If God created everything, why does religion contradicts so many things??

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: LucidLe
Just a question for any Christian out there.

In Leviticus 11:13-19 it states that bats are birds. We know now that this is not the case, surerly if the allmighty god the Bible describes is real, it would know that bats are not birds. So how do you respond to this?

If you answere is something along the lines of "Man wrote the bible etc, etc" Then my follow up question would be-- God is allmighty and acording to you good. Why did he not simply make sure to change the mistake by some magical way?"

Were the scientific classifications of animals that we use today known to mankind when Moses wrote Leviticus?

Anyways, let's forget that fact for a moment. The Hebrew word in verse 13 that got translated from the Greek to Latin to English is "`owph", that word in Hebrew means any "flying creature, bird, or flying insect". The problem isn't one of birds vs mammals, the problem is the Hebrews of that day had one word for all flying creatures.

Replace "bird" with "flying creatures" if you need to.

Moses wrote the early books of the Bible like Bilbo Baggins wrote "The Hobbit".

a reply to: Tangerine

If it suits you fine then replace "Moses" with "the author of Leviticus".

a reply to: windword

It's just as easy to believe that the Universe is infinite in space and time, has no beginning or end, as it is to believe in a god with the same perimeters.

Edit to add: It's after the 4 hr window to edit, but I just noticed something. There is no difference between space and time, in Physics it's called "space-time", it's the 4th physical dimension. The continuum is only relative to the observer. And since the universe is not at heat death, spacetime has not been infinite. It was one of the most astounding discoveries of the 20th century that the universe is finite.

originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: Kusinjo
a reply to: Tangerine

Uh..atheism isn't a religion and you don't know that I'm an atheist. Atheism is the position that there is no god/are no gods. Period. Religion, by contrast, is the performance of ritual on behalf of or in obeyance to a supernatural deity or deities. Belief, alone, is not a religion.

A fundamentalist (I assume you're referring to a Christian fundamentalist) is one who takes the Bible to be the literal word of God.

Those that seek to partake in a 'dogmatic' philosophy/theology are 'opting into' a belief system; meaning they are accepting the tenants/rules (not brainwashed). You call yourself an atheist identifying yourself; so you are also opting into another organized belief (whether you like it or not), are yourself participating in the obeyance of an organized system. You are not new. "Belief, alone, is not a religion"; of course not as enlightenment is based upon that individuals soul progress, entirely personalized to that eternal soul (questions in this life experienceing needed answering); in short its all your fault because you asked for your own 3D life experiences.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Kusinjo
a reply to: Tangerine

Uh..atheism isn't a religion and you don't know that I'm an atheist. Atheism is the position that there is no god/are no gods. Period. Religion, by contrast, is the performance of ritual on behalf of or in obeyance to a supernatural deity or deities. Belief, alone, is not a religion.
A fundamentalist (I assume you're referring to a Christian fundamentalist) is one who takes the Bible to be the literal word of God.

Those that seek to partake in a 'dogmatic' philosophy/theology are 'opting into' a belief system; meaning they are accepting the tenants/rules (not brainwashed). You call yourself an atheist identifying yourself; so you are also opting into an organized belief (whether you like it or not), are yourself participating in the obeyance of an organized system. You are not new.

You don't hesitate to make up stuff, do you? WHen have I called myself an atheist?

For which supernatural deity/deities do atheists perform acts of obeyance or worship?

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Kusinjo
a reply to: Tangerine

Uh..atheism isn't a religion and you don't know that I'm an atheist. Atheism is the position that there is no god/are no gods. Period. Religion, by contrast, is the performance of ritual on behalf of or in obeyance to a supernatural deity or deities. Belief, alone, is not a religion.
A fundamentalist (I assume you're referring to a Christian fundamentalist) is one who takes the Bible to be the literal word of God.

Those that seek to partake in a 'dogmatic' philosophy/theology are 'opting into' a belief system; meaning they are accepting the tenants/rules (not brainwashed). You call yourself an atheist identifying yourself; so you are also opting into an organized belief (whether you like it or not), are yourself participating in the obeyance of an organized system. You are not new.

You don't hesitate to make up stuff, do you? WHen have I called myself an atheist?

