Restored: The Bible/Existence of God

Stalker wrote:I didn't really want to participate in this topic to this extent, but I can't resist now. I have had a lot of discussions in Theology, lot of headbutts and debates outside that, both with christians and atheists. I also think it's a heavy subject to start dissecting. Still, I'm too tempted.

The Bible to me, is indeed a way of "gathering" people, like Clare mentioned. General behavior, not dominated by nationalities or cultural backgrounds in times of old civilizations, but instead steered by something greater and with less physical boarders. Faith and mass-think is a great way of uniting people.

Now, the creation of Mankind and the World, as described in the Bible, was in fact made the way it was to bash Babylonian views. It was like a way of saying "Babylonian's view and worshipping is wrong, because God created it like THIS". Lets also not forget all the Egyptian priests who were slaughtered by purging Christians. All this is to either scare or shove people away from other religions. Why? To get more under the Umbrella of Jesus Christ and his scornful daddy (as he was in the old testament, at least).

The Bible explained the suffering of people, the Bible pretty much explained why everything is as it is and how. That gave people a big box to be inside, something to believe and base their every perception on. From the creation of mankind and suffering of mankind to why things happen. The Bible was also offering the grand salvation, that would serve as a motivation for Christians.

Jesus Christ, the saviour, died for sins of humanity. Jesus Christ was the humanity's step closer to salvation. Jesus was both a man and a god in a sense, so he could create the communicational bridge that has been so harshly broken with the original sin - the contact with God. God was very close with the human until Exodus. Not as distanced. ...So anyway, Jesus had the power to redeem. And Bible promises a return of this greatness.

I definitely think that Bible was very clever and at times well written. Like, the rules, the guidelines and even the explanations and reasonings were ingenious enough for that time to grasp a hold of people. The Followers dealt with what seemed to be a waterproof law of their God, not obscure Babylonian myths or Egyptian Scornful Gods who battled each other and intrefered with human lives. The Christian/Hebrew God was far too attractive and powerful in comparison.

Of course it was to control people. Of course it was to control masses of people. It worked well. It was probably meant as a good thing too, since the Bible set up these standards, sanctions and fractions that many based their morals on. Don't cheat, don't steal. Respect your next. Don't harm. In the time of those civilizations, it would be better to have a unison of people than all those cultures in war with each other trying to prove the power of their Gods. Even the Christmas, what we are used to think of as a Christian practice, was inspired by heathen and pagan traditions.

My problem and challenge with the Bible is that the society has evolved, we have progressed and evolved. Yet so many christians and all those christian directions of belief have really diffused the values of it. I mean, we see christian beliefs going against each other. We see people taking things out of context, taking things litterally or applying those old-civilization ideals to modern life. We see people taking Bible as metaphors. We see people using Bible or God as excuse for crimes, putting other people down or monstrosity.

If I had to choose, personally, I'd have an affinity with orthodox christianity. There is something sort of occult and also enigmatic, but pure about it. With all those Saints, Angels, Demons, traditions. I don't know, I like it. It has a pagan twist to it.

Oh, now I remembered another discussion I wanted to stay out of. But stupid Clare posted and now I can't resist. God/Gods.

dustbug wrote:I would recommend that anyone that wants to read the Bible just read the New Testament first. Think of the Old Testament as a history lesson and the New Testament as a guide to life.

The biggest problem with religion now is that everyone quotes the Bible out of context so that it suits whatever cause they believe in. That really has nothing to do with the Bible or religion of God.

Stalker wrote:

Proud Gemini wrote:Well then he isn't the "all-knowing/all-seeing" God most people view him as. What kind of God would create us, knowing of the disobediance and destruction? Why create something you can already predict? Why give something free will, knowing its choice before hand?

That's a valid point, and that's also why I don't believe in the God or religion presented in the Bible. Nor do I believe in concept of free will.

Some christians, however, would to that question reply with "Because it's the way he planned it to be, it's supposed to be."

