Official Religion Discussion Thread

[Eury]

Dark has obviously not read the Story of Eve and the Serpent or Paradise Lost.

 

Asmoday (the serpent) was possessed by Satan. That is how the snake talked.

 

Nobody here can prove the Stories of the Bible wrong, and no one can prove them right.

 

So really, there is absolutely no point in trying to prove Christianity wrong or the Bible false.

 

Sure, you can have the opinion that the Bible is bullshit, but you can't prove that's it false. Because what if it's right? No one will ever know unless we get a time machine or something.

[Dark]

Dark has obviously not read the Story of Eve and the Serpent or Paradise Lost.

 

Asmoday (the serpent) was possessed by Satan. That is how the snake talked.

 

Nobody here can prove the Stories of the Bible wrong' date=' and no one can prove them right.

 

So really, there is absolutely no point in trying to prove Christianity wrong or the Bible false.

 

Sure, you can have the opinion that the Bible is bullshit, but you can't prove that's it false. Because what if it's right? No one will ever know unless we get a time machine or something.

[/quote']

 

I don't care how the snake talked, the fact of the matter is that the story cannot be proven true (burden of proof is held by the Bible-writer), and thus is false until sufficient proof is given to convince me. Obviously variating amounts of proof are needed for different people, and some are content if someone says "God wrote the Bible, so the stories are true" as proof. I'm not, and no other proof exists that any of those stories are true.

 

My main point is that while the story is bullshit (as of now), the moral that you shouldn't speak to snakes still holds true, and that is the only part about religion that should be applied to real-life, or at least imo.

 

I don't need to prove the Bible or Christianity (stories of) false when the burden of proof doesn't lay on me. I don't mind proving them false if you can prove that I am not really an invisible frog.

[Eury]

Dark has obviously not read the Story of Eve and the Serpent or Paradise Lost.

 

Asmoday (the serpent) was possessed by Satan. That is how the snake talked.

 

Nobody here can prove the Stories of the Bible wrong' date=' and no one can prove them right.

 

So really, there is absolutely no point in trying to prove Christianity wrong or the Bible false.

 

Sure, you can have the opinion that the Bible is bullshit, but you can't prove that's it false. Because what if it's right? No one will ever know unless we get a time machine or something.

[/quote']

 

I don't care how the snake talked, the fact of the matter is that the story cannot be proven true (burden of proof is held by the Bible-writer), and thus is false until sufficient proof is given to convince me. Obviously variating amounts of proof are needed for different people, and some are content if someone says "God wrote the Bible, so the stories are true" as proof. I'm not, and no other proof exists that any of those stories are true.

 

My main point is that while the story is bullshit (as of now), the moral that you shouldn't speak to snakes still holds true, and that is the only part about religion that should be applied to real-life, or at least imo.

 

I don't need to prove the Bible or Christianity (stories of) false when the burden of proof doesn't lay on me. I don't mind proving them false if you can prove that I am not really an invisible frog.

 

That's stupid. Just because something that happened nearly 2000 years ago can't be proven doesn't render it false. And the Bible wasn't written by God. It's 66 books written by 40 different people spanning over 1500+ years. If you read the Bible carefully enough, you'll find that to be true. That's why most people think Satan = Lucifer, when they are in fact not the same. Adam and Eve were supposedly the first humans, and Satan tricked Eve. But, Lucifer was a King of Babylon. So really, they can't be the same. If you don't misconstrue the Bible, it makes sense in many ways.

 

And my Physics teacher pulled that "prove I'm not a ___" crap. It's stupid and annoying as hell. :/

[Orza]

Religion is what guides people' date=' half of you are [b']stuck on here with no life[/b] because you've had nothing to guide you. Although I'm not a religious fanatic I do believe that religion can truly help people in many different ways, regardless of whether there truly is a god or religious figurehead of some sort. KI'MOUT. BYE.

 

You're one to talk. <___<

 

He is an ill-informed Christian. Christianity does make logical sense. The masses are just ignorant, prideful, self-righteous "Christian" who try to promote an illogical Christianity, and we all get a bad name from their awful attempts at "spreading the faith".

 

The ideaologies of Christianity are fine; do good, try not to kill people, don't listen to snakes. But Christianity in general is a bunch of bullshit. Or, at least the stories associated with it. Sure, I totally believe that Eve listened to a talkative snake about eating apples. While the story obviously is not true (and thus bullshit), the lesson of not speaking to snakes is still correct.

 

Again, I have no problem with religion, as long as it doesn't affect me. Too bad it does.

