Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Christians: Why do you believe?

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 4:54:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm not looking for answers from Bible verses or from personal experiences. I am looking for real, persuasive evidence and logical reasoning as to why Christianity is the word of God. I am looking for answers from some very bright and rational Christians.

Personally, I see sufficient evidence to believe that God exists

I am not interested in debating my reasons for believing in an intelligent designer in this topic though. I want to know who the designer is. I want to know who God is.

Christianity is the most widely followed religion in the whole world. Almost 2 billion followers not including various offshoots and sects of Christianity. Why specifically is Christianity so preferred over various other religions to explain who God is? I see many problems with believing in the Christian Bible as the true word of God but I'm willing to keep an open mind. I want to outline some of my reasons for now believing but first:

Why Christianity?

Other than personal revelation and from the writings of the Bible, why is the word of God more likely to be the Christian God rather than any other religion? Why is Christianity the word of God rather than God not revealing himself at all?

Here are some of my reasons for disbelieving in the Christian God.

Similarities to other myths that preceded Christianity

From parallels between the Babylonian Myth of "the epic of Gilgamesh" to Noah's Ark to parallels of Jesus and Horus (an Egyptian god) it seems like many aspects of Christianity were borrowed from myth. I've seen Christian apologetics websites using some of the foretold prophetic occurrences of the Messiah that would be born of a virgin etc. as proof that Christianity is true but made no mention that these parallels have already been foretold in ancient myth's preceding when the books of the Bible were written. In addition, there was no historicity or source to legitimize the claims made of these even coming true.

Contradictions in the Bible as the word of the God

The genealogy of Jesus for example is completely different in the gospel of Luke and the gospel of Matthew. Since both can't simultaneously be true, this shows a contradiction.

There's also discrepancies either in translation or in the literal sense. Like:

"I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever." -Jeremiah 3:12
"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever." -Jeremiah 17:4

Various books of the Bible have changed over time

Hebrews, James, Revelation, etc., were at one point books of the Bible that were rejected by Christians. There are lost canonical books of the Bible mentioned in the Bible itself. There are many books other than the 66 books currently included in the Bible that weren't included by way of Bishop vote. These votes were numerous and took place over a long period of time: Council of Nicea in 325 A.D, Synod of Laodicea in 365, third council of Carthage in 397, the Westminster Assembly in 1647, etc,.
http://freethought.mbdojo.com...

Stories in the Bible

Being swallowed by a giant fish for three days, a talking snake, a talking donkey, stopping time for a day by stopping the rotation of the earth etc,. are all completely unbelievable. If these were the miraculous events allowable by the Christian God, and the Christian God is believed to exist, then that would obviously make sense how these unbelievable things could occur by divine intervention. But without solid belief in the Christian God, how do you reconcile these stories to them?

Contradictions in God's character

God is the most loving, all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent being there is. So:

(1) how can we have control of our destiny (free will) if God has already foreknown our destiny from beginning to end and actualizes it? God has seen the movie of our lives before we ever even lived it. So how did we choose to make our own movie instead of the one God has already foreknown and actualized?

and

(2) how could an all-loving God allow the conscious torture of anyone for eternity after just one sin committed for anyone that lacked the foreknowledge to know that hell even existed? What good would come of eternal torture if no reconciliation is possible anyway? Why is more loving and justified for God to sentence someone to even finite torture rather than eternal torture for their crimes?

Perhaps some knowledgeable Christians can give me some insight on what they think about these things.

As I understand it, the evidence of Jesus' resurrection is one of the best reasons to believe that Christianity is true and that Jesus was really the son of God. I want to hear what other evidence is pertinent to believing that Christianity is true.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 7:43:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 4:54:16 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm not looking for answers from Bible verses or from personal experiences. I am looking for real, persuasive evidence and logical reasoning as to why Christianity is the word of God. I am looking for answers from some very bright and rational Christians.

Personally, I see sufficient evidence to believe that God exists

I am not interested in debating my reasons for believing in an intelligent designer in this topic though. I want to know who the designer is. I want to know who God is.

Christianity is the most widely followed religion in the whole world. Almost 2 billion followers not including various offshoots and sects of Christianity. Why specifically is Christianity so preferred over various other religions to explain who God is? I see many problems with believing in the Christian Bible as the true word of God but I'm willing to keep an open mind. I want to outline some of my reasons for now believing but first:

Why Christianity?

Other than personal revelation and from the writings of the Bible, why is the word of God more likely to be the Christian God rather than any other religion? Why is Christianity the word of God rather than God not revealing himself at all?

Here are some of my reasons for disbelieving in the Christian God.

Similarities to other myths that preceded Christianity

From parallels between the Babylonian Myth of "the epic of Gilgamesh" to Noah's Ark to parallels of Jesus and Horus (an Egyptian god) it seems like many aspects of Christianity were borrowed from myth. I've seen Christian apologetics websites using some of the foretold prophetic occurrences of the Messiah that would be born of a virgin etc. as proof that Christianity is true but made no mention that these parallels have already been foretold in ancient myth's preceding when the books of the Bible were written. In addition, there was no historicity or source to legitimize the claims made of these even coming true.

Contradictions in the Bible as the word of the God

The genealogy of Jesus for example is completely different in the gospel of Luke and the gospel of Matthew. Since both can't simultaneously be true, this shows a contradiction.

There's also discrepancies either in translation or in the literal sense. Like:

"I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever." -Jeremiah 3:12
"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever." -Jeremiah 17:4

Various books of the Bible have changed over time

Hebrews, James, Revelation, etc., were at one point books of the Bible that were rejected by Christians. There are lost canonical books of the Bible mentioned in the Bible itself. There are many books other than the 66 books currently included in the Bible that weren't included by way of Bishop vote. These votes were numerous and took place over a long period of time: Council of Nicea in 325 A.D, Synod of Laodicea in 365, third council of Carthage in 397, the Westminster Assembly in 1647, etc,.
http://freethought.mbdojo.com...

Stories in the Bible

Being swallowed by a giant fish for three days, a talking snake, a talking donkey, stopping time for a day by stopping the rotation of the earth etc,. are all completely unbelievable. If these were the miraculous events allowable by the Christian God, and the Christian God is believed to exist, then that would obviously make sense how these unbelievable things could occur by divine intervention. But without solid belief in the Christian God, how do you reconcile these stories to them?

Contradictions in God's character

God is the most loving, all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent being there is. So:

(1) how can we have control of our destiny (free will) if God has already foreknown our destiny from beginning to end and actualizes it? God has seen the movie of our lives before we ever even lived it. So how did we choose to make our own movie instead of the one God has already foreknown and actualized?

and

(2) how could an all-loving God allow the conscious torture of anyone for eternity after just one sin committed for anyone that lacked the foreknowledge to know that hell even existed? What good would come of eternal torture if no reconciliation is possible anyway? Why is more loving and justified for God to sentence someone to even finite torture rather than eternal torture for their crimes?

Perhaps some knowledgeable Christians can give me some insight on what they think about these things.

As I understand it, the evidence of Jesus' resurrection is one of the best reasons to believe that Christianity is true and that Jesus was really the son of God. I want to hear what other evidence is pertinent to believing that Christianity is true.

All you will get is lies by Christians about who God is because they weren't made to be God's saints or prophets. They have never met the true invisible Creator within His mind.
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 3:33:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 4:54:16 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Why Christianity?

Other than personal revelation and from the writings of the Bible, why is the word of God more likely to be the Christian God rather than any other religion? Why is Christianity the word of God rather than God not revealing himself at all?

In my opinion everything that Bible tells seems to be true, especially about good and right and about people.

Similarities to other myths that preceded Christianity

From parallels between the Babylonian Myth of "the epic of Gilgamesh" to Noah's Ark to parallels of Jesus and Horus (an Egyptian god) it seems like many aspects of Christianity were borrowed from myth. I've seen Christian apologetics websites using some of the foretold prophetic occurrences of the Messiah that would be born of a virgin etc. as proof that Christianity is true but made no mention that these parallels have already been foretold in ancient myth's preceding when the books of the Bible were written. In addition, there was no historicity or source to legitimize the claims made of these even coming true.

Also it is possible that those copy claims are false and other ancient cultures borrowed from Jews.

The genealogy of Jesus for example is completely different in the gospel of Luke and the gospel of Matthew. Since both can't simultaneously be true, this shows a contradiction.

They can be both true, because it is possible that they are not complete, or that same people had more than one name, as nowadays also people usually have. It was common that people got same names that had been used already earlier in their family. It makes it very probably that there would occur "contradictions" and difficulties when someone later tries to make genealogies.

