Contradictions In Religious Fundamentalism

[Baby Bethany]

But as long as there are bad people then something will have to be done about them, and the taxpayer will always foot that bill. It's simply reality and sometimes reality sucks!

Bettypooh

The reality is of course that the convict should be made to work for a living just like the rest of us. In Britain the average con spend their day sitting around watching tv, playing games, or working out. If tax payers pay to support them, then they in turn should have to provide a useful service to those tax payers.

[Jimpy]

The reality is of course that the convict should be made to work for a living just like the rest of us. In Britain the average con spend their day sitting around watching tv, playing games, or working out. If tax payers pay to support them, then they in turn should have to provide a useful service to those tax payers.

I concur. I know forced labor brings to mind a bunch of convicts in chains by the roadside digging ditches in Mississippi (Life, anyone? ). But having convicts do manual civic work would not only improve communities, but it'd give some reason for taxpayers to have to support them instead of just paying the state to shelter, cloth and feed guys who just sit around, lift weights and beat on each other.

[Bettypooh]

The reality is of course that the convict should be made to work for a living just like the rest of us. In Britain the average con spend their day sitting around watching tv, playing games, or working out. If tax payers pay to support them, then they in turn should have to provide a useful service to those tax payers.

I agree But in the US, the Supreme Court decided that it was inhumane to force convicts to work

Some places offer an incentive like earlier release or commisary money for working, some sentences are for community service(work)but there's always the option of saying no and serving the full sentence Almost nobody chooses the latter I remember how smooth the roads and patches were here when the convicts did it(sometimes in chains) compared to now, and it cost the taxpayers a lot less too! If they reinstituted mandantory work for longer sentences there would certainly be a lot fewer criminals over here

Bettypooh

[Guest TeenInDiapers]

Hey, sorry for jumping in rather late, but seeing as I'm Catholic, hopefully I can enlighten you all that Catholicism really isn't as terribly bad as society makes it out to be. There is like 10% good stuff located deep in our recesses of evil teaching. xD

Everything here is a Catholic POV, no idea if it lines up with other Christian practices.

I am unironically against the death penalty and for abortion and do not use logical fallacies to justify that position.

Why against the death penalty: Innocent people have been executed in the past and will be in the future. The penalty is not applied equally and it is just barbaric revenge as opposed to keeping the public safe. Since it's more expensive than life in jail I don't see it as in the public interest either, and it also bereaves the loved ones of that convict too.

This is far from the state sanctioned killing of a living breathing human, regardless of what that human has done.

I find it amusing that many death penalty advocates are against abortion because of fetal pain when the electric chair, gas chamber and lethal injection are all horribly painful.

I'm against both, as is the Catholic Church.

The death penalty? Besides the fact that the Bible says the first to judge will be the ones judged in Heaven, it also says "Thou Shalt Not Kill". It's relatively simple. If someone is a threat to the rest of society, sure, locking them away from the sane ones is perfectly legit. But when we say that killing even the most hardened of crimanls is worth "$" or "# lives" or whatever their crime is, we're placing some kind of a value on a human life. I agree, those that believe in the death penalty and against abortion are messed up. It doesn't make sense.

I'm against abortion as well, again, obviously with the Catholic Church. As I said before, a life doesn't have a monetary value. Any person is worth more than anything on earth. Would you be willing to sell your friends for money? Likewise, even that extremely small fertilized egg has potential for human life, and is immediately worth more.

4) How can so many Christians do non Christian things? For example, some of the Christians I've met have been warm and caring people, some on the other hand have been among the most unpleasant people I've ever met (including my old Sunday School teacher lol). Many people seem to think they can do what they like, so long has they quote the Bible and attend church on Sunday. Even among decent people this can be the case. For example, I'm against the death penalty on any grounds (not for religious reasons, just moral) but when I said this on here, I was flamed by many people including practising Christians. Isn't killing another person a sin, regardless of the reason? On that basis, isn't killing in a war a sin also? How can a minister/priest/vicar, join the army? Equally, I have seen members on here who quote scripture and say "I leave all judgement to God" only to go ahead and flame someone.

A few things here. Are you claiming to be perfect? A Catholic doesn't claim to be perfect. Sure, we try to be good, like everyone else, but that doesn't mean we succeed. Just because we believe in a god doesn't mean we get superpowers to always do or say the right thing.

When it comes to war, yes, killing is wrong. Every and all attempt must be made to not murder. But Catholics aren't pushovers (lol). It's perfectly moral to go to war if your enemy has no intention of any kind of compromise that doesn't involve mass murder. Like for WWII (I won't use Iraq because it's too confusing as to why we're still there...), it would be immoral to not defend the millions of Jews, gypsies, Christians, etc., being mass murdered. But it's also immoral to kill others just for the sake of killing them. Once Germany and its allies had surrendered, we couldn't keep killing them (death penalty) for what they'd done.

1) The vengeful God of the Old Testament v the loving God of the New Testament. How can God be both at the same time?

Perhaps a bit theological for a non-believer, though I have no idea how much theology you've had. When Jesus died on the cross for our sins, he formed a new covenant with creation. God is a god of justice. If we do bad, we get punished. Jesus is the person of mercy and compassion. Once Jesus came into the equation, things changed up a bit.

2) Jesus was born a Jew, and he died a Jew. He never set out to start a new religion, but to reform the old. Why did his followers form a new religion?

Well, technically, Christians were just Jew for a long while, probably at least for 50 years or so. But once it became apparant that many Jews weren't going to give up their old ways of life for a new religion, it was time to just rename things. Many things in Christianity are very similar to Judiasm. (Old Testament, for example).

3) How can the authors of the New Testament claim to be precise about the facts relating to Jesus's life, not to mention the words he said? None of them ever met him and they lived centuries later. It seems a little like they have made up some of the 'facts' to prove a point.

This gets complicated, especially John's Gospel. Mark's gospel was written first, only about 30 years after Christ, still putting him easily in the range of a witness. Luke and Matthew both borrowed about a third of their gospels from an unknown "Q" source (Q is german for "source", so a bit redundant, but we have very little information on who/what Q source came from). Another third-ish each came from different parts of Mark's Gospel. But they were probably either second-string witnesses or just really old, we're not sure which. Either way, stories got passed down by word of mouth back then, it wouldn't have been uncommon for things to be passed around a bit. John's gospel is just weird, borrowing nothing from either of the other 3 writers or Q. So it's a bit harder to explain. Many things were made up to prove points, I'm sure. For example, the order we know is not chronological. Luke and Matthew have the Beatitudes at different places, and even then, they were probably not spoken out all at once, rather fragments of things Jesus said collected together for one clean lesson. But the Gospels weren't meant to be read factually. When these circulated, *everyone* knew about this *Jesus*. So the Gospel writers probably weren't trying to write this down factually. Rather, they had to teach certain aspect's of Jesus' message to different societies and cultures. The teachings, I believe, are spot on with what Jesus most likely said. So if you're trying to say the Gospels don't align and probably aren't actual factual word for word (well, most of it. Some things line up perfectly [e.g. the Passion] through all 4 Gospels, and we believe this to be direct quotations, etc) quotes from Jesus.

