God is a maelevolent beast, he has managed to kill 99% of the life in the entire universe, and he has tried really really hard to get rid of us.
Problem is, he blew too much power creating the original singularity, which he just did because he likes fireworks, and doesn't have enough left to be a 100% effective killing machine. He's still pretty good at it though.
Over time, he accepted that life finds ways to survive, he learned that after a giant rock he threw at the earth didn't wipe out all the creatures, only most of them. So he decided he would emotionally and mentally enslave as many people as he could with empty promises. This is why he demands blind faith, to believe in the unseen and unprovable. Becuase he's almost out of magical power elixirs, and he's got a whole universe still to deal with. It might explain his absenteeism.
A better question is: Why do people like easy money?
Because some people just don't have the resources or don't choose to make an honest living. There are striking similarities between the institutions and practices of religions and gangs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'Wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe." - Marcus Cole, Babylon 5
I'd hazard to guess that no true God would need/want to be worshipped. The major problem with men writing religious doctrine is that they project human flaws onto God (ironically making him in their image). I've always found it ridiculous that some of humankinds worst flaws (jealosy, vengefullness, ego) have been attributed to God effectively making him on par with humans. They have essentially turned God into a flawed emporer that's no better than a typical overbearing leader. Limited world view from the authors' perspective I suppose. Makes me want to read Paradise Lost again...
Compare your comment to the Red Cross asking for donations. Doesn't the Red Cross really just want your money? They seem to ask for hand-outs during every event that strikes. They turn away donations of goods when disaster strikes. They pay themselves $1,000,000 plus expenses to ask for your money, blood and time. And when they take more than they spend on the disaster and keep on asking for more they're doing it for the $$$ right?
So charities and Gangs like easy money right? therefore being a charity is like being a gang.
Wrong. Your position quickly fails once you get past your bigotry and compare it to other organizations similar to a church.
And as far as giving goes; what % of your gross do you give to those less fortunet than yourself? Maybe we should use you as our example for caring for others in need.
I know the Red Cross wants my money. Do you know how I know this? Because I know the definition of the word charity. Are churches purely charity organizations? Do charities use fear, brainwashing and intimidation to get their money like gangs and churches do?
The answer you're looking for is a big nope; nice try at a strawman though. My position is sound because I'm not criticizing charity, I'm criticizing "God says tithe 10% bro." But you're so right (and so intelligent too!), I'm bigoted because I possess an opinion that differs from yours.
And it's strange that you would attempt to launch an ad hominim attack against me personally. What makes you think my personal giving is at issue here? But if you must know, I'm a nurse, I do pretty giving work for relatively low pay five days a week. What do you do?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'Wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe." - Marcus Cole, Babylon 5
There is no God, so I think the correct question is: Why did the people who constructed the various religions make it so critical that their followers worship and follow God without question?
As someone who has read the Bible, I question this assertion. If the book was designed to thwart questions, it was terribly written.
Intent doesn't equal result.
I can intend to write a funniest new fall comedy, but the result might be the most unfunny show ever made.
Intent appears to be germain to your assertion.
If I were to construct a religion, it would be very sexy. I would not write a book like the Bible, which actively encourages questioning religious authority, is regularly boring to read, and filled with all sort of rules about sex.
While I can agree that unquestioning faith is encouraged by many religious leaders, I question if that was the intent of its creators.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
" If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people." Deut. 13:6-9
Seems pretty clear what the OT has to say about questioning anything.
Love me or suffer for all eternity. It shouldn't matter if I love it or not if it is omnibenevolent. On top of that there is nothing I could do to warrant hell, but hes 'all just' they say; something can't be all loving AND all just because mercy through benevolence contradicts justice. Regardless, based on what is claimed in the Bible about God, it deserves nothing but contempt. Anyone who reads whats written there and still thinks that God is a loving entity has had their morality twisted and brainwashed, please open your eyes.
This is purely naive. You really believe that ALL churches give ALL their money to the people while the preachers at mega churches are wearing thousand dollar suits? I'd suggest to go watch to the documentary "Marjoe"
Your position is weak.
I have the sneaking suspicion that ANY argument made against the religion is going to be found weak by you. You clearly think God is real, I can't really argue with that, as it's impossible to debate on the basis of circular logic. I haven't seen any compelling argument from you though on why God requires us to worship him.
There is not a strawman comparison. I didn't distort your position but rather pointed out the idiocy of your initial position that Churches are like Gangs and want easy money.
After viewing Marjoe you can come back and confirm that there indeed plenty of churches that are looking for easy money. They DO use fear and intimidation and indoctrination to keep the money flowing. This is reality. All churches might not do it, but to suggest that NO churches do it is simply unreasonable.
Your position is that churches intimidate members to give money.
Tithing is a requirement for membership for Mormons (IE you can’t be part of the church if you don’t). The few times I've been to church in the last ten years there was ALWAYS time spent on convincing people to give money to the church. It's right in the bible dude.
Amazingly enough you don't get church tatoo's
I've seen hundreds, probably thousands of people with tattoos of crosses, bible passages, the Virgin Mary, Jesus, ect. Is this a serious comment?
get beat into churches
I was personally beaten and abused by church members as a child. Calvinism encourages beating children for misdeeds. Moses himself thought disobedient children should be stoned. The amount of child abuse int eh church is staggering. Still want to stand by the notion that you don’t get beaten into churches? Many a catholic school student will disagree with you.
engage in criminal behaviour
You mean like child rape? Or embezzlement? Or burning people to death? The church and its members have been committing atrocities’ for a long long time.
get shot if you try to leave
Are you sure no one has even been shot for leaving a church? Let’s broaden the scope outside of gun death and look at what else happens when someone leaves the church: like being completely ostracized from your family and community. Because that never happens right? (it happens far too much)
etc like you would a gang.
Just as not all churches will shun you for leaving, not all gangs will shoot you. Personally, I find the similarities between religion and gangs strikingly similar (that analogy I'm sure extends to many forms of exclusive groups).
Further, "brainwashing" is likewise unfounded and upsupported.
You REALLY don't think religion engages in brainwashing? Why is it that the church wants to teach kids about hell so early? To integrate the idea into their interpretation of reality. It's a control mechanism. The church aims not to teach someone HOW to think, but to teach them WHAT to think. It's like a text book definition of brainwashing.
No you're a bigot because you hate people who have faith in something you don't believe in. I don't hate atheists for not believing in God. I don't hate Jews for not accepting the messiah. But you sir, hate Christians for their religious experience which you have limited understanding of and cast bombastic insults against. Yep, pretty certain that you're a bigot.
I didn't read anything he wrote that told me that he was a bigot, or that he hates Christians. But think what you've been trained to think if you must.
So you count how you make your living as giving? AWESOME! Hey honey...
Stopped reading the rest of your garbage right there. This is a debate forum, there are rules about edicate. Please read them adhere to them. If someone wants to makes a comparison between religion and gangs (to the thinking person there are many similarities even if you fail to grasp them) and they pose an argument, as a member of this debate community, you should not be showing such blatant disrespect. You should apologize for your tone and verbiage used.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
all churches in the USA are charities. Churches may have non-charitble arms but IRS has them registered as charities. So my comparison of a church and charity are apt.
Just because religious, educational and charitable organizations are lumped together by the IRS, that doesn't make them the same. In any event, charities are nothing like "the church", and on that basis alone the comparison is invalid.
Further you don't complain that charity pays its executives a $1,000,000 to help the needy, run propaganda to obtain more money, spend lavishly to self congratulate, but somehow you do complain that a Christian and Jew will typically target 10% of thier income in giving. Your position is weak.