"I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever." -Jeremiah 3:12
"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever." -Jeremiah 17:4

The fire of his anger is not same as his anger.

Being swallowed by a giant fish for three days, a talking snake, a talking donkey, stopping time for a day by stopping the rotation of the earth etc,. are all completely unbelievable. If these were the miraculous events allowable by the Christian God, and the Christian God is believed to exist, then that would obviously make sense how these unbelievable things could occur by divine intervention. But without solid belief in the Christian God, how do you reconcile these stories to them?

I have solid belief in Bible God. I think everything is possible for him. :)

And I think it Is not vise to limit reality by the lack of knowledge that humans have.

(1) how can we have control of our destiny (free will) if God has already foreknown our destiny from beginning to end and actualizes it? God has seen the movie of our lives before we ever even lived it. So how did we choose to make our own movie instead of the one God has already foreknown and actualized?

God knows us perfectly, therefore he knows what we will do in every situation and therefore he knows the future. I also would know it, if I would know people perfectly. It does not mean that I have influenced to free will.

(2) how could an all-loving God allow the conscious torture of anyone for eternity after just one sin committed for anyone that lacked the foreknowledge to know that hell even existed? What good would come of eternal torture if no reconciliation is possible anyway? Why is more loving and justified for God to sentence someone to even finite torture rather than eternal torture for their crimes?

Bible does not tell that people are eternally conscious in hell. And even if people are, I think that is what they want. They want to be without God, and it would make any place hellish and eternal torment to be without God. Godless is same as evil and if people want more evil, godless, then they get all kind of suffering. I think we can have small taste of that in this world by those who love more evil than good (God).

Personally I think eternal life is only for righteous, because:

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 6:23

Ife person does not live eternally; I think he can"t feel anything.

As I understand it, the evidence of Jesus' resurrection is one of the best reasons to believe that Christianity is true and that Jesus was really the son of God. I want to hear what other evidence is pertinent to believing that Christianity is true.

If the resurrection would not have happened, why would have his disciples continued to do the work that Jesus gave to them? Apparently most of early disciples were killed. Would those people really have been loyal to Jesus, if his words would not have been true?
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,482
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 4:07:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 6:20:47 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Can anyone other than God's saint explain these things to me?

xD
Never fart near dog
peaceseeker
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 5:49:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 4:54:16 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm not looking for answers from Bible verses or from personal experiences. I am looking for real, persuasive evidence and logical reasoning as to why Christianity is the word of God. I am looking for answers from some very bright and rational Christians.

Constantine had a huge role in the Council of Nicaea. He was the one that called the council in the first place! And yes, there were Christians at the time that didn't believe that Jesus was a God. (Arianism) The council of Nicaea (and the Nicean Creed created there) put that controversy to rest. Yes, the Council of Nicaea did promote Jesus to a Deity of Christianity officially. Constantine wanted a unified religion based in reality to preside over. That"s why he called the Council, sent his 80 year old mother looking for "relics" and why bishops & future Holy Roman Emperors were so prodigious in stamping out any thing that hadn"t been blessed by the Council of Nicaea. Who knows how much information we have lost about early Christianity by those zealots.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 6:16:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The only thing that might be missing in your summery of the usual is that the Faith of Christ in God of God is maintained by the Presence of God within and with the person that has the genuine Faith that is of Christ in Christ being born of the Spirit of God. Hence evidence of power and Spirit. Jesus healed amongst other things that maybe you didn"t see but was seen by those who not only tell you via documentation but has been passed down through the generations. And the people that seen and believed also did the same like Peter and John or Paul.

If God is with a man it is evident according to the will of God. Even when the early patriarchs of Israel Abraham, Jacob, Joseph so on and so forth the people around them recognized that the Lord God was with them without Abraham and the others telling them God was with them. Even as you mention Jesus rases Himself from the dead and there can"t be any doubt in the hearts and minds of the Apostles. But Jesus didn"t reveal Himself rased from the dead to anyone else that didn"t believe in the first place.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 7:43:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 4:54:16 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm not looking for answers from Bible verses or from personal experiences. I am looking for real, persuasive evidence and logical reasoning as to why Christianity is the word of God. I am looking for answers from some very bright and rational Christians.

Personally, I see sufficient evidence to believe that God exists

I am not interested in debating my reasons for believing in an intelligent designer in this topic though. I want to know who the designer is. I want to know who God is.

Christianity is the most widely followed religion in the whole world. Almost 2 billion followers not including various offshoots and sects of Christianity. Why specifically is Christianity so preferred over various other religions to explain who God is? I see many problems with believing in the Christian Bible as the true word of God but I'm willing to keep an open mind. I want to outline some of my reasons for now believing but first:

Why Christianity?

Other than personal revelation and from the writings of the Bible, why is the word of God more likely to be the Christian God rather than any other religion? Why is Christianity the word of God rather than God not revealing himself at all?

Here are some of my reasons for disbelieving in the Christian God.

Similarities to other myths that preceded Christianity

From parallels between the Babylonian Myth of "the epic of Gilgamesh" to Noah's Ark to parallels of Jesus and Horus (an Egyptian god) it seems like many aspects of Christianity were borrowed from myth. I've seen Christian apologetics websites using some of the foretold prophetic occurrences of the Messiah that would be born of a virgin etc. as proof that Christianity is true but made no mention that these parallels have already been foretold in ancient myth's preceding when the books of the Bible were written. In addition, there was no historicity or source to legitimize the claims made of these even coming true.

Contradictions in the Bible as the word of the God

The genealogy of Jesus for example is completely different in the gospel of Luke and the gospel of Matthew. Since both can't simultaneously be true, this shows a contradiction.

There's also discrepancies either in translation or in the literal sense. Like:

"I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever." -Jeremiah 3:12
"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever." -Jeremiah 17:4

Various books of the Bible have changed over time

Hebrews, James, Revelation, etc., were at one point books of the Bible that were rejected by Christians. There are lost canonical books of the Bible mentioned in the Bible itself. There are many books other than the 66 books currently included in the Bible that weren't included by way of Bishop vote. These votes were numerous and took place over a long period of time: Council of Nicea in 325 A.D, Synod of Laodicea in 365, third council of Carthage in 397, the Westminster Assembly in 1647, etc,.
http://freethought.mbdojo.com...

Stories in the Bible

Being swallowed by a giant fish for three days, a talking snake, a talking donkey, stopping time for a day by stopping the rotation of the earth etc,. are all completely unbelievable. If these were the miraculous events allowable by the Christian God, and the Christian God is believed to exist, then that would obviously make sense how these unbelievable things could occur by divine intervention. But without solid belief in the Christian God, how do you reconcile these stories to them?

Contradictions in God's character

God is the most loving, all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent being there is. So:

(1) how can we have control of our destiny (free will) if God has already foreknown our destiny from beginning to end and actualizes it? God has seen the movie of our lives before we ever even lived it. So how did we choose to make our own movie instead of the one God has already foreknown and actualized?

and

(2) how could an all-loving God allow the conscious torture of anyone for eternity after just one sin committed for anyone that lacked the foreknowledge to know that hell even existed? What good would come of eternal torture if no reconciliation is possible anyway? Why is more loving and justified for God to sentence someone to even finite torture rather than eternal torture for their crimes?

Perhaps some knowledgeable Christians can give me some insight on what they think about these things.

As I understand it, the evidence of Jesus' resurrection is one of the best reasons to believe that Christianity is true and that Jesus was really the son of God. I want to hear what other evidence is pertinent to believing that Christianity is true.

The only reason was not logic, reason or science, but rather a personal and spiritual type of experience I felt on the Easter of 12'. I started out as a gnostic who believed in William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias, but my faith became reasonable to the point where I admitted it was faith and could not be gnostic and only agnostic when you say faith. I became careful with words and avoiding mixing religion with science. I believed in being my own Christian instead of joining churches and groups.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 2:23:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 6:20:47 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Can anyone other than God's saint explain these things to me?

I could, but there is too much in your post. Can we take it one point at a time? Give me one that you think is particularly thorny.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 11:44:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 3:33:04 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 10/12/2014 4:54:16 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Why Christianity?

Other than personal revelation and from the writings of the Bible, why is the word of God more likely to be the Christian God rather than any other religion? Why is Christianity the word of God rather than God not revealing himself at all?

In my opinion everything that Bible tells seems to be true, especially about good and right and about people.
I hate to keep hamming the same points but I suppose as long as one side continues to blind themselves to them, the other side is left in the position of repeatedly presenting them.
The Bible claims that God is the root of all morality, that God can do no evil, and do no wrong. The the Bible clearly claims that God promoted slavery, claimed his armies would rape women, allowed his armies to kidnap virgin females to "keep for themselves", and a multitude of other atrocities. Given that you're stating that everything in the Bible seems to be true, we must take it that you believe that kidnapping virgins, raping women, drowning infants, committing genocide and creating eternal torment for anyone who doesn't believe you are all truths.

