
It appears God actually set the first precedent against it, when he freed the Israelites from slavery under Pharoah.
If I'm not mistaken, there were also provisions for gaining your freedom under Jewish law.
Otherwise there were only rules as to the treatment of slaves.

Like I said, I don't feel it is correct to say that Christianity helped to end slavery, nor that Christianity, just as a concept, helped to perpetuate it. Individuals did, and many individuals will have turned to the Bible, or the Pope/Rome/Church/Holy Roman Empire, and found that nothing explicitly said slavery was bad.

I can certainly understand your point.

Arguably, man used god's word to institute slavery.

I think the instituting took place, before God's word came along.
Although, I don't believe there is any doubt it was used to perpetuate it

 

[Imari]

Undoubtedly, western society has been influenced by Christianity.

Or perhaps it's rather the other way around.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Experience doesn't equal an understanding of why events happen. I've taken acid and hallucinated, they were a reality to me, that doesn't mean I understand the exact bio-chemical interaction occurring. Nor does it mean that I should substitute my own version of what I think and expect it to be considered valid.

Yet that is exactly what you are expecting here, and ever worse you are being subjectively selective which with version of 'I made it up' you accept, based almost entirely on your bias to prove your faith right.

While your analagy is certainly not the same, all possibilties aside,
if you related your experience as described above, would you be "making it up"?
Or did you actually have the experience and described it thus, to the best of your recollection?

I can't really say I am expecting anything, other than the opportunity to express my point of view based on my personal experience and analysis of it, which appears to be consistent with the topic of the thread.

Obviously if you are of the opinion, all religion is the same and none carry any validity, or they all carry the same validity, then I do not expect you to agree with my findings.
And if thats the case, then I'm not the only one with a bias.

Obviously as well, if I didn't believe it to be valid, why waste time talking about it?

Said the followers of every religion ever.

Exactly.
But, do you believe its possible, one could be more valid than another?

Only because most don't try and don't gather the data and facts before doing so.

Sometimes however, their interpretation of the facts, may not agree with yours.

That doesn't actually answer the question I asked.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what the question was at this point.

I'm sorry but while Christianity has been a factor in helping with social injustices its also been far more of a factor in perpetuating them.

I disagree with "far more", but obviously, history shows it has played a role in perpetuating some.

Pick any one you like, slavery, racism, homophobia, systematic abuse of children, abuse of women, etc. (I can keep going a long way). In almost every case you will find the final standouts to be the devoutly religious, using a bronze age lifestyle guide to continue to oppress people.

Again in some cases, yes.

Look at the two 'sides' in the battle for civil rights in the US, yes religion can claim MLK, but it also has to at the same time accept the KKK.

Not sure what you mean here.

The bible either fails to condone actions (slavery) or is massively contradictory about actions, as such it is neither consistent and reasonable or based on the inherent value of life, how you can claim that last one with the existence of the OT is beyond me.

The new testament does condemn these things.
I think that you as well as some others, fail to recognize, the ground rules that were established at creation.
God gave man Dominion or authority, rule, autonomy.
Under that establishment, God cannot just come in and encroach on that, making alternate directives as he pleases.
Its very similar to a landlord/tenant arrangement.
Thats precisely why, events have had to proceed as they have.
The law was the first attempt to influence one group of men, and eventually from that the whole world.
Not to menton, men were under, by the first man's choice, the exclusive influence of Satan, from the fall on, and actually still are.

I share one of my names with a guy in the OT who was instructed by god to murder anyone who committed apostasy, and take the wives and kids as slaves - the more he did it the holier he got. As a result that name means 'slayer of men', a great title for a heavy metal album, less for someone doing gods work. Keep in mind that these people did nothing but move to another god, and for that death was the answer (no trial - summary execution). That is not reasonable nor based on the inherent value of life.

In hindsight, as always, it is easy to make that determination.
Again, the only explanation for this I can offer, is at that time, it was the only way to preserve the nation of Israel and perpetuate the plan of redemption, which could provide the influence necessary to abolish many OT standards and practices.