My take on it is that even if God knew that this was going to happen, he let the mankind take its fate in own hands. God won't mess around because we decided elaborately to take the power over our own existence, thus he stays away and observes quietly. I don't think the suffering bothers him. If anything, I think he smiles bitterly and scornfully, seeing how mankind is struggling under own weight, unable to handle that kind of responsibility. I think it's God's way of saying "I told you so", once again proving that man is hopeless and fragile before the grand god.

That's at least a lot cooler to imagine.

123 Astrology wrote:Many Christians feel that they cannot support the concept of
astrology
but there are many mentions of it in the Bible. In fact
the Holy
Book is packed with references to it. Even Jesus Christ
refers to it
in this famous quote -

"There shall be signs in the sun, the
moon, and the stars." -
(Jesus Christ, Luke 21:25)

One of the
great astrological stories in the Bible has to do with
the star of Bethlehem. It is written that the
star was a sign from
God signals the birth of the Messiah into the
world. The three
Magi, who were astrologers, determined the time of
this birth by
the position of this star. In 1600, Johannes Kepler
hypothesized
that this star was actually a conjunction of Jupiter and
Saturn,
which is a supposition that has been confirmed by modern
astrological
methods. The Star of Bethlehem was
indeed probably a
conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn.

The
prediction at the time was of course that there would be a
Messiah
born among Kings. Saturn is a planet that rules the Jews
and Jupiter
symbolizes royalty. What an accurate prediction for
the birth of
someone who would be known as "The King of the Jews."

Interestingly
the twelve tribes
of Isreal are also associated with
the Zodiac signs. According to Flavius Josephus, the
famed Jewish
historian, the Jewish temple at Jerusalem had the twelve signs of
the
zodiac embedded in its floors. In the recent past Israel has
also
issued postage stamps with zodiac signs as recognition of this.

In
the book of Genesis there are comments about the signs in the
sky -

"And
God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to
separate
the day from the night, and let them serve as SIGNS to
mark seasons
and days and years, and let them be lights in the
expanse of the sky
to give light on the
Earth." And it was so."
(Gen. 1:14-15)

Another famous
astrology reference to do with signs in the sky is
in Luke.

"And
there shall be SIGNS in the sun, and in the moon, and in the
stars;
and upon the Earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the
sea and
the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and
for
looking after those things which are coming on the Earth: for
the
powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the
Son of man coming in a cloud with power and
great glory." (Luke
21:25-27)


The Bible also describes an
astrological sign
called the "Morning
Star"
which is a name for Venus. The Morning Star, also known as
the
"light bringer", is also an astrological symboling those
functions as
a light that shines just before the sun rises. It is a
prophetic
star that promises the light of a new day and it is also
known as a
light bringer. The image of the light bringer or the
light bearer is
not only a name that is used to refer to Jesus but
also to all sons of God including
Lucifer who was known as the
"light bearer."

Jesus is referred
to as the morning star several times in the Bible.

"I, Jesus,
have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the
churches. I am
the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright
MORNING STAR."
(Rev. 22:16)

No article on the Bible's relationship to astrology
would be
complete without some reference to the Piscean Age. Jesus
was born
under the end of the age of Aries (the ram or lamb) and
could be
why he referred to himself the "lamb of God."

Astrology refers to
every 2160 years as a new "AGE" which is a
different sign of the zodiac
that comes into position to influence
the Earth. The Bible describes
events that will occur according to
the signs of the astrological
"ages".

By the time Jesus found ibis disciples or "fishers of men, it was
the
beginning of the age
of Pisces. The Piscean Age is always
referred to as the Church
Age. One of His biggest miracles in fact
had to do with feeding the
masses at the Sermon of the Mount by
multiplying just a few fishes.
His followers were also named in
Latin as "pisciculi" which
translates to mean the "little fishes."
A commonly used icon in Christian
churches is the "Vesica
Piscis",
which is Latin for "mouth of the fish". Its shape
resembles a fish
without a tail and is identical to the Zodiac sign
that is often
used for Pisces.

