Respecting religion???
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
This says a lot to me about how he is a creation of man.
Do you think the earth is 6000 years old?
Did Jesus feed the 5000?
Did he walk on water?
The walking on water seems to be the key miracle that convinced his 12 disciples he was the son of god, so seems to perhaps be key underpinning argument for having faith/belief, no?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Now, was there a Jesus? I think there must have been. Was there a jesus who was born during the census when everyone had to return to their place of birth? No. This has been disproved more or less conclusively. There was no massive movement of people around that time.
If you take away the nativity, does that make your Jesus go away? 'Cause it didn't happen.
Was there a Jesus who turned water into wine, who walked on water, who cured people of leprosy? Extremely unlikely as these would require the suspension of the laws of nature and could therefore be magic and we all know magic does not exist.
If you want to make a claim that someone can magic things, then it is not, I would suggest, up to anyone to disprove it. You must prove such a remarkable claim. Once we can see your evidence then we can start to disprove it. Or not, you never know.
You can't disbelieve gravity because it exists. You use it every day to stop hitting your head on the ceilings in your house. You can disbelieve Einstein's theories. But the way to do that is to negate his claims. He's put his workings out to the public and if you can pull out one accepted thing which is wrong then good on you. Any scientist who could disprove relativity would be made for life so I would assume there's a fair few out there trying. It is the same with evolution and the current, and competing, theories of how it works. There's books full of evidence. Have a go.
You have no evidence of a divine Jesus, none at all. The book is not evidence. Indeed, even popes have agreed that the gospels were written many years after the events they purport to portray. Many scholars suggest they were rewritten many times and each is a compilation made up over the years.
So there's the gospels which are suspect, contradictory and open to interpretation. If you have nothing else to support your belief then we can start dissecting the bible. Or rather, we can pinch from one of the many books which have done this before.
What, so we draw pictures of him in our image and that means we created him?
What say God is actually a figureless being and we, as humans do, seek to imagine him with a face, with eyes, nose, mouth, like we do with animals in cartoons, putting smiley faces on them, clothes, hats.........
Anyways, no I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old, the scientific research into carbon dating, archaeology and such is plenty proof.
The miracles - I don't know. I could explain them as allegories, as falsehoods, as misinterpretations, as real miracles, but sincerely I don't know.
You know though there's plenty of things Jesus did that don't even allude to miraculous events.
One thing that strikes me is his struggle to free people from religious control, he didn't use his 'skills' to gain power, it appears people after him did this.
He said for people to look into their own hearts to find God and they would find him in themselves.
What does that suggest to you?
What say God is actually a figureless being and we, as humans do, seek to imagine him with a face, with eyes, nose, mouth, like we do with animals in cartoons, putting smiley faces on them, clothes, hats.........
Anyways, no I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old, the scientific research into carbon dating, archaeology and such is plenty proof.
The miracles - I don't know. I could explain them as allegories, as falsehoods, as misinterpretations, as real miracles, but sincerely I don't know.
You know though there's plenty of things Jesus did that don't even allude to miraculous events.
One thing that strikes me is his struggle to free people from religious control, he didn't use his 'skills' to gain power, it appears people after him did this.
He said for people to look into their own hearts to find God and they would find him in themselves.
What does that suggest to you?
Derek Smith said:
There were any number of christs around in Judea 2000 years ago. Before the first council of Nicea there were many christian religions, but these were not all based on the same christ. I don't think anyone would want to try and disprove this as there is significant evidence of it.
Now, was there a Jesus? I think there must have been. Was there a jesus who was born during the census when everyone had to return to their place of birth? No. This has been disproved more or less conclusively. There was no massive movement of people around that time.
If you take away the nativity, does that make your Jesus go away? 'Cause it didn't happen.
Was there a Jesus who turned water into wine, who walked on water, who cured people of leprosy? Extremely unlikely as these would require the suspension of the laws of nature and could therefore be magic and we all know magic does not exist.
If you want to make a claim that someone can magic things, then it is not, I would suggest, up to anyone to disprove it. You must prove such a remarkable claim. Once we can see your evidence then we can start to disprove it. Or not, you never know.
You can't disbelieve gravity because it exists. You use it every day to stop hitting your head on the ceilings in your house. You can disbelieve Einstein's theories. But the way to do that is to negate his claims. He's put his workings out to the public and if you can pull out one accepted thing which is wrong then good on you. Any scientist who could disprove relativity would be made for life so I would assume there's a fair few out there trying. It is the same with evolution and the current, and competing, theories of how it works. There's books full of evidence. Have a go.
