Religion What does religion bring that nothing else can bring ?

[strongvoicesforward]

Sabro,

Where did Jesus' third night in the Earth go?

Have you read the 2nd or 3rd post above from this one yet? I would like to know why the SOG didn`t stay put like he said he was going to for 3 days and 3 nights.

Did he deliberately lie or was just wrong?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Sabro,

When Jesus was on the cross, he told one of the persons being crucified next to him that by that night, they would be in paradise together.

Now, how can Jesus go anywhere if he is supposed to be in the Earth for ?g3 days and 3 nights?h like he prophesied?

And, how can this other common criminal on the cross go anywhere before the Day of judgement? Things are awry and I smell something stinking. Can you make everything smell nicer with a sound explanation based on Reason and Biblical verses to back those claims up?

btw, when I find something stinking, like a dead rat in the basement, and I have identified the stink source -- I simply throw it out. I don`t spray perfume on it and leave it there. Do you?

Oh and one more thing, I just wanted to thank you for going more than 5 posts without speaking about how great Mars Man?fs thread was. Do yo think you could go 5 more, eeeerrrr... or 5 days? -- cold turkey, if you will.

 

[Maciamo]

What I'm getting from Maciamo, an administrator is that it is not bigotry or intollerance to ridicule Christians and Christianity, but that I am a bigot because all Christians judge people.

I never said that. If your weapon in a debate is to change my words, then I have no respect for you.

Straightforwardvoices thinks it strenghthens his argument to demean every aspect of Chritianity and make up cute names and acronyms- in spite of being told this is offensive- he continues claiming that it is funny and witty.

In what way is his using of acronyms more offensive than your calling him SVF ? It's just shorter, and neither are offensive in my eyes.

This is merely a couple of guys having fun slamming an ancient religion apparently because they think it is funny. So I guess my question from Maciamo is this- Is religious intollerance to be expected, anticipated and encouraged in this forum?

I, for my part, can be very tolerant and respectful toward your being a Christian (i.e. I don't ask you to change your faith). But you seem to have a problem with the meaning of the word "tolerance". It is not because I explained why I am not a Christian (despite a Christian upbringing) that I am being intolerant toward you or other Christians. The same is true for you. You are free to explain why you became a Christian, and I am not going to ask you to give up Christianity, nor call you names, nor ban you, because you are a Christian. Free discussion is the basis of tolerance. Now if you get too emotional about it, or can't defend yourself properly, then it's your problem, and you are free to exit the debate in question by just ignoring it.
Remember that in a debate, two opposing opinions are voiced, and rational arguments are used to defend and demonstrate one's position to the other party. If your faith is not based on rationality but feelings, then you may have a harder time to sound convincing, and get frustrated more easily. Please don't start calling people "intolerant", "bigoted" or whatever because they do not want to feel the way you do and disagree with you. That's the principle of the debate ! Now if you can't debate or don't want to, nobody forces you to. And it does not make others intolerant because you have not managed to convinced them. You are not being discriminated.
N.B. : in a debate, if you ignore an argument from the other party, but decide to stay in the debate, don't be surprised or irritated if the other party comes back to the point again and again, until you get a counter-argument or admit defeat. That's the rules of the game.

 

[No-name]

Maciamo- you are quite correct- I did call SFV's words intollerant and bigoted and that is indeed a judgement. I mispoke. (I also left out arrogant and offensive). I was trying to point out the offensive behavior so that we could logically, reasonably and respectfully discuss the particulars. So far this is not a debate- but a slogfest. Attacking, ridiculing, bigotry and intolerance is not debate. If there were particular points to respond to, I would- but asking about your "fairy tale god king" merits no response. Also how is BGOD shorter than God? The acronyms are done not for brevity but because he thinks it makes Christianity look ridiculous.

I can respond to questions about scriptures if I have answers to them, but often it is things I have not considered. I am not some huge, famous Bible answer man or Biblical scholar. I can't respond to six posts in a concise manner.

As for the intolerance- I have listed what I felt was offensive. Apparently those things are okay on this forum. And although I believe that ridiculing someone's race, sexual orientation or any other character or physical aspect would not be tolerated- I feel that you as an administrator have sanctioned and encouraged the ridiculing and intolerance of Christianity on this site. I don't feel oversensitive. Perhaps some sensitivity training is in order. People who commit sexual harrassment or use racist comments often feel their targets are oversensitive when they complain. You may not realize how offensive these things are.

You also indicated that I was somehow bigoted or intolerant because Chritianity and Christians are bigoted and intolerant. That would be a prejudice based upon a stereotype and a misapplication of principles.

Did I miss anything?

