DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Disturbing Passage from The Bible
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 126 - 150 of 775, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/03/2007 05:50:34 AM · #126
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.--C.S. Lewis

Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist. --C. S. Lewis


This quote is logically unsound. People can do things with a meaning. It is therefore possible to understand the concept of "meaning". I can conceive that people may ascribe meaning to natural events, and can say that they have "no meaning", without creating a dilemma.

My rage is not against god, but against people who act out of superstitious religious belief to the general detriment of society.
01/03/2007 06:01:35 AM · #127
Originally posted by EducatedSavage:

Regarding Atheism, it is impossible currently to prove or disprove the concept of God conclusively, so all decisions one way or another are dependant on belief alone. That belief may be built on the compulsion of one's emotions or 'soul' or it could be based the idea that for something so important, there really OUGHT to be some logical proof.

Deciding that God doesn't exist because it can't be proven is no lesser a decision that deciding God does exist because you feel He must.


Atheism does not require belief.

The odds on something so powerful as a god existing, yet being intangible and unidentifiable, are so long that it makes no sense to waste time on it. The same with fairies, trolls and goblins. We cannot *prove* that they don't exist, but why bother believing in something just because we cannot easily prove the negative?

Atheism is not so much an active belief in there being no god, but rather a realistic reassessment of its likelihood.

I would therefore argue that there is more likelihood of there being a force, or a extra-universal force, than there is of a personal god, and these are both more likely than any specific god (as represented by major religion). But the odds on each are so vanishingly small, that I choose not to bother.

The ardent support garnered by atheism for some does not represent a desire to convert, or replace an existing belief, but a desire to disabuse people of a potentially dangerous and certainly time wasting superstition.
01/03/2007 10:45:22 AM · #128
I thought I would end my little tirade with a good quote:

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

Richard Dawkins

01/03/2007 11:03:28 AM · #129
Wow. Seven posts in a row. :)

Don't worry. They'll be back.
01/03/2007 11:05:08 AM · #130
Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

Having said that, though, I think that the biblical passage in the original post shows that intolerance is a product of religion. Deuteronomy 13 (a religious text) teaches us that we should not only be intolerant, but should actually kill those who worship other gods.

Deuteronomy 13 was not written to teach either you, I, or anyone else what we should do about those who worship other gods, in 2007. Deuteronomy 13 is an historical record of the commands given by Moses to the Israelites in the desert several thousand years ago.
Look at it this way: In 1945 President Truman issued an order to "Drop Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki". If someone were to read a transcript of Truman's command today, I doubt that they would believe that Truman's command teaches us that we, in the year 2007, should drop Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


very well said. now are those books marked? those books that I am to take as historical records? No? Okay, then I'll take the whole Bible that way. To each his own.


Yes they are marked, and very clearly in fact.

Historical records - Old testament
Books to learn and base you life on - New testament.
01/03/2007 12:44:57 PM · #131
Originally posted by legalbeagle:

The believable scenario is the one we can sense with our own senses (enhanced by the use of measuring devices).


You sound so much like a person who feels the entire world can be explained through logic, hypothesis, experiment and deduction. I wonder if you love anybody and whether you could prove it (cliche, but always apt).

Science is a wonderful tool. My life is much more grounded in science than yours (on a practical level. I'm not saying I somehow "believe" it in more than you do). However, Science cannot be looked to to answer every question the human mind can ask.

"I think science has enjoyed an extraordinary success because it has such a limited and narrow realm in which to focus its efforts. Namely, the physical universe." ~Ken Jenkins

01/03/2007 01:06:11 PM · #132
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I wonder if you love anybody and whether you could prove it (cliche, but always apt).


Given that certain feelings stimulate specific areas of the brain in a measurable way, he probably could. The greater difficulty would probably be defining the relatively abstract concept of love in the first place.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

"I think science has enjoyed an extraordinary success because it has such a limited and narrow realm in which to focus its efforts. Namely, the physical universe." ~Ken Jenkins


It could also be that science is successful because doubts can be removed with tests and observations. The funny thing about physical proof is that it tends to be believable. I agree however that science is useless for imaginary universes. For that, you have to turn to science fiction. ;-)

Message edited by author 2007-01-03 13:09:16.
01/03/2007 01:52:33 PM · #133
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I could never come to grips with the idea that if Jesus was a fraud, 10 of his closest friends either knew it and chose to go to their own horrid deaths to perpetuate the lie or they were so duped by him to do so in belief (only John died a natural death).

Have you never heard of Jonestown/People's Temple? Those folks were presumably more informed and "sophisticated" than people 2000 years ago.
01/03/2007 02:02:24 PM · #134
Originally posted by legalbeagle:

My rage is not against god, but against people who act out of superstitious religious belief to the general detriment of society.

