You, in regards to Christianity.

[Derscon]

Because for some reason people think Dane Cook is funny.

We call those people "frat boys".

Alcohol poisoning = Proof that there is a god, and he is benevolent. <.<

[Knights of Liberty]

You might compare Moses to say Johnny Appleseed. Have the storeis been built up to almost mythic proportions. It is possible. Johnny was a real guy and really did like apples. In America it is like we do with our Founding Fathers you build them up until they are almost not human. Paul Revere was a Silversmith who rode on horse back saying the "British are coming". Yet now he is the great patriot, blah,blah,blah.

George Washington and "can not tell a lie" and "cherry tree thingy". Somewhere down there is the real story. It hard to figure out what was embellished if there was any.

It doesn't mean the events didn't happen loosely as described.

So...what youre saying is the Bible is nothing but propaganda?

I can agree with that.

The difference between your examples and Moses? We have other accounts that they actually existed. Like I said, Moses supposidly did all this during what is the most well documented era of Egyptian history. Ramses had his reign chronicled very well.

Yet there is not a single mention of any of the events. Youd think they would at least mentioned that all their first borns died one night.
EDIT: Hell, its not even mentioned that the Pharoh's first born son even died. Thats a big fucking deal. You dont omitt details like that if your a historian or the royal chronicaler.

[Truly Blessed]

Honestly, I personally wish that religion would back off on government, especially in the United States, which is supposed to be secular. Abortion? Let science figure out when a person is a "living person" and then adjust said laws to avoid murder ((that is, allow abortion up until the point that it would be murder under the new scientific classification)). Homosexual marriage? Sure, legalize it. Equal rights in and under the government.

Just because I have a belief doesn't mean everyone else holds it. Abortion and homosexuality according to religion are radically different than under government, especially one that is secular. All restrictions, thus far, come from a religious stand point, not a legitimate legal one. Therefore, they're not truly legitimate arguments. The bible itself does say that we shouldn't infringe upon our neighbor's right to live and make his or her own choices ((I would cite, but am far too tired. If pushed, I'll look for it)). How folks twist this part up so badly is honestly beyond me.

And to The Alama Mater: I will put things a different way for you. If you go out and do good things, make some other folks feel good about their lives, be a generally nice person, and avoid doing some really, really stupid things ((i.e. rape, murder, etc...)) that you probably wouldn't do anyway, I will give you forty-two trillion dollars. How does that sound?

I honestly have no real idea where you get the logic basis for your claims and descriptions. God has asked no more of believers than to do good things, to do nice things, and to help other people. Men have asked believers to kill, pillage, rape, and conquer in "God's name". Organized religion has asked its followers to do insane things, to do horrible things, and to do things that should never have been even thought of, not God. Yes, I believe in a God who asks us to coexist peacefully. Yes, I believe in a God who asks us to be firm in our faith, even around people who do not believe or who would belittle us or who would goad us into violence. Does He also ask us to preach his Word and message? Yes, to those who are willing to accept it and believe it. Not to bang people over the head with it, even when they've shown they have no intention of believing it.

If the pope himself came to me tomorrow and said "take up arms, God has told me to eliminate Group X," I would give him a quarter for making me laugh. ((Generally that happens every day, but that's another matter)) I say this because I know that God will not ask this of us. Men will, God won't.

I am proud to be a believer of such. And if you think that I am wrong for believing in a being that promotes peace and cooperation, if you should take pity on me for believing in such, and if you think His message of caring for others is horrible and despicable and repulsive, than you, sir, are the one who needs to be saved, for your and our own good, for I should hate to live in the sort of world you must be imagining.

Good Day.

Well said. Bravo! Sign me up to.

[Pschycotic Pschycos]

Because for some reason people think Dane Cook is funny.

We call those people "frat boys".

*waves* Okay, I'm not a frat boy, but I laugh at just about anything meant for someone with an IQ equivalent to that of a shovel. Why? Dunno, I just enjoy sophomoric comedy.

[Knights of Liberty]

Alcohol poisoning = Proof that there is a god, and he is benevolent. <.<

You win a series of tubes.

[Truly Blessed]

I would just like to point out that the West does indeed have an oral tradition.
Legends, fairy tales and the like are part of that tradition, although some of them got written down during the last 2 centuries. But they did start out as oral tradition.

I hope you don't try and claim that this must mean that Rumpelstilzchen is roaming the earth and that people occasionally fall asleep for 100 years?

Also doesn't mean you should dismiss it outright. Many traditions use the oral tradition. Not all of them are for or about Myth and fantasy.

[Holy Paradise]

1. Born Catholic, still Catholic (but I'm only 17)

2. Have grown up with it. I can't see myself not believing it, really. I mean, I've thought about not believing, but Catholicism just feels right to me.

[Grave_n_idle]

I've seen discussion on the Bible and its degree of...accuracy...brought up too many times to quote everyone.

So, a blanket post on this subject.

