I just can't wrap my head around it

[No Limit]

^ Smart avatar, smart man.

 

[RidleyRockets]

And the scripture is quite clear about what God is, and his existence has been backed up by MANY in the Bible, including those from the New Testamant. Jesus's resurrection is proof enough and I could make an entire essay post on the evidence of Jesus's resurrection.

Do it.

So you are suggesting that the universe popping into existence by itself is LESS improbable than a higher being creating the catalyst for it? Sorry your logic confuses me.

That's exactly what I'm saying. You haven't answered the problem of infinite regress though, who was a catalyst for the catalyst maker? If god can come out of nothing why can't a universe?

So you'd wager the massively complex universe appearing out of nothing because its 'possible' for mere particles to pop into existence IF the net energy of the fluctuation remains zero?

I'd bet all i have that the universe has a none supernatural origin.

Not to mention the vacuum still needs to be there, where did that come from in the first place?

God of the gaps.

I didn't make up a God and give it its qualities, there is an entire ancient scripture about him and his work,

Same goes for all the other gods, but they are all wrong right?

and at least God provides an answer unlike the wild stabs in dark that quantum mechanics and string theory provides. Plus the same can applied to a lot of scientific approaches:

Saying that Bert and Ernie created the universe provides an answer. A painfully dumb, useless and wrong answer.

Explain in your own words what quantum mechanics is and how it is a "stab in the dark".

You are typing on a computer constructed using the scientific method, how many computers have you seen made from a religious method? I've only seen one and it consisted of a priest in a wooden box playfully fingering an altar boy.

1. Find problem.
2. Fail to solve problem.
3. Take educated guess using other scientific variables and call it fact BECAUSE its science or
4. Meh science will find an answer eventually...

You have to be trolling. Here are the steps of the scientific method.

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Please explain how this is a stab in the dark and how it is flawed.

 

[McGooTheWise]

Id' just like to point something out, those still hung up on definitions... Science has changed many definitions in the English language (Thereby changing other languages' definitions.) since its start... The beginning of mankind. Give me one good reason why a solid hypothesis and some solid proof, or as Dan would say, something in my universe, couldn't change the very definition of that word. Some of these anti-atheist viewpoints imply that humanity already knows everything. Science proves every day that we barely understand the Earth beneath our feet, let alone the heavens above us. How can we possibly begin to understand the inner workings of our universe, multiverse, and beyond without a stab in the dark? That's called a hypothesis, and it's formed through an observation, which happens to be things "disappearing" into non-existance. Science tests it.

Who are we to say that non-existence isn't another universe? That is just the event in which an object no longer exists in this universe, by definition, so perhaps when it existed in this universe, it was in a state of non-existence in another, and then it reverses.

Hell, I don't even know if that makes any sense, but if I were a scientist and wanted to find out, that would be my hypothesis, and I would test it, and if I'm wrong, I'll make another.

 

[Stigmata]

And why would any of them lie?

You're avoiding the question. Jesus and Matthew said conflicting things in the Bible. Therefore, one of them is definitely a liar. Ignoring basic, observable facts about your Bible is not the best way to curry favour with your God.

 

[kineaesth]

how many computers have you seen made from a religious method? I've only seen one and it consisted of a priest in a wooden box playfully fingering an altar boy.

You have to be trolling.

Yeah, he has to be trolling.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I just came into this thread to say that I think atheists should stop talking about the 'problem of infinite regress'. It's an absolutely moot point and no less or more of a problem for either side depending on whether they know their science or theology. You should instead ask how theologans can make a logical leap from "there must be a prime mover" to "that prime mover must be an anthropomorphic god, and moreover OUR god, the one specified in our holy books to have various powers and aspects, who operates a vast system for sorting souls (which also exist) into various end locations". It is taking the name of God in vain to attribute its highly specific properties to the much more neutral and limited entity of a "prime mover", whose necessary existence would imply very little.

 

[Eejit]

Sorry Dodds we're currently having fun with the "why do you reject all the other gods" approach.

 

[Shift]

OK, good, great. Define God.

Well God is spirit, it isn't just some bearded guy living in clouds (lol) I mean why do so many refer to the sky when they mention God, he doesn't just sit in the sky haha.

I'm sorry but the testimony of primitive (take offense as much as you like, but compered to us they really were primitive) people from 2000 years ago does NOT constitute proof. How about some current verifiable, testable, evidence of the existence of a god.