One of my favorite bumper stickers goes something like

Dear God: Please protect me from your adherents
01/03/2007 02:16:49 PM · #135
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I could never come to grips with the idea that if Jesus was a fraud, 10 of his closest friends either knew it and chose to go to their own horrid deaths to perpetuate the lie or they were so duped by him to do so in belief (only John died a natural death).


Of course, that totally ignores the possibility that such events never actually took place. Tales of virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrection were hardly original for the time, and the earliest gospels didn't appear until around 60 A.D. (at a time when the average life expectancy was around 30 years). The first gospels don't even mention key parts of Christ's story.
01/03/2007 02:47:45 PM · #136
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I could never come to grips with the idea that if Jesus was a fraud, 10 of his closest friends either knew it and chose to go to their own horrid deaths to perpetuate the lie or they were so duped by him to do so in belief (only John died a natural death).

Have you never heard of Jonestown/People's Temple? Those folks were presumably more informed and "sophisticated" than people 2000 years ago.


Or the Branch Davidians?
01/03/2007 02:51:11 PM · #137
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Have you never heard of Jonestown/People's Temple? Those folks were presumably more informed and "sophisticated" than people 2000 years ago.


Or the Branch Davidians? [/quote]

...or the middle east suicide bombers du jour.
01/03/2007 03:00:00 PM · #138
Originally posted by scalvert:


Of course, that totally ignores the possibility that such events never actually took place. Tales of virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrection were hardly original for the time, and the earliest gospels didn't appear until around 60 A.D. (at a time when the average life expectancy was around 30 years). The first gospels don't even mention key parts of Christ's story.


I think you are talking out of your ass on this one Shannon.

A) The historical evidence for Jesus, as a person who existed, is far higher than the evidence for William Shakespeare. The historical evidence for the disciples also meets the standard rigor applied to historical figures.
B) You do not understand what life expectancy means. If the average life expectancy was 30, it very likely represents a very high mortality rate among the very young. If you make it past two or five years you probably had a fair chance to live to your 60s. It does not mean you were a senior citizen when you were 25.
C) The earliest gospel in the Canon, Mark, certainly mentions all the important parts (his death and resurrection). It does not mention his birth, but I don't care about that. I don't care who his mom was if he rose from the dead. That's enough to get my attention at least.

As far as current suicide cults, I think it's a bit different to drink some laced juice in anticipation of heaven as compared to being cruicified, flayed, boiled, and all the other nasty ways the disciples died. You trying to tell me Jones would have had hundreds of people willing to die by torture?

Message edited by author 2007-01-03 15:01:23.
01/03/2007 03:05:51 PM · #139
ummm, not good analogies guys.

The Jonestown followers committed mass suicide because their leader told them to.

Even if the Branch Davidians had wanted to "get out" of the burning buildings, from what I understand of the accouts, they were not able to -- either by Koresh or the US gov't, nor were they able to "deny their faith". Not exactly voluntary death for reward or to show their loyalty.

Suicide bombers do so to gain a reward.

Jesus' followers were not told, encouraged, or instructed by Jesus to commit suicide for reward, and each of them had ample opportunity to recant their faith. Each of the followers of Jesus that was killed for "preaching the gospel," had the opportunity to deny Jesus and live. Yet, they chose not to. AND, they were not all huddled around supporting each other. Each, if my memory serves me correct, stood alone and made individual choices, resulting in their demise.

eta: dr. achoo posted while I was typing. my post is in reference to those who offered up others who "died for their faith."

Message edited by author 2007-01-03 15:08:06.
01/03/2007 03:46:42 PM · #140
I'm just going to keep going here. I cannot come up with enough pejorative words to describe the idea that Jesus never existed (whomever he was) and you are better off just recanting it as something you are not taking seriously.

What do you do about Paul?

Was he fictional as well? (please don't say no.)

By his own writing, his conversion was fourteen years before the Council at Jerusalem. That meeting is dated, according to our great wikipedia, as being sometime between 50AD and 62AD. So we can consider Paul's conversion to be sometime between 36AD and 48AD. (Let us recall that this Jesus guy was purported to have died sometime around 30AD.)

What can we learn from this?
A) Paul, a pharisee, found it important enough in only 6-18 years to be running around stopping (via stoning or ostracization) this crazy group of people talking all about Jesus the Messiah.
B) Paul, a pharisee, knew enough about this Jesus to consider his vision (whatever it was) to be Jesus himself. I'm guessing Paul understood that Jesus was a real person at that time. If he did not, it would make little sense for him to attribute a vision to someone who did not exist.
C) The conversion was strong enough that Paul went on to travel around the known world preaching the gospel and was later killed for his actions.