For which supernatural deity/deities do atheists perform acts of obeyance or worship?

It usually does deal with deities, but a "religion" doesn't necessarily HAVE to:

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people may derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle.

If you have a belief structure that forms your view of the purpose of life, or the beginning of the universe, that too is considered a religion. You don't need a church or a holy book and a priest to be considered a religion, Wiccan would be a prime example.

Religion ~ Wiki

originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing

Tangerine: Uh..atheism isn't a religion and you don't know that I'm an atheist. Atheism is the position that there is no god/are no gods. Period. Religion, by contrast, is the performance of ritual on behalf of or in obeyance to a supernatural deity or deities. Belief, alone, is not a religion. A fundamentalist (I assume you're referring to a Christian fundamentalist) is one who takes the Bible to be the literal word of God.

VHB:Those that seek to partake in a 'dogmatic' philosophy/theology are 'opting into' a belief system; meaning they are accepting the tenants/rules (not brainwashed). You call yourself an atheist identifying yourself; so you are also opting into an organized belief (whether you like it or not), are yourself participating in the obeyance of an organized system. You are not new.

Tangerine: You don't hesitate to make up stuff, do you? WHen have I called myself an atheist?
For which supernatural deity/deities do atheists perform acts of obeyance or worship?

Perhaps I was responding to something else called a concept? I never hesitate to call out, question what I see as being presented without representation. Atheists have to believe in a supernatural deity/deities to 'thee/thou dost protest too much'; as in there is a bow/nod to SOMETHING that offends them enough to protest to. God existing/a predetermined hatred for? How does one object to something you do not acknowledge existing in the first place.

a reply to: LucidLe

It is not an error. It is a difference of categorization procedures. People who dispute the Bible have imposed upon the ancient text a modern system of categorization and then said that the Bible is wrong. This is a big error in thinking.
Why does it need to be changed magically or not. The error is assuming that everything done in ancient times is the exact same as in modern times. We know processes change, as well as categorizations.

It was a very good question, though!

a reply to: Kusinjo

I don't believe atheism is a religion. I believe CERTAIN atheists turn it into one. Not going to get all here and there about it because I am trying to re balance what I am trying to achieve and that is to relay my knowledge in a forum pertinent to the discussion where I am free to do so. Sorry, Tangerine, I am going to abstain from responding to your pokes and jabs as I feel I get nothing in return for my thoughtful, if not valid in your eyes, responses.

I am a consistent study of the Bible. I have yet to find a contradiction that can not be easily explained as NOT a contradiction in the context of the story being told versus the other context of the supposed contradiction.
This is quite logical actually as in not all problems are solved the same way with the same solution. A solution to one existing problem may not be the solution to another.
Example: Mom said Charlie is not allowed to swim in the pond. Mom tells Charlie to swim in the pond. (CONTRADICTION YOU SCREAM?)
Context: Mom told Charlie not to swim in the pond because it was dangerous and he could be hurt from the jagged rocks on the bottom. A few days later Mom has hired a Clean water and Pond expert to make the pond safe for Charlie and when the Job is finished tells Charlie to go swim in the pond now that is safe.

We see examples of this sort of thing in everyday life. People lose jobs due to misunderstandings like these. And as shameful as it is, millions lose their lives.

originally posted by: Kusinjo
a reply to: LucidLe

It is not an error. It is a difference of categorization procedures. People who dispute the Bible have imposed upon the ancient text a modern system of categorization and then said that the Bible is wrong. This is a big error in thinking.
Why does it need to be changed magically or not. The error is assuming that everything done in ancient times is the exact same as in modern times. We know processes change, as well as categorizations.

Christian religion went through a 'reformation process' meaning it policed itself and came up with other ideas more diplomatic/humane.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Semantics. Vegans will say don't eat meat, only eat plants. But aren't plants considered the meat of the earth. I have heard peaches and oranges to be described as flesh. Either way, it was a good question, but I get the notion it was asked in a way that tries to discredit what I perceive to be the Holy Word of God. If others don't believe, that is fine by me. There are real reasons people choose not to believe and then there are the arguments they give. Really most of those arguments are quite weak. The arguments I tend to stay away from are the ones who straight up say "I know what it says and I don't like it. I don't buy it." To those people I say "Peace be with you!"

