Christianity: A Few Points and Questions

Why do people say things like " if you do ......... or read........ you might burn in hell?

What a crock of sh!t... Theres nothing you can do or read that will land you in Hell...

Its as simple as that. Hell is nothing but a means of control....scare tactics to make you believe whatever they want you to believe.

If you are nieve enough to believe such garbage... Well.... Good luck to you in this life, theres litterally tons of people that are waiting to take advantage of your mind set.

Originally posted by JesuitIscariot
But you believe the bible to be factual history, which negates any opinions you have.

How do you presume to know what I do or do not believe?

Originally posted by JesuitIscariot

They're only looking out for their own self interests, as are the other major powers in Britain, namely Murdoch, who has much sway with your own country (US or NZ, i assume you love both), too.

Wrong again, I despise Murdoch, and if you knew anything at all about me, you'd know how I feel about the USA. A clue is in the fact that every American here believes me to be fervently anti-American. I am not against the American people, just their foreign policy and their cultural hegemony, but still, it comes to despising the USA pretty much. Do not assume you know what I believe!

Originally posted by JesuitIscariotI don't read Harris though. Dawkins, yes, absolutely. Great man.

I had assumed you were an American, and would probably have no clue who Dawkins is. My apologies.

Originally posted by JesuitIscariot

VIVA LA EVOLUTION!

I assume that you've decided I am a creationist. Wrong yet again! I am not a creatiionist, as most Christians, especially Catholics are not creationists.
Your testerical ravings show that you are completely impervious to fact or to reason. Discussion over, as you've been so comprehensively wrong in just one post, that I see there's no point.
V.
Editing to add that I don't really go a bomb on the whole "you're going to Hell" idea. I believe in Christian Universalism...
William Barclay and Universalism

reply to post by Vicky32


You criticize me for assumptions (which i had every reason to assume since you were being apologetic to murder and child rape), and yet you assumed i was American, on what basis? Because you didn't like me? But you're not prejudice against Americans? My homeland is written to the left. I gave NO indication that i was American. You are a possible racist... (being against foreign policy, as i am, does not mean you should assume people are American without thinking, this is the thinking of a closet racist)

Yet i am glad we have found a little common ground and i would like this discussion not to be over, after all, how can you blame me for raving when you clearly (or it at least looked like it) rejected fact of murder, Nazi support and child rape, not to mention all the disgusting things in the bible. How can you expect me not to feel angry?

The only thing I'm interested in knowing now, and i have read your link, but i still need to know so much more about this.

Please explain in full detail your belief in Evolution and God, from the very beginning, if you wouldn't mind, as i cannot see how God (any EARTH God) and the process of evolution can fit when it's not even mentioned in any holy book.

Originally posted by Vicky32

I had assumed you were an American, and would probably have no clue who Dawkins is. My apologies.

Wow, making generalizations about Americans (like any group) can be dangerous. In the end, an American might just put you in your place (through intelligent debate).

Originally posted by JesuitIscariot
and yet you assumed i was American, on what basis? Because you didn't like me? But you're not prejudice against Americans?

The only thing I'm interested in knowing now, and i have read your link, but i still need to know so much more about this.

Please explain in full detail your belief in Evolution and God, from the very beginning, if you wouldn't mind, as i cannot see how God (any EARTH God) and the process of evolution can fit when it's not even mentioned in any holy book.