I'm afraid, NONE of this makes sense if Jesus was a figment of someone's imagination. I'm not speaking at all about who he was. The above COULD make sense even if Jesus was a loony who needed the 1st century version of Haldol, but it makes zero sense if he was created by the various people who wrote the New Testament.

Message edited by author 2007-01-03 15:47:15.
01/03/2007 03:51:12 PM · #141
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

B) You do not understand what life expectancy means. If the average life expectancy was 30, it very likely represents a very high mortality rate among the very young. If you make it past two or five years you probably had a fair chance to live to your 60s. It does not mean you were a senior citizen when you were 25.

I mostly agree with this, though I think the "average terminal age" for survivors of childhood disease has been more like 45-50 throughout most of our history (especially women, who died in childbirth far more often than men); this is one reason "elders" (60-80 YO) have been so revered -- they were relatively rare.

Industrial-age medicine -- xray, antibiotics, etc. -- is what has raised that terminal age from the 50's to the 70's (and hopefully beyond).
Originally posted by DrAchoo:


You trying to tell me Jones would have had hundreds of people willing to die by torture?

We'll never know -- we do know (some of them) were willing to die though, and, for that matter, others were willing to kill.

As an MD, what are you required do if someone walks into your office and says he's heard God tell him to ? Around here, that person would usually end up under 72 hours of involuntary observation (civil commitment).

How can you prove he's not the latest true prophet delivering God's word in person? Just by injecting some psychotropics and supressing the voices?

Also, what "evidence" do we have that Moses wasn't just having a schizophrenic episode (or have recently eaten some moldy grain) when he heard that voice in the burning bush? Those explanations seem at least as likely to explain his hallucination-like experiences as the existence of an undetectable diety ...

Message edited by author 2007-01-03 15:52:24.
01/03/2007 04:07:18 PM · #142
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The above COULD make sense even if Jesus was a loony who needed the 1st century version of Haldol, but it makes zero sense if he was created by the various people who wrote the New Testament.

Interesting you came up with this analogy during the time I was writing my last response : )

I was once crossing a street when another pedestrian asked if I "believed in Jesus." I said something to the effect that if we'd all spend more time living according to His teachings and less time (like zero) arguing the question His divinity, the world would be a far better place for everyone.

I would venture that if you gave a bunch of atheists/agnostics/humanists a of test of values or morals -- what they believe and how they behave in daily life -- they score as "highly" or better than a similar cross-section of the practicing faithful of any religion. A good idea is a good idea with or without the promise of 70 virgins on the one hand or eternal fire and brimstone on the other ...

01/03/2007 04:07:49 PM · #143
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Also, what "evidence" do we have that Moses wasn't just having a schizophrenic episode (or have recently eaten some moldy grain) when he heard that voice in the burning bush? Those explanations seem at least as likely to explain his hallucination-like experiences as the existence of an undetectable diety ...


The evidence is that their lives changed and they went on to change the world. I don't think many people, psychotic enough to have at least one vision, could have the capacity to continue the delusion to an extent so as to be acting on it decades after the fact. This is why nothing comes of the thousands of schizophrenics who hear "God talking to them". Their disease precludes their effective functioning in society, at least at a level to effect mass change.

So concluding that Jesus did exist, and Shannon can update us on where he is on this, are you to tell me that someone crazy enough to think he's the Son of God could have put together a reasonable enough message to have people running around within a decade talking about him like he's the best thing since aqueducts? It doesn't make sense to me at least.

EDIT: Well, I see you were typing above. I was speaking to the idea of Jesus' existence. When you continue to flesh the argument, I actually don't think a "crazy" Jesus could explain things. (But, I will say it makes at least a tad more sense than the idea he was a figment of someone's imagination).

Message edited by author 2007-01-03 16:09:34.
01/03/2007 04:22:06 PM · #144
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

... are you to tell me that someone crazy enough to think he's the Son of God could have put together a reasonable enough message to have people running around within a decade talking about him like he's the best thing since aqueducts? It doesn't make sense to me at least.

Given the many examples of entire peoples doing things which now seem incomprehensible to us -- Rwanda and Darfur perhaps the most recent -- it seems entirely possible to me, especially since it's an easier sell if you're trying to encourage people to do what they're already predisposed to do. I mean, wasn't the crux of Jesus' position (pun intended -- sorry!) that the Jews were becoming slackers in their practice, and that they should again follow God's instructions a little more religiously, as it were?

Are you saying Jim Jones wasn't crazy?
01/03/2007 04:34:28 PM · #145
Originally posted by legalbeagle:

The odds on something so powerful as a god existing, yet being intangible and unidentifiable, are so long that it makes no sense to waste time on it.