So because its 2000 years ago they are primitive? Soooo were the Romans primitive? Who created many additions to society that are still used today, one of the greatest military machines in history? The greeks even before that? Who contributed even more to modern society culturally speaking? Historians view the Bible as an historical document, so when you don't believe the things Jesus's disciples are saying, then you must not believe that the Romans invaded Britain? Or that Mount Etna erupted in 396BC stopping the Carthaginians during the First Sicilian War? All taken from historical documents too.

Firs of all as far as I know there is no concrete evidence Jesus even existed, let alone the miracles he did or the resurrection. Even if the so called resurrection really did take place, I could write an entire essay on how that doesn't prove squat. To them something like clinical death could've been seen as miraculous.

Many great historians and archaeologists a like have made personal missions to disprove Jesus's existence, all came back with the same conclusion that he did indeed exist and that the New Testament was ridiculously accurate. And his miracles weren't just witnessed by his disciples, they were witnessed by manyyyy people, at times performing them in front of 500 people or more. Why do you think the new teachings of Christianity got so much support when it first started? When the likes of Paul etc started preaching, because many had already seen what Jesus could do, and that he had indeed risen from the dead, everything he prophasised would happen.

And it wasn't just Jesus's resurrection that proved he was telling the truth, God himself said, right in front of the disciples that he was his son and that he had all authority on Earth. They were absolutely petrified when they witnessed it, falling to their knees in fear.

Also it kinda amusing that you view the people who lived that long in such esteem, they didn't know about the things we know but they certainly knew about death, it was a lot more rampant than it is today, and the knew a miracle when they saw one. For instance when Jesus healed the lepers with a mere touch, Leprosy didn't have any cure whatsoever back then, you had it that was it, everyone knew that, then suddenly this guy appears and just makes it vanish with a mere touch? I think people today would be rather astonished.

Hint: there are no mountains from which one can (could) see every kingdom on the planet.

Ah well it was metaphorically speaking, taking someone up a mountain so you can see a huge land mass and settlements etc around you and saying all that could be yours.

Ahahaha you're actually saying your sky wizard is more realistic than their sky wizard? And your reasoning is that yours makes things easier?

Gah more Dawkins terminology T x T But no they worship the God of the Old Testament, its just they have a different interpretation of it, just as the Jews do. Jesus came and said he was that God's son and that he had authority to speak on his behalf etc, to which he therefore proceeded to slam down all other religions based on him etc.

That he is crazy, jealous, genocidal control freak who cares about foreskins of the desert dwelling tribe. Sure, this is the God that created the whole universe.

So many people view him as genocidal because he flooded the Earth and killed millions. But if you had the means to create a little civilization of people, and you wanted them to be perfect, so you created a view, let them spawn away etc, come back the next day, and see them raping each other, and burning, stealing, pillaging and murdering. You try and tell them the right way of going about things but it just continues, I think many would be inclined to destroy this creation, its just that he saw hope in Noah and his family.

He's a God of proper justice, not the sort of justice like in today's society where a guy can rape and murder a girl and get only 10 years in prison, but actual justice. But at the same time he is a God of amazing grace etc, thats why he sent Jesus to Earth. His mission was to correct all the mistakes and misinterpretations of God and then to die on the cross, bearing humanities sin in the process, so that in the future, belief in what he did would grant people salvation. He basically provided a scapegoat for humanity, even though they simply did not deserve it at all. I think thats a pretty kind thing to do personally.

Do you think this makes the god you believe in any more likely than the countless others?
And think for a second here, I'm not asking if this god appeals to you more because of the teachings of your preferred religion, but whether there's more reason to believe in his existence.

Well as I have already said, Jesus came and proved he was the son of God by all the things that he did, we are talking about a guy who calmed a storm with his voice, and walked on water. Thousands followed him everywhere for a reason, because he was doing things that none of them understood but were utterly amazed by, they all hung on his every words.

Also, if you don't mind. Can you let us know how old the earth is? You don't have to be exact, just a rough figure.

Well the Bible's interpretation of how old the Earth is, is open to debate. The whole created in seven days thing I think doesn't mean seven days as we know it. A day in our terms is all to do with the rotation of the Earth, and that in conjunction with the sun in our given area on the planet. That wouldn't have applied to the person making the Earth itself, time would have been a completely different thing. Him saying a day could have meant a million years in our terms for all I know.

So you're a muslim?