No, I assumed you were American on the basis of your spelling, and often, people's names and nationalities are not displayed, perhaps because as I have a dial up connection, I have avatars blocked... so I didn't see your nationality!
As for evolution not being mentioned in the Bible, why would you expect it to be? As John Morton (a British geologist living in New Zealand wrote in his book on the subject), the Bible intends to answer the question of origins not withhow but why. The Bible has nothing to say about mitosis and meiosis, the circulation of the blood, conservation or except in a poetic way, astrophysics. People who want to use the Bible as a science or a history textbook are making a very big mistake!
New Zealand is one of the most secular countries in the world. The Education Act mandates that primary and secondary schooling must be "free, secular and compulsory". I was brought up by atheist and agnostic parents. I had heard of evolution long before I learned anything about Christianity, and when I did become a Christian, when I was 19, I had no problem reconciling the two things. (I never heard of Young Earth creationists until I was several decades older still, there weren't any in New Zealand as far as I knew). No one in any church I attended was a Creationist (that I knew of) until the 1990s.
AFAIK creationism was a purely rural American phenomenon.
Stephen Jay Gould put it very well with his statement about NOMA (Non overlapping Magisteria) and Alister McGrath says in the book 'The Dawkins Delusion' that I am currently reading, even better, by supporting POMA (partly-overlapping Magisteria).
I know Dawkins insists that all scientists with any religious affiliation are liars, but he's wrong. As you probably know, there are an irreducible 40% of scientists who believe in God, and another 15% who are agnostic.
I stand by what I have said - that of the world's estimated 2 billion Christians, the vast majority are neither creationists nor anti-science.
Most of my friends are Italians, and of those, 90% are Catholic. They are all both puzzled and amused by the phenomenon of Creationism and by the insistence of fundamentalists, both religious and atheist ones, that Christians must be creationist and that all those who accept evolution must be atheist!


Vicky

Adam and Eve, ahem?

reply to post by Vicky32


I second that. Explain Adam and Eve

I know alot of McGrath and I believe him to be a clear fraud. It's easy to earn cash off of another person's genius when you're already a respected guy within the world of science (christian, or not).

Here is the first part of a good discussion between the two, you can find the rest on youtube, but i don't doubt you've probably seen it already.

Some of the points that have been brought to light are valid. I very much had in mind how I was going to answer your researched questions. Until this tidbit:

"When is humanity going to realize that religion and peace can't go hand in hand?"
"Peace, -Ellis"

Really? You had me until that part. You came here seeking knowledge, but self-defeating questions of passive-aggressive agendas of condemnation reeking of general assumptions is the anti-thesis of peace.

"I only come here seeking peace"- Victory Not Violence (VNV) Nation

Originally posted by JesuitIscariot
reply to post by Vicky32

 

I second that. Explain Adam and Eve

I know alot of McGrath and I believe him to be a clear fraud. It's easy to earn cash off of another person's genius when you're already a respected guy within the world of science (christian, or not).

Here is the first part of a good discussion between the two, you can find the rest on youtube, but i don't doubt you've probably seen it already.

edit on 21-4-2011 by JesuitIscariot because: link didn't work

edit on 21-4-2011 by JesuitIscariot because: (no reason given)

No, I haven't (I can't see videos.) Instead, I read...
McGrath, a fraud? How bizarre. On what basis? He has his own career and always has had, and has no desire to get rich and well-known "off" (sic) Dawkins...
(Aside - "to earn cash off of" is an abomination and a crime against the English language, and a another thing - a lot is two words, although many Americans don't get that..)
What do you want me to explain about Adam and Eve? They're allegorical, easy!
Vicky

Originally posted by JesuitIscariot
reply to post by Vicky32

 

I second that. Explain Adam and Eve

Why? Do you assume that every Christian is a fundamentalist, simply because every atheist seems to be one?

I know alot of McGrath and I believe him to be a clear fraud.

On what basis? How is he a "clear fraud"? Do you believe that for rational reasons, or simply because you don't agree with him?

It is a bit amusing to see the derision applied to scientists who don't "toe the line" of detached atheism by people who claim to be open minded. All the while, we have people like Dawkins who cite abhorrent extremists like Scott Roeder as evidence that "religion is evil," while ignoring the billions who do not act in that manner.

The end result is ridiculous claims like "the path to peace is the elimination of religion," when historical evidence has shown the exact opposite, or that "Christians hate evolution", when the majority belong to faiths that see evolution as a perfectly reasonable means to where we are today.

reply to post by Vicky32


I have no desire to proof read. This is the reason spelling and grammar are not perfect. Just like you have no desire to truly address my question, hence your attack on spelling (AND AMERICANS, AGAIN?!). I do wonder if mispronunciation due to accent would also constitute a crime against the English language, or any language, in your opinion.

