The Bible

Think that’s crap, try the Koran. I have a copy which was given to me by some gook standing on town hall square, trying to sell the virtues of just how piece loving being a Mooslim is. It’s long tedious, baffling and every other verse, is about killing the kaffers. It apparently is the ordained requirement of Mooslims to eradicate the kaffer from the face of the earth. Also when the holy one was born, a bright shinning light shone out of his mother’s birth canal. For a complete guide to the Bible and the Koran, one could do no better than subscribe to the following web-site. www.jeasusandmo.net
 
I have never celebrated mass and never will...do you honestly believe that there will be consequences? There is not a jot of tangible evidence to support heaven, hell, resurrections, demons, gods, miracles, goblins etc... There is none. All religious rituals are primitive and a complete waste of time. You can take any story from the bible and define your own meaning because it's man made babble. Better stories and works of philosophy can be found in other books. There is absolutely no necessity for myths of any kind, no more than there is a necessity for Noddy and Big Ears. Nothing to do with the survival of civilisation at all, a ridicules notion.
That's all your opinion, though. None of what you said there is fact, and I doubt you've concluded there is no evidence after evaluating the totality of human knowledge. That the Universe exists itself implies the existence of a creator, and the best minds in history have been trying to divine the nature of that creator through reason. Certainly, if you're looking for proof for what Christianity asserts, there is none, but that said, very few inferences scientists make about the natural world are ever proven either, which is why disproving hypotheses instead of trying to prove them is a much more reliable method of gaining knowledge.

As for the existence and resurrection of Jesus, I'm more inclined to believe the words of the first Christians, who wouldn't recant their faith under the threat of torture and extreme suffering, rather than those of some New Atheist who's ignorant of what they believed.
And why not? The New Testament speaks of specific places, events, people, traditions, and the Gospels are known to have actually been authored, or dictated, by people who actually lived around Jerusalem in the first century. There must have been a compelling reason why they managed to start a mass movement within two decades of the Resurrection.
 
That's all your opinion, though. None of what you said there is fact, and I doubt you've concluded there is no evidence after evaluating the totality of human knowledge. That the Universe exists itself implies the existence of a creator, and the best minds in history have been trying to divine the nature of that creator through reason. Certainly, if you're looking for proof for what Christianity asserts, there is none, but that said, very few inferences scientists make about the natural world are ever proven either, which is why disproving hypotheses instead of trying to prove them is a much more reliable method of gaining knowledge.

As for the existence and resurrection of Jesus, I'm more inclined to believe the words of the first Christians, who wouldn't recant their faith under the threat of torture and extreme suffering, rather than those of some New Atheist who's ignorant of what they believed.
And why not? The New Testament speaks of specific places, events, people, traditions, and the Gospels are known to have actually been authored, or dictated, by people who actually lived around Jerusalem in the first century. There must have been a compelling reason why they managed to start a mass movement within two decades of the Resurrection.
I'm sorry but you have just identified yourself as a brainwashed cult member and beyond rescue. The same intangible thinking without any factual basis. A hopeless case. Take care.
 
I'm sorry but you have just identified yourself as a brainwashed cult member and beyond rescue. The same intangible thinking without any factual basis. A hopeless case. Take care.
Really? Is that seriously all you have? Aren't you interested enough in the big questions about mankind's existence and our place in the Universe to crack open a book? Fcuk it, just the odd YouTube vid on philosophy might do.

Why do you have a priest as your profile pic and 'Higgs_bosun' as a user name? And why the anger towards Christianity? I'm genuinely curious.
 
Really? Is that seriously all you have? Aren't you interested enough in the big questions about mankind's existence and our place in the Universe to crack open a book? Fcuk it, just the odd YouTube vid on philosophy might do.

Why do you have a priest as your profile pic and 'Higgs_bosun' as a user name? And why the anger towards Christianity? I'm genuinely curious.
I have cracked open enough books to understand that your mentality has been damaged by brainwashing. Just like an Islamic fundamentalist, blind to reason, irrational and potentially dangerous. That is why I hate religion. The answer to our existence does not come from a primitive holy book. Sadly this topic has been thrashed to death. I can't re-educate you via arrse...
 