Most charities are corporations. I see nothing inconsistent about thinking the CEOs of Exxon or the Red Cross deserves millions of dollars of pay. Nor is it inconsistent to believe that companies should advertise to "raise awareness".
There is not a strawman comparison. I didn't distort your position but rather pointed out the idiocy of your initial position that Churches are like Gangs and want easy money. Your position is that churches intimidate members to give money.
Lol, you don't even know what a strawman is. What's even funnier is that you don't understand that leaping to charity is irrelevant to the topic I brought up. I said nothing about charity, you ascribe a position on charity to me, then you proceeded to argue purely on that basis. That is the definition of a strawman.
Amazingly enough you don't get church tatoo's, get beat into churches, engage in criminal behaviour, get shot if you try to leave, etc like you would a gang. Somehow this behaviour of a gang is lost on you yet you try to state that a church is a gang. Hence my retort that your definition that "easy money" makes you a gang is wrong. Further, "brainwashing" is likewise unfounded and upsupported.
Wrong on every account. See Oldaughd's post for a more detailed rejection of your specific points.
No you're a bigot because you hate people who have faith in something you don't believe in. I don't hate atheists for not believing in God. I don't hate Jews for not accepting the messiah. But you sir, hate Christians for their religious experience which you have limited understanding of and cast bombastic insults against. Yep, pretty certain that you're a bigot.
Pure speculation. I may love Christians, I may even be one. Perhaps I have a very deep relationship with Jesus but reject organized religion. The point is, you don't know any of my personal feelings. It's ironic that, by definition, you are showing yourself to be bigoted toward atheists.
My comments may have been irreverently critical but there was nothing that could be classified as hateful. If you think they're so hateful report my posts and let a mod decide.
So you count how you make your living as giving? AWESOME! Hey honey, got to go to work today and earn my paycheck. Good thing I'm doing it for the giving and not the money. Your "relative low pay" statement is based upon your opinion. Those in your profession do have higher income. My sister-in-law is a nurse who got here nursing degree at 38 and now is 49. That she's making $100K seems reasonable given her ambition.
Are you stating you've given up promotion to serve as a CNA; cleaning and caring for the infirm? If so, I'd advise to advance to your maximum capability allowing those less capable than you to take the lesser position.
Again, you didn't address why my personal giving was an issue. This is an ad hominim attack and thus you fail to make an argument, come back when you have one.
Yes, I do count a field that is what most would describe as a calling, a giving vocation. I could have been something else, I chose this. Nursing is one of the most respected fields in the world because of the selfless nature of the work involved. As to my personal giving, I didn't say anything about any other time spent. You don't know anything about me, don't claim anything otherwise, fool.
You've made the judement call regarding giving and how evil Churches are by comparing them to gangs. Since part of your baseless attack on religions is to point out that they accept money from their members, the inferred position is that money would be better used elsewhere. So I bring forth the challenge to you directly: what do you give of your INCOME to the less fortunet? I gave 14% of my gross income away last year to charities (plural). Further, I directly gifted another 3% of my money to families in need outside of charities. Additionally, I give week-end time to a bread ministry where we give food away.
That bolded part there, when exactly did I say that? Churches and charity are two distinct things; I'm not understanding your lack of comprehension on this point.
Your challenge is a childish attempt at a non-argument. Logic just isn't a part of your thought process is it?
Not only is your comparison of religion to charity wrong, you admit here that you actually don't know anything about my life. I'd say you have gone further than just making assumptions, your response is downright libelous.
But let's talk about you. So even though you're talking about your feelings about charity I'll assume you are a terrible, abusive man. And because I don't beat my family on a daily basis your arguments are invalid. I think you may have some anger issues sir, please deal with them (lol, gotta love baseless ad hominim attacks).
In order to continue in your hateful position towards churches and justify to yourself that you're not a bigot, it seems that you must ingore your own lack of financial giving.
Your viewpoint doesn't support itself without contorting what giving means. Making a living and taking money from those you help is not giving: it is a livelyhood.
Do you think that just saying I'm a nurse is a full listing of everything I do? Did it occur to you that I'm not so full of myself that I didn't feel the need to list everything I do in order to seem morally superior? Whatever one chooses to do with their life, whether it's one's livelihood or not, often reflects on one's character. So I'll pose a challenge back (since you're so into making irrelevant personal judgments), what is your vocation? What conclusions can we draw about your character from what you choose to do with your life?
But you know what, I could care less what you do. Moreover, I'm not interested in discussing charity, so unless you have something to say about why God wants your money (or sacrifices in general) there's nothing we have to discuss.
"I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'Wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe." - Marcus Cole, Babylon 5
No arguement from me on this. The purpose of my statement is regarding beliefs and behaviours. The common behaviour is to believe in the divine. The common behaviour is the standard by which other behaviours are judged and laws are written.
Intolerence towards the common behaviour is foolish.
Ok, I know you said a lot of things and I'm sure others will get around to those, but this actually offends me so I'm going to apologetically cut in for a minute.
You claimed that not believing in a theist system would imply having a problem because it is not the condition of the majority. You assert that to go against (be intolerant of) the popular view is just foolish. Like it is one of those truths you keep talking about.
That is really really not ok. That is the basis of discrimination, the pinnacle or arrogance and clearly not true to begin with. They are many majority behaviors/beliefs in different populations over history that ended up making no sense and being just wrong, which is especially relevant because the thing you were talking about when you brought this up was the honest pursuit of truth, which for some reason majority behavour can help with but scientific reasoning is completely useless.
The only honest pursuit of truth is called science because we Cannot perceive truthfulness. It isn't visible or measurable in any way but one. We can disprove things, so untruthfulness can be measured to a degree. So yes. Science's strength is indeed the ability to prove things wrong. That's the very foundation of science. And yes it is an honest pursuit of truth because nothing else even comes close to interacting with truthfulness.
Your main criticism seems to be that science hasn't found absolute truth, but the pursuit is all humans are capable of. Again unless you count math and I Guess history, but there are way of arguing against those as well.
Really, you'd need to find truth that can be observed for truth to mean anything at all. Or redefine truth. Then you get into sliding scale of acceptable likelihood of being untrue and that is where atheism is super strong, because any given religion requires you to slide really really far up that scale, so you don't want to go there.
I've read that heaven is just a place where there is joy, no pain and suffering, and you are always worshiping God. But why does an omnipotent, all loving God want us to worship him? I know he wants a family, but we don't worship our parents. Isn't there a way to love Him without worshiping Him?
That version of Heaven does not do justice to what the actual state of affairs in Heaven will actually be. What that describes is not the role that human souls will have in Heaven, but rather one of the roles that the Choir of Angels currently has. It should be noted that a human soul does not become an Angel upon entering Heaven.
Angels by and large do not have Free Will, except in a few notable instances (namely the highest ranked Angels in the Angelic Court). Thus why would a human soul which has free will suddenly give up that free will upon entering Heaven? That defeats the whole purpose of God creating us in his image in the first place (i.e. creating us with free will).
Also, it is interesting to note, but I have heard romantic love described on many occasions as "Worshiping your lover" in fact there is a book in the Bible that draws this same analogy about the love of God for the Nation of Israel, that it is like the love of a Romantic Partner. In fact said book gets exceedingly graphic and has been heralded as a sexual manual on the same level as the Kama Sutra.