It was the rape of the Norman language that spawned much English and French, but who cares?

If you don't know why i believe McGrath to be a fraud then surely you have not read much of Dawkins? You already said "I know Dawkins insists that all scientists with any religious affiliation are liars, but he's wrong."

He is not wrong. As you also said, why would evolution be mentioned in the bible? Assuming you meant because humans hadn't unlocked the wonders of modern science yet, why would you believe anything written in the bible? It was written by savage men who had little, or more truthfully, no understanding of anything we now know.

Prove that Adam and Eve are allegorical. You'd think the bible would make this clear already since scripture written with the influence of a perfect being should be, well... Not so contradictory.

reply to post by adjensen


The bible is supposed to be influenced by the perfect living thing. Why does it not do a good job of explaining that it's followers are allowed to pick and choose what is literal and what is not? Truth is, it doesn't do any job at all regarding this.

These billions who do not act in this manner should purge all bible texts which contain slaughter and death penalty for sinners so NO future followers can massacre people based on their belief. You think Dawkins has only one religious nut to point to? Christopher Hitchens wrote a great book (God Is Not Great) detailing all the evil that religion has done. If i can read the bible and men like McGrath, surely you should be reading critique's on your belief's too, because without them, how is it possible to have opinions based on fact?

The Bible also does the perfect job on it's own to prove that christianity is evil (as do other religions texts and holy books), but we have different moralities.

I would never worship something that created me if i find he also commands slaughter in his name, so you could say it's not even really a question of faith to me, for if God were real i would believe myself to be a better person than he/she and would work to no end to bring the child murderer down.

reply to post by JesuitIscariot


How does any of that sustain your claim that McGrath is "a clear fraud"? That's all I asked you, along with making observations on the fundamentalist nature of few Christians and lots and lots of atheists, as you so adroitly demonstrated, thank you.

reply to post by adjensen


I explained. If you read anti-dawkins you MUST read dawkins himself, and i now know you have not.

A few compared to lots of Atheists? Where is your proof?

Most of the modern era's world leaders have a religion of some kind, and these people are the savages. Even in the poor african countries religion is prominent and plays a huge part in genocide. It isn't only Christians, it is all religion. You could name me any religion and i could name horrors caused by it, and by it i mean people doing it BECAUSE of their faith.

Give me an example of some Atheists who committed evil acts BECAUSE they were Atheists, as billions of religious nuts have throughout human history BECAUSE they were religious nuts.

Originally posted by JesuitIscariot
reply to post by adjensen

 

I explained. If you read anti-dawkins you MUST read dawkins himself, and i now know you have not.

What does that have to do with demonstrating that the person cited is "a clear fraud"? And what do my reading habits have to do with anything? For the record, I have read Dawkins, and I am not impressed. He might be a good biologist, but he's a miserable theologian (or anti-theologian, if you prefer.)

As I said, I find it difficult to respect the arguments of someone who cites extremists as being intrinsically indicative of something in the whole. It would a bit like my citing Christopher Hitchens as proof that all atheists are pompous windbags, simply because he is.

Give me an example of some Atheists who committed evil acts BECAUSE they were Atheists, as billions of religious nuts have throughout human history BECAUSE they were religious nuts.

Hyperbole aside, you are making an invalid argument, because motivation is rarely clear, as is demotivation. (See my earlier post, in this same thread, citing the War Audit and the exposed misconception that you're furthering.) Stalin killed millions, but whether his atheism was a factor is debatable. It may be mere coincidence that the largest genocides of the 20th century were fashioned by atheists like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, or it may be indicative of an underlying premise of the atheist world view.

Put it another, rational, rather than emotional, way. The United States Declaration of Independence includes this very intentional language:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If you take away the unalienable rights, noted by Jefferson as having been endowed by a superior being (who, for Jefferson, was not the God of Christianity, but God nonetheless,) to whom can you make a complaint when said rights are violated? By what authority can you demand that you have a right to live?

Man cannot bestow inalienable rights, it requires an absolute authority to do so, so without God, you have no inalienable right -- not to life, not to liberty, not to anything.