No as I said, they worship the God of the Old Testament.

One of a number of theories. Many other theories say the universe will actually collapse back and eventually have another big bang, making it infinate. This doesn't include the theory that there are infinite amount of universes.

Remember, there this actual evidence for all these theories. You have none for God aside from what some dudes said 2,000 years back.

Unless I actually saw these infinite other universes, I can't see how that actual solid evidence. And before you say you haven't ever seen God, well thats the point. You are shown the things that are said and the things that happened in the Bible, and then you take it how you will, its based on faith.

Why not perfom the miracle of getting himself off the cross?

And there are miracles witnessed in the Quran as well as most other religions, so your statement there simply is not true.

Because his purpose was to die on the cross and come back to life, thats what he was there to do at the end of the day. And what other religions had someone like Jesus who did all the things he did, and had actual blessings from God himself? Religions who worship multiple God's are like the Greeks, Romans and Eygptians who worshipped a God who controlled the sun, and one that controlled the weather, because they didn't understand what each of these things were and how they worked, why some of these religions are still going in beyond me considering the times we live in but many more are going to Christianity now across the globe.

So why do you think it's more likely a god just poofed into existence than the universe?

He didn't, he's infinite, he is 'all that ever was and all that ever will be'.

\You specifically said earlier it's more likely because he's "supernatural", but what's so natural about the universe that you think it couldn't do the same thing?

Well for one thing I can see the universe. And another thing is that I know that its all governed by specific forces and laws.

Also what does supernatural mean to you since it's commonly associated with things such as Ghosts, Zombies and Witchcraft? Do you believe in those things as well or do you make a special case for god?

Supernatural. Supra Natura meaning 'above nature' in latin. Basically a being that doesn't adhere to the natural world that we see, lives above it, isn't controlled by its laws.

Christianity was heavily influenced by politics. Stories, celebrations and verses in the bible were heavily edited and voted upon, to see which applied more to the masses. After all, Christianity was one of the first religions to put the poor man at the same worth as a rich man, in the eyes of God. Which it deserves props for, mind you.

The Bible itself was never edited, only mis-taught. For a long time it remained in latin so priests could essentially go into church and tell them whatever the hell they liked about it, that you breathed wrongly you would go to hell, or that if you didn't give the church money, you would go to hell. It was only when a few brave men faced death to translate them all in western society that people could finally read for themselves what it actually said. Unfortunately, even now when the Bible is in English, things like Catholicism still exist...

Do it.

Haha you really want me to? Could take a while and may bore many

That's exactly what I'm saying. You haven't answered the problem of infinite regress though, who was a catalyst for the catalyst maker? If god can come out of nothing why can't a universe?

The catalyst maker didn't have a catalyst because it was never made, it was always there. A PHYSICAL universe, that applies to all the laws of nature, had to have a catalyst. God isn't of our world, so the laws that our brain automatically apply, simply do not apply to him. I can fathom an infinite God because he exists outside our realm of understanding, and our realm of laws. I cannot fathom an infinite universe because it must abide by the laws, most of which say that a universe popping into existence by itself, or an infinite universe, is unlikely.

God of the gaps.

Its not answering my question. Where did the vacuum come from? Or will science prove that eventually? *cough* science of the gaps *cough*

Same goes for all the other gods, but they are all wrong right?

Yes, because none of the other religions had anyone like Jesus doing the things he did.

Saying that Bert and Ernie created the universe provides an answer. A painfully dumb, useless and wrong answer.

There isn't 6000 year old scripture based on Bert and Ernie with a guy performing miracles in front of thousands.

Explain in your own words what quantum mechanics is and how it is a "stab in the dark".

Quantum mechanics is the study of the micro-interactions of energy and matter using mathematics as far as my understanding takes me. One flaw with it to start with is that the structure of quantum mechanics didn't agree with Einstein's general theory of relativity, and it failed to marry the marco world to the micro world as one unified theory. Noble prize winner Neils Bohr stated that it was impossible to really understand quantum mechanics.

My understanding of it isn't that great really, but from what I've read and what I've been told, it relies heavily on assumptions rather than pure evidence, and as I said contradicts elements of the Relativity theory. Einstein himself said he disliked quantum mechanics or at least felt it was entirely incomplete.

You are typing on a computer constructed using the scientific method, how many computers have you seen made from a religious method? I've only seen one and it consisted of a priest in a wooden box playfully fingering an altar boy.

