What do you believe?

[cybercoma]

But Jesus is God and God wrote the Old Testament...I mean, unless you reject over half of the Bible entirely.

so god wrote the old testament, did he? are you sure about that? because i'm pretty sure people wrote it. and no, jesus is not god. he is (supposedly) a part of the holy trinity... they are three seperate things- father, son, and holy spirit. by the way, jesus was no more the son of god than i am, or anyone else for that matter. he was a great man and a great teacher, but no more than a man.

No crap. I was pointing out what all Christians believe and that is that the Holy Trinity is three of the same. Most Christians, at least the educated ones, also believe God commanded those who wrote the Bible to do so. The scriptures and gospels are the unquestionable word of God Himself, that is unless betsy picks and chooses which beliefs she wants to believe in and which ones she doesn't.

All I was doing is illustrating that the word of God is oppressive towards women and unfairly righteous towards men. Look at Lot, whom God saved, and how he had his virgin daughters passed around Sodom and Gemorrah the night before God slaughtered the village. After they escaped, he impregnated those girls.

This is the word of the Lord, who took the form of Jesus Christ, according to Christian religions.

Regardless of the specific theological details -- please correct me if I'm wrong though -- the Bible is violent and oppressive. According to those who believe in a God, this book is the word of God, written by man. What I was showing is that moral values change, in spite of what the Bible tells us. We don't need God or the Bible or the Qu'ran or the Tanach to teach us morality. The moral values of people have changed significantly in the last 100 years, meanwhile, religion has not.

Racism, sexism and hatred towards Jews was running rampant less than 100 years ago, things we would find morall reprehensible today. It's not because of religion that our moral standards have matured, it is in spite of religion.

[cybercoma]

Less than 100 years ago, God-fearing Christian men believed their wives were their property. They even used the Bible to justify this.

Thank goodness something other than the Bible determines morals; it would seem morals change in spite of religion, not because of it.

i think it's religion that taught these morals. it was the church, afterall, that decided 'witches' should be burned at the stake and tossed off cliffs. these things aren't endorsed in the bible, old testament or new. don't be confused when you read about bad things happening therein.... they are lessons to teach us consequence. an eye for an eye doesn't mean you should take the eye, it means you should take no more than an eye for an eye.

Nowhere does it define that, you're interpreting again. In fact, as Slavik pointed out, the story of Achan shows God is indiscriminate in his wrath. He's willing to wipe out thousands of innocent people for the actions of one man. More disgusting yet, he's willing to have women and children stoned to death because of the actions of one man.

The Bible sets out no such limitations or suggestion that the stories are only meant as guidelines. That is just he continued decision of the churches to alter the word of the book to suit their needs.

[betsy]

i think it's religion that taught these morals. it was the church, afterall, that decided 'witches' should be burned at the stake and tossed off cliffs. these things aren't endorsed in the bible, old testament or new. don't be confused when you read about bad things happening therein.... they are lessons to teach us consequence. an eye for an eye doesn't mean you should take the eye, it means you should take no more than an eye for an eye.

you're interpreting again.

And so are you.

[cybercoma]

Maybe God should clarify then...

*waits for an answer*

[DarkAngel_]

We need to take care of each other on this rock floating in space because all we have is each other.

We need to take care of one another and wasting our time here appealing to a ghost and murdering in his name is not helping.

i agree, and would argue that infact, religion is a seperator of groups, and cause of much anger between one another.

but screaming at screamers just makes allot of sound...

[DarkAngel_]

Believing in biology or any science is not the same as discussing philosophical concepts. No scientist will disagree with that.

i do not agree... science is bound by phlosiphy, if not then millions of people would be ginny pigs, all in the name of science.

i am a scientest and philosipher, both are a reality i can delve into, science allows me to know of things that no faith has tought me, but i have been ignorant, so i am reading the bible.

morals also come from the mind, is that what you meant? as in god may have tought us how to find things in our head?

well, beside the definition of god, in effect to its contriversy: "not yet known"

is wrighten, can we at least agree on that?

believing that you do not know, is how you find how you might know.

[DarkAngel_]

as well, lets look at what we do know!

i hate useless speculation, look up stuff, inform us.

theirs allot we can learn from eachother...

agreed?