Just an observation: Wouldn't also make no sense to waste time arguing against it? I bring this up because from my observations of these threads, you are typically at the forefront of championing the atheist cause and clearly spending a lot of time doing it. I am curious as to why.

Let me guess at your answer: To rid the world of all the evil deeds that Christians (and other religious believers) are committing in the name of their religion.

or something to that effect? Well, how do Christians' positive contributions to the world stack up against their perceived negative contributions? and how does that compare to atheist contributions?

Rhetorical questions really, since we could argue any examples you or I may give ad infinitum. Just food for thought.

Nothing is more baffling to me than a zealous atheist.
01/03/2007 04:52:44 PM · #146
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Nothing is more baffling to me than a zealous atheist.


Ah, Bravo! I've thought this many times as i read these threads, but never articulated it. I can understand the stake a Christian has in defending/proselytizing his faith, but why on earth are there so many proselytizing atheists? What's their stake? Why do they care what we believe?

R.

Message edited by author 2007-01-03 16:53:04.
01/03/2007 04:53:00 PM · #147
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Nothing is more baffling to me than a zealous atheist.

Why shouldn't we enjoy arguing exercising our minds with a healthy debate as much as the next person?

Also, certain aspects of organized religion impinge upon our lives whether we are a member or not -- we have a right to challenge its authority to do so if it is based on false premises.

Message edited by author 2007-01-03 16:55:04.
01/03/2007 04:54:21 PM · #148
The historical evidence for Jesus, as a person who existed, is pretty much limited to the 4 Gospels. We don't know who actually wrote any of them (remember that it's technically the Gospel According to Mark, NOT the Gospel OF Mark or BY him) or exactly when. Scholars generally say the Gospel according to Mark was written 60-70 years after the death of Christ, and the other three over 100 years after the death of Christ. So regardless of what your understanding of life expectancy is, the authors almost certainly didn't witness a darn thing first hand. If I wrote a "history" now of a man who lived during the WW1, without any supporting documentation, how valid would my historical account be? BTW- the earliest known mention of ANY of the gospels themselves was a reference by Theopolis of Antioch to the gospel of John in 180 A.D. That ain't a whole lot of corroboration for something so important.

From what I can gather, there was an earlier (and different) version of the Gospel of Mark that was lost. The version we have isn't an original by any means (nor are the other three), and makes no mention of virgin birth, the Sermon on the Mount or the Lord's Prayer. These things were added later by Matthew and Luke. John sometimes contradicts the other three "Synoptic" gospels to the degree that Christian scholars don't necessarily consider that one historical. Were ANY of them really historical? After all, Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic, but all four gospels were written in Greek. So our proof of history is stories written in another language a generation or two after the events they portray. Nevermind the literally dozens of competing "gospels" from the same time period that the church doesn't include.

Maybe we can find some account that WAS written during the time of Christ? Ah, here we go... the 13 Epistles of Paul, supposedly written in Jerusalem when Jesus was around. If anybody had first hand knowledge, it would be Paul! Let's see... no mention of virgin birth, nary a hint of Jesus performing a single miracle, no sermon given on a mountain, no Lord's Prayer, no parables. Wow, tough audience! What does it take to impress a guy?

Maybe it doesn't matter to you if Mary was a virgin. Fine. Let's go with something basic and more important then: the birth of Christ. According to Matthew, he was born when Herod was king of Judea. Luke claims he was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Problem is, Herod died ten years before Quirinius became governor. Yeah, we apparently DO have historical records of these guys. :-/

Maybe it's really only the crucifixion that matters? For the first 800 years of art and sculpture, Christianity was symbolized by a LAMB on the cross, not a man. It wasn't until Pope Hadrian I that we see the crucifixion of a human figure. That's all well and good if the Lamb of God is symbolism of an imaginary concept, but as a historical portrayal of the single most important sacrifice in human history, I kinda' expect to see the hero. ;-)
01/03/2007 04:54:44 PM · #149
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Nothing is more baffling to me than a zealous atheist.

Why shouldn't we enjoy arguing exercising our minds with a healthy debate as much as the next person?


Asked and answered, jejejeâ„¢ But it doesn't always come across that way. Not referring to you in particular, but to atheists in general, they often seem to have an emotional stake in "de-converting" those who believe in God? Why?

R.
01/03/2007 04:58:49 PM · #150
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Not referring to you in particular, but to atheists in general, they often seem to have an emotional stake in "de-converting" those who believe in God? Why?

R.

I added after you quoted:

...certain aspects of organized religion impinge upon our lives whether we are a member or not -- we have a right to challenge its authority to do so if it is based on false premises.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 07/31/2025 02:24:06 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/31/2025 02:24:06 AM EDT.