Christians are becoming social pariahs in Britain, claims BBC presenter Jeremy Vine

FYI, I was kicked out of religious class after 2 years because I asked so many questions...and they got tired of having to say "just because" or "god did it" every single time

It's a good example of how a lot of believers can't deal with criticism or objective inquiries. They assume those questions and criticism are attacks. It also makes them question their belief as more and more science is able to "debunk" some stuff...or modern morality does.

Re Gorman91

Quote ["IE, Rapid biological transition from one species to another. Even if you could create a virus to do that, it would take quite a long time. Once again, mankind made something physical, and therefore it must obey the same rules it is made by."]

There's no need to create anything. Many biological lifeforms and species with a very high mutation rate already exist in nature. As I said, pseudo-science is nonsense. Or what ARE you talking about?

Quote: ["Proof for the bible is quite clear. Histories have long talked about Jesus long before he was a popular fellow. Heretic groups started breaking off no more than 30 years after his death. And they went into the mountains of Syria and cut themselves off from the world until the modern day. and when we look at their bible? Same thing."]

The heretics despised paulinism. The Ginza, the Nag Hammadi texts? Both proclaim the pauline fabulations as falsifications.

Quote: [" What this proves is two things. That Jesus was not some fabricated character created after Christianity "evolved" out of other religions."]

It proves absolutely nothing.

Quote: ["You just say something and act like the fact it came from your mouth means it's true, without need for anything else but the fact that you said it. There is no way to debate that way."]

This is not something coming from my mouth 'making it true'. I'm relying on the welltested methodology of science, which has nothing to do with your claims of rhetoric adaption of pseudo-facts, so they fit your answer.

Quote: ["Considering all those acts came AFTER Civilization began to collapse, it is not religion's fault. It is the fact that when civilization collapses, people become barbaric, irregardless to what religion or culture is there. Even so, once more I must ask you to support your claims. If it's in the bible, and you can show that God did that, then do it."]

What acts? And what has the rest of this paragraph to do with anything here. Concerning the bible you're using it circle-argumentatory, proving the bible with the bible. From a logical point pure nonsense

Quote: ["Yes. It is faith. And again, I'm more than happy to talk on how you can prove it wrong."]

I'm not very interested in proving your faith wrong. I'm interested in proving it as outside rational, logic, scientific thinking.

Quote: ["The fact is this. You ARE going to force your beliefs in some way shape and form via the education system. In fact, it's sole purpose is to do that. And in a modern world, a class room should have varying people with varying beliefs all debating and discussion."]

If you want to get around to epistemology, do so.

Quote: ["When it comes to proof, I've already told you. There is no proof for God. But there is proof that the bible is more true than false. Now that fact alone has a number of consequences. But I am more than willing to say I don't have the "most true" religious book. The Muslims do. The Quran was orally kept by many people and written down once Mohammad died. This therefore makes it the most accurate."]

This still doesn't make it even slightly true in a scientific sense, except in your versions of such.

Quote: ["And being that it is the historic account of one man's opinions and historic actions, it remains as the most true religious article to date. But Islam is more or less a form of Judaism adopted to the desert culture. And heavily relies on Jewish tradition. But this is a bit of a tangent. Proof. Proof is scattered in many places. But like I said, the greatest proof is that the Bible talks about a God not understandable by man."]["Thus far no other religion has done this"]

Science and logic don't operate with 'bits of tangents'. Is non-understanding proof? If you have non-understanding as some quality measuretape, no-one will try to prevent you. But it has nothing to do with what's happening outside your own reality-tunnel.

Fortunately not all religions share your idea of non-understandability as 'proof'. Some of them are relatively rational, and have some very interesting points considered from the perspective of modern science.

Quote: ["And before you go "GOD OF THE GAPS" proclamation deceleration, you have to understand. There is no gap. A gap requires two sides."]

You create a graphic metaphor of an information situation. Then you stuff the information into this metaphor, and proceeds from there. Metophors have ZERO logical value. You could just as well call the situation for 'god of the information vacuum', which as a metaphor is more precise.

Quote: ["But the Abrahamic faiths? .......But the fact remains that the faith itself begins, in Genesis, with a God calling himself "us" and calling mankind male and female as a single being, with the word being used being the Hebrew word for mankind. This is something too complex for its time period. side for a gap to exist in. I don't like saying it just poofed out of existence, but it certainly seems to have. That is my proof."]

A circle-argument is not a proof.

Quote: ["Now I'll let you think on that before you go say the same old rhetoric again and hate on those you don't like."]

There's nothing to think about. You have practically no knowledge of science or logic. You tailor 'facts' and you go into completely irrelevant rhetoric at times, from which you extract peculiar conclusions.

