oh...man...i'd give 400$ to kick this guy in the nuts

[lefty]

It is if you take it to the logical extreme.

I mean, I believe that i have the right to insult other people. Surely that's a belief.

believing to have the right to do something isn't quite the same as doing something.

 

[Kula Meenur]

Now that's a head**** and a half

 

[Jintor]

believing to have the right to do something isn't quite the same as doing something.

I don't think you're on the same logic train as I am.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Oh you think that's funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P47O....facepunchstudios.com/showthread.php?t=600178

I was terrified at first but then I went to the guys profile. Phew. Its satire. I was worried for a sec.

 

[Zephos]

I love religious debates on this forum.

Wait, no I don't.

 

[Hellrider]

I was terrified at first but then I went to the guys profile. Phew. Its satire. I was worried for a sec.

You should still be worried because this is actually what christians\other religious idiots think.

 

[jverne]

You should still be worried because this is actually what christians\other religious idiots think.

i'm surprised nobody until now realized that.

 

[Seppo]

"Prayer has a 100% success rate"

haha

 

[Asuka]

Man people are to funny.

 

[Kadayi]

pointing out that the bible was not written by god is not the case here...it is that he believes it was divine inspiration, even after modern society found out all the mistakes god made while talking to the writer. you know...nothing serious...just some trivial things like the earth is flat, the earth is the center of the universe, a woman was made from a mans rib...you know.

Jverne did the guy actually say this 'God' sat these people down and dictated to them directly, or is that simply a resultant of your interpretation of what the word inspired means? I might be inspired by a pretty girl to write a poem about her, that doesn't necesarily mean she wrote it through me though. Inspiration is a response to a stimulus real or imagined. If people a few thousand years ago, before TV, the internet, photography and all of the things we take for granted thought a 'god' inspired them to write a book about how to live a 'good' life is really that surprising?

The Bible was written by all manner of people, the notion that the ideas and conventions expressed within it aren't going to be either archaic or outdated today seems somewhat unrealistic. I'd say a more fair and reasonable view is required when assessing anything within it. If you start throwing out the baby with the bath water at every single point of contention where do you stop? A lot of what Newton, Darwin and Einstein have proposed has been usurped by later scientists, by the rationale that X was wrong we'd have throw out Y as well, you'd have to torch much of what they came up with as well, where does it end? The works of men whether science, literature, religion are always slaves to falibility. Why get so hung up on it? Because one line says 'to the 4 corners of the earth' should we also throw away the idea of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' ? regardless of whether you hold to a God or not, that's still a pretty relevant and sensible piece of life advice. How different 'You don't shit in your own back yard'?

@Pitz

Dude you post up complete bullshit about me, and then whine when you get a small degree of comeback on it? Perhaps that post count has gone to your head. Grow a sense of humour ffs :dozey:

 

[CyberPitz]

Uh oh, now he's retracting on how he was just joking, and I'm just over exaggerating *when was I EVER being serious? Uh oh, Kadayi is the one being over dramatic, now!*
:dozey::dozey::dozey::dozey::dozey::dozey::dozey::dozey:

 

[Jintor]

Internet DRAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMAAAAAAA

 

[Azner]

If the comedian the article was a response to, claimed God wrote the bible then he was in error. This guy is clarifying an accepted position in the Church then men wrote the Bible, nothing more. I can't see whats wrong with that tbh, or is that another excuse for a round of Atheist tub thumping and righteous indignation again? I'm pretty sure the last Christian left these forums some time ago tbh, so what's the point. :dozey:

Thats what they say.
*Steps out of shadows with resistance force behind*
This ends here.

Sorry, been watching too much JLU

 

[DEATH eVADER]

The problem is the original messages found in the Bible have been somewhat distorted and misinterpreted by many christianity organisations and groups.

The most hated family in America any one?

 

[Kadayi]

Uh oh, now he's retracting on how he was just joking, and I'm just over exaggerating *when was I EVER being serious? Uh oh, Kadayi is the one being over dramatic, now!*

Clearly, because I'm so intimidated by your mighty E-peen Pitz. The sheer thought of it looming above me like a titan sends a quiver right down my spine. It must be that of course. Any luck finding that quote yet? Free L4D when you do

The problem is the original messages found in the Bible have been somewhat distorted and misinterpreted by many christianity organisations and groups.