SFV- The questions asked about the crucifixion and Jonah are respectful enough:
In the book of Jonah, the word whale never appears. Modern scholars have made the beast a whale, but it is not in the text.

The crucifixion- Friday, Saturday, Sunday= 3 days and three nights. The priests wanted them down before passover- so sometime before sundown of Friday to when the tomb was discovered empy Monday morning... But I have lost why this would make Jesus a liar and the whole religion false.

Being with the thief "today in paradise." Seems like he must have dropped the guy off on the way to wherever the Old Testament patriarchs were kept. Again- we could argue this point- but how does this fit into your there is no God because the bible is wrong thesis? Does it say anywhere in the text exactly where and in what order Jesus did things while dead?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Also how is BGOD shorter than God?

BGOD = Bible God, which I believe to know to not exist.

In order for me to dismiss the possibility that ANY God does not exist, I would have to examine a large number of beliefs. It would be disrespectful for me to lump those other claims of Gods into the bin of the God which I am quite certain is a god of superstition.

God may exist. BGOD by virtue of its original and hijacked book cannot exist.

BGOD is just an acronym. Don`t get hung up on the Fat Albert stuttering sound of it.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

So far this is not a debate- but a slogfest. Attacking, ridiculing, bigotry and intolerance is not debate.

Trip... <snicker snicker>

You didn`t seem too concerned when I was the target of an attack on another thread, did you? Why do you expect concern for you here when you couldn`t show it for another in another place?

You don`t sound very brotherly or Xtian like in helping others, but you want others to help you to create an environment that suits your sensitivities.

Would you call that hypocritical? Though, I am not sure if your belief system actually speaks out against being a hypocrite, does it? Is hypocracy permitted by the BWOG?

However, all you describe above is in your imagination as it pertains to this thread. You are misaplying the terms.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

The crucifixion- Friday, Saturday, Sunday= 3 days and three nights. The priests wanted them down before passover- so sometime before sundown of Friday to when the tomb was discovered empy Monday morning... But I have lost why this would make Jesus a liar and the whole religion false.

Sabro, the question is -- not when the tomb was discovered empty. The question is when did Jesus rise? The majority of Xtians say he resurrected on Sunday. Are you saying he resurrected on Monday? Are you equating "discovery" of the tomb with with "resurrecting?"

And didn`t the women come early in the morning? And weren`t the guards made to sleep during the night/or ran away (depending on which version you go by)? In that case, Monday, not have past would not equal a day (yom [24 hours])

You are going to be left with either a day or night short. Which is it and are you honest enough to say Jesus was wrong and his prophesy about himself failed?

It is not the nail in the coffin that proves the Bible is wrong. It is just one of many that continue to pile up doubt on its validity to being innerrant and thus not the BWOG or the WOG to be trusted.

 

[Maciamo]

Also how is BGOD shorter than God?

Mmh... I am not quite sure what he means by BGOD, as I didn't follow all SVF's posts, but I thought it could have been a reference to the Bible's God, as opposed to other religions' god. Why is that ridiculous or disrespectful ?

What I wonder is why you insit on calling him SFV instead of SVF ? Anything I missed ? I that Baptist language for Science-fiction victim, meaning non-Christian ?

I can respond to questions about scriptures if I have answers to them, but often it is things I have not considered. I am not some huge, famous Bible answer man or Biblical scholar. I can't respond to six posts in a concise manner.

I thought (and was told as a child) that a true Christian must read the Bible fairly frequently, and in any case know its content. How comes you can't follow the flow of a non-Christian ?

As for the intolerance- I have listed what I felt was offensive. Apparently those things are okay on this forum. And although I believe that ridiculing someone's race, sexual orientation or any other character or physical aspect would not be tolerated- I feel that you as an administrator have sanctioned and encouraged the ridiculing and intolerance of Christianity on this site. I don't feel oversensitive.

People are usually not good judges of whether they are oversensitive of not, compared to others. I also don't see why SVF's statements are more ridiculing Chrstianity than yours are ridiculing Atheism. A faith only becomes ridiculous when its supporters can't defend it anymore.

You may not realize how offensive these things are.

Are you kidding me ? Do you realise how hard it can be for an Atheist to live in a Christian-dominated society ? How would you feel if the President of the USA once said that Christians shouldn't even be considered as citizens ? Not likely to happen soon, but Bush sr did say it about Atheists. This is what I call intolerance. Nobody has said here that Christians are subhumans, shouldn't be considered as citizens or are just ****heads. Have you ever felt like you were in these debates about religion on a kind of pseudo-Nazi forum that claims that all the Jews and Christians should be exterminated ? That would be intolerant, yes. But I have seen nothing remotely similar.