There are numerous references
to the age in the Bible and to Jesus
as being the King of that Age. A
good example is --

"Then Christ would have had to suffer many
times since the creation
of the world. But now he has appeared once
for all at the AGE of
the ages." (Heb. 9:26)

Here is an
excellent Bible passage
that uncannily describes the
astrological influences on humanity and
the suggestion that the
universe operates on a cosmic clock:

"There
is a time for everything,
And a season for every activity under
heaven:
A time to be born and a time to die,
A time to plant and
a time to uproot,
A time to kill and a time to heal,
A time to
tear down and a time to build,
A time to weep and a time to laugh,
A
time to morn and a time to dance,
A time to scatter stones and a
time to gather them,
A time to embrace and a time to refrain,
A
time to search and a time to give up,
A time to keep and a time to
throw away,
A time to tear and a time to mend,
A time to be
silent and a time to speak,
Time to love and a time to hate,
A time
for war and a time for peace." (Eccl. 3:1-

This passage from
the Bible is often used by astrologers to justify
the practice of
astrology as being ultimately an ancient and
Christian practice.

Dinny wrote:
They concluded that only about 16% of most copies of
the New Testament today are actually true and were there originally...
meaning that the other 84% was added, omitted or mistranslated. Meaning
that most Christians today are not following the teachings of Christ but
complete randoms who wrote their own interpretations and passages into
the bible.

Argent Fang wrote:I'll add my two cents and mention that the Bible was written centuries after the supposed dates that the events took place.

If such a pivotal event as someone like Jesus Christ existing and doing all of these things, you'd think there'd be more historical documentation about him other than the Bible. Of course, the virgin birth is nothing new either; lots of older mythologies did the same thing.

What gets me is that how so many people seem to think that atheists are just as religious as theists. There's no scripture or dogma for atheism nor do they make any irrational claims about an omnipotent, omniscient divine being that takes personal stock in our lives. Atheism is simply lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.

You don't even need to cite the illeginimacy of the Bible to debunk creationists. (though I understand why you would since none of them have any clue as to how the scientific method works) The oldest recorded tree was about 10,000 years old from what I heard, which already makes the Earth at least almost twice as old as their creationist claims. Half-lifes of Carbon 14 and other radioactive substances take it back into the millions and billions of years.

PapiChuloLeon wrote:My favorite is when they mistake atheists for people who don't have a religion. The very thing that makes an atheist is the centerpiece of what offends religious guys.

Argent Fang wrote:

PapiChuloLeon wrote:My favorite is when they mistake atheists for people who don't have a religion. The very thing that makes an atheist is the centerpiece of what offends religious guys.

But...atheism isn't a religion.

lilith wrote:As I sometime witness these sort of discussions in person and online, I can't help but notice an overall underlying theme of anger and annoyance beneath a topic that should be celebrated. Many of these discussions are fruitless (but carry on) because it's common that people target groups that don't need any attention in the first place. Tycoon, people who can't handle that other people don't believe in fate (fate is an interesting topic and even some atheists believe in fate or karma) have serious issues. It's not worth paying attention to them or even taking your own time to address them or mention them. May I mention that the extreme believers of creationism fail to take in aspects of philosophy, religion, science and politics to try to put them together and for some reason, need or are taught to go strictly by the Bible. So let them. The same goes for people who only believe in science. I'm actually embarrassed that MKing claims that Christianity is a "sad sight" as it is a complete lack of openmindedness. Christianity, for some people, is responsible for the structure of their entire lives, often fueling peaceful acitives like bonding, friendship, socializing, volunteering, playing music, etc. In our time, it's easy to get away with taking in things by our senses and making what seems like "sound" conclusions by them. ArgentFang, even the scientific method is questioned (if you're interested in a questioning account of it, I suggest Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, though I'm sick of that book already) and this apparent logical "order" is something that has been pumped into our brains since we were kids for up to ten years. As paradoxical as it sounds, the best thing to do with science is question it. The scientific method makes sense because it sounds reasonable and because we did some labs using the method. Does the scientific method work for politics? ...Religion? Imagine everything in life stricly going by this method. We'd be ruined. We cannot rely on science any more than religion only because our senses tell us what is right. What about intution? Astrology? May I mention that if you put every self-proclaimed Christian in a big room, you're going to have a VERY diverse opinion on what "God" is, not just big guy in the sky. If anyone is so sure that atheism is the only way to go, they wouldn't so vehemently defend it, like fundamentalists. "What gets me is that how so many people seem to think that atheists are just as religious as theists." These "so many people" are from the Bible Belt, where you currently reside and where I grew up. The atrocious antics of fluff-brains in the Bible Belt is nearly a study of fascination by BBC News a handful Europeans to say the least and any other culture that loves to stereotype America as they sometimes have the loudest voices and do the most attention-grabbing things ("Hey, let's all burn the Koran!"). Am I being hypocritical by pointing out those groups and saying don't listen to them? I strongly believe that we should listen to people who want to listen to us. Otherwise, why the waste of energy?