So what? Because there are no computers created from religious methods it disproves God's existence?

You have to be trolling. Here are the steps of the scientific method.

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Please explain how this is a stab in the dark and how it is flawed.

Which is a solid method, but when it comes to things like origins of the universe then no, its not, its still a stab in the dark, regardless of what data they have collected. Even the Big Bang itself is a what 'must' have happened, not what 'did' happen unless someone invented a time machine and went back and saw it for themselves.

 

[RidleyRockets]

I just came into this thread to say that I think atheists should stop talking about the 'problem of infinite regress'. It's an absolutely moot point and no less or more of a problem for either side depending on whether they know their science or theology. You should instead ask how theologans can make a logical leap from "there must be a prime mover" to "that prime mover must be an anthropomorphic god, and moreover OUR god, the one specified in our holy books to have various powers and aspects, who operates a vast system for sorting souls (which also exist) into various end locations". It is taking the name of God in vain to attribute its highly specific properties to the much more neutral and limited entity of a "prime mover", whose necessary existence would imply very little.

Infinite regress is too big a problem to just leave alone. All theists answers basically boil down to "god did it and god is magic" so everything is a moot point really.

Anyway their is no rush so we can have fun with infinite regress as well as the retarded leaps it takes to get to an anthropomorphic god.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

So because its 2000 years ago they are primitive? Soooo were the Romans primitive? Who created many additions to society that are still used today, one of the greatest military machines in history? The greeks even before that? Who contributed even more to modern society culturally speaking?

I agree 'primitive' may be the wrong word, but for all their great deeds and achievements, they still believed in some pretty stupid shit. Their science, for instance, concluded that the reason male genes are the dominant ones, is because semen is warm, and vaginal fluid is cold. Essentially they thought women are cold-blooded, and therefore they contribute so little to the making of a child. Hmm. In fact, they had really quite a lot of weird ideas about medicine, most of the focusing on different bodily fluids...

Historians view the Bible as an historical document,

They really don't.

 

[Druckles]

Infinite regress is too big a problem to just leave alone. All theists answers basically boil down to "god did it and god is magic" so everything is a moot point really.

When it gives you hope and a moral founding, I don't see why this is a problem. As long as you don't outright reject scientific evidence based on that faith and are willing to expand both your beliefs and your knowledge, the two can easily coexist.

Science certainly isn't answering every question, and there's no indication it ever will in our lifetime. So there's certainly some satisfaction in answering them for yourself. Just because you don't agree with that answer, it's a belief, it's personal, and unless they tell you you're wrong, or infringe on your own beliefs, you have no right to attack them for it.

I agree 'primitive' may be the wrong word, but for all their great deeds and achievements, they still believed in some pretty stupid shit.

We no doubt have some pretty stupid ideas about some things. Would you classify us as 'primitive'? Even thinking it is pretty arrogant. You wouldn't class yourself as ignorant, primitive or stupid, but someone might come along in another couple of millennia and call you that. I'm pretty sure your average brain today is little better than the average brain of yesterday.

That and the fact that there were some relatively advanced ideas around further back than then. The ancient civilisations of the Greek and the Chinese probably surpasses our own, if it weren't for the extra years we had on them.

 

[Asknoone]

So many people view him as genocidal because he flooded the Earth and killed millions. But if you had the means to create a little civilization of people, and you wanted them to be perfect, so you created a view, let them spawn away etc, come back the next day, and see them raping each other, and burning, stealing, pillaging and murdering. You try and tell them the right way of going about things but it just continues, I think many would be inclined to destroy this creation, its just that he saw hope in Noah and his family.

Hey, you try being in God's shoes for awhile! Come back the next day and - wait - what happened to omnipresence? Anyway, this portion of your post I have quoted is atrocious and, more significantly, horrendously ignorant. Just break down the steps yourself and see how you ended up with your conclusion.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

We no doubt have some pretty stupid ideas about some things. Would you classify us as 'primitive'? Even thinking it is pretty arrogant. You wouldn't class yourself as ignorant, primitive or stupid, but someone might come along in another couple of millennia and call you that. I'm pretty sure your average brain today is little better than the average brain of yesterday.