Are you willing to accept the corollaries of your statement?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 11:53:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 7:43:58 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:

but my faith became reasonable to the point where I admitted it was faith and could not be gnostic and only agnostic when you say faith. I became careful with words and avoiding mixing religion with science. I believed in being my own Christian instead of joining churches and groups.

How can you say that your "faith" (belief without evidence, without reason to believe), became "reasonable" (cause, evidence, rationale). Faith can't be "reasonable". It can only be devoid of reason. Otherwise it isn't faith.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 8:09:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 11:53:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/13/2014 7:43:58 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:

but my faith became reasonable to the point where I admitted it was faith and could not be gnostic and only agnostic when you say faith. I became careful with words and avoiding mixing religion with science. I believed in being my own Christian instead of joining churches and groups.

How can you say that your "faith" (belief without evidence, without reason to believe), became "reasonable" (cause, evidence, rationale). Faith can't be "reasonable". It can only be devoid of reason. Otherwise it isn't faith.

When I say reasonable, I mean there's a reason for me to believe. I've explained there's no evidence for my faith. It's just from what I experienced that I found it reasonable in the sense I'm talking about. If there's another word for this, then I'll gladly use that instead of reasonable.
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 4:13:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 11:44:38 PM, Beastt wrote:
...Given that you're stating that everything in the Bible seems to be true, we must take it that you believe that kidnapping virgins, raping women, drowning infants, committing genocide and creating eternal torment for anyone who doesn't believe you are all truths.

Everything that is in the Bible is in my opinion true. But I think your interpretation of the Bible is not truthful.

For example Bible does not teach that rape is right. That is your sick interpretation.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 4:47:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 8:09:32 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/14/2014 11:53:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/13/2014 7:43:58 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:

but my faith became reasonable to the point where I admitted it was faith and could not be gnostic and only agnostic when you say faith. I became careful with words and avoiding mixing religion with science. I believed in being my own Christian instead of joining churches and groups.

How can you say that your "faith" (belief without evidence, without reason to believe), became "reasonable" (cause, evidence, rationale). Faith can't be "reasonable". It can only be devoid of reason. Otherwise it isn't faith.

When I say reasonable, I mean there's a reason for me to believe. I've explained there's no evidence for my faith.
And there is your contradiction, conveniently laid out for you in your own words. If there is no evidence (and I agree there is none), then you can't rationally claim to have a reason.

It's just from what I experienced that I found it reasonable in the sense I'm talking about. If there's another word for this, then I'll gladly use that instead of reasonable.
And yet, by your own admission, what you have found is a complete lack of evidence to support those beliefs. And in the face of a total lack of evidence to support a belief, it is purely unreasonable to continue to hold it. Note the root-word of "reasonable" is "reason", and when you have no evidence, you have no reason.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 5:04:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 4:13:28 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 10/14/2014 11:44:38 PM, Beastt wrote:
...Given that you're stating that everything in the Bible seems to be true, we must take it that you believe that kidnapping virgins, raping women, drowning infants, committing genocide and creating eternal torment for anyone who doesn't believe you are all truths.

Everything that is in the Bible is in my opinion true. But I think your interpretation of the Bible is not truthful.
The Bible teaches that the Earth existed before the sun and stars. Earth is composed of 92 elements. Eighty-nine of those elements were fused in stars. So the Bible is wrong.
The Bible teaches that the Earth was formed covered in water, and the atmosphere was created on the following day (Gen 1:6-7). Atmospheric pressure is what maintains water in a liquid state. Without atmospheric pressure, water vaporizes at an explosive rate. So the Bible is wrong.
The bible teaches that plants were thriving on Earth before the sun and stars existed, meaning plants were growing in temperatures of less than 400-degrees below zero. The Bible is clearly wrong.
The Bible teaches that Jesus resided in Nazareth - a thriving community. Archaeology shows that Nazareth was not occupied at the time Jesus was said to have existed. The Bible is wrong.

This is but a very, VERY short list.

For example Bible does not teach that rape is right. That is your sick interpretation.

(Isaiah 13:15-16)
"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."

The Bible presents this as what God claims he will do against those who do not accept him. Does God lie? Does he engage in immoral actions? Most Christians insist that God does not lie, and does not engage in anything immoral. Yet here he claims he will gather his armies and send them to do these things, which include rape. So you figure out what it is you believe. But stop trying to play both sides of the fence. Either the Bible is God's word and God is promoting the idea that rape is a moral act, or the Bible isn't God's word, and this idea was promoted only by men who CLAIMED they were writing God's word.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 6:23:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 4:47:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:09:32 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/14/2014 11:53:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/13/2014 7:43:58 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:

but my faith became reasonable to the point where I admitted it was faith and could not be gnostic and only agnostic when you say faith. I became careful with words and avoiding mixing religion with science. I believed in being my own Christian instead of joining churches and groups.

How can you say that your "faith" (belief without evidence, without reason to believe), became "reasonable" (cause, evidence, rationale). Faith can't be "reasonable". It can only be devoid of reason. Otherwise it isn't faith.

When I say reasonable, I mean there's a reason for me to believe. I've explained there's no evidence for my faith.
And there is your contradiction, conveniently laid out for you in your own words. If there is no evidence (and I agree there is none), then you can't rationally claim to have a reason.

It's just from what I experienced that I found it reasonable in the sense I'm talking about. If there's another word for this, then I'll gladly use that instead of reasonable.
And yet, by your own admission, what you have found is a complete lack of evidence to support those beliefs. And in the face of a total lack of evidence to support a belief, it is purely unreasonable to continue to hold it. Note the root-word of "reasonable" is "reason", and when you have no evidence, you have no reason.

Its simply an outlook on life. Just because something is unreasonable doesn't mean you should just give up on it because of others. I'm not harming you, so as long as I'm not, I would like to continue believing my faith, no matter how unreasonable it is.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 6:49:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 6:23:33 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 4:47:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:09:32 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/14/2014 11:53:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/13/2014 7:43:58 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:

but my faith became reasonable to the point where I admitted it was faith and could not be gnostic and only agnostic when you say faith. I became careful with words and avoiding mixing religion with science. I believed in being my own Christian instead of joining churches and groups.

How can you say that your "faith" (belief without evidence, without reason to believe), became "reasonable" (cause, evidence, rationale). Faith can't be "reasonable". It can only be devoid of reason. Otherwise it isn't faith.

When I say reasonable, I mean there's a reason for me to believe. I've explained there's no evidence for my faith.
And there is your contradiction, conveniently laid out for you in your own words. If there is no evidence (and I agree there is none), then you can't rationally claim to have a reason.

It's just from what I experienced that I found it reasonable in the sense I'm talking about. If there's another word for this, then I'll gladly use that instead of reasonable.
And yet, by your own admission, what you have found is a complete lack of evidence to support those beliefs. And in the face of a total lack of evidence to support a belief, it is purely unreasonable to continue to hold it. Note the root-word of "reasonable" is "reason", and when you have no evidence, you have no reason.

Its simply an outlook on life. Just because something is unreasonable doesn't mean you should just give up on it because of others. I'm not harming you, so as long as I'm not, I would like to continue believing my faith, no matter how unreasonable it is.

The problem does not arise when you outright admit that you see no reason but choose to cling to your faith, anyway. If this is your choice, and you make it with full knowledge of its inaccuracy, lack of reasonable foundation, and in the face of ever-mounting evidence against it, the fine. Believe as you wish. The problem arises when organizations that wish to further increase the number of people like you and those that accept it blindly, by cultivating blatant falsehood in the minds of the next generation of potential scientists, and stunt their minds, before they have had a chance to fully develop. No, I don't have the right to tell you what you can cram down your own kids' throats (though its impact on me with be fought, tooth and nail). I do, however, have the right to stop you from cramming irrational biblical stupidity down the throat of MY child. That will be stopped, before it ever has a chance to get started. Fortunately, my boy was laughing at religion before he hit puberty...
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 7:33:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 6:23:33 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 4:47:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:09:32 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/14/2014 11:53:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/13/2014 7:43:58 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:

but my faith became reasonable to the point where I admitted it was faith and could not be gnostic and only agnostic when you say faith. I became careful with words and avoiding mixing religion with science. I believed in being my own Christian instead of joining churches and groups.