My point is, move past that. I've been talking to some of you guys for years, and I know you're all much MUCH smarter than this. Do your own studies of different aspects of life and turn a discussion of religion or atheism from, "I hate it when groups do this or that", or "I can't believe they think this, it is so stupid" to, "Hey, what do you think of this idea?"

Argent Fang wrote:Understanding of science has allowed our race to do live a life that we never could have had otherwise. Without it, we'd still be dead by the age of thirty, we'd still be dealing with a myriad of terminal illnesses, and we wouldn't be able to talk to each other in such a medium, etc.

That is not to say that science is flawless or can explain everything however. Things like intuition and politics like you mentioned are hard to concretely analyze and break down into its component pieces. Astrology is ancient psychology from my understanding, so it is a science in that respect.

Do we give too much attention to people that don't want to listen to us? I'm inclined to agree, since people by nature seem to be confrontational and need something to bitch about. (I've noticed that I tend to spark opposition quite easily, but maybe that's just me)

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: I believe in humanity and our ability to overcome any adversity thrown at us. Science is merely one of our best tools at doing just that.

Yes, I suppose for some people, religion can be a tool they use to overcome adversity, and when its used in such a way, that's wonderful; I just personally think that it has outlived its usefulness and could be replaced by secular societies that discuss politics and philosiphy, etc.

Argent Fang wrote:Understanding of science has allowed our race to do live a life that we never could have had otherwise. Without it, we'd still be dead by the age of thirty, we'd still be dealing with a myriad of terminal illnesses, and we wouldn't be able to talk to each other in such a medium, etc.

That is not to say that science is flawless or can explain everything however. Things like intuition and politics like you mentioned are hard to concretely analyze and break down into its component pieces. Astrology is ancient psychology from my understanding, so it is a science in that respect.

Do we give too much attention to people that don't want to listen to us? I'm inclined to agree, since people by nature seem to be confrontational and need something to bitch about. (I've noticed that I tend to spark opposition quite easily, but maybe that's just me)

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: I believe in humanity and our ability to overcome any adversity thrown at us. Science is merely one of our best tools at doing just that.

Yes, I suppose for some people, religion can be a tool they use to overcome adversity, and when its used in such a way, that's wonderful; I just personally think that it has outlived its usefulness and could be replaced by secular societies that discuss politics and philosiphy, etc.

lilith wrote:

Argent Fang wrote:Understanding of science has allowed our race to do live a life that we never could have had otherwise. Without it, we'd still be dead by the age of thirty, we'd still be dealing with a myriad of terminal illnesses, and we wouldn't be able to talk to each other in such a medium, etc.

That is not to say that science is flawless or can explain everything however. Things like intuition and politics like you mentioned are hard to concretely analyze and break down into its component pieces. Astrology is ancient psychology from my understanding, so it is a science in that respect.

Do we give too much attention to people that don't want to listen to us? I'm inclined to agree, since people by nature seem to be confrontational and need something to bitch about. (I've noticed that I tend to spark opposition quite easily, but maybe that's just me)

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: I believe in humanity and our ability to overcome any adversity thrown at us. Science is merely one of our best tools at doing just that.