I have cracked open enough books to understand that your mentality has been damaged by brainwashing. Just like an Islamic fundamentalist, blind to reason, irrational and potentially dangerous. That is why I hate religion. The answer to our existence does not come from a primitive holy book. Sadly this topic has been thrashed to death. I can't re-educate you via arrse...

Seems you're right. You're only embarrassing yourself so far.
 
I'm sorry but you have just identified yourself as a brainwashed cult member and beyond rescue. The same intangible thinking without any factual basis. A hopeless case. Take care.
Says someone who believes every little piece of drivel the EU produces.

Hint: For definition of hypocrite, look in a mirror.
 
God is pretty much outside our understanding, although the Bible makes some facets clear. But it is in Jesus you can start to see God’s nature in a way understandable to humanity. It was one of Jesus core roles - to make God knowable.
Is that strictly true? I don't really see that in modern Christianity, by which I mean that stemming from the Roman version of events. In a way I see it as the opposite, not so much in a more questioning 21st Century but certainly in medieval times. one was encouraged to have faith and accept things as they were presented. Questioning into the whys and wherefores and nature of God could actually be dangerous.
Of course Easter shows other reasons why Jesus came - forgiveness, salvation and the hope of eternal life. So have a great Easter.
Yet, as I mentioned earlier in the thread if you study the beliefs of early christians then historically that isn't what was preached at the time. Eternal life in some form or other forms part of belief systems all over and at that time as well, so that last one especially seems a little thin.
Anyway, enjoy your Easter, or even the festival of the Sun God :wink:
 
So you're praying to quantum mechanics?
I've always agreed with you about the dangers and absurdity of faith higgsy, and that won't change with regards to the loons who really do believe. However, I'm starting to think that mankind needs a foundation mythology in order to make sense of things. There are plenty of people who have no interest in religion but also have no understanding of science and believe other rubbish like astrology, horoscopes and wicca powers. Without this belief their lives would be empty so it does fill a vacuum and satisfy a need. As Pratchett said, 'humans need fantasy to be human, to be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.'

If we observe society today we can seen that many people are obsessed with fame, narcissism, money and shallow, trivial things. It may have ever been thus, but with the rise of technology I believe it's even more apparent. In order to be successful in life everything in the media and society suggests that you must be good looking, wealthy and sporty. Go into any secondary or private school in the land and this will be the case. Children are bombarded with this message, if you do not have all these things then you are generally perceived as a failure. This is nothing new, Orwell said the same about his school days.

"a continuous triumph of the strong over the weak. Virtue consisted in winning: it consisted in being bigger, stronger, handsomer, richer, more popular, more elegant, more unscrupulous than other people—in dominating them, bullying them, making them suffer pain, making them look foolish, getting the better of them in every way. Life was hierarchical and whatever happened was right. There were the strong, who deserved to win and always did win, and there were the weak, who deserved to lose and always did lose, everlastingly."
Such, Such Were the Joys, Orwell.


Whether you're a good person matters little. In my mind this must explain the extraordinary rise in mental health problems in recent years. Science tells us that there is no God, great! But then what is it all about, really, when you really get down to it? What's it all for? Without any greater purpose it all seems a great waste of time. This is why people fill in the gaps with the God of consumerism. The Kardashians are the new church. This also means that the younger generation can be anything they want to be, they have more freedom than ever before, but what exactly are they meant to be?

A foundation myth like the Iliad, Odyssey, the Epic of Gilgamesh or even the New Testament provide examples on how you're meant to live. All the myths tell you that courage, tolerance, integrity and wisdom are important. They tell you what it means to be a civilised man/woman, the dangers or hubris and why you shouldn't treat others badly. Society needs this stuff, it's probably why so many people feel lost, it may explain the enormous amount of male suicides in a world where men are no longer needed.

