"God" and Religion.

• Everwanderer wrote on 2010-05-04 18:54
  Homo est Deus
  
  Man is insecure, he needs to believe there's a great power out there that looks after him and gives him strenght, thus, he created God.
  God exists, he/she is real for everyone who believes in It. There isn't an absolute God, there's as many gods as there are believers, every man and woman is their own God.
  
  As for religion, I can't honestly say anything nice about any out there. Men have done so many horrible things in the name of God and religion, and there's still many science developments being halted or delayed because they are considered sacrilege by the church. Men really need to stop considering religion an authority if we want, as species, to evolve.
  
  That's just my point of view.
• Virtue wrote on 2010-05-04 19:12

  Quote from Saani;28156:

  I never said it was tampered with, or changed, or anything like that. I said it was written by man, was it not? Regardless of whether or not "God" said what should be there, it was man who set it in stone, huh?

  
  Yes, man wrote it down of course.
  
  "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20-21).
• Cannibal wrote on 2010-05-04 19:14
  I understand what you're getting at. But one day I could just be delusional and think I'm feeling/seeing/hearing something tell me what to write down and teach, and I do it.
  
  Understand where I'm coming from?
• Virtue wrote on 2010-05-04 19:49

  Quote from Saani;28177:

  I understand what you're getting at. But one day I could just be delusional and think I'm feeling/seeing/hearing something tell me what to write down and teach, and I do it.
  
  Understand where I'm coming from?

  
  Are you saying all these men were delusional, thinking they're feeling/seeing/hearing something and writing it down with such unity of scripture?
  
  The Bible, which was written by approximately 40 human authors over a period of approximately 1600 years.
  
  These men were quite diverse:
  - Moses, a political leader
  - Joshua, a military leader
  - David, a shepherd
  - Solomon, a king
  - Amos, a herdsman and fruit picker
  - Daniel, a prime minister
  - Matthew, a tax collector
  - Luke, a medical doctor
  - Paul, a rabbi
  - Peter, a fisherman; among others.
  
  The Bible was also written under a variety of circumstances. It was written on 3 different continents, Europe, Asia, and Africa.
  
  Yet, the great themes of Scripture are maintained in all the writing. The Bible does not contradict itself. There is no way, apart from God the Holy Spirit supervising the writing of the Bible, that this could have been accomplished.
• Hiccup wrote on 2010-05-04 19:52

  Quote from Sin;28175:

  Yes, man wrote it down of course.
  
  "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

  
  If it's Gods words given to man to write down how come he chose just Man and not Woman?
• Time wrote on 2010-05-04 20:32
  Since I just skimmed through these 10 pages I guess I will post my view on religion and god. oh btw, this is incredibly vague..
  
  In my opinion, religion and god are perfectly fine if thats what floats your boat, but its also fine to not believe. I personally think that god is being phased out in todays society, due to the fact that things are not so, for lack of a better term, mystical, today we have more advanced sciences, that can explain things that in the past were unexplainable, but still there are mystery's, so if god is your answer to how the universe was created, its your opinion and im fine with that. Also, I understand some benefits of being religious, although I personally am not, I can see how having morals and something to believe in could be helpful. I think that in the end all that matters is what helps you sleep at night, you can believe whatever you wish.
  
  -Im happy with the maturity in this thread thus far, keep it up everybody! :thumb:
• Criticalxhit wrote on 2010-05-04 20:54
  I really can't be bothered to argue with all of the views that contradict my beliefs, because I doubt very much it will change anyone else's opinion, so instead I'll quote the things I found most effective :P
  
  

  Quote from Justified;28083:

  So many of the atheist posts are making me shake my head, and I'm barely religious at all.
  