How can you say that your "faith" (belief without evidence, without reason to believe), became "reasonable" (cause, evidence, rationale). Faith can't be "reasonable". It can only be devoid of reason. Otherwise it isn't faith.

When I say reasonable, I mean there's a reason for me to believe. I've explained there's no evidence for my faith.
And there is your contradiction, conveniently laid out for you in your own words. If there is no evidence (and I agree there is none), then you can't rationally claim to have a reason.

It's just from what I experienced that I found it reasonable in the sense I'm talking about. If there's another word for this, then I'll gladly use that instead of reasonable.
And yet, by your own admission, what you have found is a complete lack of evidence to support those beliefs. And in the face of a total lack of evidence to support a belief, it is purely unreasonable to continue to hold it. Note the root-word of "reasonable" is "reason", and when you have no evidence, you have no reason.

Its simply an outlook on life. Just because something is unreasonable doesn't mean you should just give up on it because of others.
It's not being suggested that you give up on it because of others. It's being suggested that you give up on it because it is unreasonable.

I'm not harming you, so as long as I'm not, I would like to continue believing my faith, no matter how unreasonable it is.
You sound like you're asking permission. No one can control what you believe - not even you. However, you can decide whether to assess things fairly and logically, or emotionally and with a bias. Right now you're utilizing emotion and a distinct bias, because the beliefs you hold cannot survive a logical and fair assessment.

But what you believe does affect other people, because you act on what you believe. And this is the primary reason I see atheists presenting as their motivation for attempting to provide rational discussion, to an irrational belief system. It's irrational, unreasonable and requires an emotional bias, because it's contrary to reality.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 9:09:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 7:33:34 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 6:23:33 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 4:47:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:09:32 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/14/2014 11:53:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/13/2014 7:43:58 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:

but my faith became reasonable to the point where I admitted it was faith and could not be gnostic and only agnostic when you say faith. I became careful with words and avoiding mixing religion with science. I believed in being my own Christian instead of joining churches and groups.

How can you say that your "faith" (belief without evidence, without reason to believe), became "reasonable" (cause, evidence, rationale). Faith can't be "reasonable". It can only be devoid of reason. Otherwise it isn't faith.

When I say reasonable, I mean there's a reason for me to believe. I've explained there's no evidence for my faith.
And there is your contradiction, conveniently laid out for you in your own words. If there is no evidence (and I agree there is none), then you can't rationally claim to have a reason.

It's just from what I experienced that I found it reasonable in the sense I'm talking about. If there's another word for this, then I'll gladly use that instead of reasonable.
And yet, by your own admission, what you have found is a complete lack of evidence to support those beliefs. And in the face of a total lack of evidence to support a belief, it is purely unreasonable to continue to hold it. Note the root-word of "reasonable" is "reason", and when you have no evidence, you have no reason.

Its simply an outlook on life. Just because something is unreasonable doesn't mean you should just give up on it because of others.
It's not being suggested that you give up on it because of others. It's being suggested that you give up on it because it is unreasonable.

I'm not harming you, so as long as I'm not, I would like to continue believing my faith, no matter how unreasonable it is.
You sound like you're asking permission. No one can control what you believe - not even you. However, you can decide whether to assess things fairly and logically, or emotionally and with a bias. Right now you're utilizing emotion and a distinct bias, because the beliefs you hold cannot survive a logical and fair assessment.

But what you believe does affect other people, because you act on what you believe. And this is the primary reason I see atheists presenting as their motivation for attempting to provide rational discussion, to an irrational belief system. It's irrational, unreasonable and requires an emotional bias, because it's contrary to reality.

So if I help the poor, help the bullied, refuse to fight back or attack, refuse to kill, refuse to preach in the styles of Ray Comfort on the street, preach in the church or bible group and not in the streets or public secular buildings of the world, and respect other people's opinions and beliefs, is this bad? I don't do this just because my holy book tells me to, but because I remembered old John Lennon. Imagine if there's no heaven and no religion. What if I never ran into it. I never followed a god before then in the entirety that I did and only did half of the stuff I mentioned. And now I am trying to tell people to do the same. Imagine that even if there was no heaven, would that stop you from trying to be good. Don't be good because a religion tells you to, but do it because you have good intentions in your heart. Because as an agnostic Christian, I believe that if God does exist, he would want us to do good deeds because we want to purely help others. Not to just get a pass into heaven.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 9:14:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 6:49:40 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 10/15/2014 6:23:33 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 4:47:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:09:32 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/14/2014 11:53:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/13/2014 7:43:58 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:

but my faith became reasonable to the point where I admitted it was faith and could not be gnostic and only agnostic when you say faith. I became careful with words and avoiding mixing religion with science. I believed in being my own Christian instead of joining churches and groups.

How can you say that your "faith" (belief without evidence, without reason to believe), became "reasonable" (cause, evidence, rationale). Faith can't be "reasonable". It can only be devoid of reason. Otherwise it isn't faith.

When I say reasonable, I mean there's a reason for me to believe. I've explained there's no evidence for my faith.
And there is your contradiction, conveniently laid out for you in your own words. If there is no evidence (and I agree there is none), then you can't rationally claim to have a reason.

It's just from what I experienced that I found it reasonable in the sense I'm talking about. If there's another word for this, then I'll gladly use that instead of reasonable.
And yet, by your own admission, what you have found is a complete lack of evidence to support those beliefs. And in the face of a total lack of evidence to support a belief, it is purely unreasonable to continue to hold it. Note the root-word of "reasonable" is "reason", and when you have no evidence, you have no reason.

Its simply an outlook on life. Just because something is unreasonable doesn't mean you should just give up on it because of others. I'm not harming you, so as long as I'm not, I would like to continue believing my faith, no matter how unreasonable it is.

The problem does not arise when you outright admit that you see no reason but choose to cling to your faith, anyway. If this is your choice, and you make it with full knowledge of its inaccuracy, lack of reasonable foundation, and in the face of ever-mounting evidence against it, the fine. Believe as you wish. The problem arises when organizations that wish to further increase the number of people like you and those that accept it blindly, by cultivating blatant falsehood in the minds of the next generation of potential scientists, and stunt their minds, before they have had a chance to fully develop. No, I don't have the right to tell you what you can cram down your own kids' throats (though its impact on me with be fought, tooth and nail). I do, however, have the right to stop you from cramming irrational biblical stupidity down the throat of MY child. That will be stopped, before it ever has a chance to get started. Fortunately, my boy was laughing at religion before he hit puberty...

I'm sorry that there are people like Ken Ham who try to reel kids in and force them to believe something they have no mental capacity to grasp and understand. I find it brainwashing and manipulative. I will say I will not force or teach my kids about God. Unless they ask me, I will tell them. But if my kids grow up and become atheists, muslims, hindus, etc., then I will tell them to not just accept it just because they want to conform to something. I want them to actually use the logic they might have to answer me the question. "Why do you believe?" If I feel like they are convinced, then I will let them pursue their beliefs. I believe that if you force your child to believe in a Christian God, then your sending them to Hell (if Hell exists or is still open. I'm a Christian Universalist).
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 9:28:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 9:09:18 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 7:33:34 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 6:23:33 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 4:47:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:09:32 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/14/2014 11:53:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/13/2014 7:43:58 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:

but my faith became reasonable to the point where I admitted it was faith and could not be gnostic and only agnostic when you say faith. I became careful with words and avoiding mixing religion with science. I believed in being my own Christian instead of joining churches and groups.

How can you say that your "faith" (belief without evidence, without reason to believe), became "reasonable" (cause, evidence, rationale). Faith can't be "reasonable". It can only be devoid of reason. Otherwise it isn't faith.

When I say reasonable, I mean there's a reason for me to believe. I've explained there's no evidence for my faith.
And there is your contradiction, conveniently laid out for you in your own words. If there is no evidence (and I agree there is none), then you can't rationally claim to have a reason.

It's just from what I experienced that I found it reasonable in the sense I'm talking about. If there's another word for this, then I'll gladly use that instead of reasonable.
And yet, by your own admission, what you have found is a complete lack of evidence to support those beliefs. And in the face of a total lack of evidence to support a belief, it is purely unreasonable to continue to hold it. Note the root-word of "reasonable" is "reason", and when you have no evidence, you have no reason.

Its simply an outlook on life. Just because something is unreasonable doesn't mean you should just give up on it because of others.
It's not being suggested that you give up on it because of others. It's being suggested that you give up on it because it is unreasonable.

I'm not harming you, so as long as I'm not, I would like to continue believing my faith, no matter how unreasonable it is.
You sound like you're asking permission. No one can control what you believe - not even you. However, you can decide whether to assess things fairly and logically, or emotionally and with a bias. Right now you're utilizing emotion and a distinct bias, because the beliefs you hold cannot survive a logical and fair assessment.

