what are your religious views?

[Pierce28]

I used to be catholic, but I just got fed up with all the drama that came with it. Since then, I guess you could call me a tolerant atheist. I highly agree with the statement, "I'll respect you're religion if you respect the lack of mine".



However, there is one thing I will not tolerate - when religion is used as an argument in a science discussion. For example, I was in a discussion for one of my classes about the size of space and the possibility of alien life. One person chimed in that we were all wrong and cited a biblical verse, and another said we were right and cited another biblical verse. I told them both straight up that their point was moot. Sorry, but science != stories from a ~1500 year old book.

[carnealse]

Why not? The bible was scientifically accurate when the rest of the world thinking was that the world was flat.
There were people like you saying the bible has no place in science when their science was wrong and what the bible stated about earth was correct.
Hmmm....

[EndUnknown]

Originally Posted by carnealse

Well people claim titles for one thing and titles mean nothing. A Catholic Christian. That is a clash. One that does not believe in God, now you claim a title and you are not Catholic or Christian.
For those who think they are atheists or that such a thing exists on a basic logical level, I can prove there is no such thing.
If you take this with an open mind, be serious, and be logical then this is how;
Draw a circle (can be in your mind)
In that circle represents all knowledge and information past, present, and future in the whole universe.
Now realistically, draw how much of your knowledge fills that up. If you are serious and realistic, logically you can put but a mere dot in the circle.
Now, isn't it a possibility that somewhere out there in the rest of the circle, God can exsist.
By all logical and mathematic means, the answer is undoubtedly yes.
My thinking, if there is a God that made everything, wouldn't you want to get on their good side?

*Dark Whole claps

couldn't have said it better myself

[Pierce28]

Originally Posted by carnealse

Why not? The bible was scientifically accurate when the rest of the world thinking was that the world was flat.
There were people like you saying the bible has no place in science when their science was wrong and what the bible stated about earth was correct.
Hmmm....

Other people of that time had the idea that the world was round. It was not a revolutionary idea brought by divine intervention. Thus, by your logic, since they got one thing right, everything must be right?

[carnealse]

Oh yeah, and you call them stories, yet there are so many accurate portrayals of events that are well known and documented. Others are of genealogies. Others are specific accounts that have better documentation than most historical events.
The death of Christ has more documentation covering it than all of Alexander the Great's campaigns. Yet you do not dispute that he existed and did what it was you are taught do you?
Plus the bible is recognized as very reliable and accurate with archeology by National Geographic and the Smithsonian Institute.
For a long time many thought the bible made up the Hittites but low and behold, their civilization was eventually uncovered.
Do not dismiss so readily without much devoted research into claims based on your feelings of religion itself.

Originally Posted by Pierce28

Other people of that time had the idea that the world was round. It was not a revolutionary idea brought by divine intervention. Thus, by your logic, since they got one thing right, everything must be right?

Well it has yet to be proven wrong hasn't it?
My logic did not assume that though. You put that into my mouth like a politician.
My logic says that when there is truth in something despite popular belief, and that belief was wide spread and scientific for the time, that other truths should be considered.
It took science to disprove the world was flat. That is why it was such an important event and taught in schools.
It was never called divine intervention. That means that something divine actually intervened in some sort of affair or event.
The word you're looking for is inspiration. This was written in the beginning of the Torah where science had no place and understanding of such things was minute.

[Pierce28]

Originally Posted by carnealse

Oh yeah, and you call them stories, yet there are so many accurate portrayals of events that are well known and documented. Others are of genealogies. Others are specific accounts that have better documentation than most historical events.
The death of Christ has more documentation covering it than all of Alexander the Great's campaigns. Yet you do not dispute that he existed and did what it was you are taught do you?
Plus the bible is recognized as very reliable and accurate with archeology by National Geographic and the Smithsonian Institute.
For a long time many thought the bible made up the Hittites but low and behold, their civilization was eventually uncovered.
Do not dismiss so readily without much devoted research into claims based on your feelings of religion itself.

I'm not saying that all the things in the bible are untrue. What I believe is that people didn't really understand the way the world worked and turned to religion to answer their questions. Thus, it is going to be based on fact, but it doesn't mean that their beliefs are fact, as well. Who knows? Maybe there really was a Jesus, and he really could have been crucified. However, I highly doubt there was any divine intervention. Also, don't forget that the bible was not written until well after the events that supposedly occurred. Thus, most of the books are not primary sources, and as well all know, as a story is passed down from generation to generation, it usually gets "expanded" to make it a better story.


