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

a reply to: Kusinjo

I was not alive back then, friend!

But by your own admission you hold the KJV as sacrosanct and allow an earthly King power over you. Why is it so hard to answer a simple question?

a reply to: Kusinjo

The Big Bang is a theory. There are also other theories of what happened before the Big Bang, such as the theory of "Expansion and Contraction".

Nobody knows how the universe came to be. 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.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
So tired of this.
Was Rene Descartes a scientist? Yes was a mathematician and philosopher

"Most famously, this is known as cogito ergo sum (English: "I think, therefore I am"). Therefore, Descartes concluded, if he doubted, then something or someone must be doing the doubting, therefore the very fact that he doubted proved his existence."

So one of the founders of the scientific method actually used circular reasoning; much like Christians who use only the Bible for Epistemology

Why the silence?

Rene Descartes wasn't claiming to have knowledge passed on to him by a god which contained the truth of all existence when he had his philosophical breakthrough. So if his reasoning was circular is really doesn't make any difference and it certainty has no bearing on the veracity of the scientific method....

Superstitions and the cults based on them however do make such claims, and so the fact that their sources are quite often as circular as you're ever going to find in any universe explaining philosophy, speaks volumes on their own veracity or lack thereof...

Most of what passes for "religion" is little more than man made traditions. You can't go blaming god for all the stupid things people do anymore than you can blame a parent for every stupid thing their kids do.

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?"

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?"

It all depends on the translation you use. Instead of "Bird" some translations us e the expression " creatures of the air", thus negating any supposed contradiction. www.biblegateway.com...

or "Winged creatures" www.biblegateway.com...

or "flying creatures" NWT

originally posted by: Kusinjo
a reply to: Tangerine

Why do you resort to name calling, Tang?! I haven't called you any names. I don't thump bibles. I don't know if I should be insulted by that. I don't know why you are trying to insult me, anyhow. I thought people were meant to come here and speak their mind about their views and beliefs. (1 sec checking something) Yes, ok. This is a religion thread. Oh and what threat? I never threatened you. I have never threatened anyway. I offered you a challenge to test the testable. I don't see how that is construed as being a threat.

Okay so you have heard the proof before, why do you still ask for it than? And why are you not refuting or debunking it.

Although, Jesus existence cannot be proven via scientific means. Here is a list of quotes to give you a consensus (scientific term, look it up) of what scholars (that is folks who have done their homework) have to say about it. And I'm starting to get bored with doing your research. I hope you are not writing a paper or something about how to get people to look stuff up for you. Because you haven't given me anything in the affirmative or negative that says this is worth my while. I guess I will have to consider it one of my good deeds for the day.


Bultmann (1958): “Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community.”

Bornkamm (I960): “To doubt the historical existence of Jesus at all . . . was reserved for an unrestrained, tendentious criticism of modern times into which it is not worth while to enter here.”

Marxsen (1970): “I am of the opinion (and it is an opinion shared by every serious historian) that the theory [‘that Jesus never lived, that he was a purely mythical figure’] is historically untenable.”

Grant (1977): “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.’ In recent years ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus’—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”

M. Martin (1991): “Well’s thesis [that Jesus never existed] is controversial and not widely accepted.”

Van Voorst (2000): “Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their [i.e., Jesus mythers] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.”

Burridge and Could (2004): “There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.”

Allison (“Explaining,” 2005): “No responsible scholar can find any truth in it.”

Maier (2005): “the total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus’ existence.”

R. J. Miller in Scott, ed. (Finding, 2008): “We can be certain that Jesus really existed (despite a few hyper-historical skeptics who refuse to be convinced).”

Vermes (2008): “Let me state plainly that I accept that Jesus was a real historical person. In my opinion, the difficulties arising from the denial of his existence, still vociferously maintained in small circles of rationalist ‘dogmatists,’ far exceed those deriving from its acceptance.”

C. A. Evans in Evans and Wright (2009): “No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria.”

Please Tangerine. I would like more of an engagement from you than just insults and questions. I am starting to think that maybe you are just a mean person who likes to screw with people for your own enjoyment. If that is true, than bon apetite. My friend.

