Which God To Believe In

[Vixentrox]

Don't you just love these Christians that don't have a clue about thier bible? Classic, just classic.

[Ouroboros]

i see posts all the time pertaining to which religion is correct. this post is for the ones who believe in a higher power or multiple ones. i am actually writing this for a friend that was unsure of what religion was correct, i thought i would post it here.

Well. You see we do that with anyone that come here and try to claim their religion to be the only true one. None of us here believe there is one true religion, and some believe there's no true religion. My saying is "all religions are true and all religions are false." When you can understand that contradiction, then you understand religion.

 

Anyway, interesting points you bring up. Always good to see new angles to the debate.

 

1 simplicity and clarity.

What is simpler and clearer than your own idea of God? Instead of following a book, imagine your own version of God.

 

I don't agree to that the Bible is simple and clear. Rather the opposite. All holy books are simple and clear to their followers. So when a Christian compare the Bible to the Koran, the Christian will claim the Bible to be simple and clear, while if the Muslim compare, he will say the opposite. This "insight" comes with trained and honed skills of dissecting the words to fit your belief, then the book seems simple. In the end the book is not objectively simple or clear, but subjectively it seems to be.

 

2 confident voice

Anyone can write a confident book. Pick up a book by a New Age writer, and you'll see how confident they are in their ideas.

 

3 brevity

I think that works against instead. I wish God (if he inspired it) could have put in better details in many cases. It's because of murky and unexplained ideas that we have over 37,000 denominations today. For instance, why do we have groups of Christians that don't believe in the Trinity? If it is so important that Christians have to divide themselves and despise each other, then it should have been important enough for God to explain in detail, don' t you think?

 

4 fulfilled prophecy

Not true. Stories written to fit "prophesies" are not "fulfilling" them. Make a prophesy, send it to me, I'll write a story with a person that fulfills this prophesy, and voila, your prophecy was "true".

 

What about the prophesies that were not fulfilled? Did Jesus sit under a tree and sulked for a couple of days? No? Why was he supposed to do that you ask, well, Jonah was in the fish for three days like Jesus was in the grave for three days, and Jonah was sulking under a tree, and Jesus didn't. Why is the prophesies fulfilled on a selective basis only?

 

 

5 honesty

It's not. Jesus even said he was hiding the true meaning of his allegories for the Jews, so they would not understand or know. That's not honest.

 

6 Early teachings

Well, I can grant this a little. The books of Moses definitely have some early insights, but I think some of these ideas already existed in Egypt. But I can't be sure.

 

7 shipbuilding my personal favorite.

 

Even in our modern day of marine engineering and oceanographic technology, the basic size ratio of all ships considered to produce maximum seaworthiness is 30x5x3. In Genesis we read a 3200 year old narrative of God given instructions to a man who was building a boat that had to be the epitome of seaworthiness. the dimensions of the boat were 300 x 50 x 30 cubits.

Eh. I think it points to the other direction. Since it's impossible to build a boat like that and make it seaworthy, then the story is unbelievable, and is not making the case stronger but weaker.

 

I'm skipping the rest for now. You'll get more answers from everyone else, and I know it probably will overload you with questions and refutations.

 

(I just woke up, and my head isn't clear yet. Coffee!!! So if my response seems confusing, I blame it on lack-of-coffee.)

[Antlerman]

the bible is very simply written. "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." this was written around 700 years before the "Iliad" yet it is easily understood today.

 

--------------

 

 

i will be elaborating on that verse in the weeks to come. how it is so simple, but yet explains everything. a complete idiot could read it and understand what it says, if you were ever force to read the Iliad, it is not written in a easy to understand style.

Yes, most children read it as a magical story about the creation of the world, on the level of Santa bringing gifts at Christmas. It's not until we become adults that the definition of idiot becomes clear when we start reading it as factual history, rather than a mythological tale of a mysteriously wondrous event.