[doom_sayer]

believing that you do not know, is how you find how you might know.

you got it! i'm already beginning to love this forum. too bad i gotta work in the field today.... in the meantime, for those of you who think the thing to do is have someone else tell you the meaning of the teachings of the bible, ie. a PRIEST... go piick up a copy of tao te ching . the lessons are the same, yet a little easier to make sense of. with time, anyway. it's at least as old as the biblical scriptures, and comes from a culture that's much older than our own. all gods die to give way to new ones.... they DON'T exist!

[Slavik44]

Certainly, but not a single person on this thread has been willing to present one bit of tangible evidence. So what do you want me to consider? Lets lower the standards, just bullet down evidence that indicates there is infact a God.

Why is it that you seem so desperate to find proof and evidence? Even to the point of "lowering the standards?"

I understand your science cannot offer you any tangible evidence that there is no God.....so you desperately want me to provide the answer instead. Anything that could pass for a proof.

As I've said, this is all about faith. No requirements of evidence needed.

I am confident in my belief....even without any proof. I just know.

I cannot validate your belief for you. You'll just have to rely on your science and keep hoping that eventually, they'll stumble upon proof that God does not exist....a validation, some sort of reassurance...which obviously, you so desperately need.

You also can't properly answer my questions either. This may suprise you, but we are on a public forum, in this case in a section of the forum for moral and religious issues. Seeing as how you are entirely un-able to answer my questions, it is clearly not neccessary for you to respond to my posts...particularly if you do not have an answer. You talka bout how Research and an open mind ar vital, but when asked to present research in the form of evidence you provide nothing but sneering remarks. Which kind of undercuts your claim to research.

The point?

Well your refusal to anylize or present evidence, would indicate then that your belief is then void of evidence, which I guess you have addmitted to above. Fine, allright. So where does that leave us? To believe everything and anything that is claimed because evidence is not neccessary. But i would be willing to bet that you don't believe in Oden? Zeus? Thor? Fair enough? In that case if evidence is not what differentiates your belief from other beliefs, would it be fair to say that it is based on desire? You desire to believe in the Bible and The Christian God, therefore you do?

As far as my belief I don't need any validation, I entered a disscussion, I have noticted some people make claims, I turn around and make a counter claim, people tend to disagree with that counter claim, and ultimately end up repeating to me what my counter claim was.

My first post here I said, that Faith was the acceptence of something with out proof. Looking at your above reply you seem to agree with me. The only point of disagreement is that I refuse to accept with out proof and you are willing to accept despite no proof.

[betsy]

My first post here I said, that Faith was the acceptence of something with out proof. Looking at your above reply you seem to agree with me. The only point of disagreement is that I refuse to accept with out proof and you are willing to accept despite no proof.

If you were reading the previous exchanges, you would've found that there is nothing to argue between us. After all, we agree on the focal point of what I was reiterating all along: Faith does not require any proof for those who believe. I am a believer. And I believe that God exists. That is my faith. And I don't need any proof.

Yours is that, there is no God. That is your belief. You have placed your faith in science....that cannot prove there is no God.

As the link I've given you stated (taken from a website that seem to promote your kind of belief)...that website explained that it is not science's job to prove the existence of God.

Since the science you rely on cannot give you any proof of the non-existence of God....you've placed it upon me to prove that God exists. You challenge that if I cannot offer any proof that He exist, therefore He does not exist. But it is not me who needs....or crave....for any proof. It is you.

So this opens to an observation...and I would say, a valid point in this discussion.

You desperately want to have proof that God does not exist....so you can be re-assured in your belief that He does not exist. You project a desperate need to prove that my belief is wrong....so you can be reassured that your belief is right.

You want to validate your belief.

Why do you need validation, if you are secured in that knowledge?

If there is no doubt in any of your minds, then your faith in your belief that there is no God should be just as firm as my belief that there is a God. You should be just as content like me to leave it at that: we have our own faith....whatever kind of belief it may be. And it does not need or require any proof.

You can all give your various analysis, interpretations, conjectures, statements, claims, criticisms of my faith, theories.....you're free to do so. And I can do the same.

But we still have not proven the existence or non-existence of God!

However, I have no need of any reassurance(s) from science or anyone.

[Slavik44]

If you were reading the previous exchanges, you would've found that there is nothing to argue between us. After all, we agree on the focal point of what I was reiterating all along: Faith does not require any proof for those who believe. I am a believer. And I believe that God exists. That is my faith. And I don't need any proof.

