Why do people believe the bible?

[+Sherapy]

Just now, Hammerclaw said:

And I've worked so hard to perfect my Cotton Mather persona. Crap.

Ha ha ha ha ha....

Guyv. is like gentle Ben go easy on him for cripes sake. 

[+Hammerclaw]

23 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Indeed, Spartacus is an incredible example of fighting against slavery. A group of amazing men and women who stood side by side and shook Rome to its core. 

Did you watch the series? 

 

 

No, nobody can top Kirk Douglas. Any one interested in learning about the world Christianity began in, should check the historian, Mary Black's documentaries on You Tube. It's a fascinating insight into that lost world of humanity's' first modern, cosmopolitan civilization.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Hammerclaw

[Guyver]

16 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

In the biblical narrative, the flood, for example was god's merciful choice. At first he thought about destroying all of humanity to kill the cancer of sin which had overcome humanity, and starting all over again,   but

then he decided to take a chance on noah and his family whom he thought  might be able to restart earth without isn He was wrong Noah and some of his descendants reverted to the old behaviours  and separated themselves from  god again  but god was doing what was best for humanity as a whole,

It was like saving one non infected family form a zombie plague and then destroying all the zombies so the y would remain unaffected Unfortunately  the  family already was infected . The story of Sodom and Gomorrah and lots family is a smaller  scale  but identical morality tale   After being saved, lots daughters  got their father drunk and had children by him.   

I respect your right to hold this opinion, I just consider it much differently.  I think the notion of an infinite loving Creator God loving some people and hating others is just preposterous in the same way that thinking a true craftsman would despise his materials.  A master craftsman uses everything and wastes nothing.  To think that loving Infinite God would be so confused and clueless regarding outcomes that he'd need to kill everyone in a worldwide flood to me just seems like a silly notion to convince oneself to believe.  But I guess that's how these things go.  Everyone believes something different and that's just how it is.   

[+Hammerclaw]

2 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Ha ha ha ha ha....

Guyv. is like gentle Ben go easy on him for cripes sake. 

You should know me well enough, by now, to know how easy I'm going on everybody.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Area201 said:

Look up metaphor and allegory. It's not meant to be taken literally as it talks of things that happen inwardly. It's also baffling and annoying that people like you still think other people take the bible literally. I guess speaking for myself at least, not been around the literal bible people in a long time, are they still around?

I just don't think that's always been the case though, even today 42% of us citizens still believe the Adam and eve story is fact

http://news.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

As a whole we are slowly moving away

When I grew up the Bible was just considered fact, I have seen people over the years rationalise the wild stories in it to a mix of fact and fiction and today many consider it allegory, which makes me wonder how some still see it as valid at all. We seem very reluctant to let that tradition go. 

I wonder what religion might look like today if the Bible had never been written 

[+Sherapy]

Just now, Hammerclaw said:

No, nobody can top Kirk Douglas. Any one interested in learning about the world Christianity began in, should check the historian, Mary Black's documentaries on You Tube. It's a fascinating insight that lost world of humanity's' first modern, cosmopolitan civilization.

https://www.starz.com/series/spartacus/cast

If nothing else the eye candy in this is sure to tempt you.

[+Sherapy]

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

You should know me well enough, by now, to know how easy I'm going on everybody.

Yeah yeah yeah, I know ain't gonna happen.  

That is why we love ya Hammie J. 

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

You should know me well enough, by now, to know how easy I'm going on everybody.

I have the opposite view of yours but respect you and your position 

You're alright by me bud

[+Hammerclaw]

Just now, psyche101 said:

I have the opposite view of yours but respect you and your position 

You're alright by me bud

You are my friend and I admire the strength of your convictions--even if I don't find them convincing, lol!

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Your ethics and moralities are inconsistent, 

points 1 and 2

They are not really based on a concept of do no harm but on values you  hold about life and sex. Thus while you  will eat the flesh of a dead human you wont have sex with a sibling.

  That is illogical because the underlying values are contradictory ie it is alright to eat the dead to stay alive but not okay to have kids with a sibling to keep the race alive  If life is the priority then it should underly BOTH values 

3 our society is robust enough to tolerate gays and has the technology to allow them to breed. 

Thus there is no need to kill them 

In the past human survival was often on a knife edge and in the period when the bible was written human populations fluctuated widely . EVERY human, except for some priests had a duty to breed and have as many children as possible  About 80 % of children died before reaching puberty and about half of all women died in childbirth or from complications  Thus a man or woman who refused to  marry and have children, and wanted to have sex  with another of the same sex was  a big danger to a society  the laws also included a man s obligation to marry his brother's widow when he died.  it also made infertility one of the few automatic grounds for annulment of a marriage  In some societies polygamy was encouraged to try and  increase the fertility rate 

So the laws against homosexuality were not only right, they were necessary, THEN  No one has a right to put a family or a clan or a tribe a t risk just to keep themselves happy or have a partner of the same sex  ( Dnt forget, people did not even get to chose their partners then, or marry for love, as this was arranged by families. Love as a medieval romantic notion did not really exist.)  