 

Be careful throwing out terms like idiot. You see how easily they can be turned back to the one speaking it? Besides, that's not very gracious in spirit, is it?

[Thurisaz]

i see posts all the time pertaining to which religion is correct. this post is for the ones who believe in a higher power or multiple ones. i am actually writing this for a friend that was unsure of what religion was correct, i thought i would post it here. [...]

 

Ah, standard nonsense.

 

Just for fun, I'll tell you how I found out that my faith was the right one, for me at least (after all, your belief - or lack thereof - is always and everywhere your very own decision):

 

It struck me out of the blue, without any significant contact between its statements and my person prior to that incident.

 

You can torture your brain for years trying to understand the "higher meaning" of some religious writing. The problem is that this doesn't mean anything. The brain is a funny machine. If you demand that it produces the thoughts and impressions you want, eventually it'll give in. In other words, this way leads to nothing but self-brainwashing.

 

You can also have a spontaneous "vision" (for lack of a better word). Aaah, but if this happens to reaffirm the faith you're most familiar with, is this a genuine message from Above, or is it just something else, interpreted that way by your brain because you understand these images best... because you're most familiar with them?

 

The most "honest" experience one can have is a "vision" of something you never really dabbled with before. Like me when I started reading the Poetic Edda out of sheer curiosity. I hadn't even reached any really important passage in the book when "HOME AT LAST!" almost blew me away.

 

Now that is what I call a religious revelation if there ever was one!

 

You say? Nothing worth mentioning? I thought so.

[NotBlinded]

 

>snip<

 

i will be elaborating on that verse in the weeks to come. how it is so simple, but yet explains everything. a complete idiot could read it and understand what it says, if you were ever force to read the Iliad, it is not written in a easy to understand style.

I'm not sure that I agree with that. I think the Catholics were forbidded to even read the bible. Everything they know was told to them through the church's interpretation.

 

But, I believe also that it was written so the masses could understand it, but what happened to meaning of the stories when this occured?

 

So, yes...a complete idiot can read it and understand it, but can they actually understand what the stories point to? Almost anyone can read and understand a sign that says "Historical Marker 10 miles ahead", but do they understand what the historical marker is? I think you understand the signs, but mistake them for the thing the sign is pointing to.

 

When you say you "deny all others" (religions), you are missing out on an opportunity to understand your own faith in a clearer light, IMO.

[Ouroboros]

Here's the idiots reading of a passage in the Bible:

Mt 10:34

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Idiots interpretation: lets go out and kill everyone, because I'm a Christian

 

If the idiot can read the Bible and get it right, then why do I hear the little background noise that we're idiots that don't understand the Bible? If we're idiots, and we read it, but our interpretation is wrong according to your wishes, then it must be something else needed to understand the Bible, right? And it's tradition. You interpret the Bible based on approved traditional views in your community. That's the reason why Christians over the world can't agree. Because the tradition and culture is different in each place, so the interpretations will be different. In one place they'll read a passage literally and in the next they read the same passage figuratively.

 

Example: Nephilim. Is that figure of speech or literally offspring to the Sons of God, or fallen Angels?

[dibby]

Freeday, your cursory, shallow, partisan and dismissive attitude towards anything which doesn't share your particular world view is, frankly, the height of arrogance. This sort of attitude is a big reason I left christianity.

[Young Mother Atheist]

For some crazy reason I always hope that a Christian will actually offer a decent argument in their favor. I don't know why.

 

But I am always dissapointed.

 

I don't even know where to start with this post, so I don't think I will. It gets tiring saying the same thing over and over to the same silly Christian arguments.

 

Freeday, they really ARE silly arguments.

 

Why do I always find myself knowing much more about the intricacies of the Bible, even from a Christian perspective, than do the Christians on this site?

 

[Asimov]

will elaborate on #6 when i get off from work. i was just making observations that makes the bible unique, take it however you will. have a good night.

 

No, your stuff is an explanation as to why you think the bible is better. Every holy book is unique, if they weren't then they would be the same words, ideas and deities.