  Instead of typing something out and probably offending somebody, I'll just post a link.
  10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On | Cracked.com
  
  The least an atheist can do, is not slam on religion without doing a little bit of research first.
  Like saying how religion is bad because the Christians at school are shoving the Bible in people's faces.
  Yet it is not taught to force religion on to others. You have a problem with a jerk, not with religion. (Point 8 on that article)

  
  
  

  Quote from Sin;28085:

  I'm tired of "shutting up". It has yielded no results. You are all sinning just as much as (if not more than) before, and I for one refuse to sit here and allow you to do it without at least explaining why it is wrong.
  
  It is the least I can do for God...After all, He did create me, put up with my sinfulness, love me, die for me, and guarantee me everlasting life.
  
  I think the least I can do is spread His message to others.

  
  
  If I was going to reply to anything, I would say nearly the exact same thing as Justified did, combined with what Sin said. I looked at the link posted, and after reading most of it, I can say I agreed with nearly everything said. I suggest everyone look at that article, since it's based from an unbiased point of view.
  

  Quote from Juno;27862:

  It hasn't been super hostile as of yet, but since no conclusion can be reached the thread will simply spin on to infinity and beyond until fighting does break out. In the meantime nothing is learned and little if anything is gained.
  
  I suppose I don't do any good saying this here though.

  
  
  ^Very true. Like I said, no one is going to change their opinions from what I've seen. Even Saani, who said...

  Quote from Saani:

  [FONT=Arial]"Please, prove to me that your God exists, give me evidence, and I'll change everything I believe."[/FONT]

  ...doesn't seem in any position to change her mind.
  
  That's all I have to say :P
• EndlessDreams wrote on 2010-05-04 20:56

  Quote from Sin;28200:

  Are you saying all these men were delusional, thinking they're feeling/seeing/hearing something and writing it down with such unity of scripture?
  
  The Bible, which was written by approximately 40 human authors over a period of approximately 1600 years.
  
  These men were quite diverse:
  - Moses, a political leader
  - Joshua, a military leader
  - David, a shepherd
  - Solomon, a king
  - Amos, a herdsman and fruit picker
  - Daniel, a prime minister
  - Matthew, a tax collector
  - Luke, a medical doctor
  - Paul, a rabbi
  - Peter, a fisherman; among others.
  
  The Bible was also written under a variety of circumstances. It was written on 3 different continents, Europe, Asia, and Africa.
  
  Yet, the great themes of Scripture are maintained in all the writing. The Bible does not contradict itself. There is no way, apart from God the Holy Spirit supervising the writing of the Bible, that this could have been accomplished.

  
  
  Can't a small group of man got together, and made up all the storylines from past religions? They could have inspired by the great stories handed by other religions at that time, and decided to use it for their own.
  
  The part of divine inspiration on a religious book isn't exactly original. Most religious book does this, and claim it was divinely inspired.
  
  As for the contractions part, it is based on your own interpretation. The bible is open to many interpretations, you can find such explanations here, without the extreme bias from either side.
  
  (Read it as God's Word, Folklore, Midrash, and/or Historical Document)
• Zack wrote on 2010-05-04 21:01

  Quote from bradstrt;27750:

  Oh boy this is gonna be trouble.
  
  I do not believe in God, or a higher power. I think that evolution (is proven) is natural and putting God up on a pedestal is just an explanation for the unknown. The Bible talks about all these morals but does anybody really follow them? No. I could also bring up corruption and the crusades against the church's enemies and also forcing other countries into their religion through missionaries. Yeah.... no thanks. I've been to church maybe 3 times, and I found it extremely boring and they try and milk your money so bad!! The priest didn't even make sense and I zoned out after 5 seconds mostly cause I had no idea what he was talking about.

  
  
  Evaluation is not proven. They are very close but they have not proven it yet.
• Virtue wrote on 2010-05-04 21:10

  Quote from bradstrt;28203:

  If it's Gods words given to man to write down how come he chose just Man and not Woman?