But what you believe does affect other people, because you act on what you believe. And this is the primary reason I see atheists presenting as their motivation for attempting to provide rational discussion, to an irrational belief system. It's irrational, unreasonable and requires an emotional bias, because it's contrary to reality.

So if I help the poor, help the bullied, refuse to fight back or attack, refuse to kill, refuse to preach in the styles of Ray Comfort on the street, preach in the church or bible group and not in the streets or public secular buildings of the world, and respect other people's opinions and beliefs, is this bad? I don't do this just because my holy book tells me to, but because I remembered old John Lennon. Imagine if there's no heaven and no religion. What if I never ran into it. I never followed a god before then in the entirety that I did and only did half of the stuff I mentioned. And now I am trying to tell people to do the same. Imagine that even if there was no heaven, would that stop you from trying to be good. Don't be good because a religion tells you to, but do it because you have good intentions in your heart. Because as an agnostic Christian, I believe that if God does exist, he would want us to do good deeds because we want to purely help others. Not to just get a pass into heaven.

Then why adopt or promote a belief system which tells you to fight others, to kill children with no concern for them, to kill even those who might dare to disbelieve what you believe?

What's wrong with just being a good person because it's the right thing to do, and getting rid of the part for which there is no supporting evidence? Rejecting witch doctors doesn't mean rejecting medicine. It means rejecting that which is proclaimed to be medicine but offers no medicinal value. So maintain the desire to be a good person and reject that which claims it makes you a good person, while demanding you to act as a barbarian.

Reason is enough.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 9:31:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 9:14:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 6:49:40 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 10/15/2014 6:23:33 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 4:47:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:09:32 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/14/2014 11:53:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/13/2014 7:43:58 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:

but my faith became reasonable to the point where I admitted it was faith and could not be gnostic and only agnostic when you say faith. I became careful with words and avoiding mixing religion with science. I believed in being my own Christian instead of joining churches and groups.

How can you say that your "faith" (belief without evidence, without reason to believe), became "reasonable" (cause, evidence, rationale). Faith can't be "reasonable". It can only be devoid of reason. Otherwise it isn't faith.

When I say reasonable, I mean there's a reason for me to believe. I've explained there's no evidence for my faith.
And there is your contradiction, conveniently laid out for you in your own words. If there is no evidence (and I agree there is none), then you can't rationally claim to have a reason.

It's just from what I experienced that I found it reasonable in the sense I'm talking about. If there's another word for this, then I'll gladly use that instead of reasonable.
And yet, by your own admission, what you have found is a complete lack of evidence to support those beliefs. And in the face of a total lack of evidence to support a belief, it is purely unreasonable to continue to hold it. Note the root-word of "reasonable" is "reason", and when you have no evidence, you have no reason.

Its simply an outlook on life. Just because something is unreasonable doesn't mean you should just give up on it because of others. I'm not harming you, so as long as I'm not, I would like to continue believing my faith, no matter how unreasonable it is.

The problem does not arise when you outright admit that you see no reason but choose to cling to your faith, anyway. If this is your choice, and you make it with full knowledge of its inaccuracy, lack of reasonable foundation, and in the face of ever-mounting evidence against it, the fine. Believe as you wish. The problem arises when organizations that wish to further increase the number of people like you and those that accept it blindly, by cultivating blatant falsehood in the minds of the next generation of potential scientists, and stunt their minds, before they have had a chance to fully develop. No, I don't have the right to tell you what you can cram down your own kids' throats (though its impact on me with be fought, tooth and nail). I do, however, have the right to stop you from cramming irrational biblical stupidity down the throat of MY child. That will be stopped, before it ever has a chance to get started. Fortunately, my boy was laughing at religion before he hit puberty...

I'm sorry that there are people like Ken Ham who try to reel kids in and force them to believe something they have no mental capacity to grasp and understand.

Please, don't ever again apologize to me for the behavior of another. I don't and wouldn't ever hold you accountable for anyone else's decisions or behavior.

I find it brainwashing and manipulative. I will say I will not force or teach my kids about God. Unless they ask me, I will tell them.

That's infinitely more rational than most theists think about it.

But if my kids grow up and become atheists, muslims, hindus, etc., then I will tell them to not just accept it just because they want to conform to something. I want them to actually use the logic they might have to answer me the question. "Why do you believe?"

They should never have to justify it to you. They need only justify it to their own rational thought.

If I feel like they are convinced, then I will let them pursue their beliefs.

Do you really think you have the right or authority to do otherwise?

I believe that if you force your child to believe in a Christian God, then your sending them to Hell (if Hell exists or is still open. I'm a Christian Universalist).

I see no reason to believe in hell, of any kind. That is yours to decide, but you couldn't send anyone to "hell," anyway. Aside from the fact that it doesn't exist, even the manuscript that claims its existence doesn't allow one human to "send" another to hell...
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 9:37:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 9:28:33 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:09:18 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 7:33:34 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 6:23:33 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 4:47:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:09:32 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/14/2014 11:53:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/13/2014 7:43:58 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:

but my faith became reasonable to the point where I admitted it was faith and could not be gnostic and only agnostic when you say faith. I became careful with words and avoiding mixing religion with science. I believed in being my own Christian instead of joining churches and groups.

How can you say that your "faith" (belief without evidence, without reason to believe), became "reasonable" (cause, evidence, rationale). Faith can't be "reasonable". It can only be devoid of reason. Otherwise it isn't faith.

When I say reasonable, I mean there's a reason for me to believe. I've explained there's no evidence for my faith.
And there is your contradiction, conveniently laid out for you in your own words. If there is no evidence (and I agree there is none), then you can't rationally claim to have a reason.

It's just from what I experienced that I found it reasonable in the sense I'm talking about. If there's another word for this, then I'll gladly use that instead of reasonable.
And yet, by your own admission, what you have found is a complete lack of evidence to support those beliefs. And in the face of a total lack of evidence to support a belief, it is purely unreasonable to continue to hold it. Note the root-word of "reasonable" is "reason", and when you have no evidence, you have no reason.

Its simply an outlook on life. Just because something is unreasonable doesn't mean you should just give up on it because of others.
It's not being suggested that you give up on it because of others. It's being suggested that you give up on it because it is unreasonable.

I'm not harming you, so as long as I'm not, I would like to continue believing my faith, no matter how unreasonable it is.
You sound like you're asking permission. No one can control what you believe - not even you. However, you can decide whether to assess things fairly and logically, or emotionally and with a bias. Right now you're utilizing emotion and a distinct bias, because the beliefs you hold cannot survive a logical and fair assessment.

But what you believe does affect other people, because you act on what you believe. And this is the primary reason I see atheists presenting as their motivation for attempting to provide rational discussion, to an irrational belief system. It's irrational, unreasonable and requires an emotional bias, because it's contrary to reality.

So if I help the poor, help the bullied, refuse to fight back or attack, refuse to kill, refuse to preach in the styles of Ray Comfort on the street, preach in the church or bible group and not in the streets or public secular buildings of the world, and respect other people's opinions and beliefs, is this bad? I don't do this just because my holy book tells me to, but because I remembered old John Lennon. Imagine if there's no heaven and no religion. What if I never ran into it. I never followed a god before then in the entirety that I did and only did half of the stuff I mentioned. And now I am trying to tell people to do the same. Imagine that even if there was no heaven, would that stop you from trying to be good. Don't be good because a religion tells you to, but do it because you have good intentions in your heart. Because as an agnostic Christian, I believe that if God does exist, he would want us to do good deeds because we want to purely help others. Not to just get a pass into heaven.

Then why adopt or promote a belief system which tells you to fight others, to kill children with no concern for them, to kill even those who might dare to disbelieve what you believe?

What's wrong with just being a good person because it's the right thing to do, and getting rid of the part for which there is no supporting evidence? Rejecting witch doctors doesn't mean rejecting medicine. It means rejecting that which is proclaimed to be medicine but offers no medicinal value. So maintain the desire to be a good person and reject that which claims it makes you a good person, while demanding you to act as a barbarian.

Reason is enough.

Because I told you. I didn't get that until I read the bible. I know there is some read stuff, but it's the context. Not everything is literal. If I told you I saw a car flying down the street, you wouldn't actually think a car grew wings or flew down a street. The bible is God inspired and is being spoken in the greek/Hebrew language and culture.