 

here is the follow up on the historical accuracy.

 

For example, consider how the nineteenth century critics challenged the accuracy of the biblical record concerning the Hittites, the Horites of Sargon II, and Sodom and Gomorrah. Critics condemned the biblical record as myth until archaeological excavations completely authenticated the biblical record. One Egyptian tablet actually recorded a fierce battle between Ramses II and the Hittites at Kadesh on the Orontes River. The Bible proved accurate; the critics proved false.

 

this was not an explination of why i thought my religion is better. I have a trust in the Lord, therefore i deny all others. this was an explination from an athiest who was non-biased in search of a belief. this was his conclusion of why he started worshiping the God of abraham.

 

I don't care if he was an atheist, he was a fucking moron.

 

Critics??? You mean scientists?? People who are interested in learning about how the world works and who want to test previously accepted ideas? This is, of course, in contrast to idiots who just accept things as true without any scrap of evidence. I commend those archaeologists who look for evidence of the bible. At least they are doing it and willing to accept they are wrong.

 

Sodom and Gomorrah? So we found a couple cities near the Dead Sea that COULD be S and G. So what? That doesn't PROVE the bible.

 

Hm...let's see what historical inquiry has shown to be WRONG about the bible:

 

1. The Exodus

2. The Great Flood

3. The Garden of Eden - Origins of Man.

4. The Garden of Eden - Origins of Animals

5. Creation of the Earth.

[Antlerman]

So, yes...a complete idiot can read it and understand it, but can they actually understand what the stories point to? Almost anyone can read and understand a sign that says "Historical Marker 10 miles ahead", but do they understand what the historical marker is? I think you understand the signs, but mistake them for the thing the sign is pointing to.

Well said. The sign is the end point in their minds, rather than a vehicle of "truth."

 

Welcome back.

[Open_Minded]

So, yes...a complete idiot can read it and understand it, but can they actually understand what the stories point to? Almost anyone can read and understand a sign that says "Historical Marker 10 miles ahead", but do they understand what the historical marker is? I think you understand the signs, but mistake them for the thing the sign is pointing to.

 

When you say you "deny all others" (religions), you are missing out on an opportunity to understand your own faith in a clearer light, IMO.

 

NotBlinded

 

You're back - Yipeee

 

Glad to see you again...

 

Did I ever tell you ILWYT?

 

And Freeday ... You claim to worship ONE GOD....

 

So... and I've brought this up before ... how can anything, anyone, any part of the universe ... exist beyond - outside -apart from this ONENESS you call God?

 

In short - why are you even asking "which God to believe in"? There can only be ONE eternal, infinite, ONENESS...

[NotBlinded]

Hi guys!

 

Thank you.

 

Antlerman...the vehicle of religion travels on a rough and rocky road when it is taken as the end truth instead of the vehicle as you said.

 

O_M, you are amazing.

[Asimov]

prophecies concerning the messiah

 

where he would be born Mic 5:2

he would be preceded by a messenger Isa 40:3

how he would enter jerusalem Zech 9:9

his friends would betray him Psa 41:9

he would be betrayed for 30 peices of silver Zech 11:12

his hands and feet would be pierced Psa 22:16

 

there is more than one prophesy other than Isaiah, i can list several others, but you get the point.

 

Uh dude....you're just listing your interpretation of a verse as if it was a prophecy. I think it's called putting the cart before the horse.

[Lycorth]

(At least OTHER religions have the good manners to keep their shit to themselves! Why are you Christians so rude and arrogant? You're like demon-possessed telemarketers, who won't take "no" for an answer. I suppose it's true when they say, "Misery loves company." You want the world to be as deluded and miserable as you are! Fucking dicks.)

 

 

Well-said agian, Mista Grinch. They want us to live in fear of their boogeyman, too.

 

Like I said, a disingenuous fuck.