Fair enough

Yours is that, there is no God. That is your belief. You have placed your faith in science....that cannot prove there is no God.

As the link I've given you stated (taken from a website that seem to promote your kind of belief)...that website explained that it is not science's job to prove the existence of God.

Since the science you rely on cannot give you any proof of the non-existence of God....you've placed it upon me to prove that God exists. You challenge that if I cannot offer any proof that He exist, therefore He does not exist. But it is not me who needs....or crave....for any proof. It is you.

So this opens to an observation...and I would say, a valid point in this discussion.

You desperately want to have proof that God does not exist....so you can be re-assured in your belief that He does not exist. You project a desperate need to prove that my belief is wrong....so you can be reassured that your belief is right.

You want to validate your belief.

Why do you need validation, if you are secured in that knowledge?

If there is no doubt in any of your minds, then your faith in your belief that there is no God should be just as firm as my belief that there is a God. You should be just as content like me to leave it at that: we have our own faith....whatever kind of belief it may be. And it does not need or require any proof.

You can all give your various analysis, interpretations, conjectures, statements, claims, criticisms of my faith, theories.....you're free to do so. And I can do the same.

But we still have not proven the existence or non-existence of God!

However, I have no need of any reassurance(s) from science or anyone.

Uhmm....well I think the short and easy answer is for me to say that you have slightly mischarachterized my position. I list myself as an Agnostic-athiest for a reason. It is not that I believe 100% that there is no God. Just that as long as there is no evidence of God I see no need to acknowledge his existance. It might seem a subtle difference but there is a difference nonetheless. Just like there is a difference with a car being in park instead of being in reverse.

[betsy]

Uhmm....well I think the short and easy answer is for me to say that you have slightly mischarachterized my position. I list myself as an Agnostic-athiest for a reason. It is not that I believe 100% that there is no God. Just that as long as there is no evidence of God I see no need to acknowledge his existance. It might seem a subtle difference but there is a difference nonetheless. Just like there is a difference with a car being in park instead of being in reverse.

Aha!

The dilemma of the Agnostic-atheist.

You're not sure whether God exists, but you deny a belief in God.

I'd be a little nervous myself.

[cybercoma]

Aha!

The dilemma of the Agnostic-atheist.

You're not sure whether God exists, but you deny a belief in God.

I'd be a little nervous myself.

You have no reason to believe in his existence, just as Slavik has no reason to believe in his non-existence. This doesn't mean that the answer is somewhere directly in the midde. Your insistance God exists is far more unreasonable than the science that directly contradicts the Bible and the fact that your certainty in Christianity contradicts Muslims certainty in their religion and Hindus certainty in their religion. You don't believe in the Gods of Olympus, or any of the Gods of any other religion, atheists simply take that one God further.

That doesn't mean that there may not be evidence to the contrary in the future, and to suggest that it's somehow admirable that someone have unwavering faith and belief in something is patently absurd. There is a possibility that a God could exist, but that doesn't necessarily mean its your God, or even one God. There is no reasonable evidence to suggest that your God or any God is true. So, although there is no definite answer on whether a God exists or not, the evidence certainly doesn't point to somewhere in the middle as being the correct answer.

[cybercoma]

I don't even know why this thread continues. You believe because you WANT to believe. You've said that and we've all accepted that. I guess the only thing that is left to illustrate is that your belief in your God is as ridiculous as someone believing in Poseidon or Zeus. Those who believed in those Gods were as certain about them as you are about your God and chances are (although not 100% certain, more like 99%) history will show your beliefs are just as absurd.

It's just unfortunate that the respect you demand for your unreasonable beliefs, that you refuse to support with logic or evidence, is just the thing that fanaticism needs to flourish.

[Slavik44]

Uhmm....well I think the short and easy answer is for me to say that you have slightly mischarachterized my position. I list myself as an Agnostic-athiest for a reason. It is not that I believe 100% that there is no God. Just that as long as there is no evidence of God I see no need to acknowledge his existance. It might seem a subtle difference but there is a difference nonetheless. Just like there is a difference with a car being in park instead of being in reverse.

Aha!

The dilemma of the Agnostic-atheist.

You're not sure whether God exists, but you deny a belief in God.