I'm on here an hour a day with a bunch of other tabs open, I go on it for the social privileges, if you can call it that.

[Azmodius]

Yes, I believe in most bizzare prophecies too.

[Dark]

Religion is what guides people' date=' half of you are [b']stuck on here with no life[/b] because you've had nothing to guide you. Although I'm not a religious fanatic I do believe that religion can truly help people in many different ways, regardless of whether there truly is a god or religious figurehead of some sort. KI'MOUT. BYE.

 

You're one to talk. <___<

 

He is an ill-informed Christian. Christianity does make logical sense. The masses are just ignorant, prideful, self-righteous "Christian" who try to promote an illogical Christianity, and we all get a bad name from their awful attempts at "spreading the faith".

 

The ideaologies of Christianity are fine; do good, try not to kill people, don't listen to snakes. But Christianity in general is a bunch of bullshit. Or, at least the stories associated with it. Sure, I totally believe that Eve listened to a talkative snake about eating apples. While the story obviously is not true (and thus bullshit), the lesson of not speaking to snakes is still correct.

 

Again, I have no problem with religion, as long as it doesn't affect me. Too bad it does.

I'm on here an hour a day with a bunch of other tabs open, I go on it for the social privileges, if you can call it that.

 

Fine, I'll give you that. But your bullshit statistic "half" is just that: bullshit. More than half of us are stuck on this bloody site. :/

 

That's stupid. Just because something that happened nearly 2000 years ago can't be proven doesn't render it false. And the Bible wasn't written by God. It's 66 books written by 40 different people spanning over 1500+ years. If you read the Bible carefully enough, you'll find that to be true. That's why most people think Satan = Lucifer, when they are in fact not the same. Adam and Eve were supposedly the first humans, and Satan tricked Eve. But, Lucifer was a King of Babylon. So really, they can't be the same. If you don't misconstrue the Bible, it makes sense in many ways.

 

And my Physics teacher pulled that "prove I'm not a ___" crap. It's stupid and annoying as hell. :/

 

Erm... big paragraph that poses no relevance. Again, I don't care who possessed Eve, what the snake was high on, who wrote the Bible, or how many pancake mix recipes are in Exodus 8:10. The teachings of the Bible are correct: don't kill people, don't take to snakes, try not to eat poisoned apples. But the stories in the Bible are bullshit, and there is enough proof to show that.

 

Adam and Eve were the first humans? That would cause incest (seeing as Eve would need to reproduce with a son or Adam would need to reproduce with a daughter), and half of us in this world would be mentally retarded right now.

 

Noah had a 40-day flood? There is no documentation of a flood that could have lasted that long, and even if it did, there is no way Noah could have gathered "two of every species" in his area, let alone the world.

 

The stories of the Bible teach moral lessons, and the ones that don't talk about feminism and homosexuality give the correct morals. But the stories themselves are bullshit, because there is no proof to back the stories up, nor do they even sound remotely true.

 

But, I'll tell you what. I'll write a book about some guy who jumped off a cliff and spontaneously combusted and went to heaven but was sent back to Earth and then fell down a river and got all wet and met the girl of his dreams and they had kids and those kids had kids and those kids reproduced with monkeys causing a disease to spread across the population and kill everyone (not related to AIDS, I tried at least). And I will base my proof that I wrote it through a revelation from god (any and all gods). And we'll see what every religious person says.

 

Your physics teacher was obviously teaching you about burden of proof. If I state that I am a frog, there is no reason why I should be asking you to prove me wrong. Instead, I should be providing evidence to prove myself right.

[Eury]

i r stele ur quotng syztm ok

 

But the stories in the Bible are bullshit

 

No sheet. I never said they weren't, I said you can't prove them to be false. They always could be true.

 

The point of the Bible is to teach lessons.

 

ex. Story of Eve and the Serpent teaches what deception can do to someone.

 

The Story of Lucifer teaches not to go power hungry and not to turn against God.

 

etc. etc.

 

how many pancake mix recipes are in Exodus 8:10

 

This made me lol.

 

There is no documentation of a flood that could have lasted that long

 

They didn't have anything to document it back then. :/

 

nor do they even sound remotely true

 

I agree, but you still can't prove them wrong. If I said that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was in the center of the Earth chilling at the core with a root beer and some hoes, that doesn't sound like it could be true, right? But you still couldn't prove me wrong. There could be a Flying Spaghetti Monster in the Earth's core, you never know. lolpastafarianism

 

inb4apastafariangetsangrehwitmeh

[Dark]

I agree, but you still can't prove them wrong. If I said that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was in the center of the Earth chilling at the core with a root beer and some hoes, that doesn't sound like it could be true, right? But you still couldn't prove me wrong. There could be a Flying Spaghetti Monster in the Earth's core, you never know. lolpastafarianism

 

You aren't getting it. It is not my job to prove them wrong.