In a difernt time and circumstances laws change to reflect changing circumstances

4 is basically the same The contraceptive pill and the enhanced economic value of women gave them more freedom more wealth  and thus authority 

however until the 1970s an unmarried mother was ostracised, her child was often taken away from her for adoption  and she faced a difficult life The changes from  these attitudes have only occured in my lifetime We might not have stoned  sexually promiscuous women before the 1960s but we made their lives difficult and miserable 

5 No.  America is something of an anomaly. in many ways eg  it and Israel  are the only rwo developed countries in the world with a fertility rate above  replacement level.

My point was that, in order  to asses the value of faith and religious attendance compared with atheism   on a person's health and longevity,   you must compare cohorts where the other variables are consistent Eg you cant compare health and longevity between   believers in  america and Somalia But you can compare health and longevity  between  believers non believers either in America OR Somali. You will find the same beneficial effects within any cohort Eg in america believers live 10 years longer This might mean they live until 85 instead of 75. In Somalia believers  may also live 10 years longer than non believers, but this might only mean they live until 60 while non believers die at 50.   

6 sorry but your health longevity psychological well being etc is all tied to your beliefs (or lack of them)  This is indisputable from  a scientific and medical standpoint.

It is the measurable statistical difference in thousands of studies, which shows the importance of both belief and religious attendance on human health well being  and longevity  Your moral and ethical beliefs are one of the strongest determinants of how healthy you will be in life and how long you will live.  ( all other environmental  factors being equal    

7 ive answered 3 and 4 All moralities are  variable and contextual.

Basically they  are built around the need for survival, and a strong society, to protect those within the society   A really strong (Eg in economic or demographic  terms) society, can afford to be more tolerant of diversity, which might destroy a weaker and less resilient one with no surplus physical or human resources.  

What we consider right, now, eg eating meat, may  be considered wrong in the future.  What was considered right in the past is often considered wrong today.

But this is only because the economies and realities of our societies change, and we can afford to be more tolerant (or sometimes the reverse happens, and we become more conservative and less tolerant) 

 

I do live by the bible, in part because my wife wants to do so and has done a since she was 10 years old   When married, it is important to work as a team, because oxen, when unequally yoked can achieve nothing.  But a pair of equally matched oxen can do far more than the strongest indivdual ox.  

Only an idiot would think however, that his meant i wanted to keep slaves when slavery is illegal or want to hit my wife when this is illegal, or want to force her to have sex, when this is illegal 

I don't believe in slavery or in forcing another  adult person to do my will, or that any one human is inferior or superior to another.

That is because i am an educated product of an excellent  modern education system in the modern era,  but also because it is what  i gain from  the most basic precepts of the bible about treating  people in, and acting from,  ,love 

yet STILL i can live by the bible in my marriage, in my work, in my connection to family friends and neighbours. I can be the sort of person  god wants me to be as typified by Christ 

 

What if you didn't want to live by the Bible would this be an issue with your wife?

Me and hubby are politically opposites and this difference doesn't affect us as a team at all. It makes for very passionate conversations. Lol 

My hubby is probably more of a who gives a crap about anything spiritual, where I am groovin on Zen these days, including the whole house needing to be completely remodeled to reflect my current vibe.

 

 

[Area201]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Are you seriously saying you think the bible,, when read today is encouraging people to kill in war, to rape women, to keep slaves, or even to keep women in second class status ?

I touched upon this in an earlier post, if you want to take a look at it. Shows one alternative perspective. Man superior to woman in church hiarchy, etc, in light of other scriptures. 

Edited January 17, 2018 by Area201

[GlitterRose]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

I just don't think that's always been the case though, even today 42% of us citizens still believe the Adam and eve story is fact

http://news.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

As a whole we are slowly moving away

When I grew up the Bible was just considered fact, I have seen people over the years rationalise the wild stories in it to a mix of fact and fiction and today many consider it allegory, which makes me wonder how some still see it as valid at all. We seem very reluctant to let that tradition go. 

I wonder what religion might look like today if the Bible had never been written 

That's concerning.

[Davros of Skaro]

On 1/15/2018 at 11:59 AM, bigjim36 said:

Well first of all may I congratulate you on the smuggest, most condascending post I've read on here. Secondly please explain the inconsistencies, I can't see any. I've constantly said no human life is worth more than another and that doing no harm is of the utmost importance. Where have I contradicted myself? Yes I would let the human race die out and yes I would eat the flesh of the dead. How do the two contradict each other? They aren't remotely similar dilemmas at all.

Nope I'm not wrong. I mentioned the slavery issue in the last post but again you ignored it because you couldn't defend it. Unlike your defence of incest and child murder.

So like I have said from the start, the bible is outdated and as such has no place in todays society. What was relevant 2000 years ago is no longer relevant now. If it's not relevant then it's worthless. 