Which brings me to another thing. There are many books that were not added to the bible because scholars did not agree with them. What makes you certain that the "true" ones were omitted and replaced with "untrue" ones, based on what the composers wanted?

[carnealse]

youre only referring to the events of Jesus. That stuff was written very soon after and from different people, those for and against. So it was easy for historians to piece together what was real and know the accuracy was there.
They also know that there is a historically real Jesus who is in the bible. Now I am only saying historical because their focus was on the human not the divine. There are no claims from historians in this field of his miracles being validated. Their puzzle is that they are not refuted anywhere. Even those who disliked Jesus called him a sorcerer.
So yes, there was a real figure named Jesus who died in this way. If he is the one who paid the ultimate price so we would never have to, that is up to you to decide.
As far as the omitted pieces, this is simple.
It was 2000 years of writing compiled. So no the bible was not all after Jesus.
Two, you are referring to the gospels. Some are blatantly fake. Others were never let in because the Rabbis scrutinized the writing to an exacting standard. It was easy to tell what was real and what did not fit. This is an example of how you can think of it.
If you listen to a piece of classical music, and you know Beethoven and someone says it is him, you can accept that. It is in his style and it fits. If you hear something like Sandman by Metallica, and someone tells you it is Beethoven, you know that is not right and you reject it. You know what someone is like based on years of public work or speaking. They did the same with the gospels.
If you ever read some of the others, they are freakin weird at times. They do not match the words of Jesus you'd ever expect from him. Not even you or I would say some of those things and it make sense.
Oh and the variation and different details actually helped historians validate the gospels. If they were nearly the same, as in the same exact story, then collaboration or the same exact author would have been a reality and broken the gospel's validity down fast.

[Pierce28]

What about the story of Jesus in the temple market? That doesn't exactly fit his style? I understand that it was meant to be a lesson, but what if other ones were supposed to, as well?


Also, the stories of Jesus pretty much show that he was a brilliant man, as seen by how he answered the Roman guards when they asked if he was the king of the Jews. What if his miracles were just brilliant tricks? Send me back in time to that period with a cigarette lighter, and I'd probably be called divine as well.

[random667]

I believe that we are all too primitive to really know what is going on around us.
If there is a god and he wants me to believe in him, he is going to have to tell me this himself, I am sure he would understand that i cant spend my life devoted to blindly following the words of other men.

[carnealse]

Well that was why they called him a sorcerer, the ones that hated him anyways.
No the temple was not out of his style. If you notice the personality was shown in all ways while his life was recorded. So an anger towards actions of defilement and not condemning the people for who they are is right in line with his thinking. He did not hurt anyone did he? He merely took care of the actions by flipping over the tables.
And going back in time with a lighter. Not a good example there, especially since there was no technology like that to make tricks with and Jesus was not from the future.
If you can call raising someone from the dead, healing cripples and the blind a great trick then please find out how someone 2000 years ago could do it and let us know.
I know plenty of people who'd love to know that trick!

[random667]

Originally Posted by carnealse

If you can call raising someone from the dead, healing cripples and the blind a great trick then please find out how someone 2000 years ago could do it and let us know.
I know plenty of people who'd love to know that trick!

I call it a good story, no way I can believe any of this ever happened without seeing it myself, then i still probably wouldn't believe it.

[carnealse]

You are right along with a lot of people random. Seeing is not always believing. Good stories should be refuted when someone like that is around though.
Even his enemies, those who wrote about him outside of the bible, never refuted those "stories."
Either way, he was not actually as big of a figure in the Romans eyes either, so they never took the time to check into him and record any extensive findings. He was not a threat in any way to the Roman Empire, so they just ignored him until they were forced to deal with him by the Jews.
Everyone can agree, if he is not who he claimed to be (then he would be the worlds biggest liar, fraud, and not a good man at all) or he is (then we can all breathe easy for once) the historical portion of his life was pretty interesting outside of any kind of divinity. If you do not care for history, then maybe it is boring, but I like history to an extent.

[random667]

I have heard allot of "facts" supporting both sides, and decided that i am just going to wait and see if there is a god or not.
Honestly i have know way of knowing for sure if anything written thousands of years before I was born is fact or fiction.
No point looking for "proof" in a system based on blind "faith".
I myself require indisputable proof for any major decisions in my life.

