-
Ensign
My line of reasoning with all of this is leading to the following conclusion, correct or incorrect:
There are way too many inconsistencies in the bible and religious thinking which have never, to my satisfaction, been adequately addressed. Several of these inconsistencies have been pointed out above and in the previous thread.
However, ALL of these inconsistencies will make sense under my hypothesis which is as follows (this may be offensive to religious types):
1.) Religion was created by man, not a god.
2.) God represents an archetype in the thinking of man and religion exists to address the fears of people regarding the unknown and explain the world around us.
3.) The purpose of those who created organized religion was to accumulate followers, wealth and power.
4.) The more followers a religion has the more wealth and power that religion has and, hence, the more wealth and power its leaders have (e.g., the pope)
5.) The tools the church uses to enroll and keep followers is principally fear (of death, illness, damnation, etc.) and promise of reward for loyalty.
6.) As this has been perpetuated throughout the centuries, people have simply come to believe it because they are told so - not because they have any proof that it actually is right.
7.) As a result of this "church rule" people - society, really - is kept in line, generally behaves responsibly (for the most part) and pay eagerly to earn their way into heaven and have their minds controlled.
And those who started the whole thing? Well, it depends on the religion, of course. But there is a famous saying, "Our lies in time become truth." Stretch the truth a little and repeat it often enough and you will most likely believe it.
That is my hypothesis which will never likely be proven. However suddenly all the inconsistencies are understandable: why god is most vengeful of blasphemers (those that leave christianity), why people must accept Jesus and worship to remain in the club, why this good and forgiving god routinely (per the bible) goes around massacring millions of people for indiscretions mainly relating to nonbelief. Why people, no matter how good they are, will go to hell unless they come to church and pray. Does this sound like the work of god or the work of men trying to scare other men? To me, the latter.
-
i just want to say one thing about the mentioning of the laws in leviticus.. jesus is more concerned with our love for him and every other person rather than if we follow every single rule. There is no way we can keep every rule anyway. we sin just by being human - let us not forget original sin. jesus even called the saducees hypocrites because they went around preaching to everyone about keeping all 613 laws. the most important thing is to accept jesus as your saviour and to do his will, which is the purpose of all human life. this purpose is to try to take as many people as you can to heaven with you by spreading god's word to the whole world.
i can't say anything philosophical on this topic, frankly because i dont want to, but also because whats more important is how god works in each of our lives. no one can deny our own experiences with the wonders of our lord. i believe that making scholarly arguments is not the way to spread the truth, its sharing the ways god works invidivually in our lives. satan's greatest accomplishment was getting people to deny jesus. i thank god everyday for what he has given me and for what he has done in my life. i dont know where i would be if i didn't have jesus in my heart. good luck everybody, i hope everything works out.
-
one more thing.
god isn't evil nor does he "kill people" or harm them or whatever. satan does that. just read the book of job. its really a great story of faith.
-
Ensign
tsk, tsk Tuvi. Remember that little thing called the flood? Yup, god did that. And he turned Rachel (or Sarah?? I think) into a pillar of salt just for looking at something...not even really doing any harm... Endless tales of god's wrath in the bible dude. It all comes down to people either not listening to him or not believing in him, which essentially boils down to not coming to church and not putting their smack into the contribution dish. See above.
Oh, and I have read Job. I liked it. I even read the Heinlin version of it...more entertaining. That is the story that really convinced me that whoever wrote the bible were motivated to keep people under their control. The "no matter how much bad $hit happens you must still worship me" story. Written specifically to explain all the bad stuff that happens to people and why god lets it happen. That's the big problem most people, even religious people, have with religion so it needed a good story to address it. If all of the bible were as thoughtfully constructed as the story of Job, I would have a lot less ammunition. It is a bit obvious in its intentions, though.
[This message has been edited by Snatchface (edited 05-31-2000).]
-
For those still reading this thread, I would like to respond to Snatchface's hypothesis about religion being a construct of man, not God...
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!!!!!
Religion is a construct of man's thoughts and needs to **do** things to support his beliefs and values. We all do it. We decide upon a loyalty for whatever reason and act upon those loyalties.
The situation is similar with faith. I've been a Christian for almost twenty years and the mortal, living and breathing man in me still has trouble with the thought that I can get to heaven...how?...by just believing...
NO WAY! That's way too easy! I have to suffer for my faults. God would never let someone like me into heaven. Just last night, I struggled with pornography. I gave in. How could God forgive me simply by me asking for forgiveness? Certainly there must be something more.
So, I build a religion around me to comfort the world-bound me.
My faith assures me that I am saved from eternal separation from God simply be believing that Jesus was God and died as a sacrifice for my sins.
However, my flesh would feel more comfortable if I gave money, put myself through some pain, or asked another person (someone of apparent authority) ot forgive me and ask God to forgive me.
I am an insecure human being.
Throughout time man has exploited this to his own ends all in the name of getting you to heaven. It is a shame. Jesus doesn't want us to be religious, to blindly adhere to rules and regulations that the corner church has on its members. What He does want is a ***personal*** relationship with me. He wants to be my personal saviour. He wants to be the shoulder that I cry on.