Okay, 1: I did not call them primitive. In fact I made the point of saying that primitive was the wrong word to use. 2: I am not judging the ideas of today, I am not saying that we today have got everything right, I am saying the people 2000 years ago got a hell of a lot of things wrong, for all the things they got right. And saying that 2000 years ago, people knew so much that they couldn't be wrong or lie or misunderstand something is bullshit. They got shit wrong all the time. We still get shit wrong, but again- I am judging ideas that are 2000 years old, not debating wether or not quantum theory is correct. I am certain that in 2000 years, people may very well be laughing their ass off at Einstein, going "what an idiot, and what a hairdo". They'll just be laughing twice as hard at the mistakes of the Romans and the Greeks.

 

[RidleyRockets]

When it gives you hope and a moral founding, I don't see why this is a problem. As long as you don't outright reject scientific evidence based on that faith and are willing to expand both your beliefs and your knowledge, the two can easily coexist.

Morality doesn't come from religion.

Giving hope has nothing to do with the truth of a claim.

People reject science based on faith constantly.

Science certainly isn't answering every question, and there's no indication it ever will in our lifetime.

It is the only reliable method of answering questions about the nature of the universe.

So there's certainly some satisfaction in answering them for yourself.

Saying "some magic happened" isn't an answer.

Just because you don't agree with that answer, it's a belief, it's personal, and unless they tell you you're wrong, or infringe on your own beliefs, you have no right to attack them for it.

Sure i do, if someone starts making retarded claims i get to point out just how retarded it is.

 

[Druckles]

Okay, 1: I did not call them primitive. In fact I made the point of saying that primitive was the wrong word to use. 2: I am not judging the ideas of today, I am not saying that we today have got everything right, I am saying the people 2000 years ago got a hell of a lot of things wrong, for all the things they got right.

I'd argue that we get all the same shit wrong. For all we know, that's all we'll be known for by future generations. While there's plenty of things in there we now consider barbaric or silly, Jesus had plenty of good ideas. Ideas which are more sane than quite large portions of today's populace.

Didn't mean to argue directly at you. It was, in particular, the use of the word 'primitive' with 'testimony'.

Morality doesn't come from religion.

Morality comes from belief. Religion has roots in belief.

Giving hope has nothing to do with the truth of a claim.

Belief in a higher power has no effect on the truth of a scientific claim, so I guess that's alright, then.

People reject science based on faith constantly.

They're wrong.

It is the only reliable method of answering questions about the nature of the universe.

Enjoy sitting around waiting for those answers.

Saying "some magic happened" isn't an answer.

I find your lack of respect disturbing.

Sure i do, if someone starts making retarded claims i get to point out just how retarded it is.

And I'll quite happily point out that you're ignorant for thinking so.

 

[Remus]

Belief in a higher power has no effect on the truth of a scientific claim, so I guess that's alright, then.

Belief in a higher power doesn't have effect on science that's for sure. However what it does do is cause believers to reject scientific claims.

They're wrong.

They're wrong, however that doesn't stop them from demanding creationism to be taught in schools.

Enjoy sitting around waiting for those answers.

Enjoy your made up answers.

I find your lack of respect disturbing.

Crazy ideas that are not supported by evidence, don't deserve respect.

And I'll quite happily point out that you're ignorant for thinking so.

Ignorance implies that we don't understand your side of the argument, whereas we do...

 

[Druckles]

Belief in a higher power doesn't have effect on science that's for sure. However what it does do is cause believers to reject scientific claims.

So? They're doing it wrong. Sucks to be them. It still doesn't have any effect.

They're wrong, however that doesn't stop them from demanding creationism to be taught in schools.

I don't think Shift is guilty of this.

Enjoy your made up answers.

Or, rather, I'm going to place my beliefs and moral system in something more physical and philosophically sound.

Crazy ideas that are not supported by evidence, don't deserve respect.

Why not? It's not doing you any harm. I bet there are several beliefs you have around the world around you which are based on fallible, or otherwise nonsensical evidence that you're not even aware of.

Ignorance implies that we don't understand your side of the argument, whereas we do...

Why? You can't possibly understand my argument for my belief, because it's founded on both my experience and biological form. You can't possibly understand where I'm coming from.

Nor can you possibly understand it if you think it's retarded.

That and I challenge you to even tell me what my argument is. I don't think that you're even paying attention.

 

[Bad^Hat]

You know, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with Christianity if they did away with that whole omniscience/unconditional love thing. I find it much more plausible to believe in an imperfect, tyrant God who created humans to entertain himself, and is now holding our souls hostage unless we revere him for attempting to bail us out of damnation by sending his own child to his death at the hands of his own wretched creation. That I could get behind. If there was any reason to, I mean.