Well, let’s look at what it would be like if religions didn’t require worship. Keep in mind the most important thing in, say, Christianity is that you never forsake the Holy Ghost. All else can be forgiven except for not believing. This is a good rule if you intend to keep people coming into the church, and giving the church money.
Eh... actually that commandment means that you aren't allowed to Blaspheme the Name of God. Fortunately the Hebrews had a practical policy of never writing down the vowels in the name of God, and also never speaking the name aloud, so it is literally impossible to blaspheme the name of God in the modern age.
Blaspheming the words "Holy Spirit" is way too easy and something that a radical Atheist Group has rallied people to attempt to do en masse, fortunately it is not something you can actually be damned to hell for all eternity, mainly because the concept of the Holy Spirit is a purely Post-Resurrection of Jesus concept. Yes I believe there is a trinity aspect to God, but the concepts of the Holy Spirit as it has come to be indoctrinated in the modern church is not something that existed during or prior to Jesus' life. There are only vague references to the concept known as the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament at best, and even vaguer references to the concept of the Son of God made manifest. So the concept of blaspheming either of these would have been a weird concept in the first century at best. Blaspheming the true name of God however would have been something people would have intrinsically recognized immediately.
Oh and as a side note, Christians worship on Sunday because that is the day Jesus rose from the dead. Traditionally speaking however, the Sabbath Day of Rest is a combination of a Friday and a Saturday. Basically from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. Sundown because the Hebrew day starts at Sundown, not in the morning.
There is an explanation for why things happen. If the search for answers rolled over on its back every time someone said "God did it" we would still be living in caves surviving as food for micro organisms.
A Miracle can and probably should be defined as a series of events for which there is no current plausible scientific explanation. Thus at the current time it would likely be reasonable to define the story that Northprophet describes as a Miracle. At least until a plausible scientific explanation can be provided. I mean can any of you explain how a person with no cartilage in their hips from the time they were a little kid, suddenly woke up one day and had cartilage in their hips? That defies my understanding of how biology works.
As for the God of Gaps theory, that whole theory hinges upon the assumption that God never intended us to discover the methods he uses to accomplish his miracles. It could be that what science is observing is simply the method of creation and intervention that God chose to use. And that the term "Miracle" is simply an out of date term. Though I can't think of a better term for Creation. Science doesn't really do it justice seeing as how Science is not a term to describe the act of creation so much as it is a term to describe the observation and reproduction of the act of creation.
What benefit do you think God gets from these commandments? I think you have a very narrow understanding of the purpose of these commmandments.
I dont think God gets any benefit because he isn't real. However, within a literary context, I was pointing out the reason why the character of God in the bible requires worship appears to be that he is jealous and egotistical. My basis for this was in the ten commandments that he laid down to his chosen people, a significant number of these divine commandments centred around people worshipping and honouring him for being great. That sounds fairly self-centred and egotistical and more like a spoiled child than a supreme being.
Rufus, you said it yourself, the Israelites were YWHW's chosen people. He was to be their God. Now he cannot very well fulfill that role for his people if he allows them to worship other deities, now can he? That said however there are some key points in the Ten Commandments that bear scrutiny.
the First Commandment is "You shall have no other gods (Before/Besides) me." The thing about this commandment, is the word for Before or Besides can be translated as either or. If it is translated as Before, it can be taken to mean that YWHW is to be the Chief God in the Israelite Pantheon, much the way that Zeus is the chief God in the Greek Pantheon. If it is however translated as Besides it means that YWHW is to be the ONLY God in the Israelite Pantheon. This translational issue is largely where the confusion stems from. But to make matters worse, the word used for God in many places in the Old Testament is a plural term, not a singular. So the question arises, how many Gods did the early Israelites actually have?
The answer of course is that they were descended from Mesopotamians, and as such were polytheistic, not monotheistic. The God of Abraham, and thus the God of the Israelites is simply the personal God of Abraham's family, El Shaddai. El being a title used to refer to several of the Gods in the Ugaritic Religions of ancient Canaan/Mesopotamia. Shaddai probably being a personal name of said God (though that issue is subject to debate).
Also, the Bible is very clear (at least the New Testament is), you are supposed to question Religious Authority. Jesus himself did it on a regular basis, as did the Apostles. Heck, in the Old Testament the Prophets also questioned Religious Authority quite frequently as well. Though in the Prophets case the Religious Authority they were questioning usually belonged to other religions.
The bible was never meant to be read by the common man.
That's complete bull hockey. In the first century A.D. people of common birth were expected to memorize the Old Testament word for word. The entire thing, not just segments, but the whole kit and kaboodle. Even going into the future people regularly memorized the Bible due to the fact that the printing press had yet to be invented. It was not until the printing press was invented that you saw a surge of people ceasing to memorize the Bible in large swaths.
The fact of the matter is that today, people don't know the bible by wrote because of the fact that we have such easy access to the Bible. So the next time you sit there and think to yourself that the common man wasn't meant to read the Bible, you might stop and think to yourself instead that the common man used to take the time to actually memorize the Bible instead.
I'm criticizing "God says tithe 10% bro." But you're so right (and so intelligent too!), I'm bigoted because I possess an opinion that differs from yours
God in the guise of Jesus also says "Give unto Caesar what is due Caesar." In otherwords, If you tithe using Money made by the Federal Reserve, your wasting your time due to the fact that the money created by the Federal Reserve has ZERO Value other than what the Federal Reserve says its value is. Zeitgeist got a lot of stuff wrong, but it got that much right. Believe me or don't, but I can honestly say that God doesn't care about our money, he cares about us helping those less fortunate than ourselves.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero." -- Varsuvius, Order of the Stick
God in the guise of Jesus also says "Give unto Caesar what is due Caesar." In otherwords, If you tithe using Money made by the Federal Reserve, your wasting your time due to the fact that the money created by the Federal Reserve has ZERO Value other than what the Federal Reserve says its value is. Zeitgeist got a lot of stuff wrong, but it got that much right. Believe me or don't, but I can honestly say that God doesn't care about our money, he cares about us helping those less fortunate than ourselves.
First off, it looks like you play STO. I don't play anymore but I'm happy people still do.
Second, I'm downright incredulous of anyone who claims to know what God wants.
The bolded part is where I'm going to focus since the rest of what you say is irrelevant (whether it's money or time it's still a sacrifice to God). I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at since most churches claim divine origin. They speak for God on Earth; therefore, because they want your money, God wants your money. Yet another debate about interpretation... wonderful.
Why are there numerous passages which demand direct sacrifices at all? What use could God have for a burnt lamb or your money? Why did sacrifices evolve from burnt offerings to money collected and spent by the church? Regardless of how the money is spent, what makes religion not a scam?
When I see evangelists on TV they're always selling something, street evangelism is akin to drug dealing as they offer you the first hit for free then make you pay to continue, and when I have gone to church (Catholic, Baptist and especially Adventist) there was always some time spent talking about tithing; the evangelical mission of the church combined with tithing seems like a money making proposition to me.
What you are articulating about suffering can be challenged with that age old classic, the problem of evil. If God is all-loving, why did He create a universe seemingly full of suffering? If God is all-powerful, why does God not intervene to stop us, His special creation, from suffering? If God is all-knowing, why didn't God use this knowledge to prevent all suffering during creation?
And the most predicable response to all of this, "free will trumps God." How can creation beat out the creator? Needless to say, something is very fishy about the Bible and the God portrayed within.
"I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'Wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe." - Marcus Cole, Babylon 5
So the scientific community claiming to have the truth to which all others must adhere only to have it found to be wrong is a strength? Odd.