I would encourage everyone out there to approach your critism of Christianity through the lens of Christ's love for each of us, not through interpretations of a few charasmatic (and usually well-meaning) preachers.
Thanks for reading this. It's a bit of my heart, and it's not easy for a proud person like me (snatch-I was in your shoes) to share his heart.
-
I'm just curious about the posters who seem to be against Christianity here. Maybe i'm just misunderstanding the posts. do people here not believe in God or a god? because through all the wonders of the world, i can't imagine a world without a God. where did time come from? did man make up the concept of time? or space? how is it that man is the only animal that loves each other, shares with each other. in other animals, as in bats, they share with kin, but not with non-kin. humans are the only things on earth that help people out of family. why is that? where did right/wrong come from? because i don't know of any evolutionary trace of animals developing a sense of right and wrong. i'm just curious to know what others have to answer these questions. =)
to bires:
isn't it interesting to know that it's sooo easy to go to heaven? whole-heartedly accept
Jesus as our savior and to forgive our sins. easy to say that. but whole-heartedly? but i
believe that the building a religion around yourself is a sense of kicking yourself around on the ground. i've been in ruts where my mentality was "why would God want to forgive me? i keep sinning over and over again." and there i am stuck in a rut of self-pity. by knowing that God will forgive you and accept you and lets you go on with your life is great. you're cool with God and you're not left with some kind of grievance in your heart. sorry if i misinterpret your post in any way. =)
snatch-face:
you wrote: The purpose of those who created organized religion was to accumulate followers, wealth and power.
is that always the case? i sure haven't seen anything like that. of course, things like this will happen because people aren't perfect. but i think it's kind of hard to make such generalizations. in statement #6, i was wondering if you can clarify what you mean as proof and what you mean as "right." to comment on statement #7, it's not about works getting into heaven. but the catch is, people do good deeds as a representation of their faith. why do people become missionaries? to strike it rich? naw. and we don't worship Jesus to stay in a club. we praise Him for all the good He's done in our lives. CHristianity is about a relationship. that's the best i can describe it. if i've misunderstood any of your post, i apologize as i do to bires. thanks!
------------------
"I think. Therefore, I pray."
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kimchi43:
I'm just curious about the posters who seem to be against Christianity here. Maybe i'm just misunderstanding the posts. do people here not believe in God or a god? because through all the wonders of the world, i can't imagine a world without a God. where did time come from? did man make up the concept of time? or space? how is it that man is the only animal that loves each other, shares with each other. in other animals, as in bats, they share with kin, but not with non-kin. humans are the only things on earth that help people out of family. why is that? where did right/wrong come from? because i don't know of any evolutionary trace of animals developing a sense of right and wrong. i'm just curious to know what others have to answer these questions. =)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I personally am an athiest. Peopple tell me all the time I'm agnostic, but I'm not. I respect the fact that god may exist, I can't deny that because I can't prove it one way or the other. But if I had to put bets down, I would say there is no god.
as to the question: where did time come from? did man make up the concept of time? or space?
I can't tell ya, nor do i care.
as to the question: how is it that man is the only animal that loves each other, shares with each other. in other animals, as in bats, they share with kin, but not with non-kin. humans are the only things on earth that help people out of family.
Do you really know wether or not an animal loves another one? of course not. there is no possible way to tell. hey, here's another tid-bit of info for you: humans are the only animal that drinks milk all through-out their lifetime. just another useless fact that may or may not be true.
The right and wrong factor is a very interesting topic, which i could go on for hours about.
-
German Superman, I am so grateful that you have created an OFF TOPIC forum for this heated topic. I just got back from vacation and found my box cluttered w/ 80 messages (most of which were notifications of replies to my Free Christian CD post).
I will try not to post my two cents on this topic, b/c it is pointless.
-
Ensign
Your welcome ugly, next time don't set it to send e-mails when someone replys. That way you can actually see your inbox.
------------------
GOD BLESS!
-
Wow, what a debate... hmm where to start?
Well I will just say what I have to say about this.
Well I think the best way to put it would be to quote my friend from a paper he wrote.
"Let me stress before hand that I am not talking solely about Christianity in this essay, I only use it as an example because I am most familiar with it.
I have been thinking a lot about religion lately. I, like Einstein before me, have come to the conclusion that it cannot be literally true. In fact it seems littered with problems and inconsistencies, not to mention physical impossibilities. The more I think about, the more abstract and irrational it becomes. Does an all-powerful being that grants eternal life or eternal damnation really seem logical? It seems to me that most religions, such as Christianity, are used as a means to answer the unanswerable questions. Like bedtime stories read to children, to help dispel fears of monsters under the bed, religions help comfort us from that which we can not understand. How much easier is it to live through life when you get to look forward to eternal happiness in heaven? Religions help secure the belief that we have a purpose, that we are not a mere biological quirk. In our history religions were often used to explain disease and plague before the timely invention of science. In fact, to the dismay of the faithful everywhere, much of their religion conflicts with proven science. It is human nature to want to understand the fundamental questions of life. Religions are just one example of the human quest to answer these questions. There are many other ideologies that try to answer these questions, just as there are many religions. The more abstract of these groups are usually labeled cults and shunned to the edge of society. I am not saying that religions are bad, for I believe they, in general, provide a positive influence in society. But we must keep clear in our mind what is known truth and what is hopeful speculation.