SFV- The questions asked about the crucifixion and Jonah are respectful enough:
In the book of Jonah, the word whale never appears. Modern scholars have made the beast a whale, but it is not in the text.

Good. That's a kind of to-the-point reply that I would like you post more often (instead of calling everyone intolerant).

 

[bossel]

BGOD = Bible God, which I believe to know to not exist.

"Believe to know"? Sounds like religion.

BTW, you snicker too much.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

In the book of Jonah, the word whale never appears. Modern scholars have made the beast a whale, but it is not in the text.

Matthew 12:40
for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.American Standard Version

Well, looks like we have a problem with your statement, Sabro. Sure, the book of Jonah may not have it, then that would make Mathew relaying some information he just isn`t too sure about.

Still innerant?


If you dismiss it as unimportant, then why did you feel compelled to attempt and explain it?

Please don`t be lazy and dismiss it as unimportant.

Your fight is not with skeptics. You first have to fight the hundred or so of ancient Biblical Language scholars with hundreds of years of ancient language study between them. Are you telling me they are wrong and you are right? Or are you pitting them against the translation of the text you like best?

You Cultis Christus members have to get your act together if you want to be taken seriously -- you know, like getting on the same sheet of music so the song sounds beutiful to the ear with none singing off key.

 

[PRIZMATIC]

:blush: One of the reasons of many contradictions was that Christians have made of Jesus Christ (the person by name Jesus, shown "Light" to this world) " a final part " in development of comprehension of the God... To This in " the Revelftion of st. John the Devine ", the time of this text is dated the termination(ending) of the first century of " our era ", there is "correction" of the Christian doctrine - about " the human son " (without miracle conception), preadmired before the God (chapter 12, a verse 5) - the person of this world given birth by the nature and the nature of the Universe (God)... But Christians why this episode have excluded that in the present doctrine...

 

[No-name]

1. I have never ridiculed Atheism. "I wouldn't know where to start: My God is better than your non-God! You guys believe in nothing!"

2. I'm not a Baptist. I don't drink or dance, but that's not for reasons of faith. I am also not Amish, but I do have facial hair.

3. Friday, Friday night, Saturday, Saturday night, Sunday, Sunday night. 3+3.
With some varience possible as discussed on the previous thread as to what happened on Thusday, or Friday based upon the Roman, Greek or Hebrew reckonning of time. (When the day begins- sundown, midnight or sunrise) The discovery of the empty tomb would have been the next morning.

4. I don't speak or read Hebrew, but the footnotes in my study bible reveal the following Hebrew terms: Jonah1:17 "Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights." KJV
The word translated "fish" is the Hebrew word "dag"- often translated "leviathan." I don't know what that is, but it is big enough to swallow a man whole and it lives in water. In 1611, they translated it fish. Later they changed it to whale. If you translate it "fish" or "whale" or "big sea monster"- it is fine provided you do it consistantly. If any of them swallow you, you don't really have any chance of survival. It doesn't change the point of the story.

5. Leviticus 11:19 The word used to describe birds and bats- (and insects later on in Deut.) is "owph"- flyers. It lists some specific birds given by name here and in other places. There are also crawlers and walkers-- not very scientific designations. But again- that wouldn't be the point.

6 Leviticus 11:6 Rabbits and Cud. I truthfully have no clue what this meant until I looked int the back of the book. Cud is usually regurgitated by ruminants (sp?) like cows- and re chewed. But that would make bunnies Kosher, not unclean. So the reason for not wanting to eat "coneys" has to be something a bit different. They also don't have hooves, split or not. I looked at: http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html, but it didn't make any more sense. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp?vPrint=1 seems to hedge bets against two argument: Coney's are badgers and "chew the cud" doesn't mean chew the cud. (Badgers don't chew their cud or have hooves either...) So after some research- I have no clue what this means.

It is a Kosher law: The point is that you shouldn't eat rabbits or coneys or badgers. The reason has something to do with cud chewing or feet, but I have no clue why or what that means... or why it is logical or how to apply it. Although I don't follow Kosher food rules, I don't eat rabbits, coneys or badgers.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

6 Leviticus 11:6 Rabbits and Cud. I truthfully have no clue what this meant until I looked int the back of the book. Cud is usually regurgitated by ruminants (sp?) like cows- and re chewed. But that would make bunnies Kosher, not unclean. So the reason for not wanting to eat "coneys" has to be something a bit different. They also don't have hooves, split or not. I looked at: http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html, but it didn't make any more sense. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp?vPrint=1 seems to hedge bets against two argument: Coney's are badgers and "chew the cud" doesn't mean chew the cud. (Badgers don't chew their cud or have hooves either...) So after some research- I have no clue what this means.