I also love how you can harp on the "God works in mysterious ways" bollocks endlessly, and then turn around and say "well what would you have done?" Well, for a start, I'd be ****ING GOD. Kind of puts a different spin on things, no?

When it gives you hope and a moral founding, I don't see why this is a problem. As long as you don't outright reject scientific evidence based on that faith and are willing to expand both your beliefs and your knowledge, the two can easily coexist.

Science certainly isn't answering every question, and there's no indication it ever will in our lifetime. So there's certainly some satisfaction in answering them for yourself. Just because you don't agree with that answer, it's a belief, it's personal, and unless they tell you you're wrong, or infringe on your own beliefs, you have no right to attack them for it.

How awfully PC.

 

[Dan]

You guys turn into a bunch of jackasses when you argue religion.

 

[No Limit]

I think shift convinently forgot to explain who was lying, Jesus or Matthew.

 

[Lucid]

There's plenty of fish and blueberries for everyone!
But, don't forget your coffee!

 

[Shift]

I think shift convinently forgot to explain who was lying, Jesus or Matthew.

Because I have no idea what you are talking about. Some more elaboration would be nice.

 

[No Limit]

Because I have no idea what you are talking about. Some more elaboration would be nice.

I gave you a direct quote from Matthew 4:8. Clearly that quote could not have been true. What more elaboration do you need?

 

[Druckles]

And you've never read a book which uses hyperbole?

 

[No Limit]

And you've never read a book which uses hyperbole?

So you're saying the bible is one big exaggeration not meant to be taken literally? Who decides what's literal and what isn't?

 

[Shift]

He's speaking metaphorically, a technique used quite a few times throughout Matthew's gospel. He didn't actually show him ALL the kingdom's of the world from on top of that mountain, but seeing that large land mass from up there emphasises just what could have been available to him, the entire world, but used the massive view from up there as an example. I mean its perfectly simple really if you actually read books.

I did explain this before actually if you had read my posts..

 

[No Limit]

He's speaking metaphorically, a technique used quite a few times throughout Matthew's gospel. He didn't actually show him ALL the kingdom's of the world from on top of that mountain, but seeing that large land mass from up there emphasises just what could have been available to him, the entire world, but used the massive view from up there as an example. I mean its perfectly simple really if you actually read books.

I did explain this before actually if you had read my posts..

So the devil never took moses up to that mountain?

 

[Shift]

Moses? What the **** are you talking about..

 

[Druckles]

So you're saying the bible is one big exaggeration not meant to be taken literally? Who decides what's literal and what isn't?

You do.

 

[No Limit]

Moses? What the **** are you talking about..

Sorry, not Moses, Jesus (brain fart). Did the devil take Jesus up to that mountain?

You do.

l.o.l

 

[Shift]

Sorry, not Moses, Jesus (brain fart). Did the devil take Jesus up to that mountain?

Yes he did. Did you actually read what I said about it or are you just trolling?

 

[Druckles]

Sorry, not Moses, Jesus (brain fart). Did the devil take Jesus up to that mountain?

Does satan actually exist?

l.o.l

Is there a problem with that idea? Why should anyone else tell you how to read or interpret a book? Anyone who actually cared would read it themselves and make their own, usually different, interpretation. Telling them what to believe is only going to cause disagreement. Anyone who is happy to be told what to believe doesn't really believe it, and is only there for the governmental body, not the beliefs.

 

[No Limit]

Yes he did. Did you actually read what I said about it or are you just trolling?

I'm just trying to establish what you think was a metaphor and what wasn't.

Why did the devil have to take Jesus to a high mountain? Was Jesus not aware of the kingdoms around him and how vast the world was?

Does satan actually exist?

You're obviously asking the wrong guy.

Is there a problem with that idea? Why should anyone else tell you how to read or interpret a book? Anyone who actually cared would read it themselves and make their own, usually different, interpretation. Telling them what to believe is only going to cause disagreement. Anyone who is happy to be told what to believe doesn't really believe it, and is only there for the governmental body, not the beliefs

It is a problem when the book you're interpreting is filled with contradictions and hate and that book tells you need to live your life according to what it says.

 

[Druckles]

Why did the devil have to take Jesus to a high mountain? Was Jesus not aware of the kingdoms around him and how vast the world was?