One thing I would add here, is, it is not as if, I haven't questioned many of these things myself, numerous times. I think any rational person would. I mean was all this really necessary? All the death, pain and suffering, destruction, upheaval, atrocities, etc.?
Ultimately, and apparently, under the circumstances, they were.
Had there been a better way, I'm convinced God would have instituted it.
And once he almost did.
But had he done so, we wouldn't be here talking about it.

 

[Liquid]

It appears God actually set the first precedent against [slavery], when he freed the Israelites from slavery under Pharoah.

Do you really believe this happened? And that god did it?

 

[MatskiMonk]

Hi-ho MatskiMonk,
In the quoted Dotini/Scaff exchange which appeared shortly before your post, it was suggested that consciousness remains a problem which science has not solved with satisfaction. In fact there are dozens of competing explanations - variously claiming versions of matter, energy, quantum mechanics, other things or even none of these - and there is no consensus.

Hence it was a surprise to see your clear assertion that it was simply matter which gives rise to consciousness. Please accept this post in lieu of my rather hasty initial reply.

Now I do stipulate that the easy problems of consciousness (representing some ability, or the performance of some function or behavior) can ultimately be described with the materialist concept. Examples of "easy" problems:

• the ability to discriminate, categorize, and react to environmental stimuli;

• the integration of information by a cognitive system;

• the reportability of mental states;

• the ability of a system to access its own internal states;

• the focus of attention;

• the deliberate control of behavior;

• the difference between wakefulness and sleep.

But the problem facing scientists and philosophers is called "the hard problem of consciousness".

Says David Chalmers,
The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. When we think and perceive, there is a whir of information-processing, but there is also a subjective aspect. As Nagel (1974) has put it, there is something it is like to be a conscious organism. This subjective aspect is experience. When we see, for example, we experience visual sensations: the felt quality of redness, the experience of dark and light, the quality of depth in a visual field. Other experiences go along with perception in different modalities: the sound of a clarinet, the smell of mothballs. Then there are bodily sensations, from pains to orgasms; mental images that are conjured up internally; the felt quality of emotion, and the experience of a stream of conscious thought. What unites all of these states is that there is something it is like to be in them. All of them are states of experience.



Leibniz put it this way,
Moreover, it must be confessed that perception and that which depends upon it are inexplicable on mechanical grounds, that is to say, by means of figures and motions. And supposing there were a machine, so constructed as to think, feel, and have perception, it might be conceived as increased in size, while keeping the same proportions, so that one might go into it as into a mill. That being so, we should, on examining its interior, find only parts which work one upon another, and never anything by which to explain a perception.

Isaac Newton said this,
to determine by what modes or actions light produceth in our minds the phantasm of colour is not so easie.


TH Huxley actually said this,
how it is that any thing so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as the result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp

--------------------

I'll pause here and hope this doesn't go too much farther, or we might have to start using words like ontology, monism, dualism, etc.

Firstly, I'm glad my attempt at being deliberatley assertive on this point was noticed. To be honest with you, I often use this suggestion in conversations with people who are against the idea of a god, because it may prompt them to have to consider "can something exist, which I know to be true or real (ie. their own thoughts), that has no material existence", and if they accept that, then there is scope to believe that a god could exist at this unobservable, unmeasureable, unexplainable level.* For anything else to be true would require an as yet undiscovered facet of science to exist.

However, my own feelings on the matter do still lean towards everything being based in the physical, I'm sure we have more to learn about our own brains. A mind is the output, and itself is intangible - A brain is the machine, and a machine can be dis-assembled, mapped, drawn and understood. If you understand the machine you can control the output.

*When I talk of god it is with an almost total disregard for written texts, these are irrelevant to my own beliefs and are only the output of a system, rather than the system itself

 

[GBO Possum]

What are you referring too?

Hardly.
I'm not under the law, but under grace.
You need to read the new testament.

I was referring to the inability of the Holy Spirit to correct man's erroneous knowledge of the universe. I'm assuming that your position is the even though God needed man's assistance in writing, that the content of the bible was provided by God through the Holy Spirit through the actual human writers.