What we must keep in mind when referencing the bible is that it is not, in any degree, a continuous book. Rather, it is a collection of different books, scrolls, oral history, and general preaching. What would be included in the modern incarnation of the Bible was chosen from a huge selection of texts.

NOW. The question after this statement should be "who chose what went into the Bible?"

That's a very good question, and if you've followed this thread, you'll figure quickly that it was mortal men, not a divine being, who chose what went in. And as its been brought up on the previous two pages, these selections were subject to the purposes and agendas of the individuals on the committees that chose the books of the Bible.

So, what does this mean? This means that the Bible will have varying degrees of accuracy across it and that yes, we can cherry pick items out of the Bible. I've mentioned before in my previous posts that I think faith on a personal basis is a very good thing ((as opposed to the corrupted tendencies of organized religion)), thus I say this: the Bible should be, and is, open to the individual for interpretation based upon said individual's previous personal experience and knowledge.

=========================================================

Additionally, I'd like to comment on something else, and to do this I will, unbelievably, cite Futurama. In the episode in which Bender is cast adrift in space, a small civilization of miniature beings springs up on him and worship him as a god. In actively trying to intervene, he inevitably destroys them altogether. At the end of the episode, Bender meets the real God ((in the form of a giant, shining nebula)) and asks Him "How do I know if I've done things right?" God replies, "You will know you have done things right if people aren't able to tell if you've done anything at all." SO, what I am trying to get at here is this: just because it isn't obvious that God is intervening, He may very well be. This is the sort of thing that should at least stay open as a possibility in the mind.

So, why isn't God helping the situation in, say, Darfur? Well, for all we know, He may be acting through adjusting political forces in the US, or the EU, or the UN. Or perhaps He is behind the spark that created the new student movements that have sprung up in the last couple years. What I am trying to say is: don't look for the smoking gun.

===========================================================

Next, I will try my hand at the argument about Lucifer/Satan that occurred a page or two back, mostly cause it struck my attention as I am still reading ((i.e. struggling through)) Paradise Lost. God created angels to be as close in His image as possible, without fully creating equals. In doing so, he left them with free will. Free will allows one to respond to outside stimuli. Let's put forth this: God was greater in power than Lucifer. Thus, free will allows Lucifer to make his own decisions upon how to respond. He can either accept this, and serve under God. OR, he could respond negatively and become jealous. In this manner he can then rise up against God, and realize that he will never be as powerful. At this point there is another juncture. He can either accept defeat with humility, or be defiant and strive to undo all that God has done and will do, thus ushering in "evil" as the counter-balance to God.

So, did God create evil? Indirectly. Being all-knowing, he knew that in creating Lucifer this would all come to pass. But who is to say, then, that God didn't have his greater purposes in creating Lucifer and allowing evil into this world. Somethings are, perhaps, beyond human comprehension and best left to His own designs.

In this subject, I would very strongly suggest reading Paradise Lost, or at least the first several books in it. It is exceedingly difficult language, but offers possible insights that both Christians and non-believers will find intriguing.

I have to advise you againt basing your arguments on "Paradise Lost". I mean - if canonisation is a slap-dash method of selection at best, drawing in 'evidence' from fiction seems to be stretching the envelope beyond breaking point.

Lucifer, scripturally, is not Satan - indeed, neither of those things is even a name. Both are descriptors - Lucifer is a comparison to relative ascendence and descendence based on astronomical observations (the star that rises before the sun, and sets before the sun) and is used to describe an entirely mortal king of Tyre, who finds out the hard way that - no matter how high you climb, you'll still end up in a mighty dark plot. Satan is a job description for the angel in the heavenly courts who acts as prosecution - trying HUMANS. Satan is not the 'adversary' of God, but of man.

Did God create good and evil? The scripture says so.

It's interesting to see you discuss the relative reliability of canonical texts, though - that's not something that gets considered often by the 'Christian side' of the debate, where it is instantly assumed that every word of the scripture is necessarily entirely right and true.

[Spathaca]

1) Went to a catholic school, attended catholic church, been to a pentacostal church, live in FUCKING AMERICA, get harassed on a daily basis by Mormon elders.
2) Not a christian
3) God is a myth, the bible is illogical and full of the cruelty of 'god,' and it is time for humanity to come out of its infancy. If not, then why not go back to owning slaves and human sacrifice? Let's all go biblical!

[Knights of Liberty]

All this talk on my part about Ramses and Moses has gotten Metallica's Creeping Death stuck in my head.

[Pschycotic Pschycos]

I have to advise you againt basing your arguments on "Paradise Lost". I mean - if canonisation is a slap-dash method of selection at best, drawing in 'evidence' from fiction seems to be stretching the envelope beyond breaking point.