You have no evidence of a divine Jesus, none at all. The book is not evidence. Indeed, even popes have agreed that the gospels were written many years after the events they purport to portray. Many scholars suggest they were rewritten many times and each is a compilation made up over the years.
So there's the gospels which are suspect, contradictory and open to interpretation. If you have nothing else to support your belief then we can start dissecting the bible. Or rather, we can pinch from one of the many books which have done this before.
Derek, once more this 'you can't, you can'.Now, was there a Jesus? I think there must have been. Was there a jesus who was born during the census when everyone had to return to their place of birth? No. This has been disproved more or less conclusively. There was no massive movement of people around that time.
If you take away the nativity, does that make your Jesus go away? 'Cause it didn't happen.
Was there a Jesus who turned water into wine, who walked on water, who cured people of leprosy? Extremely unlikely as these would require the suspension of the laws of nature and could therefore be magic and we all know magic does not exist.
If you want to make a claim that someone can magic things, then it is not, I would suggest, up to anyone to disprove it. You must prove such a remarkable claim. Once we can see your evidence then we can start to disprove it. Or not, you never know.
You can't disbelieve gravity because it exists. You use it every day to stop hitting your head on the ceilings in your house. You can disbelieve Einstein's theories. But the way to do that is to negate his claims. He's put his workings out to the public and if you can pull out one accepted thing which is wrong then good on you. Any scientist who could disprove relativity would be made for life so I would assume there's a fair few out there trying. It is the same with evolution and the current, and competing, theories of how it works. There's books full of evidence. Have a go.
You have no evidence of a divine Jesus, none at all. The book is not evidence. Indeed, even popes have agreed that the gospels were written many years after the events they purport to portray. Many scholars suggest they were rewritten many times and each is a compilation made up over the years.
So there's the gospels which are suspect, contradictory and open to interpretation. If you have nothing else to support your belief then we can start dissecting the bible. Or rather, we can pinch from one of the many books which have done this before.
Which of the things you say 'you can't' am I actually trying to say?
Gravity? I don't argue with that. Jesus performing miracles? I haven't claimed that. You say 'scholars suggest', yes that's all they can do - suggest!
I'm not suggesting Einstein is definitely wrong, however I refuse to treat his theories dogmatically, so why level that one at me? Why the need for the big long load of 'yes buts' that don't even reflect what I've said?
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 24th January 21:27
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The miracle of walking on water was the key event that seems to have persuaded the disciples that he was the son/sun of god.If you think that miracle did not happen, where does the confidence in his identity stem from?
Your example of "finding God in themselves" is interesting as it actually supports my assertion that it is entirely human generated concept. It seems to have no other basis in reality. It is something you make up - look within yourself to convince yourself it is true.
The interesting thing about the "walking on water" story is that Jesus appears to them - walking on the lake - at around 6am, after the disciples have been in a storm with wind and waves, and he appears and saves them by controlling the elements. This is what convinces them he is the sun/son of god.
The sun (son) has also been noted to walk on water when it the sun is reflected in water. Hence this key story almost sounds like a retelling of a sun worship story where some people caught in a terrible storm at sea at night are saved by the sun rising and the weather improving. Thank 'heavens' for the sun. The sun coming up would be a sign of the weather improving, and would be their 'saviour'.
Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 24th January 21:33
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Well, there you are, we've moved you some way towards logic. I don't treat Einstein's theories dogmatically. In fact, I think he is probably wrong. That's the scientific method for you. I'm glad we are getting through.However, I'd like to point out something you missed in my post: questions. You were ferocious in your attacks on someone who refused to answer a question you put, but you do not seem to answer any of mine.
You understand, I suppose, that when I say 'You can't' it does not mean that I think you have.
So, as you point out, you haven't claimed that Jesus performed magic but an essential of the christian religions, in almost all sects, is a belief that Jesus did walk on water etc. So, do you believe that Jesus made magic and was therefore divine? Simple enough question, but one you avoided by arguing the toss about something that is nonsensical. I said scholars suggest and you agree. Whoopee do.
So do you believe in miracles?
///ajd said:
You example of "finding God in themselves" is interesting as it actually supports my assertion that it is entirely human generated concept. It has no other basis in reality. It is something you make up - look within yourself to convince yourself it is true.
Aha! Yes, everyone has their own personal 'God' in them, their own conscience, look inside yourself and try to find God/goodness.I think it's his way of promoting self-reflection and thought before action, to try to do the right thing, plus strength and conviction.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You said you don't know, so this leaves the question as to whether the basis for the disciples believing he was the sun of god as not completely convincing or unknown. From a logical point of view this leaves the entire premise somewhat undermined.