I'm going to assume you attend gay weddings to stone them to death. I mean the bible demands it and you get your morals and ethics from the bible. If you don't stone them to death please explain why you don't. Is it because you know it's wrong? If you know it's wrong and the bible tells you to do it then please explain what is the point of it as a moral compass if you choose to ignore it's teachings? 

 

Again the bible instructs you to stone women to death who have sex outside of marriage. Do you do this? If not why not? Again not much of a source of ethics or morals if you keep choosing to ignore it. Is it because they're not relevant today? Ouch, that logics got to sting.

The offspring of me and my sister would then have to have sex with one of its parents depending on its gender. That babies offspring would have been the result of incest and would have an even smaller genepool, and so on and so on. They would eventually get deformities and mutations due to this. What type of human race would that be? One that I don't want to be a part of.

 

Oh but they do and even if you weren't comparing yourself to a statistic it doesn't mean they don't apply to you.

 

Except that it just isn't true. Please read the most recent study, a mere ten days old and then ignore it as you have done like every other fact I've given you ☺ 

Several weeks ago, a ground-breaking study on religious belief and social well-being was published in the Journal of Religion & Society. Comparing 18 prosperous democracies from the U.S. to New Zealand, author Gregory S Paul quietly demolished the myth that faith strengthens society.

Drawing on a wide range of studies to cross-match faith – measured by belief in God and acceptance of evolution – with homicide and sexual behavior, Paul found that secular societies have lower rates of violence and teenage pregnancy than societies where many people profess belief in God.

Top of the class, in both atheism and good behavior, come the Japanese. Over eighty percent accept evolution and fewer than ten percent are certain that God exists. Despite its size – over a hundred million people – Japan is one of the least crime-prone countries in the world. It also has the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy of any developed nation.

(Teenage pregnancy has less tragic consequences than violence but it is usually unwanted, and it is frequently associated with deprivation among both mothers and children. In general, it is a Bad Thing.)

Next in line are the Norwegians, British, Germans and Dutch. At least sixty percent accept evolution as a fact and fewer than one in three are convinced that there is a deity. There is little teenage pregnancy , although the Brits, with over 40 pregnancies per 1,000 girls a year, do twice as badly as the others. Homicide rates are also low -- around 1-2 victims per 100,000 people a year.

At the other end of the scale comes America. Over 50 percent of Americans believe in God, and only 40 percent accept some form of evolution (many believe it had a helping hand from the Deity). The U.S. has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and homicide rates are at least five times greater than in Europe and ten times higher than in Japan.

All this information points to a strong correlation between faith and antisocial behavior -- a correlation so strong that there is good reason to suppose that religious belief does more harm than good.

At first glance that is a preposterous suggestion, given that religions preach non-violence and sexual restraint. However, close inspection reveals a different story. Faith tends to weaken rather than strengthen people’s ability to participate in society. That makes it less likely they will respect social customs and laws.

All believers learn that God holds them responsible for their actions. So far so good, but for many, belief absolves them of all other responsibilities. Consciously or subconsciously, those who are "born again" or "chosen" have diminished respect for others who do not share their sect or their faith. Convinced that only the Bible offers "truth", they lose their intellectual curiosity and their ability to reason. Their priority becomes not the world they live in but themselves.

The more people prioritize themselves rather than those around them, the weaker society becomes and the greater the likelihood of antisocial behavior. Hence gun laws which encourage Americans to see each other not as fellow human beings who deserve protection, but as potential aggressors who deserve to die. And hence a health care system which looks after the wealthy rather than the ill.

As for sex… Faith encourages ignorance rather than responsible behavior. In other countries, sex education includes contraception, reducing the risk of unwanted pregnancies. Such an approach recognizes that young people have the right to make their own choices and helps them make decisions that benefit society as a whole. In America faith-driven abstinence programs deny them that right -- "As a Christian I will only help you if you do what I say". The result is soaring rates of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.

Abstinence programs rest on the same weak intellectual foundation as creationism and intelligent design. Faith discourages unprejudiced analysis. Reasoning is subverted to rationalization that supports rather than questions assumptions. The result is a self-contained system that maintains an internal logic, no matter how absurd to outside observers.

The constitutional wall that theoretically separates church and state is irrelevant. Religion has overwhelmed the nation to permeate all public discussion. Look no further than Gary Bauer, a man who in any other western nation would be dismissed as a fanatic and who in America is interviewed deferentially on prime time television.

Despite all its fine words, religion has brought in its wake little more than violence, prejudice and sexual disease. True morality is found elsewhere. As UK Guardian columnist George Monbiot concluded in his review of Gregory Paul’s study, "if you want people to behave as Christians advocate, you should tell them that God does not exist."

I might express that another way. The flip side of Monbiot's argument is that God would be an atheist,

i think this shatters the thinking that morality is lost when societies become secular.

http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews/index.html?id=219&article=7

 

Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!