Stay with your faith, don't turn it into something it isn't.

reply to post by The Djin


My kids went to school in Victoria in London. One summer day I was walking home with my eldest and she suddenly comes out with this " Dad isn't it a pity that the jews killed christ". Well me dedicated anti fascist had a heart attack. I rephrased it to explain the Politics killed christ and it is wrong to target all Jews for a combined political manoevre.Her teacher taught her this. She also thought that donkeys had a cross on their back were Jesus sat on one. This was 20 years ago but what are they teaching our kids???

Originally posted by MrXYZ
FYI, I was kicked out of religious class after 2 years because I asked so many questions...and they got tired of having to say "just because" or "god did it" every single time

It's a good example of how a lot of believers can't deal with criticism or objective inquiries. They assume those questions and criticism are attacks. It also makes them question their belief as more and more science is able to "debunk" some stuff...or modern morality does.

i can handle objective inquiries. whatcha wanna discuss?
i love this subject!

Originally posted by tiger5
reply to post by The Djin

 

My kids went to school in Victoria in London. One summer day I was walking home with my eldest and she suddenly comes out with this " Dad isn't it a pity that the jews killed christ". Well me dedicated anti fascist had a heart attack. I rephrased it to explain the Politics killed christ and it is wrong to target all Jews for a combined political manoevre.Her teacher taught her this. She also thought that donkeys had a cross on their back were Jesus sat on one. This was 20 years ago but what are they teaching our kids???

neither politics or jews killed christ.
at least, not according to the texts and the prophecies from the old testament regarding his life

reply to post by undo


Frankly I could not give a ________________
I did not want that antisemitic BS in my house. I still want to know why our kids are being taught all manner of bias religious stuff. A climate of privelidge for one religion to dump on another is simply not right.

reply to post by Gorman91

And God can do anything

Nope, he can't beat chariots mad of iron it would appear.

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. - Judges 1:19 (KJV)

And of course he can't (if he was not imaginary that is) make man comply.

Your god cannot forgive without killing /acting less morally than myself in the process

He can't remember sins he's chosen to forget

God cannot forget he's omniscient

Neither can your god get tired

He can't take on a job he can't handle

He can't be unholy

He can't be prejudice

God can't look at sin

God can't lose unless it's at wrestling or against chariots of iron

God can't abandon you (unless you consume blood )

God cannot lie

God cannot change

He cannot let you into heaven if you refuse to stop having anal sex

God can't stop loving you (unless you consume blood or deny his spirit)

God cannot get tired unless he does and if he does he cannot be omnipotent

Originally posted by tiger5
reply to post by undo

 

Frankly I could not give a ________________
I did not want that antisemitic BS in my house. I still want to know why our kids are being taught all manner of bias religious stuff. A climate of privelidge for one religion to dump on another is simply not right.

edit on 20-1-2011 by tiger5 because: typo

it's only what people do with the information once they have it, that causes the problem. probably the most biased against, most murdered, aborted, type of human being on the planet, are women. female fetuses and newborn females have been mass murdered in china for at least a decade now. india actually had to institute laws to stop it in india. they say the male to female ratio is 51%, globally. not for long.

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by Gorman91

 

He is the law. What he says goes. And God can do anything

Nope, he can't beat chariots mad of iron it would appear.

whatcha referring to? i'm curious what text this is from. chariots made of iron?
where where!

reply to post by bogomil


i'm not fond of some of paul's writings either, but they were op eds. opinion pieces. he was a man of his time. he was considered to be extremely wise on the subject, since he was a converted jew and a scholar of torah. he probably knew more than most of the people he talked to in europe regarding even the concept of messiah. ii think that alone, would've earned him a place in the teachings of the mainstream, albeit underground, christians of europe. he was also bilingual. where i think the problem arises, is the same place the problem with mosaic laws arose: et. al, the people began to deify anything that came out of the mouths of these men, even if it was just an opinion, inbetween inspired moments, and only applicable to their time.

reply to post by tiger5

One summer day I was walking home with my eldest and she suddenly comes out with this " Dad isn't it a pity that the jews killed christ".

Well nothings changed , these sickos are equally as wicked and insidious as pedophiles when they get hold of someone else' kids.

Her teacher taught her this. She also thought that donkeys had a cross on their back were Jesus sat on one.

Some I'm sure would consider that hilarious, personally I consider that sort of thing child abuse.

You know, some of these xtians hang around playgrounds of an evening stalking other peoples children to lure into their cult, some have even given themselves title such as Streetpastors which to my mind is equally as repugnant as Parkperv.