The big one that seems to be on everyone's lips right now is the Creationist v Darwinian argument (am I the only one who thinks there is room for both views?)

I believe in both, and the Catholic Church is cautious and rather conservative in all things it does, but it's leaving room in its doctrine for this. Certaintly, though, I believe God created all, and then slowly guided the process of evolution. I mean, Genesis says that on the first day, God created light. [The sun, persumably]. First of all, who was there to write this down? And secondly, if a day is defined as one rotation of the earth, how would we ever know how long this hypothetical day was? Until God creates the Earth when "day two" happens, we kinda just have a big ball of gas sitting out in space.

5) Why the need for icons, ritual, church? One of the biggest contradictions I see in the Christian faith is ritual. For example, you go to church on a Sunday, you join in ritual, and use all the paraphanalia of that ritual, including candles, crosses, wafers, wine etc. But is there a need for any of this? Does it tell me in the Bible that I must go to church, or confess to a priest for example? I used to visit church as a child (my parents are Irish) and to be honest I was left feeling that the whole experience was 'man made' rather than required of me by God. For example I was told not to worship "False images" and then told to worship a gold cross or statue by the same person. I was told the story of Jesus and his disapproval of the temple, and it's greedy priesthood, whilst I was sitting in a church full of wealth and talking to clergy who were very well paid for their services. Surely if God does exist he is everywhere? So why does it matter if I'm in church, in a forest, at the bottom of the ocean or on the moon when I talk to him?

Being Catholic, I think this is where many of my "rituals" differ from your/a "Christian"'s beliefs and rituals.

1. Catholic priests are very much underpaid. So definitely not greedy there.

2. We don't "worship" the Cross, we use the cross to help us worship God. If I called you on the phone, sure you could hear my voice, but you'd have no idea who I actually was. With a picture or a physical representation, you can get a lot more of an idea of who I am, perhaps making it easier for you to talk to me.

3. Jesus didn't disapprove of the temple. He disagreed with the marketlenders and money changers making the temple not a place of worship, but a place to exchange goods and make money. The Temple in Jesus' day had 4 parts, I believe. (Priests/Rabbis, Jewish Men, Jewish Women, Gentiles). Outside of the temple was supposed to be a place for changing money for offerings. However, when Jesus arrived, the money changers, etc, were all the way up into the Gentiles' place of worship, almost encroaching into the women's section. That's what really pissed him off.

4. Here's where Catholicism differs a lot from 'off-brand' (lol) Christianity. Catholicism says all truth is not relative. Some is, some is not. In the case of it not being relative, there is an absolute truth. Killing someone is murder. An absolute truth. In this case, an individual needs spiritual direction. The Church has 2000 years of people guiding and figuring things out. It makes sense that the Church then would have some sort of at least half way decent idea of good and bad. Therefore, we need spiritual direction, needing priests, needing a place for them to reside.

I think, though, my number once thing I dislike about the majority of Aetheists I meet is how defensive and attacking they are of my faith. I fully accept someone who can't, for some reason or another, believe in a god or in an organized religion or spirituality. While I find it sad and hope that they can find this, I'm not going to outright attack them, saying what they believe is completely wrong or stupid. Yet so many Atheists I've met have challenged every part of Catholicism or Christianity they can find, looking desperately for loopholes or contradictions in order to make me look stupid for having faith.

In the world there is good and bad, people falling somewhere in between. There's good Christians, there's bad atheist/agnostics. And then there's bad "Christians" and wonderful atheists/agnostics. A fantastic friend of mind is agnostic. Awesome guy. And then I know many Christians who don't even know what their faith teaches. Or Muslims who think it's good to blow others up. [Another great friend- Muslim.] I'm kinda just putting in Christianity for "religious" here, but there's hundreds of major world religions.

My two cents. Would be a bit more had it not been the darned economy.

Edit: Sorry for the Code/HTML/Quote boxes. It said I had too many quotes. Had to change them a bit. xD

[sarah_ab]

I concur. I know forced labor brings to mind a bunch of convicts in chains by the roadside digging ditches in Mississippi (Life, anyone? ). But having convicts do manual civic work would not only improve communities, but it'd give some reason for taxpayers to have to support them instead of just paying the state to shelter, cloth and feed guys who just sit around, lift weights and beat on each other.

you gotta look up sherrif joe.. he's down in arizona or some place like that.. reinstituted the chain gang, makes inmates wear pink underwear as punishments too....

[Baby Bethany]

I agree But in the US, the Supreme Court decided that it was inhumane to force convicts to work

Bettypooh

Inhumane? It's not considered inhumane for me or you to work all our lives. If we don't work, we don't have any food on the table, don't have a roof over our head and don't have electricity to watch TV or look at Daily Diapers. Convicts have all of those things, so they should work for it like the rest of us rather than getting a free ride. Who knows, if they have to spend their sentence working a 60 hour week it may even put them off going back inside again.

Beth

[Baby Bethany]

Thanks for jumping in Teenindiapers, it's nice to see the thread getting back on track.....rather than us all talking about the prison system lol. I would like to comment on some of your points.

When it comes to war, yes, killing is wrong. Every and all attempt must be made to not murder. But Catholics aren't pushovers (lol). It's perfectly moral to go to war if your enemy has no intention of any kind of compromise that doesn't involve mass murder. Like for WWII (I won't use Iraq because it's too confusing as to why we're still there...), it would be immoral to not defend the millions of Jews, gypsies, Christians, etc., being mass murdered. But it's also immoral to kill others just for the sake of killing them. Once Germany and its allies had surrendered, we couldn't keep killing them (death penalty) for what they'd done.

Is it perfectly moral to go to war though? Whilst I accept that we had to defend the Jews/Gypsies etc during WW2, those people only needed defending because the majority of the German people followed the Nazi leadership......basically giving in to hatred. They didn't have to do this, they could have all chosen a more moral stance. I know this is an ideal, but none of us need to follow a corrupt leadership. Most people are too easily brainwashed and the bottom line is, if the whole world was full of pacifists there would be no wars. Even then, WW2 is a bit of an exception. Most wars previous to that were for Imperialistic gain. Take WW1 for instance, it had no purpose other than political gain. And the church of every nation involved were very vocal in fueling the war (rather than condoning it on moral grounds). If you look at the history of Christianity, you have to admit that historically the church has blood on it's hands. Because most of the wars it has supported were for nothing more than political or financial greed.

Perhaps a bit theological for a non-believer, though I have no idea how much theology you've had.

Erm, I'm not a "non believer" LOL. I haven't spoken about my own faith because I liked to debate from several viewpoints, besides I'm very open minded and not afraid to ask questions about my beliefs. Equally, I take an interest in other faiths (and non faiths) because I think we all have something to learn from them. Having said that, I don't share the view that only a person of faith can debate theology, because as proven by this thread an Atheist or Agnostic is still a human being with the power to reason, contemplate, ask questions and state their own viewpoint. In addition, they can themselves be "spiritual" but just not believe in an organised religion. In comparison, I often find members of the church closed minded and with their heads stuck firmly in the sand. Unlike me, you and almost all scholars of scripture, they steadfastly refuse to consider the historic evidence (hence the title I applied to this thread). Ignorance is truly bliss, but I personaly don't think it's the way forward for the Christian faith. I think it's a large part of the reason that (here in Britain at least) we have almost empty churches every Sunday.