I don't know anything about the original Hebrew term that was translated as 'chewing the cud'. But rabbits do re-digest their droppings (i.e. eat their poo), so perhaps it is referring to that.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

What does Religion Bring?
It brings confusion, favoritism, and a mish mash of fables to minds -- and people willing to abandon reason who refuse to see deception built on superstitions.

Sabro, it is obvious that when they are talking about a "big fish," they are referring to a whale. In fact, some Bible versions use the term "whale" in the Matthew quote in an attempt to be honest by translating according to reason based on our knowledge of the world.

If you want to cling to the "huge fish" description, then could you show me any proof of a fish that was big enough for a man to be inside in a live state for 3 days? And, even if you agree it were a whale, how could a person survive 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of a whale? Is your reason taking flight from you?

Don`t you see that it is just a story and no truth to it? If you agree it is a story, don`t you think it deceptive that the Bible doesn`t come out and say, "this is a made up story," rather than put it forth in terms that could make people assume it were real? Which do you choose?

Is deception inherant in the Bible by not qualifying things? I think it is. Why don`t you?

Jesus prophecies on his future using a fictional story as if it were real. Jesus seems to think it was real and nowhere does it lead us to believe that Jonas was fictional. Our reason leads us to the conclusion that it was fictional, but that also leads us to Matthew as another point of fiction, one of many, that Jesus was fictional, too -- for Jesus couldn`t discern between a mammal and a fish and He was omnipotent and presumably God.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Think about this: If BGod were omnipotent, existing everywhere at everytime, then he would have seen that I, and many other skeptics, at some point in time would be targeting this verse and others with biological discrepencies and Jesus being in the Earth, as a way to prevent others from joining his "flock" and as a way of weakening the faith of people who are weak or undecided at a particular point in their life. Now, did BGod give the BWOG as a tool only meant for the people of THAT time to come to know Him, or was it meant equally to be a tool for people of all ages to use and come to know him?

Don`t forget, BGOD plays "no-favorites." Look:

Acts 10:34~35
Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right."

BGod, by speaking in a way so that only the people of that time can or could clearly understand, is in fact showing "favoritism," for we in this time do not have the same ease of understanding the verses as those of that time. So, why didn`t BGod show no favoritism by speaking, or inspiring scribes and translators to put pen to paper in a way that would prevent a situation where in which one generation had an advantage over another? Was that beyond his powers? or Was Peter telling a lie or outright wrong about BGod showing no "favoritism."

And if God does not change his mind, why did He decide to withdraw His support from the Jews and offer salvation to the Gentiles instead?

Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.

Doesn`t that sound like BGod changed his mind to you? It does me. And, just merely choosing one, either be it the Jews in the beginning, or the Gentiles/Xtians later, that right there is showing some "favoritism."

See how miscombobulated the whole Adventures Of The Fairy God King are?

 

[No-name]

I don't think you could live inside a whale for three days anyway. I already said that I don't know what it is. I gave you the Hebrew word- if that was helpful. All of that isn't the point. It is a story involving a miracle- The story of a reluctant prophet and God getting his way in the end.

As for #195- I'm not sure what the contradiction is in what you are pointing out.

 

[PRIZMATIC]

It is not necessary to forget - " the devil is covered in details ", conducting "fierce" discussions you involuntarily "close" the basic theme... If remember, Lord God observes what name will allow Adam to animals (Genesis, chapter 2, verses 19-20) (it about a fish). Generally the God (not Lord God) it is primary, up to " the first flood ", to people allowed to use in "food" " a grass sowing a seed and fruits of a tree " (Genesis, chapter 1, verse 29) (it about rabbits) . But we have many a line "But"- which determine our present reality... And one of these "But" is a modern interpretation of the Bible...:angel:

 

[Maciamo]

I don't know anything about the original Hebrew term that was translated as 'chewing the cud'. But rabbits do re-digest their droppings (i.e. eat their poo), so perhaps it is referring to that.

Dirty rabbits ! Now I won't look at them so cutely anymore.




(was that a good simulation of being oversensitive ?)

 

[No-name]

The point of the passage is clear even if the reasoning is not. It would make good sense not to eat an animal that eats its own poo. That would be a good reason for the Kosher code.

My only problem is that old Hebrew has a word for dung and a word for cud and the author chose cud.

 

[Maciamo]

One thing I wonder is why do true Christians (especially fundamentalists) not eat Kosher food and read the Bible in its original version, like the Jews and Muslims do ?

Isn't that like "pick and choose" what you like and dislike about the Word of God ?