To me, religion just seems illogical. The faithful remind me of a schoolboy, staring out the schoolhouse window, wishing it was a hot summers day. The faithful seem to be wishing for something better than life, they think that if they believe hard enough, it will come true. Religion has survived because people want to believe. They want to be comforted by the idea that they have a mighty protector, that they have an eternity of happiness to look forward, that death isn’t really the end of it all. If you asked a man unfamiliar with religion and Santa what sounds more probable:
1) A fat man in a red suit who lives on the North Pole brings presents to good children on the 25 of December by traveling around the world in a sleigh and sliding down chimneys.
2) An all powerful being who has existed forever and lives in a magical kingdom called heaven grants salvation to good Christians when they die, by methods that can not be logically or scientifically explained and have never been witnessed.
He would say you pulled both stories out of your ass. When you think about it... what difference is there between Santa and god? They both promise a reward for believing. It’s just that Santa doesn't eternally dam you to hell if you don't believe... just gives you coal... that is why god is a Santa for grown-ups. It is easier to accept the existence of Christianity when you realize that all Christian adults once believed in Santa.
Many parts of the bible are even more unbelievable the existence of god. For example, the story of Noah’s ark is riddled with problems. The first question that pops into most minds is how they fit two of every animal into the ark. The mere size of the ark would unfathomable. Do not forget that they would also have to bring enough food for the duration of the flood. Eating also raises some interesting questions. What did they feed the lions?
Noah: “Dam it, the lions are starving...Oh here we go, I’ll feed them a gazelle. OH ****! Now we only have ONE GAZELLE... oh well, to bad for the gazelles...
And what happens after the animals get off the boat? Do the carnivores sign a treaty with the herbivores promising not to eat them until their population grows back to a stable level? Not that the herbivores will be doing very much better with all the grass having been under the water for forty days and forty nights. The fact is that any species with a population of 2 will not survive. Any sophomore biology student will tell you this. Many other interesting questions arise when thinking of the ark. For example, how did they get all the animals to the ark? What did they consider an animal? Were all the millions of kinds of bugs taken on the ark too? How did they track down every kind of bug? Did they take fish? Because fish could survive better on their own than in the ark. How did they accommodate polar bears? How did they accommodate termites? Where did all the water come from for this flood anyway...? There are pages of stories of like this that make up the core of the bible. It would take hundreds of chapters to explain the problems of all of them.
I don't necessarily hate religion.... I just think it is a lie.... If god came down to earth and stared me straight in the eye, all the time hurling lightning and said, in a voice like thunder: "you are the DEVIL” then I would believe in religion...
There have been many disagreements between science and religion. As the liar knows, the more detailed the lie, the easier it is to prove false. It is an unfortunate circumstance that religion developed before science did. Because of this, religions attributed many things to religious phenomenon, when they would later be proven to have worldly causes. When conflicts like this did arise, religion would reinterpret itself, or slowly change to fit the changing beliefs of society. Science and religion are merely two different ways of finding answers; it was religion that changed because facts cannot be altered. It astounds me how blind some students faith is. Even when presented with a factual alternative that is based on logical reasoning, not wishful thinking they still cling to what a 2000-year-old book says. This might be due to the fact that religion can take hold earlier in the child’s mind that science can. A child is usually baptized far before he is taught how to read. One of the largest discrepancies in the history of science and religion was that of the creation of humans. Christianity long held that god put humans on earth in a day, and that they were images of himself. This was fine and dainty until a man called Charles Darwin proposed a theory that all species evolved from pre-existing species. Over the years, piles of evidence were discovered supporting this theory. More evidence than could fit in an entire volume of bibles. In fact, evolution has been witnessed. Viruses and other organisms with short life cycles are able to quickly evolve to better adapt to their surroundings. Science has explained the mechanism that causes evolution, natural selection, and even found the carriers of evolutionary traits, genes. Still, some faithful still hold to the myth that humans did not evolve from earlier primates and steadfastly believe that humans are the image of god, put here on some day during the creation of the world. For the earlier part of our history religion dictated that earth was at the center of the universe. People believed this because it made them feel special and powerful, and because they had no evidence to prove otherwise. Unfortunately the telescope was invented. Among other things it gave humans of actual intelligence the ability to study the night sky in more detail. Copernicus was one man who studied the sky, and he found evidence that pointed to another theory. That the earth, and many other planets, all revolved around the sun. Other scientists found other flaws with traditional Christian ideals. For one, the stars did not look like holes in the perfect crystal sphere
-
-
kacarp,
from what you state, it seems you try to disclaim Christianity from the basis of the thoughts of early astrologers (before the works of Copernicus, Galileo, etc). if the Bible did say that the earth was the center of the universe and that moon was a perfect spherical rock, then you would have a point. but the claims of these people during these Middle Ages were just that: claims. sure, these theories made man feel "special and powerful." and why wouldn't it? since, according to the Bible, this universe was created for us anyways! it would be easy to think that we should be at the center of what was given to us, right?