It seems we agree the concept of a god is something entirely created in the mind of man.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You equate your god with goodness? Yet most gods are rather nasty. Certainly Abraham's one is extreme to say the least. Hardly epitomises goodness. Throwing your daughter to the mob 'cause you want a bit of peace and quiet might have occurred to many a parent but to be praised for it. Wow! Now there's a thought. It is non-religious morals that are 'good' in comparison. They are the ones that ask for self sacrifice.
Many religions modify their preachings to fit in with the way secular morals have developed. We even have had a pope saying that being gay is not necessarily a block to going to your heavenly reward - a relief to a number of his underlings I assume. Yet a few years ago it was a mortal sin and one that was a popular one to get the flock excited. We've had acceptance that women are almost like real people in the anglican church, although it has caused some people to flee to the more reactionary religions.
How long before people are not condemned to a life in/of (there's no consistency) purgatory for the mortal, heinous and rather mild sin of tearing a picture?
There's a saying that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first send mad, but this is not try of Abraham's one. If he wants to destroy anything, he'll do it and if an innocent is in the way, tough.
///ajd said:
You said you don't know, so this leaves the question as to whether the basis for the disciples believing he was the sun of god as not completely convincing or unknown.
From a logical point of view this leaves the entire premise somewhat undermined.
It seems we agree the concept of a god is something entirely created in the mind of man.
You're not far off what I think there.From a logical point of view this leaves the entire premise somewhat undermined.
It seems we agree the concept of a god is something entirely created in the mind of man.
///ajd said:
The miracle of walking on water was the key event that seems to have persuaded the disciples that he was the son/sun of god.
If you think that miracle did not happen, where does the confidence in his identity stem from?
Your example of "finding God in themselves" is interesting as it actually supports my assertion that it is entirely human generated concept. It seems to have no other basis in reality. It is something you make up - look within yourself to convince yourself it is true.
The interesting thing about the "walking on water" story is that Jesus appears to them - walking on the lake - at around 6am, after the disciples have been in a storm with wind and waves, and he appears and saves them by controlling the elements. This is what convinces them he is the sun/son of god.
The sun (son) has also been noted to walk on water when it the sun is reflected in water. Hence this key story almost sounds like a retelling of a sun worship story where some people caught in a terrible storm at sea at night are saved by the sun rising and the weather improving. Thank 'heavens' for the sun. The sun coming up would be a sign of the weather improving, and would be their 'saviour'.
It is all sun worship by another name. There are dozens of ancient religions with huge similarities to Christianity, although not as profitable, granted.If you think that miracle did not happen, where does the confidence in his identity stem from?
Your example of "finding God in themselves" is interesting as it actually supports my assertion that it is entirely human generated concept. It seems to have no other basis in reality. It is something you make up - look within yourself to convince yourself it is true.
The interesting thing about the "walking on water" story is that Jesus appears to them - walking on the lake - at around 6am, after the disciples have been in a storm with wind and waves, and he appears and saves them by controlling the elements. This is what convinces them he is the sun/son of god.
The sun (son) has also been noted to walk on water when it the sun is reflected in water. Hence this key story almost sounds like a retelling of a sun worship story where some people caught in a terrible storm at sea at night are saved by the sun rising and the weather improving. Thank 'heavens' for the sun. The sun coming up would be a sign of the weather improving, and would be their 'saviour'.
Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 24th January 21:33
The three kings are stars which pop into view in the right place, leading to the star of david. The Jesus figure or equivalent is born at the winter equinox. Loads of allegories and metaphors around light and new life coinciding with longer days and the imagined battle of the sun with the forces of darkness.
Nothing new and all harmless enough so far, but then they bolt on the nasty pernicious divisive evil rules and act as a brake on our moral development forever. Boo, sun, boo.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Now, about this Virgin birth, how would science deal with that.
There may well have been a bloke called Jesus but he certainly wasn't born of a virgin mother. That much is fact.
WinstonWolf said:
I am not an obnoxious irritant, I simply blow massive holes in your beliefs with very simple questions. I can't help it if that annoys you...
Now, about this Virgin birth, how would science deal with that.
There may well have been a bloke called Jesus but he certainly wasn't born of a virgin mother. That much is fact.
Wolfie, you really are a tNow, about this Virgin birth, how would science deal with that.
There may well have been a bloke called Jesus but he certainly wasn't born of a virgin mother. That much is fact.
t, LOL!Your profile reads:
'If you think I am winding you up, it's probably no accident. The best discussions come from controversy... All IMHO of course'. You bloody thrive off it!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
If you make the connection that its all in the mind - does this not indicate it is a creation/figment of our active imagination? One of the realisations I had while praying during sunday school (as a kid that was partly put through, but did not succumb to, the indoctrination) was that it was surely just in the mind, and there could be no logical consequence of praying. I did used to wonder if others - including the vicar etc. - had different minds and I was somehow faulty in not having a mind that could communicate with 'the lord'.