I'd be a little nervous myself.

Listen if you want to debate me that is more then fine but I will not stand for this constant E-bitch slapping...it is immature and getting old fast, ultimately it leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth. It is not funny it is just rude and not at all prudent to the devlopment of an intelligent discussion on this thread. I have been like your god jesus and turned the other cheek for you and let you slap that one as well, now I am leaving this thread.

[betsy]

Listen if you want to debate me that is more then fine but I will not stand for this constant E-bitch slapping...it is immature and getting old fast, ultimately it leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth. It is not funny it is just rude and not at all prudent to the devlopment of an intelligent discussion on this thread. I have been like your god jesus and turned the other cheek for you and let you slap that one as well, now I am leaving this thread.

I guess you took it the wrong way. I was just making light of this "debate". It's just that to me an Agnostic-Atheist is as oxymoronic as police intelligence or liberal thinkers or healthy lepers. I guess at times my sense of humor really gets out of control!

Anyway this thread has long past being rational or intelligent.... It became more like a comedy central on boring days for me. Guess I was the only one having fun.

Bye everyone.

[doom_sayer]

Yours is that, there is no God. That is your belief. You have placed your faith in science....

If there is no doubt in any of your minds, then your faith in your belief that there is no God should be just as firm as my belief that there is a God. You should be just as content like me to leave it at that: we have our own faith....whatever kind of belief it may be. And it does not need or require any proof.

You can all give your various analysis, interpretations, conjectures, statements, claims, criticisms of my faith, theories.....you're free to do so. And I can do the same.

But we still have not proven the existence or non-existence of God!

However, I have no need of any reassurance(s) from science or anyone.

i can only speak for myself, but i hardly think accepting science's answers can be considered faith. you said yourself that faith needs no proof, where science is all about proof. it is far from perfect because it is so young, but it still depends facts.

my only criticism of faith is that it is extremely dangerous. i for one, will not believe something because someone tells me to. i need to investigate for myself. we must question everything put to us. if religions were so righteous, they wouldn't fear scrutiny as they do. religion is not the same as faith. and if so many believers were so certain, why is it that they all still fear death? i'm sorry, but anyone (intelligent) who believes what they were taught by religious leaders are simply not going to find the truth of (because it's the only religious litterature i've read) the bible. EVERY take on it is nothing more than interpretation. so, who's interpretation should you accept? your own, or the one given you by people who take your money? religion is a scam.

[doom_sayer]

damn... i was rather enjoying this thread. oh well.

[betsy]

i can only speak for myself, but i hardly think accepting science's answers can be considered faith. you said yourself that faith needs no proof, where science is all about proof. it is far from perfect because it is so young, but it still depends facts.

my only criticism of faith is that it is extremely dangerous. i for one, will not believe something because someone tells me to. i need to investigate for myself. we must question everything put to us. if religions were so righteous, they wouldn't fear scrutiny as they do. religion is not the same as faith. and if so many believers were so certain, why is it that they all still fear death? i'm sorry, but anyone (intelligent) who believes what they were taught by religious leaders are simply not going to find the truth of (because it's the only religious litterature i've read) the bible. EVERY take on it is nothing more than interpretation. so, who's interpretation should you accept? your own, or the one given you by people who take your money? religion is a scam.

Oh darn Doom, you came in this thread a little bit too late it seems. We're just actually churning and spinning and recycling what we've already covered earlier on.

Anyway, yes science is all about proof. But the point is some do believe in science and/or theories by other published geniuses. Read all the way back and you'll find that this premise had been touched.

And yes, faith, can be extremely dangerous. However, it need not be confined to religion alone. This premise too was touched in earlier posts.

Btw, I was enjoying it too!

Hasta la vista...

[DarkAngel_]

ok, people, lets look at the bible and act like we agree with one another, if a book don't speak to your pride, then often its speaks against it! well thats my problem, i'm angry at the bible, why? i have no clue, maybe the tought of whats happening to millions of kids all over the world, is breaking my motivation.

any suggestions on how to get through reading it ok?

as well, look up "thus spoke zarathustra" the R.J.Hollingdale translation, it's the most poetic, and the words mesh more understandably, i love this book, if not i think you can look up the thomas commons translation for free, but its not as good, it's to insult-sounding, not as poetic.