fortunately(not unfortunately, as you state), along came the telescope and Copernicus. Copernicus, himself, was a man of faith and even dedicated his most famous work, "On the Revolutions" to the Pope. so in no way was Copernicus trying to disprove his own faith and the faith of countless others. much like Martin Luther trying to point out the flaws in Catholicism, Copernicus was trying to point out the truth.
i have much more to say, especially about Darwin and evolution. but it's late now and i need to wake up early in the morning. though i'm not finished with my point, i'd like to take this time to thank you all for all the personal opinions and beliefs stated on this thread. even though some were a bit uh, excessive, i respect the fact that we are able to gather here to have a lively debate/discussion about this subject.
i'll try to start/end my point about Darwinism tomorrow...
[This message has been edited by CornMonkey (edited 06-02-2000).]
-
Ensign
a thought:
Science starts with questions. Science then creates theories to try to answer those questions. Science then creats experiments to test those theories. If the tests results conflict with the theory, the theory is changed.
Christianity starts with answers. Whenever a new question comes up, they dig out their big book-o-answers(bible) and try to find an answer that fits the question. If something conflicts with one of their answers,and it has, they reinturpurt their book and say "Ah yes, thats what we ment the whole time"
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chief Broom:
Haha I hope you're talking about Nietzsche's Superman instead. Maybe Shaw's?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hopefully he is talking about Hegel's superman, rather than hitler's or nietzsche's. Hegel believed that the superman lived to help others, while friedrich (nietzsche) believe they had the power to be self-governing (partially due to their lack of a conscience).
ProMinx
ps - i used to try to consider myself a nietzschean superman...but then i had to drop that theory because i kept missing out on opportunities when i reallly really wanted to beat the crap out of some people.
pss - let's make my post fit into the thread main topic: i am a christian; i haven't been attending a church at ucla, but whenever i go home, i go back to the church where i am a member. I never opened this thread until tonight because i was afraid of what i might find. As is...i only read about 1/4 f the posts.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kacarp:
it was religion that changed because facts cannot be altered.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
when you say "facts," are you referring to the evidence of evolution?
evolution is but a theory. no one has been able to provide scientific proof for the theory of evolution. to back this up, Dr. Kent Hovind of Florida is offering a reward of $250,000 to "Anyone who can give any empirical evidence for evolution." you can check out more about this at:
www.drdino.com/Articles/Article1.htm
evolution, in the degree that Darwin speaks of, cannot be observed in a single lifetime. so no one has actually observed natural selection which discredits this theory even more. but what about the "piles of evidence" that was discovered?
PILTDOWN MAN--
in 1912, a british lawyer and amateur geologist claimed to have found the remains of a human skull with an ape-like jaw. experts instantly declared this find(to be 300,000 to a million years old) to be the evolutionary discovery of the century--Darwin's missing link has been found. 40 years later, in 1953, piltdown man was found to be a hoax. radiocarbon tests proved that the skull was of a 600 year old woman and the jaw of a 500 year old orangutan.
NEBRASKA MAN--
built from one tooth, was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.
HEIDELBERG MAN--
built from a jaw bone. scientists now reject his jaw bone because it's too similar to that of modern man.
NEANDERTHAL MAN--
expert examination concluded that this famous skeleton found over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.
PEPPERED MOTH--
i remeber reading about this "clear case" example of natural selection in my high school biology class. you might too...
hypothesis: there are two types of peppered moths--a light kind and a dark kind. before the industrial revolution, almost all peppered moths were the light variety. this type was able to camouflage itself on the bark of light colored lichen-covered tree trunks. the black variety stood out and was readily eaten by birds, thus favoring the survival of the light variety of the peppered moth.
then came the industrial revolution. the ensuing pollution caused by factories eliminated the lichen and covered the tree trunks with soot. now the darker pepperd moths were camouflaged and the number of the lighter peppered moths began to deteriorate.
when anti-pollution laws were passed in the 1950s, the population of the light moths began to increase, supposedly, due to the regrowth of lichen on tree trunks, once again giving the lighter moths better camouflage. experiments performed in the 1950s seemed to confirm the keys points of this hypothesis. scientists later proclaimed that this peppered moth experiment was "the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed."
one problem... peppered moths are nocturnal animals and are not known to rest on tree trunks during the day. and since these moths don't rest on tree trunks that birds can see, the conclusions of this experiment fall apart. consequently, the experiments conducted during the 1950s and all other field work have been discredited as flawed science.
but what about the pictures of the moths on different colored tree trunks? it was revealed that these photos were staged. the moths were glued, pinned, or placed on trees and their pictures were then taken. the researchers trying to prove evolution through these experiments conveniently forgot to tell the readers of this crucial fact.
if this "clearest case" example for evolution turned out to be a fraud, what about other supposed examples of evolution? makes you wonder, doesn't it?
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
--The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
bNorrish,
you also said "if something conflicts with one of their answers, and it has, they reinturpurt their book and say 'ah yes, thats what i ment the whole time.'" can you give me some specific examples?
[This message has been edited by CornMonkey (edited 06-03-2000).]
-
Prominx,
what is it that you're afraid you might find? that what you thought to be real and true isn't real and true?
i used to have a lot of questions and doubts. i used to believe in many of the topics that was mentioned in this very thread...questions like "what about evolution," "why does a good God allow so much suffering," and "why is there only 'one way?'" i think...actually, i know i frustrated a lot of people with what i had to say. but one thing was certain--i couldn't allow what others said, no matter how sincere/insensitive, deter me from making my own conclusions about what i believed. of course, this was only achieved through seeking God Himself for the answers. this is where prayer and fellowship came in real handy. i encourage you, bro, to never stop seeking the Truth--the nature(love/grace/wrath/mercy) of God.
"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened."
Matthew 7
-
Ensign
Hey CORNMONKEY
You seem to have a lot of info discrediting evolution. What can you say about bacteria and viruses? Are they not an example of a species gradually changeing its genome over time to better fit with its enviroment? What else could be causing them to become resistant to drugs? And what about Mosquitoes? When DDT was used in 40's and 50's in Panima it killed a very large percentage in the sprayed area. Now, in the very same area, DDT kills a very small percentage... have the mosquitoes become smart? Are they avoiding the sprayed area? Did they invent mosquitoe sized gas masks? Whats the deal? The only explanation I can think of is that in the begining a small percentage of the mosquitoes were naturally resistant to DDT, and over the years only those mosquitoes reproduced, resulting in a population with a larger percentage of mosquitoes resistant of DDT. Thats called evolution my friend, the changing of a species genome over time. Come on lets think about this logically. We know that any animals traits are described by DNA. We know that changing the DNA will change the traits. We know that DNA is naturally mutated through chemicals and radiation, and that the offspring of any organism are not exact replications of the parent, but have slight permutations. Is it REALLY logical to think that over thousands and millions of generations, a species genome will stay EXACTLY THE SAME? Evolution gave us our brain, lets start using it.
-
Lieutenant Junior Grade
You don't have to believe anything to go to heaven. Don't drive yourself crazy, calm down, take of your horse blinders. If you really want to understand religion study more than one as deeply as the one you were born into and conditioned to adhere to. God is the most merciful, the most wrathful, and everything in between. Our puny little minds can't grasp half a percent of his intentions or might. YOU WILL PAY FOR WHATEVER HE HOLDS YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR. YOU are your own savior, no one died for you. Most of gods prophets were born into, lived thru, and were subject to cruel, cruel injustices and pain, but they never gave up because their eyes were open to the truth.
-
Wow, what a debate... hmm where to start?
Well I will just say what I have to say about this.
Well I think the best way to put it would be to quote my friend from a paper he wrote.
"Let me stress before hand that I am not talking solely about Christianity in this essay, I only use it as an example because I am most familiar with it.
I have been thinking a lot about religion lately. I, like Einstein before me, have come to the conclusion that it cannot be literally true. In fact it seems littered with problems and inconsistencies, not to mention physical impossibilities. The more I think about, the more abstract and irrational it becomes. Does an all-powerful being that grants eternal life or eternal damnation really seem logical? It seems to me that most religions, such as Christianity, are used as a means to answer the unanswerable questions. Like bedtime stories read to children, to help dispel fears of monsters under the bed, religions help comfort us from that which we can not understand. How much easier is it to live through life when you get to look forward to eternal happiness in heaven? Religions help secure the belief that we have a purpose, that we are not a mere biological quirk. In our history religions were often used to explain disease and plague before the timely invention of science. In fact, to the dismay of the faithful everywhere, much of their religion conflicts with proven science. It is human nature to want to understand the fundamental questions of life. Religions are just one example of the human quest to answer these questions. There are many other ideologies that try to answer these questions, just as there are many religions. The more abstract of these groups are usually labeled cults and shunned to the edge of society. I am not saying that religions are bad, for I believe they, in general, provide a positive influence in society. But we must keep clear in our mind what is known truth and what is hopeful speculation.
To me, religion just seems illogical. The faithful remind me of a schoolboy, staring out the schoolhouse window, wishing it was a hot summers day. The faithful seem to be wishing for something better than life, they think that if they believe hard enough, it will come true. Religion has survived because people want to believe. They want to be comforted by the idea that they have a mighty protector, that they have an eternity of happiness to look forward, that death isn’t really the end of it all. If you asked a man unfamiliar with religion and Santa what sounds more probable:
1) A fat man in a red suit who lives on the North Pole brings presents to good children on the 25 of December by traveling around the world in a sleigh and sliding down chimneys.