I seem to recall you stating that the penalty for not believing is eternal damnation or words to that effect. That's a threat.

No, I have not heard any "proof" before from Christians. I have heard plenty of beliefs and pseudo-science.

None of your quotes cited an iota of contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus actually lived. They're simply claims of belief. Please turn your attention to citing contemporaneous documentation. I look forward to seeing it so I can alert world media and historians.

Perhaps you're not aware of what is meant by contemporaneous documentation. It means documentation produced while the person in question (ie. Jesus ) was allegedly living. An example would be something written by someone who lived at the time Jesus allegedly lived stating that the person witnessed Jesus living (ie. "I saw Jesus at the well today. He's got some new sandals.").

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Tangerine

Science is eager to examine any testable evidence you might produce

Hey scientist. Have Psychiatrists found the chemical imbalance that leads to mental illness yet? Is psychiatry a science or philosophy of the mind?

It doesnt stop them or the state from interfering with peoples free will or delusions does it? Science at its FINEST

You've gone aground in your desperation to detour around testable evidence.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Tangerine

Gnostics were the only ones who had actually read the book. The rest pretended they'd read it and didn't see the whopping contradictions.

What book..there was no formalized canon of scripture until into the 13th century AD. Gnostics didnt need books per se for gnosis

It was a freaking joke. I thought you'd appreciate it. By the way, I'm in more agreement with you than not.

originally posted by: Sparky63
Most of what passes for "religion" is little more than man made traditions. You can't go blaming god for all the stupid things people do anymore than you can blame a parent for every stupid thing their kids do.

Parents exist.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Simple, you are trying to trick me into saying something that contradicts my belief. I will answer and let you have your fun, after all, it is why we are here.

I believe that God has inspired his faithful to write his words down. I also believe that the translations are inspired as well. I don't give spiritual power to any man over me. I give glory to God who has power over all men. I believe in the KJV of the Holy Bible because I agree with what Christ says in it. Not because it may or may not have filtered down from the ages, written and re-written however many times. I believe that the words I read and interpret the way my mind sees fit are true and I trust them. So whatever research you have to prove that I shouldn't be reading those words are not going to change they way I feel about the words I have read. Just like I don't really have any expectations that the words I say to you will have any effect. I hope I have answered you satisfactory.

a reply to: Tangerine

reread. I never said that. You will die, do you disagree? I will die, do you disagree? I am testing a hypothesis, I believe in Christ and I am predicting that I will have everlasting life. You are free to do your experiment if you want. I would choose the experiment you choose but I don't really want to observe the predicted outcome lol. That is not a threat.

Well. I will concede to you Tangerine. You win, revel in it. I hope it makes you feel good. How many Christians attempts at getting you to see the light have you refused? Us Christians wanting you to accept the free gift of everlasting life, how dare we impose our love on you. EVIL. Maybe someday when you realize that you do not have to be controlled by some pope or that you don't actually have to give 20% of your paycheck to child molesters. When you realize that Christ wants a personal relationship with you and not a conditional one like a lot of corrupt religious leaders would have you think. Maybe then you will come around. Or not.

originally posted by: Kusinjo
a reply to: Tangerine

reread. I never said that. You will die, do you disagree? I will die, do you disagree? I am testing a hypothesis, I believe in Christ and I am predicting that I will have everlasting life. You are free to do your experiment if you want. I would choose the experiment you choose but I don't really want to observe the predicted outcome lol. That is not a threat.

Well. I will concede to you Tangerine. You win, revel in it. I hope it makes you feel good. How many Christians attempts at getting you to see the light have you refused? Us Christians wanting you to accept the free gift of everlasting life, how dare we impose our love on you. EVIL. Maybe someday when you realize that you do not have to be controlled by some pope or that you don't actually have to give 20% of your paycheck to child molesters. When you realize that Christ wants a personal relationship with you and not a conditional one like a lot of corrupt religious leaders would have you think. Maybe then you will come around. Or not.

Here comes the anti-Catholic rant. How predictable. You must be following the fundamentalist manual step-by-step. I can tell you're new at this.