So no, my Christian faith that I developed from reading the bible never told me to do the things your saying. I will tell people that though whenever they try to use biblical literalism like creationism and the flood of Noah.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 9:46:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 9:31:31 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:14:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 6:49:40 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 10/15/2014 6:23:33 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 4:47:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:09:32 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/14/2014 11:53:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/13/2014 7:43:58 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:

but my faith became reasonable to the point where I admitted it was faith and could not be gnostic and only agnostic when you say faith. I became careful with words and avoiding mixing religion with science. I believed in being my own Christian instead of joining churches and groups.

How can you say that your "faith" (belief without evidence, without reason to believe), became "reasonable" (cause, evidence, rationale). Faith can't be "reasonable". It can only be devoid of reason. Otherwise it isn't faith.

When I say reasonable, I mean there's a reason for me to believe. I've explained there's no evidence for my faith.
And there is your contradiction, conveniently laid out for you in your own words. If there is no evidence (and I agree there is none), then you can't rationally claim to have a reason.

It's just from what I experienced that I found it reasonable in the sense I'm talking about. If there's another word for this, then I'll gladly use that instead of reasonable.
And yet, by your own admission, what you have found is a complete lack of evidence to support those beliefs. And in the face of a total lack of evidence to support a belief, it is purely unreasonable to continue to hold it. Note the root-word of "reasonable" is "reason", and when you have no evidence, you have no reason.

Its simply an outlook on life. Just because something is unreasonable doesn't mean you should just give up on it because of others. I'm not harming you, so as long as I'm not, I would like to continue believing my faith, no matter how unreasonable it is.

The problem does not arise when you outright admit that you see no reason but choose to cling to your faith, anyway. If this is your choice, and you make it with full knowledge of its inaccuracy, lack of reasonable foundation, and in the face of ever-mounting evidence against it, the fine. Believe as you wish. The problem arises when organizations that wish to further increase the number of people like you and those that accept it blindly, by cultivating blatant falsehood in the minds of the next generation of potential scientists, and stunt their minds, before they have had a chance to fully develop. No, I don't have the right to tell you what you can cram down your own kids' throats (though its impact on me with be fought, tooth and nail). I do, however, have the right to stop you from cramming irrational biblical stupidity down the throat of MY child. That will be stopped, before it ever has a chance to get started. Fortunately, my boy was laughing at religion before he hit puberty...

I'm sorry that there are people like Ken Ham who try to reel kids in and force them to believe something they have no mental capacity to grasp and understand.

Please, don't ever again apologize to me for the behavior of another. I don't and wouldn't ever hold you accountable for anyone else's decisions or behavior.

I find it brainwashing and manipulative. I will say I will not force or teach my kids about God. Unless they ask me, I will tell them.

That's infinitely more rational than most theists think about it.

But if my kids grow up and become atheists, muslims, hindus, etc., then I will tell them to not just accept it just because they want to conform to something. I want them to actually use the logic they might have to answer me the question. "Why do you believe?"

They should never have to justify it to you. They need only justify it to their own rational thought.

If I feel like they are convinced, then I will let them pursue their beliefs.

Do you really think you have the right or authority to do otherwise?

I believe that if you force your child to believe in a Christian God, then your sending them to Hell (if Hell exists or is still open. I'm a Christian Universalist).

I see no reason to believe in hell, of any kind. That is yours to decide, but you couldn't send anyone to "hell," anyway. Aside from the fact that it doesn't exist, even the manuscript that claims its existence doesn't allow one human to "send" another to hell...

Correct. Which is why I do not like pastors who say people are going to hell. They don't know and they cannot make judgments.

Perhaps I should've explained the child part better. I will let them believe what they want no matter what. The reason I will ask is because I used to say I wanted to do a ton of things. I wanted to be a boxer one time, I was asked why and just thought it would be cool to be like Rocky or to kill Osama Bin Ladin. I hated it but stuck with it for a year until I called it quits since I learned that not only was violence disgusting to me, but that my epilepsy would've been worse if I stayed in it. I wanted to do different things, but in the end, I would never want to continue if I never gave a good answer that was for myself. So if I can get that, I will know my child will be happy and that is all I want from them. I'd let my kid become a Muslim and would let him or her follow his or her religion. Though I hope that if he or she becomes a Muslim, they act like the ones in this video. I would think that is pretty cool, but if they don't, then that's fine too.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 12:15:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 9:37:08 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:28:33 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:09:18 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 7:33:34 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 6:23:33 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 4:47:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:09:32 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/14/2014 11:53:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/13/2014 7:43:58 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:

but my faith became reasonable to the point where I admitted it was faith and could not be gnostic and only agnostic when you say faith. I became careful with words and avoiding mixing religion with science. I believed in being my own Christian instead of joining churches and groups.

How can you say that your "faith" (belief without evidence, without reason to believe), became "reasonable" (cause, evidence, rationale). Faith can't be "reasonable". It can only be devoid of reason. Otherwise it isn't faith.

When I say reasonable, I mean there's a reason for me to believe. I've explained there's no evidence for my faith.
And there is your contradiction, conveniently laid out for you in your own words. If there is no evidence (and I agree there is none), then you can't rationally claim to have a reason.

It's just from what I experienced that I found it reasonable in the sense I'm talking about. If there's another word for this, then I'll gladly use that instead of reasonable.
And yet, by your own admission, what you have found is a complete lack of evidence to support those beliefs. And in the face of a total lack of evidence to support a belief, it is purely unreasonable to continue to hold it. Note the root-word of "reasonable" is "reason", and when you have no evidence, you have no reason.

Its simply an outlook on life. Just because something is unreasonable doesn't mean you should just give up on it because of others.
It's not being suggested that you give up on it because of others. It's being suggested that you give up on it because it is unreasonable.

I'm not harming you, so as long as I'm not, I would like to continue believing my faith, no matter how unreasonable it is.
You sound like you're asking permission. No one can control what you believe - not even you. However, you can decide whether to assess things fairly and logically, or emotionally and with a bias. Right now you're utilizing emotion and a distinct bias, because the beliefs you hold cannot survive a logical and fair assessment.

But what you believe does affect other people, because you act on what you believe. And this is the primary reason I see atheists presenting as their motivation for attempting to provide rational discussion, to an irrational belief system. It's irrational, unreasonable and requires an emotional bias, because it's contrary to reality.

So if I help the poor, help the bullied, refuse to fight back or attack, refuse to kill, refuse to preach in the styles of Ray Comfort on the street, preach in the church or bible group and not in the streets or public secular buildings of the world, and respect other people's opinions and beliefs, is this bad? I don't do this just because my holy book tells me to, but because I remembered old John Lennon. Imagine if there's no heaven and no religion. What if I never ran into it. I never followed a god before then in the entirety that I did and only did half of the stuff I mentioned. And now I am trying to tell people to do the same. Imagine that even if there was no heaven, would that stop you from trying to be good. Don't be good because a religion tells you to, but do it because you have good intentions in your heart. Because as an agnostic Christian, I believe that if God does exist, he would want us to do good deeds because we want to purely help others. Not to just get a pass into heaven.

Then why adopt or promote a belief system which tells you to fight others, to kill children with no concern for them, to kill even those who might dare to disbelieve what you believe?

What's wrong with just being a good person because it's the right thing to do, and getting rid of the part for which there is no supporting evidence? Rejecting witch doctors doesn't mean rejecting medicine. It means rejecting that which is proclaimed to be medicine but offers no medicinal value. So maintain the desire to be a good person and reject that which claims it makes you a good person, while demanding you to act as a barbarian.

Reason is enough.

Because I told you. I didn't get that until I read the bible. I know there is some read stuff, but it's the context. Not everything is literal. If I told you I saw a car flying down the street, you wouldn't actually think a car grew wings or flew down a street. The bible is God inspired and is being spoken in the greek/Hebrew language and culture.
Do you understand that figurative statements are often language specific? In some languages, if you said you saw a car "flying down the street", they'd look at you like you had two heads because the same figurative references don't work in every language, and aren't the same or universally customary. The bottom line here is that the Bible is wrong, whether you take it as figurative or literal. If I tell you I saw a 1969 Ford Mustang flying along under water, the statement is false whether you take the word "flying" to be figurative or literal.

So no, my Christian faith that I developed from reading the bible never told me to do the things your saying. I will tell people that though whenever they try to use biblical literalism like creationism and the flood of Noah.
If you read the Bible, then it DID tell you these things. Look, you can't change what the Bible says, simply because it would be convenient for it not to make some of the statements it makes. But the point is, it DOES SAY THEM.

READ THIS!
(Exodus 21:20-21) "When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property."

Now... first try to tell me that this isn't permission for a slave owner to beat a slave with a rod, and that according to God, this is not an immoral act.