I normally do not read Mr. W related posts, but that was an awesome faith smackdown.

Keep in mind that drug addiction, and thought addiction even though have different dynamics, they do hit the same noggin plumbing. The more ancient part of the brain of emotions  (Mesolimbic System)  chokes out the modern rationalization part (Frontal Cortex) in the addict. 

Check out this video. Pay extra attention to the Saloon analogy. See how it eerily mimics righteous behavior in the face of persecution for the faithful. 

Keep up the great work. Even though you are dealing with throwback brains, a few can evolve, or atleast inoculate a few more from falling in the pit.

[eight bits]

Sheri

Quote

Studying Spinoza helped too.

Yup, that oughta do it .

LG

Quote

God might save some non-Christians just cuz he likes them.

Recall also that sola fide (salvation by faith alone) is a minority view among living Christians, a modern interpretation of Paul (most importantly), who was himself just one voice among many in the early church (something he complains about).

We American English speakers have a biased view of living Christianity, since Protestantism is woven into the history of the language, and many of those Protestants who were too Protestant for the English established church ended up in British America.

On a matter arising,

Quote

Mary Black

Mary Beard is good, too. Mary Black sings better, I reckon, but hey, I'm Irish.

[bigjim36]

7 hours ago, Area201 said:

Look up metaphor and allegory. It's not meant to be taken literally as it talks of things that happen inwardly. It's also baffling and annoying that people like you still think other people take the bible literally. I guess speaking for myself at least, not been around the literal bible people in a long time, are they still around?

That's strange as it was most definitely taken as literal by the Catholic church and I believe still is. In fact I know it was right up until the 1990's when I was at Catholic School. It's still taken literally by all the creationists in America who want it taught as fact in schools and there's millions of them. It's still taught as fact by catholic missionaries (I know as I've met a few) and who know's how many people they have instructed that it's the truth? It's baffling and annoying that you think that just because it doesn't apply to you then it mustn't apply to the rest of the world! I suggest you do a bit of research before you get all snarky with an easily dismissed post like this, that way you would have facts to back up your argument and not just a misguided opinion piece. I suggest YOU look up the history of the catholic church, american creationists and just for fun Alice Cooper (he's a born again Christian who believes the bible to be literal, he's gone on record many times to discuss his faith). 

[bigjim36]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Your ethics and moralities are inconsistent, 

points 1 and 2

They are not really based on a concept of do no harm but on values you  hold about life and sex. Thus while you  will eat the flesh of a dead human you wont have sex with a sibling.

You seem to be confused. I again ask you where the connection is. Eating the flesh of a dead person to survive is in no way connected to not having sex with a sibling. No way. You're basically saying if you eat a pig then that tree will die. There's no connection. Morally or ethically. The two do not correlate.

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

  That is illogical because the underlying values are contradictory ie it is alright to eat the dead to stay alive but not okay to have kids with a sibling to keep the race alive  If life is the priority then it should underly BOTH values 

See above. I've already explained to you that if the human race dies out then so be it. We have no more right to life on this planet than any other sentient being. To preserve an existing life is not the same as trying to create life. They are totally different.

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

3 our society is robust enough to tolerate gays and has the technology to allow them to breed. 

Thus there is no need to kill them 

In the past human survival was often on a knife edge and in the period when the bible was written human populations fluctuated widely . EVERY human, except for some priests had a duty to breed and have as many children as possible  About 80 % of children died before reaching puberty and about half of all women died in childbirth or from complications  Thus a man or woman who refused to  marry and have children, and wanted to have sex  with another of the same sex was  a big danger to a society  the laws also included a man s obligation to marry his brother's widow when he died.  it also made infertility one of the few automatic grounds for annulment of a marriage  In some societies polygamy was encouraged to try and  increase the fertility rate 

So the laws against homosexuality were not only right, they were necessary, THEN  No one has a right to put a family or a clan or a tribe a t risk just to keep themselves happy or have a partner of the same sex  ( Dnt forget, people did not even get to chose their partners then, or marry for love, as this was arranged by families. Love as a medieval romantic notion did not really exist.)  

In a difernt time and circumstances laws change to reflect changing circumstances

So as I have consistently said all throughout my posts The bible is not relevant as a moral compass. If it's not relevant to society today then it serves no purpose. You yourself have just said it in that paragraph and yet you still try to say that it is. Hypocrite alert! I explicitly asked you why you don't stone gays to death as you are instructed in the bible and you try to give me a history lesson. You claim to live by the bible correct? So if the bible instructs you to do something you should do it correct? So why don't you stone gays to death? Answer the question. I want to know why YOU, YOU MR WALKER, YOU personally ignore an instruction from your book of guidance.

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

4 is basically the same The contraceptive pill and the enhanced economic value of women gave them more freedom more wealth  and thus authority 

however until the 1970s an unmarried mother was ostracised, her child was often taken away from her for adoption  and she faced a difficult life The changes from  these attitudes have only occured in my lifetime We might not have stoned  sexually promiscuous women before the 1960s but we made their lives difficult and miserable 

See above.