The entertainment industry has picked up on this psychological black hole. That's why marvel movies are so popular. The superheroes are all gods, one of them is the God Thor for crying out loud.

In short, we don't need mainstream religion, but we sure as hell need mainstream mythology.
You raise a couple of interesting points in all that and I'd like to point out something that maybe you haven't asked yourself, but then again maybe you have.

Firstly, I too worry about the dangers of blindly accepting a faith, in that it may well lead to fanaticism with all the inherent dangers therein. However that is also true of other elements in life from terror movements like IRA and ETA to even football fans. Secondly it may discourage thinking for oneself with all the obvious problems that brings, and especially subservience to a way of thinking rather than agreeing to follow the line because it fits with your own thinking.

That said I think that on this thread we have people who have thought about their faith and while I follow no religion I will respect them for following their path, just as I respect someone who decides that a spiritual aspect to his life is not for him, and ask them to respect me on my Celtic path. This is in the Intelligence Cell so name calling should be out and reasoned argument in, something that is not always followed.
So when you ask @scarbrough if he worships quantum mechanics you are either being or flirting with being facetious. Then when you directly refer to loons that is a direct insult and detracts from your arguments, which is a shame from one who can argue, question, and enquire quite well on occasion.
I have never respected the arguments that include 'sky pixie' or 'invisible friend' for two reasons; firstly it shows a paucity of argument and often inability to reason the point through. Secondly it shows a total disrespect for the other by assuming that one knows what the other person believes and thereby ridiculing him from what is often erroneous ground, and that is simply unintelligent.
Here Scarbrough uses an analogy to say that his concept of Deity goes far beyond the simple capricious, white-bearded, old boy sitting on a cloud handing down judgements. One can take what Science reveals about the Universe and use that to try to approach the Deity/Creative Principle or whatever label you care to put on it. Science shows that the Universe happened from a burst of energy which is cooling and we all form part of that. But what was the reason for that event and what is the nature of that energy? Science, for all the scoffing, cannot tell us. To many that must form part of any concept of Deity or enquiry into the nature of such a Deity which is what Scarbrough was trying to say, and the traditional concepts don't fit unless one holds to a simplistic view of faith, which he evidently doesn't.
Science is showing us that the old concept can't work, but also at the same time it reinforces a lot of esoteric thought through the ages, which I find fascinating. I know from experience it can also be difficult to describe what is often an intuitive understanding of what is a very complex concept, and so one gropes for ways to communicate that concept in terms that have no words to describe them, and that another person may grasp.

Now as to the rest of your post which I think has quite a lot to provide debate in it, seems to be saying that you are now questioning the nature of what we are as humans and what is the human state. Please correct me if I am wrong here.
How deep does the need for myth and imagination go in us and how can that be harnessed to improve us as people and thus provide a better society is a very good question to be asked? But it implies we also need to explore what is our very nature.
Religion did/does provide guidelines for living whether you agree that they are good ones or not. Science has been busy knocking down religion and its basis in fact without providing any guidelines to replace them. While you may, rightly or not, argue that it is not the place of Science to do so, it is a simple fact that there has arisen no ethical system to fill the gap. What we have is the horrendous PC world which attempts to impose its world-view just as zealously as any religion. Meanwhile people try to fill that gap with toys and connectedness as you point out.

So how would you see a form of myth working? What role would/should it play? Would you put limits on it? On what would that myth be based?

I agree that many people find a need to believe in such things, the proliferation of Fantasy and Science Fiction as well as Superheroes and works of authors like Steven King would not be popular otherwise.
What is the nature of that space or need within us that people try to fill?
We are in general detached from our nature as beings that evolved in Nature and by not connecting with that we lose so much. I consider that it has much to tell us and instruct us, yet we pay it no or minimal attention. I would argue that finding our nature is important for our evolution both as individuals and as a species.

Your comments appreciated as I find the question you are asking an important one.
 