Then... try to tell me that this isn't claiming that if a man owns a slave, and beats that slave to death, that as long as the slave doesn't die for a day or two after the beating, the man has done nothing wrong.

THAT is what the Bible teaches!
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,482
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 5:38:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 9:46:24 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:31:31 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:14:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 6:49:40 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 10/15/2014 6:23:33 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 4:47:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:09:32 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/14/2014 11:53:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/13/2014 7:43:58 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:

but my faith became reasonable to the point where I admitted it was faith and could not be gnostic and only agnostic when you say faith. I became careful with words and avoiding mixing religion with science. I believed in being my own Christian instead of joining churches and groups.

How can you say that your "faith" (belief without evidence, without reason to believe), became "reasonable" (cause, evidence, rationale). Faith can't be "reasonable". It can only be devoid of reason. Otherwise it isn't faith.

When I say reasonable, I mean there's a reason for me to believe. I've explained there's no evidence for my faith.
And there is your contradiction, conveniently laid out for you in your own words. If there is no evidence (and I agree there is none), then you can't rationally claim to have a reason.

It's just from what I experienced that I found it reasonable in the sense I'm talking about. If there's another word for this, then I'll gladly use that instead of reasonable.
And yet, by your own admission, what you have found is a complete lack of evidence to support those beliefs. And in the face of a total lack of evidence to support a belief, it is purely unreasonable to continue to hold it. Note the root-word of "reasonable" is "reason", and when you have no evidence, you have no reason.

Its simply an outlook on life. Just because something is unreasonable doesn't mean you should just give up on it because of others. I'm not harming you, so as long as I'm not, I would like to continue believing my faith, no matter how unreasonable it is.

The problem does not arise when you outright admit that you see no reason but choose to cling to your faith, anyway. If this is your choice, and you make it with full knowledge of its inaccuracy, lack of reasonable foundation, and in the face of ever-mounting evidence against it, the fine. Believe as you wish. The problem arises when organizations that wish to further increase the number of people like you and those that accept it blindly, by cultivating blatant falsehood in the minds of the next generation of potential scientists, and stunt their minds, before they have had a chance to fully develop. No, I don't have the right to tell you what you can cram down your own kids' throats (though its impact on me with be fought, tooth and nail). I do, however, have the right to stop you from cramming irrational biblical stupidity down the throat of MY child. That will be stopped, before it ever has a chance to get started. Fortunately, my boy was laughing at religion before he hit puberty...

I'm sorry that there are people like Ken Ham who try to reel kids in and force them to believe something they have no mental capacity to grasp and understand.

Please, don't ever again apologize to me for the behavior of another. I don't and wouldn't ever hold you accountable for anyone else's decisions or behavior.

I find it brainwashing and manipulative. I will say I will not force or teach my kids about God. Unless they ask me, I will tell them.

That's infinitely more rational than most theists think about it.

But if my kids grow up and become atheists, muslims, hindus, etc., then I will tell them to not just accept it just because they want to conform to something. I want them to actually use the logic they might have to answer me the question. "Why do you believe?"

They should never have to justify it to you. They need only justify it to their own rational thought.

If I feel like they are convinced, then I will let them pursue their beliefs.

Do you really think you have the right or authority to do otherwise?

I believe that if you force your child to believe in a Christian God, then your sending them to Hell (if Hell exists or is still open. I'm a Christian Universalist).

I see no reason to believe in hell, of any kind. That is yours to decide, but you couldn't send anyone to "hell," anyway. Aside from the fact that it doesn't exist, even the manuscript that claims its existence doesn't allow one human to "send" another to hell...

Correct. Which is why I do not like pastors who say people are going to hell. They don't know and they cannot make judgments.

Perhaps I should've explained the child part better. I will let them believe what they want no matter what. The reason I will ask is because I used to say I wanted to do a ton of things. I wanted to be a boxer one time, I was asked why and just thought it would be cool to be like Rocky or to kill Osama Bin Ladin. I hated it but stuck with it for a year until I called it quits since I learned that not only was violence disgusting to me, but that my epilepsy would've been worse if I stayed in it. I wanted to do different things, but in the end, I would never want to continue if I never gave a good answer that was for myself. So if I can get that, I will know my child will be happy and that is all I want from them. I'd let my kid become a Muslim and would let him or her follow his or her religion. Though I hope that if he or she becomes a Muslim, they act like the ones in this video. I would think that is pretty cool, but if they don't, then that's fine too.



so you prefer for your childrens muslims like that to be drunks heavy metal fans getting crazy all night instead of normal muslims? wtf is this. they are crazy people. to admit i was avid fan of ensiferum (swedish heavy metal band), but thinking about that now its cr2p... they claiming to be "muslims" the funny parts from the trailer we can see

1. free intermingling males and females which is forbidden in Islam.
2. drunk imams?? wtf. drinking alchohol forbidden in Islam.
3. getting high is forbidden.
4. there are limits to music in Islam.
5. some ethics? i can point million sh1t stuff from the trailer alone contradicting the Quran and hadith.
6. he screams "im the anti-christ" that was funny.

i can go write a long list. these people from these groups:

1. they ignorant about islam.
2. hypocrites.
3. idiots trying to "modernise Islam" to bullsh1t.

So these are the opposite of Quran and hadith and everybody knows that but they trying to push their desires in to the religion, crazzzzyy people!
Never fart near dog
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 7:39:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 5:38:10 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:46:24 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:31:31 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:14:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 6:49:40 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 10/15/2014 6:23:33 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 4:47:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:09:32 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/14/2014 11:53:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/13/2014 7:43:58 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:

but my faith became reasonable to the point where I admitted it was faith and could not be gnostic and only agnostic when you say faith. I became careful with words and avoiding mixing religion with science. I believed in being my own Christian instead of joining churches and groups.

How can you say that your "faith" (belief without evidence, without reason to believe), became "reasonable" (cause, evidence, rationale). Faith can't be "reasonable". It can only be devoid of reason. Otherwise it isn't faith.

When I say reasonable, I mean there's a reason for me to believe. I've explained there's no evidence for my faith.
And there is your contradiction, conveniently laid out for you in your own words. If there is no evidence (and I agree there is none), then you can't rationally claim to have a reason.

It's just from what I experienced that I found it reasonable in the sense I'm talking about. If there's another word for this, then I'll gladly use that instead of reasonable.
And yet, by your own admission, what you have found is a complete lack of evidence to support those beliefs. And in the face of a total lack of evidence to support a belief, it is purely unreasonable to continue to hold it. Note the root-word of "reasonable" is "reason", and when you have no evidence, you have no reason.

Its simply an outlook on life. Just because something is unreasonable doesn't mean you should just give up on it because of others. I'm not harming you, so as long as I'm not, I would like to continue believing my faith, no matter how unreasonable it is.

The problem does not arise when you outright admit that you see no reason but choose to cling to your faith, anyway. If this is your choice, and you make it with full knowledge of its inaccuracy, lack of reasonable foundation, and in the face of ever-mounting evidence against it, the fine. Believe as you wish. The problem arises when organizations that wish to further increase the number of people like you and those that accept it blindly, by cultivating blatant falsehood in the minds of the next generation of potential scientists, and stunt their minds, before they have had a chance to fully develop. No, I don't have the right to tell you what you can cram down your own kids' throats (though its impact on me with be fought, tooth and nail). I do, however, have the right to stop you from cramming irrational biblical stupidity down the throat of MY child. That will be stopped, before it ever has a chance to get started. Fortunately, my boy was laughing at religion before he hit puberty...

I'm sorry that there are people like Ken Ham who try to reel kids in and force them to believe something they have no mental capacity to grasp and understand.

Please, don't ever again apologize to me for the behavior of another. I don't and wouldn't ever hold you accountable for anyone else's decisions or behavior.

I find it brainwashing and manipulative. I will say I will not force or teach my kids about God. Unless they ask me, I will tell them.

That's infinitely more rational than most theists think about it.

But if my kids grow up and become atheists, muslims, hindus, etc., then I will tell them to not just accept it just because they want to conform to something. I want them to actually use the logic they might have to answer me the question. "Why do you believe?"

They should never have to justify it to you. They need only justify it to their own rational thought.

If I feel like they are convinced, then I will let them pursue their beliefs.

Do you really think you have the right or authority to do otherwise?

I believe that if you force your child to believe in a Christian God, then your sending them to Hell (if Hell exists or is still open. I'm a Christian Universalist).

I see no reason to believe in hell, of any kind. That is yours to decide, but you couldn't send anyone to "hell," anyway. Aside from the fact that it doesn't exist, even the manuscript that claims its existence doesn't allow one human to "send" another to hell...

Correct. Which is why I do not like pastors who say people are going to hell. They don't know and they cannot make judgments.