2) An all powerful being who has existed forever and lives in a magical kingdom called heaven grants salvation to good Christians when they die, by methods that can not be logically or scientifically explained and have never been witnessed.
He would say you pulled both stories out of your ass. When you think about it... what difference is there between Santa and god? They both promise a reward for believing. It’s just that Santa doesn't eternally dam you to hell if you don't believe... just gives you coal... that is why god is a Santa for grown-ups. It is easier to accept the existence of Christianity when you realize that all Christian adults once believed in Santa.
Many parts of the bible are even more unbelievable the existence of god. For example, the story of Noah’s ark is riddled with problems. The first question that pops into most minds is how they fit two of every animal into the ark. The mere size of the ark would unfathomable. Do not forget that they would also have to bring enough food for the duration of the flood. Eating also raises some interesting questions. What did they feed the lions?
Noah: “Dam it, the lions are starving...Oh here we go, I’ll feed them a gazelle. OH ****! Now we only have ONE GAZELLE... oh well, to bad for the gazelles...
And what happens after the animals get off the boat? Do the carnivores sign a treaty with the herbivores promising not to eat them until their population grows back to a stable level? Not that the herbivores will be doing very much better with all the grass having been under the water for forty days and forty nights. The fact is that any species with a population of 2 will not survive. Any sophomore biology student will tell you this. Many other interesting questions arise when thinking of the ark. For example, how did they get all the animals to the ark? What did they consider an animal? Were all the millions of kinds of bugs taken on the ark too? How did they track down every kind of bug? Did they take fish? Because fish could survive better on their own than in the ark. How did they accommodate polar bears? How did they accommodate termites? Where did all the water come from for this flood anyway...? There are pages of stories of like this that make up the core of the bible. It would take hundreds of chapters to explain the problems of all of them.
I don't necessarily hate religion.... I just think it is a lie.... If god came down to earth and stared me straight in the eye, all the time hurling lightning and said, in a voice like thunder: "you are the DEVIL” then I would believe in religion...
There have been many disagreements between science and religion. As the liar knows, the more detailed the lie, the easier it is to prove false. It is an unfortunate circumstance that religion developed before science did. Because of this, religions attributed many things to religious phenomenon, when they would later be proven to have worldly causes. When conflicts like this did arise, religion would reinterpret itself, or slowly change to fit the changing beliefs of society. Science and religion are merely two different ways of finding answers; it was religion that changed because facts cannot be altered. It astounds me how blind some students faith is. Even when presented with a factual alternative that is based on logical reasoning, not wishful thinking they still cling to what a 2000-year-old book says. This might be due to the fact that religion can take hold earlier in the child’s mind that science can. A child is usually baptized far before he is taught how to read. One of the largest discrepancies in the history of science and religion was that of the creation of humans. Christianity long held that god put humans on earth in a day, and that they were images of himself. This was fine and dainty until a man called Charles Darwin proposed a theory that all species evolved from pre-existing species. Over the years, piles of evidence were discovered supporting this theory. More evidence than could fit in an entire volume of bibles. In fact, evolution has been witnessed. Viruses and other organisms with short life cycles are able to quickly evolve to better adapt to their surroundings. Science has explained the mechanism that causes evolution, natural selection, and even found the carriers of evolutionary traits, genes. Still, some faithful still hold to the myth that humans did not evolve from earlier primates and steadfastly believe that humans are the image of god, put here on some day during the creation of the world. For the earlier part of our history religion dictated that earth was at the center of the universe. People believed this because it made them feel special and powerful, and because they had no evidence to prove otherwise. Unfortunately the telescope was invented. Among other things it gave humans of actual intelligence the ability to study the night sky in more detail. Copernicus was one man who studied the sky, and he found evidence that pointed to another theory. That the earth, and many other planets, all revolved around the sun. Other scientists found other flaws with traditional Christian ideals. For one, the stars did not look like holes in the perfect crystal spheres that separated the domain of man from the domain of god. And another problem, the moon did not look like a perf
-
-
-
Dang 
That's one long post.
[This message has been edited by Sjarred (edited 06-05-2000).]
-
Are you people writing the bible here? 
Renski
-
whoa, what's with tlminh's post?
bnorrish,
you got a point there... but in my personal opinion, i think there's a difference between evolution and adaption.
scientists have observed viruses and bacteria exchange genetic material and mutate (i.e. become bigger, resistant to antibiotics), but have viruses and bacteria actually "evolve?" as far as i know, they've always been just that--viruses and bacteria. scientists have studied the e.coli bacteria over the past 100 years. with an average single generation span of 20 minutes, that's 2.5 million generations within its studied environment! according to documentation records, the e.coli is still an e.coli bacteria. has this bacteria adapted to the changing environment it? yes. has it evolved? no. i know i'm drawing a fine line here, but bear with me as i try to make my point.
let's look at people for a second... if you saw me walking down the street, you'd realize that i'm a bit darker than the average joe. now, i grew up on and around the beach. but, you look at my parents and you'd see that they're not dark like me. have i evolved? of course not. my body merely adapted to absorb more UV rays. but enough about me, let's look at humans in the big picture. if you look at people from all regions of this world, it's obvious that people look different.