  God did not choose specific people. God chose people, in general. It might be a coincidence that they were all men, or it may be part of His divine plan. The Scriptures do not explain this, so anything we throw out there is pure speculation. It is, however, known that in older Latin, Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew versions it probably said something more inclusive. Plus (and this supports the former) in old and middle English, the word "man" referred to any person and not specifically males. Following this it's been speculated that Ruth was written by a woman.
  
  As for myself, I'm going to bed now. I'm too tired to reply to you now, EndlessDreams. I'll do so tomorrow I guess.
  
  "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THIS WORLD rather than on Christ" (Colossians 2:8).
• EndlessDreams wrote on 2010-05-04 21:16

  Quote from Zackeh;28272:

  Evaluation is not proven. They are very close but they have not proven it yet.

  
  
  Nothing in science is proven. Never then, and never in the future. The whole concept of science is not to prove anything. This is because science is based on empirical evidence, and then theories/models are built to try to explain such empirical evidence. Then those theories/models are tested time and time again until someone comes up with a better one.
  
  Your senses can be wrong. Two people can interpret the same thing differently. Just because the Sky is Blue to you doesn't mean it is actually blue. We will never know the real color of the sky.
  
  Evolution is one of the strongest scientific theories scientist has come up until today. It has withstand more than 150 years of testing. So much branches of science confirm the evolutionary theory. Maybe some day in the future, someone will come up with a better theory, and will win multiple Nobel Prizes this way.
  
  Religion is not based on empirical evidence. It cannot be tested in any way. It can't be sensed in any way. You cannot prove a negative (you can't even show evidence for it), that is why religion is still is very convincing to people who cannot recognize this.
  
  Also, religion is not the same as morality. Some people's morality can come from religion, but not everyone's morality comes from religion.
  
  Although, it is because of science, that you are reading this post right now in probably in a healthy state of being instead of dying to a number of possible infectious disease that are preventable today.
• Zephyri wrote on 2010-05-04 21:29

  Quote from EndlessDreams;28270:

  Can't a small group of man got together, and made up all the storylines from past religions? They could have inspired by the great stories handed by other religions at that time, and decided to use it for their own.
  
  The part of divine inspiration on a religious book isn't exactly original. Most religious book does this, and claim it was divinely inspired.
  
  As for the contractions part, it is based on your own interpretation. The bible is open to many interpretations, you can find such explanations here, without the extreme bias from either side.
  
  (Read it as God's Word, Folklore, Midrash, and/or Historical Document)

  
  
  The Bible: Why Some Ancient Texts Were Excluded
  
  This is a short and good read related to the topic. I'm going to keep my own opinions out of it as someone else has pretty much hit the nail on the head as far as my own thoughts, but I will say, please continue to keep things civil and take nothing personally.
• Juno wrote on 2010-05-04 21:55

  Quote from bradstrt:

  If it's Gods words given to man to write down how come he chose just Man and not Woman?

  
  
  Good luck finding a woman at the time that was literate. That's not to say it's totally male-dominated, the book of Ruth is a good example and the accounts of Esther, Deborah, Rahab and many others speak to that.
  
  

  Quote from Zackeh:

  Evaluation is not proven. They are very close but they have not proven it yet.

  
  
  Eh, micro is pretty much proven, macro not so much. There's a lot of details that aren't taught in schools that you should look up before debating on the subject but as a general statement that sort of holds true.
  
  

  Quote from ED:

  As for the contractions part, it is based on your own interpretation. The bible is open to many interpretations, you can find such explanations here, without the extreme bias from either side.
  

  
  
  I remember that site, people like to link to it a lot. One has only to look at the sources to wonder how objective they are and a general lack of supporting evidence makes it perhaps a good place to start but in need of some finishing. I have at least one counter source in mind but it's in book form and I don't remember the numbers exactly so I can't quote them until I find it. I'll suffice to say that the bible as we know it has been corroborated more than other trusted historical documents until I can actually find the book.
  
  

  Although, it is because of science, that you are reading this post right now in probably in a healthy state of being instead of dying to a number of possible infectious disease that are preventable today.