This gets complicated, especially John's Gospel. Mark's gospel was written first, only about 30 years after Christ, still putting him easily in the range of a witness. Luke and Matthew both borrowed about a third of their gospels from an unknown "Q" source (Q is german for "source", so a bit redundant, but we have very little information on who/what Q source came from). Another third-ish each came from different parts of Mark's Gospel. But they were probably either second-string witnesses or just really old, we're not sure which. Either way, stories got passed down by word of mouth back then, it wouldn't have been uncommon for things to be passed around a bit.

Many things were made up to prove points, I'm sure. For example, the order we know is not chronological. Luke and Matthew have the Beatitudes at different places, and even then, they were probably not spoken out all at once, rather fragments of things Jesus said collected together for one clean lesson. But the Gospels weren't meant to be read factually. When these circulated, *everyone* knew about this *Jesus*. So the Gospel writers probably weren't trying to write this down factually. Rather, they had to teach certain aspect's of Jesus' message to different societies and cultures. The teachings, I believe, are spot on with what Jesus most likely said. So if you're trying to say the Gospels don't align and probably aren't actual factual word for word (well, most of it. Some things line up perfectly [e.g. the Passion] through all 4 Gospels, and we believe this to be direct quotations, etc) quotes from Jesus.

I agree with most of what you say here. I think that Matthew was influenced by Mark, but I admit the jury is out on this one. If we're honest, I think you'll agree that there is little in the way of contemporary evidence relating to the life of Jesus. We have the Gospels, but only Mark is really contemporary and I feel that may have been added to at a later date. Paul's letters are obviously very early, but what do they really tell us? There's almost nothing in the Roman writing and not that much in the Jewish writing either. Having said this, I think it's fair to say that Jesus lived in a largely illiterate world, one where remembering stories and facts was far more important than writing everything down. I think it's also fair to say that in defence of the authors of the Gospels (and as you say) they were not trying to write an accurate historical biography of Jesus, rather they were recording the Christian faith (although I do think they strived for accuracy, especially in Luke) and in addition to the oral evidence they may have been working from earlier written sources that are now lost.

Although I take on board your point about direct quotes, I don't believe the quotes from Jesus in the Gospels can be considered direct quotes. Simply because the oral tradition would have started in Aramaic (the language Jesus would have spoken) and when the authors of the Gospels wrote them down in Greek they would have surely lost a little something in translation. I think the most damning argument against the Gospels is that they contain so many aspects that pre-date the life of Jesus and seem to stem from earlier myths and traditions, especially Egyption, Jewish, Babylonian and Roman. There are many things attributed to Jesus (I will go into more depth if you are really interested) that are identical to myths atributed to Gods of those other and earlier cultures. I don't think the authors of the Gospels were making it up as they went along, rather I believe some of the earlier myths had become mixed up in the oral tradition.

I think, though, my number once thing I dislike about the majority of Aetheists I meet is how defensive and attacking they are of my faith. I fully accept someone who can't, for some reason or another, believe in a god or in an organized religion or spirituality. While I find it sad and hope that they can find this, I'm not going to outright attack them, saying what they believe is completely wrong or stupid. Yet so many Atheists I've met have challenged every part of Catholicism or Christianity they can find, looking desperately for loopholes or contradictions in order to make me look stupid for having faith.

I agree, it's not right to belittle someones faith, mainly because you or me cannot prove that person wrong in their faith. Having said that, I think we should all be open minded enough to at least consider the evidence that the experts put before us. Otherwise we will live in ignorance.

[Bettypooh]

Inhumane? It's not considered inhumane for me or you to work all our lives. If we don't work, we don't have any food on the table, don't have a roof over our head and don't have electricity to watch TV or look at Daily Diapers. Convicts have all of those things, so they should work for it like the rest of us rather than getting a free ride. Who knows, if they have to spend their sentence working a 60 hour week it may even put them off going back inside again.

Beth

I agree dear heart, but when the government makes a decision at that level it's going to take years, maybe decades to change things not to mention a lot of money and work A Federal level appeal costs more money than 90% of the people can muster. A Supreme Court appeal costs many hundreds of thousands+ in the end So much for justice and fairness

The "Jim Crow" laws against Blacks were installed in the late 1800's in many places, and were the legal argument for segraration and discriminatoin until they began to fall in the 1950's So much for seeing things done right in your lifetime in America-justice is too slow If I thought someplace else was better there then I'd go there, but I still love the land and it's people here so I'm staying It's the government and the lack of much real "liberty and justice for all" here that I hate

I guess we've gotten off topic some, but AFAIK there is no religion that calls for criminal acts to go unpunished and most of them call for the punishment to equal the crime. I believe there is no wrong in taking the life of a murderer-so long as there is absolute certainty that it was murder and that it is the right person being charged. When those criteria haven't been met fully it becomes questionable whether the death penalty is appropriate and justifiable. I believe that the crimes of child molestation and rape should receive the same sentence as murders, and I doubt there will be any problem with those beliefs when I get judged by the God who won't allow me to judge Him back

Bettypooh

[Bettypooh]

Sotty for the dopuble-post but I just had to say this

I agree, it's not right to belittle someones faith, mainly because you or me cannot prove that person wrong in their faith. Having said that, I think we should all be open minded enough to at least consider the evidence that the experts put before us. Otherwise we will live in ignorance.

AMEN! WOOHOO! YES YES YES!

Bettypooh

[Guest TeenInDiapers]

Thanks for jumping in Teenindiapers, it's nice to see the thread getting back on track.....rather than us all talking about the prison system lol. I would like to comment on some of your points.

Very welcome

Is it perfectly moral to go to war though? Whilst I accept that we had to defend the Jews/Gypsies etc during WW2, those people only needed defending because the majority of the German people followed the Nazi leadership......basically giving in to hatred. They didn't have to do this, they could have all chosen a more moral stance. I know this is an ideal, but none of us need to follow a corrupt leadership. Most people are too easily brainwashed and the bottom line is, if the whole world was full of pacifists there would be no wars. Even then, WW2 is a bit of an exception. Most wars previous to that were for Imperialistic gain. Take WW1 for instance, it had no purpose other than political gain. And the church of every nation involved were very vocal in fueling the war (rather than condoning it on moral grounds). If you look at the history of Christianity, you have to admit that historically the church has blood on it's hands. Because most of the wars it has supported were for nothing more than political or financial greed.

It's not moral to start a war. But if you lived in France during the time of WWII, and Hitler was running over your house with a tank, would you just sit there and say. "This is immoral and violates my rights. Please stop." No. Why? Because they wouldn't just stop. We have to fight back if there's nothing else we can do. But starting a war with another country/person is indeed unethical.