 

You theory is that the FSM is something something hoes beer something. Sure, it doesn't sound true. But it isn't my problem to prove it false. Because you stated that, and because you are asserting it to be true, it is your job to prove it true.

 

This doesn't work as a "true until proven false" thing, because then I really am that invisible frog.

[MarbleZone]

About the Flood, one could always argue that back when the whole thing happened, or when it was first documented, knowledge of the "world" was extremely scarce. For all they knew there was nothing beyond Babylon. (I'm speaking off the top of my head, maybe Babylon is a terrible example, but you get my point.)

 

What doesn't make sense is why he had to gather two of every fish to save them from the deluge. :P

 

My opinion on the Old Testament is, up until Abraham, all the scriptures are fiction. Starting with Abraham, most of it is fanfiction. No, Moses most likely didn't split the sea, but yes, he most likely did exist.

[CinnamonStar]

But aren't all religions full of ludicrous and bullshit stories with no evidence to back themselves up? Odin hang himself on the Yggdrasil tree for nine days and pierced himself with his spear to study the runes? And the Vaisravana has a mongoose that ejects jewels from its mouth, just to prove that you don't have to be a snake and snake = greedy in Buddhism?

 

I mean come on, I'm having issues with people who take some of these stories way too seriously and verbally but weren't they written firts and foremost to illustrate the morals they wanted to teach? Well we still don't know what many of the authors wanted to tell back then but we can assume it from many of the stories. Hence why my opinion that the bible is a half fairytale/half biographical collection of books but for some people it's also a book of moral advice. Just as much as you can take the Lord of the Rings as a religious book and use it for moral guidance, while not automtically believing that all the sword fights and elven stuff really exists.

 

Several accounts of European kings were also way exaggerated, if you look at antique ruler cults and chants many of them were presented like freaking gods.>_>

 

Exodus, I think of it as an attempt to explain things people didn't find answers for, the creation of the world, universe and stuff. You don't have archeological tools to reconstruct dinosaurs on computers, don't have advanced science... Trust me, various creation stories are farfetched like this, it's crazy what people can come up with... There's the Greek incest-as-much-as-you-can to engender the process.:P

 

Sure' date=' I totally believe that Eve listened to a talkative snake about eating apples.

[/quote']

 

Another problem is that next to having 40 people adding to the Bible (not to mention the Apocrypha and books that some Christian branches like to add and others don't) it's hard to take many of the stories for anything more than symbolic/aesthetic purposes witht eh translation issues and the I-don't-know-how-many translations existing. It couldn't have been an apple for example since apples weren't available back then (at least not in that part of the world) so some translations talk about a fruit only.

[Dark]

About the Flood' date=' one could always argue that back when the whole thing happened, or when it was first documented, knowledge of the "world" was extremely scarce. For all they knew there was nothing beyond Babylon. (I'm speaking off the top of my head, maybe Babylon is a terrible example, but you get my point.)

 

What doesn't make sense is why he had to gather two of every fish to save them from the deluge. :P

 

My opinion on the Old Testament is, up until Abraham, all the scriptures are fiction. Starting with Abraham, most of it is fanfiction. No, Moses most likely didn't split the sea, but yes, he most likely did exist.

[/quote']

 

Because he wanted two of every animal to breed them or something. I don't know, but he had to do some major fishing.

 

Moses existed, sure, but can you be sure it was the same Moses depicted in the Bible?

 

Jesus existed, sure, but Jesus was a pretty common name back then.

 

But aren't all religions full of ludicrous and bullshit stories with no evidence to back themselves up? Odin hang himself on the Yggdrasil tree for nine days and pierced himself with his spear to study the runes? And the Vaisravana has a mongoose that ejects jewels from its mouth' date=' just to prove that you don't have to be a snake and snake = greedy in Buddhism?

 

[b']Yeah, all religions' stories are bullshit. I used Christianity because I thought of it first?[/b]

 

I mean come on, I'm having issues with people who take some of these stories way too seriously and verbally but weren't they written firts and foremost to illustrate the morals they wanted to teach? Well we still don't know what many of the authors wanted to tell back then but we can assume it from many of the stories. Hence why my opinion that the bible is a half fairytale/half biographical collection of books but for some people it's also a book of moral advice. Just as much as you can take the Lord of the Rings as a religious book and use it for moral guidance, while not automtically believing that all the sword fights and elven stuff really exists.