  
  
  Religion is not an enemy of science. The video you posted mentioned how many partake of both. I don't think it's fair to take his rather religiously ambiguous statement and hint that he holds something against science.
• Justified wrote on 2010-05-04 22:05

  Quote from bradstrt;28203:

  If it's Gods words given to man to write down how come he chose just Man and not Woman?

  
  
  Because who would ever listen to a woman?
  
  ...uh, at that time.
  >>
  <<
  
  
  

  Quote from EndlessDreams;28275:

  Although, it is because of science, that you are reading this post right now in probably in a healthy state of being instead of dying to a number of possible infectious disease that are preventable today.

  
  Point 6.
  

  [SIZE="2"]"So please, please, please, when we get into these atheist vs. Christian arguments, can the atheists stop acting like Christians want to abolish all science and live in grass huts? Just because some Christians reject the science on evolution, doesn't mean they reject all science.
  
  I mean, give me a break. America has been full of Christians since the day we invaded it, and has been a scientific and technological freaking superpower. So please stop waving your arms and warning that if Christians get their way, we'll all be sacrificing virgins on altars and replacing surgeons with priests."[/SIZE]

  
  
  
  

  Quote from Everwanderer;28165:

  As for religion, I can't honestly say anything nice about any out there. Men have done so many horrible things in the name of God and religion, and there's still many science developments being halted or delayed because they are considered sacrilege by the church. Men really need to stop considering religion an authority if we want, as species, to evolve.

  
  Point 1
  

  [SIZE="2"]"All I need from you is agreement that it's entirely possible for either an atheist or theist world to devolve into a screaming murder festival. The religious leader sends his people into battle because he thinks God commanded it, the Stalins and Maos of the world do the same because they see their people as nothing more than meaty fuel to be ground up to feed the machinery of The State. In both cases, the people are equally dead.
  
  Yeah, yeah, I know the Christians are saying that the guy who fights an unjust or needless war is violating God's law, and thus isn't a good Christian. Meanwhile, the atheists are saying that Stalin was merely bloodthirsty, separate and apart from his disbelief in a higher power. Both believe, then, that it is a corruption of their belief system that allows unjust slaughter to happen.
  
  But for this project, All we need to agree on is this: it happens in both cases. And if the opposing belief system vanished tomorrow, war and bloodshed and terror would still take place."[/SIZE]

  
  
  
  /Bumps the link for people who ignored it.
  

  Quote from Justified;28083:

  10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On | Cracked.com

  
  
  
  

  Quote from EndlessDreams;28275:

  Your senses can be wrong. Two people can interpret the same thing differently. Just because the Sky is Blue to you doesn't mean it is actually blue. We will never know the real color of the sky.

  
  
  Oho, a philosophy statement, yummy.
  
  According to Kant, there are things that we cannot know because we cannot perceive them. We have no empirical evidence for them, and we cannot argue "das ding an sich" (If we don't expect something to be true, like the sky being red, then we can't scientifically research it without some kind of bias). Like many philosophers of and before his time, Kant attributes many things and (universal and absolute) truths to Nature/God (most are monist and believe that God and Nature are the same thing, in one way or another).
  
  According to Hegel, truth is subjective. Everything that we humans know is truth, because truth belongs to humans. Saying "we don't know if the sky is blue" is a moot statement because it is blue to us. Truth also is not absolute, as it changes with time and place. The dialectic method in which debate leads to compromise, which leads to advancement is a model Hegel developed to illustrate how "truth" changes over time.
  
  Wait... is this on topic?
• Shanghai wrote on 2010-05-04 22:52

  Quote from bradstrt;28203:

  If it's Gods words given to man to write down how come he chose just Man and not Woman?

  
  
  Unrelated, but God did pick Mary the virgin, a woman, to bear Jesus and was only merely assisted by Joseph so she wouldn't be killed or something because it was wrong at that time to be a widow and be pregnant at the time. :P