Remember this guy ? -
Lollypops

reply to post by The Djin


english translation bias. they added english words to the story, (quite a few in fact) to supposedly make it readable to those who could read english. the original hebrew was more along the lines of:

he drove out the inhabitants of the hill, but not the valley dwellers who had chariots of iron.

the word "because" is not in the original and there's no word in the original that would've approximated "because."

And the LORD 3068 was with Judah 3063; and he drave out 3423 [the inhabitants of] the mountain 2022; but could not 3808 drive out 3423 the inhabitants 3427 of the valley 6010, because they had chariots 7393 of iron 1270.

LORD Judah drove out the mountain not out the inhabitants of the valley, they had chariots of iron.

the words with numbers after them were in the original text. the actual placement of the phrases is likely different than depicted because the translation into english required sentence restructuring.

lord judah? how interesting. gotta research that some more.


the phrase "drave out" is "to seize" in the original language. so the sentence would be like...

LORD Judah seized the mountain not out the inhabitants valley, chariots of iron.

would be interesting to see how the words were originally positioned in the verse. gonna go look it up.

reply to post by undo

he drove out the inhabitants of the hill, but not the valley dwellers who had chariots of iron.

get a grip Undo the result is the same.

Yet again evidence of a supposedly omniscient being failing to communicate and failing to have what it created to comply, ridiculous logic.

reply to post by The Djin


i am getting a grip. what if lord judah proves he was a pharaoh and the verse isn't even referring to yehovah in the sense we think of it, ultimately. i'd like to know this bit of information. let me explain why

in the sumerian texts, enki is seen piloting (yes piloting) the e.abzu temple, up from the abyss, and floating it over the water like a lofty mountain. it's entirely made of metal, can submerge, float and fly. it can hover. it makes roaring sounds. can glow so brightly it lights up the place. the interiror is a tangled thread beyond understanding, and it was considered a "holy mountain."

also, the word elohiym (plural word, meant to be gods in this passage), is translated to "god" (singular) in the english translation of the bible. yet it means all kinds of things: it can be a gods, it can be angels, it can be the dearly departed, in fact, it's used as all of those thru out the text, leading seroius researchers to believe it indicates a place of residence, dimensionally, et.al, some type of other dimensional "spirit" realm, which is basically suggested by those things that are given the elohiym or elohim name.

that means that translators could've assumed it was referring to jehovah when it could've been referring to an angelic being, a lord king, a lord pharaoh, that kinda thing. ba'al simply meant lord, and was used in the same way, it could be a deity, it could be a king, a nobleman, etc.

like i said in my prior post, i'm gonna go research this some more.

reply to post by undo

neither politics or jews killed christ.

Because he was back alive again in a couple of days.

Because he and yahweh are allegedly the same omnipresent being and acnnot die

Because it was (allegedly) part of his plan so he had himself killed and broke his own rules in relation to suicide.

Because he was not killed he was executed

Because there is no evidence that the incident ever took place

Because if it did he could well have survived as he was only strung up a few hours by comparison to the majority-

"I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered Josephus .

reply to post by The Djin


i find all this kind of thing, very interesting. keep sharing the data, cause i'm not afraid to learn. i have a research library with the writings of josephus, tacitus and others, from that time. but i also have most of the others too, like the epics of various ancient civs, the annals and histories of greece, rome, egyptian texts, akkadian, sumerian, babylonian, persian, even newer stuff, too, and alternative texts, like the christ conspiracy, bull$hit by penn and teller, etc. . like i said, i love this subject.

reply to post by andy1033


Wannabe murderers and scum are the people who need the good news the most.

Jesus was constantly helping, feeding, sheltering and healing the sick, the diseased, the drunks and the whores.

What's your excuse? Maybe being a Christian is about more then having a bumpersticker on your car, and promoting yourself as the righteous alternative to 'scum?'

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by andy1033

 

Jesus was constantly helping, feeding, sheltering and healing the sick, the diseased, the drunks and the whores.

'

my thoughts exactly. i told my son that if jesus was here now, he'd be out in the streets hanging with the least popular people he could find. soon, we christians will have gone full circle and be back in the position of least popular people he could find.

reply to post by undo

like i said in my prior post, i'm gonna go research this some more.

Why bother when you won't think critically and apply flawed logic relying on your credulity to prop up your indoctrinated belief.

Indeed the Sumerians wrote about visitors from the sky which they called gods and worshiped, now either lied or it happened.

If it did happen the either there were civilizations flying around with futuristic technology or they were experiencing a visit from beings from other planets/distentions. Doing the god of the gaps routine and labeleing these visitors Yahweh and his angels is a sheer act of stupidly when discussing an omniscient omnipotent/omnipresent god voice in your head .

If you are sincere in research and not deluding yourself start here it is fascinating and highly educational -