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

5 No.  America is something of an anomaly. in many ways eg  it and Israel  are the only rwo developed countries in the world with a fertility rate above  replacement level.

My point was that, in order  to asses the value of faith and religious attendance compared with atheism   on a person's health and longevity,   you must compare cohorts where the other variables are consistent Eg you cant compare health and longevity between   believers in  america and Somalia But you can compare health and longevity  between  believers non believers either in America OR Somali. You will find the same beneficial effects within any cohort Eg in america believers live 10 years longer This might mean they live until 85 instead of 75. In Somalia believers  may also live 10 years longer than non believers, but this might only mean they live until 60 while non believers die at 50.   

And apples don't taste like trout. We're talking about ethics and morals. Once again you're being disingenuous Mr Walker. Stop trying to twist and change the subject matter at hand to suit your arguments. At no point were we discussing the health benefits of religion. We were talking about crime, happiness and sexual promiscuity.

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

6 sorry but your health longevity psychological well being etc is all tied to your beliefs (or lack of them)  This is indisputable from  a scientific and medical standpoint.

That is your misguided opinion it is not a scientific fact. 

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

It is the measurable statistical difference in thousands of studies, which shows the importance of both belief and religious attendance on human health well being  and longevity  Your moral and ethical beliefs are one of the strongest determinants of how healthy you will be in life and how long you will live.  ( all other environmental  factors being equal    

Thousands of studies you say, any of them performed by actual scientists and not religious charlatans posing as scientists? Because I can't find any that have been peer reviewed and accepted as an indisputable fact.

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

7 ive answered 3 and 4 All moralities are  variable and contextual.

It's like banging my head against a brick wall. 

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Basically they  are built around the need for survival, and a strong society, to protect those within the society   A really strong (Eg in economic or demographic  terms) society, can afford to be more tolerant of diversity, which might destroy a weaker and less resilient one with no surplus physical or human resources.  

What we consider right, now, eg eating meat, may  be considered wrong in the future.  What was considered right in the past is often considered wrong today.

Like most of the bibles teachings, therefore rendering it irrelevant.

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

But this is only because the economies and realities of our societies change, and we can afford to be more tolerant (or sometimes the reverse happens, and we become more conservative and less tolerant) 

 

I do live by the bible, in part because my wife wants to do so and has done a since she was 10 years old   When married, it is important to work as a team, because oxen, when unequally yoked can achieve nothing.  But a pair of equally matched oxen can do far more than the strongest indivdual ox.  

And they say romance is dead. 

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Only an idiot would think however, that his meant i wanted to keep slaves when slavery is illegal or want to hit my wife when this is illegal, or want to force her to have sex, when this is illegal 

So you're admitting that societies laws supersede the bibles? Again you're admitting my whole argument that as a collection of bronze age fairy tales it is worthless as a book of guidance today. 

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I don't believe in slavery or in forcing another  adult person to do my will, or that any one human is inferior or superior to another.

That is because i am an educated product of an excellent  modern education system in the modern era,  but also because it is what  i gain from  the most basic precepts of the bible about treating  people in, and acting from,  ,love 

But the bible doesn't teach that! We've been through that!!! It teaches that slavery is right, killing gays and unwed mothers is right, that incest is right, that baby killing is right and so on and so on. What you mean to say is that you believe in Jesus' teaching and forget the rest/majority of the book. 

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

yet STILL i can live by the bible in my marriage, in my work, in my connection to family friends and neighbours. I can be the sort of person  god wants me to be as typified by Christ 

 

Again your hypocrisy is astounding! If god is wanting you to be a certain way then you don't have free will. If you don't have free will then you are just following gods orders. If you are following gods orders then you must obey his instructions as told to his messengers here on earth and compiled in the bible. Yet you do not. You refuse to do so. Jesus didn't refuse. He spoke about his fathers rules being above those of man. But of course we both know the real reason why you don't, it's just that I'm not in denial and will readily admit that god doesn't and never has existed and that the bible is nothing more than a collection of lies and fairy tales with no more relevance today than an ornate tea strainer.

[MauriOra]

Atamarie Sir.. xx

You are absolutely on the right track...

People believe in God, because its a mainstream choice...

The others are ridiculed...

Keep searching for your answers...

Peace to you...

MauriOra.. xx

[MauriOra]

Theory...

I have a theory on Moses parting the Red Sea.......

Wanna hear...??

Mo. xx

[Mr Walker]

9 hours ago, quiXilver said:

Word of god!

Word of god!

And

Always a human doing the talking.

Well of course it will be, unless god is talking directly to you.  Then when you tell someone else about that experience and the words god spoke,  it will just be you (a human) saying what god said  

[Stubbly_Dooright]

12 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

13 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

The only one who can exclude you from becoming a Christian is yourself. 