Unlike me, you and almost all scholars of scripture, they steadfastly refuse to consider the historic evidence (hence the title I applied to this thread). Ignorance is truly bliss, but I personally don't think it's the way forward for the Christian faith.

Why do you say we refuse to consider historic evidence? I have never seen any historical evidence that says "Jesus Christ DOES NOT exist". There's been a few- sure, not a ton, but definitely a few- even historical references to Jesus most likely existing. Nothing I've seen points to him not.

I agree with most of what you say here. I think that Matthew was influenced by Mark, but I admit the jury is out on this one. If we're honest, I think you'll agree that there is little in the way of contemporary evidence relating to the life of Jesus. There's almost nothing in the Roman writing and not that much in the Jewish writing either.

There's a few references, but not a lot. A roman centurian wrote about him, a "great Jewish prophet" that caused a lot of stir, and then was killed and this writing is considered to be written right around/after the thought of time of Jesus. Still, as I said, there's nothing saying "Gee wizz, there sure is a lot of commotion about this weird myth floating around".

Although I take on board your point about direct quotes, I don't believe the quotes from Jesus in the Gospels can be considered direct quotes. Simply because the oral tradition would have started in Aramaic (the language Jesus would have spoken) and when the authors of the Gospels wrote them down in Greek they would have surely lost a little something in translation. I think the most damning argument against the Gospels is that they contain so many aspects that pre-date the life of Jesus and seem to stem from earlier myths and traditions, especially Egyption, Jewish, Babylonian and Roman. There are many things attributed to Jesus (I will go into more depth if you are really interested) that are identical to myths atributed to Gods of those other and earlier cultures. I don't think the authors of the Gospels were making it up as they went along, rather I believe some of the earlier myths had become mixed up in the oral tradition.

Yes, I've seen those before as well. Perhaps some was borrowed from other cultures. In fact, I believe some of it was. One of the Gospel writers [don't remember which] was writing to a Pagan audience. Wouldn't it make sense to write in a way that the audience would understand? So sure, throwing in a few examples to help demonstrate his point that Jesus was divine might be a good idea. While perhaps taken literally and adapted to our own religion over the course of centuries, I don't doubt the fact that we borrowed it. However, I do believe that God worked through these ideas of other cultures to influence our own.

I agree, it's not right to belittle someones faith, mainly because you or me cannot prove that person wrong in their faith. Having said that, I think we should all be open minded enough to at least consider the evidence that the experts put before us. Otherwise we will live in ignorance.

I agree. I'm not closed minded to aetheism, Christianity in other forms, Buddhism, etc. However, I have found that Catholicism most personifies the values that I want to live and be associated with. If someone else wants their own spirituality or non-spirituality, it's up to them. Each to their own.

[Baby Bethany]

Why do you say we refuse to consider historic evidence? I have never seen any historical evidence that says "Jesus Christ DOES NOT exist". There's been a few- sure, not a ton, but definitely a few- even historical references to Jesus most likely existing. Nothing I've seen points to him not.

There's a few references, but not a lot. A roman centurian wrote about him, a "great Jewish prophet" that caused a lot of stir, and then was killed and this writing is considered to be written right around/after the thought of time of Jesus. Still, as I said, there's nothing saying "Gee wizz, there sure is a lot of commotion about this weird myth floating around".

I say this, because the vast majority of the Christian community are completley ignorant of the historical evidence. They either simply ignore the historical/scientific evidence and pretend it doesn't exist, even sometimes using bad science/history to explain it away. Or they will consider it if you put it under their nose, but don't want to find out for themselves. I think this has been proved by the amount of Christians on here who have not said a single word in this thread.

Human beings have an enquiring mind and I think we should use those minds to ask questions about everything around us. If we are going to take the view that not only do we no longer need to ask questions, but we should also close our mind to the questions others have asked, then we may as well go back to living in caves. I truely believe that it doesn't undermine our faith to ask questions about our interpretation of that faith or consider new evidence that science/history and the Biblical scholars put before us. However, I do believe that it does and is undermining our faith (especially in the eyes of others) if the Christian community becomes so rigid and inflexible in it's beliefs, that it is blinded by ignorance and superstition of it's own making.

On a slightly different note:

The fact is that the remaining contemporary evidence for the existance of the life of Jesus is small. However, I strongly agree that we have to take into account that they were an oral society and keeping written records of everything did not have the importance it now holds. In addition, I really do believe that some parts of the Gospels were copied from earlier works that no longer exist. We should also take into account that some of the writings were not included in the canon by the early church, so do not appear as part of the NT. There is a Gospel of Thomas that is an example of this.

[Bettypooh]

If we are going to take the view that not only do we no longer need to ask questions, but we should also close our mind to the questions others have asked, then we may as well go back to living in caves.

To close one's mind means that one will never be able to know the truth, yet in most religions to question what they teach is intolerable or nearly so. I believe that the truth makes itself clear to those who seek it though it be hidden to the rest. I see proof of God and don't find the story of Jesus unbelievable either though I may not be able to prove it to your standards though it meets mine.

I truely believe that it doesn't undermine our faith to ask questions about our interpretation of that faith or consider new evidence that science/history and the Biblical scholars put before us. However, I do believe that it does and is undermining our faith (especially in the eyes of others) if the Christian community becomes so rigid and inflexible in it's beliefs, that it is blinded by ignorance and superstition of it's own making.

Agreed. It seems so obvious to me that refusing to allow questions would be a good way to bring others to your way of believing but this is exactly how most religions are! And finding the answers to your questions is what faith really is, so asking the questions and finding the answers can only make your faith stronger-if you were believing the right things, that is. And if you find your faith was misplaced, would you be willing to change it? If you wouldn't then you're either not seeking the truth and therefore will never know for sure, or your eyes are closed and you'd never recognize the truth because of that What you choose to believe never changes the truth, and believing in error isn't going to get you into Heavan, Nirvana, or anywhere else youir religion says it's going to lead you to!

We should also take into account that some of the writings were not included in the canon by the early church, so do not appear as part of the NT. There is a Gospel of Thomas that is an example of this.

It is patently clear that there are no religious texts that are complete or trustable in every detail. This especially applies to the Bible moreso than many other texts. The repetitive translations have altered it, the well documented history of religions and monarchys changing parts of it by decree, and the more recent finding of original scrolls and documents that clearly state the they are part of the Bible but aren't being added now that we know about them simply shows that Christian religion in general is unwilling to change it's teachings even when they're provably in error. To follow religions like these is to be misled- to find the truth you must first lose the Church. You may find your quest taking you back there eventually, but even if it doesn't your faith will be stronger and more correct in the end, and you'll know and understand why.

Bettypooh

[Baby Bethany]

Bettypooh, I've replied to your points below. It's in bold, because I'm not has clever as you guys and don't know how to do the quote like you do LOL.

I see proof of God and don't find the story of Jesus unbelievable either though I may not be able to prove it to your standards though it meets mine.