 

I said that. Religious morals (not concerning homosexuality and that stuff) are correct. Do not kill people; do not take to evil snakes; do not eat poisoned apples. I have no problem with inner meanings, but the fact of the matter is the stories themselves are bullshit.

 

Several accounts of European kings were also way exaggerated, if you look at antique ruler cults and chants many of them were presented like freaking gods.>_>

 

Exodus, I think of it as an attempt to explain things people didn't find answers for, the creation of the world, universe and stuff. You don't have archeological tools to reconstruct dinosaurs on computers, don't have advanced science... Trust me, various creation stories are farfetched like this, it's crazy what people can come up with... There's the Greek incest-as-much-as-you-can to engender the process.:P

 

Isn't

Sure' date=' I totally believe that Eve listened to a talkative snake about eating apples.

[/quote']

 

Another problem is that next to having 40 people adding to the Bible (not to mention the Apocrypha and books that some Christian branches like to add and others don't) it's hard to take many of the stories for anything more than symbolic/aesthetic purposes witht eh translation issues and the I-don't-know-how-many translations existing. It couldn't have been an apple for example since apples weren't available back then (at least not in that part of the world) so some translations talk about a fruit only.

 

Err... how many people, total, wrote the Bible? Because that kind of shows they were all idiots, because the contradictions that occur within the Bible, iirc, were between books.

[CinnamonStar]

But what about the translations that were made later on? How can we know if the original texts really looked like this? Plus there's nothing like a "universal bible", certain Protestant accept 66 books as canon whereas others don't consider the Apocrypha.

[MarbleZone]

Err... how many people' date=' total, wrote the Bible? Because that kind of shows they were all idiots, because the contradictions that occur within the Bible, iirc, were between books.

[/quote']

 

Opal is best informed on the technicalities, but the Bible is essentially a collection of books - the Book of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, etc. They probably didn't have access to most of other contemporary scriptures back then, so it's not like they had a lot of literature to base their own texts on.

Besides, back then, the main aim was have people believe. If you couldn't reach that goal because you couldn't explain everything, you added a bit of mysticism. This goes for Christian texts as well as any other religion's.

[Dark]

you added a bit of mysticism

 

Err, isn't that what I'm saying is bullshit? You want someone to believe that killing is bad? Add a story where someone was thrown in a fire for killing someone else, or some sort of crazy story that uses a scare tactic.

 

That's what god really is, though, imo. A scare tactic for people to do good. :/

[MarbleZone]

Yes, it was a scare tactic. The whole concept of Hell is, in my opinion, just a scare tactic. Point is, it worked back then, but it holds no validity nowadays - and I don't know about the rest of the world, but over here priests barely mention the punishment-side of the books, and focus on the eternal reward.

 

Which is equally outdated, in my perspective.

[Silas Angel]

Err... how many people' date=' total, wrote the Bible? Because that kind of shows they were all idiots, because the contradictions that occur within the Bible, iirc, were between books.

[/quote']

 

The Bible does not contradict itself, it harmonizes. Everything that was contradicting was pulled out; the Apocrypha and such.

[Tentacruel]

Please don't be a bunch of retards.

 

Awww...

 

This is for a friendly discussion on Religion' date=' and nothing more.

[/quote']

 

We all know that aint gonna happen.

[Eury]

But what about the translations that were made later on? How can we know if the original texts really looked like this?

 

Weren't certain books of the Bible passed down orally before they were written?

[Mehmani]

Err... how many people' date=' total, wrote the Bible? Because that kind of shows they were all idiots, because the contradictions that occur within the Bible, iirc, were between books.

[/quote']

 

The Bible does not contradict itself, it harmonizes. Everything that was contradicting was pulled out; the Apocrypha and such.

 

So the Bible had contradictions but the men who compiled it hid them?

[T. Sankara]

Err... how many people' date=' total, wrote the Bible? Because that kind of shows they were all idiots, because the contradictions that occur within the Bible, iirc, were between books.

[/quote']

 

The Bible does not contradict itself, it harmonizes. Everything that was contradicting was pulled out; the Apocrypha and such.

 

So the Bible had contradictions but the men who compiled it hid them?

 

Sounds like it.

[Silas Angel]

Err... how many people' date=' total, wrote the Bible? Because that kind of shows they were all idiots, because the contradictions that occur within the Bible, iirc, were between books.