You are clearly deluded...
Am I really? I've presented some evidence and reasoning for my beliefs, and pointed out the limits of what I know, but you seem to have an adverse reaction to the possibility that I'm right.
I also have a lot of respect for atheists who submit educated, intelligent and well-argued criticisms of the faith.

I'm still waiting to see the reasons why you think Christianity is BS. Is it because you disagree with the Neo-Platonic idea of the 'first cause'? Is it because you think the authors of the New Testament interpreted events incorrectly? Is there something about our abstractions of reality that make you uncomfortable?

Would I be correct in saying you were personally hurt in the past by someone representing the faith, that someone did something to you that (quite understandably) caused you to dislike us?
 
Am I really? I've presented some evidence and reasoning for my beliefs, and pointed out the limits of what I know, but you seem to have an adverse reaction to the possibility that I'm right.
I also have a lot of respect for atheists who submit educated, intelligent and well-argued criticisms of the faith.

I'm still waiting to see the reasons why you think Christianity is BS. Is it because you disagree with the Neo-Platonic idea of the 'first cause'? Is it because you think the authors of the New Testament interpreted events incorrectly? Is there something about our abstractions of reality that make you uncomfortable?

Would I be correct in saying you were personally hurt in the past by someone representing the faith, that someone did something to you that (quite understandably) caused you to dislike us?
You have no evidence at all to support your faith. Try any of these... Heaven, hell, angels, demons, gods, resurrections etc. Do not include imaginary, fictional or unsubstantiated hearsay accounts written by unknown authors, translated erroneously and fabricated over two thousand years ago. Don't quote the bible as a reliable source as it has been exposed by biblical scholars to be man made babble. If you require the evidence I can provide it by the truckload and all backed up by science.
 
Is that strictly true? I don't really see that in modern Christianity, by which I mean that stemming from the Roman version of events. In a way I see it as the opposite, not so much in a more questioning 21st Century but certainly in medieval times. one was encouraged to have faith and accept things as they were presented. Questioning into the whys and wherefores and nature of God could actually be dangerous.
Yet, as I mentioned earlier in the thread if you study the beliefs of early christians then historically that isn't what was preached at the time. Eternal life in some form or other forms part of belief systems all over and at that time as well, so that last one especially seems a little thin.
Anyway, enjoy your Easter, or even the festival of the Sun God :wink:
I can’t speak from the “Roman” POV, but what I stated is pretty much as I understand and live Christianity, but obviously I didn’t explicitly talk on faith, and that too is an important aspect of any form of Christianity. But I feel it did come out in my last point - eternal life is a hope (therefore an article of faith).
 
A warning note from your own link. Luckily, most Christians aren’t fundamentalists.

IMPORTANT: These lists are meant to identify possible problems in the Bible, especially those that are inherent in a literalist or fundamentalist interpretation. Keep in mind, however, that what constitutes a valid problem is to some extent a matter of opinion. You may disagree that these are, in fact, genuine biblical problems, but it is the author's opinion that a perfect and omnipotent God could, should, and would see to it that such problems did not exist in a book which s/he had inspired.
 
I can’t speak from the “Roman” POV, but what I stated is pretty much as I understand and live Christianity, but obviously I didn’t explicitly talk on faith, and that too is an important aspect of any form of Christianity. But I feel it did come out in my last point - eternal life is a hope (therefore an article of faith).
What I meant by Roman is that modern christianity stems from the Roman Catholic Church developed in the late Roman Empire and the Bible that Church selected, as opposed to original Christianity.

Also it seems that your post said, or at least implied, that before Christ there was no hope of eternal life, whereas the concept of an afterlife was widespread in other belief systems at the time. To take just one example our Celtic ancestors saw this life as transitory and death as merely the movement from one state to another. Curiously an earlier post of mine about transference of energy at death on the quantum mechanics level seems to be Science coming to an agreement in some ways.

Note for others this is not claiming any sort of heaven/hell/happy Hunting Ground for the afterlife, merely that an energy transference takes place.
(Personally it's fingers crossed for Valhalla for me. ;-))
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top