...you know what? i don't know why i always respond at this time... basically i'm tired. but i'll try to sum up real quick...
many scientists overlook the fact that the "missing link" is missing. they try to believe in some random chance of events that connects monkeys to humans. from a strictly scientific point of view, the odds against evolution is staggering. the chance of a single protein molecule to form from "nothing" is one divided by ten to the 160th power. that's an incredibly small chance. to put that figure into perspective, some have compared this "something from nothing" theory to a tornado running through a junk yard and forming a boeing 747 from all the scrap parts. because of probabilities such as this, evolution is considered by many(Christian or not) to be a "scientist's religion."
(alright, now i'm really tired)
so what takes more faith? ...to believe that e.coli will eventually turn into a human or that we and everything else on earth was one day created?
[This message has been edited by CornMonkey (edited 06-06-2000).]
-
Lieutenant Junior Grade
Ok, so God is not cruel right? He gave everyone a fair chance before he murdered them right? Let's recreate a scenario...
In the flood, there is NO WAY Noah could have gotten his message around the world, just in his local area...so immediately everyone outside of hsi continent has died unfairly. Now to the people near Noah...how are THEY supposed to really believe he is the word of God??? Many Christians say they would believe the word of God today, and that if they were sinning they would repent and yadda yadda....
So you are sitting in your house, as you step outside some old guy runs up and tells you that the world is about to flood... But whats great is, hes got God's Cadillac. It's a really nice big cadillac, and you will be saved from the flood if you drop your entire life and go with the old man. Hey he even has a few magic tricks that MIGHT be miracles. Are you really going in the Godmobile?!?! How are the people in Noah's time supposed to trust some "crazy old man with a boat"??!
God is fair?? Dude I hope you guys are all ready to hop into God's Cadillac. Even if its likely that its just a regular car and a crazy old man, you can't be too safe when God's on a rampage!!
-
Preach on brother Chief Broom!! I totally agree with you there, and sorry I haven't responded to all the other posts here, but hey I can only slack off so much at work here...
But this discussion has brought up many interesting things. The way I personally look at it, religion is generally a good thing, well at times. It is good to get people together and do things for the community and help others out, but it seems like that is the church of the past, now it seems that that doesn't happen very often. People go to church to be damned and be told they are going to hell. So then they go around telling all the "non-christians" that they are wrong and they are going to hell. That is just what really pissed me off, religious people who think it is their duty to preach god's word. First of all, I don't give a flying **** what they think, I believe what I believe and hey I am cool with that, I don't run around telling them they are stupid, ha ha well maybe I do... but only on sundays. And secondly there is no scientific way that any one is this entire world can prove the existance of a higher power to me. Ya ya ya I know you can say "oh this happened... blah blah blah" but there is no proof at all that there is a god. There are unexplainable things that have happened which make people believe in god, but yet no proof. People look for explinations to the unexplainable. So one thing that a lot of chrisitians use is the creation of the universe, how did that happen? Well damned if I knew, I haven't been around for 15 billion years, but I can only speculate about it, and use scientific facts to create a hypothosis about it. So far we have the big bang, don't know what caused it or what was before it, but that is what we have. And for all of those out there that say the big bang and evolution is wrong, HA HA HA. It is amusing to me how all of these people are so blinded by their faiths that they can not see the truth. The scientific community looks upon these things as theories, yes, but widely accepted to be true theories they are.
So ya, this is my view on some of these things here, if anyone thinks that they can actually prove the existance of god to me I am all for it, but for now I am just waiting for a big booming voice in the sky to damn me to hell, hasn't happened yet. And by prove I mean with facts, not saying "oh the bible says this, the bible says that" for all I know the bible could have been written by some 40 year old man as a fictional story, I personally think the bible is crap, but hey I know I am gonna take some flack for that one.
------------------
~Kacarp~
"Where is your ****** god now?" The mole
[This message has been edited by Kacarp (edited 06-06-2000).]
-
Ensign
Cornmonkey...
You have some valid points, but I disagree with you when you say that adaptation is not evolution. Evolution is the process when you add up all the little adaptations together. And another thing, I really don't like that airplane metaphore. I have heard it before, and it seems silly to me for someone to give the chances for a process like that to happen, before they actually know HOW the process happens. Yes I admit that we do not know in entirety how a mixture of molecules becomes life. We have bits and pieces of it, for example we know that specific mixtures of gases, when struck with lightning, will produce amino acids, one of the building blocks of life. But we don't know the whole story... so how can we give odds when we don't know how it happened? Look at it from a logical point of view. On the pre-life earth, there would be thousands if not millions of different chemicals present, and all these chemicals would would be interacting and reacting with each other. What would happen if, by chance, the right chemicals were brought together to create a series of chemical reactions that produced as their byproduct the same conditions that began the reaction? What would happen is that this reaction would spread as long as the the initial conditions remained the same. And when the conditions changed, and permutations in the original reaction that could survive the new conditions would spread. Really, that is all we are. We are a series of self replicating chemical reactions. This might offend those of you who believe that you are "chosen" or "special" or "build in his likeness", but it just doesn't work that way. Sorry, but you are just a heap of chemicals.