That's not true, that's a faith-based argument, that is just something the Bible teaches.  A citation from a psychologist or something stating, 'anybody can believe anything if they just try hard enough', would be more compelling.  I can no more believe that Jesus is my lord and savior than I can believe that dragons live in volcanoes, and the evidence and argument is about equivalent for each proposition right now.  This is especially perplexing considering your past statements which I agree with that you can only believe on faith and faith is irrational; you really think that anyone can just will themselves to believe irrational things?

This here. What LG said. I feel, this is not really you asking this of non-Christians, in my feeling, Hammie, but what LG said, ‘you really think that anyone can just will themselves to believe irrational things?’. I’m going to be a bit hesitant as labeling what others feel is true to their heart as irrational, but in my experience, I have often been made to feel, to believe in things, I would think as irrational. As I have always said, I do not feel you can push someone to believe in something, they  personally logically cannot see as being true. I think that screws up the person’s psyche. That is why, I often wonder if my own experience is seen as a threat. Growing up with no religious experience, trying to proselytize me, is a hard feat, because of so much told to me, doesn’t make logical sense. 

12 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

13 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Do you have any first hand experience being judged and excluded by real, honest to god, living, breathing human beings who are Christian, or is that something you heard or read somewhere? Myself, I'm not speaking in the hypothetical but the actual real-life experience.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.  I have no idea why you're acting so aloof asking if I've 'read it somewhere', you're seriously not aware of Christians being judgmental?  Where am I employing something hypothetical?  Again we are discussing 'Christianity', your real-life experience is only going to be worth so much considering your very limited real-life experience with the other few hundred million Christians just in our country. 

To answer your question, I haven't been judged by Christians to any degree that I would complain about.  Then again I've never had anyone discriminate against me because of my race or gender either; doesn't mean I can't identify when it occurs to others.

I have plenty of Christians, ( and a few of other beliefs, but not as much as Christians ) that really have been very judgmental to me. I made mention sometime ago, of a young family, who I waited on, where the husband and wife kept on insisting I answer them, when they kept asking me, “God is worth it, right?” And in the manner that seemed to judge my answer and almost like a warning that any other answer then yes, and with true feelings behind it, would get me yelled at by them. (It was not a comfortable experience) Makes me wonder what went through their  minds, in the constant process manner to get me to answer yes to them, when I handed them their merchandise and said to them in the final conclusion of the process, “I was raised secular, have a good night”. 

They just quickly shut up and left. I think I stunned them. The lady I waited on John in Jersey, was definitely being very judgmental when she reacted negatively to my telling her I grew up secular. I should have told her she was wrong, and asked her if she was judging my parent’s actions. I sometimes I feel, that is what some of them do. 

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

10 hours ago, Area201 said:

On 1/5/2018 at 9:03 AM, bigjim36 said:

Why do some people believe the bible is literal? As in everything that is mentioned in the bible literally happened. We know that's not the case, science has proven that the earth is over 6000 years old, that adam and eve never existed, that dinosaurs existed and noahs ark did not, etc etc. Yet when challenged the best they can come up with is it's scripture. It's baffling and annoying, by all means have faith but do not believe the bible is anything other than bronze age fairy tales written by man. 

Look up metaphor and allegory. It's not meant to be taken literally as it talks of things that happen inwardly. It's also baffling and annoying that people like you still think other people take the bible literally. I guess speaking for myself at least, not been around the literal bible people in a long time, are they still around?

In my experience, oh yes they are!   And it baffles me. When some start to discuss, in their conversations, about how literal Adam and Eve are, and such, I’m like, 

‘ok’ and try to end the conversation right there. I cannot go on agreeing with them. I have to separate myself from them, it’s unbelievable how they believe that. 

Though, on this note, I have to point out, that I also known and met Christians who don’t take the Bible literally, and just explain, when asked, how they use it to inspire them personally, and they say this, when it’s in the conversation and not bring it up in a proselytizing way. Yes, not every Christian takes it literally, as I have met people at 

sci-fi conventions, who literally take a space ship as real, and varying sci-fi made up races as real too. I say this, that yes, there’s every kind in all groups, but yes, there are those, and I have met them, who take the Bible literally. 

 

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, bigjim36 said:

You seem to be confused. I again ask you where the connection is. Eating the flesh of a dead person to survive is in no way connected to not having sex with a sibling. No way. You're basically saying if you eat a pig then that tree will die. There's no connection. Morally or ethically. The two do not correlate.

See above. I've already explained to you that if the human race dies out then so be it. We have no more right to life on this planet than any other sentient being. To preserve an existing life is not the same as trying to create life. They are totally different.

So as I have consistently said all throughout my posts The bible is not relevant as a moral compass. If it's not relevant to society today then it serves no purpose. You yourself have just said it in that paragraph and yet you still try to say that it is. Hypocrite alert! I explicitly asked you why you don't stone gays to death as you are instructed in the bible and you try to give me a history lesson. You claim to live by the bible correct? So if the bible instructs you to do something you should do it correct? So why don't you stone gays to death? Answer the question. I want to know why YOU, YOU MR WALKER, YOU personally ignore an instruction from your book of guidance.