[carnealse]

Well there is indisputable proof for many things. Scientifically speaking, if you want something that offers empirical evidences, then you will have to study a lot and decide for yourself.
Many scientists have come to their own conclusion that there must be an intelligence of a sort.
Why would you wait to decide? If you wait, then its too late, right?
Anyway, read something like "Case for Christ" or "Case for Faith" if you want opinions and supporting evidences for a God to exist. That uses interviews with tons of different brainiacs who are experts in their fields and references to their works.
They were written by an atheist who started out trying to interview and disprove a God, and came to the conclusion there is one.
Now, a real big question is, if there is a God, which one is real?
Thats for you to find out for yourself.
Another thought I have on it all; if there is no God, we are all safe any belief because nothing will happen. If there is, then those who don't believe are not safe.
Plus, if there is no God, then our existence has no purpose or meaning. Our lives would be worthless and I really think thats a sad life to have no worth or purpose.

[random667]

If there were any indisputable proof in existence that god does exists, then there would be no argument, there would be no atheists.
You cant have faith and indisputable proof at the same time, proof removes the need for faith.

If god would punish me eternally for making the wrong choice, then screw him, that is sick.
Create me, give me a choice of hundreds of religions, and if i pick the wrong one i am going to be tortured forever? I cant believe that could be true.

As for life with out meaning, what meaning does our lives really have if there is a god?
Live a life in fear of burning eternally in the after life, if we choose the wrong religion?
Then go to heaven, have you ever really stopped to think about what you would do if there was a heaven? lay around in clouds for the rest of eternity? Doesn't sound like much fun to me.
Jehovah's witnesses believe that the real reward is eternal life on earth in perfect conditions. While the 144,000 chosen go to heaven to serve god, And the wicked are just dead, no eternal torture. That is way more believable to me, but eh... no proof.
Life is to enjoy and experience, just because it will end doesn't mean it is meaningless.
That would be like not going to the park for some fun because you knew you would have to leave eventually.

If you believe in god, then pray for me, for no combination of words uttered by mortal man shall ever convince me to believe in that which can not be proven.

[Pierce28]

Originally Posted by random667

If god would punish me eternally for making the wrong choice, then screw him, that is sick.
Create me, give me a choice of hundreds of religions, and if i pick the wrong one i am going to be tortured forever? I cant believe that could be true.

I agree with that 100% there.


Also, this is the way I see it:
When there is an unexplained phenomenon, scientist say, "I don't know why that happened, let me study it and I'll find out why it happened". However, religious people tend to say, "I don't know why that happened. It was God".



Also, you mentioned that there were many revolutionary ideas in the Bible, such as the world was round. However, if it is so scientifically revolutionary, then why has it held back science? (For example, evolution)

[carnealse]

Um, Random, the point of it is called free will.
You think of punishment, but the line is clear. We made our own situations. God did not do this did he? Free will did this.
Okay, so if it was supposed to be set up for the perfect life with a choice to do what we want in favor of him or against him, so this would be in favor or satan then its not his fault.
So God says, alright then, I want to be chosen not by default but by a being with free will. If I am chosen, then I know it was for real. If I am not, then that is their choice.
God is not choosing to punish you by separation, you choose to separate yourself. He will not force you to be with him, rather let you have what you want and that is clearly to not want anything to do with him.
The alternative at death is to not be with him. Where else would you go then? There is only one opposite to God that desires you. So you chose there.
Pierce, I can put your evolutionary argument into the dirt. I have studied that for so long, I cannot believe there is no intelligence as many scientists do as well.
They do not say God per se, only an intelligence.
Evolution is theory and shady at best. There is zero empirical evidence and is why it has never been changed from theory to fact anywhere or taught as the sole process of life.
Why would anyone fear hell? It is simple to get into heaven.
I do not see the big deal really. I do know that if you admit there is a God then you have to be responsible for your actions. But aren't you already to an extent?
Jehovah's witness's 144,000 is way off. They should know that means they are all screw from here on out by their own beliefs. Besides, that is really referring to the number of Jews left on Earth before God lifts their self imposed veil when they cry for his help. Not the amount of those who goto heaven. Study it a little more.
You want evidences, but you really do not want them. I can see by how you react that you do not want to hear it, just argue it. Science proves an intelligence. Plus, a logical test I posted earlier proves there are no atheists by the definition of one. The only way you can be an atheist is to be ignorant and purposely void yourself of logic to not admit that there is a possibility of a God.
So you want to blast and rant why you do not want to believe but do not want to know reasons why it is a pretty good thing, nor do you seem to care about any existences of evidence. You want to spit out evolution as if it had empirical evidence when it is miserably flawed and corrupted with bad data known to the scientific communities as another reason to choose not to believe in one. You'd rather argue than discuss.
I am not interested in argument, only discussion.