Agreed. The problem is people continually focus on the books as the source, rather than the people interpreting them. Consider old Friedrich Nietzsche, respected Philosopher but the poor bastard will forever be associated with the Nazis, because of how Hitler and his cronies interpreted his works way after his death.

 

[CyberPitz]

Pfft, you should just give it to me anyway. I'm too busy growing my E-peen so you can see it better.

 

[Krynn72]

Man, I HATE these threads.



Wait, no I dont. <3 these threads.

 

[CyberPitz]

They <3 you too.

 

[jverne]

Jverne did the guy actually say this 'God' sat these people down and dictated to them directly, or is that simply a resultant of your interpretation of what the word inspired means? I might be inspired by a pretty girl to write a poem about her, that doesn't necesarily mean she wrote it through me though. Inspiration is a response to a stimulus real or imagined. If people a few thousand years ago, before TV, the internet, photography and all of the things we take for granted thought a 'god' inspired them to write a book about how to live a 'good' life is really that surprising?

The Bible was written by all manner of people, the notion that the ideas and conventions expressed within it aren't going to be either archaic or outdated today seems somewhat unrealistic. I'd say a more fair and reasonable view is required when assessing anything within it. If you start throwing out the baby with the bath water at every single point of contention where do you stop? A lot of what Newton, Darwin and Einstein have proposed has been usurped by later scientists, by the rationale that X was wrong we'd have throw out Y as well, you'd have to torch much of what they came up with as well, where does it end? The works of men whether science, literature, religion are always slaves to falibility. Why get so hung up on it? Because one line says 'to the 4 corners of the earth' should we also throw away the idea of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' ? regardless of whether you hold to a God or not, that's still a pretty relevant and sensible piece of life advice. How different 'You don't shit in your own back yard'?

so what are you trying to say is that...the guys who wrote the bible didn't have a hot line to god but they were inspired by what they saw in nature only that they though it was the work of god? if that is what are you trying to say then explain what the hell inspired them to write Genesis (adam and eve and all that crap)? and what about jesus and his miracles? it doesn't make sense.
and besides...you're cherry picking with "how to live a good life", what about the stoning and all that evil shit?

second paragraph...what the hell...i never said that. so are you saying, that religion is the root of good morals or something?

but i'm really not sure where you stand...you're saying that the bible (religion) was made up by ordinary people but because it has a "good" message it should stay even if god doesn't have no part in it or that he doesn't even exist? if that is so...you know there is a really good alternative to the bible....it is called secular legislation

 

[Kadayi]

so what are you trying to say is that...the guys who wrote the bible didn't have a hot line to god but they were inspired by what they saw in nature only that they though it was the work of god? if that is what are you trying to say then explain what the hell inspired them to write Genesis (adam and eve and all that crap)? and what about jesus and his miracles? it doesn't make sense.

Jverne, well as I wasn't there at the time I honestly can't say what inspired them, but certainly it's long been recognized that a lot of the story parts of the old Testament are adaptations of earlier mythological tales such as the saga of Gilgamesh. I'd hazard that the original creation stories origins lay in early regional myths that evolved through the telling and retelling and the passing through the generations around the campfire, and at some point these oral 'histories' were documented and no doubt the early Jewish priesthood decided to formalize them for consistency, probably in a similar manner at to how the early Christian Church formalized the New Testament from all of the various writing on Jesus years later. I don't think there was ever a situation where an individual or collective sat down and deliberately dreamt the whole thing up over a weekend, like a 9-11 plot or some such. I'd envisage it's something that evolved over a great period of time, probably over several generations. It's either that, or it's the situation of 'God' actually coming down from the heavens and writing it through people, and that's just not an idea I support.

and besides...you're cherry picking with "how to live a good life", what about the stoning and all that evil shit?

If you look at the old testament as a book of it's time, rather than as a strictly religious book as it's viewed nowadays, it's effectively, part allegorical story book, part legal advice and part a dos and don't s guide book for living in Israel 2000 + years ago, with lots of warnings as to what happens if you stray off the righteous path of being one of Gods chosen people. Back in a time when refrigeration didn't exist and a couple of days of food poisoning could quite easily kill you, there's pretty sound reasons to avoid eating shellfish or pork for example. Back then there was no secular law, everything went through the priesthood including judgments regarding civil disputes. Harsh as many of those rules were, they were probably principally set down by the priests to dissuade civil disputes and the like, esp in small communities. If a couple of young men end up killing themselves fighting over a girl, the whole community loses out on some labour, that could be the difference between starvation and survival in those times. It's important to understand that these laws were written from a perspective and mindset almost completely alien to ours. 2000 + years ago is not now but lacking electricity and planes, trains and automobiles. It's a place where you really don't have a clue what tomorrow is likely to bring.