I think you're trolling, now. You want to tempt someone with land, you show it to them. Artistic license. See Lion King:

It is a problem when the book you're interpreting is filled with contradictions and hate and that book tells you need to live your life according to what it says.

I think I'll have to quote the Shepherd on this:

It's not about making sense. It's about believing in something, and letting that belief be real enough to change your life.

 

[No Limit]

Thank you for emphasising my point with that picture from the lion king. It was just a way of showing strong imagery. Never actually happened. Jesus was God, he was all knowing. Yet for some reason the devil had to first take him to a high temple to tempt him with land and when that didn't work he needed to take him to a even higher mountain as if God had no idea how vast the world around him was. Then Matthew had to exaggerate this even more by saying the devil showed him "All of the world's kingdoms" which we know is not possible.

It makes a great story, like the lion king did, but it simply isn't rational.

For your second point I really can't take anyone seriously that thinks like that. Let me believe some bullshit that doesn't make any sense because it will change my life. There are other ways of changing your life without having to turn to fairy tales.

 

[Shift]

I think you're trolling, now. You want to tempt someone with land, you show it to them. Artistic license. See Lion King:

I think I'll have to quote the Shepherd on this:

This basically.

Also bonus points for using a Firefly reference *high fives*

 

[Shift]

It makes a great story, like the lion king did, but it simply isn't rational.

For your second point I really can't take anyone seriously that thinks like that. Let me believe some bullshit that doesn't make any sense because it will change my life. There are other ways of changing your life without having to turn to fairy tales.

Well its all based of faith, and you obviously don't have it, but it doesn't make it a fairy tale. What they wrote about actually happened. And Jesus was God incarnate but at the end of the day he was a man too, that could be tempted just like the rest of humanity, that was one of the points of it all, why would he go to Earth has some amazing flying mega angel? He wanted to put forth the message as a man. The devil took him there to show him the vastness of the world he could own if he is bowed down to him. He knew about the kingdoms of the world but the point was he let himself but tempted by the devil to test himself as a man.

You are dwelling on a very weak point, I suggest you move on.

 

[Druckles]

I'd argue that the people I know who were brought up in sensible Christian families grew up with what I think are sound moral compasses. Other people, from less Christian backgrounds, tend to a more selfish, less 'typically moral' breed. While I don't agree with my parents anymore, I probably benefited from the way I was brought up.

Fine, relate the bible to fairy tales, but would you stop telling your kids fairy tales because they're not rational? Aesop's Fables, for instance, are pretty clever. Fiction with obvious morals. The bible's just an adult version of that. Fairy tales have been around for so long and they've not been killed off due to their illogical nature. Surely they might help children grow up and change their lives for the better?

Assuming this, what's the point in dismissing them and looking for other ways to change your life when they're trickier and less effective?

 

[No Limit]

Well its all based of faith, and you obviously don't have it, but it doesn't make it a fairy tale. What they wrote about actually happened.

I'm asking you why? If I was to tempt you will all the kingdoms of the world would I have to take you up to the world's highest mountain and overlook the world as in the lion king? Or would I simply say to you "hey shift, how would you like to be ruler of all?". I mean climbing up the highest mountain on earth is kind of a bitch especially if you are dragging someone you kidnapped there and ain the end seems totally pointless if you already know everything that is around you. So aside from making this a really nice image that pops up in your head what was the devil's reasoning for doing this?

 

[No Limit]

I'd argue that the people I know who were brought up in sensible Christian families grew up with what I think are sound moral compasses. Other people, from less Christian backgrounds, tend to a more selfish, less 'typically moral' breed. While I don't agree with my parents anymore, I probably benefited from the way I was brought up.

Oh, please what a bunch of horse shit. I know of many catholic priests that molest little children. Where was their moral compass? Some of my most religious friends have done some really ****ed up shit. Your idea that you need religion to guide you is total bullshit that's easy to refute if you just look around you.

Fine, relate the bible to fairy tales, but would you stop telling your kids fairy tales because they're not rational? Aesop's Fables, for instance, are pretty clever. Fiction with obvious morals. The bible's just an adult version of that. Fairy tales have been around for so long and they've not been killed off due to their illogical nature. Surely they might help children grow up and change their lives for the better?

There would be no problem with telling the stories as fairy tales and asking children to draw morals from those fairy tales. The bible in christianity is not told as a fairy tale, it is told as fact. You know that.