I'm not even sure what my "standards" would be on this one, and that's the truth. I do think the written evidence is small, but probably no more so than many other figures from the ancient world. The reality is that in addition to the points already made about oral tradition, it is a long long time ago. The eye witnesses are long gone, and I have no doubt that there were many other early Christian scrolls that are either waiting to be found or have turned to dust. Does this satisfy me personally that Jesus was a real person? I have to say it does, although I admit that I think some of the things attributed to him or some of the words put into his mouth may not be correct........who knows though. I think that it's far too long ago to start expecting a 100% accurate biography of Jesus, and experts who discount Jesus on that basis should also discount people such as Socrates for the same reason.

I read a quote many years ago that said "A myth should never be considered to be an historical fact. However, that there is a myth to begin with is a very real fact indeed".

Agreed. It seems so obvious to me that refusing to allow questions would be a good way to bring others to your way of believing but this is exactly how most religions are! And finding the answers to your questions is what faith really is, so asking the questions and finding the answers can only make your faith stronger-if you were believing the right things, that is. And if you find your faith was misplaced, would you be willing to change it? If you wouldn't then you're either not seeking the truth and therefore will never know for sure, or your eyes are closed and you'd never recognize the truth because of that What you choose to believe never changes the truth, and believing in error isn't going to get you into Heavan, Nirvana, or anywhere else youir religion says it's going to lead you to!

It's so true. Others may disagree, but I believe that if the church opened it's doors to all those who wanted to challenge it (from a scientific, historical or some other angle). And actually created an open environment that welcomed questions, from anyone, about any aspect of scripture......it would attract people to the church. I truely believe that. Because just as some people use bad science/history to defend their faith, even more people use bad science/history to discredit it LOL.

It is patently clear that there are no religious texts that are complete or trustable in every detail. This especially applies to the Bible moreso than many other texts. The repetitive translations have altered it, the well documented history of religions and monarchys changing parts of it by decree, and the more recent finding of original scrolls and documents that clearly state the they are part of the Bible but aren't being added now that we know about them simply shows that Christian religion in general is unwilling to change it's teachings even when they're provably in error. To follow religions like these is to be misled- to find the truth you must first lose the Church. You may find your quest taking you back there eventually, but even if it doesn't your faith will be stronger and more correct in the end, and you'll know and understand why.

Do you think that if a new piece of scripture comes to light, say a new gospel for instance, that we should update the Bible to include that piece of scripture? A kind of revised addition if you like, just like we do with other books.

Beth

[Bettypooh]

Do you think that if a new piece of scripture comes to light, say a new gospel for instance, that we should update the Bible to include that piece of scripture? A kind of revised addition if you like, just like we do with other books.

Beth

Absolutely. There can't be a valid reason not to do that though arguments against it will come anyway. Tradition has nothing to do with the argument of what to do with new(or even old)knowledge. Before anything was written the first time around all the knowledge was just the same, it just hadn't been recorded or compiled yet

If you'll look at the beginning of quoted text in the reply box, you'll see [ then quote then this] . Now drop the "thens" and the "this" leaving only the square ends and the word "quote" inside with no spaces; this is HTML code to start quoted text. Just type it in where you want to begin quoting and delete all that's ahead of it with the backspace key. I can't write it here exactly as it shows or it will disappear from the screen when I send this message

Closing a quote is the same except it starts with [/ then quote then ] Just type it in where you want the quote to stop and delete what you want to lose that comes after it. You can use the HTML already in the reply box or delete it, and use backspace to remove what you don't want to quote

To do this with several prior messages, use the 'reply' button at the bottom of the thread by right-clicking, selecting "open in new window", then switch between pages to copy from old and paste into the new, adding the HTML quote codes as needed. To avoid confusion you will want to be sure to copy or type in the screename of who you're quoting in the appropriate part. I like to do that something like this:

Bethany said:

Bettypooh, I've replied to your points below

If you get a HTML error message when you send, check to be sure that quotes start with the opening HTML code, then close with the HTML closing code including the / and that they are only used in pairs that way. Also be sure that you aren't trying to open or close twice. It's easier than copying and pasting and you won't have to use boldface type to differentiate between your words and what you're quoting anymore

Bettypooh

[Baby Bethany]

If you'll look at the beginning of quoted text in the reply box, you'll see [ then quote then this] . Now drop the "thens" and the "this" leaving only the square ends and the word "quote" inside with no spaces; this is HTML code to start quoted text. Just type it in where you want to begin quoting and delete all that's ahead of it with the backspace key. I can't write it here exactly as it shows or it will disappear from the screen when I send this message

Thankies!!

[Parole Diver]

Absolutely. There can't be a valid reason not to do that though arguments against it will come anyway. Tradition has nothing to do with the argument of what to do with new(or even old)knowledge. Before anything was written the first time around all the knowledge was just the same, it just hadn't been recorded or compiled yet

What could possibly be considered be considered 'new scripture'? As it is the current scripture is a load of texts by anonymous Christians over multiple centuries complied by the church in Rome by picking the ones that suited their ideals at the time and were not too unrealistic. Who would get to decide this new scripture is canon? The Vatican? The Baptists? I think its unthinkable that some new gospel could be accepted by the majority of Christians.

[Baby Bethany]

What could possibly be considered be considered 'new scripture'? As it is the current scripture is a load of texts by anonymous Christians over multiple centuries complied by the church in Rome by picking the ones that suited their ideals at the time and were not too unrealistic. Who would get to decide this new scripture is canon? The Vatican? The Baptists? I think its unthinkable that some new gospel could be accepted by the majority of Christians.

I think that depends whether or not you consider the Bible to be a complete and finished work, or a work in progress as our knowledge increases and new scripture comes to light. As you say the current Bible is not a single book, rather a collection of books.

I think it's quite easy for people to fall into the trap of assuming that Christianity and the Bible are a timeless and stagnant thing that have not changed since the time it first appeared. This is clearly not the case, it has evolved over the centuries and aspects of the faith have appeared and disappeared during that time (even in the last 100 years). Are we now to accept that this religious evolution is at an end, that nothing will ever change again?

Beth

[Parole Diver]

I think that depends whether or not you consider the Bible to be a complete and finished work, or a work in progress as our knowledge increases and new scripture comes to light. As you say the current Bible is not a single book, rather a collection of books.

I think it's quite easy for people to fall into the trap of assuming that Christianity and the Bible are a timeless and stagnant thing that have not changed since the time it first appeared. This is clearly not the case, it has evolved over the centuries and aspects of the faith have appeared and disappeared during that time (even in the last 100 years). Are we now to accept that this religious evolution is at an end, that nothing will ever change again?

Beth

I think the Bible itself has been considered a finished work since the canon was sealed well over a millennium ago, and can't think of any changes since then. There have been translations but since much of the Greek/Hebrew source material is still around im not sure that counts as a change to the Bible itself, though you only have to look at certain Bible Belt Baptists (and i'm sure many other Christians around the world) who claim that if the original texts differ from their modern bible then the originals must be wrong, to see that they consider their translated versions to be the official version. The pope has released his edicts, the Anglican church has its own policies, etc, etc so Christianity certainly evolves in that sense but I don't see Christians as a whole accepting new scripture as an addition to the Bible.

The Dead Sea scrolls are an example of new stuff but they haven't been included in the Bible. I'm no theologian though so I don't know if they count.