Perhaps I should've explained the child part better. I will let them believe what they want no matter what. The reason I will ask is because I used to say I wanted to do a ton of things. I wanted to be a boxer one time, I was asked why and just thought it would be cool to be like Rocky or to kill Osama Bin Ladin. I hated it but stuck with it for a year until I called it quits since I learned that not only was violence disgusting to me, but that my epilepsy would've been worse if I stayed in it. I wanted to do different things, but in the end, I would never want to continue if I never gave a good answer that was for myself. So if I can get that, I will know my child will be happy and that is all I want



so you prefer for your childrens muslims like that to be drunks heavy metal fans getting crazy all night instead of normal muslims? wtf is this. they are crazy people. to admit i was avid fan of ensiferum (swedish heavy metal band), but thinking about that now its cr2p... they claiming to be "muslims" the funny parts from the trailer we can see

1. free intermingling males and females which is forbidden in Islam.
2. drunk imams?? wtf. drinking alchohol forbidden in Islam.
3. getting high is forbidden.
4. there are limits to music in Islam.
5. some ethics? i can point million sh1t stuff from the trailer alone contradicting the Quran and hadith.
6. he screams "im the anti-christ" that was funny.

i can go write a long list. these people from these groups:

1. they ignorant about islam.
2. hypocrites.
3. idiots trying to "modernise Islam" to bullsh1t.

So these are the opposite of Quran and hadith and everybody knows that but they trying to push their desires in to the religion, crazzzzyy people!

Well, not from what I read in the Quran. If you read the book or watch the theatrical movie that's not a documentary, you'll see that they quote the different Suras and Ayahs in the Quran. There is a punk who thinks like you and he pretty much is somewhat against what the punks are into, but he's straight edge. He believes alcohol, weed and cigerettes are haram, but he says at one point tea is frowned upon and is a plague on the Muslim world. So your like Omar.

But if you read anything about the Taqwacores, you'll know they do not just give up on the Quran and do whatever. They are spiritual. The author originally wrote it to quit Islam. But not only did he return, but he converted people to Islam afterwards. It's not Islam metal, Islam punk is different since the people who are in these bands are not famous unless you consider a few hundred to be famous. All in saying is, look at the stuff before you consider it haram. Also, Islam Punk is simple or sounds like ska. It ain't heavy like modern day metal bands.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 7:53:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 12:15:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:37:08 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:28:33 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 9:09:18 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 7:33:34 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 6:23:33 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/15/2014 4:47:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/15/2014 8:09:32 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/14/2014 11:53:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/13/2014 7:43:58 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:

but my faith became reasonable to the point where I admitted it was faith and could not be gnostic and only agnostic when you say faith. I became careful with words and avoiding mixing religion with science. I believed in being my own Christian instead of joining churches and groups.

How can you say that your "faith" (belief without evidence, without reason to believe), became "reasonable" (cause, evidence, rationale). Faith can't be "reasonable". It can only be devoid of reason. Otherwise it isn't faith.

When I say reasonable, I mean there's a reason for me to believe. I've explained there's no evidence for my faith.
And there is your contradiction, conveniently laid out for you in your own words. If there is no evidence (and I agree there is none), then you can't rationally claim to have a reason.

It's just from what I experienced that I found it reasonable in the sense I'm talking about. If there's another word for this, then I'll gladly use that instead of reasonable.
And yet, by your own admission, what you have found is a complete lack of evidence to support those beliefs. And in the face of a total lack of evidence to support a belief, it is purely unreasonable to continue to hold it. Note the root-word of "reasonable" is "reason", and when you have no evidence, you have no reason.

Its simply an outlook on life. Just because something is unreasonable doesn't mean you should just give up on it because of others.
It's not being suggested that you give up on it because of others. It's being suggested that you give up on it because it is unreasonable.

I'm not harming you, so as long as I'm not, I would like to continue believing my faith, no matter how unreasonable it is.
You sound like you're asking permission. No one can control what you believe - not even you. However, you can decide whether to assess things fairly and logically, or emotionally and with a bias. Right now you're utilizing emotion and a distinct bias, because the beliefs you hold cannot survive a logical and fair assessment.

But what you believe does affect other people, because you act on what you believe. And this is the primary reason I see atheists presenting as their motivation for attempting to provide rational discussion, to an irrational belief system. It's irrational, unreasonable and requires an emotional bias, because it's contrary to reality.

So if I help the poor, help the bullied, refuse to fight back or attack, refuse to kill, refuse to preach in the styles of Ray Comfort on the street, preach in the church or bible group and not in the streets or public secular buildings of the world, and respect other people's opinions and beliefs, is this bad? I don't do this just because my holy book tells me to, but because I remembered old John Lennon. Imagine if there's no heaven and no religion. What if I never ran into it. I never followed a god before then in the entirety that I did and only did half of the stuff I mentioned. And now I am trying to tell people to do the same. Imagine that even if there was no heaven, would that stop you from trying to be good. Don't be good because a religion tells you to, but do it because you have good intentions in your heart. Because as an agnostic Christian, I believe that if God does exist, he would want us to do good deeds because we want to purely help others. Not to just get a pass into heaven.

Then why adopt or promote a belief system which tells you to fight others, to kill children with no concern for them, to kill even those who might dare to disbelieve what you believe?

What's wrong with just being a good person because it's the right thing to do, and getting rid of the part for which there is no supporting evidence? Rejecting witch doctors doesn't mean rejecting medicine. It means rejecting that which is proclaimed to be medicine but offers no medicinal value. So maintain the desire to be a good person and reject that which claims it makes you a good person, while demanding you to act as a barbarian.

Reason is enough.

Because I told you. I didn't get that until I read the bible. I know there is some read stuff, but it's the context. Not everything is literal. If I told you I saw a car flying down the street, you wouldn't actually think a car grew wings or flew down a street. The bible is God inspired and is being spoken in the greek/Hebrew language and culture.
Do you understand that figurative statements are often language specific? In some languages, if you said you saw a car "flying down the street", they'd look at you like you had two heads because the same figurative references don't work in every language, and aren't the same or universally customary. The bottom line here is that the Bible is wrong, whether you take it as figurative or literal. If I tell you I saw a 1969 Ford Mustang flying along under water, the statement is false whether you take the word "flying" to be figurative or literal.

So no, my Christian faith that I developed from reading the bible never told me to do the things your saying. I will tell people that though whenever they try to use biblical literalism like creationism and the flood of Noah.
If you read the Bible, then it DID tell you these things. Look, you can't change what the Bible says, simply because it would be convenient for it not to make some of the statements it makes. But the point is, it DOES SAY THEM.

READ THIS!
(Exodus 21:20-21) "When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property."

Now... first try to tell me that this isn't permission for a slave owner to beat a slave with a rod, and that according to God, this is not an immoral act.

Then... try to tell me that this isn't claiming that if a man owns a slave, and beats that slave to death, that as long as the slave doesn't die for a day or two after the beating, the man has done nothing wrong.

THAT is what the Bible teaches!

I also remember that the Apostle Paul said the old law is weak, corrupt and dying. The new covenant, new laws are all that matter. I am aware bad stuff happened, but I prefer one of forgiveness compared to the old one who wasn't as forgiving.
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 1:51:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 5:04:17 PM, Beastt wrote:
The Bible teaches that the Earth existed before the sun and stars. Earth is composed of 92 elements. Eighty-nine of those elements were fused in stars. So the Bible is wrong.

Or you are wrong. I don"t have any reason to think that you are correct about the beginning of earth.

The Bible teaches that the Earth was formed covered in water, and the atmosphere was created on the following day (Gen 1:6-7). Atmospheric pressure is what maintains water in a liquid state. Without atmospheric pressure, water vaporizes at an explosive rate. So the Bible is wrong.

I don"t believe that the water would have vaporized in that situation in the beginning.

The bible teaches that plants were thriving on Earth before the sun and stars existed, meaning plants were growing in temperatures of less than 400-degrees below zero. The Bible is clearly wrong.

Firstly, Bible seems to say that the plants were just seeds at the beginning.

No plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Yahweh God had not caused it to rain on the earth. There was not a man to till the ground,
Gen 2:5

The Bible teaches that Jesus resided in Nazareth - a thriving community. Archaeology shows that Nazareth was not occupied at the time Jesus was said to have existed. The Bible is wrong.

I think archeology can"t really know that.

(Isaiah 13:15-16) "Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."

It tell s what will happen, not what is good. Nothing of that would have happened, if people would not have rejected God. All evil comes when god is rejected. If people don"t want to be safe with God, then it is possible that all evil things happen.