[/quote']

 

The Bible does not contradict itself, it harmonizes. Everything that was contradicting was pulled out; the Apocrypha and such.

 

So the Bible had contradictions but the men who compiled it hid them?

 

Sounds like it.

 

No. Those books that contradicted what the real Bible taught were taken out and seen as non-canonical. Like oral tradition: if it contradicted what the Bible taught, then it is to be seen as not authoritative. Some of these books were seen as Biblical, but after examination it was seen that they could not be a part of the Bible because they contradicted what the rest of it taught.

[Guest Supreme Gamesmaster]

Well, for me, any valid religion needs three important points:

>)It doesn't charge money for salvation, like Scientology and the pre-Reformation Catholic Church.

>)Besides discussion groups centered around the religion, there is no "faith leader." This "faith leader" inevitably becomes a "king" or "CEO."

>)It doesn't use "being part of the faith" as a prerequisite for salvation. Buddhism and Taoism qualify here; Christianity and especially Calvinism do not.

 

If any of the above conditions are met, a "religion" instead becomes a "political entity" and winds up causing more harm than good.

 

Discuss and contribute?

 

Err... how many people' date=' total, wrote the Bible? Because that kind of shows they were all idiots, because the contradictions that occur within the Bible, iirc, were between books.

[/quote']

 

The Bible does not contradict itself, it harmonizes. Everything that was contradicting was pulled out; the Apocrypha and such.

 

So the Bible had contradictions but the men who compiled it hid them?

 

Sounds like it.

 

No. Those books that contradicted what the real Bible taught were taken out and seen as non-canonical. Like oral tradition: if it contradicted what the Bible taught, then it is to be seen as not authoritative. Some of these books were seen as Biblical, but after examination it was seen that they could not be a part of the Bible because they contradicted what the rest of it taught.

Well, even so, the core ideas of the New Testament are contradicted by, say, the Book of Revelation. To say nothing of the drastic differences between the Old and New Testaments.

[Dark]

Well' date=' for me, any valid religion needs three important points:

>)It doesn't charge money for salvation, like Scientology and the pre-Reformation Catholic Church.

>)Besides discussion groups centered around the religion, there is no "faith leader." This "faith leader" inevitably becomes a "king" or "CEO."

>)It doesn't use "being part of the faith" as a prerequisite for salvation. Buddhism and Taoism qualify here; Christianity and especially Calvinism do not.

 

If any of the above conditions are met, a "religion" instead becomes a "political entity" and winds up causing more harm than good.

 

Discuss and contribute?

[/quote']

 

It needs to prove this "salvation" actually exists?

 

No, I'm just looking at your post from the wrong standpoint, I apologize.

 

Err... yeah, those all seem like valid points. But what religion(s) fall(s) under those points?

[Silas Angel]

Err... how many people' date=' total, wrote the Bible? Because that kind of shows they were all idiots, because the contradictions that occur within the Bible, iirc, were between books.

[/quote']

 

The Bible does not contradict itself, it harmonizes. Everything that was contradicting was pulled out; the Apocrypha and such.

 

So the Bible had contradictions but the men who compiled it hid them?

 

Sounds like it.

 

No. Those books that contradicted what the real Bible taught were taken out and seen as non-canonical. Like oral tradition: if it contradicted what the Bible taught, then it is to be seen as not authoritative. Some of these books were seen as Biblical, but after examination it was seen that they could not be a part of the Bible because they contradicted what the rest of it taught.

Well, even so, the core ideas of the New Testament are contradicted by, say, the Book of Revelation. To say nothing of the drastic differences between the Old and New Testaments.

 

Not really, the book of Revelation is actually repeating what the rest of the epistles were saying: the wicked will be judged on earth and on that Day, the righteous will be blessed forever and ever, and that Jesus Christ is Lord and God of all. Also, there's going to be drastic differences between the OT and NT, that's what God promised =/ He says in the OT that He was going to make a new covenant that will be different than the first. And although the promises are different, the purpose is the same, the religion is the same, and the God is the same.

 

Also, Calvinists aren't Christian? =P

[wero-vasto]

Err... how many people' date=' total, wrote the Bible? Because that kind of shows they were all idiots, because the contradictions that occur within the Bible, iirc, were between books.

[/quote']

 

The Bible does not contradict itself, it harmonizes. Everything that was contradicting was pulled out; the Apocrypha and such.

 

Actually... we contradict the Bible...

 

It's only interpretation >