[CBD]

I'm kind of surprised that no one has come forward and actively opposed Christianity. First of all, anyone with good understanding of theology (and I would not consider someone who is only versed in Christian beliefs such a person) will be able to explain that large portions of the Bible are taken from an earlier religious system developed by the Sumerian, Babylonian, and Akkadian empires. This religion was practiced for over four thousand years before it ended with the collapse of these Empires-- that is still twice as long as Christianity. It is probably not a reasonable assumption that Christianity will continue to be practiced long enough to beat this record.

The demonizing of this religious system was a major focus of early Judism. A great deal of the Torah describes an active campaign of genocidal warfare by the Jews against these people. They accused these people of amorality for things like allowing women to hold positions of importance in society, tolerating homosexuality, and regarding sexual union and the menstrual cycle with reverence instead of disgust. The Jews made women second class citizens, removed them from the priesthood, and cut out all the feminine aspects of god. It is abundantly clear through mountains of historical evidence that the god of the Hebrews is not only a construction of men, but one whose purpose has from the beginning been for the purpose of oppression, warfare, and the creation of an elite.

It is also somewhat amazing that the fact that Christianity has been and continues to be used to subjugate and torment billions is usually excused in discussions like this one. This should be, for any reasonable person, impossible to ignore. To anyone who claims that it Christianity seems to have, in recent history, made progress towards fewer violations of human rights, I would answer that this is mostly due to the fact that it is very hard to top things like the Crusades, the Dark Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, the genocide of the Native Americans by the conquistadors, and even smaller scale tragedies such as the Salem witch trials. The enslavement of Africans by American settlers and the Nazi's Holocaust against Jews, the disabled, gypsies, blacks, homosexuals, and political prisoners could also be added to this list, as could the first gulf war, the war in Afghanistan, and the current Gulf war. However, these have also been based in economics and political powerplays rather that pure religious persecution, and I wouldn't want to assign blame where it isn't necessarily due.

The outright opposition of this kind of belief system certainly cannot be seen as unjustified or unreasonable, especially because the historical evidence that the Hebrew god was constructed by man has now been corroborated by scientific findings, not least of which is the theory of evolution. The fact that all of this horror and domination of the human spirit has been done in the name of a being whom we can say with a great deal of certainty does not exist other than as an ideological construct is an ironclad argument against all religions associated with him, that is Judism, Christianity, and Islam, all of which continue to violate basic human rights to this day.

[CBD]

AFAIK there is no religion that calls for criminal acts to go unpunished and most of them call for the punishment to equal the crime.

The Dharma of Buddhism does not call for anyone to be punished. People suffer enough from their own actions.

[Guest TeenInDiapers]

Baby Bethany

I say this, because the vast majority of the Christian community are completley ignorant of the historical evidence. They either simply ignore the historical/scientific evidence and pretend it doesn't exist, even sometimes using bad science/history to explain it away. Or they will consider it if you put it under their nose, but don't want to find out for themselves. I think this has been proved by the amount of Christians on here who have not said a single word in this thread.

Vast majority, perhaps, but not all. I believe I've done considerable research into historical evidence, the Egyptian god stories and everything that should accompany believing in any religion.

I think it's quite easy for people to fall into the trap of assuming that Christianity and the Bible are a timeless and stagnant thing that have not changed since the time it first appeared. This is clearly not the case, it has evolved over the centuries and aspects of the faith have appeared and disappeared during that time (even in the last 100 years). Are we now to accept that this religious evolution is at an end, that nothing will ever change again?

Perhaps. But really, new spiritual development comes in the form of writings- Encyclicals from the Pope. Writings from bishops. There are many many new developments in Christian faith, however we don't consider them to be part of the Bible, just teachings and writings of those who have a lot more time on their hands to think and a better understand of the teachings of the church. Bettypoo

To close one's mind means that one will never be able to know the truth, yet in most religions to question what they teach is intolerable or nearly so. I believe that the truth makes itself clear to those who seek it though it be hidden to the rest. I see proof of God and don't find the story of Jesus unbelievable either though I may not be able to prove it to your standards though it meets mine.

I agree. However, I firmly believe that there is also a misconception that Catholicism doesn't want questions. It's very much rooted in questioning and answer through logic and prayer. I've found that the 'answers' other Christian religions may be able to answer often leave more loop holes and gaps than their supposed 'answers' can answer. I haven't really dealt as much spiritually with religions [Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Wiccan, Scientology, etc] other than Christian religions simply because I can't even come close to being able to agree with half of their beliefs. But I have at least looked into them to at least have a mild understanding of what they teached.

Agreed. It seems so obvious to me that refusing to allow questions would be a good way to bring others to your way of believing but this is exactly how most religions are! And finding the answers to your questions is what faith really is, so asking the questions and finding the answers can only make your faith stronger-if you were believing the right things, that is.

I agree. Again, why I've gone to Catholicism. I think it has all the answers for me. I've asked plenty of questions and to me it makes sense. However, I can see where religion can be a different experience for everyone, and perhaps the questions don't make sense to everyone.

And if you find your faith was misplaced, would you be willing to change it? If you wouldn't then you're either not seeking the truth and therefore will never know for sure, or your eyes are closed and you'd never recognize the truth because of that. !

Hindsight is 20/20, or so they say. When slavery was legal, it was perfectly fine for everyone [sadly the majority of religions promoted or at least tolerated slavery]. Now that we're past this, we can look back and see that no human should ever be inferior to another because of something they have no control over. Likewise, it's easy for me to say "sure, I'll change if necessary". And I think I will. However, history says that once someone believes in someone, it takes a lot more evidence than necessary to change someone's mind. Would it be naive of me to say I'd change? Perhaps. Do I think I would? Yes. But again, if you firmly set your mind to something, it usually takes more than the amount of necessary evidence to prove someone wrong. Likewise, I doubt that if we found the Cross of Christ himself and it had healing powers, etc, that the entire world would instantly convert to Catholicism or Christianity.

What you choose to believe never changes the truth, and believing in error isn't going to get you into Heavan, Nirvana, or anywhere else youir religion says it's going to lead you to

Again, my love of Catholicism has the answer. No matter what you believe, if you live a good life, you can still get to Heaven. Meh, I feel like a frickin PR rep for Catholicism now. I'm not saying it's the end all for everyone, I'm merely stating that it's where I've found my answers.

It is patently clear that there are no religious texts that are complete or trustable in every detail. This especially applies to the Bible moreso than many other texts. The repetitive translations have altered it, the well documented history of religions and monarchys changing parts of it by decree, and the more recent finding of original scrolls and documents that clearly state the they are part of the Bible but aren't being added now that we know about them simply shows that Christian religion in general is unwilling to change it's teachings even when they're provably in error. To follow religions like these is to be misled- to find the truth you must first lose the Church. You may find your quest taking you back there eventually, but even if it doesn't your faith will be stronger and more correct in the end, and you'll know and understand why.