As for not being under the law, but being under grace, I have no idea what this might mean. Does not being "under the law" mean you are above the law? And which of the contradictory laws, the laws of god or the laws of man? And if it's the laws of god, do you mean the laws of the Old Testament or the New? And how do you figure out which laws of god which contradict each other are the ones to be followed. Finally, I'm assuming that since you are "under grace", this means that you have the unmerited favor of God?

Grace. (in Christian belief) the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings.

Back to your statement that men wrote the bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. While I'm troubled that the creator of the universe is illiterate, I do understand that the inability to read and write doesn't negate the content of ideas and thoughts. But to whom do we ascribe the inconsistencies of the bible, the Holy Spirit or the guys who did the writing? Either way, it casts the bible in a poor light. If the writers injected inconsistencies, then what else did they get wrong? If they are the work of the Holy Spirit, then we can't really trust any biblical content.

------------------------------------------------

Edit:-

For those of you who think you know the gospels fairly well, try this 20 question gospel quiz. If you get more than 7 correct, you will be a hero!

 

[Scaff]

While your analagy is certainly not the same, all possibilties aside,
if you related your experience as described above, would you be "making it up"?
Or did you actually have the experience and described it thus, to the best of your recollection?

I can't really say I am expecting anything, other than the opportunity to express my point of view based on my personal experience and analysis of it, which appears to be consistent with the topic of the thread.

Obviously if you are of the opinion, all religion is the same and none carry any validity, or they all carry the same validity, then I do not expect you to agree with my findings.
And if thats the case, then I'm not the only one with a bias.

Obviously as well, if I didn't believe it to be valid, why waste time talking about it?

Your missing the point.

It was a reality to me and I wasn't making it up, the issue is not with the perception of reality, but rather the cause of that perception of reality. Your accept the 'conversation' to be with god and dismiss out of hand any other possible explanation.

As such your findings are not findings, they are anecdotal observations that you refuse to explore the possible causes of, and as such carry nothing but bias.

Exactly.
But, do you believe its possible, one could be more valid than another?

In the entire history of human existance (100,000 years+) they have all produced the exact same level of evidence, which is zero.

As such they all currently carry the exact same level of validity, all one has to do to change that balance if provide evidence that meets a falsifiable standard. None have ever done so.

Sometimes however, their interpretation of the facts, may not agree with yours.

If they are open to interpretation then they are not facts.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what the question was at this point.

You used the tax office as a (poor) analogy for discussions with god, I said that I had managed with the former (tax office) and asked what objective means you could provide to do the same with the later (god).

I disagree with "far more", but obviously, history shows it has played a role in perpetuating some.


Again in some cases, yes.

Which kind of makes the bible quite removed from the claims you made in its regard.

Not sure what you mean here.

Both sides of the civil rights fence believed they were acting with the authority of god, they can't have both been right, yet the bible is written in such terms that both managed to interpret it way. The exact same can be said of many other conflicts (including WW1 and WW2).

The new testament does condemn these things.
I think that you as well as some others, fail to recognize, the ground rules that were established at creation.
God gave man Dominion or authority, rule, autonomy.
Under that establishment, God cannot just come in and encroach on that, making alternate directives as he pleases.
Its very similar to a landlord/tenant arrangement.
Thats precisely why, events have had to proceed as they have.
The law was the first attempt to influence one group of men, and eventually from that the whole world.
Not to menton, men were under, by the first man's choice, the exclusive influence of Satan, from the fall on, and actually still are.

And yet the OT doesn't (and can't be removed from Christianity).

As far as god not getting involved after creation! As you really serious in regard to that point, what about the flood? Parting of the Red Sea? And that's without the biggest intervention of the lot, banging up a virgin and launching his son on the world. If sending your son (who is also you) to earth is not an intervention then I fail to see what is, given that your entire faith would not exist had it not occurred.

In hindsight, as always, it is easy to make that determination.
Again, the only explanation for this I can offer, is at that time, it was the only way to preserve the nation of Israel and perpetuate the plan of redemption, which could provide the influence necessary to abolish many OT standards and practices.