Are they still relevant? not at all. We've had a long history of secular laws and governance since then.

second paragraph...what the hell...i never said that. so are you saying, that religion is the root of good morals or something?

No not the root of, merely a record of the thinking at the time of their writing. Certainly much has changed, but certain ideas still possess some worth (as highlighted previously).

but i'm really not sure where you stand...you're saying that the bible (religion) was made up by ordinary people but because it has a "good" message it should stay even if god doesn't have no part in it or that he doesn't even exist? if that is so...you know there is a really good alternative to the bible....it is called secular legislation

If some people gain succor and comfort from it in their lives whats the real harm? (it's no skin off my nose if people want to go to church on a Sunday, or believe God made the dinosaurs) The only dangerous people are fanatics, but unfortunately you just can't legislate for crazy people. As I highlighted in the earlier post in response to DEATH eVADER, I doubt Friedrich Nietzsche ever thought concentration camps would rise up out of his words, and I doubt Mohammad envisioned 747s flying into the twin towers. Flip the coin to video games and killing sprees, if a couple of kids play GTA and then decide to shoot up their school, is it remotely fair to hold the game solely responsible?

Now secular legislation is all well and good, but generally it's not much of a deterrent Vs constant social conditioning. Consider the issue of Murder vs Speeding. Both are illegal, but pretty much everyone speeds given the opportunity, where as even if they could get away with it very few people would murder someone else, principally because they would fear the guilt that would haunt them as a consequence. What is guilt but an emotional response born of the endless instruction that's been drummed into you over the years telling you that to murder is a bad thing, whether that be from your parents (if they are responsible), your teachers or your priest? Fact of the matter is, more people are probably killed as a result of Car accidents than homicides in a year in Europe, but that doesn't really dissuade people from speeding. No ones feeling guilty for speeding whilst they are doing it, though they probably feel guilty for speeding after they kill someone.

Creationists who try and usurp modern teaching = bad in my books, but ordinary Christians who don't push their shit on people are ok by me.

Pfft, you should just give it to me anyway. I'm too busy growing my E-peen so you can see it better.

It will never happen, because we all reside too much in the shadow of Sterns.

 

[jverne]

Jverne, well as I wasn't there at the time I honestly can't say what inspired them, but certainly it's long been recognized that a lot of the story parts of the old Testament are adaptations of earlier mythological tales such as the saga of Gilgamesh. I'd hazard that the original creation stories origins lay in early regional myths that evolved through the telling and retelling and the passing through the generations around the campfire, and at some point these oral 'histories' were documented and no doubt the early Jewish priesthood decided to formalize them for consistency, probably in a similar manner at to how the early Christian Church formalized the New Testament from all of the various writing on Jesus years later. I don't think there was ever a situation where an individual or collective sat down and deliberately dreamt the whole thing up over a weekend, like a 9-11 plot or some such. I'd envisage it's something that evolved over a great period of time, probably over several generations. It's either that, or it's the situation of 'God' actually coming down from the heavens and writing it through people, and that's just not an idea I support.



If you look at the old testament as a book of it's time, rather than as a strictly religious book as it's viewed nowadays, it's effectively, part allegorical story book, part legal advice and part a dos and don't s guide book for living in Israel 2000 + years ago, with lots of warnings as to what happens if you stray off the righteous path of being one of Gods chosen people. Back in a time when refrigeration didn't exist and a couple of days of food poisoning could quite easily kill you, there's pretty sound reasons to avoid eating shellfish or pork for example. Back then there was no secular law, everything went through the priesthood including judgments regarding civil disputes. Harsh as many of those rules were, they were probably principally set down by the priests to dissuade civil disputes and the like, esp in small communities. If a couple of young men end up killing themselves fighting over a girl, the whole community loses out on some labour, that could be the difference between starvation and survival in those times. It's important to understand that these laws were written from a perspective and mindset almost completely alien to ours. 2000 + years ago is not now but lacking electricity and planes, trains and automobiles. It's a place where you really don't have a clue what tomorrow is likely to bring.