I disagree. I find that many forms of Christianty answer questions quite well. I think the intent of the original authors is still the same, even if the exact message has changed due to translations just a bit. Okay, okay, don't hate me for being, like.. super Catholic. However, it is the religion I understand the best and have done the most research on. -----

First of all, anyone with good understanding of theology (and I would not consider someone who is only versed in Christian beliefs such a person) will be able to explain that large portions of the Bible are taken from an earlier religious system developed by the Sumerian, Babylonian, and Akkadian empires. This religion was practiced for over four thousand years before it ended with the collapse of these Empires-- that is still twice as long as Christianity. It is probably not a reasonable assumption that Christianity will continue to be practiced long enough to beat this record.

Okay, while I'm well versed in Christianity, I have done plenty of research in other major religions. I know that a few- not "many" as you claim- parts of the Bible were adapted to better teach others about Christianity/Judiasm. I think it is very probable that Catholicism will last that long. Of course, neither of us can prove the future, so your claim is unreasonable, illogical, and unfounded.

The demonizing of this religious system was a major focus of early Judism. A great deal of the Torah describes an active campaign of genocidal warfare by the Jews against these people. They accused these people of amorality for things like allowing women to hold positions of importance in society, tolerating homosexuality, and regarding sexual union and the menstrual cycle with reverence instead of disgust. The Jews made women second class citizens, removed them from the priesthood, and cut out all the feminine aspects of god. It is abundantly clear through mountains of historical evidence that the god of the Hebrews is not only a construction of men, but one whose purpose has from the beginning been for the purpose of oppression, warfare, and the creation of an elite..

Okay. Good thing for the "New Covenant" in Christianity. Check out some Catholic doctrine on this. Perhaps you should be more well versed in Christianity before attacking it.

To anyone who claims that it Christianity seems to have, in recent history, made progress towards fewer violations of human rights, I would answer that this is mostly due to the fact that it is very hard to top things like the Crusades, the Dark Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, the genocide of the Native Americans by the conquistadors, and even smaller scale tragedies such as the Salem witch trials. The enslavement of Africans by American settlers and the Nazi's Holocaust against Jews, the disabled, gypsies, blacks, homosexuals, and political prisoners could also be added to this list, as could the first gulf war, the war in Afghanistan, and the current Gulf war. However, these have also been based in economics and political powerplays rather that pure religious persecution, and I wouldn't want to assign blame where it isn't necessarily due.

1. Dark Ages is not a "bad" time of our history. And it wasn't the fault of Christianity either. In fact, Christianity was almost wiped out. Luckily for civilization, Christianity brought a renewed interest in learning and development. 2. Genocide was clearly not by Catholics or Christians with a Christian agenda. If you look at those Christians consider to be good for the N.A.'s, they're missionaries who worked with the people, not forced them to new religion, etc. Either way, disease was unavoidable. 3. The enslavement of Africans by American settlers and the Nazi's Holocaust against Jews, the disabled, gypsies, blacks, homosexuals, and political prisoners. Germany also persecuted Christians, especially Catholics. What? 4. as could the first gulf war, the war in Afghanistan, and the current Gulf war. Christians have also condemned going to these, especially Catholics. As I stated in an earlier post, Catholic doctrine says that war is a last result. You can't pin this on Christians or Catholics, but more government, but you did say that. Okay, so the only ones here I could really agree with were the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades. But really, we're human. Are you perfect? I'm sure you've screwed up before. Likewise, the Church is run by humans, we all make mistakes. However, I believe we've long since gotten past the stage where the Catholic Church would go to war.

The outright opposition of this kind of belief system certainly cannot be seen as unjustified or unreasonable, especially because the historical evidence that the Hebrew god was constructed by man has now been corroborated by scientific findings, not least of which is the theory of evolution.

As I said, Genesis was written to prove a point that Earth was created by God, not that Earth was created "like this". It's by no means a scientific report. You don't consider stories like "The Tortise and the Hair" to be full of hatred and violence. Yet they teach a definite story through a point. Likewise, some of the Bible was written to demonstrate a point, not teach a history lesson.

The fact that all of this horror and domination of the human spirit has been done in the name of a being whom we can say with a great deal of certainty does not exist other than as an ideological construct is an ironclad argument against all religions associated with him, that is Judism, Christianity, and Islam, all of which continue to violate basic human rights to this day.

Yet, if you look at the fundamental teachings of any of these religions, the morals are undeniably sound. Do not kill, do not steal, do not cheat, honor your elders, etc. Can you deny these are good morals? I doubt it. It's humans who mess up. I'm not perfect, you're not perfect, the pope isn't perfect. That doesn't make the religion itself bad, it's humans that mistakes and make religion look less than desireable.

[Parole Diver]

It is also somewhat amazing that the fact that Christianity has been and continues to be used to subjugate and torment billions is usually excused in discussions like this one. This should be, for any reasonable person, impossible to ignore. To anyone who claims that it Christianity seems to have, in recent history, made progress towards fewer violations of human rights, I would answer that this is mostly due to the fact that it is very hard to top things like the Crusades, the Dark Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, the genocide of the Native Americans by the conquistadors, and even smaller scale tragedies such as the Salem witch trials. The enslavement of Africans by American settlers and the Nazi's Holocaust against Jews, the disabled, gypsies, blacks, homosexuals, and political prisoners could also be added to this list, as could the first gulf war, the war in Afghanistan, and the current Gulf war. However, these have also been based in economics and political powerplays rather that pure religious persecution, and I wouldn't want to assign blame where it isn't necessarily due.

I don't think a straightforward criticism of the veracity of the Bible has been relevant in the thread, we have been discussing the excesses of its fundamentalist adherents.

In any case blaming all of these things on Christianity is easy but is grossly inaccurate. The crusades were in part done by most who participated for land, wealth and power and in part in response to repeated invasions by muslims (done for land, wealth and power). Christianity gave the pope control of the whole deal but there is no reason to assume the same wouldnt have happened if it was any other religion.

The dark ages happened when Rome fell and there was a power vacuum and are called Dark due to a lack of written records. There were lots of battles and suffering and lots of people were Christian but I don't think a lack of Christianity would have helped, especially since Islam was the competing religion.

Wiping out the Indians was done for land, slaves were taken for economic gain, the holocaust was done because Hitler was a fucking nutcase but not with great religious conviction, the gulf war and every 20th century war was about oil, land, power, money, security and/or political ideology as you have partially stated.

I'll give you the inquisition, and I'll throw in the persecution of scientists like Galileo but the other things had far more important reasons than Christianity, and I'd wager most would have happened without it. I can in a sense see how the more fundamental Christianity practised in places like Africa and South America causes serious damage though, every religion seems to advocate abstinence (which doesnt work, hence widespread AIDS) and subjugation of minorities (including women) in the places it is practised in its more severe forms.

[Baby Bethany]

I'm kind of surprised that no one has come forward and actively opposed Christianity. First of all, anyone with good understanding of theology (and I would not consider someone who is only versed in Christian beliefs such a person) will be able to explain that large portions of the Bible are taken from an earlier religious system developed by the Sumerian, Babylonian, and Akkadian empires. This religion was practiced for over four thousand years before it ended with the collapse of these Empires-- that is still twice as long as Christianity. It is probably not a reasonable assumption that Christianity will continue to be practiced long enough to beat this record.