Yes, I suppose for some people, religion can be a tool they use to overcome adversity, and when its used in such a way, that's wonderful; I just personally think that it has outlived its usefulness and could be replaced by secular societies that discuss politics and philosiphy, etc.

Just wondering, why is there room for philosophy but not religion (I guess I could rephrase as: Why do you think philosophy is more important than religion)? Nice points on the science above.

lilith wrote:You can silence an Italian by tying his hands behind his back. ..... You can silence a Tycoon by taking away his pictures.

Dinny wrote:I recently did some serious research on how much of it is true and how much was added/omitted/changed during the various "revisions" and translations, and I happened upon multi-year study conducted by a Protestant university, with theologians and historians.

They concluded that only about 16% of most copies of the New Testament today are actually true and were there originally... meaning that the other 84% was added, omitted or mistranslated. Meaning that most Christians today are not following the teachings of Christ but complete randoms who wrote their own interpretations and passages into the bible.

MKing wrote:As a child, I was told that we aren't allow to question our religion, which sucked, because I would always get put out of bible study, because they felt my questions were inappropriate for a child. At the time, I didn't think it was inappropriate, in fact, I felt that they didn't understand that I was only asking important questions, because I was very serious about the matter. This kind of suspicious behavior from my church, lead to me wanting to just....plain, and simple, do my own thing. There's a saying about being blinded by LOVE, well, there should also be another saying about being blinded by religion, because that's all it really is.....the blind, leading the blind. Overall, yes din, I agree that Christianity has brainwashed it community to point of no return, and it such a sad sight.

Argent Fang wrote:For me, the world is never dull, because there's always something new to learn or someone new to meet and have fun with.

StarFireSong wrote:How did I miss this thread?!

Dinny wrote:I recently did some serious research on how much of it is true and how much was added/omitted/changed during the various "revisions" and translations, and I happened upon multi-year study conducted by a Protestant university, with theologians and historians.

They concluded that only about 16% of most copies of the New Testament today are actually true and were there originally... meaning that the other 84% was added, omitted or mistranslated. Meaning that most Christians today are not following the teachings of Christ but complete randoms who wrote their own interpretations and passages into the bible.

Dinny, do you happen to have the link to that study? I'm interested in reading their findings in full.

Dinny wrote:I'd have to find it again, but that's not a problem. I'll post it here when I find it. It's really something to dwell on, and I wonder how Christians would feel about knowing that (I know that half of them would outright deny that, but I mean the rest of em).

Argent Fang wrote:
You don't even need to cite the illeginimacy of the Bible to debunk creationists. (though I understand why you would since none of them have any clue as to how the scientific method works) The oldest recorded tree was about 10,000 years old from what I heard, which already makes the Earth at least almost twice as old as their creationist claims. Half-lifes of Carbon 14 and other radioactive substances take it back into the millions and billions of years.

Dinny wrote:

Argent Fang wrote:
You don't even need to cite the illeginimacy of the Bible to debunk creationists. (though I understand why you would since none of them have any clue as to how the scientific method works) The oldest recorded tree was about 10,000 years old from what I heard, which already makes the Earth at least almost twice as old as their creationist claims. Half-lifes of Carbon 14 and other radioactive substances take it back into the millions and billions of years.

Every young-earth Creationist I've argued with, when confronted with this, has said that carbon dating and the like are completely inaccurate. I wish I could remember why, but there are three variants:

The most common kind: Has read piles of literature compiled by "Creation" scientists (yes, they exist, supposedly) but none by actual credible scientists.

The second most common kind: Say that they think carbon dating is inaccurate but when asked why, have absolutely nothing to say. Sometimes they will link to a Conservapedia article.

The rarest and scariest: Say that carbon dating and other such methods are the devices of scientists who are for some reason out to steal God's glory and belittle his work, and turn us away from God.

lilith wrote:Text.