Was that the rationale behind the 20th Century murder of hundreds of millions of people, many of them because they fought with the State, but the majority simply because they were "sub-humanized" and viewed as "being in the way" of a superior society?

Evil stems from human nature, human actions, human values. The fundamentalist atheist will pick and choose pieces of scripture that lay claim to their belief that God is evil, and while this might make them feel more vindicated in their anti-Semitism, because they are clearly better and more refined than those "evil Jews and their evil God", the truth of the matter is that a holistic, not cherry-picked, view of the Bible demonstrates a much different God, and contains the justification for the text that Jefferson included in the Declaration of Independence and which the citizens of the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia and many other places could not look to for hope, because their leaders thought it nonsense.

reply to post by adjensen


Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot did not commit genocide because they were atheists. There is no evidence to even bring these lies to a debate.

Claiming scripture has been cherry picked is a disgusting way to brush off the horrors within them. It is a fact God commands the massacre of children and the death penalty for sinners.

BBC is not reliable in any way. To this day they still hide the fact that Winston Churchill was a racist, genocidal piece of garbage. I can bring many things off the top of my head to show the BBC's bull#.

"Man cannot bestow inalienable rights, it requires an absolute authority to do so, so without God, you have no inalienable right -- not to life, not to liberty, not to anything. "

This is just like the "argument" that morality is nothing without God, which is, honestly, hilarious. You see, you still cannot find a single case of an atheist committing horrible acts BECAUSE they were atheists, where as anyone who knows even the basic of history (I know much more than basic) can see religious people have killed BECAUSE they are religious.

A man demands sinners (homosexuals, adulterers, brats, incest, PERIOD SEX!? WTF!?) be murdered and openly commands the murder of children (I could go on, but like i said in an earlier post, your mind is shut to what your bible contains anyway) and another man says homosexuality is fine, adultery and incest (Only on the basis of pregnancy - Incest) is wrong, but not bad enough to warrant death, brats are just kids, and period sex, who cares?

Which is the better man?

reply to post by JesuitIscariot


I think i see what you're trying to say behind your anger... or frustration whatever you want to call it.

It is a fact God commands the massacre of children and the death penalty for sinners.

this is not true... Just because its written in the bible doesn't mean God commanded it.

God didn't write the book, this is a fact regardless of how you want to try to prove it... inspired doesn't mean God wrote it.

reply to post by Akragon


I don't believe in God. Any reference to it being written by, or inspired by God is due to the what if of a religious debate.

The bible has inspired evil. Still does.

I'm curious. Would you accept the bible being taught in English Literature as fiction? (Not an attack, or asked out of frustration/anger). I'm not entirely sure where you stand regarding the bible. Also, what is your opinion of the holy books of the other abrahamic faiths?

Originally posted by JesuitIscariot
reply to post by Akragon

 

I don't believe in God. Any reference to it being written by, or inspired by God is due to the what if of a religious debate.

The bible has inspired evil. Still does.

I'm curious. Would you accept the bible being taught in English Literature as fiction? (Not an attack, or asked out of frustration/anger). I'm not entirely sure where you stand regarding the bible. Also, what is your opinion of the holy books of the other abrahamic faiths?

You're free to your beliefs and im not trying to change whatever it is you do believe.

If the bible was written as a work of fiction, i would accept it as such. The thing is it doesn't matter if its fiction, there is a message in the words of the book that can lead to true peace on our little planet. Unfortunatly there are very few people that actually see the message even though its right in front of them.

As for where i stand on the bible and other works, i take them as they are... words written in a book. I make no assumptions as to who wrote the words, nor do i care.

Which other books would you be refering to?

Originally posted by JesuitIscariot


If you don't know why i believe McGrath to be a fraud then surely you have not read much of Dawkins? You already said "I know Dawkins insists that all scientists with any religious affiliation are liars, but he's wrong."

/quote]
I have read Dawkins. His scientific works and his unscientific ones, such as God Delusion... I have also (tried to) read Hitchens and Harris, but I simply couldn not stomach the testerical falsehoods...
Vicky