Are they still relevant? not at all. We've had a long history of secular laws and governance since then.



No not the root of, merely a record of the thinking at the time of their writing. Certainly much has changed, but certain ideas still possess some worth (as highlighted previously).



If some people gain succor and comfort from it in their lives whats the real harm? (it's no skin off my nose if people want to go to church on a Sunday, or believe God made the dinosaurs) The only dangerous people are fanatics, but unfortunately you just can't legislate for crazy people. As I highlighted in the earlier post in response to DEATH eVADER, I doubt Friedrich Nietzsche ever thought concentration camps would rise up out of his words, and I doubt Mohammad envisioned 747s flying into the twin towers. Flip the coin to video games and killing sprees, if a couple of kids play GTA and then decide to shoot up their school, is it remotely fair to hold the game solely responsible?

Now secular legislation is all well and good, but generally it's not much of a deterrent Vs constant social conditioning. Consider the issue of Murder vs Speeding. Both are illegal, but pretty much everyone speeds given the opportunity, where as even if they could get away with it very few people would murder someone else, principally because they would fear the guilt that would haunt them as a consequence. What is guilt but an emotional response born of the endless instruction that's been drummed into you over the years telling you that to murder is a bad thing, whether that be from your parents (if they are responsible), your teachers or your priest? Fact of the matter is, more people are probably killed as a result of Car accidents than homicides in a year in Europe, but that doesn't really dissuade people from speeding. No ones feeling guilty for speeding whilst they are doing it, though they probably feel guilty for speeding after they kill someone.

Creationists who try and usurp modern teaching = bad in my books, but ordinary Christians who don't push their shit on people are ok by me.




It will never happen, because we all reside too much in the shadow of Sterns.

well for most of the first part you were describing the practical usage of religion (in the past)...i can't complain about that. religion did play an important role in early civilizations, i'm not denying that. altough the ancient greeks did a good job with their humanistic centered thinking. the old greek and roman religion was way more human based and down to earth that the latter monotheistic ones.
but you're arguing about the past and that is really not that constructive.

religion nowadays is more of a burden than an useful idea. once people went above alot of the knowledge previously monopolized by religion things started to change. the religious leaders started to fear for their existence and naturally they became more aggressive which leads us to the shit that happens today (911, steam cell research, condom use, cloning, biology,...)
if you think that the average sunday church visitor doesn't have a impact on the rest of us...just look where bush got alot of voters in his second term.

as for morals and religion...the latter doesn't precede the first. morals arise form practicality, for example not killing someone. since killing someone will lead to physical and emotional damage and eventually revenge from the victims relatives or loved ones. and besides people at times realized that working together was more productive than competing. religion came and wrote these things down with some fancy words to make them look divinely inspired.


so in conclusion....believing in religion today is in alot of senses counterproductive and if situation permits, even dangerous.
i suggest you do more reading about moderate religion...you'll quickly find more reasons why it is bad.

 

[Kadayi]

well for most of the first part you were describing the practical usage of religion (in the past)...i can't complain about that. religion did play an important role in early civilizations, i'm not denying that. altough the ancient greeks did a good job with their humanistic centered thinking. the old greek and roman religion was way more human based and down to earth that the latter monotheistic ones.
but you're arguing about the past and that is really not that constructive

I'm not arguing about anything. I'm just putting the old testament in a historical context as it should be judged.

religion nowadays is more of a burden than an useful idea. once people went above alot of the knowledge previously monopolized by religion things started to change. the religious leaders started to fear for their existence and naturally they became more aggressive which leads us to the shit that happens today (911, steam cell research, condom use, cloning, biology,...)
if you think that the average sunday church visitor doesn't have a impact on the rest of us...just look where bush got alot of voters in his second term.

You make it sound far to reactive, I'd say it's more a situation of blind dogma on the part of a few (the fanatical) more than deliberate design. Not being an American I can't comment on Bush, but I doubt it's as black and white as all that. Elections are won on candidates as I understand it, not straight up votes.

as for morals and religion...the latter doesn't precede the first. morals arise form practicality, for example not killing someone. since killing someone will lead to physical and emotional damage and eventually revenge from the victims relatives or loved ones. and besides people at times realized that working together was more productive than competing. religion came and wrote these things down with some fancy words to make them look divinely inspired.