In other words the OT requires the direct slaughter and enslavement of numerous groups of people and you write it off as simply being needed.

Oh and this was done under god direct instruction, which would, once again, be an intervention.

One thing I would add here, is, it is not as if, I haven't questioned many of these things myself, numerous times. I think any rational person would. I mean was all this really necessary? All the death, pain and suffering, destruction, upheaval, atrocities, etc.?
Ultimately, and apparently, under the circumstances, they were.
Had there been a better way, I'm convinced God would have instituted it.
And once he almost did.
But had he done so, we wouldn't be here talking about it.

I disagree, as given the lack (again) of evidence to back this up, we would all still be here as this is simply the collected stories of numerous bronze age tribes gathered together to form a monotheistic religion from a pantheon of gods, with the various wars being little more that a series of exercises in ethnic cleansing.

 

[Dotini]

Next Steps in Near-Death Experiences Research: Scientists Discuss
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/924...eath-experiences-research-scientists-discuss/

8 Scientists Contemplates Place of Human Consciousness in Science
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/893...nsciousness-in-science/?sidebar=related-below

 

[Imari]

One thing I would add here, is, it is not as if, I haven't questioned many of these things myself, numerous times. I think any rational person would. I mean was all this really necessary? All the death, pain and suffering, destruction, upheaval, atrocities, etc.?
Ultimately, and apparently, under the circumstances, they were.
Had there been a better way, I'm convinced God would have instituted it.
And once he almost did.
But had he done so, we wouldn't be here talking about it.

This doesn't sound much like an omnipotent and omniscient being to me.


How does a child know whether the spanking being delivered by it's parent is ultimately for it's own good, or whether that parent is just a violent sadist? We can only judge what we see, and it would appear that God seems to fall rather more on the violent sadist side of the spectrum.

We tell kids who have violent parents to seek help. Even if that violence may indeed be justified, as spankings sometimes are, it's considered something that should not be left solely in the hands of the parent because of the potential for abuse. Why is God different? Just because he brings home ice cream on Sundays, doesn't mean he's not an abusive parent the rest of the week.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Do you really believe this happened? And that god did it?

Yes, I do.

I was referring to the inability of the Holy Spirit to correct man's erroneous knowledge of the universe.

Inability? Or just not part of the solution?
Obviously, man's knowledge of the universe, is not identified as the problem.

I'm assuming that your position is the even though God needed man's assistance in writing, that the content of the bible was provided by God through the Holy Spirit through the actual human writers.

Yes thats correct.
And that is the claim made in the Bible.

As for not being under the law, but being under grace, I have no idea what this might mean. Does not being "under the law" mean you are above the law? And which of the contradictory laws, the laws of god or the laws of man?

Galatians 5 explains it about as good as I know of.

Finally, I'm assuming that since you are "under grace", this means that you have the unmerited favor of God?

Yes.

Back to your statement that men wrote the bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. While I'm troubled that the creator of the universe is illiterate, I do understand that the inability to read and write doesn't negate the content of ideas and thoughts. But to whom do we ascribe the inconsistencies of the bible, the Holy Spirit or the guys who did the writing? Either way, it casts the bible in a poor light. If the writers injected inconsistencies, then what else did they get wrong? If they are the work of the Holy Spirit, then we can't really trust any biblical content.

He's hardly illiterate.
He is claimed to have wrote the ten commandments with his finger in stone.
Once his covenant was established with Israel, he recorded through his prophets.
Whether or not you can trust the Bible is open to individual determination.
I believe you can.
"If" is the most infinite, challenging, and consequential, word in the universe.


What inconsistencies are you referring too?
Oh, the twenty questions.
I'll be getting back to you on those.

 

[squadops]

Yes, I do.



Inability? Or just not part of the solution?
Obviously, man's knowledge of the universe, is not identified as the problem.



Yes thats correct.
And that is the claim made in the Bible.



Galatians 5 explains it about as good as I know of.



Yes.



He's hardly illiterate.
He is claimed to have wrote the ten commandments with his finger in stone.
Once his covenant was established with Israel, he recorded through his prophets.
Whether or not you can trust the Bible is open to individual determination.
I believe you can.
"If" is the most infinite, challenging, and consequential, word in the universe.


What inconsistencies are you referring too?
Oh, the twenty questions.
I'll be getting back to you on those.

 

[zzz_pt]

Yes, I do.

There are zero evidences to prove that story(God actually set the first precedent against [slavery], when he freed the Israelites from slavery under Pharoah).

Are you aware of that?

 

[JKgo]

I know that religion is a prickly topic so I'll tread carefully here. I don't follow any "organized" religions nor am I a "hippie". But I DO believe that God exists. I believe that science and God are not mutually exclusive of one another, but God indeed is the reason for science, whether understood or yet to be discovered. It's fascinating to me that there's an argument of God's existence; if it's proven that God exists, then what next? I think a part of allure of believing in God is that Its existence is supposedly can not be understood by mere mortals, nor can it be put in words. Thus putting human form to describe God (such as calling It Father, Him etc) is one way of humanity's futile attempt at "understanding" God. But then hey what do I know, right?

 

[Imari]

I believe that science and God are not mutually exclusive of one another

They're not mutually exclusive.

However, if you're following the scientific method, belief in God requires a conscious admission that your belief is non-rational.

Most people seem unwilling to make that step, probably because they interpret "non-rational" as some sort of derogative, which it isn't in strict terms.

It's fascinating to me that there's an argument of God's existence; if it's proven that God exists, then what next?

Is God only interesting because you're not sure that he exists?

If I prove that Martians exist (well, discover Martians would probably be more accurate), then all sorts of cool things can result. Why is the same not true of God? Think of all the things that become possible once it's known that he exists.

But then hey what do I know, right?

Did you really think that your points were so weak that you needed to end with this reverse-psychological attempt to give them more legitimacy than they would have had standing on their own merits?

 

[JKgo]

@Imari whoa there calm down for a sec. I get what you are saying, for sure. I'm also sure if someone out there proves God's existence then that would be cool too. But don't forget, us humans are pretty complex beings psychologically and just like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get. See, I believe God exists whether we argue about it or not. In the "Grand Scheme o' Things(TM)" it ends up irrelevant.... I'm sure you don't like it; me too. But like Chairman Netero once said, it's interesting this way. Heck, now I don't know what I'm saying anymore.
Oh and what do you mean non-rational? I don't quite get it. Does it mean I must believe everything irrationally?
If that's the case then, hey, I'm an Half-Irrationalist!! Just kidding of course.

 

[orimarc]

@Imari Oh and what do you mean non-rational? I don't quite get it. Does it mean I must believe everything irrationally?

That's not what Imari meant. What he meant is that, if the only reason you believe in a God is "because I want to think he exists", then it could be classified as irrational; not that being irrational makes the belief wrong by itself (you could say that things like love or a preference for muscle cars is irrational).

 

[JKgo]

That's not what Imari meant. What he meant is that, if the only reason you believe in a God is "because I want to think he exists", then it could be classified as irrational; not that being irrational makes the belief wrong by itself (you could say that things like love or a preference for muscle cars is irrational).

Thanks man. Whew I thought preferring Mustangs over anything else was wrong. Now I know that's not the case.

 

[justin credible]

Do I believe in God? Well I look at it like this do I believe a man lives in the sky and he made everything and makes everything sugary sweet for the world? I would have to believe in the Tooth fairy Santa Claus the Bogey Man and all the other old wives tales and fairy stories I was told as a child to believe. I am the type of guy who needs to see it in front of my own two eyes before I believe it.
I also don't believe in Devils Ghosts or believe any of these pyschics are for real. They are just people who make money from other peoples grief, the best con artists in the world.

Question you have to ask your self is this If you don't believe in god and jesus etc Why do you celebrate christmas?
a bit hypocrtical if you think about it.

 

[Exorcet]

Question you have to ask your self is this If you don't believe in god and jesus etc Why do you celebrate christmas?
a bit hypocrtical if you think about it.