See above.

And apples don't taste like trout. We're talking about ethics and morals. Once again you're being disingenuous Mr Walker. Stop trying to twist and change the subject matter at hand to suit your arguments. At no point were we discussing the health benefits of religion. We were talking about crime, happiness and sexual promiscuity.

That is your misguided opinion it is not a scientific fact. 

Thousands of studies you say, any of them performed by actual scientists and not religious charlatans posing as scientists? Because I can't find any that have been peer reviewed and accepted as an indisputable fact.

It's like banging my head against a brick wall. 

Like most of the bibles teachings, therefore rendering it irrelevant.

And they say romance is dead. 

So you're admitting that societies laws supersede the bibles? Again you're admitting my whole argument that as a collection of bronze age fairy tales it is worthless as a book of guidance today. 

But the bible doesn't teach that! We've been through that!!! It teaches that slavery is right, killing gays and unwed mothers is right, that incest is right, that baby killing is right and so on and so on. What you mean to say is that you believe in Jesus' teaching and forget the rest/majority of the book. 

Again your hypocrisy is astounding! If god is wanting you to be a certain way then you don't have free will. If you don't have free will then you are just following gods orders. If you are following gods orders then you must obey his instructions as told to his messengers here on earth and compiled in the bible. Yet you do not. You refuse to do so. Jesus didn't refuse. He spoke about his fathers rules being above those of man. But of course we both know the real reason why you don't, it's just that I'm not in denial and will readily admit that god doesn't and never has existed and that the bible is nothing more than a collection of lies and fairy tales with no more relevance today than an ornate tea strainer.

I cant explain things to you  because you simply do not see connections Eg  beliefs, ethics, morality and behaviour all create physical outcomes and thus the y are important and connected 

You don't see how ethics and moralities are constructed around values and some of your values are inconsistent  Eg human life is important enough to break the law and cultural taboos by eating  human flesh, yet so unimportant that you  would allow it to die out rather than have a child with a sibling  You think there is a difference between preserving a current life and a future one (how do you logically  defend this)  Life  is life  Inaction  can be  as great a source of evil as evil action

You believe values and moralities are absolutes, when the y are not  So you think slavery  is ALWAYS evil rather than culturally dependent  or that the equality of men and women is always  possible.   You try to impose modern behaviours based on modern economic models onto ancient people who had totally different economies cultures and  ways of surviving.   

The bible is totally relevant to modern western society and indeed most of our laws customs and cultural values STILL are formed by the beliefs and values found in the bible  But as always we modify our beliefs and behaviours  to fit our present laws and cultural contexts 

lets take the basic one.

Why is murder wrong?

because human life is considered special 

Why is human life considered special ?

because of the belief that we are made in the image of a god Or because it posses special qualities  only found in humans and gods. 

yes  thousands of studies, most this century, all by reputable medical and scientific professionals or groups, and indeed the greater the rigour and peer review the higher the correlations established between  health, longevity, and faith/belief, and church attendance  This is so well accepted now that is standard practice in all western medical schools and teaching hospitals

The balance between secular law and religious ones is complex and intertwined  I obey all secular laws unless the y contradict my personal conscience then I disobey the law and accept the civil sanctions.  Often however civil laws make allowances for relgious belief and personal conscience, where they do no harm.

All self aware beings such as humans have free will. It is the nature of our slef awareness tha t we have informed free will    There is NOTHING  (not even a god ) who can restrict a humans ability to think freely and act freely  Of course natural consequences will catch up with oyu AFTER you act, but this does not prevent you acting  ANd some things are physically impossible but this does not prevent you attempting them. .   

 

lol the irony.

Not only do i follow gods instructions from the bible precisely  as Christ explained we should,  but i also follow the words of god personally delivered to me by god and the avatars of god we call angels   I follow them very carefully and live by the instructions.

god has NEVER either in the bible or to me personally told me to keep slaves  to kill gays to beat  my wife etc

  While those words are in the bible I am enough of an historian to know that i was never intended as their audience. The audience for those particular words lived  many thousands of years a go and the words WERE relevant and right for them.

On the other hand the instructions to work together as  a team with my wife, to love her, honour her, respect her, and care for her, while always being faithful to her ARE directed at me.

The words telling me to respect  the wisdom of my elders are directed a t me.

Th e words telling me to obey the  laws of  my country where legally constituted. and where the y do not contradict gods laws  apply to me.

The words telling me not to kill outside the law apply to me.

Most importantly, the words telling me that our true well being exists in our minds not in our possessions is also true, as are the words telling me to have no fear, to love others myself and to treat all men as my brothers.

it is YOU who sees  different instructions in the bible, which may come from your own nature and relationship to religion and god.