I never said morals came after religion, or were derived from it. The old testament is a merely a written distillation of conventional moral wisdom taken at the time of it's writing. Fact of the matter is though that you are taught to become a functional member of society, you are not born one, and moral instruction is required somewhere and in some form for you to make that transition (our prisons are testament to the fact that a lot of people don't make the jump). Good parenting is the best you can get, but not everyone is so fortunate to have that luxury. Personally I'd like to see secular morality and ethics taught to children at an early age in schools, but unfortunately that's probably unlikely to ever happen, so if people find the moral guidance they seek to keep them from the dark place either from the bible, the koran, the tao de Ching, or the Torah good for them.

so in conclusion....believing in religion today is in a lot of senses counterproductive and if situation permits, even dangerous. i suggest you do more reading about moderate religion...you'll quickly find more reasons why it is bad.

TBH, none of what you've said has convinced me of anything least of all that "religion" is inherently 'bad' or 'dangerous'. Some peoples interpretations can be, but that is true of many things (as demonstrated by the Nietzsche example), I've never yet met a Buddhist, taoist, or a Hindu whose made me fearful of their beliefs. Yet you'd have me burning their books along side the bible and the koran I take it?

 

[jverne]

I'm not arguing about anything. I'm just putting the old testament in a historical context as it should be judged.



You make it sound far to reactive, I'd say it's more a situation of blind dogma on the part of a few (the fanatical) more than deliberate design. Not being an American I can't comment on Bush, but I doubt it's as black and white as all that. Elections are won on candidates as I understand it, not straight up votes.



I never said morals came after religion, or were derived from it. The old testament is a merely a written distillation of conventional moral wisdom taken at the time of it's writing. Fact of the matter is though that you are taught to become a functional member of society, you are not born one, and moral instruction is required somewhere and in some form for you to make that transition (our prisons are testament to the fact that a lot of people don't make the jump). Good parenting is the best you can get, but not everyone is so fortunate to have that luxury. Personally I'd like to see secular morality and ethics taught to children at an early age in schools, but unfortunately that's probably unlikely to ever happen, so if people find the moral guidance they seek to keep them from the dark place either from the bible, the koran, the tao de Ching, or the Torah good for them.



TBH, none of what you've said has convinced me of anything least of all that "religion" is inherently 'bad' or 'dangerous'. Some peoples interpretations can be, but that is true of many things (as demonstrated by the Nietzsche example), I've never yet met a Buddhist, taoist, or a Hindu whose made me fearful of their beliefs. Yet you'd have me burning their books along side the bible and the koran I take it?

seriously, what is your point?



if you think of it...it's not that much if religion is bad or dangerous but it is, like i said...a philosophical burden. which in real life express itself by staling technical progress and social awareness.
and please do read about moderate religion and it's effects.
you're way better off by researching yourself that waiting me to convince you.

but if you wanna be competitive about it, i think i have more reasons why religion needs to be marginalized in today's society rather than defend it's existence.

 

[Stigmata]

This thread is really, really good if you're looking to flesh out your Ignore list.

[edit] Even if you only make your list one entry longer.

 

[jverne]

This thread is really, really good if you're looking to flesh out your Ignore list.

[edit] Even if you only make your list one entry longer.

well you know...if something bothers you, you don't really have to read it.

 

[Stigmata]

Don't worry, it's nothing you said.

 

[jverne]

Don't worry, it's nothing you said.

o ok...then i'll shut up.

 

[Stigmata]

I'm on your side in this debate anyway

 

[Azner]

Dont make me start bringing in other resources.

Anyway by speaking of the bible, are you emphasizing on the old testament, the new testament or the whole thing itself? Perhaps you could be more specific. First five chapters of the bible? Poetry? History? Biographies? Prophets? Gospel? Paul's letters to the church ? The Church*? or Whats to come/Revelations.

 

[Jintor]

lulz, Azner.

It mystifies me why so many Asians convert to Christianity, it really does.

Of course religion in general mystifies me but this is a more specific thing.

 

[Azner]

lulz, Azner.

It mystifies me why so many Asians convert to Christianity, it really does.

Of course religion in general mystifies me but this is a more specific thing.

Because Confucius dieded lol.

Colonization, blame the 1800 missionaries if you want.

 

[Stigmata]

If nothing else, at least retain a healthy dose of skepticism throughout your life. Don't take anything as fact unless someone has evidence towards it. And then, retain some skepticism towards that evidence. It's a good way to go about things.

 

[Saturos]

Man, I HATE these threads.