My point is that what has been determined to be true is only so until a new truth comes along.
Religion has changed quite a bit over the past N thousand years. Truths are found to be in error and discarded.
The scientific community doesn't claim to have truth, it says that it has evidence of X, which suggests Y. It actively WANTS you to challenge their findings, it wants you to bring fourth your evidence, because if you do you'll change the understanding of the subject.
Anyway, I think his point was that while you are suggesting that this is a weakness of science, it's actually not a weakness but a strength of the scientific method.
You know, like how religion has changed quite a bit of the past N thousand years, after science says the religious explanation of X is not likely because the evidence suggests otherwise.
Also, it is interesting to note, but I have heard romantic love described on many occasions as "Worshiping your lover" in fact there is a book in the Bible that draws this same analogy about the love of God for the Nation of Israel, that it is like the love of a Romantic Partner. In fact said book gets exceedingly graphic and has been heralded as a sexual manual on the same level as the Kama Sutra.
The scientific community doesn't claim to have truth, it says that it has evidence of X, which suggests Y. It actively WANTS you to challenge their findings, it wants you to bring fourth your evidence, because if you do you'll change the understanding of the subject.
Two things:
1. The scientific community shouldn't claim to have truth, but that doesn't mean it doesn't.
2. "Scientific community" is a broad term that encompasses many, many people both good and bad. To claim that every one of them shares this one attribute is suspicious and sounds like a Composition/Division Fallacy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Also, it is interesting to note, but I have heard romantic love described on many occasions as "Worshiping your lover" in fact there is a book in the Bible that draws this same analogy about the love of God for the Nation of Israel, that it is like the love of a Romantic Partner. In fact said book gets exceedingly graphic and has been heralded as a sexual manual on the same level as the Kama Sutra.
And what book is that?
The Song of Songs, also known as the Song of Solomon.
Believe me or don't, but I can honestly say that God doesn't care about our money, he cares about us helping those less fortunate than ourselves.
First off, it looks like you play STO. I don't play anymore but I'm happy people still do.
Second, I'm downright incredulous of anyone who claims to know what God wants.
The bolded part is where I'm going to focus since the rest of what you say is irrelevant (whether it's money or time it's still a sacrifice to God). I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at since most churches claim divine origin. They speak for God on Earth; therefore, because they want your money, God wants your money. Yet another debate about interpretation... wonderful.
Why are there numerous passages which demand direct sacrifices at all? What use could God have for a burnt lamb or your money? Why did sacrifices evolve from burnt offerings to money collected and spent by the church? Regardless of how the money is spent, what makes religion not a scam?
When I see evangelists on TV they're always selling something, street evangelism is akin to drug dealing as they offer you the first hit for free then make you pay to continue, and when I have gone to church (Catholic, Baptist and especially Adventist) there was always some time spent talking about tithing; the evangelical mission of the church combined with tithing seems like a money making proposition to me.
What you are articulating about suffering can be challenged with that age old classic, the problem of evil. If God is all-loving, why did He create a universe seemingly of suffering? If God is all-powerful, why does God not intervene to stop us, His special creation, from suffering? If God is all-knowing, why didn't God use this knowledge to prevent all suffering during creation?
And the most predicable response to all of this, "free will trumps God." How can creation beat out the creator? Needless to say, something is very fishy about the Bible and the God portrayed within.
The origins of sacrifice comes from the ancient belief in Pagan Religions (not Christian or Judaic ones) that you could feed the Gods. The reason that the Jews continued burnt sacrifice has more to do with the concept that the Sacrifice was to serve as a stand in for the suffering that they would have to undertake if they were not sacrificing something, due to their sin which separates them from God. Basically the Sacrifice that the Jews were performing was intended to act as a stand in for Jesus who performed the ultimate sacrifice.
You will note that the Jews no longer perform Animal Sacrifice.
As for Tithing, that serves two functions. Neither of these two functions is something that fulfills a goal that is absolutely needed by God himself. These functions are as follows:
1.) It provides a means by which to perform Charity to those less fortunate than the Church. You will notice that many churches also perform Missionary work. This Missionary work does a great deal of good in a great many locations. The fact that they also provide "The Good News" while performing this missionary work is a secondary concern. Afterall, building houses, providing medical care, and various other things to people who don't normally have access to such things is far more important than hearing "The Good News."
2.) It provides the necessary funding to finance the Church's bare minimum financial requirements. Churches may be a Non-Profit Organization, but they still have to pay Electricity Bills, Water Bills, and other Utilities. They still need to buy paper to print their bulletins. They also need to have the money necessary to pay their permanent staff members for their services rendered, as some churches do have full-time staff.
Oh and 3.) They need money to provide for the well being of the Clergy. This is especially important in the case of the Catholic Church where the Clergy is wholly dependent on the Church itself for their livelihood.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero." -- Varsuvius, Order of the Stick
The origins of sacrifice comes from the ancient belief in Pagan Religions (not Christian or Judaic ones) that you could feed the Gods. The reason that the Jews continued burnt sacrifice has more to do with the concept that the Sacrifice was to serve as a stand in for the suffering that they would have to undertake if they were not sacrificing something, due to their sin which separates them from God. Basically the Sacrifice that the Jews were performing was intended to act as a stand in for Jesus who performed the ultimate sacrifice.
You will note that the Jews no longer perform Animal Sacrifice.
As for Tithing, that serves two functions. Neither of these two functions is something that fulfills a goal that is absolutely needed by God himself. These functions are as follows:
1.) It provides a means by which to perform Charity to those less fortunate than the Church. You will notice that many churches also perform Missionary work. This Missionary work does a great deal of good in a great many locations. The fact that they also provide "The Good News" while performing this missionary work is a secondary concern. Afterall, building houses, providing medical care, and various other things to people who don't normally have access to such things is far more important than hearing "The Good News."
2.) It provides the necessary funding to finance the Church's bare minimum financial requirements. Churches may be a Non-Profit Organization, but they still have to pay Electricity Bills, Water Bills, and other Utilities. They still need to buy paper to print their bulletins. They also need to have the money necessary to pay their permanent staff members for their services rendered, as some churches do have full-time staff.
Oh and 3.) They need money to provide for the well being of the Clergy. This is especially important in the case of the Catholic Church where the Clergy is wholly dependent on the Church itself for their livelihood.
I would disagree with your opinion that spreading the gospel was a secondary act. Doesn't that bolded part strike you as self-serving? For such a good and altruistic organization why does it engage in such a self-serving action at all?
I don't recall asking about what tithing is or what the money goes to. I already had I grasp on this. Thus my question, "Regardless of how the money is spent, what makes religion not a scam?"
I'm not understanding why people think I'm making a value judgment about charity. The church and charity are two distinct subjects. I'm not concerned with how the money is spent. I'm simply concerned with why God wants His flock's money.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'Wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe." - Marcus Cole, Babylon 5
The origins of sacrifice comes from the ancient belief in Pagan Religions (not Christian or Judaic ones) that you could feed the Gods. The reason that the Jews continued burnt sacrifice has more to do with the concept that the Sacrifice was to serve as a stand in for the suffering that they would have to undertake if they were not sacrificing something, due to their sin which separates them from God. Basically the Sacrifice that the Jews were performing was intended to act as a stand in for Jesus who performed the ultimate sacrifice.
You will note that the Jews no longer perform Animal Sacrifice.
As for Tithing, that serves two functions. Neither of these two functions is something that fulfills a goal that is absolutely needed by God himself. These functions are as follows:
1.) It provides a means by which to perform Charity to those less fortunate than the Church. You will notice that many churches also perform Missionary work. This Missionary work does a great deal of good in a great many locations. The fact that they also provide "The Good News" while performing this missionary work is a secondary concern. Afterall, building houses, providing medical care, and various other things to people who don't normally have access to such things is far more important than hearing "The Good News."
2.) It provides the necessary funding to finance the Church's bare minimum financial requirements. Churches may be a Non-Profit Organization, but they still have to pay Electricity Bills, Water Bills, and other Utilities. They still need to buy paper to print their bulletins. They also need to have the money necessary to pay their permanent staff members for their services rendered, as some churches do have full-time staff.
Oh and 3.) They need money to provide for the well being of the Clergy. This is especially important in the case of the Catholic Church where the Clergy is wholly dependent on the Church itself for their livelihood.
I would disagree with your opinion that spreading the gospel was a secondary act. Doesn't that bolded part strike you as self-serving? For such a good and altruistic organization why does it engage in such a self-serving action at all?
I don't recall asking about what tithing is or what the money goes to. I already had I grasp on this. Thus my question, "Regardless of how the money is spent, what makes religion not a scam?"
I'm not understanding why people think I'm making a value judgment about charity. The church and charity are two distinct subjects. I'm not concerned with how the money is spent. I'm simply concerned with why God wants His flock's money.
Okay, question for you. If you were part of an organization, any organization, doesn't matter what the goals and aims of that organization happens to be... would you financially support that organization so that the organization could support itself without risking going bankrupt?
That is all that the Church asking for money is really doing in the long run, that and asking for money so that it can provide for it's missionary outreach of course. If it did not have income of any sort, then the church would cease to exist. But I suppose that is what some people really want, for the church to not be able to financially support itself or it's missionary work.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero." -- Varsuvius, Order of the Stick
Also, it is interesting to note, but I have heard romantic love described on many occasions as "Worshiping your lover" in fact there is a book in the Bible that draws this same analogy about the love of God for the Nation of Israel, that it is like the love of a Romantic Partner. In fact said book gets exceedingly graphic and has been heralded as a sexual manual on the same level as the Kama Sutra.
And what book is that?
The Song of Songs, also known as the Song of Solomon.
Yeah... Where does it say in the Bible that the male speaker in this book is God?
Okay, question for you. If you were part of an organization, any organization, doesn't matter what the goals and aims of that organization happens to be... would you financially support that organization so that the organization could support itself without risking going bankrupt?
That is all that the Church asking for money is really doing in the long run, that and asking for money so that it can provide for it's missionary outreach of course. If it did not have income of any sort, then the church would cease to exist. But I suppose that is what some people really want, for the church to not be able to financially support itself or it's missionary work.
Your question, along with everything else you wrote, is irrelevant. I don't care if we're talking about God's Genocidal Torture Fund or Jesus' Happy Mission Church, the way the money is spent is a distinctly separate issue from why God wants sacrifices from His creations. That's what you should be arguing. Yet you and ColonelCoo talk about charity, then say that I hate charity (even though I never said anything about charity), and proceed to misrepresent me.
And really, if you're not going to respect me enough to answer my questions why should I answer yours?
"I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'Wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe." - Marcus Cole, Babylon 5
Yeah... Where does it say in the Bible that the male speaker in this book is God?
It doesn't. It's a love poem. It also switches to a female voice at points, IIRC.
I honestly don't get anything out of Song of Songs. If someone were to prove someone put it in as a prank, it would not surprise me in the least.
Or it could be some inspired reference to impending sensuality in an eternal sense (read: resurrection). That would not surprise me either.
If someone could prove that the male speaker was God, I would at the very least be creeped out. I know it says that Jesus is coming for his bride (the church), but that's taking things way too far.
EDIT: And yeah, it does switch to female parts, and friends' parts too.
Well, let’s look at what it would be like if religions didn’t require worship. Keep in mind the most important thing in, say, Christianity is that you never forsake the Holy Ghost. All else can be forgiven except for not believing. This is a good rule if you intend to keep people coming into the church, and giving the church money.
Eh... actually that commandment means that you aren't allowed to Blaspheme the Name of God.
I mean that anyone that does not take the Holy Ghost as one's personal savior is damned for all eternity. What is the point in trying to make a distinction that doesn't matter given the purpose of my bringing it up?
Blaspheming the words "Holy Spirit" is way too easy and something that a radical Atheist Group has rallied people to attempt to do en masse, fortunately it is not something you can actually be damned to hell for all eternity, mainly because the concept of the Holy Spirit is a purely Post-Resurrection of Jesus concept. Yes I believe there is a trinity aspect to God, but the concepts of the Holy Spirit as it has come to be indoctrinated in the modern church is not something that existed during or prior to Jesus' life. There are only vague references to the concept known as the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament at best, and even vaguer references to the concept of the Son of God made manifest. So the concept of blaspheming either of these would have been a weird concept in the first century at best. Blaspheming the true name of God however would have been something people would have intrinsically recognized immediately.
I'm referring to the NT when I speak of "forsaking the Holy ghost". What is the point of this entire paragraph?
There is an explanation for why things happen. If the search for answers rolled over on its back every time someone said "God did it" we would still be living in caves surviving as food for micro organisms.
A Miracle can and probably should be defined as a series of events for which there is no current plausible scientific explanation.
That would be fine except for when there is a plausible explanation and people still refer to it as a miracle. Or when people refuse of acknowledge scientific truth because it would interfere with a perceived miracle. Or when random events lead someone to make a bad decision because they think God was talking to them (through random and unassociated events...)
Thus at the current time it would likely be reasonable to define the story that Northprophet describes as a Miracle. At least until a plausible scientific explanation can be provided. I mean can any of you explain how a person with no cartilage in their hips from the time they were a little kid, suddenly woke up one day and had cartilage in their hips? That defies my understanding of how biology works.
So you endorse "God of the Gaps"? Meaning that you think events are attributed only to God until wise people figure out how [subject] actually works? The idea is so demeaning to a tri-Omni deity. And is there any documentation for this cartilage that you claim appeared? The scientific community (as well as the religious) would LOVE to study the case I'm sure.
As for the God of Gaps theory, that whole theory hinges upon the assumption that God never intended us to discover the methods he uses to accomplish his miracles. It could be that what science is observing is simply the method of creation and intervention that God chose to use. And that the term "Miracle" is simply an out of date term. Though I can't think of a better term for Creation. Science doesn't really do it justice seeing as how Science is not a term to describe the act of creation so much as it is a term to describe the observation and reproduction of the act of creation.
That completely depends on the definition and context by which you use the term "creation".
The bible was never meant to be read by the common man.
That's complete bull hockey. In the first century A.D. people of common birth were expected to memorize the Old Testament word for word. The entire thing, not just segments, but the whole kit and kaboodle. Even going into the future people regularly memorized the Bible due to the fact that the printing press had yet to be invented. It was not until the printing press was invented that you saw a surge of people ceasing to memorize the Bible in large swaths.
The fact of the matter is that today, people don't know the bible by wrote because of the fact that we have such easy access to the Bible. So the next time you sit there and think to yourself that the common man wasn't meant to read the Bible, you might stop and think to yourself instead that the common man used to take the time to actually memorize the Bible instead.
You really should have done a small amount of research before you posted this. First, I have never heard of the common man being expected to memorize the OT (keep in mind my understanding of “common man” could be different from yours). That would be pretty hard considering that at the time literacy among the common man was low. It's not like the OT was incredibly popular with the masses.
The real problem with your statement is that the church went to great lengths to prevent the Bible from being translated into a language of the people. If I were a half way intelligent member of the church who had read the bible I would have done the same thing (also assuming I was morally corrupt), because there is so much non-sense in it that I would have been embarrassed by what the average man would have to say about it.
I'm criticizing "God says tithe 10% bro." But you're so right (and so intelligent too!), I'm bigoted because I possess an opinion that differs from yours
God in the guise of Jesus also says "Give unto Caesar what is due Caesar." In otherwords, If you tithe using Money made by the Federal Reserve, your wasting your time due to the fact that the money created by the Federal Reserve has ZERO Value other than what the Federal Reserve says its value is. Zeitgeist got a lot of stuff wrong, but it got that much right. Believe me or don't, but I can honestly say that God doesn't care about our money, he cares about us helping those less fortunate than ourselves.
That depends on which God you are talking about. God has two pretty distinguishable personalities in the OT, and obv in the NT it's a completely different God (judging based on words and actions) from the OT Gods altogether.
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Problem is, he blew too much power creating the original singularity, which he just did because he likes fireworks, and doesn't have enough left to be a 100% effective killing machine. He's still pretty good at it though.
Over time, he accepted that life finds ways to survive, he learned that after a giant rock he threw at the earth didn't wipe out all the creatures, only most of them. So he decided he would emotionally and mentally enslave as many people as he could with empty promises. This is why he demands blind faith, to believe in the unseen and unprovable. Becuase he's almost out of magical power elixirs, and he's got a whole universe still to deal with. It might explain his absenteeism.
...or is he not?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Because God wants your MONEY!$!$!$!$!$!$!$!
A better question is: Why do people like easy money?
Because some people just don't have the resources or don't choose to make an honest living. There are striking similarities between the institutions and practices of religions and gangs.
I know the Red Cross wants my money. Do you know how I know this? Because I know the definition of the word charity. Are churches purely charity organizations? Do charities use fear, brainwashing and intimidation to get their money like gangs and churches do?
The answer you're looking for is a big nope; nice try at a strawman though. My position is sound because I'm not criticizing charity, I'm criticizing "God says tithe 10% bro." But you're so right (and so intelligent too!), I'm bigoted because I possess an opinion that differs from yours.
And it's strange that you would attempt to launch an ad hominim attack against me personally. What makes you think my personal giving is at issue here? But if you must know, I'm a nurse, I do pretty giving work for relatively low pay five days a week. What do you do?
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
" If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people." Deut. 13:6-9
Seems pretty clear what the OT has to say about questioning anything.
Love me or suffer for all eternity. It shouldn't matter if I love it or not if it is omnibenevolent. On top of that there is nothing I could do to warrant hell, but hes 'all just' they say; something can't be all loving AND all just because mercy through benevolence contradicts justice. Regardless, based on what is claimed in the Bible about God, it deserves nothing but contempt. Anyone who reads whats written there and still thinks that God is a loving entity has had their morality twisted and brainwashed, please open your eyes.
W White Stax
UGBR Lands
"Beh'smigidus"
This is purely naive. You really believe that ALL churches give ALL their money to the people while the preachers at mega churches are wearing thousand dollar suits? I'd suggest to go watch to the documentary "Marjoe"
I have the sneaking suspicion that ANY argument made against the religion is going to be found weak by you. You clearly think God is real, I can't really argue with that, as it's impossible to debate on the basis of circular logic. I haven't seen any compelling argument from you though on why God requires us to worship him.
After viewing Marjoe you can come back and confirm that there indeed plenty of churches that are looking for easy money. They DO use fear and intimidation and indoctrination to keep the money flowing. This is reality. All churches might not do it, but to suggest that NO churches do it is simply unreasonable.
Tithing is a requirement for membership for Mormons (IE you can’t be part of the church if you don’t). The few times I've been to church in the last ten years there was ALWAYS time spent on convincing people to give money to the church. It's right in the bible dude.
I've seen hundreds, probably thousands of people with tattoos of crosses, bible passages, the Virgin Mary, Jesus, ect. Is this a serious comment?
I was personally beaten and abused by church members as a child. Calvinism encourages beating children for misdeeds. Moses himself thought disobedient children should be stoned. The amount of child abuse int eh church is staggering. Still want to stand by the notion that you don’t get beaten into churches? Many a catholic school student will disagree with you.
You mean like child rape? Or embezzlement? Or burning people to death? The church and its members have been committing atrocities’ for a long long time.
Are you sure no one has even been shot for leaving a church? Let’s broaden the scope outside of gun death and look at what else happens when someone leaves the church: like being completely ostracized from your family and community. Because that never happens right? (it happens far too much)
Just as not all churches will shun you for leaving, not all gangs will shoot you. Personally, I find the similarities between religion and gangs strikingly similar (that analogy I'm sure extends to many forms of exclusive groups).
You REALLY don't think religion engages in brainwashing? Why is it that the church wants to teach kids about hell so early? To integrate the idea into their interpretation of reality. It's a control mechanism. The church aims not to teach someone HOW to think, but to teach them WHAT to think. It's like a text book definition of brainwashing.
I didn't read anything he wrote that told me that he was a bigot, or that he hates Christians. But think what you've been trained to think if you must.
Stopped reading the rest of your garbage right there. This is a debate forum, there are rules about edicate. Please read them adhere to them. If someone wants to makes a comparison between religion and gangs (to the thinking person there are many similarities even if you fail to grasp them) and they pose an argument, as a member of this debate community, you should not be showing such blatant disrespect. You should apologize for your tone and verbiage used.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Just because religious, educational and charitable organizations are lumped together by the IRS, that doesn't make them the same. In any event, charities are nothing like "the church", and on that basis alone the comparison is invalid.
For your personal education and growth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
Most charities are corporations. I see nothing inconsistent about thinking the CEOs of Exxon or the Red Cross deserves millions of dollars of pay. Nor is it inconsistent to believe that companies should advertise to "raise awareness".
Lol, you don't even know what a strawman is. What's even funnier is that you don't understand that leaping to charity is irrelevant to the topic I brought up. I said nothing about charity, you ascribe a position on charity to me, then you proceeded to argue purely on that basis. That is the definition of a strawman.
Wrong on every account. See Oldaughd's post for a more detailed rejection of your specific points.
Pure speculation. I may love Christians, I may even be one. Perhaps I have a very deep relationship with Jesus but reject organized religion. The point is, you don't know any of my personal feelings. It's ironic that, by definition, you are showing yourself to be bigoted toward atheists.
My comments may have been irreverently critical but there was nothing that could be classified as hateful. If you think they're so hateful report my posts and let a mod decide.
Again, you didn't address why my personal giving was an issue. This is an ad hominim attack and thus you fail to make an argument, come back when you have one.
Yes, I do count a field that is what most would describe as a calling, a giving vocation. I could have been something else, I chose this. Nursing is one of the most respected fields in the world because of the selfless nature of the work involved. As to my personal giving, I didn't say anything about any other time spent. You don't know anything about me, don't claim anything otherwise, fool.
That bolded part there, when exactly did I say that? Churches and charity are two distinct things; I'm not understanding your lack of comprehension on this point.
Your challenge is a childish attempt at a non-argument. Logic just isn't a part of your thought process is it?
Not only is your comparison of religion to charity wrong, you admit here that you actually don't know anything about my life. I'd say you have gone further than just making assumptions, your response is downright libelous.
But let's talk about you. So even though you're talking about your feelings about charity I'll assume you are a terrible, abusive man. And because I don't beat my family on a daily basis your arguments are invalid. I think you may have some anger issues sir, please deal with them (lol, gotta love baseless ad hominim attacks).
Fear of hell is a typical example of intimidation used by churches. This is especially true when combined with the indoctrination of children.
Non sequitur, this question doesn't logically follow the previous one.
Assumption based on assumption.
Do you think that just saying I'm a nurse is a full listing of everything I do? Did it occur to you that I'm not so full of myself that I didn't feel the need to list everything I do in order to seem morally superior? Whatever one chooses to do with their life, whether it's one's livelihood or not, often reflects on one's character. So I'll pose a challenge back (since you're so into making irrelevant personal judgments), what is your vocation? What conclusions can we draw about your character from what you choose to do with your life?
But you know what, I could care less what you do. Moreover, I'm not interested in discussing charity, so unless you have something to say about why God wants your money (or sacrifices in general) there's nothing we have to discuss.
The church does
You claimed that not believing in a theist system would imply having a problem because it is not the condition of the majority. You assert that to go against (be intolerant of) the popular view is just foolish. Like it is one of those truths you keep talking about.
That is really really not ok. That is the basis of discrimination, the pinnacle or arrogance and clearly not true to begin with. They are many majority behaviors/beliefs in different populations over history that ended up making no sense and being just wrong, which is especially relevant because the thing you were talking about when you brought this up was the honest pursuit of truth, which for some reason majority behavour can help with but scientific reasoning is completely useless.
The only honest pursuit of truth is called science because we Cannot perceive truthfulness. It isn't visible or measurable in any way but one. We can disprove things, so untruthfulness can be measured to a degree. So yes. Science's strength is indeed the ability to prove things wrong. That's the very foundation of science. And yes it is an honest pursuit of truth because nothing else even comes close to interacting with truthfulness.
Your main criticism seems to be that science hasn't found absolute truth, but the pursuit is all humans are capable of. Again unless you count math and I Guess history, but there are way of arguing against those as well.
Really, you'd need to find truth that can be observed for truth to mean anything at all. Or redefine truth. Then you get into sliding scale of acceptable likelihood of being untrue and that is where atheism is super strong, because any given religion requires you to slide really really far up that scale, so you don't want to go there.
That version of Heaven does not do justice to what the actual state of affairs in Heaven will actually be. What that describes is not the role that human souls will have in Heaven, but rather one of the roles that the Choir of Angels currently has. It should be noted that a human soul does not become an Angel upon entering Heaven.
Angels by and large do not have Free Will, except in a few notable instances (namely the highest ranked Angels in the Angelic Court). Thus why would a human soul which has free will suddenly give up that free will upon entering Heaven? That defeats the whole purpose of God creating us in his image in the first place (i.e. creating us with free will).
Also, it is interesting to note, but I have heard romantic love described on many occasions as "Worshiping your lover" in fact there is a book in the Bible that draws this same analogy about the love of God for the Nation of Israel, that it is like the love of a Romantic Partner. In fact said book gets exceedingly graphic and has been heralded as a sexual manual on the same level as the Kama Sutra.
Eh... actually that commandment means that you aren't allowed to Blaspheme the Name of God. Fortunately the Hebrews had a practical policy of never writing down the vowels in the name of God, and also never speaking the name aloud, so it is literally impossible to blaspheme the name of God in the modern age.
Blaspheming the words "Holy Spirit" is way too easy and something that a radical Atheist Group has rallied people to attempt to do en masse, fortunately it is not something you can actually be damned to hell for all eternity, mainly because the concept of the Holy Spirit is a purely Post-Resurrection of Jesus concept. Yes I believe there is a trinity aspect to God, but the concepts of the Holy Spirit as it has come to be indoctrinated in the modern church is not something that existed during or prior to Jesus' life. There are only vague references to the concept known as the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament at best, and even vaguer references to the concept of the Son of God made manifest. So the concept of blaspheming either of these would have been a weird concept in the first century at best. Blaspheming the true name of God however would have been something people would have intrinsically recognized immediately.
Oh and as a side note, Christians worship on Sunday because that is the day Jesus rose from the dead. Traditionally speaking however, the Sabbath Day of Rest is a combination of a Friday and a Saturday. Basically from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. Sundown because the Hebrew day starts at Sundown, not in the morning.
A Miracle can and probably should be defined as a series of events for which there is no current plausible scientific explanation. Thus at the current time it would likely be reasonable to define the story that Northprophet describes as a Miracle. At least until a plausible scientific explanation can be provided. I mean can any of you explain how a person with no cartilage in their hips from the time they were a little kid, suddenly woke up one day and had cartilage in their hips? That defies my understanding of how biology works.
As for the God of Gaps theory, that whole theory hinges upon the assumption that God never intended us to discover the methods he uses to accomplish his miracles. It could be that what science is observing is simply the method of creation and intervention that God chose to use. And that the term "Miracle" is simply an out of date term. Though I can't think of a better term for Creation. Science doesn't really do it justice seeing as how Science is not a term to describe the act of creation so much as it is a term to describe the observation and reproduction of the act of creation.
Rufus, you said it yourself, the Israelites were YWHW's chosen people. He was to be their God. Now he cannot very well fulfill that role for his people if he allows them to worship other deities, now can he? That said however there are some key points in the Ten Commandments that bear scrutiny.
the First Commandment is "You shall have no other gods (Before/Besides) me." The thing about this commandment, is the word for Before or Besides can be translated as either or. If it is translated as Before, it can be taken to mean that YWHW is to be the Chief God in the Israelite Pantheon, much the way that Zeus is the chief God in the Greek Pantheon. If it is however translated as Besides it means that YWHW is to be the ONLY God in the Israelite Pantheon. This translational issue is largely where the confusion stems from. But to make matters worse, the word used for God in many places in the Old Testament is a plural term, not a singular. So the question arises, how many Gods did the early Israelites actually have?
The answer of course is that they were descended from Mesopotamians, and as such were polytheistic, not monotheistic. The God of Abraham, and thus the God of the Israelites is simply the personal God of Abraham's family, El Shaddai. El being a title used to refer to several of the Gods in the Ugaritic Religions of ancient Canaan/Mesopotamia. Shaddai probably being a personal name of said God (though that issue is subject to debate).
Also, the Bible is very clear (at least the New Testament is), you are supposed to question Religious Authority. Jesus himself did it on a regular basis, as did the Apostles. Heck, in the Old Testament the Prophets also questioned Religious Authority quite frequently as well. Though in the Prophets case the Religious Authority they were questioning usually belonged to other religions.
That's complete bull hockey. In the first century A.D. people of common birth were expected to memorize the Old Testament word for word. The entire thing, not just segments, but the whole kit and kaboodle. Even going into the future people regularly memorized the Bible due to the fact that the printing press had yet to be invented. It was not until the printing press was invented that you saw a surge of people ceasing to memorize the Bible in large swaths.
The fact of the matter is that today, people don't know the bible by wrote because of the fact that we have such easy access to the Bible. So the next time you sit there and think to yourself that the common man wasn't meant to read the Bible, you might stop and think to yourself instead that the common man used to take the time to actually memorize the Bible instead.
God in the guise of Jesus also says "Give unto Caesar what is due Caesar." In otherwords, If you tithe using Money made by the Federal Reserve, your wasting your time due to the fact that the money created by the Federal Reserve has ZERO Value other than what the Federal Reserve says its value is. Zeitgeist got a lot of stuff wrong, but it got that much right. Believe me or don't, but I can honestly say that God doesn't care about our money, he cares about us helping those less fortunate than ourselves.
First off, it looks like you play STO. I don't play anymore but I'm happy people still do.
Second, I'm downright incredulous of anyone who claims to know what God wants.
The bolded part is where I'm going to focus since the rest of what you say is irrelevant (whether it's money or time it's still a sacrifice to God). I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at since most churches claim divine origin. They speak for God on Earth; therefore, because they want your money, God wants your money. Yet another debate about interpretation... wonderful.
Why are there numerous passages which demand direct sacrifices at all? What use could God have for a burnt lamb or your money? Why did sacrifices evolve from burnt offerings to money collected and spent by the church? Regardless of how the money is spent, what makes religion not a scam?
When I see evangelists on TV they're always selling something, street evangelism is akin to drug dealing as they offer you the first hit for free then make you pay to continue, and when I have gone to church (Catholic, Baptist and especially Adventist) there was always some time spent talking about tithing; the evangelical mission of the church combined with tithing seems like a money making proposition to me.
What you are articulating about suffering can be challenged with that age old classic, the problem of evil. If God is all-loving, why did He create a universe seemingly full of suffering? If God is all-powerful, why does God not intervene to stop us, His special creation, from suffering? If God is all-knowing, why didn't God use this knowledge to prevent all suffering during creation?
And the most predicable response to all of this, "free will trumps God." How can creation beat out the creator? Needless to say, something is very fishy about the Bible and the God portrayed within.
The scientific community doesn't claim to have truth, it says that it has evidence of X, which suggests Y. It actively WANTS you to challenge their findings, it wants you to bring fourth your evidence, because if you do you'll change the understanding of the subject.
Anyway, I think his point was that while you are suggesting that this is a weakness of science, it's actually not a weakness but a strength of the scientific method.
You know, like how religion has changed quite a bit of the past N thousand years, after science says the religious explanation of X is not likely because the evidence suggests otherwise.
And what book is that?
1. The scientific community shouldn't claim to have truth, but that doesn't mean it doesn't.
2. "Scientific community" is a broad term that encompasses many, many people both good and bad. To claim that every one of them shares this one attribute is suspicious and sounds like a Composition/Division Fallacy.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
The Song of Songs, also known as the Song of Solomon.
The origins of sacrifice comes from the ancient belief in Pagan Religions (not Christian or Judaic ones) that you could feed the Gods. The reason that the Jews continued burnt sacrifice has more to do with the concept that the Sacrifice was to serve as a stand in for the suffering that they would have to undertake if they were not sacrificing something, due to their sin which separates them from God. Basically the Sacrifice that the Jews were performing was intended to act as a stand in for Jesus who performed the ultimate sacrifice.
You will note that the Jews no longer perform Animal Sacrifice.
As for Tithing, that serves two functions. Neither of these two functions is something that fulfills a goal that is absolutely needed by God himself. These functions are as follows:
1.) It provides a means by which to perform Charity to those less fortunate than the Church. You will notice that many churches also perform Missionary work. This Missionary work does a great deal of good in a great many locations. The fact that they also provide "The Good News" while performing this missionary work is a secondary concern. Afterall, building houses, providing medical care, and various other things to people who don't normally have access to such things is far more important than hearing "The Good News."
2.) It provides the necessary funding to finance the Church's bare minimum financial requirements. Churches may be a Non-Profit Organization, but they still have to pay Electricity Bills, Water Bills, and other Utilities. They still need to buy paper to print their bulletins. They also need to have the money necessary to pay their permanent staff members for their services rendered, as some churches do have full-time staff.
Oh and 3.) They need money to provide for the well being of the Clergy. This is especially important in the case of the Catholic Church where the Clergy is wholly dependent on the Church itself for their livelihood.
I would disagree with your opinion that spreading the gospel was a secondary act. Doesn't that bolded part strike you as self-serving? For such a good and altruistic organization why does it engage in such a self-serving action at all?
I don't recall asking about what tithing is or what the money goes to. I already had I grasp on this. Thus my question, "Regardless of how the money is spent, what makes religion not a scam?"
I'm not understanding why people think I'm making a value judgment about charity. The church and charity are two distinct subjects. I'm not concerned with how the money is spent. I'm simply concerned with why God wants His flock's money.
Okay, question for you. If you were part of an organization, any organization, doesn't matter what the goals and aims of that organization happens to be... would you financially support that organization so that the organization could support itself without risking going bankrupt?
That is all that the Church asking for money is really doing in the long run, that and asking for money so that it can provide for it's missionary outreach of course. If it did not have income of any sort, then the church would cease to exist. But I suppose that is what some people really want, for the church to not be able to financially support itself or it's missionary work.
Yeah... Where does it say in the Bible that the male speaker in this book is God?
Your question, along with everything else you wrote, is irrelevant. I don't care if we're talking about God's Genocidal Torture Fund or Jesus' Happy Mission Church, the way the money is spent is a distinctly separate issue from why God wants sacrifices from His creations. That's what you should be arguing. Yet you and ColonelCoo talk about charity, then say that I hate charity (even though I never said anything about charity), and proceed to misrepresent me.
And really, if you're not going to respect me enough to answer my questions why should I answer yours?
It doesn't. It's a love poem. It also switches to a female voice at points, IIRC.
I honestly don't get anything out of Song of Songs. If someone were to prove someone put it in as a prank, it would not surprise me in the least.
Or it could be some inspired reference to impending sensuality in an eternal sense (read: resurrection). That would not surprise me either.
If someone could prove that the male speaker was God, I would at the very least be creeped out. I know it says that Jesus is coming for his bride (the church), but that's taking things way too far.
EDIT: And yeah, it does switch to female parts, and friends' parts too.
It's an erotic love poem. Why it was added in I'm not sure. It's very beautiful, so that's a gift horse I'll be content not to look in the mouth.
Solomon really liked boobs, lol.
Solomon is said to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines. So yes, we can safely say that he did.
I mean that anyone that does not take the Holy Ghost as one's personal savior is damned for all eternity. What is the point in trying to make a distinction that doesn't matter given the purpose of my bringing it up?
I'm referring to the NT when I speak of "forsaking the Holy ghost". What is the point of this entire paragraph?
That would be fine except for when there is a plausible explanation and people still refer to it as a miracle. Or when people refuse of acknowledge scientific truth because it would interfere with a perceived miracle. Or when random events lead someone to make a bad decision because they think God was talking to them (through random and unassociated events...)
So you endorse "God of the Gaps"? Meaning that you think events are attributed only to God until wise people figure out how [subject] actually works? The idea is so demeaning to a tri-Omni deity. And is there any documentation for this cartilage that you claim appeared? The scientific community (as well as the religious) would LOVE to study the case I'm sure.
That completely depends on the definition and context by which you use the term "creation".
You really should have done a small amount of research before you posted this. First, I have never heard of the common man being expected to memorize the OT (keep in mind my understanding of “common man” could be different from yours). That would be pretty hard considering that at the time literacy among the common man was low. It's not like the OT was incredibly popular with the masses.
The real problem with your statement is that the church went to great lengths to prevent the Bible from being translated into a language of the people. If I were a half way intelligent member of the church who had read the bible I would have done the same thing (also assuming I was morally corrupt), because there is so much non-sense in it that I would have been embarrassed by what the average man would have to say about it.
That depends on which God you are talking about. God has two pretty distinguishable personalities in the OT, and obv in the NT it's a completely different God (judging based on words and actions) from the OT Gods altogether.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great