[quicksand]

Finally, perhaps the most important reason to choose the bible as the Word of God has to do with its author.

 

That's authors.

 

Let's play pretend for awhile that there is consensus on who actually the disciples were AND the number.

 

You want to argue they are the same person?

 

Please do.

 

B/c then you open another whole hornets nest of problems.

[Fweethawt]

*heavily panting*

I wonder what it's like to actually DO a grinch.

*dribble*

 

 

 

[Lycorth]

 

You'd want to stick your dick in that?

 

You're nuts.

 

[freeday]

i see posts all the time pertaining to which religion is correct. this post is for the ones who believe in a higher power or multiple ones. i am actually writing this for a friend that was unsure of what religion was correct, i thought i would post it here.

 

All holy books are interesting and beautiful in their own way. The authors present attractive ideas and, through the application of common sense, agree on many of the basic issues. therefore, the question becomes not whether these words are wise or well-written, but whether they actually represent the word of God who created the universe. when choosing a book for spiritual guidance, it must be complete and correct in all aspects, otherwise it could never have any significant impact on a person's life or be depended upon.

Before I devote any time to the many arguments you presented, I will address the basic premise of your discussion which pretty much makes what follows somewhat moot. Hopefully you will respond to the points I make in this post.

 

The last sentence I highlighted in red above: This is purely an assumption of logic on your part. An assumption that has no sense of reality outside your words. Significant impact on a person's life? I wouldn't call the Egyptian culture, Muslim cultures, Greek culture; Roman culture; Chinese culture, Japanese culture; American cultures "insignificant". Mythologies one and all are a major, significant contributing factor in how people the world over identify themselves to the world, and their societies. **If they didn't work, they wouldn't survive for thousands of years, would they? I would call that extremely significant and completely dependable as evidenced by the cohesiveness of the societies they shaped.

 

The correct religion is the one that works for whoever adopts it. There are two different sorts of truth: Objective truth, and subjective truth. Religion is the latter. The criteria for truth in the latter case cannot be approached logically, outside the "logic" of the person's spirit: which logic is what makes sense for you. What makes sense and works for one may not make sense for others. For them to insist their truth is the truth for others, speaks of their personal insecurity that needs others to affirm their adopted beliefs in order for them to feel good (artificially) about their choices. When I hear someone speak of "True Religion", this is what I hear. It is an argument of a subjective, personal nature that attempts to defend itself under a distorted mask of objectivity.

 

What I highlighted above in blue is something I could go at great length to discuss with you (if in fact you are willing to discuss with me), but to be brief about it: You do not seem to understand the nature of mythology. These are more than just "common sense" things. These books are on an equal footing with the Bible, not just some "words of men". Though they are words of men - just as the Bible is - they are words of the vision of the human spirit. If they were not, they would not have been as significant as they are to have molded and shaped human social evolution and societies to the degree they have.

 

It is arrogant and short sighted to dismiss their power and elevate your own Holy book above theirs. It is intellectually indefensible. These are subjective works of truth, not a singular objective, external reality. Nothing can be argued that is able to stand up to that sort of expectation. If you want your mythology to work, don't let rational thought be able to scrutinize it. You will be leading it to the execution squad, and that is such a waste to do to something that doesn't operate in the rational world.

 

I look forward to you engaging your thoughts to these points I have raised. I hope you will take the time discussing along these lines with me.

 

Respectfully

 

sorry took so long to respond, been busy. i think this may have been misconstrued. I wrote this for a friend that was in search of a religion. I thought the author made valid points of why he thought this religion was unique. but then if you don't beleive in the religion, most of the points would be invalid.

 

this is in response to the part in red. i did assume a lot, when writing it. i assumed that you had read the whole book, trusted the author, and understood that it was written for christians who believe in Jesus. in the path of reading the book, he is a complete evolutionist born and raised. he presents scientific facts that lend credit to the bible and what leads him to believe in a higher power. then he went on a search to discover what religion works best for HIM. these were the stated reasons of why he choose christianity. he goes into great detail about the above topics, there is no way i could type all of the information. i tried to sumarize it best as possible.

 

lastly, i guess i pissed off a bunch of people. that was not my intention. this article was prepared and typed for a personal friend that is a christian, but is struggling. I appologize for posting it.

[Fweethawt]

You'd want to stick your dick in that?

You're nuts.

 

Go read his last post in this thread then come back here and tell me that you ain't tempted just a little bit.

 

[Lycorth]

Go read his last post in this thread then come back here and tell me that you ain't tempted just a little bit.

 

 

*Goes back and reads*

 

Get some help, Fwee. I'm telling you this as your friend

 

[freeday]

prophecies concerning the messiah

 

where he would be born Mic 5:2

Bethlehem Ephratah is a clan... not a town. Im assuming you got this prophecy from Matt 2:6 which states:

 

And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the leaders of Judah,

 

The author of Matthew purposely misleads readers into believing a prophecy of a town by quoting Micah wrong, when the actual quote is:

 

But as for you, Bethlehem Ephratah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah,

 

 

how can this be taken out of context, according to the NIV it says "but you, bethlehem Ephrathah. though you are small among the clans of Judah. Out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel." verse 1 sets up the scene for the current times. verse 2 looks forward to the birth of the one who will be the ruler in israel. since there were two bethlehems in the holy land, Micah specifies bethlehem ephrathah, six miles south of jerusalem. this verse is intednded as a contrast to verse 1. although israel's contemporary situation migt be discouraging, yet all would be changed when the Messiah came.

[Checkmate]

how can this be taken out of context, according to the NIV it says.....

Stop right there and you'll see a BIG problem regarding "out of context" claims. How can you Christians speak about "context" when you can't even settle which scriptures to read from? Surely you are aware of the VAST differences betwixt the NIV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, NET, Jerusalem, Coptic, Douay-Rheims, Amplified, Young's Literal Translation, Darby's, Weymouth's NT and many more too numerous to mention? With this much wiggle room, any snapperhead can make the scriptures say anything they dream up.

 

So, what does this say for your "prophetic" proofs?

 

Don't waste my time with your "out of context", theological hair splitting. It's all a fairy tale and you ALL see exactly what you WANT to see, depending on which manuscript has been approved for your church doctrine/denomination.

[scotter]

Freeday:

 

Concerning Jesus being born in Bethlehem thus he fulfilled the prophecy that Messiah would be born in Bethlehem

 

Vectors:

1. I would use a different approach, I go with your flow: let’s say it is a prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. (The other Ex-C members explained to you their views that it wasn’t a prophecy, in addition, NIV is an evangelical agenda translation.)

 

2. In buying a car, you originally wanted a blue truck with air conditioning. You went to the car dealership, you found a red truck with no air conditioning but good price, you drove it away. It is okay.

 

3. Believing someone as Messiah is not buying a car, there is no compromise. Can we agree then if there is even one point doesn’t fit, then the person is not the Messiah?

 

4. See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ocialclass.html

Scroll down to John Dominic Crossnan: Jesus was born in Nazareth, raised in Nazareth/Galilee (scroll to Lee Michael White). Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, so he did not fulfill the prophecy Messiah be born in Bethlehem.

 

5. Your possible objection, “But the gospels wrote that Jesus was born in Bethlehem….” Freeday, is it also possible that the gospel writers simply wrote that Jesus was born in Bethlehem? Do you know what I mean? They were not interested in presenting history, but the more priority was to present their theological agenda that Jesus is the Messiah with OT scriptural verses backing.

 

Freeday, this is somewhat personal and off topic: if you like to know about Jesus in the historical academic perspective, in addition to evangelical perspective, this PBS URL is excellent: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...religion/jesus/

 

Also recommended to read Historical Introduction to the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195154622

 

And this is not an anti-Christian book, it is actually an academic textbook used in college faculties.