-
to chief broom: for one thing, God's said that He's not going to destroy Earth with a flood ever again. and another thing, how do we know that there were other people around during Noah's time? when exactly WAS noah's time?
to kacarp: you say taht you're "just waiting for a big booming voice in the sky to damn me to hell." sounds kinda contradictory to you thinking that the Bible is possibly fictional. =) and in actuality, the big bang theory is losing more ground with scientist. if you go to http://www.reasons.org/resources/apo...evidence.html, there's a whole list of things that support creation. and this list is made by a former CalTech SCIENTIST, so he's going by way of science, not theology. finally, about your comment earlier in your post, i know that there are Christians who go to a church as you describe, but you can't make that generalization. heck, with the church i go to, we "get people together and do things for the community and help others out."
to bNorrish: you make a good point how humans are a bunch of chemical reactions. ok. so things happen. how does one thing become another? there is no fossil evidence of evolution happening. what about the whole cambrian explosion? i doubt evolution can cause soo many things to happen in such a short period in the scale of the history of the earth. you know what i mean? i recently saw my friend's new-born son the 2nd day of his existence. thinking that such a perfect thing came from mush is soo unexceptible. along the lines of natural selection/evolution, why would things like plants care if they survived? i never understood this. it's not like they can think for themselves. if they can't think for themselves, would plants REALLY care if they survived or not? i don't see why they would. their existence on earth has a purpose. humans and other animals would not be able to survive. a whole ecology depends on each other and how each part is in its place perfectly by chance seems unbelieveable. what do you think? =) peace out.
------------------
"I think. Therefore, I pray."
-
finals are right around the corner...that means that my posts will most likely be short, few, and far between for the next couple weeks (this may be to the joy of some of you... 
)
bnorrish--
i'm sure you've heard of that experiment where scientists put together some molecules in a flask that was supposed to simulate early earth conditions. they also used sparks to simulate lightning. one of the problems with that experiment is that these scientists, in trying to recreate the air in the atmosphere, used NH3+ instead of NH4(NH4 was supposedly the dominant molecule in the atmosphere at the time). now, NH3+ is extremely reactive, whereas NH4 is extremely stable. so fill a jar with random mixtures of molecules and a volatile reagent, throw in a catalyst(such as an electrical spark) and you're bound to find something. do this same experiement with NH4, and you'll get nothing...
many experiments have been conducted, and that's where all the probabilities and odds come from. and in a way, you're right. we don't know what happened and we might never know. but coming from a strictly "logical," scientific point of view, the conditions that existed back then was not a life-forming-friendly environment. for life to form, you'd have to agree that water must be present (life can't form in the middle of dirt). for water to exist, oxygen must be present. but where does this oxygen come from? and from wherever it does come from, how is it able to produce a continual supply of this gas let alone create enough to produce water? scientists have been able to pinpoint the dominant gas in the air back then--this gas is not oxygen.
also, scientists have found what would be the ideal conditions to form nothing from something. unfortunately, these conditions never existed. but let's say that, for the sake of arguement, these conditions did exist, could life as we know today(plants, birds, mammals, humans, etc.) be formed in a relatively measly 4 billion years?
Chief Broom and Kacarp--
can i ask you guys a question? do you believe in God? from what you two said, i can't really figure out what your points are. do you believe that there isn't a God because if there is one, He wouldn't be so "cruel?" or are you saying that God doesn't exist because there's no proof? or even that God does in fact exist but He's a punk?
up late again... geez, i'm gonna fail my classes...
-
Ensign
Don't worry, I don't plan on cluttering up this page with any more rhetoric.
You all can decide for yourselves what "side" I'm on, whether I'm a Christian or not, but I only wanted to make a simple point...
If you plan on taking part in an argument, please take the time and do some research; KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
Some of the posts I've read in here are sheer nonsense, while others are nothing more than the rantings of narrow-minded simpletons, neither of which are worth taking the twenty minutes to answer.
For example, Mr. Cornmonkey here has got his act together. In my opnion, the fact that he even made the effort to respond to some of the juvenile theories I've read is itself a testament to his passion.
I know a little something about Christianity, and I also know a little something about the arguments against it. If you ask me, Cornmonkey himself is winning this discussion on his own.
My advice to those of you arguing against Christianity is this: read a bit of the bible before you try to refute it, and if you have, then take the time out to get your stories straight before you post your ill-informed opnions up here and make fools of yourselves. Makes the rest of the non-Christians look ignorant.
That's all I have to say. If any of what I've written upsets you, see if I care. At least I didn't make any spelling mistakes.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks