churchys strike again
 

cardinal gustaaf joos who was made a cardinal by the pope last year, has stated that 10% of gays are actually gay and the rest are sexual perverts...

"I am willing to write in my own blood that of all those who call themselves lesbian or gay, a maximum of five to 10 percent are effectively lesbian or gay," Cardinal Gustaaf Joos, 80, told the Belgian weekly P-Magazine on Wednesday.

"Real homosexuals don't wander in the streets in colourful suits. Those are people who have a serious problem and have to live with that. And if they make a mistake they will be forgiven. We have to help these people and not judge them," Joos added.

"The Church...rejects homosexuality, not the homosexual," Joos said.

belgium's population on the whole is prodominantly catholic.......

:rolleyes:

moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

a russain scientists has mathimatically proven that the 'parting of the waves' incident is simply not a miracle

he has stated there is a riff between 6 - 7 meteres under water from the bank of the gulf suez and the other where the exodus occured

more in the link provided

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm...html?menu=news

source ananova

Re: churchys strike again
 

Do people really still take notice of anything someone from the catholic church, or any other church for that matter says?

Re: churchys strike again
 

yes the followers who obey them.

Re: churchys strike again
 

Yes, we ALL obey EVERYTHING they say like mindless robots don't we..... :rolleyes: :zzz:

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

Hmm, so was he there to witness it? Nooooo. Doesn't explain how Moses was able to make it work on demand though does it?

People are welcome to believe any theories they want and use any formula to come up any result they see fit.

But 'proving' something did not happen thousands of years ago........I don't think so.

And for someone who objects to religion on nthw, another two threads started by him on the subject.... :rolleyes:

Re: churchys strike again
 

Yes :Yes: :Yes: must obey men in colourful dresses and strange hats ... oh wait are those the gay people he is describing or the priests?

Re: churchys strike again
 

These days it would seem that they are often one and the same :(

Re: churchys strike again
 

Personally I think the two statements above are totally biblically accurate.

You got anything more than :rolleyes: to say kronie? or should I start posting stuff I dislike about atheism with a witty :rolleyes: to put my point across? I think I'd get a better reception if I put a balanced and factual arguement across instead don't you?

Re: churchys strike again
 

if "god" can speak to everyone as they drone on about

how come he doesn't just do that and cut out all the middle men
with the collection trays and everything

and all the ranting and raving fanatics

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

But how do you know that he did do it demand?

Imagine this situation. Moses turns up at the red sea, the natural effect takes place at just the right time, it looks like Moses has parted the waves so it is attributed to divine intervention and gets written up in the bible.

The counter-scenario is that Moses gets his timing wrong, the seas don`t part, Moses is considered a charlatan and the whole thing becomes a bit of a non-event that isn`t worth recording, or conversely even gets written up as some kind of false prophet so the message is completely reversed.

We both know each other's personal views on faith, so you've probably already guessed that I wouldn`t go with the first scenario, and I`m not attempting to demolish your beliefs. In fact, even a Christian could argue this point without undermining the rest of their beliefs. I`m simply curious as to whether an example of spectacularly good timing could be misinterpreted such that it becomes an article of fact for a particular religion.

Re: churchys strike again
 

You can find out the answer to those questions by reading a bible. God's primary method of communicating with us is through His word.

And as a bonus you don't have any "fanatics" or "collection trays" to deal with, you just sit and read.

Is it just me or is this a tad off topic?

Even though I get the impression that church/christian bashing was the real motivation I doubt Kronie would like to admit it ;)

Re: churchys strike again
 

Don`t confuse attacking those who deliver the message with attacking the Church itself. None of us here have the right to attack anyone elses belief, but I think it is justified to attack those in high places within the Church as they spew so much cr*p and then try to justify it under the banner of their religion.

As a counterpoint, here's an article I read on BBC Online about a cardinal who does seem to realise that we aren`t living in the dark ages any more,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3394097.stm

and for talking sense, how long is it going to be before he gets hauled up before his superiors for a ticking off.

Re: churchys strike again
 

To be fair, Kronas didn`t actually say that *all* Christians fall under this category. Granted his comment was a little vague, but it could be interpreted as a comment about only those whose faith is blind.

Would you believe in God if??
 

Well since there are a few minor religious threads going on at the moment I figured I will try and start a bigger one, Its been a while since we last had a big religious debate (Unless I missed it :D ).

Basicly the question is in two parts, the first towards the theists, and the second towards the athiests.

Theists: If it where proven today that god didnt exist with no room for interputation, say for example a missing page was found from the beggining of the bible stating that all characters and places are entireley ficticious etc (Just like in many books and films now, stole this idea from Red Dwarf :D ) or even something more solid wich proved he doesnt exist and never has.
Would you still believe? If it where proven 100% that he couldnt possibly exist would you still hold onto your belief just incase?
Im not talking the same type of proof we athiests think we have today either, im talking about concrete evidence (Cant actually think of anything that would prove this mind you but its theoretical anyway so that doesnt matter ;) )

Would you simply stop believing? Would you drop it without a second thought?
I know this wouldnt make a hell of a lot of difference to peoples lives anyway but still, would you have trouble letting go??

Athiests: If it where proven today that God existed, say if we found his Diary of creation along with a Video tape about how he done it and he gave it to us personally, and again if there was no room for interputation that he existed would you still contest this? would you claim the Evidence was fake even if it where proven not to be? would there ever be enough eveidence to convince you otherwise?
If you did start to believe would this change your life considderably? or would you barley notice?


My own response: As an athiest my current beliefs are based on what I can observe in the real world, I see evidence of evolution in every living creature around me, be it unatural like different breeds of Dog or be it natural such as ourselves.
When evidence is brought to light that proves my entire view is wrong or if even part of my view is wrong I adjust accordingly.
This even applies to religion. At this time I so no evidence to support the existance of God, I dont deny it is possible I just see no evidence to prove otherwise so I choose not to believe, it is a possibility Just not a likeley one, IMO god has as much chance of existing as my friend cuddles the invisible Unicorn :eek: :D :eek: but that doesnt mean he cant exist.
If it where proven without a shadow of a doubt that he existed I would believe, I dont know how much of what I currently hold true I would have to reject to do this but I would see no problem with it.
I cant honestly see it making a difference at all with my current lifestyle so I really see no problem with the change, though I know some people who would literally be crushed by a change to thier beliefs such as this. Dont like to apply this to a stereotype but Most theists I know would have far more trouble accepting the change than any athiest I have ever met.

So please discuss :D

please???

Ah Go on....... go on, go on, go on, go on :angel:

Re: Would you believe in God if??
 

If it could be 100% proven to me then I would believe. I wish that I did believe :(

Re: churchys strike again
 

Why should he get a ticking off?

I agree with him in fact.. although his claims about percentages are subjective which I can't really comment on.

Where did anyone mention blind faith?... I've stated that I think similarly to this guy.. are you saying that I'm in that category?

Re: churchys strike again
 

I never said he should get a ticking off. However, it is unfortunate fact that most of the leaders of the Catholic Church are stuck in a mind-set that is several centuries out of date.

I made a general comment with absolutely no reference to anyone specific. If you choose to interpret my comments in that way with your response that is your choice, but I find that when people make a choice how to interpret facts it can often be a reflection upon them.

Re: churchys strike again
 

So when I interpret your comments, I'm now responding to "facts"?? :eek:

OK, lets cut all the confusion and hopefully get back on topic too..

Do you agree or disagree with the statements made by the belgian cardinal?

Give your reasons..

simple

Re: Would you believe in God if??
 

Looking at the state of the world and all its problems I have to say that even if there were 100% proof of gods existance I don't think I would wish to subscribe to revering him.

If the state of the world is part of his 'master plan' then I don't reckon he is a very nice 'entity' anyway !! :(

Re: Would you believe in God if??
 

Even if it was as simple as that basa, would you mind if someone judged you on something you'd made? .. ( eg: urgh, look at that hideous thing little Billy has made for his mum in pottery class.. isn't Billy a horrible little boy... see the logic there? )

As I said it isn't that simple, the bad things in our world are the result of sin, God made our world good and it's sin that tainted the creation... so even the flawed logic in my example is unjustified IMHO

Re: churchys strike again
 

[QUOTE=s1lv3r]So when I interpret your comments, I'm now responding to "facts"?? :eek:

It is a fact that a lot of the leaders in the Church are stuck in the past and shoudn`t be allowed to talk. It is a fact that there are a lot of people who blindly believe the ill-informed rhetoric these idiots spout. I`m not damning the rational people, but sadly they seem to be in the minority.

OK, lets cut all the confusion and hopefully get back on topic too..

How could I possibly agree considering he falls into the category I've described above.

Re: churchys strike again
 

Lets have the reasons then.. as I asked in my previous post just in case you missed it ;)


Everything you've said there is your own opinion.. not fact. I'm sorry to have to re-inforce that but I'm not the sort of person that can let that sort of thing go.

Things do not become fact purely because a lot of others believe the same thing.. which is also the reason why I would not push my own beliefs as fact but rather try to present persuasive evidence if I wanted to maintain any credibility.

Re: churchys strike again
 

He's a homophobic bigot, simple as that. I appreciate that the bible, if interpreted literally, supports his statements, but many people have chosen to interpret the bible as something that should be looked upon in a different light depending on the current social climate. If people choose to use a literal interpretation of the bible to justify bigotry then I have absolutely no time for them.

So when the Vatican starts telling people that condoms *never* work we are supposed to accept that. It is propganda and mis-information designed to further their own objectives. Preaching on the basis of religious doctrine is one thing, preaching on the basis of blantant lies should not be accepted.

*Edit* Strictly speaking nothing can be objectively proved, we have models that explain the behaviour of the universe and rules that have been derived from repeated observation, but none of these represent objective, absolute truth. So yes, something can become "fact" just because enough people believe in it.

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

So there's someone playing the guitar underwater? Oh, sorry, did they mean "Reef"?!

Of course it may well not have *been* the "Red" Sea...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/progra...e/redsea.shtml

Re: churchys strike again
 

homophobic? He is showing neither fear nor contempt in those statements so no he isn't being homophobic.

bigoted? Up for debate I suppose but as someone who would support the view that homosexual acts and lusts are sinful I don't think of myself as intolerant.. just different in belief systems.

Biblical understanding or interpretation is no tool of bigotry, I believe the Bible is the word of God, and as such anything that is literal in context should be taken as such, nothing wrong with that.
In fact, if you apply cultural or personal interpretation as primary in understanding the bible you will be on thin ice.. because there is nothing then to stop you applying the same process to the whole of it. Who am I to tell God what he is saying to me.

I agree with that.. I never said I was a catholic did I ;)

Personally, I trust the word of the one who created the entire universe when it comes to explaining both it's function and purpose. Absolute truth is necessary.. how would our judicial system function otherwise?

**edit .. if in fact Christianity is the worlds biggest religion with over 1 billion followers according to the beeb http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religi...ty/index.shtml is that enough to make it fact for you ?? ;)

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

Moses not only parted the sea on demand but got it to close again at the exact time the egyptians were crossing.

Two coincidences at precisely the right time? I don't think so?

Re: churchys strike again
 

Kronas, even by your standards this is a particularly thinly-veiled attempt to start a church-bashing thread. Next time you decide to have a moan about religion coming into everything, I will take grim pleasure in posting a link back here.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

I mentioned this to a vicar this morning and she said that current thinking is that it's not the Red Sea but the Reed Sea...which would refer to the reed marshes around the Nile at that time.
Apparently Herew dosn't have vowels so they missed out an 'e' in the origional translation.
*edit* Then I read grahams post :D

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

Which could otherwise be construde as an act of God :)

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

The problem is, you're looking at the parting of the Red Sea in isolation. The Bible is full of what it, and Christians, claim are 'miracles' - the biggest of which is the resurrection itself. Don't you think there are rather too many coincidences for this to be a credible explanation? Floods, seas parting and crashing in again, plagues, cites destroyed, entire armies raised from the dead, a virgin gives birth to a baby ... the list is endless. Eventually, the cries of 'coincidence!', 'natural causes!' or 'it never happened!' really do start to sound tired.

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

Then the egyptian insurance agencies refused to pay out :)

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

As we're discussing miracles in the context of Christianity may I raise the interesting point that Protestants stopped believing in miracles occurring after Biblical times whilst Catholics didn't. So, which side is right? For someone to be canonised, I believe that the Catholic church requires at least 2 proven miracles.

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

I can totally see the logic behind your argument. However, it still leaves the possibility that some of these events were due to natural causes that have been interpreted in a specific manner. If, for the sake of argument, we take the resurrection to be literal truth, it does not automatically mean that a given instance of flooding cannot be attributed to natural causes.

You're right, I am taking this one incident in isolation, but it's not supposed to be an argument attempting to demolish the Christian faith in its entirety, merely an observation that one specific event that could be interpreted as a miracle now has a possible explanation in nature.

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

Why not? Again, if the two coincidences hadn`t happened it wouldn`t have got written up in the Bible as Moses would have failed.

But if you don`t have any other logical explanation as to the cause that can be the only explanation that can be assigned to the event (the intervention of some unworldy power at the very least if not specifically the Christian god).

Re: churchys strike again
 

Touche, I think that has to be one of the most well reasoned responses to an argument I've ever seen on this board. It's not going to change my faith, but you've certainly forced me to rethink that argument.

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

I reckon the whole story is a lie

I think it got dreamt up to prove they had a god who could actually do something

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

So the people such as Paul, John etc who were willing to die for what they had seen were willing to die for a lie?

You're entitled to hold any belief you want, but I have to say, it's refreshing to have a discussion about religion. We haven't had one for about...ohhh, 3 weeks?? :D

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

That's one of those urban myths, hebrew for reed is nothing like the hebrew for red, as frend for reed is nothing like the french for red.

Think about this, you have a bunch of unburdened slaves who can run across the sandy top of the reef (been there, done that in the red sea myself, low tide with no wind left about a foot of water)
You've got them being followed by the heavily armed and burdened charriots of the egyptians which can't travel as fast across the top of the reef, as the horses' hooves would sink through the sand into the small holes between the dead coral branches. You've got the charriot wheels, being a hell of a lot heavier than a man, breaking the branches of the coral it's travelling over, causing them to sink a bit and get stuck in ruts.
So as the tide comes up, and the wind drops, the hebrews have managed to get alot further across and so are able to complete the journey before the water rises too high. A unburdened person can wade through a foot or two of water much easier than a horse and charriot through the same depth of water.

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

Many germans died for a lie.
Many japanese died for a lie.
Many cult followers die for their beliefs.
And thats just a few examples from the last century

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

As I said, you believe what you want but to me the Biblical versions makes more sense.

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

Which is a belief you are entitled to and I know that you would not deny others their belief in the science which explains how such things could take place.

Such as the blood in the nile (can't remember what it was but it was some red mineral) which killed the fish and caused the amphibians to abandon the water (plague of toads) the resultant decaying fish washed up on the shores of the nile were a banquet to flies (plague of flies)

We already have literary evidence for the story of Noah being adopted by hebrews when they were slaves in messopotania (sp) and relates to the flooding of the Black Sea which we know used to be a fresh water lake.

Interestingly, I don't think any of the experts who have put these things forward have ever denied that god was involved. They've just been saying this is how it is most likely to happen.

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

I am just telling it like the vicar told it (and she was taught it apparently) :shrug:

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

russ im not going to argue but unlike some] i do NOT need to shy away from any subject even if i dont agree with it, im not close minded, im open minded, if you cant tolerate someone questioning religion or any other subject i suggest you stop reading my threads.

now back on topic...

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

With respect, the people who came up with those theories were not there at the time to witness these incidents. There may be 'literary evidence' that Noah's story was adopted by the Hebrews but we also have literary evidence that it happened - it's called the Bible.

I can understand people finding scientific angles to these events being more compeling, but remember the only people who were present to witness these occurances did so and their accounts can be found in the Bible.

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

I don't have a problem with you or anyone else questioning my beliefs - on the contrary I welcome it. But what I DO object to is when one of us starts a thread on it you complain that you don't want to see the subject on here, yet IMO you are the one user who starts the most threads on it.

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

yes at one time at that time i made my comment that i did think there was too much, things died down, i havent personally started/read one in months......

im interested and willing to learn about religion itself.

Re: Would you believe in God if??
 

Ah, but little Billy is a young fallible human. He is bound to make mistakes. God on the otherhand is supposed to be all powerful and infallible. Dropped a b*llock with the human race didn't he !! Oh sorry - he can't drop b*llocks, this must what he intended !!! :eek:

As I understand it, god created satan and therefore sin. Why ? Does he have a warped sense of humour, is he 'testing' us and if so, again, why ?

I don't understand the logic if there is any. Everything according to religion is to suit 'god's purpose' and we are incapable of understanding. Not wrong there then !!

Sorry but I am a confirmed atheist. :cool:

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

Reading the thread isn't an issue when you have a title that reads like a statement.
If you really are "questioning" as you claim.. why didn't you put a question mark at the end of the title?

You can see why the title as it stands is a bit inflamatory can't you.

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

yeah it's probably been either totally dreamt up or exagerrated into oblivion

it was probably a kid with a bucket looking for crabs and the story snowballed


as for Russ's comments how come one minute the 'god' is in the old testament threatening this that and the other and making veiled threats at killing kids etc


the next - in the new testament - reinvented as a peacemonger

Re: Would you believe in God if??
 

First of all, why do people start multiple threads on the same subject???????

I WILL be merging them....

NO HE DID NOT. He made us but it was US who chose to turn away from Him.

Because it became aparent we wanted something else other than God's plan he allowed us to make a 2 way choice between good and evil. Would you have prefered to have been a mindless robot controlled by Him?

On that basis you'll never believe. It should be an act of faith. God will never give us 100% irrevocable proof because that would negate us chosing to believe in Him. Such evidence would then compel us to believe.

And even then, some idiot scientist would try and explain it all away.

Re: churchys strike again
 

yes i do actually, can you tell me what he meant by 'help them' i assume he means change them to a diffarent lifestyle i think that should be left to the individual dont you ?

this is factual, i cant post the link as its copyrighted, and im not going to break that.......

and when did i post in this thread i dislike religion or anywhere else, i dont agree with it, but i wont stop anyone from joining any religion or anything
else for that matter.


you can think what you like i post anything i want to, you take it the wrong way thats your problem

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

...or possibly the greatest actions recorded by God.



(sigh) It certainly helps to be discussing this with someone who has a little more knowledge than "pub-level"...

A lot of what was written in the OT was incorrect, one of the reasons for Jesus was to change many of the out-dated teachings which the Jews had held for thousands of years. The 'threats' God made were due to us constantly disobeying and insulting Him.

If your child was that rebelious, would you not discipline him/her?

Re: Would you believe in God if??
 

God didn't create sin, He created angels (Satan) and human beings with free will.. (back to this topic again).
Along with free will came the ability to either obey or disobey Him. Which is where sin gets it's meaning.. (disobeying God).
As we have free will, so too comes the responsibility for those actions.

I believe God does have a sense of humour.. but it isn't warped.. and certainly nothing to do with the evil in our world.

We certainly ARE capable of understanding..the only thing that prevents us is our sin.
Once we ask God to forgive us and believe in Jesus as our Saviour from our justified punishment, then all barriers to knowing and understanding what God reveals to us are removed.

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

Just because it is written in a book doesn`t make it true. The majority of the bible was even written contemporaneously to the events that are described in it. So you have a book written on a basis of recollections, with no guarantee that all of those recollections are accurate, by people with an agenda to promote.

Obviously I cannot stand up and state categorically that none of the contents of the bible are true because, as you point out, we weren`t there to witness the events. But to argue that it must be true because it is written in a book is as equally flawed an argument as you were not there to witness the events yourself.

Re: Would you believe in God if??
 

If we are to follow that argument, sin could not exist without free will, God created free will which provided the underlying mechanism for sin to exist, therefore God created sin.

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

Surely context is critical in answering that question? Rebelling against an oppressive state in the cause of freedom would be different to rebelling against a justified law simply for the sake of it.

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

Yes but when you have accounts of these actions from other sources not connected to the Bible (such as Augustus Caeser's diaries, hardly a religion man yet wrote a LOT about jesus) it tends to lend a lot more weight to the argument.

Who said they rebelled against an opressive state?

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

Again just writings, so they do not provide objective proof.

My apologies, I originally interpreted you comment in too broad a context.

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

Yeah I know, I'm not trying to give you objective proof because that's not what Christianity is about.

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

Alternatively, from a slightly more sceptical point of view, all these claims of miracles stretch credibility further and further until occam's razor doesn't even need to be very sharp...

Re: Would you believe in God if??
 

No, some sensible scientist would want to check the validity of the proof, because that is what science is all about!

A huge booming voice, pillars of flames, dramatic scenes?

Ever watched the Wizard of Oz...?! :angel:

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

I'm sure the Jews will be pleased to hear that!

Of course the fact that the Bible was written *after* the event and has been re-written, re-translated had sections omitted for not being "religiously correct" etc isn't relevant to the discussion...

Sodom and Gommorrah was "discipline"?

Sending bears to tear apart children is "discipline"??

Making people burn in hell for all eternity is "discipline"???

This must be some strange usage of the word I wasn't previously aware of.

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

I've got to admit that eternal damnation is one of the things that make me feel that Christianity cannot be true. Let's get this straight. The age of the universe is about 15 billion years, an extremely long time. If you were punished for the age of the universe for every one of your evil deeds, for every one of your evil thoughts, then it would be, literally, and I mean literally, as nothing compared to eternity. Any god who could do something like that to someone whom he had created is infinitely evil, as far as I am concerned. Of course, if you wish to explain that eternity is not actually infinite, then I'm all ears . . .

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

Re: the last few posts. What people fail to realise is that trying to use science to prove/disprove something which science can never find answers for is folly.

I therefore assume you know little or nothing of the Bible? That's why they resented Jesus y'see....

Rewritten? I think not. The Bible is rarely described as the undisputed truth (shudder....;)) as anyone with a modicum of sense that anything written by man is prone to error, however as it was inspired by God, we get our general guidance from it. It's all down to personal interpritation.

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

That statement sounds pretty stupid.
Science does not try to prove/disprove things that science cannot find answers for. Science tries to prove/disprove those things in which man is searching for answers.
To assume that religions and their bibles are somehow excused from scientific examination by declaring the attempt as "folly" is rediculous and arrogant in the extreme.

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

:cry:

Christians don't search for these answers, we don't need them. If someone needs scientific answers or proof then they won't find any - the basis of Christianity is faith.

I didn't say they were excused! I said that scientists will not find what they are looking for.

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

Just got into work and my you lot have been busy!
So excuse the quick recap

Russ, re the red mineral in the nile, it happens to this day as well.
re the Noah story, literary evidence shows when it entered hebrew culture, and that it was in messopotanian culture long before, ergo the hebrews adopted it from them (it can be pinpointed to when they were their slaves).

Again, these experts who come up with the explanations of how these "miracles" happened are not saying that they weren't caused by god.

Now, you said that many things in the OT are wrong or incorrect, but how can this be if the words were given to the writers from god?
You could say the writers being just men could have written it down wrong, so why didn't god correct them there and then rather than letting his people wander off down the wrong path?

Prepare to wince. In genisis, god says that to show you are one of his people you must be circumsised :eek:
Was this decision ever revoked? If so, what are we to make of a god who can't make his mind up?
If it wasn't revoked, then if you are uncircumcised, then you are not one of gods people and therefore not following his teachings, therefore failing him.

Can anyone put a case forward showing that (by his own actions) god is not a genocidal tyrant?

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

I'm sure it does but in the Biblical incident, I believe it was blood.

Yep, one point of view :)

No, the way it was acted upon was misinterprited. I don't see stories of Jesus stoning homosexuals.

I've got no problems there then ;) :D

It's not that He can't make up His mind, it's just we continuously failed to live up to His standards. In any case IIRC that was for the Jews, not us Gentile-types :)

To be a Christian, one must be born-again. As found in the NT, plain and simple!

He gave me a daughter.

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

Isn't Leviticus quite exact in what the punishment should be?

Too much information!

See this is the problem, some of the christian teachings are totally contradictory to the OT writings.
So he's changed his mind.

Not wanting to be too crude Russ, but getting jiggy with your missus gave you your daughter.
Or are you saying god's a pervert into threesomes? (sorry, couldn't resist!)
If god is responsible for giving people children, then one could extrapolate that to mean that if people are infirtile, then it is because god does not want them to have children, which kinda backs up the image of him as not a nice person at all.

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

So, you have no desire for a search for the empirical truth then? That's fine. You can say it is based on faith and can I say it is based on lies and we can all argue for another few thousand years.

In your terms, scientists will not find what they are looking for because their aims and your aims are apparently not the same (and in any case you believe you already have found what you are looking for so no proof is ever going to persaude you otherwise).

Science does not answer to an unquestionable beliefs. If it did then it wouldn't work and we would not be having this conversation on computers over this thing we call the wibbly-wobbly-web. Science merely searches for the most reasonable explanation based on experimentation and observation. There are no tricks or lies involved.

Anyway, there was a misspelling in the holy bible. It is actually "The Geek(scientist) shall inherit the earth". That was where it should have ended but they dragged it on for a few more chapters because the publishers didn't like the ending. Honest! I have the proof! Now, where did I put those papers. :D

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

On the contrary - I wanted the truth and in my mind I've found it.

That's about the size of it - I've found my God and I'm sticking with him :)

You of course are welcome to believe whatever you chose :)

Neither are any in my faith.


OK.....

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

I said empirical truth. NOT the "truth" as you see it in your singular mind.

Me? I don't believe in unproven storybooks and I don't care what you believe.

So, the whole argument for science not being able to prove/disprove things relies totally on whether you *think* it falls within your faith or not. It is never going to work in that case, but only because YOU won't accept it.
You are not prepared to give science the slightest chance because you are afraid that your whole mental world will come tumbling down (?).

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

Surely truth is subjective?

And that is your right :)

You're not far off the, er truth :)

I'm not afraid in the slightest. I've very interested in science, especially the power of the mind, I studied psychology for a while so it's not like I've jumped on the first idea that came by.

It's just I have made up my mind about God, I feel Him in my everyday life, I'm not harming anyone with my beliefs so I'll carry on til the end.

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

Can someone explain to me the whole thing about jesus being a jew, yet people believe in christianity and not judaism.

Personally, I was brought up a Catholic. I don't believe in it anymore though. I'd like to believe in God but I don't believe that the bible is the word of God. I like to think of God kinda like The Force in starwars. I just believe in living a good life, treating other people how I like to be treated myself, being kind, not causing anyone any harm. If there is a God I think thats all he'll expect of anyone, not to be living my life to the letter of the bible, castigating other peoples lifestyles, putting words before reason etc and all the rest.

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

To be a Christian is to accept Jesus as your Saviour and follow his teachings. Jusaism doesn't recognise Jesus as the Saviour.

Christian teaching doesn't promote that.

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

Jesus was like a service pack upgrading judaism to judaism V1.2
So although he was a jew, he was a new jew, trying to teach the old jews where they were going wrong in following blatant texts in the bible such as stoning homosexuals to death (aparently that was a typo in the old testiment or something)

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

Still don't understand really the whole thing about jesus being a jew and christian stuff I'm afraid.

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

Quite correct although it wasn't a typo - I'd put it down to being extreme over-zealousness caused by lack of compassion and understanding.

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

Judaism

Christianity

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

So did he just make it up or was it actually words from god?

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

The intention, that is to say anal sex is wrong, is what I believe to be God's message. My own view is Levictus may have taken it the wrong way (ummm, bad choice or wording there..) or misunderstood God's word. I believe he thought he was doing God's word.

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

I'll have a read through that Russ, thanks. Had a wee skim read, I just can't get to grips with the fact that christians believe in Jesus but don't actually believe in his religion ? Confusing myself now.

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

So god doesn't think the bible is important enough to proof read, or didn't care that Lev got it wrong?
In that case, how can you blieve anything in the bible then?

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

OK here's a rough version......take Jesus away and all his miracles, teachings etc and you have a form of Judaism. It's not really practical to use this analogy as Christianity started with just after Christ left but I hope you see my point...

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

God unfortunately never left us with a proof-reader....I'm sure He wanted people to see past the notion that gays should be tortured in that way.

I believe what I believe in the Bible because it feels right and things can be put in to practice.

Re: moses 'parting of the waves' a myth
 

Theo, forgive me if I'm wrong but posts you've made in past 'religious' threads lead me to believe that your understanding of the non-Roman Catholic Church comes almost exclusively from a Calvinistic perspective. As a matter of fact, miracles are alive and well in a great many of the the 'non-conformist' denominations. It's only really the Calvinist denominations (for e.g., the Reformed Church, the Plymouth Bretheren and the Free Church of Scotland) that go in for what we call a 'ceasationist' doctrine. The principal difference between us and the RCs is that we recognise the work of God in the lives of ordinary people without feeling the need to then elevate those people to the exalted status of 'sainthood'. In any case, the Bible is clear that all believers are 'saints'.

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

See, that says either god didn't care, or didn't know how people would interpret it.
Or it took several hundred years for him to realise.

Either way, you have god saying one thing, and the bible writers putting down something different, therefore showing that the bible is not the word of god, but the word of some men (and one woman) who lived many moons ago and decided to ignore god's words and write their own and claim they were god's.

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

Truth is not subjective. How can it be? It it was then, for a start, we would have no justice system. Truth is truth. Lies are lies. To determine whether something is one or the other then you rely on evidence and empirical data. A faith or belief is not truth.

If you are not afraid then why do you reject it out of hand? Scientists were feared by religious types so much that they burned at the stake. Today you just mostly ignore them when it suits you.

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

Let's not forget that the Bible wasn't "the Bible" during those days. It only became considered the written word of God well after Jesus left.

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

Truth in court is what a jury believes it is, therefore it's subjective to them.

Wow, generalisation or what! I don't reject it out of hand - some of the greatest scientists in the past were Christians, such as Isaac Newton. It's just when science says "50 million years ago this happened" I often wonder who was there to record it. Now if they said "50 million years ago WE BELIEVE this happened", I'd be much happier man :)


PS Towny's back - good to see the calvery's arrived :D

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

You're doing a really good job of destroying the credability of the bible Russ! :D


PS Yay Towny's here :)

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

As Russ said Christians accept Jesus as their Saviour and follow his teachings just as Buddhists accept Buddha as their saviour and follow his teachings. His nationality does not affect that fact.

Jesus offered the people of the time a fresh perspective to that offered by the priests, who clung to the letter of the scriptures rather than to their spirit.

He offered a way of living embracing respect for God, self-sacrifice, forgiveness, tolerance, helping others and many other virtues. He did not claim his religion to be the best but offered all the people he encountered the opportunity to embrace the values he advocated and to live by them.

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

That's not my intention - God is fully aware that what He tried to teach us in the OT didn't work - we wouldn't obey. To me the OT is a recording of the status quo. I don't think ALL of it was like this though - in fact I believe the majority of it, but us being what we are, we failed and it's recorded in the OT.

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

Either the OT is the word of god, telling us how to behave, or it's made up by the people who wrote it, in which case, following it would be as bad as not following it, as neither is the way god wanted. (actually not following it would be better as there's the small chance you could accidently live the life god wanted you to be)
The problem I've raised is nothing to do with whether we'd follow what the bible says or not, it's whether what the bible says is actually what god wanted.
If it isn't then it was just made up by blokes (and one woman) with good, but flawed, intentions, claiming that they were working for god, when they were actually spreading lies (ie not what god was saying).
In which case, the OT has no credibility when it comes to the claim that it is about the way god wanted us to behave.
And if the OT is like that, who's to say that the NT isn't also like that? Written by men with good but flawed intentions, claiming they are writing about how god wants us to behave.

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

Its not his nationality though, its his religion. He was Jewish ? I appreciate everything you are saying but I just see abit of a contradiction basing your religious beliefs on Jesus but not believing in Jesus' religion.

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

It's neither! These people were inspired by their experiences of God to write. He did not make the parchment and ink appear, neither did he dabble with dictation (apart from Revelations, so to speak), he just spoke through people. It would be like me writing about my expereinces with Him and how I feel He lives in me and wants me to help others.

Now humans being humans, we are prone to error. This may or may not have happened in the OT. There are some who follow the Bible to the letter of the law, that's up to them.

I believe it is, when you discount human error.

The difference with the NT, especially the Gospels, is that we had someone on earth to check things were correct and in order with.

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

Think of Jesus' religion as being a true jew.
the other jews at the time had got it wrong, hence why he went to the temple and gave them a piece of his mind.
so christianity (in the form that jesus preached) is really judaism.

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

In a sense this is true - the born-again people of God are called the 'true Israel' and 'children of Abraham' countless times in the Bible. However while it might be technically correct, in general conversation it would probably confuse a lot of people.

Re: MERGED: God (all threads)
 

Well....from a sideways view possibly!