 

Those would be helpful to your belief.

[Checkmate]

sorry took so long to respond, been busy. i think this may have been misconstrued. I wrote this for a friend that was in search of a religion. I thought the author made valid points of why he thought this religion was unique. but then if you don't beleive in the religion, most of the points would be invalid.

................

That last sentence makes ZERO sense. However, it IS a damning testimony of how and why people accept their religious beliefs, while rejecting others.

 

Note: You admit that the ONLY REASON PEOPLE WOULD BE CONVINCED OF FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS FOR YOUR RELIGION WOULD THAT THEY BE PREDISPOSED TO BELIEVE.

 

You said that, "most of the points would be invalid, IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THE RELIGION".

 

Now, I ask you, if you speak the TRUTH, why must one FIRST have faith in it for it to be VALID? One doesn't.

 

Freeday, you're inadvertently making our case for us. People ONLY believe their brand of faith, BECAUSE they are predisposed to accept it. It has NOTHING to do with "truth" or "Proofs". It's cultural bias, prejudice, social conditioning, peer pressure or what have you.

 

Muslims believe Islam is "true" because THAT is what they were raised to believe. Christians believe in Christ because THAT is what they were raised to believe. None of you religious people were raised in a vacuum. You did not begin with a blank slate, and then began to formulate your ideas FAIRLY to choose your religion. The scales were tipped in your religion's favor, and THAT is the direction you went. I know whereof I speak, because THAT is how I chose Christianity, too.

 

Freeday, if you have "valid" proofs or arguments, it won't matter if I don't believe in your religion. The Truth exists independently of Belief/Faith.

 

Do yourself a favor and click the link at the bottom of my post, and read the article "Under Delusion". It goes into more detail about what I've discussed here.

[freeday]

Freeday:

 

Concerning Jesus being born in Bethlehem thus he fulfilled the prophecy that Messiah would be born in Bethlehem

 

Vectors:

1. I would use a different approach, I go with your flow: let’s say it is a prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. (The other Ex-C members explained to you their views that it wasn’t a prophecy, in addition, NIV is an evangelical agenda translation.)

 

2. In buying a car, you originally wanted a blue truck with air conditioning. You went to the car dealership, you found a red truck with no air conditioning but good price, you drove it away. It is okay.

 

3. Believing someone as Messiah is not buying a car, there is no compromise. Can we agree then if there is even one point doesn’t fit, then the person is not the Messiah?

 

4. See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ocialclass.html

Scroll down to John Dominic Crossnan: Jesus was born in Nazareth, raised in Nazareth/Galilee (scroll to Lee Michael White). Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, so he did not fulfill the prophecy Messiah be born in Bethlehem.

 

5. Your possible objection, “But the gospels wrote that Jesus was born in Bethlehem….” Freeday, is it also possible that the gospel writers simply wrote that Jesus was born in Bethlehem? Do you know what I mean? They were not interested in presenting history, but the more priority was to present their theological agenda that Jesus is the Messiah with OT scriptural verses backing.

 

Freeday, this is somewhat personal and off topic: if you like to know about Jesus in the historical academic perspective, in addition to evangelical perspective, this PBS URL is excellent: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...religion/jesus/

 

Also recommended to read Historical Introduction to the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195154622

 

And this is not an anti-Christian book, it is actually an academic textbook used in college faculties.

 

Those would be helpful to your belief.

 

as far as the translation goes, yes i read the NIV, i find it easier to understand than KJV. but i have 3 different resource books i use also. that is where it came from.

 

this is in regard to the pbs article.

 

from what i gather. they found a house with a really nice floor (which lends credit to the upper class thoughts the archeaologist have). It was found in a city they are calling Sepphoris. Nazarene was a satalite city of it. so they are saying Jesus was not the peasant the bible reffers too.

 

the unearthing of a mosaic in a nearby city is not enough proof for me to disacknowledge the Christ. there are to many ifs, ands, buts. i won't even go into them.