How so? Who doesn't like free stuff?

 

[dylansan]

Question you have to ask your self is this If you don't believe in god and jesus etc Why do you celebrate christmas?
a bit hypocrtical if you think about it.

Look up the history of Christmas. It had originally had nothing to do with Christianity.

 

[Spurgy 777]

How so? Who doesn't like free stuff?

I don't like free stuff, I expect people to pay for my presents

 

[Scaff]

Question you have to ask your self is this If you don't believe in god and jesus etc Why do you celebrate christmas?
a bit hypocrtical if you think about it.

Christianity adopted the Winter festivals from various other religions, and I see no reason why it can't also be used as a handy time for secular festivities.

 

[justin credible]

Look up the history of Christmas. It had originally had nothing to do with Christianity.

If it didn't it didn't I thought it was to celebrate jesus's the son of god's birth.
It's religon bro a subject I have very strong feelings on but keep to myself as I would most probably offend a lot of people if I said my beliefs on religon.

 

[Scaff]

If it didn't it didn't I thought it was to celebrate jesus's the son of god's birth.

Based on the claimed time periods mentioned in the bible that would have to happen in spring rather than midwinter.

Early christian sects were directly competing with pagen religions that were at the time still much more widely followed, as such they started to take over key festivals from the pagens, with winter solstice based ones being a major target. Ones that were 'borrowed' include:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koliada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mōdraniht

Most of which boil down to "winters half way done and we're not dead - lets get hammered to celebrate", a concept I'm quite happy to agree with.

The true list is much, much longer, but take a look at those and you will see exactly how much of Christmas has its origins in other festivals, which is why even as an atheist I have no problem with using the Christmas period as a time of festivity.

 

[justin credible]

Based on the claimed time periods mentioned in the bible that would have to happen in spring rather than midwinter.

Early christian sects were directly competing with pagen religions that were at the time still much more widely followed, as such they started to take over key festivals from the pagens, with winter solstice based ones being a major target. Ones that were 'borrowed' include:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koliada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mōdraniht

Most of which boil down to "winters half way done and we're not dead - lets get hammered to celebrate", a concept I'm quite happy to agree with.

The true list is much, much longer, but take a look at those and you will see exactly how much of Christmas has its origins in other festivals, which is why even as an atheist I have no problem with using the Christmas period as a time of festivity.

All due respect bro but I have no interest in why what and how with religon. I personally think it should be banned every form of it do away with it and in generations to come think how much better the world would be, Just look what atrocities have occured under the name of religon. Some will say it brings them peace of mind and a purpose that's great but I am sure these people are good living honest people anyway with or with out any religon.
Look you have got me started now..........................no I will shut up and log off now before I get myself writing what I hate about all religons. Peace to all. Look after yourself and your family and be kind to everyone else then you live a decent person.

 

[Imari]

All due respect bro but I have no interest in why what and how with religon. I personally think it should be banned every form of it do away with it and in generations to come think how much better the world would be, Just look what atrocities have occured under the name of religon.

People don't need religion to commit atrocities. People can do just fine all by themselves. Religion is often a convenient excuse, but it doesn't mean that had there been no religion there would have been no war/genocide/whatever. Sometimes people are just :censored:holes.

Religion is as acceptable as any other form of heuristic for life, as long as people don't start pretending that it isn't completely arbitrary and that there's a big guy in the sky telling them to kill the infidels. They chose to kill infidels because they wanted to, or didn't care enough not to at least.

 

[Carbonox]

Look you have got me started now..........................no I will shut up and log off now before I get myself writing what I hate about all religons. Peace to all. Look after yourself and your family and be kind to everyone else then you live a decent person.

That's the behavior we've often seen from religious extremists on GTP, nice to see things aren't different at all on the other end of the spectrum.

 

[Scaff]

All due respect bro but I have no interest in why what and how with religon.

Then perhaps you should have refrained from posting in a discussion on the subject.

This is not a blog, so when you comment you should do so with the expectation that people may wish to discuss your comments. Thats kind of central to the concept of a discussion forum.

 

[Danoff]

That's the behavior we've often seen from religious extremists on GTP, nice to see things aren't different at all on the other end of the spectrum.

It happens in many subjects, not just religion. It happens because people get emotional when they hear something that goes against everything they hold to be right. It takes some time to get sufficiently used to people disagreeing with you before you have that instant emotional response.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

The most important aspect of these, is while perhaps percievable as inconsistent, is that
they remove nothing in the way of the main points and theme of the events, or the new testament in general.
But that would be entirely consistent with accounts recorded by different sources, absent of a collaborative effort to compare notes and sort out any percieved inconsistencies.
Personally, I believe the absense of perfect collaboration, lends more credibility to the likely hood of being authentic and true, as oppossed to false.
For example, this has happened numerous times over the years. My wife and I can attend the same event.
Afterwards her description of what she noticed or heard will be completely different from mine.
Not that the things we each describe did not take place, but we are tuned radically different when it comes to taking notice of them.
Vantage point can be physical as well as individual.
Further I believe with regaurd to many of these incidentals the human element is retained in spite of its possible percievable inconsistencies.

Luke 24:4 states that there were two men dressed in shining garments in the tomb.
Mark 16:5 states that there was one man dressed in white in the tomb.
As indicated, more women were involved in this incident than the two Marys.
Depending on the size of this entourage, it is entirely possible one man addressed the two Marys,
and the other, spoke to other women, and was not, from vantage point, seen or heard by all of them.
This would be consistent with the Mark 16 account, although we are not afforded exact details, of the coordination of the event.
Again, in the end result, I don't see it matters one way or the other.

John 19:17 states that Jesus carried his own cross to Golgotha.
Matthew 27:32 states that Simon of Cyrene carried Jesus' cross to Golgotha.
Simon of Cyrene was forced to help carry the cross, since in Jesus condition, he probably could not make it far alone.
Two people can both carry a cross.
Or they could also have carried it singularly as well, one for a distance, and then the other.

Mark 6:8 states that Jesus commanded his disciples to take only a staff.
Matthew 10:10 states that Jesus commanded his disciples to not take a staff.
While a case could be made for the technical difference between a Staff and a walking stick,
I believe this is most likely a translational snafu.

Matthew 21:19-20 states that the fig tree withered immediately while the disciples and Jesus watched.
Mark 11:13-22 states that Jesus cursed the fig tree on the way to Jerusalem from Bethany but only found it withered away the next morning.
Apparently Peter heard what was said, but did not notice the fig tree wither, until the next morning.
Or he made note of it, because it was still withered.

Matthew 28:1 states that Mary Magdalene and the "other" Mary went, while Mark 16:1 claims that Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome went to the tomb, while
Luke 23:55-56 and 24:1,10 depicts more than three women going to the tomb.
I have no idea, what the significance of this is supposed to be.
Again just individual perspective.

Matthew 8:28 states that two demon-possessed men came out of the tombs.
Mark 5:2 states that one demon-possessed man came out of the tombs.
Again this is just individual point of view.
Matthew thought it significant to relate concerning both men.
Mark considered only one significant, so he didn't mention the other one.
They were traveling around having similar encounters on a regular basis.

Mark 11:7 states that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on one donkey.
Matthew 21:7 states that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on two donkeys.
I suspect another translational snafu.
However, it met the requirement of the prophesy, of which was Matthew's concern of note.
As was apparently Luke's not Mark's.

Matthew 27:5 states that he hung himself out of remorse for betraying Jesus.
Acts 1:18 states that he fell on the ground in the field he purchased and his guts spilled out.
This one at least on the surface appears to be contradictory.
However, minus details of the hanging, it is certainly possible, Judas being under considerable stress,
did not properly consider the length of rope, and in the act of throwing himself off a ledge,
hit a large boulder before the rope drew taught, resulting in disembowelling himself.
Matthew just related what he knew at the time, concerning, Judas's fate.
Either way, it does not detract from the overriding point of a tragic demise.