If you see god as evil or destructive you might see his instructions as so.

If you see god as love mercy and justice then you might see his instructions in this light 

First love. This is a state of mind, and leaves no room for hatred, anger, envy, jealousy  or desire.  THEN act, based on love for self, for god, and for others 

Understand  and obey the laws of the bible as constructed from love of us, and then follow them from love not from  fear or legalism Ie interpret them through love    So to kill an unborn child is an immoral or wrong act. 

BUT sometimes love and understanding means that we can see a woman needs to abort a child  for one of several reason   The principle of love does not cause conflict between these two aims but helps  you  resolve the situation An unborn life takes priority unless or until its existence causes harm to  its mother.

The principle of love means that while we would seek to save a persons life we might need to allow them to choose death despite all our love for them, BECAUSE true love means putting their  needs before our own. 

The words of the bible come in many forms Some were written to and for people who lived 2-4 000 years ago, some  are written for humans of all times and cultures, and some are written just or you and for me, for our specific guidance instruction motivation and encouragement 

Edited January 17, 2018 by Mr Walker

[GoldenWolf]

38 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Well of course it will be, unless god is talking directly to you.  Then when you tell someone else about that experience and the words god spoke,  it will just be you (a human) saying what god said  

If you hear voices in your head, it doesn't automatically mean it is "God" talking to you.

[Mr Walker]

23 minutes ago, Mystic Crusader said:

If you hear voices in your head, it doesn't automatically mean it is "God" talking to you.

lol of course not.   Generally it is one of the many streams of consciousness or debate going on in my mind, as i construct and debate different  points using multiple forms of intelligence     it could be the voice of logic and reason debating with the voice of imagination or intuition      It could be a romantic voice of emotion debating with the cool calm voice of reality.  it could be my story telling or narrative voice constructing stories in my mind for pure entertainment.

it might be the mathematical statistical voice, solving problems, analysing comparing and contrasting the outcomes of a variety of potential decions i might make   It might be a creative voice composing poetry, or a song, or an art work.   

I don't have  "external " voices telling me to do certain things as some mentally ill peole do. i am in control of all my internal voices and use them for specific tasks as well as for fun. 

  "God's" voice is not my own mind's voice. It has knowldge which my mind does not possess and has never learned.  It  can be mind to mind,and private but it can also be vocal and auditory, and thus heard by others . It is always positive, constructive, beneficial.  It teaches, mentors, and gives advice.  It helps you avoid dangers yet to come and those in the immediate future. it offers words of encouragement, often accompanied by the physical power of the spirit, which heals, eliminates pain, gives courage, strength  and endurance.   It tells you which route to take to avoid traffic jams and directs you to a parking spot.  If you are lost, it gives you directions to get home safely.  If you are in need it tells you where and how to get what you need 

THAT is the voice of "god"

Edited January 17, 2018 by Mr Walker

[+Hammerclaw]

35 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

This here. What LG said. I feel, this is not really you asking this of non-Christians, in my feeling, Hammie, but what LG said, ‘you really think that anyone can just will themselves to believe irrational things?’. I’m going to be a bit hesitant as labeling what others feel is true to their heart as irrational, but in my experience, I have often been made to feel, to believe in things, I would think as irrational. As I have always said, I do not feel you can push someone to believe in something, they  personally logically cannot see as being true. I think that screws up the person’s psyche. That is why, I often wonder if my own experience is seen as a threat. Growing up with no religious experience, trying to proselytize me, is a hard feat, because of so much told to me, doesn’t make logical sense. 

I have plenty of Christians, ( and a few of other beliefs, but not as much as Christians ) that really have been very judgmental to me. I made mention sometime ago, of a young family, who I waited on, where the husband and wife kept on insisting I answer them, when they kept asking me, “God is worth it, right?” And in the manner that seemed to judge my answer and almost like a warning that any other answer then yes, and with true feelings behind it, would get me yelled at by them. (It was not a comfortable experience) Makes me wonder what went through their  minds, in the constant process manner to get me to answer yes to them, when I handed them their merchandise and said to them in the final conclusion of the process, “I was raised secular, have a good night”. 

They just quickly shut up and left. I think I stunned them. The lady I waited on John in Jersey, was definitely being very judgmental when she reacted negatively to my telling her I grew up secular. I should have told her she was wrong, and asked her if she was judging my parent’s actions. I sometimes I feel, that is what some of them do. 

 

I stand by what I said; the ball's entirely in your court. If you can't believe, then you exclude yourself by default; Christianity isn't excluding you. It's much the same as if you can't pull for the local team because they're not your cup of tea and eschew going to the games, buying team merchandise, hanging out with other fans at tailgate parties; you have the same opportunity as anyone else to participate, but you just don't have any enthusiasm for that team. So, you exclude yourself from the festivities--no one is excluding you.

As for religion, how can you blame the other kids if you don't want to play make believe with them? It is sad if you feel lonely and left out--but it's not their fault.