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing

Tangerine: Uh..atheism isn't a religion and you don't know that I'm an atheist. Atheism is the position that there is no god/are no gods. Period. Religion, by contrast, is the performance of ritual on behalf of or in obeyance to a supernatural deity or deities. Belief, alone, is not a religion. A fundamentalist (I assume you're referring to a Christian fundamentalist) is one who takes the Bible to be the literal word of God.

VHB:Those that seek to partake in a 'dogmatic' philosophy/theology are 'opting into' a belief system; meaning they are accepting the tenants/rules (not brainwashed). You call yourself an atheist identifying yourself; so you are also opting into an organized belief (whether you like it or not), are yourself participating in the obeyance of an organized system. You are not new.

Tangerine: You don't hesitate to make up stuff, do you? WHen have I called myself an atheist?
For which supernatural deity/deities do atheists perform acts of obeyance or worship?

Perhaps I was responding to something else called a concept? I never hesitate to call out, question what I see as being presented without representation. Atheists have to believe in a supernatural deity/deities to 'thee/thou dost protest too much'; as in there is a bow/nod to SOMETHING that offends them enough to protest to. God existing/a predetermined hatred for? How does one object to something you do not acknowledge existing in the first place.

Your claim that atheists have to believe in a supernatural deity/deities is rubbish. Religious nuts are what offend atheists.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Kusinjo
a reply to: Tangerine

Uh..atheism isn't a religion and you don't know that I'm an atheist. Atheism is the position that there is no god/are no gods. Period. Religion, by contrast, is the performance of ritual on behalf of or in obeyance to a supernatural deity or deities. Belief, alone, is not a religion.
A fundamentalist (I assume you're referring to a Christian fundamentalist) is one who takes the Bible to be the literal word of God.

Those that seek to partake in a 'dogmatic' philosophy/theology are 'opting into' a belief system; meaning they are accepting the tenants/rules (not brainwashed). You call yourself an atheist identifying yourself; so you are also opting into an organized belief (whether you like it or not), are yourself participating in the obeyance of an organized system. You are not new.

You don't hesitate to make up stuff, do you? WHen have I called myself an atheist?

For which supernatural deity/deities do atheists perform acts of obeyance or worship?

It usually does deal with deities, but a "religion" doesn't necessarily HAVE to:

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people may derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle.

If you have a belief structure that forms your view of the purpose of life, or the beginning of the universe, that too is considered a religion. You don't need a church or a holy book and a priest to be considered a religion, Wiccan would be a prime example.

Religion ~ Wiki

I didn't say a church or holy book or priest is required. That which is required is the performance of ritual on behalf of or in obeyance to a supernatural deity or deities to qualify as a religion. You must not know much about Wicca or you would know that there are Wiccan churches (albeit not many), there are books Wiccan's use (albeit no holy canon) and there certainly are clergy.

It's absurd to claim that physics, for example, is a religion.

originally posted by: Kusinjo
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Semantics. Vegans will say don't eat meat, only eat plants. But aren't plants considered the meat of the earth. I have heard peaches and oranges to be described as flesh. Either way, it was a good question, but I get the notion it was asked in a way that tries to discredit what I perceive to be the Holy Word of God. If others don't believe, that is fine by me. There are real reasons people choose not to believe and then there are the arguments they give. Really most of those arguments are quite weak. The arguments I tend to stay away from are the ones who straight up say "I know what it says and I don't like it. I don't buy it." To those people I say "Peace be with you!"

Sure, vegans eat (whether they realize it or not) murdered plant forms *hey wait a minute I was not done GROWING*. Semantics; got to love the trickiness of implied. Peaches are fleshy. There is no way to discredit God, unless you have an awareness of it; right? It is always a good thing to oblige/bow to those struggling with the path of enlightenment.

originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing

Tangerine: Uh..atheism isn't a religion and you don't know that I'm an atheist. Atheism is the position that there is no god/are no gods. Period. Religion, by contrast, is the performance of ritual on behalf of or in obeyance to a supernatural deity or deities. Belief, alone, is not a religion. A fundamentalist (I assume you're referring to a Christian fundamentalist) is one who takes the Bible to be the literal word of God.