Luke 24 depicts Jesus as ascending back to heaven on the following day of his resurrection.
Acts 1:3 states that Jesus ascended back to heaven forty days after the day of his resurrection.
Obviously, here he made the inaugural ascension the next day, returned afterwards, hung out for 40 days,
and returned again.
Not exactly an Alfred Hitchcock mystery.

Luke 22:3 states that Satan entered Judas at least a few days before the Passover occurred.
John 13:27 states that Satan entered Judas during the last supper.
This is just an outright misquote.
They both concur of Satan's influence on Judas prior to the last Supper.

Mark 15:40, Matthew 27:55 and Luke 23:49 all state that the women were standing far away from the cross, and watching from a great distance.
John 19:25 states that the women were standing near the cross, near enough for Jesus to speak to them when he told his mother "Woman, behold thy son!".
This one is just ridiculous.
At some point they stood far, and at some point near.

Mark 15:32 and Matthew 27:44 state that both criminals mocked and reviled Jesus.
Luke 23:39-42 states that only one of the criminals mocked and reviled Jesus.
Another misquote.
The text states in both Mark and Matthew, those that passed by mocked him.
Luke's account, mentions only one criminal mocking him.

Matthew 1:16 states that Jacob was Joseph's father.
Luke 3:23 states that Heli was Joseph's father.
This one could be translational too.
But I don't know.

Matthew 5:22 has Jesus saying that it is not okay to call someone a fool and anyone who does is in danger of going to hell.
Luke 24:25 depicts Jesus calling two men fools and in
Galatians 3:1 Paul calls the Galatian Christians foolish while in
1st Corinthians 15:36 he calls a type of man who questions a fool.
As stated in Matthew you are not to call your brother a fool, although it is probably a good idea, not to call anyone a fool.
The other references are to acting foolishly, which probably can be attributed to everyone at some time or another.
That is not the same as declaring someone a fool, meaning they are completely incapable of anything but foolish behavior.

Matthew 20:30 states that there were two blind men.
Mark 10:46 and Luke 18:35 state that there was only one blind man.
Mark 10:46 and Luke 18:35 do not state there was only one blind man.
They only make reference to one blind man.
Matthew makes reference to two.
Of no consequence either way.

Matthew 27:34 states that the soldiers gave Jesus vinegar and gall.
Mark 15:23 states that the soldiers gave Jesus wine and myrhh.
He was offered both or all three possibly once.
Just writer perspective.
Again either way it doesn't really matter.
Its easy to ascertain it wasn't a pleasant experience.

Mark 1:12-13 state that he went immediately into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil for 40 days
John 1:35,43 and 2:1 state that he called his disciples and attended the wedding at Cana.
Another misquote.
John's account is referencing Jesus being batized at some time prior to the wedding events.

In John 5:31, Jesus said, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true."
In John 8:14, Jesus said, "Even if I bear witness of myself, my witness is true."
In reality, these do not conflict .
His statements in John 5, are reference to confirmation of the truth to others, but not himself.
He further states:
"But I do not receive [a mere] human witness [the evidence which I accept on My behalf is not from man];
but I simply mention all these things in order that you may be saved "(made and kept safe and sound).
Or that John may believe.
In John 8, before the Sanhedrin, he is stating his winess is true, because he knows they will not believe the witness of John the Baptist.

Mark 16:8 states that they fled the tomb in fear and said nothing to anyone.
Matthew 28:8 states that they ran immediately to tell Jesus' disciples what they had seen and heard.
Another gross misquote.
Mark 16 states that initially yes, they were fearful and spoke to no one on the way to see the disciples.
In both accounts they were met by Jesus on the way and he reassured them and also told them to tell the disciples.

Acts 1:18 states that Judas bought the potter's field
Matthew 27:6 states that the chief priests bought the potter's field.
Since Judas's money was used to buy the field, it could be said he did buy the field, even though the priests made the transaction.

You know considering these objections, I'm reminded of a verse in the New Testament, some might find contradictory.
Matthew 23:24 Amplified Bible (AMP)
"You blind guides, filtering out a gnat and gulping down a camel!"