See what light? What everlasting life? What Christ (by which you mean Jesus not the other annointed ones, I'm sure) ? You have zero testable evidence for your claims of fact.

a reply to: Tangerine

I am not anti Catholic. I am anti-establishment. Most of my family are Catholic and when I visit them, there are times I will go and sit in their church with them. My grandparents pastor has been at their church for over 50 years and baptized both my brother and I. I have great respect for people of all religions. Including yours! See that's where we differ, my friend. From what I can tell, you only respect people who believe in your atheist religion. I believe people can read the Bible and understand it for themselves. And those that can't understand what they read need only to believe that Christ loves them and as long as they believe, he will guide their heart. I know that's too much feel good for you. But it will be okay. Do you even know what a fundamentalist is?

originally posted by: Kusinjo
a reply to: Tangerine

I am not anti Catholic. I am anti-establishment. Most of my family are Catholic and when I visit them, there are times I will go and sit in their church with them. My grandparents pastor has been at their church for over 50 years and baptized both my brother and I. I have great respect for people of all religions. Including yours! See that's where we differ, my friend. From what I can tell, you only respect people who believe in your atheist religion. I believe people can read the Bible and understand it for themselves. And those that can't understand what they read need only to believe that Christ loves them and as long as they believe, he will guide their heart. I know that's too much feel good for you. But it will be okay. Do you even know what a fundamentalist is?

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.

originally posted by: Kusinjo
I believe people can read the Bible and understand it for themselves. And those that can't understand what they read...

This is assuming that one will be reading the bible without any preconceived biases.

And one will discover that the bible is overflowing with contradictions. Many Christians claim it is a manual for living well in this world. Ironically, Luke 6:20-26, contradicts that notion (HA HA!!). You have a good life in this world and you forfeit salvation that's one way the bible says it.... Of course, you'll conveniently find other verses which contradict it.

It is a carelessly, recklessly put manual which directly resulted to many divisions within Christianity alone. "FORTUNATELY" this is Jesus Christ's goal in the first place is to divide us from one another and Christianity did it perfectly!

There are two Christs, one is evil, one is good. Most who claim to be Christians are serving the former.

It took me 20 years to be set free from this Abrahamic big d--k mind programming. Nowadays, I barely get sick, now beat that you laying of hands Christians!

a reply to: Sparky63

Thanks for the reply.

One further question. And I am sort of nitpicking here, but thats what you got to do. Coulden't god make sure that everything becomes written correctly? (Rhetorical question) Becouse it deals with such a huge matter one would think that God would feel a moral obligations to do so?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

So one of the founders of the scientific method actually used circular reasoning; much like Christians who use only the Bible for Epistemology

I have to object here. Logically speaking, how is that "circular reasoning"?

The Bible isn't a 'single source'. It's 66 different sources from 40 different men, most of whom never met the other sources.

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.

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.

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

From the Big Bang through the present day, matter and dark matter in the Universe are thought to have been concentrated in stars, galaxies, and galaxy clusters, and are presumed to continue to be so well into the future. Therefore, the Universe is not in thermodynamic equilibrium and objects can do physical work. The decay time for a supermassive black hole of roughly 1 galaxy-mass (10^11 solar masses) due to Hawking radiation is on the order of 10^100 years, so entropy can be produced until at least that time. After that time, the Universe enters the so-called dark era, and is expected to consist chiefly of a dilute gas of photons and leptons. With only very diffuse matter remaining, activity in the Universe will have tailed off dramatically, with extremely low energy levels and extremely long time scales. Speculatively, it is possible that the Universe may enter a second inflationary epoch, or, assuming that the current vacuum state is a false vacuum, the vacuum may decay into a lower-energy state. It is also possible that entropy production will cease and the Universe will achieve heat death. Possibly another universe could be created by random quantum fluctuations or quantum tunneling in roughly 10^X10^56 years. Over an infinite time there would be a spontaneous entropy decrease by Poincaré recurrence theorem, thermal fluctuations and Fluctuation theorem.

Heat Death ~ Wiki