CBD, thanks for your imput.......it's nice to see some new people joining the thread. I was going to respond last night, but I was busy.

Opposing Christianity? I don't think there is a lot of point in "opposing" any religion, you either believe it or you don't. However, many people on here have come forward to challenge Christianity and like you they have put forward some good arguments. I agree, that someone who is "only versed" in Christian belief probably wouldn't be great at theology, because it also helps to know about other faiths and be open minded. Having said that, all of the Christians who I've seen respond so far have been such people. I've not seen any closed minds here.

The point you make about the Bible containing aspects of the earlier Mesopotamian religions is of course true (I raised the same point above in relation to Jesus). However, this should not be a surprise to us. The Jewish people are Semites who came to Canaan from the Sumerian/Akkadian Empires. It even states in the Bible (Gen. xi, 31) that they came from the city of Ur (the capital of Sumer). The Sumerians were animists (the worship of many gods, including household ones) and the Semites originaly believed the same (Gen. xxxi, 34). Many Hebrew scholars now believe that even Yahweh was at first only a local god. Another thing to take into account is that the 'fertile cresent' (Egypt, Mesopotamia, Canaan) is not a huge area, and movement and trade between all of the areas was common, even in OT times. So people would of course be very aware of many different beliefs and traditions.

Christianity won't be around for the same length of time as other religions? Well it's not doing bad, and anyway is it really about breaking records? I don't think that's relevant.

The demonizing of this religious system was a major focus of early Judism. A great deal of the Torah describes an active campaign of genocidal warfare by the Jews against these people. They accused these people of amorality for things like allowing women to hold positions of importance in society, tolerating homosexuality, and regarding sexual union and the menstrual cycle with reverence instead of disgust. The Jews made women second class citizens, removed them from the priesthood, and cut out all the feminine aspects of god. It is abundantly clear through mountains of historical evidence that the god of the Hebrews is not only a construction of men, but one whose purpose has from the beginning been for the purpose of oppression, warfare, and the creation of an elite.

These people lived in a very different world to us, so we shouldn't judge them by our 21st century standards. What you are saying applies to almost all ancient religions, and even in the golden age of Athens women had no right to vote or be heard. In addition, most ancient religions had gods that were warlike, they needed to be because it was a warlike world.......they needed gods of action not words. I actually believe that part of the reason that Jesus wasn't seen as the messiah by the Jews is because they were expecting a warrior that would crush the Romans.

I have to say that I've studied history most of my life and I've not seen "mountains of evidence" that proves the Hebrew god is the contruction of men. To my mind the historical events of the OT seem to be a mixture of fact and legend, including many aspects of earlier cultures. However, I will say that based on the archelogical/historical evidence many of the events in the OT seem to have some basis in truth (which has later been embellished by plenty of myth etc lol).

It is also somewhat amazing that the fact that Christianity has been and continues to be used to subjugate and torment billions is usually excused in discussions like this one. This should be, for any reasonable person, impossible to ignore. To anyone who claims that it Christianity seems to have, in recent history, made progress towards fewer violations of human rights, I would answer that this is mostly due to the fact that it is very hard to top things like the Crusades, the Dark Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, the genocide of the Native Americans by the conquistadors, and even smaller scale tragedies such as the Salem witch trials. The enslavement of Africans by American settlers and the Nazi's Holocaust against Jews, the disabled, gypsies, blacks, homosexuals, and political prisoners could also be added to this list, as could the first gulf war, the war in Afghanistan, and the current Gulf war. However, these have also been based in economics and political powerplays rather that pure religious persecution, and I wouldn't want to assign blame where it isn't necessarily due.

I said in an earlier post that historically Christianity has blood on its hands. That said, so does almost every other faith. Because whilst we talk about the conquestadors killing the Aztecs, we don't mention the Aztecs slaughtering other tribes (they had a huge empire) and sacrificing people to their gods. This doesn't excuse the Christian church, but it proves that it wasn't only Christians. The fact we should all face is that religion doesn't kill people and neither does God, only people do this. I honestly believe that if religion ended tomorrow we would carry on killing over something else. What about the Holocaust? The Nazis weren't killing for God, and neither was Stalin or Mao when then they murded millions.

Many years ago, I visited a site of the Holocaust in France (as part of my studies). The site was actually where they built/launched V2 rockets using slave labour (mostly Russian Jews) and was pretty much has it was when the Americans found it in 1944, it was now a museum. Many of the local people thought it should be demolished and we should all move on. However, I was talking to one local guy and he said "It should not be demolished because not only does it shows what the Nazis did, but it shows what we are all capable of in a moment of madness".

The outright opposition of this kind of belief system certainly cannot be seen as unjustified or unreasonable, especially because the historical evidence that the Hebrew god was constructed by man has now been corroborated by scientific findings, not least of which is the theory of evolution.

I think that's a bold claim that even Richard Dawkins wouldn't make. The theory of evolution is a great fact in my view. However, it simply explains the evolution of life on this planet. It doesn't explain how life started or if the same theory applies on other worlds and with other life forms. The Bible itself is not a scientific manual and in fact contains little science, but what it does contain is not bad for its time. We have to take into account that the text of the OT was written over twenty five centuries ago, based on an oral tradition that is maybe forty centuries old. I think it unreasonable to expect the authors to have had scientific knowledge that Darwin had just over a century ago. The fact remains that the existence or non existence of God (any form of God, why the Hebrew one in paticular?) has not been corroborated by science or otherwise.

The fact that all of this horror and domination of the human spirit has been done in the name of a being whom we can say with a great deal of certainty does not exist other than as an ideological construct is an ironclad argument against all religions associated with him, that is Judism, Christianity, and Islam, all of which continue to violate basic human rights to this day.

The bottom line is God may exist and may not exist, none of us can say for certain. However, the belief that science has (or even can) disprove God is nothing more than presupposition, meaning that in a purely material universe nothing can happen that cannot be accounted for in terms of natural causes. But that is an assumption about the nature of the universe which has not been proved to be true.

[curiositykilledthecat]

This is the thrwad that doesn't end...it goes on and on my friend... Some people started on topic when we still knew what it was, no it keeps on going forever just because...

I could debate theology and the such with anyone, however I believe ina Soveriegn God wh o allows us to choose our own path right or wrong and other than being obedient and preaching the Giospel there's no need for me to cram it down anyone's thorats. This thread has been very interesting and has shown a very diverse spectrum of views.

[Baby Bethany]

This is the thrwad that doesn't end...it goes on and on my friend... Some people started on topic when we still knew what it was, no it keeps on going forever just because...

I could debate theology and the such with anyone, however I believe ina Soveriegn God wh o allows us to choose our own path right or wrong and other than being obedient and preaching the Giospel there's no need for me to cram it down anyone's thorats. This thread has been very interesting and has shown a very diverse spectrum of views.

No offense curiosity, but why keep posting if you want the thread to end? Like any debate it will run until we all lose interest and less than two people have anything left to to say lol.

Beth