VHB:Those that seek to partake in a 'dogmatic' philosophy/theology are 'opting into' a belief system; meaning they are accepting the tenants/rules (not brainwashed). You call yourself an atheist identifying yourself; so you are also opting into an organized belief (whether you like it or not), are yourself participating in the obeyance of an organized system. You are not new.

Tangerine: You don't hesitate to make up stuff, do you? WHen have I called myself an atheist?
For which supernatural deity/deities do atheists perform acts of obeyance or worship?

Veteranhumanbeing: Perhaps I was responding to something else called a concept? I never hesitate to call out, question what I see as being presented without representation. Atheists have to believe in a supernatural deity/deities to 'thee/thou dost protest too much'; as in there is a bow/nod to SOMETHING that offends them enough to protest to. God existing/a predetermined hatred for? How does one object to something you do not acknowledge existing in the first place.

Tangerine: Your claim that atheists have to believe in a supernatural deity/deities is rubbish. Religious nuts are what offend atheists.

So; what is the atheists BEEF. If they have no basis for argument why are they wasting their own time which would be better spent in seeking personal 'enlightenment' (forgetting all other organized religious dogmas). Rubbish? what say you as not the same as a nut un-hulled. How can one offend an atheist: by telling it you have to have an initial premise for the belief to hold. You cannot disavow A NOTHING (does not exist) and at the same time identify that nothing as GOD; discrediting it in the same breath/moment. THIS IS PURE MADDNESS.

originally posted by: Kusinjo
It is not an error. It is a difference of categorization procedures. People who dispute the Bible have imposed upon the ancient text a modern system of categorization and then said that the Bible is wrong. This is a big error in thinking.

I'll make it simple for everyone.

The bible is not entirely true because many teachings in it consistently fails to produce claimed results.

There are many Christians who claim to believe in Jesus but hates and contradicts his teachings in their ways because they follow contradictory teachings also found in the bible.

The bible exposes the character of "Jesus" if that is his or her real name and then subtly and craftily undermines and contradicts all his or her teachings.

The main reason why many Christians (as I used to be) are afraid to look in such perspective is the unfounded fear of losing their mansion in heaven and the likelihood of being tortured without end and without dying in hell.

It also portrays freethinkers like us as antichrists but ironically, Jesus contradicted much of the notion of religion. Jesus is really the 1st "antichrist" to their fake christ anyways.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing

So; what is the atheists BEEF. If they have no basis for argument why are they wasting their own time which would be better spent in seeking personal 'enlightenment' (forgetting all other organized religious dogmas). Rubbish? what say you as not the same as a nut un-hulled. How can one offend an atheist: by telling it you have to have an initial premise for the belief to hold. You cannot disavow A NOTHING (does not exist) and at the same time identify that nothing as GOD; discrediting it in the same breath/moment. THIS IS PURE MADDNESS.
-------------
Ask an atheist.

a reply to: Tangerine

It's absurd to claim that physics, for example, is a religion.

Of course, because Physics isn't a belief that forms one's views of the purpose of life. Nor does it attempt to explain the meaning of life.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Not according to Physics. Physicists know the universe had a beginning because if it were infinitely old it would already be at heat death.

No. Some physicists postulate the beginning of the universe, for example, as having begun with the Big Bang, but they don't "know". They postulate heat death or a big freeze as the universe expands infinitely, they don't know anything.

Some postulate that the universe expands and contracts eternally, while others postulate that the universe is finite and is itself in a shape that supports it eternal movement.



Even other physicist insist that the universe IS NOT expanding, but is "growing".

I stand by my statement. It's just as easy to believe that the universe is eternal, as it is believe in a god that is.

a reply to: windword

No. Some physicists postulate the beginning of the universe, for example, as having begun with the Big Bang, but they don't "know".

Of course they don't "know", nobody was around to verify the beginning of the universe. But you are incorrect, one of the greatest discoveries of science in the 20th century was that the universe is indeed finite.

I stand by my statement. It's just as easy to believe that the universe is eternal

Sure, I suppose if one lived and died before the 20th century.