Lucifer, scripturally, is not Satan - indeed, neither of those things is even a name. Both are descriptors - Lucifer is a comparison to relative ascendence and descendence based on astronomical observations (the star that rises before the sun, and sets before the sun) and is used to describe an entirely mortal king of Tyre, who finds out the hard way that - no matter how high you climb, you'll still end up in a mighty dark plot. Satan is a job description for the angel in the heavenly courts who acts as prosecution - trying HUMANS. Satan is not the 'adversary' of God, but of man.

Did God create good and evil? The scripture says so.

It's interesting to see you discuss the relative reliability of canonical texts, though - that's not something that gets considered often by the 'Christian side' of the debate, where it is instantly assumed that every word of the scripture is necessarily entirely right and true.

I actually did review in a later post about Paradise Lost not being scripture, but the only relation between Lucifer and Satan I've come across has been inside PL, so thanks for shedding light on that subject.

As to the canonical texts, I'm in a Jewish/Christian Foundations course this semester, and it's been teaching us to read and think critically. To see what the purpose and genre is of what was written and to recognize what is, is not, and might be fact; and is to be regarded as true, that is, not necessarily the details of a story, but rather the message that it's trying to convey.

Thus in reading elements of the Bible this way, it becomes pretty clear what was actually going on behind the scenes and you can take the messages that it was meant to convey, without having to accept the series of details as exact and fact.

[The Alma Mater]

And to The Alama Mater: I will put things a different way for you. If you go out and do good things, make some other folks feel good about their lives, be a generally nice person, and avoid doing some really, really stupid things ((i.e. rape, murder, etc...)) that you probably wouldn't do anyway, I will give you forty-two trillion dollars. How does that sound?

Pretty good. But that is not the deal your God is offering, is it ?

I honestly have no real idea where you get the logic basis for your claims and descriptions. God has asked no more of believers than to do good things, to do nice things, and to help other people.

The Bible disagrees with you. Perhaps you should read it - some Christians consider it an important part of their faith.

You will discover God promotes rape. Slavery. Genocide. Murder. Mindfucks. Oppression. Unbridled hatred. Intolerance. Hypocrisy. Blind obedience. Ignorance. Lying. The Biblical God is not fair nor just. It is a being that had a son for the explicit purpose of having him hunted his whole life, to die a horrible death for a silly pretext called "original sin" some people are actually moronic enough to believe. It is a being that slaughters thousands of innocent living beings to make a point to their parents or owners. It is a being that once drowned almost all humans and animals living at the time because he disliked how they lived. It is a being that enjoys the smell of burning flesh, proudly admits to be jealous, considers women nothing more than sperm recepticles for their husband, could not care less if one kills the kid of a nonbeliever, does not want people with glasses to come near to him, wishes to control who we love and what we do in the bedroom and so forth and so forth.

The sad thing is - you have devoted your life to believing He is not vile, but Good and working in mysterious ways. And that is why I both pity and fear you.

You lay the blame with men. I lay the blame with the Being that gave the orders. The vision of God you paint directly contradicts the most fundamental of Christian writings -so if you believe in a friendly noble being you can NOT be a Christian.

[Holy Paradise]

It is time for humanity to come out of its infancy. If not, then why not go back to owning slaves and human sacrifice? Let's all go biblical!

False Dilemma fallacy, there are more than just those two options.

[Grave_n_idle]

We have to trust that when the man said he heard a voice coming from a "burning bush" he was telling the truth.

We have to trust no such thing.

People have been writing heroic and fantastic literature for thousands of years, if not longer. Imagination, suspension of disbelief, honest attempts to explain the world... drug-addled fantasies... theft of someone else's story - ALL of those are entirely plausible explanations for 'burning bushes' or 'parted seas' that don't have ANYTHING to do with a person 'telling the truth', per se... and also don't have ANYTHING to do with a necessary 'creator god'.

There many conflicting forces at work in the world today. There are humans acting it what they perceive is there own "best" interest. There are force both natural and supernatural at work. Just because you can't see the "steps" being taken doesn't mean they are not happening. Occam Razor does apply. The simplest answer must be the truth.

The simplest answer is that the world really is as it seems.

If we can figure out a "good reason" why the "story" or account is a lie then maybe it happened? What would the storyteller have to gain by saying for example that a bunch of Israelites walked up to a Sea. I guy lifted up his hands and the Sea parted. When they got the other side. The sea came crashing in around a bunch of Egyptians. There may be little evidence that it happened. What evidence would you expect to find. If it exists at all it is at the bottom of the Sea. Keep in mind it happened a long, long time ago.

If you can't figure out a good reason why the story is a lie... no, you don't accept it. You should never accept that a (let's face it, fantastical) story is true JUST because there's not DIRECT evidence against on. On the contrary - every account should be considered unreliable until it is corroborated.

[Holy Paradise]

The sad thing is - you have devoted your life to believing He is not vile, but Good and working in mysterious ways. And that is why I both pity and fear you.

Isn't being fearful of someone for having a belief in God just as bad as being fearful of someone who doesn't have a belief, even though in both cases neither people have proven to be dangerous?