Hellz yeah! You show em' what a real rebel to society you are and TAKE OFF YO THREADS! :cheese:

 

[Seppo]

If nothing else, at least retain a healthy dose of skepticism throughout your life. Don't take anything as fact unless someone has evidence towards it. And then, retain some skepticism towards that evidence. It's a good way to go about things.

i don't believe you.

 

[Kadayi]

seriously, what is your point?

Verne do you actually understand the principals of critical debate? I've put a number of contentions and arguments forward in the last few posts and you singularly failed to address any of them, but instead have fallen back into a rather tiresome and nebulous mantra of 'religion is bad and dangerous', as if repetition alone is a suitable response. I hate to break it to you but it isn't, and no amount of 'I wuv yous' from the cretins in the gallery, personal insults or weak extortions for me to 'read moar plz '(as if empty posturing alone is going to convince me as to your expertise), is going to make it so either. If I didn't know my subject I wouldn't be posting. A man is whatever he brings into a room, and in this particular room you don't seem to aware of the rules of the game, or bringing much.

When J. D. Salinger wrote Catcher in the Rye do you think he ever thought it would inspire Mark Chapman to shoot John Lennon? Should we ban CitR incase it inspires others, and have it taken off school reading lists? By your rationale we'd have to, but what's truly to blame the book or the person? Does a gun alone kill a man, or is it the intent of the man who pulls the trigger to kill the other? If you take away the gun, does that remove the intent? Here in the UK we have very strict gun laws, however the dramatic reduction in gun crime has been followed by an equally dramatic rise in knife related homicides/assaults. Should we blame the existence of knifes now for all this killing?

 

[Seppo]

umm so wait, who in this thread is supporting religion and who is against it? i can't distribute internet debate points properly if i don't know which side you're on.

 

[Sulkdodds]

When J. D. Salinger wrote Catcher in the Rye do you think he ever thought it would inspire Mark Chapman to shoot John Lennon? Should we ban CitR incase it inspires others, and have it taken off school reading lists?

I can see where you're coming from, but there is a problem here. Catcher in the Rye does not declare itself to be The Truth About The Universe and The Rules For Living Your Life, nor has it ever been adopted and defended as a central sacred text by a massive organisedpseudo-governmental entity.

Creationists who try and usurp modern teaching = bad in my books, but ordinary Christians who don't push their shit on people are ok by me.

I warm to this attitude and it's wise to take it in everyday life. But the issue arises of whether these ordinary, moderate Christians are not helping to "push their shit" simply by believing in and legitimising a creed that is at bottom problematic in its ideal of 'faith'. No doubt about it that religion has shaped our society and informed our thinking in very profound ways, and will be difficult to escape (if that were even desirable). I am just not sure anybody should aspire to faith.

Of course, in practicality it is only ever acceptable for legislation to go so far on this matter - that is, for it to go as far as "freedom of/from religion".

 

[Kula Meenur]

Man people are too funny.

I agree. The ones that rape are hil-ar-i-ous! :cheese:







/flees

 

[jverne]

Verne do you actually understand the principals of critical debate? I've put a number of contentions and arguments forward in the last few posts and you singularly failed to address any of them, but instead have fallen back into a rather tiresome and nebulous mantra of 'religion is bad and dangerous', as if repetition alone is a suitable response. I hate to break it to you but it isn't, and no amount of 'I wuv yous' from the cretins in the gallery, personal insults or weak extortions for me to 'read moar plz '(as if empty posturing alone is going to convince me as to your expertise), is going to make it so either. If I didn't know my subject I wouldn't be posting. A man is whatever he brings into a room, and in this particular room you don't seem to aware of the rules of the game, or bringing much.

When J. D. Salinger wrote Catcher in the Rye do you think he ever thought it would inspire Mark Chapman to shoot John Lennon? Should we ban CitR incase it inspires others, and have it taken off school reading lists? By your rationale we'd have to, but what's truly to blame the book or the person? Does a gun alone kill a man, or is it the intent of the man who pulls the trigger to kill the other? If you take away the gun, does that remove the intent? Here in the UK we have very strict gun laws, however the dramatic reduction in gun crime has been followed by an equally dramatic rise in knife related homicides/assaults. Should we blame the existence of knifes now for all this killing?

contentions and arguments...oh please, you only gave examples how religion used to work in the past.

here:

The Bible was written by all manner of people, the notion that the ideas and conventions expressed within it aren't going to be either archaic or outdated today seems somewhat unrealistic. I'd say a more fair and reasonable view is required when assessing anything within it. If you start throwing out the baby with the bath water at every single point of contention where do you stop? A lot of what Newton, Darwin and Einstein have proposed has been usurped by later scientists, by the rationale that X was wrong we'd have throw out Y as well, you'd have to torch much of what they came up with as well, where does it end? The works of men whether science, literature, religion are always slaves to falibility. Why get so hung up on it? Because one line says 'to the 4 corners of the earth' should we also throw away the idea of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' ? regardless of whether you hold to a God or not, that's still a pretty relevant and sensible piece of life advice. How different 'You don't shit in your own back yard'?

[/QUOTE]

Jverne, well as I wasn't there at the time I honestly can't say what inspired them, but certainly it's long been recognized that a lot of the story parts of the old Testament are adaptations of earlier mythological tales such as the saga of Gilgamesh. I'd hazard that the original creation stories origins lay in early regional myths that evolved through the telling and retelling and the passing through the generations around the campfire, and at some point these oral 'histories' were documented and no doubt the early Jewish priesthood decided to formalize them for consistency, probably in a similar manner at to how the early Christian Church formalized the New Testament from all of the various writing on Jesus years later. I don't think there was ever a situation where an individual or collective sat down and deliberately dreamt the whole thing up over a weekend, like a 9-11 plot or some such. I'd envisage it's something that evolved over a great period of time, probably over several generations. It's either that, or it's the situation of 'God' actually coming down from the heavens and writing it through people, and that's just not an idea I support.

is this your argumenst? you're debating on something i had no intentions to, i never argued about how the bible came to be, but about the guy who believes in divine intervention, you forced this out

If the comedian the article was a response to, claimed God wrote the bible then he was in error. This guy is clarifying an accepted position in the Church then men wrote the Bible, nothing more. I can't see whats wrong with that tbh, or is that another excuse for a round of Atheist tub thumping and righteous indignation again? I'm pretty sure the last Christian left these forums some time ago tbh, so what's the point. :dozey:

and i do agree with you on how the bible probably came to be...trough accumulation of different stories. i never argued about that...but i do if you think that god inspired them, not just the thought of god but some miracle.

your response

Inspiration is a response to a stimulus real or imagined. If people a few thousand years ago, before TV, the internet, photography and all of the things we take for granted thought a 'god' inspired them to write a book about how to live a 'good' life is really that surprising?

so what are you saying...that when they saw a flood they thought god caused it and decided to write a story? if that is so...what the hell are you arguing about? you just confirmed the bible is made up...i must say, you really do a good job to defend the other side


here are some potential arguments you give:

.
If some people gain succor and comfort from it in their lives whats the real harm? (it's no skin off my nose if people want to go to church on a Sunday, or believe God made the dinosaurs) The only dangerous people are fanatics, but unfortunately you just can't legislate for crazy people. As I highlighted in the earlier post in response to DEATH eVADER, I doubt Friedrich Nietzsche ever thought concentration camps would rise up out of his words, and I doubt Mohammad envisioned 747s flying into the twin towers. Flip the coin to video games and killing sprees, if a couple of kids play GTA and then decide to shoot up their school, is it remotely fair to hold the game solely responsible?

and i offered the counter argument of moderate religion which obviously you haven't researched.


and when we switch to morals you offer only this empty response

I never said morals came after religion, or were derived from it. The old testament is a merely a written distillation of conventional moral wisdom taken at the time of it's writing. Fact of the matter is though that you are taught to become a functional member of society, you are not born one, and moral instruction is required somewhere and in some form for you to make that transition (our prisons are testament to the fact that a lot of people don't make the jump). Good parenting is the best you can get, but not everyone is so fortunate to have that luxury. Personally I'd like to see secular morality and ethics taught to children at an early age in schools, but unfortunately that's probably unlikely to ever happen, so if people find the moral guidance they seek to keep them from the dark place either from the bible, the koran, the tao de Ching, or the Torah good for them.

seriously...and you accuse me of being unable to have a debate?
for christ sakes...you have no arguments

the only thing you said that actually has some sense is

...but ordinary Christians who don't push their shit on people are ok by me.

which is just an opinion and i can't really debate that



nice try

 

[Slug Advisor]

So exactly when are we planning to lock this thread?