Revelations.
I have been accused of trolling on this thread. Well I kind of have been a little bit.
I do believe in Jesus and I agree with a heck of a lot he said. I think he existed and that some of the story is allegorical or embellished. I'm comfortable with that. This isn't a result of family pressure or tradition, my family are just not religious, I didn't go to church much as a child, no Sunday school. I thought about it, studied it and liked it.
However I do struggle with the concept of God as creator etc. One of my favourite lines in a song is from a group called Faithless.
'If there's a God, be aware, I'm a man newly made.
My son lies here, and only of him, am I afraid.
As I gaze into that face, I perceive that which is true.
I created him, and we created you... in his image'.
I get well fked off when anyone uses religion to hurt or control someone else. I don't dig the Pope and the Catholic Church attitude to birth control and homosexuality, I think they're afraid of their own conservative followers and the risk of losing control of the masses.
But I think there are a lot of decent people believing in their religion without making that an issue to anyone else.
Only those that refuse to accept the possibility that their religious beliefs may not be founded on reality AND cause pain and suffering are dangerous.
At the other end of the spectrum the atheist seveners can equally be a danger. When such a stringent 'belief' is instilled in an already warped mind there is a problem. Even Dawkins, the outspoken atheist, is backing off and accepting the logic that he cannot prove that something he doesn't particularly like does not exist. He's being reasonable.
I also cannot stand dogma, scientific or religious. It stifles debate and ideas. I think you've got to give ideas the time of day to allow the good in them to have some effect, to challenge the status quo, to push for revision and to counter lazy thinking.
To bring it back to the original point of this thread, I've seen religious types goaded and insulted on these forums and I've seen one get banned as a result of it. As far as I remember it was slyly insinuated that he was linked to paedophilia. The guy wasn't preaching hellfire to anyone, he was just offering his religious opinion to discussion. I detest people tarring whole groups with the same brush.
I don't really see the point in laughing in someone's face because they think something that appears crazy to you. They'll gain nothing positive from it, and deep down the attacker won't. I'd rather live in a world where nobody fears expressing themselves as long as their expressions are not damaging to others.
I hope that being an awkward annoying bugger might have just made someone think twice about their own 'right to mock the beliefs of others'.
That's all.
I have been accused of trolling on this thread. Well I kind of have been a little bit.
I do believe in Jesus and I agree with a heck of a lot he said. I think he existed and that some of the story is allegorical or embellished. I'm comfortable with that. This isn't a result of family pressure or tradition, my family are just not religious, I didn't go to church much as a child, no Sunday school. I thought about it, studied it and liked it.
However I do struggle with the concept of God as creator etc. One of my favourite lines in a song is from a group called Faithless.
'If there's a God, be aware, I'm a man newly made.
My son lies here, and only of him, am I afraid.
As I gaze into that face, I perceive that which is true.
I created him, and we created you... in his image'.
I get well f
ked off when anyone uses religion to hurt or control someone else. I don't dig the Pope and the Catholic Church attitude to birth control and homosexuality, I think they're afraid of their own conservative followers and the risk of losing control of the masses.But I think there are a lot of decent people believing in their religion without making that an issue to anyone else.
Only those that refuse to accept the possibility that their religious beliefs may not be founded on reality AND cause pain and suffering are dangerous.
At the other end of the spectrum the atheist seveners can equally be a danger. When such a stringent 'belief' is instilled in an already warped mind there is a problem. Even Dawkins, the outspoken atheist, is backing off and accepting the logic that he cannot prove that something he doesn't particularly like does not exist. He's being reasonable.
I also cannot stand dogma, scientific or religious. It stifles debate and ideas. I think you've got to give ideas the time of day to allow the good in them to have some effect, to challenge the status quo, to push for revision and to counter lazy thinking.
To bring it back to the original point of this thread, I've seen religious types goaded and insulted on these forums and I've seen one get banned as a result of it. As far as I remember it was slyly insinuated that he was linked to paedophilia. The guy wasn't preaching hellfire to anyone, he was just offering his religious opinion to discussion. I detest people tarring whole groups with the same brush.
I don't really see the point in laughing in someone's face because they think something that appears crazy to you. They'll gain nothing positive from it, and deep down the attacker won't. I'd rather live in a world where nobody fears expressing themselves as long as their expressions are not damaging to others.
I hope that being an awkward annoying bugger might have just made someone think twice about their own 'right to mock the beliefs of others'.
That's all.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff